Hi, it depends on the shop and the person doing the work. I diagnose for a flat fee of $20. For manual machines, general cleaning and service is billed at $165 with repairs at $65/hrs plus parts. Teardowns and restorations are billed purely hourly. This job is a total of $1,100 with the teardown as well as a frame weld. The welding required parts prepping, gas fees, post processing... and took about 5 hours total. The rest of the machine is about 15 hours so far. Still have about four to go. So yeah, I'm technically supposed to bill another $400 or so, but I'm going to let that slide since the client is already paying a lot for a machine worth way less. Typewriter repair is expensive, especially when it's done to the level of detail that I go to. Very few shops put this much care and attention into these machines. All that being said, the average job on a manual typewriter at my shop usually runs around $300. Full clean, and usual repairs

Amem, porém, os seus inimigos, façam-lhes o bem e emprestem a eles, sem esperar receber nada de volta. Então, a recompensa que terão será grande e vocês serão filhos do Altíssimo, porque ele é bondoso para com os ingratos e maus.

Bem-aventurados serão vocês quando os odiarem,expulsarem e insultarem,e eliminarem o nome de vocês, como sendo mau,por causa do Filho do homem.

46Então, Maria disse:“A minha alma engrandece ao Senhor, 47e o meu espírito se alegra em Deus, o meu Salvador,

43Mas por que sou tão agraciada, a ponto de me visitar a mãe do meu Senhor?

35O anjo respondeu:― O Espírito Santo virá sobre você, e o poder do Altíssimo a cobrirá com a sua sombra. Assim, aquele que há de nascer será chamado Santo, Filho de Deus.

31Você ficará grávida e dará à luz um filho, e lhe porá o nome de Jesus. 32Ele será grande e será chamado Filho do Altíssimo. O Senhor Deus lhe dará o trono de Davi, o seu pai, 33e ele reinará para sempre sobre o povo de Jacó; o seu reino jamais terá fim.

Mas virão dias quando o noivo lhes será tirado; naqueles dias jejuarão

filho de Enos,filho de Sete, filho de Adão,filho de Deus

filho de Meleá, filho de Mená,filho de Matatá, filho de Natã,filho de Davi,

Ó Soberano, como prometeste,agora podes despedir em paz o teu servo.

Hoje, na cidade de Davi, nasceu o Salvador, que é Cristo, o Senhor.

Fora-lhe revelado pelo Espírito Santo que ele não morreria antes de ver o Cristo do Senhor.

“E você, menino, será chamado profeta do Altíssimo,pois irá adiante do Senhor, para lhe preparar o caminho,

pois o Poderoso fez grandes coisas em meu favor;santo é o seu nome.

e o meu espírito se alegra em Deus, meu Salvador,

Typewriter ChicagoHours by appointment1525 Ogden, Unit L, Downers Grove, 630-561-5853typewriterchicago.com/

Thread of cool maps you've (probably) never seen before 1. All roads lead to Rome

“I Vitelloni,” Federico Fellini’s 1953 film about a group of young men on the brink of adulthood drifting about in a small Italian village, to George Lucas before he made “American Graffiti.”

The deep AnthropoceneA revolution in archaeology has exposed the extraordinary extent of human influence over our planet’s past and its future

Anu

like a god thou art.

hierodule 4 5[   ] forgot where he was born. 6Six days and seven nights 7came forth Enkidu 8and cohabited with the courtesan. 9The hierodule opened her mouth

she that knows all things

Wyrd

Let wisest God, sacred Lord, on which side soever doom decree as he deemeth right.

But well for him that after death-day may draw to his Lord, and friendship find in the Father’s arms!

e’er could the prince[8] approach his throne, —’twas judgment of God,—or have joy in his hall.

Of Cain awoke all that woful breed, Etins[12] and elves and evil-spirits, as well as the giants that warred with God weary while: but their wage was paid them!

whom heaven[4] sent to favor the folk, feeling their woe

He let me such treasures 45 Gain for my people ere death overtook me.

At the wall ’twill befall us as Fate decreeth, Let Fate decide between us. 65 Each one’s Creator.

Devil-shaped woman, her woe ever minded, 10 Who was held to inhabit the horrible waters, [Grendel’s progenitor, Cain, is again referred to.] The cold-flowing currents, after Cain had become a Slayer-with-edges to his one only brother, The son of his sire; he set out then banished, Marked as a murderer, man-joys avoiding, 15 Lived in the desert. Thence demons unnumbered

Fate offcarried him

To God he was hostile

By the might of himself; the truth is established

They invoke the aid of their gods. 60 At the shrines of their idols often they promised Gifts and offerings, earnestly prayed they The devil from hell would help them to lighten Their people’s oppression. Such practice they used then, Hope of the heathen; hell they remembered 65 In innermost spirit, God they knew not,

Judge of their actions, All-wielding Ruler, No praise could they give the Guardian of Heaven, The Wielder of Glory. Woe will be his who Through furious hatred his spirit shall drive to 70 The clutch of the fire, no comfort shall look for, Wax no wiser; well for the man who, Living his life-days, his Lord may face And find defence in his Father’s embrace!

In the land of the giants, when the Lord and Creator Had banned him and branded. For that bitter murder, 55 The killing of Abel, all-ruling Father Cain is referred to as a progenitor of Grendel, and of monsters in general. The kindred of Cain crushed with His vengeance

Whom God-Father sent to solace the people.

Charlotte knows her views and states them without ambiguity, rendering Austen’s great formal innovation, free indirect speech, notably irrelevant.

Charlotte’s short speech is punctuated with terms of finality—“entirely,” “in the least,” “always”—even as it loosely follows a couple from “beforehand,” through marriage, to the horizon of having “passed your life.”

This “Jane Austen,” the author of a body of texts that circulated across four continents within decades of their publication in England, has a less obvious relationship to the western ideal of the liberal autonomous individual

subjective orientation toward freedom, progress, and self-growth that is so clearly formative for Elizabeth Bennet is not taken for granted by Austen as normative for all women. Charlotte Lucas marries Mr. Collins and expects to live a fulfilling life with him. Conscious of Elizabeth’s differing views, Charlotte anticipates being hurt by her friend’s disapprobation, but makes no excuses for her marriage as an act martyrdom or of submis-sion to crushing necessity

feminist critics tended to work within a liberal framework for evaluating individual agency as the pursuit of freedom

Elizabeth empties the ritualistic forms of her friendship with Charlotte of real feeling

Charlotte’s marginalization highlights the limitations that Elizabeth’s views about intimacy place on her emotional and intel-lectual curiosity.43 Austen reminds us of the lack of communication between the two former friends by having Elizabeth hypothesize at the end of her visit that she knows Charlotte’s real feelings, though they go unvoiced: “Poor Charlotte!—it was melancholy to leave her to such society!—But she had chosen it with her eyes open; and though evidently regretting that her visitors were to go, she did not seem to ask for compassion” (P, 233). Though Woloch argues that Elizabeth, by this point in the novel (after visiting Rosings and having read Darcy’s revealing letter) “has become the consciousness around which the novel—as a totality—is oriented,” Elizabeth’s parting interpretation of Charlotte’s inner life offers another example of Elizabeth reading social situations aslant: she is confident Charlotte is “evidently regret-ting” her departure, but perplexed that not only does Charlotte not ask for compassion, but she does not even seem to.

By portraying Charlotte as a superior helpmeet who is more than Mr. Collins deserves, Austen hints that the distinction Elizabeth makes between full, scripted banality and empty, untrammelled elegance is a false one

a happy married future can hold more of the same, not the wholesale change Elizabeth anticipates

Time was full for Charlotte, though “not yet” weighing on her, while Elizabeth imagines her own as promisingly empty

free indirect speech translates the internal contradictions of Austen’s characters to her readers.36 Charlotte is granted by Austen that formal device which critics have long agreed mediates the complexity of her characters at other moments—when her motives shift from relieving Elizabeth of Mr. Collins’s irksome companionship to thinking about the benefits of securing him as her own husband, for example—but here, when Charlotte wants to make clear to her friend that she has not chosen an unhappy life, she is articu-lately straightforward. Charlotte’s mode of communication only adds to Elizabeth’s discomfort about her friend’s attitude toward intimacy.

But, Charlotte’s cathexis of marriage as an institution stands in striking comparison to Elizabeth’s acute surprise at her own hidden internal depths and her sudden discovery of a change of heart about the object of her affection. Charlotte does not experience a sudden change of heart, nor does she acknowledge that fear of approaching middle age prompted her sudden engagement, since I think we are supposed to believe her (Elizabeth certainly does), when she reveals “marriage has always been [her] object.”

Charlotte seems to inhabit the worst of both worlds; even in the domestic sphere her movements, conversation, and enjoy-ment are all checked.

From Charlotte’s perspective, personal fulfillment, growth, and happiness progress (or regress) with equal precariousness inside or outside the couple, and a loving marriage appears to her as an external, only occasionally relevant condition of her future internal well-being. Marriage is a tolerable constraint within which her flour-ishing does not have to be seriously curtailed.

She severs the moral and conceptual bonds linking marriage to progress, conjugal harmony to personal growth, and future happiness to the judgment of character, all of which Elizabeth teaches herself throughout the novel to see as natural and necessary.

Charlotte detaches marriage from a timeline of improvement. She has no easy hopefulness about marriage and progress, couples adapting together, happiness augmenting in time, or self-growth and marriage working in tandem.

Her expectations that individual flourishing takes the form of unconstraint form a striking contrast to the role that self-discipline and the repetitious practices of everyday existence promise to play in Charlotte’s married life.

Elizabeth’s process of self-realization through discovering how wrong she was is consistent with her more general practice of negatively inhabiting social expectations. Her course of self-affirmation through negation is opposite to that of Charlotte Lucas, who, despite her age and appearance, surprises and overjoys her family by doing just what young ladies are supposed to do and what everyone supposed she would fail to do: marry.

An ideal man is an incomplete catalog of qualities waiting to be augmented, and in an ideal couple, each participant accrues from the partner precisely that which their relationship demonstrates each lacks alone. By this logic, falling in love catalyzes recognition of one’s short-comings, even as it promises to compensate for them.

Understanding social forms as the moral fabric created by so many individual participants helps explain how Elizabeth can imagine herself personally affected by actions not directed at her.29 Actions must be sincerely felt so that social norms, like marriage, can be naturalized as self-expression. She would like Charlotte to feel secretly repulsed by her marriage or to discover that her friend’s equanimity disguised feeling oppressed by the circumstances that cornered her into marrying without love. It is Charlotte’s equanimity in the face of marrying Mr. Collins that most disturbs Elizabeth and helps her clarify her own expectation that a woman’s internal well-being should be either jeop-ardized or affirmed by marriage

Elizabeth’s discontent stems from the way that she grafts individual choice onto social forms. Marriage, for Elizabeth, should not be defined by its being an omnipresent social form; it should be made meaningful by the intentions behind it.

Identifying her own suffering with Jane’s, she tells Mrs. Gardiner, “We do not suffer by accident,” by which she expresses how Bingley’s abandon-ment and Charlotte’s betrayal painfully revealed to her that persons whom she had thought were “independent” were in fact “slave[s]” to material comfort, the opinions of friends, or the easiest social path.

interpreting action as intention involves quite a bit of circumstantial squinting, but that making claims about injury also involves taking responsibility for one’s own interpretive position—a mandate, as we shall see, it is not clear Elizabeth fulfills when she judges Charlotte (P, 167). (That Elizabeth’s intentionalist thinking has irreparable consequences for her regard for Charlotte is anomalous in a narrative about misjudgment and repentance.

******

Charlotte Lucas offers a compelling point of departure for bringing the critical perspective of “multiple [ / ] modernities” into eighteenth-century novel studies.

development of modern subjectivity, where the modern subject is assumed to be oriented toward freedom and inner-directed action, overlooks some of the most intriguing aspects of disagreements among women in Austen’s novels and foregoes an opportunity, which becomes more pertinent to feminists every day, to make the novel relevant to subjects and especially to female subjectivities whose self-cultivation takes the form of perseverance, self-discipline, and the daily prac-tice of living in accordance with social practices that do not appear germane to liberation. Charlotte Lucas presents conceptual challenges to feminist theorists and gender analysts because her expectations do not fit those of a romantic plot.

By focusing on Charlotte Lucas, I aim to show that heterogeneous ways of thinking and feeling about marriage, about the decisions of other people (and of women, especially) are not only imaginable, but of interest to Austen.

Yet, grounding Austen’s development of female subjectivity in novel studies has the unintended consequence of limiting the modes of female subjectivity recovered to those that fit the liberal paradigm of private, inner, autonomous selves screened off from (though foundational to) the public activities of communication, exercise of reason, and pursuit of freedom. This mode of proceeding makes subjects like Charlotte Lucas irrelevant and a hindrance to the consolidation of the novel form

Austen’s novels were diagnostic of her social world and conservative in the sense that they offered social compromises rather than fractious challenges to the uncertain social future of her moment.

The agency of the critic is exemplified in discovering and naming the overlooked agency of Austen’s female subjects, who in themselves demonstrate Austen’s attentiveness to the limits of patriarchal norms and her willingness to transgress.

Through both analysis and prescription, paying attention to how women can take powerful stances, even from positions of weaknes

determined by recent feminist literary critics’ efforts to revise the long history of Austen scholarship

My focus on Charlotte Lucas resonates with recent critical trends that depart from the assumption that the novel’s telos, particularly as revealed in the courtship plot, is the representation of personhood through characterological depth and interiority

Narratives have limited resources—formal development, narrative attention, and thematic social goods—that are unequally distributed between protagonists and minor characters. In the process of being “minored,” the many clarify the one; in Pride and Prejudice, minor characters “contribut[e] to the development of Elizabeth’s consciousness.”5 As Elizabeth’s close friend and, in many ways, catalyst for her development, Charlotte is both a minor character par excel-lence and a register of the costs of such a system of individuation

Charlotte’s views seem “not sound” to Elizabeth because they are anachronistic to developing standards of mutual regard that govern modern hetero-sexuality

narrative of cultural modernizatio

Yet, Charlotte’s stance is important to think through two hundred years later as a reminder of the multiplicity of attitudes toward intimacy, conjugality, and self-fulfillment in Austen’s fiction. This multiplicity remains unstudied by a tradition of Austen criticism that too often remains bound, even in contemporary feminist forms, to the analytic and prescriptive parameters of liberal personhood as those are under-stood to have emerged at the end of the eighteenth century.