Jane Austen discussion

Mr. Malcolm's List is a Regency set romance (romcom) recommended for Austen lovers. It's been adapted with a multi-racial, multi-ethnic cast and coming soon to the big screen on July 1. It lacks Austen's social commentary and I found the self-published book wanting for Austen's wit as well.

TBH, I don't like most "Modern Regency Lit" and avoid it for the most part.

I do not think that it's impossible to write a genuinely good novel like that, but the truth is that most of it is not worth reading. These authors' problem is that they try, and fail, to immitate Jane Austen, or what they think Jane Austen is, or what they think their readers think Jane Austen is.

The result is that these novels are very stylized. They disappoint because they are doubly not genuine: they are not genuine Jane Austen novels, because after all, these books are written by Jane Austen; but they also disappointing for not being genuine because one gets the feeling that they are not the best novel that these authors themselves could have written, if they were not trying so hard to be Jane Austen.

Juan Manuel wrote: "TBH, I don't like most "Modern Regency Lit" and avoid it for the most part.

I do not think that it's impossible to write a genuinely good novel like that, but the truth is that most of it is not ..."

Juan Manuel, I agree with just about all you said. I have read a few and have been disappointed. The worst ones for me is the plagiarized ones. Let's just lift Jane's dialogue right into our story! It is an alternate version of P&P, S&S, MP so lets use the real text and go from there!
And you are probably right, many could write a better book if they would be themselves.

QNPooh Bear
Yes, I know I went from agreeing with Juan to fan fic which is not what you are talking about. Sorry.
I still agree with Juan.

I tend to like Austenesque that enters into a dialogue with the novels. As a widely seen example, I enjoyed the complex ways Patricia Rozema’s film Mansfield Park played both with the subtle themes of the novel and with Jane Austen’s own childhood. It wasn’t an adaptation of MP but it was a conversation with it and worked (for me) as a film/story in its own right.

In a similar vein, I really liked the book Pride, Prejudice, and Other Flavors by Sonali Dev. It’s set in modern-day California but doesn’t simply retell the story; it’s a much more complex novel and part of a family saga. And it makes you think about the themes of the original by virtue of what it changes—for instance, the Darcyish character is female and the Elizabethish character is male, which makes you think about class and gender in different ways.

In both of these examples, the reader’s knowledge of Austen’s novels enriches their relationship with the modern work. They’re like palimpsests, texts with a different text underlying the one on the surface. And that practice has a long history in literature—James Joyce’s Ulysses, anyone?

Similarly, I would push back a bit on the characterization of Austenesque fiction that uses Austen’s own narrative and dialogue as “plagiarism.” They would be plagiarism if the intent was to deceive. Some are just exploiting the Austen name to sell books. But I think the intent is usually very different—to extend the experience of reading her books in one way or another. Many writers, I agree, have a very limited grasp of what they are reading when they read an Austen novel, so the results they achieve are very limited. But some are celebrating the beauties of her language or revealing hidden aspects of the original by telling the same events from a different character’s point of view. Modern adaptations that thoughtfully use Austen’s words are seeking to show the reader the modern world through Austen’s eyes, the way a sci-fi story set in the present but told from the point of view of an alien might do. The better ones are thoughtful fiction building on a common vocabulary to add layers to their meaning.

Abigail wrote: "I tend to like Austenesque that enters into a dialogue with the novels. As a widely seen example, I enjoyed the complex ways Patricia Rozema’s film Mansfield Park played both with the subtle themes..."

Perhaps plagiarism was a poor word choice. I do not believe there is an intent to deceive. Partially it was a cooment on Juan Manuel's assertion that many of these writers would write better in their own words. Also, sometimes, I find it lazy - skipping the hard work of finding the perfect words and sentence structure. I am all in favor of quoting JA in conversation when the perfect oppurtunity comes along.
I am not against telling JA stories from another characters point of view per se. I just have not found one that I think is really good.
Jane Austen in Scarsdale is a pretty decent modern Persuasion.

I like Paula Marantz Cohen’s work too! Jane Austen in Boca was very charming.

Of the various attempts to tell P&P from Darcy’s point of view, I liked Pamela Aidan’s (at least vols. 1 and 3, I never reread vol. 2 after the first time) as well as Stanley Hurd’s. I remember rather liking Jane Fairfax by Joan Aiken when I read it decades ago, but that might be just because I always liked The Watsons better than Emma and the character of Jane Fairfax reminds me a bit of Emma Watson. And there’s a two?-volume retelling of Emma from Mr. Knightley’s point of view that interested me—it wasn’t overwhelmingly Austenesque but then Mr. Knightley’s world is very different from Emma’s, so that seemed appropriate. It broadened the range of all the things Emma Woodhouse was oblivious to! 😁

That said, I tend to like modern Austen-based stories better than period ones, both because the writers of period stories so often get the manners and sensibilities wrong and because the modern stories have to focus more on theme and idea. It’s actually quite a challenge to fit Austen’s words smoothly into a modern setting, if I may say so as someone who perpetrated that atrocity.

Have any of you read Molly Greeley’s books, The Clergyman's Wife: A Pride & Prejudice Novel (about Charlotte Collins) and The Heiress: The Revelations of Anne de Bourgh? Both are well written and take on Austen in interesting and creative ways. There is some worthy Austenesque fiction out there!

Mr. Malcolm's List is neither Austen fanfic nor a modern Regency novel. It's a period romcom. I didn't think the self-published version was very funny but I am willing to give the final version a chance and see the movie. The diverse cast actually BEING authentic makes it different, as opposed to Bridgerton which needs world building from what little I've heard.

I have enjoyed plenty of contemporary writers of Regency fiction. I don't read much fan fiction with the exception of Stephanie Barron who writes convincingly in Jane Austen's voice. She's the only one who can do it though. Shades of Milk and Honey was written with a Regency dictionary so there are no glaring anachronistic phrases which is refreshing. Other authors don't try but write nice, heartwarming, charming stories.

Did anyone see the short film of Mr. Malcolm's List? I'm going to pull it up on YouTube and watch it this weekend.

I too read Jane Fairfax decades ago and I remember liking it, but that is about it. I read Jane Austen in Boca but did not like it as well Scarsdale. I was hoping she would do all of the novels.
Clueless is a fun movie. Lost in Austen is fun when you accept the weirdness and just let it go.

I find modern romance novels set in the regency to be just that, and they come off as bodice rippers. I've read a couple as well by authors whose other novels I enjoy, but they never seem to pull off anything approaching what I expect of that genre.

I have enjoyed some of the professional/published Austen fanfic, but mostly alternative tellings, I've never read a sequel where the author had the skill to pull it off.

Films that are modern retellings I take for fun, they're honest in what they are, instead of bad adaptations that 'tell the story the author really wanted to tell'.

Abigail wrote: "I like Paula Marantz Cohen’s work too! Jane Austen in Boca was very charming.

Of the various attempts to tell P&P from Darcy’s point of view, I liked Pamela Aidan’s (at least vols. 1 ..."

Perhaps these are the Knightley books you were thinking of(I love love love them)....

Those are the ones, thanks Kirk!

Louise,

Did you mean, " they come off as bodice rippers " to be critical of The Flame and the Flower?

Mr. Malcolm's List is not a bodice ripper. It's meant to be Austen or Heyer light. There might be more heat in the adaptation. I didn't like Suzanne Allain's Incognito mainly because she broke the first rule of writing and told everything without showing. THAT would be a good one to adapt. Maybe it will come next.

Martin, I looked up the Flame and the Flower and had to shake my head in dismay. I can do without the forced wardrobe malfunctions - forced or otherwise.

I meant historical or otherwise.

Martin, no I haven't read that one.

I wasn't calling anyone out in particular, just expressing my disappointment in what they consider romance.

Abigail and Kirk,

I just bought and read Barbara Cornthwaite’s two volume set of George Knightley Esquire. Thank you for the recommendation! I really loved the story from Mr. Knightley’s point of view. He certainly does live in a different world from Emma. But it was very intriguing (and romantic) to watch his friendship with her become something else entirely.

Glad you liked it! That’s why I enjoy stories told from the male point of view.

Shana wrote: "Abigail and Kirk,

I just bought and read Barbara Cornthwaite’s two volume set of George Knightley Esquire. Thank you for the recommendation! I really loved the story from Mr. Knightley’s point of ..."

Yeah!!! Team Knightley :)

It's been adapted with a multi-racial, multi-ethnic cast
**

That's lost me, straight off!!!

That said, I did see one episode of Bridgerton and after a while one goes 'colour blind', I agree. Also, of course, the author (screenwriters?) have set it as an Alternative History/Counterfactual etc, 'as if' England in the Regency did actually have a non-white (Afro-Caribbean/Indian) aristocracy who were socially acceptable in white circles. It's actually quite a poignant idea...(ie, given what 'reality' was at the time!)

I am okay with a color blond cast for the most part. However, Anne Shirley needs to be a red head, and a natural one at that.

Beth-In-UK wrote: "It's been adapted with a multi-racial, multi-ethnic cast
**

That's lost me, straight off!!!

That said, I did see one episode of Bridgerton and after a while one goes 'colour blind', I agree. Also..."

I'm Ok with color blind.

Bridgerton is not color blind. What I have a problem with is when the characters say "The queen did so much for our people" and then just drop it without explanation.

Malcolm's List was inspired by Hamilton and Hamilton works.

Malcol'ms list does it one better than Birdgerton. Mr. Malcolm speaks Yoruba. “I was conscious of not color-washing the story,” Dìrísù says. “I didn’t want this to just be a white character played by a person of color. I wanted him to feel like a real, lived-in person.”

Pinto, who is Indian, was inspired by what Dìrísù did and followed suit, doing research on the South Asian community in England at the time and asking to tweak little bits of dialogue. The film paid homage to her culture with the costuming, threading “hints of paisley” into her wardrobe, Pinto says.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/...

I'm interested and I could probably go to the theater when no one else is there but it's SO expensive, I'll probably wait for it to come on TV.

I meant I am okay with a color blind cast not color blond. But still, No blonde Anne of Green Gables, either.

Bridgerton is not color blind.
**

Yes, I see what you mean - but I do think Bridgerton does work in its own alternative-history way.

I have no seen Bridgerton and have no opinion.

I'd say Bridgerton is very Marmite (British vernacular for you either love it or loathe it) with many fans and many non-fans. I had little hope of it, but it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, but I wasn't really interested in the story line. I wouldn't watch any more of it. It's very 'pretty' with beautiful clothes and settings.

I think you are either 'into' it, or you're not.

I watched the Persuasion trailer, I wasn't impressed

Malcom's List is getting goodish reviews. It's the same old same old but a bit more satirical than some of the more recent adaptations. It's being described essentially as Austen-lite.

Mr. Malcolm's List is a good break from the horrific news of this week. It's light and fluffy without much depth. It's funny and charming. There are a couple of steamy kisses that might be spiced up for the big screen. I don't think I want to pay movie theater prices to see it but it might be worth renting On Demand when it comes to TV.

Mr. Malcolm's List the film is pretty cute. No steamy kisses, no chemistry between the hero and heroine at all but it's cute. The color blind casting worked, at least until the hero randomly said something in Yoruba. The movie is a little more Austenesque in terms of comedy but still missing most of the social satire.