/grumble

[anghraine]

I don't really get the argument that Pemberley couldn't have been heavily influenced by Chatsworth because Chatsworth is mentioned in P&P.

I mean—yes, it does get mentioned. And there are plenty of issues with The Chatsworth Theory. I'm not altogether sure what I think about the theory myself, tbh, except that 1) they can't be literally the same place for that and other reasons (scale, aesthetics etc), and b) Donald Greene's article both overstates his case and lays out more correspondences than are generally discussed.

But "Austen couldn't have been influenced by Chatsworth because Chatsworth exists in the Austenverse" is just baffling to me. There can't be a 1:1 correspondence: sure. There can't be influence: ????????

(I also feel that there's a tendency on all sides to downplay just how idyllic the description of Pemberley is, but that's only tangentially related.)

Comments

[sathari]

Not any kind of deep-dive Austen scholar, but.

...there is literally a conversation in canon about making one estate as much like an ideal/idealized other as possible. LITERALLY. *flails* So. How is that not a Thing in the meta sense as well?!