![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
angevin2 had a link to Jane Austen's
History of England. Now, though I love
Persuasion with a passion, my general feeling about Jane Austen is that everyone else in the world loves her and her books much more than I do. This quote makes me almost come to love her:
I suppose you know all about the Wars between him & the Duke of York who was of the right side; if you do not, you had better read some other History, for I shall not be very diffuse in this, meaning by it only to vent my Spleen against, & shew my Hatred to all those people whose parties or principles do not suit with mine, & not to give information.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fajrdrako
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
LOL!
Date: 2006-07-17 02:09 pm (UTC)Re: LOL!
Date: 2006-07-17 02:16 pm (UTC)Re: LOL!
Date: 2006-07-17 07:14 pm (UTC)Re: LOL!
Date: 2006-07-17 07:18 pm (UTC)Re: LOL!
Date: 2006-07-17 07:46 pm (UTC)Austen is too... Mills & Boone-y.
And while I hate what Scott did to him, I have to thank him (sort of) for giving me an entrée into getting to know His Loveliness!
Re: LOL!
Date: 2006-07-17 08:01 pm (UTC)All cool stuff. He has the substance, but not the style.
Austen is too... Mills & Boone-y.
Either that, or she's not Mills & Boone-y enough. She has the romance plots without a sense of romance. I always feel just a little cheated by that.
Perhaps that is why other readers like her stuff. I find it clever, but chilly.
Re: LOL!
Date: 2006-07-17 08:09 pm (UTC)And I never felt there was enough at stake, or indeed, of interest, in the plots: just mating habits of the late 18-early 19C gentry.
Re: LOL!
Date: 2006-07-17 08:14 pm (UTC)That would be fine if their hearts were in it. But I never felt they were. There was so much satire going on, and so much of people having mixed feelings and sending mixed messages and not knowing what they wanted, that I was impatient with the characters. Love shouldn't be a genteel social game. That makes it mating habits, not love, and not romance.
In Persuasion however, I felt she was showing the pitfall of that attitude - Anne Eliot was regretting having played the 'mating game' and realized the value of the emotions she'd buried. I felt there really were some personal stakes there - not just saving face, but real passion.
Re: LOL!
Date: 2006-07-17 08:19 pm (UTC)Re: LOL!
Date: 2006-07-17 08:26 pm (UTC)I ead P7P at twelve and found it unutterably boring - I don't think I finished it. Tried again at twenty-something, because I'd enjoyed some of the other Austen novels well enough, and found it much better. Still don't understand its popularity, though.
I read Mansfield Park at fifteen or so and found it charming but don't even remember it now.
I refuse point-blank to be compelled to read any work of fiction.
Since I believed that studying any book is bound to ruin it forever, I made it a point of learning or guessing what books I'd have to study in school, and reading them a few years earlier, so they could be read without coercion. It wasn't the reading I minded, it was the being forced to it. When we got around to studying them, they were painless. Some I liked, some I didn't.
I was glad they never forced Jane Austen on me and I read all her (major) books anyway. Never loved them as I loved Charlotte Bronte or Charles Dickens or Henry Fielding.
I still haven't read Hardy or Trollope.
Re: LOL!
Date: 2006-07-17 08:33 pm (UTC)I love Hardy - already did before we studied The Mayor at A Level. I adore studying books, and dissecting them, and writing articles and essays on them - I just hate it when it involves books I wouldn't normally go near if I had any choice in the matter!
Re: LOL!
Date: 2006-07-17 08:35 pm (UTC)I adore studying books, and dissecting them, and writing articles and essays on them - I just hate it when it involves books I wouldn't normally go near if I had any choice in the matter!
I agree with all of that.
Re: LOL!
Date: 2006-07-17 08:14 pm (UTC)Pity, that.
P.S. Isn't there a duel somewhere... barely mentioned... or am I confusing Austen with someone else?
Re: LOL!
Date: 2006-07-17 08:17 pm (UTC)Exciting action just dosn't get a look-in.
Re: LOL!
Date: 2006-07-17 08:19 pm (UTC)Re: LOL!
Date: 2006-07-17 10:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 09:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-17 09:51 pm (UTC)Vivat Ricardus!
Date: 2006-07-17 11:33 pm (UTC)Can you all think of any others?
Re: Vivat Ricardus!
Date: 2006-07-18 12:41 am (UTC)I find Richard III most interesting but I don't feel fannish towards him. Of English monarchs - I'd call myself a fan of Henry II and Richard I and Elizabeth I and James I - but Richard always seems just a little to shadowy to win my heart. I don't resonate to his flaws because I'm not quite sure what they were. Not a personal love, more of an abstract curiousity.
To tell you the truth, I really love Shakespeare's play Richard III and the evil portrayal that is such anathema to the Ricardians. Especially when Ian McKellen does it.
That being said, I love reading about him. He's the only English monarch I can think of who has a whole Society devoted to him. (If there was a Richard I society, I'd join in a flash.)
I am a fan of Julius Caesar. Arthur -hmm, maybe - I'm a fan of the fictional Arthur, certainly, though maybe a bit of a lapsed fan. And ALexander the Great - his legend is fun, especially in the middle ages, and through Mary Renault.
For most of the kings I love, I'm a fandom of one.
And then there's Baldwin IV of Jerusalem. He has his following, I'm happy to say.
Re: Vivat Ricardus!
Date: 2006-07-18 09:27 am (UTC)I think you can count me out on that one: C would never forgive me, and I couldn't do that to him.
For most of the kings I love, I'm a fandom of one.
And then there's Baldwin IV of Jerusalem. He has his following, I'm happy to say.
Yes, although a lot of that is movie-based... There are a lot of squeeing Ed-Norton-in-a-mask fangirls that we try to avoid. The ones I detest are the ones who are also Phantom of the Opera fans, and project Erik-angst on to Baldwin...
However, Conrad I of Jerusalem has a small but discerning fandom...
Re: Vivat Ricardus!
Date: 2006-07-18 12:48 pm (UTC)I have no problem there. I don't feel that my fascination with Conrad conflicts with my fascination with Richard - and ditto my fascination with Richard's father, whose death was caused by Richard as surely as Conrad's was. (Said with tongue in cheek, since surety and culpability are tricky, twisty things.)
What, some people like Baldwin just because he wore a pretty mask in a bad movie? Huh. Well, whatever floats your boat.
Re: Vivat Ricardus!
Date: 2006-07-18 01:08 pm (UTC)I've simply never been able to do that - fan on people who were on opposing sides to any of my pets. Somehow... I don't know, but it would seem disloyal. I couldn't bring myself to. I can perhaps respect an opponent, but not fan them. That would feel like a kind of betrayal, especially as so many of my characters have been neglected or mistreated, while their adversaries have got all the glory.
What, some people like Baldwin just because he wore a pretty mask in a bad movie? Huh. Well, whatever floats your boat.
Yes. They were the majority in the group I was banned from. They cared little about the real history of the period: most had scant understanding of the nature of his illness, or his real character. One sees them on ff.net and IMDb, too. Most seem to be teenagers or in their early 20s at most, and into 'bishounen' (and even draw him that way)! They accused me of being "past my prime" for worrying about the history and deploring the infamous rape-fic with Guy.
Re: Vivat Ricardus!
Date: 2006-07-18 01:13 pm (UTC)It's hard for me to take sides, at least in circumstances like this. I am firecely defensive of my heroes, or favourite characters in books - but I can be fiercely defensive in different directions. Choosing between Henry and Richard would be possible - I prefer Henry - but I don't want to choose, don't feel the need to. I can love them both.
Did Baldwin, historically, wear a mask, or did they invent that for the movie?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 01:24 pm (UTC)I get angry when I see people I love slandered and abused, or even totally ignored. I recently got (for their illustrations) some secondhand 1980s schoolbooks on the Crusades. There was a fair bit on the Third Crusade - lots on Richard. Not even a name-check for Conrad, though Guy got a fleeting mention in one book. No mention of the charges on which Richard was arrested. One book mentioned that Tyre was one of the cities that had hung on - but not how, or thanks to whom. He's a non-person. Lionboy gets all the kudos.
Did Baldwin, historically, wear a mask, or did they invent that for the movie?
The mask was invented for the film. The scriptwriter had been a fan of Baldwin's since his teens, and had just imagined him that way. There is absolutely no evidence for it.
William of Tyre's comment that people found his appearance distressing suggests that he did not always cover his face, although for practicality and comfort, it's likely he may have had some sort of veil arrangement at times, especially out of doors.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 01:33 pm (UTC)I suspected as much, since I remember no mention of a mask in any of the reading I've done, and I have read extensively about Baldwin. On the other hand, I might have missed a source, or forgotten something - I no longer have any faith in my own scholarship.
Thank goodness for William of Tyre, even if I disapprove of dome of his allegiances.
Lionboy gets all the kudos.
I'm pretty sure Richard was never mentioned in all my years of schooling - well, maybe in passing in grade 11, but only in passing. (I think the crusades themselves were only mentioned in passing.) Most people I know only know Richard, if at all, from the Robin Hood movies and TV shows they have seen. It doesn't give me any sense of Lionboy getting kudos; in all my experience, he's ignored or, more likely, denigrated. (While Conrad is just ignored.)
In other words, I don't care what other people think!
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 01:57 pm (UTC)Well, we got scant mediæval history in my schooling, though that's partly because of the complete breakdown of discipline in one junior high school I attended (an inner-city 'sink' school in Hull). We got to the death of Becket; then the boys were so disruptive that the teacher could only cope by getting out his guitar and having singsongs. By the time we moved into the next class, we were on Columbus.
However, I think the main difference is that you were in Canada. In the UK, there's still the fall-out from the 19C Richard-cult. Love him or hate him, he's still around, whether it's in Robin Hood adaptations or the statue outside the Houses of Parliament. He's one of the few mediæval characters with instant 'brand recognition'. My mother left school at 14, in 1939, but she had loved history at school (then very basic) and he was one of her heroes. There was even a 1960s TV series, Richard the Lionheart, starring Dermot Walsh: again, partly Scott-inspired, and guess who was a baddie in it...?! In the 1970s there was a TV serial on the Angevins, The Devil's Crown, and in the '80s and '90s the Scott-based serials such as The Talisman (again, C as the villain), and Ivanhoe.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 02:29 pm (UTC)What? You got singsongs instead of classes? I would have been disappointed to miss the history, but since European history wasn't offered anyway, I'd probably have wanted the singsongs. Believe me, anything is better than year after year of Canadian-American relations and pre/post Confederation Canadian politics.
In the UK, there's still the fall-out from the 19C Richard-cult.
That's happening here, too, which is why I am often defensive of Richard. If only I had two cents for every person - with no knowledge of medieval history at all - who told me what a bad king he was! I would be happy to listen to reasoned historical arguments why he was a bad king, but that's not what I'm getting. I'm getting a knee-jerk reaction to the Sir Walter Scott myth of Richard the Hero-king, and the legend they're refuting is no more historical than the revisionism.
I confess, I do like that statue of Richard outside the Houses of Parliament in London. It's the horse that makes it so impressive. I would like to think that has not influenced my historical judgement.
I saw The Devil's Crown, and loved it. And various versions of Ivanhoe, a story I hate (Scott again!) though I can't entirely hate the version with Anthony Andrews in it.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 02:49 pm (UTC)Yes. So we went straight from 1170 to 1492. It was an awful school (4 academic years, for 10-13 year olds; we had moved into the area from another part of town, so I only did one term and 2 academic years there). I remember one of the boys physically attacking the female French teacher during a lesson. Luckily, she was quite a strapping young woman, and hauled him out to the headmaster's office.
I had to stay indoors, sitting on a chair outside the headmaster's office, at break-times, because I was severely bullied if I went outside into the playground. This felt as if I were being punished: I was told I couldn't stay on my own reading in the classroom or school library because of fire regulations (as if I'd spontaneously combust?!). Many of the pupils were from very deprived, often petty criminal, backgrounds; I was one of only 2 pupils from a professional background, and my Dad was a probation officer, so, as you can imagine... When my parents spoke to the headmaster about the girl who was ringleader of the bullies, he told them they should feel sorry for her, because they were trying to keep her in mainstream education (she was of low intelligence and had serious behavioural problems)... Some of the perpetrators are now dead, having ended up as drug-addicts and prostitutes.
I'm getting a knee-jerk reaction to the Sir Walter Scott myth of Richard the Hero-king, and the legend they're refuting is no more historical than the revisionism.
The Scott myth dies hard, I find. Nobody much cares if he's a good or bad king, but he's glamorous and memorable.
I confess, I do like that statue of Richard outside the Houses of Parliament in London.
By a cruel irony, the sculptor was Piemontese...
I must send you a disc of some of the old Richard movies I have... Phil and Conrad come off very badly in them.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 03:20 pm (UTC)As I recall, we went pretty much straight from the Fall of the Roman Empire to the Renaissance, though there was probably a class or two in there - I'm a little vague on it, since I attended school as little as possible and sometimes didn't know what was actually on the curriculum. (Got better marks than most of the kids who attended regularly, too, which when you think about it, is scary.)
I'm glad the French teacher won the fight. I was just reading last week, and account of an (American) Latin teacher who was attacked by one of the students. Yes, she fought him off successfully.
I was told I couldn't stay on my own reading in the classroom or school library because of fire regulations (as if I'd spontaneously combust?!).
If you were going to spontaneously combust, surely you could do it just as well in the chair by the principal's office?
My school was a mix of poor kids, wealthy (mostly Jewish) kids, and misfits. I counted myself fairly proudly among the third group.
she was of low intelligence and had serious behavioural problems
So you had to suffer for her problems. Figures.
Some of the perpetrators are now dead, having ended up as drug-addicts and prostitutes.
I don't know what happened to most of the kids in my classes, though I get news from time to time, and yes, some of them are in jail, or in psychiatric care. Some are just fine. Amazing how many (including me) are divorced. The worst was learning, in my early twenties, that a classmate I'd had a crush on for years was in jail for drug-dealing.
he's glamorous and memorable.
As he was in his own time, so that's suitable, I suppose, as far as it goes.
the sculptor was Piemontese...
LOL - such a small world!
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 03:36 pm (UTC)I do wonder, though, at the emphasis on keeping very disturbed children in mainstream schools. It's still an issue, as there's been a drive to close 'special schools' of various sorts, yet a lot of the children with behavioural difficulties end up either being permanently excluded (and so drift into crime and drugs, & c.), or making life hell for others. I felt my peace of mind and happiness were sacrificed.
High school was better: all girls, although in the sixth form we were mixed with the boys' equivalent school. Until the late 1960s it had been the girls' grammar school and still had some of the old staff there in my day (1978-83). It was next to the university, and a lot of the girls were lecturers' daughters. Unfortunately, as they'd all been to the same junior high, and lived nearer the school, they tended to hang out together. I had some bullying in my first 2 years, because - while very strong academically, the school also had a good reputation for remedial teaching, and - alas! - the worst of the bullies from the junior school also went there, and told her friends I was a soft target. I was subjected to homophobic name-calling (because i hadn't started screwing boys when I was 12!), and once - when a teacher overheard this, and reprimanded the girl responsible - the girl blamed me for "telling on her", and gave me a black eye and bloody nose without provocation. Luckily, the thug tendency were all non-exam pupils, and left at 16 (either pregnant or soon to be so!), so the sixth form was peaceful. I didn't really start to have a great social life till university, though.
The only people I still keep intermittently in touch with from high school are one of the boys (an archaeologist), and the older sister of another friend, who is Professor of English Literature at Hull.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 03:58 pm (UTC)Oh, me too. But I always felt I learned more from reading at home - math being the exception there. Also, my health really was poor. Since my marks were always good, the school system didn't kick up too much of a fuss.
I do wonder, though, at the emphasis on keeping very disturbed children in mainstream schools.
Here, it's done to save money, with spurious justification as being a way to 'socialize' these kids. The parents of disturbed children whom I know are distressed at the lack of programs for them. It doesn't seem to work well for anyone.
Life picked up for me in unviersity, too.
I'm in touch with two people from high school, on a regular basis. But most of my friends weren't at my school anyway.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 06:36 pm (UTC)Same here. We always had lots of books at home, and I don't recall being enthused or inspired by anything I encountered at school.
Here, it's done to save money, with spurious justification as being a way to 'socialize' these kids. The parents of disturbed children whom I know are distressed at the lack of programs for them. It doesn't seem to work well for anyone.
Exactly the same here, too.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 08:31 pm (UTC)I don't recall being enthused or inspired by anything I encountered at school first... Oh, wait a minute, I can remember two things. One was learning to cook in 'home economics'. (They wanted me to study Latin instead, but I refused; I thought I could teach myself Latin more easily than I could teach myself home ec. Then I took Latin by correspondence, which in those days you could do for free.)
The other thing was reading A Farewell to Arms, which I really enjoyed. I'd never read any Hemingway and hadn't expected to like it. I thought it was brilliant, and moving.