Jane Austen and Brexit


I couldn’t possibly comment…


  1. Andrew Dickie -

    Uncanny! Art imitating life? Not really – artifice, at best. But it does seem like a wonderful example of Koestlerian synchronicity, and the workings of coincidence.

    1. Andy Crow -

      Speaking of ‘uncanny’….

      “…a wonderful example of Koestlerian synchronicity,…”

      You took the words right out of my mouth, Andrew. 🙂

      1. Peter May -

        That’s what comes with having all those A levels 🙂

  2. Peter May -

    Andrew – with the force of both my two A levels had to look up your comparison. I concluded that you really are being ironic! We uneducated types first look for our failures.. and then try to think….
    Thanks very much for the The Roots of Coincidence journey!

    1. Andrew Dickie -

      Peter, perish the thought, it’s far more likely that I was doing what overeducated chaps such as I am do far too often, which is showing off!

      I grant, however, that there’s a profound, even shocking, irony to be found in the fact that, not only does the split in this vote exactly mirror that in the BREXIT Referendum, but that – wonder of wonders – the book titles attaching to each percentage should so exactly match what Remainers would see as accurate descriptions of the mindsets of the respective constituencies (even though, in Jane Austen’s time, “Sense and Sensibility” would not have had their modern meanings, but would rather have meant something like “Awareness and capacity for feeling”)

      So, showing off, I’m afraid – mea culpa.

      1. Andy Crow -

        Andrew, If you’ve got it flaunt it. Why not ?

    2. Andrew Dickie -

      Peter, I’ve worried over my initial comment on this post, and even more over my response to your response, for fear that, certainly my latter response suggested a frivolity that was disrespectful of you and original post.

      The fact is that I don’t think I was being ironic in my initial comment, for I genuinely saw the coincidence of the vote’s split and attachment to particular Austen novels as being almost (and unnervingly so) uncanny.

      It was your comment about my being ironic that made me explore things further, and come up with my second comment.

      For I went back to look up synchronicity, and saw that the Austen Poll is an example of Jungian synchronicity rather than Koestlerian – for Koestler believed we could sort of bend the future towards us, and that unusual coincidences were indicative of that process of bending taking place – something that got him criticised for accepting ESP and the paranormal.

      So, if I came over as disrespectful on account of frivolity, apologies – that was
      certainly not my intention. I hope I have elsewhere made clear my respect for the quality of your posts, which never fall prey to the fault I have mentioned, that of showing off, which, alas, often results in one jumping in, and advancing garbled propositions – something I did in this case.

      1. Peter May -

        Thanks, Andrew. Certainly I’m all in favour of both frivolity and a bit of disrespect – from you or anyone else!
        Delighted you think my posts are quality – afterwards I’m not always convinced!
        The irony was that I don’t think it was any sort of real poll at all. I think it was actually just to get across an idea that Pride and Prejudice is not a bad summary for a large quantity of Brexiteers….

      2. Andrew Dickie -

        If “Sense and Sensibility” in their original Austen meanings are not quite right for Remainers, “Pride and Prejudice” – words which have not undergone a sense shift in 200 years – seems painfully apt (I can hear them chanting “Remoaner” as I write) for, as you say, “a large quantity of Brexiteers”.

        As to your posts – be assured, they’re worth reading and helpful.

Comments are closed.