Showing posts tagged jane austen
In the spirit of Jane Austen Day… although let’s be real, I think every day is Jane Austen day. The thing I liked best about today’s episode of the Lizzie Bennet Diaries (which I really do love, though my love is complicated by stuff like the fact it’s much beloved and helmed by two dudes, and I have feelings of uncertainty about dudes getting huge acclaim working from the work of Jane ‘The Pen Has Been In Their Hands’ Austen, see: Seth Grahame-Smith’s Pride and Prejudice and Zombies)… was not Darcy and Lizzie laughing and flirting. Though I enjoyed that very much! The Lizzie Bennet Diaries has been really good about acknowledging how, in this day and age, single adult women tend to have jobs. Not just acknowledging it but incorporating it as a vital part of the plot: Mr Collins now offers Charlotte a job instead of proposing to her, and Charlotte is portrayed as right to accept it—jobs mean more choices and more chance of happiness for women. Darcy is still in a position of power compared to Lizzie: he’s a rich CEO and she’s a student whose family has money troubles. She’s not being paid for her work, i.e. the videos she’s making to tell this updated version of Pride and Prejudice. But in this episode Darcy recognises her videos as valid creative work—when she puts them down a bit (because unpaid work isn’t meant to be valuable, ladies are meant to be modest about what they do), he’s like: no, they are amazing, let me discuss why, let’s discuss how valuable it is to have work you both love and are good at, giving the world something useful and enjoyable and gaining personal satisfaction from that. He admires and does not dismiss her passion: he loves her more for it.  Part of the enduring appeal of Pride and Prejudice is that Darcy loves Elizabeth, not just because she’s pretty (he’s initially not that impressed) but because she’s smart and funny and who she is ends up making her infinitely appealing to him.  Pride and Prejudice quote from Darcy, when reminded he once thought Elizabeth wasn’t all that: ‘That was when I first knew her; for it is many months since I have considered her as one of the handsomest women of my acquaintance.’ A modern Darcy gets to say ‘What you do is great’ as well as ‘who you are is great.’ … I think that’s great. ;)

In the spirit of Jane Austen Day… although let’s be real, I think every day is Jane Austen day.

The thing I liked best about today’s episode of the Lizzie Bennet Diaries (which I really do love, though my love is complicated by stuff like the fact it’s much beloved and helmed by two dudes, and I have feelings of uncertainty about dudes getting huge acclaim working from the work of Jane ‘The Pen Has Been In Their Hands’ Austen, see: Seth Grahame-Smith’s Pride and Prejudice and Zombies)… was not Darcy and Lizzie laughing and flirting. Though I enjoyed that very much!

The Lizzie Bennet Diaries has been really good about acknowledging how, in this day and age, single adult women tend to have jobs. Not just acknowledging it but incorporating it as a vital part of the plot: Mr Collins now offers Charlotte a job instead of proposing to her, and Charlotte is portrayed as right to accept it—jobs mean more choices and more chance of happiness for women.

Darcy is still in a position of power compared to Lizzie: he’s a rich CEO and she’s a student whose family has money troubles. She’s not being paid for her work, i.e. the videos she’s making to tell this updated version of Pride and Prejudice. But in this episode Darcy recognises her videos as valid creative work—when she puts them down a bit (because unpaid work isn’t meant to be valuable, ladies are meant to be modest about what they do), he’s like: no, they are amazing, let me discuss why, let’s discuss how valuable it is to have work you both love and are good at, giving the world something useful and enjoyable and gaining personal satisfaction from that. He admires and does not dismiss her passion: he loves her more for it. 

Part of the enduring appeal of Pride and Prejudice is that Darcy loves Elizabeth, not just because she’s pretty (he’s initially not that impressed) but because she’s smart and funny and who she is ends up making her infinitely appealing to him. 

Pride and Prejudice quote from Darcy, when reminded he once thought Elizabeth wasn’t all that: ‘That was when I first knew her; for it is many months since I have considered her as one of the handsomest women of my acquaintance.’

A modern Darcy gets to say ‘What you do is great’ as well as ‘who you are is great.’

… I think that’s great. ;)

Jon Kelly at BBC News: Janeites: The curious American cult of Jane Austen

With their conventions, Regency costumes and self-written “sequels” to their heroine’s novels, Austen’s most dedicated adherents display a fervency easily rivalling that of the subcultures around Star Trek or Harry Potter.

Some Janeites, as they call themselves, write their own fiction imagining the marital exploits of Mr and Mrs Darcy. Others don elaborate period dress and throw Jane Austen-themed tea parties and balls.

a) why has nobody invited me to an Austenian tea party? The people demand bonnets!

b) It made me so sad to see, in the article, that even though Jane Austen remains super popular there has been a decline in respect for her as a serious artist. Because it’s ‘chick lit’… as if any genre is Automatically Bad. And as if anything a woman created that a lot of women really like… is Automatically Bad.

I was reading some fan responses to the Vampire Diaries over the weekend (sharp left turn from Jane Austen! Also, yes, I’m very cool!) —and I started to get viscerally uncomfortable about how often the women involved in creating it were named and hated on. Julie Plec and Caroline Dries were brought up time and again, with a constant refrain that they shut up, drop out, SHUT UP, if only Kevin Wiliamson or Jose Molina would save the situation. The dudes’ names only ever came up associated with praise.

The stuff the fans didn’t like which was masterminded by dudes, was talked about differently: that episode sucked, that season had this off time. Never, ever ‘this dude sucks.’ 

It reminded me of how I used to see the same hatred of Marti Noxon on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Which really sharply contrasted with the refrain of ‘Joss Whedon is my master now.’

Look, I am no expert on television here: I never know who’s written an episode, or who’s behind a certain plot arc. (I also barely know how to turn it on or change the DVD player settings, but that’s shame for another day.) I’m sure all these ladies are imperfect. Maybe all these ladies have done terrible things to their shows! Please do not tell me all the details of any of these women’s awful crimes against fiction.

My point is that I doubt that the dudes were flawless in their handling of fiction: the problem is the insistent pattern that goes ‘SHUT UP, WOMAN’S NAME, SHUT UP!!’

I remember looking at one site and seeing a female YA author being discussed. Her appearance, her manners, whether she’d written too many books, too many books in one series—I have seen at least six female authors called ‘whores’ (OH. I. SEE.) and ‘money-grubbing hacks’ for writing a long series. I have never seen similar criticism for, say, Rick Riordan (don’t stop writing Rick Riordan, that’s not what I meant! I like a long series! I’m just making a point!)—whether she was grateful or gracious enough. 

Then I looked at what they had to say about a male author in the same field… apparently his worst offense was being friends with the female author… (Kind of like how the most criticism I see against Neil Gaiman is actually against Amanda Palmer, asking why he doesn’t get her to… guess what… shut up.)

It’s so much easier for people to hate on a girl than a guy. A lady’s success will so often be looked on with dark suspicion, while a dude’s success is looked on as his due.

Of course my opinion here is personal: I’m a lady creator, though not as fancy as the ones I’ve been discussing. I’ve had my appearance criticised, and the company I keep, and how I conduct myself, and that all sucks. Quite recently I remember a blogger described my behaviour at a public event as ‘attention-seeking’ (no! good gravy! who do I think I am, up on a stage talking?)… I’ve seen that word used for a lot of women, but I’ve never seen it used for a man. It’s almost as if… people see a dude up on stage talking and think ‘Yes, things are as they should be.’ And they see a lady and think ‘SHUT UP, WOMAN’S NAME, SHUT UP.’ 

I’ve said snarky things and been roundly criticised for my rudeness. (Like, this weekend.) So have many ladies! While snarky dudes are celebrated, quoted, applauded: while we all know that dudes can get away with a million more things than we can. 

Having a semi-public job means a certain amount of scrutiny. Creators are always going to get critiqued, because that’s what people should do with art, and if people don’t care about your fiction you’ve gone wrong somewhere! That’s all fine. 

But I wish, wish, wish there wasn’t that obstacle for women, that kneejerk ‘SHUT UP!’

Pride and Prejudice is two hundred years old today. Jane Austen wrote in another book, Persuasion, ‘Men have had every advantage of us in telling their own story… The pen has been in their hands.’

The pen should not be seen as solely belonging in their hands.

(Wow, this got long.) (Maybe I should shut up.) (But I hardly ever do.)

(Reblogged from se-smith)

Thinking of Ladies

OK. You’re doing necessary work by defending Austen, whose skill and depth get dismissed because people dismiss romance, ladies, comedy. But I don’t see how you can summarize Eugenides’ quote as “dudes dudes dudes.” The book is called “Portrait of a Lady,” and the quote was about ISABEL’s choices and marriage experience. You can believably write homosexual and non-white characters. A dude can believably write about ladies and their experience of marriage. Being a good writer is about empathy.
 Anonymous

I agree that being a good writer is about empathy… among other things.

I hope I can believably write homosexual and non-white characters, and will continue to do so. But I’m a secondary source, not a primary source, and I should be aware of that. I’d be uncomfortable with someone saying I was the BESTEST writer of gay characters or characters of colour, and have writers who have lived experience ignored. As you say, Austen gets dismissed because people dismiss romance, ladies and comedy… these things are all part and parcel of each other.

There was no need for Eugenides to belittle Jane Austen while raising up Henry James, and moreover when you’re a dude writing a romance novel, I think you should be aware of the fact you are following in the footsteps of about a zillion women, and be respectful of the work they’ve done, and the advantages you, as a dude, have. In 2011, they found that The New York Review Of Books reviewed 71 female authors and 293 male authors. In The New York Times, it was 273 women and 520 men.http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2012/09/27/161885368/women-men-and-fiction-notes-on-how-not-to-answer-hard-questions

A dude can absolutely write about ladies and their experience of marriage. However, a dude who dismisses a lady in favour of another dude, without thinking about the fact his choices do not exist in a vacuum, isn’t displaying much empathy.

I think Eugenides is a great writer. I really enjoyed Middlesex. But I’m deeply unimpressed by the way he’s been handling this subject.

“
Without thinking highly either of men or of matrimony, marriage had always been her object; it was the only honourable provision for well-educated young women of small fortune, and however uncertain of giving happiness, must be their pleasantest preservative from want.

Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice


I don’t know, one of the saddest passages written?

(via thelifeguardlibrarian)

Oh that Jane Austen, just silly fluffy novels she wrote…

(Reblogged from thelifeguardlibrarian)

We are acquainted.

I just think Rupert Penry Jones is very handsome. Very very handsome. That’s all. Good adaptation! Very handsome. Cast him in more things!

(Reblogged from landsbeyond)
“
In hooking her husband (Charlotte Lucas) becomes the only woman in all Austen’s fiction to marry a man younger than herself. For Mr Collins is introduced to us as a “tall, heavy-looking young man of five-and-twenty”. Many admirers of Pride and Prejudice think of Mr Collins as middle-aged. In the 1940 Hollywood film the role was taken by British character actor Melville Cooper, then aged 44. The trend was set. In Andrew Davies’s 1995 BBC adaptation Mr Collins was played by David Bamber, then in his mid-40s. In the 2005 film, the role was taken by a slightly more youthful Tom Hollander, then aged 38. Adaptors miss the point by getting his age wrong. His solemnity and sententiousness are much better, much funnier, coming from someone so “young”. Middle-aged is what he would like to sound, rather than what he is. His youth emphasises Charlotte’s achievement, with little money and no beauty to assist her.

Ten questions on Jane Austen | Books | The Guardian

Go on and read the whole thing, it’s all that good. I am seriously thinking of getting the book.

(via theredshoes)

I never thought about that before! I always like a lady with a younger dude, because it’s something different! But I admit I still don’t like Charlotte/Mr Collins… *callously wishes him dead so Charlotte can have a mad romance with Colonel Fitzwilliam*

(Reblogged from mswyrr)