Origins of the Regency Romance, Silver Fork Novels

[sartorias]

There were two things going on with silver fork novels: the unrepentant glorying in the wealth and exclusiveness of rank, and the stories of marriages. They were not always romantic by today's standards. Pelham, the granddaddy of them all (especially the 1828 edition, before Bulwer hyphenated his name and toned down his cheerfully impudent

Comments

[kalimac]

Are the early silver fork novels to Jane Austen what the Tolclone trilogies are to The Lord of the Rings?

[sartorias]

No--see above for a quick definition. Austen was writing about her time, except that she gave her females agency though strictly according to the rules. Her heroines, as I said, marry well, not always "up"--well being defined as finding a partner worthy in all the right ways, not merely someone with wealth, looks, and social power. Austen's females don't always make the right choices, but they are able to make choices, and they have influence and power in her novels. Men don't decide for them, and nowhere do we see her intimating that they should.

The silver fork novels had a different aim. They were about high society. Some of the novels worshipped it, and were used, like Madame de la Fayette's, as social manuals for climbers (the novels themselves are pretty unreadable now), others, like Gore, both reveled in rank and made fun of the hypocrites and the toadies, while holding up good principals by rewarding heroes and heroes with happily ever after . . . and yet the worst criticism was reserved for the social climber.

[kalimac]

That was kind of what I meant, actually. Later writers who copy the surface characteristics of the original, while totally Not Getting what the earlier author is trying to say.

[sartorias]

Yeah . . . but they aren't copying Austen so much, as her novels are mostly about the country gentry, with a few brief references to London High Society (and those references are anything but admiring, especially in Mansfield).

Novels about life in high society didn't originate with Austen--they go back to Richardson--what Austen did was get rid of the stereotypes, blending real traits (also actions and consequences) with satire in a totally new way.

Satire also isn't new--check out Humphrey Clinker for typical period satire, with a heavy hammer.

Therefore I don't see silver fork novels descending from Austen's work in the way you suggest with Tolkien's LOTR and such works as Eddings and Shannara, etc. I think they bypass it; Pelham is the originator, and if anything, the mores in that novel are as far from Austen's as you can get. About the only contact point is how much agency the women have.

[azdak]

Austen's females don't always make the right choices, but they are able to make choices, and they have influence and power in her novels. Men don't decide for them, and nowhere do we see her intimating that they should.Hmmmm. This is a more optimistic reading of Austen's women than I would go for myself. I totally agree that she doesn't think that men should make choices for women; I'm a lot less convinced that her women are able to make choices (it does, of course, depend on which women you're looking at; everyone is able to make a choice that casts them into social ruin, but for those characters who don't want to be beyond the pale, I would argue that the choices are actually very limited). Fanny Price is the obvious example - almost all the choices in her life are made by other people, and the important ones - where to live, how to think - are made by men. She tries to dig in her heels only twice, once when it comes to acting and once when it comes to being told who to marry (and even then Austen tells us that she would have given

[sartorias]

This is quite true. I should say that I see her representing women making choices within the rules, and the wisdom or non wisdom of their choices. We see sister Mary throwing away her opportunities for influence or choices as she's too selfish to bother, in Persuasion; we see Anne resigning her choices to the wisdom of others and paying for it, then quietly learning to assert herself. Always within the rules, and there is subtle engagement with these rules, but not overt.

Even powerless Fanny Price does not submit when it's important, though she's the most powerless of all. Her influence is felt, then finally recognized.

[marycatelli]

Try George Eliot's 'Silly Novels by Lady Novelists' which demonstrates the traits of the very worst of them.