9-11          

2/15/02 anonymous - in reply to the L-word.

Dear Ashton,

Love is an emotion. Lust is a necessity.

Does this statement strike men and women differently? It's your "anonymous" again.

As much of the cosmopolitan contemporary world I see sex as above good or bad, right or wrong. While this has a good side, it also has a bad side. In a significant part of the world, that share this amoral view of sex, we created the conditions for it to be abused. Balance is a good thing. Abuse is not a good thing. But extreme sexual repression has the same effect (the last surge of extreme S/M in the world before the current one was in England, in the middle of the Victorian Age). Where is the balance?

Love, as every emotion, exists inside ourselves. As every emotion it can bring pleasure and it can bring pain.

I believe that the essence of love is not being able to be happy unless the person one loves is also happy. I am not saying that love is the only path to happiness, I am saying that love shifts the sense of fulfillment in our lives. I believe this is the love JA talked about. What does lust have to do with it? Did Miss Austen know?

Under this definition men love as much as women, with the same intensity. The degree in which they reach the point-of-no-return is what varies from us.

I promise not to bring the subject up again.

2/15/02 Ashton - I am sorry to hear it

Dear anonymous,

I am sorry that you will not bring the subject up again because I think that you are on to something - the very thing for which you have been looking.

The idea that I am slowly evolving is that you saw the title to this web site and thought that this might be the ideal place to find what you are looking for; namely, what are the different ways that men and women respond to Pride and Prejudice, and how did Jane Austen's education contribute to her demonstrated ability to communicate to both sexes. If I am right then you may be making a mistake, your question might more properly be, "do men and women react differently to Pride and Prejudice, and what in her experience made it possible for Jane Austen to appeal to both sexes." My answer, which you probably can guess is, "no, both sexes react the same and it was the woman's sensitivity and not her education that was the main contributing factor to her success as an author." I am probably wrong, but now you know what you are going to get from me.

The way you are currently asking the question is akin to a physicist asking why it is that one set of objects react to gravity by falling while others react by shooting upward. That is not a mistake because we see things shoot upwards all the time - rockets, planes, etc. - I often see rocks flying about me. That physicist never became satisfied because the way he asked the question prevented him from seeing the simple, basic truth: all objects fall when dropped from rest in a vacuum.

If I ever move you in my direction, it will be because we moved the discussion to love and Jane Austen. I know that because you hit the nail on the head when you say,

"I believe that the essence of love is not being able to be happy unless the person one loves is also happy. I am not saying that love is the only path to happiness, I am saying that love shifts the sense of fulfillment in our lives. I believe this is the love JA talked about. ..."

Yes! Elizabeth was overwhelmed - stunned when she learned what Darcy has done to make her happy. In fact, she was so moved that she could not face the reality of it - denied that he might have done it for her happiness. Her Aunt told her he must have done it for her, but she refused to accept it because it caused her too much feeling. When he stopped her "thank you on behalf of my family", to say he did it for her, she was near collapse with emotion because that meant he still loved her. What is it about your experience that makes you think that those passages are read differently by men and women? Are not these passages central to the enjoyment of the novel?

As to the amorality of sex, I will agree but only if you agree that squeezing the trigger of a revolver is, in itself, an amoral act. However, if we are not careful where we point that thing - or even if we are careful about where it points - then moral issues arise. Exactly the same thing can be said about sex. Except, more harm may have accumulated over where we have directed our sex. Sex is at least as good as we were told it would be and that is what makes it so dangerous.

As to the separation of love and sex, I think that possible only if by "sex" you mean onanism. And, I am sure that some wag will suggest that the separation of sex from love is not complete in even that case. To paraphrase a soon-to-be famous philosopher, "the essence of good sex is not being able to be satisfied unless the partner is also satisfied. I am saying that love is the only path to great sex, love shifts the sense of fulfillment in our sexual response." Sex is "love-making" because there is nothing friendlier than good sex.

2/15/02 Cheryl - The riddle of Pudd'nhead Wilson

Dear Voices,

I think I see why Pudd'nhead Wilson is so little regarded by both the general public and academics.  It's not because the novel is poorly written or "slight"—exactly the opposite.  The problem with PW is that Twain sets up a huge moral conundrum and then refuses to solve it for the reader. Whatever Twain thought about the institution of slavery, there has to be some reason why the two characters who should, but all rules of fiction be the most sympathetic of the novel, are "hateful" and without pity or remorse. "Tom" is a viscious, cowardly, thieving drunkard long before he discovers his "slave" blood, and his mother Roxy remains a malevolent witch-woman even after she's freed. Twain never once hints that their character defects are a result of their "slave" blood. As an author he merely reports on their actions, and never judges them.

Why? What's the answer to the riddle? As Twain grew older, he did become as Bruce said an equal opportunity hater. I think it was still a few years before Twain's life became an unbearable burden to him. Still Pudd'nhead Wilson's calendar is full of dark mutterings, quite out of (apparent) character for the would-be lawyer. I have some thoughts of my own about this, but I think I will keep them to myself for the moment and let others have a shot. I will not however allow you, Ashton, to stick your head into the sand and pretend these "problems" in the novel don't exist. Pudd'nhead Wilson is not simply promoting nurture over nature.
Cheryl

2/15/02 Linda - Pudd'nhead Wilson - Part 1

Dear Voices,

I question the plausibility of these points:

• The 'half a dog' story that earned Pudd'nhead his name - I really cannot believe the residents were that dense.  BUT, in the trial Pudd'nhead said in referring to the jury believing that the Twins would hang around or not after the murder:  "Let us not slander our intelligence to that degree."  How does this reconcile the degree of intelligence with the beginning statement about the half dog?

• On the instance of the switched Twins, MT explained enough for common observance, but he should have said a little more to convince me.  I baby sat for twin girls for over 3 years.  I (and the family) could tell the difference because I noticed two things about them that others who only saw them once a week in church could not.  I sat for twin boys for a week, and they were so completely identical I could not tell them apart.

  It has been my experience that two totally unrelated children do "look" different one from the other.  Yes, some may 'look alike' but there are definite differences.  It may be possible to not distinguish between newborns, but when they get as old as the babies in the story it is fairly easy to tell the difference depending on how many times Roxana took them out.  But such facts are not mentioned.  Now my point being that Twain probably said enough to convince others that the switched twins were not detectable, but not me.  I was looking for a statement with more similarities or justifications.  Just me, but not necessary for the rest of the world.

• When Twain first told abut the amount of color in Roxana and her child he did not say who the father was until much later in the story.  It is a technical point of omission, raising a question in my mind as to accuracy of his fraction because I could not judge without knowing who the father was.  I should have deducted probably the inference that the father was white.
• Twain very conveniently switched roles without considering their inborn natures. Jane Austen would have.  Twain did not explore Chambers' (the real Tom) thoughts, etc.  He is scarcely mentioned.
• There is a belief among Southerners that Blacks do not go into haunted houses.  No offense intended.
• First, Tom was called a coward by his Uncle, but Tom should have known the FFV rules.  Then a few pages later Tom is aware of certain FFV rules and gives an explanation for his lax behavior. It is very vexing if one notices.  JA does not do that.

THOUGHTS TO PONDER

• In telling the history of the Twins, he calls their condition after their parents death as slavery.  Here it appears that he is mentioning another form of 'slavery'.
• "... each [Aunt Patsy and her daughter] was the constant centre of a group of breathless listeners; each recognized that she  knew now for the first time the real meaning of that great word Glory, and perceived the stupendous value of it, and understood why men in all ages had been willing to throw away meaner happinesses, treasure, life itself, to get a taste of its sublime and supreme joy.  Napoleon and all his kind stood accounted for - and justified."

• The occasion where Roxy looks down on Tom (her haughty son) as he kneeled before her and before he knew who he was:  "The heir of two centuries of unatoned insult and outrage looked down on him and seemed to drink in deep draughts of satisfaction."

  Was she looking at all the white in him or the fact that he thought he was white?

• Definition of FFV:

  "In Missouri a recognized superiority attached to any person who hailed from Old Virginia; and this superiority was exalted to supremacy when a person of such nativity could also prove descent from the First Families of that great commonwealth.  The Howards and Driscolls were of this aristocracy.  In their eyes it was a nobility.  It had its unwritten laws, and they were as clearly defined and as strict as any that could be found among the printed statutes of the land.  The F.F.V. was born a gentleman; his highest duty in life was to watch over that great inheritance and keep it unsmirched.  He must keep his honor spotless.  Those laws were his chart; his course was marked out on it; if he swerved from it by so much as half a point of the compass it meant shipwreck to his honor; that is to say degradation from his rank as a gentleman.  These laws required certain things of him which his religion might forbid:  then his religion must yield - the laws could not be relaxed to accommodate religion or anything else. Honor stood first; and the laws defined what it was and wherein it differed, in certain details, from honor as defined by church creeds and by the social laws and customs of some of the minor divisions o the globe that had got crowded out when the sacred boundaries of Virginia were staked out."

  This is of interest to me since it tells the attitude of those times, and the fact that "Mademoiselle", my French professor thought so highly of them.  I do not remember how she worked that into French class.  Aside to Cheryl, the Francophile, I majored in French because I wanted to know what those French phrases in books and the movies meant.  Pitiable reason, to be sure!

• Dawson's Landing was mostly Presbyterians - for whatever that means!

• Uncle Driscoll says this on thinking about Tom: "He is worthless and unworthy, but it is largely my fault.  He was entrusted to me by my brother on his dying bed, and I have indulged him to his hurt, instead of training him up severely and making a man of him."

  I include this because you may have known someone thus treated; I do, and it was to his hurt.

• Roxana has this to say about Tom's cowardice:

  "En you refuse' to fight a man dat kicked you, 'stid o' jumpin' at de chance:  En you ain't got no mo' feelin' den to come en tell me, dat fetched sich a po' low-down ornery rabbit into de worl':  Pah! it make me sick!  It's de nigger in you, dat's what it is. Thirty-one parts o' you is white, en on'y one part nigger, en dat po' little one part is yo' soul.  'Tain't wuth savin'; 'tain't wuth totin' out on a shovel en tho'in' in de gutter. You has disgraced yo' birth.  What would yo' pa think o' you?  It's enough to make him turn in his grave."

  This is a white man's (Twain's) attitude.  Why wasn't it t'other way 'round?

• In the trial Pudd'nhead said:  "One twins patterns are never the same as his fellow-twin patterns." Is this true or not? Twain should know, but it sounds strange to me, that it should be so.

I have nitpicked at the trees. I will leave it to others to point out the forest! As in - what was his purpose of telling the tale?  I'll think about that tomorrow, er ... later. On first reading I did not see the Great American Novel.

2/15/02 Ashton - Response, Part 1:

Dear Linda,

Mark Twain was no Jane Austen. Maybe we should think of him in the same category as Dickens. Both men were commercial writers (as opposed to the artistic novels of our Lady). And, the chief focus of both was social commentary (as opposed to our Lady's focus on human nature). If you agree, then you might also see that Mark Twain was far more plausible, with far better attention to detail than Dickens.

Your excerpt from Roxana's speech to Tom is interesting. I am not exactly sure why you think this speech possible only for a white man. Maybe, you think the racism aspect is not to be expected from a slave. Or, maybe you think a woman would not have defended the institution of dueling so vehemently. I suspect that Twain was right on both counts. First of all, Roxy was a house Negro and therefore light skinned for the reasons you describe in your epiphany (part 2). In fact, the woman was white. Is it not true, generally, that house Negroes held the darker-skinned field-Negroes in contempt? I think that true and the nature of that contempt was racist in nature. That odd aspect of slave culture lasted down into our own times in some form or other. Mark Twain was unflinching and looked that human failure in the face as much as in the case of so many other examples.

With regard to the second possibility, I believe that men had to be conditioned - acculturated in order to accept the codes and requirements of FFV (First Families of Virginia). I cannot believe, as you may, that the very same conditioning was not also applied to women.

I think that Twain was right about fingerprints - one can distinguish between "identical" twins in that way.

2/15/02 Linda - Pudd'nhead Wilson Part 2: An epiphany & special notice to Bruce

Dear Voices,

Bruce asked the following question in another place, and I could not find time to give him a full answer. Well, a lot more of the pieces have now fallen together thanks to our inquiry of Mark Twain.

Bruce said speaking of Eleanor Tilney:

Surely a grown young woman, mistress of the General's house, supposedly intelligent and competent, must have some knowledge of how to deal with him. ... AND ... Although I agree with Austen in most of her judgements, I cannot agree with her here, and that's why I'm interested in why Austen judges so differently from myself. Any suggestions?

First, please read my post of 12/01/00 to understand where I am coming from. I was Eleanor for over 20 years. I was supposedly intelligent and competent, so why did I put up with it? As I have learned in the past 8 years it was simply that I did not know any better and had not been taught any better. [That reminds me of the song from "South Pacific" - "You have to be carefully taught to hate."] I have spent these last 8 years 'unlearning' what I had been consciously and unconsciously taught. Now here is what I learned in the last two days.

Wanting to know a little more about Twain, I stumbled onto this site: - ran by Jim Zwick. I don't know who he is, hopefully he doesn't lead us too far astray. He covers Twain's anti-imperialism writings, etc.

On that page he has a link to his article "Mark Twain Uncensored" that discusses passages of Mark Twain's writings that were censored after his death and reveal that Twain was a more pronounced social critic than his literary executor wanted us to realize. That is worth looking into to determine which "Mark Twain" you are reading.

Also on that page he has a link to this newspaper article:

I highly recommend that you read it for yourself and notice the following. 1. A reference and inference is made about our Presidents Bush. 2. There is a story about Mark Twain's own father that makes him appear to be the forerunner of Pudd'nhead. 3. Buried within that article is the following in the discussion of slave owners who 'used' their slaves:

"It is of course difficult to determine who fathered those slaves, though one must bear in mind the observation of Mary Chesnut, famous southern Civil War diarist and wife of South Carolina Senator James Chesnut: 'God forgive us, but ours is a monstrous system, a wrong and an iniquity! Like the patriarchs of old, our men live all in one house with their wives and their concubines; and the mulattoes one sees in every family partly resemble the white children. Any lady is ready to tell you who is the father of all the mulatto children in everybody's household but her own. Those, she seems to think, drop from the clouds.' "

After reading that passage the proverbial ton of bricks fell on my head! I KNEW that practice happened (even in my own g-g-grandfather's household), but I never asked myself "why did the wives put up with that?" Well, I finally asked myself. The answer came: BECAUSE THEY WERE RAISED TO PUT UP WITH IT. THAT IS ALL THEY KNEW. NOBODY EVER TOLD THEM NOT TO PUT UP WITH IT. IT WAS CONDONED BY THE [SOUTHERN] CHURCH. As seen by Mary Chesnut's comment, they knew it was wrong, but they did not do anything about it. I was further and completely convinced because there is in the Bible the 'law of the double witness' - everything shall be established by the mouth of two or three witnesses. The other witnesses occurred right after that hit me, when there was an item on the 5 o'clock news about an older couple who had been conned out of their money. The newscaster (the newscaster, not an expert 'doctor', etc.) said: "Old people are gullible because they were brought up to be nice, not because of senility." Then on Oprah the next day Dr. Phil said: "Parents write on the slate of who you are." - as in when a parent calls the child 'stupid', etc. See, these are things that are not directly taught as such, but attitudes, conversations and such like are absorbed by the child to form who they are [and who I was, and Eleanor, etc]. The icing on the cake was a book I stumbled across in my friend's church library - "Women, Men and the Bible" by Virginia Mollenkott. She debunked traditional religious views on the issue of 'submission', etc. and supported her views with scripture - properly translated.

I was never directly told to be a 'doormat', but everything my parents did and what I was taught in church led me to become one. Now I know better - Eleanor no more. Do you have any idea what it means to be free, like you are out of prison? To finally know what is right and wrong?

With that thought in mind, and I don't know if this has ever been done before, but for myself, as a g-g-granddaughter of slave owners, I do hereby apologize to all those who were abused by those owners. It was a great wrong and iniquity! I can't change the past, but I can hope to do better. Let us learn from it, lest history repeats itself.

Bruce, does that clear it up any at all? Where is a good anthropologist when you need one? ;-) Or did you know all that already?
Linda

2/15/02 Ashton - Response, Part 2:

Dear Linda,

What exactly is your view of men in society? - I get the same impression from you at times that I get from feminists on every occasion. It seems that the view is that men get together and carefully and cleverly map out how they will condition women so as to gain the greatest advantage over them. That strikes me as odd - I certainly never get the memos announcing those meetings - I am not on the mailing list. It may interest you to know that, as I look back over my own long life, I can see that I was conditioned to a large extent as well. It may further interest you to know that my chief teacher, in that regard, was my mother. What percentage, in your opinion, of other men might say those same things.

2/15/02 Ashton - resolution of Cheryl's "problem", "conundrum", and "riddle".

Dear Cheryl,

The simplest and most fundamental fact of the novel is that both Tom and Roxy are white. 'Nuff said.

2/15/02 Cheryl - What does that have to do with what I was talking about?

Dear Ashton,

I'm really not trying to be clever here, but what does that have to do with what I was talking about? If you're suggesting Roxy and "Tom"s evil character are a result of their "whiteness" shouldn't some of the other characters be equally evil? Ditto if you're saying that Roxy and "Tom" are just like everyone else.  Why is the murdering, robbery, blackmail and selling one's mother down the river confined to only two characters?

2/15/02 Ashton - Your phrase, "slave blood"

Dear Cheryl,

You mentioned "slave blood" in your post and I thought to remind us all that their blood was European. The question is not "blood", but "culture". The beauty of Twain's invention is that this story is all about white people. Put a white person in a situation where he is denied education, and he will become ignorant and superstitious. Treat her like a slave, and she will become a survivalist - a someone willing to steal or cheat to preserve herself or her child; make him a master of slaves, and he might well become a lazy, cruel racist.

It is my belief that Twain was not speaking about slavery per se, the novel was written well after the Civil War. I believe he was speaking to the white southerner, trying to show them the origins of their characterizations of post-emancipation African-Americans.

The brave part of the writing is that Twain cuts through the convention of characterizing a slave as a Frederick Douglas. The brutal truth is that brutalized people do not always turn out for the best. If you have lived around poverty, you know exactly what I mean. Incidentally, think about Pap Finn - Twain also knew of the brutalizing effects of poverty on the white underclass.

Having said all that, let me say a little something about Roxy. She is one-sixteen African - we all have sixteen great-great-grandparents; so, one of her great-great-grandmothers was black and the other fifteen ancestors were white. She was born to a slave, so she was a slave. The same can said of her mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother. Roxy hated slavery and slave masters. She decided that her baby boy was not going to suffer in that way and who can blame her. So she switched the babies and what was the cost of that? Well, it became the turn of some slave-owner's child to learn what slavery was like. Where is the injustice in that? I would have done the same thing. Well, Twain did bring Roxy to justice, he made her witness her own flesh and blood grow into the attitudes of the worst kind of white slave-holder.

I hope we will remember, in this reading, that everyone in the novel is white; only in that way can we feel Twain's message. Ironically, the typical white person then (and now) thinks that one sixteenth or even one thirty-second African makes a person an African-American. I don't agree and, perhaps it a fantasy of mine, I believe that Twain thought as I do.

2/14/02 Ashton - I take this opportunity to publicly apologize and to confess that I did use the L-word.

Dear Folks,

I deserve everything that the community has heaped upon me. I am no hero, and I certainly am not a masochist; so, I will never again mention love between men and women, or the possibility that Jane Austen's novels might have had a little something to do with love.

This has been a learning experience for me not possible without the lacerations sent my way by the soprano Male Voices. These were necessary if a bit cruel. Perhaps the cruelest cut of all came from Linda who announced that my slip - my poor judgment fully justifies her confiscation of my gauntlet. I am sure that this was not easy for Linda given that she must be aware of the current price of an '82, LX-class, gauntlet.

I cringe when I think of my former juvenile, masculine thoughts and behavior. I want to thank Cheryl, who has often told us she is not a feminist, for submitting that song that explains to young women that they must avoid all contact with men who want nothing else but sex and her salmon peroshkies. I don't remember those motives, but they are consistent with my former self. From this day I am born again. I will never again think of such lyrics as silly male bashing - given that they were relayed by a non-feminist and all.

I also wish to thank anon., another self-confessed non-feminist, for her messages to this community as well. This voice enlarged upon Cheryl's message - fleshed it out so to speak. I will resolve what appears a contradiction at present; I mean, Cheryl's songstress explains that men sex 'em and leave 'em, while anon. seems to say the men sex 'em and strangle 'em and call that "love". Apparently, the typical man's idea of love is to use prostitutes and frequent low-rent e-mail addresses. We should not be surprised then, that these low-brows think Sex in the City might have been written by Jane Austen. And, we certainly should not be surprised that this gender is the audience for that low-brow series.

Happy Valentine's day everyone.

2/14/02 Miss Breets - wise fools

Dear Ashton,

This is very interesting. I also have been struck at times by the fact that no one gave Mr. Collins credit for doing a decent thing. Especially when he was so under the thumb of Lady Catherine. Then look at his wife, the intelligent, sensible Charlotte Lucas. Would it have been so terrible to have remained in her father's home until someone useful came along, or even if someone didn't? To a sensible person, wouldn't that have been a better choice than to marry a person who was sillier than her own father? Maybe by this time Charlotte would have done anything to escape her father's house.  Capital, capital!

I still think Alison Steadman turned her character into a hysterical caricature at times. I have only seen her in Topsy Turvy, where she had a very small part. But while the good Fanny (see? that was her name!) did have a propensity to moan and groan and give in to her nerves, I don't think she was quite as manic as all that. I was interested also in the fact that her brother, Mr. Gardiner, was the complete opposite of Mrs. Bennett, and so was his wife. They were the epitome of good taste and restrained behavior. Mrs. Phillips, Mrs. B's sister, was cut more out of the same cloth as the latter. I agree that Mary and Mr. Collins would have made a good match, and would have read Fordyce's sermons by the hour together.  Didn't even Mr. Collins deserve some happiness?

Actually, I have often found valuable utterances coming from Miss Bates. It's just that they are cloaked in such a barrage of verbiage, with no beginning or end.  But I love her dearly, especially when she calls her mother "Ma'am." That's why I thought Prunella Scales did the best job with her character. Miss Bates has no malice (a point on which our two characters differ!) and she sees the good in everyone.  If that isn't wisdom, what is?

Links