开云体育

[Jane’s] eyes, a deep grey, with dark eye-lashes and eyebrows, had never been denied their praise; but the skin, which she had been used to cavil at, as wanting colour, had a clearness and delicacy which really needed no fuller bloom. It was a style of beauty, of which elegance was the reigning character, and as such, she must, in honour, by all her principles, admire it:—*elegance*, which, whether of person or of mind, she saw so little in Highbury. *There, not to be vulgar, was distinction, and merit."* As Emma contemplates Jane shortly after Jane's arrival in Highbury in Ch. 20, she grudgingly acknowledges the elegance of Jane's style of beauty, and feels she must admire it, in comparison to what she sees in other females in Highbury. Why does Emma then think, "not to be vulgar", that this constituted Jane's "distinction and merit". Is it Emma's sense that Jane is no great shakes to stand out in Highbury, because there is no real competition? If so, then, Emma is in effect, undercutting her admiration as soon as she thinks it, because in fact, she is jealous of Jane's elegance but hates to admit it? Or is Emma, in her snobbery, characterizing her thoughts as "vulgar" for some other reason I am missing? ARNIE

2nd day of 3. Today I found only one of the JASNA talks of interest to me; the speakers were aiming at someone who knows less. Savige's talk about Austen's copy of Isaac D'Istaeli's Curiosities of literature put bfore me new matter and that it's connected to Austen as a book she owned and probably read. As with people where babies and children, adolescents too, are psychologically different from adults, I can see that kittens are psychologically different from adult cats. <ellen.moody@...> wrote:

*NANCY*: “How mortifying for a daughter, especially one like Jane, to have her father tell Bingley that she was in love with him. The father could ask his intentions and suggest that he owed his daughter more than a quick disappearance from her life. How is it greater morality to humiliate the daughter?” I emphasized in my post that Jane would *never* know her father had approached Bingley, based on the following: If Bingley didn’t respond positively, Mr. Bennet already would have written that he would never see him again, and Mr. Bennet would never tell anyone except Elizabeth about the outcome of his mission, and Elizabeth would never tell Jane. If Bingley did respond positively, neither he nor Mr. Bennet would ever tell Jane about Mr. Bennet’s mission, instead Bingley would just come back in Chapter 52 and renew his advances to Jane, and say exactly what he said to Jane in the novel, as reported to Elizabeth by Jane: *“He has made me so happy,” said she, one evening, “by telling me that he was totally ignorant of my being in town last spring! I had not believed it possible.”* “I suspected as much,” replied Elizabeth. “*But how did he account for it?”* *“It must have been his sisters’ doing. *They were certainly no friends to his acquaintance with me, which I cannot wonder at, since he might have chosen so much more advantageously in many respects. But when they see, as I trust they will, that their brother is happy with me, they will learn to be contented, and we shall be on good terms again: though we can never be what we once were to each other.” “That is the most unforgiving speech,” said Elizabeth, “that I ever heard you utter. Good girl! It would vex me, indeed, to see you again the dupe of Miss Bingley’s pretended regard.” *“Would you believe it, Lizzy, that when he went to town last November he really loved me, and nothing but a persuasion of my being indifferent would have prevented his coming down again?”* *“He made a little mistake, to be sure; but it is to the credit of his modesty.”* This naturally introduced a panegyric from Jane on his diffidence, and the little value he put on his own good qualities. *Elizabeth was pleased to find that he had not betrayed the interference of his friend; for, though Jane had the most generous and forgiving heart in the world, she knew it was a circumstance which must prejudice her against him.”* So, there is no scenario in which Jane is either humiliated or mortified, right? *DOROTHY: “*Arnie, I agree with you Mr Bennet is too indolent a father to bother to write a letter on Jane’s behalf.” But…he does secretly go over to Netherfield to say hi to Bingley – that’s precedent Elizabeth knows about for him sometimes pretending to be indolent. *DOROTHY*: “But a more significant reason he wouldn’t take the step (or rather, that Elizabeth would not urge him to) is that, first, though Bingley was very much in love with Jane, and was convinced himself she loved him in return, **he was persuaded by Darcy to believe she did not. He trusted Darcy's judgement over his own.** Mr Darcy warned him of the impropriety of the match, but also managed to convince him, probably believed himself (though admits he may have been biased by his own wishes) that Jane simply does not return Bingley’s affections. Elizabeth more than anyone knows of their friendship and Bingley’s trust in Darcy’s judgement.” What Elizabeth knows from Darcy’s letter is this: “There is but one part of my conduct in the whole affair on which I do not reflect with satisfaction; it is, that I condescended to adopt the measures of art so far as to conceal from him your sister's being in town. I knew it myself, as it was known to Miss Bingley; ** *but her brother is even yet ignorant of it.* ** That they might have met without ill consequence is perhaps probable; but ***his regard did not appear to me enough extinguished for him to see her without some danger.** *Perhaps this concealment, this disguise was beneath me; it is done, however, and it was done for the best. On this subject I have nothing more to say, no other apol

Never sure. I'll find out that morning. Ellen

Beginning with Elizabeth Bennet’s stroll with Colonel Fitzwilliam, and then continuing during Darcy’s botched first proposal, and then in his letter to Elizabeth, Elizabeth Bennet comes to learn that Bingley has been kept in the dark by Miss Bingley and Darcy since leaving Meryton about Jane’s continuing interest in him, which is what brought Jane to London a few months after he left. Elizabeth is thus uniquely situated by Chapter 36 in her knowledge that Bingley may still be romantically interested in Jane, and she already knew all along that Jane was definitely still romantically interested in Bingley. It’s an old romantic trope, the two lovers who each don’t realize that the other is still in love with them. I suggest that once Elizabeth has this unique knowledge (the only other character who also knows is Darcy, but he has made it clear, arrogantly, that he stands by his actions to keep Bingley in the dark about Jane), she does absolutely nothing to try to somehow let each of the lovebirds know about the other, which might cause Bingley to wake up and (as Darcy puts it in the 1996 miniseries, “go to it”). When she does think about telling Jane, she decides that it would only make Jane even sadder, since, so her thinking seems to go, it would be a fool’s errand, it would not bring Bingley back. I advocate for Elizabeth to persuade her father to covertly seek out Bingley in London, and inform Bingley of this crucial fact that Jane still loves him. I am not suggesting that Elizabeth tell Jane directly, not unless and until her father was successful. Two counterarguments to mine come to mind: FIRST: Mr. Bennet is indolent, not a responsible diligent father, so even if Elizabeth asked, he would refuse to intervene. But, given the stakes for Jane, shouldn't Elizabeth give it a try with him anyway, what does she have to lose? It would be for Jane’s sake, so it would be the generous thing for Elizabeth to do. But this possibility never even occurs to Elizabeth. Also, in Chapter 41, Elizabeth does try to get her father to stop Lydia and Kitty from going to Brighton. But she doesn’t ask him to do something he already did, in a different way, at the beginning of the novel, which is to go on a secret romantic mission to Bingley! And…. last but not least, Elizabeth doesn’t even think the thought of asking her father, it never even occurs to her. Her mind is totally occupied, I would suggest, with increasingly obsessive thoughts and regrets about Darcy, so it appears there’s no room for thoughts about Jane. Even when she is at Pemberley with her aunt and uncle, and Darcy’s being so nice to them and to her – it never occurs to her even then that she might ask him to reconsider about Jane and Bingley. No, that would risk him getting angry at her, and sending her on her way home. SECOND: I actually made up a hypothetical letter that Mr. Bennet could arrange to have delivered to Bingley in London without being detected by either Caroline Bingley or Darcy. The letter doesn’t threaten Bingley, it doesn’t try to make him feel guilty, it recognizes the delicacy of the situation, and it makes Mr. Bennet’s good intentions perfectly clear, and gives Bingley an easy out if he is not interested, for any reason, in restarting with Jane. Would that be “improper” for Mr. Bennet to write such a letter? But why would it be improper for a respectable gentleman like Mr. Bennet if he wrote a carefully worded, non-threatening letter of information to another gentleman, about a matter of great personal interest to both of them, and to the woman they both share affection for – Jane? Why would that be more improper than Mr. Bennet going over to Netherfield at the beginning of the novel to introduce Bingley to the Bennet family and all his daughters, which everyone thought was a great move by him. More important, though, this got me thinking deeply about the distinction between “propriety” and “morality”. Even if hypothetically, someone could argue that it was not normal Regency Era decorum for Mr. Bennet to intervene in this way, I would think that everyo

Ellen, This is scholarly writing about literature that is on a much higher standard than I typically see in this sort of mainstream media article about Austen (or Austen-related) The best part of Ferguson's article for me is this section: "The heroines are often imprisoned in remote, atmospheric locations where supernatural events appear to take place. “That gives us a real sense of terror,” said Wright. “It’s quite psychological, before psychology was invented. She uses the image of the decayed castle or crumbling convent to explore the precarious and outmoded issue of marriage laws in England, where coverture meant a woman’s legal identity and her property effectively disappeared when she married. So she shows young women in distress, in really exciting, action-packed narratives, with the aim of showing the precarious nature of a young female’s existence who has no protection in society.” By empowering her heroines with the strength and resilience they need to escape and marry the men they choose, Radcliffe is “very staunchly” showing that women can successfully resist domination, Wright said. “There is a sense of Radcliffe critiquing patriarchy and men who think they can dictate to women precisely what we should do and what we should give to them in marriage. So in many ways it is feminist literature, on a par with what Mary Wollstonecraft was arguing in *A Vindication of the Rights of Women <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jul/17/100-best-nonfiction-books-vindication-rights-woman-mary-wollstonecraft>* .” At one point, a Radcliffe villain tells his victim: “You speak like a heroine, let us see if you can suffer like one.” Wright added: “There’s always a happy ending and a good resolution. But there’s a sense of a heroine being able to manoeuvre that resolution.” END QUOTE FROM FERGUSON ARTICLE However, even Ferguson fails to take the final step in her chain of logic, which is that it's not just some "men who think they can dictate to women" - that domination was baked into the patriarchal system of marriage - and the central, most insidious part of that domination was the wife's lack of control in "normal" marriage over her own body - hence serial pregnancy and death in childbirth as "normal". As I've said 1000 times, Henry Tilney's rant about what couldn't happen in a Christian nation is the epicenter of Jane Austen's critique of marriage in Northanger Abbey - YES IT COULD, AND DID, HAPPEN, all the time, and yet, no clergyman, politician, or male public intellectual was railing against this plague. Catherine's theories about General Tilney may have been wrong in specifics, but she was spot-on in essentials - and Jane Austen pretty much says that, in code, at the end of the novel. ARNIE

I have to say that after all for me at this point in my life while I can discover new genres or (to me) male authors I like for real, my driving desire and interest is to read books & essays by women. I remain amazed how I discover so many women seem indifferent to this important gender divide. I see those who care on the few places dedicated to some form of women's art, but outside that, no. They look surprised when I say most of the time I prefer women's writing. They seem not to realize the central messages or interpretations found in male books are male centered, male aesthetics. It's denied; maybe not on the level of the sentence or paragraph or chapter but on the level of a whole work of art. Many women do try hard to write versions of male books and especially male movies (There's money in that.) Selling themselves for centuries but now one does not have to. In the US men are trying to make pregnancy compulsory, but having made a miscarriage or anything going wrong in pregnancy, now life threatening, the cruelty and drive to dominate women of many is backfiring ... I'm with Austen on Queen Caroline: she was on her side because she was a woman Ellen

A new edition the occasion of this review with links to other essays on Radcliffe. I am chuffed because what is said about her and her books is precisely my view and I agree she was ridiculed and written out because she was a woman https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/oct/06/the-queen-of-suspense-how-ann-radcliffe-inspired-dickens-and-austen-then-got-written-out-of-the-canon http://www.jimandellen.org/LandscapeMemoryNightmareHistory.html Austen's remarks in NA quoted. To me the absurdity of attributing the gothic craze to apple's shallow burlesque a way of excluding the real starts: Lee's The Recess and Radcliffe's Romance of the Forest Ellen

Do any of you know whether gambling was a common practice with billiard games played in private homes/clubs in Regency Era? I'm intrigued since this is where John Thornton and General Tilney met up, i.e., billiards. I Googled what I could, but I know that this group has members with specialized knowledge of the Regency Era, and I'm interested in finding out what you all know. Thank you -Mary

At the end of Richardson’s *Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded*, after Mr. B has married Pamela, he reveals to Pamela the story of his illegitimate daughter, Miss Goodwin. He does this in a back-handed way, by first introducing Pamela to Miss Godwin, whom he had placed in a boarding school nearby, without revealing her true relationship to him. Then, after Pamela begins to suspect that he is more than an “uncle” to the girl, he tells Pamela that she is in fact his daughter, and how that came about. Pamela warmly accepts the little girl, whom they will then take into their new marital home. Then we read this statement by the buoyant Pamela in her letter to her parents: “Yesterday we set out, attended by John, Abraham, Benjamin, and Isaac, in fine new liveries, in the best chariot, which had been new cleaned, and lined, and new harnessed; so that it looked like a quite new one. But I had no arms to quarter with my dear lord and master’s; though he jocularly, upon my taking notice of my obscurity, said, that he had a good mind to have the olive-branch, which would allude to his hopes, quartered for mine.” Wikipedia informed me thusly as to the meaning of “arms to quarter”: “a heraldic term that refers to the practice of dividing a shield into four or more sections, or compartments, to display multiple coats of arms”. My question is, does Mr. B mean by that reference to the olive-branch to symbolize his hopes that Pamela will continue to accept his daughter as if she were her own; and moreover, to accept his reformation from predatory rake to faithful husband as bona fide. Of course, a few of you have been reminded by the above of the references by Mr. Collins to olive-branches, and in particular the baby he hints Charlotte is carrying – it's interesting to think of them as allusions to the above passage in *Pamela.* ARNIE

I am truly delighted that my blog-essay called A Calendar for Sense and Sensibility is now up on, and part of Sarah Emsley's Summer party for Jane Austen's S&S. It's based on my timelines from and for Austen's six seemingly finished novels, and three of her four unfinished novels. I published one paper (on the calendar I found in S&S) and put all the others on my website under the rubric: Time in Jane Austen: A Study of her Uses of the Almanac. While studying the novels this way I discovered (among other things) that in all but Northanger Abbey and Sanditon memorable and linchpin events where there is a hurtful humiliation of a heroine or great social loss, or deprivation/dispossession Austen has configured her timeline to make the day or evening a Tuesday. Since it's an attempt to show some fundamental about S&S, the other Austen's novels, and the nature of her art I am especially pleased to provide closure for this wonderful seasonal celebration https://sarahemsley.com/2024/09/21/a-calendar-for-sense-and-sensibility-by-ellen-moody/ Ellen

I'm now writing a brief essay on the timeline & Tuesday in S&S (and other Austen novels) for Sarah Emley's blog -- perfect excuse to spend evening wallowing in the Ang Lee/Emma Thompon 1995 S&S and Davis' 2008 S&S. How much I prefer the latter to the former. I found. Davies seeing where Austen does go wrong, and beautiful filling ot of Brandon owes much to Thompson's script Ellen

I presume this will be a well- attended event, a very memorable one next summer. I hope it will have some hybrid events, and much be put on YouTube eventually. Ellen ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Coordinator SHARP <coordinator@...> Date: Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 10:52 AM Subject: [SHARP-L] Call for Papers: The Global Jane Austen To: <sharp-l@...> CALL FOR PAPERS The Global Jane Austen: Celebrating and Commemorating 250 years of Jane Austen University of Southampton, July 10-12, 2025 Austen scholars and enthusiasts are invited to the University of Southampton, Hampshire, for a conference commemorating Austen’s birth in the year 1775. In 1976, Juliet McMaster introduced an edited collection of essays resulting from a bicentenary birthday celebration for Austen in the following terms: To celebrate the two-hundredth anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth in October, in Western Canada, is no doubt to be guilty of a comic incongruity. But as though to compensate for the misdemeanor, the papers delivered at the conference have a common and exact focus on period and locale. 50 years after the bicentenary conference at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, the scholarly landscape of Austen studies has changed. Where many monographs and edited collections of essays still maintain an ‘exact focus on period and locale’, research informed by book history, the material, archival and linguistic turns in literary criticism, postcolonial studies and adaptation theory (among others) has flourished in the intervening decades. The ever-expanding corpus of adaptations, sequels and prequels has proven fruitful territory for a consideration of Austen’s reception, in its broadest sense. Austen’s transformations into other languages and into other cultures make her a Global author. We invite the international community to the port city that was Jane Austen’s home from 1806-1809 for a consideration of the Global Jane Austen. We encourage the broadest possible interpretation of the conference theme, and welcome papers on all aspects of Austen’s writing and life, her posthumous reception, her influences, and her writing alongside that of her contemporaries. We particularly welcome papers on adaptations, translations and creative responses to Austen’s work (written and/or performed in all languages), material and textual transmission of her works, and her reception and reputation in countries outside the Anglophone world. Discussion of the Global within her works (and those of her contemporaries) is equally acceptable. We have a small amount of funding available to support postgraduate, Early Career Scholars, scholars with no institutional support, and scholars from outside the Anglophone world. Please note on your abstract if you fall into one of these categories, and would like to be considered for such funding. Submission Please submit abstracts for individual papers of 250 words, or proposals for 3-person panels of 1000 words, to the conference organisers, Gillian Dow and Katie Halsey. Please submit as Word or PDF documents by email to both G.Dow@... andkatherine.halsey@... by 1 October 2024. Confirmed Speakers Include: Susan Allen Ford; Serena Baiesi, Janine Barchas; Jennie Batchelor; Annika Bautz; Isabelle Bour; Joe Bray; Linda Bree; Inger Brody; Valérie Cossy; Richard Cronin; Carlotta Farese; Susannah Fullerton; Sayre Greenfield; Isobel Grundy; Christine Kenyon Jones; Freya Johnston; Michael Kramp; Devoney Looser; Deidre Lynch; Anthony Mandal; Juliet McMaster; Marie Nedregotten S?rb?; Peter Sabor; Diego Saglia; Rebecca Smith; Jane Stabler; Kathryn Sutherland; Bharat Tandon; Janet Todd; Anne Toner; Linda Troost; Juliette Wells. Further details at: https://www.southampton.ac.uk/humanities/news/events/2024/08/the-global-jane-austen-celebrating-and-commemorating-250-years-of-jane-austen-english-university-of-southampton.page

After all $49 too high for me. Ellen <ellen.moody@...> wrote:

Still too high it's selling at Jane Austen Books (online bookstore) for $31. It will come down. I am going to the JASNa this year -- virtually. It's the only way I can. It is much cheaper virtually and Jane Austen Books always has a set up there -- often with discounts. I see two others I'm reading just now -- one I got after the York virtual festival -- She played and sang, about Austen and music, her playing and in the books. Ellen On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 9:40 AM Tyler Tichelaar via groups.io <tyler@...> wrote: > > I also was impressed with the blog by Hemingway and very interested in the idea Austen's Sense and Sensibility began as an epistolary novel. I was also planning to read the book but admit $49.95 is a ridiculous price for a paperback. Even the ebook is $29.95, but I might decide to read that. In time, maybe some used copies will surface for yes. I definitely want to know more about Austen as a writer and how she worked her craft. > > Tyler >

Ellen reviews a book by Michael Greany on Academia. Greany covers deaths in Austen's works. As Ellen reminds us, there are no direct deaths in her books, though it is assumed that Mrs. Churchill dies before Frank marries Jane Fairfax.

Ellen, This is just a case of ambiguous syntax - “I didn’t need Knightley and Emma’s brother and sister” should more clearly have been written “I didn’t need Knightley s brother or Emma’s sister”. One ironic caveat: ambiguous sentences like that were sometimes deliberately used by Austen in her fiction in order to lead to two alternative, plausible meanings. But I’m pretty sure Paul Gordin was just careless. Arnie > On Aug 26, 2024, at 6:44 AM, Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody@...> wrote: > > ?Susan, I admit I didn't read it carefully. I also have seen other > stage adaptations of Austen which omit central characters -- or worse > yet, add new ones. > These musicals are or me by definition not true in any deep sense to Austen. > > She wrote ironic satire, not romantic comedy and there is no Utopian > vision anywhere, which is the core of most musicals. > > Ellen > >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 9:39 AM Susan B via groups.io >> <smbiddle15@...> wrote: >> >> Quote: "With Emma, it was immediately apparent to me that I didn’t need Knightley and Emma’s brother and sister, who are a large part of the novel. They would be mentioned, of course, but I didn’t need them to appear, and the musical works quite well without them." >> >> How on earth do you do anything true to Emma without Mr Knightley?! And as far as I recall, Emma doesn't have a brother - just her sister who is married to Knightley's brother ... or does the writer mean Emma's brother-in-law, (John) Knightley? >> >> Susan >> >>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 at 13:49, Ellen Moody via groups.io <ellen.moody@...> wrote: >>> >>> 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

Susan, I admit I didn't read it carefully. I also have seen other stage adaptations of Austen which omit central characters -- or worse yet, add new ones. These musicals are or me by definition not true in any deep sense to Austen. She wrote ironic satire, not romantic comedy and there is no Utopian vision anywhere, which is the core of most musicals. Ellen <smbiddle15@...> wrote: