Back to Top

“…No, I haven’t, but I’ve seen the movie.”

6 Comments

Now, in reality, the world have paid too great a compliment to critics,
and have imagined them to be men of much greater profundity then they really
are. –Henry Fielding

Thank you, Mr. Fielding. I hope to remember to be humble. I have finally seen the new Pride and Prejudice movie (I am not addressing this part to Mr. Fielding, as he is dead of course, and the book was written about 60 years or so after his time) and I am weighing in.

Firstly, I welcomed it with delight. As I sat in the theater during the opening scene–a marvelous, expansive scene of a country sunrise–I thought of how much I enjoy seeing a new adaptation of this old novel. And I asked myself not to expect it to be what I…er…expected. I know the novel, having read it several times, and I don’t mind seeing something that adds to it. In fact, I love being shown something more about the characters I love in a credible way. But I tend to be rather protective of the story, and hate to see it unnecessarily tweaked, and heavens–altered.

I attended the movie with four friends–all of whom are familiar with the story from previous film versions. One is currently reading the novel–she hadn’t finished it yet, but she does have a good grasp of the period.

This movie tries hard to put the long book into movie length. It did so by changing scenes in the novel, eliminating some and causing the necessary conversation to occur elsewhere. It eliminated Mrs. Phillips, a sister of Mrs. Bennett, and the Hursts, the married sister of Mr. Bingley and her husband. The latter did not do any real harm to the story, but being anal about P&P, I had to mention it.

I had made some critical remarks before about some movie photographs re: costuming, but now I am going to take them back–because I feel the movie did an excellent job with that. It illustrated very well the difference in dress between an ordinary young woman and a member of the nobility, and I also admired how Mrs. Bennett was dressed in the style of her own youth–something I feel is realistic for a woman of her time who did not have the time or money to spend in London keeping up with the latest style, and like many older women of today, chose to stay with what she was used to wearing. Even her shoes were of a Georgian style–shabby and soiled, but right. For that, I am (as Jane would say) all admiration.

I have mixed feelings about the relative poverty the Bennetts were shown to have. (If you haven’t seen the movie yet–although I believe I am one of the last to have seen it–the Bennett manor house seemed to be in the center of a barnyard). Possible–certainly. Intended by Jane–I tend to doubt. The Bennetts in this movie appeared to be more like a relatively well-to-do farm family than gentry. They were restricted financially, but I believe that they would not have lived so inimately with their livestock. Mrs. Bennett was conscious of appearances, and if they could afford expensive ball gowns for their daughters, I should think they could afford to have fences. Ahem….

Other story elements…I have to wonder if someone not familiar with the story could have followed it in the film very well. I can’t have that perspective, and neither could any of my friends. Has anyone heard anything in that respect? The scenes cut rapidly from one to the other, leaping across time without giving any indication of it. There was almost a feeling that the story took place in a few weeks’ time instead of several months. And I did miss the nuance that the eliminated scenes could have provided…as a better showing of Lydia’s character before her downfall, and more of an understanding of Elizabeth’s character.

Additionally, I think it did not give Lydia’s elopement the emphasis it deserves in the story. I may be mistaken, but her act, a shattering event in the book, did not seem to come across as the crisis it would have been. Perhaps in needed more real time in the movie? I am not sure.

Nitpicks: Some scenes bothered me, as the one in which Mr. Bingley looked in on Jane in her sickroom–I am sure this would not have happened. Darcy with his shirt unbuttoned! This was a great departure from propriety for a gentleman, and if it could not have been helped, he would have begged Elizabeth’s pardon for his state–even if he was in love.

I could have done without the very last scene. ::Sigh::. Something about it seemed… well…modern to me. I was glad to learn they were already married in that scene, but their being out of doors in what constituted their underwear (with servants about somewhere) seemed a bit wrong.

Not nitpicks: In many ways I loved this movie. The characterizations were wonderful and so was the acting. I loved Darcy’s shyness, once one of my friends pointed out that his discomfort was likely due to not knowing how to act when socializing with his inferiors–and I mentally kicked myself for not thinking of that. In short, I want to see the movie again. And I feel it will generate more interest in Jane Austen, and this is always good! And I did love that kiss in the proposal scene, in spite of Darcy’s shirt. Some things are just timeless.

Thank you for tolerating my reflections on this movie, since it is not a new topic here. I am going to go back and read previous opinions given in Risky Regencies now that I have a perspective.

Laurie

 

Fun Friday Quiz

4 Comments

Since it’s the end of the week (and a loooong week it was, at least for me as we head into this irritating, er, festive season), and a week away from Jane Austen’s birthday, I thought it might be fun to try another quiz. 🙂 This one comes again from the Jane Austen Centre newsletter, and is an Austen-at-Christmas theme. I’ll post answers tomorrow. Good luck, and let us know how you do!

1) With what feelings did Fanny Price creep slowly up the staircase at Mansfield after the Christmas ball?
a) Hopes and fears
b) Restless and agitated
c) Both of the above

2) What was served at the ball?
a) Soup and negus
b) Turkey
c) Bullet pudding

3) Who usually visited the Bennetts at Christmas?
a) Mr. Collins
b) Mr. Bingley
c) The Gardiners

4) Where did they spend Christmas after Elizabeth and Darcy married?
a) Netherfield
b) London
c) Pemberley

5) Who spent Christmas at Uppercross with the Musgroves, to improve the noise at Lyme?
a) Louisa
b) The little Harvilles
c) The Crofts

6) What amusement did Mrs. Musgrove find for them?
a) Making decorations with silk and gold paper
b) Snapdragon
c) A parlor game

7) Mr. and Mrs. Weston held a party on Christmas Eve. Who was absent?
a) Emma
b) Mr. John Knightley
c) Harriet

8) What nearly prevented the party from going ahead?
a) A fever
b) A sore throat
c) Snow

9) Jane Austen was born just before Christmas in what year?
a) 1770
b) 1775
c) 1776

10) What was the main ingredient of a Regency mince pie?
a) Brandy
b) Raisins
c) Meat

Your servant, madam

6 Comments

It’s tough to follow on after the heart-wrenching demise of Frisky the Goldfish (and now his successor, gone to both a watery and icy grave). So I thought I’d write today about servants, who I find far more fascinating than the folks upstairs in the drawing room in the labor-intensive regency household. Of course the best thing about servants, for a writer, is that they knew the household secrets and family dynamics better than anyone. I find it interesting, though, that so many regency-era writers get them all wrong, relying on vague ideas of what servants are like (and copying others’ mistakes).

For instance, a female servant would never answer the front door, unless the household was quite poor and she was theonly servant. Neither would she wear a black dress and white cap–that was a uniform that came in much later in the century. Footmen, dressed in livery, were the servants in an aristocrat household who dealed with visitors and guests–status symbols for the family, since there was a tax on male servants. It was the fashion to hire men who were similar in appearance and height, rather like a team of horses (leading to some very interesting possibilities if you have a mind like mine). Female servants hauled coals, emptied chamberpots, and did other dirty work, while their male (and better paid) colleagues minced around in daft uniforms and wigs opening doors and presenting billets-doux on salvers.

For an interesting breakdown on servants and their duties, visit this page (and if you poke around on the site you can also find out how to become a gentleman’s gentleman), http://www.butlerschool.com/interesting_facts.htm.

For a feel of servants’ living and working quarters, take a virtual tour of the “downstairs” at The Regency Town House–it’s described as a time capsule, as it’s the basement of a house in Hove (near Brighton) that has been virtually untouched for almost two centuries. Restoration of the main house, at 13 Brunswick Square is also underway and the servants’ quarters are a couple of doors down at number 10.

Another interesting servant-oriented stop on your next visit to England is Erddig, an historic house in North Wales, where the former owners (before it was taken over by the National Trust), bless them, didn’t throw away a thing for three centuries, including correspondence with their servants when the masters were away. This unusual family also had portraits painted of their servants and wrote poems in appreciation of them.

A book written for the National Trust about Erddig by Merlin Waterson, The Servants’ Hall, is out of print but you can find secondhand copies online. The Erddig family tradition of staff portraits continued well into the 20th century; in this 1912 photo, each staff member whimsically holdsa tool of their trade (the cook, front row left, is holding a dead pigeon. No wonder they look embarrassed).

The artist William Hogarth painted his servants’ portraits, too. Notice the age range, from a young boy to a middle aged man.

So what was it really like, to be in service? The servants themselves existed in a social heirarchy at least as complicated as that of the people Upstairs.You worked very long, hard hours for not much money, but it was a way, if you scrimped and saved, to make the upward trek into the middle-class. You might end up running an inn or a shop with your sweetheart of many years, if you’d saved up most of your wages and tips (a valuable addition to the low wages most servants earned). A manservant in the 1820s eloquently described his life: The life of a gentleman’s servant is something that of a bird shut up in a cage. The bird is well housed and well fed but is deprived of liberty, and liberty is the dearest and sweetest object of all Englishmen. Therefore I would rather be like a sparrow or a lark, have less housing and feeding and rather more liberty. A servant is shut up like a bird in a cage, deprived of the benefit of the air to the very great injury of the constitution.

Any good servant scenes in anything you’ve read recently? Have you ever wanted to write about servants?

Janet

Goodbye, Frisky

6 Comments


Apologies in advance for the extremely maudlin and sentimental start of this post! Those who wish to skip the gushy part can just go on to the heading BACK ON TOPIC.

Last week, we lost the redcap that my youngest daughter has had for about half of her life. As it wasn’t convenient to hold a proper service at the time, Frisky spent several days in a plastic bag in our freezer, but this weekend we held the burial. Yes, I know the traditional funeral for fish is through the porcelain gates, but my children think that’s “yucky”. So our tradition is to do a backyard service, with everyone saying a few words in memory of the departed pet and setting a seashell or pretty stone on the gravesite.

This is the second time we’ve done this, and just like last time, I cried almost as much as the kids. I never used to be this sentimental—not to say mawkish! But I can’t help relating to my children’s feelings—these pet burials have been their introduction to the whole idea of death and grieving, and I do want my children know that it’s OK to grieve. Maybe dealing with a pet’s death will in a small way prepare them for bigger losses. Yeah, maybe that’s why I cry—to set a good example.

Or maybe there are permanent hormonal changes when one becomes a mother that make tears come so much more easily than they ever did. Shall I blame it on the hormones? No, overall I’d rather tell myself I’m doing it to set a good example.

(getting tissue, blowing nose…)

BACK ON TOPIC

Of course, it makes me wonder if Regency folk had funerals for their pets. I did a little googling on the subject and found little about “our” period, but some other interesting tidbits:

  • In 2004, the “carefully interred remains of a human and a cat were found buried with seashells, polished stones, and other decorative artifacts in a 9,500-year-old grave site on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus.” Complete article at the National Geographic website.
  • The ancient Egyptians mummified dogs, cats, monkeys and birds.
  • During the Medieval period, people who were too obviously friendly with their pets might have been suspected of witchcraft, so the idea of pet burial was frowned upon. People still did it, or tried to. “As one French cleric arranged a formal Christian funeral for his little dog, news of the plan leaked to his supervising bishop, who demanded he appear before a tribunal to answer charges of heresy.” More at http://www.petcem.com/pet_burial_history.htm.
  • Queen Victoria grieved for the loss of her first dog, a spaniel named Dash, leading the way for Victorians to conduct elaborate pet funerals. But then, Victorians never seemed inclined to keep anything simple.

I didn’t find anything in “our” period, but I haven’t had time to search for long. My guess is people who were really into animals, like Frederica, Duchess of York, who kept a veritable zoo at the Oatlands estate, must have done something for the dearly deceased.
Does anyone know?

Anyway, is it ridiculously sentimental to commemorate a pet’s death? At what point does it get too OTT (Over the Top)?

Elena, off for some more Kleenex…
LADY DEARING’S MASQUERADE, a Romantic Times Top Pick!
www.elenagreene.com

Read a Regency!!!!

19 Comments


There are far too many people in this world who’ve never read a “traditional Regency.” (Ooh, hate the name. Do you think it’s the name? I think it might be. “Traditional” — who wants to read a “traditional” anything?)

Actually, once upon a time our genre was just called “Regency” — and that’s the name it had for decades. But then the historicals came along, and eventually the Regency historicals were part of it….and one day some readers of Regency historicals (were they mischievous? ignorant? or possibly the forefront of an alien invasion?) started calling the books they read “Regencies” — and ever since, we’ve been stuck with the awkward designation of “traditional Regency.” Not a great name for a genre.

So I’m just going to call them “Regencies,” because that’s the better name, the name they went by for decades, the name that doesn’t scream “old-fashioned” without meaning to.

As I was saying…far too few people read Regencies anymore. In fact, some of the Risky Regency authors themselves, from what I can tell, rarely read Regencies! Now that’s just sad. Really sad. Little-kid-whose-ice-cream-dropped-on-the-ground sad.

So I challenge you: read a Regency! In fact, read more than one. Go read five highly-recommended Regencies, and see if you don’t fall in love with the genre! Oh, Regency historicals are all very well, but they can’t do everything. They can’t be everything. (When’s the last time a Regency historical washed your car for you??? Huh???)

Who will take the challenge? Is there anyone brave enough? Tough enough? After all, I’m asking you to read five Regencies. Wow. That’s a lot of books. And who likes books? Oh, you do? Great! Then take the challenge! Read five highly-recommended Regencies, and see if you aren’t won over to be a dedicated Regency reader! When you’re done, come back here, and tell us if you liked them, and why! (And yes, I’m extending this challenge both to readers of this blog, and to the authors on it too! You know who you are…)


So, what makes a Regency highly recommended, you ask??? Good question. Winning the Rita counts. (If people want, I could post a list of all the Regency Rita winners.) Having friends tell you “you have to read this book!” counts. And I also have a list here of books that I heartily recommend. (There are of course far far more great Regencies, including many books by my fellow bloggers….) I went mostly with older books, now out of print (but available in any good used book store), some of which are recognized classics of the genre, and some of which are hidden gems…in chronological order.

Clare Darcy: LADY PAMELA (1975)
Joan Smith: ESCAPADE (1977)
Joan Smith: IMPRUDENT LADY (1978)
Joan Smith: TALK OF THE TOWN (1979)
Joan Smith: SWEET AND TWENTY (1979)
Patricia Veryan: NANETTE (1981)
Joan Smith: PERDITA (1981)
Kasey Michaels: THE RAMBUNCTIOUS LADY ROYSTON (1982)
Patricia Veryan: MARRIED PAST REDEMPTION (1983)
Sheila Simonson: LADY ELIZABETH’S COMET (1985)
Kasey Michaels: THE PLAYFUL LADY PENELOPE (1988)
Carla Kelly: MRS MCVINNIE’S LONDON SEASON (1990)
Barbara Metzger: AN EARLY ENGAGEMENT (1990)
Carla Kelly: LIBBY’S LONDON MERCHANT (1991)
Barbara Metzger: MINOR INDISCRETIONS (1991)
Alicia Rasley: POETIC JUSTICE (1994)
Karen Harbaugh: THE VAMPIRE VISCOUNT (1995)
Gail Eastwood: THE LADY FROM SPAIN (1997)
Nonnie St. George: THE IDEAL BRIDE (2003)

And if any of you are enthusiastic Regency readers, please comment here and suggest your own recommended reads!!!

Cara
Cara King, www.caraking.com
MY LADY GAMESTER — out now from Signet Regency!!!