开云体育

It's in 3 parts, the script by Andrea Gib, the director is Aisling
Walsh whose series are often excellent.

It's done in the old-fashioned way: genuine scenes, no ratcheting up,
acted subtly and yes Keeley Hawes is pitch perfect. But I was
unexpectedly disappointed from which I learned something. Although
Hornby's book is not an epistolary novel, it is so filled with
letters, and they convey the heartblood of the story, to see it done
so objectively lost something. They needed to do more filmic
epistolarity -- I've seen it done by Nokes for Clarissa, by Andrew
Davies for passages in Trollope's novels. It makes me want to reread
the book, and I shall

A kind Irish friend sent me a DVD copy ahead of time.

Ellen

8ar outstanding; books in their own right. 4 borderline. 2 screenplays
so good they are readable in their own right. Some screenplays made
good movies nut are blueprints. And I've tried -- genuinely -- 24 more
which are dreadful/trash ...

Ellen I'm thinking of doing the same with Austen movies now that there
are so many, and recent ones truly dreadful/trash.

It's a friendly newsletter-journal.

Ellen
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <jnleditor3@...>
Date: Sat, Mar 1, 2025 at 7:17?PM
Subject: FW: First Born-Digital Issue of The Johnsonian News Letter
To: <jnleditor3@...>




Dear Friends,



The first born-digital issue of the Johnsonian News Letter, Volume
LXXVI, No. 2, can now be viewed online at this address:







We also have an archive of back issues going back to 1940, at this address:







The JNL is now being put out twice a year and offered to all who wish
to receive it, at no cost. Please forward this email to anybody you
think might be interested in receiving the JNL.



If you wish to be removed from our subscription/notification list,
please respond to this email and we will remove you.



Cordially,



Matthew M. Davis

Editor

Anxiety and fretfulness are a form of excitement. Mrs Bennet has a dull life except for the excitement she creates for herself.

I just came across a passage of narration in P&P Chapter 53, which I find to be a perfect example of narration which might at first, while reading or rereading quickly, seem like an objective narrator’s point of view, but which, upon close reading, is then seen to be Elizabeth’s (unacknowledged) point of view.

It describes Mrs. Bennet’s impatience for Bingley, recently returned to Netherfield after his long absence, to somehow meet again with Jane:

“Mr. Bingley arrived. Mrs. Bennet, through the assistance of servants, contrived to have the earliest tidings of it, that the period of anxiety and fretfulness on her side be as long as it could.”

This is clearly Elizabeth’s sarcastic judgment that her mother’s desire to know the exact moment when Bingley arrives is masochistic, since knowing sooner will not make her mother’s wish come true any faster, it will only lengthen the time during which Mrs. Bennet frets, which will then be very unplesant for Elizabeth – and, as sarcasm goes, I think it’s pretty witty and funny.

Arnie

I've just finished participating in a splendid zoom seminar (2 hours)
from Cambridge UP. Dr Alison Hennigan is usually superb and she
managed to elicit very interesting talk on P&P from the aspect of
looking at indoor space as a home (or the opposite). I learned of a
new sequel by Gill Hornby (who wrote Miss Austen), Godmersham Park. If
I'm not mistaken, it was said Austen's friendship with Anne Sharpe is
a feature of it



Ellen

There is no mention of coverts, but in chapter 39 of _Emma_, Harriet and Miss Bickerton are terrified by aggressive gypsies in a part of the Richmond Road that is "deeply shaded by elms on each side". "It became for a considerable stretch very retired", and opens to a small greensward. That sounds like a wooded area with a clearing.

Not a sign of the times but a suggestion of where they lived. Though the
Knightly estate was rather large, it was pretty much within the village and
didn't have much uncultivated land, woods or quarries. Even the hill on
which they had the picnic didn't have much cover for game birds. I would
say that they didn't do much shooting because they didn't have many game
birds around and the farmers and others shot the crows and other birds that
would attack the fields of grain.
Meryton was a village as well but the property that Bingley leased appears
to have been out a bit and had more uncultivated land where game birds
could be found.
The Game laws regulated who could shoot and at what when but still one
needed to have a property that was suitable for game birds to nest in and
raise young.
On the other hand, though fishing could take place any time of the year,
there was no shooting from around March or earlier to August. One didn't
go shooting during nesting season or when the adult birds were feeding the
young.
The country around where Emma lives was probably not suitable for the Hunt.
That also was a chilly weather activity and was generally from October
through a mild January.
Nancy

Dorothy,

Thank you for your well-considered response!

It's a very interesting social history question as to whether gentlemanly
enthusiasm for hunting was beginning to wane by the time JA wrote Emma. I
don't have time to research that question today, but maybe Nancy will
already have some insight into it?

I will confess that I was being sly in the way I posed my question –– in my
reference to hunting NONHUMAN animals. It is my belief that in Emma, Jane
Austen covertly depicted the metaphorical hunt for HUMAN animals, and
hinted at this theme via (who else?) Shakespeare.

Here are the passages in Emma that illustrate this theme, can you tell
which Shakespeare plays I'm talking about?:

Ch. 5:

[Knightley]: “…I do not pretend to Emma’s genius for *foretelling* and
guessing. I hope, with all my *heart*, the young man may be a Weston in
merit, and a Churchill in fortune.—But Harriet Smith—I have not half done
about Harriet Smith. I think her the very worst sort of companion that Emma
could possibly have. She knows nothing herself, and looks upon Emma as
knowing every thing. She is a flatterer in all her ways; and so much the
worse, because undesigned. Her ignorance is hourly flattery. How can Emma
imagine she has any thing to learn herself, while Harriet is presenting
such a delightful inferiority? And as for Harriet, I will venture to say
that *she* cannot gain by the acquaintance. *Hartfield* will only put her
out of conceit with all the other places she belongs to.…”



Ch. 9:

[Emma]: “…You and Mr. Elton are by situation called together; you belong to
one another by every circumstance of your respective homes. Your marrying
will be equal to the match at Randalls. There does seem to be *a something
in the air of Hartfield* which gives love exactly the right direction, and
sends it into the very channel where it ought to flow.

The *course *of true love never did run smooth—

A *Hartfield edition of Shakespeare* would have a long note on that
辫补蝉蝉补驳别.”



Ch. 23:

Small *heart* had Harriet for visiting. Only half an hour before her friend
called for her at Mrs. Goddard’s, *her* *evil stars* had led her to the
very spot where, at that moment, a trunk, directed to The Rev. Philip
Elton, White-*Hart*, Bath, was to be seen under the operation of being
lifted into the *butcher’s* cart, which was to convey it to where the
coaches past; and every thing in this world, excepting that trunk and the
direction, was consequently a blank.

….

“Will Mr. Frank Churchill pass through Bath as well as Oxford?”—was a
question, however, *which did not augur much.*



Ch. 26:

While waiting till the other young people could pair themselves off, Emma
found time, in spite of the compliments she was receiving on her voice and
her taste, to look about, and see what became of Mr. Knightley. This would
be a trial. He was no dancer in general. If he were to be very alert in
engaging Jane Fairfax now, *it might augur something*. There was no
immediate appearance. No; he was talking to Mrs. Cole—he was looking on
unconcerned; Jane was asked by somebody else, and he was still talking to
Mrs. Cole.



Ch. 47:

Why was the evil so dreadfully increased by Harriet’s having some hope of a
return? *It darted through her, with the speed of an arrow*, that Mr.
Knightley must marry no one but herself!



Ch. 49:

She felt for Harriet, with pain and with contrition; but no flight of
generosity run mad, opposing all that could be probable or reasonable,
entered her brain. She had led her friend astray, and it would be a
reproach to her for ever; but her judgment was as strong as her feelings,
and as strong as it had ever been before, in reprobating any such alliance
for him, as most unequal and degrading. Her way was clear, though not quite
*smooth*.—She spoke then, on being so entreated.—What did she say?—Just
what she ought, of course. A lady always does.—She said enough to shew
there need not be despair—and to invite him to say more himself. He
*had* despaired
at one period; he had received such an injunction to caution and silence,
as for the time crushed every hope;—she had begun by refusing to hear
him.—The change had perhaps been somewhat sudden;—her proposal of taking
another turn, her renewing the conversation which she had just put an end
to, might be a little extraordinary!—She felt its inconsistency; but Mr.
Knightley was so obliging as to put up with it, and seek no farther
explanation.

Seldom, very seldom, does complete truth belong to any human disclosure;
seldom can it happen that something is not a little disguised, or a little
mistaken; but where, as in this case, though the conduct is mistaken, the
feelings are not, it may not be very material.—Mr. Knightley could not
impute to Emma a more relenting *heart* than she possessed, or a *heart *more
disposed to accept of his.


Cheers,

ARNIE

On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 8:59?AM Dorothy Gannon via groups.io
<dorothy.gannon@...> wrote:

I believe you’re right, Arnie. There is also, in Emma, no mention of
grounds, coverts, etc., in which the landowner might hunt or shoot game.
We’re given descriptions of other aspects of the property of the two main
landowners – the Knightly and Woodhouse estates. Gardens, gravel walks,
strawberry beds, and avenues of trees meant for strolling or admiring the
view. Mr Martin’s farm has a summer house. Again, all of these civilized
pursuits. Also, from what we’re told, landowners have flocks of turkeys,
pigs, etc., which supply them their meats.

Mrs Collins has cows and poultry – though Mrs Norris has none – she's
probably spunging off Mansfield, whose poultry yard and dairy maid she
intends to use to hatch the four pheasants’ eggs she’s given by Sotherton’s
housekeeper.

Was this perhaps a sign of the times? The more modern gentleman and
landowner, who need not go out and shoot a brace of partridge to supply his
kitchen?

Dorothy


Arnie wrote:

ME, EARLIER: "Tell me if I'm wrong, but it occurred to me this morning
that *Emma* is the one of the six completed novels which has no character
who hunts nonhuman animals. Have I missed something?"

ELLEN'S REPLY: "Do all six novels have hunting scenes? Or shooting birds?
S&S we are told of this; MP, Persuasion they go shooting. Henry Tilley has
hunting guns in his room but in the novel does he hunt or shoot?. That
leaves P&P where men go fishing. I don’t remember any hunting, shooting or
fishing in P&P"

Ellen, I didn't say that the other 5 novels besides* Emma* have hunting
scenes, only that the other 5 novels have characters who hunt nonhuman
animals.

NA: Henry Tilney has hunting dogs, and John Thorpe shoots.
S&S: Willoughby hunts.

P&P: Bingley shoots birds and Darcy & Mr. Gardener fish for trout.

MP: Henry Crawford is a hunter with dogs.

Persuasion: Wentworth and Charles shoot together.


It's very interesting, therefore, that* Emma* does not include any
indication of hunting of nonhuman animals.

I believe you’re right, Arnie. There is also, in Emma, no mention of grounds, coverts, etc., in which the landowner might hunt or shoot game. We’re given descriptions of other aspects of the property of the two main landowners – the Knightly and Woodhouse estates. Gardens, gravel walks, strawberry beds, and avenues of trees meant for strolling or admiring the view. Mr Martin’s farm has a summer house. Again, all of these civilized pursuits. Also, from what we’re told, landowners have flocks of turkeys, pigs, etc., which supply them their meats.

Mrs Collins has cows and poultry – though Mrs Norris has none – she's probably spunging off Mansfield, whose poultry yard and dairy maid she intends to use to hatch the four pheasants’ eggs she’s given by Sotherton’s housekeeper.

Was this perhaps a sign of the times? The more modern gentleman and landowner, who need not go out and shoot a brace of partridge to supply his kitchen?

Dorothy


Arnie wrote:

ME, EARLIER: "Tell me if I'm wrong, but it occurred to me this morning
that *Emma* is the one of the six completed novels which has no character
who hunts nonhuman animals. Have I missed something?"

ELLEN'S REPLY: "Do all six novels have hunting scenes? Or shooting birds?
S&S we are told of this; MP, Persuasion they go shooting. Henry Tilley has
hunting guns in his room but in the novel does he hunt or shoot?. That
leaves P&P where men go fishing. I don’t remember any hunting, shooting or
fishing in P&P"

Ellen, I didn't say that the other 5 novels besides* Emma* have hunting
scenes, only that the other 5 novels have characters who hunt nonhuman
animals.

NA: Henry Tilney has hunting dogs, and John Thorpe shoots.
S&S: Willoughby hunts.

P&P: Bingley shoots birds and Darcy & Mr. Gardener fish for trout.

MP: Henry Crawford is a hunter with dogs.

Persuasion: Wentworth and Charles shoot together.


It's very interesting, therefore, that* Emma* does not include any
indication of hunting of nonhuman animals.

The two heroes, Mr knightlry and Mr Martin are wholly decent men. From his handwriting, Churchill is presented as effeminate: Mr Elton is also not manly; Mrs E is a bully. Ellen

ME, EARLIER: "Tell me if I'm wrong, but it occurred to me this morning
that *Emma* is the one of the six completed novels which has no character
who hunts nonhuman animals. Have I missed something?"

ELLEN'S REPLY: "Do all six novels have hunting scenes? Or shooting birds?
S&S we are told of this; MP, Persuasion they go shooting. Henry Tilley has
hunting guns in his room but in the novel does he hunt or shoot?. That
leaves P&P where men go fishing. I don’t remember any hunting, shooting or
fishing in P&P"

Ellen, I didn't say that the other 5 novels besides* Emma* have hunting
scenes, only that the other 5 novels have characters who hunt nonhuman
animals.

NA: Henry Tilney has hunting dogs, and John Thorpe shoots.
S&S: Willoughby hunts.

P&P: Bingley shoots birds and Darcy & Mr. Gardener fish for trout.

MP: Henry Crawford is a hunter with dogs.

Persuasion: Wentworth and Charles shoot together.


It's very interesting, therefore, that* Emma* does not include any
indication of hunting of nonhuman animals.


ARNIE

Do all six novels have hunting scenes? Or shooting birds?

s&S we are told of this; MP,Persuasion they go shooting. Henry Tilley has hunting guns in his room but in the novel does he hunt or shoot?. That leaves P&P where men go fishing. I don’t remember any hunting, shooting or fishing in P&P

Ellen

Tell me if I'm wrong, but it occurred to me this morning that Emma is the
one of the six completed novels which has no character who hunts nonhuman
animals. Have I missed something?

ARNIE

The mystery solved. She was autistic. A blog laying out a story, how I
came to know about, what I still hope to write. The solution to this
"mystery." She was autistic.



Ellen

I just finished a movie “of the week” class at the Oscher Institute of
Lifelong Learning at George Mason attached to George Mason, where we
discussed this movie. It was brought home to me not only by the
leaders of the class and other people in the class how important and
hard courage is during such fascist and totalitarian regimes — and
elsewhere in life. The kindness enacted in the film is at the risk of
these peoples’ lives. It is also an act of courage (smaller) when you
ae young in school to stand up against a crowd of bullies and align
yourself with and defend the victim-scapegoat. So here I amend or add
to my blog how we see remarkable courage in this film

A modern instance was Bishop Budde in Washington, D.C preaching
kindness and mercy to Trump on Inauguration day. Afterwards with his
usual stone face he expressed outrage at her “nastiness.” I’ve no
doubt she has received death threats. It took a few days for her
church to defend her strongly, but they did



Ellen

I find the above essay wonderfully cheering.

If you cannot reach it, and want to, let me know, and I'll copy and
paste it onto the list.

Ellen

White bird, A wonder story for our times. Painfully relevant



I retire at long last, after 53 years, or my working life comes to an
end 1972-2025



It took itme to get them both right, sorry for first hasty one

Ellen

Posted by Ellen

I've just read an excellent review essay on Colm Toibin's Brooklyn and
Long Island, which it seems to me provides food for thought and talk on
James's Portrait of a Lady. It's in the NYRB for Feb 13, 2025 -- by Giles
Harvey

If you cannot reach it (behind a paywall) let me know. I can copy and put
it on the list posting space.

Harvey makes several points of interest. First he suggests that Brooklyn is
a post-text as I call these kinds of books ("sequel" inadequate, too broad,
so many kinds) for a Portrait of a Lady. The underlying paradigm or whole
structure of the two plot-designs are parallel. The comparison is
illuminating.

Then he talks of how an old fashioned reticence, an indirectness of speech
and gestures is central to Toibin's power; thus the earlier books are often
more compelling than the most recent. That's what really caught my eye, for
I agree with it, and specifically in this review of how Long Island falls
flat. Recently I came across a very irritated review of Toibin fiction in
general, where the reviewer went so far as to compare a Toibin novel with
Jane Austen's famous 6

Well, yes, thought I, and was elated to see this. The truth of the matter
is despite ludicrous hagiography, for most contemporary male books, and
genres like speculative lit her name would be the kiss of death. No longer
is her name even an automatic way of recommending a woman's book, even when
the other female author is so unalike as to make the idea preposterous.

The reviewer had been, I suggest, bored. No thrills here ...

Harvey does not conjure with Austen's name but he could, and his
argument is contemporary frankness does Toibin in. My qualification would
be that like Forster or other older queer male books (I don't know what's
the latest label), reticence serves James very well but only up to a
certain point. Then what the book is about is too hidden or the
surface plot is misunderstood and betrays the book's meaning or takes too
much precedence. Howard's End (which I cited in my musings) a case in
point, where happily later in life Forster did write about it as dishonest
and how he came to dislike the characters and ending more and more. Of
course he gave up on longer domestic novels, though not science and short
fantastical stories which he carried on writing almost to the end of his
life; like Maurice, openly gay.

I'm one of those Austen readers who find the hagiography gets in the way,
so amused the falsifying complacency behind it are highlighted when we
see really contemporary Austen-like novels don't find favor

I digress. Harvey close reads Brooklyn & Long Island very interestingly.
There is a line from Austen to James to Bowen to Toibin (which takes in
some of Trollopoe's novels too).

I am not sure what people are thanking me for, except maybe to be polite.
What I wrote was an explanation (and yes justification by way of literary
criticism) lest I be misunderstood and thought not to like James. work,
which I do, though with qualifications.

Ellen