The Blogcritics review P&P2:

I think I’ve discovered a facet of the “chick flick” phenomenon that I hadn’t before. It’s not the theme of the film so much as the quality. The true definition of a “chick flick” is a film of mediocre quality (plot holes, bad dialogue, convenient meetings, etc.) that nevertheless has the redeemable qualities of romance and attractive leads. The same is true for guy flicks/action films where the hero has unlimited ammunition, the bad guy’s henchmen can’t hit the broadside of a barn, and big bad guy himself has no motivation other than being evil. However, if a film is very well made, then people of both genders can like and appreciate it.

I can think of no higher quality film that surpasses the concept of “chick flick” in my experience than Pride and Prejudice. Created for the BBC, the miniseries has developed a justifiable reputation as one of the best adaptations of classic literature in recent memory.

And the fangirls stampede…Let’s see if the Darcy Effect can rival the Slashdot effect.

Rose Martin wrote to send us a review of Miss Lucy Steele by Ruth Berger, about which we posted previously.

“Miss Lucy Steele”, the new German S&S retelling by Ruth Berger, is an extremely well written, altogether delightful book. It is very like Austen’s own writings in its lovely irony, but different and more modern in scope and outlook. S&S has never been my favourite Austen novel, mostly because Edward is, well, not really the kind of man you’d fall in love with, is he? And Elinor herself, in her moral perfection and unfailing self-control, is certainly a less lovable character than other Austen heroines. Her morality is at times one-sided and self-serving. She judges Lucy harshly for wanting to marry Edward, a man richer than herself, but isn’t she guilty of the same sin?

Ruth Berger cleverly exploits these weaknesses of the S&S characters when she rewrites the story from Lucy’s perspective. She starts years before the onset of the story in S&S to give a very plausible family background to Lucy and her silly sister Anne, and also fills in the details about Lucy’s long-standing engagement to Edward that is only mentioned in passing in S&S. But she focuses on Edward almost as much as on Lucy. S&S never leaves Elinor’s perspective, and what we are told about Edward are largely Elinor’s conjectures. She thinks he loves her and not Lucy. Lucy (in Berger’s novel) thinks Edward loves her and not Elinor. Edward himself, Berger tells us, rather likes them both and doesn’t really care whom he marries in the end. It could even be the lord’s daughter chosen for him by his mother. But his most fervent wish is to be finally left alone by all those pestering women who pressure him, so that the poor boy finds himself in the most humiliating predicaments all the time!

The book is a joyful read for everyone, not only for those who know S&S. Hopefully, there will be an English translation soon, although I am afraid the truly lovely style will suffer somewhat from translation.

Thank you for pointing me to the book.

Rose

You’re welcome, Rose. We are glad that you enjoyed the book. However, we are exceedingly fond of Elinor Dashwood and find it hard to believe that Jane Austen meant for us to consider Lucy Steele at all sympathetic–though she is a brilliantly-drawn character, certainly. Nor does Elinor, in our opinion, judge Lucy because she wants to marry a richer man; Lucy wants to marry him BECAUSE he is rich, not because she loves him. If she loved Edward, would she have thrown him over so easily for Mr. Robert Ferrars? Well, we suppose we would have to read the book to discover Ms. Berger’s argument on that score, hmm? Thanks for sending in your review, Rose.