Savage Love Apr 2, 2019 at 4:00 pm

Parts and Parting

Joe Newton

Comments

107

In my amateur opinion, Austen has few peers, and if we limited ourselves to those works, we'd run out of things to read pretty quickly. I've read two of Charlotte's books and enjoyed them both immensely. I've attempted Emily's famous novel several times and just can't make myself care enough to get very far. I've never even come across Anne's. I had no idea there was a dispute in the first place. Is this a telling division like the preference for Beatles or Elvis? (from pulp fiction I think)

108

And, look, TDE, further my initial point, that if gays can be bitchy and judgmental about the Bronte sisters, we can be bitchy and judgmental about anything. And the correct answer, RE Jane versus Charlotte, Anne and Emily, is George Eliot.

109

I’ve just bought a second hand copy of a six hundred and fifty page biography of George Eliot today, Pan Sapien. I hope it’s good because it sure is long.

110

Enjoy, LavaGirl - 650 pages does seem a lot of pages to fill, and I’m not sure Mary Ann led the most action-packed, event-filled of lives. But the worst that can happen is that you’ll put the biography down because realise you haven’t read Middlemarch in years, or that you don’t quite understand some of the biographers ideas about Daniel Deronda, or that you haven’t ever got around to reading The Mill on The Floss, and read one or more of George Eliot’s novels instead. So it will be a useful buy, even if you never finish it.

111

Pan Sapien.. I’ve just finished reading Edmund White’s book on Rimbaud, and the poet stated that women were to be the new poets, bring new ideas to men which are
“ strange, unfathomable, repulsive, delicious.” One of the women Rimbaud admired was George Eliot. And there today in this second hand book shop was a biography of her. And here you are mentioning her. Synchronicity.

112

@76. XX and XY are the start of the signaling pathway to build you as a biological male or female, not the definition. There are XY people who grow as female because they have a mutation that prevents their cells from responding to testosterone. So to a large extent, your body's biological sex IS currently defined as the presence of male or female genitalia-what your body built as you formed (that's certainly how you're defined in ultrasounds and at birth). But different parts of your body can respond differently to those developmental signals. One recent report
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30165284)
suggests that gender dysphoria (being trans) is related to specific parts of the brain not being able to respond to specific sex hormones...i.e. the part of the brain that encodes your sexual identity is one sex while your body is another. If that holds up, then a person's gender, i.e. what sex one perceives oneself as, may NOT be a social construct....which matches the perception of many trans people that they knew their gender from early childhood.

113

George Eliot is a genius and I love almost all her books, but yes, "Middlemarch" is in a class by itself. It's an important book, which is in some ways the quintessential Victorian novel, but which doesn't shy away from complexity in the way that Dickens and Thackeray sometimes did (imo, only Trollope comes close to Eliot).

But you know what irritates the crap out of me? The fact that we are presented with these novelists--Austen, (all three) Brontës, and Eliot and are supposed to declare one and only one the "winner" of . . . what, exactly? "Best female British novelist of the 19th century?" Do we subject male novelists to that kind of bullshit fake-competition? These writers lived in different times and different locations and social circumstances. There is virtually no overlap in the themes they write about or their literary styles. Nope; the only thing they have in common is that they're British women writing in the 19th century. Is anyone ever asked to pit Wilkie Collins against Robert Louis Stevenson, Arthur Conan Doyle, or Rudyard Kipling? What would the criteria for comparison even be?

It's a nonsensical competition, and there's room for more than one female writer in the pantheon.

Jane Austen took the toddler novel form and grew it all the way up. She's the first writer in English--not the first female writer; the first writer, full stop--to master intricate plots, sparkling dialogue, humor, irony, satire, and realistic human relationships. She never loses control of her novels, in the way that her estimable predecessors (Defoe, Richardson, Fielding, and Sterne) do. She gets an A+.

Emily Brontë is nuts--writing about the most dysfunctional relationship ever to be glamorized, but she does it in an incredibly evocative, lyrical, descriptive book, which is full of so many issues that would soon be consuming us--who belongs and who doesn't. She gets an A.

Anne Brontë writes about codependency and loving an alcoholic, so she could be seen as the first person in the history of the form to write about a topic which many people have experienced but no one had ever talked about before. Worthy of at least an A-, for that alone.

Charlotte Brontë's novels are deeply personal and more explicitly feminist than her predecessors' and lay the groundwork for the critiques of the social system that guys like Dickens will run with to full acclaim and credit. Her novel, "Shirley" also takes on issues of working class insecurity and riots and the ways in which technology fucks over the working class in the name of capitalism. (She might be the first Marxist novelist, though really, I think you could make a case that the great Frances Burney, an 18th-century novelist, rather than a 19th-century one, casts a very critical eye on the economy of marriage, critiques the wealthy, and is a feminist, to boot. But poor Burney: she doesn't even get to participate in the Austen/Brontë/Eliot cage fight--neither, really do Emily or especially Anne Brontë--she gets to be completely forgotten, even though she was a best-selling, and self-supporting novelist.)
But "Jane Eyre" is a fucking brilliant novel, and if Charlotte Brontë never wrote anything else, she would have earned her seat at the table with that alone. A+.

George Eliot took complexity to a new level and got rid of happily-ever-after endings. What more can I say? A+.

If we can live in a world where there is more than one female candidate for president, where there doesn't have to be just one token woman in the field of men, we can make room for 5 (3, really) measly writers to coexist and acknowledge the literary gifts and skills of each, without being forced to choose one as the "best woman writer." So fuck off, Virginia Woolf (still love ya, babe, but you sort of started this)!

Okay, rant over. I'm climbing down from my soapbox and returning you to your regularly scheduled comment thread.

114

NoCute: "What would the criteria for comparison even be?"

Yes, & why I was asking what's the point of the division in the first place. Since you mentioned Woolf in this context twice, I googled, and I found a book titled "Viriginia Woolf on Jane Austen, the Bronte Sisters, and George Eliot" on Amazon. Click on the "look inside me" and you'll find this note on the first page: "...In the book reviews of major women writers presented here - Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, and George Sand- she praises these women writers..." So apparently it doesnt even matter too much WHICH women writers they're even talking about.

115

Love the rant, nocute! Now that I've (finally) read Austen, it's clear I should read some of the others, as well! Anything that inspires that level of passion is a good thing.

116

@114: EmmaLiz, in "A Room With a View," Virginia Woolf compares Jane Austen to Charlotte Brontë as being the better artist, because there's nothing personal in her writing. This, in what was originally a lecture about the need for more support of women writers! So when, @95, vennominon said, "I don't know that I'd want to trust in people's stumbling on the right source through independent research. If I didn't direct people to Miss Austen, someone might emerge admiring a Bronte," he's upholding that division. He may have come to that attitude on his own, but it's as likely that he or others have read Virginia Woolf and taken her pronouncement as gospel and as proscriptive. Thus it has become an unquestioned tenet of literary appreciation that one is either Team Jane or Team Charlotte, and those really refined souls know better than to be on Team Charlotte.
But I don't see why one can't admire both writers equally.

118

Thanks nocute, very interesting.

119

Virginia Woolf has never grabbed me, so I haven’t read her much. She seemed such a brittle woman, beset by so many demons.
Finding modern writers who can take one into their world with the skill these earlier writers did, that’s the challenge.

120

@112, Biologist. Yes, I saw a show by Dr Mosley, think that’s his name, for the BBC, where over weeks he took us thru what happens and can happen in the womb, and that was the theory he spoke of re being trans.
One which finally helped me make sense of how a person is trans.
This is what needs to be talked of to help people understand what being trans means. It is a biological issue, and if people understood then maybe there would be less transphobia.
Thank you. I’ve not seen this spoken of again since I saw that show, till now. I’ll check the reference out.

121

I don’t know, nocutename - Ciods now has a list of excellent Victorian novelists to read, LavaGirl knows that the universe really wants her to read some George Eliot, and I got to be bitchy and judgmental without being misogynistic or transphobic, so there’s at least three winners. You are correct, of course, in pointing out that it is worthwhile reading all these writers, and it is fairly pointless to assert the rightness of what are in the end matters of taste. But it is a fun and provocative way to start an argument.

122

PS nocutename - great summary of the writers in question btw. I hadn’t ever really thought about how Anne Bronte’s handling of some very topical issues. Reckon it’s time to give The Tenant of Wildfell Hall another go.

123

@121: Hey Pan Sapien: I didn't intend to bash you. I am happy that you got to be bitchy and judgmental without being misogynisitc or transphobic!

I am always happy to think that somewhere someone is picking up a Victorian novel for the first time. Ditto an 18th-century one or an earlier 19th-century one.

124

@114: Yeah, EmmaLiz ("I found a book titled "Viriginia Woolf on Jane Austen, the Bronte Sisters, and George Eliot" on Amazon. Click on the "look inside me" and you'll find this note on the first page: "...In the book reviews of major women writers presented here - Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, and George Sand- she praises these women writers..." So apparently it doesnt even matter too much WHICH women writers they're even talking about."), you know, all women pseudonymed "George" are all alike.

Interestingly, Jane Austen admired George Sand, and had an opportunity to hear her speak in person, which she reluctantly decided not to attend because she feared that to be associated publicly with such a scandalous woman would tarnish her reputation.

125

@124: Correction--and even as I hit "post comment," I realized the error. It wasn't George Sand that Jane Austen declined an invitation to meet; it was Madame de Staël. Although that story comes unsubstantiated from Austen's nephew who was trying very hard (and who succeeded) to establish Austen as a Lady of the utmost refinement and correctness. So who knows.

126

I think you’re right Pan Sapien. The universe is telling me to go to the source, because this bio is not doing it for me.

127

M?? Harriet - But then, you're not gay, and, from your accounts of your relationships with men, which in your own words were not MM relationships, neither were they. I can assure you that gay Complementarians often go well beyond the simple level of gender roles - not that there's anything necessarily wrong about being complementarian around gender roles, although that sort of complementarian happens to coincide with a larger than statistical expectation of problematic attitudes attributed to the G (even allowing for some of the deliberate deflection from others who want us to be blamed for their faults).

128

Mr Pan - Given your statement that one must be prepared to provide sincere admiration of and enthusiastic service to any sort of private parts without ever having had any particular expectation about their nature beforehand, you could hardly have expected me to think you monosexual.

129

Ms Cute - First, congratulations on an excellent rant.

You have taken my mild joke as a display of a genuine standard rather than an illustration of my point about, "Educate yourself!" Now, I shall not rise to the level of Miss Brodie, who asks, "Who is the greatest Italian painter? Jenny?" receives the response, "Leonardo da Vinci, Miss Brodie," and continues. "That is incorrect. The answer is Giotto; he is my favourite." The point is that, as I would hope somebody inquiring into the greatest novelist of the 1800's would emerge from any course of study with a burning appreciation of Miss Austen, it would be risky to trust in somebody's self-education [apologies for capitals, but one can no longer italicize], AS IT WOULD BE VALID FOR SOMEONE EDUCATING HIMSELF TO COME BACK APPRECIATING A BRONTE. Now, I could just as equally have plumped for Mr Dickens, but recall that Miss Bronte, C herself took pot shots at Miss A, and I am sure that the majority of the fault in any war over the pair resides with the supporters of Miss B. Miss Dickinson, I recall, also did not hold Miss A in warm regard.

Now, I actually prefer Three Guineas to A Room of One's Own (and I am probably decidedly in the minority there, it would appear), my main memories from the latter being her comparing a sumptuous Oxbridge luncheon to a meagre women's college dinner, and Mrs Woolf's picking up the phrase from an obscure novel, "Chloe liked Olivia," and giving it enough attention that the pair attained even greater significance in lesbian culture than anyone could ever have expected for the original two characters. I did have a recollection of Mrs W's praising Miss A in AROOO, but somehow, the only one of several things Mrs W wrote about Miss A I've seen that has stuck in my memory is, "Of all great artists, she is the most difficult to catch in the act of greatness."

I shall prove my sincerity by foregoing the opportunity to make a marvelous comparison between admiring Miss Bronte and choosing (as Eunice Gardiner did) to enter the Senior School on the Modern side instead of the Classical.

If Miss Austen once compared her work to painting on china, the Miss Brontes C and E give me the impression of being unable to write without smashing china. There are those for whom that style suits well, which reminds me of your admiration for Mlle Bonaly, despite the way she telegraphed her jumps (though I shared that admiration far enough to prefer her to more traditionally artistic skaters with little jumps - Ms Chen, for instance).

I'm not sure why, but I've generally considered Jane Eyre as being on about the same (high but not the highest) tier as Vanity Fair, though for quite different reasons. If I go any deeper on this one, though, I shall have to resort to Joan Plumleigh Bruce's chest of drawers from The Charmer (or Mr Stimson and Mr Gorse), and that would take me another lengthy post.

Now that I think of it, there is or was a YouTube debate between supporters of Miss Austen and those of Miss Bronte, C, which also contributed to my plucking Miss B out of thin air. And I thank you for once again calling to mind the Miss Boston Barmaid competition. Really, though, if pressed, I think my favourite literary Battle Royale would be between Mrs Woolf and Mr Wilde.

130

@129: Mr. Ven, funny you should say that you place "Jane Eyre"on the same rung as "Vanity Fair"--and Charlotte Brontë would have been flattered to hear that. Charlotte Brontë dedicated "Jane Eyre" to Thackeray, in appreciation for "Vanity Fair,"which she thought the best novel written, without having met him personally. Try as I might, I can see no overlap in the individual novels' venn diagrams, nor in the authors' lives or literary styles. But that innocently-meant dedication made life tricky for William Makepeace: the way "JE" was written, it was assumed to be autobiographical (perhaps because the full title was "Jane Eyre: an Autobiography"); everyone knew that "Currer Bell"was a pseudonym, but no one knew the author's true identity. And unbeknownst to the public, but well enough known to those in the know, W.M. Thackeray's wife had gone insane. It was therefore rumoured that "Mr. Rochester" was a pseudonym for Thackeray, and that the real Currer Bell, whoever she might be, was a former governess who had had an affair with Thackeray.

131

LavaGirl, great idea to skip the bio and go straight for the novels. I would suggest starting with "The Mill on the Floss," which will get your feminist blood boiling. Then maybe "Daniel Deronda," and then "Middlemarch." Or you could just jump right into "Middlemarch."--it's a helluva good read.

132

@129: Mr. Ven, I am going to copy and paste your shimmering paragraph ("If Miss Austen once compared her work to painting on china, the Miss Brontes C and E give me the impression of being unable to write without smashing china. There are those for whom that style suits well, which reminds me of your admiration for Mlle Bonaly, despite the way she telegraphed her jumps (though I shared that admiration far enough to prefer her to more traditionally artistic skaters with little jumps - Ms Chen, for instance)." into some sort of commonplace book.

133

@120 Glad the comment was useful, Ms. Lava.

134

Nocute, I’ve read some George Eliot many yrs ago, and like with a lot of things my memory has faded. I will re read and newly read books of hers I haven’t read.
On holidays for a fortnight ‘by the sea’, and today I went out second hand book hunting again. This time I found a Thomas Hardy book, ‘Jude The Obscure’ and a bio of him. Haven’t read him before. Also a copy of LittleWomen by Louisa M Alcott. .. I’ll keep that for my granddaughter. I remember crying over that one, even if I can’t quite remember why. Getting older can be a bitch.

135

Ms Lava - If you cried over Little Women, the prime suspect is usually Beth.

Mrs Woolf had better reasons than most to be brittle. Between that monster of a sympathy-eating father, the abusive Duckworth stepbrothers, the loss of the golden brother Thoby (perhaps a model for Sinclair in Iris Murdoch's The Book and the Brotherhood) and eventually being dominated simultaneously by Vanessa and Leonard, it's rather a marvel she lasted so long as she did. Then again, I've always thought that hearing the birds singing in Greek showed considerable cachet.

137

Ms Cute - I had several thoughts during the night, the one which might entertain you most being an imagining of Miss Bronte, C writing Mansfield Park or Emma (in the latter case, trying to make Harriet Smith the heroine, and, in the former, producing something I think you'd have found more entertaining, though perhaps less sound).

I then considered tennis. You reminded me a little of Mr Wertheim, one of the prominent tennis columnists and pundits, who has often lamented the animosity he has so regularly observed between admirers of Hr Federer and those of Sr Nadal. I can agree with that, but cannot follow him into wanting people to be pro-Djokovic as well. If you were fond of tennis, you would be much more inured to GOAT debates (which tend to be strongly on the male side rather than the female), and how many of them go intergenerational, with advocates for Mr Sampras or Mr Laver (and his two, count them, two, calendar year Grand Slams).

That led me to wonder how much Middlemarch might be read as partially a sort of commentary on Miss Austen, or an attempt, conscious or un-, to send a couple of Austenian pairs of characters down a different path. Given all the complexities, it could only be in part, but it doesn't seem too unreasonable to consider that we see speculation about how an Edmund/Mary and a Henry/Fanny marriage might have turned out.

Then i recalled how the worst jump telegrapher was Elena Liashenko, who entered flip jumps with a foot gesture that resembled stomping a bug, and woke.

138

Yes Mr Venn, I read the blurb, then I remembered. We had a book here called
‘ Seven Little Australians,’ with a similar tragic theme.
I also found a copy of Emma, in excellent condition. I’ve got one at home and this was $2, and it’s nice to have Jane here too. Books do have energy, all that life force another human shares with us. From beyond. I just spooked myself.
Biologist @122;You talking of this theory, it dumbfounded me, because I saw that show a while back. And nothing since.
I’d had many punch ups on here about trans and got pummeled. Especially by one trans woman.
Then I saw Dr M Mosley’s series ....and it’s a good one on the growing foetus and all that can go on..and his explanation, that for a trans woman the male hormones direct the body and the female hormones direct the mind, while still in the womb.
It was such an AHA moment for me.
I jumped on SL to apologise and say how I’d learnt something, wrote what it was, which helped me understand the intensity of energy coming at me.
The beauty was, the woman who I had the most intense time arguing with, saw it , and we made up. One of the best moments for me on SL.
I always take note of your comments, Biologist. Not that you make many.

139

Nocute @130; that’s nasty. I’ve never taken to the Bronte Women. Some of their romance is dirty, which did grab a girl’s fancy. The mad stuff I never got off on. All those dark houses.
I got P &P for my sixteenth birthday, and Jane was the queen, the others the dark angels.

140

The Bronte sisters as the dark angels, I mean.
Not George Eliot, she was a free sexual woman. Slipped off with a married man for twenty seven years until his death and just before her death, married a man twenty years younger.

141

@138: LavaGirl, I've never commented on this before because it isn't my issue and I'm not qualified to speak about trans issues, but I remember your earlier quarrels regarding transness and I've noticed, without knowing the reason for it, your change in attitude. For me, it was also one of the most beautiful things I've read here.

I get frustrated with the amount of regular bickering that goes on here, but one thing I've always liked about the comments section of this column is how articulate the commenters are and how deeply the discussions tend to go. I've learned a lot and changed a good deal of my opinions from what I've read here. Sometimes we (not just you and I, though yes, we do have a history; but the collective "we" of the comments section) flare up into heated disagreements, but I think of them as akin to growing pains and I'm always gladdened by the amount of goodwill I often encounter here.

As far as reading goes, Hardy is great, but hard on his women. Skip the Brontës if you know they're not your cup of tea; life's too short. "Emma" is my favorite intro to Austen, and I've already suggested the Eliot books. You know, Mary Ann would have married George Lewes if she could have, but I admire her for getting herself the love she wanted and for her courage in living openly and honestly.

@139: Yeah, it was a weird and unfortunate coincidence! All Charlotte B was trying to do was to pay homage to her literary hero, and how was she to know that she'd end up starting a nasty rumour about him.

142

Mr. Ven: å propos of your casting all the Brontë sisters as bulls in the china shop, I have to say that "Jane Eyre," in particular is a hot mess. Literally. It's got everything but the kitchen sink in it; it ends with a bizarre glimpse of St. John Rivers dying some sort of ecstatic martyr's death, which no one remembers because who the hell cares about St. John Rivers; its message seems to wander off course here and there; its romantic lead is perhaps the most unappealing character ever to be raised to the status of hero (unless you count Heathcliff, who is undeniably awful); the dialogue between Jane and Mr. Rochester is so stilted and ridiculous that it is painfully obvious Charlotte Brontë never had any type of romantic relationship; it's racist, and to a degree, sexist.

Although I read Bertha Mason as a sympathetic character, I know that's not how Brontë probably conceived of her. Yet it's there all the same. She seems to rise from Charlotte's unconscious as the personification of every woman who's been thwarted by society's standards and she takes her revenge. She's supposed to be the Big Obstacle and I see her as an avenging Fury. I dislike the ending: Jane's happily ever after rankles with me. Interestingly, every time I teach the novel, the male students like the ending--they find it romantic and they're happy that Jane got what she wanted. The female students almost always are unsatisfied, even angry at the ending and often at Brontë herself for conceiving of it as a "good" ending. They want to see Jane flourish as an independent woman. They feel betrayed.

But.

The book is also brilliant and passionate and the heroine is feisty and tough and honest and true to herself. Brontë writes about class and social and gender difference and equality and revolt. There are references to the slave trade. It's a wider world than someone from Brontë's background could have been expected to write and yet it is obviously Charlotte herself, yearning for more, consigned to the narrowness of Haworth after the failure of Brussels. Jane's insistence on being Rochester's equal, when everything in her society told her she was his inferior, is inspiring, even if she continues to call him, "my master," long after she should stop. Plus: plot twists! Things going bump in the night! Debauchery in Paris stories! Hypocrisy exposed! Mr. Rochester in drag (oh, wait--that's one of the book's lowest points for me.) It's not a controlled narrative; it's not sly and artful; the dialogue is clunky at times; but it is sheer, raw brilliance.

143

Just chiming in to add that I love Virginia Woolf as a novelist. But she also trashed Robert Louis Stevenson, so my guess is she was something of a snob. Generally I don't care about artists' personal lives unless there's something very interesting to read. Her beefs with other authors is not interesting to me. I understand Austen's decision not to attend that lecture (whichever woman it was!) I remember when the internet was shiny and new, I found a blog (geocities or some such thing) kept by someone who had been one of my favorite authors growing up. Suddenly for the first time ever I could interact with and know all about someone who had previously just been a name on the spine of a book. And he was much less interesting in person. These days we are accustomed to hearing and seeing stuff about the mundane personal lives of public figures, but at the time, this was a brand new experience, and it took some of the magic out of the world.

If we're giving Eliot recommendations, I'll throw in Silas Marner. It's completely unlike some of the society parlor dramas or marriage plots or gothic romances or any of that stuff (which I also like- not a criticism here). It's set in a different time and mostly doesn't include a love story at all from what I remember. The bits about community and isolation really resonated with me, and it's sweeter than I'd have thought possible, seems like a parent many times over like Lava would really love it.

Mr. Rochestor in drag? No Cute's memory of the details surpasses mine- I know that from an earlier talk about P&P- but I don't know what that references. With the talk of madness and dark houses and colonialism, etc, I guess all the learned people here have read Jean Rhys' take on Jane Eyre already? I loved Jane Eyre, but I read it in the sense that I read a lot of old books- that you just have to accept that the worldview is going to rub you the wrong way, product of its times and all that. In short, a great work doesn't have to be woke for me to love it, and the opposite is also true- plenty of correct stuff is dreadful. But I think Wide Sargasso Sea is excellent- on its own or in response to JE. It's not happy, but it would probably scratch that itch that your female students are let with after Jane Eyre. Probably for your students from the post-colonial world as well if young people still think about such things. In any case, it made the mad woman in the attic and Rochester both seem much more real to me. I loved Voyage in the Dark as well.

144

@EmmaLiz: Yes, "Wide Sargasso Sea" is a masterpiece. But even without reading it, I am able to feel sympathy for poor Bertha/Antionette.

I forgot all about "Silas Marner.' Good book. I also like "Adam Bede" and most everything, really, except "Romola," which I couldn't get into. "Daniel Deronda" was fascinating, not only for its sympathetic portrayal of a Jewish character and support for zionism, but also for an erotic/power exchange relationship obliquely hinted at in Gwendolen's marriage to Grandcourt (or at least, I see the eroticism there, and someday want to write an essay about it).

145

Nocute &141; thank you for your kind words. Brought tears to my eyes.
I agree, this is a wild universe, SL. I realise I’m having heated differences with people mostly on the other side of the world. I’ve learnt how the world is out there, after coming out of a thirty year marriage. Different to the world of my youth.
Re trans issues, one of the big arguments was around the time the women’s music festival closed down because it was just for cis women.
I’ve never been transphobic. I needed to understand though. I thought it was a post birth issue, a psychological split occurring thu the long passage of childhood.
Ill never re read the Bronte Women.
I have decided on re reading Emma. I’ve already stepped back into dear Jane Austen’s world.

147

TRASH has an entire friend group composed of the Roy Cohen character in "Angels in America"?


    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.