The Reading Vent & Rant Thread

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

What a patronising assumption. It denies the very real possibility that some might choose to avoid mores of the past because they find them personally offensive. Personal mores, personal ethics and personal choices can in fact be just that, not simply submssion to some alleged societal diktat of "correctness".

Well, I'm sorry that you find it so.

Originally Posted by Sirtel

For me, things that I find offensive in real life are vastly more numerous than things I find offensive in fiction. Of the latter there aren't much I can't read. For example, I'm perfectly able to enjoy Austen, regardless of the fact that I'm fiercely independent in real life. Also, I can read and enjoy various politically incorrect fiction, but I cannot stand most of those things in real life. For me, fiction and life just aren't the same.

Yeah, that's me too. I mean, Lord, if I took our exemplar of Austen as if it were real, today, I'd lose my mind. If I'd been Elizabeth Bennet, I'd have been shooting people. Starting with the Dad that put away zero money for me.

( ಠ_ಠ)

Hitch

[issybird]

I think there are a lot of apples and oranges as well as kiwis and kumquats in all this. One’s life is going to jog along exactly the same without Ellery Queen (whom I personally can enjoy) or even Rex Stout (ditto), but not knowing Austen would be a loss. Or Shakespeare, because of Merchant of Venice and Taming of the Shrew. On the other hand, you can’t read everything anyway. I also think it become harder to accept the offensive the more recent it becomes, i.e., people should have known better and unless the author’s making a point, nuh-uh. Austen’s one thing, but Star Trek is another thing entirely.

Originally Posted by Hitch

If I'd been Elizabeth Bennet, I'd have been shooting people. Starting with the Dad that put away zero money for me.

In Trollope’s last novel, there was a minor character, a father of five daughters all unmarried and in their thirties, who lived well within his income so as to provide for them after his death. Heh.

Mr. Bennet is not a good person; it always surprises me when readers don’t get that. As stupid, vulgar and irritating as she is, Mrs. Bennet is morally superior. So it was the business of her life to get her daughters married? What were their other options?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by issybird

I think there are a lot of apples and oranges as well as kiwis and kumquats in all this. One’s life is going to jog along exactly the same without Ellery Queen (whom I personally can enjoy) or even Rex Stout (ditto), but not knowing Austen would be a loss. Or Shakespeare, because of Merchant of Venice and Taming of the Shrew. On the other hand, you can’t read everything anyway. I also think it become harder to accept the offensive the more recent it becomes, i.e., people should have known better and unless the author’s making a point, nuh-uh. Austen’s one thing, but Star Trek is another thing entirely.

Indeed. I would be a far poorer person if I'd eschewed Shakespeare, even though my first exposure to TTOTS left me appalled, even as a dumb teenager. I think I read it after seeing that John Wayne movie, with Maureen O'Hara, where she's "tamed" too (McLintock?) and either my Dad or Mum told me to read TTOTS. I'm glad I did and learned to enjoy it--in its own way.

In Trollope’s last novel, there was a minor character, a father of five daughters all unmarried and in their thirties, who lived well within his income so as to provide for them after his death. Heh.

Indeedy.

Mr. Bennet is not a good person; it always surprises me when readers don’t get that. As stupid, vulgar and irritating as she is, Mrs. Bennet is morally superior. So it was the business of her life to get her daughters married? What were their other options?

Well, if Mr. Bennet had been a good person and a smart person, it's hard to feature that he'd have married Mrs. Bennet, really. She is truly appalling and just...abhorrent. Yuck. I always thought that Aiison Steadman and the writers did a remarkable job of portraying her as such in the 1990's A&E/BBC P&P.

Less of an admirable job in making it clear just how much of a loser Mr. Bennet is, though. I'm not sure he's...repugnant. He's not very smart, he's lazy and he procrastinates, thus creating all these various and sundry issues through which the Bennet girls must navigate. I mean, who wouldn't or couldn't see that Lydia was headed for trouble? He tried to avoid conflict. I always thought that he overspent his means, (thus preventing him from providing for the girls) not only out of procrastination and silly optimistic belief that Mrs. B would provide a son, but to prevent conflict with Mrs. B and her daft desire to keep up with the Joneses.

(not really relevant, and completely OT here, but OMG, Barbara Leigh-Hunt as LCdB, was amazing!)

But then again, I'm not Austen, so who knows what she was really thinking?

I just feel that...it's a bit like reading actual history, isn't it? If you read Sayers and Christie, et al, you get a feeling for what society was actually like, at the time. Not through the eyes of a trained historian; not "filtered" for 20th- and 21st-century eyes; not cleaned up, etc., but reflective of what was what, at the time. I prefer that to selective information. It may not always agree with what I think is right or moral...but then again, in a hundred years, readers then may think that what I believe, NOW, is corrupt or wrong or insupportable. I think it's...silly or fatuous to believe that what we think now is going to be impregnable, perfect and unassailable in 100 years. We'll be just as blithely dismissed, then, as Sayers (etc.) are now.

BUT, that's just my $.02.

Hitch

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by issybird

I also think it become harder to accept the offensive the more recent it becomes, i.e., people should have known better and unless the author’s making a point, nuh-uh.

Yes, of course. I've enjoyed reading about characters living thousands of years in the past who keep slaves and are by today's standards male chauvinist pigs. Would I enjoy reading about such a character living in the 20th or 21st century? Naturally not. Unless the character in question is an alien from a different culture, and even then I would probably roll my eyes at them.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Hitch

...but then again, in a hundred years, readers then may think that what I believe, NOW, is corrupt or wrong or insupportable. I think it's...silly or fatuous to believe that what we think now is going to be impregnable, perfect and unassailable in 100 years. We'll be just as blithely dismissed, then, as Sayers (etc.) are now.

BUT, that's just my $.02.

Hitch

I agree with this wholeheartedly and have often thought along the same lines.

[mbovenka]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

My HP 48GX isn't quite as venerable, but has been going strong since 1993. Love the RPN notation and don't know what I would do if it ever dies.

Buy another one? You can still get them, even NOS.

[mbovenka]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

They are just NOT the same as using a quality dedicated device. Ok in a pinch but that's about it.

I loved my HP22S (until someone nicked it); HP sure made the best calculators out there, back in the day. But for pure functionality as a dedicated calculator (which Google Sheets isn't) TechCalc+ on my Android phone has it beat six ways to Sunday. For three bucks to remove the ads.

[hildea]

To me, there's a big difference between an author describing an oppressive society, and an author applauding an oppressive society.

Austen describes a society where women have very few rights, and writes about women who depend on marriage to make a living. But there's quite a lot of quiet fury about women's lack of options in her writing -- at least, that's how I read her.

On the other hand, I started reading a classic Norwegian crime/pulp novel published in the 1930s where all the women were described as extremely silly and childish -- not just when viewed through the eyes of the protagonist, but also in the narrative. That book annoyed me so much, and it wasn't great enough in other ways to overcome my annoyance, that I stopped reading.

[JSWolf]

In fiction, I don't like to read about racism or antisemitism.

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by mbovenka

Buy another one? You can still get them, even NOS.

Technically, if mine ever dies, I would just use my wife's from the same time. Hers even has a couple of the add-on cards. And I don't think hers has been used in 15 years. (It does still work though.)

Originally Posted by mbovenka

I loved my HP20S (until someone nicked it); HP sure made the best calculators out there, back in the day. But for pure functionality as a dedicated calculator (which Google Sheets isn't) TechCalc+ on my Android phone has it beat six ways to Sunday. For three bucks to remove the ads.

Sheets certainly isn't a dedicated calculator, but I know it well and it works for me. (Named Functions and LAMBDA are here!)

For the app, like ebooks, I just don't like the experience of using my phone for this application. Casual, irregular use is fine but, when I need it for work, I need it for more than just a couple numbers and the user experience on a phone is not acceptable to me.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by hildea

To me, there's a big difference between an author describing an oppressive society, and an author applauding an oppressive society.

Austen describes a society where women have very few rights, and writes about women who depend on marriage to make a living. But there's quite a lot of quiet fury about women's lack of options in her writing -- at least, that's how I read her.

Yes!

Mansfield Park & the Crawfords.
IMO the Wikipedia article on it is rubbish. She was attacking the hypocrisy in her own society.

Even reading it today, they come across as I imagine Austen intended.

Or the friend (Charlotte Lucas) that marries the obnoxious toad (William Collins) that sucks up to Lady Catherine in Pride and Prejudice when Elizabeth Bennet rejects him. Elizabeth is appalled, but Charlotte feels it's an escape from penury.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Elizabeth is appalled, but Charlotte feels it's an escape from penury.

Which it is! It’s a black mark against Elizabeth that she can’t understand Charlotte’s motivation. Her alternative was to count on the largesse of her brother when her father died and with such a large family, that was by no means sure.

And if it hadn’t been for the Darcy ex machina, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that several years down the road Elizabeth, sadder and wiser, wouldn’t have regretted turning down Mr. Collins.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I just feel that...it's a bit like reading actual history, isn't it? If you read Sayers and Christie, et al, you get a feeling for what society was actually like, at the time. Not through the eyes of a trained historian; not "filtered" for 20th- and 21st-century eyes; not cleaned up, etc., but reflective of what was what, at the time. I prefer that to selective information. It may not always agree with what I think is right or moral...but then again, in a hundred years, readers then may think that what I believe, NOW, is corrupt or wrong or insupportable. I think it's...silly or fatuous to believe that what we think now is going to be impregnable, perfect and unassailable in 100 years. We'll be just as blithely dismissed, then, as Sayers (etc.) are now.

BUT, that's just my $.02.

Hitch

Yes, if an author of fiction is writing about books set in their own time period I'm getting that person's take on their era. Obviously in the case of Austen some of the characters are exaggerated but she is writing about the culture she lived in.

Originally Posted by issybird

Which it is! It’s a black mark against Elizabeth that she can’t understand Charlotte’s motivation. Her alternative was to count on the largesse of her brother when her father died and with such a large family, that was by no means sure.

And if it hadn’t been for the Darcy ex machina, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that several years down the road Elizabeth, sadder and wiser, wouldn’t have regretted turning down Mr. Collins.

Some discussion or commentary I read about Austen (can't remember if it was on Mobileread or elsewhere) stated that Charlotte's situation was probably one of the most realistic in Austen's books. Mr. Collins wasn't wonderful but at least he would be able to provide a decent standard of living. He was annoying but not mean.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

What a patronising assumption. It denies the very real possibility that some might choose to avoid mores of the past because they find them personally offensive. Personal mores, personal ethics and personal choices can in fact be just that, not simply submssion to some alleged societal diktat of "correctness".

I find your comment above equally patronising.

[Hitch]

Yes, poor Charlotte! Austen makes us all feel for her. And yes, I believe that Austen's quiet rage against "the system" is palpable. With the Mr. Collins scenario (I mean, really ladies, who amongst us could have said yes, today?), she has a choice between suffering due to her father's selfish foolishness and inept management, or suffering for the rest of her life with an intolerable toady man. Yuck. Not to mention the egregious horrors of paying court upon bended knee and head to LCdB. OHEMGEE.

(I also wonder, female heroism aside, if she really WOULD HAVE turned down Darcy. I mean, come on!!! It sounds good in P&P and all that, righteous anger, realizing that he wasn't all wrong, that her horrible family was weighing her down, etc.--and her denial drives him to acts of compassion and all that--but still. Would she really have declined, all things considered? Hard to believe so.)

And if I hadn't read Austen, at a time in my life when I needed to, I wonder if I ever would have appreciated women's lack of choices, in that period? I doubt it. Those books, starting with P&P, really drove it home for me and made me grateful that I was a girl in the 60's and early 70's, when AT LEAST we had some rights and were actively campaigning for more/full rights.

@Issy: yes, and I was compelled to wonder--many times, over all these years, just how many women who turned down odious men, as younger women with "more to offer" (let's not kid ourselves, ladies), regretted it later. But Gods above, marriage to Mr. Collins...an overdose of Laudanum seems a better solution and no, not really kidding.

@4691mls: yes, that's how I feel about it.

@Thaisadon: thanks.

Hitch