Jane Austen was a lot of re that I snipped off

Ven ven at vvcrane.fsnet.co.uk
Mon Jun 18 20:04:55 EDT 2001

I said

> >The thing is that there are far worse evils than snobbery -- in 
> >time as well as ours. In some ways the gothics with their shadows 
> >and dark secrets lurking beneath the surface are as true of 
> >Regency life  as anything JA wrote. There are also greater 
> >heroisms than Henry Tilney's.....................

and Melissa replied
> But not every book has to be about those greater evils.  The existence of
> the shabby kind of evil doesn't deny the greater one.  I think Catherine's
> conclusion that "such things don't happen" (speaking of her fear that the
> General murdered his wife) is false; no society, however utopian it may
> seem, is immune to the great evils.  But I think she's right that it happens
> less often than you'd think based on reading all those gothic novels.  Which
> seems to me the point of the book: life is far more likely to be mundane
> than not.  At least, I think it was true for Austen's little world (which
> was really very small).

Yes, yes and yes, but I just don't care to read about it the way JA 
writes it................  Note my new signature quote, which I simply 
couldn't resist, in the light of the ongoing discussion.

> The truth isn't at either extreme.  The world isn't ALL dark and Gothic and
> full of dark secrets any more than it's ALL light and happy and full of
> minor heroisms.  It's a little of both.  I think it's a fallacy to insist
> (not that I think you are) that anyone who looks happy is hiding a dark
> secret,

I don't of course, but I do think most people have some 
extraordinary tales to tell. 

 or that Austen was ignoring the true problems of her neighbors and
> family, as much as it would be to say that no one ever got depressed or
> killed her spouse because two hundred years ago everything was more
> Civilized.
> >> Actually, I'd be satisfied for you to read _Sense and Sensibility_.
> >> 
Me again
> >I've asked Sarah if I can borrow it, at any rate................. Is it the 
> >one in which Hugh Grant appears in an unfortunate ginger wig -- the 
> >film of which I mean.
> Did he?  I don't remember.  I thought he had dark hair.  Though it did look
> a trifle fluffy...but that could have been the effect of the weird collar.

Mmm actually it might not have been ginger -- I'm probably 
projecting, Sarah's husband looks rather like a ginger (strawberry 
blond) Hugh Grant IMO. (Btw Sarah fancies Hugh Grant a whole lot 
more than I do <g>.

> I love that movie.  I have the book Emma Thompson published containing the
> screenplay and the journal she kept during filming.  Fascinating reading.
> There's also a letter Imogen Stubbs (who played Lucy) wrote as part of an
> exercise they all did to get into character.  It's marvelous.
Before I saw S & S I thought I "hated" Imogen Stubbs, but now I 
realise it was just the, imo, awful sitcoms she kept getting 
typecast in.


"Any reader has the right to say of any text: "But I didn't think it was that good."

Samuel R Delany
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/

More information about the Dwj mailing list