Book Nook Cafe discussion
Group Read
>
Exit the Actress ~ October 2011
message 51:
by
Alias Reader
(last edited Oct 05, 2011 09:14AM)
(new)
Oct 05, 2011 09:14AM
The format isn't bothering me. Actually I like it. The format is letting me read the book very quickly. I have about 75 pages until I am finished. I'll probably finish today.
reply
|
flag
I am taking it very slowly, trying to see if anyone else is going to join in at all.
I agree that a lot of situations which one would think would engender deep feelings seem to be glossed over. This makes it more almost of a dry history. I am reasonably interested in the story but I am not feeling any empathy with the characters because of the lack of expressed emotion.
Marialyce wrote: "I am taking it very slowly, trying to see if anyone else is going to join in at all."----------------
I'm really sorry about this Marialyce. You really are doing a great job.
This is the first time we had 7 people vote for a book and the majority not show up for the discussion.
I should have kept the list of names of the people who voted. :(
Please Alias, it is not your fault at all.....At any rate here is a bit about Samuel Pepys who is mentioned a bit in this book...
On 1 January 1660, Pepys began to keep a diary. He recorded his daily life for almost ten years. The women he pursued, his friends and his dealings are all laid out. His diary reveals his jealousies, insecurities, trivial concerns, and his fractious relationship with his wife. It is an important account of London in the 1660s. As well as providing a first-hand account of the Restoration, Pepys's diary is notable for its detailed and unique accounts of several other major events of the 1660s. In particular it is an invaluable source for the study of the Second Anglo-Dutch War of 1665-7, of the Great Plague of 1665, and of the Great Fire of London in 1666. In relation to the Plague and Fire, C.S. Knighton has written: 'From its reporting of these two disasters to the metropolis in which he thrived, Pepys's diary has become a national monument.' Again writing about these events, Robert Latham – the editor of the definitive edition of the diary – has remarked: 'His descriptions of both – agonisingly vivid – achieve their effect by being something more than superlative reporting; they are written with compassion. As always with Pepys it is people, not literary effects, that matter.'
He was also a philanderer and engaged in quite a few extramarital affairs. Hard to believe looking at the following picture of him!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sam...
Does anyone find it strange that there is such concern over following the religious traditions? I believe that considering Nell's living with Hart that they would both have been excommunicated. Perhaps even being an actress would have resulted in that happening too. Did everyone know that Nell was actually illiterate? Does making her literate ruin the novel in a historical sense?
Marialyce wrote:a bit about Samuel Pepys who is mentioned a bit in this book...
--------------
I recall a few years ago a book came out about his diaries or maybe a new translation. Sorry my memory is failing me.
This one came out in 2003. I am not sure if it's the one I am remembering.
http://www.amazon.com/Samuel-Pepys-Un...
Marialyce wrote: "Did everyone know that Nell was actually illiterate? Does making her literate ruin the novel in a historical sense? --------------
I don't know about the real Nell. However, I recall in the beginning of the novel, someone in the family was mentioning the girls lack of education to the grandfather. With the mother's condition and hardly being around, I don't think she would have been able to do anything about it. Then there was the lack of money. They were lower class. I am guessing most lower classes were not educated.
Though she did learn lines for her acting. So I guess I don't know.
I was a bit surprised at the literate way the diary is written. It's also written for the most part in modern day English. So I guess it's just something we have to overlook.
------------
From the Internet--
EDUCATION IN THE 17th CENTURY
In well off families both boys and girls went to a form of infant school called a petty school. However only boys went to grammar school. Upper class girls (and sometimes boys) were taught by tutors. Middle glass girls might be taught by their mothers. Moreover during the 17th century boarding schools for girls were founded in many towns. In them girls were taught subjects like writing, music and needlework. (It was considered more important for girls to learn 'accomplishments' than to study academic subjects).
In the grammar schools conditions were hard. Boys started work at 6 or 7 in the morning and worked to 5 or 5.30 pm, with breaks for meals. Corporal punishment was usual. Normally the teacher hit naughty boys on the bare buttocks with birch twigs. Other boys in the class would hold the naughty boy down.
http://www.localhistories.org/stuart....
Christopher Wren is the architect that the king likes.Here is some info on him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christop...
Sir Christopher Wren FRS (20 October 1632 – 25 February 1723) is one of the most highly acclaimed English architects in history.[1] He used to be accorded responsibility for rebuilding 51 churches in the City of London after the Great Fire in 1666, including his masterpiece, St. Paul's Cathedral, on Ludgate Hill, completed in 1710. The principal creative responsibility for a number of the churches is now more commonly attributed to others in his office, especially Nicholas Hawksmoor. Other notable buildings by Wren include the Royal Naval College in Greenwich and the south front of Hampton Court Palace.
St Paul's Cathedral
Marialyce wrote: "Does anyone find it strange that there is such concern over following the religious traditions? I believe that considering Nell's living with Hart that they would both have been excommunicated. ."-----------
Were the married? I thought not.
No, they were not married although at one point, Hart calls her his wife.I read that most actors/actresses of the day were illiterate.
About Charles I found this.....
After the execution of his father in 1649, Charles assumed the title Charles II of England, and was formally recognised as King of Scotland and Ireland.
In 1651 he led an invasion into England from Scotland to defeat Cromwell and restore the monarchy. He was defeated and fled to France where he spent the next eight years.
In 1660 he was invited, by parliament, to return to England as King Charles II. This event is known as the Restoration.
He is known as the 'Merry Monarch' because of his love of parties, music and the theatre and his abolishment of the laws passed by Cromwell that forbade music and dancing.
Charles was extravagant with money and was forced to marry Portuguese Catherine of Braganza for the large dowry she would bring. He continued to have money problems and allied England with France, a move that led to war with the Dutch and the acquisition of New Amsterdam (now New York) for England. Charles II died in 1685.
Interesting that because of this war and acquisition, we now have the city we live in, Alias.
I thought it was interesting in Chapter V that there was a suggestion that Wren had something to do with the London fire.
More later...I have a travel day today...going to DC.
Marialyce wrote: "Does anyone find it strange that there is such concern over following the religious traditions? I believe that considering Nell's living with Hart that they would both have been excommunicated. Per..."If Nell was illiterate is there an explanation as to how she learned her lines?
That's what I was wondering, Bobbie.
Bobbie57 wrote: If Nell was illiterate is there an explanation as to how she learned her lines?
-------------
I don't know one way or another if she was illiterate. However, there is a long history of oral literacy. I read this book, with Deborah & Libyrinths in 2005, about the subject.
Orality and Literacy~~Walter J. Ong
I finished the book last night Priya Parmar addresses this subject in an authors note at the end of the book. Apparently there must have been comments about this topic when the HB came out.
She wrote:
"One historical fact I choose to dispute was Nell's purported illiteracy. I find it difficult to believe that an actress who was required to learn up to three scripts in a week and was an intimate of both the king and the great writers of her age could have been unable to read."
She says it's a historical fact. I guess by historians who are well versed in the subject matter. Yet she provides one reason to dispute it. And a self-serving one at that. She couldn't have written a diary as Parmar imagines if she was illiterate.
I did read that it is pretty much historical fact, as all her letters were written by another's hand and then signed with her initials E.G. The disputed part comes after she becomes an actress, where they say Hart either had to orally teach her her part or teach her to read, and they didn't know which he did. But even her later private correspondences to the king were written by another, so it seems that she never learned to write herself, very much disputing the historical accuracy of her ability to write a diary.The Story of Nell Gwyn
Nell Gwyn: Mistress to a King
Interesting thanks Maree.I have another question -- in Chapter 3 it says that Theo had an apoplexy -- Do you think he had what we would call a stroke? It certainly came on very quickly with no further explanation.
Maree ♫ Light's Shadow ♪ wrote: "I did read that it is pretty much historical fact, as all her letters were written by another's hand and then signed with her initials E.G. The disputed part comes after she becomes an actress, wh..."----------------
Excellent research, Maree ! Well done.
Barbara ----- in Chapter 3 it says that Theo had an apoplexy -- Do you think he had what we would call a stroke? It certainly came on very quickly with no further explanation. ******************************
Apoplexy-
1. Sudden impairment of neurological function,
especially that resulting from a cerebral hemorrhage; a stroke.
I am trying to figure out the # of children Charles II had.Page 415 "I have never heard of his expressing such vivid concern when his women are with child and this is his ninth child!"
Page 425
"she has, after all, had five children." (Castlemaine)
He has two kids with Ellen.
Wiki lists a lot more-
Illegitimate:
James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth
Charles FitzCharles, 1st Earl of Plymouth
Charles FitzRoy, 2nd Duke of Cleveland
Charlotte Lee, Countess of Lichfield
Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Grafton
George FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Northumberland
Charles Beauclerk, 1st Duke of St Albans
Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond
And they also list these
By Marguerite or Margaret de Carteret
Letters claiming that she bore Charles a son named James de la Cloche in 1646 are dismissed by historians as forgeries.[76]
By Lucy Walter (c.1630–1658)
James Crofts, later Scott (1649–1685), created Duke of Monmouth (1663) in England and Duke of Buccleuch (1663) in Scotland. Ancestor of Sarah, Duchess of York. Monmouth was born nine months after Walter and Charles II first met, and was acknowledged as his son by Charles II, but James II suggested that he was the son of another of her lovers, Colonel Robert Sidney, rather than Charles. Lucy Walter had a daughter, Mary Crofts, born after James in 1651, but Charles II was not the father, since he and Walter parted in September 1649.[3]
By Elizabeth Killigrew (1622–1680), daughter of Sir Robert Killigrew, married Francis Boyle, 1st Viscount Shannon in 1660
Charlotte Jemima Henrietta Maria FitzRoy (1650–1684), married firstly James Howard and secondly William Paston, 2nd Earl of Yarmouth
By Catherine Pegge
Charles FitzCharles (1657–1680), known as "Don Carlo", created Earl of Plymouth (1675)
Catherine FitzCharles (born 1658; she either died young or became a nun at Dunkirk)[77]
By Barbara née Villiers (1641–1709), wife of Roger Palmer, 1st Earl of Castlemaine; created Duchess of Cleveland in her own right
Anne Palmer (Fitzroy) (1661–1722), married Thomas Lennard, 1st Earl of Sussex. She may have been the daughter of Roger Palmer, but Charles accepted her.[78]
Charles Fitzroy (1662–1730), created Duke of Southampton (1675), became 2nd Duke of Cleveland (1709)
Henry Fitzroy (1663–1690), created Earl of Euston (1672), Duke of Grafton (1675), also 7-greats-grandfather of Diana, Princess of Wales
Charlotte Fitzroy (1664–1717), married Edward Lee, 1st Earl of Lichfield
George Fitzroy (1665–1716), created Earl of Northumberland (1674), Duke of Northumberland (1678)
Barbara (Benedicta) Fitzroy (1672–1737) – She was probably the child of John Churchill, later Duke of Marlborough, who was another of Cleveland's many lovers,[79] and was never acknowledged by Charles as his own daughter.[80]
By Nell Gwyn (1650–1687)
Charles Beauclerk (1670–1726), created Duke of St Albans (1684)
James, Lord Beauclerk (1671–1680)
By Louise Renée de Penancoet de Kérouaille (1649–1734), created Duchess of Portsmouth in her own right (1673)
Charles Lennox (1672–1723), created Duke of Richmond (1675) in England and Duke of Lennox (1675) in Scotland. Ancestor of Diana, Princess of Wales; Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall; and Sarah, Duchess of York.
By Mary 'Moll' Davis, courtesan and actress of repute[81]
Lady Mary Tudor (1673–1726), married Edward Radclyffe, 2nd Earl of Derwentwater; after Edward's death, she married Henry Graham, and upon his death she married James Rooke.
Other probable mistresses:
Christabella Wyndham[82]
Hortense Mancini, Duchess of Mazarin[83]
Winifred Wells – one of the Queen's Maids of Honour[84]
Jane Roberts – the daughter of a clergyman[84]
Elizabeth Berkeley, née Bagot, Dowager Countess of Falmouth – the widow of Charles Berkeley, 1st Earl of Falmouth[84][85]
Elizabeth Fitzgerald, Countess of Kildare[84]
So it seems he had five with his wife
and a bunch with mistresses, which included 2 with Ellen.
Good Grief ! No wonder the guy was broke.
Is it any wonder I couldn't keep track of all the people in the book !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_...
I didn't know what this term was -The maîtresse-en-titre was the chief mistress of the king of France. It was a semi-official position which came with its own apartments. The title really came into use during the reign of Henry IV and continued until the reign of Louis XV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%C3%AE...
Alias Reader wrote: "So it seems he had five with his wifeand a bunch with mistresses, which included 2 with Ellen."
I think you mean 5 with Castlemaine, right, as the Queen was barren? Charles II didn't have any legitimate heirs (though it obviously wasn't a problem on his end).
But thanks for the info, Alias!
Chapter 10Page 420
What do you think of the distinction Ellen makes?
Ellen said on page 420-- "A contract, then? If I am to receive a salary, he must believe that I am for hire, and if I am for hire, then I am a ... No. I am not for hire. Gifts, yes. Salary, no. King or no king."
In my mind she was no different than her sister, who people shunned for being a prostitute.
Ellen was just luckier. She had a better clientèle.
It true she only had the 3 Charles, but that is because these men were able to care for her. Again she was lucky.
I'm not judging her; marriage or mistress seem the only opportunities at the time.
I'm sure glad I didn't live in the 17th century !
As the author notes in the end she "began her affair with Hart at 14, (he was in his 30's). Then soon after went to Buckhurst and then to the king.
As Johnny Nolan said it A Tree Grows in Brooklyn,
"There are very few bad people. Some are just a lot of people that are unlucky."
Rose was unlucky. That was the only difference to me.
I finished the book. The above posts are my comments that I wrote on stickies in the book. I'll wait until the rest of you finish. Or I hope, others begin the book.This book was my 77 book read this year. That ties my all time high for books read in one year. :)
Heigh- Ho !
I think I would make Heigh- ho ! my new favorite phrase if I didn't think friends and family would carry me off to the asylum. :-O
Alias Reader wrote: "Well I finished. Those are my comments that I wrote on stickies in the book. I'll wait until the rest of you finish. Or I hope, others begin the book.This book was my 77 book read this year. ..."
Congratulations!
Thank you, Mikela. I know it should be all about quality not quantity, yet it still makes me smile.
Lol on the heigh-ho Alias...just tell them you've been watching Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. That's what I think of!
Chapter VChapter V
Some more info on the plague
In the happenings of the plague, one is super amazed at the amount of death that this illness brought. It was such a super destructive force and eliminated a third of Europe at it's inception.
What was this disease? Bubonic plague is the medical term. It is a bacillus, an organism, most usually carried by rodents. Fleas infest the animal (rats, but other rodents as well), and these fleas move freely over to human hosts.
The flea then regurgitates the blood from the rat into the human, infecting the human. The rat dies. The human dies. The flea's stomach gets blocked and it eventually dies of starvation. It's a grim disease for everyone.
Symptoms include high fevers and aching limbs and vomiting of blood. Most characteristic is a swelling of the lymph nodes. These glands can be found in the neck, armpits and groin. The swelling protrudes and is easily visible; its blackish coloring gives the disease its name: the Black Death.
The swellings continue to expand until they eventually burst, with death following soon after. The whole process, from first symptoms of fever and aches, to final expiration, lasts only three or four days. The swiftness of the disease, the terrible pain, the grotesque appearance of the victims, all served to make the plague especially terrifying.
Some estimates say that 100,000 people died from this outbreak in the 1600's. When a rumor spread about dogs and cats spreading the disease, 40,000 dogs and 100,000 cats were destroyed. In August the rate of death was 6,000 a week. In the winter the rate of death slowed down and Charles II returned to London.
Who do you think writes under the nom du plume Ambrose Pink? Do you think one of the main characters doubles as the gossip column writer, or is it someone that we are never introduced to? Is Ambrose Pink a man or a woman? I can't help but think that Pink is a man.. ( a bit of a catty, gossip loving tips). His character reminds me of such people as Rex Reed, Siskel and Ebert, and Cholly Knickerbocker to name a few.
His character's identity stays hidden so that both we as the reader and the characters of the story never know who he is. It adds to that unknown factor of who might be listening at people's keyholes.
Marialyce wrote: "Who do you think writes under the nom du plume Ambrose Pink? Do you think one of the main characters doubles as the gossip column writer, or is it someone that we are never introduced to? Is Ambros..."------------------------------------
In the author comments at the end of the book, the author gives a suggestion.
When I was reading it, I didn't connect it to anyone in the story.
!!!!! End of book questions-- Spoiler~~ Did anyone have a favorite character?
Oddly, Nell wasn't a favorite of mine.
I would have to go with Teddy.
~~ What character did you have the most compassion for?
I would say Rose or even the Queen. In my eyes Charles was a dog. And to have his affairs so public would hurt even more.
Rose didn't have much of a chance with the poor start she had in life.
I also felt for the Grandfather. He was kicked out of one families home and had to go live with his daughter who was a madam and a drunkard. Her daughter's weren't much better. Rose was a prostitute, and Ellen went with a man twice her age at 14.
~~ What character did you dislike ?
The King. Because he was a cheating husband. I know it was an accepted practice of the time, but I still don't have to like it.
Alias Reader wrote: "In the author comments at the end of the book, the author gives a suggestion. "I must have missed that. Who did she suggest?
Marialyce wrote: "Chapter VChapter V
Some more info on the plague
In the happenings of the plague, one is super amazed at the amount of death that this illness brought. It was such a super destructive force and e..."
------------
It was scary times for sure. If the plague, pox and other various illnesses didn't get you, the quack cures they used would.
The court seemed to change partners faster than you could blink. I have to think that in our modern age, we seem like prudes after reading about all these people. They brag about it. Parade the bastard children about, and the queen even seems to have adopted the oh well a king is the king attitude and he can have anything he wants....I am up to the part where Buckinham is getting Ellen prepared to seduce the king. He is fronting her preparations from her gowns to her speech, to the shoes on her feet. This strikes me as so weird. I guess the politics of the time made one aware how important the
king's mistress could be.
Was anyone else a bit amazed by all the dalliances that went on? I know I watched and
read books on the Tudors and was pretty amazed by how the fathers prostituted their
daughters, but this book's pointing out how everyone got into the game is eye opening.
No wonder people were happy when The Victorian era came about.
Also wondering with all the partners many had why there has been no mention of
sexually transmitted diseases.
Marialyce wrote: Also wondering with all the partners many had why there has been no mention ofsexually transmitted diseases.
And no birth control. Poor Rose had untold abortions when she was a prostitute and then couldn't conceive when she wanted to.
... thinking now. I thought there was some mention of sexually transmitted diseases. Though I can't recall where in the book. It must have been in the Rose sections.
Marialyce wrote: "The court seemed to change partners faster than you could blink. I have to think that in our modern age, we seem like prudes after reading about all these people. They brag about it. Parade the bas..."The only difference in the Victorian era is that people became hypocrites. Everything was still going on, it was just hidden. No matter our framework, our country was founded by Puritans.
I just finished and as I said before, I was disappointed. I can't decide if it was in the writing or in the characters themselves. I found it all so well for lack of a better word tawdry.All that running around, sleeping with so many people while who knows what was going on in your country just really bothered me. I hope I am not turning into a prude, but really all that money spent on Charles' various lovers really annoyed me.
It just seemed so natural that this occurred. Perhaps it is our Puritan background that made me wonder how people including his wife accepted so readily all Charles' affairs. I wonder if she had been the one to behave that way whether he would have been so accepting and loyal. I know that I could never have been the Queen. I would have ripped Castlemaine and Nell's throat out.
I only gave it a two rating, not sure if my reasoning was the writing or my lack of respect or even liking of the main characters. I might change it as I think over the book.
I hate when this happens. A book that is touted to be so good just turns out to be mediocre at best. In my opinion, there should have been more history. At best this was a romance novel, not a historical one. Sorry that is just was not up to par.
I was not so concerned about all the sleeping around as I know that this was part of the history and not created for the book but it particularly annoyed me when they were busily partying as people were still dying in droves in London.About the only nod of approval I felt was from Charles' letter -- when he writes that some people say the Plague was God's punishment for his behavior. And he says if that is true, why punish the poorest people. I'll buy that.
I had no feeling whatsoever for any of the characters really. There was no warmth to the book in anyway. I am not someone who has to like the characters but this isn't that -- I just felt removed. I didn't care about them.
There was a recent interview with Barbara Sinatra about her late husband and her new book.In the interview she clearly states she new of Franks other women. But that was his business she said or something to that effect.
In my eyes, she is no different then the women we read in this book.
12. It is very important to Nell that she own her own property and pay for it herself, resulting in her purchase of Bagnigge House. Later, however, she also accept a house at Newman's Row from the King. Why do you think she insisted on purchasing her own property but then eventually accepted the Newman's Row residence? Does this undermine her independent spirit in any way or would she simply have been foolish to continue to shun the benefits of being the King's maitresse en titre?------------------
I think this points to the cognitive dissonance I found in Ellen.
On the one hand she doesn't consider herself a prostitute, yet is with men for "gifts".
She wants to buy her own house to be independent, yet moves out of that house to the house the king gave her.
Maybe I am a prude, but in my eyes, King's maitresse en titre, is just a fancy title for prostitute.
I do agree with what you said above, Alias. I found that Ellen, although she would never seemed to consider herself like her sister, was in reality a prostitute. She loved the king for his status, his many gifts to her, and didn't seem the least bit perturbed by everyone knowing her status. There did not seem to be any shame in it though at least from the Court of that time, which did seem to be ever so caught up in fun and clothes, and sex.I wonder what we would say today if the royal Court behaved in like manner?
I found her wanting things both ways, a situation that one can never have.
Marialyce wrote: "I don't mind the "pretend" letters but I am hating the script that is being used at the announcement of some of the parts. I know it is suppose to resemble a hand written script but I am having dif..."I agreee--the font is really difficult to read for the dates and places etc. Generally otherwise I really like the layout and I surprisingly quickly forgot about the format.
Marialyce wrote: "Very true Alias. I think that the dairy entry idea does not work so well here. I am also reading The Woman in White where diary entries are used ever so well. It is disappointing to me,..."I thought about that, but then I think I might have disliked a detailed description of her feelings as well. I really liked the description of numbness though. I thought that was truly accurate.
Michelle wrote: "Marialyce wrote: "I don't mind the "pretend" letters but I am hating the script that is being used at the announcement of some of the parts. I know it is suppose to resemble a hand written script b..."-------------------
Hi, Michelle ! I am so happy to have you join in on our monthly Group Read.
Marialyce wrote: "I don't mind the "pretend" letters but I am hating the script that is being used at the announcement of some of the parts. I know it is suppose to resemble a hand written script but I am having dif..."--------------
Michelle wrote:
I agreee--the font is really difficult to read for the dates and places etc. Generally otherwise I really like the layout and I surprisingly quickly forgot about the format.
--------------
I agree. I couldn't read the cursive font at all and the font size in general for the book was too small.
I was thrilled when I began my next read and the book was a hardcover with a nice easy to read big font.
I liked the way the book was structured. I think it served the author's purpose well.
The Royal letters and announcements were used to contrast the difference with the commoners. It helped to highlight there vastly different outlook on things.
I found the Lady's Household Company tidbits interesting.
Ambrose Pink's little articles were funny. Someone on Amazon said they reminded him of Perez Hilton. :)
I think that was spot on.
Alias Reader wrote: "Alias Reader wrote: "Comments on Chapter 3Marialyce---We also see the queen become seriously ill and have her head shaved and pigeons attached to her toes so her spirit would not fly away. I neve..."
you should see some of the hideous remedies i left out!
Priya wrote: you should see some of the hideous remedies i left out! ----------
:) Yes, it sure makes me glad I wasn't born in the 17th century.
It must have been fun to do research on this book.
I read this book a few months ago for another club, and while the format was difficult at first, I'm really glad the author chose to do it that way... it would have been very difficult to give a real sense of the era, plus stick with the historical facts, and still inject life into the characters without the various sources & letters sprinkled throughout. I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, but since Priya Parmar is a Goodreads author, maybe in the time that's left you could invite her into the discussion to answer some questions.
Welcome to BNC, Janice. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Exit the Actress. Unfortunately, for some reason, the people that voted for the book, never really showed up to discuss it. The author did drop by, but there really has been no discussion.
I sure hope this doesn't happen again or we will have to rethink our monthly group read which we have been doing for a very long time.
Anyway, I look forward to your posts. We have a lot of Folders and Threads that I am sure will be of interest to you.
Sorry to post off-topic here but for some reason I have become blind and I cannot find the thread with the nominating/voting and the poll is gone. What's next month's book? I know it was something I was going to read.
Book Nook Cafe
Books mentioned in this topic
The Woman in White (other topics)Nell Gwyn: Mistress to a King (other topics)
The Story of Nell Gwyn (other topics)
Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (other topics)
The Woman in White (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Walter J. Ong (other topics)Joanna L. Stratton (other topics)
Priya Parmar (other topics)
