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?
Word!
I used youtube and tracked down ITV’s 90 minute offering from their Jane Austen season, which was great for what it was, and oh my God, JJ Feild is like a younger Alan Rickman when he talks.
We need more of that in a major motion picture, though!
“With respect to Colin Firth, David Rintoul owned Mr. Darcy.”
Hear! Hear! I’ve never understood why no one ever brings that version up whenever they talk about the Colin Firth one. David Rintoul oozes and looks high-bred noble much more which makes his eventual attraction to Elizabeth Garvie, who is in a league of her own as well, so utterly thrilling.
Then again they made the series in 1979, I guess it’s just too old for most viewers.
I went to YouTube prompted by another comment and found P&P “acted” by an assortment of Barbies, Kens, and Disney characters. Hi-lar-i-ous!
Would Jane Austen be a successful writer in todays market?
I have a lot to say on the Harlequin thing. But think I will later…
But for now I have to say Teddy I find it interesting you say you left the Harlequin site, you know the one giving romance a horrid name with their bad covers and silly names and so forth and so on…
To find greatness, perfect covers and a company going out of their way to fight for Romance Genre approval at New Concept Publishing.
Really? I didn’t know they were now promoting themselves in such a way they will never again appear in a smart bitch cover snark. Or use stupid ass titles or bad repeated erotic romance plots. And of course since erotic romance is not bringing us respect in the eyes of people who don’t even read the genre, I would assume they are no long publishing such things.
I haven’t read a book by them in a few years and of course would never be small minded enough to judge them on a few books I read a couple years ago that I didn’t enjoy. Then again I tend to think the person who wrote the book is the creative force at work and not just a name for a publishing machine. Who knew?
How is it you expect ebooks and/or gay romance to have the same respect of any other romance novel but think Harlequin can be trashed for not writing books you enjoy?
Or that we should not only accept Harlequin being trashed as they don’t write to what you consider good, acceptable plots but should just shake it off and expect it. But stand up and fight for the right and approval of (mostly) straight women wanting to write erotic novels about hawt sweaty men having sex with each other?
Why does your subgenre of choice get to be anymore respected over anyone else’s subgenre of choice?
Just wondering as I have no issue with harlequin, gay romance, ebooks, slash, or erotic romance and really could give a flip about Jane Austin. And my issue with the NASCAR line has to do with things other than it simply existing.
Sybil,
Quite frankly in my opinion Harlequin is formula, it is preprogrammed. Romance has rules but Harlequin exceeds even those and it is what it is.
To make you feel better gay romance wise, I think those silly Romentics books are pretty close to that style to me. Go look for yourself.
“How is it you expect ebooks and/or gay romance to have the same respect of any other romance novel but think Harlequin can be trashed for not writing books you enjoy?”
I do not expect anything, including respect for any genre I am not a cheerleader nor do I give Harlequin’s reputation much thought besides the fact they have only themselves to blame.
My point was and continues to be if Harlequin actually cared or wanted to change the publics perception of their product there are things they could do to change the product but they are not doing it and I do not place it on the authors to do it for them.
So why act so shocked about it?
May Sheik Surgeon, Surprise Baby sell millions. May NASCAR: Hearts Under Caution sell billions. If your only justification comes down to money fine, so does McDonalds.
~Romance has rules but Harlequin exceeds even those and it is what it is.~
Category Romance has its own fairly specific culture—and a culture for each individual line as well. That is what it is.
That doesn’t make it preprogrammed.
A lot of strongly-written, unique and interesting stories come out of the Harlequin label. And a lot of pedestrian, ordinary and mediocre as well. But what’s interesting and unique to some readers is ordinary and medicore to another reader.
“A lot of strongly-written, unique and interesting stories come out of the Harlequin label.”
I did not say there might not be. I am not saying that there are not talented authors there. Unfortunately they will sit next to titles and logos as I mentioned above or get stuck with one which is the sad part.
Well, I like a good romance, Harlequin or other brand, but I have trouble finding them because of the way they’re marketed. A part of me is really put off by the titles and cover art, and cover blurbs. We all know that the inside can be quite different, but I have to get PAST all that to find out. I have to pick up each and every one and read the first page—and all I’m looking for is the promise of good characterization and good prose. Not so much the big hook that’s supposed to capture the attention of the busy editor… you know, as advised by creative writing workshop teachers.
e.g., “It is a truth universally acknowledged…” Someone asked if Jane Austen would make it in today’s publishing field. I think it’s a great line, but I can also see it being thrown aside by the busy editor.
Anyway, I gravitate toward romantic comedy movies now because there is usually something to distract from its deficiencies, whereas in a book it’s just you and the author’s words. And I really liked Becoming Jane.
re deficiencies: whenever Anne Hathaway as Jane Austen tries to explain irony. Godawful, just like the lecture on irony in Reality Bites. And the use of novels as shorthand—if you don’t know all about Tom Jones, you don’t know what Tom Lefroy is getting at.
But to make up for it: genius cinematography—for example, the first shot of Tom Lefroy looks exactly like an 18th century woodcut of a boxing match (though I’m not sure about the gloves). His stance and weedy physique were exactly right. And it’s a good sign for the rest of the movie—which I’d say plays well within the rules of the time. So they kiss, whatever. Purists have complained about the tarting up of Jane Austen, but at least in this movie you don’t get everyone hanging about in their pyjamas all the time (latest P&P… should it be called Pride & Pyjamas or Pyjamas & Prejudice? Anyone?).
But basically, I think the criticisms of this movie are unjust. It’s clever and beautiful, and it’s got more going on than most reviewers have indicated. Everyone is saying how Tom Lefroy is supposed to be the inspiration for Mr. Darcy, but it doesn’t fit. The missing puzzle piece is Mr. Wisely, who is basically the other half of Mr. Darcy. And then there is the character who inspires all Austen’s savage, savage parodies of clergymen—the scene that shows this lasts about 20 seconds. It’s a throwaway.
As for Jane Austen suddenly becoming more of a silly Regency heroine than her intelligent and properly behaved self… come on. You know she wasn’t a stuffed shirt. I could write a whole other post on how well Anne Hathaway brings out the tension between manners and passion (particularly anger).
Finally, James McAvoy. Oh god, yes!
Would Jane Austen be a successful writer in todays market?
Well, she is, so I guess that’s one answer.
If you mean Jane Austen as an unknown, submitting new works…. Ah, who knows. She was a sleeper hit in her own time. That’s how a lot of good fiction works these days too. But a lot of good fiction has always fallen by the wayside.