Austen’s narrative choices and her use of voice is very important to a complete understanding of the novel–good observation! However, I am unclear what Shakespeare has to do with understanding exactly how her narration works. For instance, there is a lot of material to explain in the long quote you give from Mansfield Park to illustrate narration. While we do see there how Mrs. Norris sees Fanny, the narrator doesn’t do so uncritically–we are also given a sense of Mrs. Norris’ selfishness. So, the whole novel is focalized, too, from a perspective that puts Fanny in the center of the narration. You are right when you say that “the narrator seems to sympathize with Fanny”–but how, exactly? You can say much more about this, and eliminate the discussion of Shakespeare, which doesn’t have much on the surface of it to do with this issue of narration.

What is useful for your analysis of Austen’s style in the Pollack-Pelzner piece, is more what he says about how the narrator urges us to side with and against different characters. When you’re using a secondary source, your goal is not primarily just to incorporate it, but to use it purposively to help you illustrate or shape your claim. In this case, your injection of Shakespeare seems unnecessary, as you have other more interesting ideas that can be more fully explored!

This is an effective assessment of the complexity of Austen’s sentence style and voice–you have several examples in here, which is good! Can you say more about your very last sentence, though, which for me as a reader is the most piquant moment? How exactly does the syntactical complexity show “the complex relationship[s] and emotions” expressed in the novel? You might also explain a bit more fully what you mean by complexity (and “formality,” which I’m not quite sure about?), and show what parts of the examples you give are particularly interesting sytlistically.

Interesting collection of ideas here about the novel–I like your interest in the effects of the novel and its passionate, gothic style. I am also intrigued by your point that Victoria is a tragic character–that could make for a very interesting post in and of itself! I do think we need more focused attention on one key thing you notice, however, and then show how you see that in the book. For instance, if Victoria is a tragic character, why do you think so? What evidence in the novel do we get to see her as a character whose fall we should find pitiable?

I do agree that Evelina’s “education consists [sic] of learning the social norms of her community.” She learns what to do from the Mirvan family, what not to do from her own family (Duval and Branghton), and finally how she can finally step into her own being in the third volume. What I do find most interesting (and I wrote about this in my own response) is her acceptance of Mrs. Selwyn’s decidedly anti-lady like behavior. I think Evelina has an appreciation for those who have lived amongst an elite society, especially since she was on the outskirts of acceptability when she started her education about social norms.

I don’t know if I would agree that the entirety of emotion comes from the parents (Lady Howard, Mr. Villars, or even Mrs. Mirvan who does act as sort of a parent to Evelina). While they do provide emotional aspects to the novel (concern and care over Evelina’s well being), much of the emotion comes from Evelina’s own perspective (her embarrassment and shock throughout much of the first volume). It is interesting that you chose to focus on the parental aspect of the novel, rather than Evelina’s dominant perspective.

While I’m not sure about the logic of “realism” working here, it is definitely the case that this is a novel of education; in addition to being a “novel of manners,” it is also a Bildungsroman. Evelina is able to succeed in part because of her education. What has her education been like, specifically? How does her education in London (first with the Mirvans and then with the Branghtons/Duval) offer different or competing models? These would be interesting questions to ask!

While I would like to agree that Chaucer’s tales and this book have a lot in common, as you suggest, I am not entirely convinced. Chaucer’s tales seem to be more about contrasting stories between characters so reveal each character’s true nature; whereas Yorick is really just milling about Europe to buy stuff, judge people, and write. Admittedly, he is revealing characteristics about the people he meets, but it comes through the filter of his perspective. I think as readers we have to be skeptical of what Yorick is telling us and what it actually means (long story short, I agree with you about that).

The language Sterne used is certainly very indirect, I saw many different explains about what he actually means about the parts that Virginia Woolf claims to be pure poetry, I was rather shocked, as I couldn’t see anything as a second language… But I did like his ironical, becoming the finest wit in Paris by agrees with everyone 🙂

I’m glad you wrote about Sterne’s style here–I think we can press on this, too. What is the nature of his style? What characterizes it, specifically, and how might it be related to the context of travel–which is where your post begins? This definitely is a book with a style that seeks actively to engage the reader, on an emotional level. How do we see that functioning?