Your presentation was great, really liked it and learned a lot that I hope I can use on the AP Lit Exam. I did have some questions, though, especially about Persuasion, one of your novels. I know I asked about this in class, but I wanted to pose a few follow up questions. You stated that the navy was a symbol of social mobility and also harbored (pun not intended) socio-economic prestige. Just in terms of connecting literature to the real world, what do you think has changed that reputation, if you do believe it has changed? In addition, when I asked about the irony of a rigid military institution yielding more rights and flexibility for women, you said that the allusion was to the Navy having domain over the sea, which is perceived as being endlessly free. However, don't you believe that this is actually an exception, considering that they are roaming the sea, but under a highly ordered mechanism? Personally I think it reflects more on the person than the institution, who is giving his wife more freedom.
In addition, I was wondering how Austen balanced more than one plotline in her story. I know my author, Jack London, did this cleverly by making a story inside a story, with a discovered manuscript providing most of the commentary for the dissolved socialist regime. But considering that Austen didn't have the luxury of using different time periods, how did she achieve this similar effect? Last, I would have to ask you if you believe breaking down social barriers always results in a happier marriage? In my opinion, I would have to say that this theme might result in more happiness within the relationship, but perhaps (especially in the Regency era) immense social pressure that could cause friction and form cracks in most relationships.
“#TilSocietyDoUsPart”—probably the wittiest “tweet” I have heard so far, and it capped a very witty and very lucid presentation. I love how your presentation integrated all of the perspectives on Austen’s writing so smoothly: although you discussed the cultural influences of the Regency era, the societal expectations for women, and Jane Austen’s personal life, I love how you managed to tie all of these concepts together and explain how they impacted each other. It was a job well done, showing the contrast between the “spheres of influence” women occupied back then and Jane Austen’s personal beliefs, and how she expressed these beliefs in her characters, much as Tolstoy used Levin as a vehicle for his musings on theology and agricultural reform. I used to think of Austen as the most boring writer on the planet. You certainly changed my mind, by bringing out the subtleties in the memorable conversation between Mr. Collins and Elizabeth. I used to see the dialogue as an incomprehensible block of text, but your prose passage analysis explained to me the contrast between Elizabeth’s matter-of-fact style of speaking, supported by her curt syntactical structure, and Mr. Collins’ superfluous flourishes. Once again, the syntactical-level analysis supports the thematic analysis, which supports the overall texture of the writer. If I could make one suggestion for what was a fantastic presentation, I would like it if you had slowed down a bit. I think letting the audience read the passages from Pride and Prejudice would have been beneficial for getting a first-hand look at Austen’s writing.
Hi Sunny,
ReplyDeleteYour presentation was great, really liked it and learned a lot that I hope I can use on the AP Lit Exam. I did have some questions, though, especially about Persuasion, one of your novels. I know I asked about this in class, but I wanted to pose a few follow up questions. You stated that the navy was a symbol of social mobility and also harbored (pun not intended) socio-economic prestige. Just in terms of connecting literature to the real world, what do you think has changed that reputation, if you do believe it has changed? In addition, when I asked about the irony of a rigid military institution yielding more rights and flexibility for women, you said that the allusion was to the Navy having domain over the sea, which is perceived as being endlessly free. However, don't you believe that this is actually an exception, considering that they are roaming the sea, but under a highly ordered mechanism? Personally I think it reflects more on the person than the institution, who is giving his wife more freedom.
In addition, I was wondering how Austen balanced more than one plotline in her story. I know my author, Jack London, did this cleverly by making a story inside a story, with a discovered manuscript providing most of the commentary for the dissolved socialist regime. But considering that Austen didn't have the luxury of using different time periods, how did she achieve this similar effect?
Last, I would have to ask you if you believe breaking down social barriers always results in a happier marriage? In my opinion, I would have to say that this theme might result in more happiness within the relationship, but perhaps (especially in the Regency era) immense social pressure that could cause friction and form cracks in most relationships.
Thanks for an enlightening presentation!
Harsha
“#TilSocietyDoUsPart”—probably the wittiest “tweet” I have heard so far, and it capped a very witty and very lucid presentation. I love how your presentation integrated all of the perspectives on Austen’s writing so smoothly: although you discussed the cultural influences of the Regency era, the societal expectations for women, and Jane Austen’s personal life, I love how you managed to tie all of these concepts together and explain how they impacted each other. It was a job well done, showing the contrast between the “spheres of influence” women occupied back then and Jane Austen’s personal beliefs, and how she expressed these beliefs in her characters, much as Tolstoy used Levin as a vehicle for his musings on theology and agricultural reform.
ReplyDeleteI used to think of Austen as the most boring writer on the planet. You certainly changed my mind, by bringing out the subtleties in the memorable conversation between Mr. Collins and Elizabeth. I used to see the dialogue as an incomprehensible block of text, but your prose passage analysis explained to me the contrast between Elizabeth’s matter-of-fact style of speaking, supported by her curt syntactical structure, and Mr. Collins’ superfluous flourishes. Once again, the syntactical-level analysis supports the thematic analysis, which supports the overall texture of the writer.
If I could make one suggestion for what was a fantastic presentation, I would like it if you had slowed down a bit. I think letting the audience read the passages from Pride and Prejudice would have been beneficial for getting a first-hand look at Austen’s writing.