Lady Chiltern Dramatic Interpretation

On page 209 of Oscar Wilde’s An Ideal Husband, Lady Chiltern has learned of her husband’s dishonorable past, and is upset (a bit of an understatement).  “Lady Chiltern stands like someone in a dreadful dream.  Then she turns round and looks at her husband…with strange eyes, as though she was seeing him for the first time” (209).  We already know from earlier in the play that morality is key for Lady Chiltern and she determines the worth of one’s character based entirely on his or her past. When Sir Robert Chiltern says, “No one should be entirely judged by their past”, she replies, “One’s past is what one is. It is the only way by which people should be judged” (170).  Knowing and understanding Lady Chiltern’s harsh, steadfast outlook on life makes determining what she is actually feeling/thinking in this scene a little easier, but also a bit more complicated.  Naturally, when she is first alone with him she is outraged and attacks him with (rightful) accusations of selling himself, fraud, and dishonour.  At this point she would be standing up, facing Sir Robert, with crazy eyes bordering hysteria. When he “goes towards her” wanting to explain, she will take a step back, away from him, as she says “Don’t come near me”, revolted, as if he is a despicable creature unworthy of human interaction (209, 210).   She will continue her next two speeches full of shock, anger, and disgust for his actions.  She will be staring at him the whole time, taking in this new Robert, and reflecting on the Robert that she had once loved and worshipped.  Her voice will trail down by the end, when she talks about having made “a man like you my ideal”, to a distinguishable sadness and regret (210).  Then when Sir Robert finally has the chance to respond and gives one last long lecture on how she made the error of placing him on a “monstrous pedestal” and making him a “false idol”, when really she needs to just love him, “faults and all” (210, 211, 210), it will be clear that Lady Chiltern is actually digesting, with difficulty, what he is saying.  She will listen to his words, speechless, and a look of shame will fall across her face as she realizes her mistake.  She is still confused because she knows what he did is so wrong, but now wonders if it is really so unforgivable.  His accusations clearly pain her, and when he says, “You prevented me”, she winces (211).  When he is finished, Sir Robert “passes through the room” and instead of “rush[ing] towards him” like depicted in the footnotes, I would like Lady Chiltern to just stand there in emotional shock as one tear rolls down her cheek.

Boys Like Girls Like Boys - 2nd Essay Intro

“Few women could think more of their personal appearance than [Sir Walter Elliot] did” (Austen p. 6). In eighteenth-century Britain, gender inequality was extremely pervasive and the men and women of the time experienced radical differences in class, acceptance, and rights.  However, of course, this was normal at the time, and no one thought it to be surprising or offensive. In Jane Austen’s novel Persuasion, the characters all live with this inequality but it is apparent to the modern-day reader that these standards are often unfair and hypocritical.  Sir Walter Elliot is a highly respected member of the community, but this is solely because he is a man.  His feminine traits would be scorned upon in the twenty-first century and would give him no respect if he were a woman in the eighteenth century, but because he is a man it does not matter. There are many other characters in Austen’s novel, as well as in Laurence Sterne’s A Sentimental Journey, who demonstrate opposing gender characteristics to a large extent.  Though they use different styles and techniques, like free indirect discourse versus first-person narration with parody, Austen and Sterne manage to depict similar ideologies of the time: even with extreme gender inequality in society, eighteenth century men can be just a feminine and indecisive as women and the women can be just as outspoken and demanding as men. 

Real Motives

Jane Austen’s Persuasion and Laurence Sterne’s A Sentimental Journey are each written very differently from the other, in terms of narration, plot advancement, character depiction, etc.; however the novels do have some similar passages in which the protagonists are put into situations they must make similar decisions.  For example, on page 165 of Persuasion, the reader questions Anne Elliot’s motives of going to the window in the same way he questions Yorick’s motives of asking the woman to share a carriage on page 19 of A Sentimental Journey. 

After seeing Captain Wentworth in the street, “[Anne] now felt a great inclination to go to the outer door; she wanted to see if it rained.  Why was she to suspect herself of another motive?” (165).  This passage is written in free indirect discourse, so the reader is not sure if it is Anne or a third person narrator speaking, but for argument’s sake I make the case that this is Anne thinking, and she clearly already knows that she is going to the window for the sole purpose of catching a glimpse of Captain Wentworth.  She is trying to lie to herself – to trick herself into thinking she wants to know if it rained (by going to the window she will most certainly find this out, however if Captain Wentworth had not passed by, she would not have gone to the window).  People do this all the time – it is like when I know I shouldn’t get dessert but go to the dessert area anyway to “see if there is any fruit I want”, and then when I see the stack of warm, fresh sugar cookies allow myself to have “just one”.

Yorick encounters the same type of moral, motive-based problem when he debates long and hard with himself about asking the lady to share a carriage with him. “Now where would the harm, said I to myself, if I was to beg of this distressed lady to accept of half my chaise? – and what mighty mischief could ensue?” (19).  It is clear that the real reason Yorick wants to share the carriage is because he is hoping to have sexual relations with the woman.  This passage is written in first person narrative so we actually hear everything the protagonist is debating, and while he tries to convince himself he is being gentlemanly, he says himself, “you can never after, cried HIPOCRACY aloud, shew your face in the world” and we as the reader know that he knows, deep down, the real reason of asking the lady. 

Everything Happens for a Reason

At the end of the novel Persuasion by Jane Austen there is a passage in which the main characters, Anne Elliot and Captain Wentworth, are reunited and exchange their true feelings of love for each other after withholding these feelings the whole story thus far (160). There are no direct quotations in this passage, so we, as the reader, do not know exactly what the characters are thinking or saying, but rather the narrator relates what is going on from an obscure, third-person point of view.  In her paper, Weissman argues that this interaction is bittersweet, because Anne makes excuses: she says that she was right to listen to Lady Russell eight years ago and break off the engagement, even though she loved Wentworth and now they are together once again (90). However, I do not think this is an excuse.  By starting the sentence with “Anne’s defense of her terrible error”, Weissman is making a pointed accusation – one that I do not deem appropriate (90). Anne was right to listen to her older, wiser friend/mentor when making such a big decision as marriage at such a young age. Although Lady Russell was clearly wrong in her advice, and Anne and Wentworth are meant to be together, this time apart has done much good for all involved. As the passage from the novel states, the two are now “more exquisitely happy”, “more tender, more tried” and “more fixed in a knowledge of each other’s character” (160). All of these things have come up now because the couple has had time apart, leading them to value each other’s presence and nature more than ever before. A saying that I live my life by is everything happens for a reason, and I find this can be directly applied to Anne Elliot and Captain Wentworth’s relationship – by breaking off the engagement and then realizing their love for each other is still so strong eight years later, the two receive the blessing of Lady Russell, and also are thoroughly convinced that the other’s love is sincere, which will help to build a lasting relationship.

Says Who?

In her novel Persuasion, Jane Austen uses a lot of free indirect discourse. This can be both confusing and enlightening for the reader. On one hand, one is never positive who is thinking the ideas (is it Anne? Her sisters? Some narrator?), but on the other hand it allows the reader to interpret the book more in their own way. With free indirect discourse, the characters can be further developed into many different ways, because of the numerous possible interpretations – there is no one right answer.

In Chapter 15 there is a long paragraph of free indirect discourse after Mr. Elliot (the cousin) has made a very late night call to Elizabeth Elliot’s house and it is the first time all the Elliot’s have been reunited in a long time. The paragraph starts with “It was the same, the very same man, with no difference but of dress” (133). Who is thinking this idea – that Mr. Elliot looks exactly the same as their brief encounter at Lyme? It could be anyone who was in the party out on the stroll that morning: Charles, Mary, Anne, Louisa, Henrietta, or Captain Wentworth. “Anne drew back a little, while the others received his compliments, and her sister his apologies for calling as so unusual an hour, but “he could not be so near without wishing to know the neither she nor her friend had taken cold the day before, &c., &c.” which was all as politely done, and as politely taken as possible, but her part must follow then” (133).  This sentence includes both free indirect discourse and tagged direct discourse (the direct quote from Mr. Elliot about wanting to stop in to make sure they were all okay). The free indirect discourse suggests that Anne is doing/thinking this, because what the others are saying (the compliments and apologies) are not tagged and it is not noted exactly what they are saying. Because Anne is not being spoken directly to, she is not taking in every sentence, but rather she just knows what is going on from outside of the picture a little bit – after drawing back.

Next, Sir Walter Elliot introduces Mr. Elliot to Anne. Mr. Elliot “looked completely astonished, but not more astonished than pleased; his eyes brightened, and with the most perfect alacrity he welcomed the relationship, alluded to the past, and entreated to be received as an acquaintance already” (133). If this sentence were written ‘he was completely astonished’, it would be implied that Mr. Elliot was astonished, and knew full well that he was; however the use of ‘looked’ suggests that these thoughts are those of someone in the room watching him. There are many other people in the room, but few have such a passive demeanor that they would be able to comment on this scene so, without more attitude behind the thoughts (for example if Sir Walter Elliot were thinking this, it would have a more vain tone of knowing that Mr. Elliot would of course be pleased with his daughter). Therefore I say that this discourse is simply from the narrator – plain and to the point.

The last sentences of the paragraph are more clear: “He was quite as good-looking as he had appeared at Lyme, his countenance improved by speaking, and his manners were so exactly what they ought to be, so polished, so easy, so particularly agreeable, that she could compare them in excellence to only one person’s manners. They were not the same, but they were, perhaps, equally good (133-4). The first half could once again be anyone who was in the party at Lyme and had seen the handsome man, but by the end it is clear that this discourse is Anne’s. She is dissecting Mr. Elliot’s manners and behavior, and then comparing them to another man she is grieving over: Captain Wentworth. 

Glorious

My thesis is that Gerard Manley Hopkins’ poem God’s Grandeur is about the positive and negative aspects of the relationship between humans and God, and that Hopkins uses the motif of nature to illustrate this relationship.

In the first paragraph of my Blog Post 2, I attempt to reveal the positive, uplifting sentiment given off by Hopkins’ description of God in the first tercet of his poem.  The author compares God’s greatness to the “shining of shook foil” (2). In the footnotes he goes on to explain that he “mean[s] foil in a sense of a leaf” and this leads me to automatically connect with nature. In fact, as I go on to explain, a whole scene emerges in my head thanks to that simple four-word phrase.

Later in the first paragraph I analyze another natural depiction that Hopkins uses to demonstrate the magnificence of God – “the ooze of oil Crushed” (3-4). In the footnotes once again an explanation is given for this particular word choice: “as when olives are crushed for their oil”. I do not think that the use of olives as a visual in a short poem about God is a coincidence. I go on to suggest the parallel of the olive branch in the Bible, implying the positive connotation of the plant can be representative of the positive illustration of God in these first four lines.

I find it fitting that the author compares God’s glory to nature, because God created nature, and in my opinion it is his most glorious creation. Then, when Hopkins transitions into the next four lines, and unmistakably becomes more negative, he is talking about generations of humans. God created humans as well, though I would not say we are remotely close to glorious.

In the second paragraph of my Blog Post 2 I analyze the critical portrayal Hopkins writes of humans and their impact on the earth. Instead of words like “foil” and “oil”, he uses “toil” and “soil”. Despite the rhyme one can clearly hear the unfavorable undertone of the second two. Soil, or dirt, is the ugliest of all things natural, and that is why Hopkins uses it to describe the impact of humans.

Natural Connections with God

Throughout his poem, God’s Grandeur, Gerard Manley Hopkins develops the motif of nature. In the second line, Hopkins compares the power of God to the “shining of shook foil” which he notes is to be understood as a gleaming leaf. This paints a strong image in my mind of bright fall leaves hanging loosely on tree limbs, perhaps moist with morning dew so that when a buck sharpens his antlers against the trunk and the whole plant shakes, the leaves drift to the ground, glittering in the early sunlight. In other words, this phrase creates the feeling of an awe-inspiring, picturesque connection to God through its portrayal of a beautiful, natural image. He goes on to compare God’s greatness to the “ooze of oil Crushed” (olive oil), another natural depiction. One may even go so far as to consider the particular decision to use the image of olives because of the importance of the olive branch in the Bible.  

While Gerard Manley Hopkins first uses it to describe the holy, uplifting spirit of God, later in the poem he uses the motif of nature once again, this time to describe the negative effects of man on earth. Lines 5-8 express grudgingly how people across generations have done damage and how “the soil is bare now” (7-8), dirtied with “man’s smudge” (7) and “man’s smell” (7). Soil, often associated with dirt, is not a very pretty image firstly, and then when the ground is “trod” (5) upon and “bleared, smeared with [the] toil” (6) of humans, the negative connotation is evident. The author uses these vivid words and ties to the unattractive side of nature to represent how humans are abusing the world and do not have enough respect for God anymore. Hopkins uses the motif of nature in his poem God’s Grandeur to describe both positive and negative aspects of the relationship between humans and God.