JANE AUSTEN’S STYLE

JANE AUSTEN

Jane Austen’s style is both graceful and sardonic. Her style marks the transition from neo-classicism to romanticism. The neo-classical style is clear and precise, ideally suited to the subject matter. Imagination had yet to displace reason and the mimetic was still there in the midst of the expressive. Jane Austen’s novel Emma (1815) is an excellent example of the use of different styles to suit the personality and the emotional condition of her characters. Dialogues from chapters 4 and 13 dealing with Emma’s dislike for yeomanry and Mr. Knightley’s confession of love to Emma are good examples of the different styles Jane Austen uses to communicate her vision of the novel.

In the first section Austen makes Emma Woodhouse dislike young Robert Martin just because he is a yeoman possess the Abbey Mill Farm. He is quite well-educated and writes good English. He is a perfect match for Harriet but Emma does not think so. The social classes in England during the early nineteenth century were quite integrated and it was not uncommon for a farmer to marry into aristocracy. But marrying above one’s social class always led to strife and problems. By showing Emma’s snobbishness, Austen is highlighting Emma’s shortcoming. Her snobbery is based on false principles.

‘That may be, and I may have seen him fifty times, but without having any idea of his name. A young farmer, whether on horseback or on foot, is the very last sort of person to raise my curiosity. The yeomanry are precisely the order of people with whom I feel I can have nothing to do. A degree or two lower, and a creditable appearance might interest me; I might hope to be useful to their families in some way or other. But a farmer can need none of my help, and is, therefore, in one sense, as much above my notice as in every other he is below it’ (Austen, 1996 30).

Undoubtedly it is the prose of a woman using hurried and argumentative sentences trying to convince Harriet not to marry Mr. Martin as he is a yeoman. Jane Austen shows that her heroine is immature, conceited and snobbish and is out of touch with the social and political reality of the times.

Some critics have complained that Austen did not take account of the political events of her time that were introducing great social changes in England. Arnold Hauser in Social History of Art tells us that though Austen’s characters were “rooted in social reality” the writer did not place them in situations where they could “solve or interpret” social problems (Hauser, 1951 825-26). But the situation of Emma and Mr. Martin shows that Austen was concerned about new aspirations of the yeoman class. The farmer occupied an important position is English class feeling and only the stupid would have looked down on him. Mr. Knightley sees Mr. Martin as a friend and calls him “a gentleman farmer.” His rise in social hierarchy was certain during a time when the French Revolution was in the making. England escaped social unrest as not only it enjoyed freedom and parliamentary government but had abolished the caste differences between nobility and commoners. Both joined hands together to conduct business and intermarry.

Emma’s statement is both contrived and dreadful. She is snobbish which arises from her self-love. She is also unkind, impulsive and brutal. She assumes that since Mr. Martin is a farmer he is illiterate. But his reading choice seems to be superior to Harriet’s. Emma admits that she would not have noticed a man like Mr. Martin. He was not low class enough for her to help but low class enough not to associate with. This shows her snobbishness. She can be charitable to the lower classes if they fit her estimation of poverty.

Mr. Knightley in Chapter 13 expresses his utter confusion through dashes and half formed sentences:

‘As a friend!’—repeated Mr. Knightley.—‘Emma, that I fear is a word—No, I have no wish—Stay, yes, why should I hesitate?—I have gone too far already for concealment.—Emma, I accept your offer—Extraordinary as it may seem, I accept it, and refer myself to you as a friend.—Tell me, then, have I no chance of ever succeeding?’

He stopped in his earnestness to look the question, and the expression of his eyes overpowered her.

"My dearest Emma,’ said he, ‘for dearest you will always be, whatever the event of this hour's conversation, my dearest, most beloved Emma—tell me at once. Say ‘No,’ if it is to be said.’—She could really say nothing.—‘You are silent,’ he cried, with great animation; ‘absolutely silent! at present I ask no more.’

Obviously an analysis of style finally attempts to evaluate the control a writer exercises over his theme, structure and character. We are assessing the writer’s dexterity, his erudition, his use of allusions, his understatements, his inter-textuality, symbolism and wordplay to create his vision and surprise us. If for example a writer follows a specific style but lacks the ability to suit the needs of the situation, it is possible to conclude that his control over his material and style is rather inadequate. However lack of change in style may be a deliberate attempt to reveal his central vision.

STYLE AND STYLISTICS

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

We define style as the way something is said, done or expressed. We speak of a particular style of speech or a unique style of writing. Style reveals a man’s inner self, his sensibility and perception. Style in literature invariably refers to the indubitable way in which a writer uses words, phrases, symbols, sounds and images to realize his goal. It has more to do with a signature language that a writer uses. It epitomizes his choice of words, phrases, the way he constructs his sentences, organizes paragraphs. Style encourages the reader to return to the language on the page and understand the message. A writer is not playing with cognitive linguistics but finding the exact words to use in his narrative. In order to understand the different styles of a writer, a reader must seek find the mot juste than some psychological schema.  

Style is the substance of the writer but points of view, literary techniques, tone of voice, characterization or dialogue are part of his narrative method. Style may enter the structure of a work of art but it is different from the way the events in the story are arranged. As we read a work of art we gradually become aware of the writer’s style and use words like ‘elegant,’ ‘formal,’ ‘grand,’ ‘pompous’ or ‘crisp.’ Even though we experience style it is difficult for us to explain our perception as we lack the literary tools of analysis. Style is therefore far more difficult to grasp than content. However we often read in Times Literary Supplement that so-and-so writer’s style was ‘bad’ or it was ‘brilliant.’

Style can be seen not only as the artistic expression of a person but also of a group or a school. It can also refer to the imaginative or individual quality of the way language is employed. Style can be a form of appearance, a design, or production, the way in which something is done. Obviously it must be clear and simple. Aristotle mentioned in Rhetoric (350 BCE) that the foundation of a good style was “correctness of language” by which he implied five ingredients—firstly, proper use of connecting words; secondly, correct naming of things, thirdly, avoiding ambiguities; fourthly maintaining proper grammatical classification and finally, using correct words to express plurality, fewness and unity (Aristotle, 1984 174-75). Aristotle further distinguished the written and spoken style. The former was “more finished’ while the latter involved “oratory” and “emotion.” For Aristotle, a good style made the text readable.

Writers from the mid-eighteenth century were fascinated by the English prose style and pontificated on what constituted good style. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) felt that a style which obscured “most evident truths” could be called “the bugbear style” as it did little to clarify but more to repulse and terrify (Johnson, 1758). Oliver Goldsmith (1730-1774) felt that the most sublime subjects were often expressed most simply. He elaborated,

True eloquence does not consist, as the rhetoricians assure us, in saying great things in a sublime style, but in a simple style, for there is, properly speaking, no such thing as a sublime style; the sublimity lies only in the things; and when they are not so, the language may be turgid, affected, metaphorical—but not affecting (Goldsmith, 1759).

 

American author William Dean Howells (1837-1920) points out that the style of a writer reveals his country, his race, his heart, his likes and dislikes.

The style is the man, and he cannot hide himself in any garb of words so that we shall not know somehow what manner of man he is within it; his speech betrayeth him, not only as to his country and his race, but more subtly yet as to his heart, and the loves and hates of his heart (Howells, 2006 19).

Style is something that exists beyond the ‘garb of words’ and no writer can; hide’ his inner self. Style is therefore a revelation of the self, of the hidden motives and desires of the writer. It is precisely because style captures the essence of man it is hard to explain and difficult to evaluate.

Mukesh Williams 2012 ©