Back to Top

Category: Jane Austen

There are many reasons to thank Jane Austen. Hours of escapism reading or watching movie adaptations, hours of pondering or discussing what she was really saying. She’s a great artist whose work is forever open to interpretations–thoughtful, controversial, or just plain wacko–and she will stay with you for a lifetime, changing as you do.

It’s interesting that for a woman whose private life was so very private–thanks in part to Cassandra’s scissors–that she writes so convincingly and with such authority about love.

Her books are about courtship and love, yes, but she deflects her happy endings, leaving her couples on the way to the altar. Her depictions of marriage are not always great–relationships gone stale (the Bennets), marriages that you know are just going to be trouble (the Wickhams). We have the particularly lifeless Gardiners of P&P who are surely there to push the plot forward (sorry, Miss Austen, I’ve always suspected they’re there for that reason). The Crofts are happy but childless, unusual in an age when marriage = children. Is Mrs. Croft’s year ashore, sick and missing her husband, really a reference to a pregnancy that went badly wrong?

Furthermore, there is the evidence in the letters (and sorry, I can’t quote you a reference because then this post would be even later) that falling in love is a woman’s choice; that she can and should allow herself to do so.  The implication is that falling in love–an uncontrollable thoughtless impulse–is doomed. (Marianne Dashwood, we’re talking about you.) Love is a power a woman holds in check until the suitable prospect appears, a man of virtue (Edward Bertram, zzzzz), of wealth (Darcy, who is probably  not Colin Firth in a wet shirt), or even one who can comfortably provide for you (Mr. Collins. Try not to think about it).

The evidence is in the novels: that not one of her heroines makes a marriage that would in any way defy the social norms. Not even Lizzy and Darcy. Sure, he has a bunch of money and huge tracts o land but she’s gentry, possibly from a family like Austen’s that had some aristocratic connections a few generations ago.His aristocratic connections are too close for comfort.

Check out that first proposal scene again (in the book, not the movie adaptations):

In vain I have struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you.

(Wowsa)

But remember, we’re in Lizzy’s point of view. Austen does not allow us to hear Darcy’s proposal in his words. Instead, we get Lizzy’s interpretation:

… you chose to tell me that you liked me against your will, against your reason, and even against your character?

And that’s what makes Austen so brilliant, by leaving us guessing. And guessing. And talking about it. Her control of point of view, what the reader needs to know and when, if ever, is what I admire most about Austen’s writing.

What do you like most about Austen’s writing? And what do you think is impossible to translate into a movie script?

Jane Austen Made Me Do It Final May 2011Prizes: Today I’ll give away a couple of copies of Jane Austen Made Me Do It, a collection of short stories edited by Laurel Ann Nattress of Austenprose chosen from among those of you who comment on today’s post. That will automatically enter you into our grand drawing of a $50 amazon gift certificate!

Thanks for joining us to celebrate Austen’s birthday this week.

 

 

I hope I won’t be drummed out of the Risky Regencies for this, but I have to confess it took me a while to warm to Jane Austen.

My introduction to the Regency wasn’t Jane Austen, but Georgette Heyer and the stacks and stacks of Regency romances by other authors lying around our house. I read them voraciously as a child, getting in trouble with the nuns at my elementary school for having one in my book-bag.

I think I was about twelve when, having read enough book blurbs that said, “in the tradition of Jane Austen”, I decided to pick up Pride and Prejudice. And embarrassing as it is to admit, I found it slow going. At the time, I was a lonely, nerdy kid and I craved the escape of fantasy, preferring the Chronicles of Narnia to realistic fiction like Beverly Cleary’s Ramona books (even though I now recognize how wonderful they are). The same thing happened with Jane Austen, since she wrote realistic contemporary fiction, using events and settings (“three of four families in a country village”) that seemed less glamorous than the glittering ton parties, duels and adventures I found in Regencies by Georgette Heyer and other authors.

Pride and Prejudice 1995As I’ve gotten older and possibly a bit wiser, I’ve come to know that reality can be as powerful, maybe more so—than fantasy. I recognize the brilliance of Jane Austen’s characterizations and the skill with which she crafted her stories on “the little bit (two inches wide) of ivory on which I work with so fine a brush.” I’ve come to love her portrayal of her times and I know this has affected my own writing. I enjoy rural settings very much and I don’t feel the need for all my heroes and heroines to be aristocrats.

My own daughters are learning to appreciate Jane Austen at an earlier age. We’ve read the books together, but seeing the movies does help. I didn’t see any of the Jane Austen adaptations that were available when I was growing up, which is probably just as well, as I’ve been disappointed in the 70s versions I’ve seen. But any of the more recent productions, like the 1995 Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle P&P would have provided enough visual beauty—the costumes, the settings—to satisfy my craving for fantasy. I’m sure I would have read the book with different eyes.

So how do you see Jane Austen—as the realistic fiction, as fantasy, or something else?  Can you forgive me my youthful foolishness in not recognizing her brilliance on first reading? Comment for the chance to win this “Amiable Rancor” calendar from The Republic of Pemberley.

Amiable Rancor Calendar

 

P.S. Lesley Attary, you have won an e-copy of The Persistent Earl by Gail Eastwood. Gail Eastwood will be in touch.

JaneAustenCassandraWatercolourThis is the 237th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth and the official end of the Riskies’ Jane Austen celebration….’til next time!

But it’s not the end of our giveaways. You have until midnight tonight to comment on each of our blogs for a chance to win each of our prizes, and for a chance to win the grand prize– a $50 Amazon gift certificate.

So work your way back and make sure you leave a comment on each blog!

The winners will be announced tomorrow (Monday).

The Riskies 

 

I recently read THE IMMORTAL DINNER, by Penelope Hughes-Hallett, subtitled “A Famous Evening of Genius and Laughter in Literary London”. The book centers around a dinner party held by painter Robert Haydon whose guest list included John Keats, William Wordsworth and Charles Lamb. There’s lots of interesting background information on the participants and their contemporaries.

For example, there’s an account of Coleridge composing poetry “in walking over uneven ground, or breaking through the straggling branches of a copse-wood” while Wordsworth preferred “walking up and down a straight gravel-walk, or in some spot where the continuity of his verse met with no collateral interruption.”

Maybe it’s presumptuous, but I love it when I read about famous writers with similar habits to mine. “Thinking walks” are part of my own writing process. I’m more like Wordsworth–I like a reasonably level path, to keep my mind free to focus on my story–which is a good thing as copse-woods are scarce in my neighborhood.

Another account that made me smile was this one by Marianne Knight, one of Jane Austen’s nieces. “I also remember how Aunt Jane would sit quietly working (which meant sewing) beside the fire in the library, saying nothing for a good while, and then would suddenly burst out laughing, jump up and run across the room to a table where pens and paper were lying, write something down, and then come back across to the fire and go on quietly working as before.”

I always keep a writing pad in my purse, one by my bedside, and one on the kitchen counter for just that reason. Ideas don’t always come while I’m actively writing–perversely, some of the best ones come when I’m doing something else. Perhaps it’s because sewing and walking, both rhythmic activities, loosen up the creative process for me as they do for other artists I know.

Do you have any favorite accounts of famous writers’ processes? Are there any quirky habits you use that help you be creative, whatever your field of endeavor?

And to anyone who sees a woman striding through a neighborhood muttering to herself, remember she may not be crazy. She may just be a writer. 🙂

Elena
www.elenagreene.com

Does anyone want to discuss Roger Michell’s film PERSUASION? (It was released as a television film in the U.K., and as a theatrical release in the U.S. — which may make it unique!) I call it “Roger Michell’s PERSUASION” because he was the director — but of course screenwriter Nick Dear deserves as much credit as Michell for this understated, heartfelt adaptation.

I think Ciaran Hinds is very real as Wentworth — and a swoony romantic hero at the same time. Amanda Root is so true and so subtle as Anne that I don’t think I could ever picture anyone else in the part.

The silences in the film are amazingly powerful. This is an incredibly internal film.

The supporting performances are also great. I particularly adore Simon Russell Beale as Anne’s cheerful (but perhaps not too bright) brother-in-law Charles Musgrove, and Fiona Shaw as Mrs. Croft, the Admiral’s resourceful wife. (I once saw Simon Russell Beale portray Guildenstern in Stoppard’s ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD, and Fiona Shaw play King Richard II in Shakespeare’s play, but I assure you I am quite unbiased!)

So, which were your favorite parts of the film? Or what didn’t work for you?

Cara
Cara King, www.caraking.com
MY LADY GAMESTER, Signet Regency 11/05