Persuasion and its Satiric Author Jane Austen

      Jane Austen has always poked fun at society in her novels as well as at least one character and in the case of Persuasion, would be the elite class. The characters that best describe the traits of the elite class would be Sir Walter Elliot and Elizabeth Elliot. Despite being considered one of Austen’s more mature works, Persuasion often takes on a Horation feel making the novel even more interesting.

      Sir Walter Elliot is undoubtedly the character most made fun of. Right off the bat Austen explains to the reader how Sir Walter Elliot spends hours on end simply reading a book about how he came to be a baronet and owner of Kellynch Hall. Despite having so many books, Sir Elliot wastes his days reading the same one over and over again for self-amusement, which Austen makes very explicit “Vanity was the beginning and end of Sir Walter Elliot’s character” (Austen 2). The one “job” Sir Elliot has in life is to be at the top of the social pyramid and take care of his large estate, but even he fails at such an easy task. Due to the excessive spending of money, the Elliot family is in debt which seems to be quite large. In order to solve the problem, the family and other close friends come together to find a solution. The best solution the group comes up with is to rent out Kellynch Hall and move somewhere smaller since Sir Elliot refuses to lower his payments because of his belief the upper class like him should live in complete lavishness and nothing more. When trying to decide who to rent the estate to, the idea of a sailor comes to mind. However, Sir Elliot shows dislike towards it for two main reasons which in reality are quite stupid. The first reason a sailor could not live in Kellynch Hall is because their work takes a toll on their bodies making them seem older than they actually are. The second reason is Sir Elliot refuses to allow a man of lower birth than himself work his way over years of hard labor to the same status (meaning social mobility). Despite being persuaded, it is interesting to note during that time period, a baronet like Sir Elliot would not have actually rented out the estate that has been passed down for generations simply because of dumb decisions. Nonetheless, the Elliot family moves to a much smaller house which can be seen as social mobility, but with the Elliot falling in status, not rising.

      Another key thing to note about Sir Elliot is his hatred for the lower class. When Anne tells her father and older sister she wishes to meet an old school friend instead of meeting her cousins who are extremely wealthy, Sir Elliot bursts in outrage. To him, it is shocking Anne would rather associate herself with someone who is paralyzed and of lower status than going to meet someone extremely wealthy and high in status. Even though he shows dislike towards Anne’s decision, he keeps Ms. Clay around the house. The irony here is that Sir Elliot keeps Ms. Clay as company regardless of the huge difference in social status. What Sir Elliot does not know though is how Ms. Smith, the poor paralyzed friend of Anne, is the sole reason why he did not lose Kellynch Hall and all of his money which is important because the one person in the story who is isolated from the outside world ends up being the downfall of Mr. Elliot, the antagonist. The last major character that is made fun of is Elizabeth Elliot. Just like her father, Elizabeth shows strong dislike towards many of Anne’s decisions throughout the novel. Not only that, but she carries many of the same traits and attitudes as Sir Walter does, like vanity. Even though she is known as the most beautiful of all the Elliot daughters, she is the only one to not marry anyone.

      Persuasion, like most books, had its ups and downs. Luckily, the constant usage of different satiric methods employed by Jane Austen made this book not only serious, but funny.

Works Cited

                Austen, Jane. Persuasion. Dover Publications, Inc. Mineola, New York. 1997. Print.

Smooth Talk, the not so Smooth Movie

      Reading Where are you going, Where have you been? was very interesting and amusing to me so when I found out I was going to be able to watch the movie version, I was very excited. With its mystical twists, Where are you going, Where have you been? would be quite challenge to make into a film, yet Smooth Talk was made. Although the title of the movie sounds quite appealing, the movie itself was not so much.
      Smooth Talk did its best to portray WAYGWHYB to its fullest but sadly it was not enough. The best was to explain this is to break the movie down into segments. The movie was actually very accurate up until the ending and even had key, word-for-word dialogue. However, the movie also had many scenes that were so awkward it was painful like when Connie and her friend go out one night. While they are waiting at a restaurant, a young man comes up to Connie and asks her if she wants something to eat. Instead of answering or simple talking to him, she turns to him, bites her lower lip, and then turns back to talk to her friend. Despite such situations in the movie, the story and the film were very similar up until the end.
      In the story, the reader is left off with Connie leaving her home and family to go with Arnold Friend. However, her fate is never explicitly stated, therefore it is up to the reader if she lives or dies. In the movie, Connie goes with Arnold, but survives the Sunday drive, and even sees her family again. This small decision to have an actual ending in the movie and not a cliff hanger disappointed me. The whole point of the broad ending was to bring the reader into the story and for each individual to make their own ending. However, that was taken way in the movie and instead replaced with a fixed ending that may or may not have been the authors intentions. There were also some key details the movie failed to point out in the ending as well. In the book, Oates describes how Arnold has difficulty standing up on his own, but the movie states nothing on the subject. Plus, the scene where Connie picks up the phone and is overwhelmed by something supernatural is completely overlooked in the movie.
      Overall, Smooth Talk was an accurate movie except for the ending, and even though the movie was quite awkward at some points, it brought me much enjoyment.

"Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" Reaction

      Out of everything I have ever read, this story is one of the most unique and terrifying. "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" makes you focus on details throughout the story and infer on the future. As the story progressed, I began to notice certain motifs that continued to reoccur as well as why this story get so weird, so quickly. After I read the story, I decided to read some of the critical essays which came after and the one that influenced me the most would have to be "'Don't Know Who I Am?' The Grotesque in Oates's "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?". After reading the critical essay, the tone, style, and purpose of Oates "WAYGWHYB" became much more clear to me.

      The story itself begins with the introduction of Connie, the protagonist. After awhile, I began to realize her family members were not on the best of terms, to the point her mom calls her ugly almost everyday (at least she does when Connie looks in the mirror, which happens to be a lot). Connie's life however seemed somewhat normal; Socializing with friends at the mall, the occasion argument with mom, and even the day dreaming of boys. However, upon closer inspection, religious themes and motifs began to occur often, as well as the presence of music in Connie's life. Since I am in the group of analyzing the relationship between whether or not Arnold is Satan, my overall attitude and critique of the story is more religious based. Plus, in the group I alone am assigned the importance of music in Connie's life, and so this reaction post will mostly focus in on that. In the critical essay, "'Don't Know Who I Am?' The Grotesque in Oates's "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?", Wegs explains how the entire story is based around music, to the point that "Since music is Connie's religion, its values are hers also" (Wegs 101). After I read this paragraph, I went back through the book to see whether or not her values changed due to the presence of music, and it did. The common usage of music in Connie's life helps show when she is feeling alive, active, social, and lively, as well as when she is quiet, bored, and upset. It was almost as if she had two completely different sides of her; One for when she was at home, and one for when she was out with her friends. The most clear example of the importance of music would have to be when she is leaving the plaza with her friend, and the way she describes it "...Connie couldn't help but look back at the darkened shopping plaza with its big empty parking lot and its signs that were faded and ghostly now...She couldn't hear the music at this distance" (Oates 29). Despite the fact that the plaza was lively just a short time before she left, the plaza now seems to be a ghost town because she cannot hear the music.

      Although the influence and presence of music was very interesting, the character Arnold Friend definitely makes the story. Near the end of the book, Arnold and his friend Ellie stop by Connie's house with hopes Connie will go for a ride with them. Even though this seems harmless, Arnold's true intentions and identity remain a mystery to Connie, but are perfectly clear to the reader. First, Arnold's appearance is quite interesting. As Wegs puts it, Arnold can be seen as Satan for many reasons. First "...he is in disguise; the distortions in his appearance and behavior suggest not only that his identity is faked but also hint at his real self" (Wegs 103). When Arnold first tries to bow to Connie, he almost falls forward and as he continues to get closer to the house, he seems to have increasing difficulty of standing up without falling. Plus, Arnold continues to adjust his boots, which Connie notes "One of his boots was at a strange angle, as if his foot wasn't in it" (Oates 42). Wegs also points this out, saying the most likely explanation is that Arnold really doesn't have human feet, but those similar to hooves which explains why he has such a hard time walking and why he has the need to support his weight on something. His disguise is also seen through by Connie, but not all the way. She makes note of how carefully he removes his sunglasses and puts them on his hair, almost as if he did not want his wig to fall off. Plus Connie has a hard time in the beginning distinguishing how old Arnold and Ellie are. Lastly, she realizes Arnold seems to have a lot of makeup on his face, but not on his neck, showing part of his true identity.

      Although Connie cannot quite put her finger on it, she can see there is definitely something wrong with the two boys. However, the reader can clearly see Arnold's true identity with the help of Connie's keen eyes, the screaming in the phone, and, in the very end, how Connie cannot recognize her home anymore. Overall, I enjoyed this story greatly, despite having such weird and creepy characters. With the help of "'Don't Know Who I Am?' The Grotesque in Oates's "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" all the connections in the story were made clear, creating new feelings and attitude towards Oates, the characters, and the overall purpose of the story.

Works Cited:

Oates, Joyce Carol. “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? Ed. Elaine Showalter. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University    Press, 2002. Print.

Wegs, Joyce M. “‘Don’t You Know Who I Am?’ The Grotesque in Oates’s ‘Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?’” Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? Ed. Elaine Showalter. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002. Print.