Jane Austen July 2025 discussion
2024
>
Sense and Sensibility Readalong (in line with schedule)
I'm really looking forward to rereading it! I will probably mostly be on the spoiler thread.
Same. Excited to start - also a reread for me 😊 can't wait. Will check out this discussion thread at the spoilers one as well
Chapter 2 is such a masterpiece of character revelation. Austen never tells us what to think about Mrs. John Dashwood, she simply lets her betray herself through her own thoughts and then words as she manipulates her husband into avoiding a duty he doesn’t really want to take on. It’s a brilliant portrait of how unethical people justify their unethical behavior, dressing it up in the clothing of morality. Whenever I read this chapter I’m astonished at Austen’s self-confidence as a writer at such a young age. Most authors of the period wouldn’t have given us the dialogue on its own, they would have couched any quotes in long moralizing passages.
So true! And especially so since when Austen first introduces us to them in the narrative voice, what she says about them can be read as positive or at least neutral. By their deeds ye shall know them -- in a good writer's hands at least.
Abigail wrote: "Chapter 2 is such a masterpiece of character revelation. Austen never tells us what to think about Mrs. John Dashwood, she simply lets her betray herself through her own thoughts and then words as ..."But she was past her 30th birthday when she published SS, so she wasnt that young, was she? Or do you consider 30 young for a writer of social comedy / social commentry?
One of my favorite memories from a logic class was watching the Ange Lee version of chapter 2 and the Montey Python witch trial scenes as examples of logic, logical fallacies, and sophistry.
Renuka wrote: "Abigail wrote: "Chapter 2 is such a masterpiece of character revelation. Austen never tells us what to think about Mrs. John Dashwood, she simply lets her betray herself through her own thoughts an..."That’s when it was published, but she wrote it more than a decade earlier. Experts believe the first version was written in 1795, when she would have been 19 (she turned 20 in December of that year).
Abigail wrote: "Renuka wrote: "Abigail wrote: "Chapter 2 is such a masterpiece of character revelation. Austen never tells us what to think about Mrs. John Dashwood, she simply lets her betray herself through her ..."Yes that version was Eleanor and Maranne, wasn't it? I understand that it was (as was PP) revised many times in the intevening years.
Nevertheless I agree that even in her Juvenalia Jane's later mastery has shown its traces. It's just that SS and PP are not products only of a teenage hand - genesis certainly but refined by a woman of mature uderstanding.
Abigail wrote: "Chapter 2 is such a masterpiece of character revelation. Austen never tells us what to think about Mrs. John Dashwood, she simply lets her betray herself through her own thoughts and then words as ..."Agreed! Austen's ability to trust the reader by showing not telling us is to be admired!
This is my second Austen read, my first being Pride and Prejudice 2 years ago. I'm enjoying it thus far. I am curious to see how the sisters Elinor and Marianne, continue to interact with each other and how they adjust in their new home.
Abigail wrote: "Whenever I read this chapter I’m astonished at Austen’s self-confidence as a writer at such a young age. ..."Yes, I'm always amazed and how she instinctively knew what was funny! I know she read widely and seemed to enjoy comedy but social satire didn't really exist before her novels.
I’m struck by the extent to which Elinor has to be the parent within her family, or at least the adult in the room. Her mother and sisters indulge their emotions and ignore the real constraints of their situation, and it’s up to Elinor to make sure ends meet and everything works. She also bears most of the burden of being properly civil to tiresome people—a necessary humility in their changed situation in life. They allow others to see that they find their manners inferior and their interests tedious. Her family seem quite selfish in these regards; and Elinor is admirable in not developing resentment toward them over it. She overlooks their flaws and really loves them all in return. The title of the book, which implies a restrictive role for her as the embodiment of “sense,” is unduly reductive. As usual, Austen’s characters display a more nuanced humanity here.
Abigail wrote: "I’m struck by the extent to which Elinor has to be the parent within her family, or at least the adult in the room. Her mother and sisters indulge their emotions and ignore the real constraints of ..."I have been thinking something similar, I read S&S only once about 10 years ago so not that much of it stuck with me. I have been a little surprised by Mrs. Dashwood's characterization, I do feel that the TV adaptations do make her a little more practical than she is in the book.
Anyway, I finished the first five chapters so far, so I'm a little behind on the schedule at the moment. I'm having a good time so far, although compared to some other Austen's beginning's this one doesn't feel so... sparkly and immediately engaging?
The first sentence: The family of Daswood had been long settled in Sussex. isn't really inspiring compared to some other Austen's starts. Might be also that I recently read Northanger Abbey and that has a very catching start.
I'm fairly behind, but this is reread number 18 or 20 I think. I sometimes wonder if Elinor would be more openly emotional if the rest of her family weren't constantly feeding into each other's emotional states. Mrs. Dashwood actively encourages Marianne's way of grieving and enters into it as well creating a feedback loop neither can get out of. This isn't healthy, and means neither is going through the stages in a way that allows for it to lessen or change. A lessening or change in the nature of grief is anathema to them because they fear it means they didn't love the person. Meanwhile Elinor must grieve privately if at all because she has to deal with real life and the rest of her family. Grief is weird, and never fully goes away, but no one here is really able to deal with it in a healthy way. Elinor appears cold to her family only because they can't read her and don't give her the space to process emotions.
Very interesting, Rebecca! Will keep your speculation about Elinor in mind as I read. It seems possible that the very suppression of her feelings acts to intensify and maybe prolong them.
I found it interesting how both Elinor and Marianne were introduced to be both sensible and while having strong emotions while Margaret lacked the sense. I also forget how young they are until moments of Marianne’s declarations of needing someone whose taste exactly aligns with hers. The youthful idealism and romantic nature matches being 16 years old.
Rebecca wrote: "I'm fairly behind, but this is reread number 18 or 20 I think. I sometimes wonder if Elinor would be more openly emotional if the rest of her family weren't constantly feeding into each other's emo..."Wonderful insight Rebecca! Invaluable. Thank you.
Ruth wrote: "I found it interesting how both Elinor and Marianne were introduced to be both sensible and while having strong emotions while Margaret lacked the sense. I also forget how young they are until mome..."I agree! Marianne is so much a 'sweet 16' just on the idealistic cusp of womanhood that my heart hurts ... for her. No more as no spoilers.
'Sensibility' in SS doesnt necessarily mean the same as now, as far as I know.
It means someting like sensitivity. At the time that is what it meant. Being emotional. Not buttoned up. Being able to feel deeply, and being able express emotion.
Even today, in German, 'Sensible' means that. Being sensitive. And it#s not about having rational, common sense.
Like Jasmine, it’s been years since the only time I read SS, and I agree Mrs Dashwood is more like Marianne than I remembered. I’ve seen the movie more recently and she isn’t as high drama in that. I think Rebecca makes a great point about Elinor being more restrained because everyone else is giving in, in fact exciting, their emotions. On this reread, I’ve been thinking she’s similar to Jane Bennet of P&P in keeping her emotions very placid because she has seen her mother, and now her sisters, being overcome with their sensibilities.
The beginning of SS just makes me glad my teenagers weren’t drama queens. I have little patience for it.
I had always wondered about the Will of the old Mr Dashwood - but had kind of blindly accepetd the narrative voice suggestion that Norland Park was unfairly willed away from the Henry Dashwoods.Also the PP entail situation was at the back of my mind as a standard practice I think. Till mid 20 century that was part of the law in Commonwealth countries too.
But now I am wondering.
Narrative voice suggests the 2-3 year old child of John Dashwoods with a small child's 'tricks ' was a significant factor in the old gentleman's decision.
But when the Henry Dashwoods arrived at Norland Park 10 years ago, Margaret was a 3 year old child. Marianne was just 6 and Elenor only 9.
So they also could have won his heart over the period, surely?
Yet the old gentleman left them just 1000 a piece - when his estate gave him 4000 every single year. And he as an elderly man presumably did not live a live of balls and regular parties needing all that money to be spent.
He also had not left anything to Mrs Henry Dashwood, nor any monetary gift to Henry Dashwood to soften the blow of not inheriting the Park outright.
No wonder there was shock.
So what could be some underlying causes?
There is no entail which old family properties usually had.
Was Norland Park therefore perhaps bought by the older gentleman?
Like Bingley, and the Lucases, did?
Possibly then there could be less family tradition invoved as against personal choice.
But were the Dashwoods nevertheless minor gentry, and not trade?
It could be so too.
Mrs Henry Dashwood, with her Sir John Middleton cousin, certainly is.
Henry Dashwoods earlier lived at Stanhill, which may have been a small estate, and which they seem to have sold before disposing of the majority of stuff within, on moving to Norland.
The 7000 Henry Dashwood left hs widow must be part of, or all of those proceeds.
Maybe Stanhill had only been leased and only the moveables (perhaps bought wiht the money from first Mrs Dashwood) were sold.
Henry Dashwood had no other wealth. He had only a 50% share of his first wife's capital interest.
He seems to have been an even more irresponsible parent than Mr Bennet.
Especially considering that Mrs Henry Dashwood, though gentry unlike Mrs Bennet, nevertheless unlike Mrs Bennet had not even the 4000 dowry.
It is strange that there is no talk of the 7000 being well invested, yielding an interest, or being built up.
Of them having been able to save on household costs which they would have had at Stanhill, by living with the old gentleman, who presumably bore all those costs at Norland.
Was his 4000 spent all on running the property, and was the old gentleman concerned how much more his housekeeping costs had risen since the passing away of his sister, who had run the house before?
Of course the household costs of two eldery siblings is not comparable to that of a family of 3 generations numbering 6, but yet....
...at the end of chapter 6 there is the wry almost caustic comment by the narrative voice about Mrs Dashwood in her new cottage considering building improvemets
'... till all these alterations could be made from the savings of an income of 500 a year by a woman who never saved in her life...'
which makes me wonder if the old gentelman had been concerned about the frittering away of his estate, by a relaxed attitude to spending by the Henry Dashwoods, even if the style was not extravagent.
If the gentleman had earned his money by working in the colonies, or in trade, or in the services, if could have been a concern for him.
He may have seen John Dashwoods' more mercenray, more pecuniary minded attitude, to his liking.
He seems to now have set up an entail, even though there was none before.
Which maybe following his family gentry practices, or trade aspiring to gentry practices, or simply a tradesman securing his life's work.
There is a slight turning up of noses, by Mrs John Dashwood not finding favour with any of her in-laws, which could mean the Dashwoods are gentry.
Fanny, certainly acts like trade.
Like the Bingley girls, and their new rich self aggrandisement. Even her mother Mrs Ferres ambition for her son Edward sounds same.
I think Dashwoods are minor gentry, the old gentleman may or maynot have enhanced his wealth, was worried about Henry Dashwoods attitude to spending money, and moved to secure his estate at least for 3 generations by setting up an entail.
Something else I'm noticing in this reread, Elinor has a better understanding of her emotions because she can distinguish between liking versus loving. Her mother and sister don't do this and don't understand the distinctions, and in chapter 3 think of them as lesser emotions.
Rebecca wrote: "Something else I'm noticing in this reread, Elinor has a better understanding of her emotions because she can distinguish between liking versus loving. Her mother and sister don't do this and don't..." This is a great example of their family dynamics. I think it's especially rough when you have only one parent and that parent can't be depended on to be the adult, so someone like Elinor has to step in and do it, all while maintaining space for the deference that that parent still expects as their due.
Mrs. Dashwood was very young when she married. She never had to grow up or exhibit good sense. I feel bad for her and if Marianne can't be made to see reason, she'll end up like her mother. Margaret gets a pass because she's a child. Elinor had to step up because no one else could.
This makes me want to go find that JASNA article about primogeniture, 1790's economics and politics, brothers, and how Elinor functions more as a brother than a sister in her role.
QNPoohBear wrote: "Mrs. Dashwood was very young when she married. She never had to grow up or exhibit good sense. I feel bad for her and if Marianne can't be made to see reason, she'll end up like her mother. Margare..."She must have been around Elinor's age when she married. She says herself that she is 5 years older than Colonel Brandon who is 35.
So she's 40. Eldest child 19. Gave birth at 20/21. Married at 19. Not that young.
Unlike Elenor she probably had caring and protective parents, which didn't necessitate her growing up fast as Elenor has had to do at the same age, thanks to Mrs Dashwood's irresponsibility..
The generous caring attitude of John Middleton towards her, his cousin, could suggest a caring tradition in Mrs Henry Dashwoods side of the family.
That is an excellent point! I'd never really thought about reasons for why Mrs. Dashwood still feels like she never fully grew up.
Abigail wrote: "I’m struck by the extent to which Elinor has to be the parent within her family, or at least the adult in the room. Her mother and sisters indulge their emotions and ignore the real constraints of their situation, and it’s up to Elinor to make sure ends meet and everything works. She also bears most of the burden of being properly civil to tiresome people—a necessary humility in their changed situation in life. "Rebecca wrote: "... I sometimes wonder if Elinor would be more openly emotional if the rest of her family weren't constantly feeding into each other's emotional states. ...Meanwhile Elinor must grieve privately if at all because she has to deal with real life and the rest of her family."
Thank you for your insight, Abigail and Rebecca. This is my 4th maybe 5th re-read and this time I'm focused on:
1/ Mrs Dashwood and her parenting and
2/ Elinor and how she copes with being parentified by her mother.
Mrs Dashwood is such a complex character, intelligent and loving, yet an ineffective mother. She burdens her eldest daughter with responsibilities beyond her age by abandoning her own duties, fails to guide her younger more emotionally vulnerable daughter to behave with more propriety, and (view spoiler) Moreover, when Elinor repeatedly tries to bring up the topic and tries to nudge her to act Mrs Dashwood turns the tables and chastizes Elinor for lack of delicacy and feelings. It's all so frustrating to read and it must have been extremely frustrating to experience. Her mother won't do what she should, and Marianne won't listen to Elinor because she doesn't recognize her authority (also she's a silly selfish teenager, that's reason enough not to listen to your concerned well-meaning elder sister). Despite all this Elinor loves both of them without resentment. That's admirable.
QNPoohBear wrote: "Mrs. Dashwood was very young when she married. She never had to grow up or exhibit good sense. I feel bad for her and if Marianne can't be made to see reason, she'll end up like her mother. Margaret gets a pass because she's a child. Elinor had to step up because no one else could."Excellent point. She probably relied on her husband for everything other than what was considered strictly female duties. Being a gracious hostess, behaving with ellegance, displaying good taste, being capable of intelligent engaging conversation, in short being a lovely ornament to her husband. It also included bringing up her daughters to be able to be/do the same once they grow up.
Wives at that time period should have been able to manage their household, that's where I believe Mrs Dashwood was slightly lacking - she's impractical & unrealistic regarding expenses (the carriage, house improvements, etc) and we're told she was incapable of saving any money. Mr Dashwood was probably unilaterally making decisions, checking their daughters' behavior when need-be, and acting with vigillance when it came to potential dangers to his family (social and otherwise). That said, he was probably financially irresponsible given the situation his widow and daughers ended up in (not like Wickham but more of Mr Bennet's level of negligence).
I've caught up with the schedule after my holiday. This is my third reread of the novel, but the last time I read it was in 2005. S&S has never been my favourite Jane Austen novel, but I'm really enjoying it this time. I pay more attention to the details than to the love stories than I might have done in the past.
This was my first time reading S&S and I absolutely loved it! I agree with all you have said about Elinor, Mrs. Dashwood, and Marianne. I can relate to all three of them on one way or another, but specially with Marianne and Elinor. I feel for Marianne, as well, and I admire Elinor beyond measure. She'd be the kind of person you'd want by your side in a time of crisis.
Chapter 24 (Volume 2 Chapter 2)Elenor has already made a mistake about the new hair ring on Edward's hand being of her hair.
And she now knows she made a mistake.
How and why is Elenor then sure that Lucy 'for self interest alone could induce a woman to keep a man to an engagement, of which she seemed so thoroughly aware he was weary'?
How is Elenor so sure that Lucy knows Edward is weary of the enagement?
Becasue of Lucy's little mentioning that she would have been jealous, she would have known ' :..had he been different in his behaviour, if he had talked more of one lady...etc.'?
The verabl duelling between Elenor and Lucy in this chapter is amuisng and awful at the same time.
Renuka wrote: "Chapter 24 (Volume 2 Chapter 2)Elenor has already made a mistake about the new hair ring on Edward's hand being of her hair.
And she now knows she made a mistake.
How and why is Elenor then sur..."
One of my favorite parts of this dialogue is how modern is actually feels. Maybe not so much in the particular turns of phrase, but in the dynamic, in how Elinor know EXACTLY what Lucy is up to and Lucy knows that Elinor knows what she's up to, lol. And Elinor will NOT let Lucy think she cares if it's the last thing she does. I feel for her, but it's quite the duel for sure.
Priscilla wrote: "... dialogue ... how modern ... actually feels. Maybe not so much in the particular turns of phrase, but in the dynamic, in how Elinor know EXACTLY what Lucy is up to and Lucy knows that Elinor knows what she's up to ..."Yes! And its nice to see Elinor not being accepting and passive but actually going forth into battle on her own initiative !
The first round went to Lucy with her shell shocking Elinor - and though she tried hard not to show her feelings, both Lucy and she discuss in the second round that she showed some reaction and wasn't completely impassive.
So the cunning Lucy found put Elinor's secret emotional attachment - for which reason she most probably manouvered herself into Barton Park.
Now in this second round Elinor is the victor having given the devious Lucy a couple of thrusts that Lucy cannot answer nor return.
My favourite is,
'And for your own sake too, or are you carrying your disnterestedness beyond reason?'
Haha Bravo Elinor - you defintely are no pushover!
I’m DNFing. It’s just not my cup of tea.
Renuka wrote: "Priscilla wrote: "... dialogue ... how modern ... actually feels. Maybe not so much in the particular turns of phrase, but in the dynamic, in how Elinor know EXACTLY what Lucy is up to and Lucy kno..."So true about that line, lol! Elinor reminds Lucy that her pretense at disinterest is so extreme as to be ridiculous and unbelievable. I couldn't believe how much Lucy needled Elinor about how she would do exactly as Elinor advised in leaving or staying with Edward! The nerve! lol
' "Miss Morton is Lord Morton's daughter."Fanny looked very angry too and her husband was ALL IN A FRIGHT at his sister's audacity.'
I always suspected that John Dashwood was henpecked by his mother in law and wife. Feel sorry for him.
I think he grew up as an orphan though his father was alive and therefore formed a deep attachment to a woman who was the first woman to be there for him.
Unfortunately, she is greedy,
Or maybe she has no time for her in-laws because she sympathises with her husband's bereft childhood state, and resents their selfish past??
Checking timelines, John Dashwood must have been 4 years old or younger when his mother died.
His father must have remarried soon after but we never hear of JD growing up with his sisters, even though Elinor is only 6 years younger than him.
It's the saem age difference between Elinor and Margaret.
We are told JD married soon after he came of age - so 21 or 22 years. He has a 2-3 year old child. So he is now only 25 years old.
Elinor is 19.
JD was 6 years old when Elinor was born. Her parents married when JD was just 5 years old.
We are told the old uncle was visited now and again by JD and Fanny - no mention he had been ever been a part of the family at Norland!!
This is very strange because when Henry Dashwood and family moved into Norland, Elinor was only 9 - therefore JD was just 15. Not an adult with a place of his own.
Where did he live - even if he was at Oxford some of the time?
Edward Ferres at 25 still lives with his mother.
Was John Dashwood farmed out as a child, and sent to boarding school and university - and barely a visitor at his father's home???
If so, then no wonder that he is generally emotionally stunted, and inordinately attached to his wife.
We are not allowed to see all this... because we are told the story from Mrs Dashwood's POV - and we know she sees only what she wants to see.
She is a lovely woman, but in her own way she is obtuse, and not toleratnt of any other's right to an opinion ... even of her own child's if it differs from hers ...
I am not liking this woman much ... by and by... Selfish, comes to mind too.
I've read this book at least 20 times and never once asked myself what his childhood would have been like. Now I need to know more!
Most of what I see examines the story for how it looks at the lives of women or the main Male leads.
For instance you get analysis of how Elinor's brother's actions impact them but nothing looking at why he became selfish beyond what the narrator stated.
Rebecca wrote: "For instance you get analysis of how Elinor's brother's actions impact them but nothing looking at why he became selfish beyond what the narrator stated."Yes exactly. It's what usually happens when the narrator is not one who is called the Omnicient Narrator who sees and knows al
JA uses it, but it is with limitations because she slides a first person thought opinion into the third person - so that we are being kind of manipulated.
It sounds like the objective narrator but that narrator is in the head of a certain charcter and giving us a subjective pov.
Rebecca wrote: "Most of what I see examines the story for how it looks at the lives of women or the main Male leads."The main male leads are also given to us through mostly Elinor and or Mrs Dashwood's POV.
We have to sift through and ask questions based on our reality and our judgements, as if the situations had happened now - how we would judge them then - and not get sucked into their narration and pov too much.
Sure it:s a story and it's their story - but to analyse what is happening we have to emotionally remove ourselves a bit from their gas lighting :)
Same as when we listen to people in our network selling us their hardluck tales of how wickedly they have been treated by others ....
This video gives a short explanation of the narrative voice getting inside a character voice, using the famous Chapter 2 of SSBut Dr Cox also calls both John and Fanny Dashwood nasty or something
I think Fanny is, but JD repeatedly tries to befriend his sisters while they are all in London but is thwarted by Fanny.
I think he is more sinned against.
The book also told us right at the beginning that if his wife had been more amiable he would have been too.
That he was well regarded in society because he generally discharged his duties and responsibilities well.
He holds onto money because propbably as a child and a teen that was the only sense of security he had.
Our annotated book also mentions JD as being insecure, in chapter 36.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG35p...
It is quite likely that John Dashwood was sent to school at a young age. Even if he was at home, he wouldn't have spent much time with his sisters growing up once he left the nursery. Jane's older brothers were educated at schools and the younger brothers went into the navy at young ages. Jane and Cassandra went to school - briefly - and other young men moved into the rectory to study with Mr. Austen.
JA narrative voice is sometimes like a media report paid by PR and giving us a slanted story !!Or a lawyer putting forward a client story.
QNPoohBear wrote: "It is quite likely that John Dashwood was sent to school at a young age. Even if he was at home, he wouldn't have spent much time with his sisters growing up once he left the nursery. Jane's older ..."The thing is, even if he was in school, what was the relationship with the step mother and the step family?
There is absolutely no mention of any interactuíon as children, or any shared memories.
Also AFAIK there were almost no schools for those younger than 13. There was home tutoring.
Even today Eton etc (Private schooles called Public schools in England) take studnets at 13. Why Prince George is still not there for example.
After 13 some of them were in school till 16/17 and then Oxford or Cambridge, if it could be afforded.
There were no other universities in England. In Scotland there was Edinburgh and St Andrews.
Even if JD was in school we have no intimation of visits home or childhood home expeiences. And that is the question I have.
Yes JA older brothers were educated at home along with other boarders (including Cassanddra's beau Tom), and James and Henry went to Oxford afterwards. Not schools.
Their own father had a boarding school at home.
James immediately ordained after Oxford - Henry joined the Militia.
Maybe the father's boarding school had stopped by the time younger ones were ready to think of Oxford and anyway that needs money too.
Navy was cheaper. Wage earners from 14.
Unlike Oxford which has Edward a dependant even at 21+
The disastrous 'school' the girls went to, was run by a widowed relative.
The sister in law of Mrs Cassandra Austen's sister Mrs Cooper. It was the only way the lady and her own daughters could survive. The place was so under funded and moved at least once and due to unsanitary conditions there was frequent infections.
With the last one, Jane Cooper (Jane's cousin )wrote to her mother, and they were all collected by her - but Mrs Cooper died from that very same infection.
These 'schools' were home tutoring. Like Mr Pratt's. Criticised by Robert Ferres, who was sent to Westminster College from 13. School there even today.
Probably Jane and Cassandra were sent so that Rev. George and Cassandra Austen could house 2 better paying studnets in their boarding school in the girls area...
The practice of sending out children to farmers went on till 20 century for various reasons. We know JA herself was at a farmer's the first 18 months og her life, as did all her siblings, and brother George all his life.
The very famous travel writer Patrick Leigh Fermor mentions in the introduction to his now classic travel book A Time of Gifts of his similar experience, while his parents were in India.
How he lived the same as farmer kids, and what he felt when he was confronted with a 'lady in bright white shoes' who was introduced suddenly as his mother, and he had to go away with her from the only 'home' that he knew.
This is why I am considering the possiblity that John Dashwood may have grown up away from his father and step family.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
The Schedule:
1st July: chapters 1, 2, 3
2nd July: 4, 5, 6
3rd July: 7, 8, 9
4th July: 10, 11, 12
5th July: 13, 14, 15
6th July: 16, 17, 18
7th July: 19, 20, 21
8th July: 22, 23, 24
9th July: 25, 26, 27
10th July: 28, 29, 30
11th July: 31, 32, 33
12th July: 34, 35, 36
13th July: 37, 38, 39
14th July: 40, 41, 42
15th July: 43, 44, 45, 46
16th July: 47, 48, 49, 50
Post your thoughts here as we read!
Please avoid spoilers if you're rereading or reading ahead of schedule. There is a separate spoilery thread for those of us rereading. Likewise if you're behind the schedule, maybe avoid this board in case of spoilers.