Alert Janeite Marybeth let us know that Masterpiece Theatre has a sneak peek of some of the Jane Austen adaptations it will be broadcasting in 2008. (The link is on the right side.)

The sneak peek includes longish bits of MP, NA, and Persuasion, all new to American audiences, presumably.

The OC Register also has an article about various past film adaptations of Jane Austen’s novels, including a handy (and amusing) chart. Of MP99:

Jonny Lee Miller as Edmund gets too little screen time, and Alessandro Nivola as Henry Crawford is ruined by goofy sideburns

Hee!

Alert Janeite (and Brock enthusiast) Cinthia let us know that an original illustration by C.E. Brock from Pride and Prejudice is currently being auctioned on eBay. It’s VERY original–we were not previously aware of this particular drawing, as it does not appear in any of the editions of P&P illustrated by Brock that are included in the Molland’s archive. If anyone knows of an edition containing this particular image, please let us know!

This is kind of last-minute, but for anyone in the Taos, NM area, tomorrow there will be a performance of a musical adaptation of Jane Austen’s “The Beautifull Cassandra” at the Taos Public Library Meeting Room at 1 p.m. Joanne Forman, the author of the piece, has promised more information after the performance.

…but that doesn’t stop us costume geeks from getting all obsessed, does it now?

Syracuse University English instructor Amy Leal discusses her obsession with period costume and how it does not always quite mesh with her academic pursuits.

It doesn’t do to admit to such activities in academic company. Kipling popularized the term “Janeites” in a story about an Austenite Masonic Lodge created by soldiers to get them through the horrors of the Great War. Being a member of what one critic called the “frilly bonnet brigade” is a bit like joining that secret society. In her book on Austen fandom called Janeites, Deidre Lynch cautions “the career-conscious critic against letting the wrong people know of her desire to, for instance, wear Regency costume and dance at a Jane Austen Literary Ball.” Making replicas smacks too much of scholarly dilettantism, of playing dress up with the canon like a little girl or boy tottering around in mother’s gigantic heels with a slash of forbidden carmine on the lips.

She comes up with an excellent reason (which also will do for the study of history in relation to literature, as well):

I make clothing reproductions because I am fascinated with the “felt life” (to appropriate a Henry James term) of past eras. What did Regency hair smell like? What did cheddar cheese taste like back then — tangy from some subtle differences in soil and fodder two centuries ago that we would be hard pressed to define? What was it like to wear Charlotte Brontë’s silk traveling dress (pattern available from the Northern Society of Costume and Textiles) after wedding Arthur Bell Nicholls? How might such considerations have influenced the writing of the period? I want to know how Emma combated bad breath and what the bristle of a muffin seller’s cheap linsey-woolsey felt like on the wrists.

Works for us.

Regency corsets (when daring misses wore them at all) were designed to push up and smooth down (except for a horrifying contraption known as a “steel divorce,” which separated the breasts into distinct pointed silos) and accentuate the high waistline.

Weren’t we just saying that?

Thanks to Alert Janeite Lisa for the link.

For those who would like to know more about the clothing of Jane Austen’s time, Serena Dyer of Pemberley Designs will be publishing a free quarterly e-newsletter on period costume, Dressing Jane. The first edition, concentrating on the dress of the 1790s (the period in which Becoming Jane takes place, if you are interested) will be mailed on August 10, so make haste and sign up!

The New York Daily News has an article about Becoming Jane, and the opening line, well…

If Jane Austen had looked like Anne Hathaway, would she have remained single and become the beloved author she did?

They aren’t seriously suggesting that Jane Austen didn’t marry because she wasn’t “pretty,” are they? Does the Editrix have to Cluebat a bi…journalist?

Hathaway rolls her eyes at the question: “There’s no way I could answer that without sounding like a jerk,” she says with a dismissive chuckle.

That’s got to be the smartest thing we have ever heard her say.

Austen’s writing provided inspiration for Hathaway, but it was Austen’s riding that truly clued the actress into what the writer’s interior life might have been like.

“She loved horseback riding,” Hathaway says, adding with a smile. “There’s a certain sort of girl who rides horses.”

Jane Austen loved horseback riding? Where in the blue heck did that come from? Anyone have a citation? We cannot recall such a fact, but would be pleased to learn it is true. After all, according to Julian Jarrold, Anne Hathaway is a Jane Austen Expert!

“We wanted somebody young and feisty. Annie had such qualities, and happened to be a complete expert on Jane Austen.

See? It’s on the Internets, it must be true.

“I hope [the film] enriches their understanding of Jane Austen,” Jarrold offers to the audiences who’ll see the movie in theaters. “I just hope people will go back to the books and read them again and again.”

So do we; if the motivation for doing so is perhaps akin to diving under the covers during a thunderstorm, as Stuart Smalley would say, that’s okay.

Alert Janeite Kay wrote to tell us that the Minneapolis Star Tribune had an interesting description for the film:

Becoming Jane (PG) The life of Jane Austen (Anne Hathaway) before she achieved wealth as a novelist.

Wealth? She socked a little money, away, true, but…oh, wait, you have to be wealthy to enjoy horseback riding! How silly of us.

Here is a fun diversion for the P&P fans: a Pride and Prejudice character map.

(It’s our birthday party and we’ll shamelessly self-promote if we want to. Dorothy is serving cake and iced rooibos in the conservatory.)

Two articles about Jane Austen, Janeites, and the upcoming films Becoming Jane and The Jane Austen Book Club mention AustenBlog and The Jane Austen Handbook, and we are thrilled about it! (more…)

How much fun is this? Alert Janeite Jan sent us a link to a map of Bath on The Atlas of Fiction, with highlights of locations mentioned in Northanger Abbey and Persuasion. For instance, click on the teardrop by “Beechen Cliff” and see the explanation, “Catherine walks with the Tilneys” from NA. Jane Austen knew her Bath geography!

For those new to Jane Austen, the Jane Austen Society of North America has added a page to its Web site presenting the facts known of Jane Austen’s life and her relationship with Tom Lefroy, contrasted with the presentation of this episode of Jane’s life in the film Becoming Jane. If you have seen the film and are interested in learning how much of the film is “real,” we suggest this page is an excellent starting point.

We would also suggest some further reading for those wanting to learn more about Jane Austen’s life:

Jane Austen: A Biography by Elizabeth Jenkins (out of print, but you should be able to purchase a used copy or get it through your public library or Interlibrary Loan)

101 Things You Didn’t Know About Jane Austen by Patrice Hannon - a wonderfully readable, intelligent, information-packed introduction to Jane Austen’s life

Jane Austen: A Family Record, ed. by Deirdre Le Faye - the motherlode of pure fact about Jane Austen’s life

With the official U.S. release less than a week away, the coverage is ramping up for Becoming Jane, and we expect it to reach fever pitch in the next couple of weeks. Several Sunday newspapers have devoted feature articles to Jane and Janeites (more on that in other posts).

The Washington Post, not fooled for a minute by the Made Up Story, asked some prominent Austen fans and scholars about the fictionalized aspects of the film.

Jan Fergus teaches a course titled “Jane Austen and Popular Culture in the 21st Century” at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa. She’s written two Austen biographies. But will Friday find Fergus at the multiplex? Not likely: “I would not be able to sit through what looks like a tissue of fabrications and nonsense.”

Ouch! That’ll leave a mark. (more…)

Seen on Cute Overload, couldn’t resist:

Alert Janeite Maisy directed us to a discussion of S&S07 (maybe 08 now?) on the IMDB forum for the film. A young gentleman who is doing his work experience at a film production house offered to answer questions. (You might have to register with the IMDB to read the discussion–try BugMeNot for a password, but they seem to have a hard time keeping up with IMDB. We’ll excerpt the most interesting stuff here.) (more…)

Alert Janeite Lisa let us know about an article in the Rochester (NY) Democrat & Chronicle about the creators of the Pride and Prejudice musical adaptation that they are hoping to get to Broadway. The evolution of the production, as detailed in the article, is quite interesting:

Despite busy schedules, they worked diligently, asking the Jane Austen Society for input on their songs and making a trip to England for research. The pair had to hurry to finish their work when Steven Daigle, the artistic director of the Eastman Opera Theater, expressed interest in it. Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice was first performed as a four-hour operetta with a cast of 30 at the Eastman School of Music in April 2004. They cut it to three hours so it could be performed by the Ohio Light Opera in Wooster, Ohio, last summer. Now the musical is two and a half hours with a cast of 18. They hope the shorter length and smaller size will give it a better chance of making it to Broadway. “Whenever we get sad because we have to cut something, we say, ‘Well, that’ll go in the musical miniseries,’” said Baker.

We hope it will make it to Broadway, as well…how fun would that be, to see Jane Austen on Broadway?

Our busy social whirl has whirled us right past the premiere of Becoming Jane last Tuesday night. Fortunately the ever-alert Fourth Estate has picked up our slack. Herewith a selection of coverage of the big night.

Variety first:

“I really thought there was no chance I was going to land this part. It just seemed absurd that the girl from ‘The Princess Diaries’ would play Jane Austen,

Oh, that’s okay, honey. We’re not sure who you played in the movie, but it sure wasn’t Jane Austen.

“I did a comparative essay on ‘Pride and Prejudice’ and ‘Sense and Sensibility,’ funny enough, on how Jane Austen seemed to use real life examples (in her novels),” she said. “I got a B plus.”

Ooooh! Aaaaah!

The Arizona Republic stuck with a basic Q&A format:

Q: How was it working with director Julian Jarrold?

A: Very easy. He’s a completely easygoing guy. He wanted to make sure we were making a film we believed in but also one Austen fans would respect.

*raises eyebrow* Okay!

Last up, the Philippines site Inquirer.net, which delves a little deeper than some of the others.

She continued, “You can’t eat when you’re wearing a corset because your body can’t digest food.

Women wore corsets for hundreds of years–and even ate in them!–and the race managed to continue. We can’t help wondering how someone can play a historical figure and have so limited a view of history as to make such a short-sighted statement. Also, properly-fitted late Georgian/Regency stays should not be so tight as to cause digestive problems.

We asked Anne if she buys the notion that Jane Austen’s romantic heartbreak over the affair with Tom Lefroy, who reportedly inspired the Mr. Darcy character in “Pride and Prejudice,” sparked her writing.

“It’s a very controversial argument,” she answered. “I don’t think she needed to find Mr. Right to write. I shouldn’t say that because I’m the star of a movie that says she did.

Huzzah, dear! Nicely said.

The one time Vassar College and New York University student continued, “I think Jane did have heartbreak in her life. Not just a romantic heartbreak but she had extreme disappointments brought on by a lack of money and by society’s views of what a woman could achieve. Her sad life is probably more responsible for motivating her to write.”

Oh, you were doing so well. Her “sad life?” Because if she doesn’t have a maaaaaaaan she had a “sad life?” She couldn’t find fulfillment from her writing, her family, her friends? No wonder we wanted to find the nearest semi-sharp object and open our jugular vein after seeing this film.

Alert Janeite Elizabeth sent us a link to a notice for male extras for “a BBC period film about the writer Jane Austen,” presumably Miss Austen Regrets. (We especially enjoyed the “no highlights” part.)

Pray note that shooting dates are tentatively scheduled between 30th July and 2nd September–meaning the leads are probably cast! Who will be playing Jane Austen?!?

Voice actor Nikolle Doolin is presenting Persuasion via podcast at her Weblog, Audio Literature Odyssey. It’s unclear if she will have the whole novel and whether it is just a reading of the novel or commentary as well, but chapters one and two are posted; check it out!

Austen-tatious reports that Anne Hathaway will be making the rounds of various talk shows in preparation for the release of Becoming Jane.

U.S. only, select cities…go get ‘em.

The story of Jane Austen’s Shocking Publishing Rejection, which we blogged about last week, has been picked up by every news outlet in the known universe. We are a little astonished at how few of them looked beneath the surface to ask why all those agents and publishers rejected slightly reworked Jane Austen novels. Among those reasons could be, as we said last week: the plagiarized work was recognized and rejected without comment; the query letter was so bad the readers never got to the plagiarized work; the submission did not conform to the recipient’s submission guidelines, so was automatically rejected without comment. The exercise was silly in our opinion. Anyone who knows anything about publishing immediately recognized that it was an invalid argument to say “Jane Austen couldn’t get published today.” If Jane Austen were writing today, her work would be very different–because she wasn’t around 200 years ago to shape modern literature. It’s sort of like in the film “It’s a Wonderful Life” when Clarence says to George that Harry Bailey wasn’t a war hero who saved a transport full of soldiers; every man on the transport died because Harry wasn’t there to save them, because George wasn’t there in childhood to save Harry from drowning when he broke through an icy pond. Taking Jane Austen’s work out of its contemporary context invalidates the whole “experiment.” But as a publicity stunt, it worked a treat.

Andrew Franklin, the publisher and managing director of Profile Books, responded in the Independent, saying pretty much everything we’ve been saying about this all along. (more…)

Lori Smith, proprietor of the Jane Austen Quote of the Day blog and author of the upcoming book A Walk With Jane Austen, e-mailed us earlier this week with a question that surprised us not a little. She wanted to post the famous line from Pride and Prejudice, “For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours and laugh at them in our turn?” on the quote blog, but when she checked her paperback Signet edition, it had “For what do we live, but to make sport of our neighbours…”

Lori checked the Molland’s e-text of P&P, which has the “for” quote. She then e-mailed the Editrix, perplexed as to which was correct. We were at le travail du journée, but keep paperback copies of several of the novels there; the P&P is a Signet edition, and darned if it didn’t say “of.” Remembering the quote as “for,” which a check of the e-book version we have with us at all times confirmed, and not having immediate recourse to our Chapmans, we telephoned a Janeite friend who was at home and asked her to consult her Oxford Illustrated edition. Chapman, naturally, has “for,” and a crisis of Western civilization was averted. Even without our recall of the line–one of our favorites in the book–the “of” version doesn’t even make sense. Let’s parse:

Part the first: “For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours…”

Part the second: “…and laugh at them in our turn?”

“Make sport for our neighbours” means, of course, that the neighbours laugh at us. “Laugh at them” is self-explanatory; “in our turn” indicates an opposite or at least different action from the first part of the sentence. If the first part is changed to “Make sport of our neighbours,” meaning “laugh at the neighbours,” the meaning of the sentence becomes “For what do we live, but to laugh at our neighbours or laugh at our neighbours?” which, of course, makes no sense.

The Signet editions that had the error both were printed in the 1980s, and it is not clear if more recent editions have the word corrected. Does anyone have a recent printing they would be so kind as to check? It might be interesting to see if the usage has slipped into any other editions. We consulted the editions of P&P extant at AustenBlog World Headquarters; besides the Oxford Illustrated edition and the e-book version, we also have a 1907 Brock-illustrated Dent edition and one of the Everyman editions (also published by Dent and likely based on the same text) given away by The Daily Telegraph in a Becoming Jane-related promotion earlier this year: Both had “for.”

It would be very interesting indeed to know for how long the Signet editions contained such a mistake!