Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Saturday, June 18, 2005

Ridiculous from Today’s Perspective

Posted by Laura Carroll on 06/18/05 at 10:37 AM

‘To look either forwards or backwards,’ Italo Calvino suggests, we have to admit the reality of our own cultural contexts.  ‘In order to read the classics, you have to establish exactly where you are reading them “from”, otherwise both the reader and the text tend to drift in a timeless haze.’ I’m interested in how texts which interpret other (anterior) texts - movies that adapt novels, for instance - achieve this, without thereby domesticating and ossifying the wildness and strangeness of the life of the past.  And by golly, some movies work it through the embassies of literary criticism.  Mansfield Park and Lionel Trilling are the topics of the first important conversation between Tom Townsend and Audrey Rouget, the callow hero and modest heroine of Whit Stillman’s 1990 movie Metropolitan

Austen’s book is introduced into the film as a book; moreover, as a book whose value and import for belated readers requires talking over. 

AUDREY
–by Tolstoy, War and Peace, and by Jane Austen, Persuasion and Mansfield Park.

TOM:
Mansfield Park!  You’ve gotta be kidding!

AUDREY:
No.

TOM:
But it’s a notoriously bad book!  Even Lionel Trilling, one of her greatest admirers thought that.

AUDREY:
Well, if Lionel Trilling thought that he’s an idiot.

TOM:
Hah!  The whole story revolves around, what? the, the immorality of a group of young people putting on a play.

AUDREY:
In the context of the novel it makes perfect sense.

TOM:
The context of the novel! - nearly everything Jane Austen wrote is ridiculous from today’s perspective.

AUDREY: 
Has it ever occurred to you that today looked at from Jane Austen’s perspective would look even worse?

Lionel Trilling’s intervening presence is a buffer or screen between the all-absorbing, omnipotent fiction, and what its readers, the movie among them, are free to make of it; he stands for the intimation that if a novel comes equipped with a troubling reputation, there can only be a kind of näivety in making an untroubled “adaptation” (and the movie does go on to adapt parts of Mansfield Park.) It is not accidental that the critic and the author are given roughly equal conversational force, nor that Tom’s wrong version of Trilling meets with Audrey’s equally blunt rejection.  The critic’s name is shorthand for all previous readers and all the accrued criticism of canonical novels / great weight of received opinion. As Audrey observes, that is something like what the confident diction of the seminal essay alluded to implies: 

“There is scarcely one of our modern pieties [Mansfield Park] does not offend….Our favorite saint is likely to be Augustine; he is sweetened for us by his early transgressions.  We cannot understand how any age could have been interested in Patient Griselda.  We admire Milton only if we believe with Blake that he was of the Devil’s party, of which we are fellow travelers.”

And so on.  I guess some of that is just how we wrote criticism in the 1950s. (If we were an extremely clever person.) But it is also true that in order to accept Trilling’s contention – he says, ‘Mansfield Park is a great novel, its greatness being commensurate with its power to offend’– the reader must be made to feel the impossibility of doing anything other than siding with the modern people.  But how can this be necessary? We are modern, irrespective of whether we’re up to all the exhausting decadences and outrageousnesses that being a modern seems to entail.

When Audrey, who is rather romantically interested in Tom, does read Trilling’s essay on Mansfield Park – finding him ‘very strange’ – she asks Tom if he too thinks Fanny Price is ‘unlikeable’.  (That Tom remembers Trilling’s account of group morality in Mansfield Park, while Audrey is more struck with his hatchet job on the ‘virtuous heroine,’ is one way this web of intertexts is used to delineate the concerns of the characters.) Only then does it emerge that Tom has not actually read the Austen; indeed, he (like the awful Mr. Collins) never reads novels.  ‘I prefer good literary criticism.  That way you get both the novelist’s idea as well as the critic’s thinking.  With fiction I can never forget that none of it really happened, that it’s all just made up by the author.’

The film gently ridicules this remark by cutting straight from Tom’s solemn face into another scene as he talks, implying he can’t be rationally answered with politeness.  But it also allows the comment to stand – as if to say, there is a bit of truth in the idea that nothing ever reaches us pure, and you ‘can never really forget’ what you (should) know: the imagination is not free of limitations and debts.  But those constraints are what gives it form and shape and meaning.  (Trilling argued this, too.)


Comments

Some questions:

1.  How do you address the fact that Metropolitan‘s populated by “Polly Perkins” composites of the doomed bourgeois in love Stillman knew growing up? 

2.  I recall the unexpergated script in Barcelona and Metropolitan: A Tale of Two Cities made it fairly clear that the events in Metropolitan occured in 1968 and I remember thinking “Damn, that must be significant” but I never ventured too hard to discover why.  You haven’t happened to’ve done that, have you?  I only ask because Said’s reading of Mansfield Park is fresh in my mind, so the problem of chronicling discreet charms in the midst of unacknowledged revolution strikes me as a compelling parallel that refutes Tom’s contention that “none of it really happened.” Some of what Austen wrote about did happen--if not in exactly that way or at that time--and presumably some of the conversation-cum-narrative in Metropolitan did too.  (I vaguely remember an interview with Eigeman in which he discussed once meeting his prototype in a restaraunt with Stillman.  Could be mistaken.)

By Scott Eric Kaufman on 06/18/05 at 03:30 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Some answers.

1.  I don’t, since Metropolitan reads perfectly well as a text populated by “composites” of readily available literary precursors - characters and tropes.  The Polly Perkins story is a nice allegory of the writer’s creative process, and while it probably does pertain as you say to Stillman’s personal biography, it also catches something about his reading history, which is reconstructable and discussable in ways the personal stuff isn’t.  The ‘composite’ motif in Metropolitan corresponds with the ‘makeover’ theme in Clueless, which is nice.

2. There are fragments of conversation in the film that place it in the mid to late 60s - a reference to Averell Herriman as a man in his 70s, for instance.  The autobiographical flavour agrees with that dating, since Stillman was born in 1952.  (See what a pathetic groupie I am?) What’s interesting about that is, while the more neurotic types in the film are convinced that everything is poised on the edge of some terrible social upheaval / catastrophe, the movie is pretty careful to fudge specifics to do with period.  It begins with a title card that says “Manhattan.  Some Time Ago.” The clothes and hairstyles place it squarely in the late 80s.  That slipperiness is another way the film ironises the kids’ sense of being ‘doomed to failure’: it’s hard to prove that “now” is worse than “then” if you can’t be sure that “now” refers to a definite historical period rather than an internal frame of mind.

By on 06/18/05 at 09:25 PM | Permanent link to this comment

...I think the I got the title card wrong - it says something like “Not so long ago”.  Quite different, ahem.

By on 06/18/05 at 09:53 PM | Permanent link to this comment

This is only tangentially related to your post, but I found the “AFL-CIA” and de Sade references objectionable. And the Carl Barks, in a different way.

By Jonathan on 06/19/05 at 05:25 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Fair enough, Jonathan: that’s an interesting collection of things to object to.  Tell me why you don’t care for the Scrooge McDuck, I can’t think of a reason, unless it’s that it strikes you as condescending?

By on 06/20/05 at 07:53 AM | Permanent link to this comment

I’ve got nothing valuable to add here, Laura.  Just wanted to say that that was an excellent post.

By on 07/12/05 at 08:08 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: