The P&P3 News Roundup and the Goblet of Fire
Since they are no longer in competition, the title seemed appropriate!
In The Book Standard, Jessa Crispin of the excellent Bookslut complains about yet another adaptation of Pride and Prejudice and about how she doesn’t get this Jane Austen thing anyway. To say we are disappointed and dismayed is an understatement, particularly in the light of this part:
That worries me. Isn’t the point of Elizabeth Bennett that she’s completely mediocre? Not a great mind, not a great wit, not a great beauty—something every adaptation except for Bridget Jones seems skip over. Can’t someone adapt a book like Jane Eyre, where the title character actually makes a decision and does something?
Elizabeth Bennet (one t, s’il vous plait) is not mediocre, and she is actually rather clever and witty, and by the end of the book Mr. Darcy says she is “the handsomest woman of his acquaintance.” Once cannot read Jane Austen and place trust in the words of characters like the Bingley sisters. And to come away from even 108 pages of Pride and Prejudice thinking that Elizabeth Bennet lacks brains, wit or looks means that one did precisely that.
We think Ms. Crispin might like the film. Sounds like she’s the type of person for whom Gritty Realism™ was made.
Neil Norman grouses in the Times about P&P and the new adaptation of OLIVER TWIST directed by Roman Polanski. They’re too Victorian, he complains.
To remove Austen’s critique of her society as well as leave out the more offensive elements such as Wickham’s mercenary manipulation of women through irresistible sexuality (not to mention reducing Elizabeth Bennet from a fiercely intelligent witty woman to a slightly bewildered girl) is a travesty.
Yikes! (And what were we just saying about smart and witty?)












