Dear Persuasion readers,
We’ve read the first seven chapters. How are you enjoying it? If you’re rereading Persuasion, how are you finding it this time round? Please do share your thoughts and reactions as a comment below. Here are mine:
I’m looking forward to reading the rest of Volume One, Chapters 8-12, this week and discussing them next Friday 14th February, Valentine’s Day. (For reference, the full schedule is here.)
I wanted to share Gillian Beer’s impressive unpacking of the very short (fictional) extract from Debrett’s Baronetage of England, with which the novel opens. As she says, ‘the entry compacts much poignant information’ —
ELLIOT OF KELLYNCH HALL.
Walter Elliot, born March 1, 1760, married, July 15, 1784, Elizabeth, daughter of James Stevenson, Esq. of South Park, in the county of Gloucester, by which lady (who died 1800) he has issue Elizabeth, born June 1, 1785; Anne, born August 9, 1787; a still-born son, November 5, 1789; Mary, born November 20, 1791.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f6705/f670569ed0828f99eab93ed3ee926a40cb44a254" alt=""
‘The key absence in this family history,’ Beer writes, ‘is [Sir Walter’s] “still-born son, Nov. 5, 1789”. That death generates the various compensatory plots of the novel. It has left the father without an heir, dependent on the vagaries of Mr William Elliot, the cousin who will inherit.
‘The death of Sir Walter’s wife, and mother to his three diverse daughters, is recorded in brackets – “(who died 1800)”: the lady matters here only in her genealogical function, subordinated to the only begetter of this entry “by which lady . . . he has issue”.
‘Anne is the middle child, her presence subdued by the absence of the son whose birth came next after hers.
‘Elizabeth, the eldest, is “Miss Elliot”; she has become a meta-wife to her father after her mother’s death when she was sixteen. She has frozen into a female simulacrum of Sir Walter, mirroring and reinforcing his narcissism, forming a mutual regard which is like that of a mirror not a marriage. [. . .]
‘The youngest daughter already has another name, through marriage to a suitable neighbour, Charles Musgrove.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c3903/c3903f872b167dadfd46fefc54de4bb0f40d5c98" alt=""
‘Sir Walter adds to the Baronetage two pieces of information in his own hand: the account of Mary’s marriage and “inserting most accurately the day of the month on which he had lost his wife”. Is there a frisson of feeling here, or its freezing out? The narrative comment – “most accurately” – suggests that Sir Walter seals off his wife’s death in this record.’
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1af0a/1af0aefd9b994dcd0894b12d18b7098681a4c042" alt=""
Gillian Beer’s 1998 introduction to the Penguin edition is a brilliant example of what a good introduction should do. It reads like the opening of a treasure box lid: she shows us how to read the book in ways that make it even more impressive and more enjoyable. It is scholarly but accessible – it is humorous and inspiring – and best of all it’s just twenty pages long. I do recommend it!
I hope you enjoy the next few chapters of Persuasion. I look forward to discussing them with you next week!
Here are links to our previous Persuasion posts:
The Schedule (8 January)
Jane Austen (24 January)
0. Dissuading Fanny Knight (31 January)
If you’re not planning to read Persuasion with us, remember you can choose to opt out of our conversation. Just follow this link to your settings and, under Notifications, slide the toggle next to ‘Persuasion’. A grey toggle means you will not receive emails relating to this title.
My first impression was that, in this mature work, Austen's sentences are denser and generally longer. The length of that first sentence! I'm very much enjoying Austen's long descriptions, her dense detail. These are weighty paragraphs.
I was surprised, then, how quickly Austen dispatched with the severed engagement. It's given a scant two pages at the beginning of Chapter 4, and the romance is mostly conveyed in a single sentence: "They were gradually acquainted, and when acquainted, rapidly and deeply in love." We've learned more about other characters' taste in clothing than we've learned about this relationship.
Then, upon their meeting again eight years later, there's simply this: "Her eye half met Captain Wentworth's, a bow, a curtsey passed; she heard his voice."
Will Austen change course and let us linger with Anne and Wentworth? Or is the relationship itself not as important as the recriminations?
I like having my expectations upended -- expecting a book to be one thing and being rewarded by all the other things it turns out to be. I'm just very surprised that in all these long sentences, Austen trips quickly across a central relationship. (At least in the first quarter of the novel!)
I last read 'Persuasion' in the 1970s, so I remember very little about it - although I don't think i enjoyed it (it was an O level or A level text, so not the best introduction).
I'm a little surprised how direct Austen is: "Mary was not so repulsive and unsisterly" - don't hold back, Jane, tell us what your really think.
The other thing I noticed was the amount of punctuation - she scatters exclamation marks like confetti. It made me think that she would have been an early adopter of emoji.
Like Henry, I'm fascinated by how we see the story from Anne's point of view, but we don't get a lot of direct speech from her. And we're definitely rooting for her.