Posted on 12/09/2017 7:51:43 AM PST by simpson96
Dear Hillary Clinton,
When your daughter, Chelsea, mentioned in her speech at the Democratic National Convention that you both loved “Pride and Prejudice,” I was delighted and not at all surprised. Elizabeth Bennet is a superb example of a romance heroine: intelligent, articulate, independent and wonderfully imperfect. She is also an incredibly unconventional character for her time, placing a high value on her own happiness, insisting that others treat her with respect and marrying a man only on her terms. No wonder Darcy falls in love with her — and no wonder “Pride and Prejudice” is such a beloved romance novel.
o how disappointing it was to hear you mischaracterize “the whole romance novel industry” in a recent interview with Washington Post editorial board member Jonathan Capehart. You suggested that men and women gather abusive attitudes from reading romance novels about “women being grabbed and thrown on a horse and ridden off into the distance.”
As a romance author who has always loved the genre (and as a Wellesley graduate who has always loved and admired you), I’m glad that attitudes about women are being discussed during this incredible moment in American history. But your comment, especially pulled out of context, doesn’t represent all romance novels. It’s a misleading cliche about the genre — like so many misleading cliches about your fabulous trailblazing life.
(snip)
During your legendary Wellesley College commencement speech in 1969, you looked into an unknown future and said, “Fear is always with us but we just don’t have time for it. Not now.” You headed forward fearlessly and achieved so many of your dreams, including love, marriage and family.
This is why I consider you an honorary romance heroine — no pedestal required, just a pantsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yes. Hillary wouldn't have been Elizabeth Bennet. She'd have been Fanny Ferrars, from Sense & Sensibility.
Literary Devices Definition and Examples of Literary Terms Romance
>
“...women being grabbed and thrown on a horse and ridden off into the distance.”
A phrase which will never ever be used to describe how any dude views Hillary.
>
Now, I think we’d all be thrilled to have read ‘thrown on’ replaced ‘tied up behind’. Rope + Lamppost being too quick, IMO.
Re: I wouldn’t characterize Pride and Prejudice as a romance novel by any stretch of the imagination.
I totally agree.
> And put her on a polygraph and see if she read it. Hillary has never read it. <
According to my sources, Hillary read the book while dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. Our gal can read books, dodge bullets, and conduct diplomacy...all at the same time!
This farticle is what bull**** looks like. ROTFL.
Nobody is stupid enough to believe that Cankles ever read a Jane Austin novel ...let alone “loved it”
Oh wait....
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3612073/posts
Since when was a dyke a “romance novel heroine”?
In that case, I have an excellent library. Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, Ursula K. LeGuin (and yes, I know she is an uber leftist), Arthur C. Clark, J.R.R. Tolkein, Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven, and many others. No romance novel will ever sully my bookshelves.
Romance, as pointed out, is a type of fiction, comprising idealized love, chivalry, obsessive association with somebody or some idea, and mysterious adventures.
None of this characterizes Pride & Prejudice. It's a novel about manners, gossip, social mores, money, class... there's about ONE paragraph devoted to Elizabeth's realization that Darcy does indeed seem to be a man she could love, much to her surprise. There's nothing idealized about it, there are no examples of chivalry (unless Darcy paying off Wickham to marry the little tart of a sister is on par with a white knight galloping up with sword drawn.) There's nothing mysterious. This is just nonsense, putting P&P in this category.
Tad’s whole body throbbed with desire as he finally would meet the damsel in town who had written him all those flowing romantic letters. He rounded the corner of the imperial castle and felt Hillary’s flowing robes in the candlelight. Their mouths met. Her sighs could be heard as he untied the silken threads of her bodice. His long manly fingers slid down her delicate lace undergarment.
Suddenly his hand was repelled from her with a hard shock! WHAT WAS THIS?? Sickness emanated from the depths of his stomach. “You’re.... a.... man!” He staggered. To his utter shock she echoed “YOURE A MAN?!”
FWIW, my lit profs, many moons ago, considered it a romance in the literary sense of the word. I do, too. No matter how it’s catigorized, I enjoy it, too. And I have a lovely hard cover edition of it with deckle edges.
Categorized...my profs are spinning.
“A woman being grabbed and thrown into a medical van, and driven to her daughter’s nearby apartment/ medical facility.”
Yes, Hillary lost the presidency -- the thing for which she schemed, cheated, and had people whacked. But at least she has finally found true love. May it bring her great joy until that glorious day she is delivered by van to a federal prison.
to deliver a roundhouse kick to a zombie.
LOL, no she could not.
Hillary Clinton’s crap-filled pantsuit is probably an aphrodisiac to some sick people. I bet that a lot of those detestable “furries” fantasize about wading Hillary’s muck.
I think what has happened is that "Regency Era" and "Regency Romance" has been conflated in people's minds. But Regency Romances are not romances written during the Regency era, but romances SET IN the Regency era (but written much more recently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.