/lit/ - Literature

>>23349111
That's not Jane Austen.

>When Austen was twenty, Tom Lefroy (the future Lord Chief Justice of Ireland), a neighbour, visited Steventon from December 1795 to January 1796. He had just finished a university degree and was moving to London for training as a barrister. Lefroy and Austen would have been introduced at a ball or other neighbourhood social gathering, and it is clear from Austen's letters to Cassandra that they spent considerable time together: "I am almost afraid to tell you how my Irish friend and I behaved. Imagine to yourself everything most profligate and shocking in the way of dancing and sitting down together."

>Austen wrote in her first surviving letter to her sister Cassandra that Lefroy was a "very gentlemanlike, good-looking, pleasant young man".[65] Five days later in another letter, Austen wrote that she expected an "offer" from her "friend" and that "I shall refuse him, however, unless he promises to give away his white coat", going on to write "I will confide myself in the future to Mr Tom Lefroy, for whom I don't give a sixpence" and refuse all others.[65] The next day, Austen wrote: "The day will come on which I flirt my last with Tom Lefroy and when you receive this it will be all over. My tears flow as I write at this melancholy idea".

Why are women like this, bros?

>>23197635
Based. I completely agree. Twain is massively overrated and it's a fucking crime that he became the first internationally recognized American writer, rather than Hawthorne or Melville or Emerson.

You can tell Twain is REALLY shit because he didn't like Jane Austen. Disliking Austen is always the sign of a pleb.

>>23177854
I fucking hate Mark Twain. You can tell he was a midwit and a disgusting little worm because he didn't like Jane Austen. That's always the sign of a pleb.

Jane Austen is so good that even Nabokov, who famously said women couldn't write, liked her. It actually made him uncomfortable to teach her in his classes at Cornell because she was a direct refutation to his assertion.

Mark Twain hated her too, as if you needed any more proof that Twain is a midwit who wrote for midwits.

Is Austen the most universally praised female writer? Even Nabokov, who famously thought women couldn't write, admitted begrudgingly that she was a genius.

She really is great, too, I love her. The trick is not to get fooled by the Mister Darcy meme and read all the stuff she wrote besides Pride and Prejudice. Emma, in particular, is a very good book.

>>22440138
OP seems to be talking about free indirect discourse, in the manner of Jane Austen or (later) James Joyce. Or, what Hugh Kenner calls "the Uncle Charles Principle."

Basically, the idea OP is getting at is that the narration will become colored with the flavoring of the speech of the character on whom the perspective currently rests. So the supposedly "omniscient third person" narrator starts to take on the feel and the sound of the character that that narrator is currently describing.

I do this myself in my own writing. When you pull it off I think it's a good effect. I would encourage OP to go through with his plan. If his supposedly-omniscient narrator is dwelling on a character prone to using profanity, I like the idea that the narration features a bit of profanity as well.

Not too much, but just a bit of "pollution" off the third-person narration by the character that narration currently focuses on.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."

Queen dropping truth bomb