I should probably redo this page, as they are bickering in a very 21st century manner. In old literature, it seems like the more crucial it is to speak or act in a straightforward manner, the less chance it will happen. For example, in the Scarlet Letter, if Hester Prynne had only named the baby-daddy.... or pointed out her husband....there would have been no need for the three of them to suffer through several hundred pages....not to mention the number of high school students who have also suffered through the book.
Well, it wasn't that terrible. But I totally failed the essay.
Take Pride and Prejudice. Darcy, very proud fellow, millionaire, gentleman. The son of a servant, Wickham, tried to kidnap/elope with Darcy's little sister. So in the book a year later, why the hell was Wickham still alive?
If Wickham was a gentleman, they could have dueled. But you can't duel with a servant. Just not done.
You could horsewhip a servant and get away with it. I'm surprised he didn't.
In the southern U.S., this could easily have been solved with a shotgun. Murder was illegal in England, but it was difficult to press charges on a gentleman.
He could have paid someone else to do it. It's not like Wickham had no other enemies, or that anyone would cry if he met with an accident.
What Darcy did was let Wickham wander round the country at will, slander his name, and sweet-talk other ladies.
Forbearance may be a gentlemanly virtue, but seriously.
Did he have no spine at all?
I'm not a huge Darcy fan. I know some people are. I'm fond of Elizabeth and find Mr. Bennett amusing, if a bit of a dick.
I did read an interesting book lately: So Odd A Mixture, Along the Autistic Spectrum in Pride and Prejudice. If you are interested in autism.... or in a character analysis of the characters from Pride and Prejudice and why they act as they do.... check it out.
No comments:
Post a Comment