Jane Austen discussion

Why Regency romance still reigns, 200 years after Jane Austen

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/reg...

Not a particularly profound article, but then it's only pretty short, and probably not aimed at hardcore RR fans anyway, more the general reader etc.

I do think one of the key reasons that the Regency is a popular period for historical romance is the comparative comfort of the clothes. When I was younger, Georgian fashions were still seen as 'romantic' but now we know that the powdered hair was smelly and horrid, and full of lice etc, and all those patches on their faces covered up scars, and the clothes just looked hideously uncomfortable to wear.

Regency/post-French Rev clothes just look far more comfortable in comparison, and are very flattering (to slim people!)

I think modern people - males as well as females - can see themselves in Regency styles.

As for the issue of colour blind casting, or, indeed, in deliberately writing multi-ethnic novels (ie, with characters that have been devised as non-white from the off), I do wonder how popular that makes RR with non-white (women?)(assuming it fundamentally overwhelmingly popular with females not males??)

Has RR therefore significantly widened its market reach beyond white women, thanks to colour blind casting and new novels with non-white characters? If it hasn't, is there any point to it?? (Which would be a shame!)

Actually, referencing males, I wonder if that's another reason RR is popular overall? Because this period just happens to be pretty popular with male readers too, thanks to the likes of novels such as Sharpe, and a host of similar ones, and, of course, the 'daddy' of them all, the Hornblower naval series (on which a lot of now quite old men cut their regency teeth!), as well as the 'successor' to Hornblower, ie, the Master and Commander series.

I don't know how much crossover readership there is, ie, how many females read M&C, Sharpe etc, but I think if you have a period in which popular authors have written very successfully for (separately) male and female readers, that is another reason why the Regency is so overall popular.

I do not know about the mixed ethnic characters. Is just putting someone who looks like you enough if you are not white? Or is that putting a non- white person in a white costume without understanding their story? Their contributions, background, idioms, history, etc. I do not know. If you are just making nice in a film, it will be nice for the careers of all artists.

Jan wrote: "I do not know about the mixed ethnic characters. Is just putting someone who looks like you enough if you are not white? Or is that putting a non- white person in a white costume without understand..."

It's been controversial. I heard actors of color say they don't WANT to play a character that was written as white but then others say they would appreciate that big break. What bugs me about Bridgerton is that they don't address racism and colonialism from what I've read yet they acknowledge the Queen did so much for "our people." Mr. Malcolm's List brings in the actors' cultures, having the characters speak Hindi and Yoruba. I haven't seen it yet so I don't know if it addresses any social issues. I think the general audience just wants escapism and romance and doesn't want to have those issues interfere with their entertainment but that's missing the point. Jane Austen wrote social satire and her books did address certain issues even though they ignore others.

I do think the success of Bridgerton on Netflix has made regency romances more appealing to non-traditional readers. At least right now.

But WHO are these ‘non-traditional readers’? Because JA writes about human relationships as well as social commentary, and she has and has had readers and fans all over the world - let alone such from various ethnic backgrounds living in the Anglo Saxon world itself.

Georgette Hayer (although at a very different level from JA) also is a very popular Regency author in South Asia at least.
I think Netflix arrogates itself as the champion of the coloured peoples - and classes itself, as racist, thereby.
The whole Diversity topic is now overblown.
As the world changes and adapts, so would the media representation naturally change too.
Time was, when the BBC had only announcers with RP accents, and none of the regional UK accents.
Time was, when the people’s representatives in the UK parliament were only Caucasians - same as bank clerks, doctors, whatever.
This same shocked me when I moved to Germany from the UK back in 1999. The EU is still massively behind the UK in that sense... but then again, it IS moving ahead now, led by the need for immigrants through youthful population imbalances.
Migration, war, conquest, trade has been the history of our world, imperfect as it is - and has been - and will right itself as it has ever done, again and again, without too much political ‘gerrymandering’...

@Jan Z
I agree - just having someone with similar ethnic markers is not going to make me appreciate a film / TV more.
It would be an abysmal indicator of artistic insensibility...

I know the US gets a lot of publicity about racism and some of it is well deserved. However, it is a huge country and the squeaky wheel gets the grease as they say. Everyone is different and every place is different. It is not going to make the news when some white girl in a podunk town is greatful to the Filipino doctor who saved her life or black and white kids who have been life long best friends.
Does color blind casting bother me? No. Does it do what it sets out to do? And what does it set out to do? I do not lnow.

In other news, when I watch the old Midsomer Murders, they are very white. The current ones are not. I have no idea how that compares to the current complection of rural England. Is Midsomer a real county? It seems to be a large one geographically. And so many villages. although they all seem small.

There has been an increase in casting people of color in movies, tv series and overall entertainment. I think it influences cultural norms for the better. When it out ways the truth do lose more?

Midsummer Murders is set in Home Counties England so far as I know (I don't really watch it, but I know it's filmed in the Home Counties)(the Home Counties are the counties immediately around London, with the possible exception of Essex to the North East, as the HC are regarded as very middle class, and expensive, whereas Essex is a sort of extension of the 'Cockney' East End - literally, too, as when the London east end slums were cleared post war, after being bombed in the blitz as they are near the docs, many of the east enders were rehoused in new towns in Essex)(that said, Essex, like North Kent, has come up in the world in recent years and is now commuter belt I would say.)

Anyway, back to MM! It got crit a few years ago here for just the reason you say - not a non-white face anywhere!!! So it became a policy to try and introduce some non-white faces, which it has.

Overall, this probably does accurate reflect changing demographics, though I would say in the HC the majority of non-white incomers are Asian (In Britain, Asian means South Asian, ie, Indian or Pakistani, as opposed to in the USA where I believe it means more East Asian, ie, Chinese, SE Asia, Japanese and Korean??), as opposed to Afro-Caribbean.

Like most immigrant populations anywhere in the world, the initial waves - because of initial demand for workers - was in the cities, so it has taken a while and a couple of generations for 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants to diffuse out from cities into the suburbs? The countryside of Britain, however, is still predominantly white I would say.

However, as I say, the HC are known to be expensive for housing, and since Afro-Caribbean incomes do tend to lag behind Asian ones (I would say that there are more middle-class professional Asians than Afro-Caribbeans still???), that may be the explanation??

Georgette Hayer (although at a very different level from JA) also is a very popular Regency author in South Asia at least.
**

Renuka, this is interesting! Do you think it is linked to what is said to account for a degree of the popularity of Jane Austen in South Asia, ie, that it 'rings a bell' in that making a 'suitable', even an arranged, marriage, is still prevalent, whereas in the western world that has faded enormously? (Though I'd take a bet that most people marry spouses who are very like them in terms of educational level, class, income, etc etc, even if the 'family familiarity' has been diluted by much greater geographical mobility, ie, people 'leave home' and work in other places and meet people to marry who are not 'local' to where they grew up or known to the own families etc etc.)

As a general point about turning a novel into a film/TV series, and how 'realistic' it is, whilst colour blind casting is a very obvious 'deviation' from a strictly 'realistic' depiction, there are always, always a range of deviations in many, many (all???) screen versions.

Sometimes it's a question of landscape deviation - for example, though this is not strictly speaking the same, as it was never a novel in the first place, Downton Abbey is 'supposed' to be in Yorkshire, but the landscape is so obviously that of southern England that it's hard to believe it!

A more subtle landscape deviation, I think, was in the Roman Polanski Tess of the D'Urbervilles, made a few decades ago - he filmed it entirely in Normandy (he wasn't allowed into the UK I believe because of the charges over his head????). Normandy is, yes, really pretty similar to Dorset in the UK (Where the Hardy novels are set - it's his 'Wessex'), but to anyone who knows Dorset it is just 'not quite' - the village houses are 'not English' etc etc.

Another deviation is in the houses themselves. I've just watched the new Emma, and whilst it is a curate's egg (some parts excellent, some not), one of the 'not' is Mr Knightley's home, Donwell Abbey, is ridiculously far too grand (I think it was filmed at Wilton, which is the seat of the Earl of Pembroke). The interiors are full of massive Van Dyke portraits and so on - it jars totally. It is utterly utterly wrong for Mr Knightley, who was neither noble nor that rich (his carriage horses, I think, are also used on the farm are they not??)

In the opposite social direction, of course, is the infamous 'pigs in the house' idiocy of the Keira Knightley 'peasant Longborn' in Pride and Prejudice. Just absurd!

Those damn pigs.
As for landscape. Hollywood is infamous for deviations. I live in Wisconsin, a Great Lakes state. Mountains in the background! Or pick a name or a map and its a village of 1000 people yet the local amenities are huge. A town in the middle of nowhere? You can drive to Chicago in an hour. And mispronounce the area lakes, forests, etc.

The problem with landscape deviation on screen is that locals (whether in the setting it 'should' have been in, or the ones in the landscape it was filmed in) instantly spot the deviation!! And for those who are not locals, all it does is 'misinform' them!!

As a Brit, I've always thought that the choice of filming Lord of the Rings was brilliant, because the landscape is 'almost' like 'Celtic/Anglo-Saxon' England (which I assume is what inspired Tolkein??), but 'not quite'. It is somewhat 'otherworldly' to my sensibility - familiar, but with something almost ethereal about it - Middle Earth indeed.

All that jarred a bit, actually was the Shire, partly because of the obviously fake hobbit houses (I believe the set has become a tourist attraction in NZ?) which made it a bit too twee and 'disney', (though the interior of the houses was wonderful!) (as was all the Elfdwellings in Rivendell etc, and the very Anglo-Saxon/Vikingesque depiction of Rohan too). But, then, the Shire was the most English of all the settings - I believe Tolkein based it on his childhood holidays in the Midlands countryside 'heart of England' - his lost youth etc.

All that said, I wonder what New Zealanders (Maori or European descent) made of the Middle Earth scenery? Did they think it 'otherworldly' as I, a Brit, do, or was it just 'home' for them? I assume the latter!

Yes, those damn pigs indeed!!!!! :)

Beth- I have sent you a message somehow privatly did you see it ? I sent it thru -cant even repeat how and dont know what to open to find your answer.....

In the new Amazon webseries A League of Their Own, the main character, Carson, is reading Pride and Prejudice on the train and an elderly woman next to her comments on what a sweet love story it is. Carson replies she loves it because it's not a fairy tale. Elizabeth doesn't have butterflies right away when she meets Darcy. She essentially sums up why the novel still works for us 200 years later when expectations about love and relationships have changed.

QNPoohBear wrote: "In the new Amazon webseries, the main character is reading Pride and Prejudice on the train and an elderly woman next to her comments on what a sweet love story it is. Carson replies sh..."

Right it's not an ista love story.

QNPoohBear wrote: "In the new Amazon webseries, the main character is reading Pride and Prejudice on the train and an elderly woman next to her comments on what a sweet love story it is. Carson replies sh..."

I just finished an abridged version of Emma and I feel like for the most part Jane Austen wrote of woman falling in love over time. Darcy and Elizabeth, Emma and Knightly, Marianne and Brandon. I mean

That's a good point - does Austen do 'love at first sight', or, rather, 'good/true/lasting love at first sight?'

We know Marianne falls unwisely 'at first sight' of Willoughby, and to an extent Edward Ferrars falls for Lucy (hmm, does he, or does she simply manipulate him into thinking it?!), and both of those are unwise relationships.

Mr Bennet, we think (??), 'fell' for pretty Miss Gardiner, very unwisely.

Did Fanny Price's mother fall for the highly unsatisfactory marine officer ('she married to disoblige her family' says Austen) 'at first sight'.?

Any others?? Could we include Lizzy Bennet if not falling for then at least taking to Wyckam very quickly (drawn by his dislike of Darcy of course!)



Conversely, perhaps, Anne Eliot does fall for Lieut Wentworth pretty quickly, and then unwisely rejects him!!

What's the longest 'courtship' in Austen for her heroines?

Mr Knightley 'wooing' Emma just about all her life perhaps? (If that counts!)

Similarly, Fanny Price has loved Edmund since she came to Mansfield Park as a little girl.

Anne Eliot taking 7 years to get hitched to Captain Wentworth.

I'm not sure of the timeframe of Sense and Sensibility, but is it about a year? If so, it takes Elinor that long to get hitched to Edward (though she's loved him within weeks of meeting him??), and Marianne almost as long to love Brandon.

Pride and Prejudice lasts how long, nearly a year, longer?
Though Jane falls for Bingley very quickly, in weeks, if not less!

Catherine Morland falls for Henry Tilney in a handful of weeks I think?

With the exception of Catherin Morland, though, perhaps the heroines that fall quickly for their husbands-to-be, don't actually manage to marry them so quickly, they have to wait!

Pride and Prejudice takes place in exactly one year and then the conclusion. The shortest timeline is Northanger Abbey for the main romance and the longest is Persuasion - 8 years and a half since Anne nearly broke Wentworth's heart. We don't know how long it is before they marry but judging from Mrs. Musgrove and Mrs. Harville's conversation about long engagements and Anne's agreement, probably not very long.

Ah, thank you for that! Timelines are always interesting - and perhaps revealing too.

Does anyone think Austen could have written Persuasion when she herself was a young woman, or is it inevitbly the work of an older woman who has 'seen life' ....and, perhaps even more sadly, whom life has 'passed by' (in terms of a chance of love and romance and marriage).

I always do feel Persuasions is a 'wishful thinking' novel from JA. That so revealing line when they are all out for an autumnal walk, and Anne sees the farmer ploughing the spent field 'meaning to have spring again'......

Beth-In-UK wrote: "Ah, thank you for that! Timelines are always interesting - and perhaps revealing too.

Does anyone think Austen could have written Persuasion when she herself was a young woman, or is it inevitbly..."

I think you need to be able to look back and reflect on life and have some life experience to write Persuasion, and even to really appreciated it fully. I certainly loved it long before I was 27, but I find there is much more to reflect on when one has life experience.

No she wrote Persuasion solely as an older adult, during her final illness, in a time when she felt better. She revised the ending and sent it back to the publisher. I think it's Cassandra's "what-if" happily ever after romance, a love letter to the sister who devoted her whole life to her little sister. Cassandra was engaged to a student of Mr. Austen's, Tom Fowle. Tom was to be a clergyman but didn't yet have a living. A wealthy godfather took Tom with him to be chaplain to the army in the West Indies. On the very day Tom was set to return home, he died of fever. I do believe Jane felt inspired to rewrite Cassandra's story. What IF Cassandra broken the engagement? What IF he could have returned years later with money in the bank? Would Cassandra still have feelings for him? (Yes. She sounds like a hopeless romantic) and would he still want to marry her?

Pooh, I never heard that story before. I did not know the story of Cassandra's lost love or JA's homage to it. It has always ranked #2 for me. If I ranked Emma as #2 as a teen. I have long since forgotten.

I think one definitely sees Cassandra in Captain Benwick's situation, with the genders reversed.

I can't recall at the moment whether Austen uses his predicament to get Anne to realise that she, too, could have been Benwick, mourning a lost love whom she did not marry for material reasons when she might have.

His predicament is a warning to her not to not seize her second chance with Wentworth.

Cassandra Austen's story is told in the NOVEL Miss Austen but it's a documented fact in any good Austen biography or blog.

Vic from Jane Austen's World explains Cass's feelings upon reading Persuasion and suggests Elinor Dashwood's stoicism was based on Cassandra.
https://janeaustensworld.com/2008/01/...

I think Cassandra was a hopeless romantic. She's the one who spread the story about Jane meeting a gentleman at Lyme who she liked very well and who promised to visit them but never did. They later learned he had died. Yet no one knows who this man was or if the meeting actually happened.

I guess most spinsters like to think, or like the world to think, that there was once a 'significant other' in their lives, sad and empty though they have been since.

I don't think anyone likes to think there has never been anyone at all who has ever wanted them....

Sad, sad, sad.

Like Marilla in Anne of Green Gables inventing Duncan, an old flame.

Beth-In-UK wrote: "I guess most spinsters like to think, or like the world to think, that there was once a 'significant other' in their lives, sad and empty though they have been since.

I don't think anyone likes to..."

I would not at all make that assumption! I could care less if there was or is a compatible significant other out there. I don't want them to find me, thank you!

Well probably most people would like to know at least one person loved them even if they never wanted to marry. No assumptions on you.

Maybe it's the word 'spinster' that just has those sad connotations. Those who are single by choice and preference would never call themselves 'spinsters'!!!

But then, I do think it's nicer if we have been loved in our lives, and have loved someone else too. (preferably requited!) But it is NOT for all, I do concede.

In Austen's time, it was tough to be a 'spinster' in the 'never married but would have liked to' definition, unless, as Emma says, one is wealthy (unlike poor Miss Bates....)

I do think, as an aside, and I can't remember if I've said this before here (???), that once old Mrs Bates dies (or even before), that Miss Bates would bve the ideal 'replacement' for Emma at Hartfield. She could be a kindly companion for Mr Woodhouse (her mum would have to be there for chaperonage I guess), and certainly pander to his hypochondria etc, and have a very comfortable life there. I think Emma and Mr Knightley should recommend it (then they can remove to Donwell finally!).

Miss Bates could even marry Mr Woodhouse!!

I think they would make good besties. She could matter on about nothing. He could fret about his health. She could put in a few There, there, nows. and they could both live quite contently.

Natter, auto correct, natter

Yes, exactly - they neither of them irritate each other, but both of them irritate everyone else! (However sorry one might feel for them, no one wants to spend much time in their company, but Mr W and Miss B would thrive in each other's company. Perfect!)

The only downside for Miss Bates, I think, would be that Mr W would stop her eating anything 'too rich' that actually she might well enjoy.

Still, I'm sure both Mrs George Knightley and Mrs Frank Churchill will ensure that Miss Bates gets lots of rich cakes etc when she visits them - and both Mrs GK and Mrs FC will be SO grateful that their aunt and father are, respectively, 'out of their hair' that they will ply Miss Bates with anything she wants when she visits!

Beth, that is so funny. The first thought I had when I read Mr W would not let her eat cake was Emma, Mrs Weston would slip her some goodies now and then. Then, boom, your next paragraph.

I love the bit in Emma when, after Miss Taylor's wedding breakfast, where the apothocary (can't remember his name?) has of course agreed with Mr Woodhouse that wedding cake is far too rich and therefore very injurious to health, and then later on Mr Woodhouse dimisses the reports he's heard that the apothocary's children have been seen eating copious quantitites of the said wedding cake!!!

Mr Perry

That's it - thank you!!

(He certainly knows how to handle Mr W to a T!!!!)