Arts

Books

Fashion & Beauty

Performing Arts

Food

Visual Arts

Design

Business

Entrepreneurship

Investing

Marketing

Careers

Management

Non-Profit

Comedy

Stand-Up

Comedy Interviews

Improv

Education

Self-Improvement

How To

Courses

Language Learning

Fiction

Comedy Fiction

Drama

Science Fiction

Government

Health & Fitness

Medicine

Alternative Health

Nutrition

Mental Health

Fitness

Sexuality

History

Kids & Family

Parenting

Stories for Kids

Education for Kids

Pets & Animals

Leisure

Video Games

Games

Automotive

Animation & Manga

Hobbies

Aviation

Home & Garden

Crafts

Music

Music Commentary

Music Interviews

Music History

News

Sports News

Entertainment News

News Commentary

Politics

Daily News

Business News

Tech News

Religion & Spirituality

Christianity

Spirituality

Religion

Judaism

Islam

Buddhism

Hinduism

Science

Social Sciences

Life Sciences

Natural Sciences

Nature

Chemistry

Mathematics

Earth Sciences

Physics

Astronomy

Society & Culture

Documentary

Relationships

Philosophy

Personal Journals

Places & Travel

Sports

Golf

Soccer

Wrestling

Basketball

Football

Fantasy Sports

Baseball

Wilderness

Running

Hockey

Rugby

Cricket

Volleyball

Tennis

Swimming

Technology

True Crime

TV & Film

Film Interviews

TV Reviews

After Shows

Film Reviews

Film History

Kuch kehna hai, kuch sunana hai..
Milenge aapse, har episode me, ek nae khayal k sath!

Kuch kehna hai, kuch sunana hai.. Milenge aapse, har episode me, ek nae khayal k sath!

Apni Si Shayari

Avec affection, Ferufada vous présente un recueil de fictions-audios. Des contes, des mensonges, des blagounettes, des chansons, des histoires… Le tout accompagné d'un piano et de quelques bruits.

De la fiction à la diction

Mummolassa piipahdetaan vain vartin verran, mutta siinäkin ajassa ehtii kuunnella mukavaa musiikkia ja kyseenalaisia kannanottoja. Pääsemme seuraamaan myös Mummolan Keskusradioteatterin esittämää kuunnelmasarjaa Elsa ja Hilma, joka kertoo palvelustalossa asustavien ystävysten arjen seikkailuista. 
Rouvien touhuja siivittää rehevä Etelä-Karjalan murre ja juonenkäänteissä ei tingitä.
Kuunnelmasarjan henkilöhahmot ovat kuvitteellisia ja tarinoiden tapahtumilla ei ole minkäänlaista yhteyttä todellisiin henkilöihin, paikkoihin tai tapahtumiin.

Mummolassa piipahdetaan vain vartin verran, mutta siinäkin ajassa ehtii kuunnella mukavaa musiikkia ja kyseenalaisia kannanottoja. Pääsemme seuraamaan myös Mummolan Keskusradioteatterin esittämää kuunnelmasarjaa Elsa ja Hilma, joka kertoo palvelustalossa asustavien ystävysten arjen seikkailuista. Rouvien touhuja siivittää rehevä Etelä-Karjalan murre ja juonenkäänteissä ei tingitä. Kuunnelmasarjan henkilöhahmot ovat kuvitteellisia ja tarinoiden tapahtumilla ei ole minkäänlaista yhteyttä todellisiin henkilöihin, paikkoihin tai tapahtumiin.

Mummola

I didn't ask for them. You didn't ask for them. Except for when you do. These are my unsolicited forts. <hr> Hosted on Acast. See <a style='color:grey;' target='_blank' rel='noopener noreferrer' href='https://acast.com/privacy'>acast.com/privacy</a> for more information.

I didn't ask for them. You didn't ask for them. Except for when you do. These are my unsolicited forts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I didn't ask for them. You didn't ask for them. Except for when you do. These are my unsolicited forts. Hosted on Acast. See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer">acast.com/privacy</a> for more information.

Unsolicited Forts

Cal is the intern for the Apocalypse. 
He just doesn't know it yet.
Welcome to the End of the World.

Cal is the intern for the Apocalypse. He just doesn't know it yet. Welcome to the End of the World.

Intern(al) Apocalypse

Un podcast sobre cosas frikis de la cultura pop

DeFicciones

En este podcast encontraras cuentos de mi autoría del género terror/suspenso/ficción.
Todos los relatos los narro yo y pertenecen al mundo de mis pesadillas, espero que te gusten. 


In: @_fernandoriveros
fb: /riosdefloresx
TikTok: @riosdeflores
Gmail: fernando856117@gmail.com

En este podcast encontraras cuentos de mi autoría del género terror/suspenso/ficción. Todos los relatos los narro yo y pertenecen al mundo de mis pesadillas, espero que te gusten. In: @_fernandoriveros fb: /riosdefloresx TikTok: @riosdeflores Gmail: fernando856117@gmail.com

Pesadillas de un soñador

Kumpulan suara isi hati yang pengen jujur Support this podcast: <a href="https://anchor.fm/podcast-sushi/support" rel="payment">https://anchor.fm/podcast-sushi/support</a>

Kumpulan suara isi hati yang pengen jujur Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/podcast-sushi/support

Kumpulan suara isi hati yang pengen jujur Support this podcast: <a href="https://anchor.fm/podcast-sushi/support" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://anchor.fm/podcast-sushi/support</a>

Podcast suara isi hati

Bei "Kompendium" ist der Name Programm. Nicht nur kannst Du als Hörer:in Teil einer der hier veröffentlichten Spielrunden werden, sondern auch Tipps & Tricks für unser liebstes Hobby einreichen. Diese stelle ich liebend gerne vor und spreche mit Dir darüber. Neben Vorschlägen für Deine Spielrunden zu Hause (oder online) stelle ich auch Material sowie Hilfsmittel vor und spreche über Neuerscheinungen zu Systemen die mich interessieren. Ich freue mich auf den Austausch mit Dir!

Bei "Kompendium" ist der Name Programm. Nicht nur kannst Du als Hörer:in Teil einer der hier veröffentlichten Spielrunden werden, sondern auch Tipps &amp; Tricks für unser liebstes Hobby einreichen. Diese stelle ich liebend gerne vor und spreche mit Dir darüber. Neben Vorschlägen für Deine Spielrunden zu Hause (oder online) stelle ich auch Material sowie Hilfsmittel vor und spreche über Neuerscheinungen zu Systemen die mich interessieren. Ich freue mich auf den Austausch mit Dir!

Kompendium - der Rollenspielpodcast

劳动力发展局WSG与96.3好FM联合呈献：广播剧《蜕变》。 每一次痛苦都是蜕变，每一次蜕变都是成长。 疫情改变了我们，我们必须蜕变去改变世界。

劳动力发展局WSG与96.3好FM联合呈献：广播剧《蜕变》。 每一次痛苦都是蜕变，每一次蜕变都是成长。 疫情改变了我们，我们必须蜕变去改变世界。

广播剧【蜕变】

In as much as the world is not static, I’m beholden to bring a misinformed space into an informed ideal space,a globalized one where collectively we can engage ourselves with ideas expertise and creativity for sustainable growths .

MYPOINT PODCAST ❤️

Stati Uniti, 1969. Una serie di eventi storici senza precedenti cambia per sempre il corso della storia: l'elezione di Nixon, il Vietnam e la Cambogia, i moti di Stonewall, il massacro di Cielo Drive, la conquista della luna, Woodstock... Intanto, in California, un uomo lascia una scia di sangue e di terrore, sfidando media e autorità, creando il mito del serial killer e firmandosi con il simbolo dello Zodiaco...

The Killing Days: il killer dello zodiaco

La adicción a los K-Dramas no es algo que queremos curar en este podcast, mas bien motivarte a entrar a ese mundo. Entonces agarra un poco de ramen y soju, y escucha a tus nuevas unnies (amigas) favoritas, tal vez un poco borrachas. ¡Únete a la diversión!

Soju Over Flowers

La Banda Que Salta es un Troupe de Payasos Profesionales de inspiración Bahá'í.
Diversión para los niños y los no tan niños, que el sábado inicie alegre con “La Banda que salta”

La Banda Que Salta es un Troupe de Payasos Profesionales de inspiración Bahá'í. Diversión para los niños y los no tan niños, que el sábado inicie alegre con “La Banda que salta”

La Banda Que Salta

Irvic D&rsquo;Olivier est preneur de son, r&eacute;alisateur, producteur et formateur pour la radio. Il vit et travaille &agrave; Bruxelles.Depuis 20 ans, il r&eacute;alise/monte/mixe des documentaires et cr&eacute;ations radiophoniques. Seul ou en collaborations.Il a balad&eacute; ses micros dans les nuits bruxelloises (chez Martine), dans la for&ecirc;t amazonienne (Takiwasi) au sommet d&rsquo;un volcan (Stromboli), dans les parcs naturels du Costa Rica (Birdless) et d&rsquo;ailleurs (Des Oiseaux et des Hommes).Ses documentaires et cr&eacute;ations ont &eacute;t&eacute; diffus&eacute;s sur Radio Panik (BE), le Labo (CH), Kunstradio-Radiokunst (AT), La Premi&egrave;re (BE), ArteRadio.com (FR), France Culture (FR), ResonanceFM (UK), Deutschlandradiofunk Kultur (DE) et radia.fm.Int&eacute;ress&eacute; par la transmission, il enseigne le son et l&rsquo;&eacute;criture radiophonique, notamment lors de workshops : initiation &agrave; la prise de son dans le documentaire radiophonique (ACSR), &eacute;critures et narrations radiophoniques (ESAV de Marrakech), L&rsquo;art du Mix (Phonurgia Nova).Il est le fondateur et coordinateur artistique de SilenceRadio.org qui de 2005 &agrave; 2012 a &eacute;t&eacute; le premier site de podcast de cr&eacute;ation en Belgique rassemblant 124 artistes internationaux.Membre associ&eacute; de la plateforme europ&eacute;enne Ars Acustica (EBU) depuis 2006, il a &eacute;t&eacute; administrateur de l&rsquo;acsr (atelier de cr&eacute;ation sonore radiophonique) de Bruxelles de 2001 &agrave; 2011 et a coordonn&eacute; la radio de son festival Radiophonic.org en 2003 et 2007.Il a aussi jou&eacute; le r&ocirc;le d&rsquo;un d&eacute;bruiteur pour la cr&eacute;ation radio de Christophe Deleu et Fran&ccedil;ois Teste &laquo; d&eacute;bruitage &raquo;.Aujourd&rsquo;hui, il aime &eacute;couter le monde avec curiosit&eacute; et parfois l&rsquo;enregistrer.

Irvic D’Olivier est preneur de son, réalisateur, producteur et formateur pour la radio. Il vit et travaille à Bruxelles. Depuis 20 ans, il réalise/monte/mixe des documentaires et créations radiophoniques. Seul ou en collaborations. Il a baladé ses micros dans les nuits bruxelloises (chez Martine), dans la forêt amazonienne (Takiwasi) au sommet d’un volcan (Stromboli), dans les parcs naturels du Costa Rica (Birdless) et d’ailleurs (Des Oiseaux et des Hommes). Ses documentaires et créations ont été diffusés sur Radio Panik (BE), le Labo (CH), Kunstradio-Radiokunst (AT), La Première (BE), ArteRadio.com (FR), France Culture (FR), ResonanceFM (UK), Deutschlandradiofunk Kultur (DE) et radia.fm. Intéressé par la transmission, il enseigne le son et l’écriture radiophonique, notamment lors de workshops : initiation à la prise de son dans le documentaire radiophonique (ACSR), écritures et narrations radiophoniques (ESAV de Marrakech), L’art du Mix (Phonurgia Nova). Il est le fondateur et coordinateur artistique de SilenceRadio.org qui de 2005 à 2012 a été le premier site de podcast de création en Belgique rassemblant 124 artistes internationaux. Membre associé de la plateforme européenne Ars Acustica (EBU) depuis 2006, il a été administrateur de l’acsr (atelier de création sonore radiophonique) de Bruxelles de 2001 à 2011 et a coordonné la radio de son festival Radiophonic.org en 2003 et 2007. Il a aussi joué le rôle d’un débruiteur pour la création radio de Christophe Deleu et François Teste « débruitage ». Aujourd’hui, il aime écouter le monde avec curiosité et parfois l’enregistrer.

Irvic D’Olivier est preneur de son, réalisateur, producteur et formateur pour la radio. Il vit et travaille à Bruxelles.Depuis 20 ans, il réalise/monte/mixe des documentaires et créations radiophoniques. Seul ou en collaborations.Il a baladé ses micros dans les nuits bruxelloises (chez Martine), dans la forêt amazonienne (Takiwasi) au sommet d’un volcan (Stromboli), dans les parcs naturels du Costa Rica (Birdless) et d’ailleurs (Des Oiseaux et des Hommes).Ses documentaires et créations ont été diffusés sur Radio Panik (BE), le Labo (CH), Kunstradio-Radiokunst (AT), La Première (BE), ArteRadio.com (FR), France Culture (FR), ResonanceFM (UK), Deutschlandradiofunk Kultur (DE) et radia.fm.Intéressé par la transmission, il enseigne le son et l’écriture radiophonique, notamment lors de workshops : initiation à la prise de son dans le documentaire radiophonique (ACSR), écritures et narrations radiophoniques (ESAV de Marrakech), L’art du Mix (Phonurgia Nova).Il est le fondateur et coordinateur artistique de SilenceRadio.org qui de 2005 à 2012 a été le premier site de podcast de création en Belgique rassemblant 124 artistes internationaux.Membre associé de la plateforme européenne Ars Acustica (EBU) depuis 2006, il a été administrateur de l’acsr (atelier de création sonore radiophonique) de Bruxelles de 2001 à 2011 et a coordonné la radio de son festival Radiophonic.org en 2003 et 2007.Il a aussi joué le rôle d’un débruiteur pour la création radio de Christophe Deleu et François Teste « débruitage ».Aujourd’hui, il aime écouter le monde avec curiosité et parfois l’enregistrer.

Selected radio works

Um podcast de terror. Bem vindos ao Turno da Noite - onde as coisas sinistras acontecem.

Turno da Noite

末世天灾，我靠种田游戏养全家已完结科幻末世系统种田重生末世作者魔法小虫@番茄本专辑仅作推广赏析 请支持作者主页 【囤货+种田游戏+男频无CP+天灾+高纬生命】【男主不是最强的，不会秒天秒地，不冷血无情，团队每个人都有用。】某日，空中出现了两轮太阳。起初，并没有人在意这件事，直至天灾接踵而临。人类兀然醒悟，双日原来是末世的起始。沙尘暴，暴雨，极寒极热，海啸，风暴，泥石流，火山爆发，含氧量降低，雾霾，酸雨.....在末世挣扎求生七年的陆舟，死后重回末日前一周，意外获得种田游戏金手指，开启了囤货模式！大米面粉？蔬菜水果？日用品？陆舟疯狂地囤囤囤！物资总有用完的一天，怎么办？没事，种植游戏里还能种植作物！挖矿，养殖牲畜！一切就绪后，陆舟却发觉，末世真相扑朔迷离，造物主，真神，监控器......上辈子没遇到的事一件接着一件，陆舟死都想不到，人类最后的敌人竟然另有其人。

末世天灾，我靠种田游戏养全家已完结科幻末世系统种田重生末世作者魔法小虫@番茄本专辑仅作推广赏析 请支持作者主页【囤货+种田游戏+男频无CP+天灾+高纬生命】【男主不是最强的，不会秒天秒地，不冷血无情，团队每个人都有用。】某日，空中出现了两轮太阳。起初，并没有人在意这件事，直至天灾接踵而临。人类兀然醒悟，双日原来是末世的起始。沙尘暴，暴雨，极寒极热，海啸，风暴，泥石流，火山爆发，含氧量降低，雾霾，酸雨.....在末世挣扎求生七年的陆舟，死后重回末日前一周，意外获得种田游戏金手指，开启了囤货模式！大米面粉？蔬菜水果？日用品？陆舟疯狂地囤囤囤！物资总有用完的一天，怎么办？没事，种植游戏里还能种植作物！挖矿，养殖牲畜！一切就绪后，陆舟却发觉，末世真相扑朔迷离，造物主，真神，监控器......上辈子没遇到的事一件接着一件，陆舟死都想不到，人类最后的敌人竟然另有其人。

末世天灾，我靠种田游戏养全家已完结科幻末世系统种田重生末世作者魔法小虫@番茄本专辑仅作推广赏析 请支持作者主页 【囤货+种田游戏+男频无CP+天灾+高纬生命】【男主不是最强的，不会秒天秒地，不冷血无情，团队每个人都有用。】某日，空中出现了两轮太阳。起初，并没有人在意这件事，直至天灾接踵而临。人类兀然醒悟，双日原来是末世的起始。沙尘暴，暴雨，极寒极热，海啸，风暴，泥石流，火山爆发，含氧量降低，雾霾，酸雨.....在末世挣扎求生七年的陆舟，死后重回末日前一周，意外获得种田游戏金手指，开启了囤货模式！大米面粉？蔬菜水果？日用品？陆舟疯狂地囤囤囤！物资总有用完的一天，怎么办？没事，种植游戏里还能种植作物！挖矿，养殖牲畜！一切就绪后，陆舟却发觉，末世真相扑朔迷离，造物主，真神，监控器......上辈子没遇到的事一件接着一件，陆舟死都想不到，人类最后的敌人竟然另有其人。

天灾来袭！种田游戏开挂逆转人生！养家囤货搞基建求生

Walt Whitman has somewhere a fine and just distinction between “loving by allowance” and “loving with personal love.” This distinction applies to books as well as to men and women; and in the case of the not very numerous authors who are the objects of the personal affection, it brings a curious consequence with it. There is much more difference as to their best work than in the case of those others who are loved “by allowance” by convention, and because it is felt to be the right and proper thing to love them. And in the sect—fairly large and yet unusually choice—of Austenians or Janites, there would probably be found partisans of the claim to primacy of almost every one of the novels. To some the delightful freshness and humour of Northanger Abbey, its completeness, finish, and entrain, obscure the undoubted critical facts that its scale is small, and its scheme, after all, that of burlesque or parody, a kind in which the first rank is reached with difficulty. Persuasion, relatively faint in tone, and not enthralling in interest, has devotees who exalt above all the others its exquisite delicacy and keeping. The catastrophe of Mansfield Park is admittedly theatrical, the hero and heroine are insipid, and the author has almost{x} wickedly destroyed all romantic interest by expressly admitting that Edmund only took Fanny because Mary shocked him, and that Fanny might very likely have taken Crawford if he had been a little more assiduous; yet the matchless rehearsal-scenes and the characters of Mrs. Norris and others have secured, I believe, a considerable party for it. Sense and Sensibility has perhaps the fewest out-and-out admirers; but it does not want them.I suppose, however, that the majority of at least competent votes would, all things considered, be divided between Emma and the present book; and perhaps the vulgar verdict (if indeed a fondness for Miss Austen be not of itself a patent of exemption from any possible charge of vulgarity) would go for Emma. It is the larger, the more varied, the more popular; the author had by the time of its composition seen rather more of the world, and had improved her general, though not her most peculiar and characteristic dialogue; such figures as Miss Bates, as the Eltons, cannot but unite the suffrages of everybody. On the other hand, I, for my part, declare for Pride and Prejudice unhesitatingly. It seems to me the most perfect, the most characteristic, the most eminently quintessential of its author’s works; and for this contention in such narrow space as is permitted to me, I propose here to show cause.In the first place, the book (it may be barely necessary to remind the reader) was in its first shape written very early, somewhere about 1796, when Miss Austen was barely twenty-one; though it was revised and finished at Chawton some fifteen years later, and was not published till 1813, only four years before her death. I do not know whether, in{xi} this combination of the fresh and vigorous projection of youth, and the critical revision of middle life, there may be traced the distinct superiority in point of construction, which, as it seems to me, it possesses over all the others. The plot, though not elaborate, is almost regular enough for Fielding; hardly a character, hardly an incident could be retrenched without loss to the story. The elopement of Lydia and Wickham is not, like that of Crawford and Mrs. Rushworth, a coup de théâtre; it connects itself in the strictest way with the course of the story earlier, and brings about the denouement with complete propriety. All the minor passages—the loves of Jane and Bingley, the advent of Mr. Collins, the visit to Hunsford, the Derbyshire tour—fit in after the same unostentatious, but masterly fashion. There is no attempt at the hide-and-seek, in-and-out business, which in the transactions between Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax contributes no doubt a good deal to the intrigue of Emma, but contributes it in a fashion which I do not think the best feature of that otherwise admirable book. Although Miss Austen always liked something of the misunderstanding kind, which afforded her opportunities for the display of the peculiar and incomparable talent to be noticed presently, she has been satisfied here with the perfectly natural occasions provided by the false account of Darcy’s conduct given by Wickham, and by the awkwardness (arising with equal naturalness) from the gradual transformation of Elizabeth’s own feelings from positive aversion to actual love. I do not know whether the all-grasping hand of the playwright has ever been laid upon Pride and Prejudice; and I dare say that,{xii} if it were, the situations would prove not startling or garish enough for the footlights, the character-scheme too subtle and delicate for pit and gallery. But if the attempt were made, it would certainly not be hampered by any of those loosenesses of construction, which, sometimes disguised by the conveniences of which the novelist can avail himself, appear at once on the stage.I think, however, though the thought will doubtless seem heretical to more than one school of critics, that construction is not the highest merit, the choicest gift, of the novelist. It sets off his other gifts and graces most advantageously to the critical eye; and the want of it will sometimes mar those graces—appreciably, though not quite consciously—to eyes by no means ultra-critical. But a very badly-built novel which excelled in pathetic or humorous character, or which displayed consummate command of dialogue—perhaps the rarest of all faculties—would be an infinitely better thing than a faultless plot acted and told by puppets with pebbles in their mouths. And despite the ability which Miss Austen has shown in working out the story, I for one should put Pride and Prejudice far lower if it did not contain what seem to me the very masterpieces of Miss Austen’s humour and of her faculty of character-creation—masterpieces who may indeed admit John Thorpe, the Eltons, Mrs. Norris, and one or two others to their company, but who, in one instance certainly, and perhaps in others, are still superior to them.The characteristics of Miss Austen’s humour are so subtle and delicate that they are, perhaps, at all times easier to apprehend than to express, and at any particular{xiii} time likely to be differently apprehended by different persons. To me this humour seems to possess a greater affinity, on the whole, to that of Addison than to any other of the numerous species of this great British genus. The differences of scheme, of time, of subject, of literary convention, are, of course, obvious enough; the difference of sex does not, perhaps, count for much, for there was a distinctly feminine element in “Mr. Spectator,” and in Jane Austen’s genius there was, though nothing mannish, much that was masculine. But the likeness of quality consists in a great number of common subdivisions of quality—demureness, extreme minuteness of touch, avoidance of loud tones and glaring effects. Also there is in both a certain not inhuman or unamiable cruelty. It is the custom with those who judge grossly to contrast the good nature of Addison with the savagery of Swift, the mildness of Miss Austen with the boisterousness of Fielding and Smollett, even with the ferocious practical jokes that her immediate predecessor, Miss Burney, allowed without very much protest. Yet, both in Mr. Addison and in Miss Austen there is, though a restrained and well-mannered, an insatiable and ruthless delight in roasting and cutting up a fool. A man in the early eighteenth century, of course, could push this taste further than a lady in the early nineteenth; and no doubt Miss Austen’s principles, as well as her heart, would have shrunk from such things as the letter from the unfortunate husband in the Spectator, who describes, with all the gusto and all the innocence in the world, how his wife and his friend induce him to play at blind-man’s-buff. But another Spectator letter—that of the damsel of fourteen who{xiv} wishes to marry Mr. Shapely, and assures her selected Mentor that “he admires your Spectators mightily”—might have been written by a rather more ladylike and intelligent Lydia Bennet in the days of Lydia’s great-grandmother; while, on the other hand, some (I think unreasonably) have found “cynicism” in touches of Miss Austen’s own, such as her satire of Mrs. Musgrove’s self-deceiving regrets over her son. But this word “cynical” is one of the most misused in the English language, especially when, by a glaring and gratuitous falsification of its original sense, it is applied, not to rough and snarling invective, but to gentle and oblique satire. If cynicism means the perception of “the other side,” the sense of “the accepted hells beneath,” the consciousness that motives are nearly always mixed, and that to seem is not identical with to be—if this be cynicism, then every man and woman who is not a fool, who does not care to live in a fool’s paradise, who has knowledge of nature and the world and life, is a cynic. And in that sense Miss Austen certainly was one. She may even have been one in the further sense that, like her own Mr. Bennet, she took an epicurean delight in dissecting, in displaying, in setting at work her fools and her mean persons. I think she did take this delight, and I do not think at all the worse of her for it as a woman, while she was immensely the better for it as an artist.In respect of her art generally, Mr. Goldwin Smith has truly observed that “metaphor has been exhausted in depicting the perfection of it, combined with the narrowness of her field;” and he has justly added that we need not go beyond her own comparison to the art of a miniature{xv} painter. To make this latter obser

Walt Whitman has somewhere a fine and just distinction between “loving by allowance” and “loving with personal love.” This distinction applies to books as well as to men and women; and in the case of the not very numerous authors who are the objects of the personal affection, it brings a curious consequence with it. There is much more difference as to their best work than in the case of those others who are loved “by allowance” by convention, and because it is felt to be the right and proper thing to love them. And in the sect—fairly large and yet unusually choice—of Austenians or Janites, there would probably be found partisans of the claim to primacy of almost every one of the novels. To some the delightful freshness and humour of Northanger Abbey, its completeness, finish, and entrain, obscure the undoubted critical facts that its scale is small, and its scheme, after all, that of burlesque or parody, a kind in which the first rank is reached with difficulty. Persuasion, relatively faint in tone, and not enthralling in interest, has devotees who exalt above all the others its exquisite delicacy and keeping. The catastrophe of Mansfield Park is admittedly theatrical, the hero and heroine are insipid, and the author has almost{x} wickedly destroyed all romantic interest by expressly admitting that Edmund only took Fanny because Mary shocked him, and that Fanny might very likely have taken Crawford if he had been a little more assiduous; yet the matchless rehearsal-scenes and the characters of Mrs. Norris and others have secured, I believe, a considerable party for it. Sense and Sensibility has perhaps the fewest out-and-out admirers; but it does not want them.I suppose, however, that the majority of at least competent votes would, all things considered, be divided between Emma and the present book; and perhaps the vulgar verdict (if indeed a fondness for Miss Austen be not of itself a patent of exemption from any possible charge of vulgarity) would go for Emma. It is the larger, the more varied, the more popular; the author had by the time of its composition seen rather more of the world, and had improved her general, though not her most peculiar and characteristic dialogue; such figures as Miss Bates, as the Eltons, cannot but unite the suffrages of everybody. On the other hand, I, for my part, declare for Pride and Prejudice unhesitatingly. It seems to me the most perfect, the most characteristic, the most eminently quintessential of its author’s works; and for this contention in such narrow space as is permitted to me, I propose here to show cause.In the first place, the book (it may be barely necessary to remind the reader) was in its first shape written very early, somewhere about 1796, when Miss Austen was barely twenty-one; though it was revised and finished at Chawton some fifteen years later, and was not published till 1813, only four years before her death. I do not know whether, in{xi} this combination of the fresh and vigorous projection of youth, and the critical revision of middle life, there may be traced the distinct superiority in point of construction, which, as it seems to me, it possesses over all the others. The plot, though not elaborate, is almost regular enough for Fielding; hardly a character, hardly an incident could be retrenched without loss to the story. The elopement of Lydia and Wickham is not, like that of Crawford and Mrs. Rushworth, a coup de théâtre; it connects itself in the strictest way with the course of the story earlier, and brings about the denouement with complete propriety. All the minor passages—the loves of Jane and Bingley, the advent of Mr. Collins, the visit to Hunsford, the Derbyshire tour—fit in after the same unostentatious, but masterly fashion. There is no attempt at the hide-and-seek, in-and-out business, which in the transactions between Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax contributes no doubt a good deal to the intrigue of Emma, but contributes it in a fashion which I do not think the best feature of that otherwise admirable book. Although Miss Austen always liked something of the misunderstanding kind, which afforded her opportunities for the display of the peculiar and incomparable talent to be noticed presently, she has been satisfied here with the perfectly natural occasions provided by the false account of Darcy’s conduct given by Wickham, and by the awkwardness (arising with equal naturalness) from the gradual transformation of Elizabeth’s own feelings from positive aversion to actual love. I do not know whether the all-grasping hand of the playwright has ever been laid upon Pride and Prejudice; and I dare say that,{xii} if it were, the situations would prove not startling or garish enough for the footlights, the character-scheme too subtle and delicate for pit and gallery. But if the attempt were made, it would certainly not be hampered by any of those loosenesses of construction, which, sometimes disguised by the conveniences of which the novelist can avail himself, appear at once on the stage.I think, however, though the thought will doubtless seem heretical to more than one school of critics, that construction is not the highest merit, the choicest gift, of the novelist. It sets off his other gifts and graces most advantageously to the critical eye; and the want of it will sometimes mar those graces—appreciably, though not quite consciously—to eyes by no means ultra-critical. But a very badly-built novel which excelled in pathetic or humorous character, or which displayed consummate command of dialogue—perhaps the rarest of all faculties—would be an infinitely better thing than a faultless plot acted and told by puppets with pebbles in their mouths. And despite the ability which Miss Austen has shown in working out the story, I for one should put Pride and Prejudice far lower if it did not contain what seem to me the very masterpieces of Miss Austen’s humour and of her faculty of character-creation—masterpieces who may indeed admit John Thorpe, the Eltons, Mrs. Norris, and one or two others to their company, but who, in one instance certainly, and perhaps in others, are still superior to them.The characteristics of Miss Austen’s humour are so subtle and delicate that they are, perhaps, at all times easier to apprehend than to express, and at any particular{xiii} time likely to be differently apprehended by different persons. To me this humour seems to possess a greater affinity, on the whole, to that of Addison than to any other of the numerous species of this great British genus. The differences of scheme, of time, of subject, of literary convention, are, of course, obvious enough; the difference of sex does not, perhaps, count for much, for there was a distinctly feminine element in “Mr. Spectator,” and in Jane Austen’s genius there was, though nothing mannish, much that was masculine. But the likeness of quality consists in a great number of common subdivisions of quality—demureness, extreme minuteness of touch, avoidance of loud tones and glaring effects. Also there is in both a certain not inhuman or unamiable cruelty. It is the custom with those who judge grossly to contrast the good nature of Addison with the savagery of Swift, the mildness of Miss Austen with the boisterousness of Fielding and Smollett, even with the ferocious practical jokes that her immediate predecessor, Miss Burney, allowed without very much protest. Yet, both in Mr. Addison and in Miss Austen there is, though a restrained and well-mannered, an insatiable and ruthless delight in roasting and cutting up a fool. A man in the early eighteenth century, of course, could push this taste further than a lady in the early nineteenth; and no doubt Miss Austen’s principles, as well as her heart, would have shrunk from such things as the letter from the unfortunate husband in the Spectator, who describes, with all the gusto and all the innocence in the world, how his wife and his friend induce him to play at blind-man’s-buff. But another Spectator letter—that of the damsel of fourteen who{xiv} wishes to marry Mr. Shapely, and assures her selected Mentor that “he admires your Spectators mightily”—might have been written by a rather more ladylike and intelligent Lydia Bennet in the days of Lydia’s great-grandmother; while, on the other hand, some (I think unreasonably) have found “cynicism” in touches of Miss Austen’s own, such as her satire of Mrs. Musgrove’s self-deceiving regrets over her son. But this word “cynical” is one of the most misused in the English language, especially when, by a glaring and gratuitous falsification of its original sense, it is applied, not to rough and snarling invective, but to gentle and oblique satire. If cynicism means the perception of “the other side,” the sense of “the accepted hells beneath,” the consciousness that motives are nearly always mixed, and that to seem is not identical with to be—if this be cynicism, then every man and woman who is not a fool, who does not care to live in a fool’s paradise, who has knowledge of nature and the world and life, is a cynic. And in that sense Miss Austen certainly was one. She may even have been one in the further sense that, like her own Mr. Bennet, she took an epicurean delight in dissecting, in displaying, in setting at work her fools and her mean persons. I think she did take this delight, and I do not think at all the worse of her for it as a woman, while she was immensely the better for it as an artist.In respect of her art generally, Mr. Goldwin Smith has truly observed that “metaphor has been exhausted in depicting the perfection of it, combined with the narrowness of her field;” and he has justly added that we need not go beyond her own comparison to the art of a miniature{xv} painter. To make this latter obser

Walt Whitman&nbsp;has somewhere a fine and just distinction between “loving by allowance” and “loving with personal love.” This distinction applies to books as well as to men and women; and in the case of the not very numerous authors who are the objects of the personal affection, it brings a curious consequence with it. There is much more difference as to their best work than in the case of those others who are loved “by allowance” by convention, and because it is felt to be the right and proper thing to love them. And in the sect—fairly large and yet unusually choice—of Austenians or Janites, there would probably be found partisans of the claim to primacy of almost every one of the novels. To some the delightful freshness and humour of&nbsp;Northanger Abbey,&nbsp;its completeness, finish, and&nbsp;entrain,&nbsp;obscure the undoubted critical facts that its scale is small, and its scheme, after all, that of burlesque or parody, a kind in which the first rank is reached with difficulty.&nbsp;Persuasion,&nbsp;relatively faint in tone, and not enthralling in interest, has devotees who exalt above all the others its exquisite delicacy and keeping. The catastrophe of&nbsp;Mansfield Park&nbsp;is admittedly theatrical, the hero and heroine are insipid, and the author has almost{x}&nbsp;wickedly destroyed all romantic interest by expressly admitting that Edmund only took Fanny because Mary shocked him, and that Fanny might very likely have taken Crawford if he had been a little more assiduous; yet the matchless rehearsal-scenes and the characters of Mrs. Norris and others have secured, I believe, a considerable party for it.&nbsp;Sense and Sensibility&nbsp;has perhaps the fewest out-and-out admirers; but it does not want them.I suppose, however, that the majority of at least competent votes would, all things considered, be divided between&nbsp;Emma&nbsp;and the present book; and perhaps the vulgar verdict (if indeed a fondness for Miss Austen be not of itself a patent of exemption from any possible charge of vulgarity) would go for&nbsp;Emma.&nbsp;It is the larger, the more varied, the more popular; the author had by the time of its composition seen rather more of the world, and had improved her general, though not her most peculiar and characteristic dialogue; such figures as Miss Bates, as the Eltons, cannot but unite the suffrages of everybody. On the other hand, I, for my part, declare for&nbsp;Pride and Prejudice&nbsp;unhesitatingly. It seems to me the most perfect, the most characteristic, the most eminently quintessential of its author’s works; and for this contention in such narrow space as is permitted to me, I propose here to show cause.In the first place, the book (it may be barely necessary to remind the reader) was in its first shape written very early, somewhere about 1796, when Miss Austen was barely twenty-one; though it was revised and finished at Chawton some fifteen years later, and was not published till 1813, only four years before her death. I do not know whether, in{xi}&nbsp;this combination of the fresh and vigorous projection of youth, and the critical revision of middle life, there may be traced the distinct superiority in point of construction, which, as it seems to me, it possesses over all the others. The plot, though not elaborate, is almost regular enough for Fielding; hardly a character, hardly an incident could be retrenched without loss to the story. The elopement of Lydia and Wickham is not, like that of Crawford and Mrs. Rushworth, a&nbsp;coup de théâtre;&nbsp;it connects itself in the strictest way with the course of the story earlier, and brings about the denouement with complete propriety. All the minor passages—the loves of Jane and Bingley, the advent of Mr. Collins, the visit to Hunsford, the Derbyshire tour—fit in after the same unostentatious, but masterly fashion. There is no attempt at the hide-and-seek, in-and-out business, which in the transactions between Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax contributes no doubt a good deal to the intrigue of&nbsp;Emma,&nbsp;but contributes it in a fashion which I do not think the best feature of that otherwise admirable book. Although Miss Austen always liked something of the misunderstanding kind, which afforded her opportunities for the display of the peculiar and incomparable talent to be noticed presently, she has been satisfied here with the perfectly natural occasions provided by the false account of Darcy’s conduct given by Wickham, and by the awkwardness (arising with equal naturalness) from the gradual transformation of Elizabeth’s own feelings from positive aversion to actual love. I do not know whether the all-grasping hand of the playwright has ever been laid upon&nbsp;Pride and Prejudice;&nbsp;and I dare say that,{xii}&nbsp;if it were, the situations would prove not startling or garish enough for the footlights, the character-scheme too subtle and delicate for pit and gallery. But if the attempt were made, it would certainly not be hampered by any of those loosenesses of construction, which, sometimes disguised by the conveniences of which the novelist can avail himself, appear at once on the stage.I think, however, though the thought will doubtless seem heretical to more than one school of critics, that construction is not the highest merit, the choicest gift, of the novelist. It sets off his other gifts and graces most advantageously to the critical eye; and the want of it will sometimes mar those graces—appreciably, though not quite consciously—to eyes by no means ultra-critical. But a very badly-built novel which excelled in pathetic or humorous character, or which displayed consummate command of dialogue—perhaps the rarest of all faculties—would be an infinitely better thing than a faultless plot acted and told by puppets with pebbles in their mouths. And despite the ability which Miss Austen has shown in working out the story, I for one should put&nbsp;Pride and Prejudice&nbsp;far lower if it did not contain what seem to me the very masterpieces of Miss Austen’s humour and of her faculty of character-creation—masterpieces who may indeed admit John Thorpe, the Eltons, Mrs. Norris, and one or two others to their company, but who, in one instance certainly, and perhaps in others, are still superior to them.The characteristics of Miss Austen’s humour are so subtle and delicate that they are, perhaps, at all times easier to apprehend than to express, and at any particular{xiii}&nbsp;time likely to be differently apprehended by different persons. To me this humour seems to possess a greater affinity, on the whole, to that of Addison than to any other of the numerous species of this great British genus. The differences of scheme, of time, of subject, of literary convention, are, of course, obvious enough; the difference of sex does not, perhaps, count for much, for there was a distinctly feminine element in “Mr. Spectator,” and in Jane Austen’s genius there was, though nothing mannish, much that was masculine. But the likeness of quality consists in a great number of common subdivisions of quality—demureness, extreme minuteness of touch, avoidance of loud tones and glaring effects. Also there is in both a certain not inhuman or unamiable cruelty. It is the custom with those who judge grossly to contrast the good nature of Addison with the savagery of Swift, the mildness of Miss Austen with the boisterousness of Fielding and Smollett, even with the ferocious practical jokes that her immediate predecessor, Miss Burney, allowed without very much protest. Yet, both in Mr. Addison and in Miss Austen there is, though a restrained and well-mannered, an insatiable and ruthless delight in roasting and cutting up a fool. A man in the early eighteenth century, of course, could push this taste further than a lady in the early nineteenth; and no doubt Miss Austen’s principles, as well as her heart, would have shrunk from such things as the letter from the unfortunate husband in the&nbsp;Spectator,&nbsp;who describes, with all the gusto and all the innocence in the world, how his wife and his friend induce him to play at blind-man’s-buff. But another&nbsp;Spectator&nbsp;letter—that of the damsel of fourteen who{xiv}&nbsp;wishes to marry Mr. Shapely, and assures her selected Mentor that “he admires your&nbsp;Spectators&nbsp;mightily”—might have been written by a rather more ladylike and intelligent Lydia Bennet in the days of Lydia’s great-grandmother; while, on the other hand, some (I think unreasonably) have found “cynicism” in touches of Miss Austen’s own, such as her satire of Mrs. Musgrove’s self-deceiving regrets over her son. But this word “cynical” is one of the most misused in the English language, especially when, by a glaring and gratuitous falsification of its original sense, it is applied, not to rough and snarling invective, but to gentle and oblique satire. If cynicism means the perception of “the other side,” the sense of “the accepted hells beneath,” the consciousness that motives are nearly always mixed, and that to seem is not identical with to be—if this be cynicism, then every man and woman who is not a fool, who does not care to live in a fool’s paradise, who has knowledge of nature and the world and life, is a cynic. And in that sense Miss Austen certainly was one. She may even have been one in the further sense that, like her own Mr. Bennet, she took an epicurean delight in dissecting, in displaying, in setting at work her fools and her mean persons. I think she did take this delight, and I do not think at all the worse of her for it as a woman, while she was immensely the better for it as an artist.In respect of her art generally, Mr. Goldwin Smith has truly observed that “metaphor has been exhausted in depicting the perfection of it, combined with the narrowness of her field;” and he has justly added that we need not go beyond her own comparison to the art of a miniature{xv}&nbsp;painter. To make this latter obser

Pride and Prejudice

霍家因家主陨落，天资卓绝的家主嫡子霍珏又灵府破碎成了废人，霍家一夕败落。 　　当初死活要同霍家结亲的穆家，因为两家昔日交好的家主宣了心誓，天道见证，没有后路可退。 　　婚期如期举行，心誓虽不能违逆，但是宣誓又没指定是谁，于是穆家偷梁换柱，用家族之中的小杂鱼穆晴岚代替了穆家大小姐，打包一番，嫁给了灵府崩裂的废人霍珏。 　　新嫁娘换了人，还被种了傀儡蛊，穆家企图让她偷窃霍家绝品法器的事情，霍珏盖头还没掀就已经知道了。 　　成婚一月，小傀儡果然半夜三更，悄悄摸入霍珏房中，急不可耐凑到霍珏床边。 　　霍珏等的就是穆家傀儡露出真面目，躺在床上放缓呼吸，门外皆是他的属下，只要这傀儡敢动他颈上灵器，必将当场被拿下。 　　谁料这傀儡凑近了霍珏，屏息半跪在床边，低下头循着霍珏端正摆放在身前的手，热乎乎地在他指尖亲了一口。 　　然后起身，原地蹦了三下，接着像个失心疯一样在屋里无声地手舞足蹈起来。 　　霍珏：…… 　　门外蓄势待发的属下：…… 　　穆晴岚：替嫁的人是我男神，这世界上还有这种好事儿？ 　　#我们女孩子想要的就一定要搞到手！# 　　#俗话说搞对象治百病# 　　暗恋多年费尽心机搞人痴货女vs一不小心被融成一滩春水冰雕男

霍家因家主陨落，天资卓绝的家主嫡子霍珏又灵府破碎成了废人，霍家一夕败落。 当初死活要同霍家结亲的穆家，因为两家昔日交好的家主宣了心誓，天道见证，没有后路可退。 婚期如期举行，心誓虽不能违逆，但是宣誓又没指定是谁，于是穆家偷梁换柱，用家族之中的小杂鱼穆晴岚代替了穆家大小姐，打包一番，嫁给了灵府崩裂的废人霍珏。 新嫁娘换了人，还被种了傀儡蛊，穆家企图让她偷窃霍家绝品法器的事情，霍珏盖头还没掀就已经知道了。 成婚一月，小傀儡果然半夜三更，悄悄摸入霍珏房中，急不可耐凑到霍珏床边。 霍珏等的就是穆家傀儡露出真面目，躺在床上放缓呼吸，门外皆是他的属下，只要这傀儡敢动他颈上灵器，必将当场被拿下。 谁料这傀儡凑近了霍珏，屏息半跪在床边，低下头循着霍珏端正摆放在身前的手，热乎乎地在他指尖亲了一口。 然后起身，原地蹦了三下，接着像个失心疯一样在屋里无声地手舞足蹈起来。 霍珏：…… 门外蓄势待发的属下：…… 穆晴岚：替嫁的人是我男神，这世界上还有这种好事儿？ #我们女孩子想要的就一定要搞到手！# #俗话说搞对象治百病# 暗恋多年费尽心机搞人痴货女vs一不小心被融成一滩春水冰雕男

霍家因家主陨落，天资卓绝的家主嫡子霍珏又灵府破碎成了废人，霍家一夕败落。 　　当初死活要同霍家结亲的穆家，因为两家昔日交好的家主宣了心誓，天道见证，没有后路可退。 　　婚期如期举行，心誓虽不能违逆，但是宣誓又没指定是谁，于是穆家偷梁换柱，用家族之中的小杂鱼穆晴岚代替了穆家大小姐，打包一番，嫁给了灵府崩裂的废人霍珏。 　　新嫁娘换了人，还被种了傀儡蛊，穆家企图让她偷窃霍家绝品法器的事情，霍珏盖头还没掀就已经知道了。 　　成婚一月，小傀儡果然半夜三更，悄悄摸入霍珏房中，急不可耐凑到霍珏床边。 　　霍珏等的就是穆家傀儡露出真面目，躺在床上放缓呼吸，门外皆是他的属下，只要这傀儡敢动他颈上灵器，必将当场被拿下。 　　谁料这傀儡凑近了霍珏，屏息半跪在床边，低下头循着霍珏端正摆放在身前的手，热乎乎地在他指尖亲了一口。 　　然后起身，原地蹦了三下，接着像个失心疯一样在屋里无声地手舞足蹈起来。 　　霍珏：…… 　　门外蓄势待发的属下：…… 　　穆晴岚：替嫁的人是我男神，这世界上还有这种好事儿？ 　　#我们女孩子想要的就一定要搞到手！# 　　#俗话说搞对象治百病# 　　暗恋多年费尽心机搞人痴货女vs一不小心被融成一滩春水冰雕男

替嫁给灵府破碎的废人|仙侠修真|甜文|多人有声剧

Stardust and Dragons is a HomeBrew Space DND Campaign set in the Hailey Galaxy! Follow our four adventurers: Brenden Dionheart (Christian Hatcher), Flip Odonell (Dan Wood), Constance (Rayna Mcguire) and Lyrax Proudmane (Max Morin) as Brandon Hatcher takes them on a wild adventure!

Stardust and Dragons is a HomeBrew Space DND Campaign set in the Hailey Galaxy! Follow our four adventurers: Brenden Dionheart (Christian Hatcher), Flip Odonell (Dan Wood), Constance (Rayna Mcguire) and Lyrax Proudmane (Max Morin) as Brandon Hatcher takes them on a wild adventure!

Stardust & Dragons

جاناتان هارکر به نمایندگی از شرکت وکلای اقتصادی، به منظور نهایی کردن قراردادی با نجیب زاده ای از ترنسیلوانیا به نام کنت دراکولا به کوه های کارپات سفر می کند. اما او هیچ نمی داند که با سفر به این منطقه، تمام چیزهای باارزش زندگی اش در خطری مرگبار قرار خواهد گرفت؛ چرا که دراکولا، نامیرا و خون آشامی صدساله است که روزها می خوابد و شب ها به منظور خوردن خون قربانیان بی دفاع خود به کمین می نشیند. دراکولا به محض ورود به خاک انگلیس، توجه خود را معطوف اطرافیان جاناتان، به خصوص همسر عزیزش مینا، می کند. جاناتان و دوستانش برای نقش بر آب کردن نقشه های شیطانی دراکولا، باید عجیب ترین و مضحک ترین خرافه ها درباره ی خون آشامان را به عنوان حقیقت بپذیرند و پا به ماجراجویی خطرناکی بگذارند که حتی در بدترین کابوس هایشان نیز آن را ندیده بودند. کتاب ارزشمند و به یاد ماندنی دراکولا، نوشته ی برام استوکر، در سال 1897 برای اولین بار به انتشار رسید و قوانین و استانداردهای تمامی داستان های مربوط به خون آشامان را از نو نوشت.<hr> Hosted on Acast. See <a style='color:grey;' target='_blank' rel='noopener noreferrer' href='https://acast.com/privacy'>acast.com/privacy</a> for more information.

جاناتان هارکر به نمایندگی از شرکت وکلای اقتصادی، به منظور نهایی کردن قراردادی با نجیب زاده ای از ترنسیلوانیا به نام کنت دراکولا به کوه های کارپات سفر می کند. اما او هیچ نمی داند که با سفر به این منطقه، تمام چیزهای باارزش زندگی اش در خطری مرگبار قرار خواهد گرفت؛ چرا که دراکولا، نامیرا و خون آشامی صدساله است که روزها می خوابد و شب ها به منظور خوردن خون قربانیان بی دفاع خود به کمین می نشیند. دراکولا به محض ورود به خاک انگلیس، توجه خود را معطوف اطرافیان جاناتان، به خصوص همسر عزیزش مینا، می کند. جاناتان و دوستانش برای نقش بر آب کردن نقشه های شیطانی دراکولا، باید عجیب ترین و مضحک ترین خرافه ها درباره ی خون آشامان را به عنوان حقیقت بپذیرند و پا به ماجراجویی خطرناکی بگذارند که حتی در بدترین کابوس هایشان نیز آن را ندیده بودند. کتاب ارزشمند و به یاد ماندنی دراکولا، نوشته ی برام استوکر، در سال 1897 برای اولین بار به انتشار رسید و قوانین و استانداردهای تمامی داستان های مربوط به خون آشامان را از نو نوشت. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

جاناتان هارکر به نمایندگی از شرکت وکلای اقتصادی، به منظور نهایی کردن قراردادی با نجیب زاده ای از ترنسیلوانیا به نام کنت دراکولا به کوه های کارپات سفر می کند. اما او هیچ نمی داند که با سفر به این منطقه، تمام چیزهای باارزش زندگی اش در خطری مرگبار قرار خواهد گرفت؛ چرا که دراکولا، نامیرا و خون آشامی صدساله است که روزها می خوابد و شب ها به منظور خوردن خون قربانیان بی دفاع خود به کمین می نشیند. دراکولا به محض ورود به خاک انگلیس، توجه خود را معطوف اطرافیان جاناتان، به خصوص همسر عزیزش مینا، می کند. جاناتان و دوستانش برای نقش بر آب کردن نقشه های شیطانی دراکولا، باید عجیب ترین و مضحک ترین خرافه ها درباره ی خون آشامان را به عنوان حقیقت بپذیرند و پا به ماجراجویی خطرناکی بگذارند که حتی در بدترین کابوس هایشان نیز آن را ندیده بودند. کتاب ارزشمند و به یاد ماندنی دراکولا، نوشته ی برام استوکر، در سال 1897 برای اولین بار به انتشار رسید و قوانین و استانداردهای تمامی داستان های مربوط به خون آشامان را از نو نوشت. Hosted on Acast. See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer">acast.com/privacy</a> for more information.

رمان گوتیک و وحشت  دراکولا(نسخه ی بدون سانسور)

Dive deep into the oceans and swim with mermaids, fly through a meadow with a fairy, or hangout with a spirit and old, spooky house.
The Supernatural Sessions Podcast will take you on a journey through tales as old as time itself. With talk of cryptos, ghosts, aliens, and so much more. With true ghost encounters and tales of people who have come face to face with strangest of things. Join your host Brittany for a magical adventure.
Do you have your own paranormal encounter?
Email your experience at
supernaturalsessionspodcast@gmail.com
Work with us: briere.brittany0@gmail.com
Stay Spooky!

Dive deep into the oceans and swim with mermaids, fly through a meadow with a fairy, or hangout with a spirit and old, spooky house. The Supernatural Sessions Podcast will take you on a journey through tales as old as time itself. With talk of cryptos, ghosts, aliens, and so much more. With true ghost encounters and tales of people who have come face to face with strangest of things. Join your host Brittany for a magical adventure. Do you have your own paranormal encounter? Email your experience at supernaturalsessionspodcast@gmail.com Work with us: briere.brittany0@gmail.com Stay Spooky!

Supernatural Sessions

um.. me and my sister ar just talking about stuff we are Leighton, the host. and tallulah, the co-host.

um.. me and my sister ar just talking about stuff we are Leighton, the host. and tallulah, the co-host.

The Girl Gang Show

Nightmare Stories is a show that depicts some of the creepiest stories told. From haunted houses, churches, highways, and so much more, we dive into some of the scariest tales told. The episodes featured on Nightmare Stories may be true encounters, fictional tales, urban legends, or semi-fictional tales based on true events.

Nightmare Stories is a show that depicts some of the creepiest stories told. From haunted houses, churches, highways, and so much more, we dive into some of the scariest tales told. The episodes featured on Nightmare Stories may be true encounters, fictional tales, urban legends, or semi-fictional tales based on true events.

Nightmare Stories

A real play RPG podcast. This is a Dungeons and Dragons story that begins at The Yawning Portal in Waterdeep. Our players waste no time getting into trouble.Join our Patreon for exclusive content: <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" href="https://www.patreon.com/questpod">https://www.patreon.com/questpod</a>This is QUEST!DM: Dungeon Lord JayMagic Dan Delyon: Brandon KurkowskiCameron "Cam" Ezekiel Leone: Sean BallardEltaor "El" Famalin - Rob DeJesusTaylen "Tay" Rowan: Jeffery HannaEditor and Producer: Jon FeistIntro: Tyler MathsonSounds: Epidemic Sound

A real play RPG podcast. This is a Dungeons and Dragons story that begins at The Yawning Portal in Waterdeep. Our players waste no time getting into trouble. Join our Patreon for exclusive content: https://www.patreon.com/questpod This is QUEST! DM: Dungeon Lord Jay Magic Dan Delyon: Brandon Kurkowski Cameron "Cam" Ezekiel Leone: Sean Ballard Eltaor "El" Famalin - Rob DeJesus Taylen "Tay" Rowan: Jeffery Hanna Editor and Producer: Jon Feist Intro: Tyler Mathson Sounds: Epidemic Sound

A real play RPG podcast. This is a Dungeons and Dragons story that begins at The Yawning Portal in Waterdeep. Our players waste no time getting into trouble.Join our Patreon for exclusive content: <a href="https://www.patreon.com/questpod" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.patreon.com/questpod</a>This is QUEST!DM: Dungeon Lord JayMagic Dan Delyon: Brandon KurkowskiCameron "Cam" Ezekiel Leone: Sean BallardEltaor "El" Famalin - Rob DeJesusTaylen "Tay" Rowan: Jeffery HannaEditor and Producer: Jon FeistIntro: Tyler MathsonSounds: Epidemic Sound

Quest: A Dungeons & Dragons Podcast

Two nerds/good friends, along with the occasional guest, review every episode of Star Trek, from every series in order of release, while also delving into the many genres of science fiction.

THE RULES OF NERDQUISITION

Embark on a journey into the heart of the African Congo with Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." This podcast delves into the dark and gripping tale of exploration, imperialism, and the human psyche. Through in-depth analysis and compelling narration, uncover the profound themes and enduring legacy of this literary masterpiece.

Heart of Darkness

Feature-length, full-cast audio drama. While minding her friend George's apartment in London, artist/designer Ava's imagination is captured by an item in his collection of vintage TVs and radios: a mysterious 1930s Dieselpunk device known as the Transopticator - and the tragic story of its young inventor.

Rescuing Ravenstocke

<a href="https://www.solgoodmedia.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.solgoodmedia.com</a> Listen to hundreds of audiobooks, thousands of short stories, and ambient sounds all ad free! Experience "Beyond Midnight Collection," an anthology of the most spine-chilling episodes from the classic horror radio series. This collection brings together tales of the supernatural, macabre, and eerie, perfect for fans of ghost stories and paranormal suspense. Prepare for a haunting journey into the unknown with these timeless horror classics.

https://www.solgoodmedia.com Listen to hundreds of audiobooks, thousands of short stories, and ambient sounds all ad free! Experience "Beyond Midnight Collection," an anthology of the most spine-chilling episodes from the classic horror radio series. This collection brings together tales of the supernatural, macabre, and eerie, perfect for fans of ghost stories and paranormal suspense. Prepare for a haunting journey into the unknown with these timeless horror classics.

<a href="https://www.solgoodmedia.com" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.solgoodmedia.com</a> Listen to hundreds of audiobooks, thousands of short stories, and ambient sounds all ad free! Experience "Beyond Midnight Collection," an anthology of the most spine-chilling episodes from the classic horror radio series. This collection brings together tales of the supernatural, macabre, and eerie, perfect for fans of ghost stories and paranormal suspense. Prepare for a haunting journey into the unknown with these timeless horror classics.

Beyond Midnight Collection

Pagla Dashu, a fictional character created by Sukumar Ray, is a free-spirited boy who has adorned Bengali Literature with the projections of his whimsical mind and the corresponding manifested pranks. The stories in the series are written by Sukumar Ray, translated by Sudeshna Shome Ghosh, published by StoryWeaver (© StoryWeaver, 2020) under a CC BY 4.0 license on StoryWeaver, and read by Geetika Mishra.

Pagla Dashu

Double The T with Trenton &amp; Trinity is a podcast hosted by 2 real life best friends. We will cover everything ranging from books, music, pop culture, true crime, and the piping hot “T”(ea). We hope you are all ready for what’s in store.🩷

Double The T with Trenton & Trinity is a podcast hosted by 2 real life best friends. We will cover everything ranging from books, music, pop culture, true crime, and the piping hot “T”(ea). We hope you are all ready for what’s in store.🩷

Fiction Podcasts / Page 372

Apni Si Shayari

De la fiction à la diction

Mummola

Unsolicited Forts

Intern(al) Apocalypse

DeFicciones

Pesadillas de un soñador

Podcast suara isi hati

Kompendium - der Rollenspielpodcast

广播剧【蜕变】

MYPOINT PODCAST ❤️

The Killing Days: il killer dello zodiaco

Soju Over Flowers

La Banda Que Salta

Selected radio works

Turno da Noite

天灾来袭！种田游戏开挂逆转人生！养家囤货搞基建求生

Pride and Prejudice

替嫁给灵府破碎的废人|仙侠修真|甜文|多人有声剧

Stardust & Dragons

رمان گوتیک و وحشت دراکولا(نسخه ی بدون سانسور)

Supernatural Sessions

The Girl Gang Show

Nightmare Stories

Quest: A Dungeons & Dragons Podcast

THE RULES OF NERDQUISITION

Heart of Darkness

Rescuing Ravenstocke

Beyond Midnight Collection

Pagla Dashu

Double The T

Stuffcast

Don't Remember Me Like This

DAGLI DEI AGLI EROI - Miti e leggende dall'Olimpo al Palatino - Interviste + AUD...

StarCraft

《绿野仙踪》神怪小说作者李百川（清）

The Spanish Tragedy - A Dramatic Reading

The October

Antes de rendir el alma

Hidden Foes

Vijf sterren verhalen Podcast

Sherlock Holmes - Retro Radio

Young Diana

Scarecrow of Oz

Metal Monster

Black Cat Vol. 02 No. 10 July 1897

Blood of the New World

都市聊斋录 | Urban Mystery Official

راديو دوكساسكوب 00: هل يصمد نمطك؟

My Strange Rescue