I read Emma (1816) by Jane Austen as non-fiction

[Pastabake]

Isn't that the beauty of lit crit, especially once the author is long dead and unable to disagree.

I doubt the Taliban would want to co-opt her works she's a woman after all, but it did bring to mind the memory of Afghanistan being Titanic crazy for years after the film. So it certainly is incredible what people will co-opt.

Happy reading.

[Blauw bloed]

As whites in Europe and the USA are not free, their capacity to think freely has been beaten out of them. They cannot synthesize information, and only hang on to one piece of information. James Boswell was described as very dark, BUT he also self describes as 'black,'and he describes his niece as 'black as chimney. So we need to consider these three leads to conclude his skin was truly dark, and he was in no way white. The portrait is an over paint.

-- Updated June 24th, 2013, 4:40 am to add the following --

http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/womchart.htm

Emma (1816) by Jane Austen (1775-1817) is her best, most accomplished WORK, THE WRITER IN FULL COMMAND OF HER ART. And politically most explicit. So they needed the royal endorsement. The unsupervised pick nick represents the French Revolution, and class warfare, where they are all fighting. The strawberry picking pick nick is supervised by Knightley and everyone talks with each other and all groups get their fair share. She writes an allegory giving her political view for a post-revolutionary Britain. She was a staunch conservative just allowing for little changes, while accepting the new role of the bourgeoisie as leading the social parade. HIGHBURY IS England, THE FAMILY Woodhouse is the royal family/system. Knightley living at an former abbey is the church. I'm not sure who or what Frank Churchill is, perhaps progressive nobility. The ball he plans is a parliament causing great worry to Mr. Woodhouse, but as it is supervised he accepts. Mr. Elton and his wife are the bourgeoisie. Jane Fairfax are the media and the artists, and they suffer a great deal, until taken in by the bourgeois giving them employ. The whites are the servants and the ‘lower orders.’ Emma can be compared to Jane Eyre (1847) as both give us a vision of how Britain ought to be. Yet Brontë being the radical was accused in a review of writing an 'unchristian' novel, in my view because she questioned the role of the British nobility, while everybody knew they derive their role and power and wealth from god. In Jane Eyre there is also the same color scheme with Jane Eyre, the heroine being white, maligned by the brown and black complexioned noble elite. But she prevails, as Brontë really sensed the times she was living in as a Charterist. She herself belonged to the brown and black complexioned elite. Much was made over the suitability of the man she married, if he was worth her, as he was rather puzzling to us viewed as lower in social rank. At her advanced age and with her less charming looks, she should have been grateful he looked at her at all. The book has many flaws, more so than Emma which seems flawless, but It's a great book and a source for my blue blood is black blood (1100-1848) research.

[Keithprosser3]

As an aside, an image of Jane Austen will shortly be appearing on British 10 pound notes. She will be replacing Charles Darwin.