There is a strange mix of references to both maternal and later romantic feelings/relations between Maria and Joe (less so to Alphy).

It is as if Mrs. Donnell is blaming the girls for the outcome of the game even though the just set the game up the way it was supposed to and they are not responsible for Maria's random (in the sense that it was unpredictable) choice of an item.

Since Maria is known as the peace-maker it would be expected that she would be able to help make peace between Joe and Alphy, but to the contrary, she is not able to succeed with that. This is possibly the beginning of where things go wrong for Maria.

Mary, the servant, already refers to Polly as if she were Mr. Doran's wife. Unless this word was used differently at the time, we can assume that even before any decision has been made, the outcome of the situation is determined.

What fame exactly that is is only alluded to here, but in combination with the quote from the song Polly sings at reunions ("I’m a… naughty girl. You needn’t sham: You know I am."), it pretty much sounds like a fame for prostitution.

This is a peculiar description. White usually stands for purity and innocence (in the sense of being free of sin), but emphasizing the whiteness of the hair and skin, accompanied by small eyes permeated by ink veines, rather describes the looks of a devil, which he is compared to in the paragraph above.

This paragraph is about how thoughts of the girl interfere with every aspect of the narrator's life, however, the words that stand out most to me are "I" and "me".

It is a little strange that there is such an emphasis on the fact that this is the room where the priest died, when it is also one of the few or even the only place where the narrator can openly speak about or confess his love for Mangan's sister (whose name we still don't know).

Although "her name" summons the narrator's "foolish blood", her name has not yet been mentioned.

Is this a subtle reference to Father Flynn from "The Sisters"? If not, it might still be a meaningful "coincidence", namely no coincidence at all.

What exactly is the "notion" the narrator referred to above that he connects with green eyes?

Again, like in "Sisters", eyes are described with more detail than other body parts.

Although it is not explicitly made the main concern of this story, we are constantly reminded of the divide between Catholic and Protestant Church, and by extension, followers of each church/faith, which reaches so far as to children who will pick fights with each other simply based on the assumption (grounded in appearances) of each other's differing religion.

There is a strong contrast in what is considered appropriate or desirable education that is implied in the mention of educational institutions run (or financed) by the state (National School) rather than the Catholic Church. The priest of course considers the educational content of the Catholic school of higher value than those of public institutions.

In the boy's dream, the priest's body was smiling, but the actual body is not.

The "little beady black eyes" are the only body part of Old Cotter described in detail. All we know about his appearance is his pipe and the eyes. It is curious, that the narrator does not say, that Old Cotter is staring at him but that his eyes are, bringing out a somewhat spooky quality. It is not (only) the priest who is uncanny, but Old Cotter himself.

It refers to the word "paralysis" a few sentences earlier. But in this last sentence of the paragraph "it" is not only the word "paralysis", it could also stand for the priest's body, the result of the word's "deadly work", or more broadly for the house with the dead body in it or in an abstract sense death itself.

Now it is getting interesting. Relatives trying to influence their elder's decisions over inheritance!

Again, the time cycle of the day complements the life cycle, implying that Mr. Neave is much closer to the end of his life than the beginning.

The double meaning implies that in his life cycle, Mr. Neave is past spring and thus too old to enjoy all things associated with spring.

Looking ahead to the end, maybe I am reading too much into this, but on the surface this easily reads as if it were all about the ball as a whole, but between the lines, the ball is spoiled because Leila's innocence was exploited and her personal space uncomfortably invaded by a old, embittered man who apparently enjoys molesting(?) young girls.

Why does he keep pressing her closer. This is starting to be uncomfortable. The language indicates that he is physically in control of her.

This is the first time we get an exact indication about one of the character's age in the whole collection (at least for the stories that we read in class).

It seems to me, normally one would say something like "this is my little cousin" or "this is my younger cousin" but "my little country cousin" sounds quite condescending. The implication that the girl from the country side does not know what to do at the city ball is underlined by the imperative "Find her partners." implying that Leila would not be able to find one on her own if she wanted to.

The opening sentence is implying a hypothetical question, to which, if asked, the person would have a hard time to give an answer, which is an unusual way to begin a story.

This is an interesting glimpse into the different scenes appearing during the train ride, almost like looking at pictures in a lightbox. Except instead of clicking a button to get to the next picture, William looks down into his papers and once he looks up the next time, the scene has changed.

There is a great contrast between the beasts, which call associations of wilderness, animality, violence into mind, and the naked children, which call innocence, vulnerability, but also carefree and peaceful life into mind.

This word sounds strange considering the time period the text was written. Probably because it is a very colloquial term and it is surprising to find a colloquial term from the end of the 19th beginning of 20th century that would still be in use today. It would be interesting to know if this term was becoming more popular during Mansfield's time or if it is kind of a novelty word that makes her stand out in her vocabulary usage compared to other writers of her time.

It's like her true self is appearing for the first time and it might not be as terrible as the impression we had of her so far. Underneath her airs the girl in the blue dress might have a human heart after all.

I noticed several French expressions scattered in the conversation. Here, however, the spelling of "allez vite" ("hurry!" or "quick!") is quite curious, is it supposed to reflect an English accent pronunciation?

Such hyperbole! Spilling some food on the table is hardly a tragedy.

"Mrs. Raddick" is quite neutrally formal address, but "Mrs. R" is more playful, suggesting more closeness or familiarity of the narrator than the former address.

Again, it is all about performance and public appearance. These superficialities don't allow us to have a look at their true inner feelings.

The girls either have a very distant relationship to their father, which might be quite normal still at the time, or they are just too young to understand that the nurse knows a lot more about end-of-life care than they do, that touch is actually quite meaningful before death, likely more so than eye-sight. It's probably a little bit of both, distance and immaturity.

Surprisingly ambiguous. Does it mean she was sure she was not asleep or does it mean she was asleep (once she closed her eyes)?

Wearing black is a sign of mourning to the public. There is a difference between wearing it out of expectation and wearing it sincerely expressing one's mourning with it. For Constantia, wearing black is closely tied to the sincere expression of emotions, therefore she feels uncomfortable wearing colored dress in the private space. Josephine, however is more concerned about the public appearance of mourning, regardless of her personal feelings.

The comments about the party are more important than the party itself, which by inference must have been quite indistinguishable from other garden parties.

Whose voice is this? The girls's?

Why do they use the word "cook" as if it was the cook's name? Is this a local way of speech?

So much about treating her just like an honored guest. How could the children treat her that way, when every step of the way she clearly is and acts as their mother.

Oh, she really wants to sing at the party! It isn't even trying to be humble but quite desperately wants to show off her singing.

Why personify the piano? It is not the piano that is passionate but if anything it would be the player, which in this case is Meg. It seems rather childish to project the emotion onto the object emitting the sound rather than the person causing it. This also resonates with the mother's earlier comment about rationality. Apparently, rationality is not the highest concern here.

The garden as it is described initially seems so typically British. The mention of the karaka tree is the first hint that the story might be set in New Zealand. It is not quite clear wheather we are in colonized NZ or perhaps this is the garden of someone who planted imported karakas from NZ in Britain. Reading too much (or anything) into the author and his/her background is always problematic but it is a little difficult not to see Katherine Mansfield's identity seeping through, as someone who was born in colonial NZ and moved to England at a young age.

This kind of statement makes me wonder whether later on there will be a situation where the mother will indeed remind her children that she is in fact first and foremost their mother and not "just" an honored guest.

Interesting personification of the roses, and further down immortalization, comparing them to archangels. In terms of posthuman analysis, the roses here are the first living beings that are ascribed cognitive abilities, before we are introduced to any cognitive skills of human characters. I'm curious to see, whether they will be of further importance in the story.

Ende gut, alles gut. This is quite contrastful to the rest of the narratives, which ended more or less in suspenseful ways to keep the reader invested. Providing such a "all is well that ends well", clichee ending of the marriage resulting almost immediately in pregnancy really helps us getting to terms that the novel is ending.

This is strange! He normally cites the exact page number!

Are we to understand this as a sign of how important their marriage is to him? He invested money in a new suit, which in itself is meaningful, but considering his advanced age, it is even more so showing his care.

Are these the words of someone who truly wants to be forgotten or of someone who has lost all hope that anyone might ever be interested in their story? It's hard to say, but in his own narrative Ezra stuck me as someone showing signs of depression, therefore I tend towards the latter reading.

How tragic. And how true - we know so little about extra Ezra, because he did not reveal much personal information, and no we won't, because no one else is going to tell his story.

This is another form of juxtaposition of light and dark (as we briefly touched upon in class today) that would not be captured by a simple search for terms. The symbolic light of life, here represented by the sunrise, underlines the tragedy in Ezra's end of life and brings out the notion that, if it weren't for the opium, his life has ended too soon. If he had died at sunset, there would be much less tension in this image.

It is like the whole experiment was a 'high' for Ezra Jennings. Now that the experiment is over, he feels the high wearing off, bringing him back to reality.

People are so obsessed with what "the world" might think about them. Too funny, because Ezra Jennings obviously doesn't care!

This is pretty aweful. Imagine the pain he must be in to bring him to the point to take such large doses of opium that he will be beyond delirium for the night.

I find it interesting that some people make things out to be coincidences or accidents when they aren't, like Betteredge does here, clinging to the words in Robinson Crusoe on a page he randomly opened (but also e.g. Miss Clack accidentally coming by her aunt's house) contrasted by others who see them where others believe fate, destiny, or other higher forces to be at play. The former tend to be strong believers in some form of religion, the latter believe in science, rationality, or some form of common sense. Overlap with the real world is undeniable.

This word choice is curious. For one, because it underlines the inner struggle or fight Betteredge is going through in following Ezra Jenning's instructions. But also, because "wrostle", according to Merriam-Webster(online) it is a "dialectal English variant of WRESTLE" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wrostle). Unfortunately, the dictionary entry does not offer any further implications, such as whether there are different connotations to the use of "wrostle" as opposed to "wrestle". Does anyone else know more about this?

This is extremely dehumanizing language.

Bruff has a lot of insight into a lot of people's affairs, especially in regard to their property, but in this case also motives for their actions. This puts him in a position of power - over information.

Interesting how proximity in both time and space have an effect how much FB feels affected by Rachel. I suppose, the further and longer away you have been from a person, the more likely you are to forget/care less intensely about them. Knowing that you will see them again, might arouse old feelings from anew.

Why is Blake so oddly unspecific in his account, obscuring location, time, and people involved? Already in the first sentence, "wandering in the East" alludes possibly to travels to India, but it is not entirely clear. Is Blake writing assuming his own knowledge of the state of things as a basis? Not a reader-friendly account so far.

What is the timeline here exactly? I am confused also as to where this dinner party is held.

Did he ever really want to borrow any money or is the answer to this question what he actually came for? Someone who is in need of money and has already been rejected by another source might be more vehement in convincing the possible lender to let him borrow.

Now that we know what we do, isn't it even more ironic than we already thought that Ms. Clack is so infatuated with Godfrey Ablewhite? If she wasn't wearing her rose colored glasses, how could she still consider him the Christian Hero?

I wonder what Bruff would think of Betteredge's decision to marry his wife Selina for economical reasons, i.e. not having to spend rent money. Would there be a different dynamic at play, in Bruff's eyes, or in our own, since Betteredge didn't seem to be in particular need of more money, but simply was too stingy to spend it? Also, would Bruff care? As others have pointed out, he is close to Lady Verinder and Rachel, but less so to their employees.

What amazes me in all of the accounts we have read so far - and it will continue for the coming ones I am sure - is the recollection of dialogues, especially here with the deceased Sir John Verinder. I can't help but think that because the use of direct dialogue makes for captivating reading it must be a narrative device employed by the author. If this was a real-life case and each of the people involved would be asked to write an account after the fact, without prior knowing that they will be asked to do so, how would they be able to recollect the dialogue in such detail that they would feel confident to write it down word by word? In the case of Sir John Verinder, I can't recall when he died, but it must be more than a year or even years when this encounter happened! While I enjoy reading the novel, I can't help but think that if this was a real-life report of events - which it is not - I would be more suspicious about the narration of events over all.

Except, she clearly does both.

"Christian name" probably means that this is the name given to her upon her christening or baptism. However, the name Drusilla, in my eyes, stands somewhat at odds with Christianity because it has Roman (i.e. non- Christian) roots.

For someone who is preaching forgiveness and non- judging she sure takes extremely close and nitpicky notes about what Rachel says about her. This is of course humanly understandable in the one side as a reaction to condecension and hurtful comments, on the other side stands at odds with preaching Christian morals.

Just like Ms. Clack seems to dislike Rachel, she appears to be fond of Godfrey Ablewhite.

Does Ms. Clack genuinely not like Rachel or is this the result of the whole moonstone incident? Either way, Ms. Clack's opinion of Rachel is clearly biased, perhaps even so far as to the opposite sentiment compared to Betteredge. At the beginning of her narrative, Ms. Clack even says that even though Rachel is her aunt Lady Verinder's daughter, she could hardly call Rachel her cousin.

What do Christian fingers feel like as opposed to non- Christian fingers??

!!!

She's trying to convince us on the grounds of her religion which forbids its members to lie that everything she says is pure truth. Perhaps it is but since she is reminding us of her "sacred regard for truth" so frequently, we'll have to wait and see.

Again, "accidentally"! That's shaping up to be a bit too accidental too often.

This seems odd. Why would she be passing by her aunts house accidentally? After all, she lives in France. A visit to her relatives home thereby can hardly be entirely accidental. Is she hiding something from us?

Can we detect here a hint of indignation/ disappointment/ lack of surprise?

Not sure why living in France would be more economical? Are the "serious English friends" the ones who make life affordable? Or has her family always lived there and the emphasis is now on little town in Brittany?

This "we" easily reads as more than simply including other poor family members but instead as a generalizable statement as to rich people tending to forget their friends/ family once they fall out of money.

In this moment of heightened tension, the senses are sharpened so that in a moment of silence the outside noise of the weather comes to attention more easily. It also underlines the mood of the situation.

Betteredge overrides Penelope 's statement with his "correction" and at the same time once more shows his affection and subjectivity as a narrator when it comes to Franklin Blake.

Penelope is treated and behaves like a little girl. This is at odds with her strong, independent character as we got to know it so far but underlines her helplessness in the face of Rosanna's suicide.

Replace Seargent Cuff with Columbo and it would be hard to tell the difference. In other words - and I didn't know this not having read The Moonstone before - it seems the writers of Columbo likely got their inspiration for the character here!

To be honest, I am a little surprised how well the superintendent is taking the news that his case will be taken over by someone else. To be fair, all we know is that he shuts himself into a room to write a report, it is assumed, but shouldn't he be surprised or even angry about his replacement?

Dogs that don't bark - a (nowadays) familiar clue in detective/murder stories.

Notice the animal metaphors. Above, the three Indian jugglers were compared to snakes. Underlines notions of exoticixism, wildness, savagery. None of these references are made to Mr. Murthwaite.

Mr. Murthwaite (did we learn his first name?), of the named characters, is the only one that is in turns referred to by his name as well as the descriptive term the traveller. Even though he is not the only one who has been to India, his character seems to take up the position of a connector, possibly oscillating, between the two cultural spheres.

It was a little unexpected to me that it takes the better part of six chapters before we learn the name of the town! It was mentioned above that it is located in Yorkshire, but why is it of significance exactly here in chapter VI that we learn the name of the place?

Reference to the colonel as wicked echoes the prologue where the narrator conveys his conviction that he is guilty. Calling him the wicked colonel subtly (or perhaps not all that subtle) brings the reader in the same terms with the narrator. Now it is harder to believe that the colonel is innocent, or at least not wicked.

Again, relates to destiny, Providence, superstition and dream (in the following line)

I haven't read beyond this point but this practically screams foreshadowing, don't you think?

This is a good reminder that everything is a question of perspective, which we should keep in mind reading on. Who relates certain events always has an effect on how they relate them.

If their relationship was truly "not miserable" then "relieve us of each other" is quite a cold phrase to refer to the wife's death. Also, like above, Providence stands out to refer to an underlying belief system informing the way the narrators reach their conclusions.

We would have to take Betteredge's word for it, since we haven't heard Selina's perspective.

Reading with a modern mindset, this statement is quite ironic seeing how Gabriel Betteredge doesn't understand why Lady Verinder is laughing.

There is an emphasis on words such as prophecy and superstition, which have been mentioned a few times by now. This begs the question of neutrality and/or objectivity of those attempting to solve/explain the moonstone incident/ crime.