Return to Archives home
[ Index by Subject ] [ Index by Date ] [ New P&P2 BB ] [ FAQ ] [ Links ]
In Reply to: Got Donna, new page for tally posted by Amy on September 05, 1996 at 08:14:54:
: : : Quoth Steve:
: : : What an ngaging and ngratiating group.....
: Joan, too:
: : At the risk of appearing Ndelicate I must agree that it is an Nfinite pleasure to Ncounte
: Amy:
: You guys are too clever. I know I can't play at this one.
(Don't tell anybody, but I CHEATED! A thesaurus is a handy thing. ;-)
Joan, too
Anyone here see the new movie Cold Comfort Farm? I just read some reviews. They have several mentions of Jane Austen in the story. It looks quite entertaining. I confess that I am tempted to see it. It stars Kate Beckingsale (Much Ado About Nothing, Emma the BBC miniseries).
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: movie with references to Austen posted by Ramona on September 05, 1996 at 21:01:56:
: Anyone here see the new movie Cold Comfort Farm?
I am going next week when it shows up here in an art film series. Which means it ought to be out on video soon.
I've heard wonderful things about it. Did the reviews you read include this bit: "A cross between Jane Austen and Monty Python." That's what hooked me. I have to find out what that can possibly mean.
Amy
Amy
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: after the letter posted by Sarah on September 05, 1996 at 13:22:35:
: Ya'll, I have a question about the scene after Lizzie reads the letter from Darcy. She returns to the Collins' ( while still reading the letter) and Maria tells her that Darcy and Fitzwilliam had both been there to see her, with Darcy leaving quickly and Fitzwilliam waiting an hour. The book gives this same account, but no explanation. Was Darcy having Fitzwilliam there to verify his story? It was hard for me to get during this story and some of her others how much of their private business they shared with each other. It seemed that FW knew much of Lizzie when they first met at the Collins', (and Darcy still acted like a geet!) Another example is the scene at the Nethererfield Ball when Jane tells Lizzie that she asked Bingley about the business with Darcy and Wickam - she says he does not know the particulars, but does think Wickam is the offensive party. It seems odd to me that Darcy and Bingley are such good friends and Bingley would not know the details of this. Except that Darcy was so private - what do ya'll think? My mother the English teacher thinks that Bingley knew, but just did not share it with Jane because women were usually not let in on these matters, even if it pertained directly to their own life. Any insight?
If you recall in the book that both FW and Darcy would visit at odd hours
Especially the Col. I think that the Col. just came to say good-bye.
Mr. Darcy came to take leave which I think means to say farewell.
He was being polite. Also the Col. stayed for an hour. One more thing
Lizzie would not be able to answer Mr. Darcy letter because they were
not engaged to be married. He wanted to see her to talk about the letter
or maybe give her time to think about his proposal. Don't forget her ardently
loved and admired her. He thought he would never see her again.
Donna
In Reply to: Re: after the letter posted by Amy on September 05, 1996 at 17:26:06:
:
: re Bingley knew but would not tell Jane?
: Sarah said:
: > My mother the English teacher thinks that Bingley knew, but just did not share it with Jane because women were usually not let in on these matters,
: Aye. Especially as regards a sister.
: It is hard to grasp the manners of the time in terms telling and not telling. On the one hand there was nothing much to do but talk, but so many things were not talked of.
: For example, as much as I intellectually understand Elinor and mom's reticence to ask Marianne where exactly she stood with Willoughby in S&S, I can't put myself in a time machine and feel it. It seems many, many things in Austen are timeless, but there are a few cultural nuances that make it almost impossible for me to close my eyes and imagine what I would do.
: Amy
I remember in the movie S&S the younger sister said she liked Mrs.
Jenning's because she talked about things Margaret said we never talk
about things. Some families tell more than others.
Donna
P.S The Jane info page has a chronology list of events for P&P.
Which I found very helpful.
In Reply to: Other stuff that's gone posted by Amy on September 05, 1996 at 08:47:33:
: Ramona,
: I am really sorry about wiping out all the posts last night. Doesn't look like I can recover it at this point. Even if somebody cached the main page, it will be impossible now to integrate it with the new posts.
: You have a good idea. I will try to remember what else was posted last night that people might wonder about:
: - Arnessa reported that the AUSTEN-L group says JA was an INTJ and so is Darcy. The Darcy score at variance with our own evaluators' opinions
: - A new Joan asked if we thought P&P had a chance at an Emmy. John said "No, it'll go to a broadcast network program as usual." Our other Joan, graciously beginning to call herself Joan, too in view of the new Joan, said she hears Gulliver's Travels is the mini series favorite.
: Amy
:
: : You are missing the posts regarding how Lady Catherine could have found out about Darcy's interest in marrying Lizzy. It was noted that the novel itself points to Lizzy determining that the Lucases told the Collinses and the Collinses passed on the info. to Lady Catherine.
Donna again, I also thought that Mrs. Collin's housekeeper who let Mr.Darcy in could
hear their whole conversation because I'm sure he talked very loud. So did Lizzie.
She could have told Charlotte after Lizzie left that he proposed to her. I've
been reading J.Austen letters they are really just relating news {gossip} in a nice sort of way.
P.S. one question what do put in the Optional Link URL, Link Title is there a need for me to use this.
Donna
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: Other stuff that's gone posted by Amy on September 05, 1996 at 08:47:33:
: Ramona,
: I am really sorry about wiping out all the posts last night. Doesn't look like I can recover it at this point. Even if somebody cached the main page, it will be impossible now to integrate it with the new posts.
: You have a good idea. I will try to remember what else was posted last night that people might wonder about:
: - Arnessa reported that the AUSTEN-L group says JA was an INTJ and so is Darcy. The Darcy score at variance with our own evaluators' opinions
: - A new Joan asked if we thought P&P had a chance at an Emmy. John said "No, it'll go to a broadcast network program as usual." Our other Joan, graciously beginning to call herself Joan, too in view of the new Joan, said she hears Gulliver's Travels is the mini series favorite.
: Amy
:
: : You are missing the posts regarding how Lady Catherine could have found out about Darcy's interest in marrying Lizzy. It was noted that the novel itself points to Lizzy determining that the Lucases told the Collinses and the Collinses passed on the info. to Lady Catherine.
In Reply to: Re: Other stuff that's gone posted by Donna on September 06, 1996 at 00:13:45:
Donna,
: P.S. one question what do put in the Optional Link URL, Link Title is there a need for me to use this.
Nope. The only ones you have to put in are name, subject and the message. You don't even have to put in your email.
Link and image at the bottom? They are both optional. Here's how you might use the link field if you were so inclined. In a previous post tonight you referred us to the P&P chronology on Henry's page? You could have typed (or better still for accuracy, pasted) the address where it says "Optional Link URL." Then, in the next box, "Link Title," you might have typed something like "Go here to see the chronology." Same deal for image: just put in the address of the picture, usually ending in a .gif extension, only there's no space to name it. I usually ID the pictures in my message just to be nice. Also, be pretty sure the site you are taking the picture from wants the traffic since it takes up server time to load pics. If you have more questions, let me know. I will try to help you in email.
Amy
In Reply to: Re: Others: what about Austen? posted by Joan, too on September 04, 1996 at 20:48:23:
This is one of the links that disappeared last night
: : re Darcy evolving to N
: Amy wrote:
: : Right. He wasn't there at the end of the book but had the potential. Austen always seemed to think a husband or wife could alter a partner's deficiency. I am not so sure about that.
: Nor am I - again, works well in fantasy, but not necessarily in reality.
: : re: Darcy unlike us; why do we like him so?
: : Joan:
: : >: I like him very well indeed in fantasy, but I'm not sure that I could stand to live with him in reality. ;-)
: : Amy:
: : I suppose you are right. But who needs to think about that? Maybe he is one of those people you need to see infrequently to stay in love with.
: Or take a leaf out of Charlotte Lucas' book and arrange to have him out from underfoot as much as possible? [grin]
: : : Famous ENFJs include:
: : Amy:
: : I wonder what Jung was? I wonder what Jane Austen was? I know it was mentioned on AUSTEN-L
: Somebody did it as her??? Now that would be difficult!
: Dept. of Idle curiosity:
: ...Why did Jane Austen choose to name Jane Bennet "Jane"? Can't imagine that *she* would identify more with Jane B. than with Lizzie...
: Joan, too
In Reply to: Others: what about Austen? posted by Amy on September 04, 1996 at 10:36:29:
[THE BELOW IS THE TEXT OF ONE OF THE LOST LINKS FROM WEDNESDAY EVENING 9/4]
Posted by Joan, too on September 04, 1996 at 20:48:23:
In Reply to: Others: what about Austen? posted by Amy on September 04, 1996 at 10:36:29:
: re Darcy evolving to N
Amy wrote:
: Right. He wasn't there at the end of the book but had the potential. Austen always seemed to
think a husband or wife could alter a partner's deficiency. I am not so sure about that.Nor am I - again, works well in fantasy, but not necessarily in reality.
: re: Darcy unlike us; why do we like him so?
: Joan:
: >: I like him very well indeed in fantasy, but I'm not sure that I could stand to live with him
in reality. ;-): Amy:
: I suppose you are right. But who needs to think about that? Maybe he is one of those people
you need to see infrequently to stay in love with.Or take a leaf out of Charlotte Lucas' book and arrange to have him out from underfoot as much
as possible? [grin]: : Famous ENFJs include:
: Amy:
: I wonder what Jung was? I wonder what Jane Austen was? I know it was mentioned on
AUSTEN-LSomebody did it as her??? Now that would be difficult!
Dept. of Idle curiosity:
...Why did Jane Austen choose to name Jane Bennet "Jane"? Can't imagine that *she* would
identify more with Jane B. than with Lizzie...
Joan, too
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: Re: Others: what about Austen? [RECOVERED LINK] posted by Joan, too on September 06, 1996 at 02:44:04:
[THE BELOW IS THE TEXT OF ONE OF THE LOST LINKS FROM WEDNESDAY EVENING 9/4]
Posted by Amy on September 04, 1996 at 21:25:49:
In Reply to: Re: Others: what about Austen? posted by Joan, too on September 04, 1996 at
20:48:23:that? Maybe he is one of those people you need to see infrequently to stay in love with.
: Or take a leaf out of Charlotte Lucas' book and arrange to have him out from underfoot as
much as possible? [grin]
Joan,Funny you should mention Charlotte just now. I just got an email about her from my sister in
law and fellow reader (are you jealous I have a sister in law I would choose as a friend? I feel
lucky.)I won't betray her privacy by quoting her email but the gist of it was about how she liked the
sitting room scene at Hunsford, when Charlotte said without saying how she is getting on.Amy
P.S. [Cue Twilight Zone music... I just checked the time of Lori's email: 9:46. Your post was at
9:48. You two must have been thinking about Charlotte shooing off Mr Collins at exactly the
same time!] Eeeee.
Follow Ups:Re: Charlotte and Lizzie Jaon, too - er that is, well, maybe I should let it stay
that way, I type it that way half the time anyway... 21:42:31 9/04/96 (1)
Time Amy 22:28:58 9/04/96 (0)
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: Re: Others: what about Austen? [RECOVERED LINK] posted by Joan, too on September 06, 1996 at 02:46:25:
[THE BELOW IS THE TEXT OF ONE OF THE LOST LINKS FROM WEDNESDAY EVENING 9/4]
Posted by Jaon, too - er that is, well, maybe I should let it stay that way, I type it that way
half the time anyway... on September 04, 1996 at 21:42:31:In Reply to: Charlotte and Lizzie posted by Amy on September 04, 1996 at 21:25:49:
: Amy:
: P.S. [Cue Twilight Zone music... I just checked the time of Lori's email: 9:46. Your post was at
9:48. You two must have been thinking about Charlotte shooing off Mr Collins at exactly the
same time!] Eeeee.I haven't yet figured out the time stamps yet - are they all stamped with a common time, and
if so, which time zone? Odd that mine should be 9:48 when it isn't even 8:00 yet here! [grin]
But that *is* wierd...
Joan, too
Follow Ups:Time Amy 22:28:58 9/04/96 (0)
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: Re: Others: what about Austen? [RECOVERED LINK] posted by Joan, too on September 06, 1996 at 02:48:35:
[THE BELOW IS THE TEXT OF ONE OF THE LOST LINKS FROM WEDNESDAY EVENING 9/4]
Posted by Amy on September 04, 1996 at 22:28:58:
In Reply to: Re: Charlotte and Lizzie posted by Jaon, too - er that is, well, maybe I should let it
stay that way, I type it that way half the time anyway... on September 04, 1996 at 21:42:31:Joan, Too:
: I haven't yet figured out the time stamps yet - are they all stamped with a common time, and
if so, which time zone?
It's the time on my ISP's server, which is in Bloomington, Indiana. Indiana does not change to
DST, so we're like Central time now and will be with Eastern after the "fall back."Amy
In Reply to: Attn: anybody posting late Wednesday posted by Amy on September 04, 1996 at 23:19:53:
: I was doing some remodeling here (which I either don't like or can't get used to, I don't know).
: Somehow I reverted back to a 3 pm version of the main page. If anybody can send me the source code from your browser, that would be great. After 10 pm best. But anything later will be better.
: Sorry. We're missing the Emmy thread, Arnessa's post, the new Joan, Joan too and ???
: Amy
I have discovered an idiosyncracy of the software that runs this BB. Although the links that were lost when Amy accidentally reverted to the 3PM version of the main page on Wednesday evening are gone from the main page, they are NOT gone from the messages themselves. For example, if one goes to the last link in the Re: Myers-briggs thread "Others: what about Austen? - Amy 10:36:29 9/04/96" the remainder of the links in that thread are still at the end of that message, and they STILL WORK.
I followed them and copied and pasted them into new follow-ups - a somewhat complicated process, since it required re-loading after each update or the new link would not appear on the main page.
HOWEVER, this is both good and bad news, since people who read the thread for the first time after 9/4 will be able to follow the actual "lost" links AND follow up on them, BUT, their follow-ups will never make it to the main page unless they back out to the last link that is visible on the main page and follow up from there. I don't know how people may conveniently be notified about this.
I do not pretend to be able to locate all instances of these ghost links that might still be present, but I will make a cursory effort to find a few that I can discover without having to read ALL of the old messages again to see which have ghost follow-ups attached to them. I am trying to remember to mark all of these as RECOVERED LINKS - hopefully that will help to keep newbies from being totally confused when they start seeing double, since they will be able to follow both new and old links!
Joan, too
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: Others: what about Austen? posted by Amy on September 04, 1996 at 10:36:29:
[THE BELOW IS THE TEXT OF ONE OF THE LOST LINKS FROM WEDNESDAY EVENING 9/4]
Posted by Arnessa on September 04, 1996 at 22:03:08:
In Reply to: Others: what about Austen? posted by Amy on September 04, 1996 at 10:36:29:
: I wonder what Jung was? I wonder what Jane Austen was? I know it was mentioned on
AUSTEN-L but, despite Henry's assurances I still can't bring myself to that search nonsense.
Anybody here from Austen-L remember what JA is off hand?: Amy
Well, I think I remember someone on the Austen list claiming JA was an INTJ, just like the
Myers-Briggs site says Darcy is. I remember being surprised that JA's personality might have
possibly been closer to Darcy's than to her dear Lizzy's. But I guess it's possible. Maybe Lizzy
is who she wanted to be - outspoken, bold, "almost wild," and Darcy was more like who she
actually was - quiet, reserved, a little aloof. Because BOTH Lizzy and Darcy share that
extraordinary wit of Austen's. In Darcy, though, it's more hidden.I'm almost certain, though, that JA was said to be an INTJ on the list. That would account for
all the people on Austen-L now clamoring to take the test and claim that type as their own.
INTJs are supposed to be only about 5% of the population, I think. And the percentage of women
INTJs is even smaller. But on Austen-L, at least half the participants say they're INTJs. So,
either Myers-Briggs is a bunch of bunk, or all the INTJs in the world have joined the list or a
lot of people are not taking the test honestly.But perhaps I shouldn't say that too loudly. Given my cold and unfeeling judgments, I realize
some could suspect me of being an INTJ myself. I will not confirm or deny.-Arnessa.
Follow Ups:
Re: Austen: an INTJ Amy 22:25:32 9/04/96 (0)
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: Re: Others: what about Austen? posted by Jaon, too on September 06, 1996 at 03:28:28:
[THE BELOW IS THE TEXT OF ONE OF THE LOST LINKS FROM WEDNESDAY EVENING 9/4]
Posted by Amy on September 04, 1996 at 22:25:32:
In Reply to: Austen: an INTJ posted by Arnessa on September 04, 1996 at 22:03:08:
Arnessa,
Wecome back. It is very very kind of you to call.
Funny our "typers" do not see Darcy as an N at all while the Myers Briggs page says he is. Who
can know, really?Amy
In Reply to: Re: Attn: anybody posting late Wednesday posted by Joan, too on September 06, 1996 at 03:00:55:
:
: I have discovered an idiosyncracy of the software that runs this BB. Although the links that were lost when Amy accidentally reverted to the 3PM version of the main page on Wednesday evening are gone from the main page, they are NOT gone from the messages themselves. For example, if one goes to the last link in the Re: Myers-briggs thread "Others: what about Austen? - Amy 10:36:29 9/04/96" the remainder of the links in that thread are still at the end of that message, and they STILL WORK.
[stuff snipped]
: I do not pretend to be able to locate all instances of these ghost links that might still be present, but I will make a cursory effort to find a few that I can discover without having to read ALL of the old messages again to see which have ghost follow-ups attached to them. I am trying to remember to mark all of these as RECOVERED LINKS - hopefully that will help to keep newbies from being totally confused when they start seeing double, since they will be able to follow both new and old links!
I take it back - I went back and tried to follow the new and old links, and now I am completely confused although I was the one who did it. I don't understand the way things are getting linked - I expected each of the RECOVERED LINKS to appear as links to the previous RECOVERED LINK, since that was where I followed them up from, however, it didn't happen that way - they appear to be linking to messages 2 or 3 messages back in the thread. :-( I'm not going to try to do any more unless others who try to follow these think that it is worth trying to do the same on any other threads.
Joan, too
Follow Ups:
In Reply to: Lessons? posted by Amy on September 05, 1996 at 18:54:54:
: So, we still don't know about Darcy. If he's an N, it makes sense we ought to like him. If he is not (recall Joan pegged him with no N characteristics at all), then why do we like him?
Well, I think we don't (at least I didn't) until after we see him trying so hard to please after discovering Lizzie and the Gardiners visiting Pemberly. If he had not taken Lizzie's criticisms to heart and made an effort to change I think we still would not have liked him. He described himself as "resentful" and if he had remained that way, he would have cut them dead at Pemberly rather than welcoming them and inviting them back.
: Also in the "what we've learned" department, I think it is interesting that Lizzie is an E and almost all the women here are I's. We identify with her I am sure. I know I do. Maybe she is like we would like to be?
I think everyone does identify with her - even including Jane Austen who is often quoted (from a letter she wrote) as saying "I must confess that I think her as delightful a creature as ever appeared in print, and how I shall be able to tolerate those who do not like *her* at least I do not know." Neither do I!
Jaon, too
In Reply to: Re: after the letter posted by Laura on September 05, 1996 at 15:38:18:
: Sarah:
: Ya'll, I have a question about the scene after Lizzie reads the letter from Darcy. She returns to the Collins' ( while still reading the letter) and Maria tells her that Darcy and Fitzwilliam had both been there to see her, with Darcy leaving quickly and Fitzwilliam waiting an hour. The book gives this same account, but no explanation. Was Darcy having Fitzwilliam there to verify his story?
I think it was obligatory of them to at least show up and say goodbye, and I expect that at that time Darcy was relieved not to find Lizzie there, and left as soon as politeness would allow. On the other hand (especially in the book) we get the idea that Fitzwilliam really likes Lizzie a lot, and if he had not been a younger son, and needed to find a wife with money, he'd have made a move on Lizzie himself. I think he lets her know as much in the book.
It was hard for me to get during this story and some of her others how much of their private business they shared with each other. It seemed that FW knew much of Lizzie when they first met at the Collins', (and Darcy still acted like a geet!)
Darcy seems to have ho problem talking *about* how he feels about Lizzie to just about anyone - except her. It was surprising how open he was with Caroline Bingley about his thoughts about her (though clearly some of the time he did it just to vex her), and it's evident that he also spoke favorably with both Georgiana and Fitzwilliam about her
Another example is the scene at the Nethererfield Ball when Jane tells Lizzie that she asked Bingley about the business with Darcy and Wickam - she says he does not know the particulars, but does think Wickam is the offensive party. It seems odd to me that Darcy and Bingley are such good friends and Bingley would not know the details of this. Except that Darcy was so private - what do ya'll think?
:Laura says:
: Okay, my interpretation is that because the whole elopement thing with Georgiana and Wickham was too embarrassing to share with Bingley.
I agree. Ithink that he would not have spoken specifically about Wickham and Georgiana to anyone other than Fitzwilliam. He is quite protective of her (and her reputation), and very specific about considering revealing his private business to the public "beneath him" - when he did speak of Wickham, it was probably in generalities.
: Laura:
: Possibly Darcy told Fitzwilliam about his feelings and wished the Col. to verify that the letter was true and correct.
Possibly.
: Laura:
: Remember, Darcy thinks Lizzy fancies Wickham enough to marry him, this would totally destroy Darcy that he loses out on the one he really loves.
...yes, and to the very person whom he most despises! A nice plot twist.
Jaon, too
In Reply to: Questions concerning P&P posted by Patricia on September 05, 1996 at 17:43:25:
: Patricia asks:
: why did Wickham run away with Lydia? He seemed so indifferent towards her and of course she had no money. In modern times, wouldn't he have been considered AWOL? I appreciate any insight you P&Pnites might have.
I've always thought that it was probably more her idea than his. He may have mentioned to her that he was going to have to leave Brighton because his creditors were after him, and considering herself to be in love with him and being such a forward girl, she probably virtually invited herself. And of course he wasn't above going along with it and taking advantage of the opportunity to have a little fling - and then fling her away when he found a girl with a fortune.
: One more thing, have you all considered moving this discussion to Netnews where it's a little easier to navigate the postings? Just wondering.
Oh, I hope not - for some reason I really don't care much for the way that newsgroups work. Guess the interface issue all comes down to a matter of personal taste.
Joan, too
[ Index by Subject ] [ Index by Date ] [ New P&P2 BB ] [ FAQ ] [ Links ]
Return to Archives home