Great piece, thanks. Very creative and interesting approach.
I'd be curious to hear more about what you see evolutionary psychology adding to the analysis or clarifying beyond what historical sociological analysis could provide. I say this as someone who is interested in the application of evolution to culture and aesthetics and thinks this is a very useful direction to pursue. But there often ends up being a certain circularity: evolutionary ideas illustrate principles that we could (and do) extract from the text or from sociology or history without the evolutionary theory. (The same is true, IMO, with cognitive literary studies.) It's made more difficult because evolutionary psychology is still really in its infancy. How do you avoid that? Or am I thinking about this wrong, and just proving that the two are in alignment is an end in itself? What do you think is the way forward for this kind of research?
Really enjoyed this terrific essay. It's relevant to a novel I'm working on about an already married couple who have differing ideas of "success."
In the 21st century, women have more cards to play than in Jane Austen's world., including career and divorce. That puts more pressure on the man who is paternally attractive but lacks or has lost the spark of the "rake."
The spark is key -and seems to be something socialised rather than purely genetic. There's a question as to whether the rake actually survived No Fault Divorce and mass democracy; Andrew Tate is the stereotype of something already redundant by the 1950s, it seems to me, just as The Trad Wife is based on the cargo cult of post-war natalist propaganda.
There are serial monogamists who marry many times. The ideal is to provide both security and spark to your partner. Not impossible but it's a high degree of difficulty and luck.
Fascinating stuff in here. A former colleague of mine did work on rakes in *Sense and Sensibility* and *Mansfield Park*, and I always enjoy a nice meditation on rakishness.
You write "(It should be noted that men always cheat more than women do.)". But this is arithmetically impossible! In a heterosexual world any cheating takes one man and one woman. Sum them up and you'll get an identical total.
The great actress Brenda Blethyn who played Mrs. Bennet in the Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice has some interesting thoughts about Mrs. Bennet's happy willingness to marry off her daughters to the wrong men.
"When I would tell people I was hoping to play this part, they'd say, oh, she's a wonderful cartoon, an over-the-top character. I'd say, no, she's not! She's the only one taking the problem seriously, and it's a real problem. The money goes down the male line. There's no problem as long as Mr. Bennet's alive, so he wasn't too concerned. But (Mrs. Bennet) keeps reminding him."
Mrs. Bennet, perhaps more astutely than her husband or cleverer daughters, sees that the rakes will get off easy, economically as well as socially.
If I remember correctly, Mrs. Bennet was from a lower social class than Mr. Bennet. So it's hardly surprising she is so attuned to the privilege enjoyed by even the worst of the upper class.
Thanks again for the exposure, Henry!
Your editing skills are unparalleled.
Not at all it’s a fascinating argument!
Great piece, thanks. Very creative and interesting approach.
I'd be curious to hear more about what you see evolutionary psychology adding to the analysis or clarifying beyond what historical sociological analysis could provide. I say this as someone who is interested in the application of evolution to culture and aesthetics and thinks this is a very useful direction to pursue. But there often ends up being a certain circularity: evolutionary ideas illustrate principles that we could (and do) extract from the text or from sociology or history without the evolutionary theory. (The same is true, IMO, with cognitive literary studies.) It's made more difficult because evolutionary psychology is still really in its infancy. How do you avoid that? Or am I thinking about this wrong, and just proving that the two are in alignment is an end in itself? What do you think is the way forward for this kind of research?
Why wouldn’t Wentworth and Darcy count as both erotically and parentally attractive? Seems to me they do.
Really enjoyed this terrific essay. It's relevant to a novel I'm working on about an already married couple who have differing ideas of "success."
In the 21st century, women have more cards to play than in Jane Austen's world., including career and divorce. That puts more pressure on the man who is paternally attractive but lacks or has lost the spark of the "rake."
The spark is key -and seems to be something socialised rather than purely genetic. There's a question as to whether the rake actually survived No Fault Divorce and mass democracy; Andrew Tate is the stereotype of something already redundant by the 1950s, it seems to me, just as The Trad Wife is based on the cargo cult of post-war natalist propaganda.
Has the rake become the serial monogamist?
He's Andrew Huberman.
There are serial monogamists who marry many times. The ideal is to provide both security and spark to your partner. Not impossible but it's a high degree of difficulty and luck.
Isn’t it fascinating? That sounds very interesting you’ll have to lmk when you’ve written it!
Fascinating stuff in here. A former colleague of mine did work on rakes in *Sense and Sensibility* and *Mansfield Park*, and I always enjoy a nice meditation on rakishness.
You write "(It should be noted that men always cheat more than women do.)". But this is arithmetically impossible! In a heterosexual world any cheating takes one man and one woman. Sum them up and you'll get an identical total.
The great actress Brenda Blethyn who played Mrs. Bennet in the Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice has some interesting thoughts about Mrs. Bennet's happy willingness to marry off her daughters to the wrong men.
"When I would tell people I was hoping to play this part, they'd say, oh, she's a wonderful cartoon, an over-the-top character. I'd say, no, she's not! She's the only one taking the problem seriously, and it's a real problem. The money goes down the male line. There's no problem as long as Mr. Bennet's alive, so he wasn't too concerned. But (Mrs. Bennet) keeps reminding him."
Mrs. Bennet, perhaps more astutely than her husband or cleverer daughters, sees that the rakes will get off easy, economically as well as socially.
If I remember correctly, Mrs. Bennet was from a lower social class than Mr. Bennet. So it's hardly surprising she is so attuned to the privilege enjoyed by even the worst of the upper class.
Less about biology and more about Marx.