Jane Austen Book Club - Book number 1, Persuasion.

[kiki1982]

SPOILERS







What JBI said... I don't agree. I think both Anne and Wentworth blame themselves and each other plus Lady Russell for breaking their initial engagement up. And maybe society too. 'Why can't we marry with no money?' The striking thing is that Mr Elliot did not even care as much! But Lady Russell did and peruaded Anne to finish it because there were no prospects: Wentworth had no fortune, and was still only a junior officer. After ten years of course this has changed, but both Anne and he are determined to be indifferent. There is a little apprehension about the first meeting, but as soon as that is over, everyone is at ease. (We might suppose Wentworth too as Austen seems to work with doubles). Wentworth courts Louisa (?) out of 'angry pride' and Anne is determined to leave him to it. But she slowly starts to blame Lady Russell too. When Wentworth's friend (forgot the name) and she are talking of the nature of woman's and man's afffection, at the same time Mrs Croft and Mrs Musgrove are talking over the bad things of long engagements. They both agree that it is not right to have a long engagement on very plausible grounds. While Wetworth is writing the instructions for a miniature for Louisa, Benwick's fiancée, he listens in to the conversation and seems to now understand why Lady Russell persuaded Anne to reject him. At the same tim, Anne admits to her still being in love Wentworth, despite her former resolution.

Admittedly, both were slowly coming together, but none of the two wanted to admit to his love again. And that is what only happens in the end when Wentworth understands that what Lady Russell did was for the best. Of course, over time it is still a mistake of her, because eventually he rose to fortune, but on the other hand what if that hadn't happened? On cannot live on love alone. The perfect example of what could have happened is his friend (with whom Anne talks of affection) with his wound: very low income, wife and children to care for and bad health what are they going to come to?

[JBI]

Hypocrisy doesn't come into it, and is a grossly harsh reading of Anne's actions. If the novel has a central theme, it is that even those whom we trust implicitly, and who genuinely have our best interests at heart, and whose good sense and judgment should make them an excellent advisor can mislead us to disaster.

I would disagree - I think the whole plot bends around Wentworth being rich when he returned, and Anne being no longer in her prime. What if he had not had success in war, and not captured ships and become a millionaire? What then of their relationship? Would Lady Russell again be right in saying they shouldn't marry.

I think the point is that they don't, and as a result, lose so much time and opportunity - 10 years, Anne is no longer the same person - 10 years essentially wasted on this persuasion based on the values of the Aristocracy.

If we compare that to, for instance, Pride and Prejudice, we can come up with some interesting things. First of all, it is portrayed as normal for Darcy to accept a poor Elizabeth, whereas not for Anne to accept a up and coming Wentworth. Secondly, novels like Emma generally try to show the lack of sense in following such advice.

Anne is potrayed as somewhat pragmatic, and logical - fit for making the right decisions - yet she follows Lady Russell, and what does it lead to - OK, she ends up married, but had that not happen, what would have? Well, for starters, she would either have had to marry her cousin, which wouldn't have been likely, or die alone. Anne's lack of prospects are essential to the beginning of the story. Her family doesn't really like her, she is not beautiful, and her fortune is ebbing. The plot bends around Wentworth not heeding any Persuasion against his second proposal, rather than Anne actually, like Elizabeth, maturing alongside her male counterpart.

That's the real problem I see with the text, which makes the text work I guess - in our terms, I think, culturally, we like to think of Anne's first decision as somewhat ridiculous, and clearly a mistake - what is Austen getting at though, does she see it as a good call? I'm of the mind that she also sees it as a mistake, but it's hard to tell.

[Peripatetics]

The discussion so far has been of the correspondents liking or not, of a particular character, their motivations and the morality of their actions. Telling us much about the reader of Persuasion and almost nothing of Persuasion the work itself. It would appear that the reader is saying: I could have done better! Some have tried. Charlotte – her fragment of a last novel completed, by Julia Barrett and Presumption – a continuation of Pride and Prejudice after the marriage.
This ought to give us pause. To reflect on Austen’s comment on her writing: ‘the little bit (two Inches wide) of Ivory on which I work with so fine a Brush, as produces little effect after much labor.'. Has our attention span been reduced to the length of Twitter? Our aesthetic references to a video clip on YouTube? Or are you unsatisfied until you find the 'moral' in the story?
An interesting exception has been JBI, July 24 - “That's the real problem I see with the text, which makes the text work I guess - in our terms, I think, culturally, we like to think of Anne's first decision as somewhat ridiculous, and clearly a mistake - what is Austen getting at though, does she see it as a good call? I'm of the mind that she also sees it as a mistake, but it's hard to tell. “
So what is the 'real problem'? Perhaps you could expound a bit?

[JBI]

The discussion so far has been of the correspondents liking or not, of a particular character, their motivations and the morality of their actions. Telling us much about the reader of Persuasion and almost nothing of Persuasion the work itself. It would appear that the reader is saying: I could have done better! Some have tried. Charlotte – her fragment of a last novel completed, by Julia Barrett and Presumption – a continuation of Pride and Prejudice after the marriage.
This ought to give us pause. To reflect on Austen’s comment on her writing: ‘the little bit (two Inches wide) of Ivory on which I work with so fine a Brush, as produces little effect after much labor.'. Has our attention span been reduced to the length of Twitter? Our aesthetic references to a video clip on YouTube? Or are you unsatisfied until you find the 'moral' in the story?
An interesting exception has been JBI, July 24 - “That's the real problem I see with the text, which makes the text work I guess - in our terms, I think, culturally, we like to think of Anne's first decision as somewhat ridiculous, and clearly a mistake - what is Austen getting at though, does she see it as a good call? I'm of the mind that she also sees it as a mistake, but it's hard to tell. “
So what is the 'real problem'? Perhaps you could expound a bit?

In terms of persuasion, the Anne at the beginning of the text is of the mind she made the wrong decision, but is that what Austen is getting at - was the decision wrong, we she right to listen to Lady Russell? Such a question is interesting, in that the book bends around that persuasion - what is the value of other people's judgments, and how far should we listen - where does authority lie?

Lady Russell is deemed a fair judge of situations, and her opinion is held in esteem - but to what length can we suggest that her advice was good or not? To what length can love be valued as to warrant a marriage disagreeable on the grounds of it lacking economic prospects. Is Mary, the third sister, for instance, worse off for marrying someone not of the gentry, or is Elizabeth better off for following her Father in terms of character? It's an interesting concept.


There is no reason to berate the posters, quite simply the discussion has just started, so it is a little early to get into things, as we are awaiting the catching up of others.

I think today though, we have trouble understanding Anne listening to Lady Russell - I mean, if you were in love with someone, would you reject them on the grounds that their prospects were limited by their birth? What would Austen think of that - she seems to be interested somewhat in the subject, but her casting of Anne as sort of withered at the beginning of the text seems to me to suggest a sort of defense of love, and attack against such a refusal as occurred early in the text.


There is no reason to get snotty - things are just beginning, and no one is running out looking for morals - I'm just trying to seed some discussion on the motives and actions of the characters, as is normal in a literary discussion. There is no reason to accuse my reading of being "pedestrian" or mediocre.

Better to perhaps seed a different direction in the debate, and give some interesting points yourself than to criticize so bluntly without cause or justification. It's been only a couple days, keep in mind - I doubt most people are passed the first couple of chapters.

[plainjane]

It is important to remember that Lady Russell was a mother figure to Anne as well, and that was a powerful thing, especially perhaps in that time. Lady Russell was also the only one that seemed to appreciate Anne for the person she was, unlike Anne's father and sisters. There has to be an element of Anne wishing to please her mother figure, to keep the approval of Lady Russell along with the indecision and unsureness of youth.

[HolaCola]

I agree PlainJane, there are always plenty of variables involved whenever a person appears to have been persuaded to make a poor choice. Self image is a big one for most women.

[Peripatetics]

In terms of persuasion, the Anne at the beginning of the text is of the mind she made the wrong decision, but is that what Austen is getting at - was the decision wrong, we she right to listen to Lady Russell? Such a question is interesting, in that the book bends around that persuasion - what is the value of other people's judgments, and how far should we listen - where does authority lie?
......
There is no reason to berate the posters, quite simply the discussion has just started, so it is a little early to get into things, as we are awaiting the catching up of others.
.....
There is no reason to get snotty - things are just beginning, and no one is running out looking for morals - I'm just trying to seed some discussion on the motives and actions of the characters, as is normal in a literary discussion. There is no reason to accuse my reading of being "pedestrian" or mediocre.

Better to perhaps seed a different direction in the debate, and give some interesting points yourself than to criticize so bluntly without cause or justification. It's been only a couple days, keep in mind - I doubt most people are passed the first couple of chapters.

JBI,
Seems that we are starting a discussion on the wrong foot, perhaps we can steer it to something more substantial than a personal attack. I was not sufficiently clear with the use of 'You'. It was generic and not specific to your post. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I did not deem your reading as 'pedestrian or mediocre.'
We do differ on what is productive in a discussion of Persuasion. I included the reference to Austen's words and the examples of the follow-ups to Austen's themes by Julia Barrett, Presumption and Charlotte, for the purpose that the essence of Austen does not lie in character or theme or irony but rather in how she ties all the above elements together. In the unique consciousness of the relationships of words to phrases, paragraphs to chapters, to the pleasure of reading, of following a thread. How she sketches a character or a situation, is a given, the prerogative of the artist. To analyze the character from our own individual perspective, is to ignore a century of cultural difference and the artistic prerogative of what is important to the theme she is developing.
Let me illustrate: In Charlotte, Julia Baker attempts to 'finish' the manuscript of Senditon. She adopts what she deems the idioms and speech patterns of 19th. century England. The excerpt is from Charlotte, chapter 17, “So if it must yet be acknowledged that her aunt had invited Clara to spend the winter only at Sanditon House – in guarded gesture that had confined itself to obligations, she felt could answer to the kindness of that family during her stay in London – and if it need be further conceded that, in offering hospitality to this reduced clan she had chosen, not among the several needy Bereton daughters, but a remote relation and the one most helpless of them all, Lady Denton could at least now congratulate herself upon foresight in her selection.”
The sentence is convoluted, clumsy and the contrary to Austen's light and scintillating prose. It is a good illustration in that of character's development, what is important is not the uniqueness, but of style in use of words to describe the character.
Allow me to use an analogy to character from sculpture. A visual element that subsumes different aspects of technique. Gianlorenzo Bernini's Bust of Costanza Bonarelli (1). It is a stunningly beautiful and sensual study of a woman. Ironically to her name, Costanza was not constant to her husband or to her lovers and probably not giving much time to her children between her affairs. Bernini out of jealousy employed a servant to slash her face with a razor and for the crime was banished from Rome and the Papal patrons on whom he depended. So much for the moral in a work of art. We can dismiss both Costanza and Bernini but the bust of Bonarelli remains a masterpiece. It's not the character but the skill of the artist. Not the marble, nor the chisel marks, or the hours of carving, only the line of genius that we see.
Similarly in Persuasion, it's not the characters or their social standing or even the convolution of love that Austen uses to tell the story, it's the craft that is important.

Reference
1. http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/b...relli.jpg.html

[Niamh]

It is important to remember that Lady Russell was a mother figure to Anne as well, and that was a powerful thing, especially perhaps in that time. Lady Russell was also the only one that seemed to appreciate Anne for the person she was, unlike Anne's father and sisters. There has to be an element of Anne wishing to please her mother figure, to keep the approval of Lady Russell along with the indecision and unsureness of youth.

My point exactly. When Annes mother died, Lady Russel took on the mother figure role of Anne, treated her better than her own family, advised her when needed growing up. Anne was still quite young when she met Captain wentworth, and if i recall right, he was also the first man to court her. She was young, she was naive and inexperienced and was easily persuaded by the elder she had the most respect for... but we know she regretted it almost instantly.

[Quark]

I hope my post isn't one to many in the thread. It's a crowded room, I know, and I don't want to make things any more complicated, but I read the book when it was for the bookclub yet didn't get a chance to say much about it.

My point exactly. When Annes mother died, Lady Russel took on the mother figure role of Anne, treated her better than her own family, advised her when needed growing up. Anne was still quite young when she met Captain wentworth, and if i recall right, he was also the first man to court her. She was young, she was naive and inexperienced and was easily persuaded by the elder she had the most respect for... but we know she regretted it almost instantly.

*Possible spoilers*

Yeah, I looked at her decision in that light, too. Her inexperience and the influence of others had more to do with her choice than anything else. Even though we know her in these 200 pages as a woman concerned with domestic duties and interpersonal relationships, at the beginning she saw herself as part of a family and estate that values only status. Her friends and mentors contributed to this false self-image. I think Niamh is right to look at Lady Russel as a mother/adviser, and as such Lady Russel tries to convince Anne to view herself as a member of the Eliot estate. She says to her later on in the novel that "You are your mother's self in countenance and disposition; and if I might be allowed to fancy you such as she was ... presiding and blessing in the same spot." This casts her in the role of Lady Elliot--a woman who valued the Elliot estate and its values. The struggle that consumes Anne in this book is her attempt to break free from this role. She isn't another Lady Elliot, but she's being told she is. Elizabeth, who deeply believes in the estate and family yet shuns anything domestic, greatly does want to become Lady Elliot, but Anne clearly doesn't. She can't break free from this, though, until she's had opportunities to establish herself as a different person. The novel gives her those chances. She's able to make a better decision the second time around because she's been thrust in the caring, domestic role throughout the book and realizes that that is who she is. She also meets people who share her attitudes. This informs her second choice.

In this sense, I don't really think the novel is about choice so much as it is about self-image. It isn't agency that Anne lacks, but knowledge. It's like if someone asked us when we 12 what we wanted to be as an adult. Any answer to that question is probably going to be misguided. It would probably be based off a handful of impossible fantasies and the opinions of those around us. Not until we've had some actual experience and self-awareness can we really respond to that question in an intelligent way. Similarly, I don't think Anne could make a good choice until what happens in the novel plays out.

Lady Russell did and peruaded Anne to finish it because there were no prospects: Wentworth had no fortune, and was still only a junior officer

That's true, and I think there are very legitimate reasons why Lady Russell interfered eight years ago. Yet her interference continues in the novel, and it becomes less and less legitimate as the story progresses. I think she is at least part of the eponymous persuasion that must be shed. That doesn't mean she's a hateful villain, but it does mean she has to be overcome--no matter how well-meaning she might be.

I personally found the listing of stuff a tad boring in the beginning, and all the talk about Sir Walter perhaps a tad dry.

The listing might drag on a little, but Sir Walter's character seems pretty important. He's set up as the centerpiece of the estate culture that Anne begins the novel in.

Anne's lack of prospects are essential to the beginning of the story. Her family doesn't really like her, she is not beautiful, and her fortune is ebbing.

That's true, and it creates a lot of urgency. An unwelcome fate is quickly closing in around her.

The plot bends around Wentworth not heeding any Persuasion against his second proposal, rather than Anne actually, like Elizabeth, maturing alongside her male counterpart.

Now that I don't think is true. As I was arguing above, I think Anne does mature in the novel. In any case, she sheds as much persuasion as Wentworth does.

[Virgil]

Ok, I'm ready to start reading. Tonight or tomorrow.

[kiki1982]

SPOILERS PIECES OF CHAPTER XXIII AND THE END


I don’t know whether Lady Russell becomes too annoying. It think it is all in chapter XXIII:

… and just in that inconvenient tone of voice which was perfectly audible while it pretended to be a whisper…

‘And so, ma’am, all these things considered,’ said Mrs Musgrove, in her powerful whisper, ‘though we could have wished it different, yet, altogether, we did not think it fair to stand out any longer, for Charles Hayter was quite wild about it, and Henrietta was pretty near as bad; and so we thought they had better marry at once, and make the best of it, as many others have done before them. At any rate, said I, it will be better than a long engagement.’

‘That is precisely what I was going to observe,’ cried Mrs Croft. ‘I would rather have young people settle on a small income at once, and have to struggle with a few difficulties together, than be involved in a long engagement. I always think that no mutual - - ‘

‘Oh! dear Mrs Croft,’ cried Mrs Musgrove, unable to let her finish her speech, ‘there is nothing I so abominate for young people as a long engagement. It is what I always protested against for my children. It is all very well, I used to say, for young people to be engaged, if there is a certainty of their being able to marry in six months, or even in twelve; but a long engagement - - !’

‘Yes, dear ma’am,’ said Mrs Croft, ‘or an uncertain engagement which may be long. To begin without knowing that at such a time there will be the means of marrying, I hold to be very unsafe and unwise, and what I think all parents should prevent as far as they can.’

Anne found an unexpected interest here. She felt its application to herself , felt it in a nervous thrill all over her; and at the same moment that her eyes instinctively glanced towards the distant table, Captain Wentworth’s pen ceased to move, his head was raised, pausing, listening, , and he turned round the next instant to give a look, one quick, conscious look at her.

I think here we get the summing up of Lady Russell’s role in the whole affair: she was and still is a mother figure to Anne, and had nothing but Anne’s best interests at heart. It is ironic that Mrs Croft, who is not at all hypnotised by status, having been so long at sea with her husband and loving her brother so much, actually has the same opinion as Lady Russell. Mrs Croft never knew about what happened that time but makes a dramatically ironic remark towards Lady Russell’s persuasion on Anne. Indeed, she would have done the same…

While Emma indeed comments on persuasion as a bad thing resulting from a too strong mind, in love with itself, Harriet is also to be called easily led! Emma tried to persuade her not to accept Martin, and she takes her ‘advice’ which is essentially only an opinion brought on by Emma’s own vanity; At the same time, Lady Russell advised Anne against marrying Wentworth because of his prospects, and because of ‘long engagements’. Had Anne not been easily led, she would have insisted and ended up as Henrietta. But no. Lady Russell’s persuasion was not a vain on: ‘you can do better’ (Emma’s) , but was one of concern ‘but think what you are getting yourself into.’

No-one can actually be ‘right’. Advice that is given is only the opinion of the person giving the advice and as such the one at the receiving end should not follow it blindly. Lady Russell, as the book continues, has still Anne’s financial concerns at heart and approves a marriage with Mr Eliot. She would take her mother’s place in prestige at Kellynch Hall and would have no financial concerns, but Anne clearly has other priorities now and cannot be persuaded, so she has learnt. Despite the financial security and the prestige, she makes it clear to Lady Russell that she does not consider Mr Eliot at all. So she has learnt to prioritise and taking Lady Russell’s advice, but also to regard it as not good to her.

However, Anne after blaming herself now blames Lady Russell for her refusal of Wentworth (‘you brought it into my head’) and Wentworth does the same: ‘evil Lady Russell took Anne away from me.’ At the moment that Mrs Croft says her last sentence about the fact that ‘parents should prevent [uncertain engagements] as far as they can’, Wentworth and Anne realise at the same moment, ironically even by his loving sister, that their engagement was a folly and that they could have either ended up like Captain Harville (he wounded with a wife and children to care for on a small income and probably going to be impoverished later in life if his wound does not heal), or Anne as Mrs Smith, a widow struggling to survive, or in a long engagement. None of the three is desirable. At that moment both realise that Lady Russell took up her mother role in preventing that folly. Unlike Anne’s father who would have let them and who didn’t care about it in the least, as he then, at the time the book plays, does not care for Anne.

They only have to reproach themselves for not carrying it through like Charles and Henrietta. She for not insisting and he for not trying again after his first shipping-success. I think that knowledge features in Wentworth accepting Lady Russell as a friend. It shows that he does not consider her an evil force, despite his former dislike of her.

In that chapter XXIII, both ideas they have about each other and the whole situation come crashing down in a typical Austen manner. They had the idea that Lady Russell was to blame and they had the idea that each was indifferent… Haha, what a laugh. It is no true, people!

What JBI says about the irony of the reversal of roles at the start, is true, although it is only the start of the whole thing. Not only has he got money, but we might also suppose that he is at the start of a great and long career: having an admiral-brother-in-law gives better access to better ships and enhances his promotion chances. In my view, acquaintances were very important, as networks are now, but acquaintances could get you a lot more than they can now… In contrast: Anne’s prospects and advancement have gone backwards. She is at the end of her prime in woman’s terms where Wentworth is just in it.

And, where money seems not important to life at all if one has love (why did Anne not marry Wentworth straight away, she could have spared herself a lot of misery…), Mrs Smith instantly recovers her health after the return of money… It is strange isn’t it?

Edit:

So what was Peripatetics saying? That Austen is Austen and that her skill is important. It passes me what is important about such a statement as we all know it, that is why she got to such a high place in the classics list and is still read today. That is why all writers who are on that list and all writers who will still ascend to it, are still or will be read for a long time after their death. That is why those writings are/will be so timeless.
That is not however what we were attempting to discuss here. It is to get behind the total skill that is important. If we stay with the skill it is as looking at a painting and then saying ‘it is nice’ and moving on. It is sad for the artist that not more energy and time was spent to look at that same skill because looking at it deeper only gratifies the artist’s skill.
Austen hides a plot behind the plot and it is that that makes that initial plot so funny. Just looking at the surface is nothing.

[Zee.]

I hope my post isn't one to many in the thread. It's a crowded room, I know, and I don't want to make things any more complicated, but I read the book when it was for the bookclub yet didn't get a chance to say much about it.

The more the merrier



As JBI said, some of us are set to catch up.

[Quark]

The more the merrier

You say that now, but wait until everyone's caught up. This is shaping up to be a rather frenzied discussion. I don't know if I'll be able to keep with it.

I think here we get the summing up of Lady Russell’s role in the whole affair: she was and still is a mother figure to Anne, and had nothing but Anne’s best interests at heart.

Lady Russell, as the book continues, has still Anne’s financial concerns at heart and approves a marriage with Mr Eliot. She would take her mother’s place in prestige at Kellynch Hall and would have no financial concerns, but Anne clearly has other priorities now and cannot be persuaded, so she has learnt.

And, where money seems not important to life at all if one has love (why did Anne not marry Wentworth straight away, she could have spared herself a lot of misery…), Mrs Smith instantly recovers her health after the return of money… It is strange isn’t it?

I completely agree. I just thought that Lady Russell's role extended beyond simply counseling Anne about money and love. That's there, of course, but she does much more. I think a good example of this more is in chapter 4 when it's said that "[Anne] was persuaded to believe the engagement a wrong thing: indiscreet, improper, hardly capable of success, and not deserving it." Wentworth's lack of money explains why the engagement would be "hardly capable of success," but why is it "not deserving of it?" Why does Lady Russell consider Wentworth not only a poor match for Anne, but also a "dangerous character?" There's a distaste for Wentworth that isn't only about money. That's what I was trying to draw attention to above. Wentworth and the other naval officers represents a new class of people that Somersetshire isn't used to seeing. They value different things, they're more open with their emotions, they're more domestic, they work more strenuously. This contrasts sharply with the hauteur and the "unwelcome sensations, arising from domestic affairs" that Sir Walter feels. Lady Russell belong to Sir Walter's group and she believes in the virtues of the estate. Anne, meanwhile, is valued more by the naval group. Her selfless, caring, domestic attitude finds a home with Wentworth and the officers. Lady Russell, though, tries to pull her back into Kellynch Hall. Anne's advisor/mother-figure is well-intentioned, but she believes in a different life than the one Anne herself wants to lead.

This sets up a tension between Anne and Lady Russell that isn't just based on money. It goes beyond wealth, and it goes beyond even Wentworth. It's about how Anne is going to see herself and the world around her. It's about whether she become another Lady Elliot and live like the usual landed matriarch, or whether she will become a caring, domestic-oriented woman. She's inclined toward the latter, but she doesn't completely realize and admit it until the story plays out. She has to distance herself Kellynch Hall and take on the role she wants to have in Bath before she can acknowledge that that's who she is.

Unlike Anne’s father who would have let them and who didn’t care about it in the least, as he then, at the time the book plays, does not care for Anne.

No, I didn't think that Lady Russell was callous like Sir Walter either. Her motives are genuinely altruistic ones, and she does care about Anne.

What JBI says about the irony of the reversal of roles at the start, is true, although it is only the start of the whole thing.

I'm going to hold off on the conclusion for now. It sounds like many haven't started reading yet, and it will be a while before anyone is ready to talk about the middle of the book, let alone the end.

So what was Peripatetics saying? That Austen is Austen and that her skill is important.

I thought he was saying that the craft is what's important about art, and that we shouldn't fixate on the details of the story; instead, we should look at the skillful manipulation of the details to reveal the "genius" of the artist. This is one way you can approach a text, and I hope Peripatetics will follow up on it. I'll continue to post on what I think is important, as will everyone else I'm sure, but if there's something to add by looking at the "genius" of the work then I hope Peripatetics will say so.

[kiki1982]

@Quark:

I agree with what you say about Lady Russell. I only do not think that she comes across necessarily as negative. Typically in ironic Austen, she just has another, maybe warped opinion… And she would condemn Anne to Mr Eliot, if the first is not woman enough to stand up for herself.
Other than that the ‘landed matriarch’-thing is a very poignant point. – SPOILER –

Although, she does not really oppose Anne’s choice anymore now Wentworth has got money and foremost a brother-in-law who is an admiral… Strange that she does not react as Lady Catherine in P&P… It would be a laugh.

-SPOILER FINISHED –

I’m sorry if you thought that I thought that you thought that Lady Russell had the same inclination as Sir Walter towards Anne. I just wrote it in my little reply. It was a general statement.

Better not discuss the conclusion now, I guess…


Skill of the artist is indeed important, otherwise he would not be an artist, but his message is much more important. The skill of Rodin is apparent, but the emotion or inclination to his work and how it filters through in his work is much more important and highlights his genius much more than merely scratching the surface… That is what I find. If the discussion stops with the genius of an artist then we do not have to discuss it here. But we will not start to discuss that particular point here. That is something for another forum.

[Peripatetics]

It appears that I posted to the wrong Forum. Should I have gone to the Serious Discussions? But it's a subdivision of the General Chat, which seemed self contradictory!
Since the professed aim of the Jane Austen Book Club was to was to read Jane Austen, widely acknowledged of genius in English literature, and not Radcliffe's Mysteries of Udolpho or a contemporary, A Candlelight Romance, The Tawny Gold Man, but the 'prosaic' Persuasion, it seemed to me appropriate to discuss the 'genius' as opposed to the much worked over prevailing plot of the Victorian novel sometimes being described as a search for a correct marriage.
It may well be that “If the discussion stops with the genius of an artist then we do not have to discuss it here.”, very succinctly put and encompassing the majority, however were there not a few willing to discuss, as opposed to chat, the theme as in Bloom's Modern Critical Interpretations of Jane Austen's Persuasion or Richard Jenkyns , A Fine Brush on Ivory?
It seems not. So happy chatting all!