Flattery Will Get You Everywhere

I just got an email from a friend and former professor of mine. She sent me a link to Deb Barnum's (Regional Coordinator of the Vermont chapter of JASNA and current bibliographer for Persuasions Online) BLOG recapping the 2010 JASNA AGM. "She talks about you!" my friend said.

Well, of course I had to check it out, and here's what Ms. Barnum had to say:

. . . Then off to the first of many break-out sessions – and what a task to choose! – each session offering such variety and depth – the choice so difficult – I decided to do at least one on the gothic literary features of NA, one on fashion and all that muslin, and of course, something on Henry Tilney. So my first was to hear . . .

Then off to see Stephanie Eddleman on “Henry Tilney: Austen’s Feminized Hero?” – One of the things that can get my dander up in a discussion about NA is talk that Henry is too feminine to be a true hero, or too condescending to be an equal lover to Catherine, or too distant as a character to engage the reader – so I was hoping that Prof. Eddleman would give me much needed ammunition! – and she did indeed: Henry as the one hero who stands apart – he is her only witty hero; he is feminized but not feminine, and unlike Austen’s other feminized male characters [Frank Churchill, Robert Ferrars], Austen is not critical of Henry. I most appreciated Eddleman’s answer to Marvin Mudrick’s contention that Henry is a detached, disengaged character – she feels that Henry develops intimacy through his intelligence and wit, always encouraging Catherine toward her own independent thinking. I hope this talk will be in Persuasions – it gives much needed support for Henry as True & Worthy Austen Hero.

With all these great thoughts in my head, off we ran to . . .

Wow. That was exciting!

I Know You're Dying to Know . . .

Here's the blurb for my presentation today:

Henry Tilney: Austen’s Feminized Hero?

In Northanger Abbey, Austen praises the novel form as she satirizes elements of the gothic novel, particularly the female gothic: the castle; the atmosphere of mystery and suspense; the inexplicable events; the powerful, tyrannical male; the woman in distress. Jane Spencer and other critics have noted an additional element: the weak hero. These critics claim that, in the eighteenth-century female gothic novel, the heroine triumphs over male authoritarianism by marriage to a “feminized hero,” achieving a union “where womanly virtue and patriarchal authority are no longer in conflict” (Rise of the Woman Novelist, 207).

This paper will explore the character of Henry Tilney as Austen’s clever acknowledgement and rebuttal of this feminization of the hero. Austen does “feminize” Henry. He is well aware of accepted female behaviors—“their delightful habit of journalizing,” for instance—and is eloquently able to describe the contents of the perfect feminine journal entry (NA 27). He “understands muslins . . . particularly well” and has often been entrusted with the choice of his sister’s gowns (28). He’s an avid reader of novels, although Catherine assumes that novels are for women and “gentlemen read better books” (106). Yet Austen, in her other novels, discourages even hints of effeminacy in her male characters and champions virtuous masculinity. So, how should readers view Austen’s “feminization” of Henry? Her other heroines triumph, not by acquiring weak, feminized husbands, but by securing one who is both manly and virtuous. Is this true for Catherine also?

Fascinating, right? :-)

I'm Here

The JASNA conference is this weekend in Portland, OR. Beautiful part of the country! And I present tomorrow.

JA Day

It's an exciting day for me--I'm teaching Sense and Sensibility. I've spent all my time preparing for class and none coming up with something to blog about.

Sorry.

I'll try to do better tomorrow. :-)

Jane Austen's Fight Club

Deadline

I've spent a lot of my time this summer reading for pleasure, and it's been fun. However, all good things must come to an end. Last Fall, I sent off a proposal for the 2010 JASNA general meeting, and it was accepted. Now I've got to write the paper. By August 1. Sigh.

The conference isn't until October, but if I hope to have them publish it I have to submit it for consideration early, and why do the work and not attempt to have it published?

Here's my proposal:

Henry Tilney: Austen’s Feminized Hero?

In Northanger Abbey, Austen praises the novel form as she satirizes elements of the gothic novel, particularly the female gothic: the castle; the atmosphere of mystery and suspense; the inexplicable events; the powerful, tyrannical male; the woman in distress. Jane Spencer and other critics have noted an additional element: the weak hero. These critics claim that, in the eighteenth-century female gothic novel, the heroine triumphs over male authoritarianism by marriage to a “feminized hero,” achieving a union “where womanly virtue and patriarchal authority are no longer in conflict” (Rise of the Woman Novelist, 207).

This paper will explore the character of Henry Tilney as Austen’s clever acknowledgement and rebuttal of this feminization of the hero. Austen does “feminize” Henry. He is well aware of accepted female behaviors—“their delightful habit of journalizing,” for instance—and is eloquently able to describe the contents of the perfect feminine journal entry (NA 27). He “understands muslins . . . particularly well” and has often been entrusted with the choice of his sister’s gowns (28). He’s an avid reader of novels, although Catherine assumes that women read novels while “gentlemen read better books” (106). Yet Austen, in her other novels, discourages even hints of effeminacy and champions virtuous masculinity. So, how should readers view Henry’s “feminization”? Austen’s other heroines triumph, not by acquiring weak, feminized husbands, but by securing one who is both manly and virtuous. Is this true for Catherine also?

It's time to put up or shut up, I guess.

Christian Scholars' Conference 2010

Christian Scholars’ Conference 2010 Beauty in the Academy: Faith, Scholarship and the Arts

June 3-5, 2010

Lipscomb University, Nashville, Tennessee

I've really got to get back to work!

Since the semester's been over, I've been doing two things: landscaping (pictures coming soon) and reading for pleasure. But now, it's time to get back to work, at least for a little while. I'm presenting in two different panels at this year's Christian Scholars' Conference:

Paper and Panel Session I:

Mark A. Elrod, Harding University, Convener: “Social Networking and Christian Education”

• Jeff Baker, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law School: Panelist

• Edward Carson, Houston Christian High School: Panelist

• Stephanie Eddleman, Harding University: Panelist

• Michael Lasley, Pepperdine University: Panelist

• Jim Miller, Harding University: Panelist

Paper and Panel Session III

Larry Long, Harding University, Convener: “Beauty, Goodness and Value in the Anglo-American Literary Tradition”

• Leland Ryken, Wheaton College: “Valuing What God Values: The Persistence of Beauty in Christian Aesthetics”

• Stephanie Eddleman, Harding University: “Physical Beauty in Jane Austen: The Intersection of Aesthetics and Faith”

• John Williams, Harding University: “’The Light by Which You See’: John Updike’s Antinomian Aesthetics”

Most of the work's already done (it's nice to get a little extra mileage out of that dissertation), but I've got some revising and editing to do. I'm really looking forward to this conference. It's one of the few that I go to that is cross disciplinary, and that certainly makes it more interesting. It's also a Christian conference that's not afraid to ask the hard questions. I find that refreshing.

Sorry, Quirk, But Life's Too Short

A while back I wrote that Quirk Books had asked me to read and review an advance copy of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: Dawn of the Dreadfuls. And, although I wasn't quite sure when I'd be able to read it, I said, "Okay, if I have time." After all, I'd really enjoyed P&P&Z.

However.

This one just didn't do it for me at all. My first clue should have been the author line on the front of the novel. P&P&Z's cover read: by Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith. And it was. Much of the fun of P&P&Z was being able to recognize Austen's beautiful lines (many, many of them) amidist the witty zombie mayhem created by Grahame-Smith. Additionally, Grahame-Smith seemed to extend Austen's characters, to make them more fully themselves. Some of my favorite lines are the ones in which he has Elizabeth actually say what readers (or at least me, but maybe I'm the only rude one) assume she is really thinking when dealing with her mother or younger sisters. He frees Elizabeth from the constraints of society and of ladylike behavior, and I loved him for it. This book made me laugh out loud. Repeatedly. It was just plain fun.

In contrast, P&P&A: DD's author's line reads: by Steve Hockensmith, and boy is Jane Austen sorely missed. And Grahame-Smith, too, for that matter. Hockensmith tries too hard. His comic attempts simply aren't funny, and many of Austen's characters become flat under the weight of his heavy-handed attempts at humor and horror. Mary changes into someone I don't recognize, and Mrs. Bennet is no longer funny and annoying, she's simply pitiful.

The biggest problem with the novel is that Hockensmith never made me care. I forced myself to read about half of the novel, even getting to the point where I was saying I will read one chapter a day . . . I will . . . until finally, I just gave up. Life's too short, and there are too many great things to read.

If you're still interested in winning one of the 50 Quirk Classic Prize Packs (worth more than $100.00), click on this link to register.

What I'm Reading Now & Why It Matters to You

I've been asked by Quirk Books to review this new novel--a prequel to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies--which won't be released until March 23. I'll post my review here on March 3, 2010.

Why does this matter to you? Because on that day, I'll post a link where readers of my blog can register to win one of 50 Quirk Classic Prize Packs. Each Prize Pack will contain

• An Advance copy of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: Dawn of the Dreadfuls


• Audio Books of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters


• A password redeemable online for sample audio chapters of Dawn of the Dreadfuls


• An awesome Dawn of the Dreadfuls Poster


• A Pride and Prejudice and Zombies Journal


• A box set of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies postcards

Could life get any sweeter than that? Stay tuned . . .

Persuasions On-Line & Me

JASNA has published its new edition of Persuasions On-Line [Volume 30, No. 1 Winter 2009] – and one of the articles is mine!

Table of Contents: from the 2009 AGM on Jane Austen’s Brothers and Sisters

• Brotherly Love in Eighteenth-Century Literature Ruth Perry
• The City of Sisterly Love: Jane Austen’s Community as Sorority Laura S. Dabundo
• “Not half so handsome as Jane”: Sisters, Brothers, and Beauty in the Novels of Jane Austen Stephanie M. Eddleman
• “You Must be a Great Comfort to Your Sister, Sir”: Why Good Brothers Make Good Husbands Deborah Knuth Klenck
• The Sibling Ideal in Jane Austen’s Novels: When Near Incest Really is Best Celia A. Easton
• Sororadelphia, or “even the conjugal tie is beneath the fraternal” James Thompson
• Inherited and Living Variables: The Choices of Sisters and Brothers inMansfield Park Marcia McClintock Folsom
• The Closeness of Sisters: Imagining Cassandra and Jane Juliette Wells
• Hazel Holt’s My Dear Charlotte: A Novel Based on Jane Austen’s LettersJan Fergus
• Handwriting in the Time of Jane Austen Robert Hurford

Miscellany:

• Willoughby’s Apology C. Durning Carroll
• Darcy’s Ardent Love and Resentful Temper in Pride and Prejudice Horace Jeffery Hodges
• Pemberley’s Welcome, or An Historical Conjecture Upon Elizabeth Darcy’s Wedding Journey Kelly M. McDonald
• Darcy’s Vampiric Descendants: Austen’s Perfect Romance Hero and J. R. Ward’s Black Dagger Brotherhood Sarah S. G. Frantz
• Going from Extremes: Mansfield Park as a Revision of Clarissa Kathleen E. Urda
• “Mr. Cole is Very Bilious”: The Art of Lay Medicine in Jane Austen’s Characters Akiko Takei
• Scott’s “tenderest, noblest and best” in his Review of Emma Joan Klingel Ray
• Adapting Emma for the Twenty-first Century: An Emma No One Will Like Laurie Kaplan
• Queer Temporality, Spatiality, and Memory in Jane Austen’s Persuasion Edward Kozaczka

It Was Inevitable, Wasn't It?

I feel like somebody owes Shakespeare, Bronte, and Austen an apology. A big one.

Bella Battles

The other morning, I woke up to a new comment on an old post, Twilight ≠ Pride and Prejudice. I let it go. The next morning, another comment. OK. Enough. A rebuttal was in order.

I thought it might be fun to post the comments and rebuttals here:

lollipop4598 said...
I think its obvious why they are compared. Both stories change from the first reading. When I first read Pride and Prejudice I loved Elizabeth. I saw her as spunky, and as standing up for herself and her family, and I loved the way Darcy couldn't stop needing her despite how she treated him. When I reread it at the same age as Elizabeth my opinion had changed. i understood that Lizzies feelings were hurt. After all, she liked Darcy at their first meeting, but he didn't accept her. But I no longer saw her as spunky. More like shallow and mean spirited. The way she never listened to her mom(who made perfect sense, btw, if they didn't get married their life would go down the shitter. Id be scared too.), disrespected poor short Mr Collins. Ok, the guy wasn't hot, and he wasn't cool, and he was a bit of a toadie. But Mr Collins was trying. He was kind. He was grateful for what he had, and did his best. That deserves respect. She didn't need to make fun of him at dinner. Also, Darcy's aunt. She didn't need to treat an older woman like that. Bella would never have told an older lady "Oh surely you don't expect me to own my age as I have five younger sisters, your ladyship tee-hee." She was a better person then that. And Mr Darcy was far from perfect. I am not sure that marrying Lydia off by force to a serial pedophile was necessarily the best way to handle things. I understand that the times demanded it. I still don't have to like it. OK. That doesn't mean I don't love P&P. I do.Bella is also different with readings. At first she seems meek, but then you see her strength. She never thrown Edwards behavior in his face. She knows what she wants. She loves with honor. Id much rather be that kind of person then, spiteful, opinionated Lizzie. Both stories take their subject matter seriously, they show you intense affection in its naked state. They show you how the right person will make you want to be with them, no matter how they treat you. Only their absence will seem like death. Thats a good picture of first love. One modern, one past. Do you still wonder they are compared? Here is something I wish I could say to Lizzie, but will say to Austen lovers instead; No one likes a snob.
November 8, 2009 8:47 PM

lollipop4598 said...
WOW! I skimmed over P&P again, and Lizzie is appaling. Besides her skill at making the most of peoples shortcomings, which I find distasteful, she is horridly selfish, a complete snot to her mom, and rather stupid. Her ideal, that she will only marry for love, under the circumstances is very self absorbed. Knowing of her family's distress, I can't see how she could live with herself after refusing Mr Collins proposal, and later Mr Darcy's. If I had to marry Howdy Doody to keep a roof over my mom's and my sisters head I would do it. Im not the most selfless person on earth, but I would. The fact that Lizzie only cares about how the men make her feel, and giving not a thought to the people who cared for her all her life, and the huge effect her decision is for them makes me mad. Also, when Charlotte suggests that Jane should be more open with Mr Bingley so he can see that she likes him, she totally trashes the idea, and this almost ruins her sister's life. The only reason things get resolved is because of outlandish luck. In real life Jane would just have lost him. Because no man would put up with being treated the way Lizzie treats Darcy, much less return her rudeness with love. Only a severe masochist does that. The worst thing is that Lizzie doesn't even pass the advice along. And when circumstances prove Charlotte correct, she doesn't blame herself. Just Darcy. That makes me mad too. I can not understand how people even think that this selfish, arrogant, completely unrepentant young woman could be seen in a positive light. I think that it would be far better for the world if people modeled themselves on Bella. Excuse the over answering, but I hadn't realized this before. i just never thought about it. I was told Lizzie was great, and I went with it. What was I thinking?
November 11, 2009 1:13 AM

Stephanie said...
Dear Lollipop,

In your skimming analysis of Austen and Lizzie, I think you missed a few things. Most of all, you ignore the strict social mores of the society in which both Austen and Lizzie lived, and you missed the fact that Austen is a skillful social commentator, not only a writer of romance novels. As far as Lizzie and her refusal to marry Mr. Collins goes, Austen is critiquing a society that treats women as interchangeable articles of trade. First, he’ll take Jane. Oh, she’s taken? Fine. He’ll have Lizzie instead. Oh, she won’t have him? Let’s move right along to Charlotte. Women were used to seal mergers, transfer wealth, and produce legitimate heirs. Austen shows through her skillful irony—and through the character of Lizzie—that she will have none of it. Women are people, too. Lizzie has self respect. (And Mr. Collins kind? You must have forgotten that passage in which he says Lydia in her “fallen state” would be better off dead. How comforting to the family!)

One of the reasons that Lizzie is so popular—and was at the time of P&P’s publication—is that in a time when heroines were fearful, retiring, and hesitant, along comes Lizzie, a breath of fresh air, a heroine with spunk. Is she perfect? Of course not. But she DOES recognize her faults and repent: “ She grew absolutely ashamed of herself.—Of neither Darcy nor Wickham could she think, without feeling that she had been blind, partial, prejudiced, absurd. ‘How despicably have I acted!’ she cried. –‘I, who prided myself on my abilities! . . .How humiliating is this discovery!—Yet, how just a humiliation!’” (Vol. 2 Chap 13). Austen is masterful here because she subverts the 18th century pattern of the “reformed heroine” by having Elizabeth realize her flaws—change and grow--without dimming Elizabeth’s energy and vitality—A major breakthrough for female characters and authors.

And your point that Bella is so much more respectful to her elders than Lizzie? I think you’ve forgotten that Bella lies to her father, deceives him, accuses him and plays on his weaknesses to give herself an “excuse” to flee, and is totally dismissive of her own mother. Not very respectful in my book.

And of course Jane should be more open—again, you missed Austen’s point. Jane is the epitome of the conduct book female of the era, and conduct books forbad women to show any interest in a man. They were to be completely demure and wait for him to declare himself first. And society harshly judged women according to these rules of conduct. Austen’s story shows that this emotional stricture of female emotion is unrealistic and argues that one can be a lady and still show emotion. The fact that Jane almost loses Bingley is making Austen’s point—this kind of fakeness and denial of emotion is restrictive and harmful.

Finally, Darcy a masochist? Hardly. Because he has always been so reserved, he is drawn to Lizzie’s vitality and wit. A masochist is a person who jumps off cliffs and tries to kill herself by driving motorcycles at high speed without adequate driving skills.

I won’t go into my analysis of Twilight here. If you’re interested, you can search my blog for my six-part analysis of the novel called “The Trouble with Twilight.”

I wish you and Howdy Doody much joy.
November 11, 2009 9:57 AM

Becca said...
......Yes. Because heaven forbid a woman have her own opinions about things, whether or not they are right. She should just do what her sparkly boyfriend tells her.
November 11, 2009 1:14 PM

Heather Mac said...
Becca with red hair! Look at how cute you are.

@lollipop, You still haven't really said how and why they should be compared, other than "both stories change after the first reading." I would argue that every novel changes with every reading as you notice things you didn't the first time and your knowledge of the author's writing style and characters grows. The reading also is affected by what's going on in your own life. "Taking subject matter seriously" does not necessarily mean it will (or should be) interpreted seriously. The only serious thing I gained from reading Twilight is astonishment that young girls look up to male "romantic" figures like Edward, who is possessive, authoritative, and just plain creepy, and female "heroines" like Bella, who is constantly self-conscious, nervous, and timid. The two novels are distinct in their separation because Elizabeth is a clever and ambitious woman who thinks for herself. Bella is a snivelling excuse for a female protagonist continuously questions herself and only exists to be "romanced" (controlled) by an overbearing love interest.

LOLOL @ Stephanie's masochist comment.
November 11, 2009 3:23 PM

Before P&P&Z

I haven't even read Sense and Sensibility and Seamonsters yet, and they've already come out with another one:


In this terrifying and hilarious prequel, we witness the genesis of the zombie plague in early-nineteenth century England. We watch Elizabeth Bennet evolve from a naïve young teenager into a savage slayer of the undead. We laugh as she begins her first clumsy training with nunchucks and katana swords and cry when her first blush with romance goes tragically awry.

Written by acclaimed novelist (and Edgar Award nominee) Steve Hockensmith, Dawn of the Dreadfuls invites Austen fans to step back into Regency England, Land of the Undead!

JANE AUSTEN is coauthor of the New York Times best seller Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. She died in1817.

STEVE HOCKENSMITH is an award-winning novelist and reporter. His mystery Holmes on the Range was a finalist for the Edgar, Shamus, and Anthony awards. He lives in Alameda, California.

I'm Busy Right Now, OK?

Sisters, Brothers, and Beauty

I'm presenting this afternoon at 4:30. If you happen to be in Philadelphia, stop by.

Here's the proposal for my presentation:
Beauty is a concept extensively explored during the Age of Reason. Shaftesbury, Hogarth, Burke, Reynolds, and others debated and discussed beauty throughout the century, and although their deliberations are diverse, many of their definitions are highly gendered and prescriptive of accepted social behavior. Beauty was often associated with the good, the pure, the noble, and the virtuous. Physical appearance, for women especially, became a form of competition in their rush to the marriage mart, a fact certainly explored by Austen in her novels.

But physical appearance does not only shape the relationships of unrelated women within a community, all vying for the most eligible young man. It also has a function within Austen’s families. This paper will explore the role of siblings’ physical appearance and how it shapes both the individual and intra-familial relationships. How do physical comparisons among siblings affect personality development and individual behavior? Do these identity struggles lead to growth or despair? Does appearance foster competition among siblings, or solidarity? Does the way children look affect how they are perceived or treated by their parents? By extended family? Does physical beauty or the lack thereof affect male siblings as well as female ones? If so, in what ways?

Bernard J. Paris, in his work Character and Conflict in Jane Austen’s Novels, calls Austen “a serious interpreter of life, and a creator of brilliant mimetic characterizations,” an author who struggles “to combine comic actions with realistic characterizations and serious moral concerns” (13-14). This claim is nowhere more true than in her exploration of physical appearance and its role in family dynamics.

More than Jane

According to the JASNA website, we'll have plenty to do besides listen to papers about Jane:


Philadelphia, though a major metropolitan city, is composed of small neighborhoods that make for a warm, welcoming town.

It is the perfect city for "very good walkers," as founder William Penn laid out the streets in a most rational manner – naming streets that form square blocks using numbers and the names of trees. It is possible, but difficult, to become lost while walking in our fair city.

What, then, shall you do in Philadelphia? Museums, shops, theaters, and restaurants will tempt you to spend time here before, and even after the JASNA conference. If, like Lady Catherine, your natural taste in music is unrivaled, attend a performance of The Opera Company of Philadelphia, The Academy of Vocal Arts, or the world-renowned Philadelphia Orchestra.

Philadelphia is home to many museums, large and small. Marianne Dashwood, who possesses the most artistic sensibilities, would certainly visit The Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Rodin Museum, The Rosenbach, and The Library Company of Philadelphia.

Perhaps you see harmony and repose in Nature as does Fanny Price. Then set aside time to see The Franklin Institute Science Museum or the Academy of Natural Sciences.

Jane Austen herself, student of history that she was, would tour The National Constitution Center, Betsy Ross's House, Elfreth's Alley, Independence Hall, or The Independence Seaport Museum, all within walking distance of the hotel.

Gourmand General Tilney would be well-satisfied with the city's restaurants: Le Bec-Fin, Buddakan, Alma de Cuba, Moshulu, Fork, and the city's newest, Parc.

In pursuit of satin and lace, Augusta Elton would shop at The Bourse and the many stores on Walnut Street; she would almost certainly pay a visit to Jewelers' Row.

What connects Philadelphia to Jane Austen besides the 2009 AGM? Emma was published here in 1816; the first North American city where an Austen novel was published during the author's lifetime.

Accepted!

I received some good news yesterday. The paper that I'm presenting at the Jane Austen conference in Philadelphia this October has been accepted for publication in this year's edition of Persuasions: The Jane Austen Journal.

The paper is a version of one of my dissertation chapters. It's nice to get a little extra mileage out of all that hard work.

S & S & SM

I told you Monday that Quirk is planning a follow-up to its wonderfully successful Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. This one? Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters. No. I am not joking.

According to Publishers Weekly, "The Dashwood sisters, evicted from their childhood home by their conniving stepmother, land on a mysterious island full of man-eating sea creatures, instead of a nearby, downgraded, English cottage."

P&P&Z author Seth Grahame Smith kept 85 % of Austen's text untouched, but Ben H. Winters, author of the upcoming S&S&SM, maintains a 60/40 ratio. Rekulak, the editor, says they were inspired by "a wide range of cultural sources, both high and low. To that end, Rekulak said they looked to everything from Jules Verne novels to Lost to SpongeBob SquarePants."

I don't know. Jules Verne and Lost could work. But I'm a little put off by the SpongeBob thing.

It'll be published September 15th. Of course, I'll have to read it. I'll keep you posted.

Booking It-LOL

What's the funniest book you've read lately?

Well, that's gotta be Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. But I've already written a post about it. If you want to, you can read it HERE.

And there's another JA spoof coming out soon. I'll tell you about it later.

Revision Rage

In October, I'll be presenting at the annual general meeting of the Jane Austen Society of North America. The JASNA AGMs are always wonderful--interesting presentations and prestigious plenary speakers in great locations. I've attended AGMs in Seattle, Toronto, and Tucson. This year it's in Philadelphia, and I'm really looking forward to it. I can't wait to see the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, all the historic sights.

This year's theme is "Jane Austen's Brothers and Sisters." JASNA requires proposals to be sent in a year in advance, and, as luck would have it, I'd already planned for one of my dissertation chapters to be about the role of physical beauty within families, so I sent in my proposal hoping I'd get some mileage out of something I had to write anyway.

My proposal, "'Not half so handsome as Jane'; Sisters, Brothers, and Beauty in Austen's Novels," was accepted, and unlike many conferences, I'm actually alloted about forty minutes speaking time (with ten or fifteen left for questions and discussion), so I'll have time to present almost the whole essay and then be able to discuss it with other Austen scholars. Believe me, this can spoil you.

But right now I'm just plain aggravated. Why? Although I have plenty of time to present, if I want to submit my essay for possible publication in Persuasions: The Jane Austen Journal (which, of course, I do), I have to shorten my essay to 4000 words. Aaaarrrrgggghhh. I struggle to carefully construct an argument, and then I have to butcher it. I've done this before, and it hasn't gotten any easier. I think it's harder to cut huge chunks out of a finished essay than it is to write it in the first place. Aggravation is giving way to frustration.

What's the antidote for Revision Rage?