Alert Janeite Marion Fraley wrote to tell us about a review of several books by Sandra Tsing Loh in the July/August issue of The Atlantic Monthly that references Jane Austen, mostly Pride and Prejudice. It is available online only for subscribers, but Marion kindly sent us a fascinating excerpt. (more…)

For once journalistic references to Jane Austen do not cause us to experience a stabbing pain directly above our left eye! It is quite refreshing.

A review of the film A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION has a reference that is downright elegant.

For the nearly 30 years of his variety show, A Prairie Home Companion, Keillor’s specialty has been the satirical monologue, the satire so gentle and the voice so honeyed that it’s often hard to remember that anything is being mocked at all. (Think of Jane Austen reborn as a Minnesota preacher and you have the general idea.)

Perfect! Dorothy, you may put away the Tullamore Dew for tonight, we think.

Hee hee!

The other women’s stories play just as strained — the dramatic equivalent of, say, pushing cauliflower through a colander: There’s Kirin deciding to order a sexy motorcycle outfit to impress her hubby. (Her pal Jenn just so happens to have the Sexy Motorcyle Outfit Catalog just lying around.) There’s ”conflicted wife” (a.k.a. cheating tramp) Jamie, in three-inch heels, shedding tears, alone (save for a couple of strategically placed cameramen), while checking out the rental apartment that might just signal the end of her marriage. (It’s okay, Jamie, vertical blinds make me want to sob, too.) There’s even the blush-worthy book-club meetings themselves, which don’t have time for discussions of literature but do work in such insightful questions as ”If you sit on his lap and pull your skirt up at the end of the day, would he approach that with enjoyment?”

Yes, that sound you hear is the sorrowful wail of the late Jane Austen.

Oh, do we know that sound well! Though we think Jane would then have written a very funny book about these people.

Hard to tell from this article, but we are intrigued!

Nor is “The Lake House” in a league with Jane Austen’s “Persuasion,” another reference.

Do they mean a thematic reference or an actual one? And if the former, to the film or the book? Hmm. Well, all that letter-writing and all. We adored Sandy and Keanu in SPEED, so we might have to put aside our horror of generic “chick flicks” and see this!

ETA June 15: Looks like it’s an actual reference.

Auburn also includes Jane Austen’s “Persuasion,” another tale of patience and longing, as a plot device.

We’re in.

That is, the Frances Fanny Burney Society saying, “If it’s good enough for Jane Austen it’s good enough for us!”

Beneath the quirkiness, however, a serious battle is raging, a battle that can be summed up in a simple choice: Fanny or Frances? Burney studies have been rocked by the schism between our bufferish enthusiasts - the “Fanny” brigade - and a new wave of North American feminist critics - the “Frances” camp - to whom Burney is a courageous crusader against patriarchal hegemony who should never be demeaned by a diminutive, especially this one. “Of course,” the member next to me whispers, blushing, “to them ‘fanny’ means - you know.”

The North Americans are better funded and organised - most of Burney’s papers have been snapped up by Montreal’s McGill University for, gallingly, the “Frances Burney Archive”. But the English are fighting back: splitting away from the parent Burney Society of North America (for, intriguingly, “tax reasons”) and mounting a rearguard action against all this foreign “Frances” nonsense.

“If ‘Fanny’ is good enough for Jane Austen, it’s good enough for us,” a woman at the back pipes up, to general agreement. “Thank you,” a Burney biographer replies, choked with emotion. “Thank you for supporting our Fanny.” It’s a patriotic sentiment as true, and as fervent, as any whipped up by Owen or Rooney.

We are, however, distressed at the divisiveness of the various factions. It’s much more fun to celebrate all the quirky manifestations of your fandom, we think.

We were amused by an article in The Tyee in which the authoress finds solace from an overindulgence in Jane Austen film adaptations in the Stanley Cup playoffs.

And she’s right. When I think about it, hockey has put more balance back than almost any other cure. Here’s why:

1. Austen antidote

Watching play-off hockey gets me out of my artsy gal costume drama rut where Sense and Sensibility re-runs on Bravo seductively lull me into an Austen-induced post-winter stupor. At this jaunty time of year, anything has got to be better than straining to hear the mumbling of Hugh Grant in a formal drawing room as he competes for attention with the noisy swish of ornate silk dresses.

We wonder why the authoress assumes that enjoyment of hockey, or any sporting event for that matter, and enjoyment of Jane Austen must be mutually exclusive. Goodness, we’ve had to physically drag Dorothy away from the television during games to make our evening pot of Orange Pekoe. It’s really rather mortifying–she squeals like a twelve-year-old fangirl every time Rod Brind’Amour hits the ice. Not that we blame her or anything.

But really, could the authoress who created a heroine who…

should prefer cricket, base ball, riding on horseback, and running about the country at the age of fourteen, to books

…create works that are antithetical to enjoyment of sporting events? We expect her name to turn up in a World Cup article any day now.