Return to Archives home
[ Index by Subject ] [ Index by Date ] [ New P&P2 BB ] [ FAQ ] [ Links ]
Posted by Donna on November 13, 1996 at 14:14:25:
]
] Bernie,
] ]
] If you're a Pom then yes "The Bill" has been exported to Oz, where three episodes are shown each week. Please excuse me if you're not a Pom. :)
] ]
] Ian
]
] _______
] Good evening Ian,
] I'll admit I'm a Pom by birth but not by upbringing. By the way, why do Aussies call us Poms ? I think Americans call us Limeys -- and I know the reason for that. Just curious?
] Bernie
_______
My sister -in-law is English I would never call her that.
Donna
Posted by Eric on November 13, 1996 at 14:20:56:
] If JA had intended to write a systemic moral work, she would not have written novels. The systemizer is able to draw nice boundaries and put life in clear little boxes, but outside of class room theories, few of us live that way.
] Eric
]
] _______
] Is there, then, such a thing as a moralistic novel?
] Ann
_______
Yes. If we accept that a moralist is one who wishes to show us how to behave, i.e, one who wishes to advance what is moral in the lives of not only himself, but in the lives of others it is definitely possible. I believe John Bunyan did so very poorly and Jane Austen did so very well. Another more contemporary writer who I believe does the moralizing well is Robert Heinlein, especially in his earlier works (Starship Troopers, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, Between Planets, et al.). C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein are moralists as well - and very good ones. If we define a moralist narrowly as a systematizer, a spouter of propositions, then no, but I would not define a moralist so narrowly.
Eric
Posted by Hilary on November 13, 1996 at 14:21:46:
] His look is certainly penetrating, but she looks positively frightened.
] -Arnessa (shivering just thinking about it)
_______
I thought it was a 'don't you mess with me, you teasing, teasing man; but God, I wish you would, and soon' look. Maybe I'll have to go and have another look myself.
Hilary
Posted by Eric on November 13, 1996 at 14:25:51:
] ]
] £ So it's very hard for me to see what moral system JA is espousing, if she is a moralist. Is it one where wit reigns supreme? Then Mr. Bennet should have been rewarded with a more sensible wife, no? Is it one where individualism is paramount?...
] £ -Arnessa (sorry to rattle away so much).
] ]
] As for a system, I would not say that JA is offering a solid system.
] Eric
]
] _______
] I am enjoying the rattling...
] I don't think it's a question of a 'moral system'. This implies a recipe for behaviour that will fit any given situation. As you have both pointed out life is too messy, involves too many grey areas, and too many things that can't be stuffed into given spaces, for such a recipe to work. So to espouse, for example, wit reigning supreme, or the cult of individualism etc as a moral world view would be too simplistic (Mary or Mr.Collins country), and I certainly think JA doesn't fall into that trap.
] But I do think she intends us to see the wisdom of being true to one's own sense of integrity, and making the best of whatevever situation you find yourself in. Is this an early example of situation ethics?
] Hilary
_______
I think JA would not accept the idea of a "personal" sense of integrity, but that integrity was the same - a universal ideal rather than a particular, relativist one. Similarly for truth and honor. But how these universal ideals pan out in the lives of individuals is indeed "situational" and if this be situation ethics, then JA would not disagree. The difficulty of situation ethics is that it too often permits the situation (and the individual) to determine the ideals themselves, thus permitting someone such as Wickham to justify his deceitful use of others, of their money, and of their bodies.
Eric
Posted by kate on November 13, 1996 at 14:28:57:
when they meet at Pemberly, he is trying so hard to show her how nice he can be.Wonderful. I saw it yesterday (i was supposed to be ill)for about the 50th time and could watch it for ever. __
Posted by Eric on November 13, 1996 at 14:30:49:
] ]
] (several more ]]]]] snipped)
] ]
] _______
] How very odd! There is nothing at all quoted in the comments window! Ah well, no problem. ;-)
] £ Eric:
] £ If presuming to a moral superiority is a requisite of the moralist, then JA was no moralist, but if one may teach as one who is also faulty, then JA was a moralist.
] £ Arnessa:
] £ It's interesting at the end of P&P that Darcy and Lizzy have a light-hearted conversation about the moral of the story. [snip] But the fact that the conversation is so light-hearted (Lizzy seems to be mocking the whole idea of a moral to the story.) seems to me to suggest that JA didn't give a hoot about what lessons people drew from the story as long as they loved her dear Lizzy.
] ______________
]
] What excellent rattlings/ramblings! (How should either of you have liked making sermons? I've heard far worse from the pulpit of a Sunday.) It is indeed possible to teach (morality or whatever) without either intending to do so or being without fault oneself. In fact, for a mind open to learning, as much may be learned by negative example as by positive, and perhaps the most effective "moralist" is not the "teacher" but the "learner"?
] Joan, too
_______
My dear, I do make sermons for a living. I am an ordained minister and a U.S. Navy chaplain.
Eric
Follow Ups:
Posted by Kim on November 13, 1996 at 14:31:13:
I think we can all agree that Colin Firth as Darcy is very sexy, but exactly what is it about him? I love the character Darcy, but the actor who portrayed him in P&P1 was not sexy in the least. So, what does everyone think? I love his (Colin's) voice.
Posted by Eric on November 13, 1996 at 14:45:09:
The trick to making good sermons is usually to make sermons you need to hear yourself. If you make sermons just for those people, you end up distancing yourself from those people to the point where they cannot hear you and you cannot hear them. Only as one of those people can you write sermons people will hear. I'm afraid not all my sermons are good, but I try.
As I began this little digression, I stated that my divergence from your opinion was slight and I believe we have come to see how slight it is. It seems to amount to a perception of the moralist as the superior pontificator embodied in Mr. Collins. If that be morality, then I choose immorality. But it is difficult for the reader and impossible for JA to believe Mr. Collins as moral as he pretends. But I do believe that we are, as I titled my initial note, moralists all. There is no one who does not possess some notion of what is good and right and true. And possessing that notion, we all encourage not only ourselves but others to accept and strive for that ideal along with us. Some of us do it from a position of humility, allowing our own striving to be the encouragement to others and also allowing for the possibility that we might be mistaken. Others of us do it from a position of pride, assuming ourselves to have somehow escaped the more general human condition of failures and mistakes. Jane is of the former sort, Mary of the latter. Darcy and Lizzie teeter on the brink, finally learning humility, admitting their failures and beginning afresh in each other's forgiveness.
Eric
Posted by Dina on November 13, 1996 at 14:45:17:
I have detected that many Austen readers have wanted to have more, similar etc. Austen works I thought you might be intereseted in the attached review. This is from the November 18 issue of People magazine.
Emma Watson
by: Joan Aiken
Only a brave writer would attempt to complete a novel begun by Jane Austen. But Aiken, who has written several Austen-inspired works, was game after reading a 17,500 word fragment the gifted novelist put aside when her father died in 1805.
"Emma Watson" is both more action-packed and less satisfying than a real Austen tale. It, too, concerns the mating rights of the upper classes in early 19th century England. Emma is a reletivley impoverished daughter of a country parson with genteel connections. When several potential husbands surface, Aiken wisely has her choose the one Austen would have favored, an officer in the Royal Navy. But Emma also expresses some decidedly 20th century ideas -- that, for example, work outside the home may be a woman's true destiny. And it seems unlikely that Austen would ever have used the phrase "pop the question" when talking about a proposal. These quibbles aside, "Emma Watson" is a charming entertainment, evoking the atmosphere if not the subtle genius of Austen's beloved books) (St. Martin, $20.95)
There you go, take it as you may, but People usually hates everything.
Posted by Mari on November 13, 1996 at 14:48:03:
_______
Add me too! Mari in WI, age 41 on 12-5-96
Posted by Donna on November 13, 1996 at 14:49:25:
] ] ]
] ] (several more ]]]]] snipped)
] ] ]
] ] _______
] ] How very odd! There is nothing at all quoted in the comments window! Ah well, no problem. ;-)
] ] £ Eric:
] ] £ If presuming to a moral superiority is a requisite of the moralist, then JA was no moralist, but if one may teach as one who is also faulty, then JA was a moralist.
] ] £ Arnessa:
] ] £ It's interesting at the end of P&P that Darcy and Lizzy have a light-hearted conversation about the moral of the story. [snip] But the fact that the conversation is so light-hearted (Lizzy seems to be mocking the whole idea of a moral to the story.) seems to me to suggest that JA didn't give a hoot about what lessons people drew from the story as long as they loved her dear Lizzy.
] ] ______________
] ]
] ] What excellent rattlings/ramblings! (How should either of you have liked making sermons? I've heard far worse from the pulpit of a Sunday.) It is indeed possible to teach (morality or whatever) without either intending to do so or being without fault oneself. In fact, for a mind open to learning, as much may be learned by negative example as by positive, and perhaps the most effective "moralist" is not the "teacher" but the "learner"?
] ] Joan, too
]
] _______
] My dear, I do make sermons for a living. I am an ordained minister and a U.S. Navy chaplain.
] Eric
_______
I could tell that you do sermons and quite well but what about what Joan said. Can morals be taught and learned from an early age.
ciao Donna
How far is Palermo from where you are.
Posted by Amy on November 13, 1996 at 14:54:57:
] I think I better stop there before Amy ticks me off for WOBBING.
] Bernie
_______
Slang alert. Need definition, please. Thank you so much.
Posted by Hilary on November 13, 1996 at 15:07:36:
] Amy, you just hit upon my Pre-P&P2 Addiction (sounds like Pre-Columbian art): Brideshead Revisited. Does anyone hear remember all the raves about Anthony Andrews and Jeremy Irons in 1982(?) - like Colin Firth's in 1996 - and the repeat showings on PBS? Friends and I taped/discussed it much like this BB here. I'd recommend it, along with the 1982 The Scarlet Pimpernel, for maximum Anthony Andrews viewing pleasure. (His Sir Percy Blakeney character in S.P. is priceless humor and good looks).
]
] _______
_______
I remember vividly not seeing Brideshead, and I've never caught up with it. At the time my first son was born 6 weeks premature, and I was racing into the hospital all the time (with expressed milk) to see him.
Hilary
Follow Ups:
Posted by Joan, too on November 13, 1996 at 15:21:14:
] My dear, I do make sermons for a living. I am an ordained minister and a U.S. Navy chaplain.
] Eric
_______
Of course you do - which is why I could not resist the temptation to use that quote. ;-) Joan, too
Posted by Zimei on November 13, 1996 at 15:21:42:
] How much was 10,000 pounds in the day of P&P compared to today? Does anyone know? I know that that amount was considered a fourtune in itself, but Darcy got that amount every year. He must have been VERY rich!
_______
Darcy has about 200,000 pounds income-generating equity (with 5% interest it generates a 10,000 pounds annuity), on top of other fortune such as Pemberly estate.
That means that Darcy's fortune is about twich of Bingley's
and five times of Bennet's. My impression is that such
differences mean a lot more at that time than now.
I've been curious about the today's equivalence of their relative financial situations.
Zimei
Follow Ups:
Posted by Hilary on November 13, 1996 at 15:28:19:
] : Always on the same wavelength here, aren't we?
] Cheers, Grace
_______
Thank you! Yes! It was just a little dabble for you, Grace. I enjoyed the geography lesson too!
Cheers, Hilary
Follow Ups:
Posted by Ian on November 13, 1996 at 15:32:00:
] Good evening Ian,
] I'll admit I'm a Pom by birth but not by upbringing. By the way, why do Aussies call us Poms ? I think Americans call us Limeys -- and I know the reason for that. Just curious?
] Bernie
_______
G'day Bernie,
Ah the vagaries of the English language. I confess I had to look up the Macquarie Dictionary for the definition. "Pom" is the shortened colloquial form of "Pommy" which in itself is a shortened colloquial form of "Pomegranate" which is rhyming slang for "immigrant".
I suppose that means all immigrants to Australia should be called Poms, but for some reason it's only ever applied to English people.
The word "Pom" though does demonstrate the Aussie fondness for shortening words, except when it comes to names where if you can add a "y" it's usually added viz. Bluey. However Bernie I can't add a "y" to your name.
I wonder what JA would have thought of all these colloquialisms and slang?
Posted by Eric on November 13, 1996 at 15:32:42:
>Morality has no place in politics, nor do those who avow to
>know what it is - right/wrong, etc.- rarely speak for the
>masses, least of all individuals.
Forgive me, but you could not be more wrong. Politics is of essence about the moral, the right and the wrong. There is no political position offered on any subject - homosexuals, abortion, welfare, taxes, health care, defense matters, business regulations, environment, and all the others - not a single position advocated in the political arena is devoid of a claim to be right, and right in a moral sense. Whether it be Pat Robertson or Ralph Nader, Dan Quayle or Al Gore, all claim to know what is moral and right not just for themselves but for "the country". The purpose of elections is allow the masses to choose which vision of the right and moral is the one with which they agree, but they are always about morality.
>As JA, her characters, and the broad spectrum of opinions
>here make so abundantly clear, there is (or should be) an
>ever-opening window of possibilities in the world out
>there. Why should we batten down the hatches? Everyone has
>their own life and circumstances which require
>understanding and appreciation for those very differences
>which in themselves should allow us the right to agree or
>disagree.
If truth is true, then it is true for all. If honesty is truly good, then it is good for all. If love and compassion are truly good, then they are good for all. Conversely, if they are not good for all, then they are not truly good. How these truly good ideals are embodied in life does indeed vary with circumstance and opportunity, but the ideals themselves are eternal, changeless.
>I do believe our constitution was founded on the separation
>of church and state. Laws are designed to enforce the
>obvious differentiation of right/wrong, not to restrict
>freedom of expression. The extension of this form of
>moralizing is to ban art galleries, book stores, libraries,
>the Internet, this BB and possiblity JA herself. I realize
>I've gone off the subject again, but it is close to my
>heart.
I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion of the particular issues you bring up beyond their utility in my contention that politics is indeed about morality. In this regard then, you are advocating a moral ideal which you hold to be true not just for yourself, but for me also. Freedom of expression, a freedom without limits of any sort is good for me, is moral, and is true. I may think differently, but unless I can muster the votes, I will be forced to pay for freely expressed ideas or images which may be morally repugnant to me (through taxes) - all because you and several other voters think they are good for me and at present you apparently outnumber those who think the contrary. You have succeeded in imposing your morality upon me. Political debates are about whose morals will be imposed, not about whether morals will be imposed.
The notion that only a select few traditionalists or conservatives are seeking to impose a morality on the U.S. via the political process is nonsense. ALL participants in the political process seek to impose a moral vision on the nation, else there is no reason for such involvement. We are moralists all.
Eric
Follow Ups:
Posted by Eric on November 13, 1996 at 15:35:23:
]
] Some of us, however, will just have to grow old as we cannot afford Mustang convertables or MGBs...
] ]
] As for your mother, it is those who still find life interesting enough to continue learning about it who live to be 77 or 88 or 99 or, as my own grandmother did, 106
] ]
] Eric
]
] ___
] True re: longevity; not so re: expensive convertibles. Since MGBs were no longer in production even then, the only ones to be had were used. I paid far less for mine than I wound up spending on repairs down the road (sorry). It turned out to be a foolish (but fun) investment.
] Studies do support the theory that the single most important factor contributing to longevity is pursuit of interests which provide a sense of purpose in life.
] : Janet
] ____
_______
I don't know about those studies, but I have seen in my congregations that folks who retire without having something to do are the folks I bury first.
Eric
Posted by Gerrie on November 13, 1996 at 15:39:38:
] ] Don't forget to tape this a.m. (7 a.m. EST; 4a.m., California) if you're in USA and get A&E. My daughter's so excited (she's 8) she begged me to wake her at 4 a.m. so we can "watch Mr. Darcy staring at Lizzie" before the Netherfield dance together (that "Darcycam" technique again). Have I got her trained or what?!?
] ] Nervous about messing up the VCR recording (I've been known to accidently audiotrack another show over an important videotrack, so that my copy of "The Time Machine" has 2 minutes of rap music, of all things, dubbed over dialogue in the HGWells video!)...
] ] Ah! my daughter just wafted sleepily in, so on with the VCR! Show starts in 23 minutes. Coffee, help! Cecily
]
] ____
] Coffee definitely helps - cappucino if there's time. I hope your tape worked out better than mine, Cecily. I can commiserate with you about messed up tapes. When I recorded Part 1 the TV's volume was set too low and I forgot to turn on the stereo DAT for extra stereo sound. So when I dial it up to play the tape there is too much static. After I taped Part 2 this morning I realized the VCR was set to EP for more condensed recording (and lesser quality) instead of SP for better quality (never mind the greater length). I predict each taping will have its own problem so I shall have 6 sets of varying disasters. I may have to buckle under and BUY the video set, or just make do with my friend's duplicated version - ne'er to be returned, I'm afraid. (Sorry, Barbara, you can't have it back.) I have an 8 year old son who is also Darcy savvy. Wise decision to expose them early on.
] : Janet
] ___
_______
I checked my TV schedule, but it must be only you lucky people living in the US that get part ll today. I had a version off the TV, including flubs and commercials, but discovered this morning that the local Costco store has the video set for $ 59.99 (Can$)and I now have an official set. Beats the A&E price.
I thought I was the only P&P fan(atic), and here you all are!!
[ Index by Subject ] [ Index by Date ] [ New P&P2 BB ] [ FAQ ] [ Links ]
Return to Archives home