Jane Austen discussion
General Discussion
>
Who is the Worst Man in Jane Austen?
General Tilney would be tops with me because he abuses power. A lot of the younger wickeds are more aspirational—Captain Tilney, Wickham, Mr. Elliot; they prey on the weak but can’t really harm the strong.
Abigail wrote: "General Tilney would be tops with me because he abuses power. A lot of the younger wickeds are more aspirational—Captain Tilney, Wickham, Mr. Elliot; they prey on the weak but can’t really harm the..."I have General Tilney at #2, behind Mr. William Elliot. Both men were cruel to their wives but Mr. Elliot has that added extra evil in letting Mrs. Smith languish in poverty instead of acting as her executor, as he is duty bound to do.
I got to say Wickham is pretty awful for preying on 15 year old girls. He is about 26 or so and is trying to seduce kids. Nearly succeeded with Georgiana, succeeded with Lydia when she was 16.
Janet wrote: "I got to say Wickham is pretty awful for preying on 15 year old girls. He is about 26 or so and is trying to seduce kids. Nearly succeeded with Georgiana, succeeded with Lydia when she was 16."Yes, he's only at #5 because of how awful the other men are. There is really some stiff competition!
In Wickham's (qualified!) defence, I don't think he can be accused of any nascent paedophilia - ie, it wasn't because he fancied Georgiana as a very young teenager, rather than she was emotionally vulnerable and he could more easily prey on her to persuade her to elope with him.It was only her money he was interested in, rather than a 'dodgy' sexual desire.
(Well, I hope it was....??)
Beth-In-UK wrote: "In Wickham's (qualified!) defence, I don't think he can be accused of any nascent paedophilia - ie, it wasn't because he fancied Georgiana as a very young teenager, rather than she was emotionally ..."Jane Austen actually tells us that both Lydia and Georgiana were womanly, so there isn't that extra "ick" factor. Lydia was also "out" which means her family considered her marriagable. With Georgiana, it was all about the money for sure.
my categories are different I have wicked;Willoughby and wickham and also General Tileny and Mr Elliot Then I have selfish ; wICKHAM.Mr Woodhouse,Mr Bennet John Dashhood,Captian Wentworth Sir Elliot Henry Crawford then I have socially Thickheaded(abtruse?) Sir Thomas, Edmund,Col Brandon
Great book" Fathers in Austen" touches these incomptent men
Mrs wrote: "Great book" Fathers in Austen" touches these incomptent men"You are right, they are bad in different ways. Some of them were trying to do right and just failed. But as people say, it's what you do not your intentions that matter in the end.
I say General Tilney. Kicking Catherine out of the house and making her travel alone is the worst sort of insult you can offer your children's friend that isn't sexual in nature. Mr. Eliot. He decides now he wants Kellynch and sets about trying to reintroduce herself to his family to get his hands on his inheritance in any way shape and form: sucking up to Sir Walter, being nice to Elizabeth whom he has previously refused to propose to, flirting with Anne and then taking Mrs. Clay under his protection. Refusing to help Mrs. Smith is dastardly too.
The top 5 are all villainous and I would bump up Henry Crawford and don't consider characters off page to count. I would bump up Edmund Bertram, Edward Ferrars, John Thorpe and Frank Churchill.
Capt. Tilney will raise a glass in the mess hall to Isabella so it's clear he made a conquest but not so clear how far that conquest went. I don't think Henry thinks Frederick slept with Isabella though or Henry would condem his brother a lot more.
I think John Dashwood is just weak and unintelligent. He's not clever enough to see what his wife is doing and his thoughts don't dwell on the future. He persuades himself his sister and stepmother will be fine and then forgets about them.
I like Mr. Bennet and I feel sorry for him that he was dazzled by the former Miss Gardiner in their youth. They obviously got along at some point and he assumed he'd have a son to break the entail so he spent his money freely. It's not his responsibility to do the parenting of girls. That's their mother's problem and she's more at fault than he is. Mr. B is not without faults but he recognizes something special in Elizabeth at least.
QNPoohBear wrote: "I say General Tilney. Kicking Catherine out of the house and making her travel alone is the worst sort of insult you can offer your children's friend that isn't sexual in nature. Mr. Eliot. He de..."
I wasn't sure if I should include characters who are off-page, but I wanted it to be a very comprehensive list. Eliza Brandon has the worst fate of any woman in Jane Austen's books and those Brandon men deserve to be hated for doing it.
Sure, John Dashwood is probably weak, but he made a promise to his dying father! Those are the most important promises!
As for Mr. Bennet, he admits that Lydia's behaviour was his fault, “Say nothing of that. Who should suffer but myself? It has been my own doing, and I ought to feel it... No, Lizzy, let me once in my life feel how much I have been to blame. I am not afraid of being overpowered by the impression”. He never should have allowed Lydia to go to Brighton, knowing how she behaved.
why are Edmund and Edward on yor list They are just a little dumb socially there is a name for it today in the learning disables categories but I forget what C Wentworth also has it( all three flirted where they should not have stupidly also FC)
AS for Mr BennetI think most readers love him but that doesnt mean that he isNT a total faIlure as a Father . he is. That is JA briallence Dont forget how many readers are attracted to HC who is a terrible man and are even sorry he didnt get Fanny again I shall reccomend the book "fathers in Jane Austen" It is not heavy and lots of fun to read I laugh out loud when I read it
Frank Churchill altogeather has signs fof ADHD
Mrs wrote: "Frank Churchill altogeather has signs fof ADHD"I really try to avoid giving diagnoses to fictional characters. You can explain most behaviour in Jane Austen's books without resorting to that.
sorry cant help it my expertise in education was working with pupils with Adhd
Mrs wrote: "Thats the reason I cant spell"I have been told that is it not respectful to the neuro-diverse community to reduce their medical problems to tropes and I tend to agree. As someone with a master's degree in psychology, I also know that the DSM5 criteria are very hard to establish for a character in a novel.
For example, we would need to interview Frank Churchill's parent and teacher, to establish that his behaviour is general in both contexts. Also, no psychologist would ever diagnose anyone without doing an in-person psychological interview.
So while I respect your expertise, that is why I try and avoid actual diagnostic terms. I would rather say, he seems really impulsive or flighty.
Edmund was totally clueless and careless of Fanny's feelings. He was so enchanted by Mary Crawford he couldn't see her for the scheming social climber she was until she was disrespectful towards his brother's health. He would have allowed Mary to overturn his life and force him to become something he wasn't interested in being- an idle country gentleman. Edward Ferrars behaves dishonorably towards Elinor and even Lucy. It wasn't fair to keep either of them stringing along, especially Elinor. He can't avoid running into Elinor at his sister's once in awhile but he promises to come visit even though he can see it will raise expectations in Mrs. Dashwood's mind. He tried to stay away but didn't and that further led to expectations he couldn't deliver. He also needs to man up and stand up to his mother. Then when he is free, he leaves it for Elinor to hear second hand that Lucy is now Mrs. Ferrars, which of course she misunderstands. He could have written to Mrs. Dashwood with news of his brother's marriage so his return would have been expected and less awkward.
Captain Wentworth doesn't do anything wrong. His pride was wounded when Anne dumped him. He returns and flirts with Louisa. He's been at sea most of his life and has little experience with ladies and Society. He didn't realize he was causing gossip and if he did, he would have done the honorable thing and proposed. Then I think Louisa would have said yes but she wouldn't have meant it. Like Maria Bertram, she would have been giddy with her success but unlike Maria, when her parents gave her an out, she would have jilted him. Poor Frederick!
QNPoohBear wrote: "Edmund was totally clueless and careless of Fanny's feelings. He was so enchanted by Mary Crawford he couldn't see her for the scheming social climber she was until she was disrespectful towards hi..."I'm totally #downwithEdmund, but Mary Crawford is tricky. She's already a young person of fortune, she's already pretty high socially. By marrying Edmund, a second son, she would go down. Her struggle in the book is if she can accept marrying someone below her. She does actually decide yes, but it never happened before the affair.
I can't actually get mad at Mary for wanting to stay at the level she's used to, and I think she would have become a better person if she had married Edmund. It's kind of tragic.
Perhaps Edmund would have become a better person with Mary as well. I always found him judgemental and conceited. He thought of himself as morally superior and looked down on those he considered his moral interiors. I think disowned his history is very "unchristian" thing to do and Mary is the only one to show true kindness.
Janet wrote: "Perhaps Edmund would have become a better person with Mary as well. I always found him judgemental and conceited. He thought of himself as morally superior and looked down on those he considered hi..."Yeah, I am very much on Mary's side when it comes to Maria. She is trying to do damage control and all he wants is for her to admit how very bad the sin was. Mary knows it was bad! She's trying to save Maria from being banished.
I meant moral inferiors. Sorry about that. Stupid autocorrect.
Janet wrote: "I meant moral inferiors. Sorry about that. Stupid autocorrect."I understood what you meant, I can read "autocorrect-ese" lol
I have been told that is it not respectful to the neuro-diverse community to reduce their medical problems to tropes and I tend to agree**
On the other hand it could help to educate the non-neuro-diverse majority to see the world through neuro-diverse sensibilities, if we interpret the behaviour of well loved fictional characters through that prism.
Thats the reason I cant spell**
Considering English is not your first language, nor Latin script/alphabet, I'd say you do pretty well overall!!
Captain Wentworth doesn't do anything wrong. His pride was wounded when Anne dumped him.**
I would say his heart was wounded when Anne dumped him. It's not just pride and anger, though that was there was well, as he acknowledges at the end of the novel when he and Anne do get together again.
Rejection is tough to endure!!
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Captain Wentworth doesn't do anything wrong. His pride was wounded when Anne dumped him.**
I would say his heart was wounded when Anne dumped him. It's not just pride and anger, though that was t..."
We do not know what was said, but I've always gotten the impression that Anne tried to say, "Not now" and Wentworth heard "Not ever." Because Anne loved him, but she was convinced that she couldn't marry someone who was penniless.
Yes, it's difficult to get a precise steer on their breakup, and who said what to what etc,. IIRC Anne definitely gives the main reason for breaking it off that she - penniless herself? - would only be a burden to a young man on the make....WAS she penniless? Do we have any info on what the Eliot girls' portions were? They must have had some, as surely Charles Musgrove would not have married Mary without any dowry at all?? Or maybe Anne would think that her father would so disapprove of her 'throwing herself away' on an unknown and penniless nobody (he's still pretty snitty about him when he's made his fortune, and pretty snitty aboutv the Admiral too!), so would not have given her a dowry? (Or assumed Wentworth was only interested in her for the sake of a dowry??)(since he despises Anne completely.)
The Elliott girls are dowered at ten thousand each. When Anne finally marries Wentworth, her spendthrift father can’t pay it all at once.
Shana wrote: "The Elliott girls are dowered at ten thousand each. When Anne finally marries Wentworth, her spendthrift father can’t pay it all at once."The quote says, "who could give his daughter at present but a small part of the share of ten thousand pounds which must be hers hereafter."
This implies that the girls only have about 3000 each and Sir Walter couldn't even pay that.
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Yes, it's difficult to get a precise steer on their breakup, and who said what to what etc,. IIRC Anne definitely gives the main reason for breaking it off that she - penniless herself? - would onl..."It looks like Anne's guaranteed fortune is 3000 ish pounds, which is not required to be paid until her father dies. So she is penniless.
This is opposed to the Dashwood girls who were given 1000 on the death of their uncle that is "theirs" currently.
I was always under the impression that dowries for daughters as designed by marriage articles using a strict settlement when two people married were due at the time of the daughter’s marriage, not at the time of a parent or guardian’s death. That Sir Walter can’t pay it entirely at the time of Anne’s marriage is a further stain upon his character. His estate at Kellynch will owe the unpaid portion at the time of his death. Whether it’s 10,000 pounds or 3,333 as you may be reading by the use of the word ‘share’ is not explicitly stated. Right or wrong, I’ve always just read it as 10,000 ponds. The annotated Persuasion discusses this sentence by merely stating that ‘this is her dowry’ and the estate will owe her the unpaid balance upon her father’s death.What an uncle did voluntarily for his nieces in Sense and Sensibility is unrelated to this.
Shana wrote: "I was always under the impression that dowries for daughters as designed by marriage articles using a strict settlement when two people married were due at the time of the daughter’s marriage, not ..."There are basically two types of dowries in Jane Austen, ones that the girls own already and ones that come upon their parents death. The Bennet girls, for example, have no fortune of their own. 5000 pounds are to be split between them, at the parent's discretion, on both of their deaths. So if you want to marry Elizabeth Bennet, the best you can hope for is 1000 pounds upon the death of Mr. AND Mrs. Bennet.
Other women have fortunes outright, so Georgiana has 30,000 pounds, in trust somewhere under her name. Which is why if Wickham ran off with her he would profit. This is in contrast to Lydia, who has nothing, and therefore the father must settle something on her.
Anne has the first type, she has something settled on her by marriage articles that is not hers until her father dies. This is the lesser type of fortune. I think it's meant to show how Sir Walter has never been prudent with money.
If you are a Regency man, I would suspect you would rather marry a girl with an outright fortune, like Georgiana, or even like Elinor Dashwood, than one you have to wait for, like Anne Elliot's. This is why I brought up the Dashwoods.
His estate at Kellynch will owe the unpaid portion at the time of his death.**
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mr Elliot (the new Sir William) did NOT fork out willingly, if at all....
With respect to Mary, did she get a payout when she married, or will she and Charles also have to wait for Sir Walter to peg out?
Beth-In-UK wrote: "His estate at Kellynch will owe the unpaid portion at the time of his death.**
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mr Elliot (the new Sir William) did NOT fork out willingly, if at all....
With re..."
We don't know, if Sir Walter was less in debt when Mary married then she might have gotten her full dowry.
Bethany wrote: "Shana wrote: "I was always under the impression that dowries for daughters as designed by marriage articles using a strict settlement when two people married were due at the time of the daughter’s ..."I'm not a proponent of the two types of dowries school of thought. There are dowries and there are inheritances. And yes, inheritances can absolutely be used as a young lady's dowry when she marries. Look at the Dashwood girls who have inherited a thousand pounds each from their great uncle before they reach their majority or are married. That's an inheritance that will be used (likely) as a dowry, since married women did not own property. At the time of their marriage, the money would typically be turned over to their husband. Heiresses also had the right to put their inheritances in a trust, before they married and with their fiance's knowledge, which allowed the income of the trust to be paid to the lady for her sole and separate use. This was called tying up an inheritance. The Dashwood girls can own the inherited money in the novel since they are unmarried. Likely Mrs. Dashwood has it all stashed away in the Funds, although this is not addressed explicitly. Elinor does factor in the one thousand pounds when she and Edward are trying to plan their future finances as a couple. So Elinor clearly expects to receive the one thousand pounds (which will likely be turned over to Edward and not tied up in a trust).
Miss King is in a similar situation. She has received an inheritance through the death of her grandfather. We know she is unmarried by her name. We know she is not yet of age because her uncle is her guardian. Her inheritance could be used as a dowry at the time of her marriage in my opinion. It could also be tied up in a trust because its a lot of money. If she had married Wickham, I would hope her uncle would have been smart enough to tie it up. But based upon Regency law, by the time Miss King marries, the money either goes to her husband or is put in a trust. Married women could not own property.
Wickham refers to Anne de Bourgh as an heiress of extensive property, not as a well dowered lady.
I would be highly surprised if the Bennet girls referred to the strict settlement from their parents' marriage articles, payable at the time of the surviving parent's DEATH, as their dowry. It is a future inheritance. But even the amount is murky because the allocation of the 5,000 pounds amongst five daughters is not spelled out. Lydia's is determined to be 1,000 pounds during the negotiation of her marriage articles with Wickham. But the remaining 4,000 pounds is not explicitly split equally between the remaining four daughters. This is addressed in P&P. But P&P never refers to this money as a dowry (nor does it even call it an inheritance). I call it an inheritance based on other research.
Anne Elliott has what I would call a traditional dowry, as does Georgiana Darcy. The interesting part for Anne is that her dad is such a spendthrift, he cannot pay what he owes her, when he owes it, at the time of her marriage. Based on what we know of Darcy's character, he would never be caught in that situation.
According to my research, which could easily differ from your research, the traditional dowry was a financial tool used by the higher classes, which was established at the time of the parents' marriage within their marriage articles typically using a strict settlement. It was payable to any future daughters AT THE TIME OF THE DAUGHTER'S MARRIAGE. I think the significance of this is that the daughter never actually owns the money. Wealthy merchants were much more likely to give daughter's cash inheritances, which would then have to be handled as I have described above. Its not clear to me what the Bingley sisters have, a dowry or an inheritance. Whatever it is, Mrs. Hurst's has already been handed over since she is married.
This is the fun part of research! You have to write your books based on your understanding of the Regency period. I have to do the same. I once read a P&P variation that mentioned a baby buggy. These didn't exist until the 1850s and was cause for a good laugh on my part. Likewise a reader once included in a horrid review that Mr. Atkins, the clergyman in my new book, could not be called Pastor Atkins. I went back and changed every single occurrence of it and republished!
It would certainly make sense, what you say, that an inheritance is from someone who is already dead, and which would then become the property either of the unmarried daughter, or a married daughter's husband (because as you say, once married she can't own anything in her own legal right) (but see my next question!).Whereas a dowry is a sum of money that is designated to be found and handed over, to a husband, at the point at which he marries the girl who is so dowered. The girl herself never owns the money at all, as it is not given to her before she is married, and the moment she is married it will then, the moment it is given to her, become the property of her new husband.
Maybe, in practice, what a father might do is to 'wait and see' if the daughter marries, in which case he'd provide a dowry during his own lifetime to go to her husband on her marriage (perhaps within marriage settlements that would say the dowry has to be repaid to her if and as she is widowed, when she would own it in her own right?)(ie, because she is no longer married and can, once again, as when single, own property in her own name).
But if, say, the girl passed 30, she might be deemed unmarriagle, and so the dowry would be provided as an enventual inheriteance for her to live on, as a spinster, when he is dead (assumign he will keep her while he is alive)
Could a married woman own anything at all in her own right? I've read along the way somewhere that a wife could be the legal owner of her own jewelry (whether inherited from her parents, or gifted to her by her husband), but don't know if that's true or not. I know one reads of wives being 'allowed' to keep, say, the money they made out of rearing poultry/selling eggs, but was that more discretionary, at the whim of the husband, than an actual legal right.
I do recall reading that Mrs Gaskell, when she received a royalty cheque from her publishers, is recorded by herself in her journal as saying she promptly handed the cheque to Mr Gaskell her husband as it was legally his.
'Pastor' as a title, or possibly even as a description, is certainly not customary in England, even nowadays, unless it's used in some non-conformists churches/sects. To my mind it's associated with Dutch/German/Swiss Protestantism in Europe, and more Fundamentalist types of Protestantism in the USA???
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Could a married woman own anything at all in her own right? I've read along the way somewhere that a wife could be the legal owner of her own jewelry (whether inherited from her parents, or gifted ..."In S&S, the first wife's fortune is only her husband's for his life and then goes to her son. So the husband never really "owns" it. I think this sort of thing must have happened a lot. If the woman was wealthy she would have posessions default to heirs of her body.
Pastor is common in many churches in the US. Lutheran, Methodist, many protestant. Even in Roman Catholic. The priest is called Fr. Bob or Fr Sullivan, but if he is the senior priest he is the pastor. The junior priest of the church would be the assistant pastor.
Beth-In-UK wrote: "It would certainly make sense, what you say, that an inheritance is from someone who is already dead, and which would then become the property either of the unmarried daughter, or a married daughte..."........
(perhaps within marriage settlements that would say the dowry has to be repaid to her if and as she is widowed, when she would own it in her own right?)(ie, because she is no longer married and can, once again, as when single, own property in her own name).
Beth-In-UK,
I've read it was very common in the upper classes, which typically used marriage articles, to put in the articles that an annual jointure of one-tenth the wife's dowry was to go to her during her widowhood. Why one-tenth? Because women usually survived their husbands by ten years during this era. I thought that was interesting.
And pin money is another interesting topic. I read somewhere that the idea (not the name of it but the need for it) of pin money came about because it was thought that having a wife who had to ask her husband for every shilling she needed did not lead to marital harmony (in other breaking news; water is wet!). So the concept of pin money was created and implemented within the marriage articles so that women could handle their own incidentals without running to their husbands for every five pence they needed. This seemingly does not contradict the Regency era laws prohibiting women from owning anything. Maybe because it's a contract involving husband and wife?
I'm guessing that the marriage articles would also address the family jewelry that the bride brings to the marriage. The wife would want to know that she gets to keep that jewelry if she is ever widowed. What if her husband's estate eventually goes to a cousin because they have no sons? She's not going to want her great grandmother's jewels to go to some cousin with the estate. And she may want to retain the right to bequeath her jewels as she wishes to her children, but since those children don't exist yet, she is keeping that right for later.
Those marriage articles were pretty important! They couldn't dictate how kind your husband would be, but they sure could spell out some of the other particulars of your marriage!
Janet wrote: "Pastor is common in many churches in the US. Lutheran, Methodist, many protestant. Even in Roman Catholic. The priest is called Fr. Bob or Fr Sullivan, but if he is the senior priest he is the past..."Janet,
All true. In my unfortunate case, I just thought it sounded charming and never researched it. So the mistake made it into my self-published book (egads). The first or second day the reviews started coming in and boy did this reader read me the riot act! I found all 167 occurrences (thank you Microsoft) and fixed it. Republishing it through kindle took a few days and I never heard about it again. But I never forgot!
And Jane Austen was a stickler for these details. Like you, she would know the title (spoken and written) for every corresponding denomination.
Shana, I have huge sympathy for you! It's perhaps the main reason Austen herself famously said that she wrote about 'three or four families in a village' (or thereabouts!) - ie, she stuck to what she absolutely knew 'for certain' because it was her OWN life circumstances!!It's incredibly easy to get it wrong when writing about any other culture (geographical or historical) than what we ourselves know 'for certain' because it is 'our own' lives. Of course, if readers are also from 'outside' that depicted culture then they won't know any different, but anyone from the culture depicted reads an error, they will spot it. It's a terrifying minefield for authors in my opinion!
Worse, when it comes to historical cultures, new research, or changing modern intepretations of the past, can play havoc with fictional depictions of historical cultures, and can lead to all sorts of what might actually be totally atavistic interpolations. For glaring example, consider how 'aware' we are currently of the impact of the slave trade, and the slave-derived economy, in Austen's time. That contemporary awareness then can find its way into fictional depictions that are just way 'out' for what was actually the mindset of the depicted time.
Remember, for example, that dreadful film version of Mansfield Park where Fanny sees a ship off the coast that apparently has slaves on board (er, wouldn't they have been in the mid-Atlantic heading for the Caribbean??)
More subtly, the Keira Knightley version of P and P set the Bennets in some kind of farmhouse, with pigs running around loose...er, not very likely?????
Conversely, the modern Far From the Madding Crowd makes Farmer Boldwood too 'posh' and his house too 'grand' (the clue was in his name - er, FARMER Boldwood!)
So, all in all, if professional and highly paid film makers can make 'howlers' despite all the resources available to them to hire historians to do their research for them, well, I think using the moniker 'Pastor' is pretty small fry!!!
"Pastor is common in many churches in the US. Lutheran, Methodist, many protestant. Even in Roman Catholic. The priest is called Fr. Bob or Fr Sullivan, but if he is the senior priest he is the pastor. The junior priest of the church would be the assistant pastor."Interesting that it's even used in RC circles in the USA. I don't think that would be so over here, but as I am not RC I would not like to say for sure!
I suspect, somewhat cynically perhaps, that the reason it never caught on in the UK, at least with reference to the 18th Century Church of England was that the pastoral aspects of their job were the least important to the clerics - the C of E very much neglected, broadly speaking, the well being of their parishioners (both spiritually and practically), hence the boom in Methodism which DID take a personal and pastoral interest unlike the C of E clergy who were far more likely to be 'sucking up' to the landowners! (Indeed, to be their younger sons most likely.....!)
I would think 'pin money' either was more or less the same, or became, what was then called an 'allowance'. The concept of wives having an allowance from their husbands to do just what you say, pay small household bills, and have spending money of their own for frocks and handbags etc, lasted well into the modern era, and presumably still applies to wives who don't earn a living outside the home? These days a wife could probably make some kind of legal claim for an allowance, or, if denied it, it could be material cause for divorce (!), but in Austen's time presumably it was entirely at the discretion of the husband unless, as you say, it was protected under the original marriage settlements drawn up between her father and her prospective husband. I suppose a great deal also depended on whether shopkeepers and tradesmen extended credit to wives when they were out shopping. I have a feeling that a husband was legally responsible for any debts their wife ran up, on the grounds that it was not her money to spend in the first place??
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...