Dear author of "Male Voices",
I have recently read Austen's "Sense and Sensibility." I found it to be a wonderful novel. I saw the 1995 film version of the novel the day before I read the novel, mainly due to my admiration for Kate Winslet's acting ability. It was with great interest that I read the review of this movie. As a future English major and avid reader I try to read novels that are not generally read or discussed. I was therefore greatly intrigued by this page. The in-depth, detailed critique of Ms. Thompson's screenplay caused me to think back to both the novel and film and acknowledge the fallacies pointed out in the latter. Although I still enjoy the movie, I now truly take to heart my own somewhat negative opinion of film adaptations: they are never the equal of the novel. A simple listing of grievances with Thompson's script could easily be dismissed, even by an Austen admirer. The excellent quality of the argument against the movie moved me greatly there is perhaps nothing that thrills me as much as a well-written essay, on any topic, no matter my own views on the subject. I was also pleased to see that you credited Ms. Winslet with a lovely performance. I agree with you, even with your analysis of the movie's many faults. Of course, all lovers of novels and the written word, especially that of centuries ago, must realize that no movie will ever be able to fully encompass that which the author intended. Until such a time may come, we must continue with wonderful internet pages in order to communicate our appreciation for the literary minds besieged by the horrific "writers" of Hollywood. Thank you for your literary interest and analysis. Have a nice day.
From the Board Meister: Thank you for your
kind
words, they are very much appreciated.
I'm in the process of writing a paper on the English Class system of Jane Austen's times, and how it affected her works, particularly P&P and Emma. I would greatly appreciate any info anyone has out there on how English society was separated into classes and what effect this had on one's future (i.e. marriage, wealth, landowning) and the way others receive you.
Thanks,
Laura
Claire Tomalin takes something of a sociological approach in her biography of Jane Austen and that may be of some help to you. Also, you might find someone who has posted to the Male Voices bulletin board and who seems to have the kind of background that would be of use to you. Perhaps you can set up a correspondence by e-mail.
For me, I am always impressed by the extraordinary extent to which Jane Austen's novels are disconnected from her times. During the time that she was composing and publishing her novels, her nation was fighting some of the bloodiest battles in its long history. There was the naval battle at Trafalgar, the bloody peninsula campaign (in Spain) against Napoleon, and the battle of Waterloo. This was akin to an American writer writing in a short period of time into which were compressed the battle of Midway, the Tet offensive, and the battle at Gettysburg. Her own brother was in charge of setting up England's coastal defenses in anticipation of Napoleon's invasion (the invasion that Napoleon planned but never actually initiated). Meanwhile, Casanova and the Marquis de Sade were publishing just as a full account of Josephine's many extra-marital affairs was being published in the London newspapers. The Princess of Wales was giving birth to illegitimate children and Mary Wollstonecraft's husband was publishing accounts of Mary's pursuit of married men (and women). Find hints of any of that in Jane Austen's novels! A measure of JA's greatness and an indication of the timelessness of her work is the fact that she did not allow her times to intrude upon her art.
Dear Gentle Readers,
I am writing as a result of reading The Meister's front-page comment on Larry Olivier, which may not be entirely fair on the late & great Sir Laurence. The tradition then in films made in the UK was to rigidly follow the script, and in this case, the script was derived from the 1935-36 West End play. Helen Jerome wrote the play and it was very successful at the St. James' Theatre. However, she was criticized by Elizabeth Jenkins for straying too far from JA's dialogue. Refer to Elizabeth Jenkins Jane Austen: A Biography (1938, pbk reprint 1996).
You are quite right on nearly all points. Thank you for this critique.
I was aware that the 1940 screenplay was based upon a play and not directly upon the novel. I have plans to make a major revision of my postings sometime late this summer and, for one thing, I had thought to do a more accurate portioning out of the blame for that film. It will not be a simple task because Helen Jerome did not write the screenplay; however, your posting helps me understand that I must place a priority on that task.
Here is an interesting point. I don't know the location where the film was made; however, I am nearly certain that it is not a British film. I have the distinct impression that it is American made (at MGM). Can you clear that up? - I very much hope that you have it right, but I don't think so.
This is an opportunity for me to publicly state that I admire a number of Olivier's films and performances. I very much admire his Hamlet, Henry V, and Richard III. The first two are far superior to the more recent, more expensive, and much-ballyhooed filmed versions. On the other hand, his Othello was something worse than a flop - it was racist, campy, and unintentionally hilarious.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I need comments on the sentence beginning in Pride and Prejudice that "It is universally true that a single man.......". Your reply will be highly appreciated.
First of all, there is the complete quote: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife". Jane Austen was required to start the novel with a something and she chose this particular english sentence. I believe it a very good one because it gives a sense of the excitement and expectation that the arrival of Bingley and Darcy would have caused in the neighborhood. And it must have been very exciting indeed. This was a country village without a great number or variety of marriageable men and this was certainly good news. A person - woman nor man - did not advance in the ways that we have available in industrial society. To be sure, a few persons could advance by defeating Napoleon's army in Spain or by writing Pride and Prejudice, but the primary method for improving one's situation was through an advantageous marriage. Such a marriage would bring wealth and/or the expectations of wealth gained through the new family connections. This was not a selfish thing as it also meant that one's brothers and sisters and one's own elder family members would benefit as well. At least as important was the consideration that one's offspring would not be properly provided for in an imprudent marriage. Remember that there were not the safety nets that we take for granted in our times. There were no things like social security, Medicare, farm subsidies, widespread government sponsorship of industrial research, nor any other form of welfare. A person had to take responsibility for her own future and a "good" marriage was the number one consideration.
Claire Tomalin is a Jane-Austen biographer and she makes an interpretation of this opening line that is similar to my own [Tomalin-JA, Chapter 15].
I assume that your request is inspired by a class assignment. My explanation is too mundane, and if you were to adapt it, you could not expect anything more than a grade of "C". The problem is that everyone is very afraid of Jane Austen. We all know that she was terribly ironic and only a cursory study leads to the discovery that she was terribly intelligent as well. Most people expect that she meant something very deep and incisive with this line and, if you do not agree, you will be considered a dolt. The secret to getting a good grade in most courses is to write something that is outrageous - not just any outrageous thing, not something that can be disproved. No - you must find something that is outrageous but cannot be proved one way or the other. (The credibility of some academic disciplines and all political parties can only be established with this technique.) You will find some who will adopt the thesis that this line proves that Jane Austen was a proto-communist, an incestuous lesbian, or some other silly thing.
I just found your web site today and really enjoyed your critique of the various film treatments. (I wish you had included the 1979 BBC P&P that that starred Elizabeth Garvie!! and David Rintoul). Then, this evening , I read this article at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ (may require registration) Here's the Article:
Electronic Telegraph
Saturday 16 May 1998
Issue 1086Austen house to become study centre
By Giles Worsley, Architecture CorrespondentTHE house in which Jane Austen wrote Mansfield Park, Emma and Persuasion is to be restored and turned into a centre for studying the author's works and those of other early English women authors.
Descendants of Austen's brother, Edward, will be playing a key role in the restoration of the old family home, Chawton House in Hampshire. Cassandra and Adam Knight, direct descendants of Edward Austen-Knight, will never live at Chawton House, but they will act as landscape designer and architect for the restoration.
The house has been let on a long lease to the newly-created Centre for the Study of Early English Women's Writing, set up by Sandy Lerner, the American computer millionairess. Today, Chawton House, built in 1585 with wings added in the 1650s, is a sad sight. The park was badly damaged in the storms of 1987 and 1989 and the ornamental gardens are derelict. Cracks run up the walls of the house, which has been empty since 1987, and part of the roof is missing.
It was very different in Austen's day. She moved to a cottage in the village in 1809 when the house was owned by her brother. Work has started on the house and a programme of restoration to the surrounding 273 acres of park and garden will begin if an application for £4.8 million to the Heritage Lottery Fund is successful.
The intention is to demolish, with English Heritage's permission, a later Victorian wing that is in bad condition. Within the house, once repairs are completed, book stacks will be created in the basement and reading rooms on the first floor. These will house the Lerner collection of nearly 4,000 early books written by women. Two-thirds of these date from before 1830. The books will provide a focus for the centre, which is intended to spread interest in early women's writings to everyone from schoolchildren in nearby Alton Primary School to research professors from America.For Richard Knight, the owner of the freehold of Chawton House, the solution is a happy one that has involved the family. A farmer in Gloucestershire, he will be responsible for the management of the surrounding land. Adam Knight, working for the Henley-based architects Nichols, Brown and Webber, will supervise the repair of the house and his sister Cassandra, who qualified as a landscape architect in 1992, will implement the landscape management plan drawn up by Sybil Wade.
The restoration of the park and gardens to their appearance in Austen's time is a key part of the scheme. They will be used to explain to students the importance of landscape in the novels of Austen and her contemporaries.
(Links to previous articles)
20 September 1997: Jane Austen unmasked
7 September 1996: How Jane Austen's Emma became a lesbian
WOW
26 February 1996: Irish airs offer clue to the lost love of Jane Austen
You have a lot to say on this subject.
Thanks for the web site
Tom
I am going to assume that the Chawton "house" referred to in Worsley's article is the Chawton cottage where Jane Austen composed her last several works. Her brother owned both the great house and the cottage and I hope that there is not some confusion here. (See Persuasion for one example of the existence of a "cottage" - usually the home of a married heir - alongside a great house.) You posting is very interesting and very disconcerting: I guess the English have so much worth preserving, that it is difficult for them to keep up with it all. Maybe, we should send them the funds that are usually wasted at Graceland. Here is a photo of Chawton Cottage.
I read the articles at the Electronic Telegraph that you mentioned; they were very interesting. (One does have to register in order to read some of these things.) The most interesting relates to my posting in which I expressed my belief that Jane Austen was in love with Tom Lefroy. I suspect that you know that. Some researchers recently discovered that JA had copied out a number of Irish songs just after Tom's visit to neighborhood (Tom was a native of Ireland). The details were sufficient to inspire them to speculate that Jane was indeed in love with Mr. Lefroy. I am always glad to hear of anything that supports any of my speculations; however, the case may not be proved as yet. I mean this seems a bit circumstantial at best. Maybe I will be less reluctant if I read the full research report.
The second article reported on a forthcoming book in which the author writes a sequel to Jane Austen's Emma. In this sequel, Emma fails to consummate her marriage with Knightley and then falls into a lesbian love affair. This new literary luminary is English and a woman. A very bright English woman I should imagine and a woman with a keen sense of marketing. She not only uses Jane Austen's art and reputation to deflect attention from her own abilities but she also taps into the male pornography market as well. I mean that the lesbian has always been a mainstay of male pornography and I suspect that will mean that a few hundred thousand copies of this thing will be sold. Yes! exploitation and pornography - an unbeatable, marketing ploy. Perhaps Larry Flint will serialize this entrepreneur's invention, and maybe Howard Stern will invite her onto his show (she has done worse things in order to sell books). In this way, she will meet both of the current American icons of free speech and personal freedom. You have come a long way baby!
Someone else posted on the Elizabeth-Garvie version of P&P on 2/12/98. My reply on 2/12/98 was unenthusiastic; however, since you are the second person to recommend it, I decided to reevaluate my opinion. I viewed this version again and I will give my review in this very spot. First of all, here is a link to more information on that film, and here is an idealized portrait of Elizabeth Garvie as Elizabeth Bennet. Incidentally, the screenwriter was Fay Weldon and she was the subject of another posting and reply.
I am not at all sure what you and C.W. Kao see in this version and I cannot concur in your praise. This film is not the premeditated crime of Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility; however, I do think it a simple and complete failure. The worst part of the film is the directing: One has the impression that the actors were being paid by the hour and the director acted as a sort of foreman and hurried everybody through their lines. The film lasts four hours, but I suspect that they all got through a six-hour script. Two things that Jane Austen absolutely mastered were timing and pacing (she was already a master of those things by her sixteenth birthday). This film demonstrates what a mess things become when one loses control of those attributes. Just as the director was eliminating all that wonderful timing and pacing, Ms. Weldon was trampling the subtlety and nuance. She adds words to nearly every one of Jane Austen's lines in an apparent effort to make things "clearer" to her audience--I can't imagine what the woman was thinking about. Jane Austen never underestimated her audience - not one single time! This is a matter of opinion, but I believe that Ms. Weldon perfectly misunderstands the characters of Charlotte Lucas, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, and - this is terrible - the character of Darcy. This version of Darcy seems the worst kind of product of a modern boarding school, the kind of man we all love to hate. The really odd thing is that the portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet is not all that bad, so she goes through her epiphany and undelusion and gains all that respect for Darcy that Jane Austen attributes to that character's evolution. Why? I wanted her to injure this version of Darcy; surely, Jane Austen's Elizabeth would have injured this Darcy. Ms. Weldon often cut apart some of JA's sentences, placed various segments in different places in the story, and even attributed them to other characters. ???. I can only assume that she thought Jane Austen in need of an editor--Ms Weldon unintentionally proves quite the opposite. Of course, Ms. Weldon also chooses to add her own lines to the script and those are poor attempts at humor but the over-all impression is one of an increased meanness in all characters - VERY unpleasant. The Bennet sisters, especially, become much meaner in spirit, especially in relation to one another. I could go on and on but I will not.
I may have been blinded by the light of Jennifer Ehle's performance and I must not allow that to happen. (I recently watched Paradise Road - Jennifer Ehle really is a fine-looking woman, an exceptional talent, and the unacknowledged star of that film.) Elizabeth Garvie is a beautiful young woman but it is a delicate beauty and not the robust kind we anticipate in an Elizabeth Bennet. Ms Garvie is the best actor in this version of P&P, but she is not in the same category of talent as Jennifer Ehle.
Thank you for your participation. Welcome to the community.
[A posting which, in part, contains Julie's replies to the Meister's questions of 5/7/98.]
Dear Sir,
You forgot to mention the billabong. What about cruelty to them? I don't know why a jumbuck is a sheep, but it's part of an old Colonial song about a thief who steals sheep and commits suicide - people here often want it for our National Anthem, and I think it has more to recommend it than our current one.
I agree that we have exhausted the beauty theme. See? It doesn't matter! Sorry, just an acute attack of last-word-itis - it won't happen again - until we debate our next point.
I am indeed a nursing sister. I don't know any other Bronte-loving ones here, though. Actually, I don't at all love the Brontes. I have read all their works - once. I don't plan to read them again. I am interested in their lives, for a great many reasons, not least because they illustrate, especially in the case of Charlotte, and to a lesser extent Anne, how constricting life was for single, poor, educated women, and I think I detect in their writing and biography a hint of a beginning of the emancipation movement. I won't bore you, but if you can force yourself to find a good biography, it is striking to see how hard Charlotte had to fight in order to gain her father's permission to marry a perfectly respectable man - her father's curate, in fact - and she was a middle-aged woman! No wonder she was as neurotic as all hell.
I don't know that I think that Rosamund had an ugly mind as a girl and a bride - that might be dignifying it too much. I remember her as a spoilt, insufferably smug, child. Later in her marriage, and in her commenting on her second marriage as her 'reward', yes, she is most unattractive. George Eliot was not kind to non-intellectual women - do you remember in Felix Holt, where she comments on European women 'the weight of whose hair is greater than that of their brains?' She is a little uncharitable, as education and opportunities for women in the countries to which she refers could be very limited, and if one of those heavy-haired ladies had gone off to live with another woman's husband, her family would have killed her.
I do have some sympathy for Charlotte Lucas, also. She is intelligent, practical, poor and plain. I don't condone her marriage, but, once again, what was she to do? Governessing was a life of servitude, very likely with an impoverished old age to look forward to. At least she managed to achieve a home of her own, and enough financial independence to maintain her self-respect - yes, I know, until she looked at her husband. But at least she made no-one suffer but herself, and appears to have intended to be a conscientious and good wife. I think her a sad person, really.
Have you read Mrs Gaskell's 'Wives and Daughters'? Sorry to keep introducing different authors, but they come in handy when berating a point. Look at young Cynthia in that book, and what difficulties women could find themselves in if they did not tread the very narrow path laid out for them. Similarly in 'The Mill on The Floss', and that terrible scene where poor Maggie is supposed to have compromised herself w ith Stephen. These two women authors, at least, were aware of the binding constraints upon women - I can't judge Charlotte Lucas too harshly for wanting at least a measure of freedom, and social respectability - though personally, if he were my husband I would have to take to drink. By the bye, which is your favourite JA novel? I am torn between 'Emma' and 'Mansfield Park'.
Bedtime.
Julie
I knew it! Guess my wife's profession.
You begin a new debate in your latest posting, good for you! By the very nature of a bulletin board you will have the first word on things and, as you will discover, you will always be allowed the last word as well. I am so very sorry that I might prove to be a bit troublesome in between. Actually, I sense that this new one may be an extension of the old debate but with the "more useful context and language" that I begged for on 5/7/98.
I am going to start this with a very, very narrow focus, and pounce upon your statement "Governessing was a life of servitude, very likely with an impoverished old age to look forward to". I don't believe that, and I believe it a part of the current, popular female lament that has no basis in fact. First of all, you will find that Ms. Sheila Moll posted on 2/16/98 with a view very much like yours. That is, your view is currently in the majority in our community, but I will try to change that.
I also read biography, but not with your energy and, as a consequence, I lack the depth and breadth of your understanding. However, I can wheedle. I did notice that in Claire Tomalin's biography of Mary Wollstonecraft that Mary earned forty pounds per year in the short time that she worked as a governess (that is 800 shillings). She was pleased with that until she learned that her predecessor had left with a guaranteed annual annuity of 50 pounds (12,000 pence) - Mary was miffed. (We can only speculate as to reason that the predecessor was pensioned in this way.) Compare this with the posting on 5/5/98 when a certain person informed us all that a man-servant could expect to earn was a bit over 4 pounds per annum. The governess was always unmarried, but the man-servants might well have been supporting families. In other words, a governess would earn in one year what a man-servant, a family man, could only earn in ten! Your pity is misplaced - adjust your aim a bit to the left. To be sure, the governess was impoverished when compared to a real life counterpart of Georgianna Darcy who earned about 1,500 pounds per annum in interest income. Incidentally, I believe that the annual salary of a typical curate - an Oxford graduate and a gentleman's son - was also about 40 or 50 pounds per annum. Can you confirm that? As to social status, there was some ambiguity as Mrs Elton and Miss Woodhouse clearly demonstrate in the case of Miss Taylor (Mrs. Weston); however, in general, these women were treated as the gentlewomen that they were. The examples of Jane Fairfax and Miss Taylor demonstrate that the governess could at least hope for an advantageous marriage when in this position.
I have not proved my point because I only recited anecdotes; however, I do lend my point of view some credibility in this way. A complete statistical survey consistent with these anecdotes would establish my view in a more convincing way. Numbers are of some importance. Jane Austen understood that and made sure we knew of all the important incomes. Elizabeth Bennet's dad had an annual income of 2,000 pounds, Bingley had 5,000 pounds, and Darcy could call upon 10,000 pounds annually. Do you agree that these facts set up some crucial relationships? Most readers are amused or even embarrassed by this habit of Jane's and I don't know of any other author who duplicated it. As always, I think Jane Austen had it right and all those other folks are dead wrong.
I am an incurable romantic, so my favorite Jane Austen novels are Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion, in that order. However, I very much admire all of JA's novels - well, maybe Northanger Abbey is at a lower level of admiration in my thinking. I hope you will read my postings on Emma and Mansfield Park; I would be very interested in your reactions.
If you are looking for the origins of the women's emancipation movement, I suggest that you are looking at a period of time too advanced, at the wrong class of persons, at the wrong type of persons, at the wrong nation, and at the wrong sex. You are looking at the generation corresponding to JA's grandniece when you should be looking to her grandmother's generation. My guess is that you will find what you are looking for if you look at merchants and shopkeepers rather than gentry and marginal gentry; at radical polemicists rather than novel writers; at the French rather than the English; and at male intellectuals rather than women. See my postings on Mary Wollstonecraft and Women in the Regency Period.
Links
