Speaker for the prosecution: Ann. Speaker for the defence: her Dad. Case in hand: Can Edward Ferrars really be considered a true Austen hero?
After half an hour of discussing this with my friend and fellow Austen-lover Vicky (the subject was brought about by the question “Colin Firth as Mr Darcy, Hugh Grant as Edward Ferrars or Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon?”), I brought this up again with my Dad, self-proclaimed Jane Austen nerd. Or something. I guess that’s what you get when you have an English degree.
Originally I only had a mild distaste for the character Edward Ferrars, and I thought that that must have been brought about my my dislike of Hugh Grant’s casting in the 1995 film, my identification with Marianne more than Elinor, and my absolute love of Colonel Brandon (that’s who I chose in the above question. Unlike Colin Firth, Alan Rickman just gets better with age). However, after watching the 2008 version of Sense & Sensibility (which was absolutely amazing, I very highly recommend it), and finding I still disliked Edward Ferrars, I conceded that there must just be something amiss with his character. ZOMG, JANE AUSTEN GOT IT WRONG.
So here’s the thing. Mr F is stupidly engaged from an early age to a girl he barely knows and is completely unsuitable for him. He wanders alone most of the time, terribly lonely because he’s bound to secrecy (and I’ve decided not to go into the relative stupidity of not calling off a bad engagement, no matter how much you “promised”). He then meets Elinor, with whom he becomes very close – so much so that both families, happy or not, are convinced they are engaged. Anyway, he leaves, without a word on his secret engagement, breaks Elinor’s heart when she hears of it from a third party (the girl), and still says he’ll marry this girl even when he’s disinherited because of it.
Well, I agree with the last part because he’d be a complete dick to just dump someone for the money, even if he’s not in love with her. HOWEVER, I seriously do NOT agree with any of his actions before that. He should have never become so close to Elinor that they both fell in love with each other whilst still engaged. Even if they didn’t admit to themselves that they did like each other, everyone else was convinced, therefore there must have been something going on. He should either have removed himself from the situation early on, or told her, instead of stringing her along, letting her get her hopes up. In my opinion: he’s a complete two-timer. I wouldn’t marry him. Like Marianne says anyway, too boring. Ann: 1, Jane Austen: nil.
My Dad, being a male, came to his defence quickly. He says that with Elinor he found someone intellectually on his own level (I don’t deny it). Therefore, it was much easier to talk to her (indeed). He was lonely, and finally found someone he could confide in (and yet, not enough to tell her). He wasn’t in the wrong, because he didn’t actually propose to Elinor. Neither of them admitted any “understanding”.
I think my case still stands. You don’t have to propose to someone to be in love. If you’re already engaged, other romantic associations are out. Just don’t enter the situation. Maybe Edward Ferrars couldn’t help falling in love, but he should have got away from the situation. Maybe he liked having someone to talk to, but he should have realised that it could mean more to her. Maybe he was lonely, but he should have considered that before getting engaged to a complete twerp.
Ann: 1. Jane Austen for putting Colonel Brandon in the same book: 1.
P.S. Snark’s back, with a new URL. Should you join? Yes. Can I be bothered to go through all old links? It’s dubious (aha, dubious… geddit?)
Also, I know blogging’s been a little thin on the ground recently. Don’t worry, I’m not planning on quitting, and I will be blogging through my exams… maybe.
Tags: book, dad, hot guys, Jane Austen, life, likes, movie, Sense and Sensibility, Writing