Posted by Kathy F. on June 08, 1997 at 17:57:01:
In reply to Re: Emma3's chicken thieves posted by greg on June 08, 1997 at 15:22:48
] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
] ] ] ] ] ] ] I think the chicken thieves was put in just as a touch of
] ] ] ] ] ] ] humour.
] ] ] ] ] as i have mentioned before, i kind of like to allow the possibility that it shows some ingenuity(romantic intrigue) by the knightley brothers to get emma to church by october - even though i know it isn't explicit and is not in strict chronological sequence. ref. the last few paragraphs of the book.________
] ] ] ] I just can't think that poorly of either Mr. Knightley. I think we must always disagree on that point--I believe him too much a gentleman to stoop that low.
] ] ] ]
] ] ] ] ________
] ] ]
] ] ] in my turn, may i say that i may be looking at mr. k thru a late 20th century american sensibility - you're very convincing - but i just can't forget how immobilized emma was supposed to be until the thefts put her father in a different state of mind, and that perhaps mr. k's love transcended his sense of honor a little bit, just this once!
] ]
] ] ________
] ]
] ] Nevah! ;-)
] ] And I wouldn't say that she is immobilized, just a tad stagnant. Besides, in the end, Emma and Mr. Knightley could have just said, "OK, we'll see ya next time you come to Donwell Abbey." That would've secured the permission--and would've been more honorable than thievery.
]
] nevah, INDEED! same goes double for "see ya next time you're at donwell"!!! at the risk of repeating myself: be serious, NONSENSICAL GIRL! ;-)________
________
LOL
Seriously, I am serious. I could much better imagine Emma and Mr. Knightley forcing the permission issue by threatening to leave than by Mr. Knightley's thievery.
And if we don't agree on that, I suppose argument is fruitless, but it sure is fun! :-)