Jane Austen discussion
Newbie Corner
>
Introduce Yourself Part Two
date
newest »
newest »
message 1651:
by
Beth-In-UK
(new)
Jun 16, 2020 05:29AM
Just to say, personally, I don't object to US spelling if a book has been published in the USA - seems fair enough to me!
reply
|
flag
Considering books like Black's Correct Form, and Debrett's similar, I sort of assume that such books only ever started being published when there was a need for them ….ie, when the 'upper classes' were being penetrated (or attempted to penetrate!) by the nouveau riche coming up from lower strata of society.After all, if you were already a member of the upper classes, you presumably didn't need to consult a book to know who went into dinner first, and how to address any of your fellow posh chums?!
If anyone here has been watching Belgravia, the Julian Fellowes dramatization of his own post-Downton Abbey book about a wealthy nouveau riche property developer (as in, developing Belgravia!) entering into 'high society' in the mid-Victorian era, they will have noticed a telling section where, at the opening of the book in 1815 (which generates the entire subsequent plot), he and his wife are invited to the Duchess of Richmond's pre-battle ball, and are introduced to their host, and the wife is adamant that they call him 'Duke' to his face, to emphasise they are guests, and as such, can address him 'informally' rather than the 'My Lord Duke' business or 'Your Grace'.
Beth-In-UK wrote: "I think clergy are particularly tricky in English! I don't think any are ever called 'Pastor', which sounds either Germanic or American to my mind. Clergy tend to be addressed by their parishione..."
Pastor is American, and I'll never make that mistake again, no matter how charming I think it sounds!
I fear it is more common now to say Rev Tilney, rather than Rev Henry Tilney or Rev Mr Tilney. Please don’t
So the correct form of verbal address to a vicar is either 'Vicar' (as in 'More tea, Vicar?') or Mr Tilney? But when you address an envelope to him, or put a place card for him at dinner, then it's either 'Rev Henry Tilney' or 'Rev Mr Tilney'?
Like I say, to me, clerical correct form is tricky!
This is a new question, but not sure where else to put it....hope it's OK here for that reason.I've started reading some general JA Lit Crit, and a comment caught my attention - that Austen gives inadequate reasons for the two famous elopements in her work - that of Wickam with Lydia, and Henry Crawford with Maria Rushworth.
Both elopements are crucially essential for the development of the plot (obviously so in P and P, giving Darcy a chance to redeem himself, and for Lizzie to appreciate just how wrong she has got him - and Wickham!, but also in MP so that Edmund can seriously start to go off Mary Crawford!).
But while both elopements make sense from the females' points of view (to Lydia it's exciting, and attractively 'wicked', and a 'lark' etc, plus it's romantic and she assumes they'll get married, whereas to Maria it's escape from a dreadfully dull husband and finally getting the man she always wanted), the elopements make little sense from the males' points of view.
Why would Wickham saddle himself with Lydia, especially when he's fleeing creditors - sex was very available to men in those days through the plentiful supply of prostitutes so that can't have been a motive. As for Henry Crawford, he didn't fancy Maria enough to marry her in the first place, and since he was aware his sister was keen on Maria's brother, would he really have scuppered Mary's chances just for a fleeting sexual liaison with a woman he felt nothing for emotionally anyway?
I do wonder, perhaps, whether Wickham might have suspected (or at least hoped??) all along that perhaps compromising Lydia might be a way of screwing at least some money out of her father? (Would he have known how straightened Mr Bennet's circumstances were?) (I guess he'd have realised he would lose the estate to Mr Collins, but there might be spare cash to pay him to marry Lydia for?)
What do others think? Unconvincing plot hole - or am I insulting Austen!???
I think the other (only other?) elopement of Willoughby with Colonel Brandon's ward is less problematical. It's clear the ward is illegitimate, so she didn't have that much of a future to ruin in the first place (by Willoughby's reckoning), and he might well have fancied her sufficiently to risk any downside to running off with her? It does beg the question that had Marianne not been sufficiently 'protected' by her family and connections, that he might have happily run off with her as well! Marianne, too, might have been so besotted, and so convinced of Willoughby's unshakeable love for her, and so incurably romantic (and so very, very young....), and have agreed to run off with him (oh, boring and stultifying conventional marriage and respectabity - how could they compare with True Lurve?? etc etc)
Mod
In a way, can't disagree! It's a bit 'basic' but then perhaps blokes are, and it's 'we females' who 'overthink' things!!!! (?!)Obviously, both of them will know that, being men, THEY will not suffer for what they've done, and Austen makes it bitterly clear in MP that Henry Crawford will be received back into society, whereas Maria is outcast for ever (and punished with having ghastly Mrs N dumped on her!) (It would be interesting to think what Maria's 'rest of life' story might be....definitely a novel in there somewhere, but whether she can ever find a happy ending, I don't know - maybe if her husband dies and she is widowed, and time blurs her 'crim con' with HC? Perhaps emigration might be best for her - taking herself off to somewhere like Italy to live in raffish exile?? At least she has plenty of money!) (She'll never really be truly respectable again in England, though - as Georgette Heyer makes clear in her novel Venetia, where the heroine's mother is now married to the man she ran off with - unlike Maria, whom HC will never marry - as she became widowed during the course of her adulterous exile, but even now remarried she still isn't received in London society)
I wonder what Wickham thought would happen, had he not been bribed to marry Lydia? If he had the slightest inkling that Darcy was keen on Elizabeth, he might have seduced Lydia 'for spite' almost, as ruining Lydia would have (he must surely have thought) scuppered Darcy's ambitions to marry her sister....or if he did, he'd have to live with the humiliation that his wife's sister was a fallen woman. So, for Wickham, seducing and ruining Lydia might have been 'sweet revenge' for Darcy having balked him in his original intention to seduce Georgiana and therefore force Darcy to bribe him to marry her. (I suspect, had Darcy not discovered the planned elopement in time, and had been forced to bribe Wickham to marry his sister, that he'd have done so on the basis that Wickham had to join a regiment packed off to the Peninsular War, and then ensured he got sent to dangerous battles, and hopefully killed off ASAP!)
I wonder how common (or uncommon) in general it was for middle-class girls and upwards to be 'ruined'?? As in, not even being married off to their vile seducer??I know there were what were known as 'Children of the Mist' where some of the children born to wives were not their husbands (usually after the essential 'Heir and Spare'!), and this was certainly true of some of the top layer of Regency Society. I believe that providing the husband made some formal acknowledgement that the child was 'his', everyone just turned a blind eye and the biological father was never formally identified (though bound to have been hugely gossiped about!). (Again, Heyer alludes to this in Cotillion where Freddie misjudges his newly married older sister's sophistication by saying along the lines of 'everyone knows x isn't y's brat'....)
I know that sometimes such children were 'farmed out' (a la Harriet Smith!). And sometimes raised by the biological father's family in some way. (The most touching scene in The Duchess is when the poor Georgaina - brilliantly played by KK, as much as she was unable to play Lizzie! - has to hand over her non-husband's baby).
It must have been a fairly frequent occurrence, and, of course, as with Harriet Smith, when the mother was, we are given to assume, 'no better than she should be', ie, a mistress rather than a wife of another man.
(I'm never sure whether to smile or be shocked at the blatant snobbery of Emma in her judgement that had Harriet's father been a nobleman, her illegitimacy would have been 'romantic' but that he was only a tradesman it was nothing more than sordid, etc...…)
My name is Gisele Andrade, I am a 30-year-old writer and housewife from Brazil. When I was still studying English at 17, my Spanish teacher gave me a "Sense and Sensibility" book as a birthday gift. She knew that I loved reading novels in English. That was my first contact with Jane Austen and with English Literature classics. This year I have published my first novel in the Historical fiction genre. I've chosen English Regency period as the time background to my story. Nice to meet you all.
Mod
Love your name and we're glad to have you with us!
Rachel wrote: "WELCOME, Gisele!Love your name and we're glad to have you with us!"
Thanks, Rachel.
I am also fond of your name. I have two dear friends called Rachel.
Hello, Gisele - being handed any Jane Austen novel to read in the original at 17 is pretty challenging! Her vocabulary is really only 'semi-modern', and although she reads far more modern than, say, Richardson or Fielding earlier in the 18th century, the sematics of how she used English can catch out even English-speaking readers (eg, 'candour') - indeed, just understanding exactly what she meant by 'sense' and 'sensibility' is challenging enough!I do think Austen must be a very tricky author to translate into any foreign language, she is so nuanced. Not to mention that her irony is so subtle....
All the best with your Regency novels - are they romances, or something a little 'meatier'?
Not sure if this rings a bell with you or anyone else here, but I think I can recall a Regency set novel, probably published about 30 to 40 years ago (I read it when I was young, so it must be at least that!). It may have been by Joan Aiken (Jane Aiken? (I get her muddled up with, I think, her sister, who was Jane/Joan Aiken Hodge!).
The heroine ended up in Brazil, and I think got romantically involved with one of the Braganzas! I can't remember much more than that, except that it was quite an exotic setting by the standards of the day.
(In a different vein, far more recently, the late great Eva Ibbotson set at least two of her novels in Amazonia - A Company of Swans, a romance, and Journey to the River Sea, for younger readers. Both seem very evocative of the region, though no idea how accurate they are!)
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Hello, Gisele - being handed any Jane Austen novel to read in the original at 17 is pretty challenging! Her vocabulary is really only 'semi-modern', and although she reads far more modern than, say..."Hello, Beth. Yes, that was a very difficult book for me at that time. I was an advanced level student back then. Even so, I struggled a lot. hehehe
My book has a rich heir-servant love story. The heir of an industrialist family returns blind from the Napoleonic wars and is expected to marry in his social rank. So it slightly involved more of historical economical and political aspects (war, the industrial revolution) than just a love story.
I ended up building side characters more than usual romances. Therefore, some other sub-plots can be found here and there.
That was a very interesting comment about the Regency book with Amazon. I confess I have never seen my country being portrayed much in foreign books, mainly in a Regency one. For me, it sounds a bit "uooah" an English Regency heroine in the Amazon since that part of our country was hardly explored at those times. I guess she must be a scientist or something like Jane in Tarzan. I would have to check if the English explored the Amazon during those times.
I have never been to the Amazon, myself. It is very far away in the north of my country. It must be a nice place to set a novel. However, I would have to do lots of research. ^^
My name is Abigail. I love books and everything Jane Austen. I am in College. I have a blog about books. I live in the United States. I also love dancing and singing. I am hoping to become a librarian but they don’t have the library science degree at my school. I am hoping to get my major in history.
Mod
I love dancing too! Happy to have you with us!
Abigail wrote: "My name is Abigail. I love books and everything Jane Austen. I am in College. I have a blog about books. I live in the United States. I also love dancing and singing. I am hoping to become a librar..."welcome! I have degrees in both history and library. I would say not to major in either right now. There are more library school graduates than there are jobs. Both degrees are very useful for learning the foundations of how to research and write well but the arts and humanities are out of favor and don't have much funding. You have some time to think about it, obviously. I discovered Jane Austen when I was your age and have spent a lot of spare time researching her life and times.
Gisele - I like the heir/servant set up, but oh, I could never read a novel about someone who is blind - just too upsetting for me to bear alas (cowardly, I know, but there it is). I will try and track down that 'Braganza' novel I read so long ago.....I think the heroine went to Brazil as a governness, something like that?? It's all a bit dim in my memory (though I remember the hero was very hunky!!!!)
It's strange to think that a Brazilian has never been to the Amazon....but then I think Europeans like me forget just how huge Brazil is as a country! We tend to think Brazil = Amazonia, not that there is 'anywhere else' (except maybe Rio!). :)
Abigail, hi - I think the only problem with librarianship (other than as QNPB warns!) is having to learn classification systems. NONE seem to work 'perfectly' and all seem very complicated! :) :)Have fun with your history degree (I'm British, so don't 'get' all the major/minor stuff in US unis alas - over here we usually just take 'one subject'.)(You can do 'joint degrees' in two subjects sometimes, and sometimes in the first year of a 'one-subject' degree you have to take a subsidiary or linked subject, but not after the first year.)
It's always a tricky business, whether to choose a college subject you love, that may not have much job prospects, or to pick one that is not your favourite thing, but has good job prospects!
Some argue that it's the degree that 'counts' (as in, being a graduate) for employment, and that one therefore might as well spend your time and money studying something you love. Others argue that uni is simply preparation for one's future career, so you should choose something you are both good at, and that has good job prospects, over one that you enjoy.
Some lucky people actually a subject that also has good job prospects!!!!! (Usually STEM, of course - Science/Tech/Engineering/Maths)(or Economics-type degrees.)
(In the UK, students are getting a lot 'pickier' about what and where they study, now that the 'good old days' of getting government grants has changed to loans that have to be repaid - British students of my 'grant' generation were pretty spoilt!)
Gisele, I've finally tracked down that Braganza Regency Romance novel!!!!It isn't by Jane Aiken Hodge (I've just been through all her books on Good Reads, and have surprised myself at being reminded of so many I read when I was young - where are they now, I wonder??)(sometimes books written years ago stand up well, sometimes not - I ought to re-try JAH and see what I think!)
Anyway, the Braganza novel I remembered is actually called 'The Braganza Pursuit' and is by Sarah Neilan (whose name, ironically, is unknown to me - or at least totally forgotten), published in around 1977.
I will try and find out a bit more about it - might even try and buy a second hand copy (I suspect it's long out of print, like so many of those books, eg JAH's, that I read when young!)(and goodness knows if I still have any of them left somewhere in boxes in my garage!).
I've now become re-fascinated by all those old time books that I loved in my youth!!! :)
(Why can I not remember Sarah Neilan, not even the name?? Shame)
Hello, everyone! My name is Sienna and by the time of writing this introduction, I have only read Pride & Prejudice and Persuasion. I am currently reading Emma and I am tremendously enjoying it!
How lovely to be reading Austen for the very first time! Enjoy!!!
Hi! My name is Tessa and I am a 22 year old book addict living in British Columbia Canada. I can’t remember how old I was when I first read Austen but I was way too young to fully understand the context and beauty of her writing. I believe my first was Pride and Prejudice, though. I also grew up watching every single Austen film adaptation in existence (my favourites being Pride and Prejudice 2005 (shocker) and Sense and Sensibility 1995 (sooo under rated!). At this point I’ve read most of her novels except for Mansfield Park and Lady Susan. Excited to post here more!
when I first read Austen but I was way too young to fully understand the context and beauty of her writing.**
Tessa, you're easily young enough to be my daughter, and I can promise you that even when you reach my advanced years you will STILL not have exhausted all the depths and beauty of Austen's writing. There is always more to find....
Enjoy it all!
Good luck with MP. It's a much 'tougher' read than the others, both because it's a much longer book, and takes the heroine from her childhood, not just her young adult self, but mainly because it is a very obvious 'moral' book, even to the point of 'moralising'.
The characters are very subtly drawn, and it can be hard to navigate the moral currents that flow through the book. Who is 'good' and who is 'not good' and why, etc etc etc.
I would say MP will take a 'long read' and require pacing. Your first read will be almost a skim, not because you do 'skim' but because you will probably read it for 'plot' first and foremost, and then, with later reads, you get down through the many, many layers (whether one ever reaches the end of the layers, I suspect not - nor any of Austen's novels - which is why they are 'great' and we all keep reading and discussing them.)
If possible, I personally would recommend you try and read MP 'fresh', as in, without any prior reading of any lit.crit (whether formal or informal), or if possible, watching any film/TV adaptations. (There has only been one decent adaptation, and that's a very old TV one from my youth - the films are APPALLING!!!!!!!!)
Hello Jane-ites! I am a reader/reviewer and travel advisor. I have read all of Austen, some more than once. I've liked the movies I have seen, but I have not seen them all. I also love Austen retellings. A favorite is Unmarriagable by Soniah Kamal. If I put together an Austen tour in Spring 2022 would you be interested in going?
Hi, Barbara!I'm intrigued, but this chat room is not really the place for conducting business. Would you email me at Jeanette@Wattses.com?
I sent the email. Did you receive it?
Hello, I'm Alfred, an author from New Zealand. My favourite characters are INTJ Mr Darcy and ENFP Elizabeth. I am very inspired by Jane Austen.
Hello Alfred - you've chosen two well-loved characters and huge numbers of Austen fans will agree with you!Excuse my ignorance, but I've not idea what INTJ or ENFP mean!!!
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Hello Alfred - you've chosen two well-loved characters and huge numbers of Austen fans will agree with you!Excuse my ignorance, but I've not idea what INTJ or ENFP mean!!!"
Myers-Briggs personality test
I participated in the study of Emma
You can read more about the characters personality types
on various sites online. I'm like Darcy, INTJ but it changes every time I take the test.
Ah, I'm not as au fait with MB as you! I'm going to assume I and E means Introvert and Extrovert, but no idea of the other initials.It always annoys me that introverts are commonly portrayed as neurotic and sad, but then to me that tells me that such tests are devised by self-gloryifying and bumptious extroverts!!!!!!!! (Er, guess what category I think myself in!!!!)
I agree with you that it can change - it always 'depends'. I hate the question like 'Do you enjoy parties?', to which the correct answer can only be 'sometimes - it depends on my mood, and where the party is, and what kind of party, and what kind of music, and whether I have a better offer for anything else, eg, going to the theatre, etc etc etc'.....!!!!
I still think one of the best definitions of the difference between introverts and extroverts is that the latter GAINS energy from the company of other people, whereas the former feels energy DRAINED from them by other people. I think that very true.
How annoying - I wrote a reply, hit post, and it seems to have disappeared. I don't know MB much, but assume I and E stand for introverted and extroverted. don't know what the other initials stand for.
It always annoys me that in general introverts are portrayed as neurotic and sad, but that makes me assume that such tests are devised by self-glorifying and bumptious extroverts!!!!!!!!!
You can learn about Myers-Briggs personality types and take free tests online. https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-p...https://www.mbtionline.com/
Mr. Darcy is INTJ (introverted, intuitive, thinking, and judging). highly analytical, creative, and logical.
That sounds about right for Darcy - except possibly intuitive? He was intuitively wrong about Lizzie after all - (Not handsome enough to tempt me!)What does Lizzie's ENFP stand for? I'm assuming Extrovert, Intuitive and maybe Feeling? No idea bout P (except of course 'prejudiced' ho ho!).
Not sure she is intuitive either, though - she is intuitively wrong about discerning either Darcy's or Wickham's true characters....
Thank you for the link though - I might try taking the test anonymously!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a shame - the test site is currently down. Oh dear, and since I am perpetually fascinated by myself, that is a real disappointment to me...... (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)I will try again later.
I'm not sure I agree with their definition of intuition though -
"Information: Do you prefer to focus on the basic information you take in or do you prefer to interpret and add meaning? This is called Sensing (S) or Intuition (N)."
To my mind, intuition is the ability to make accurate judgements un- or sub-consciously, without really being aware of how you come by that judgement. I would think it's actually impossible for a human being to take in basic information without intepreting it simultaneously - the 'need' for meaning is deeply built in. To live in a meaningless universe is a horror for humans - we have 'imposed' meaning on everything, ever since pre-history and possibly before then.
I also query their definition of how we make decisions:
"Decisions: When making decisions, do you prefer to first look at logic and consistency or first look at the people and special circumstances? This is called Thinking (T) or Feeling (F)."
What I first look at when making a decision is the moral dimension - is it 'right' or 'wrong'? (This applies particularly when I'm deciding whether to eat a cream cake or not!!!!!!!!)
I suppose (?) one 'might' argue that morality indicates 'feeling' in that if I 'feel' for another human being (ie, empathy) then I won't make a decision that harms them (morality)???
I love the bit where they say there are no right or wrong answers - yeah, as if!!!
As an aside, I do wonder how psychopaths perform on the test (allowing for their pathological lying of course, which might be detectable all the same???)
It's all very interesting though -and since I am uber-analytical (as well as fascinated by myself!)(and others, to be fair) in what makes us tick, whether or not it is flawed it is valid as 'a' tool at that, though one must be cautious about over-dependence on it (I know HR departments 'can' use it as an aid to selecting candidates....)
On Extrovertism and Introvertism - they define it as: "Favorite world: Do you prefer to focus on the outer world or on your own inner world? This is called Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I)."
This isn't a bad definition, and has the virtue of avoiding the 'egotistical' definition of Extrovertism and the 'neurotic' definition of Introvertism.
However, it then rather falls into the trap of risking the rebuff that extroverts must be thoughtless idiots only open to impressions from outside themselves, and never thinking them through and evaluating them and coming to their own judgements on them....
P is perceiving and J is judging, the categories Mrs Myers and Mrs Briggs added to Jung’s original categories
There are several places online to take the test and other places to see where the Austen characters fall on the spectrum.This site is fun https://www.16personalities.com/
I got matched with Gandalf from The Lord of the Rings
https://www.truity.com/test/type-find...
THIS site says Jane Austen was INTJ! I don't know how they get that based on what little we know about her.
https://www.truity.com/personality-ty...
Thank you both for the extra information. I think being matched with Gandalf is a pretty good compliment!!!
I know I was I and J. I am not sure of the other two letters. As much as I would love to be a Lizzie Bennet, I am Elinor Dashwood. I feel the extroverts have so many rewards and advantages in the world. I do like Elinor, Anne Eliot, Charlotte Lucas, Gorgianna Darcy, and Jane Bennet, though. So, for the most part I like JA's introvert.
Mod
Jane Austen
Books mentioned in this topic
The Lord of the Rings (other topics)Emma (other topics)
Georgette Heyer's Regency World (other topics)
Pride and Prejudice (other topics)
Sense and Sensibility (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Angela Thirkell (other topics)D.E. Stevenson (other topics)
Georgette Heyer (other topics)
Katherine Reay (other topics)
Marian Devon (other topics)
More...
