The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Welcome to week two! If you have read this far you might as well accept that you’re in until the end – even if you aren’t necessarily enjoying the book.

This was an eventful section. Before we get to it though let’s recap the discussion (so far) from week one.

It looks like several of us have read The Master by Colm Toibin. We also have at least one person (Lily) who really enjoys James. Her enthusiasm has kept me motivated. One of the common refrains through the posts has been that James’s prose is dense and perhaps difficult. I’ve been looking for the right adjective all week, but so far all I’ve come up with is “dry.” There have though been a few laugh-out-loud moments, but even the humor is dry. Helen in the UK contends that the novel is less formal than other nineteenth century novels. I would agree that there isn’t much formality in our American characters. However, returning to the idea of dryness, I feel that our narrator is rather stiff and formal. Of course the other topic that ran through the first week’s thread was the contrast between England and America. I’m sure we can agree that James continues to develop the contrast in these chapters.

Here’s a quick refresher on what we read this week.

Chapter 8 – We are introduced to Lord Warburton’s radical politics. He tells Isabel, “[Americans] were rank Tories and bigots, every one of them; there were no conservatives like American conservatives.” Isabel feels Warburton gives her no credit for her experience and imagines he thinks she is a barbarian. Isabel and Ralph discuss why Warburton is to be pitied.

Chapter 9 – Isabel pays a visit to Lockleigh and meets Warburton’s sisters. She makes a point of stating they are not morbid. Was she being sincere or ironic? They were, after all, dressed in black velvet, which could certainly denote elegance but could just as easily be taken for morbidity. (I’ll develop this idea of irony later). There is a budding flirtation between Warburton and Isabel.

Chapter 10 – Henrietta Stackpole arrives. Once again the motif of the distinction between American and English occurs. Ms. Stackpole tells Ralph if she knew what he considered himself (American or English) she’d know how to talk to him. She turns out to be a severe interrogator, especially of Ralph.

Chapter 11 – We learn that Casper Goodwood has come to England and is in love with Isabel.

Chapter 12 – If we didn’t already guess it we learn that Warburton is also in love with Isabel. What we may not have expected is the hasty proposal.

Chapter 13 – Isabel discusses the proposal with Mr. Touchett. An overview of Goodwood’s life is given. Isabel writes her rejection letter to Lord Warburton. Ralph and Henrietta continue their witty, sometimes sharp exchanges. Goodwood declines the offer to stay at Gardencourt. Henrietta is determined to get back to London.

Chapter 14 – Ms. Stackpole turns her piercing eye and sharp tongue on Lord Warburton, who doesn’t quite know how to take her. Warburton and Isabel discuss the rejection of the proposal. Isabel hints at a vague idea of it being her fate to be unhappy.

Here are some thoughts that came to mind as I was reading this section:

Isabel uses the word “picturesque” repeatedly. I’m not quite sure what to make of this. My impression is that she wants to see the world in a romantic way.

I saw multiple instances of what I took to be irony. For example, in chapter ten the narrator describes Henrietta thus – “She was a thoroughly good-natured woman, and half an hour later she was in as cheerful a mood as should have been looked for in a newspaper-correspondent in want of material.” I see irony working at two levels here. First, Ms. Stackpole isn’t a “thoroughly good-natured woman.” Second, even if she did have a generally good-natured temperament she would have been quite put out by not having anything to write about. Another example of irony occurs in Isabel’s rejection letter. She tells Warburton, “… not to return to the subject we discussed so exhaustively.” Exhaustively? They certainly did not discuss the proposal exhaustively. The critic Harold Bloom says that irony is one of the most important, though one of the most neglected (by readers), aspects of literature. Has anyone else seen other examples of irony? Perhaps James is taking an ironic stance toward romance novels and the idea of immediately falling in love with the new arrival (doesn’t that happen all the time in British novels?)

I can’t remember what thread it was, but someone was complaining about James’s “two-page long sentences.” I imagine that is an exaggeration, but it does draw attention to the fact James uses what I consider to be complex sentences. Here’s an example from chapter eleven that caught my attention:

“Her situation at Gardencourt, therefore, appreciated as we have seen her to be by Isabel, and full of appreciation herself of that fine freedom of composition which, to her sense, rendered Isabel’s character a sister-spirit, and of the easy venerableness of Mr. Touchett, whose general tone, as she said, met with her full approval – her situation at Gardencourt would have been perfectly comfortable, had she not conceived an irresistible mistrust of the little lady to whom she had at first supposed herself to pay a certain deference as mistress of the house.”

What a sentence! Is this beautiful, obtuse, or pretentious? (or some other adjective)

Turning to our heroine, what do we know about Isabel Archer? How do we feel about her? Henrietta is concerned that she is changing and becoming English. I’m not sure I’ve seen much character development to this point. I certainly like her more than Ms. Stackpole, but roughly a quarter of the way into the novel I’m not sure I feel a connection to any of the characters.

And finally, not to beat a dead horse, but the references to reading and authors were once again abundant. Here are some highlights –

Chapter 9 – “… she had even read by some ingenious author that [the English] were, at the bottom, the most romantic of races.”

Chapter 12 – “It may appear to some readers…” “At the risk of making the reader smile…” (which it didn’t) and “It was love at first sight, as the novels say.”

Chapter 13 – “The reader has a right…”

Then we have a very interesting conversation between Henrietta and Ralph that I hope will spark some discussion. No doubt many of you caught the allusion to Shakespeare’s The Tempest (don’t worry if you haven’t read it, it’s not essential to the plot of our novel). Ralph refers to himself as Caliban, which is certainly a strange character to relate to. Was this an example of Ralph’s humility? Henrietta then corrects him and tells him he is Prospero because he changed Isabel. I find it fascinating when authors have their characters reading real books. My mind is immediately drawn to what I think is one of the most important examples of this in nineteenth century literature – the Creature in Frankenstein who reads Milton, Goethe, a history, and another work that escapes my mind at the moment. The books the Creature reads, especially Paradise Lost, become crucial to his later development. I doubt we’ll see The Tempest as a recurring theme in our novel, but it will be interesting to see if James uses other authors in the remainder of the book. (He does mention Dickens at the end of the chapter).

The passage I really find interesting is, “But I am not talking about imaginary characters; I am talking about Isabel. Isabel is intensely real.” Metafiction and irony!

Hopefully that’s enough (and not too much) to get the conversation rolling. And of course don’t feel restricted by what I’ve brought up – I’m hoping someone will draw attention to something I missed.

I haven't finished this week's reading. I think I am around the beginning of Chapter 13. Things seem to have moved very quickly in the last few chapters. I find it astonishing that Warburton would propose to Isabel on such short acquaintance. I'll be interested to get a more direct look at Casper Goodwood. (Is his name some kind of joke?) Just at the moment, I am having trouble understanding what is supposed to be so appealing about Isabel. She seems very self-absorbed (which is probably natural given her age).

Casceil wrote: "I haven't finished this week's reading. I think I am around the beginning of Chapter 13. Things seem to have moved very quickly in the last few chapters. I find it astonishing that Warburton wou..."

Judging by the lack of responses I don't think you're alone in not having finished the section. Silver created the reading schedule - we can modify it if it would fit the group's schedule better. Let me know what you think. Personally, I don't think the sections are long, but they are time consuming because I'm reading slower than usual.

I don't think the reading schedule needs to be adjusted. I think I just came into with a slightly different view of what the schedule meant. I assumed that we would be reading chapters 8-14 during this week, not that we would be finished by Monday. But now that I know that, I can probably finish the week 3 reading by next Monday.

Casceil wrote: "...Just at the moment, I am having trouble understanding what is supposed to be so appealing about Isabel...."

I don't know that Isabel Archer is appealing so much as a rather fascinating character study -- as are so many of James characters, I'm going to say, especially his women, although that may be unfair. I just haven't seen many others probe the female psyche quite so deeply, at least to his era, even though I may be troubled or not in agreement or in question about what he seems to observe.

I find fascinating Emma's comment elsewhere in this discussion that Eliot's character in Daniel Deronda may have been a take-off point or inspiration or otherwise provoked James's character. Makes me wish I had read DD, even though other tbr opportunities had a greater call when it was discussed on the Western Canon board. I can well imagine James responding to an intellectual challenge from Eliot, whether or no he had been willing to admit it.

Jeremy wrote: "...We also have at least one person (Lily) who really enjoys James. ..."

If I came across that way, I really didn't intend to be so obvious! It is sort of a love/hate relationship. I resent that he is so difficult to read -- and for me to interpret. I love that he pushes me and makes available the thoughts of a subtle, sophisticated mind with which to wrestle, whether it is worth the effort or no. [g]

I think Chris is the person we should ask. Where are you, Chris?

Casceil wrote: "I don't think the reading schedule needs to be adjusted. I think I just came into with a slightly different view of what the schedule meant. I assumed that we would be reading chapters 8-14 durin..."

I'm probably in the minority in my understanding of the schedule. I'll continue to open the discussion thread for the week on the first day of the schedule though. Of course everyone is free to enter the conversation when they like. However, the advantage to having everyone on roughly the same schedule is that it reduces potential spoilers. If someone asks this week whether Isabel is going to get married, then we can all speculate (except those who have read the book). Four weeks from now if someone posts a question in this thread we can't respond without restraint. It's harder to bounce ideas around about what may happen if you already know what has happened.

Lily wrote: "Jeremy wrote: "...We also have at least one person (Lily) who really enjoys James. ..."

If I came across that way, I really didn't intend to be so obvious! It is sort of a love/hate relationship...."

Considering the number of his books you've read I thought he must be a favorite author of yours. I'm intrigued by the idea of having a love/hate relationship with an author. I have a love/hate relationship with cake. I love the taste and hate the effect on my body. With authors and books I'm either hot, cold, or tepid, but never hot and cold at the same time. I understand your explanation, but I would never read as many James novels as you have unless I had unqualified love for him. If I had to guess now, I'd say I'll probably only read two more of his works in my lifetime.

Jeremy wrote: "...'Her situation at Gardencourt, therefore, appreciated as we have seen her to be by Isabel, and full of appreciation herself of that fine freedom of composition which, to her sense, rendered Isabel’s character a sister-spirit, and of the easy venerableness of Mr. Touchett, whose general tone, as she said, met with her full approval – her situation at Gardencourt would have been perfectly comfortable, had she not conceived an irresistible mistrust of the little lady to whom she had at first supposed herself to pay a certain deference as mistress of the house.'

What a sentence! Is this beautiful, obtuse, or pretentious? (or some other adjective)..."

I'd say all of the above, although a little awkward for me to be comfortable about "beautiful." Is "she" here "Harriet" and the "mistress of the house," Mrs. Touchett?

Casceil wrote: "Just at the moment, I am having trouble understanding what is supposed to be so appealing about Isabel. "

I'm with you there. I'm finding her not only very self-absorbed, but also tiresome and false.

Lily wrote: "Makes me wish I had read DD, ..."

I wish you had, too! [g]

Jeremy wrote: "I'm probably in the minority in my understanding of the schedule. I'll continue to open the discussion thread for the week on the first day of the schedule though."

Your understanding is also mine, even though I'm a few chapters behind because on top of my GR groups I'm taking two Coursera courses which both involve heavy reading loads. But I do appreciate your posting the sections promptly and your very helpful summaries of the chapters.

Lily wrote: " Is "she" here "Harriet" and the "mistress of the house," Mrs. Touchett? "

That reminds me that I am also finding James's use of pronouns to be sometimes quite unclear. In Chapter 6, I think it was, in particularly I had a great deal of difficulty keeping track of who each of his female pronouns was referring to, and even after some re-reading and head scratching I'm not sure I got it right.

Overall, I agree with your comment above that "I resent that he is so difficult to read -- and for me to interpret." I enjoy challenging texts, but I enjoy them a lot more when the challenge is thinking about the content, and not simply trying to figure out what the sentences mean on their most basic level.

Lily wrote: "Jeremy wrote: "...'Her situation at Gardencourt, therefore, appreciated as we have seen her to be by Isabel, and full of appreciation herself of that fine freedom of composition which, to her sense..."

This sentence occurs at the beginning of chapter. I had to read it twice. Then I read it again as I was typing it. Now I've read it a fourth time. The "her" is Ms. Stackpole, but as Everyman noted, James's use of pronouns isn't always entirely clear.

Jeremy wrote: "...James's use of pronouns isn't always entirely clear. ..."

rflol. For WotD, I almost threw the book across the room -- more than once! But I have now read enough HJ that I'm not certain that ambiguity in antecedents is independent of content. It becomes almost an authorly device to force a different kind of concentration on nuances of words and meanings than most readings expect. I've not read enough criticism on James to know what they say -- I'm just commenting on personal experience driven by WotD, "Turn of the Screw," and "The Aspern Papers." (More so than others.) James has never been about "the big picture" for me -- much more about the crazy, quirky choices humans make in the recesses of their own personalities, strengths, weaknesses, sexual proclivities (about which HJ of course virtually never speaks directly -- "fears" may be the better choice of word here), social status, economic resources, familial experiences, cultural background, .... One of the things I do find of interest in HJ is a sense of probing what is moral versus immoral behavior -- with easy conclusions largely sidestepped or left for the reader to ponder.

(And it just may be that the seeming carelessness about referents is an artifact of HJ dictating much of what he wrote -- but I don't know if that autobiographical tidbit is consistent across his lifetime or only later. Also, he must certainly have had written copy to read and to edit.)

I tried to read The Wings of the Dove, but about a third of the way in, I moved it to my "try again later" shelf. I do think Henry James' sentences became more convoluted in his later writing.

Casceil wrote: "I tried to read The Wings of the Dove, but about a third of the way in, I moved it to my "try again later" shelf. I do think Henry James' sentences became more convoluted in his late..."

It was only Millicent Bell and help from a friend that got me through WotD, but that experience did seem to be what "broke open" HJ for me. I'd always hated even "Turn of the Screw", but now I could go back and read it, albeit not necessarily fathom it, and likewise for "The Aspern Papers." It helped to eventually learn many critics suggest TotS is ambiguous and/or offer widely differing interpretations. (Sometimes sort of like trying to figure out the "reality" of an Escher drawing.)

This discussion on the challenges of James's style (which I find quite challenging) make me begin to wonder whether the outcome of the literary journey will be worth the effort required to make that journey.

Everyman wrote: "This discussion on the challenges of James's style (which I find quite challenging) make me begin to wonder whether the outcome of the literary journey will be worth the effort required to make tha..."

HJ's no more difficult or challenging than things you read regularly, Plato, et al. Perhaps in different ways, however.

Lily wrote: "HJ's no more difficult or challenging than things you read regularly, Plato, et al. Perhaps in different ways, however.
"

True. But the different ways is also very true. Those I read regularly (well, not Aristotle or Kant, but many of them) tend to be difficult in content but not so difficult in language. HJ seems to be fairly accessible in content but far from that in the writing.

Everyman wrote: "...HJ seems to be fairly accessible in content but far from that in the writing. ..."

My gut feeling is that in HJ, frustrating though it be, a fair amount of the content is in the writing. "The Turn of the Screw" is the prime example to me, with "The Aspern Papers" running a close second, among what I have read. I don't know how to describe it better than to say there is many a passage for which I have gone back and said, oh, was that what HJ was trying to communicate? Maybe I like it because sometimes it's like trying to figure out my own tangled lines of reasoning when the world offers too many (conflicting) possibilities.

At places it also seems to be too easy to create little stories of explanation around what HJ does write -- and then to have to wonder, was that what HJ wanted his writer to assume. Key current example (this may lapse into week 2 -- not checking for spoiler possibility): Why does Warburton so abruptly propose to Isabel without a respectable effort/period of courting? Is there something about their class differences or expectations of British aristocrat towards American pulchritude or .... that HJ expects his reader to know, making the action more plausible? Or is W. just foolish? Or must he act before being stopped by his family? Or...?

I consider Henry James worth the effort, but it would be hard to articulate why. Once you get into his writing, it becomes easier to read, and I think the author makes some very keen observations about human nature. He also has a very wry sense of humor that can be fun.

I'm so glad I had't read all the discussion about the difficulty of James' style before I was committed to this book. Although it a read that requires concentration and cannot be rushed, I'm not particularly struggling with the style. I am enjoying the characters and am intrigued to learn more about Goodwood, Miss Stackpole and why Isabel believes she "can't escape unhappiness".

I really enjoyed this: delicious irony, I would even call it a comedy even (up to chapter 14 at least). But hidden not far beneath it, the very serious business of characters trying to realize their "true selves". A game which we are invited to join.

The language I find mesmerizing. I do not mind losing a sentence. Or two. There is so much, and I will return, deo volente. Anyway, meaning seems not so very fixed here - there is just as much ambivalence as there is in real life. Which may explain why this is not a book for those who strongly believe (like Henrietta) that truth has no versions.

Even while their outlines are not drawn in black and white, the characters are not very complicated. The one that we really need to think about is Isabel (a happy reverse of the situation in Bleak House, where secondary characters were the main interest).

If I may highlight one scene I would select the very end of chapter 12 where Isabel sits down to consider Warburtons proposal, but is actually considering how her refusal reflects upon herself:

Who was she, what was she, that she should hold herself superior? What view of life, what design upon fate, what conception of happiness, had she that pretended to be larger than these large(,) these fabulous occasions? If she wouldn't do such a thing as that then she must do great things, she must do something greater. Poor Isabel found ground to remind herself from time to time that she must not be too proud, and nothing could be more sincere than her prayer to be delivered from such a danger: the isolation and loneliness of pride had for her mind the horror of a desert place. If it had been pride that interfered with her accepting Lord Warburton such a betise was singularly misplaced; and she was so conscious of liking him that she ventured to assure herself it was the very softness, and the fine intelligence, of sympathy. She liked him too much to marry him, that was the truth;

How we love to provide our deeds with some clear and noble motivation!

Wendel wrote: "How we love to provide our deeds with some clear and noble motivation! ..."

Wendel -- your words lead me to contrast this passage with Elizabeth's refusal of Darcy's first proposal in Pride and Prejudice. [Smile.]

I finally finished Chapter 14 last night. I continue to be surprised at just how rude and abrasive Henrietta is, particularly when talking to Lord Warburton. Is the author just making a point that this character behaves badly, or is this supposed to be a comment on how different manners are in America and England?

I think James is deliberately stereotyping Henrietta as a brash and rude American in England, as compared to the quiet and discrete Isobel, who thinks Henrietta's voice is too loud. May I say here that when I first met Americans in London in the 1950s I too found them loud and rude because they were generally bigger than Brits (better wartime food), spoke in loud voices which everyone could hear and wore colourful clothes, not grey and beige like ours. I remember being accosted once by a large American matron in a department store, who took hold of my coat sleeve and asked me where I had bought my coat, which I, a quiet, retiring, English young lady, thought very rude:) American servicemen too were bigger and brasher (healthier) than British forces, which I observed in my home town where many came on leave from nearby airfields.

In my youth (and in James' day) Brits were known for their quiet behaviour in public and private. No-one spoke on tubes or buses and well brought up people kept their voices low. To raise your voice in public would be to 'act like a costermonger', touting their wares at markets. Unfortunately this has now changed and everyone is noisy everywhere, 'letting it all hang out' , so if Americans are still noisy, no-one would notice:)

Also, as I mentioned earlier, it is likely that James, like other 19C authors, was using the racial stereotyping found in popular American books on phrenology, as mentioned here:-

www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/20...

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/p...

Madge wrote: "In my youth (and in James' day) Brits were known for their quiet behaviour in public and private. No-one spoke on tubes or buses and well brought up people kept their voices low... "

Yes, I think the differences between English and American manners must have been much more marked in James' day than now. I don't think think Henrietta would see herself as being deliberately rude, merely as unafraid to speak her mind. When she's rebuked by Isabel for having "no sense of privacy", she blushes deeply, although she doesn't really get Isabel's point about "being modest for others also" - others are just specimens for her to observe. In a way her role is equivalent to the author's, though without his omniscience.

Her observation of Ralph (in chap 10) makes him, "as a very modest man, feel vaguely embarrassed - less inviolate, more dishonoured, than he liked." I wonder if this is the effect of being observed by a woman who is assuming the freedom of gaze and right to judgement usually allocated to men. But her gaze is also disconcertingly inhuman, with those button eyes. At one point they're described as ocular surfaces, an odd phrase which makes her sound like a specimen herself. She is just as much an object for observation to Ralph as he is to her, though perhaps she doesn't realise it.

Lily wrote: "Wendel -- your words lead me to contrast this passage with Elizabeth's refusal of Darcy's first proposal ..."

(view spoiler)[Well, in both novels a girl of limited means turns down a suitor with considerable 'exterior and interior qualities'. Lack of passion is not the main reason - in fact in both cases surprisingly little is said about the girl's own romantic feelings (at this stage).

Elizabeth refuses Darcy because of his behavior towards others (and cries for half an hour). Isabel on the other hand seems to reject her suitor to retain her independence, her visions of greater things to come.

At this point in P&P the nadir is almost reached, it is after all a comedy of errors. In PoaL however we just got started, and notwithstanding all James’s banter, I suspect dark clouds behind the horizon. (hide spoiler)]

Wendel wrote: "Elizabeth refuses Darcy because of his behavior towards others (and cries for half an hour)."

We're not discussing P&P here, so not the place to get into reasons or discussion of it, but I strongly disagree with this view.

Everyman wrote: "Wendel wrote: "Elizabeth refuses Darcy because of his behavior towards others (and cries for half an hour)."

We're not discussing P&P here, so not the place to get into reasons or discussion of it..."

There have been multiple posts about how Isabel compares to other characters, so feel free to discuss how she compares to Elizabeth. It's been more than ten years since I read Pride and Prejudice. I don't remember the details clearly, but I thought Elizabeth refuses Mr. Darcy because she thinks he's arrogant.

Jeremy wrote: ...but I thought Elizabeth refuses Mr. Darcy because she thinks he's arrogant.

Chapter 36 of P&P certainly cites arrogance and disdain for the feelings of others. Although Elizabeth first cites Darcy's interference in the proposed marriage of her sister and his cruel treatment of Wickham as reasons for her refusal she goes on to say: 'From the very beginning -- from the first moment, I may almost say -- of my acquaintance with you, your manners, impressing me with the fullest belief of your arrogance, your conceit, and your selfish disdain of the feelings of others, were such as to form that groundwork of disapprobation on which succeeding events have built so immoveable a dislike; and I had not known you a month before I felt that you were the last man in the world whom I could ever be prevailed on to marry.'

Isabel and Elizabeth are both strong women of the kind James admires and perhaps turning down a proposal of marriage when you are an impoverished woman with no means of earning a living could be said to make them similar. Also, after rejecting their suitors they both reflected upon their own behaviour as Wendel detailed in post #24 above and as shown by Elizabeth's reaction in Chapter 36 of P&P, after subsequently receiving Darcy's letter of explanation:

She grew absolutely ashamed of herself. Of neither Darcy nor Wickham could she think without feeling that she had been blind, partial, prejudiced, absurd.

' "How despicably have I acted!" she cried; "I, who have prided myself on my discernment! I, who have valued myself on my abilities! who have often disdained the generous candour of my sister, and gratified my vanity in useless or blameable distrust. How humiliating is this discovery! yet, how just a humiliation! Had I been in love, I could not have been more wretchedly blind. But vanity, not love, has been my folly. Pleased with the preference of one, and offended by the neglect of the other, on the very beginning of our acquaintance, I have courted prepossession and ignorance, and driven reason away, where either were concerned. Till this moment I never knew myself."'

What appears to separate the two women is that Isabel, the new woman, is looking to 'do something greater' than marriage whereas Elizabeth will be content with it as long as there is love, which showed her as being as much a woman of her times as Isabel was of hers (loveless, often arranged marriages having been the norm).

Madge wrote: "Jeremy wrote: ...but I thought Elizabeth refuses Mr. Darcy because she thinks he's arrogant.

Chapter 36 of P&P certainly cites arrogance and disdain for the feelings of others. Although Elizabeth ..."

Madge -- you might want to consider whether to put your comments about P&P in < spoiler > notation. I know you and Rochelle ultimately came to my defense when I once made some oblique comments about the fate of Lily in Wharton's The House of Mirth while dealing with another book, but I have never forgotten the intensity of that discussion (one reader in particular, whose identity I have perhaps deliberately forgotten) and have been sensitive about spoilers in a different way ever since. Many of you know, I think it is highly desirable and valuable to be able to have these inter-textual discussions on venues like these. I just still continue to struggle with the preferences and concerns of the variety of readers among us.

Sorry Lily.I didn't realise the above ref to Poal was a spoiler as Wendel had referred to it above and we are not reading P&P here (or in R&R). I don't think we can or should protect readers here from everything they may come across in their reading elsewhere. A certain robustness is useful when reading any literary analysis. And the world has surely seen enough representations of P&P to know its outcome at every turn.

Neither did I - I will edit my comment. I do think though that these comparisons are useful and should not be avoided. I hope E'man will elucidate his objections.

Madge wrote: "Sorry Lily.I didn't realise the above Poal was a spoiler as Wendel had referred to it above and I didn't think we were reading P&P here, just referring to it. I don't think we can or should protect..."

My spoiler comments were relative to P&P, not POAL. To me it is a sticky area. Personally, I think we should not need to be tightly concerned. But hard experience leads me to suggest, let's at least talk about it a bit. I, too, could be accused of being careless in msg 25.

A bit more on where my thought process was going about the two characters:
(view spoiler)[ Wendel wrote: "How we love to provide our deeds with some clear and noble motivation!"

It struck me that both Elizabeth and Isabel made their refusals to attractive suitors with what was a bit of naive self justification for their actions. Which one of the characters grew more over the course of their respective novels could be another interesting discussion, but I didn't go there in the quick reaction caught @Msg 25. (hide spoiler)]

I am sorry but I do not agree with this approach. It is too 'precious'. Perhaps Jeremy would adjudicate: Should all references to and quotes from other novels be treated as potential spoilers?

I like being able to discuss characters and books openly -- it seems to me such permits looking at both changing attitudes of and towards women/people/.. and at changes in expectations for the arc of a novel. But I have learned the need to stay aware of the preferences of other participants.

If it was up to me I'd say spoilers only apply to the current novel. I also agree that P&P is too well known to fret about spoilers. If anyone disagrees I think the best course of action is to contact a moderator for her input.

Thx all for the input. Sorry about the diversion.

Lily wrote: "Thx all for the input. Sorry about the diversion."

Lily, I only had access to my phone yesterday and couldn't provide a full response to your concerns about spoilers.

I understand and appreciate your empathy for readers who are upset by spoilers. The question is how accommodating should we be. When it comes to Pride and Prejudice I think you are either from a non-English speaking country, are under fourteen, or aren't really interested in reading from this time period in the first place if you don't know the basic outline of the story. If this was a general reading group then I would be inclined to mark spoilers. This is a fairly focused group though - if you have an interest in this literature you're probably familiar with Austen. The second point that I would make is that only a handful of us have been participating in the conversation. I don't think we should have to go out of our way for people who aren't actively contributing.

Potential spoilers relating to comparisons to other novels don't bother me. Often When I haven't come across the other book before it can make me curious to find out more rather than put me off it :)

Helen_in_the_uk wrote: "Potential spoilers relating to comparisons to other novels don't bother me. Often When I haven't come across the other book before it can make me curious to find out more rather than put me off it :)"

Me too. And by the time I get around to reading it I've probably forgotten what the spoiler was anyway.

Wendel wrote: "Neither did I - I will edit my comment. I do think though that these comparisons are useful and should not be avoided. I hope E'man will elucidate his objections."

Since Jeremy has permitted the diversion into P&P, I'll just say that your comment I was responding to was "Elizabeth refuses Darcy because of his behavior towards others (and cries for half an hour)."

My reading of the incident in Chapter XI, which I assume was what you were referring to, is that she refused him for three (at least) basic reasons.

One, "her deeply-rooted dislike," which his proposal has not overcome.

Two, that she considers the manner of his proposal an insult: "'I might as well enquire,' replied she, 'why with os evident a design of offendign andinsulting me, you chose to tell me that you liked me against your will, against your reason, and even against your character." She has far too much self-esteem to accept a proposal made in such a manner.

Three, the report about him from Wickham: "'But it is not merely this affair,' she continued, 'on which my dislke is founded....Your character was unfolded in the recital which I received many months ago from Mr. Wickham'" That point is perhaps one which supports your theory, but I think it is the weakest of the reasons.

My sense of the incident, which may be wrong, is that if the proposal had been made as proposals should be, on bended knee, with true affection clearly shown, respectfully and kindly, she would have accepted him. But of course that would have made for a very different book, and Austen's way was much better.

Everyman wrote: "...She has far too much self-esteem ..."

Austen chose to use the word "pride"? HJ would have stewed over the nuances ad infinitum. [g]

#44: Gosh Everyman, are you saying that Elizabeth's No could have meant Yes at this juncture (Chapter 34 P&P):-

'Elizabeth felt herself growing more angry every moment; yet she tried to the utmost to speak with composure when she said --

You are mistaken, Mr. Darcy, if you suppose that the mode of your declaration affected me in any other way, than as it spared me the concern which I might have felt in refusing you, had you behaved in a more gentlemanlike manner." [towards her sister and towards Wickham.].....

"You could not have made me the offer of your hand in any possible way that would have tempted me to accept it.,

   "From the very beginning -- from the first moment, I may almost say -- of my acquaintance with you, your manners, impressing me with the fullest belief of your arrogance, your conceit, and your selfish disdain of the feelings of others, were such as to form that groundwork of disapprobation on which succeeding events have built so immoveable a dislike; and I had not known you a month before I felt that you were the last man in the world whom I could ever be prevailed on to marry."'

Had Darcy gone down on bended knee I think she might have pushed him over:)

Isabel does not treat her suitors as badly despite being a 'new woman' and perhaps could have benefitted from Elizabeth's unladylike feistiness.

Reading Darcy's proposal again reminded me how different, as another English aristocrat, he was to Lord Warburton who, in Chapter 12, makes his charming and affable proposal to Isabel, who refuses him because she values her liberty not because he has been a bad egg like Darcy. Nor does he storm off like Darcy but retains his English upper class cool. It is a very different proposal scene to that in P&P and I wondered whether this was deliberate on James' part and whether he admired the English aristocracy more than Austen did.

Madge wrote: "Isabel does not treat her suitors as badly despite being a 'new woman' and perhaps could have benefitted from Elizabeth's unladylike feistiness...."

I'm sitting here laughing at your comment above and @47, Madge! Delightful perspective/possibilities! Or perhaps not so delightful or at least more complicated re HJ -- for all his American ideals of freedom and liberty, still an awe for certain aspects of British/continental ways and structure?

Madge wrote: "#44: Gosh Everyman, are you saying that Elizabeth's No could have meant Yes at this juncture (Chapter 34 P&P):-"

Actually, yes I am. Not necessarily would, but certainly could. I read her as being highly offended by his arrogant manner of proposing (and rightly so), and so pulling out all the reasons she could think of to hurt his feelings as badly as he has hurt hers.

OK. It is a pity we are not discussing P&P as your p.o.v. is an interesting one. I guess you therefore approved of Lord Warburton's gentlemanly proposal to Isabel and perhaps think that James should have had Isabel marry him instead of reversing the P&P plot? Although that is perhaps a question better answered at the end of PoaL.