Frame It In Time

As I read further into Jane Austen's Pride And Prejudice I begin to encounter differences between my reality and that of the characters. It is important to note that the novel was written roughly 200 years ago. The society depicted by Austen is intensely different from ours in custom, language and mentality. Geographically, the plot takes place across oceans making the cultural gap even greater. This is important when reading the novel, for not what seems is, and not what is today would be then. This aside, the basic human emotions remain the same through centuries. Even if channeled differently, it is the same situations that trigger events at Netherfield and Hollywood.

It is evident, when one stares upon the first page of the novel, that the matter in subject is not a valid application of contemporary society. But how great could the gap be? I understand the way they speak, carry themselves, and interpret events under the lens of society is different. I can appreciate how the materialistic movement runs parallel to the novel. The problem comes when asked to draw the line upon hypocrisy. The subject in essence is complicated as are all subjects with basis on subjectivity, but its complications turn up a notch with reference to time. It puzzled me when they criticized what to me, and many modern citizens, was an act love, admirable under any light. Elizabeth, worried for her sister's condition, walks miles in the mud and arrives tired and dirty only to care for Jane's recuperation. At the first opportunity to discuss, the congregation at Netherfield thought it "very nonsensical to come at all! Why must she be scampering about the country because her sister has a cold? Her hair so untidy, so blowzy" (25). So much criticism triggered after so much affection. How could it be considered "nonsensical" to care for one's sister, setting her health as a priority above her grooming? Here not only did I disagree with Miss Bingley's attitude, but began to dislike her personally.

After some thought, I concluded that the comment lay as a consequence of the distant between decorum in the city and in towns. Much like today, people living in big cities tend to look down upon people from towns. As if living in the city made you any better. Even if the subject in the town was to have more resources, the economically inferior city boy would have an air of superiority for he ignorantly believes he represents the city. I wont strive to convince that we are all equal, for I don't believe such myth myself. Yes, there are superior individuals. I disagree the criteria by which this superiority is adjudicated. Say a scholar, one who has written books and conferenced about agricultural development, was to converse with a farmer. As humble as the former might be, he shall deem himself more important, an authority in the matter in which the farmer is but a peasant. I disagree with allowing this attitude to come through, but there is no denying the scholar of his reason.

Then again, this must be interpreted under the respective context. My example makes only sense for those who lived after humanity began to prize education and may make no sense in a hundred years, when the generosity of heart comes to be prized above knowledge. In doing this I vastly generalize, for there are obviously some who, even today, consider material possession way above education but they are a minority. They used to be a majority, at least in the social circle depicted in the novel. This is why books must be read in context, and why interpretation of the pages changes as time goes by. I will accept it and agree upon the mentality as I open the book once again.