In Part 2 of our conversation with Sharon Marcus, we chat about popular adaptations of Jane Eyre and why the best one—which hasn't been written yet—would feature Phoebe Bridgers, PJ Harvey, and Sarah Vaughan on the soundtrack.
Sharon Marcus is the Orlando Harriman Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University and editor of the Norton Library edition of Jane Eyre. Her research and teaching bring together literary theory, cultural and social history, and gender and sexuality studies.
To learn more or purchase a copy of the Norton Library edition of Jane Eyre, go to https://seagull.wwnorton.com/janeeyre.
Learn more about the Norton Library series at https://wwnorton.com/norton-library.
Listen to our Spotify playlist inspired by Jane Eyre: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/01LKJVTZCkvRKnjwX5I2Nu?si=30b1cd2bd1804bf3.
Have questions or suggestions for the podcast? Email us at nortonlibrary@wwnorton.com or find us on Twitter @TNL_WWN.
Episode transcript at: https://seagull.wwnorton.com/janeeyre/part2/transcript.
In Part 2 of our conversation with Sharon Marcus, we chat about popular adaptations of Jane Eyre and why the best one—which hasn't been written yet—would feature Phoebe Bridgers, PJ Harvey, and Sarah Vaughan on the soundtrack.
Sharon Marcus is the Orlando Harriman Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University and editor of the Norton Library edition of Jane Eyre. Her research and teaching bring together literary theory, cultural and social history, and gender and sexuality studies.
To learn more or purchase a copy of the Norton Library edition of Jane Eyre, go to https://seagull.wwnorton.com/janeeyre.
Learn more about the Norton Library series at https://wwnorton.com/norton-library.
Listen to our Spotify playlist inspired by Jane Eyre: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/01LKJVTZCkvRKnjwX5I2Nu?si=30b1cd2bd1804bf3.
Have questions or suggestions for the podcast? Email us at nortonlibrary@wwnorton.com or find us on Twitter @TNL_WWN.
Episode transcript at: https://seagull.wwnorton.com/janeeyre/part2/transcript.
[Music]
[Mark:] You are listening to the Norton Library Podcast, where we explore classic works of literature and philosophy with the leading scholars of the Norton Library, a new series from W. W. Norton that introduces influential texts to a new generation of readers. I'm your host Mark Cirino with Michael Von Cannon producing, and today we present the second of our two episodes devoted to Charlotte Brontë’s classic novel, Jane Eyre, as we interview its editor, Sharon Marcus. In part one, we discussed who Brontë was, the madwoman in the attic, and some of the novel’s major characters. In this second episode, we ask Sharon Marcus her favorite line in the novel, a Jane Eyre playlist, common misreadings of the novel, and much more. Sharon Marcus is the Orlando Harriman professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University. She is the author of several books, including “Between Women: Friendship, Desire, and Marriage in Victorian England,” and more recently, “The Drama of Celebrity.” Sharon Marcus, welcome back to the Norton Library Podcast!
[Sharon:] Hi! It's great to be back.
[Mark:] It's great to have you. So now, we have a different series of questions that will engage with your personal reaction with this novel. We're really looking forward to hearing you talk more about Jane Eyre. Why don't we start with how you first encountered the work?
[Sharon:] I grew up in a house that was jam-packed with books. We lived in New York City, in a very small apartment, and all the walls were filled with mostly paperbacks, and we had so many books and so little space for them, that instead of having them, you know, spine up, they were stacked on each other. [Laughter] And, um, they were – and my father bought most of them and my mother was more into classical music, that was her cultural thing. And they were almost all by men – my father loved Dostoevsky and Tolstoy and John Cowper Powys, whoever the hell he was? There's so many books by him. And there were really almost – there were a lot of 19th-century novels, mostly French ones, but there were almost no books by women there. So, I was the kind of girl who was very interested in girly things, and I was especially interested in, like, femmes fatales, like, Woody Allen in “Annie Hall.” I liked all the villain, villainesses in the Disney movies. I was, like, "Eugh Sleeping Beauty? I don't know about her, but that stepmother is really, really— [Laughter] —and her outfit is way better." So, you know, I would pick these books out like, “Nana.” For some reason, my, my – because the books were kept in no order, my father would buy duplicates all the time. He had like three copies of “Nana.” I was like, “Oh, this looks interesting. Prostitutes, scandal. Okay!” You know, like any typical kid, I was interested in all the things I wasn't supposed to be reading. “Madame Bovary,” “Anna Karenina.” But I would read the blurbs and be like, “Okay, he marries, has an affair, dies. Eh.” And then, I remember it was – it was this paperback edition – it was very drab, actually, it was like a grayish blue. I think it was a Dolphin Edition from the 60s, that was like a cheap paperback. And it said, “Jane Eyre, Charlotte Brontë.” I was like double, double ladies! Okay.
[Mark:] How old would you have been at that time?
[Sharon:] I think it was around ten. My parents were, in some ways, very, um, they gave me a very rigorous upbringing in some ways, and in other ways they were ridiculously permissive. So, it was just like, read whatever you want. And I did. So, I remember, like, struggling to get the book out because it was packed in the middle of one of these, you know, weighty columns of books. And I opened it up and I read the first line, “There was no possibility of going for a walk that day.” And I was like, “whoa, who is this?” Like, and as I kept going, I thought this is so interesting. This is a 10-year-old, 9-year-old girl – I think she's ten – and she's so strong-voiced and she's not at all cheerful. Both the children's books I was given, I mean this was, like, just slightly pre-Judy Bloom era. Like, literally by a minute. So I was reading a lot of children's books from – more from, like, the 60s. With the exception of Harriet the Spy, I felt we were still in a moment where like children's books had to be very positive. And children in general – and certainly 19th-century children were supposed to either be seen and not heard or cheerful. Everything that Aunt Reed accuses Jane of not being early in the book. She says, “You need to acquire a more childlike disposition.”
[Mark:] So, as you matured and became a literary scholar, how has this particular novel factored into your work?
[Sharon:] Well, it's interesting because I've come back to it over and over again. So, when I first read it, of course, I identified most with the childhood part. And I – I'm not even sure I got past the first section. I think once she stopped being a kid I wasn't so interested in it anymore. I don't fully remember the first time I read it all the way through, but it would have probably been my first year in college. And “The Madwoman in the Attic” had already come out, so I remember going to the bookstore and buying “The Madwoman in the Attic” and reading it and being introduced to this idea that maybe Jane Eyre is even more rebellious than she seems, because the madwoman represents her deepest desires. And that – “Madwoman in the Attic” as a work of scholarship was also very much about female creativity and female authorship. Like, the whole book is really about reading all of these key works by women writers as allegories for what it means to come into being as a writer. And I was reading Virginia Woolfe’s “A Room of One’s Own,” and I definitely remember then thinking of Jane Eyre as a kind of feminist manifesto in novel form.
[Mark:] I see.
[Sharon:] Then a few years later, I read the Gayatri Spivak essay that said, “Yes, and precisely because of that, there's a real danger that Jane, in asserting herself, is asserting herself in a very imperialistic way. She's using all the tools her culture gives her to be a person, and one of them is being racist and asserting her strength either as a savior of other women who are not white or by demonizing other women who are not white.” So that gave me a lot to think about. In grad school, I wrote an article about the novel and the way that Jane uses advertising to achieve independence. Because the moment that she decides to advertise as a governess is very, very strange in this book. It's an interesting thing to pay attention to. She gets a message, basically, from some kind of fairy or spirit telling her to advertise, and she keeps hearing it in her head. So, you know as grad students will— [Laughter] —I really fixated on that, and then – and worked a whole reading out that – And I've always taught this novel when I've taught the 19th-century novel. So I must have read it 13 times by now.
[Mark:] So, in your teaching and in your engagement with other scholars, what do you think are common misreadings of the novel?
[Sharon:] I think a common misreading of the novel is that Jane is a pure rebel. So, as I talked about in our, in our previous discussion, she's less a fan of liberty and more a fan of independence and that's a subtle— [Mark:] It is. [Sharon:] —but important distinction. When the United States severs its ties, well, with the – what's about to become the United States severs its ties with England in 1776, they have a Declaration of Independence, not Liberty, because no nation can exist in pure liberty. Liberty is a state of no form, no boundaries, no restraints. And I think we often think that that's what Jane wants, especially because that's how she starts out in the beginning. But what I've learned by reading the novel more carefully – by reading it in the context of the history of childhood, the history of liberal theory, political theory, even the history of feminism – is that she is seeking something that in some ways is more difficult than liberty, because it requires a form, it requires decisions, it requires self-control. And that's an independence that also recognizes her dependence on other people.
[Mark:] Yeah, that's a great distinction. In your teaching of this novel, what have you found are the challenges? Either the challenges to teaching Jane Eyre in the classroom, or the challenges to studying Jane Eyre as a student, or just for the average reader to pick up the book? What will the challenges be?
[Sharon:] My first answer is, there are delightfully few challenges to teaching this book. My students *love* reading it. There are few books I teach in my Victorian novel course or my bildungsroman course that the students are just like, “Yeah! Yeah, bring it! I couldn't stop reading. I kept going.” And those would be Jane Eyre and Wilkie Collins’s “The Woman in White.” Those two, I never have any trouble getting people motivated. The plot is great, the pacing is fantastic, there are twists and turns and surprises. The narrator has an incredibly vivid voice that draws us in and makes us feel really close to her. I will say, though, of course there are always some challenges. Um, the – One of them relates to doing the Norton Edition, that, you know, Brontë was a very erudite person: she knew the Bible, she knew Shakespeare, she knew poetry, she knew nature. I talked in the first episode about how below the parsonage was this whole town, and behind the parsonage were the moors. And she spends a lot of time wandering there, and as kind of a nerd, she knew the name of every single flower. And sometimes when people – and she knew French— [Mark:] Yeah, right. [Sharon:] —and she loves to drop the French in. You know, one of the things about having the character of Adele, who Jane takes care of – this little French girl – is it's a reason to have non-stop French in some of those sections. And students don't let – I find, especially when reading for a class, people want to understand. And so students are, justifiably, often a bit put off when they encounter a lot that they don't understand. Um, and in annotating the book, what I tried to do was not annotate every vocabulary word that might be a little obscure or unfamiliar, because I trust readers – especially students today – to just Google something they don't know. What I did was, if – when I saw something that was a little unusual and I Googled it – if the first answer was not the right answer – You know, maybe it turned out to be a word that had been appropriated for a brand of golf club – I was like, “Okay, I'm gonna annotate this, because if you Google it you're not going to get any help.” But I think that the allusions and the ways that Brontë is just always casually referencing the Bible, as though we all know it chapter and verse – minister's daughter. But also, people did know the Bible chapter and verse if they were living in England in 1848. That can be a bit of a challenge today. And what I would encourage people to do is, like, use the notes if you want them, but also, I always tell students it's okay to not understand 100% of what you read. And there is so much here that you can understand and that comes alive easily.
[Mark:] Well, your notes are not intrusive. Uh, you've been – they’re spare notes that are meant to, uh, illuminate some of these, uh, some of these difficulties. Um, in this novel, do you have a favorite line?
[Sharon:] I do. It's three lines, if I will be permitted… [Mark:] Sure!
[Sharon:] …and it's when Jane is telling Rochester – Edward Rochester – why she is really upset that he's been toying with her. And she says, “Do you think, because I am poor, obscure, plain and little, I am soulless and heartless? You think wrong! – I have as much soul as you, – and full as much heart! And if God had gifted me with some beauty and much wealth, I should have made it as hard for you to leave me, as it is now for me to leave you!”
[Mark:] Wow! Well, just listening to you read it, it strikes me that as a first-person narrative, Jane's voice emerges. How do you define her voice, or how would you characterize her voice as a narrator?
[Sharon:] Well, I think it comes through in that quote. She's very eloquent. There – She's not a Jane Austen where everything is measured and balanced. She's more of, like, a buildup to a big, big finish. And so, you know, she probably learned something from listening to her father preach sermons, although I'm not sure he was the fire and brimstone type. She actually uses often very plain words and it's, of course, a speech about being plain, but plainness not meaning that you're someone who should be dismissed. Um, and that's a reference both to her lack of external beauty but to – you know, she's not someone who presents herself as extraordinary, really. Um, she's probably more extraordinary than she gives herself credit for. And her voice is just so filled with emotion. I think – I know you asked about one of the misconceptions people have about the book – I think it's, um, not so much about the book as about Charlotte Brontë as a person. They think that she was kind of mousy and stuck off in the middle of nowhere and not very adventurous, but she was none of those things. And, like Jane in this speech, she was emotional and very, very brave and bold, going off to Brussels, you know, with just her sister, Emily, who by all accounts was very much in her own world— [Laughter] —not really a support system for Charlotte. And she's just gonna do it! She's going to do it, she's going to say it, and there's a courage to Jane's voice that expresses her courage as a character that I find very compelling.
[Mark:] When you teach this novel, what techniques do you use to make the material come alive? What do students seem to respond to?
[Sharon:] We definitely talk about the madwoman in the attic, and the kind of interpretive crux that that is. It's usually a point in the course where I say, “One of the fascinating things about literature is that it presents us with very rich symbols that we know have a meaning, but it doesn't tell us exactly what the meaning is. And sometimes it's hard to know. So, I'm going to present you with two really conflicting accounts, and I want you to think about which one you find more persuasive. Or is there a way to unite them in one framework?” So, I think students – actually, that sounds very abstract – but I think students really respond to it, because they're sitting there going, like, “...What?” [Laughter] Um, I think it is really great, when teaching the book, to look at moments where we really experience the narrator as narrator, and say what's the difference between a narrator and a character. which we notice more easily when the narrator is outside the story – either because they're an omniscient third person or there's someone who's not very significant in the story. So, I think students really get into that. I think they like getting into the ways that the story feels so, uh, so compelling as a story, and they get really lost in it. And then taking a step back and asking, “how is this put together?”
[Mark:] Sharon, we also invite our Norton Library editors to offer a hot take about the book that they've edited – something counterintuitive or even controversial. Do you have one about Jane Eyre?
[Sharon:] My hot take is related to, um, a spoiler thing. So, I'm gonna – I'm not going to be able to make my hot take hot. [Laughter] My hot take is gonna be tepid. But I think that people have totally misread what happens at the end, and totally misread what happens to the man that Jane marries at the end. Um, and, I guess, I can't say anymore without spoiling the ending, but, uh, I'll just leave that there and say, like, you know, if you've read the novel and you want to ask me what my hot take is, email me. [Laughter] My email is available on the Columbia website and I will – once you prove that you know how the novel ends I will tell you my hot take.
[Mark:] That's enticing! And so, your introduction has no spoilers and this podcast will have no spoilers, either. So, we've been pretty disciplined about that, I think.
[Sharon:] Yes.
[Mark:] What about, for the 21st-century reader, various adaptations of the novel? Movies… What – How has this taken life in different forms?
[Sharon:] So many movies. And they all suck, in my opinion. [Mark:] Really?!
[Sharon:] That's my hot take. Yes. — [Mark:] That is a hot take! None of – you wouldn't recommend any of them?
[Sharon:] I recommend none of them. I saw, like – I like Charlotte Gainsbourg, so I saw that one. I can't even remember – So, one thing that's really interesting to me about the film adaptations is they've never had one, in my opinion, where the Jane and Rochester actors are equally compelling. So, I remember Charlotte Gainsbourg and I can barely remember who played Rochester. Then I remember the one with Mia Wasikowska, but I really don't remember her very much. I remember Michael Fassbender, who was a pretty compelling Rochester. But I recently rewatched the very famous 1940 adaptation with Joan Fontaine and Orson Wells, and they should have just renamed that puppy “Edward Rochester.” They literally cut the majority of Jane's dialogue. And, you know, Rochester has a lot of monologues in this book, he – and they're fascinating, he's a really interesting character. The fact that Brontë could write that character tells us a lot about Brontë, because he's as much an expression of her as Jane is. But Jane talks a lot, too, both as a narrator and as a character. They cut out all her narration— [Mark:] Wow. [Sharon:] —and they cut out a lot of her dialogue. I was appalled! Also, it's shot on these – it's 1940, so there, it's a classic Hollywood film, but they shot it all on these sets that are so obviously made out of cardboard that it's almost ludicrous. The only reason to watch the 1940 version is for the beginning, so that you can see a very young Elizabeth Taylor playing Helen Burns, which I will also point out is horrible miscasting. But, nonetheless interesting.
[Mark:] How about audio books? Anything – any other form that you've experienced this novel?
[Sharon:] My guilty secret is I’ve never – I've listened to like half of one audiobook in my entire life. So, I can't speak to the audiobooks. Maybe there's some great ones out there. Again, if, like, someone's listening to this and you have listened to a great audio version, I'd love to know.
[Mark:] Does “Wide Sargasso Sea,” is that…?
[Sharon:] Yeah, that's a different question. So, that's a question about adaptations that have, uh, riffed off the novel. [Mark:] Influenced. Right, yeah. [Sharon:] There, I think, it's a testimony both to Jan Eyre's, the novel's limitations and riches that it has spawned so many, so many different, um, adaptations and, you know, remakes, and they're all so different from one another. So, Jean Rhys writes “Wide Sargasso Sea” from the point of view of the madwoman in the attic. Um, and that's fascinating – I highly, highly recommend that. Many people read Daphne du Maurier's novel, “Rebecca,” published around, uh, 1930 – late 1930s – and a bestseller that's never gone out of print and has been adapted into a good film by Alfred Hitchcock, with Joan Fontaine playing— [Mark:] Wow. [Sharon:] —the character in that who's the Jane Eyre-like character, and she's the one who plays Jane in the 1940 version of Jane Eyre. Um, many people see “Rebecca” as a take or redoing of the Jane Eyre plot, because it's sort of shy, mousy companion gets involved with a mysterious older man, who has a mysterious past related to marriage. Um, but, you know, we never know the name of that character – it's one of the jokes of the book. Rebecca is the name of his first wife. It's as though Jane Eyre were called “The Madwoman in the Attic” and not “Jane Eyre.” And she's much more of a…a nullity. She's not as interesting as Jane Eyre. I would actually make the case maybe even for “50 Shades of Gray” being a bit of a riff on Jane Eyre, because it's the same thing: a younger woman with a very charismatic older man who's complicated and has a, you know, a past including past women in his life who represent an obstacle to their happy union. And, you know, like, how does it go? “Twilight” begat “50 Shades of Gray,” but “Twilight” itself was riffing off not only off “Dracula” but off of a lot of these archetypal 19th-century novels.
[Mark:] What about music? Do you have a playlist? Or what music does Jane Eyre invite you to think about?
[Sharon:] I knew you were going to ask that! And I think that was going to be the most challenging question of – I gave it a lot of thought. I have, I have a few different answers. So, one would be just, you know, in terms of like, “Okay, Jane Eyre is this kind of mood. What music has this kind of mood?” And in my bildungsroman course, I gave students the option of creating a playlist. Um, and Phoebe Bridgers showed up on everything.
[Mark:] Okay.
[Sharon:] So, I'm gonna say maybe Phoebe Bridgers. But don't – I guess I can't say don't tell my students because they might hear this – but I don't really love Phoebe Bridgers, and I do love Jane Eyre. So, I would say, you know, I might put forward PJ Harvey. Like, someone who – just to look at some – you know, it’s different, depends what phase of her career – but doesn't always present herself in, like, a full-on rock star style and is, you know, small. There's like a smallness to her physical appearance. But boy, packs a punch. Filled with emotion. And also has a real feel for nature and for the British countryside, in particular. So, I feel like if I were going to have someone, like, score the book or write songs – if we were gonna do like a new – a *good* film adaptation finally – and have someone just write – but make it a little bit like a “Peaky Blinders,” where you have, like, really contemporary music – I’d be like, “Let's get PJ Harvey!”
[Mark:] Now that's a great idea, I have to say.
[Sharon:] Yeah! Yeah, and I would tell the producers, like, what you got to make sure is that Edward and Jane both have to be really, really great actors and get equal play. And then I was thinking about it more in terms of, um, of, like, a musical style. And I tend to always think in terms of, like, “Okay, the three great jazz singers: Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan. Which one are you? And while my personal favorite is Ella Fitzgerald, I would go with Sarah Vaughan if I were saying, like, what qualities of musicality and voice get at Jane Eyre. Because Sarah Vaughan has this… big, complicated voice. There – You always feel, like, all the notes between notes and within notes. Impeccable technique as a jazz performer. And, you know, like, where Billie Holiday is, like, sad but kind of acid, also, and Ella Fitzgerald makes everything sound cheerful? Sarah Vaughan has this emotional range— [Mark:] Yeah. [Sharon:] —in her voice that's both joyful and sad and wise, that I think really gets at the fullness of Jane Eyre's voice.
[Mark:] That's wonderful – I'm really glad I asked that question. Sharon, we were talking about your notes to your Norton Library edition. And I wanted to ask you about one in particular, if you wouldn't mind— [Sharon:] Sure. [Mark:] —uh, expanding on it a little bit. And this is the note to page 165, this is chapter 15, and your endnote says, “This paragraph exemplifies why Rochester is considered a byronic hero, or anti-hero, who shares characteristics both with the poet Lord Byron himself and with the protagonists of many of Byron's poems.” So, what qualities are we really talking about?
[Sharon:] Well, I think Brontë says it really well, so here's what Jane is saying about Edward: “I had not forgotten his faults. He was proud, sardonic, harsh to inferiority of every description… He was moody, too; unaccountably so.” Uh, she describes seeing him look up, “a morose, almost a malignant, scowl blackened his features.” And then, and I think this is the flip side – So, you know, Byron was a bad boy, but a bad boy that the ladies love. So – and they always thought, “Oh, I can redeem him. I can make him better. Underneath that moody, capricious, oblivious, harshness is a kind little boy who just needs to be tended.” And so here she goes! “But I believed that his moodiness, his harshness, and his former faults of morality … had their source in some cruel cross of fate. I believed he was naturally a man of better tendencies, higher principles, and purer tastes than such as circumstances had developed…” So, this idea that there's – that a man is a rake and that that itself is kind of appealing – she falls in love with him partly because he's moody and capricious. But that you can reform him and make him better, make him the man you want him to be. That you can have the combination of danger and safety, that I think is a real theme in a lot of romances.
[Mark:] Yeah. [Sharon:] That you'd be able to have both in one package. I think that's part of the byronic hero, and Rochester is that to a T.
[Mark:] Yeah. [Sharon:] Or a B.
[Mark:] Maybe we can end just with a consideration of the contemporary relevance of this work, how we think about this in 2023 as opposed to the way it would have been received in 1847. So, can we – do you have any thoughts about how the novel responds to today's situation?
[Sharon:] I have two main things to say about that. One is, we still hear a lot today about women, in particular, dealing with codependency. I'll use an incredibly contemporary term, which would be how do you balance having relationships with others with maintaining a sense of self? And that's a challenge for everyone, but it continues to be more of a challenge for women than for others. Because women are still, I think, expected to define themselves more in terms of relationships than work. Even in working, sometimes – you know, there are more women in the paid labor force than men in the United States when they do the surveys – but women aren't defined first and foremost yet as earners or workers. And so, women really place a lot of importance on relationships, and then that creates a challenge of how do you hold on to a sense of self? So, I hope I'm not shocking anybody by evoking, like, self-help kind of language like codependency, but that – those books are bestsellers for a reason. They speak to dilemmas we're still dealing with about what it means to be a person. And then let's go back to those film adaptations. So, you know Jane is really not pretty. We're told that over and over again, by her and by other characters. It's clear. She's not super attractive. There has not been a single film version that has had the guts to cast an actor in her role who is not really beautiful. And I – And why is that? Because they have to cast a trained actor. And is any woman allowed to work and do leading roles in cinema without being beautiful? No! So, I would say that, as a society, we have not yet let go of the idea that physical attractiveness is really, really important for women. And that even, you know, to be entitled to a full life, it really is going to be a challenge if a woman isn't pretty. Like, and – And people collude in this even when they don't mean to. And I think the book is really, uh, daring in giving us the heroine of a romance plot who has a happy ending – we're not going to say what it is, but it's a happy ending – and it's not like she wakes up and all of a sudden she's gorgeous. She's not! And I think Brontë is saying, “You don't have to be.” Like, that's part of what it means to be a full person, is that what matters is your soul and your mind and your heart, and not the physical envelope.
[Mark:] Sharon Marcus, thank you so much for joining us on the Norton Library Podcast to discuss your edition of Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre.
[Sharon:] Thank you!
[Mark:] The Norton Library edition of Charlotte Brontë's great novel, Jane Eyre, edited by Sharon Marcus, is available now in paperback and ebook. Check out the links in the description of this episode for ordering options and more information about the Norton Library, including the full catalog of titles.
[Music]