Blog Summary

Perhaps the most recurring theme among the posts this week was the argument as to whether or not Catherine is naïve and oblivious to the people she has relationships with, or if she is just extremely tolerant and should be commended for being so. Many posts, even when discussing other subjects, still brought up how Catherine was too stupid to understand what was going on. Robert brought up that Isabella turns out to be a gold-digger, but that Catherine doesn’t see this. I brought up that Catherine doesn’t understand the allusions Tilney and General Tilney make to her marrying Henry. (Both Abby and I bring up the rose vs. hyacinth allusion, where Tilney is hoping Catherine will perhaps develop a love for him as she develops her love of flowers to encompass a rose). Madolyn also brings up the point that Catherine goes from one extreme (not being able to pick up on these social cues while in Bath) to the other extreme of over analyzing chests and passageways in Northanger Abbey. She is inconsistent in the way she perceives the world.
However, Jasmine and Julie both like Catherine and think her to be someone relatable and just not yet old enough to understand social graces. They also believe her to merely be extremely tolerant of those people around her. Kristel also agrees in terms of Catherine being more a subject of a coming-of-age novel, like Ned and Clara were.


My questions are this:
• Though we have discussed it many times, is it partial to think that, even at age 17, we are unable to pick up on social graces? Does the time period excuse Catherine of this at all?
• What about this “stark indifference?” Does Catherine really go from one extreme to the other?
• Now that we are done with the novel, do we find it at all more relatable?
• How do the letters exactly fit into point of view, and do they help Catherine realize the true characters of her friends now that she is not influenced by their presence?