Addicted
The Globe and Mail (Toronto) has a huge feature article on Jane Addiction (huzzah! a clever title that doesn’t reference a Mike Meyers movie!) in their film section, discussing the upcoming spate of Jane-related films, including Becoming Jane and The Jane Austen Book Club.
They’re called Janeites. And God help you if you mess with them.
Ya got that right, sister.
There’s lots about the upcoming JASNA AGM in Vancouver on Emma (can’t wait!) and rather than quoting dodgy film producers, the author has intelligently interviewed Marsha Huff, President of JASNA (and friend of AustenBlog).
Huff believes the timeless appeal of Austen’s work lies in the fact that her heroines are modern.
“Her heroines are physically active. They’re usually well-read, not overly talented with music, but they are always the most intelligent women in the room,” she says. “That is the modernity that people — for the last 200 years — expect in a heroine. And that was not the norm in novels when Jane Austen began writing. She appeals to the masses — to this day — because we expect modern romances to have equal partners. Austen’s women only married someone who was their intellectual equal.”
Pray note: not a mention of ponds or breeches or heaving cleavage; though as such things are expected and perhaps required by law (that would explain a lot), the author of the piece manages to work them in nonetheless. And pray note that the photo accompanying the article in the newspaper is of two people in bed (from The Jane Austen Book Club film and those two characters ARE married).
Huff says the highlight of the year for her members is the conference (which JASNA calls its annual general meeting). People travel thousands of kilometres, she adds, “simply because they love to be in a room where you mention Lady Catherine (the tough-nosed, and high-handed aunt of Darcy in Pride and Prejudice) or Cassandra (Elizabeth Bennet’s sister), and everyone immediately knows who you’re talking about.”
We are quite sure that Ms. Huff did not tell the reporter that Cassandra was Elizabeth Bennet’s sister, but otherwise her point is valid.
They attend plenary sessions hosted by Austen scholars and aficionados from around the world. Over tea, crumpets and cucumber sandwiches, they dissect Austen’s universal appeal.
Again with the stereotypes! No tea parties at AGMs (though it WAS pointed out that we can expect very good tea in Vancouver–something the tea aficionados are looking forward to–but trust us, there are just as many Janeites looking for the nearest Starbucks, or the nearest bar for that matter, or just plaintively asking where one might find a bottle of cold water–and the Editrix always scouts out the Diet Coke machines).
Parker says each year’s meeting revolves around a different theme based on one of the six novels. Her best-loved Austen novel is Emma, so the meeting from Oct. 5 to 7 is “Discovering Emma in Vancouver.”
“I came up with that title because, in the story, Emma has never been to the sea. So I decided, let’s bring her to the sea,” says Parker.
Awww!
Each year, the climax of the three-day JASNA conference is the so-called Regency Ball, to be held this year in the Fairmont Hotel’s Pacific Ballroom. The 500 guests wear day dresses, evening gowns or breeches from the turn of the 19th century and indulge in English country dances, aided by a caller who walks them through musical numbers such as A Trip to Tunbridge (named after a spa Austen mentioned in several of her novels) and Prince William of Glo’s’ter’s Waltz (named for a nephew of George III with whom one of Austen’s sisters apparently dined).
We should point out that not everyone dresses up, by a long shot, and not all attend the ball, either (which is separate from the Saturday night banquet); there usually are activities for non-dancers. If you want to dress up, go for it and you’ll have lots of fun and no one will think you’re weird, but it’s absolutely not required. We have been to two AGMs and have never dressed up, though we did dance at the ball last year and hope to get a pretty period ballgown for this year’s AGM.
We thoroughly enjoy our JASNA membership and encourage all Janeites in North America to look into joining and, if you are a member, to attend your region’s events. It’s so great to see JASNA featured so prominently in a major article, but we also wish we could conquer some of the stereotypes.
March 17th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
“[T]hey love to be in a room where you mention Lady Catherine (the tough-nosed, and high-handed aunt of Darcy in Pride and Prejudice) or Cassandra (Elizabeth Bennet’s sister), and everyone immediately knows who you’re talking about.”
I didn’t know Cassandra was Elizabeth Bennet’s sister. But I’ve only read the book– I’m not in JASNA.
March 17th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
How I wish we had this in France
It sounds really fun !
March 17th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
“Cassandra (Elizabeth Bennet’s sister)”
*blinkblink* Hm?
March 17th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
HA! Totally missed that…obviously falling down on the job. I got the general idea of it, though. Off to post correction…
March 17th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Jane only had 1 sister, and I don’t think she ever dined with Prince William of Gloucester. Could they be referring to Eliza de Feuillide?
Wrong tense!!!!!!!
March 17th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
This is generally such a positive article for JASNA and Jane Austen in general that I almost hate to point out the problems with it–it’s such a pleasure that they interviewed REAL Janeites instead of some film director who might have read one of her books once. However, having been interviewed for a few such articles, it is my experience that they generally are written by people who haven’t the first clue about Jane Austen; and I say that with no rancor; the world doesn’t have to love Jane or be knowledgeable about her, even to write an article about her fans. However, I think that’s why they fall back on the wet breeches stuff all the time. They get a general impression and run with it.
March 17th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
They get a general impression and run with it.
Hear, hear! As somebody who has limited experience with the media herself - unfortunately not on Jane Austen, though - I can only subscribe to this.
In 8 out of 10 times reporters know what they want to write before they have spoken one word with you and then try to squeeze in, what you’ve actually said.
This could have been better, could have been worse.
March 17th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
(huzzah! a clever title that doesn’t reference a Mike Meyers movie!)
However, they do reference pop culture in another way, the alt-rock band Jane’s Addiction.
March 17th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Yes, that’s why I thought it was clever…but not the obvious and much-overused Austen Powers joke, as Heather pointed out a few posts back.
March 17th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
The inspiration for “You’ve Got Mail” was not “Pride and Prejudice” but the Ernst Lubitsch classic “The Shop Around the Corner”. (The movie adaption was released in 1940.)
In “You’ve Got Mail”, Meg Ryan’s character places a copy of “Pride and Prejudice” on the restaurant table to identify herself to the man she has been e-mailing, but as far as I can tell that is the only connection…
March 17th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Also you can count on virtually any reporter to misquote. Even the best-intentioned local journalists can’t get information right.
Sterotypes sell, unbiased actual information does not. “Jane Austen fans not the weirdos you thought them” would not increase circulation. The media is, after all, a business. They will do what is best for them without regard to accuracy.
Ah yes, the little known sixth Bennet sister, Cassandra. There’s an interesting fic idea.
March 17th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Suggested Clever Pun on Jane Austen’s Name Next Time: “Jane Reaction.”
How come all these articles have the exact same “talking point”? - the “bosom/britches” thing. The repetition, factuality aside, really does get under my skin.
March 17th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Ah yes, the little known sixth Bennet sister, Cassandra. There’s an interesting fic idea.
Cassandra is the only Bennet sister who knows from the start that Wickham is a scoundrel, but when she tries to warn the citizens of Meryton, nobody will believe her.
March 17th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Cassandra…must’ve missed her…
March 17th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Cassandra, born out of wedlock, three months after Jane. And Hill was gone from service to the family around the same time, only to return a year later.
What Mr. Bennet did not realize was that the fall from his horse during that same period had rendered him sterile for life.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Baja, Nora Ephron did try to bring more of a P&P element to YGM than was in the original. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the 1980 BBC version of P&P, but the scene in YGM where Meg Ryan finds out that Tom Hanks is her “secret admirer” was taken directly from the meeting at Pemberley scene from P&P 1980. I saw the movie in a Manhattan theater (ironically, the same theater Greg Kinnear and Meg Ryan go to in the movie) and did a double-take when at that scene. It’s got the dog and everything.
March 18th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Oh Heather, that is so funny! Did Meryton burn afterwards? The militia couldn’t have been much of a match for the Greeks.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:41 am
My goodness Heather! Where did you learn to be so funny? Do you give lessons? I sit in awe.
Tony A, yours is interesting but wouldn’t that also leave Elizabeth’s paternity in doubt? She is most definitely her father’s daughter. I have to say Heather’s got ya beat.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Cassandra Bennet actually used to be Cassandra Dashwood. But screenwriters kept writing her out of their adaptations (along with Margaret), so she packed all her bonnets and gowns into her trunk and left, seeking asylum at Longbourn.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
… yours is interesting but wouldn’t that also leave Elizabeth’s paternity in doubt?
But Ina, who is to say that Lizzy is definitely her father’s daughter? That’s the irony of it all. Mrs. Bennet really put one over him, big time! 4-2. Game, set, match! Now I leave it to the others to reveal the Casanova.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Oh! Tony, pick me! Pick me!
Could it be Gen. Tilney?
(Mrs. B. always did like a red coat, and, indeed, so she does still at her heart!)
March 19th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
But Ina, who is to say that Lizzy is definitely her father’s daughter? I am. She certainly didn’t get her wit at the local dry goods shoppe.
Good one Maisy! Much as I’m enjoying that thought though, I have to say there’s no way those two could have produced Elizabeth without some serious double recessives at work.
Perhaps Elizabeth is actually Hill’s daughter and she and Cassandra were switched at birth?
I also suspect Mary of being jealous of Cassandra’s gift of prophecy and having lobbied to get her cut from every print copy and adaptation.