LOL!
Posted by Lesley on July 27, 1998 at 23:08:57:
In response to Sense and Sensuality, written by gkb on July 27, 1998 at 01:25:27
] By the by, one of my pet peeves is how critics sometimes say Austen has no emphasis on the body. One critic erroneously declared that there is no mention of the word 'fingers' in Austen. Well, I located four instances in about 30 seconds flat. I say she has quite enough description of the body but not as an External Object being Viewed by the Male Gaze--but as an inhabitant of the body--the feelings and nerves and sensations from within. This Rant has been brought to you by RadicaFem, your local Hersterical Herstorian. We return now to the regularly scheduled discussion.
Oh, gkb, thank you so much for making me laugh! Too funny! But, really you make a very good point. Your comments make me think of poor Marianne's plight and how worried Eleanor was- none of that lucious babe stuff, no doubt about it. Your comments really underscore waht makes JA great. Too many modern authors are so dorky in this respect. I read The Devil's Protection by Susan Clitheroe a while back and it was just awful. She took great pains to tell what a lucious, delectable creature the heroine was and how the Byronic hero longed to ravish her. Like Cheryl said (about a different subject), I gave myself a head ache rolling my eyes.
- Re: luscious babe stuff: left out of Austen Bonny 03:47:17 8/01/98
(2)
- Personal charms gkb 20:13:20 8/01/98
(1)
- Yea Bonny 05:26:20 8/03/98
(0)
- Yea Bonny 05:26:20 8/03/98
(0)
- Personal charms gkb 20:13:20 8/01/98
(1)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.
