We heard from Jeanne Kiefer, Janeite and professional survey research consultant, who has put together a survey to get a statistical picture of the modern Janeite. She will present the findings at a breakout session at the JASNA AGM in Chicago this October.

My goal is to develop a fully rounded profile of current Jane Austen enthusiasts, so I’m eager to hear from as many Janeites as possible. Findings will be presented at the JASNA annual meeting (session title: Anatomy of a Janeite). What do Janeites really think about Jane, her works, her characters? Do they all fit the popular stereotype (tea-drinking librarians)?

The qualifications for taking the survey are having read the six novels and self-identifying as a Jane Austen fan. We took the survey, and there is no personally identifying information collected; one can, voluntarily, leave one’s e-mail address to participate in a further, more detailed survey. We would like to encourage all of our Gentle Readers who fit the criteria to take the survey.

As the Editrix is a frustrated sociologist, she is looking forward to the results. Though we always stress that the Janeite diaspora is not homogenous, such a survey will not only show a portrait of the “average” Janeite (if there is such a thing–we are thinking it will be more of a median/mean of Janeites) but also will display the wonderful diversity of our little world. We hope to be able to publish at least a link to the results here on the blog eventually.

Northanger Abbey is up Sunday night, and Team Tilney trembles in anticipation, for whatever value one wishes to place on “trembles.”

Two reviews of the new film have been posted on PBS’ Remotely Connected blog. AustenBlog’s own Cub Reporter Heather L. has written a thoughtful and perceptive review that highlights what is enjoyable about the adaptation as well as why so many of us who love the novel were disappointed with it.

The challenge in adapting Northanger Abbey - or any Jane Austen novel - is to capture the wit and telling details which define a character or scene, and give such keen insight into human nature. These lift Jane’s novels above the myriad boy-meets-girl stories (even though they may share the same plots) and give her timeless and universal appeal.

[. . .]

It’s entertaining, but details that made the story special (and worth adapting in the first place) are gone.

We highly recommend that you check it out. Mr. Tilney would approve.

Fashion blogger Natalie Zee Drieu has a most harmless delight in being fine, and her review includes a Best Bonnets lineup.

The press coverage, unsurprisingly, focuses on the extra dash of Andrew Davies special spice that has been given to this new adaptation. And we just threw up a little in our mouth as we were typing that.

The New York Daily News seems to have swallowed the propaganda whole. (Now, do not be suspecting us of a pun, we entreat.)

“Northanger Abbey,” the first novel Austen completed, was not published until after her death, and Catherine in some ways feels like an early draft of later Austen figures like Elizabeth Bennet. But Catherine has a distinct character of her own, and her dreams reveal a restless, visceral spirit that some today will argue reflects Austen’s own.

*stares*

*blinks*

*squints*

*reads again*

No, it still says the same thing; we are not hallucinating.

For the record: Catherine is not a prototype of Elizabeth Bennet, as though Jane Austen wrote the same heroine six times; nor is she a portrait of the author (for crying out loud!). She is a parody of the typical heroine of the Gothic and sentimental novels of her time. She is a parody in her ordinariness and imperfections, and like Henry Tilney, we come to love her for them, not in spite of them. She is a brilliant creation from the wonderfully humorous and ironic imagination of Jane Austen, who was a genius.

We also are highly amused by the single spammy comment to the article! HA! (And you wonder why we have the Occasionally Overzealous Spam Filter on AustenBlog. Isn’t it worth getting caught occasionally to keep our little playground here free from that sort of thing? Not to mention keeping the Editrix from setting her hair on fire as she cleans 500 spam posts off the blog?)

Andrew Davies was interviewed on NPR’s Morning Edition (thanks to Alert Janeite Jenn for the heads up). We caught a bit of it but had to turn it off before it was over. It’s the usual “Jane Austen is all about sexy sex” stuff from what we could determine. You can listen to it at the link.

Alert Janeite Susan sent us a link to an article on the series in the latest issue of Newsweek, which is most remarkable for one of the first reviews of Miss Austen Regrets.

What trumps these three Austen adaptations is the series’ bonus, “Miss Austen Regrets,” a surprisingly good fictionalized biography. Beautifully acted—especially by Olivia Williams in the title role—it focuses on the last years of Austen’s life and displays a richness and wit often missing from the new films. Austen’s novels always end with a wedding, but this biopic opens with one, where the spinster Austen is a guest. As the happy couple—her niece and her bridegroom—burst out of a picturesque country church, they pass among the gravestones. The shadow of death isn’t far in this autumnal tale as it explores the question: did the author who wrote so magically of true love regret never marrying? “This is the real world,” Austen tells another niece. “The only way to get a man like Mr. Darcy is to make him up!” Yet middle-aged Miss Austen still loves to dance, to flirt (”I’m still a cat when I see a mouse,” she says) and, most of all, to match wits. She’s had some literary success, but she and her family, like many of her well-bred characters, suffer financial misfortune. As her novels do, this film points up the precarious position of women who lived outside the security of marriage to a man of means. The house she shares with her mother and sister resembles that in “Sense and Sensibility,” which will be the final PBS film. You may wonder how this new version compares with the first-rate 1995 Ang Lee-Emma Thompson movie. Then again, comparing competing Austen films has become half the fun.

That’s because you don’t have to moderate the “comparisons.” (Not that such considerations should hamper our discussion! Keep it lively, Gentle Readers!)

With all the excitement over the Complete Jane Austen, we would like to take this opportunity to issue our periodic reminder that Jane Austen wrote six novels, not just the one with that moody Darcy git (TEAM TILNEY REPRESENT!), and if you haven’t tried them all yet, there’s no time like the present! And even after you finish the Big Six, there’s more Jane to read–let us know if you need a list.

Laurie Viera Rigler, the author of Confessions of a Jane Austen Addict, is writing a series on each of Jane Austen’s novels for About.com’s Classic Literature blog in conjunction with the films. Last’s week’s Bookblogging included her Persuasion post, and this week she wrote about Northanger Abbey.

Every era likes to marginalize certain forms of art. In Austen’s day, it was the novel (and not just the Gothic ones). Today, it might be graphic novels or romance or so-called “women’s fiction” or “chick lit” or science fiction or horror. Take your pick. Despite the snobbery, Jane Austen and her whole family were, in her own words, “great Novel-readers, & not ashamed of being so.” Nevertheless, Northanger Abbey is a hilarious send-up of just the kind of horror-and-romance-fest that Catherine Morland—and Jane Austen—liked to read. The difference between the heroine and her creator is that Catherine Morland kept expecting real life to play out like one of her favorite novels, while Jane Austen thought real life had its own set of fascinating stories to tell.

The Adventures in Reading blog has a few posts examining Persuasion, which, as many of our readers know, is our favorite Jane. The first part has an anecdote that made our jaw drop:

My sophomore year in college a classmate of mine told me about his experience with Persuasion in another class. While I cannot recall what he said the instructor had said, I do recall that he argued the novel was classist and he felt Anne Elliot was a “gold digger.”

WHAAAAAAAAT? Anne Elliot, of all people, a gold digger? Our Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness, let us show you it.

Part 2 has more reflections upon the novel–it’s always so interesting to hear from someone making their first engaged read.

Another character I have yet to mention but that plays an enormous part is Mrs. Smith. Anne knew Mrs. Smith from her school days and only knew that shortly after Anne left the school that this woman became Mrs. Smith and seemed to have married quite well. When Anne rediscovers her, Mrs. Smith is an invalid, dependent on the “kindness of strangers”, selling hand made crafts through a friend, and living most of her life in two small and shabby rooms. Mrs. Smith plays a key role in revealing Mr. Elliot’s (the cousin and heir) true character to Anne, but I will say I found her more of a remarkable character after reading about Austen’s own invalid brother. Perhaps there is no connection, but at the very least Mrs. Smith is a very interesting comparison to Lady de Bourgh’s daughter in Pride & Prejudice.

We doubt Mrs. Smith had anything to do with George Austen, but it is interesting to contrast her treatment, as someone who is genuinely ill–indeed, crippled to the point of being unable to walk–and yet bears with her infirmities and her deplorable financial situation with cheer; and (this always gets us) as poor as she is, she seeks to sell her little knitted items to do good for even poorer people. As a comparison with hypochondriacs such as Mary Musgrove, Mrs. Bennet, and, yes, Anne de Bourgh (though we have no way of knowing if she was really ill or not), and considering that Persuasion was written as Jane Austen was suffering the first symptoms of her fatal illness, Mrs. Smith is a truly amazing character.

That’s it for this week’s Friday Bookblogging, Gentle Readers, and always remember: Books Are Nice!