I am from Taiwan and read and loved Jane's novels since I was a boy, and I'm glad to hear the "serious" opinion on Jane's books, because it has become the popular misunderstanding that she was just a comedy-maker on the trifle about girls. But I never felt so, on the contrary, I very much admire her delicate insight toward the people she learned, I know little about British society but you will find humanity is so common. I just wonder why you didn't mention the S&S-BBS which one I consider is pretty good (unlike the disappointing S&S 96) and P&P-BBS, which I watched in Taiwan 14 years ago and still impressed! It's interesting to observe the reaction of Darcy after the fiasco of his first proposal, actually the traditional Taiwanese marriage very much emphasizes the connection and social status, it's hard to say that's society-consciousness, because it's nothing with the power but on the other hand, the education and the way of thought are the main consideration. It would be very embarrassing to get a wife who is viewed as silly or vulgar even if she is rich.

Have a nice day!

Persons raised in English-speaking countries discover another kind of universality in the writings of Jane Austen. Typically when we read novels from that period, we notice that there are many references and attitudes that are quite different than those of present day English-speaking societies. Often this makes the novels difficult to read and the humor, especially, will often seem obscure. Not so with a Jane Austen novel! They could have been written yesterday. The commonality of humanity that you point to, and that Jane Austen illustrates, extends over time as well as over geographical space.

I am familiar with the two BBC videos that you mention and I am grateful that you call these to the attention of other members of the Male Voices community. Here is a link to another web site for those interested in more information on these videos. I would be interested to hear more of your opinion about the interpretation of Darcy in P&P-BBC. It strikes me that the interpretation is overly stern and, so, not what Jane Austen intended. Also, the actor was so melancholy and so very stone-faced that he almost appeared ill to me. I can't imagine a lively woman, such as Elizabeth Bennet, ever loving such a presence. You will find that my interpretation of Darcy is quite different. Also, do you remember a very odd cinematic choice? That was just after Darcy handed Elizabeth his letter and he then walks off into the distance, in a straight line, while she reads the letter. You can see him over her shoulder, growing smaller and smaller, as she reads the entire letter. It is probably just my odd perspective, but the moment almost seemed more comical than dramatic.

Meister Messages

Lizzie Bennet is the most wonderful heroine I have ever had the joy of knowing (as Mr. Elliot said of Anne "In my heart, I know you intimately"). Jennifer Ehle played her wonderfully. In fact, I cannot read P&P anymore without picturing Jennifer's face. I'm glad someone else enjoyed the performance as well. OH to be looked at in the manner that Darcy gazed at Lizzie....Are there any female voices out there?!?!

Dear Kate,

Do you mean that you think that there are too many male voices? I hope that you will come to think of the male perspective as an interesting change of pace; for example, I suspect that my interpretation of Jane Austen's intentions in the characters of Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet are different than the usual female interpretations. I would be interested in your reaction. How would you rate the performance of Amanda Root (Anne Elliot, Persuasion) relative to that of Jennifer Ehle's? I would put them on a par. Most know about the Gwyneth Paltrow's and Kate Beckinsale's interpretations of Emma Woodhouse, but only a handful are familiar with that of Doran Godwin (BBC, 1972). That was in a less well funded production with a less glamorous cast; however, it is my favorite. I would rank Ms Godwin's performance and interpretation right next to those of Jennifer Ehle and Amanda Root.

Mr. Meister,

Thanks for directing me to your interesting, if not a bit wordy, web page. I am enjoying it. I wanted to say, re: C. S. Lewis' comments at the start of your page, that JA writing might very well not work in these times, because the grammar of conduct has gone out the window. The outlandish and unreasonable has become the norm, and there are no standards to measure them against. Anything goes. We are shocked at nothing. Every rule bends and breaks, and there is no need to change to accomodate correctness in behavior or thought. I also have some things to say about Mark Twain, but in the interest of avoiding excessive wordiness, I'll save that for some other time. Oh, and by the bye, I am not a man.

Perhaps you are too subtle for me - is your posting a lament or a manifesto? If the latter, then you sound quite a bit like some of Jane Austen's contemporaries (Wollstonecraft, Godwin, Mary Shelley, de Sade, etc.) and even more like some of my old Berkeley contemporaries. Individuals in both groups paid a terrible price for their arrogance - imagine their surprise. The truth is that there is nothing new under the sun; it is still true that each of us aches for respect and the great offense is, still, to "dis" someone. That is as true now, in our streets, as it was when Darcy dised Elizabeth in the assembly room. It is still true that a lover demands honor, fidelity, and sacrifice from each of us; violate one of those needs and find out just how little we have changed - and find out just how much you will be made to pay. More importantly, learn just how much you have lost forever. I believe that left alone, any group will - must attempt to re-invent a "grammar of behavior" where one is not in place. We don't bow or curtsey; however, we give gang signs, or wear college sweatshirts, or shaved heads, or tattoos, or give any number of other signals to indicate our loyalties and our "education". What is the purpose of a culture if not to make the process efficient? The wise woman's "grammar" is an encoding of a cumulative experience, why not study it? and learn from it?

If your posting is a lament, then you will find it echoed in my posting on Mansfield Park.

I am still shocked at many things; at substance abuse, at domestic violence, and at cruelty at work and in the streets. It may be that you confuse poor grammar for no grammar at all. I'm suggesting that Jane Austen explains how to avoid some things; she explains how men should relate to women and how women should relate to men. (Her father and two of her brothers were clergymen and sermon making seemed to be in the blood.) Who knows, maybe if we learn the simpler lessons, even larger problems will be resolved as well. Certainly, those simpler lessons, well learned, will bring a great deal of happiness to this world.

I see that I have verified your charge of wordiness. In any case, please stay with us and continue to post until we have this all worked out. (It is GOOD to see a woman get in touch with her own masculine voice.) I think we need to review and thereby improve our grammar but, perhaps, you will convince me otherwise.

Mister Meister,

Holy Cow! Did I say and/or imply all that? I suppose what I meant is what you so kindly clarified for me: that our society has a poor grammar of conduct. But I think, because of it, that beyond our own pain, there is little concern for betrayal and infidelity. It seems stylish to seek one's own happiness and self-fulfillment at all costs. But fidelity and loyalty imply self-denial, which it seems, is contrary to self-fulfillment. Sublety was not my intent--I was only expressing what I see in my everyday dealings with people: I was not expressing my feelings on these observations. But, if anyone is interested, I think it very sad that we have such a confused grammar of conduct. Have you read Chesterton's "What's Wrong With the World"? That's one of my favorite books, and pretty well sums up why we are in such a state.

I can see now that you were not overly subtle and that I was a bit obtuse. I hope that you will come to agree that the sentiments you express underlie one of my main motives for creating this web site; you are certainly one of the types that I hoped would participate. I am not familiar with Chesterton, but I certainly will pick it up. Would you rank Jane Austen alongside Chesterton? Maybe not.

Mister Meister,

G. K. Chesterton, the most prolific writer of this century, was a man of strong opinion and unbending belief, so people either love him or hate him. His Father Brown mysteries are 1st rate psychological mysteries that show his depth in understanding human nature. I enjoy most of his writings, but prefer the gentleness and I suppose, femininity of Jane Austen. Yes, I think he ranks with her in clarity of thought, and depth of understanding, but he comes on at times like a bulldozer, so I don't think he'll ever share her wide appeal. The book I mentioned is a classic, but it is non-fiction, and "The Man Who Was Thursday", which is fiction, is also very good. You might enjoy checking out the many web-sites devoted to him. I also like his pal, Hilaire Belloc. C.S.Lewis was also one of their pals. I love your web-site. I enjoy reading your reviews: you see things that I wouldn't have thought of. I hate to have JA's intelligence degraded by popular movies, such as the ones you mention, but I never can put my finger on why I don't like them. And yet, I'll like them for shallow reasons like the pretty costumes, or the cinemetography. I hope you stay with your hard work here--it is refreshing. Now, I am being too wordy--it must be contagious. My comments on Mark Twain are still on hold, as well as some on Fanny-bashing.

Dear Divine Ms. M,
I have my brand spanking new copy of What's Wrong With The World and I am already grateful to you because I found something neat that he said about Jane Austen. That quote already has been posted. I don't know if I will like the rest of the book because you said he was a "bulldozer". I have never been called such a thing and so I may not like him. No, my nickname among my family and friends is "Rhino" (more pre-industrial and more organic sounding).

Links