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

Poszukujemy wspomnień o starych kinach we Wrocławiu. Rozmawiamy z ludźmi, którzy w dawnych kinach pracowali i tworzyli ich niesamowitą atmosferę.

Wrocławskie Kinotropy

"Wie kann man eigentlich eine Diktatur stürzen?", "Wird BeREal das neue Instagram?" oder "Wie gefährlich sind legal highs wirklich?" - um genau solche Themen drehen sich die Folgen von M94.5 To Go. Und wie der Titel schon verspricht immer in einer perfekten Länge für unterwegs! Die Themen reichen dabei von wissenschaftlichen über gesellschaftliche Themen bis hin zu den neuesten Social Media-Trends. Kurz gesagt: Alle möglichen Themen, die junge Menschen beschäftigen. Moderiert und recherchiert werden die Folgen von Studierenden des Münchner Radiosenders M94.5. 
-- 
Falls ihr Themenvorschläge oder Feedback für uns habt schreibt uns gerne eine Mail an podcast@m945.de oder über Social Media @m945muenchen!

-- 
Außerdem haben wir auch noch mehr Podcasts für euch:

"Fußnoten" - Was diese Woche zu kurz kam (Nachrichten & Politik) 

"Vorlesungszeit" - Der Geschichtenpodcast für jede Gelegenheit

"WATTs Ab!" - Der Radsportpodcast 

"Artsy Fartsy Immigrants" (englisch) - a podcast about people trying to make a creative living abroad

"Ski Happens" - Der Wintersportpodcast

"Wie kann man eigentlich eine Diktatur stürzen?", "Wird BeREal das neue Instagram?" oder "Wie gefährlich sind legal highs wirklich?" - um genau solche Themen drehen sich die Folgen von M94.5 To Go. Und wie der Titel schon verspricht immer in einer perfekten Länge für unterwegs! Die Themen reichen dabei von wissenschaftlichen über gesellschaftliche Themen bis hin zu den neuesten Social Media-Trends. Kurz gesagt: Alle möglichen Themen, die junge Menschen beschäftigen. Moderiert und recherchiert werden die Folgen von Studierenden des Münchner Radiosenders M94.5. -- Falls ihr Themenvorschläge oder Feedback für uns habt schreibt uns gerne eine Mail an podcast@m945.de oder über Social Media @m945muenchen! -- Außerdem haben wir auch noch mehr Podcasts für euch: "Fußnoten" - Was diese Woche zu kurz kam (Nachrichten & Politik) "Vorlesungszeit" - Der Geschichtenpodcast für jede Gelegenheit "WATTs Ab!" - Der Radsportpodcast "Artsy Fartsy Immigrants" (englisch) - a podcast about people trying to make a creative living abroad "Ski Happens" - Der Wintersportpodcast

"Wie kann man eigentlich eine Diktatur stürzen?", "Wird BeREal das neue Instagram?" oder "Wie gefährlich sind legal highs wirklich?" - um genau solche Themen drehen sich die Folgen von M94.5 To Go. Und wie der Titel schon verspricht immer in einer perfekten Länge für unterwegs! Die Themen reichen dabei von wissenschaftlichen über gesellschaftliche Themen bis hin zu den neuesten Social Media-Trends. Kurz gesagt: Alle möglichen Themen, die junge Menschen beschäftigen. Moderiert und recherchiert werden die Folgen von Studierenden des Münchner Radiosenders M94.5. 
-- 
Falls ihr Themenvorschläge oder Feedback für uns habt schreibt uns gerne eine Mail an podcast@m945.de oder über Social Media @m945muenchen!

-- 
Außerdem haben wir auch noch mehr Podcasts für euch:

"Fußnoten" - Was diese Woche zu kurz kam (Nachrichten &amp; Politik) 

"Vorlesungszeit" - Der Geschichtenpodcast für jede Gelegenheit

"WATTs Ab!" - Der Radsportpodcast 

"Artsy Fartsy Immigrants" (englisch) - a podcast about people trying to make a creative living abroad

"Ski Happens" - Der Wintersportpodcast

M94.5 TO GO

Lesungen und Gespräche zu freiheitlichen, ökonomischen und philosophischen Themen: Österreichische Schule der Nationalökonomie, Klassischer Liberalismus, Libertarismus, Anarchokapitalismus und Bitcoin.

Mises Karma

Conversations on the funny sides of every relationship.

The Significant Other

夫婦で色々なことをゆるふわに話し合うポッドキャストです。 


Cover art photo provided by Carl Raw on Unsplash: https://unsplash.com/@carltraw

夫婦で色々なことをゆるふわに話し合うポッドキャストです。 Cover art photo provided by Carl Raw on Unsplash: https://unsplash.com/@carltraw

Happy hacking small talk

'Doin Just Vine' is a podcast for lovers of good wine and REAL conversations about overcoming challenges, growth, success, love, and life! Each week sister in laws Lindsey and Marissa will invite over a guest to uncork a bottle of wine and enjoy a quality, candid conversation leaving you with a new perspective to feel encouraged + uplifted!

Doin' Just Vine

Um podcast sobre viagens, para conhecermos diferentes perspectivas do mundo e viajarmos de forma consciente, com mais conhecimento e sem preconceitos.

Mundo Indefinido

When you dance with a King HE LEADS, GUIDES, and PROTECTS! It’s not the other way around and if your leading how will you ever carry him over the threshold... think about it! Are you being the MAN in the relationship ladies? Paying bills, rent, grocery, and supplies wifely duties as well... if so that is NOT balance...
https://www.quora.com/profile/Chastity-Chyld

When you dance with a King HE LEADS, GUIDES, and PROTECTS! It’s not the other way around and if your leading how will you ever carry him over the threshold... think about it! Are you being the MAN in the relationship ladies? Paying bills, rent, grocery, and supplies wifely duties as well... if so that is NOT balance... https://www.quora.com/profile/Chastity-Chyld

Dancing with a King...

東門市場距今超過100多年的歷史，承載了不少老新竹人的記憶
時代的更迭、耆老的逝世，時間不斷地想要沖刷這些歷史的印記
被大樓包圍其中的東門市場慢慢地被人遺忘
-
然而，我們希望通過聲音的記錄
帶大家尋找歷史，也探索新知
讓大家重新看到，聽到
東門市場這個老市集歷久彌新的活力

--
Hosting provided by SoundOn

東門市場距今超過100多年的歷史，承載了不少老新竹人的記憶 時代的更迭、耆老的逝世，時間不斷地想要沖刷這些歷史的印記 被大樓包圍其中的東門市場慢慢地被人遺忘 - 然而，我們希望通過聲音的記錄 帶大家尋找歷史，也探索新知 讓大家重新看到，聽到 東門市場這個老市集歷久彌新的活力 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

【東門視場】

"The Desk - dead or alive???“Der traditionelle Schreibtisch steht symbolisch für eine alte Arbeitswelt aus vergangenen Zeiten. Doch ist der Schreibtisch in unseren modernen Büros wirklich überflüssig geworden und wird er in Zeiten von agilen Teams und remote work tatsächlich nicht mehr benötigt? Mit dieser sinnbildlichen Frage beschäftigt sich der neue Podcast "NEW WORK! 9 TO LIFE?“ von Gärtner Internationale Möbel. Im Gespräch diskutieren Andreas Göpel, Geschäftsführer von Gärtner, und Raphael Gielgen, Trend-Scout von Vitra, unter der Moderation von Robert Volhard, Inhaber und Gründer der Architektur-Plattform Stylepark, moderne Arbeitsweisen und geben in sechs Episoden einen unterhaltsamen Überblick über den Status-Quo der Bürowelt in Deutschland.

NEW WORK! 9 TO LIFE?

Tlon è un movimento filosofico volto a recuperare la capacità di pensare e discernere, con ironia, forza e semplicità. È condotto da Andrea Colamedici e Maura Gancitano.

Tlon - Il podcast

PodSilva
Um podcast real, direto e diferente. #podcastbrs
@rubensilvablogue

PodSilva Um podcast real, direto e diferente. #podcastbrs @rubensilvablogue

PodSilva

Welcome to the Shoutout Arizona podcast where in just 15 minutes a day, you'll learn two valuable life lessons - one for your professional life and one for your personal life - through real-life stories told by some of Arizona's most brilliant and inspiring entrepreneurs, artists and creatives.

Shoutout Arizona

V podcastu 68 minutes se hokejová legenda Jaromír Jágr setkává u jednoho stolu s českými hvězdami. Podcast moderují Jitka Boho a Petr Větrovský.Chcete díly slyšet s předstihem a získat exkluzivní přístup k dalšímu obsahu? Přidejte se do našeho týmu na Herohero!<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" href="http://herohero.co/68tv">http://herohero.co/68tv</a>

V podcastu 68 minutes se hokejová legenda Jaromír Jágr setkává u jednoho stolu s českými hvězdami. Podcast moderují Jitka Boho a Petr Větrovský. Chcete díly slyšet s předstihem a získat exkluzivní přístup k dalšímu obsahu? Přidejte se do našeho týmu na Herohero! http://herohero.co/68tv

V podcastu 68 minutes se hokejová legenda Jaromír Jágr setkává u jednoho stolu s českými hvězdami. Podcast moderují Jitka Boho a Petr Větrovský.Chcete díly slyšet s předstihem a získat exkluzivní přístup k dalšímu obsahu? Přidejte se do našeho týmu na Herohero!<a href="http://herohero.co/68tv" rel="noopener noreferrer">http://herohero.co/68tv</a>

68 minutes

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

Wir sind die drei Knallköppe Kevin, Sara und Keven aus Düsseldorf. Wir lieben es humorvoll über Alltägliche Situationen zu sprechen die jeder kennt. Also quasi über alles mögliche :D

MMF (Machst mich feddich)

Kristopher Schau møter landets fremste vitenskapspersonligheter og snakker med dem om hva som fikk dem til å ende opp der de er og forskningen de bedriver.<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.

Kristopher Schau møter landets fremste vitenskapspersonligheter og snakker med dem om hva som fikk dem til å ende opp der de er og forskningen de bedriver. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Kristopher Schau møter landets fremste vitenskapspersonligheter og snakker med dem om hva som fikk dem til å ende opp der de er og forskningen de bedriver. Hosted on Acast. See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer">acast.com/privacy</a> for more information.

Nysgjerrige Norge

[F]law School is a podcast created, produced, and hosted by high school, college, and law students as well as lawyers and law professors who all share an interest in exploring the flaw . . . in the law. [F]law School is an initiative of The [F]law magazine (flaw.org) and the Systemic Justice Project (systemicjustice.org). Its episodes focus especially on the role of corporate power in capturing law and legal institutions and in causing social problems.

[F]law School is a podcast created, produced, and hosted by high school, college, and law students as well as lawyers and law professors who all share an interest in exploring the flaw . . . in the law. [F]law School is an initiative of The [F]law magazine (flaw.org) and the Systemic Justice Project (systemicjustice.org). Its episodes focus especially on the role of corporate power in capturing law and legal institutions and in causing social problems.

[F]law School

oie, prazer!

sou a ma do @readingwithma e agora tô tagarelando por aqui.

oie, prazer! sou a ma do @readingwithma e agora tô tagarelando por aqui.

tagarelandowithma

Restricted to GLP-184 Terbang Family for fun, reminiscing the togetherness, connecting and sharing. As we are all coming from the same leadership and transformation program, this podcast as a medium to re-connect the moments between the members and sharing the life updates, get closer each other by hearts (whenever, wherever we are).

Restricted to GLP-184 Terbang Family for fun, reminiscing the togetherness, connecting and sharing. As we are all coming from the same leadership and transformation program, this podcast as a medium to re-connect the moments between the members and sharing the life updates, get closer each other by hearts (whenever, wherever we are).

PDKT - PoDKes Terbang

Sofía Sosa's podcast

El podcast de Samuel Domínguez

El podcast de Maryfer𖤐

Close to Home: Meritus Health provides Expert Care, Close to Home. On his podcast, President and CEO Maulik Joshi, Dr. P.H. discusses the topics that hit Close to Home as Meritus manages the care needs of the local community.

Close to Home: Meritus Health provides Expert Care, Close to Home. On his podcast, President and CEO Maulik Joshi, Dr. P.H. discusses the topics that hit Close to Home as Meritus manages the care needs of the local community.

Close to Home

Myanmar - Women, Peace and Security

FloBo & Klaus 
Zwei Seiten und ne Menge Meinung

Okay, vielleicht gibt es schon genug Podcasts in diesem Land, aber dann kommt es ja auf einen mehr auch nicht mehr drauf an. FloBo (Dekanatsjugendreferent Florian Burk aka Flori Bombe) und Klaus (Dekanatsjugendreferent Klaus Grübener) haben denselben Beruf, sind beim selben Arbeitgeber, beide Christen und sehen doch manche Dinge ganz verschieden.

Diese Sicht von zwei Seiten, gepaart mit einer Menge Meinung, führt zu herzlichen und manchmal auch streitbaren Diskussionen, welche jetzt für die Nachwelt festgehalten werden. Introvertiert, hetero und über 50 trifft auf extrovertiert, homosexuell in den Dreißigern.

Trotz aller Meinungsverschiedenheiten steht das Grundsätzliche nie in Frage, und beide sind davon überzeugt, dass der Dialog und der daraus entstehende Konsens ein Schlüsselpunkt für gute Jugendarbeit ist.

FloBo & Klaus Zwei Seiten und ne Menge Meinung Okay, vielleicht gibt es schon genug Podcasts in diesem Land, aber dann kommt es ja auf einen mehr auch nicht mehr drauf an. FloBo (Dekanatsjugendreferent Florian Burk aka Flori Bombe) und Klaus (Dekanatsjugendreferent Klaus Grübener) haben denselben Beruf, sind beim selben Arbeitgeber, beide Christen und sehen doch manche Dinge ganz verschieden. Diese Sicht von zwei Seiten, gepaart mit einer Menge Meinung, führt zu herzlichen und manchmal auch streitbaren Diskussionen, welche jetzt für die Nachwelt festgehalten werden. Introvertiert, hetero und über 50 trifft auf extrovertiert, homosexuell in den Dreißigern. Trotz aller Meinungsverschiedenheiten steht das Grundsätzliche nie in Frage, und beide sind davon überzeugt, dass der Dialog und der daraus entstehende Konsens ein Schlüsselpunkt für gute Jugendarbeit ist.

FloBo &amp; Klaus 
Zwei Seiten und ne Menge Meinung

Okay, vielleicht gibt es schon genug Podcasts in diesem Land, aber dann kommt es ja auf einen mehr auch nicht mehr drauf an. FloBo (Dekanatsjugendreferent Florian Burk aka Flori Bombe) und Klaus (Dekanatsjugendreferent Klaus Grübener) haben denselben Beruf, sind beim selben Arbeitgeber, beide Christen und sehen doch manche Dinge ganz verschieden.

Diese Sicht von zwei Seiten, gepaart mit einer Menge Meinung, führt zu herzlichen und manchmal auch streitbaren Diskussionen, welche jetzt für die Nachwelt festgehalten werden. Introvertiert, hetero und über 50 trifft auf extrovertiert, homosexuell in den Dreißigern.

Trotz aller Meinungsverschiedenheiten steht das Grundsätzliche nie in Frage, und beide sind davon überzeugt, dass der Dialog und der daraus entstehende Konsens ein Schlüsselpunkt für gute Jugendarbeit ist.

FloBo & Klaus: Zwei Seiten und ne Menge Meinung!

Hayatınızda gevşek gevşek konuşan birinin eksikliğini duyuyorsanız buyrun.

Aksi Söylenemez

Travel can create the most transformative experiences of our lives. Growing up, I always kept a travel diary of my adventures. Now, I’m a journalist and I still love documenting and discussing my adventures. Postcard Pod explores travel experiences through conversations and advice from globetrotters.

Postcard Pod

Breaking down how the game is played through different lenses, mindsets and personalities. Everyone is a playa (player) cause women are playas too. You don’t stop playing because you get old, you get old cause you stop playing.

Da Playas Klub

The Community Station for Pine Hills/Orlando, Florida.

The Community Station for Pine Hills/Orlando, Florida.

THE WIRE 98.5

Just two regular dudes from Toronto, Canada stepping out of their comfort zone to discuss a variety of topics with individuals from around the GTA! Ranging from mental health to sports, and life in general, we want our listeners to enjoy themselves and remember that there are always good times ahead!

Good Times Ahead Podcast

Dimensión Insólita es un programa dedicado a los temas del misterio que se emite en Radio Off The Record, una emisora del periódico Diario16. Todos los viernes a las 22:00 estamos con todos vosotros. 

Un saludo

www.radiofftherecord.com
www.diarioi16.com
www.dimensioninsolita.org

info@dimensioninsolita.org
dimension.insolita@radiofftherecord.com

Dimensión Insólita es un programa dedicado a los temas del misterio que se emite en Radio Off The Record, una emisora del periódico Diario16. Todos los viernes a las 22:00 estamos con todos vosotros. Un saludo www.radiofftherecord.com www.diarioi16.com www.dimensioninsolita.org info@dimensioninsolita.org dimension.insolita@radiofftherecord.com

Nuevo  Dimensión insólita

Luke ist erst vor Kurzem in den Harz gezogen und langweilt sich ganz schön. Sein Ziehonkel Paul ist Radiomoderator. Er schlägt ihm vor, Radio- und Podcastbeiträge über den Harz zu machen. Luke ist begeistert, muss aber schnell feststellen, dass er sich noch nicht wirklich gut im Harz auskennt. Er fragt Hanna aus der Parallelklasse, und mit etwas Überredungskunst kann er sie für sein Radioprojekt gewinnen. Und dann ist da noch Henry, der kleine Forscher. Bisher waren die beiden nicht die engsten Freunde, aber Henry kann der Chance einfach nicht widerstehen, sein überquellendes Wissen mit möglichst vielen anderen zu teilen. Als Henrys kleine Schwester Emma davon Wind bekommt, bringt sie sich sofort als große Expertin für Hexen und die Harzer Sagenwelt ins Spiel. Obwohl Henry nicht besonders begeistert ist, holt Luke auch sie ins Team. Begleitet von Pjotr, Pauls altem Raben, erobern sie den Harz. Sie haben dir eine Menge Spannendes zu berichten.

Harz Mountain Radio

Want to know what's cookin' in the hottest real estate market in America? Welcome to The Real Realtors of Nashville, we're your hosts Cayla Cook and Eleni Pappelis, we are experienced realtors who are passionate about helping people discover all that is great about the Music City...and realizing all their real estate dreams! Whether you're thinking of relocating, a long-time resident looking for a new neighborhood, an experienced investor looking for a hidden gem, or a first time buyer trying to navigate new waters, we will bring you all the tips, tricks, stats, and resources to get the very best out of this very best part of the country.  We will raise some questions, find some answers, share some laughs, and definitely have a drink or two - so come along for the ride. 

The Real Realtors of Nashville - follow us now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you enjoy your shows!

Want to know what's cookin' in the hottest real estate market in America? Welcome to The Real Realtors of Nashville, we're your hosts Cayla Cook and Eleni Pappelis, we are experienced realtors who are passionate about helping people discover all that is great about the Music City...and realizing all their real estate dreams! Whether you're thinking of relocating, a long-time resident looking for a new neighborhood, an experienced investor looking for a hidden gem, or a first time buyer trying to navigate new waters, we will bring you all the tips, tricks, stats, and resources to get the very best out of this very best part of the country. We will raise some questions, find some answers, share some laughs, and definitely have a drink or two - so come along for the ride. The Real Realtors of Nashville - follow us now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you enjoy your shows!

The Real Realtors of Nashville

El podcast de tutu

这是一个读信的播客， 也是一个在时光里漂流的播客。
每一座孤岛，都可能因信而航行。
信笺越重洋，孤岛若扁舟。

这是一个读信的播客， 也是一个在时光里漂流的播客。 每一座孤岛，都可能因信而航行。 信笺越重洋，孤岛若扁舟。

孤岛信箱Island Mailbox

LAVANT HÖREN ist ein Podcast über das große literarische Werk der Schriftstellerin Christine Lavant. Moderiert von Martin Kušej, lesen namhafte Künstlerinnen aus Lavant’s Werk und aus Briefen. Die Aufnahmen stammen aus den Matineen der letzten 10 Jahre zur Verleihung des Christine Lavant Preis im Wiener RadioKulturhaus.
Dieser Podcast wird ermöglicht durch die Internationale Christine Lavant Gesellschaft.
 
Moderation: Martin Kušej
Texte: Klemens Renoldner
Aufnahmen: ORF RadioKulturhaus / AUDIO FUNNEL
Postproduktion: Georg Gfrerer / AUDIO FUNNEL
Für den Inhalt verantwortlich: Hans Gasser

LAVANT HÖREN ist ein Podcast über das große literarische Werk der Schriftstellerin Christine Lavant. Moderiert von Martin Kušej, lesen namhafte Künstlerinnen aus Lavant’s Werk und aus Briefen. Die Aufnahmen stammen aus den Matineen der letzten 10 Jahre zur Verleihung des Christine Lavant Preis im Wiener RadioKulturhaus. Dieser Podcast wird ermöglicht durch die Internationale Christine Lavant Gesellschaft. Moderation: Martin Kušej Texte: Klemens Renoldner Aufnahmen: ORF RadioKulturhaus / AUDIO FUNNEL Postproduktion: Georg Gfrerer / AUDIO FUNNEL Für den Inhalt verantwortlich: Hans Gasser