Back to Top

Monthly Archives: December 2012

There are many reasons to thank Jane Austen. Hours of escapism reading or watching movie adaptations, hours of pondering or discussing what she was really saying. She’s a great artist whose work is forever open to interpretations–thoughtful, controversial, or just plain wacko–and she will stay with you for a lifetime, changing as you do.

It’s interesting that for a woman whose private life was so very private–thanks in part to Cassandra’s scissors–that she writes so convincingly and with such authority about love.

Her books are about courtship and love, yes, but she deflects her happy endings, leaving her couples on the way to the altar. Her depictions of marriage are not always great–relationships gone stale (the Bennets), marriages that you know are just going to be trouble (the Wickhams). We have the particularly lifeless Gardiners of P&P who are surely there to push the plot forward (sorry, Miss Austen, I’ve always suspected they’re there for that reason). The Crofts are happy but childless, unusual in an age when marriage = children. Is Mrs. Croft’s year ashore, sick and missing her husband, really a reference to a pregnancy that went badly wrong?

Furthermore, there is the evidence in the letters (and sorry, I can’t quote you a reference because then this post would be even later) that falling in love is a woman’s choice; that she can and should allow herself to do so.  The implication is that falling in love–an uncontrollable thoughtless impulse–is doomed. (Marianne Dashwood, we’re talking about you.) Love is a power a woman holds in check until the suitable prospect appears, a man of virtue (Edward Bertram, zzzzz), of wealth (Darcy, who is probably  not Colin Firth in a wet shirt), or even one who can comfortably provide for you (Mr. Collins. Try not to think about it).

The evidence is in the novels: that not one of her heroines makes a marriage that would in any way defy the social norms. Not even Lizzy and Darcy. Sure, he has a bunch of money and huge tracts o land but she’s gentry, possibly from a family like Austen’s that had some aristocratic connections a few generations ago.His aristocratic connections are too close for comfort.

Check out that first proposal scene again (in the book, not the movie adaptations):

In vain I have struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you.

(Wowsa)

But remember, we’re in Lizzy’s point of view. Austen does not allow us to hear Darcy’s proposal in his words. Instead, we get Lizzy’s interpretation:

… you chose to tell me that you liked me against your will, against your reason, and even against your character?

And that’s what makes Austen so brilliant, by leaving us guessing. And guessing. And talking about it. Her control of point of view, what the reader needs to know and when, if ever, is what I admire most about Austen’s writing.

What do you like most about Austen’s writing? And what do you think is impossible to translate into a movie script?

Jane Austen Made Me Do It Final May 2011Prizes: Today I’ll give away a couple of copies of Jane Austen Made Me Do It, a collection of short stories edited by Laurel Ann Nattress of Austenprose chosen from among those of you who comment on today’s post. That will automatically enter you into our grand drawing of a $50 amazon gift certificate!

Thanks for joining us to celebrate Austen’s birthday this week.

 

 

I hope I won’t be drummed out of the Risky Regencies for this, but I have to confess it took me a while to warm to Jane Austen.

My introduction to the Regency wasn’t Jane Austen, but Georgette Heyer and the stacks and stacks of Regency romances by other authors lying around our house. I read them voraciously as a child, getting in trouble with the nuns at my elementary school for having one in my book-bag.

I think I was about twelve when, having read enough book blurbs that said, “in the tradition of Jane Austen”, I decided to pick up Pride and Prejudice. And embarrassing as it is to admit, I found it slow going. At the time, I was a lonely, nerdy kid and I craved the escape of fantasy, preferring the Chronicles of Narnia to realistic fiction like Beverly Cleary’s Ramona books (even though I now recognize how wonderful they are). The same thing happened with Jane Austen, since she wrote realistic contemporary fiction, using events and settings (“three of four families in a country village”) that seemed less glamorous than the glittering ton parties, duels and adventures I found in Regencies by Georgette Heyer and other authors.

Pride and Prejudice 1995As I’ve gotten older and possibly a bit wiser, I’ve come to know that reality can be as powerful, maybe more so—than fantasy. I recognize the brilliance of Jane Austen’s characterizations and the skill with which she crafted her stories on “the little bit (two inches wide) of ivory on which I work with so fine a brush.” I’ve come to love her portrayal of her times and I know this has affected my own writing. I enjoy rural settings very much and I don’t feel the need for all my heroes and heroines to be aristocrats.

My own daughters are learning to appreciate Jane Austen at an earlier age. We’ve read the books together, but seeing the movies does help. I didn’t see any of the Jane Austen adaptations that were available when I was growing up, which is probably just as well, as I’ve been disappointed in the 70s versions I’ve seen. But any of the more recent productions, like the 1995 Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle P&P would have provided enough visual beauty—the costumes, the settings—to satisfy my craving for fantasy. I’m sure I would have read the book with different eyes.

So how do you see Jane Austen—as the realistic fiction, as fantasy, or something else?  Can you forgive me my youthful foolishness in not recognizing her brilliance on first reading? Comment for the chance to win this “Amiable Rancor” calendar from The Republic of Pemberley.

Amiable Rancor Calendar

 

P.S. Lesley Attary, you have won an e-copy of The Persistent Earl by Gail Eastwood. Gail Eastwood will be in touch.

JaneAustenCassandraWatercolourThis is the 237th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth and the official end of the Riskies’ Jane Austen celebration….’til next time!

But it’s not the end of our giveaways. You have until midnight tonight to comment on each of our blogs for a chance to win each of our prizes, and for a chance to win the grand prize– a $50 Amazon gift certificate.

So work your way back and make sure you leave a comment on each blog!

The winners will be announced tomorrow (Monday).

The Riskies 

 

It’s been a long time since I took off so much time from the dayjob, and I have the luxury of an entire week and two bits from work. Huzzah! I am actually getting some writing done. But enough of that.

I usually like to talk about books I’ve read this year and I’ve read a lot with the acquisition of a kindle. I’ve read a lot of forgettable books, sadly, but I do want to tell you about the book. You know, the one that has revolutionized women’s literary and sex lives worldwide. I thought I had to read it so I could be properly insulting about it. So I borrowed it from the library. I think I am the last person to discover that you can borrow ebooks from the library.

So how was it for me? Reader, I cannot lie. I have read many worse self-pubbed and traditionally-pubbed books. Was it as bad as everyone said? Yes. But it also has this quality that many other successful and beloved writers have (no I am not naming names) of setting you aboard an express train that you do not want to get off. Even if you’re not enjoying the ride and there are occasional stops you feel compelled, against your reason, to keep reading. Does it fail epically as a dirty book? Absolutely. Is it witty where it’s supposed to be? No. Is it well written? No. Will I read the other two books in the series? No, I have done my duty.

(Check out Ron Charles of the Washington Post on the phenomenon that is 50… here)

Onto happier moments. Books I read and enjoyed this year:

Some mysteries–Julia Spencer-Fleming’s series that I first read years ago so I had some catching up and rereading to do. Also Deborah Crombie’s books which I’m reading way out of order and which are brilliant (so far) when she sticks to London settings but fall apart when set elsewhere.

In the Woods by Tana French, a wonderful Irish police procedural. This was a reread.

City of Women by David Gillham, set in Berlin in the last days of WWII.

Floating Gold: A Natural (and Unnatural) History of Ambergris by Christopher Kent, a book that gave a new lease of life to a WIP.

The Great Stink by Clare Clark. Not for the tender-stomached, a novel about London’s old sewer system. EEEEW. But a great read.

My tentative on-off relationship with Georgette Heyer continued with A Civil Contract which I actually liked. In other romance reading, rather thin on the ground, I loved Miranda Neville’s books this year, I’m working my way through the brilliant Julie Ann Long’s Pennyroyal Series, and I am very much looking forward to a certain Vanity Fare by Megan Caldwell which appeared on my kindle yesterday. Go Megan!

What are you reading?

Posted in Reading | 4 Replies
Follow
Get every new post delivered to your inbox
Join millions of other followers
Powered By WPFruits.com