The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

As Chris is away, I have put up this thread in case anyone wishes to start discussing it Part Fourth, where in Chapter 1 Jude meets Sue in the Schoolhouse at Shaston (which is Shaftesbury) and the Narrator describes it as the 'city of a dream' in a 'unique position on the summit of a steep and imposing scarp, rising on the north, south, and west sides of the borough out of the deep alluvial Vale of Blackmoor, the view from the Castle Green over three counties of verdant pasture--South, Mid, and Nether Wessex--being as sudden a surprise to the unexpectant traveller's eyes as the medicinal air is to his lungs. Impossible to a railway, it can best be reached on foot, next best by light vehicles; and it is hardly accessible to these but by a sort of isthmus on the north-east, that connects it with the high chalk table-land on that side.

Hardy's detailed account of the history of Shaston (ancient Palladour) foregrounds the process of change that occurs throughout history. Its picturesqueness is now largely unappreciated; it has become an unvisited town. Crucially, it is not accessible by railway on account of its topography. (I will put some further information and photos of Shaston/Shaftesbury in the Background thread.)

Jude's visit to Sue is cast in an ironic light by the fact that Shaston was formerly a site of holy pilgrimage and it follows on from Part III Chapter 10 where Jude joined a choir and took up hymn singing, something he thought might lead to his salvation but the Narrator remarks that Shaston has 'passed through a curious period of corruption', so are his good intentions once again to be thwarted?

Hardy appears to be portraying a society where forms of almost nomadic wandering are starting to supersede the rootedness of traditional ways of life. Shaston, for instance, has become an HQ for itinerant showmen who travel to fairs and markets. Jude and Sue are like many people from agricultural backgrounds at this time, seeking work in the towns. The fact that Shaston is not on a railway line and is therefore more isolated than Christminster or Melchester, may be an indication of the isolation from their roots that Jude and Sue are now feeling.

I'll just jump in here and say that I like Sue less now than before. /dodges barrage I feel like her sort of "Oh, oops, I worried that you'd jump to the conclusion I meant sex but kind of thought you wouldn't because, oh I don't know, don't be mad at me!" thing could not possibly be naivete the second time around. On the other hand, I do feel like Jude should not have made the assumption he did about the room. I feel like they both reacted in the most logical ways possible when he told her about his stay with Arabella; she was upset he hadn't been solely pining away after her (yes, I'm using provocative language tonight) and he was taken aback that she would feel that way, particularly once he explained the situation.

Sorry this is so disjointed. I wanted to say something but I drove six hours earlier today and am pretty out of it. G'night, all!

I am rather intrigued by the Sue in Chapter 1 who seems to no longer be the frigid woman we encountered earlier. As Jude played a hymn on the piano she 'laid her fingers lightly upon his bass hand' and later there was mutual hand clasping and a very emotional, sexually charged conversation, followed by an exchange about the religious books Jude was reading, which I feel was as significant as the sexual fol-de-rols themselves.

I wonder if Lily or Bill could throw any light on them and their significance to Jude and Sue's relationship. Jude asks Sue:

"Do you know of any good readable edition of the uncanonical books of the New Testament? You
don't read them in the school I suppose?"

"Oh dear no!--'twould alarm the neighbourhood... Yes, there is one. I am not familiar with it now, though I was interested in it when my former friend was alive. Cowper's Apocryphal Gospels."

Why would it alarm the neighbourhood?

Sue then says that "The Gospel of Nicodemus is very nice," - what Gospel is that and what is nice about it? And what does she mean when she asks: "But, Jude, do you take an interest in those questions still? Are you getting up Apologetica?" Is the word Apologetica significant, its non religious meaning in Greek being apology?

Edit: Hardy did not pick his locations lightly and in these chapters I feel that the location of Shaston, an ancient religious place (see Background info), is foreshadowing something which will happen to Sue and Jude in the future, not just the sexual encounter.

Thanks a lot Bill for your explanation in post 4 which is very enlightening - I love your comparison with the Hindus Vedas!!

Was it a fault to marry Phillotson to ensure a stable life for herself, which might not have been possible with a vacillating Jude? My understanding was that she thought that Phillotson had agreed not to have sex but as you say this raises other issues about her feelings. Perhaps she also has fears of pregnancy and death through childbirth because that was an ever present horror for women then - has she expressed that anywhere?

I agree that her attitude towards sex must be as frustrating for Phillotson as for Jude (and for the undergraduate she first lived with). Yet she seems to crave affection - 'Some women's love of being loved is insatiable...'. But for this craving she would better off as a Victorian spinster. It doesn't make me dislike her because I think it is a very understandable attitude but find it very sad for all parties. She is also conflicted over religion isn't she: 'It is getting too dark
to stay together like this, after playing morbid Good Friday tunes that make one feel what one shouldn't!' I think she badly needs some counselling!

The other thing I picked up from this chapter was her comment on Jude's 'rough' hands and I wonder if Sue was making a comparison between what over here is called a blue collar worker and a white collar one? There is often a prejudice against the former, especially amongst working class women looking for a better life. Arabella was a farm labourer's daughter and for her to marry an apprentice stonemason with a 'trade' was a step up but Sue became an educated woman looking for something more. These attitudes are still part of the British class system, I don't know whether they are the same in the US?

Bill wrote: "However, I have alternated throughout my life between my blue collar career and white collar career. When I was a younger man women my age were definitely much more friendly when I was in my dirty blue collar construction clothes then when in my white collar casuals. I always figured it was because it was obvious I was a working man with a job. I'd guess that women here don't think much of social class. ..."

Did you ever consider the possibility that women might simply have viewed you as more approachable? I have less fear of being judged by a man in an overall, than by a man in a pin-striped suit, so I will be more careful what I say to the person in the suit, and less guarded with the guy in the overall.

Just a thought...

Maybe you just looked more friendly, Bill. :D

Anyway, my point is that because women might be more reticent with the suit, doesn't necessarily imply that they "don't think much of" that person.

I agree that Sue is very confused and there definitely is some type of sexual issue here which isn't clear. It could be fear of pregnancy and the issues that surrounded it, or it could be she was unprepared for what sex is as many women were during this age. There seems to me to have been some kind of trauma associated with sex for her.

Jude is still desperately in love with Sue. Sue seems less in love with him that he is with her, but she also seems torn between caring for him and keeping a distance. I feel like there's a pulling back from him every time she feels she is getting close to him. Again, the reason here is not clear.

Part of me feels like they will end up being star-crossed for whatever reason as I don't think you can have a solid relationship with this pulling together pushing apart thing going on.

Deborah wrote: "I agree that Sue is very confused and there definitely is some type of sexual issue here which isn't clear. It could be fear of pregnancy and the issues that surrounded it, or it could be she was ..."

I agree with you on this, both about the existence of whatever her situation or problem is, and on Hardy being circumspect about it, which seems perhaps to be in like with the general Victorian reluctance to discuss sex or sexual activities with any clarity.

Or maybe it is one of the things the publisher fought with him on?

I agree that Sue is very confused and there definitely is some type of sexual issue here which isn't clear.

Her reluctance to have sex becomes much clearer later on in Part Four although with true Victorian reticence the word is never mentioned:). Her reasons aren't clear though, except that she seems to have philosophical objections to the institution of marriage itself, not dissimilar to those expressed by Jude when he married Arabella, which Chris drew attention to in Part One.

Phillotson comes out of the whole business as a very decent chap and, perhaps because he is older and wiser, he has quite a modern approach to the situation in which he finds himself. He has the courage of his convictions, which neither Sue nor Jude do. I warm to him and think he would have been happier with down-to-earth Arabella! :D.

Or may it is one of the things the publiser fought with him on?

From Wikipedia: 'The initial, serialised edition was substantially different from the later novelized form. Many minor changes were made because the magazine publishers insisted — for moral reasons. Large portions of the plot were also different.'

I am reading a Kindle edition of Jude but apparently 'both the Oxford and the Penguin editions have included the alternate chapters and endings — with quite enlightening notes and bibliographies— and if and when you read them, you'll see exactly why these passages were expunged, and why.' I don't know which editions this refers to. If anyone reading them editions can elucidate please do so!

MadgeUK wrote: "I wonder if Lily or Bill could throw any light on them and their significance to Jude and Sue's relationship."

I do not have first hand acquaintance with any of the material to which Hardy refers. However, the notes in the Modern Library Edition I am reading say:

"The Apocryphal Gospels are ancient writings about Jesus written between the second and fourth centuries that aren't included in the New Testament; Cowper's edition appeared in 1874."

"The Gospel of Nicodemus: Consisting of the Acts of Pilate and Christ's Descent into Hell, from the Apocryphal New Testament."

"Apologetica: A book of arguments defending Christianity."
---------
"...Nicodemus (Greek: Νικόδημος) was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin, who, according to the Gospel of John, showed favour to Jesus. He appears three times in the plot: the first is when he visits Jesus one night to listen to his teachings (John 3:1–21); the second is when he states the law concerning the arrest of Jesus during the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:45–51); and the last follows the Crucifixion, when he assists Joseph of Arimathea in preparing the corpse of Jesus for burial (John 19:39–42)."

"An apocryphal work under his name — the Gospel of Nicodemus — was produced at some point in the medieval era, and is mostly a reworking of the earlier Acts of Pilate, which recounts the harrowing of Hell."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicodemus (The site includes two artist's portrayals of Jesus and Nicodemus.)

I like Bill's analogy with the Hindu Vedas in the '60's or 70's - LOL. Alternative contemporary ones within the Christian tradition might be the Gospel of Judas, Elaine Pagels's The Secret Gospel of Thomas or The Gnostic Gospels, or writings by John Shelby Spong or perhaps by other members of the Jesus Seminars.

Postscript: A couple of hypotheses on the significance of these works to Jude: 1) If Hardy began making notes for Jude in 1887, reference to Cowper (published 1874) may have been intended to convey a sense of (Sue's) being acquainted with "modern" (controversial?) writings as well as the classic, which Jude is now becoming open to exploring. (Sue seems to reach back into the ancient pagan and forward into the future as a female icon in the story -- but hardly as Dante's beloved Beatrice!) 2) Reference to Nicodemus seems full of allusions to Pharisaic law, miracles (Nicodemus supposedly also had miraculous powers), openness to the teachings of Christ, trial, and descent into hell -- this last a foreboding foreshadowing?

Thanks Lily - post 15 makes a lot of sense.

I wonder at the irony of our reading Jude during the season of Lent and as Holy Week approaches.

"Sue...delayed her reply till Thursday before Good Friday, when she said he might come that afternoon if he wished..."

It almost shocked me (I don't really shock this easily any more) to have Sue invite Jude to Shaston on Maundy Thursday (the night Jesus was betrayed by Judas), for Jude's note of "finality" to be dispatched on Easter Eve, and then for Aunt Drusilla to have her funeral on the Friday afternoon of the following week, and for "hope" to reappear after essentially the elapse of a day.

How close did Hardy dare push towards blasphemy -- or the relevance of ancient stories to current experience, depending on the way one chooses to view these parallels?

(Note even: "Three and a half hours later he was crossing the downs about Marygreen". It was actually this passage that caught my attention first and led me to look more closely at the "games" Hardy might be playing. Compare: Mark 14:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.)

Bill wrote: "...I think its reasonable, at this point, to suspect that Sue has sexual issues that really have little to do with Phillotson or any other man...."

You reminded me of parallels of Sue with a very different Victorian female character whom we encountered recently, dear Isabel Archer in Henry James's Portrait of a Lady.

MadgeUK wrote: "Thanks Lily - post 15 makes a lot of sense."

Madge, see also my edit -- I didn't realize you had replied, or were doing so, or I would have left it unchanged. I got a bit audacious (lol).

Bill wrote: "Denae wrote: "I'll just jump in here and say that I like Sue less now than before. /dodges barrage I feel like her sort of "Oh, oops, I worried that you'd jump to the conclusion I meant sex but kin..."

I agree that Sue is responsible for her choice to marry Philoston and than her being repulsed by him, it does put Philotson in an unfair position, and Sue could have chosen not to marry him knowing she did not truly care for him or want to be with him.

Though it is also true that as a woman there was not many choices for her but to eventually agree to marry someone one, it would have been very difficult for her to live as a woman with no family to support her and protect her, unmarried and alone. She would have a hard time supporting herself, she would be scorned by society as a spinster, and she would be vulnerable to being taken advantage of.

Very few women actually had the choice to marry someone purely for reasons of love, or for their truly wanting to marry that person.

I think that Sue's "issues" with sex are very realistic for the time period, while someone growing up in a villager, and on a farm around animals like Arabella may have more of an awareness of sex. For the most part women were not given any sort of education about sex and what to expect, they were kept in ignorance about sex and the moral wrongness of it, and how women are to blame for rising temptation in men was drilled into them. In many cases of marriage, a woman goes into it with know real foreknowledge of what to expect, and has know choice but to submit to her husband who does generally does not take into considering what his wife may want, or her own fears and reservations.

The sex experience ins marriage for women was often in many ways akin to rape, it was a forced sexual experience in which the women were simply expected to grin and bare through. It was not geared to being a shared experience between husband and wife, or to be pleasurable for the woman.

In regards to Sue and Jude though, I maintain that Jude is just as responsible as Sue is, or perhaps more so for the havoc in which she causes in his life. Because he still has the choice to not always go running after her at her back and call with his tail tucked between his legs. He know what Sue is, he knows what to expect form her. He knows that she does not seem to feel for him the same way he feels for her, and that she is married to another man. He can make the choice to stop responding to her, to cut her out of his life, to simply walk away. Instead of always expecting her to suddenly be something other than who she is, or to suddenly treat him differently or have different feelings for him.

In many cases, a woman went into marriage with no real foreknowledge of what to expect and had no choice but to submit to her husband, who may not have any concept of her fears and reservations, let alone her capacity for mutuality.

Silver -- I have taken the liberty to rephrase your powerful observation. Your comments reminded me much of the (sad) story Ian Ewan tells in his On Chesil Beach.

Of course women knew about love and romance, but not sexual experiences. In addition, it was a rarity for a woman to be able to marry for love. In most cases, they married somebody with good prospects.

Lily wrote: "You reminded me of parallels of Sue with ... Isabel Archer in Henry James's Portrait of a Lady."

Bill responded: "I was thinking the same. But in this case Sue seems somewhat tossed about, confused, and pitiful. While Isabel was admirable, and so very much in control of everything"

The two women had very different resources at their disposal -- not just financial ones, but the variety, experiences, and backgrounds of the people with whom they associated.

Bill wrote: I'm the least educated in these forums on the literature of this era. But from what I've read, and Jane Austen movies I've seen, passionate love and romance do not seem a foreign concept to Victorian women."

Stories like Jane Austen writes (which are actually pre-Victorian) are more of a reflection of the ideal. They are not observations of how society truly was, but a criticism of the way society should be.

That is not to say love could never exist, but the reason why there are so many books around this era which deal with that subject is because it is an acknowledgement that things are not as they should be.

They are not simple stories of romance, but critiques of society because these books reveal the way things should be, they reveal the things women would like to have but most often do it.

Jane Austen herself was a spinster living off relatives because she did not want to marry for fear of having to give up her writing career to do so.

And in regards to Sue marrying Philtson, as has already been mentioned before, there was not a whole lot of other choices for her. She respected him as a man so she thought she could be his wife, and she knew as a woman that there was little choice for her but to marry. She thought she would be able to just grin and bear it as so many other women have done, but she discovered that she was unable to do so.

And maybe because of Philtson's age she had half-hoped that they could live together platonically in spite of their being married.

Sue's feelings towards Philtson after the marriage is also a statement about the whole system of marriage itself, and how once they were in fact married, Sue felt that sense of being tapped, that there was now no way out, and I think the very idea of how difficult it was to gain a divorce, and how even if it legally can be done, how ostracized you may be by society for doing so, and how the woman in particular would be looked down upon, can instantly create animosity towards the person who has put you into this position.

It is as if you had a friend, and you two were suddenly shackled together, you may soon discover that you liked each other a lot less than you thought you once did just by virtue of knowing you could never get free of them resentment towards them would begin to grow.

Lily wrote: "I got a bit audacious (lol)."

But charmingly so. :)

Silver wrote: "Though it is also true that as a woman there was not many choices for her but to eventually agree to marry someone one, it would have been very difficult for her to live as a woman with no family to support her and protect her, unmarried and alone. She would have a hard time supporting herself, she would be scorned by society as a spinster, and she would be vulnerable to being taken advantage of. "

Although Hardy gives us Arabella as a counterpoint to this argument. He gives us the two young women, Sue representing the traditional view of women of her time, and Arabella showing that there is another way that seems to work even better to provide happiness.

Everyman wrote: "...He gives us the two young women, Sue representing the traditional view of women of her time, and Arabella showing that there is another way that seems to work even better to provide happiness."

I'm not sure about either of these statements yet -- I think it is to Hardy's credit that neither fits neatly into a mold or stereotype.

Everyman wrote: Although Hardy gives us Arabella as a counterpoint to this argument. He gives us the two young women, Sue representing the traditional view of women of her time, and Arabella showing that there is another way that seems to work even better to provide happiness. ."

I am not sure that I would agree that Arabella truly has found the path to happiness, it seems more to me that Arabella has found the greater path to acceptance of her position as a woman, and has greater durability to survive and accept her position than Sue.

She does not dwell upon the wrongness and injustice of it as much as Sue does, and she has found a way to make it work for herself but I am not certain I have seen anything which shows Arabella as being genuinely happy, or truly any happier than Sue, she just does not have the sensitiveness to her feelings that Sue has now does she have the same philosophical intellect of Sue .

Bill wrote: "I'm the least educated in these forums on the literature of this era."

Don't bet on it. Given the depth of your insights, someday you are going to have to step up to what a boss said to me at one point: "It's time to quit saying you don't know because you're comparatively new to the job." He kindly added, "You know better than some of these other guys."

Part Fourth--

So, I didn't see any comments associated with the Milton epigraph to this part--

"Whoso prefers either matrimony or other Ordinance before the Good of Man and the plain Exigence of Charity, let him profess Papist, or Protestant, or what he will, he is no better than a Pharisee."

And what do we make of this?

I love Hardy's description of Shaston--

"...Shaston was remarkable for three consolations to man, such as the world afforded not elsewhere. It was a place where the churchyard lay nearer heaven than the church steeple, where the beer was more plentiful than water, and where there were more wanton women than honest wives and maids."

Hmm, as a younger man, I can imagine that I might have quite enjoyed Shaston.

And then Shaston is also the place where--

"...girls in white pinafores over red and blue frocks appeared dancing along the paths which the abbess, prioress, sub-prioress, and fifty nuns had demurely paced three centuries earlier."

For me, this conjured up a distinct juxtaposition of the pagan contrasted with the religious.

Sue describes where she lives with Phillotson--

"It is so antique and dismal that it depresses me dreadfully. Such houses are very well to visit, but not to live in--I feel crushed into the earth by the weight of so many previous lives there spent."

While I think Susanna has a bit of the Fawley 'connection' to ghosts, I also think it is a deeper reflection of what is currently sitting in her heart--i.e., she is profoundly oppressed and depressed with her current situation.

Clearly a connection is established with Jude as she continues her discussion with him in the school building in Shaston--

"Indeed when they talked on an indifferent subject, as now, there was ever a second silent conversation passing between their emotions, so perfect was the reciprocity between them."

To me, this contains no sexual over- or under-tones whatsoever. This is the "intimacy" that Susanna is searching for; and while at first blush this may be attractive to Jude, I surmise that he is clearly thinking of a different form of intimate relationship with his cousin.

What did everyone think of Susanna's parting shot at Jude as he leaves her that evening--

"You are Joseph the dreamer of dreams, dear Jude. And a tragic Don Quixote. And sometimes you are St. Stephen, who, while they were stoning him, could see Heaven opened. O my poor friend and comrade, you'll suffer yet!"

Later following Aunt Drusilla's funeral in Marygreen, Jude and Sue are sitting in Drusilla's house talking, and Sue--

"...looked at the window pots with the geraniums and cactuses, withered for want of attention..."

This seemed incredibly poignant and prescient to me.

What did everyone make of the little episode, late at night, of the rabbit caught in the trap and Jude's and Sue's reaction to it? Sue even tells Jude--

"...I heard the rabbit, and couldn't help thinking of what it suffered, till I felt I must come down and kill it! But I am so glad you got there first..."

In my opinion, Jude and Sue are almost akin to the rabbit--caught in a trap and suffering.

Christopher wrote: "I love Hardy's description of Shaston--"...Shaston was remarkable for three consolations to man, such as the world afforded not elsewhere. It was a place where the churchyard lay nearer heaven tha..."

What came to my mind was Sodom and Gomorrah. It seems to have been a religious area and now that influence has waned.

Christopher wrote: "Sue describes where she lives with Phillotson--"It is so antique and dismal that it depresses me dreadfully. Such houses are very well to visit, but not to live in--I feel crushed into the earth b..."

I agree that she's depressed and oppressed. To me it also the old house represents the old ways of society - those which she wishes didn't exist.

@ Bill's Post No. 40--

I don't disagree with your very plausible interpretation, Bill. Maybe we should not be too hasty to condemn our players either; at least until we better understand what truly lies within their hearts?

Deborah wrote-- "It seems to have been a religious area and now that influence has waned."

Personally, I think you're right on here, Deb. It was really an amazing juxtaposition for me, and felt entirely intentional. And that image of the dead physically residing above the living was remarkable and quite intriguing too.

Deborah wrote-- "To me the old house represents the old ways of society - those which she wishes didn't exist."

Again, Deborah, I see it the same way. An extraordinarily vivid metaphor.

I agree. The dead physically residing above the living for me was the oppressiveness found in the society by all the old rules. It made me think that their world was changing and some were finding it hard to follow the old ways because they no longer made sense to them. Also, it could be viewed as society hindering the change because they place more importance on the old way of living than what the living need now to be effective in the changing world.

@ Deborah's Post No. 46--

Oh, 'Bravo! Bravo!'

I don't know that it could be said better! This is precisely right in my view.

I also want to interject that I found it interesting to read through some of the later comments in our "Part Third" discussion and found it fascinating to see the differences in opinion about whether or not Hardy's Jude the Obscure is a tragedy or something else.

Maybe I am a little surprised at the course of that discussion and the feelings on one side or the other. Personally, I'd like to swing back around to this topic as we complete the novel and see what everyone thinks once again. Quite a goodly number of you read Aeschylus's The Oresteia: Agamemnon; The Libation Bearers; The Eumenides last summer with Everyman's Western Canon group. I not only read one translation, I read every translation that I could find, including Ted Hughes's amazing translation and adaptation The Oresteia of Aeschylus: A New Translation by Ted Hughes. I also embarked on a several month project of reading all of the plays of the ancient Greeks. And I have to say that I have an opinion about whether or not Jude the Obscure is a tragedy. I have made a note (to myself) and plan on bringing this topic of discussion up again near the end of our group read.

Bill wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Maybe we should not be too hasty to condemn our players either; at least until we better understand what truly lies within their hearts? ..."

Alright Christopher.
I can try,..."

Very good one, Bill--I totally got your pun/play on words! ;-)

Your "Christ-Bearer" Pal, Chris!

Good discussion, all. Thanks. I have nothing to add tonight -- except to say to Bill enjoy the comparisons if you will, but then do just let them go as meaningless except to perhaps garner some new ideas for ones own TBR.

I have discovered that part of the fun of entering selections from one's own reading oeuvre is the conversations into which one gets invited.

Bill wrote-- "Is she just simply feeling compassion for his idealistic naivete?

Or is she playing compassionate cynic to his idealistic naivete?

Or, when she says, 'my friend and comrade', is she including, and therefore describing, herself as well as him?"

Excellent breakdown, Bill, and I'm inclined to think that a bit of all three are on the mark. What is your opinion?

Lily wrote-- "I have discovered that part of the fun of entering selections from one's own reading oeuvre is the conversations into which one gets invited."

I am not quite sure, Lily, but I think this last comment was directed at my reference to Aeschylus's The Oresteia? I do hope you understand that all I was trying to do was ask the readers of "Jude" to further consider this notion of whether "Jude" is, in fact, a tragedy in the classic sense. I know that many of us in the group read did read The Oresteia, and that it is not out of the realm of possibility that others, including Bill, have read the tragedies of Sophocles or even Shakespeare, and that it isn't still a relevant discussion. That is all that was intended.

Speaking of Aeschylus and Hardy--

In July 1924, when Hardy was 84, the 'Balliol Players', an undergraduate theatre group from Oxford University performed an English version of Aeshylus's trilogy The Oresteia, entitled "The Curse of the House of Atreus" on the lawn of Hardy's house at Max Gate. Cool, huh?

Christopher wrote: "Lily wrote-- "I have discovered that part of the fun of entering selections from one's own reading oeuvre is the conversations into which one gets invited."

I am not quite sure, Lily, but I think this last comment was directed at my reference to Aeschylus's The Oresteia?..."

No, sorry, Chris. My comment was very much a diversion from the conversation on this thread -- I hadn't realized that when one entered the books one has read, one gets notifications of current conversations on those books (apparently connected directly with the books and not any group). That was a surprise to me. And with that, I may read yet awhile, but with it being 1:30 here, I think I better quit posting before I get any less cogent.

@ Bill's Post No. 54--

I completely concur with your assessment, Bill. Spot-on.

Lily wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Lily wrote-- "I have discovered that part of the fun of entering selections from one's own reading oeuvre is the conversations into which one gets invited."

Oh, I had no idea! I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, Lily. It must be something new that GR is doing. Yikes! That sounds simply atrocious being inundated with references to books just because I've referenced them in a posting.

Christopher wrote: "@ Bill's Post No. 54--

I completely concur with your assessment, Bill. Spot-on."

Okay, one more. I also agree with BPN #54 as "spot on." Nice observation.

So, to follow up on Lily's issue, maybe it'd be best if we simply italicize titles of books that we are referencing in the course of our comments and/or discussions?

Christopher wrote: "So, to follow up on Lily's issue, maybe it'd be best if we simply italicize titles of books that we are referencing in the course of our comments and/or discussions?"

You're not going to let me quit, are you! lol! I don't think the source is titles in these discussions, but rather entries in our book lists. At least, I can't figure out any other source. Although it can get time consuming, I will probably learn to ignore a large share. At the moment, like entering a number of my reads, it is permitting me to do a bit of a refresher course and I am rather enjoying the process.