It’s been a while. I’ve been reading Behind Closed Doors by Amanda Vickery and shall write more about that later.
However, I’ve found two (at least) interesting podcasts at Penguin Classics on Air. Definitely worth listening to while you’re doing some mundane task – like the ironing.
Filed under Podcasts
On January the first last year I wrote some resolutions namely, …
It’s new year’s day time to make resolutions. This year I plan to re-read Austen’s novels – starting with Sense and Sensibility. I’m going to read one of the biographies I own (possible the one by Claire Tomalin). I’m also going to read some of the books of criticism I have – starting with Malcolm Day’s Voices from the World of Jane Austen.
I’m also going to watch the adaptations I have – starting with Emma (E1).
What I’m not going to do is read any prequels, sequels or re-interpretations.
So it’s time to take stock: I didn’t re-read all of the novels I still have Northanger Abbey and Persuasion to go, I read one book of criticism (but not the Malcolm Day book) and I did read a prequels, sequels and re-interpretations. Although I now think deciding not to read them was a bad decision as it means I could be missing out on something fabulous (like The Three Weissmanns of Westport).
This year I did manage to read Lovers Vows (the play mentioned in Mansfield Park), watched Lost in Austen, two versions of Pride and Prejudice (1995 and 2005 – I even changed my mind about the 2005 version), read The Improvement of the Estate and Helen and I even read a couple of regency romances.
I’m disappointed I didn’t achieve more and this year one of my goals will be blogging more often.
My plan this year is to review the items in my collection (quite substantial) and to read (or watch) any Austen related material that comes my way – starting with A Truth Universally Acknowledged – 33 Great Writers on Why We Read Jane Austen.
Filed under Miscellaneous
As Austen was a bit of an Edgeworth fan, when I saw this in the book shop I decided I had to read it (although Austen died before this novel was published).
Here’s the stuff on the back …
She was the best-selling author of Regency England. Admired by Jane Austen, whose fame she eclipsed. John Ruskin declared her books ‘the most re-readable in existence’.
On the death of her guardian, honest, generous-spirited Helen Stanley is urged to share the home of her childhood friend Lady Cecilia. But this charming socialite is withholding secrets and Helen is drawn into a web of white lies and evasions that threaten not only her hopes for marriage but her very place in society.
A fascinating panorama of Britain’s political and intellectual elite in the early 1800s and a gripping romantic drama, Helen was the inspiration for Elizabeth Gaskell’s Wives and Daughters.
Edgeworth lacks the wit and light touch of Austen. I found this novel heavy going and I suspect it won’t appeal to a modern audience. It is about lying and liars. General Clarenden, Cecilia’s husband, declares he would not marry a woman who had been in love previously. Cecilia lied to him about a previous infatuation. Some letters, that Cecilia wrote to this man, come to light and Cecilia encourages Helen to say that the writing on the letters isn’t Cecilia’s (the implication being that it is Helen’s). Things then get worse – the letters might get published, Helen becomes the scandal of the moment.
I’ve picked a few bits out that remind me of Austen …
[…] and secondly, because every woman is willing to believe what she wishes.
and this is a bit like the part in Emma when the narrator talks about English verdure.
The road led them into the next village, one of the prettiest of that sort of scattered English villages, where each habitation seems to have been suited to the fancy as well as to the convenience of each proprietor; giving an idea at once of comfort and liberty, such as can be seen only in England. Happy England, how blest, would she but no her bliss!
It is beautifully written, romantic and full of suspense – will Cecilia ever confess to the General and what will happen to Helen? If you are a Jane Austen fan or enjoy regency romances, then you should try to read this one if only for the authentic period detail.
Here are some other reviews …
http://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/maria-edgeworth-helen/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jul/03/maria-edgeworth-helen-john-mullan
Filed under Contemporary Authors, Recommended
In the latest Jane Austen’s Regency World magazine there is an interesting article (by Paul A Bethel) on the similarities between Emma and Mansfield Park.
Here’s a small excerpt:
Rather, she [Austen] simply began with the premise: “What if a character much like Mary Crawford should have grown up in a small village outside London? What kind of life would she have lead?” Few novelists have been more acutely aware of the twin influences of nature and nurture upon individual character; and this is the key difference between Mary and Emma. Having similar natures’ their upbringing could not be more different. And that is why, ultimately, Emma is capable of reformation and redemption, while Mary is not.
He then goes on to highlight the similarities in their opinions. He then compares other characters; Fanny and Jane Fairfax, Henry Crawford and Frank Churchill, Edmund and Mr Knightley, Lady Bertram and Mr Woodhouse.
None of this had ever occurred to me; as Emma is my favourite novel and Mansfield Park my least favourite I was surprised to find areas in common.
Filed under Emma, Magazines, mansfield park
I resisted buying this DVD for quite a while. To me it seemed to be a romanticized view of her life. However, I wanted something to watch and nothing else appealed at JB Hifi.
It is a beautiful film – the locations are stunning and the costumes lovely. The acting is fabulous – how versatile is Hugh Bonneville?
This film is based on the last years of Austen’s life. To her niece Fanny she is an expert on matters of the heart and she seeks her advice about her admirers. The Jane of this adaptation is witty, flirtatious and a little bit malicious (quite like her letters). The relationship between Cassandra and Jane is warmly affectionate and between her and her mother awful (was Mrs Austen really that vile?).
Although I don’t think this adaptation is accurate, I did enjoy it and I know I will watch it again.
Here are some other reviews …
http://thebennetsisters.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/miss-austen-regrets-2008/
http://atpemberley.blogspot.com/2010/06/miss-austen-regrets.html
Filed under Television
I’m continuing my regency romance reading marathon. I selected this one because I read Loretta Chase’s blog – Two Nerdy History Girl and I find their history posts fascinating.
Here’s the blurb …
Spunky English girl overcomes impossible odds and outsmarts heathen villains.
That’s the headline when Zoe Lexham returns to England. After twelve years in the exotic east, she’s shockingly adept in the sensual arts. She knows everything a young lady shouldn’t and nothing she ought to know. She’s a walking scandal, with no hope of a future . . . unless someone can civilize her.
Lucien de Grey, the Duke of Marchmont, is no knight in shining armor. He’s cynical, easily bored, and dangerous to women. He charms, seduces, and leaves them—with parting gifts of expensive jewelry to dry their tears. But good looks, combined with money and rank, makes him welcome everywhere. The most popular bachelor in the Beau Monde can easily save Zoe’s risqué reputation . . . if the wayward beauty doesn’t lead him into temptation, and a passion that could ruin them both.
This book was too explicit for me – I enjoyed the setting, the research and I thought the characters were fabulous. However, I found the sex scenes cringe-worthy; euphemisms like ‘his limb of pleasure’, ‘palace of pleasure’, ‘your golden flower’, etc. However, that might just be me. The woman at my local book store tell me that Georgette Heyer is old fashioned.
Here are some other reviews …
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2009/06/30/review-dont-tempt-me-by-loretta-chase/
http://medievalbookworm.com/reviews/review-dont-tempt-me-loretta-chase/
Filed under Recommended, Regency Romance
I love reading regency romances, which isn’t to say I think Jane Austen writes regency romances or I think any of the romance authors are her equivalent. Georgette Heyer would be my favourite, but I’m always on the look out for another author. I’ve discovered through trial and error that I prefer ‘traditional’ regencies. The euphemisms for various body parts in the other more ‘sensual’ regencies just make me cringe – am I the only one? ‘Palace of Pleasure” ugh!
Anyway, I live very close to this store so I stopped by and picked up this novel.
Here is the blurb …
She was unquestionably a lady. Still, that had never stopped him before. He could see that she was not, he thought, that young. Even better. Another twinge of pain from behind his eyes lent a harshness to his voice. “Who the devil are you?” In no way discomposed, she answered, “My name is Caroline Twinning. And if you really are the Duke of Twyford, then I’m very much afraid I’m your ward . . . “
Max Rotherbridge couldn’t believe it. Along with the dukedom of Twyford, he – London’s most notorious rogue – had inherited wardship of four devilishly attractive sisters! Including the irresistible Caroline Twinning. The eldest Twinning was everything he had ever wanted in a woman, but even Max couldn’t seduce his own ward . . . or could he? After all, he did have a substantial reputation to protect. And what better challenge than the one woman capable of stealing his heart?
I quite liked it – there was probably slightly too much seduction for my liking or at least too much described seduction (We all know Willoughby seduces Eliza in Sense and Sensibility, but we don’t hear about her rosy nipples) – but I think it was well researched I didn’t get jolted back to reality by something anachronistic or simply impossible.
Filed under Recommended, Regency Romance
This novel is based on Sense and Sensibility. I have been disappointed in the past with sequels, prequels, etc, but being eternally hopeful (or just wanting more Austen) I’m always prepared to try another one.
Here’s a synopsis
Jane Austen’s beloved Sense and Sensibilityhas moved to Westport, Connecticut, in this enchanting modern-day homage to the classic novelWhen Joseph Weissmann divorced his wife, he was seventy eight years old and she was seventy-five . . . He said the words “Irreconcilable differences,” and saw real confusion in his wife’s eyes.“Irreconcilable differences?” she said. “Of course there are irreconcilable differences. What on earth does that have to do with divorce?”Thus begins The Three Weissmanns of Westport, a sparkling contemporary adaptation of Sense and Sensibility from the always winning Cathleen Schine, who has already been crowned “a modern-day Jewish Jane Austen” by People’s Leah Rozen.In Schine’s story, sisters Miranda, an impulsive but successful literary agent, and Annie, a pragmatic library director, quite unexpectedly find themselves the middle-aged products of a broken home. Dumped by her husband of nearly fifty years and then exiled from their elegant New York apartment by his mistress, Betty is forced to move to a small, run-down Westport, Connecticut, beach cottage. Joining her are Miranda and Annie, who dutifully comes along to keep an eye on her capricious mother and sister. As the sisters mingle with the suburban aristocracy, love starts to blossom for both of them, and they find themselves struggling with the dueling demands of reason and romance.
I enjoyed reading this novel. The author didn’t try to emulate Austen’s style but took the situation (mother and two sisters in reduced circumstances) and made a whole new (modern) story from it.
It is one of the better re-interpretations that I have read.
Here are some reviews …
http://mrsodellreads.com/2010/06/23/the-three-weissmanns-of-westport-by-cathleen-schine-review/
http://austenblog.com/2010/06/07/review-the-three-weissmanns-of-westport-by-cathleen-schine/
Filed under Adaptations, Re-Interpretation, Recommended
As part of my Mansfield Park re-read, I’ve read the Mansfield Park chapter of The Improvement of the Estate by Alistair M Duckworth. It is very accessible I recommend it to anyone interested in Austen’s novels.
To my mind his chapter on Mansfield Park is really a defense of it and to prove that is has the same themes as her more popular novels, i.e. Austen is trying to define a proper relationship between an individual and society.
Duckworth believes people dislike Mansfield Park for two reasons; first it follows directly after Pride and Prejudice both in publication date and people’s reading experience and secondly we hope for a double marriage at the end (like Pride and Prejudice) and this is ‘wrenched’ from us with the marriage of Fanny and Edmund. The issues at stake in Mansfield Park are not different from her other novels, however, the representatives of individuals (i.e. the Crawfords) are corrupt and those that represent society (the Bertrams) are deficient.
As we know, estates in Austen can be used as indexes to the owner’s character and social responsibilities thus Pemberley is well-situated, has fine timber and has not been unsympathetically improved. Whereas the renting of Kellynch Hall shows Sir Walter’s dereliction of his responsibilities.
Improving estates figures prominently in Mansfield Park. Mr Rushworth wants to improves Sotherton, Mrs Norris did a ‘vast deal’ to the parsonage, Henry Crawford has improved Everingham and Mary Crawford likes improvements once they are completed.
Austen is concerned with the negative social implications of a certain type of improvement. Drastic alterations to the landscape, for example, moving entire villages. Such changes create dangerous consequences to the continuity of a culture. To ‘improve’ was to treat the deficient or corrupt parts of an established order with the character of the whole in mind (good); to ‘innovate’ or ‘alter’ on the other hand was to destroy all that had been built up by the ‘collected wisdom of the ages’ (bad). Hence Mrs Norris’s ‘vast improvements’ and the fact that ‘it was quite a different place from what it was when we first had it’ is a bad thing and a mark against her character.
Sotherton has begun to atrophy and is in need of improvement. Rushworth is aware of the aesthetic short comings but nothing else. He improves the road to Sotherton but does nothing to fix the ‘disgraceful’ cottages. Maria’s pride in the handsome spire shows a love of display equal to her future husband’s plus she is happy with the distance the church is from the house. Which implies that the physical gap might become a spiritual gap.
Crawford’s plans for Thornton Lacy are radical; the farmyard must be removed, the principal rooms rotated, the church yard shut out, etc. He wants to change the nature of the place make it into something it’s not (bad). Edmund states that very little of this will happen and that it does need a bit of improving, but very little to make it a comfortable gentleman’s residence.
This idea of excessive change being dangerous to an estate highlights the problems with the theatre – the actors are trying to turn Mansfield Park into a theatre (i.e. a whole culture is at stake). All of the characters are revealed by their conduct in the play, Mr Yates plays a seducer an ultimately he will seduce Julia, Maria plays a fallen women which she comes by leaving her husband for Mr Crawford, etc. Henry Crawford the best actor of them all continues to play roles; even in his courtship of Fanny he enjoys the public display of it.
After having read this chapter on Mansfield Park I feel like I understand it more and I have a greater respect for Austen’s skills as an author. Not an incident is wasted they all highlight character and lead to the inevitable conclusion (even the game of Speculation – Mary plays had and wins the game but it’s not worth the cost, Fanny wants to cheat herself but can’t and Henry Crawford tries to manipulate them all).
Filed under Criticism, mansfield park
In the past I have thought Mary very similar to Elizabeth Bennet, but after my last reading I have decided she is too worldly and materialistic.
‘Matrimony was her object, provided she could marry well, and having seen Mr Bertram in town, she knew that objection could no more be made to his person than to his situation in life.’
and
‘Tom Bertram must have been thought pleasant, indeed at any rate; he was the sort of young man to be generally liked, his agreeableness was of the kind to be oftener found agreeable than some endowments of a higher stamp, for he had easy manners, excellent spirits, a large acquaintance, and a great deal to say; and the reversion of Mansfield Park, and a baronetcy, did no harm to all this. Miss Crawford soon felt, that he and his situation might do. She looked about her with due consideration, and found almost everything in his favour, a park, a real park five miles round, a spacious modern-built house so well placed and well screened as to deserve to be in any collection of engravings of gentleman’s seats in the kingdom, and wanting only to be completely new furnished – pleasant sisters, a quiet mother and an agreeable man himself – with the advantage of being tied up from much gaming at present, by a promise to his father, and of being Sir Thomas hereafter. It might do very well; she believed she should accept him; …
and
‘I shall understand all of your ways in time; but coming down with the true London maxim, that everything is to be got with money, I was a little embarrassed at first by the sturdy independence of your country customs.’
and
A large income is the best recipe for happiness I ever heard of.
Edmund is completely blinded by her charms – he even deludes himself about her true nature.
‘The right of a lively mind, Fanny, seizing whatever might contribute to its own amusement or that of others; perfectly allowable, when untinctured by ill humour or roughness; and there is not a shadow of either in the countenance or manner of Miss Crawford, nothing sharp or loud or coarse. She is perfectly feminine, except in the instances we have been speaking of. There she cannot be justified. I am glad you saw it all as I did.’
It is clear she dislikes the idea of marrying a clergyman.
‘A clergyman is nothing.’
She determines never to dance with him after his ordination and she writes to Fanny about Tom’s illness …
It was a foolish precipitation last Christmas (Edmund’s ordination), but the evil of a few days may be blotted out in part. Varnish and gilding hide many stains.
Filed under mansfield park
