5/6/00 Julie Grassi - [banya@bigpond.com] Leaving aside the guilt, but staying with the misery for a while ...

Dear Sir,

As you know, I've been reading a biography of George III, in conjunction with another huge tome on the history of medicine.  My only advice to the inhabitants of Jane Austen's England are (a) don't get sick and (b) keep away from doctors at all costs!

Consider poor George:

at the onset of his first serious illness, which led to the Regency Crisis, at which time (1788) George was fifty years old, he was at one stage simultaneously subjected to the following: his scalp was shaved and made to blister 'to draw out the poisonous matter from the brain' meanwhile, down south, his legs were blistered with cantharides and mustard, 'to draw the humours in the other direction'.  In case the King became bored, at the same time leeches were applied to his forehead, he was given repeated doses of strong laxatives, which caused violent diarrhoea, and emtics to keep him vomiting.  On top of this he was sedated and kept in an unheated room in the middle of an English winter.

All this did not seem to help (the wonder is that he survived at all!), so he was given doses of mercury, which put him into a coma.

The blisters on his legs became infected and abscessed, but that did not stop his attendants from tying him by said legs to the bedpost, the upper part of his body being straitjacketed.

The list of his medications is as follows:

• camphor
• digitalis
• quinine
• tartarised antimony, which made him vomit so violently that he used to kneel against a chair and pray for death.

He was, of course, bled frequently throughout, lest he become too healthy!

No wonder the House of Hanover continues to flourish - the family must be more or less indestructible, if they have inherited George's genes.

All of this came about, incidentally, because I was contemplating Jane Austen's last illness, and wondering how much of this kind of torture was inflicted upon her.  She was bled, we know, and had blisters applied, and was probably subjected to purging and vomiting, as well.  Poor Jane!  I just hope she wasn't important enough to warrant much of the attention that was imposed upon her king.

From the Meister: Ah yes, poor George III - well, you have brought some bad news for my countryman - We have a special place in our hearts for him. We think of him about the way you think of Napoleon I suspect. Still, he ruled for so long, his reign encompassed Jane Austen's entire life. He was the King at her birth and he was the King at her death.

5/5/00 The Meister - Mouth Wide-Open

Dear Folks,

I just watched Eyes Wide-Shut and it set me to wondering - can anyone answer this question? - did Kubrick die of embarrassment? I mean, if not for the nudity, I would say this was the worst film ever made - worse than Porkey's or, even, worse than Ishtar - if not for the nudity. I mean, the writing is not exactly Jane-Austen-like is it? Well, actually, I shouldn't say that because I didn't check the credits; maybe this was Patricia Rozema's rendering of Love and Freindship (sic).

5/6/00 cheryl - Eyes Wide Shut

Dear Meister,

Probably the most boring movie I've ever seen.  I take it the super-abundance of tits didn't help rescue it, even for the guys. (Difficult for me to judge, you know?) I have to refrain from telling customers to run like hell from this turkey with a capital "T."  Although we've had two people who think it was great, neither of them guys. So, as my boss always says, you just can never tell.

I just saw "U571" myself.  I can't really reccommend it unless you're able to turn the logic center of your brain off entirely...not even the occasional drip of common sense leaking through. I should be nicer to it, I suppose, since it's trying to make a good point about personal sacrifice and there was a merciful lack of slow-motion bloody death, but you can't have people spraying Thompson sub-machine gun fire around inside a submarine without hurting anything, PLUS a 90's hip black cook/steward ordering white sailors around in 1942 and be anything but laughable.
Cheryl

5/4/00 Myssa - [missy_62499@yahoo.com] my favorite Jane Austen

Dear Jane Austen fans,

Hey!

I'm not a guy but I still love all of the Jane Austens!! My favorite beyond favorite movie of all time is PRIDE AND PREJUDICE! I love everything about it- I watch it almost every weekend!! Well write me back- on our favorite Jane Austen cuz I would love to hear from you!!!!
myssa

5/4/00 Ashton Dennis - Hey! yourself

Dear Myssa,

You don't have to be a guy in order to post here. It would be silly to have a requirement like that at a web site where Jane Austen's work is celebrated. And, don't worry about that spelling thing, because this a bulletin board and not a chat room. I mean I am a sort of editor and so it is my responsibility to improve the spelling before anything is posted. Although, you should be told that Jane Austen's last name is spelled with an "e" and not an "i".

Which filmed version of P&P do you watch? I often watch the version made in 1995 that stars Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. There at least two other versions. Here is a link to my survey of the filmed versions. You will find a fairly complete listing there and a lot of links to other web sites. If you follow those links, you can eventually end up on fan pages for both Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth.

So, why do you like Jane Austen so well? Have you read any of the novels? They are even better than the films. Have you seen the filmed version of Persuasion?

5/2/00 Cheryl - Second guessing

Dear Ray,

Surely you must see the difference between the early morning raid carried out by federal agents and what happened at Columbine.  Local law enforcement in Colorado didn't have days (weeks?) to plan out the best time to go in or the best weapons to use.  It's easy for us to sit safely 1500 miles away and second guess everything.

It's even easier with the media crawling all over everything, feasting like maggots on the carcass.  Had the police gone into Columbine and saved a few lives everyone would now be certain that negotiation would have saved more.  Had they gone in, saved some lives and shot the perpetrators they would have been accused of excessive force.  God forbid, they would have gone in and shot an innocent student. Can you imagine the feeding frenzy we would have had?

Your outrage at the Elian Gonzales situation shows how even perfectly executed law enforcement is subjected to armchair quarterbacking.  I don't think anyone likes the way that turned out, but clearly Elian's relatives weren't going to be ruled by the law of their adopted country.  And by treating the family's threats of violence seriously, Reno avoided another Ruby Ridge or Waco.

"What is the message coming from such lunacy?: I'll tell you what the message is: Guns solve problems."

Well, yes Ray, guns DO solve problems. It solved China's problem of what to do about pro-democracy demonstrators a few years ago, didn't it? It solved the problem we had with Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Emperor Hirohito. It solved the problem of a young nation as to whether its citizens would be allowed to own slaves  whether US expansion would be to the west or to the south  and whether or not a handful of aristos could reject legitimate majority rule and set up their own petty kingdoms within US territory. Pretending guns (force in general) don't solve anything in an open invitation to slaughter and genocide.

"On the other hand if I have two library books overdue, the police will arm themselves with automatic weapons, put on the flack jackets and helmets, kick down my door, spray me with mace, handcuff me and them haul me off to jail."

Ironically enough, this sentiment is EXACTLY what drives the raving lunatic pro-gun nuts. From here, it's only a hop, skip, and a jump to buying an SKS and 10,000 rounds of Czechoslovakian made surplus ammunition  babbling incoherently about how Pride and Prejudice proves Bill Clinton is the Anti-Christ.
Cheryl

5/3/00 Ray Mitchell - [grm34@mailcity.com] oh !

Dear Folks,

WAIT! Just a minute here.  I have gathered from Cheryl’s reasoned reply to my MW Day posting that our postings were suppose to have make some kind of sense. Now you tell me.

I thought I had covered myself rather well by pointing out that the disastrous events proceeding MW Day made it impossible for me to make a reasoned posting. And not only that, but I’m old and live in South Georgia. Both of those qualifiers should result in me being cut a lot of slack.

Even given all that, I think I have a point. What that point is, I am hesitant to say for fear that some reasonable person will point out the error of my ways.

So now Cheryl has two distinctions in my life. First, she actually took the time to think about and respond seriously to my posting, and secondly she is the author of the best turn of the phrase I have ever read in my life. I have reference, of course, to "deer snot crusted lettuce". I just love that.

Speaking of deer, I am a member of the only group in the world who hates deer worse than gardeners do. Until one has ridden a motorcycle into a herd of deer on a lonely road on a dark night, one does not know what the term "wide eyed with fear" means. Get those fools (the deer, not the motorcyclists) off the road.

Now to get back to Jane Austen: I have just finished a book by John Bayless. He was married to Iris Murdoch who died last year after a long bout with Alzheimer’s. In the book, which is an account of those last days, he mentions Jane Austen and her writings several times. What follows is a kind of recap of those remarks. I will not try to put them in context as that would take too long.

He raised the question as to whether or not Jane Austen ever fantasized about sleeping with Darcy or Knightly. You will be relieved to know that the author answered his own question with a "not likely".

While taking a glass of wine in Sidmouth, he speculated on whether our Lady might have set at that same table.

He referred to a critic (unnamed) who referred to Jane Austen as writing about "intelligent love." He also remarked on the fact that both Henry James and Jane Austen had the good sense not to write about what happened in a marriage, but confined themselves mostly to writing about what happened outside of marriage.

The Palmers are mentioned in the following (again out of context) way: "--Did Jane Austen perceive that he (Palmer) secretly loved his wife for her good temper, and because she enjoyed him most when he was his most disobliging?"

I found all this interesting stuff, mostly because I cannot recall when I have read a book that contained any mention of our Lady or of her writings.

5/4/00 Ray Mitchell - [grm34@mailcity.com] Addendum: Well, how about this?

Dear Folks,

Lookee what I just found:

Columbine Timeline May Give Cause to Lawsuits

Poor police advice and a slow response may have contributed to the Columbine deaths on April 20, 1999.

A timeline draft created by the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department may serve as evidence for lawsuits. It shows that students were told by police to stay in the school library - the part of the building where most were killed.

Furthermore, the documentation indicates that it took a SWAT team three hours to reach the library, during which time, 10 students and one teacher died from gunshot wounds. Victims' families also argue that the delay in getting medical help to the wounded may have needlessly caused more deaths.

In all, 15 people perished during the melee, including the two student gunmen, who killed themselves.

From the Meister: Ray, can you
give us the date and the publisher?

5/4/00 Cheryl - A place in history, wow!

Dear Ray,

It's nice to know I've been assured my place in literary history.  I suppose there's worse things to be remembered for than "deer snot crusted lettuce" ... and if anyone thinks of one, please e-mail me, day or night.

My apologies for having taken you seriously.  Will it damage my new-won reputation to say I thought your post made sense? Yes, I think you have a point, but I also think that you mustn't be so naïve as to confuse a vote-getting "message" (pro or anti-gun) with day-to-day reality. However, your blatant confession that you watch television news puts you in the "get what you deserve" category.  Read the newspaper.  It may be equally biased, but you can relieve stress by burning or mulching it.  Plus, it has the comics (in color daily in our local!)

Ah, yes, motorcycling in deer country. Who cares about radar detectors, they should develop a stupid animal detector.   I have been fortunate in that respect so far, though an encounter with a large wasp that got under my helmet put me in the emergency room and eventually I felt as if I should make a sign that said "No, my husband did NOT beat me up, it was a wasp!"

I hadn't realized that Iris Murdoch had died, (actually, I should say I didn't realize she was still alive) she must have been quite old.  My knowledge of her comes from Flannery O'Connor (of course) who loved her poetry, but didn't think much of her prose.  I must ask though, how Jane Austen tied into the actual purpose of Bayliss' book.  Just curious.
Cheryl

5/6/00 Julie Grassi - [banya@bigpond.com] For God's sake, Cheryl and Ray, let us let other pens dwell on guilt and misery, and quit such odious subjects as soon as we can ...

Dear Cheryl and Ray,

That was a quote, by the way, from the pen of an eighteenth century (more or less) author whose philosphies I admire highly.  That point aside, most of us who do not inhabit the 20th century of The Great Nation (another quote, from another novel), get quite enough reportage and verbiage and footage and all the rest ... do we, MUST we have it here, too?  Tell you what:  if I promise not to inflict John Howard and the Anthony Mundine saga on to the board, perhaps our American contributors could agree that the rest of the world is already hearing quite enough about your problems, thank you, whether we want to or not?

That's better.

I'm reading my first Iris Murdoch novel at the moment, having been introduced to her via her husband's memoir, written as his wife died of Alzheimer's disease.  I haven't read her poetry, but her prose writing is excellent, indeed.  She died late last year; her husband, elderly himself, cared for her at home until the last stages of her illness.  His memoir is a delight--a sad delight, but a delight nonetheless.

Now I bet I'm in all kinds of trouble!

Which is nothing new.
Cheers,
Julie

4/28/00 joyrider - Am I missing something?

To anyone who can possibly help me,

I'm an A - Level student with standard English Lit worries.  Usually I can get good marks by blagging my way through things but considering you all seem to be such great (if somewhat mentally disturbed) fans - I would like to know - why? It sounds a bit rude, I admit, but I just don't understand what the whole fascination with Austen is about.  In the two books I've read of hers (S&S and P&P) they seem to just rotate around a bunch of women who are obsessed with marriage combined an occasional 'witty' anecdote on her views of society.  Is this all there is to get? Am I missing something?

4/28/00 Ashton - yes

Dear joyrider,

I hope you will continue to post. Maybe you will turn us around.

To begin with, there are not a bunch of women obsessed with marriage in either S&S or P&P. Lucy Steele (S&S) is obsessed in this way because she wants to marry well in order to move up in the world. Mrs. Bennet (P&P) is obsessed because her husband isn't getting any younger and he hasn't provided for any of their daughters. Lady Catherine is obsessed because she is concerned about her sickly cub. Everyone else is concerned about relationships which is quite another thing. Do you mean that you are not concerned about relationships? Ee-ee-oo, yuck - what is wrong with you?

Level-A? - does that mean you are English?

Actually, it is more important to focus on the relationship between the sisters in S&S - that relationship is far more important than any of the male-female relationships in the novel.

What authors do you like? If I know that, I think I can get at you. Your posting reminds me of what Charlotte Bronte said about Jane Austen, but then Bronte couldn't write - she could only blag - I am pleased that Jane Austen didn't please her. But, I do want to engage you. Link to the table of contents and from there to what men have said about Jane Austen (even Englishmen). That might start you thinking differently.

Think about these things: Jane Austen lived in chaotic times, far more chaotic than anything in your lifetime. Austen did not comment on society - not ever. Everyone else in her world was commenting on society, but her focus was on individuals and human nature. That is refreshing if it is done well. And, boy, could Jane Austen ever do that well! How that Jane Austen could write!

4/30/00 John - Missing

Dear Joyrider,

I understand exactly how you feel.

So Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Why the fuss? Church ceilings are being painted every day. Why the excitement about one ceiling?

Shakespeare wrote plays that don't rhyme. Why all the talk about his theatricals?

Verdi wrote a singing play about a love-triangle in Egypt. Big deal. What is worth the fussing about in a love triangle?

So Jane Austen wrote six novels. Big deal. Oops. Her novels really are big deals.

You must read Northanger Abbey. It is laugh-out-loud witty.

You are more fortunate than we are, because you have so far merely glanced at two Austen novels. The magic is still ahead for you. It is a magic composed of watching Jane Austen present characters so real that you sometimes forget that they are fictions. And she does not trip anywhere. No other novelist novelist has risen to Jane Austen's level of perfection.

You appear to have a satirical side to your nature. You should find a kindred spirit in Jane Austen.

4/27/00 Ashton - You may have better luck with Edgeworth

Dear Heather,

Of course, one should look at the women authors that Jane Austen read when seeking her influences. I made a short effort along those lines myself and concluded that that approach would not be fruitful. I gave my reasons why. I particularly looked at Fanny Burney - I don't think we will decide that she was an influence. (For one thing, Burney was a man hater.) However, you have a much better eye for that sort of thing, and so we may revise my original take on Burney. I was interested in her because she enunciated the principle that a novel must show much of "nature and probability" in order to be good. This was a principle mentioned by several members of the Austen family including Jane herself. I have since learned that the principle was enunciated by Johnson before Burney. (Burney's dad was a good friend of Dr. J, and so it was quite natural that she would repeat this idea in the preface to one of her novels.) Also, the phrase "pride and prejudice" is to be found in a Burney novel. But, Burney does not overwhelm us with her logic and she seems morally obtuse. I do believe that Johnson was an influence for Burney.

By the way, I also noticed the Burney quote you sent us, and I also connected it to Pride and Prejudice (nee First Impressions). As you must know, when two great minds hit upon the same idea, it becomes a truth.

The possible influence of Maria Edgeworth is another matter. Coincidentally, I have recently begun to wonder whether or not I should rethink my judgement about her set down in the link given above. My feeling about Edgeworth is that she wrote one beautiful page after another - she really did write well - but that all her novels are eminently forgettable. I mean, in her case the whole is far less than the sum of the parts. I suspect that if Jane Austen had published before Maria Edgeworth, instead of the other way around - if it had been possible for Austen to be an influence for Edgeworth, and not the other way around, then Edgeworth might have become one of the great novelists of all time.

I hope you realize that you have promised to pursue this matter further - this matter of female influences for Jane Austen. Let me remind you of that excellent web site of Cathy Decker, because that should prove a wonderful resource for you.

Here is what Henry Austen said about Burney and Edgeworth in relation to his sister:

"... [Jane Austen] sent into the world those novels, which by many have been placed on the same shelf as the works of a D'Arblay [Fanny Burney] and an Edgeworth."

That's a bit amusing now, because neither woman ranks with the great Jane nowadays. Incidentally, it was Henry who tells us that Jane did many revisions while it was brother James who suggested that Sterne was an influence. I strongly believe that your suggestion

" ... though you have presented some fine arguments about how Austen knows men by observing her brothers, it does not follow that her brothers spent a lot of time observing her with the same keen eye"

4/28/00 Linda - The "Right Word"?

Dear Meister,

After reading your example from Persuasion I understand your meaning. Those passages are extremely interesting, and, as you said, glossed over without proper notice.

The project sounds interesting so I wanted to take a stab at finding "the right word".

I started my quest by writing out the dictionary definitions for words such as feelings, romance, romantic, emotion, passion, sentiment, and also the ones listed in your post of 4/24/00.

I settled on "passionate feelings".  I chose "feelings" first because our Lady uses the word feelings (felt, feeling, etc.) quite a lot.  Using only the word "feelings" (which is defined as "an emotion or emotional perception or attitude i.e. a feeling of joy, love, etc.) seemed inadequate to me.  Something more was needed which led me to "passion".  "Passion" is defined as a strong or violent emotion, often so overpowering that it masters the mind or judgment. (Doesn't that sound like that passage the Meister quoted from Persuasion?).

Putting the two together I got "passionate feelings".  That is the best I can do.  I certainly hope someone else can do better.  Most of the other words I looked up sounded inappropriately explicit.  I was looking for something in keeping with our Lady's sense of propriety.  However, for our understanding today, we may need something more explicit.

All said and done, I keep finding more research to do - just as if I needed something else to do!  As I was looking in "Pride and Prejudice" and "Persuasion" for examples of this "passionate feeling" (and there are many), I started noticing that our Lady, near these passages, also said things that appeared to describe the attributes and to define "love" and "falling in love".

One example is that "love is blind". In Chapter 36 Lizzie said, "Had I been in love, I could not have been more wretchedly blind."  I would like to make a list of those passages also.

Oh, well, when my ship come in, I will give up my day job to do research which would be for my own amusement. And I don't even have as much going for me as the Meister who claims to "being ill-equipped and doomed to failure" in his post of 4/10/00.

Modestly speaking- I believe that I am out of my league here.  There is so much I have to learn.  You dear people speak of writers of whom I have never heard - another example of my frustration with the "education system".  When I went out into the "world" I realized the inadequacy of my "education".  We have said about ourselves in the hinder lands of La., "we live so far back in the woods that they have to pipe in sunshine".

I keep changing my mind.  After rereading this, I thought that maybe just the word "passion" might do.  If I get so far as to actually post this it will be a miracle!

Maybe this post will, at the very least, give someone else an idea.  Happy hunting!
Regards,
Linda

5/4/00 Ashton - "You learn more from a loss than from a win." - Be explicit with youngsters.

Dear Heather,

Coaches of losing teams always say that. I spent a lot of time coaching, including schoolgirls fast-pitch softball (five years, ten to fifteen teams); so, I can testify that this truism is actually the truth. It also gives me the confidence to say some things about parenting.

If I had it to do over again, I think the thing that I would change is that I would be a great deal more explicit with my children. I mean it simply is not always enough to be a good example. For some kids, it is enough, but you can never be sure that a particular youngster is one of those - don't take a chance. For many other otherwise-worthwhile youngsters you actually have to say that drugs are bad and that others deserve the kind of respect that dignity requires. And, animals have feelings and one must always have the sense of the commitment made to them. Etc. etc. I was a lot better coach than father, but I am going to be an excellent grandfather.