Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, and gold-diggers/shallow women.

[prozacpark]

I binged on the 1995 version of "Pride and Prejudice" with Heather this weekend, which is one of my favorite movies/books, not least because it's immensely enjoyable and fun (as opposed to my usual leanings towards doom and gloom fiction). But one thing that leaves me really uncomfortable with the ending is Lydia being married to Wickham. She's

Comments

[prozacpark]

I admit that I don't really get that vibe out of Austen and generally find her works to be very women-positive. And Austen actually incorporates a fair bit of Wollstonecraft's thinking into her novels, which I appreciate. But she's not perfect, and this is one of the areas where I sort of have to be on my guard with her. Especially since I am very fond of gold-diggers, and well...ambitious women in general.

I...probably forgive her a lot more than I would a contemporary writer given that she is Wollstonecraft's contemporary, and really didn't have the concept of feminism that we do.

[raincitygirl]

There isn't a gold-digger character in Mansfield Park. Mary Crawford is wealthy in her own right, but her potential husband's money and status are important to her. To the point where she spends a good chunk of time pretending she likes Tom Bertram better than Edmund, because Tom will inherit Mansfield while Edmund, as a younger son, is destined for the Church. She loves Edmund, but she can't imagine herself being happy as a vicar's wife, living in a vicarage.

Mrs Clay in Persuasion is a gold-digger, but she gets a happy ending. Not a respectable one, mind you. Her efforts to attract the aging Sir Walter are for nought, but wealthy Mr. Elliott makes her his mistress, and some years later brings her back into semi-respectability by making her his wife. So she gets a rich protector and later becomes Lady Elliott (after Sir Walter dies and Mr. Elliott inherits the baronetcy).

[prozacpark]

Yeah, that's the one. I wouldn't describe her as a gold-digger either, but I think she's a bit like Daisy Buchanan from "The Great Gatsby" where the general perception is that they ARE gold-diggers for snubbing poor men for richer ones? Despite being independently wealthy. Which, TBH, I don't exactly get. But I need to read "Mansfield Park" as I suspect that I would love Mary. I generally appreciate heroines smart enough to realize that love isn't everything and they might need more than that to make them happy.

I need to read "Persuasion" again, clearly, as I do not remember Mrs. Clay very well. Although, I wonder what that says about Austen's maturing over the years and perhaps changing her stance on gold-diggers? And I understand that these conventions sometimes had to be put in there so books could be published, and a hundred other reasons for this. Which is why I am not condemning her as I would a modern author, but I do find the treatment of this class of women in her novels interesting to analyze.

[ctrent29]

The thing is that Mary gave up on her pursuit of Tom and focused on the less eligible Edmund. She really must have loved him to do something like that. I wouldn't have done it.

[scrollgirl]

Maybe I'm misremembering P&P, but doesn't it address the double-standard of gold-digging in men v gold-digging in women? Wasn't there a conversation between Lizzy and her aunt when they learned Wickham was making a play for Mary King and her 10,000 pounds?

[scrollgirl]

And S&S makes it clear that Willoughby is going to be pretty miserable for the rest of his life because he chose money over love, IMHO.

[prozacpark]

Yeah, to her credit, Austen *is* equally harsh on male and female gold-diggers, and from what I understand, they were both equally common in her time? However, I am still viewing the texts from the lens of a century where the term is almost exclusively applied to women. I am sure there are patterns to be picked in her male gold-diggers, but I am personally a lot more interested in female characters and their narratives so probably can't do that critique justice

[fallingtowers]

So given that gender gap, I think gold-digging as a career is a lot more justifiable for one gender than another.

Yes, indeed. As much of a flat character and easily ridiculed caricature Mrs Bennet is, her eagerness to marry off her five daughters to wealthy providers is actually rather sensible, from a certain point of view. (Although I equally understand Lizzie's horror at the prospect of that provider being a Mr Collins, but that's another can of worms.)

And, completely OT: Happy birthday! (Slightly late, though.)

[lilacsigil]

Yes, Lizzie got over her dislike of Darcy quickly after seeing Pemberley!

I agree there is a weird standard in Austen that if you are a good (i.e. not money-grubbing or a social climber) you will be rewarded. Honestly, considering Austen's own life, I can't blame her for wanting to give her female characters nice things - it's the way she punishes the non-"good" female characters that makes me uncomfortable.

[prozacpark]

Yes, and Lizzie even jokes about it with Jane, which i appreciated. Because, um, I do think that's partly what reconciles her to Darcy? I mean, I don't think that she would have ever married him if he hadn't improved himself, but we first see her show regret for refusing him after seeing Pemberly, but before meeting the New and Improved Mr. Darcy, so there's that. Similarly, while the general perception of Jane Fairfax is that she's easily persuaded by Frank's more forceful personality to enter into a secret engagement that could ruin her reputation, I prefer to think that she knows exactly what she'll get out of waiting, which is Frank's huge fortune and respectability of a life as a wife instead of a governess

[tigerpetals]

I thought she meant that all the women looking to get his approval were boring. Not their intention of getting rich, but how they did it by suppressing their liveliness or whatever parts of their personality they thought might not please him.

I do agree that there's nothing wrong with wanting to succeed, and the moral of rich is good, but only those who don't aspire to that and get it by accident or side-effect deserve it. It also kind of sounds like, "stay in your place. You have no right to be ambitious or to want anything except maybe that people be nice to you." Like the whole idea where heroines are beautiful but unaware of their beauty and definitely can't use it to get what they want from people who are supposed to be more powerful than them. An artificial childlike state (and really artificial, since I think children do want things and try to get them and try to exploit whatever the adults around them like about them).

[prozacpark]

Yeah, and that actually echoes some of Wollstonecraft's theories about how women are ENCOURAGED to be dull and drone and not show any uniqueness. But I admit that I am a bit wary of the "I love you because you're unlike other women!" romance trope, where the best way to compliment someone is apparently by putting their entire gender down. It helps that Darcy isn't saying this, and Elizabeth is smart enough to know that just because women act dull and stupid doesn't mean they ARE. But something about that still bothers me.

Like the whole idea where heroines are beautiful but unaware of their beauty and definitely can't use it to get what they want from people who are supposed to be more powerful than them. An artificial childlike state (and really artificial, since I think children do want things and try to get them and try to exploit whatever the adults around them like about them).THIS. I get easily turned off by heroines (and usually stop reading/watching because fiction that can make me dislike female characters is rare and to