"Maybe it is the news we deserve, but is it the news we need?

February 10, 2017 10:41 AM

Alexandra Petri at The Washington Post: "Leave Mr. Darcy Alone"
posted by Going To Maine (19 comments total)

As Wilde said: "The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means."
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:57 AM on February 10, 2017 [4 favorites]

Very good. In an alternate universe, Alexandra Petri writes for the Toast, a thriving online publication whose dedicated readership includes President Rodham.
posted by Emily's Fist at 11:15 AM on February 10, 2017 [41 favorites]

The Washington Toast!

[cries quietly into coffee mug]
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:30 AM on February 10, 2017 [9 favorites]

Yeah, complaining about click-bait stories in the wanna-be content farm that is the Washington Post has a certain level of irony.
posted by Jahaza at 11:57 AM on February 10, 2017 [3 favorites]

I realize that scholars in the humanities have been under attack and slighted by the media and the public for decades, so I hesitate to pile on. But. . . it's surprising how often I genuinely can't tell the difference between the work of genuine literary scholars and parody.

"What was fashion like in the 1790s" is an interesting and well posed question that I'd be excited to hear about. "What does the practice of inbreeding among the elite classes of Britain say about the shape of the chin of one particular, entirely fictional character" is batshit crazy nonsense. The original article this one references isn't even wrong.
posted by eotvos at 12:28 PM on February 10, 2017 [2 favorites]

Mr. Darcy was not a handsome man. And his goat died after about a week.
posted by zabuni at 12:34 PM on February 10, 2017

That is why Jane Austen did not specify how Mr. Darcy looked...

But she did!

Mr. Darcy soon drew the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien, and the report which was in general circulation within five minutes after his entrance, of his having ten thousand a year. The gentlemen pronounced him to be a fine figure of a man, the ladies declared he was much handsomer than Mr. Bingley...

Tall, handsome and having a noble face is a specification. It's hard to square stooped, white-haired, narrow-chested and small-mouthed with that.
posted by ubiquity at 12:44 PM on February 10, 2017 [4 favorites]

At the time when Austen wrote the novel in the 1790s, although not published until 1813, Darcy would, from all evidence available, have had loose powdered mid length hair, much akin to the popular male style of the era.

But the vast, vast majority of adaptations are set (naturally enough) around that publication year of 1813. Powder was archaic by then, and a man of Darcy's age and station would have worn sideburns and short, artfully unkempt hair.
posted by Iridic at 1:13 PM on February 10, 2017 [10 favorites]

But she did!

Jane Austen is also a pretty good ironist, and Darcy's good looks may be a product of his ten thousand.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:23 PM on February 10, 2017 [3 favorites]

True, and I do attribute the "much handsomer than Mr. Bingley" as a sly reference to that, but we don't get any counterpoint in the novel to suggest that he is not in fact a reasonably attractive young man.
posted by tavella at 1:32 PM on February 10, 2017

Look, we all know that the final word on the effect of Mr. Darcy has been written/drawn....
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:34 PM on February 10, 2017 [12 favorites]

> Tall, handsome and having a noble face is a specification. It's hard to square stooped, white-haired, narrow-chested and small-mouthed with that.

"Handsome" is how people see you, not how you look and what people find attractive changes.
posted by bjrn at 1:34 PM on February 10, 2017 [3 favorites]

We also know that "There's something pleasant about his mouth when he speaks.”
posted by TheLateGreatAbrahamLincoln at 1:54 PM on February 10, 2017

We also know that "There's something pleasant about his mouth when he speaks.”

Every time he opens his mouth you can see a tiny cat GIF inside.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:00 PM on February 10, 2017 [13 favorites]

It's hard to square stooped, white-haired, narrow-chested and small-mouthed with that.

Not in 1813 it wouldn't have been. The median height of an English soldier in the eighteenth century was 5 foot 6.
posted by blucevalo at 2:45 PM on February 10, 2017 [1 favorite]

Probably not relevant to Darcy, who was born rich. Average height of English *officers* would be more relevant. Which was probably still lower than today, due to disease, but not as short as the nutrient-deprived lower class who made up the bulk of soldiery.
posted by tavella at 2:51 PM on February 10, 2017 [4 favorites]

Alexandra Petri is on fire with her writing lately.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:55 PM on February 10, 2017

There's reasonable evidence to show that evaluations of appearance in the transatlantic anglophone world of the era in question were intended as evaluations of character. I can see no reason to think Austen's work would stand apart from this. It may not even conflict with the study's findings that Mr. Darcy was a narrow-shouldered fellow with limited emotive expressiveness and white hair, although my impression from reading the linked book was that physical vigor was a component in the nobility of one or another's mien. As a narrow-shouldered white-haired layabout myself, I see no essential conflict here.
posted by mwhybark at 12:58 AM on February 11, 2017 [3 favorites]

I am disagreeing with Sutherland and Vickery half on principle, and half as an excuse to look up painted proof of Regency-era dark brooding/properly nourished/adequately jawed hotness as a distraction from political woes. That these were considered attractive looks even then (1790s through 1813 and beyond) is suggested to me by portrayals of hugely popular actors (those who tended to play dramatic/romantic roles; comedy then allowed a broader range of appearance as it does today) such as John Philip Kemble, Edmund Keane, and David Garrick, as well as portraits of nobility and artists, these latter painted not just for truthful replication, but with an eye toward highlighting male beauty (damn, Kemble).

Taking the researchers' assumption that John Parker, Earl of Morley was Austen's model for Darcy somewhat undermines their point, and being an officer, he was probably even fit. Or going with the theory that she had Lefroy in mind when she wrote P&P, his portrait at age 22 looks just fine by modern standards, powdered hair aside. The two miniature portraits, executed in the 1790s, do carry over some of the mid-18th century rosy-lipped-shepherd-boy look, from which regular portraiture had moved on in favor of Neoclassicism and Romanticism.

Austen was sparing with description, but she notes characters whose looks are pleasant and handsome, as well as pleasant and not-handsome (she describes at a few of her heroes this way, but not Darcy). Particulars are left up to the imagination, but Romanticism in literature especially had already encouraged this aesthetic in the imagination of Austen's readers. It seems reasonable that if we recognize attractiveness now in many of the people who were documented as being considered attractive in that time period, Austen's own opinion of what was hot v. not is probably closer to ours than the study would like to suggest. I'd say it does a good job of showing a picture of Basic Rich Guy, but if Austen had wanted us to know that Darcy was just that, she would have said so; instead, there's reminders that he is above-average decent-looking in several places in the text.

Now of course he's not as pretty as Wickham, who is introduced as having just "accepted a commission in their corps. This was exactly as it should be; for the young man wanted only regimentals to make him completely charming. His appearance was greatly in his favour; he had all the best part of beauty, a fine countenance, a good figure, and very pleasing address." Between this and descriptions of her other villains/unheroes, I have a sense that Austen did not trust men who were exceptionally good-looking. Over and over again she mentions characters being deceived either positively or negatively in regard to others' appearance, and being undeceived by time and the effect of better acquaintance. A function of character, as mwhybark suggests, and also of how they feel about that person at a given time.

Also from what I've been seeing lately, combing through Austen's books as part of a casual writing project*, it seems as though the idea of height as part of what makes up a man's good looks does not seem to be very important to Austen. That Darcy is tall is confirmed by Bingley's joke later-- that he only gives Darcy his way in their friendship as much as he does because Darcy's a lot bigger than he is. But Bingley is "good-looking and gentlemanlike" without being tall; Wickham's figure is mentioned without adding anything about height; Col. Fitzwilliam's height is a mystery. On the other side, Mr. Collins and Lady Catherine are noted as tall, which in the former leads to additional awkwardness and in the latter adds to her presence. In general, women's height gets much more discussion and focus than men's (tallish Elizabeth, Georgiana, Miss Bingley, Lydia, Lady Catherine; small Miss de Bourgh). It lends countenance to both men and women, and may set off a good figure, but is not a requirement.

* Metafilter's fault and so I will post it on projects when further along
posted by notquitemaryann at 5:23 PM on February 11, 2017 [8 favorites]