Bitchery Reader Lucinda Betts is a guest writer at Romance Reviews Today, writing about a very interesting pair o’ topics.
1. Was a painting recently auctioned by Christie’s really really REALLY a portrait of Jane Austen?
2. How lame is Clive James’ defense of his own doubt as to the pictures subject? Based on the style and subject matter of her books, Jane wasn’t pretty enough to be that person? Lucinda says, “WTF?”
I think the mystery is intriguing and I’m ignoring Clive for the moment. He can bluster to himself awhile. Lucinda makes an excellent point in terms of the “Is it or isn’t it?” question that the painting bears a strong resemblance to the sketch of Austen from 1870 based on a sketch by her sister Cassandra.
Now, I have two questions of my own.
1. How many levels of lame and wrong is it that I looked at the Rice portrait and thought, “Dude, her hair is awesome. Can I take this JPEG to my hair stylist and get me some Jane Austen hair?”
2. How soon until a slightly-altered version of this mystery appears in a romance novel inspired by, or derived from, the recent increased number of Jane Austen-esque books? And will it be called The Austen Code?
Also in Austen News…
“ITV1 – already home of Primeval, which is about a team of scientists tracking prehistoric creatures through rifts in time – is, apparently, planning a drama called Lost in Austen, in which a woman finds a gateway to the Regency era in her bathroom.”
from “The new sci-fi” by Gareth McLean, Wednesday June 27, 2007
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk)
OMG! She looked like Babs from Holly Dolly!
So ugly girls write, pretty girls do? I think Mr. Clive is going to get hammered in a very bad way by a lot of female authors.
TeddyPig, are you my piano teacher? Because I swear, he’s got that exact same photo on his wall. 😀
Oh my… Um, I hate to say this but having this picture on the wall is like an extreme GAY advertisement.
Hey everyone, I am… I am so so so GAY…
I am GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY!
So according to Clive James, pretty women don’t have enough imagination to create heroines who are different from themselves? That pretty women can ONLY write about, essentially, themselves? What rock has this goob been living under?
I was more impressed by the argument that the youthful Jane portrayed in the portrait didn’t co-exist with the fashion choice in the portrait. Just out of curiosity, did anybody else find the perspective in the portrait to be weird? The lady’s head is way too big for her body … she looks almost dwarfish.
Interesting post. Love the pictures. Although Ms. Austen was born in 1775, weren’t fashions changing to just that style in the mid to late 1790s when she would have been a teenager?
Has anyone else read the article on Jane Austen in the Newsweek for July 9? It’s by David Gates. He writes that Austen “offers Regency variants of the Cinderella story—the oldest work of chick lit, and the central fable about class, and about marriage.” He only uses the word “romance” once and not to place Austen’s work in that literary genre. He fears that the “best readers” will avoid her stories because they are so popular. My question is who are those “best readers”? I believe that anyone who hasn’t read at least one book by Jane Austen does not qualify for that designation.
Somewhat put out,
Kay
Yes, but the 1870/1880 portrait has a very very prettified version of the only absolutely authentic portrait of Jane, in which, you’ll notice, she’s not exactly really pretty.
So I’m not going to comment on Clive James. Most prominent Austen scholars and fashion historians say that the Rice portrait is not Jane, FWIW. And as far as I remember, the Rice portrait DIDN’T sell in that auction. No one wanted it.
I have no official opinion, because I just don’t care enough, but I think it’s unlikely to be Jane, because why the hell should there be an oil portrait of the second daughter, seventh child of some nobody pastor in the middle of nowhere England? Cassandra sketched her sister, but it’s not like we have oil portraits of the rest of her family and it’s very unlikely that the family would have shelled out the cash for a portrait of someone with absolutely no prospects, especially when they hadn’t done the rest of the family first. Historically speaking, and all that.
And Kay, the “best” readers will be put OFF Jane Frigging Austen because her work is too popular?! What the fucking fuck? Now I’ve heard it all. Give it up, people! It’s okay to read about HAPPINESS and people LOVING each other without someone DYING at the end! Really, it is. And it’s okay to like what other people like. Darwin help us all.
I think it’s unlikely to be Jane, because why the hell should there be an oil portrait of the second daughter, seventh child of some nobody pastor in the middle of nowhere England?
I had the same thought – why would this dude go do an oil portrait of some random chick in England who published anonymously? It’s not like getting a caricature done in Central Park for $5.
But still, I really, really like that chick’s hair.
Aargh! Link didn’t work.
Try this instead. That’s to the National Portrait Gallery in London which owns the picture.
So he’s saying that a beautiful woman must, be definition, have been caught up in the social whirl of her time. And that anyone deeply entrenched in that society is therefore incapable of noting both human foibles and certain absurdities and inequalities inherent in the social strictures of her time?
That’s quite a lot of assumptions.
And her characters were from varied levels of society. You had Fanny Price on one end and Emma on the other.
Oh, but this portrait is supposed to have been done BEFORE she wrote a word. Or maybe right around the time she started writing P+P, the first version, two decades before she actually published it.
But yeah, the hair’s nice. 🙂
You can read an article about the recent Austen revival (not to be confused with the Austen revival of the mid ‘90s, on which I wrote my Master’s Thesis) here: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/06/27/jane_austen/
Someone in the letters section referred to Harlequin writers as “hacks,” but I am assuming he has never read either a Harlequin or any genre romance novel. Whee!
I don’t know if the portrait is actually Jane or not. I can imagine a scenario where the portrait is her—imagine Ozias Humphry painting her from memory in clothes she wouldn’t have worn. I can imagine a scenario where it isn’t—the Rice family finally cashes in on a funny family story.
The argument that the girl in the painting is too pretty to be Jane had me choking in the car when I heard this on the radio.
When I went to write the blog, I was surprised at how many authors DO resemble their characters. I was shocked to learn that Dickens actually DID work in a sweat shop. Apparently, he held it against his mother for most of his life, since she made him do it. Charles really WAS little David Copperfield.
But then you have to ask yourself, out of all the hundreds of characters Jane and Charles wrote, which is them? Maybe Jane was secretly Darcy… (That IS a joke.)
Hey! My hair kinda sorta looks like that. Check out my website if you don’t believe me. But the chick in the painting is prettier.
It’s definitely not in the character of the books to be about a beautiful woman. They are about a woman who is not beautiful yet who has other virtues.
And, of course, no attractive or pretty woman could possibly understand what it means to not be beautiful. B/c every pretty woman feels pretty every day, and that’s all she knows.
I also have to wonder if James has actually read all of the books. B/c, as I recall, Emma Woodhouse is quite attractive, and Marianne Dashwood is no slouch in the looks department, either. And Jane! Jane Bennett! Known for being lovely and incredibly sweet.
Really, if you’re going to base arguments about a person’s looks solely upon her writing style, and thus give into these archaic notions of a woman’s character being entirely informed by her beauty (or lack thereof), then shouldn’t the conclusion be that all attractive people in Austen’s novels be hideously cruel? True, many of the are, but so are many of the *un*attractive people.
God. Now I’m totally mad. I thought that mode of criticism had gone out with the Victorians.
Not to be all harping on this, but I just ran a search on Clive James’s critical work.
Dude’s a critic of *modern* poetry. From what I can tell, the oldest author he’s written on is Conan Doyle. Not that he can’t have an opinion on Austen, but let’s not go passing him off as an expert when he’s totally just Guy With An Opinion #1.
What, were the Austen scholars off on holiday? I bet our Sarah Frantz would’ve had something to say. *grin*
“Jane Austen was the person you didn’t notice at the ball, but she noticed everything. That was her role.”
Ugh, I just find him so condescending. Pretty people aren’t allowed to intelligent or observant!
Not to mention, I must add to what snarkhunter said—I know it’s been a long, long time since I’ve read Pride and Prejudice, but even Elizabeth Bennet, possibly Austen’s most celebrated protagonist, is also described as quite pretty. Or am I on crack and totally mis-remembering?
I have to say, historical costumes are my passion, and the 1780s (when this painting would have to have been painted for this to be Jane Austen) is my particular obsession. And I’m sorry, but the dress is totally wrong for the late 1780s (as is the hair). The waist is in the wrong place, the sleeves are too short, it’s simply NOT from that era. You have only to look at other portraits from the say years to this for yourself.
It would help if I could type, wouldn’t it? That last bit should be:
You have only to look at other portraits from the same years to see this for yourself.
Now, then. I am 6 months pregnant and big as a barn in all ways.
But please, someone, for the love of God, please tell me how women’s chesteses fit in that tiiiiny tiiiiny space. Seriously. It’s like an inch wide!
Oh thank heaven!!! Clive has finnally set us straight. Now I understand.
Pretty women are too popular and happy getting men and all to spend time doing things like observing people or writing. That’s for ugly girls.
Got it.
Seriously though… where did they find this guy????
Don’t painters paint portraits (oooo!) all the time that are IDEALIZED? He could very well have been using a sketch of Ms. Austen when she was younger. He could even have made her prettier than she was.
Regardless of all the talk of whether or not a pretty woman could sympathize with unpretty women (duh!), there are plenty of attractive women who don’t see that they are attractive. It’s all about the attitude. And a little humility.
I’ve seen plenty of pictures of Austen and the one in question is pretty nice,regardless of if it’s really Jane or not. Clive James is a sexist idiot of the first water-“oh,none of her books were about pretty women!”. May I direct your attention to Miss Jane Bennet and her sister Lizzie,known for her fine eyes? And to her left is Miss Catherine Norland and Miss Marianne Dashwood as well as Miss Emma Woodhouse and Miss Mary Crawford,nearly arrived with her new friend,Miss Mariah Bertram.
In the far corner,you may spy Miss Elinor Dashwood,Miss Fanny Price,Miss Anne Eliot and Miss Harriet Smith,who are well known for their personable natures and are just as in demand by certain gentleman as their companions! Fancy that,indeed,sir!
Um, Clive James does know that writers…well, lie for a living, right?
Or is he saying all books, no matter how outrageous, are really autobiographical? I guess all erotica authors have an array of sex toys in their nightstand, closets, the secret room in the back of closets…
what a jerk! why does he think only ugly girls are smart????
If Jane Austen was born in 1775, she would have been the right age for this style of dress. The only reason I know this is because I’m currently researching it for a WIP. If you follow this link: http://hal.ucr.edu/~cathy/rd/rd10.html
you can see three dresses that date from the early 1790s. There’s more information on it at The Regency Fashion Page: http://locutus.ucr.edu/~cathy/reg3.html
As for the hair, it is possible—just possible—that she could have had hair that short another link:
http://www.songsmyth.com/hairstyles.html
As to whether it’s Jane Austen or not, I couldn’t say. As my memory serves me, she was considerd attractive in her youth but had absolutely no prospects for marriage due to her family situation. Could be wrong, but I think I read that in a biography of hers somewhere.
I guess Mr. James has never heard the saying don’t judge a book by its cover.
So Jane Austen could only be one or the other – creative or beautiful, popular or observant? She couldn’t possibly just have talent. What bullshit.
It doesn’t sound like Mr. James has read Jane Austen’s novels. Most are about pretty, popular woman who have the misfortune of being poor. Their looks are seldom in question, their lack of fortune is the problem. Sure, there are some wallflowers in her stories and there are some beauties too.
Of course, us bitches know this because we’ve read the novels. This dude doesn’t sound like he’s ever actually read an Austen novel.
I hope Dan Brown is reading this…he he!
I recently read that the publishers (can’t remember who) of Jane’s bio felt the need to edit Jane’s portrait by Cassandra because she wasn’t attractive enough for the cover. Not attractive enough for her own biography?! What is wrong with people?
This discussion of beauty reminds me of something Jane herself heard. An acquaintance of her brother said that a woman couldn’t have possibly written Pride & Prejudice because a woman couldn’t write that well. Now, a similar comment is made: not a woman but a pretty woman.
Wow! What a long way we’ve come in 200 years!
Great post and fascinating discussion. I’m inclined to think the portrait likely isn’t Austen based on the argument in previous posts that it seems unlikley her family would have commissioned a portrait of her and not of any other family member. The hair and clothes look to me as though they could possibly be 1790s (but more 1795-1800 than the first half of the decade). As a writer myself, I think there’s a bit of the writer in all the characters she/he creates (after all, they all come out of the writer’s imagination) but which bits of which characters are the writer is a mystery (often even to the writer her/himself). And I certainly don’t think writers only write about characters are attractive as they are themselves. In any case, it seems to me Austen’s characters range from attractive (Elizabeth Bennet, Elinor Dashwood, Anne Elliot) to pretty (Catherine Morland) to beautifuly and elegant (Emma Woodhouse).
Cheers,
Tracy
Not Austen. It’s a kid whose head is too big for her body. Bad portrait, really.
You know, Clive is just being the usual idiot, talking about what he knows nothing about because he was thrilled to be asked. I blame the reporter who sought a quote from him in the first place: “Gee, I need an expert opinion of a portrait of Jane Austen. I’ll go ask a guy WHO KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT HER.”
Um…a bit of hypocrisy going on here ladies…check your archives.
I distinctly remember a convo in the comments section between Darlene Marshall and either Sarah or Candy where they were comparing notes on the fact that their men had reassured them that they *much* prefer “smart women they can talk to” to “trophy wives”.
FYI, that’s something men say so they don’t have to sleep on the couch. What they actually prefer is the total package. Ask them. You’ll see.
Speak for yourself anonymous. Really, what anyone defines as “attractive” is totally subjective.
I think my partners are stunning (and if asked, I’ll say they’re gorgeous to anyone), and their looks are somewhat important to me (since someone’s looks are part of the package). However, I think I’ve only been out with two people who were above-average in conventional attractiveness. So, yes, looks often do matter, but probably not in the way you’re assuming.
If Babs didn’t tell me, then his domestic partner puttering around in the garden would. They’re so adorable as a couple—little round gay guys being all domesticated and cute! They’re a less annoying version of the couple in college who wear matching sweaters and giggle in class (and generally in those pairings, the guy tended to be gay, too. Huh. Go figure.)
So do women. But like men, we mostly figure we will get something very nice that doesn’t look like it stepped off GQ, can talk to us as if we’re human beings and not mobile, wage-earning blow up dolls that exist solely for their amusement and mostly polite. And maybe, if we promise frequent hand and/or blow jobs, take out the garbage on time.
Most adults get over the fantasy and realize reality is pretty ok, too.
FWIW, beautiful women can be incredibly intelligent, ugly women can be dumb as a box of rocks. I like to think it’s down to personality and a goodness of spirit.
BTW, Trix, followed your link to your blog. Nice piercings. I’d love to have my cartilege done, but I’m too big a weenus. 😀
I might get a plug, though, and create a loop in the lobe. I’ve already stretched the one out to my chin (I pull on it as a nervous habit.)
Um, if anyone reads a basic life story of Jane Austen, you will see she *did* have a ‘flirtation’ with a man called Tom Lefroy. She also received a marriage proposal from a wealthy guy whom she turned down.
So it’s not like she was a hideous creature who hid in her house scribbling away.
I take great offense to the idea that a tolerably pretty woman would not have had the time or inclination to write…it flies in the face of all we understand about artists. They *must* create, no matter their circumstance. I don’t know. He makes it sound like she only wrote books because she had no other life.
Pisses me off!
Dear Anonymousie:
There’s no hypocrisy in taking offense at someone assuming a pretty woman is either dumb or incapable of writing good literature. It would be hypocritical of us to assume that Clive James is right—that only unattractive women can be smart bitches, and that pretty girls not apply, b/c, as everyone knows, pretty girls have the approximate IQ of a box of hair and are too busy making themselves even more beautiful to bother with things like reading or discussing books.
James’s assertion that Jane Austen could not have been pretty is not so much insulting to Austen herself as it is to all women—it’s a veiled reaffirmation of the idea that you can either be smart or beautiful, but not both.
As for your comment, you are making the same assumption. And it seems like you come down on the side that believes, given the choice, women should choose beauty over intelligence, because otherwise men won’t want them. Having a smart wife does not mean that a person has an unattractive wife. Having a “trophy wife” (or husband, for that matter), means that a person chose his or her spouse solely for his/her looks and value as an object of peer envy—whether or not that trophy wife (or husband) is interesting and smart is of no concern to the spouse.
Do you see the difference, Mousie?
Snarkhunter—my point was that “smart but ugly” and “stupid but pretty” is a false dichotomy. When I say that men prefer the total package, I’m saying that if they got to build a woman a la “Weird Science” they would want her to be attractive and smart and funny and like sex and not be catty.
As a woman with a genius level IQ (reading by the age of three, reading at college level by the age of eight), who was a complete dork until the age of fourteen or so, who, after she “blossomed” was still nice to everybody (particularly those who didn’t have any friends) I am consistently hurt by those who insist that I must be stupid and/or bitchy because of my red hair and big boobs.
And I was particularly pissed off about finding the tired old “my husband loves me because I’m smart and assures me that he would never want a trophy wife cuz they’re stupid Lol” on this site.
Smart, pretty, sweet, funny women exist. But we retreat at any sign of cattiness because we know you will never, ever take your blinders off. You will just continue with your little digs and premptive strikes. And you know what? That’s just fine, because the earlier you show your true colors the less time I waste on people like you.
And while I’m at it—whatever your shortcomings are, either genetic or because you are not working on *yourself*—said shortcomings are not anybody elses fault. They are what they are. Work to change them or accept them rather than taking out your insecurities on other women.
Not cattiness, simply the truth.
FYI, that’s something men say so they don’t have to sleep on the couch. What they actually prefer is the total package. Ask them. You’ll see.
IMO, not much is going to change in comments like those Clive James felt empowered to express until women stop measuring their worth—in any way, shape, or form—relative to “what men prefer.” In the first place, that yardstick is more often in reality a child-sized ruler, and more generally, men of worth and women of worth are able to recognize each other quite readily without needing to measure anything at all, IMO.
Just reread your post Snarkhunter, and I just wanted to add that I don’t see where I value looks over intelligence.
When I was a child (a very dorky child) everybody assumed I was smart and I was frequently called an old soul.
Now that I’m pretty people talk to me like a retarded kindergartner.
Since my original post referred to the concept of the total package, I don’t know why you think I value one facet of myself more than the other.
Do you have a prejudice you need to work on? Or hadn’t your coffee kicked in yet?
Did anyone ever consider that perhaps Cassandra Austen wasn’t the best of artists? Also, her portrait of Jane was unfinished and according to Wiki (I know, I know, take it with a grain of salt!) it “was described by a family member as being “hideously unlike” Jane Austen’s real appearance”. So we can’t be sure that she wasn’t attractive…
That doesn’t take away from the fact that this guy is a total dickhead, obviously.
Word of the day: wrong42. Wrong indeed!