If you like the work I do, then you can support it here: www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=D8LSKGJP2NL4N Thank you very much indeed for watching my channel.
It struck me that the description of the “perfect” heroine sort of matches the image of Jane Fairfax, as perceived by Emma and as recreated by Miss Bates through Jane’s letters (so in a way she also becomes fictional, in the sense that we only know her from this intermediation of letters), and Emma is jealous of this perfection, almost as if Jane Austen showed us that she could have written a perfect character and actively chose not to. Then, as Jane comes back, and starts being a character in the main narrative, she denies being perfect herself and more and more “cracks” appear, until we realise that even the picture of angelic perfection is a human being, with flaws (which is when Emma starts to like her). So to me, there are many layers inside the novel where Jane Austen questions this concept of the perfect heroin
I was thinking the same thing! Also, I think it's interesting that Jane Fairfax story (of a perfectly accomplished, beautiful, young woman with a tragic backstory and who is saved from poverty and becoming a governess by marrying a rich gentleman) is a lot more in line with the kind of dramatic kind of stories that were written back in the day. Jane Austen could've easily made Jane the main character (there was definetly enough plot there), but she chose, rather, to write about the blunders of a rich girl who had "very little to distress or vex her" and that was just pure Austen brilliance.
@@brubs2556 you’re right, Jane Fairfax’ story has everything it takes to be a very dramatic story in and of itself, and Emma would have been an antagonist in that story, flirting with Frank Churchill under her nose just for her own amusement, meaning nothing by it. Reversing our perspective by showing the pov of the careless rich girl (the heroin that no one but JA will like) IS brillant, but from our current frame of interpretation, I am also wondering at the feminist implications. There is rivalry between Emma and Jane, for accomplishments, for men, for manners, yet JA chooses to not pit them against each other (like Elinor and Lucy, or Lizzie and Caroline for example) but to make them friends once all the misunderstandings have been cleared. That shows growth from Emma, but I think there is something quite revolutionary in it too, to transcend this easy trope and create something much more interesting
@@maried5178 Yes! It's almost like she purpusefully flipped the roles, made the antagonist the main character, and therefore, instead of showing these two women as rivals and opposites, one good and one bad, made the story be about the girl that would be the antagonist, which in turn made the story and the characters more realistic giving them depth, growth and character development to the point where by the end of the book, they become friends. To me, it almost feels like she planned Jane's story as if the book were about her, giving a rich background and plot, and instead of writing it, left in all to happen on the background of her novel about Emma. I mean, the amount of creativity and insightfulness! She's a wonder!
@@begewemom I can assure you, the guys reading the book do not want to pinch Jane Fairfax. Even Mr. Knightly was quite taken by her, even though his heart was already attached elsewhere.
I've been reading through the Comments and, so far, I have not found one person who mentions something I think is important to understand the character of Emma Woodhouse. She is trapped. When the story begins she has lost her best friend and the person who has made her life bearable. She has watched her sister and her governess and probably other people grow up and marry and have the possibility of some choice in what they do with their lives, while she has been unanimously chosen to be the spinster daughter who spends her life being a Prop to Papa. How many girls of 19 would assume the burdens she does so cheerfully? A day with Mr. Woodhouse would have me bangin' my head on the door jamb! Of course she thinks well of herself. She is handsomer and cleverer and richer than the people around her. But she also has the prospect of serving as keeper to Papa for the next twenty years at least. I think one of the saddest speeches in literature is Emma's "“I must beg you not to talk of the sea. It makes me envious and miserable;-I who have never seen it!"
@@onawal931 Emma runs the house efficiently, she does charitable work among the poor and sick of the area, and above all she puts up with he father. That's a full-time job there. However as you say all she does is "gossip and scheme," I assume your opinion of Emma and mine are so far apart that we could never agree.
It is her resolution to never marry, so she set up the trap herself? Also her reason is that she cannot believe that she might meet anyone better than her whom she could look up to.
@@lexicornix7530 Her resolution to never marry means nothing. It might be explained as "sour grapes." Emma is stuck in a situation and she is making the best of it by emphasizing its advantages. She is being realistic. How likely is she to meet someone she would want to marry? It's a good thing Mr. Knightley lives so near.
Of all of Austen’s heroines (and even some “villains”), Emma has been the one for whom my feelings have changed greatly and repeatedly, and I love her for it. My first read through (I was 13 years old) I thought Emma was hilarious. What a silly, bumbling girl to be so sure of so many things, only to be proven wrong over and over again. I had not yet made any “big” mistakes in my life, or I was entirely oblivious of any harm I might have cause up to that point, so Emma was far from relatable and, so, comical. On my second read a few years later, I had grown more self aware and, therefore, more self conscious. I had started to notice some of my shortcomings. I hated Emma then. I was frustrated with her ego and her delusions. I think I saw some similarities between her and myself. Several years after that, I made a social blunder that left me questioning everything about myself. I looked back on my past behavior and noticed a pattern. I wasn’t malicious, but I was ignorant and careless. That’s when I turned to Emma again. I thought, “Emma did something very cruel. Unintentionally, but still. She felt miserable, too. But she tried to make amends, she put in the effort, and she grew to be better. I can try to be better, too.” I love Emma for being my constant in my journey to self improvement. I can understand why some may not like her, but to me she is dear.
This is why Emma is so relatable. Even the "best" of us make mistakes or say the wrong thing or have thoughts that aren't very nice or any number of things that would make us like Emma. And like Emma, we can all be capable of growth and betterment.
Exactly. I've made some huge mistakes in my life that affected others in a negative way and I learned to be better. So when I read Emma I exhaled and fell in love with this novel. She's like me!! I am forever grateful to Austen for this novel, which is my favorite. 💕💕
That's what so ironic about Emma and Austen. She (Emma) is supposed to be the least likable of the heroines, but I found the opposite true. She is the most believable of all the main characters. The others are too sweet, two brilliant, too perceptive and constant, or two plain and moral, and I'm not even mentioning the Dashwoods. Mr. Knightly knew who he was marrying, and he was no fool.
I have always loved Emma. To me, she always felt like a caged bird. From a young age, she’s forced into her life role. Despite the fact that she lives so close to London & Box Hill, she has never been to either in 21 years. Her neighborhood and acceptable social circle is extremely isolated. She’s forced to learn to be manipulative with her father to gain any ounce of freedom and to properly perform her role as hostess. Despite that, she’s not resentful, partly because she recognizes some of her privilege. She is more clever and well-educated that everyone around her, save the Knightly brothers, but unlike them she has no freedom to see the world or find equals (in cleverness) to socialize with. As a result of her loneliness and inability yo relate to or socialize with many peers. She is extremely imaginative and escapes to them. I think modern audiences struggle a lot with Emma because they only see the privilege and immaturity but don’t understand the societal restraints. I think people dislike her because they misunderstand her a lot.
Emma has limited worldly experience and lives a fantasy existence at the start of the novel. According to Mr Knightley, she sees other people as her 'play-things' and part of her fantasy world. She gradually comes into contact with painful reality, loses her innocence, and finds herself through acquiring knowledge and experience. Emma becomes a throughly lovable heroine in the eyes of Mr Knightley and for very many Austen readers. Perhaps also for Jane Austen and yourself Dr Octavia? Through Emma we can see some of our own naivety, limitations, misreadings of ourselves, situations, and other people. Love your insightful analyses - many thanks!
@@EH23831 Interesting- I didn't care for Catherine Moreland, she is probably one of my least favorites - and much prefer Emma, who I felt seemed to be that of a stronger mind.
Ironic how Mr Martin is literally required to ask Mr Knightley's PERMISSION before he can offer for Harriet but no one thinks of him as being in a fantasy and using others as his "playthings".
And yet everyone talks about Catherine Morland's lack of worldly experience. It would be interesting to make a list comparing the two -- their strengths, weaknesses, and how long it takes for them to mature. BTW, I like Catherine Morland!
I love Emma. I think, textwise, it has even more bite than "Pride and Prejudice" and I love that Emma learns in the end and that she finds a partner who sees that she is capable of change and encourages this is her. If there are no flaws, there is no conflict, so there is no story and also no development. Emma has great character development.
I agree. The thing about Emma, generally, is that she is a gloriously fallible human being: she has moments of envy, jealousy, laziness; she misjudges people very often, and, like Lizzy, often pre-judges them. But she seldom acts out of malice. Often she thinks that she's acting in the best interest of her subject, and out of her position in the little society of Highbury. And she isn't always wrong: Mr. Knightley concedes that her "mentoring" of Harriet has been beneficial (he strongly objected to Emma taking Harriet under her wing, in great part because *he* also is doing some misjudging). She also has genuine affection and patience for her father, genuine affection for Mrs. Weston; and for her sister and sister's children. And she exhibits the cardinal gift of all Austen's heroines: the capacity to learn. She stumbles, but she doesn't quit; when she understands she's wrong, she admits it, and feels it.
I think Emma stands separately from P&P as the conflict is so different from other Austen novels. The heroine has no real stakes to marry at any point but at the end of the book for love. In Pride and Prejudice, the main textual conflict stems from the entailment of the house and the sisters' need to marry well in order to basically live after their father dies. Therefore, the conflict is not in character but in the situation they are in. Emma's whole conflict is in how she conducts herself, she acts out of boredom and selfishness, and she creates a conflict borne from character deficiency (as you said). She has admittedly had no actual problems in her life up until the beginning of the book. In that way, the plot is unlike any other. I love it because there are no actual real financial or 'dire stakes', however, there are massive social stakes and pressure upon Emma, and with those stakes, she learns to grow and learn how to be better. I am one to prefer Pride and Prejudice personally, however, Emma is amazing and best displays Austen's keen utilization of character growth and development.
@@Molly-tv5sv I’m inclined to agree with you, I don’t think they are comparable. Not to be redundant and repeat everything you just said but to concur that the characters and story are too distinct for a direct comparison. Even if you may favor one story to another. I’m a Pride and Prejudice fan, it’s possibly my favorite book of all time. But it’s not that I don’t care for Emma, it’s that the story didn’t resonated with me quite like Pride and Prejudice did.
@@AnABSOLUTEBarbarian I feel like in "Emma" there are more characters being painted as flawed and ridiculous. The Eltons, for example. I think, the obervations made about them by Jane Austen are even more sarcastic and the tone is overall more satirical than other Austen books. That's what I mean by it having more "bite". I love Emma, because I have been grinning and laughing the most about these intelligent observations about human beings.
Emma, to me, is a wonderfully flawed heroine. A very intelligent woman who today would be running her own successful business. Emma was bored and under-stimulated, who had to make her own dubious 'amusement' to keep her brain active. That others suffered because of this is all too believable. Emma was a product of Austen's time, however, self-dedicated to a selfish father, the loyal daughter. Austen's best novel IMHO.
I agree with everything you wrote except the last sentence. I really despised the controlling father, who was fine with destroying her life to keep her around to fluff his pillow. (He probably wore and bored his poor wife to death.) I never come to like Emma or the supercilious, father-substitute Knightley. Emma would have made a good lawyer, but in her time she was stuck in a place where she could only ruin other people’s lives for entertainment.
@@catherinehubbard1167 I think Austen may have been calling on her own experience with her rather selfish mother to create Emma's and her father's relationship. I expect Austen put up with a lot of unreasonable behaviour from mum because that's what daughters did (and still do), but she also loved her, as Emma loved her father. Mr Woodhouse was, indeed, a selfish, self-obsessed man, with an absolute upper-class sense of privilege. He took it for granted that everyone would drop everything to make sure he was looked after But he was the only parent Emma knew, and she loved him. One can love without actually liking of course, especially family. Of course, that selfishness, self-obsession and upper-class entitlement is inherited by Emma, the dutiful daughter. One of the many reasons the novel is so clever, ground-breaking, and rewarding.
@@catherinehubbard1167 i believe JA’s mom may have been a narcissist as the description to the parents in her books usually are exactly that! She was writing from her example
As she is only 21 I doubt that she would be running her own successful business. More likely she would be at university re-inventing the wheel and neglecting her studies to indulge in social media 'influencing'.
I felt bad for Emma and thought her flaws are understandable. From a modern perspective she's so isolated and almost lonely with her silly father and a very lenient governess who treats her more like a friend. She's kept far away from the realities of the world and her circle is so small and unfortunately stays that way. I didn't like that she marries Mr. Knightley without meeting more people, it's not like she has much of a choice and he's significantly older.
yes- when you think at 21 she had almost no friends and had never been to see the sea. Where as we often see characters in her other novels getting more opportunity to either travel or socialize.
He says that he was 16 when she was born and close to the end he says that he fell in love with her when she was 13 making him 29 at that time. Presumably this is the reason why he himself never married. Am I the onle one finding this disturbing? He is aware of that it is not his place to scold her when she did something wrong over the years. Her father acting rather like a grandfather (health issues, physical and mental immobility) puts Mr Knightley in a father position. If he has been into her for so long, why not propose earlier? Was he waiting for her to become more mature?
@@lexicornix7530 It never really bothered me since men in that time period usually married a woman quite a bit younger than them. If it were now when this story happened, then yes, it would be weird. I imagine he was waiting for her to finish maturing and helped her along the way, but then I rather like the character Mr. Knightley and think Emma can't really have done better.
@@lexicornix7530Emma can't marry until 21 UNLESS her father agrees. Mr Knightley probably figured it was useless to try. Once Emma is 'of age' she doesn't HAVE to have her father's permission, though she still wants it. But it does shift the dynamic of control over the decision away from Mr Woodhouse to Emma herself.
@@cmm5542 Would he assume his refusal? As heir he is a better match than his younger brother and by his brother's and her sister's marriage he is already part of the family.
Maybe that was why Jane Austen chose the name "Emma" for the novel. Her readers might have been genuinely confused about who they were supposed to view as the heroine, if Emma was so different from the typical central female character. P&P and S&S are titles that pit opposing concepts against each other (Persuasion is another concept), while Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey are named after estates. If you were inclined to think that Emma must be the foil of an as-yet unintroduced heroine, the title of the book would suggest otherwise, and maybe make you more inclined to forgive her vanity because the author clearly saw something in her.
It struck me that Austen also satirized the idea of “the perfect woman” in Pride and Prejudice when Miss Bingley describes such a woman and Elizabeth laughs at the idea of any such woman existing….thanks so much for these videos, I’m enjoying them immensely and learning a lot too!
I have always liked Emma. She made mistakes, even serious ones but she genuinely did mean well, and when faced with the error of her ways acknowledged her wrongs, felt genuine shame, and tried to repair the damage she had done. She grew as a person.
I wonder if Jane Austen's starting point for Emma was the question, 'What might I have been like if at an early age I had been an heiress in control of a fine country house with very little to constrain my opinions and behaviour?' I don't find Emma unlikeable but her social power is quite frightening at times. She is well meaning, but does not have the experience or knowledge to wield her power responsibly. Of all the people who witnessed her insult to poor Miss Bates, only Mr Knightly feels the necessity or right to rebuke her. Even the spiteful Mr Elton doesn't dare to attack her directly. Her power over Harriet is quite sinister, and nearly spoils Harriet's best chance of a happy life.
I think that social power aspect is what makes Clueless a good adaptation, as a popular high school student is something that a lot of people can identify as having this unspoken power. A more direct modernization would need more explanation for the social hierarchy going on, I think. High school hierarchy is such a common trope in fiction nowadays that it really works.
I named my daughter after this character created by my favorite author. She is now an English professor and questions this decision! This amusing plaque is on the wall of Austen’s Chawton house “Emma Woodhouse was formed here with very little to distress or vex her “
I think it's difficult for some people, including me, to read 'Emma' with a fresh mind. It is such a good story and has so many memorable characters that it lends itself to films and TV series, and I do think that film and TV adaptations soften or brighten the character of Emma and actually make her more attractive and likeable than perhaps the book justifies because they want ro present her as a 'modern' woman. But it is clear that Emma only has her seeming independence and her arrogance (if you like) because she is comfortable financially and will always be so. She says as much to Harriet, when she explains why she has no need to marry. I don't find her dislikeable because I see her as mirror that Jane Austen holds up for us to see our reflections. We blush at her unkind words to Miss Bates and wonder how often we said similar things to undeserving friends or relations. That said, 'Emma' the book breaks new ground across the board. It anticipates the village/town/and neighbourhood books of the 19th century. It seems almost as if it could have been written yesterday in its vividness and almost spare style of writing. There isn't an unnecessary line from start to finish, which anticipates the great short novels of the 20th century. It is packed with clues that Emma keeps missing, anticipating the early twentieth century crime writers. It is a masterpiece, but it isn't my favourite Jane Austen novel, which certainly says more about me than about the book.
I agree. I don't dislike Emma, I dislike how she makes me feel about myself. She is an uncomfortable mirror held up to our dark sides. She doesnt act from malice but everyday prejudice and ignorance just like we do and it forces us to self reflect. I die when the line poorly done Emma is said because it brings back every moment a person I respect judged me or times I later judged myself. She grows and changes but you know she will continue to be a regular person.
As the many adaptations demonstrate! I see the new adaptation of Persuasion, starring Dakota Johnson, has riled many (it’s obviously just a riff off the plot, not in anyway a dramatisation of the original) but I say the more* the merrier. Can never have too much ‘Austen’. *does not include Pride and Prejudice and Zombies 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
I suppose it might be the acceptance of verisimilitude as a modern reader, but even as a teen, Emma Woodhouse was always my favourite heroine. She held up a mirror to my teenage self, to be honest. It was always clear to me that she was a very kind and loving person, underneath all the snobbery and conceitedness. There were also some deep rooted anxieties she had about her role in her father's life. She was in fact a very maternal heroine. It was wonderful to follow her personal growth and progress in the novel. I'd even go so far as to say it might be considered an instruction book, albeit in disguise.
In my own experience, I found Emma a little tougher to like because she felt like someone you might actually know in real life, but I also found that made her more compelling to read. She made real mistakes, and I feel like that gave her so much more room to grow as a character. If her mistakes hadn't had so much of an effect on those around her, I wonder if I would have found her easier to like? I also want to express how much I love your videos! You've made this era of writing feel so much more accessible to me through the context you provide. Thank you!
Thank you! I recently reread Emma and, to me, in addition to all the analysis and comments here, it's Austen's profoundly ironic take on the general question of happiness in life that she ponders in all her novels. As shown in Emma, happy people are those who are very lucky in life and unremarkable. : ) A recipe for happy life, as embodied in Emma: good health, financial independence, close-knit community of relatives and friends, and - very Austenian - a love marriage to a close friend. Emma and her circle are rather uncurious and perfectly content in the positions that their time and society prescribes. As I understand, Emma does not feel the confinements of her position, unlike, for instance, Austen herself. Emma does not want to step out and be a writer, or a musician, a scientist etc. She is not intellectual but very social. Smart and clever, but men do not ever find her intelligence "threatening." Very fitting for a woman of her era and her society. Emma's sanguine and easy-going temper is another key ingredient for happiness. Not having excessive empathy or sensitivity, not overthinking helps a lot to be content in life. : ) She notices Jane or Harriet's shaky positions, but does not lose her sleep over that. Despite her shortcomings, Emma gets away with everything and gets all she wants, like Frank Churchill. I think it's another sharp observation about how some people are just very lucky for no apparent reason. I also think Austen is fascinated by modeling a perfect position in life for a woman: Emma is as independent as an unmarried young woman of her era could be. Big wealth and no controlling figures. I actually find the novel's whole structure ironic. The very 'novelesque' storyline of Jane, a talented, sensitiive girl, is relegated to be secondary and fragmented, whereas Emma's boring life and "nothing-special" character is at the center, and lovingly, humanely depicted as worthy of a close look. Just brilliant! And I would love to read a well-written novel told from Jane Fairfax's viewpoint.
That novel exists - it’s called Lovers’ Perjuries by Joan Ellen Delman. It’s very well-written, and yet it makes you realize that Austen made the right choice making Emma and not Jane the heroine.
I could be completely off, but if one thinks about how Austen’s main characters are so varied and how she approaches each story, it seems to me that creating a character “that no one other than myself will like” is yet another example of how Austen was challenging herself as a writer and challenging novel writing conventions. For example, “Northanger Abbey” is a satire of gothic novels. So, I can easily see Austen asking herself how she could change/challenge some other accepted approach to novel creation for the purpose of challenging herself and her readers. In addition, taking into consideration your previous video regarding how Emma and Jane Austen were similar, it makes sense that Austen would like Emma and thought that no one else would like this character (because they share character traits). Thanks as always for your videos! I have always loved Austen, but these analyses help reveal just how brilliant and ahead of her time Austen was.
Interesting that she thought that, because from aside from Lizzie Benett I believe Emma is the most popular Austen heroine. From my experience Fanny Price was the heroine that was the base breaker with people generally preferring the villainous Crawford siblings to her
I have always found Emma very irritating. She is not unkind just rather insensitive to the wishes of others. It becomes amusing as she finally becomes aware of her many misconceptions.
It's interesting how perceptions change over time. I agree with you that many modern readers find Fanny Price to be less easy to like than JA's other heroines. But according to the standards of the time, in many ways she is closer to an 'ideal' feminine character than either Elizabeth Bennet or Emma Woodhouse. Many readers of the Regency actually found Lizzy to be shockingly brazen and forward for a heroine! A neighbour of JA's, called Mary Russell Mitford, wrote in December 1814, for example, "it is impossible not to feel in every line of Pride and Prejudice, in every word of 'Elizabeth', the entire want to taste which could produce so pert, so worldly a heroine as the beloved of such a man as Darcy".
That shows a change in taste over time. Emma isn’t that sympathetic. Fanny Price plays into a set of conservative and evangelical stereotypes of what a woman should be in the regency period. Even down to marrying her cousin. Mary Crawford is a much more modern woman who fits much more with current sensibilities than Fanny who just comes across as having “please wipe your feet” tattooed on her forehead. However the irony that Emma was dedicated to the most well known bigamist in Britain is strong. A heroine nobody could like dedicated to a patron nobody liked.
@@davidwright7193 The key to understanding Fanny Price is that she is an introvert - extremely so - and, since literary critics must of necessity be extraverts, trying to convince others with their words, the critics tend not to like her. I like Fanny, though I wouldn't want to marry her, and I'm glad that she wins in the end on her own terms, for once not doing what others want her to do, in this case the 'others' being many readers of the novel. She is an extraordinarily accurate depiction of an introvert, with her internal voice criticising her actions, her need to feel right within herself rather than seeking the validation of others, her acute observation, her shyness, her wish to talk about things or ideas (such as astronomy) rather than people, her need for privacy and quiet, and her reliance on only a small number of truly dear friends rather than a wide but shallow acquaintance.
Unlikeable? I always found Emma compelling. She is genuine, and makes mistakes like we all do. She says and does things without thinking about the consequences, like all of us do from time to time, and she acknowledges her mistakes, and tries to mend her ways, which shows character. She grows throughout the novel in ways that many heroines do not, and I can relate to her.
I think in another video about Emma you said she had the ability to make every day life more interesting by imagining stories. I had never consciously noticed that but I totally agreed. And it makes me think that one of the traits that are extremely likeable is this one, she is optimistic enough to entertain herself and sees the positive side of things without despairing about certain negative things that even she in her privilege cannot escape. Of course that tendency goes towards treating people like "playthings". I love the complexity of character that Austen draws in her heroines and especially Emma. I've always liked her.
When Emma declares that Mister Knightley will always be Mister Knightley to her and declines to use his first name despite having been asked to, I felt sad for Mister Knightley. It felt that he wanted her to be more equal to him than she wanted to be and my heart ached for him.
Emma might be unlikable but, she is relatable. We read and re-read and love Austen & her characters because we can relate with Austen's words, wisdom, understanding, sympathy, forgiveness, and love
She is very relatable. She is supposed to be so accomplished and perfect, but of course is a flawed person like we all are. She wishes to read scholarly serious works, yet lacks the discipline to stick to her reading plan, as Mr Knightly observes. She wishes to be accomplished artistically, but her output is a medley of unfinished amateur pieces, as we discover when she presents them before starting Harriet's portrait. She has so many good intentions for Harriet, but ends up harming her chances of a happy life because her privilege blinds her to reality. Yet I genuinely like Emma, maybe even more so for her sins. She has a heart that is kind to the core and the ability to grow.
@@londongael414 Oh yes- you have made me consider how good Jane is, and she was underrated to my mind as we see her through Emma's eyes. I suspect Emma was a little jealous of Jane, and Jane's piano excellence. Something in the way Jane is written about makes me suspect something is amiss with her, but it's just Emma's pov seeping into the narrative? Speaking of Austen's true artist characters, don't forget Mary Crawford. Also given a shady reputation, but perhaps undeserved? I'll have to give this more thought.
Emma is my favorite Austen novel. I love the witty playfulness of Emma's character which often softens or hides her manipulative nature. I used to struggle with conceit, thinking I'm better than other people, and I had to learn humility. I think it's refreshing to see a character with as many layers as Emma has, and of course I relate to all the times she embarrasses herself with her overconfidence. I love her willingness to change. I think not only is she hilarious, but she can be a mirror for the reader.
You have not lost an inch off your fastball, Dr. Cox; this is an excellent commentary on Emma and JA in general. The section on the perfection of heroines is perfect, because we know Lizzie is not perfect, yet we love her, and even JA's attempt to make Emma unlikeable fails, because Jane actually likes all her characters, so we do too. I've said before and will repeat it, I think Emma is the most realistic (and thus most lovable) of all her heroines; her flaws and her mostly innocent intrigues only set the stage for the experiences that allow her to grow into the confident and wiser person that Knightly knew was always there. Emma is catty, but never vicious, and her envy of Jane Fairfax never crosses the line into true dislike. By the end of the novel, all observant readers realize how much she has changed, and love her for it. Lizzie Bennett, Emma, and Anne Elliot are (in my mind, anyway), JA's best and most famous heroines, yet they are all so different. The same can be said of Darcy, Mr. Knightly, and Henry Tilney. These chracters are the best gauge of JA's genius. We can bemoan the fact that there are not more novels to explore and wonder over, but shouldn't we instead realize that the half glass we have is very wonderful, indeed, and be thankful for what we have?
I first read this book when I was a young teen and really liked Emma. Then in university I read it again for a class and was surprised to learn that Emma was supposed to be an unlikable character. I still don't see it, to me she's always been charming, like a typical girl who makes mistakes but whose heart is in the right place.
I’ve always been fascinated by Emma as a novel. It’s so insular compared to the other novels. The world revolves around Hartfield and it’s main families. Outsiders like Frank Church, Mrs Elton, Jane and the gypsies seem to upset Emma’s idyllic, controlled world. I think unlike the other novels there’s barely a military presence other than the unseen Col. Campbell which also adds to the protected peace of Hartfield. I’d love to hear a comparison of the various military figures in Austen and the roles they serve.
I have always felt for Emma. Every other Austen heroine travels. Jane and Elizabeth Bennett are both taken off by the Gardiners to see more of the world. Catherine Moreland spends almost all of Northanger Abbey traveling from her childhood home. So do the Dashwood sisters. Four other women in Emma's story-- Emma's governess, Mrs. Elton, Jane Fairfax, and Harriet-- find their future husband while away from home. But everybody assumes Emma will sit at home with her neurotic father until she's an old maid and won't mind that solution that is so convenient for everybody else. No wonder she ends up behaving like a bull in a china shop!
I have a hard time with Emma because her father is triggering for my personal daddy issues. But Emma is also the heroine who grows the most. Lizzie does as well, but I think not as much as Emma does. Fanny Price and Eleanor Dashwood are both pretty static, but Emma and Lizzie both grow through their stories. Not sure where Anne Elliott falls in terms of growth; maybe more of it happens before we meet her, where she already knows she would give someone else different advice than she received, and it’s Cpt Wentworth who has to grow and learn not to be so bitter but to realize she was right to have followed the advice she got, and that he had stood in his own way.
I have always loved the novels of Jane Austen but have felt the film versions often let her down. When it comes to Austen heroines casting has always made a huge difference. For me the ultimate Jane Austen film has always been the 1995 version of Persuasion. I enjoyed the 1996 version of Emma but casting the likable Gwyneth Paltrow would probably not have gone over big with Ms Austen.
It's so weird. I always liked Emma, so every time I see things about it I always ask if there's something wrong with me. I found her infinitely amusing and her growth throughout the story was one of the most satisfying arc's for me and her self-assuredness was always aspirational. Seriously, she's easily my absolute favorite heroine.
Interesting topic and still relevant, I would say. Austen’s playfulness with established social expectations is so refreshing. What a fantastic mind! Thank you!
Thank you so much for this wonderful, insightful reading of Emma. You made me see that Emma is one of the first truly modern fictional characters, as she displays what we now call a character arc. The first 18th century novels tried to educate their readers in a, to modern eyes, unsophisticated manner, by showing a good example for human behaviour that was of course completely unrealistic. Following the journey of the less than perfect character makes us examine our own character and motivations. Austen is as much a moralist as the writers that irritated her so much, but a far more effective one. She is scupulously honest and does not allow her characters to indulge in self-serving delusions. I always loved her work but you make me appreciate all over again how very, very good she is
I never disliked Emma, and I love the novel. She starts out blind in so many ways to her biases and faults, but she really believed that she was doing kindnesses to others. She wanted her friend to have lo,ve and success in life; she visited the Bateses, brought them food and company. Even though I'm sure she was unduly proud of herself for following conventions of her time like those for the more fortunate, but within her narrow education, she nevertheless was kind. She learned that her efforts were not kind, but her intentions were as good as they could be, given the narrow view of life that she had experienced. And she was open to learning about herself and other people and their needs. I couldn't possibly dislike someone like that. From the first, I wanted to get to know her better, and I give her credit for learning, for allowing her outlook to broaden and improve. Knightley did bring her up short near the end, but I don't think that her improvement was owing only to how much she valued his opinion, but largely to what she learned as she was bungling and interfering, misjudging and all the rest. Her ability to improve and her desire to see people she deals with happy show me that she was a person of perception and quality way beyond she knew, and I love her for that and am very glad to see her even happier at the end than she was even when she hadn't learned to grow.
Hearing your thoughts on Mr. Bennet’s parenting of the Bennet girls makes me curious to hear your thoughts on the parenting of Mrs. Bennet. I know you’ve done several videos where you mention her silliness and over the top behavior, which we can definitely all agree upon. But I have heard some of her behaviors being defended, particularly her ardent search for husbands for her girls and her awareness of how dangerous it would be for her daughters to not be married in that time period. What that would mean for their quality of life. There are definitely a few selfish motives, but overall she seems to be trying harder than her husband to ensure her daughters are well cared for. I’d love to hear your thoughts on Mrs. Bennet!
This is still a thing people get weirdly preachy about, especially if the character is the heroine in a story aimed at younger audiences. Some years ago someone went all anti on Pippi Longstockings of all things in my country, like "we should be looking up to her buddy Annika instead, she does her homework and eats her vegetables, we can't be teaching little girls that they should pick fights with burglars or bring horses into the house like Pippi does" and it was answered with "actually Pippi is a role model, she takes initiative and thinks outside the box" and it's like... if kids thought those stories were moralistic screeds about how adult wanted them to behave - whether it was to please their parents or become inspiring entrepreneurs or whatever - no one would like them in the first place. Curious how girls in stories are supposed to be role models while Huck Finn and the guys get to just live
Interesting! I loved Pipi Lingstockings and even though I probably was a well behaved child, I was always annoyed with Annika and thought she was boring. Which country are you from?
In a way this reminds me of that awful tree story. Even as a small child I disliked it yet people rhapsodize over it. The Giving Tree, maybe? That boy was a selfish stinker and what, we're supposed to be like the tree? I love other Shel Silverstein. That stripped down tree bothers me still if that's a lesson for children. Giving is good, it's the total Taker position of that boy that bothers me.
Who could read the Pippi Longstocking books and want to be like Annika? Pippi rescues her friends from villains, she's generous, she's brave, she thinks for herself, she's unique! Annika is Everygirl. Annika is the everyday, humdrum reality, and Pippi is swashbuckling, pearl-diving freedom.
I LIKE Emma! She and I share so many faults, such as enjoying learning something until it gets to be too much work. We both play the piano -- but not above average. Emma draws, I sing, but neither of us is willing to put the effort into it to be really good. Both of us had parents who spoiled us in some ways but asked for a lot in return that was not readily seen by outsiders. I could go on, but I think you will get the idea. Now if you want me to name a heroine who makes me "sick and wicked" -- but I don't want to start a Fanny War!
I was so surprised the first time I heard you quote Austen as creating a heroine no one but her would like since she's long been one of my favorites. She has such zeal and certainty, and when it leads her astray she reflects on the pain she's caused and it causes her pain! She learns so much from her experience and yet retains much of the best of her character.
Thank you for another awesome lecture. My job is very stressful and I listened to this on my lunch break. Your insightful analysis and lovely voice have cleared my mind. Now I can get back to work and finish the week. Thank you!
I loved Emma from my first reading despite her flaws. I don’t see her as overly condescending to most people. I see her as a genuinely good friend. Even when dealing with frustrating people she’s outwardly kind, even when inside she’s frustrated and irritated. Up til the picnic she’s never cruel or mean. When flaws are pointed out, she immediately sees them and attempts to correct them. Emma has been petted and cosseted all her life with no one higher than her family in the area to give her her place. A terrible disservice from her governess and father. As much as Knightly disparaged her, she listened and took correction while still loving him as a friend then romantically. She even felt guilty about not befriending her perceived rival. While I love Elizabeth Bennett, I find her a bit insufferable personally. She is very opinionated for someone who has little education and no society out of their local community.
Agree. Lizzie Bennett is okay and all but she's not Emma. He just made an error in judgement. Emma makes a huge transformation. Emma is a much more mature novel.
I always found Emma super likeable. I think I find her super relatable. I am not rich and was not popular but I find her pettiness relatable. I also always felt she had a good heart
I would love to hear Dr Octavia's thoughts on Emma versus Mrs Elton in the 'unlikeable ' stakes. I thoroughly enjoy the podcasts. They are always enlightening and thought provoking. Thank you.
Nice little discussion! Two of the nicest things about "Emma" are: the reader is encouraged to laugh at/judge Emma; and Emma gets a thorough comeuppance. So in writing an experimental, "unlikeable" heroine, Austen provided society with superior training model than the perfect heroine.
I've made it my tradition that when June and strawberry season comes, it is a time for rewatching/rereading Emma, so this video has come at a perfect time to add a little bit new subject to think about during the rewatch 🍓
Just finished Helena Kelly's book "Jane Austen The Secret Radical" in which she wants us to consider Mr Knightley as something of a villain (not so different from Mr Elton!). One reason she gives is land enclosure, which apparently was taking place in England in order to make agriculture more efficient. I'm no historian, so my knowledge is invented, but I suppose common land was enclosed by existing landowners (who might have had to bid for it?), but that land had previously been accessible to poorer people who could have grazed their pig or poultry and collected firewood & presumably trapped wildlife...so the poor were to become poorer and the rich, richer...also Harriet's gypsies might well have had traditional camping grounds that they had suddenly found unavailable ... and either gypsies or poor folk (those who didn't flee to the city for work?) became the poultry thieves whom Mr Woodhouse so fears. Trouble is, Austen makes Mr Knightley so much the gentleman that it is hard to see so many of his actions having an unsavoury motive: including his wanting to marry Emma, according to Ms Kelly! However enough of the claim makes sense for it to be worth consideration; is Mr Knightley enclosing the land - not necessarily to deprive the poor, but to prevent some other less scrupulous person from doing the same? I wonder too, if a similar question could be asked about another respectable character: Sir Thomas in Mansfield Park? If he was a slave owner, he didn't necessarily treat them badly (weren't slaves a valuable commodity?)... perhaps both men were in the uncomfortable position of having to do something they had rather not? The alternative for Sir Thomas would have been to sell his plantation to the highest bidder. Unless Austen wanted us to think about slavery (Fanny was effectively one to Mrs Norris), why did she even have Fanny mention that she thought about asking?
Hearing you say this about many classic literature being kind of guide books with model behavior and characters is such a revelation to me. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, because I know it's well beloved and everything, but when I recently read Little Women for the first time I was immensely disappointed. I love Jane Austen and I expected something of that sort by what I had heard about the book beforehand. But when I read it, it was like night time stories for little girls with sweet morals at the end of each chapter, so they might know how to behave correctly. And I thought the mistake was reading it as an adult and not having expected a children's book. But I guess know, it might be a children's book, but it's also just a book of it's time (even though Little Women was of course later).
Totally off topic: I read somewhere that when learning a foreign language we might remember nouns and verbs easier than adjectives. There're nuances, shades of meaning, words that were borrowed from other languages and assimilated, etc. My point is your speech is flawless, sophisticated and mellifluous. I love your vocabulary and you made me revise the adjectives! Thank you.
Excellent video. The first time I read Emma, I was 15 and like most teenagers fairly self-absorbed, and I resonated with the character of Emma. At that time, I had never seen any filmed adaptations of the novel, so I only had the book as my source. While Emma is not a " mean girl" she does have all the social power and position, that others apart from Mr. Knightly lack. As I have gotten older the less I enjoy the novel, not because it isn't well written, it's that I don't enjoy the character of Emma and how she treats the other characters in the novel. Mr. Knightly is indeed one of my most favorite male Austen characters though.
I love Emma, she’s my favourite Jane Austin character and I like the fact she learns throughout the book and has a partner she can’t dominate and can match her. Albeit I always imagine Mr K a little bit younger 😂
I really liked this video! Emma is my favourite book of Jane Austen and I am always interested to learn about it more. I hope one day you will do a video on Mr Knightley. I am very curious about his income and his role as a "gentleman farmer". He seldom uses his carriage and I always wonderedf if this was a bizzare behaviour or if it was a little strange but not very uncommon
Always enjoy your 'unpackings' of Austen (only wish they were longer:) Even though I have read all the novels several times (and even studied them a bit in grad school) you mine their riches in continually new ways❤️I'm personally a great admirer of Emily Dickinson and I'm more and more of the opinion that they were, in many ways, kindred spirits.
Hurrah! I was hoping you'd do a video on this 🙂. Pleaee do a video essay on the dialogue between Lizzy and Darcy, as I feel like their discourse shows how suited they are to each other.
That would be a fabulous topic! - their dialogues are quite Shakespearean, in the mould of Benedick and Beatrice from 'Much Ado About Nothing'. It is clearly beyond Caroline Bingley to keep up! - "“Do let us have a little music,” cried Miss Bingley, tired of a conversation in which she had no share" (ch.11).
@@DrOctaviaCox exactly! I love that we get a little of Darcys internal thoughts after that particular back n forth with Lizzy. Not only could she keep up but showed her strength of mind. Something which Darcy is very attracted to. Although Darcy isn't able to tell Elizabeth when he first fell in love with her, I think we can pin point that scene as having key elements that help to lay a foundation.
@@DrOctaviaCox Thank you for this, I so enjoy all your videos. Unrelated to this current one though, a question that has always piqued my curiosity is the following. Mr. Bennet is depicted as a man who loves to retreat to his "book room", take refreshment and enjoy reading. I've often wondered - what might have been the actual books in Mr. Bennet's library of that era that he enjoyed reading so much? A subject for a future video perhaps?
It's not so much that Emma is disliked as she is immature. She is quite a typical swelled-headed adolescent, indulged and cosseted by a father who is aging and well, frankly, a bit addlepated, as my grandmother would have said. It isn't until she is brought up short by Mr. Knightley after ridiculing and insulting a dear old family friend for her silliness and inability to curb her chattering tongue that Emma begins to look at her life and the lives of those about her more realistically and less through the rose-colored colored glasses of a romantic childhood.
What I particularly value in Emma (novel) is the shadowing/ mirroring with Jane Fairfax… who is Emma‘s opposite. It makes a reader absolutely want to turn the story around from every perspective… and yet as a character Emma does go through a very painful arc of character development … and she becomes a better person through hard won lessons.
I know one person who cannot stand Jane Fairfax -- my husband! He is almost as great an Austen fan as I am, and Jane Fairfax is someone we simply cannot agree about. I'm not joking. He becomes very heated, so I just don't bring up the subject. It's rather comical!
As I see it, the story of Jane Faifax is almost the standard romance (poor impoverished yet genteel girl has a romance with a dashing young man who loves her but dependant on his rich aunt and about to be forced to become a governess and is forced to watch her suitor dance attendance on the local mean rich girl until....) but retold from the viewpoint of said local rich meangirl
Dr Cox, I wonder if you could reflect sometime on marriage in Austen's work. I loved your video on the unhappy marriages, but what about the ones put forward as happy endings? Do you think she was making fun of expectations here too, both for women and for novels? I have always thought Henry Tilney and Catherine would have trouble communicating as she really doesn't understand his humour... And Emma and Mr Knightley? And Fanny and Edmund? All sorts of problems ahead there....
The thing with Emma is she does not think before she speaks. She is vain but she does have a good heart and eventually redeems herself. Lizzie drives me crazy sometimes. Especially with Wickham. Anyone could tell he is not right. She just had made up her mind that Darcy was a scoundrel
I come back to Emma again and again because I can’t decide if I like her. There is so much genius in the dance Austen does to create a character so…maybe variegated. I haven’t found a word for it. But I have people in my life that I feel the same way about! 😆 thanks for these great videos!
I always related to Emma more than any of the other female characters because of her flaws. Her intentions were based on a genuine desire to help others even if she misperceived the reality of the situation. She is my favorite because of her lack of achieving her “potential” in music, art and other pursuits. Emma is someone I could see as a friend.
Can you do a video on the talkative characters of Jane Austen like Mrs Jennings and Ms. Bates? I find them the most likeable but in the books their behaviour is frowned on. Is it that an extroverted personally was looked down at or was only for men? In Pride and Prejudice Mr Darcy's cousin is very chatty and a bit of a gossip as he likes the jabs Elizabeth throws at Darcy and he speaks a bit openly of the issue with Bingley without calling names, but he's looked at as very pleasant.
Interesting thoughts. I always thought of Ms. Bates as talking so much out of anxiety. Her place in society is greatly reduced as she ages and she seems to understand that she needs her friends more than they need her. In that vein, she is overboard to please and thank. Mrs. Jennings, on the other hand, doesn't have enough to occupy her. Now there would have been a formidable business owner in a much later era.
@@foozjen @foozjen hmm! Interesting point of view! I can't remember if it's mentioned if Ms. Bates was always so talkative or if it increases with time, I'll put Emma on my reading list and check into it again. And Mrs. Jennings as too idle? I can see what you mean, although Mrs Jennings is the type that can run a business empire and make time for afternoon tea and the latest local gossip! That's what makes her so eyebrow raising and special!
@@londongael414 Marianne didn't give anyone much of a chance did she? She really portrays the idealism and overzealous nature youth can have sometimes! I think Mrs Jennings was very nice and well intentioned and wanted to help everyone, even if they preferred her not to be. And with Col. Brandon, I suppose there was the added element in that she was guessing and not very sure about his affairs, which made them even more interesting and in need of her help. But she's a great character!
I loved Emma as a character from the first time I read the book. It was the first Austen novel I ever read. I found her utterly charming and was amused by her gaffes. She never struck me as malicious and her cruel statement to Miss Bates at Box Hill really was a culmination of things crumbling around her without her yet realizing why. I do have sympathy for her even though she was in the wrong there. Emma is beautiful, rich, young, smart but very human. I think she genuinely cared for her close friends but, with the class system such as it was, she thought she knew better thsn them. She has her views thwarted again and again and we see her altering them on the sly. The part with the party at the Coles was always very funny to me.
In the novel, all of Emma’s average qualities are exposed, and maybe people, when reading, are disappointed to find some version of themselves in the pages. Most people have gone through phases they’re not proud of! I started liking the character when she cried after prompted to recognize her mistreatment of poor Mrs. Bates. Her behavior was out of control, but her heart was in the right place.
I came to Jane Austen later in life. So in reading Emma, I was long past 21 years of age. I never disliked Emma, but saw her as young, naïve, and thinking she knew everything. Of course she couldn't see things as Mr. Knightley could because he is much older and more experienced in life. Thank goodness He checked her or she would have become quite incorrigible in her older age.
Wonderful discussion as always. A question if your time allows: Were other novelists presenting psychological realism and realistic heroines in their novels? I'm wondering just how innovative this was. Perhaps that's for another video! Thank you for all you do. -Janet
I'm always happy when I see a new essay of yours about a Jane Austen novel! 💖 Ms Cox, I have a random question: did you know about Jane Austen July (around the booktube community)? If yes, do you already considered to participate ou make a video content recommend some books about the challenges? I bet you have I lot to contribute! Thanks so much (and sorry about my broken english).
I have indeed heard of Jane Austen July! In terms of the challenges... For challenge 2, 'Read something by Jane Austen that is not one of her main six novels', I would definitely recommend 'Lady Susan'. It's a short epistolary novel, probably written in 1794, with a wickedly funny and wonderfully guilt-free anti-heroine. There is quite a good recent adaptation of it actually, staring Kate Beckinsale, although - annoyingly - it is called 'Love and Friendship' rather than 'Lady Susan' (which could satisfy challenge 6, 'Watch a direct screen adaptation of a Jane Austen book'). In terms of challenge 3, 'Read a non-fiction work about Jane Austen or her time', I would recommend John Mullan's 'What Matters in Jane Austen?' for those who are just dipping their toe into literary analysis, and for those who are a bit more familiar with scholarly criticism, Claudia Johnson's 'Jane Austen: Women, Politics, and the Novel' and Marilyn Butlers 'Jane Austen and the War of Ideas' are classics.
@@DrOctaviaCox I enjoyed 'Jane Austen at Home' by Lucy Worsley. Lots of interesting background about the times, and she has a marvellous chatty style which makes it fun to read.
If Austen wanted Emma to be unlikeable, she failed, at least in my case. The reader learns early on that Emma's ideas are almost always wrong and she will have to be confronted dramatically with reality before she will realize it. But she is without malice and has a merry spirit, which is endearing despite her poor judgement. Of the several poor decisions she makes in the novel, only the cruel comments to Miss Bates are really spiteful (and so the only ones Mr Knightley really calls her on the carpet about). What I especially like about Emma was how quick she was to make apologies and attempt to make amends when she discovers her errors -- for instance, she goes to Harriet about the attempt at matchmaking her with Mr Elton as soon as she finds out it has gone amiss. Perhaps ironically, modern readers seem to like Emma and dislike Fanny Price, who is much more the model of what the readers of Austen's time would've thought feminine: obedient, moral, faithful. But then even Austen's mother found Fanny "insipid." (And yes, I know Fanny has her fans, but I think in general she is less well-liked than Emma.)
I still feel like her treatment of Harriet was very poor - she really was using her as a doll, only to discard her when she became a nuisance; it's not like they really remained friends at the end of the book. Emma basically thinks "I wish I'd never met her, I wish she'd disappear", which isn't very kind of her. That always rubbed me wrong, because at the end of the book, you expect Emma to be better.
@@bib4eto656 True. In many ways Austen was a classist. Emma's attempt to train Harriet to be a gentlewoman and bring her into the upper classes was completely wrongheaded, in Austen's eyes, giving her ideas above her proper station. In the end, Harriet was happier with her own kind. On the other hand, Fanny Price...
Emma’s cruelty to Miss Bates at the picnic is one of the best moments in Austen, for its depiction of conduct the character knows is wrong, and about which she immediately and genuinely suffers remorse, and for which she seeks to make amends. I’ve used that scene in teaching for decades; it makes vivid so much complexity. I adore Emma, partly because she can be so irritating. As we all can. 😉
It’s funny how a person described as unlikeable to the reader is looked up to and adored by all the other characters in the story. The only one who criticizes her is the man whom ultimately falls in love with her.
Emma is my favourite - always has been, but she's even better if one has been immersed in Mrs Radcliffe and is in need of an antidote, as I found out a few years ago. That said, the best character in any Jane Austen novel is Jane Austen, and in Emma she is particularly conspicuous. (Her comparative reticence in Mansfield Park makes for a slower read, I think, but the payoff in the last chapter is well worth the effort). Emma's great virtue to my mind is that she can see the humour in the situation when it turns out that she's been a bit of a chump: she is lazy but does have penetration and self-awareness when she applies herself.
I feel like I'm one of the only people that loved Emma as a character the entire way through and found her flaws endearing. Her flaws mostly stemmed from naivete and not outright malice, and when she did act purposely cruel (like when she snapped at Miss Bates) she was immediately regretful. I honestly think she is one of the best characters I've ever read in fiction
I’m very excited to watch this video in its entirety! I don’t know much about Emma. Not as much as Austen’s other works. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
I've always liked Emma. I don't love her the way I love Elizabeth Bennet but I definitely like her. Elizabeth seems more self-aware than Emma, so that makes her more charming to me. Thanks for the analysis, Dr. Cox. I tend to let Jane Austen wash over me rather than really thinking about it. That is, until I listen to you :D
Without a Mr. Knightly, what would Emma have become? There is nobody else to call her on her bs. It says much of her character that she is willing to be guided by his perspective and his honesty with her when she is not exposed to criticism from anyone else in her life. It would be easy to brush off everything he has to say, but she takes it to heart.
I waited YEARS after I read the other novels to read Emma. But I ended up grudgingly liking her but especially the novel itself just as much as the rest of the Austen novels.
Ironically, Emma being “unlikeable” is exactly why I like her. It makes her character stand out amongst novel heroines. Emma is flawed and does terrible things. She makes mistakes and has bad decisions. Ultimately, this makes her a complex human and therefore an interesting and memorable character. I think modern writers worry too much about making their heroines “likeable”. This is partly because female characters get criticized much more often than male characters. Due to this harsh criticism, I think a lot of writers overthink and end up making flawless female characters who they think will be “likeable”, but they ultimately fall flat. Well written characters should not be likeable all the time because ultimately they are human. Even the women close to us in our everyday lives, who we love, get on our nerves at times.
I have to admit that I have always found the character of Emma to be slightly annoying but to be honest, I never really thought about why I felt that way. When I think about it now, It might be her egotistical attitude toward others that I find grating …..although a cultivated young woman, she has little life experience outside of her tiny world and yet she felt she could move people and their emotions around as if pieces on a chess board.
I found nothing positive about her. Her best qualities are that she is rich and good looking. She has no discipline to develop her natural talents into anything other than passable, has no clue about anything and is very self important. I dislike how rude she was to Ms. Bates and she only feels badly because Mr Knightley scolds her. I have no idea why Mr Knightley feels and thinks so highly of her. I think he sees what she could be, not what she actually is. Her father forces his opinion on everyone and they have to do what pleases him but noone sees him as annoying but if Ms. Bates talks too much she's a bother and everyone rolls their eyes. Emma is a hard pass for me.
@@leannerae Something similar could be said of Darcy. He is rich, good looking, and admits his pride was never curbed. He treated Bingley like a child. And he deserved the kick in the... pants Lizzie gave him after his first proposal.
@@jmarie9997 I think Jane Austen's characters are all flawed in some way. Darcy has very obvious flaws and Lizzy doesn't hold back in pointing them out and rejecting him. Lizzy has issues to address in herself as well but, that's beside the point. I personally don't get the idea that he treats Charles like a child, more that he likes him very much and tries his best to guide him in what he thinks, as a result of his life in the gentry class, to be a right course of action. And because Charles is new to that world, he looks to Darcy very attentively. While Darcy would have a bias for Charles possibly marrying his sister, the points he has against Jane are supported by Charlotte, in her opinion of Jane being too reserved and Lizzy herself is reluctant to admit, but very aware of her family's indiscretions. So Darcy isn't hating on Jane and pulling excuses out of thin air. I think that he does take Lizzy's criticism to heart and really tries to makes a genuine change. The great thing about Jane Austen's writing is how rich the personalities she create are and how each reader forms different opinions, which is totally fine. 💛
Another brilliant explication by Dr. Cox! One might ask what makes Emma a heroine (which I believe s recognizing and improving her own folly, flaws, and foibles. She doesn't really "suffer", that is, undergo anything, really, just realization. One might also find the answer in the figure of Jane Fairfax. Jane Fairfax -- how we "rave" about Jane Fairfax! Jane Fairfax is the "perfect heroine", and my how she suffers. Jane is beautiful, musically accomplished (in the first style), restrained, intelligent, tolerant, patient, discreet and possessing of MASSIVE self-possession, self-control and self-restraint. She wins our eternal sympathy as she contemplates -- in particularly dark terms -- the life and profession of governess, analogising it as she nearly does to white slavery. Mrs. Elton as usual, rids Jane's discourse of all sublety and over-states the analogy. It is also a wonder that Knightly, so strategically named, as are all of Austen's characters, doesn't take Jane away from "that Puppy". Why exactly, Austen leaves us not sure. A more useful companion, a better educator as mother for his children, a lady of the manner that all could respect, she is. Is there, despite all issues of character, the issue of class surging to the fore? That is not indicated, but may possibly be expected to be understood. Perhaps. But no, Knightly is fixed (or fixated) on Emma. Yes, "he held her first when she was just three weeks old". One wouldn't want to put too much interpretation into that because it might begin to suggest the weird and untoward. And yes, his "strawberries" are "ripening fast", another strike of Austen's wonderfully jocular ribadlry. Thus expresses Knighlty's desire to marry and settle down most graphically. It was a surging undercurrent but now it's out in the open. Though I would not ascribe this to Austen, Knightly is almost like a Svengali, a Rasputin, a Henry Higgins, willing the woman he loves into being, creating her out of wholecloth out of "the average young lady with all her flaws, pettiness, vanity, diffidence masked by busy-body machinations. We are satisfied that Emma is at the end grown up. But are we sure of her depth? Her kindliness? There is an argument for the idea that these remain unsure, for the kindness to Miss Bates was extracted by force and her kindness to Harriet ("harried") is for the purpose of instrument, that is, exploiting though not evilly her own social superiority. Or is it? The novel presents a rather interesting dilemma, namely that Emma feels she ought to take Jane Fairfax as intimate friend, but instead takes Harriet. That too says much about Emma -- she takes the easy road. Here, even Mrs. Elton is Emma's superior. My God is Austen good! Emma's rejection of Jane does not seem to indicate jealously, but rather envy and annoyance that Jane has worked hard to fulfill all the expectation of the "modern" young lady and succeeded palpably. "I simply rave about Jane Fairfax and I am determined to do what I can...", says Mrs. Elton, herself far from the picture of an ideal pastors wife: she's loud, crass, outspoken, not particularly bright, full of her self, nothing of that which a vicar's wife should represent. Emma, Jane, Mrs. Weston, Harriet, Mrs. Elton, Miss Bates -- as usual, Austen masters for us and conveys to us an whole universe of enlightenment womanhood, and it is not always pretty. Dr. Cox always inspires us to truly think about Austen's figures, their actions, the contracts between them and, of course, the contrast of their fates. My their fates are telling. In the case of the novel "Emma", perhaps the message is that the ordinarily catty, vain, silly but not heartless or brainless or truly malicious young lady (though Emma has her moments of maliciousness) does have a chance to win the heart of a truly good (knightly) gentleman, provided he is a saint, while so-called "perfect" young ladies may fall victim to dastards, cads, roues, and villains masquerading as "puppies". Oh my! How true!
I don’t think I know anyone who doesn’t like Emma. I always assumed that Fanny Price had the honour of being the less liked Austen heroine. But I can see why Emma might have been disliked in her time. She was quite chaotic I think, not very ladylike 😅 I think Jane Bennet is the Austen character I dislike the most, and yes, I think it says a lot about me. But also, she’s not the heroine of her own story. I love this channel. I was telling my friends that is like taking the literature class I was never allowed to take. It makes me happy. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us 🥰 Greeting from Mexico ☺️
I just discovered you, your channel, and I am excited to listen to your analysis of Jane Austen‘s works. This is only the second video I’ve listened to, but it seems to me you spent more time explaining why Elizabeth Bennet is likable than why Emma Woodhouse is unlikable. Maybe you could do another video focusing on that? The video was very interesting and I like your insights but I missed the point of the video.🤷♀️😄
What an interesting question you pose at the end. It made me reflect. I love Emma, but when did I start liking this character? Did I follow her story arc and come to like her, or did I see Clueless before I ever encountered Emma? Did I come to Emma already won over by her modern-day incarnation, Cher? I can't remember.
If you saw Clueless before reading or seeing an Emma adaptation that is possible. Cher is lovable but spoiled. I think that might have made me see Emma differently.
My favorite Jane Austen novel is Mansfield Park. From the point of view of likability I've always known that Fanny Price is not a woman whom I would like to be my friend, but while reading the novel I identify with her much more than I have with anybody else. (That is why I deeply disliked the 1999 movie, in which Fanny became a spunky, wisecracking young woman, ready to embrace the 21st century.) I would love to hear your thoughts about Mrs. Norris, who, I think, is the most malicious, cruel, despicable character Austen has created.
Yes, that movie didn't worth much. I noticed as well how much it killed the heroine's spirit and the book's with it. I advise you to watch the 2007 version instead. It keeps much more in touch with the book.
As someone who's favorite Austen might possibly also be "Mansfield Park," I get disliking the 1999 film. However... I also often find that its detractors do not realize when the opening titles state: "Based on the novel *[...and] early journals and letters by Jane Austen.*" At times, when the film's Fanny is reading something aloud, she is actually reading from Austen's juvenilia, incl. excerpts from "Love & Friendship" for example. I.e., it is not a random "spunky wise-cracking woman" that becomes the film's Fanny: rather, it is that the film intended to depict a character loosely based on Jane Austen herself. And as in the novel, Fanny Price is constantly in positions to observe those around her, as was Austen, this seemed fitting. So sometimes I think it's a bit unfair: it may not be super faithful to the novel, but in my opinion, it is super faithful to Jane Austen. I love & study the movies. And so I can understand why book lovers would disdain liberties with adaptation. I am a bit more relaxed, personally. But moreover, I immediately recognize that there are some serious challenges to adapting a character like Fanny to the screen. Frankly, I prefer an adaptation to flex into its own medium & makes interesting choices, rather than strive for strict fidelity to source material. Obviously, fidelity is valuable. But it is not more valuable than telling a good story in the medium you're using. And fidelity *always* fails. I often argue that a very "faithful" adaptation would probably be something like a Terrence Malik movie. Very internalized, plot events are almost incidental to this interiority, and a main character that things happen *to* more than they enact things themselves. And as a consequence, such a film would likely be unsuccessful commercially. (Although people who love films like Malik's types would adore it!)
@@malexander4094 Fidelity to Austen would make the film fit to be called Jane Austen or something like it, so why call it Mansfield Park? And there is an excellent Mansfield Park BBC series from 1983 which is faithful to the novel spirit. It has an additional great asset - Anna Massey as Mrs. Norris - and what a Mrs. Norris she is!
@@avidreader111 I'm familiar with the BBC series. When you prioritize strict "accuracy" & faithfulness, you get these multi-part, long-format productions. Great work goes into them! But....the BBC "Mansfield Park" is 4.5 hours long. In 5-6 hours, I could just read the novel. Similar for the BBC "Pride & Prejudice" ...It may be justly hailed for its accuracy (although it seems many forgive the times it is NOT accurate!) but in the name of that, it's 6 hrs, and again in that time I could read most/all of the novel. This is not squeamishness about long runtimes. A number of my favorite films are 3-4 hrs long. But none of them are adaptations. So just because something is longer & more faithful does not always make it better, in my opinion. I am FAR more interested in something making its mark than simply recreating or simulating a nearly exact experience from its material. It's like when a musician makes a cover that sounds just like the song they're covering. I think that's boring. (Obviously there are exceptions to this, like the Netflix "Persuasion.") In my opinion, the "Mansfield Park" film is not only true to Austen's spirit, but it captures much about the novel that in fact is NOT captured in the BBC series. And, again while the novel itself is possibly my favorite novel, I personally also think the film actually handles the ending better. But again, here "better" is relative to the medium. Re: title, it's adapting "Mansfield Park." Not Jane Austen's life.
I think Emma was purposefully made an unlikeable character because she couldn’t stand the prince at the time who requested that she dedicate a book to him. Being a girl of good upbringing she did as she requested and dedicated the novel “Emma” to him, making her character unlikable was to probably get back for her dislike of the prince regent. (Fine, I’ll dedicate something to you, but everyone will like the main character as much as I like you.)
Thank you, I enjoyed that! I enjoyed your others, too. I like the ones where you look at characters most, though I also liked the social status one, as I hadn't realised how perilous was the status of the Bingleys.
Bingley’s snobbish sisters would of course have loved to have been born into the gentry. On the other hand, their friendly down-to-earth brother seems at ease with himself and the world and, as long as he didn’t lose his fortune, his social position was assured. Society was less rigid than is often supposed and at grand functions Bingley would have met other nouveau riche characters and thus not automatically have felt like a fish out of water. Moreover, some of the aristocrats and gentry he met would have been sensible characters like Darcy and Bingley would thus have been liked and admired for his friendly and unpretentious character by other admirable uppercrust figures like Mr Knightley.
@@glendodds3824 You're right about Mr Bingley - lovely and make would always see him right. But I feel I understand Miss Bingley's feelings better. Mansfield Park really shows how vital it was as a woman to marry well. Makes me glad I live now.
![Digital Circus Episode 4 [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/abZtsmMUbJo/mqdefault.jpg)
If you like the work I do, then you can support it here:
www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=D8LSKGJP2NL4N
Thank you very much indeed for watching my channel.
Can't afford to do that, but I do watch the ads because (I believe) you get more money when we watch the full ad x
@@JaneAustenAteMyCat💔🍷
It struck me that the description of the “perfect” heroine sort of matches the image of Jane Fairfax, as perceived by Emma and as recreated by Miss Bates through Jane’s letters (so in a way she also becomes fictional, in the sense that we only know her from this intermediation of letters), and Emma is jealous of this perfection, almost as if Jane Austen showed us that she could have written a perfect character and actively chose not to.
Then, as Jane comes back, and starts being a character in the main narrative, she denies being perfect herself and more and more “cracks” appear, until we realise that even the picture of angelic perfection is a human being, with flaws (which is when Emma starts to like her). So to me, there are many layers inside the novel where Jane Austen questions this concept of the perfect heroin
I was thinking the same thing! Also, I think it's interesting that Jane Fairfax story (of a perfectly accomplished, beautiful, young woman with a tragic backstory and who is saved from poverty and becoming a governess by marrying a rich gentleman) is a lot more in line with the kind of dramatic kind of stories that were written back in the day. Jane Austen could've easily made Jane the main character (there was definetly enough plot there), but she chose, rather, to write about the blunders of a rich girl who had "very little to distress or vex her" and that was just pure Austen brilliance.
@@brubs2556 you’re right, Jane Fairfax’ story has everything it takes to be a very dramatic story in and of itself, and Emma would have been an antagonist in that story, flirting with Frank Churchill under her nose just for her own amusement, meaning nothing by it. Reversing our perspective by showing the pov of the careless rich girl (the heroin that no one but JA will like) IS brillant, but from our current frame of interpretation, I am also wondering at the feminist implications. There is rivalry between Emma and Jane, for accomplishments, for men, for manners, yet JA chooses to not pit them against each other (like Elinor and Lucy, or Lizzie and Caroline for example) but to make them friends once all the misunderstandings have been cleared. That shows growth from Emma, but I think there is something quite revolutionary in it too, to transcend this easy trope and create something much more interesting
@@maried5178 Yes! It's almost like she purpusefully flipped the roles, made the antagonist the main character, and therefore, instead of showing these two women as rivals and opposites, one good and one bad, made the story be about the girl that would be the antagonist, which in turn made the story and the characters more realistic giving them depth, growth and character development to the point where by the end of the book, they become friends.
To me, it almost feels like she planned Jane's story as if the book were about her, giving a rich background and plot, and instead of writing it, left in all to happen on the background of her novel about Emma. I mean, the amount of creativity and insightfulness! She's a wonder!
And yet we still stick with Emma in all her mistakes and want to pinch Jane Fairfax BECAUSE she is so perfect and, well, elegant.
@@begewemom I can assure you, the guys reading the book do not want to pinch Jane Fairfax. Even Mr. Knightly was quite taken by her, even though his heart was already attached elsewhere.
I've been reading through the Comments and, so far, I have not found one person who mentions something I think is important to understand the character of Emma Woodhouse. She is trapped. When the story begins she has lost her best friend and the person who has made her life bearable. She has watched her sister and her governess and probably other people grow up and marry and have the possibility of some choice in what they do with their lives, while she has been unanimously chosen to be the spinster daughter who spends her life being a Prop to Papa. How many girls of 19 would assume the burdens she does so cheerfully? A day with Mr. Woodhouse would have me bangin' my head on the door jamb! Of course she thinks well of herself. She is handsomer and cleverer and richer than the people around her. But she also has the prospect of serving as keeper to Papa for the next twenty years at least. I think one of the saddest speeches in literature is Emma's "“I must beg you not to talk of the sea. It makes me envious and miserable;-I who have never seen it!"
I couldn’t agree more.
Yes, she seems to have very little to do but gossip and scheme.
@@onawal931 Emma runs the house efficiently, she does charitable work among the poor and sick of the area, and above all she puts up with he father. That's a full-time job there. However as you say all she does is "gossip and scheme," I assume your opinion of Emma and mine are so far apart that we could never agree.
It is her resolution to never marry, so she set up the trap herself? Also her reason is that she cannot believe that she might meet anyone better than her whom she could look up to.
@@lexicornix7530 Her resolution to never marry means nothing. It might be explained as "sour grapes." Emma is stuck in a situation and she is making the best of it by emphasizing its advantages. She is being realistic. How likely is she to meet someone she would want to marry? It's a good thing Mr. Knightley lives so near.
Of all of Austen’s heroines (and even some “villains”), Emma has been the one for whom my feelings have changed greatly and repeatedly, and I love her for it.
My first read through (I was 13 years old) I thought Emma was hilarious. What a silly, bumbling girl to be so sure of so many things, only to be proven wrong over and over again. I had not yet made any “big” mistakes in my life, or I was entirely oblivious of any harm I might have cause up to that point, so Emma was far from relatable and, so, comical.
On my second read a few years later, I had grown more self aware and, therefore, more self conscious. I had started to notice some of my shortcomings. I hated Emma then. I was frustrated with her ego and her delusions. I think I saw some similarities between her and myself.
Several years after that, I made a social blunder that left me questioning everything about myself. I looked back on my past behavior and noticed a pattern. I wasn’t malicious, but I was ignorant and careless. That’s when I turned to Emma again.
I thought, “Emma did something very cruel. Unintentionally, but still. She felt miserable, too. But she tried to make amends, she put in the effort, and she grew to be better. I can try to be better, too.”
I love Emma for being my constant in my journey to self improvement. I can understand why some may not like her, but to me she is dear.
This is why Emma is so relatable. Even the "best" of us make mistakes or say the wrong thing or have thoughts that aren't very nice or any number of things that would make us like Emma. And like Emma, we can all be capable of growth and betterment.
Exactly. I've made some huge mistakes in my life that affected others in a negative way and I learned to be better. So when I read Emma I exhaled and fell in love with this novel. She's like me!! I am forever grateful to Austen for this novel, which is my favorite. 💕💕
Wonderful!
The point is that it's a BILDUNGSROMAN.
That's what so ironic about Emma and Austen. She (Emma) is supposed to be the least likable of the heroines, but I found the opposite true. She is the most believable of all the main characters. The others are too sweet, two brilliant, too perceptive and constant, or two plain and moral, and I'm not even mentioning the Dashwoods.
Mr. Knightly knew who he was marrying, and he was no fool.
I have always loved Emma. To me, she always felt like a caged bird. From a young age, she’s forced into her life role. Despite the fact that she lives so close to London & Box Hill, she has never been to either in 21 years. Her neighborhood and acceptable social circle is extremely isolated.
She’s forced to learn to be manipulative with her father to gain any ounce of freedom and to properly perform her role as hostess. Despite that, she’s not resentful, partly because she recognizes some of her privilege.
She is more clever and well-educated that everyone around her, save the Knightly brothers, but unlike them she has no freedom to see the world or find equals (in cleverness) to socialize with.
As a result of her loneliness and inability yo relate to or socialize with many peers. She is extremely imaginative and escapes to them.
I think modern audiences struggle a lot with Emma because they only see the privilege and immaturity but don’t understand the societal restraints.
I think people dislike her because they misunderstand her a lot.
Emma has limited worldly experience and lives a fantasy existence at the start of the novel. According to Mr Knightley, she sees other people as her 'play-things' and part of her fantasy world. She gradually comes into contact with painful reality, loses her innocence, and finds herself through acquiring knowledge and experience. Emma becomes a throughly lovable heroine in the eyes of Mr Knightley and for very many Austen readers. Perhaps also for Jane Austen and yourself Dr Octavia? Through Emma we can see some of our own naivety, limitations, misreadings of ourselves, situations, and other people. Love your insightful analyses - many thanks!
Yes - interestingly, I think of Catherine Moreland as very much like Emma Woodhouse, but without the arrogance… hence I like her a lot more 😊
I agree with you
@@EH23831 Interesting- I didn't care for Catherine Moreland, she is probably one of my least favorites - and much prefer Emma, who I felt seemed to be that of a stronger mind.
Ironic how Mr Martin is literally required to ask Mr Knightley's PERMISSION before he can offer for Harriet but no one thinks of him as being in a fantasy and using others as his "playthings".
And yet everyone talks about Catherine Morland's lack of worldly experience. It would be interesting to make a list comparing the two -- their strengths, weaknesses, and how long it takes for them to mature. BTW, I like Catherine Morland!
I love Emma. I think, textwise, it has even more bite than "Pride and Prejudice" and I love that Emma learns in the end and that she finds a partner who sees that she is capable of change and encourages this is her. If there are no flaws, there is no conflict, so there is no story and also no development. Emma has great character development.
I agree. The thing about Emma, generally, is that she is a gloriously fallible human being: she has moments of envy, jealousy, laziness; she misjudges people very often, and, like Lizzy, often pre-judges them. But she seldom acts out of malice. Often she thinks that she's acting in the best interest of her subject, and out of her position in the little society of Highbury.
And she isn't always wrong: Mr. Knightley concedes that her "mentoring" of Harriet has been beneficial (he strongly objected to Emma taking Harriet under her wing, in great part because *he* also is doing some misjudging). She also has genuine affection and patience for her father, genuine affection for Mrs. Weston; and for her sister and sister's children. And she exhibits the cardinal gift of all Austen's heroines: the capacity to learn. She stumbles, but she doesn't quit; when she understands she's wrong, she admits it, and feels it.
I think Emma stands separately from P&P as the conflict is so different from other Austen novels. The heroine has no real stakes to marry at any point but at the end of the book for love. In Pride and Prejudice, the main textual conflict stems from the entailment of the house and the sisters' need to marry well in order to basically live after their father dies. Therefore, the conflict is not in character but in the situation they are in. Emma's whole conflict is in how she conducts herself, she acts out of boredom and selfishness, and she creates a conflict borne from character deficiency (as you said). She has admittedly had no actual problems in her life up until the beginning of the book. In that way, the plot is unlike any other. I love it because there are no actual real financial or 'dire stakes', however, there are massive social stakes and pressure upon Emma, and with those stakes, she learns to grow and learn how to be better.
I am one to prefer Pride and Prejudice personally, however, Emma is amazing and best displays Austen's keen utilization of character growth and development.
Could you elaborate on “bite?” Just curious as to better understand your opinion.
@@Molly-tv5sv I’m inclined to agree with you, I don’t think they are comparable. Not to be redundant and repeat everything you just said but to concur that the characters and story are too distinct for a direct comparison. Even if you may favor one story to another. I’m a Pride and Prejudice fan, it’s possibly my favorite book of all time. But it’s not that I don’t care for Emma, it’s that the story didn’t resonated with me quite like Pride and Prejudice did.
@@AnABSOLUTEBarbarian I feel like in "Emma" there are more characters being painted as flawed and ridiculous. The Eltons, for example. I think, the obervations made about them by Jane Austen are even more sarcastic and the tone is overall more satirical than other Austen books. That's what I mean by it having more "bite". I love Emma, because I have been grinning and laughing the most about these intelligent observations about human beings.
Emma, to me, is a wonderfully flawed heroine. A very intelligent woman who today would be running her own successful business. Emma was bored and under-stimulated, who had to make her own dubious 'amusement' to keep her brain active. That others suffered because of this is all too believable. Emma was a product of Austen's time, however, self-dedicated to a selfish father, the loyal daughter. Austen's best novel IMHO.
I agree with everything you wrote except the last sentence. I really despised the controlling father, who was fine with destroying her life to keep her around to fluff his pillow. (He probably wore and bored his poor wife to death.) I never come to like Emma or the supercilious, father-substitute Knightley. Emma would have made a good lawyer, but in her time she was stuck in a place where she could only ruin other people’s lives for entertainment.
@@catherinehubbard1167 I think Austen may have been calling on her own experience with her rather selfish mother to create Emma's and her father's relationship. I expect Austen put up with a lot of unreasonable behaviour from mum because that's what daughters did (and still do), but she also loved her, as Emma loved her father. Mr Woodhouse was, indeed, a selfish, self-obsessed man, with an absolute upper-class sense of privilege. He took it for granted that everyone would drop everything to make sure he was looked after But he was the only parent Emma knew, and she loved him. One can love without actually liking of course, especially family. Of course, that selfishness, self-obsession and upper-class entitlement is inherited by Emma, the dutiful daughter. One of the many reasons the novel is so clever, ground-breaking, and rewarding.
@@hannahreynolds7611 Giver her another go. Emma is selfish, flawed, difficult, snobbish but the totally believable creation of a genius's brain.
@@catherinehubbard1167 i believe JA’s mom may have been a narcissist as the description to the parents in her books usually are exactly that! She was writing from her example
As she is only 21 I doubt that she would be running her own successful business. More likely she would be at university re-inventing the wheel and neglecting her studies to indulge in social media 'influencing'.
I felt bad for Emma and thought her flaws are understandable. From a modern perspective she's so isolated and almost lonely with her silly father and a very lenient governess who treats her more like a friend. She's kept far away from the realities of the world and her circle is so small and unfortunately stays that way. I didn't like that she marries Mr. Knightley without meeting more people, it's not like she has much of a choice and he's significantly older.
yes- when you think at 21 she had almost no friends and had never been to see the sea. Where as we often see characters in her other novels getting more opportunity to either travel or socialize.
He says that he was 16 when she was born and close to the end he says that he fell in love with her when she was 13 making him 29 at that time. Presumably this is the reason why he himself never married. Am I the onle one finding this disturbing? He is aware of that it is not his place to scold her when she did something wrong over the years. Her father acting rather like a grandfather (health issues, physical and mental immobility) puts Mr Knightley in a father position. If he has been into her for so long, why not propose earlier? Was he waiting for her to become more mature?
@@lexicornix7530 It never really bothered me since men in that time period usually married a woman quite a bit younger than them. If it were now when this story happened, then yes, it would be weird. I imagine he was waiting for her to finish maturing and helped her along the way, but then I rather like the character Mr. Knightley and think Emma can't really have done better.
@@lexicornix7530Emma can't marry until 21 UNLESS her father agrees. Mr Knightley probably figured it was useless to try. Once Emma is 'of age' she doesn't HAVE to have her father's permission, though she still wants it. But it does shift the dynamic of control over the decision away from Mr Woodhouse to Emma herself.
@@cmm5542 Would he assume his refusal? As heir he is a better match than his younger brother and by his brother's and her sister's marriage he is already part of the family.
Maybe that was why Jane Austen chose the name "Emma" for the novel. Her readers might have been genuinely confused about who they were supposed to view as the heroine, if Emma was so different from the typical central female character. P&P and S&S are titles that pit opposing concepts against each other (Persuasion is another concept), while Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey are named after estates. If you were inclined to think that Emma must be the foil of an as-yet unintroduced heroine, the title of the book would suggest otherwise, and maybe make you more inclined to forgive her vanity because the author clearly saw something in her.
It struck me that Austen also satirized the idea of “the perfect woman” in Pride and Prejudice when Miss Bingley describes such a woman and Elizabeth laughs at the idea of any such woman existing….thanks so much for these videos, I’m enjoying them immensely and learning a lot too!
I have always liked Emma. She made mistakes, even serious ones but she genuinely did mean well, and when faced with the error of her ways acknowledged her wrongs, felt genuine shame, and tried to repair the damage she had done. She grew as a person.
Exactly - the same arc that lets us forgive Darcy. When faced with the facts about himself - he reflected, grew and then acted upon this growth.
I wonder if Jane Austen's starting point for Emma was the question, 'What might I have been like if at an early age I had been an heiress in control of a fine country house with very little to constrain my opinions and behaviour?' I don't find Emma unlikeable but her social power is quite frightening at times. She is well meaning, but does not have the experience or knowledge to wield her power responsibly. Of all the people who witnessed her insult to poor Miss Bates, only Mr Knightly feels the necessity or right to rebuke her. Even the spiteful Mr Elton doesn't dare to attack her directly. Her power over Harriet is quite sinister, and nearly spoils Harriet's best chance of a happy life.
Such a good comment. The rich and powerful have little accountability.
I think that social power aspect is what makes Clueless a good adaptation, as a popular high school student is something that a lot of people can identify as having this unspoken power. A more direct modernization would need more explanation for the social hierarchy going on, I think. High school hierarchy is such a common trope in fiction nowadays that it really works.
@@sharo8760
Clueless is the best Jane Austen adaptation.
I named my daughter after this character created by my favorite author. She is now an English professor and questions this decision! This amusing plaque is on the wall of Austen’s Chawton house
“Emma Woodhouse was formed here with very little to distress or vex her “
My daughter is Elizabeth Anne and has always loved her name!
I think it's difficult for some people, including me, to read 'Emma' with a fresh mind. It is such a good story and has so many memorable characters that it lends itself to films and TV series, and I do think that film and TV adaptations soften or brighten the character of Emma and actually make her more attractive and likeable than perhaps the book justifies because they want ro present her as a 'modern' woman. But it is clear that Emma only has her seeming independence and her arrogance (if you like) because she is comfortable financially and will always be so. She says as much to Harriet, when she explains why she has no need to marry.
I don't find her dislikeable because I see her as mirror that Jane Austen holds up for us to see our reflections. We blush at her unkind words to Miss Bates and wonder how often we said similar things to undeserving friends or relations.
That said, 'Emma' the book breaks new ground across the board. It anticipates the village/town/and neighbourhood books of the 19th century. It seems almost as if it could have been written yesterday in its vividness and almost spare style of writing. There isn't an unnecessary line from start to finish, which anticipates the great short novels of the 20th century. It is packed with clues that Emma keeps missing, anticipating the early twentieth century crime writers.
It is a masterpiece, but it isn't my favourite Jane Austen novel, which certainly says more about me than about the book.
I agree. I don't dislike Emma, I dislike how she makes me feel about myself. She is an uncomfortable mirror held up to our dark sides. She doesnt act from malice but everyday prejudice and ignorance just like we do and it forces us to self reflect. I die when the line poorly done Emma is said because it brings back every moment a person I respect judged me or times I later judged myself. She grows and changes but you know she will continue to be a regular person.
What does it say about you?
Word - Maybe that’s why I find her so irritating… I have a bad feeling that I can be like her sometimes 😣
I agree it is a masterpiece, and it is my favorite of Austen's novels!
As the many adaptations demonstrate! I see the new adaptation of Persuasion, starring Dakota Johnson, has riled many (it’s obviously just a riff off the plot, not in anyway a dramatisation of the original) but I say the more* the merrier. Can never have too much ‘Austen’. *does not include Pride and Prejudice and Zombies 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
I suppose it might be the acceptance of verisimilitude as a modern reader, but even as a teen, Emma Woodhouse was always my favourite heroine. She held up a mirror to my teenage self, to be honest. It was always clear to me that she was a very kind and loving person, underneath all the snobbery and conceitedness. There were also some deep rooted anxieties she had about her role in her father's life. She was in fact a very maternal heroine. It was wonderful to follow her personal growth and progress in the novel. I'd even go so far as to say it might be considered an instruction book, albeit in disguise.
In my own experience, I found Emma a little tougher to like because she felt like someone you might actually know in real life, but I also found that made her more compelling to read. She made real mistakes, and I feel like that gave her so much more room to grow as a character. If her mistakes hadn't had so much of an effect on those around her, I wonder if I would have found her easier to like?
I also want to express how much I love your videos! You've made this era of writing feel so much more accessible to me through the context you provide. Thank you!
Thank you!
I recently reread Emma and, to me, in addition to all the analysis and comments here, it's Austen's profoundly ironic take on the general question of happiness in life that she ponders in all her novels. As shown in Emma, happy people are those who are very lucky in life and unremarkable. : )
A recipe for happy life, as embodied in Emma: good health, financial independence, close-knit community of relatives and friends, and - very Austenian - a love marriage to a close friend.
Emma and her circle are rather uncurious and perfectly content in the positions that their time and society prescribes. As I understand, Emma does not feel the confinements of her position, unlike, for instance, Austen herself. Emma does not want to step out and be a writer, or a musician, a scientist etc. She is not intellectual but very social. Smart and clever, but men do not ever find her intelligence "threatening." Very fitting for a woman of her era and her society.
Emma's sanguine and easy-going temper is another key ingredient for happiness. Not having excessive empathy or sensitivity, not overthinking helps a lot to be content in life. : ) She notices Jane or Harriet's shaky positions, but does not lose her sleep over that.
Despite her shortcomings, Emma gets away with everything and gets all she wants, like Frank Churchill. I think it's another sharp observation about how some people are just very lucky for no apparent reason.
I also think Austen is fascinated by modeling a perfect position in life for a woman: Emma is as independent as an unmarried young woman of her era could be. Big wealth and no controlling figures.
I actually find the novel's whole structure ironic. The very 'novelesque' storyline of Jane, a talented, sensitiive girl, is relegated to be secondary and fragmented, whereas Emma's boring life and "nothing-special" character is at the center, and lovingly, humanely depicted as worthy of a close look. Just brilliant!
And I would love to read a well-written novel told from Jane Fairfax's viewpoint.
That novel exists - it’s called Lovers’ Perjuries by Joan Ellen Delman. It’s very well-written, and yet it makes you realize that Austen made the right choice making Emma and not Jane the heroine.
There is also Jane Fairfax by Joan Aiken
Jane Eyre but not that gothic
I could be completely off, but if one thinks about how Austen’s main characters are so varied and how she approaches each story, it seems to me that creating a character “that no one other than myself will like” is yet another example of how Austen was challenging herself as a writer and challenging novel writing conventions. For example, “Northanger Abbey” is a satire of gothic novels. So, I can easily see Austen asking herself how she could change/challenge some other accepted approach to novel creation for the purpose of challenging herself and her readers. In addition, taking into consideration your previous video regarding how Emma and Jane Austen were similar, it makes sense that Austen would like Emma and thought that no one else would like this character (because they share character traits). Thanks as always for your videos! I have always loved Austen, but these analyses help reveal just how brilliant and ahead of her time Austen was.
Interesting that she thought that, because from aside from Lizzie Benett I believe Emma is the most popular Austen heroine. From my experience Fanny Price was the heroine that was the base breaker with people generally preferring the villainous Crawford siblings to her
I have always found Emma very irritating. She is not unkind just rather insensitive to the wishes of others. It becomes amusing as she finally becomes aware of her many misconceptions.
It's interesting how perceptions change over time. I agree with you that many modern readers find Fanny Price to be less easy to like than JA's other heroines. But according to the standards of the time, in many ways she is closer to an 'ideal' feminine character than either Elizabeth Bennet or Emma Woodhouse. Many readers of the Regency actually found Lizzy to be shockingly brazen and forward for a heroine! A neighbour of JA's, called Mary Russell Mitford, wrote in December 1814, for example, "it is impossible not to feel in every line of Pride and Prejudice, in every word of 'Elizabeth', the entire want to taste which could produce so pert, so worldly a heroine as the beloved of such a man as Darcy".
That shows a change in taste over time. Emma isn’t that sympathetic. Fanny Price plays into a set of conservative and evangelical stereotypes of what a woman should be in the regency period. Even down to marrying her cousin. Mary Crawford is a much more modern woman who fits much more with current sensibilities than Fanny who just comes across as having “please wipe your feet” tattooed on her forehead. However the irony that Emma was dedicated to the most well known bigamist in Britain is strong. A heroine nobody could like dedicated to a patron nobody liked.
@@alanaw27 We like Emma for the same reason we like Darcy : Growth.
@@davidwright7193 The key to understanding Fanny Price is that she is an introvert - extremely so - and, since literary critics must of necessity be extraverts, trying to convince others with their words, the critics tend not to like her. I like Fanny, though I wouldn't want to marry her, and I'm glad that she wins in the end on her own terms, for once not doing what others want her to do, in this case the 'others' being many readers of the novel. She is an extraordinarily accurate depiction of an introvert, with her internal voice criticising her actions, her need to feel right within herself rather than seeking the validation of others, her acute observation, her shyness, her wish to talk about things or ideas (such as astronomy) rather than people, her need for privacy and quiet, and her reliance on only a small number of truly dear friends rather than a wide but shallow acquaintance.
Unlikeable? I always found Emma compelling. She is genuine, and makes mistakes like we all do. She says and does things without thinking about the consequences, like all of us do from time to time, and she acknowledges her mistakes, and tries to mend her ways, which shows character. She grows throughout the novel in ways that many heroines do not, and I can relate to her.
I think in another video about Emma you said she had the ability to make every day life more interesting by imagining stories. I had never consciously noticed that but I totally agreed. And it makes me think that one of the traits that are extremely likeable is this one, she is optimistic enough to entertain herself and sees the positive side of things without despairing about certain negative things that even she in her privilege cannot escape. Of course that tendency goes towards treating people like "playthings". I love the complexity of character that Austen draws in her heroines and especially Emma. I've always liked her.
When Emma declares that Mister Knightley will always be Mister Knightley to her and declines to use his first name despite having been asked to, I felt sad for Mister Knightley. It felt that he wanted her to be more equal to him than she wanted to be and my heart ached for him.
Saw this and instantly clicked to watch! Your videos are always a treat!
I'm very glad you like them! - thanks for watching.
Emma might be unlikable but, she is relatable. We read and re-read and love Austen & her characters because we can relate with Austen's words, wisdom, understanding, sympathy, forgiveness, and love
She is very relatable. She is supposed to be so accomplished and perfect, but of course is a flawed person like we all are. She wishes to read scholarly serious works, yet lacks the discipline to stick to her reading plan, as Mr Knightly observes. She wishes to be accomplished artistically, but her output is a medley of unfinished amateur pieces, as we discover when she presents them before starting Harriet's portrait. She has so many good intentions for Harriet, but ends up harming her chances of a happy life because her privilege blinds her to reality. Yet I genuinely like Emma, maybe even more so for her sins. She has a heart that is kind to the core and the ability to grow.
@@londongael414 Oh yes- you have made me consider how good Jane is, and she was underrated to my mind as we see her through Emma's eyes. I suspect Emma was a little jealous of Jane, and Jane's piano excellence. Something in the way Jane is written about makes me suspect something is amiss with her, but it's just Emma's pov seeping into the narrative?
Speaking of Austen's true artist characters, don't forget Mary Crawford. Also given a shady reputation, but perhaps undeserved? I'll have to give this more thought.
I just love the fact that all of the Austen's characters named Jane, are all perfection in manners & accomplishments, if not near it
Emma is my favorite Austen novel. I love the witty playfulness of Emma's character which often softens or hides her manipulative nature. I used to struggle with conceit, thinking I'm better than other people, and I had to learn humility. I think it's refreshing to see a character with as many layers as Emma has, and of course I relate to all the times she embarrasses herself with her overconfidence. I love her willingness to change. I think not only is she hilarious, but she can be a mirror for the reader.
You have not lost an inch off your fastball, Dr. Cox; this is an excellent commentary on Emma and JA in general. The section on the perfection of heroines is perfect, because we know Lizzie is not perfect, yet we love her, and even JA's attempt to make Emma unlikeable fails, because Jane actually likes all her characters, so we do too.
I've said before and will repeat it, I think Emma is the most realistic (and thus most lovable) of all her heroines; her flaws and her mostly innocent intrigues only set the stage for the experiences that allow her to grow into the confident and wiser person that Knightly knew was always there. Emma is catty, but never vicious, and her envy of Jane Fairfax never crosses the line into true dislike. By the end of the novel, all observant readers realize how much she has changed, and love her for it.
Lizzie Bennett, Emma, and Anne Elliot are (in my mind, anyway), JA's best and most famous heroines, yet they are all so different. The same can be said of Darcy, Mr. Knightly, and Henry Tilney. These chracters are the best gauge of JA's genius. We can bemoan the fact that there are not more novels to explore and wonder over, but shouldn't we instead realize that the half glass we have is very wonderful, indeed, and be thankful for what we have?
I first read this book when I was a young teen and really liked Emma. Then in university I read it again for a class and was surprised to learn that Emma was supposed to be an unlikable character. I still don't see it, to me she's always been charming, like a typical girl who makes mistakes but whose heart is in the right place.
I’ve always been fascinated by Emma as a novel. It’s so insular compared to the other novels. The world revolves around Hartfield and it’s main families. Outsiders like Frank Church, Mrs Elton, Jane and the gypsies seem to upset Emma’s idyllic, controlled world. I think unlike the other novels there’s barely a military presence other than the unseen Col. Campbell which also adds to the protected peace of Hartfield.
I’d love to hear a comparison of the various military figures in Austen and the roles they serve.
I have always felt for Emma. Every other Austen heroine travels. Jane and Elizabeth Bennett are both taken off by the Gardiners to see more of the world. Catherine Moreland spends almost all of Northanger Abbey traveling from her childhood home. So do the Dashwood sisters. Four other women in Emma's story-- Emma's governess, Mrs. Elton, Jane Fairfax, and Harriet-- find their future husband while away from home. But everybody assumes Emma will sit at home with her neurotic father until she's an old maid and won't mind that solution that is so convenient for everybody else. No wonder she ends up behaving like a bull in a china shop!
I have a hard time with Emma because her father is triggering for my personal daddy issues. But Emma is also the heroine who grows the most. Lizzie does as well, but I think not as much as Emma does. Fanny Price and Eleanor Dashwood are both pretty static, but Emma and Lizzie both grow through their stories. Not sure where Anne Elliott falls in terms of growth; maybe more of it happens before we meet her, where she already knows she would give someone else different advice than she received, and it’s Cpt Wentworth who has to grow and learn not to be so bitter but to realize she was right to have followed the advice she got, and that he had stood in his own way.
I have always loved the novels of Jane Austen but have felt the film versions often let her down. When it comes to Austen heroines casting has always made a huge difference. For me the ultimate Jane Austen film has always been the 1995 version of Persuasion. I enjoyed the 1996 version of Emma but casting the likable Gwyneth Paltrow would probably not have gone over big with Ms Austen.
It's so weird. I always liked Emma, so every time I see things about it I always ask if there's something wrong with me. I found her infinitely amusing and her growth throughout the story was one of the most satisfying arc's for me and her self-assuredness was always aspirational.
Seriously, she's easily my absolute favorite heroine.
But Anne Elliot is my 2nd.
I feel the exact same way - so you're not alone!
Interesting topic and still relevant, I would say. Austen’s playfulness with established social expectations is so refreshing. What a fantastic mind! Thank you!
Agree! It's interesting, videos like this lead me to think many of society expectations today are still a hold over from Austens Era!
Thank you so much for this wonderful, insightful reading of Emma. You made me see that Emma is one of the first truly modern fictional characters, as she displays what we now call a character arc. The first 18th century novels tried to educate their readers in a, to modern eyes, unsophisticated manner, by showing a good example for human behaviour that was of course completely unrealistic. Following the journey of the less than perfect character makes us examine our own character and motivations. Austen is as much a moralist as the writers that irritated her so much, but a far more effective one. She is scupulously honest and does not allow her characters to indulge in self-serving delusions. I always loved her work but you make me appreciate all over again how very, very good she is
I never disliked Emma, and I love the novel. She starts out blind in so many ways to her biases and faults, but she really believed that she was doing kindnesses to others. She wanted her friend to have lo,ve and success in life; she visited the Bateses, brought them food and company. Even though I'm sure she was unduly proud of herself for following conventions of her time like those for the more fortunate, but within her narrow education, she nevertheless was kind. She learned that her efforts were not kind, but her intentions were as good as they could be, given the narrow view of life that she had experienced. And she was open to learning about herself and other people and their needs. I couldn't possibly dislike someone like that. From the first, I wanted to get to know her better, and I give her credit for learning, for allowing her outlook to broaden and improve. Knightley did bring her up short near the end, but I don't think that her improvement was owing only to how much she valued his opinion, but largely to what she learned as she was bungling and interfering, misjudging and all the rest. Her ability to improve and her desire to see people she deals with happy show me that she was a person of perception and quality way beyond she knew, and I love her for that and am very glad to see her even happier at the end than she was even when she hadn't learned to grow.
I am so happy to have found/been directed to your channel! RUclips's algorithm worked!
Hearing your thoughts on Mr. Bennet’s parenting of the Bennet girls makes me curious to hear your thoughts on the parenting of Mrs. Bennet. I know you’ve done several videos where you mention her silliness and over the top behavior, which we can definitely all agree upon. But I have heard some of her behaviors being defended, particularly her ardent search for husbands for her girls and her awareness of how dangerous it would be for her daughters to not be married in that time period. What that would mean for their quality of life. There are definitely a few selfish motives, but overall she seems to be trying harder than her husband to ensure her daughters are well cared for. I’d love to hear your thoughts on Mrs. Bennet!
This is still a thing people get weirdly preachy about, especially if the character is the heroine in a story aimed at younger audiences. Some years ago someone went all anti on Pippi Longstockings of all things in my country, like "we should be looking up to her buddy Annika instead, she does her homework and eats her vegetables, we can't be teaching little girls that they should pick fights with burglars or bring horses into the house like Pippi does" and it was answered with "actually Pippi is a role model, she takes initiative and thinks outside the box" and it's like... if kids thought those stories were moralistic screeds about how adult wanted them to behave - whether it was to please their parents or become inspiring entrepreneurs or whatever - no one would like them in the first place. Curious how girls in stories are supposed to be role models while Huck Finn and the guys get to just live
Interesting! I loved Pipi Lingstockings and even though I probably was a well behaved child, I was always annoyed with Annika and thought she was boring.
Which country are you from?
In a way this reminds me of that awful tree story. Even as a small child I disliked it yet people rhapsodize over it. The Giving Tree, maybe? That boy was a selfish stinker and what, we're supposed to be like the tree? I love other Shel Silverstein. That stripped down tree bothers me still if that's a lesson for children. Giving is good, it's the total Taker position of that boy that bothers me.
Huck Finn, etc. has caught a lot of flack over the years too.
Who could read the Pippi Longstocking books and want to be like Annika? Pippi rescues her friends from villains, she's generous, she's brave, she thinks for herself, she's unique! Annika is Everygirl. Annika is the everyday, humdrum reality, and Pippi is swashbuckling, pearl-diving freedom.
@@dorothywillis1 Not for his character though, that I'm aware of. It's because of the depiction of black people.
I LIKE Emma! She and I share so many faults, such as enjoying learning something until it gets to be too much work. We both play the piano -- but not above average. Emma draws, I sing, but neither of us is willing to put the effort into it to be really good. Both of us had parents who spoiled us in some ways but asked for a lot in return that was not readily seen by outsiders. I could go on, but I think you will get the idea. Now if you want me to name a heroine who makes me "sick and wicked" -- but I don't want to start a Fanny War!
I was so surprised the first time I heard you quote Austen as creating a heroine no one but her would like since she's long been one of my favorites. She has such zeal and certainty, and when it leads her astray she reflects on the pain she's caused and it causes her pain! She learns so much from her experience and yet retains much of the best of her character.
Thank you for another awesome lecture. My job is very stressful and I listened to this on my lunch break. Your insightful analysis and lovely voice have cleared my mind. Now I can get back to work and finish the week. Thank you!
I loved Emma from my first reading despite her flaws. I don’t see her as overly condescending to most people. I see her as a genuinely good friend. Even when dealing with frustrating people she’s outwardly kind, even when inside she’s frustrated and irritated. Up til the picnic she’s never cruel or mean. When flaws are pointed out, she immediately sees them and attempts to correct them. Emma has been petted and cosseted all her life with no one higher than her family in the area to give her her place. A terrible disservice from her governess and father. As much as Knightly disparaged her, she listened and took correction while still loving him as a friend then romantically. She even felt guilty about not befriending her perceived rival.
While I love Elizabeth Bennett, I find her a bit insufferable personally. She is very opinionated for someone who has little education and no society out of their local community.
Agree. Lizzie Bennett is okay and all but she's not Emma. He just made an error in judgement. Emma makes a huge transformation. Emma is a much more mature novel.
I always found Emma super likeable. I think I find her super relatable. I am not rich and was not popular but I find her pettiness relatable. I also always felt she had a good heart
I would love to hear Dr Octavia's thoughts on Emma versus Mrs Elton in the 'unlikeable ' stakes.
I thoroughly enjoy the podcasts. They are always enlightening and thought provoking.
Thank you.
Other people have said that we all like to think of ourselves as Elizabeth Bennet, but we're really Emma. I think that's important to remember
Nice little discussion! Two of the nicest things about "Emma" are: the reader is encouraged to laugh at/judge Emma; and Emma gets a thorough comeuppance. So in writing an experimental, "unlikeable" heroine, Austen provided society with superior training model than the perfect heroine.
Thanks
I've made it my tradition that when June and strawberry season comes, it is a time for rewatching/rereading Emma, so this video has come at a perfect time to add a little bit new subject to think about during the rewatch 🍓
I can't eat strawberries, or even see them in the store, without thinking of Mrs. Elton and her "apparatus of happiness"!
@@dorothywillis1 😂😂😂
Emma has always been my favorite Austen novel for this very reason. Thank you for articulating it so well!
Just finished Helena Kelly's book "Jane Austen The Secret Radical" in which she wants us to consider Mr Knightley as something of a villain (not so different from Mr Elton!).
One reason she gives is land enclosure, which apparently was taking place in England in order to make agriculture more efficient. I'm no historian, so my knowledge is invented, but I suppose common land was enclosed by existing landowners (who might have had to bid for it?), but that land had previously been accessible to poorer people who could have grazed their pig or poultry and collected firewood & presumably trapped wildlife...so the poor were to become poorer and the rich, richer...also Harriet's gypsies might well have had traditional camping grounds that they had suddenly found unavailable ... and either gypsies or poor folk (those who didn't flee to the city for work?) became the poultry thieves whom Mr Woodhouse so fears.
Trouble is, Austen makes Mr Knightley so much the gentleman that it is hard to see so many of his actions having an unsavoury motive: including his wanting to marry Emma, according to Ms Kelly!
However enough of the claim makes sense for it to be worth consideration; is Mr Knightley enclosing the land - not necessarily to deprive the poor, but to prevent some other less scrupulous person from doing the same?
I wonder too, if a similar question could be asked about another respectable character: Sir Thomas in Mansfield Park?
If he was a slave owner, he didn't necessarily treat them badly (weren't slaves a valuable commodity?)... perhaps both men were in the uncomfortable position of having to do something they had rather not?
The alternative for Sir Thomas would have been to sell his plantation to the highest bidder.
Unless Austen wanted us to think about slavery (Fanny was effectively one to Mrs Norris), why did she even have Fanny mention that she thought about asking?
Thanks!
Hearing you say this about many classic literature being kind of guide books with model behavior and characters is such a revelation to me. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, because I know it's well beloved and everything, but when I recently read Little Women for the first time I was immensely disappointed. I love Jane Austen and I expected something of that sort by what I had heard about the book beforehand. But when I read it, it was like night time stories for little girls with sweet morals at the end of each chapter, so they might know how to behave correctly. And I thought the mistake was reading it as an adult and not having expected a children's book. But I guess know, it might be a children's book, but it's also just a book of it's time (even though Little Women was of course later).
Excellent video as always! Thank you for uploading!
Totally off topic: I read somewhere that when learning a foreign language we might remember nouns and verbs easier than adjectives. There're nuances, shades of meaning, words that were borrowed from other languages and assimilated, etc. My point is your speech is flawless, sophisticated and mellifluous. I love your vocabulary and you made me revise the adjectives! Thank you.
Excellent video. The first time I read Emma, I was 15 and like most teenagers fairly self-absorbed, and I resonated with the character of Emma. At that time, I had never seen any filmed adaptations of the novel, so I only had the book as my source. While Emma is not a " mean girl" she does have all the social power and position, that others apart from Mr. Knightly lack. As I have gotten older the less I enjoy the novel, not because it isn't well written, it's that I don't enjoy the character of Emma and how she treats the other characters in the novel. Mr. Knightly is indeed one of my most favorite male Austen characters though.
I love Emma, she’s my favourite Jane Austin character and I like the fact she learns throughout the book and has a partner she can’t dominate and can match her. Albeit I always imagine Mr K a little bit younger 😂
I really liked this video! Emma is my favourite book of Jane Austen and I am always interested to learn about it more. I hope one day you will do a video on Mr Knightley. I am very curious about his income and his role as a "gentleman farmer". He seldom uses his carriage and I always wonderedf if this was a bizzare behaviour or if it was a little strange but not very uncommon
Always enjoy your 'unpackings' of Austen (only wish they were longer:) Even though I have read all the novels several times (and even studied them a bit in grad school) you mine their riches in continually new ways❤️I'm personally a great admirer of Emily Dickinson and I'm more and more of the opinion that they were, in many ways, kindred spirits.
Hurrah! I was hoping you'd do a video on this 🙂. Pleaee do a video essay on the dialogue between Lizzy and Darcy, as I feel like their discourse shows how suited they are to each other.
That would be a fabulous topic! - their dialogues are quite Shakespearean, in the mould of Benedick and Beatrice from 'Much Ado About Nothing'. It is clearly beyond Caroline Bingley to keep up! - "“Do let us have a little music,” cried Miss Bingley, tired of a conversation in which she had no share" (ch.11).
@@DrOctaviaCox exactly! I love that we get a little of Darcys internal thoughts after that particular back n forth with Lizzy. Not only could she keep up but showed her strength of mind. Something which Darcy is very attracted to. Although Darcy isn't able to tell Elizabeth when he first fell in love with her, I think we can pin point that scene as having key elements that help to lay a foundation.
@@DrOctaviaCox Thank you for this, I so enjoy all your videos. Unrelated to this current one though, a question that has always piqued my curiosity is the following. Mr. Bennet is depicted as a man who loves to retreat to his "book room", take refreshment and enjoy reading. I've often wondered - what might have been the actual books in Mr. Bennet's library of that era that he enjoyed reading so much? A subject for a future video perhaps?
“Emma” is my least favorite Jane Austen novel. I didn’t realize it was Jane’s intention to have me dislike the heroine!
I would love an entire video of you talking about Elizabeth Bennett’s character!
It's not so much that Emma is disliked as she is immature. She is quite a typical swelled-headed adolescent, indulged and cosseted by a father who is aging and well, frankly, a bit addlepated, as my grandmother would have said. It isn't until she is brought up short by Mr. Knightley after ridiculing and insulting a dear old family friend for her silliness and inability to curb her chattering tongue that Emma begins to look at her life and the lives of those about her more realistically and less through the rose-colored colored glasses of a romantic childhood.
What I particularly value in Emma (novel) is the shadowing/ mirroring with Jane Fairfax… who is Emma‘s opposite. It makes a reader absolutely want to turn the story around from every perspective… and yet as a character Emma does go through a very painful arc of character development … and she becomes a better person through hard won lessons.
I think that the character of Jane Fairfax has many of the qualities that a faultless heroine should have. In the novel everybody likes Jane but Emma.
I've always liked Emma, but perhaps her worst failing is her petty jealousy of Jane Fairfax and lack of sympathy for her obviously difficult position.
I know one person who cannot stand Jane Fairfax -- my husband! He is almost as great an Austen fan as I am, and Jane Fairfax is someone we simply cannot agree about. I'm not joking. He becomes very heated, so I just don't bring up the subject. It's rather comical!
As I see it, the story of Jane Faifax is almost the standard romance (poor impoverished yet genteel girl has a romance with a dashing young man who loves her but dependant on his rich aunt and about to be forced to become a governess and is forced to watch her suitor dance attendance on the local mean rich girl until....) but retold from the viewpoint of said local rich meangirl
@@dorothywillis1
But what about Mr Wodehouse? Perhaps the most annoying, selfish and difficult wet-blanket in English literature!
@@harpo345 My husband doesn't think much of Mr. W. (BTW, he's not P.G.W.! '-) but he gets absolutely fired up about his dislike of Jane F.
Dr Cox, I wonder if you could reflect sometime on marriage in Austen's work. I loved your video on the unhappy marriages, but what about the ones put forward as happy endings? Do you think she was making fun of expectations here too, both for women and for novels? I have always thought Henry Tilney and Catherine would have trouble communicating as she really doesn't understand his humour... And Emma and Mr Knightley? And Fanny and Edmund? All sorts of problems ahead there....
Its a great juxtaposition to have Jane Fairfax - beautiful and talented orphan - who in any other novel would be the usual protagonist.
The thing with Emma is she does not think before she speaks. She is vain but she does have a good heart and eventually redeems herself. Lizzie drives me crazy sometimes. Especially with Wickham. Anyone could tell he is not right. She just had made up her mind that Darcy was a scoundrel
I come back to Emma again and again because I can’t decide if I like her. There is so much genius in the dance Austen does to create a character so…maybe variegated. I haven’t found a word for it. But I have people in my life that I feel the same way about! 😆 thanks for these great videos!
I always related to Emma more than any of the other female characters because of her flaws. Her intentions were based on a genuine desire to help others even if she misperceived the reality of the situation. She is my favorite because of her lack of achieving her “potential” in music, art and other pursuits. Emma is someone I could see as a friend.
Been there; done that!
Can you do a video on the talkative characters of Jane Austen like Mrs Jennings and Ms. Bates? I find them the most likeable but in the books their behaviour is frowned on. Is it that an extroverted personally was looked down at or was only for men? In Pride and Prejudice Mr Darcy's cousin is very chatty and a bit of a gossip as he likes the jabs Elizabeth throws at Darcy and he speaks a bit openly of the issue with Bingley without calling names, but he's looked at as very pleasant.
I love Mrs. Jennings!!!!!!
Interesting thoughts. I always thought of Ms. Bates as talking so much out of anxiety. Her place in society is greatly reduced as she ages and she seems to understand that she needs her friends more than they need her. In that vein, she is overboard to please and thank. Mrs. Jennings, on the other hand, doesn't have enough to occupy her. Now there would have been a formidable business owner in a much later era.
@@foozjen @foozjen hmm! Interesting point of view! I can't remember if it's mentioned if Ms. Bates was always so talkative or if it increases with time, I'll put Emma on my reading list and check into it again. And Mrs. Jennings as too idle? I can see what you mean, although Mrs Jennings is the type that can run a business empire and make time for afternoon tea and the latest local gossip! That's what makes her so eyebrow raising and special!
@@londongael414 Marianne didn't give anyone much of a chance did she? She really portrays the idealism and overzealous nature youth can have sometimes! I think Mrs Jennings was very nice and well intentioned and wanted to help everyone, even if they preferred her not to be. And with Col. Brandon, I suppose there was the added element in that she was guessing and not very sure about his affairs, which made them even more interesting and in need of her help. But she's a great character!
I loved Emma as a character from the first time I read the book. It was the first Austen novel I ever read. I found her utterly charming and was amused by her gaffes. She never struck me as malicious and her cruel statement to Miss Bates at Box Hill really was a culmination of things crumbling around her without her yet realizing why. I do have sympathy for her even though she was in the wrong there. Emma is beautiful, rich, young, smart but very human. I think she genuinely cared for her close friends but, with the class system such as it was, she thought she knew better thsn them. She has her views thwarted again and again and we see her altering them on the sly. The part with the party at the Coles was always very funny to me.
In the novel, all of Emma’s average qualities are exposed, and maybe people, when reading, are disappointed to find some version of themselves in the pages. Most people have gone through phases they’re not proud of! I started liking the character when she cried after prompted to recognize her mistreatment of poor Mrs. Bates. Her behavior was out of control, but her heart was in the right place.
I confess that just after scarlett O'Hara, Emma was a piece of cake ! With flaws, ok, but very lovable.
I came to Jane Austen later in life. So in reading Emma, I was long past 21 years of age. I never disliked Emma, but saw her as young, naïve, and thinking she knew everything. Of course she couldn't see things as Mr. Knightley could because he is much older and more experienced in life. Thank goodness He checked her or she would have become quite incorrigible in her older age.
Wonderful discussion as always. A question if your time allows: Were other novelists presenting psychological realism and realistic heroines in their novels? I'm wondering just how innovative this was. Perhaps that's for another video! Thank you for all you do. -Janet
I'm always happy when I see a new essay of yours about a Jane Austen novel! 💖
Ms Cox, I have a random question: did you know about Jane Austen July (around the booktube community)? If yes, do you already considered to participate ou make a video content recommend some books about the challenges? I bet you have I lot to contribute! Thanks so much (and sorry about my broken english).
I have indeed heard of Jane Austen July!
In terms of the challenges...
For challenge 2, 'Read something by Jane Austen that is not one of her main six novels', I would definitely recommend 'Lady Susan'. It's a short epistolary novel, probably written in 1794, with a wickedly funny and wonderfully guilt-free anti-heroine. There is quite a good recent adaptation of it actually, staring Kate Beckinsale, although - annoyingly - it is called 'Love and Friendship' rather than 'Lady Susan' (which could satisfy challenge 6, 'Watch a direct screen adaptation of a Jane Austen book'). In terms of challenge 3, 'Read a non-fiction work about Jane Austen or her time', I would recommend John Mullan's 'What Matters in Jane Austen?' for those who are just dipping their toe into literary analysis, and for those who are a bit more familiar with scholarly criticism, Claudia Johnson's 'Jane Austen: Women, Politics, and the Novel' and Marilyn Butlers 'Jane Austen and the War of Ideas' are classics.
@@DrOctaviaCox Thanks so much for the recommendations!🥰
This was a great question and a great reply ✨🤗 Thank you both!!!!
@@DrOctaviaCox I enjoyed 'Jane Austen at Home' by Lucy Worsley. Lots of interesting background about the times, and she has a marvellous chatty style which makes it fun to read.
If Austen wanted Emma to be unlikeable, she failed, at least in my case. The reader learns early on that Emma's ideas are almost always wrong and she will have to be confronted dramatically with reality before she will realize it. But she is without malice and has a merry spirit, which is endearing despite her poor judgement. Of the several poor decisions she makes in the novel, only the cruel comments to Miss Bates are really spiteful (and so the only ones Mr Knightley really calls her on the carpet about).
What I especially like about Emma was how quick she was to make apologies and attempt to make amends when she discovers her errors -- for instance, she goes to Harriet about the attempt at matchmaking her with Mr Elton as soon as she finds out it has gone amiss.
Perhaps ironically, modern readers seem to like Emma and dislike Fanny Price, who is much more the model of what the readers of Austen's time would've thought feminine: obedient, moral, faithful. But then even Austen's mother found Fanny "insipid." (And yes, I know Fanny has her fans, but I think in general she is less well-liked than Emma.)
I still feel like her treatment of Harriet was very poor - she really was using her as a doll, only to discard her when she became a nuisance; it's not like they really remained friends at the end of the book. Emma basically thinks "I wish I'd never met her, I wish she'd disappear", which isn't very kind of her. That always rubbed me wrong, because at the end of the book, you expect Emma to be better.
@@bib4eto656 True. In many ways Austen was a classist. Emma's attempt to train Harriet to be a gentlewoman and bring her into the upper classes was completely wrongheaded, in Austen's eyes, giving her ideas above her proper station. In the end, Harriet was happier with her own kind.
On the other hand, Fanny Price...
Emma’s cruelty to Miss Bates at the picnic is one of the best moments in Austen, for its depiction of conduct the character knows is wrong, and about which she immediately and genuinely suffers remorse, and for which she seeks to make amends. I’ve used that scene in teaching for decades; it makes vivid so much complexity. I adore Emma, partly because she can be so irritating. As we all can. 😉
It’s funny how a person described as unlikeable to the reader is looked up to and adored by all the other characters in the story. The only one who criticizes her is the man whom ultimately falls in love with her.
Emma is my favourite - always has been, but she's even better if one has been immersed in Mrs Radcliffe and is in need of an antidote, as I found out a few years ago. That said, the best character in any Jane Austen novel is Jane Austen, and in Emma she is particularly conspicuous. (Her comparative reticence in Mansfield Park makes for a slower read, I think, but the payoff in the last chapter is well worth the effort). Emma's great virtue to my mind is that she can see the humour in the situation when it turns out that she's been a bit of a chump: she is lazy but does have penetration and self-awareness when she applies herself.
What saves Emma is her genuine remorse for her mistakes.
Emma is my favourite Austen character, I absolutely love and understand her
I feel like I'm one of the only people that loved Emma as a character the entire way through and found her flaws endearing. Her flaws mostly stemmed from naivete and not outright malice, and when she did act purposely cruel (like when she snapped at Miss Bates) she was immediately regretful. I honestly think she is one of the best characters I've ever read in fiction
I’m very excited to watch this video in its entirety! I don’t know much about Emma. Not as much as Austen’s other works. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
Thank you SO much for this Emma video! I'm looking forward to the time when you make a video on if we find Emma likeable or unlikable. Thanks!
I've always liked Emma. I don't love her the way I love Elizabeth Bennet but I definitely like her. Elizabeth seems more self-aware than Emma, so that makes her more charming to me. Thanks for the analysis, Dr. Cox. I tend to let Jane Austen wash over me rather than really thinking about it. That is, until I listen to you :D
Without a Mr. Knightly, what would Emma have become? There is nobody else to call her on her bs. It says much of her character that she is willing to be guided by his perspective and his honesty with her when she is not exposed to criticism from anyone else in her life. It would be easy to brush off everything he has to say, but she takes it to heart.
I waited YEARS after I read the other novels to read Emma. But I ended up grudgingly liking her but especially the novel itself just as much as the rest of the Austen novels.
Ironically, Emma being “unlikeable” is exactly why I like her. It makes her character stand out amongst novel heroines. Emma is flawed and does terrible things. She makes mistakes and has bad decisions. Ultimately, this makes her a complex human and therefore an interesting and memorable character. I think modern writers worry too much about making their heroines “likeable”. This is partly because female characters get criticized much more often than male characters. Due to this harsh criticism, I think a lot of writers overthink and end up making flawless female characters who they think will be “likeable”, but they ultimately fall flat. Well written characters should not be likeable all the time because ultimately they are human. Even the women close to us in our everyday lives, who we love, get on our nerves at times.
I have to admit that I have always found the character of Emma to be slightly annoying but to be honest, I never really thought about why I felt that way. When I think about it now, It might be her egotistical attitude toward others that I find grating …..although a cultivated young woman, she has little life experience outside of her tiny world and yet she felt she could move people and their emotions around as if pieces on a chess board.
I found nothing positive about her. Her best qualities are that she is rich and good looking. She has no discipline to develop her natural talents into anything other than passable, has no clue about anything and is very self important. I dislike how rude she was to Ms. Bates and she only feels badly because Mr Knightley scolds her. I have no idea why Mr Knightley feels and thinks so highly of her. I think he sees what she could be, not what she actually is. Her father forces his opinion on everyone and they have to do what pleases him but noone sees him as annoying but if Ms. Bates talks too much she's a bother and everyone rolls their eyes. Emma is a hard pass for me.
@@leannerae Something similar could be said of Darcy. He is rich, good looking, and admits his pride was never curbed. He treated Bingley like a child. And he deserved the kick in the... pants Lizzie gave him after his first proposal.
@@jmarie9997 I think Jane Austen's characters are all flawed in some way. Darcy has very obvious flaws and Lizzy doesn't hold back in pointing them out and rejecting him.
Lizzy has issues to address in herself as well but, that's beside the point.
I personally don't get the idea that he treats Charles like a child, more that he likes him very much and tries his best to guide him in what he thinks, as a result of his life in the gentry class, to be a right course of action. And because Charles is new to that world, he looks to Darcy very attentively. While Darcy would have a bias for Charles possibly marrying his sister, the points he has against Jane are supported by Charlotte, in her opinion of Jane being too reserved and Lizzy herself is reluctant to admit, but very aware of her family's indiscretions. So Darcy isn't hating on Jane and pulling excuses out of thin air.
I think that he does take Lizzy's criticism to heart and really tries to makes a genuine change.
The great thing about Jane Austen's writing is how rich the personalities she create are and how each reader forms different opinions, which is totally fine. 💛
Another brilliant explication by Dr. Cox! One might ask what makes Emma a heroine (which I believe s recognizing and improving her own folly, flaws, and foibles. She doesn't really "suffer", that is, undergo anything, really, just realization. One might also find the answer in the figure of Jane Fairfax. Jane Fairfax -- how we "rave" about Jane Fairfax! Jane Fairfax is the "perfect heroine", and my how she suffers. Jane is beautiful, musically accomplished (in the first style), restrained, intelligent, tolerant, patient, discreet and possessing of MASSIVE self-possession, self-control and self-restraint. She wins our eternal sympathy as she contemplates -- in particularly dark terms -- the life and profession of governess, analogising it as she nearly does to white slavery. Mrs. Elton as usual, rids Jane's discourse of all sublety and over-states the analogy. It is also a wonder that Knightly, so strategically named, as are all of Austen's characters, doesn't take Jane away from "that Puppy". Why exactly, Austen leaves us not sure. A more useful companion, a better educator as mother for his children, a lady of the manner that all could respect, she is. Is there, despite all issues of character, the issue of class surging to the fore? That is not indicated, but may possibly be expected to be understood. Perhaps. But no, Knightly is fixed (or fixated) on Emma. Yes, "he held her first when she was just three weeks old". One wouldn't want to put too much interpretation into that because it might begin to suggest the weird and untoward. And yes, his "strawberries" are "ripening fast", another strike of Austen's wonderfully jocular ribadlry. Thus expresses Knighlty's desire to marry and settle down most graphically. It was a surging undercurrent but now it's out in the open. Though I would not ascribe this to Austen, Knightly is almost like a Svengali, a Rasputin, a Henry Higgins, willing the woman he loves into being, creating her out of wholecloth out of "the average young lady with all her flaws, pettiness, vanity, diffidence masked by busy-body machinations. We are satisfied that Emma is at the end grown up. But are we sure of her depth? Her kindliness? There is an argument for the idea that these remain unsure, for the kindness to Miss Bates was extracted by force and her kindness to Harriet ("harried") is for the purpose of instrument, that is, exploiting though not evilly her own social superiority. Or is it? The novel presents a rather interesting dilemma, namely that Emma feels she ought to take Jane Fairfax as intimate friend, but instead takes Harriet. That too says much about Emma -- she takes the easy road. Here, even Mrs. Elton is Emma's superior. My God is Austen good! Emma's rejection of Jane does not seem to indicate jealously, but rather envy and annoyance that Jane has worked hard to fulfill all the expectation of the "modern" young lady and succeeded palpably. "I simply rave about Jane Fairfax and I am determined to do what I can...", says Mrs. Elton, herself far from the picture of an ideal pastors wife: she's loud, crass, outspoken, not particularly bright, full of her self, nothing of that which a vicar's wife should represent. Emma, Jane, Mrs. Weston, Harriet, Mrs. Elton, Miss Bates -- as usual, Austen masters for us and conveys to us an whole universe of enlightenment womanhood, and it is not always pretty. Dr. Cox always inspires us to truly think about Austen's figures, their actions, the contracts between them and, of course, the contrast of their fates. My their fates are telling. In the case of the novel "Emma", perhaps the message is that the ordinarily catty, vain, silly but not heartless or brainless or truly malicious young lady (though Emma has her moments of maliciousness) does have a chance to win the heart of a truly good (knightly) gentleman, provided he is a saint, while so-called "perfect" young ladies may fall victim to dastards, cads, roues, and villains masquerading as "puppies". Oh my! How true!
I don’t think I know anyone who doesn’t like Emma. I always assumed that Fanny Price had the honour of being the less liked Austen heroine.
But I can see why Emma might have been disliked in her time. She was quite chaotic I think, not very ladylike 😅
I think Jane Bennet is the Austen character I dislike the most, and yes, I think it says a lot about me. But also, she’s not the heroine of her own story.
I love this channel. I was telling my friends that is like taking the literature class I was never allowed to take. It makes me happy. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us 🥰
Greeting from Mexico ☺️
I just discovered you, your channel, and I am excited to listen to your analysis of Jane Austen‘s works. This is only the second video I’ve listened to, but it seems to me you spent more time explaining why Elizabeth Bennet is likable than why Emma Woodhouse is unlikable. Maybe you could do another video focusing on that? The video was very interesting and I like your insights but I missed the point of the video.🤷♀️😄
What an interesting question you pose at the end. It made me reflect. I love Emma, but when did I start liking this character? Did I follow her story arc and come to like her, or did I see Clueless before I ever encountered Emma? Did I come to Emma already won over by her modern-day incarnation, Cher? I can't remember.
If you saw Clueless before reading or seeing an Emma adaptation that is possible. Cher is lovable but spoiled. I think that might have made me see Emma differently.
Emma is like a Kardashian. She lives in her own world.
Omg, yes!!
Read the book again.
Ha ha... If you haven't seen Clueless go watch it.
My favorite Jane Austen novel is Mansfield Park. From the point of view of likability I've always known that Fanny Price is not a woman whom I would like to be my friend, but while reading the novel I identify with her much more than I have with anybody else. (That is why I deeply disliked the 1999 movie, in which Fanny became a spunky, wisecracking young woman, ready to embrace the 21st century.) I would love to hear your thoughts about Mrs. Norris, who, I think, is the most malicious, cruel, despicable character Austen has created.
Yes, that movie didn't worth much. I noticed as well how much it killed the heroine's spirit and the book's with it. I advise you to watch the 2007 version instead. It keeps much more in touch with the book.
As someone who's favorite Austen might possibly also be "Mansfield Park," I get disliking the 1999 film. However...
I also often find that its detractors do not realize when the opening titles state: "Based on the novel *[...and] early journals and letters by Jane Austen.*" At times, when the film's Fanny is reading something aloud, she is actually reading from Austen's juvenilia, incl. excerpts from "Love & Friendship" for example. I.e., it is not a random "spunky wise-cracking woman" that becomes the film's Fanny: rather, it is that the film intended to depict a character loosely based on Jane Austen herself. And as in the novel, Fanny Price is constantly in positions to observe those around her, as was Austen, this seemed fitting.
So sometimes I think it's a bit unfair: it may not be super faithful to the novel, but in my opinion, it is super faithful to Jane Austen.
I love & study the movies. And so I can understand why book lovers would disdain liberties with adaptation. I am a bit more relaxed, personally. But moreover, I immediately recognize that there are some serious challenges to adapting a character like Fanny to the screen.
Frankly, I prefer an adaptation to flex into its own medium & makes interesting choices, rather than strive for strict fidelity to source material. Obviously, fidelity is valuable. But it is not more valuable than telling a good story in the medium you're using. And fidelity *always* fails.
I often argue that a very "faithful" adaptation would probably be something like a Terrence Malik movie. Very internalized, plot events are almost incidental to this interiority, and a main character that things happen *to* more than they enact things themselves. And as a consequence, such a film would likely be unsuccessful commercially. (Although people who love films like Malik's types would adore it!)
@@malexander4094 Fidelity to Austen would make the film fit to be called Jane Austen or something like it, so why call it Mansfield Park? And there is an excellent Mansfield Park BBC series from 1983 which is faithful to the novel spirit. It has an additional great asset - Anna Massey as Mrs. Norris - and what a Mrs. Norris she is!
@@avidreader111 I'm familiar with the BBC series.
When you prioritize strict "accuracy" & faithfulness, you get these multi-part, long-format productions. Great work goes into them!
But....the BBC "Mansfield Park" is 4.5 hours long. In 5-6 hours, I could just read the novel.
Similar for the BBC "Pride & Prejudice" ...It may be justly hailed for its accuracy (although it seems many forgive the times it is NOT accurate!) but in the name of that, it's 6 hrs, and again in that time I could read most/all of the novel.
This is not squeamishness about long runtimes. A number of my favorite films are 3-4 hrs long. But none of them are adaptations.
So just because something is longer & more faithful does not always make it better, in my opinion. I am FAR more interested in something making its mark than simply recreating or simulating a nearly exact experience from its material. It's like when a musician makes a cover that sounds just like the song they're covering. I think that's boring. (Obviously there are exceptions to this, like the Netflix "Persuasion.")
In my opinion, the "Mansfield Park" film is not only true to Austen's spirit, but it captures much about the novel that in fact is NOT captured in the BBC series.
And, again while the novel itself is possibly my favorite novel, I personally also think the film actually handles the ending better. But again, here "better" is relative to the medium.
Re: title, it's adapting "Mansfield Park." Not Jane Austen's life.
Excellent job as usual. I would enjoy it if you would do some close readings of Dickens and Thackeray. Your commentary would be very interesting.
I think Emma was purposefully made an unlikeable character because she couldn’t stand the prince at the time who requested that she dedicate a book to him. Being a girl of good upbringing she did as she requested and dedicated the novel “Emma” to him, making her character unlikable was to probably get back for her dislike of the prince regent. (Fine, I’ll dedicate something to you, but everyone will like the main character as much as I like you.)
Thank you, I enjoyed that! I enjoyed your others, too. I like the ones where you look at characters most, though I also liked the social status one, as I hadn't realised how perilous was the status of the Bingleys.
Bingley’s snobbish sisters would of course have loved to have been born into the gentry. On the other hand, their friendly down-to-earth brother seems at ease with himself and the world and, as long as he didn’t lose his fortune, his social position was assured. Society was less rigid than is often supposed and at grand functions Bingley would have met other nouveau riche characters and thus not automatically have felt like a fish out of water. Moreover, some of the aristocrats and gentry he met would have been sensible characters like Darcy and Bingley would thus have been liked and admired for his friendly and unpretentious character by other admirable uppercrust figures like Mr Knightley.
@@glendodds3824 You're right about Mr Bingley - lovely and make would always see him right. But I feel I understand Miss Bingley's feelings better. Mansfield Park really shows how vital it was as a woman to marry well. Makes me glad I live now.
Jane was a genius and so are you. Thank you