Where to start???  The choice of adjectives when Anne meets Captain Wentworth at her father's party suggest to me that a particular effect was intended.  Mind you, I'm not trying to suggest that we find it erotic, but then we live in rather jaded times. "Dangerous...high-wrought felicity", "intimacy", "glowing", "sensibility", "delicious consciousness", "conceal", "moments of communication"  Okay, so it's not a rape fantasy novel, but I can imagine it would have its effect on an innocent young woman of the past.

To Meister: If the scene in the Persuasion movie is the one in which Anne and Captain Wentworth kiss on the public street...that was truly appalling.  It never ceases to amaze me how (not speaking of that production specifically) so much time and effort can be put into costumes and hairdos and finding the right building in which to film, while absolutely no attention is paid to how people really acted at the time. Titanic would be a prime example of this problem, all the more upsetting because, after all, there's plenty of research material available.

From the Meister: You are too late - Julie has already lectured me
on this very matter. Sadly, you two have a dense student who refuses
to accept that people and manners were that different then - I have
no problem at all with that kiss. (Now if you want to explain the transient
Victorian manners of 100 years later in this way, I might be more tractable.)
Remember, the married Shelley had the sixteen-year old Mary Godwin
sprawled across her mother's grave site at about that same time.

I refer to many of JA's villians as "Iago-like" because they lack motivation.  Do we really believe that Henry Crawford would risk everything for a weekend with Maria when he could go to his Uncle's house and have a woman delivered?  Do we really believe Willoughby would endanger his inheritance through stupidly abandoning Colonel Brandon's ward?  Would Wickham have continued to pay Lydia's way for more than a few days if he still thought he could make his fortune through marriage? (Wouldn't he have sold her to a grog shop and fled to the Continent with his ill-gotten gains?)  I like Mr. Elliot because he's a villian with specific goals in mind.  He wants to inherit a baronetcy; he wants to prevent Sir Walter from selling off any of the estate (after all, Mr. Elliot doen't know that Sir Walter would never do that) he wants to secure for himself an agreeable and respectable wife.  He abandons the widow of his friend because she's no use to him financially or socially. This is a guy I can understand.

General quibbles:  "save our comrades" may well have been the prevailing sentiment, but the definition of "saveable" (I know it's not a word) 200 years ago is different than the modern idea.  I would also ask what class of ship had a ship's surgeon on board, and whether such a precious resource would have been used to benefit the press-gang colonials of Nelson's navy. Even today, many USN ships only carry corpsmen, not physicians.

Meister: A ship's surgeon might not have been much different than today's
corpsman. Incidentally, don't underestimate the value of corpsmen; I suspect that
those people have dramatically reduced battlefield deaths and permanent injury.

As for Ashton, you're hesitation to follow Julie or me into battle is misplaced.  If Robert Heinlein is to be believed, women are so much smarter, less romantic and more ruthless than men, you'd have a much better chance of surviving with us than a Patton or Wellington.  And don't forget: quality of life is more important than quantity!
Cheryl

Meister: It is not a question of "hesitation"; I won't do it.
I am too afraid one of you might notice any wound that I might
receive. "Less romantic" and "ruthless" are not what I call
"quality". Incidentally, Heinlein is only partly correct.

Dear Folks,

I see nothing but trouble ahead in this post. In the early part of the Nineteenth century when the British army needed a unit for what we today would call a suicide mission they would send forth a group of men called the "forlorn hope". Tonight I feel like a one-man forlorn hope as I look forward to what awaits me.

First, I must apologize to Julie for misquoting her. I was amazed when I went back and read her post which led me to claim that she wanted me to blame women for Sir Walter’s shortcomings. She claimed no such thing, So I want to agree with her that I was wrong and at the same time plead old age or something. If there is any way to blame it all on women in tweed and their ruining of me, I hereby do blame them. In general I do agree with Julie that people are responsible for their own actions except, of course, in my case in which it is clear that I was made somehow less brilliant than I could have been due to various women and their tweed.

Now that I have actually apologized to a Tasmanian woman (something I never dreamed life held in store for me), I am ready to move on to an even more foreboding task, namely a suicidal attempt to convince the gathered company that Emma Thompson is not the antichrist and that her version of S&S was not made for those of us who are wont to take our annotated and well-thumbed copies of well-beloved novels with us as we go forth to the movie theater to scoff at the nerve of anyone who would dare to change one jot (whatever the hell a jot is).

OK, so here I go: A few weeks ago my ten-year-old grandson was visiting and the two of us were channel surfing when we came onto a close-up of Emma Thompson in a scene from S&S. "Oh". I said. "Jane Austen". "No its not" replied my grandson. "Its Elinor Dashwood." I hope it goes without saying that I was amazed that he had watched the movie before and actually remembered the characters So, that Ms Thompson managed to make any movie which did not contain a single explosion, chainsaw or car crash and that my grandson both watched it and remembered it, I give her high marks. Plus it gave me the opportunity to carry on an actual conversation about Jane Austen with my grandson, something that I would never have thought possible.

Now I will give three examples of scenes from the movie that I though actually strengthened the story The first is the appearance of Willoughby on his horse as he arrives at the scene of Marianne’s fall. Face it, that dramatic appearance gave the scene some snap. Second are the scenes between Edward and Margaret involving the atlas and the duel. Sure it was hooky and Edward did get gratuitously hit in the privates a la America’s Funniest Home Videos, but the scenes did help establish some qualities in Edward that endeared him to Elinor. From reading the book I was not too sure just what the hell Elinor saw in Edward, The charming scenes between Margaret and Edward helped clarify that point.

Speaking of Margaret, the kid who played her was a knockout and whereas Ms Thompson’s version of S&S might have left out Sir John’s wife, the BBC version left out Margaret.

For my third example of stuff in the movie that was slightly different from the book but which did not disturb me at all, I draw your attention to Willoughby’s first call on the Dashwoods after the big rescue. He snows Marianne with his charm and they end up having simultaneous Shakespeare which I’m sure was about all that a man and a woman could achieve simultaneously in that day and time. Be that as it may, I found the scene from the movie stronger than the same scene in the book.

Now as a disclaimer let me make very clear that I know that Jane Austen did NOT write the movie and that if she had it might have been a better movie, or at least a movie that would have suited all of us who were in the theaters reading along from our dog-eared copies of the book just waiting to be insulted. I know that I am open to attack from all sides here, and frankly do not expect much mercy for such heresy and I would not expect a soul reading this to agree with me. But could you grant me this point at least: It could have been worse?

Best
Ray

PS. And furthermore, I was not distressed at all by the fact that in the movie Marianne got carried all over England for miles in all kinds of weather. Give me Kate Winslet and I will carry her all over England and half of Scotland too. (If my wife and children don’t find out about it ahead of time.)

Dear Forlorn Hope,

Before the bloodbath begins, I want to agree with you about two peripheral points. First of all, I had a similar experience with young people when my thirteen-year old niece came to me with "Oh Uncle, I saw a few minutes of Sense and Sensibility and I liked it very much!" I asked her if she would like to see the whole thing; bit my tongue; and, popped the film into the VCR. She was joined by her ten-year old sister and they both loved it. That was followed by the Gwyneth-Paltrow version of Emma (not my favorite version - but, I know what I am doing), the Amanda-Root version of Persuasion; and then, on another visit, the 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice. Both girls are now reading Jane Austen at the mere cost to me of a badly swollen tongue. (I should have such good luck with their father - my brother.)

Secondly, I can actually admire filmed versions although I am very critical and very choosy. However, I recognize error where I see it and must tell you that the penalty for suggesting that a part of Jane Austen novel can be "improved" upon by someone of our generation is to be lashed to Emma Thompson for an entire evening meal. The sentence is suspended in your case because Ms. Thompson is so damn tweedy that the punishment would be cruel and unusual. Maybe we should say "enhanced" and not "improved upon".

And now for the attack! (Not really, but it is fun talking like that.) I am very sorry that I have given both Julie and you the impression that my problem with Emma Thompson is over mere deviations of her script from the novel. I must say that as I reread my own posting, I am at a loss to understand how the two of you could have come to such a conclusion. My complaint is quite explicit: Emma Thompson has perverted a great work of art in order to put forth her own personal point of view, what I called her feminist Bowdlerism. Her point of view might be correct and worthy (I don't think it is); but, as I clearly demonstrated, it is directly contradicted by Jane Austen herself. Emma Thompson's treatment of inheritance laws are, simply, false. But that is minor compared to her other perversions of the text, made to illustrate the screenwriters overriding view of female victimization - a view not expressed by Jane Austen. The worst example comes in Thompson's treatment of the Eliza Williams story which is discussed in great detail in my post and will not be repeated here. I also objected to the facts that Ms. Thompson was heavy-handed with a number of characters and refused to even deal with the more difficult parts of the book (Elinor's meeting with Willoughby for example). Someone like Emma Thompson cannot write an original novel to express her views and so she chooses to deface someone else's, and she does that after precious little thought and research.

Dear Sir and Cheryl,

Surely the answer to the 'men overboard' question lies somewhere in the middle - somewhere between uncaring callousness and devotion to one's mates?  Men have put their dying comrades out of their misery as long as men have been fighting (which is quite some time). Misery was more easily achieved, and more difficult to cure, in an age without analgesia or antibiotic.  I see nothing at all improbable in the idea of sailors 'finishing off' mortally wounded comrades by drowning, though I hope they cracked them on the head first!  This is not to say that it would have been a common or frequent practice - not, for instance, performed as a cure for ingrown toenails.  But as such things have been recorded from the time of Alexander to the time of Vietnam, I see no reason to suppose it was different in Jane Austen's time.

I must disagree with Cheryl on the point of 'Iago-like' characters in Persuasion:  I think Mr William Elliot more than qualifies, with his manipulating, cunning, nasty behaviour.  He even sets up his friend Colonel Wallis to watch over the Elliots, though what he was supposed to do to safeguard Mr Elliot's inheritance is unclear. His utterly reptilian, cold-hearted nature makes him quite as evil as Henry Crawford.

I'm afraid I can't grant Mr Woodhouse the status of sweet old gentleman, either, as I see him as thoroughly manipulative, especially with the women of his family.  He would have kept both of his daughters single if he could, and really never hears or sees another person in the novel, except on his own terms, and for his own comfort.  He is treated by all characters, in thought and deed, as some sort of venerable old object of worship (he is wealthy enough to ensure the reverance of just about everybody), and only Mr Elton, to his wife, ever utters one disparaging comment about him ('rather he than I!' he daringly exclaimed, of Mr Knightley's being to live with Mr Woodhouse).  He drives his son-in-law nuts, of course, but even he tries to control himself.

As to the last scene in Persuasion, yes, I think it is erotic (well, that's not quite the word I want - exciting for the protagonists?  Not much better).  Jane Austen uses something of the same device in Pride and Prejudice, after Elizabeth and Darcy's engagement ('Mrs Bennet, have you no more lanes where Lizzy and Darcy can lose themselves today?') - she is aware of the thrill and excitement that comes from being secret lovers, no matter how honourably, or how temporarily.  This same device occurs at the end of Emma, when Emma visits Miss Fairfax after the denouement - Emma sees a similarity in their positions, and thinks of the satisfaction ('the secret satisfaction') she will have in making the visit.  She also delights in hearing Mr Churchill say that Mr Knightley 'is a man I would not presume to praise.' Emma was delighted, and only wanted him to go on ....' And don't forget, Captain Wentworth is not the only man who was forced to propose twice, and at least Anne Elliot did not flay him alive the first time, as Elizabeth did to Darcy!
Julie

Dear Folks,

May I write twice in one night? Reading the recent posts about kicking injured sailors overboard, I felt called upon to bring the attention of anyone wanting a good understanding of the type of experiences Jane Austen's sailor brothers had while at sea, might read Patrick O'Brian's books (there are now nineteen in the series--and the NY Times calls them "the best historical novels ever written"). Truly they are wonderful books and all are set at the time that Jane's brothers were serving. The first in the series is Master and Commander. One of the two main characters in the books is a naval surgeon and from reading about his experiences, it is clear that the wonded were not kicked overboard but that "save our mates" was the prevailing attitude.
Best
Ray

Dear Cheryl and Julie,

Before this week began, I would have followed either of you anywhere. Now, I can only promise to follow anywhere except into battle.

I certainly agree that Jane Austen always ended her novels by letting us share some of the intimacy of the newly joined couple - those are always among my favorite parts. I grant that intimacy is sometimes a part of eroticism but the two sensations are not synonymous. Passion is still something else again. When the three come together, the moment is a time we never forget. Throw in goodwill, and we have the recipe for ecstasy. For me, the truly erotic part of Persuasion comes very early on, in that passage where Anne feels a rambunctious nephew being lifted off her back, then turns to learn the surprising fact that it had been Wentworth who had done the favor - Eroticism and some goodwill in the bargain.

Wentworth proposed twice and, I believe, was accepted twice. Is it not true that Anne broke off the first engagement after accepting him? Wentworth follows in the Darcy pattern in even more important ways. In Chapter VII of Volume 1, Anne is informed of this fact by her sister Mary: "Captain Wentworth is not very gallant by you Anne, though he was so attentive to me. Henrietta asked him what he thought of you, when he went away; and he said, 'You were so altered he should not have known you again'." Hardly something that Wentworth would have wanted Anne to hear much as Darcy would not have wanted Elizabeth to hear his judgment of her - "She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me...". Jane Austen endows these two lovers with the same quality of memory: This from Chapter XI of Volume 3 where Wentworth is in an intimate conversation with Anne and telling of a visit to his brother, "I was six weeks with Edward,... He inquired after you particularly; asked even if you were personally altered, little suspecting that to my eye you could never alter". That reminds me (not Julie) of Darcy's speeches to his new fiancée, admitting to all the crimes she accused him of in his first proposal even though he was innocent of all charges. Jane Austen never thought to make things explicit in Pride and Prejudice but did not repeat the mistake in Persuasion where she followed Wentworth's speech with the narration "Anne smiled and let it pass".

This is way off the subject but is something I wanted to mention about the "cancelled Chapter" of Persuasion. In that recent filmed version, both endings are represented. The standard ending is emphasized, but the cancelled Chapter is also shown in an altered setting and in a slightly fractured way. Still, it shows a respect for our Lady that I applaud.

To anyone that can help.

I was wondering if anyone who reads this can help me out.

I would like to know what is the difference between the movie and the novel, Sense and Sensibility. Hopefully you may help me out. I really need somebody's help. I have read the novel and seen the movie on Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen. I need someone to help me out to see the major differences between the movie and novel. The book was magnificent and very descriptive but it was hard to understand in someways even though I did have the Coles notes. This is not a last minute assignment if someone thinks so. I did read the book but I have difficulty sometimes understanding it and I might have missed the differences. Please do help if you want.

Maybe I didn't fully get the answer to my question because I have difficult in English but I am improving my skills. Sir, I do hope you can answer my question and help me out.

I really would be thankful to you in all ways. Thank you for reading this email.

Thanks once more.
Seema.

This assignment is due at the end of April but I want to get a head start and finish it. Thanks a lot.

Dear Seema,

I noticed a number of differences between the film and the novel and you can read about those by clicking here. I should warn you that I was angry when I wrote that, so you will have to sift through the anger and find the statements of fact. Also, while we may sympathize with an angry person, we must always remember that a person in such a state is not always the best witness so that what he says should be checked. Other than that I can only point to the fact that, in the novel, Sir John Middleton had a wife and children but not so in the film. I can't imagine any good reason for this change. By the way, the actress who plays Elinor in the film also wrote the screenplay. Her name is Emma Thompson. Ms Thompson is an excellent actress (although she wasn't right for this part) and I hope that, in future, she sticks to that line of work.

Dear Seema,

Though there are many inaccuracies in the screen adaptation of Sense and Sensibility, such as characters omitted and one character's words being put into the mouth of another - not to mention parts of the book omitted altogether - I think one of the main things one misses out on when watching the movie is character development.  Look through the novel, and study those parts which do not consist of conversation - all this, except for the physical description of place, etc, has to be left out.  Jane Austen moves her action forward and develops her characters by telling us their thoughts and motivation, and also by simply telling us what she, their creator, thought of them.  Jane Austen's authorial voice is one of the most delightful parts of her novels, and that authorial voice is, inevitably, absent from screenplay adaptations of her works.
Julie

Dear Folks,

After reading all the advice each of you were kind enough to send along relative to my request as to how I might defend the mirror-loving Sir Walter, I feel well fortified for my trip. The advice was so good and yet so varied that I only hope I can keep it straight. One thing I know for sure, and that is the advice from Cheryl to the effect that I could most help my cause with ladies from the north by not spitting in public will certainly be the easiest to remember. Perhaps I could adopt the solution used by the more sophisticated southern males of this enlightened generation. Such a man will carry an empty tin can into which he will expectorate, thereby causing such Yankee females as Cheryl to nod approvingly. (As an aside here, I am sure Cheryl must have visited Alabama--not Georgia.)

From the Meister: Umm - did you ever attend school in
Northern California? I mean, were you in my US History
class? I could swear that I remember that tin can.

And Ash, you sat at the Bunny Table??  No wonder you liked your teachers. As for me, I aspired to the Bunny Table but never stood a chance. After I jumped out of the cloakroom window while in the second grade, I was marked for life as a trouble-maker. Since I was written off at an early age as an uneducable hoodlum, I had to depend on The Hardy Boys for my education. Women in tweed and their assignments to "give examples of irony in Jane Austen" stood no chance of reaching me.

If I had to give prizes for the best advice I got from the various voices on the Male Voices Message Board, I would have to say that such prizes would be awarded to Julie and Cheryl with their advice to basically blame Sir Walter’s behavior on women. I like the sound of that. That advice puts forth just the kind of message that a red neck from Georgia could be very comfortable with. Not only that, but the advice has the advantage of allowing me to respond to a bunch of howling women with the revelation that the argument was not actually my argument but that it came to me from two women.

To give everyone something to look forward to, at an early date (this week for sure) I will be defending Emma Thompson’s version of S&S. Much like defending Sir Walter, it will be a tough sell, but it will be good practice for my upcoming role as the lone (I hope) male at the Elderhostel "Jane Austen’s World" class and tour.
Best
Ray

Dear Ray,

NOW you've done it!  Where, pray, did you come up with the idea that I was suggesting that one should blame Sir Walter Elliot's behaviour on women, or on anybody else, for that matter? I hold a view on life, generally speaking, that people are responsible for themselves - regardless of their genitalia or the state of their lungs (COULD we please leave spittoons out of it, just to please a poor, benighted Antipodean?). I also believe that Jane Austen shared the view of personal responsibility, and personal duty towoard others.  As a matter of fact, that belief is one of the cornerstones of her life, and of her fiction - it occurs again and again, her belief in the ethic of 'duty' and 'self-controul', as she put it.  If I have put forward any other view, I must have knocked back a bit more of the home brew than I thought, and forgot to read my post.

The Meister has taken pity on my ignorance, and explained a little of the geographical bias of some inhabitants of the U.S. - whacko the chook, I say - but here in Australia (where men are men, women are women, and sheep are highly nervous) we are so grateful to have the leg irons off, that we don't worry too much about historical trivia.

That should do it.

Regards, Julie

From the Meister: Antipodean? I didn't know your
feet were missing! What happened to you poor feet?

Well, generally, they are both in my mouth which, I'm sure you will agree, makes for an interesting picture as I sit here on the stool, touch-typing!  But occasionally I take them out, for when I'm required on the chain gang, or at the Female Factory (yes, we really had one of those).
Julie

Meister: Female Factory? For the most part, we
still create American females in the old-fashioned
way. There isn't much sentiment for change.

Female Factories were for real.  They were a sort of female penitentiary, but not quite, because it was a sort of workhouse as well.  It occurred to the British, after mailing X amount of adult males to this Godforsaken island, that there was something missing ...... SO, they ferried over female felons, and put them in to Female Factories, from where they could be assessed (!) and taken on consignment, as it were, by the local free population.  These ladies used to do such things as moon the Reverend Mr Marsden (our famous 'flogging parson'), and were generally not of a tone to be aimed for nor emulated, but, you have to give it to them, they had guts.

See - we have history too!
Love,
Julie

Links