Dear Ashton et al,

Bruce has, with his post of 9-22-99 done what he does best: pose an apparently straightforward question about Jane Austen which leads one to contemplate the whole wide world.

Let's talk about the Austen part first.  The theory (which Bruce presents without claiming it as his own belief) is that Sir Thomas' trip to Antigua is the true center around which the novel pivots.  Actually, having just written that sentence, I must agree that it's true.  But, can we take half a dozen sentences and recreate the entire novel as a social commentary about slavery? I think the answer is no.

Sir Thomas' departure is too vital to the action to need any further explanation.  If Sir Thomas were home, Mr. Rushworth's attentions to Maria would have been  out of the question.  And neither the sudden intimacy with Henry and Mary Crawford,  nor the play could have occurred with Sir Thomas in the house.  And without the distractions of love and lust, he could hardly have missed what was going on between Crawford and Maria, abbreviated though they would have been under such circumstances.  In this situation, I think I must invoke Flannery O'Connor's rule about symbolism:  "Sometimes a black hat is just a black hat."

There's been a fair amount of bandying names back and forth to support this or that theory of which novel was about what.  Literature isn't science, so we can't simply dismiss post hoc reasoning as invalid  but I don't think examining one's theories in that light can hurt.  But mostly, when such things go on I think about the final scene in the movie "The Usual Suspects" when the cop starts looking at the bottom of his coffee cup, and the book titles and such and I wonder if we're not giving more weight to these names than they deserve.

I would also say that, in my opinion, the major faults with the Olivier version of Pride and Prejudice and the E. Thompson version of Sense and Sensibility was the attempt to make them reflect current social/political beliefs and concerns.  Simply from a standpoint of writing and entertainment, it didn't work.  And the sad thing about the possible changes to Mansfield Park is that it's already a novel with a strong social/political theme and one that we confront every day.  In both Mansfield Park and Persuasion Jane Austen posed questions everyone in a rapidly changing society must ask:  what customs and conventions do we keep and which do we allow to die?  How does one stay anchored as a moral and ethical individual when the definitions of such are changing?   And how much weight does one give to cultural difference (or likeness) when judging another person's morals and ethics?   Surely, this is enough to make a great movie about?

The bigger question is what, if any, responsibility does the artist have to the public to practice truth in advertising?  We're not discussing the artist's right to create what she wants to create  we're talking about whether she has the right to use a title which conveys specific expectations while making a movie that is totally different.  Mind you, I'm not saying this is the case with Mansfield Park - I can't review a movie I haven't seen yet, but would it be fair to the audience to title the movie "Bulworth" "The House of The Seven Gables"?  Would it have been fair to call "Clueless"  "Emma" or "10 Things I Hate About You"  "The Taming of The Shrew?" (And would we have been able to enjoy them as such?)  As you might guess, I'd say the answer is no.  Would the movie have less impact if it were titled "Fanny Price" or something? Of course it wouldn't  but it might not have made as much money, and that's what's truly important.  And why does the writer/director of Mansfield Park find it necessary to invoke the letters of Jane Austen and this and that? I for one would certainly go see a biography of our lady, so why didn't she just write and direct one.  The answer a cynic such as myself would suggest is that you can't make the big bucks proposing projects no one will back. And there's always a hint of desperation when an artist is trying to tell us why his mainstream work isn't really a sellout like everyone else's.
Cheryl

To Everyone,

Hello! I'm conducting an undergraduate research project on Jane Austen.  The tentative title is "The Pop Culture of Jane Austen." (If you have a snazzier suggestion, I'd appreciate it.) I would like to post a couple of questions to all of you. You can either respond here or e-mail me at leah_haney@spc.com  This should make for interesting conversation.

• 1. Are you a member of the academic world, or do you like Jane Austen for pure enjoyment?
• 2. How do you feel about all of the recent JA movie/film adaptations? Do you think that it lowers the value of the works by bringing them to the "masses?" Or do you consider the adaptations to be a good thing?
• 3. What do you find so appealing about JA? Why do you think that society today is so enamored with her?
• 4. Do you consider yourself to be a "Janeite?" Why or why not?

Thank you,
Leah Haney

• 1. I study Jane Austen for pure enjoyment and for enlightenment.
• 2. I love the JA movie/film adaptations. I am a genetically predisposed democrat so I don't even say "masses". I suppose that I have not the proper respect for the elete but my gut feeling is that anything worthwhile is for everybody. The adaptations are a good thing because there will never be a single excellent interpretation of Jane Austen's works. The more good ones I see, and read of at this site, the better I will like it. And besides, I like to trash-talk the other kind.
• 3. Jane Austen lived in the same kind of chaotic, iconoclastic times as we live in today. Her novels are a refocus on individual considerations that many long for in our times. I suspect that her contemporary readers found the same kind of refuge, from the same kind of conditions and din, that we find - that Churchill found in 1943.
• 4. I am a "Janeite" in the sense that I am obsessed with Jane Austen and I lack objectivity or judgment. So? However, I doubt that other Janeites will let me in their club - my views are too strong and too off-center.

Dear Leah,

• 1. Over the years I have read Austen for pure enjoyment, then for academic reasons, and now I find that I read her to boost my memory so that I can argue about the novels more convincingly at this site.  Of course, that falls under the "enjoyment" heading, I think.
• 2. I like the movie adaptations because they offer a good sense of time and place, although the films are not particularly faithful to the novels.  Sometimes it is in the straying that they are most interesting, and I love to see other people’s interpretations. Sometimes I am offended by what I feel are inaccuracies, and I like that, too.  It makes me feel superior in my understanding of the works.
  
  I do not consider that the works have been "brought to the masses."  A movie adaptation of the novel is not the novel.  But some people will be made aware of the novels for the first time through movies and will explore the books as a result of this awareness. And, to quote another pop icon, "that’s a good thing."
  
• 3. I love Austen’s humour.  I love the way her characters reveal themselves in conversation with one another.  I love Austen’s manner of saying things by not saying things - a difficult concept to explain in a few sentences, but those who know her know what I mean.  In short, I love her style.
  
  I don’t think that society today is enamoured with Austen.  I believe Hollywood is enamoured, in those moments when it tires of courtroom scenes, car chases, coming of age films and 1001 Ways To Kill A Teenager movies.  Hollywood turns to The Period Piece, and having nothing original or of particular import to say for itself, and having run out of E. M. Forster novels to interpret to film, the cinema hails Austen is its current darling with a nod to Shakespeare who is always and forever at the ready.
  
• 4. I accept Ashton’s definition of Janeite. In fact, I accept Ashton as a prime example of a Janeite (although he is far more erudite than most of my experience), and using him as the measure, I do not believe I am one.  I am not obsessed by Austen, but have from time to time been possessed by her, while reading her works, arguing about her works, or watching filmed adaptations of her works.  During these brief periods I may have had faulty judgment and little objectivity, in which case I would certainly be the last to know.

Dear Leah,

I feel a little like an experimental rat here, but I will respond nevertheless.

• I am not a member of the academic world, whatever that is.
• I read Jane Austen because ..... well, for the same reason that I breathe air and drink water, I suppose.
• I have absolutely no interest in any adaptation, continuation, modification, or condensation, of any of Jane Austen's works.  Why would one?
• What is popular culture?

Ask me another.
Regards,
Julie

• I first read Pride and Prejudice while a teenager in West Texas.  I just like to read Jane Austen.
• I haven't seen many of her movies.  I did see one and I think that it was on BBC.  From reading other postings, I find that the movie adaptations interest others in discovering her novels.  That is good.
• I have no idea why I found her appealing but in one of her books she speaks of them going to a modern house (I think that it was Sense & Sensibility).  The writing was so modern that I didn't remember that the story took place about 1800 until they got in the carriage.  The characters were people I had met (in fact, I lived next door to Lydia Bennet.) Please pardon the cliche but her books have a universal truth about them.
• Now do I consider myself a Janeite?  I enjoy rereading her works.

Dear Ashton,

Having read with increasing interest the earlier postings on Mansfield Park and wondering how so much had passed me by when I read it,I determined to re-read it. I had always regarded it as, for me, her least attractive work-coming a very last sixth (after Emma, P&P, Persuasion, Northanger Abbey and S&S.)

But now I am stuck. I have just passed the Crawford proposal to Fanny and I can't continue. And the reason for this for me is that I have never encountered such lack lustre characters as Fanny and Edmond. I simply dont care what happens to them and I feel that Jane was somewhat artful in expecting us to believe that Mr Crawford could be so attached.

I wonder if half a pint of malt whiskey would assist in getting (or maybe stumbling) over this hurdle to get to the narrative about characters that are not cardboard cutouts (The Crawfords...)

Dear David,

Mr Crawford wasn't attached  he simply wasn't used to not getting what he wanted.  His sister points this out when he first announces his plans 'to make Fanny a little in love with him':  'Foolish fellow!  And so this is her attraction after all!  This is it - her not caring about you - which gives her such a soft skin and makes her so much taller, and produces all these charms and graces!'  Exactly.  Mr Crawford sets about seducing Fanny in exactly the same way as he probably attacked the chambermaids.  He is simply amusing himself with a game, and that would have held true even if he had married Fanny after his first proposal - he would have bonked her, plonked her at Everingham, and proceed onwards, quite untroubled and unhindered by his wife. After all, marriage never hindered his beloved uncle, the Admiral, from pleasing himself, so why should Mr Crawford feel differently?  Mr Crawford would have dined with the Admiral's mistress, who lived with the old goat, whenever he was in London.

I agree with you that Fanny and Edmund are a painful pair, in many ways, but it is worth reading on, because of the subtlety with which Jane Austen deals with Fanny's thought processes, when she is in Portsmouth.  She finds herself wishing for Miss Crawford's correspondence, when previously, getting away from the Crawfords had been one of the good things about going to Portsmouth. She entertains the idea of herself, as Mrs Crawford, being able to offer Susan a home, and 'fancied that Mr Crawford would enter upon such a scheme' - you bet he would!  Susan would have been hitting him over the head with a chamber pot inside of six weeks.

The lack of attraction of the main characters was precisely Jane Austen's point:  she was making a stand in favour of old-fashioned country, Tory values, which were then out of fashion, and did, indeed, look rather dull when compared with the fashionable set around the Prince Regent.  I suppose Fanny's and Edmund's main use was that of making the other characters think - Sir Thomas about his parenting and past snobbery - 'Fanny was indeed the daughter he wanted', Mary about life in general - she 'was long in finding among the dashing representatives, or idle heir apparents, ...... any one who could satisfy the better taste she had acquired at Mansfield, whose character and manners could authorise a hope of the domestic happiness she had there learnt to estimate..' though really, when you think of it, the only domestic happiness she actually saw in operation at Mansfield was in the marriage of her half-sister, to a man Mary disliked.

Mansfield Park is the most serious of all Jane Austen's works. She was making a statement about something very close to her heart - therefore, I believe, there is a great deal of the author herself to be found in the novel.

Get into the whiskey, man, and keep reading.
Julie

Dear Julie,

How can you say what you said about Mr. Crawford and Miss Price?

We have Jane Austen's words for it that Henry Crawford's marriage to the only woman for whom he had ever felt love, rational and emotional, would have caused him to avoid the dangers of even flirtation.  How can you decide that JA was entirely wrong about Crawford? Is not JA to be permitted the authorial omniscience that we permit in much lesser artists?

Dear John,

How can you say what you said about Mr. Crawford and Miss Austen?

We have Jane Austen's words for it that Henry Crawford committed adultery with Maria in the midst of his pursuit of Fanny Price. I would call that a flirtation.

Dear John,

I said whiskey, but not THAT much!  Jane Austen, when she created Mr Crawford, gave us a type of male that is still, regretfully, instantly recognisable by most women today.  For the Fannys and the Julias amongst us, they are repellent, but there will always be Marias in this world who fall for them.  Jane Austen's final summation of Mr Crawford:  'he indulged in the freaks of a cold-blooded vanity a little too long.  Once it had, by an opening undesigned and unmerited, led him into the way of happiness.  Could he have been satisfied with the conquest of one amiable woman's affections ........ there would have been every probability of success and felicity for him. ...... Would he have deserved more, there can be no doubt that more would have been obtained.'

The Henry Crawfords of this world are never satisfied with one woman - neither their affections, nor their bodies.  He was, as Jane Austen said, 'ruined by early independence and bad domestic example.' You will note that Jane Austen describes his tormenting of Fanny Price as 'the freaks of a cold-blooded vanity'.  Indeed, to modern ideas he is almost a stalker.  He knows she is defenceless, he knows she is frightened, and he is as manipulative and nasty as can be:  he attacks her through her brother, her uncle, his own sister - even Edmund acknowledges: 'he ...could not have gone on himself with any woman breathing, without something more to warm his courage than his eyes could discern in (Fanny's).' Mr Crawford never once, ever, shows any consideration for Fanny's feelings.  Not once.  That is not love, but a hunter stalking its quarry.  And I use the term 'its' advisedly.

It is intriguing, however, that none of the young men in the novel appear to recognise Mr Crawford for what he is. I suppose the only two qualified would be Tom Bertram, who is oblivious to everything but Tom Bertram, and Mr Yates, who is, to use a fine old Australian term, a dipstick. Edmund appears to be almost as infatuated by Mr Crawford as he is by the sister, and William is too young.
Julie

To Everyone,

Heather's recent post on Austen's Juvenilia has really made me want to read it for myself.  Does anyone know where I can get a copy?  I work in a bookstore and volunteer at a library and still have been unable to find one!  I thought maybe amazon.com or another site like that might have it but I haven't been able to check yet.

I have been very busy with school, work, and yearbook deadlines and haven't gotten to read the board as often as I would have liked, so I just have a few notes on some of the recent topics of discussion.  I wanted to compliment Ashton on his recent post on Jane being a French spy.  Very clever and convincing!  I definitely agree with you about that.  The rumors of Austen having an incestuous relationship with her sister Cassandra remind me a lot of the rumors about Shakespeare being gay.  For whatever reason, people often wonder and get these odd ideas in their heads, then twist the facts around to fit their current theory.  And about the Mansfield Park movie - the whole idea of it is rather repulsive to me. I know the recent Hollywood trend has been to dramatize things and change the storylines to give them more of a broad appeal, but I have a feeling that the only similarity between this movie and the novel is going to be the title.  I mean, Fanny Price as a strong, spirited young woman?  Please. Sorry about the the "cobbled-togetherness" of this post but I don't have a whole lot of time to spend right now.  Hopefully I'll get back here sooner next time!

From the Meister: Do you live near a Borders? I know it is carried there. Incidentally, our Lady's History of England can be purchased separately and I advise you to do that because it reproduces Cassandra's original illustrations which are fun to look at as well.

Dear Heather,

Have you forgotten that Maria Bertram, as was, had forgotten her marriage to, well, the large man she had forgotten (who did not think much about a tiny man only 5'8" tall and who became very angry with Maria when he discovered just how much she thought about him).

Dear John,

But I knew it had to be there.

Dear M.A.D.,

OK So you don't buy the Mary Wollstencraft-Mansfield Park theory. I like the french-spies theory. Compelling and I will publish it if you don't. Now try this one: Persuasion is about Anne-Kingsmill Finch.

For a start there are at least 7 references to hidden character:

• I had known you by character, however, long before."
• "Perhaps.......I have had a longer acquaintance with your character than you are aware of."
• more fixed in a knowledge of each other's character
• the late knowledge I had acquired of your character
• she had been too quick in suspecting them to indicate a character
• There is a quickness of perception in some, a nicety in the discernment of character
• I think you ought to be made acquainted with Mr Elliot's real character

and there are only a couple of others in the rest of The Big Six.

Anne Kingsmill-Finch, Countess of Winchilsea was born 1661 and died 1720. Refered to herself as Ardelia (or Areta in earlier poetry). Worth a read. Was publishing from about 1690 onwards, anonymously to start with. Some stuff available on-line. Try searching with "Countess of Winchilsea".

• Her name was Anne(!)
• She was of noble birth.
• She was the middle of three sisters.
• Her mother died when she was young.
• She was very happily married to a man whose maternal grandmother was Wentworth.
• She resisited their union at first.
• She had many strong female influences in her life (her own grandmother, Anne Killigrew, Mary of Modena, The Countess of Thanet).
• She published under "Written by A Lady" (was this common?) but of course her real name was "Lady A." (earlier printers error and coincidence or deliberate on Jane's part?)
• She became Countess of Winchilsea through the death of a childless nephew of her husband. With the title she and her husband Heneage also inherited financial problems.
• She was known for an excellent education and an ability to translate and speak French and Italian.
• Her knowledge of poetry was excellent and she was herself a poet, of course.
• Her mother’s name was "Haslewood" which I assume is pronounced "hazel wood?" (anyone know?) The Haslewoods took pride in their ancient name. During Ann's lifetime the family began to slip financially from the position they held. Her Kingsmill family had more cash - but instead took immense pride in their noble blood and lineage and the position of the family.
• She was related one way or another to Byron (only book Jane mentions Byron by name).
• Mr. Elliot comes to Lymme from Sidmouth "What's in Sidmouth?" people have asked for years. Well...nothing is in Sidmouth. But Anne Kingsmill-Finch's family were from Sidmouth.
• Anne had a distinct preference for country over town and also for solitude.

And that's before you even begin to actually read the poetry itself! Poetry which describes Anne's character and situation very well.

Next theory  Pride and Predjudice is actually the story of a secret love affair between Jane and the Prince Regent. (Actually Mrs. "Gardiner" was the maiden name of Tom Lefroy's mother.....)

Dear Mad One,

Some of your argument works and other parts do not. I think that your first list does nothing to advance your theory - on the contrary. However, you comments about Anne Kingsmill-Finch are intriguing. Who was she? What were her dates? When did she publish? You need some direct evidence or your theory is no better than the French-spy thesis. I mean, can you prove that Jane Austen knew of her? Actually, It seems to me that your theory won't work unless Jane Austen knew her as well as of her. Perhaps you can pursue the matter of the timing of Jane Austen's visit to Sidmouth.

I also noticed the possible origins of "Gardiner" when I posted my thoughts on Jane Austen's eleventh letter. I should tell you that this name also appears in Jane Austen's family tree. Is Byron's name really mentioned in Persuasion? I know it is in the filmed versions but I had always thought that this was not true of the novel. Can you point to the specific passage?

Dear Ashton,

Here are the Byron references from Persuasion:
"talking as before of Mr Scott and Lord Byron, and still as unable as before, and as unable as any other two readers, to think exactly alike of the merits of either" Anne & Benwick
"Lord Byron's "dark blue seas" could not fail of being brought forward by their present view" Anne & Benwick
"she would learn to be an enthusiast for Scott and Lord Byron  nay, that was probably learnt already  of course they had fallen in love over poetry." Benwick and the "(very unlikely) Louisa Musgrove

So there were actually 3 in all - found none in any of the other 5 novels.

Of course, utterly baseless theory but I notice you have not yet dismissed this one entirely. Next theory Jane Austen often took role models and swapped their sex hence Mr Woodhouse is based on her own mother's hypochondria (Cassandra Leigh) and Mary Musgrove fancying herself ill is based on Jane's brother Edward Knight..... Now do not be suspecting me of a joke, I entreat!

According to the reviews, the new Mansfield Park movie has given the novel a decidedly political twist, emphasizing Sir Thomas' participation in the slave trade as "paying for the party at Mansfield." Apparently, this interpretation of the book is supported by the following arguments:

• 1) An important court decision leading to abolition in Britain was called "The Mansfield Judgement."
• 2) The name Fanny "Price", is a planned irony, and implies connections between the attempt to "sell" Fanny to Henry Crawford and the slave trade.
• 3) The Evangelical movement current in England when MP was being written promoted a) the clergy taking their jobs more seriously, b) revival of strict morals and c) abolition of slavery. MP is specifically about a) and b), the argument goes, so c) would be implied to readers in 1812 (or whenever the book was published).

Perhaps the director's interpretation isn't as far fetched as it sounds.   What do you think?  Also, don't you think the complexity and moral ambiguity of Mansfield Park may have led the director (I forget her name) to tip her hat to Jane Austen by suggesting further levels?

Thank you for the welcome.  I don't think that Lady Susan was purposefully evil--that would take too much energy.  She was amoral and an opportunist.  I still think that Catherine Moreland was a good girl but she was young and had become enamored with gothic novels. I think that she may have believed them--she was an impressionable  teenager who tended to believe what anybody said. So when she went to Northanger Abbey, she snooped.

From the Meister: May we call you
Mary Sue? My wife's name is Mary Lou.

Dear Sir,

I tried, and I tried, but I was unable to make the archives wonk.  I did find out, however, that I seem to be an unholy blabbermouth.  Surely that can't all be mine!
Julie

From the Meister: Ahh - then I take it
that your screen is not a wonking mess?

Links