crosspost: on the shy Darcy theory

[anghraine]

The idea of Darcy as shy did not originate with the 2005 P&P.

Nor the 1995 P&P.

Nor the 1980 P&P.

It goes back to at least 1962, when Howard S. Babb published Jane Austen’s Novels: The Fabric of Dialogue. The section on P&P is quite explicitly an extended Darcy apologia, against critics who tended to dismiss his characterization in what Babb considered simplistically negative terms. Among other things, Babb argues that Darcy is shy and that this forms a major aspect of his characterization.

It’s been a long time, but iirc, he does not argue that Darcy is only shy—rather than proud, that is—but that his earlier scenes are framed in a way where either/both can be at play, depending on the reader’s perspective. Also iirc, Babb himself is influenced by similar ideas in Reuben Brower’s The Fields of Light (1951).

Whatever you or I or anyone thinks about the shy!Darcy theory, it’s a widespread, long-standing reading in both popular and professional circles. That doesn’t mean (at all) that it shouldn’t be criticized—only that people tend to blame/wring their hands over a very predictable subset of fans who subscribe to it, while giving a pass to the men wider group who share their views.

It’s not something solely perpetuated by Fans Doing It Wrong. It’s just an interpretation you don’t agree with.

---

(I get really intensely hating a specific adaptation and specific readings spawned by it (*cough*), but this one has been constantly debated since LONG before the 2005 provided an easy scapegoat—or the 1995 in its day. And wow are some people insistent that it's all about women making excuses for men they're infatuated with. Nonexistent men invented in 1796. Never mind the straight male critics who absolutely did and do subscribe to this; it's just women being uncritical and sentimental.)

Comments

[stultiloquentia]

I'm amused to learn how long this particular debate has been raging, and am so very on board with checking the endless parade of assumptions about women and their sentimental readings. But you know I've gotta ask -- what *is* your take?

I'm a "nope." I think he has moments of uncertainty and embarrassment just like anybody, and I'll even buy him as a shy child who grew out of it (buyable because that was *me*), but my preferred reading of mature Darcy is that he's exactly what he says he is: hard to impress, and hilariously dismal at performing affability, ease and interest he doesn't feel. He's taught himself to use his own evident superiority as reason not to try harder, and tends to view social interaction as transactional: if he neither enjoys nor needs a person, why bestir himself? Until Elizabeth points out that this is called Being a Bad Citizen.

When most people pass him off as shy, it comes too close to acquittal, which unbalances the story, not to mention misses what Austen was trying to say about the conservative masculine ideal and how to wrangle it into submission, as per Claudia Johnson.

[anghraine]

I don't think he's shy, but I do think he's uncomfortable across a wide range of social situations in a way that e.g. Elizabeth and Colonel Fitzwilliam aren't (and that it's easy but not quite fair for two very outgoing people to dismiss temperamental difference altogether, even though their fundamental point is valid). I take him at his word that he's uneasy in unfamiliar social situations—and right to the end of the book, we see that.

After all, reformed Darcy at Longbourn is not very different from original Darcy at Longbourn. Darcy at Pemberley acts the way we've just heard he always acts at Pemberley. But Darcy also acts the way he does at Pemberley when he visits the Gardiners in Gracechurch Street—I don't think he would have contemplated the idea that a merchant's house in Gracechurch Street could be comfortable, before. There's a willingness to extend that self beyond his private world now, even if he can't do it everywhere (as with the hilarious failboat he is back in Hertfordshire).

I think Darcy's social discomfort is also suggested by the pretty drastic change in Elizabeth's perspective after their engagement, when she tries to shield him from people he isn't comfortable with. Honestly, I would find that element rather unsettling if there weren't a difference in social ability there. But as is, I think it's rather sweet that she goes from completely rejecting temperament to vaguely protective as long as he's putting in his best effort. Sometimes Darcy's best is not going to be very good, and she's okay with that in a way she wouldn't have been before. But Darcy's "I'm too special to make any effort except when it isn't really much effort" was ... ah, not okay. And not shyness.

When most people pass him off as shy, it comes too close to acquittal, which unbalances the story

Hmm. I do see that argument quite a lot, but I don't think shyness and pride are mutually incompatible. He's forceful and confident, not shy, but a shy!Darcy would still be a snobbish asshole. The issue is when he's read as shy instead of proud rather than when he's read as shy and proud (though I agree with neither).

(Aside: I do really, really like The Fabric of Dialogue, and I think it's available online.)

[stultiloquentia]

Bwaha, so, not shy, just "Oh God, why are people." That'll do.

I don't think shyness and pride are mutually incompatible

No, no, certainly not. I meant "when people pass him off as MERELY shy." Which they've been doing as long as I've been fannish on the internet, so I can't use it as an excuse to growl at the 2005.

Tangentially, I wish I knew what the HECK Rintoul was up to with his eye contact choices, and whether it was on purpose. Sight lines are so fundamental to actors I can't imagine he's unaware of what he's doing -- and he's RSC trained! -- but he MAKES NO SENSE to me unless he's not playing Darcy as shy...but autistic. Which would be brilliant, but, in 1980???

I do really, really like The Fabric of Dialogue, and I think it's available online

Cool! I'm going to grab John Wiltshire off the library shelf, too, next time I'm downtown.