AustenBlog...she's everywhere

11 February 2007

Trying to grow a thicker skin

Filed under: Becoming Jane — Mags @ 3:10 am

It looks like we’re going to need it as the UK release date of BECOMING JANE approaches. The studio is brazenly going forward with its campaign of insisting that Pride and Prejudice was copied almost whole from Jane Austen’s own life experiences, a contention with which, as regular AustenBlog readers know, we disagree heartily.

Alert Janeite Amo tipped us off that the Times would have an article about the film in its Sunday edition, and we were able to locate the article, annoyingly titled “Mr. Darcy, I presume?” It’s not as bad as that, however. The article was written by Jon Spence, whose book Becoming Jane Austen started all this off.

Moral of the story: just because something is made up doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Dude, you so don’t want to go there.

Lefroy seems to have shared something of Austen’s own odd blend of shyness and boldness. He was serious, intelligent, hard-working and ambitious. But a portrait of him done at about this time gives no hint of a stuffy, scholarly drudge. He had another side to his character, indicated by his declaration that Tom Jones was his favourite novel. It was a few decades later that the Victorians deemed that a “lady” could not read Fielding’s novel until she was married, but Tom Jones was always considered racy. Austen had read it and remembered it so vividly, she was able to make the joke (more than once) that Lefroy affected a white morning coat because “his hero”, Tom Jones, wears one.

Can’t the guy like a book or even admire a fictional character without wanting to be that character? And we point out that both Jane and Cassandra Austen had read Tom Jones–otherwise Cassandra would not have understood Jane’s references in her letters.

We don’t mean to nitpick too closely. Most of this article is just fine. But here Mr. Spence, we think, strays a bit too far into speculation.

As a first tentative step, perhaps, towards getting the old man’s approval, it was arranged for him to meet Austen and two of her brothers when they passed through London on their way to Kent in August 1796.

We do not believe that there is any evidence of that reason for the trip to London at that time (which did take place). We also believe that there is no evidence one way or the other that Jane Austen met with Tom Lefroy there.

The film suggests that Mr Darcy was based on Lefroy. I am inclined to think, though, that it is Eliza-beth Bennet, described by Austen as “as delightful a creature as ever appeared in print”, whom Lefroy inspired. And that Austen gave something of her own character, the person some strangers “accused of haughtiness”, to Darcy.

But Darcy really WAS proud. He really WAS a snob. He refused to dance at the Meryton assembly with persons he considered beneath him (”at such an assembly as this”), which was very rude behavior in those times. Darcy, like Elizabeth, has a journey in this novel. She must get past her prejudices about him, and he must give up some of his pride over her relatives. At the end of the novel, he even admits as much:

I have been a selfish being all my life, in practice, though not in principle. As a child I was taught what was right, but I was not taught to correct my temper. I was given good principles, but left to follow them in pride and conceit. Unfortunately an only son (for many years an only child), I was spoilt by my parents, who, though good themselves (my father, particularly, all that was benevolent and amiable), allowed, encouraged, almost taught me to be selfish and overbearing; to care for none beyond my own family circle; to think meanly of all the rest of the world; to wish at least to think meanly of their sense and worth compared with my own. Such I was, from eight to eight and twenty; and such I might still have been but for you, dearest, loveliest Elizabeth! What do I not owe you! You taught me a lesson, hard indeed at first, but most advantageous. By you, I was properly humbled.

The Meryton neighborhood didn’t need to make assumptions about Darcy’s pride. He admits to it readily, once he’s been taught better.

What we do know is that when Austen returned to Hampshire in October 1796, she was creatively on fire. She began writing the first version of Pride and Prejudice immediately, and completed it in less than a year. She rewrote Elinor and Marianne as Sense and Sensibility, and moved on to the first version of Northanger Abbey — all in little more than two years.

And in about three years between 1812 and 1815, Jane wrote Mansfield Park and Emma–novels of sophistication and subtlety that she did not achieve with her earlier work. Then she went on, in another year, to write Persuasion, while ill with the disease that would soon cause her death. The woman was a genius, and needed no Tom Lefroy to encourage that genius, thank you very much. *snaps fingers*

Thanks to the imaginative intuition of the film writers, we now know that Lefroy named his first daughter Jane, but Austen never called a hero Tom — the name is conspicuous by its absence.

*coughTomBertramcough*

Who, by the way, is hardly heroic, though rather an amusing fellow.

Is it really too much to believe that Jane Austen set out purposely to construct, from her imagination, two characters who appear as opposites, who will never get along, who could never make a successful marriage, but who set out to learn better of themselves and each other, and at last come together as complementary personalities rather than antagonists? Did she HAVE to live it to write it? We have no doubt that Jane cared for Tom–how much is in dispute but we are quite willing to believe that her feelings towards Tom were quite deep–but we think the main thing she carried away from the relationship, as Mr. Spence suggested (and biographers suggested back to J.E. Austen-Leigh), was knowing the way her heroines felt when they learned to care for their hero. There is no evidence that Jane pined overmuch or that she felt some compulsive need to pour her tortured soul into every novel. She apparently had other relationships, most notably with the Mysterious Suitor-by-the-Sea, but there are dances and flirtations mentioned casually here and there in her letters. Just because Jane did not feel a desperate need to marry the first eligible guy who came along and offered (who would be Harris Bigg-Wither) doesn’t mean she was pining for her lost love. It quite possibly just meant that she did not feel a need or desire to marry Harris Bigg-Wither.

We submit that if filmmakers wanted to make a romantic film about Jane Austen, her romances and her writing, they were barking up the wrong tree to choose Tom Lefroy. The timing of the incident of the Mysterious Suitor-by-the-Sea, l’affaire Bigg-Wither, and the first professional sale of her writing (Susan, later published as Northanger Abbey) would be a more profitable avenue of inquiry in our opinion. And now we shall climb down from our soapbox.

The Independent has another article that is not overly horrible but perhaps a trifle sloppy in its syntax.

The passion her heroines used to enjoy was now seen as dangerous by Austen. Rejecting the dashing Henry Crawford, who might have been the hero of one of the earlier novels, Fanny Price marries instead Edmund, the humourless first cousin whom she regards as a brother.

We nearly got whiplash from that transition. It sounds rather like Jane rejected Henry Crawford. And there’s no way he would ever be a hero of any of her novels.

And for our Gentle Readers who have so enjoyed the golden words of Miss Anne Hathaway, we have a lovely tidbit from the Guardian.

‘Did she have sex? We will never know exactly what they did behind closed doors.’
- Actress Anne Hathaway, fresh from The Devil Wears Prada, prepares for a Jane Austen biopic. There was a time when we were happy with the pleasure of the text. Now we’re set to get Jane in her smalls.

Annie, dear, we’re begging here: shut up. Just shut up. Please, for the love of all that is holy and Janelike, just shut up NOW.

Dorothy’s waiting impatiently with our bedtime cup of vanilla rooibos and the warming pan, so good night, Gentle Readers.

11 Responses to “Trying to grow a thicker skin”

  1. Ina Says:

    First thing that jumped off the page: Mr. Spence refers to Eliza-beth Bennet. What? Doesn’t he realize that Eliza was a popular shortening of the name Elizabeth but that it in no way changed the pronunciation of the proper name? Grr. Where can I get me a cluebat???

    Second thing: I could be wrong on this, but didn’t she write NA before the others. Albeit with a different title, but still.

    You know from the depression comments that I’m not loving Miss Hathaway, but it’s possible she did not come up with that on her own, but was responding to the inane question of a clueless reporter.

    I really must purchase Jane’s letters and read them so I can start writing such quality fiction-cloaked-as-fact as Mr. Spence does. This would have given me a headache if I didn’t have one already. I don’t consider myself an Austen snob, but really this is a bit much.

  2. Mags Says:

    I think that was just a typo–most likely it was there for a line break in the original document and the posting elf at the Times (not dissimilar to my travail du jour, so I am sympathetic) probably forgot to take it out. And the chronology of the novels was correct in the article.

  3. Anne Says:

    Ina, you SHOULD buy a copy of Austen’s letters and read them, but do so because they are brilliantly funny (downright snarky at times, to use one of this site’s favorite words) and really quite fascinating!

    Just a word: I got to read the screenplay for “Becoming Jane” because I compiled, wrote a bit for, and edited the upcoming tie-in book of quotes called “Becoming Jane: The Wit and Wisdom of Jane Austen (to be published by Hyerpion, in July or Auguest, and mentioned on this site, I just found out, to my delight, in November). Yes, it is certainly an “embroidering” upon the small bit of factual information that is known about Jane and Tom Lefroy, and in that sense of course it IS fiction, essentially, but the writers did quite a nice job with it, in my humble opinion, and it’s clear that they did their homework pretty well in other respects, and if it inspires a new generation of young women (and men) to read her books (AND her letters…from which I took much in my own book), well, isn’t that worth something?

  4. Elaina Says:

    I think we’ll just have to take this movie with a grain of salt - at least Jane Austen is still considered interesting material in Hollywood (so to speak).

  5. Ina Says:

    Anne, as most of us have not seen the movie it’s not the movie that we object to; it’s the marketing campaign. The marketing offers what look like blatant falsehoods in every direction. We understand taking a few liberties to flesh out a story. What we don’t like is the way it’s being promoted as pure fact.

    Anything that gets people more interested in Jane Austen is great. But there are thousands of people who will see this movie and not take any steps to become more familiar with Ms. Austen or her works. And let’s not forget the people who won’t see the film, but will form their opinions based on the marketing campaign. They will accept the it as gospel, and not delve any further. Not Earth-shattering, but irritating nonetheless.

  6. Deb R. Says:

    (Ina) “But there are thousands of people who will … not take any steps to become more familiar with Ms. Austen or her works. And let’s not forget the people who … will form their opinions based on the marketing campaign. They will accept the it as gospel, and not delve any further.”

    In a related experience, a few years ago I mentioned to a coworker how much I REALLY love Jane Austen. My coworker gasped, made a face and exclaimed “but aren’t there a lot of MURDERS in her books?” HUH????? I was struck dumb until she said she had seen all those “Jane Austen Mysteries” in the bookstore, but she wouldn’t read them because she hated those gory Victorian Jack-the-Ripper-type stories.

    I tried to explain the difference between JA and “those JA mysteries”, but it was wasted effort. Most movie-goers won’t know or care if this film is accurate. The best we can hope is that it turns out to be at least halfway decent and enjoyable … otherwise millions of potential readers will forever associate Jane Austen with “LAME STORYLINE & WIMPY CHARACTERS”, which would really be a crime!

  7. Anne Says:

    Ina, I take your point. :)

    But…that’s marketing for you. It’s all about money and not at all about integrity, isn’t it?

  8. Jessica Irene Says:

    I find it so insanely depressing that Anne Hathaway is ignorant enough of the life, customs, and times of Jane Austen to imply that she would have “sex behind closed doors”. This is the woman who is to portray the heart and soul of an artist of whom she understands nothing. Clearly she has been grossly mislead. She has no grasp whatsoever, and no respect for who Jane was. I am no prude, and yet I shudder at the implications. That Anne is so unable to think outside her century does not bode well for the film. The whole point is that Jane was a writer, and did not depend on male attention for that.

  9. Tamara Says:

    I have just finished reading Jon Spence’s book. Like some of you I did have problems with conjecture presented as fact. However, I found the research he has done allows for some of the conjecture. He had an insight into some of her life that I found impressive. I argued with several points it is true, but I also was wowed by much of it. A deeper understanding of my favorite writer is always worth it. So I would recommend reading the book and seeing the movie before arguing on all points. I can’t say why I have been open to this film from the first mention of it, (when I couldn’t stand the last P&P!!!) but the book was not bad, and hopefully the movie will be fun. I like the idea of growing to think of historical people as real people- it is a very important principle to me.
    One more thing, Tom Bertram is not a hero- only a side character. Also please remember that EB was proud and Darcy prejudiced too, not just the other way around. EB says Darcy has no improper pride. I enjoyed some of Spence’s ideas of the basis for some of Jane’s characters. I didn’t agree at first but upon thinking about it I have to at least find it interesting and possible. I am a writer myself and almost all my characters are charades of real people I know.
    So I just wanted to say this out of fairness, but if the movie blows you will hardly hear more complaining than what will come from me!

  10. Ina Says:

    Thanks Tamara. I will only argue that his not having improper pride doesn’t mean he had no pride. But that goes back to the historic debate about good pride vs. bad pride. And I certainly don’t want to get into that. :D

  11. Tamara Says:

    Thanks. Can I now say: previously I guess I had not seen the actual trailer and now that I have, ahem, I still can’t wait to see it but, ahem, jeeps there are some major liberties being taken!!! It makes it sound like Jane didn’t like TL at the beginning and as if she just took that and wrote P&P! Certainly there are several more issues there. I guess I will have to wait and see the movie. And I will work on growing that thick skin! Honestly though if it wasn’t that I knew enough to see mistakes I would be extremely keen to enjoy the movie. Putting all that aside I would say it looks really good.

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License