In Love, Look for Happiness
The first lesson Jane Austen can teach modern women (women especially, but it wouldn't hurt men to listen too): when it comes to love, aim for happiness.
Isn't that obvious? Doesn't everybody want to be happy?
Sure, just like we all want to be thin. But we want a lot of other things, too, like 20-oz. sodas.
Jane Austen shows us heroines who end up with the perfect happy endings we want--think Elizabeth Bennet with Mr. Darcy. But she also shows us women who miss out because they're pursuing other things. Lydia Bennet has such a "rage for admiration" that she pursues male attention without giving long-term consequences a second thought. Charlotte Lucas is willing to marry the embarrassing Mr. Collins for financial security. And Marianne Dashwood, the only Jane Austen heroine who misses out on a really happy ending, loses the love of her life because she's too busy having a Romantic adventure to see clearly what the guy is really up to.
Do women still miss happiness for these reasons? Unfortunately, more than ever. Think about the difference between a seventeen-year-old girl in 1812 reading Sense and Sensibility and a seventeen-year-old girl in 2012 reading our girls' and women's magazines. A twenty-first-century teenager who's looking forward to her "first time" simply isn't aiming for happily ever after in her love life. She's a lot like Marianne, just looking forward to an adventure.
So what's wrong with adventure? Nothing. Security and male attention are great things too. So are status and pleasure. But it's not savvy to put any of those things before happiness.
Jane Austen fully expected her readers to model their "conduct" on her novels. The impulse that readers have to imitate what they read is a major theme of her books. Yielding to that impulse in the case of her own novels could be really smart.
Okay, who agrees or disagrees: Could recalibrating to aim for happiness really change the trajectory of some women's lives?
- Comment (116)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
May '10
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Katievs, re #37, I must not be making myself clear because, in my mind the part you disagree with is just a mirror image way of saying the same thing as the part you agree with. I would say, if you decide to marry, you are choosing to take on the role of wife. I took on the role of husband. If you or I want to have happiness in marriage it will come about only as a result of you serving your husband as a wife, or me serving my wife as a husband. The principle, "He who would be first must be the servant of all," is not an optional suggestion. It is a foundational principle that may be defied, just as the law of gravity may be defied by jumping out a window. But it cannot be broken. And this is not unique to marriage. If you apply for a job from me, you can only achieve happiness with me in your role as employee. If I seek to be your friend, I can only find happiness in my role as your friend. In all cases, if a person seeks happiness outside their role, unhappiness follows.
Nov '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Joseph Stanko
I have found in my life so far that what Ithinkwill make me happy and what actually, in fact, makes me happy have surprisingly little overlap.
At least that's a start!
You are too honest.
Having lived a while, I have discovered (too much by trial and error) some tempting things that end up causing me distress, and sometimes I have even learned to avoid them. And I've found some harmless things that do reliably give me pleasure (Jane Austen, for example). But for the most part my calculations of what gives pleasure or pain, or of what might make me happy or the opposite, still aren't that reliable. Instead, it seems that I'm happier when I just do what seems right, even when it's not pleasant and doesn't seem like it would make me happy.
Feb '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Well, if you'll forgive my naughty pleasure in hating Jane Austen, the writer, not the person...I must confess, I love not liking her, I didn't not like her until the rise of the cult of St. Jane. I can just imagine who you have in mind. Really, I love fiction, art, and music, but I think there is a danger in turning these fallible if delightful human authors into prophets and demi-gods, or worst of all idols...so I have the sinful pleasures of an iconoclast, and must beg your forgiveness.
Astonishing
But you will grant me your Christian forgiveness, won't you, for the naughty pleasure I felt in contemplating which Jane Austen character your post reminds me of most!?!? · 35 minutes ago
Nov '10
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
I haven't read the other 60 comments so I apologize if this has been said 60 times already, but it must be said here.
Ms Kantor thanks for sharing your insights with us. As a guy I am slow to pick up the timeless wisdom of these novels -- my wife and daughter have painstakingly explained them to me over the years.
But this time you're off the rails. When you're done, stop, don't start spouting empty platitudes.
Humans are notoriously bad at pursuing happiness. Happiness comes when you pursue something worthwhile -- it's a byproduct, not a GPS for life.
My wife passed away a year and a half ago. Over 26 years of marriage we disagreed about many things, but there's one thing we agreed on 100%, and I carry it with me every day.
Don't marry for happiness. Or for sex, or for status, or for money, or because you're "in love", whatever that is. Some of these things might come along for the ride. In fact most of them will -- but not if you marry for them.
Marry your best friend.
Edited on April 3, 2012 at 3:30amFeb '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Bosh, it certainly is relevant, if we are going to see her writing as more than a source of entertainment and a historical specimen of literature, but instead if we are to make her our philosophical guide in our understanding of marriage, then how she actually approached life and marriage is most apt. Which is why I was so upset by this post to begin with, it is the confusion of the value of her literature with some some greater meaning that I dislike. Also, I find idolatry upsetting, whenever an artist is elevated to a position of the semi-divine, my first instinct is to point out the feet of clay. The spinster was probably gratuitous, and for that I'll ask her pardon in the life to come, if we meet, and if not, well, I'll ask yours in this.
Sandy
I would argue that Austen's personal life, and certainly her spinsterhood, have no relevance to the worth of her literature.
Nov '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
St. Salieri: Bosh, it certainly is relevant, if we are going to see her writing as more than a source of entertainment and a historical specimen of literature, but instead if we are to make her our philosophical guide in our understanding of marriage, then how she actually approached life and marriage is most apt.
Sandy
I would argue that Austen's personal life, and certainly her spinsterhood, have no relevance to the worth of her literature.
14 minutes ago
Must one then evaluate your judgments of Austen, or anything else, by your biography? I hope not. She, and you, ought to be judged according to the soundness of what you propose. I argue that your proposal that she be ignored on the subject of marriage because she never married is wrong because it is irrelevant. Whether her works are judged to be good guides or any guides at all, her novels speak for themselves.
May '10
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Astonishing
Well then, as much as I've tried to find a way to agree with you, I really can't, because I do believe (not based on chapter and verse, but based on careful observations, including my own experience of the thing itself) that almost of all of our fellow creatures have (or will have) in their lives not only the capacity for "true love," but also the actual experience of it.
In this I think the Creator has been especially generous.
Perhaps you have a love of such an elevated quality that you think anything less is not love at all. · 52 minutes ago
Well, perhaps I've expressed myself too strongly. "Few" was too limiting.
Lots of otherwise ordinary people do, plainly, achieve a great and beautiful love. (Not perfect, but great and beautiful.)
The point I mainly wanted to make is that (as in Jane Austen) true love is not only a gift of God but an achievement of the person. By our own free choices and acts across a life time we render ourselves more or less capable of it.
Jun '10
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
But, setting aside for a moment the question of whether they were saved or condemned, I'm merely wondering if such people existed. Were there any virtuous men in, say, the ancient Roman Republic?
The Founders certainly thought so, they studied and admired men like Cato and Cincinnatus as model citizens and statesmen. Do you think we can profitably look to such men as models of virtuous behavior?
May '10
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
But then you are using the term "role" in a way different from what's depicted in Fiddler on the Roof. In the song you mentioned, Golda is perplexed and even distressed by the question, "Do you love me?" She doesn't know how to answer. She can only talk about her fidelity to her function in the household. She's done everything a wife is supposed to do. But that doesn't answer the question. Not really.
This is not at all comparable. An employee's duty is in filling his function. Nothing more is wanted.
It's very different in marriage, where what one wants, above all, is her spouse's heart.
Feb '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Oh, if we are not speaking of that, then yes, certainly. By this standard many Christians, myself included, are often less virtuous than other people who do not share our faith.
I think there is a human measure of virtue, it is not God's, it is a reflection of God's original intent for us from creation, but handled by us through our damaged sinful nature, derived by what our human reason can perceive from God's revelation in nature and our minds. These are virtues that we categorize based on our sense of logic, justice, charity, etc., they are part of a general gift to us from God by being made in his image, although they are not salvific. So yes, we can learn some fragments of truth from all sorts of sources. Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Cato, they can teach us many things...even Jane Austin, but I think that they are limited. Also, their virtues are not always our virtues even when they seem alike, the past is different.
Joseph Stanko
Were there any virtuous men in, say, the ancient Roman Republic?
TDo you think we can profitably look to such men as models of virtuous behavior?
Feb '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
I am not saying we can't evaluate her novels without a close study of her biography, I think it isn't helpful to ignore an author's biography; but I think we can't ignore someone's biography if we choose them as a philosophical guide.
If I am not married, beat my wife, carry on adulterous affairs, etc., and preach the holiness of marriage - my behavior should question my judgement, which is applicable to my philosophy. The merits of my ideas might transcend my behavior, but it is not unreasonable to call them into question because of them. My objection is we are not really evaluating her novels. If this had been framed as a purely literary exercise, or even exploring the philosophical themes of her novels, I would never have bothered to read or write here - because I don't like her novels. But that is not how this discussion was framed: "The first lesson Jane Austen can teach modern women (women especially, but it wouldn't hurt men to listen too): when it comes to love, aim for happiness." Continued.
Sandy
Must one then evaluateyourjudgments of Austen, or anything else, by your biography?
Sep '10
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Astonishing
Because people like you are kind enough point themselves out, I must accept that Jane Austen is not for everyone. But I will never understand how anyone could read the first sentence ofPride and Prejudiceand not be hooked for life.
I like Jane Austen but it took a while. Pride and Prejudice was assigned reading in my high school senior year English class, and I was prejudiced (ahem) against it from the start. There is nothing, nothing less appealing to a 17 year old boy than the prospect of reading 250 pages about women meeting prospective husbands in 19th century drawing rooms.
So I faked it when our English teacher had us discuss the book (in a circle, of course). I had given up after the first 5 pages. But the summer after high school I still had the book, and one day I was bored and just decided to try it again. About 50 pages in, I realized that there was a lot of sly humor in it. Dang, I thought, this is actually pretty good.
The older I've gotten, the better I appreciate Austen.
Feb '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
I didn't frame this discussion, Elizabeth Kantor did, and I think she is dead wrong, and I think the whole "happiness" quest has done tremendous damage to Western Civilization, in fact I think the search for happiness lies behind many of our societies past and present ills, and I'm not saying Jane Austen leads directly to Josef Stalin. What I am objecting directly to is the cult of Austen, the cult of happiness, and the desire to seek a replacement for philosophical or religious meaning via novels about a select class of a particular society that we as a nation rejected because of their oppressive disregard for the rights of people outside of their particular class.
Anyone can and should choose to love and admire her works as literature, discuss their context, value, and her underlying moral and philosophical thrust, such a discussion has no appeal to me because her writings do not appeal to me, no harm no foul. But if you frame a proscription for the ills besetting our nation's social morality by reference to her writing, I think you are naive at best, and what you are proposing will fail miserably in the end.
Feb '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
What is the chief end of man? Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
Aristotle gets that one totally wrong.
Elizabeth Kantor: More to the point, what's Jane Austen's? Unfortunately, it takes me more than a whole chapter in the Jane Austen Guide to explain what she means by happiness. Short version: there's a lot of overlap between her idea & Aristotle's--both believe in aiming for a happy medium. Which is not unrelated to Aristotle's idea of virtue--I drag that in for the benefit of St. Salieri.
Diane Ellis, Ed.: What's our working definition of happiness here?
I know many people who have wonderful life circumstances, but who are not happy. Being content with one's lot in life, even when all is well, is very difficult. It requires a grateful heart, and in this age of entitlement, it's rare to meet women (or men) marked by gratitude. · 1 hour ago
9 hours ago
Jun '10
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
St. Salieri:
I think there is a human measure of virtue, it is not God's, it is a reflection of God's original intent for us from creation, but handled by us through our damaged sinful nature, derived by what our human reason can perceive from God's revelation in nature and our minds. These are virtues that we categorize based on our sense of logic, justice, charity, etc., they are part of a general gift to us from God by being made in his image, although they are not salvific.
And am I correct in assuming that the virtues you describe here are not "the product of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit," nor is their development "a byproduct of the relationship between the Savior and the sinner?"
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Why, if you don't want to be happy?
R. Craigen:
Marry your best friend. · 2 hours ago
Edited 2 hours ago
Aug '10
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
St Salieri, as another confessional Christian (I'm Reformed myself: 'What is your only comfort in life and in death?'), I share reservations about Austen's worldview. It is of course informed by Christian tradition, but it certainly doesn't meet the standards of the Westminster Confession or the Heidelberg Catechism. She does seem too easily comforted, if I may say so, by 10,000 a year, and a vast and goodly estate . . . .
Yet my wife, daughter and I have been recently been watching Austen adaptations (the 1995 BBC miniseries of Pride and Prejudice is marvelous), and reading the novels, and I believe there is much benefit in so doing.
My daughter is coming up on 10, and has started to notice that some men are better-looking and more dashing than others. The Wickham/Lydia elopement, for example, made quite an impression on her, I hope in a memorable and salutary way.
So within its right sphere -- the ordering of domestic life -- I think Austen is great. Even C S Lewis read Austen over and over for simple pleasure; she was a very good novelist.
But I agree taking her vision of 'happiness' too far can be a problem.
Edited on April 3, 2012 at 5:39amRe: In Love, Look for Happiness
I don't suppose I can win you over to Jane Austen by giving you the context for that last quote I tried on you, above:
"Give us the grace to endeavour after a truly Christian spirit to seek to attain that temper of forbearance and patience of which our blessed saviour has set us the highest example; and which, while it prepares us for the spiritual happiness of the life to come, will secure to us the best enjoyment of what this world can give. Incline us oh God! to think humbly of ourselves, to be severe only in the examination of our own conduct, to consider our fellow-creatures with kindness, and to judge of all they say and do with that charity which we would desire from them ourselves."
St. Salieri: What is the chief end of man? Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
Aristotle gets that one totally wrong.
22 minutes ago
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Let me reiterate that Jane Austen broke off her engagement to a man she had accepted but saw she didn't love, despite the fact that he was very wealthy & the families were friends.
I think maybe we overestimate how mercenary she & her characters are b/c they talk about money more honestly than we do. Modern people are like Marianne in Sense & Sensibility, airily claiming we don't care about money--while all the time assuming we'll be able to afford a lifestyle far in excess of anything that the people we accuse of being calculating & mercenary (Elinor in Sense and Sensibility, Jane Austen in comparison to us) expect.
On Jane Austen's Christianity, please see the prayer above.
Apr '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Joseph Stanko
That seems a somewhat selfish view of marriage. What if you think leaving would make you happier, but your spouse less happy? Or what if it would make both of you happier, but you kids less happy?
Also, why don't we take vows seriously anymore? · 4 hours ago
It may very well be selfish, on the other hand I think it does describe the modern mind set. I never claimed this was a good thing. My initial observation was that seeking happiness is a modern ideal. So by promoting finding a husband that will make you happy Jane Austen is directly promoting a modern view of the whole thing.
The pursuit of happiness is an affirmation of the needs and good of the individual, and the individual is the basis of Classical Liberal thinking. Individuals have rights, and needs worthy of respect.