Instead of committing any words to my own novel, I spent the last month or so reading Pride and Prejudice. It was research, I say. Research!
Pride and Prejudice
of course takes place in the dystopia that is Georgian England. True
to the dystopian genre, there are multiple fantastical constructs which
are slowly introduced to a horrified audience. For instance, there's
the idea of an "entail". I don't really get the purpose of it, but
apparently it's a restriction on whether an estate can be passed on in
your will. And then there's "elopement" which just means that a woman
runs away with her lover. It doesn't sound like there's anything wrong
with that, but within the dystopia it's a horrible thing to do, and a
complete disgrace to the entire family.
There are also
many neat world-building details. I like how the servants are always
there, but no one ever thinks about them much, because that's just how
wealthy people in this universe think. At the same time, rudeness
towards servants signals an unsympathetic character, and kindness
towards servants signals a noble character. That's the only way the
lower classes are ever important: in relation to wealthy people.
I also like how we know exactly how many pounds each character is worth. In Capital in the 21st Century,
the great literary critic Thomas Piketty explains that this is because
there are relatively low inflation and constant returns on capital.
Thus, an author can list exact money amounts and expect readers decades
in the future to have the same understanding of how much it is.* Jane
Austen really put a lot of thought into that one.
*Upon research, I discovered that Piketty's claims are disputed by quantitative literary theorists.
Changing the subject, the other day, my boyfriend and I saw Never Let Me Go,
a film based on the book of the same name. I had read the book and
thought the movie was a terrible adaptation. My boyfriend, however,
detested the movie, because of the way it ignored its own dystopia.
Without any spoilers, the movie involves some extremely questionable
bioethics, and nobody ever questions it, much less gets angry at the
system. Bioethics simply isn't a theme in the movie. Instead, bioethics is just a plot device, a metaphor for the brevity of life.
My boyfriend thought the story wasn't very American. Which figures, since the writer and screenwriter are British.
actually I think there's something interesting about that idea. A
dystopia where nobody fights the evil of the system, or even notices
that it's evil. Evil is simply there, and the story addresses
completely different themes of love and life.
Although come to think of it, maybe that's too trite. Maybe that describes every story ever.
Pride and Prejudice
ignores the evil of its own dystopia, and instead criticizes smaller
evils. Like how some people are so proud, other people are so
prejudiced, and some people are so depraved as to join the priesthood, or to elope. But sometimes those people learn that they were in the
wrong, and eventually come to admit it.
I love that there's a
classic romance where the central plot is about two people changing
their minds about each other. Changing minds! What a rational value!
This also implies that the woman in the romance has a mind to be
changed. A romance where the woman has agency? It feels like the most
progressive romance I've known in ages!
worst part of the book is that the main reason the woman changes her
mind is in response to the man's display of financial generosity. He's
so wealthy, and sometimes he sometimes assists other wealthy people who
are on the verge of losing their wealthy status! The main problem with
this part is that it reminds us, the readers, of the dystopia which we were so
carefully pretending to ignore.
I'm not a fan of so-called "classic literature", particularly when
people praise it as "timeless". There is no way that I am reading
classic works of literature the same way that contemporaries did. I
don't think I should read it that way. But Jane Austen was a pretty decent writer, and this novel was worth reading.