That’s what Beth Spraul argues (with appropriate nuance) in “You’ve Got Lies: Chick Flicks and the World’s Approach to Men and Marriage,” a six-page PDF hosted by Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D.C.
She proceeds to discsuss “three powerful lies communicated to and believed by women through this genre of ‘chick-flicks’ as well as ‘chick-lit’ (literature)”:
- Lie #1: Men think of romance and relational intimacy exactly like women do!
- Lie #2: If I marry the right man, all will be right in my life.
- Lie #3: I will know that a man is right for me by feelings I get when I’m with him.
She closes by sharing her own courting experience.
Das ist gut, ja?
This is excellent stuff. I wholeheartedly share her take on “chick flicks” and “chick lit”. I have written about it myself. I found it interesting that she had read Prentiss’ biography, but does not mention her book, “Stepping Heavenward” which is a great read on this topic. The story of a young, romantic girl and her unrealistic ideals. She is disenchanted in a relationship with a handsome (not to mention self-absorbed) dandy, and ends up gradually attracted to and marrying a man she never suspected she would…only to find that biblical marriage is primarily a supreme spiritual exercise in self-denial, albeit with exquisite “romantic” moments sprinkled throughout.
Thanks for the link.
In Defense of Jane Austen:
For someone who has read and studied Austen’s novels (both in the classroom and out), Spraul’s complete misrepresentation of Jane Austen disturbingly displayed shoddy research. The first few allusions were bad enough, but when she chose to fuel her entire second claim from Jane Austen, she lost her referential integrity. (Das ist gut, nein!)
A cursory review of some of the novels’ most elemental facts refute Spraul’s statements, as can be seen below:
Statement 1:
“In Austen’s world, marriage and Mr. Right are the ultimate things that will truly satisfy.”
Response:
Actually, for the historical time period in which Austen’s novels are set, marriage was the only (forget ultimate) choice for a woman who wished to achieve respect or societal acceptance. Jane Austen spends much of her novels skewering the society that holds to such a perspective. The “Mr. Right” terminology is not used in the novels, nor does Austen ever claim that her protagonists will live unsatisfied lives if they never marry.
Statement 2:
“Also, the female main character always marries a wealthy and handsome husband usually after she’s rejected other eligible and worthy suitors.”
Response:
To the first part: Neither Edward Ferrars (Sense and Sensibility) nor Edmund Bertram (Mansfield Park) are wealthy gentleman. All the men in Austen’s novels are members of the gentry class (with varying degrees of wealth), but so are the women, in fact. Austen herself was a member of the gentry and wrote of what she knew.
To the second part: The Austen heroines do not reject eligible and worthy suitors. This is a major misunderstanding because Austen heroines reject suitors based on lack of character. Mr. Collins (Pride and Prejudice) is repeatedly described as weak and vain, without real goodness; Wickham (P&P), Henry Crawford (MP), and Mr. Elliot (Persuasion) are men guilty of sexual immorality, corruption, gambling, infidelity, and dishonesty. Some of these men (certainly not all) are regarded as eligible by the gentry, but none of them are worthy by Austen’s estimation.
Statements 3 and 4:
“Austen wants you to forget that even Mr. Darcy is a sinner and that marriage will have its trials and disappointments,” and “Lie #2: If I marry the right man, all will be right in my life.”
Response:
Austen spends half of Pride and Prejudice demonstrating just how faulty Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy really are. Elizabeth has elements of bitterness, she is too easily swayed by appeal, she is too easily flattered, and she is extremely judgmental. Darcy is proud. Extremely and annoyingly so. And both are comfortable with their faults until they sharpen each other’s iron, begin to readjust their flawed thinking, and remove romantic illusions of clouds in the sky. At the end of the novel, the point is not that they lived “happily ever after,” it’s that they found life partners who, 1) Treasure character, morality, and goodness above all else, 2) Are willing to admit when they are wrong, and 3) Demonstrate change when sin is pointed out to them. This is a far cry from Spraul’s claim that Austen displayed marriage as “a trouble-free commitment that only yields joy.” Austen does not promise pure joy after the wedding ceremony, she only acknowledges that choosing to marry someone based on character, sense, purity, common interest, and goodness will lead to a happier life than marriage based on personality, looks, or appeal. I think we can safely agree.
(Ironically, Mrs. Spraul’s own courtship story mirrors plot events in Pride and Prejudice. She initially viewed her husband as “arrogant,” and Elizabeth famously considers Darcy arrogant. Mrs. Spraul consulted character witnesses, as did Elizabeth Bennet, who heard good reports of Darcy from his family, his friends, his tenants, and his servants. And, like Mrs. Spraul, when Elizabeth began to “experience” Darcy’s character, she began to love him. So, congratulations on finding your very own Mr. Darcy, Mrs. Spraul!)
Hey, RuthAnn. I obviously don’t speak for Beth Spraul, but in her defense I think it’s important to critique her article on her own terms. That is, her article evaluates primarily films, not books. That’s why her examples come from films. So I think her argument is valid.
I agree with you that her article does lean towards films, not books. In her thesis statement (pg. 1, para 6), however, she highlights books as well as films. In the rest of the article she includes books (chick lit and romance novels) in her criticism several more times.
If I were evaluating just on the basis on the introduction and the first point, I would not have written my response because I would be willing to guess that perhaps she has not read much Austen. In her second point, however, she clearly charges Austen’s books:
“This is the lie in most of Jane Austen’s novels and their movie spin-offs. Dave Harvey wisely points this out in his book, When Sinners Say I Do, when he observes that each of Austen’s books
conveniently ends at the wedding.”
In this case, the “movie spin-offs” are the sideline to the highlighted novels. In fact, for her entire second point, this is the only time she mentions the film adaptations (or any films of any kind). She continues her criticism of the novels in the next several sentences, again referring directly to Austen, not to a director, producer, screenwriter, actor—not even generally to Hollywood:
“In Austen’s world, marriage and Mr. Right are the ultimate things that will truly satisfy . . . Austen wants you to forget that even Mr. Darcy is a sinner and that marriage will have its trials and disappointments.”
Because of her direct criticisms of Austen the author, I felt it appropriate to point out what Austen actually portrays.