Love at first sight? Pffft.
Jul. 6th, 2009 01:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
matrilWhile I bite off my fingers waiting to hear from the other four agents, I've been re-reading Pride and Prejudice for...oh, probably the tenth time. I love this book to pieces. Other than having memorable, believable characters and a well-crafted storyline, it explores themes that never get old. This passage demonstrates perhaps my favorite thematic element of the book:
If gratitude and esteem are good foundations of affection, Elizabeth's change of sentiment will be neither improbable nor faulty. But if otherwise, if the regard springing from such sources is unreasonable or unnatural, in comparison of what is so often described as arising on a first interview with its object, and even before two words have been exchanged, nothing can be said in her defense, except that she had given somewhat of a trial to the latter method, in her partiality for Wickham, and that its ill success might perhaps authorise her to seek the other less interesting mode of attachment.
LOVE this. Basically, Austen is addressing the tendency to imagine that love can be born of a single meeting, without the two people even speaking to each other - the tendency to believe that such a thing is wonderfully romantic - and poking a great big hole in it. Wickham is the sort of man that women believe themselves in love with immediately upon meeting him, because he's handsome, affable, and has every appearance of goodness. Whoops! Turns out he's a gold-digger, an unrepentant womanizer, and a completely scumbag in just about every regard. Mr. Darcy, meanwhile, doesn't give off a great first impression, but anyone who takes the trouble to really get to know him will learn that he's just about everything that a good man ought to be. And whatever Austen winkingly says about the "less interesting mode of attachment," it's obvious that the story of Elizabeth learning to love Mr. Darcy is far more fascinating than any "love at first sight" story. It's more interesting, it's more meaningful, and it's far more romantic. Real love takes time. I wouldn't have it any other way.
I developed a massive crush on my husband the day after we met, but I didn't really get to know him well enough to love him until we started dating. It was so much fun becoming truly acquainted with each other and gradually falling in love. I suppose I could look back at the excitement and uncertainty of our first or second meeting and imagine it to be love at first sight, from my smug look-how-things-turned-out perspective, but I really don't think so. I think our perceptions significantly color how we regard our memories. The first meeting between two people who don't end up together doesn't matter as much, so we disregard it. The first meeting between two people who become a couple, on the other hand, is cast in a far different light, with all sorts of new meanings attached to it. Was there really a magical moment upon first meeting? Probably not. That's all right. It's perfectly romantic to me, more so than being attracted to someone without any choice in the matter or any time to let it grow.
If gratitude and esteem are good foundations of affection, Elizabeth's change of sentiment will be neither improbable nor faulty. But if otherwise, if the regard springing from such sources is unreasonable or unnatural, in comparison of what is so often described as arising on a first interview with its object, and even before two words have been exchanged, nothing can be said in her defense, except that she had given somewhat of a trial to the latter method, in her partiality for Wickham, and that its ill success might perhaps authorise her to seek the other less interesting mode of attachment.
LOVE this. Basically, Austen is addressing the tendency to imagine that love can be born of a single meeting, without the two people even speaking to each other - the tendency to believe that such a thing is wonderfully romantic - and poking a great big hole in it. Wickham is the sort of man that women believe themselves in love with immediately upon meeting him, because he's handsome, affable, and has every appearance of goodness. Whoops! Turns out he's a gold-digger, an unrepentant womanizer, and a completely scumbag in just about every regard. Mr. Darcy, meanwhile, doesn't give off a great first impression, but anyone who takes the trouble to really get to know him will learn that he's just about everything that a good man ought to be. And whatever Austen winkingly says about the "less interesting mode of attachment," it's obvious that the story of Elizabeth learning to love Mr. Darcy is far more fascinating than any "love at first sight" story. It's more interesting, it's more meaningful, and it's far more romantic. Real love takes time. I wouldn't have it any other way.
I developed a massive crush on my husband the day after we met, but I didn't really get to know him well enough to love him until we started dating. It was so much fun becoming truly acquainted with each other and gradually falling in love. I suppose I could look back at the excitement and uncertainty of our first or second meeting and imagine it to be love at first sight, from my smug look-how-things-turned-out perspective, but I really don't think so. I think our perceptions significantly color how we regard our memories. The first meeting between two people who don't end up together doesn't matter as much, so we disregard it. The first meeting between two people who become a couple, on the other hand, is cast in a far different light, with all sorts of new meanings attached to it. Was there really a magical moment upon first meeting? Probably not. That's all right. It's perfectly romantic to me, more so than being attracted to someone without any choice in the matter or any time to let it grow.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-07 05:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-07 06:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-22 11:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-23 03:48 pm (UTC)