Miss Austen

Family members, for some big speechless incidents, I used to think that the readers' demining was to mention some minefields in the comments. Unexpectedly, there are also special screenshots to enlarge the author's name and send them to Xiaohongshu to avoid lightning. No, it's not necessary!

The author's research on European social history in the 18th and 19th centuries is worthy of recognition. This is not easy, and it is also one of the motivations for me to persist in the second half. What I think is very unreasonable is that the heroine has the wisdom to develop her career from the new era, but she selectively abandons some of the three views that the new era should have, causing the entire character to look very separate. The heroine supports that women can freely choose marriage, but there is no problem with it, but in the name of freedom, these people are still determined to hurt her partners. I don't understand. Her view of marriage is like a strange seam between the new era and the old era. To sum up, it is probably "the indigenous moral values ​​​​from the perspective of romantic men in the old era" + "resolute rejection of marriage/childbirth" + "it seems that the 30 years of new era experience used for business development in the early stage were eaten by dogs, resulting in her being a novice in relationships." The second half of the text uses huge pen and ink to write about the emotional life of the heroine. I even felt bored when I saw how she would be with this one today and that one tomorrow. If emotional life is to create characters, I don't see how she could write "England Suite". I only remember the mutual seduction between her and the male characters during her travels. The journey itself should have shown the world, her insights and feelings, and none of these things that made her works possible. There are various historical events in the middle, such as how the war situation developed in a certain place. The heroine has no evaluation of these. The political history she learned from Mr. Hastings seems to only play some role in explaining that she has a deeper ideological exchange with the male characters (I really don't want to say it so embarrassingly). Her realism is expressed through metaphors in her works in the first half, but in the second half I can only tell it from the title of the work. If it is said that the systematic oppression of women in that era changed the heroine's outlook, it does not seem to be reflected. The heroine's wealth and educational opportunities were unmatched by most men of that era, and the setbacks she suffered included the shadow of fertility machines, the shadow of fertility risks, and being forced to marry. Most of the oppression did not fall directly on her own head. She is empathetic, and I see no reason why she could become someone who only loves herself and treats her partner so cruelly. The overall feeling is that good-looking girls tend to become crooked when they grow up. I actually feel it is a pity because there are very few articles with such evidence nowadays.

The comments section is lively. This article is very interesting, because as long as you change the gender of the characters in the play, you will find that it is not a problem at all. It is so ironic. Also, for those who gave negative marks, have you ever read Jane Austen's works? Have you ever understood the understanding and views of the European upper class on matters involving men and women at that time? As for the above two points, the author's description and discussion are very consistent. In addition, I am uncomfortable reading the article. To be honest, I am also uncomfortable in some parts. For example, the treatment of Byron is too light, and he has a poor character; for example, Oliver takes the opportunity to have sex with the heroine; but this does not involve criticizing the three views of the article. Women don't have to love their husbands, they don't have to have children, they don't have to get married, and they can like many people. This is reality. When you replace women with people, it's not strange at all and it fits the three views.

The Internet Cleanup Operation is really effective in brainwashing this generation of children. It's hard to imagine that in 1202, there are still so many people who emotionally demand to "end it all." Loyalty and chastity are two different things, okay? Also, I feel really tired for the author. Writing an article must contain personal information, but reading an article is the result of a two-way choice. If you don't get along, just walk away. Why do you have to give negative marks and judge the author's three views? Demonstrate your moral superiority?

I don't know what to say... When Alice was a child, she was smart, sober, and worked hard to pursue a career. But when she grew up, she spent most of her time torn between three or four men. She was said to be afraid of marriage and childbearing. As a result, she ended up having sex with almost all the men she had an emotional connection with... Ha... Ha...

The author's research on European social history in the 18th and 19th centuries is worthy of recognition. This is not easy, and it is also one of the motivations for me to persist in the second half. What I think is very wrong is that the heroine has the wisdom to develop her career from the new era, but she selectively abandons some of the three views of the new era, causing the entire character to look very separate. The heroine supports that women can freely choose marriage, but there is no problem with it, but in the name of freedom, she can harm the people who love her. I don't understand how these people are still determined to do so. Her view of marriage is like a suture between the new era and the old era, and the author also spends the entire second half of the text focusing on shaping this view of marriage. The second half of the text uses huge pen and ink to write about the emotional life of the heroine. I even felt bored when I saw how she would be with this one today and that one tomorrow. If emotional life is to create characters, I didn't see how she wrote "England Suite". I only remember the mutual seduction between her and the male characters during her travels. The journey itself should not show the world, her feelings, or any of these things that make her works possible. The various historical events that pop up in the middle, such as how the war situation developed in a certain place, the heroine has no evaluation of these. The political history she learned from Mr. Hastings only played some role in explaining that she had a deeper ideological exchange with the male characters (I really don't want to say it so embarrassingly). Her realism is expressed through metaphors in her works in the first half, but in the second half I can only tell it from the title of the work. The overall feeling is that good girls become crooked as they grow. It seems that the systematic oppression of women in that era changed the heroine's outlook on life, but it does not seem to be reflected. Her handling of relationships in the second half feels like "old era indigenous moral values" + "resolute refusal to have children" + "as if the 30 years of new era experience used for business development in the early stage were eaten by dogs, resulting in her being a novice in relationships." In fact, I still feel that it is a pity that there are very few articles that use textual research in this way.

I have mild obsessive-compulsive disorder. Once I decide to start reading a novel, I won't abandon it midway. After finishing it, I feel that the main line of the article has disappeared. Many important events no longer have the leading role of the heroine. The emotional line in the later period is also written very strangely. There are no key events and no turning points. It can be understood that the author The author wants to express the plight of modern people who are afraid of marriage and childbearing in that era, but even modern people will not mess around after confirming the relationship between boyfriend and girlfriend, let alone getting engaged. On the one hand, this description of love is fake, on the other hand it is childish, and the heroine seems to be particularly scumbag. Of course, if the author thinks that modern people are one If night stand is very common, just pretend I didn't say it.

After reading them all, I still like this Ximan style very much. When I saw the comments, I laughed angrily. Why should I feel sorry for a man, be chaste for a man, and have children for a man! You said that you hope that I can accept their threesomes. You said that you want the heroine to have children with one boy and two boys. I feel really sad.

I prefer the first half where the heroine studies life and starts a career. I don't like the later part where the heroine is constantly entangled in relationships. I still like the atmosphere of the 17.8Th century. Overall, I give it a thumbs up.

Last night, I saw someone online scolding "Little Miss Austen" for being toxic. From then on, the article and the author were blacklisted. I was so angry at the time that I thought about how to get back at him in the middle of the night. When I woke up, I thought that forget it, it would be fine if she stopped looking at it from now on, hello, me, hello, everyone, why bother? Besides, I don't even know if she paid to read it. In fact, what I don't understand is why many people think that "I am the world"? There is no unified concept for "three views". As an author, there is no need to have the so-called "correct three views" when creating characters. It is not only the author's "three views", but also the "three views" of fictional characters. Readers don't need to worry about what "three views" the author has; readers don't need to worry about what "three views" the characters have. If you think it doesn't conform to your "three views", you can withdraw as soon as possible; if a 700,000-word article has 700,000 words, you don't curse the author until you reach the last chapter. I thought about it until I reached the end. Doesn't it mean that the article itself still conforms to your "three views"? Just because the ending didn't go as you wanted, the author should be scolded? These are the "three views" of seeing a ghost, right? ! I consider myself not a perfect person (no one dares to consider themselves "perfect"), and my works are not considered "masterpieces handed down from generation to generation" at all. The premise is that I am happy to write them, and readers will like them and be willing to pay to read them. That is a side effect, the icing on the cake. I have also written many books that did not make money. I believe that my basic moral values ​​are up to standard. My protagonist has not committed any crime, is not evil, and has not intentionally harmed others. If you insist on saying that the heroine hurt the man who loves her, I can only give it a thumbs-up? ? ? Is it wrong to insist on yourself? Is it wrong to fall in love or not fall in love at all but reject someone? No matter how many men the heroine sleeps with (Audrey from "The Love Affair"), that is also her personal privacy. If you don't put it into the European and American background and use the common foot-wrapped mentality among Chinese people, then why are you watching "beautiful entertainment"? Some readers always feel that they are the incarnation of justice, and the characters and plot do not conform to their "three views", so they curse the book and the author for being too young. Read more books, but stop reading online articles. I won't say anything to readers who haven't read the entire article. You haven't even finished it, so what are you talking about? If you suddenly feel "toxic" after reading the last two chapters, didn't the previous 600,000 words make you understand that the author cannot write according to your ideas? Why are you calling it "toxic" because the plot and character settings don't follow your ideas? The author must include personal information when writing. I have never seen an author who does not include personal information. I have never seen an author who can satisfy every reader. I cannot force you to do things that countless big names cannot do. There are also those who don't read the words or use their brains, I don't even bother to say them. Just leave it like that. If you feel that your three views are inconsistent, please retreat as soon as possible to avoid both you and me being upset. Why bother? There are thousands of authors in Jinjiang. If this doesn't work, just change it. It's such a simple thing!