开云体育

Today Sarah Emsley hosts Paul Gordin, the writer of The recent successful musical made from Sense and Sensibility; if you read with care you will find she has linked in reviews of her book on Austen Jane Austen's Philosophy of the Virtues and her edition for Broadview Press of Edith Wharton's Custom of the Country: https://sarahemsley.com/2024/08/23/writing-the-musical-sense-and-sensibility-by-paul-gordon/ Posted by Ellen

Auste's brother who was put away probably had a learning disorder. I was horrified to see GOP officials & voters mocking Tim Walz's son because they take him to be or call him (ugly terms for) autistic. How vile of them. Others were mocking Emhoff's daughter. Is it the boy is not macho male and the girl wears glasses (no resemblance to Barbie dolls you see). Well today I came across a good article in the Milwaukee Sentinel explaining Gus Walz is diagnosed with NVLD, he is superb at verbal communication but at a loss with non-verbal communication. A lot of social life depends on non-verbal communication: read this: https://www.jsonline.com/.../who-is-gus-walz.../74902339007/ Here is an article in Psychology Today: Walz's excellent parents, not stigmatizing son, not trying to make him neurotypical, but helping him to cope: https://tinyurl.com/bdfy66aj Do read these as this form of neurodivergence is not well known. My younger daughter is autistic ... Ellen

From Devonet Looser abd also about The Hampshire Chronicle https://theconversation.com/3-of-jane-austens-6-brothers-engaged-in-antislavery-activism-new-research-offers-more-clues-about-her-own-views-230176 I agree with Susan below, the evidence mostly shows that as part of their professions George Austen and his sons were variously involved at a distance in the slave trade or the British gov't's ant-slavery activities. The evidence showing extra personal in put is about Francis Auste, but also Jane's own admiration for Thomas Clarkson. Of course contempoary readers and writers today are eager to show Austen and what members of the family they can even abolitionists. On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 6:25 PM Susan B via groups.io <smbiddle15@...> wrote: > > thanks very much, Tyler - I knew about the connections with the navy and that this would have involved policing slave-trade ships, but not about the personal abolitionist activities. The Hampshire Chronicle is still going strong - my parents read it most weeks. > > The Conversation looks a thoughtful publication - thanks again for sharing this > > Best wishes > Susan > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 at 23:14, Tyler Tichelaar via groups.io <tyler@...> wrote: >> >> https://theconversation.com/3-of-jane-austens-6-brothers-engaged-in-antislavery-activism-new-research-offers-more-clues-about-her-own-views-230176 > > _._,_._,_ >

When Emma worriedly tests Knightley’s possible romantic interest in Jane Fairfax in Chapter 33, we read this: [Emma] “…..The extent of your admiration may take you by surprize some day or other.” Mr. Knightley was hard at work upon the lower buttons of his thick leather gaiters, and either the exertion of getting them together, or some other cause, brought the colour into his face, as he answered, “Oh! are you there?—But you are miserably behindhand. Mr. Cole gave me a hint of it six weeks ago.” He stopped.—Emma felt her foot pressed by Mrs. Weston, and did not herself know what to think. In a moment he went on—“That will never be, however, I can assure you. Miss Fairfax, I dare say, would not have me if I were to ask her—and I am very sure I shall never ask her.” Emma returned her friend’s pressure with interest; and was pleased enough to exclaim, “You are not vain, Mr. Knightley. I will say that for you.” I never before looked closely at this sentence: “Emma returned her friend’s pressure with interest”. It reminded me of a phrase I’ve often heard from commentators at tennis matches, in which one player returned the other’s fast serve “with interest” – i.e., faster, as if the ball, metaphorically, was an interest-bearing obligation. And it makes sense in this context, because Emma feels a surge of relief when Knightley disclaims any such interest in Jane. Naturally, Emma would gleefully press Mrs. Weston’s foot harder than the latter’s original nudge. I’ve reread that line of narration several times, and it doesn’t make sense any other way I can see. In particular, it doesn’t make sense to read “interest” as referring to Emma’s being interested to hear more from Mrs. Weston. Of course, as Auden famously wrote, Jane Austen understood the mathematics of money, including how interest-bearing financial instruments operated. We get strong evidence of that in Chapter 19 of P&P when Mr. Collins assures Elizabeth that he understands that she would bring limited income to a marriage. Even though he doesn’t explicitly use the word “interest”, it’s clear from his reference to “the 4 per cents”: “To fortune I am perfectly indifferent, and shall make no demand of that nature on your father, since I am well aware that it could not be complied with; and that one thousand pounds in the 4 per cents, which will not be yours till after your mother’s decease, is all that you may ever be entitled to.” I also checked the OED, and found a couple of metaphorical usages in that metaphorical, financial sense predating Austen, including one by Daniel Defoe, so JA would not have been the originator of that usage. All the same, it struck me today as a startlingly modern turn of phrase, given that it has become mainstream colloquial English in the present day. ARNIE

A very promising title, Arnie. Congratulations -- you must mean 2027. I've only presented once, that Portland one you presented at, 2010 I read enough of your email to see you used some of what I speculated on Galigai. I remember I was told afterwards I had misunderstood something. I know I didn't come up with your inference about Austen as strongly commercially ambitious -- though she was not unambitious. Just to say I disagree with what you did with or think about the significance of this French material in Austen's life. Simply she never knew or personally cultivated these people -- as we see when she declines to go to a party Madame de Stael is at. But they knew and admired her work. Especially de Montolieu who in effect rewrote S&S in French (still in print as a translation) and a free translation of Persuasion. She also read & admired MP: she said so. The French sources are very important. Recently I was asked to write an entry for an encyclopedia article on Isabelle de Montolieu (this past March while I was in Rehab), based on all the work I did on her in my online edition of Caroline de Lichtfield. http://www.jimandellen.org/montolieu/caroline.show.html Unfortunately it was 20 years ago and would take heroic efforts to bring back to my mind, were I well enough. I'm not. I had to decline but said they were welcome to use all I wrote and all sources I found. Even at the time I was very unsure of what I concluded beyond what close reading can tell you. I knew no one and have never been able to network or travel in a monetized way or career-related way. I am less able than ever now. But congratulations -- you'll probably bring in new information. I hope you read French, for a lot of this stuff (especially written in Switzerland) is not translated into English Ellen

MONDAY, JANUARY 2, 2017Galigai, St. Swithin, & Diana Parker: the dying Jane Austen’s ambition for immortality & gender justice <https://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2017/01/galigai-st-swithin-diana-parker-dying.html> I am VERY pleased and honored to announce that the 2017 JASNA AGM Steering Committee has notified me that I am one of the lucky ones who will get to deliver a breakout session talk in Huntington Beach, CA at the AGM that will run from Oct. 6-8, 2017!!!! ...... This will be my third AGM presentation (2010 in Portland, OR and 2014 in Montreal), and I will be counting the days (277 to be exact) till it starts! And finally, for those who might be interested in coming to hear my talk, here's the beginning of my blurb describing what I'll have the luxury of 40 minutes to articulate in detail: "Galigai, St. Swithin, & Diana Parker: the dying Jane Austen’s ambition for immortality & gender justice" Nearly all Austen biographers, following her brother Henry (“in spite of such applause, so much did she shrink from notoriety, that no accumulation of fame would have induced her, had she lived, to affix her name to any productions of her pen“) and her nephew James Edward (“little thinking of future fame, but caring only for 'the queerness and the fun’ “), would have us believe Jane didn’t reach (or even wish) for literary immortality; that she’d be shocked to learn of her still widening fame 200 years after her early death while at the peak of her powers. I’ve come to know a different Jane, a proud, ambitious artist; and, ironically, I find the best evidence of her proud (but well-regulated) ambition, not in her six novels, but, when physical death loomed large, in her 1817 writings, in which she thrice asserted her power and her will to survive…at least, on paper!: (1) in her late letter to old friend Anne Sharp (“Galigai for ever and ever, the influence of strength over weakness indeed”); (2) in her last fiction, the Sanditon fragment (“The world is pretty much divided between the weak of mind and the strong; between those who can act and those who cannot; and it is the bounden duty of the capable to let no opportunity of being useful escape them. My…complaints…are happily not often of a nature to threaten existence immediately. And as long as we can exert ourselves to be of use to others,...the body is the better for the refreshment the mind receives in doing its duty"); AND (3) in her deathbed testament, the “fanciful” “When Winchester Races” (“When once we are buried you think we are gone But behold me immortal!...Set off for your course, I'll pursue with my rain.… Henceforward I'll triumph in shewing my powers…”). I’ll start there, browse the novels & letters, then circle back to her juvenilia; and show that, for her entire writing life, Jane not only wished for immortality, she grabbed for it with both (far from mouldering) hands! SUNDAY, JUNE 15, 2014 Queen Galigai, Queen Sarah, & Queen Jane: the lesbian subtext of Letter 159 <https://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2014/06/queen-galigai-queen-sarah-queen-jane.html> Ellen Moody wrote the following re Jane Austen's Letter 159 to Anne Sharp, written not long before Jane's premature death at 41: "Galigai de Concini forever.' I used to think this a reference to a witty French philosophe's letters (very popular) suggesting a world of Enlightenment Jane and Anne shared together as girls but Chapman says it's a reference to a devastating story of a woman burned to death who asked what she had used on her mistress to "charm" her-(the mistress was getting back at this poor woman), answered the power of strong souls over weak. I wish I knew the Voltairian context: he would be telling the story with sardonic irony perhaps.. Anyway that must have been their motto: the source is as revealing as the surface content. Strength influences weakness and yet you are at high risk of destruction. Perhaps Austen believed this: the strong personality, the person with inner strength to whom in her novels (her heroines are this kind of person) she gave a romance happiness at the close of

https://austenprose.com/2008/06/07/jane-austens-dearest-friendship-with-miss-sharp-still-resonates-today/ In case anyone else wants to refresh their memory of Miss Sharp. According to this, it was mainly a friendship by correspondence for the last decade of Jane's life. Miss Sharp doesn't sound like a spiteful person at all. Nancy

I’m almost to the end of Lindsay Ashford’s Mysterious Death of Miss Austen. The trouble with reading books that get very little respect and even less serious literary criticism is it’s very difficult for someone like me to guess or know what the general response might be. I had gotten just into the book last time, and this time I shall finish it. It’s achieved some mild notoriety among Janeites & Austen scholars who read Austen sequels. The notoriety is from Ashord’s having decided Henry Austen poisoned his sister with arsenic because she realized just how many of his sisters-in-law or nieces, bored endlessly impregnated he fucked away with. The theory in the book (Anne Sharp’s the narrator) is Henry Crawford is a partial portrait of Heny Austen. Eliza had no interest in him, maybe she was lesbian? Not oddly, it’s not famous for a convincing portrait of Jane and Anne Sharp as lesbian spinster. EEven until today the common reader wants to erase lesbianism. I liked the book on some of the grounds I liked Hornby’s Miss Austen, a convincing sympathetic portrait of Cassandra, Jane, Martha and the women. What I’ve not seen mentioned anywhere in the commentary there is is it’s a first person narrative solely from Anne’s POV, with no corrective. It somewhat resembles Austen’s Emma So I am wondering if Ashford meant us to judge Anne as having gone over the top in her fabrications the way Austen’s Emma did. Noone but her in the book enunciates the plot, she reads Jane as agreeing, but nowhere does she (admitted Ashford makes Jane worried, ominous, uncomfortable when Miss Sharp hints at all she surmise).I admit there is no sense of an implicit narrator regarding Miss Sharp with irony (as there is of Austen towards Emma) Probably few would bother to think this out, and it’s a lesson to me not to not waste my time reading Austen sequels unless (as in a book I was reading and never got to review) if the sequel is half-mocking, modernizes Austen has some celebrity name pushing it (like Wade’s play, The Watsons) I think the reason it receives as much commentary as it does is Ashford has read the Austen letter and documents with care in the same way Gyneth Hughes and David Nokes did before Hughes wrote Miss Austen regrets. Ellen

How I loved to get lost in vast second hand bookstores once upon a time https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2024/08/01/bookshop-evan-friss-history-american-bookstores-review/ A cause for mild happiness. I reported Wash Post's Book World is now also online on Sundays. Today I discovered they added a small column of it daily and put that on line. It's a intelligent review. Today's recommendation & brief piece by Michael Dirda is on The Bookstore (a history) by Evan Friss. Ellen

by Bee Rowlatt. I bought this some tim ago now, thinking it a book on Wollstonecraft. No such thing for real; it's a travel memoir of her "daring" to travel with a baby. Irritated, Ellen

Sarah Emsley's blog https://sarahemsley.com/2024/07/26/in-the-matter-of-sense-v-sensibility-an-excerpt-from-the-upcoming-novel-austen-at-sea-by-natalie-jenner/ Natalie Jenner's Austen at Sea: the characters gather round and discuss S&S Ellen

Staying home now enabling me to catch upwith several reviews I promised for academic journals literally months & months ago By which I mean I'm doing (aka reading and writing) them. I turned (sent) back a couple I might have tried but discover I have no more patience for the preposterous, and Stuff made up from substituting sometimes ungrammatically used abstract philosophical words for the meaningful words in the probable coherent contexts of an earlier era. While at UPS I told myself, seriously, after this, no more saying yes unless I know a book's actual content and am interested in the topic or angle. I'm doing the same for my teaching. As a consequence today spending day with Jane Austen in Susan Allen Ford's book on JA's character's reading and the Outlander matter as found in the film serial. One way the fascination of its texts & films are achieved is to show the same material object as extant and used in the stories's pasts and then as extant and used in the stories present times

I want to recommend reading Margaret Talbot's review of Susannah Gibson's: A History of the First Women's Movement, July 22, 2024, pp 60-64 and online at https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/07/22/the-bluestockings-susannah-gibson-book-review In general and in a lot of the specifics too the article is interesting and mostly correct. Perhaps Talbot's most important matter is her attempt once again (though this has been done even many times before) rehabilitate the intellectual woman, the learned lady, and to give a brief history -- from the mid-18th into the 19th century. Lots of people read the New Yorker. Maybe some of them will read the book. But I have some strong caveats because there are fundamental mistakes in the review. Whether these mistakes are in the book or they are not and are in the book and Talbot didn't read it carefully the book carefully I don't know I cannot say. Among the most egregious is the implication the bluestocking group got their real start in the 18th century. Not so. The bluestockings were first a group of later 17th century aristocratic French women, among them Made de Scudery, Madame de Lafayette. They met in Scudery's bedroom around her bed but grew rapidly to need more room. Talbot tells a typical apocryphal story to explain how they got the name: a man who attended the English 18th century grouanist who did not care about his appearance would come in blue worsted stockings. There is an analogous story tod about a male who attended the 17th century ladies or it's said the women wore blue stockings It is true that in order to gain respect, many "ladies" insisted the women recognized as part of the movement have a reputation as sexually virtuous I don't have the time to look other doubtful assertions up. The best books probably remain the French studie of the 17th and 18th centuries, but since they tend to dwell only on the French, you must supplement them by the many books in English, often focusing on the mid-18th century. But it is equally illuminating to move forward to the 19th century and read George Elio's account of the first feminist movement in her essay on salonnieres and women poets and letter writers. Then fast forward to Virinia Woolf, pic up speed again and read Dorothy Sayer and about her and her Somerville friends In a second way there's a problem. She never attempts to explain why these fairly harmless women's groups (most of them were not revolutionaries) has been so riculed and treated with such disdain that until today (2024) the temh is (to young women) a scary slur, You need only accuse the girl or woman of being a bluestocking. It's this, such women have the temerity to not build their lives around getting a husband, having his children. In fact they may value their women's friendships and their work more than being married or a mother. I'm going to the trouble to knock this posting off because just now we are being told by the GOP presumptive candidate for VP, Kamala Harris is not fit to run for president because she is not a biological mother. Stepmother doesn't cut it. She has not fulfilled the reason for which she was made (teleology here) a woman -- to have babies. Deep resentment is prompted by the way such women want and nowadays where they can live independently on their own salaries to live chose their lives. Ellen

I liked it very much this time. It helped that I've read the book and started it with context and this was 2nd time through. I let myself be irritated by religious chains I'll cite my blof for the links. It wasn't that I saw no merit but I wanted a firmer rejection of tyranny. https://tinyurl.com/3wubnyn5 Ellen

I don't know what's come over me -- I'm enjoying this book, perhaps the mood is analogous to the one three years ago now, when towards the end of the pandemic as quarantine I began to like mystery/detective novels when done well by a woman (or following the 1930's feminine tradition stemming out of Agatha Christia with no misogyny in it -- like Anthony Horowitz's work as far as I've seen). Aashfors tells her this is fiction, but clearlyi it is her reading of the Austen papers documents and recent non-fiction interpretive books (including biographies). I would agree with her that, like in many families, there seem to have neen unacknowledged erotic relationships, individuals not heterosexual, clear attempts to deny, hide what would have been regarded as scandalous (Eliza Hancock, the naural daughter of Hastngs by Philadelphia Austen Hancock, Jane's father's sister), but this one as presented is overdoneand has the tropes of murder-mystery stories, he worst of it is the depiction of Henry Austen and Elizabeth Knight (the unfortunate wife of Edward who ceaselessly impregnated her to the point she died of it) as adulerous lovers for many years so that some of her children were Henry's. (Francis did the same to his first wife; one wonders how they were taught to think about themselves). I guess down the line we are to learn that Henry poisoned Jane. The flashack technique is used. She quotes from Austen's writing but not as much as Hornby But there is something holding me. The narrator is Anne Sharpe, and I like he (the portrait)r, and its raison d'etre is to track her close friendship (with maybe lesbian feelings on both sides) with Jane Austen. Like Gill Hornby in Miss Austen, Ashford also discernsthe close similar friendship of Jane with Martha Lloyd, The tone or mood of noth books is alik as Jane is seen similrly (from a reading od wghay's left of Austen's leeter). I admit too making the fragmented non-fiction come alive as a coherent set of events appeals, This is why I liked Miss usten Regrets by Gwyneth Hughs. I like it better than the Jane Austen Project by Katherine Flynn whose science fiction genre POV had kept it respectable. I may go back to find out if Flynn has an interpretation of the non-fiction papers and documents not allowed in scholarly critical writing by those who want to be respected. There are preposterous so-called scholarly works (Helen Kelly is that her name), the becoming Austen book of several years ago, the notion Austen was a strong Catholic (by Catholic writers), or to have had unlikely remarkable learaning in phiosophical writing without ever being in company with the milieus that might have nbeen an influence then. llen

Errrata: Not "ashfors tells her this is fiction" but Ashford tells us this is fiction ... Again pray excuse all typos. My brain is still not hooked up properly to my left side, and that includes my left hand and fingers. Ellen <ellen.moody@...> wrote:

An Austen post-text narrated by Anne Sharpe "She is an excellent kind friend" https://reveriesunderthesignofausten.wordpress.com/2019/01/06/jane-austen-anne-sharp-she-is-an-excellent-kind-friend/ <ellen.moody@...> wrote:

In one of the first letters in *Lady Susan*, we read the following comment by the protagonist to her friend Alicia Johnson regarding her circumstances six years before the action of the novella begins: “I am sometimes disposed to repent that I did not let Charles [younger brother of Lady Susan’s late husband] buy Vernon Castle, when we [Lady Susan and her since-deceased husband] were obliged to sell it; but it was a trying circumstance…” As far as I can tell, we never learn anything more about why Lady Susan and her husband (whose death seven months before the action of the novella begins is what precipitates Lady Susan and Frederica beginning to live an itinerant lifestyle - reminiscent, in a curious way, of what happened to JA, her mother, and her sister, after Revd. Austen died in 1805 – a period which ends when Lady Susan marries the wealthy Sir James and Frederica winds up with Reginald de Courcy. While recently discussing these plot points with another Janeite group, one participant asked a really good question – why didn’t Lady Susan’s husband make a testamentary disposition for her and her daughter? Why is she so lacking in money when the novella begins? It would seem that this failure to provide them a place to live, or an income to live on, was not the result of an entail of the kind that Mrs. Bennet feared in P&P, since he had the legal power to sell Vernon Castle, and to decide who to sell it to. Was it that the late Lord Vernon had, like Sir Walter in *Persuasion*, mortgaged the estate to the hilt? Was he a spendthrift, gambling addict, or the like? We know nothing at all about Lady Susan’s personal origins, and whether she had been previously married, but it’s clear that as the novel begins she had no source of income of her own. We also may wonder about the parentage of Frederica, who is repeatedly referred to as Lady Susan’s daughter, and yet, it’s curious that we read the following: “I mean to win my sister-in-law’s heart through the children; I know all their names already, and am going to attach myself with the greatest sensibility to one in particular, a young Frederic, whom I take on my lap and sigh over for his dear uncle’s sake.” This clearly implies that Lady Susan’s late husband was named Frederic, which makes sense, also given that his daughter is named Frederica. What we may wonder, however, is whether Frederica is Lady Susan’s biological daughter, or if Frederica is actually her step-daughter. It would appear from the way that Lady Susan writes about Frederica in her letters, that she does not feel a great deal of maternal love for her. Given the striking resemblance of Lady Susan’s character to that of Lucy Steele in S&S, who in the end winds up married to a vested heir of a wealthy estate, Robert Ferrars, I also wonder whether Lady Susan actually started out in life like Lucy, but we are seeing, in effect, Lucy 15 years later, after much diligent improvement in grammar, etiquette, etc. ARNIE