Posted by Margie, again on June 12, 1997 at 11:32:57:
In reply to Re: S&S and Emma posted by Margie on June 12, 1997 at 11:08:40
] ] Why was the secret engagement of Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill so morally reprehensible in Emma but the secret engagement of Lucy Steele and Edward Ferrars no big problem in S&S? Was it that people object to LS so violently that the bad morals of the secrecy was not thought of?
] ] Thanks for any input.
] ] Kathy
I apologize profusely for following up my own post, but I just thought of something that seemed more important than all the piffle that I just posted. In S&S, any moral
outrage that people might feel about the secret engagement was probably mitigated by Edward's subsequent behavior. However dishonorable the secret engagement was, he demonstarted that he was the soul of honor when he adhered to the engagement after it became known. And the cost of adhering to the engagement was huge -- he lost fortune and family, and he lost Elinor.
P.S. I think I answered my own stupid newie question.
Margie
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.