In his review of Jane Austen’s work as a whole, Richard Simpson speaks of Austen’s critical abilities and the applicability of her work to human life.
Additionally, Simpson points out the great paradox in Austen’s marital perspective. On one hand, she believes that any marriage, arranged or otherwise, can be salvaged, and the most incompatible of partners can forge a bond that, even if unideal, still brings about some measure of happiness to both halves of the partnership. For instance, the marriage between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet is far from ideal, but neither spouse is particularly unhappy with the relationship. At the same time, however, the point of many of Austen’s novels is to help characters find their ideal matches. Simpson argues that this contradiction is an example of Austen’s mastery of irony, and it is what allows Austen to examine the travails of love with such effectiveness—by acknowledging that any marriage can end happily, she points out that the achievement of a perfect marriage is a futile exercise.
A related point is Simpson’s emphasis that the social unit of the Austenian novel is neither the individual nor the country, but the family. He claims that she emphasizes the idea that “man is a social being, and that apart from society there is not even the individual.” Simpson describes a view of Austen’s work that posits a world where the most reticent of hermits is not even an entity because humans are defined by the way they interact with society. The we-need-to-get-married-before-we-turn-into-crones mentality that Austen plants into the minds of her female characters is simply her way of exemplifying this construction of society. Austen does not bother with ideas and philosophies that are applicable to the breadth of a nation (as many of her contemporaries did), but rather concerns herself with a very limited sphere of influence that she governs with total superiority.
