开云体育

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.

Ellen, I would think that they were using hyperbole when they said
they"hate" a character, except you know how vehement and nasty the Fanny
and Emma wars would get on Austen-L. . The combatants would take no
prisoners and accept no white flag. Th words used for Emma and Fanny were
not polite expressions of dislike.
The Jane Austen list on Yahoo was started as an alternate to Austen-L with
one major rule: Be nice.
Nancy

On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 10:54?AM Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody=
[email protected]> wrote:

Such people are using the word "hate" mindlessly. "Hate" is a
dangerous emotion. The person dislikes having to identify with Fanny
as heroine. I duislike aspects of Emma's character as realized by Jane
Austen and in some ways strongly because I feel Austen doesn't find
these as harmful and unjustified as I do. I always try to see a
character as created by an author inside a story shaped by the author.
Ellen

On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 10:29?AM Nancy Mayer via groups.io
<regencyresearcher@...> wrote:

Emma and Fanny Price are two characters that can rouse those discussing
them to violence/ As most of our discussions about them have been and are
online the violence is verbal and not physical. Why do they generate such
heat?
Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that many people who say

they

love Jane Austen either love Pride and Prejudice or the movies and TV
shows. They haven't always read all her books or studied her life.
Those who have read all of her books quite often sate that they hate

either

Emma or Fanny Price In some cases , the person hates both. hates a
character in a book? Why? Usually because the character isn't Elizabeth
Bennet or doest fit the reader's idea of a heroine of a story.

I have never disliked any of Austen's central ladies. Nor do I always take
Austen's pronouncements on her characters completely seriously, so that her
comment about making Emma someone only she could like makes me smile
because I think I can detect a tongue in cheek delivery. Emma, probably
the most privileged and flawed of the collection, nevertheless has true
affections, and many of her flaws come from a background that encourages
them rather than an innate fixture in her character. Fanny is kind of the
polar opposite of Emma, probably the least advantaged and least flawed of
the collection, with the least need to grow, learn and change. She's more
of the fixed point that characters find themselves turning to. She's also,
probably, the character whose story is most closely yoked to her
companion/antagonist, Mary Crawford. Fanny is unwilling, but Mary,
complex, definitely flawed, but ultimately more vulnerable than Fanny,
makes the most conscious moves to be close, sometimes out of self-interest,
but sometimes despite herself. I feel, sometimes, that Mary Crawford is
one of those characters who gets away from her creator and insists on being
something other than the original intent. Fanny's character strengthens as
a result in a way that's more complex and complete, I think, than, say
Elinor's development vis-a-vis Lucy Steele.

I know that people can be negative toward Catherine Morland, but I've
always been kind of charmed by her: she's so young, so inexperienced, so
eager. She has so much to learn, in a way completely counter to what Emma
has to learn, and I love her.

In haste,

Maria

On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 2:57?PM Stephanie Vardavas via groups.io <vardavas=
[email protected]> wrote:

Personally, I have never felt a need to identify with any of Austen's
central characters.

When I first read the books I assessed the characters as to whether I would
like to be their friend. One of the reasons I started out liking P&P so
much is that I felt it would be fun to be friends with Elizabeth Bennet.
And one of the reasons I have struggled with Mansfield Park is that Fanny
doesn't seem like much fun.

Having said that, over the years I have come to appreciate Fanny more. She
is loyal and thoughtful, both excellent qualities in a friend, even if she
never reaches the point where I think she'd be fun to know. (Mary Crawford,
whatever else you think about her, would be much more fun to know.)

I like Emma because I think she'd also be fun to know, but in a somewhat
different way. Even the first time, I never disliked her as much as Austen
apparently expected me to.


On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 10:39?AM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

ELLEN: " I dislike aspects of Emma's character as realized by Jane Austen
and in some ways strongly because I feel Austen doesn't find these as
harmful and unjustified as I do."

Ellen, I believe Austen 100% meant for her closest readers to see Emma

in a

very negative light, even at the end of the novel, when she is convinced
that she is no longer so selfish but instead has become empathic toward
those less fortunate. Just under the surface, this is a devastating
portrait, of a privileged, rationalizing, selfish being - very much like
Jane Austen's niece Fanny - a person who never reaches self-awareness.

The

characters in Emma whom Austen cares for most are Jane, Harriet, and Miss
Bates - the underdogs.

NANCY: " Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that many people

who

say they love Jane Austen either love Pride and Prejudice or the movies
and TV shows. They haven't always read all her books or studied her

life.

That's a good insight, Nancy, I'd say the latter group is no more than
10-15% of the total.

NANCY: "Those who have read all of her books quite often state that they
hate either Emma or Fanny Price In some cases , the person hates both.
hates character in a book? Why? Usually because the character isn't
Elizabeth Bennet or doest fit the reader's idea of a heroine of a story."

In many cases, that sounds like a good guess, but not all.

ARNIE

--
NOTE: Effective February 1, 2022, my office hours are from 12 noon to 5 pm,
Monday through Friday, and by appointment during other hours.
<

Stephanie Vardavas
stephanievardavas.com
<

*Specializing
in product safety and regulatory compliance for consumer products, as well
as licensing and sports marketing, including sponsorships and endorsements.
Also supporting nonprofits and simple trademark registrations.*

*Pronouns: she/her/hers*

*This email may be confidential and privileged. If you have received it in
error, please respond to advise sender of the error and then delete the
email and any attachments. Thank you.*

Personally, I have never felt a need to identify with any of Austen's
central characters.

When I first read the books I assessed the characters as to whether I would
like to be their friend. One of the reasons I started out liking P&P so
much is that I felt it would be fun to be friends with Elizabeth Bennet.
And one of the reasons I have struggled with Mansfield Park is that Fanny
doesn't seem like much fun.

Having said that, over the years I have come to appreciate Fanny more. She
is loyal and thoughtful, both excellent qualities in a friend, even if she
never reaches the point where I think she'd be fun to know. (Mary Crawford,
whatever else you think about her, would be much more fun to know.)

I like Emma because I think she'd also be fun to know, but in a somewhat
different way. Even the first time, I never disliked her as much as Austen
apparently expected me to.


On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 10:39?AM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

ELLEN: " I dislike aspects of Emma's character as realized by Jane Austen
and in some ways strongly because I feel Austen doesn't find these as
harmful and unjustified as I do."

Ellen, I believe Austen 100% meant for her closest readers to see Emma in a
very negative light, even at the end of the novel, when she is convinced
that she is no longer so selfish but instead has become empathic toward
those less fortunate. Just under the surface, this is a devastating
portrait, of a privileged, rationalizing, selfish being - very much like
Jane Austen's niece Fanny - a person who never reaches self-awareness. The
characters in Emma whom Austen cares for most are Jane, Harriet, and Miss
Bates - the underdogs.

NANCY: " Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that many people who
say they love Jane Austen either love Pride and Prejudice or the movies
and TV shows. They haven't always read all her books or studied her life.

That's a good insight, Nancy, I'd say the latter group is no more than
10-15% of the total.

NANCY: "Those who have read all of her books quite often state that they
hate either Emma or Fanny Price In some cases , the person hates both.
hates character in a book? Why? Usually because the character isn't
Elizabeth Bennet or doest fit the reader's idea of a heroine of a story."

In many cases, that sounds like a good guess, but not all.

ARNIE

--
NOTE: Effective February 1, 2022, my office hours are from 12 noon to 5 pm,
Monday through Friday, and by appointment during other hours.
<>
Stephanie Vardavas
stephanievardavas.com
<>
*Specializing
in product safety and regulatory compliance for consumer products, as well
as licensing and sports marketing, including sponsorships and endorsements.
Also supporting nonprofits and simple trademark registrations.*

*Pronouns: she/her/hers*

*This email may be confidential and privileged. If you have received it in
error, please respond to advise sender of the error and then delete the
email and any attachments. Thank you.*

ELLEN: " I dislike aspects of Emma's character as realized by Jane Austen
and in some ways strongly because I feel Austen doesn't find these as
harmful and unjustified as I do."

Ellen, I believe Austen 100% meant for her closest readers to see Emma in a
very negative light, even at the end of the novel, when she is convinced
that she is no longer so selfish but instead has become empathic toward
those less fortunate. Just under the surface, this is a devastating
portrait, of a privileged, rationalizing, selfish being - very much like
Jane Austen's niece Fanny - a person who never reaches self-awareness. The
characters in Emma whom Austen cares for most are Jane, Harriet, and Miss
Bates - the underdogs.

NANCY: " Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that many people who
say they love Jane Austen either love Pride and Prejudice or the movies
and TV shows. They haven't always read all her books or studied her life.

That's a good insight, Nancy, I'd say the latter group is no more than
10-15% of the total.

NANCY: "Those who have read all of her books quite often state that they
hate either Emma or Fanny Price In some cases , the person hates both.
hates character in a book? Why? Usually because the character isn't
Elizabeth Bennet or doest fit the reader's idea of a heroine of a story."

In many cases, that sounds like a good guess, but not all.

ARNIE

Such people are using the word "hate" mindlessly. "Hate" is a
dangerous emotion. The person dislikes having to identify with Fanny
as heroine. I duislike aspects of Emma's character as realized by Jane
Austen and in some ways strongly because I feel Austen doesn't find
these as harmful and unjustified as I do. I always try to see a
character as created by an author inside a story shaped by the author.
Ellen

On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 10:29?AM Nancy Mayer via groups.io
<regencyresearcher@...> wrote:

Emma and Fanny Price are two characters that can rouse those discussing
them to violence/ As most of our discussions about them have been and are
online the violence is verbal and not physical. Why do they generate such
heat?
Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that many people who say they
love Jane Austen either love Pride and Prejudice or the movies and TV
shows. They haven't always read all her books or studied her life.
Those who have read all of her books quite often sate that they hate either
Emma or Fanny Price In some cases , the person hates both. hates a
character in a book? Why? Usually because the character isn't Elizabeth
Bennet or doest fit the reader's idea of a heroine of a story.

Emma and Fanny Price are two characters that can rouse those discussing
them to violence/ As most of our discussions about them have been and are
online the violence is verbal and not physical. Why do they generate such
heat?
Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that many people who say they
love Jane Austen either love Pride and Prejudice or the movies and TV
shows. They haven't always read all her books or studied her life.
Those who have read all of her books quite often sate that they hate either
Emma or Fanny Price In some cases , the person hates both. hates a
character in a book? Why? Usually because the character isn't Elizabeth
Bennet or doest fit the reader's idea of a heroine of a story.

Charlotte Smith was mentioned in a letter in the March/April 2024 issue of the British _Mensa Magazine_, and also in the Spring 2024 _Wilkie Collins Society Newsletter_.

When one is in school or when I was in school. few women worked outside of
the home.Even during the war, those that did work outside of the home
were mostly blue collar workers and not leaders of anything. Women like
Eleanor Roosevelt were known and could do things because of her husband.
Most of the women we read about were wives or poets. It never occurred to
me , or I daresay, any of my female classmates to wonder why there were no
women presidents,

I assure you, it was occurring to enough of them to struggle tirelessly to
gain women's suffrage. I bet many women suffered in angry silence.

That thought of Catherine Morland's was straight from the pen of Jane
Austen. I doubt Catherine would have thought it at her age.

Well, that's just it - I think Catherine is the closest of any of Austen's
heroines to the author herself.

Though ;after
in the 19th century, Queen Victoria made an impression on the world as a
female ruler who married and had children, her example wasn't considered
one that females in her empire or exemire should think to follow. In fact,
I would say, that during the reign of Victoria, the idea of women belonging
to Kitchen, church, and Children was intensified.

If so, that's very sad indeed. Perhaps part of it was the same dynamic as
the virulent reaction to Obama's presidency - powerful. men, perhaps
feeling threatened by Victoria's long reign, doubled down on making sure
she didn't become a role model for females to aspire to.

ARNIE

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 6:37?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

Nancy,

But what does it matter if we can name all the US presidents in order (as
apparently I was able to do at a very young age, to the great pleasure of
my parents) - perhaps the most relevant fact about them to note,

following

Catherine Morland's (and therefore also Jane Austen's) example, is that
they have all been men, and, except for one, very late in the game, also
all white.

ARNIE

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 3:24?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io
<regencyresearcher=
[email protected]> wrote:

I am with Catherine on parts of history. One really needs several

charts

to keeptrack of some of it. It does appear that the kings were always
fighting one another and disputing matters with the Pope. One King

thought

Paris was worth a mass and another tossed most of the church

organization

away to have his own way. At least by the 18th century in England, it
became easier to keep track of the kings than of the presidents of the

USA

.During the time of George III and Victoria, there were many

presidents

.

I do like much of history but have always had trouble with naming the
presidents in Order as much as I have trouble with the kings of England
from Richard I to Henry VIII. Nancy

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 5:30?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

It’s still 85%+ women at JASNA AGMs - most men just haven’t gotten

the

memo.

Like Catherine Morland insightfully pointed out about history:

“I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing that does not
either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars or
pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and

hardly

any

women at all — it is very tiresome.”

Sad to say, not much has changed since then. Women are still

erasable.

Arnie

On Nov 8, 2024, at 2:21?PM, Nancy Mayer via groups.io

<regencyresearcher@...> wrote:

?Dale Spender collected books and biographies of 100 female authors

before Jane Austen. Authors she felt should have some recognition, if

only

that of paving the way for Austen. One of the authors was Inchbald.

Though

Inchbald was in many ways more a translator than original writer, she

did

write two novels. We know her best for the English translation of the

play,

Lovers'Vows.

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 5:10?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io

<regencyresearcher=

[email protected]> wrote:

Most of the female authors of the time before and during the life

of

Jane Austen are barely known and rarely discussed. The one who are

at

least remembered in academic papers are mostly remembered because

Austen

mentioned them in a letter or her books.

When one is in school or when I was in school. few women worked outside of
the home.Even during the war, those that did work outside of the home
were mostly blue collar workers and not leaders of anything. Women like
Eleanor Roosevelt were known and could do things because of her husband.
Most of the women we read about were wives or poets. It never occurred to
me , or I daresay, any of my female classmates to wonder why there were no
women presidents,
That thought of Catherine Morland's was straight from the pen of Jane
Austen. I doubt Catherine would have thought it at her age. Though ;after
in the 19th century, Queen Victoria made an impression on the world as a
female ruler who married and had children, her example wasn't considered
one that females in her empire or exemire should think to follow. In fact,
I would say, that during the reign of Victoria, the idea of women belonging
to Kitchen, church, and Children was intensified.

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 6:37?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

Nancy,

But what does it matter if we can name all the US presidents in order (as
apparently I was able to do at a very young age, to the great pleasure of
my parents) - perhaps the most relevant fact about them to note, following
Catherine Morland's (and therefore also Jane Austen's) example, is that
they have all been men, and, except for one, very late in the game, also
all white.

ARNIE

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 3:24?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io
<regencyresearcher=
[email protected]> wrote:

I am with Catherine on parts of history. One really needs several charts
to keeptrack of some of it. It does appear that the kings were always
fighting one another and disputing matters with the Pope. One King

thought

Paris was worth a mass and another tossed most of the church

organization

away to have his own way. At least by the 18th century in England, it
became easier to keep track of the kings than of the presidents of the

USA

.During the time of George III and Victoria, there were many presidents

.

I do like much of history but have always had trouble with naming the
presidents in Order as much as I have trouble with the kings of England
from Richard I to Henry VIII. Nancy

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 5:30?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

It’s still 85%+ women at JASNA AGMs - most men just haven’t gotten the

memo.

Like Catherine Morland insightfully pointed out about history:

“I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing that does not
either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars or
pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and hardly

any

women at all — it is very tiresome.”

Sad to say, not much has changed since then. Women are still erasable.

Arnie

On Nov 8, 2024, at 2:21?PM, Nancy Mayer via groups.io

<regencyresearcher@...> wrote:

?Dale Spender collected books and biographies of 100 female authors

before Jane Austen. Authors she felt should have some recognition, if

only

that of paving the way for Austen. One of the authors was Inchbald.

Though

Inchbald was in many ways more a translator than original writer, she

did

write two novels. We know her best for the English translation of the

play,

Lovers'Vows.

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 5:10?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io

<regencyresearcher=

[email protected]> wrote:

Most of the female authors of the time before and during the life of

Jane Austen are barely known and rarely discussed. The one who are at
least remembered in academic papers are mostly remembered because

Austen

mentioned them in a letter or her books.

Nancy,

But what does it matter if we can name all the US presidents in order (as
apparently I was able to do at a very young age, to the great pleasure of
my parents) - perhaps the most relevant fact about them to note, following
Catherine Morland's (and therefore also Jane Austen's) example, is that
they have all been men, and, except for one, very late in the game, also
all white.

ARNIE

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 3:24?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io <regencyresearcher=
[email protected]> wrote:

I am with Catherine on parts of history. One really needs several charts
to keeptrack of some of it. It does appear that the kings were always
fighting one another and disputing matters with the Pope. One King thought
Paris was worth a mass and another tossed most of the church organization
away to have his own way. At least by the 18th century in England, it
became easier to keep track of the kings than of the presidents of the USA
.During the time of George III and Victoria, there were many presidents .
I do like much of history but have always had trouble with naming the
presidents in Order as much as I have trouble with the kings of England
from Richard I to Henry VIII. Nancy

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 5:30?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

It’s still 85%+ women at JASNA AGMs - most men just haven’t gotten the

memo.

Like Catherine Morland insightfully pointed out about history:

“I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing that does not
either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars or
pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and hardly

any

women at all — it is very tiresome.”

Sad to say, not much has changed since then. Women are still erasable.

Arnie

On Nov 8, 2024, at 2:21?PM, Nancy Mayer via groups.io

<regencyresearcher@...> wrote:

?Dale Spender collected books and biographies of 100 female authors

before Jane Austen. Authors she felt should have some recognition, if

only

that of paving the way for Austen. One of the authors was Inchbald.

Though

Inchbald was in many ways more a translator than original writer, she

did

write two novels. We know her best for the English translation of the

play,

Lovers'Vows.

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 5:10?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io

<regencyresearcher=

[email protected]> wrote:

Most of the female authors of the time before and during the life of

Jane Austen are barely known and rarely discussed. The one who are at
least remembered in academic papers are mostly remembered because Austen

mentioned them in a letter or her books.

I am with Catherine on parts of history. One really needs several charts to
keeptrack of some of it. It does appear that the kings were always fighting
one another and disputing matters with the Pope. One King thought Paris
was worth a mass and another tossed most of the church organization away
to have his own way. At least by the 18th century in England, it became
easier to keep track of the kings than of the presidents of the USA .During
the time of George III and Victoria, there were many presidents . I do
like much of history but have always had trouble with naming the presidents
in Order as much as I have trouble with the kings of England from Richard I
to Henry VIII.
Nancy

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 5:30?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

It’s still 85%+ women at JASNA AGMs - most men just haven’t gotten the
memo.

Like Catherine Morland insightfully pointed out about history:

“I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing that does not
either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars or
pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and hardly any
women at all — it is very tiresome.”

Sad to say, not much has changed since then. Women are still erasable.

Arnie

On Nov 8, 2024, at 2:21?PM, Nancy Mayer via groups.io

<regencyresearcher@...> wrote:

?Dale Spender collected books and biographies of 100 female authors

before Jane Austen. Authors she felt should have some recognition, if only
that of paving the way for Austen. One of the authors was Inchbald. Though
Inchbald was in many ways more a translator than original writer, she did
write two novels. We know her best for the English translation of the play,
Lovers'Vows.

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 5:10?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io

<regencyresearcher=

[email protected]> wrote:

Most of the female authors of the time before and during the life of

Jane Austen are barely known and rarely discussed. The one who are at
least remembered in academic papers are mostly remembered because Austen

mentioned them in a letter or her books.

I do not know why messages go off early.
Charlotte was married rather young to a man who was said to be an heir to
wealth. He was very good at lying. When he was sent to Debtors'Prison,
Charlotte and the children went with him. He spent what money he had on a
prostitute when there. Charlotte started writing novels to support herself
and the children.Her bitterness shows in at least some of her work.Her
father-in law left his estate to her and her children but legal ambiguities
in the will allowed hs children to contest the legacy. The case was in the
courts for at least ten years. As usual, the lawyers got most of the money.
Smith's novels ceased selling well so she returned to poetry and
translations. Her novels showed disadvantages a wife faced and how the
laws made it difficult for wives. She was an abolitionist. Despite her
numerous publications she died in poverty.
This is a very abridged and general biography of Charlotte Smith,; there
are many web pages about her.
Nancy

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 5:32?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io <regencyresearcher=
[email protected]> wrote:

Charlotte Smith's life is very similar , in a way, to that of Mary
Robinson-- whois better known to history as Perdita,
Charlotte never became any man's mistress.


On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 5:18?PM Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody=
[email protected]> wrote:

I think it is true that most of the female authors before or around
the time of Jane Auste are known only if they are connected with some
famous person.
Charlotte Smith is amon those who has no name recognition outside 18th
century, literary feminist and romantic scholars groups. Ellen

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 5:10?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io
<regencyresearcher@...> wrote:

Most of the female authors of the time before and during the life of

Jane

Austen are barely known and rarely discussed. The one who are at least
remembered in academic papers are mostly remembered because Austen
mentioned them in a letter or her books.

Charlotte Smith's life is very similar , in a way, to that of Mary
Robinson-- whois better known to history as Perdita,
Charlotte never became any man's mistress.


On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 5:18?PM Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody=
[email protected]> wrote:

I think it is true that most of the female authors before or around
the time of Jane Auste are known only if they are connected with some
famous person.
Charlotte Smith is amon those who has no name recognition outside 18th
century, literary feminist and romantic scholars groups. Ellen

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 5:10?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io
<regencyresearcher@...> wrote:

Most of the female authors of the time before and during the life of Jane
Austen are barely known and rarely discussed. The one who are at least
remembered in academic papers are mostly remembered because Austen
mentioned them in a letter or her books.

It’s still 85%+ women at JASNA AGMs - most men just haven’t gotten the memo.

Like Catherine Morland insightfully pointed out about history:

“I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing that does not either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars or pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and hardly any women at all — it is very tiresome.”

Sad to say, not much has changed since then. Women are still erasable.

Arnie