[ Index by Subject ] [ Index by Date ] [ New P&P2 BB ] [ FAQ ] [ Links ]
Posted by Cheryl on November 10, 1996 at 00:22:51:
Well, is there anyone who has watched this second proposal without immediately rewinding and watching it again? I love every minute of it and the only fault I can find with it is one that has been voiced many times here: it is too short. I long for the added dialogue that Jane gave us in the book. Very satisfying, indeed.
I like how Lizzy and Darcy can hardly look at each other. They sneak glances here and there, but never look each other full in the face and at the same time until the "Dearest, lovliest Elizabeth" line, and then what love and longing is in that gaze! It is almost as if they are each afraid to look at the other, lest it break the spell of the moment. *sigh*
Posted by Cheryl on November 10, 1996 at 00:40:58:
We have two wedding ceremonies depicted in this week's tape.
Lydia and Wickham's wedding is a very serious affair (sorry, poor choice of words!) a very serious ceremony. All are looking very severe- I would put Mr. Gardiner's ability to look disapproving and grave right up there with Darcy any time! None of them are at all pleased to be there except for Lydia, who bops into the church and down the aisle without a care in the world. But there is a moment in the ceremony where she does seem to be finally thinking about what's going on and she stops laughing and bites her lower lip.
The double wedding also has people in attendance who wish to be anywhere else, most notably Miss Bingley who is most forlorn indeed, and Mr. Collins who looks as if he may be wondering if he will have a position when he returns to Hunsford!
Is there anyone else who was a little disappointed that Darcy and Lizzy did not look at each other during the ceremony as Jane and Bingley did? They had too much respect for the dignity of the occaison, I suppose. But we are rewarded for our forbearance with plenty of wonderful smiles and looks and thigh pattings and kisses to send us happily on our way as we say goodby to Mr. and Mrs. Darcy (until tommorrow when our obsession will allow us to begin all over again!)
Posted by Angie on November 10, 1996 at 00:54:50:
I really love Jane Austen's books and books from her time period. Can anyone recommend to me any other good books or authors?
Posted by Cheryl on November 10, 1996 at 01:08:11:
This meeting between Lizzy and Lady Catherine just sizzles with tension and anger! Lady C uses such hateful words "Your name would never be spoken," "Are the shades of Pemberly to be thus polluted?" "Are you lost to every feeling of propriety and delicacy?" "You will be censured, slighted and despised," "Unfeeling, selfish girl," "A connection with you must disgrace him in the eyes of everybody," "You are determined to ruin him!"
I am so proud of Lizzy that she was able to listen to such vituperative language and stand her ground without stooping to Lady C's level. This was discussed a couple of weeks ago in a discussion of civilized behavior. Lizzy maintains her dignity, Lady C does not.
I wonder if Lady C dared to use such language with Darcy when she related her conversation with Lizzy to him? Wouldn't it have been nice to see Darcy's reaction to that speech?
Posted by Another Anne on November 10, 1996 at 01:16:43:
: Give it a try, it's not hard.
Thanks. I have to confess to being a little facetious. I went down and had a look in the 'comments' box, and saw what they were all doing with the square brackets. I'm afraid I'm one of those people who cringe slightly whenever we read Mr Darcy's line in the book about people whose "first object in life is a joke." I then do a little search of my conscience, and of course come up with the same answer Lizzie did.
Posted by Kali on November 10, 1996 at 02:32:42:
: For those familiar with the satirical song Give Me That Old Time Religion:: We will worship Aphrodite.: She looks cute in her pink nighty.: Although, she's rather flighty,: She's good enough for me!: We will worship godess Eris: And find out who is the fairest,: Then we'll all chase after Paris.: That's good enough for me!: Ann___________________Let's not go there. Helen's reputation is bad enough already.- K
Posted by Kali on November 10, 1996 at 02:45:18:
: : : : : : Is this meant to allow that although one does not benefit from an ideal upbringing, one can grow up to overcome despite the constraints of society? This may have been a rather revolutionary concept in a society in which wealthy and powerful families were expected (and hoped) to rule all forever and ever. Indeed, there was a fall-out in P&P. Any thoughts or am I just expounding/reaching?: : : It is indeed interesting to speculate to what degree JA made this, her favorite character, the proponent of her own particular position in these matters. I, myself, would like to believe this to be the case.: : : Joan, too: : : : ___________________: : : : It seems that Jane Austen is very sympathetic re: human constraint. But how revolutionary is she? This is a question I've seen discussed elsewhere, and now you guys have me thinking about it again (I know this isn't quite what you guys were dealing with, but it relates so I'll go with it!). I believe that the merit of a novel rests on its ability to illuminate the universiality of the human condition, which Austen, and so many authors before and after her, have done well. I don't think her ideas re: understanding between humans and self-realization were so much revolutionary as progressive, and certainly they weren't new to literature or theory. She is very comfortable writing from within the normalcy of polite society, and her themes deal more with the complexity and irony of life in the community of man than with societal reengineering. To Austen, it seems that life in society can be ironic, frustrating, amusing, unfair, and wonderful, for both men and women of many walks of life. : : Her message, in my eyes, at least, is that human beings should do their best to understand others while trying to make for themselves the best existence possible. Austen seems to understand that life can be crappy no matter who you are, especially if you are intelligent: Parents can be dorks (The Bennets, Lady Catherine, Sir William L., etc.); So can the men who are interested in you (Mr. Collins, Wickham), and especially your boyfriend (Mr. Darcy); Some people can be real morons (Mrs. Bennet, etc.); Etc. These and other situations can be explored through the eyes of many of the characters, and not just the smart ones or the "favorites" (Darcy, Lizzy).: : The fact that P&P ends happily, with the main characters enlightened and generally content with life, seems to indicate that while Austen understood the problems living in society can create, she was generally optimistic about life in society. It is easy, especially is the blurry-line area of novels, to attribute specific intentions and beliefs to an author when no certain, specific message is intended. Literature provides a process of experimentation and exploration for the writer and the reader, which encourages insights but does not necessarily indicate the espousal of certain beliefs or theories. Austen is more commentator than instigator, which leads me to think that she is not the revolutionary that many people think she is (not that you guys do - but, again, I must say that your comments got me thinking about this question!). I'm of the "slice of life" school of literature, I suppose. : : - K: : _________: And so was JA. Her own metaphor for her writing was "two inches of ivory." She compacted a microcosm into her rather narrow slice of time and space. I have read that she really had no intention whatsoever of making any statement of any kind. It's just my own overzealous analysis I suppose. This may be one definition of a classic to seem more important than was intended. But then we do pick over it, don't we?: : Janet: ________________________The only way to truly know something is to analyze it to death. It's the experimental process! Exploration is a good thing, as Martha Stewart would say. - K
Posted by Kali on November 10, 1996 at 02:50:02:
: : : : How about "Ralph?": : : : - K: : : : : : ___________________: : : : : : Or, maybe "Frank" ?: : : - K: : : : ___________________: : I was laughing out loud at all of the names that have been suggested to call Darcy, but quite honestly, he'll always be just Darcy to me!: : Annie: : ___________________: Try "Craig" - in broadest Oz parlance of course!___________________Yeah, yeah.- K
Posted by Kali on November 10, 1996 at 03:02:46:
: : : One of the reasons that books made into films so often fail, for me, is because I had put a face, and voice and personality to the character, and if they are different in the film, something is wrong. If one sees a film first, and then reads the book, you are more or less forced to 'see' the characters from the film. In P&P2, Lizzie and Darcy are even better that I imagined them. They have not destroyed anything, rather, they have brought the book to life.: : Anne : This is a perfect description of my reaction to this film. P&P has been my favorite book for years, but seeing Lizzy and Darcy portrayed by Ehle and Firth brought even more meaning and delight to the experience the next time I read it. (Actually, last spring I read it 3 times, since I was teaching it to one of my English classes. None of my H.S. sophomores could believe, let alone comprehend how or why I could do that.) When I showed a tape of the film in class, many students (who had presumably already read the book and some had seen the Garvie/Rintoul version) finally saw the light. In a sense, Ehle and Firth salvaged at least some students who might never have read another Jane Austen. After seeing the possibilities presented by the film, they were at least open to the notion that they might read another. Those (sadly, few) students who had loved the book as they read it, adored the film.___________________That's beautiful. I know my HS classmates were dead from the a-- down both ways when it came to P&P, which really teed me off.- K
Posted by Kali on November 10, 1996 at 03:14:12:
: : : : Katherine, be careful. Either something is wrong with Henry today or we have an impostor on the board. Look at the clues - he spelled Mysterious with an extra 's',he confused Lizzy with Lydia, he used the word 'arousing' in a sentence without a literary reference, ....and displayed some rather rousing wit and humor of his own.: : : You decide.: : : Grace: : : : _________: : He also attached his name to my tutu post which then appeared in the Anthrax thread - highly suspicious, unless it was a coincidental and simultaneous switch of titles and locations. Since the subject is get-ups I am dubious, as H.C. does not impress me as careless OR silly.: : : Janet : : __________: : ___________________: I begin to suspect that something truly is amiss with the server today - a reply which I posted in another thread was linked not to my own posting, but to someone else's posting in this thread! : Joan, too___________________The board is possessed. Hermes, the prankster-messenger god, is sending us bogus posts from Aphrodite and The Mysterious HC.- K
Posted by Joan, too on November 10, 1996 at 03:22:46:
The board is possessed. Hermes, the prankster-messenger god, is sending us bogus posts from Aphrodite and The Mysterious HC.- K
Indeed, it must be - for today all of your posts are appearing wrapped as a single paragraph including the quoted previous posts and the "___________________" dividers with no <CR>s anywhere!
Posted by Joan, too on November 10, 1996 at 03:24:32:
: The board is possessed. Hermes, the prankster-messenger god, is sending us bogus posts from Aphrodite and The Mysterious HC.- K
: Indeed, it must be - for today all of your posts are appearing wrapped as a single paragraph including the quoted previous posts and the "___________________" dividers with no <CR>s anywhere!
: Joan, too
Oops - that should be "with no [CR]s anywhere."
Posted by Amy on November 10, 1996 at 03:28:37:
Joan and Eric,
Of course I know what you mean. Thank goodness I have not left off admiring the work of Whitman and the others. In Whitman's case he is even a role model in connection with his ability to connect with the connectedness of things. And I do believe he knew more about love than most of us could imagine.
Posted by Amy on November 10, 1996 at 05:14:03:
Aye. Nasty it is. Ref here is the setting for the Tale of Sir Galahad in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Link to script below.
Posted by IF on November 10, 1996 at 05:57:17:
: : As a side issue, I was wondering how much of the poor quality of the playing in P&P2 was due to the playing, and how much to the limitations of a fortepiano - it seems to have a much thinner sound than a modern piano. Do any of the musicially competent here have an idea?
: : Anna
: Carl Davis reported having a very good time immitating the varing piano playing abilities of those called upon to perform on the fortepiano.
: Joan, too
___________________ It's *pianoforte* not fortepiano.
Posted by Amy on November 10, 1996 at 06:27:06:
£ : Carl Davis reported having a very good time immitating the varing piano playing abilities of those called upon to perform on the fortepiano.
£ : Joan, too
£ ___________________ It's *pianoforte* not fortepiano.
IF alert! Pray don't assume a lot of ignorance on the part of regular posters here. They may know something you have not heard about. Of course, all of us are full of ignorance in certain areas, but on the whole, I have observed that we regulars tend not to speak without information -- and when we are not certain of some information, humbly make the appropriate disclaimers.
Have you been lucky enough to find a copy of the "Making" book? In the interview there with Carl Davis he discusses the fortepiano.
Also here's a selection from a paper on the web about the topic. Link to the whole paper is included below. Thanks to all students who put relevant papers on the web! Say yes to undergraduates publishing their stuff when it can be so useful.
The merits of playing nineteenth century music on a period instrument are quite significant, provided the instrument is in good shape. Works that are commonly thought to be restricted to the realm of virtuosos such as Horowitz emerge more clearly as the amateur pieces they originally were intended to be. When a particular effect refuses to happen, such as the detached yet rapid sixteenth notes in the opening motif of Schubert's Impromptu #4, sometimes the blame lies in the instrument and not the performer. As Winter observed in Performing Nineteenth-Century Music on Nineteenth-Century Instruments, "The effects... defy imitation on today's instruments because it is the piano and not the player that is the limiting factor." On a Graf, Streicher, Erard or Pleyel, there is no need to fight the instrument, or to constantly hold back when confronted with a driving left hand passage. Anyone who has played Schubert's Impromptu #1 in cm knows how tedious the repeated drone notes become after several minutes of attempting to keep them in balance with the other hand. The sometimes exhausting restraint used on a modern piano is no longer necessary on a period instrument, and the player finds that it is possible to realize even the most subtle markings in the score.
I just reflected on this an it sounds sort of chastising. I don't mean to be mean. It's just that we have such a lot of knowledgable people here in our little community. It just annoys me a little to see them "corrected."
[ Index by Subject ] [ Index by Date ] [ New P&P2 BB ] [ FAQ ] [ Links ]