Friday 20 November 2009

Most Plainly Unplain

One of the book reviews in this week's edition of The Economist is of a collection of essays by 33 modern writers exploring their fondness for Jane Austen. As we would expect, Pride and Prejudice get a high mention, which is why I thought you might be interested in reading "No Plain Jane".
Apart from the fact that everyone, from housewives to scholars, from garbage collectors to engineers has loved her books for the past two hundred years, the article make the point that Jane Austen's readers love to reread her books. And it also suggests the reason for this: every time we read an Austen novel again, we appreciate yet more the depth and subtlety of Austen's writing, and we like them even more than before. I have to admit that since I first read Pride and Prejudice some thirty years ago, I've read it many times since. It never bores me, but improves every time I reread it. The only danger is that I have to take care to read our daily 15 pages immediately before class, else I won't be clear about exactly what is in those particular 15 pages and make the mistake of referring to something that you haven't read yet.
Another point made in the article is that "after 200 years, it is still possible to have new insights" (2009, ¶ 6), which reminded me of our discussion this morning, where we saw that complex questions can not always be settled easily, thereby necessitating much discussion, all of which can help us gain a better understanding of the issues involved as we approach an answer to our questions. And of course, not only in law but even in science, exactly the same thing happens. Newton's ideas were compelling for a long time, but then new results necessitated further discussion about the nature of mass, force and gravity in our universe. And the ultimate nature of our universe is today a matter of intense argument amongst physicists. They might all be wrong, or one group might be right about what composes us and everything else, from electrons to galaxies, but the matter is so complex that there is room for a lot more discussion.
__________
References
No plain Jane. (2009, November 19). The Economist. Retrieved November 20 from http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14902478

No comments:

Post a Comment

Before you click the blue "Publish" button for your first comment on a post, check ✔ the "Notify me" box. You want to know when your classmates contribute to a discussion you have joined.

A thoughtful response should normally mean writing for five to ten minutes. After you state your main idea, some details, explanation, examples or other follow up will help your readers.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.