This 24 min. study of Jane Austen's PRIDE AND PREJUDICE revolves really around the term 'women's sexuality' which is not used til late, and it only mentions Wickham, the novel's villain, in passing. Both of these facts are failures.
On 'women's sexuality' we have the Marxist cultural push to separate the sexes and treat them in different ways. But as the professor may have noticed, all sexual acts of the time also have a male present. So the modifier should not be considered, because of Wickham.
Second, the term 'sexuality' is a post-Kinsian, ie, modern, ie, all other forms of sexual activity is the same as heterosexual marriage and should be explored so that a person can 'find themselves.' The idea is ridiculous. If the subject of the study is an 19th century girl, this does not help. We are talking about her morality. But to correct that in terms of the paragraph above, we are talking about their morality.
Couples who have sex talk about it, at least in some detached or theoretical degree, before or after. That is the morality of it. Dr. Cox finds a champion in Austen who does not give in to spiteful moralizing or judging of others, but only mentions it in passing. She may be interested, then, in the first page of Lewis MERE CHRISTIANITY, which is that, spiteful or not, people are in constant interaction with the 'law of human nature.' They frequently speak about others and compare themselves, all expecting the other person to know certain natural laws which they know. It is a fantasy to think this can simply be turned off (see below on a substantial difference that should be found in the Christian church).
My problem with both Cox and Austen, is the size of the flop enjoined by both by ignoring what Wickham and Darcy have done. Wickham 'has spoiled the daughters of most families in Meryton.' Shall we then talk about morality? I think so. If we are not going to focus on what Lydia has done as a mid-teen, how about a majority of comment by Cox on Wickham, early 20s, and how many women he has mistreated, and how much debt he has accumulated?
There seems to be a focus on Lydia's actions in the same way 16 year olds are sought out for national voting in some countries by communists; they know nothing and are easily swayed. Could Austen not locate one sane women in Meryton of grandmother age to portray?
Because of Austen's flaws on this, I wrote a revised version of P&P in which some of the forces at work in it are allowed to complete it. I have several problems with the ending; I notice the literature does too. LONGBOURN DIVIDED puts several characters toward a place where they hint they belong, usually stalled by the church; the parson himself being portrayed as rather ridiculous, as much as Lydia's parents are.
Austen may have unwittingly supported the role of the church for society. If you have the form of worship, but subtract vital teaching and doctrine from it, what do you contribute to society other than an aesthetic reverence for a three occasions in life--birth, marriage, and death? Many other things happen, and a single non-parent like Austen has no direct life experience that would help.
If P&P is "light, and bright and sparkling" (Austen's personal letters, 17th min) and the similar matters in MANSFIELD PARK are also ways in which she has refused to engage in weighty matters, then what are we to make of 'Fanny' in MP quoting the Christian poet and lyricist Cowper to the family's mother about the value of the unstained girl to society? Is that frippery or necessity?
Cox refers to virginity as an extreme, which counterpart is prostitution. Other than Kinsey, where rape and threesomes of women are identical to marriage, I don't know where this would come from. The church has not always supported what it should, and that's where Austen grew up. But there is a model given in the Judeo-Christian roots.
There is a similar problem in the Cox presentation from the 14th min. She makes it sound like the gossips of Meryton think that Lydia should have one of the two 'fates': the miserable life of a prostitute or a secluded woman. Then the sponsored marriage of Lydia happens, funded by the step-brother of Wickham, Mr. Darcy. And now the gossips ridicule this marriage as another form by which Lydia will simply move toward misery. Considering that it is Wickham, that is true. He may have had this marriage arranged for him, but he clearly has an eye out for another or a mistress with several thousands of money. And would probably leave Lydia stranded.
By showing that that marriage was also a path to misery, Cox could have developed the larger point of the story, of the evil of Wickham, and the subsequent 'hushing' of his vast life of sin by Darcy. This is certainly my objection to the conclusion of P&P. So much that my revision has Darcy rejected by Lizzie, an older sister, for this reason, and she devotes her time to virtuous things and the church.
In this time period, people of chronic debt often had to go to a debtor prison. Wickham belongs there, and would have taken Lydia, but Darcy arranged a position in the army for him. No big gain that. My point is that Austen, who 'does not want to give into spiteful moralizing' (23rd min) has whitewashed all that Wickham had done, all the girls violated, and he is gaining a good name, rather than languishing in a debtor prison. I do not care for such sparkling. I did not think women would either.
Mr. Sanford's LONGBOURN DIVIDED will be available at B&N soon.
