开云体育

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

As human beings with our wired type brains & aging bodies, we are
condemned ever to look forward.

Ravi, did you say you would like to read The Virginians or would try
another long novel by Thackeray. Let me respond, it's only my new
condition that makes me have to do less in literature so as to get to
all I want to.

I don't know if this would satisfy Tyler, but I am willing to read
more of the non-novels, the shorter books and sketches more in the
spirit of Vanity Fair

The trouble is access. I own quit a number because years ago an older
Victorian scholar gifted me with his 1909 set of Thackray's works --
the one edited by his daughter. Immense volumes of several works in
some of them, with all his illustrations. But some is online as
Gutenberg texts, and better some is i print in Everyman, Penguin used
volumes. If anyone is interested, I'm game. These include his Shabby
Genteel Story, Catherine, 18th century semi-history. I'll type out the
titles of texts included. I have 3 such small volumes.

Out of left field, I'm feeling bad the Walter Scott course at OLLI at
York has only 3 people (not me), about to be cancelled. So I think I
might really enjoy rereading Ivanhoe. I have a good paperback edition.
It's been many years.

After The Moonstone, anyone game for Scott's Ivanhoe?

Jane Austen would have loved it, says she to Janeites too

Ellen

This is the 2nd of the 3 novels written about the Elizabeth Canning
case in the 20th century. Unlike Tey's Franchise Affair, Lillian de la
Torre an 18th century scholar attempts to recreate the mid-18th
century by using as much of words used at that time in court, in
journals, in letters. Not as polished or compelling as the Tey 20th
century Franchise Affair (by a professional novelist), but though it's
obvious de la Torre has decided Elizabeth lied (but cannot find any
transgressive sex, or any evidence Elizabeth was anywhere but the
attic she claimed), de la Torre brings home what it was to live in
18th century poverty, no connections, mostly illiterate-- and today we
may add disabled from autism, though very much protected by her
mother. I am looking forward to her portraits of Fielding and others
...

I think Jane Austen would have known of this case. It's intriguing to
imagine what she might have thought, how she might have put it. She
sided with Caroline "because she was a woman".

It arrived yesterday, placed on my stoop ... The world I live in is
made up of two sets of people. Those who deliver things, and those who
accept delivery

It's not intriguing (choose another word) that today in the US senate
a man has been nominated for one of the most responsible and
consequential agencies or departments in the US govt and will probably
be accepted despite his manifest lack of any experience, and
occasional incompetence precisely because among his many vices is that
of sexual predation

Ellen

If he had a marriage settlement when he married, then the provisions of it
would be followed. Without that or a will, the girls are the legal heirs/
John Knightley is a barrister. I like to think he works in Chancery and the
Church courts. Which ever courts he works in he would know about wills or
know men who do know about them and would have everything handled to suit
the daughters.
Nancy

On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 5:27?PM Tamar Lindsay via groups.io <dicconf=
[email protected]> wrote:

Does Mr Woodhouse even have a will? He's terrified of death.
Many people are afraid to make a will because it means
they have to think about death.
Would it make a difference if he died intestate?

Does Mr Woodhouse even have a will? He's terrified of death.
Many people are afraid to make a will because it means
they have to think about death.
Would it make a difference if he died intestate?

Sorry the message went off before I could cut the extensive quote.
Many sources and even instructors speak of women of the time having no
rights. Though women were more circumscribed than men , mostly by their
families and not by the laws, it was married women who lost their very
identity and being in marriage. In some cases they could even be excused
of committing a crime if they could convince a jury that their husband made
them do it.
Mr. Woodhouse does not appear to be one to depart much from tradition so
though he didn't like how marriage took females away from home,he was
unlikely to do anything except leave his estate and money to his daughters
in equal shares which would then be divided by the husbands. As Knightley
already has the Abbey, it is only reasonable for John to have the House.
Mr. Woodhouse doesn't appear to have much estate other than the house with
money in the funds.
Nancy

We never hear of Isabelle's income because it went to John years ago and is
probably set to go to younger spons and daughters.
It is mentioned or suggested that John Knightley has a financial interest
in the estate along with advising his brother on legal matters. When Mr.
Woodhouse dies the house will go to Emma and her sister. It will likely be
aramnged that it would be wholly John's and Isabelle's and the Abbey will
be Knightey's and his sons At the time, unless property was left with
strict restrictions, it became the property of a woman's husband. John has
a house in town but his son might not want to be a lawyer/


On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 6:32?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

Stephanie, Liz Anne did say that George was the elder.

Liz Anne, that's an excellent question, I was careless. I was thinking
about Emma worrying that if George marries Jane F (and then has children),
that would disinherit John's sons out of Donwell Abbey. And to your point,
if George has a male child, then that means that George must be the owner.
I think.

Interestingly we never hear about Isabella having an income the way Emma
has 30,000 per year.

ARNIE



ARNIE

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 3:14?PM Stephanie Vardavas via groups.io
<vardavas=
[email protected]> wrote:

//Mr. Knightley, a sensible man about seven or eight-and-thirty, was not
only a very old and intimate friend of the family, but particularly
connected with it, as the elder brother of Isabella’s husband.//

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 3:12?PM Stephanie Vardavas <vardavas@...>
wrote:

Why do you think that John is older?

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 3:04?PM Liz Anne Potamianos via groups.io
<lizannepotamianos@...> wrote:

Arnie,

Why would the Knightley’s share the Donwell Abbey estate equally? As

the

oldest brother, wouldn’t George Knightley inherit the entire estate

whereas

John Knightley would inherit some other interests?

Liz Anne

On Jan 10, 2025, at 5:17?PM, Arnie Perlstein via groups.io

<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

Thanks, Stephanie, sounds right to me. In the few minutes since my

post, I

also found this, which is in conformity with your and my

understandings:

“Pride, Prejudice, and the Threat to Edward Knight’s Inheritance” by
Christine Grover

Persuasions Online #35 2014

“Daughters inherited in common—that is, the estate was shared among

them.

In *Emma*, Hartfield is shared equally between Emma and Isabella.

On

marriage, unless barred by the marriage settlement, the husband

became

the

legal owner of his wife’s assets, so there was also a need to deter

fortune

hunters like Wickham.”

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 2:13?PM Stephanie Vardavas wrote:
My understanding is that that is the default for how things would

turn

out,

but that in Mr. Woodhouse's will or in the daughters' marriage

contract

they could specify otherwise.

When Mr. Woodhouse dies, am I correct that the most likely

inheritance

will be that Emma and Isabella will inherit Hartfield 50:50, and

further,

if they are each then married to a Knightley, then their husbands

will,

as husbands, inherit what their wives just inherited, and therefore

the

Knightley brothers will in that scenario own both Hartfield and
Donwell Abbey 50:50 between them?
ARNIE

Stephanie, Liz Anne did say that George was the elder.

Liz Anne, that's an excellent question, I was careless. I was thinking
about Emma worrying that if George marries Jane F (and then has children),
that would disinherit John's sons out of Donwell Abbey. And to your point,
if George has a male child, then that means that George must be the owner.
I think.

Interestingly we never hear about Isabella having an income the way Emma
has 30,000 per year.

ARNIE



ARNIE

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 3:14?PM Stephanie Vardavas via groups.io <vardavas=
[email protected]> wrote:

//Mr. Knightley, a sensible man about seven or eight-and-thirty, was not
only a very old and intimate friend of the family, but particularly
connected with it, as the elder brother of Isabella’s husband.//

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 3:12?PM Stephanie Vardavas <vardavas@...>
wrote:

Why do you think that John is older?

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 3:04?PM Liz Anne Potamianos via groups.io
<lizannepotamianos@...> wrote:

Arnie,

Why would the Knightley’s share the Donwell Abbey estate equally? As the
oldest brother, wouldn’t George Knightley inherit the entire estate

whereas

John Knightley would inherit some other interests?

Liz Anne

On Jan 10, 2025, at 5:17?PM, Arnie Perlstein via groups.io

<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

Thanks, Stephanie, sounds right to me. In the few minutes since my

post, I

also found this, which is in conformity with your and my

understandings:

“Pride, Prejudice, and the Threat to Edward Knight’s Inheritance” by
Christine Grover

Persuasions Online #35 2014

“Daughters inherited in common—that is, the estate was shared among

them.

In *Emma*, Hartfield is shared equally between Emma and Isabella. On
marriage, unless barred by the marriage settlement, the husband became

the

legal owner of his wife’s assets, so there was also a need to deter

fortune

hunters like Wickham.”

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 2:13?PM Stephanie Vardavas wrote:
My understanding is that that is the default for how things would turn

out,

but that in Mr. Woodhouse's will or in the daughters' marriage

contract

they could specify otherwise.

When Mr. Woodhouse dies, am I correct that the most likely

inheritance

will be that Emma and Isabella will inherit Hartfield 50:50, and

further,

if they are each then married to a Knightley, then their husbands

will,

as husbands, inherit what their wives just inherited, and therefore

the

Knightley brothers will in that scenario own both Hartfield and
Donwell Abbey 50:50 between them?
ARNIE

//Mr. Knightley, a sensible man about seven or eight-and-thirty, was not
only a very old and intimate friend of the family, but particularly
connected with it, as the elder brother of Isabella’s husband.//

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 3:12?PM Stephanie Vardavas <vardavas@...>
wrote:

Why do you think that John is older?

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 3:04?PM Liz Anne Potamianos via groups.io
<lizannepotamianos@...> wrote:

Arnie,

Why would the Knightley’s share the Donwell Abbey estate equally? As the
oldest brother, wouldn’t George Knightley inherit the entire estate whereas
John Knightley would inherit some other interests?

Liz Anne

On Jan 10, 2025, at 5:17?PM, Arnie Perlstein via groups.io

<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

Thanks, Stephanie, sounds right to me. In the few minutes since my

post, I

also found this, which is in conformity with your and my understandings:

“Pride, Prejudice, and the Threat to Edward Knight’s Inheritance” by
Christine Grover

Persuasions Online #35 2014

“Daughters inherited in common—that is, the estate was shared among

them.

In *Emma*, Hartfield is shared equally between Emma and Isabella. On
marriage, unless barred by the marriage settlement, the husband became

the

legal owner of his wife’s assets, so there was also a need to deter

fortune

hunters like Wickham.”

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 2:13?PM Stephanie Vardavas wrote:
My understanding is that that is the default for how things would turn

out,

but that in Mr. Woodhouse's will or in the daughters' marriage contract
they could specify otherwise.

When Mr. Woodhouse dies, am I correct that the most likely inheritance
will be that Emma and Isabella will inherit Hartfield 50:50, and

further,

if they are each then married to a Knightley, then their husbands will,
as husbands, inherit what their wives just inherited, and therefore the
Knightley brothers will in that scenario own both Hartfield and
Donwell Abbey 50:50 between them?
ARNIE

--


<>
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. Office hours
12n - 5 pm M-F and by appointment. 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.*

--

<>
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. Office hours
12n - 5 pm M-F and by appointment. 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.*

Why do you think that John is older?

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 3:04?PM Liz Anne Potamianos via groups.io
<lizannepotamianos@...> wrote:

Arnie,

Why would the Knightley’s share the Donwell Abbey estate equally? As the
oldest brother, wouldn’t George Knightley inherit the entire estate whereas
John Knightley would inherit some other interests?

Liz Anne

On Jan 10, 2025, at 5:17?PM, Arnie Perlstein via groups.io

<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

Thanks, Stephanie, sounds right to me. In the few minutes since my post,

I

also found this, which is in conformity with your and my understandings:

“Pride, Prejudice, and the Threat to Edward Knight’s Inheritance” by
Christine Grover

Persuasions Online #35 2014

“Daughters inherited in common—that is, the estate was shared among them.
In *Emma*, Hartfield is shared equally between Emma and Isabella. On
marriage, unless barred by the marriage settlement, the husband became

the

legal owner of his wife’s assets, so there was also a need to deter

fortune

hunters like Wickham.”

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 2:13?PM Stephanie Vardavas wrote:
My understanding is that that is the default for how things would turn

out,

but that in Mr. Woodhouse's will or in the daughters' marriage contract
they could specify otherwise.

When Mr. Woodhouse dies, am I correct that the most likely inheritance
will be that Emma and Isabella will inherit Hartfield 50:50, and

further,

if they are each then married to a Knightley, then their husbands will,
as husbands, inherit what their wives just inherited, and therefore the
Knightley brothers will in that scenario own both Hartfield and
Donwell Abbey 50:50 between them?
ARNIE

--

<>
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. Office hours
12n - 5 pm M-F and by appointment. 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.*

Arnie,

Why would the Knightley’s share the Donwell Abbey estate equally? As the oldest brother, wouldn’t George Knightley inherit the entire estate whereas John Knightley would inherit some other interests?

Liz Anne

Thanks, Stephanie, sounds right to me. In the few minutes since my post, I
also found this, which is in conformity with your and my understandings:

“Pride, Prejudice, and the Threat to Edward Knight’s Inheritance” by
Christine Grover

Persuasions Online #35 2014

“Daughters inherited in common—that is, the estate was shared among them.
In *Emma*, Hartfield is shared equally between Emma and Isabella. On
marriage, unless barred by the marriage settlement, the husband became the
legal owner of his wife’s assets, so there was also a need to deter fortune
hunters like Wickham.”

My understanding is that that is the default for how things would turn out,
but that in Mr. Woodhouse's will or in the daughters' marriage contracts
they could specify otherwise.


On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 2:01?PM Arnie Perlstein via groups.io
<arnieperlstein@...> wrote:

When Mr. Woodhouse dies, am I correct that the most likely inheritance will
be that Emma and Isabella will inherit Hartfield 50:50, and further, if
they are each then married to a Knightley, then their husbands will, as
husbands, inherit what their wives just inherited, and therefore the
Knightley brothers will in that scenario own both Hartfield and Donwell
Abbey 50:50 between them?

ARNIE

--

<>
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. Office hours
12n - 5 pm M-F and by appointment. 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.*

When Mr. Woodhouse dies, am I correct that the most likely inheritance will
be that Emma and Isabella will inherit Hartfield 50:50, and further, if
they are each then married to a Knightley, then their husbands will, as
husbands, inherit what their wives just inherited, and therefore the
Knightley brothers will in that scenario own both Hartfield and Donwell
Abbey 50:50 between them?

ARNIE

Sorry, because he is in Trade-- owning a warehouse-- Mr. Gardiner would not
be considered gentry. The Bingleys are just slipping into gentry status
because they have money and no longer deal with trade. Many of the
bankers owned estates but that didn't make them gentry. The cits of London
had their own social circles. They sometimes mixed with gentry,
aristocracy, nobility, and even royalty at the Mansion House, but
generally kept their distance. Banker Child was so angry at hs only
daughter who married an earl that he left his money to her daughter and
arranged it so that neither the earl nor his heir could touch it.
Nancy

On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 5:26?PM Tamar Lindsay via groups.io <dicconf=
[email protected]> wrote:

Mr Gardiner owns a big business and lives in London. He is arguably a Cit.
But does he own the land and buildings his business occupies? Or rent them?
If he owns them, does that make him gentry?