Actually, if Catherine had not read *Camilla* and...

Quick Index Board Index Home FAQ Site Map

View thread | Previous message | Next message

Actually, if Catherine had not read *Camilla* and... Written by Adrian (3/5/2009 11:45 a.m.) in consequence of the missive, Thanks for the description of these books!, penned by Diane N.

...yet knew it from Thorpe's description (better than Thorpe did), it is possible that Catherine had heard of either or both Tom Jones and The Monk; so we cannot definitively say that John Thorpe's boast went over Catherine's head or did not have the reverse effect on her opinion of him (just one of many things that would have lowered him in her opinion).

Still more important, the references would confirm to JA's readers what sort of taste Thorpe had to mention these titles to a lady.

Previous message | Next message | Board index

JA's novel apologetic and the Thorpes TimLee (3/2/2009 11:46 a.m.)

Would Catherine catch the meaning of Thorpe's taste? Delories (3/5/2009 11:25 a.m.)
- It's JA's opinion of such people ,,, TimLee (3/5/2009 1:38 p.m.)
Novels, Heroines & Catherine Robbin (3/3/2009 1:16 a.m.)
- 'affected indifference' Emmeline (3/3/2009 5:11 p.m.)
  - Oh dear! Robbin (3/3/2009 6:39 p.m.)
    - Are these Catherine's feelings Patty Patricia (3/4/2009 12:34 p.m.)
      - I believe the quote is in the narrator’s voice. Robbin (3/4/2009 1:00 p.m.)
        
        Yes that was my question - thanks (nfm) Patty Patricia (3/4/2009 3:55 p.m.)
    - Yes, very true. Emmeline (3/4/2009 6:55 a.m.)
- And, at the same time, CarolTS (3/3/2009 3:28 a.m.)
Ulp! Are you on chapter 5 already? Line (3/2/2009 9:23 p.m.)
- Bloviate definition TimLee (3/2/2009 9:40 p.m.)
"Tom Jones" & "The Monk" Rachel G (3/2/2009 6:48 p.m.)
- Thanks for the description of these books! Diane N. (3/4/2009 10:11 p.m.)
  - Actually, if Catherine had not read *Camilla* and... Adrian (3/5/2009 11:45 a.m.)
    - I don't know about "The Monk", but I believe... Line (3/5/2009 2:04 p.m.)
      - JA's reading   Emmeline (3/5/2009 5:39 p.m.)
        
        The future good (ch10)... and Rasselas... and harmless pleasure   Tom P2 (3/10/2009 9:06 p.m.)
        
        Thanks, Emmeline!   Line (3/6/2009 9:59 a.m.)
Would Thorpe's bigotry have been as much a... Adrian (3/2/2009 2:39 p.m.)
- Why couldn't it have been simply silliness? gianni (3/3/2009 9:59 p.m.)
- Is it really bigotry? Lynn (3/2/2009 4:17 p.m.)
  - But later he says Patty Patricia (3/2/2009 4:29 p.m.)
    - True, sorry. Forgot that bit! nfm Lynn (3/2/2009 5:41 p.m.)
- Good insights, going to a deeper level TimLee (3/2/2009 3:07 p.m.)
How much of this do we know right now, though? Lynn (3/2/2009 12:07 p.m.)
- I tried to be careful ... TimLee (3/2/2009 12:16 p.m.)
  - Thanks! Lynn (3/2/2009 4:12 p.m.)
    - You know the great thing about the word bloviator? TimLee (3/2/2009 4:25 p.m.)
      - New word for me. Elbè (3/3/2009 8:23 a.m.)
      - It makes me wonder about James... Lynn (3/2/2009 5:42 p.m.)
        
        It makes James's character more real, I think TimLee (3/2/2009 5:59 p.m.)
Great post Amymarie (3/2/2009 12:04 p.m.)

Groupread is maintained by Myretta with WebBBS 3.21.

View thread | Previous message | Next message Board index

- Jane Austen | Republic of Pemberley -

Quick Index

Home

Site Map

JAInfo