Fy enw i'ch ei wneud i gwybod ychyn nhw, L still, sounds, and so much of the wonderful things that have been said today are on the specifics of writers who are not so well known, and I think I've learnt a huge amount from that. I may at the risk of boring you, I'm going to talk about two fairly established people. I must also thank Alexis and Lindsay for inviting me. It's a very nice thing to happen in my first months of some being retired. But I'd rather deplore my position at the end of a long day, I have to say. I was hoping that the place of the auditorium would sort of give, which is why I've got my PowerPoint. I don't really do PowerPoint. I was hoping that the auditorium would sort of go dark and you could all just snooze away and not notice that I've got some pictures to go with the text and so on. But never mind, here we all are enjoying our final time before I think fireworks in the dining room. I thought that was a specific, particularly attractive. I think it did fireworks in the dining room. So I think it's a very splendid way to finish a conference. OK. Well, I'm juxtaposing two influential biographies, William Godwin's of his wife, Mary Wollstonecraft. Memoirs of the author of The Vindication of the Rights of Woman. It's not a snappy title. Published in January 1798 and James Edward Austin Lee's sketch of his aunt. There's a great deal of fuss about whether you put a hyphen in Austin Lee. Tathen Sutherland does, and I don't, so for purposes of this paper there is no hyphen. Called A Memoir of Jane Austen published in December 1869. Godwin was the leading radical philosopher of the 1790s addicted to sincerity and reform through transforming individual consciousness. Austin Lee was a scribbling vicar loyal for his established church. They come together and being male authors writing about famous women. Both impose their own imagination and personality on subjects and texts. Each is silent in curious places and very loud in others. I'm considering what these men chose to stress and omit and how they interacted with what they saw as the gendered nature of their subjects. Both intended to manipulate the reputation of famous relatives regarding themselves and very much the executors of the image. Now the Godwins, nor Austin Lee's, is a biography in the modern sense. There's no footnotes and endnotes. Very little can be verified. There's a lot of attributed words which may come from memory or imagination. The 18th century Godwin had written on biography as a moral force through its depiction of notable individuals in their closet. What one might call a bourgeois literary subjectivity emerges as he tries to make sense of a life that's structured in time and he relates the adult personality to the child and its parenting. Matters assumed to be of importance by the time that the later Austin Lee is writing. Both men are dear to a romantic idea of authorship, making any work a self biography, a personal revelation, part self-conscious and part inadvertent. Godwin is actually writing his own memoirs when his wife died and he turned to writing hers and one might reasonably argue that what he has written is a joint biography in many ways. The gender difference in both cases works against identification, which seeps round the central woman to adhere to the men in the stories. Aha. Now why does it say please connect your laptop at the lectern via input position would you say? Shall I just try and press it anyway? We don't need to. Ah, so much for that. Well that of course is William Godwin. I'll start with his brilliant and intimate work. It seems so modern partially because of course it discusses sex, the prevailing concern of present day biography which insists on invading the private life. And very much the private physical life as well. And because the supposedly sexually liberated Wollstonecroft became a contemporary heroine for 1970s feminism. Inspired by Rousseau's autobiographical candor, Godwin valued being open, fair and scrupulous. He avoided the sentimental and cosy adjectives that adhere to most contemporary biographies of worthy women. Some of the valuable astringency comes from Wollstonecroft's own written material and memories which, like Boswell with Johnson, Godwin as an agent carefully harvested. I sometimes got the impression he was sort of going round after her for listening and writing. A bit like poor, well poor Johnson must have Boswell hanging round him on almost every occasion. So that what could become comfortably feminine such as her abandoning paid work to look after her dying mother is filtered through her bitter memory of her family because her parent was never grateful enough. Most is however, most of the memoirs is in Godwin's tone. In his preface he asserted that the fuller was the story of a life, the more, and I quote, we feel in ourselves an attachment to their fate and the sympathy in their excellences. He didn't flinch from the uncomfortable. Candor was necessary to convey consciousness and display what Virginia Woolf later called the experiment of her life. Godwin emphasised Wollstonecroft's fervent female friendships, a cliché in sentimental fiction, but less decorate in real life as it became excluding or same sex attachment. Possibly felt able because it comes early on so prefaces the central heterosexual romance. Fanny Blythe's Wollstonecroft's first truly emotional tie avoids sexual taint while being elevated through reference to the iconic meeting of Wetter and Charlotte in Goethe's book. Obviously I don't have a picture of Fanny Blythe so I'm having to make boo. Seeing Fanny as a formative relationship, Godwin noted the way Wollstonecroft swiftly moves from admiration to dominance. When he depicts men in her emotional life, there is he implies no such necessary progression. So Fanny serves less as an external love object prelude to the grand passions than as a substitute for the missing supportive family. Through the relationship, Godwin can display something of the usual childhood movement from submission to parental judgement to independence. By the way, he can't really be blamed for downplaying the very important relationship with sisters because they refused to cooperate with him. Quite rightly, obviously, since even though they didn't cooperate when a memoirs came out they lost many of the pupils in their school because of the effect of his revelations. What takes centre stage are Wollstonecroft's known relationships with men, Henry Fusley, Gilbert Imlet and of course himself. Two sexual outside marriage. The first non consummated one she herself delivered as platonic and intellectual. It's very very interesting how other people have talked about women's efforts to tell others that their relationships are intellectual, platonic and emotional and not sexual. But Godwin translates the whole thing into the physical. Wollstonecroft improves her appearance to attract Fusley to her body. When she fails, she leaves England for revolutionary France to heal her distempered mind. Over and over again you find in the memoirs Metafol's images of bodily injury that is actually standing in for some sort of emotional suffering. Godwin stresses the same physicality when she meets the American Gilbert Imlet and begins the sexual relationship. And I quote, for which her heart secretly panted. It's amazing stuff really for 1797. Where Fusley, like the sisters, had refused access to Wollstonecroft's letters, Imlet's are available to him, indeed edited by him. And this relation arrives in detail. A love that proves so destructive that she twice tried suicide is delivered movingly in vivid physical images. Wollstonecroft became a serpent on the rock casting off its old skin and appearing with brilliant sleekness and elasticity.  In this context even suicide becomes justified, part of a pattern. Godwin of course had written on suicide as a possible moral choice. And in all this, in whatever she does, he insists that her revolutionary confidence was never extinguished. He must make this relationship, this departure from the morality of bold minds, as he puts it, acceptable to his readers. Otherwise they judge it an appalling lack of chastity. His argument is that the female predicament of forced celibacy is so problematic for a sensual woman. And by appeal to the ambiguous glory of Wollstonecroft's life, that sensibility that was destroying her. Her experience, this sort of amazing sensibility and the sensuality that she's experiencing through the misery of celibacy enjoying on a woman but not a man. This sort of experience that she's had with him, they would have had little effect, he says, on a man of a hard and insensible disposition. But she is endowed with the most exquisite and delicious sensibility and a mind almost of too finer texture to encounter the vicissitudes of human affairs. Disimpleasure is transport and disappointment is agony indescribable. No identification here. But where Godwin, as a man suffers intellectually, he assumes the same would happen to a woman. As a reviewer, Wollstonecroft in a way I think educates herself and she didn't have a huge amount of formal education. When she became a reviewer she read a lot of books on science and philosophy and everything else. And I think benefited hugely. Godwin however, who has also had to be a reviewer, but has had a better education, found it very cramping. And he said that the talent of a reviewer is touched with a torpedo of mediocrity. I think so expanded but really there's no relationship I think to Mary Wollstonecroft. The sad decline of the imaginary relationship is delivered in Wollstonecroft's travel book, Letters from Sweden, Norway and Denmark, much admired by Godwin. Seamlessly this book enclosing rejection by one lover allows arrival of another. That's just couldn't think of what else. I had some mountains but I thought probably. Frontiers peace would be more to the point. But making power points is a bit like doing Facebook, isn't it? You have to learn what to put into these things. Conventions obviously built up. And maybe there's a book about it all but I haven't read it yet. Where am I? Through Godwin the woman of great sensibility and firmness of mind may at last be partnered and managed by a responsive man himself. Her expression of misery in the book he says dissolves us in tenderness at the same time that she displays a genius which commands all our admiration. He responds to her softness and gentleness and the romance of unbounded attachment. Even the Frank Godwin sense that the second sexual act outside marriage with himself is difficult to deliver to a sceptical potentially sensorious public. The love began, begins in, he says, refined and aerial delicacy. Its dynamics are expressed in the image of her resting her head on his shoulder. Their friend Mary Hayes had shown in fiction the danger of revealing a woman taking the initiative in love. Most of you know there's a remarkable book in which Mary Hayes actually uses the real letters that she had written to a somewhat unresponsive man. And it was a great co-celebr of the time. It's a very brave book, I think. Anyway, she had shown the dangers of a woman taking the initiative. And so he insists here that the sexual act was completely mutual. It came together in total equality. Not everyone would respond generously to his revelations. Godwin would lash out a bit later but in the first edition again. At the dull, squeamish and the formal, the demireps of polished society who ostracised Walsoncraft as a fallen woman.  A woman with sentiments as pure, as refined and as delicate as ever inhabited a human heart. Rather overage for the pudding, I think, there. Especially if he's trying to win an audience for an acceptance of something that is outside the bounds of most people's experience. But he makes a very good claim that the related marriage was an androgynous experiment, a new revolutionary domesticity. The time together, as you all know, was cut short by death following a rival of the child who became Mary Shelley. Godwin's powerful, stark description of the 11 dreadful days of botched childbirth and lengthy dying without religious overtones is unprecedented in published writing and might indicate some influence from the medical writing he enjoyed. He very much becomes the sort of doctor rather than the priest or the friend during some of those days. Again, the physical images are memorable, if somewhat insensitive. Puppies drawing off the contaminated milk, efforts to rally the dying body, a house full of useless men listening to female pain. The emphasis on personal life suggests Godwin's main agenda in the memoirs to present himself and Walsoncroft as new literary types together. She is a modern female exemplar. Despite the central importance of her rational works declared in his title and on her gravestone, the indication of the rights of women, and his belief in her as a constant vindicator, he enclosed her in existing cultural norms, albeit revised. The gendered scheme of female sentiment, intuition and personal expressiveness against male reason, control, order and candor. In this context, his extraordinary revelations about her private life were justified. She was always feminine. His aim is most troublesome now, I think, in the treatment of what made her celebrated. Her literary works. Godwin opened his account of the composition of the two vindications of the rights of men and the rights of women by crowing that perhaps no woman writer ever had so much celebrity throughout Europe. Then he makes a response physical of vehement concussion. Her achievement comes through the support and careful manipulation of her publisher Joseph Johnson. Her ideas and the rights of men derive less from intellectual effort than from feeling. She wrote in a burst of indignation the resulting book being marked with the vehements and impetuousness of its eloquence. He said that it's intemperate, particularly in its treatment of Burke, who indeed comes out in a curiously feminised androgynus way, which I think Godwin found difficult. Her magnum opus, the rights of women, could not elicit the admiration Godwin gives to the early Mary of fiction, a primary sentimental work of which she grew ashamed, but which he claimed established the eminence of her genius. The rights of women is for him deficient and unequal, although its doctrines are important on behalf of oppressed and injured beauty. An odd synonym for women, I think, in this context, and he later drops it from another edition. It becomes a very bold and original production, with many of its sentiments undoubtedly of a rather masculine description. Some passages of a stern and rugged feature are incompatible with the writer's character. The admirable firmness of mind and unconquerable greatness of soul are allied to a somewhat Amazonian temper. In later editions of political justice, Godwin himself had moved from the rigorously rational, more rigorous than really anything that Mary Walsoncoft ever wrote, and certainly in the rights of women, where she always stressed heart and mind together, not just the reason, I think. He moved away from that to emphasise a more indirect and literary method to achieve his goal of changing consciousness. So I think in many ways he may be judging himself when he's judging Walsoncoft in this way, but only in part. Happily, this Amazonian is not the real woman. Inside remains a luxuriance of imagination and a trembling delicacy of sentiment. Although readers of the rights of women might have expected... There we go. That's the Roscoe portrait which he never uses. That was the one that was painted just that she was writing the rights of women. Readers of the rights of women might have expected a sturdy, muscular, raw-boned birago. They would actually encounter a lovely woman feminine in her manners. Here Godwin is overwriting his own first adverse impression. He judged Walsoncoft overbearing and gloomy. Experience of destructive passion had feminised her into a being deserving a man's love. Of course she is better displayed in his work and in hers. So the couple become complementary in character. Godwin presented himself as going towards the logical and metaphysical and Walsoncoft towards the picturesque. He aimed at intellectual distinction but lacked intuitive perception of intellectual beauty. She had intuition and imagination arriving at bold, correct judgment through and then once we get this quote in a kind of witchcraft. They could not but improve each other in their experimental marriage. By describing so fully the emotional trajectory of Walsoncoft's life stressing by implication the struggle of an affective desire and political aim Godwin personalised the feminist cause. Despite his expressed aim the revelations made it impossible for other respectable women to take Walsoncoft as a role model which had been something he had wished to happen. The amazing dizzying biography depicts and argues sometimes contradicting what it seems to imply as its author tries to create an ideal woman from a life of extremes he can at times only fall back on labelling feminine. Yet one has to remember the title and the tomb. That's actually the tomb of Mary Walsoncoft which says author of the vindication of the rights of women and he obviously had ordered the tomb. Now, I come back to him but we move on up the Victorian period. Godwin wrote soon after Mary Walsoncoft's death James Edward Austin Lee half a century after his aunt Jane Austin died. But both men present themselves as guardians of the flame creators of a suitable public image of a dead woman. Both stress their own involvement with the subjects as nephew and husband lover. Both give prominence to their own sex. Thomas Carlile had inaugurated a style of biography based on the old conversion narrative needing a progress towards something culturally approved by readers. Deeper piety, acceptance, understanding, those sort of things. Godwin's Rusovian way had a sort of perpetual conversions constantly to overcome dangers and move on. Austin Lee will not allow his aunt the status of the heroic man of letters who often followed this trajectory but he gives her a pious conclusion and lets the accepted commonplace nature of her life do duty for male literary heroics. Her retirement from the world becomes her glory. She is praised through negatives made positive for a woman. That's it. She never touched upon politics, law or medicine, subjects which some novel writers have ventured on rather too boldly. So much for Bernie and Charlotte Smith and Helen Marrow-Williams and Mary Hayes. Godwin relied on his memory, his experiences and Watson Cross oral and written words. For memory, Austin Lee could use a man only his childhood. Until 1814, he was unaware that his aunt was writing novels. Was actually a published author rather. And he had to rely on recollections of other family members. Neither man would quite have subscribed to Desmond McCarthy's definition of a biographer as an artist under oath. By the time he penned his memoir, Austin Lee must have realised that family memories had become stylised. They had been repeated over and over again. Because this is the period when Jane Austen does grow from obscurity into a posthumous fame. In the preface to the second edition, he admitted the difficulty of recovering what was merged half a century deep in oblivion. Godwin had initially cared little for the feelings of the living and paid the price. Austin Lee took such care not to offend that he obliterated it. Much of what he knew. The aunt, Mrs Lee Parrott, and her pilfering ways, for example. And perhaps he was waiting with propriety until the last of her generation, Brother Francis, died in 1865. But Godwin glorified his relationship with his subject. Austin Lee, the genealogist, glorified the family he shared with his aunt. The use of this term is very different at certain points. It has a sort of diminishing feeling about it. There's no reason why aunt should be a diminution of anything. But there's something about calling her, rather repeatedly, my aunt that does have that effect. I'd question whether her uncle would have quite the same. Or whether he would use it. I can't imagine it would be so. Where Godwin devotes space to his wife's lovers, he devotes it to Jane's male forebears, even cousins, all of course his own. But he's a doctor and umpire of her relations. Austin remained overshadowed by hers, dead and alive. Enclosed within the ideal family, she was properly surrounded by honourable men. That's the brothers. There must be somewhere getting them out of that cover and made bigger, but I don't know what it is. So just peer at it and try and see them. They're the honourable men, the brothers, who live long and rise high. They pierce through the obscurity of her domestic retirement. In his second edition, Austin Lee mentions an aspect much stressed by recent biographers, her experience of wet nursing, a common habit in her parents' class, but one that the radical Wolfenkraut deplored and regarded as a hurt of her own infancy. Though Godwin chose not to stress it. Writing at the end of the century, Austin Lee found a custom strange, she even rather quaint, I think. He added the detail without investigating any effect, lest it impinge on the idealised family portrait. Like Godwin with the missing, possibly insane brother Henry Wolfenkraut, Austin Lee omits mention of the handicapped brother George Austin.  When the women come together finally in Chawton, they form the little party, maintaining in their rather cramped cottage. It doesn't look that cramped, but it is when you actually go into it. When you look what it looked like in the 19th century, it wasn't quite as prettified. Somehow it does look smaller in those, but in fact there are an awful lot of women in there and servants and so on. I think one can decently say that it was somewhat cramped. But in this cramped environment, they made a ladylike establishment. In the second edition, he was at pains to make the small house more gracious by comparing it to a past image and divorcing it from what he said, the present dilapidation. Austin's existence is confined within the family then. She lived in entire seclusion from the literary world, never met a literary equals or had her talent honed by superior intellects. A few very passing external male contacts being with, and I'm sure you all know the stories, but I should do them. Nonetheless, James Stanley O'Clock, the Prince Regent's Librarian. There he is. And after her later publisher, John Murray. I've also got, for some reason I haven't got John Murray, but I've got the Prince Regent. But it's so good that you have to like it. I mean, it doesn't say it's him, but it's a character on most people soon that it was. I don't think it could be anyone else. Stanley O'Clock, James Stanley O'Clock, was a real admirer, but nonetheless he urged Austin to write about a worthy clergyman like himself. Then, when she demurred, he asked her to write a romance on the noble German house of Sax Coburg. Now, it's interesting when you actually look at it. Austin Lee found the suggestions less ridiculous than we do. He noticed his aunt's surprise, but he comments only that Clark did not, and I quote, clearly apprehend the limits of her powers or the proper field for their exercise. His sister, who is rather tartar, called Caroline, called his treatment of this man merciful. For the person she called the rogue Murray, he clearly had far more respect than Austin herself. So he's treated with great respect in the memoir. In any case, nothing at all should interfere with the main outline. The famous poet Robert Salvi admired her, Austin Lee added, Salvi had probably heard from his own family connections of the charm of her private character. Imagining a meeting between the two literary giants, Austin and Walter Scott, he commented, I do not think it would at all have impaired the modest simplicity of her character had it occurred. Though Lord Macaulay enters as a Victorian admirer of that wonderful woman, he and other men are described as placing her, my quote, not indeed amongst the highest orders of genius. Her world is emphatically homemade and wholesome, and from this wholesome place the novels derive. They are free from vulgarity, though her period, of course, is more vulgar than the one Austin Lee himself inhabits. Her milieu is tame, moderate, middling and rural. Inside the little church, she brought all her fancies, her novels that is, into subjection to the piety which ruled her in life. Despite this almost rejection of the satiric sharp side of her work, it remained important to sever any possible fictional mockery from that life. Her characters, he says, are lifelike but never drawn from life. She dreaded an invasion of social proprieties. She created fictional love from intuitive principles of genius, her characters in tune with her wholesome work. Throughout her life she retained, my quote, a cheerful, contented disposition and an humble mind. The childhood that warped Mary Walsencroft into an angry writer here nurtured, quote, pure simple English talent. The satiric juvenilia, instead of showing the mocking origins of Jane Austen's art, indicated instead what the mature novelist rejected. She returned occasionally to the mode but only to amuse nephews and nieces, a very useful group that they can compensate for the only one female failure, her childlessness. In other words, she's feminine in a complete degree. The explicitness of sex and death that so shocked Godwin's public some years earlier is, of course, absent from the high Victorian memoir. There's no speculation of shared beds with men or women. Physical details even of jelly and sweet pears and headaches are mostly expunged from the quoted letters. Close to death in her surviving letters, Jane Austen mentioned bile and discoloration but even in these letters, added to the second edition, she stated mainly a spirit of humility and thankfulness. Godwin had declared Wilsoncraft without religious feeling in her dying though he recorded a drug-induced mention of heaven. He was so candid that he had to mention it but he also has to make sure that it has nothing to do with real heaven. Austen Lee, who was absent when Jane Austen died, described a Christian deathbed. At the end, she wanted nothing but death. The comic poem, which she died, had been mentioned earlier by her less circumspect brother Henry. Austen Lee deplored it and referred to it only in the phrase playfulness of spirit. This reference was removed in later editions. With less discomfort than Godwin but with similar intent, Austen Lee praised the feminine, dominant side of his subject. The woman who wrote brilliant novels did other suitable things with her for hands. None of us could throw spillicans in so perfect a circle. She wrote a clear hand. She folded and sealed letters with consummate neatness and was a fine needle woman, her speciality being satin stitch. In some, and I quote, the hand which painted so exquisitely with a pen could work as delicately with the needle. This is about the woman who is hailed later as the originator of the modern novel. The writing itself becomes domestic by being hidden. As you will know, it's Austen Lee who provides those details of her composing in the general sitting room, avoiding anybody but the family, knowing what she's doing, putting the blotting paper over her writing and so on. In the second edition he adds the famous detail of the creaking door which told her that somebody had to do with it. She wrote on a little mahogany writing desk. I imagine most writing desks are about the same size, but if she's writing it, it's little. If Byron's got one, it isn't presumably. And her creativity was qualified by revision and care. The emphasis constantly that she had to revise as she obviously did Jane Austen was still and humble. She wrote for her own amusement. Money, though acceptable, was not necessary for the moderate expenses of her quiet home. A point rather at odds with the quotation just below. And that's not the only one as you probably know. Like Godwin, Austen Lee declared his agenda at his close, aiming indebly to stamp his version of his female subject on the reader's mind. It is and the cultivation of domestic affections without any self-seeking or craving after applause. Her sweetness of temper never failed. In keeping with the sweetness, he couldn't use as front of peace Cassandra's grumpy portrait, the only portrait of Jane Austen. He had it prettified and this doll-like image then goes as a front of peace of his work. On a ten-pound note I think it's sad. I have a soft spot for grumpy Jane, actually. I think it brings the two women together and why on earth couldn't it be used? Obviously not. It never is. If anybody writes a newspaper about Jane Austen, it's always a pretty one. It's very, very used. Despite huge differences in skill, I'm going very fast. Despite one being the air of the enlightenment, the other of high Victorianism, the two male biographies coincide in their determination to reconcile the subject's achievements with approved gender images. Both of a sure sense of womanhood to impose, with the woman's crowning quality being defined according to the cultural moment, sensibility for the 18th century, sweetness of temper for the 19th. The towering intellectual achievement of both women is underplayed. For neither man, nor woman's fame is resting. Each biography up fronts the author and or his period, where Godwin provided an internal portrait, giving little sense of Wollstonecraft's appearance and surroundings. Austen Lee sees himself as a time traveller returning to a lost pastoral age for which he's nostalgic. There's also a more vulgar age and his comment on it serves to excuse the element of vulgarity in his celebrated aunt who chose to write of the middle classes. Yn hyn mae'r rhwng i'r rhan oherwydd, wrth gwrs, gael ein bod yn ymdyn nhw'n gweithio. Mae'r rhan oherwydd yn ymddangos yn gweithio bod chi'n gweithio. Mae'r rhwng yn ei bach o'i rhagorau. Ond yn y bach oherwydd, mae'r best ac yn ymdyn nhw'n gweithio yn y gweithio ei wneud o'i nhw'n gymryd. Mae'n rhan oherwydd yn ymdyn nhw'n gweithio, oes yn ymdyn nhw'n gweithio. Yn yr adnodd yma i'r gweithio ar hwn ar 1831, Catherine Gore proposed in her work, I quote, to transfer the familiar narrative of Miss Austin to a higher sphere of society. Austin Lee seems to wish that his aunt had done that for herself. And it's of course interesting that 20th century and 21st century films always raise the level and the memory becomes even the duquel place of Chatsworth. Both men give closure to the short interrupted female lives was kind of cross dyed at 38, Austin at 41, from a biographical but not creative point of view. It might have been as well if I think, actually I was going to go on about Jeffrey Scott and Madame de Charriere and writing about women's old age but I think this is a bit of a digression. I don't think men do write about women's old age very well. They seem to think it's the sort of infirmity that is peculiar to women and as though men don't grow old. The men did grow old actually. Godwin went on till 80 and Austin Lee went on to 76. Woodson Croft died without writing the promised second volume of the rights of women or the French Revolution and she died partway through the wrongs of women. Godwin controlling her papers couldn't conclude the novel but he presented it with his apologetic context asking indulgence from the reader of unrefined words. Austin left the unfinished Watsons and Sanderton and possibly persuasion. With less complete control Austin Lee and his sisters could only influence publication. To finish very quickly with response, Godwin's memoir as you all probably know was met with almost universal opprobium.  According to Salvi he stripped his dead wife naked. It's the sort of autopsy image that keeps popping up in all this. The European magazine said that the frailties of this philosophical wanton should have been buried in oblivion. Though some admired Godwin's purpose the work was seized on by conservative press as proof that feminism equalled voracious sexuality and atheism and was a collection of pernicious doctrines of view lasting well into the next century. Vainey Johnson had tried to dissuade Godwin from revealing too much. The outcry now dissuaded him to some circumspection, less physical detail, more abstract argument. In the second edition in August sturdy muscular raw bones became rude pedantic and dictatorial. The state of celibacy remained but was qualified by alienation from anything gross and sensual. The analogy with Vetter and Charlotte for female friendship was dropped. With Fusili he connected affection with social and domestic sympathy downplaying sexual infatuation. With Imle he omitted the panting heart and the serpent image, stressing the connection as neither fickle nor capricious. The lack of control remained but to the suicide attempts he added justification. It mingled desperate and always great qualities. Since it implied culpable abandonment of a child he adds references to motherhood as well. With himself he abandoned the detail of the seducing romance of unbounded attachment relating to the letters in Sweden and he gets rid of the head on the shoulder which was his way of describing it originally. Assuring the supposed invisibility of her sex in this second edition, Wilsoncraft's forwardness became a departure from the morality of vulgar minds. The effect of her death on Godwin so vivid as a simple extinction of light in the first edition became an event hostile to the moral interests of mankind. In general the changes made Wilsoncraft less extraordinary, more typical. Women have a frame of body more delicate and susceptible of impression than men, wrote Godwin. Without rational education they were more unreservedly under the empire of feeling. Wilsoncraft still reasoned little but she'd lost her witchcraft. The word goes in the second edition. Warms overtopped boldness. So the woman who had subtly disputed the cultural construct of gender became firmly and lovingly ensconced within the binary scheme. None of this did any good. Nobody took any notions of the second edition much and in the 20th century when Wilsoncraft was really rediscovered in a big way when the personal becomes the political people are uncomfortable with the text. It's very stark contrast. I'm really, I'm finishing here. The world approved and lauded Austin Lee for his familial and literary efforts. His memoir was received with more favour than I had ventured to expect. Some critics now doubt the crucial influence but to me I think the evidence does suggest that there were far more readers for Jane Austen after the memoir. It sort of came out in a more, in a cheaper edition but I think the memoir does have quite a lot of power and it spreads this image of Dear Aunt Jane, the spinster writing in Royal Hampshire. The garden was forced to cut, expunge and justify. With his later editions Austin Lee was urged to add many more details always avoiding any embarrassment to the living. He could add text, extra letters, he puts in bits with the Watsons, he filleted, Sanderton and so on. He put in Lady Susan. But he always claims that he avoids what the family had rightly declined to publish. Both Austin and Wilsoncraft had died leaving the unfinished works. Godwin, as I mentioned, put something around them and publishes them. Austin would like to suppress them but there are other family members who have got copies and he's stuck so it's a big tussle. The tussle which still goes on with the portraits of Jane Austen as you may read occasionally in the press amongst the descendants of the various brothers. He puts in, as he found himself being so successful, he put in more and more details of the past life of the past life of the the the Royal Hampshire. So that again pushes Jane Austen into this position of being the almost the historian of a lost pastoral England and therefore she moves into a very conservative political position too, as a person who holds to a way of life that sadly is disappearing. It's very interesting, he also complains that that some people are liking that aspect too much and are not seeing her greatness and in some ways he dislikes certain readers and he seems to me he's only the first of many men who try to rescue Jane Austen from common readers and it's still going on and it's still sort of pulling that direction. Well I hope there's been some purpose in juxtaposing a militantly frank memoir and a pious fragmentary memorial both of providing an owed in prose to a dead woman who gives some status and whose inevitable silence perhaps induces some guilt. Both men search for something social and moral in themselves. Godwin wants to understand his psychological change, Austen Lee, his worldly position mediated by a homely aunt and a lost society. He yearns for his youth as Godwin for a past relationship. Both men then bounce their subjects off their own characters and place in the world. Virginia Woolford, myro of the experimental life of Mary Wollstonecroft, thought biography a window into culture, authors and subjects and so the biographer is equal to the subject. In these two works this conjunction of author and subject coincides with the gender difference by role and sex the men are in wolf's words in another context raised on a little eminence and both I think have the sort of specter that they have to get rid of the amazonian woman for Wollstonecroft the professional writer for for Austen Lee. In the end as literary works there's no comparison for while not falling into cloying sentimentality Austen Lee never comes close to Godwin's power of evocation. He's both a candid man as teller of his in the end caution retail and the circumspect man as teller of an exemplary one hugely influenced reticent biographers of women writers in the coming decades. But I want to end just with I think a necessary appreciation without these two writers and their easy access to print and I think that's really important as moderately distinguished men. We would know far less than we do of the amazing women they championed in their way. Happily neither said the last word on them. Thank you.


So all those requests they should come through and tell us what they want to listen to and will be sorting them out I love that every time I have to remind you to use the mic What is going on? I'm so used to this for talking you know I'm just Adua lapel Adua lapel So I'm saying if you're requesting for reggae, rock reggae If you're requesting for rap, rock rap, metal rap If you're requesting for romance, metal romance songs Alright Rock or rock romance songs Adhuse girls, that's where you find him on Twitter and Facebook Adhuse girls on Instagram Adhuse girls one, that's right I'm at Philin June across all social media platforms But come on after Twitter It's at Philin June but the username is Godess Right? I love what we have at Kekmoto and at Bakita Dori That is on Twitter La Facebooko na khtoa Bakita Bakita Kekmoto Facebooko at Telo Facebooko hoze Antonio Samaranch Hoze Antonio Samaranch He hoze JOSI amani He hoze JGON Hoze He hoze Italian Come on Kenya, let's meet Jose He hoze Antonio, he's Italian And he has a ranch Right Oh, he has a... I don't know if he's from New York I don't know if he's from New York But I don't know if he's from New York Some hair Some hair He got some hair Gotcha That's why we understand now We get it Alright, so I want to shout out a few people on the TL I can see Deno Wan Chimi He's a... Loftin' from Rungaia na Sema Runga Chukochun dena I want to shout out to you guys Alapu Viki na Sema Devil and Ice Lipnots, yes? Okay, so yes Bakit na mepubari Lakini, you need love song Is it romantic? Okay, it's a rock song It's just rock It's not love song Tupelo Tupelo Tupelo Shasa, wacha ni ulize Hadisk nyanani Triangle I'll try ako, laptop nyanani Wow, he activates He activates He activates rights Sa wambena kuja We have Zimil Mordrin He says gashiye He says gashiye G town in play For me wafungu hemato From Maudi Tesh Onasasa Whatua gashiye You see na You see na You see na, akora majit rataftayo Skoba You see na Alright, maybe next week Maybe next week Sendio If you had rock, you had playing Atibahu Atibahu rocku wajul We have Kanyeki Who dies Who's a rock Kaniaki kuyu Kiswaili na una Kiswaili kani Kiswaili to you have PLG You have Rash If it's new, I'll know If it's new, I'll know If it's new, I'll know If it's new, I'll know If it's new, I'll know If it's new, I'll know We have Kiplagat Let's read them out Kiplagat We have Kiplagat Na umcheze just the way you are, Torres Riley. Do you have a vashona? We don't. We don't. We don't. Alright, so that one. Ola wa sewa island vibe. Island vibe there. Yes, so I'll talk to them. I love they'll sort you out. How about that? Yeah, that makes sense now. But keep talking to us guys. The hashtag is rock to a 254. I feel engine at huge skills. But Kitadori's at cake motto. You want to know what you are to listen to and we'll be sorting you out. But about now, when I go back to our conversation, we're talking marches, calorism. Have you ever been discriminated best on the color of your skin?  No, just because of your skin tone. Just because you're dark skin. I don't have a job. I don't know. We want to read out those experiences. You share with us. What's your gophe? We're going to talk about marches, TVs and stuff. So come on and talk about shows. Especially the reality shows. You don't need to bleach yourself to fit in. Come on. You don't need to change who you are just to fit in. It's not worth it. Bleaching comes in of course. First of all, it's expensive. But most people are not into the service of money. But other than that, when you're going to take a taxi, it's a little bit expensive. This means you have to take over the kingdom and the city. I'll get that money! How about the city accent? Heroes! Heroes! So don't bleach yourselves to fit in here? No, we don't have to do that. It's not worth it. We can talk about, eno.  I think the mind is very attractive. So how are we value people best on that instead of like the color of their face? You're so Mali but you're being discriminated So you're so Mali but you're not like So they are facing that kind of discrimination And I think it's actually everywhere Tukenda maju even casting Wa saywa when I act casting it's a problem If you are dark skin Kupata tu cheli dark skin na dem dark skin wame poa roll moja It's very hard I don't know what I'm wearing I don't know what I'm wearing So make sure to sir I'm moving like black panther Yeah it was all black All black and amazing Kanda things If you're Lupita, you say Lupita is making waves She's making us proud She actually has a new movie coming out It's a horror movie though But it's nice It's a comedy horror It's a horror movie though Now she's now acting now Now she's getting it She's doing horror Now she's getting it I look what's on her papia Imaji sasaka maange Bili chalafu nenda uko Rolls Malay skin ni wengi So I'm not after We're like dark skin I'll party roll Right Yeah so you don't have to change yourself Don't change your color Okay so for me I'll change with this Keep doing what you're doing Job enyuna takaita come through You don't have to change who you are Just keep right Someone else will see how smart you are Just be smart Ukiwa na knowledge I don't know that I can discriminate against your knowledge If you know you know Kama isim smart You cannot fake that one Fake at least skin would have bleached But no less you cannot bleach that one You'll have to work on So yeah that's it for me I think with this topic I'm done I just want to read your comments Your experiences So here's the skills Yes As we finish with this topic What do you have to say As we trash this topic Let's play to trash it Yeah we do that No but now take the last comments From Bakita and Sam Yeah It's a big topic Now Bakita What would you tell girls out there Girls who don't know And she's a doc How should she grow up Feeling like Because you discrimination Or another At some point or another She'll have to face it How does she deal with that According to you Well She'll just have to be herself That's sorry Being herself is the thing here Is your save them then? Yes Being yourself is everything Oh my God I have an interview tomorrow What should I do Be yourself Yes Yeah but it's true Not trying to be someone else Is just it won't work It's the issues I always say that Just like you say Just like you say You can't bleach your Knowledge Yes You just have to be yourself Sam If you want to be your own Yes Yes Thank you What? It's Sam who says that But if you want to be your own Lights, kids Unless they want kids So what do you tell people like that?   If the chick doesn't like you, pass, move on. So let's move on to a light or not. We move on to play it or trash it. So today it's actually very awesome. I'm talking about In Flames. They have a new song out. It's called Bun and it's off their new album. It's called I Mask Out. The album will be released in March 1st. That's when the album is coming out. The song we are playing today is called Bun. The Bun is In Flames. The song is Bun. That's all. Number one. Number two, we have one of Husqv's and one of our producer's favorite Buns. By the way, Abishara Tumuhika. The song is, okay, the bun is within temptation. Awesome, awesome, awesome. So you guys know they have a new album, right? It's called Resist. Resist, awesome. He knows his rock. And as you are rockin', okay. So the song we are sampling today is Supanova. Kasanova, Kasanova, Supanova. Oh, I'm just thinking of that. Supanova, you're thinking loud. I'm just thinking in this romantic atmosphere of February. Right, and then we have a third song. It's from Year of the Knife. That is our third band and the song is Fetal. It's of the upcoming album. It's called Ultimate Aggression. Yes, so we have In Flames as our first band. The second band is within temptation. The third band is Year of the Knife. The songs are Bun. The second song is Supanova. The third song is Fetal. But you know, Kasanova, so how about we just go play the songs and let you guys be the judge, right? Be the judge, yes, and we'll be right back. More of rock tours. Stay here.


back to Think Tech, I'm J. Feidele. This is a view from the north with Dr. Ken Rogers joining us from Kelowna, British Columbia. We're going to talk about how would Canada be affected by a U.S. dictatorship, which is what Trump is threatening. So I guess the question is, is there a level of urgency among the people that you talk with in Canada about what is going on as we approach the November 2024 election? Well, as a generalization, most of the Canadian public's pretty apathetic. They don't follow too much what's going on. As a generalization, most Canadians don't believe that Americans would be done enough to vote Trump back in.  And yet the polls are good. His base is strong and he himself is, he's undaunted. He's undaunted by, you know, whatever problems he has in court, which are many and whatever problems he has in, you know, in governing, which are many. So here we are with the logical possibility that he could very well win. So for this discussion, I guess first I'd like to ask it, you know, you're in British Columbia, Western Canada, do people favor Trump over Biden?  Canadians think that, you know, the U.S. economy is performing fantastically well. And normally, you know, the economics affect how everybody votes. You know, the U.S. is the only major country who's not suffering, you know, let's call it a recession or near there too. You know, certainly Canada isn't doing as well as the U.S. So we, you know, when I look at the polls and chat with a few people that are quite knowledgeable, they say, well, other than his age, what does anybody have as a problem with Biden? I mean, when he's before the mic, he sounds as lucid as ever.  How about his rhetoric? You know, there are people who say we want him to speak up. We wanted to respond to Trump's crazy statements and Republican crazy statements. We want to be stronger in terms of his public appearances. Did they talk about that?  So when you listen to Trump say, you know, drill, drill, drill or whatever his new punchline is, aside from he'll be a dictator, for sure, you know, starting on day one, they didn't, didn't say ending. But you know, the, the generalization is that, you know, Trump would be a catastrophe for Canada. I mean, the Canada, the border from Maine to Washington state is about 4000 miles long. And in addition to that, there's another 1500 miles of border between Alaska and Canada. You know, so it's 5500 miles. So, so whatever happens in the United States affects Canada dramatically. Yeah, it's the same language of the media crosses the border. People cross the border trade crosses the border. And the culture is not that different.  And I wonder, I mean, we were talking a minute ago about Western Canada, how they feel, how people that you talk to feel, what about Eastern Canada? Is it the same or different there? How do they feel about Trump and Republicans? I think they're pretty consistent all the way across Canada. You know, I know Eastern Canada, you've got to remember there's province of Quebec, which is quite different from anything else in North America. You know, the majority of Quebecers speak French. Virtually all Quebecers can speak both like French and English, but you know, they have a lot of different rules and attitudes. The politics different, you know, would they be more likely to support Trump than the others? No, probably less. Okay.  And of course, it's a wordplay, is what it is. My guess is what he really means is that on day one, he will change everything. He has a little list right out of the Mikado. He has a little list, and he has a playbook, which he is working on now, which he has revealed in part, which he will implement on that very day. All together now, everything that he wants to do as president, he will do that day, including wreck the government. So, I wonder if people in Canada, some people in the U.S. understand this, recognize it as, you know, as a horrible result. Other people don't. They seem to think that it'll be okay that he's not going to be any worse than he was in the first term, but I think it's clear that he will be, and that he'll populate the government, you know, with his accessories, you know, in every corner of the government, and they will be completely loyal to him, much more so than before. He will not tolerate any disloyalty the next time around. So, you know, it does lead to dictatorship, and he as much as said so, he wants to throw out the Constitution, the rule of law, the notion of democracy, all that. As I wonder, you know, and there are some people in this country, including President Company, you know, who feel this is really a tremendous threat to the United States, but are there people in Canada who feel, A, that it's a threat to the United States, and B, that it's somehow a threat to Canada? Well, intelligent people I talk to think that, you know, if Trump wins the democracy as it's now known in the United States will end, you know, and pretty quickly, your comment about reducing some of the government departments to just mere skeletons of what they are now, and that the heads of all of those reduced departments would be, you know, Trump loyalists, you know, who salute whatever he salutes and says, yes, sir, whenever he gives an order or a suggestion, I think it'll take a little while for him to implement his revenge strategy, but it would be fairly quick to to take over the Justice Department, the FBI and the Tax Department, and then those three could certainly implement pretty quickly a lot of the revenge that he would like to have, you know, but when you take the Justice Department in particular, then you eliminate the rule of law. So it's like, you know, what happened in Navalny in Russia, you know, he just disappeared, you know, well, you know, just because somebody says, well, I'll get my day in court, well, you may not, you know, in a dictatorship, you don't get that sort of thing, you know, and I don't very few people in Canada have come to serious thinking about what would the effect on Canada be if Trump did win.  You know, and in a lot of ways, you know, comparing the US and Canada is a little bit like I was thinking of the dispute between Venezuela and Guyana, you know, where Guyana is the little guy, you know, and its military right might compare to Venezuela is deadly squat, you know, and if Venezuela says, well, we just want to take two thirds of your territory. And thank you.  Well, first thing you do, take Alberta and then Saskatchewan. Well, that, you know, that's a very interesting point, because say first thing, but the first thing would be little things, right? Little incursions on Canada. Well, actually, the first thing would be the wall to finish the wall. The wall in Mexico. Yeah, in Mexico.  Like anybody who's taken a cruise along the British Columbia coast up to Alaska would recognize that there's a mountain range really close to the coast that has some huge glaciers on it. You know, where are you going to build a wall? The glacier glacier straddles the Canada US border in that place and for a lot of Alaska. But, you know, you're going to have a major mess. You got major rivers that run, you know, back and forth. For example, you know, the most important river on the west side of the US is the Columbia. Well, most of that water arises in western Canada. You know, but when you take what are the items where Trump was a problem in the past, which may be his first picks this time, he certainly didn't like NAFTA or the US, Canada, Mexico trade agreement. He, you know, it seemed to be he reluctantly accepted what was done. Well, if he's back in office, that would be back on the plate. Well, he may just start with saying we're just not going to respect the agreement as is. There's not much Mexico and Canada can do about it. That's the kind of thing. I mean, so he's not going to take British Columbia, not right away, but he will, you know, nibble. Well, that's the only way you could connect to, that's the only way you could connect to Alaska. Yes. You see, if you want to, if you want to get to Washington State, the Idaho and Montana so that they can connect directly to Alaska, you need to, you need to take most of Western Canada, you know, British Columbia, Alberta, and the Yukon, the Yukon territories north of British Columbia, most Americans would know where it is. You know, don't you think that the Canadian American border would change legally? Absolutely. Tell me how you think it might change? Well, one of the first things would probably be a lot more Americans wanting to just move to Canada and in a hurry.  But the border now has an awful lot of day traffic. Like people, for example, in Detroit, a very large portion of the hospitals in Detroit are manned by medical people that live right across the river in Canada. You know, I don't know why it just seems to be such a huge percentage of medical staff.  You know, for example, immediately between Seattle and Vancouver, you know, there's an awful lot of traffic where the Vancouver end or just north of the border, Canadians drive across to the nearest sizeable town, which is called Bellingham in that case. And they do certain kinds of shopping where there are items, selected items that are cheaper in the US than they are in Canada. And then, you know, they're back. Well, those small cities all across the US-Canadian border all depend on that business. It's pretty huge. Now, Canada, like the US international trade, everybody thinks is pretty large, but as a percentage of the US economy, it's just about the smallest in the world. You know, where Canada is just about the opposite. You know, we have just a huge percentage of our gross national product is exports or imports. Well, that actually suggests two things. It suggests that Canada is, I guess we knew this, dependent in many ways on the US in terms of trade and transfer of resources. But on the other hand, it also suggests that if Trump wanted to take advantage of Canada, if he wanted to demand concessions, if he wanted to force Canada to do this or that on some kind of trade or geopolitical basis, he would have huge leverage against Canada and Trudeau and the parliament and all that simply because of Canada's dependence. And it's not below him to do that. Do you agree? Yes, but there's already examples of that in terms of most trade or other relations between the United States and either Mexico or Canada. The US has always been a bully. The US never does play really, really fair. And a wonderful example would be the softwood lumber under NAFTA and the US, whatever they call the agreement now. There's been several times that that dispute has been gone to the tribunal and they've always done it in Canada's favor. And then the US just says, so what? We're going to impose great big tariffs on softwood lumber coming from Canada. Anyhow. No, you can take. Sure, tariffs are a way to impose your will on your neighbor, your trading buck. Yeah, but you have the biggest dollar item aside from automobiles, parts and stuff going back and forth, mainly between Southern Ontario and the US, is energy. Well, the energy is certainly a favorite to area for Trump. And, you know, the essence of energy, Canada exports an awful lot of natural gas to the US that you use. But also, now that you have LNG being shipped around the world, you know, one of the big changes in relation between Canada and the US on trade has been that Canada is sending natural gas to the US, which is shipping it to the ports, converting it to LNG and shipping it out. Now, that's a very large plum.  You know, one of the keys as to why the US economy is doing so much better than than everybody else in the world right now.  Well, that actually raises an interesting question. Some say that, you know, Biden, well, I mean, including you and me, say that Biden done a good job with the economy. He may not get credit for it. He doesn't, you know, he doesn't seek all that much credit for it. But credit where credit is due, he's done a good job with the economy, jobs and infrastructure and the like. But let's suppose for a minute that Trump becomes a president and he acts like a dictator and he does everything on his own without good advice and the economy of the United States falters, which I think is a real possibility, given our isolationist direction these days. So, query, you know, what does a falter in the American economy mean to Canada? Will Canada follow a rack and pinion on a decline in the US economy? Well, if the US gets a sniffle, Canada gets a cold. If the US gets a cold, Canada gets pneumonia. You know, it's really, you know, we probably have, I don't know what percentage of the trade that Canada has is with the US, but it's probably over half. The other thing I wanted to ask you about is the culture wars issues that Trump will undoubtedly endorse. And ultimately, we have to talk today about, you know, his threat on the press and the lawyers and the politicians who criticize him. That's another issue. But it seems to me that, you know, we have racism in this country. We have this crazy thing about abortion. We have this crazy thing about guns and so forth and schools and, you know, not letting kids read books and gee, as I could go on. And I don't know the level to which the dark side of those issues has permeated the Canadian, you know, country and culture. But I wonder if things get worse here with issues like that, do you think that they would have an effect on the issues like that in Canada? Well, certainly, if you take abortion, which I think is one of the key reasons why most Canadians think Trump will lose is, you know, there's no question that nobody would even bring up the idea of abortion ban anywhere in Canada. Most of the things that I think would happen were where the social problems in the US will arise like the abortion question, are we then going to get a whole bunch of Americans coming to Canada to get abortion? Or are they just going to... You may very well. I think that's going to happen now. Yes. But if you think of, well, because Canada is closer, but maybe their US healthcare won't pay and there's still lots of really good US states where they can go to and get good healthcare. But your social things, you got the attack on women's rights, the attack on the LGBTQ community where, you know, Canada's more liberal than the US on that issue as well. You know, Trump last time tried to put in a Muslim ban. I would assume that would be fairly high on his list. I mean, we have, you know, areas in Canada, for example, one of the large boroughs of Vancouver or let's call it sub-communities called Surrey. Well, nearly 50% of that municipal part of Vancouver is Muslim. You know, we got another one called Richmond. It's Chinese. But, you know, Vancouver's a pretty cosmopolitan place. However, that would attract a lot of Americans. You know, if they see the Trump actions as dangerous as I think they would be, you know, Canada might be a pretty good choice for an awful lot of people. You think that his policies and these cultural wars that we have in this country would creep over the border and somehow infect Canadian government, Canadian institutions? In other words, would we have Islamophobia in Canada to kind of copycat what we have here? Would we have an increase in anti-Semitism in Canada like we have here and like I think will happen under him? This is sort of thing of concern. Well, I hadn't thought about it because it normally would not be at all a concern in Canada. I think the, you know, anti-Muslim or Islamophobia has always existed to some degree in Canada and remains in existence.  You know, you get some tension between them. The other factors though, I think Canada on the LGBTQ thing is that it is going to change. I don't see if America becomes far more anti-Jewish, which would really surprise me, you know, because, you know, having lived in New York, I find that hard to believe, you know, that I think the Jewish population is just such a strong major contributing part of the U.S. economy. And I don't think Trump has any anti-Jewish inclinations, even though a lot of his followers might. But, you know, the elimination of major parts of the U.S. government, you know, would be, you know, the item that would cause the most disruption.  I mean, I, it's really hard to comprehend what the consequences of Trump being in and converting the U.S. into a, you know, a target or a dictatorship would, what it would be like, especially with a dictator that's, that's half insane in the first place. Well, you know, query, we have Justin Trudeau right now. I wouldn't put him in those categories. However, you like or don't like his policies. But maybe it's the next, you know, prime minister. And maybe the next generation of leaders around the provinces, maybe they will move to the right.  And they will say, gee, I can make myself more powerful if I follow his lead. And maybe there will be some traction in Canada. That's the way there has been traction in the U.S. You think this is possible or likely?  And they spent a lot of money, but to really accomplish nothing with it and has a bunch of policies that most Canadians do not like are gross domestic or GDP per capita has been going down for three or four years where the U.S. has gone up, you know, especially in the last year or two with the Biden's infrastructure bill, etc. However, the main opposition party in Canada is a conservative party, you know, they have been in power over the years, but not for the last eight years or ten years. But they are more popular right now. And part of it is they spit out a few of these Trump-type policies. They're certainly more right-wing than their predecessors in that party. But they're really not much right of the U.S. Democrats. That is, they're not very right-wing, they just have a few of these scary policies, but they certainly wouldn't even dream of having an abortion ban. You know, Canada does not have a big evangelical base. You know, like one of the quandaries to anybody here is how could evangelicals support Trump? It just seems contradictory. Well, he breaks every religious rule in the book. But, you know, I wanted to ask you about isolationism, because what we have is this populist isolationism under Trump, and even without Trump, that seems to be the U.S. is moving in that direction. But I always felt that Canada, as a former member of the Commonwealth and all that, Canada, that has its legal roots, its societal roots, if you will, not only in the U.K., but lots of immigrants to Canada from lots of places. It's a very diverse, global society, and especially from Eastern Europe, which is under such threat these days, like Ukraine, for example. And I wonder if the notion of isolationism would be popular, would catch on from what Trump is doing, will do, to the civil society of Canada. Well, it first has to get, the isolationist trend has been, you know, sort of North America not just U.S. only, like the U.S. has really pushed it for the simplifying supply lines, bring supply lines closer to home, because it was supply disruptions that really, you know, caused the mess, you know, following COVID and created the inflation that, you know, caused the economic problems that we're still unraveling. But the, you know, real isolationism isn't going to happen in Canada by itself. You know, it's really, if the U.S. wants to be only the U.S. isolation and stop the trade from Canada, it's going to hurt on both sides of the border. But proportionally, it's going to be suicidal for Canada.  You know, for example, a whole bunch of U.S. homes would freeze in the, in the dark. I guess it wouldn't be, you know, which would therefore the next move would be to, you know, Trump to invade and take Alberta.   But the problem with Trump is I don't think he would think it's true.  Well, you mentioned earlier, and it's something I did say I wanted to follow up on. And that is that he would, he would change law enforcement and the media in this country. And certainly I think he would cut the Department of Justice in favor of his own appointees, loyalists, the same thing with the, you know, FBI and, and the tax office IRS. He'd make them all his weapons, his instruments in order to bring pressure against those who would oppose him. But, you know, it strikes me that one of his targets, and he's made it clear that it is a target, is the media.  And those are the two largest, you know, primary news sources in the country, print press. And he's attacked, you know, the cable news networks like MSNBC and CNN, for that matter, the BBC as reporting against him. Okay. So let's assume he will do that. He will do that. And that's probably one of his day one things through the, you know, the Federal Communications Commission and change it around so that they stop these, these news organs. But it strikes me, Ken, that he would want the same thing to happen in Canada. In other words, if a given news media organization in Canada attacked Trump, and it might, because it might not agree with him. And there is First Amendment, there is freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of expression in Canada. As far as I know, Trump may want to reach out and try to undermine those organizations, because they are broadcasting into the United States. What are your thoughts? Well, I don't think he had reached out. I think he had just swing, bring out the sledgehammer and, you know, but the Canadian press certainly is fairly anti-Trump as is. Yeah, but would you want to stop them? Wouldn't he want to have an effect on them? Would, for example, if he could stop them broadcasting their opinions into the United States, wouldn't he do that?  So, that's where I learn lots of my stuff, you know?   So, if you want to get a heavily biased opinion favoring the Palestinians, that's a good one to listen to.    That's his market. You know, a lot of Russian media in Lithuania, they had to leave Russia when they published something called Medusa and something called the B, that's B-E-E-T. And they published their opinions about what Putin is doing around the world and he hates that because they're attacking him, but he can't do much about it because they're in Lithuania. If he could, he would. And so I'm thinking that, A, as you said before, there'll be Americans who will be, you know, concerned about him going after them with the Revenge Initiative, including media, and they would go to Canada, which is the most appealing place really. It's not just because you're there, by the way. It is a very, I've always spelled it Canada, the wonderful country. And so they may go there. They may go there and they may do what Medusa and the B are doing out of Lithuania.  And I just wonder whether Canada would be willing to accept Americans and American media and, you know, give them the necessary visas to come, because, you know, we can't swamp you. We can't, you know, send millions of people across the border. It's not going to work. But there will be those people who will be influential, who would like to come across the border. And I wonder your thoughts about what public opinion, where public opinion would go if when Trump becomes a dictator and does, you know, try to do his vengeance program, how Canada will react to that? Well, I would think Canada would would stand on its head to encourage any American that was on Trump's revenge list, you know, or just felt it was a problem to come, please come to Canada.   But, you know, we actually have probably more people in Canada that were born in the United States than we have people born in any other country. You know, like we now have a ton of Americans, I can remember growing up in Alberta when they discovered oil and that the city of Calgary and the city of Edmonton had a majority of Canadians one day and the next day there was, you know, probably 50% Americans. Certainly, certainly the high school that I went to had, you know, the sons and daughters of Americans who moved to Canada because the oil industry was so spectacular and, you know, Americans have no trouble fitting in in Canada.  Well, that would be the concern. That would be the concern on behalf of the Canadian government to open the door completely and have, you know, Americans come in wholesale because of Trump, because of his policies, because of his autocracies. And I wonder whether there would be a limit or whether people would welcome them and disregard the fact that some of them are in fact ugly Americans. I think you're going to experience that. Can I really think that's going to happen? Well, you're going to have isolated groups like you may have LGBTQ. You know, well, if you took, remember the population in the United States is about 10 times that of Canada. Well, if you took every LGBTQ person in the United States suddenly panicked and wanted to get out of the US and they had to pick somewhere, well, you know, you'd just be really overloading Canada with a isolated group or a group that can be segregated against so easily, you know, and that might push problem that isn't here in the first place, you know, might create a problem for the existing community.  You know, one thing is clear from this discussion and that is that the border will change if Trump, you know, becomes president again. The relationship in terms of trade and culture between the two countries will change. It's hard to predict exactly how, but I feel that from this discussion there will be changes. And I also feel that, you know, even if he is elected, hopefully, there'll be a better president after him, hopefully, at some point in time, and things will return to a more normal state of relationship between the US and Canada. Those changes are likely to continue whatever they are. So we are, you know, on the precipice if he wins of a new relationship, it may be very nuanced, but it will be new. Don't you agree? I do.  You said that before.   And, and, you know, because of that, Canadians kind of brush off, but what will the consequences be? Oh, my God, we'll have to watch this very carefully because it is entirely possible. From this point of view, we'll have to follow it as we go closer to election day. Thank you very much, Ken. Back to Ken Rogers, Hugh from the North, broadcasting from Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada. Thank you so much. You're welcome.


We are all born with possibility. You can choose to accept the way things are, or you can challenge yourself. Opportunities are not always in the places we expect. Be curious. Be experimental. Be relentless. Push boundaries. Be courageous. Be remarkable. Griffith University.


Hello and good morning and welcome to today's products and focus as you can see there the US 30 still continues to move slightly higher after reaching An all-time high and closing the all-time high there Just last week. We're a slight a little bit on the wrong side today But not by much nothing to see about prior to the 26th We actually managed to get higher 18,102 so the psychological 18,000 level has been pretty much broken And to be fair if you're looking for a potential replacement level now You might be looking around pretty much bang on 18,000 to be fair So this is a level potential pivot to be aware of going forward If we break down and close below that then that will open up a move back down to 17 to 895 I can see the Germany 30 is getting quite close to 10,000 again, and UK 100 is at 6610 So moving on to that UK 100 for a second on the right side of potential resistance at 6589 So now as expected act as potential support we're trading above both moving averages We've got a crossover on the MACD while the other technicals are still quite neutral So the next potential resistance to be aware of the UK 100 is 6686 Moving on to Japan 225 and dollar yen is 120 It's a very volatile day there That candle is quite correct there on 29th of December It gives you a bit of an idea about where we've been So it has come off a little bit more and then kind of recovered a little bit of that loss there after Actually, we thought this would have been pretty much closed But maybe as it is open today, maybe closes by the end of the day as a cash product over in Japan But nevertheless 17496 is an exponential support level where it looks like it kind of bounce Which would also be that 21 period SMA log return potential resistance is still in about 18306 But there's a lot of holidays in Japan During the actual past a period of about as you expected Japan to have much more action between now and the start of January So maybe that's why there's thin volumes extra volatility potentially there as well to be aware of So if we actually have a quick look at dollar yen the FX markets don't ever sleep in that instance You can still see that we're drifting in about 120. We've been doing that over the last couple of sessions as well Next potential resistance after that is going to be at this can this 121 So actually let's go ahead and draw that on there as well with a longer term potential resistance between 124 It's about 42 with some coming to you and this is going to be one of the ceilings that Dolly yen is likely to to retain for the longer term So I think I think I've read somewhere today in fact that 117 Ash is going to be the potential floor or 140 is going to be the tend to floor and the 124 is going to be the potential Ceiling for quite some time So moving on to that moving on to West Texas crowd We seem to be hugging around about $55 last couple of sessions drifting or lower even issues in Libya are not supporting the crude oil prices by anything That's significant Break below that obviously opens us up to a much lower We're still looking at the psychological $50 level as an X potential support should $55 break Below that so moving on to gold to finish things up our volatile session last couple of days trading above 1186 cap potentially that 21 and 55 period SMA So the pressure still on gold here as usual strong dollar Industry aspects impacting or holding go back potentially obviously be a particularly good day Here on the Friday the 26th but that's not It doesn't really massively change the whole game because we've tried to rally up before and get pushed back down Fundamentals are still kind of stacked against gold in the short term. So finishing up with your dollar and GBP USD Because that your dollar drifting or still targeting one spot 2047 is an X potential support I've QE and straight cut comes in the eurozone. That's obviously gonna impact Your dollar, but I think the ACB are very reluctant to actually do that unless they really really really really have to So keep your eye on some of the macro data coming out of Europe to start off January to get a flavor of how that's going Obviously, you've got the Greek elections today as well Which I think are expected to be finished around about 11 a.m. UK time as in the result is due to be given or about then Which will give an idea if we can make any snap elections in Greece or not then finishing up the GBP USD trading below one spot 95 99 one spot 56 pressure still on one spot 54 24 still the potential support level to be aware of right there There's no massive economic data details out today fast-forward on to Tuesday, and you've got UK house prices And then you've got a CCI in America And if you go on to Wednesday, you got unemployment data the housing index and More petroleum data, which should be very useful if you're looking to trade West Texas or Brent there this week And then that obviously brings us into the new year as ever keep you on the chart forum making this part of your late Going forward and join me again I guess after the New Year's holidays to find out what the next


Keep it clean first before we get into this. I got to say I really appreciate all the healthy Conversation on the Greg Roman video on asking the question if he should be fired or not a lot of people had a lot Of stuff to say which I appreciate But everybody they shared their opinion Respectfully nobody got nasty or disrespect for anything like that. So I really appreciate that a lot. So shout out to y'all now In a few different videos this year We said that especially after he got that back injury and in training camp or right before preseason I Said that anything that we get from Derek Wolf would be a bonus Anything because I just I did not have any faith in him whatsoever to be playing this season I just I didn't see it happen. But then all of a sudden it came out. Oh the Ravens They they remove Derek Wolf from injured reserves. Oh, okay, hold on. Wait a minute. We're getting this bonus Let's go and when you remove a player from injured reserve then they're not placed on the active roster right away But they have 21 days to be placed on the active roster. So we all knew that within three weeks We were getting number 95 back. We were getting back and it was like, all right We could certainly use them the run defense. They ain't been what it was last year They ain't been too bad, but they certainly ain't been what they were. I mean really the whole defense period, but Having more reinforcements will certainly make the team that much better But then we heard from Jeff Zribick That Derek Wolf he ain't even look close to being ready Didn't even look close and it was like ooh Okay, and that was after he had got activated from injured reserve. So I was like, oh, so he got less than 21 days And he don't even look close. All right, we got a hope for this miraculous turnaround. Hopefully his back just is like, hey Derek, I got you but Apparently we're not getting that because Harbaugh in a presser today He said he's done Harbaugh said he's done that uh Derek Wolf. He is going to be out for the rest of the year So that list of Ravens players and Ravens significant players out this year I mean, he was already on it, but it was looking like he was gonna get removed from it But looks like he is gonna be staying on for the remainder. So That's unfortunate. That's unfortunate because I mean, that's been the story of this season story this season from the Ravens has been I would say one of the words I would use would be a Resilience, um, I was another word. I would be I would say it would be another phrase, of course battle tested Another one I would say Stressful that's a that's a pretty good one. That might be the best one out of all of them But the Ravens they certainly been through it when it's come to the injuries as you all already know So that's old news now He did say Nick Boyle He said Nick Boyle was close to playing on Thursday night because uh, somebody asked him they were like, oh Well, how um, how close was Nick Boyle close to playing on Thursday night against the Dolphins? He said yes And you just sat there He just said yes and just sat there now one of my guys he did tell me he said when the Ravens win Oh boy the mood around the castle. It's a five man. Everybody happy. He's all happy. This is but when they lose it's different it's different and Then of course y'all y'all know y'all have seen plenty of pressers with John Harbaugh before and you know when Ravens lose You know, that's when the reporters that's when they get them good questions out And that's when those questions they really get to Harbaugh like when they went in how you see a little bit of petty Harbaugh hit about well when they lose He answers the questions different He responds different and this was no different He all he did was he said yes And that's how man, you know, I've been he's been trying his best to keep pretty hush on the injuries recently but anyway now My favorite question my favorite question of this entire presser today And I was actually surprised when they asked about it. I was like what they're asking about our guy Somebody asked about Tyson Williams and about him getting more involved and I was like what They they asked about I was like we in the in the Greg Roman video We were just talking about Tyson. I mean we've been talking about him through the entirety of this season But we were just talking about him how he just you know Ravens. They they're done with him They don't care about no Tyson Williams, so I would just I appreciated that so much So whoever that reporter was whatever that media person was we appreciate you asking about Tyson Williams Now when that question was asked, we should have known we were not gonna get a straight answer because Harbaugh said He said every player has to contribute They have to perform and they have to produce if you're running back you need to run hard You need to break tackles. You need to get yards. You need to pass protect You need to run the right route. You need to catch the ball and get upfield And he said if you like a third string then you gonna need to play special teams, too That was it No, I mean I was hoping and again, I wasn't expecting cuz we know Harbaugh We don't have you but I was just hoping like we would get something something but We ain't get nothing with Tyson Williams, so Same old stuff Again, Tyson Williams. He is he's not the forgotten man, but the Ravens they are They're not big fans of forgiveness when it comes to Tyson Williams. They're not now I know in the in the video that we talked about earlier today because I voiced my frustrations on The way that they use the running backs and then I feel like they just they just want everybody to run All right Devonte you get ten carries Levy on bail. Okay since Devonte got ten All right So you'll get eight or nine because we got to keep your carries close to Devonte Freedmen's carries because we we don't we just don't want anybody to be upset, but then Tyson You'll get ten minus nine carry. Well, you know what let's just do ten minus ten You can come on a field if I get to you with that, but Don't expect the ball Now again, I it must have to have stemmed from the Raiders game because that's really the only time he really got carries like that In the first hat in the first half of the Raiders game as a matter of fact If you had like nine or ten carries in the first half then the second have he had two He did have a couple catches to now, but they just stopped. They stopped So it's like we that was week one we and week what ten going into week 11 and They they they've been cut this dude off a long time ago Now again, they gave they gave him a shot against the bingles and that fourth down play when the game was Kind of out of reading that's at the out of reach, but you would have needed a lot to go your way When he ran out of bounds That's that that I felt like that sealed his fate And I felt like that was just where I couldn't I couldn't defend that but it's like Ravens they Don't want to give him any shots And it's like your the fact that your run game is in the predicament that it's in that is in the shape that it's in Like most of y'all are coming from the mall They shouldn't but they are he back there running for his life But so why not? Let somebody else like take some of that weight off his shoulders Why not especially somebody with some speed, but I just that this is just one of the Not even one of the biggest stories of this season that blows my mind It's just one of those sort of Not and it's not even really under the radar because all Ravens fans know about it But it's just one of those stories from this year that just I don't understand why I don't Did he do something that bad to where coaches were like, you know what?   You ain't touching the ball Don't think that you are cuz you're not I could really see them saying that to him because look at action speak louder than words And we see the actions when they're out there So it's just it's it's the weirdest thing, but we don't know the ins and outs we don't know what's going on behind the scenes and da-da-da-da-da so Is what it is so Tavius Murray now you know when when he's back Tyson Williams going right back to the Deon active list. You already know what's coming.  Anyway, I do think that this offseason season, Tyson Williams is going to, even if he did it during this season, I wouldn't be surprised. But I could see him requesting his release, like, especially this offseason, because it's like, what, what am I going to do here? What's the point of me sticking around here? What am I going to do with this team? Because you got, you already got right now, you given Latavius Murray, even though he's been out for the past couple of weeks, but given Devonte Freeman, Levy on bail and Latavius Murray, giving them carries over me, I know the system. Yeah, I messed up early on, but okay, are we not allowed to make mistakes? I guess not. But yeah, those guys are veterans, but I got to found the youth on my side. And you know, this offense, we can certainly use some explosive plays. It's like, then we got J.K. Dobbins and Gus Edwards coming back. Oh yeah, I don't have a place here. You know what, Eric D'Costa, thank you so much for the opportunity. I really appreciate it. And you know, it's nothing against you guys personally, but I just feel like the best decision for me and my family and my future would be if I was just given an opportunity elsewhere. So I would just like to formally request my release. That's that. And I'm sure it will be granted right away because it already seems like they released them based off of how they play him or how they don't play him. And it's like, especially if you use so busy giving carries to everybody, but you obviously skipping out on him. So you're done. You're done with him.  No, I don't know not one bit. No, because why would, why would this team, why would these Ravens save Tyson Williams and then be like, oh, you know what, we're going to bring him out in the playoffs. If he ain't been touching the ball this whole time in the regular season, what are they going to bring him out? What are they going to bring him out in the playoffs for? For what? What's that going to do? Of course not. No. So I won't be surprised whenever that day comes that we hear that Tyson Williams requested his release and I would not be mad at him at all. I will completely understand because it is, it is just a situation. He's just, he's just there. He's just there. Somebody in the comment section, now they would, they were talking about Greg Roman, but I looked at that and then reminded me of Tyson Williams. They were like, you ever been at a job where you feel like you've, you've done everything that you can there and you can't go any further than, than you've gone. So you should want to leave. Again, they were talking about Greg Roman, but that's how I feel about Tyson Williams. And yeah, so I just feel like the relationship is, it's been over for a while now, but anyway, we'll see what happens. Hoping the best for him for sure. Wouldn't mind if we got some surprises this week against the Bears, but I ain't counting on it. Anyway, Team Keep It Clean. I appreciate y'all. I love y'all. Thank you always for listening and thank you all for supporting. I love you. I hope you're having a really good Monday.  Or the Beckham Jr. All right, we're gonna see. We're gonna see.  Anyway, Team Keep It Clean. We out.