开云体育

DIANA: "Glad to hear the conference was one of the best, Arnie - would you kindly tell a bit more, such as what were some of the "best" things about it?" Hi Diana! Will you be coming to Baltimore next year, I hope??? Let's see.... (and I wonder if anyone else in this group was there too?) First, it was lovely hanging out with friends like Jenny Allan, Constance Vidor, friends from PDX, and others who I chatted with briefly, like Sarah Emsley, Elaine Bander, etc -- an exceptionally friendly vibe overall, and very well organized - nothing went wrong. I had assembled a wonderful banquet table, despite some folks having to cancel attending due to family tragedy -the table included some the above-named friends plus a couple of first timers who were lovely, who responded to my notice on the AGM Hoot Board. There were playoff baseball games going on not far from the hotel on Friday and Saturday evenings, and an induction of a bunch of Boomer rockers into the RocknRoll Hall of Fame just next door, so there were some music celebrities staying at the Hilton alongside the Janeites. And there was a football game probably no more than 4 blocks from the Hotel at the stadium situated on the shore of Lake Erie on Sunday as well - Cleveland was very busy. Then after the Sunday brunch, Constance Jenny and I met up with Diane and Roger Reynolds, who drove for hours just to make that happen - that was very special, as I've known Diane for 17 years, but we never met in person before. We all had a really great time. Among the plenaries, my favorites by far were Peter Sabor (very thorough job re Burney-Ausgen connections) and Patricia Matthew (passionately arguing for opening up JASNA and Jane Austen studies to POC); In the middle, Susan Allen Ford was very competent and professional, but not much new to me in her content. On the other side of the coin, I didn't get much at all out of either Amanda Vickery or Tom Keymer, their talks did not deliver what the title of their talks promised, at least as far as I was concerned. Lizzy Dunforth from Chawton House did a great job on Thursday in a special session presenting some exciting new stuff she has been studying for a while - a little pamphlet that JEAL created, apparently as a young teen, called Tales from Fairy-Land, but which Lizzy believes was perhaps a transcription of Tales told by Jane Austen to her nieces and nephews. I immediately found that persuasive, and I pointed out to her during the Q&A that when Miss Bates arrives at the Crown Inn and then, inter alia, says to Emma "This is just like fairy-land; such a transformation", that this is clearly a broad wink at the title of JEAL's booklet, plus the title of one of the 5 Tales. Lizzy had been speculating about possible echoes between the booklet and Austen's novels. I also quickly found some other stuff relating to Austen family fairy tales that further corroborates Lizzy's theory that these stories came in some form from JA herself. So very exciting. Lizzy also promised that the transcription of Frank Ausgen's memoir (that I was one of a lot of volunteers for) should be online by year end. I bet it contains some surprises relating to the Austen family biography - i gathered it was released to the public finally whe Frankj's descendant, also named Frank Austen, died earlier this year at 99. The Saturday night ball was hugely attended as usual, and there was also a nice ad hoc session for non-dancers with Lizzy, Amanda Vickery, Hillary Davidson, and Mary ___ (blanking on her name) from another of the Austen heritage sites (JA museum in Bath, I think) fielding Austen bio and life & times questions reo domestic stuff, fashion, Austen family history, etc. I realized during that talk that JA did not go to Godmersham at all for 4 years between 1809 and 1813 - and the panel were saying that JA was basically the breadwinner for the Chawton Cottage unit - so I am guessing it was CEA who was always at Godmersham during those 4 years - why it changed after that is anybody's guess - maybe after publishing S&S and P&P, JA had hit a groove where she

Dorothy, I wholeheartedly recommend extended study of Austen's surviving Letters, they are a priceless resource for better understanding her personality. Weren't you a member back in 2011-2012 when we had an extended group read of the Letters all the way from #1 to the last one? Alas, the archive is long gone, but I have 50+ posts in my blog (sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com) from that time period that are about the Letters, including my quoting liberally from discussions in Janeites. As usual, many passages in her Letters were subject to vigorous disagreements as to their meaning. As Nancy indicated, Le Faye's Letters (3rd or 4th edition, there is NO difference between the 2 in terms of content) should be acquirable at a very moderate cost online, and that is still the best resource out there by far, as long as you take Le Faye's editorial decisions (especially her silences where there should be helpful comments, about matters Le Faye seems to have preferred not to emphasize) with a huge grain of salt. For a proactive reader willing to search out the relevant history directly online, the Letters are a treasure trove. ARNIE On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 9:59 AM Dorothy Gannon via groups.io <dorothy.gannon= [email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Nancy. I will look for those. > > They do seem to be selling more selective letters. RW CHapman's Letters > are available for $30 on ebay, Some are on Project Gutenberg. Diedre > Lefaye's book is available for half that. > Nancy > > >

Oh yes Uglow is superb. Her biography of Elizabeth Gaskell is outstanding, but we have to remember Gaskell's corpus was npt conrolld by her family; any missing letters was her decision. She is not trying to hide. I agree with those who've argued for lesbian spinsterhood, with Austen's real chosen partner, Martha Lloyd. What evidence?: sometimes silence, a few letters, where they were. It hink she was in love with 3 of her brothers, nothing emerging physically, but a product of her restricted access to wider experience. I'm also staying within the realm of traditional biography. Jenni Diski's novel presenting Montaigne's pupil, Marie de Gornay, will probably never be beaten, but it is highly untradition fiction. Ellen <jmcheney@...> wrote:

For me this is the tradition which stems from Elizabeth Jenkins. Details of all sorts have been added in the past 80 years, but the portrait the family wanted remains fundamentally unchanged. The most recent exponent of the Jeknkins' view is Claire Tomalin -- unusual for her she did little original research for it. Nokes did much more but he so loathes the consensus establishment farming he veers off to insist she loved Bath, wanted to go to that part &c The pollyanna dream ones are still being written -- that begins with the Hills, which Woolf politely said were fundamentally dishonest The life and works is represented by Honan but any personality is lost. A new one has her a businesswoman; you'd think she was going for tenure. You are much better off writing about some aspect of her art or tastes. That's my answer on the least worst. For now Tomalin. She does present a portrait of a character and then as found in the novels. She knows she has not made the woman writing those letters fit :) Ellen

I'm going to try to watch the recordings. I would not have managed it without my daughters' help. We saw only a slice of the sessions. Until recordings, going to the JASNAs was very frustrating for me because it felt like 9 sessions on at one time, and only 2 or 3 hours of two days allocated. Otherwise (for me) empty -- the evening activities could be nice -- the ball, the singing together but also for me disconnected. I found it very expensive too. This summer I attended an online festival at York and found 4 excellent talks on Austen - one lead me to buy She played and Sang. I too found of what I saw the most interesting about the Curiosities of Literature. I found an inexpensive facsimile and will be looking at it after middle November when I'll be teaching in only one place. I bought a number of good sounding books as a result of attending these keynote speeches. Hilar Davidson's book on fashion; Collins Hemingway. The relapse will probably not be all that will keep me from Baltimore. Ellen

Thank you so much, Arnie, for your "long, kind, satisfactory detail of particulars" (as Lizzy wrote to her aunt!). Most satisfying, indeed, and thank you for all the great descriptions, they told me so much that I wanted to know, and was a wonderful addition to the livestream. Now that more of the talks are available, I'm slowly working my way through them. I liked Peter Sabor's talk greatly, he is so good on Fanny Burney and can connect the dots with Austen with masterful ease. Paul Savidge's was my other favorite, as I wrote in the comments Peter bought a copy of Isaac D'Israeli's Curiosities of Literature about thirty years ago in England and paid 75p for it! We've enjoyed (bits of) it ever since, and I was delighted Savidge was the first to take it up in a talk in connection with JA, as he most capably and entertainingly did. I was also interested in Christine Kenyon Jones's Austen/Byron talk, as that's an area of interest of mine, but it didn't actually tell me anything I didn't already know (I've put a lot about Byron in my novel The Darcys in Venice which I'm just finishing). Collins Hemingway is great, I have written a review of his excellent JA and the Creation of Modern fiction for JASNA News. So thanks again, Arnie. I'm certainly hoping to be in Baltimore for the next JASNA, and I'm trying to figure out which events in England to try for this year. There are quite a few choices and I can't really be there the whole time! Southampton maybe - or the JAS AGM - or the birthday itself: terrible temptations! I'm so glad you and Diane Reynolds got to meet in person at last! It's nice to know that. Diana

I like the question Rory O'Farrell proposed on one of the lists I moderate. Which is the least worse of the biographies of Jane Austen? Let me look at the ones I have and choose the least worse. Yes I think that and that Deirde Le Faye's so-called documentary work is shot through with bigoted pro-Austen family conclusions. Ellen <ofarrwrk@...> wrote:

Omitted: Richard Holmes Confessions of a Romantic Biographer; Maurois Art of Biography -- on biography itself. <ellen.moody@...> wrote:

Great biographers: Claire Tomalin (recommend especially her auotobiograhy), Victoria Glendinning (on Leonard Woolf), Claire Harmon (on Charlotte Bronte, another on Fanny Burney), Hilary Spurling on Christina Stead and Paul Scott. Older masterpiece: Gaskell's Life of Charlotte Bronte. Francesca Wade's group biography Square Haunting, Mo Moulton's Mutual Admiration Society: group biography of Dorothy Sayers and her Somerville friends. Short ones: Virginia Woolf's brilliant sketches. Of course Johnson and Boswell. I really think none on Austen because of hagiography Ellen

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ellen Moody <ellen.moody@...> Date: Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 8:05 AM Subject: Ellen health bulletin To: [email protected] Group Moderators <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Thank you to Rory. Yesterday I had an unexplained relapse. i felt stiff, my left leg detached, not working, sudden soreness, i could talk, but slower. i called Kaiser, they called 911. after several hours & tests, the emergency folk & staff ascertained i hadn't had a stroke. So i was sent home. i've lost ground over larger mobility. my left leg struggles to do its part. so too the left hand. neither had recovered properly. luckily i can read and will carry on, but probably post less -- shorter rather than fewer (I hope). i look forward today all the more to Dr Thorne for an umpteenth time, part of chapter 3 of Il Gattopardo. An English friend is coming to visit, and i have one nice zoom on Manhattan nightlife in the 1950s, and my Thursday evening chat via zoom with autistic friends (40 minutes). this weekend I'll start the Italian version by Visconti. I will now not watch both. i will carry on with Winifred Holtby and my women's studies (Susan Hill just nw still on that landing with Howard's End on her lap. so I'm here, grateful as ever for everyone's friendship. a bit of a headache now, off to et porridge Love and friendship as Austen called one of her books Ellen On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 4:07 AM Susan B via groups.io <smbiddle15@...> wrote: > > Many thanks, Rory, for passing on this message > > I'm glad to hear that it was not another stroke, and that Ellen is now home again - hopefully with all the support she needs. Please do pass on my very best wishes to her, and tell her I will be thinking of her and wishing her well, when you are in touch with her. > > Best wishes, and thank you > Susan > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 at 09:03, Rory O'Farrell via groups.io <ofarrwrk@...> wrote: >> >> Ellen has asked me to inform all that she was in Alexandria Emergency Room with a suspected stroke. Later they decided she was no having one and has been returned home. >> >> She says (now returned home) that "These inexplicable things happen"; she is weaker, more trouble walking and will try to arrange private physio therapy. >> >> I am sure we all wish her well, and will understand if she posts infrequently at present. >> >> >> -- >> Rory O'Farrell <ofarrwrk@...> >> >> >> >> >> >

That other speaker Saturday evening whose name eluded me earlier was Katie Childs, exec dr of Chawton House - not the Bath Austen Museum. Arnie > On Oct 21, 2024, at 3:03 PM, Arnie Perlstein <arnieperlstein@...> wrote: > > ? > DIANA: "Glad to hear the conference was one of the best, Arnie - would you kindly tell a bit more, such as what were some of the "best" things about it?" > > Hi Diana! > > Will you be coming to Baltimore next year, I hope??? > > Let's see.... (and I wonder if anyone else in this group was there too?) > > First, it was lovely hanging out with friends like Jenny Allan, Constance Vidor, friends from PDX, and others who I chatted with briefly, like Sarah Emsley, Elaine Bander, etc -- an exceptionally friendly vibe overall, and very well organized - nothing went wrong. > > I had assembled a wonderful banquet table, despite some folks having to cancel attending due to family tragedy -the table included some the above-named friends plus a couple of first timers who were lovely, who responded to my notice on the AGM Hoot Board. > > There were playoff baseball games going on not far from the hotel on Friday and Saturday evenings, and an induction of a bunch of Boomer rockers into the RocknRoll Hall of Fame just next door, so there were some music celebrities staying at the Hilton alongside the Janeites. And there was a football game probably no more than 4 blocks from the Hotel at the stadium situated on the shore of Lake Erie on Sunday as well - Cleveland was very busy. > > Then after the Sunday brunch, Constance Jenny and I met up with Diane and Roger Reynolds, who drove for hours just to make that happen - that was very special, as I've known Diane for 17 years, but we never met in person before. We all had a really great time. > > Among the plenaries, my favorites by far were Peter Sabor (very thorough job re Burney-Ausgen connections) and Patricia Matthew (passionately arguing for opening up JASNA and Jane Austen studies to POC); > > In the middle, Susan Allen Ford was very competent and professional, but not much new to me in her content. > > On the other side of the coin, I didn't get much at all out of either Amanda Vickery or Tom Keymer, their talks did not deliver what the title of their talks promised, at least as far as I was concerned. > > Lizzy Dunforth from Chawton House did a great job on Thursday in a special session presenting some exciting new stuff she has been studying for a while - a little pamphlet that JEAL created, apparently as a young teen, called Tales from Fairy-Land, but which Lizzy believes was perhaps a transcription of Tales told by Jane Austen to her nieces and nephews. I immediately found that persuasive, and I pointed out to her during the Q&A that when Miss Bates arrives at the Crown Inn and then, inter alia, says to Emma "This is just like fairy-land; such a transformation", that this is clearly a broad wink at the title of JEAL's booklet, plus the title of one of the 5 Tales. Lizzy had been speculating about possible echoes between the booklet and Austen's novels. I also quickly found some other stuff relating to Austen family fairy tales that further corroborates Lizzy's theory that these stories came in some form from JA herself. So very exciting. > > Lizzy also promised that the transcription of Frank Ausgen's memoir (that I was one of a lot of volunteers for) should be online by year end. I bet it contains some surprises relating to the Austen family biography - i gathered it was released to the public finally whe Frankj's descendant, also named Frank Austen, died earlier this year at 99. > > The Saturday night ball was hugely attended as usual, and there was also a nice ad hoc session for non-dancers with Lizzy, Amanda Vickery, Hillary Davidson, and Mary ___ (blanking on her name) from another of the Austen heritage sites (JA museum in Bath, I think) fielding Austen bio and life & times questions reo domestic stuff, fashion, Austen family history, etc. > > I realized during that talk that JA did not go to Godmersham at all for 4 years between 1809 and 1813 - and t

The conference (live) was one of the better ones among the 15 I’ve attended since 2005. Arnie > On Oct 19, 2024, at 7:32 PM, Ellen Moody > > ?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. > >> I very much enjoyed Austen sessions at virtual or livestream JASNA >> today; in a way much better than with going to conference which I find >> stressful, lonely, with long periods with nothing for me to do. I took >> off from 2 sessions and did what I wanted here then. I am capable of >> only a few scratched out notes but if I write up Sunday night when >> memory still fresh enough I can tell a little of the excellent >> sessions I attended. >> > >

[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