Could you compare Mr and Mrs Musgrove and their treatment of their daughters and their suitors to Mr and Mrs Bennett from P & P? The Musgrove’s seem to “live and let live” and are different from the Bennetts (or Mrs Bennett at least) in that they don’t push for rich men, but at the same time they don’t seem to guide or direct their daughters much and don’t seem bothered that there could be impropriety in Louisa and Henrietta’s quick attachment to Captain Wentworth. Which set of parents do you think was typical of the time period?
When Mary writes to Anne of Louisa's and Benwick's proposal, Anne has these thoughts: "Captain Benwick and Louisa Musgrove! The high-spirited, joyous-talking Louisa Musgrove, and the dejected, thinking, feeling, reading Captain Benwick seemed each of them everything that would not suit the other. Their minds most dissimilar! Where could have been the attraction? ... It had been in situation." This passage surprised me, and I found myself irritated with Anne for coming to the conclusion that the attraction was situational! My question is whether or not Jane Austen agrees with Anne Elliot on that point. Up until this point in the novel, I thought Jane Austen was arguing for the incompatibility of too-similar tempers. I see this most clearly when Louisa falls. Austen reveals how unsuitable Louisa and Wentworth are for one another because of how similar they are in vigor and confidence and stubbornness. Louisa and Wentworth make great friends, but they are an imbalanced couple. Similarly, gentle Anne is able to help gentle Benwick out of his despondency because she is so much like him. But that is as far as she can bring Benwick and as far as he can bring her: contented duty, lacking desire. Anne and Benwick make great friends, but their similarities do not do not make them compatible. So when Benwick's and Louisa's engagement is announced, I felt such relief! Not only because Wentworth is now free to pursue Anne, but because the dissonant match of Louisa and Wentworth is substituted for a consonant one! In short, opposites attract. It surprised me, then, to find Anne marveling at Benwick's and Louisa's engagement when Anne is generally an insightful judge of temper and character. Perhaps if Anne didn't marvel over her friends' surprise engagement, the tension of the novel would've resolved too quickly. Nevertheless, I think Benwick and Louisa are an unmistakable type of Anne and Wentworth! Benwick's and Louisa's engagement heralds the inevitable: that Anne and Wentworth cannot but come together!
My son just had to read this book for a required class at Hillsdale College. He HATED it (although I don’t think he even finished it so I told him he couldn’t effectively argue from his position). There are many personal reasons I think this particular kid did not like this particular book, but I think I lot of it had to do with the fact that it’s about the internal musings of a woman. And I was contemplating this in my heart when I came across this article: https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/why-heroines-matter/. This same kid wrote his senior high school thesis about Odysseus, so I found the comparison particularly illuminating.
So I guess my question is, do you think “heroines matter”, in the way this author argues? Can we extrapolate universal human experiences from stories about women the same way we can from stories about men? Is it a moral failing if, for example, a young man cannot appreciate the value of a story about a woman?
Or maybe it’s just Anne in particular. He enjoyed Jane Eyre.
Even though no verbal proposal or commitment had been made, Frederick Wentworth believed he had an implied duty to marry Louisa had she not married Benwick.
In contrast to this, Anne made a firm commitment to Wentworth, but this, throughout seven or eight years, was unacknowledged as being duty-binding.
Is this early 19th century cultural gender standards? On the one hand is Wentworth's implied commitment, on the other, a previous firm commitment from Anne abandoned--never (I think) acknowledged as ”dishonorable”. In the end Anne reckoned she was dutiful, did the right thing. What do you think of the contrast between the actions of these duties?
One of these duties is implied, the other explicit; what’s the moral difference? Is this noted in the story by either character, or by the narrator herself?
One of my very favourite parts of the whole book is Anne and Admiral Croft's conversation in chapter 19 volume 2. At one point Anne means to "oppose the too common idea of spirit and gentleness being incompatible with each other" but Croft continues the conversation before she can get the words out. To me, I think this interaction encapsulates the whole book. Is Anne actually of a persuadable temper? Or is she merely gentle and servant hearted, which is a demeanor easily mistaken for wishy washy and feeble. She is the only person in the entire book who never actually undergoes a change of heart or mind. Her actions are ruled by her duties rather than her desires, but that makes those desires no less potent. Captain Wentworth says early on that he's looking for a lady with "strength of mind" to be his wife, is he confusing strength of mind with being headstrong?
On this read through, one passage that really caught my attention was in the beginning of chapter five. Anne is trying to decide whether she ought to stay with Lady Russell at Kellynch Lodge or go to Bath with her father and Elizabeth. Of course she does neither when duty calls in the form of Mary requiring her help.
As she is debating which course would be better she reasons thus, "...[she] did not think that, every thing considered, she wished to remain. It would be most right, and most wise, and, therefore, must involve the least suffering, to go with the others."
What do you think about the significance of this little section? Does Anne really believe that the most right and wise course will lead to the least suffering? Does she mean emotional or some other kind of suffering? Is this in here, followed by her choice to stay with Mary in spite of her misgivings, just to underline her accommodating nature? While it was painful for her to encounter Wentworth again, in the short term, avoiding that unpleasantness would have lead to permanent estrangement, so is her logic faulty?
Did the reader ever have insight into what Captain Wentworth was thinking prior to the letter he wrote to Anne? On Facebook, there was some discussion of the free indirect discourse at the end of Vol 1 Chapter 7. Was that discourse from Captain Wentworth, Anne, or the narrator?
Captain Wentworth "must regard himself as bound to her [Louisa] if her sentiments for him were what the Harvilles supposed". But there was no such obligation on Anne regarding Mr Elliot's expectations. Is that because his character was suspect? Or are the women, in general, given a pass in these situations? I am also thinking of Edward and Lucy in another Austen novel.
Just for fun question: Towards the end of the book, I started thinking of the sisters in terms of birth order - Elizabeth as the eldest, Anne as the middle child (peacemaker/seeks friends outside the family), and Mary as the youngest who always feels overlooked and longs for more attention, even negative attention. Do you think these are just stereotypes that she uses well? Or does this just add another layer of psychology to their personalities?
Reading Persuasion this time around, I was struck by the moments when Anne clearly begins to hope that Wentworth might come to love her again. I’m curious what we are supposed to think about this. Obviously, Anne is a virtuous and sympathetic character, so very few of her actions and opinions are questionable. Yet when I think of her hoping for a second proposal from Wentworth, I wonder if she’s “going too far.” I guess I want to know if we think Anne realizes how badly she broke Wentworth’s heart. And if so, is she too eager in seeing the small kindnesses and attentions on his part as a sign of returning affection?
Three questions: 1. Have we judged Lady Russell rightly and 2. Can we believe Anne? The biggest part Lady Russell plays, in my opinion, is that of the only character who consistently values Anne as she ought. She truly sees the worth and goodness of Ann, respects her, and loves her. Without her we have not real proof that Anne’s goodness goes beyond a mere sense of duty. Through her eyes we see her wisdom, her tenacity at always doing the right thing and with fervor, and her likeness to her mother. Her persuasion in years past was not merely because of lack of fortune and standing, but out of a real love for and even sense of duty to not only Anne, but her mother. If I thought my Goddaughter, the daughter of a beloved and dead friend, was entering into a marriage that could cause her regret, for whatever reason, I would have a hard time not trying to dissuade her with whatever means necessary. I think of Mrs. Price, who clearly married foolishly, was made coarse and worn out by her marriage, and was unable to manage her household in the way which she may have been brought up. This causes me to wonder if I believe Anne when she says, given similar circumstances, that she would not give such advice. Would she really not? Consider the relationship she had with Lady Russell. If Anne had been solicited for such advice by a Louisa Musgrove, for example, then perhaps she could have refrained. But to someone so very near and dear to her as Ann was to Lady R? In today’s world, perhaps, although I am unconvinced, but in their culture a woman’s wellbeing and happiness was so dependent on the fortunes of her husband that when I really think about it I do not fault Lady Russell, nor do I think Ann could have done much differently were she in the same position. Perhaps not from the lens of rank and fortune, but rather through that of love. 3. More of a response to the notion that Mr. Elliot did not get his come-uppance, as it were. Don’t you think Jane herself got even with him by marrying him off to Mrs. Clay, and thus giving him a life of misery with someone who matches himself in lack of sincerity and diabolical plan making? Through conniving her way into marrying him she beats him at his own game. This is punishment indeed. It makes me think of our God who commands us not to seek our own revenge but leave it up to him. His punishment will be far more effective.
How or why do none of the Musgroves or Crofts seem to notice the awkwardness and tension between Anne and Fredrick? I capital “L” love this book, but it bothers me that no one suspects any history at all or seems to speculate on their fitness as a couple. Is it just that it is necessary for the plot? I can understand that the Musgroves are too consumed with their own interests, but it seems strange for Sophy not to notice and wonder.
General Austen question: is there any other author with more fan-fiction? And why is that? Out of copyright and/or many characters who we have slight knowledge but could go in any direction?
It seems to me that in most of Austen's other works, the role of the church in British life is often at the center. Edmund Bertram, Henry Tilney, Mr. Collins, etc., are in some sense in conversation with each other, and subtext regarding a discussion about religion often underlies those characters as well. Here, we don't really spend any significant time with any clergymen as major or even minor characters. Is there any significance in the general absence of the clergy from this story?
More a comment than a question: I've heard this novel described as "autumnal," something which has stuck with me over the years. I think "autumnal" captures that melancholy feeling very well, also given the season of the year and the time of Anne's life this takes place in. If you have any further thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.
On to actual questions: How does Mr. Elliot compare to other Austen villains (Wickham, Willoughby, Henry Crawford)? Is Austen doing anything different with him?
Mrs. Smith actions in the chapter she reveals Mr. Elliot's history puzzle me. I understand that, as a powerless, destitute widow, she may not have wanted to bring up his misdeeds for fear of retaliation, but at one point she seemed to be practically pushing Anne to marry him. Did her self-interest get the better of her then or is there more to her motivations (maybe some social conventions I'm not getting)?
What do we think about Mrs. Smith? She’s so sympathetic at first, and we love Anne for remaining her friend even when she doesn’t contribute any “social capital” (as Sir Elliot and Elizabeth might conceive of it), but then she doesn’t warn Anne what a jerk her cousin is. Are we supposed to forgive her because she keeps the secret in the hopes of improving her desperate financial situation after they’re married? Or are we missing some cultural context that “talking out of school” would have been a much bigger deal and would have made her even less likeable to readers at the time this was published?
Is Lady Russell wholly superfluous in this novel? Anne doesn’t need a mother figure to advise her against marrying Wentworth. A 19yo could easily be swayed by a father and sister, even if Anne didn’t respect them then.
She is missing from the middle of the novel apart from being the object of Wentworth’s dislike (a role Anne’s family in general could have filled).
And then there was this pointless, unresolved tension about Anne not getting to convey her information about Elliot’s character to Lady Russell. Which turned out not to matter.
Second question from me - I think a lot of Austen is about parent's responsibility to their children (especially girls). Do you think there are good examples of parents as well as bad in this book? Also there are some couples/widowed individuals who are childless, do you think this adds to the sense of melancholy?
I really want to know more about this second ending you mentioned! I hope I can find it somewhere. Years ago I watched two different Persuasion movies, I think both were BBC. They had very different endings. Is that why? Do you know if they represented the two different endings? Please share all you know!
My more serious question is: In Chapter 23, Mrs. Musgrove gives Mrs. Croft the history of her eldest daughter's engagement in an audible whisper. Mrs. Croft says she would rather have young people settle on a small income at once and have to struggle with a few difficulties together than have a long engagement. That being engaged for an uncertain amount of time is unwise and should be advised against.
Is Austen saying short engagements are better? Is she saying Anne should have married Wentworth after a necessarily short engagement, even if Anne says she did the right thing in refusing Wentworth?
My second question: Why does Mr. Elliot marry Mrs. Clay? I don't understand. Why does that make sense?
My third question: Plot-wise, why did Austen delay Anne's opportunity to convey Mr. Elliot's character to Lady Russell?
(David, you can take any one of the questions or none of them. They're not an unbreakable set.)
Fun fantasy question: if Austen had lived another 5, 10, even 15 years, how do you think her writing might have developed? What sorts of things can you imagine her moving towards, moving away from? (I'll never comprehend she wrote all these masterpieces before the age of 45!)
I would like to explore Mrs. Clay. In describing her marriage as "unprosperous," did this simply mean she was widowed or did it also suggest that her husband was not socially acceptable or left her in poverty? When she ran off with William Elliot, she was ruined, and wouldn't this likely destroy her father's business relationship with Sir Walter? What would happen to her young children with their mother in disgrace? Austen hinted that she may end up married to William Elliot, but is that likely?
Hi, thanks for doing Persuasion! It is such a delight. I always think Austen is using secondary romantic relationships to make a practical point about the main relationship (for example: Lydia and Whickham really can't afford to be married so Lizzie is sensible to look for a husband with a fortune.) But with this being Austen's last work I think it shows how all romantic relationships have to marry the practical and the personal in a much more sophisticated way. Do you agree? How do you think the secondary characters give us good examples of sensible or silly partnerships.
I've been thinking a lot about free indirect discourse, since it features so prominently in this novel, and because I think that's what the Netflix adaptation tried (and failed) to convey with their Anne breaking the fourth wall. Do you think it's possible to convey this literary elment of the story in a film adaptation? And if not, is it possible for a film adaptation to do justice to this novel?
Related: If you were adapting this to film, who would you cast as Anne + Wentworth?
That's true! I suppose, to clarify my point, they aren't really major figures here in a way that other clergy characters are.
Could you compare Mr and Mrs Musgrove and their treatment of their daughters and their suitors to Mr and Mrs Bennett from P & P? The Musgrove’s seem to “live and let live” and are different from the Bennetts (or Mrs Bennett at least) in that they don’t push for rich men, but at the same time they don’t seem to guide or direct their daughters much and don’t seem bothered that there could be impropriety in Louisa and Henrietta’s quick attachment to Captain Wentworth. Which set of parents do you think was typical of the time period?
When Mary writes to Anne of Louisa's and Benwick's proposal, Anne has these thoughts: "Captain Benwick and Louisa Musgrove! The high-spirited, joyous-talking Louisa Musgrove, and the dejected, thinking, feeling, reading Captain Benwick seemed each of them everything that would not suit the other. Their minds most dissimilar! Where could have been the attraction? ... It had been in situation." This passage surprised me, and I found myself irritated with Anne for coming to the conclusion that the attraction was situational! My question is whether or not Jane Austen agrees with Anne Elliot on that point. Up until this point in the novel, I thought Jane Austen was arguing for the incompatibility of too-similar tempers. I see this most clearly when Louisa falls. Austen reveals how unsuitable Louisa and Wentworth are for one another because of how similar they are in vigor and confidence and stubbornness. Louisa and Wentworth make great friends, but they are an imbalanced couple. Similarly, gentle Anne is able to help gentle Benwick out of his despondency because she is so much like him. But that is as far as she can bring Benwick and as far as he can bring her: contented duty, lacking desire. Anne and Benwick make great friends, but their similarities do not do not make them compatible. So when Benwick's and Louisa's engagement is announced, I felt such relief! Not only because Wentworth is now free to pursue Anne, but because the dissonant match of Louisa and Wentworth is substituted for a consonant one! In short, opposites attract. It surprised me, then, to find Anne marveling at Benwick's and Louisa's engagement when Anne is generally an insightful judge of temper and character. Perhaps if Anne didn't marvel over her friends' surprise engagement, the tension of the novel would've resolved too quickly. Nevertheless, I think Benwick and Louisa are an unmistakable type of Anne and Wentworth! Benwick's and Louisa's engagement heralds the inevitable: that Anne and Wentworth cannot but come together!
My son just had to read this book for a required class at Hillsdale College. He HATED it (although I don’t think he even finished it so I told him he couldn’t effectively argue from his position). There are many personal reasons I think this particular kid did not like this particular book, but I think I lot of it had to do with the fact that it’s about the internal musings of a woman. And I was contemplating this in my heart when I came across this article: https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/why-heroines-matter/. This same kid wrote his senior high school thesis about Odysseus, so I found the comparison particularly illuminating.
So I guess my question is, do you think “heroines matter”, in the way this author argues? Can we extrapolate universal human experiences from stories about women the same way we can from stories about men? Is it a moral failing if, for example, a young man cannot appreciate the value of a story about a woman?
Or maybe it’s just Anne in particular. He enjoyed Jane Eyre.
Even though no verbal proposal or commitment had been made, Frederick Wentworth believed he had an implied duty to marry Louisa had she not married Benwick.
In contrast to this, Anne made a firm commitment to Wentworth, but this, throughout seven or eight years, was unacknowledged as being duty-binding.
Is this early 19th century cultural gender standards? On the one hand is Wentworth's implied commitment, on the other, a previous firm commitment from Anne abandoned--never (I think) acknowledged as ”dishonorable”. In the end Anne reckoned she was dutiful, did the right thing. What do you think of the contrast between the actions of these duties?
One of these duties is implied, the other explicit; what’s the moral difference? Is this noted in the story by either character, or by the narrator herself?
One of my very favourite parts of the whole book is Anne and Admiral Croft's conversation in chapter 19 volume 2. At one point Anne means to "oppose the too common idea of spirit and gentleness being incompatible with each other" but Croft continues the conversation before she can get the words out. To me, I think this interaction encapsulates the whole book. Is Anne actually of a persuadable temper? Or is she merely gentle and servant hearted, which is a demeanor easily mistaken for wishy washy and feeble. She is the only person in the entire book who never actually undergoes a change of heart or mind. Her actions are ruled by her duties rather than her desires, but that makes those desires no less potent. Captain Wentworth says early on that he's looking for a lady with "strength of mind" to be his wife, is he confusing strength of mind with being headstrong?
On this read through, one passage that really caught my attention was in the beginning of chapter five. Anne is trying to decide whether she ought to stay with Lady Russell at Kellynch Lodge or go to Bath with her father and Elizabeth. Of course she does neither when duty calls in the form of Mary requiring her help.
As she is debating which course would be better she reasons thus, "...[she] did not think that, every thing considered, she wished to remain. It would be most right, and most wise, and, therefore, must involve the least suffering, to go with the others."
What do you think about the significance of this little section? Does Anne really believe that the most right and wise course will lead to the least suffering? Does she mean emotional or some other kind of suffering? Is this in here, followed by her choice to stay with Mary in spite of her misgivings, just to underline her accommodating nature? While it was painful for her to encounter Wentworth again, in the short term, avoiding that unpleasantness would have lead to permanent estrangement, so is her logic faulty?
Did the reader ever have insight into what Captain Wentworth was thinking prior to the letter he wrote to Anne? On Facebook, there was some discussion of the free indirect discourse at the end of Vol 1 Chapter 7. Was that discourse from Captain Wentworth, Anne, or the narrator?
Captain Wentworth "must regard himself as bound to her [Louisa] if her sentiments for him were what the Harvilles supposed". But there was no such obligation on Anne regarding Mr Elliot's expectations. Is that because his character was suspect? Or are the women, in general, given a pass in these situations? I am also thinking of Edward and Lucy in another Austen novel.
Just for fun question: Towards the end of the book, I started thinking of the sisters in terms of birth order - Elizabeth as the eldest, Anne as the middle child (peacemaker/seeks friends outside the family), and Mary as the youngest who always feels overlooked and longs for more attention, even negative attention. Do you think these are just stereotypes that she uses well? Or does this just add another layer of psychology to their personalities?
Reading Persuasion this time around, I was struck by the moments when Anne clearly begins to hope that Wentworth might come to love her again. I’m curious what we are supposed to think about this. Obviously, Anne is a virtuous and sympathetic character, so very few of her actions and opinions are questionable. Yet when I think of her hoping for a second proposal from Wentworth, I wonder if she’s “going too far.” I guess I want to know if we think Anne realizes how badly she broke Wentworth’s heart. And if so, is she too eager in seeing the small kindnesses and attentions on his part as a sign of returning affection?
Three questions: 1. Have we judged Lady Russell rightly and 2. Can we believe Anne? The biggest part Lady Russell plays, in my opinion, is that of the only character who consistently values Anne as she ought. She truly sees the worth and goodness of Ann, respects her, and loves her. Without her we have not real proof that Anne’s goodness goes beyond a mere sense of duty. Through her eyes we see her wisdom, her tenacity at always doing the right thing and with fervor, and her likeness to her mother. Her persuasion in years past was not merely because of lack of fortune and standing, but out of a real love for and even sense of duty to not only Anne, but her mother. If I thought my Goddaughter, the daughter of a beloved and dead friend, was entering into a marriage that could cause her regret, for whatever reason, I would have a hard time not trying to dissuade her with whatever means necessary. I think of Mrs. Price, who clearly married foolishly, was made coarse and worn out by her marriage, and was unable to manage her household in the way which she may have been brought up. This causes me to wonder if I believe Anne when she says, given similar circumstances, that she would not give such advice. Would she really not? Consider the relationship she had with Lady Russell. If Anne had been solicited for such advice by a Louisa Musgrove, for example, then perhaps she could have refrained. But to someone so very near and dear to her as Ann was to Lady R? In today’s world, perhaps, although I am unconvinced, but in their culture a woman’s wellbeing and happiness was so dependent on the fortunes of her husband that when I really think about it I do not fault Lady Russell, nor do I think Ann could have done much differently were she in the same position. Perhaps not from the lens of rank and fortune, but rather through that of love. 3. More of a response to the notion that Mr. Elliot did not get his come-uppance, as it were. Don’t you think Jane herself got even with him by marrying him off to Mrs. Clay, and thus giving him a life of misery with someone who matches himself in lack of sincerity and diabolical plan making? Through conniving her way into marrying him she beats him at his own game. This is punishment indeed. It makes me think of our God who commands us not to seek our own revenge but leave it up to him. His punishment will be far more effective.
How or why do none of the Musgroves or Crofts seem to notice the awkwardness and tension between Anne and Fredrick? I capital “L” love this book, but it bothers me that no one suspects any history at all or seems to speculate on their fitness as a couple. Is it just that it is necessary for the plot? I can understand that the Musgroves are too consumed with their own interests, but it seems strange for Sophy not to notice and wonder.
General Austen question: is there any other author with more fan-fiction? And why is that? Out of copyright and/or many characters who we have slight knowledge but could go in any direction?
What's the consensus on the best visual versions? Both the 1995 and 2007 versions deviate a lot. Is there something unadaptable about this?
It seems to me that in most of Austen's other works, the role of the church in British life is often at the center. Edmund Bertram, Henry Tilney, Mr. Collins, etc., are in some sense in conversation with each other, and subtext regarding a discussion about religion often underlies those characters as well. Here, we don't really spend any significant time with any clergymen as major or even minor characters. Is there any significance in the general absence of the clergy from this story?
More a comment than a question: I've heard this novel described as "autumnal," something which has stuck with me over the years. I think "autumnal" captures that melancholy feeling very well, also given the season of the year and the time of Anne's life this takes place in. If you have any further thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.
On to actual questions: How does Mr. Elliot compare to other Austen villains (Wickham, Willoughby, Henry Crawford)? Is Austen doing anything different with him?
Mrs. Smith actions in the chapter she reveals Mr. Elliot's history puzzle me. I understand that, as a powerless, destitute widow, she may not have wanted to bring up his misdeeds for fear of retaliation, but at one point she seemed to be practically pushing Anne to marry him. Did her self-interest get the better of her then or is there more to her motivations (maybe some social conventions I'm not getting)?
Thanks!
What do we think about Mrs. Smith? She’s so sympathetic at first, and we love Anne for remaining her friend even when she doesn’t contribute any “social capital” (as Sir Elliot and Elizabeth might conceive of it), but then she doesn’t warn Anne what a jerk her cousin is. Are we supposed to forgive her because she keeps the secret in the hopes of improving her desperate financial situation after they’re married? Or are we missing some cultural context that “talking out of school” would have been a much bigger deal and would have made her even less likeable to readers at the time this was published?
Is Lady Russell wholly superfluous in this novel? Anne doesn’t need a mother figure to advise her against marrying Wentworth. A 19yo could easily be swayed by a father and sister, even if Anne didn’t respect them then.
She is missing from the middle of the novel apart from being the object of Wentworth’s dislike (a role Anne’s family in general could have filled).
And then there was this pointless, unresolved tension about Anne not getting to convey her information about Elliot’s character to Lady Russell. Which turned out not to matter.
What role does she serve?
Second question from me - I think a lot of Austen is about parent's responsibility to their children (especially girls). Do you think there are good examples of parents as well as bad in this book? Also there are some couples/widowed individuals who are childless, do you think this adds to the sense of melancholy?
I really want to know more about this second ending you mentioned! I hope I can find it somewhere. Years ago I watched two different Persuasion movies, I think both were BBC. They had very different endings. Is that why? Do you know if they represented the two different endings? Please share all you know!
My more serious question is: In Chapter 23, Mrs. Musgrove gives Mrs. Croft the history of her eldest daughter's engagement in an audible whisper. Mrs. Croft says she would rather have young people settle on a small income at once and have to struggle with a few difficulties together than have a long engagement. That being engaged for an uncertain amount of time is unwise and should be advised against.
Is Austen saying short engagements are better? Is she saying Anne should have married Wentworth after a necessarily short engagement, even if Anne says she did the right thing in refusing Wentworth?
My second question: Why does Mr. Elliot marry Mrs. Clay? I don't understand. Why does that make sense?
My third question: Plot-wise, why did Austen delay Anne's opportunity to convey Mr. Elliot's character to Lady Russell?
(David, you can take any one of the questions or none of them. They're not an unbreakable set.)
Fun fantasy question: if Austen had lived another 5, 10, even 15 years, how do you think her writing might have developed? What sorts of things can you imagine her moving towards, moving away from? (I'll never comprehend she wrote all these masterpieces before the age of 45!)
Would you elaborate more on the notion that Persuasion teaches us to how to read/read well? What does it mean for a novel to teach one how to read?
What wine/cheese pairing would you recommend for either a vacation in Lyme with your ex or a trip to Bath with your embarrassing family?
I would like to explore Mrs. Clay. In describing her marriage as "unprosperous," did this simply mean she was widowed or did it also suggest that her husband was not socially acceptable or left her in poverty? When she ran off with William Elliot, she was ruined, and wouldn't this likely destroy her father's business relationship with Sir Walter? What would happen to her young children with their mother in disgrace? Austen hinted that she may end up married to William Elliot, but is that likely?
Dr. Prior chose the virtue of Patience for Persuasion in On Reading Well.
Tim said in a talk that Jane Austen elevates Constancy as a virtue in her novels, which I can definitely see in Persuasion.
Pick a side - Tim or Dr. Prior? Or a third option? Which virtue do you think is at the heart of the novel? Or at the heart of each character?
Hi, thanks for doing Persuasion! It is such a delight. I always think Austen is using secondary romantic relationships to make a practical point about the main relationship (for example: Lydia and Whickham really can't afford to be married so Lizzie is sensible to look for a husband with a fortune.) But with this being Austen's last work I think it shows how all romantic relationships have to marry the practical and the personal in a much more sophisticated way. Do you agree? How do you think the secondary characters give us good examples of sensible or silly partnerships.
Thank you for posting a Q&A thread to substack! It's helpful for those of us not on Facebook!
I've been thinking a lot about free indirect discourse, since it features so prominently in this novel, and because I think that's what the Netflix adaptation tried (and failed) to convey with their Anne breaking the fourth wall. Do you think it's possible to convey this literary elment of the story in a film adaptation? And if not, is it possible for a film adaptation to do justice to this novel?
Related: If you were adapting this to film, who would you cast as Anne + Wentworth?
I have a number of questions but I think the first one that comes to mind is not Persuasion specific.
What is the ideal reading order of Jane Austen's novels?