Friday Bookblogging: Unlikely Juxtapositions Edition
Some of our Gentle Readers have expressed their opinions very decidedly about the usual “Jane Meets The Mummy” sort of taglines are assigned to books and films in order to help the big-picture-thinkers easily grasp the idea. Still, sometimes such juxtapositions are helpful, and sometimes just funny.
We were bemused when we received an advance copy of The Rules of Gentility by Janet Mullany. The tagline on the back cover reads, “Pride and Prejudice meets Bridget Jones’s Diary!” As has already been pointed out, that strikes us as a trifle redundant, but we waded in nonetheless. We were a little disappointed to discover that the book really doesn’t have anything more to do with Jane Austen than an opening line that plays on “It is a truth universally acknowledged” and the Regency time setting. The book doesn’t meet the AustenBlog criteria for Austen-relevancy for a formal review, but we quite enjoyed it as a fun Regency-set romp. We would describe it more as (here we go with the juxtaposition) if Georgette Heyer had written Bridget Jones’s Diary and set it in the Regency. It’s lighthearted and fluffy but not completely brainless, a bit raunchy but not explicit; it has a modern feel that nonetheless works well within the period setting with only a tiny suspension of disbelief required, and we just loved the hero and heroine, with all their faults and failings (hmm, perhaps that is where the Jane Austen comparisons come in). We think many of our readers will find it delightful.
With the recent spate of Austen-related books, it’s inevitable that the greedy speculators will start trying to come up with ideas to cash in. (Because everyone writing them so far has done it for completely altruistic reasons. Yes, John Halperin, we are looking at you.) We found one such example at the SoMA Review, where John D. Spalding thinks he’s hit on the perfect formula for a million seller: Jane Austen Meets Jesus.
That’s when inspirado struck and I saw my door to fame and fortune: I would write a Jane Austen book. To be sure, any volume with Austen’s name in the title could put me in caviar and Cristal for life,
HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAA! *wipes tears*
Oh, sorry.
but think bigger than that, I prodded myself. Then it hit me: “Jane Austen Meets Jesus.” A title combining two of the biggest selling names in publishing, along with a movie deal, just might be my $200-million-dollar-winning Powerball ticket.
Immediately, the book started to write itself. Here’s the story: Jane Austen travels back to first-century Palestine to see if Jesus measures up to Mr. Darcy, her paragon of manhood from “Pride and Prejudice.” Jesus may have been the savior of world, but was he tall and noble, sweet-tempered and charming? And, true, Jesus may have known how to turn water into wine, but did he know, for instance, that when he met a lady in the street he was supposed to wait for her to bow before tipping his hat to her?
Check out the whole post, it’s hilarious, especially the Jane/Jesus Showdown.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
It’s ridiculous for any sassy writers to make any meaningless books or essays on Jane Austen. Absolutely wrong.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Freaking hysterical. Batting Jesus and Austen quotes back and forth was a stroke of genius. And she got the last word in to boot. ROFL.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Hohoho, I’m laughing all right, but at his flaunting of Biblical ignorance.
The Bible certainly says whether Jesus was handsome or not. Isaiah 53:2.
I am grateful to have read no Austen sequels or spin-offs. I’ll take supplements and bios, but I haven’t got around to any.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
That was excellent
Could I add:
Jesus. “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you . . .”
Jane. “Heaven forbid! that would be the greatest misfortune of all! - To find a man agreeable whom one is determined to hate! - Do not wish me such an evil.”
July 14th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Thanks, Mags, for the nice post about my piece. I’m pleased it’s received a positive response from Austen enthusiasts…. Sion Mc’s “Love your enemies” addition is great. Perfect quote from Jane.
To Laura Grace, re. my “Biblical ignorance.” I’m not so sure about that. I wrote that the Gospels (ie, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) don’t tell us whether Jesus was handsome. Correcting me, you cited Isaiah 53:2. Never mind that Isaiah isn’t a Gospel, the verse you mention appears in a section of the book (chaps 40-66; aka Second Isaiah) that was written just before and after the fall of Babylon–five and a half centuries before Jesus’ birth.
It’s the part of Isaiah where the author discusses the “suffering servant,” and we could debate whether it offers a literal, physical description of someone non-existent as of the 6th century BCE, but I’d rather not. Suffice it to say, I agree with most biblical scholars that the “suffering servant” is not a reference to a single, future person (You-Know-Who) but to “God’s servant,” the people of Israel, whose return from Babylonian exile the author is anticipating. Hence, Isaiah 41:8-9: “But you, Israel, my servant…You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off…” Similarly, your verse, Isaiah 53:2, refers to God’s servant, or God’s people, long held in captivity, as being undistinguished in background and appearance–”no beauty that we should desire.”
None of this, of course, concerns whether or not Jane Austen would have found the first-century Jesus handsome. Which, for me, is all I really care about here!
July 15th, 2007 at 5:47 am
Yes, I laughed. And then I wondered what Jane Austen would have said-judging from her prayers and letters, she took irreverence quite seriously. “I never laugh at what is wise or good”, remember? Ah well, never mind. A jibe won’t raise a blister, and the Gentleman we are speaking of is well able to look after Himself.
July 15th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
That was my thought too, John.
JA was religious, and so even though I don’t really see her talking back in this manner, I did find it humourous when I just considered the dialogues instead of who said them.