Posted by P. Bingham on March 28, 1998 at 21:59:35:
In response to Dissappointed!, written by Cyndie on March 24, 1998 at 15:14:45
I apologize for continuing on this, as I now see that the matter was settled farther down. But there is one point that you made that I feel might need to be clarified for other readers. You see, Jane's letters are as much open to interpretation as her books and much of her life. I'm not sure what your understanding is of her life and times, but letters were rarely a personal thing but something that was more than often shared with the entire family. Not at all what we are used to in our time. What she wrote was more than often intended to entertain than anything else. She apologized herself in one of her letters for not writing for a time because she was not in the mood to be entertaining. That is an important part of her personality. She appears to be one way to others, but is in fact quite another way. Her writing bears that very well. So if you are interpreting something based on what her letters say, you are being every bit as much speculative as Tomlin and every other biographer. After all, her sister did omit quite a few of her letters, most of them in fact. And who is to say whether those letters would have answered all of our questions? We don't even know why she tossed out the letters, the reason can be something very simple and not at all as complicated as many might assume. What her sister thought of as something no one else should read might very well be something our culture would never find risque. I would recommend that fans read as much about her times and as many biographies as they can before reading her letters.
- Dying to respond, but determined to keep my mouth shut! Cyndie 11:50:01 3/29/98 (7)
- for an example... P. Bingham 15:48:55 3/29/98 (6)
- This is really interesting... Valerie Mc. 22:02:55 3/30/98 (5)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.