And yet there are those who are allowed to wander the world and publish articles despite Mr. Tilney’s wise words. How very curious!

Several Alert Janeites sent us a link to an article in the BBC’s News Magazine titled “Jane Austen–why the fuss?” practically jumping up and down in anticipation of the Editrix swinging the Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness. Happy to oblige.

For many women Jane Austen’s appeal is encapsulated in two words: Mr Darcy.

It might not have been faithful to the book, but when Colin Firth, as Fitzwilliam Darcy, strode out of a lake in a wet shirt and breeches, in the 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, you could hear half the population applauding artistic licence.

No Cluebat yet. We actually agree with this (more on that later).

“I think she betrays her time and I’m always gob smacked by what she ignored,” says Celia Brayfield, author and lecturer at Brunel University. “She focused on such a narrow strain of human reality. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the Napoleonic War going on at the time when she was writing, she doesn’t mention it.

“There is no poverty in her novels, no corruption, ambition, wickedness or war. Yes her wit is enchanting and her human observations enduringly accurate, but the world she writes about is so tiny. I find it claustrophobic.”

Well, let’s let Jane herself swing the Cluebat today, shall we?

No poverty?

She was a widow and poor. Her husband had been extravagant; and at his death, about two years before, had left his affairs dreadfully involved. She had had difficulties of every sort to contend with, and in addition to these distresses had been afflicted with a severe rheumatic fever, which, finally settling in her legs, had made her for the present a cripple. She had come to Bath on that account, and was now in lodgings near the hot baths, living in a very humble way, unable even to afford herself the comfort of a servant, and of course almost excluded from society. (Persuasion, Vol. II, Chapter V)

No corruption?

“Certainly, my home at my uncle’s brought me acquainted with a circle of admirals. Of Rears and Vices I saw enough. Now do not be suspecting me of a pun, I entreat.” (Mansfield Park, Vol. I, Ch. VI)

No ambition?

“The very first day that Morland came to us last Christmas — the very first moment I beheld him — my heart was irrecoverably gone. I remember I wore my yellow gown, with my hair done up in braids; and when I came into the drawing-room, and John introduced him, I thought I never saw any body so handsome before.” (Northanger Abbey, Vol. I, Ch. XV)

No wickedness?

“He had left the girl whose youth and innocence he had seduced, in a situation of the utmost distress, with no creditable home, no help, no friends, ignorant of his address! He had left her, promising to return; he neither returned, nor wrote, nor relieved her.” (Sense and Sensibility, Vol. II, Ch. IX)

No war?

Young as he was, William had already seen a great deal. He had been in the Mediterranean; in the West Indies; in the Mediterranean again; had been often taken on shore by the favour of his captain, and in the course of seven years had known every variety of danger which sea and war together could offer. (Mansfield Park, Vol. II, Ch. VI)

So sorry! But thanks for playing! Have a lovely Ronco Pocket Fisherman as a parting gift!

“In recent years the one person who has done the most for Austen’s popularity is Emma Thompson,” says Williams. “She wrote the screen play for the film Sense and Sensibility and won an Oscar for it. It is the definitive Austen film and that’s largely down to her.”

We are very fond of that film, but that was more than 10 years ago. (And since seeing Brokeback Mountain, we are more convinced that it was Ang Lee who is most responsible for the beauty of that film.) It’s the books that keep most of us coming back, really.

There’s always the exception of course – and, on paper at least, Phil Hilton, ex-editor of lads’ magazine Nuts, couldn’t be more distanced from the stereotypical Austen fan. But Hilton freely confesses his love of her work and says Austen has a false reputation simply as “posh, romantic fiction”.

“She is fun, dry, ironic – as funny as any male writer out there,” he says.

“She is about more than romance, that’s just the engine that drives the plot along. Unfortunately when adapted for film and TV the good stuff often ends up on the cutting room floor in favour of a handsome actor walking out of a lake.”

Bless you, sir. Bless you.

Maybe Austen was simply very shrewd in her choice of subject, says Gill Hornby, author of Jane Austen: The Girl with the Magic Pen.

“Her novels are only about romantic love and family life and they are two of the few things that haven’t change in the world since she was alive. Both things still absorb us and annoy us in equal measure. If she’d written about the Napoleonic Wars no one would have read her books.”

Actually, Jane Austen wrote about universal truths–the mark of great literature. She chose a very small palette (two inches of ivory, remember) to work upon. The first instinct of many writers is to write upon the grand scale, the big epic, but the modern novel does tend to work best on a small scale, often domestic. They best succeed when the truths of the small scale can be enlarged to the wider world, and Jane Austen’s novels succeed on those terms tremendously.

The Guardian also visits the eternal Why-Jane-Austen question with an article by Kathryn Hughes, who says it’s all about the Benjamins. (We suppose technically it would be all about the Her Majestys, but you know what we mean.)

Think what it would be like if, in the same week that your father dies, a cousin you hardly know insists that your house now belongs to him. Then imagine that he offers to marry you and even suggests that your sisters might like to stay. Faced with such a scenario in Pride and Prejudice, it’s no wonder that Lizzy Bennet didn’t want to wed Mr Collins

She was faced with that scenario? Mr. Bennet died? Mr. Collins kicked them out? Suggested her sisters might like to stay? Is this Jane Austen or the Brothers Grimm? For crying out loud.

“My dear, do not give way to such gloomy thoughts. Let us hope for better things. Let us flatter ourselves that I may be the survivor.”

Poor Mr. Bennet.

Austen’s philosophy might be summed up as that of a canny pragmatist: don’t marry for money, but marry where money is.

Well, yes–but not necessarily a great fortune. Enough to live on is all that is required. Think of Elinor and Edward in S&S–they waited till Mrs. Ferrars came round and gave Edward ten thousand pounds. Hardly a great sum, but enough to ensure their comfort.

MSN Movies gets into the act with an article titled, Why Aren’t We Bored of Jane Austen Yet? Finally, someone gets it! (Almost!)

Despite the fact that there is almost two hundred years between the Regency period and our Information Age, Jane Austen is as relevant today as she was when she was alive. The film Becoming Jane shows us a world of wedded bliss or disastrous marriage; where people are looking for love, falling in love, falling out of love, suffering rejection, hunting ‘the one’ (finance and social standing a crucial criteria) and getting involved in passionate encounters…and we’re still doing it today. We just don’t bow or curtsy.

Jane Austen says something to academics and those of a literary bent, drawn to her economical style of writing, dry wit, sharp observations and rich characterisation. But more importantly, she continues to speak to a mainstream audience captivated by costume dramas, seeking escapism in a bygone era of bonnets, bows, breeches and heaving bosoms…The day we become bored of Jane Austen is the day we become bored of human foibles, frailties and the frustration of relationships, both familial and romantic.

*cheers, tosses rose petals*

ETA: We were so excited by the last sentence that we really skimmed over the “escapism” bit. Not so much. But still, after the above this is practically a relief.

Speaking of the continuing fascination with The Darcy, the Editrix was quoted in an article for the Columbia News Service about Jane Austen sequels.

“If it has Darcy in the title they go crazy,” said Maggie Sullivan, the creator of AustenBlog and author of “The Jane Austen Handbook.” “I do think it goes back to Colin Firth” in the miniseries.”

See? We really do think it’s all about Colin Almighty. (And we like him, too, so we understand.)

Sullivan said sometimes she used Darcy in the title of her posts just to see how many more hits the name garners.

Team Tilney loves to tease Team Darcy, you know. 😉

Thanks to Cub Reporter Tasha and Alert Janeites Julie, Maria, Franka, Zoe, Helen B, Amo, and Kathleen for sending the links!