The Telegraph has a piece about traveling to the places where Jane Austen lived, including Bath, Steventon, and Chawton. Of Bath:

But it’s still a glorious place. When we arrived it was flooded with light and filled with teatime chatter. A musical trio played in one corner, much as their forebears must have done when the heroine of Northanger Abbey, Catherine Morland, first walked in, open-mouthed in wonder, her eyes “here, there, and everywhere”.

We weaved towards the four-headed pump spouting its warm, sulphurous waters. From the window, we caught a glimpse of the Roman Baths below. For once we had the advantage over Austen, as the great watery Temple was only properly excavated in 1897, 80 years after the author’s death.

Thank you!!!! People forget that the Roman baths weren’t a feature of Bath in Jane Austen’s time–they were aware of them but they had not yet been excavated.

After a anachronistic “Minerva Smoothie”

Anachronistic? Wouldn’t that be kind of like a syllabub?

Perhaps we expect too much from a site called “On Line Opinion” (you know what they say about opinions and a certain vulgar body part…everyone’s got one) but this fellow’s essay about God in Jane Austen’s novels is rather ill-informed even for the World Wide Web.

It is safe to say that God does not appear as a character in the novels of Jane Austen. The church is certainly present as a respectable profession for second sons, but such sons are not moved by any religious sensibility but by the necessity of obtaining a place in society.

Clergy may be enthralled to worldly prestige and goods like Mr Collins in Pride and Prejudice or simply solid and noble like Edmund in Persuasion but they do not appear to be moved by the Spirit of God. Indeed they show little difference in character to any other character in the novels.

We would recommend that the author read Irene Collins’ fine works on Jane Austen, particularly Jane Austen and the Clergy, before attempting to write upon this subject again. (We also would recommend Jane Austen, the Parson’s Daughter.) He would then be informed that all of Jane Austen’s clergymen (yes, even Mr. Collins) are very much representative of the clergy of her time. We would also recommend Irene Collins’ books for our readers as well!

Alert Janeite Mimi sent us an article from Kritik Magazine complaining about the Janeites who put Mr. Darcy on a pedestal.

There’s a difference between someone who appreciates Jane Austen and someone who wants to be Jane Austen. It’s good to use literature as an occasional escape from reality, but when fiction spills over into real life and we start to want to inhabit it—when we start assuming that life is a series of F. Darcy Balls and proposals from Colin Firth—it’s a problem.

Don’t blame Jane Austen if some of her fans get carried away. In fact, Jane Austen wrote a book about someone who took books too seriously. But we must protest and say that the vast majority of folks dressing up and going dancing at the Fitzwilliam Darcy Ball were just interested in having some fun, and that many of the young ladies on Facebook who claim they are waiting for their Mr. Darcy have their tongues firmly in cheek.

And who made Facebook a reliable barometer of society at large anyway?

Austenites airbrush Austen’s Darcy himself. They forget that the man in the book is arrogant, rude and in the end, stable and good but a little bit boring. They miss the whole point when they refuse to give second chances to the stable and boring (or sloppy or impoverished or slightly vain) men in their own lives.

We have some sympathy for this point of view, but it also misses the point of the novel. Mr. Darcy isn’t attractive because he’s rich or handsome or arrogant or shy or even because he changes himself for Elizabeth’s sake (well, maybe that last one a little bit). He’s attractive because we see him through Elizabeth’s eyes, and he is the perfect man–for Elizabeth. They are wonderfully complementary characters, which the authoress acknowledged. From the novel, Vol. III, Ch. 8:

She began now to comprehend that he was exactly the man who, in disposition and talents, would most suit her. His understanding and temper, though unlike her own, would have answered all her wishes. It was an union that must have been to the advantage of both; by her ease and liveliness, his mind might have been softened, his manners improved, and from his judgment, information, and knowledge of the world, she must have received benefit of greater importance.

While we’re not entirely sure whether the slavering hordes on Facebook are completely cognizant of that point, we think that complementary nature of Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy’s relationship is what they really are looking for. They are soul mates, and there’s not really anything magic about it.

The Times has the solution for the credit crisis! Before investing, ask yourself: What Would Jane Do?

Courtship is a risky business. In Sense and Sensibility, for example, Marianne invests much time and emotion in Mr Willoughby. He turns out to be a cad and Marianne avoids conjugal ruination only because Colonel Brandon is so forbearing.

Things are even worse in the non-fictional world. There are many Mr Willoughbys and few Colonel Brandons. Every year millions of lives are irreparably damaged by “love cheats”. Yet, scandalously, dating is almost wholly unregulated. What incompetence or corruption can explain the Government’s inaction?

[. . .]

Having made your choice and taken your chances, there are two ways that things can go wrong. The first is simple bad luck. If 20 per cent of men with Mr Willoughby’s known characteristics turn out to be cads, then 20 per cent of women with Marianne’s risk-reward preference will end up losers. If Marianne is among them, that is bad luck for her.

But there is no systematic error here that requires correction by regulation. If women who prefer the Mr Willoughby trade-off are properly informed about the risk premium - if they know how much risk they are taking for the sake of how much reward - then the gains to the 80 per cent who get lucky must exceed the losses to the unlucky 20 per cent.

The same goes for investing in bonds. A “junk bond” rated B-minus has a 10 per cent probability of default. In other words, one in ten will not be repaid in full. But, provided the risk premium for junk bonds (ie, the extra interest earned for taking this extra risk) is correct, the benefits derived from the other nine will exceed this loss.

We are alternately fascinated and repelled.

This article is probably not unexpected, with the impending broadcast of Miss Austen Regrets on UK television, but we found it a trifle strange nonetheless.

She flirts remorselessly. She wakes up with a hangover. She wisecracks with her women friends about the myriad failings of the pitiful male specimens she surveys. Sex and the City’s Samantha? Carrie? Miranda? No, Jane Austen, of course.

OHDEARJANENOTWITHTHESEXANDTHECITYCOMPARISONSAGAIN!!!!! Elvis wept, people! Something original, please!

“Your only way to get a man like Mr Darcy is to make him up,” says Olivia Williams’ Jane Austen to her niece Fanny (a sentiment echoed by my mother, who once sent me a card bearing the cheery greeting “Searching for Mr Right?” and then inside the helpful solution: “Look in fiction!”). This vehement assertion of no-nonsense realism is underlined by an obsession with money that has this Jane swinging slightly wildly between acerbic social commentator and Regency Heather Mills.

Oh, she has GOT to be kidding us. The “obsession” with money in the film was related to the fact that the Austens, as a family, had suffered several financial setbacks–setbacks, incidentally, that may have contributed to Jane Austen’s death (severe emotional distress exacerbates the symptoms of Addison’s disease). They didn’t even put them all in the film–we can’t remember the expected legacy from Uncle Leigh Perrot not coming through, but that happened around the same time that Henry’s bank failed, if memory serves. Jane was at the time in her career when she was just starting to make some decent money, and get attention in the right places–reviews by Walter Scott, the patronage of the Prince Regent–and then she fell ill, and couldn’t take advantage of it. Are we the only ones who can follow a very logical plot? Sheesh!

Besides, Heather Mills, unlike Jane Austen, can actually go out and get a job. Not that she will, but just saying.

It is, however, somewhat undercut by the drama’s central thesis: that Jane Austen was a passionate romantic, one who withdrew her acceptance of a rich young Londoner’s proposal because she wasn’t in love with him, and who regretted, till her dying day, her decision not to marry the man she loved because he was too poor.

We think she has Miss Austen Regrets confused with Becoming Jane. Surely she didn’t think that Jane regretted Brook Bridges? (In the movie, meaning–it’s doubtful she spared the guy a thought in real life).

Frankly, this whole thing sounds like it was written by Bridget Jones after a bottle of Chardonnay, except that we know Bridget suffers from writers’ block. By the end we were wondering WTFerrars it had to do with Jane Austen.

We received two wonderful quotations about Jane Austen’s work from Alert Janeites this week.

Alert Janeite James sent us this, from David Traxel’s 1898: The Birth of the American Century, “a history of the year the Spanish-American War began,” wrote James. “On page 75, when the author is trying to establish what people were reading and doing in that turbulent year, he notes:”

An English writer of genius did enjoy a revival in 1898. There is, announced a writer in the New York Times, “a veritable Jane Austen renaissance.” At least part of that renewed interest came through a general longing for a society as stable as the one she depicted so well, and admiration of the model Austen provided of how proper young women should behave.

James added, “I though it was interesting how the Times first noticed that Jane was having a renaissance 110 years ago!!!”

And journalists are still finding Jane Austen’s popularity amazing! But how did they do it in 1898 without a wet-shirt shot?

Alert Janeite Paola sent us a bit of dating advice from the February issue of Glamour magazine’s UK edition’s Dos and Don’ts section:

“Recent research reveals that two-thirds of British people perceive readers of celebrity autobiographies to be physically unattractive. So if you plan to pull on your train journey home, leave Jade Goody and Kerry Katona’s life stories at home. Our tome of choice? Pride and Prejudice - nothing says, “I’m a classy lady, but I’m looking for love”, like a bit of Jane Austen.”

What were we just saying about using Jane as a litmus test for potential lovers? Faux Janeites never prosper!

The baseball season is well under way, but here at AustenBlog World Headquarters we’re really just getting started on spring training. Just taking out the Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness, swinging it around, warming up a little. It’s been a while, but the ignorant are still out there, and need a gentle (and, we remind our more squeamish readers, completely virtual) introduction to a clue, with extreme prejudice.

First we have an Austen scholar from the Daily Record spouting off about Becoming Jane.

Such is the level of devotion shown by Jane Austen’s aficionados, that anybody planning to tell the story of the “real” Jane runs the risk of being beaten to death.

VIRTUALLY, bunky. Virtually.

Besides, we would love to see the story of the “real” Jane. Too bad we haven’t yet.

It could all be poppycock

Wait a minute…

It could all be is all poppycock

There, fixed that for you. And, oh yeah…

*beats smug superciliousness into smithereens with Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness*

We don’t know if this is really Cluebat-worthy–maybe just a love tap or two. We are, after all, still in training.

I’ve been enjoying the opportunity to escape into a simpler world through reading some of Jane Austen’s novels, a world where women occupy their time with music, needlework and walks about the grounds; where a single woman going for a ride in an open carriage with a man to whom she is not related is cause for raising eyebrows.

It’s so nice to hear no reference to global warming, the economy or the presidential campaign.

What? You get THAT from Jane Austen’s novels? For crying out loud.

For all the simplicity, the relationships remain true. Love starts with a glance and words exchanged on the dance floor, meets with obstacles and prevails in the end after being tried and tested. Nary a kiss is exchanged until the engagement. What a nice change from today, where people jump into bed with hardly a thought about the consequences.

Oh, yes. Nobody does that in Jane Austen’s novels. *coughWilloughbyElizaCrawfordMariaWickhamLydiacough*

Curiously, the authoress herself even acknowledges that in the previous paragraph. We don’t really have a problem with the article itself, we just find it curious that Jane Austen’s novels are used to illustrate it.

*love tap*

There.

(And this reminds us–we haven’t forgotten about the Golden Cluebats, we’ve just been a trifle busy lately.)

Guest post by Edward Sisson

With all the praise or criticism of the portrayals in TV and movies of Jane’s characters (and I’ve done my share of that), I wonder if readers might venture a little criticism of Jane herself (gasp) when it comes to her wonderful characters. Are there any moments in the books where you think Jane herself put a foot wrong, or struck a false note? I’m not talking about a character like Emma, who is supposed to have many faults, but a featured, good character who exhibits a trait Jane ought not to have included, or a moment that feels too contrived.

I can offer only one: Anne Elliot in Persuasion, in her visit with Mrs. Smith where Mrs. Smith discloses Mr. Elliot’s true character. They get to the subject of Mr. Elliot’s first (and at that point only) wife, and Anne comments “But was she not a very low woman?” and Mrs. Smith responds “Her father was a grazier, her grandfather had been a butcher.” And Anne does not make any comment to the effect that the woman’s father and grandfather ought not be the determinants of the woman’s own quality. This kind of snobbery, while very common in the day, does not strike me as true to Anne’s character. This exchange is included in the 1971 BBC production, but not in the 1995 movie.

A somewhat similar idea is to identify moments of behavior by some of the less-favorable characters that show a surprising good quality. What I am thinking of is the moment in Pride & Prejudice at the Netherfield Ball when Caroline Bingley cautions Elizabeth against Wickham, and Eliza brushes her off as the comment being merely snobbery about low birth, and Caroline recoiling and saying “it was kindly meant.” In the book I think this probably was not “kindly meant,” because Caroline approaches with “civil disdain,” and after her rebuff turns away with a “sneer.” But as played in the 1985 (8 not 9) BBC version (my favorite), Caroline is genuinely hurt at the rebuff, and it appears that her caution really was “kindly meant.” I’ve always liked that bit of complexity, of sprinkling in a little bit of good into a “bad” character.

Comments welcome!

Welcome to our regular Wednesday feature, Getting Local With Jane. If you’d like to meet up with some local, non-virtual Janeites, check out the listing–there might be something near you. And if you know about a local event or are organizing one, please send it in.

ETA: We just heard about this…the Colorado Springs Christian School High School in (obviously) Colorado Springs is putting on Pride & Prejudice this weekend, April 10-12 at 7 p.m.

We heard from JASNA’s Metro Kansas City Region, which is hosting a roundup discussion of PBS’ Complete Jane Austen on Sunday, April 20, “a chance to dish and dissect the latest adaptations.” The event will be at the Plaza Library in Kansas City, Missouri, 50th and Main, at 1 p.m. The event is free and open to the public.

Alert Baja Janeite sent us a link to “A Week of Georgian Delights” at the Theatre Royal in Bury St. Edmonds, Suffolk, on April 21-26, 2008. Events will include a lecture on the “Georgian Globe,” performances of Animal Magnetism, a play by Elizabeth Inchbald (of Lovers’ Vows fame), a concert of music from Jane Austen’s music collection, and other plays, readings, lectures, and family events.

The Knit*Lit Book Club of Plantation, Florida, will read Persuasion for their May meeting. They meet on the first Thursday of each month at the West Regional Library. They seem to read books that involve knitting–we suppose Mrs. Smith’s charity projects gave Persuasion the edge.

As always, if you attend any of these events and care to write up a report to share with AustenBlog readers, we’re delighted to post it.

We were amused by John Walsh’s Austenesque take on the upcoming nuptials of Coleen McLoughlin and Wayne Rooney of Manchester United.

“I wonder, my dear,” said Mrs Bennett, “if I should wear the lilac taffeta to the ceremony in Portofino and the one in Croxteth. Or if I should change into a simple cream muslin for the Merseyside nuptials. What do you think?”

“I have spent five and sixty years without the slightest impulse to offer advice on ladies’ fashions,” said Mr Bennett. “It is a little late to start now. But who else is getting married apart from our Elizabeth?”

“Have you not heard?” cried his wife. “Lizzie insists on two weddings, one in a 16th-century Italian fortress, the other in a public house in Merseyside.”

“In the name of Providence,” gasped Mr Bennett. “Why embark on such a costly and divisive plan?”

“She is concerned,” said Mrs Bennett, “about Mr Darcy’s relatives. Some of them enjoy a reputation for unruliness. Excessive consumption of ale. Disarrayed clothing. Capacious vomiting. Unbridled fornication in the – ”

“Stop!” cried Mr Bennett. “I cannot believe Darcy capable of such behaviour. Despite his initial stiffness, I warmed to him and hoped to welcome him as a son-in-law. And now you tell me…”

Go check out the whole thing, it’s pretty funny…and we would suggest that Brand Darcy has been well-established for some time now.

Women’s eNews has a great article about the public perception of Jane Austen’s work after the recent spate of film adaptations.

“Sense and Sensibility,” which concludes this Sunday, is capping off a series of new Jane Austen adaptations on PBS, mostly featuring heroines in low-cut bodices falling desperately in love and often distressed about it.

While adding to Austen’s fame, the series also seems to have stoked the image of the Regency England author as a chronicler of passionate romance and sugary patron saint of chick flicks.

“Hyacinth and amethyst adorned the landscape of her heart, betrothed to fragrant oakmoss,” began the Austen section in a February parody of famous authors by McSweeney’s, an online humor magazine.

While Shane Ryan, the parody’s writer convincingly aped the styles of Cormac McCarthy and James Joyce, his Austen was off base. Instead of Austen’s spare style, his parody seemed to be responding to the costume-drama flavor of Austen film posters.

So true–even when the film is pretty good, sometimes the publicity is downright embarrassing–think about the Nibblers VHS cover for P95, for instance. And the trailers are usually pretty laughable. Look at all the recent directors who were determined to Do Away With Bonnets In Jane Austen Adaptations! Never mind that bonnets are correct and proper for an adaptation set in the late 18th or early 19th century. They’re a CLICHÉ! We cannot have them! It’s all about perception, and the perception is often so skewed that the wonderful stories get lost beneath them.

The Editrix has her share in the conversation…

One place Austen may get a more diverse audience is online, where plenty of male Janeites can be found, says Austenblog’s Sullivan. “On the Internet, you meet people with whom the one thing you have in common is Jane Austen,” she says. “She appeals to everyone, conservative to liberal, atheists to those who are very into their religion.”

Do check out the whole article, it’s really well-done, and we’re not just saying that because we were quoted.

Birmingham bashing?

They came from Birmingham, which is not a place to promise much, you know, Mr Weston. One has no great hopes of Birmingham. I always say there is something direful in the sound.”

Thus speaks Mrs Elton in Jane Austen’s novel Emma, first published in 1816.

The lines have been quoted against Birmingham ever since, by people who do not know or have forgotten that Mrs Elton is one of Jane Austen’s most obnoxious and snobbish characters.

Well, we’ve never seen these particular lines quoted; anybody else?

Indiantelevision.com reports that Granada is shopping Lost In Austen to foreign markets at a television trade event this month.

Another new show is Lost In Austen. In the show a thoroughly modern heroine threatens to ruin one of the world’s greatest literary love stories in this reinvention of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. Hollywood actress Alex Kingston stars alongside Hugh Bonneville, Lindsay Duncan (Rome) and new Bond girl Gemma Arterton. Bored bank worker Amanda Price (Jemima Roper) literally becomes lost in her favourite Austen book, after she finds a strange portal in her bathroom and swaps places with its heroine Elizabeth Bennet.

As she gets to know the Bennet family and encounters the famous Mr Darcy (Elliot Cowan – The Golden Compass), how can she keep this celebrated romance on track?

Raise pikes and prepare to be boarded! It’s getting out!!!

Incidentally, wasn’t this supposed to be broadcast on ITV this month? We couldn’t find anything on the ITV website. Here is a page about the series.

ETA: Alert Janeite Amo posted a link to the Region 2 DVDs in comments; release date is May 12, so presumably the series will be over by then. ETA: Release date has been changed to October 6…don’t be looking for it anytime soon.

Alert Baja Janeite sent us a link to two video interviews at WETA’s Author Author blog. In the first video, Bethanne Patrick, the host of Author Author, interviews Michael Dirda, the book critic of the Washington Post, discussing Miss Austen Regrets and Jane Austen’s novels. The second video is an interview with Carol Pippen, a professor at Goucher College and the editor of JASNA News, talking about Pride and Prejudice, both the book and the 1995 miniseries. Each video is about an hour long, and we haven’t had a chance to watch them yet, but we did have an opportunity to chat over the phone with Bethanne a couple of months ago and she is delightful. (Technical difficulties have unfortunately prevented the posting of the discussion, but we remain hopeful!)

Big news in the Janeite world! A new letter from Jane Austen has been found.

As most Janeites know, Jane’s sister Cassandra burnt the larger part of the letters that Jane wrote to her, and many others that she wrote were not preserved, so every one is a treasure. This particular letter, as many did, passed from Cassandra to Fanny Knatchbull and on to her son Lord Brabourne, who sold many of the letters out of the family after publishing them. It is unclear why this particular letter was not included in Lord Brabourne’s collection.

In the letter, dated September 1816, Jane relates some news about nursing the wretched Melissa. Some of the most interesting news is that Jane Austen was an accomplished cook, and that she included hamster curry in her repertoire. We do not believe that particular dish was included in Martha Lloyd’s book of recipes, so it must have been a family recipe that Mrs. Austen, for whatever reason, did not care to pass on, or that Martha did not care to record. It also is possible that it was learned from Jane Austen’s sailor brothers, who would have learned how to cook up millers in onion sauce while midshipmen.

We’re sure Austen scholars will have much to discuss about this amazing discovery. Thanks to Very, Very Alert Janeite Sion for this incredible piece of news.

Alert Janeite Laurel Ann sent us an amusing post at Blogcritics in which Jane Austen writes to Cassandra about attending a SmashBox Cosmetics show at Fashion Week.

We drove in a black horseless carriage across broad expanses of asphalt. I was surprised to find the I-5 and I-10 freeways have as much appeal as a soggy rutted road in the middle of winter. The journey lasted ninety minutes, during which time Miss Fong and I waited in line behind other carriages as at times we were proceeding at walking pace.

We arrived at a store called Trader Joe’s and, after circling, found a spot in the car park. I begged leave to stop in at the store, (which I found preferable to Tesco). We bought Cadbury and scones as other travelers have said there is little food at the oddly named Smash Box Studios, a duchy owned by the grandsons of cosmetics duke, Max Factor.

Miss Fong and I then caught a public coach over to Smash Box Studios, where there was a long queue. There were many young women in mourning – never have I seen so much black. To my shock, a feather-haired gentleman was engaged in a mild flirtation with one of the widows. It was not until Miss Fong indicated that indeed in Los Angeles, wearing black needn’t mean they’re widows. As such, we spoke to one of the ladies at length. Sadly, I’ve concluded most of the women are spinsters.

Very clever!

Exhibit A: Sent by Alert Janeite Karen 2L, from the New York Times, March 7, 2008, referring to the author who was outed as having written a Made Up Memoir:

To the Editor:

It’s clear that Margaret Seltzer, author of “Love and Consequences,” is a gifted writer with a soaring imagination. It seems perverse, then, that she chooses to deny her destiny as a novelist.

Ms. Seltzer’s insistence that only nonfiction can “make people understand the conditions that people live in” is way off the mark.

Has she never read Charles Dickens — or even Jane Austen?

Anne Bernays
Cambridge, Mass., March 4, 2008

Exhibit B: Sent by Alert Janeites Laurel Ann and Lisa, an article about, of all things, gravel:

The sound of tires on gravel always brings to mind English manor houses on “Masterpiece Theater.” You expect a Rolls Royce to deliver over-dressed nobility into the hands of waiting domestic staff. And in Jane Austen novels, young ladies in their elaborate Victorian dress stroll along gravel lined flowerbeds.

Exhibit C: It was, perhaps, inevitable that Jane Austen would show up in reference to the hotly contested Democratic primary of the U.S. presidential race; and perhaps even more inevitable that she would show up for just about every camp.

For Barack Obama, in Slate, sent by Alert Janeite Anna:

If we were to contrast Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama we’d have to say that Clinton is one of those forgotten novelists, with an edge of rage warring in her with a penchant for excessive deference to the “divisive” politics of the past, and Obama is Jane Austen, speaking as Woolf said she did, with “freedom and fullness of expression.”

Not for Obama, from FrontPage Magazine, sent by Alert Janeite Lisa:

What in the world would a Jane Austen novel have to do with Barack Obama?

Austen’s last book which she wrote before dying is titled “Persuasion,” and in the introduction to the novel, Gillian Beers, Professor of English at the University of Cambridge, delves into the meaning of “persuasion.” According to the definitions and exploration of the word, one can’t help but think about Barack Obama. Indeed, for Barack Obama is undoubtedly a master of the art of persuasion.

For Hillary Clinton (sort of), in Newsweek, sent by Alert Janeite Deborah:

There may be a million reasons not to vote for Hillary, but the quality of her marriage is not one of them. As Charlotte Lucas says in “Pride and Prejudice,” after she makes a chillingly pragmatic union, “Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance.” She might also have said that one woman’s frog is another one’s prince—or that the glossy illusion of perfection does not insulate any marriage against inevitable struggle. She might have added that the only people who know the truth about a marriage are the two people who are in it—but she didn’t. Hillary said that.

We present the last bit in the interest of our theme of “She’s Everywhere,” and hope that it will not spawn unpleasant debate, though we have no doubt that many of our Gentle Readers hold very strong opinions on the subject.

We just noticed that I Love You Because, a modern-set, gender-switched musical retelling of Pride and Prejudice, has quietly opened (in other words, we were not informed) at the American Heartland Theatre in Kansas City, Missouri. The play runs through April 20, 2008. Tickets are $27-33.50 and available at the box office (information at the link above). If you go, send in a report!

Alert Janeites Shannon and Lisa sent us a link to an article in Playbill about the Paul Gordon musical of Emma, which will be staged in the autumn by Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park.

Many British newspapers are carrying the story this weekend of Cheryl Johnson, who claims to have experienced a personality transformation after receiving a kidney transplant. What sort of personality transplant? Glad you asked:

Now, not only has her personality changed, the single mother also claims that her tastes in literature have taken a dramatic turn. Whereas she only used to read low-brow novels, Dostoevsky has become her author of choice since the transplant.

Miss Johnson, from Penwortham, in Preston, Lancs, said: “You pick up your characteristics from your donor. My son said when I first had the transplant, I went stroppy and snappy - that wasn’t me.

“I have always loved books but I’ve started to read classics like Jane Austen and Dostoevsky. I found myself reading Persuasion.”

An excellent choice.

ETA because we are kicking ourself for not thinking of it before: would that change the quote from Rudyard Kipling’s “The Janeites” to “Well, as pore Macklin said, it’s a very select Society, an’ you’ve got to be a Janeite in your ’eart kidney, or you won’t have any success.”

…to do in this situation:

I have never read a novel. Ever. Not one. I am simply not a novel kind of person.

I can think of nothing worse than being stuck in a room with bookish people who endlessly chat on about the character of Mr Darcy in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.

All the while I would be thinking to myself: Mr Darcy does not exist. Mr Darcy is a figment of someone’s imagination. Mr Darcy never was. Mr Darcy never will be. It’s all made up!

Over the years people have tried to engage me in an interest in novels: “Bernard, you simply must read this book. You won’t be able to put it down.”

And I try. I really do. I start off all enthusiastic on the first page, but then I quickly begin to flail. Halfway down the second page that worryingly familiar feeling overwhelms me.

Someone has made this up. This is not a real situation. Even the names of the people have been dreamt up. Why am I investing my time reading about something that never happened?

And that is quote Catherine Morland.

“That is, I can read poetry and plays, and things of that sort, and do not dislike travels. But history, real solemn history, I cannot be interested in. Can you?”

“Yes, I am fond of history.”

“I wish I were too. I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing that does not either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars or pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and hardly any women at all — it is very tiresome: and yet I often think it odd that it should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention. The speeches that are put into the heroes’ mouths, their thoughts and designs - the chief of all this must be invention, and invention is what delights me in other books.”

Just ask Oprah if you don’t believe us.