For the discussion of all things Austen, and a great deal more.https://dwiggie.com/phorum/list.php?4Tue, 21 Apr 2026 11:32:31 +0100 Phorum 5.2.22 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131808,131835#msg-131835 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131808,131835#msg-131835 jeremybnt2 Tea RoomSat, 28 Mar 2026 16:12:20 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131833,131833#msg-131833 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131833,131833#msg-131833
Will there be an Epilogue to this story?]]> Kimberly F. Tea RoomSat, 28 Feb 2026 01:09:17 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131808,131831#msg-131831 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131808,131831#msg-131831 taragenen9 Tea RoomWed, 25 Feb 2026 16:18:45 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131814,131823#msg-131823 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131814,131823#msg-131823
Enjoy!]]> Alida Tea RoomTue, 20 Jan 2026 20:41:57 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131807,131822#msg-131822 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131807,131822#msg-131822 Alida Tea RoomTue, 20 Jan 2026 20:35:07 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131814,131814#msg-131814 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131814,131814#msg-131814 alibom32378 Tea RoomWed, 14 Jan 2026 13:02:36 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131808,131812#msg-131812 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131808,131812#msg-131812
This also shows evidence of hyper-pigmentation with some differences of pattern:

(1) the whole of the forehead is darkened in Byrne, but the dark patch extends below the right eye, lower than in JSC. On the upper eyelid, the abrupt transition from dark eyelid to white crescent extending down the cheek can be made out, but the contrast is very reduced.

(2) immediately adjacent to the left eyelid there is a network of very dark spidery filaments, similar to the marking visible in JSC. Due to the angle of the head, not much of the left side of the face can be seen.

(3) in Byrne, the black spot on the point of the chin is very large, almost as wide as the mouth, and much more prominent than in JSC. The black spot under the lower lip, however, is less prominent.

(4) there is the same patch of medium hyper-pigmentation to lower-left of the mouth as in the other three sketches. In Byrne this patch contains scattered black spots.

Differences in the degree and distribution of the hyper-pigmentation from one sketch to another might be accounted for in two ways. Jane Austen may have sometimes used makeup to disguise the worst of it; and she had occasional periods of partial remission, during which some of the discoloration may have faded somewhat.]]> alibom32378 Tea RoomMon, 12 Jan 2026 12:06:47 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131808,131808#msg-131808 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131808,131808#msg-131808
Begin by looking at the right-upper eyelid in the JSC sketch. It is mostly black, but at the outer end it changes abruptly to pure white, extending in a crescent down the right cheek. In CEA the same transition is (arguably) just about visible. I accept that this is arguable, because in CEA the angle is not very friendly and the sample size is very small; but it is definitely possible to trace a consistency.

In JSC there is an area of darker pigmentation immediately above the left eyebrow. In the CEA sketch we see a shaded area in the same place; at a casual glance, one would take it for a shadow cast by the curly fringe, except that it doesn't resemble it much in outline, and we don't see a similar shadow anywhere else.

In JSC there is a prominent black spot immediately under the lower lip (probably blue-black in real life). In CEA, there is a hint of a dark patch in the same place. JSC also appears to show a less-severe but larger patch of pigmentation on the left upper lip, in the region of the left nostril; this pattern, too, is repeated by CEA.

Most telling of all, in JSC much of the left side of the face is severely hyper-pigmented, with irregular borders, below and forward of the left ear. In CEA the discoloration is less pronounced, and not advancing so far forward, but it has similarly well-defined borders which are too sharp, clear, and irregular to be mistaken for natural shadow. After noise suppression, this appears to be contiguous with the discoloration above the left eyebrow and, in a lighter form, extends down the left side of the neck - just as it does in the JSC sketch.

Overall, the pattern of hyper-pigmentation is more severe in the JSC sketch, which was almost certainly done by Stanier Clarke on 13 November 1815, when Jane visited Carlton House. This was around the time she began to feel positively unwell, and probably some years after the CEA sketch. Had Cassandra finished hers, it is possible those early signs of PAI would have been more clearly delineated; Jane evidently insisted that JSC represent them honestly. In both cases, however, the artist has made clever use of light, shadow, and composition to minimise the visual impact of the disfigurement. In the CEA sketch, particularly, the casual observer does not recognise the hyper-pigmentation for what it is, and mistakes it for the ordinary effects of light and shade. But the longer and more closely one examines it, the less plausible such a rationalisation seems.

Footnote: Astonishingly, the Godmersham sketch of a tall, skinny lady sitting writing at a desk, who may be Jane Austen, shows facial markings fully consistent with the above. Unfortunately the only image I can find online is hopelessly low-resolution and over-contrasty, so I'm not making an issue of it here. But post-processing definitely reveals a black right eyelid which appears to abut a white crescent running down the right cheek. There is indisputably a darker patch above the left eyebrow. An area of excessive contrast and shadowing makes it impossible to verify the black chin spot separately; but this dark area, as a whole, corresponds more or less exactly with an area of variegated hyper-pigmentation visible in the other two sketches, especially in noise-reduced CEA. These are too many coincidences to be ignored. Interestingly, there is a black spot on the upper right side of the nose, which does not appear in JSC. Perhaps it offended his sense of symmetry, or perhaps this sketch was done even later. Entre parenthèses, I wonder if any of this explains why Jane is facing AWAY from the artist in the bonnet sketch? Had she not yet come to terms with her condition?]]> alibom32378 Tea RoomSat, 10 Jan 2026 12:23:54 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131807,131807#msg-131807 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131807,131807#msg-131807
"P.S.
I am going for about three weeks to Mr Henry Streatfeilds [sic], Chiddingstone Sevenoaks - but hope on my return to have the honour of seeing you again."

There is no necessity to meet again. In modern terms, Clarke is asking Jane for a date. He puts it in a postscript, because that way it seems more like a spontaneous, last-minute thought, without any agenda. But Jane is evidently unimpressed; she could have written to him at Sevenoaks, but she doesn't answer his letter for three weeks, during which time she maintains a normal correspondence with everyone else in her world. When she does reply (Letter 132[D], 11 Dec) she ignores the suggestion of a personal meeting, and discusses literary matters with humour and irony. Evidently, Clarke amuses her as Mr Collins amused Mr Bennet.

Ten days later, Clarke writes again (Letter 132[A], 21 Dec). He continues to groom Jane, covering her with fulsome, sticky compliments, mingled with mawkish attempts to enlist her sympathy for his own troubles; but hitherto she has not responded as he would wish. Mindful that she doesn't seem interested in another meeting, he suggests they begin a regular (doubtless "literary") correspondence. But perhaps he needs to make his meaning plainer! He decides to go for broke. His final paragraph is worth quoting in full:

"Pray, dear Madam, remember, that besides My Cell at Carlton House, I have another which Dr Barne procured for me at No 37, Golden Square - where I often hide myself. There is a small Library there much at your Service - and if you can make the Cell render you any service as a sort of Half-way House, when you come to Town - I shall be most happy. There is a Maid Servant of mine always there."

This is an astonishingly improper proposal, and Jane is surely gobsmacked. Think about it. He is inviting her to come to town and shack up with him at a discreet private address; and, we suspect, as often and for as long as she likes. As bait, he offers the freedom of his personal library. A maid on the premises is no chaperone - is she going to make up a third, every moment of the day? What are the odds that sooner or later, such a visit wouldn't mysteriously coincide with the maid being given a day off? And without being too Freudian about it, he could have picked his words better; "cell", "procured for me", "hide myself", "half-way house" - this is not the kind of language to reassure a lady of moral integrity.

Jane Austen is being propositioned, and she knows it. "Come to town? ON the town, I should think he means!" She drops the correspondence like a hot potato. Thankfully, Clarke can take a hint. It is three months before he writes again, and then only at the command of HRH (Letter 138[A], 27 Mar). The letter is short and only politely effusive. Neverthess, he must try his luck one more time: "Pray dear Madam soon write again and again." (The "pathetic puppy" gambit!)

Jane responds courteously but firmly (Letter 138[D], 1 Apr). It is obvious by now, even to JS Clarke, that the lady is NOT interested.

Is this being unkind to the man? He does seem to have been genuinely smitten. But he is a clergyman, for heaven's sake. To suggest that Jane accommodate herself in his private lodgings - discreetly, he implies - was simply immoral. She must have been disgusted.]]> alibom32378 Tea RoomSat, 10 Jan 2026 09:31:50 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131798,131806#msg-131806 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131798,131806#msg-131806 Alida Tea RoomTue, 06 Jan 2026 19:44:33 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131783,131804#msg-131804 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131783,131804#msg-131804 Arkadiy Tea RoomFri, 02 Jan 2026 12:28:45 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131783,131799#msg-131799 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131783,131799#msg-131799 Alida Tea RoomSun, 14 Dec 2025 01:10:55 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131798,131798#msg-131798 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131798,131798#msg-131798
Jane Austen conceived one of her minor male characters as (literally) a dick.  The passage, which occurs early on in Persuasion - p76, Penguin Classics edition - is the most calculatedly, deliberately spiteful and vindictive she ever wrote. She does not use the word 'dick' explicitly, of course, but one has to supply it mentally in order to make sense of the passage. 

His name is Richard.  He has died even before the story begins. He had been "a very troublesome, hopeless son", and his parents had had "the good fortune to lose him before his twentieth year". He was "stupid and unmanageable", and "very little cared for at any time by his family, though quite as much as he deserved". He was "nothing better than a thick-headed, unfeeling, unprofitable Dick Musgrove, who had never done anything to entitle himself to more than the abbreviation of his name, living or dead".

After eviscerating his character and vilifying his memory, the author concludes that he was, in plain words, a dick; a total dick; and nothing but a dick.

Losing a son before his twentieth birthday is good fortune? Christ. Jane's cousin Eliza de Feuillide's son was severely handicapped, but dearly loved till the day he died; Richard Musgrove was, at least, a functioning adult. The hatchet job is unbelievably savage, and very unusual for Jane Austen. Nothing in the plot of Persuasion necessitates so vicious an assault She might equally well have made Richard Musgrove a likeable, well-meaning simpleton who tried hard without ever succeeding. Was she using the cover of fiction to vilify a detested real person? It would be interesting to know the circumstances behind this, but I don't suppose we ever shall.]]> alibom32378 Tea RoomSat, 13 Dec 2025 13:45:52 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131784,131797#msg-131797 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131784,131797#msg-131797
As to whether, or how closely, Jane Austen would have dared approach the subject of lesbianism - remember that in late Georgian / early Regency times (Jane Austen's time), lesbianism barely registered on the social radar. Legal precedent had determined that there was no such thing as female homesexuality. Most people didn't believe it was a thing. Of course, everybody knew that some women preferred to share orgasms with each other. Generally, it was regarded as a dirty habit, to be discouraged; like squeezing each other's pimples. But in a society dominated by male values, "sexual intercourse" was defined in exclusively male terms; without a penis, there could be no sexual intercourse.]]> alibom32378 Tea RoomSat, 13 Dec 2025 12:02:06 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131783,131796#msg-131796 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131783,131796#msg-131796 alibom32378 Tea RoomSat, 13 Dec 2025 11:27:03 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131784,131795#msg-131795 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131784,131795#msg-131795
I think it more likely a commentary on men looking for pretty, young women and not plain, poor ones. I suspect Charlotte's expectations had slowly become lower and lower, and became quite disillusioned with men and marriage. And I think rather than being gay, she was actually aromantic.]]> Anne V Tea RoomSat, 13 Dec 2025 04:38:59 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131784,131792#msg-131792 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131784,131792#msg-131792 Alida Tea RoomThu, 11 Dec 2025 10:48:12 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131783,131791#msg-131791 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131783,131791#msg-131791
I suggest you find something else about which to speculate.]]> Alida Tea RoomThu, 11 Dec 2025 10:41:41 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131790,131790#msg-131790 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131790,131790#msg-131790

Arguments in favour: 1. The Missing Piece

We possess verifiable silhouettes for Jane's sister Cassandra, and for her parents, George and Cassandra Austen, as well as portraits of the brothers. Jane is the only one for whom we have no formal likeness. Does this not seem odd? These likenesses were the equivalent of our family photo album; unless you were well off (and the Austens weren't), a silhouette was the only likeness of a loved one you could ever hope to have. It's conceivable no silhouette of Jane was ever made; but perhaps one WAS made, and went missing, for a reason I will discuss presently. This does not contribute to proof of identity, as such, but it is a material circumstance which is worth keeping in mind, because it establishes a logical space which the MP silhouette would fill.


Arguments in favour: 2. The Scene Of The Crime

The silhouette was found inside a second-edition copy of Mansfield Park (1816), and it can be dated to the period 1810-1820. This justifies a tentative identification; as R W Chapman asked, what other Jane would have her silhouette in such a place? Why would somebody label a silhouette as "Jane", and put it inside a novel written by Jane Austen, knowing it to be some other person? Not conclusive, of course, but definitely a brick in the wall.


Arguments in favour: 3. The Family Resemblance

The facial features are consistent with a recombination of the silhouettes of Mr, Mrs, and Miss Austen, and such as we would expect to see in a sibling of the Austen family. There is the "classical" Austen nose, with a slight Leigh kink towards the tip; below the nose, the somewhat receding line of the Austen mouth features, terminating in a Leigh chin. An AI analysis would be useful here, particularly in comparison with the silhouette found among sundry papers (if I understand correctly) when Godmersham was auctioned in 1983. This second silhouette, possibly a self-portrait c.1815, faces the opposite direction, and the features are not quite perfectly identical, but they are sufficiently alike to be the same person done by a different hand.


Arguments in favour: 4. The Lovable Jane

The superscription "L'Aimable Jane" is definitely a worry. It would appear to have been written by someone who knew Jane, loved her, and either was French, or liked to affect French manners. No prizes for guessing who THAT would be. Jane and Eliza de Feullide loved each other; as Eliza lay dying of breast cancer, Jane's presence was all the comfort she needed; she died while Jane held her hand; indeed, quite possibly, while Jane held her in her arms. It is possible Jane had sometime gifted the silhouette to Eliza, and she had endorsed it "L'Aimable Jane". This would be quite in character. An AI analysis of handwritings would be useful here; unfortunately, though her letters survive, no image of Eliza's handwriting is in the public domain (as far as I know). The book was printed after Eliza's death, so she could not have put the silhouette into it herself; this must have been done by another - husband Henry, or perhaps even Jane herself? She would have treasured such a "memento mei". It may even be significant, that the book was Mansfield Park; like Fanny Price, Eliza was lifted out of obscurity and into a life of privilege. Subsequently, the silhouette was overlooked as the book passed into other hands. It is curious that the two silhouettes date to around the same period - was the second done to replace the one given to Eliza? Or did the existence of two make it possible to give one away?


Arguments against: 1. The Tits Are Too Big

One (female) commentator has suggested that the breasts in the MP silhouette are too generous to belong to one as tall and slender as Jane was reported to be. This is problematic on so many grounds, it is difficult to know where to begin.

(a) There is no law which says tall, skinny women cannot have breasts.

(b) In any case, the breasts in the silhouette are not so big as all that; they are just being pushed unnaturally high by the stays. On bath nights, they must have appeared much less formidable.

(c) With human nature in mind, I assume a silhouette artist might sometimes exaggerate a lady's bust to make her more attractive. In portraiture, length of arm and leg was often exaggerated for this purpose; Emma's sketch of Harriet is criticised for it.

(d) In any case, the "tall and slender" descriptions apply chiefly to young Jane. The silhouette probably dates to her thirties, by which time she may have put on a few pounds.


Arguments against: 2. It Could Have Been A Fanboy/Fangirl Fantasy

It's been suggested an unknown lady's silhouette could have been co-opted as part of a Janeite fantasy-obsession. One must concede that anything is possible but, currently, there are no data to support or imply this hypothesis.


There is no conclusive argument on either side of the question, but the balance of probability points to an identification with Jane Austen. Further advances in AI and DNA analysis will doubtless add more fuel to the debate. We haven't heard the last of this yet!]]> alibom32378 Tea RoomWed, 10 Dec 2025 13:13:18 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131789,131789#msg-131789 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131789,131789#msg-131789
"My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them as rational creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces, and viewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood, unable to stand alone."

Could anything more typically sum up Jane Austen's creative approach? This sentence alone may have provoked her to revolt against the pathetic, helpless heroine of the Gothic novel. But as a matter of more immediate interest, I'd like to point out that the word "rational" is actually scattered about a dozen times throughout P&P. I've made a list (but unfortunately I did not think to record chapter references):

01 - Caroline Bingley, hoping to impress Mr Darcy, suggests that conversation is a more rational pastime than a ball.

02 - At Sir William Lucas's house, Wickham says Darcy is rational when he wants to be.

03 - Lizzie judges that Wickham has given a rational account.

04 - LIZZIE PLEADS WITH MR COLLINS TO RECOGNISE THAT SHE IS A RATIONAL CREATURE.

05 - In her letters, Charlotte Lucas presents a rationally-softened portrait of life at Rosings.

06 - Mr Bennet says Kitty must behave rationally for 10 minutes every day or he will not let her out.

07 - Jane hopes Lydia and Wickham will live in a rational style.

08 - Lizzie thinks Lydia not capable of rational happiness.

09 - Lizzie concedes it is not rational to hope that Mr Darcy may still love her.

10 - Jane and Lizzie persuade Mr Bennet with rational arguments.

11 - Lizzie judges that Mr Bingley's hope of future happiness is rational.

12 - Lizzie sarcastically describes Lady de B's visit to Longbourn as a rational plan.

I apologise again for not having precise editional or chapter references; but, I do not write for such dull elves who cannot trace these things for themselves...]]> alibom32378 Tea RoomWed, 10 Dec 2025 12:33:42 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131773,131785#msg-131785 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131773,131785#msg-131785
Why should we regard Lady Susan as a product of the mature Jane Austen?

Because she wrote out a whole fair copy on paper watermarked c.1806. This would have entailed a considerable investment of effort and expensive notepaper. Had she wished to make only minor alterations - delete or add a few letters, edit some others - a cut-and-paste approach would have been more efficient and economical for a novel in epistolary form. She would only undertake a complete re-write if the original manuscript had been so heavily re-written as to be pretty much unintelligible to anyone except the author.

If, at the age of 30, you were re-writing a piece which you had first written at the age of 19, could you resist making substantial changes in line with your more mature understanding? Come on folks, smell the coffee.]]> alibom32378 Tea RoomWed, 03 Dec 2025 23:11:18 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131784,131784#msg-131784 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131784,131784#msg-131784
Did Jane Austen conceive of Charlotte Lucas as a lesbian? The next time you dip into P&P, carefully examine every conversation, every transaction, every authorial comment involving Charlotte, and ask yourself: could this woman be in love with Elizabeth Bennet? What is her subtext when she tells Lizzie, you mean as much to me as my own father and sister? Why is she so anxious to keep up the friendship after Lizzie, deeply disappointed in her, seems inclined to let it drop? What does it imply, that she has "no high opinion of men or of matrimony"?

I hope no-one will dismiss this as some fashionable, new-age interpretation of Dear Auntie Jane's text; there is nothing 'new-age' about lesbianism, or bisexuality, which category includes myself; Jane Austen understood the facts of life very well indeed.

Why would Jane Austen imagine Miss Lucas as a lesbian? The first, short answer would be: because she could! Her sense of humour was mischievous and broad-minded. This is an author, remember, who could give us at least three - possibly as many as five - major female characters bonking outside of marriage (the Bertram sisters; Lydia Bennet; Lady Vernon; Isabella Thorp). She could crack a joke about Lydia Bennet going on the game, put a smutty joke about "rears and vices" into Mary Crawford's mouth, and make off-colour wordplay with the names 'Richard', 'John', and 'Thomas' in her letters. She spent a significant chunk of her life in bed with other women. She understood.

The second answer might be: because it softens the implications of Charlotte's marriage to Mr Collins. He is repellent, but comfortably-off, well-connected, and future master of Longbourn. Moreover, he is not romantic, and seems unlikely to make excessive amorous demands (so Charlotte might reason). An aversion to heterosexual intercourse would probably be interpreted by him (she would hope) as a becoming, virtuous distaste for carnality. Thus he might be encouraged to moderate his demands even further. For a 27-year-old lesbian contemplating a lifelong spinsterhood in genteel poverty, such a "lie back and think of England" marriage might not seem like such a bad option; and I hope naive, idealistic Lizzie would (eventually) overcome her prejudice and forgive her for taking it.]]> alibom32378 Tea RoomWed, 03 Dec 2025 14:00:45 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131783,131783#msg-131783 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131783,131783#msg-131783
What Jane almost certainly didn't know, but we do today, is that Emma would not reach her sexual peak until her early 30's, when Mr Knightley would be fiftyish, and quite possibly suffering early-stage age-related impotence. He would certainly be 30 years past his sexual prime.

Could Emma have been tempted to dally, then, with some young stud? Would Mr Knightley have consented to look the other way, knowing it was only a dalliance, and that he was secure in Emma's love?]]> alibom32378 Tea RoomWed, 03 Dec 2025 13:21:54 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131773,131778#msg-131778 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131773,131778#msg-131778 alibom32378 Tea RoomSun, 30 Nov 2025 08:36:59 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131773,131777#msg-131777 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131773,131777#msg-131777
I will take the opportunity to apologise also to Sunnnie - I did not observe that there are three n's. Jane Austen would not have made the same mistake.]]> alibom32378 Tea RoomSun, 30 Nov 2025 08:18:31 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131773,131776#msg-131776 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131773,131776#msg-131776 alibom32378 Tea RoomSun, 30 Nov 2025 07:44:03 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131773,131775#msg-131775 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131773,131775#msg-131775
Let's not be polite about it: Lady Susan Vernon is a toxic, middle-aged, vindictive, vengeful, lying, sociopathic bitch. Not your average Jane Austen principal female. She will take sadistic pleasure in crushing the spirit of her own daughter. She feels only contempt, and would love to humiliate, those who have helped her in her times of distress. She is afraid of Cath Vernon, because Cath is the only person who can see her for what she really is. At the end of the story, she succeeds in entrapping a rich fool; nevertheless, she will probably end her days in a sheltered environment, a destitute, psychotic slut.

Does Lady Susan Vernon really believe in her personal universe of "alternative facts"? It's very difficult to tell; sometimes she seems self-aware, but most of the time she seems to be a prisoner of her own web of deceit. This ambiguity, this uncertainty as to Susan Vernon's real state of mind, is not due to Jane Austen's teenage immaturity; on the contrary, it represents a triumph of artistry, as I hope to show in a moment.

Lady Susan is indeed very different to the six narrative novels. In its own way, it is not inferior to any of them. Jane Austen did tend to verbosity a little bit; she had to cut P&P extensively to fit it for publication; there are passages in Emma, and Mansfield Park, which could have been trimmed. But just try it with Lady Susan. There is hardly a letter, and within each letter, hardly a sentence, which could be safely deleted.

In arriving at a proper assessment of Lady Susan, part of the problem lies in the perception that it is the production of a teen-age mind. People assume that such a mind (even if the owner's name IS Jane Austen) could not really produce a masterpiece. But Lady Susan was not the production of a "teen-age" mind. Conceived in c.1794, when Jane Austen was 18 or 19, it was only completed c.1806, when she was at (or approaching) the height of her creative powers. And that changes the game.

Lady Susan is Jane Austen saying to the world: this is me, unplugged. If it makes you uncomfortable, well, f**k you.]]> alibom32378 Tea RoomSun, 30 Nov 2025 07:42:42 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131774,131774#msg-131774 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131774,131774#msg-131774
Apple sauce. It is too far out of character, for both women. Would Cassandra force her sister to sit still, like a naughty child, and then deliberately sketch "Angry Jane"? Would that be the kind of sketch the Austens would love to hang on the wall and look at every day? If Jane were not in the mood, would she not have explained that to her sister, and ask to put it off till another time? Or, if Cassandra were really so assertive, wouldn't she insist that Jane adopt a more elegant pose and look at her properly? None of it makes any sense.

Let us take another, more careful look at the sketch, and see what we can deduce from the detail.

The first clue to a proper interpretation, ironically, is the chair. You can just see the back of it around Jane's right side. It does not look like a sitting-room or occasional chair; it is more likely a kitchen or dining-table chair. The setting, then, is probably a mealtime (as far as we know, Jane never used the dining table for writing; it was not sufficiently private; also, she had a writing-desk). The meal has just ended, or perhaps is between courses. Jane is relaxed, sitting back in her chair. She has folded her arms, as one does at such moments. From across the table Cassandra is sketching her; evidently, Jane does not object. The conversation is flowing, and she is giving her attention to someone on her right. She is amused. Look at that face (second clue) - are you sure that is a frown? Is it not rather an incipient smile, such as every face wears at a convivial dinner party? This was surely typical Janey, gorgeous Janey, and Cassandra could not resist to capture it. It is unfortunate that nobody approved of the likeness (evidently, a "driver's licence" image!). Nevertheless, there must be a reasonable resemblance, or Cassandra would not have gone as far with it as she did.

Jane Austen was said to be very 'conversible'; her chat was witty, lively, and interesting. But she took equal pleasure to listen and observe - as she is doing in this sketch.]]> alibom32378 Tea RoomSun, 30 Nov 2025 06:59:48 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131773,131773#msg-131773 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131773,131773#msg-131773Lady Susan Comes Alive was written by Gillian Hiscott during Covid shutdown because she felt that a contemporary reader's first impression of Lady Susan as written by Jane might not highlight just how deep and clever it is and that expanding the storyline would give it more clarity. The intense scrutiny of society needed from a teenage girl to produce this is much to be admired.
Relevant professional English actors were also contacted to help produce a recording for an audiobook – one reading the main story and each character reading their “letters”. So although there is a complete book which can be purchased from Amazon it is also split into 3 parts mainly for the purpose of reading alongside the audio book which can be accessed
on Amazon by searching under Gillian Hiscott or via website gillianhiscott.weebly.com]]> sunnniecornwall Tea RoomSat, 29 Nov 2025 21:47:33 +0000 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131709,131766#msg-131766 https://dwiggie.com/phorum/read.php?4,131709,131766#msg-131766 Feli Tea RoomMon, 24 Nov 2025 06:24:14 +0000