Andrew Elfenbein Thesis

In Andrew Elfenbein’s, critique of Pride and Prejudice, I believe his main thesis is: “Without resurrecting the condescension of earlier Austen criticism, I want to analyze why she hardly mentions what for other writers would be central information” (332). The reason I feel that this would be his thesis is because Elfenbein is trying to show how Austen’s lack of descriptive settings are not important to the plot. Rather, the lack of descriptive settings helps the reader stayed focused to what is important, which is how the characters interact and there body language. For example Elfenbein says: “Pride and Prejudice instead develops a counter-aesthetics that locates realism not in the pile-up sensory detail but in an awareness of human

perception makes the same space look different to different observers” (335). He talks about how when Austen’s characters have a conversation, the reader may see the voice of the character but nothing else. In addition, Elfenbein brings attention to Austen’s importance of how characters interact in a room for example: “Entering the room immediately plunges characters into shifting social tides simply by how they put their bodies forward or retire. For the most part, the better that two characters get along, the more invisible their bodies; when bodies become too visible, alarms go off” (336). With that in mind he gives the example from the novel: “At the Netherfield ball, Darcy commits the unpardonable offence of spending the evening walking about the room” (336). By Darcy not standing in one place it signals his disregard for the room, which doesn’t allow conversing with others.
Andrew Elfenbein’s critique of Pride and Prejudice made me rethink the way I need to read the novel, which is closely, focusing when characters are in a room together. I believe Elfenbein’s idea to analyze Austen’s lack of detail and the focusing of rooms has merit. An example I found that could strengthen Elfenbein’s thesis is: “Mary petitioned for the use of the library at Netherfield” (238). Since rooms and who is in the room with you is of importance and help define a character, Mary then could be seen as a recluse because libraries are a place for no social interaction as well as a place for her mind to become more learnt. Mary does not show up much in the novel, but when she does, she seems to be one of the smarter sisters. One thing that the critic says that I would dispute is when he says: “We should read minute descriptions of faces, dresses, houses, gardens, landscapes, and prospects, all understood as metaphors, for their owners. Instead with a few exceptions, the novel reads as if an overzealous editor had outlawed such information” (333). This in regards to how eighteenth century writes were writing at this time. I don’t feel with this novel, it needed a lot of detail because when you finish the novel, you don’t get a sense of confusion. The novel has enough clarity without describing what everyone is wearing or every detail of their surroundings. Austen seemed to understand that sometimes less is more. The focus of the novel is to try to understand what someone is like on the inside from what we perceive from the outside.