Tuesday, 9 June 2009

And the millionth English Word is...

Author: Dorien Knockaert

Language – Brussels – English daily acquires fifteen new words. That is what Global Language Monitor (an American technology-company) has calculated. According to its statistics, tomorrow the language will acquire its millionth word, while Dutch dictionary Van Dale not even counts 300,000 words…

From our editor

Will it be ‘de-friend’, ‘Mobama’ or ‘financial tsunami’? Global Language Monitor (GLM) that specialises in language trends, is eager to increase tension by Wednesday afternoon. Then it will finally announce what is, according to its measuring-system, the millionth English word. With its campaign, GLM wants to draw attention to the increasing growth of English and plans to proclaim it ‘the first real world-language’. ‘In 1960, 250 million people spoke English, mainly in the ex-colonies of the United Kingdom. Today, 1.53 billion people use English as their mother-tongue, their second or work-language,’ GLM says on its website.

Paul JJ Payack, the man behind GLM – not a linguist, but technology-expert – says he is totally sure that his software only counts words that are used a lot or that carry a lot of weight within their meaning. So for example names of unknown chemicals it does not take into consideration. The reason for his list being so enormous is simply the phenomenal growth of the English language, he says. ‘Daily 14.7 words enter the language.’

A million is so spectacularly much that the number encounters a lot of doubt, certainly among linguists. Also the fact that GLM’s system and aims keep on being quite vague, does not contribute to its trustworthiness. And whoever compares the number to leading dictionaries of English, sees a very big discrepancy. Merriam-Webster’s Third New International Dictionary has 476,000 words in it, Dutch dictionary Van Dale round about 268,000.

Although, dictionary-writers do not put all words they encounter in their dictionary. ‘It is totally wrong to presume that a word does not exist if it is not in a dictionary,’ says Ruud Hendricks, head editor of Van Dale. ‘We only put a word in the paper-edition of our dictionary if it has been in regular use for a number of years in newspapers and the like. And in order to avoid making the dictionary uselessly thick, we also take words out. For the electronic yearbooks we publish, we are less complacent: in there we will signal a new term much faster. This year, new terms will include a lot of expressions that popped up in the reporting on the financial crisis. Some, though, will disappear fairly quickly again.’

A language is uncountable for various reasons. Linguists know that. ‘Vocabulary is something infinite: one can always make new composites. We do not put all those into a dictionary as the meaning of most is instantly clear.’

It is right to say, however, that English is a very big and flexibly growing language, confirms Hendrickx. ‘The grammar imposes fewer limitations on word-use than in Dutch and the vocabulary is since the early days rich and divers: the basic material of English is Germanic, but because of the Normans, a lot of Latin words came into it and the Vikings added some Scandinavian ones. It is because of that that the English can say ‘pig’ to a pig that is alive, and ‘pork’ to a dead one. They have a treasure of language-material at their disposal.’

The nominees:

Financial Tsunami: the worldwide financial restructuring which made in a few months’ time collapse gigantic capitals and financial institutions.

Zombie banks: banks that would not exist anymore if they hadn’t been saved with public money.

Jai Ho: a Hindi expression that means as much as ‘halleluja’ and that became popular in English through the hit-film Slumdog Millionnaire.

Chiconomics: the art of looking chic and stylish despite the economic crisis.

Mobama: the style of the new American First Lady

Octomom: a mother of octuplets.

Green-washing: like one white-washes money, one can green-wash a piece of old rubbish: upgrading through presenting it as an environmentally friendly recycled product.

Slow Food: the opposite of fast-food: healthy, locally produced food.

De-friend: scrapping a ‘friend’ from your contacts list on a social networking site.

(the two articles were translated from De Standaard)

What Hendrickx forgets to say, however, is that the Taalunie (the Language Union between the Netherlands and Flanders (yes, we speak the same language!)) makes a sport of it to prohibit expressions, grammar-constructions and what-not because they are ‘false’… Despite the fact that they have been used by the great majority of people mostly in one part of the Union for years. If the construction is too French, it is called a Gallicism, too English equals an Anglicism, a second word for an old one (like the case ‘umbrella’ and ‘rain-screen’, but there are more ridiculous cases than that) is called a Purism, too old is an Archaism. What he also does not mention, and I suppose that is because he is now head editor of Van Dale (the leading dictionary in the Dutch language, like the Oxford English Dictionary in English), is that Flemish words (regionally used in Flanders mostly) are labeled in the dictionary ‘Southern Dutch’ while really Dutch words (from the Netherlands), known by Flemish people but never used because they are Dutch, are not labeled at all. True, we speak the same language, but it is a case like American and British English, with the same spelling. British English is not worth more than American English... British spelling is not worth more than American spelling. They are equally right, in their context. Therefore they are labeled the same...

Actually, let’s be frank, Dutch is a very pedantic language and English is not. English is free and just because of that it is used all over the world by people who add their own words to it… English would never have become a world language, if it had had the same approach as Dutch (‘no, that is not right, you have to say it like this.’). Jai Ho would just never have entered the Dutch list because it means the same as ‘halleluja’ and we already have that and so it is a Purism, probably. So would be the lot of ‘green-washing’ as that is a euphemism for ‘recycle’ and ‘chiconomics’ would not stand a chance because no-one would think about it.

Monday, 8 June 2009

Lost in Austen, an analysis (4/4)

Episode 4 starts with the acknowledgement of Amanda, that never seeing Darcy again is the worst she will have to endure. Like she thought, and like it was clear to everyone, Darcy asks Caroline’s hand in marriage, although not without regret judging by his look… At this time, though, the most interesting part starts, both of the book and 1995 adaptation: Lydia runs off. This time not with Wickham (because he is an honourable guy now…) but with Bingley, who is sick of society. The two have learned a great deal of Miss Price and desire to get away from it all to go and learn in her place of abode: Hammersmith. Of course, not realising that the Hammersmith Amanda comes from is not the Hammersmith that they will go to…

Here for a first time we see discontent from Jane’s side about her father for whom ‘‘tis time he rose from his chair to do something for the good of the family’. Darcy is shocked, and obviously feels guilty, despite the fact that he does not want to tell Amanda that. But she sums it up for him: ‘You do whatever the hell you want, and afterwards call it principle.’ And she reproaches him that he and Caroline are made for each other… It was also no doubt principle from Caroline’s side to break his engagement up?

So, Mrs Bennet and Amanda return to Longbourn and meet Mr Collins’s three brothers: Probity, Elysium and Tinkler or Cymbal. Probity meaning integrity, Elysium being the place where the virtuous and heroes go after death, and Cymbal/Tinkler being derived from St Pauls first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 13, verse 1 (Love, the best way for all): ‘I may speak in tongues of men or of angels, but if I am without love, I am a sounding gong or a clanging cymbal.’ Or so at least it is according to Mr Collins. Although, with later Tinky Winky from the Teletubbies popping up, and Tinkler amusing himself with his trousers, we might be more inclined to think that Tinkler is a reference to something more concealed in the days of Austen… But more on that later… The allusion to St Paul’s letter is not so very far-fetched though as it is a text about the use of love: that one can surely do everything right, but that one is nothing without love; although one has money, belief and what-not, one is nothing without love. The three greatest things are faith, hope and love and the most important of the three is love. This is what Amanda is continuously searching for and what the others miss. Indeed, they live according to the principles evoked in the three brothers: Integrity (Probity), the after-life (Elysium) and without love (Cymbal), integrity being the most important. However, the three brothers are at the same time ridiculous (as in Austen’s satire), as Probity is sleeping, Elysium is drugged and Cymbal, as said before, amuses himself with his trousers. Integrity is indeed not real integrity if one is forced to be a certain way because of others, thus real integrity could be called asleep. Elysium is not a place where virtuous and heroes go if virtuousness and heroism are forced upon them. Cymbal, as it is used in 1 Corinthians 13:1 is not at all positive, but rather negative. As such, Andrews certainly gives a message in the three brothers.

After a little pause in which Mr Bennet decides to read a book instead of wanting to go and look for Lydia, Amanda can still persuade him to do something about Lydia’s honour and all three (Mr and Mrs Bennet and Amanda) leave for Hammersmith, where Bingley and Lydia have gone. There, they find not Amanda’s place as that is locked up because her parents Reginald and Nora have gone to Bath (something that Wickham has invented as an excuse), but Lydia and Bingley in the Jerusalem Inn… As they find them, they find Bingley making a spear like the ‘noble savage’ of Rousseau (this erroneously though), the fundamentally good person that has been corrupted by society and lost his skills because of it . Lydia, on the other hand is ‘bored’, by the lack of society as it seems… Darcy then turns up, making an excuse to save his friend, but Bingley protests it. Mr Bennet now challenges Bingley to a duel, Bingley who notably defends himself with his spear instead of a sword. Mr Bennet ends up hitting his head on the mantelpiece with great bleeding as a consequence. Despite Darcy sending for his physician ‘who will be [t]here within the hour’, Wickham saves the day with a woman who stitches Mr Bennet up.

Amanda now feels an urge to see Elizabeth, and passes through the door of the Jerusalem Inn through the door of a mobile toilet on a building site into modern day Hammersmith again. Her need now opened the door again. We might think she would feel at ease, but oddly enough she looks puzzled and does not know what to do. People are so touched by it, they hand her money as if she were begging and destitute. Nevertheless, she takes up the thread again and goes to her apartment, where she finds Michael who asks her where she has been, has apparently sent 75 texts and spoken 1,5 hours of voicemail so far. We could say that at last now she knows he cares… He has also sold his Bughatti to procure a holiday to Barbados, which was originally meant to be a honeymoon (aaah), but which will now serve as a normal holiday, as marriage seems out of the question. On his new motorcycle they decide to go and see Elizabeth who has become a nanny to the children of Dr and Mr Rosenberg. When Amanda and her boyfriend are sitting on the bike, she suddenly sees a very strange tableau In the modern streets of Hammersmith: on the side of the road, at the traffic lights, she sees Darcy she thought she had just left in the Jerusalem Inn; she sees a man, looking a little like her before: scared, lost and totally unaware of where he is, destitute; a man in need of help. She orders Michael to stop and runs to him, and it is then that he admits his mistake:

Amanda: You followed me?
Darcy: Are my wits disordered by opium? What is this dreadful place?
A: This is London, my London.
D: I will tell you this Miss Price, and it is true: the assembly rooms at Meryton. I danced with you, not in order to spare my friend, because I wanted to dance with you. Our entire acquaintance has been informed by my refusal to acknowledge this. But I have been blinded by pride. Charles, Georgiana, Wickham, you. I was calamitously mistaken in my judgment of you all. A fellow less big-headed would have realised from the start that what I felt for you was… What I felt for you was… love. I love you. I followed you to this infernal place because I would follow you anywhere. I would hallow hell to be with you.
A: What about Caroline?
D: I do not care enough to marry Caroline Bingley.
A: Do not tell me she is not a maid.
D: Of course she is a maid. I cannot marry her because I do not love her. I love you.
A: Ok, before we go any further there is someone you have to meet… right now, take my hand.

This dialogue stands on the same level as the dialogue in the original and the 1995 adaptation where Darcy proposes for the second time and pours his heart out. Cowan’s Darcy now admits to his pride, which provoked bad judgment and professes to love Amanda finally. Thus, he throws his buttresses off and like Firth’s Darcy, has swum in his pond. He has now washed himself of pride and prejudice, unlike what we were inclined to believe when he went literally into the pond according to the wishes of Amanda, swimming in the modern world, via the door that ‘[his] need’ obviously opens. He needs to become helpless, destitute with no buttresses or references at all in order to acknowledge that he loves Amanda.

Together Darcy and Amanda cross London on the bus to go and see Elizabeth. It is here that Tinky Winky from the Teletubbies comes into play: on the bus, there is a child reading a book Tinky Winky Counts. When they turn up at Elizabeth’s place (or the Rosenbergs’ place) Darcy looks to the side, to a pile of rubbish at the door (which was obviously Elizabeth’s doing) and says: ‘The gentleman on the Bath chair, I have seen his likeness’, he picks up the Teletubby and says: ‘Tinky Winky’. Very funny, certainly when we see the controversy about Tinky Winky a few years ago: Tinky Winky had been found gay by an American minister because of the red magic bag that looks like a woman’s handbag (purple boy + handbag + reversed triangle = gay). The controversy went so far that children’s psychologists were needed to calm the people down about possible subliminal messages about homosexuality in the Teletubbies. The fact that Tinky Winky is professed to sit on a Bath chair by Darcy, could be called an indication of Andrews about the restraint of Regency Society: a Bath chair namely looks the same as a three-wheel buggy, and that was obviously what stood at the door of the Rosenbergs (Elizabeth not knowing what the hell to do with it), but the thing was not used for babies in those days, the thing was used to bring invalids to the baths in Bath (hence its name Bath chair, maybe also given due to its shape as old-fashioned bathtub). As Tinky Winky is sitting on a Bath chair, might we suppose that ‘he couldn’t’, like Caroline professes that she will marry Darcy despite not wanting men in her life emotionally at all, she ‘can’t’ be lesbian ? Mr Collins’s brother Tinkler might also be a reference to Tinky Winky. He at least amuses himself with his trousers, as does his brother by the way, who has notably a very clear red handkerchief that could refer to Tinky Winky’s red magic bag... Why, is the question. However, the verb ‘tinkle’ can also mean ‘urinate’, so the connection between the male part and Collins might be the reason why Lydia bursts out laughing at the name when it is first introduced. But, nonetheless Tinky Winky on the Bath chair highlights a certain problem as to love referenced in St Paul’s letter to the Corinthians: ‘I am nothing without love’, yet for lesbians, gays and cross-class couples, there was no possibility to love, because it was inappropriate. They were invalids, as they were not allowed to love. The controversy with Tinky Winky being gay highlighted the fact that our society is not yet freed from gay-fear and is more restrained in that respect than we’d like to admit. However, gays are certainly better off now than then. Furthermore, the Teletubbies live in an ideal world where everything just seems to happen: they get ‘Tubby Custard’ from a mysterious machine. Where actually the custard is made is the question. In the real world, babies also get fed custard, made by their mummy. Whether they know that, is the question. They are also ordered to go to sleep, which they do nicely. In a certain sense, Darcy’s and the rest’s existence is also a little mysterious. Maybe even more so than ours, as they did not know about evolution, and their existence as rich people was given by God (‘there is no accident in birth’). Essentially they also live in a world ‘where everything just happens’. However, Amanda just might have perceived it as a little too ideal a world, where we like to escape. Not a real world, where people lived and had their own worries. In that, the Teletubby-land that she had in her head, does not really exist and Darcy calls it ‘a pretty drear thing’. Naturally, as one is always observed by servants, one does not have a private life… Nor can he occupy himself with anything at all. It is not the land of Milk and Honey, apparently, but so is neither Amanda’s own land (Hammersmith) of which Bingley and Lydia thought the same.

On the other hand, the Teletubbies seem happy, despite the fact that they have to do certain things… But is that not the case because they do not ask themselves whether they want that ‘Tubby Custard’ or whether they want to sleep? Mrs Bennet was also ‘happy’ in her marriage, Mr Bennet was at ease in his library, Darcy was ‘what [he] [was]’ and Caroline did not at all seem to regret having to marry Darcy in spite of being a lesbian. It is only because they start asking themselves what they want and why they can’t get it (by admiring Amanda), that they start to be unhappy. So it was for Amanda, too, when she read Pride and Prejudice for the first time…

When Amanda and Darcy go into the Rosenbergs’ place, Elizabeth takes Tinky Winky from Darcy and they pass into the living room-kitchen, where all appliances are on: the stereo, the TV (without sound, Clementi on the background) with a music program on, the iron, the cooker, the hood above it, the laptop… (This ludicrous scene compels us to ask ourselves the question whether all those appliances are really needed… Whether it is not ‘skill that we have forfeited’ because of society. Certainly when we acknowledge that we are now obsessed with our foot-print) When Darcy is strangely interested in the iron, Amanda calls him by name to prevent him from burning himself and Elizabeth recognises the name. She shouts out: ‘You are my husband!’ Darcy is puzzled, but professes ‘not [to] recall marrying [her]’. She then proceeds looking it up on the laptop and accesses a page Collin Firth-Darcy, but the page above is titled ‘The Darcy-obsession’. Elizabeth and Darcy, in ‘a strange post-modern moment’ as it seems, stare together into the laptop, she strangely informing him about himself, and probably herself also taken in the meantime with the type of man Darcy is (‘The Darcy-obsession’), given that at the start she did not know of a man called Darcy. When she hears of her father, she orders a taxi by credit card and, when they are about to get into the taxi, Michael shows up. A modern duel breaks out between Darcy and Michael, the latter hitting him with his fist, clearly wanting to display his manhood, where Darcy equally gets angry at the sight of Michael ‘lay[ing] violent hands upon Miss Price’. After a separation by Amanda they all return to the door in the bathroom of her apartment. She orders Elizabeth to return to Regency England with Darcy, but the door does not ‘oblige’. When Amanda touches it, however, it does open, but slams shut at Elizabeth. So indeed, Amanda is more in need than Elizabeth to leave the modern world. Michael now threatens Amanda with leaving her if she goes through the door. This however, Amanda does not take and asks him to stop with the macho-behaviour. When he tells her again, she does go through the door, because Darcy ‘will be beaten up’ in modern day London.

When they pass through the door, Darcy professes an amazing urge to sleep and asks for a bed. Further on, Elizabeth and Amanda talk about Charlotte who has left for Africa after the proposal of Collins did not take place. She has also escaped to ‘downtown’ as it seems, or at least to a place where they would go ‘if life became irreparably miserable and lonely.’ That was at least what Charlotte and Elizabeth agreed when they were children…

During that night, Amanda slips into the room of Darcy and sees him holding a letter. He however does not want to loose possession of it and grabs it firmer in his hand when Amanda tries to take it. Instead, she kisses him. In the morning he asks to leave immediately as he had ‘a bad dream’. Elizabeth tells Amanda he is ‘insufferably rude’, but Amanda tells her it is her duty to try. That is not what Elizabeth meant, however, because ‘[she] [is] altered by what [she] ha[s] seen’. Amanda says that about Darcy as well, ‘but he does not remember’ in her view and puts it down to a bad dream. So Elizabeth and Darcy walk in the garden, while she explains the nature of St John’s wort (a means against depression) and tells him that ‘it is important to call the thing by its proper name, however fiendish’. Darcy professes to do his duty, although he does not know why it is his duty (in his own words) to love Elizabeth and invites her to Pemberley to explain the types of wort in his own meadows and to meet his sister.

Now, of course, Lady Catherine arrives to tell off someone… First she addresses Mrs Bennet who has done nothing to promote the matches between her daughters and Mr Collins’s brothers. This however Mrs Bennet does not buy and, while her husband is ‘dying’ in the couch, she says to Lady Catherine: ‘You are a prig, madam, a pander, a common bully. And you cheat at cards!’ She further threatens to scrape out the pigs trough with Lady Catherine. Mr Bennet, impressed at his wife, shouts out in utter amazement: ‘Tally ho, wife!’ and decides to sleep in the bedroom again. When Mr Collins tries to asks his wife Jane why her mother is speaking like that, she tells him off as well: ‘Oh, be quiet you silly man!’ Why would her sisters possibly marry his brothers if they have seen him? Lady Catherine now understands that there is only one person to blame for this rebellion: Amanda. And she speaks to her in the garden, wanting to make a bargain with her: Amanda will leave Regency society and what does she want for that? We all know what she wants: Jane and Collins’s marriage broken up so the first is free to marry Bingley. Lady Catherine then asks whether the marriage was consummated (an essential reason for annulment). Indeed, it was not consummated, because Mr Collins was going through ‘a period of abstinence’ (would this have anything to do with his trouser pocket and his red handkerchief?). And Lady Catherine professes to occupy herself with the annulment just for her own amusement… She further orders Darcy to leave.

Although we might now think that Jane will be over the moon, she again addresses the fact of society: ‘[she] will be despoiled’ and ‘will be the woman who couldn’t inspire her husband to consummate his marriage.’ That is sad in itself and Bingley will not want her. But here, Bingley professes to be ‘through with [society]’ and to want to take her to America. Whether that is really the continent America is doubtful in my opinion, as he there speaks a references to Elegy XIX of John Donne (our ‘new-found-land’ and ‘license my roving hands’ ‘and so forth’):

Elegy XIX
To his Mistress going to Bed

Come, Madam, come, all rest my powers defy,
Until I labour, I in labour lie.
The foe oft-times having the foe in sight,
Is tir'd with standing though he never fight.
Off with that girdle, like heaven's Zone glittering,
But a far fairer world encompassing.
Unpin that spangled breastplate which you wear,
That th'eyes of busy fools may be stopt there.
Unlace your self, for that harmonious chime,
Tells me from you, that now it is bed time.
Off with that happy busk, which I envie,
That still can be, and still can stand so nigh.
Your gown going off, such beautious state reveals,
As when from flow'ry meads th'hills shadow steals.
Off with that wiry Coronet and show
The hairy diadem which on you doth grow:
Now off with those shoes, and then softly tread
In this, love's hallow'd temple, this soft bed.
In such white robes, heaven's Angels us'd to be
Receiv'd by men: thou Angel bringst with thee?
A heaven like Mahomet's Paradice, and though
Ill spirits walk in white, we eas'ly know,
By this these Angels from an evil sprite,
Those set our hairs, but these our flesh upright.
License my roving hands, and let them go,
Behind, before, above, between, below.
O my America! my new-found-land,
My kingdom, safeliest when with one man man'd,
My mine of precious stones: my emperie,
How blest am I in this discovering thee!
To enter in these bonds, is to be free;
Then where my hand is set, my seal shall be.
Full nakedness! All joys are due to thee,
As souls unbodied, bodies uncloth'd must be,
To taste whole joyes. Gems which you women use
Are like Atlanta's balls, cast in mens views,
That when a fool's eye lighteth on a gem,
His earthly soul may covet theirs, not them:
Like pictures or like books gay coverings made
For lay-men, are all women thus array'd.
Themselves are mystick books, which only wee
(Whom their imputed grace will dignify)
Must see rever'd. Then since that I may know;
As liberally, as to a midwife show
Thyself: cast all, yea, this white linen hence,
There is no penance due to innocence.
To teach thee I am naked first; why than,
What needst thou have more covering then a man?

As much as this may be about America, it is certainly as much about the woman. Or as much as it is about the discovery of America, it is certainly as much about the discovery of Donne’s mistress in her naked state. For a poem of 1699, it is unbelievably erotic. In Bingley’s context, I don’t think the place where they are going is the continent America. Although, the idea would fit in the concept of a new society where people are freer and not judged by their acquaintance like in the home-country. Society changes people, and thus they will be much freer than when they stay in England. Free to ‘have 25 children’ and to ‘name them all Amanda, even the boys’. But it is doubtful that Andrews would have ended the story wrongly, as he is very respectful towards the original. His ‘other’ Elizabeth takes the place of Darcy’s wife and so the end of Pride and Prejudice stays upright. Essentially, letting Jane and Bingley go to America is a little far from the original end. As Jane goes from puzzling at America to laughing at the idea, we might just suppose she red the poem as well…

After this problem is solved, Amanda indeed withdraws from society: she will go back to modern Hammersmith. She opens the door, now free to go as she now knows what she wants, but a little letter falls from the latch: the metro-bus ticket Darcy had in his hand that night, with written on it at the back: ‘Not one heartbeat do I forget’. While Amanda drives in a carriage, Elizabeth asks her father what she has to do, stay or go back to Hammersmith. Her father admits to his childishness and tells her it is time he behaved as an adult in adult clothes and stopped clinging to his daughter. This seals obviously the deal: she will go back. There is only one place Amanda can be going now: she arrives at Pemberley where Darcy is looking over his grounds as a Darcy does.

Darcy: Miss Price.
Amanda: Yes. We should celebrate. You asked me a question, I answered it and we didn’t have an argument about it.
D: I did not ask you a question. I made an observation. ‘Miss Price’. The confirmation of your identity, was entirely superfluous. As a result we are now arguing about it. And therefore, you are wrong. (smiles)
A: That’s so sweet. You’re actually trying to make me laugh!
D: Yes. It shall not occur again. (smiles further)
A: And you’re smiling.
D: Nono. I only smile in private, when nobody is looking. (they kiss)

After his sleep, which we might define as a sleep of Sleeping Beauty (a transformation which requires so much energy as to offer no energy anymore for interaction, notably also kissed by his true love!), he acknowledges the unimportance of her non-virginity. When he took his plunge into the modern world, he saw a totally different society, where there is something as gay people, women with a career (Dr Rosenberg and her husband), where ‘negroes’ walk on busses, where women walk around less covered than in his idea, have short hair like men… Elizabeth was changed by that experience, but Darcy also as he has not forgotten or done it away as a bad dream. He does not forget a heartbeat and as such, was also changed by his plunge into the pool of modern society… Firth’s Darcy jumped in his pond to do away with his pride and to be able to respect his in-laws, Cowan’s Darcy jumps into the mobile toilet to do away also with that pride of his. Pride that did not allow him to acknowledge his love for Amanda, pride that did, after that, prevent him from marrying her because she was not a maid, pride that did not allow him to look further than the polished surface of human nature. He would have condemned himself to Caroline (a lesbian conniving bumface) because of that pride. He was also condemning Bingley and Wickham. By looking into his grounds, like Firth’s Darcy, he addresses his human nature, trying to find it back under the layer of society’s polish. Now, he can truly love Amanda. As Elizabeth’s understudy, she is swapped and takes her rightful place.

Amanda, after she leaves Pemberley the first time has succeeded in her struggle and knows what is the matter with her. She has indeed standards. Too bad if the rest of the world cannot have that. It is normal, it is what she wants.

Despite our rights, and our duties which rights imply, we as women have not changed. We still want love, as do men, because without love we are nothing as humans. We can now choose not to stay virgins, we can now choose to leave our husbands, but we can still not be happy without that love and we need it. Secretly we all dream of Darcy and why? Because he is caring, loving and lovely. It is not really ‘Collin Firth in clingy pants’ (the man will be happy to hear that), but it is the personality and mannerisms of Darcy we like. His struggle with himself to get the woman he loves.

To a certain extent Cowan’s Darcy was a little realer than Firth’s Darcy, which Andrews implied in Darcy’s anger at Pride and Prejudice. As Amanda says it in the beginning: ‘they changed his head with make-up’. Firth’s Darcy was the Darcy from the original which everyone fell in love with, the tormented man who swims in his pond. But the man was also rather a type, not a real man, unlike Wentworth who could be called a Darcy more advanced in wholeness of character. Cowan’s Darcy did not need bushy hair, a black horse and dark clothing to be a whole tormented man. Like Wentworth, Cowan’s Darcy has more nuances to himself, giving himself a character buried under restraint fixed by society. It must be what normal people have, and what the man Darcy was inspired on would have had, but it is something missing in Pride and Prejudice. Naturally, because the novel expresses Elizabeth’s views and therefore does not give a full portrait of Darcy as he does not show himself as a whole at first. Wentworth in that respect is much more nuanced and as such ‘realer’ as a character, which Austen’s age when she created him could have to do something with. So was Cowan’s Darcy who is portrayed unsympathetically by modern standards at the start (not looking at the people he speaks to, never smiling, being rather abrupt) and whose frustration and interest is apparent from the start by facial expression. Firth’s Darcy also had facial expressions (that is why we love him), but he was a little softer of character and a little more vulnerable in a typically early romantic way. By giving Cowan’s Darcy a bigger role (more conversations with Amanda), he comes across as arrogant in the beginning (‘I am always stark with liars.’). It is arrogance, though, that is indispensible in the society he lives, but which is repelling to us now. Firth’s Darcy was very early romantic in nature (struggle on an individual level), where Cowan’s Darcy was a little more modern in theme (struggle with the big society in oneself). As such, Cowan is further from Austen’s original, but probably closer to the truth, like he intimates about the impossibility of the things that happen in Pride and Prejudice.

Essentially Andrews carried the satire of Austen through much further than maybe Austen herself had imagined possible. Even with respect to the story of Pride and Prejudice, he carried it to the full. Not only Amanda has a problem with herself that lies under the layer of society, also Darcy, Caroline, Mr and Mrs Bennet are restrained. Only, they don’t know it yet. Until of course, Amanda turns up, for them naturally not restrained which is definitely not true for herself. In a certain way, we could see Elizabeth who gets into the modern world because of ‘[Amanda’s] need’, as the other side of Amanda, the more traditional female side, eventually ending up as nanny (a typical mother-role); the side we admire in those female characters (we all wonder how it would be having Elizabeth’s life). Wickham seems to serve as the same kind of influence as Amanda. He is also one who is not viewed in an ideal light, but certainly has a heart. Although this is not true to the original, it is not impossible that all that happened how Andrews thought of it. Who says that Lydia did not offer herself to Wickham, or even Georgiana? It is because we presume that to be untrue that it is untrue, yet we don’t know. In that, Amanda and Wickham join forces to bring some life into society. It is a fact that Amanda, as she comes from another society, is still less restrained than Wickham. On the other hand Wickham knows much better ‘how things operate’ in the society Amanda has landed into, and so they are an ideal pair. The buttresses have gone from the mansion in the end. And Darcy? He has found nature: as he was before looking at his grounds from the front of his mansion, he is now looking at them from his terrace. He is slowly getting closer, although there is more work to be done apparently at his emotional restraint (‘You are smiling.’ ‘Nono, I only smile in private, when nobody is looking.’)

In carrying Austen’s satire through, Andrews also addressed modern society. Not only Regency society was restrained but today’s society is that too, despite the fact that we don’t notice it and consider ourselves lucky when we watch costume dramas. After all, Darcy professes, ‘this is a free society’. Indeed, he nor Amanda realise that they are subjected to certain influences; they find how they perceive their role in that society as normal. When Amanda reproaches Darcy to be of no use, to ‘have no purpose’, he counters that by saying that ‘[they] must be seen to be unoccupied’. In other words, they must be seen to be able to afford the state of not being occupied. That is why he considers ‘any type of sudden locomotion an example ill-breeding’ and that also includes dancing, shooting, walking, playing cards etc. etc. This could be called the handicap principle, which displays certain behaviour in order to display that one can afford to do that. Notably the peacock’s tail (the very bird that Mr Collins accidentally shot) is such an example: he displays his feathers, rendering himself vulnerable to predators, yet that very principle makes him respectful in the eyes of the peahens. In the meantime this theory in connection with peacocks has been argued against, but it still seems to be significant in Lost in Austen. The class of Darcy ‘must be seen to be unoccupied’ because then can be concluded that they can afford to do that. As a result, Mr Darcy’s life ‘is a pretty drear thing’. Of course, imagine having to do nothing all day, any sudden locomotion is out of the question and there you are, waiting for the day to end… On the other hand, we in our society, cannot be seen to be unoccupied. We must work. If we don’t, we are strange or we cheat the system. So, although we might smile at the idea that Darcy finds that he is living in a free society, we might also smile at our ‘free’ society, because that is not as free as it should be if it were ‘free’. There are certain musts, like in Darcy’s society. Even really rich people, like Darcy, must show their face in this day and age, because otherwise they ‘have no purpose’. Amanda’s reproach was embedded in our perception of use and obsoleteness. In his society, though, Darcy cannot occupy himself because of society, Amanda cannot unoccupy herself because of society… So both are as restrained as each other, although without realising it themselves… Also Michael with his Bughatti is subject to the handicap principle as it displays himself as being able to afford an expensive car, so he is ‘fit to be a mate’. The same as the peacock who shows his feathers: he has survived possible attacks and is more fit to be a mate.

The scene with the appliances is also very judging towards our society… Piranha later professes to be black and not to be able to live ‘without chocolate, electricity or bog paper’ (toilet role). Not the black bit is worrying, but the chocolate, electricity and bog paper are that certainly. Elizabeth who puts on all the appliances in the Rosenbergs’ house and does not seem to need them. She is just wondering at everything. Yet, she puts all appliances on, even the TV she does not care to hear, but likes to see the images… Yet, her employers ‘are anxious about their footprint’. Surely, the footprint of the Bennets was a lot less? But we cannot do without the cooker, TV, stereo, iron, hood, computer, mobile phone etc. etc. anymore although they do not seem to have a clear purpose in themselves… They represent skills that we have forfeited: the stereo and TV entertain us so we do not have to entertain ourselves (with playing music, playing cards, charades, reading etc. ourselves), the iron represents our desire to have something that is permanently hot and to have steam that makes it even easier to iron, the hood above the cooker so our house does not smell of food, the cooker we can regulate the temperature of so we can’t let things burn, light so we have strong light whatever point in the day, a laptop and mobile phone so we are permanently connected with the rest of the world. Like Piranha cannot do without ‘chocolate, electricity or bog paper’ anymore, ‘not even for 10 minutes’, Elizabeth needs to have the appliances on despite her not using them…

Lost in Austen is not only a brilliantly fun series, it is also well-founded and well-referenced with song, philosophy and even psychology. In that, it will hopefully go into television history as another triumph. And maybe, Firth and Cowan could share each other’s fame...

Sunday, 7 June 2009

Lost in Austen, an analysis (3/4)

Episode 3 starts with a problem for Amanda: as Mrs Bennet has now had enough of Miss Price she has asked her to leave. But where must Amanda go? Back home! She tries to break the door open this time with a pickaxe, but even then the door does not want to budge. And Amanda, back in her modern day outfit roams through town and whom can she meet but Wickham who ‘see[s] the world the same way’ (episode 2): no care for society and the ways of it, without buttresses, a man on his own two feet. He decides to educate Amanda a little and goes to buy her a dress so she can make up with Jane, who is naturally unhappy about her marriage and the problem with Bingley. Wickham hands her the ‘acquaintance’ of Marie de Cerisay.

Making up with Jane, though, will bring Amanda in the neighbourhood of Rosings Park, the mansion of Darcy’s aunt, where she will naturally encounter Darcy again. Amanda does make up with Jane, and is duly invited to dine at Rosings as she has a message to deliver from Marie de Cerisay in Paris to Lady Catherine. The acquaintance proves more important than her fortune in trade… Then follows a very interesting conversation where Darcy does not seem to know who the de Cersisays are and Lady Catherine does seem to know and informs Darcy in public about the duck pond and the crocodiles (although it is puzzling how the ducks would be able to survive next to the crocodiles)… It seems as if the family they are speaking of is totally non-existent (hence the challenge of Mr Darcy where actually the ‘château’ of the Cesrisays is, in an attempt to disclose Amanda), but as Lady Catherine is desperate not to disappoint the rest of her public, she makes out to know them and makes up a story about a duck pond instead of looking ridiculous herself like Darcy at this point. Darcy is out to ridicule Amanda, but she has now obviously, with the help of Wickham, acquired the right manner of introducing herself and the right façade, as indicated by the fan in front of her face. It is then that the buttress comes into play. We see Caroline Bingley playing at the piano, but she is playing a very appropriate song of Mozart:

Lied der Freiheit (1785)

Wer unter eines Mädchens Hand
Sich als ein Sklave schmiegt,
Und, von der Liebe festgebannt,
In schnöden Fesseln liegt:
Weh dem! Der ist ein armer Wicht,
Er kennt die gold’ne Freiheit nicht.


Wer sich um Fürstengunst und Rang
Mit saurem Schweiß bemüht,
Und, eingespannt, sein Leben lang,
Am Pflug des Staates zieht:
Weh dem! Der ist ein armer Wicht,
er kennt die gold’ne Freiheit nicht.


Wer um ein schimmerndes Metall
Dem bösen Mannon dient,
Und seiner vollen Säcke Zahl
Nur zu vermehren sinnt:
Weh dem! Der ist ein armer Wicht,
Er kennt die gold’ne Freiheit nicht.


Doch wer dies alles leicht entbehrt,
Wonach der Thor nur strebt,
Und froh bei seinem eignen Herd

Nur sich, nicht Andern lebt:
Der ist’s allein der sagen kann,
Wohl mir! Ich bin ein freier Mann.


Song of Freedom (1785)

He, who under a girl's hand
nestles himelf as a slave
And who, fixed by love,
lies in disdainful chains:
Alas! He is a poor wretch,
He does not know golden Freedom.

He, who for king's favour and rank
Labours in sour sweat,
and his whole life long, fixedly,
pulls state's plough:
Alas! He is a poor wretch,
He does not know golden Freedom.

He who for glittering metal
serves the wicked Mammon
and only seeks
to increase the amount in his full bags:
Alas! He is a poor wretch,
He does not know golden Freedom.

But he who can easily do without all his,
for which only Thor strives,
and can sit happily by his own hearth,
living only for himself and not for others:
He it is alone who can say
Good on me! I am a free man.


It is interesting that we hear Caroline end the first verse (Weh dem! Der ist ein armer Wicht. Er kennt die gold’ne Freiheit nicht.) as it turns out, after which we hear her start the second verse about ‘king’s favour and rank’. The third verse about money oddly she skips, or maybe not so oddly, as money is not really there for Darcy to be increased as he has already enough. Society is mainly about marrying people of the same fortune and so of the same status. When Caroline starts the last verse, Darcy starts to speak about people out of society who repel him. When Caroline starts on the two last verses: Der ist’s allein der sagen kann, Wohl mir! Ich bin ein freier Mann, Amanda starts about the buttresses. Mr Collins had intimated that ‘Lady Catherine’s buttresses are the talk of the county‘ and Amanda now asks Darcy, stating that she is not experienced in architecture, but that… It is then that Darcy looses his temper and tells her in a fit of rage that ’[he] know[s] what buttresses are’. It is puzzling what is so bad about buttresses. But we can easily see what Andrews meant, combining the song with the buttresses. Indeed, the people in society are like a house with buttresses: they cannot stand on their own, they cannot have an occupation because ‘[they] must be seen to be unoccupied’, they need to be supported by the others in society to be in society. In other words, probably also figuratively, Lady Catherine’s buttresses might be the talk of the county as she is a reference in society, and her acquaintance is to be sought by everyone… Is it this what Darcy gets when he looses his temper? and is it that which fascinates him in Amanda? Her lack of understanding of society which renders her free to do and say what she wants (kicking Collins in the balls for saying that her society is revolting) without herself being aware of it in the least. With on the background the last two verses, we can certainly see that. He suddenly realises that he indeed is not a free man, despite the fact he professes it to be ‘free society’ in which Jane was not forced to marry Collins. He realises that he is too much ruled by this society and that that compelled him to make his friend unhappy and that society no doubt approved of a marriage to Collins, despite the unpleasantness of Mr Collins himself.

It is also at this time that Mr Bennet decides to sleep in his library out of protest against Jane’s marriage. When Mrs Bennet says she will take Lydia ‘to observe a happy marriage’ at Rosings, he yells that ‘[he] will prance Lady Catherine’s drawing room naked’ if she can find one happy marriage there. And that is indeed what the case is: people who care too much about peripheral things will not be able to choose their partners rightly and according to their own tastes. Darcy is doomed to be unhappy, until he finally gives in to himself and leaves society for what it is. But there might be more in Mr Bennet’s rebellion: the first verse of Caroline’s song is about men who have themselves ruled by love, lowering themselves as slaves. In the second episode, Mr Bennet intimates to Amanda that he was married because of beauty. She asks him not to let Jane marry Collins, but he says that ‘as far as [he] can allow anything th[at] household’ he will do his best to prevent a marriage between Jane and Collins and have his daughters marry for love. In other words, the poor man is indeed ruled by his wife, and cannot even oppose a marriage he disapproves of. And it is probably the anger at himself that he projects on his wife, escaping into his library.

And then: the third dialogue between Darcy and Amanda. A dialogue of desperation from his side, as it will turn out. He comes to Mr Collins’s house to have a talk with Amanda (like the original man and Firth’s Darcys came for their first proposal):

Darcy: I am… concerned
Amanda: I don’t understand.
Darcy: You came to this house, knowing that you’d be brought to Lady Catherine’s, knowing I would be there, knowing full well the abysmal disregard in which I hold you. Why, if I am, as you insist, so relentlessly unpleasant to you, do you persist in seeking me out?
Amada: I didn’t… seek you out! You came to me.
Darcy: Why?
Amanda: I don’t know.
Darcy: You must know. I do not, and my lack of comprehension is dementing me. (turns away in total disgust/desperation)
Amanda: Mrs Collins needs me, good night.
Darcy: (takes her by the shoulders as if to kiss her)
Amanda: You’re quite sure this is what you mean to do?
Darcy: (looks totally puzzled for a few seconds and then runs out of the house)

It is here for the first time that he nearly gives in to his feelings. As Collin Firth’s Darcy, he has come to the house in total emotional chaos, and does not know half what he is going to do or is doing. Firth’s Darcy and the original Mr Darcy indeed came with a plan, but they were still not through with their contempt for Elizabeth’s connections who were ‘so decidedly below [their] own’. Cowan’s Darcy does not at all come with the plan of asking for Amanda’s hand in marriage but comes, ironically, to ask her why he is in love with her, why he could possibly love a savage like her, unpolished by society. It is that what puzzles him, and it is that what is ‘dementing’ him: his own self that he has no longer under control. It is the real him that Amanda could not get at, and that he did not believe he had, his own human nature that is the same as Amanda’s. However, she, like him, still protests her human nature that is secretly in love with Darcy (as all women are), but that does not want to be.

Amanda has now totally left the door alone, as she cannot get to it in the Bennets’ house. And she is about to accept her role In the story, and her own human nature, as will Darcy. But first, she will make out not to be as unpolished as he thought… During the card game, Bingley, who is in emotional turmoil because of Darcy essentially, bets his watch with a nave. Amanda, hesitating whether she should actually claim the watch, cannot take a decision as ruthless Lady Catherine rips the king out of her hand and claims the watch for her. There, Amanda takes a split-second decision and impresses Darcy with her ‘practice-game’, which essentially restores the watch to Bingley. In addition, Collins humours Lady Catherine and lets her win despite having a card that seems high enough to beat hers… And Lady Catherine cheats, looking into other people’s cards, as Mrs Bennet reproaches her afterwards in episode 4. But as she is high up in society, she does that without having reproaches come her way, because that would be offending her…
Lady Catherine then warns Amanda for wanting Darcy. She answers she does not want him, but ‘what [she] want[s] frightens [her] to death. That is why [she] fail[s] to comprehend [her]self.’ And that is indeed what is going on in both Darcy and Amanda’s heads: they are scared of what they want and do not have the strength to step out of their normality. That is why they both deny what they want to themselves, why they do not comprehend their on wishes and are continuously wondering at their own feelings.

It is also then that for the first time Bingley reproaches Darcy for thrashing his happiness and Jane’s. After this reproach from his own friend, Darcy admits being wrong about obstructing Jane and Bingley’s relationship and invites Amanda to Pemberley together with Mrs Bennet and Lydia. They go, and as in Austen’s original and the 1995 adaptation, Amanda gazes at Pemberley in wonder. Unlike Lady Catherine’s mansion, which has a gothic inside, and obviously a gothic outside too as it has buttresses, Darcy’s Pemberley stands on its own in a beautiful valley. As in both the 1995 adaptation and the original, this could also be a foreshadowing of what Darcy is now: a man who stands on his own, a man who knows what he wants.

It is at Pemberley that he will finally yield to his own feelings and where Amanda will also understand why ‘[her] need open[ed] the door’ as she meets him looking over a large lake:

Darcy: (takes Amanda by the shoulders) Amanda! That means ‘she who must be loved’.
Amanda: You must not… You must not.
D: Wherefore must I not? Who is to judge us? I laboured so long in the service of propriety!
A: Elizabeth! I am not Elizabeth! The entire world will hate me.
D: Were that true, Amanda, I’d fight the world. You are the one I love!
A: Will you do something for me?
D: (goes into the pond, similar to the 1995 adaptation)
A: I am having a bit of a strange post-modern moment here.
D: Is that agreeable?
A: Oh, yes! Yes!
D: (starts to get out of the pond)
A: Oh, please, please, stay there! If you touch me again, I will be completely unable to say what I want to say. You love me. Which one of me do you love? The one you first met when I was spiky, and vulgar and I argued with you all the time? But you looked at me and felt all that abysmal disregard? Or the one I’ve been recently? Simpering and fanning, and, trying so hard to fit in? Please, tell me you’ve noticed the difference!
D: I’ve found both incarnations of your character equally disagreeable and yet, I love you, Amanda Price. With all my heart.
(they hear a noise in the background)
A: Ignore that. Please.
D: I cannot. (gets out of the pond) When my duties are discharged, I shall find you, Amanda, for there is more to say. If only the same words over and again. (walks off)

A: (alone) I love him! I love Fitzwilliam Darcy! I love him! Maybe that’s what’s meant to happen. (looks over the lake) I am like an understudy: the star has failed to turn up, and I have to go on and do the show!

Darcy has now totally yielded to his feelings, although he still finds the ‘incarnations of [her] character disagreeable’ and yet, he does not seem to mind anymore because he has long enough ‘laboured in the service of propriety’. As it seems, this force, which is ironically symbolised in the ‘post-modern’ pond-scene, is not only taking place in the minds of Amanda and Darcy, but also in Mrs Bennet who is crying in the garden at both her and Jane’s marriage. Although she still professes that we have to endure our lives, she is already aware of the fact that neither her own marriage is a good one, nor Jane’s, although they were made ‘in service of propriety’. At the same time, Bingley is totally through with Darcy and is so angry with him, he hits him regretting it afterwards. As Mrs Bennet was angry with Amanda before, like Darcy was, we might presume that Bingley’s anger with Darcy stems from the same problem: his own failure to stand on his own two feet and to decide for himself. That is at least what he intimated in episode 2: ‘It is not that I am especially weak, but that my friend is strong. He construes truly where others faulter. I am a faulterer, I rely on his construction.’ Had Bingley not trusted Darcy so much, and looked for himself, he had married Jane. Therefore he now blames the wrong man, in an attempt not to have to blame himself.

But, clouds gather in the sky as ‘smirking, conniving bumface’ Caroline attempts to break Darcy’s engagement by advising him to get to know Amanda a little better. When it comes to maidenhood, of course, Amanda cannot beat Caroline. And so, indeed, Amanda has a talk with Darcy:

Darcy: (stands visibly emotional looking at his grounds, still the blood at his nose visible because of Bingley’s blow)
Amanda: What happened?
D: Mr Bingley and I have been chatting. Miss Price, my life… is a pretty drear thing. But, it is conducted for the greater part in public. It is a rare moment that I am not closely observed by servants. If one is to know the truth about Fitzwilliam Darcy, one need merely ask.
A: You worry that I have a past, that you don’t know about?
D: I embrace(d?) the truth. Pray, tell it me.
A: Ok, what I should do, my mother would certainly say I should do, if she were here, and thank God she isn’t, is keep my mouth shut. But, given that I’ve never been able to do that, and given that Caroline has almost certainly put it about that I am the great whore of Hammersmith… But you’d never listen to gossip, would you? I love you for that. And that’s the thing, I love you. I didn’t know that… I didn’t know that. It is clear to me now that I’ve always loved you. Every time I’ve fallen for a man, I’ve closed my eyes and it’s been you! Even Michael, and I’ve pretty much lived with him for a year! So yes… I have a past, but every instant in it contains you! Everything I am belongs to you.
D: (distraught) I cannot marry you. I am sorry for it. But a man like me cannot marry a woman like you.
A: A woman like me?
D: You are not a maid.
A: (cries)
D: I am sorry. (gives her a handkerchief still with his blood on it)
A: I’ve been incredibly stupid.
D: You told me the truth and I asked for it. For that courage, I shall admire you always.
A: But it has cost me everything!
D: It has cost that of us both.

Here, Caroline not only accomplishes her purpose (breaking up Darcy’s engagement), but Andrews also puts in the very essence of Amanda’s need: ‘Every time I’ve fallen for a man, I’ve closed my eyes and it’s been you! … I have a past, but every instant in it contains you! Everything I am belongs to you.’ Indeed, she has always been wanting Darcy, not another, like all women actually might not be in want of exactly Darcy, but with all the things Darcy is: a gentleman. Sadly, this section also highlights the fact that society has only been that much be thrown away. Ok, Darcy does not mind her unpolishedness, but not a maid, that is not… not possible. That idea has been rooted so deeply in him, that he cannot marry her. Despite the fact that we might presume that Amanda is more disappointed and sad than Darcy, he intimates that it costs him everything, like to Amanda. And indeed, it does cost him a great deal. Like Firth’s Darcy, Cowan’s Darcy gives up a great love for his principles, but is that the case? Firth’s Darcy took a plunge to clean himself of his prejudices; Cowan’s Darcy has already taken a plunge, surely, or has he? As Firth’s Darcy, Cowan’s Darcy has partly yielded to his feelings: he loves Amanda/Elizabeth and so be it, he will marry her, despite her unpolishedness/low connections, but there is still their pride to be conquered for both Darcys (for Firth’s Darcy relative to Elizabeth’s connections and for Cowan’s Darcy relative to Amanda’s maidenhood). So, although Cowan’s Darcy took a plunge, it was not really a plunge, and this first proposal stands on the same level as the first proposal in Collins house in both Pride and Prejudice the book and the 1995 adaptation. Darcy partly yields but not totally. There is still work to be done.

Amanda now looses it totally and tears her copy of Pride and Prejudice up, throws the pages in the air and prepares to leave. At this point Caroline intimates that she is also a lesbian and that everyone expects her to marry Darcy (including God) and that she will do that, but that the physical society of men does not excite her. She has heard of Amanda’s ‘secret’…This is not the only surprising twist from Andrews doing. Georgiana was also not seduced by Wickham! On the contrary, Georgiana’s nurse fell in love with him and arranged to meet him regularly. An action for which Georgiana served as cover. Every time her nurse had her back turned, she offered herself to Wickham, but he didn’t want to have any of it. To take revenge on him, Georgiana told her brother, Darcy, that Wickham had ‘ravished’ her (in other words, had sex with her). Obviously, Darcy cannot see that in his warped vision of society, which classes women as certainly not equal and would straight away blame the man for doing something like ravishing. That a woman would offer herself to a man is totally unthinkable. It is equally unthinkable that there were women who were lesbians, yet there must have been… But more on that later… At the same time, though, Georgiana is not cast off if Wickham keeps his mouth shut and that is what happens… As such, he suffers his honour and status to be reduced because he protects Georgiana…

When Darcy finds the copy of Pride and Prejudice in his fountain, he is disgusted to find himself in it and all kinds of ‘improbable’ things that happen in it. He now confuses Amanda with Austen, who she is definitely not, but what is definitely so is that he is too much busy with propriety instead of himself and what he wants. He wanted to marry Amanda, yet he decides not to, because she is not a maid. He decides to discourage Bingley’s affection for Jane because she has no money. It is confusing for him to have to do away with everything he has learned that is proper and so he goes forward in spurts and then goes back in his steps… He is clearly not yet rid of his prejudices, so he has not yet swum in his pond, unlike we are all inclined to think… Amanda says it in a very powerful way: ‘You’re so incandescent with integrity that you misjudge everyone. You misjudge me.’ Incandescent can also refer to being unbelievably angry, incandescent meaning shining with light. Indeed, Darcy desperately wants to shine with integrity, even to the point of being angry with himself, but does not understand that integrity can sometimes mean not to stay true to others, but rather trust oneself. And that is also what Amanda needs to do.

At least Amanda’s struggle is now over and she understands what the matter was with her: she has loved Darcy from the start and needs to find a man like that. That will be the only solution for her problem: to follow her standards. And this is where episode 3 concludes: Wickham redeemed, Caroline a lesbian, Bingley drunk, Georgiana a head-strong girl, Amanda and Darcy engaged and single again, Jane and Collins still married…

Saturday, 6 June 2009

Lost in Austen, an analysis (2/4)

Episode 2 starts with Amanda arriving at Netherfield in the rain, having run after Jane to try to get her back as she is at risk of dying from croup. Mr Darcy, like in the original story and the adaptation of 1995, can be called intrigued by this soaking wet woman. While at Netherfield, Amanda is compelled to eat oysters and larks while sitting opposite Darcy, but there is more than that: she is challenged to play. Amanda, who cannot play the piano, a truly modern woman, in the end sings Petula Clark’s Downtown:

When you're alone and life is making you lonely
You can always go downtown
When you got worries, all the noise and the hurry
Seems to help, I know, downtown

Just listen to the music of the traffic in the city
[Lalalalalalala.. and] the neon signs are pretty
How can you lose?
The lights are much brighter there
You can forget all your troubles, forget all your cares

And go downtown
(Things'll be great when you're downtown
No finer place for sure, downtown)
Everything's waiting for you

That is indeed where Bingley and Lydia will go (just what he professed to do after Amanda had sung the song), or at least will attempt to go: Downtown to Hammersmith. That song also highlights the ability to escape to another environment when one feels alone. It is what Amanda tries to do in Pride and Prejudice. And it is, too, what Charlotte will do ‘when life bec[omes] irreparably’ boring and lonely for her; it is what she and Elizabeth agreed to do when they were children: to escape to Africa.

When Amanda is finally returned from Netherfield, after having saved Jane from an attack of croup with paracetamol and having told Bingley that she is a lesbian (out of need to make him fall in love with Jane instead), she returns to the door in the Bennets’ attic to tell Elizabeth about Collins who has just arrived, but as before, the door nor Elizabeth budge. Things now go totally wrong, as he proposes to Jane. Just in time, Amanda turns up with Charlotte Lucas, but Collins presumes it is Amanda who’d like to get married to him. In favour of her, he abandons Jane, but Amanda has not a mind to get married, although she is now engaged to him… In the meantime Bingley is ‘bewitched’ by Jane and Darcy starts his role as buttress, we will later see what significance the word has...

It is altogether strange when Wickham comes on the scene: when Mrs Bennet, cured Jane, Kitty, Mary and Amanda return from Netherfield: the wheel of their carriage breaks and Wickham arrives as the hero to lend them his carriage. As it will turn out, he will gain a greater role that is less villainous than in Austen’s original. He gives a first indication towards the theme for Amanda when he says to her: ‘You fascinate me. I confess it, you have endured great hardships in your life, as have I.’ This Amanda, nor other readers of Pride and Prejudice, believe, but it will turn out to be true when the real circumstances of Georgiana’s so-called elopement are revealed. Darcy still does not want to know him, but so he does not want to know Amanda and there is a strangely common theme in that…

In an attempt to have Jane and Bingley still bond, now she has unwillingly high-jacked Collins, Amanda sends the two off into the garden to look for voles and tells them to sing ‘when they find anything’. The fact that they are going to look for voles is not surprising as it is an animal which is monogamous, knows ‘dating sites’ in nature, and as it is a species where males help to care for the little ones. It is at this point, that Darcy for the first time really speaks to Amanda, unlike the time they danced at the ball in Meryton, because he wanted to save the honour of his friend Bingley: ‘What advise you to sing, Miss Price? Because I have found something of interest.’ Amanda is stupid enough to ask what that is, and he answers: ‘You. You are not what you seem.’ And the two continue:

Amanda: I can’t disagree with that. Look, I know you have a very poor opinion of me. That’s the way you are at the moment, and that’s ok. But one day, Mr Darcy, you will thank me.
Darcy: In the meantime, Miss Price, you must content yourself with a warning. If you wound Bingley, you will find my displeasure painful and entirely unrelenting, for my…
Amanda: …opinion once lost, is lost forever. Yes, I know.
Darcy: (looks surprised at the expression)

What the two say here, especially Darcy, is striking. It is a first glimpse at his struggle. Wickham will turn out to be totally innocent and Darcy will end up fighting for his buttresses and he himself as a buttress, not knowing what he should think of himself (as in the original and the 1995 adaptation). It is ironic that he here warns Amanda not to wound Bingley as he is doing it himself (in the original and in the adaptation of 1995) by not taking seriously Bingley’s feelings and preferring society above human wishes. But he himself now starts to see something in Amanda that is not what is on the surface. Indeed, she at that point is not polished as normal people in his acquaintance and in a certain way she could stand for ‘the noble savage’ erroneously identified with Rousseau (who is also referenced in episode 1 implicitly when Mr Bennet has lent Bingley a book on Rousseau, but also more explicitly in episode 4 by Bingley himself when making a spear). The theory of the noble savage professed that all people were good at heart and that society made them bad. Rousseau did not believe this so radically, but he did profess that foremost a good society was needed to make good men. Essentially, Darcy sees something good in Amanda that he is not supposed to see and cannot believe that he can see, as he himself relies on society to tell him what is good. Amanda is clearly not of that society and is clearly an example therefore, of ill-breeding. Why does she fascinate him?

When the ball at Netherfield comes along, Wickham spreads rumours about the origins of Miss Price’s income of a staggering £27000 a year (compare Darcy’s income of £10000 a year! The 27000 was of course the wages of Amanda in modern day Hammersmith, which is a normal wage in modern day London ): her father is a fish monger. A fortune in trade was not the best you could get, and naturally, Collins does not want to marry Amanda anymore as he cannot have an income from trade if he is to become a bishop… He does not only withdraw his offer of marriage on that basis, but also advises her that wanting the society of Mr Darcy would now be a total impertinence. She, who does not care as a modern woman, can just not contain herself and kicks him in the balls. Although Darcy shows her the door politely, he is intrigued by this unpolished kind of person. And probably even more intrigued at his interest in that unpolished person…

The second episode then concludes with Jane marrying Collins, as he is now free from Amanda, and Charlotte’s decision t go to Africa. Although there is also another dialogue of Amanda and Darcy:

Amanda: You are better than this. I know you are, Fitzwilliam Darcy, because I’ve had you in my head since I was 12 years old. So, why are you behaving like such a total… git? Jane has no money, so what? Bingley’s got stacks. What right do you have to thrash their love because of an accident of birth?
Darcy: There is no accident in birth.
A: Do you know why I am so angry?
D: You were born thus.
A: I’ve been in love with your life for 14 years. Cut my heart out, Darcy, its-‘s your name written on it with Elizabeth’s. God almighty! Here, you are… one half… the greatest love story ever told. You. And you know what? You don’t deserve her.
D: Is this interview concluded? It is so difficult to tell.
A: You are such a disappointment, I can hardly bear to look at you.
D: A deprivation I shall endure as stoically as I can.
A: You’re so relentlessly unpleasant! I just can’t get at the real you!
D: (until now he has been staring out of the window, now he turns to Amanda:)
Madam! Behold, Fitzwilliam Darcy! I am what I am! If you find yourself unable to get at an alternative version I must turn to being glad. I despise the intrusions of a woman so singularly dedicated to mendacity, disorder and lewdness. They repel me. You repel me. You are an abomination, Madam! Good afternoon to you. (Leaves the room).

From intrigue and fascination, in one go Darcy has gone to total disgust. As in 1995, he addresses nature for help through the window, his own human nature that is strangely attracted to Amanda/Elizabeth, but a nature which his society so much has polished that he cannot find it, like Amanda. As such, he is troubled when he finds himself strangely liking this ‘savage’. Their two views on societal structures also differ: Darcy, having been born before the times of Darwin believes that society’s structure us given by God, so ‘there is no accident in birth’ and as he says in his very first scene: ‘God loves a gentleman, it is the gentleman’s duty to return the compliment.’ God loves a gentleman, because He has given him great wealth and power (to certain extent) unlike to the poor, so he must do his duty and do what God expects from him (i.e. go to church, marry the one God would approve (as Caroline Bingley puts it the end). Amanda, on the other hand, is born in a time where birth and status is not God-given and so indeed calls his status an ‘accident of birth’, which it is to her. Hardship and poverty are no longer at courtesy of God, but are one’s own responsibility. And so, he can change his views/behaviour, in opposition her who ‘was born thus’. He believes her to be born thus, so he himself is also born thus. There are not two Darcys within the one, or are there?

Friday, 5 June 2009

Lost in Austen, an analysis (1/4)

Hey, long time no see!

A lot has been said about the series Lost in Austen: about the casting, costumes, story (Life on Mars) and all that is appropriate about a series. But I have not seen a lot so far about the series on a more analytical level. I will attempt to do that.

Brilliant as the series was in terms of scenery and everything else, brilliant it was too in terms of structure and approach. Not only the idea was great: having a girl of now get stuck in the world of then (although not totally new); but also the total concept was worked out very well by the author of the series: Guy Andrews. As adapting proves already difficult, because one cannot get carried away with his characters, asking oneself how characters would respond in case something strange happens, is a real challenge. Guy Andrews managed that very well. I am not here to sing the love of Andrews, but I will throw a glance at what the man wanted to say with his series. A lot, as it seems…

The first episode starts thus:

‘It is a truth, generally acknowledged, that we are all longing to escape.’ The main character, Amanda Price, goes on about the fact that she likes to escape to Pride and Prejudice, her favourite book; that she knows the words by heart; that that book is like a window opening into that world; that she can almost touch that world and almost see Darcy… Here she gets a little too much carried away for her own liking and goes back to the book with ‘where was I?’ It is only then that the opening credits start.

This introduction, as it will turn out, will mean a lot, and sets the tone for a one facet of the series: the insecurity of women in this day and age, where they are modern women (self-confident, speaking their mind), but at the same time all dream about Darcy (as Elizabeth in the last episode will also show on the Google search page ‘The Darcy-obsession’). And why is this? That is what Amanda will come to understand as she goes on through the door which ‘her need only opens’ (in the words of Elizabeth Bennet) and gets on through the story of Pride and Prejudice.

If we read the start of Pride and Prejudice, which the start of Lost in Austen was clearly by and based on, we can easily see what Andrews meant. ‘It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife. However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.’ (Pride and Prejudice, chapter 1) We can easily see what Amanda feels: she looks at her own life and feels that she is supposed to do certain things (work, earn money, go out with her boyfriend and all kinds of things), and why? Because ‘it is so well fixed in the minds of the’ people that surround her. She ‘must be I want’ of all this. Yet, no-one ask her if her life is the she wants.

Episode one starts with a portrait of Amanda’s life, a life we all know: having a job, a boyfriend, stress. ‘[She] patch[es] [her]self up with Austen.’ She is not the only one who likes to sometimes ‘stay in with Elizabeth Bennet’ and yet, she asks herself the question if she is a loser… Is it so strange that she likes stories of 200 years old? is it strange that that story still speaks to her, despite its age? It is obviously a question a lot of women ask themselves… We women have everything to be at ease: we are no longer ‘the wife of Mr X’, we can earn our own money, we can divorce if we are tired of our husbands, we can have sex with whomever we want, as often as we like (even with different men every week) and what-not. We have everything to be happy, if we look back at the days of Elizabeth Bennet. In fact we are expected to be happy with this kind of life, because ‘we have already come so far’ as feminists would say… So, this girl feels as the men in Pride and Prejudice: such an awful lot is expected of her, she does not know whether that is what she wants, and yet everyone tells her she has no problems, so no reason to be unhappy or uneasy. Why does Amanda then need to ‘patch [her]self up with Austen’? What is it with Darcy and Elizabeth that hypnotises her and us? Is it ‘Collin Firth in clingy pants’ alone, or is it more than that?

Just at the moment she reads Elizabeth’s sentence: ‘Had you behaved in a more gentleman-like manner…’ (refusing Darcy’s first proposal), the bell rings and Amanda’s boyfriend comes in, totally drunk, and proposes to her with a bottle-opener… Indeed, ‘You are mistaken if you suppose that the mode of your declaration affected me in any other way, than as it spared me the concern which I might have felt in refusing you, had you behaved in a more gentleman-like manner.’ (Pride and Prejudice, chapter 34) Of course, Michael is not as proud as Darcy in this case, but Amanda cannot possibly find it In her heart to marry him. She does not find him prince charming. She is not sure, and the ‘mode of his declaration’ was not at all convincing… It is the morning after that (or even the same night?) that she finds Elizabeth Bennet in her bathroom. Amanda next starts to reminisce about whether she was hallucinating, whether there is too much Austen in her life, or as her mother would profess: not enough boyfriend…

When she goes to her mother, a mother who is notably divorced and going through a midlife crisis decorating her house instead of having sex because ‘one can stop and have a cup of tea’, the two talk about the proposal. The mother is in favour of it: he does no drugs, does not beat her up, and she urges Amanda not to waste her life pretending what she is not. What can Amanda want more in a man? what is there more to find in a man? Amanda professes that she is not in love with Darcy, or ‘Collin Firth in clingy pants’, but that she has standards. She loves ‘the love story, Elizabeth, the manners, the language and the courtesy,’ ‘it is part of what [she] is and what [she] want[s].’ But will she be happy at the end of her life, though, waiting for prince charming? Or will she end up forever waiting because there are no Darcys in the world and frustrated at the thought?

It is after this that she reads chapter 59 of Pride and Prejudice: the conversation between Jane and Elizabeth after accepting Darcy’s proposal, and it is also then that Elizabeth reappears in Amanda’s bathroom. As Lizzy intimated the first time, it is Amanda who has opened the door for her, not she herself who decided to pass through it. And it will be indeed Amanda who passes into Regency England through the door in the bathroom. After the door slams shut, Amanda is stuck and will have to start her learning process…

It is then that she meets Mr Bennet, Claude as his first name turns out to be (very appropriately the name of a useless emperor of Rome, featured in another ITV-series I, Claudius), and that she declares that Lizzy and she have swapped places, because Lizzy is writing a book and the house was too noisy for that. Whether she is really writing one, remains to be seen. What is sure, is that she is stuck in the story. That they indeed have swapped. She still tries to convince Elizabeth to open the door again, but Amanda’s need compels her to stay. A first light will be shed on that need, and the need of us all, at the ball of Netherfield where she kisses Bingley in a drunken fit of passion.

There she says what it is about:

‘In my world, Mr Bingley, all I ever do is dream about the loveliness of your world. The stately, elegant rituals and pace of courtship, of love-making as you call it, under the gaze of chaperones, of happiness against all odds and marriage… Here I am, I talk to you for two minutes, I kiss you and you… So I’m a little disappointed in myself, Mr Bingley. I feel like those guys that discovered that stone-age tribe and gave them the common cold, wiped them out. (Bingley sneezes)’

This in itself is not merely a declaration of frustration at her loose morals, compared to his (naturally because we are freer now than people were then. Free to snog outside the door of a nightclub), but it is also a declaration of her view on our freedom: the common cold wiped the tribe out. It is something the discoverers did obviously not think about because they have no trouble with it, but when it wipes the tribe out they see how potentially dangerous it is. It is because we are used to it, that we can fight it and conquer it. This, in Amanda’s mind, is also the case with us. We can kiss and make love (have sex as opposed to the use of the word in Austen’s times) with anyone without people questioning our honour, but have we not lost the importance of it all? As Michael, who asks for ‘Amanda’s hand in marriage’ with a bottle-opener, have we not lost the importance of love, family and marriage/fixed relationships in our society of total freedom? That is at least what Amanda seems to feel will happen to Bingley and the other characters if she carries on like she does; it is the same as what Mrs Bennet fears; and it is the same as what Lady Catherine fears and why the latter comes to take an attempt at throwing her out of Regency Society because ‘land, blood and property’ are the only things that matter. Amanda finds herself in danger of ‘spoiling’ the ideal world (of the noble savages) she discovered.
After this, Amanda tries to get Elizabeth back again (also partly because she herself is seducing Bingley instead of Jane), but again her need compels her to stay and the door does not open. This, time, a letter is shoved under the door:

‘My dear father,

I pray you, sir, not to trouble your mind about your most headstrong daughter. I quite flourish in Hammersmith. I’m minded to sojourn her alone a while. If I might be so presumptuous as to offer advice to my own father, then I would admonish him to pay particular attention to Miss Price. She is intimately acquainted with the doings of our family and I cordially believe her its most formidable ally. Trust her.

Your affectionate daughter, Elizabeth


Although this is a letter to her father, Amanda has to read it and pronounces ‘Trust her’ rather to herself than to Lizzy’s father. This provokes a thinking and it highlights Elizabeth’s role in Lost in Austen as an indication for Amanda’s learning process. Elizabeth was also born out of time, but in the end both Amanda and Elizabeth belong to the world of women, like Mrs Bennet and Jane who rebel respectively against Lady Catherine and Mr Collins in the end. Also the men will have to face up to their own needs, like originally Darcy did in Pride and Prejudice. Mr Bennet will take responsibility for his daughter, Bingley will rebel against Darcy and reproach him for losing him Jane, and Mr Bennet will also respect his wife better for speaking her mind. Like this, he does lose ‘authority’ as a husband, but he will no longer see her as a sad burden who is overdue. All this because of the influence of Miss Price (Bingley who ends up sneezing)… As Elizabeth and Amanda are both women, as ‘noble savages’ they should be able to cope in another society and change as a result, but only on the outside. Deep inside, both are good people and essentially the same although shaped by their own societal rules. Elizabeth will discover the modern world, while Amanda will discover more of a traditional role as a woman. Although, Elizabeth stays true to her role as traditional woman, caring for the children of the Rosenbergs. As it turns out, all appliances are on, but are they necessary?

If we go back to the beginning, does this not indicate that people have and had a certain image of women? We as women are not even allowed to choose anymore what we want. In the days of Austen we were the property almost of our husbands and the only thing we needed to do was find a husband and have children. Now, we have jobs, we have relationships that start and even end, unlike in Austen’s days, but are we still allowed to care only for our children and husband? can society cope with that view? Or are we not put inside a box, as the men in the second paragraph of Pride and Prejudice, so that we ‘must be in want’ of all this? What if we are in want of a Mr Darcy? That is probably what Amanda wants to escape to unconsciously when she reads Pride and Prejudice, only, it ‘frightens [her] to death’ as Lady Catherine put it. It frightens her to death because it is not what she learned she is as a woman. As in the second paragraph of Pride and Prejudice, people are supposed to be in want of something: women are now not naturally ‘in want of’ a husband, but now, they are ‘in want of’ everything else, while there is no father in Western Europe who will consent to maintain his daughter(s) until they get married… As such, Amanda needs to discover her traditional side as a woman in that world of Regency England. And Elizabeth will have to discover her modern side, although with a traditional twist.

The first episode concludes after Jane has left for Netherfield, in an attempt of Amanda to save the day for Jane and Bingley.

Sunday, 12 April 2009

Eugenie and Gaston went Cycling - Fear for Sex

Author: Marc Reynebeau
'About bad girls and lustful boys: sex between the two world wars – No-one wants to know how his parents or grandparents did ‘it’, but historians do. One hundred years ago there existed a great fear of sex, certainly amongst young people, certainly amongst girls. Everywhere there was the danger of moral decline.

Fourteen-year-old Eugenie, a greengrocer’s daughter from Deurne (near Antwerp) asked her new boyfriend Gaston, a carpenter five years her senior, in the Summer of 1934 to go cycling to the woods. Two days long their mothers didn’t hear of them and they called in the police – a disappearance. But when the two appeared again, there didn’t seem anything bad the matter. Or was there anyway? Because what had the two been doing in that wood?

Eugenie and Gaston admitted it very quickly: they hadn’t stuck to only holding hands in the forest. And that was a problem, because Eugenie was only fourteen. By having sex with her Gaston had made himself automatically guilty of ‘assault on the honour’ of Eugenie. That at least was what the law on the protection of children of 1912 determined: it had increased the minimum age for girls to consent to sex or sexual contact from fourteen to sixteen.

But maybe little Eugenie wasn’t so innocent as the ideal of the asexual child? That question at least is what the deputy head-commissioner asked himself when he researched the case. The law of 1912 had resulted from the apprehension in the bourgeois circles of the middle-class Catholic leaders of the country then. They had seen an increasing moral decline around them, certainly in the cities, certainly amongst the lowest classes of the population, certainly amongst the young.

Mainly young girls were not expected to be any good. The law criminalised their sexuality and found support for that idea in the medical sciences. Those couldn’t warn enough for sexual diseases that didn’t only harm the health of the girls themselves, but also threatened the health of their sexual partners and their children, and could even endanger ‘the race’. But they were mostly the ultimate proof of moral decline.

Although boys equally suffered from STDs they were only searched for actively in girls. The apprehension to them also comes across in the enforcing of the law. Where boys were mostly brought to the juvenile court for theft, girls were brought there for ‘bad sexual behaviour’, often for prostitution. And much more often than boys they were shipped of to ‘an institution’ for the purpose of re-education.

So the distrustful deputy head-commissioner hasted to the school of Eugenie, to the Grey Nuns. And yes, they told him that Eugenie ‘was often dreamy during classes and very common and low on morals. She is also madly in love with all boys and from this point of view she is, for her age, very developed.’ The policeman took his decision very quickly: ‘If there is still anything good to come from this child,’ thus he noted in his report, ‘then it will be possible only by locking her up in a special institution until the age of majority.’

What had happened between the two and how they themselves dealt with it – because their story has not been told fully yet – gives an accurate picture of the sexual norms in the past. But, although sex tickles the imagination, up until now historians often left the subject to itself [at least in Belgium]. The scientific magazine Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis (BTNG) (Belgian Magazine for Newest History [after WWII]) has just published an issue dedicated to just sex, which also features the story of Gaston and Eugenie.

The issue mainly talks about the first half of the twentieth century. That moment is the main focal point of current research. It is a period of sexual repression (and, not coincidentally, a period when women still did not have the right to vote for example [at least in Belgium]) – the reaction to that came with the sexual liberation of the sixties.

A lot of pieces in this BTNG-issue are supported by legal documents. That is partly due to the subject itself. It is not easy to find trustworthy, qualitatively high sources. The ‘detour’ through the justice system gives a good picture of the contemporary norms and the conflicts around them. Although it is no coincidence that just the legal system has so much to offer: in the name of care for the ‘morals’ sex got quickly pushed into an atmosphere of repression and control.
Sexual honour is a central issue In that. That was also the case for the lowest social classes, who also made sexual behaviour into a theme in public insults. That proves that people talked much more about sex than is usually believed. Although there as well, the double standards were not at all absent. Also in insults women were addressed about their sexual honour much more than men, even by other women. Men were permitted to relieve their vices, within certain boundaries – repressing it, that cannot be healthy.

Those double standards were also applied to Eugenie and Gaston. They were in a difficult situation: because of the police, their youthful and apparently spontaneous love-making had become a sexual offence. Not only because of the age-difference Gaston turned into a committer and Eugenie into a victim. If it was about sex, the man took the active role per definition – his lusts, you know – with the woman in the role of principle chastity and passivity.

But victims of sexual offences had to be worth the status. They could only be considered a victim through proving their sexual reputation. And with that Eugenie, according to the Grey Nuns’ accounts, had a great problem. That Gaston ‘walks on the street a lot and has a hard time leaving young girls in peace’ was much more easily excused.

And the accused of sexual offences knew very well that that was the mentality. In another case, in which a twenty-five-year-old was accused of sex with a girls of fifteen, he tried to talk himself out of it by blaming it on provocation. He regretfully adjusted to the dominant morals by stating that he came to insight when the girl took on an active role: ‘At that moment my desire was over, because I saw that I had to do with a bad girl.’

In order to maintain her honourable position and so situation of passivity (to avoid being sent to an institution), Eugenie could not do otherwise than have the police understand that Gaston forced her to have sex with him. ‘He asked whether I liked to have a boy’, she explained to the police. ‘I answered: no, don’t. After that he pushed me with his arm and I fell. I kept lying like that. After that he took off his trousers. And then he parted my legs and came to lie on top of me. He put his masculinity a little in my femininity.’

In order to plead extenuating circumstances Gaston had to state the exact opposite. So he made Eugenie into a seductress: ‘She said at a certain moment: I’d like to have boy of you, it has been in my head for a long time. I told her that she was too young for that still. She took her knickers off and then she loosened my trousers and she put herself on top of me. She put my masculinity a little in her femininity and she kept lying like that. I pushed her back and after that she left me in peace.’

During the next interrogations the truth seemed to lie where it always lies: in the middle. Gaston: ‘It is true that I lay on top of Eugenie and that I put my male part in her female part myself. She on the other hand let my do that.’ Eugenie: ‘It is true that I did not protest.’ And so it had been proven again how bad the moral decline was amongst youngsters.'
Author: Mark Reynebeau

'Little is known about the history of sexuality. The prominent idea is that people dealt quite uncomplicatedly with sex for a long time. That all changed in the 17th century when the Catholic church saw its ‘natural’ authority challenged by the Reformation. It tried to re-establish its power by enforcing strict rules on church-goers and making sex taboo during the Counterreformation.

A second tightening followed in the late 19th century with the triumph of bourgeois power. It ‘annexed’, via the state at least, also the body that had to serve production and reproduction, not anything else. Self-control became highly valued and the middle-classes made it their specific identity, of course not without double standards. With that they tried to distinguish themselves from what it thought of as the frivolous conduct of nobility and the unbridled vices of the lowest classes.

If this theory is right, then the sexual liberation of the sixties was nothing new, but only the return to a former ‘natural’ approach to sex. But that sexual freedom encountered fierce criticism in its time, just because it went against all fixed norms.

Although no-one should have too many illusions about the exemplary chastity of former generations. The fast spread of the pill shows that, apart from a normatively and religiously inspired ‘legal’ society, there existed also a ‘true’ society with a freer but therefore not valueless sexual practice. That tones down the complaint of so much Flemish literature of the sixties about the repressive Catholic morals: it mainly reveals the bourgeois background of the writers in which those morals were the most prominent.

The old fear for boundless sex amongst youths has come to the surface again recently, now that no-one can go on the internet without stumbling over pornography. But the criticism to what is now called ‘pornification’, is probably not more than a new variant of former fears for ‘moral decline’. The debate certainly looks very much like that, in the first place due to the danger of e
exaggerating.

Sociology has a term for that: moral panic. Because just like a century ago the sexual norms of the lowest classes were not in the least ‘bestial’, the Flemish youngsters of today strive for, all pronification left aside, a ‘normal’ monogamous family life.

It is certainly not a coincidence that the care about sexual promiscuity seems to crop up at moments when history is accelerating. That was the case in the beginning of the preceding century, In the sixties and today again. Because then the whole of society starts to move in a way which is difficult to understand.

Many people become insecure because of that, first the conservatives and whoever fears for his position of power. With ‘moral panic’ as the consequence. To that problem is answered with stricter rules, in the hope to recover control.

The debate about norms and values fits in that context. And it often focuses itself on sex because that is unique to all of mankind, it is of great importance to their intimacy and it influences their behaviour a great deal.

The articles were translated from the original in the Belgian newspaper De Standaard.

Even with the Belgian context of these articles we might understand then the Victorian sexual repression in literature. Essentially, it came out of the middle-class approach to self-control, not at all out of Puritanism or Protestantism, but rather from a much wider political perspective. The Victorians saw their society change, their cities change and expand rapidly and the lower classes slip into bad ‘bestial’ behaviour. From there, naturally, the Victorians’ fetish with control: workhouses where people were controlled physically (separate dormitories and places for both sexes and children) in order to ‘control’ the ‘bestial’ behaviours of the poor, madhouses where the mad were controlled and preferably cured so they could not pollute ‘the race’, the suburb where the middle-classes were happily settled away from the ‘bestial’ poor in the cities. With the middle-class authors came also middle-class literature that focused on those morals: Hardy, the Brontës, Gaskell and others complained about the repression. But was that repression not more in their own head, and in their own class, than really there for everyone?

More to the point of current affairs would be the debate about swearing. It astonished me to know that Princess Margaret used to swear a lot. It astonished me equally to hear a certain Lord in a documentary with politician Prescott, swear with the word ‘fucking’ at least three times. The man had had a serious education with appropriate accent and was a man of about fifty, yet swore as if it was normal. The other day I got told off by a man of about 70 for saying the word ‘bloody’. The man was a retired banker. Out of the above we may conclude that the debate about swearing only exists in the middle-classes who absolutely want to distinguish themselves from the higher classes (who do swear) and the lower classes (who certainly swear) with the result that they become extremely edgy about any word remotely sounding ‘rude’. In that sense it should also be asked what was the real problem with the statement about Andrew Sachs’ granddaughter. Yet Sachs got paid about £100,000 in damages by the BBC, whereas the statement was even true and the voicemail was not a voicemail but something that sounded like it. Or the fact that some people found Little Britain in America too close to the edge. Certainly the two last episodes of the two body builders was unnecessary, people found. Was it because the two actors were not at all naked but stuffed in a fat-suit, or was it because a ‘vagina’ was pointed out and earlier very little unrealistic penises shown? Is it not time for the English public to get out of hypocritical bourgeois Victorian standards? Granted: saying ‘fucking’ every five seconds is not fun, sounds stupid and is even annoying for the people who are listening, but on the other hand ‘bloody’ can not be really called offensive. Nor can ‘shit’ be called offensive if it does not reoccur every five seconds. It merely means ‘dung’ or ‘faeces’. If we were to say those words there would be no problem. Yet ‘shit’ is a ‘rude’ word. From time to time a swear-word to ventilate one’s excessive emotions that he/she can’t express is not at all a problem it seems to me. In other languages swear-words exist as well. They are not considered as really offensive, not to be used on television, or vulgar. People use them moderately. So it should be in English. But I guess the middle-class in England with their stiff upper lip is not yet conquered.