Comments on: Sense and Sensibility: Marianne Dashwood – blushing maiden or feminist?

By: Laurel Ann

Laurel Ann — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:01:21 +0000

I do agree that Marianne & Willoughby’s relationship was headed for the rocks. Col Brandon will worship Marianne – and that’s what she needs. I felt her spirit was broken after Willoughby’s rejection. Col Brandon will spend the rest of his life making it up to her. I still think she settled. But her choices were slim and she was probably happy in the end.

By: DRush76

DRush76 — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 04:46:10 +0000

So many seemed to be of the opinion that Marianne would never be happy with Colonel Brandon. They seemed to think that with him, she has settled for less. No one has stopped to consider that she could have never been happy with Willoughby. Not in the long run. Deep and passionate love does not always guarantee happiness.

By: Laurel Ann

Laurel Ann — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 03:47:40 +0000

Hi Marianna, this is an interesting coincidence that you identify with Marianne Dashwood and share a similar name and temperament. Thanks for your compliments on my blog. 2011 will see Janeites and the world celebrating S&S with its 200th anniversary.

By: Marianna

Marianna — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:59:45 +0000

First and foremost, I am mightily impressed with your blog post, Laurel Ann. It is quite expressive and interesting, for I never before percieved of Marianne as being a feminist in her own right. Young and silly, she may be, but still one must factor in the depth of the character. It is quite difficult to sum Marianne Dashwood in a few words in some sentence, and I can go on for days talking of her (as she is my most favorite character in any book). The fact we should remember is that she is a very deep character, and though she seems lost in her sensibilities, is in fact quite knowledgeable for her age. While I am not attempting to sound biased here, I find her to be a fascinating character. From the moment I read Sense & Sensibility, and watched the movie, I have fallen in love with this character, because I am very much so like her in manner. She is a very sensitive character that has such a great capacity to love. She has not been very intelligent in the way she went about love, but that comes with willful youth, something of which she knows a lot about. Anyway, this was a fascinating read. :) Keep up the great work. Oh and I read somewhere, Jane Austen, our wondrous sorceress with a quill wrote that she found aspects of herself in her characters Marianne and Elinor.

By: Laurel Ann

Laurel Ann — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 20:31:25 +0000

Hi Anon, Even though Marianne’s behavoir was not within the standards of proper decorum for a young lady of her day, her story did end well for her. I do not think Jane Austen was chiding feeling deeply and passionately. We all need passion. It’s what drives change and ignites love. I think Jane Austen was showing us two sides of human personality, each to one extreme and the concequences of it. Each of her heroines had their reward in the end. Hope you do to.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:36:46 +0000

I think it is obvious that Marianne is meant to be a satirical joke about girls who are too expressive of their feelings and fail to bite their tongue and to live a life of “quiet desperation”. Those people always do the best don’t they? They have happy stable marriages, and are rewarded with every good thing. What about people who have trouble not being this way? People who are born this way? Are they condemned because of their natural propensity to feel deeply? Since I was a teenager I have been compared to Marianne and I feel very bad about it. I see women who know how to stay silent and restrict their emotions and though I try to do this it is extremely difficult. I was not born as lucky as women like Elinor but that does not mean that my character, nor the character of Marianne should be eternally regarded as simple ludicrous folly.

By: lisaoflongbourn

lisaoflongbourn — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 04:22:12 +0000

I disagree! Marianne was getting exactly what she had always dreamed of in Col. Brandon, plus extra.

He is a passionate man (passion willing to live with the hurt of love, and go on loving is worth ten times a passion that is willing to die for love; that’s easy), and worked harder and more patiently and faithfully for Marianne’s affection than Willoughby or than most heroes, for that matter! With the colonel she was going to have a lifetime of the immortal and unyielding love she craved, rather than a quick-burning fling at the silly age of 16. Marianne grew up; she didn’t change!

As for being a feminist, only Col. Brandon respected her like she deserved. Mrs. Jennings, as you say, saw her as a pretty object to be paired with a rich domestic partner. Her mother wanted her happily married. Willoughby loved to be with her, but I argue thought little of her and her ideals – they were far above his comprehension, however much his lifestyle resembled them. Brandon, however, respected the lady’s distance, her choice of another man, her identity and philosophy. He, by offering her security along with his love, respected her heart, not carrying it away before she knew what she was doing. However much of a feminist one is, we all must acknowledge that girls are silly and their romantic sensibilities may be taken advantage of.

As for Elinor suffering, of course she did! Life and love has a cost. Both girls faithfully loved, and suffered for it. The men who faithfully loved endured heartache over that. People are always warning us young ladies against dreaming that the real world will be like Austen, but look at what a fair picture she gives. We all know very well that it could have turned out the way things stood about 20 pages from the end of the book. We see that love and communication and finances and family – they’re all hard!

Jane Odiwe said, “I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of her being a feminist – Marianne is intelligent and strong-willed – she also has a passionate and restless nature, which I’m sure she takes into her marriage.” But I defy that as a definition of feminism. You can be a perfectly traditional woman and excel in that role particularly with that intelligence and strong will and passion and adventure (restlessness). That makes a hugely good marriage, as long as you marry a man who matches that strength and intelligence. On the other hand, Laurel Ann’s definition of feminism, “She did not want to act within propriety and did not think her sisters concerns of her behavior warranted. She wanted the freedom from social contraints and subjection,” is more accurate a definition. But in the book we see Marianne working through these ideas and learning they were unsustainable and undesirable. There is freedom within social constraints, where you are there safe in the trust and commitment of your friends.

To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn