Favorite Fiction--2016

Some favorite works of fiction I read during 2016,

FIRST READS

Sarah Orne Jewett:
                  The Country of Pointed Firs
                   --my first reading of her masterpiece.  Why did I take so long to get to it?
                   --this is on my must reread list.

                   A Country Doctor
                   --this one is a bit weaker than the first, but still an excellent read. and better     
                      than 90% of the other works I've read this year.


Joseph Conrad:  Suspense
 --an unfinished novel set in the Napoleonic era.
 --a traveler gets involved with a plot of Napoleon's escape from Elba.

Ray Bradbury:         Farewell Summer

--the sequel to Dandelion Wine.  The tone is different in this one.  The boy resists growing up.

Graham Greene:    The Human Factor
--a spy novel.  The unmasking of a mole in the British secret service, told from the mole's point of view.

Nathaniel Hawthorne:: The Celestial Railroad and Other Stories
--a collection of some of Hawthorne's most well-known short works.
--decided to leave this in the First Reads grouping as there were several short stories that I hadn't read before.


Kazuo Ishiguro:   The Remains of the Day

--a great novel of repression and fear of commitment, set against the backdrop of WWII.   

--his master is a Nazi sympathizer and the butler refuses to go against his master for he  is the master.

REREADS:


Jane Austen:
                   Lady Susan/The Watsons/Sanditon
                   Northanger Abbey
                   Mansfield Park
                   Emma
                   Sense and Sensibility
                   Persuasion
                   Pride and Prejudice

--as always, great reading.  This was my fifth? sixth? who knows how many readings I've had of her works over the years.  They are just as good, if not better, the fifth? time around as the first.

A. Solzhenitsyn:   One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
--the title says it all--one day in a Soviet Union era gulag in Siberia, based loosely on his time there.  I like to pair this one with Dostoyevsky's The House of the Dead, his experiences in a Siberian prison camp during the reign of the Tsars.  Forced to make a choice, I would choose life there under the Tsars.  The treatment was cruel but  much more humane than under the commissars. 


Dostoyevsky:   "The Gambler"
--Dostoyevsky's great novella depicting the downfall of an gambling addict.
--great character study of numerous Russians traveling abroad. sometimes just for travel and sometimes to avoid debt collectors back home.  Comic figures trapped within a tragic story.


Evelyn Waugh:   Brideshead Revisited
--Flashback:  an English army officer finds his unit stationed  on one of the grand   
   estates and recognizes it as the one that had a great influence on him, beginning with
   his stay at Oxford.

--there's a great BBC TV adaptation of the book.  After watching it, I went out and 

   got the book.


Herman Melville:  “Benito Cereno”

--Melville's great novella regarding the slave trade and a very naive American ship captain.


Nikos Kazantzakis:   Freedom or Death

--his powerful novel set in Greece during the time of the Greek war for independence.
--as usual his characters come off the page at you.


Oscar Wilde:   The Uncensored Picture of Dorian Gray
--This is the first and censored version of Gray's novel.  To be honest, I can not see anything that
   would be more offensive than anything in the published version.  A classic example of changing
    tastes, I will includ this among the rereads for I have read this several times.


There were a number of enjoyable works that I read during the past year, but these are the ones that stand out.  While there  appears to be a large number of first reads, equal to the rereads, one should note that Bradbury, Greene, Hawthorne, and Conrad are all favorites of mine from way back when.  These are works by them that I've never read before.

Only two of the authors in the First Reads Section are new to me:  Kazuo Ishiguro and Sarah Orne Jewett and are now on my reread list.  Coincidentally, I read two books by both.  The other book by by Ishiguro will appear on my Favorite SF novels of 2016 list.


P.S.
Forgot to mention, but if you have questions about any of the authors or books, please ask.  I may not know the answer, but it's worth trying anyway.

Jane Austen's Mansfield Park: In Defense of Fanny Price

The following is a quotation from Carrots for Michaelmas, a blog belonging to Haley Stewart.  This link will take you to the complete article.  http://tinyurl.com/hthjuep  

I want to thank Di from The Little White Attic  who alerted me to this article, "In Defense of Fanny Price,"from which this quotation was taken.

 
Mansfield Park is about superficiality versus substance. It’s about charm versus goodness. It’s about mere conventional propriety versus true virtue and it’s hard for an entertainment-obsessed culture that glorifies appearances and laughs at the idea of character to understand. All of the characters struggle and are tried and tested…but some fight the good fight and others reveal that they never had virtue to begin with.


This is the best, the most coherent, the clearest statement of the main point of Mansfield Part I have ever read. In a few words she expressed what I've been trying to say for years. 

Thank you, Haley Stewart.

Jane Austen's Fanny Price: A Taoist Sage at Mansfield Park

Jane Austen
Mansfield Park

Jane Austen was born on December 16, 1775 and died on July 18, 1817. 


Fanny Price, of Mansfield Park, (MP)  is probably the most maligned of Austen's heroines.  Just why is not clear to me, but I suspect it's a classic example of imposing 21st century standards on 19th century characters and a misreading of Austen in general.  Too many readers fall in love with Liz  Bennet's lively, outgoing, and cheeky behavior and therefore insist that all of Austen's heroines be the same.  In fact, three of Austen's heroines do fit this category:  Liz, of course,  Emma (Emma), and to a considerable extent Catherine (Northanger Abbey) , the youngest of  the heroines.

But, Austen also has three quiet, more reserved heroines:  Elinor (Sense and Sensibility), Anne (Persuasion), and Fanny (MP).  What I find interesting, is that, though the heroine is the quiet reserved type, there is another woman who exemplifies the more outgoing lively woman, the "Liz" type if I may so call her.  Paired off with Elinor is her sister Marianne, who exemplifies the romantic enthusiastic outgoing follower of sensibility; with Anne is again her sister Elizabeth (interesting choice for her name) who is certainly more outgoing and demonstrative than Anne; and with Fanny, of course, is Mary Crawford, whom some readers want to be the heroine of MP in spite of her selfish, egotistic, insensitive, amoral, and manipulative behavior.

Mary Crawford is Austen's point that being bright, lively, and vivacious does not necessarily make one a good person (notice how many male villains in Austen are the same type),  for those are external attributes.  Liz is a good person because of what's inside her, not because of  how she appears to others.   The same is true of Fanny, for it is what is inside her that makes her a good person. What makes Mary a bad person is what's inside of her and those who admire her  are those who see the surface only.  Telling this sort of critic that you can't tell a book by its cover is a waste of time, for they are enthralled, fooled, duped by external glamour and never get beyond that.

Many commentators have insisted that Fanny shouldn't be the heroine, nor does she deserve to be happily married at the end.  She has done nothing to deserve her fate.  Mary should be the real heroine and gain Edmund as her reward.  Of course, these are the same people who deride Edmund as being dull, uninteresting, and priggish.  I can only wonder how they could see Edmund and Mary together.   I wonder how long Mary would be a faithful wife to Edmund, a country minister, and also how long her brother Henry, who is the male version of a lively, outgoing, charming suitor,  would remain satisfied with the dull, priggish Fanny, as they see her.

One theme in MP that has surprised me is the number of characters in the story who have improved, inexplicably over the length of the novel.  In Austen's novels, it's usually the heroine and the hero who have learned something about themselves and have managed to more or less overcome their failings (Emma, I must admit, is a question mark here), but in this novel, a number of other characters, especially in the Bertram family, have developed, more or less, a sense of responsibility and concern for others, which was lacking in the beginning.

It is this that started me thinking.  I could find no particular or obvious reason for these changes in the characters.  No one lectures them and seldom are they called upon to recognize their shortcomings.  The changes seem to happen in a vacuum--mysteriously.


It was about this time, the third or fourth reading of MP,  that, from the depths of my sub- or unconscious that there is something Taoist about Fannie's behavior.  I wondered how a Taoist might view this novel.  I am not an expert in Taoism, but I have read a little ("a little learning is a dangerous thing"), just enough to get me in trouble here.  So, I dug out my copy of Laotse's (aka Lao Tzu) Tao Te Ching and found some intriguing characteristics of the Taoist Sage.

I am not saying that Jane Austen deliberately created Fanny as a Taoist Sage or even that she was aware of Taoism.  This is simply a view of MP as it might be seen by a Taoist. 



THE TAOIST SAGE

Just what is a Taoist sage and how does one recognize one?

Chapter 2
The Sage:one who manages affairs without action, preaches without words, acts, but does not appropriate claim or ownership, and accomplishes but claims no credit.


This clearly could be Fanny as many of her detractors point out that she is far too quiescent for their tastes.



Chapter 9
The Sage retires when the work is done:

Fanny seldom if ever claims credit for what she accomplishes.  She does what she is expected to do and says little about it.



chapter 17
But of the best sages,  when their task is accomplished and their work is done,
the people will all remark, "We have done it ourselves."

Fanny seldom gets credit for what she does, even though near the end of the novel, Lady Bertram declares she can't get along without Fanny.  This is the reason  Susan will move to Mansfield Park to take Fanny's place. 



Chapter 22
The Sage does not:reveal himself, justify himself, boast of himself, or act proudly.

He acts in accordance with the situation and does not force himself or his ideas on others.  He acts as an example for others, so his influence is subtle and non-assertive.

This is  true of Fanny.  She listens and observes and only expresses an opinion when asked.  And, few ask her besides Edmund.

All of the above observations come from the  Wisdom of LaoTse, translated and edited by Lin Yutang, 




THE CHARACTERS

I mentioned above that many of the characters had undergone significant changes by the end of the novel.  Here is a brief description of the major characters at the beginning of the novel and the changes they undergo to reach the place where they are at the end.     .


The Prices  (Fanny's family)

William
Fanny's brother in the navy who gets necessary sponsorship for promotion  from Sir Thomas.  Sir Thomas would never have met William if if weren't for Fannie and the impression she made on Sir Thomas.

Fanny
her marriage, far above her class status to Edmund

Susan
Fanny's sister, ends up replacing Fanny at Mansfield Park. 



THE BERTRAMS  (at Mansfield Park)


Sir Thomas
In the beginning of the novel, he is an absent father and head of the household, and this is true whether he is off in the West Indies or at home.  He does not  take his proper place as father and lord of the manor.  He also knows that his wife is unable or unwilling to play her part, so he allows Aunt Norris to become a dictator and rule his household.  Later, though, he suddenly realizes the problems that his family is having are at least partially due to his abdication of responsibility, and he now begins to assert himself as head of household.

Lady Bertram
She seems totally detached from the family.  Her main concerns seem to be herself and her dog.  Again, near the end, when Tom becomes deathly ill, she rouses herself and spends most of her time at his bedside nursing him.  This is a considerable change from her earlier behavior when the reader isn't sure whether she really is aware of anyone, aside from her pet dog,  around her.


Tom
The eldest son plays to perfection the role of The Wastrel.  He shows no interest in his studies at college, and demonstrates little concern nor for his duties and responsibilities as heir to Mansfield Park.  It's party time is his philosophy.   Shortly after his illness, he also changes his behavior and settles down at the university and begins to show an interest in his role as heir to Mansfield Park.  There is also a hint of marriage, which is a major concern of every well-established family--the heir must marry and produce an heir of his own.

Edmund
While he is  a serious and dedicated student, determined to be a good minister to his parish when he takes over, he also is infatuated by Mary Crawford, who would make a most inappropriate wife for the clergyman he wants to be.  Again, at the end, he recognizes the folly of his infatuation and gradually comes to realize that Fanny is the woman most suited for him and his role in life.

Maria
The oldest daughter, selfish and self-absorbed, thinks only of herself.  She makes a bad choice in her marriage, selecting a suitor who could never be a suitable partner but has a large house and a considerable fortune.  For her follies she ends up in exile, supported by Sir Thomas, but banned, at least for now, from Mansfield Park.

Julia
She is strongly influenced by her older sister.   Austen seems to suggest she would be a different person if she had a different older sister to model.

Aunt Norris
Sister to Lady Bertram and Mrs. Price (Fanny's mother)
She is the real power in the house.  Unfortunately she is also evil, greedy, and malicious.  She is the one who most deliberately torments Fanny, reminding regularly of her low position at Mansfield Park, barely one step above the servants.    At the end, she realizes that Sir Thomas has recognized his error and has finally become the head of household he should have been long ago, and she elects to go into voluntary exile with Maria. 

Mary and Henry Crawford
brother and sister, relatives to the minister at MP.  They are bright, outgoing, attractive, as well as shallow,  selfish, and self-absorbed.  They are classic examples of the cliche that one can't tell a book by its cover.  They are very popular at first, but by the end, they have revealed themselves take themselves off to London, perhaps to wonder for the rest of their lives just what they had missed out on.

Mansfield Park is the longest and most complex novel that Austen wrote.  It is. in my estimation, the most misunderstood and misread novel as well.  Austen's basic tenet, in all her works, is that one must look beneath the surface to determine the true nature of the other, and that true nature may be in opposition to what appears on the surface.  I believe that too many readers have taken the surface appearances of many of the characters and stopped there, and therefore missing their true nature.

In any case, read and enjoy.  I rank it a close second to Persuasion.

A Minute Meditation

Today is surely a significant day in English Literature, if not in World Literature.  On this day Oct. 30, 1811,  Sense and Sensibility was published By a Lady.  This was followed by five more novels, all of which are still in print.  In addition, numerous film versions have been made of all of them, and, no doubt, more will come.  Just this year, a film version of one of her juvenalia just appeared.

She was only 42 when she died.  What else might she have written had she lived another decade or two?

Jane Austen: Lady Susan (Boo, Hiss)

Jane Austen
"Lady Susan"

"Lady Susan" is one of those works whose length makes it difficult to categorize it.  Is it a short novel or a novella?  I guess I will put it in the novella category.  It wasn't published until 1871, fifty-four years after she died in 1817.  Why it took the family so long to release it is beyond me.  I found it a thoroughly delightful story, featuring one of those villains we (at least I do anyway) love to hate.  If this was a Gaslight Theatre production, the audience would be expected to boo and hiss whenever she appeared.

To be honest, this is a one character tale.  This is Lady Susan's story. The supporting characters are just that, there to provide fodder for Lady Susan's manipulations.    They are well-drawn but are overshadowed by Lady Susan.   What contemporary readers may find disturbing is that it is an epistolary novel, so the plot is carried forward by a series of letters passing back and forth among the various characters.

The letters  that I find most fascinating are those from Lady Susan to her friend, Mrs. Johnson.  In those letters, she seems to be completely honest about what is going on, perhaps.  The letters remind me of that theater convention, the "aside," when characters directly address the audience to reveal their innermost thoughts and motives while the other characters are oblivious of  what is being said.  One gains a more or less true picture of  her and her actions  by comparing her letters to Mrs. Johnson with the other letters she writes, and, of course, the letters written by the others entangled in her
machinations give us a picture of her effect on them.

The first letter in the work provides an excellent example: 

From Lady Susan's letter to Charles Vernon, the brother of her recently deceased husband.

"My dear brother,
     I can no longer refuse myself the pleasure of profiting by your kind invitation when we last parted, of spending some weeks with you at Churchill,  and therefore  if quite convenient to you and Mrs. Vernon to receive me at present, I shall hope within a few days to be introduced to a sister whom I have so long desired to be acquainted with."


This is followed by Lady Susan's letter to her friend, Mrs. Johnson.

"I take town in my way to that insupportable spot, a country village, for I am really going to Churchill.  Forgive me my dear friend, it is my last resort.  Were there another place in England open to me, I would prefer it.  Charles Vernon is my aversion, and I am afraid of his wife.  At Churchill I must remain till I have something better in view."

Some background information here is necessary.    Prior to Lord Vernon's death, there had been little contact between Charles and Lady Susan since Charles's marriage.   At that time, Lady Susan had worked hard to prevent Charles's marriage to that "sister whom I have so long desired to be acquainted with."  This is why she is "afraid of his wife."   Moreover, upon her husband's death, Charles had attempted to buy the family estate, but she had prevented it because she "could not endure that (her) husband's dignity should be lessened by his younger brother's  having possession of the family estate."  She did sell it eventually to someone else.  We never do learn why she was opposed to Charles's marriage or to the purchase of her deceased husband's estate.  I would think she would be happy to keep it in the family.

In the same letter to the Vernons,  Lady Susan also explains why she must leave the Manwarings at Langford:  "My kind friends here are most affectionately urgent with me to prolong my stay, but their hospitable and cheerful dispositions lead them to much into society for my present situation and state of mind; and I impatiently look forward to the hour when I should be admitted into your delightful retirement."


However, once again in her first letter to Mrs. Johnson, we learn a different tale.  Lady Susan writes of her position at Langford, "At present nothing goes smoothly.  The females of the family are united against me."  Mrs. Manwaring is jealous and "enraged" because Lady Susan "admitted no one's attentions but Manwaring's" and he has become madly in love with her.

We also learn of the engagement between the Manwarings's daughter and Sir James Martin.  But, as Lady Susan notes in her letter, she "bestowed a little notice (on Sir James Martin) in order to detach him from Miss Manwaring."   She goes on to say that, if people were aware of her motive, instead of condemning her,  "they  would honor me."  That motive was  "the sacred impulse of maternal affection," for she interfered with their engagement only in order to secure him for her own daughter.

She has a genius for duplicity, manipulation, and rationalization.  Regardless of how poorly she treats people, she always manages to find herself the injured party when they become angry at discovering just how she has used them or injured them.  And, no matter how difficult or embarrassing the predicament she finds herself immersed in, she manages to charm her way out of it.

She is a most marvelous character and I strongly urge you to make her acquaintance, if you haven't already done so..

A few words about Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey

Jane Austen
Northanger Abbey


This was one of the two novels published posthumously, shortly after her death in 1817.  The other was my favorite: Persuasion.  However, the publication date is misleading for Northanger Abbey was actually the first novel she sold to a publisher.  The publisher, Crosby and Co.,  purchased the novel in 1803, but decided against publishing it.   In 1816, Henry Austen, Jane Austen's brother, bought it back from the publisher and then published it in 1817.  It wasn't until 1811, eight years after she sold NA, that Austen finally saw her first novel in print,  Sense and Sensibility.

 As I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe this is really two novels, one being a comedy of manners and the second part a satire on Gothic novels.  What links them is that the satiric look at the Gothic novel was set up in the first half.

I posted, earlier, some thoughts about the Predator and Prey relationships, as I saw them, in Pride and Prejudice.  Naturally I was curious to see if some of the other novels could be looked at in the same way.  Following are some of my impressions of the major characters of NA:

Frederick Tinley:  a Predator.  His prey are vulnerable females, for he's not looking for a rich wife.  He is the eldest son and therefore will inherit his father's estate.  However, he may also be seen as Prey as long as he is unattached and the presumed heir to his father's fortune.

Isabel Thorpe:  a Predator.  She first sets her sights on Catherine's brother, James.  However, she is considerably disappointed when she learns of the small portion James will get upon their marriage.   At this point she discovers Frederick Tinley, a much more lucrative prize.

This is an interesting situation in that Predator Frederick meets Predator Isabel.  Unfortunately, Isabel is handicapped for she is looking for a marriage proposal while Frederick is just interested in a short term conquest, at the end of which he can simply ride off into the sunset.   

John Thorpe:  Predator who sees Catherine as far wealthier than she really is and also as the heiress presumptive of her neighbors, the Allens.

Isabel and John Thorpe are the first attempts at depicting a predatory brother and sister.  They, therefore, are the precursors of a later and more complex predatory brother and sister, Mary and Henry Crawford of Mansfield Park.


General Tinley:  he's looking for a rich wife, but not for himself but for his second son Henry.


Catherine Morland: Prey, as she is the target of John Thorpe who is looking for a rich wife to support him.

James Morland:  Catherine's brother who thinks he is in pursuit of Isabel, but he really is Prey.


Henry and sister Eleanor, do not seem to fit my definition of Predator, and nor is there any suggestion in the novel that they are actively sought after, therefore, they are not Prey either.

 I am just completing my rereading of Austen's works, and as it turned out, the last two novels just happened to be Northanger Abbey and Persuasion, apparently the first and the last of Austen's six novels.  It is interesting? informative? curious? ironic? to read these two back-to-back.  In NA we find Catherine, surely the youngest of Austen's heroines, so innocent and naive that she doesn't even realize at first that she's in love with Henry, while in Persuasion, Anne is not only not in her first love, but has long since lost it through her own actions and now regrets her decision.  The juxtaposition of the two novels reveals the increased depth and complexity of Austen's perception of her characters and the struggles they face in finding their futures, from dealing with First Love to being faced with that rarest of possibilities, a second chance, or as a recent poet once put it, to take "the road not taken.". .

Overall I would rank this as the lightest of the Six.  Catherine is the youngest and most naive of Austen's heroines, and she certainly violates several rules of feminine decorum as set out at that time, but her innocence and earnestness excuse her.  All can see that she means no harm as she is unaware, for the most part, of her errors in decorum.


Simply put, it's a light-hearted and enjoyable tale.

Jane Austen's EMMA; a brief personal reaction

Jane Austen
Emma

This is probably my fourth? fifth? reading of Emma.  I am now in midst of my regular rereading of Austen's works, but I probably won't post extensively on them, mainly because I can't step back sufficiently to comment coherently.  But, occasionally a thought may strike me, as it has just recently while reading Pride and Prejudice.  This will be a much, much shorter post, just an odd thought.

In the spirit of the novel, here's a riddle (well, maybe not a riddle):


Mr. Knightly (George) got the wife he wanted, but she was not the best wife for him.

Frank Churchill got the wife he wanted, but she wasn't the wife he deserved.

Emma Woodhouse got the husband she wanted, but he wasn't the husband she deserved.

Jane Fairfax got the husband she wanted, but he was not the best husband for her.



Comments?

Jane Austen: Predator and Prey

Don't know why, but upon re-reading P and P for the x? time, I suddenly saw a new title for the novel: Predator and Prey.  The first sentence is what started me thinking:

 It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.

   
The second paragraph is even more specific actually:

"However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his

first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds

of the surrounding families, that he is considered the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters."

The phrase "the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters" started me thinking: "rightful property" or prey?  This focus on one of the most famous openings in English literature caused me to see the book in a slightly different way, which resulted in a new title:  Predator and Prey.  Who are the predators and who are the prey.  This resulted in a new perspective as I then began to look at each of the characters to see which role they played.  Some even play both. 

I also paid a bit more attention to Caroline, the unmarried Bingley sister, this time.  Once she senses Darcy's interest in Liz, the claws come out.  Caroline's senses are sharp and sensitive, very necessary for a predator to know when a suspected competitor invades her territory.  However, this different view of the novel also had a surprising effect in that I now viewed Caroline in a much more sympathetic light.  More about that later.



Following is a cast of the main characters and a brief statement regarding my take on their roles in the novel.  Feel free to disagree.


Mr. Bennet: prey-- He was caught and trapped when young by a pretty face.

Mrs. Bennet:  predator--she caught Mr. Bennet and is now on the hunt for her daughters.


Jane:  prey,  not really on the hunt for a husband, potential predator.

Elizabeth: prey,  not really on the hunt for a husband, but could be a potential predator.

Lydia:  predator,  attracted by red coats of officers

Wickham:  predator, searching for a rich woman to marry

Col. FitzWilliam:  predator, see Wickham

Darcy:  prey

Bingley: prey, target of local mothers

Miss Caroline Bingley: predator, on the prowl for Darcy

Georgiana:  prey, with Wickham as a past predator

Mr. Collins:  predator and prey, looking for a wife, becomes Charlotte's target.  Or, as we used to say back in the Dark Ages, "He chased her until she caught him."


Some brief observations:

Lizzie is hard on Charlotte but excuses Wickham and FitzWilliam

Older sons are prey while younger sons are predators, who are forced into those roles because of the culture and the tradition of primogeniture--oldest sons inherit everything in order to keep the family estate intact. Therefore the oldest son is a great catch (prey) , while the younger sons are forced to find an occupation (military or the church) or marry a woman with a large dowry who can support them (predator).  The oldest son can also be a predator if familial pressures causes him to search for a wife who has wealth and perhaps a title, which would be ideal.  Either or both could enhance the family's position in society.

Some critics and readers have dismissed Austen's works as light-hearted romances with the same theme: a young woman out to get a husband, and in spite of the usual obstacles, manages to get her man and live happily ever after.
This may be true on a surface level, but underneath there is a very serious struggle taking place.

The right marriage is not just a road to everlasting bliss but a means of survival for many of Austen's heroines, and heroes also, as it was true for many in the 17th through the 19th centuries.  Many, especially in the middle class, would be doomed to a life of penury or maybe worse, a life dependent upon the good will and generosity of relatives and friends.  Limited as they were by the strictures of their society (as we also are today--even if we don't see it), jobs were unavailable or unthinkable for many.  Marriage to a suitably wealthy individual was the only solution.

And that poses the problem--making a choice, if one were lucky enough to have choices.  Who to choose to spend a lifetime with?  P. D. James, one of my favorite mystery writers in an interview said that Jane Austen was her favorite author, and that, if Austen were writing today, she would be writing mysteries.

Consider--what is the task of the detective in a mystery story--stripping away the public persona to get at the suspect's real character.  What is the task of the wise young woman or man in choosing a mate?  Isn't it the same?  In fact, that is the task of all of us, knowingly or not, of finding out just what are our acquaintances really like and how many would make good and trustworthy friends. 

As for that "living happily ever after" myth, Austen doesn't believe in it, and it shows at the conclusion of most of her novels.  It may be a good match, but unending  bliss is not in the cards.

Just a few thoughts about the far too few works by one of my all-time favorite authors.

PD James: Unnatural Causes, Aunt Who?

PD James
Unnatural Causes

This is the third in the series of mysteries featuring  the cases of Dalgliesh, James' poetry writing Scotland Yard detective.  This one is a bit different in that it really isn't Dalgliesh's case, for he's on vacation, visiting his Aunt Jane Dalgliesh who lives in a small village on the coast that has become sort of an undeclared writers' colony.  However, the officer in charge of the case is very ambivalent towards Dalgliesh.  He doesn't like Dalgliesh, and Dalgliesh returns the feeling, but he wants to draw upon Dalgliesh's experience and expertise.  This makes for a rocky professional relationship.

A corpse is discovered in a small dinghy floating off the coast.  His hands have been cut off, probably after his death, according to the autopsy.  He is soon identified as he had been one of the writers who lived in the small village.  How did he die?  Why were his hands removed after death?  Some sort of warning?  A false trail?  As usual, James provides much to keep us occupied.

This is probably my third, and perhaps even the fourth, reading of this novel.  Even though I knew whodunnit, I still find James' works entertaining as novels about people and their behavior.    And something new always shows up at each reading.  This time Dalgliesh's aunt stood out from the background.  I become aware of her this time, much more than in previous readings.  Just why, of course, is probably a case of over-reading on my part, but I find it interesting anyway.

Adam Dalgliesh and his Aunt Jane are very close, in spite of the difference in their ages, or perhaps because of this difference.  She is in her eighties now and a spinster.  She had been engaged as a young woman back in 1918, but her fiance had been killed six months before the Armistice in November.  Apparently no one has come along since then to engage her affections.  She was the daughter of a minister, and after her mother died, shortly after her fiance's death, she took over the role of housekeeper for her father.

After his death  in 1955, she moved to the coast of Suffolk and lived quietly there.  Her one hobby, ornithology, kept her occupied.  Her careful and meticulous observations provided her with material for several books and she found herself, eventually, considered to be "one of the most respected of  amateur ornithologists in England."  Her reputation in the small village increased when it was discovered that several distinguished individuals, including a famous writer who had been a recluse for many years, were seen in her company. 

Dalgliesh later in the novel remarks that Aunt Jane was not a sentimental woman, quite the contrary.  "To Jane Dalgliesh people were as they were.  It was as pointlessly presumptuous to try to change them as it was impertinent to pity them.  Never before had his aunt's uninvolvement struck him so forcibly; never before had it seemed so frightening."  Jane Dalgliesh seems to be one who see people clearly and objectively, with few romantic illusions about her fellow inhabitants of this small planet and views them coldly and dispassionately.  They are as they are.

Now, why does this suddenly stand out, waving frantically for my attention.  Well, PD James' death last November got me to begin rereading her works again and to also remember an interview I had seen many years ago.  In the interview she said that Jane Austen was her favorite writer and that if she were alive today, Austen would be writing mysteries.

Jane Austen, who,  in the past, had frequently been referred to as "Dear Aunt Jane,"  was also a spinster at her death.  She too had been the daughter of a minister and remained in the family household until her death at 41.  She had never married, but had several chances.  One, at an early age, according to a family tradition, had occurred while they were living on the coast.  According to her sister Cassandra, a young man had fallen in love with Jane.  He had made a favorable impression on Cassandra, and she thought that he would have been successful in his courtship.  However, he had to leave, but he also made it clear that he would return.  Shortly afterwards, however,  they learned of his death.

Jane Austen's novels, based on careful and meticulous observation of the people around her, while never making any top ten list, did attract readers, one of whom was the Prince Regent who apparently kept copies of her works at each of his residences.  Her novels fostered no illusions about people and clearly presented them as they were, warts and all.

I suppose this is a real stretch.  Both aunts are named Jane, both had a minister for a father, both remained spinsters, both when young apparently lost a possibly successful  suitor  through death, both gained some fame as a writer whose works featured close and meticulous observation of their subjects, and both apparently had a clear and unromantic view of those about them, perhaps approaching a cruel and detached vision.

And to push this even further--I can't help thinking of another aunt who also clearly, perceptively, and objectively views her neighbors and sees the evil buried deep within--Aunt Jane Marple.   Obviously, I have a bad case of Aunt Jane fever. 

P. D. James: Death Comes to Pemberley

P. D. James: Death comes to Pemberley, a sequel to Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice (P&P)

Normally I ignore sequels to classics, but P. D. James is one of my favorite mystery writers. Many of her novels feature a large house, either occupied for centuries by the family or possibly long since turned to other uses: a nursing school, a laboratory, or even a publishing house. As the largest estate in the county, Pemberley would be a perfect setting for one of her stories. In addition, in an interview James said that her favorite author was Austen and she thought that, if Austen were alive today, she would be writing mysteries. So, I had to break a long-standing tradition and, at least, start it.

The novel opens with a prologue summarizing the significant events and introducing the major characters in Pride and Prejudice. James then brings us up-to-date, for six years have passed since the end of what is probably Austen's most popular novel. We are told that Elizabeth and Darcy have two children and that Elizabeth's younger sister Mary is also married to the rector of a nearby parish. Kitty is still at home, the only one left and likely to remain unmarried. Mr. Bennet is a frequent visitor at Pemberley, while Mrs. Bennet is less so. Darcy, while having become more patient and tolerant over time, does have his limits.

It is Friday, October 14, 1803, the day before the most important social event of the year in the neighborhood of Pemberley, Lady Anne's ball, the annual ball held in honor of Darcy's mother. Elizabeth has spent the day planning and preparing for the event with the aid of the inestimable Mrs. Reynolds, the housekeeper whom she had met on her first visit to Pemberley with the Gardiners.

Now late in the evening, Elizabeth, Darcy, the Bingleys (who had arrived a short time ago), Col. Fitzwilliam, and Henry Alveston are gathered together after dinner. Alveston is the only one who needs an introduction to readers of P&P. He is a rising young attorney who has become an increasingly regular visitor to Pemberley, and it is fairly obvious what the source of attraction is. In fact, it is that same attraction that causes Col Fitzwilliam considerable discomfort.

Georgiana, Darcy's sister, is now of a marriageable age: she is attractive and an heiress of a considerable fortune, and she is no longer the shy, quiet young girl we had known. Six years of associating with Elizabeth may have contributed somewhat to that. For some time now, both Fitzwilliam and Alveston have attempted to engage her affections. While Georgiana has not yet made her choice, Elizabeth feels that Col. Fitzwilliam will be disappointed.

It is then that death comes to Pemberley, or at least a madly driven coach carrying an hysterical Lydia arrives at the front door. All she can do is cry out almost incoherently that her beloved Wickham is dead, murdered. After questioning the more rational coach driver, Darcy and the others discover that Wickham and Lydia were going through their usual routine. Darcy has forbidden Wickham's presence at Pemberley; therefore, Lydia is never invited. However, the usual procedure is that Lydia arrives unannounced with luggage while the carriage immediately proceeds onward with Wickham to the nearest inn, where he stays while Lydia enjoys the amenities of Pemberley.

Lydia has come for Lady Anne's ball and will leave after the ball is over. But, this time Lydia and Wickham were accompanied by Wickham's good and possibly only friend, Captain Denny. However, shortly after entering the woods surrounding Pemberley, Denny and Wickham quarrel, with the result that Denny left the coach. Wickham then follows him into the trees. Shortly afterwards, a shot is heard. Lydia becomes hysterical, and the coach driver, unarmed, decides it would be best to go for help and also take Lydia out of any possible danger.

Upon hearing the coachman's story, Darcy, Fitzwilliam, and Alveston decide to go back to the spot where the driver left off the two men. They were reluctant to interfere in a private quarrel, but the report of shots being fired persuaded them to to investigate. After stumbling about in the forest for some time, they are about to leave when they come across a clearing in which a body is stretched out on the ground. Kneeling before the body and covered in blood is Wickham, who cries out upon seeing him that this was his fault. Capt. Denny is dead. The result is that Wickham is arrested, and a coroner's jury decides there is sufficient evidence for a trial.

What follows is NOT a contemporary mystery. James is too wise for that. We do not see Elizabeth and Darcy chasing around the countryside searching for clues, following up leads, and interrogating witnesses and suspects. That is left for the authorities and Wickham's expensive defense attorney (you can guess who pays for him).

In the first place, neither Elizabeth nor Darcy have any experience in detecting nor would they have even considered taking such actions. Secondly, Darcy is prohibited from taking any part in the case for Wickham is his brother-in-law. Darcy is one of three magistrates for the county. If he were to get involved and Wickham released, then there would be a suspicion of favoritism. On the other hand, it was also known that Wickham in some way had earned Darcy's enmity, so if it was decided that Wickham be held over for trial, there might be a suspicion that Darcy had had his revenge. They had to separate themselves from any direct involvement in the case.

Much of the time in the novel is spent with secondary characters--various servants and their familes, Wickham, Col. Fitzwilliam, and even Mrs. Younge, whom readers may recognize as the governess who allowed Wickham to almost carry Georgiana off in P&P, the cause of Darcy's intense dislike of Wickham. It is "downstairs," to borrow the title of a popular TV show, where the facts of Capt. Denny's murder are to be found. And, not surprisingly, it is Wickham who is the cause, directly or indirectly.

This is not a contemporary murder mystery. Instead, it resembles much more closely a mystery novel written during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The solution comes through coincidental meetings, a deathbed confession, various letters, and a last minute frantic journey with important information that, if it arrives in time, could affect the outcome of Wickham's trial. It is not Jane Austen, but it does read like, at least to me anyway, like a mystery that might have been written in Austen's time.

James makes no attempt to imitate Austen's style; instead she gives the reader prose that is a bit more formal. Nor does she attempt to recreate Lizzie as Austen would have done. Elizabeth is no longer Lizzie, the young lady with the sharp tongue. She is now in her late twenties, the mother of two children, a wife, and the mistress of the largest estate in the area. She has a position to fill and has matured in the intervening six years.

James has inserted into the novel, which is mostly serious (murder is a serious business), some subtle bits of humour and an occasional sharp observation of her own. For example, at one point we read the following: And would she herself have married Darcy had he been a penniless curate or a struggling attorney? It was hard to envisage Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy of Pemberley as either, but honesty compelled an answer. Elizabeth knew that she was not formed for the sad contrivances of poverty.

Readers should also be alert to references to people who are mentioned but never make an appearance in the novel. Wickham at one point had been employed as a personal secretary to Sir William Elliot. He was fired six months later, possibly because of Miss Elliot's concern regarding Lydia's open flirting with Sir William, and also perhaps when she grew bored with Wickham's own attempts at flirting with her.

While I won't discuss the ending in any great detail, I should add that the final solution involved (surprise, surprise) considerable expense once again to Darcy, and the aid of Mr. and Mrs. Knightly of Donwell Abbey and her close friend, Mrs. Harriet Martin.

The novel ends, as do all of Austen's novels, with a final summary, some comments about the future, and a conversation between our hero and heroine regarding their own sometimes rocky relationship before it resulted in perfect happiness.

When I first decided to read Death Comes to Pemberley, I went to the library and borrowed a copy. However, about one-third of the way through, I visited Clues Unlimited, Tucson's local mystery bookstore. I figured I'd be reading it again, and I wanted my own copy.

Birthdays

Born on this day:



Ludvig van Beethoven in 1770

Some Favorites:

Violin concerto in D
Five piano concertos
9 Symphonies





Jane Austen in 1775

Some Favorites

Persuasion
Mansfield Park
Sense and Sensibility
Pride and Prejudice
Emma
Northanger Abbey





Arthur C. Clarke in 1917

Some favorites:

Rendezvous with Rama
Tales from the White Hart
The City and the Stars
"The Sentinel" (basis for the film 2001: AD)

Something to think about

No. 77

Know how to be all things to all men. A wise Proteus, he who is learned with the learned, and with the pious, pious: it is the great way of winning all to you: for to be like, is to be liked. Observe each man's spirit and adapt yourself: to the serious, or to the jovial, as the case may be, by following the fashion, through a politic change within yourself: a veritable necessity in those who are dependent. But this great rule of life calls for rich talent: being least difficult to that man of the world whose mind is filled with knowledge, and whose spirit is filled with taste.

Baltasar Gracian (1601-1658)
The Art of Worldly Wisdom




Mr. Elliot was rational, discreet, polished--but he was not open. There was never any burst of feeling, any warmth of indignation or delight, at the evil or good of others. This, to Anne, was a decided imperfection. Her early impressions were incurable. She prized the frank, the open-hearted, the eager character beyond all others. Warmth and enthusiasm did captivate her still. She felt that she could so much more depend upon the sincerity of those who sometimes looked or said a careless or hasty thing, than of those whose presence of mind never varied, whose tongue never slipped.

Mr. Elliot was too generally agreeable. Various as were the tempers in her father's house, he pleased them all. He endured too well, -- stood too well with everybody. He had spoken to her with some degree of openness of Mrs. Clay; had appeared completely to see what Mrs. Clay was about, and to hold her in contempt; and yet Mrs. Clay found him as agreeable as anybody.

Jane Austen (1775-1817)
from Persuasion



Two different views here

If someone is "all things to all men," then what really is that person like? I guess we all play roles to a certain extent, to adjust ourselves somewhat according to the present situation, but someone who is "all things to all men" would not inspire trust in me. I think I should have to go along with Anne here.

Jane Austen: Dec. 16, 1775--July 18, 1817

Jane Austen's propensity for making strong statements and then subtly taking them away or quietly qualifying them is one characteristic that I really enjoy in her writing. Take, for example, the opening lines of Pride and Prejudice, probably one of the most famous openings in English literature.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

That's strong clear statement--universally acknowledged--something that everybody agrees with. Austen doesn't equivocate here. And the truth that's universally acknowledged--he must be in want of a wife. There's no question here either--he must be. There's no doubt here.

Then comes the second paragraph:

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rughtful property of some one or other of their daughters.

This universal truth doesn't seem to be that universal since the feelings of such a man are really little known. So, this universal truth seems to be limited to the families in the neighbourhood.
However, the following conversation between Mr. and Mrs Bennet suggests that perhaps this truth isn't universally acknowledged by all members of the families.

Mrs. Bennet says, response to a question from Mr. Bennet, "Oh! Single, my dear, to be sure! A single man of large fortune, four or five thousand a year. What a fine thing for our girls!"

"How so? how can it affect them?"

"My dear Mr. Bennet," replied his wife, "how can you be so tiresome! You must know that I am thinking of his marrying one of them."

"Is that his design in settling here?"

"Design! nonsense, how can you talk so! But it is very likely that he may fall in love with one of them, and therefore you must visit him as soon as he comes."

While Mr. Bennet is obviously teasing his wife, it also seems clear that he doesn't share in the universality of Mrs. Bennet's truth. Perhaps, after reading the opening paragraphs, one might say that this universally acknowledged truth resides mostly in the mothers of the unmarried young ladies in the neighbourhood, while the fathers play along solely to get some peace in the house, especially with a wife such as Mrs. Bennet. The fathers, no doubt, also consider the financial outlay associated with wedding ceremonies and tell themselves that after the wedding, the husbands will now be responsible for future expenses as they live happily ever after.

Combination Plate 6

Warning: I will discuss significant plot elements, including the endings of some of the works.


Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey.

Jane Austen is one of my favorite authors. I must admit, though, that it was not love at first sight. I had tried to read Pride and Prejudice (P&P) several times but never got beyond the first couple of chapters. Since P&P is considered to be her most popular work, I figured that there would never be a meeting of our minds.

A decade or so later, I went to grad school, the English Graduate Department to be exact. In one of the first courses I took, I had to read Austen's Sense and Sensibility. I settled down for a grueling task and, instead, found it fascinating. I immediately dusted off P&P and discovered for myself why so many people enjoyed reading it. I then read her other four completed novels and have been a convert to this day. I've even read as much of her juvenilia as I could find. While I enjoy all of her novels, I must admit that Northanger Abbey (NA) is my least favorite of the six novels. If you are interested, my favorites are Mansfield Park, Persuasion, and Sense and Sensibility.

The problem, or rather my problem, with NA is that it appears to be two separate novels. The first novel covers the first part of the book which sets forth her experiences at Bath, while the second novel begins with her trip from Bath to Northanger Abbey, the home of the Tilneys.

The Bath portion of the novel is a comedy of manners and, in a way, a growing up work, for we see Catherine as she encounters for the first time the great outside world and its manners, its foibles, and its hypocrisies. This part is reminiscent of the other five novels as she learns to distinguish between real and false friendships.

The second part really focuses on a satire, something of the sort one finds in Cervantes' Don Quixote or Flaubert's Madame Bovary. Don Quixote's mad behavior is supposedly induced by his constant and obsessive reading of the medieval romances which tell of knights in armor who sally about the countryside fighting dragons and black knights and wizards and rescuing damsels in distress. Madame Bovary's sad end comes about from reading romances which offer impossible flights of love and passion which she can't find in the small town where she lives, nor in Paris either, as she finds out.

Catherine's novelistic obsession is the Gothic novel, which leads her to romanticize (I'm tempted, but I won't say Gothicize) the Tilney's home--Northanger Abbey--for many of the Gothic novels take place in ancient and decrepit ruins, some of which are abbeys. She soon begins to suspect General Tilney, her host, of having mistreated his wife and perhaps even having been responsible for her death. This portion of the novel leads back to her earlier works, many of which are satiric.

What is curious is NA's history is that it apparently was the first or one of the first of her novels that was sold to a publisher. That was in 1803. However, the first of her novels to be published was Sense and Sensibility, which appeared in 1811. What happened to NA? Nobody is quite sure, but there is an Author's Note to NA (the only one I'm aware of to any of her novels) which tells us that the publisher, after having purchased the novel, did absolutely nothing with it. In 1816, Austen bought back the novel from the publisher, and it was finally published in 1818, posthumously, with Persuasion.

Perhaps one might see this as a transitional novel, one that bridges the gap between her juvenilia and her later more sophisticated works. In any case, it still is an enjoyable read, and I have read it a number of times, sometimes as a selection for a book group and sometimes when I'm in the mood to reread Austen, which happens frequently. And, it will happen again, I'm sure.



================================================

John Harvey's Flesh & Blood.
Mystery--retired police officer type


I had read a number of John Harvey's works before--specifically his "Charlie Resnick" police procedurals and had enjoyed them. Resnick is an interesting character, if a bit morose, but that is the trend today and Harvey possibly contributed to its popularity. Flesh & Blood is the first novel I have read that features his new character, Frank Elder, who is a retired police officer.

Flesh and Blood (F&B) is a typical Harvey novel--characterization, especially of the major characters, is good, and the plot is tight and moves quickly through the usual maze that constitutes Harvey's works.

What is surprising, or what I found surprising, are the sexual encounters in the novel and a blatant attempt to increase the tension level during the last few chapters. To be blunt, if a film director attempts to bring this novel to the screen and depicts the sex scenes exactly as described in the novel, the film would probably earn an NC-17 rating. Moreover, the sex in the novel does not move the plot forward in any substantial way. Secondly, at the end, or near the end, Frank Elder's daughter is kidnapped by the killer. The only plot purpose this served, as far as I can tell, was to beef up what perhaps a publisher or agent might have considered a novel that lacked sufficient intensity.

All I can say is that I was surprised and then irritated when the "kidnapping" took place. It just didn't fit the flow of the novel and seemed to be something that was added later. It wasn't necessary.

F&B was a selection for a mystery book group, and all agreed that the sex and the kidnapping just didn't fit and actually lowered the book's rating--one of the few times this group has been unanimous about anything over the years.

While I could easily enjoy rereading one of Harvey's "Charlie Resnick" books, I will not voluntarily pick this one up again. Perhaps I might try another featuring Frank Elder to see if this was an aberration or the "new John Harvey."

=================================================

Batman: The Dark Knight, the film

Having grown up with the Batman and Robin comic books, I am interested in what happens to the Dynamic Duo when they appear on the big screen. I've been sadly disappointed by most of the attempts so far. The first of the more serious treatments, Batman with Michael Keaton, succeeded in restoring the dark ambiance of the early comic books, although Keaton's portrayal of Batman was poor. Pursing his lips seemed to be his interpretation of serious intent when he was Batman, but he did a creditable job as Bruce Wayne, a rich playboy. However, I found the second one, Batman Returns, impossible to sit through and stopped around 1/4 of the way into the film. All I will say about Batman and Robin with George Clooney is that I gave up after about ten or fifteen minutes.

In contrast to the above, I thoroughly enjoyed the two films with Christian Bale in the lead role, Batman Begins and Batman: The Dark Knight. Both captured the atmosphere of the early comic books. Christian Bale is far more convincing as Batman than Keaton was, and Michael Caine was perfect as Alfred. I'm not going to get into any comparison between Jack Nicholson's and Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker, save to say the Nicholson had a bit more of the comic book element in his portrayal while Heath Ledger was a more "human" Joker. I enjoyed both performances.

I think the director of the 1989 version with Keaton, Tim Burton, started out well but somehow lost it with the next one. Christopher Nolan, on the other hand, started well and the second, The Dark Knight, was just as good as his first one.

It will be interesting to see what he does with the third one, if there is a third one.

Recommended: Batman Begins and Batman: The Dark Knight, both with Christian Bale. The 1989 version with Michael Keaton, Batman, is a decent attempt, especially at creating the atmosphere of the comic book.

=================================================

Pitch Black--a Sci-Fi film that appeared in 2000, with Vin Diesel as Richard B. Riddick.


Pitch Black (PB) is standard sci-fi fare. Sci-fi, my definition actually, is different from SF. SF consists of stories that focus on a scientific or technological development that does not yet exist, and perhaps may never exist. The story would not make sense without this element. Sci-fi stories, on the other hand, are those that are really thinly disguised adventure tales with some trappings that disguise its real nature.

Pitch Black is really the typical adventure tale of travelers who are stranded when their plane crashes in a wilderness or jungle inhabited by fierce hungry critters. In the film, the space ship crashes on a strange planet whose hungry inhabitants only emerge in the dark.

The crash landing, I thought, was well done and convincing. The special effects were acceptable, and the acting was decent. The plot called for the typical cliche of one of the survivors being a bad guy--Riddick--who is the prisoner of a bounty hunter. Riddick is a murderer who has been surgically altered so that he can see in the dark, and surprise--guess who turns out to be the one most responsible for the ultimate survival and escape of the others.

The characters make some stupid decisions, unfortunately, that are obviously driven by the plot requirements for tension, excitement, and gore.

What makes it an interesting movie is the performance of Vin Diesel (whom I don't remember seeing in another film) as Riddick, the lead character. Riddick is cynical and manipulative and unemotional, a sociopathic type who kills and thinks little of it afterwards. He does what must be done. However, at the end, he does do something that in reality has no effect on the outcome but is done for solely for revenge, something I didn't expect of him from what I had seen up to that point. Beats there a heart buried down deep somewhere?

A sequel, The Chronicles of Riddick, is out there, as is an animated film, The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury. Dark Fury, the animated film that lasts around 30 minutes, takes place immediately after the events of PB. The other film, The Chronicles of Riddick, is set some five years after PB.

Overall, Vin Diesel's performance makes in an interesting film, and I'm curious enough to see what the next two are like.


=================================================
George Gently: a mystery TV series set in the UK
Type: police procedural

In an earlier post, I had talked about the problems that arise when the main character in a series is replaced by another actor. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. One of the cases was the replacement of Roy Marsden as PD James' Commander Dalgliesh by another actor whom I thought was a poor replacement for Marsden. I also commented that I thought the replacement was a good actor but one who was miscast as Dalgliesh.

Several nights ago I watched a DVD of a mystery series I hadn't seen before--George Gently. I was impressed by the whole production and especially by the actor who played the lead role of Inspector George Gently. He seemed familiar, but it wasn't until I did a search on his name that I discovered that I had seen him before. He was Martin Shaw, the actor who had replaced Roy Marsden as Commander Dalgliesh.

Shaw plays a different role in this police procedural. He has decided to leave London and move to a quieter, less demanding area to continue on as a police officer, much like Peter Robinson's Inspector Alan Burke, who also left London for quieter pastures. Of course, they soon learn that this is not going to happen the way they had expected or at least hoped.

Shaw plays Gentley as a low-key police officer, rather quiet and less commanding than Dalgliesh. He is perfect for this role. In fact, he reminds me of another series which I thoroughly enjoyed, Foyles' War, in which the lead character is played by Michael Kitchen. Kitchen and Shaw resemble each other to some extent--both appearing to be in their fifties, greying, a bit thick around the waist, and reserved.

I was sad when the Foyle series ended; perhaps I'll feel the same way at the last episode of George Gently.

Jane Austen: Sense and Sensibility

One of the pleasures available to those who have read many or all of Austen's novels is the echoes of her other novels that pop up now and then. I have just finished reading Sense and Sensibility (S&S) and several of these echoes are running around inside my skull.

One of these relates to the "villains" in both S&S and Pride and Prejudice, Willoughby and Wickham. Many others have noted that last names of the two villains begin with "W." One point I hadn't read is that one of the males who would marry one of the heroines in both novels, Darcy and Col. Brandon, has had a prior confrontation with the villain, and in both cases, it was over a young woman placed in the care of the hero. In both cases, the young woman had been placed in the home of another woman who was trusted by the hero.


Another echo comes from Lucy Steele, one of the most important secondary characters of S&S. She appears to be a younger version of Mrs. Norris of Mansfield Park (MP). Both carry the art of obsequious behavior to the powerful to a great degree and exhibit considerable cruelty to those either less powerful and not useful to them. Lucy flatters her way into the regard of numerous characters and manages to get free room and board for months at a time. Mrs. Norris flatters Sir Bertram while at the same time she treats Fanny, a powerless child and poor relative, with extreme cruelty.

Mrs. Norris is also one who wanders off with anything that seems to be unattached or ignored by all, including food and plants from places she visits. Lucy Steele, upon learning that the rectory is very close to Col Brandon's manor, resolves "to avail herself, at Delaford, as far as she possibly could, of his servants, his carriage, his cows, and his poultry.

Another echo of MP brings up Mary's letter to Fanny when she writes about wishing for the death of Edmund's older brother Tom, who was ill at that time. She insists that she's only thinking of the good that Edmund could do as the next Sir Bertram. I'm cynical enough to believe she's thinking more of being Lady of the Manor than of any good deeds Edmund might do.

In S&P, Willoughby bursts into the manor at Cleveland and charms Elinor into partially forgiving him and promising that she will tell his story to Marianne. Elinor now dreads telling Marianne for fear that Marianne now will never be happy with anyone else and "for a moment wished Willoughby a widower." She, of course, quickly changes her mind when she remembers Col. Brandon's constancy and devotion to Marianne.

The point is that even good people can have evil thoughts momentarily, but good people quickly reject them while others, such as Mary in MP, actually try to force such thoughts on others.