(Mainly just one of her books called Pride and Prejudice)
These are my only lines of this blog post. The rest is a persuasive essay that my brother Derek (13) wrote. I have only made a few spelling and vocabulary-clarifying corrections. He has regretfully approved the final version of this blog post.
That's right. Junk! Why do I use such vulgar description? Because that is the only way to categorize Jane Austen's novels as I see them. Of course not everybody agrees with my viewpoint on them. One of them is Kendra. She thinks they are great and she has watched the movie of what she thinks is the best of them, Pride and Prejudice. Moreover Sharon and Ardith like the book, Pride and Prejudice, too. Ardith, Sharon, and Kendra probably partly like it because it has a considerable amount of romance (Prideful guy and Prejudiced gal fall in love). But, who wants to read a lot of MUSH?!??!? There is probably only one answer to that VERY important question. And that is... because maybe they like mush (or romance... BLEAH). But then the question is what's wrong with romance. Nothing, except that it is almost always put into a nutty, silly, foolish, or yucky ("sorry for using that word Mommy, but I just HAD to use it to clearly describe what I'm trying to get across") style. Therefore, one of the reasons why you shouldn't read Jane Austen's Junk is, because it's got a considerable amount of MUSH in it.
Furthermore, who is this Jane Austen. She is, I guess (or maybe I just know), a sharp tongued woman with a wicked sense of humor. A wicked sense of humor isn't all that bad, my sister Ardith has it; but, a wicked sense of humor plus a sharp tongue, is another thing. Besides sharp tongued women tend to be bossy or dictator-like. Besides all that, the person is a female and her attitudes are not akin to that of the male. Boys, I guess, just naturally don't like her or her works, while girls naturally seem to.
In addition to all this, she had out of the whack titles for in of the whack things. Sense and Sensibility? Oh good grief. Not too bad, I guess, except that it's about people with sense and sensibility probably, and not about two close abstract ideas. Or maybe I'm just nuts and don't know what I'm talking about; Kendra would probably think so. But what I want you to get from this essay is, the idea that Jane's Junk is not to be adored or liked, it is mush, and it seems to be quite silly. Just don't become in thought and action like those who pour this junk into themselves.
Derek tells us that this description of Jane Austen as a woman with a sharp tongue and a wicked sense of humor came from the back of an Austen biography, by Amy Ruth, which last piece of information I provided despite Derek's concerns that this would lead to a mass reading of a book spreading Austen mania.
12 comments:
Boys, I guess, just naturally don't like her or her works, while girls naturally seem to.I suppose that makes me unnatural. Hmm.
Oh, well. I've only seen the 1995 television version of P&P a dozen times or so (and the 1980 version two or three times) -- surely that doesn't reflect too badly upon my manhood, right?
*Belches loudly*
-- Wilson
Just don't pollute the beautiful green atmosphere of my blog, please.
In reference to how this reflects on you, I would say it depends on which version you watch (the six-hour with Colin Firth being the superior) and why you watch it. Derek would say you've already lost.
Derek's reply:
"Yes, Wilson, you have lost. You're pretty far gone. After watching 'Pride & Prejudice' THAT MANY times, I'd say it's sunk quite deep into your system already.
You're sunk even deeper, Jared. You too have lost and you put up a rather scummy defence. How a guy can be that nuts on a female author and her works is beyond me. Is someone a bit whacked in the head, or is it just my imagination?
Wilson, you're pride.
Jared, you're prejudice.
GET IT!?"
Please remember that I had little or nothing to do with this.
Remember, Sharon, you volunteered to post Derek's "thing" on your site, so you'll just have to take any consequences that result from it. *evil grin*
~Jason
All right, rather than go back and forth over my masculinity, let's take a look at the arguments you employed in the paper, Derek. I will summarize your arguments and respond to them.
1) Austen's work is mush, and mush is bad for the brain.
Unfortunately, Derek, humanity relies on reproduction. Without some sort of mush, I'm afraid we would go extinct. Since romance is vital to our species, we need authors like Austen to help us make sense of it. Why let the silly people be in charge of all the romance? Why not the people with sharp tongues and wicked senses of humor?
2) Austen has a sharp tongue and a wicked sense of humor. This is a bad thing. Such women tend to be bossy.
Austen's bossiness has nothing to do with her ability to write. Besides, you're contradicting yourself. First you said the writing was "mush," but now you seem to think it is "sharp." Make up your mind: is the work clever or not?
3) Austen was female and therefore her attitudes do not appeal to males.
Wheeler and I have already discredited this idea. And we speak as professionals.
4) Out-of-whack titles.
Speaking of strange titles, what's with this "The Bible" nonsense? What kind of a title is that?! It means "The Book." Well, duh!
Wilson
To Wilson:
1. I did NOT say, 'mush is bad for the brain'. Furthermore, mush and romance are not the same. Mush is romance put into a silly, nutty, foolish, etc... style.
2.A sharp tongue is a tongue quick to rebuke and dictate. Woman who have this characteristic tend to not be nice company. A person usually speaks and writes in a similar way, RIGHT?!! A person with a sharp tongue might, or would, use it in their writings, RIGHT?!
3. If you and Wheeler claim to speak as professionals, might I as well?
4. "The Book" seems an appropriate title for the Bible, since it is the following: the (only) Book from God; the (best) Book to read; the (only) Book you should, or have to, read;. I can't think of a better title for the Bible than "The Book". I don't have an answer for "Sense and Sensibility" yet.
--Derek
Jared
3. You and Wilson cannot be speaking as professionals
even if YOU ARE A SENIOR at a university; because, you
are both said to be insane AND nuts.
5.I agree that literature is an art form, but that does not mean that Jane Austen's books (notice I did not say literature) are art forms. If in the case of Sense and Sensibility there are two sisters, and one
sister has sense and there has sensibility; then, why do they have two opposite viewpoints and opposite philosophies of life (as the title does NOT indicate; in fact, it indicates almost the exact opposite).
On all other points I may wait till I see for myself in the books and read them (if I read them). But I still think you're a nut.
-- Derek
Disclaimer: I haven't actually read any of Austen's work, but that stems from a lack of opportunity rather than active avoidance. As a result, I will try to limit myself to addressing arguments rather than the actual quality of the work. For convenience, direct quotes will be followed by the author's name in brackets: "blah blah blah" [author]
1) "yucky" [Derek] is almost always a subjective term.
2) "whack" [Derek] titles? I think you're the one who's nuts for not appreciating an amazingly alliterative appellation when you see one (note that this is my opinion, not an objective judgment). As far as the title reflecting the contents of the book: if a book's title gave away the entire story, there would be no point in reading the book.
3) "[...]it's about people with sense and sensibility probably, and not about two close abstract ideas." [Derek]
In a realistic story (which I presume this is), it's much easier to use people to represent your "abstract ideas" than it is to have disembodied ideas running around all over the place. It's much more believable, you see.
4) "[...]the idea that Jane's Junk is not to be adored or liked, it is mush, and it seems to be quite silly." [Derek]
You're assuming, of course, that "mush" and "silly" are inherently bad. Unfortunately, whether bad or good, those terms are almost as subjective as "yucky." I happen to like "silly" books (the Hitchhiker series, for example, is extremely silly), and I know many people who enjoy "mush." Of course, young men under the age of 16 are often extremely disturbed by the very idea of girls or anything related to them. This is natural, and most boys grow out of it.
5) "Is someone a bit whacked in the head, or is it just my imagination?" [Derek]
Well, let's see: either Derek is right, or Wilson/Jared/the general public are right, or everyone is wrong. In any case, someone(s) is/are a few sentences short of a paragraph.
6) "[...]humanity relies on reproduction. Without some sort of mush, I'm afraid we would go extinct." [Wilson]
Strictly speaking, "mush" (whether literary, film, or spoken) is not a biological requirement for reproduction. Still, there is something to be said for setting humans apart from common beasts.
7) "Besides, you're contradicting yourself. [etc]" [Wilson]
Ditto. I'm very interested in learning more about this "sharp mush" and how it is created.
8) "Austen was female and therefore her attitudes do not appeal to males." [Derek, via Wilson]
See Comment 6.
9) "A person usually speaks and writes in a similar way, RIGHT?!! A person with a sharp tongue might, or would, use it in their writings, RIGHT?!" [Derek]
Not if the writers were any good at having multiple, different types of characters, they wouldn't. (For example, compare the speech of Huck Finn (character) with the speech of Mark Twain (author).)
10) "[...](notice I did not say literature)[...]" [Derek]
"Art" does not necessarily mean "good;" there can be bad art. As to whether Austen's books count as "literature," I turn to dictionary.com:
"literature: (1) The body of written works of a language, period, or culture; (2) creative writing of recognized artistic value"
By either definition, Austen's work qualifies.
11) "[...]then, why do they have two opposite viewpoints and opposite philosophies of life[...]" [Derek]
That's exactly the point! As Jared said, the value of "great" literature lies in its ability to make the reader think about life and discover new (for the reader) insights about truth, beauty, etc. To my mind, there are two types of "good" books: books that are entertaining and books that make you think (so-called "literature"). A book can be of both types at once, of course.
Now that I've wasted all that space saying what I just said, I will close with the following:
I don't think any of us are really qualified to call ourselves "professionals" in the sense of "people with authority." Perhaps some of us are more experienced than others, but having spent a few years at a university doesn't make me an expert on much of anything (except maybe spending money on textbooks). Even the wisest thinkers never stop learning, and we should be wary of thinking we have all the answers to everything.
Discuss.
Thanks for the rather thorough discussion. I have not picked apart Derek's essay because I promised him I was not posting it to make him look ridiculous. However, I would like to add two things.
First, that Jane Austen's writing is about as far from 'mush' as any I have read or can imagine. There is a distinction between mush and a plot partially driven by romantic interests.
Secondly, for those who have trouble with mush, no matter how it is defined... to be truthful, I agree. To my mind, mush and even romance - whether in books, movies, or otherwise - is something of a private story that normally isn't intended for our eyes and ears; and I am not just referring to the sad excesses of our modern culture. That said, I enjoy Austen's novels because they do such a splendid job of romance's observable and often hilarious side, such as the aforementioned "witty repartee". Anyone who's read Mommy's blog has enjoyed some of that. ;)
I expected that someone would take Derek's insult of 'nut' as a compliment. Your type of 'nut' seems to be respected and distinct from the rest of the nuts out there in the world, where most of us try to "live peaceably with" and otherwise avoid them.
To all you nuts out there (and when I say nut I don't mean it to be a compliment):
It is more enjoyable to carry out an important argument like this one in person, rather than on a blog where brothers and sisters tend to get annoyed if you post too many comments.
-- Derek
OK, I had NO idea what was going on, here :-)
On behalf of my son, I would just like to say that he has an unlimited supply of energy on behalf of his own limited arguments.
But Derek, seriously now, the guys make a lot of sense....
Post a Comment