How are we supposed to run a blog if technology does not cooperate?
There looked like a perfectly fun deathmatch of Janeite vs. Jane-hater in The Telegraph magazine, but the link to the anti-Jane article doesn’t seem to work. We shall chalk it up to Jane’s spirit being mischievous. The pro-Jane article is quite good, except:
The stories are still capable of keeping us in a state of ecstatic suspense. Indeed, whenever the BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth, is repeated I know that I only have to look at it for about 30 seconds and I’m hooked again. If all six episodes are being shown back-to-back on UK Gold, that’s me done for the night. Jane Austen is the authorial equivalent of crack cocaine.
That’s all very well, but…what about her books?
(We still want to read the anti-Jane article…Cluebat at the ready if some enterprising reader manages to find a working link!)
March 18th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I’m not convinced it’s even up. I searched the site using the loathing Jane’s author’s last name and came up empty.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:50 am
Do we really need the frustration anyway? Ok maybe I wouldn’t ask that if it weren’t the middle of the night here.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:28 am
I have to admit, that I totally concur with the pro-Jane author, even on the subject of the 1995 BBC adaptation. In fact it was that TV show - and to be honest actually “Bridget Jones Diary” (the film) first - that brought me to love Jane Austen and her novels.
And I have certainly watched the DVDs more often (= uncountable times) than read the book. Now despise me, if you dare!
March 19th, 2007 at 6:13 am
If a “Janeite” by now is someone who swoons over fluffy adaptions of her novels (and yes, I consider even the 95 version of P&P as flat and inappropriate) instead of appreciating her literally genius it’s high time for a new term, I guess.
I think very few classical authors are so frequently judged by the cinematic adaptations of their works. Jane Austen is the only one I constantly have to defend against “Urgh, that movie with Keira Knightley/Emma Thompson/etc. was so horrible/cheesy/boring!”. Or make excuses for film makers and script writers and tell over and over again, that it is the books I like and that they have nothing to do with the movies, bla bla bla…
Nothing like that happens with Dickens or any other writer of her genre.
A very considerable percentage of the profits of these films should be (by law!) payed to libraries, the JASNA, or similar organisations to make amends for that.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Well, I think you’ve got me there. If - as a true Janeite - one can not love any of the adaptions of her work, then I am not one.
Although I wouldn’t have called myself so anyway, as that term has to me a somewhat scholarly ring and I never read Austen in school (English is my second language and we studied Goethe and Schiller), never wrote an essay about her and never attended any dicussion about her and her works (although I’d love too, but there simply aren’t any in my part of the world).
If it wasn’t for those (above mentioned) films, I would not only not have come to love her, but actually not to “know” her at all. My previous Austen experience was - again - the Emma Thompson version of S&S, and although I liked it then, it didn’t leave any permanent impression.
And the article above says also:
Am I an Austen fan? Yes! Did and do I reread her novels? With pleasure! Do I love the P&P 95 BBC miniseries? Yes! Am I shallowly fangirlish about Colin Firth? Hell, yes!!!
Does that make me one or disqualify me as a Janeite? I actually do not really care.
I do not see, why it must be an exclusion. Why it should not be able to love both, book and film, and speak about it.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Technology does not cooperate in my case. I’ve been trying to get the Mansfield Park podcasts (on classic FM) since friday and it never works. Please somebody help me, my favourite book is Northanger Abbey and I can’t even download it !
March 19th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Sylvia, that comment was not directed at you but at the writers of articles such as the one above mentioned.
I really am very far from wanting to appear over sensitive with Austen. She is not a goddess and her novels are not holy or untouchable.
And surely there is no harm in liking the film adaptions, many where drawn to the books by them and stuck with them ever since. We have to give them that credit at least.
I’m just pissed of by articles about Jane Austen and her admirers who dwell on that stupid pond scene and stuff like that, instead of what makes her work really worth being among the great classics of literature.
And I would wish too, that the same people might get over the fact that she wrote a brilliant book when she was 21. Hell, she wrote three equally brilliant and even more deep and challenging ones when she was in her 30ies.
Jane Austen to me is some more and some more profound than catchy love stories and Colin Firth in tight breeches.
March 19th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Yes, the books are profound. Yes, they contain some biting social commentary. But they’re also FUN. When I pick up an Austen novel or pop an Austen adaptation into my DVD player, I’m not always looking for hidden meanings and lit crit. I want to be entertained. Why do people want to take that away from me? Why can I not be free to enjoy the stories for what they are on the surfact — well-written stories with interesting plots, interesting characters, and a beautiful love story? Does this make me shallow? I don’t think so.
The only adaptation I refuse to own is Rozema’s MP because it didn’t resemble the book at all and because she kept beating us over the head with her politics. But I think each of the others has its merits. Yes, even P&P3, which I found to be breathtakingly beautiful to look at and very moving.
Now, despise me if you dare.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I still think an adaption of any Jane Austen novel could be all that - funny, entertaining and profound at the same time, in the same way her books are. Still waiting for proof, though.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
The pro-JA article was fine, but what’s with this remark: “Invariably, the obstacle that keeps [JA's hero and heroine] apart is money.” Patently false, if you ask me. Money keeps Elinor and Edward apart (rather than his previous engagement)? Or Marianne and Brandon (rather than her immaturity)? Or Jane and Bingley (her inappropriate family, his interfering friends)? Or Emma and Mr. Knightley (her immaturity, once again)? It’s not Mr. Darcy’s money that convinces Elizabeth he’s a snob–it’s his snobbish behavior. (She’s very fond of Mr. Bingley, who’s also rich.) It’s not Edmund’s lack of money that keeps him and Fanny apart–it’s his attachment to someone else. Henry Tilney has enough to marry Catherine even without his greedy father’s consent: it’s her parents who insist on waiting for the general to come around. I’m not saying economic issues don’t come into play in all these relationships, but it’s not nearly as simply as money=the obstacle every time.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
I was hoping someone would point that out. I dislike it when someone makes sweeping generalizations about Jane Austen’s books. I greatly dislike it when they say that her novels come down to one thing: Money. Firstly, I do not think such beautiful, complex books can come down to any one thing. Secondly, I do not think that they do. I think that Jane Austen understood that can often money be an overplayed consideration. Please understand, I do not think that she is saying that a young woman should go off and marry a man who cannot (or will not) support her, but I also do not think she is saying that a young woman must “set her cap” at a man with lots of money, because money equals happiness. I think Jane was pointing out that money does not and never can guarantee happiness. I think she was also pointing out that if you think money does guarantee happiness, you will be sadly disappointed.
If you are not willing to be content, if you are not willing look past someone’s faults and failings, if you are not willing to see your own and try to correct them, no manner of money in the world will make you happy. Happiness starts with contentment and grows from there.
Mine own two cents.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Well spotted, Deborah. Don’t they have a readers comment possibility attached to that article? I think you should copy and paste what you posted above there verbatim.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Well Julia, a willingness to be proven wrong is an admirable virtue in these times of arrogant self-righteousness. I too hope for a truly brilliant adaptation of even one of Jane’s novels. I have liked various versions for the different things they got right, but I invariably would change something in every one.
Note on me. I have a tendency to analyze and over-analyze everything. Case in point: I sat mesmirized in the theater by Titanic and then spent the entire ride home discussing how to fix it. Great film in its ability to touch viewers emotions, but LOTS of mistakes.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Sylvia, that comment was not directed at you …
Ok, then … *holding out hand*
And good point about the money, Deborah.
March 19th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I found a way to access the article, but it’s still a little hard to read. On the left hand side of the Telegraph screen, you can click on the bar with ‘Telegraph e-paper’ written on it. Then, you get to view the articles as they are laid out on paper. The membership does cost a fee, but there is a free one-day trial you can use if you have email. The print is quite small, but can be enlarged. It’s easier to read if you print it.:)
March 20th, 2007 at 4:29 am
I’ve emailed them asking if they’d please fix the darn link..
March 20th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Thanks Jemima - that worked for me! Anyone else who wants to try: the registering is very easy, and you’ll find the article in the ‘Seven’ section for 18 March.
Actually, I find myself almost laughing out loud in enjoyment a couple times. It really is a quite well-written and wonderfully sour snark on Jane. Something she herself could possibly even appreciate. And all things considered, considering how different people give priority to different kinds of values, looking at things from the author’s side, her logic is really not all that far off. “Lucky old her.” LOLOL!!! Am sure Mags will find a couple things tho to swing the bat at.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Until the link is fixed, I have made the following out of screenshots. It should enlarge when clicked upon.
*Off to read it for myself*
And in case the thumbnail doesn’t work, the link itself:
http://img126.imageshack.us/my.php?image=loathingjaneov5.png
March 20th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I just followed the link above…
Mags, where are you?
“The figures we are expected to admire in her novels, such as the drippy fantasist Catherine Morland and her equally uninspiring paramour, Henry Tilney, are the ones who have the least sexual energy.”
March 20th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Well, I read it. That is a feat in and of itself.
The problem is that he does not understand Jane Austen and he confuses lust for love. He does not understand that Jane Austen knew that true love is a commitment. Jane Austen knew that love had to last forever, it had to last longer than someone’s looks, it had to be an enduring commitment. His problem is that he has a modern, mistaken idea of love, unlike Austen’s true, enduring love.
He also does not make allowance enough for difference of situation and temper. What might please him does not mean it will please the heroines or the heroes.
Some rather hurried thoughts on the subject.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Curt, a person holding such an opinion does not deserve the compliment of rational opposition.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:16 pm
@ Kristen: I do believe that is written by a woman.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Woman or man makes no difference to the cluebat.
Kudos to Kristen and Mags for finding the perfect quotes as well.