7/31/00 Dave Payton - [HITZ53@aol.com] MP movie review. When?

Dear Ashton,

Are you or are you not going to post your review of Rozema's version of Mansfield Park?

The old convention used to be to leave a letter unsent for three days before re-reading it and finally sending it to give one time to reconsider what one has said. You've gone substantially beyond that.

There's no point in being coy about the whole things, otherwise we'll all think that you're emulating Fanny Price and being manipulative.

7/31/00 Ashton - [HITZ53@aol.com] Appearing Soon! The MP movie review

Dear Ashton,

I hope to post it by the end of the week. The only things to add are a section on the different ways that Miss Jane Austen and Ms. Rozema use quotes from Sterne's Sentimental Journey, and a section on our Lady's true attitudes on the subject of slavery - as expressed in all her novels. I will give you a hint; Jane Austen's neighbors had a far more modern attitude than Rozema gives them credit.

The review is incendiary and will remain so, but it is, at present, a bit uncivilized and I hope to change that before I show the review. (I never visit chat rooms where I would invariably produce the same level of animosity in two minutes that it has taken me two years to inspire at this bulletin board.) I have done what a lot of folks do when they are furious, I strike out at everyone else that I am angry with in the current draft. That must be undone and it will be; the review will be sharply focused before it is posted. It will be incendiary, but the target will be clearly delineated.

Thank you for the interest.

7/30/00 Dave Payton - [HITZ53@aol.com] It's all in my head, said the stroke victim

Reference: Cheryl 7/28/00

Dear Cheryl,

Somatic. Psychosomatic. Whatever you want to call it, I believe that you're reaching. There is no indication, to me, that Fanny Price is either. There is no text nor context in the novel that implies that Fanny is somatic. There is no implication in the book that Fanny's delicacy or weakness or illness or whatever it was, was used as a manipulative tool. I don't recall her saying to Edmund, "Gee, I feel a little peaked today. Why don't you let me ride your nag for an hour?" Or "My this walk is boring and it's hot and I feel a little vapourous. Why don't you guys go ahead so I can watch the birth of a scandal?"

It may be that I can't see the forest for the trees, but my reading of the plain text of the novel does not show Fanny as being somatic or manipulative. She's so transparent that she can't even palm a quarter.

The only time that she even comes close to being manipulative is when she doesn't tell Sir Thomas what she knows about Henry Crawford and Maria. And what would be to her advantage in not spilling the beans on that deal? Her self interest would have been better served if she'd blurted out the whole sordid tale. At least she'd have had that coqchien dandy away from her door and may have even gotten closer to the inheritance.

I don't agree that Fanny was taking the role of little sister. I saw her as being regarded as a glorified servant for Lady Bertram and Mrs. Norris. There are times in the book that I'm surprised that they don't refer to her as "Mammy." The only people in the Bertram household who pay her any regard are Edmund, and Sir Thomas after his return from the West Indies. Edmund's regard for Fanny is not explained in the book. It may be that he's soft-hearted (which is oftentimes accompanied by a soft head, which he displays countless times), has developed an emotional attachment to her for whatever reason, or, and I hope you (and Bruce) will forgive me for using this term, he may have seen it as his Christian duty to pay her regard and be kind to her. I think that Sir Thomas finally noticed her after his return because he realized that he missed her and that she was really much more of a support and pillar for the family than he had realized. Keep in mind that the foundations of buildings are rarely noticed, but they are the things that keep the building from falling in upon themselves.

But I may be wrong.

As far as John Gardner's quote, well, the poor fellow failed to navigate a turn on his Harley and paid the price, so he's not here to refute your statement. But he was a proponent of the idea that the duty of fiction is to be moral. Whether or not you agree with the contention is your business. He doesn't go quite as far as Plato in this regard, but is still taking a lot of flack from the modernists and post-modernists for his stand.

One thing that has to be kept in mind regarding the quote is that Gardner had an understanding of the frailties of humans. Just because a person is "good" does not mean that he is perfect. The Ten Commandments is not a prescription. It is a mirror of accusation. The Sermon on the Mount is not a set of rules for living. It is an accusation to the present and a promise of the future. Anyone who says that they try to live by either admits that they fail. Anyone who says that they do live and keep either is deluded. The only thing that really keeps us from destroying one another in our personal lives is that we strive to live to either one or both of these precepts. Never mind what governmental actions are. Governments are entities with no morals. The good writer's job is to promote a moral vision. Which would you rather have more of in your city? Updike's Rabbit or Chandler's Marlowe? Harris' Hannibal Lechter or Spillaine's Mike Hammer? Would you prefer that your neighbor be Mary Crawford eyeing your husband over the fence or Fanny Price tending her garden?

Finally, as far a moving picture versions of novels go, if I were the god of Hollywood, I would prohibit the making of films based on novels. They are two different things. Viewing the flicker before reading the novel corrupts the novel, and since the novel is the source, what has happened is a poisoning of the well. Twenty years ago, or so, there was a novel called The Chinese Bandit. It was a very exciting and interesting novel. It had a little bit too much of the old Argosy magazine style to it to be a classic, but it was popular and well received. After I read it the word came out that it was going to be made into a movie starring Robert Redford. All I could say at the time was , "Huh? I thought my Dad was supposed to be the hero." Fortunately, they never made it into a film, so I can retain the image of the hero that I had built. On the other hand, I saw Gregory Peck play Ahab in Moby Dick (one of my favorite novels) before I ever read the book, and whenever I read the book I can't get the image of Peck as Captain Ahab out of my noggin. The movie has ruined my reading pleasure. Unfortunately, we can't erase our memories as easily as we can erase a computer memory. That is my problem with film adaptations of novels.

But then, I may be wrong to think so.

7/30/00 Cheryl - the true purpose of fiction

Dear Dave, Meister, & Julie,

Dave: Do you really think manipulators go around saying "Hey, I'm going to get $20 out of you for my meth habit by pretending to need diapers for my kid."????  I can only repeat, look at the end result of Fanny's actions.  Edmund shifts his attention, if only momentarily, from Mary Crawford when Fanny is too tired to walk anymore.  She gets a horse, first from Sir Thomas, then from Edmund because it's the only sort of exercise she can enjoy, cutting roses and walking are too tiring for her.  That's really the point of such a personality -- they get what they want without the victims realizing that they're being taken for a ride.  I'm not saying this is what Fanny Price is meant to be, I'm saying that I don't like her because this is what I see. Fanny Price is the direct ancestor of the woman who'd rather prostitute herself to a man who beats her and her kids than get a job.

Women who seem transparent to men are rarely so to women.  Sorry if that's catty, but I suspect you could spot a Henry Crawford at a party from 20 paces too.

Well, about all I can tell John Gardner is either "don't drink and drive" or, "you're not as good a driver as you think you are." (Are we talking about the author of "Grendel"?)  I'm afraid that the point of fiction is to make money for the publisher.  Everything else is lagniappe. I've read Chandler and Harris.  The only thing I learned from Harris' is that crappy writing and a complete ignorance of craft is no bar to the Big Bucks.  And that the publishing house he writes for uses a spell checker instead of an editor.  As for Chandler, we do not bandy his name lightly in my household.  Just a warning.

I understand that Mel Gibson has bought the rights to The Technicolor Time Machine and envisions a cast I can hardly stomach on paper, let alone in the theatre. I can only say that it's comparable to casting Humphrey Bogart as Phillip Marlowe.  (I know Chandler thought he was great, but I choose to disagree.)

P. S.  I've just started Surgeon's Mate and will let you know how I get along. However, my husband returned home this evening with The Rape of Nanking and The Longest Day so I may get sidetracked.

Dear Meister, I don't believe that the desire to strive for something more shows a lack of "evolution." Exactly the opposite.  I would almost say that it is disrespectful to see Jane Austen as a static artist ... never striving or achieving anything new or different.  That's certainly not what I see.  I must ask, do you love Anna Karenina equally throughout the novel.  Does she become more or less loveable through the novel?  Why should I find all the heroines of 6 different novels equally loveable???  I think you equate Jane Austen's creations with the lady herself, and that it clouds your judgement sometimes.

From the Meister: Tell me some things, do you refer to Madame Bovary as a "heroine"? Do you differ in your use of "heroine" and "protagonist"? Do you include Jane Austen where you say the purpose of novels is to make money? Why would Fanny prostitute herself, as you say, after refusing Henry Crawford? If you like Julie's response so much, perhaps you will be so good as to reply to the question I put to her: Do you remember the way that Jane Austen related to the characters in her reading? If so, how did her approach differ from mine?

Dear Julie: Thank you for trying to insert a bit of perspective into the Meister's world.  I didn't know that Australians were now in the habit of claiming New Zealanders as well.  During my time there, the constant refrain was "It's 1500 miles south of here" if a dumb Yank confused the two. Maybe it's selective, though. (P.S, I was thinking "ocker", actually)
Cheryl

7/31/00 Dave Payton - [HITZ53@aol.com] The True Purpose of Fiction

Dear Cheryl,

Actually I have known a few dope addicts that were as transparent as your example, but they've either been cokies or juicers or speed freaks. Maybe you just have a higher class of junkie in your state, or maybe I'm just more of a lowlife.

As far as Fanny being a manipulator, have it your way. I still don't see it.

Actually, the purpose if commercial fiction is to make money for the publisher. I don't recall hearing that Homer, Defoe or Poe made a lot of money for their original publishers. Fiction relies on someone wanting to tell a story whether or not there is money to be made. Good fiction has a moral content. The same goes for poetry and jazz. There's no big money in either, but they are both still being made and broadcast.

John Gardner may have been drunk when he went for the crash and burn. So what? Did he ever say that he was an example of moral uprightness? Just because a man fails does not mean that what he aimed for, or wanted others to aim for, is wrong. Chandler was nothing like Philip Marlowe. Does that mean that the novels are any less true in the metaphysical sense?

As far as so and so being interested in such and such a book for a film adaptation, consider the source; Hollywood. All technique and no content.

7/31/00 Cheryl - more on morality and fiction

Dear Dave,

Again, I'm only trying to explain why I don't personally like Fanny Price ... no one appears exactly the same to everyone they know, whether fictitious or real.  While I still think that JA wanted us to see Fanny as a flawed character (same as the rest of her heroines) I'm not saying she wanted us to see what I see.  It's just my personal experience coloring the novel ... people like Fanny Price are a lot less admirable in person then they are on paper.

Perhaps we can halve the distance and say that "published" fiction exists to make money for the publisher.  Sometimes it's indirect ... Confederacy of Dunces initially made very little money, I believe, but factor in a suicide and Pulitzer, and the publisher starts raking it in.

My comment about John Gardner was to be taken at face value.  The ability to write is no more a guarantee of ethics, morality, intelligence, common sense, or anything else than the ability to fix cars is.   I wasn't trying to say anything else.   But let me point out that John Gardner could have killed a lot more people than just himself by driving drunk.  I'm not morally elastic enough to consider an action that's the equivalent of playing Russian roulette with the gun pointed at total strangers a "failure to achieve moral perfection."  It's a crime.

You say

The Ten Commandments is not a prescription. It is a mirror of accusation. The Sermon on the Mount is not a set of rules for living. It is an accusation to the present and a promise of the future. ... The only thing that really keeps us from destroying one another in our personal lives is that we strive to live to either one or both of these precepts.

I must ask if you consider a Hindu or animist capable of writing your definition of "moral fiction"?
Cheryl

7/28/00 Cheryl - [ramcah@televar.com] A response to the Meister's inquiry

Reference: Meister's comment at end of Cheryl's 7/28/00

Dear Meister,

My overview of the novel is that it is a transitional work.  Jane Austen wasn't content as a writer or entertainer simply to rehash old ground.  As much as I think we all love Pride and Prejudice I doubt that anyone would argue with the statement that Mansfield Park is intended to cover more serious subjects.  The problem with the novel is that Jane Austen sacrificed her greatest talent -- creating very real human beings -- to the requirements of the plot. Therefore Fanny Price must see all to keep her heart safe from Henry Crawford while Edmund sees nothing, no matter how blatant JA tells us Crawford and Maria are, to continue his unabashed admiration for the Crawfords.  Fanny must act like a twelve-year-old one minute, and Sir Thomas' Great Aunt the next.  Austen's other heroines may act inconsistently, but such actions are always consistent with their characters and motivations.  Fanny's motivations appear consistent only with the necessities of moving the plot forward.  I am not perfectly satisfied with the novel, but I would never deny the craft and talent Jane Austen put into it.  My rating for the novels is as follows:

• 1. Persuasion
• 2. Pride and Prejudice
• 3. Mansfield Park
• 4. Northanger Abbey
• 5. Emma
• 6. Sense and Sensibility

For a long time I thought that Fanny was the run up for Anne Elliot, but I no longer think that.  I still believe Mansfield Park is a companion novel to Persuasion. Mansfield Park shows the solid morality and values that "County Society" should honor and keep while Persuasion illuminates what should be allowed to fade -- obsession with rank and keeping the privileges out of the hands of others, no matter how deserving. Persuasion works better as a novel, despite its abbreviation.  What little there is shows more maturity, more craft and more confidence. I think JA does a better job contrasting Sir Walter & Elizabeth, the Dalrymples, and Mr. Elliot with the Crofts, the Musgroves, and the Harville's.

And what do I think of Jane Austen?  I think she was an evolving talent.  I think she was, and had every right to be proud of her earlier novels, but I also think that she had chosen a new direction for herself.

Lastly, I don't find it necessary to like each and every character to like the book.  I don't even need to like the book to know its importance.  I didn't "like" or "enjoy" "Beloved."  But I'd put in on a list of ten best novels of the 20th century.  Neither of those feelings is intended as a personal reflection of who or what Toni Morrison is, and she's still alive.  So there's no need to think I'm insulting Jane Austen just because I don't like one of her heroines.
Cheryl

From the Meister: Well, at least you say that Fanny is a "heroine". But, I think it odd to like a novel and not like the heroine! At least now I can be certain that I have far more respect for Jane Austen than yourself - I think her highly evolved. But then, as you know, I have always said she was a man's novelist. I love Fanny Price without reservation, but then, I am also the guy who admires Darcy so much.

7/29/00 Julie Grassi - [banya@bigpond.com] Here's a bit of Australian aggression for you ...

Dear Sir,

Don't be so bloody impertinent.  You cannot 'be certain that you have more respect for Jane Austen' than Cheryl, or anybody else, has, simply because another's reasoned evaluation of the author's works differs from your own.  My belief is that Jane Austen valued 'rational opposition' far more than blind devotion - and why do you have difficulty in comprehending that one can value a novel, while not necessarily being attracted to the heroine? Jane Austen herself commented in reference to one of her works (Emma) that she was creating a heroine 'that nobody but myself will much like.'

Like Fanny Price, I find that your feelings are taking you to places where I cannot follow: no woman can, perhaps.  I doubt, indeed, whether the author herself would be able to understand such a degree of emotional involvement with fictional characters.  When I think of the novels, I consider them in their entirety: no character exists, unless in its interaction with others. 'Falling in love' with a character lessens the work as a whole, I feel.  I could go on, but we are on mutually foreign territory, and speak to each other in mutually alien tongues.
Julie

7/29/00 Ashton - And here's a bit of American impertinence for you ...

Dear Julie,

I read that comment of Jane Austen on Emma far, far differently than you. I should remind you that this comment was made to a family member prior to publication, and belongs in the same category as that disparaging remark our Lady made about Anne Elliot - also to a relative and also prior to publication. To me, this was Jane Austen's self-effacement - a wish not to raise expectations amongst those she loved best.

That said, I should add that I didn't dislike Emma Wooodhouse at the first reading. I hated her. And so, I hated the novel. I have often said that if Emma had been the first Jane Austen novel I had ever read, there would not have been a second. It was only in subsequent readings that I learned to love that heroine and then to appreciate the novel.

In general, when Americans want to disparage Australians, we do not call them "aggressive"; we call them "terminally cynical". However, we rarely disparage Australians; most often, we embrace them. I can't imagine that many Australians feel unwelcome here. We value Australians' values, and we recognize in them some of those same non-European qualities that we value in ourselves. Why do you think so many Australian elite work in the United States?

To me, it is astounding that someone does not love Elizabeth Bennet, or Ann Elliot, or Marianne Dashwood, etc. You must be very cynical indeed. Does this mean you do not love Tess? Or all those other Thomas Hardy characters? Or all those Tolstoy characters? Etc.? Do you remember the way that Jane Austen related to the characters in Richardson's novels? Our Lady even took the time each year to celebrate the wedding anniversaries of those characters! I guess you think of our Lady as foreign and alien - ahh well, so be it.

But the real question is where in hell have you been, you big, cynical, alien foreigner? We missed you and we needed you.

7/29/00 Bruce - Novels and heroines

Dear Male Voices,

Following Cheryl’s example of rating the novels, here’s my ranking:

• 1) Emma:  The perfect Austen novel.  Every scene takes place in the same secluded neighborhood.  Emma is a charming heroine (we may not admire her, but she charms us anyway), Knightley a gallant hero, and Mr. Woodhouse is perhaps the perfect Austen comic character.
• 2) Persuasion:  The most romantic and moving of all the novels.  Benwick gets my vote as my favorite character in this one.  This novel is more autumnal in it’s mood than any of the others, perhaps a bit less sparkling, but, along with S & S, it reamains the one of the six that is legitimately moving.
• 3) Mansfield Park:  Sheer genius.  Austen takes a passive/aggressive, unattractive heroine, a judgmental, self-deluded hero, a witty, attractive villain, and leads her readers around by their nose rings getting them to follow her brilliant lead like sheep following a Judas goat.
• 4) Sense and Sensibility:  Along with Persuasion, the only novel with the gift of tears.  True, the heroes are both bores, but I like the villains.  And of course it has my very favorite Austen character: Nancy Steele.
• 5) Pride and Prejudice:  Hard to rate it this low, and perhaps it should be ahead of S & S, but Elizabeth is a bit too much the world’s darling for a snob like me to be in love with her. Also, the comic characters are more farcical and less believable than in the later novels. I wouldn’t part with Mr. Collins, or Lady Catherine, but they belong to the realm of slapstick, rather than to the real world.
• 6) Northanger Abbey:  Hey.  Something had to finish last.

While we are talking about which Austen characters we like, here’s my list of which ones I would like to get to know better in real life.  Of course, since I’m a man, which ones I would like to get to know better translates as "which ones I would like to sleep with."

• Marianne ­ Passionate, romantic, and beautiful, her one weakness is that she would absolutely refuse to fake anything.
• Elinor ­ "Say, I’m bored.  I wonder what Marianne’s up to tonight?  Why don’t we go ask her to join us for dinner?"
• Elizabeth ­ "Hey!  Could you just shut up and stop cracking wise for five minutes!"
• Jane ­ We know she is not demonstrative (a major flaw), but she is so compliant she’d doubtless do absolutely anything.  "I’ve got a great idea involving you, me, lesson from the Kamma Sutra, and that rope swing in the back garden!"
• Catherine Morland ­ Marianne’s one thing, but I ain’t no child molester.
• Isabella Thorpe ­ Hey, we’re not talking relationships here.  She’d be awesome. "OK, OK! I’ll admit that Miss Andrews is as beautiful as an angel if you’ll let me unbutton the top three ..."
• Fanny Price ­ "That’s OK Fanny, if you have another headache, I’ll just go sleep on the couch again."
• Mary Crawford ­ "Well, Fanny has another headache, so I thought I’d just come over here and talk for a while.  You have beautiful eyes, by the way."
• Emma Woodhouse ­  "I must say, Emma darling, nothing gets my testosterone levels going like a good bowl of gruel."
• Jane Fairfax ­ "No, no.  No need for you to come to bed, Jane.  Why don’t you go practice the piano for a while.  I’m really tired."
• Anne Elliot ­ "I don’t care what Lady Russell says ­ everyone does it.  It’s not the least bit perverted."

7/29/00 Julie Grassi - [banya@bigpond.com] I really can't turn my back for a moment, can I!

To All,

'Sheila' is about as current in the Australian vernacular as 'cobber' - i.e. not at all. In my countrywoman's defence, might I say that I don't think she was setting out to be insulting. Australians are, I believe, often perceived as 'aggressive' in conversation and in print by People With Accents, but I can 'hear' what was written by Sheila, and it would pass as ordinary conversation in any Australian lunchroom, restaurant or other meeting place.  My only advice to the lady would be to check the spelling of people's names, before taking them in vain.

I do think that Sir is being a little selective in his criteria, however, when he states that poor Sheila can only post in reference to Jane Austen - Heavens, man! You've burbled on about actresses enough, in your time!  But we all know my views on that subject.

The text, the whole text, and nothing but the text.
Julie

P.S.:  'Sheila's' posts actually form a fine example of the kind of defensiveness that I had rather hoped was no longer relevant to Australian society:  we no longer need to jump up and down, shouting 'I'm here! I'm here!' as we used to do.
Julie