Ok, so between errands and

Ok, so between errands and Wee Bastard's inconvenient tendency of late
to keep !@#$@ing crashing on me, I'm a wee bit late getting these
posted.
You can find round one here and round two here.

Here's Robert's Bonus Round Entry:

One of my college English professors had such a deep-seated
dislike of the Regency class system in general and Emma Woodhouse in
particular that she felt the only characters worthy of any sympathy in
Emma were the gypsies who attacked Harriet. While I do not suspect
Kathleen of such Jacobin leanings, my answer to her lingering
resentment towards Emma the rich girl is the same as I gave the prof:
Had Austen meant the book to be a morality tale about the evils of
excessive, unearned wealth, she would have written it from a different
perspective with a different ending and made Emma far less sympathetic
– indeed, she’d be just another Catherine De Bourgh. As for
Kathy̢۪s doubts about Emma̢۪s maturation, on what are they based?
Surely Emma̢۪s changing attitudes towards Martin, which bookend the
story, symbolize her growth. What of Emma̢۪s apology to Miss Bates
after Box Hill? Her meeting of minds with Jane Fairfax? Her refusal to
abandon her father upon marriage? As for Harriet̢۪s engagement,
Emma’s relief comes not from being “let off the hook” about
encouraging Harriet to go for Knightly. (In fact, Emma had mistakenly
thought Harriet interested in Frank Churchill.) Instead, it is based on
Emma̢۪s awakening to her own love for Knightly whom, by the way, it is
very unlikely Austen meant to doom to life with an unrepentant flake.
No, in the end Emma grows up. The lessons are finally taken to heart.
Our delight and satisfaction come from watching this happen.

And here's mine:

Robert is right when he says Emma is a study in
character development. I fail to see, however, where there is much
character in Miss Woodhouse to develop. Ultimately, as the audience, we
find ourselves rooting for Emma to overcome obstacles which she herself
has placed in her way. I find very little satisfaction in stupidity as
a plot device.
This, however, is not the case with Pride and Prejudice. While both novels were written by Austen, her divergent approach to her protagonists produced vastly different results. Emma is a passive read. You root for Emma because you have to, not because you want to: her sole purpose is to entertain you, as if she were a street performer. Pride and Prejudice,
however, engages you in Lizzie̢۪s struggle. Her conflicts are outside
herself, yet they are clear and delineated in such a way that you may
imagine about how much is riding on her actions. The novel that sets an
imagination to work is also the novel that challenges the reader to
become involved. Pride and Prejudice is that novel. It is an active story: it brings you into its folds; it involves you in a way that Emma doesn̢۪t and as a result, is the superior novel.

Stanley Crouch once said that reading is an active engagement; an author must make their reader want to turn the page. Pride and Prejudice encourages you to avidly turn the page because it engages your emotions, rather than just your sense of fine comedy.

You can also find these at The Llllllamabutchers.

Comment, comment, comment! Either here or there. Let us know who won this frickin' smackdown!

UPDATE: seldom sober's
calling it for Lizzie. HA! Although, I will admit, never in my lifetime
would I have thought that cheering on Emma would be compared to rooting
for Saddam Hussein. Not like I'm complaining, but it's interesting
nonetheless.
Question is, will Robert be grossly insulted? Methinks he will be and
he'll be shouting "pistols at dawn!" before you know it.

Posted by: Kathy at 06:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 641 words, total size 4 kb.