To All,
I'm going to flog the dead carcass a little big more and say that the New York Times review of Mansfield Park may provide a somewhat more balanced view of the new film. At least the reviewer seems to have read either the book itself or the Cliffs Notes and have some knowledge of JA's life. One of the main problems with movie reviews is often the complete ignorance of the writer: I read one review of Sense and Sensibility that described the novel as a forward thinking attack on Victorian morals! And Jane Eyre as having been written in the 17th century. None of the reviews (of MP) I've read previously gave any indication that reviewer knew anything more about the novels of JA than who starred in the film versions.
Okay, I'm going to say something that may appear to be a 180 degree flip flop from what I've been writing, but bear with me -- if I can remain coherent I should end up back at my original point, more or less. The reviewer says at one point:
"...Ms Rozema has added a few more startling revisionist touches -- like sex."
This quote is rather hilarious as the novels of JA are chock full of sex. Marital, pre-marital and extra-marital, it's all there. The fact that it isn't "on camera" so to speak and that the characters treat that part of their lives as private seems to confound the modern reader. Jane Austen was certainly more exposed (forgive the term) to real sex (as opposed to the romanticized movie/TV sex) in the form of breeding horses, dogs, pigs, cattle, servants, etc. than any modern child or teenager. Seeing it every day probably made it a lot less titillating than it seems today.
What all the hubbub is about is revealed in the next paragraph:
"In one scene, Fanny and the urbane Mary Crawford appear to be on the verge of a lustful lesbian embrace."
And here comes the tough part.
However, the cynic in me says that no modern movie could leave things just at that. Why do I get the feeling that what will end up being implied is that Jane Austen rejected everything she'd been taught all her life by her culture and her religious beliefs to declare that homosexuality was okay? And that's the best case scenario...at worst we'll be treated to the revelation that JA was a radical lesbian feminist.
And that brings us full circle back to my reservations about the film. Will Jane Austen be allowed the dignity of her own beliefs, however different from what ours may be, or will she be remade into a mirror image of Ms. Rozema? I'm afraid things don't look good for Jane's integrity.
Ashton: Unfortunately, my trip was to attend a funeral, rather than
for pleasure. And only to exotic Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Cheryl
Dear Ray,
Jane Austen's "writing box" has left Victoria, British Columbia, and is now in England. You now have a second writing surface to look at when you next visit Austenland.
The story follows:
B.C. cousins donate Jane Austen's desk to library
(Canadian Press and Reuters, London)
"Jane Austen's writing desk, on which the author of classics such as Pride and Prejudice, Emma and Persuasion created many of her memorable characters, was given to the British Library yesterday."
"The desk, which has remained in the female line of the family for 200 years, was donated by Joan Austen-Leigh of Victoria, and her daughters. Ms. Austen-Leigh is the great-granddaughter of Austen's nephew, James Austen-Leigh, and the founder of the Jane Austen Society of North America."
"In presenting the desk, Ms. Austen-Leigh quoted from the nephew's 1870 memoir of Austen in which he said: '(The) mahogany desk, which has done good service to the public, is now in the possession of my sister, Miss Austen.' "
"The library said the desk, called a writing box by Miss Austen in her letters, would be part of its millennium exhibition next year, which will celebrate 1,000 years of English literature and then become a permanent exhibit in one of its galleries."
"The desk is believed to have been bought for Austen by her father in December, 1794."
To All,
Rats. The article on the writing desk was on the news here in Australia
yesterday, and I forgot to pop it on to the board. Now John has beaten me to
it. Rats, rats, rats.
Julie
Dear Julie,
My posting on the writing box beat yours? Say not so. It is not sound. You would never truly believe it yourself. It must have been that old nuisance, the queueing at the servers. Besides, Geocities was resolutely looking the other way whenever I tried to submit unto Male Voices--except the last time. And, look you, you live one half day ahead of me: I can do nothing but try everlastingly to catch up to your world.
Has Ray flown off to Janeland to look at the writing box with a sense of discovery: Now THIS is Jane! This is the place of wonders!
To All,
I refrain from commenting on Ashton's 'Jane Fairfax' note of October 30, because my mind is on higher things.
For those interested in biographies, however, I must recommend
Dear John,
The Mitford quote: "the prettiest, silliest, most affected husband hunting butterfly... "was from a letter to Sir William Elford is contained in the notes (P 303) in the Tomalin biography. Also in that citation is the quote about everyone being being afraid of her "a poker of whom everyone is afraid" is also included
Dear John,
I can quote you this, from Elizabeth Jenkins' delightful biography of Jane Austen:
'But Miss Mitford, in her 'Recollections of a Literary Life', expressed a different view. Miss Mitford said, that her mother had said, that when (the mother) had lived in the neighbourhood of Steventon before her marriage, Jane Austen had been 'the prettiest, silliest, most affected, husband-hunting butterfly' Mrs Mitford ever remembered. The portrait, allowing for Miss Mitford's spite, is an attractive one, though some doubts are cast upon its reliability by Mr Edward Austen Leigh, where he says in his memoir that Mrs Mitford had married in 1785, when Jane was ten years old, and that Mrs Mitford had actually left Ashe, of which parish her father Dr Russell was the rector, in 1783, and therefore her acquaintance with the Austen family had ceased when Jane was seven.'
The quote actually continues,
'A friend of mine who visits her now, says that she has stiffened into the most perpendicular, precise, taciturn piece of 'single blessedness' that ever existed, and that .......she was no more regarded in society than a poker or a fire screen.'
The lady who made the latter observation, however, was undoubtedly biased, as she was a relative of the gentleman who was suing Edward Knight for the Chawton property.
Apparently the first portion of this quote was so far from every other estimation of Jane Austen's character that the editor of Miss Mitford's 'Recollections' actually entered his own protest against it, and a footnote to the passage was added by the Rev. G. L. L'Estrange, stating that every other account of Jane Austen, from any source whatever, spoke of her as being graceful, elegant and shy.
I have often wondered whether Mary Russell Mitford was related to the
Redesdale Mitfords, most of whose interesting writings must be taken with a
whole salt-cellar. Mary Russell herself, it is worth remembering, lived
her life under the subjugation of her wastrel father - he gambled away two
entire fortunes, one of them Mary's. He also took most of her earnings
from writing, and gambled them, too. She was not the happiest of
women.
Julie
From the Meister: Park Honan consistently tells us the truth - Jane Austen was pretty. Our Lady was tall and slender; with curly, long, auburn hair; and her beautiful face had a high natural coloring to set off those fine eyes. I am nearly certain that Jane Austen's mouth was full and naturally rose-colored. This is the authentic and definitive picture of Jane Austen - and accurate too.
Dear Ray, Heather, Julie, Cheryl, and Ashton,
Thank you all for your responses to my plea for information.
Your familiarity with and depth of knowledge in matters such as these quotations is impressive. My principal hobbies have been sailing and gravity. As almost any New Zealander could tell you, sailing is more a way of life than a hobby. Although I live in a quite different part of the world, there was a time when sailing was life to me; so much my life that, in the years that I did not ski, only thoughts of the first overnight race propped me up. Today, I regret that obsession. Gravity is a different thing.
Reading everything available on Sir Isaac Newton and a good deal about Albert Einstein revealed to me that much of what the world believes about these men is nonsense. My point is that although I have always felt at home in Jane Austen's time my knowledge of details was lacking because my reading time was devoted elsewhere. The details provided by Julie make me feel that I am beginning to find my way around Jane Austen's community, although the only people that I know well are her characters and, to a lesser extent, her family and a few neighbours.
I'll get Park Honan's book so that as I stroll the streets and lanes of all the Jane Austen shires, I can recognize the older residents and can carry on a conversation with them worthy of Lizzy's and Darcy's approval. Mumbling does not do it.
To All,
I am troubled by some curious coincidences:
Catherine Barton was the niece of Sir Isaac Newton and the alleged mistress of the Earl of Halifax (she benefitted handsomely from his will). Is there a connection to anything in S&S and NA in this coincidence?
Edmund Halley, of the cometary fame, was Newton's friend and assistant in determining that the two sightings of this comet, on one side and then the other of the sun, were in fact the same comet as Sir John Flamsteed, the astronomer royal, had announced in what to Newton had been such an astounding and unbelievable piece of news that he had determined to squash it(with thoroughly unsatisfying results). Could the disagreements between Newton and Flamsteed have been a source of inspiration for the unpleasantness of the Battle of the Wilderness between Liza Bennet and Lady Catherine (there we go again!).
Could the Battle of the Royal Society between Newton and the German independent inventor of the calculus have been a source for the conflicting claims of Lady C. and Elizabeth Bennet to the rights of possession of the corpus of Darcy?
Halley had been to St. Helena to make important astronomical observations. Is there-- well, perhaps not.
Have you any observations yourself on these coincidences of such gravity?
Dear Voices,
I finally got my new computer running and this page fits a lot better now for some reason, even though the screen isn't that much bigger. I can actually read the entire submission area without scrolling back and forth along the bottom bar!
My daughter is only 2 and a half. We're still at Pooh Corner with much Seussing and Lobelling going on. I am very much looking forward to the Potter years. Should I put them before or after Narnia, do you think?
Meanwhile, Ashton, I agree with your assessment of Farmer Martin, but not of his wife (to be). She's really a bit silly, you know, but I'll put that down to her youth. Thomas makes some good points about Miss Fairfax, but I like her anyway, though I appear not to have any right to do so. I do wonder, would I name a character after myself if I was writing a novel? Why does Austen do it? She does have her favourite names and reuses them often. But her own? Does that say anything about Miss Fairfax?
I have been doing some catching up in reading the postings, and I know there were some other points I wanted to touch on, but I can't remember them now, and besides, it's way past story hour around here. Gotta go.
Dear Heather,
It's good to have you back. We are all gearing up for the new version of Mansfield Park and your contribution will be important as always.
Actually, you are not talking about my interpretation of Harriet Smith - that was the interpretation put forward in the Kate-Beckinsale filmed version (Emma A&E). I was stunned because my take on Harriet had been just about the one you expressed. They didn't change any dialog or circumstances, it was the interpretation put forth by the actress (Samantha Morton) and her director. If you haven't seen the film, give it a try - it may change your mind about Harriet as well. I like Morton a good deal. She played Maria Western in an A&E production of Tom Jones and was the only good part of that series. She played the title role in A&E's Jane Eyre (gag). I have also seen her in some very contemporary things and have been impressed every time.
My grandson is 18 months and is obsessed with A-B-C and Hand, Hand, Fingers, Thumb so I am looking forward to the Suess books. Anthony gets upset with me every time I accidentally skip a few pages - he has them memorized - and so do I.
Dear Heather,
On the subject of the A&E version of Emma and Jane Fairfax. The best interpretation of Jane Fairfax is that of Olivia Williams's - it is excellent. Ms. Williams maintains a hint of the physical frailty while presenting a determined character who has accepted the rules of the game but is determined to maximize her possibilities within that structure.
I agree that Thomas makes some good points about Jane Fairfax because I make many of the same points in a place to which I will presently link you. The point that I did not make clear to Thomas was that I believed that Jane Fairfax was the better of Emma Woodhouse in matters of accomplishment and understanding. Moral questions are another subject and Julie and I had a knock-down, drag-out debate about this matter one year ago. Julie fired the first shot with her posting of 12/2/98; however, if anyone cares to read that debate, the best way is to link to the archive for that period, find Julie's posting, "Jane Fairfax - my favourite character of my favourite novel", (12/2/98), and follow the debate from there in chronological order. Julie became wearied of the struggle and her fatigue, combined with her revulsion at the pain and bloody injury she was inflicting, caused her to leave the field. This means, of course, that I won the debate - I always win.
Dear Heather,
You must include the Arthur Ransome novels in your children's reading. If my children were guides, then they cannot be too young to follow along. My daughter, a mathematics PhD candidate still reminds me that although I had read all of the books to her elder brothers, I had not read two of the Ransome's to her. Not to worry, she read those herself--and all of Shakespeare, and you name it. Am I saying that it is never too young to begin reading to small fry? I remember her puzzlements over some of the social history in Pride and Prejudice at 9.
Just type "Arthur Ransome" into Yahoo to come up with a resource-rich web site, including pictures of Captain Flint's actual houseboat, etc.
Dear John,
I've read that line, too. I think it was in Park Honan, but I may be mistaken.
As for Swallows and Amazons, you can be sure they're on one of the reading lists. The one headed "Best Read when Child Is Sleepy" otherwise I only get a paragraph into it before the next book is thrown on my lap. I do persist, however, and she definitely is a book lover.
Ashton: I don't know where Julie is, but I'll bet she's not at the movies.
Dear Cheryl,
I hope you had a nice trip - Hawaii I assume, or the south of France, perhaps even Tasmania?
I guess the world divides on the Crawfords. You probably have heard that Cassandra Austen tried to convince her sister to award Fanny Price to Mr. Crawford in the end. Jane Austen was the wiser sister I think.
Julie delivered some withering indictments of Crawford on 9/23/99, 9/25/99, and 10/15/99. I couldn't improve on Julie's postings. John takes your view of things and tried to reply on a number of occasions, most recently on 10/28/99. I don't think that he made any headway at all, but that was when you were still in Tasmania - ? - wherever. Now that you are back, John will have an ally. The two of you will make a formidable team, but I will get behind Julie on this one anyway - unless, of course, it seems as though I might get trounced as well - then, Julie will be on her own.
Dear Heather,
I think Harry Potter could probably come around the same time as Chronicles of Narnia. This brings back memories of all the wonderful children's literature I used to read. I really loved Roald Dahl. He's probably the same age group as Narnia and Potter. I think I found a children's adaptation of Jane Austen the other day. I didn't look at it though. Much of the story would probably be lost in the translation.
Dear Sir,
Nobody ever sees me - I'm a myth!
Julie
From the Meister: Mythic, a zephyr, a cipher, an e-Seraph, an e-phemera; only a hint and a promise - and a warning.
Dear Julie,
Read your Cross Purposes submission again. I see what you mean, and I must blush to think of what must have seemed like a Collins sort of lecture on my part. Why could I not be a Henry T.?
But surely the other Henry, Crawford, had no special feelings for Maria? He was challenged by her cold reception and set out to turn her feelings toward him around. I see no evidence that he had set out to bed her. Rather, I see time heavy on his hands while he gives Fanny time to think, free from his begging her to marry him. I see that things go much further than he intended. But with a more than willing woman and more than enough opportunity, well, no one says that Henry is an Edmund.
Maria is almost a Bronte-type heroine full of wilful and extravagant desire for the only man for whom she had ever had a passionate feeling, but married to a man whom she despises. She was wrong to marry a man she despised, she was wrong to carry even negative feelings for Crawford, and she was wrong to permit the rekindlings of her former feelings into a wildfire. But it happened. She refuses to ask for forgiveness and instead sits in angry sullenness completely out of the society of her family. Julia, Yates, and Tom might have visited but she seems to hate everyone except the malevolent Mrs. Norris.
I hope that I am not still talking at cross purposes. But, if you do not like these opinions, I have others.
Dear John,
I don't think she liked Mrs Norris much, either. Edmund comments on the relationship between Mrs Norris and her elder nephew and niece: 'She doesn't have enough influence with (Mariia or Tom) to be useful.' This was in regards to the play, of course, but in the event she had no objections to that event 'that were not talked down in five minutes by her elder nephew and niece, who were all-powerful than her.' I am inclined to think that being shut up in some remoter farm house (a la Lydia Bennet?) with just Mrs Norris for company was rather more punishment than Maria deserved. I hope she at least inherits the old girl's fortune! Jane Austen does comment on that household, and a chilling view it is: '....where there was on one side no regard, and on the other no judgement, it may be conjectured that they became each other's punishment.'
However that may be, it does rather lead one to wonder just what did happen to such women? I assume that Maria must be financially dependent on her father (where would the marriage settlements end up? Does Mr Rushworth keep them as a kind of damages compensation, or do they revert to Sir Thomas?), and therefore bound to stay where he puts her.
A real, live mistress appears in the pages of Parson Woodforde's diary (let's drag the old bloke in for a bit!), living with a brother of the largest landholder in the district. She apparently is treated quite civilly - certainly the good parson visits - though once Woodforde realises that the elder brother, the good squire, disapproves of things, he starts referring to her as 'the woman' rather than 'the lady'. Certainly she dines in company, etc, etc, though I don't think she meets the ladies.
Mary Ann Evans, a bit later in the century, was in something of the same position, in that gentlemen would come to hers and Lewes' house, but their wives did not - not until many years later.
As to Mr Crawford, John, I think I will continue to see the scales of a
reptile, where you see the skin of a mammal.
Julie
Dear Folks,
Before we go astray on the situation of married women in Jane Austen's time, let me quote to you from a diary entry of the good Parson from 1775:
August 10th. ... Betsy White of Shepton is to be married in a fortnight to a Gentleman of Devonshire by name Webster a Man reported to have 500 Pd per Annum, 18000 in the Stocks besides Expectations from his Father. He had settled 300 Pd Per Annum on Betsy.
300 Pd Per Annum was a lot of money, not too different from what the Parson himself earned after a good Oxford education. We don't know the circumstances or conditions, but we must leave open the possibility that Maria was self-supporting after her divorce. If Rushworth had settled some money on her in the marriage articles, which does not seem wholly out of the question, that would indeed have been the case.
Maria's situation at the end of the novel is not so different from what many woman might experience today. I have seen this sort of thing in my own family and amongst friends. The friends and family members divide, and some will feel so shocked and angry that they will turn their backs. However, these alienations turn out to be temporary, as often as not, and the families can, eventually, come together again.
Links