mrjhale

I finally read Charlotte's 'coming out' preface (originally in a subsequent printing of Wuthering Heights), on the literary and tragic experiences of the Bronte sisters, (which was also in my copy of Agnes Grey), along with the first few chapters of Agnes Grey. It, and the opening chapters, made all the more sense to me because I had founded the education of my own 4 children on a Cornell University study from the last century. (as well as on the university educations of both myself and my wife). None of my children entered formal education until the college level, and easily so. This foundational philosophy to produce "genius" discovered by Cornell was: 1) provide a warm and loving environment. and 2) provide immediate answers to questions, and 3) maintain isolation from inferior social peers. This is Agnes Grey, or Anne, as well as Emily and Charlotte too. I knew they were geniuses; I just didn't realize that a Cornell University study that I was committed to had corroborated that a century later. Thanks again nicola8989, turns out I will love you forever. Anne and Charlotte can do, or write, no wrong by me. And this has given me the motivation to reconsider Emily's precociousness too. Bless all their souls.

Just finished Ethan Frome... not a comedy of manners... more a educated woman's perspective of 19th century New England country-style tragedy. But more misfortune than full-blown Greek tragedy. She does communicate a lot of powerful emotion without the characters saying much, though it's a short novel, and not enough to inspire me to dive an to another of Edith's right away. Besides, I just found one of Charlotte's I had overlooked, Shirley, and Anne Bronte who I had overlooked entirely (thank you, again, nicola898). Saving what I'm guessing is the better for later, guess I'll start with Agnes Grey.

To recent posts: You follow Mr. N, but can't decipher whether I cried or not? Do you decipher any more from Mr. N? Truly I am no longer interested in deciphering any more. But, to quote, "...it was a painful cry." And I am glad I read the book for unusual reasons for me. I mean, though not really offended, I am sure I was not entertained by it at all. Off to other niches, peace.

I didn't mean to cry. I cry so easily, but all the way through I was sure this story could not do it. It is a basic test of mine. Comedy or tragedy, if doesn't make me cry... and it was a painful cry. But overall I had more 'problems' with HH than not. And I will surely have second and addition thoughts beyond this post, but let's, as decorum dictates, start with the bad news... Two things stood out for me in the forward that it would be better I had not known to start--that maybe I should be starting with James Joyce (hereafter referred to as James--that I haven't read), and that more vigilance was needed to guard against behavior like HH's in society. (In his defense, if L were Juliet and HH were Count Paris--who testified that 'maids younger than her were already married with children'...) So not long into the story I knew that there must be other debauchery involved than just HH's. And the story in some ways reminds me of R&J, but HH reminds me of the existential 'stranger' too (though he mocks the philosophy!), and such a man capable of such depth has only a superficial obsession with L, All his rapture, until after he had lost her for good, involved her looks and immature behavior--while he often complained of her immaturity, MAKE UP YOU MIND. I mean he never really understood--though he finally admitted--that his 'relationship' with her made depth and substance impossible--at least for her. For a guy a lot smarter than me, he operated apparently oblivious to such stark contradictions in his own perspective. I found him to be an intellectual snob, with the ironic exception of L. I understood maybe half the French--which in most cases did not contribute to anything (at least to me), and often when it did, it was too far over my head to be understood without annotation. And yes I noticed the "annotated" version when I was buying it online and guessed it might be occasionally useful. I didn't think to use the notes until about 2/3 in--and then because of a reference in French I though might be to James, and confirmed it was, and by then I was tired of how often his allusions were going somewhat to completely over my head. The notes are half as long as the book, btw. Another example of his duplicity is that he intermittently gives deference then savages certain types of people, like Elizabethan women writers, for example. He is verifiably schizophrenic sometimes in this way. He constantly pleads for mercy, and as often speaks and behaves as not worthy of it. And I read to be entertained, but too often I felt I was reading for HH's amusement. Someone with such a mind and so well-read could not--believably--destroy his life with any brand of superficial aesthetics. If it wasn't true story I would not have bought it, pun unintended. HH is an oxymoron--the Mona Lisa rendered in bottle caps and pixie straws. His often esoteric, unfathomable brushstrokes to canvas such shallow, hollow perspective entirely failed for me. Oh, and I didn't 'guess who' in Ch.29, Part 2. It was humiliating. Such a deep, rich well--and I have all the notes to understand it all!--but no interest to. I have tasted enough. On the good side I appreciated the story as a slice of American history. HH a monster? His rival? L? By comparison, not anymore. Ironically, Monster is making it's way though American high school's now, making L maybe midway between it and R&J. And though I'm now sure I should have started with James, there was an enchanting quality in Mr. N's descriptions, often with lists, evoking memories, that to me was like a cornucopia of the sense of smell, converting, magically, to a stream of interconnected visualizations. But they were just too brief--even though they were easy to get lost in--but enhanced by my own memories that would more than fill in the gaps. Provocative that way--IF THERE WAS ONLY ANY SUBSTANCE TO IT. But I'm trusting James will satisfy further cravings along these lines. It also reminded me of William's Lord of the Flies--the description I mean. But LOTF, though entirely base, primal and prepubescent, was somehow deeper. But I do now more resolutely intend to get to James. And Mr. N did pull off that 'Catcher in the Rye' ending--as Salinger absolutely did not--I only shook my head; there was nothing near crying, for that "stranger' clone. Mr. N had a aspect of 'real' nobility--a life sacrificed, but for little more that nothing. In the process of settling on my disappointment with Mr. N, and new hope for James, I ordered 8 or 10 books, (I didn't make a list), including one of Charlotte's that I had overlooked, a couple of Edith's, 4 or 5 of Thomas' (love his description too), one of Leo's--Oh! and a couple of Anne's. Drag me back, kicking a screaming, if you will, but I press on, probably starting with those two of Thomas' I've already started. But Thomas' descriptions--and stark outlook, for example, might lure me back to a connection to Lolita at some point.

and OK, so I only counted votes from one page...

AND THE VOTES ARE IN! (Now there were ties so I had to make up some rules--as impartially as possible: #1 votes got 3 points, #2 votes 2 points, and...you get it... In the event of a tie, tie goes to the one with the most #1's, etc.) For favorite classic author, with 16 points, the winner is (you can imagine a drum role here)... Jane Austen! (OH! the ignorant masses... wait, she's in my top 3, never mind--actually there was a 3 way tie including Charlotte and Leo, but Jane had more #1 votes--the voting was rigged though if you ask me, cause... wait, never mind) For favorite classic novel, the winner is... Wuthering Heights! (BOOO!--I told you I was being impartial--and that "Ack!" right back at cha--I wanted to burn it when i finished it, along with Tess--IF I HAD HAD A MATCH! OK, OK it was brilliant writing,) Points breakdown (for authors with more than one vote): Jane 16, Charlotte 16, Leo 16, Emily 14, Edith 8, Thomas 5, Alexandre 4, Homer 4, I've read most to all of what Charlotte, Jane and Emily have written and they deserve to be in the top 3--in that order (and no arguing with the rules judge!). I have also read a chunk of Thomas--maybe the best descriptive writer--I get lost in it (in more ways than one I'm afraid--and then I want to burn it!) Love Homer too. Read Alexandre in high school French class (Les Trois and Les Quatre Mousquetaires). But I need to pick up Leo and Edith, huh. Victor and Oscar too for that matter...

So, into Chapter 12. She's 12; Juliet was 13, etc. And L likes an actor that looks like him. Another place and time?--sure, sure. That's not my problem. And with those persistently interfering 'Old World manners', I'm not expecting "Heart of Darkness" anymore, despite the already numerous use of terms like "demonic" or "satanic"--sure, sure. Again, this is not my problem. And I mean the best thing I can say so far is that I will reserve further judgment to give it a chance--even though he says we should already fully know him somewhere less than 50 pages in. But I will say that so far L is the park picnic compared to Tess and Wuthering Heights in all respects (if you speak some French), and certainly is as 'existential' (read meaningless) as the nameless stranger's life in Camus' novel Or maybe it's more like the battle against going 'down the existential drain' like in The Metamorphosis (Kafka) where transforming into a gross bug at least makes you feel alive--before it ruins your life entirely... (yawn). May not make anymore progress till after T-day... But you might already know me by now too... I always have hope.

...just finished Northanger Abbey. Maybe the best, "You made your bed, now you lie it it", story I've ever read. But it has none of the power of Jane Eyre, more like the power and feel of a protracted Aesop's Fable. But surely an enjoyable comedy of manners. ("Don't stop me!")

but oh! pontalba, I'm sure I will be visiting you on yours soon--got Lolita and almost finished with Northanger Abbey--Jane literally fully directly defines 'substance' in it, and fairly well, for her, portrays it, though it feels like her FIRST work too, as her heavy handed naration is exposed by her later much more masterful description...

I thank you frankie and pontalba, and I don't mean to be a 'disa-pointer', (and I WILL consider Anne Bronte, nicola8989!), but my agenda is not to be a general 'pointer', (and you may have noticed and guessed by my above mentioned credentials I have little want of help with an agenda, nor am likely to be easily outranked, and I do have work that is also my passion), but here, on this page, not haphazardly chosen I assure you, it is more like, maybe with a glass of cabernet sauvignon, to 'party'. And I know it's pushing it to classify J.E. as a 'comedy of manners', as all Jane's are more easily identified, since Charotte pushes those parameters quite hard. But a 'coming of age story' says even less, and is less likely to be key to my personal entertainment. And after all, any 'comedy of manners', ('manners' being the juxtaposed 'tiered relationships' of 'nobels with commoners' and the comedy, etc., that ensues) is chiefly entertainment, and my favorite entertainment at this point in my life--and one of the reasons I avoid tragedies--don't like horror movies either. (I sware I will never read Macbeth, King Lear or Othello again!--but I love Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet!--saw them both again professionally performed, these last times 'in the park', in the last two years.) And I find them (COM'S) tending toward meaningful substance, which IS key to my preferred entertainment (method of emphasis stolen from Jane). So I intend to stay on page--to be entertained by gushing and reading gushes about my favorite comedy of manners, Jane Eyre, and anything well enough connected to it, 'cheering and booing' as I deem appropriate--or entertaining, though I have to acknowledge that this is a limited field. I mean apparently Charlotte only wrote 2 full length novels, both more substantive to me than any of Jane's--another reason I camp on this page. But the other one, Villette, contains a lot of French (another entertainment of mine), as it is set mostly in a small town in Northern France by that name, making it more difficult than just 19th century literature can be. And I am not surprised that I have found many references to Wuthering Heights on this page (that I sware I will never read again!) but not one, besides by me, for Villette. It is also an attack on both Protestantism and Catholicism as the "heroine" and "hero" (as Jane directly identifies similar characters in Northanger Abbey--a true 'coming of age story'--not my favorite of hers, though more than entertaining enough) are thus pitted against each other in Charlotte's jaded representations of Lucy and M. Paul, respectively. Talk about substance. Still with such limited and difficult direct literary connections to Charlotte, I find Jane quite close enough, and more than entertaining enough. (Is Anne?!--prepare to be loved or hated forever nicola8989!--only appropriate entertainment intended) And though I had fun writing this, I'm staying on page, at least for now, thank you. (And my not directly connecting all your posts to this one is an effort to fortify my encampment, btw.) ...and laura156, you wax too brief! (again only entertainment intended)...

the challenge is on, and Northanger Abbey is short, so I should be into Lolita in a week or two... responded at J.E. page first...

Just finished Mansfield Park. Her longest work I think. Reminded me of the odyssey of Jane Eyre in some ways--from her youth in poverty to, by a serendipidous transfer to the family and company of nobility, the flowering of virture that wins for her the most virtuous conquest in the country. I didn't like is as well as J.E., but it was well worth the journey, and it offered more hope than J.E. really--you know--an even better fountain of lemonade from what what might have been otherwise expected to be a suffocating avalanche of lemons. Just started Northanger Abby--apparently her first work, but not published until just after her untimely death--and the last one of hers I have yet to read. The testimony of her sister in the introduction was no surprise to me. The character of the "authoress" was unaminously asserted to be genius personified and detectably without flaw. My tesimony is that I have not experienced her rival--even considering William. (I have a degree in Lit from UCSD, but have neglected this foremost contributor to English literature until relativlely recently--this is my professional opinion.) But I have also just order a copy of Lolita. Am I being led astray? I admit I am skeptical as to whether it will be more tragic than Tess of the D'Urbervilles, certainly more so than Wuthering Heights--as it was more random and meaningless than tragic. I mean I'm sure Albert Camus was no 'Stranger' to Emily's pre-existentialism. Hardy portrays more a 'tragedy of errors'. Still I will will reconnointer my way up this 'river', expecting to find a 'Heart of Darkness' maybe more inhuman than Joseph Conrad had imagined. And I should add, in the words of a now immortal heavy metal rock band, 'Don't stop me!'

So, pontalba, Lolita... OK, but sounds like it may make Tess seem like a park picnic... I'll let you know... That was quite an opening gush, btw. And I'm glad I've seen neither movie yet.

Sure, Ben Johnson and John Milton, etc., deferred to William's genius, as Sir Walter Scott deferred to Jane's, (as I defer to Charlotte's), so the laspe to discover an alternative is understandable, and, again, then, you must love Thomas Hardy. Becasue if you have missed Tess of the D'Urbervilles, it lacks none of Charlotte's realism (read, in this case, fatalism), along with powerfully provocative romance, and I would have been won over entirely with but an ending that was not so much an ending. By-the-way, I'm 140 pages into Mansfield Park and am finding it little better than the movie, and too immature, as I feared S&S would be (but wasn't). And yes, I was irritated with my heroines here and there. Especially with Elinor. She just seemed 'unreal' sometimes. I mean they were to some degree fantasies, were they not? But it was a time past, though it was the real insights of Jane and Charlotte, (and Emily and Thomas). And maybe a time sometime in my future? I mean do we just fantasize, or is there any real hope? And hope can only have a happy ending.

Thank you Pontalba. And forgive me for leaving out the formidable Elizabeth Bennet and her helpless conquest. Also, again, I admit I prefer Jane and Charlotte who took lemons and made lemonade to Emily who took sewage and made deadly toxic waste. But that's just me... on a 'Jane Eyre fan page'... And I'm in no real hurry cause I've got two more of Jane's on the way, (the last two I haven't read!), but I'm really relatively new to this genre of literature, so can you suggest other master romanic lemonade makers?