Ah, yes, “Becoming Jane.”
I personally would love to become Jane. She dresses marvelously, can synthesize and formulate a reply to a tricky question with immeasurable speed, and runs a powerhouse of a website with an instinct for content organization that makes me dizzy with envy. I can only imagine that her closets and pantry are equally organized. She probably owns a labelmaker.
However, in order to Become Jane, I’d need to do a lot of overhaul of my dizzy self, starting with – wait, sorry? Beg pardon?
I don’t get to Become Jane from Dear Author?
Oh. So, what’s all this email in my inbox about how I should get angry about Becoming Jane? The review of Becoming Jane? In Salon? Which wouldn’t recognize it’s own intellectual superiority complex if it tripped over it on the way to its messy, disorganized closet?
Are you sure we can’t talk about how I should become Jane? No?
Fine.
Seems Stephanie Zacharek has written a most (is anyone surprised?) condescending and misinformed review of Becoming Jane, a film which she didn’t like all that much, and in attempting to describe why she didn’t like it, she calls it a “misguided movie [that] imagines Jane Austen’s life as a genteel, tasteful Harlequin romance.”
And you know, when I think of genteel and tasteful, I immediately think of All Over You, Wife by Contract, Mistress by Demand, or the upcoming Promoted: Nanny to Wife. Nothing says genteel and tasteful like Harlequin, eh? Those words go together like Kidnapped and Spanked by an Alien.
Yeah. So right off the bat of intellectual superiority, Zacharek has demonstrated that she doth not know whereof she sneers. Add to that some eyebrow-raising sentiments about movies being venues for us plebes to gaze at the beautiful people (which makes the Oscar-certainty of a beautiful woman uglying-up even more thought-provoking) and the assertions that the movie attempts to snap itself into the modern template of romance, and you have some room for some mighty morphin “BITCH, PLEASE.”
It’s not enough to dislike a movie, but her lazy parallel of “it’s so bad it’s like a Harlequin romance” is the ultimate expression of how poor the film is. I’m not sure I have the energy to summon a response, since her initial premise is so marvelously lame.
Fortunately, responses that do a Bitch proud line up to give the author of this fine review that mighty morphin smackdown which it so desperately needs. Well done!
I think this may be my favorite part:
Please refrain from using comparisons when you are ignorant about what you’re citing.
It’s clear that you despise romance, that you despise romantics, and that you despise this movie. Your comments on this movie’s merits as art may be dead on, but I question your credentials about the rest of what you’ve said.
Well said, PoisonIvy!
I’m curious – which ones of you appeared over there to (once again) defend the genre?
It’s also the least helpful review I’ve read in a while. So it’s a bit light—did anyone think it was dark and heavy? Seriously, folks. I think I knew Anne Hathaway starred in it, already, and that it was about a fictional love affair (although JA may have had love affairs, she died alone). I wanted to know if the historical accuracy was okay, or if the acting was even good, or if the plot made sense, or if the movie was worth seeing. I bet the one-paragraph review in Entertainment Weekly was better. Did she actually see the movie?
I guess I’m saying that I could have written that review (had I felt like being snarky) from seeing the preview on TV. I thought a review in something like Salon would have been a little more in-depth.
And my verification word is extent92: as in, the extent of her review was terrible.
OK, my country snob rears it’s chicken feed flecked head and thinks “Why is it that people this stupid think they are so smart?”
Cuz they writes fer some big’ole citified E-zine! Dats wuh! Only smurt folks lik dem can understand’um!
Sheesh——My only regret that it isn’t a printed mag is that I can’t let the rooster poop on it.
[Quote from Chalcedony] I propose that Zacharek, Rebecca T., and other Slate writers critical of so-called genre fiction read and review 2-3 (single-title, non-series) books in each genre, all published within the last two years. If Zacharek argues that she is a film ,not literary critic, she should in her movie reviews refrain from making comparisons to and comments about entire literary genres. [End Quote]
The comments against the review seem to boil down to: “Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. Only then do you have the right to pass judgment.” Perhaps the reviewer forgot this lesson that is usually taught in elementary school. It goes hand-in-hand with the (modified) Golden Rule: “if you don’t have anything nice to say, only say it if you can justify it logically and coherently without personal attacks.” *g*
You are hardly dizzy yourself and I don’t own a label maker although I do have labels, a pen and a husband with neat handwriting. I, of course, aspire to Become Sarah. Or SB Sarah.
I read the reviewer loving Austen and despising the pulpy mass marketization of her beloved icon. To the reviewer, Austen is so far above the current slate of genre fiction that the worst insult she could give was to compare the movie and the dramatization to a romance novel. And not just any romance novel, but the dreaded Sheik/Mistress romance novel.
Of course, like Poison Ivy smartly pointed out, the reviewer lacks sufficient knowledge of the romance genre to given a meaningful smackdown. Instead she employs what she finds most distasteful as she “struggles, in obvious ways, for authenticity.”
So… going by what Chalcedony has to say about Spencer’s book (which served as inspiration/basis for the movie, if my reading comprehension serves for anything), then the movie has quite a bit of historical basis with a good dose of “what if”
Now I know I want to see it.
As for Salon? no credibility from way back, but going on the negative points with this.
(spampoiler: british36—scary, I tellz u!)
Sure, I emailed SB Sarah about this review and the subsequent comments, but I’d like to point out the following:
1-It’s Salon Magazine, not Slate.
2-I’m fairly sure Stephanie was kidding about going to see movies to watch beautiful people.
3-I’ve always thought she is a really good reviewer and it’s been wonderful to be able to read movie reviews from a woman’s perspective.
4-Stephen Holden of the NYT’s also did a throwaway line about chick-lit and this movie, writing, “Like a modern chick-lit heroine, Jane has no interest in marrying a juiceless man…” Uh, Shakespeare’s heroines didn’t want to marry a juiceless man either.
I think reviewers make these remarks reflexively. After reading Stephanie’s excellent reviews for years, I’d guess that she would be interested in hearing reasoned opinions from fans of genre fiction.
Hey I admit to not only reading romances but helping write them.
I can not and will not defend Harlequin from the derisive comments made in regards to the quality of their output. They deserve it so.
I mean NASCAR! Come on people, NASCAR romances! *heavy sigh*
Stephanie’s remarks maybe reflexive, but still wrong and ignorant. And since when is a bigot forgiven bigotry based on ignorance?
And Teddy! LAY OFF NASCAR! If I was 20 years younger, I’d be all over Dale Jr. I mean ALL OVER that puppy. 😉
As for Salon? Piffle…totally useless to me. I usually take the opposite approach with movies—- if they hate it, I’d probably love it.
<
Good question. I’ve faced bigotry all my life, so I would say “all the time.” Bigotry is usually the result of ignorance, of not being challenged to question those “accepted” norms.
You never convince a bigot to change his or her mind by attacking them. (And I wouldn’t compare the invidiousness of racial bigotry to a dislike for reading material.) You can change their minds by treating them as people intelligent enough to recognize faulty logic, and by looking for common ground.
If they don’t get it after that, well, they can go to hell. But I’d give them the chance first.
I was going to jump through hoops and do whatever cookie crumbling I needed to do on my security settings to read the rest of this article and the comments, but then I said, “Screw it.”
I’m tired of reading hackneyed attacks on romance novels. I’m tired of everything with an ounce of sentiment being relegated to the trash heap of “Ooooh, housewives in polyester pants read this junk!”
I know who reads romance, I know how big a share of the market we have, and I’m not going to defend myself anymore against those who think they alone are the arbiters of literature.
Anyone who liked that excreble Keira Knightley Pride and Prejudice is not someone whose opinion on anything Austen should be taken seriously. Particularly when her complaint is “lack of authenticity”.
December Quinn, I think I love you.
I may have misunderstood Zacharek’s point (and the fact that I enjoy Salon might be coloring my view, as well), but I got the sense that Zacharek’s disappointment in Becoming Jane wasn’t directed against Romance novels or even the possibility of sex in Jane Austen’s life. I got the sense that she felt the movie was pandering to a new consumer cult of Jane Austen that has basically transformed her into a chick lit/Romance novel heroine:
Is the review taking a swipe at Romance, or more particularly at Harlequin? Maybe. If her point is that turning a flight of fancy about Austen’s life into a Harlequin is belittling in some way to Austen, then yes, I think it’s a slap. If her point is that the point of turning Austen’s life into the stuff of a Romance novel is purely for the sake of commercial exploitation of Austen’s name and popular resurgence, maybe not. Personally, I think it’s a little bit of both:
I don’t think that arguing that Becoming Jane has turned Austen into a Romance novel heroine is necessarily condescending if the point is to say that she’s been converted from an interesting historical figure to a stereotype. And the stereotypes do exist in Romance. Is it condescending to the genre and to Harlequin to slap Harlequin on to every Romance novel reference in a dismissive way? Yeah. But do those titles and covers make it easy to see past the stereotypes for someone who doesn’t read the genre? Harlequin uses the stereotypes to make money, too, completely outside the perfectly respectable work of authors who write for the line (and the genre as a whole).
I’m not going to read it. I’m tired of reading articles written by people who use knee-jerks and cliches to lump all of Romance into one big pile of mushy fluff. It’s lazy, it’s snooty and it’s inaccurate.
Apparently there’s more to the article that I cannot read, having issues on my browser (the ‘watch these ads and read more!’ isn’t showing up). How lovely for me. I get to look ignorant in front of everyone every time the comment window gets opened. *pissed at self*
Apparently there’s more to the article that I cannot read, having issues on my browser (the ‘watch these ads and read more!’ isn’t showing up). How lovely for me. I get to look ignorant in front of everyone every time the comment window gets opened. *pissed at self*
Do you get the words “NEXT” on the article after the first paragraph or so? If you can see that, and click on it, you will get an advertisement, and eventually, another link to return to the salon site.
Also, try this link:
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2007/08/03/becoming_jane/
When I Googled “Salon Becoming Jane,” I got a link to the whole review, not just the teaser page. So if the link doesn’t work, try that, as well. If all else fails, try a different browser. I’m on Firefox, but when that doesn’t work, I go to Netscape or Safari and sometimes one works better than the other.
My fractured response: http://letters.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2007/08/03/becoming_jane/permalink/cefba0bc9e32d9a49746b5831686efea.html
I was not impressed before I read her review of the 2005 P&P, and then I was forced to wonder about how she got the job reviewing things that she has no basis for understanding. I would put money on her never having read Austen. Is it just me, or was that an attack on women who want a romantic ideal just as much (if not more) than the movie?
I wonder how she liked Shakespeare In Love?
Well, having read the full review (thanks, Robin—AdBlock was confusing me), my original comments don’t stand a whit. Although she basically admits in a paragraph about the dances and the dresses that she isn’t an expert on Austen (and I see she liked the KK Pride and Prejudice—oh wow, because my mother hated it and I refused to see it on that principle) she still manages to imply that she’s a purist and then take pot-shots at everyone who enjoys movies that aren’t, you know, Citizen Kane.
It’s probably still best to ignore her.
I just went and posted. Can I say one thing? Those of you (well, not YOU you…but romance authors in general) who think they are defending the genre by throwing Harlequin authors under the bus…that’s just wrong.
Look, I know some of the books have stupid titles. I wasn’t jumping for joy when my old Temptation was named BRAZEN & BURNING, but hey, I got a call my title needed to change while I was on a Tilt-A-Whirl (no lie) ride with my daughter and the decision had to be made and…whatever. I wanted the title SLOW BURN, but Heather Graham already had it and tough luck for me. A title does not make a book. I’m sick and tired of the general public dissing romance because the powers that be can’t ignore the fact that books like THE COWBOY’S MISTRESS’S BABY sell a bazillion copies. To then get slapped on the other butt cheek by single title authors who insist their books “aren’t like those little Harlequins” is just wrong.
Geez.
December, a very good friend of mine said that the Keira Knightly version of P&P was as if the writers got confused and thought Charlotte Bronte had written it instead of Jane Austen. I thought that was a very accurate description.
I have to say that my respect for Anne Hathaway went up a notch (not that it was down in any way…I think she’s cool) when she said that in an interview that with respect to Laurence Olivier, Colin Firth owned Mr. Darcy. Damn straight.
~I just went and posted. Can I say one thing? Those of you (well, not YOU you…but romance authors in general) who think they are defending the genre by throwing Harlequin authors under the bus…that’s just wrong.~
True and meaningful point, Julie.
I love eBook shopping and I was visiting eHarlequin last week…
Sheikh Surgeon, Surprise Baby
*I think it was, sorry I was laughing*
(Because we need to work the Shiekh romance with the Medical romance and throw in some Secret Baby action or something.)
or
NASCAR: Hearts Under Caution
I ran over to New Concept Publishing and bought something werewolfy.
Kalen, I have been tempted to say that exact thing to you numerous times. 🙂 So thanks!
I do agree, it’s time we stopped giving HQ authors the fuzzy size of the lollipop.
And yeah, Julie, that does make sense. All I know is I found the film charmless, boring, and ignorant of its source material and period.
Teddy Pig, just realize that the authors at Harlequin, particularly in certain lines, have very little say over their titles. Don’t judge books by it. Of course, if you want something werewolfy…unless it’s at Nocture…Harlequin isn’t the place to shop.
December, I’m not disagreeing. I didn’t get through the first five minutes before I popped in my BBC version.
Thanks, Nora. I figured if I really wanted to rant, this was the place.
With respect to Colin Firth, David Rintoul owned Mr. Darcy.
Julie,
I judge Harlequin by what I have bought and read. Hell, what my aunt bought too since I read those when I was like 13.
You would not like what I can show you anymore than I enjoyed reading it.
I think Swan Hats wearing authors will give romance as a genre a better reputation than Harlequin has provided.
Whatever, Teddy Pig. Unless you’re 14 now, it certainly isn’t fair to judge a publisher by books you read in the distant past. And it’s really not fair to blanket all books from one publisher in the same bed of discontent. But you’re entitled to your opinion. I’ve read some fantastic books from Harlequin, so we all have different experiences and different standards.
Kalen, I’m going to seek out that version!
Just thought I’d throw in my two pence. Sunday night I was watching Cold Case on CBS. I’m sure it was an old episode. Did anyone else see it? Romance readers get no respect from the ignorant. In this episode a young woman who was overweight, looked at the world through owlish glasses, and had a fashion sense that would rival Ugly Betty was murdered. She also happened to be a reader of romances.
I couldn’t believe how the writers of that episode savaged a very sucessful genre and sterotyped the people who read romances. It was blatant bigotry. If she’d been black or Asian and the writers had been as heavy handed about her race they’d have lost their jobs, but because she was fat, loved romanced, and couldn’t find a man it was okay for them to write what they did.
Romance sales could pay the national debt and there would still be snobs about it. I’m sure if publishers had to rely on literary fiction to keep them going they’d be living in cardboard boxes in Central Park and eating out of dumpsters.
Colin Firth was the perfect Mr. Darcy, even in Bridget Jones.
Julie,
I was only pointing out that Harlequin has gone out of it’s way over a very long period of time to earn it’s “reputation” and a simple click through it’s website did not change my mind.
Or most importantly sell me a book.
Two more pence, the reviewer is smug because she thinks she has grasped some great wisdom or truth about the film that the untutored will not be able to see. She knows little to nothing about the lives of people two hundred years ago and I suspect what she does know is from films like the most recent P&P.
She thinks everyone went about tightly laced up and afraid of being found out. I submit that people were quite interesting then and engaged in all sorts of to-do-ments. It is not hard to suppose that Jane enjoyed her single life quite a bit and the fact that she did not marry is no reflection on how she lived that life.
At one point she “slyly” refers to Rev Austen as Mr. Bennet which makes me wonder where she thinks writers get their ideas from. Perhaps Rev Austen was a lot like Mr. Bennet and suppose Jane did meet a disdainful yet beautiful man like Mr. Darcy…her writing would have been at least a little about her life. Remember Mark Twain wrote about boys and the Mississippi and slavery because he’d once been a boy on the banks of the Mississippi and knew slaves.
Smug, silly woman. Read a book now and again instead of watching so much film and television.
Whether burlesque or ballet, it is still dancing and people enjoy them both and everything else in between. If the books didn’t sell the books wouldn’t be written.
My first romance read way back in the seventies was a Harlequin. It wasn’t long before I’d moved on to the longer stuff, but I’ve still got a copy of that book and I treasure it. Even today I’ll read a couple of titles a year.
I think there are probably a lot of people like me out there. That’s why the Harlequin section takes up so much space in bookstores.
A lot of writers got their start with Harlequin or books like them.
Yes, Kalen. And Elizabeth Garvey is Elizabeth Bennett. She of the fine eyes.
I have to say that the lines of books Harlequin has put out in the last few years to distance themselves from the reputation that the silly sheik/tycoon sorts of monthly series are pretty good. So good I’ve found myself shocked for a moment that the book I just enjoyed so much was a Harlequin.
Certainly a lot of excellent authors have books published by houses that also have secret baby series, so we can’t dismiss the whole thing out of hand. There’s a reason a mention of Harlequin is shorthand for the sort of snide opinions the literati have for romance in general, and I think we all know that Harlequin serves as a whipping boy for the genre. The silly series are just an easy (largely indefensible) target.
You know, I love Harlequins. I particularly like them from the mid-80’s through to the mid-90’s, although I don’t really read many of the new ones, mainly because I don’t have any author recognition with them. You can flop down on the bed with one on a nice summer afternoon and spend a pleasant couple of hours. And it’ll cost you less than $5 (including the icy cold can of DC to go with it). How good a deal is that? Not everything in the world has to be High Culture before it can be worth something.
I read different genres (and sub genres) for different reasons. Sometimes I want to educate myself, sometimes I want to expand my understanding of human nature, and sometimes I just want to lie back with a cold can of fizzy drink and drift away into a book for a couple of hours. I don’t see any of these goals as being inherently “better” than another, but I don’t judge the books by the same standards because they’re not setting out to achieve the same things.
I would be grossed out to be halfway through a Thomas Friedman and suddenly reading a description of his manly chest, but by the same token, kind of dissapointed if I were up to page 20 of a Stephanie Laurens and still didn’t know the dimensions of the hero’s chest!
I think we do a disservice to all the subgenres of romance when we feel we have to rank the genres from “most worthy” to “least worthy”.
eggs.
Honestly, I was just amazed at how equating a movie with what the reviewer thinks is a cliched romantic plot line to a Harlequin is so hateful to Romance as a genre?
I have read them and yes, the Harlequin’s I read were formula driven. If Harlequin stopped making money off that well known formula and all those plot cliches and all those stereotypes, people point out again and again and again, not to mention the silly titles that go with it, I am sure they would stop doing it.
Why do people gasp when it’s mentioned like a fast food joint that people make jokes about. Even though they know the food is not gourmet they most likely do still crave those french fries. Who cares?
Why does it always come down to reading for High Culture or plain ol’ entertainment? Who’s arguing for one and not the other? Are any of us reading for our education or the snooty credentials of it all?
No.
We read to be entertained. Sometimes the story doesn’t have to be good—in terms of story, character, plot and writing—to be entertaining; other times nothing else will do.
For some people, Harlequins are not entertaining, because the ones they’ve read were not good; for others, the convenience of Harlequins is plenty satisfying.
Nothing to do with rarefied literary tastes, or the need to be schooled every time we turn a page. Just a matter of what works and what doesn’t.
No need to reduce it to entertainment vs. education. That’s nowhere to go with that.