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?
With respect to Colin Firth, David Rintoul owned Mr. Darcy.
TOTALLY.
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
Huh? I don’t see the smugness, or the elitism mentioned by one Salon commenter. I thought Zacharek made some good points. I find the Austen phenomenon weird too. I think many of the fans are actually fans of Colin Firth in the role of Darcy (an inappropriately sexed-up and petulant Darcy at that); not fans of P&P the novel, or Austen’s other novels. (Interestingly, I’m reading Austenland, and the main character is an Austen fangirl who seems to be into a chick lit-ized version of Austen.)
In the article itself Zacharek mostly talks about fitting Jane Austen into “a modern template of romance” (not genre romance novels, romance in the general sense). The subtitle is the one line that could be a slam on genre romance, but I didn’t take it that way. Zacharek says Jane Austen’s being squeezed into a “genteel, tasteful Harlequin romance”. Do you disagree? I don’t. What are the characteristics of a Harlequin? A grand romance and a guaranteed happy ending. None of that is true to Austen’s life, but Zacharek feels it’s what the movie provides because it’s “what the imagined target audience of this movie wants to see.” I can imagine that may be true—hard to say, since I haven’t seen the film or interviewed the producer. Regardless, I think it’s an apt comparison.
I’m also bothered by the slams on the entire article. If you’d read the article without the subheading about Harlequins, would you still have found it worthless? To me it’s an OK review and if I ever see the movie I’ll probably agree with some of it and disagree with some.
In short—I don’t see the slam everyone else here seems to. And throwing around terms like “elitist”? I hate to tell you but… if you read, you ARE the elite.
In short—I don’t see the slam everyone else here seems to.
I agree with so much of what you said, iffy. Where I think there is some belittling of genre Romance is in the assertion that the movie is belittling Austen by turning her into a Harlequin heroine, which, in logical progression, then puts Harlequin Romances down. But actually, I was way more offended by the single title authors hammering at the series titles in the letters and by the wholesale slamming of Zacharek with various and sundry unpleasant descriptors. Because if the point is to say that genre Romance is being painted with an unfair stereotype, what is gained by doing the same to Zacharek.
Do you really? Because everyone I know who is a fan has read many of the books. I, myself, have read all six, having taken an Austen class in college. I mean, of course, some people are fans because of the film adaptations, but I don’t think most are. I think Austen is actually very widely read, especially among romance readers.
everyone I know who is a fan has read many of the books…. some people are fans because of the film adaptations, but I don’t think most are. I think Austen is actually very widely read, especially among romance readers.
I believe “Austen mania” in its current form started after the film with Colin Firth, and revved into high gear after Bridget Jones. That would indicate that a lot of people fell in love with P&P based on the film and the Firth tie-in, not the book.
I have friends who’ve read everything Austen ever wrote… and friends who loved Bridget Jones, then watched P&P with Firth, but are indifferent to the book. One friend says the Austenland description fits her: she watches the same few scenes of P&P over and over. Firth dripping wet in a seethrough shirt, Firth in the bathtub, Darcy proposing the first time, and Darcy’s final proposal. Two of those four scenes aren’t in the book, and are part of a general sexing-up in the Firth version. Sounds pretty similar to Zacharek’s complaint about altering Austen.
The only recent version I kinda liked was Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow. That was a good role for her and I thought her better than in Shakespeare in Love.
I haven’t seen these NASCAR romances in my usual book-buying haunts. I’m still hoping it’s a mass delusion.
Kind of like 55 million people thinking George W Bush really is like one of them, only with a few more billion dollars.
Sorry, don’t know why he’s been grating on my nerves more than usual lately.
“it certainly isn’t fair to judge a publisher by books you read”
Julie,
I am currently reading Venom’s Bond from Loose-Id and am cussing out Loose-Id, not the author.
Maybe it’s wrong but after reading the lizard / unconscious man rape scene about mid-way through the book… I am damning Loose-Id. Damn them and their lizard too, straight to hell.
It’ just wrong on so many levels.
Reviewing eBooks should not be this horrid. The beer goggles are not working.
Robin, iffy and Teddy Pig, one more on your side. The point Zacharek is making about “beautiful people” is exactly what she says. The world turns now, not on skill but on looks and, from reading the review, she is deploring this spin even unto movies about Austen, who was not a “beautiful” woman. Once again, looks (Hathaway) win out over character (Austen).
I get the feeling that Zacharek loves and respects romance. Okay, she writes *one sentence* about Harlequin but, honestly, as Teddy Pig says, so what? We slam McDonald’s, yet we still love their french fries every now and then.
There have been some great authors come out of Harlequin, but the company has always been about pandering to the widest readership. (Look at how they’re now moving into ebooks. Harlequin will ALWAYS go where it thinks the punters are…just like every other BUSINESS out there.) I don’t think it’s heinous to put the first two facts together. And the first does not somehow imply the second doesn’t exist.
Will I be stoned if I say I’ve never seen the P&P with Colin Firth? I did see him in The Importance of Being Earnest, but I wasn’t impressed. Though I think he’s great in Bridget Jones.
I love P&P. The first time I read it was shortly after watching the 1940’s P&P with Olivier for a class in freshman year of high school. It kicked of a long standing love of Austen’s books and a willingness to give books/movies inspired by them a try.
Okay, I’ve scrolled through this whole line of responses and am left with only two things on my mind:
1.) the phrase juiceless man;
2.) the “vintage” Nora Roberts Silhouette title I’ve been meaning to read, just to see how it stacks up to current category fare.
When it comes to Jane Austen…pfff. I’d rather read Dickinson. (Dare Hollywood to glamorize that babe!)
Juiceless man…damn, it’s still there, echoing through my mind like an evocative, ghostly EVP.
I’m really going to have to fight the urge to plagiarize that one.
Geebus, I wasn’t expecting historical accuracy from Becoming Jane, because, y’know, there’s really not much established fact about Austen’s lovelife and I’m a sucker for fictional spinnings of what might have been out of these reality frameworks sort of a-la-Possession.
Although I did groan out loud in the KK P&P where Mr. Bingley entered Miss Jane’s sickroom and openly oogled her in her nightgown because bitch, please, SOMEONE should have caught that before the final edit; but there’s plenty of moments like that in several movies and it’s not like I’m going to get up and walk out because I paid my money and we’re already in too deep and I’m not running low on Glosettes yet. I’ve taken a few film studies courses in school and if I find something annoying in a film, I’ll try my best to focus on the aspects I like rather than the ones I didn’t. The latest P&P, for instance, had lovely costumes, well-done music, and breathtaking cinematography, IMO. Perhaps this means I’d make a crap reviewer because I gloss over the bits I don’t like, but it means I don’t lose my mind half so often as I would if I let myself obsess over what didn’t work in a movie.
That being said, I’d’ve cast Samantha Morton as Jane, but hey, they need a big name, I get it, whatever, it’s not like Morton has the classical soft kind of beauty such as I imagine Jane had, at that age, given the posthumous descriptions of her friends and relatives or was nominated for an Oscar or anythi—OH WAIT SHE DOES AND SHE WAS.
(history62. Alright, maybe I’m an anachronism nitpicker, but I’m a forgiving nitpicker.)
I just saw a tv ad for the movie, with the tag line “The greatest inspiration for Jane’s writing was her own love story” (paraphrasing slightly). The film was also described as a “four star romance.” I don’t know what any of that means, but I thought it was interesting.
I’m sorry, what’s wrong with NASCAR romances? What’s wrong with liking auto racing?
My Dad used to race. We used to watch races every weekend. So please, I wish I understood why the idea of romances licensed to use the name and set in that world are such terrible, shocking, horrible indicators that HQ is awful and deserves to be picked on.
I… don’t really care if Zacharek slammed romance novels or not. However, she’s being inconsistent in her ‘beautification’ critique.
As much as she lurved the KK P&P, the casting of Jane (Bennett) was off by a long shot, because she was cast according to current ideas of beauty, rather than those of 200 years ago. Jane Austen’s description of Jane comes much closer to the actress who was cast for the 1995 series, and who would not be considered beautiful by Hollywood’s standards.
With this inconsistency (slamming the casting of Anne Hathaway because she is pretty and not even mentioning the miscasting for P&P), I can’t take her seriously.
And besides, we really have no idea what Jane Austen looked like. She might not have been stunningly beautiful in her time, but that *could* mean that we might just find her pretty now. I dpn’t trust the Cassandra portrait, because she doesn’t strike me as a particularly apt artist anyway.
Everyone’s going to jump on me, but I didn’t mind the last movie adaptation of P&P. Mind you, I think Colin Firth is vastly overrated, so you can see where I’m coming from already.
Matthew Macfadyen did a great Darcy. He’s not pretty, and nor is Darcy supposed to be. Claudie Blakley did an excellent Charlotte, and I think Tom Hollander does a fab Mr Collins. Donald Sutherland is good too, and who needs to say anything about Judi Dench? And, shoot me now, I found KK somewhat less jarring than Jennifer Ehle, who really could not do “young woman” convincingly, or unsmarmily.
Anyways, add me to the list of people who didn’t find the Zacharek review that bad. I don’t want to see Austen’s life shoe-horned into some exercise in Hollywood schmaltz either. If they want to do a “period romance”, why not come up with an original story that doesn’t play merry gyp with someone’s actual life?
Just my two bits, for what it’s worth I don’t know. One of the first romance novels I ever read was a Harlequin, so I guess I have a soft spot for them. But my opinion is, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Harlequin has used basically the same formula for years and they are still selling books. Yes it is a formula, but there is a small amount of comfort to that to some readers. You know what is going to happen, no suprise shockers. The same is true for chick flicks. It works and the studios make money hand over fist. Now, I didn’t like Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy but many of my friens who incredibly intelligent in their own right lurved him, it depends on your view point. To some of the huddled masses this may “gulp” be their first introduction to “double gulp” Jane Austen as an actual person, not just some woman who sat in a cramped attic and wrote all day. I guess I am happy that she has not been lost to history like so many other authors. I know I may seem a bit Pollyanna on this, but I agree with Monty Python and look on the bright side of life. I don’t care what people say or think. I like what I like, read what I want to read, and watch what I want to watch. Free will and all that good stuff we have allows me to. I refuse to get bent because of someone’s obviously generalized stereotypical comment about something which she probably has little to no firsthand knowledge.
Like I said, maybe a bit off topic, but my two bits for what its worth.
P.S. I still cannot understand the allure of NASCAR novels but then again I read Devil May Cry last night so to each their own.
As someone who wrote for Silhouette for about 20 years, I think the frustration comes from so many assuming every category Romance is The Cowboy Sheik’s Secret Baby’s Billionaire Pregnant Bride. And that Harlequin is so often the shorthand for dissing all Romance, and mushing into the lump of TCSSBBPB.
And when others who write Romance kinda give category a backslap, it’s tough to take.
If titles like the above didn’t sell books, Harlequin wouldn’t insist on using them (as most Harlequin writers don’t have much choice on titles and covers.) So lots of somebodies out there like that. Okay for them. Okay, too, for us to snark said titles, because we know this stuff. Not so okay, imo, for the media to continually use Harlequin as a derrogatory kind of shorthand for the genre—or for those who write out-of-category Romance to look down on an important spoke of the genre wheel.
“Not so okay,
imo, for the media to continually use Harlequin as a derrogatory kind of
shorthand for the genre—or for those who write out-of-category Romance to
look down on an important spoke of the genre wheel.”
Yet Harlequin by it’s own formula continues to provide the ammo for the media to use. So you have to admit that they themselves do not care since it seems to keep their name front and center. They are making bank off that.
I agree, TP, that Harlequin is making business decisions that perpetuate a bad image of romance. However, as someone within the genre, who reads the genre, on a site that is devoted to the genre, shouldn’t we be careful of making the same critical errors of which we accuse the reviewer of the movie?
If she speaks out of ignorance and the commenters here also make presumptions about the quality of book without reading them, do we have any ground upon which to stand?
I’ve read four series books in the last three weeks. Three were B reads, solid B reads. Last night I read Julie Leto’s Stripped, another B read. I often think that category romances are the true romances in that these are truly character driven books that focus primarily on the development of the relationship of the couple. One of the books I read was Lisa Renee Jones’ Hard and Fast which featured a new female sports writer for an LA paper who was trying to establish her career while engaging in an affair with one of the star players. Jones handled this very well, showing how the physical attraction the two characters had overrode their good judgment. In the end, the plot was rushed because of brevity but the slow unfolding of the relationship, from meeting to lust to love, was delightful.
So despite the bad names (although Hard and Fast isn’t necessarily as offensive as the Billionare’s Bidding which I also liked), there is quality writing inside the covers. For romance readers to simply dismiss these books as worthless is to their own detriment because good, pure contemporary romances are so hard to come by these days.
I’m a recent convert, admittedly, but I’ve been trying more and more and realizing that what was true in the 80s and 90s with authors like Joan Wolf, Kathleen Gilles Seidel, Judith Duncan, and Jennifer Crusie, is true today. A well done category romance will hit the sweet spot almost better than a single title mass market.
Harlequin is to romance books
like Jello is to gelatin.
PS,
One of my issues with current movies today (and why I haven’t set foot in a theater in over 8 years) is that
a. Our standard of beauty is now at the narrowist it has ever been in the history of humanity (size 0, big tits, blonde, tall)/sarc
b. That reflects in movies to the point that even period costuming looks stupid because its ON THE WRONG BODY TYPE—Think “The Necklace” full of anorexic size -4’s in dresses meant to show off Marie Antionette’s super plump curves and women like her…
All the actresses looked like chopsticks wrapped in duct tape. And I rolled my eyes so much that I could have parted my hair without a mirror.
SO, getting back to Austen etc….The reviewer is a dolt on why people go to the movies and what romance is and should be.
Even my chickens agree.
My spaminator word is “appear85”—-
OK, it’s a rough morning and I have on no make-up, but DAMN that’s harsh!
Jane,
The problem with that comes back to Harlequin.
I am not in any way saying the authors are all bad but you have to admit it is pretty hard to pull one fine example out of the pile when you are continually sold these books as A PILE. They are marketed as product, covers continue to resemble each other like product, titles are slapped on haphazardly like product and all of this done without, as you point out, any regard to the quality of the writing.
I recently bought some gay erotic comics from Japan created by Tagame. Now these are not considered great literature in any way there either. But… the effort that went into that printing was amazing, inner cover art, fancy binding, and just real class for a damn erotic comic book that sells cheap in Japan.
Which makes even our own US published single title covers look bad. It makes me sad in some ways that even single titles are treated rather mechanically.
I refuse to blame the public for a perception that is constantly supported by the publisher who makes no effort to change it because it sells.
Teddy, I’m wasn’t commenting on what Harlequin does, or what it minds. Other than opining that they wouldn’t publish what didn’t sell.
I’m saying it’s lazy and inaccurate for a reporter, a reviewer—even a commentator—to use Harlequin as a snarky shorthand for the entire genre. It is not the entire genre.
And it’s not okay for those who write on other lanes of the Romance highway to sniff and look down at those who ride the category lane.
First (because if you know me by now I think in a, b, c fashion, lol), Harlequin is in the business to sell books and not in the business of advocacy for romance genre. Why should it make an effort to change because it sells? Do they have some moral requirement as a publisher to raise the reputation if it would have a harmful impact on their business?
Second, a reviewer’s use of Harlequin should be questioned if she evinces no understanding of the genre. It would be akin to me comparing something that I’ve read (aka Lisa Renee Jones’ Hard and Fast) to something that I’ve heard about but had not read (ie Prep by Sittenfeld). That puts my reviewing credibility at risk. If you engage in comparative analysis, then shouldn’t both ends of the comparison spectrum be something you understand?
Third, Harlequin’s equivalent to the your Japanese erotica may be in the editing and packaging of the item. I.e., what sells in Japan is the “inner cover art, fancy binding.” Simply because Harlequin’s packaging is more commodity like doesn’t mean that the same thought and effort isn’t place into the product. Otherwise, I don’t think that they would be thinking of titles like the Shiek’s Virgin Mistress.
Too lazy this morning to comment on anything *relevant* (except to admit that I did enjoy the KK P&P—which I fondly refer to as The Bronte Sisters’ Pride & Prejudice).
But I wanted to say to Wry Hag, your comment on Dickinson? (Dare Hollywood to glamorize that babe!)
Have you ever read the semi-erotic letters she wrote to her sister-in-law? I admit to knowing little about Dickinson on the whole (she’s American…American writers generally bore me), but unlike Austen, we know she had a few semi-romances, and I bet you could make a hell of a movie out of her life.
Maybe not a glamorous one, but bring in the homoerotic subtext (though the letters are, of course, much more sexual to modern eyes than they were in their own context), and you’d have a fairly interesting and potentially controversial movie there. 😀
rascoagogo wrote:
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.
And certainly a lot of excellent authors have excellent secret-babies books published by houses that put out all kinds of other books. Really, bashing the authors of one particular line isn’t much better than bashing all Harlequin authors.
Trix wrote:
Everyone’s going to jump on me, but I didn’t mind the last movie adaptation of P&P.
Ah nah, Trix. In order to jump on you I’d probably have to get onto a plane and squeeze myself into a narrow seat for 10 hours straight and would then suffer from jetlag. Nooo, way too much effort! *g* What bugged me about the Keira Knightley P&P is that it’s not true to the book and, even worse, it’s full of historical inaccuracies. However, I liked the casting of the secondary characters, and the film introduced a new generation to Austen’s works, which is always a good thing!
Harlequin is in the business to sell books and not in the business of advocacy for romance genre. Why should it make an effort to change because it sells? Do they have some moral requirement as a publisher to raise the reputation if it would have a harmful impact on their business?
Any moral obligation regarding PR would have to be to the authors that work with them. Since they have not changed their formula though I would not hold the public at fault first for the perception the publisher has earned. I would hold myself at fault first for doing business with them. Or… I get a really good sense of humor and a thick skin about the whole deal.
That puts my reviewing credibility at risk. If you engage in comparative analysis, then shouldn’t both ends of the comparison spectrum be something you understand?
She saw the movie, I have not. To provide an accurate argument and the ability to say she can not compare these two things means I must see the movie in order to intelligently disagree with her review.
This comment is more about the movie itself and less about the HQ/Romance controversy:
I saw the movie not too long ago when I went to London. I do admit to having certain expectations going in, even knowing it was a reimagining of her life, and I came away from the movie scratching my head a bit.
The movie really did hit many of the modern romance stereotypes. I personally don’t think that’s a terribly bad thing. I love Regency romances and I read them voraciously. However, it was a bit odd and off-putting to have Jane Austen become the brassy, impetuous, fiery heroine hitting every Regency romancelandia stereotype on her way to a HEA that falls through in the end only because they had to have *some* nod to historical accuracy. I had the ghostly feeling of having read this all before, many times, only the heroine was nothing like the woman we came to love in Jane Austen’s letters and books.
I suppose that was the sticking point for me, and also why I can’t 100% disagree with the article, even if the anti-romance tone is grating. It was less of a retelling of Austen’s life and more…Jane Austen as a brassy American heiress come to England who doesn’t give a fig about quaint British customs wrapped in the trappings of Elizabeth Bennet. It was almost as if the writers couldn’t decide who their heroine really was, so they lumped them all together and used genre stereotypes to tell her (imagined) story.
It was definitely entertaining enough, if not great, and if it had been about anyone but Jane Austen, I would have probably enjoyed it as a fun—if not terribly original—romance. However, making the heroine Jane Austen and then forcing her into a romance novel stereotype that she really doesn’t fit… It just left a bad taste in my mouth, and I couldn’t help but think I would have liked it a whole lot more if I had no idea who Jane Austen was and had never read any of her books or letters.
Not so okay, imo, for the media to continually use Harlequin as a derrogatory kind of shorthand for the genre
I do hear where you’re coming from, but it’s inevitable. Harlequin has done a great job of making its books the most visible, recognizable, prolific branch of romance for decades. Of course they’re used as shorthand for the whole genre.
In the case of the Salon article, I’m not even sure Harlequins were used as shorthand in a derogatory way. I thought that one sentence (which we’re all wildly overinterpreting) made an interesting comparison. By all accounts, the producers romanticized Austen’s life into a tidy package of short, character-based, satisfying romanticism. That sounds a lot like what the public recognizes as a Harlequin.
I think portraying *any* figure’s life as a 2-hour Harlequin-on-film would rile up fans. That’s not a slam on Harlequins; just the truth that anyone’s *real* life would be a sprawling, messy, dull, unwatchable full-length TV series.
Thank you, KC. It’s nice to get an actual review of the movie from a romance reader and Austen reader. We’ve had a lot of talk about the tone of the review, but few comments on the actual movie or whether the review was accurate.
This whole debate about the casting of Keira Knightley in P&P reminds me very much of previous comments in which the casting of Heather Locklear in Angels Fall was called into question. In that case, Nora Roberts defended the casting of her novel and stated that the age and hair color of the actress is not as important as her acting ability and her portrayal of the character. I wonder what Jane Austen would say.
Bearing in mind, I have not read P&P in 12 or 15 years (definitely time for a reread)I am not so sure the casting of Knightley was so terribly off. If memory serves, Jane Bennet was the sister who met the standard of beauty of the time while Elizabeth was beautiful in a less conventional way. So if KK meets today’s standard of beauty and not that one, I am not particularly bothered. She is an excellent actress even if she doesn’t fill out a gown with an empire waist properly. I agree that the BBC version is better all around, but the more recent movie was well-acted and visually compelling. I enjoyed it too.
As for Harlequin…Yes, they make themselves excellent targets for scorn, but that is the work of the publishing house, not the authors. I know for a fact there are a lot of very good stories hidden behind stupid names and ridiculous covers.
Oh, and NASCAR? As a North Carolinian I am very familiar with the bias against that sport. I am not a big NASCAR fan, although I have been to a couple of races and had a great time. However, I find it very interesting that if you change the appearance of the car, put a European driver behind the wheel, and call it Formula Whatever, it suddenly becomes classy. Whatever. If someone who actually knows something about the sport wants to talk smack about it I will be happy to listen. Otherwise,you are doing exactly what Sarah was calling Srephanie Z. on, comparing apples to guava when you have never even tasted guava.
Oh, and Yes. Colin Firth OWNS Mr. Darcy. Did anyone else see the Oprah several years ago when she had the cast of the second Bridget Jones movie on the show? She asked Hugh Grant to Introduce Colin Firth and he said something along the lines of…â€Perhaps you remember him from the BBC production of Pride and Prejudice, in which he portrayed Mr. Darcy, or Bridget Jones Diary in which he portrayed Mr. Darcy. One of Britain’s most versatile actors…… “
LOL!
Kari – “and call it Formula Whatever, it suddenly becomes classy.”
No, but I am wiping coffee off my monitor.
I can see it now a Harlequin with the title Secret Sheik Surgeon Baby Formula 1.
hehehehehehe I would buy it and frame it.
I think my favorite P&P adaptation is Bride and Prejudice, the 2004 Bollywood film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361411/trailers-screenplay-E23191-10-2
Not only did I find it incredibly lush and fun to watch (and sing along with!), but I felt that some of the core issues in the book around class and marriage were well illustrated in the Indian (well, Bollywood style) cultural context.
However, making the heroine Jane Austen and then forcing her into a romance novel stereotype that she really doesn’t fit…
This comment made me think about the attempts to fit P&P into the genre Romance canon, as well. Is there an analogy there to the way in which Austen is an uncomfortable fit as a contemporary Romance heroine?
A well done category romance will hit the sweet spot almost better than a single title mass market.
Some of my favorite Romances have been category/series books, from Seidel’s Mirrors and Mistakes to Crusie’s Getting Rid of Bradley and Anyone But You, to LaVyrle Spencer’s Spring Fancy, to most every Tom and Sharon Curtis series book (especially the Regency Romances). My recent disgruntlement with single title contemp Romance has pulled me back to the series books, and I agree with you, Jane, that the satisfaction in reading a good category/series is like the books themselves: quick and concentrated. When you think of the word and page restrictions in category/series, let alone the particularity of the guidelines for each line, IMO a well-crafted category is no small feat. I see it as the difference between an epic poem and a sonnet—each has their own pleasure in reading and their own challenges in writing. And since I’m much more inclined to write the epic myself, I have a lot of respect for someone who can write a truly wonderful sonnet.
Oh, and as for the NASCAR controversy, beyond the question of what it means for a line of Romance to be so overtly branded (says the person who hates the label dropping in certain books *cough*JR Ward*cough*), isn’t there just some plain old class bias there, or at least some gentrification anxiety.
“isn’t there just some plain old class bias there”
Nah, Think of it as… Would it be different if they put McDonald’s on there? Yeah, think of it McDonald’s romances.
How about Louis Vuitton? They could be travel romances then.
I fully agree with you that more and more writers should be writing detailed catalogs and not romances with all the designers and labels being mentioned. I think it is more a crass bias, than a class bias.
I loved Bride & Prejudice aside from the casting for the Bingley siblings. The last thing I’d seen either of those actors in was Kama Sutra and they happened to be (unsurprisingly) going at it like rabbits.
Anyway, I think I’m over P&P as being the be-all-and-end-all of Austen. Now I’m waiting on a major bigscreen adaptation of Northanger Abbey to go squee over Henry Tileny.
Now I’m waiting on a major bigscreen adaptation of Northanger Abbey to go squee over Henry Tileny.
Word!
“I think my favorite P&P adaptation is Bride and Prejudice”
I lurve that movie! And not just because Aishwarya Rai is so damn good looking and the music was ridiculously fun. It’s hard to get a modern day version of P&P because you have to go really disparate with the class issue to pull it off. It’s why the 2003 adaptation, P&P: a latter-day comedy, just didn’t pull it off. The sad thing is … I still can’t get Wagner for the Vicious out of my head.