tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746180600838975632.post2325818416214366644..comments2023-03-06T03:18:16.300-08:00Comments on Stephanie Barron: Book One: Jane and the Unpleasantness at Scargrave ManorStephaniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01190171603034228824noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746180600838975632.post-66704858248701299612011-03-16T22:52:15.002-07:002011-03-16T22:52:15.002-07:00I'm playing catch up as this is mid-March and ...I'm playing catch up as this is mid-March and I just discovered the challenge last night. I have been meaning to reread these mysteries but always turn to that ever-present stack of night-stand books I'm sure many of us accumulate from recommendations of friends or reviews or meanderings through book stores; Austen, Heyer, and Rowland are typically the only books I reread frequently besides the books I read with my students year after year. <br />I am so pleased to have reread Scargrave; I'd forgotten that Trowbridge came into the series this early and associated with the later books--what a wonderful denouement with his arrival in Jane's bedroom no less! He saves our Jane! As with many readers, I adore Trowbridge--he's Peter Wimsey-ish with a delicious dash of Rhett-roguishness. <br /><br />I'm struck with how beautifully Austen's syntax and diction and wit are recreated; the allusions to Austen's works and characters delight, though I'm sure there are more references embedded, like Hidden Mickeys, than I perceived. And the Georgian cum Regency world is so wonderfully captured here. I love the rich detail but am ambivalent about the footnotes mentioned in earlier posts. The considerate "editor" in including the footnotes saved me from running to Poole's What Jane Austen Knew, but I think, too, footnotes diminish the illusion of being in another world where explanations are unnecessary b/c meanings are self-evident. Hmm, I don't think I'm articulating this well. Like Heyer, Ms. Barron's knack for detail allows us readers to immerse ourselves in Austen's time, but footnotes remind us we're still in the--oh my gosh, I can't even say twentieth century but must say twenty-first century. I suppose my vote must be for endnotes--I know I found myself checking and rechecking White Garden for them. <br />Bravo and thank you for a most entertaining read--I have Book Two waiting to take me to Lyme Regis where I will be on the lookout for the Cobb, some naval officers, and perhaps a dashing model for (be still heart) Fredrick Wentworth.Naj/darcykwentworthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746180600838975632.post-87233554961034762652011-02-22T05:48:51.911-08:002011-02-22T05:48:51.911-08:00Stephanie,
I have been reading your series for abo...Stephanie,<br />I have been reading your series for about five years now. I enjoy the footnotes. I have never listened to your books on tape (who reads them? Donada Peters is my favorite!), but I can see your point about how they would detract from the story during a reading. <br />The footnotes topic actually brings me to what I value most about your works and their role in my life. I found your works at a time when my personal learning was stagnant. I had finished my Master's a couple of years before and had been teaching the same literature to fourteen-year-olds for five years. Your works awakened a desire inme to learn again! So, I read the work mentioned in the first post, I found a cookbook with Martha Lloyd's recipes (even one for white soup!), I read about the Navy during the Regency (I adore the movie Master & Commander, though I have never read the books), I bought Dierdre LeFaye's edited letters, and read so much more non-fiction about Jane and her time because of these works. I even asked for (and received) a membership to the JASNA and was so excited to find that one of your books was dedicated to the JASNA; I annoyed my husband greatly with my week of telling him that you had dedicated a book to me!<br />Speaking of my husband brings me to question #4. My husband is a police officer in our small town. I never cease to be amazed at all of the hoops he has to jump through to prove that someone is guilty. I do believe that guilt in JA's time was too easy to "prove," but I also believe that "innocence" in our time is too easily come by. I do not think that either of our times has it right, but I would rather live in our time. I think in both times, those active participants (like Sir William, not like a random judge) really did seek for justice.<br />Question: Based on Lydia Bennett and Fammy Delahoussaye's experience, was an indiscretion like fornication really just forgotten if one married (anyone)?Mistihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12851204698323702458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746180600838975632.post-23289582762587751562011-01-14T13:39:36.147-08:002011-01-14T13:39:36.147-08:00I never thought of it (the peril) that way, but ve...I never thought of it (the peril) that way, but very true!!Angelahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03273883600110952540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746180600838975632.post-12688927073018628562011-01-14T08:15:07.372-08:002011-01-14T08:15:07.372-08:00You know, Angela, I suspect there are a few reader...You know, Angela, I suspect there are a few readers in England who aren't perfectly familiar with every nuance of life on their island two hundred years ago; but being tutored by an American is probably unpalatable! We all write about Jane at our peril--Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190171603034228824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746180600838975632.post-15399442078538371202011-01-14T06:57:03.405-08:002011-01-14T06:57:03.405-08:00Stephanie, why in the world would an editor think ...Stephanie, why in the world would an editor think that everyone who may ever reads your novels "already knows" everything there is to know about the nuances of Regency England life? Obsurd observation in my thoughts!! I can see how it might be annoying, like you said, when listening to it on an audio version, but I do still really enjoy the "extra" learning you provided in that way!Angelahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03273883600110952540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746180600838975632.post-58765864789142692232011-01-13T10:21:43.506-08:002011-01-13T10:21:43.506-08:00Dear Angela: I go back and forth about the utility...Dear Angela: I go back and forth about the utility of the footnotes, and if you continue with the series you'll notice they diminish in frequency over time. Originally I hoped they'd increase the reader's sense that I was merely the editor of Jane's found journals--not the writer of them (as obviously I am). Then I heard an audio version of Scargrave Manor, and found the narrator's constant self-interruption to read a footnote incredibly annoying! Now I confine myself to marginal comments only when I consider the fact really interesting, or likely to add to the reader's understanding of the story. Some reviewers have described the footnotes as "pretentious," and one British editor told me confidently that "we know all this already, so the footnotes are irrelevant." I guess the value of them remains debatable! Thanks for starting the series--and I'm glad to hear you enjoyed Portland.Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190171603034228824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746180600838975632.post-56481936322177029652011-01-13T05:38:24.101-08:002011-01-13T05:38:24.101-08:00Stephanie, As I said in a comment on Austenprose, ...Stephanie, As I said in a comment on Austenprose, I "discovered" you when you spoke (most enjoyable) at the AGM in Portland, and immediately bought a few of your books at the JA Bookstore table there. I am enjoying them IMMENSELY having started way before the "challenge" even came up. One thing I do want you to know is how much I am enjoying the footnotes. They truely add to depth and understanding of the books! And I'm amazed how you could get these out one after another! They're great! I love them Thanks!! AngelaAngelahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03273883600110952540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746180600838975632.post-69543548273236638012011-01-13T00:19:46.137-08:002011-01-13T00:19:46.137-08:00Stephanie thanks for your lovely insights into you...Stephanie thanks for your lovely insights into your mindset when your wrote Scargrave Manor. I just finished re-reading it after some 15 years and still marvel in your awesome ability to channel my dear Jane. Your group questions are very intriguing and I shall ponder them over a glass of port and your next novel in the series! Thanks again. LALaurel Ann (Austenprose)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07569869772159241024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746180600838975632.post-30235198191784459762011-01-11T14:53:19.887-08:002011-01-11T14:53:19.887-08:00Dear Ruth: You've read this four or five times...Dear Ruth: You've read this four or five times? You have my infinite respect. I think I accord that level of dedication to only two writers--Dorothy Sayers and Georgette Heyer--besides our Beloved Jane. Deepest thanks for the lengthy review--Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190171603034228824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746180600838975632.post-30250450221704345262011-01-09T06:56:43.705-08:002011-01-09T06:56:43.705-08:00Hi Stephanie, I just finished re-reading Scargrave...Hi Stephanie, I just finished re-reading Scargrave Manor for the 4th or 5th time, and loved it just as much as I did the 1st time I read it! My review is here, if you're interested: http://booktalkandmore.blogspot.com/2011/01/review-jane-and-unpleasantness-at.html<br />And let me just say, thank you for creating Lord Harold's character...I adore him! :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11986319237275869540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746180600838975632.post-54292841911800888492011-01-02T17:08:21.644-08:002011-01-02T17:08:21.644-08:00Mimi: Glad you got through Scargrave (and even gl...Mimi: Glad you got through Scargrave (and even gladder to hear you're going to read Jane.) If you liked book one, you'll probably like the rest of the series even more. Or so I hope.<br /><br />Brooke: I'm sorry I was so dense. Chalk it up to all the eggnog over the past few days...<br />Happy New Year, all!Stephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190171603034228824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746180600838975632.post-53543313999707456202011-01-02T16:33:26.572-08:002011-01-02T16:33:26.572-08:00Hi Stephanie,
My comment wasn't clear. What ...Hi Stephanie,<br /><br />My comment wasn't clear. What I meant is that the explanation in the footnotes of The Unpleasantness at Scargrave Manor as to why it's Lady Catherine (a daughter of a peer) as opposed to Lady Lucas (the wife of a mere knight) was one of the things I really liked about the book. It was a round about way of saying that I didn't think the footnotes were "pedantic."Brooke from The Bluestocking Guidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07832634751075478091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746180600838975632.post-49686768312361171292011-01-01T20:16:16.552-08:002011-01-01T20:16:16.552-08:00I just completed book number one. I really enjoye...I just completed book number one. I really enjoyed it- although I am familiar with her publications, I've never read any of Jane Austen's work and most likely will now. What a clever idea you have hit upon. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the Jane mysteries. They await at my bedside!Mimihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10380248999783370557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746180600838975632.post-47788391569178216092010-12-31T15:52:11.551-08:002010-12-31T15:52:11.551-08:00Dear Stephanie:
Do you mean Lady Lucas and Lady Ca...Dear Stephanie:<br />Do you mean Lady Lucas and Lady Catherine from Pride and Prejudice? If so, I would guess it's because Lady Lucas derives her title from her husband--who was knighted. She is a commoner herself, and the "Lady" in front of her name is what's known as a courtesy title. Lady Catherine, on the other hand, was born the daughter of a nobleman, and her title--which is also a courtesy one, because she wouldn't have been her father's heir--is Lady Catherine at birth. It derives from her father. We can guess he was an earl, because Colonel Fitzwilliam, her nephew, is the second son of an earl--presumably Lady Catherine's brother--and Darcy's mother was Lady Anne. The courtesy title of an earl's children dies with them, so Lady Catherine's daughter is just Anne de Bourgh. She's a commoner, like Darcy. If this seems confusing, consider Winston Churchill. His father was Lord Randolph, as the second son of a duke; his mother was Lady Randolph (courtesy title due to marriage; she wouldn't have been Lady Jennie), and Winston was just Mr. Churchill. His cousin, however, was Duke of Marlborough. Go figure.<br />All of this confusing detail is laid out, by the way, in a helpful table in the book WHAT JANE AUSTEN ATE AND CHARLES DICKENS KNEW, if you want to research it further. Hope that helps!<br />StephanieStephaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190171603034228824noreply@blogger.com