The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Please post any relevant material re author, book, time period, and the like.

Fun fact that a lot of you might already know: The movie (view spoiler)["Clueless" (hide spoiler)]
was based on Emma, and in some parts follows the story quite well!

Spoiler brackets added because knowing how the movie ends would also reveal how the book ends (who, if anyone, the characters end up with, for example).

Pop culture fact: the movie Clueless with Alicia Silverstone was based on the plot of Emma, set in 1990's Beverly Hills.

Another pop culture fact: A series of distinguished modern authors have been hired to re-write / re-imagine Austin. Emma Alexander McCall Smith is one.

It has very mixed reviews, with slightly more than 3 stars after 4,000+ ratings.

The blurb:

The summer after she graduates from university, Emma Woodhouse returns home to the village of Highbury, where she will live with her health-conscious father until she is ready to launch her interior-design business and strike out on her own. In the meantime, she will do what she does best: offer guidance to those less wise than she is in the ways of the world. Happily, this summer brings many new faces to Highbury and into the sphere of Emma's not always perfectly felicitous council: Harriet Smith, a naïve teacher's assistant at the ESL school run by the hippie-ish Mrs. Goddard; Frank Churchill, the attractive stepson of Emma's former governess; and, of course, the perfect Jane Fairfax. This modern-day Emma is wise, witty, and totally enchanting, and will appeal equally to Alexander McCall Smith's multitude of fans and to the enormous community of wildly enthusiastic Austen aficionados

For those who have already read Emma, the blogger Sarah Emsley hosted a series of guest posts in the winter called something like Austen in the Snow, all talking about different aspects of Emma. Very interesting, though wait to look at them if you haven't read the book. Should be easy to locate by Googling; sorry I'm working on an unfamiliar device or I would include a link.

Jon wrote: "Another pop culture fact: A series of distinguished modern authors have been hired to re-write / re-imagine Austin.."

Sigh. Why can't authors be creative on their own instead of having to steal other authors' characters and plots?

Abigail wrote: Should be easy to locate by Googling; sorry I'm working on an unfamiliar device or I would include a link.."

https://sarahemsley.com/2015/12/23/em...

Everyman wrote: "Jon wrote: "Another pop culture fact: A series of distinguished modern authors have been hired to re-write / re-imagine Austin.."

Sigh. Why can't authors be creative on their own instead of having to steal other authors' characters and plots? ..."

That's why I never read Shakespeare. Or Goethe. Or Homer. They all just took characters and plots which already existed and made up some modern rubbish about them.

Pip, I get your tongue-in-cheek comment, but I also agree with Everyman about the glut on the market of the Austen clones. It seems to me that there is a big difference between reworking material in your own style and blatantly copying someone else's style, especially when Jane writes so masterfully.

Thanks for posting the link, Eman.

Rosemarie wrote: "It seems to me that there is a big difference between reworking material in your own style and blatantly copying someone else's style"

But isn't that what McCall Smith has done? In the same way that Zadie Smith reworked Howards End to produce On Beauty? Nobody complained about that one as I remember - rather, it won literary acclaim.

I'm personally not a fan of Jane Austen re-works in particular because I find them unbearably twee. But Everyman has long been on a personal crusade to denigrate ANYTHING which was written after 1900 and in some way ties in to a novel written before that (approx.). It's tiring, because nobody forces you to read anything you don't want to, and many people get a lot of pleasure from such novels.

Pip wrote: "Rosemarie wrote: "It seems to me that there is a big difference between reworking material in your own style and blatantly copying someone else's style"

But isn't that what McCall Smith has done? ..."

While those rewrites might not be for me, I'm in favor of anything that gets people to read. I would never read a romance novel, but many love them and read them by the tons. I see nothing wrong with something that gets somebody to read.

Austen, according to this article about Emma, was the first major exponent of the free indirect style in British literature.

"Austen was the first novelist to manage this alchemy. She was perfecting a technique that she had begun developing in her first published novel, Sense and Sensibility. It was only in the early 20th century that critics began agreeing on a name for it: free indirect style (a translation from the original French: style indirect libre). It describes the way in which a writer imbues a third-person narration with the habits of thought or expression of a fictional character. Before Austen, novelists chose between first-person narrative (letting us into the mind of a character, but limiting us to his or her understanding) and third-person narrative (allowing us a God-like view of all the characters, but making them pieces in an authorial game). Austen miraculously combined the internal and the external."

Full article: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015... (CONTAINS SPOILERS)

Deborah, as a retired teacher I agree with you 100%. Anything that gets people to read for fun is good, unless of course they are reading hate literature. The rise of graphic novels is a good example. It gets those with short attention spans reading. I wonder if there is a graphic novel of Emma. I wouldn't be surprised if there is.

Jon wrote: "Another pop culture fact: A series of distinguished modern authors have been hired to re-write / re-imagine Austin. Emma Alexander McCall Smith is one.

It has very m..."

I read the updated version of Sense and Sensibility by Joanna Trollope and it was, quite possibly, the worst book I've read in years. Stick with the original!

Having said that, I thought The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, a modernized video version of P&P that you can find on youtube, was very well done. Here is the link to the first episode, but it takes a few to get used to the update and the weblog format. The payoff is worth it, though!

https://www.youtube.com/user/LizzieBe...

Rosemarie wrote: "Pip, I get your tongue-in-cheek comment, but I also agree with Everyman about the glut on the market of the Austen clones. It seems to me that there is a big difference between reworking material i..."

Precisely. Exquisite comment.

Pip wrote: "Austen, according to this article about Emma, was the first major exponent of the free indirect style in British literature.

"Austen was the first novelist to manage this alchemy. She was perfecti..."

Excellent point.

Rosemarie wrote: "Deborah, as a retired teacher I agree with you 100%. Anything that gets people to read for fun is good, unless of course they are reading hate literature. The rise of graphic novels is a good examp..."

There is indeed. marvel and indeed other companies have adapted many classics of literature, and Shakespeare, into comics, some with the full text, others with modernisation of the style to make it more approachable. I love comics, not just because they may indeed attract an audience that may have been relunctant to come to classics, or help with the act of reading.

Comics, and indeed graphic novels, manga, are a different medium and all genres can be found there too, from children's lit, scifi, fantasy, historical, crime, thriller, etc. And indeed plays. Shakespeare as I mentioned above works beautifully in this medium - I also read An Inspector Calls in this fashion. I guess, coming from Belgium, where comics are considered the 9th art, I never got that feeling one had to stop reading them when reaching adulthood. :0)

Pip wrote: "Austen, according to this article about Emma, was the first major exponent of the free indirect style in British literature.

"Austen was the first novelist to manage this alchemy. She was perfecti..."

We take FIS for granted now but to think Austen really mastered it. I think this and of course her use of delicious irony are her trademark and make her prose so natural and enjoyable. On the other hand, FIS can be the bane of literature students, especially when asked to find these in a text :0)

Veronique wrote: "FIS can be the bane of literature students, especially when asked to find these in a text :0) "

That's interesting; it has become such a prevalent narrative style these days that I would have thought students would be used to it - but maybe that is precisely the problem. It works so subtly when done well that it's hard to see the wood for the trees!

Veronique wrote: "I guess, coming from Belgium, where comics are considered the 9th art, I never got that feeling one had to stop reading them when reaching adulthood."

...And the sky has never fallen on your head? ;-)

Veronique, my son-in-law is a big Tin-Tin fan. Myself, I prefer Asterix.

Pip wrote: "Veronique wrote: "FIS can be the bane of literature students, especially when asked to find these in a text :0) "

That's interesting; it has become such a prevalent narrative style these days that..."

You'd be surprised. Somehow many people have trouble with identification. Maybe because it can be just one word...

Pip wrote: "...And the sky has never fallen on your head? ;-) ..."
LOL Many times... :O)

Rosemarie wrote: "Veronique, my son-in-law is a big Tin-Tin fan. Myself, I prefer Asterix"

Me too. I grew up with these. Actually I'm from the same town area as Herge. Asterix (half Belgian half French) is hilarious. Still got all of them. I also love Blake and Mortimer (The Yellow "M") and many more. Here is an example of one carrying on Long John Silver's story (Lady Vivian Hastings). A British company has finally started translating more of them (http://www.cinebook.co.uk), and since being in the UK I've also been discovering the anglo-saxon ones

We should probably get back to Austen background. We've gotten a little bit away from topic

Oops sorry.

Here are a couple of websites on Emma you may find interesting:

http://pemberley.com/janeinfo/janewri...
(etext, several documents on Emma, some with spoilers)

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013...
(no spoilers)

http://www.bl.uk/works/emma
British Library with several articles on different themes related to Jane Austen's writings

Any comments on films of Emma that people have seen? imdb lists several. The cover of a 1996 film shows a very un-Emma like young woman shooting a bow and arrow, which I don't believe ever happened in the book, did it? (If that would be a spoiler, don't answer that here!)

Then there's a 1996 TV movie, a 2009 mini-series, a 1972 TV mini-series, a 1932 movie, a 1948 TV movie, and maybe some others. Don't know how many are on DVD.

Has anybody found any particularly good or not good?

I saw a miniseries in the 70's that I enjoyed. It was a British series and very enjoyable and true to the book.

The 1996 film wasn't bad actually, if i remember correctly (I saw it a long time ago). I don't remember her actually shooting a bow and arrow in the film, but I think it's just a reference to her "playing cupid" on some occasions (I don't think that's a spoiler).

Everyman wrote: "Any comments on films of Emma that people have seen? imdb lists several. The cover of a 1996 film shows a very un-Emma like young woman shooting a bow and arrow, which I don't believe ever happened..."

I've seen three - the one with Kate Beckinsale (ok), an ITV production with Felicity Jones (many scenes cut and changes to fit duration - part of a Jane Austen collection - the Northanger Abbey one is lovely), but my favourite is the BBC adaptation made in 2009 with Romola Garai and Jonny Lee Miller.

Everyman wrote: "Any comments on films of Emma that people have seen? imdb lists several. The cover of a 1996 film shows a very un-Emma like young woman shooting a bow and arrow, which I don't believe ever happened..."

That would be Gwyneth Paltrow shooting the arrow. I thought that was a pretty good adaptation, actually. I enjoyed that one more than the one with Kate Beckinsale.

I’m with the herd in liking the 2009 and the 1996 versions best. The one with Kate Beckinsale didn’t make it for me, and the 1970s BBC one was like watching paint dry. As for the archery, although it is not true to the book it was quite the fad in the early decades of the nineteenth century, practiced by men and women alike.

Abigail wrote: "I’m with the herd in liking the 2009 and the 1996 versions best. The one with Kate Beckinsale didn’t make it for me, and the 1970s BBC one was like watching paint dry. As for the archery, although ..."

You're right that archery became fashionable for the upper classes in the late 18th and into the 19th century, so Austen certainly could have put it into her books if she had wanted to. But my sense is that during Austen's time it was more a "country house set" activity rather than something that the more middle class gentry Austen depicts would have been doing, and that it didn't have more general appeal until after Austen's death. The first Grand National Archery Meeting was in 1844,for example.

Here's a nice little article on 19th century archery:
http://www.angelpig.net/victorian/arc...

At any rate, though Austen could have included it, she didn't, and with due deference to Pip's criticisms of my views, I don't think it should have been introduced into a film of Emma.

Everyman wrote: "At any rate, though Austen could have included it, she didn't, and with due deference to Pip's criticisms of my views, I don't think it should have been introduced into a film of Emma. "

Pip returns the favour, and.... agrees with you! *GASP* The archery does seem a bit "late C19th" to me too. Also, from IMDb, there is this interesting little anachronism:

"Emma plays and sings the song "Silent Worship". Although it's based on an aria from George Frideric Handel's opera "Tolomeo", the version in the film was arranged by Arthur Somervell in 1928."

Sloppy.

Pip wrote: "Pip returns the favour, and.... agrees with you! *GASP* ."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akb0k...

:)

I noticed in the link from The Guardian above the writer says Emma is his favorite Austen. It is also my favorite. Sense & Sensibility is a bit dry, Northanger Abbey is sort of light, Persusasion is somewhat sad, and Mansfield Park doesn't even seem to be a Jane Austen to me. It's the only one I've read just once. Of course Pride & Prejudice is wonderful but a lot of it is put together with long letters, and even Lizzie Bennett doesn't have the spark of Emma.

i've read Emma 3 or 4 times, and I've seen the adaptations mentioned above. I liked Gwyneth Paltrow in the role but I think it was the 2009 version that really brought to life some of the other characters.

Robin wrote: "I noticed in the link from The Guardian above the writer says Emma is his favorite Austen. It is also my favorite. i..."

And mine. I think it the most psychologically complex of her novels.

It was also Nero Wolfe's favorite Austen -- in fact, I think his favorite novel of all. Also a favorite of Wolfe's creator, Rex Stout.

After these comments from Robin and Everyman, I wonder if Emma will become my favourite Austen. I love them all (read 4 of them, many times ). Right now, the spot is taken by Persuasion, which to me is optimistic (second chances and all that) and the quietly strong Anne. P&P for all the obvious reasons is next, with S&S closely by. In between these two however I'd have Northanger Abbey for all its humour and parody. Haven't tried MP yet although I feel like I know it already.

Veronique wrote: "After these comments from Robin and Everyman, I wonder if Emma will become my favourite Austen. I love them all (read 4 of them, many times ). Right now, the spot is taken by Persuasion, which to m..."

Different strokes.... My favorite is S & S, followed by P & P, then Persuasion, Emma, Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey. I'm drawn to characters - often the "supporting roles" - and I just didn't connect with Emma and her constellation of friends and relations as I wanted to.

Mary Lou, that's how I feel about Emma too.

Mary Lou wrote: "I'm drawn to characters - often the "supporting roles" - and I just didn't connect with Emma and her constellation of friends and relations as I wanted to."

I agree that the secondary characters in Emma aren't as interesting as in some of the other novels. But I think Emma is the most complex and interesting of the Austen heroines, with Anne of Persuasion a close second. And the humor in Emma is, I think, richer, though in places more subtle.

I absolutely love (and this really is a spoiler if you haven't read the book yet) (view spoiler)[the way Emma misunderstands Mr. Elton's intentions, and the way she rejects him in the carriage when he reveals that it was about her, not Harriet, all along. Harriet Smith is a bit of a wimp and girls-school-suck-up, but she is a brilliant foil for Emma. (hide spoiler)]

Would prep-school girls today or sophisticated college women want Emma as a friend?

I'm looking forward to this read as Emma was my LEAST favourite Austen novel, and I've been a big Austen fan since my early 20's. My list in order of preference now is...Persuasion, P&P, S&S, NA, MP and finally Emma. However I am looking forward to giving her another chance-perhaps as I read this as a more ...ahem...mature adult I will rethink my views.

Frances, I agree with you. This is also my least favourite Austen. I almost thought about not reading it again, but now I am curious. I reallly did not like Emma, but I did like some of the secondary characters.

Way back in message 12 Deborah writes: I would never read a romance novel.

First, isn't P&P a romance novel?

Second, why do you draw this line? Gone with the Wind? Edith Warton's Age of Innocence? Doctor Zhivago? Lolita? The French Lieutenant's Woman? Even Love Story or Passage to India.

Are you not referring to what men deride as "bodice rippers?" Is Donna Gabaldon's Outlander a bodice ripper (it was ripped) or a much imitated story of misunderstood love and honor set in the Scottish highlands?

Jon - he was a Nicholas Sparks fan before the movies - an occasional romance reader.

Part of the problem is that the term romance has gone through so many changes in meaning over the years. Romance in the contemporary sense does include bodice rippers as well as stories, like most Austenesque fiction, that focus on the relationship between two people, especially their desire for each other, whether realized or pending till the end.

But romance has a very different evolution, and I don’t think Jane Austen or Leo Tolstoy or E. M. Forster or any others would consider themselves romance writers as the term is currently understood. (In their respective days, they would probably have understood the term to mean something closer to what we would now call picaresque; so Tom Jones would be more of a romance than Emma.) To one degree or another they all used the marriage plot, as did Shakespeare in many plays, but marriage wasn’t about romantic love in those books. Marriage, basically, was a stand-in for harmony in human society, and the rocky road to that marriage was more about the need to resolve disharmonies and dislocations in human relations. All these people were writing more about that—about human psychology, about moving from the isolation of egotism to a position in which we contribute to community. Those larger themes are played out through the metaphor of romantic love. (Perhaps Jane Austen begins to stray away from that in Persuasion, which has a little more of romance in the modern sense.)

Where I agree with Deborah, it is in the notion that a novel focusing solely on the love story is a barren thing; it reduces the reader to a kind of voyeur. I have read some twentieth-century romance novels—especially those of Georgette Heyer and Emilie Loring—with pleasure, but I need that bigger picture to make it truly satisfying for me.

Abigail, would you consider Jane Eyre or Villette romances?

As to human psychology, isn't that what the best of modern romances are about? There is very little in Nicholas Sparks that is voyeur. The focus is often on second chances, or on how facts - divorce, young children, trauma and abuse - color perceptions, emotions and life choices. These are real world issues.

Robyn Carr has a couple books that focus on how several men (within the same story) respond to the prospect (honey, I'm pregnant) or reality (I've got the kids and she's long gone) (why go home when I can hang out with the boys) of fatherhood. No focus on sex; focus on the result, the choices that men face.

Perhaps the reaction to "romance" is the expectation of tropes and HEAs? Do not most of Austen's books have HEAs? One of the reasons I so enjoyed Villette is the lack of a (typical, modern) HEA.

Jon wrote: "Way back in message 12 Deborah writes: I would never read a romance novel.

First, isn't P&P a romance novel?

Second, why do you draw this line? Gone with the Wind? Edith Warton's Age of Innocence..."

I consider the books mentioned classics which have stood the test of time. I don't believe the books sold in the romance aisle of the bookstore will do the same. I find them trite, boring, and repetitive. I believe I read two as a teenager and was bored.

Hi, Jon, not sure what an HEA is, and as to your question about Jane Eyre and Villette, I would consider Jane Eyre at least a romance, albeit a very well written one and one laced with deeper themes. I haven’t read Villette since I was about seventeen, but I remember finding it a bit meatier than JE at the time. Of course, as far as both are concerned, they were a lot more political in their own day, though nowadays we don’t focus on that aspect of them as much. I like them for their focus on ethics and character, dislike them for their melodramatic, palpitating tone.

I agree with you that the themes you mention are real-world issues that matter to at least half the population (and more than half, if more would be honest about it), and that casting such works under the “romance” umbrella (or even the “chick lit” umbrella, hate that term) is a way of dismissing them as insignificant pieces of writing. In the past couple of years, my alumni/ae publication has been exploring this prejudice in interesting and provocative ways.

By the same token, a novel doesn’t have to have sex (rip bodices) in order to be “romance” in my book; what I would put in that category is a book that focuses primarily on attraction between the protagonists rather than the development of character and themes.

We are getting far a field again. Let's take the romance discussion to the croissants area