Jane Austen Book Club - Book number 1, Persuasion.

[kiki1982]

The abstract idea of 'the genious' of an artist only comes to light by uncovering other things, which Peripatetics calls general chat. They are encompassed in the text. Putting those things together we can maybe try to gt at he genious, but if we knew what really genious was, then we could all achieve it and write classics. That is not what happens. Can anyone put his or her fingeron the 'genious' of any artist?

[Peripatetics]

Social chatter has it's place in the Forum. Start a thread and have fun. But a discussion in literature requires introspection, expressed in more words that a Twitter message and can't “comes to light by uncovering other things, which Peripatetics calls general chat.” Chatting is myopic, it only exposes, expresses the superficial.
The following statement is sloppy. The carelessness in grammar is indicative of the thinking.
“The abstract idea of 'the genious' of an artist only comes to light by uncovering other things, which Peripatetics calls general chat. They are encompassed in the text. Putting those things together we can maybe try to gt at he genious, but if we knew what really genious was, then we could all achieve it and write classics. That is not what happens. Can anyone put his or her fingeron the 'genious' of any artist? “

I'll break my own rule and continue a 'chat' which is somewhat humorous but mainly because the statement is convoluted and the implications erroneous.
Thus - “but if we knew what really genious was, ..... Can anyone put his or her fingeron the 'genious' of any artist? “
Nothing easier – knowing what genius is – look it up in Wikopedia for a start. All the work is done for you. Thus an incomplete list, to be specific: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven (Eroica, Sonatas 27,13,57) Stravinsky in music. Balanchine ( Serenade,The Four Temperaments) in dance. Euripides, Shakespeare, Chekhov, Strindberg as playwrights. Aristotle, Kant, Chomsky as philosophers, and in mathematics, Euler, Gauss, Leibniz and Newton. And the rarest of all, the universalists: Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Gottfried Leibnitz and Darwin since he profoundly changed our perception of ourselves as a species. And I'll end here, you get the idea I hope that Genius is not an abstract idea.
The, “ then we could all achieve it and write classics.”, is a different problem altogether, since it is the now vs. the historically determined one. The genius takes the past, the present, and through a transformational, a nonlinear insight, creates an original in aggregate. The genius IS NOT- ”They are encompassed in the text” as kiki stated. Combining, rearranging details does not lead to the transformational of genius. It resides in the SYNTHESIS of the prosaic detail. And in literature, in synthesis and vied through aesthetics .
Specifically to the discussion of Persuasion, the originality of Jane Austen lies in the aesthetic of the text, not in the details of theme or the characters or ironic descriptions. In a discussion we may not glimpse the Genius, only circle around. Though genius can't be thought, recognizing it is a learned process. Thus for those interested, a very short reference to aesthetics of literature.


Harold Bloom (born July 11, 1930) is an American literary critic, literary theorist, author, and intellectual. Bloom defended 19th-century Romantic poets at a time when their reputations stood at a low ebb, has constructed controversial theories of poetic influence, and advocates an aesthetic approach to literature against feminist, Marxist, New Historicist, poststructuralist (deconstructive and semiotic), and other methods of academic literary criticism.

Genius: A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds. New York: 2003. ISBN 0-446-52717-3

Romanticism and Consciousness: Essays in Criticism, including "The Internalization of Quest-Romance" and "The Unpastured Sea: An Introduction to Shelley," Authored by Harold Bloom, Norton, 1970.

From Sensibility to Romanticism: Essays Presented to Frederick A. Pottle, Oxford University Press, 1965.

[kiki1982]

While we cannot deny that the people Peripatetics lists are genii, there are many more.

As such my statement still stands:

Can anyone put his finger on the abstract idea 'genius'? It was difficult if not impossible, on the artistic front but including mathematics, science and maybe still the supernatural it will become absolutely impossble. We are talking about the thing that actually unites all these, all genii over the whole world, across history and diciplines...

So the historically determined 'genius' is not the same as the contemporary 'genius'? It becomes even more difficult. So there are two kinds of genii. But when does the contemporary one start? Because the now is a relative idea. It is namely past as soon as you have thought about it.

The synthesis that we are looking for (i.e. 'the genius') cannot be posed before us without considering the detail. That is how research works. Scientists do not have theory befor having seen the practice. Archimedes did not come up with his theory, nor Newton, nor Darwin without the details they observed. Archimedes in his bath, Newton under the tree and other places and Darwin in Creation itself (as they then called it). That is where theory starts: thinking about the factual there-and-then. After that thinking a synthesis results tht needs to be proven.

So how do that with Austen? The there-and-then is obviously her work, might be her letters and life-experiences. The theory will be what results from this discussion if it does not need to be too abstract a theory, and proven, well if one wants to write a paper about this paricular dicussion, it will be the proof.

Harold Bloom might be an intelliectual, but... he has produced lists of books that are 'the best'. No academic has ever tried that, with good reason I imagine. Academics do not say that one is better than the other, academics
argue about themes and deeper meaning. As such, there is not one better than the other, there are only a lot of good ones worth arguing about.

If we want to discuss 'the genius' properly there will have to be proof of it.

[JBI]

Social chatter has it's place in the Forum. Start a thread and have fun. But a discussion in literature requires introspection, expressed in more words that a Twitter message and can't “comes to light by uncovering other things, which Peripatetics calls general chat.” Chatting is myopic, it only exposes, expresses the superficial.
The following statement is sloppy. The carelessness in grammar is indicative of the thinking.
“The abstract idea of 'the genious' of an artist only comes to light by uncovering other things, which Peripatetics calls general chat. They are encompassed in the text. Putting those things together we can maybe try to gt at he genious, but if we knew what really genious was, then we could all achieve it and write classics. That is not what happens. Can anyone put his or her fingeron the 'genious' of any artist? “

I'll break my own rule and continue a 'chat' which is somewhat humorous but mainly because the statement is convoluted and the implications erroneous.
Thus - “but if we knew what really genious was, ..... Can anyone put his or her fingeron the 'genious' of any artist? “
Nothing easier – knowing what genius is – look it up in Wikopedia for a start. All the work is done for you. Thus an incomplete list, to be specific: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven (Eroica, Sonatas 27,13,57) Stravinsky in music. Balanchine ( Serenade,The Four Temperaments) in dance. Euripides, Shakespeare, Chekhov, Strindberg as playwrights. Aristotle, Kant, Chomsky as philosophers, and in mathematics, Euler, Gauss, Leibniz and Newton. And the rarest of all, the universalists: Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Gottfried Leibnitz and Darwin since he profoundly changed our perception of ourselves as a species. And I'll end here, you get the idea I hope that Genius is not an abstract idea.
The, “ then we could all achieve it and write classics.”, is a different problem altogether, since it is the now vs. the historically determined one. The genius takes the past, the present, and through a transformational, a nonlinear insight, creates an original in aggregate. The genius IS NOT- ”They are encompassed in the text” as kiki stated. Combining, rearranging details does not lead to the transformational of genius. It resides in the SYNTHESIS of the prosaic detail. And in literature, in synthesis and vied through aesthetics .
Specifically to the discussion of Persuasion, the originality of Jane Austen lies in the aesthetic of the text, not in the details of theme or the characters or ironic descriptions. In a discussion we may not glimpse the Genius, only circle around. Though genius can't be thought, recognizing it is a learned process. Thus for those interested, a very short reference to aesthetics of literature.


Harold Bloom (born July 11, 1930) is an American literary critic, literary theorist, author, and intellectual. Bloom defended 19th-century Romantic poets at a time when their reputations stood at a low ebb, has constructed controversial theories of poetic influence, and advocates an aesthetic approach to literature against feminist, Marxist, New Historicist, poststructuralist (deconstructive and semiotic), and other methods of academic literary criticism.

Genius: A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds. New York: 2003. ISBN 0-446-52717-3

Romanticism and Consciousness: Essays in Criticism, including "The Internalization of Quest-Romance" and "The Unpastured Sea: An Introduction to Shelley," Authored by Harold Bloom, Norton, 1970.

From Sensibility to Romanticism: Essays Presented to Frederick A. Pottle, Oxford University Press, 1965.

Honestly, I'm sorry, but you have come onto the thread and done nothing but criticize the actual conversation, and talk about the "aesthetic splendor" of Austen, whilst criticizing others and whatnot, without saying much about the text.

We all know what Bloom has to say, or at least, understand well enough as he only has 3 or 4 ideas he keeps rehashing - but the above passage shows the limitation of his not only scope, but also his form of reading, and by so subscribing to this pseudo-theory, inadvertently, you criticize others, while saying nothing.

Harold Bloom does not write and has not written real criticism in several decades - he barely even teaches anymore - his catalog books, though doing a good job and showing his "range" and "appreciation" for literature, hardly say anything about it, or even show genius.

It is not surprising then, that in all these fields, everyone happens to be a dead European white man? As if in literature and philosophy and even Mathematics! Europe has been always that dominant?

This talk of aesthetics and whatnot seems intelligent, but says nothing - aesthetics merely means perception, and, quite simply, you cannot justify something as good because it is percieved as good, and you shouldn't discuss "what is percieved as good and how it is good" by talking about how it is good (see how silly this seems?).

Austen's work is "aesthetically" appealing, because, quite simply, our culture is so shaped as to make it accommodating. By then discussing what is inside the text, and enjoying it, we better can perceive the splendor of it, without having to drop senile mediocre critics names.

If you want, for instance, to discuss irony, the concept of marriage, the concept of lost youth, and of a reconcilement, the theme of persuasion, or anything, from the clothing warn to the dances danced, to who says what, to who likes who, to what could be meant, to what should have been done, fine by me - we can then better perceive the text that way, and appreciate it more. But quite simply rejecting everyone else's posts, when most people haven't even finished the text, and the rest are merely throwing out things they found interesting is somewhat counterproductive, if not rude, enforced by your lack of giving any sufficient critical fodder for discussion in return.


On another note, what's serious about a discussion of a novel - you aren't planning another French Revolution keep in mind, and this isn't some underground Trostskyite meeting - this is reading, discussing and enjoying a book, something, if Virginia Woolf is any authority, is made more pleasurable by the sharing with other people who care for the same books. The aesthetics Bloom strives for are all here, perhaps not seriously, but is that the point? Is the depth of discussion compromised since I'm not using formal language, for instance, or writing with a strict thesis in mind?


Keep in mind too, many of us are students or graduates in the field of literary studies (in one form or another). I myself have read a great deal on many subjects, am an English major, and have studied Austen formally, as well as read and written on and about her work. I could give you readings from any school, from the past two centuries almost, but lets be honest, we are here to enjoy a book, to to, in an Onanist fashion, show off. Perhaps not a "serious discussion" as you say, but certainly one that is meant to shed more light on the text than one chastened by the confines of sounding intelligent or pompous.

In truth, some of the topics brought up and discussed already are ones which still preoccupy people engaged in discourse and who work specifically with Austen's work. Perhaps if you joined in and answered a few, as well as asked a few interesting ones, instead of telling other people theirs were stupid, or bemoaning the lack of "quality" in the conversation, you may find this more enjoyable. Let's be honest, unless you wish to compare Mozart, Leibniz, or Rubens to Austen, or somehow illustrate how the works compliment each other, stating that you know their names really doesn't do much - many of us (I would think all of us) have heard, and listen frequently to Mozart, can do Calculus, and some of us have even gone out and seen Rubens' or whomever's paintings in the original (as for Rubens, I think everyone has seen at least one, as St. Lukes's Avatar is that of a Rubens) and though we appreciate them, are not impressed that people have heard of them. Perhaps if one listens instead of criticizes, they would better find clarity, and perhaps not be so unaccepting of said conversation.

[Mathor]

Social chatter has it's place in the Forum. Start a thread and have fun. But a discussion in literature requires introspection, expressed in more words that a Twitter message and can't “comes to light by uncovering other things, which Peripatetics calls general chat.” Chatting is myopic, it only exposes, expresses the superficial.
The following statement is sloppy. The carelessness in grammar is indicative of the thinking.
“The abstract idea of 'the genious' of an artist only comes to light by uncovering other things, which Peripatetics calls general chat. They are encompassed in the text. Putting those things together we can maybe try to gt at he genious, but if we knew what really genious was, then we could all achieve it and write classics. That is not what happens. Can anyone put his or her fingeron the 'genious' of any artist? “

I'll break my own rule and continue a 'chat' which is somewhat humorous but mainly because the statement is convoluted and the implications erroneous.
Thus - “but if we knew what really genious was, ..... Can anyone put his or her fingeron the 'genious' of any artist? “
Nothing easier – knowing what genius is – look it up in Wikopedia for a start. All the work is done for you. Thus an incomplete list, to be specific: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven (Eroica, Sonatas 27,13,57) Stravinsky in music. Balanchine ( Serenade,The Four Temperaments) in dance. Euripides, Shakespeare, Chekhov, Strindberg as playwrights. Aristotle, Kant, Chomsky as philosophers, and in mathematics, Euler, Gauss, Leibniz and Newton. And the rarest of all, the universalists: Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Gottfried Leibnitz and Darwin since he profoundly changed our perception of ourselves as a species. And I'll end here, you get the idea I hope that Genius is not an abstract idea.
The, “ then we could all achieve it and write classics.”, is a different problem altogether, since it is the now vs. the historically determined one. The genius takes the past, the present, and through a transformational, a nonlinear insight, creates an original in aggregate. The genius IS NOT- ”They are encompassed in the text” as kiki stated. Combining, rearranging details does not lead to the transformational of genius. It resides in the SYNTHESIS of the prosaic detail. And in literature, in synthesis and vied through aesthetics .
Specifically to the discussion of Persuasion, the originality of Jane Austen lies in the aesthetic of the text, not in the details of theme or the characters or ironic descriptions. In a discussion we may not glimpse the Genius, only circle around. Though genius can't be thought, recognizing it is a learned process. Thus for those interested, a very short reference to aesthetics of literature.


Harold Bloom (born July 11, 1930) is an American literary critic, literary theorist, author, and intellectual. Bloom defended 19th-century Romantic poets at a time when their reputations stood at a low ebb, has constructed controversial theories of poetic influence, and advocates an aesthetic approach to literature against feminist, Marxist, New Historicist, poststructuralist (deconstructive and semiotic), and other methods of academic literary criticism.

Genius: A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds. New York: 2003. ISBN 0-446-52717-3

Romanticism and Consciousness: Essays in Criticism, including "The Internalization of Quest-Romance" and "The Unpastured Sea: An Introduction to Shelley," Authored by Harold Bloom, Norton, 1970.

From Sensibility to Romanticism: Essays Presented to Frederick A. Pottle, Oxford University Press, 1965.

Stop trying to derail this thread! All of this is off-topic! You have not mentioned the text of Persuasion in any way. There are plenty of threads (or you could start your own) in the Jane Austen forum where you might criticize Austen's merit, but this is NOT the place to do it! You are filling this thread with useless banter on Austen's legitimacy as a writer when all that any of us wants to do is read this book!

EDIT: and also you might keep in mind that for a lot of people on here, English is a second language, so to scoff at people's grammar is not very becoming of you.

[wessexgirl]

JBI and Mathor .

I want to read about the text and what other people think of Persuasion.

[JBI]

Stop trying to derail this thread! All of this is off-topic! You have not mentioned the text of Persuasion in any way. There are plenty of threads (or you could start your own) in the Jane Austen forum where you might criticize Austen's merit, but this is NOT the place to do it! You are filling this thread with useless banter on Austen's legitimacy as a writer when all that any of us wants to do is read this book!

EDIT: and also you might keep in mind that for a lot of people on here, English is a second language, so to scoff at people's grammar is not very becoming of you.

The majority of people actually aren't native English speakers - like 2/3 or so (I'm not, though I think almost exclusively in English).

It's ironic though, why discuss the value of an author when clearly people are reading it, thereby showing that to some extent most of us here agree, or at least know to what esteem the text is held to - I don't think anyone has yet said it is a bad book, as such conversation naturally would not really be worth having, given that we are all reading the book, and therefore will come up with our conclusions on our own anyway.

[kiki1982]

Ok, so after a little transgresseion (I couldn't resist it (if you know what I mean)), we start again with our discussion.

JBI and Mathor, you said it so well!

Let's do the Virginia Woolf-thing.

[Zee.]

STOP HIJACKING MY THREAD.

I'm serious, take it somewhere else.

If it doesn't relate to Persuasion, then do not post it.


That being said, I will not be participating in the Persuasion read. I haven't been able to get in to Persuasion, which seems odd to me, and I do not read books that I do not take to, SO, i'm going to wait until Sense and Sensibility rolls around in October (i think?)
until then, i will still be reading this thread etc, and will send you all reminders when S&S rolls around.

[HolaCola]

Wow. Never imagined that miss Austen could generate such heated debate! When I studied her books in high school I nearly fell asleep while all the eggheads droned the same, albeit paraphrased personal insights, ie: "She wrote about womens' roles and marriage customs for that period, yada yada yada...".

Personally, I think those social mores and incredibly superficial attitudes both amused and irritated her to no end. No wonder she never married. Her parodies are much funnier.

[kiki1982]

I don't think that the fact she explicitely wrote about women's roles (marriage etc) is necessarily true.

It is not because one's principal hero is a woman that it is only about women. They are at least to be caled as ridiculous as the men, sometimes even more.

One of the problems in highschool must be that they stay with he safe easily comprehensible themes of women's roles.

That said, though, I found Austen extremely boring as a teenager. But then again, English was my third language and I could probably not understand what the hell was said.

Anyway, to start this discussion again:

Elizabeth (Anne's sister) is at least as ridiculous as her father, if not more...

[JBI]

I don't think that the fact she explicitely wrote about women's roles (marriage etc) is necessarily true.

It is not because one's principal hero is a woman that it is only about women. They are at least to be caled as ridiculous as the men, sometimes even more.

One of the problems in highschool must be that they stay with he safe easily comprehensible themes of women's roles.

That said, though, I found Austen extremely boring as a teenager. But then again, English was my third language and I could probably not understand what the hell was said.

Anyway, to start this discussion again:

Elizabeth (Anne's sister) is at least as ridiculous as her father, if not more...

The third sister is no less ridiculous either, keep in mind.

[Niamh]

Okay, it’s good to see this thread getting back to the point of the thread; ie. discussing the book. Lets stay on topic, and no more criticising the discussion or the people discussing the book. Anyone is welcome to join in the discussion, it is an open thread and belongs to everyone on the forum willing to participate in a friendly discussion.

Now! I have something i want to bring up regarding a thought that crept into my head about the Asp and Wentworths reason for taking the commission. i'll write it up and post it here later.

Niamh

[plainjane]

That being said, I will not be participating in the Persuasion read. I haven't been able to get in to Persuasion, which seems odd to me, and I do not read books that I do not take to, SO, i'm going to wait until Sense and Sensibility rolls around in October (i think?)
until then, i will still be reading this thread etc, and will send you all reminders when S&S rolls around.

limajean, it took me almost 2/3rds of the book to truly start enjoying it, it is worth the read to get to the last 1/3rd. The only real reason I persevered was because of this thread, so, for that I thank you.

[Virgil]

I read the first chapter and it did not seem to the level of other Austen novels. We shall see.