Subscribe
Notify of
guest
52 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
katie
katie
5 years ago

Mr. 40 Acres, we’ve saved you a seat.

40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
5 years ago
Reply to  katie

Thanks, but I’ll pass. Too many women at the table.

It’s been my experience that discussing great literature with women is an exercise in futility, as they usually have badly misinterpreted the work, and beyond getting the meaning wrong, often can’t even get basic facts about the text right.

Like here:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/dougwils/blog_mablog_82/#comment-2626295053

katie
katie
5 years ago
Ian Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  katie

I’m sure you’re misinterpreted that image. Those poor, misunderstood faces carriers. They are only doing what’s right. Only a woman would criticize them, especially women who are men who think women aren’t always to blame for men’s problems!

jillybean
jillybean
5 years ago

I really have trouble picturing you attempting to discuss great literature with a woman of intelligence. Perhaps you should try a post-graduate literature seminar. I guarantee, having been in quite a few, that the women will know their way around the text. Of course, having “badly misinterpreted the work” might just mean that some women have disagreed with you about what the work actually means. How arrogant and unfeminine of them.

40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
5 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Well, I hate to quibble, jilly, and it wasn’t literature we were discussing, but remember the other day when you claimed racial segregation was only something that happened in the South?

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/dougwils/jerusalem_had_a_wall/#comment-2626277788

That wasn’t you just disagreeing with me.

That was you egregiously rewriting American history.

In other words, you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about.

When I presented the actual facts, you simply disappeared from the discussion.

I wouldn’t call that “arrogant and unfeminine”, but I would call it fairly typical of both women and evangelicals in general.

jillybean
jillybean
5 years ago

Actually, I withdrew temporarily in order to research more about what you told me. Not having learned American history as a child, I do not have the knowledge that most people on this board would take for granted. Nonetheless, I realize that my mistake, for the purpose of our discussion, was in not making any distinction between de jure and de facto segregation. I look forward to presenting my case when I believe I have mastered the facts.

40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
5 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Sounds good.

40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
5 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Not having learned American history as a child, I do not have the knowledge that most people on this board would take for granted. Actually, I’m pretty sure most of the people on here know little more than you do about how profoundly racist America was until about 50 years ago. They probably didn’t learn it either. Many Christian schools and homeschoolers “whitewash” this stuff, shoving most of it down the memory hole, and have been doing so for decades. Why? Because they teach that American history is profoundly Christian, and centuries of universal, hardcore racism in America doesn’t mesh… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
5 years ago

I think people are less ignorant of it on this board. There’s a substantial subgroup of posters here who argue that interracial marriage and community mixing in general should stop, that Black people are intellectually inferior to White people, and that in many waves things were better off under slavery.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
5 years ago

“That’s exactly what happened with interracial marriage. It was universally regarded as an abomination by Christians in this country”

So what is the argument that interracial marriage IS an abomination?

Ian Miller
5 years ago

Unless, it is possible, that interracial marriage, like ending slavery, is a good thing, and homosexual marriage, like abortion, is a great evil. I believe that while there is sometimes acceptance of things that were previously unthinkable, there are some things I believe God, by His grace, will allow us to continue seeing as evil.

40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
5 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

I take it you’ve never read Uncle Tom’s Closet?

Ian Miller
5 years ago

Ah, Pride and Prejudice. I recently reread this when I purchased the new production of the audiobook, narrated by Rosamund Pike. As I have a fondness for actresses who play Jane Bennet, no matter how terrible the adaptation (see also: Morven Christie in Lost in Austen), I was naturally interested. Pike reads with a lot of really thoughtful voices, each distinct and with a very intelligently rendered personality. Austen’s moral clarity as well as her complexity really shone through in this reading.

Valerie (Kyriosity)
5 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

“Lost in Austen” was vile.

Ian Miller
5 years ago

Yeah it was. :)

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

Just stay away from the Flo Gibson version! Whoever thought it was a good idea to pay her to read?

I’ve had the Sarah Badal version from the library a few times. I like that one.

Ian Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Haven’t listened to either of those. The first audio P&P I read was the Librivox reader’s theater – which had a rather unfortunate narrating voice, but pretty solid character voices.

I think most of the Audible-available versions you can get at a reduced price if you “purchase” the free Kindle version (don’t even need a kindle, just the app or a phone with the app) – I got the Pike version for 2 dollars after that!

ME
ME
5 years ago

Hmm, perhaps I’ll dust it off and give it another read..

ashv
ashv
5 years ago

To go back to a remark in a previous post, Mr Collins and Mr Darcy aren’t the only possible options — could be worse, you could be a Mr Bennett instead.

Ian Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Or Mr. Wickham. :)

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

Or a Mr. Palmer, or a Dr. Grant, or lots of options, yes. Then, too, there are the General Tilneys — certainly manly and active enough, but not good husbands or fathers.

Ian Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Well, I was keeping it in the P&P narrative, but yes, there are many types of men Austen delineates. There’s also the Captain Benwicks – too self indulgent in grief and emotions, the Tom Bertrams – almost a classic Millenial, born to privilege but complains that no one ever lets him do what he wants :)…

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

Well, yes, but I was thinking of the “not scurrilous but lousy husband” genre in particular. Tilney is really a pretty horrible person but he doesn’t violate basic social morality, he’s just so proud and greedy and wrathful that he makes everyone around him unhappy, in large ways and small. Palmer OTOH comes through in the clutch but he isn’t living with his wife in an understanding way. Fortunately she’s too dumb to notice. Almost an Edith Bunker thing going on there. Benwick probably came right. I don’t think he’s portrayed as poor marriage material, just as somebody who needs… Read more »

Ian Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Tilney – could one perhaps say he sucks the happiness from the lives of those around him…like a vampire ;) (2007 adaptation joke). Palmer only comes through in the Thompson/Lee film – in the book, he pretty much stays consistently foolish all the way through. At least, that’s my memory. I think Benwick is possibly a casualty of Austen never truly finishing Persuasion (I’ve read some convincing essays arguing that Austen probably would have added enough to break the book into three volumes, like her other novels). He rockets from overly-poetry-indulging to getting better to Wentworth being really upset at… Read more »

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

No, in the book he comes through exactly the same way as in the adaptation. Even before Marianne’s crisis, Austen has Elinor notice that in his own family and in his own home, he is more sensible and respectable, which is why she has no qualms going to him when Marianne’s danger becomes evident. He probably just gets a bit fed up in situations where the like of Charlotte, Mrs. Jennings, and Sir John are socially dominant, and retreats into Mr. Bennetness. I think that is Wentworth’s pricked conscience talking. I view it as more of a matter of, after… Read more »

Ian Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Hmm. Perhaps it’s time for a reread – I recently reread Emma and P&P, so S&S is on the list. :) My recollection just has a bit of dissonance with the film portrayal. I have read the cancelled chapters – they are nice, but I wish the films would see if the story works without them – both the 1995 film as you say, and the 2007 film try to squeeze in bits from them. I personally like the original ending better. :) That said, the weaving together of the chapters was not one of the problems I have with… Read more »

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

Misrepresent, really. It’s not so much exaggerate — it would be hard to exaggerate. He was a toad. He cozied up to Elizabeth, Anne, and Sir Walter in an attempt to become a son-in-law and interfere with any possible marriage, that would jeopardize his accession to the title. (The movie version represents it as “he wants the money,” but the money was gone. He wanted the title and the estate to go with the money he’d gotten from his wife.) And there was the letter Mrs. Smith had saved showing how nasty he could be, and how little actual honor… Read more »

Ian Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

It was the “He wants the money” thing that really annoyed me, since it’s ridiculous based on the fact that the Eliots are already having to rent out their house. The rest you are absolutely correct about. I think I was wrong to say exaggerate – it’s the plot hole the “he wants the money” creates that frustrated me.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

Yes, I find that frustrating, too. The observant viewer who hadn’t read the book would be puzzled by that.

Ian Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Well, even those who have read the book are puzzled, because it’s an illogical change. :)

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

What I mean is, even those who hadn’t read the book would be puzzled by it. Those who read the book would know it was a change. It’s also interesting that if Anne had been Emma or Lizzie, she would probably have thrown Mrs. Smith in Elliot’s face at some point. But she’s Anne, so she doesn’t ever (that I can recall) even let on to him that she knows her. She just quietly makes up her own mind as to how to act. She doesn’t even tell him off when she learns his true character. I think she’s a… Read more »

Ian Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

It’s interesting that Austen’s quiet heroines (Elinor, Anne, Fanny) tend to have more garbage thrown at them by the other characters. I’m curious to know if the reason for this is to increase our sympathy for them (as Fanny in particular gets a lot of unnecessary hatred from readers for being insipid and priggish), or if it’s because Austen wanted to be realistic, and characters who are less likely to stand up for themselves get more garbage thrown because bullies like easy targets? Or both?

jillybean
jillybean
5 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Mr. Woodhouse is a kindly old gentleman, but I would daydream about smothering him with a pillow if I had to live with him.

Ian Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Harsh, but probably true. That’s one of the things that signals to the reader that Emma is a heroine in action and not just position!

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

And one of the things that makes her not as “hateable” as some make out. Her arrogant meddling and snobbery are real flaws, but she is not the “awful person” some critics want to make her out to be.

Ian Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Totally agree! I really identify with Emma’s particular flaws of arrogance, and lack of application to giftings. But I also think she’s a character with true virtue and nobility – even her flaws are often intermingled with them – her friendship with Harriet, though destructive in many ways, has good in it when she attempts to protect her from the cruel and vapid Eltons.

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago

TL;DR, but typical misogynistic Wilson. Hating a book just because it was written by a woman.

Ian Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

So true. But he’s probably also hating on men because he’s spending time talking about women’s literature. And probably blaming men because they won’t read books. :)

Giddy_Feathertop
Giddy_Feathertop
5 years ago

For anyone interested in a free audiobook of this, check out Elizabeth Klett’s reading on Librivox. She does a wonderful job and has read many books over there as well. Highly recommended.

Ian Miller
5 years ago

Klett is a fabulous narrator from the Librivox set! I also concur! (She also made a great Jane in the reader’s theater version of P&P).