9-11          

4/17/02 Bree - The Way We Live Now

Dear Linda,

Are you enjoying The Way We Live Now?  I can't keep my eyes off it!

4/18/02 Linda - I am taping it

Dear Bree,

Unfortunately, with what my memory isn't, I have to tape a series shown over a several week period, otherwise, I would not remember what happened the week before.

I do love David Suchet from the Poirot series and am looking forward to seeing this one. I am glad to hear that you like it, that is encouragement indeed! I won't be home Monday night to catch the final episode but I will be on the phone to my daughter to make sure she tapes it for me.  I am looking forward to my New Orleans visit this weekend, so I will have little time, except for lurking, to visit the boards. I have scrambled this morning to get out 2 posts while feeding, going potty, and finding materials to play with for 3 children.
Linda

From the Meister: Was that "potty" or "dotty"?

4/21/02 Bree - TWWLN

Dear Linda,

You can catch up with episodes by going to pbs.org, then clicking on the prompt for Exxon Mobil Masterpiece Theater.  You can bookmark any program (I did the same for the Cazelets).  One of the pages gives each episode in detail, in case you missed the last one.  My problem is I have to teach Monday nights, and get home after 9:00, but I get to see a portion of it!  Hope you had fun in NO!

4/17/02 Dan mailto:dhuth1@neo.rr.com" - Ms. Austen, the Miss Brontes, and Fanaticism

Dear Reader,

I am a fairly well-read man, but before January I knew little about Ms. Austen or the Misses Bronte. One evening, while searching through my few hundred books for something new (or sufficiently forgotten), I spied a paperback copy of Emma, which I'd possessed since the mid-70's but never read.  Whatever complex prejudices had prevented me from investigating Emma, while still knowing enough of its worth to cart it up and down stairs and in and out of moving vans for 25 years, finally melted.  I read Emma and I laughed and laughed; much more than laughter occurred, of course; it now resides proudly beside my Tolstoys and Hemingways and Cervantes, etc.—my "Top Shelf" novels. Then I read Pride and Prejudice on the internet; it will soon assume its rightful physical place there, also (Mansfield Park will have to go on a lower shelf—the other three on Mr. Twain's empty one.)

I studied Ms. Austen to my heart's content. I dip into Emma regularly, still.  But, I just this month felt compelled to investigate some of the other female authors I'd neglected heretofor.  Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre struck me just as strongly as did Ms. Austen's two masterpieces; I have no doubt that the four books will rest happily together on that top shelf, and hope that they will comfort each other.

While trying to research Charlotte's own fragmentary work, Emma, I landed here and noted a strange bent in some remarks, caused by Ms. C. Bronte's criticism of Ms. Austen.  Such criticism doesn't particularly interest me: Emma, P&P, Jane Eyre, and Wuthering Heights are Great Books; they are so great that I can have absolutely no doubt of their greatness, and I require no supporting evidence to legitimize my opinion.  That Charlotte Bronte didn't care for Jane Austen's books is interesting and curious, but it doesn't really signify.

What is much more interesting and curious is the similarities and differences between their two families: daughters of parsons; somewhat better educated than many young English ladies; never (or barely) married; closest relationships with siblings; writers from very early age. I'll skip the differences.  But, who can have studied the often happy, sometimes sad life and tragic early death of Ms. Austen; then have studied the sometimes happy, very often sad and owerwhelmingly, repeatedly tragic history of the Bronte family; then still be able to take serious offense over what Ms. Bronte wrote about Ms. Austen?

Respect, admiration, and even love for a great writer is appropriate, although obsession becomes a real danger.  Fanaticism is, I suppose, fine for sports, but to me it seems a bit odd and contrary to many of the purposes of great literature when directed toward an author of that literature.

An interesting aside: poor Charlotte postponed her marriage for months because her elderly father was very much disposed to dislike matrimony.  Eventually he agreed to the idea, although there seem to be no reports of poultry thiefs on the moors during that time.

4/17/02 Ashton - some advice about your bookshelf

Dear Dan,

I won't try to change your mind about anything because that may be impossible. As you say about yourself, "... Emma, P&P, Jane Eyre, and Wuthering Heights are Great Books; they are so great that I can have absolutely no doubt of their greatness, and I require no supporting evidence to legitimize my opinion." I will not attempt to supply evidence where it will do no good - life is too short. (Incidentally, you write a bit like Charlotte Bronte.)

I am sorry to learn about you bookshelf - got all jumbled up, I assume, during one of those moves you mention? Still, it is bad luck that the Bronte novels ended up next to Jane Austen's. Personally, my copies of the Brontes' lie on a nineteenth century shelf. But, if you want to arrange them your way, it seems to me that logic dictates that Jane Eyre, and Wuthering Heights belong on the same shelf with the novels of Anne Rice and Stephen King.

You laugh a lot at Jane Austen's novels do you? Do you laugh at Emma Woodhouse's good joke at Miss Bates' expense at Box Hill? Do you think Mr. Bennet hilarious?

4/16/02 Cheryl - After finishing Caleb Williams, one can only appreciate Jane Austen

I finished Caleb Williams last night, admittedly skipping a couple of adventures toward the end because it was getting  tedious ... there's only so many times and ways fate can interrupt without becoming repetitious. There are also only so many  "Oh, and by the way, I can do any accent in the world, and can learn how to act like a beggar never having seen one in my life, ditto Jews," scenes one can endure.  I realize the novel was in its infancy and Godwin isn't entirely to blame, (and much is explained by the information that he wrote book 3 first) but one can only appreciate Jane Austen's economy of words after reading it.

The most interesting thing about the book are the alternate endings included in my edition.  In one, Caleb remains implacable and unashamed of his decision to expose Falkland, and is easily refuted by his master.  In the second, Falkland dies, but Caleb is a broken and insane man.  So, what lesson should we take from the ending Godwin did use? That only by licking the boots and acknowledging the natural superiority of the ruling class can a man hope for justice?  That murder is okay, so long at the person committing it is educated and smart and feels bad later?  That a gentleman's honor is worth anything, while a servant's honor is worth nothing?  I don't think Godwin knew the answer any more than I can figure it out.  He was writing a book about prison conditions and injustice, and the rest of it was throwaway material.

Godwin did at least make the effort to keep his characters from absolute black-and-white. Caleb's misfortunes are as much a result of his own inability to control his impulses as Falkland's are.  Their mutual torment comes from the character weakness they both share.  Caleb claims time and time again that he acted without malice and out of youthful innocence, but he also knows what he's doing is wrong and can only lead to tears.  (I wonder if Hawthorne used their relationship as the model for what happens between Dimmesdale and Chillingsworth in The Scarlet Letter?)  Falkland also knows what he's doing is wrong, but he seems equally powerless to stop himself.  Perhaps Godwin's point is simpler than I imagined: that the law must be immune to the weaknesses of men?
Cheryl

4/16/02 Ashton - a criticism of Godwin's Caleb Williams

Dear Cheryl,

Your remarks are fair and I will not quarrel with them even though my tendency is to be kinder to Godwin. I will reflect on your comments and then I will contribute some criticisms of my own - I will notice some unintentionally funny aspects of Godwin's novel.

If you found Caleb tedious, then don't try anything by Samuel Richardson or Fanny Burney or most other writers contemporary to Jane Austen for that matter. Jane Austen once wrote to her niece that while sister Cassandra complained about the tedium, she, Jane, had more patience when reading. And, of course, no one then wrote near as well as Jane Austen herself. Well, perhaps something can be said for the historical romances of Sir Walter Scott. I remember reading once that our Lady's younger brother, Charles, was enthusiastic about a new Scott novel (it might have been Rob Roy) just as one of sister's novels was also appearing (it might have been Emma). He caught himself and allowed that hers was good too.

Swift, Defoe, and Fielding wrote in Jane Austen's grandfather's or great-grandfather's generation - kind of like in the Victorian in relation to you and I. I don't think you would find them tedious - especially not Fielding.

Incidentally, Defoe's Moll Flanders was an expert at travelling about in disguises as was Defoe himself; he was a government spy. That sounds odd until you remember he lived in the late 1600s and early 1700s when there was a lot of intrigue in England. This was during the Civil War, when the English had beheaded their King, and then there was the Restoration when the Protestant-Catholic, Puritan-C.o.E., and England-Scotland problems re-emerged for a time resulting in insurrections. It was a dangerous time, it was a great time for spies. Perhaps Godwin was borrowing from literary traditions for his Caleb in those instances. (I must confess to you that I found those passages a bit exciting.)

OK, but what do I think was wrong with Caleb Williams? I suspect that the one systematic problem I see in the text may be the one you are hinting at in your second paragraph. I see it this way: Falkland could never have persecuted Caleb in the way described in the book. The master had his way because literally every other character in that fictional society seemed to naturally side with the landowner simply because he was the landowner, and absolutely no one (except the captain of the thieves) would give Caleb a fair hearing because he was the servant. That is a seriously skewed view of society that fit Godwin's purposes but lacked nature and probability. Do you not think that Henry Tilney's admonition in Northanger Abbey says what I just said, but more clearly?

You have not responded to my central thesis that Jane Austen may have been responding to Godwin in her Northanger Abbey. What say you - "likely", "perhaps, but only peripherally", "merely plausible", or "impossible"? Do you not see a remarkable similarity in the compulsions of Caleb Williams and Catherine Morland?

There were a few minor gaffs that I cannot resist ridiculing. When Caleb decided to escape from prison, he received some unusual help from some unusual quarters. In his first attempt, he convinced the jailer to give him some tools to make furniture for the man's family. Then, the jailer's daughter, Peggy, gave him an "iron crow." Surely, I thought, this cannot mean what we now call a crowbar! But true enough, Caleb uses the "crow" to pry off the door to his cell. We are not told much about Peggy, so we cannot even guess why she gave a crowbar to a prisoner who was about to go on trial for his life. Did she not even imagine that giving that to a man in such a state might not be a good idea? I keep imagining the conversations: "Where are you going dear?", "Oh - nowhere - I am just going to give this crowbar from my sewing basket to the prisoner", "That's nice dear, but don't stay long in the cell; people talk."

Caleb was caught immediately after escaping that first time. So now the jailer got really serious and locked the prisoner in a darkened cell and chained to a chair. (I don't know, maybe he also confiscated Peggy's sewing basket.) Then, one of Falkland's other servants, Thomas, came to visit Caleb. Thomas was convinced of Caleb's guilt and previously had been a loyal servant and subject of the realm; however, the sight of Caleb's prison conditions made Thomas want to raise the red flag of revolution. He also slipped Caleb a chisel, a file, and a saw. Now, how, exactly, he got those past the guards must remain a mystery. Maybe the explanation is that he was admitted by those same guys who later searched Caleb's tiny cell and couldn't find a thing. Anyway Caleb did make his escape this time in spite of the fact that Thomas had not thought to slip him a cannon.

Jane Austen would never have made such gaffs.

4/17/02 Cheryl - Impatient Cheryl

Dear Ashton;

It's quite true that I have very little patience for the sort of writing that leaves nothing to the reader's imagination.  As I've said before, though, we must try to remember that before cheap photgraphy and print making, the writer had to paint the whole scene with words.  And I do try; I just don't always suceed, as least with a deus ex machina around every corner on top of it all.

Someday I must really try to read some Scott.  I have finally read Robinson Crusoe, though; and when it stops philosphizing and tells the story, it's quite entertaining, but Treasure Island is better.  I don't believe I have the history to enjoy Gulliver's Travels as it should be.  But at any rate, I don't really care for soap operas, no matter what era they were written in ... it's why I never got through War and Peace.

Your criticisms of Caleb Williams are just, though you failed to mention that after Thomas tells Caleb he'll probably be hanged for helping him, Caleb doesn't even have the decency to wait a few days to allay suspicion of where the tools came from. (Hey! I thought you looked in the chair.) But you know that the inclusion of references to "true" stories or "real" conditions in a book is always warning sign. Of course Thomas is appalled, stout yeoman that he is. Unfortunately, Godwin is preaching to the choir because,  unlike Caleb, the real poor couldn't find the time or money for books out of that 12 lbs per annum, working sunup to sunset.

I don't know if Northanger Abbey is a specific reply to Caleb Williams, but of course the lines about evil baronets and lords, and even better the one about how (unlike Caleb) Catherine could never learn anything until she was taught, do spring to mind.  As for Caleb's compulsion to do stupid things, the gothic heroines are of course the artistic predecessors of the horror movie bimbos. (I mean really, if I knew there was a mad killer on the loose, I'd immediately rethink my abhorence of handguns, not to mention turn on all the lights before I went into the house.  And didn't any other teenage girl take that class where they tell you to always look in the back seat before getting in the car?)  In truth I think Austen's intent was what I stated some time ago which was to try her own talent for realism out on the most Romantic of all genres. And a damned fine job she did, too.
Cheryl

P.S. I think I mentioned a little throwaway comedy called "Stiff Upper Lips" which has some parallel to Caleb Williams, though it's set in the late Victorian age. With parodies of everything from A Passage To India and Gandhi to Enchanted April. Not a masterpiece, but funny if you're in the right mood.

4/15/02 Linda - A Different Face - The Life of Mary Wollstonecraft

Dear Ash,

I have in hand a book A Different Face - The Life of Mary Wollstonecraft by Emily W. Sunstein.  Have you ever heard of it? The origin of Sunstein's title is interesting, she explains that by quoting this poem written by William Blake to honor the memory of his late departed friend, Mary Wollstonecraft.

                MARY

Mary moves in soft beauty and conscious delight,
To augment with sweet smiles all the joys of the night,
Nor once blushes to own to the rest of the fair
That sweet love and beauty are worthy our care.

...

Some said she was proud, some call'd her a whore,
And some, when she passed by, shut to the door ...

'0, why was I born with a different face?
Why was I not born like this envious race?
Why did Heaven adorn me with bountiful hand,
And then set me down in an envious land?'

...

She went out in mourning attir'd plain and neat;
'Proud Mary's gone mad,' said the child in the street;
She went out in mourning in plain neat attire,
And came home in evening bespatter'd with mire.  

She trembled and wept, sitting on the bedside,
She forgot it was night, and she trembled and cried;
She forgot it was night, she forgot it was morn,
Her soft memory imprinted with faces of scorn;

...

And thine is a face of sweet love in despair,
And thine is a face of mild sorrow and care,
And thine is a face of wild terror and fear
That shall never be quiet till laid on its bier.

— William Blake, c. 1801-1803

In searching for the poem online I caught glimpses of William Blake and what he wrote.  It looks like something I need to look into.  His name is familiar, but I don't remember anything specific about him.  After thumbing through the index of Sunstein's A Different Face I see that his name is quite prominent in Mary's history.  Quite a group of 'rebels'.
Linda

From the Meister: William Blake (1757-1827) is described as a poet and an engraver in Jane Austen's time. He is my favorite poet from that time. And, as you indicate, he was a close friend of Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin. Here are local links to his Tyger! Tyger! Burning Bright and his Holy Thursday. In the latter case, you will find a link to a Blake web site.

4/15/02 Cheryl - A Different Sailor, a Different Anne

Dear Voices,

I got the new Altan cd today (Blue Idol) and thought you might enjoy the lyrics to this song:

THE SEA-APPRENTICE BOY

When first I went a sea-apprentice bound,
I sailed the salt seas all round and round.
I scarce had sailed a voyage but one,
When I fell in love with my charming Anne.

I went to my captain both stout and bold,
And unto him my secret told.
I love yon lass as I love my life,
What would I give if she were my wife.

Well, the captain said, you're a foolish boy,
For to court a girl that you'll ne'er enjoy.
For she'll have lovers while you're at sea,
And she'll be married before you'll be free.

Well, I don't know but I'll go and try,
For she might fancy an apprentice boy.
And she might alter her mind for me,
And wait on me until I be free.

Well, I bought her ribbons and I bought her gloves,
These things to prove of a heart that loves.
She accepted all and she was not shy,
And she vowed to wait for her apprentice boy.

So come all you sea-apprentices where e're you be,
Never slight your true love while you're at sea.
Just love her as you love your life,
And she'll consent to become your wife.

According to the liner notes this song is also known as The Apprentice Boy, The Sailor Boy, and The Apprentice Boy in Love and is still sung in Ireland, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia.  As the words rhyme, the song no doubt was first sung in English, but no date is given except that it was first written down in the 1930s.
Cheryl

4/16/02 Cheryl - Don't be silly ...

... Unless the water those young women sprinkled on their busts was teeming with typhus or some such, they were in no danger whatsoever. Harrumph! I spent half of my restaurant career trying to explain the mysteries of the germ theory of disease; (unsuccessfully in many cases) and I don't intend to start over now.

Now as for your unanswered question, the only person who comes close would be Mrs. Ferrars when she disinherits Edward and tries to influence his friends not to help him. I've little doubt that Lady Catherine would be an implacable foe if she had the brains for it. General Tilney is a jerk and can apparently order distant friends to offer him an immediate retroactive invitation. Oddly, Mr. Darcy refuses to expose Wickham for the exact same reason Falkland tries to ruin Caleb.
Cheryl

4/16/02 Cheryl - reply

I'm sorry, I don't know who Byron de la Beckwith is, but I did enjoy it when our SLA fugitive, having plead guilty called a press conference to state her complete innocence and was dragged back into the courtroom by the judge who then refused her plea and reduction of charges,  (on the grounds that she'd just said she was lying) and tossed her back into jail.  At her next hearing, she meekly plead guilty again and skipped the press conference. (Though one of her lawyers had a bad karma feeling and "missed" his plane, missing the hearing.  That nasty old judge refused to postpone it on those grounds.)

I would say that Godwin wasn't talking about murder, but then again maybe he was.  He certainly seems to feel that Falkland's biggest crime was in ruining CW, not in killing Tyrrel.  That of course, is the slippery slope. Where does one stop justifying?  Apparently never, in some cases, as the sympathy for the SLA murderers shows.  Vigilantism will always have its supporters, the left merely avoids using the word.

At any rate, I've probably vented enough spleen for one morning.  I should just give up reading the newspaper I guess.
Cheryl

From the Meister: Byron de la Beckwith was
the assassin that killed Medgar Evars in 1963.
He was not convicted until several decades after
the crime even though he was the first suspect.
He survived several hung juries early on.

4/15/02 Cheryl - Irony, or perhaps synchronicity??

To be reading Caleb Williams while the debate about the International Criminal Court and the US's role, or lack there of.  It seems a bit much to me for the Europeans, after 1,000 years of using their criminal court system to protect the interests of the rich, and to allow the state to execute or deport the poor to lecture American citizens about justice.  It's been what? 15 years since the UK stopped holding girlfriends of suspected IRA terrorists in 6'X6' cells without running water or toilets? (No charges, no lawyers, no rights.)  It's been all of 50 years since France granted its citizens the right to a trial by jury? (Of course such rights apparently aren't extended to Basque separatists.) We have summary executions without appeal in the Muslim theocracies, opposition leaders being tried for treason in Africa,  and a Hindu-weighted justice system in India.  Let's not even talk about China, North Korea, or the former Soviet Republics.  Yet we're told that the innocent would have nothing to fear from such a court. Or "If he wasn't guilty, he wouldn't be here."  I don't even necessarily oppose the ICC, but I for one would need to see some proof of its impartiality.  Not to mention its ability to bring anyone to trial without the US military being the ones put in danger.  Let's face it, Europe's track record at leading the world hasn't been exactly outstanding and has resulted in more Americans killed than any folly of ours including our Civil War.

Links