osprey_archer: (art)
Despite my love of Emily Dickinson, I put off watching Wild Nights with Emily because some of the reviews gave me pause. But it came to Kanopy last week, and I’ve got access to Kanopy through my library, so of course I had to watch it, and I’m glad I did because I found it for the most part delightful.

The movie has two main stories. First, there’s the story of Emily Dickinson’s lifelong love affair with her sister-in-law, Sue Dickinson, who married Emily’s brother Austin (the movie argues) in order to remain close to Emily: Sue and Austin build their house right next door to the house where Emily lives, and Emily and Sue wear a path through their backyards sending notes back and forth by means of Sue’s daughter.

Second, there’s the frame story, in which Austin’s mistress Mabel Loomis Todd gives a speech about Emily Dickinson’s work, which Todd edited and arranged for publication after Dickinson’s death, while obscuring her own illicit connection to the family. Why was she over at Emily Dickinson’s house all the time? (To conduct her illicit affair with Austin.) To play piano for the reclusive Emily, of course!

Emily and Sue’s love is the heart of the movie, of course, but I also got a lot of enjoyment out of Mabel’s sections. In this telling, she’s a sort of confidence trickster, always putting herself at the center of Emily’s story and keeping just a step ahead of her marks as they begin to notice puzzling discrepancies in her story. Why was she the only possible editor for Emily’s work if she never even met Emily face to face? Well, uh, because Emily almost never saw anyone face to face! Because she was a reclusive spinster who had never known love!

She’s not a nice person, but it’s exhilarating to watch her spin this spiderweb around her audience. You can see why her story of Emily Dickinson took root, even though in later years Sue’s daughter Martha (who acted as messenger girl for much of Emily and Sue’s correspondence) gave speeches about Emily and Sue’s closeness. Mabel got in first, and moreover, Mabel is a showman. All Martha has is the truth on her side.

I did have a couple of quibbles with the movie. The first is that the actresses playing young Emily and Sue sometimes struggle with the dialogue: they sound a little wooden, an effect which is more noticeable because the actresses for middle-aged Emily and Sue make the 19th century cadences sound so natural.

The other quibble (and this is the reason I hesitated to watch the movie in the first place) is that the movie is so intent on positioning Sue as Emily’s most important, indeed practically sole supporter, that it sometimes gives other people short shrift. This is more noticeable in the portrayal of Helen Hunt Jackson, whom the movie portrays as a rival to Emily, a poet whose conventional verses find easy acceptance in comparison to Emily’s more modern poetry. There’s no hint in the movie of the fact that the real-life Dickinson and Jackson knew each other from school, and Jackson in fact urged Dickinson to publish.

(I’m also not sure if the movie’s portrayal of Emily’s sister Lavinia is accurate, but it is eccentric and hilarious, so it didn’t give me quite the same feeling that they were committing a character assassination.)

But overall, I really enjoyed the movie. More period pieces like this, please!
osprey_archer: (books)
What I’ve Just Finished Reading

Maud Hart Lovelace’s Winona’s Pony Cart, which is the last of her Deep Valley books - the end of an era! But this is a very good book to end an era on. Young Winona is turning eight (and the book seems to be written for children at about that level), and she desperately wants a pony. So desperately that as the book begins, she’s been attempting to ride the birdbath as a pony-replacement.

It doesn’t have quite enough pony in it to count as a horse book, but I think it would be fun for fans of horse books nonetheless.

I also finally finished reading Alfred Habegger’s Emily Dickinson biography, which suffered quite a bit from the fact that her life gets really boring after about thirty-five. Someone could probably write a good novel about Emily Dickinson’s rich inner life in her later years, after she stopped leaving her house - or alternatively a good but terribly sad novel about her inner torment - but a biographer is stuck with the facts.

And the facts are that not much happened to her, and her record of her thoughts and feelings (her poems and letters) are so oblique and elusive that it’s hard to get much of a narrative out of them either.

Also I think Habegger gives short shrift to her relationships with women - shouldn’t her sister Vinnie be a bigger presence, for instance? And I shouldn’t have been surprised to discover that Dickinson’s mother was still alive when her father died.

What I’m Reading Now

DID YOU KNOW BILL BRYSON HAS A NEW BOOK OUT? It’s The Road to Little Dribbling: Adventures of an American in Britain, and it is - well, I think Bryson has become cranky in his old age (crankier, perhaps? He’s always been cranky), and it probably could have used better editing - I’m only on Chapter 7 and I’ve lost count of the number of times he’s called a view “splendid” - but parts of it are still very, very funny.

I also started reading Charlotte Bronte’s Shirley on my Kindle. I am ten percent of the way through the book and Shirley has not appeared yet.

What I Plan to Read Next

It seems there’s a new Benjamin January book out! So clearly I need to read that.
osprey_archer: (books)
What I’ve Just Finished Reading

Constance Fenimore Woolson’s Anne! Yes, I am free of this book forever! Actually it became much less irritating later on; or maybe I just became inured to it through long exposure?

It’s very telling about the book’s priorities that the big climactic moment between the two main female characters is related only in flashback when it becomes important with regards to the man that they both love. Like, dude, I for one was interested enough in their friendship that I would have liked to read about that moment as it happened.

I also finished Timothy Zahn’s Heir to the Empire - the first volume of it, I mean. There are apparently two more, but I barely slogged through the first one so I won’t be reading them. It’s too bad in a way; when I was a kid, I really liked the Junior Jedi Knights and Young Jedi Knights series, but somehow none of the adult Star Wars tie-in novels that I’ve read have ever worked for me.

What I’m Reading Now

I’m still reading Christopher Benfey’s My Wars Are Laid Away in Books: The Life of Emily Dickinson, which is annoying me by briskly dismissing the very idea that maybe Emily Dickinson might have been a little bit into women. For goodness sake, she just wrote her future sister-in-law envisioning a future where they would be buried side by side in the church graveyard! Side by side like a married couple! That sounds at least a little bit like romantic love!

I don’t require that Benfey buy into the idea entirely; Emily Dickinson was gushingly passionate about everything, but also oblique enough that it can be hard to tell exactly what her feelings were (not just romantically, but in general). But I think there’s enough merit to it that Benfey should at least give it some consideration rather than just brushing it aside.

I’m also continuing in Chris Jennings’ Paradise Now: The Story of American Utopianism, and I think I have identified what I find frustrating about this book - God, I’m just frustrated by all the books this week - which is what I find frustrating about most of the books I’m read about utopianism, actually, which is that they rarely seem to give much feeling for what it was like to actually live in one of these places. What did the Shakers eat for breakfast? Did the people in Robert Owen’s New Harmony do anything but infight all day long? These are the things I want to know.

What I Plan to Read Next

The next book I have queued up on my Kindle is Louisa May Alcott’s Moods, so definitely that. And after that - well, that’s the last unread book I have on my Kindle! Clearly it’s time to go on a Kindle spree!

And of course I am going to read Lady Chatterley’s Lover for the May book challenge. Are you ready, [livejournal.com profile] evelyn_b?
osprey_archer: (books)
I've been reading Alfred Habegger's My Wars Are Laid Away in Books: The Life of Emily Dickinson, and you guys, it's kind of a hoot. You don't really expect an academic biography to be snarky, and it's not like Habegger is snarking all over the place, but - and I think he's taking some inspiration from Dickinson herself here, because she could certainly be snarky in her nineteenth-century way - he certainly has his moments.

In particular, you can practically hear him rolling his eyes when he argues with one of Dickinson's previous biographers, whose interpretation of Dickinson's life seems to have been "poor little match girl." Unfortunately for this biographer, Emily Dickinson had probably the least traumatic childhood of anyone in the entirety of 19th century America. None of her siblings died, neither of her parents died, she didn't start working a factory or the farm fields at a tender age (she doesn't even seem to have done much housework), nobody she loved was sold into slavery, she wasn't sold into slavery, the Civil War isn't even going to happen for another decade or two.

So far the most upsetting thing that has happened to her - she's about seventeen now - is that a couple of neighbors died, prompting some extended grim musings on death and immortality and eternity and isn't the idea of eternity almost as frightening as the idea of just dying and parting from everything forever?

The book is a library book so I did not actually write "Twinsies!" in the margin when Emily started on this vein, but this is pretty much exactly what I did when my grandfather died when I was eight, so I was totally thinking it.

Other terrible habits I share with Emily Dickinson: attempting to keep in touch with people long after it would have become clear to literally anyone else in the universe that they have no interest in keeping in touch, and are in fact probably groaning at the sight of each new letter/text message. My God! Won't she just give up already?

I also read probably a few too many of those "move heaven and earth to keep in contact with your depressed friends or you are a HORRIBLE PERSON" articles (they rarely spell it out so bluntly, but that was the general subtext), which convinced me that if anyone drifted out of contact it was a clear sign that they were also drifting aimless and alone upon the bitter seas of despondency. Obviously utter despair is the only reason why anyone would ever reject the precious jewel of my friendship.

BUT IN FACT it turns out that the reason why people write these articles it that nine times out of ten when people drift out of contact, it is in fact because they don't want to be in contact. Most people realize this, and that is why they (erroneously but understandably) believe their depressed friends don't want to be contacted either. This is why these articles don't come with "But actually there are lots of reasons why your friends might gradually stop responding to you, so don't assume on that basis alone that they're depressed" disclaimers.

1. You were good friends once but they've drifted away. They went somewhere else and have new friends now. It happens.

2. As far as they're concerned, you were only friends because circumstance threw you together and frankly they're a little weirded out that you tried to keep in touch after those circumstances ended.

3. They are a terrible correspondent. They are bad at text messages, letters, Facebook, email, telephone calls, snapchats, and God knows what else. If smoke signals and passenger pigeons were still in vogue, they would be bad at that too. You could be their very best friend in all the world and they wouldn't keep in touch.

4. They're busy. Usually this is a polite social fiction, and the people who swear up and down they're too busy to keep in touch are actually spending at least eight hours a week binge-watching Doctor Who on Netflix, but occasionally you have a friend who is, say, doing a medical residency. Those people? They're actually too busy.

5. Or maybe they are totally depressed - and they still don't want to hear from you. They never liked you that much in the first place and in their current state you're totally intolerable. Ugh, her again? Why can't any of my good friends ever contact me? Cue extended musing about how clearly all the friends they actually liked probably never liked them at all, which is yet more proof that they are unworthy, unworthy! of those fine people, and that is why only their second-rate friends still text.

6. In general, unless someone actually says "I am depressed/terminally ill with cancer/incredibly busy with my new baby/otherwise have a really good excuse for being a shitty correspondent, but nonetheless I really appreciate you keeping in contact with me," there is every likelihood that in fact they do not appreciate it. Your letters are collecting dust on their windowsill.

I realize that this sounds melodramatic, but I've had two friends eventually admit that they had stopped reading my letters. They clearly hoped that I would eventually stop writing of my own accord, but no, I persisted in putting them in this embarrassing position by sending them more letters.

Basically, when people stop responding, 90% of the time that is their way of politely signalling their disinterest. No one wants to have to say, "Actually I have no interest in keeping in touch," so people just try to quietly fade out. Let them.

It has taken me the better part of ten years to figure this out. On the bright side, Emily Dickinson doesn't seem to have worked it out ever, so I guess it could be worse.

ETA: Every time I post about this, I get long, defensive comments from people who know they're terrible at keeping in touch and feel guilty about it, but nonetheless have no intention of even trying to do better. This is 100% the wrong place to look for sympathy or validation for that position. If you're even thinking about leaving a comment like that, go text one of your neglected friends instead.

Profile

osprey_archer: (Default)
osprey_archer

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 67
8 910 11 121314
15 1617 18 192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 21st, 2025 10:46 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios