Podcasts about Auden

Listen to the rest of this premium episode by subscribing at patreon.com/knowyourenemy. As always, listeners asked more mailbag questions than we could respond to in one episode, so we continue answering them here for subscribers. In this second round we take up: a playlist of KYE's Straussian-related episodes; (Straussian) esoteric writing versus (French) death of the author and the art of writing (and interpretation); prose style—what it is, why it matters, its relationship to poetry, and the rhythms of Norman Maclean; a "Straussian" reading of Steely Dan; and why liberalism is (mostly) worth defending. Thank you to everyone who attended our live event in NYC on Thursday! We had a great time.  Sources: Leo Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing (1952) — Thoughts on Machiavelli (1958) Stanley Rosen, Hermeneutics as Politics (1987) Wallace Stevens, "The Snow Man," Poetry, Oct 1921 Norman Maclean, A River Runs Through It and Other Stories (1976) — The Norman Maclean Reader (2008) Edmund White, Nocturnes for the King of Naples (1978) Marilynne Robinson, Gilead (2004) W.H. Auden, "Friday's Child," (1958) Sam Adler-Bell, "Can Liberalism Stop Being So Darn Liberal?" The New Republic, June 20, 2024.

Using Dante's opening in the “dark wood,” host Chad Prevost frames midlife as waking up to being lost after sleepwalking through socially prescribed success, and reframes “abandon hope” as an instruction to stop relying on the old self and tools that created the crisis. He describes needing guidance beyond oneself, like Virgil leading Dante downward into the inferno to see the patterns that trap people, which he links to coaching clients' pervasive belief “I am not enough,” shaped by culture or family systems. Drawing on Epictetus, Adler, Auden, and the Greek concept hamartia, he argues the ego's protective adaptations become traps, and Dante's hell illustrates suffering rooted in lies, from unconscious “errors” to willful avoidance; the series explores this descent as a path to a freer, fuller creative life.00:00 Saturday Series Intro00:58 Waking in the Dark Wood03:10 Midlife Lostness04:08 Abandon Hope as Instruction06:02 Virgil and the Descent07:45 The Not Enough Story10:43 Separating Self from History11:49 Hamartia and Ego Armor13:40 Truth Lies and the Circles15:35 Series Purpose and FarewellFREE — THE DIFFICULTY FIELD GUIDEEight difficulties every working writer faces, and what to ask when each one shows up.→ crossroadspublishing.group/assets/pdfs/The_Difficulty_Field_Guide.pdf—WHERE TO FIND MESubstack — new essays Wednesdays, the Working Publisher news digest Fridays→ chadprevost.substack.comThe Difficulty — Monday (the why), Thursday (the how), Saturday (essay readings) — wherever you listen to podcasts→ chadprevost.com/the-difficultyCrossroads Publishing Group — publishing services, IF/THEN Books, the Iris Blackwood mystery series→ crossroadspublishing.group—“The difficulty in life is the choice.” Get full access to The Descent at chadprevost.substack.com/subscribe

My colleague Oliver Traldi recently published an essay called ‘Jane Austen's Virtuous Liberalism'. It's a very nice discussion of the ways in which Austen understand the challenges of character formation.Virtue, as Austen sees it, faces two tough challenges. First, people whose characters are not yet formed must see how to be virtuous rather than vicious. Then, the virtuous must somehow find a way to succeed in their struggles against the vicious without adopting vicious means.In this episode, Oliver and I discussed Austen's ideas of virtue, what that has to do with liberalism, the relationship between philosophy and literature more broadly, as well as poetry and ideas about the Great Books. We also talked about the Keira Knightly Pride and Prejudice. Yes, we both liked it. Here is why Oliver thinks Jane Austen is so popular among philosophers.TRALDI: And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.And here is an extract about Austen, Smith, and the wonderfully fertile period at the end of the eighteen century.TRALDI: But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—This was my favourite bit.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?Oliver is an analytical, political philosopher. You can find out more about his work here. Here he is on Twitter. His Substack is orting. You can watch the episode on YouTube here.TranscriptHENRY OLIVER: Today I am talking to Oliver Traldi. Oliver is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Toledo in Ohio. He is my colleague on the Emerging Scholars Program at the Mercatus Center, and he's written a book about political beliefs as well as many other articles for magazines, online.He's got a Substack. He's maybe the most prominent political and epistemological young philosopher of his generation. [laughter] But most importantly for us, he is interested in Jane Austen and the idea of virtue. Oliver, welcome.OLIVER TRALDI: Thank you so much for having me.Reading Austen as a PhilosopherOLIVER: Let's just start—before we get to this article you've written, tell me about being a philosopher but reading Jane Austen, because she's often read and commented on by people who are not philosophers or who are only philosophers by acquaintance or whatever.TRALDI: Right.OLIVER: Is it different reading as a philosopher, do you think?TRALDI: I think yes and no. One thing as a philosopher, there are—contemporary philosophy, we have very exacting standards of rigor and clarity. And when we look for a theory, we want something that's been improved by hundreds of people and thousands of journal articles.And so, if you were to simply extract a theory of virtue from a novel and say, “Does this—is this the end-all, be-all of moral thinking?” obviously you're going to be disappointed. So I think as a philosopher, you have to look for other types of things, other types of sensitivities rather than logical sensitivity.You have to say, how sensitive is the author to the different types of situations where people's virtue can be exhibited or challenged? Or how sensitive is the author to the different types of pressures that a character's convictions can be put under, or the different sorts of compromises that they might have to make, or the different sorts of people who might not be virtuous who they might have to interact with and sort of, you know, contract with or avoid? And what are going to be the impacts of different kinds of choices in those situations?So the novelists, I think, tend—if they do it well, a novelist who's interested in morality will understand living morally probably better than a philosopher, while maybe not understanding, say, arguments about whether morality supervenes on reality or vice versa, or what grounds morality, or different theories of meta-ethics or whatever.OLIVER: I mean, there are obviously some novelists who do have a better appreciation of those things than others, we should say.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely true. And as I wrote in my article, I do think Austen in particular had an appreciation for this issue that you might call moral disarming or unilateral disarming. You know, does the moral person put themselves at a disadvantage relative to the immoral person? And then how do we actually help—how does morality survive?So that's a kind of philosophical question, but I tend to think—I taught last year—I think we've talked about this a bit. I taught in a great books program at Tulsa.OLIVER: This is the Jennifer Frey program.TRALDI: This is the ill-fated Jennifer Frey program. Jennifer—I don't know if you've met her, but she's an incredibly charismatic person. But somehow the program, despite being enormously successful, did not survive. You know, I was there for a year, and they decided that was long enough.OLIVER: [laughs] You don't think your arrival was the—TRALDI: No, no. I hope not. I most certainly hope not.OLIVER: No. General problems of higher education prevailed. Yes.TRALDI: Yes, many, many problems of higher education these days. But yes, so I think—what was I saying?OLIVER: Well, I think we're getting to this question of, you are not just a philosopher; you teach the great books.TRALDI: Right, exactly. The great books. That's where I was. Yes.Philosophy and the Great BooksOLIVER: So, one thing I'm interested in is that, you know, reading as a philosopher, you get a slightly different perspective on Austen. When you read other fiction, poetry, whatever, is there a benefit to you as a philosopher? Does it broaden you in some way?TRALDI: Yes. I think absolutely, it's broadening, but it's also focusing in a different way. You know, contemporary philosophy is often described or captured with the word epicycles. So what we mean when we say epicycles is, you have some major theory, which is supposed to answer some big question. And then your career as a philosopher—you're like three layers deep in the theory, in some sub-debate, and you're making some really fine-grained distinctions.And if you can make those distinctions successfully, you've had a really great career. But I think it's easy to forget, why are we doing—you know, what attracted us to philosophy? Why are we doing this to begin with?And the great novels, great books in general—one example I always use is the Book of Job. It doesn't really—it's not doing clear philosophy on the question of why do bad things happen to good people. But when you read it, you feel the question, why do bad things happen to good people? You get it, you know? You get why this is a question that people have worried about for thousands of years. You get why it calls out for an answer.You know, there's a lot of truth out there. I'm looking at a set of coat hangers, and I could count the coat hangers. But if you were given the decision, would I rather have an answer to how many coat hangers are across the room from me, or why do bad things happen to good people? You'd probably go with the latter one. There's somehow some kind of depth or importance to that question, right?And I think there's—a great novelist can often generate some vividity to these questions. They can show how these questions are part of a good life, asking these questions, trying to have these questions answered—or a not-so-good life.Certainly in Austen there are a lot of characters who learn to be more virtuous. Probably Emma is the clearest example. But you might also think of Marianne Dashwood. Really—OLIVER: Lizzy Bennet.TRALDI: Lizzy Bennet really learns to be a better person. I actually think her character is rather close to Emma in a lot of ways.OLIVER: Yes, I think Emma's sort of a clear rewrite of Lizzy in some—yes, yes.TRALDI: Yes, and in some ways more evocative, actually. Yes. I mean, we can talk about all these books. But yes, I think there's these things, even—obviously qua literature, they have other virtues, right? Which much philosophy doesn't have; very little philosophy has the literary virtues.But the philosophical virtue that a lot of literature does have is you see, okay, these are the—this is what a life is like. This is what making choices is like. These are the big questions when you decide how to live your life and what kinds of choices to make.And I think Austen—these questions are all through Austen, even though nobody has to murder anybody in Austen. Nobody has to make decisions about war and peace or about, you know, civilizational decline or civilizational progress or anything like that. These people making these small choices in a lot of ways. But those are the lives that most of us lead. And when you read Austen, you think, “Oh, okay, there's a virtuous and a vicious way to lead this kind of rather normal life.”The Good LifeOLIVER: The question of what is a good life, or what is a good life in a commercial society, maybe, is the sort of bedrock of what she's doing.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. And that's why I think Austen—you know, Austen wasn't on our syllabus at Tulsa, but she was certainly discussed. And the “what is a good life” question—to me, it's the big question that a great books program for college students should always come back to.If I didn't know what else to talk about, I would just say, “Well, we just read this book.” You know, we read these old biographies of Charlemagne from, like, Einhard—Notker the Stammerer and Einhard, his adopted son or whatever. I don't remember. But this is like 800s. I'm sure you know more about this stuff than I do.And I wasn't quite sure what to do with them because what do I know about Charlemagne? So I just said, “Does it seem like Charlemagne lived a good life?” And you know, you're off to the races. And I think that's important at that age, because that's the age at which—OLIVER: For the undergraduates?TRALDI: Yes. I think that's the age at which you're starting to make your own big decisions about what sort of life to lead. And I think for me, looking back to myself at that age, I think one thing I did wrong—at Tulsa I was in some ways as much a student as a teacher. I was rereading a lot of this stuff for the first time in decades. And some of it I was reading for the first time. As I told you, I was reading a lot of Austen for the first time for this essay.OLIVER: Right, right.TRALDI: And yes, it was stuff that I had thought about at a theoretical level, you know, like what are the ins and outs of this theory or this philosophical move or something like that. But you feel the question a bit differently when you're like, “Okay, I'm an adult. I have to decide whether to live in this way or that way.”The world is open to you. You could convert to Thomism [laughter] like so many have tried to have me do, or you could become a merchant after reading The Wealth of Nations. Or you could become a revolutionary after reading Marx, or you could become a Nietzschean. You know, there are all these choices open to you.OLIVER: Please don't become a Nietzchean.TRALDI: No, no. That is, I'm a—OLIVER: Keep your children out of school if that's going to be the result. [laughs]TRALDI: Yes. I'm a committed moralist, so I cannot, but he is—he made a comeback, that's for sure.Philosophy and PoetryOLIVER: Now, there's this obviously sort of long-running question in philosophy about, what is the relationship between philosophy and poetry? Are they antagonists, or are they in some way, you know, twins, and each provides one half of what is needed for a complete way of understanding the world? Do you have a position on this?TRALDI: Yes, I mean, I think they're what the kids call twinning.OLIVER: Twinning? [laughs]TRALDI: I think they're twinning. No, no, I think that means something different. I think that means when you're wearing the same outfit or something like that.OLIVER: So we're almost twinning with our stripes—yes, I see.TRALDI: We're almost. We actually—we are stripes and blue. Yes, we're closer than I would've expected.I would say closer to twins. There are a lot of claims that philosophy is at odds somehow with this or that. There's also this—certain people will say, “Well, ever since Socrates, philosophy has been at odds with politics.” And a big part of philosophy is, how do you survive? Well, I don't know. Nobody's trying to kill me. I think of myself as a decently committed philosopher.OLIVER: It seems to me this changed fundamentally in the Enlightenment and with the Romantics, and they see it all much more joined up. It's a sort of ancient-and-modern dynamic.TRALDI: Yes, there may be an ancient-and-modern distinction there. But yes, for me I don't see any kind of contradiction. Now, there are—and I think this comes out of what I said before—philosophical attempts to understand poetry. And certain kinds of literary and aesthetic devices do sometimes fall a little flat.The philosophical literature on metaphor, for instance—I think some theories of metaphor really don't get why people use metaphors. [laughter] So one of the most important theories of metaphor is that they're all just false, that it's like everybody who uses a metaphor is lying. This isn't the full theory. There are bells and whistles added.OLIVER: Sure, sure.TRALDI: But yes, so I think there's no contradiction. But at the same time, they are different modes in some ways, and people who do the one are often trying to do something different than the other.I do think that the desire for rigor and precision and clarity that philosophers have can be a little maddening to nonphilosophers, who see the pull of philosophical questions like, “What sort of life I should lead?” and then see, what do philosophers actually do?And we're doing all this modal logic and all these truth tables and all this very technical stuff that looks like math. And they say, “That can't possibly be the right way to think about how to live.” And it's true that there are these studies of—that suggest ethicists aren't actually very good people and things like that, although you have to wonder what is the background ethical theory that went into evaluating them.So yes, I don't think there's really a contradiction between philosophy and anything else. But certainly, there was a point in my life where I always come back to trying to write poetry and do poorly and then stop. But it was always something where I would say, “Okay, if I'm doing philosophy in the afternoon, I better wait till the evening to write poetry.” You have to sort of reboot and get into a different mode.OLIVER: Iris Murdoch used to write philosophy in the morning and novels in the afternoon. That kind of thing.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's very sensible.OLIVER: And she was upstairs for the one and downstairs for the other.TRALDI: Yes. That's even better, you know?Favorite PoetsOLIVER: Which poets do you like?TRALDI: Geez, I guess for an American, I like Wallace Stevens. I wasn't expecting this question. For a Brit, you know, I actually like Philip Larkin a lot.OLIVER: Oh, yes?TRALDI: I know—what is the opinion of Larkin? Is he considered—OLIVER: Very high.TRALDI: Very high? Okay.OLIVER: Some—there are some dissenters, but basically he's the guy.TRALDI: He's the guy, okay. Yes.OLIVER: Twentieth-century English poetry is like Auden, Larkin, Betjeman.TRALDI: Yes, Auden is—actually, my friend Jane Cooper just wrote something about Auden.OLIVER: Yes, Jane is excellent.TRALDI: Yes, Jane is really great.OLIVER: That was in the New Statesman if you want to look it up.TRALDI: That was in the New Statesman. Yes, yes, yes. But Auden, I don't know quite as well.I mean, poetry is—I think it's interesting the way that we receive poetry now. I think you were talking about this a few days ago, about things like poems appearing as inspirational quotes on social media or something like that, and whoever is the most quotable. And you felt like maybe Dostoevsky is very quotable.OLIVER: Dostoevsky has a sort of screenshot quality.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: As does Martin Amis.TRALDI: Yes. So I—OLIVER: Whereas Philip Larkin in a funny way—you know, he has very short poems. You can get the whole poem on Twitter. Like, Robert Frost has that. But something like “The Whitsun Weddings,” it's quite hard to just take three lines out. The whole thing works as a—and that, so that poem gets less—TRALDI: Yes. Which is what you would expect from a good poem, really, that it would form a kind of whole.OLIVER: Exactly. If it's a three-page ode, it should have a continuous quality.TRALDI: Yes, it should have a kind of internal structure. Yes.OLIVER: There are some one-line things and—but I think it's notable that a poet like Wordsworth doesn't seem to get a lot of social media play. And I think probably that's one reason.TRALDI: So yes, I think Larkin is somebody who, I did see some shorter references to him, and I thought I'd better just go and look up a ton of poems by this guy. And Stevens was the same way.Death and Philip LarkinOLIVER: So, which Larkin do you like?TRALDI: You're really putting me on the spot here. [laughter] It has been a little while.OLIVER: I lied to you and said it would be about Jane Austen.TRALDI: Yes, now I'm completely screwed. Well, he has a bunch about death. He has one where death is a ship following you. And he has one where death is, like, a fruit that gets picked or something.OLIVER: Apple?TRALDI: Might be an apple.OLIVER: He decides not to throw the apple.TRALDI: There's one with sweetbreads in it. And now I'm really—OLIVER: The ship one, “Next, Please”—that's excellent.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: He sees the—it's like hearing the music coming, and then the ship.TRALDI: I forgot that that was the title. I forgot that that was the title.OLIVER: And then as the ship goes past, it leaves nothing in its wake. It's very sort of—very gloomy.TRALDI: It's very gloomy, yes. I think I read Larkin in a gloomy phase; it was like Larkin and Radiohead or something.OLIVER: But he's a good example of what you were saying before, that he won't think propositionally. He's logical in the sense that he's sort of orderly, and he goes from one thing to the next. But he's not being a philosopher.TRALDI: No, of course. Yes.OLIVER: But he's very preoccupied with the sorts of questions that philosophers are probing, but has a sort of very meaningful treatment of them.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: And I think in a way, the sharp response that you want from the reader in those questions, Larkin is better at provoking than someone like Bertrand Russell or some other contemporary of his.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: Bertrand Russell's a bit earlier, but you know what I mean.TRALDI: No, I think that's exactly right. And I think that is why I'm a fan of the great books pedagogically and not—I don't know if Larkin will be called a great, you know, like, who knows? I don't really understand that designation, but tings like poetry and novels.OLIVER: The biggest dissenter was Harold Bloom, who said Philip Larkin's just a period piece. And he doesn't understand why everyone likes him.TRALDI: Oh, yes, well, I'm not on board with everything. Oh, I've also been—OLIVER: No, you're not very Bloomian.TRALDI: I'm not very Bloomian, I don't think.OLIVER: Either Allan or Harold.TRALDI: Yes. Well, I actually—this is very embarrassing, but I've actually never read The Closing of the American Mind, which I know is—OLIVER: But why should you? I'm not sure it's retained its—TRALDI: Well, it's certainly been received into my circle. But it is like a classic of anti-ideological—OLIVER: Sure. Have you read Adler, How to Read a Book, that kind of great books stuff?TRALDI: No. There's so many things that I haven't read. I mean, I'm just learning how to read. I learned how to read in Tulsa last year, [laughter] in Oklahoma, which is not where most people would go to learn how to read.Jane Austen and the Problem of MoralityOLIVER: So let's move to Jane Austen. Your thesis basically is, many moral theories face this problem that if I believe XYZ theory and you don't believe it, you can get the advantage of me. Because I'll always stick to my principles and you can just be a bad guy.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: So is morality screwed? This is what people say about liberalism. This is what you're arguing. And you think Jane Austen's got an answer to that?TRALDI: Yes, I think she has a kind of answer. And again, one decision I had to make while writing the essay was, am I going to go super—this is a completely philosophically rigorous and respectable answer? Or am I just going to kind of sketch it?OLIVER: Slum it in literary criticism? [laughter]TRALDI: Yes, I wouldn't put it quite that way, but—and I think I went for the latter, where I just wanted to kind of evoke the answer. And I think the answer has something to do with living in a large enough society where—and Austen I think is not the only person to give this answer. But you live in a large enough society where, when people see you acting well and somebody else acting poorly, the disadvantage that you have in that one interaction is outweighed by the advantages you have from the society that you gain from being seen to act well by many others.So one thing I didn't mention here, but a connection I made when I was first coming up with this idea, is that it's actually a lot like what Martin Luther King Jr. says about civil disobedience. So he says, you might think, if you're out there and the police are coming at you with bats, or the white supremacists are coming at you with bats or whatever, weapons or whatever, you might think, “I'm on the losing end of this interaction.”But actually what will happen is that this interaction will be seen by many others. And you, by keeping your calm, will be seen to be the virtuous one, and they, by being violent, will be seen to be the vicious ones. And this can only help your political cause. I'm probably abstracting some of the details of King's presentation.OLIVER: In a vulgar sense, this is the sort of “be the change you want to see” approach.TRALDI: Yes, but also, be the change you want other people to see. You know? Because that's how it gets saved from—and again, one of the ways in which this is not quite philosophically rigorous is because the philosopher can say, “Well, what about an example where nobody's going to see it? Or what about an example where the situation is set up that in doing the right thing, you're perceived to have done the wrong thing?” And you get back into tough problems. And that's why we have philosophy. You know, there's always going to be these puzzles.OLIVER: But we don't get the—I think this is what the novelists are helpful for. We don't get to set the conditions in our lives. You know, when you're doing a philosophical problem, you can just say, “Well, these are the conditions. What happens then?” And what Jane Austen is so good at is saying, “I'm going to take her and drop her in this house, and that's life. And she's just going to—she won't even know what the conditions are for a long time.” That's the novelist's preoccupation.TRALDI: Yes. Yes. It's interesting what you said about not even knowing what the conditions are. It's one thing I love, which is there in, I think, a lot of Austen—and it's done by a lot of my favorite novelists. I think Kazuo Ishiguro is really good at this. It's just novels where you see the characters' growing awareness of their circumstances and—OLIVER: Like in Klara and the Sun or something.TRALDI: Yes, or I think certainly in Never Let Me Go and in Remains of the Day, a lot of the action is in a situation where you understand what's going on better than the characters do.Clues and GamesTRALDI: And I think we talked about this the other day. In Austen, Emma, for example, is this sort of, like, halfway detective where she sees a lot of clues that could help her understand the nature of the life she's leading and the circumstances she's in, but she always misinterprets the clues. But on the other hand, it's not like she misses them entirely. She's kind of on the right track, and at least she's trying.OLIVER: And what I think Austen does so well in that book—I think it's her most important book—is that by putting us, without quite realizing it, with Emma's blinkers on, as it were, and only allowing our perspective to be her perspective, she makes us the detective.But whereas in a detective novel, you know, there's a funny little man and he is a detective, and he says, “Oh, there's a clue in this novel,” the read of—on the first read very often goes straight past what they must later realize to be a clue. And that is such a normal condition of life, that, “Oh, actually, that was one of the conditions, but you couldn't have known it. Sorry.” And you can only work it out in retrospect.TRALDI: Yes. In modern love, these are sometimes called red flags. [laughter] I think it's not quite a precise analogy, but yes, I think it's right. And I certainly—I had read Emma years ago and didn't really notice. As you say, on my first read, I didn't really notice, even having watched—I think it was the, what is it, the Kate Beckinsale version maybe, from ITV in like 1996 or something.It was really in reading it for this essay that I noticed that this feature that, starting on page 30 or 40 or so, there's a—and they're often in games. The clues are often in games. So very early on, Elton is playing some sort of poem game with Emma.OLIVER: The riddles, yes.TRALDI: The riddle game. And you know, Emma already misinterprets his riddles as being about Harriet rather than about her. But then there's also—the riddles also have some relation to things that happen much later.OLIVER: Then there's the anagram game at the end.TRALDI: There's the anagram game at the end. Yes, it's the—and I don't think there are many games like that in any of the other Austen.OLIVER: People play games, but we're not taken into them and have them narrated in that way.TRALDI: And they're not word games in general. There's card games and things like that. And you know, in Pride and Prejudice, Wickham has all these gambling debts and things like that.OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: You know, in—I don't know if you know Whit Stillman, but for the same magazine a couple years ago I wrote about Whit Stillman, who's a sort of conservative filmmaker who's a huge Austen fan and brings in Austenian themes to a lot of his movies, but writes them about characters in the 1960s and '70s. And one of them was called The Last Days of Disco, for example, about—and some of the broader social themes he talks about are also there in Austen.So one thing that was just on the edges of my consciousness as I read through the novels for this essay was the question of the noble man versus the working man, which I think is very present in Austen and has something to do with her conception of virtue: that the virtuous person will be engaging in commerce in some way.OLIVER: Those moments of the noble and the virtuous man or whatever often take place in a shop, like the drapier in Emma or the jewelry shop in Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: That's interesting. That's interesting.OLIVER: She's very careful to take us into a commercial situation and contrast.TRALDI: See, that is the sort of detail that I think a philosopher—I think we—the mere—the vibe of, “You're in a shop, and this means something.” I think this is something philosophers are—we can watch for the action; we can judge the characters' actions. But then there are these questions of atmosphere and milieu. And certain things happen in a shop; certain things happen at the seaside. In Persuasion there's an injury by the seaside.OLIVER: Yes. That's one of the most exciting scenes in Austen. Very dramatic.TRALDI: Yes, yes. I think actually Persuasion in some ways is quite different than her other books. It has a sort of—you know, in some ways it feels a little more like Frankenstein or Wuthering Heights at points. There's a little bit of a windblown, dark quality to it at times. It's a little bit bleaker. It's a little hard to explain why, but that's just a feeling that I had reading it that maybe had changed with some of the other literary tastes of the time.Artlessness in Austen's HeroinesOLIVER: Now, the quality that you focus on in the heroines, in this question of virtue defending itself against bad actors who break the rules, is artlessness.TRALDI: Yes. So this is a term Austen uses quite a bit, and almost always, she very much picks and chooses the characters who are going to receive this term. And I thought that this is like—it's not only her artless characters who face this question about how can morality survive, or how can virtue prevail, but I think they're the limit point.Like, if you really are unwilling to use—and I mentioned in the essay, when Darcy describes—I forget what; maybe it's him describing how he found Lydia and Wickham, or it's something to do with Wickham—he said, “I had to resort to arts.” So it must be, the “arts” back then means—one of the meanings of the term is dishonesty or subterfuge or something.OLIVER: Yes, if someone was artful, it could have—TRALDI: Yes, like the Artful Dodger.OLIVER: Exactly. Could have negative connotations for sure.TRALDI: Yes. And so the artless one, you know, they're missing something.So it's the question of, if you view—morality in a way means you're missing something, right? You've taken arts out of your arsenal. You've taken tools that could deal with certain situations, and you've just decided not to use them. So the question is, how can it be an advantage to have less tools?You know, we're here at Mercatus; the economists would tell you it's never advantageous to have fewer choices, right? There's no paradox of choice. It's never advantageous to have fewer choices. And so I think this is the—if morality is a kind of unilateral disarmament, artlessness is the clearest case of that.OLIVER: And you're seeing that in Fanny Price, Elinor—TRALDI: You see that in Fanny Price. You see that in Elinor. Harriet Smith is described as artless over and over again. And then there are these other characters who are described as artful, or other things that are mentioned as arts.I think Harriet, in a lot of ways, is the one who's most often described this way. And it's interesting because you think of Emma changing a lot in Emma, but Knightley actually shifts in his evaluation of Harriet, who he thought of as sort of an unserious person. And Knightley himself comes to recognize her artlessness as a kind of seriousness which makes her a good match, not ultimately for him, but for his dude, Robert.OLIVER: The farmer.TRALDI: The farmer, yes.OLIVER: He doesn't change his view of her social position, though.TRALDI: No, certainly not. But he does change his view of her character, basically. You know, her artlessness is not silliness. It has a sort of depth to it.And yes, certainly Fanny. In the Whit Stillman movie Metropolitan that's part of what set me on this, there's this whole discussion of the book Mansfield Park and this old Lionel Trilling essay about it where he says, how is it—there's this question about how modern people can even like Mansfield Park because we've sort of lost the notion of virtue being exciting or something.One of the most provocative lines to me in Austen was in Sense and Sensibility where it says that Elinor glories in Edward's integrity, which is an odd thing to glory in. You don't glory—nobody is on Instagram showing off their integrity, you know?OLIVER: It's like that René Gerard quote people like to pass around: “Everyone is on diet pills and nobody wants to be a saint.”TRALDI: I like that. That is very Instagrammable.OLIVER: Exactly. Exactly.TRALDI: That's very good, actually. I like that. Yes, so there's something provocative about the notion that virtue can be exciting, and in particular can be romantically exciting.The Importance of IntegrityOLIVER: Or even less than that. One thing I think is difficult for people interpreting Austen today is that virtue, whether it's exciting or romantically exciting, or the notion of integrity is of interest for its own sake.There's a lot of—you know, we have integrity as an organization. It's very important for me to have integrity as a professional. But there's not as much a sense of, just having integrity is the good life. We don't need to be complicated about this. That's just—you should just do that. And Austen's very firm on that all the way through.And criticism wants to pull her towards sometimes feminism, sometimes discussions of slavery, sometimes various other things. And she's just constantly sort of resisting that by saying, “I like integrity. I like good people. I don't think it's that hard.” It's a good line you've picked up on, I think.TRALDI: There's a character in The Wire who says, “A man's gotta have a code.” I think he's Omar, who murders the drug dealers and steals from them.OLIVER: I haven't seen it.TRALDI: So he says, “A man's gotta have a code.” And I think there is a—even in a character who in some ways is bad, we admire the integrity of having a code and sticking to it.There is this debate, I guess in moral philosophy, or at least on the outskirts of moral philosophy, about, “Well, if your code is wrong, maybe it's better not to stick to it.” I don't share that perspective. I think part of the good life is holding yourself to certain standards. And if those standards turn out to be wrong, the holding yourself is still of moral value, right? Not allowing yourself—OLIVER: It doesn't mean they're not adjustable.TRALDI: Yes, no, of course. If you decide the standards are wrong, and in Austen—OLIVER: It's sort of implicit in the idea of having standards that you will be honest and therefore accept when your standards need to be improved or whatever. Right?TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely right. And in Austen we certainly see people shifting their standards. And I think one thing that I—of course, modern readers and watchers of Austen do not quite understand some of these things. But I think in Pride and Prejudice in particular, we're supposed to feel that Lizzy Bennet is quite hard on people and has to learn to improve herself in that way.OLIVER: We're delighted with her when she does that because we think it's sassy.TRALDI: Yes, exactly. If you go on YouTube, you can see all these, like, “Lizzy Bennet owning people's lives for 50 minutes,” these compilations of clips from the various movies or whatever. And she's obviously very, very clever.But she realizes—after coming to understand who Wickham is and feeling that she might not have another chance with Darcy, she comes to realize that she has had certain prejudices, which have made her blind to the realities of the world and blind to what might be her best options.So yes, I was saying I believe in integrity; that's all I was saying. And integrity obviously is adjustable, but I tend to think that it's better—even if the rule is wrong, it's better for the person who has it to hold themselves to it, rather than to adjust to try to get an advantage.And in philosophy, we have all sorts of terminology for these sorts of questions: “Are you an internalist or an externalist about reasons or about rules or whatever?” I think the more literary way to say it would just be that integrity is a virtue. And people should stick to their codes unless they see a good reason to change them.Austen and Adam SmithOLIVER: Now, you have recently been reading Adam Smith.TRALDI: Yes, I did read a lot of Adam Smith for this debate we had last week. Although I did a poor job because I had forgotten that the debate was about whether Smith was a philosopher or an economist. [laughter] I thought it was simply, is he a philosopher or not? So I put myself in the odd position of arguing that Adam Smith is not an economist.But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—OLIVER: Primarily from Theory of Moral Sentiments.TRALDI: So I would say that the notion of sympathy as being fundamentally part of how you recognize a good person seems to me to be there in Austen. The characters are—OLIVER: And this is the thing about awareness of other people and learning from that awareness.TRALDI: Awareness of other people and learning from other people and feeling other people's emotions. One thing that is related to sympathy in an odd way—and I think actually Austen and Smith conceive of it a bit differently, but that is there for both of them, in particular in Sense and Sensibility—is this notion of self-control or self-command.OLIVER: Self command. Yes. Yes.The Importance of Self-CommandTRALDI: Now, Smith gives a really odd argument about self command, which is that if you don't have control over your emotions, you will end up feeling or expressing something that other people can't sympathize with. And this is bad because sympathy is good, or something like that. I actually think it's a rather confused argument.OLIVER: I think what he's saying is that if you display a lack of self-command, then no matter what you are feeling, people find it difficult to deal with that sort of uncontrolled behavior. It's not the particular expression of feeling; it's the fact that you are a little unstable or—TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right.OLIVER: —a bit extra.TRALDI: I think what Smith doesn't do is explain quite how that's bad. But what I think is that actually, in Sense and Sensibility, it's a little bit the reverse, where actually Elinor and their mother, they do sympathize with Marianne. They do feel what she's feeling after—who's the other, the w guy in Sense and Sensibility? They're all w's.OLIVER: Oh, Willoughby.TRALDI: Willoughby, right, right. Not Wickham, Willoughby. When Willoughby—OLIVER: You can just say “the cad.”TRALDI: The cad. There's always a cad. So when the cad leaves, Marianne has all these emotions, and you really feel them. And Marianne also has a lack of self-command when Willoughby is there. There's this whole episode, which I didn't quite make the most of but felt very important, where they go to the house of this woman. They just sort of barge into this house, Willoughby and Marianne.And this is really supposed to show something about the relationship. If you and your partner barge into somebody's house, it can't be a good relationship somehow because it's leading you into bad actions. That's my sense of what that episode is supposed to show from the highest possible remove.OLIVER: I think, yes, and I think there are several other instances of that: when they ride in the carriage together, unaccompanied.TRALDI: Right, right.OLIVER: And there's a sort of general consternation about this. And Marianne sort of says, “Oh, well, how can it be a problem?” And they—part of the consternation is, you're breaking the rules in a very flagrant way, but also that you are assuming that it's okay because you'll get married. And this assumption is a very big one.TRALDI: Yes. And obviously there is this assumption that—she doesn't recognize quite how—she thinks her position is much more secure than it actually is, which is how it turns out in the book. But I think we're supposed to think that even if she were right about Willoughby's affection, which in a sense, she—Willoughby—OLIVER: No. Even if they do get married, she's broken the rules in a way that—TRALDI: She's broken certain rules in a way that is—but I think what's different from Smith is, there is sympathy from her family even though she lacks self-command. But that is precisely—so it's sort of a different theory of why self-command is good. It's precisely because her emotional state is actually draining for her family.And then Elinor says—when she learns that Elinor has actually been going through something—OLIVER: The same.TRALDI: —very similar, and maybe even rougher, in this whole thing with Lucy Steele telling her about this, you know, blah, blah, blah.OLIVER: Which is a beautiful name—to steal. I mean, it's great.TRALDI: It's an amazing—honestly, in some ways Sense and Sensibility may have been my favorite. I think it's just lovely.OLIVER: If I just wanted to just read one for fun, that's what I go to. I do, yes.TRALDI: Yes. And there's a lot—none of these things are quite perfectly in there. But I think honestly, everything that's in the other novels has a little part to play in Sense and Sensibility. You know, I think if I were to recommend just one, if somebody was like, “I have time for just one,” I might recommend Sense and Sensibility.But in the end, Marianne says—again, it's one of these amazingly evocative lines. Elinor says, “You didn't act that badly. Do you compare your conduct with Willoughby's?” And she says, “No, I compare it with—Elinor, I compare it with your conduct. You have this self-command.”And it's precisely the fact—it's not—and I think this is why philosophers do like Austen, because it's not—it's still literary, but there is a precision to her moral evaluations. It's precisely the fact that Elinor knew that her family loved her and didn't want to burden—it's all quite conscious. She didn't want to burden her family with her emotions. But you actually see that Elinor has this family trait of having very strong sentiment, which Marianne does, and simply also has this virtue of self-command.And that is—there are film adaptations and TV adaptations that demonstrate self-command, but it's a very hard thing to film. It's something you feel inside. It's a very hard—the actors have to be very good for you to see—you see pieces of it in some of the adaptations of Persuasion and some of the adaptations of Sense and Sensibility, but self-command is very hard to find.Austen AdaptationsOLIVER: Which adaptations do you like the best?TRALDI: I'm forgetting—I often like the long ones that I think were for the British ITV. So I like the—I think Kate Beckinsale was in the Emma one. Although I think there was one of Persuasion, which was also quite good. I like the one of Northanger Abbey. I don't think it's that good, but it's kind of cute, which I think it's probably the cutest of her long novels.Whit Stillman did a very loose adaptation of Lady Susan, which is hilariously funny at times, and also has Kate Beckinsale and some other great actors in it.OLIVER: Did you see the new Persuasion on Netflix a couple of years ago?TRALDI: No. No.OLIVER: It has that—is it Dakota Johnson, the actress, who's famous for other non-Austenian—Fifty Shades of Grey or whatever.TRALDI: Yes, and isn't she one of the Avengers or something like that?OLIVER: Something like that. But everyone was very upset that it was this terrible adaptation.TRALDI: Oh, yes.OLIVER: Didn't—it sort of killed all of Austen's words. She looks at the camera; she drinks from the bottle. I actually thought it was quite fun. On the basis that all adaptations are bad—TRALDI: I think if you allow some looseness, it can be quite fun. So for example, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, I think if you're just sort of like, “Well, this is just somebody who was inspired by Pride and Prejudice,” you can have a lot of fun with the movie.OLIVER: I think as an interpretation of the book, that film is quite bad.TRALDI: Oh, yes. I think it's absolutely missing the mark.OLIVER: But in terms of like, the countryside and the house and the geese and the food, it's fantastic.TRALDI: Oh, yes. It's lovely to look at.OLIVER: The dresses, right? The clothes are amazing.TRALDI: And a lot of the—and the cast is honestly like—OLIVER: Yes, it's great.TRALDI: The cast is really, really great. And the parts as they are—OLIVER: Rosamund Pike is maybe the best Jane on TV.TRALDI: She's terrific. And who's the one who plays Kitty?OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: Who is in—and the father is the guy from The Hunger Games. I forget his name, but I think the father is excellent in that. But of course, it's not exactly the father from Austen.OLIVER: No, no, no.TRALDI: But as a movie itself—but yes, I like a lot of these longer TV versions.One odd thing—they make these choices. So there is some scholarly apparatus brought to bear on some of them. So I think maybe it's Persuasion that there were multiple versions of, and some of the adaptations use pieces from the unpublished version, which are interesting. And as I was reading it, I had to Google around a bit and figure out these things.Austen's Moral PrecisionTRALDI: I was going to say about Austen's moral precision, the other place where I think this comes in—and I wrote a bit about this in the essay—is near the end of Mansfield Park, when—the names are what I'm worst at—when Edmund, right, is finally disillusioned with—OLIVER: Mary.TRALDI: With Mary Crawford?OLIVER: Mm-hmm.TRALDI: It's because there was this affair. There's always a sibling or a cousin who makes some horrible mistake, you know? So there was this affair, and Mary Crawford can only criticize it by saying that they weren't very prudent, you know, in prudential terms. They took a big risk. They made a bad decision. You know, they really screwed themselves over.OLIVER: They could have made it work. Yes.TRALDI: Yes. And Edmund realizes that she lacks moral fervor because he thinks the appropriate criticism should be a moral one. And as a psychological matter, it shouldn't even enter your head, I think is the idea. I'm extrapolating a bit, but if you see somebody acting this badly, to then say, “Well, geez, you're doing something that isn't in your interest”—for that to be your first thought indicates that your priorities are highly misplaced in a way that, to him, is quite unattractive.And this also struck me as a moment of—this is something we philosophers talk about. What is the distinction between prudence and morality? They both tell you what you should do, in some sense, but there's different—the shoulds have different forces, right? So Edmund has a certain moral precision and sensitivity which, actually, Fanny is basically the only person he knows—not that everybody in the house is a bad person; his father is a decent guy, and one of the aunts is okay, I think.But yes, there's a real sophistication to this evaluation. And it's funny to me that she actually used this as the—I mean, I suspect that even at the time there were readers who were just like, “Wait, I really don't get what the nature of Edmund's problem is here,” because it's not like Mary—Mary's not like, “Oh, yes, I support infidelity.” You know? She's not like— it's if you blinked, you might miss it, the mistake that Mary has made.And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.Every Word MattersOLIVER: I mean, one way people talk about the great books is to say that every word matters. And a lot of novelists will say that about their own. Well, you know, Elizabeth Bowen used to say, “What you're doing is to make everything count.” Austen is one of the examples where it's actually true. Every word is being used carefully.TRALDI: Yes. It's funny, this bears on another Twitter argument I had recently about this phrase logographic necessity. Basically, every word in a great book is there for a reason. I think that's right. Although you have to be careful about—if you were to say, “Well, every word in Plato is there for a reason, so you can't really say he's wrong about every—” you would be kind of abandoning the philosophical mission.OLIVER: I mean it in the sense of what you might call the artistic or structural integrity of the book. Not everything has to tell in the meaning sense. But it all holds as a unit for some—TRALDI: Yes. I think everything is there—there is what we could call an internal reason for everything to be there. Everything is there to hold together—OLIVER: Like the making of a piece of furniture or something.TRALDI: And I think you hear—I think this is one thing that—and not all classical music, but I think it's one thing that distinguishes classical music even from very good contemporary pop music or jazz or rock music, is that you have this sense of, “Yes, every note I hear basically is holding up a larger structure of some sort.”OLIVER: Yes. And Jane Austen is very Mozart in that way.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right. Yes.Austen's Place in Great Books ProgramsOLIVER: So should Jane Austen have a bigger place on great books programs, based on all these things you've said about her?TRALDI: Yes, this is—so, there was actually a debate—I did not write the piece in response to this debate, but this is—OLIVER: Tanner Greer.TRALDI: Yes, there was—Tanner Greer weighed in on this, and my friend Circe. I think—OLIVER: I think they're just desperately wrong.TRALDI: You think they don't—that she—OLIVER: I think Emma is obviously a book that should be on one of these syllabuses. Maybe Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: Yes. I think the ones I would consider are Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park. I do think they're actually longer than I realized, which is always—I mean, there are these very practical concerns with putting together a syllabus.OLIVER: Sure, sure. Although I want to ask you about that, because my response to a lot of these debates, which is maybe just because of where I studied, but just make them read more. And if they don't do the reading, that's their, you know—TRALDI: That's true. Well, I don't want to get into this too much. We already make them read a lot compared to—so for example, a year ago, I had my students read two novels in a week, which is more than most courses make college students read.OLIVER: But that's by no means unreasonable.TRALDI: No, no, of course, of course.OLIVER: You know.TRALDI: Well, exigencies of the teenage mind aside—OLIVER: Because I often think this, when people debate how things should be taught and why it's so important to keep these programs, and they'll talk about the importance of writing essays. And then it turns out the students maybe write one essay a semester. And I sort of think, well, who cares? All this rhetoric for one essay.TRALDI: Yes. I don't know if I'm really ever going to assign essays again. It just is—the age of AI is upon us.OLIVER: Sure. But you see what I mean.TRALDI: No, yes, I know exactly what you mean. And I do think reading a lot is the main part of—and certainly, you know, when I read all seven of these in two weeks, that's much more reading than I normally do, as well, to write this essay.OLIVER: But you didn't have to lie on the sofa afterwards with a cold compress. You were fine.TRALDI: In a way it was a really good two weeks. If you get to read—I mean, this is why we have good lives, right? If you get to read Jane Austen and you call that work, it's a nice life.OLIVER: So yes, will you be putting Emma on your program?TRALDI: I would definitely consider Emma. I would definitely consider Sense and Sensibility. I would consider Mansfield Park. I think these are the ones that have—the moral element is very prominent. But it's obviously there in all of her books.OLIVER: You can have a really good moral discussion about Mansfield Park, which is a bigger, broader thing than Pride and Prejudice, for example.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. I would definitely consider—in the 1800s there were—obviously the British novel of the 1800s was a big deal, and there's—OLIVER: [laughs] We did quite well, yes.TRALDI: You all did quite well. So the ones we did at Tulsa—we had Frankenstein and Wuthering Heights and The Picture of Dorian Gray. And then we had one Irish, The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. And I don't think anybody—if you replaced one of those with Emma or Mansfield Park, I don't think anybody would say, “Oh, you made a horrible call.”OLIVER: I think Tanner's point was that you simply don't have that many slots for an English novel that deals with these sorts of ideas, and that it should obviously be Middlemarch because that is the bigger novel. It's about bigger questions of society. It's about the whole—it's got more greatness in it, whereas Austen is sort of more about the individual.TRALDI: So I do think that this question of greatness—I think there are some people who read Austen and they think, “Well, this is—obviously it has all these sorts of themes, but it's not great. It has this littleness to it. It has this smallness to it.”OLIVER: It's domestic.TRALDI: That is not my reading of it. I think if that's the question, I don't feel that way. I think it pulls out these great themes about the nature of virtue and the nature of moral learning, becoming a better person, the nature of love. We read Sappho. We read the Symposium.To me, you read Wuthering Heights and you say, “Oh, this is a really big book because it's about society and how trauma gets passed down, and it has these horror elements, and it's very dark.” But actually, it's quite hard to figure out, how do we turn Wuthering Heights in a discussion about how to live? With Austen, it's just completely straightforward.OLIVER: [laughs] How not to live, maybe.TRALDI: Yes. In Austen, it's just completely straightforward. This is the discussion. This is what she had in mind as well, this question of how to live. So to me, Austen is completely—in terms of her successes as an artist, she belongs. In terms of her themes, she belongs. So I would not rule her out. I think she is absolutely a great, and who knows what that means, but I think she would be completely appropriate on any of these syllabi.Reading PlansOLIVER: Very good. And what will you read next?TRALDI: What will I read next? I mean, our—from the beginning, I'm thinking I should read some more poetry. It's been a while. Actually, speaking of—this is funny. Well, I want to get into William Empson. He had an odd life, which I think somebody should do like a movie about him or something.OLIVER: Yes, he'd make a great movie.TRALDI: I think Empson would be a good movie. So that might be—OLIVER: Are you going to read the poems or the criticism?TRALDI: Probably a little of both, but that's for a while from now. I think, you know, at the moment I'm back to reading philosophy. So what novel will I read next? That's a good question. What should I read next?OLIVER: If you like Jane Austen?TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Maybe read one of the people that she admired, like Samuel Richardson or Fanny Burney, someone like that.TRALDI: You know, I do think—you saying Samuel Richardson reminded me, I've read very little Samuel Johnson. I think reading some of the great critics, I think, writing this piece—OLIVER: Oh, Johnson, yes. You would like Johnson.TRALDI: I think I would like Johnson. I think I would like Empson. The history of literary criticism is something I have very, very little idea of.OLIVER: Oh, well, then, Johnson. I mean, he's the best.TRALDI: Yes, I think I should, I should definitely read Johnson.OLIVER: English literary criticism begins and ends with Samuel Johnson.TRALDI: You know what, this is a little different, but—I might have talked about this with you a little bit—I want to read The Fable of the Bees, Mandeville, because reading about Smith—a lot of the ideas that we think of as Smithian are actually Mandevillian, and he kind of moderated them.OLIVER: Well, he hated Mandeville.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Very hard on him.TRALDI: Yes. So a lot—like the invisible hand, it's only a small part of Smith's thinking, but it was like the entirety of Mandeville's thinking, this sort of dynamic.OLIVER: Well, I think it means different things for them. I think Mandeville, in a funny way, is more philosophical in the sense you were saying, and trying to make these propositions. And Smith was saying, “Well, what about feelings? What about all these funny things that we can't account for? Like, look around. It's too messy.”TRALDI: No, that makes sense to me. Yes, I think between Mandeville and Smith, Mandeville is somebody who thought virtue was sort of like a con.OLIVER: A fool's game.TRALDI: Exactly. You're sort of a sucker if you try to be virtuous.OLIVER: I think he also just assumed that if you were commercial, you were obviously on the get.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?In philosophy, we do ask, what is a good character and what is the good action in this sort of situation? What is the bad action in this sort of situation? But it's not for the philosopher to say, “Okay, in the sorts of situations you're likely to be in, what do you pay—where do you direct your attention to try to figure out these things about?”And it's not—I don't think Austen—it's not super subtle either. In Persuasion—I mentioned in the essay—in Persuasion, it starts out by saying Anne really cared about paying off the family's debts, and the rest of her family didn't give a s**t, you know? And it's sort of like, okay, so we just immediately are like, Anne's the sort of person who you might want to have a business transaction with because if she has a debt to you, she might actually pay it. And I forget if that's the exact detail, but it's something like that, you know?OLIVER: And there's also the novelist—Jane Austen is very good at what you don't see, which aga

Listen to the rest of this premium episode by subscribing at patreon.com/knowyourenemy. REMINDER: COME SEE KYE x MIKE DUNCAN LIVE IN NYC Given the string of recent episodes that, in various ways, grappled with religion we wanted to take a step back and offer a rather personal conversation about believing in God, or not, and what difference it might makes. The discussion begins by revisiting when we first met over a decade ago and talked a lot about faith, then ranges widely, including: atheism vs agnosticism, W.H. Auden, why we're not experiencing a religious revival in the United States (but could be soon), and more. Sources: Christopher Beha, Why I Am Not an Atheist (2026) Edward Mendelson, "The Secret Auden," New York Review of Books, March 20, 2014 David Martin, w/ a reply from Edward Mendelson, "Why Auden Married," New York Review of Books, April 24, 2014 Matthew Sitman, "Saving Calvin from Clichés: An Interview with Marilynne Robinson," Commonweal, Oct 5, 2017 Ryan Burge, "Religion Has Become A Luxury Good For The Middle Class, Married College Graduate With Children," Religion Unplugged, July 12, 2023 Daniel Cox, "The Illusion of America's Religious Revival," American Storylines, Nov 13, 2025 Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Book (1983) — The Message in the Bottle: How Queer Man Is, How Queer Language Is, and What One Has to Do with the Other (1975) The Living Thoughts of Kierkegaard, edited & with an introduction by W.H. Auden (1999) W.H. Auden, "In Praise of Limestone," in Nones (1951) "Jill Lepore on Nationalism, Populism, and the State of America," EconTalk, April 15, 2019

Jenny Evans is a Mother, investigative journalist and filmmaker. Following the investigation that became her memoir, ‘Don't Let It Break You, Honey' she retrained in law. Jenny has just secured her first legal position.I connected with Jenny on Instagram after hearing about her book and I am incredibly grateful for Jenny and this powerful, moving and life-affirming conversation.(Jenny has THE most wonderful laugh and is such brilliant and beautiful soul.)We cover some very tender topics so please go carefully if you may be triggered and/or pay attention to the following.TRIGGER WARNINGS:we speak about sexual abuse, the justice system, Jenny's stillborn daughterFrom 21 mins 50 secs to 22 mins 10 secs AND 23 mins to 25 mins 20 secs Jenny speaks about the death of her daughter, being stillbornFrom 25 mins 40 secs to 31 mins 20 secs Jenny talks about unexplained infertility, IVF and the death of her daughter whilst in uteroFrom 32 mins 20 secs to 36 mins 30 secs I speak about being ostracised and sexual abuseIn this episode we speak about:Jenny's background, her book and why she wrote itthe courage it took to write about what I call 'nasty people'speaking our truth, finding our tribe & shedding shamehow shame is created and systems that are inherently shamingthe death of Jenny's daughter, Lula* (please see trigger warnings above)navigating the grief realm and 'passive suicidality'the desire to have more babies — and the gaslighting of our big, primal feelingsthe process of writing the book with a lawyer and getting it publishedhow the system of giving statements to the police needs to change and the horror of Jenny's story being leaked (from the police) to the presssupportive publishers like Jemima Hunt at 'The Writers' Practice' and Emma Smith at 'Little Brown'why we talk and how it keeps us safeThemes: sexual abuse, journalism, police scandal, misogyny, shame, grief, corruptionWe mention Nick Davies, Evan Moloney, Maya Angelou, Richard Schwartz, Ana Forrest, Jemima Hunt and Emma Smith.To learn more about Jenny see here on Instagram, her website, details of her book 'Don't Let It Break You, Honey', and her Substack.At the end, I read a poem written by W.H. Auden.Did you enjoy this episode? If so, I would really appreciate it if you could please leave a review on the platform that you listen.For more insights and to contact me you can find me on Instagram, and/or on my website: www.lucywyldecoaching.com.

Sometimes you've gotta dial it back....On this very special episode we go all the way back to TIFF 2025 for an interview on a fantastic film that we almost forgot about.  It's time for more excellent Canadian cinema and 'Little Lorraine'.Directed by Grammy-nominated Andy Hines (feature film debut), based on a true story and Adam Baldwin's song "Lighthouse in Little Lorraine".  Between 1986 and 1990, Little Lorraine (Cape Breton) became embroiled in an international cocaine smuggling operation under the noses of multiple governments and federal agencies, distributing drugs and money in coffins driven around in hearses by a network of funeral homes.  Experienced through the eyes of three entrapped best friends (Stephen Amell, Joshua Close, Steve Lund), this film tells the gripping true tale of how this unlikely story was born, thrived ultimately fell apart in this unassuming little town. There's nothing like a little true crime in our own backyard.  'Little Lorraine' had it's world premiere back at TIFF last year and now after having travelled the world, it's coming home for the masses to enjoy.  Back at the fest we had the pleasure of sitting down with Co-Writer and Director Andy Hines as well as star Auden Thornton to find all about everything that made Little Lorraine tick.Check your local listings, 'Little Lorraine' is in theatres now...

In this ScreenFish 1on1 Interview, director Andy Hines and star Auden Thornton discuss their work on LITTLE LORRAINE. Andy reflects on how growing up in the Maritimes shaped his perspective and visual lens for the story, while Auden explores the strength of her character, Emma, and the portrayal of empowered female roles. They also discuss the moral complexity of Jimmy, questioning what makes a good man, and the idea that “whatever you're wrapped up in, it doesn't change who you are.”LITTLE LORRAINE is available in theatres on Friday, April 17th, 2026.

With the East Coast drama Little Lorraine starting its Canadian theatrical run this Friday, April 17th, actor Auden Thornton is here to discuss Sarah Polley's first feature Away from Her, and unpack the layers of emotion and loss running through it. Your genial host Norm Wilner had to brace himself for this one.

All the queens want is boundless love in this episode about the love life of Frank O'Hara.Please Support Breaking Form!Review the show on Apple Podcasts here.Aaron's STOP LYING is available from the Pitt Poetry Series. And BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE is available from Bridwell Press. James's ROMANTIC COMEDY is available from Four Way Books. Show Notes:Read Frank O'Hara's "Homosexuality"For more about Chester Kallman, read here. Kallman was a poet, librettist, and writer who was also Auden's partner (and, later, his estate's executor). He published three collections of poems: Storm at Castelfranco (1956), Absent and Present (1963), and The Sense of Occasion (1971). Grace Hartigan's relationship with Frank O'Hara is detailed a bit more in this Sebastian Smee essay in Washington Post: "Portrait of a Poet." Read O'Hara's "In Memory of My Feelings"Much of Frank O'Hara's papers are at the Museum of Modern Art in NYCRead a review of Ada Calhoun's memoir "Also a Poet," about her father, art critic Peter Schjeldahl, who was working on a memorial project about O'Hara when he died. Calhoun believes that her father's book was torpedoed by O'Hara's sister and literary executor, Maureen Granville-Smith Calhoun. For more about The Glory Hole Café in Buenos Aires (which we mention in the show), go here. 

Les podcasts d'Auden - Interdit aux adultes (X) La mort, raconté par Auden (10 ans).Un épisode sensible et essentiel, pour aborder la mort sans détour mais avec douceur. À travers leurs mots, Auden et Louison expliquent ce qu'est la mort, pourquoi elle fait peur, ce qu'on ressent quand quelqu'un disparaît… et comment on peut traverser cette épreuve. Parce que parler de la mort, c'est aussi apprendre à mieux profiter de la vie.Pack C'est la vie !

Les podcasts d'Auden - Interdit aux adultes (X) Action ou vérité, raconté par Auden (10 ans).Auden et Louison explorent la vérité, le mensonge, le respect, les limites, le consentement, les compliments, les moqueries… Le tout dans un format ludique et interactif. On apprend en jouant, et c'est ça qui est chouette !Pack C'est la vie !

Les podcasts d'Auden - Interdit aux adultes (X) Les réseaux sociaux, raconté par Auden (10 ans).TikTok, Insta, facebook, YouTube… ça vous parle ? Dans cet épisode, Auden et Louison vous expliquent pourquoi les réseaux sociaux peuvent être à la fois amusants et dangereux. Ils parlent d'addiction, de contenus choquants, de fausses infos et d'intelligence artificielle – mais aussi de comment s'en protéger, avec bon sens et maturité. Une vraie discussion de grands… adaptée aux enfants !Pack C'est la vie !

Les podcasts d'Auden - Interdit aux adultes (X) Aaah l'amour !, raconté par Auden (10 ans).Et si on parlait d'un sujet qui fait rougir… mais qu'on vit tous ? Dans cet épisode, Auden et Louison démêlent ce que veut vraiment dire “l'amour”. Amour familial, amitié, sentiment amoureux, ou même attachement à un objet : on explore toutes les formes d'amour, sans tabou, avec bienveillance et un brin d'humour. Une belle manière d'apprendre à mettre des mots sur ce qu'on ressent.Pack C'est la vie !

Les podcasts d'Auden - Interdit aux adultes (X) La peur du noir, raconté par Auden (10 ans).Tu la connais, cette sensation quand la lumière s'éteint et que ton imagination s'emballe ? Dans cet épisode, Auden et Louison te parlent de la peur du noir, expliquent pourquoi elle existe, ce qu'est la nyctophobie, et surtout comment la surmonter. Un épisode rassurant, plein d'astuces et de douceur, pour dormir plus sereinement.Pack C'est la vie !

This week, I'm pleased to be joined by Auden Krauska, a non-binary parent of two originally from Wisconsin now living near Copenhagen, to talk about their nursing journeys and the complexities of lactation alongside gender dysphoria and healthcare systems. Auden describes binding, being misgendered, considering top surgery but delaying it to lactate, and stopping testosterone to conceive. Their first pregnancy involved hyperemesis, followed by a home birth, sidelying nursing, a newborn hospitalisation for enterovirus meningitis, and recurrent mastitis linked to oversupply and outdated advice, which improved with the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine's updated protocol and ibuprofen. Auden shares experience of parent-led weaning at 14 weeks pregnant, using a personalised storybook, and discusses nursing-friendly and pregnancy clothing, working remotely, Denmark's health care, and evidence and monitoring around resuming testosterone while lactating. If Auden does return to taking testosterone, they will do blood testing to check their daughter's liver function and hormone levels, and that decision is a way off.My picture book on how breastfeeding journeys end, The Story of Jessie's Milkies, is available from Amazon here -  The Story of Jessie's Milkies. In the UK, you can also buy it from The Children's Bookshop in Muswell Hill, London. Other book shops and libraries can source a copy from Ingram Spark publishing.You can also get 10% off my books on supporting breastfeeding beyond six months and supporting the transition from breastfeeding at the Jessica Kingsley press website, by going to https://bit.ly/JKPbooks and using the code MMPE10 at checkout.Follow me on Instagram  @emmapickettibclc or find out more on my website www.emmapickettbreastfeedingsupport.com Find out more about Auden on their blog https://thepregnantpapa.wordpress.com/Resources mentioned -Where's the Mother? - a book by Trevor MacDonald  https://www.queerlit.co.uk/products/wheres-the-mother?srsltid=AfmBOorXJK6ekxR3phw_y4N2NWXZ4vKNfrwshyJ9XpzXWTcom_fQCunfTrevor's Facebook group - Birthing and Breast or Chestfeeding Trans People and Allies https://www.facebook.com/share/g/183Qi5ryX9/Angela Marchant in Madison, WI https://www.tallgrassosteopathy.com/Trans Fertility Co https://transfertility.co/Trystan Reese https://www.trystanreese.com/Being You: A First Conversation About Gender – Early Pride Matters  https://earlypridematters.org/teaching-guide/being-you-a-first-conversation-about-gender/ This podcast is presented by Emma Pickett IBCLC, and produced by Emily Crosby Media.

Les podcasts d'Auden - Interdit aux adultes (X) L'Univers raconté par Auden (10 ans).Aujourd'hui, on explore l'espace !

In his book Why Poetry, the poet Matthew Zapruder issued "an impassioned call for a return to reading poetry and an incisive argument for its accessibility to all readers." The poet Robert Hass said, "Zapruder on poetry is pure pleasure. His prose is so direct that you have the impression, sentence by sentence, that you are being told simple things about a simple subject and by the end of each essay you come to understand that you've been on a very rich, very subtle tour of what's aesthetically and psychologically amazing about the art of poetry."  In this episode, Matthew Zapruder joins Jacke for a discussion on why poetry is often misunderstood, and how readers can clear away the misconceptions and return to an appreciation for the charms and power of poetry. Along the way, they discuss poems by W.H. Auden, Brenda Hillman, and John Keats, and the views of critics like Harold Bloom, Giambattista Vico, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Paul Valery. [This episode was originally released on April 9, 2018.] Help support the show at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/literature⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠historyofliterature.com/donate⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. The History of Literature Podcast is a member of Lit Hub Radio and the Podglomerate Network. Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠thepodglomerate.com/historyofliterature⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episódio 018 de Dias Úteis, um podcast que oferece poesia pela manhã, de segunda a sexta-feira. O poema de hoje é de Wystan Hugh Auden, "O Cidadão Desconhecido", traduzido por João Ferreira Duarte. A leitura é de Nuno Miguel Guedes que, para além de anfitrião de "Poetas do Povo" é um dos membros do colectivo "Lisbon Poetry Orchestra". Tema musical original de Marco Figueiredo, com voz de José Carlos Tinoco. Sonoplastia adicional com sons ambientais originais, cortesia da cidade de Lisboa. Saiba mais sobre os nossos projectos em www.assdeideias.pt.

Actress Auden Thornton (Little Lorraine, This Is Us) joins Matt and Tim to discuss the 2023 Christopher Nolan film, Oppenheimer, starring Cillian Murphy and Emily Blunt. Gary Oldman plays President Harry S Truman. Matt Walsh ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/mrmattwalsh⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Timothy Simons ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/timothycsimons⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Auden Thornton https://instagram.com/audiethorn Second In Command ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/secondincommandpodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email questions to: ⁠secondincommandatc@gmail.com For more full length episodes like this, and the entire back catalog of Veep rewatches, go to patreon.com/secondincommand and become a Patron.

Actress Auden Thornton (Little Lorraine, This Is Us) joins Matt and Tim to discuss the 2023 Christopher Nolan film, Oppenheimer, starring Cillian Murphy and Emily Blunt. Gary Oldman plays President Harry S Truman. Matt Walsh ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/mrmattwalsh⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Timothy Simons ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/timothycsimons⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Auden Thornton https://instagram.com/audiethorn Second In Command ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/secondincommandpodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email questions to: ⁠secondincommandatc@gmail.com For more full length episodes like this, and the entire back catalog of Veep rewatches, go to patreon.com/secondincommand and become a Patron.

Episode Summary:In this episode of Explaining History, Nick talks to cultural historian Alwyn Turner about his latest book, Shellshock Nation: Britain Between the Wars.We often remember the 1930s as W.H. Auden's "low, dishonest decade"—a time of mass unemployment, hunger marches, and the looming shadow of fascism. But was it really all doom and gloom? Alwyn argues that for many in Britain, the interwar years were a period of vibrant creativity, rising living standards, and the birth of modern consumer culture.From the explosion of paperback books and the popularity of greyhound racing to the abdication crisis and the fear of aerial bombardment, we explore the complexities of a society caught between the trauma of the First World War and the terror of the Second. Was the British Union of Fascists really a threat? Why did the public cling to appeasement? And how did a nation that prided itself on being "non-political" navigate the age of extremes?Key Topics:The Devil's Decade: Reassessing the 1930s beyond the Depression.The Abdication Crisis: Why the public accepted the departure of the "Playboy Prince."The Paperback Revolution: How Penguin Books democratized reading.The Shadow of the Bomber: How the fear of air war changed British psychology.Books Mentioned:Shellshock Nation by Alwyn TurnerThe Morbid Age by Richard OveryThe Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes by Jonathan RoseExplaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive ContentBecome a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory▸ Join the Community & Continue the ConversationFacebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcastSubstack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com▸ Read Articles & Go DeeperWebsite: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

"Among those I admire, I find no common denominator. But among those I love, I can; they all make me laugh!" (W.H. Auden)

This episode explores Night Mail (1936) as both a defining work of British documentary cinema and a carefully constructed piece of modernist art. Through close discussion, the podcast examines how the film presents work not as glamorous or heroic, but as essential, collective labour that underpins modern life. It considers the historical context of the GPO Film Unit and John Grierson's vision of documentary as a civic tool, alongside the film's innovative production methods and stylistic choices.The episode pays particular attention to Night Mail's formal design: its rhythmic editing, overtly composed soundscape, and the way image, music, and narration are tightly integrated. Central to this discussion is W. H. Auden's poem, analysed as the film's aesthetic and thematic climax, where industrial process, human connection, and national identity converge.By treating Night Mail as both a social document and a work of art, the podcast asks why the film still matters today—what it reveals about attitudes to labour, infrastructure, and collective responsibility, and what it continues to teach us about the expressive possibilities of documentary filmmaking.The film:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLkvPG-iYHMWhere to buy:Amazon

W.S. Merwin's “For The Anniversary of My Death” is a slim, precise poem — just 13 lines made up of 84 words — about the very weightiest of subjects, one's future death. With it, Merwin has crafted an elegant vessel, a small and sturdy container to hold some of life's big questions, uncertainties, and feelings. Are you ready to gaze at it, grasp it, sit with it? And as you contemplate death, he gently reminds, remain here — where there's rain, birdsong, and life right in front of you.  W.S. Merwin was born in New York City in 1927 and attended Princeton University on a scholarship. He worked as a tutor and freelance translator before publishing his first collection of poetry, A Mask for Janus (1952), which won the Yale Series of Younger Poets award, selected by W.H. Auden. He won the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry twice — for The Carrier of Ladders (1971)  and for The Shadow of Sirius (2008). In 2005, he won the National Book Award for Migration: New and Selected Poems. Merwin also served as a chancellor of the Academy of American Poets and two terms as the U.S. poet laureate, among numerous other awards and honors. He died in 2019 at his home on the island of Maui, Hawaii, at the age of 91.  Find the transcript for this show at onbeing.org. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In today's episode from the Vault, we revisit a 1982 lecture by the composer Lukas Foss, a leader of the American musical avant garde of the 1960s and 70s. In this lecture, a part of the “New American Music Series” of Gallatin Lectures at NYU, Foss discusses the state of American contemporary music, musical minimalism, and his own approach of combining serial elements with spontaneous composition. Foss was born Lukas Fuchs in Berlin, on August 15, 1922, the son of a lawyer and a painter. He began studying piano and music theory when he was 7, and sketched out an opera when he was 11. His family fled to Paris in 1933, and arrived in the U.S. in 1937. He attended the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia, and studied composition with Paul Hindemith at Yale. In 1953, Foss succeeded Arnold Schoenberg as the head of the composition department at the University of California at Los Angeles. In 1962, “Time Cycle,” a four-movement vocal setting of texts by Auden, Housman, Kafka and Nietzsche, premiered with Leonard Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic. From 1971 to 1988 Foss was music director of the Brooklyn Philharmonic. After he left the Brooklyn Philharmonic, in 1990, Foss appeared as a guest conductor and pianist with orchestras around the world. He died in New York City on February 1, 2009. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In today's episode from the Vault, we revisit a 1982 lecture by the composer Lukas Foss, a leader of the American musical avant garde of the 1960s and 70s. In this lecture, a part of the “New American Music Series” of Gallatin Lectures at NYU, Foss discusses the state of American contemporary music, musical minimalism, and his own approach of combining serial elements with spontaneous composition. Foss was born Lukas Fuchs in Berlin, on August 15, 1922, the son of a lawyer and a painter. He began studying piano and music theory when he was 7, and sketched out an opera when he was 11. His family fled to Paris in 1933, and arrived in the U.S. in 1937. He attended the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia, and studied composition with Paul Hindemith at Yale. In 1953, Foss succeeded Arnold Schoenberg as the head of the composition department at the University of California at Los Angeles. In 1962, “Time Cycle,” a four-movement vocal setting of texts by Auden, Housman, Kafka and Nietzsche, premiered with Leonard Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic. From 1971 to 1988 Foss was music director of the Brooklyn Philharmonic. After he left the Brooklyn Philharmonic, in 1990, Foss appeared as a guest conductor and pianist with orchestras around the world. He died in New York City on February 1, 2009. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In today's episode from the Vault, we revisit a 1982 lecture by the composer Lukas Foss, a leader of the American musical avant garde of the 1960s and 70s. In this lecture, a part of the “New American Music Series” of Gallatin Lectures at NYU, Foss discusses the state of American contemporary music, musical minimalism, and his own approach of combining serial elements with spontaneous composition. Foss was born Lukas Fuchs in Berlin, on August 15, 1922, the son of a lawyer and a painter. He began studying piano and music theory when he was 7, and sketched out an opera when he was 11. His family fled to Paris in 1933, and arrived in the U.S. in 1937. He attended the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia, and studied composition with Paul Hindemith at Yale. In 1953, Foss succeeded Arnold Schoenberg as the head of the composition department at the University of California at Los Angeles. In 1962, “Time Cycle,” a four-movement vocal setting of texts by Auden, Housman, Kafka and Nietzsche, premiered with Leonard Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic. From 1971 to 1988 Foss was music director of the Brooklyn Philharmonic. After he left the Brooklyn Philharmonic, in 1990, Foss appeared as a guest conductor and pianist with orchestras around the world. He died in New York City on February 1, 2009. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In today's episode from the Vault, we revisit a 1982 lecture by the composer Lukas Foss, a leader of the American musical avant garde of the 1960s and 70s. In this lecture, a part of the “New American Music Series” of Gallatin Lectures at NYU, Foss discusses the state of American contemporary music, musical minimalism, and his own approach of combining serial elements with spontaneous composition. Foss was born Lukas Fuchs in Berlin, on August 15, 1922, the son of a lawyer and a painter. He began studying piano and music theory when he was 7, and sketched out an opera when he was 11. His family fled to Paris in 1933, and arrived in the U.S. in 1937. He attended the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia, and studied composition with Paul Hindemith at Yale. In 1953, Foss succeeded Arnold Schoenberg as the head of the composition department at the University of California at Los Angeles. In 1962, “Time Cycle,” a four-movement vocal setting of texts by Auden, Housman, Kafka and Nietzsche, premiered with Leonard Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic. From 1971 to 1988 Foss was music director of the Brooklyn Philharmonic. After he left the Brooklyn Philharmonic, in 1990, Foss appeared as a guest conductor and pianist with orchestras around the world. He died in New York City on February 1, 2009. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/music

From the RAF to the Invictus Games: Leadership, Resilience & Reinvention with Vicky Gosling OBE. This powerful episode of the Brave.Bold.Brilliant Podcast, Jeannette Linfoot sits down with Vicky Gosling; former Royal Air Force service member, Invictus Games competitor, and now Chief Strategy Officer at Auden. This is a conversation about far more than career success. Vicky shares her journey through service, challenge, and transformation; and how the lessons forged under pressure now shape her leadership in the boardroom.

It's a New Years movie! "Get Crazy" is a wild and spoofy film that we had never heard of, but it's the perfect way to end the year. This is awesome 80s goodness featuring a young Daniel Stern as he tries to put together a concert to save the Saturn Theatre. It features acts such as Reggie Wanker – a smug British solo rocker, Captain Cloud – leader of a hippie collective, King Blues – writer of many famous Blues tunes, Nada – a new wave/glam rock act, and Auden – a singer/songwriter who looks suspiciously like Lou Reed, and we're covering all of their music and more in our final episode of 2025!

In the final episode of Words That Burn for 2025, we turn our attention to the Winter Solstice, the shortest day of the year, and the American poet who captured its delicate balance of darkness and light: W.S. Merwin.This episode's poem "The Solstice," a work of minimalist verse that explores the intersection of nature, personal vulnerability, and the cyclical nature of time. This episode traces Merwin's evolution from a rigid formalist to an experimental voice for environmental activism. It looks at how the poet was heavily influenced by the Vietnam War and the ecological fragility of his adopted home in Hawaii.As we close out a difficult year marked by global conflict and uncertainty, this episode asks: How do we find hope when the days seem at their darkest? Merwin's work reminds us that even when the sun goes away, it always comes back.Topics Explored:W.S. Merwin's Evolution: From the classical influence of W.H. Auden to the stark, grounded style of The Lice.Ecopoetry & Activism: How the Vietnam War and the destruction of Hawaiian flora (like the ʻōhiʻas and honeycreepers) radicalised Merwin's work.Poetic Analysis: Deconstructing the structure of "The Solstice" and how its shrinking stanzas mimic the dwindling daylight of December 21st.Follow the Podcast:Read the Script on SubstackFollow the Podcast On InstagramFollow the Podcast on X/TwitterFollow the Podcast on TiktokFollow the podcast on BlueskyThe Music In This Week's Episode:'Penumbra' by Scott Buckley - released under CC-BY 4.0. www.scottbuckley.com.au Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On 23 April 1925, T.S. Eliot was officially invited by Geoffrey Faber to join the newly founded publishing house of Faber & Gwyer. It was to prove the most momentous appointment in the history of 20th-century poetry in English. Among Faber & Gwyer's first books was Eliot's Poems 1909-1925, which included ‘The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock', The Waste Land, and ‘The Hollow Men'. As pioneering talent scout for Faber & Gwyer (which would become Faber & Faber in 1928) Eliot launched the careers of such as W.H. Auden, Louis MacNeice, David Jones and Stephen Spender, and oversaw the publication of the work of the poet who had discovered him, Ezra Pound. Exactly a hundred years on, poet and critic Mark Ford, Emeritus Professor of English at Sheffield John Haffenden, former Faber managing director Toby Faber and Senior Lecturer at the University of Brighton Aakanksha Virkar visited the Bookshop to discuss the events leading up to Eliot's appointment, and his early years with the firm that would become virtually synonymous with his name. More from the Bookshop: Discover our author of the month, book of the week and more: ⁠https://lrb.me/bkshppod⁠ From the LRB: Subscribe to the LRB: ⁠⁠⁠https://lrb.me/subsbkshppod Close Readings podcast: ⁠⁠https://lrb.me/crbkshppod LRB Audiobooks: ⁠⁠https://lrb.me/audiobooksbkshppod Bags, binders and more at the LRB Store: ⁠⁠https://lrb.me/storebkshppod Get in touch: podcasts@lrb.co.uk

More from Auden's poem–today the full cast of characters is summoned. Happy reading. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit dailypoempod.substack.com/subscribe

This week's episodes will feature selections from Auden's lengthy “Christmas Oratorio,” in which he claimed to treat of “a religious event which eternally recurs every time it is accepted.” Happy reading. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit dailypoempod.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comGeorge is a journalist and novelist. He was a long-time staff writer at The New Yorker, now a staff writer at The Atlantic. He's the author of 10 books, including The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America — which won the National Book Award — and Our Man: Richard Holbrooke and the End of the American Century. His new novel is called The Emergency. It's a parable of our polarized times — and a deeply unsettling one. We had this conversation the afternoon after I finished the book, and, as you'll see, it really affected me emotionally. For two clips of our convo — on the clarity of Orwell's writing, and the savior complex of the woke — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: raised by two Stanford professors; his dad accused of fascism by his leftist students and red-baited by the right; his dad's stroke and subsequent suicide at a young age; George's time in the Peace Corps; how Orwell's Homage to Catalonia “saved me”; entering journalism at 40; reporting in Iraq; Orwell's contempt for elites; Auden and Spender; the ideologies of intellectuals; the young turning on their elders; the summer of 2020; Camus' La Peste; January 6; Orwell's bigotries; his love for the countryside and common decency; Animal Farm; Nineteen Eighty-Four; Hitchens; utopianism; Nietzsche and slave morality; Fukuyama and boredom; the collapse of religion; intra-elite competition; Mamdani; the Gaza protests; virtue signaling; struggle sessions; mobs on social media; the loss of gatekeepers; the queer takeover of the gay rights movement; the brutality of meritocracy; Nick Fuentes; Trump's multi-racial win; his Cabinet picks as trolling; the utter capitulation of Vance; Haidt and smartphones; and our post-literate democracy.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Shadi Hamid in defense of US interventionism, Simon Rogoff on the narcissism of pols, Arthur Brooks on the science of happiness, Vivek Ramaswamy on the right, and Jason Willick on trade and conservatism. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Send us a textIn celebration of the 100th episode of New Humanists, we do an extended episode that is a retrospective, discussing the history of the Ancient Language Institute and the New Humanists podcast, has some updates on what we're up to at the moment, and a peek behind the curtain so listeners can find out what is upcoming at ALI and on the podcast. We also welcome both Colin Gorrie and Luke Ranieri to the show to discuss Ekho: The Ancient Language Streaming App.Alan Jacobs's The Year of Our Lord 1943:  https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9780190864651Jacques Maritain's Education at the Crossroads: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9781685953423W.H. Auden's Vocation and Society: https://www1.swarthmore.edu/library/auden/documents/vs.pdfC.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9780060652944Simone Weil's The Need for Roots: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9780415271028T.S. Eliot's Notes Towards the Definition of Culture: https://amzn.to/4p5ubVoKenneth Grahame's The Wind in the Willows: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9781402782831Introduction to Latin Poetry: https://ancientlanguage.com/intermediate-latin-ii/Introduction to Ancient Greek Poetry: https://ancientlanguage.com/ancient-greek-intro-poetry/Introduction to Old English Poetry: https://ancientlanguage.com/intermediate-old-english-ii/Colin Gorrie's Ōsweald Bera: An Introduction to Old English: https://ancientlanguage.com/vergil-press/osweald-bera/Learn Old English at ALI: https://ancientlanguage.com/register-for-old-english/Learn Old Norse (through Old English) with ALI: https://ancientlanguage.com/old-norse-through-old-english/Laura Spinney's Proto: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9781639732586Colin Gorrie's interview of Laura Spinney: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nVIV-qaHHYLuke Ranieri's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/LukeRanieriThe Ranieri-Roberts Approach to Ancient Greek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vwb1wVzPecApuleius' The Golden Ass: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9780253200365Xenophon's An Ephesian Tale: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9781514295557Benjamin Kantor's The Pronunciation of New Testament Greek: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9780802878311Lucian's Assembly of the Gods: https://amzn.to/4peTcxBNew Humanists is brought to you by the Ancient Language Institute: https://ancientlanguage.com/Links may have referral codes, which earn us a commission at no additional cost to you. We encourage you, when possible, to use Bookshop.org for your book purchases, an online bookstore which supports local bookstores.Music: Save Us Now by Shane Ivers - https://www.silvermansound.com

Katherine Mansfield's writing, said Virginia Woolf, "was the only writing I was ever jealous of." In this episode, Jacke talks to author Gerri Kimber about Katherine Mansfield: A Hidden Life, which explores the life and work of one of literary modernism's most significant writers. PLUS Jacke takes a look at the unusual friendship between poet W.H. Auden and the sex worker whom he hired, was robbed by, and befriended. And Kenneth Sacks (Emerson's Civil Wars: Spirit and Society in the Age of Abolition) stops by to discuss his choice for the last book he will ever read. Join Jacke on a trip through literary England (signup closing soon)! The History of Literature Podcast Tour is happening in May 2026! Act now to join Jacke and fellow literature fans on an eight-day journey through literary England in partnership with ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠John Shors Travel⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Scheduled stops include The Charles Dickens Museum, Dr. Johnson's house, Jane Austen's Bath, Tolkien's Oxford, Shakespeare's Globe Theater, and more. Find out more by emailing jackewilsonauthor@gmail.com or masahiko@johnshorstravel.com, or by contacting us through our website ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠historyofliterature.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Or visit the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠History of Literature Podcast Tour itinerary⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠John Shors Travel⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. The music in this episode is by Gabriel Ruiz-Bernal. Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠gabrielruizbernal.com⁠⁠⁠⁠. Help support the show at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/literature ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠historyofliterature.com/donate ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. The History of Literature Podcast is a member of Lit Hub Radio and the Podglomerate Network. Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠thepodglomerate.com/historyofliterature⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Looking at the poetry of W. H. Auden and the writing of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and attempting to form a relationship between the two. We'll be talking about how we can support efforts for liberation on the terms of the people who are working to be liberated. We'll also take a look at some classical works of art and wondering what clues they can offer us about working for more love and justice in our world.

Ian McMillan enjoys the language of the iconic 'Night Mail' poem by W.H. Auden, invites us into signal boxes, imagines train station bars, and evokes the empty platforms that inspire songs - as he celebrates 200 years of railway inspired poetry with his guests Don Paterson, Carmen Marcus, Bella Hardy and Patrick McGuinness.Don Paterson is a poet and musician. He's the editor of an anthology of train poems called 'Train Songs' (with Sean O'Brien) and described the chapters of his memoir 'Toy Fights' as 'train windows'. The Verb has commissioned Don to write a poem about a station that seems to him particularly unpoetic..Carmen Marcus is a graduate of the 'Verb New Voices' writing scheme. She is a novelist and poet, and for the anniversary of the passenger railway she has been talking to passengers on the Stockton & Darlington line and writing train inspired poems. Carmen brings railway trolls and brand new words for the excitement of train travel to the Verb studio.Patrick McGuinness is British-Belgian writer and poet. He teaches French and Comparative Literature at Oxford. His latest book is a series of essays called 'Ghost Stations' - he explains why the idea of the 'ghost station' has been such a powerful 'engine' for his writing.Bella Hardy is a lover of ballads, a BBC Folk Singer of the Year, and a songwriter. The Verb has asked her to respond to one of the greatest train platform inspired songs of all time - Paul Simon's 'Homeward Bound' . Bella performs a brand new song that celebrates the way waiting for a train can lead artists to come up with some of their best work.You'll also hear the acoustics of a real signal box - part of a soundscape produced by Sheffield folk and electronics duo Polyhymns.Produced by Faith Lawrence ​

你听到的是跳岛「读懂金钱」付费系列节目的第二期试听片段，「读懂金钱」付费专题目前只在小宇宙app和网易云音乐上线。如果你对我们的内容感兴趣，欢迎你在这两个平台付费支持我们！ 19世纪的英国，一个新的概念悄然兴起——“经济学人”，也就是以完全追求物质利益为目的而进行经济活动的人。这一永远理性、终极利己的形象，很快成为了庞大经济理论中的基础假设。 很少有人提到的是，几乎与此同时，同样是在英国，现代小说也从上天入地、刀山火海的骑士传奇中分化出来，坠入账单、婚嫁、租房、还贷的现实世界。 这是巧合吗？浪漫故事中的纯爱少女们怎么就成为要面包不要爱情的经济主体了？本期节目，美国布朗大学比较文学博士、英国文学研究者肖一之将从《鲁滨逊漂流记》《傲慢与偏见》《名利场》等经典作品入手，解析“经济学人”如何登上历史舞台，如何演变，又如何反映出我们所处时代的困境。 当理性计算逐渐成为时代主流，小说家们发现自己越来越难以构想替代性的叙事。或许，重温这些故事，也是在提醒我们思考一个难以回避的问题：在一个拜金的世界里，除了成为经济学人，我们还有别的活法吗？ 【本期主播】 肖一之 译者、文学研究者，上海外国语大学英语学院讲师，美国布朗大学比较文学博士。 主要研究19世纪与20世纪早期英国文学、比较文学、全球思想史、文学与科学。译有英国作家福特·马多克斯·福特著“队列之末”四部曲后两部、美国作家 E.B.怀特散文集《论希望》、英国作家马丁·艾米斯短篇小说集《爱因斯坦的怪兽》等作品。 【时间轴】 02:00 罗曼史 vs 小说：从浪漫骑士传奇到账单、进货、租房子 08:09 小说是堕落世界的圣歌，被上帝抛弃的世界的史诗 10:00 理性？算计？利己？到底什么是经济学人？ 16:00 《鲁滨逊漂流记》：真不好意思承认，被困荒岛后还是想搞钱 22:00 《傲慢与偏见》：闺蜜嫁给了被我拒绝的相亲丑男？ 37:50 《名利场》：怎样一毛钱不花，过上一年好日子？ 50:00 《米德尔马契》：如果能继承一大笔遗产，谁还想努力呢？ 63:00 《我们共同的朋友》：当英国霸道总裁冒充保镖爱上做保洁的我 75:42 19世纪纯爱战士狄更斯的高呼：光有理性是没用的，真爱拯救世界！ 78:20 《新寒士街》：不把文化理想当生意，还能活下去吗？ 91:00 《霍华德庄园》：站在金钱之岛，双脚才能不被生活的海浪拖走 104:44 来自弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫的辩白：为什么要想谈文学反而更应该谈钱？ 【节目中提到的人名和作品】 人物 拜伦（Lord Byron）：英国浪漫主义诗人、革命家，代表作《唐璜》。 安妮·伊莎贝拉·米尔班克（Anne Isabella Milbanke）：英国教育改革家和慈善家，诗人拜伦之妻，人称拜伦夫人。 埃达·洛夫莱斯（Ada Lovelace）：英国数学家，作家，诗人拜伦的唯一婚生子女。她是第一位主张计算机不只可以用来算数的人，也发表了第一段分析机用的算法，被公认为世界上第一位程序员。 简·奥斯丁（Jane Austen）：英国现实主义小说家，以《傲慢与偏见》《理智与情感》闻名，描绘女性在金钱与爱情之间的理性抉择。 格奥尔格·卢卡奇（György Lukács）：匈牙利马克思主义哲学家和文学理论家，代表作《历史与阶级意识》《小说理论》，提出“小说是被上帝抛弃的世界的史诗”。 黑格尔（G. W. F. Hegel）：德国哲学家，提出“世界的散文”概念，强调现代生活的矛盾与复杂性。 约翰·斯图亚特·密尔（John Stuart Mill）：英国哲学家、经济学家，代表作《论自由》《政治经济学原理》，提出“经济学人”（economic man/homo economicus）概念。 莱昂内尔·罗宾斯（Lionel Charles Robbins）：英国经济学家，罗宾斯对确定经济学的意义方面产生重要影响，他认为“经济学是一门研究人类在有限的资源情况下作出选择的科学”。 玛丽·普维（Mary Poovey）：美国文化史学家与文学评论家，代表作《小说作为想象秩序》，研究女性写作的发展、小说与经济学的历史交织，提出小说与现代市场经济的兴起有密不可分的关系。 丹尼尔·笛福（Daniel Defoe）：英国作家，代表作《鲁滨逊漂流记》，被视为现代小说的奠基人。 W.H.奥登（W.H. Auden）：英国诗人，凭长诗《焦虑的年代》获得普利策诗歌奖，被认为是20世纪最重要的诗人之一。写过《致拜伦爵士的信》，称奥斯丁“比乔伊斯更令人震惊”。 詹姆斯·乔伊斯（James Joyce）：爱尔兰诗人、小说家，著有《都柏林人》《尤利西斯》《芬尼根的守灵夜》，以意识流写作著称。 威廉·梅克比斯·萨克雷（W. M. Thackeray）：英国讽刺小说家，著有《名利场》，其标题灵感来源于约翰·班扬的《天路历程》中描写的“浮华集市”（Vanity Fair）。 约翰·班杨（John Bunyan）：英国基督教作家、布道家，其著作《天路历程》是最著名的基督教寓言文学。 乔治·艾略特（George Eliot，本名Mary Ann Evans）：英国小说家，著有《米德尔马契》，擅写理性与道德的冲突。 查尔斯·狄更斯（Charles Dickens）：英国维多利亚时期最具影响力的小说家，代表作《雾都孤儿》《双城记》《远大前程》等。《我们共同的朋友》是其晚期代表作。 乔治·吉辛（George Gissing）：英国小说家，著有《新寒士街》，描绘知识分子在资本社会的困境。 塞缪尔·约翰逊（Samuel Johnson）：英国诗人、剧作家、散文家、评论家、伦理学家、布道者、传记作家与辞典编撰家，花九年时间独力编出的《约翰逊字典》，为他赢得了“博士”头衔。 巴尔扎克（Honoré de Balzac）：法国小说家、剧作家、评论家与记者，欧洲现实主义文学奠基人。 E·M·福斯特（Edward Morgan Forster）：英国小说家、散文家，著有《霍华德庄园》《看得见风景的房间》等。 书籍 《堂吉诃德》《傲慢与偏见》《政治经济学原理》《鲁滨逊漂流记》《名利场》《米德尔马契》《我们共同的朋友》《新寒士街》《天路历程》《致拜伦爵士的一封信》《尤利西斯》《霍华德庄园》 音乐 《谈钞票伤感情 谈感情又伤钞票又伤感情》（顶楼的马戏团，2013） 出品方 | 中信书店 出品人｜李楠 策划人｜蔡欣 制作人 | 何润哲 广岛乱 运营编辑 | 黄鱼 运营支持｜李坪芳 设计｜王尊一 后期剪辑 | 崔崔 公众号：跳岛FM Talking Literature 跳到更多：即刻|微博|豆瓣|小红书

When poets elegise other poets, the results are often more about self-scrutiny and analysis of the nature of poetry than about grief. Matthew Arnold commented on his elegy for Arthur Hugh Clough, ‘Thyrsis' (1865), that ‘one has the feeling that not enough is said about Clough in it.' In his elegy for W.B. Yeats (1939), Auden insists that ‘poetry makes nothing happen'. Both poems resist idealisation of their subject and use the elegy's pastoral tradition as a way of distancing themselves from the poetic sensibility of their subject. In this episode, Seamus and Mark discuss the ways in which Arnold and Auden's visions of what a poet should be aren't so far apart, and finish with a look at James Schuyler's similarly unromantic elegy for Auden, in which he finds ‘so little to say'. Non-subscribers will only hear an extract from this episode. To listen to the full episode, and to all our other Close Readings series, subscribe: Directly in Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://lrb.me/applecrld⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ In other podcast apps: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://lrb.me/closereadingsld⁠⁠ Arnold's 'Thyrsis': ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://lrb.me/ldep11thyrsis⁠⁠⁠⁠ Auden's 'In Memory of W.B. Yeats': ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://lrb.me/ldep11yeats⁠⁠⁠⁠ More in the LRB: Seamus Perry on Auden: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://lrb.me/ldep11auden⁠⁠⁠⁠ Stefan Collini on Arnold: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://lrb.me/ldep11arnold⁠

W.H. Auden clip https://youtu.be/oWtVYYoJFl4?si=MkPur0C6uJFKddz0

Jane Austen had six brothers, but her older brother Henry was her favorite. Kind and witty, Henry has long been appreciated by Austen fans for his devotion to Jane and his championing of her novels. But Henry was a fascinating figure in his own right, capering through risky financial schemes and marrying an enigmatic French countess before ending his days as a hard-working curate. Highly successful at times and nearly bankrupt at others, Henry's colorful and turbulent life helps us better understand Jane's life and works. In this episode, Jacke talks to author Christopher Herbert about his new book, Jane Austen's Favourite Brother, Henry, which tells the illuminating and inspiring story of a special sibling relationship. PLUS Jacke shares a letter from a 22-year-old Australian reading his way through Europe. AND author Nicholas Jenkins (The Island: War and Belonging in Auden's England) discusses his choice for the last book he will ever read. Join Jacke on a trip through literary England (signup open through the end of September)! The History of Literature Podcast Tour is happening in May 2026! Act now to join Jacke and fellow literature fans on an eight-day journey through literary England in partnership with ⁠⁠⁠John Shors Travel⁠⁠⁠. Scheduled stops include The Charles Dickens Museum, Dr. Johnson's house, Jane Austen's Bath, Tolkien's Oxford, Shakespeare's Globe Theater, and more. Find out more by emailing jackewilsonauthor@gmail.com or masahiko@johnshorstravel.com, or by contacting us through our website ⁠⁠⁠historyofliterature.com⁠⁠⁠. Or visit the ⁠⁠⁠History of Literature Podcast Tour itinerary⁠⁠⁠ at ⁠⁠⁠John Shors Travel⁠⁠⁠. The music in this episode is by Gabriel Ruiz-Bernal. Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠gabrielruizbernal.com⁠⁠. Help support the show at ⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/literature ⁠⁠⁠or ⁠⁠⁠historyofliterature.com/donate ⁠⁠⁠. The History of Literature Podcast is a member of Lit Hub Radio and the Podglomerate Network. Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠thepodglomerate.com/historyofliterature⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Looking at the poetry of W. H. Auden and the writing of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and attempting to form a relationship between the two. We'll be talking about how we can support efforts for liberation on the terms of the people who are working to be liberated. We'll also take a look at some classical works of art and wondering what clues they can offer us about working for more love and justice in our world.

The queens summon lines designed to stop readers in their tracks. Please Support Breaking Form!Review the show on Apple Podcasts here.Aaron's STOP LYING is available from the Pitt Poetry Series.James's ROMANTIC COMEDY is available from Four Way Books.SHOW NOTES:Sharon Olds says that early in her poetic career, when she'd send out her poems, "[t]hey came back often with very angry notes." Receipt here.  W.H. Auden's "Funeral Blues", or "Stop all the clocks" appeared in his book Another Time. The poem experienced renewed popularity after being read in the film Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994). "Funeral Blues" has since been cited as one of the most popular modern poems in the United Kingdom. Watch the poem read in the movie here. Auden's "First Things First" appeared in The New Yorker in 1957. Hear Auden read the poem here. Watch the incredible Michael Sheen read Auden's "September 1, 1939" here. Receipts about Auden's struggle with the end are here. Read Gwendolyn Brooks's "The Mother" and listen here to Diane Seuss talk about this poem with us on Breaking Form. Read Robert Lowell's "Skunk Hour" or listen to him read it here. (It'll be a memorable experience!)The poem we reference of Lynda Hull's is "Chiffon" which opens her book The Only World (HarperCollins 1995).Read Robinson Jeffers's "Birds and Fishes"Here's Frost's "Birches"Aaron Smith's poem is "Jennifer Lawrence" can be read here.Mark Doty's poem "Visitation" first appeared in The Paris Review. Aiden Shaw appeared in Roll in the Hay, but did not grace the sets of Big River.

On this episode of Where's Your Head At, we are interviewing narcissist abuse educator Claire Auden. This is a topic our audience has asked about for a long time and is an important conversation to have. We dive deep into the complex psychology of narcissistic abuse, what narcissistic personality disorder really means and common myths about narcissists. Thank you Claire for coming on and sharing your experience and knowledge, for more you can see her website below: https://claireauden.com/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Liturgy Amongst the Rubble. In this episode, we read poems by W.H. Auden about pulp fiction, ancient myths, conversion, liturgy, poetics, and how industrialization and corporatism build a new Babel inside and around the churches. SHOW NOTES:  WH. Auden Bio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._H._Auden The Orators (1932) https://archive.org/details/oratorsenglishst0000aude/page/20/mode/2up Horae Canonicae (1955) https://vladivostok.com/speaking_in_tongues/auden9eng.htm Merlin's Isle by Guite https://www.rabbitroom.com/post/announcing-merlin-s-isle-an-arthuriad-by-malcolm-guite   More from 1517: Support 1517 Podcast Network: https://www.1517.org/donate-podcasts 1517 Podcasts: http://www.1517.org/podcasts 1517 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@1517org 1517 Podcast Network on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/channel/1517-podcast-network/id6442751370 1517 Events Schedule: https://www.1517.org/events 1517 Academy - Free Theological Education: https://academy.1517.org/   What's New from 1517: Sinner Saint by By Luke Kjolhaug: https://shop.1517.org/products/9781964419152-sinner-saint The Impossible Prize: A Theology of Addiction by Donavan Riley: https://shop.1517.org/products/9781962654708-the-impossible-prize Ditching the Checklist by Mark Mattes: https://shop.1517.org/products/9781962654791-ditching-the-checklist Broken Bonds: A Novel of the Reformation, Book 1 of 2 by Amy Mantravadi: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1962654753?ref_=cm_sw_r_cp_ud_dp_FCNEEK60MVNVPCEGKBD8_5&starsLeft=1    More from the hosts: Donovan Riley https://www.1517.org/contributors/donavon-riley  Christopher Gillespie https://www.1517.org/contributors/christopher-gillespie   MORE LINKS: Tin Foil Haloes https://t.me/bannedpastors Warrior Priest Gym & Podcast https://thewarriorpriestpodcast.wordpress.com   St John's Lutheran Church (Webster, MN) - FB Live Bible Study Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/356667039608511  Donavon's Substack https://donavonlriley.substack.com Gillespie's Substack https://substack.com/@christophergillespie  Gillespie's Sermons and Catechesis http://youtube.com/stjohnrandomlake  Gillespie Coffee https://gillespie.coffee   Gillespie Media https://gillespie.media     CONTACT and FOLLOW: Email mailto:BannedBooks@1517.org  Facebook https://www.facebook.com/BannedBooksPod/  Twitter https://twitter.com/bannedbooks1517   SUBSCRIBE: YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@BannedBooks Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1223313  Odysee https://odysee.com/@bannedbooks:5 Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/banned-books/id1370993639  Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/2ahA20sZMpBxg9vgiRVQba  Overcast https://overcast.fm/itunes1370993639/banned-books 

Kate Wolf speaks with Nathan Kernan about his new biography, A Day Like Any Other: The Life of James Schuyler. It's an intimate look at the great poet who was born in 1923 and would become one of the original members of the so-called New York School along with John Ashbery, Frank O'Hara, Kenneth Koch and Barbra Guest. With the restraint, precision and wry humor of one of Schuyler's own poems, Kernan's biography delves into Schuyler's tumultuous upbringing in the midwest and Washington DC, his early years in 1940s New York City where he became close with and worked as the secretary to the poet W.H. Auden, his fateful meeting of Ashbery and O'Hara, which led to the composition of his first poems, and his many struggles with mental illness.  A winner of the Pulitzer Prize in 1981 for his collection, The Morning of the Poem, Schuyler's decades of instability began to ease only by his later years, but the lucid observation and “inspired utterance” of his work remained a constant throughout his life. 

Cassandra Nelson, author of "A Theology of Fiction," joins me to discuss the importance of pursuing Godly truths in a secular culture, as well as the need to provide wisdom through literature. - - -  Today's Sponsor: ExpressVPN - Get 4 months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/klavan