I´m very late to this party, in more than one sense. ”Emma” is a book that has been read by, and analysed by, a legion before me, and so it is doubtful that I add anything new.
But also, it is a book that I was supposed to read in school, but was then unequal to the task of reading anything that I was tasked to read, simply because it was tasked, instead engaging myself in reading anything else. I´ve had bad conscience about this these past twenty-eight years, and as I very much enjoyed the recent film adaption by Autumn De Wilde, it seemed high time to rectify this.
I very much prefer the film.
If you are unfamiliar with the tale, ”Emma” catalogues a series of romantic misadventures and misunderstandings centring around Emma Woodhouse and her circle, largely deriving from the devices and misunderstandings of Ms. Woodhouse herself.
You cannot safely read further with-out encountering spoilers.
Emma takes Harriet, a younger lady of unknown parentage, under her wing, and determines to set her up with an advantageous marriage, in the process crushing the hopes of her most ardent suitor, a local small farmer.she serially misinterprets the intentions all involved parties, leading to much worry and temporary unhappiness for several parties, including herself. But all turns out right in the end.
In this much, both tellings agree.
Where they differ is in certain biographical changes, and her attitudes and conduct by the end.
In the film, Mr. Knightley proposes, and Emma introduces the obstacle of Harriet’s attachment to him. In the book, she has no such scruples, and does not take him into her confidence on the matter of Harriet’s intentions. In the film, she understands that she must set things to right, and goes to Harriet’s suitor, one Mr. Martin, eating a substantial amount of humble pie, to encourage fresh suit. She is a good friend. In the book, Harriet is sent away to her sister and brother-in-law, out of sight and ignored, and Harriet’s union is only saved by the happy accident of her Knightley sending Martin there on business. Unless this was a device of Mr. Knightley, who was ever in favour of the union. This point is not made explicit in either direction. But in either case, Emma, despite her best wishes for Harriet, is in deed no friend at all.
In the film, Harriet learns that her father is a tradesman, and is clearing afraid of the effect this will have on their relationship, but she is reassured, as are we, by an invitation for her father to visit. The friendship, it seems, will continue.
In the book, she expresses regret for ever having made her acquaintance, owing to the threat a relationship between Harriet and Mr. Knightley formed, not just to her happiness, but also to his reputation. She wishes that she had, instead, cultivated the friendship of Jane Fairfax, a more socially equal candidate. She wishes Harriet well, but after all parties have found their respective partners, she is glad that their relationship will now dim to a more suitable wattage, a more distant regard.
I am not dismissive of reputation. It is a real thing. I have experienced its effects myself. I changed from white collar to blue collar work, and was aware of being regarded in a different light than I had been before. In school, I was remonstrated with by classmates for conversing with the cleaner, a man of much greater life experience than any of us.
However. It is a poor moral. Mixing only with your own set serves only to reenforce existing prejudices. It is a tendency to be spoken against, not encouraged.
Additionally, in the film, Mr. Knightley is not visibly a man appreciably older than Emma; in the book, he is sixteen years her senior, and has been in love with her, unconsciously, since she was thirteen. Which is.... creepy?
