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:
Apr '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Now the danger of recognizing the individual is the creation of a self centered and hedonistic society. So the ideal is always respecting the needs of other individuals around you as well as your own. The start though of this is to first recognize your own needs. By understanding your own wants and desires you can come to understand those of others. I don't advocate selfishness I advocate self awareness. If one ignores their own needs constantly how will they even be able to judge the needs of others?
What I think is good about the modern world is our open bluntness about our own needs and wants. We are crass, but that is because we are more honest in the expression of our wants. Now we just need to become a bit more introspective about these wants, and their consequences.
Aug '10
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Yes, granted, of course -- I am not saying Austen was not a Christian; I would never presume to make that judgement.
But that prayer you quote is rather tepid from a position of confessional Christian orthodoxy. It is very Anglican, very much of its time. It veers toward a spirit of self-improvement -- 'endeavour' and 'attain' are tip-offs -- and does indeed emphasize how developing the right character "will secure to us the best enjoyment of what this world can give". It looks to Jesus as 'example'.
Let me restate: none of this is 'un-Christian'. But it also gives little indication that Austen sees us ultimately as hopeless sinners whose souls are purchased by the blood of the Lamb, and who should therefore live our lives knowing we are not our own, and that our earthly happiness is of secondary import -- at best -- in God's redemptive plan for us and the whole of creation.
I'm an Austen fan, as I indicated. But I follow Lewis on this: Austen fan that he was, he also published a powerful essay titled 'We Have No Right to Happiness' . . . .
Feb '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
You force me to thankful refine my thinking. My understanding is that all virtue comes directly (prevenient grace) or indirectly (natural revelation, imago dei) from God, the development of that virtue is a product of man and God working together, again directly or indirectly, but not always in a manner that leads to the salvation of the individual.
So that the virtuous pagan has their values derived directly (grace) or indirectly (their mind) from God. The difference is they do not know, or even acknowledge the source, they may assume that they are the source, or an idol, etc. Their best virtues are tainted with sin without faith in Christ to redeem those virtues from the taint, and without the indwelling of the spirit that is the result of faith in Christ, they hold no eternal value, but they would improve their lot on earth, and those of their fellow creatures, it will be incomplete and flawed.
Joseph Stanko
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?" · 11 minutes ago
Feb '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
I think her prayer is a bad prayer from my theological understanding, but if it comes from a heart yearning after the heart and mind of Christ, I'm sure that is what matters to God. Humility is a virtue, so is kindness, but this prayer is how I fear, we ended up with Jesus meek and mild, and the death of the church as intended and instead got the church as the Tory party at prayer. I'm an Anglican.
That doesn't mean Austen wasn't a Christian, just a bad theologian.
I object not to Jane Austen, author of boring books that I don't enjoy, but to Jane Austen guru, prophetess, demi-goddess for our time. Perhaps instead of trying to convert people to see the world through her eyes, one would be better served trying to convert the world to seeing through Christ's eyes. For Christ's vision is richer, stronger, and far more satisfying than her charming, fictitious, Aristotelian mean.
Jun '10
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
That makes sense to me. In fact, it sounds quite similar to the Thomistic virtues, with the former corresponding to the supernatural or theological virtues and the latter to the natural or moral virtues.
Feb '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Very interesting. I've avoided Thomas Aquinas my whole life, focused on many other things, and I don't think I've mastered his predecessors well enough to navigate his writings. I can't wait to finally try him. I know I'll need lots of peace and quiet and help to work through him.
Joseph Stanko
That makes sense to me. In fact, it sounds quite similar to the Thomistic virtues, with the former corresponding to the supernatural or theological virtues and the latter to the natural or moral virtues. · 7 minutes ago
Mar '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
I object not to Jane Austen, author of boring books that I don't enjoy, but to Jane Austen guru, prophetess, demi-goddess for our time. Perhaps instead of trying to convert people to see the world through her eyes, one would be better served trying to convert the world to seeing through Christ's eyes. For Christ's vision is richer, stronger, and far more satisfying than her charming, fictitious, Aristotelian mean.
I think you might be shouting "Down with Dagon!" more loudly than the subject justifies here. You may be overstating in both tone and substance the degree to which Jane Austen is about and prevalent in our time. She's hardly revered as a demi-goddess, her influence is hardly overbearing.
She's certainly not set up by anyone as the alternative to Christ.
And with regard to Aristotle, I'll simply register my disagreement about the level of richness or satisfaction one can receive from reading him, and also merely note in passing my thanks for the not-insignificant contributions the Neoplatonists generally made toward making Christian theology possible. Without them the New Testament as we know it may not have gotten off the ground.
Dec '10
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
You must be a ball at parties.
Jeepers.
Dec '10
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Valiuth
But, in the modern world you don't have to settle you can just divorce. Do we really need wisdom if we can just use trial and error?
The only trouble there, is that while women are trialing and erroring their way to happiness, one divorce at a time, they will invariably leave in their wake a trail of men whose entire lives, fortunes, and livelihoods have been upended and hollowed out to pay for the remediation of said "error".
Women who love divorce, love it because they so rarely loose their shirts (and everything else, including their children) in the process of getting divorced.
Men, on the other hand, currently find themselves essentially living their married lives in the seat of the guillotine, just waiting for their wives to tire of them and retain a lawyer (who will then throw the lever and drop the blade).
And women wonder why we young(-ish) men are hesitant to marry . . .
Edited on April 3, 2012 at 10:50amFeb '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Perhaps you should note my last sentence, may I suggest Peregrine Pickle to start.
CoolHand
You must be a ball at parties.
Jeepers. · 4 hours ago
Feb '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
1. "You may be overstating" - you're right, I likely am overstating it, perhaps in spades; but for some reason this is something that irritates me.
2.She's not set up ... as the alternative to Christ. - not directly, but if ideas that are claimed to be rooted in her work are contradictory to what I think is pretty plain theology and the root of human misery- then I'm not so sure, it makes her an idol in my book, fashionable in small circles, but I travel in those circles.
3. And with regard to Aristotle - I've learned tons from Aristotle, including his ultimate failing to answer man's ultimate need. Plus there is a lot of garbage in Aristotle, but he's so humanistic he tickles itching ears.
4. "Neoplatonists ...Without them the New Testament as we know it may not have gotten off the ground" - No the gospel got off the ground because of the faith of individuals, animated by Christ; Neoplatonists submerged the gospel in a theological mess whose growth nearly destroyed the church, until it began to be cleaned up in the reformation.
Crow's Nest:
I think you might be shouting ...
Feb '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Incidentally, after clarifying my original post, in which my main beef being with the idea the happiness is the root of good in a marriage, I was pushed to continue by Dr. Kantor, I wish I had simply walked away after my second post as intended. So perhaps, Jane is merely my whipping boy for the fallacious idea that happiness (even as defined by the Ethics) should be a human goal.
If one doesn't buy that idea (and you don't have to, not saying your not a virtuous citizen, or Christian person if you disagree) or someone doesn't buy a reformed Christian world-view, then everything I say is just nonsense and seems so old fashiony-Mr. Puritan Meany-pants. Sorry, I can't really help that. I still think you'd all do a lot better served by reading someone else for fun, someone with lots of violence, sex and slapstick like Smollett, his world is dark, cruel, and funny; more like the real thing and yet strangely points to a higher transcendence through the muck and mess of life. There's virtue in Austen, just not enough of the right kind for my taste.
May '10
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
I offer two images by way of illustration of how happiness in love may be found. The first:
The second:
In between those two pictures was 65 years of good times and hard times, successes and failures, pleasures and sorrows, health and illness (from cancer to stroke to more cancer to heart attack to more cancer to open heart surgery to loss of voice due to cancer.) To my intimate knowledge they never sought happiness; they sought to serve their Creator and Lord, and they sought to serve each other, and they sought to serve their fellow man. But few who knew them ever doubted that there could not have been a happier or more profoundly in love couple. And along the way they offered pre-marital counseling to over 125 young couples, as well.
Happiness as a goal of marriage? Only for the shallow and superficial.
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
I'm not going to argue against putting Jesus before Jane Austen.
But I'm sticking to my guns that Jane Austen was a very good Christian (though I don't see eye-to-eye with her on every theological point, either) and, like St. Paul, also worthy of imitation. (I Corinthians 11:1 "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.)
St. Salieri
. . . Humility is a virtue, so is kindness, but this prayer is how I fear, we ended up with Jesus meek and mild, and the death of the church as intended and instead got the church as the Tory party at prayer.
. . . .
I object not to Jane Austen, author of boring books that I don't enjoy, but to Jane Austen guru, prophetess, demi-goddess for our time. Perhaps instead of trying to convert people to see the world through her eyes, one would be better served trying to convert the world to seeing through Christ's eyes. For Christ's vision is richer, stronger, and far more satisfying than her charming, fictitious, Aristotelian mean. · 10 hours ago
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Will be v. interested to see if St. Thomas can persuade you that Aristotle is (mostly) compatible with Christ.
St. Salieri: Very interesting. I've avoided Thomas Aquinas my whole life, focused on many other things, and I don't think I've mastered his predecessors well enough to navigate his writings. I can't wait to finally try him. I know I'll need lots of peace and quiet and help to work through him.
Joseph Stanko
That makes sense to me. In fact, it sounds quite similar to the Thomistic virtues, with the former corresponding to the supernatural or theological virtues and the latter to the natural or moral virtues. · 7 minutes ago
10 hours ago
Jun '10
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
I suspect many of us don't understand the reformed Christian world-view well enough to have an informed opinion about it one way or the other. It seems fairly alien, like someone speaking a foreign language where I catch a word here and there but the overall train of thought eludes me.
Sep '10
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
As Ricochet's resident Neo-Platonist I defer to the Oxford Handbook of Aquinas by Brian Davies, OP and Eleonore Stump:
...cont'd
Edited on April 3, 2012 at 6:54pmSep '10
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
...cont'd
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
The question as stated doesn’t seem to distinguish between ends, though, right? I mean, if we define happiness as “what we think will make us happy,” then we sink into the mud of subjectivism—aren’t the Misses Bennet, Lucas, and Dashwood pursuing male attention, money, and Romance because they are made (transiently) happy by them?
I think what you’re arguing Austen is arguing is that the pursuit of a particular, properly-ordered, marital happiness is the proper end of courtship, but as her heroines’ experiences show, getting there is often an anything but happy experience. They often suffer terribly trying to sort out their feelings and those of their beaux, as well as the latter’s intentions and natures.
Meanwhile, those who are immediately, ecstatically enraptured by chimerae like admiration, the prospect of wealth, or great drama, end up following them into misery.
Pursuing happiness, then, depends on having a very hard-headed idea of the Good and more than a little toughness and practicality in obtaining it, often at the necessary cost of transitory pleasures—that is, unhappiness.
Then, finding a companion who shares your idea of the Good, your alliance generates that greater happiness sought.
Edited on April 3, 2012 at 11:02pmMar '11
Re: In Love, Look for Happiness
Where else are you going to find a 5+ page debate on Jane Austen, arranged marriages, and the true meaning of happiness?
Coffee money, well spent.