Tuesday Open Thread: The Horrors of Photoshop Edition
Welcome to another Tuesday Open Thread. Here’s a few links that didn’t quite make the cut for full posts over the last week for various reasons, but we thought our Gentle Readers might find them interesting anyway. Or not.
- Remember last week we posted a link to an article comparing British politicians to various characters from literature? The Daily Mail took it a step further. Dorothy will be passing out the brain bleach shortly.
- Holiday with the Wentworths
- MP99: It’s all about teh children!!!1!one!
- Why Becoming Jane is Evil, Exhibit 839204 (Head Splodey Warning)
- Which reminds us: Funniest.
BecomingExpedient Jane Review. Ever. (and here’s part 2) (It’s from a “splog,” or spam blog, which is why we screencapped rather than providing a link. They exist solely to get people to visit them and expose them to hits for ads. The modus operandi for such places is to take content from other blogs, but since authors tend to find it and demand their content be removed, it looks like they ran random words through a thesaurus program of some kind, resulting in such hilarity as “Mansfield Forest Preserve.”) - Chick lit: It’s the Brits’ fault, starting with that evil beeyotch Jane Austen (Elvis Wept Warning)
So what’s new and happening in your patch of Austenville?
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:58 am
Gar….that last entry about JA being the patron saint of chick lit….that columnist got paid good money for writing that P&P wasn’t all that different from Bridget Jones’ Diary??? Elvis wept, indeed!
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:43 am
Thank you for helping jack up the hit count on my blog, but I object to the implication that I was in any way influenced in my opinions by that “evil” movie, “Becoming Jane!” It merely prompted me to post them. Neither can I think why the post would explode anyone’s head, since I love Jane Austen’s writing as much as anyone, and have done for at least 40 years …
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:44 am
I watched Daniel Deronda (2002) over the weekend. It was chalked filled with Jane favorites.
Amanda Root - Mrs. Davilow - also Persuasion ‘95 - Anne Elliot
David Bamber - Lush - also P&P ‘95 - Mr. Collins
Hugh Dancy - Daniel Deronda - also The Jane Austen Book Club - Grigg Harris
Hugh Bonneville - the evil Grandcourt - also Miss Austen Regrets - Rev. Brook Bridges
Greta Scacchi - Lydia Glasher - also Miss Austen Regrets - Cassandra Austen and also Emma ‘96 - Mrs. Weston
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
The Becoming Jane review thing was hilarious!! And Mansfield Park kept changing name. Mansfield Afforestation, Mansfield Green, Mansfield Forrest reserve….great cure to a long day at work, thanks for that!
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Recommend some Jane Austen novels to Melissa at mfall@dailycal.org.
This was my favorite part of that horrid chick lit article. I suppose she thinks by saying that she has never read Jane Austen that she can trumpet her ignorance without fear of being told she doesn’t understand or has misunderstood the research any that any columnist ought to consider necessary.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
“… I’ve never read anything by Jane Austen, the patron saint of chick lit, but I understand the basic premise of “Pride and Prejudice,” mostly as reiterated through “Bridget Jones’s Diary.”….”
Comments:
1. Why students to be forced to read “Pride and Prejudice” at school, they will understand its “basic premise” from “Bridget Jones’s Diary” and the like.
2. Indentifying Austen’s works as “chick lit” is widespread vulgarization nowadays. Though there is romance (and passion) in her works it was not the main goal of the author, to tell someone’s love stories (Marianne’s, Elinor’s, Colonel Brandon’s, Lizzy’s, Mr. Darcy’s, Mr. Collins’s, Emma’s, Mr. Knightley’s, Mr. Elton’s, Anne Elliot’s, Captain Wentworth’s etc.), Jane Austen wrote about real lives of people.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
New thing: the Manitoba Theatre Centre in Winnipeg is putting on Pride and Prejudice this coming season! I can’t wait–I’ll probably go with a big group of JA-loving girlfriends!
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:37 pm
The grammar doesn’t even make sense in that splog. And the titles…the Mansfield ones are funny, but Boastfulness and Partiality? Consequence and Perceptibility? wtf. And oh dear lord, that article on Brit chick lit. Thanks for the Elvis Wept Warning, Mags.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:09 am
Here’s a 1999 article about MP. Someone is giving the clue-bat a good workout toward the end there! Some of these same things could apply to a few Austen films nowdays.
http://www.observer.com/node/42118
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:01 am
That chicklit piece…oy. WHY do people write pieces stating outright that they’ve never read something, and then proceed to act as though they are an expert on it?
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 am
I love the titles in the sblog — “Consequence and Perceptibility”, indeed!
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
That chicklit piece…oy. WHY do people write pieces stating outright that they’ve never read something, and then proceed to act as though they are an expert on it?”
Agreed! Modern “journalism” must be the only profession where people feel free to boldly trumpet their ignorance as they’re doing their job. After all, who wouldn’t run screaming if their doctor stated “I know nothing about, and have no interest in, the workings of the human body, but …”
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Sylvia M: I love that Rosenbaum piece where he swings the cluebat at the 1999 MP! He also wrote another piece a couple of years later, that has this great line:
“So don’t give me any of that “chick lit” crap. If you’re a guy who uses that phrase in relation to Jane Austen, I’ll tell you flatly: You’re not man enough for Jane Austen .”
In the 2002 essay, he also talks at length about Moderator Mags’ favorite Northanger Abbey and expands upon his theory of Jane Austen character types. Here’s the link to the other article for those who may be interested:
http://www.observer.com/node/46038
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Just FYI, the writer of the “chick lit” piece is not a journalist, she’s a student at the university which just happens to be my employer.
Perhaps I will have to make a new acquaintance … (hiding cluebat under coat)
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Oh, dear god. Elvis wept, indeed.
No one…no one…ever…should critique something they know nothing about, regardless of the topic. That’s just base ignorance disguised with big words and a sophomoric attitude.
And I guess I just used a big word too.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Here’s a book cover where someone obviously liked Elizabeth Bennet and Col. Fitzwilliam from P&P2!
http://www.awe-struck.net/AUTHORS8/lppage.html
July 24th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Ha ha, Sylvia! Now that’s some scary Photoshoppin’. (And didn’t Georgette Heyer write that book?)
Speaking of, I’ve been on a bit of a Heyer kick lately and it’s surprising me how much of Jane Austen’s dialogue I see in her books…seriously, phrases lifted right out.
Oh, and I meant to respond to Gillian at 2 above…
Neither can I think why the post would explode anyone’s head, since I love Jane Austen’s writing as much as anyone, and have done for at least 40 years …
Now, see, I misunderstood. I posted that in a head-shaking sort of way as to how nascent Janeites can so easily be misled by a Made Up Story. I’m now astonished that someone who has been reading Jane Austen’s books for “at least 40 years” can claim that Jane Austen could have engaged in the same sort of behavior as Lydia Bennet at around the same time she was writing P&P–in other words, it wasn’t years later when she had learned better. It’s pretty clear that she didn’t approve of Lydia’s elopement. Seriously, if you read her books closely, especially the ones written around that time (S&S and P&P), you can see that she was nothing like how she was portrayed in that movie. Marianne Dashwood and Lydia Bennet could not have written their respective novels, and if Jane Austen knew no better than those characters, neither could she.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
On yet another note, I think it’s kind of interesting that of the 10 2008 Emmy nominations that PBS’ Masterpiece received, only 2 were for a Jane Austen adaptation, Cinematography and Music for Sense and Sensibility. All the rest of the nominations were for Cranford (deservedly so, IMO.)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/classic/index.html
Hmmmm, wonder if that says anything about the quality of most of the “new” Austen adaptations? There may be closet Janeites in the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences!
July 24th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Cranford and S&S definitely deserve all these awards! I can’t wait for the Cranford continuation next year! (Mary and Jack, YES!)
By the way, Heidi Thomas did a wonderful job with the screenplay for Cranford. I would love to see her and Sue Birtwistle team up together again for a BBC four hour Persuasion! My votes for the leads are Ioan Gruffudd (Hornblower, Amazing Grace)and Lucy Brown (Miss Latimer in North and South).
July 24th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Mags, I was NOT misled. I was shaking MY head at the uproar and pointing out that something similar COULD have happened (don’t you do ever do things out of passion, or other motives, and then realize it’s ‘wrong’?). Austen does allow Lydia to come back into the family fold, after all …
And how was Elizabeth Bennett portrayed in that travesty 2005 version of “P&P”? Running around like a loon, spinning barefoot on a swing in a muddy yard (England was much colder/damper back then), running around the countryside in her nightclothes …
Movies are movies … they need to make a buck. I neither particularly liked it nor hated it, but I found it somewhat interesting. My post was in response to the responses to the film, which I found to be pretty over the top, considering no one knows that much about Austen, except from stuff she wrote.
I find it highly suspicious that most of her letters were destroyed. Writers are strange beasts and sometimes engage in certain behaviors just so they can later write about it. Clearly she never went through with an elopement, but she may have considered one.
And I have read all of her books very closely (at least once a year): all of the (main) women end up with the man they love (wishful thinking?). Even poor Lydia, with love fading to indifference, ends up in pretty good shape, considering.
Sorry for the length of this comment! I love Jane Austen, I really, really do.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I never thought about it, but Lydia and Wickham will turn out like Mr. and Mrs. Bennet. Well, except Wickham turns to other pleasures rather then books.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
I am a little bit surprised with Sense and Sensibility 2008 music nominated for Emmy 2008. Asked at the time by fans whether there would be Soundtrack released, BBC answered that there would be no Soundtrack because of no interest, so many people do not even know who the author of the music is (Martin Phipps, who composed the music for “North and South” 2004 and “The Virgin Queen” 2005). I would prefer the music for Miss Austen Regrets 2008 whose Soundtrack was long ago released and is well known to the audience.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Well, according to the 5,137 members of C19 there is plenty of interest in the North and South soundtrack! I think they would do well to make it a two or three disc Martin Phipps set with music from N&S, S&S, and P3. Actually, I don’t know if all 5,137 members would purchase it, but a good portion of them would as well as a host of others. There are constantly people asking about it.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:09 am
It’s not just the C19-ers. There are loads of comments on Youtube, the PBS discussion board and lots of different music sites inquiring about Phipps’ music. I know there was a letter writing campaign to the BBC a while back to get them to release his music. I would settle for one disc with some of the highlights!
In S&S, I especially love the piano piece that Marianne plays in Col. Brandon’s library. Someone on YT transcribed it by ear and plays it:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=f_SJdCjz5RY
And I love the music from North & South, but then again, there isn’t anything I don’t love about N&S!
July 28th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Gillian, I’m afraid you’re still not seeing that Becoming Jane is Made Up Story. As you say yourself, there’s not a whole lot known about Jane’s life–though there certainly is a lot more known about it than you seem to imply–so the fact that the filmmakers would tout this as a biopic is annoying, to put it mildly (as opposed to something like Shakespeare in Love, which was always touted as a made-up, fun look at “what-ifs”). And, the fact that both the filmmakers and yourself think that it’s impossible that a woman could write about something that she hasn’t directly experienced is insulting to Jane’s genius.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Was not the letter cited by Gillian as a comment by Jane on Tom Lefroy actually referring to the mysterious Mr Blackall, who seems to have been a potential suitor at some point? It seems rather unlikely, from her reference to him as a piece of “noisy perfection”, that she was madly in love with Mr Blackall, especially if we recall that pictures of perfection made her sick and wicked.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Gillian, you seem to say that destroying letters means the content of the letters might be suspect. From what we do know of Jane Austens life, it is more likely that Austen’s sister (destroyer of many letters written by Austen) respected Austen’s wishes of privacy and confidentiality. Jumping to such conclusions in the search for real life “inspiration” for Austen’s novels is exactly why some are shaking their heads.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Please, Zoe, I know it was a made up story. And Lori C., I see enough parallels to make some speculation plausible. I still maintain that, based on the fact that there is very little in P&P that speaks to genuine feelings of love (while there is in later books means that she came to understand what it felt like to be in love (perhaps she asked someone and that person was really, really good at describing emotion?). Are you guys writers at all? The genius in good writing is telling the story well and making it resonate with the readers. I’m not taking anything away from her genius as a writer. Haven’t you heard the adage … write what you know about? … If you don’t know, find out. Or else it shows. Anyway, the Tom Lefroy situation sounds to me a lot like Willoughby in reality and Capt. Wentworth in fantasy. What do you say to agreeing to disagree?
July 28th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
*raises hand* Writer here. Fiction and non-fiction. A great deal of my fiction is Jane Austen fan fiction, and in the process of doing that I’ve studied her novels pretty intensively and researched the time period (resulting in my non-fiction book publication).
I remember my first love–my Tom Lefroy. I was in high school. I remember the giddy, hysterical happy feeling. I also think back on it now and wonder what the heck I was thinking because the only thing the guy had going for him was that he really liked me and pursued me. We really had nothing in common. This was very much a teenage romance, of the holding hands and kissing variety. Anyway, certainly I draw on this remembrance when writing, but it would be silly to use that remembrance for writing more mature relationships. (Have I Googled the guy? Oh, yes.)
One of my stories is basically a couple on their honeymoon. Since they were married in the Victorian era when a declaration of affection led to immediate engagement and marriage after a few weeks to cry the banns, the couple spent a lot of time on their honeymoon talking about when they first fell in love with one another, etc. Someone who read it asked me if I had ever been married. (I have not.) She was surprised as she thought I really nailed the way that newly-married couples talk about their relationship to increase their emotional intimacy–a really nice compliment! How did I do it, since I had never been married? I used my imagination, combined with knowledge of the characters and my observance of the married couples I’ve known. Jane Austen was obviously extremely observant of the society around her, and no, it’s NOT too much of a stretch to say that she was able to IMAGINE a great deal, based on observation if not necessarily first-hand knowledge.
Certainly one needs to do one’s research (and there is evidence in her letters that Jane Austen did so–Frank Austen corrected her on naval matters in MP and she had Cassandra ask about hedgerows in Northampton) but there’s a big difference between getting a fact correct and just understanding how people tick and what happens when you create characters and then throw them together and stir. When it works, readers acknowledge its truth, and a masterpiece is born.
I read Jane Austen as a writer as well as a reader so maybe that’s why I am resentful of the idea that she was some sort of stenographer rather than using her imagination and intelligence to create her stories (as she was, quite literally, shown to be doing in the movie). It DOES insult her genius to imply otherwise, especially if you read the fiction of her time. Jane Austen’s work is quite clearly a leap forward in style from her contemporaries.