Dear Diary,

Ok, this has tossed and toppled all over my mind throughout the reading of this entire book. Pro the semi-arranged but not really marriage principally impulsive and scarcely rational? Or Con? This is bothering me, because I’m SO the type of person who makes lists, let’s try it out.

Pro:

- you keep a spark going because you keep on getting to know each other

- advantage of marrying into families

- economic security

- your mother doesn’t freak out because you may never get married

- abrupt change of lifestyle

Con:

-     --You encounter many conflicts because you in fact didn’t know each other

-     -- Could be tagged as a gold-digger

-     --Could be killed for being thought a gold-digger

-     --Your mother could want to come and visit because she wants to keep an eye on you

-   --- You realize that your life was in fact easier before

Yeah that didn’t work out too well… Maybe I’ll just wait and see what happens with my sisters. I’ll keep you noted!

Mary

Define Vanity

Interestingly enough we’ve ran into VAIN. Quick recap, vanity is what other think of you an pride is what you think of yourself. “In vain did Elizabeth endeavor to check the rapidity of her mother’s words” (P.75) looks like Elizabeth is more than proud my friends. She is vain, especially with her family and they with each other. Throughout this Bingley’s ball we are bombarded with evident examples as Mary’s horrendous playing which ended because Mr. Bennet “ took the hint” (p. 77) and his imprudent wife.

It appears as if the characters are very much aware of each other’s behavior’s and the possible inconvenient this could cause to their personal image; however, they are oblivious to their own behavior.  As is Mrs. Bennet with all of her daughter’s, embarrassed by Elizabeth and proud of Jane because they somehow improve her public image (despite being pretty much described as neurotic and stupid… but whatever). Also how Elizabeth fears that her family has set out to be embarrassing in the ball to which she feels ashamed of despite being described as “different”.

I guess that based on this we can conclude that another distinction made by the book between pride and vanity is that pride is what you think of yourself and it depends on yourself whereas vanity is other’s image of you and it depends on other’s behavior (as if somehow their actions were your own)

Prejudice

Finally I’m aware of some of the prejudice that’s been taking place. Sadly, it apparently had to be extremely evident for me to realize. Oh, Mr. Wickham. That handsome fellow. Nice, caring, a victim of Mr. Darcy’s jealousness, apparently.  Elizabeth’s response to Wickham’s claims was extremely prejudicial as we see in page 60 “This is quite shocking!—He deserves to be publicly disgraced.” Although we have previously clearly established that she doesn’t feel very fond of him, she is taking Wickham’s claims to heart and proposing that he be punished for his actions.

I hate that this actually happens. That however you meet a person, if you hear something negative about them you completely assume that it can be logical and plausible and and and….. agh everything bad in the history of bad things should happen to them.


I later realized that this character is one of the few blatantly characterized as "handsome". Which I guess through logic (and again Social Psychology) gives him the upper hand; cause you see, when people are prettier they give off a more trustworthy vibe, more deserving and be supported will all logic, more appealing.


Therefore, if a person is prettier then not only will they be more accepted but their life will be all around easier...  ;) (get it?)

I’m definitely sticking to my hypothesis that Austen is clearly trying to portray society as a whole… We’ll just have to see how that works out.

If You Keep On Picking At Your Food

Sometimes I feel that when they were handing out pride and vanity they decided that to most prides they would add leftover pompous attitude because they no-longer knew where to place all of hat cockiness. It seems like NOTHING IS EVER GOOD ENOUGH FOR THESE CHARACTERS!

Darcy finds that the difference in social class is too great to declare his love to Elizabeth sooner and eventually to reconsider the proposal

For Elizabeth Mr. Wickham end up not being good enough for her

For Bingley, Jane isn’t affectionate enough

For Caroline the Bennet’s are too much  to handle along with too poor

For Lady Catherine The Bennet’s did not do a good job raising the girls

And for Elizabeth, Darcy is too stuck up, her family is too embarrassing, Her mom is too inconsiderate of her feelings or her daughters’ for that matter and the proposals she is given are people who she deeply dislikes.

 I used to be a very picky eater and would poke and tumble everything on my plate and I remember my grandma saying that if I kept on doing so, I would simply never like it. Because by poking and tumbling everything, I was precisely looking for  the bad stuff, what I didn't like, how it looked etc. which is what I this is the major issue with these characters. If they keep on looking and poking ad scrimmaging the cards they are delt, they will never be satisfied. 

...Love

And the plot thickens, as Elizabeth’s and Mr. Darcy’s rivalry and hatred flourishes into … love? At first I thought that this novel was going to be mainly about Mr. Bingley, as the first sentence talks of a wealthy man who is to be matched up.

Clearly, I was wrong and it’s to talk about Elizabeth and Darcy’s “true love” as it wasn’t planned in contrast of all marriages in the period. Truly this is something very common nowadays, having people that “hate each other and in an apparent change of events drastically pivot to adore each other.

I actually thought that the topic of Pride is very important but don’t feel qualified enough as to talk about Austen’s use of it in the noel as she has only mentioned it twice. But surely I will write a blog about it when I am done reading.

Austen's Point

Once again, I read and think to myself, WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR SOCIETY? What could possibly crawl into our mind and nest next to our amygdala and have offspring which attack our frontal lobe that could possibly cause us to be such superficial beings? (Yes, I wanted to show off what I recently learned about neuropsychology) Let’s sort of paraphrase chapters six, seven and eight:

Mrs. Bennet is so willing to match Jane and Mr. Bingley, that she’s willing to risk jeopardizing her health to do so. Reason why she sends Jane on horseback despite her knowledge of bad weather. Elizabeth, being the concerned sister that she is, takes it upon herself to walk (3 miles) to check up on her sister. Logically, she becomes a sweaty mess on her way there. She is not well perceived, this also intrigues Mr. Darcy.  His and Elizabeth’s relationship is somewhat confusing because he doesn’t find her attractive but she defies him almost every time they speak. Lastly, Miss Bingley is somewhat annoyed at having the Bennet’s at her house taking any chance she gets to speak ill of them.

The main characteristic throughout these occurrences is superficiality. At first glance they might seem hyperbolic but once well thought through, they are clear, everyday samples of everyday life. Austen portrays our actions and their apparent insignificance by doing so. As readers we are meant to realize that the world that incorporates these characters might as well be our social group. That the values (or lack thereof), both directly and indirectly alluded to, are ones that apply universally.

Or so I think…

Science and Marriage

Upon starting to read Pride And Prejudice, Austen establishes that the Bennet’s and all families nearby for that matter, view wealth as something completely necessary for the future well-being of their daughters. Connotations behind, “ Only think what an establishment it would be for one of them [daughters].” (p.2) and “ I don’t believe Mrs. Long will do any such thing. She has two nieces of the own. She is a selfish, hypocritical woman…” (p.3) are of competition and jealousy for the best counterpart for their heirs so-to-speak.

I couldn’t help but think scientifically. About how survival of the fittest applies to this situation. Briefly speaking, survival of the fittest states that the one who has the utensils, the best of them, gets to survive while the other’s die off. In this case, parents try to set up their children on a strictly wealth ridden basis which will in turn provide both social and economic stability.

I don’t think that we should go back to arranged marriages because we as humanity have reached a point in which diversity and free will mean so much, though they could ensure our survival. But then again, we probably don’t need to worry about that.

The Relevance Of Words

Reading the last pages of "Hamlet" I found myself extremely confused. Yup, I had to read the last (extra) pieces a couple of times to understand it further. Ok, so before, the play stated that life was irrelevant, that you are only here, the present you; therefore, the “King of Infinite space”. However, we have proven that this in fact is not the case.

As a matter of fact, the presence of Fortinbras commemorates this. This is hinted to us, on one hand by the way in which he buries Hamlet and on another the actual re-telling of this whole tale.

The soldier/honorary burial that was given to Hamlet represents the importance of his actions, that his death, like a soldiers, was valiant and worthwhile. This indirectly suggesting that his disapproval of his mother’s love the right thing to do. Whereas the re-telling keeps acknowledges Hamlet’s actions and life as a whole. Technically, the fact that this already is written word in the shape of the play “Hamlet” already makes it relevant. This ultimately makes all writing relevant but also eternally relevant, which I think is he metaphor behind the existence of “The Tragedy Of Hamlet”.