3 blog entries
about Mary Crawford in "Mansfield park":
http://austensmansfield.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/sometimes-how-quick-to-feel/
http://austensmansfield.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/the-case-against-mary-crawford-part-i/
http://austensmansfield.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/the-case-against-mary-crawford-part-ii/
And 1 essay:
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol21no1/kondelik.html
The good thing
about reading all of Jane Austen's novels, besides seeing her progress and
sharpened skills throughout her career, is that I read them with perspective
and can see them in relation to each other.
For example,
from "Northanger abbey" to "Sense and sensibility", if Jane
Austen doesn't deliberately mock the romance plot by letting Catherine Morland
fall in love with Henry Tilney, the right man, at 1st sight (which is a
possibility), she may see it as problematic and tackle the theme of wrong 1st
impressions in "Sense and sensibility" through Marianne Dashwood and
John Willoughby, and to her 3rd novel, may explore and develop it further, not
only in falling in love but in judgment of character in general, in "Pride
and prejudice".
Then, having
finished "Pride and prejudice", which she herself sees as
"light, bright and sparkling", Jane Austen produces a book that is
much more sombre and serious in tone. That is "Mansfield park". Here,
she chooses Fanny Price, an opposite of Elizabeth Bennet, as her heroine-
quiet, introspective, timid, passive, easily fatigued, and more shockingly, creates
a bad girl who is in many ways similar to Elizabeth Bennet- intelligent, witty,
charming, vivacious. Then she turns everything around, Mary is thoughtless,
self-centred, mercenary, frivolous, rather manipulative, and immoral.
If one reads
her books and thinks of the author more than the characters, this has great
significance. 1st, Mary Crawford's personality and character adds to the
complexity of "Mansfield park". 2nd, without quoting much of the
conversations between Mary and Edmund, Jane Austen's able to explain why Edmund
is charmed by and attracted to and in love with Mary. Readers like Mary, and in
many cases, become blind to her faults the same way Edmund is. This is done
masterfully like the way readers are made to see everything from Emma Woodhouse's
view in the following book. I also think that how a reader feels about Mary
Crawford reveals much about them. 3rd, Mary Crawford, in my opinion, is Jane
Austen's reaction to Elizabeth Bennet, or "Pride and prejudice" as a
whole, which shows that she's much more than a mere writer dealing with
romance, marriage and small talk.
For the time
being I haven't had a theory on how from "Mansfield park" Jane Austen
goes to "Emma", but placing "Emma" next to
"Persuasion" one can see that Lady Russell is quite similar to Emma
Woodhouse.
It should also
be noted that even though Jane Austen's characters are distinct individuals and
never repeated, there is 1 character in "Persuasion" reminiscent of
Elizabeth Bennet, Louisa Musgrove, and whilst I may be wrong, I can't help
thinking that perhaps Jane Austen has Elizabeth in mind when depicting Louisa,
as when conceiving the personality of Mary Crawford. Like Elizabeth and Mary,
Louisa is high-spirited, lively, charming, cheerful. More importantly,
Elizabeth is adored for her independence and strong-mindedness and
self-determination, 1st when she rejects Mr Collins, 2nd when she declines Mr
Darcy's 1st proposal, and 3rd when she refuses to give lady Catherine de Bourgh
a promise; these admirable qualities exist in Louisa but are taken to excess
and become stubbornness and recklessness (Jane Austen must have been thinking
of "the golden mean").
Anyhow, I'm
glad that "Pride and prejudice" was the last novel by Jane Austen I
read, that I'm not a huge fan of Elizabeth Bennet, that I'm not like the people who expect to find
Elizabeth Bennet in Jane Austen's other heroines, and that I don't need to like
the main characters in order to appreciate a novel.
Look at this,
for instance: http://www.pemberley.com/pemb/adaptations/persuasion/arc3/bbs16/16075
I have briefly
discussed how different Louisa is from Elizabeth, and will not say why Anne
Elliott is admirable or why I don't find Benwick insipid. All I'd like to say
is that I do not see Elizabeth as ideal, perfect, wonderful- she is in fact
prejudiced, judgmental, hasty, proud, sometimes impulsive. So when some haters
yell that Fanny Price is judgmental, I have no idea what they mean. Isn't
Elizabeth?
Update on 24/1:
http://frigatetoutopia.blogspot.no/2013/08/balancing-virtues-in-persuasion.html
"I have a theory that Austen made the heroines of her successive novels studies in contrast. Quiet Fanny follows sparkling Elizabeth, persuadable Anne follows confident Emma. According to Sarah Emsley, Anne is also a foil to Emma in truly possessing the "resources of mind and spirit... that Emma Woodhouse thinks she herself possesses" (Emsley, 145). Emsley also sees Persuasion as the most explicit of the six novels in balancing the virtues."
This is interesting, but the question remains, how does she go from "Mansfield park" to "Emma"?
Thursday, 23 January 2014
Wednesday, 22 January 2014
On marriage, Charlotte Lucas and Fanny Price (and Elizabeth Bennet and Jane Fairfax)
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/02/on-charlotte-lucass-choice.html
http://www.jasnanorcal.org/ink5.htm
From the 2nd article:
"... there seem to be two camps -- those who speak up for Charlotte Lucas and have little time for Fanny; and those whose ideal is Fanny Price, to whom Charlotte is anathema.
What is the problem? Well, when Elizabeth Bennet refuses the proposal of Mr. Collins, the pompous, snobbish curate who is her father's heir, Charlotte Lucas, Elizabeth's friend, deliberately sets out to catch him on the rebound, and succeeds. Charlotte Lucas marries Mr. Collins, whom we consider no intelligent woman can like, let alone love, for the security he can give her and the home he can offer. The pro-Charlotte brigade, which includes some feminists, finds this eminently sensible.
On the other hand, Fanny Price, although a penniless dependent, refuses to marry the charming and wealthy Henry Crawford whom she has seen flirting with both her cousins simultaneously, and whom she neither likes nor respects. Despite Sir Thomas Bertram's bullying, she sticks to her guns. The pro-Fanny brigade, which includes some feminists, finds this admirable..."
It goes without saying that I like and admire Fanny Price (and disagree with Elizabeth Newark for thinking that Fanny refuses Henry Crawford mostly because she's head over heels in love with Edmund- in fact, with Edmund in love with Mary Crawford, there seems to be no hope for Fanny, she rejects Henry rather because of his character). However, at the same time I understand Charlotte Lucas, and whilst doubting that I will ever do a similar thing, do admire the way she considers all of her options, makes a decision and does something for her situation. Twice in "Pride and prejudice", Elizabeth Bennet says no to wealth. Charlotte cannot afford to do so.
Having little experience, I'm still aware that in life people have different ideas about marriage, different expectations- some prioritise love, some wish the spouse to be a friend as well or even a soulmate, some only ask for stability, some see marriage as a kind of rescue (from spinsterhood, poverty, or from their own poor, unfair country), some get married for the mere sake of getting married; some hope to share the same hobbies and interests and views with their spouse, some don't have such concerns as they talk about nothing but bills and the like. I'm also aware that a marriage I see as boring, from my point of view, does not necessarily bore the couple, and a marriage without love is not necessarily unhappy (it should be noted, too, that 2 people who love each other are not necessarily happy when married). And above all, I can think of at least 1 arranged marriage couple who have lived peacefully and contentedly with each other for decades and are still doing that now. Charlotte Lucas is different from Elizabeth Bennet and cannot be expected to act like Elizabeth- "I am not romantic, you know. I never was." She's pragmatic, but not mercenary and manipulative like Isabella Thorpe or hypocritical and scheming like Lucy Steele. She knows what she wants and what she needs, and acts on it, then accepts her own decision and makes the best of it.
Furthermore, some comments below the 1st article are worth some attention:
"Mr. Collins presents with many characteristics which we now recognize as being similar to some of those typical of people on the high functioning or Apserger's end of the autistic spectrum eg tendency to monologue and focus on details, limited ability to convey empathy, reliance on "scripts" for conversation etc. However, since he is still a young man of only twenty-five years of age, his social awkwardness is likely to decrease especially since, for the first time in his life, the primary influence in his life will come from someone who is perceptive about others. Charlotte is already gently curbing his excessively formal and fawning manners. Once he inherits Longbourn so is removed from Lady Catherine's dominance, these will diminish further. He will have independence and a respected social position in a different community plus will profitably direct his energies and attention to detail towards improving not just a garden but an entire farm/estate (which has been somewhat neglected by Mr. Bennet as he retreated from social interaction and responsibility into his library). As the novel ends, both Mr. and Mrs. Collins have achieved the specific if limited goals they desired from marriage; therefore, basking in this small warm glow of success, they do not feel bitterness or resentment towards each other. They are content and treat each other pleasantly as they probably will throughout their marriage. Their future holds the promise of children, an increased income and the eventual return to Charlotte's former community."
"Perhaps you are not giving credit to other things that Mr. Collins is not, while he may be appalling tedious, he is not cruel, he will not subject Charlotte to mental or physical torture, he is not a spender or a drinker, subjecting Charlotte to those kinds of worry, nor is he a womanizer, in short, he is a safe choice from a variety of perspectives that Charlotte has reasoned. It is as if she said the marriage is a crapshoot, and I choose the devil I know over the devil I don't know."
In other words, it's perhaps not so bad after all, that is, for someone like Charlotte Lucas. I would even go as far as saying that there might be more hope in the marriage between her and that silly Mr Collins than in that between Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill. One knows what to expect. The latter is too uncertain.
http://www.jasnanorcal.org/ink5.htm
From the 2nd article:
"... there seem to be two camps -- those who speak up for Charlotte Lucas and have little time for Fanny; and those whose ideal is Fanny Price, to whom Charlotte is anathema.
What is the problem? Well, when Elizabeth Bennet refuses the proposal of Mr. Collins, the pompous, snobbish curate who is her father's heir, Charlotte Lucas, Elizabeth's friend, deliberately sets out to catch him on the rebound, and succeeds. Charlotte Lucas marries Mr. Collins, whom we consider no intelligent woman can like, let alone love, for the security he can give her and the home he can offer. The pro-Charlotte brigade, which includes some feminists, finds this eminently sensible.
On the other hand, Fanny Price, although a penniless dependent, refuses to marry the charming and wealthy Henry Crawford whom she has seen flirting with both her cousins simultaneously, and whom she neither likes nor respects. Despite Sir Thomas Bertram's bullying, she sticks to her guns. The pro-Fanny brigade, which includes some feminists, finds this admirable..."
It goes without saying that I like and admire Fanny Price (and disagree with Elizabeth Newark for thinking that Fanny refuses Henry Crawford mostly because she's head over heels in love with Edmund- in fact, with Edmund in love with Mary Crawford, there seems to be no hope for Fanny, she rejects Henry rather because of his character). However, at the same time I understand Charlotte Lucas, and whilst doubting that I will ever do a similar thing, do admire the way she considers all of her options, makes a decision and does something for her situation. Twice in "Pride and prejudice", Elizabeth Bennet says no to wealth. Charlotte cannot afford to do so.
Having little experience, I'm still aware that in life people have different ideas about marriage, different expectations- some prioritise love, some wish the spouse to be a friend as well or even a soulmate, some only ask for stability, some see marriage as a kind of rescue (from spinsterhood, poverty, or from their own poor, unfair country), some get married for the mere sake of getting married; some hope to share the same hobbies and interests and views with their spouse, some don't have such concerns as they talk about nothing but bills and the like. I'm also aware that a marriage I see as boring, from my point of view, does not necessarily bore the couple, and a marriage without love is not necessarily unhappy (it should be noted, too, that 2 people who love each other are not necessarily happy when married). And above all, I can think of at least 1 arranged marriage couple who have lived peacefully and contentedly with each other for decades and are still doing that now. Charlotte Lucas is different from Elizabeth Bennet and cannot be expected to act like Elizabeth- "I am not romantic, you know. I never was." She's pragmatic, but not mercenary and manipulative like Isabella Thorpe or hypocritical and scheming like Lucy Steele. She knows what she wants and what she needs, and acts on it, then accepts her own decision and makes the best of it.
Furthermore, some comments below the 1st article are worth some attention:
"Mr. Collins presents with many characteristics which we now recognize as being similar to some of those typical of people on the high functioning or Apserger's end of the autistic spectrum eg tendency to monologue and focus on details, limited ability to convey empathy, reliance on "scripts" for conversation etc. However, since he is still a young man of only twenty-five years of age, his social awkwardness is likely to decrease especially since, for the first time in his life, the primary influence in his life will come from someone who is perceptive about others. Charlotte is already gently curbing his excessively formal and fawning manners. Once he inherits Longbourn so is removed from Lady Catherine's dominance, these will diminish further. He will have independence and a respected social position in a different community plus will profitably direct his energies and attention to detail towards improving not just a garden but an entire farm/estate (which has been somewhat neglected by Mr. Bennet as he retreated from social interaction and responsibility into his library). As the novel ends, both Mr. and Mrs. Collins have achieved the specific if limited goals they desired from marriage; therefore, basking in this small warm glow of success, they do not feel bitterness or resentment towards each other. They are content and treat each other pleasantly as they probably will throughout their marriage. Their future holds the promise of children, an increased income and the eventual return to Charlotte's former community."
"Perhaps you are not giving credit to other things that Mr. Collins is not, while he may be appalling tedious, he is not cruel, he will not subject Charlotte to mental or physical torture, he is not a spender or a drinker, subjecting Charlotte to those kinds of worry, nor is he a womanizer, in short, he is a safe choice from a variety of perspectives that Charlotte has reasoned. It is as if she said the marriage is a crapshoot, and I choose the devil I know over the devil I don't know."
In other words, it's perhaps not so bad after all, that is, for someone like Charlotte Lucas. I would even go as far as saying that there might be more hope in the marriage between her and that silly Mr Collins than in that between Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill. One knows what to expect. The latter is too uncertain.
Nabokov's definition of a major writer
"There are three points of view from which a writer can be considered: he may be considered as a storyteller, as a teacher, and as an enchanter. A major writer combines these three—storyteller, teacher, enchanter—but it is the enchanter in him that predominates and makes him a major writer.
To the storyteller we turn for entertainment, for mental excitement of the simplest kind, for emotional participation, for the pleasure of traveling in some remote region in space or time. A slightly different though not necessarily higher mind looks for the teacher in the writer. Propagandist, moralist, prophet — this is the rising sequence. We may go to the teacher not only for moral education but also for direct knowledge, for simple facts… Finally, and above all, a great writer is always a great enchanter, and it is here that we come to the really exciting part when we try to grasp the individual magic of his genius and to study the style, the imagery, the pattern of his novels or poems.
The three facets of the great writer — magic, story, lesson — are prone to blend in one impression of unified and unique radiance, since the magic of art may be present in the very bones of the story, in the very marrow of thought. There are masterpieces of dry, limpid, organized thought which provoke in us an artistic quiver quite as strongly as a novel like Mansfield Park does or as any rich flow of Dickensian sensual imagery. It seems to me that a good formula to test the quality of a novel is, in the long run, a merging of the precision of poetry and the intuition of science. In order to bask in that magic a wise reader reads the book of genius not with his heart, not so much with his brain, but with his spine. It is there that occurs the telltale tingle even though we must keep a little aloof, a little detached when reading. Then with a pleasure which is both sensual and intellectual we shall watch the artist build his castle of cards and watch the castle of cards become a castle of beautiful steel and glass."
(Vladimir Nabokov)
To the storyteller we turn for entertainment, for mental excitement of the simplest kind, for emotional participation, for the pleasure of traveling in some remote region in space or time. A slightly different though not necessarily higher mind looks for the teacher in the writer. Propagandist, moralist, prophet — this is the rising sequence. We may go to the teacher not only for moral education but also for direct knowledge, for simple facts… Finally, and above all, a great writer is always a great enchanter, and it is here that we come to the really exciting part when we try to grasp the individual magic of his genius and to study the style, the imagery, the pattern of his novels or poems.
The three facets of the great writer — magic, story, lesson — are prone to blend in one impression of unified and unique radiance, since the magic of art may be present in the very bones of the story, in the very marrow of thought. There are masterpieces of dry, limpid, organized thought which provoke in us an artistic quiver quite as strongly as a novel like Mansfield Park does or as any rich flow of Dickensian sensual imagery. It seems to me that a good formula to test the quality of a novel is, in the long run, a merging of the precision of poetry and the intuition of science. In order to bask in that magic a wise reader reads the book of genius not with his heart, not so much with his brain, but with his spine. It is there that occurs the telltale tingle even though we must keep a little aloof, a little detached when reading. Then with a pleasure which is both sensual and intellectual we shall watch the artist build his castle of cards and watch the castle of cards become a castle of beautiful steel and glass."
(Vladimir Nabokov)
Thursday, 16 January 2014
The uncle in "Jane Eyre", and other issues
As if
it's not enough, this morning I found another problem with "Jane
Eyre":
Why does John Eyre leave money for his niece Jane Eyre, whom he doesn't know, and who is told to be dead already?
Suppose that Jane, after seeing Mrs Reed the last time and knowing about the letter, or later, when preparing to get married to Rochester, sends him a letter, I don't remember any correspondence between the 2 nor anything about the uncle, who is not mentioned until a long time later when he comes up in the conversations at St John Rivers's place. So what happens? Or perhaps there's some correspondence between the uncle and the niece but it's treated as insignificant and thus left out?
I reckon, Charlotte Bronte's life is both a good and a bad thing for her career as an author. Her greatest strength, as well as Emily's, is imagination. Her biggest fault, or, no, the biggest fault of "Jane Eyre" is that, for lack of experience and perhaps chance for observation, Charlotte doesn't let things take their course. Very often, one sees the author's hand move around, touch things, direct her characters. Many things in the plot become artificial, forced, unnatural, unconvincing, many of which I've mentioned before, such as that Jane runs away from Rochester to end up at the most impossible place, her cousins' home, and when the relationship between her and St John Rivers becomes difficult and suffocating, she comes back to Rochester to find him liberated from the mad wife, liberated from the horrible secret, whilst she inherits a fortune from an uncle she hasn't met, an uncle who is informed that she has died- in short, she comes back to find everything conveniently solved and all hindrances removed.
Also due to lack of experience, Charlotte cherishes the image of the Byronic hero and depicts as wonderful and happy a marriage which, perhaps not disturbing and unhealthy as some people have said, still makes one feel quite uneasy or at least unsatisfied with what is meant as a happy ending. One should not forget that Rochester lies to her many times, conceals from her the fact about his living wife, plays games with her feelings, flirts with Blanche Ingram to make her jealous, disguises as a fortune-teller to make her speak out her feelings, pretends to ask her to become a governess elsewhere, makes her suffer... (by the way, doesn't this make you think of Frank Churchill?) One should remember as well that Rochester can be dominating sometimes and insensitive to the way she feels ("He smiled; and I thought his smile was such as a sultan might, in a blissful and fond moment, bestow on a slave his gold and gems had enriched." See that?).
Furthermore, though her characters are not always her mouthpieces, because of lack of chance for observation perhaps, they don't have their own voices, and once in a while they say things that seem unauthentic, unnatural, unlike what such people may say.
At the same time, there are some problems with views. Last time, on 22/12/2013, I mentioned her feminist orientalism. "Jane Eyre" has some lines such as:
"Now, King Ahasuerus! What do I want with half your estate? Do you think I am a Jew-usurer, seeking good investment in land? I would much rather have all your confidence."
"... Her mother, the Creole, was both a madwoman and a drunkard!..."
"... I sought my ideal of a woman amongst English ladies, French countesses, Italian signoras, and German gräfinnen. I could not find her. Sometimes, for a fleeting moment, I thought I caught a glance, heard a tone, beheld a form, which announced the realisation of my dream: but I was presently undeserved. You are not to suppose that I desired perfection, either of mind or person. I longed only for what suited me—for the antipodes of the Creole: and I longed vainly. [...] The first I chose was Céline Varens—another of those steps which make a man spurn himself when he recalls them. You already know what she was, and how my liaison with her terminated. She had two successors: an Italian, Giacinta, and a German, Clara; both considered singularly handsome. What was their beauty to me in a few weeks? Giacinta was unprincipled and violent: I tired of her in three months. Clara was honest and quiet; but heavy, mindless, and unimpressible: not one whit to my taste. I was glad to give her a sufficient sum to set her up in a good line of business, and so get decently rid of her. [...] After a youth and manhood passed half in unutterable misery and half in dreary solitude, I have for the first time found what I can truly love—I have found you. You are my sympathy—my better self—my good angel. I am bound to you with a strong attachment. I think you good, gifted, lovely: a fervent, a solemn passion is conceived in my heart; it leans to you, draws you to my centre and spring of life, wraps my existence about you, and, kindling in pure, powerful flame, fuses you and me in one..."
And more: "... As she grew up, a sound English education corrected in a great measure her French defects; and when she left school, I found in her a pleasing and obliging companion: docile, good-tempered, and well-principled..." Oh horror!
I'm aware that an author is a human being and a product of their time and place, but as I can't stand the sexism in August Strindberg's "Miss Julie" and can't forgive the stereotype of Asian women in Giacomo Puccini's "Madame Butterfly" and etc, I can't help noticing and feeling some kind of uneasiness at these lines in "Jane Eyre".
Guess I should stop here. In spite of all above, I'm not going to give up on Charlotte Bronte. Must give "Villette" a try.
Why does John Eyre leave money for his niece Jane Eyre, whom he doesn't know, and who is told to be dead already?
Suppose that Jane, after seeing Mrs Reed the last time and knowing about the letter, or later, when preparing to get married to Rochester, sends him a letter, I don't remember any correspondence between the 2 nor anything about the uncle, who is not mentioned until a long time later when he comes up in the conversations at St John Rivers's place. So what happens? Or perhaps there's some correspondence between the uncle and the niece but it's treated as insignificant and thus left out?
I reckon, Charlotte Bronte's life is both a good and a bad thing for her career as an author. Her greatest strength, as well as Emily's, is imagination. Her biggest fault, or, no, the biggest fault of "Jane Eyre" is that, for lack of experience and perhaps chance for observation, Charlotte doesn't let things take their course. Very often, one sees the author's hand move around, touch things, direct her characters. Many things in the plot become artificial, forced, unnatural, unconvincing, many of which I've mentioned before, such as that Jane runs away from Rochester to end up at the most impossible place, her cousins' home, and when the relationship between her and St John Rivers becomes difficult and suffocating, she comes back to Rochester to find him liberated from the mad wife, liberated from the horrible secret, whilst she inherits a fortune from an uncle she hasn't met, an uncle who is informed that she has died- in short, she comes back to find everything conveniently solved and all hindrances removed.
Also due to lack of experience, Charlotte cherishes the image of the Byronic hero and depicts as wonderful and happy a marriage which, perhaps not disturbing and unhealthy as some people have said, still makes one feel quite uneasy or at least unsatisfied with what is meant as a happy ending. One should not forget that Rochester lies to her many times, conceals from her the fact about his living wife, plays games with her feelings, flirts with Blanche Ingram to make her jealous, disguises as a fortune-teller to make her speak out her feelings, pretends to ask her to become a governess elsewhere, makes her suffer... (by the way, doesn't this make you think of Frank Churchill?) One should remember as well that Rochester can be dominating sometimes and insensitive to the way she feels ("He smiled; and I thought his smile was such as a sultan might, in a blissful and fond moment, bestow on a slave his gold and gems had enriched." See that?).
Furthermore, though her characters are not always her mouthpieces, because of lack of chance for observation perhaps, they don't have their own voices, and once in a while they say things that seem unauthentic, unnatural, unlike what such people may say.
At the same time, there are some problems with views. Last time, on 22/12/2013, I mentioned her feminist orientalism. "Jane Eyre" has some lines such as:
"Now, King Ahasuerus! What do I want with half your estate? Do you think I am a Jew-usurer, seeking good investment in land? I would much rather have all your confidence."
"... Her mother, the Creole, was both a madwoman and a drunkard!..."
"... I sought my ideal of a woman amongst English ladies, French countesses, Italian signoras, and German gräfinnen. I could not find her. Sometimes, for a fleeting moment, I thought I caught a glance, heard a tone, beheld a form, which announced the realisation of my dream: but I was presently undeserved. You are not to suppose that I desired perfection, either of mind or person. I longed only for what suited me—for the antipodes of the Creole: and I longed vainly. [...] The first I chose was Céline Varens—another of those steps which make a man spurn himself when he recalls them. You already know what she was, and how my liaison with her terminated. She had two successors: an Italian, Giacinta, and a German, Clara; both considered singularly handsome. What was their beauty to me in a few weeks? Giacinta was unprincipled and violent: I tired of her in three months. Clara was honest and quiet; but heavy, mindless, and unimpressible: not one whit to my taste. I was glad to give her a sufficient sum to set her up in a good line of business, and so get decently rid of her. [...] After a youth and manhood passed half in unutterable misery and half in dreary solitude, I have for the first time found what I can truly love—I have found you. You are my sympathy—my better self—my good angel. I am bound to you with a strong attachment. I think you good, gifted, lovely: a fervent, a solemn passion is conceived in my heart; it leans to you, draws you to my centre and spring of life, wraps my existence about you, and, kindling in pure, powerful flame, fuses you and me in one..."
And more: "... As she grew up, a sound English education corrected in a great measure her French defects; and when she left school, I found in her a pleasing and obliging companion: docile, good-tempered, and well-principled..." Oh horror!
I'm aware that an author is a human being and a product of their time and place, but as I can't stand the sexism in August Strindberg's "Miss Julie" and can't forgive the stereotype of Asian women in Giacomo Puccini's "Madame Butterfly" and etc, I can't help noticing and feeling some kind of uneasiness at these lines in "Jane Eyre".
Guess I should stop here. In spite of all above, I'm not going to give up on Charlotte Bronte. Must give "Villette" a try.
Wednesday, 15 January 2014
"Tôi không còn cô độc" (Thanh Tâm Tuyền)
Thanh Tâm Tuyền
Phục sinh
tôi buồn khóc như buồn nôn
ngoài phố
nắng thủy tinh
tôi gọi tên tôi cho đỡ nhớ
thanh tâm tuyền
buổi chiều sao vỡ vào chuông giáo đường
tôi xin một chỗ quỳ thầm kín
cho đứa nhỏ linh hồn
sợ chó dữ
con chó đói không màu
tôi buồn chết như buồn ngủ
dù tôi đang đứng bên bờ sông
nước đen sâu thao thức
tôi hét tên tôi cho nguôi giận
thanh tâm tuyền
đêm ngã xuống khoảng thì thầm tội lỗi
em bé quàng khăn đỏ ơi
này một con chó sói
thứ chó sói lang thang
tôi thèm giết tôi
loài sát nhân muôn đời
tôi gào tên tôi thảm thiết
thanh tâm tuyền
bóp cổ tôi chết gục
để tôi được phục sinh
từng chuỗi cuộc đời tiếp nối
nhân loại không tha thứ tội giết người
bọn đao phủ quỳ gối
giờ phục sinh
tiếng kêu là kinh cầu
những thế kỷ chờ đợi
tôi thèm sống như thèm chết
giữa hơi thở giao thoa
ngực cháy lửa
tôi gọi khẽ
em
hãy mở cửa trái tim
tâm hồn anh vừa sống lại thành trẻ thơ
trong sạch như một lần sự thật.
Của em
Cửa sổ trời những mắt chưa quen
trán hoang đồng cỏ
run đường môi kỷ niệm
đi qua những thành phố đầy tim
cười đổ mưa một mình
trái tim ngọn lửa xanh
áp mùa đông
ngón tay út ngây thơ nền vải
buổi chiều
quá lạnh những hàng chấn song
đã yêu nhau muôn vàn mái nhà
những người vô tội chối từ khí giới
chấp hai lòng tay lò sưởi
không nỡ làm rối mi mắt khép
gửi một tiếng cười và mùa thu
và một lá thư học trò
Chim
(Tặng Nguyễn Sỹ Tế)
Đêm giao thừa thế kỷ mưa rơi sao
mái sáng đường nằm chiêm bao biển giận dỗi
bàn tay mày mắt trăng môi nhiệt đới
chiến tranh còn những khoảng trống đất hoang
cửa sổ đập lên cao cánh chim én mùa xuân
ôm vào lòng bãi cỏ vườn hoa bầy sao rụng
ai hỏi anh ngoài hàng dậu
lãng mạn lập thể siêu thực dã thú đa đa
tôi mở những trái cây vườn nhà
cử chỉ trữ tình tinh khiết
những bước đi văn nghệ chim sẻ
mùa ngói nâu dựng vực mắt nâu
tôi ru chim ngủ trong cổ họng
mặt trời kêu xuống thái dương những màu ánh sáng thơm
tim kinh ngạc
đời tạo câu cười thiên nhiên mai
hy vọng đứng ra ngoài ô ngục ngực bâng khuâng
lần gặp gỡ thứ nhất
rồi kỷ niệm kim khí thuỷ tinh hành hạ
đau xé trời đêm không sao bánh máy quay vũ khí
tôi chối từ giam cầm chim đẹp trong rừng tóc
dù tiếng hót đã chọn mấy hàm răng
người bộ hành cô đơn chờ đêm để lên đường
về quá khứ
chim bay vào trận mưa sao
Lệ đá xanh
tôi biết những người khóc lẻ loi
không nguôi một phút
những người khóc lệ không rơi ngoài tim mình
em biết không
lệ là những viên đá xanh
tim rũ rượi
đôi khi anh muốn tin
ngoài trời chỉ còn trời sao là đáng kể
mà bên những vì sao lấp lánh đôi mắt em
đến ngày cuối
đôi khi anh muốn tin
ngoài đời thơm phức những trái cây của thượng đế
mà bên những trái cây ngọt ngào đôi môi em
nguồn sữa mật khởi đầu
đôi khi anh muốn tin
ngoài đời đầy cỏ hoa tinh khiết
mà bên cỏ hoa quyến rũ cánh tay em
vòng ân ái
đôi khi anh muốn tin
ôi những người khóc lẻ loi một mình
đau đớn lệ là những viên đá xanh
tim rũ rượi
Liên, những bài thơ tình thời chia cách
I
Sự em có mặt cần thiết như những sớm mai
(nếu đời người không có những sớm mai)
anh trở dậy
đọc thơ Nguyễn Du
những câu lục bát buồn rưng rưng cuối đường của một ngày
chợt anh muốn viết tặng em
không thể được
em làm con tin ở một thế giới
mà lòng sầu héo là trọng tội
anh cố gắng viết những lời thơ thật tự nhiên
như câu chuyện buổi còn gặp gỡ
như khoảng trời đơn sơ sau cửa sổ
anh gọi thầm một mình
trong giấc mơ phủ làn tóc biếc
anh biết anh gọi thầm một mình
LIÊN
II
Anh nhớ em cùng một lúc với thành phố
với những con đường anh đi qua một lần
để đến nhà em anh băng ngang một vườn hoa vắng
(lần trở về anh ngồi xuống ghế dài
nếu là buổi chiều quạnh hiu mây lá mùa thu)
một phố bình dân có chợ và những quán ăn
giản dị như trang nhật ký của anh
ngày bắt đầu yêu em
III
Trời trắng cánh tay mặc áo ngắn
những cuốn sách nhỏ chuyền tay
được viết cho những người ngày mai
cuộc đời tối tăm đòi ánh sáng
anh nâng niu cuốn sách nói đến cách mạng
nói đến người tâm hồn trái tim tự do
nói đến anh và em
hoàn toàn cởi mở
IV
Sự vắng mặt của em và bãi biển mùa đông
thành phố đau từ mỗi cột đèn
mỗi bực thềm cửa đóng
em đi không nón không áo choàng
mừa tầm tã
những cửa sổ đêm muốn hé ra
nổi loạn
và mắt em mặt trời cỏ hoa với môi anh đằm thắm
và rực rỡ nhớ thương
V
Nét cong môi hồng mắt tình cờ
ngực hoa yếu đuối
những miền không gian được gọi qua
tình yêu không thẹn thùng
đâu phải một thứ mưa ô bay vào thành phố
năm cửa ô hồi sinh trên xác năm cửa tù
mưa nắng cùng rủ nhau xuống Sinh từ ngõ Hội vũ
bao nhiêu đường tình tự ga hàng cỏ
nụ hôn đầu ôm mái tóc lang thang
tà áo bàn tay hương trẻ con
hoàng hôn tỉnh
kim khí khua trong bước trở về nhà cửa
sự vắng mặt không thể lâu hơn nữa
thù nghịch tan vào hơi thở
trong giấc hôn mê thôi khóc tiếng mèo đêm
tình yêu mầu nhiệm hoàn thành
vĩnh viễn
VI
Anh xin em ngọn tóc cỏ cái hôn tím
mắt chợt xẩm chiều
bởi trôi qua những miền tâm sự viếng thăm
có thể em chết trước khi anh kịp về
mùa lạnh gian phòng cũ
không ai khép cửa sổ
cúi xuống viền mi những bóng tối bên ngoài
có thể rồi anh sẽ yêu người đàn bà thứ hai
anh không chối
nhưng mãi mãi em còn là đất dĩ vãng
mà rễ tình cảm đòi bén gần
và những viên gạch những lối xưa
còn chiêm bao gót em mềm âu yếm
em ơi tình yêu thương đến vào buổi chiều
đúng hơn là buổi sáng rừng tâm hồn ta
vậy sao em lại ngủ
ngủ trong lòng mộ trong nghĩa địa thân thể anh
với áo cỏ may châm da thịt
anh đã đến từ biệt lùa mái tóc vào những ngón tay
những giọt lệ sương lấp lánh
anh hứa trở về không đối diện với thù
giòng sông chỉ còn tiếng sóng vỗ
cười tung lồng ngực chứa chan
thành phố đứng cao làm hiệu
rằng anh còn trở về
rằng anh còn người yêu
nàng công chúa ngủ trong rừng không giận hờn
LIÊN
Hoa
Tại sao em thích gọi tên hoa
nào ngày mai của chúng ta buông từng cánh
xuống vai trần
viền cỏ
bồng tóc nâu
em sẽ gọi tên anh
mùa hoa hôm nay
nhưng thời gian đã ngã vào lòng vô định
chút sữa huệ ấm đời thiếu tiếng chim
cánh hồng ngọt không gian tàn phá
những thời gian không rời nhau mang đến bao nhiêu mưa
dạy em yêu phía sau cửa sổ
thiếp điên trong chuỗi dài giấc ngủ
rất vui
hoa nào không mang tên
chỉ là nét rối bời trên bức họa
màu sắc nhòa
anh đã vẽ vào em
vào giấc mơ chập chờn lên tiếng hát
những cánh hoa cười rũ
xếp hàng tên chúng ta
Vĩ tuyến
Nói thầm với nhau
bằng bàn tay
người nằm đường ngăn trên trán đau
nói thầm với nhau
bằng vuốt ve
người nằm đường ngăn tim rách nát
nói thầm với nhau
bằng giận dữ
người nằm đường ngăn chém thịt da
nói thầm với nhau
bằng thân thể
nói thầm với nhau
bằng yêu thương
nói thầm với nhau
thật đằm thắm
cuộc đời nhược tiểu cuộc đời nhược tiểu
nói thầm với nhau
dù vĩ tuyến
Phục sinh
tôi buồn khóc như buồn nôn
ngoài phố
nắng thủy tinh
tôi gọi tên tôi cho đỡ nhớ
thanh tâm tuyền
buổi chiều sao vỡ vào chuông giáo đường
tôi xin một chỗ quỳ thầm kín
cho đứa nhỏ linh hồn
sợ chó dữ
con chó đói không màu
tôi buồn chết như buồn ngủ
dù tôi đang đứng bên bờ sông
nước đen sâu thao thức
tôi hét tên tôi cho nguôi giận
thanh tâm tuyền
đêm ngã xuống khoảng thì thầm tội lỗi
em bé quàng khăn đỏ ơi
này một con chó sói
thứ chó sói lang thang
tôi thèm giết tôi
loài sát nhân muôn đời
tôi gào tên tôi thảm thiết
thanh tâm tuyền
bóp cổ tôi chết gục
để tôi được phục sinh
từng chuỗi cuộc đời tiếp nối
nhân loại không tha thứ tội giết người
bọn đao phủ quỳ gối
giờ phục sinh
tiếng kêu là kinh cầu
những thế kỷ chờ đợi
tôi thèm sống như thèm chết
giữa hơi thở giao thoa
ngực cháy lửa
tôi gọi khẽ
em
hãy mở cửa trái tim
tâm hồn anh vừa sống lại thành trẻ thơ
trong sạch như một lần sự thật.
Của em
Cửa sổ trời những mắt chưa quen
trán hoang đồng cỏ
run đường môi kỷ niệm
đi qua những thành phố đầy tim
cười đổ mưa một mình
trái tim ngọn lửa xanh
áp mùa đông
ngón tay út ngây thơ nền vải
buổi chiều
quá lạnh những hàng chấn song
đã yêu nhau muôn vàn mái nhà
những người vô tội chối từ khí giới
chấp hai lòng tay lò sưởi
không nỡ làm rối mi mắt khép
gửi một tiếng cười và mùa thu
và một lá thư học trò
Chim
(Tặng Nguyễn Sỹ Tế)
Đêm giao thừa thế kỷ mưa rơi sao
mái sáng đường nằm chiêm bao biển giận dỗi
bàn tay mày mắt trăng môi nhiệt đới
chiến tranh còn những khoảng trống đất hoang
cửa sổ đập lên cao cánh chim én mùa xuân
ôm vào lòng bãi cỏ vườn hoa bầy sao rụng
ai hỏi anh ngoài hàng dậu
lãng mạn lập thể siêu thực dã thú đa đa
tôi mở những trái cây vườn nhà
cử chỉ trữ tình tinh khiết
những bước đi văn nghệ chim sẻ
mùa ngói nâu dựng vực mắt nâu
tôi ru chim ngủ trong cổ họng
mặt trời kêu xuống thái dương những màu ánh sáng thơm
tim kinh ngạc
đời tạo câu cười thiên nhiên mai
hy vọng đứng ra ngoài ô ngục ngực bâng khuâng
lần gặp gỡ thứ nhất
rồi kỷ niệm kim khí thuỷ tinh hành hạ
đau xé trời đêm không sao bánh máy quay vũ khí
tôi chối từ giam cầm chim đẹp trong rừng tóc
dù tiếng hót đã chọn mấy hàm răng
người bộ hành cô đơn chờ đêm để lên đường
về quá khứ
chim bay vào trận mưa sao
Lệ đá xanh
tôi biết những người khóc lẻ loi
không nguôi một phút
những người khóc lệ không rơi ngoài tim mình
em biết không
lệ là những viên đá xanh
tim rũ rượi
đôi khi anh muốn tin
ngoài trời chỉ còn trời sao là đáng kể
mà bên những vì sao lấp lánh đôi mắt em
đến ngày cuối
đôi khi anh muốn tin
ngoài đời thơm phức những trái cây của thượng đế
mà bên những trái cây ngọt ngào đôi môi em
nguồn sữa mật khởi đầu
đôi khi anh muốn tin
ngoài đời đầy cỏ hoa tinh khiết
mà bên cỏ hoa quyến rũ cánh tay em
vòng ân ái
đôi khi anh muốn tin
ôi những người khóc lẻ loi một mình
đau đớn lệ là những viên đá xanh
tim rũ rượi
Liên, những bài thơ tình thời chia cách
I
Sự em có mặt cần thiết như những sớm mai
(nếu đời người không có những sớm mai)
anh trở dậy
đọc thơ Nguyễn Du
những câu lục bát buồn rưng rưng cuối đường của một ngày
chợt anh muốn viết tặng em
không thể được
em làm con tin ở một thế giới
mà lòng sầu héo là trọng tội
anh cố gắng viết những lời thơ thật tự nhiên
như câu chuyện buổi còn gặp gỡ
như khoảng trời đơn sơ sau cửa sổ
anh gọi thầm một mình
trong giấc mơ phủ làn tóc biếc
anh biết anh gọi thầm một mình
LIÊN
II
Anh nhớ em cùng một lúc với thành phố
với những con đường anh đi qua một lần
để đến nhà em anh băng ngang một vườn hoa vắng
(lần trở về anh ngồi xuống ghế dài
nếu là buổi chiều quạnh hiu mây lá mùa thu)
một phố bình dân có chợ và những quán ăn
giản dị như trang nhật ký của anh
ngày bắt đầu yêu em
III
Trời trắng cánh tay mặc áo ngắn
những cuốn sách nhỏ chuyền tay
được viết cho những người ngày mai
cuộc đời tối tăm đòi ánh sáng
anh nâng niu cuốn sách nói đến cách mạng
nói đến người tâm hồn trái tim tự do
nói đến anh và em
hoàn toàn cởi mở
IV
Sự vắng mặt của em và bãi biển mùa đông
thành phố đau từ mỗi cột đèn
mỗi bực thềm cửa đóng
em đi không nón không áo choàng
mừa tầm tã
những cửa sổ đêm muốn hé ra
nổi loạn
và mắt em mặt trời cỏ hoa với môi anh đằm thắm
và rực rỡ nhớ thương
V
Nét cong môi hồng mắt tình cờ
ngực hoa yếu đuối
những miền không gian được gọi qua
tình yêu không thẹn thùng
đâu phải một thứ mưa ô bay vào thành phố
năm cửa ô hồi sinh trên xác năm cửa tù
mưa nắng cùng rủ nhau xuống Sinh từ ngõ Hội vũ
bao nhiêu đường tình tự ga hàng cỏ
nụ hôn đầu ôm mái tóc lang thang
tà áo bàn tay hương trẻ con
hoàng hôn tỉnh
kim khí khua trong bước trở về nhà cửa
sự vắng mặt không thể lâu hơn nữa
thù nghịch tan vào hơi thở
trong giấc hôn mê thôi khóc tiếng mèo đêm
tình yêu mầu nhiệm hoàn thành
vĩnh viễn
VI
Anh xin em ngọn tóc cỏ cái hôn tím
mắt chợt xẩm chiều
bởi trôi qua những miền tâm sự viếng thăm
có thể em chết trước khi anh kịp về
mùa lạnh gian phòng cũ
không ai khép cửa sổ
cúi xuống viền mi những bóng tối bên ngoài
có thể rồi anh sẽ yêu người đàn bà thứ hai
anh không chối
nhưng mãi mãi em còn là đất dĩ vãng
mà rễ tình cảm đòi bén gần
và những viên gạch những lối xưa
còn chiêm bao gót em mềm âu yếm
em ơi tình yêu thương đến vào buổi chiều
đúng hơn là buổi sáng rừng tâm hồn ta
vậy sao em lại ngủ
ngủ trong lòng mộ trong nghĩa địa thân thể anh
với áo cỏ may châm da thịt
anh đã đến từ biệt lùa mái tóc vào những ngón tay
những giọt lệ sương lấp lánh
anh hứa trở về không đối diện với thù
giòng sông chỉ còn tiếng sóng vỗ
cười tung lồng ngực chứa chan
thành phố đứng cao làm hiệu
rằng anh còn trở về
rằng anh còn người yêu
nàng công chúa ngủ trong rừng không giận hờn
LIÊN
Hoa
Tại sao em thích gọi tên hoa
nào ngày mai của chúng ta buông từng cánh
xuống vai trần
viền cỏ
bồng tóc nâu
em sẽ gọi tên anh
mùa hoa hôm nay
nhưng thời gian đã ngã vào lòng vô định
chút sữa huệ ấm đời thiếu tiếng chim
cánh hồng ngọt không gian tàn phá
những thời gian không rời nhau mang đến bao nhiêu mưa
dạy em yêu phía sau cửa sổ
thiếp điên trong chuỗi dài giấc ngủ
rất vui
hoa nào không mang tên
chỉ là nét rối bời trên bức họa
màu sắc nhòa
anh đã vẽ vào em
vào giấc mơ chập chờn lên tiếng hát
những cánh hoa cười rũ
xếp hàng tên chúng ta
Vĩ tuyến
Nói thầm với nhau
bằng bàn tay
người nằm đường ngăn trên trán đau
nói thầm với nhau
bằng vuốt ve
người nằm đường ngăn tim rách nát
nói thầm với nhau
bằng giận dữ
người nằm đường ngăn chém thịt da
nói thầm với nhau
bằng thân thể
nói thầm với nhau
bằng yêu thương
nói thầm với nhau
thật đằm thắm
cuộc đời nhược tiểu cuộc đời nhược tiểu
nói thầm với nhau
dù vĩ tuyến
Tuesday, 14 January 2014
Gõ cửa tồn sinh (Bùi Giáng)
Suốt đời phải thức suốt đêm
Suốt ngày ngủ nướng mới nên con người
Tồn sinh quá khứ chôn vùi
Cơn say suốt kiếp - trận cười thâu canh
Bình sinh lao khổ đã đành
Cũng từ bình sử tựu thành mà ra
"Thanh minh trong tiết tháng ba
Lễ là tảo mộ hội là đạp thanh"
Bùi Giáng
Thêm 2 câu không biết xếp đi đâu, cũng của Bàng Giúi tiên sinh:
Sáng nay bao tử mơ mòng
Cà phê bên nọ, cháo lòng bên kia
Suốt ngày ngủ nướng mới nên con người
Tồn sinh quá khứ chôn vùi
Cơn say suốt kiếp - trận cười thâu canh
Bình sinh lao khổ đã đành
Cũng từ bình sử tựu thành mà ra
"Thanh minh trong tiết tháng ba
Lễ là tảo mộ hội là đạp thanh"
Bùi Giáng
Thêm 2 câu không biết xếp đi đâu, cũng của Bàng Giúi tiên sinh:
Sáng nay bao tử mơ mòng
Cà phê bên nọ, cháo lòng bên kia
Không đề (Bùi Giáng)
Vì con mắt cũng buồn như mí mắt
Em đi về như vui gượng trên môi
Lời nói kia là lá rụng sương đồi
Vì hơi thở rớt vào trong buổi tối
Gió chiều hôm non nước nhớ xanh trời
Em đi về là tím bạc hai môi
Vì nhan sắc ngày kia em hoảng sợ
Chợt bước vào nhìn thân thể như xương
Em đi về là hé mở môi hường
Và hé mở môi không hường một lúc
Sương gió cũ thiên thu về cúi gục
Cỏ nội đồng là sực tỉnh ra hoa
Em ra đi-- là bưng mặt khóc òa
Bùi Giáng
("Mưa nguồn")
Em đi về như vui gượng trên môi
Lời nói kia là lá rụng sương đồi
Vì hơi thở rớt vào trong buổi tối
Gió chiều hôm non nước nhớ xanh trời
Em đi về là tím bạc hai môi
Vì nhan sắc ngày kia em hoảng sợ
Chợt bước vào nhìn thân thể như xương
Em đi về là hé mở môi hường
Và hé mở môi không hường một lúc
Sương gió cũ thiên thu về cúi gục
Cỏ nội đồng là sực tỉnh ra hoa
Em ra đi-- là bưng mặt khóc òa
Bùi Giáng
("Mưa nguồn")
Monday, 13 January 2014
Jane Fairfax& Jane Eyre || Other thoughts after 2nd reading of "Emma"
Rereading
"Emma", I can't help noticing the name Jane and the job as governess,
and more than that, the name Fairfax which also appears in "Jane
Eyre"- Mrs Fairfax the housekeeper and Edward Fairfax Rochester. What a
coincidence! As it turns out, however, there are more similarities between
"Emma" and "Jane Eyre".
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Jane+Austen,+Jane+Fairfax,+and+Jane+Eyre.-a0179934393
"Whether Bronte remembered the Puritan or the governess, both Jane Fairfax and the Jane who marries Edward Fairfax Rochester subdue their passions and appearance. Jane Fairfax's grey eyes and reserve (167-69) anticipate the self-controlled, "Quaker-like" governess Jane Eyre, who rejects pink satin for sober black and pearl-grey (103, 281). Frank flirts with Emma while secretly engaged, and Mr. Rochester proposes bigamy. Marriage rescues Jane Fairfax from the Bragges, Smallridges, and Sucklings (380), and Mr. Rochester's proposal prevents Jane Eyre fleeing to the O'Galls of Bitternutt Lodge (263). Mrs. Churchill's death allows Jane to marry Frank; that of the madwoman allows Jane to marry Mr. Rochester. And if Mr. Knightley is sixteen years older than Emma, but not a brother, no, indeed (99, 331), Mr. Rochester, who at twenty years older than Jane "might almost be your father," becomes her ardent suitor (277). It's odd that a charade with sexual implications occurs in both books. Odder still are the eyes: Emma has "'the true hazle eye--and so brilliant!'" (39), and when Frank desires his future wife to have "'hazle eyes,'" Emma thinks of Harriet, "[h]azle eyes excepted" (373). So why would Mr. Rochester talk of Jane's "radiant hazel eyes," when they are actually green (271)?"
"If, however, Bronte told truth when she said she read Emma only after she wrote Jane Eyre, perhaps she was startled to realize that Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman plays as extensive a role in Austen's novel as her own. [...] Both authors, says Sulloway, want women to think rationally and morally, with Austen everywhere implying what Wollstonecraft states when she makes her clever but under-educated heroine fantasize about the sexual lives of others, shows the effects of substituting "accomplishments" for a genuine education, pot trays governessing as slavery, exposes the condition of impoverished women, maintains the importance of equality, and prioritizes the education of children."
One may argue that, even though "Emma" compares the governess trade to the slave trade, the novel doesn't show us governesses' hardships and humiliations, by letting Jane Fairfax escape her fate through marriage with Frank Churchill and therefore Jane Austen, also a feminist, also influenced by Mary Wollstonecraft, also against the oppression of women, doesn't make so strong a point in comparison with what Charlotte Bronte later does in "Jane Eyre". In defence of Jane Austen, I would say:
1/ Following the same logic, the hardship in "Jane Eyre" is nothing compared to that in "Agnes Grey" by Anne Bronte.
After leaving Lowood, Jane Eyre gets employed at Thornfield hall, where she has a better life than at Gateshead and Lowood, living with the housekeeper Mrs Alice Fairfax- traditional but kind, her pupil Adele- frivolous, shallow and lazy but good-natured, and her master Mr Rochester- grumpy, irritable and moody but good at heart. Later, she marries her master. I do not wish to give the wrong idea that "Jane Eyre" is a sort of fairytale and that her life at Thornfield hall is happy-go-lucky and peaceful, but people generally treat Jane Eyre with respect and the only time she is humiliated is by Blanche Ingram and her mother.
Agnes Grey doesn't have such luck. Not having an unhappy ending, the book nevertheless explores all the hardship, oppression and humiliation a governess may face, from the distrust and disdain of the parents to the incorrigibility and insolence of the children, from the disrespect of the servants because of the ambiguous status of governesses to the feeling of helplessness for not being able to correct the pupils' faults, and the loneliness.
2/ "Emma", not depicting a governess's life, does show us women's situation in Britain in the 19th century.
The novel begins with "Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich..."
Look at this excerpt:
"... After a mutual silence of some minutes, Harriet thus began again—
"I do so wonder, Miss Woodhouse, that you should not be married, or going to be married! so charming as you are!"—
Emma laughed, and replied,
"My being charming, Harriet, is not quite enough to induce me to marry; I must find other people charming—one other person at least. And I am not only, not going to be married, at present, but have very little intention of ever marrying at all."
"Ah!—so you say; but I cannot believe it."
"I must see somebody very superior to any one I have seen yet, to be tempted; Mr. Elton, you know, (recollecting herself,) is out of the question: and I do not wish to see any such person. I would rather not be tempted. I cannot really change for the better. If I were to marry, I must expect to repent it."
"Dear me!—it is so odd to hear a woman talk so!"—
"I have none of the usual inducements of women to marry. Were I to fall in love, indeed, it would be a different thing! but I never have been in love; it is not my way, or my nature; and I do not think I ever shall. And, without love, I am sure I should be a fool to change such a situation as mine. Fortune I do not want; employment I do not want; consequence I do not want: I believe few married women are half as much mistress of their husband's house as I am of Hartfield; and never, never could I expect to be so truly beloved and important; so always first and always right in any man's eyes as I am in my father's."
"But then, to be an old maid at last, like Miss Bates!"
"That is as formidable an image as you could present, Harriet; and if I thought I should ever be like Miss Bates! so silly—so satisfied—so smiling—so prosing—so undistinguishing and unfastidious—and so apt to tell every thing relative to every body about me, I would marry to-morrow. But between us, I am convinced there never can be any likeness, except in being unmarried."
"But still, you will be an old maid! and that's so dreadful!"
"Never mind, Harriet, I shall not be a poor old maid; and it is poverty only which makes celibacy contemptible to a generous public! A single woman, with a very narrow income, must be a ridiculous, disagreeable old maid! the proper sport of boys and girls, but a single woman, of good fortune, is always respectable, and may be as sensible and pleasant as any body else. And the distinction is not quite so much against the candour and common sense of the world as appears at first; for a very narrow income has a tendency to contract the mind, and sour the temper. Those who can barely live, and who live perforce in a very small, and generally very inferior, society, may well be illiberal and cross. This does not apply, however, to Miss Bates; she is only too good natured and too silly to suit me; but, in general, she is very much to the taste of every body, though single and though poor. Poverty certainly has not contracted her mind: I really believe, if she had only a shilling in the world, she would be very likely to give away sixpence of it; and nobody is afraid of her: that is a great charm."..."
It's the income that makes the difference. Emma's condition allows her to be whatever she wants- she may marry if she likes, if not she may stay single for the rest of her life without being seen as ridiculous and pathetic. More importantly, a parallel may be drawn between her and Jane Fairfax, who is of the same age, also handsome, also clever or in fact even more talented and accomplished (which Emma envies and resents) but not rich. In my opinion, Jane Fairfax, albeit in the background with very small a voice, is in some ways a more significant character. She has the misfortune of not being Emma, facing 2 options- to get married, or to become a governess, and at the same time, the misfortune of not being the ordinary, simple-minded, content Miss Bates, of having all of her talents un(der)appreciated and thrown away, with an acute awareness of it.
The character Jane Fairfax, one may say, is a response to Jean Jacques Rousseau's opinion "The education of women should always be relative to that of men. To please, to be useful to us, to make us love and esteem them, to educate us when young, to take care of us when grown up."
http://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/did-jane-austen-have-revolutionary-thoughts/
3/ Closing "Emma" the 2nd time, I find myself caring deeply about Jane Fairfax, because in the end how can one tell whether she'll be happy with Frank Churchill? One is told that Jane Eyre has a happy, content marriage with Rochester, but whether Jane Fairfax has a happy ending is to me quite uncertain, considering that her husband, though good-natured, charming and full of love and regret, can be narcissistic, impulsive, thoughtless. Believe Jane Austen wants to have happy endings for her characters? Think of Charlotte Lucas and William Collins, think of Lucy Steele and Robert Ferras, think of Lydia Bennet and George Wickham, think of John Willoughby and Sophia Grey, think of William Elliott and Mrs Clay, etc.
The significance lies in this uncertainty.
[Update on 16/1: In short, I think once the readers have knowledge of a governess's life in the 19th century, which is not described in "Emma", Jane Austen makes a stronger point about a woman's life of her time, in making the happiness of the marriage uncertain, in letting the readers see that Jane Fairfax has only 2 options, and above all, in juxtaposing Jane Fairfax with Emma Woodhouse. But it, I do see, is quite subtle, and requires that one already knows about a governess's situation.]
_________________________________________________
1 of the reasons I didn't like "Emma" at 1st was the thought that the book means Harriet Smith, because of her low status and obscure birth, should never dream of somebody like Philip Elton or Frank Churchill or George Knightley but has to stay where she is and marry someone like Robert Martin.
I was mistaken.
Many times throughout 6 novels Jane Austen lets her characters marry across class lines. In this case it's not Harriet's status, class and income that matters, but her personality and level of intelligence. The poor Catherine Morland may be happy with Henry Tilney, the poor Elizabeth Bennet and the ideal man Mr Darcy may be a good match... but Harriet Smith, with her simplicity and naivete, suits Robert Martin best and Jane Austen's realistic enough to know that only with someone like Robert Martin can Harriet find happiness.
_________________________________________________
Whilst usually an author's greatest work may be their 1st, 2nd or 3rd book, followed by something dull, unoriginal, uninteresting, even mediocre or simply not as good, Jane Austen matures and improves throughout her career and betters her craft after each work.
"Northanger abbey" < "Sense and sensibility" < "Pride and prejudice" < "Mansfield park" < "Emma"
About her latest novel "Persuasion", I am ambivalent. In 1 sense, written in illness and lacking revision, it is less polished than some of her earlier works, but in another sense, more serious and mature in tone, with less reliance on what people say, and even with the prospect of becoming her greatest work.
"Pride and prejudice" has liveliness and diversity of characters, wit, and cheerfulness in tone, featuring the beloved Lizzy Bennet and the dream guy Mr Darcy, is her most popular novel, yet in my opinion, "Mansfield park" is more complex and excellent in terms of psychology, magnificent in its nuances and subtleties and minute details, and in "Emma", the free indirect speech is perfected. Reading "Emma" the 2nd time and knowing the plot twist, I look in awe at the way she plays with appearance and reality, masterfully controls and handles all the small details that make them all fit together. In my 1st reading, I knew all along that Emma would end up with George Knightley and guessed correctly that Mr Elton didn't care about Harriet, but totally missed the secret engagement between Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Jane+Austen,+Jane+Fairfax,+and+Jane+Eyre.-a0179934393
"Whether Bronte remembered the Puritan or the governess, both Jane Fairfax and the Jane who marries Edward Fairfax Rochester subdue their passions and appearance. Jane Fairfax's grey eyes and reserve (167-69) anticipate the self-controlled, "Quaker-like" governess Jane Eyre, who rejects pink satin for sober black and pearl-grey (103, 281). Frank flirts with Emma while secretly engaged, and Mr. Rochester proposes bigamy. Marriage rescues Jane Fairfax from the Bragges, Smallridges, and Sucklings (380), and Mr. Rochester's proposal prevents Jane Eyre fleeing to the O'Galls of Bitternutt Lodge (263). Mrs. Churchill's death allows Jane to marry Frank; that of the madwoman allows Jane to marry Mr. Rochester. And if Mr. Knightley is sixteen years older than Emma, but not a brother, no, indeed (99, 331), Mr. Rochester, who at twenty years older than Jane "might almost be your father," becomes her ardent suitor (277). It's odd that a charade with sexual implications occurs in both books. Odder still are the eyes: Emma has "'the true hazle eye--and so brilliant!'" (39), and when Frank desires his future wife to have "'hazle eyes,'" Emma thinks of Harriet, "[h]azle eyes excepted" (373). So why would Mr. Rochester talk of Jane's "radiant hazel eyes," when they are actually green (271)?"
"If, however, Bronte told truth when she said she read Emma only after she wrote Jane Eyre, perhaps she was startled to realize that Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman plays as extensive a role in Austen's novel as her own. [...] Both authors, says Sulloway, want women to think rationally and morally, with Austen everywhere implying what Wollstonecraft states when she makes her clever but under-educated heroine fantasize about the sexual lives of others, shows the effects of substituting "accomplishments" for a genuine education, pot trays governessing as slavery, exposes the condition of impoverished women, maintains the importance of equality, and prioritizes the education of children."
One may argue that, even though "Emma" compares the governess trade to the slave trade, the novel doesn't show us governesses' hardships and humiliations, by letting Jane Fairfax escape her fate through marriage with Frank Churchill and therefore Jane Austen, also a feminist, also influenced by Mary Wollstonecraft, also against the oppression of women, doesn't make so strong a point in comparison with what Charlotte Bronte later does in "Jane Eyre". In defence of Jane Austen, I would say:
1/ Following the same logic, the hardship in "Jane Eyre" is nothing compared to that in "Agnes Grey" by Anne Bronte.
After leaving Lowood, Jane Eyre gets employed at Thornfield hall, where she has a better life than at Gateshead and Lowood, living with the housekeeper Mrs Alice Fairfax- traditional but kind, her pupil Adele- frivolous, shallow and lazy but good-natured, and her master Mr Rochester- grumpy, irritable and moody but good at heart. Later, she marries her master. I do not wish to give the wrong idea that "Jane Eyre" is a sort of fairytale and that her life at Thornfield hall is happy-go-lucky and peaceful, but people generally treat Jane Eyre with respect and the only time she is humiliated is by Blanche Ingram and her mother.
Agnes Grey doesn't have such luck. Not having an unhappy ending, the book nevertheless explores all the hardship, oppression and humiliation a governess may face, from the distrust and disdain of the parents to the incorrigibility and insolence of the children, from the disrespect of the servants because of the ambiguous status of governesses to the feeling of helplessness for not being able to correct the pupils' faults, and the loneliness.
2/ "Emma", not depicting a governess's life, does show us women's situation in Britain in the 19th century.
The novel begins with "Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich..."
Look at this excerpt:
"... After a mutual silence of some minutes, Harriet thus began again—
"I do so wonder, Miss Woodhouse, that you should not be married, or going to be married! so charming as you are!"—
Emma laughed, and replied,
"My being charming, Harriet, is not quite enough to induce me to marry; I must find other people charming—one other person at least. And I am not only, not going to be married, at present, but have very little intention of ever marrying at all."
"Ah!—so you say; but I cannot believe it."
"I must see somebody very superior to any one I have seen yet, to be tempted; Mr. Elton, you know, (recollecting herself,) is out of the question: and I do not wish to see any such person. I would rather not be tempted. I cannot really change for the better. If I were to marry, I must expect to repent it."
"Dear me!—it is so odd to hear a woman talk so!"—
"I have none of the usual inducements of women to marry. Were I to fall in love, indeed, it would be a different thing! but I never have been in love; it is not my way, or my nature; and I do not think I ever shall. And, without love, I am sure I should be a fool to change such a situation as mine. Fortune I do not want; employment I do not want; consequence I do not want: I believe few married women are half as much mistress of their husband's house as I am of Hartfield; and never, never could I expect to be so truly beloved and important; so always first and always right in any man's eyes as I am in my father's."
"But then, to be an old maid at last, like Miss Bates!"
"That is as formidable an image as you could present, Harriet; and if I thought I should ever be like Miss Bates! so silly—so satisfied—so smiling—so prosing—so undistinguishing and unfastidious—and so apt to tell every thing relative to every body about me, I would marry to-morrow. But between us, I am convinced there never can be any likeness, except in being unmarried."
"But still, you will be an old maid! and that's so dreadful!"
"Never mind, Harriet, I shall not be a poor old maid; and it is poverty only which makes celibacy contemptible to a generous public! A single woman, with a very narrow income, must be a ridiculous, disagreeable old maid! the proper sport of boys and girls, but a single woman, of good fortune, is always respectable, and may be as sensible and pleasant as any body else. And the distinction is not quite so much against the candour and common sense of the world as appears at first; for a very narrow income has a tendency to contract the mind, and sour the temper. Those who can barely live, and who live perforce in a very small, and generally very inferior, society, may well be illiberal and cross. This does not apply, however, to Miss Bates; she is only too good natured and too silly to suit me; but, in general, she is very much to the taste of every body, though single and though poor. Poverty certainly has not contracted her mind: I really believe, if she had only a shilling in the world, she would be very likely to give away sixpence of it; and nobody is afraid of her: that is a great charm."..."
It's the income that makes the difference. Emma's condition allows her to be whatever she wants- she may marry if she likes, if not she may stay single for the rest of her life without being seen as ridiculous and pathetic. More importantly, a parallel may be drawn between her and Jane Fairfax, who is of the same age, also handsome, also clever or in fact even more talented and accomplished (which Emma envies and resents) but not rich. In my opinion, Jane Fairfax, albeit in the background with very small a voice, is in some ways a more significant character. She has the misfortune of not being Emma, facing 2 options- to get married, or to become a governess, and at the same time, the misfortune of not being the ordinary, simple-minded, content Miss Bates, of having all of her talents un(der)appreciated and thrown away, with an acute awareness of it.
The character Jane Fairfax, one may say, is a response to Jean Jacques Rousseau's opinion "The education of women should always be relative to that of men. To please, to be useful to us, to make us love and esteem them, to educate us when young, to take care of us when grown up."
http://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/did-jane-austen-have-revolutionary-thoughts/
3/ Closing "Emma" the 2nd time, I find myself caring deeply about Jane Fairfax, because in the end how can one tell whether she'll be happy with Frank Churchill? One is told that Jane Eyre has a happy, content marriage with Rochester, but whether Jane Fairfax has a happy ending is to me quite uncertain, considering that her husband, though good-natured, charming and full of love and regret, can be narcissistic, impulsive, thoughtless. Believe Jane Austen wants to have happy endings for her characters? Think of Charlotte Lucas and William Collins, think of Lucy Steele and Robert Ferras, think of Lydia Bennet and George Wickham, think of John Willoughby and Sophia Grey, think of William Elliott and Mrs Clay, etc.
The significance lies in this uncertainty.
[Update on 16/1: In short, I think once the readers have knowledge of a governess's life in the 19th century, which is not described in "Emma", Jane Austen makes a stronger point about a woman's life of her time, in making the happiness of the marriage uncertain, in letting the readers see that Jane Fairfax has only 2 options, and above all, in juxtaposing Jane Fairfax with Emma Woodhouse. But it, I do see, is quite subtle, and requires that one already knows about a governess's situation.]
_________________________________________________
1 of the reasons I didn't like "Emma" at 1st was the thought that the book means Harriet Smith, because of her low status and obscure birth, should never dream of somebody like Philip Elton or Frank Churchill or George Knightley but has to stay where she is and marry someone like Robert Martin.
I was mistaken.
Many times throughout 6 novels Jane Austen lets her characters marry across class lines. In this case it's not Harriet's status, class and income that matters, but her personality and level of intelligence. The poor Catherine Morland may be happy with Henry Tilney, the poor Elizabeth Bennet and the ideal man Mr Darcy may be a good match... but Harriet Smith, with her simplicity and naivete, suits Robert Martin best and Jane Austen's realistic enough to know that only with someone like Robert Martin can Harriet find happiness.
_________________________________________________
Whilst usually an author's greatest work may be their 1st, 2nd or 3rd book, followed by something dull, unoriginal, uninteresting, even mediocre or simply not as good, Jane Austen matures and improves throughout her career and betters her craft after each work.
"Northanger abbey" < "Sense and sensibility" < "Pride and prejudice" < "Mansfield park" < "Emma"
About her latest novel "Persuasion", I am ambivalent. In 1 sense, written in illness and lacking revision, it is less polished than some of her earlier works, but in another sense, more serious and mature in tone, with less reliance on what people say, and even with the prospect of becoming her greatest work.
"Pride and prejudice" has liveliness and diversity of characters, wit, and cheerfulness in tone, featuring the beloved Lizzy Bennet and the dream guy Mr Darcy, is her most popular novel, yet in my opinion, "Mansfield park" is more complex and excellent in terms of psychology, magnificent in its nuances and subtleties and minute details, and in "Emma", the free indirect speech is perfected. Reading "Emma" the 2nd time and knowing the plot twist, I look in awe at the way she plays with appearance and reality, masterfully controls and handles all the small details that make them all fit together. In my 1st reading, I knew all along that Emma would end up with George Knightley and guessed correctly that Mr Elton didn't care about Harriet, but totally missed the secret engagement between Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill.
Sunday, 12 January 2014
Back home from Stockholm
Coming home is a comfort, as I'm on period, exhausted, sick again,
slightly feverish, with horrible-looking lips.
The trip to Stockholm was rather short, from 8/1 to 11/1, not for pleasure, and not perfectly pleasant. I cannot call Stockholm a favourite, the way I call Paris, Roma, Amsterdam and Praha, and don't recommend travelling to Stockholm, nor any Nordic city, especially in winter. Everything's too expensive. People in VN find the US expensive, then Americans find Europe expensive, but Scandinavia is more expensive than the rest of Europe, including the UK (and among Scandinavian countries, Norway has higher costs of living than its neighbours Sweden and Denmark, and is absurdly proud of it). And unless you're fond of snow, skiing, aurora borealis and all such nonsense, don't ever come to this part of Europe in winter, because the day ends at about 3 or 4pm and it gets very dark, and it can be mortally cold. The temperature was surprisingly high for a while in all of Scandinavia, above 0, but on 10/1 suddenly dropped below 0, accompanied by snow and winds. That is, I don't know how it is in Stockholm at Christmas and New Year, because Scandinavians have the tradition of staying home with families, not going out, in Norway there's hardly anything happening or any store open around those days, and Norwegians hardly bother to decorate the streets. They took out those same white bells used last year, for Karl Johans gata.
However, Stockholm has its merits. Look back at my 1st sentences- is it indeed a comfort to get back to Oslo? Oslo? Going out for dinner after the flight, I couldn't help noticing all the differences, and all the things that made me dislike this country. Stockholm, albeit not a favourite of mine, deserves to be the capital of Scandinavia (self-proclaimed), or at least, is superior to Oslo in many aspects. 1st, it's prettier with nicer architecture. Architecture is not Norwegians' strength. 2nd, Stockholm has a larger city centre, with areas for shopping, areas for entertainment, areas for culture, and other kinds of fun; Oslo's city centre is a joke, from Oslo S to National theatre, and going further away one feels like being in a town, and further, like being on the countryside. Stockholm also seems to be more exciting. 3rd, Stockholm has greater diversity, more options to choose from, whereas Oslo has only a couple of brands and store chains, wherever one goes, whichever shopping mall one enters, one sees those same names, unless one goes to a place like Paleet or Steen og Strøm, but in such places the prices are impossible. It should also be noted that Norway and Sweden sometimes look very similar because they have the same stores, but if they're not American, they're very likely to be Swedish- Norwegians may just call Swedes idiots, but use lots of Swedish products, such as Monki, Gina Tricot, Björn Borg, H&M, Clas Ohlson, IKEA, Designtorget, Max Hamburgers... 4th, Stockholm has a more complex and impressive metro system, divided into blue lines, green lines and red lines, running on different levels (as in Paris), if I'm not mistaken; whereas Oslo's system is so simple that all 6 lines converge, go through 6 same stops, on the same level- Tøyen, Grønland, Jernbanetoget (Oslo S), Stortinget, Nationaltheatret and Majorstuen, and then diverge. Stockholm metros, I think, are narrower but faster. 5th, Swedes, aware of how depressing winter can be, bother to decorate the streets and the metro stations (google: Stockholm metro art) and other things, and use colours to brighten the mood; whereas the dominant colours in Norway, everywhere, are grey, black and red brown, and decorations in Norway are so dull, ugly and monotonous that one feels as though they decorate stores and streets not to beautify them, but as a duty, a must.
(As a matter of fact, the aforementioned bells on Karl Johans gata are like this: http://pub.nettavisen.no/multimedia/na/archive/00524/karl_johans_gate__o_524350b.jpg
I've just noticed as well that the article which had this photo was published in 11/2008: http://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/privat/article2425017.ece Which means that in 2013-2014 Norwegians used those same bells not only from last year, but from a few years ago, perhaps even earlier than 2008-2009. Don't make me start on their horrendous Christmas trees! Most of them are like this http://g.api.no/obscura/API/image/r1/escenic/978x1200r/1354539297/archive/04626/3920217036_4626643a.jpg The building in the background is the new opera house).
6th, not very important, but noticeable anyway- Stockholm's airport and central station are remarkably bigger and better.
Oslo brings me delight only when I think of Kristiansand, or Grimstad, or Lillehammer, or Tromsø..., perhaps Helsinki and Reykjavík. But out of Norway... Even Sweden's much, much better and more fun.
Oh well...
The trip to Stockholm was rather short, from 8/1 to 11/1, not for pleasure, and not perfectly pleasant. I cannot call Stockholm a favourite, the way I call Paris, Roma, Amsterdam and Praha, and don't recommend travelling to Stockholm, nor any Nordic city, especially in winter. Everything's too expensive. People in VN find the US expensive, then Americans find Europe expensive, but Scandinavia is more expensive than the rest of Europe, including the UK (and among Scandinavian countries, Norway has higher costs of living than its neighbours Sweden and Denmark, and is absurdly proud of it). And unless you're fond of snow, skiing, aurora borealis and all such nonsense, don't ever come to this part of Europe in winter, because the day ends at about 3 or 4pm and it gets very dark, and it can be mortally cold. The temperature was surprisingly high for a while in all of Scandinavia, above 0, but on 10/1 suddenly dropped below 0, accompanied by snow and winds. That is, I don't know how it is in Stockholm at Christmas and New Year, because Scandinavians have the tradition of staying home with families, not going out, in Norway there's hardly anything happening or any store open around those days, and Norwegians hardly bother to decorate the streets. They took out those same white bells used last year, for Karl Johans gata.
However, Stockholm has its merits. Look back at my 1st sentences- is it indeed a comfort to get back to Oslo? Oslo? Going out for dinner after the flight, I couldn't help noticing all the differences, and all the things that made me dislike this country. Stockholm, albeit not a favourite of mine, deserves to be the capital of Scandinavia (self-proclaimed), or at least, is superior to Oslo in many aspects. 1st, it's prettier with nicer architecture. Architecture is not Norwegians' strength. 2nd, Stockholm has a larger city centre, with areas for shopping, areas for entertainment, areas for culture, and other kinds of fun; Oslo's city centre is a joke, from Oslo S to National theatre, and going further away one feels like being in a town, and further, like being on the countryside. Stockholm also seems to be more exciting. 3rd, Stockholm has greater diversity, more options to choose from, whereas Oslo has only a couple of brands and store chains, wherever one goes, whichever shopping mall one enters, one sees those same names, unless one goes to a place like Paleet or Steen og Strøm, but in such places the prices are impossible. It should also be noted that Norway and Sweden sometimes look very similar because they have the same stores, but if they're not American, they're very likely to be Swedish- Norwegians may just call Swedes idiots, but use lots of Swedish products, such as Monki, Gina Tricot, Björn Borg, H&M, Clas Ohlson, IKEA, Designtorget, Max Hamburgers... 4th, Stockholm has a more complex and impressive metro system, divided into blue lines, green lines and red lines, running on different levels (as in Paris), if I'm not mistaken; whereas Oslo's system is so simple that all 6 lines converge, go through 6 same stops, on the same level- Tøyen, Grønland, Jernbanetoget (Oslo S), Stortinget, Nationaltheatret and Majorstuen, and then diverge. Stockholm metros, I think, are narrower but faster. 5th, Swedes, aware of how depressing winter can be, bother to decorate the streets and the metro stations (google: Stockholm metro art) and other things, and use colours to brighten the mood; whereas the dominant colours in Norway, everywhere, are grey, black and red brown, and decorations in Norway are so dull, ugly and monotonous that one feels as though they decorate stores and streets not to beautify them, but as a duty, a must.
(As a matter of fact, the aforementioned bells on Karl Johans gata are like this: http://pub.nettavisen.no/multimedia/na/archive/00524/karl_johans_gate__o_524350b.jpg
I've just noticed as well that the article which had this photo was published in 11/2008: http://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/privat/article2425017.ece Which means that in 2013-2014 Norwegians used those same bells not only from last year, but from a few years ago, perhaps even earlier than 2008-2009. Don't make me start on their horrendous Christmas trees! Most of them are like this http://g.api.no/obscura/API/image/r1/escenic/978x1200r/1354539297/archive/04626/3920217036_4626643a.jpg The building in the background is the new opera house).
6th, not very important, but noticeable anyway- Stockholm's airport and central station are remarkably bigger and better.
Oslo brings me delight only when I think of Kristiansand, or Grimstad, or Lillehammer, or Tromsø..., perhaps Helsinki and Reykjavík. But out of Norway... Even Sweden's much, much better and more fun.
Oh well...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)