To call Jane Austen a public theologian is counterintuitive for two reasons: she does not seem much interested in things public, and she does not seem much interested in things theological . . . Austen was not an unthinking defender of traditional social order. Not uncommonly, her heroines are upwardly mobile, particularly through the agency of matrimony.
More Hmm. V. interesting. My thoughts upon first reading this seem particularly scattered, but it seems to getting at, obliquely (from another angle) the issue I posted upon this morning, re: lies and truth, although here it is called acting vs. becoming a role. Consider, for example, this:
. . . every social role has a particular identity attached to it. Some of the roles are fairly trivial and easily changed; others are nearly impossible to alter. But any change in role is a change in "who you are." The ethical imperative is to grow into those roles. At first, the uniform may not fit; we may find ourselves dwarves dressed in the clothing of giants; but we are called to grow into our role.
(Does this mean that if I play the role of a "real writer" long enough, that eventually I'll actually start to feel like one?)
It also reminds me of the long and animated late night conversation I had with Eleanor Arnason at a convention many years ago, which for the first time truly gave me a real appreciation for Mansfield Park.