The British are asking, in that inimitably polite British manner, if they can have credit for the Great American Pastime. After all, as we Janeites already know, the first mention of “base ball” in a novel occurs in the first chapter of Northanger Abbey, written between 1798 and 1803 and published posthumously in 1817:

Mrs. Morland was a very good woman, and wished to see her children everything they ought to be; but her time was so much occupied in lying-in and teaching the little ones, that her elder daughters were inevitably left to shift for themselves; and it was not very wonderful that Catherine, who had by nature nothing heroic about her, should prefer cricket, base ball, riding on horseback, and running about the country at the age of fourteen, to books — or at least books of information — for, provided that nothing like useful knowledge could be gained from them, provided they were all story and no reflection, she had never any objection to books at all.

Now, with the wrap-up of the World Series (won by the Philadelphia Phillies, the World [Expletive Deleted] Champions–and how do we know the Phillies are the World [Expletive Deleted] Champions? BECAUSE CHASE UTLEY SAID SO!), author Julian Norridge is making a case for the British invention of baseball in his book, Can We Have Our Balls Back, Please? (article charmingly illustrated by a photo of Brad Lidge of the Philadelphia Phillies, the World [Expletive Deleted] Champions). He uses the mention of baseball in NA as well as references to baseball in a young man’s diary from 1755 to make his case.

He argues in his book that the reference indicates British people were familiar with the sport prior to its supposed invention much later in the United States.

“There’s no doubt it was being played in Britain in the late 18th century, and equally no doubt that it traveled to America,” he writes.

The Telegraph and Fanhouse also have articles. (Note to the Telegraph: That’s General Abner DOUBLEDAY, not Graves, who didn’t really invent baseball.)

It should also be pointed out that Mrs. Tilney, Catherine Morland as was, totally picked the NL East this year. Not that we’re, you know, rubbing it in or anything.

Thanks to Alert Janeites Lisa and Zoe for sending the CNN link.

The Jewish Daily Forward is reporting that a six-part, Hebrew-language adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, set in 21st-century Israel, will be broadcast on the Israeli cable provider Hot (!) next summer.

In the series, the tempestuous romance between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy will now take place between characters named Alona Sadeh and Nimrod Artzi, the latter recast as a high-tech worker rather than a stuffy landowner. The production will be scripted and directed by Irit Linor, who recently completed a new Hebrew translation of “Pride and Prejudice” and who previously translated Charles Dickens’s “Nicholas Nickleby.” Prime-time soap opera veteran Yael Hadar and stage and TV actor Dan Shapira will play the romantic leads.

Six parts! Elizabeth as heroine! Take that, ITV!

Welcome to Friday Bookblogging, our weekly (well, most of the time) feature in which we round up news about Jane Austen’s novels, books about Jane Austen’s novels, books inspired by Jane Austen’s novels, and anything related to books and Jane Austen.

Ivy Farguheson reviews Sense and Sensibility (yes!) in the Indiana Star Press.

The story begins with the Dashwoods, Marianne and Elinor among them, discovering that, after the death of their father, the girls’ half brother, John Dashwood, will be the heir of the home. After his wife’s passive aggressive nature causes the women to move with their mother to a cottage on another relative’s land, the two elder girls, Marianne and Elinor, discover what love truly is and how to react to its complex nature.

The topic is as serious today as it was 200 years ago and a look in the self-help aisle of any bookstore will make that clear. But through Austen’s characters, especially Mrs. Jennings, the old woman who makes it her job to know everything about everyone else’s love life, comedy eases the anxiety felt by the sisters and the readers. Love may or may not be given to the girls by the end of the book, but for certain, they will remain strong in who they are.

Alison Flood is all for literary crushes, but doesn’t get the Darcy thing.

Lots of people seem to have a thing for Mr Darcy – I never got that one, his broodiness always struck me as a little dull

Anyone care to enlighten her? (Don’t ask us, we are Team Tilney!)

How come Jane Austen’s books aren’t on the not on the list of “laugh out loud” fiction?

Jane Austen, whom Kelly adds as an afterthought at the end of his post, also wrote some great comedy: I laughed a lot louder when I read Emma than when I read Catcher in the Rye, which a lot of commenters suggested.

That’s because the New York Times is a bunch of phoneys!

That’s it for this week’s Friday Bookblogging, Gentle Readers; until next time, never forget: Books Are Nice!