Back to Top

Category: Jane Austen

Andrew Davies, who has successfully adapted Sense & Sensibility, Pride & Prejudice, Emma, and Northanger Abbey, has stated that he will never adapt Mansfield Park. And who can blame him? There have been three adaptations of Mansfield Park and none of them really succeed.

In 1983, the BBC produced a miniseries adaptation.

This Fanny Price, in my opinion, is a pretty fair adaptation of the one in the novel.  And I do like Nicholas Farrell as Edmund. Unfortunately, the whole thing tends to be a tad soporific.  Watch this one if you are suffering from insomnia.

In 1999, Patricia Rozema tried her hand at Mansfield Park

This is an interesting movie, but so not Mansfield Park. The director admitted to creating a new Fanny, one whom she insists includes elements of Jane Austen. Rozema’s Fanny is a writer if that’s what she means. Most of the rest seems to be solely a construct of Ms. Rozema’s imagination. What this adaptation has going for it (in my opinion, anyway) is Jonny Lee Miller as Edmund.  I’ll pretty much watch anything with JLM in it.

Most recently, ITV produced an adaptation, televised in 2007.

I’m a huge Jane Austen fan but I must admit to not watching this adaptation in its entirety. I have no idea who this Fanny Price is, giggling and running around Mansfield Park with her hair down.   This not my Fanny Price and I’m pretty sure it’s not Jane Austen’s either.

What’s so hard about adapting Fanny? Here’s what I think. Fanny Price is the strong, moral center of this book, but she doesn’t have much of a character arc. The Fanny Price who finally wins and marries the man she loves is pretty much the Fanny Price who came to Mansfield Park as a child. The other characters change around her or not (*ahem* Mrs. Norris), but Fanny remains stalwart and true.

What do you think? Is there a way to adapt Fanny without changing her? Do you have a favorite adaptation?  Want to take a stab at one?

I have to rush off to do various strange things today so here’s a fabulous documentary that I believe has aired on some PBS stations (but not on mine yet). It’s a recreation of the Netherfield Ball at Chawton House and explains what Austen’s readers would have understood about birth, wealth and social standing at such an event. A team of experts, led by Amanda Vickery, reproduce the clothes, food and setting.

Pour yourself a nice cup of … something or other and enjoy. What surprised you about the conclusions the historians reached?

Today I thought I’d talk about book reviews. There are two schools of thought about reviews:

  1. They don’t matter.
  2. They do matter.

Similarly, writers are advised to:

  1. Comb through your reviews for quotable quotes.
  2. Never, ever read your reviews. That way lies madness.

So today I want to share some of my finest review hours (of different books, if you’re wondering. I don’t think I’ve yet written the book that could elicit all of the following responses):

This book was very vulgar! Pornography is not my thing. The sex acts were very explicit and embarrassing. I thought I Was reading something historical. This was historical to the point of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The “relations” include scenes involving a corpse which is at best in bad taste and at worst borders on the necrophiliac.

… the worst character — ever. I hope she gets crotch rot. And dies.

…a thowback [sic] the vintage sleaze pulps of the 1960’s of which I am an avid collector.

Moral Note: Above, and heck, and “b” word in reference to breeding.

I’ve long ago come to the conclusion that if someone hates a book they’re going to more readily write a review than someone who loved it, or even just sorta liked it. For one thing, it’s easier. It provides catharsis for wasted money or dashed hopes. I’ve just read two wonderful books about the Borgias by Kate Quinn, and all I can do is flap my mouth and wave my hands in inarticulate admiration, wish I could do what she does, and then feel guilty about not going further with it. (Sorry, Kate.)

I will add that there’s only one thing I find truly offensive in a review (rather than feeling mystified), and that’s a reviewer who spells Austen Austin. She’s not a town in Texas. Austen. Write 100 times….

Do reviews influence you when you buy books? Do you review the books you read? And if you’re a writer, what’s the worst or most bizarre review you’ve ever received?

Last Saturday the Washington Romance Writers had their first meeting of the year, which traditionally is reserved for Kathy Gilles Seidel, our resident Austen scholar. For the last six years she’s been working her way through a discussion of Jane Austen’s books especially as depicted in movies. Saturday was the last of this discussion series, ending with Northanger Abbey.

NorthangerDVDThere are two movie adaptations of Northanger Abbey, one made in 2007, starring Felicity Jones and JJ Feild and shown on PBS as part of an Austen series. The other was made in 1987, starring  and  (not Colin).

I was able to watch the 1987 version and to reread the book. My impressions can be summarized by saying that I loved the book and appreciated anew Austen’s deft hand at characterization and her wit. I also thought the movie makers just didn’t “get it.”

MV5BMjA1ODE4MzAwOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTAyMjE2MQ@@._V1_SY317_CR5,0,214,317_Some of the discussion was around these issues:

1. Is Northanger Abbey a romance? Not really. It was more a character growth story, but more so a satire on the gothic novels of the period, specifically The Mysteries of Udolpho.

2. The film makers didn’t get the wit and satire in the story. The 1987 version changed the whole tone of the story. They did their best, though, to intensify the romance elements.

2. If Northanger Abbey were a romance, then Henry Tilney would not have made it as a romance hero, but in this story, he was the nicest guy in the book. The movie makers embellished Henry to make him more alpha-like.

Getting together with like-minded people, discussing topics like Jane Austen and romance writing is a wonderful pleasure. Each time I attend a meeting like this, I feel renewed and rejuvenated!

(Risky Regencies did a similar Northanger Abbey discussion several years ago, led by our talented Cara King. See here and here.)

What’s rejuvenating you today?

Having nearly forgotten my day for blogging, I have turned once again to Hone’s The Every-Day Book. Quite a bit of January 11 is devoted to card-playing. Hone tells us that

regency_deck_kingThis diversion resorted to at visitings during the twelve days of Christmas, as of ancient custom, continues without abatement during the prolongation of friendly meetings at this season.  Persons who are opposed to this recreation from religious scruples, do not seem to distinguish between its use and abuse.

He goes on to say that Cards are not here introduced with a view of seducing parents to rear their sons as gamblers and blacklegs or their daughters to a life of scandal, an old age of cards, but to impress upon them the importance of not morosely refusing to participate in that the archdeacon refers to as of the ‘harmless mirth and innocent amusements of society.’

In Pride & Prejudice, Mrs. Philips’s evening party includes cards and even gambling. Mrs. Philips keeps a genteel, middle class home, so the gambling in this case probably did not involve money, but it was gambling nonetheless.

gaming-fish

Gaming Fish

The fish Lydia is talking about refers to gaming tokens, frequently made of mother of pearl and not uncommonly used in card games.

Fortunately for us, some of these young men and women were seduced into being blacklegs and scandalous ladies. Where would our stories be without them?  On the other hand, we’re equally entertained by the  ‘harmless mirth and innocent amusements of society.’ It all depends on the plot.

Do you prefer the scandalous ladies and gambling gentleman or are you partial to those indulging in innocent amusement? Or perhaps both?