As much as Catherine loves to read books, she's really bad at reading PEOPLE. I think the point that Austen was trying to make is that novels should be read, and they should be read wisely, just as people should be read. Catherine takes everything for face value, the people she meets as well as the stories she reads. That's why she naively allows herself to fall into her fanciful thoughts about the Abbey being this houser of secrets.
She doesn't recognize that James and Isabella are flirting with each other until she's hit over the head with the news, and she naively believes that Isabella is "unknowingly" flirting with Henry's brother. She doesn't realize just how manipulative Isabella is. She also has no idea how to be manipulative herself. While she does seek out a friendship with Elanor, she doesn't do it with the kind of motives that Isabella had in befriending her. She also has no idea how to hide her feelings and Eleanor is able to read her feelings for Henry like a book.
It's Henry that has to teach Catherine how to read books and people properly. It is only after she's been "instructed" by him that she begins to see the motives of the people around her. This kind of bothers me a bit, because I don't like that Henry is this teaching figure for Catherine. I wouldn't mind it otherwise, but I just find Henry kind of pompous with the way he presents
his intelligence and point of view.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with you. Catherine, is so naïve, and knows absolutely nothing about the world and the people in it. She is without disguise, so she assumes everyone is like her. If she wouldn’t do or think something, how could anyone else do it? Austen even mentions that until Catherine was mortified by Henry about her suspicions of General Tilney she did not think that people could be “mixed characters.” Catherine considers, “Among the Alps and Pyrenees, perhaps there were no mixed characters. There, such as were not as spotless as an angel, might have the disposition of a fiend. But in England it was not so; among the English, she believed in their hearts and habits, there was a general though unequal mixture of good and bad” (161). I love how Austen doesn’t complete correct Catherine’s thinking; the English are capable of being a mixture of good and bad, but the Italians and French could still have complete villains.
I actually like Henry though; I don’t think he’s so pompous, I just think it’s his personality, I think he’s just being kind of playful. I think if he was having a conversation with John Thorpe he would be much more merciless to him than in any conversation than with Catherine. On the walk, Eleanor even mentions that Henry is not being serious, and his behavior is just part of his “odd ways.” Eleanor informs, “We shall get nothing more serious from him now, Miss Morland. He is not in a sober mood. But I do assure you that he must be entirely misunderstood, if he can ever appear to say an unjust thing of any woman at all, or an unkind one of me” (89). When Henry finally seriously teaches Catherine, he’s really nice about it. He provides a brief rebuke where he appeals to her understanding, and doesn’t scorn her in any way. After that admonishment, he doesn’t say anything more, and he treats her very nicely, trying to make sure she doesn’t feel bad. Austen narrates, “The formidable Henry soon followed her into the room, and the only difference in his behavior to her, was that he paid her rather more attention than usual. Catherine had never wanted comfort more, and he looked as if he was aware of it” (160).
Post a Comment