开云体育

Nancy says it succinctly. one aspect of the epistolary mode is the
characters not directly involved with writing are heard much less
from. Except among the masters of the for, therea re fewer dramatic
narratives (or scenes). Ellen

On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 5:12?PM Nancy Mayer via groups.io
<regencyresearcher@...> wrote:

Those first two books show evidence of having first been written as
epistolary novels. Though they both were successfully turned into the
novels we know, some aspects of the epistolary form remain.
Nancy

On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 5:06?PM Dorothy Gannon via groups.io
<dorothy.gannon@...> wrote:

Ellen writes:
I find it interesting there are no scenes in S&S of Marianne talking with
Brandon because similarly there are no scenes in P&P of Jane and Bingley
talking to one another. Yet the pairs love one another and marry at books’
endings.


True, Ellen. Strange, I’d never noticed that we see no actual dialog
between Bingley and Jane. Maybe because, in their case, we’re told over and
over that they do talk, though no dialog is given; everybody, not just
Elizabeth, notices that they’re frequently somewhere off to the side
talking, in a room ignoring everyone else, sitting next to one another at
dinner. Deep in conversation when Elizabeth discovers them by the
mantlepiece just after Bingley's proposal. We also get some reports from
Jane. So their coming together at the end feels natural, like the closing
of a circle.

Less so in S&S, where it seems the strong esteem and lively friendship
Marianne develops for Brandon happens offstage, after the main action of
the story.

I think JA wrote only the bare bones, the essence of the story she wanted
to tell. And she only wrote what really interested her.

Dorothy

In response to Dorothy,

Well I'm an interested party. I wrote and published one paper
ferreting out the underlying calendar of S&S; the other 6 I did it was
too much ( lifetime) to try to write up essays so I just place them on
my website:



From these intensive studies I concluded S&S and P&P originally
epistolary novels, and whole parts of MP (especially between
Portsmouth, London, the house), and that Persuasion is seriously
unfinished -- it was to have a third volume. I also felt I saw gaps
showing where sutures happened.

Austen herself said she drastically cut P&P because she was determined
it should be published. Remember she was waiting 30 years ... NA first
finished 13 years ago when she wrote present preface

Anyway (I put this in a blog on the calendar for P&P) I noticed Volume
I had very short chapters, much shorter than those of Vol 2 and 3. One
way to lop and chop once you know what is primary is cut the talk and
dance scenes themselves between Jane & Bingley; just leave narrative.
They are not the major couple; linchpins are in Elizabeths (proposals)
and Lydia's story (elopement)

I think S&S is a book too revised, over revised so to speak. I'm not
sure she knew how she meant to end it. Read carefully and you discover
what Thompson did for her film: Brandon silent, often not there, the
favored presence Wlloughby; nonetheless, it's Brandon to the rescue
each time -- the assembly dance, Marianne's near mortal illness,
retrieving her from the storm, retrieving the mother to be there, then
it is he who knows and was involved in the story of Willoughby & Eliza
2. Elinor right; there is something that needs to be explained in
Willoughby's obsessive nasty attacks, mocking of Brandon.

We attack a person we know we have badly wronged (see Mrs Norris'
behavior to Fanny). Yes just a sentence, but a real duel. So I think
that the last 3 chapters are short, especially that final one.
generalized, truncated, actually written very late (To have an ending)
around 1811. Then Thompson and after her Davies builds up Brandon
enormously. So here we are -- she & Davies added scenes of
conversations and lengthened what was there for Brandon. Go to book.
Almost none of it is is there, no one-on-one conversations

Ellen

On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 5:03?PM Dorothy Gannon via groups.io
<dorothy.gannon@...> wrote:

Ellen writes:
I find it interesting there are no scenes in S&S of Marianne talking with Brandon because similarly there are no scenes in P&P of Jane and Bingley talking to one another. Yet the pairs love one another and marry at books’ endings.


True, Ellen. Strange, I’d never noticed that we see no actual dialog between Bingley and Jane. Maybe because, in their case, we’re told over and over that they do talk, though no dialog is given; everybody, not just Elizabeth, notices that they’re frequently somewhere off to the side talking, in a room ignoring everyone else, sitting next to one another at dinner. Deep in conversation when Elizabeth discovers them by the mantlepiece just after Bingley's proposal. We also get some reports from Jane. So their coming together at the end feels natural, like the closing of a circle.

Less so in S&S, where it seems the strong esteem and lively friendship Marianne develops for Brandon happens offstage, so to speak, after the main action of the story.

I think JA wrote only the bare bones, the essence of the story she wanted to tell. And she only wrote what really interested her.

Dorothy

Those first two books show evidence of having first been written as
epistolary novels. Though they both were successfully turned into the
novels we know, some aspects of the epistolary form remain.
Nancy

On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 5:06?PM Dorothy Gannon via groups.io
<dorothy.gannon@...> wrote:

Ellen writes:
I find it interesting there are no scenes in S&S of Marianne talking with
Brandon because similarly there are no scenes in P&P of Jane and Bingley
talking to one another. Yet the pairs love one another and marry at books’
endings.


True, Ellen. Strange, I’d never noticed that we see no actual dialog
between Bingley and Jane. Maybe because, in their case, we’re told over and
over that they do talk, though no dialog is given; everybody, not just
Elizabeth, notices that they’re frequently somewhere off to the side
talking, in a room ignoring everyone else, sitting next to one another at
dinner. Deep in conversation when Elizabeth discovers them by the
mantlepiece just after Bingley's proposal. We also get some reports from
Jane. So their coming together at the end feels natural, like the closing
of a circle.

Less so in S&S, where it seems the strong esteem and lively friendship
Marianne develops for Brandon happens offstage, after the main action of
the story.

I think JA wrote only the bare bones, the essence of the story she wanted
to tell. And she only wrote what really interested her.

Dorothy

Ellen writes:
I find it interesting there are no scenes in S&S of Marianne talking with Brandon because similarly there are no scenes in P&P of Jane and Bingley talking to one another. Yet the pairs love one another and marry at books’ endings.


True, Ellen. Strange, I’d never noticed that we see no actual dialog between Bingley and Jane. Maybe because, in their case, we’re told over and over that they do talk, though no dialog is given; everybody, not just Elizabeth, notices that they’re frequently somewhere off to the side talking, in a room ignoring everyone else, sitting next to one another at dinner. Deep in conversation when Elizabeth discovers them by the mantlepiece just after Bingley's proposal. We also get some reports from Jane. So their coming together at the end feels natural, like the closing of a circle.

Less so in S&S, where it seems the strong esteem and lively friendship Marianne develops for Brandon happens offstage, after the main action of the story.

I think JA wrote only the bare bones, the essence of the story she wanted to tell. And she only wrote what really interested her.

Dorothy

Ellen writes:
I find it interesting there are no scenes in S&S of Marianne talking with Brandon because similarly there are no scenes in P&P of Jane and Bingley talking to one another. Yet the pairs love one another and marry at books’ endings.


True, Ellen. Strange, I’d never noticed that we see no actual dialog between Bingley and Jane. Maybe because, in their case, we’re told over and over that they do talk, though no dialog is given; everybody, not just Elizabeth, notices that they’re frequently somewhere off to the side talking, in a room ignoring everyone else, sitting next to one another at dinner. Deep in conversation when Elizabeth discovers them by the mantlepiece just after Bingley's proposal. We also get some reports from Jane. So their coming together at the end feels natural, like the closing of a circle.

Less so in S&S, where it seems the strong esteem and lively friendship Marianne develops for Brandon happens offstage, so to speak, after the main action of the story.

I think JA wrote only the bare bones, the essence of the story she wanted to tell. And she only wrote what really interested her.

Dorothy

The Moonstone: a schedule and links and pictures"



Ellen

Ellen, There’s a very simple explanation for the absence of scenes involving the subsidiary romantic pairings in all of Austin’s novels - we readers are trapped 99% of the time inside the subjective, often clueless, perspective of the primary heroine.

In my opinion, going back a quarter century, the primary purpose of this entrapment is to render so much of the action in the novels completely ambiguous.

Dorothy, I believe Austen left so much untold re the pairings like Brandon and Marianne, precisely so that it would be plausible to fill in the blanks with romance, or with the opposite of romance.

I find it interesting there are no scenes in S&S of Marianne talking with Brandon because similarly there are no scenes in P&P of Jane and Bingley talking to one another. Yet the pairs love one another and marry at books’ endings.

Ellen

Yes, Arnie, I agree JA created (for Edward especially), believable and likable characters in the two. What the Thompson’s screenplay does is more of an adjustment and addition to the narrative; we see Edward befriending and playing with Margaret, Brandon playfully telling her that in India “the air is full of spices,” later reading poetry to Marianne as she recovers from her illness. Small touches that fill in areas JA left untold. I believe there are no instances in the novel of Marianne and Brandon actually conversing, for instance.

Dorothy


Arnie wrote:

I agree that Thompson created brilliant, memorable dialog for Edward and
the Colonel - however I don't consider that a flaw of the novel - I believe
Austen deliberately rendered them both un-eloquent.

DOROTHY: "Arnie, I love the quotation that began your researches."

Glad you enjoyed it, Dorothy!

DOROTHY: "I think the closest JA came to the idea you were looking for
comes at the return of Jane and Elizabeth from Netherfield, early in the
novel:
"They were not welcomed home very cordially by their mother. Mrs. Bennet
wondered at their coming, and thought them very wrong to give so much
trouble, and was sure Jane would have caught cold again. But their father,
though very laconic in his expressions of pleasure, was really glad to see
them; he had felt their importance in the family circle. The evening
conversation, when they were all assembled, had lost much of its animation,
and almost all its sense by the absence of Jane and Elizabeth."

Bravo, Dorothy! Your excellent catch makes it clear that Davies imported
that narration about their return from Netherfield, and then turned it into
dialog about their return from London and Hunsford, respectively.

DOROTHY: "As for adaptations getting it right, I can think of a couple. In
the 1995 P&P, someone on Austen-L pointed out at the time that only a
portion of the novel’s text depicting the famous proposal scene is given in
dialog; much is simply described. Of course, the screenwriter didn’t have
that luxury! Someone printed a transcript of the scene for a side-by-side
comparison, and it was impressive how Andrew Davies managed to convey the
scene in dialog."

Indeed, that was brilliantly done by him and/or whoever else was on his
screenwriting team.

DOROTHY: "Another beautiful example, from another film, is Emma Thompson’s
"Sense and Sensibility," which smoothly covered some of the novel’s flaws
and rounded out characters who would otherwise have little screen time –
Edward Ferrers and Colonel Brandon."

I agree that Thompson created brilliant, memorable dialog for Edward and
the Colonel - however I don't consider that a flaw of the novel - I believe
Austen deliberately rendered them both un-eloquent.

ARNIE

Arnie, I love the quotation that began your researches.

I think the closest JA came to the idea you were looking for comes at the return of Jane and Elizabeth from Netherfield, early in the novel:


They were not welcomed home very cordially by their mother. Mrs. Bennet
wondered at their coming, and thought them very wrong to give so much
trouble, and was sure Jane would have caught cold again. But their
father, though very laconic in his expressions of pleasure, was really
glad to see them; he had felt their importance in the family circle. The
evening conversation, when they were all assembled, had lost much of
its animation, and almost all its sense by the absence of Jane and
Elizabeth.


As for adaptations getting it right, I can think of a couple. In the 1995 P&P, someone on Austen-L pointed out at the time that only a portion of the novel’s text depicting the famous proposal scene is given in dialog; much is simply described. Of course, the screenwriter didn’t have that luxury! Someone printed a transcript of the scene for a side-by-side comparison, and it was impressive how Andrew Davies managed to convey the scene in dialog.

Another beautiful example, from another film, is Emma Thompson’s "Sense and Sensibility," which smoothly covered some of the novel’s flaws and rounded out characters who would otherwise have little screen time – Edward Ferrers and Colonel Brandon.

Dorothy

The other day, a random quotation in my Twitter feed caught my eye:



“Every day, we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem,
see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words.” –
Goethe, Book 5, Chapter 1, *Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship*



I don’t know about you, but that immediately reminded me of a memorable
line in *Pride & Prejudice*, spoken by Mr. Bennet to Elizabeth, just before
she leaves for Hunsford in Chapter 27. I could hear in my mind’s ear that
line spoken by Mr. Bennet, to the effect that, with both Elizabeth and Jane
traveling, he would not hear two sensible words spoken together during
their absence.



So I wondered, might this be allusion to Goethe’s famous 1795 novel?
However, I then learned that it was apparently not translated into English
until after JA’s death. So, how could that have happened?



I went looking for that line in the text of P&P, and I couldn’t find it –-
and that sent me to the transcription of the 1995 film adaptation, where I
found it:



MR. BENNET: Well, Lizzy, on pleasure bent again. Never a thought of what
your poor parents will suffer in your absence?

ELIZABETH: It is a pleasure I could well forego, father, as I think you
know. But I shall be happy to see Charlotte.

MR. BENNET: What of your cousin Mr Collins and the famous Lady Catherine de
Bourgh? As a connoisseur of human folly, I thought you impatient to be
savouring these delights.

ELIZABETH: Of some delights, I believe, sir, a little goes a long way.

MR. BENNET: Yes. Well, think of me, Lizzy. *Until you or your sister Jane
return, I shall not hear two words of sense spoken together.* You'll be
very much missed, my dear. Very well, very well. Go along then. Get along
with you.



I went back to that same point in the text of P&P, and that’s where I found
the following parallel narration:



“The only pain was in leaving her father, who would certainly miss her, and
who, when it came to the point, so little liked her going, that he told her
to write to him, and almost promised to answer her letter.”



It made me realize that this was one of the few instances in which I have
found an adaptor of Austen doing such a great job, that they equalled
Austen’s gift, especially in P&P, for dialog.



So I finish by throwing a question to the group –- can you think of any
other instances in which you have taken note of an adaptation getting it
just right in dramatizing a scene?



Cheers,

ARNIE

I agree, Ellen, you accomplish more than many do even without health issues.

The memoir sounds fascinating. What an interesting way of writing about Austen and her works. I think at times in the past some of us on this list have spoken of our ‘relationship’ with JA’s work over time and different points of our own lives. I’ve found my point of view has migrated, and there is always something new to discover.

Dorothy





.
Re: Can no longer do blog in one night
From: Nancy Mayer <mailto:regencyresearcher@...?subject=Re:%20Can%20no%20longer%20do%20blog%20in%20one%20night>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 08:47:39 PDT
You are accomplishing more after your strokes than many do without any
health issues. Take care of yourself.
The information about the series and the book is interesting.
Nancy

Thank you, Nancy. I think I am trying to live a life I can enjoy that is within reach. Not easy. Ellen

You are accomplishing more after your strokes than many do without any
health issues. Take care of yourself.
The information about the series and the book is interesting.
Nancy

On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 10:55?AM Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody=
[email protected]> wrote:

I'm going to revise the blog altogether. Have it just onTodd's Living with
Austen.




I discovered over the past couple of days this is another book
& series I thought I watched & read, but I did not take it in for real
enough to write about it. This has happened since the first stroke;
after these 2 stroke events I am worse. I must rewatch & reread when
my brain is truly working at a point I am actively engaging and can
writ about it.

It is worth the effort, even if the film has flaws which I think there
because the art was dumbed down and distorted in order to keep ratings
up. It must've been felt you had to have a happy heterosexual romance
when part of the point of the book was to show us Ausen's world from
the POV of its young to middle aged women.

Anyone who has bthered to read my emails is seeing someon struggl with the
effects of a major strke and 2 minor ones.

I'm going to revise the blog altogether. Have it just onTodd's Living with
Austen.



I discovered over the past couple of days this is another book
& series I thought I watched & read, but I did not take it in for real
enough to write about it. This has happened since the first stroke;
after these 2 stroke events I am worse. I must rewatch & reread when
my brain is truly working at a point I am actively engaging and can
writ about it.

It is worth the effort, even if the film has flaws which I think there
because the art was dumbed down and distorted in order to keep ratings
up. It must've been felt you had to have a happy heterosexual romance
when part of the point of the book was to show us Ausen's world from
the POV of its young to middle aged women.

Anyone who has bthered to read my emails is seeing someon struggl with the effects of a major strke and 2 minor ones.

Brief in comparison to the notes I took, I went on to watch Episode 2
and want to say my strictures are minor in comparison with my deep
enjoyment of the film and book. I think I should reread it, a part at
a time, so-speak, watching its match in the serial, as I go. There
are two actresses for Cassandra, one 30+ years ago and one in 1840. At
one time, the same actress would play both ages -- with much make-up.
But the younger one is very good too. like the continual time shifts
in the book and film. That's part of its depth for me. Cassandra now,
remembering back. I very much liked the actor playing Mr Lidderdale.

I had forgotten there is something Cassandra is hiding and a specific
erasure of Jane and her pst beyond her depression -- in the book
that's what Cassandra wants to erase

I do have a DVD set from England which enables me to watch carefully,
and snap stills. I'll leave my blog a partial draft until I've reread
the book & watched the series a couple of more times. I do not know
Isabella's sisters from what I've read ... I include a still of Patsy
Ferran meant to allude to one of the portraits of Jane which I think
is a misattribution and one of Keeley Hawes as the older dignified
grave Cassandra.

This film, like the recent Wolf Hall (2nd season, literally 10 years
later) shows me film-makers can still make films from good books I can
enter into (a quiet dramaturgy)

Ellen

Austen Variations: Todd Living with Austen; Miss Austen book into film, a draft

Comments on blog in blog's section for comments very welcome; will be
taken into account in final copy



Ellen

Let me concede other problems with the film, more than the book,
Dorothy. Earlier today I suggested the film-makers are aware to
present Austen as depressive and you add non-glamorous unprettified,
tart tongued will not produce high ratings so they marginalize the
stealth heroine. They also don't articulate Cassandra's choice to stay
single and make Isabella's traditional romance ending the center --
Isabella is not in the book its center.

I am now covering the later episodes without giving away anything. We
all know by now Cassandra has come with the aim of destroying the
majority of Jane's letters and we have seen her find one packet. She
will find others. I won't give away why Isabella and Mary Austen (the
bullying dense sister-in-law, now widow of James perversely proud of
what she berated him for in life (being a gentle poet) don't want
Cassandra there and seek to stop her from finding, hiding, and
probably destroying the letters. But I can say Cassandra succeeds in
her aim.

Partly it's the problem of transferring a semi- or heavily epistolary
novel into a film. It can be done. The 1991 Clarissa succeeded.
Andrew Davies He Knew He Was Right is a triumph out of a semi-
epist;ary npvel

What I want to critique as a flaw is how lugubriously the final scene
is treated, as well as half-crazed over the top as Cassandra sits
there ecstatic over burning the letters and "keeping Jane's secret,
which in both book and film i the affair with the young man one
summer. In the book she's not ecstatic nor lugubrious, but quietly
intent, maybe relieved but not happy. After all Jane is dead, Tom
Fowle is dead, and she is alone. It's a sombre ending.

I suppose again the film writers worried about ratings so were
overly-emotional altogether for the watchers and ludicrously upbeat. I
felt sorry for Keele Hawes sitting there with a frozen smile on her
face, Presumably the actress knew this was all wrong.

Ellen

On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 8:26?PM Dorothy Gannon via groups.io
<dorothy.gannon@...> wrote:

Glad to know others are watching.

Agree totally with Arnie and Ellen that the cast of “Miss Austen” is pretty great. Among them the casting and portrayal I find especially excellent – Patsy Ferran as the young Jane Austen. It's the rare (unique?) film portrayal of JA that isn’t Hollywood prettified, for one, combined with a characterization that captures both her intelligence and humor. She has a certain tartness seems to accompany by one or the other, someone with a light touch. She’s even able to pull off a playfulness that's attractive rather than cloying.

That said, I felt a slight disappointment in the story. Some of it seems melodramatic, which I’m guessing is in part due to needing to squeeze the novel into a teleplay. (Have not yet read the novel.)

And my expectations were probably too high, no doubt.

Dorothy

Glad to know others are watching.

Agree totally with Arnie and Ellen that the cast of “Miss Austen” is pretty great. Among them the casting and portrayal I find especially excellent – Patsy Ferran as the young Jane Austen. It's the rare (unique?) film portrayal of JA that isn’t Hollywood prettified, for one, combined with a characterization that captures both her intelligence and humor. She has a certain tartness seems to accompany by one or the other, someone with a light touch. She’s even able to pull off a playfulness that's attractive rather than cloying.

That said, I felt a slight disappointment in the story. Some of it seems melodramatic, which I’m guessing is in part due to needing to squeeze the novel into a teleplay. (Have not yet read the novel.)

And my expectations were probably too high, no doubt.

Dorothy


Episode 1 of Miss Austen on Masterpiece
From: Arnie Perlstein <mailto:arnieperlstein@...?subject=Re:%20Episode%201%20of%20Miss%20Austen%20on%20Masterpiece>
Date: Sun, 04 May 2025 22:05:10 PDT
I've just watched Episode 1, and I give it an A, it was surprisingly
excellent. How close it is to actual history, I am not so sure, but Gill
Hornby has done such a brilliant job, and the acting in all the roles is
pitch perfect, so
it's worth watching regardless of how accurate it is.

I eagerly look forward to seeing the whole series.

ARNIE