Back to Top

Category: Jane Austen


Talking about the new Pride and Prejudice movie (and Jane mania in general!) has sent me in search of the most interesting sites featuring our favorite author. Here are just a few:

http://www.philosophersguild.com (A wonderful site, full of all sorts of fascinating literary doo-dads! My favorite here is the Little Thinkers line of dolls. I don’t have the Austen doll yet–Christmas gift, anyone???–but I do have the Frida Kahlo and Emily Dickinson models)

http://www.museumofcostume.co.uk (The Museum of Costume in Bath. They are having an exhibit that runs through the end of the year which features costumes form various Austen films, including the 1995 P&P, both the Paltrow and Beckinsale Emma versions, Persuasion, and Sense and Sensibility. I would dearly love to see this, but I guess I have to be content with the photos!)

http://www.pemberly.com (The Republic of Pemberly, a great repository of All Things Jane)

http://www.janeausten.com/uk (The Jane Austen Centre in Bath. I went here on my last trip to England, and it’s great fun. I can vouch for the excellence of their gift shop, too!)

http://www.jasna.org (The Jane Austen Society. I’ve been a member for many years, though I’ve never had the chance to attend their annual general meeting. Their newsletter and “Persuasions” are great perks)

http://www.paperdolls.com/dolls/janeausten1/htm (Jane Austen paperdolls!!!)

http://www.chawton.org (The official website for Chawton Cottage)

http://www.basbleu.com (they have a whole section of Jane products, including a Pride and Prejudice board game that I’m dying to play!)

And more movie info: It seems that in 2006 we will get a film called “Being Jane,” starring Anne Hathaway as Jane (I’m a bit mystified by this, but then again I doubted Keira Knightley until I saw P&P). I couldn’t find a whole lot of info on it, but you can see bit at http://www.imdb.com

These are just a few! Let us know what some of your favorites are.


I saw the new PRIDE AND PREJUDICE movie — and I really liked it! There were some historical anachronisms, I admit, but I think they did an amazing job distilling the story of the long novel down to just slightly more than two hours — and without cutting out one of the sisters, at the previous movie did! 🙂 (Though in the sense of full disclosure, I’ll concede they did cut out Mr and Mrs Hurst, and for some reason turned Fitzwilliam into Darcy’s friend rather than cousin.)

For those of you who haven’t had the chance to see it yet, here are some of my thoughts and impressions.

MacFadyen as Darcy is definitely a Heathcliff type here — but I thought it worked. Every P&P needn’t be the same. He was very intense, very sexy, and he and Keira Knightley had great chemistry together. She did a great Elizabeth, I thought — full of spirit and humor, and very fierce. I felt the two characters were well matched, and would have a great future together — very passionate, both with fighting and with….er…passion.

I love Colin Firth, and I also liked Olivier’s Darcy a lot (though he’s not the dreamiest in my book), but I liked MacFadyen very much — a lot more than I expected. In the preview I saw, I thought he didn’t look impressive, but he’s much better in the whole thing (without his lines being all chopped up!)

Of course, most of the characters didn’t get much time, so we don’t know the younger sisters, or the Bingleys, or Lady Catherine, or (particularly) Wickham they way we do in the BBC miniseries. But still, who can fault Judi Dench’s Lady Catherine?


Little things I loved: Lydia actually looked fifteen, and it even looked like she had acne. Jane was gorgeous — no wonder why everything thought she was the handsomest girl in the room!

A few things really bothered me — like Miss Bingley’s sleeveless dresses (the one shown here is the more normal one — there’s one she wears later for which the bodice looks like a bathing suit!) Also, what is it with the girls’ hair? I don’t recall girls wearing side ponytails of sausage curls in the 1790’s…or did I miss it? And why was Elizabeth (as well as others) wearing her hair down so much? Do they think modern movie viewers are so small-minded that they can’t like a woman with her hair up?

And yes, there might have been more wearing of gloves and bonnets (and, um, clothes) for my taste — but I understand why many of these choices were made. The important thing is the story — telling the story, and getting across the basics of a LOT of characters, all in two hours. Sometimes shorthand methods are the only way. (No glove pun intended!)

So, anyone else who’s seen it — what did you think? If you haven’t seen it, are you looking forward to it? (With fear or with anticipation?) 🙂 Please share!

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

I was going to write today about how, according to brainyhistory.com, on this day in 1820 tomatoes were proved to not be poisonous! A breakthrough even though ketchup had been on Regency tables for some time, Thomas Jefferson had cultivated them (surely not for the flowers?), and in South America people had been chowing down on them for centuries. However I’ve not found any supporting evidence for today being the day, so forget about that…

I expect you’ve read about Jane Austen’s ring coming up for auction. It’s been in the family for almost two centuries, going to her sister Cassandra on Jane’s death. Cassandra then gave it to her sister in law Eleanor (who married brother Henry), who childless, gave it to her niece Caroline  who was the daughter of brother James. It makes me sad that this may be the one and only glimpse of her ring we’ll get unless (please, please) someone buys it and donates it to the Jane Austen’s House Museum in Chawton. Because otherwise what do you do with it? Wear it on special occasions and hope you don’t absentmindedly leave it somewhere (like in a public restroom over the sink)? Keep it in a safe and have dates with it where you open the door and gaze upon it? I just don’t get it.

The big news of the day is that I have three well-muscled young men in the house doing things for me. If you follow me on FB, which is generally very unrewarding, you’ll know that I’m undergoing a massive and exciting kitchen/downstairs of the house remodel (it’s a very small house). Today is granite day! Pics will come later. I’m keeping out of the way. It will be very spiffy.

And that’s about all that’s going on with me at the moment. Conspicuously short on writing news, you may notice although I’m reading–latest great read was The Private Life of William Shakespeare by Jude Morgan, one of my very favorite writers. What have you read recently and what do you think of the Austen ring auction? If you bought it, what would you do with it?

As you had not heard from me at that time it was very good in you to write, but I shall not be so much your debtor soon. – I want to tell you that I have got my own darling Child from London;  — on Wednesday I received one Copy, sent down by Falknor, with three lines from Henry to say that he had given another to Charles & sent a 3d by the Coach to Godmersham; just the two Sets which I was least eager for the disposal of.
Jane Austen to her sister, Cassandra
January 29, 1813

pp1stJane Austen’s “own darling Child” was, of course, the published Copy of Pride & Prejudice.  This is month is the 200th anniversary of its publication and a big month for Janeites.

On  January 27, 1813 Jane Austen, at Chawton,  received her first copy of Pride & Prejudice, sent by her brother Henry from London.  Henry also sent copies to Jane’s brothers Edward Austen Knight (in Godmersham) and Charles.  Once Jane received her copy, she immediately wrote to Henry and asked him to send c0pies to her brothers Frank and James and, along with her mother, began reading it aloud to a friend without revealing the author.

On January 28, publisher Tomas Egerton’s first advertisement for Pride & Prejudice appeared in the Morning Chronicle, detailing a novel in three volumes with a price of 18s.  There were possibly 1500 copies printed; this is not clear. The copyright remained with Egerton until 1841.

Sometime in early February, an anonymous review of Pride & Prejudice appeared in The British Critic, No. 41.   No doubt, Jane Austen noted and probably recorded this review.  She was assiduous in collecting reviews of her work both public and private.

We will see a lot of events, real and virtual, celebrating this anniversary.  Of Jane Austen’s six novels, Pride & Prejudice is, without a doubt, the most beloved.   This year, Jane Austen Societies around the globe will be organizing their annual meetings around Pride & Prejudice.  Already, books have been published on the topic, festivals are being planned, and the BBC intends to recreate the Netherfield ball.  Who can resist?

Will you be celebrating or do you celebrate Pride & Prejudice every year anyway?  What are you looking forward to?  And what do you think?  Is this Jane’s best work?

I was asked this question in an interview  in which I talk about Dedication–now on sale at AllRomanceEbooks (cheaper than amazon or kindle!) but the question of the day there is what rules you tolerate being broken in romance. Many thanks to Layna Pimentel for having me visit, and please go visit–we’re a bit quiet there at the moment.

You can also find out which Austen character I’d like to be and it’s such a fascinating topic I thought I should extend it here.

Lizzy Bennett. No. Not even if you snag the 1995 Colin Firth. A lifetime of jollying him along and trying to stop him telling Bingley and Jane what to do?–no thanks. Besides which, exactly how often do you expect him to parade around in a wet shirt?

Wowsa

Mary Crawford. Smart, manipulative, daring, but brother Henry has possibly screwed up her chances for the good marriage she needs to shine. Besides which, she’s the SISTER of the best looking guy in the movie, I mean the book.

Anne Wentworth nee Elliot. No, not even if you snag the 1995 Ciaran Hinds. Life aboard ship, even as the Captain’s lady, was nasty (ruinous to the complexion too), and how will Wentworth take to life ashore in peacetime? The last time he diverted himself by flirting and marrying. Uh oh.

Emma. Oh dear lord no. Rich and clueless and has to sleep with Mr. Knightley.

Dashwood sisters–see above re Hinds and Firth, and I always thought Alan Rickman looked particularly jowly in that role. Marianne, I’m sure, is destined for a short life of ill health following her nearly fatal strep throat, and Elinor is… well, you know what Elinor is, it makes me fall asleep just thinking about her.

Catherine Tilney nee Morland. Exactly how many children is she supposed to have? Awful father-in-law and brother-in-law? No. (But she is married to Henry…)

Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Now we’re talking. Clueless but it doesn’t matter because she’s rich and powerful. It’s all about the power, baby.

Now you see where this is going, don’t you? So tell me how violently you disagree, or visit Layna Pimentel to see if you agree with my choice there.