Of course, one of the largest themes surrounding Pride and Prejudice is marriage. Marriage is tied to social class, reputation for the families involved, and it appears to be more of something akin to a business transaction rather than a decision made for love and companionship. When Lydia marries Wickham, for example, it was a decision that came about as a result of a mistake. She had to take ownership of it, though, and marry him so as not to damage her family’s reputation. Marriages are often seen as an opportunity to raise a family’s reputation, or to take advantage of the spouse’s money.

One passage that seems to go against all of these presuppositions about marriage’s role in society occurs near the end of the novel, when Elizabeth and her father discuss the prospect of her marriage to Mr. Darcy. Her father wants to ensure that Elizabeth is truly marrying Darcy because she wants to, and not because she feels like she has to. Her father points out that Elizabeth had detested Darcy before. He is sure to outline the positive things that would come with her marrying him, but he then asks, “But will they make you happy?” (Austen 349). Elizabeth then asks him if he has any other objection to their marriage other than her “indifference;” Mr. Bennet replies that he does not. Once she assures him of her love, Mr. Bennet approves their marriage by saying, “If this be the case, he deserves you. I could not have parted with you, my Lizzy, to any one less worthy” (Austen 350).

This scene is one of my favorites because there’s a whole lot of love in it. Mr. Bennet’s love for Elizabeth; Elizabeth’s love for Darcy. It’s a beautiful scene because it focuses on such love rather than the reputation the family would benefit from. While Mr. Bennet does take note of it, it’s not his concern; rather, Elizabeth’s happiness is what he concerns himself with. The line “He deserves you” speaks volumes. Throughout the majority of the novel, a lot of emphasis is put on whether the Bennets deserve the men (and the families) they are trying to marry into. By putting the emphasis on whether Elizabeth deserves Darcy, Mr. Bennet flips that expectation on its head. Even with how important marriage is in maintaining a social reputation, Mr. Bennet would not let Elizabeth go for someone she didn’t deserve. Such reasoning is precisely why he doesn’t force her hand in marrying Mr. Collins, even going so far as to say he wouldn’t speak to her again if she married him. While Mrs. Bennet, and many others, buy into marrying for reputation, Mr. Bennet appears to want the best his daughters’, and Elizabeth’s in particular, happiness rather than their place in society. He seems to be a very progressive character, which would explain why he and Elizabeth get on so well.

Work Cited: Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. Barnes & Noble Classics, 2003.

Having read and discussed Wordsworth’s optimism in “Composed Upon Westminster Bridge” in a previous blog post, I was intrigued to find a much more realistic view in “The Prelude.” His tone is much more critical of London, and I think that stems from the extended time he had spent there by this point. He was no longer subject to the starry-eyed vision that comes with a traveler’s first visit, but he had been exposed to the reality of London and the secrets that it held.

One thing that was of particular note to me is the way Wordsworth describes London as a sort of paradox in saying that the city is so busy and full of life, yet full of secrets. He does so in lines 115-118, saying, “Above all, one thought Baffled my understanding: how men lived Even next-door neighbours, as we say, yet still Strangers, not knowing each the other’s name.” Wordsworth appears to take stock in the fact that Londoners do not seem as concerned with acquainting themselves with others, but rather they are more focused on their own lives. The paradox of London becomes even more clear when he takes note of just how busy the city is in line 151, saying, “Thou endless stream of men and moving things!” It’s almost as if everything around him is moving, yet he is unable to make any sense of it. He notes the diversity of the city by pointing out how many people are there from varying countries, and he goes on to discuss London’s history and what he expects (and what others expect) the city should be. It seems to me, however, that he is having a difficult time arriving at a conclusive and cohesive view of the city. The poem itself is muddling through a lot of chaos; he uses words like “roar” and “monstrous” to describe the city and the people in it. London, then, appears to be a sort of beast which cannot be tamed. More than that, the city may not be able to be defined. Wordsworth, however, does not take on a pessimistic tone, rather I think he’s simply trying to make sense of it all and where he fits in in the chaos. Where Wordsworth seemed like a third party observer in “Composed Upon Westminster Bridge,” in “The Prelude” he is very much in the scene. There’s a stark difference that comes about as a result of Wordsworth’s participation in the scene. Any city is going to become idealized when looked upon with fresh, eager eyes. When Wordsworth begins living in London long term, however, and becomes more exposed to the realities and the secrets of the city, I think he begins to question his role as a member of the society and how he fits in. His active participation no longer lets him sit in the blissful ignorance of visitation, but rather he is forced to confront the realities of his decision to become a citizen.

Charles Dickens’ “Night Walks” and Elizabeth Banks’ “Campaigns of Curiosity” both represent poverty and the working class in that both authors put themselves on the level of the classes they are speaking about. Dickens leaves his house to experience his version of houselessness, and Banks poses as a housemaid to know more about the working class.

In Dickens’ “Night Walks,” Dickens leaves his house to experience houselessness. He says that he does this because he cannot sleep, and he just wished to get through the night. The result is what he calls an “amateur experience of houselessness,” which led him to “sympathetic relations with people.” He would not have encountered these people if it weren’t for his insomnia, and it was not his direct intent to seek them out and empathize with them. However, he begins to equate himself with them as he goes on his walks, and he consistently uses the word “we” in his descriptions of the houseless. Dickens represents those on the street in some gruesome ways, effectively communicating the impact these people had on him. When Dickens discusses the children in Covent Garden, his descriptions of the children were particularly impactful for me. He says that the children sleep in baskets, fight over food, and are thieves. At the end of the passage, he says “A painful and unnatural result comes of the comparison one is forced to institute between the growth of corruption as displayed in the so much improved and cared for fruits of the earth, and the growth of corruption as displayed in these all uncared for (except inasmuch as ever-hunted) savages.” Any description of a person as a savage definitely comes from a place of privilege, but the passage communicates the idea that the city is failing its children, as they are not cared for, and nobody cares if they are taken care of. I think that the nighttime setting is important because the houseless population comes to life, as Dickens describes. Those in the city who are at home, asleep in their safe beds, are paying no mind to the chaos and havoc going on in the streets surrounding them. The idealized version of the city is swept aside for this realistic representation of the people suffering at the hands of their misfortunes, and Dickens appears to be the only privileged man aware of it – and the only one willing to speak of it.

Elizabeth Banks uses a similar place of privilege in order to speak about the working class in “Campaigns of Curiosity.” She is first made aware of her naivete in the first chapter, when she offers the sewing woman a “better” job. The working woman couldn’t be more offended, and she accuses Banks of trying to take away her independence. Banks recoils, confused as to how a working woman could be considered independent. The whole scene was humorous to me, but I admired the way Banks handled the situation: she tried to understand. She sought out a job that would allow her to be an “ordinary servant.” Once she finds a job, she gets a wake-up call. She did not realize how much work would be involved in being a housemaid, and how unlivable their wages were. Annie tries to teach Elizabeth the ways of the house, but she can’t help but laugh when Elizabeth underestimated the work. On page 29, Annie tells Elizabeth that it’s too bad she “took such a hard place for [her] first time in service!” On the same page, Elizabeth says that she pitied herself for all of the work she had to do. She subjected herself to the pains and struggles of the working class, but she was easily able to evade them as she saw fit. She even has to get food from her own home rather than buying it with her earnings. Her privilege is clear in that scene because she evades the confines of the working class and uses her wealth to benefit her, even though she wanted to experience being in the working class to its fullest. Therefore, she brought her own privilege into her experience, and her experience was biased by her greater wealth than the woman she was emulating. Although her intentions may have been just, her methods were not. However, because her wealth is so clearly juxtaposed by the working class, it makes the struggles of the women all the more clear, and it paints them in a very respectable light.

Both Dickens and Banks take themselves out of their places of privilege in order to understand and speak about those in poverty and the working class. Their understanding, then, is influenced by their own wealth and success, and it shapes how they view the people they speak about. There is a barrier created in each of their pieces that both of the authors must overcome, but I would argue that it gives the reader a more thorough understanding of the wealthy and the poor/working class because of that discrepancy. The reader is able to know the authors’ presuppositions, and the reader is able to see how the author shapes him or herself based on what they find out. In taking themselves out of their privileged places, they are able to communicate the struggles of the poor and of the working class, and they serve as witnesses to their experiences. If it were not for them, the reality of poverty and of the working class may not have been as evidently clear.

Works Cited:

Banks, Elizabeth. Campaigns of Curiosity. F. Tennyson Neely, 1894.

Dickens, Charles. The Uncommercial Traveller.  ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/d/dickens/charles/d54ut/chapter13.html.

The work of John Thomson and Adolphe Smith really struck me, and the photographs had a particularly lasting effect on me. Thomson’s photograph “The Crawlers” was the first image that stuck out to me when I was viewing the group as a whole. Upon closer inspection, there’s so much to unpack in it. First and foremost, the woman is at the center of the photograph, and it is well composed to make her the focus. She does not face the camera, but rather she looks down at the ground as the photo is taken. She appears exhausted, leaning up against the wall to rest her head. As she sits on the stoop, she is holding a baby in her lap. At first glance, it appears as if the baby is covered with its own blanket; actually, the woman is covering the baby with her shawl, protecting the child and herself at the same time. The focus of the image is blurred behind the woman, which heightens her prominence and brings her to the forefront even more. The leading lines in the door and on the wall also direct the focus to the woman’s face, which is arguably the most important part of this image; she is wrinkled, worn, and exhausted, clearly at odds with her situation. While the baby is an important part of this image as well, the child is out of focus, its face overexposed. The photograph is also angled down to the woman, and it was clearly taken when Thomson was standing up. The angle makes the woman seem even smaller and, coupled with her sitting position, it makes her appear all the more weak.

I’d like to compare “The Crawlers” with one of Gustave Dore’s illustrations, which communicates a similar idea. Dore’s image “Orange Court – Drury Lane” depicts a much more chaotic scene. The illustration itself is very thin, and it depicts a narrow street that appears to be even narrower as it continues to the back of the image. Several people line the walls of the street; men, women, and children alike are all crowded together. There are several men in top hats, and many of the women have their heads covered, but the children do not appear to be as protected from the elements. On the left side of the image, there is a man working at some sort of a device. An elderly woman walking with a cane is at the front of the image. Dead center, however, is a girl who looks young. She is barefoot, and she is carrying a baby who appears to be the same size as her. This girl is separated from the chaos of the people surrounding her, and she has room around her, which makes her all the more prominent. There are other girls around her carrying their own children, but this girl is at the forefront of all of them. There is heavy shading in this image, particularly further up the street, which gives it a somber, nighttime note. While there are many people in the image, many of them appear emotionless as their faces are stagnant. The girl holding the child, however, has a solemn look about her face.

When comparing the images, the first point I noticed is that they both depict women with young children. Both of these women in each of the images are the focal point of the image, and their struggle with their children and their situations is apparent. I was drawn to the expression on the woman’s face in “The Crawlers,” and the same emotion drew me to the girl in the illustration. The girl in the illustration, however, does not communicate her emotions as clearly because she is surrounded by the chaos of the population. She appears to be washed out by everyone else in the image, and I believe that to be the point. I did not notice the girl on first glance, and it was only after a closer viewing that I saw her facial expression. While the woman in the photograph is alone, the girl in the illustration is purposefully surrounded. It makes her all the more vulnerable, as she is likely to be swept up in the chaotic population. The viewer of the illustration has many other people to look at, which can communicate the reality of the situation as well. The woman in the photograph, however, is the only subject, which heightens her situation in a different way: the viewing audience has no choice but to look at her.

I personally found the illustrations to be very exaggerated and overwhelming, and I’m inclined to say the photographs held more truth for me. While it can be argued that truth lies in the fact that the illustrations show more of the situation at hand, and more people experiencing the detriments of it, there’s something about the photograph that resonates with me more. It just feels as if it was a raw moment that would have happened regardless of whether or not someone was there to view it. The illustration, however, feels contrived to me. Maybe that’s just my way of denying the horrible nature of the situation, but this one woman’s struggle in “The Crawlers” resonates with me much more than the scene in “Orange Court – Drury Lane.”

William Wordsworth’s poem “Composed upon Westminster Bridge” and William Blake’s poem “London” offer two starkly different views of the city. Whereas Wordsworth’s poem seems to be bathed in light, soaking up the silence of a bright new day, Blake’s appears bogged down with the dreariness he sees around him. Each poem offers a different narrative of the city, and some of the key ideas I saw both of the authors using were visual cues with light and aural notes with the senses of sound, to communicate their visions of London.

As I previously mentioned, the stark contrasts of each of the poets’ usage of light is apparent. In Wordsworth’s poem, the shining promise of a new day is upon him, and it helps to illuminate the beauty he is surrounded by. Everything he describes around him is “bright and glittering in the smokeless air.” The calm that emerges because of this light fills Wordsworth with the joy he professes here, and he can then view the city with a more appreciative tone. Blake, however, contrasts Wordsworth in his descriptions of the city. While Wordsworth says the air is smokeless, Blake says the churches’ walls are blackened, and he notes how the chimney sweepers cry. Blake’s word choice, with words like “blackning” and “midnight” lend to a very dark image of London. Coupled with the melancholy imagery he uses when describing the individuals he sees, and the hopelessness inside of them, Blake’s view of London is a very depressing one, to say the least.

Wordsworth and Blake both use sound in their poems to convey their messages as well. The morning Wordsworth is discussing is described as silent and calming, to the point where even “the very houses seem asleep.” The only sound that is really conveyed in his poem is the sound of the river freely flowing, which is a calming sound. Blake’s poem, however, communicates a much more chaotic scene through his usage of sound. There are men crying, infants crying out of fear, and “youthful harlots” who are cursing. Each of them seems stuck in their melancholy viewpoints with no escape, and it makes it so that the scene is very unappealing. If it were quiet, at least Blake could be offered some calm to gather his thoughts. I think this is part of the reason why he focuses so much on the people in this poem: they are what he can make sense of, because they are being so loud.

The two representations of London are definitely apparent in these two poems, but they both speak to some of the same ideas in describing their surroundings. Wordsworth and Blake both mention the Thames – Wordsworth sees it as free flowing, Blake describes it as chartered. They also both mention places of worship in the poems (temples and churches, respectively). I think it’s interesting how different their representations of the city are, and how Wordsworth’s poem seems so full of hope, while Blake sees no escape. I wonder, too, if Wordsworth would consider Blake to be the dull man devoid of soul he describes in lines two and three, as Blake passes by the majesty. I’m intrigued by the slightly different historical periods they were written in, given that they were written eight years apart. I’d be interested to see how this history ties in to their shaping of their viewpoints.