Emma is the longest of Jane Austen's published novels and, I believe, probably the third best-known, after Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility. It is a rather different book from those two, which are rather alike in many ways. In some regards, I think I might call it better, though it is not perhaps quite as polished.
I find Emma has more effect on me after I had put it down than Pride and Prejudice had recently. This may be altogether due to Mr Knightley and his passionate outbursts (quite often, when reading Austen, I leave intellect to fend for itself while I revel in romance), but I cannot say for sure. More of the characters are ... if not real, then something similar. I found I had much more sympathy for Frank Churchill this time around (although it is perfectly possible I felt the same last time, but have forgotten it in the meantime), and Jane Fairfax raised my interest to a greater extent as well.
The titular character, Emma Woodhouse, is a young, wealthy woman living with her old and infirm father and generally considering herself the queen of the neighbourhood. The rumours of the impending arrival of a well-off young man, Mr. Frank Churchill, are the start of a subtle and rather well-crafted plot, which leaves the reader with rather more to guess at and form theories about than either of the aforementioned novels does. Those were fairly straightforward; in this book, few things are entirely as they seem, though Austen does give amply sufficient hints for the reader to work out some of the twists beforehand.
Yes. I liked this. I have already expressed my fondness for books that give this sort of pleasure to the re-reader (or the very attentive first-time reader), but I had forgotten that Emma was one of those books -- although I should have remembered it if I had sat down to think properly about the plot. I really like how the Churchill/Fairfax situation is handled. There is so much in it of Emma's misreading.
The most important aspect in which I'd call this book superior to P&P and S&S, though, is that the heroine is a better and more interesting character - an independent-minded, strong-willed, opinionated young woman, who has obvious flaws and still has some things to learn. By being more obviously flawed and doing more objectionable things than either Elizabeth Bennet or Elinor Dashwood, she is in a way easier to sympathize with and her strengths shine the more for it. Several of the other characters have more depth and surprising sides to them than I'm used to seeing in Austen, as well. Her habit of putting a few people with particularly silly social behaviour in her books shows here, as well; the incessantly babbling old spinster is at times hilarious. Emma's father on the other hand raises whining to a form of art, and I must admit it became a bit grating at times.
Here we still disagree. Emma, I think, is still one of the drawbacks of this book.
The novel has other downsides as well, though nothing too serious. At a few points it drags somewhat, and it probably could have been a few dozen pages shorter than it is. The hidden storylines probably would've been more effective if they hadn't been explained in quite so much detail afterwards.
I have always particuarly enjoyed Austen's tendency to explain hidden romantic sub-plots in detail. Again, this is probably down to my love of the romantic side of her plots, but I think she does it very well. And it is thanks to these explanations that re-reads are so very wonderful. I think. Right now. But that is because I am itching to go back and read over certain passages right now.
And I still think a particular theory I formed while reading the book would've made for a more interesting happy end, but I suppose it would've been rather too shocking for Jane Austen's sensibilities. Which brings me to another point, which I can't call a downside of the book per se, but might still detract from some people's enjoyment: Austen's views on society and the importance of rank are expressed more explicitly here, and on one or two occasions lead to statements or positions that modern readers would find rather offensive, unlike Austen's contemporary readers. One might argue that factor balances out Emma's greater independence and more "modern" character in terms of making the novel feel dated, compared to P&P and S&S.
Again, I disagree. I think the theory would have made the story too convoluted and too ... sensation novel-like.
I will agree that there is a greater tendency in the book to emphasise class (in Mr Knightley's way of speaking in addition to Emma's) than I had remembered. That is, I had remembered Emma being completely over the top, but being tempered by Mr Knightley. I still think that happens to a very great extent, but I think it is more a case of noblesse oblige than of any genuine egalitarianmindedness. Still, I think they are very much expressing society's expectations in general when they are surprising to a modern reader. Mr Knightley, after all, does say that he would elevate Mr Martin if he could.
*MySmiley*
structured procrastinator
structured procrastinator
Jane Austen - Emma
- 29/09/2010 06:37:01 PM
619 Views
It has been a while since I have read the book, but I am not sure I agree on all counts.
- 29/09/2010 08:17:35 PM
587 Views
All the better, it's so boring when everyone agrees. 
- 29/09/2010 09:01:09 PM
602 Views
- 29/09/2010 09:01:09 PM
602 Views
Re: All the better, it's so boring when everyone agrees.
- 29/09/2010 09:39:25 PM
582 Views
- 29/09/2010 09:39:25 PM
582 Views
Okay, fair enough, I'm talking about her view as appears in her books, there might be a difference.
- 29/09/2010 09:48:31 PM
542 Views
Pet peeve, sorry.
- 29/09/2010 10:19:03 PM
569 Views
Re: Pet peeve, sorry.
- 29/09/2010 11:24:21 PM
556 Views
Re: Pet peeve, sorry.
- 29/09/2010 11:32:50 PM
498 Views
Having re-read it now...
- 07/12/2010 12:06:53 AM
517 Views