开云体育

IMansfield Pafk is not titled after a main character (like Emma) nor a character trait (P+P, S+S). It is named after a place (like Northanger Abbey). It would be possible to consider MP as a study of the t hree estates: metaphorically man's field but in civilization, a park, not a forest. Even the forest seen is artificial. It's a story of three sisters whose marriages reflect three levels of society - the one who ran off and married down for love (the seaman), and seems content, the one who married up (we don't know for certain that it was for money and property but that seems likely), and the one who married Propriety (the churchman). The nominal heroine and her two cousins are another set of three - one runs off to marry for love, one marries for money and then tries for love, and Fanny who is all propriety and marries the churchman.

And of course they have read Lovers Vows before they rehearse it

Arnie

On reading plays, let me say we have quite a number of character who
read plays. All of them do among the younger characters in Mansfield
Park. At night the adults listen to Shakespeare's Henry 8 read aloud.
Sir Thomas has his sons enact Douglas by John Home, a Scottish blank
verse tragedy (reference to hero, Norval) In Sense and Sensibility the
Dashwoods and Willoughby are slowly making their way through Hamlet.
Granted a lot of Shakespeare, but in MP they know contemporary hits.
People with money can purchase or rent quartos and folios.


Ellen

On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 4:03?PM Dorothy Gannon via groups.io
<dorothy.gannon@...> wrote:

Arnie, I’m convinced that whether or not she imagined her characters reading plays, we can probably be certain she herself certainly read them (and heard them read, à la Henry Crawford’s reading in the Mansfield Park family circle, growing up). Her dialog has that flavor, and of course, you and others have found many specific examples from plays she would have known.

Dorothy


Arnie:
And finally, the irony about the above discussion vis a vis Austen, is that
the majority of those who love Austen today are people who have never read
her novels, but have seen a movie or play adaptation. So novels she wrote
to be read are instead being experienced as if they were plays!

Arnie, I’m convinced that whether or not she imagined her characters reading plays, we can probably be certain she herself certainly read them (and heard them read, à la Henry Crawford’s reading in the Mansfield Park family circle, growing up). Her dialog has that flavor, and of course, you and others have found many specific examples from plays she would have known.

Dorothy


Arnie:
And finally, the irony about the above discussion vis a vis Austen, is that
the majority of those who love Austen today are people who have never read
her novels, but have seen a movie or play adaptation. So novels she wrote
to be read are instead being experienced as if they were plays!

Thanks so much, Nancy, Diana, Ellen, and Arnie! This is terrific, very useful info. Am collecting all your replies below, in case there are others wondering what to purchase to dig into the complete letters of Jane Austen.

I have certainly read all of the letters available in the online Braeburn (sp?) edition, and several other partial collections. And I very well remember the reading of the letters you all did on Janeites about 10-12 years ago. I kept up as well as I could, but was just building my business then and had little spare time. I did very much enjoy what I was able to read at that time (thanks to those who helped direct the reading and commentary there).

Thanks again!

Dorothy


Nancy:
They do seem to be selling more selective letters. RW CHapman's Letters are
available for $30 on ebay, Some are on Project Gutenberg.
Diedre Lefaye's book is available for half that.

Diana:
Dorothy, you can get a nice copy of Jane Austen's Letters edited by Deirdre Le Faye for under $10 on abebooks.com <>. We read through the whole thing here on Janeites a few years ago - maybe ten? - and I remember it did take something like three years to work through all of them, but it was one of the best things I ever did online! If you read even a couple a day, you'll get there!

Ellen:
Yes we did a group read of Austen's letters, I did an attempted
(overdone) close reading of all the letters, each and everyone. I
remember that Diane Reynolds did likewise, and maybe Arnie on his own
or chimed in. Others accompanied us, but most people not that
consistently. You will find on my Austen reveries blogs all the many,
many postings, maybe in the hundreds. Here's what's left on my blog ,
intermixed with other postings probably



Unfortunately, I never thought to make a "Austen's letters" or "Jane
Austen's letters" tag or category in all that time. The best you can
do is search for "Jane Austn' letters," which is what I did above.
Would you believe it. That's how non-transactional I am, how little
outwardly, or socially thinking, when I write much of the time, or
used to be (since Jim's death I've changed)

Arnie:
I wholeheartedly recommend extended study of Austen's surviving Letters,
they are a priceless resource for better understanding her personality.
Weren't you a member back in 2011-2012 when we had an extended group read
of the Letters all the way from #1 to the last one? Alas, the archive is
long gone, but I have 50+ posts in my blog (sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com <>)
from that time period that are about the Letters, including my quoting
liberally from discussions in Janeites. As usual, many passages in her
Letters were subject to vigorous disagreements as to their meaning.

As Nancy indicated, Le Faye's Letters (3rd or 4th edition, there is NO
difference between the 2 in terms of content) should be acquirable at a
very moderate cost online, and that is still the best resource out there by
far, as long as you take Le Faye's editorial decisions (especially her
silences where there should be helpful comments, about matters Le Faye
seems to have preferred not to emphasize) with a huge grain of salt. For a
proactive reader willing to search out the relevant history directly
online, the Letters are a treasure trove.

Just imagine Darcy and Elizabeth each having recently read this
soliloquizing of Benedick's.....

"...One woman is fair, yet I am well; another is wise, yet I am well;
another virtuous, yet I am well; but till all graces be in one woman, one
woman shall not come in my grace. Rich she shall be, that's certain; wise, or
I'll none; virtuous, or I'll never cheapen her; fair, or I'll never look on
her; mild, or come not
near me; noble, or not I for an angel; of good discourse, an excellent
musician, and her hair shall be of what colour it please God.".....

....just before this memorable exchange that is obviously winking broadly
at Benedick's words:

“It is amazing to me,” said Bingley, “how young ladies can have patience to
be so very accomplished as they all are.”

“All young ladies accomplished! My dear Charles, what do you mean?”

“Yes, all of them, I think. They all paint tables, cover screens, and net
purses. I scarcely know any one who cannot do all this; and I am sure I
never heard a young lady spoken of for the first time, without being
informed that she was very accomplished.”

“Your list of the common extent of accomplishments,” said Darcy, “has too
much truth. The word is applied to many a woman who deserves it no
otherwise than by netting a purse or covering a screen; but I am very far from
agreeing with you in your estimation of ladies in general. I cannot boast
of knowing more than half-a-dozen in the whole range of my acquaintance
that are really accomplished.”

“Nor I, I am sure,” said Miss Bingley.

“Then,” observed Elizabeth, “you must comprehend a great deal in your idea
of an accomplished woman.”

“Yes; I do comprehend a great deal in it.”

“Oh, certainly,” cried his faithful assistant, “no one can be really
esteemed accomplished who does not greatly surpass what is usually met
with. A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing,
dancing, and the modern languages, to deserve the word; and, besides all
this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of
walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word
will be but half deserved.”

“All this she must possess,” added Darcy; “and to all she must yet add
something more substantial in the improvement of her mind by extensive
谤别补诲颈苍驳.”

“I am no longer surprised at your knowing *only* six accomplished women. I
rather wonder now at your knowing *any*.”

“Are you so severe upon your own sex as to doubt the possibility of all
迟丑颈蝉?”

“*I* never saw such a woman. *I* never saw such capacity, and taste, and
application, and elegance, as you describe, united.”


On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 12:11?PM Arnie Perlstein <arnieperlstein@...>
wrote:

Then Ellen and I agree about this point of Shakespeare being read as well
as performed.

The scholarly irony of those 3 particular acrostics I presented is that
all 3 were all discovered over 100 years ago by a Baconian named Booth (no
relation, apparently, to the famous Booth Shakespeare family) who was
intent on proving that Shakespeare was really Bacon in disguise.

In the midst of a huge number of so-called acrostic signatures of Bacon
that he collected from Shakespeare's plays, most of which seem straight out
of A Beautiful Mind in their implausibility, there was this tiny handful of
actual Shakespeare acrostics that were not signatures at all, and had
nothing to do with Bacon.

I first heard about the Titania acrostic in this Janeites group in 2005
when Eugene McDonnell (remember him, Nancy and Ellen?) mentioned it when I
started posting about Austen's wordplay in Emma. However Eugene identified
a later Shakespeare scholar named Leigh Mercer as the one who discovered it
around 1940, but he must've read it in that earlier book by Booth.

And now I wonder, as to any of the handful of scenes in Austen's novels in
which characters are reading an unspecified book, whether they might be
reading plays?

I'm particularly thinking about P&P - wouldn't it be wonderful if
Elizabeth and Darcy were each separately reading Much Ado About Nothing
while hanging out in the Netherfield salon?

And finally, the irony about the above discussion vis a vis Austen, is
that the majority of those who love Austen today are people who have never
read her novels, but have seen a movie or play adaptation. So novels she
wrote to be read are instead being experienced as if they were plays!

ARNIE


On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:47?AM Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody=
[email protected]> wrote:

I disagree even vehemently with Kishor because what she asserts is so
often asserted. No. NO. Shakespeare's plays, especially when printed
in folios, were meant to be read. Readers in the 17th and 18th century
read plays. Early 19th century too. They are meant to be played and
read silently to the self

Ellen Moody

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 7:19?AM Kishor Kale via groups.io
<k.a.kale@...> wrote:

the same is generally true about Shakespeare as well – the vast

majority of Shakespeare lovers have probably not read a word of
Shakespeare’s plays ever, or at least since one course in high school or
college. But they do go to see him now and then in the theater or in film
adaptations.

Shakespeare’s plays were intended to be performed, not read.

On 10 Nov 2024, at 22:20, Arnie Perlstein via groups.io

<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

Ellen, it’s usually a woman, onlybecause men generally are so tuned

out about Austen. Better to be an Austen only-film lover than not to care
about Austen at all.

As I think about t, I think the same is generally true about

Shakespeare as well – the vast majority of Shakespeare lovers have probably
not read a word of Shakespeare’s plays ever, or at least since one course
in high school or college. But they do go to see him now and then in the
theater or in film adaptations.

All things considered, better to have the larger tent in each case,

which enables film adaptations to be made, even if not all of them are of
the highest quality.

Arnie

On Nov 10, 2024, at 11:45?AM, Ellen Moody via groups.io

<ellen.moody@...> wrote:

?At the large JASNAs and local groups. it's not been unommon for me

to meet a woman (usually a woman) who has only read Pride and Prejudice and
seen the other books in their movie form -- as if they were the same. So
also people who don't distinguish watching a movie from reading a book.
People taking adult ed courses in Austen who don't think it's necessary the
instructor have read MP -- to me unless you've read MP, you don't know this
author, and since Austen's oeuvre is so small (you can fit the fiction into
one fat volume), there's no excuse not to have read them all -- if you are
presenting yourself as someone who knows Austen.

Ellen

Then Ellen and I agree about this point of Shakespeare being read as well
as performed.

The scholarly irony of those 3 particular acrostics I presented is that all
3 were all discovered over 100 years ago by a Baconian named Booth (no
relation, apparently, to the famous Booth Shakespeare family) who was
intent on proving that Shakespeare was really Bacon in disguise.

In the midst of a huge number of so-called acrostic signatures of Bacon
that he collected from Shakespeare's plays, most of which seem straight out
of A Beautiful Mind in their implausibility, there was this tiny handful of
actual Shakespeare acrostics that were not signatures at all, and had
nothing to do with Bacon.

I first heard about the Titania acrostic in this Janeites group in 2005
when Eugene McDonnell (remember him, Nancy and Ellen?) mentioned it when I
started posting about Austen's wordplay in Emma. However Eugene identified
a later Shakespeare scholar named Leigh Mercer as the one who discovered it
around 1940, but he must've read it in that earlier book by Booth.

And now I wonder, as to any of the handful of scenes in Austen's novels in
which characters are reading an unspecified book, whether they might be
reading plays?

I'm particularly thinking about P&P - wouldn't it be wonderful if Elizabeth
and Darcy were each separately reading Much Ado About Nothing while hanging
out in the Netherfield salon?

And finally, the irony about the above discussion vis a vis Austen, is that
the majority of those who love Austen today are people who have never read
her novels, but have seen a movie or play adaptation. So novels she wrote
to be read are instead being experienced as if they were plays!

ARNIE


On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:47?AM Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody=
[email protected]> wrote:

I disagree even vehemently with Kishor because what she asserts is so
often asserted. No. NO. Shakespeare's plays, especially when printed
in folios, were meant to be read. Readers in the 17th and 18th century
read plays. Early 19th century too. They are meant to be played and
read silently to the self

Ellen Moody

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 7:19?AM Kishor Kale via groups.io
<k.a.kale@...> wrote:

the same is generally true about Shakespeare as well – the vast

majority of Shakespeare lovers have probably not read a word of
Shakespeare’s plays ever, or at least since one course in high school or
college. But they do go to see him now and then in the theater or in film
adaptations.

Shakespeare’s plays were intended to be performed, not read.

On 10 Nov 2024, at 22:20, Arnie Perlstein via groups.io

<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

Ellen, it’s usually a woman, onlybecause men generally are so tuned

out about Austen. Better to be an Austen only-film lover than not to care
about Austen at all.

As I think about t, I think the same is generally true about

Shakespeare as well – the vast majority of Shakespeare lovers have probably
not read a word of Shakespeare’s plays ever, or at least since one course
in high school or college. But they do go to see him now and then in the
theater or in film adaptations.

All things considered, better to have the larger tent in each case,

which enables film adaptations to be made, even if not all of them are of
the highest quality.

Arnie

On Nov 10, 2024, at 11:45?AM, Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody=

[email protected]> wrote:

?At the large JASNAs and local groups. it's not been unommon for me

to meet a woman (usually a woman) who has only read Pride and Prejudice and
seen the other books in their movie form -- as if they were the same. So
also people who don't distinguish watching a movie from reading a book.
People taking adult ed courses in Austen who don't think it's necessary the
instructor have read MP -- to me unless you've read MP, you don't know this
author, and since Austen's oeuvre is so small (you can fit the fiction into
one fat volume), there's no excuse not to have read them all -- if you are
presenting yourself as someone who knows Austen.

Ellen

I disagree even vehemently with Kishor because what she asserts is so
often asserted. No. NO. Shakespeare's plays, especially when printed
in folios, were meant to be read. Readers in the 17th and 18th century
read plays. Early 19th century too. They are meant to be played and
read silently to the self

Ellen Moody

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 7:19?AM Kishor Kale via groups.io
<k.a.kale@...> wrote:

the same is generally true about Shakespeare as well – the vast majority of Shakespeare lovers have probably not read a word of Shakespeare’s plays ever, or at least since one course in high school or college. But they do go to see him now and then in the theater or in film adaptations.

Shakespeare’s plays were intended to be performed, not read.

On 10 Nov 2024, at 22:20, Arnie Perlstein via groups.io <arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

Ellen, it’s usually a woman, onlybecause men generally are so tuned out about Austen. Better to be an Austen only-film lover than not to care about Austen at all.

As I think about t, I think the same is generally true about Shakespeare as well – the vast majority of Shakespeare lovers have probably not read a word of Shakespeare’s plays ever, or at least since one course in high school or college. But they do go to see him now and then in the theater or in film adaptations.

All things considered, better to have the larger tent in each case, which enables film adaptations to be made, even if not all of them are of the highest quality.

Arnie

On Nov 10, 2024, at 11:45?AM, Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody@...> wrote:

?At the large JASNAs and local groups. it's not been unommon for me to meet a woman (usually a woman) who has only read Pride and Prejudice and seen the other books in their movie form -- as if they were the same. So also people who don't distinguish watching a movie from reading a book. People taking adult ed courses in Austen who don't think it's necessary the instructor have read MP -- to me unless you've read MP, you don't know this author, and since Austen's oeuvre is so small (you can fit the fiction into one fat volume), there's no excuse not to have read them all -- if you are presenting yourself as someone who knows Austen.

Ellen

CAROLINE: "Hello Arnie, I have looked at your examples, but I have to admit
I do not get it. Does it have something to do with the arrangement of the
words on the

page?"

Yes indeed, in a way....

CAROLINE: " Rhetorical figures like the anaphora? The pentameter? Please
enlighten me..."

Your wish is my command:

HAMLET (in HAMLET)
O, I die, Horatio;
T. The potent poison quite o'er-crows my spirit:
I I cannot live to hear the news from England;
B But I do prophesy the election lights
O On Fortinbras: he has my dying voice;
So tell him, with the occurrents, more and less,
Which have solicited. The rest is silence.


FRIAR LAURENCE (in ROMEO & JULIET)
Hold, then; go home, be merry, give consent
To marry Paris: Wednesday is to-morrow:
To-morrow night look that thou lie alone;
Let not thy nurse lie with thee in thy chamber:
Take thou this vial, being then in bed,
And this distilled liquor drink thou off;
When presently through all thy veins shall run
A cold and drowsy humour, for no pulse
Shall keep his native progress, but surcease:
No warmth, no breath, shall testify thou livest;
The roses in thy lips and cheeks shall fade
To paly ashes, thy eyes' windows fall,
Like death, when he shuts up the day of life;
Each part, deprived of supple government,
S Shall, stiff and stark and cold, appear like death:
A And in this borrow'd likeness of shrunk death
T Thou shalt continue two and forty hours,
A And then awake as from a pleasant sleep.
N. Now, when the bridegroom in the morning comes
To rouse thee from thy bed, there art thou dead:

TITANIA (in A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM)
O Out of this wood do not desire to go:
T Thou shalt remain here, whether thou wilt or no.
I I am a spirit of no common rate;
T The summer still doth tend upon my state;
AN An I do love thee: therefore, go with me;
I I'll give thee fairies to attend on thee,
A And they shall fetch thee jewels from the deep,
And sing while thou on pressed flowers dost sleep;

These can only be seen on the page, they would be not be detected from a
live performance, unless, perhaps, it was a 21st century performance in
which the dialog was displayed above the stage, with suitable highlighting.
So, clearly, Shakespeare meant for his plays to be both performed and read!

Note that these acrostics depend on their being situated in blank verse,
where, regardless of the edition of the play, the first letter in each line
would always be the same, preserving the acrostic.

ARNIE

Am 12.11.2024 um 03:43 schrieb Arnie Perlstein via groups.io:

Hi Caroline!! I hope you will be encouraged to post more from here on

in!

You have perfectly summarized what I meant, but I was not clear enough in
my hasty explanation to Kishor.

I only add two examples of what could ONLY be seen by reading

Shakespeare,

rather than by seeing a Shakespeare play performed,

Read the following two passages. Can you see what I am referring to in

each

case? (anyone who reads my blog should refrain from answering, to give
someone else a chance to spot my point):


HAMLET (in HAMLET)
O, I die, Horatio;
The potent poison quite o'er-crows my spirit:
I cannot live to hear the news from England;
But I do prophesy the election lights
On Fortinbras: he has my dying voice;
So tell him, with the occurrents, more and less,
Which have solicited. The rest is silence.


FRIAR LAURENCE (in ROMEO & JULIET)
Hold, then; go home, be merry, give consent
To marry Paris: Wednesday is to-morrow:
To-morrow night look that thou lie alone;
Let not thy nurse lie with thee in thy chamber:
Take thou this vial, being then in bed,
And this distilled liquor drink thou off;
When presently through all thy veins shall run
A cold and drowsy humour, for no pulse
Shall keep his native progress, but surcease:
No warmth, no breath, shall testify thou livest;
The roses in thy lips and cheeks shall fade
To paly ashes, thy eyes' windows fall,
Like death, when he shuts up the day of life;
Each part, deprived of supple government,
Shall, stiff and stark and cold, appear like death:
And in this borrow'd likeness of shrunk death
Thou shalt continue two and forty hours,
And then awake as from a pleasant sleep.
Now, when the bridegroom in the morning comes
To rouse thee from thy bed, there art thou dead:

TITANIA (in A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM)
Out of this wood do not desire to go:
Thou shalt remain here, whether thou wilt or no.
I am a spirit of no common rate;
The summer still doth tend upon my state;
And I do love thee: therefore, go with me;
I'll give thee fairies to attend on thee,
And they shall fetch thee jewels from the deep,
And sing while thou on pressed flowers dost sleep;

And there are a couple of dozen other such passages scattered throughout
Shakespeare's plays, all with the same "trick" that can only be seen on

the

page, not heard in a theatrical performance, but these are arguably the
three most memorable ones.

ARNIE


On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 1:24?PM dasauenland via groups.io <dasauenland=
[email protected]> wrote:

Dear All,

First of all, please excuse this way of quoting the previous posting;

I'll

try to find the correct settings for quoting the whole text. I've been a
reader of this group for many years (but I do not read every single
posting). I remember that I once or twice posted something, or answered

to

some message, but it was no longer possible. I suppose I had been

inactive

for too long.

Quote:
"the same is generally true about Shakespeare as well – the vast
majority of Shakespeare lovers have probably not read a word of
Shakespeare’s plays ever, or at least since one course in high school or
college. But they do go to see him now and then in the theater or in

film

adaptations." (by Arnie)

"Shakespeare’s plays were intended to be performed, not read." (by

Kishor)

That's true, of course, but still when a Shakespeare play is part of a
reading course/seminar, the usual way of analysing and understanding it

is

by close reading the text (and before that, or after, watching the
performance). The performance of the text is always an interpretation of
the stage director.

Caroline (lover of close reading ?)

Hello Arnie,

I have looked at your examples, but I have to admit I do not get it.?
Does it have something to do with the arrangement of the words on the
page? Rhetorical figures like the anaphora? The pentameter? Please
enlighten me...

Caroline

Am 12.11.2024 um 03:43 schrieb Arnie Perlstein via groups.io:

Hi Caroline!! I hope you will be encouraged to post more from here on in!

You have perfectly summarized what I meant, but I was not clear enough in
my hasty explanation to Kishor.

I only add two examples of what could ONLY be seen by reading Shakespeare,
rather than by seeing a Shakespeare play performed,

Read the following two passages. Can you see what I am referring to in each
case? (anyone who reads my blog should refrain from answering, to give
someone else a chance to spot my point):


HAMLET (in HAMLET)
O, I die, Horatio;
The potent poison quite o'er-crows my spirit:
I cannot live to hear the news from England;
But I do prophesy the election lights
On Fortinbras: he has my dying voice;
So tell him, with the occurrents, more and less,
Which have solicited. The rest is silence.


FRIAR LAURENCE (in ROMEO & JULIET)
Hold, then; go home, be merry, give consent
To marry Paris: Wednesday is to-morrow:
To-morrow night look that thou lie alone;
Let not thy nurse lie with thee in thy chamber:
Take thou this vial, being then in bed,
And this distilled liquor drink thou off;
When presently through all thy veins shall run
A cold and drowsy humour, for no pulse
Shall keep his native progress, but surcease:
No warmth, no breath, shall testify thou livest;
The roses in thy lips and cheeks shall fade
To paly ashes, thy eyes' windows fall,
Like death, when he shuts up the day of life;
Each part, deprived of supple government,
Shall, stiff and stark and cold, appear like death:
And in this borrow'd likeness of shrunk death
Thou shalt continue two and forty hours,
And then awake as from a pleasant sleep.
Now, when the bridegroom in the morning comes
To rouse thee from thy bed, there art thou dead:

TITANIA (in A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM)
Out of this wood do not desire to go:
Thou shalt remain here, whether thou wilt or no.
I am a spirit of no common rate;
The summer still doth tend upon my state;
And I do love thee: therefore, go with me;
I'll give thee fairies to attend on thee,
And they shall fetch thee jewels from the deep,
And sing while thou on pressed flowers dost sleep;

And there are a couple of dozen other such passages scattered throughout
Shakespeare's plays, all with the same "trick" that can only be seen on the
page, not heard in a theatrical performance, but these are arguably the
three most memorable ones.

ARNIE


On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 1:24?PM dasauenland via groups.io <dasauenland=
[email protected]> wrote:

Dear All,

First of all, please excuse this way of quoting the previous posting; I'll
try to find the correct settings for quoting the whole text. I've been a
reader of this group for many years (but I do not read every single
posting). I remember that I once or twice posted something, or answered to
some message, but it was no longer possible. I suppose I had been inactive
for too long.

Quote:
"the same is generally true about Shakespeare as well – the vast
majority of Shakespeare lovers have probably not read a word of
Shakespeare’s plays ever, or at least since one course in high school or
college. But they do go to see him now and then in the theater or in film
adaptations." (by Arnie)

"Shakespeare’s plays were intended to be performed, not read." (by Kishor)

That's true, of course, but still when a Shakespeare play is part of a
reading course/seminar, the usual way of analysing and understanding it is
by close reading the text (and before that, or after, watching the
performance). The performance of the text is always an interpretation of
the stage director.

Caroline (lover of close reading ?)

I am always being told that films and books are different media an are
handled in different ways. I can look at films and books differently when
the films aren't based on books I like. A reader sees different images than
most film directors and actress.
We saw Macbeth performed on a theatre in the round -- though it wasn't
completely round. The setting was merely boxes of various size covered
with a black fabric. However, the words an actions were true to
Shakespeare. People claim West Side Story was a good representation of the
emotions of Romeo and Juliet because it reflected the emotions of the
play though it wasn't a word for word presentation.What I don't care for
is something that is said to be an adaptation of a book but which shows
complete absence of any sympathy of the original. The MP where fannie is an
author, or where she is bouncing around chasing children. The P &P where
the bennets are shown living in a hovels with hogs running in and out.
I also disliked the play where they used the correct words but the leading
actress must have been closer to fifty than to 24.
N

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 4:24?PM dasauenland via groups.io <dasauenland=
[email protected]> wrote:

Dear All,

First of all, please excuse this way of quoting the previous posting; I'll
try to find the correct settings for quoting the whole text. I've been a
reader of this group for many years (but I do not read every single
posting). I remember that I once or twice posted something, or answered to
some message, but it was no longer possible. I suppose I had been inactive
for too long.

Quote:
"the same is generally true about Shakespeare as well – the vast
majority of Shakespeare lovers have probably not read a word of
Shakespeare’s plays ever, or at least since one course in high school or
college. But they do go to see him now and then in the theater or in film
adaptations." (by Arnie)

"Shakespeare’s plays were intended to be performed, not read." (by Kishor)

That's true, of course, but still when a Shakespeare play is part of a
reading course/seminar, the usual way of analysing and understanding it is
by close reading the text (and before that, or after, watching the
performance). The performance of the text is always an interpretation of
the stage director.

Caroline (lover of close reading ?)

Dear All,

First of all, please excuse this way of quoting the previous posting; I'll try to find the correct settings for quoting the whole text. I've been a reader of this group for many years (but I do not read every single posting). I remember that I once or twice posted something, or answered to some message, but it was no longer possible. I suppose I had been inactive for too long.

Quote:
"the same is generally true about Shakespeare as well – the vast majority of Shakespeare lovers have probably not read a word of Shakespeare’s plays ever, or at least since one course in high school or college. But they do go to see him now and then in the theater or in film adaptations." (by Arnie)

"Shakespeare’s plays were intended to be performed, not read." (by Kishor)

That's true, of course, but still when a Shakespeare play is part of a reading course/seminar, the usual way of analysing and understanding it is by close reading the text (and before that, or after, watching the performance). The performance of the text is always an interpretation of the stage director.

Caroline (lover of close reading ?)

the same is generally true about Shakespeare as well – the vast majority of Shakespeare lovers have probably not read a word of Shakespeare’s plays ever, or at least since one course in high school or college. But they do go to see him now and then in the theater or in film adaptations.

Shakespeare’s plays were intended to be performed, not read.

On 10 Nov 2024, at 22:20, Arnie Perlstein via groups.io <arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

Ellen, it’s usually a woman, onlybecause men generally are so tuned out about Austen. Better to be an Austen only-film lover than not to care about Austen at all.

As I think about t, I think the same is generally true about Shakespeare as well – the vast majority of Shakespeare lovers have probably not read a word of Shakespeare’s plays ever, or at least since one course in high school or college. But they do go to see him now and then in the theater or in film adaptations.

All things considered, better to have the larger tent in each case, which enables film adaptations to be made, even if not all of them are of the highest quality.

Arnie

On Nov 10, 2024, at 11:45?AM, Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody@...> wrote:

?At the large JASNAs and local groups. it's not been unommon for me to meet a woman (usually a woman) who has only read Pride and Prejudice and seen the other books in their movie form -- as if they were the same. So also people who don't distinguish watching a movie from reading a book. People taking adult ed courses in Austen who don't think it's necessary the instructor have read MP -- to me unless you've read MP, you don't know this author, and since Austen's oeuvre is so small (you can fit the fiction into one fat volume), there's no excuse not to have read them all -- if you are presenting yourself as someone who knows Austen.

Ellen

Well I loved Austen's P&P better than S&S when I was 12/13 when I
first read them in a set of English classics my father had on his
shelf. It was only after I had some ravaging sexual experience at 15
that I realized Elinor could provide a model for me to emulate to keep
myself safe, and it was not wrong to see in Marianne a 1790s version
of an abused teenager or girl in her twenties. Austen has Marianne as
more than a little to blame for her near self-destruction. Years later
I thought Austen was wrong for blaming the victim of the social codes,
and would now say (half-joking) Jane needed to have red Rescuing
Ophelia by Mary Pipher.

I did like Dorothy Sayers in my early 20s. At 10 and 11 I read Nancy
Drew and Judy Bolton mysteries.

Ellen

Ellen

On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 7:05?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io
<regencyresearcher@...> wrote:

Back in 1995 and for the next decade as the Austen adaptation films came
pout, we would have people coming to our local JASNA meetings. Most soon
left when they discovered that we did not sit around extolling the virtues
of Colin Firth or any of the other actors. Some declared they never read
a book; some said Austen was too hard and too intellectual. I refrained
from telling them that P&P was sold in a set with some other classics as
children's Classics. At one time, it was assumed that anyone who had been
in school to about age 14 could read Austen.
I confess that when I read P&P at about that age that I wasn't much
impressed. I was reading mystery stories.

On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 2:45?PM Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody=
[email protected]> wrote:

At the large JASNAs and local groups. it's not been unommon for me to meet
a woman (usually a woman) who has only read Pride and Prejudice and seen
the other books in their movie form -- as if they were the same. So also
people who don't distinguish watching a movie from reading a book. People
taking adult ed courses in Austen who don't think it's necessary the
instructor have read MP -- to me unless you've read MP, you don't know this
author, and since Austen's oeuvre is so small (you can fit the fiction into
one fat volume), there's no excuse not to have read them all -- if you are
presenting yourself as someone who knows Austen.

Ellen

Oh I don't agree with this. it is not better to have someone deluded
they are reading Auten or an Austen-like text. That erases her. In DC
increasingly plays labelled as by Shakespeare or a variation on him
turn out to be travesties, in effect attacks on a version of
Shakespeare that does not exist.
Poor editions are poor; editions doctored to embody a political agenda
erase the original text

Ellen

On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 5:25?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

Ellen, it’s usually a woman, onlybecause men generally are so tuned out about Austen. Better to be an Austen only-film lover than not to care about Austen at all.

As I think about t, I think the same is generally true about Shakespeare as well – the vast majority of Shakespeare lovers have probably not read a word of Shakespeare’s plays ever, or at least since one course in high school or college. But they do go to see him now and then in the theater or in film adaptations.

All things considered, better to have the larger tent in each case, which enables film adaptations to be made, even if not all of them are of the highest quality.

Arnie

On Nov 10, 2024, at 11:45?AM, Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody@...> wrote:

?At the large JASNAs and local groups. it's not been unommon for me to meet a woman (usually a woman) who has only read Pride and Prejudice and seen the other books in their movie form -- as if they were the same. So also people who don't distinguish watching a movie from reading a book. People taking adult ed courses in Austen who don't think it's necessary the instructor have read MP -- to me unless you've read MP, you don't know this author, and since Austen's oeuvre is so small (you can fit the fiction into one fat volume), there's no excuse not to have read them all -- if you are presenting yourself as someone who knows Austen.

Ellen

Back in 1995 and for the next decade as the Austen adaptation films came
pout, we would have people coming to our local JASNA meetings. Most soon
left when they discovered that we did not sit around extolling the virtues
of Colin Firth or any of the other actors. Some declared they never read
a book; some said Austen was too hard and too intellectual. I refrained
from telling them that P&P was sold in a set with some other classics as
children's Classics. At one time, it was assumed that anyone who had been
in school to about age 14 could read Austen.
I confess that when I read P&P at about that age that I wasn't much
impressed. I was reading mystery stories.

On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 2:45?PM Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody=
[email protected]> wrote:

At the large JASNAs and local groups. it's not been unommon for me to meet
a woman (usually a woman) who has only read Pride and Prejudice and seen
the other books in their movie form -- as if they were the same. So also
people who don't distinguish watching a movie from reading a book. People
taking adult ed courses in Austen who don't think it's necessary the
instructor have read MP -- to me unless you've read MP, you don't know this
author, and since Austen's oeuvre is so small (you can fit the fiction into
one fat volume), there's no excuse not to have read them all -- if you are
presenting yourself as someone who knows Austen.

Ellen

Ellen, it’s usually a woman, onlybecause men generally are so tuned out about Austen. Better to be an Austen only-film lover than not to care about Austen at all.

As I think about t, I think the same is generally true about Shakespeare as well – the vast majority of Shakespeare lovers have probably not read a word of Shakespeare’s plays ever, or at least since one course in high school or college. But they do go to see him now and then in the theater or in film adaptations.

All things considered, better to have the larger tent in each case, which enables film adaptations to be made, even if not all of them are of the highest quality.

Arnie

At the large JASNAs and local groups. it's not been unommon for me to meet a woman (usually a woman) who has only read Pride and Prejudice and seen the other books in their movie form -- as if they were the same. So also people who don't distinguish watching a movie from reading a book. People taking adult ed courses in Austen who don't think it's necessary the instructor have read MP -- to me unless you've read MP, you don't know this author, and since Austen's oeuvre is so small (you can fit the fiction into one fat volume), there's no excuse not to have read them all -- if you are presenting yourself as someone who knows Austen.

Ellen

The faults that people say they see in Emma and Fanny can be traced,, I
believe, to their childhoods. Emma is often accused of being self-centered,
proud , and arrogant. She is the typical little rich girl brought up in
almost isolation. Her only sibling was older than she so wasn't a good
playmate and they would rarely have to share toys or cakes. She was brought
up, in many ways , as an only child. She is competent at managing the house
and her father's eccentricities-- the latter with the help of the
housekeeper and cook- and Mr. Knightley---once she is shown her faults by
someone whose opinion she cares about, she does try to change.
Fanny was raised in a completely opposite manner. Far from being the petted
only child, she was one of several. She had her preposition in her family
but when she was sent to live with the Bertrams, she really had no place.
She was a relative but often treated more like a servant. She received a
decent education and valued it more than her female cousins. Because they
shut her out of their lives, Fanny had to live her life internally.
Austen didn't make cookie cutter characters. Though it is often a necessary
trope for novels that parents be dead or wicked, Austen does have many
characters who lost their mothers at a young age. Catherine Morland has
her mother as do the Marianne and her sister but neither mother is
involved with the girls' romances.