Despite my passion for dissecting Jane Austen novels, I have spent very little time discussing Sense and Sensibility since I started blogging. After Mansfield Park, it is the Austen novel I have read the fewest times but that doesn’t mean I do not feel strongly about it. How I identify with Elinor every time I read it! How I hurt for Marianne’s as she suffers, even while thinking her a very young and very foolish girl! But mostly, how I hate both of the male heroes! Colonel Brandon, he of the off-putting flannel waistcoats and perpetually depressed spirits, and Edward Ferrars…well, him I find even more frustrating because I want to like Edward. But I cannot forgive his weakness and every time I finish the book I feel yet again how poorly suited he is to Elinor, how unworthy he is of such a steadfast and honest mate – the very traits he so obviously lacks.
G.B. Stern echoes all of my concerns over the match perfectly in Speaking of Jane Austen:
Could Jane Austen ever have thought of Edward as anything but utterly dull, and in his handling of the Lucy situation, in his subjection to a discourteous mother, both weak and stupid? Elinor is not always attractive; we cannot deny that she is a little too prudent and rather more than a little self-righteous, but at least she has positive good qualities; her manners command our admiration over and over again; quite considerable strain is put upon them, as she has to be for ever covering up Marianne’s blatant disregard of all decent and grateful obligations, for which extreme youth is not a sufficient excuse, otherwise why should Catherine Morland be capable of always such uniformly diffident and polite behaviour to her elders?
Elinor deserves a more stimulating mate than Edward, but no one better is provided. Edward is so completely mild and colourless, that we cannot but wonder what he and Elinor, after they were married, found to talk about in the evenings? No doubt they wagged their heads over Mrs Dashwood’s continual extravagances and optimism; no doubt they agreed, in their middle-aged sagacity, that Colonel Brandon spoilt Marianne beyond all reason and affection, and what a pity, because it could lead to no good.
He is not quite the least appealing of the Austen heroes (Colonel Brandon ranks ahead of him in that at least, though still far behind the priggish Edmund Bertram) but, to me, Edward Ferrars will always be the most frustrating one. The man who seemed so attractive on the surface but whose character proved so disappointingly weak.
The Captive Reader 
I agree very weak and stupid, but he was no Willoughby. One feels a bit like Wilde over this book, it’s a good job men don’t get the women they deserve – Elinor and Marianne so deserve their Mr Darcys and Mr Knightlys, but I always think S&S has a darker feel, money worries cut so close and Marianne is so seriously ill. I feel it is essentially a comfortable and happy connection between Edward and Elinor. And of course Elinor is capable of great passion, she just is forced to hide it for nearly all of S&S. I imagine them having lots to talk about. I think Austen wanted us to trust Elinor’s good sense: she knows he’s the right man for her. At least one of Edward weaknesses was to find Elinor so interesting and attractive that he ignited a passion in her – I bet so many men would have fallen for lovely Marianne. The flannel waistcoats are Marianne being sharp out of context surely? The Reader should ignore them just as Elinor does. Again older and flawed though he is, it’s Col Brandon’s steadiness and affection that rescues Marianne from a thwarted lonely life.
Very Wilde, agreed! To me, S&S isn’t quite as dark as some of the later novels (I am thinking of Persuasion and Mansfield Park) but then I have never been able to take Marianne’s illness altogether seriously. It is one of the weakest points in the book to me. As for money worries, I think those plague all of Austen’s heroines save Emma, so the Dashwoods, who are so nicely cared for by their cousin, seem equal to the Bennets or Anne Elliot.
Yes, the flannel waistcoats are Marianne being critical but I do think it emphasizes just how awkward Col. Brandon is around her, particularly at the beginning, how unable to communicate with her. He is steady and affectionate and those are virtues but would warm, loveable Marianne really have remained alone had he not married her? I think not.
I do like your description of the relationship between Edward and Elinor as comfortable. It is that. And I think they will, in their own quiet way, be very happy together. But I can’t help but feel that Elinor will be required to do what she has always done: be the sensible, level-headed one, the person on whom all the responsibility rests, who must support everyone else while receiving very little support herself. It is a role she is well able to carry out but how much nicer if she had found an equal partner to share her life with!
At the end of my annotated edition of Pride and Prejudice, the editor makes the comment that except for Elizabeth and Darcy, NONE of the marriages in J.A. is an especially good one, love-wise. I think she describes Edward as a depressed lover without a promising future! And when you read the reasons, it’s hard to believe that Jane Austen didn’t intend that. Part of me wishes I hadn’t read that, but it’s hard to argue with!
Really? What a strange comment – and one I certainly don’t agree with. I can imagine very happy futures for the Tilneys and the Knightleys and even the Wentworths (though I feel Frederick Wentworth is such a distant character in Persuasion that who really knows) while the inequality of the Darcys’ marriage troubles me greatly.
As for Edward, despite not liking him I cannot call him depressed! I save that honour for sulking Col. Brandon. And I suppose it comes down to how you define “a promising future”. Edward is never going to become a bishop, that’s for certain, but I can see him being perfectly satisfied with a small church and a small congregation. And I can equally see Elinor struggling to run a household and raise children on their very small income.
Yes, I assumed Edward was the unworthy lover that the Austen heroine always falls for before finding the Right One. Imagine my surprise when I reached the end of the book and discovered he was apparently the Right One. And I get surprised again with each reread. Let’s face it, Hugh Grant portrays him perfectly.
It is such a disappointment, isn’t it? If only someone more worthy had shown up as the book progressed!
Hey, wait. That’s Matthew Crawley.
It is that! Though, I have to say, I rather hate Matthew Crawley and much prefer Dan Stevens as Edward Ferrars (even though I don’t like Edward all that much more!).
What’s this? You’re revealing — on the internet where everything lives forever — that you hate Matthew Crawley? Brave woman. I’m pretty fed up with the lot of them, really. Above stairs, that is. Below stairs, well, maybe I have a few favourites.
Oh Susan, if only this was the most controversial thing I had ever said on the internet! Criticizing a character on a soap opera ranks far behind admitting that I think P&P is Austen’s least impressive book or that I have no particular affinity for Virago or Penguin books, admissions that seem to horrify some of my readers.
S&S is my Jane Austen re-read for the year, and next up on my reading stack! It’s been a while since I’ve read it, and meanwhile I’ve seen the Emma Thompson film a few times so that’s what’s filling my imagination now. I enjoyed your post as a way to reconnect with the story before reading it. Plus I just noticed Susan’s comment about Matthew Crawley/Dan Stevens. Nice pic!
I am wanting to reread it now too, Laura. There is nothing like reading other people’s opinions of a book to make you want to revisit and rethink it yourself.
I learn something new everyday here. 🙂 I completely agree with you about Edward – he makes my girls angry every time we watch the movie. My new knowledge — I didn’t know Dan Stevens was in the more recent version – we just have the Hugh Grant film. Will have to check this one out soon!
Oh yes, Susan, you have to check out the newer version with Dan Stevens! Hattie Morahan is a perfect Elinor and Charity Wakefield is wonderful as Marianne.
I suppose Edward is the sensible choice, and sensible does not always go hand in hand with dynamic or romantic?
I suppose I just don’t see what is sensible about Edward.
Ah, I used to feel the same way about Edward. In my head he was always The Wet Rag and even now I sometimes call him that.
But I’ve come to realize that he did have honour and a set of principles which obviously made Elinor admire him. Obviously his engagement to Lucy indicates an impulsive and foolish act in his younger days, but I think he really did come to realize how much of a mistake it was. And probably would have even realized it had Elinor not been in the picture.
And I was always SO mad at him for leading Elinor on but I think he just got a little lost in his feeligs, and after all (as Elinor tells Marianne and her mother) he never actually made any verbal promise of asking for her hand. And even though he knew his own mother would cut him off he chose to stick by Lucy. At this point I think he would have realized that what he had with Lucy wasn’t love which would have made his decision that much harder. There’s a lot of bravery in choosing such a bleak future and I think it’s that bravery that Elinor admired.
And I have to disagree with G.B. Stern’s portrayal there of Edward’s and Elinor’s fireside conversations – I think they would be far more varied and entertaining. After all they became attracted to each other because they had so much in common and discussed art and books (though not with the same passion as Marianne).
Colonel Brandon, too, may seem dull but essentially he does the same thing as Darcy if you think about it. He has to wait in the background while his ladylove swoons over the very man whom he knows to be a scoundrel. And then he puts his feelings aside to make sure that her future doesn’t become ruined. I think if Austen had added a little more to the end of the novel, to give Brandon some more time to develop we might understand a little better why Marianne falls for him. As it is, it only makes it seems like Marianne simply settled for him.
Ngh…sorry for the overly long comment. Obviously I have a lot of feelings about this. Ahem.
Oh, I do love a nice long response!
I agree that Stern is harsh in her imaginings of their fireside conversations. I can easily picture Elinor and Edward entertaining themselves quite happily with the kind of conversation they enjoy but would no doubt drive poor Marianne mad with boredom.
I recognize Colonel Brandon’s heroic patience and consideration for Marianne’s well being but those sorts of gestures don’t seem to me to be sufficient reason for his love to be returned. At least with Darcy (and goodness knows I have my problems with him too) we see the relationship between him and Elizabeth evolve through their interactions. Colonel Brandon just sort of lurks in the background.
Agree, agree, agree. This is why I never reread Sense and Sensibility. I’m so unfond of all the characters, and unfond of Elinor by extension for being/becoming so attached to them. Jane Austen’s marriages are on the dull side, I’ve always felt — it’s why I continue to love Jane Eyre more, even though Rochester is a big poop in a lot of ways — I can at least imagine what a happy marriage between Jane and Rochester would look like (lots of doting and silly jokes that the housekeepers wouldn’t understand), which I never can with the Jane Austen pairs.
I can’t blame Elinor for being attached to the other characters: it is hard not to love your family, however absurdly they might behave (unless you are Elizabeth Bennet or Anne Elliot, both of whom manage to seem pretty indifferent to some of their family members) and as for the other characters…well, they appear to be the only other people she knows. Clearly, that is the real reason she married Edward: she simply never met any other eligible men.
Excellent post! I, for one, have never truly come around to Colonel Brandon. I’ve been told appreciation for him comes with age, but if anything that only depresses me. He just seems so old and Marianne so young. It’s not merely the numbers here (the age difference between Jane and Rochester, for instance, seems nothing to me), but there seems to be an insuperable gap between their dispositions. He seems more like a father than a lover. It gives me the creep a bit (though I do love Alan Rickman).
As for Willoughby, my hearbreak at his betrayal equals Marianne’s. Every. Single. Time. He had such potential!
I used to like Colonel Brandon well enough when I was younger but the older I get, the more flimsy I find him. I think the men in Austen’s early books show just how young she was when she was writing and none more so than Colonel Brandon.
Well, it’s been a while since I read it, but one reason I’ve always liked this book is that it was NOT a romance novel and Edward was NOT a typical romance novel hero — heart-stoppingly gorgeous, dashing, fabulously wealthy, witty, charming… That is, instead of an unrealistic fantasy he was supposed to be a good man according to 18th century notions of honor.
It is undoubtedly a romance novel though, as you say, there is a lack of those cardboard cutout, too good to be true heroes that make most romance novels so dull. And though Edward is a good man, I am still not convinced that makes him Elinor’s equal or that he will be a partner able to support her and retain her respect through the coming years.
Edward was young and stupid when he had proposed marriage to Lucy Steele. But in the end, he had the strength to face the consequences of his mistakes, something that most people are incapable of doing, due to their own weaknesses.
And Elinor is not that admirable. She goes too far in keeping her emotions in check . . . to the point of suppressing her true nature to the extreme. I wish Austen had allowed someone to chastise Elinor for this flaw in her character.