Short answer is 'yes'. If you look at the private correspondence of the times that have been published, there is a great deal of overt affection and endearments between men.

Northanger Abbey was actually one of Austen's first completed novels, and she submitted it in 1803. [By contrast, Sense & Sensibility came out in 1813] However the publisher held on to it for about a decade, until Austen's brother bought it back in about 1816. Austen then spent some time revising it. Cathy's name was originally Susan, for one. How dedicated she was to revising it isn't really known [at least not to me]. She was already ill, and she died about a year or so after her brother got it back for her. He had NA and Persuasion published posthumously as a set.

I love Northanger Abbey, but I understand what you mean. I suspect it was just the growing pains of Austen working out how she wanted her novels to be, and then she wasn't able to spend enough time revising it when she had the chance.

I think the take that their relationships were vastly different due to power structures is a bit lacking in nuance. I don’t mean to come off as a jerk with what I’m about to say, but this is important to me so please give what I’m saying a fair shake.

If we live in a post scarcity world a thousand years from now, the people of the future could just as easily say “they lived in a society of unequal access, love as we know it wasn’t possible for them.” I also think the idea that homosexual activity always took place within a power structure is, for one inaccurate, but is also a concession that keeps men from having to look too closely at their own sexuality. It keeps sex in a viewpoint of the receptive partner being somehow lower than the penetrating partner. It’s hard for modern men to reconcile how much homosexual activity there was compared to our modern world, it’s easier if we think it was mainly the context of it being forced on someone of a socially lower position. In modern American society there still seem to be a lot of people who believe you aren’t “really gay” unless you are the receptive partner, and I think this view of Greek/ Roman same sex relationships is easier for people to come around to.

We also have a ton of examples of men of the same social station having sex with each other, the Spartans would be fucking their bunk mates for years before they were married. I think the interpretation is backwards, it’s more that marriage wasn’t an institution of love. It could be seen as dismissing same sex relationships because there was no equivalent institution for same sex couples. But, it also wasn’t considered adultery to have sex with another man of your station or lower, or to have sex with a prostitute. Because the marriage wasn’t necessarily for that, it was to build connections and influence while continuing your family line. You weren’t seen as threatening that institution (as a man) as long as the people you were banging couldn’t legally be your wife anyway. There were certainly marriages where the participants started in love, or fell into love, just as in the case with arranged marriages today. But love can blossom in many different types of relationships. Take modern day relationships between men in the military. People might get in to them for simple release of tension, for companionship and safety, for camaraderie, or for love. But that’s also true of who ever you might meet at the bar, or even who you might marry. So I do imagine there were relationships between men that looked pretty recognizable to modern homosexual relationships. The past is a foreign country, but people are the same all over.

Beyond that, Greece was an extremely small part of the ancient world. Many cultures accepted homosexuality, and it’s created this strange incongruence in there modern culture and their mythology. Cultures started to really fall in lock step about it a thousand years ago, but pretty much everywhere it’s fluctuated between “put them to death!” And “uncle Steve and Kevin are just roommates.” Several times since that point, and we are only starting to see real acceptance again in the last forty or so. I think industrialization really solidified homophobic attitudes and laws, and the women’s liberation movement have room for people to pushback, but that’s a whole other comment.

thank you!!

Right now it's on Prime, "free with ads on Freevee." The ads are more frequent and longer than I'd like but oh well.

Northanger Abbey was the first novel Austen wrote after her Juvenalia, so it played with what being a novel even means (hence the lack of info about Eleanor's hubby) She also tended to skip over the marriage portion of her marriage plots and ended on the engagement with a quick aside about the wedding (iirc, the only divergence from this is with Mansfield Park where, instead of just stating that the marriage happened, Fanny also was pregnant)

If it was serialized, that might by why. Maybe she got canceled before she was ready to wrap up?

If I remember correctly, NA was one of Austen’s earlier novels, so it could in part be due to her still growing into her style and her craft, which probably includes knowing how to satisfactorily wrap everything up.

There’s also the possibility (though this is 100% a guess and I can’t say for sure) that the types of novels NA was both emulating and poking some fun at (the sort of exaggerated gothic romance type novels Catherine was so fond of reading) have equally abrupt “and they lived happily ever after” endings, so it was all part of her matching that style? But like I said, that’s 100% a guess on my part.

[deleted]

It's a good one, I don't think we have to like the character in order to enjoy the book. It's actually boring for me when main character is always a good guy and all those typical things.

Yes, but greek wasn't the only ancient civilization, there were others, and there same sex relationships were a lot more equal, then power based. You also ignore the men and women that hid their same sex relationships.

For me, book quitting is almost cathartic once the decision is made, because up until then, I have weird anxiety that results in me questioning myself & it feels like a bigger decision than it actually is? I think it’s sort of a book FOMO & not wanting to miss out on something special just because that particular book isn’t resonating with me, so my mind wonders if it’s just not my type of book or if it’s not the right time or something else, idk.

But either way, I’ve found that after so many times of feeling dread abt having to open a book I really I want to like but just don’t, leaning into my gut impulse & removing it from my sight (digital & physical) comes with resistance but quickly feels empowering in some ways once I commit to the decision!

May or may not see that book again but I’ll quit caring abt it & will be happier for it. Sometimes saying fuck it and moving on is a gift in itself

>so why should you blame gay people for why straight men can't hug each other?

It's literally not blaming gay people.

The first thing you’ll probably want to know is all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don’t feel like going into it.

Yes, humans are extremely easy to manipulate, and brainwash.

I love the surreal passages of Gravity’s Rainbow and Ulysses and how the language just washes over you. It’s especially wonderful if the book is read out loud. But I love the more straightforward parts too, the literary and historical allusions, the sly comments. I know I can always pick up these books again, any time, and find something new to think about.

Guess that makes me a feel a little better about it, lol.

I rarely read reviews, but there are a lot of books that others love and they just don't work for me at this point in my life. There are books I read when I was younger that are a slog to reread. A book can be a masterpiece, but not right for you right now. I have DNF'd books a few pages in, I've DNF'd books nearly to the end and everywhere in between. I recently gave up on a series after book 4, which was nearly 4000 pages.

My reason for reading is to enjoy some time getting a glimpse into a world different than my own. Sometimes I'm in the mood to read books that are filled with a lot of characters and unfamiliar worlds and sometimes I want something that is more familiar and less complicated. The 2 things I don't want are to be bored or annoyed, and most times I don't want to be stressed.

Sometimes if I'm reading a book I feel like I "should" finish, I'll do what I like to call a slow read. It becomes a secondary book, I'll read a few pages a few times a week and it may take me months to finish it. I'll read other books at my normal pace for the rest of my reading time.

When I was doing the genre of the month challenge and my own genre challenge I had an expectation of exploration. I wasn't expecting to find great books but was reading to see what other types of stories were out in the world and how to understand how to decipher book descriptions. I will say I read some crap books early in the year and became more selective as time went on. I did decide to DNF a few books about 1/2 way through the year, I feel I'd moved far enough outside of my comfort zone and I didn't need to torture myself.

I love goals and joining challenges, but I also reserve the right to change them when they stop working for me.

No, you're putting thoughts & opinions in my head/mouth.

Your description makes me think of Night of the Living Rez by Morgan Talty!

This isn't about how easy something is to read or not read. It's about the themes talked about. Some people simply don't enjoy those dark themes in the books they read, they enjoy adventures that are "black and white" in the sense that the risks are life and death or something less severe. They may just not like the problematic topics you mentioned in your original comment.

These aren't real stickers. What is being discussed is literally printed onto the book in the shape of a sticker.

I liked the first one, second one was ok, everything after that was trash

Got a friend who’s willing to pop up near the end of services as the Great Prophet Zarquon?

“Er... Hello. Er, look, I'm sorry I'm a bit late. I've had the most ghastly time, all sorts of things cropping up at the last moment... Er, how are we for time? Have I got just a min...”

Aaaaaaand that’s it. Go in peace. Hail and farewell to your dad.

The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula Le Guin. There's a lot more going on, but we do get to see it from two different perspectives.