The P&P3 Daily News Roundup: The Wrath of Khan
The reviews and articles are a-rollin’ in, both from U.K. previews and the Toronto International Film Festival.
Alert Janeite TeresaAF sent us a link from the Times in which Keira Knightley tries to increase male attendance.
All the same I was absolutely astonished by Keira Knightley, the beautiful Lizzie Bennet in the new film of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, during her trial by microphone just before the premiere in Leicester Square last week. Maddened perhaps by a particularly annoying young man, this bewitching creature offered up to her interviewer the thought that if a man sees this new film with a girlfriend he is guaranteed to get laid afterwards.
We don’t know about that, but certainly some smutty fan fiction is bound to be produced.
EDP24 talks about the cinematic quality of the book that inspires filmmakers to keep remaking it and gives some biographical information about Jane Austen.
Austen fell ill in 1816 and the next summer her family took her to Winchester for treatment, but she died peacefully on July 18, 1817 and was buried in Winchester Cathedral.
If we may be allowed to go off topic for a moment, can we put the Peaceful Death meme to bed for good and all now? If one were to read Cassandra Austen’s letter to a friend telling of Jane’s death, one would learn that Jane spent her last conscious hours in tremendous pain and praying for death. It might be termed “peaceful” in that she slipped into a coma shortly before she died. Have a hanky handy if you do read the letter; you’ll need it.
The Islington Gazette is cranky but gives a grudging thumbs up.
As Darcy, Matthew Macfadyen is an earnest but inferior successor to Firth, his efforts at playing sexily aloof simply coming over as sulkily bland.
To be fair, the role does not allow him to come to life at least in the first half and he is much better in the later scenes.
Meanwhile, Knightley, with an all-too-ready grin springing to her face, is simply irritating as Lizzie Bennet.
The Syncophantic Lickspittles Society weighs in, primly repeating the company line. ThisIsLondon delivers a lecture on Gritty RealismTM:
And refreshingly, this Working Title adaptation, directed by Joe Wright, is not all about frilly dresses and giggles (although they do feature). It shows the desperation of these women’s situation.
Now it’s Professor Mags’ turn to lecture: Jane Austen faced the same “desperate situation” and yet turned down an offer of marriage to a comfortably well-off man. So clearly, it was not as desperate a situation as the parrots want us to think. Does anyone really think that Jane and Elizabeth Bennet, famous local beauties and daughters of a gentleman, would not have married someone, even if Bingley and Darcy had skived off? And in the unlikely event that they had not, do you think that had Mr. Bennet died, Mr. Collins would really have driven them out of Longbourn (though we admit it might have been unpleasant to live there), or that Mr. Philips or the Gardiners would not have offered them a home, just as Jane’s brothers chipped in to make sure their womenfolk didn’t starve in the hedgerows? Sheesh. Can we get reviewers who can think for themselves instead of repeating the same old tired crap, please?
Class dismissed, and yes, this will be on the exam.
Channel 4 Film swoons with delight over the film:
What an enormous relief it is to find the 2005 version of Pride & Prejudice has turned out to be one of the best British films of the year. It’s a smart, elegant but exuberant version that’s in every way faithful to the spirit of a book that was first written by a 21-year-old woman.
So does IndieWire:
There’s nothing like the sound of bustling corsets and rattling teacups to thwart this critic from connecting with stuffy period pieces, but “Pride & Prejudice” is different in that you’re immediately immersed into Austen’s world. It helps that Knightley’s Lizzie is such a modern character, brash and unapologetic about speaking her mind, although it’s director Joe Wright’s modern take on musty history that does the trick. Rather than basing the film’s look on formal portraits of the time, Wright dug a little deeper to find how normal people behaved. The result comes within a whisker’s breadth of matching Ang Lee’s sublime “Sense & Sensibility” for its sheer romantic and literary appeal.
Pray, what does a bustling corset sound like, anyway?
A couple of reports from Toronto: The Seattle Times segues beautifully from talking about Ang Lee’s new film into SENSE AND SENSIBILITY into P&P:
Though the two films would seem to have little in common, “Brokeback Mountain” made me think of Lee’s “Sense and Sensibility,” in its depiction of a society with a rigid code of behavior, full of words that can’t be spoken. And speaking of that film, a lively new Jane Austen film debuted this week: “Pride & Prejudice,” directed by Joe Wright. It doesn’t quite touch Lee’s film for me (which remains my favorite Austen adaptation), but has plenty to enjoy: a spirited lead performance by Keira Knightley, glorious settings throughout the English countryside, charming chemistry between Brenda Blethyn and Donald Sutherland as the long-suffering parents Mr. and Mrs. Bennet — and, of course, lots of pretty frocks.
“Pretty frocks,” clearly, being a subjective term. 
And a Janeite on the Austen-L mailing list is thoroughly pleased with the film and passes on the interesting tidbit that the ending at Pemberley is back in the film–and according to Joe Wright, there to stay. Snogging ahoy!
September 15th, 2005 at 1:44 am
Oh, Mags - I do so love your comments. Had a rough day today and they certainly made me ‘perky’ again
Uh, as long as we’re talking about s-e-x, I must say that I was like “Whoa - wait-a-minute!” when Joe W mentioned “Pride and Prejudice IS about sex”. But then again, I read one fan review who said “The atmosphere of the film is evocative, very sensual.” So maybe KK wasn’t really far-off ?
Just a thought
September 15th, 2005 at 2:20 am
Liz/ About ‘P&P’ being about s-e-x. IIRC, Andrew Davies often stated just that, too.
I also find myself giggling at the boss’s comments here quite often. Love this blog.
September 15th, 2005 at 3:24 am
AD did ? Oh, must’ve missed it. Alas, my info on P+P2 mostly depend on the net. Can’t be helped - practically nobody here (ok, a ‘lil exaggeration but nevertheless quite true
)
And I do like the subtitles for the “P&P3 Daily News Roundup”. Hey, Mags - if the kiss really makes its way back to the movie, can you entitle the news as “The P&P3 Daily News Roundup:The Return of The Kiss” ?
September 15th, 2005 at 3:25 am
Ah, I’m very much pleased that there is some approbation of Ang Lees “Sense and Sensebility” out there. It is by far my favorite Austen adaption, I think it is simply BRILLIANT.
P&P3 has to try hard on me to top that. ;o)
September 15th, 2005 at 3:32 am
Opps … I was saying - practically nobody here around me (ok, a ‘lil exaggeration but nevertheless quite true
) has much interest in P+P2 (Huh?!) or things classic.
September 15th, 2005 at 5:34 am
I’ve been reading this blog for past week or so, to figure out what to make of this new adaptation. I too find some parts of this movie (as seen in the previews and trailers) slightly irritating (most notably much maligned “walk on the moors in various stages of undress” by Mr. Darcy).:-)
But so far I found KK’s version of Lizzy very interesting (she smiles instead of smirks - so what!). I think, I would have been much more disappointed if this was just the 1995 BBC version simply cut down to two hours. I’m glad they had the guts to try something new.
As to the “desperate circumstances”, I think they were such. Although on Mr. Bennet’s death they wouldn’t end up like Oliver Twist still they didn’t have brothers to take care of them (unlike JA) and to be an old maid in your uncle’s or cousin’s house was just slightly above servants. As an alternative they could marry “just anyone” as did Charlotte. I think that if one had to (like Charlotte) marry a total idiot (and what follows had to have sex with said idiot!) then such situation could be called “desperate”.
Lastly, I find most interesting the question of Mrs. Bennet’s portrayal which keeps poping up: I agree with the film that she did love her daughters and care about their happiness but I would like to point out that she invariably went about securing that “happiness” in a wrong way. I think she didn’t understand Jane or Lizzy (or Mary, for that matter) and most identified herself with Kitty and Lydia. She was on a whole a silly woman - I think. Her preocupation with marrying her daughters was very incosistent( i.e. pushing Lizzy on Mr Collins, yet telling her she doesn’t have to accept a much more eligible Mr. Darcy, just because she herself found him offensive). Her silliness was shown in her joy from Lydia’s dubious marriage, which, in normal circumstances (i.e. outside of JA world), would erase any chance for her elder daughters to make a good match. So I hope that the film didn’t “whitewash” Mrs. Bennet too much and make her into a reasonable matriarch because, well, she really wasn’t.;-)
KeiraWeb has a short video of BBC’s Film2005 review of P&P3 with some clips inserted (among others, one of the exchanges between Darcy and Elizabeth during the famous dance). Enjoy!
September 15th, 2005 at 6:56 am
Snogging back in again? Hurray!
/Joanna I think, you’re right about the consequences if the girls didn’t marry wealthy men like Darcy and Bingley. It would have been a marriage like Charlotte’s, just to have a husband.
The Gardiners had children too, even if they would have offered their nieces a living it would have been a small one. And about the Phillips there’s little to know in the book. Were they able support their relatives?
And remember, the Dashwood Sisters had a hard decent after their father died. Her brother took care, but he was very close-fisted.
I still think the situation of women at that time was quite desperate. Marry or become a poor relative. No chance to earn a living by yourself, always be dependent on other people.
What said Lizzy ( I really hate that “ie”): Beggars can not be choosers!
And, although Jane is 22, she’s still not married. There must have been a lack of potential husbands in her neighbourhood!
So, of course they wouldn’t have to die in the hedgerows, but without one girl married with a wealthy husband, it would have been not so easy.
And, to your relief, Mrs Bennet is still the silly woman, who wants to get her daughters married. But she doesn’t have so many nervous breakdowns… just one!
September 15th, 2005 at 7:22 am
Kerstin,
Thanks for the update on Mrs Bennet - what a relief! Incidentally, do you know if, maybe, some cinemas in Berlin have the un-dubbed versions of foreign films and are likely to have the OV of P&P3 when it comes out in Germany? I could be in Berlin in 3 hours by IC train and I would consider going there to see P&P3 when it comes out in October rather than wait until the end of January for Polish release.
September 15th, 2005 at 8:57 am
this bewitching creature offered up to her interviewer the thought that if a man sees this new film with a girlfriend he is guaranteed to get laid afterwards
Oh boy! We all need to think carefully about who we watch the film with… and is this every time we watch it, or just the first time?
September 15th, 2005 at 9:21 am
So Robin, are you going to field test Miss Knightley’s theory, then?
Hey, Mags - if the kiss really makes its way back to the movie, can you entitle the news as “The P&P3 Daily News Roundup:The Return of The Kiss” ?
We’ll take it under advisement.
I hope that the film didn’t “whitewash” Mrs. Bennet too much and make her into a reasonable matriarch because, well, she really wasn’t.
No, she wasn’t. I maintain that her impetus behind marrying off her daughters was NOT altruistic, because as you said, she tried to push a completely unsuitable husband onto Lizzy and celebrated when Lydia married one even worse. She liked to be able to boast about her rich married daughters to her friends; and even before Jane and Lizzy snagged Darcy and Bingley, she liked to boast about Mrs. Wickham, so it’s not like she’s discriminating or anything.
I think she didn’t think of Darcy as eligible because he had shown outright disinterest in her daughters and her imagination didn’t extend to a possible change of heart on his part. A woman of little information and mean understanding, remember?
And yes, I do think that Elizabeth and Jane could have made happy marriages with, say, one of Mr. Gardiner’s clerks, or perhaps a colleague, someone with some wealth if not social standing. Not a man of the standing of Darcy or Bingley, they would never have gotten vouchers to Almack’s, but they would have been reasonably happy and well taken care of. Lizzy wouldn’t have made a marriage like Charlotte’s, because she was a different kind of person. And I submit that Charlotte chose her situation openly and made her own happiness.
One of the things I love about Jane Austen is how there are so many different kinds of more or less happy marriages. You can paraphrase Mr. Elliot and say that the marriages of D&L and J&B were not good marriages, they were the best. But there are still marriages that aren’t happy from the heroine’s point of view but work for the people involved. I think of the Collinses and Charles and Mary Musgrove. It may not be what most of us would choose, but I don’t think they were UNhappy, either.
And do you really think that the Gardiners would have treated Jane and Lizzy like poor relations?!?
September 15th, 2005 at 10:15 am
Also, (adding a bit onto what Mags has said) no one ever thinks of what it would have been like for the Bennet sisters is none of them had married.
Together, they had $5000 pounds. Five women could have lived quite comfortably together on that amount in the 1800s. A little cottage in the country or a small house in a market town, a maid of all work, a boy from the village to take care of a modest garden which produced vegatables, a kindly neighbor to send over a cut of beef, a ham at Christmas, or some poor bird he shot that morning. And, to paraphrase Mrs John Dashwood, they would keep no carriage; they could hire out a chaise like Mrs Long.
Together, with their fortunes combined, they would not have been rich, but they would definitely not have been paupers.
September 15th, 2005 at 10:21 am
One thing more, I wish the media would cut Matthew some slack. I’d hate for him to have to go around for the rest of his life being compared to Colin Firth. Colin Firth portrayed Mr Darcy as he wanted to and Matthew MacFadyen, I am sure, would like leave to do the same. I loved Matthew in “The Way We Live Now”, and I don’t think he should suffer under the weight of unfair comparisons.
September 15th, 2005 at 11:35 am
Great roundup, and great comments.
The “unmarried sisters were one step up from servants” thing always makes me think — well, yeah, if you pull rank. In a loving household, or in an informal one, I doubt it would be felt much. I would think the Gardiners would fall under one of those happy categories at least the bulk of the time. Jane and Lizzy don’t seem like power-grabbing types, so I doubt they would need putting in their place often. And I would propose that the head of household had it in his power to change said household rank, again, especially if one is not high society or terribly formal.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
Mags– do you know where I could find Cassandra’s letter about JA’s death that you mentioned? It seems very interesting. Thanks!
September 15th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
And do you really think that the Gardiners would have treated Jane and Lizzy like poor relations?!?
No, that was not my intention! They would have been treated not like poor relations, but the Gardiners may have had a good fortune, but divided between their own children and the five Bennet girls?
I’m not quite sure but wasn’t the 1000 pounds not given, after her mum have died?
The problem in the book is, that there have not been any proposals yet.. not to beautiful Jane nor witty Elizabeth. So her mother is freaked out, the girls getting older and no suitor seen on the horizon!
But yes, they would have been quite happy with a less wealthy man.
/Joanna Maybe Sonja can tell you, if there’s a cinema in Berlin with the OV. She lives near Bautzen. Maybe there’s another city where you can see the OV.
“The P&P3 Daily News Roundup:The Return of The Kiss” Oh yes!!!! That’s it!
September 15th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
I’m not quite sure but wasn’t the 1000 pounds not given, after her mum have died?
Yes, that’s correct. The thing is, I’m not at all sure that the senior Bennets were much more than 45 or so during the time of the story. They could have hung on for another 40 years. A lot can happen in 40 years. Charlotte’s “olive branch” may have turned out to be a mensch who would have taken care of his old cousins for the sake of his poor mamma.
Also, as Mr. Bennet said, perhaps Mrs. Bennet would have done them all a favor and predeceased him.
Jessica, the letter from Cassandra is included in the collection of Jane’s letters. You can probably find it in the library. I’m not sure if it’s online.
September 15th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Teresa:
He definitelly grows on me with every new clip I see. And I think you mean 6 women living together on 5,000 (or does Mrs. Bennet, to quote Kerstin: “die in the hedgerows”). 
Agreed on slack for Matthew.
Mags:
Wow! - you really don’t like Mrs. Bennet.
As to Collins vs. Wickham question - I always suspected that she herself had a crush on Wickham.
But seriously: I still feel sorry for Charlotte - I think she thought she could controll Mr. Collins being the more intelligent one of the two, but I don’t think she quite accounted for the “Lady Catherine factor”. I’m worried about her mental health after 10 years of this “happy marriage”.
Jane or Lizzy sure could marry respectable clerks and be happy but if said clerks lost their jobs or got sick, would they embroider cushions or paint tables for living? And what prospects for their children.
And why didn’t they marry those “respectable gentelmen” yet? Do you think that a pittance of a dowry could be the problem? Both are over 20, which in those days is already in the upper age bracket.
I didn’t want to suggest that the Gardiners would be unpleasant to the Bennet sisters if it came to living with them. But… does anyone remember “Persuasion” and what a “joy” it was to be an unmarried woman in her mid twenties in the begining of XIX century?
September 15th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
Liz, it seems the kiss is in starting at the Toronto Film Festival. It was missing from previous screenings, causing quite an uproar.
September 15th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
Now I’m afraid that we here won’t get the kissing!
At Imdb there are two different runtimes for this movie!
127 min / Canada:135 min (Toronto International Film Festival)
So? Is there an European version, kiss-free and an Canadian version with all the snogging in it?
This fact is puzzling me!
September 15th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
They showed the longer one at Toronto, and the director said the new ending was there to stay, so I’m assuming he means everywhere. Remember, you saw a preview, not the “official” version. I think they took all the comments about the abrupt ending to heart and recut it before the full public release.
September 15th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Wheeeeeee, YES! *dance silly around my desk*
Well, I’m not disapointed if we saw just a test version….
September 15th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
^Yay! The kiss scene is back in the movie…I hope. This, people, is why films have preview screenings.
I’m also hating how the media keeps comparing MM to CF. Maybe that’ll die down after awhile…The film may get more publicity in the states if it does, though. Hhhmmm…
September 15th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
I found the CA letter a RoP! Thanks Mags! And you are right about it tearing at the heart strings. JA must have been in agony if she wished for death. Poor soul!
On another note, I am quite glad to hear about the ending being re-edited to add the Pemberley scene. I think many (including me) would have been quite disappointed without it!
September 15th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
I’m so glad they have decided to include the Pemberley-scene. It sounds so lovely, and having an adaptation of the book without a final scene with the two protagonists is just not right.
It seems to me that MM and CF can’t really be compared to each other. Their interpretations of Darcy are so different that you can hardly measure MM’s portrayal to Colin Firth’s.
September 15th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Hooray for the new-and-improved ending
And I also wish people would stop the Cf/Mm comparisons (although I guess it’s inevitable). The two adaptions are completely different, so why compare?
September 15th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Am psyched that the snogging scene is back! Knowing this makes the wait until November 18th a little more bearable!
September 15th, 2005 at 8:49 pm
I too am thankful like everyone else that the Kiss is back!!!
The reason I’m really looking forward to this adaptation is the attitude all of the actors and director have displayed thus far. They give me the impression that they really enjoyed the story, the making of film, each others company etc.
After I watch the film, I will merely read the novel yet again just to fill in the blanks, but otherwise I can’t wait until October. More importantly I am sooo excited for all of you seeing it today!!!!!
September 15th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
Ooops sorry tomorrow your time!!!
September 15th, 2005 at 9:02 pm
Vee / You can still read the novel ? I got so anxious/excited, I couldn’t even look at the book now! Besides, I think I’d rather wait until AFTER I’ve seen the movie - so to see what they’ve included in the movie and what they’ve left out. Anyway, have fun reading!
P/S : I’ve noticed his lips now!
September 15th, 2005 at 11:39 pm
I’m so happy that they have put the kissing scene back into the movie.
I always wanted to see a scene with Darcy and Lizzie interaction once they were married.
September 16th, 2005 at 12:59 am
“Five thousand pounds were settled by marriage articles on Mrs. Bennet and the children. But in what proportions it should be divided amongst the latter depended on the will of the parents.” Ch. 50
The settlement means that the money belongs to Mrs. Bennet, and she collects the income from it, so at least they will have that. Right after Lizzy refuses Mr. Collins Mrs. Bennet says “and I am sure I do not know who is to maintain you when your father is dead. I shall not be able to keep you -and so I warn you.”
I agree that they would sink into comparative poverty, but this last quote makes me think that there was the expectation that Mrs. Bennet would be able to secure a home.
I think it is important to note that Jane & Elizabeth did not consider themselves desperate. A sensible woman like Lizzy would know what her future would be like if she didn’t marry, but though she is happy to be removed to “all the comfort and elegance of their family party at Pemberley”, she prefers it to the humiliation of being the wife of Mr. Collins.
I think that is more important than the desperate situation itself. Elizabeth will not consent to be the wife of a man she cannot respect in exchange for her keep. Mrs. Bennet does not care what kind of man Mr. Collins is, as long as he has enough money. And Mr. Collins doesn’t differentiate between the three women he considered making an offer to.
September 16th, 2005 at 5:10 am
Argh, Vee - just realised that I’ve misread your comment .. what was I thinking ? Oh, yes - those eyes, those lips and THAT voice
September 16th, 2005 at 9:04 am
Vanessa M — well said.
September 16th, 2005 at 9:13 am
Mags:
Wow! - you really don’t like Mrs. Bennet.
I enjoy her as a comic character–I think she’s hilarious. I just don’t find her “heroic” or “the only one with a clue,” a theory advanced by some critics that all involved with this film have jumped on with both feet.
I didn’t want to suggest that the Gardiners would be unpleasant to the Bennet sisters if it came to living with them. But… does anyone remember “Persuasion” and what a “joy” it was to be an unmarried woman in her mid twenties in the begining of XIX century?
Yet Anne could have married Charles Musgrove…and chose not to.
September 16th, 2005 at 10:04 am
Re. the unpeaceful death - just read that letter…heartbreaking indeed. The link’s here if anyone’s interested.
September 16th, 2005 at 10:21 am
Liz/ Yes the voice……….woops I think I’m drooling.
September 16th, 2005 at 10:27 am
Vee and Liz-His voice! Yes…sooo, I just love it. I could listen to him talk all day. *sighs*
September 16th, 2005 at 11:29 am
I’ve just found this website via my interest for the new version of the movie, and I have to agree with the poster in the middle of this thread. These girls WERE in a desperate situation, and Austen was as well. Every biography I’ve read on Austen suggests that her fear of marriage outweighed her fear of poverty, but she also was shamed and humiliated by her perlious financial state. I think of Austen’s situation best described in EMMA, with the poor but respectably born aunt of her nemesis (sorry, can’t think of the name right now). Emma mocks her, sending Knightly in a rage. This is what happens to gently-born, yet poor spinsters–they become objects of pity and ridicule. The horror of it comes out crystal clear in EMMA.
Austen made her own choices, perhaps because she had little before her, and we can be thankful that she chose a writerly life, but she made painful sacrifices for it. So I do think it’s a bit cavalier to suggest that the stakes for gentlemen’s daughters who choose not to marry in this era were low. They were indeed very high.
September 16th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
I think nobody here is suggesting that the stakes were not high, only that there are other things that matter more, like self-respect and dignity and that Jane Austen felt that way. I disagree about Jane fearing marriage. I dare say she would have been happy to marry Tom Lefroy, regardless of his poverty. Marriage to an esteemed man had its douceurs, but to spend the rest of her life with a man she found “irksome” to secure her maintenance was too much. I do not say a comfortable home, for after a while, how comfortable could life really be?.
September 16th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
I forgot to say that yes, Jane hated being poor, but at least she was free. She was her own mistress, as far as a woman in her time and circumstances could be. Had she married, let us say, a local parson or clerk, what kind of life would she have had? She wrote about her niece Anna Lefroy, who was pregnant:
“Poor Animal. She will be worn out before she is thiry.-I am very sorry for her.” No. 155 DLF
Jane’s mother was married, but though she had a home, she bore eight children and was always poor. Unless Jane married a Mr. Darcy, was marriage at any cost really worth it?
I have always detested Jane’s brother Knight and his family (Fanny’s letter revolts me). He was rich, with not one mansion but two. It took him eight years to find a cottage for his mother and sisters. I see a lot of John Dashwood in him.
September 16th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
@Vanessa: Which letter of Fanny’s do you mean that revolts you? I never noticed anything particular there.
September 16th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
As an old woman Fanny Knight wrote a letter to a younger sister saying that Jane and Cassandra were not as refined as they ought to have been.
September 16th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
Imho Jane Austen wrote about all aspects of female life.
The happily married like Mrs Croft or the unhappy couples like the Bennets. And marriages of all different types. So she knew what options life could have.
But although she made some sharp remarks about giving birth, all her heroines get married. So she was not against marriage.
But I think, she knew that women in her time didn’t have must options. There are always women in her books that suffer because their situation in life was poor.
The spinster in Emma, the widow in Persuasion or the Dashwood Sisters. Her critism is quite subtle.
And that’s the reason, why we like her!
September 16th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
i am loving this discussion about the actual books and jane austen herself–this is great!
September 17th, 2005 at 5:10 am
@Vanessa: yes, you’re right. but still… i hold on to the earlier letters of fanny which show an affectionate niece. i think these later comments (not only by her) show the influence of the victorian times - fanny at least married a very conservative victorian lord herself.
September 17th, 2005 at 10:45 am
I do not wish to dampen any pining soul’s spirit but the UK version I saw last week was definately snog-less.
On the reviews posted at the start, I assume it must be the local London water that that gives both Islington Gazette and I our uncommon crankiness.
Desperation of the early 19th century female is a theme that the makers of this movie seem to be chanting at every spare minute (can hardly turn on the telly without a P&P spot). I do like the discussion and side with Not As Desperate As All That camp.
September 17th, 2005 at 11:50 am
I have always detested Jane’s brother Knight and his family (Fanny’s letter revolts me). He was rich, with not one mansion but two. It took him eight years to find a cottage for his mother and sisters.
Surely only four years; Mr. Austen died on January 21, 1805 & the ladies moved in to Chawton Cottage on July 7, 1809. I used to think that way about Edward Knight, but reading the record carefully, I think he loved and respected his two sisters very much and had a close and affectionate relationship with all his siblings. We know he was not particularly well-educated and probably didn’t appreciate Jane’s novels the way Jane’s other siblings and older nephews and nieces did.. as for Fanny’s letter, she was a product of her time & class and I can forgive her. She was probably already suffering from dementia when she wrote it…I think it gives us an interesting insight into Victorian views of the earlier age.
September 17th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Surely even four years is too long. Mr. & Mrs. Austen moved to Bath with their daughters in 1801 and moved from cheap establishment to cheaper establishment until Mr. Austen’s death. A man as rich as Edward Knight could have afforded to provide a home for his blood family.
Jane’s other brothers did more for them when one considers what their incomes were.
I cannot forgive Fanny. Jane called her almost a sister and wrote about her with such affection:
“You are inimitable, irresistable. You are the delight of my Life. Such Letters, such entertaining Letters as you have lately sent! Such a description of your queer little heart!…You are worth your weight in Gold, or even in the new Silver Coinage!…It is very, very gratifying to me to know you so intimately.” 151 DLF
I have never read anything supporting the idea that Fanny was demented when she wrote her letter. I don’t have access to the whole letter at present, but I have read it in its entirety, and I remembered it as coherent and detailed.
However Victorian her standards were later in life, her regard for Jane’s affection for her should have been greater than her comments make it appear. I see her objections to Jane’s manners as an objection to her poverty, and her comments as the petty criticism from the wife of a rich Baronet towards a poor relation.
September 17th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
I have never read anything supporting the idea that Fanny was demented when she wrote her letter.
This letter was written by Lady Knatchbull (Fanny Knight as was) on August 23, 1869, to her sister Marianne. Fanny was to live for another 18 years. I believe the letter was prompted by the attempt by James Edward Austen-Leigh to consult as many as possible of his aunt’s letters in preparation for writing the Memoir which was published in late 1869. Apparently, Fanny had forgotten where she had put the letters and was “drifting into querulous senility..” (Jane Austen, a Family Record, 1989 ed., p.252)
My experience of folks with progressive senility is that at first, they just seem cantankerous & lose their sympathy for loved ones, and loss of cognitive powers etc. may come much later. So if this mean & snobbish letter is from Lady K. in the first stages of her dementia, that is why I would forgive her.
September 18th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Uh-oh. If cranky is Stage I, I’m in trouble.
I don’t get mad at Edward Knight–I wonder if he really understood their situation. And he always seemed proud of Jane’s success as an author–they all did.
However, I am not as forgiving as Robin toward Fanny Knight. That letter aggravates me, too. I understand the circumstances but still.
September 18th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
I’m with you, Mags–on all 3 points.
Another comment in Edward’s defense, I seem to recall reading that his inheritance was disputed in court for several years after the deaths of his foster parents. I can’t remember where though and am too tired to dig through my Austen bios. Does anyone else remember ever reading that?
September 19th, 2005 at 11:21 am
Amy, I don’t have the books at hand either, but I believe that there was a long drawn-out lawsuit disputing Edward’s inheritance. The grounds were very obscure and technical, going back a couple of generations. I believe Edward settled out of court, essentially buying of the litigants with a very large settlement.. so Edward was “land rich” but didn’t necessarily have the annual income or savings to feel that he had much to spare.
The general point is, the duty of keeping an estate intact often lead wealthy landowners to be be ungenerous to poor relations. As someone mentions in the preceeding discussion, Jane Austen lampoons this tendency with John & Fanny Dashwood; it is true, though, that John & Fanny had to keep a carriage, and Mrs. Dashwood did not!
September 19th, 2005 at 10:15 pm
24 hours later and still haven’t looked it up–thanks for the corroboration, robin.
I suppose what I really wonder is whether Edward was legally permitted to give the house to his mother and sisters while the estate was tied up in court. I know he didn’t give it to them, but I presume they lived there either rent-free or at a very reduced rent and there would have been some sort of contract stating the terms. Could he have made an arrangement that was not beneficial to the estate before before the matter of his inheritance was settled?
September 20th, 2005 at 11:58 am
Coincidentally, I just started reading Jane and His Lordship’s Legacy by Stephanie Barron last night. It is set in 1809, when Jane and her mother first move into Chawton Cottage, and it looks as though this lawsuit we’re discussing is going to be a major plot element.