Jane Austen 's Persuasion, Forster 's Howards End

Judging by reality and fiction, there is not a single person to exist that has been purely evil or purely good. Yet it is in human nature to judge others as good or evil. Elizabeth Bennet, the protagonist of Pride and Prejudice was quick to judge Fitzwilliam Darcy, the second central character of the novel, harshly based on her false assumptions of the arrogance of the wealthy. His initial egocentrism, due to his belief in a structured social hierarchy, caused her to form a prejudiced opinion of him. Throughout Pride and Prejudice, Fitzwilliam Darcy is shown to exhibit both good and evil qualities, although not always apparent to the narrator, Elizabeth. Jane Austen’s portrayal of Mr. Darcy as a morally ambiguous character uncovers the significance of class in English society during the late seventeenth century.

In Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, Austen believes wealth is not a stable indicator of rank. Austen describes why wealth should not determine rank by using characters of different classes, George Wickham, Lady Catherine De Bourgh, and Charles Bingley, who also possess different character traits. Through George Wickham, a man who was born of low rank, and was given a fortune which he squandered, Lady Catherine De Bourgh, a vicious, wealthy Benefactor, with much pride, and Charles Bingley, a wealthy man of the upper class whose wealth has not brought him greed, but has kept him sincere and humble, Jane Austen demonstrates that wealth is not a reliable indicator of rank and therefore hard work and benevolence should determine rank (Austen 3-434).

In late eighteenth and early nineteenth century England there was a sort of moral ‘code’ of behavior and standards that are to be maintained by the middle and upper classes of society. Austen realistically mirrors this ‘code’ through the characters and plots of her novels while showing that social flexibility was narrow and class boundaries were strict. The topics of class stringency and social mobility are important areas in Jane Austen’s literature. We begin to see that Austen is not a revolutionary as she supports and preserves the morals and customs of societies hierarchy. However she often encourages and backs the emergence of new wealth permitting greater social mobility. In Austen’s world the naval and ‘tradesmen’ professions

Supposedly, both the individuals with ascribed statuses with hereditary wealth and the poor and homeless have equal chances to become successful although, Orestes Bronwnson in The Laboring Classes, pointed out that this is not true. “Do the young man inheriting ten thousand pounds and the one whose inheritance is merely the gutter, start even?” (219). As a result, the harsh separation of the rich and the poor, where capitalism thrives and,” the division of the community into two classes, one which owns the funds…the other provides the labor” (216). The inhumane apprehension of a capitalist society that keeps its workers “in a permanent system, [has] given preference to the slave system” (214) says a lot about the evils of capitalism corresponding with the false American Dream. An outcome of capitalism is the frustrating rivalry between the poor. “There’s more people! That’s what’s ruining the country. The competition is maddening”

Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Great Gatsby, and Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn all explore the effects of wealth and class on society. On closer inspection, a common strand seems to form between these three classic novels. The idea that wealth (and the social class that comes with it) determines a person is refuted via the use of deep characterization. In the end, it seems, wealth and class don’t determine a person’s moral integrity and value, but rather how they interact those two things. Ultimately, Twain makes a case for the lower-classes, that even the poor (and enslaved) can be truly good, setting a better example than the wealthy. Fitzgerald, on the other hand, shows that rich aren’t entirely superficial, rather, that they can be great men. Bronte’s Jane Eyre is a bit more of an oddball than the other two novels, focusing instead on a protagonist that leaps from riches (under the supervision of a cruel aunt), to rags, then back to riches once again. Still, this common strand holds true between the three books: no class, poor or rich, is entirely exempt from moral bankruptcy. A poor person like Pap Finn can be morally corrupt, while a rich man like Jay Gatsby can be good. All character-based judgments in these books lay solely on the person they are judging, blind of the class and wealth that surrounds them.

Admiral Croft who was among the nouveau rich, had the financial means to rent Kellnych from Sir Walter, one of the so-called landed gentry. How does Jane Austen's treatment of class and social mobility reveal about these men and their women such as Anne Elliot and Mrs. Smith? Which group fares better and why?

From the start the novel is laden with the pressures that the main characters are exposed to due to their social inequality, unlikeness in their heredity, dissimilarity in their most distinctive character traits, differences in their aspirations and inequality in their endowments, let alone the increasingly fierce opposition that the characters are facing from modern post-war bourgeois society.

Class, gender, and race are just a few of the classifications that have directly impacted one’s financial, legal, and personal freedoms throughout history. There are several examples in Charles Waddell Chesnutt’s The Marrow of Tradition and Edith Wharton’s House of Mirth that will shed light to the many situations in which the characters find themselves that display the sort of inequality that was quite common in the 20th century.

Class has been defined as a system that has utterly ordered society. Individuals are classified and divided into groups as a result of their social and economic status. For centuries, class has dominated the way we have lived and impacted our life immensely. Class has not only labeled us it has created a separation between many members of society. One's social status in our materialistic society has defined our lives and compelled us to not only have disparate perspectives but live differently as well. Of course, those that are placed in the lower class experience hardship and poverty. On the other hand, those who are part of the upper class have the privilege to live much more comfortably and in some cases with no financial worries. Yet, this is the general perception that many individuals have about class. However, in reality there are many factors that can help us define what class truly is and what roles it plays in our lives. Intriguingly, in the story A Pair of Silk Stockings the author Kate Chopin has created a story which helps us fundamentally understand the true meaning behind class and the lasting impact it can have on many.

Increase in inequality between classes has always been a concern for the high and low castes of the society. Carl Sandburg’s poem I Am the People, the Mob and Nick Hanauer’s magazine publication The Pitchforks Are Coming... For Us Plutocrats both try to illustrate or rather warn their targeted audience about the consequences of this demarcation. In contrast to the magazine publication, the poem is written from the perspective of the lower class to present the narrator’s subjective opinions.

Austen is very concerned about the social environment of his characters, and his settings clearly reflect this concern. Barton is the countryside, and our main characters live in the shadow of landed gentry (the Middletons at Barton Park). It is notable that Elinor and Marianne are always out of people moving back between London and Devonshire themselves are not well, and they depend on rich connections to stay in social loop Of moderate-to-high societies. The particular Austen moment in history is an interesting one. His novels are fascinated by the unique and unusual interaction between people of different social levels - a new development in England at that time. His books are firmly planted in the bourgeoisie, a class that is up-and-up while he writes. None of his characters in Sense and Sensibility are firmly planted in the upper echelons of high society; Even the richiest are not included in noble social circles. Instead, the spaces where Dashwoods are in the middle of the class (and believe us, there are a million different levels of "middle class" running on it). His books are firmly planted in the bourgeoisie, a class that is up-and-up while he writes. None of his characters in Sense and Sensibility are firmly planted in the upper echelons of high society; Even the richiest are not included in noble social circles. Instead, the spaces where Dashwoods are in the middle of the class (and believe us, there are a million different levels of "middle class" running on it). His books are firmly planted in the bourgeoisie, a class that is up-and-up while he writes. None of his characters in Sense and Sensibility are firmly planted in the upper echelons of high society; Even the richiest are not included in noble social circles. Instead, the spaces where Dashwoods are in the middle of the class (and believe us, there are a million different levels of "middle class" running

“Society made me do it.” This phrase is a reality for many people in the world who live their lives through society’s expectations. Having a perfect reputation and living exactly by society’s rules is not always easy when faced with challenges such as restrictions amidst social classes. In Jane Austen’s novel, Pride and Prejudice, social classes are a common theme throughout the book. This theme is strongly influenced by the culture and desires of people in the Georgian Era, when the author began working on this book, which dictates the major choices in the characters’ lives. For example, something that people value most in this era is reputation. Main characters in Pride and Prejudice like the

One of her most recognized works is the novel Pride and prejudice, which was very much valued during the Romantic Movement. Austen through her novel illustrates the importance of marriage, either with or without love. She is one of the most important novelists who through their novel is trying to demonstrate the historical preferences and a class separation. She shows the social proposal for that time by how people desired to marry into a higher class, and how the marriage should arise from love despite social standing. Austen through her novel is trying to bring awareness to inequalities between people of the same community. Some of these inequalities are the results of individual differences in ability and effort, but much of it also refers to the social differences regarding power, wealth, and prestige.

In Jane Austen's last completed novel, Persuasion, England is one large family with two distinct branches, the navy and the aristocratic upper class-it is no accident that the two large books consulted in the novel are the Baronetage and the Naval Lists. The naval family poses a threat to the aristocratic family; in fact, undertones of social instability riddle the text, through imagery of death, illness, and accident. The marriages of Anne Elliott, Louisa Musgrove, and Harriet Musgrove reveal a gentry which can only redeem itself through intermarriage with the professional meritocratic class, symbolically taking on their values of utility and social responsibility, and

Sir Walter’s obsession with his own history shows us that vanity is Walter Elliot’s driving force in life. It also goes to show Sir Walter’s carelessness of major affairs, as the only script he cares to read is his own “Baronetage”. When describing Walter Elliot, Austen uses flattering language, such as “fine”, “beauty” and “good looks”. There is a tone of acute amusement and gentle contempt in Austen’s writing with “Sir Walter Elliot, who united these gifts, was the constant object of his warmest respect and devotion”. This tone almost suggests to us that Austen does not perceive beauty to be of the utmost importance in life.