you misunderstand me.
Posted by P. Bingham on March 31, 1998 at 03:29:17:
In response to This is really interesting..., written by Valerie Mc. on March 30, 1998 at 22:02:55
] But I think there's an important distinction betwen the spin a person gives on her own life and that a biographer gives. JA was presenting her life to her intimates, and both she and they sincerely desired privacy and discretion.]
I don't believe that intimate would appropriately describe Jane's letters. I'm fairly certain that Cassandra took care of any that might be deemed so. And as I mentioned before, letters at this time were more intended for more than one pair of eyes. Letters were read allowed to everyone attended. Discounting some of course, like love letters, etc. Jane's letters were remarkably entertaining. Furthermore, If Jane did not tell everyone and sundry all her deepest secrets, do you actually think she's going write it all down on paper? The closest anyone will ever get to her heart is through her books.
] Which is why I love Cyndie for her passionate assertion of JA's right to be known as she wished herself to be, not speculated upon for vulgar profit. It's a totally useless and hopeless position, of course, but why should the windmills always win? ]
I was not discounting Cyndie's good opinion. I happen to agree with her in regards to Jane's flirtatious episode. I was merely stating that, regardless of the reader's motives (whether for pleasure or to write a book) whatever they make out of Jane's letters are opinions. I am not judging anyone on what they think of Jane's life. I only bring to the attention that you can lose a great deal of money if you make a bet based on her letters. This is not a matter of opinion. It is the nature of life and most any historian or phychologist for that matter, will tell you the same.
And there is another thing. In your previous message about a particular book with "dark secrets": Books should not be graded by the jackets. There is that annoying old saying "don't judge a book by its cover." What is on the jacket of a book is rarely the author's work but merely intended to promote the work and is out of the author's hands. The author is lucky enough just to choose his own title. The jackets can be misleading, of course, and most often are, but that should not necessarily reflect on the writer's work. I believe I know the book you spoke of previously. And Jane's brother was hardly treated as a deep dark secret but only added as an insight into the psychi of her family and her age. The book was given excellent reviews. Although I can't say I agreed with everything Nokes (assuming that is who you meant) wrote, I found his work admirable.
- Letters & bios Valerie Mc. 22:26:05 3/31/98 (0)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.