July 18th marks the Anniversary of Jane Austen's death in 1817. A friend showed me a neat blog, and I just had to share it with you.
Jane Austen's World
Then I stumbled onto another one with good Jane Austen photos:
London Calling
Enjoy, my friends!
Javamom
Showing posts with label Jane Austen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jane Austen. Show all posts
17 July, 2010
13 August, 2007
Jane's infatuations/beaus
Since my inquiring mind could not rest until I had more information, I picked up a book of Hubster's (a HB copy) from our home library called, Jane Austen, The Woman, by George Holbert Tucker. Tucker is a journalist who spent fifty years on his research for this book. This book was published in 1995 and as my fellow AO members may enjoy this tidbit of a review from one of our HEO authors:
"This book was named "one of the best books of the year" by London critic Paul Johnson. "Fresh insights! Just a superlative book to enjoy!"
I'm going to take a couple of days to post my notes from the chapter "Beaux and a Blighted Romance."
Young Jane Austen was introduced into society in 1792 at the age of seventeen. It is said of her that she had already established herself as a flirtatious young woman of spirit, delighting in lively and sometimes intimidating badinage. We can’t know of her Steventon admirers until 1796, which is when her surviving letters begin. We can find information which does describe her infatuations and any romantic attachments thanks to these letters, with some degree of accuracy.
Javamom
"This book was named "one of the best books of the year" by London critic Paul Johnson. "Fresh insights! Just a superlative book to enjoy!"
I'm going to take a couple of days to post my notes from the chapter "Beaux and a Blighted Romance."
Young Jane Austen was introduced into society in 1792 at the age of seventeen. It is said of her that she had already established herself as a flirtatious young woman of spirit, delighting in lively and sometimes intimidating badinage. We can’t know of her Steventon admirers until 1796, which is when her surviving letters begin. We can find information which does describe her infatuations and any romantic attachments thanks to these letters, with some degree of accuracy.
First “passing fancy” according to Tuckers 50 years of research:
1. Edward Taylor (1774-1843)
~ A year younger than Jane
~ Distant relative of Sir Brook Bridges III off Goodnestone, whose daughter, Elizabeth, had married Jane’s’ brother Edward in 1791.
~She once accompanied her sil on a visit to a Kentish estate…and wrote to her sister Casandra, “We went by Bifrons and I contemplated with a melancholy pleasure, the abode of Him, on whom I once fondly doted.” Other than that, this relationship seemed not to grow into anything more than a very happy acquaintance, as in 1800, Cassandra reported rumor of his engagement to his cousin Charlotte.
2. Rev. Edward Bridges (1779-1825) was another Kentish interest, recorded by the Rev.
Edward Bridges himself. This was a younger brother of Jane’s sister-in-law (Elizabeth Austen, Jane’s brother Edward’s wife). She knew him well enough to be his partner when they opened a dance at Goodnestone, and when he later referred to her as “T’other Miss Austen.” Later when writing to her sister Cassandra about a visit where Jane and Bridges were both houseguests of his mother, she wrote, “It is impossible to do justice to the hospitality of his attentions toward me, he made a point of ordering toasted cheese for supper entirely on my account.”
It was another ten years before he proposed to Jane and she turned him down, or possibly he was warned just before asking. He had just become an ordained Anglican priest at this time. This refusal or rebuff evidently left no hard feelings, as they met on later occasions and she noted no change in his manners toward her. Another hint of no bad feelings is reflected when Bridges’ mother later invited Jane’s sister Cassandra to visit her. Bridges had married about one year after his attempt to propose to Jane. It seems that that marriage was but a poor one, according to letters from Jane. She writes about his wife’s poor health ‘episodes’ and says, “she seems to be the sort of woman who gives me the idea of being determined never to be well--& who likes her spasms & nervousness & the consequence they give her, better than anything else.”
There seem to be five Steventon-area admirers (of varying degrees, it seems) in her younger life:
- Henry Digweed
- Charles Fowle (1771-1806)
- an unverifiable(?) “Mr. Heartly”
- John Willing
- The Rev. Charles Powlett (1763-1835)
Next I will share about the romantic episode that took place when she was twenty-one. At the time of Jane’s first surviving letter, this was dated
Hasta mañana,
Javamom
11 August, 2007
Becoming Jane: Thoughts, Opinions, Warnings
Notice: Spoiler warnings -- my apologies! But any of you who know a little about Austen know that she never married, and she died fairly young.
I wanted to send a link before any of you take your daughters to see this movie. My sixteen yo daugther and I saw it together on Tuesday last, and I was a little shocked at some strong sexual innuendo in two or three scenes.
I'll link to screenit.com, but their list of sexuality and unnecessary (not to mention strong) innuendo, etc. is even longer than mine! That's affirming, since I was beginning to doubt my first reaction and assessment by week's end. Do read the linked specifics then consider your family's personal standards.
One thing I can't disagree with more is Screenit's mention of Jane's love interest (Tom LeFroy) being like Darcy. That is true in the initial "disdain" of him, but Darcy is not the only Austen character who was perceived early on in this way. Mr. LeFroy was penniless and very dependent upon his Uncle (a lawyer,his seeming guardian, and his teacher in the law). No, Mr. LeFroy is much more like Willoughby in Sense & Sensibility (the novel moreso than the movie, even, I'll explain. Willoughby really thought/knew that to maintain his lifestyle and rich tastes, that he needed to make a financially beneficial match, not to mention his very rich Aunt, whose estate he would receive upon her death, did not approve of Miss Dashwood. Willoughby later seriously regretted his engagement, knowingly hurting the woman he really loved, returning later to try to make a sad but admirable explanation to the elder Miss Dashwood, whom he greatly respected.
In the worldly sense, LeFroy is like Willoughby and his relationship with the poor Marianne Dashwood, but he is also like Henry Crawford in Mansfield Park. One difference between LeFroy and the character of Henry Crawford is that Crawford is rich and could easily support Fanny Price. Henry also settles down from his wild ways when one finally can begin to believe that Henry really is falling in love with Fanny and not just trying to make her another conquest, as LeFroy is portrayed in BJ, the movie. But one can't help but wonder that if Fanny and Jane had accepted these men in marriage, how faithful would they have been on down the line. Rather like Willoughby and Marianne Dashwood, as well. In the movie MP, which isn't very reliable and faithful to the book, btw, Henry does not stay faithful in the worst sense of the word very shortly after Fanny finally breaks up with him. I do not remember how that scene plays out in the book.
There are many characters or scenes in the movie, supposedly from Jane's life, that she builds into her novels. I do remember having read this from other sources in the past, but how reliable are those sources, according to some reviews that I have read. Some say her biography was beefed up by family members early on.
There is a man the movie portrayal of "Becoming Jane," a friend of Jane's brother's, who is a student of the pastorate soon to take on his own parish. You see echoes of this story (if it is true) in Mr. Collins in P & P. This man was referred to (by his friends, no less), in a derogatory way as being a "sour-faced virgin" and that they needed to take him to a Tahitian love-fest. This scene was never acted upon in the movie, however.
Another character in the movie, Eliza De Feuillide, reminds me quite a bit in posture and demeanor of Mary Crawford in MP.
I did enjoy the movie...in part. The costumes, music, and artistic cinematography were absolutely lovely, but one leaves wondering how much of it actually happened. It still left me feeling manipulated and wondering what was the true story behind LeFroy's and Austen's love. One also may leave with mixed feelings about its morality message(s). Indeed, Mr. LeFroy was portrayed as a worldly man in this movie, but he did seem to settle down when he genuinely fell in love with Jane. Jane also makes the best final decision about leaving everything and eloping in disgrace...in the movie. In real life, I think her parents just flat out did not approve of the match. It's been several years since I studied this, so this information has since been sent to the basement archives of my brain, and may be shaky. My dear Hubster studied Jane Austen in Graduate School for his English and Lit. degree, and we used to share much of what he learned, and I've read the critical essays that he had to study for class and literary notes and recommended versions of Austen, as well.
Backtracking to a comparison of similar library scenes:
In Becoming Jane and in Mansfield Park, our leading ladies surprisingly catch the bad boys of the stories in a mutual friend's library, reading, of all things. This goes against both heroines imagined perceptions or suppositions of these characters, whom these ladies perceived as shallow.
One difference in the library scenes from this movie and from MP is this: LeFroy begins reading aloud to Jane from a book about animal sexual behavior. In MP, Henry is reading aloud to Fanny about a caged bird, and I think it is rather sad and written in prose.
When Tom LeFroy has finished reading aloud to Jane in this movie about animal behavior, he ends it by telling Fanny that she needs to be taught the ways of the world by someone with experience (implying himself).
LeFroy gives Jane a bawdy book to read, Tom Jones by Fielding, which reference is made to in Northanger Abbey.
Would our main male characters in this movie and some of Austen's novels have been faithful in the long haul, if they had married our heroines? With Henry in MP, you really don't believe so, but with LeFroy, maybe. In the movie, "Becoming Jane," he does seem to return a little bit to his former life, but the scene portrays him in a true state of emptiness and depression. He doesn't give in to those old worldly pleasures after things don't work out the way he wanted them to (in the movie portrayal), which is a nice scene, morally, and leads you to think he truly did turn around and settle down. BUT how much of this really happened? We'd have to
do more research to verify.
I hope this clarifies some of the more subtle comparisons of this movie to Austen's writings, which may go unnoticed by those whom are mostly familiar with S & S, P & P, but not her Juvenilia (writings from childhood and teen years) or less-read-by-the-general public novels such as MP or Northanger Abbey, both of which you should read soon, if you haven't already!! It's been about two years since I read the Juvenilia and letters, so I hate to make any more comparisons without further re-study of her contemporaries or literary criticisms.
Did Jane really meet Ann Radcliffe in real life? I thought I had read in a lit. crit. somewhere that she did not like the sensationalism of Radcliffe's writings. I'll have to fossick around for that info.
If I but had all the time in the world, I could write more, but must get on with some book restoration work.
Perhaps another time I will list the books and literary criticisms recommended in Hubster's graduate course in Jane Austen, if there is interest.
For further interesting links see:
The Austen Blog for their opinions about BJ and other reviewers' reviews of the movie.
and for your own deeper research:
selected bibliography and other links from one of my favorite Austen sites.
Jane Austen Society biography and other links
Sincerely,
Javamom
I wanted to send a link before any of you take your daughters to see this movie. My sixteen yo daugther and I saw it together on Tuesday last, and I was a little shocked at some strong sexual innuendo in two or three scenes.
I'll link to screenit.com, but their list of sexuality and unnecessary (not to mention strong) innuendo, etc. is even longer than mine! That's affirming, since I was beginning to doubt my first reaction and assessment by week's end. Do read the linked specifics then consider your family's personal standards.
One thing I can't disagree with more is Screenit's mention of Jane's love interest (Tom LeFroy) being like Darcy. That is true in the initial "disdain" of him, but Darcy is not the only Austen character who was perceived early on in this way. Mr. LeFroy was penniless and very dependent upon his Uncle (a lawyer,his seeming guardian, and his teacher in the law). No, Mr. LeFroy is much more like Willoughby in Sense & Sensibility (the novel moreso than the movie, even, I'll explain. Willoughby really thought/knew that to maintain his lifestyle and rich tastes, that he needed to make a financially beneficial match, not to mention his very rich Aunt, whose estate he would receive upon her death, did not approve of Miss Dashwood. Willoughby later seriously regretted his engagement, knowingly hurting the woman he really loved, returning later to try to make a sad but admirable explanation to the elder Miss Dashwood, whom he greatly respected.
In the worldly sense, LeFroy is like Willoughby and his relationship with the poor Marianne Dashwood, but he is also like Henry Crawford in Mansfield Park. One difference between LeFroy and the character of Henry Crawford is that Crawford is rich and could easily support Fanny Price. Henry also settles down from his wild ways when one finally can begin to believe that Henry really is falling in love with Fanny and not just trying to make her another conquest, as LeFroy is portrayed in BJ, the movie. But one can't help but wonder that if Fanny and Jane had accepted these men in marriage, how faithful would they have been on down the line. Rather like Willoughby and Marianne Dashwood, as well. In the movie MP, which isn't very reliable and faithful to the book, btw, Henry does not stay faithful in the worst sense of the word very shortly after Fanny finally breaks up with him. I do not remember how that scene plays out in the book.
There are many characters or scenes in the movie, supposedly from Jane's life, that she builds into her novels. I do remember having read this from other sources in the past, but how reliable are those sources, according to some reviews that I have read. Some say her biography was beefed up by family members early on.
There is a man the movie portrayal of "Becoming Jane," a friend of Jane's brother's, who is a student of the pastorate soon to take on his own parish. You see echoes of this story (if it is true) in Mr. Collins in P & P. This man was referred to (by his friends, no less), in a derogatory way as being a "sour-faced virgin" and that they needed to take him to a Tahitian love-fest. This scene was never acted upon in the movie, however.
Another character in the movie, Eliza De Feuillide, reminds me quite a bit in posture and demeanor of Mary Crawford in MP.
I did enjoy the movie...in part. The costumes, music, and artistic cinematography were absolutely lovely, but one leaves wondering how much of it actually happened. It still left me feeling manipulated and wondering what was the true story behind LeFroy's and Austen's love. One also may leave with mixed feelings about its morality message(s). Indeed, Mr. LeFroy was portrayed as a worldly man in this movie, but he did seem to settle down when he genuinely fell in love with Jane. Jane also makes the best final decision about leaving everything and eloping in disgrace...in the movie. In real life, I think her parents just flat out did not approve of the match. It's been several years since I studied this, so this information has since been sent to the basement archives of my brain, and may be shaky. My dear Hubster studied Jane Austen in Graduate School for his English and Lit. degree, and we used to share much of what he learned, and I've read the critical essays that he had to study for class and literary notes and recommended versions of Austen, as well.
Backtracking to a comparison of similar library scenes:
In Becoming Jane and in Mansfield Park, our leading ladies surprisingly catch the bad boys of the stories in a mutual friend's library, reading, of all things. This goes against both heroines imagined perceptions or suppositions of these characters, whom these ladies perceived as shallow.
One difference in the library scenes from this movie and from MP is this: LeFroy begins reading aloud to Jane from a book about animal sexual behavior. In MP, Henry is reading aloud to Fanny about a caged bird, and I think it is rather sad and written in prose.
When Tom LeFroy has finished reading aloud to Jane in this movie about animal behavior, he ends it by telling Fanny that she needs to be taught the ways of the world by someone with experience (implying himself).
LeFroy gives Jane a bawdy book to read, Tom Jones by Fielding, which reference is made to in Northanger Abbey.
Would our main male characters in this movie and some of Austen's novels have been faithful in the long haul, if they had married our heroines? With Henry in MP, you really don't believe so, but with LeFroy, maybe. In the movie, "Becoming Jane," he does seem to return a little bit to his former life, but the scene portrays him in a true state of emptiness and depression. He doesn't give in to those old worldly pleasures after things don't work out the way he wanted them to (in the movie portrayal), which is a nice scene, morally, and leads you to think he truly did turn around and settle down. BUT how much of this really happened? We'd have to
do more research to verify.
I hope this clarifies some of the more subtle comparisons of this movie to Austen's writings, which may go unnoticed by those whom are mostly familiar with S & S, P & P, but not her Juvenilia (writings from childhood and teen years) or less-read-by-the-general public novels such as MP or Northanger Abbey, both of which you should read soon, if you haven't already!! It's been about two years since I read the Juvenilia and letters, so I hate to make any more comparisons without further re-study of her contemporaries or literary criticisms.
Did Jane really meet Ann Radcliffe in real life? I thought I had read in a lit. crit. somewhere that she did not like the sensationalism of Radcliffe's writings. I'll have to fossick around for that info.
If I but had all the time in the world, I could write more, but must get on with some book restoration work.
Perhaps another time I will list the books and literary criticisms recommended in Hubster's graduate course in Jane Austen, if there is interest.
For further interesting links see:
The Austen Blog for their opinions about BJ and other reviewers' reviews of the movie.
and for your own deeper research:
selected bibliography and other links from one of my favorite Austen sites.
Jane Austen Society biography and other links
Sincerely,
Javamom
14 November, 2005
Pride & Prejudice
This 'n that...a review in scenes of no particular order.
My best friend and I went to see this new version at our local independent film house last night. My kids were right! It was fantastic in so many ways. Be warned, spoilers ahead!
For starters, all the scenery is much more agrarian and realistic...in a most romantic sense. It contains an artistic feast for the senses! The first public dance scene in Meryton seems more like it takes place in a rural community, than perhaps other film versions. The people are very simply dressed, their hair is a little mussed-up and unkempt, as if they've been dancing all evening, and they don't appear to have on make-up...except you know that they must, for filming purposes. You can see freckles on many of the people, which is more realistic, I think.
I've seen the BBC, the A & E versions, the old, short, southern belle version, even the Wishbone version (haha). We own the A & E. This new version is really nice, and has some neat transitions and absolutely stunning cinematography; very artistic and beautiful. I loved it for it's freshness.
The last three minutes are different from any other version, but I liked the ending. I thought it sweet. Some of you may disagree. The kiss was not a "hollywood-over-the-top-passionate and lengthy one. It was sweetness.
The music is peaceful, the scenery is gorgeous. Donald Southerland does a nice job as the father of the Bennet family, although not all of his classic funny lines from the book make it into the movie, b/c of time. Same with Mrs. Bennet. Southerland's last scene with Lizzy in his library was precious and moving! As was the long, adoring stare she casts toward Darcy as she closes the library door to confess all to her father.
A few other things that I really liked about this one...the director was able to capture the absurd and boisterous silliness of the girls and the mom, without having to drag it all out as is in the A & E version. Time constraints, again. At the same time, I believe that other emotions are easier to pick up on in this version. Charlotte is more indignant when she confronts Lizzy about Lizzy's harsh judgement of her engagement to Collins. Also, the physical changes in Darcy's character once he admits his true feelings to Elizabeth, is very noticeable. His whole body language is more relaxed and both postures that he exhibits in the film come across as believeable. In the BBC version, the Darcy character is almost too stiff for my liking. Of course, Colin Firth was fantastic in the A & E, but I want to see the Darcy character more relaxed after he admits his true feelings. I guess that's why I really liked the Darcy in this new version quite well! There is a scene where Bingley is practicing his proposal to Jane with Darcy. I think this scene makes Darcy softer and more believeable.
A couple of things that held more closely to the book in this version than the A & E version: When Lizzy is reading the letter of explanation from Darcy of her complaints against him, it is more as in the book: as she is reading it. In the A & E, we hear Darcy's voice narrating his explanation, pretty much as he is writing it. I read in an interview with Colin Firth that the director portrayed it thusly, so we can see more of the struggle of his inability to express his emotions outwardly. Second bit of artistic license taken in the A & E version that was not in the book, in order to present the physicality of the struggles with Darcy are the scenes of him bathing, billiards, fencing, and swimming.
Wickham is not developed much at all in this version, nor Lizzie's friendship with him. Some may not like this aspect. Also, I wish Mary's character had been developed better. I always feel sorry for her character in every movie version that I've seen. She is a bit prettier in this screen version, though.
My best friend and I went to see this new version at our local independent film house last night. My kids were right! It was fantastic in so many ways. Be warned, spoilers ahead!
For starters, all the scenery is much more agrarian and realistic...in a most romantic sense. It contains an artistic feast for the senses! The first public dance scene in Meryton seems more like it takes place in a rural community, than perhaps other film versions. The people are very simply dressed, their hair is a little mussed-up and unkempt, as if they've been dancing all evening, and they don't appear to have on make-up...except you know that they must, for filming purposes. You can see freckles on many of the people, which is more realistic, I think.
I've seen the BBC, the A & E versions, the old, short, southern belle version, even the Wishbone version (haha). We own the A & E. This new version is really nice, and has some neat transitions and absolutely stunning cinematography; very artistic and beautiful. I loved it for it's freshness.
Missing characters: Darcy's party...only Bingley's single sister is depicted in this version. The storyline didn't dwell on the militia men, either. They were able to highlight other areas which I think are important to the story...such as the various scenes of family almost always spying and listening in on conversations at the doorways. I think the movie does a nice job of getting across the pride, vanity, and the prejudice of the main characters.
Wardrobe and makeup did a decent job of making Keira Knightly more plain. Really. She was almost too messy and plain. The actress who plays Jane (Rosamund Pike) is absolutely beautiful. Mr. Collins is funny, and not bad-looking in this verison. His lines, and the spirit of his character are intact. Can you tell that I like this version? I think it will stand on a lot of its own merits. I think some of the classic, quotable lines are delivered extremely well in this version, so that they are more understandable. Perhaps I am just more accustomed to the language of Austen than I used to be.
One of my favorite scenes from the BBC version that weren't in the A & E version does work itself into this version, which is a nice touch, I thought. I'm thinking of the scene where Lizzy receives the sad news from Jane about Lydia running off. Aunt & Uncle Gardiner and Darcy are all waiting anxiously for her to read and tell all. Darcy paces and sits, paces and sits, wishing he could do something, b/c Lizzy is crying so, and can't even speak. The wit and charm remain totally intact. There was a lot of laughter in the theater, and even some tears and sighs...but maybe that's because it was opening weekend, and in limited release.
Another artistically appealing scene: When Mrs. Bennet is chasing after Lizzy from their home after she has refused Mr. Collins' proposal, a gaggle of geese are in the lane between Lizzy and her mother. As the mother runs down the lane holding up her dress and petticoats, the geese run frantically from her. She looks rather like the geese, bellowing along behind them as they run to get out of her way!! Genius!
Enjoy the multiple scenes of the huge, and some gnarly, tree trunks...
The last three minutes are different from any other version, but I liked the ending. I thought it sweet. Some of you may disagree. The kiss was not a "hollywood-over-the-top-passionate and lengthy one. It was sweetness.
The music is peaceful, the scenery is gorgeous. Donald Southerland does a nice job as the father of the Bennet family, although not all of his classic funny lines from the book make it into the movie, b/c of time. Same with Mrs. Bennet. Southerland's last scene with Lizzy in his library was precious and moving! As was the long, adoring stare she casts toward Darcy as she closes the library door to confess all to her father.
A few other things that I really liked about this one...the director was able to capture the absurd and boisterous silliness of the girls and the mom, without having to drag it all out as is in the A & E version. Time constraints, again. At the same time, I believe that other emotions are easier to pick up on in this version. Charlotte is more indignant when she confronts Lizzy about Lizzy's harsh judgement of her engagement to Collins. Also, the physical changes in Darcy's character once he admits his true feelings to Elizabeth, is very noticeable. His whole body language is more relaxed and both postures that he exhibits in the film come across as believeable. In the BBC version, the Darcy character is almost too stiff for my liking. Of course, Colin Firth was fantastic in the A & E, but I want to see the Darcy character more relaxed after he admits his true feelings. I guess that's why I really liked the Darcy in this new version quite well! There is a scene where Bingley is practicing his proposal to Jane with Darcy. I think this scene makes Darcy softer and more believeable.
A couple of things that held more closely to the book in this version than the A & E version: When Lizzy is reading the letter of explanation from Darcy of her complaints against him, it is more as in the book: as she is reading it. In the A & E, we hear Darcy's voice narrating his explanation, pretty much as he is writing it. I read in an interview with Colin Firth that the director portrayed it thusly, so we can see more of the struggle of his inability to express his emotions outwardly. Second bit of artistic license taken in the A & E version that was not in the book, in order to present the physicality of the struggles with Darcy are the scenes of him bathing, billiards, fencing, and swimming.
Wickham is not developed much at all in this version, nor Lizzie's friendship with him. Some may not like this aspect. Also, I wish Mary's character had been developed better. I always feel sorry for her character in every movie version that I've seen. She is a bit prettier in this screen version, though.
Needless to say, this one is *really* worth seeing on the big screen. REALLY. You need to see those country folks' freckles and messy hair up close. You need to be able to feel dizzy when Lizzy is swinging and twisting round in her swing over the passage of the season. So don't be skeptical or afraid, and don't judge it too harshly, if you've not seen it. At least go to the matinee, if you must save a few bucks. There. I've said my peace...(grin).
Javamom, who is already re-reading the book again
12 November, 2005
Pride & Prejudice
Our teens went with a group of friends to see the new release of Pride & Prejudice yesterday. Good for them, I am NOT bitter, hehe. I will just have to go see it with my own friends on Sunday afternoon. In our area, it is only out in select theaters this weekend. It is not until the 23rd that it will be in all theaters nationwide.
They say it was *fantastic.* My favorite movie critic, Gary Cogill says basically the same thing.
They say it was *fantastic.* My favorite movie critic, Gary Cogill says basically the same thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)