Rereading Mansfield Park

I just finished Mansfield Park (for the second time) yesterday, and tomorrow I start Sanditon, so I thought I should write about it now while it is still fresh on my mind. Like I always mean to do, but rarely actually achieve. ;)

Getting into it this time was, I have to confess, a bit difficult for me.  I still like MP, but... well, it's probably on the bottom of my list of JA favorites. Which I almost hate to say, because it has a reputation it doesn't deserve of being not as good, and I still think it deserves more love.  But I was having a hard time getting into it.  One excuse, though, was that there was a lot of Distraction going on in my life at the time. (Ahem. :D)  When I read it the first time, of course, it was New and therefore more interesting (even though I'd already seen the BBC miniseries and knew the basic story--it's still different to actually read the book).

Anyway.  Whenever this does happen with JA, generally when you get further into the story you become more attached to it, and that, as well as actually determining to spend more time reading, moved things along a bit.

So, as I've already done reviews of all 6 of JA's main novels, I like to just talk about my thoughts on rereading the story--what I thought differently this time, what new I noticed, etc.  There wasn't really that much of a difference... although I have to say that this time I was *cough* a tad little bit more sympathetic with the Crawford siblings. *cough, hide*

They're still horrid villains and everything. It's just that I kind understood them a little better, even though I didn't particularly enjoy the feeling. HA.  And of course by the END it's just like... wow, you two are even worse than I thought. (Especially Henry. What a... I can't even... who could seriously think Fanny was wrong to refuse him by the end? Besides Mrs. Norris and Mary Crawford who are jerks and don't count? Goodness, even Sir Thomas admitted she'd been right!)

Okay, so I guess I didn't actually think any better of Henry this time.  It was just that he didn't drive me quite as insane the entire time. I guess it was Mary I liked a little better. She can be rather amusing, and she's not exactly the evil scheming sort.  I wasn't any less annoyed with Edmund for falling for her, though, haha... and still a little annoyed with him at the end, too, how he kept going on about that it was all owing to her upbringing and otherwise she would have been perfect. You know what... whatever. She's just not, okay? She is what she is. And though a lot is often due to upbringing/influence, some people can come through things and still turn out better... especially in stories, although of course he doesn't know he's in a story. (snicker-snort)

Well, anyway. Moving on. So, if you've read the book (and if you haven't you probably shouldn't be reading THIS), you know how towards the end it plunges into the most of the Heavy Stuff. In fact it's probably the Heaviest Stuff of any Jane Austen book ever. Which is why when I turned a page and started in with what ends up being the last chapter and saw--
Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery. I quit such odious subjects as soon as I can, impatient to restore every body, not greatly in fault themselves, to tolerable comfort, and to have done with all the rest.
--this sort of Rush of Happiness went over me and I was like, YAY JANE! This is why I love you so much!!  Haha, obviously she was getting a little tired of it all, too.

Although I do still wish she'd have spent a little longer once everyone was restored to comfort. I should have liked to see exactly how everything happened with Fanny and Edmund, and instead she leaves most of it to supposition. Sigh. Well, she tells us the general end, but as to details, they are left to our own inferior imaginations. :P

However, I could just envision how lovely it could all be in a movie.  Honestly... why hasn't anyone done it?? There is so much New Stuff that can be done with a Mansfield adaptation, a REAL one in which everybody is portrayed like they're SUPPOSED to be... argh. Anyways.  Come oooon, BBC! I confess I was rather hoping the fact that the 200th anniversary being next year would inspire them, but alas, it would seem not...

And I really do think that it is all finished nicely even if I would want it to be longer.  I mean, Mrs. Norris is out of the picture with good riddance and everyone is happy.  Maria is ruined and deserves it. (Although maybe I would have liked to see Henry a with a bit more of a comeuppance.)  Susan Price gets to stay at Mansfield and doesn't have to live with the horrid Prices anymore.  Tom improves.  Sir Thomas is no longer an idiot about certain ideas he had concerning Fanny (namely, that she should have accepted Mr. Crawford, and that she should not marry one of his sons, haha); and it's a bit morbid of me but I found this hilarious: "...Dr. Grant had brought on apoplexy and death, by three great institutionary dinners in one week..." (cough). And of course, Edmund and Fanny live happily ever after.

One thing bugs me though, and that is this--
Could he have been satisfied with the conquest of one amiable woman's affections, could he have found sufficient exultation in overcoming the reluctance, in working himself into the esteem and tenderness of Fanny Price, there would have been every probability of success and felicity for him. His affection had already done something. Her influence over him had already given him some influence over her. Would he have deserved more, there can be no doubt that more would have been obtained, especially when that marriage had taken place, which would have given him the assistance of her conscience in subduing her first inclination, and brought them very often together. Would he have persevered, and uprightly, Fanny must have been his reward, and a reward very voluntarily bestowed, within a reasonable period from Edmund's marrying Mary.

What... no. Jane. Please. DON'T. Don't indicate that Fanny would have married Henry in the end if all that Stuff hadn't happened. How could you do that to your own Fanny??  It's rather like the indication that Marianne wasn't really in love with Col. Brandon at the time of marrying him. (My thoughts here.) I prefer to have my own opinion on these subjects. Heh.

Just the same, I finished the book with the same sentimental feeling I always get when finishing one of Miss Austen's stories... and this little sigh escaped me which then made me giggle because it wasn't at all premeditated. Haha.

Anyway. I'll stop rambling now and close with two random quotes I scribbled down. (I wasn't very good at writing down quotes this time...)

"There is not one in a hundred of either sex, who is not taken in when they marry. Look where I will, I see that it is so; and I feel that it must be so, when I consider that it is, of all transactions, the one in which people expect the most from others, and are least honest themselves."

~Mary Crawford

"I was quiet, but I was not blind."

~Fanny Price

The Classics Club: Flash Reviews 1-5

Goodness, this blog had been lacking posts of late. And the problem is, I seem to say that practically every time I post something. :P One of these days I'll give myself a challenge of posting every day for a week or two...

Anyways. When I first started The Classics Club I planned to write a paragraph or so about every book rather than actually reviewing them all (that's too daunting) and then group them together and post every five books. But I did do some separate reviews since then, of JA re-reads and Charles Dickens stuff and N&S, so it's only now that I finally have five to toss out there at once and some of them have been languishing in a Word document for some time. But anyways, here they are! 

Title: Anne of Windy Poplars

Author: L.M. Montgomery

Date: September 25, 2012

My thoughts: Delightful! Of course, it’s an Anne book, so that’s kind of duh. But I did enjoy it very much. And here I go again—it’s another book that I’ve been meaning to read for simply ages. Well technically I’ve been meaning to read the whole series for simply ages, and I only got as far as Island, and that was a few years ago, so I almost feel like I should reread the first few books too… but I intend to read the ones I’ve never read before I do that. ;) Anyway, having seen the first two Anne movies far too many times to count, it was very amusing for me to spot all the quotes and situations that came from this book that went into Anne of Green Gables: The Sequel. In the movie it’s all sort of shuffled and combined, but I must say I think they shuffled and combined in quite a masterly manner, and kept the spirit of Anne and so many of the quotes, even if they were in a very different context, were delightfully exact. Another thing that made me giggle was a couple of the characters who said things that sounded suspiciously like Mrs. Bennet with her poor nerves and nobody knowing what she suffers, but then she never complains. (Cough.)

Title: Pygmalion

Author: George Bernard Shaw

Date: February 24, 2013

My thoughts: This was fun! I was actually surprised to see how much of My Fair Lady came straight from the original play. It did have a whole lot less of the teaching period… and I must say, pretty much all the things that were changed in My Fair Lady I think were for the better. Sorry, George. But just the same, you can understand the story even better from reading the play, and it’s a pretty short read and a fun one.

Title: The Elusive Pimpernel

Author: Baroness Orczy

Date: April 10, 2013

My thoughts: It was very good.  It had been about a year since I’d read TSP, so it was definitely time to read another one. ;)  I have to admit, though, I was not liking Sir Percy most of the time.  I know the Leaguettes will not kill me for saying so, because after all, I make no attempts at murder when they say disparaging things about Mr. Darcy, so all is fair. :P

Anyways. It definitely kept my attention—but it did irritate me how right when you want to know what happens next, it goes into long descriptions about stuff you really don’t care to know the details of. Sigh. And also, these books always seem to start out rather slowly. (Well, this is only the second one I’ve read, haha, but anyways.) And it was so suspenseful the whole time, and then doesn’t spend too much time winding it down at the end. Those kind of books kind of leave me feeling a bit drained, which is probably why I’m think it will be a while again before I get to El Dorado. (But I’ll read it eventually. I promise.)

This is how I felt some of the time while reading the above. :P

Title: Jane Eyre

Author: Charlotte Brontë

Date: May 28, 2013

My thoughts: Well, this was my second reading of this book, and this time I was reading it along with Amy which made it even more delightful. J My original review is here, and if you skip down to the part with “my sentiments”… well, they are pretty much still the same, so, you know, I don’t want to repeat myself here. Of course rereads are always different… so I’m trying to think if there’s anything in particular that struck me this time. Uh… well, I was even MORE annoyed by St. John. That dude drives me NUTS, and I thought it rather a pity that the entire book ends with a quote from him. Charlotte, what were you THINKING? Heehee. And the only times I don’t like Jane is when she’s sort of under St. John’s power. :P Well, not exactly, but if you’ve read the book you’ll know what I mean.

Anyway. I definitely recommend this to everyone. And if you haven’t seen any of the movies yet either… read the book first. I didn’t. But you should. :D

Title: Anne’s House of Dreams

Author: L.M. Montgomery

Date: June 11, 2013

My thoughts: Delightful! Just what I said about Windy Poplars, I know, but that’s the word that seems to describe the Anne books for me. Just purely delightful. Of course, the whole thing wasn’t happy (heh), but everything just has a sort of light-hearted feeling that I love. Another thing was that reading this book for me it was like getting to a clean, new portion of snow that hasn’t been walked on yet and experiencing the mixed pleasure and regret of doing it yourself. Having seen the movies, I knew at least parts of the stories of the first four books, but as this is the fifth it was all completely new for me—and I’d always sort of looked forward to it at the same time since... well, once you know you know and then it’s not new anymore. ;) But anyways, it was a lot of fun getting whole new stories and characters. You can really grow to love Leslie Moore even though you may not at the beginning… Miss Cornelia is absolutely hilarious and I know I will be quoting her forever with her “Isn’t that like a man?”, “believe me.” Oh, and Captain Jim! Ahhh! He was great, besides for having a low opinion of women writers. (Of course, it was a woman writer who made that up, so whatever. Haha.) And I finally get the context of the race that knows Joseph, after having had it quoted at me a lot. ;) (I still don’t know why Joseph, though. Am I being dense? Can anybody enlighten me?) 

And that's it for now. (You can see my Classics Club page here.)

On Rereading Pride and Prejudice

It's quite pathetic, really, that I've been a fan of Jane Austen for pretty much exactly four years now (well, my indoctrination was four years ago, haha), P&P has been my favorite story ever since I saw the 1995 adaptation (which was the second story I was introduced to), and I only just finished reading it all the way through for the second time.

Sometimes I think I am more of a bookworm in theory than in practice....

Anyways. I enjoyed it a great deal, of course; it did take me a while to get "into" it, but I suppose that is because I really am soooo familiar with the story. But there is always something fresh to learn or be reminded of, and that's always fun. Plus I found that when I actually read more at a time I could more easily get involved.

For a long time I've been holding out on deciding between Mr. Darcy and Mr. Knightley--I'd read Emma twice, and P&P only once, I would say; well, I no longer have that excuse. Buuut... I still can't decide. It is true that my respect for Mr. Darcy was refreshed upon rereading P&P, and for the last half or so of the story I could 'feel' it all from his point of view actually better than Elizabeth's. (Well, I guess I might have donei t on purpose. :P) My admiration for Mr. Darcy, though, is just different from that of Mr. Knightley. The love stories are so different, too, and both so compelling in their own ways.

Also, it is hard to take into consideration that what one should be comparing is the heroes from the books, movies completely excluded. Because frankly, I think for a lot of people who adore Mr. Knightley, Jonny Lee Miller's portrayal has something to do with his popularity. Don't get me wrong--I don't think it's just because of the movie that he's such a great hero, because I happen to think the representation was perfect. JLM just got Mr. Knightley to a T.  The adaptation understood him... they took what was in the book and expanded on it without taking away from or adding to it.

And you know what? I can't say that for Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy. At all. (And don't even speak to me about Matthew MacFadyen's. He was a nice guy, and I have to say I kind of liked him... but NOT as Mr. Darcy. He is not Jane Austen's Mr. Darcy, and therefore not mine.) I have a high respect for Colin Firth's portrayal--it has been my old friend these three years and a half at least. (I mean, hello, I'm a co-founder of The P&P95Forever Club!) But I don't think the actor really understood the character; the portrayal only showed some aspects of his character and we can only see half as much as we can in the book (while some things, such as the un-smiling-ness, actually gives us the wrong impression). There is really so much more to Mr. Darcy, peoples. If you've forgotten, go read the book again. Live the story from his point of view. His character is a little hard to decipher, and we don't have exactly an abundance to go on... but that makes it so interesting!

In short, I do hope that someday, somebody like BBC will make another full-fledged adaptation of P&P in which Mr. Darcy's portrayal will do as much for his reputation, as JLM's did for Mr. Knightley's. Also, it would be fun to see actors who are actually the right ages. :D

Anyways. If I can actually make myself do it, I intend to write a post all about The Real Mr. Darcy (which may have a great deal of what-Colin-Firth-did-not-get thrown in). I will talk about such things as how he smiles more than in any of the movies, and that he actually has a sense of humor. How he is gentlemanly and considerate, and how we must remember that since most everything is from Elizabeth's point of view, besides the few hints Jane Austen chooses to give us, the unprejudiced eye might have understood him better and thought well of him towards the beginning, too.

And hey, if you would be interested in reading such a post... do let me know. It might encourage me to put my shoulder to the wheel. :P Also if you express an unfavorable opinion of Mr. Darcy, that might encourage me in a different way. Heh, heh, heh.

Something I noticed this time 'round that I failed to last time, is Jane Austen's amusing way of spelling (and capitalizing) things differently when she feels like it. In some editions you probably won't be able to see this, because they'll be 'correcting' things right and left. But it was Phillips the first couple times, Philips after that, until towards the end where it changed back to Phillips again. Sometimes it said "De Bourgh", other times it said "de Bourgh." At first I thought that it might just be a capital D when it said "Miss De Bourgh", but later on it had it the other way. And there were some other, commonplace words too... I used to think that when it said "choose" it had been corrected/updated, and when it said "chuse" it was Jane Austen's original; but this time I noticed that Jane did it both ways. There were a couple other words, too, that were spelled differently; sometimes even on the same page.

Just another one of Jane Austen's intricacies. ;)

However, I will have you know that Lizzy is always Lizzy, and is never, ever Lizzie. Also Bennet. One T. (Don't look at me like that. If I am a wild Beast who is always reminding people of the correct way to spell Austenian words, I cannot help it. It is not my own fault. :P)

And now, as I have run out of things to say and have rambled on for quite long enough anyways, I shall end with a list of quotes I scribbled down, which I did not scribble down the last time I read it.

~~~
"Mary wished to say something very sensible, but knew not how."

"Mr. Darcy walked off; and Elizabeth remained with no very cordial feelings towards him. She told the story however with great spirit among her friends; for she had a lively, playful disposition, which delighted in any thing ridiculous."

"From all that I can collect by your manner of talking, you must be two of the silliest girls in the country. I have suspected it for some time, but now I am convinced." -Mr. Bennet

"To be fond of dancing was a certain step towards falling in love."

"Mr. Darcy is not to be laughed at! That is an uncommon advantage, and uncommon I hope it will continue, for it would be a great loss to me to have many such acquaintance. I dearly love a laugh." -Elizabeth

"Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies do divert me, I own, and I laugh at them whenever I can." -Elizabeth

"It is a rule with me, that a person who can write a long letter, with ease, cannot write ill." -Miss Bingley

"I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading! How much sooner one tires of any thing than of a book!" -Miss Bingley

"Far be it from me, my dear sister, to depreciate such pleasures. They would doubtless be congenial with the generality of female minds. But I confess they would have no charms for me. I should infinitely prefer a book." -Mary

"A scheme of which every part promises delight, can never be successful; and general disappointment is only warded off by the defence of some little peculiar vexation."  -Elizabeth

End of a Challenge

At the beginning of the year, Abby at Newly Impassioned Soul gave us all the Charles Dickens Reading challenge for his 200th birthday. Which I have fulfilled, even if I did take the smallest option (three books) and the last one was A Christmas Carol because I wouldn't have had time for another novel. (And because it was Christmastime.)

Anyways, it's all done. And now I shall talk a little about the three books I read.

A Tale of Two Cities
I read this one for school back in March. It was nice to be able to read a Dickens story I wasn't exactly acquainted with. I knew the very basic storyline, but nothing else. It didn't really impress me as much as I have seen it do to some people, but I did enjoy it, and whenever and if ever I read it again, I might enjoy it even more. I think that my test of whether I liked something or not is how I would react if I heard somebody say something against it. I have defended it somewhat before, so I guess that must mean I liked it. The story was quite interesting, even though the French Revolution is... well... not something I really choose to read about much, be it fact or fiction. Hey, I'm a Jane Austen fan... stories about a quiet country life (or even a not-as-quiet city life) appeal to me more than adventuresome tales about a war or revolution. Now I'm approaching areas that may cause Leaguettes to glare at me, so I'll shut up before I get into deeper waters. ;-)

Oh, but I feel compelled to say something that may shock many of you: I actually liked Charles Darnay better than Sydney Carton. "Now despise me, if you dare." I wasn't too thrilled with him, mind, but, sorry folks, a respectable gentleman with a good heart and intentions is more admirable to me than an alcoholic any day, no matter how many brains he may have. I did admire his cleverness... but you see, what I'd like about him is what he could have been, and not what he was. He didn't even have the courage to try to change, even though he knew he should. I just realized that in the sentence before last I was almost quoting Maria Elisabeth. Well, since I almost quoted her, I might as well quote her all the way, because she made a very good point that I agree with in an email a while back, about how she thinks Charles Darnay is quite a hero in his own right--"It takes quite a bit to disown your inheritance, your hopes of being a marquis, and go to earn your living in another country where they promptly pop you off to jail and nearly hang you. And then to jump back into France when he knew all his friends and relations were getting their heads chopped off, merely because he got a letter from someone he didn't know and felt it was his duty to go. And he would have insisted on taking his sentence himself too, if Sydney Carton hadn't oh-so-conveniently drugged him unconscious." 
Of course, I don't really admire him for going back into France--I think it was pretty stupid and it was mean of him not to even tell his wife and daughter goodbye--but it was a nice thought. :P

Anyways. Went off on a bit of a rabbit trail there. Now I guess I'll sit back and watch everybody hate me...

Oliver Twist
I liked this about as well as I thought I would. I chose to read it because it’s a Dickens story I knew hardly anything about, and it was one of the shorter ones. (I might want to try a long one like Little Dorrit someday, but that’s not really something I wanted to commit to read, and I put this on my Classics Club list.) I did enjoy it on the whole, and I think it got better (as in more interesting) as it went along, so I’m definitely glad I read the whole thing. The only problem I have is that since this seems to be one of the most well-known of Dickens’s works, some people read it and then judge all of Charles Dickens from it. Of course, when I come across somebody who, after I ask them if they’ve read/watched any Charles Dickens, say “I read Oliver Twist but I didn’t really like it that much,” I immediately inform them that they need to go watch Little Dorrit or Bleak House before they decide. :-)
I actually think I might reread it someday, and then I might like it better because the first time around, not knowing the story, it’s a little harder to appreciate everything that should be appreciated. It did have a lot of Dickensian threading and entwining of stories going on, but one doesn’t find out most of it till near the end, so it can be a little bit overwhelming the first time around.
Not as much as some of his other stories, though.

A Christmas Carol

The first time I read this was last year. Horrid and shocking, I know. I've always been very acquainted with the story, though, as one of our family's tradition on Christmas Eve is to watch an adaptation of it. (Our favorite is the 1984 one with George C. Scott. I'm always throwing that out there, because the poor thing seems to be so little known even though it is the best!) I enjoyed it very much indeed. And when I read the ending, it was snowing beautifully outside. Quite lovely. (It melted the next morning though...) I was looking forward to Christmas Eve even more because I do so like watching the adaptation of a book while the latter is still fresh on my mind. :)

Did any of you take the challenge? Do you think you'll be able to finish?

How North and South is Not Like Pride and Prejudice

I have often heard it said that North and South is like Pride and Prejudice. I do not agree with this. I have also heard it said that North and South is like a darker version of Pride and Prejudice. I do not agree with this, either (although it is indeed darker). And I shall endeavor to explain why, as I have now just finished North and South (hereafter to be abbreviated to N&S, and Pride and Prejudice will be P&P) and therefore have sufficient knowledge of the story. I never trusted myself to try and write this post just based on the movie, you know.

(If you do not know these stories already, here is your spoiler warning.)

First of all, I shall list what I believe people base their comparison on, then I shall address the points, and then mention other differences.

Similarities (or what people might consider to be similarities):

1. The general storyline of both is something like this: a man and a woman meet, are not really impressed with each other in their own ways, but the man grows to love the woman and the woman to become more displeased with the man, then he proposes, is rejected, but continues to love her and eventually she finds out what a good guy he his and they finally come to an understanding intending marriage.

2. The heroine is prejudiced and the hero is proud.

3. There is also another man in the story from whom the heroine receives an offer of marriage, which she of course rejects.

4. The hero has a relation who disapproves of the match and at some point has a confrontation with the heroine.

5. The heroines both have an ailing mother who complains a lot.
6. There is a chapter in N&S called "First Impressions" which was P&P's original title.

7. The heroines are both named Elizabeth. (JOKING, I’m joking…although apparently that’s what whoever made this wallpaper/background thought!)

And now I shall address each one of those. Except 7, of course.

1 and 2—These are the ones that probably most everything is actually founded on; the others, I was just trying to think of any possibilities that people could consider. But you will notice that when I wrote the story themes in that description I had to use very general terms. This is because the stories are so unlike each other. This very general storyline is, I daresay, very popular, and these are not the only two authors who have used it. (Although the Janeite in me must point out that Jane Austen did it first. :D)

But anyways. First of all, if a comparison is to be made, I’d have to say that Margaret Hale’s sentiments were actually much more similar to Mr. Darcy’s than Elizabeth Bennet’s, which points out a dissimilarity to begin with. Margaret, we must understand, was brought up as a gentleman’s daughter even though her father is in reduced circumstances; although he was never a gentleman of leisure, his profession was one of the ones accepted by The Gentry, and she had been brought up as a little girl with her rich relatives during the school years in London. When she came to Milton she found what she perceived to be a deal of vulgarity, as Mr. Darcy probably thought about some of the people in Hertfordshire. Margaret found Mr. Thornton himself not to be as polished as she liked, although mostly she was prejudiced because he was a tradesman, or one could also say she was being prideful to look down upon them. Mr. Darcy did not actually find Elizabeth herself to be what he felt was beneath his notice—it was her family.

Also, the sentiments of Elizabeth and Margaret were quite different. What I said in the description there was not actually quite true on Margaret's account; she did not really grow to dislike Mr. Thornton more before he proposed. She had a little esteem that sort of went off and on, and if anything she might have thought a little better of him at that point than she did to begin with.

Speaking of which, the characters of the heroines and heroes are just so completely different from each other in the two stories. Especially Elizabeth and Margaret. Waaaaay different personalities going on. Since their temperaments and outlooks on life are so different, it's another thing that makes the stories differ.

And about the pride and prejudice thing. The fact is, Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth both exhibit both traits themselves, and though some people attribute pride to Mr. Darcy and prejudice to Elizabeth, they both have a their share of both. Think about how Mr. Darcy was prejudiced coming to “an assembly such as this” in Meryton. (It’s obviously pointed out that he is proud, so I need not go into that.) He was also prejudiced as to Jane Bennet, believing that she did not really care for Mr. Bingley, rather because that is what he expected. Elizabeth was not really prejudiced about Mr. Darcy until he slighted her at the Meryton ball, which was a founded prejudice, if you ask me. Then she heard the untruth concerning Mr. Wickham and believed it. (You don’t see anything like this in N&S—if anybody is ever mistaken about the other, it is Mr. Thornton mistaken about Margaret and her brother, so there again we have the heroes and heroines not matching up between the two stories.) Then think of her reaction to his proposal. Remember that “had not your pride been hurt by my honest confession of the scruples that had long prevented my forming any serious design”? Or when Elizabeth herself said “I could more easily forgive his pride, if he had not mortified mine.” There, Elizabeth herself just pointed out that they were both proud in their ways. Although she was half-joking there, and did not think pride was an admirable trait. That doesn't mean she didn't have it, though.

But back to what I was saying before. As for Mr. Thornton, I would have to say he didn’t demonstrate much prejudice, although he could be called proud in his way.

One could try to draw a similarity between Mr. Darcy saving Elizabeth’s honor by settling the affair with Lydia and Wickham and Mr. Thornton saving Margaret’s honor by making sure there was not an inquest in the affair with her and her brother (though he did not know it was her brother) at the station. Well, those were not at all the same when you get down to the technicalities. For one thing, in P&P Elizabeth became even more attached to Mr. Darcy after he did that for her family (for her, in point of fact); in N&S Margaret’s true feelings are rather unclear, but what she feels the most in the situation is mortification that Mr. Thornton should know that she lied. They’re just completely different situations. Mr. Darcy did it for Elizabeth with the full knowledge that it was because he loved her and wanted to save her from scandal; Mr. Thornton tried to convince himself first that he's doing it not for her sake really, but because of what he 'used to' feel for her (heh, heh, heh...) and finally he decides upon using his friendship with her father as an excuse. (Yeah, he's doing it for Mr. Hale. Uh-huh.) However, Mr. Darcy knew Elizabeth was blameless, whereas Mr. Thornton all along was tormented by the probability that Margaret was not at all blameless.

Then Mr. Thornton goes on to explain to Margaret that all his feelings are passed, of course, and that he didn’t really do it for her—pretty much the exact opposite of Mr. Darcy. (Although in the book we see that all along Mr. Thornton loved Margaret and this time, so HE who lied too… ahem. Oh Mr. Advocate for Truth, take a look at your own self.)

Furthermore, a big part of the story in P&P is that Mr. Darcy was struggling against his own better judgment to lower himself enough to actually acknowledge his feelings for Elizabeth. In N&S it wasn’t this way at all; Mr. Thornton knew that Margaret probably considered herself above him and if he hesitated in his affection it was because he felt she could never care for him.

They both deal with social class, yes. But it’s on a different plane entirely. P&P is all about The Gentry. N&S has a great deal to do with tradesmen manufacturers.

As for the rest of the story, it is all so different. Not only is it “darker,” it’s just… different. Margaret’s family situation, for starters. Mr. Thornton is a great friend of Mr. Hale and pays kind attentions to Mrs. Hale when she’s ill and all that. The main driving force in the story, I would say, is how Margaret adapts to living somewhere and being with people totally different than what she had experienced so far, and facing lots and lots of change in her life that forces her to lose the simplicity of her former existence. There isn’t anything like that in P&P at all; I would say the they-don’t-like-each-other-oh-wait-now-he-likes-her-but-she-doesn't-like-him-but-then-she-discovers-she’s-wrong-and-it-ends-happily is a bigger deal in P&P.

Now that almost makes it seem like I’m bashing P&P or something, but trust me when I say I’m not trying to do that AT ALL. P&P is my favorite book, my favorite story in the world. I much, much prefer it to N&S. I like the “Light & Bright & Sparkling”-ness of it. It’s so cleverly devised and wittily written, and not at all cheesy or silly, as somebody who gets the wrong impression from very little knowledge of it might think. I greatly admire N&S and think it’s a marvelous and clever story, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. But I couldn’t have a steady diet of it. It’s much too heavy and could be tiring if one has an overdose of it. I cannot imagine having an overdose of P&P. ;)

I wish I knew whether Elizabeth Gaskell liked Jane Austen… I haven’t been able to find out. Does anybody know? I know that Mrs. Gaskell was actually acquainted and friends with Charlotte Bronte, who is infamous for not liking Jane Austen, but I suppose it does not necessarily follow that Elizabeth Gaskell doesn’t like her. One CAN be friends despite one liking Jane Austen and the other disliking her…

…or can they?

Kidding. Sort of.

And now, since I have run out of rambles, I’ll move on to point number 3.

Mr. Collins and Henry Lennox are two very, very different matters. Mr. Collins is a wife-hunter and—well, we all know what he is. Icky. Henry Lennox, on the other hand, is a respectable young man whom Margaret actually likes—but not in that way. He would annoy her as a husband. Also, he is not a wife-hunter at all; it’s one of those cases where a man doesn't believe in thinking about marriage until he's 'made himself', but then meets with a woman who changes his mind. Unfortunately for him, he has to be disappointed.

Now, personally I don’t much like Henry. He rather annoys me. I think I would like the book’s Henry a great deal more than the movie’s, but… still can't say I exactly like him. But anyway, he is not at all repulsive. Like Mr. Collins.

4 - We all know how different this is. I just stuck that in there for fun. The reason Mrs. Thornton confronted Margaret was not at all similar to why Lady Catherine visited Elizabeth. I don’t even need to explain if you know the stories.

And as for 5… Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Bennet, two very different cases. Mrs. Hale did complain a lot about Helstone when they lived there, but of course regretted it later on when she had Milton to deal with. And Mrs. Hale really WAS ailing, whereas Mrs. Bennet was what they call a hypochondriac.

Number 6 is not anything to dispute, just a trivia fact.

If you were comparing the mini-series of N&S with P&P, you might say that something happened at the beginning of the heroine's acquaintances with the heroes to immediately promote a dislike, but as this is not the way it was in the book of N&S, I say it can't be counted. ;)

In short, the stories themselves are so very, very different and have traits all their own that though a few comparisons can be made, it is not sufficient to make them similar enough to be mentioned hand-in-hand as I have seen done.

There now. That, everybody, is my opinion. Do any of you agree with me? Of course, you may tell me if you disagree too, although that will provoke me to argue my case and I do so hate debating. :P

(I am only teasing. Do not mind me. I mean, I do dislike debating, but I'm not forbidding you to say you disagree. Haha.)

Rereading Northanger Abbey

At the end of last month I finished my second reading of Northanger Abbey, with a great deal of delight. There's nothing like reading a book for a first time, but Jane Austen books are wonderful for rereading multiple times... as I am sure we all know. ;-)

If possible I think I was even more pleased with Henry Tilney this time than last...it struck me more than ever that if he were to be transported to modern times, he would probably be just the sort of person I would like; he might tease just a tad too much, but he does know when to be serious, at least. But what I really noticed this time was that his opinions seem to match mine quite well in some areas--or the 19th-century version of them, anyways. And he as such an understanding of muslin! ;) But see, he doesn't mind admitting that he has an understanding of muslin. He's not insecure, haha. And he admits to reading novels. My 21st-century version of that is always that he would read Jane Austen and like it, and admit it. ;-) There was one thing I particularly noticed this time, when Henry said--

I should no more lay it down as a general rule that women write better letters than men, than that they sing better duets, or draw better landscapes. In every power, of which taste is the foundation, excellence is pretty fairly divided between the sexes.

See, it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when men and women are given stereotypes, and it seems like he has the right ideas.

Anyway, enough rambling about Henry Tilney. (Ha, I can just hear some of you saying "No!") I think Isabella Thorpe made me laugh more this time. (You know, if you take some of the things she says seriously, she actually has some pretty good quotes, too. As do Mrs. Elton and Caroline Bingley.) I thought it was hilarious and served her right when Catherine never understood her insinuations.

John Thorpe made me feel madder, if that's possible. He is SO annoying. I have to say, I think he's the most irritating of all Jane Austen's villains. Grrrrrr.

So, I really haven't much to say, but I decided when I reread to S&S to post about my first rereads of Miss Austen's novels.. This is a delightful book, but very different from JA's others and I think one should definitely read at least most of her other books before this one. And preferably have a slight understanding of those old Gothic novels and their tendencies, or you won't understand the satire.

By the bye, the 2007 movie (which, I must disclaim, I do not approve of in its entirety) didn't get that at all right. For instance, in the movie, as soon as Catherine claps eyes on Northanger Abbey, she says "It is exactly as I imagined it would be!" In the book, they arrive during a rainstorm and she never really gets to view the outside of the house until later on, and the inside is much too modern to be like what she imagined. Also there's this one scene where she sees Henry with his sister, but she doesn't know it's his sister and you can tell she's all disappointed (haha), but in the book Jane Austen clearly said that she did not do that (as other heroines would, you see), but that she guessed immediately it was his sister; it looked right, and he'd mentioned having a sister before.

That's just a couple of examples. But it doesn't have much to do with the book so I'll quit ranting talking about it.

Oh, and I have a question for you all. Have any of you read There Must Be Murder, which is a sequel to NA by Margaret C. Sullivan? I really enjoy what I know of her writing in general, but I'd have to buy it so it is nice to have recommendations. I'm a person who likes libraries. Heehee. Unfortunately they don't have it.

I can't think of a good way to tie up this short and ramble-y post besides to put a few quotes from NA. These are ones that I scribbled down during my re-read & didn't do last time.

"...while I have Udolpho to read, I feel as if nobody could make me miserable."
~Catherine Morland

"A woman especially, if she have the misfortune of knowing anything, should conceal it as well as she can."

"...from politics, it was an easy step to silence."

"[T]o marry for money I think the wickedest thing in existence."
~Catherine

Little Women: The Book

I’ve procrastinated. I’ve put it off. I’ve looked at my poor, neglected blog and sighed. And then today, the internet stopped working. Again. (I am getting tired of this.) And this time it’s very inopportune—on a Sunday afternoon, which is a quiet time in my house and I like to waste time on the internet, writing emails, reading blog posts, and whatever else happens to strike my fancy. And I used to write blog posts on Sunday afternoons, back in the days when I had something planned for each week. So I decided to take this as a hint and sit down and finally write this thing that I was supposed to have done over two months ago when I finally finished reading Little Women.

But you see, I do not want to write a review. I do not like writing reviews, and am not good at it. (I’m not actually being serious there—it was just one of those inadvertent Jane Austen paraphrases. Mr. Knightley on Dancing this time. :P) I do not always dislike writing reviews, but I didn’t want to for this one. Besides, Little Women is a book there would be ten thousand reviews of scattered everywhere. It’s not as if you don’t know the story. (And if you don’t and you want to, just go look it up on Wikipedia or something.) So instead, I’m just going to talk about it, even though I don’t really know what to say, as I if I were emailing a friend. Goodness knows THAT’S easy enough. (I seem to remember getting out of writing a review this way before… yes indeed, I am repeating myself. Oh, well. Please do forgive my redundancy.) So this is NOT  review… actually, if you don’t know the story, I wouldn’t recommend you read it because I might give things away.

So. Little Women is one of those classic books I’ve always intended to read, and have always be embarrassed to announce that I hadn’t yet done so when people would inquire. I mean, I heard about LW long before my interest in Jane Austen. Yet still I didn’t read it. I started it a few times. But there was always some reason not to read it… like the copy we have, for starters. A nice, old-fashioned looking, hardbound copy, which I started reading, and then checked the front to make sure it wasn’t abridged or anything… and it was. Bother. “Abridged for modern reading,” said it. (I think some stuff was just cut out, because the wording seemed authentic. And the funny thing is, the other Louisa May Alcott books in the set with it do not say they are abridged… oh well, don’t ask me.) And then I tried to get one from the library, but I did not like the copy. It had hideous illustrations and was large and thick and hard-cover, and I didn’t care for the font. So it went back the library and I continued reading whatever else I was reading at the time.

Along the way somewhere I was finally introduced to the story by watching a film of LW. I liked the story well enough (as I always knew I would), but I didn’t care for the movie itself. It was some 1970s version…one my mom got from the library. The actors were all too old and it was just generally annoying. Then I saw the version with Katharine Hepburn… yick. Finally my sister introduced me to the 1994 version, which is of course the best, but don’t worry, I always knew the book would be better…when is it not? Well, when it’s Mary Poppins. Ahem. Anyways.

I made a list at the beginning of this year, with “Must Reads,” “Should Reads,” and then a longer list of random ideas of things to read, and my goal was 30 books total. (That may sound pathetic, but I am a slow reader.) LW was actually on the “Should Read” list, whereas, say, North and South, which I still haven’t read but intend to later this year, was on the “Must Read.” But then my priorities were set straight by Amy. (Um, Amy Dashwood, not Amy March. Heehee.) I must confess that the amount she reads rather puts me to shame, and it was horrid never to have read LW when she had such a high opinion of it and practically knew it by heart and it was something I SHOULD have read ages ago. So I search Amazon for a copy I would like, looked up the ISBN on my library website, and got it. And started it. And finished it in June.

You may wonder why I am rambling on in this matter, and I shall tell you. It is because I still don’t really know what to write about the actual book itself. Don’t get me wrong, I loved it, and I’ll definitely read it again. It’s quite different from other things in that all this time passes in it and it doesn’t really have a particular plot. (I don’t think this is a bad thing, it just makes it hard to blog about.) And although Jo March is the main main character, all of the March girls have their own chapters in the book and all that, so it’s almost like there are four heroines. I would talk about the March girls, but I’m thinking about doing an entire post about them—or rather, how I connected with each of them in different ways. So I’ll save it.

Okay, I’ll just talk about the guys instead. My favorite was Mr. Bhaer, hands-down. He was wonderful. (He would be more wonderful if he didn’t have a beard, but we’ll skip this small detail.) And the proposal scene was so CUTE. The movie was cute too, but the book was more… more real. It was just so sweet! Awww, etc.  And I love how he called Jo “heart’s dearest.” *sentimental sniff*

Anyways. I liked Laurie some of the time. I liked him more of the time than I did in the movie, that’s for sure. And his, er, romance (second love interest, shall we say?) wasn’t quite as annoying as in the movie either (I can’t help comparing things this way, as I saw the movie first) but it still did annoy me a great deal. The IDEA. *grunts* At least their family knew they were engaged, though, instead of just randomly coming home and saying “Guess what? I just married your little sister! Isn’t that nice?” *shudders*

Speaking of things that irritated me in the movie that didn’t as much in the book, the Amy-burns-Jo’s-book thing was much better. I cannot STAND that part in the movie. So, Amy does this dastardly thing, and instead of dealing with the girl, Mrs. March goes to Jo and starts lecturing her about how she needs to forgive her, let not the sun go down upon thy wrath, blah blah blah. Priorities, lady. Your youngest daughter needs to be punished. The girl hasn’t even apologized! And that little, weak-voiced “Sorry, Jo” as she goes out of the room doesn’t count. So, it was still a little bit annoying in the book, but not nearly as much; it was quite different. It was less rushed, and all made more sense. Amy seemed a lot sorrier in the book too, which was nice. And the ice-skating incident made more sense, too, how Jo would be blaming herself, since she knew Amy hadn’t heard the warning about the ice and didn’t tell her. Also, Meg suggesting that Amy follow them. Yep, yep. It was all much, much better.

Ha, sorry, that section was a pet peeve of mine in the movie. Moving on.

I also liked Amy when she was older much, much better than in the movie. She was actually likable. But then, everything is better in the book. (Except there are some funny quotes in the movie that aren’t in the book. “Are you shocked?” “Very.”)

In general, the book was just a lot of fun. One of those delightful, light-hearted, well-written, interesting, imaginative… no wonder it’s a classic. And yay for it being an American classic! Sadly, there seem to be few American Classics I actually like. But it’s not as if I’ve read that many. Funny… all the likable American Literature I can think of are Children’s Classics.

This spontaneous rambling about a book is actually rather fun. But I very much hope it isn’t annoying anybody.

Now, a while back I had a poll on the sidebar about whether I should have a ‘series’ for Little Women as I did for all the Jane Austen novels and Jane Eyre. At this time I am planning on doing a short series-ish thing… that is, all my next posts will probably be Little Women-themed. I’m not going to be doing one of those overview-of-every-adaptation posts, simply because I don’t want to sit through them all; but I’m planning to review the 1994 version, have a couple other posts that are more Theme-y than this sloppy one, and then maybe a game or two. What do you think?

And now questions for you. Have you read Little Women? How many times have you read it? How old were you the first time? (Don’t worry about mortifying me. You might, but I do want to know.) I hope to read another Louisa May Alcott before too long—would you recommend I start with the sequel, Little Men, or should I pick up An Old-Fashioned Girl, which title has enticed me for years? I’d love to hear your thoughts on everything in a comment. :)

P.S. I sort of forgot to mention John Brooke along with the rest, didn’t I? Heh. Oh well. Sorry, John.

On Re-reading S&S

I’ve decided that, starting now, when I re-read a Jane Austen novel I’ll write a post in which I can ramble on about my thoughts: things that have particularly caught my attention this time around, etc. And quotes. Preferably ones I haven't already gone over in the past, but I’m sure it’s possible that a few of those could wheedle their way in.

Now, I already read Emma a second time for school last year, so I’ll have to hit that one on the third re-read. But I have just finished reading Sense and Sensibility for the second time. I realized that my reading list this year did not have one single thing by Jane Austen, and that is unheard of. So I fixed that. And now I am going to start talking about it—quite unsystematically: you are forewarned. (It is also assumed that if you read this post you already know the story. If you don't, you can read my original post about it.)

The first several chapters of the book seem to rush events along (much faster, say, than the movies do), and I’ve noticed that you can’t really get to know Edward Ferrars until much later in the book. All you know is that Elinor thinks very highly of him, greatly esteems him, likes him, etc. and that Marianne does not quite approve of him as a lover, but you learn by and by that she has a very high regard for him despite his not being animated by Cowper.

I noticed this last time too—if there could be only one heroine in S&S, it would be Elinor. The narrative always stays with her, and you get much more of her thoughts than Marianne’s. You know a lot of Marianne just because they’re sisters, it would seem. (Although the same doesn’t hold true for poor Margaret—you know hardly anything of her. But at least she is there. At LEAST she is THERE, people who made the 1971 and 1981 mini-series…) Then I wondered, is Jane Bennet just as much of a Jane Austen heroine as Marianne Dashwood? I did not like this idea one whit. It was dreadful. I love Marianne and want desperately for her to be one of the heroines. Jane… no, Miss Bennet just can’t be one of the heroines. She’s the older sister of the heroine, and that’s that. But then I remembered that first version, the epistolary novel started by Miss Austen when she was around twenty, was called Elinor and Marianne and that soothed me a great deal. If she called it that, it is obviously about both of them. Still, it does focus more on Elinor than Marianne.

My favorite quote of the novel, and at least in the top three of my favorite Jane Austen quotes in general, is Marianne’s—

“[T]he more I know of the world, the more I am convinced that I shall never see a man whom I can really love. I require so much!”

It has always suited my own sentiments so well, it may as well be something I wrote myself… but delightful that it’s not, because it’s so marvelous to express exactly what you mean by quoting Jane Austen. (I was thinking the other day, wouldn’t it be terribly amusing to be in a Jane Austen Quote Bee, or competition of some sort? I would probably fail and be kicking myself for ages afterwards at not being able to pull the right quote to the front of my head in time, but I think it would be great fun.)

Another thing this time around—Marianne might be a lot less like me than I thought she was before. I think that the movies change her quite a bit…and really, you don’t get as much of a chance to get to know her as you do Elinor. (Um, sorry if I seem to be repeating myself.) I can’t really explain how she’s unlike me—that’s a lot harder than explaining how she is—but there were times where I’d be thinking “Really, Marianne? You should not have said that. No, no, don’t do that, silly girl!” ...you know what I mean. Well, maybe you don’t. But anyways.

And then there were other times that feel like “Hahaha, that is me, right there…” At the end of chapter five, for instance. I can see myself doing this.

“Dear, dear Norland!” said Marianne, as she wandered alone before the house, on the last evening of their being there; “when shall I cease to regret you!—when learn to feel at home elsewhere!—Oh! happy house, could you know what I suffer in now viewing you from this spot, from whence perhaps I may view you no more!”

Of course, not quite in that language and all, but… ;-)

And then there are those conversations she’s in that just make me laugh.

    “Aye, aye, I see how it will be,” said Sir John, “I see how it will be. You will be setting your cap at him now, and never think of poor Brandon.”

    “That is an expression, Sir John,” said Marianne, warmly, “which I particularly dislike. I abhor every common-place phrase by which wit is intended; and ‘setting one’s cap at a man,’ or ‘making a conquest,’ are the most odious of all. Their tendency is gross and illiberal; and if their construction could ever be deemed clever, time has long ago destroyed all its ingenuity.”

    Sir John did not much understand this reproof; but he laughed as heartily as if he did, and then replied,

    “Ay, you will make conquests enough, I dare say, one way or other. Poor Brandon! he is quite smitten already, and he is very well worth setting your cap at,”—I can just see Marianne’s face there—“I can tell you, in spite all this tumbling about and spraining of ankles.”

And the delightful Elinor-and-Marianne-ness.

    “I do not attempt to deny,” said [Elinor], “that I think very highly of him—that I greatly esteem him, that I like him.”

    Marianne here burst forth with indignation:

    “Esteem him! Like him! Cold-hearted Elinor! Oh! worse than cold-hearted! Ashamed of being otherwise. Use those words again, and I will leave the room this moment.”

    Elinor could not help laughing. “Excuse me,” said she; “and be assured that I meant no offence to you, by speaking, in so quiet a way, of my own feelings.”

    “But how is your acquaintance to be long supported, under such extraordinary dispatch of every subject for discourse? You will soon have exhausted each favourite topic. Another meeting will suffice to explain his sentiments on picturesque beauty, and second marriages, and then you can have nothing further to ask.”

    “Elinor,” cried Marianne, “is that fair? is that just? are my ideas so scanty? But I see what you mean. I have been too much at my ease, to happy, too frank. I have erred against every common-place notion of decorum; I have been open and sincere where I ought to have been reserved, spiritless, dull and deceitful—had I talked only of the weather and the roads, and had I spoken only once in ten minutes, this reproach would have been spared.”

    “And how does dear, dear Norland look?” cried Marianne.

    “Dear, dear Norland,” said Elinor, “probably looks much as it always does at this time of year. The woods and walks thickly covered with dead leaves.”

    “Oh,” cried Marianne, “with what transporting sensation have I formerly seen them fall! How I have delighted, as I walked, to see them driven in showers about me by the wind! What feelings have they, the season, the air altogether inspired! Now there is no one to regard them. They are seen only as a nuisance, swept hastily off, and driven as much as possible from the sight.”

    “It is not every one,” said Elinor, “who has your passion for dead leaves.”

Margaret, as I said, is a great deal ignored. When she has any part in the story is usually because she is divulging something about her sisters’ romances. My favorite has to be this… it’s dreadful, but funny:

    “Oh! pray Miss Margaret, let us know all about it,” said Mrs. Jennings. “What is the gentleman’s name?”

     “I must not tell, ma’am. But I know very well what it is; and I know where he is too.”

    “Yes, yes, we can all guess where he is; at his own house at Norland to be sure. He is the curate of the parish I dare say.”

    “No, that he is not. He is of no profession at all.”

    “Margaret,” said Marianne with great warmth, “you know that all this is an invention of your own, and that there is no such person in existence.”

    “Well, then, he is lately dead, Marianne, for I am sure there was such a man once, and his name begins with an F.”

Edward Ferrars. I like him. He is NOT boring. No indeed. I sometimes get annoyed with him when he acts mope-ish, but at least he had a reason. And he has a sense of humor. People who think he is boring have only to understand one thing: Edward Ferrars is not Hugh Grant.

Do you know, my favorite Edward moments are, interestingly enough, when he is conversing with Marianne.

    “It is a beautiful country,” [Edward] replied; “but these bottoms must be dirty in winter.”

    “How can you think of dirt, with such objects before you?”

    “Because,” replied he, smiling, “among the rest of the objects before me, I see a very dirty lane.”

    “How strange!” said Marianne to herself as she walked on.

And then the general favorite of Edward’s defenders…

    “And yet two thousand a-year is a very moderate income,” said Marianne. “A family cannot well be maintained on a smaller. I am sure I am not extravagant in my demands. A proper establishment of servants, a carriage, perhaps two, and hunters, cannot be supported on less." ...

    “Hunters!” repeated Edward, “but why must you have hunters?” (It is a certain breed of horses.) “Every body does not hunt.”

    Marianne coloured as she replied, “But most people do.”

Then, another evening after Edward hears about Willoughby, he brings the conversation back up—

    “I have been guessing. Shall I tell you my guess?”

    “What do you mean?”

    “Shall I tell you?”

    “Certainly.”

    “Well then; I guess that Mr. Willoughby hunts.”

Now for something I rarely touch when discussing anything to do with Jane Austen—Things That Annoyed Me.

One is Elinor, after Willoughby comes to “apologize.” She is WAY too sympathetic. It Drives Me Nuts. And get this:

But her promise of relating it to her sister was invariably painful. She dreaded the performance of it, dreaded what its effect on Marianne might be; doubted whether after such an explanation she could ever be happy with another; and for a moment wished Willoughby a widower.

Really? Really, Elinor? EERRMMM. How could you even THINK such a thing? After Willoughby’s horrible past, that thought should never have crossed your mind. It is your duty to detest the fellow. DO IT.

And then the thing that disturbed me. I hate to admit that anything Jane Austen could disturb me, but so it is.

Marianne Dashwood was born to an extraordinary fate. She was born to discover the falsehood of her own opinions, and to counteract, by her own conduct, her most favourite maxims. She was born to overcome an affection formed so late in life as seventeen, and with no sentiments superior to strong esteem and lively friendship, voluntarily give her hand to another!”

No. No, no, no. That simply cannot mean that Marianne was not in love with Colonel Brandon when she married him. It CAN’T mean that. It just means… um… that she didn’t feel the head-over-heels-in-love, burning passion she always imagined? Which, of course, passes away. That she loved Col. Brandon more maturely. That must be it.

It must be.

This bit soothed me a little—“Marianne could never love by halves; and her whole heart became, in time, as much devoted to her husband, as it had once been to Willoughby.”

But it still says “in time”… bah. I prefer to draw my own conclusions, since a great deal of their relationship is left up to the imagination anyhow.

Moving on. Actually, I haven’t much more to say. Except that I've recently enjoyed listening to some songs from the S&S Musical. I rather thought I would disapprove of any Jane Austen musical, but I did enjoy several of the songs, and have come to the conclusion that that one seems to be an interesting interpretation. Not a representation, of course. Just for people who already know the story, and preferably have read the book. My favorite song was in the spot where Marianne is ill, sung by Elinor. It was so delightfully heart-wrenching. Heehee.

I’m done rambling now, so I’ll just finish this off with a quote.

“[T]hough a very few hours spent in the hard labor of incessant talking will dispatch more subjects than can really be in common between to rational creatures, yet with lovers it is different. Between THEM no subject is finished, no communication is even made, till it has been made at least twenty times over.”