Tumgik
#edward gardiner
anghraine · 6 months
Text
I always find it interesting that no one in P&P has any doubt that Mr Gardiner could and would have shelled out ten thousand pounds to bribe Wickham.
Mr Bennet is determined (at least at the time) to eventually repay him, when he believes Mr Gardiner paid it, but he does believe that. Mrs Bennet simply shrugs off the vast sum of money that everyone believes was expended to preserve Lydia's reputation. Her justification is that she and her daughters would have inherited all her brother's money if he hadn't gone and got married and had children of his own (how dare!). His assurance that she's going to be fine is not an empty one.
Elizabeth doesn't seem to doubt it, either. And earlier, at Pemberley, she assumed that Darcy had mistaken the Gardiners for members of fashionable upper-class society—a believable mistake to make, apparently, and he is surprised that they're Mrs Bennet's relatives. (I mean. Fair.) Their summer trip is likely not a cheap one. They're doing quite well.
In any case, I do think the Gardiners' prosperity and its bearing on the Bennets' situation is kind of overlooked by the fandom.
357 notes · View notes
prettiewittie · 2 years
Text
Does anyone want to send me a prompt?
I'm really struggling with working on Most Ardently and I would appreciate some inspiration...please?
1 note · View note
tobbogan-13 · 3 months
Text
Kate DiCamillo and Lois Lowrey were really carrying the 3rd grade reading curriculum
38 notes · View notes
captmuldoon · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Becoming Elizabeth + Textposts (the grand finale)
Bonus:
Tumblr media
212 notes · View notes
natequarter · 3 months
Text
there's a few things which make me think the famous boiled apples comment wasn't the duke of norfolk:
this post
the fact that mary made no attempt to punish norfolk after her accession
obviously not incontrovertible proof, but she appointed him to the privy council and gave him back his titles in her first parliament after he'd been attainted and imprisoned, which doesn't sound like mary acting on a long-standing and bitter grudge
the main reason the quote is attributed to norfolk in the first place is not because he actually said it but because norfolk was a double-dealing pragmatist of the highest order who would probably sell satan to satan if he thought it would save him
11 notes · View notes
quietparanoiac · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Do you not believe his word? I have seen the Lord Somerset uses a lot of them.
Becoming Elizabeth (2022–), 1x03 | 1x08
56 notes · View notes
tercessketchfield · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Becoming Elizabeth textpost memes, but chiefly SomerMary [+ Sir Pedro, and Thomas Seymour (derogatory)] (part 2/?) // part 1
25 notes · View notes
kessenyans · 7 months
Text
we don't talk enough about the version of 's.ense & s.ensibility' where 70s!ross plays edward f.errars and 70s!francis plays w.illoughby
Tumblr media
1 note · View note
mrbacf · 1 year
Text
Veja "Elgar : Sospiri (Gardiner / Philharmonique de Radio FRance)" no YouTube
youtube
0 notes
clamarcap · 1 year
Text
Per uno e per quattro
Per uno e per quattro
Albert Lortzing (23 ottobre 1801 - 1851): Konzertstück in mi maggiore per corno e orchestra. Peter Damm, corno; Staatskapelle Dresden, dir. Siegfried Kurz. Il brano, in un unico movimento, si articola nelle seguenti sezioni: Andante – Variazioni – Poco più lento – Allegretto – Tempo I – Allegretto – Cadenza – Tempo I. Robert Schumann (1810 - 1956): Konzertstück per 4 corni e orchestra op. 86…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes
bethanydelleman · 1 year
Text
Estimated Sexual Abilities of Austen Men
In no particular order within tier
Edits added in blue based on your reblogs and careful consideration
Top Tier:
Mr. Mainwaring: to have the near undying loyalty of the exceedingly selfish Lady Susan, this man must be a sex god
Henry Crawford: he knows he’s not handsome, he wants women to love him, he'd put in the work. Also one of the only men to be rated by a woman who has had sex before.
Henry Tilney: he cares about things women like, high emotional intelligence, and extremely kind.
Frederick Wentworth: passion and experience (I imagine), also has high emotional intelligence when he’s not being a dufus.
Colonel Brandon: passionate, thinks about other people’s feelings a lot, self-sacrificial
John Knightley: I think there’s a good reason that they keep banging out those kids
Admiral Croft: I cannot believe I left him off, obviously amazing in bed because he respects his wife as his equal and is very fun. You are telling me they spend all their time together and don't have amazing sex? No freaking way!
Good Tier:
William Price: athletic, cares about his sister a lot (good sign), and gives good presents. He’s only nineteen in the story which is why he has room to improve.
Captain Harville: Obviously
Mr. Morland: dude isn’t even on page, but in my head Mrs. Morland enjoyed making all ten of those children.
Colonel Fitzwilliam: I think he’d be good, but not awesome. He'll probably be wasted on a mercenary marriage.
Charles Bingley: I get the feeling he’d be on a race to the end, and maybe not the best communicator at first. Will improve.
Mr. Gardiner: Just because he’s awesome and seems to respect women
Captain Benwick: poetry and passion!
Robert Martin: seems like a pretty romantic guy, also works on a farm so probably athletic.
John Willoughby: Mostly because of experience, but he is also pretty passionate. He’s also super hot, Miss Grey knew what she was getting into. But this guy can only go downhill from here.
Reginald De Courcy: He’s a sweetheart, an occasionally dumb sweetheart
Mr. Bennet: Is he lazy in most domains of life? Yes. But Mrs. Bennet wasn’t just trying for that heir, I’m telling you folks. Maybe he's just trying to make her unable to talk 😉
George Knightley: Promoted to good tier, I do think he's very caring, but he also is always sure HE is right, which may be a problem.
John Yates: Maybe not the most selfless person, but he's got passion and he does love his wife. Probably very into roleplay.
Mediocre but can improve tier:
Fitzwilliam Darcy: he’s a bit stiff... I think it might take some time for him to get good at it (demoted to this tier because he will need time to improve)
Frank Churchill: He’s got passion, but he’s so darn selfish and doesn’t seem to send that much time thinking about Jane’s feelings
Edward Ferrars: I just see him being a nervous wreak the first few times, it’ll get better (Note: I think Lucy is way too smart to have had sex without a wedding date)
James Morland: Dude, I’m just disappointed with you in general. Being led by lust, not protecting your sister. I hope you grow a lot before you try to get engaged again.
Charles Musgrove: could be good, but Mary never seems to appreciate the effort he puts in so he kind of gave up
Tom Bertram: Selfish, never has to try for anything, but he did reform so maybe he can get better here too.
Edmund Bertram: Repressed and selfish. He needs to actually start listening to what women say if he’s going to improve and there is a whole book of him doing exactly the opposite...
Mr. Elton: selfish, full of himself, and low emotional intelligence, however, I think he does love his wife so he is willing to put in some effort for her.
Just bad:
James Rushworth: Maria was not impressed at all, despite how much “taller” he was
Captain Tilney: riding on good looks and money, selfish
John Thorpe: Selfish and he never shuts up. I have trouble imaging him getting a woman to sleep with him without paying her.
George Wickham: selfish and good looking, he’s not doing any work. He thinks you should be honoured to sleep with him.
Robert Ferrars: selfish and not even good looking. There is nothing here. Lucy did not win people.
Mr. Woodhouse: I can’t even imagine, if he didn’t have children I’d say he was a virgin
Mr. Collins: The woman he is trying to please is not his wife.
Mr. Elliot: cruel to his first wife and not even handsome!
Sir Walter Elliot: I don’t think any part of his personality would tend toward being a “giver”, however, if you like mirrors...
John Dashwood: exactly the opposite of a “giver”
Mr. Price: the guy had 11 children in 14 years so I wish I could say he was better in bed. My suspicion is that he started in the good tier and has had a very slow fall into just bad. And all that alcohol, ug...
Dr. Grant: Noted for being a whiney, selfish glutton. Hopefully he just falls asleep before he can attempt anything because I can't imagine him being that good in bed.
General Tilney: If you don't want to even try to imagine their sex life, they go in this tier. And he is so freaking controlling!
No Data: We interviewed Lady Bertram for information on Sir Thomas, but she confessed that with full consent, she has always fallen asleep during sex. Given her personality, we decided that this information has no bearing on Sir Thomas’s abilities. She did say that giving birth was, “Very disagreeable.”
Mr. Hurst: I really can't decide with him because while he does love the finer things in life, we don't know exactly why he and Louisa married. More info required.
Criteria: In the domain of F/M sex, communication is key, so we need a man who is willing to listen to what women say. Also, selfishness is obviously a negative trait when it comes to a happy sexual partner of either gender. Some of this is just vibes, but I think there is a fair amount of canon information about how much men respect women, especially their sisters. 
Feel very free to fight me in the reblogs. The only hill I will die on is that Henry Crawford’s rating is correct 😉
969 notes · View notes
anghraine · 2 years
Text
A couple of days ago, I encountered a particularly terrible Austen take, which touched on P&P but was more focused on Emma. It’s related to something I see pretty often in fandom and in more pop culture-style takes, but much less often in academia, so I wanted to talk about it here instead of in an academic format.
The context: in Emma, there’s a scene where Jane Fairfax talks about her plan to go into work as a governess by referring to offices that trade in the sale of human intellect (i.e., the governesses’s intellects). Mrs Elton misunderstands this as “a fling at the slave-trade” and rushes to say that her brother-in-law (whom she constantly praises) is pro-abolition. Jane explains that she was talking about the governess trade and the conversation moves on.
The take: wow, Austen is saying abolition is bad! Emma is pro-slavery! Austen was pro-slavery! That’s where Bingley’s and Mr Gardiner’s money is really coming from!
To be clear, this isn’t a terrible “interpretation” (for lack of a better word) because Austen was an unproblematic genius who could do no wrong. I actually do think the interchange in Emma is deeply problematic, but in a more complicated and less clickbait-y way that I’ll explain.
The logic of the interpretation, as far as I can tell, is that Mrs Elton is an awful and fairly stupid person, so by associating her with abolition, Austen is criticizing abolitionists. This is basically the same logic used by the people who argue that Lady Catherine’s opposition to entailments means that P&P is actually pro-entailment (also a truly asinine reading).
It’s pretty evident in the P&P case that Lady Catherine opposes entailing estates away from women because she personally (and her daughter) would lose power, property, and wealth under entailment, and moreover, that she’s using the occasion to gloat about the superiority of her and Anne’s situation. The point is less to tell us about entailment discourse and more to tell us about Lady Catherine.
Similarly, in Emma, Mrs Elton’s rush to insist on Mr Suckling’s pro-abolition politics tells us less about abolition and more about Mrs Elton. She jumps to an incorrect assumption (that Jane was talking about literal slavery), hurries to defend a brother-in-law whom nobody else was talking about, then just keeps going without really listening to what Jane is saying or showing any understanding of her character. So we see that she’s not particularly bright, that she doesn’t listen to the people she’s allegedly trying to help, that her confidence is brittle and defensive, and that she’s generally obnoxious.
It’s possible to see that as all that’s really going on here. In that case, it would be pretty bad, IMO—referencing the actual, ongoing horrors of the slave trade simply to illustrate how unpleasant Mrs Elton is towards other white English people. But that’s still far short of “abolition is bad, actually.”
It’s possible to go further. So Mrs Elton is brittle and defensive, at least on this point. Maybe that’s just how she is. But you could also read her defensiveness as pretty suspect. She leaps to the assumption that the quiet girl she’s trying to mentor is attacking the slave-trade out of nowhere and that her own family’s position on the subject could be in some doubt. It may be that there are actually legitimate reasons why her family’s position could be in doubt.
Mrs Elton’s father and the source of her ten thousand pounds was a Mr Hawkins of Bristol, and this is what we hear of him:
merchant, of course, he must be called; but, as the whole of the profits of his mercantile life appeared so very moderate, it was not unfair to guess the dignity of his line of trade had been very moderate also
Despite Mrs Elton’s time in Bath, “Bristol was her home, the very heart of Bristol” because she was living with an uncle there who is some kind of lawyer and because her sister (the one married to the glorious Mr Suckling) lives near Bristol as well. So Mrs Elton’s entire family at this point is closely tied to Bristol, which was the lead British slaving port in the mid-eighteenth century and still very, very heavily and lucratively involved in it later on.
It is therefore extremely possible that her own fortune, and/or Mr Suckling’s, derives pretty directly from the slave trade in some fashion or another. Now, it’s worth bearing in mind that Britain’s economy was deeply tied up in the slave trade generally and there was no truly unproblematic way to be prosperous at the time, even without immediate involvement in the trade. But a lot of people would distinguish between the ways in which this affected everyone with money and actually owing your fortune directly to slavery.
So this leads to more possible interpretations, like:
1) Mrs Elton’s father was involved in the slave trade in some capacity and her own fortune derives from it. Even though Jane Fairfax says she’s not talking about the sale of human flesh, her wording is vague enough that it’s the immediate association Mrs Elton makes. She rushes to use Mr Suckling’s pro-abolition sympathies, such as they are, to deflect attention.
2) Mr Suckling is involved in the slave trade in some way. Mrs Elton ordinarily doesn’t think or care about this, but Jane’s remark brings it to her mind. She’s constitutionally incapable of keeping her mouth shut, so she babbles out some nonsense about him being friendly to abolition, with “rather” doing a lot of heavy lifting.
There are other possibilities (or some combination of these) as well. Regardless, Mrs Elton’s defensiveness about the slave trade + the emphasis on her origins in Bristol seem fairly suggestive. At worst, IMO, her shallow and self-serving use of abolition to prop herself up as a moral authority illustrates her character without indicating that abolition itself is bad, in that “Lady Catherine is right about entailment, in the most Lady Catherine way possible” sense.
I think Jane Fairfax’s explanatory response to Mrs Elton actually tells us a lot more about Austen’s perspective, given how sympathetic the overall narrative is to her and her situation, and that we know that Austen had strong feelings with respect to governesses. Additionally, I thought it quite strange that The Take did not address Jane’s response at all, given that it falls directly into a device that was unfortunately common among white British women opposed to slavery.
Jane’s response is essentially this: a) she was talking about the governess trade, not the slave trade, b) that the people involved in the trade of governesses are not anywhere near as morally reprehensible as those who carry on the slave trade, but c) despite this, she doesn’t know whether the miseries of slaves or of governesses are worse.
Obviously, C is factually and morally wrong. You don’t have to understate the misfortunes and abuses of British governesses to understand that literal chattel slavery was on an entirely different level of horror. But this use of slavery as a rhetorical prop for discussing the oppression of white British (especially English) women is something that comes up a lot from women whom you’d hope would know better, like Austen here in Emma (and implicitly in MP, where it’s difficult not to link Sir Thomas’s moral failures as a father/uncle to his position as a plantation owner, esp given that it’s called Mansfield Park).
The argument is underpinned by the assumption that slavery is really bad and that reasonable people can agree that slavery is really bad, sure. It makes the reading of this interchange as pro-slavery even more batshit than it already was. But “slavery and the slave trade are very bad” is an exceptionally low bar.
To give an idea of what I’m talking about in a more general sense, you can see a roughly similar rhetorical device in Mary Wollstonecraft’s The Wrongs of Woman:
“Was not the world a vast prison, and women born slaves?”
“He, forsooth, was her master; no slave in the West Indies had one more despotic”
“I yet submitted to the rigid laws that enslave women”
Etc. And Wollstonecraft was unquestionably opposed to actual slavery; in Vindication of the Rights of Men, she describes slavery as an inhuman custom and atrocious insult to humanity, and the slave trade as “a traffic that outrages every suggestion of reason and religion” (she later terms it “the infernal slave trade”).
So you get these women who intellectually understood that slavery was awful, but for whom it seemed so remote that they chiefly engaged with it as a metric of comparison for their own oppression. The rhetoric can sound a bit like, idk, a seven-year-old complaining about how doing chores is like SLAVERY, MOM but it is important to understand that when Wollstonecraft and Austen refer to slavery, they aren’t talking carelessly about the general concept, but deliberately invoking the very real, very specific, ongoing practice of chattel slavery in order to underscore the suffering of white British women.
In the case of Emma, you could argue that this is Jane Fairfax’s perspective but not necessarily Austen’s. There’s no real narrative comment on what she says because Mrs Elton just breezes right past it. But the novel’s treatment of Jane Fairfax does not incline me to think that the purpose of the comparison is to highlight the flaws in her thinking.
But the incredibly simplistic “Mrs Elton’s brother-in-law is allegedly rather friendly to abolition and therefore Austen is pro-slavery” reading misses all of this. And there is a reason that people rush to that kind of reading without even considering that Jane Fairfax’s response takes “the slave trade is bad” as a given.
I can’t really supply quotes or historical details for the reason that people do this, because it’s more a matter of tone and vibes, so feel free to take it with a grain of salt. But people (especially other white people, in my experience) are not just ready to find signs of slavery apologia in these texts, they seem eager and excited to do so. It’s fun. The idea of a pro-slavery, pro-slave trade Austen does not ruin Emma or P&P or whatever for them. It’s treated as an interesting complication. People jump to the assumption that Elizabeth’s uncle Gardiner, portrayed as a kind, sensible man and living refutation of the Darcy-Fitzwilliam snobbery, is making his living as a tradesman via the slave trade because, wow, wouldn’t that be something?
This is fucking grotesque. Mr Gardiner would be a monstrous human being and the sympathetic portrayal of him would be disgusting. If we interpret “in trade” to universally mean “in the slave trade” then Darcy would have been 100% correct to hold tradesmen in contempt. The novel ending with Darcy coming to love the Gardiners and both Darcy and Elizabeth being eternally grateful to them for enabling their romance would be inexpressibly trivializing. That isn’t interesting, it’s awful.
In fact, while we don’t know the details of Mr Gardiner’s line of trade, we do know that he stores his merchandise in warehouses within sight of his house in Gracechurch Street, London, making it wildly improbable that he’s dealing in slaves. Bingley’s father may or may not have been involved in the slave trade based on the novel (in fact, it’s not 100% certain that Bingley’s father was a tradesman at all, though likely). The name may come from the town of Bingley in Yorkshire. There was also a Thomas Bingley who partnered with the real life Fitzwilliam family, also in Yorkshire, to manufacture pottery between 1778 and 1806 (P&P was written in 1796-7).
The point here isn’t just that these specific instances are actually pretty unlikely candidates. It’s that people are so enthusiastic about jumping to slave trade headcanons(??????) that they ignore what that would really mean, they ignore the actual text, they ignore relevant historical details, for no real end beyond vaguely problematizing Austen.
Look, if you think P&P is propping up a slave trader as an intelligent and kindly man and cool uncle to the heroine and ultimately the hero, you should find the book repugnant. If this is no more than a minor complication for you, why? This isn’t some mildly edgy reading. I’ve seen people who actually commit to this kind of interpretation, and while I think it’s a poor interpretation textually speaking, at least those people understand the gravity of what they’re suggesting. Most people, though, just seem to find the whole thing an entertaining possibility and then put it aside.
I think that’s appalling, to be honest. This kind of reading should not be fun for you, especially if you’re an Austen fan. Frankly, you should either commit to the interpretation—ideally without ignoring the text—or stop this grossly trivializing half-assed shit.
441 notes · View notes
mybeingthere · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Handcoloured prints by Liz Somerville, UK.
Inspired by artists such as Edward Bawden, Rena Gardiner and Nikolai Astrup, Liz Somerville works with various forms of handcoloured relief print, sometimes using the more traditional lino but more recently, plywood and mdf board. They are mostly large, she finds it hard to work small, particularly with such monumental subjects. Also included are the drawings that inform and instruct her prints. These are either pen and ink wash or sgrafitto, a technique more like carving than drawing.
Liz graduated from Winchester School of Art in 1988 with a degree in textile design. For the next 10 years she had a number of design related jobs before moving to Dorset in 2004, where she has subsequently concentrated on her printmaking.
Since being a teenager Liz has experimented with print. The technique she is working with now combines linocuts and gouache. This allows her to re-work a single image many times, changing its appearance in each case.
42 notes · View notes
deadpresidents · 3 months
Text
JOHN TYLER •President Without a Party: The Life of John Tyler by Christopher J. Leahy (BOOK | KINDLE) •John Tyler: The Accidental President by Edward P. Crapol (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •And Tyler Too: A Biography of John & Julia Gardiner Tyler by Robert Seager II (BOOK)
JAMES K. POLK •Polk: The Man Who Transformed the Presidency and America by Walter R. Borneman (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •A Country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, the Mexican War, and the Conquest of the American Continent by Robert W. Merry (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •James K. Polk and His Time: Essays at the Conclusion of the Polk Project edited by Michael David Cohen (BOOK)
ZACHARY TAYLOR •Zachary Taylor: Soldier, Planter, Statesman of the Old Southwest by K. Jack Bauer (BOOK) •Zachary Taylor: Soldier of the Republic by Holman Hamilton (BOOK | KINDLE) •Zachary Taylor: Soldier in the White House by Holman Hamilton (BOOK | KINDLE)
MILLARD FILLMORE •Millard Fillmore: Biography of a President by Robert J. Rayback (BOOK | KINDLE) •Millard Fillmore by Robert J. Scarry (BOOK | KINDLE)
FRANKLIN PIERCE •Franklin Pierce: New Hampshire's Favorite Son by Peter A. Wallner (BOOK) •Franklin Pierce: Martyr for the Union by Peter A. Wallner (BOOK) •Franklin Pierce: Young History of the Granite Hills by Roy Franklin Nichols (BOOK)
JAMES BUCHANAN •Worst. President. Ever.: James Buchanan, the POTUS Rating Game, and the Legacy of the Least of the Lesser Presidents by Robert Strauss (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Bosom Friends: The Intimate World of James Buchanan and William Rufus King by Thomas J. Balcerski (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •The Worst President: The Story of James Buchanan by Garry Boulard (BOOK | KINDLE)
29 notes · View notes
captmuldoon · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Becoming Elizabeth + Textposts (Part 3)
Bonus:
Tumblr media
193 notes · View notes
thatscarletflycatcher · 11 months
Text
So, there's this famous quote (and source of many memes) from Northanger Abbey, where Henry Tilney says:
“and this is a very nice day, and we are taking a very nice walk, and you are two very nice young ladies. Oh! It is a very nice word indeed! It does for everything. Originally perhaps it was applied only to express neatness, propriety, delicacy, or refinement—people were nice in their dress, in their sentiments, or their choice. But now every commendation on every subject is comprised in that one word.” (chapter 14)
Indeed, Jane doesn't seem to like the word that much, at least in this novel: of the 14 times it is used, 3 happen before this exchange, 10 during it, and then one last time in chapter 29.
It appears
7 times in Pride and Prejudice (used mainly by Lydia, but also by Mrs Bennet, Mrs Gardiner and Lady Catherine);
12 in Sense and Sensibility (by sir John, Marianne, Edward, Mrs Palmer, and Mrs Jennings most of all);
17 in Emma (by Harriet, Mr Woodhouse, Emma, Miss Bates, Mrs Elton, and Mr Weston);
15 in Mansfield Park (by Mrs Grant, Mrs Norris, Mary, Tom, Mr Crawford, Maria, and Edmund);
12 in Persuasion (by Elizabeth, Wentworth, Admiral Croft, Mr Elliot, Mary
But of those, none are used by the narrator in NA; 2 in P&P; 3 in S&S; 5 in Emma; 4 in MP; and 6 in Persuasion (and I'm including all indirect speech). Very nice.
But you know what generic, vague descriptor our beloved Jane loved? fine.
NA: 33 times (18 from dialogue: used my Mrs Thorpe, Mr Allen, Mrs Allen, John Thorpe, Catherine, a miss Thorpe, Isabella, Tilney, and Mrs Morland.)
P&P: 40 times (21 in dialogue: used by Mrs Bennet, Charlotte, Lizzy, Darcy, Caroline, Mrs Gardiner, Mrs Reynolds, and Mr Bennet)
S&S: 29 times (17 in dialogue: used by Willoughby, Marianne, Edward most of all, Mrs Palmer, Anne Steele, and Mrs Jennings)
Emma: 48 times (33 in dialogue: used by Harriet, Mr Woodhouse, Mr Knightley, Emma, Miss Bates, Jane Fairfax, Mr Weston, Frank, Mrs Cole, Mrs Elton)
MP: 67 times (38 in dialogue: used by Mr Rushworth, Lady Bertram, Edmund, Mrs Norris, Fanny, Mrs Grant, Dr Grant, Mr Crawford, William, Mrs Price, Mr Price, and Mary)
Persuasion: 35 times (17 in dialogue: by Mrs Musgrove, Mrs Croft, Charles Musgrove, Sir Walter, Admiral Croft, Captain Wentworth, lady Dalrymple, Harriet Smith).
Not only is fine used much, much more than nice, but nice is most often used by silly or unrefined characters, whereas fine sees more representation of all sorts of characters, and it is used by the narrator specifically, much, much more, not only to describe weather, but to describe people, places, clothes, and so on and so forth.
So, dear Jane, I think we need to talk...
94 notes · View notes