Review by Laurel Ann

Author Syrie James’s personal and professional accomplishments serve her well in her reverent presentation of The Lost Memoirs of Jane Austen. Her website brims with such a diversity of talents that one does not question why she is qualified to write about such a sensitive subject, but rather why she waited so long! Even Jane Austen’s discerning character Mr. Darcy might consider her one of the 12 most accomplished women of his acquaintance.

Breaching the hollowed halls of Jane Austen paraliterature is a daunting task for none but the stout-of-heart and thick-of-skin writer. Mrs. James wears her Austen-armor well and delivers a sincere and honest love story that will engage and delight most Jane Austen devotees, and raise an inquisitive eyebrow of the Austen purists. Her Jane is real and approachable, flesh and bone, human and fallible; — not the stour judgmental old maid envisioned in the 19th-century portraits. We feel her troubles, her joy, her pain, understand her life decisions, and appreciate her all the more for it.

It is not often that this discerning reader can offer unqualified praise, so I will not break my streak. Five Austen stars!

AustenBlog is giving away three copies of The Lost Memoirs of Jane Austen by Syrie James. This drawing is for U.S. residents only. To be entered in the drawing, please send your full name and mailing address to editor@austenblog.com by 10 p.m. Eastern time, Wednesday, November 21, 2007. (The contest is closed early, because the Editrix is an idiot who doesn’t know what day it is.)

Review by Erin

“Cheer From Chawton” is a one-woman, one-act show by Karen Eterovich about the life and work of Jane Austen. The play takes place at Chawton Great House in December of 1815; the Austen clan has gathered to put on their own production of Pride and Prejudice, with Jane as Mrs. Bennet/ Narrator. Once onstage, however, the authoress is unhappy to discover that her family has laid a trap—instead of performing P&P, Aunt Jane is going to answer some questions about her life.

It’s a fun premise, allowing for a few instances of “audience participation” throughout the show, but it’s mostly, as Ms. Eterovich herself puts it, “stand-up with Jane.” And yes, it is incredibly witty and entertaining. Karen Eterovich portrays Jane Austen with boundless reserves of energy, humor, and heart. There is nothing flat or one-dimensional about her performance—she swings effortlessly from teasing her brother to musing about the limitations of life as a woman in the nineteenth century, wrapping it up with one of those sharp, witty remarks from the letters. I will willingly give the highest compliment I can think of: Karen Eterovich does credit to Jane Austen over the course of her hour onstage.

There are three pre-arranged “family members” planted in the front row of the audience, and because I am involved in the theatre department and emailed one of my professors the moment I found out the show was coming to Hanover, I was lucky enough to get to be Fanny Knight. This means I got to see the show twice—once at the tech rehearsal and once on the actual performance night—and it definitely held up to two viewings. It also means that I got to meet Ms. Eterovich, and she could not have been kinder. Even though we “Austens” only had a handful of lines each, she made sure we understood the character backgrounds, how we were related to Jane and each other, and where the relationships stood at that particular moment in time. She was excited when she found out I was a Janeite, and we were able to talk a little Jane before and after the show (and she was very gracious as I got all shy and tried not to sound too stupid in front of the woman who, for a living, has toured all over the US and England pretending to be Jane Austen; I mean, how cool is that job?) Ms. Eterovich was also good enough to give a period comedy workshop for some of the theatre students the morning before the show, in which she stressed the value of good and thorough research, something that shows in her production.

The show centers around excerpts from a variety of Jane Austen’s works, naturally beginning with the one everyone is familiar with: Pride and Prejudice. The rest of the performance, though, highlights some of the lesser known writings—Northanger Abbey, “Henry and Eliza” (one of my favorite pieces of Juvenilia, executed with perfect silliness), Lady Susan (delightfully vicious), and the letters from 1796 relating to Tom Lefroy. Ms. Eterovich makes the interesting choice to read the “my tears flow as I write at the melancholy idea” letter in a completely straightforward manner, no mockery and all sadness. It’s a choice, though, that allows her to demonstrate a greater dramatic range and touch on the topic of romance without going over the top.

The best part of the show was realizing that I was in a whole room full of people who were laughing at something Jane Austen had written. There was a little girl across the aisle from me who was cracking up at “Henry and Eliza;” this was probably her first exposure to Jane Austen. There were a few JASNA members, professors, and Janeites there, but a large number of the audience got the experience that night of realizing that there is more to Jane Austen than they had realized. Several of the questions in the Q&A afterward were variations on, “Was Jane Austen really that lively?” It was fantastic. If you ever have the opportunity to see “Cheer from Chawton,” do not miss it.

Future dates for Cheer From Chawton can be found on the Love Arm’d Productions website. –Ed.

Review by Diana Birchall

The Jane Austen boom heats up with the arrival of screenwriter/director Robin Swicord’s deft and funny adaptation of Karen Joy Fowler’s popular novel. Six women who form a book club to read their way through Jane Austen’s novels may sound like a recipe for a summer nap, but Swicord’s charming comedy is bright and alert. A bitingly funny opening montage shows the irritating overload of computers and cell phones gone mad in modern city life, and we immediately understand why the book club members need to escape into the Austen canon for solace. Ironically, their fraught lives find their own reflection in the books – Sylvia (Amy Brennerman), whose husband is having an affair, trembles at the infidelities in Mansfield Park; her charmingly accident prone lesbian daughter Allegra (Maggie Grace) is drawn to the duality of Sense and Sensibility; and Grigg (Hugh Dancy), the group’s one male member, is an adorable modern day Mr. Darcy as computer nerd. The ensemble’s hilariously disparate characters have a warm chemistry together and are impressive individually. Amy Brennerman’s emotionally wrenching Sylvia is tenderly supported by the expressive Maggie Grace as her daughter, and Maria Bello is outstanding as a ditz who’s emotionally lavish with her dogs but unavailable for relationships. Swicord, employing lively, vibrant camera work and joyously colorful settings, orchestrates the unlikely spectacle of actors doing lit crit with jokes, with such seemingly effortless verve as to put us, as Jane Austen said, in “dancing, laughing, exclaiming spirits.”

Our Gentle Readers will recall that we posted a request from Caroline for assistance in defraying the cost of obtaining a copy of this 1960s Dutch television adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. Caroline was able to see the film at the national television archives, and the following is her review of the film. –Ed.

I watched De Vier Dochters Bennet, a Dutch adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, at the national tv archives the other day. As the title (The Four Daughters Bennet) suggests, Kitty has been cut, but Mary takes over some of her functions, such as coughing. Georgiana is also (physically) absent, but that didn’t affect the story much. The six-part mini-series is based on Cedric Wallis’s screenplay used for the 1952 and 1958 British productions, but the credits claim it was adapted rather than translated, so there might be some changes. It was undoubtedly set in England though, as the characters asserted from time to time. Apart from the language, the only Dutch element I noticed was a poffertjespan at the Lambton Inn.

The framework was nicely done in my opinion, each episode starting with one of the Bennet girls’ diaries. There was no letter: instead Darcy explained himself to Lizzy right after the proposal, and it made a very interesting scene. Another extra bit I appreciated was the bartering scene between Darcy and Wickham. The actor did an excellent job there portraying a calculating bastard! Overall the script was decent and pretty faithful to the book, with some quaint inventions like a running gag about the size of Mr Collins’s French beans. I thought it did have a decidedly feminist streak, with Lizzy complaining about how women can do nothing but sit around waiting for a husband, etc. Some of lines were quite literal translations and they sounded a bit stilted and archaic at times. But well, it’s from 1961. The only thing I really disliked about the script was the P&P0-like twist on Lady Catherine at the end. *rolls eyes* According to Darcy she thought Lizzy was an obnoxious ill-bred little hussy, but she nonetheless was looking forward to crossing swords with her for the rest of her life. As If. (more…)

Review by Diana Birchall

Since little is known about any romance Jane Austen may have had, it’s safe to speculate, and screenwriters Kevin Hood and Sarah Williams have crafted a fantasy in which the not-yet-great novelist nearly elopes with Tom Lefroy, a penniless Irishman given to pugilism and bawdry. Director Julian Jarrold has delivered an overlong film with an uncertain portrayal of its heroine at its superficial heart. Irritatingly, it’s peppered with quotes from Austen’s still unwritten novels improbably stuck in the mouths of her family members. Playing the young genius with a blend of bland insipidity and sophisticated lip gloss that will exasperate even the most tepid Janeite, Anne Hathaway lacks chemistry with the puckish, eyebrow-wiggling James McEvoy as her ill-matched lover.* This gives plenty of room for minor characters such as the impressive, eagle-browed James Cromwell as Rev. Austen and Julie Walters in a Mrs. Bennet-like turn as Mrs. Austen, to steal scenes. Maggie Smith has been rolled out to play the requisite fictional elderly dragon lady, and Anna Maxwell Martin as Jane’s sweet sister Cassandra is also noteworthy. The film is unfailingly pretty, despite a sense of hollow uncertainty that keeps us from being swept into involvement with its principal lady. Fortunately, as a saving grace it rises to a bittersweet, tear-inducing ending. This almost makes you forget the conceptual shakiness of a theme that indicates disappointment in love was the catalyst that made Jane Austen what she became.

*Personally I cannot separate him in my mind from the alarmingly creepy Faun he played in the Narnia movie, but he at least acted very well, while Hathaway has only two expressions, both uninteresting and not remotely indicative of Genius. The first expression says, “I am pretty, especially my dark eyes. There, they are exquisitely made up right now, and I will gaze at the camera deeply and soulfully for two full minutes, and you can have a nice look at them, lucky you.” The second expression says, “All right, you’ve seen how pretty my eyes are. Now I must do some acting.” She thereupon looks down, so the eyes are slightly concealed, and puckers her forehead a little in consternation. There’s a third one, actually, but it has to do with the artful application off camera of gobs of translucent lip gloss. It’s strongly related to the first expression, though.

(Regular AustenBlog readers will remember Diana Birchall’s report on the Becoming Jane script, which was quite positive. Of her changed opinion upon seeing the finished product, Diana tells us, “You may remember that I read the screenplay a year or so ago when it was by Kevin Hood alone, and thought it was extremely, impressively good. Now in the press notes I see that the screenplay is credited to Sarah Williams and Kevin Hood, and it is infinitely less good. Draw what inferences you will, but these things do happen on the way to the big screen.” –Ed.)

Review by academichussy

Most books that deal with Jane Austen in some regard that are not mainly academic or at least well researched tend to fall flat on their faces. And Austenland by Shannon Hale is no exception.

Ms. Hale, who up till now wrote young adult books and is making the move to adult fiction, hasn’t really quite grasped the concept of “adult” fiction. The advanced reading copy is a mere 195 pages from start to finish and I finished the book in a few hours. The premise, about a young woman dreaming of her own Mr. Darcy (and who seriously hasn’t?) seems to lack the sophistication that an adult book should have. The main character, Jane, is supposedly in her early 30s, but there is no depth to her and her actions sometimes feel as though she IS indeed a teenager struggling with her hormones. At times I felt like I was imagining Jane popping big pink pieces of bubblegum and twirling her hair around one finger.

The concept, I’ll give Ms. Hale, is a good one. It was an idea I had been toying with myself (as I’m sure that there are others that have toyed with the same), but overall, the book is just one big piece of fluff with very little substance. And call me pedantic, but on the very first page she refers to Jennifer Ehle not by name but as the “comely, busty English actress.” Ehle, as we know, is an American despite the fact that she’s lived and worked in London for many years.

Either way, it’s not that this little gem is a bad read, but if you love Jane Austen or are even remotely familiar with the Regency era, this is just crap. They are also cross-promoting the book in the YA market, which makes sense to some degree, but seriously, knowing how huge the Austen-pop culture has become, why on earth are they marketing this for adults when it is clearly not geared to us?

Review by Diana Birchall

Laurie Viera Rigler’s Confessions of a Jane Austen Addict is forthcoming from Dutton in August. I’ve just finished reading an advance copy, and thought you would like to hear about it as it’s quite a charming novel. You may be put off by hearing that it’s a form of “time travel” novel, which conjures up images of Harlequin romances where our heroine gets boinked by a Regency dude, but disabuse yourself - this is the luxury model of the genre. The difference is that Rigler writes beautifully and is a true genuine Austen addict herself, with the result that when she does the early 19th century characters, the purist doesn’t wince. Equally engaging is her 21st century American heroine and narrator, Courtney Stone, who finds herself in the body and life of a nineteenth-century woman named Jane Mansfield. Courtney’s sharp and slangy modern young sensibility contrasts piquantly and amusingly with the new (or old) world where she finds herself. Rigler has an excellent eye for period detail, and is able to produce a highly effective novelistic “you-are-there” experience. The heroine’s reactions to the realities of 19th century life, not just the cumbersome bathing methods and medical horrors but the behavior and assumptions of the people she is suddenly forced to live with, are extremely vividly told. To travel with Courtney as Jane into the world of another Jane (and they do come briefly and satisfyingly face to face) is quite pleasurable, and I’d have no hesitation about recommending this book to those who’d enjoy a lightly and deftly orchestrated visit to 1813.

Cindy C. wrote to tell us that she finally got to see the Asolo Repertory’s stage production of Pride and Prejudice, and has posted her review on her Livejournal.

I would encourage any JA fan in the area to go, to a matinee if you must. Yes, some of the dialogue is turned around, but not to the point where you sit there and say “huh?” And some things, for the sake of expediency, are shortened or combined, but not enough to totally annoy any good student of P&P. Our critic said there was too much narration for his liking, and I did find that a bit irritating toward the end (Lizzy is the narrator), but overall, it was fun.

That said, I was in the ladies’ room at intermission (which is short) and overheard girls from my son’s school. They all agreed that the actress playing Elizabeth was much too old for the role. “What is she supposed to be, like 23?” one of them asked another. “I think she looks closer to 30!” Which is old for teenage girls. The actress actually looks and sounds like a young Kathleen Turner. My son, Jon, said her voice was too low for Lizzy.

The standouts among the cast were Mr. Collins (who had the bandiest legs!), Mr. Bennet and his sarcasm, which the kids loved, getting all his little snide remarks, and Mrs. Bennet. The students seemed to enjoy her nerves as much as she did. The Bennet parents also got one of the best laughs of the day, even before the punchline, during the “An unhappy alternative is before you” scene.

This made us wonder why we didn’t get such good field trips at our Young Ladies’ Seminary of Higher Education….

There’s nothing like watching the show with a couple hundred teenagers to make one smile. All the girls wanted Lizzy to say ‘yes’ at Hunsford, and they were quite vocal about it, too. And Hunsford was in two parts. We see Darcy tell Lizzy that he ardently admires and loves her, and then there is intermission. The second act opens with the two still in discussion, and there were many audible sighs when Darcy got down on one knee.

And there was eye candy for all - Lydia’s gowns showed quite a bit of cleavage from where we were seated on the mezzanine level, and the roll-on bed platform also shows Lydia and Wickham living together in London. Both are partially undressed and Lydia climbs into bed with him as the platform is pulled back into the wings. That got a lot of catcalls. And btw, Wickham shows every outline of his body in his regimentals, if you know what I mean….

Oh, we think we do!

Review by TeresaAF

I am reminded of a story: young woman meets handsome though unpromising young man whom she promptly abandons for what she assumes is a sure thing, only to discover soon after that the sure thing was more to her detriment than to her benefit.

The above is not from Jane Austen’s Persuasion; it is a story out of my own life, and I would certainly never presume to fancy myself as having the sweetness of temper of Anne Elliot or that my hopeless young man even remotely resembled in Frederick Wentworth in word or deed.

Yet Paula Marantz Cohen gives us a good balance in Jane Austen in Scarsdale or Love, Death, and the SATs by replicating a similar Persuasionesque situation, though not necessarily feeling obligated to fashion her heroine into the identical image of Sir Walter Elliot’s second daughter. (more…)

Jessica Irene attended a booksigning by Pamela Aidan, author of the Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman series, at Third Place Books Lake Forest Park, Seattle, Washington, on January 17, 2007, and was kind enough to send AustenBlog a report and photos. Click on the thumbnails to see larger versions of the photos.

Pamela started the evening with asking for shows of hands of how many present were Jane Austen lovers. The audience of about 35 women raised their hands. She asked how many felt P&P was their favorite; most raised their hands. Then she asked how many felt Persuasion was their second favorite, and about a third raised their hands (I raised mine as well, though Persuasion is my very first favorite). She then told us that we were in good company, that this was exactly the way she felt, this love for Darcy and Elizabeth; she had first read Jane in high school and had “fallen in love”, seeing Jane’s novels as her “comfort books”. In 1995 she saw the A&E version of P&P, which she said started a “Jane Austen revival and explosion” and she felt she “could not get enough of the film” and “wanted more”. (more…)

Review by Heather L

I approached this play as a fan of Northanger Abbey and an observer of its dramatic adaptations. When considering various radio, film, or stage productions, I ask the following: How does this adaptation approach the original text (faithfully, or does it offer a different interpretation)? Does it encourage a first-time viewer to read the novel? Will it enhance the enjoyment of those who are already familiar with its source?

I’m happy to report that Northanger Abbey: A Romantic Gothic Comedy, dramatized by Lynn Marie Macy and directed by David Scott, provides a faithful yet innovative interpretation which can be enjoyed by all viewers. Their attention was well spent on a close reading of both Northanger Abbey and The Mysteries of Udolpho, careful depiction of the characters, and witty interpretation of Jane Austen’s original dialogue. While very few scenes from Northanger Abbey have been left out, so many favorites have remained that the inevitable omissions are forgivable. New scenes honor the spirit of the novel; for example, the charming conclusion brings to mind that “to begin perfect happiness at the respective ages of twenty-six and eighteen is to do pretty well.” (more…)

Review by Liz M

Bravo to the Calvin College theater department for their production of Sense and Sensibility!

This play was an original adaptation by Stephanie Sandberg and Heather Leigh Brown, who were respectively the director and costume designer for the piece. As adaptations go, it was more or less successful. The storyline was mostly intact, and the only major casualties were the minor characters — there was no Margaret Dashwood, [not the first time poor Margaret’s been sunk–Ed.] no Sir John and Lady Middleton, no Anne Steele, and no Mr. and Mrs. Palmer. The beginning of the play was significantly compressed — Mr. Dashwood died, John and Fanny Dashwood descended upon Norland, Edward Ferrars courted Elinor Dashwood, Fanny warned off Mrs. Dashwood, and the Dashwoods decamped to Barton in the space of about ten minutes — so audience members who had not previously read the novel were probably rather confused. And without the Palmers, poor Marianne had to be deathly ill in an inn between London and Barton.

The time period for the play was 1795, and the costume crew came up with some lovely costumes. A few of the men looked as though they had wandered in from a Dickens novel by mistake, but the women’s gowns were well done — mostly in the slightly lower-waisted style of P&P3 rather than the high-waisted style of P&P2.

The actress who played Marianne was my favorite of the group. She nailed the characterization of a melodramatic teenager, and she really threw herself into the emotional breakdown after being spurned by Willougby at the ball.

The actress who played Fanny Dashwood was an audience favorite — her scenery chewing got some of the best laughs. In her fit of anger after Lucy reveals that she is engaged to Edward, Fanny chases Lucy around the stage while wielding a feather duster, and wins by dragging Lucy around by her topknot — it was especially funny to watch because Fanny was about a foot shorter than Lucy.

Colonel Brandon had a smaller part, but he made the most of it, especially scenes where he was present but did not speak — you could see him constantly watching Marianne and being wounded every time she paid attention to Willoughby. One nice little bit: First Mrs. Jennings trying to push the Colonel and Marianne together by urging them to play a duet, only to have Marianne say she does not know any; then a couple of scenes later, Colonel Brandon in the Dashwoods’ parlor, watching as Marianne and Willoughby play a duet. Poor Colonel!

Willoughby was unfortunately a bit wooden. He wasn’t quite convincing as the almost too ideal romantic hero in the first act of the play, but he improved in the second act as the revelations of Willoughby’s flaws made him more of a real person and less of a caricature.

In addition to entertaining their audience, the folks at Calvin also try to educate them — for your reading pleasure during intermission, the lobby had several informational displays including biographical information about Jane Austen, rules of 19th Century courtship, matrimony and finance, and the art of letter writing. There were also posters about the set, costume, and lighting design.

So if any AustenBlog readers are in or near Michigan, I would recommend Calvin College for high quality theater productions. The remaining performances of Sense and Sensibility are sold out, but if we’re lucky perhaps they’ll adapt one of the other novels.

Review by Claire

In general, annotated editions are the province of the true devotees, those who genuinely want to know if, say, it really was foggy on the morning of April 4, 1878, as Dr. Watson said it was when he and Holmes ventured out on the case of the blue carbuncle. This presents a challenge for an annotated Austen, since her works are famous for lack of specificity about dates and current events. Sadly, it is a challenge to which David Shapard’s Annotated Pride and Prejudice rarely rises.

When the notes are used to explain social customs, or words no longer in common use, they are quite useful and even amusing. We learn about fashions in card games, men’s coats, landscaping, and travel destinations. Occasional references are made to Austen’s letters, and to other writers of the time. The latter are especially helpful, since often those other writers are more or less unknown now. I had never heard before that when Elizabeth declines walking with Darcy and Bingley’s sisters by saying “the picturesque would be spoilt by admitting a fourth,” she is actually referring to a specific critic’s notions of how many cows belong in a picture together. My enjoyment of P&P has certainly been improved by the thought of Mr. Darcy, Miss Bingley, and Mrs. Hurst as a group of idyllic cows.

Unfortunately, the opportunities for notes such as these are not abundant, and Shapard, apparently abhorring a vacuum, has filled the rest with commentary on Austen’s characterization and use of irony. These notes simply state the obvious. I find it hard to believe that anyone who would buy the Annotated P&P needs to be told that, for example, “The formal and long-winded phrasing of [Mr. Collins’] letter, along with its obsequious substance, give a good hint of his character.” Or that “Elizabeth is being sarcastic” when she says that Darcy has no defect. Instead of these repetitive comments, I would have preferred to see notes on other scholarly opinions on the work, but there were almost none.

It is possible that I am simply wrong about the intended audience for the Annotated P&P. I had expected a meaty, obsessive tome, but that could easily scare off beginning Austen readers. If happy viewers of P&P3 are inspired to pick up this edition, it might be helpful in teaching them to appreciate the source material.

Review by TeresaAF

Among the plethora of Jane Austen novel retellings, sequels, and completions, there are several things that irritate me and other Janeites to no end. Capital amongst these offenses has to be misspelled names and places. These stories are often peppered with various misspellings of the surname “Bennett” or of the Darcy estate “Pemberly,” which I find especially hard to forgive.

Thankfully, Sally Smith O’Rourke, author of The Man Who Loved Jane Austen, (not to be confused with the novel of the same name by Ray Smith) seems to have taken great care to not infuriate us by getting the spelling of these names correct. Unfortunately, the author chose to populate her story with character names straight out of Jane Austen’s own books or from among her Chawton relations. (more…)

Alert Janeite Sylvia kindly sent us some comments on the stage version of Pride and Prejudice recently staged at the University in Klagenfurt, Austria. We understand that a few AustenBloggers were fortunate enough to attend. –Ed.

This week saw the extraordinary occasion of a stage performance of P&P by the INEPT theatre group at the university in Klagenfurt/Austria, I dare say extraordinary in the German language area.

And the best thing: I was there!!! *happy dance* I am also very happy to share some (first) impressions with you. (more…)

Review by Allison T.

Dear Jane,

R U THERE? R U LISTENING? GR8! Now, will you just toddle on over to Mount Olympus and borrow a few teeny-tiny thunderbolts from Jove and zip them off post-haste in the direction of The Dashwood Sisters’ Secrets of Love, by Rosie Rushton?

O migod, life is so harsh for the Dashwood girls! I mean, their dad left their mum to marry this bimbo, Pandora, with silicone boobs and a very demanding aura. Ellie, the eldest sister, still hasn’t had a real romance at the incredibly advanced age of seventeen and a few months, while Abby, blessed with bigger boobs than her elder sister, goes through boyfriends at the rate of one every few weeks, and Georgie seems to be a hopeless tomboy at thirteen. Then Dad dies & the mazzuma is all gone and the girls and their mother are forced to go live in a little cottage in Norfolk–no all-night raves, no clubs, no department stores!–and attend a state school (public school for Americans). Way harsh! Then Abby meets this cute drummer, Nick, but although she likes him at first, she doesn’t like like him, if U know what I mean, and then she meets this XSively cool guy, Hunter, who seems to have a lot of money although his dad is being investigated for fraud but she doesn’t care about that because she really like likes him, and then he wants her to, you know, prove it and then, well… (more…)

We asked Robin Hutchinson, a regular AustenBlog commenter and university librarian, to review After Jane, since he takes great delight in bibliographical tools and wields them on our behalf on a regular basis. –Ed.

After Jane: A Review of the Continuations and Completions of Jane Austen’s Novels by Jennifer Scott (Privately Published: Second Edition, 2006.) http://www.lulu.com/content/217902

After Jane is an annotated bibliography of Jane Austen sequels (or, continuations and completions). In the introduction the author clearly states the scope of the work; what is to be included and what is not. Included are published sequels to Jane Austen’s novels and other works. Excluded are fictional treatments of Jane’s life, such as the series by Stephanie Barron, and works that only incidentally use names or locations from the canon but are not true sequels. The second type of exclusion is by format and is more serious. (more…)

We received the following review from a Dear Friend of AustenBlog, Kathleen, who is a Ph.D. candidate in history and a Regency re-enactor with a particular interest in period costume and musical instruments (and also one of the funniest and most fun people we know; she once attended a party at AustenBlog World Headquarters in full Regency regalia, tripping up the sidewalk on a Sunday afternoon as the neighbourhood guttersnipes stared slackjawed. It was quite a sight). We alerted her to the possibility of free passes to the film, and she sent the following review with permission to post it on AustenBlog. It contains spoilers, so read at your own risk. (more…)

Alert AustenBlog Reader Sumita went to the event at Coliseum Books in New York City today featuring Karen Joy Fowler, the author of The Jane Austen Book Club. Sumita was kind enough to send us a report and a photo from the event. (more…)

Rose Martin wrote to send us a review of Miss Lucy Steele by Ruth Berger, about which we posted previously.

“Miss Lucy Steele”, the new German S&S retelling by Ruth Berger, is an extremely well written, altogether delightful book. It is very like Austen’s own writings in its lovely irony, but different and more modern in scope and outlook. S&S has never been my favourite Austen novel, mostly because Edward is, well, not really the kind of man you’d fall in love with, is he? And Elinor herself, in her moral perfection and unfailing self-control, is certainly a less lovable character than other Austen heroines. Her morality is at times one-sided and self-serving. She judges Lucy harshly for wanting to marry Edward, a man richer than herself, but isn’t she guilty of the same sin?

Ruth Berger cleverly exploits these weaknesses of the S&S characters when she rewrites the story from Lucy’s perspective. She starts years before the onset of the story in S&S to give a very plausible family background to Lucy and her silly sister Anne, and also fills in the details about Lucy’s long-standing engagement to Edward that is only mentioned in passing in S&S. But she focuses on Edward almost as much as on Lucy. S&S never leaves Elinor’s perspective, and what we are told about Edward are largely Elinor’s conjectures. She thinks he loves her and not Lucy. Lucy (in Berger’s novel) thinks Edward loves her and not Elinor. Edward himself, Berger tells us, rather likes them both and doesn’t really care whom he marries in the end. It could even be the lord’s daughter chosen for him by his mother. But his most fervent wish is to be finally left alone by all those pestering women who pressure him, so that the poor boy finds himself in the most humiliating predicaments all the time!

The book is a joyful read for everyone, not only for those who know S&S. Hopefully, there will be an English translation soon, although I am afraid the truly lovely style will suffer somewhat from translation.

Thank you for pointing me to the book.

Rose

You’re welcome, Rose. We are glad that you enjoyed the book. However, we are exceedingly fond of Elinor Dashwood and find it hard to believe that Jane Austen meant for us to consider Lucy Steele at all sympathetic–though she is a brilliantly-drawn character, certainly. Nor does Elinor, in our opinion, judge Lucy because she wants to marry a richer man; Lucy wants to marry him BECAUSE he is rich, not because she loves him. If she loved Edward, would she have thrown him over so easily for Mr. Robert Ferrars? Well, we suppose we would have to read the book to discover Ms. Berger’s argument on that score, hmm? Thanks for sending in your review, Rose.