A little advanced mathematics
We confess that, rather like Catherine Morland, we were not a proficient at learning our numbers; however, some equations are so simple and obvious that we are a trifle taken aback at the continuing confusion displayed about them. So for everyone’s edification, we would like to attempt to explain something:
Books ≠ Movies
For instance, we’ve already expressed our amusement at the clip on the Today Show that extolled the brilliance of Jane Austen’s dialogue, illustrated by scenes from films that contained dialogue she had not written. Now we discover that Jane Austen’s novels are boring, but we have been too stupid to figure it out.
IF I TURN on the TV to find one more adaptation of a Jane Austen novel, I will scream and scream until I’m sick.
We feel the same way sometimes.
For the life of me, I cannot fathom what people see in these lavish, yet utterly tedious dramas.
Lavish? Well, she didn’t hang around long enough to notice the 100 feet of cobbled road in Dublin that, with creative use of styrofoam, was made to substitute for the entire city of Bath.
I first came across Jane Austen as a sixth former at school, where I was unfortunate enough to have Emma as a set book for A-level English literature. An avid reader, it stopped me in my tracks. It was the first time I had read a novel that didn’t appear to be about anything.
And, of course, one’s taste never changes in adulthood from what it was as a teenager.
“That’s the whole point,” I remember my teacher telling us all (I wasn’t the only Austen hater). “It’s just how life was for them, the day-to-day trivialities.”
What a terrible teacher. Of course, if the authoress’ fellow students were of similar mental capacity, perhaps the teacher had simply surrendered to the lowest common denominator.
Watching anything by Jane Austen makes me crave car chases, shoot-outs and explosions.
Watching anything by Jane Austen? Haven’t we already explained the equation? And pointed out, endlessly, how screenwriters and directors have eviscerated the genius of her prose? You just admitted you haven’t read her books in many years, so recent experience is all from the screen. If the films are dull, do not blame Jane for that.
And I can’t understand all the fuss over Austen’s male characters. Newspapers and magazines seem to never tire of asking: Why is Mr Darcy so handsome? What do women see in Mr Darcy? Is your man a Mr Darcy or a Mr Wickham?
Personally, I wouldn’t go within a mile of Mr Darcy or Mr Wickham. Or any of Austen’s heroes.
{ insert your own “not handsome enough to tempt me” joke here }
I think the only people suffering from that are Austen fans - they haven’t paid enough attention to realise that the books are dull, the characters are dull, the films are dull.
We are not the ones not paying attention, madam.
P.S. What’s that again about film adaptations having to be changed to make them palatable to the Great Unwashed? Works so well, doesn’t it?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:32 am
I hope there is another JA adaptation she watches and - is sick
and I do hope she’ll no longer resist the temptation to pull out her own teeth through boredom - please give in
Yes, I do declare!! All she talks about is - films!!
April 18th, 2007 at 4:53 am
If her taste runs to Arnie films (and yes, I quite enjoyed the first two Terminators myself), which books does she like?
There is some strange snobbery going on here. When someone says that they are an avid reader, and yet they see absolutely no merit in what novels that have stood the test of time (and were well loved before they were ever turned into not particularly small screen adaptations, as well as some very good ones), you do wonder. Take Dickens for example. I’ve read a lot of his novels, and some of them don’t particularly appeal to me. I wouldn’t go out of my way to read one of his novels for leisure these days. But that doesn’t mean I can’t see merit in his work, or think fondly of some of his characters, or appreciate his social commentary.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Utterly bizarre! Why on earth would avid fans of literature be the type to not pay attention? At least some of us are English majors who have to think about literature all day long. And even those who don’t/didn’t study English are probably very good readers to be able to analyze and discuss Jane Austen.
There is no logic here!
Similar to the author, I disliked Emma when I first read it at 14, but I certainly don’t blame the novel - it was my own teenaged thick-headery that prevented me from seeing the satire and complexity.
Really, there’s no arguing taste. I don’t understand why people always herd onto the internet to express their opinions all the time in lengthly articles or public blogs. But the central problem here is as you said, Mags… she’s talking about movies and using those experiences to replace books.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Personally, I wouldn’t go within a mile of Mr Darcy or Mr Wickham.
Well, she’s half right. I wouldn’t go within a mile of Mr. Wickham either.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Julie–I started laughing so hard I attracted the attention of the whole room. *blush*
I think the problem is often that “avid readers” do not read to understand. They read fluff; they read things that do not take any thought at all. So, when they come across brilliant writing that takes some amount of thought, like Austen. They hate it. They find it hard and tedious, because they do not want to think. You will not understand Austen completely if you are not thinking while you read. Why was Mr. Collins’ proposal so awful? Think about the words; think about what they mean, think about what the characters are saying. But they do not or cannot.
So, they skip the book and jump straight to the adaptations, usually the less than good ones. As they sit through these adaptations, with visions of bodices-ripping in their heads, they cannot understand or even like Jane Austen. Firstly, because they are not watching Jane, they are watching someone’s imitation of her work. And they take it to be 100% Jane Austen. Secondly, because they have her all wrong, they see her either as boring or as a cheesy romance novel writer. And in the end they miss out on a wonderful writer and wonderful books. Their loss, I suppose.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
“At first sight Jane Austen’s manner and matter may seem to be old fashioned, stilted, unreal. But this is a delusion to which the bad reader succumbs.” Vladimir Nabokov
April 18th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
The part of this rant that really irritates me is the notion that we “haven’t paid enough attention to realise that the books are dull, the characters are dull, the films are dull.” You’re entitled to your own opinion, but it *is* a matter of opinion, and should not be treated as a fact which needs to be hammered into our silly, bonneted heads. If you don’t understand Jane, that’s your loss; it is certainly not ours that we do.
Perhaps this person could have profited from “paying attention” enough to discern what the plot of Emma really is: a young woman maturing enough to learn to take into account the feelings and situations of others.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
What a riot this one is! I can hardly write for laughing. She would have made perfect fodder for one of Jane’s characters—she puts even Mrs Norris to shame. Now who was it who wrote, “For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?”
But, seriously, it is a crying shame that such blight on humanity, such an illiberal mind, could manage to pass for a journalist nowadays. To use one of her references, I would choose Wickham over her any day of the week, and I am not even gay.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Personally I think her hair may be the issue here. Just look at it! Perhaps if she were to pull it back in a nice Regency bun instead of leaving it all frizzed out, she might stand a reasonable chance of beginning to appreciate Jane. You know what prudes we Janeites are! Ha!
April 18th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I see the first problem in her calling Jane’s works “dramas.” The best thing about them is that they are comedies, first and foremost. That line alone convinced me she didn’t know of what she spoke.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Hee! I’m a bit of a lurker, but this was so entertaining it brought me out. She diagnoses Jane Austen fans with ADD of all things! Wouldn’t it be a little more reasonable to pick something that wasn’t characteristic of having difficulty sitting still and reading? or difficult expressing oneself through writing? Really?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Ugh, very SUTH-worthy!
April 18th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
“Of course, in the realms of literature, my opinion doesn’t count…”
Exactly! Unfortunately, her experience with her teacher is far too common in this day and age. I have a 13 year old daughter who I am trying to introduce to JA’s novels and it is proving to be quite the challenge. Although I am determined to introduce her to REAL literature that begs her, as the reader, to stretch her mind and “think” (as someone else put it in an above post), most of the material she is presented in school is beyond pathetic.
I’m a newbie here - been lurking for a short while - please forgive spelling and grammatical errors; being in the presence of English majors makes one quite nervous!
I will tell you that I do like the movies (Emma, S&S, P&P), not so much the t.v. series [ducking thrown objects]. I take them for what they are… ADAPTATIONS “based on” the novels of Jane Austen. I also liked the movie adaptations of Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. Watching these movies has prompted me to read the books due to the fact that I wanted the “whole” experience. I ordered David Shapard’s Annotated P&P after watching the 2005 movie - again for the “whole” experience - and I am so glad I did. Now, my daughter is interested in reading it… after she’s through with Emma, of course.
Thank you for allowing me post, I have so appreciated and enjoyed your lively commentaries. Keep up the good work.
Joy (Haven’t read all the novels, so I won’t consider myself a Janeite yet!)
April 19th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Not all of us are English majors. I happen to have been a French major. But they let me stay anyway.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Joy:
We are not all English majors, as Julie said, and I’m sorry if my comment suggested that to you. I simply could not help but laugh at the irony of the author’s assumption that we Jane Austen fans could not “understand” the novels.
Welcome to AustenBlog, by the way!
April 19th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
I was almost content with the excerpts printed above, but man am I glad I went and read the actual article.
I’m surprised that with all that gin she was able to keep her teeth in her mouth. Seriously, though, I wonder what exactly it is about the adaptations that turn her away from Jane. Can’t be the dialogue. I would bet that anyone would be hardpressed to find an “Arnie” movie where he is more articulate than the least articulate character of any adaptation (… well, except for the actors in the 70s & 80s BBC versions …). Like has been said, it’s her loss that she won’t have either the novels or the films as part of her life (honestly, though, who can watch the Gwyneth Paltrow Emma without laughing? That was the film that really got me hooked on the novels).
I came across AustenBlog last week trying to find out more about Becoming Jane. Sure glad that I did, and have added it to my “daily” list of sites to visit.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
I ain’t no English major neither, and have not been kicked out of here… yet!
By the bye, did any one catch the “ain’t” word in P07? Almost fell out of my chair when I heard it:
Mary Musgrove: … Captain Wentworth must visit his best friend, Captain… Something or other. And has invited us all to make the trip with him. Ain’t it prime? [Emphasis mine.] For those who have the DVD and don’t believe me, go to chapter 4, about 35:45 into the movie. And turn on the subtitles if you still cannot believe your ears.
Anyway, there is nothing like a Jane-bashing rabble-rouser to liven up a thread over here, is there? And demanding a peremptory response from the Janeite community. A blessing, indeed, especially when it, she, induced some more of our friends to come out and join the discussion. Welcome!
April 20th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Tony, from what I gather, “ain’t” was not uncommon back then. I read a lot of Georgette Heyer books, and she researched the slang very thoroughly. “Ain’t” appears more often than one would think.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Yes, Julie, but Jane never used it. Never ever. And I never say Heyer in the same sentence as… I won’t say it. I cannot stand her affected style. As far as I’m concerned, she is just another fan fiction writer. I would rather go to the source myself. She’s okay, but an etude is not a symphony.
Yes, I am a snob.
April 20th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Well…not ain’t specifically, but Charles Musgrove says “a’n't I a good boy?” to his mother after securing the theatre box in Bath.
April 20th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I know, Mags. I came across that one while looking for “ain’t” as well as “sha’n’t” twice in The Watsons, but they ain’t “ain’t.” So there. Am not I a bad boy?
April 21st, 2007 at 6:32 am
Sorry to disappoint you Tony, but I love Heyer. And Seton. I don’t always need to be edified. Sometimes pure entertainment is enough.
And, while I am not a snob, I am an elitist. There’s a difference.
April 21st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
You do not disappoint, Julie, I assure you. If everyone had identical taste this would indeed be quite a banal existence. But I never considered the study of Jane edifying, although we do learn a lot from her.
And in spite of my uxorious tendencies, I do enjoy other authors… Gaskell, Wharton, Sackville-West. Cookson is growing on me, I think; and for pure entertainment, Sarah Waters, though at times gratuitous, has a wonderful style.
April 21st, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Alas. Here is another place where we must part ways. I just can’t take Gaskell. I find her to be exceedingly dull.