Jane Austen, Public Theologian

[pegkerr]

To call Jane Austen a public theologian is counterintuitive for two reasons: she does not seem much interested in things public, and she does not seem much interested in things theological . . . Austen was not an unthinking defender of traditional social order. Not uncommonly, her heroines are upwardly mobile, particularly through the agency of matrimony. More

Hmm. V. interesting. My thoughts upon first reading this seem particularly scattered, but it seems to getting at, obliquely (from another angle) the issue I posted upon this morning, re: lies and truth, although here it is called acting vs. becoming a role. Consider, for example, this:

. . . every social role has a particular identity attached to it. Some of the roles are fairly trivial and easily changed; others are nearly impossible to alter. But any change in role is a change in "who you are." The ethical imperative is to grow into those roles. At first, the uniform may not fit; we may find ourselves dwarves dressed in the clothing of giants; but we are called to grow into our role.

(Does this mean that if I play the role of a "real writer" long enough, that eventually I'll actually start to feel like one?)

It also reminds me of the long and animated late night conversation I had with Eleanor Arnason at a convention many years ago, which for the first time truly gave me a real appreciation for Mansfield Park.

Comments

[mizkit.livejournal.com]

(Does this mean that if I play the role of a "real writer" long enough, that eventually I'll actually start to feel like one?)

Hrm. Given that you have two novels published, *I* certainly think you're a real writer. What do you feel like you are?

Re:

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

It's very irrational, I know, but I have a neurotic side of me that thinks, I'm not really a real writer, and eventually everyone will find out.

I'm wise to this irrationality, and I do my best to ignore it, and I manage to, for the most part. But I know that it's surprising for peopel who've never published books to discover that even people who have managed to do so still sometimes doubt themselves.

[wilfulcait.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of the early Greek ethicists, who basically said that the most important thing was to teach people how to act, because if they acted like they were supposed to, they would become good people. Very "from the outside in."

I think it's true, and the scary thing is that it works in both directions. We not only grow to fit our roles; we shrink to fit them, if we take on too small a scope.

[pameladean]

You know, I like Fanny Price very much; she is the only Austen heroine that I can identify with. (Luckily for me, I think being able to identify with a protagonist is overrated.) But I can't read this article to the end. It's so prissy, so pompous and dictatorial. It makes me want to become a Crawford and thumb my nose at the author.

Pamela