Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Who to trust...sense or sensibility?

if we get to know characters through "action", does that favor "sense" or "sensibility": action seems to be a "sensibility" characteristic? or is sensibility more about being paralyzed from feeling overwhelmed at external sources of awe? or is this me being too Elinoristic?
From Carol C.'s blog post


Carol had a bunch of interesting questions at the end of her blog so I decided to tackle one but in a slightly different manner than she is asking. This comment is a continuation of the issue Elise brought up and that is how we get to know the characters. There is an initial description but their actions in the novel better define their character than those first lines. This thread led me back to trust and the narrator and made me question: is it better to trust sense or sensibility? My first inclination, is obviously, sense. She's cool and rational, obviously she would be the one to trust. But upon further thought I realize the more trustworthy character is Marianne. In the traditional sense of the word, Elinor is trustworthy; throughout the novel she keeps secrets for multiple characters and keeps them faithfully. But what I am intrigued about it the action of the characters in defining who they are as mentioned above. All of Elinor's actions are well thought out and carefully designed to portray exactly what she wants them to, i.e., her interactions with Miss Steele after she knows her secret. Marianne, though impulsive, never acts contrary to what she feels. So, if we are getting to know the characters through action then that certainly favors sensibility. Marianne, much to Elinor's chagrin, does not think about what she is doing, she just acts. But that makes her actions more indicative and trustworthy of her characters than Elinor's calculated moves. Then comes the question of, if we get to know the characters through action and sensibility is the more trustworthy actor, why does the novel frequently follow Elinor's thoughts and actions? My initial answer is that to understand all that Elinor does to others around her we need to see her internal monologue. I just thought that this thread of how we get to know characters plays an interesting role in whom we trust as the narrator.

1 comment:

  1. Fascinating thought about how someone whose actions are guilelessly emotional is actually more trustworthy. I'm disposed to dislike this thought because I'm definitely like Elinor - I like to keep things logical and mull over thoughts for a long time - but an interesting observation to be sure.

    I bet if S&S was written from Marianne's perspective, there would be a lot of, "What is Elinor thinking?!" moments!

    ReplyDelete