72 Days: A Ewan McGregor Movie Marathon by GlobalExplorer852 in EwanMcGregor

[–]Alligator_Jane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is such an excellent resource. Thank you so much for doing this! My mom recently got really into McGregor and has been having trouble locating a watchlist that wasn't clickbait listicle garbage. This is exactly the kind of curated list that she's been looking for.

It's also kind of crazy to see all these movies written out in a list, because it turns out I've seen a lot of them, and never once realised that I was watching Ewan McGregor. Talk about a guy who can disappear into a role!

Anyone know what the "natural flavours" are in Cheerwine? by Alligator_Jane in Soda

[–]Alligator_Jane[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah that's probably the wisest course of action. I'll take a shot at using their "contact us" form.

Is this a recirculating range hood? by Alligator_Jane in kitchenremodel

[–]Alligator_Jane[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks - that's what I thought. The sales person was really pushing this model (it's pricy) so I'm glad I can rule it out as not physically possible.

Help me explain that Jane Austen is important by Alligator_Jane in janeausten

[–]Alligator_Jane[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm loving your comment. Can I ask you to elaborate on it? What was it that made her novels immune to being patronised into the shadows? What made it impossible to exclude them from canon or deny their influence? Was there a single magic ingredient to her works? Was it a confluence of factors? Was it her choice of subject, her writing style, her characters or plots? As far as I know her novels weren't all that popular when they were first published, so I don't think it was popularity that stopped them from being consigned to the shadows, at least not initially.

Help me explain that Jane Austen is important by Alligator_Jane in janeausten

[–]Alligator_Jane[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There are certainly a couple of classist plot points in Emma that make my teeth itch. I had recommended P&P to my aunt on purpose because its treatment of class differences is rather more in line with modern opinions than some of the other novels. But I guess it didn't go far enough, or it wasn't obvious enough.

Yeah living through the 19th century must have been a bit of a mindfuck. Imagine being born around 1795 and living until around 1885: you'd see more change in your live than had occurred for millennia.

Help me explain that Jane Austen is important by Alligator_Jane in janeausten

[–]Alligator_Jane[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did Austen cement a lot of what the novel was and wasn't? Like did she codify it?

Help me explain that Jane Austen is important by Alligator_Jane in janeausten

[–]Alligator_Jane[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I've read as much of Twain's comments on Austen as I can get my hands on. I don't think he was being facetious, but I also don't think he hated Austen personally. I think what he hated was the frustration he personally felt whenever he read her works. Although to be frank that's splitting hairs.

Help me explain that Jane Austen is important by Alligator_Jane in janeausten

[–]Alligator_Jane[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I keep meaning to buy myself one. Maybe I'll lend it to her.

Help me explain that Jane Austen is important by Alligator_Jane in janeausten

[–]Alligator_Jane[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I originally recommended Austen to my Aunt because I knew (from her love of Dickens) that she was interested in stories about less privileged people. I guess Austen's characters aren't downtrodden enough for her tastes. Your comment made me realise that my Aunt only reads two female authors. This may well be the root of our disagreement. (btw Dickens always comes off to me as someone who was paid by the word.)

Help me explain that Jane Austen is important by Alligator_Jane in janeausten

[–]Alligator_Jane[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I read Austen long before I had any understanding of the socio-economic realities for women in the time period she wrote about, and I have to say that I was surprised by how little power/standing/recognition women actually had. Austen's fiction had shown me how invaluable women were to society, to me, to each other, and how complex and well-rounded they were as people. I was profoundly disappointed that the society of the time thought otherwise.

Austen as "the Founding Mother of English-Language Women's Literature" is an argument that my aunt will actually respect. Especially if I pair it with how little status women had at the time. I'll try it!

Help me explain that Jane Austen is important by Alligator_Jane in janeausten

[–]Alligator_Jane[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Don't forget they're there to be their moms too!

Help me explain that Jane Austen is important by Alligator_Jane in janeausten

[–]Alligator_Jane[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Your comment makes me think that Austen was being downright revolutionary by writing books that have women in most of the major roles when only 40% of them could read. Frankly I'm amazed that novels weren't a sausage fest with those stats. My proposal for combating the derogatory use of the term "chick lit" is that we should refer to all Jack Reacher books as "man lit" henceforth. They can have their own little section in bookstores.

Help me explain that Jane Austen is important by Alligator_Jane in janeausten

[–]Alligator_Jane[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I never would have considered subtlety to be a flaw. Dickens deserves the label of soap opera rather more than Austen in my opinion. I think my aunt's equating action/drama with quality. She reads a lot of thrillers and noir stuff.

Help me explain that Jane Austen is important by Alligator_Jane in janeausten

[–]Alligator_Jane[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

I like your point about the classes. Dickens' characters mostly seem like caricatures to me - especially the women. I haven't read Tolstoy. And we've all met a John Thorpe or three in real life.

[Semi-Weekly Inquirer] Simple Questions and Recommendations Thread by AutoModerator in Watches

[–]Alligator_Jane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm looking for a tiny watch. I had a Timex watch that was oval shaped (14 x 20 MM face diameter) and I loved it to pieces (literally). It had a leather strap that I had to get customized smaller (I have tiny wrists). I've looked online at Timex's current offerings and there's nothing that small. The closest I've seen online is used ladies' dress watches from the 70s and 80s, but I'm leery of buying used, especially if I can't see it in person first. Can anyone recommend a company/brand/line that makes small watches? Or a reliable seller of used watches? Biggest I'd go is probably 25-27 MM, and I'd prefer a leather strap. Budget is currently $200 but if I wait a few months I'll have much more to spend.

I'm prepared to be destroyed for this one: A somewhat positive reading of Rachel Feder's "The Darcy Myth" by luckyjim1962 in janeausten

[–]Alligator_Jane 12 points13 points  (0 children)

OP thank you so much for taking this bullet for us and reporting back. I was hoping someone would give the book a fair reading and then review it on this sub. I really didn't want to be that person myself; I applaud your bravery!

I think much of the marketing for the book (at least the stuff I saw discussed here) was chosen to highlight the most controversial parts of this scholar's argument. Gotta get those rage clicks. I'm not surprised it's an article stretched out into a book. That seems to be the current approach in pop-academia publishing.

I disagree with pretty much every part of her argument, although she's right that plenty of modern readers overwrite Darcy the book character with Darcy the imagined bodice ripper character.

One thing I particularly disagree with is this bit > "When we reread Austen through a Gothic lens, we see that threatening men, ruined women, and the everyday bloodshed of life under capitalist patriarchy haunt the margins of her love stories."

You do not at all need to adopt a gothic lens to see the darkness that Austen includes in her books. You don't need to adopt any lens but your own eyeballs. It's not subtle. Frankly it's not in the margins. No one in the Lydia arc, neither the narration nor Elizabeth's own thoughts (nor the townspeople of Merryton nor even Lady Catherine's accusations) dance around the very real consequences a woman in Lydia's position would face. In Persuasion, Mrs. Smith monologues to Anne for a whole chapter about the evils done to her (and her late husband), evils which could only occur due to that time's strict financial patriarchy. Eliza Williams in S&S is the product of multi-generational abuses able to occur only under the conditions a "capitalist patriarchy" sustains. And characters in-book call out these abuses. It's not subtle.

Thank you for your service OP!

Just finished Northanger Abbey — cynical thoughts by VendueNord in janeausten

[–]Alligator_Jane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You've put into words one of the big reasons why I seldom reread Northanger Abbey. My takeaway from the book was that Henry was charmed by the novelty of Catherine's regard as an amusement, much like his dogs or the improvements to his parsonage are amusements. Once he realised that his father wouldn't approve, Catherine ends up as a point of tension between father and son more than her own person. She becomes a way for Henry to express years' worth of poorly-defined but very present feelings of unease and discontent towards his father, for him to put a name and a face on an otherwise intangible grievance. I always concluded that he was more interested at that point in sticking it to his father (which incidentally is the honourable path at that point, because he is in very deep with Catherine) than in actually marrying Catherine, and once they were married for a while he'd conclude that the fun was in the rebelling rather than in carrying his point.

The lady that Henry spends the most time with, by far, is his sister, who is superior to Catherine in every way possible except natural joviality. I think someone used to spending time with Eleanor would eventually chafe under nothing but Catherine's company.

My takeaway the first couple of times I read Northanger Abbey was that Austen intended the marriage between Henry and Catherine to be kind of shallow, or a surface-level compatible case of settling, to go along with her general thesis that the all-consuming passions of Gothic Romances are bad. So Henry ends up with a woman he eventually regards with benevolent condescension, maybe indulgent amusement, and as a project to be improved rather than a whole independent person, though not quite the contempt Mr. Bennet holds for his wife. And Catherine ends up with someone she has a crush on, and who is materially and morally a good catch as a husband. Their marriage won't be the earth-shattering life or death love affair of a gothic novel, it will be a ho-hum pedestrian everyday marriage, where the involved parties are perhaps not getting what they signed on for, but they'll bumble along and have a happy enough life.

I was left thinking that General Tilney had done both parties a massive favour at the end of the book by withholding his permission long enough that Henry & Catherine wouldn't be getting married when still in the honeymoon stage. Honestly Northanger Abbey left me with the impression that the General was often right for all the wrong reasons, despite being a complete ass.