I don't fault Isabella Thorpe for trying to better her circumstances, but I do fault her for the underhanded way she goes about it. If she didn't think that James was rich enough for her needs, she should have broken the engagement herself instead of stringing him along while she flirted with other men. It's also pretty clear that she is not being genuine in her professions of undying friendship for Catherine and is just using her as a means to get closer to James and to throw her into John's path so he can get her dowry as well. (I forget; does the novel ever say where John Thorpe came by his misconception about how wealthy the Morelands were?)
I don't think JA states explicitly how James comes to think Catherine is rich. She implies that the Thorpes are so used to exaggerating that they exaggerate to themselves, and believe their own lies that the Morelands are richer than they actually are.
In Chapter 9, while driving Catherine around, he asks her if Mr. Allen is rich, if he's her godfather, etc, and Catherine is confused most of the time because Thorpe is such a rattle, but I think that's where he got the notion that Catherine would inherit from the Allens, which is ridiculous, lol. And then, yes, Thorpe exaggerated this 10x in his head, and when gabbing to General Tilney.
@@angelicasmodel JA does state, near the end, that John exaggerated their wealth and merits because he often does of anyone to whom he is close (and therefore by being close to someone wealthy elevates his own status) and wanted to boast particularly to a man of General Tilney status. He similarly misrepresented the Morelands in the other way when they no longer had any connections, no longer had anything to gain and was bitter.
But we see many Austen girls from the Bennet girls, Dashwood girls and Fanny Price in similar positions who didn't stoop to Isabella's manipulation, fakeness and playing with the feelings of others. James was telling the truth about Isabella. Wanting to marry for money due to her circumstances is one thing, but being a complete fake and lacking any true affection for anyone makes her not a good person. Plus, she would only be disgraced if she actually slept with Captain Tilney before marrying him. If she waited till she was married, her options would be still open even if she dumped James and was jilted by Captain Tliney. Yes, it was sexist that men could get away (like Captain Tilney) while women were judged, but it still doesn't make Isabella good. But it's not just having sex before marriage that the book condemns her for, but rather because she was a fake friend and used others.
Her reputation would not be merely be lost if she slept with captain Tilney. Merely being seen as a flirt could have ruined her. Her position is as gentry was more precarious than any of the Austen heroines you mention. Lucy Steel comes closest. Lucy played the game better, though, clearly.
@@k.h.6991 It was more precaurious because she chose to overcome financial difficulty by acting manipulative and using people. Plus she was not just looking for stability and basic needs but luxury. Which okay, fine, she wants that life but it's less of an excuse to reat people badly and use them. The Austne heroines I mentioened were in similar financiel positions but didn't act the way she did. Lucy is the same and I don't like Lucy either. Neither Lucy nor Isabella were jusitified for their actions even if we can't understand where they came from.
This feels similar to the defenses of Mrs. Bennet - she's not just chasing after any man who glances at her daughters, she's literally trying to save her own skin and that of her girls since her husband has not provided for any of them in any material way.
Mrs Bennet is ridiculous not because she wants to marry her daughters, but because of the ham-fisted and counter-productive way she sets about it. For example Mary would have been the perfect match for Mr Collins, but her mother is too stupid and self-centered to see it.
Me, too. While Mr Bennet had no choice of what would happen to Longbourne on his death, he does confess that he could & should have set aside more (some?) of his income to give them a little more security.
The “missed communication” trope has a long history that has little to do with misogyny. “Romeo and Juliet” hinges on it. As for Isabella Thorpe, I refuse to stop hating her and her brother. I see them as two peas from the same pod - lying, scheming, manipulative, shallow. They just express it differently. Catherine rightly gives more weight to James’s account of the breakup with Isabella, because she knows him and his character. Isabella’s protestations all ring hollow, because Catherine has the benefit of distance to help her resist the temptation to cave and give Isabella a pass for her duplicity. Isabella rightly deserves censure because she was engaged to James (which had legal ramifications) and still chose to wander into Captain Tilney’s orbit. Even in our postmodern culture, people who act like that are seen as being scummy. The more she professed her love for James, the more fake it was revealed to be. As someone who well understood the need to protect the currency value of her reputation, Isabella still *chose* to try to game the system, for lack of a better term. She would have had a respectable life with James, even if it were modest and humble, but she thought she deserved more. Consider how Charlotte Lucas “schemes” her way into a loveless marriage to Mr. Collins in P&P. Charlotte was perfectly content to become the wife of a silly clergyman, but Isabella threw away her opportunity to be genuinely happy with a clergyman whose main fault was a lack of discernment. As for the supposed rampant misogyny of Gothic novels in Austen’s time, it bears repeating that the primary consumers of “damsel in distress” books were and are women. If they were offended by the plots, they had enough agency to read something else. One of the primary flaws in seeing misogyny everywhere is that it removes moral agency from women by seeking to justify their bad behavior on the basis that men who act immorally don’t suffer the same consequences. The answer is not to demand that women get off scot-free like men do, but that men should be held accountable as well as women.
Isabella was misled by her brother into thinking James was wealthier than he was. If she had known the truth, she probably would have ignored him (and Catherine, maybe). I think her character--certainly questionable for her overdone and obvious artifice--is interesting because she highlights the underlying patriarchal structure of the marriage market/economy where men have all the choices and women are allowed to refuse, yes, but not necessarily to "shop" for the best husband, and, let's face it, marriage was often a financial agreement for one or both sides. Misogyny (outright dislike and prejudice against women) is less of a problem in NA and Gothic novels than the hegemonic patriarchy that sets up women to be relatively powerless, and then punishes aggressive women when they try to game the system. I don't want to be Isabella's friend, but I can see the system that exacerbated her questionable traits.
Brenda...I am absolutely in your camp...(I couldn't read your comment in full because of my ADD) my major in college (30yrs ago) was humanities so we also had to analyze lit from all centuries; with Jane's novels I see the disparity between genders but I believe her attempt was to show how society made certain classes use any means to lift themselves out of future misery. Misogyny was rampant but I think Jane's point was about the society.
@@AJaneiteSews Hmm I somewhat disagree. If Isabella knew the true state of James' wealth, she may not have accepted his proposal. However, this would not have stopped her flirting with him and stringing him along until someone better turned up. Isabella's main characteristic is her duplicitousness and flattery.
Catherine would have already been on her brother's side about Isabella's behavior because Catherine already had seen Isabella's flirtatious behavior at a dance previously. James would not have to convince Catherine of anything at the point of that letter. Also because their family was close knit as it was .
I appreciate the nuance here. Isabella had a lot more to lose than James, a fact that gets lost in most analyses of her character. Isabella isn’t the most likable, but lifelong dependence and (most likely) poverty is a pretty severe punishment.
James wasn't the best catch, either. When she had to wait two years, plus such a small inheritance, I can see why she tried for bigger fish. Although, I suppose she should've have broken off the engagement first.
@@isabelamer86 excuse me, in what world is £400 per annum a small sum? In today's money, that's about £100k per year, perhaps not a princely allowance, but it's far from poor. And James was set up to one day have his own income, independent of his father's allowance, plus his own investments, he was young and sensible enough, his wealth could only increase
@@DizzyBusy Well, the Bennets had 2000-2500 pounds/year and were considered middle class for the time, and granted, they were a larger family than James and Isabella would be. I think she was looking for a more exciting life than that amount would afford her.
@@isabelamer86 The Bennets are in no sense "middle class". With an income of £2000 a year (which by the way is also the income of Colonel Brandon in 'Sense and Sensibility'), they are on the lower rungs of the upper classes in wealth and social standing, able to maintain a large house, keep horses and a carriage, and employ enough servants that Mrs Bennet and her daughters never have to do any household chores. As Elizabeth says of herself and Darcy, "He is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter. So far we are equal." As for James' income, the average annual income for an English laborer or farmer in 1800 was around 15-20 pounds, so he'd have an income about 20 times that: far below the Bennets in standard of living, but enough to live 'respectably'.
Hi! while re reading mansfield park, I realized that in the visit to Sotherton they mention "That Mrs. Whitaker is a treasure! She was quite shocked when I asked her whether wine was allowed at the second table, and she has turned away two housemaids for wearing white gowns." Why would they turn some one away for wearing white? and why is it so big a deal to drink wine if in Pride and Prejudice Mrs Benet offers punch to the servants after lydia's wedding? I suppose there is a sort of a economic/putting people in their place situation going on because it's mrs norris speaking, but I don't fully understand the situation...
Good questions! Second table might refer to the servants’ table (after the family has eaten). White gowns were supposed to denote status and/or wealth because they could so easily get dirty, and so I think the point of that was Mrs. Whitaker runs a tight ship and doesn’t let the servants run amok and take on airs.
Just as I was about to pause to go make a cup of tea and pick up some sewing - 'sit back and relax with a cup of tea or your sewing'. Really made me laugh at myself haha
Carey as Isabella (so properly named, since it will prove her ruination in society - "Bella") is fabulous since I have seen her in other films displaying her artistry if the craft! My husband praised her acting skills saying he didn't anticipate her roles elsewhere to be as she acted - I told him she is supposed to act as a "floozy" meaning she is one of the few actresses who is a fabulous one! To the novel, women in all ranks of society were meant to display their silly natures - imagine the shock of showing any ability of deep thought! This clip is too intricate for a 1/2 hr segment!
Jane Austen displays women's 'ability of deep thought' throughout her novels. She also delights in showing the silliness she saw around her - in both sexes. The most ridiculous character in Northanger Abbey is in fact a man, John Thorpe. The most unpleasant is also a man, General Tilney.
Well, this made me view Isabella in a different light. I recently reread Northanger Abbey, and realized that the reason it is my least favorite Austen book is that I have a deep dislike for the Thorpes!! I think I’ll have to be a bit more sympathetic to Isabella, but I still don’t like John at all!!❤️
I have disliked it for this exact reason, and an assumption that the two were colluding in all their choices, which may not accurately reflect Isabella’s actual choices and actions. Perhaps a future reread will bring me to a kinder view of her.
Nancy...the Thorpes belonged in the lowest classes having no title nor any fortune (Cath didn't either but she didn't plan on being a possible future mistress of a wealthy/aristocratic man) so they had to rely on other measures to lift themselves (with the necessary cunning) out of future misery and disease/death as most poor people succumbed to.
Oh John Thorpe is one of the worse villains Jane wrote, I think. This is because without poor Catherine even knowing, he's playing about with her reputation so bad that it has lasting repercussions, to the point where it takes a year to get his father's blessing for the marriage, which her family, as a good gentleman family, insists on requiring.
Will you do a video about the horrid novels themselves because I find the story of the rediscovery fascinating also what was going on a Gothic with gothic literature at the time .
I'm pretty sure "epistolarity" isn't actually a word. "Epistolatory" is. 1. relating to, denoting, conducted by, or contained in letters. 2. (of a novel or other work) constructed in the form of a series of letters. Collins English Dictionary I'm not sure there is a word for the meaning you're using "epistolarity" for. You just mean the characters' letter writing and correspondence don't you.
I have never actively disliked Northanger Abbey, but thinking about how judgey Jane Austen is of Isabella Thorpe puts a chalk mark on the side of "weaknesses of this novel." I suppose that, as a recently economically disadvantaged person myself, I find myself resonating a lot more with the financial dilemmas of Austen's various characters than I did when I was not! Now, the charming Felicity Jones BBC movie version of Northanger Abbey's made the choice to put Isabella in bed with Tilney. I don't mind this too much, but it does verify for viewers that Isabella is a grasping gold digger. However, as you said in your talk, the seduction is not directly insinuated in the novel. Jane Austen may have simply been criticizing Isabella for not choosing to marry for love, however poverty stricken she may have ended up in marrying James Morland. However you choose to view Isabella's attempt to get a richer husband, I am really starting to rethink that even though she comes across as shallow and even a bit silly, it's hard to blame Isabella for trying for a better marital prize. She is, after all, penniless, has a fool of a brother and several more needy sisters. It never occurred to me before that Austen is choosing to condemn Isabella because she tries for the brass ring instead of being happy to ride the horse [sorry, that metaphor may not be the finest]. I personally now dislike Isabella Thorpe not for being a gold digger, but for her general insipidity. It is interesting to consider what Jane Austen's thoughts would have been--thanks for raising the issue in this talk! One brief unrelated critique: Carrie, the word "epistolation" is awful. I know I have a tendency to be exasperated with overly academic vocabulary, but sorry, my friend, "epistolation" just sounds a bit ridiculous when you can say "writing" or "correspondence." That said, please don't hate me!
Isabella not simply not a good person. She is not a good friend, lies to get what she wants (including backing her brother's lies), she is vain and self centered, and shameless. Jane Austen is right to be judgey about her as a person. There are other Austen world characters who are poor and their desire to marry well understood (even Wickham's going after Mary King and that statement "handsome young men must have something to live on, as well as the plain") however, Isabella goes about it in the wrong way and she has few, if any, redeemable traits.
People hate on John Thorpe too much!! He simply wanted to talk about horses and carriages. He liked speeding in the city and whisking women away while riding fast. In short, he was a proto-bro! If he had lived today, he would be the target audience of the Fast and Furious franchise. You just dislike him because you know he doesn't read a lot.
He is stupid, boorish and after Catherine's fortune, but he's too incompetent and self-deluding to inspire hatred. Even the innocent Catherine Moreland sees through him in an instant - he's annoying rather than evil.
Car bros aren't committing animal welfare offenses, though. Thorpe brags about the speed of a horse that's obviously tired, scoffs at Catherine when she suggests it needs rest, and drives aggressively in order to make his horse seem more spirited/dangerous. IIRC, he pulls up his curricle so abruptly that the horse rears to relieve the pain from the bit, and then tries to act like it's a super high-spirited creature barely held in check by his amazing horsemanship.
I don't think it's his boisterousness that makes Thorpe a rotter. Rather it's his selfishness and self centered-ness (is that a word?) He doesn't pay any attention to other people nor does he really care about their feelings. Best exemplified when he deceitfully cancels Catherine's walk with the Tilneys against her her wishes. He neither cares for Catherine's feelings nor does he understand why it is wrong to ditch people. I suspect Thorpe is just playing the role of the rowdy good fellow just as his sister is playing the role of the deeply attached friend. After all he does speak Ill of his friends family to General Tilney (a mere acquaintance) after the breach between Isabella and James. Hardly what a proper Bro would do when his best friend and sister broke up.
I don't fault Isabella Thorpe for trying to better her circumstances, but I do fault her for the underhanded way she goes about it. If she didn't think that James was rich enough for her needs, she should have broken the engagement herself instead of stringing him along while she flirted with other men. It's also pretty clear that she is not being genuine in her professions of undying friendship for Catherine and is just using her as a means to get closer to James and to throw her into John's path so he can get her dowry as well.
(I forget; does the novel ever say where John Thorpe came by his misconception about how wealthy the Morelands were?)
I don't think JA states explicitly how James comes to think Catherine is rich. She implies that the Thorpes are so used to exaggerating that they exaggerate to themselves, and believe their own lies that the Morelands are richer than they actually are.
In Chapter 9, while driving Catherine around, he asks her if Mr. Allen is rich, if he's her godfather, etc, and Catherine is confused most of the time because Thorpe is such a rattle, but I think that's where he got the notion that Catherine would inherit from the Allens, which is ridiculous, lol. And then, yes, Thorpe exaggerated this 10x in his head, and when gabbing to General Tilney.
It does but I can't recall the exact conversation but it was at a dinner gathering.
@@angelicasmodel JA does state, near the end, that John exaggerated their wealth and merits because he often does of anyone to whom he is close (and therefore by being close to someone wealthy elevates his own status) and wanted to boast particularly to a man of General Tilney status. He similarly misrepresented the Morelands in the other way when they no longer had any connections, no longer had anything to gain and was bitter.
But we see many Austen girls from the Bennet girls, Dashwood girls and Fanny Price in similar positions who didn't stoop to Isabella's manipulation, fakeness and playing with the feelings of others. James was telling the truth about Isabella. Wanting to marry for money due to her circumstances is one thing, but being a complete fake and lacking any true affection for anyone makes her not a good person. Plus, she would only be disgraced if she actually slept with Captain Tilney before marrying him. If she waited till she was married, her options would be still open even if she dumped James and was jilted by Captain Tliney. Yes, it was sexist that men could get away (like Captain Tilney) while women were judged, but it still doesn't make Isabella good. But it's not just having sex before marriage that the book condemns her for, but rather because she was a fake friend and used others.
Her reputation would not be merely be lost if she slept with captain Tilney. Merely being seen as a flirt could have ruined her. Her position is as gentry was more precarious than any of the Austen heroines you mention. Lucy Steel comes closest. Lucy played the game better, though, clearly.
@@k.h.6991 It was more precaurious because she chose to overcome financial difficulty by acting manipulative and using people. Plus she was not just looking for stability and basic needs but luxury. Which okay, fine, she wants that life but it's less of an excuse to reat people badly and use them. The Austne heroines I mentioened were in similar financiel positions but didn't act the way she did. Lucy is the same and I don't like Lucy either. Neither Lucy nor Isabella were jusitified for their actions even if we can't understand where they came from.
This feels similar to the defenses of Mrs. Bennet - she's not just chasing after any man who glances at her daughters, she's literally trying to save her own skin and that of her girls since her husband has not provided for any of them in any material way.
Yes! I have a lot of sympathy for Mrs. Bennet.
Mrs Bennet is ridiculous not because she wants to marry her daughters, but because of the ham-fisted and counter-productive way she sets about it. For example Mary would have been the perfect match for Mr Collins, but her mother is too stupid and self-centered to see it.
Me, too.
While Mr Bennet had no choice of what would happen to Longbourne on his death, he does confess that he could & should have set aside more (some?) of his income to give them a little more security.
@@AJaneiteSewsYes, indeed!
Carey Mulligan is so well cast in all her Austen film roles
Yes, she is just perfect as Isabella!
The “missed communication” trope has a long history that has little to do with misogyny. “Romeo and Juliet” hinges on it.
As for Isabella Thorpe, I refuse to stop hating her and her brother. I see them as two peas from the same pod - lying, scheming, manipulative, shallow. They just express it differently. Catherine rightly gives more weight to James’s account of the breakup with Isabella, because she knows him and his character. Isabella’s protestations all ring hollow, because Catherine has the benefit of distance to help her resist the temptation to cave and give Isabella a pass for her duplicity.
Isabella rightly deserves censure because she was engaged to James (which had legal ramifications) and still chose to wander into Captain Tilney’s orbit. Even in our postmodern culture, people who act like that are seen as being scummy. The more she professed her love for James, the more fake it was revealed to be. As someone who well understood the need to protect the currency value of her reputation, Isabella still *chose* to try to game the system, for lack of a better term. She would have had a respectable life with James, even if it were modest and humble, but she thought she deserved more. Consider how Charlotte Lucas “schemes” her way into a loveless marriage to Mr. Collins in P&P. Charlotte was perfectly content to become the wife of a silly clergyman, but Isabella threw away her opportunity to be genuinely happy with a clergyman whose main fault was a lack of discernment.
As for the supposed rampant misogyny of Gothic novels in Austen’s time, it bears repeating that the primary consumers of “damsel in distress” books were and are women. If they were offended by the plots, they had enough agency to read something else. One of the primary flaws in seeing misogyny everywhere is that it removes moral agency from women by seeking to justify their bad behavior on the basis that men who act immorally don’t suffer the same consequences. The answer is not to demand that women get off scot-free like men do, but that men should be held accountable as well as women.
Isabella was misled by her brother into thinking James was wealthier than he was. If she had known the truth, she probably would have ignored him (and Catherine, maybe). I think her character--certainly questionable for her overdone and obvious artifice--is interesting because she highlights the underlying patriarchal structure of the marriage market/economy where men have all the choices and women are allowed to refuse, yes, but not necessarily to "shop" for the best husband, and, let's face it, marriage was often a financial agreement for one or both sides. Misogyny (outright dislike and prejudice against women) is less of a problem in NA and Gothic novels than the hegemonic patriarchy that sets up women to be relatively powerless, and then punishes aggressive women when they try to game the system. I don't want to be Isabella's friend, but I can see the system that exacerbated her questionable traits.
Brenda...I am absolutely in your camp...(I couldn't read your comment in full because of my ADD) my major in college (30yrs ago) was humanities so we also had to analyze lit from all centuries; with Jane's novels I see the disparity between genders but I believe her attempt was to show how society made certain classes use any means to lift themselves out of future misery. Misogyny was rampant but I think Jane's point was about the society.
@@AJaneiteSews Hmm I somewhat disagree. If Isabella knew the true state of James' wealth, she may not have accepted his proposal. However, this would not have stopped her flirting with him and stringing him along until someone better turned up. Isabella's main characteristic is her duplicitousness and flattery.
Catherine would have already been on her brother's side about Isabella's behavior because Catherine already had seen Isabella's flirtatious behavior at a dance previously. James would not have to convince Catherine of anything at the point of that letter. Also because their family was close knit as it was .
I appreciate the nuance here. Isabella had a lot more to lose than James, a fact that gets lost in most analyses of her character. Isabella isn’t the most likable, but lifelong dependence and (most likely) poverty is a pretty severe punishment.
James wasn't the best catch, either. When she had to wait two years, plus such a small inheritance, I can see why she tried for bigger fish. Although, I suppose she should've have broken off the engagement first.
@@isabelamer86 excuse me, in what world is £400 per annum a small sum? In today's money, that's about £100k per year, perhaps not a princely allowance, but it's far from poor. And James was set up to one day have his own income, independent of his father's allowance, plus his own investments, he was young and sensible enough, his wealth could only increase
@@DizzyBusy Well, the Bennets had 2000-2500 pounds/year and were considered middle class for the time, and granted, they were a larger family than James and Isabella would be. I think she was looking for a more exciting life than that amount would afford her.
@@isabelamer86 imagine in P&P where Eleanor and her family only had 500 pound a year for all of them
@@isabelamer86 The Bennets are in no sense "middle class". With an income of £2000 a year (which by the way is also the income of Colonel Brandon in 'Sense and Sensibility'), they are on the lower rungs of the upper classes in wealth and social standing, able to maintain a large house, keep horses and a carriage, and employ enough servants that Mrs Bennet and her daughters never have to do any household chores. As Elizabeth says of herself and Darcy, "He is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter. So far we are equal."
As for James' income, the average annual income for an English laborer or farmer in 1800 was around 15-20 pounds, so he'd have an income about 20 times that: far below the Bennets in standard of living, but enough to live 'respectably'.
Hi! while re reading mansfield park, I realized that in the visit to Sotherton they mention "That Mrs. Whitaker is a treasure! She was quite shocked when I asked her whether wine was allowed at the second table, and she has turned away two housemaids for wearing white gowns." Why would they turn some one away for wearing white? and why is it so big a deal to drink wine if in Pride and Prejudice Mrs Benet offers punch to the servants after lydia's wedding? I suppose there is a sort of a economic/putting people in their place situation going on because it's mrs norris speaking, but I don't fully understand the situation...
Good questions! Second table might refer to the servants’ table (after the family has eaten). White gowns were supposed to denote status and/or wealth because they could so easily get dirty, and so I think the point of that was Mrs. Whitaker runs a tight ship and doesn’t let the servants run amok and take on airs.
Just as I was about to pause to go make a cup of tea and pick up some sewing - 'sit back and relax with a cup of tea or your sewing'. Really made me laugh at myself haha
Carey as Isabella (so properly named, since it will prove her ruination in society - "Bella") is fabulous since I have seen her in other films displaying her artistry if the craft! My husband praised her acting skills saying he didn't anticipate her roles elsewhere to be as she acted - I told him she is supposed to act as a "floozy" meaning she is one of the few actresses who is a fabulous one!
To the novel, women in all ranks of society were meant to display their silly natures - imagine the shock of showing any ability of deep thought!
This clip is too intricate for a 1/2 hr segment!
Jane Austen displays women's 'ability of deep thought' throughout her novels. She also delights in showing the silliness she saw around her - in both sexes. The most ridiculous character in Northanger Abbey is in fact a man, John Thorpe. The most unpleasant is also a man, General Tilney.
Well, this made me view Isabella in a different light. I recently reread Northanger Abbey, and realized that the reason it is my least favorite Austen book is that I have a deep dislike for the Thorpes!! I think I’ll have to be a bit more sympathetic to Isabella, but I still don’t like John at all!!❤️
Yes, John Thorpe is ridiculous. And as a man, he has way more options than his sister.
I have disliked it for this exact reason, and an assumption that the two were colluding in all their choices, which may not accurately reflect Isabella’s actual choices and actions. Perhaps a future reread will bring me to a kinder view of her.
John is deplorable, bombastic and egocentric.
Nancy...the Thorpes belonged in the lowest classes having no title nor any fortune (Cath didn't either but she didn't plan on being a possible future mistress of a wealthy/aristocratic man) so they had to rely on other measures to lift themselves (with the necessary cunning) out of future misery and disease/death as most poor people succumbed to.
Oh John Thorpe is one of the worse villains Jane wrote, I think. This is because without poor Catherine even knowing, he's playing about with her reputation so bad that it has lasting repercussions, to the point where it takes a year to get his father's blessing for the marriage, which her family, as a good gentleman family, insists on requiring.
Will you do a video about the horrid novels themselves because I find the story of the rediscovery fascinating also what was going on a Gothic with gothic literature at the time .
I would love to do that. There is So Much there, and I’ve been looking for reasons to reread them!
I'm pretty sure "epistolarity" isn't actually a word.
"Epistolatory" is.
1. relating to, denoting, conducted by, or contained in letters. 2. (of a novel or other work) constructed in the form of a series of letters. Collins English Dictionary
I'm not sure there is a word for the meaning you're using "epistolarity" for.
You just mean the characters' letter writing and correspondence don't you.
The classic mix, bad boys and 'safe' danger. Fully discussed in Whitby, Switzerland and thunderstorms.
I have never actively disliked Northanger Abbey, but thinking about how judgey Jane Austen is of Isabella Thorpe puts a chalk mark on the side of "weaknesses of this novel." I suppose that, as a recently economically disadvantaged person myself, I find myself resonating a lot more with the financial dilemmas of Austen's various characters than I did when I was not!
Now, the charming Felicity Jones BBC movie version of Northanger Abbey's made the choice to put Isabella in bed with Tilney. I don't mind this too much, but it does verify for viewers that Isabella is a grasping gold digger. However, as you said in your talk, the seduction is not directly insinuated in the novel. Jane Austen may have simply been criticizing Isabella for not choosing to marry for love, however poverty stricken she may have ended up in marrying James Morland.
However you choose to view Isabella's attempt to get a richer husband, I am really starting to rethink that even though she comes across as shallow and even a bit silly, it's hard to blame Isabella for trying for a better marital prize. She is, after all, penniless, has a fool of a brother and several more needy sisters. It never occurred to me before that Austen is choosing to condemn Isabella because she tries for the brass ring instead of being happy to ride the horse [sorry, that metaphor may not be the finest]. I personally now dislike Isabella Thorpe not for being a gold digger, but for her general insipidity. It is interesting to consider what Jane Austen's thoughts would have been--thanks for raising the issue in this talk!
One brief unrelated critique: Carrie, the word "epistolation" is awful. I know I have a tendency to be exasperated with overly academic vocabulary, but sorry, my friend, "epistolation" just sounds a bit ridiculous when you can say "writing" or "correspondence." That said, please don't hate me!
Isabella not simply not a good person. She is not a good friend, lies to get what she wants (including backing her brother's lies), she is vain and self centered, and shameless. Jane Austen is right to be judgey about her as a person. There are other Austen world characters who are poor and their desire to marry well understood (even Wickham's going after Mary King and that statement "handsome young men must have something to live on, as well as the plain") however, Isabella goes about it in the wrong way and she has few, if any, redeemable traits.
Overwordy Americanese
eg. often hear the word coronated instead of coronation. Don't worry it's here in the UK. too. I'm 82, it's an age thing. 🕊️
She's 21. I was also an idiot when it came to men when I was 21.
Great analysis
Thank you!!!
You are brilliant and informed, but, egad, really hard to keep up with. Absolutely top notch. Signed, a bear of little brain.
Thanks!
Wow. What a ridiculous take on Isabella. She was such a fake from the beginning. To try and paint her as an innocent victim is abhorrent.
Men wrote as well - it was the only form of communication at a distance.
Loved it
"The patriarchal, binary categorisation of women".
How Jane Austen would have laughed at the empty verbiage of modern feminism!
People hate on John Thorpe too much!! He simply wanted to talk about horses and carriages. He liked speeding in the city and whisking women away while riding fast. In short, he was a proto-bro!
If he had lived today, he would be the target audience of the Fast and Furious franchise. You just dislike him because you know he doesn't read a lot.
He is stupid, boorish and after Catherine's fortune, but he's too incompetent and self-deluding to inspire hatred. Even the innocent Catherine Moreland sees through him in an instant - he's annoying rather than evil.
He lied to Catherine to get her to go for a ride with him, and he lied in other instances which hurt Catherine. That’s why I hate him.
@@ccburro1
The world is full of John Thorpes. Save your hatred for someone better.
Car bros aren't committing animal welfare offenses, though. Thorpe brags about the speed of a horse that's obviously tired, scoffs at Catherine when she suggests it needs rest, and drives aggressively in order to make his horse seem more spirited/dangerous. IIRC, he pulls up his curricle so abruptly that the horse rears to relieve the pain from the bit, and then tries to act like it's a super high-spirited creature barely held in check by his amazing horsemanship.
I don't think it's his boisterousness that makes Thorpe a rotter.
Rather it's his selfishness and self centered-ness (is that a word?)
He doesn't pay any attention to other people nor does he really care about their feelings.
Best exemplified when he deceitfully cancels Catherine's walk with the Tilneys against her her wishes.
He neither cares for Catherine's feelings nor does he understand why it is wrong to ditch people.
I suspect Thorpe is just playing the role of the rowdy good fellow just as his sister is playing the role of the deeply attached friend.
After all he does speak Ill of his friends family to General Tilney (a mere acquaintance) after the breach between Isabella and James. Hardly what a proper Bro would do when his best friend and sister broke up.