The book Pride and Prejudice focuses on two concepts, one is pride and the other is prejudice. Darcy is not arrogant, this is the main content of Pride and Prejudice, and it is the internal drive of the novel; The other half, Elizabeth's self-correction, removes prejudices, which also form the main content of Pride and Prejudice, and is the direction of the novel.
How can it be shown that Darcy is "really" not arrogant? Elizabeth's sister, Lydia, she appears. Because of her natural debauchery, she eloped with Wickham, a young officer who was also debauched. Darcy stepped up at this critical juncture, as a decent, noble rich boy, Darcy did not care about his identity at all, he ran around, spent time, hard work, and paid back, and finally got Wickham and Lydia married, and he saved the reputation of Elizabeth's family. Through Lydia's elopement, Darcy establishes his true character: warm, helpful, decent, generous, and humble. This is where Austin describes Lydia's elopement. Through this branch, the author of Pride and Prejudice tells her readers: elopement is shameful. To add, Pride and Prejudice was written between 1796 and 1797 and published in 1813.
Forty-four years later, in 1857, on the other side of England, in France, a great work of fiction was published: Madame Bovary. This book is about a woman named Emma, who has always wanted to do one thing after her marriage because she was influenced by romantic novels, which is elopement. Unfortunately, Emma's elopement was unsuccessful, and eventually, she committed suicide by poisoning. In 1877, the twentieth year after the publication of Madame Bovary, a novel of equal greatness was published, which could also be used as a textbook for fiction, and Anna Karenina was published. I would say that the book "Anna Karenina" is much broader than elopement, but we cannot deny that one of its important contents has to do with elopement, and that is the affair between Anna and Volynsky. In fact, Anna's ending is much more tragic than Emma's, and in the end, it's not arsenic, but a train that runs over Anna's passionate body.
After three elopements in one breath, an important question emerged. This important question can be expressed as childishness: Lydia, Emma, Anna, are they "bad people"?
Let's start with Lydia. Inside the novel, Lydia is unmarried, and her elopement boyfriend Wickham is also unmarried, and their elopement is at best "without formalities" and the problem is not serious. However, in Pride and Prejudice, Austen makes it clear that Lydia is a standard "bad woman" and that her and Wickham's presence serves only one purpose to prove that Darcy is a "good guy".
Emma's problem is more serious. She's married, she's a mother, and she's not a lover. Emma is the kind of woman who "has an inappropriate relationship with multiple members of the opposite sex". It should be noted, however, that Flaubert did not establish the moral high ground of the author, and he did not judge Emma, let alone pronounce the sentence. Of course, those of us who are readers don't think that Emma is bent on eloping and think that she is honorable, but those of us who are readers don't think that Emma must be ashamed of wanting to elope.
Anna's problem is no less serious. Married, childbearing, loved by her husband, and well-off. Even so, she is still red and apricot out of the wall. If we are a careful reader, we will be surprised to find that Tolstoy not only did not judge, on the contrary, although Anna's husband Karenin was the injured party, and at the same time did not do anything wrong, however, those of us who are readers still unconsciously "sided", we are on Anna's side, we feel that Karenin is hypocritical, we feel that he is not worthy of our Anna. We sincerely wish Anna happiness, at the very least, that Anna can live. Anna died, and we lost a friend.
If the moral judgment is fair, then it is easy to conclude that Lydia is the "bad guy" and Emma and Anna are the "worse" bad guys. However, moral judgment is grossly unfair. The "character" of literature, or rather, the reading of literature, clearly tells us that Lydia is a "bad person", Emma can only be a "gray person", and Anna is definitely "not" a bad person.
is also elopement, why is the gap in the judging criteria so big?
I can only say that from 1813 to 1877, in a short period of sixty-four years, the characters of the novel remained the same: women, or rather, human beings, they eloped within the novel; In fact, writers have not changed: they have always stood at the forefront of human civilization, and they have always paid attention to human emotions, especially the methods and ways in which human beings express their emotions.
- It's us, the readers, who really change. Strictly speaking, what really changes is the moral standard of humanity represented by the reader, or rather, the form of civilization. The history of human civilization tells us that human beings have developed from not having the right to choose their own lives to choosing their own lives; Human beings have developed from having the right to choose their own lives, or in other words, the right to choose a life that is more in line with our wishes - morality, as the common divisor of human life, it is never a constant number, it is a dynamic, and it is more and more beneficial to us human beings.
Sixty-four years of fiction history tell us that—
Fiction is involved in the history of human civilization. The novel reminds us that the so-called history of civilization is a history of moving from self-bondage to self-liberation, and a history that pays tribute to human emotions, especially human love. In a word: the history of human civilization is a history of retreat to the internal drive of mankind.
I would also like to say a few words about the relationship between the author, the characters and the reader.
As readers of novels, we are very prone to the logical illusion that the author writes about the characters of the novel, and the characters of the novel are influencing the readers of the novel. In the case of such a small system as literature, this illusion can be valid.
The problem is that no one lives in the small system of "literature", even if he is a professional writer or a professional critic. There is only one real field of human life, and that is the big system of "civilization". Civilization is driving literature, and literature is also promoting civilization, authors, fiction characters, readers, they all have energy, and under the drive of civilization, they are mutually empowering. They stir each other, push each other, cause and effect each other. The author can push the reader through the characters of the novel, and the reader can promote the characters through the author.
I want to say this, Lydia, Emma, Anna, they did the same thing—they eloped in 1813, 1857, and 1877 because of passion, and they were essentially the same people. However, different forms of civilization have turned the same woman into three different women. Maybe they're wrong, maybe they, like each of us, are accompanied by human greed and weakness, but, as the poet puts it, they are "suitors." Civilization ultimately chooses the "suitor" - that's why Lydia is a "bad guy", Emma is just a "gray guy", and Anna is simply "not" a bad guy.
So, what I'm talking about here is both elopement and not elopement, and I'm sure everyone understands that.
As a writer, I would like to say: there is a writer who has a reader.
As a reader, I would like to say: there are readers for every kind of writer.
The next sentence is natural: there is a kind of literature where there is, and what kind of literature there is a civilization.