So there’s this new book out called Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough, by Lori Gottlieb. The idea being that lots of single women (especially those over-30 spinsters) have “toxic” romantic-fantasy expectations of a perfect partner, and should give that up to marry. . . someone whose characteristics vary wildly depending on who’s doing the reviews. From the reviews in The Telegraph and Grazia Daily, you get the impression that Gottlieb is advising women grab the first male they see and settle down having babies or something. Dreary.
Naturally, a lot of people have issues with this, along the lines of “married women aren’t necessarily happier than single women” and “why should women feel that marriage (and motherhood) is the ultimate goal?” These are perfectly valid points.
Actually, from this interview at The Happiness Project, Gottlieb says the book “is about finding true love by looking for the RIGHT Mr. Right, by focusing on what’s important in love rather than on things that don’t really matter.” In fact, if you read the interview, the book seems to be Sense and Sensibility recast in a modern light. The lessons of Marianne for the new generation. And apparently the new generation needs those lessons, because they seem to see nothing on the spectrum of marriage between “romantic fantasy perfect partnerships” (whatever that means) and “a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring non-profit business.”
The funny thing is that I found all those articles (except the interview) because they all reference Jane Austen. And I am tired of Jane Austen being the peg on which people hang women’s “unrealistic” expectations of romance and marriage. Was she not an eminent realist about happiness in marriage? Don’t Austen heroines always find love with the sweet, thoughtful guy, who coincidentally has quite enough money, thanks, and not with the dashing, devil-may-care, spendthrift heart-flutterers? Jane Austen is ALL ABOUT the depth and not the surface in relationships. And as a happily married woman (everyone wave “hi” to Mr. Fitzpatrick!), I agree with Austen and Gottlieb that happiness in marriage is about understanding each other and agreeing about the world on fundamental levels, not about the laundry list of attributes Marianne and apparently women on dating sites are looking for. Geez, Austen spends hundreds of pages combating this type of Romanticism.
Sure, I know why people blame (or credit?) Jane Austen with the idea that true love exists, accept no substitutions. As Salon points out, this started long before Colin Firth jumped into a pond in a billowy shirt. But I honestly don’t know where they get the idea that she was telling us it would be all wet shirts, all the time, and nothing else. Man, for that, try the Brontës.
Photo credit: ©2010 by Charlene Chong. All rights reserved.
austenacious 
Happiness in a marriage is also all about being there the evening AFTER a big morning fight about whatever to ask cheerfully, “How was your day?”, bearing the fact that he picks his teeth after dinner with a magazine subscription card then puts it BACK on the living room table, and knowing that no matter what, he’s always got your back.
But wet, billowy shirts are sometimes a bonus.
LikeLike
Yes, Didee, an ability to focus on the big and not the small things *is* essential in marriage. But the big things have to be there. If he *didn’t* always have your back, it wouldn’t work. Ooh, and, Austen connection: we know Darcy is a good guy despite being kind of tactless precisely b/c he *does* have Lizzie’s back.
LikeLike
Are you sure that Lori Gottlieb is not undead Charlotte Lucas incognito? Sounds fishy to me! 😉
LikeLike
Laurel Ann, you had me ROFLOL! That would explain so much! 🙂 Though I also kind of wonder whether an undead Charlotte Lucas would be trying to get as much undead booty as possible. To make up for, you know, lost time. I suppose it depends on whether Mr. Collins is undead too!
LikeLike
During the part of your article in which you reference the review, I got a bit upset. Being nearly 30 and unmarried I thought ‘i’m no spinster!’ I could not agree with you more on the misunderstanding of Jane that all-too-often makes way into pop-discussions of literature. Keep pointing it out!
Btw: Jane Eyre is my favorite book of all time (if only bc I’ve only read P&P and no other Austen works–being advised to ‘wait ’til I’m 30’to read her works) and I’m not entirely sure it’s wet and billowy shirts!
–looking forward to reading more! Thank you!
LikeLike
Velva Mae: Well, in JA’s day, you were over the hill at 23, so I wouldn’t worry about the spinster tag so much! – Although I didn’t say so explicitly in the review, I do think the whole idea of women of whatever age, 30 or not, compromising on their core values just to get a man is ludicrous. And so did JA.
I’m very fond of Jane Eyre, but I couldn’t resist poking fun at the Brontes, partly b/c *they* were always on Jane’s case for her not being romantic enough, and now she gets that label, which I think would have seriously annoyed both sides of the camp. I think I had Wuthering Heights more in mind, in any case.
LikeLike
I think it’s the directors of the various Austen adaptations who are responsible for the wet shirt thing. (And the rubbing-the-calves thing, which I still can not get over, now matter how cute Matthew MacFayden is.)
I am a firm believer in the hidden depths of Austen heroes, in the passionate heart that beats beneath even the flannel waistcoat of Colonel Brandon.
(Though I do wonder if the spirit of Jane ever smiles down on Emma Thompson, who marries the steady Edward on film, but in real life snags the delicious Greg Wise. Sort of having your Willoughby, and. . .um, marrying him, too!)
LikeLike