Saturday, May 31, 2025

Jane Austen, Debated: Part Two

Jane Austen, Debated

Harville University’s Top Professors Clash Over Whether The Novelist Deserves a Place on the University’s Required Reading List 

The debate has now been going on for some time, and the two professors, Dr. Helen Croft and Dr. Augusta Hawkins, have each finished answering the first question: "Do Jane Austen’s works have intellectual as well as entertainment value, and is her fame justified?" If you missed the first installment, read it here. Otherwise – please enjoy the second episode, as the professors debate Jane Austen's influence! Let us hope that despite the heated topic, the debate continues as calmly and uneventfully as it started...

Dean Hunsford: “Our next topic is this: do Jane Austen’s novels influence her readers, and is this influence good or bad? Dr. Croft will begin.”

Dr. Croft: “I am certain that Jane Austen’s novels influence her readers for good beyond the delight they give. Jane Austen has wisdom to offer on many topics – friendship, money, character, courage, education – but I’ll begin with the subject she’s most often associated with: romantic relationships.

Jane Austen is the antithesis of other authors of romance novels in the way she depicts healthy relationships with clarity and realism. Rather than providing a romantic escape from reality, her novels provide remarkable insight about how to marry wisely. The novels have many similarities, but are each so distinct that generalizations about them are apt to fail; although her emphasis on good character, self-knowledge, and friendship runs through all her writing.


Jane Austen puts an unusual emphasis on the kindness and integrity of her characters, particularly as shown through their behavior in society – mutual compatibility and “being in love” is not her only or even her most important concern in the relationships of her heroines. Men whose courtesy and consideration only extends to people of importance or people they like do not make good husbands! 


Her heroes reveal their good character in various ways: Edward Ferrars’ loyalty to scheming Lucy Steele, whom he does not love, prefigures the loyalty he will show to his real beloved, Elinor Dashwood; Mr. Darcy rescues Lydia Bennet (at great cost to himself) from a disgrace that would wreck her family, but does his utmost to conceal this kindness from Elizabeth Bennet rather than use it to win her; Mr. Knightley consistently treats marginalized characters with unusual respect and courtesy, showing kindness to the Bateses, Jane Fairfax, and Robert Martin, among others; Edmund Bertram takes the time to comfort his little cousin Fanny when nobody else even notices her misery; and all the heroes treat their mothers and sisters with respect and courtesy, even when those family members are very disagreeable. 


Jane Austen’s villains, however, reveal their bad character through various lapses in courtesy whose significance we are likely to overlook until a drastic action makes their self-centeredness obvious. Men who flirt with other women (Henry Crawford), or who are unkind to younger sisters (John Thorpe), or who don’t treat their elderly relatives with respect (John Willoughby), or who are unreliable when it comes to commitments (William Elliot), or who are eager to exchange unkind gossip (George Wickham) make bad husbands now just as they did then. Considering the risk women face of intimate partner violence and domestic abuse, Jane Austen’s portrayal of subtle red flags is as relevant as ever.

 

Another dual theme that runs through Jane Austen’s works is that of self-knowledge and self-improvement. Characters like Elizabeth Bennet, Marianne Dashwood, Emma Woodhouse, Edmund Ferrars, and Captain Wentworth learn to acknowledge their mistakes and see themselves more clearly; and they use their hard-won self-knowledge to try to fix their errors and do better in the future. Elizabeth Bennet is forthright in acknowledging her flaws and the blunders they have led her into. But she does not brood over her mistakes and fall into depression; she resolves to combat her flaws and do better in the future. Marianne starts out by letting her misery take over her life and make her family miserable as well, but by the end, she emulates Elinor in facing disappointment with resolution and industry rather than sinking into dangerous depression (which causes her nearly fatal illness). Fanny has a different challenge to overcome: rather than recognizing mistakes, she must find the courage to stand up for herself when she is put under immense pressure to yield to her family’s wishes. Her cousin Edmund, in this novel, is the one who falls for someone charming but immoral; he must learn to see past Mary Crawford’s wit and liveliness to her selfish heart and to recognize Fanny’s true worth. Jane Austen’s protagonists all face relatable hardships that come from the inside and the outside, and they manage to navigate these obstacles with resilience, cheerfulness, and integrity. All of them can show us how to better navigate our own difficulties. 


Jane Austen has a particular relevance to modern readers through her emphasis on and depiction of social interaction. She highlights the essentialness of having a circle of friends, acquaintances, relatives, and neighbors, in addition to being with that one special person we’d all like to find. Some of the movie adaptations are particularly misleading when it comes to this aspect: Jane Austen never leaves the happy couple alone with their love as the curtain falls, two newlyweds staring into each other’s eyes for fictional eternity. Instead (thank goodness!) she sees to it that they end up surrounded by a specific circle of friends and relatives who will ensure their future happiness as much as their marriage will. This final circle of friends is often set up throughout the novel, and often pointedly excludes unpleasant family members and acquaintances as much as it includes deserving relatives. (Elizabeth and Jane are happily settled near each other but not too near their parents, for instance; Fanny’s final circle at Mansfield is mercifully free of her Aunt Norris; and Elinor and Marianne end up practically next door to each other, with John and Fanny Dashwood miles away.) This social network surrounding the hero and heroine is often literally as well as figuratively the final scene of the novel: four out of the six novels end with a reference to the couple’s final happiness within the circle of their friends and family.


Jane Austen's complex portrayal of good romantic relationships and relationship red flags, her emphasis on good character and self-knowledge, and the importance she places on finding friendship are only a few of the ways in which her writing has the potential to change her readers' lives for the better."


Dr. Hawkins: “I find Jane Austen’s novels to contain several morals that are highly outdated and inappropriate for young adults today. Jane Austen romanticizes life in a way that can be very harmful for young women in particular, who need encouragement to follow their ambitions and not spend more time obsessing over their romantic relationships. These days, our goal for our daughters is not to get them married as quickly as possible, at seventeen, eighteen, nineteen – it’s to see them finish their education and learn to support themselves before, hopefully, they find a good man and perhaps decide to get married. And if they never find someone they want to marry, that’s fine too! Wouldn’t you rather see a girl going out with her friends than sitting at home watching “Pride and Prejudice” and hoping a Mr. Darcy will turn up for her? And not all of Jane Austen’s marriages look as positive even as that of Elizabeth and Darcy. Emma Woodhouse and Marianne Dashwood both marry men more than 15 years older than they are. Elinor Dashwood marries a man who didn’t tell her he was engaged to someone else; Fanny Price marries a cousin of hers whom she has known since she was 10 and he was 16. These relationships do not look healthy to me! And all of these girls (most are in their teens) will agree, according to English law, to obey their husbands during that ceremony where, as Emma says, “N. takes M. for better, for worse.” I am afraid that for some of these girls it really would be “for worse,” and I certainly don’t think we want young women today imitating these characters. 


Another alarming aspect of Austen’s novels is the way women are constantly set up as rivals to each other over male attention: Elizabeth vs. Miss Bingley, Elinor vs. Lucy, Fanny Price vs. Mary Crawford – the list goes on. Women should think of other women as friends, not as rivals or obstacles to a marriage with 'The One.' "


Just as Dr. Hawkins is drawing breath to continue, Dr. Croft interrupts. 


Dr. Croft: “Excuse me, Mr. Hunsford! I would like to request two minutes for a rebuttal due to Dr. Hawkins’s misrepresentations of Austen’s works.”


A murmur of astonishment wafts across the audience as the listeners lean forward in their seats. Dean Hunsford looks highly uncomfortable as he coughs for silence. 


Dean Hunsford: “This, er, is all very irregular, and I’m not sure that – er, this is not quite – not quite –” 


Dr. Croft interrupts this incoherent protest with such decision that the dean subsides into uneasy silence. Dr. Hawkins looks like she wants to interrupt, but cannot quite muster the decision or the volume necessary to effect this – so Dr. Croft carries on. 


Dr. Croft: “My opponent’s objections to Jane Austen sound damning indeed, but they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of her novels. Austen cannot be blamed for modern cinematic misrepresentation of her novels or with the diluting romanticization of modern sequels that twist their meanings into something Austen never intended. Her heroine Catherine Morland learns exactly this lesson when her obsession with gothic novels threatens her happiness in the real world. Austen’s heroines are all active and engaged in their communities, not sitting about waiting for Prince Charming. They read, and think deeply about their reading; they draw, play the piano, sing, ride, and dance; they go for long walks and visit friends and relatives, they run households, care for family members, and do works of charity for their communities. Yes, two of Jane Austen’s seven heroines marry with an unusual age gap, but these marriages are founded on mutual respect and great affection – the quality of the relationship is not defined by the ages of the couple. All of the heroines marry well within the accepted social norms of the era, although these norms have changed somewhat since, and all of these marriages look healthy even in our modern world. Considering the many changes for the better that have occurred with respect to marriages and relationships since the Regency era, it is really remarkable that all of Jane Austen’s heroines choose relationships that are so evidently good even by the standards of our era. 


Contrary to Dr. Hawkins’s assertion of female rivalry, Jane Austen emphasizes the importance of social connection outside romantic relationships, and is noteworthy for the close and realistic friendships she portrays, particularly between women. These friendships can occasionally be fraught, such as Elizabeth’s disappointment with her friend Charlotte’s decision to marry Mr. Collins, but more often female friendships are a source of encouragement and good advice for the heroines. Notable examples are Emma and Mrs. Weston, Catherine Morland and Eleanor Tilney, and sisters Elinor and Marianne Dashwood as well as Elizabeth and Jane Bennet. Jane Austen also, and unusually, portrays close platonic friendships across genders: Elinor and Colonel Brandon, Jane Fairfax and the Knightley brothers, and Anne Elliot and Captain Benwick are some examples.


Jane Austen depicts friendships and rivalries in a way that reflects the complexity of real world relationships. Yes, women can be rivals; but they can also be friends, and rivals can even become friends – such as Emma and Jane Fairfax. Many criticisms of Jane Austen’s work arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of her subtlety and her historical context, and I will address these further in the next section of the debate."


Dr. Hawkins (very frostily): “If I may continue – even as a romance author Jane Austen is deficient. Her romances are heavily money-driven, making her characters emotionally unsympathetic. Most of her heroines seem motivated – like Charlotte Lucas – by a wish to leave their family and have a grand home of their own, rather than by a great affinity with their husbands-to-be. Many of these young women are escaping from stifling homes where they are expected to be accountable to strict, unreasonable parents for all their actions, and rushing into marriage while still being teenagers is apparently their best option. None of Austen’s heroines so much as consider trying to earn their own living – a difficult but not impossible thing for women in the 1800s. 


Jane Austen’s own life, as well, is hardly a good recommendation of her works. She never married – as far as we know, she never even had a serious romantic relationship. Like her heroines, she never found independence, living with her family on the income of her father and brothers all her life. Only four of her novels were published in her lifetime, earning her only a few hundred pounds; and Jane Austen was dismissive of her own writing, calling her work 'the little bit (two inches wide) of ivory on which I work with so fine a brush as produces little effect after much labour.' It’s no wonder that an author who experienced such a paucity of events in her own life should write novels that lack reality and emotional honesty."


Thus ends this second installment...but come back soon to read the thrilling conclusion of the Jane Austen debate! Which arguments do you find most intriguing, absurd, or compelling? Leave a comment and tell me! 

Liv Quicksilver





Tuesday, April 29, 2025

Jane Austen, Debated: Part One

 Jane Austen, Debated

Harville University’s Top Professors Clash Over Whether The Novelist Deserves a Place on the University’s Required Reading List 

The latest furor at Harville University, a small but respected liberal arts school in New England, revolves around the author Jane Austen. The question at hand is whether her name should remain on the new and updated list of “required reading” for all graduates, or whether she ought to be relegated to the longer “optional recommendations” list to join several of her contemporaries. Arguments on both sides are heated. Tonight, the night before the board convenes to vote on the Jane Austen question, two respected professors at Harville are having a formal debate on the topic, and Harville’s auditorium is packed. Head Dean Charles Hunsford is moderating; he introduces the night’s two speakers. 


Dean Hunsford (speaking brightly but looking rather harried): “Hello everyone! Good evening! Please welcome our two distinguished speakers tonight, debating whether or not Jane Austen deserves a place on our required reading list: Friends, please give a rousing welcome to Dr. Helen Croft and Dr. Alexandra Hawkins!


The audience supplies the customary applause with unusual enthusiasm as the two women walk onto the stage and shake hands; then each one composedly shuffles her notes into order at her podium as the applause dies away to expectant silence. Dean Hunsford announces the rules, after which Dr. Croft has the floor for her opening statement. 


Dr. Helen Croft: “Good evening to all of you, and thank you for coming here tonight. I am here to speak in favor of retaining Harville’s requirement that all students read at least two novels by Jane Austen before graduating. I believe this is not only important but essential to our mission of “invigorating the reason and inspiring the imagination” of all our students. Jane Austen is one of the greatest authors in the English language, and her novels hold value even for those who dislike or are indifferent towards them. She has a unique place among the many famous authors taught in our English department in that she is widely studied by scholars as well as being widely beloved and read for pure enjoyment. Her novels speak to our experiences and emotions with the same clarity they have had for over 200 years. And although I don’t propose forcing every student to like Jane Austen, a basic knowledge of her works and appreciation for her literary talent is an indispensable part of a well-rounded education. Her novels span such a wide range in tone, in their characters, and in the lessons they have to teach us that reading a minimum of two is essential to understanding Austen’s enduring influence as a writer. I hope that my arguments tonight will gain your support in keeping Jane Austen a part of Harville’s curriculum.”


Dr. Alexandra Hawkins: “Good evening once again, and thank you for your presence here. I believe that as times change, so do the essential elements in a good education, and that Harville is on a path of continuous improvement. The next step on this path is to re-evaluate our graduation requirements and remove the requirements that are no longer relevant to students in 2024, and Jane Austen – although she may once have been – is no longer among the handful of authors who transcend their time to speak to ours. Rather, she belongs on our secondary list of authors who are read for their historical value or as an extension of specific studies, as well as, of course (with a smile), in the Regency romance sections of bookstores. Making this change will not take away the enjoyment of Jane Austen from those who happen to like her; it will simply remove the obligation of wading through long, convoluted sentences about Regency social conventions and courtships from students who already have too many reading assignments. (There is a murmur of agreement at Dr. Hawkins’s remark about “too many reading assignments.”) I hope that you will all support me in making this necessary change to our graduation requirements. “ 


Dean Hunsford: “Now, the first question for our speakers to tackle is this: Do Jane Austen’s works have intellectual as well as entertainment value, and is her fame justified? Dr. Hawkins, perhaps you would go first this time.” 


Dr. Hawkins: “This highlights an interesting aspect of the question of relevance, because Jane Austen obviously has entertainment value for masses of people: one glance at the number of Austen-inspired movies, sequels, and spinoffs is evidence of that. But the fact that people love movies with beautiful actresses in Regency gowns who are proposed to by rich, handsome gentlemen, or that anything with “Mr. Darcy” on it flies off the shelves does not make Jane Austen intellectually relevant to today’s reality. I’m sure that many of my listeners enjoy reading Jane Austen, but I’m equally sure that you also enjoy other books that you wouldn’t dream of making mandatory for all students. Why should Jane Austen be the exception? Her novels may have amused the white upper class society of the Regency era, but the fame such accolades earned her is no longer justified in the modern day. Our students deserve to read books that will give them the tools and philosophy they need to live here and now, not books about why Elizabeth shouldn’t flirt with Mr. Wickham or how Robert Martin is beneath Miss Woodhouse’s notice. The other works on our required reading list have earned their place on it because of their honesty – sometimes brutal honesty! – in speaking to universal human experiences that resonate across time. Timelessness is a quality that Jane Austen’s novels lack.”


Dr. Croft: “Dr. Hawkins seems to define Jane Austen’s novels by the spinoffs based on them, spinoffs that dramatize and exaggerate the romantic elements of the novels in a way that certainly does entertain but does not do justice to the complexity and precision of the actual works they claim to be inspired by. I believe that these Austen-inspired works and the continual reinvention of her timeless plots and characters add something important to academic studies of Jane Austen, testifying to her ongoing influence over people’s imagination; but first and foremost, we are here to talk about the six novels which Jane Austen herself wrote, and the only works which we can justifiably blame her for. (There is a brief ripple of laughter at this remark.) Jane Austen occupies a highly unusual niche in the world of literature in being a highly respected author in academic circles as well as a writer so ridiculously beloved that there are whole societies dedicated to her. Paraphernalia related to her name and novels – as Dr. Hawkins points out – fly off the shelves. Very few authors can claim this broad of an influence; the only one that comes to my mind is Shakespeare. Writers tend to carve out either an academic niche or a popular one, with minimal overlap, but Jane Austen somehow manages to have it all. Her popularity does not make her less worthy of academic respect, but more worthy of it. Even setting aside the people who only love the movies and haven’t read the books, there is an enormous and widespread community of people who genuinely love her novels and read them, not just once, but over and over again, for advice, comfort, wisdom, and a good laugh. She’s one of very few authors who consistently appear under “most famous authors” as well as “best loved authors,” and removing her from our reading list would reflect badly – not on her, but on us.

Come back for Part Two to hear the professors debate the next topic: whether and how Jane Austen influences those who read her novels.

Liv Quicksilver

Monday, March 31, 2025

College Tuition Math: A Crash Course


Confetti, indeed.

Writing college essays and submitting applications are but the precursors to the real question of your education, which turns (as so many things do) on money. "Nothing comes amiss, so money comes withal!"  the words of the shrewd servant Grumio sum up the dilemma of college quite nicely. 

The glittering college brochures promise to meet 90% of demonstrated need, disperse tens of thousands of dollars each year, and make all your dreams come true. Still, the fact remains that many private colleges (especially the well-regarded ones) have an annual tuition equal to the median US household income. Yet college seems like the only option for a successful and well-educated life – so what's to do? Welcome to Liv Quicksilver's crash course in college tuition math, offering elucidation (if not quite consolation) in this perplexing branch of mathematics. 

First, fill out the FAFSA and the CSS profile in order to determine your level of need and thus your expected family contribution. This contribution is likely to be about half your family's yearly income, and is thus in the same mathematical category as i in algebra: an imaginary number that just keeps popping up anyway.

Then it is time to look at financial aid offers from colleges. It is best for your mental health to think of college money offers as a gift from a beneficent godfather rather than a coupon from a business hoping to win your patronage along with most of your savings. A $25,000 scholarship is practically free money – not a 30% off coupon on a $83,000 tuition. 

Be sure to read through offers of financial aid very carefully. The average letter is likely to tell something like this one (lightly edited) which I recently received (the name of the school in question is Providence College, but for particular reasons I shall conceal it under the name of Snickersneeze University):

The direct cost of the privilege of attending Snickersneeze University is $84,430; while textbooks, loan fees, etc. bring your total cost to a moderate $87,570, per year (with about an 85% chance you'll graduate in four years). 

However, since we understand this amount of money may be hard to come up with all at once, we have generously granted you financial aid in the amount of $1,000 (which may be renewable after your first year, but no promises), bringing the total to a mere $86,570. 

Just in case you haven't planned properly and still need more help, the federal government will grudgingly loan you up to $5,500, as long as you mortgage your first-born child as surety. 

This brings your cost down to $81,070 per year, and the final amount you owe directly to Snickersneeze University is $77, 930  you have to keep track of the loan fees yourself. Fortunately, Snickersneeze University ranks among the top colleges in the nation for student drinking, so if you have any money left over you will be in good company drowning your anxiety in copious amounts of alcohol.  Yay for you! Submit your deposit and become a Sneezer today! 

No one will blame you if you need smelling salts and a glass of brandy after perusing this helpful document. Of course, you can always appeal for more financial aid...

Finally, you must remember to forget that college loans are the one type of loan that cannot be dissolved through declaring bankruptcy. This is key because you will almost certainly have to take out loans in order to pay the remainder of the tuition, and it would be unduly sobering to imagine thousands of dollars in college debt following you for the rest of your life like the Furies. That is the last thing you need as you set off to enjoy your college experience! 

In short, the bargain is a familiar one: give up all your current riches, mortgage your future treasure  don't think too hard, since it seems like the only option  and then sit back and enjoy while the university in question spins your head of straw into pure gold! 

Except this time...the name is what you're paying for.
And there's no loophole.
Good luck!

Liv Quicksilver




Friday, February 28, 2025

Cendrillon vs. Aschenputtel: A Close Reading of Cinderella

When you imagine Cinderella, you are most likely thinking of this:

Disney Cinderella 2015

Or possibly of this:
Disney Cinderella 1950
Both delightful in their own way, to be sure, but they do leave out some...interesting...moments from the original versions. Do you remember the oranges and citrons from the prince that Cinderella passed on to her undeserving stepsisters? Or the prince's cunning plan to catch Cinderella by spreading the palace steps with pitch? Or Cinderella escaping the prince by climbing a pear tree, in full ball regalia? Then let me introduce you... 
Cendrillon with a very elegantly
attired fairy godmother
The two versions of Cinderella that are most commonly retold are Perrault's French Cendrillon (originally published in 1697) and Grimm's German Aschenputtel, my own favorite (originally published in 1812). For those unfamiliar with the original versions, here is a link to Cendrillon in English and in French, and here is Aschenputtel in English and in a bilingual version. The Disney movie versions both follow the French version more than the German, but given some of the complaints I've heard about the story, they might have done better to purloin some ideas from both. For instance...the shoes. Why would Cinderella wear glass slippers that fall off when she flees the ball but at the same time fit her feet perfectly and no one else's? Is she too nice and passive to be a good heroine, anyway? And what about that whirlwind romance with the prince - how is that convincing? 
 
Aschenputtel with her doves
Aschenputtel does not sit around crying until her fairy godmother turns up. She tries to convince her stepmother to take her to the ball, but as soon as the others leave without her she runs off to her mother's grave, where two doves throw down a magnificent dress and golden slippers for her to wear - and she is off to the party, presumably by foot since the doves don't bother supplying a coach and horses.

Very pretty, no doubt, but hardly suitable footwear for
tripping off to a ball on foot and then dancing all night
(to say nothing of jumping into dove cotes and climbing trees)
Since the ball lasts for three days - this holds for both versions - Cinderella spends three long evenings with the prince, one-upping the "new and improved" live-action movie, which has only two meetings between Cinderella and the prince before he goes off to find her with the shoe. 
A shadowy Aschenputtel watches from the pear tree
(surprisingly, this scene is hard to find illustrated)


Aschenputtel, although she evidently enjoys the ball, has no intention of being found by the prince; in fact, she eludes him three times, first by climbing into a dovecote (and then slipping back out when his back is turned), and next by climbing a pear tree "as nimbly as a squirrel" (ball gown and all? - a remarkable damsel) and escaping down the other side. 

The third night the prince is getting exasperated with this mysterious lady, and (cleverly, if rather ungallantly) spreads the castle steps with pitch. When Aschenputtel runs down them, her golden slipper gets stuck, and the prince picks it up as she disappears once again. 
"She escaped so quickly that the prince could not follow"
Then it is the prince's turn to show his mettle, announcing that he will marry the owner of the golden slipper, the girl whose foot the slipper fits perfectly (by the law of fairy tales, these two requirements are practically one and the same: the second implies the first). 
Cendrillon pulls out the matching glass slipper
(from the rhymed version illustrated by Walter Crane)
The Disney live action movie neatly splits the difference between the methods of the two versions: as in Cendrillon, a court official leads the search with the shoe, but as in Aschenputtel, the prince is the one who finally finds the slipper's true owner. However, Disney prudently if rather squeamishly leans toward the French version here, leaving out the part from Aschenputtel where each stepsister in turn cuts off part of her foot in order to force it into the slipper. The Aschenputtel prince then nearly leaves with a stepsister twice, only to be called to order by Aschenputtel's doves who point out the blood streaming from the false girl's shoe, and send him back once again to keep searching for the true bride. In Cendrillon there is no such drama: Cendrillon merely pulls out the matching slipper, her godmother reappears and transforms her again, and after a touching (and notably un-bloody) reunion with her stepsisters she rides off to meet the prince in style. 
Aschenputtel has no such transformation from her rags; the prince has only to look into her face (which she has washed clean of ashes) to recognize the lady he has danced with and exclaim "That is the true bride!" 
This German retelling of Aschenputtel does not specify the
stepsisters' fate, but the illustration hints at the merciless original
Cinderella's stepsisters also receive an extremely different ending in the French and the German versions -- both fates have such potential for controversy that it is perhaps no wonder Disney decided to ignore the stepsisters altogether after Cinderella walks out. Cendrillon charitably (if somewhat unbelievably) forgives them, embraces them, and then brings them with her to the palace and secures them marriages with "two great lords of the court." Aschenputtel's stepsisters receive the other extreme, of justice rather than mercy: as they accompany her to and from the wedding, Aschenputtel's doves peck out their eyes and they are doomed to physical blindness that mirrors their spiritual blindness to virtue. Harsh, perhaps, but that is the story. And although the Disney version ends with Cinderella and the prince in wedded bliss, both original versions end with the fate of the stepsisters -- and so shall I. 
"Turn and peep, turn and peep/no blood is in the shoe
The shoe is not too small for her/the true bride rides with you!"

Yours etc.
Liv Quicksilver
Le fils du roi la prit pour la mener danser
"The King's son led her out to dance"

Das ist meine Tänzerin
"She is my partner"

Saturday, February 1, 2025

Why Tolkien Did Not Invent Elvish


When "Tolkien" and "constructed languages" are under discussion, I often hear remarks like "Tolkien invented the language Elvish that appears in The Lord of the Rings." But this is regrettably imprecise (not to say inaccurate). [NB: If tengwar and Telerin are part of your active vocabulary, you have my permission to go.] Tolkien actually conceived of an entire family of languages spoken by the Elves; two of these, Sindarin and Quenya, were well developed and are what we might think of as "Elvish". The other languages of the Elves were more conceptual than anything else - Tolkien invented a rough grammar and phonetic structure for them that showed how they were linked to one another historically (after all, his specialty was historical linguistics or 'philology'), but very little vocabulary exists for them. Tolkien also sketched in languages spoken by the other races in Middle Earth: The Lord of the Rings includes words and phrases in Khuzdul (the language of the Dwarves), Entish, and the Black Speech used by Sauron in the inscription inside the One Ring. But his two principal languages have a nearly complete grammar structure and extensive vocabulary, and are each so distinctive and beautiful that it is well worth being properly introduced to each one so that you may recognize them in the future.

Sindarin is the language Elves would use for everyday purposes and conversation. Also called "the grey-elven speech," Sindarin is inspired by Welsh, and is found throughout The Lord of the Rings, where it is used not only by Elves but also by the Dunedain (such as Aragorn), Gandalf, and a few of the hobbits.  Here is an example (The Fellowship of the Ring, Many Meetings):

A Elbereth Gilthoniel
silivren penna míriel
o menel aglar elenath!
Na-chaered palan-díriel
o galadhremmin ennorath,
Fanuilos le linnathon
nef aear, sí nef aearon!

Glorfindel's greeting to Aragorn: 
Ai na vedui, Dúnadan! Mae govannen!

Quenya is the language that Tolkien described as "Elvish Latin," and in The Lord of the Rings it is sometimes called "the high-elven speech" or "the Ancient Tongue." It would be used by the Elves for ceremonial occasions and "high matters of lore and song" rather than for everyday speech, and had a more ancient history than Sindarin. Quenya is inspired by Finnish, as well as Latin and Greek, with a heavily inflected grammar structure and vowel-heavy vocabulary. The longest example of Quenya written by Tolkien is the farewell song that Galadriel sings to the Fellowship, a lament called Namárië (The Fellowship of the Ring, Farewell to Lorien). Here is the first stanza:

Ai! laurië lantar lassi súrinen,
yéni únótimë ve rámar aldaron!
Yéni ve lintë yuldar avánier
mi oromardi lissë-miruvóreva
Andúnë pella, Vardo tellumar
nu luini yassen tintilar i eleni
ómaryo airetári-lírinen.


"Now she sang in the ancient tongue of the Elves beyond
the Sea...fair was the song, but it did not comfort him."

If you compare the two texts, you can see that Sindarin words tend to end with consonants and contain very few diacritical marks, while Quenya words tend to end with vowels and contain more vowels in general. In this text sample, Sindarin contains many more consonant pairs like th, gl, lb, dhr, and ch, while Quenya rarely has two successive consonants and uses the letter y much more often; the difference in letter frequency and combinations helps the two languages look distinct from each other. To me, Sindarin looks more familiar, like a language you could pronounce even if you can't understand the words, while Quenya seems more alien, with more unusual phonetic combinations. 

Are you inspired to reread The Lord of the Rings with an eye to those odd bits of other languages Tolkien scatters so liberally? If you begin to get a feel for the sound and look of Sindarin as opposed to Quenya, you will not only be able to tell them apart yourself and impress your friends, but (I hope) will join me in raising one eyebrow at those less well informed writers who go around announcing Tolkien's invention of that non-existent language "Elvish."

Yours etc.
Liv Quicksilver

Tuesday, January 14, 2025

How To Give A Speech At Your Execution

When pirate William Fly ascended the scaffold on July 12, 1726, his execution speech was a shock to its respectable recorder, attending minister Cotton Mather, as well as to the rest of the crowd assembled to see the spectacle of a pirate's hanging. 

Engraving of a pirate on the scaffold

You see, the tradition of execution speeches was specific and long-established, although this genre has since fallen out of fashion (giving way to deathbed monologues followed by unexpected last-will-and-testaments), and William Fly's defiance of tradition was both bold and pointed. Execution speeches are supposed to show due penitence for the crime committed (or allegedly committed) by the condemned, and exhort the watching crowd not to follow in his or her bad example, concluding with a request for God's forgiveness; an acceptable variant is the assertion of innocence followed by a pious acknowledgement of one's sins in general.

Here are some examples:


Anne Boleyn, 1536:

"Good Christian people, I am come hither to die, for according to the law, and by the law I am judged to die, and therefore I will speak nothing against it. I am come hither to accuse no man, nor to speak anything of that, whereof I am accused and condemned to die, but I pray God save the king and send him long to reign over you, for a gentler nor a more merciful prince was there never: and to me he was ever a good, a gentle and sovereign lord. And if any person will meddle of my cause, I require them to judge the best. And thus I take my leave of the world and of you all, and I heartily desire you all to pray for me. O Lord have mercy on me, to God I commend my soul."


Sir Walter Raleigh, 1618:

"...And now I entreat you all to join with me in prayer, that the great God of Heaven, whom I have grievously offended, being a man full of all vanity, and having lived a sinful life, in all sinful callings, having been a soldier, a captain, a sea captain, and a courtier, which are all places of wickedness and vice; that God, I say, would forgive me, cast away my sins from me, and receive me into everlasting life. So I take my leave of you all, making my peace with God."

Broadsides recounting executions and other
sensational events were popular in the 18th century.

Mrs. Mary Baker, 1719:

"GOOD People give good head to what I Confess, for by Subtile Inven-
tion, alas GOD's Laws I have transgressed: for by Falsehood and
cunning I have betrayed several Young Man, alas I Tremble for to declare
my wretched Life, which was as follows, I seemed to be a Woman of a great
Fortune, and forged Deeds of an Estate, and showed it where ever I came,
by which I betrayed twenty three Men, which now is to my great Shame...
All you Spectators be warned by me, for a viler Creature did
never live on the Earth: And now O LORD, receive me, LORD I crave
thy Mercy, do not forsake my Sinful Soul, but save me for a Mediator's sake. AMEN."

Engraving of pirate captain Henry Every's ship Fancy

John Fitz-Gerald (a fellow pirate with a flair for verse), 1723:

"In youthful blooming years was I,
When I that practice took
Of perpetrating piracy
For filthy gain did look.
To wickedness we all were bent,
Our lusts for to fulfil;
To rob at sea was our intent,
And perpetrate all ill.

I pray the Lord preserve you all
And keep you from this end;
O let Fitz-Gerald’s great downfall
Unto your welfare tend.
I to the Lord my soul bequeath,
Accept whereof I pray;
My body to the earth beneath:
Dear friend, adieu for aye."

William Fly, however, had no taste for mawkish poetry, and bucked tradition right from the start. Upon ascending the scaffold, he coolly inspected the noose he would hang from, and then "turned to the hangman in disappointment, and reproached him 'for not understanding his Trade.' But Fly, a sailor who knew the art of tying knots, took mercy on the novice. He offered to teach him how to tie a proper noose. Then Fly, 'with his own Hands [,] rectified Matters, to render all things more Convenient and Effectual,' retying the knot himself as the multitude who had gathered around the gallows looked on in astonishment. He informed the hangman and the crowd that 'he was not afraid to die,' that 'he had wronged no Man.' Mather explained that he was determined to die 'a brave fellow.' "

Then William Fly proceeded in this unconventional vein: He "did not ask for forgiveness, did not praise the authorities, and did not affirm the values of Christianity, as he was supposed to do, but he did issue a warning. Addressing the port-city crowd thick with ship captains and sailors, he proclaimed his final, fondest wish: that 'all Masters of Vessels might take Warning at the Fate of the Captain (meaning Captain Green) whom he had murder'd, and to pay Sailors their Wages when due, and to treat them better; saying, that their Barbarity to them made so many turn Pyrates.' Fly thus used his last breath to protest the conditions of work at sea, what he called 'Bad Usage.'" Quite the way to make a statement!

(This riveting account of William Fly's hanging is borrowed from Marcus Redeker's chronicle Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age - a thrilling read, and highly recommended.)

If any of my readers are ever so unfortunate as to find themselves upon the scaffold, they may or may not wish to be "launched into eternity with the brash threat of mutiny upon [their] lips" as was the bold pirate Fly; but this account will, I hope, give them the inspiration necessary to come up with a memorable last speech. After all, how can you break the rules without first knowing the rules?

I hope these guidelines will prove useful but not be too often needed, and I remain
Yours etc.
Liv Quicksilver

Jane Austen, Debated: Part Two

Jane Austen, Debated Harville University’s Top Professors Clash Over Whether The Novelist Deserves a Place on the University’s Required Read...