Spent Weds night re-reading Sense and Sensibility in order to write this piece. I've always found S&S dark but going through it again I was surprised at how dark I found it. Even when you're laughing at MRs Palmer's silliness, or Marianne's extremes I found it increasingly unsettling. As for Lucy Steele - brrr the woman is a menace.
Still don't get why Elinor goes for Edward Ferrars either.
The US election doesn't disappoint this morning with upsets by Obama and Huckabee triumphing. Huckabee I was not so surprised at because of the evangelical organisation on the ground. But - having watched the Ten last night where Clinton's supporters seemed so organised - all those Harvard PhDs clearing snow - I was surprised she's ended up in third place. Mind you I wonder how all those Harvardites went down there...
2 comments:
I did enjoy the piece on S&S.
She is still playing with the sorts of gothic novels she lampooned in her juvenalia and there is a lot of comedy (which the Ang Lee film brought out). But there are many darker currents running through the novel at the heart of which, I think, are the damaging effects of your character and hopes being out of kilter with your circumstances.
... However, I meant to send a message to say, I agree, rather than send an essay. I preferred it to AA Gill's review of the programme, which sounded like someone forced to read it for CSE.
PS I know what you mean about Edward (I think perhaps she Elinor responds to vulnerability). But then - Henry Tilney apart - which of the heroes really emerge well? Edmund Bertram? Darcy needed a wet shirt; Wentworth was a scourge of the Main but couldn't cope with an emergency in Lyme; Knightley is too close to Badger in Wind in the Willows.
Post a Comment