Defending Darcy
Alert Janeite Jan H wrote to tell us about a profile of Linda Berdoll, the author of Mr. Darcy Takes A Wife. We think this auspicious occasion calls for a proper AustenBlog Spork-Fisking™. Hold on to your nonny-nonnies, O Gentle Readers, and keep your sporks in an upright and locked position.
Many of those purchasers feel passionately about the book, which updates “Pride and Prejudice” with copious helpings of sex — sex in the bathtub, sex on a dressing table, sex in a horse-drawn coach.
Sex instead of character development…
Even so, Jane Austen wasn’t the original inspiration for “Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife.” For Linda Berdoll, everything starts with Colin Firth.
Oh, well, there’s a shocker.
Though Ehle gets considerably more screen time than Firth, he steals the movie out from under her.
Um, no. (The Ehle fans may feel free to elaborate.)
Hungry for more, she read and re-read “Pride and Prejudice.”
Might want to try that a few more times, hon. (We read the book in its self-published, ill-spelt incarnation. Anyone who can “read and re-read” P&P and not know Mr. Collins’ Christian name, let alone how to spell Mrs. Darcy’s Christian name or the name of the Darcy estate, is not paying attention. We are even sufficiently generous to spot her Darcy’s mum’s Christian name, as it is mentioned only a few times, but really, the others are fairly obvious.)
Not everyone is thrilled with Berdoll’s work. She gets angry e-mails from women who claim that Darcy wouldn’t engage in premarital sex with a consort, as he does in “Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife.”
“I’m like, get real, lady!” Berdoll says. “A rich man like that, 28 years old! I don’t think I’d want to marry him if he was that innocent that long.”
Ma’am, you might feel that way, but we think Jane Austen, WHO CREATED THE CHARACTER, might disagree.
But he admits that “Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife” didn’t get his mojo working. “In Jane Austen’s novels everything is capped, under control, which generates so much more power,” he says. “Jane Austen’s work is like having a small piece of explosive that is intensified through confinement. Berdoll’s book is the opposite — a firecracker out in the open.”
Well said, sir!
UT’s Lance Bertelsen isn’t offended by all the sex. “I think that the people who get incensed about these books are completely wrong, because I don’t think either of these books have anything to do with Jane Austen,” he says
They have Jane Austen’s characters in them, so they have everything in the world to do with Jane Austen.
One of the difficulties in writing Austen pastiches (and we have written them, so we know) is not so much in imitating the language, it is in making the characters behave like Jane Austen’s characters. And a sexually incontinent Darcy is not the Darcy that Jane Austen created. He might be the Darcy that Ms. Berdoll imagined, fired by Colin Firth’s smoldering glances and well-fitted breeches, but we think that Jane thought a little better of him; that he had more control over his bodily functions than the average tomcat. And we are astonished to learn that so many readers think that such a trait makes Darcy more attractive. He’s intelligent, handsome, rich, considerate (once he warms up a bit), attentive to his duty, and loves a woman so much that he makes himself a better man to earn her approval. Isn’t that enough?
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:35 am
Books like these–even if motivated by genuine love for Austen or Firth–are cheap capitalizations on a brand name. In the business world it’s called theft of Intellectual Property Rights and is grounds for lawsuit. I don’t object to all Austen fanfic–some of it is quite entertaining–but Berdoll’s books and several others go way beyond the bounds of logic, propriety and taste. (If these statements seem contradictory, so be it!)
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:39 am
“He’s intelligent, handsome, rich, considerate (once he warms up a bit), attentive to his duty, and loves a woman so much that he makes himself a better man to earn her approval. Isn’t that enough?”
Well said! I’m getting goose bumps. It makes me mad to know someone would dare write a book like that!
(I’ve been reading the site for a while now and this is the first time I’ve felt strongly enough about something to post.)
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:24 am
Back to the Christian Name retort: Here is a question I have to ask…when did we learn Darcy’s horse’s name? Berdoll states his name as Blackjack, I think–though I always think that as one of Black Beauty’s names. Other sequels have it as Lord Nelson, or Nelson. Do we actually know his name? Was there a conference to decide on a name? It just seems weird to me.
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:24 am
Nah, the horse’s name is up to the individual author, I think!
I suspect he probably had more than one. Edmund Bertram did–two hunters and a road horse, which he swapped for a mare for Fanny. I dare say Mr. Darcy of Pemberley has a stableful of cattle at his command.
It’s weird how some stuff gets into fanfic canon, like Richard as Colonel Fitzwilliam’s first name.
Calling a horse Lord Nelson is, IMO, disrespectful (cue Kathleen crying, “Justice for Lady Nelson!”). Trafalgar might have been a better choice. Like Wellington had a horse named Copenhagen, one presumes after the battle, though I suppose he could have been named just for the city in general.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Ms. Berdoll seems to be enamored more of Mr. Wickham than Mr. Darcy. Wickham was the one who couldn’t keep his breeches on, and Wickham would have been the one to name a horse “Blackjack”, that is if he didn’t gamble the creature away before naming it.
Acutally Allison T., Pride & Prejudice is out of copyright, so it is not technically theft. But it is a cheap way to tap into someone else’s fan base.
I suppose it’s fair that she wouldn’t want to marry Austen’s Darcy, as he would never consider marrying her either. She sounds more like Lydia to me.
How much talent does it take to string together some verbs and adjectives with a few pronouns for a bedroom/bathtub scene? Doesn’t it take a much better writer to be able to captivate and move an audience without getting so obviously glandular?
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Knowing Allison (we are a little acquainted in an online way), she was speaking (writing!) symbolically.
I like fanfic/sequels myself and write them as well so I am in a big glass house here, but I do wish some of the writers would think through their stories a little more carefully, and that the editors would give them a little more direction as to plot and style. I also wish that more Janeites felt comfortable in being critical of the works that are lacking. There is a sense of “not saying anything unless you have something good to say” and I’m not sure where it comes from. If people think Jane Austen would approve of such behavior, they need to read her letters. The Internet is public and Jane’s letters to Cassandra were not, but I honestly do not think she would disapprove of critical commentary.
If you read the Amazon reviews, a lot of people bought the book because they love P&P and were severely disappointed with this particular sequel. Of course, the book is already purchased, so it is a moot point.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:28 pm
I just say: these novels are simply bad!
Although, one seems to be a bit radical, we should not pay attention to someone who have such a bad taste regarding JA matters, or let us say, Mr Firth’s matters (according to her)…
I agree with having some fun with JA inspired fiction, but as you have suggested, please, let us be elegant!!
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:28 pm
I have seen this book many times in the bookstore and last week for the first time I opened it up to the first page just to see what it was all about. I have to say, I was actually embarassed to read the first page. Oh my goodness, I couldn’t believe what I was reading. Needless to say, the book went promptly back on the shelf. THAT was not the Mr. Darcy I know and love.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:44 pm
I’m with Melly. I totally agree-very well said. I’m so glad I’m not the only one with that opinion.
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:20 am
I actually have a soft spot for that book (not the sequel, btw).
Living in a not anglophone country I had not heard much about Jane Austen at all, before having seen Bridget Jones. So my journey to Jane began there (and with Colin Firth as well, if you like).
My curiosity led me to the book (P&P) and then to P&P2 and further to fanfiction, which I relish tremendously, btw.
“Mr. Darcy takes a wife” was a thrilling find somewhere in between, before I found out that
1) it wasn’t my lack of skill in the English language that made it so hard to understand sometimes and
2) there is so much better, brilliantly written fanfiction for free on the net.
So, now despise me, if you dare.
Btw, the old question, if Darcy came to the wedding night as a virgin, is a different story alltogether.
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:30 am
Actually, I’m rather curious about that virgin-or-not question, from an historical point of view. Would JA and her contemporaries have assumed that a respectable man of the Darcy/Knightley/Wentworth class would stay a virgin until marriage? (Mr. Knightley is, what — 36?!) Or would they have assumed he’d have found a discreet outlet for his premarital desires with a woman whose marital prospects would be considered unimportant — e.g., a prostitute or a servant? We know JA has nothing but contempt for the Willoughby/Wickham types who seduce and ruin young women, but the women they ruin are always women of the heroines’ class, and therefore presumably marriageable. Prostitution was, of course, a flourishing trade in the England of JA’s time, and it’s hard to believe JA was completely innocent about this stuff, given that she had a houseful of brothers, two of whom were sailors. On the other hand, she was a committed Christian, which may have influenced her thinking on the possibility of purity and self-denial. Any historians of sex out there who can enlighten me?
August 3rd, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Not being prudish, just being logical. I can’t imagine Darcy risking health, future olive branches, etc. all for the possibility of contracting “the pox.” Can’t just go to the CVS for penicillin in those days.
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:58 pm
HISTORICALLY, it might be possible that a man in Darcy’s position could have had discreet affairs or visited a high-class brothel. However, I subscribe to the Annie Wilkes Theory of Characterization (if you’ve read Stephen King’s book Misery, you are familiar with it): the author is God to the characters in her story, and they will do whatever she wants. Jane Austen certainly knew where babies came from, but she could be quite withering about those who failed to control their sexual urges. However improbable WE might consider it, I think it’s perfectly possible, in JANE’S mind, that these men arrived in their marriage beds chaste as a nun, and that their wives did not suffer a jot from it.
We can read history books and debate coulda-shoulda-woulda till the cows come home, but ultimately Jane created Darcy and she could keep him a virgin until eight and twenty if she so desired, and it makes perfect sense. It’s like that Mom Threat: I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it. Jane created Darcy and she could do with him as she wished.
Anyway, that’s what I think about it. I am most likely in the minority.
August 4th, 2006 at 2:48 am
I thought the article was a bit uneven and reflected the author’s ambivalence to Berdoll: didn’t know whether to take Berdoll seriously or admire some parts of her endeavour. I did like the support offered by her husband though.
Anyways, just wanted to address your mention of the Annie Wilkes theory of Characterization and that it strikes me as just the opposite of fanfiction. I think fanfiction in general reacts to the idea that the original author is God. I guess there some that write with the express purpose to unravel the author’s original intentions or stick as close as possible to the original characterizations but that’s only one of the reasons to write ff. Even then, unless you’re writing scenarios that are very close to the original, you will create some where you have to guess as to what the author would have done, and what if the choice is off by several degrees? Does it really matter? Are you betraying the author in a fundamental way?
Also how is it possible to write without infusing some of you’re own personality and beliefs into the work. Once you do that, are you not compromising the original author’s vision in order to address your own concerns?
I wouldn’t classify sequels as fanfiction because I think in general the process is different in that in ff you have a very close relationship between author and reader. In published sequels that is severed because even though you pay, your opinion means squat to the writer and the writing process. Berdoll clearly isn’t perturbed and I think it’s rather funny that someone would waste their time writing angry e-mails and letters to tell her about her mistaken characterizations when they have already bought the book.
So think I would have to disagree with you, Mags, because I think you can write Jane Austen-inspired ff without meaning to pass some commentary on either the novel or her characterizations. As the professor guy says of Berdoll, these characters have nothing to do with Jane Austen. I think within a ff community especially those geared to the act of writing (not per se a strict or literalist interpretation of Austen) and with the intention to create a welcoming community for first time or aspiring writers, these characters become a currency which facilitates the close relationship between the readers and the writers. We all read Austen ff because of the familiarity with the characters and that basic familiarity allows the relationship to start. Maybe my reading of P&P will coincide or agree with the vision of a certain author rather than with another but I would still consider both to be writing Jane Austen-inspired ff. Maybe in the end the product they produce will reflect or not reflect Austen characterizations but as a reader (only speaking for myself), it really doesn’t matter to me as long as they fulfill what I was looking for at the moment I read that story. Sometimes I’m in the mood for virgin Darcy and other times I would like him to be more experienced. And I confess that often when I read ff, I’m not thinking of Austen or her intentions but I’m evaluating the character with their stated motivations within the story, with the ff author’s stated aims, with my own expectations or real-life dilemmas.
I’ve also wondered why people don’t just use original characters when they create such plots or characters that deviate from “canon” interpretations. I think partly because it’s jarring to speak in this different jargon within the community although I have noticed that on many of the Austen-ff sites there is also a separate board for original ff. Also that many authors have branched from writing successful Austen ff to pusblishing their wholly original works. Good for them and their success kind of reminds me of Berdoll’s success in getting paid to write what she wants. It makes me wish that some of these authors would also get paid for their far more higher and satisfying quality ff.
August 4th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Mimi: I am very particular about fan fiction, both in the reading and the writing; I prefer that which displays that the author has very carefully read the book and taken note of details AND that she can write a good story (certainly one can get all the historical details correct and still write an insanely boring story). It is plain from the article, though most of us who read the book suspected it already, that Ms. Berdoll’s books are her fantasies about Colin Firth. They have very little to do with Darcy as written by Jane Austen, and as I said above, if you read the reviews at Amazon, a lot of people picked up the book thinking, gee, it got published, it must be good, and then being severely disappointed when this Darcy is, in essentials, nothing like Jane Austen’s Darcy. I think hard copy publication, for which one must pay to read, conveys an automatic gravitas and SHOULD indicate a higher level of editorial gatekeeping than the fan fiction sites, where just about anyone can post. With many of the recent sequels/retellings, that is unfortunately not the case. They’re pretty much publishing anything with the magic word “Darcy” in it now, and that’s a real shame. It’s even more of a shame when Janeites consume it uncritically, because then we will get more of the same, instead of better.
I don’t have a problem with someone writing a non-virginal Darcy, if it is presented believably, but to dismiss the concept of virginal Darcy as beneath contempt, as Ms. Berdoll does in the article, indicates, to me, someone who hasn’t given the matter a great deal of thought. I especially object to the idea of Darcy being all-consumed with lust for Elizabeth to the point of not being able to control himself. (And do people really find that sexy? I find it a little scary and gross.) Certainly he was attracted to her, and that’s why he married her. He loved her. He wouldn’t treat her like a prostitute. He married her, though he knew his family and society would not consider it a good match, because he wanted to give his attraction the proper outlet. I’ve no doubt of his being exceedingly attentive to her IN PRIVATE.
While fan fiction itself is not necessarily disrespectful of Jane Austen, I think scoffing at her ideals and writing and publishing slapdash nonsense certainly is disrespectful. I’d prefer to see more quality and less quantity, both in net-published ff and in hard copy sequels, but I’m just a crazy dreamer.
August 5th, 2006 at 1:39 am
I don’t think you’re a crazy dreamer at all even if I don’t agree with all your points. It is interesting that you mention that hard copy should have a little more gravitas but it’s always been my experience (acutally one one experience: after accidently stumbling onto Emma Tenant, I gave up on hard-copy) that net-based fanfiction is of greater quality. I think the poor quality in published sequels is due to the easily available and established Austen fandoms. So maybe the lack of reaction to Berdoll is less to due with Austenites not being critical and speaking out but rather to the fact that they have other sources available. Why waste your energy writing letters that neither Berdoll or her publisher are liable to read, and rather focus your energy on finding and participating in fanfiction. I bet if Berdoll published for the first time right now in the age of long established fandoms, her work would easily be dismissed or come off worse in comparison with some of the more established net-based authors and fandoms. Maybe people are buying her book because of their memories of their first time encounter- maybe for some she was their introduction to Austen sequels, and they feel a type of loyalty?
Also in any case why should Berdoll’s success have an adverse reaction on the opportunities for others who chose to branch off into published sequels. Pamela Aiden (who I have not read) seems to have made a successful transition from the net to hard copy. I’m sure others that are successful and enjoy large followings within ff communities would also enjoy the same success if they chose to branch but they don’t seem to want to. I know of a few who have gone onto write original material that has gotten published. It may be interesting to query why more net-based authors don’t make the transition but that’s another topic completely.
I also don’t think Berdoll is dismissing non-virginal Darcy as “beneath contempt” and I say that because I think the tone of this article is rather uneven. It’s sort of presented chopped so sometimes things are taken out of context, perhaps? Maybe her vehemence is in response to a particulary nasty letter or e-mail she received about her work. Maybe that’s overly generous of me.
The part about scoffing at Austen’s ideals is definitely interesting to me. I’m inclined to think when authors deliberately push against the grain and pursue plots that are antagonistic towards canon, they are doing it for very personal reasons. So rather than having anything to do with the original source material or the first author, they might be examining issues that have been bugging them personally or subconsciously. And not just about themselves although there is a therapeutic component to reading/writing ff- but more so with the characters. I’m pretty terrible at psychological babble but what I’m trying to get at is you tend to see genres like slash across all sorts of fandoms. It’s not really popular within the Austen community but I think the proliferation of forced marriage stories is a suitable parallel. Those usually result from an out-of-control Darcy, and I’m pretty sure the authors who write these stories know that they’re creating a character that is at odds with what Austen presents in the novel. Very rarely do these authors claim that they’re going solely on textual authority. They acknowledge some textual basis (perhaps Darcy’s complete incomprehension of Elizabeth’s dislike of him right up to her rejection of the proposal at Hunsford) and then give various reasons for branching out on their particular take on a forced marriage story. They know where Austen ends and they begin, so would this still be a situation where they are “scoffing at her ideals [...] [and being] disrespectful”?.
August 5th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Mimi, Berdoll’s book was self-published first, and sold well enough that an established publishing company picked it up. There was a lot of discussion about it in the various web communities at the time the self-published version came out. Unfortunately, the uncritical bought it because it fed THEIR fantasies about Colin Firth, at the expense of Jane Austen’s characters. Nobody has to write letters. I suggest that we vote with our wallets. Don’t buy it if it does violence to Austen! Make up your own damn Colin Firth fantasies! (There’s nothing wrong with Colin Firth fantasies, by the bye, I just don’t want to read other people’s.)
Now that it’s been published by a “regular” publisher with bookstore distribution, people are buying it because they’re not part of the Austen web community and they haven’t heard about it and don’t know any better. Read the reviews at Amazon and you’ll see this. A friend of mine who is on our JASNA region board–in other words, a knowledgeable and experienced Austen reader–but who doesn’t hang out online dragged me over to the B section of Barnes & Noble just last week to ask me about it. I told her about it truthfully and she didn’t buy it. But not everyone has a Mags to tell them about it, and they will see it in a bookstore and assume that it must be good or at least a decent approximation of Austen and buy it, because it has been through the editorial gatekeeping that all published books go through–that is, somebody at a publishing company looked at it and said, “Okay, people will like this, let’s sell it to them.” And then many of them are surprised and disappointed. That’s what I meant by the gravitas of published sequels. Somebody thought they were worthy of being offered for purchase and that people should pay to read it–which is not the case with fan fiction.
Also I think there is a whole new audience whose only exposure to Austen and P&P is the recent movie, who will think this book is just fine, because they don’t know any better. If they have read the original at all, it was only once and they haven’t gotten past the kissy-kissy romance exterior to really think about Darcy’s and Elizabeth’s characterizations like us fanatics.
I do think that fan fiction authors who are only net published have a little more room to experiment. Their stuff isn’t in every bookstore–a shelf over from Jane Austen’s books with the cover facing out, as Berdoll’s books were in the B&N where my friend noticed it–and they’re not writing articles about them in major newspapers. See the difference? It isn’t being publicized. You have to go and search it out on the Internet, it doesn’t just show up at the bookstore with “Darcy” in the title to attract your attention. I agree that Emma Tennant is subverting Austen in her work, which at least gives it some literary merit that Berdoll’s dreck doesn’t have. That doesn’t mean I think it’s any good or want to read it, mind you! I’ve written some bad fan fiction in my time (and some that I think is pretty good) and I wouldn’t dream of trying to publish the bad stuff or even the stuff that’s just a little too far off the wall. I have one story that is totally AU and does some violence to P&P and NA (it’s a crossover) but I paid a great deal of attention to characterization and to Austen’s intentions for her originals while I was writing it. It has been very popular and I have had readers ask me to self-publish it so they can have a hard copy, but I’m not comfortable doing it, because it’s so out of canon. I honestly don’t think that net-published, free to read fan fiction should be held to the same standards as books sold in bookstores.
Mimi, you might like the book The Democratic Genre by Sheenagh Pugh–it’s in the column at right under “On the Shelf.” It’s a book about fan fiction as a literary genre and includes discussion of Austen fan fiction.
August 8th, 2006 at 12:16 am
Mags, we’re definitely not going to agree about this topic. I don’t think it’s a case of non-critical readers slavisly lapping up Berdoll just because the books are displayed prominently in a bookstore. I think part of it is that she’s writing to a certain population who appreciates what she’s writing about though that may seem unfathomable to you. These people may like erotica and they may also enjoy envisioning Colin Firth as Berdoll’s Darcy. What I’m saying is that I don’t see how Berdoll’s success or the expectations of her audience has really an impact on your dilemma of you not being able to find sequels that fit your conception of what a proper Austen sequel should be.
Sure vote with your wallets but that may not matter if someone else does want to buy it; obviously in Berdoll’s case this population is well-established. So in the end where does that leave you? I think a more fundamental problem is why don’t more ff writers strive to publish their sequels? And I think you’re right in pointing out that there is less creative control when you decide to publish and many good writers may be reluctant to let go. Moreover I think this problem can only be resolved on a individual level: So I see the breadth of published sequels deepening only when other writers have the courage (and also the familial support) of Berdoll to act upon their convictions; the paucity of good quality Austen sequels has nothing to do with Berdoll or the prelidicitions of her readers.
I also find the concept of “being published must mean it’s worthy to read”- to put it bluntly- a bit naive. You may have saved your friend but by not letting her discover it for herself ( ie. recommend she read it in the library rather than pay for it) then how does she know what’s really out there? Even if it’s implausible, what would have been your reaction if she told she liked it notwithstanding the crimes against Austen it has committed? We all have different expectations of what constitutes good literature. Your gold maybe my dross. So how will I know but by getting it burnt? I got burnt by Tennant (who has no literary value in my opinion but not for her bad erotica or for the crimes against Austen but for her terrible grammar) but I know some like her and it doesn’t bother me. Incidentally time did pass between my Tennant nightmare and my stumbling onto Austen fanfiction. So although it’s painful to think that someone might have to put up with bad sequels before they discover ff, I think in the end most will get there. People are a lot more computer savvy now and I’m sure once they discover ff, they will be a lot more discerning about what sequels they actually pay for. And even if they don’t- say they enjoy well-written ff and also Berdoll- well what are you going to do? People’s reading tastes are too wide and varied for any single standard to have meaning. Plus, even if they never discover ff, and continue reading terrible Austen sequels, I would assume that they must keep coming back because they like it for some reason. Logically they must have some reason because no one’s holding a gun to their head telling them to read the sequel. Most people who get burnt don’t bother coming back but if they do then they have only themselves to blame.
Anyways, thanks for recommending The Democratic Genre; I’ll check it out.