“But you must be aware that when a young lady is (by whatever means) introduced into a dwelling of this kind, she is always lodged apart from the rest of the family. While they snugly repair to their own end of the house, she is formally conducted by Dorothy the ancient housekeeper up a different staircase, and along many gloomy passages, into an apartment never used since some cousin or kin died in it about twenty years before. . . . [Y]ou listen to the sound of her receding footsteps as long as the last echo can reach you—and when, with fainting spirits, you attempt to fasten your door, you discover, with increased alarm, that it has no lock.” (Austen, Northanger Abbey, 158-59).
The above images two remain my favorite of all the stills of Elizabeth Bennet and Elinor Dashwood: Jennifer Ehle walking along in the countryside meditatively, with a melancholy retreat feel into nature (1995 P&P, scripted Andrew Davies); Hattie Morahan looking out to sea and painfully enduring what seems a long loneliness ahead (2008 S&S, scripted Andrew Davies). The passage from Austen’s NA, probably using Sophia Lee’s The Recess; or a Tale of Others Times as part of what is parodied and yet taken seriously is also one of my favorites …
Friends and readers,
Since I wrote about Eliza Fenwick’s Secresy, or the Ruin on the Rock (1795) here (some months ago), I’ve been wanting to recommend two further later eighteenth century epistolary novels I and another friend on my small WomenWritersAcrosstheAges listserv @ Yahoo read together last year on their treatment of women’s issues in the 18th century still of relevant today, Sophia Briscoe’s Miss Melmoth; or the New Clarissa and the anonymous Emma, or The Unfortunate Attachment: we read them because they have both been linked to Georgiana Spencer, Duchess of Devonshire, whose The Sylph (1778) we also read.
The latest The Sylph cover and edition
Prompted by the appearance of two new Austen films, P&P and Zombies and Love and Friendship (aka Lady Susan) as well as shoverdosing on a Scots TV production of Gabaldon’s Outlander, in reaction almost against, I recommend these 18th century epistolary narratives as well as The Sylph and Sophia Lee’s powerful gothic, The Recess (1783) as a better way to acquaint yourself with Austen’s world and context.
********************************
Hermione Lee reading one of Clarissa’s letters, a perfect image for “the New Clarissa” as it is all writing and receiving of letters (1991 Clarissa, scripted by David Nokes)
The first in time is Miss Melmoth; or, The New Clarissa (1771) by Sophia Briscoe, about whom little is known beyond that a second epistolary novel written in the following year was attributed to her (The Fine Lady, 1772), that The Sylph has attributed to her (a receipt for payment is in her name) and that the Critical Review and Monthly Review commended these novels as superior to some average they disdained, “entertaining,” amusing,” “not corrupting,” “instructive” and capable of “arousing powerful emotion.” She is also sometimes said to have been Scottish. Unfortunately no one has yet published a summary, and although I made intense notations on the letters (and they are in the archives at Yahoo) as we went through them (two novels which we read over some 6 weeks), I never put them together coherently.
A jumble of stories within stories, images left in the mind, something of the feel of Miss Melmoth (from an exhibit of 18th century women writers, including Austen, held at the NYPL, NYC)
What was most remarkable were not so much the on-going front continuous unfolding of the main characters, but the inset back-stories as it were, what was told all at once and intensely when one woman would sit down and tell her history to another, or one of our heroines report what she had heard of a new character in the novel’s history. I was struck by how seriously the novel took death emotionally; how the loss of a close relative or friend affects someone’s life irreparably. The front stories projected a sympathetic account of how women needs other women friends.
Whit Stillman includes such an image in his Love and Friendship (Chloe Sevigny and Kate Beckinsale, both in his previous Austen movies, and Beckinsale played Emma for Andrew Davis’s 1996 Emma)
One of the inset histories was a hostile depiction of a woman whose elopement with a rake turns out so badly that she is driven to become a lady’s maid who then betrays her young mistress by marrying that mistress’s domineering shallow father and becoming herself a tyrannical step-mother; another, a deeply empathetic depiction of a stranded widow. The novel reveals a tenuous security for all eighteenth century women of whatever rank. A desperate need for marriage however painful that condition may turn out.
The second in time was published anonymously, Emma or, The Unfortunate Attachment (1773); it has (probably wrongly) been attributed to Georgiana Spencer, Duchess of Devonshire, and the modern edition by Jonathan David Cross continues the attribution. We agreed that all three novels (Sylph, Emma, and Miss Melmoth) were written by different people because the styles were so different. Emma; or the Fatal Attachment has far more stilted and wrought style than either of the other two, and its central story is the plangent and tragic one. This novel has many Richardsonian twists and turns, and again I wrote about the letters as we went through, ironic and juxtaposed section by section (and these annotations are in the archives). Its subject is coerced marriage; in this novel a previous attachment has gone so deep and the new relationship despite all efforts on the part of the heroine and reinforcement of social norms by her relatives and friends a violation.
Saskia Wickham as the harassed Clarissa stopped in the streets, hounded for debts she doesn’t own (1991 Clarissa)
Beyond what Gross writes of it, in her “Richardson and some Richardsonian novels,” Isobel Grundy (Samuel Richardson: Tercentenary Essays, edd. M.A. Doody and P. Sabor) writes of how the heroine is harrowed by the death of the previous man, shows she is capable of loving two men at once, includes a friend who offers “a strongminded feminist critique of wifehood,” and depicts a retreat to “a desolate domestic wasteland” (pp. 227-29). Again a deep sense of precariousness in life for women is conveyed.
Both Miss Melmoth and this Emma (as well as The Slyph) have multiple correpondents who write to one another and receive responses; both happy endings (as does The Sylph) but what happens along the way is not negated. A chime of many voices and presences.
***************************
Catriona Balfe as Claire Beauchamp Randall now Fraser (2015 Outlander, variously scripted & directed) — upon her finding she has been transported to 18th century Scotland
I’ve been prompted finally to describe Miss Melmoth and Emma, or the Unfortunate Attachment and refer back to The Sylph because I’m almost finished with the 16 part mini-series film adaptation of Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander novels as the closest thing I’ve come across to Sophia Lee’s The Recess; or, A Tale of Other Times, a journalistic epistolary novel (the letters very long and only by the two sisters), to my mind the first self-conscious genuine gothic in English literature (1783). (This wikipedia article will lead you to good material on Lee and her novel, which deserve a long blog of their own. I also read it with a another friend on Eighteenth Century worlds @ Yaoo, and postings are in those archives. I have no room here lest this blog become overlong.)
Gabaldon’s book (or books) are a kind of cross between Frank Yerby “The Border Lord” type romances, with time-traveling fantasy taken from Daphne DuMaurier’s House on the Hill; a Dorothy in Oz longing to return to Auntie Em turned into a resolute desire to stay (Claire is told to click her shoes before the stones and recite “there is no place like love” in her efforts to return to modern England); and a plot-design which exploits overall Scottish history, Highland cultural artefacts and the Jacobite 175 rebellion and patina of 18th century English politics. They read somewhat woodenly but if you have watched the mini-series for a while and go back, you find they make good script ideas and dialogue for a TV film. If you want to understand Gabaldon’s Outlanders the books to read are Helen Hughes’s The Historical Romance and Diane Wallace’s The Woman’s Historical Novel. The distance between Gabaldon’s book and the literate eloquent script and remarkable realization reminds of the distance between the 1978 mini-series Love for Lydia, and H.E. Bates’s sub-Lawrentian novel.
Craig Na Dun (the magical stones which hurl the heroine back in time)
The mini-series reaches out to contemporary wishes for spirituality by involving megalithic stones and the natural landscape in its depiction of “spirituality” and the nature of its characters. The central character, Claire Beauchamp Randall Fraser (two husband’s names) is a nurse from WW2 – this seems all the rage on these mini-series, nurses – is presented as pro-active and strong, a female hero who is as effective in action-adventure and yet needs rescuing, all the while doing a woman’s jobs of caring. Then you get plenty of blood, death, violence for the men. This is precisely what we find in Lee’s two heroines, Elinor and Matilda, Mary Stuart’s long-lost daughters, who learn to love as abjectly and erotically as Claire. The Scottish landscape and myths about the Highlands serves both Lee and Outlander.
Castle Leoch (an actual ruin in Scotland)
The mini-series and Lee manifest the same attempt at an exploration of male high adventure (Lee is much influenced by Prevost) through the cyclical art, use of voice-over (daringly by the men too) so sensibilities of l’ecriture-femme movie-style. Some of the scripts were written by a woman who was also the executive producer, Anne Kenney. I do love all of this, Lee and the mini-series, the Scottish landscapes captivate me too.
Very popular in French: Le Souterrain, ou Matilde (1788)
I like to think and even assume that Austen read all three of these semi-realistic epistolary novels; there is some evidence in Northanger Abbey to suggest that Austen had the fantasy The Recess in mind when Henry Tilney produces his mock-gothic narrative for Catherine as they ride into the Abbey.
Felicity Jones and J.J. Feilds as Catherine and Henry approaching the abbey (2008, Northanger Abbey, scripted Andrew Davies)
I was also prompted to tell of these novels finally because two new Austen movies have just come out, the utter nonsense of Burt Steers’s Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, a film adaptation of Seth Graham-Smith’s burlesque gay mash-up, and Whit Stillman’s Love and Friendship, a blending of Austen’s Lady Susan with her juvenilia burlesque, Love and Freindship. I link in a group of reviews in comments.
Lily James as Elizabeth Bennet could easily be slotted into Outlander, or be either of Lee’s heroines
***************************
When I’ve seen the two new movies, I will write about them, but from what I’ve read thus far, you will learn far more about Austen’s world, get closer to her values and assumptions by reading any one of these four novels. And yet how close, how alike are the photos, the pictures stemming from both movies to the appropriate photos and covers of these four later 18th century novels, and stills from movies made from and appropriate illustrations for Austen’s novels. At the same time some essential element of sanity, of ironic perspective, of true ethical compass is either not there or muted. See comments for full disclosure or elaboration on this.
Again Jones and Feilds as Henry and Catherine, with Catherine Walker as Eleanor Tilney between them, this time all discussing Ann Radcliffe and “real history” as they walk through a real wood (this one happens to be in Scotland where most the film was done).
Ellen
Another pop review of the Zombie film:
This of P&P&Zombies: you stand warned, if you click and try to read you will be blasted with loud commercials immediately:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/02/03/does-zombies-live-die-jane-austen-pride-prejudice-superfans/79705174/
Thanks very much to Tracy Marks for gathering these up on Stillman’s film:
Love & Friendship
2016 Drama film/Romance 1h 32m
8.3/10·IMDb
100%·Rotten Tomatoes
Set in the 1790s, the seductive, manipulative widow Lady Susan Vernon (Kate Beckinsale) seeks refuge with her in-laws as rumors about her private life circulate through society. While staying at the estate, Lady Susan uses devious tactics to find her daughter Frederica a husband and win the heart of the eligible Reginald deCourcy.
Release date: May 13, 2016 (USA)
Director and Screenplay: Whit Stillman (Metropolitan)
Story by: Jane Austen
Producers: Whit Stillman, Katie Holly, Lauranne Bourrachot
SOME REVIEWS AND RELATED SITES ONLINE
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/01/love-and-friendship-whit-stillman-review
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jan/24/love-friendship-review-kate-beckinsale-devious-delight-sundance
http://criterioncast.com/festivals/sundance/scott-reviews-whit-stillmans-love-friendship-sundance-2016
http://thefilmstage.com/features/whit-stillman-talks-jane-austen-kate-beckinsale-realism-in-movies-and-love-friendship/
http://www.cine-vue.com/2016/01/sundance-2016-love-friendship-review.html
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/sundance-review-whit-stillmans-love-friendship-starring-kate-beckinsale-and-chloe-sevigny-20160124
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_%26_Friendship
On Stillman see Domed Bourgeois in Love, a collection of essays by Mark C. Henrie (in good libraries and used bookstore sites); the publication of Stillman’s screenplays which includes Metropolitan (found on Amazon); his excellent novelization of The Last Days of Disco. I’ve written a couple of blogs and one paper:
https://reveriesunderthesignofausten.wordpress.com/2013/12/25/a-tribute-to-austen-by-whit-stillman-christmas-in-metropolitan/
http://www.jimandellen.org/DiasporicJane.html
Full disclosure:
I may go to the Zombie movie for the sake of writing a blog and keeping up with these increasingly bizarre ways of using Austen material. though I’m tempted to wait until it reaches DVD stage: I detest the endless scroll of ads one has to sit through in Landmark and amc theaters. What I do is sit outside on bench in the hall until I can tell the actual movie I’ve come to see has started. What happens to me is the ads and trailers are so obnoxious and aggressive by the time they finish I’m a nervous wreck and need to go home. And am in certainly no mood to watch a movie.
I was not permitted to read the columns in USA Today; ads erupted, noise; the USA today will not permit anyone coming over to read it to do this without ads. Another reason to dislike this reactionary newspaper which is as bad as Fox News. What might be seen from this one is the film-makers appear to have turned a burlesque homosexual novel into a burlesque zombie movie. I know that many zombie movies are semi-burlesque and that the two forms go together. How far can you go in trivializing the gothic and death. ho ho ho what a joke is a corpse …. It must be a puzzle what this has to do with Jane Austen material — in the book it’s the sending up of quintessential heterosexual romance myths.
I see it’s Lily James again: she’s gotten a terrific boost since Downton Abbey. Every white person’s Cinderella, about as close as one can get to a Barbie doll (again not her fault) in looks; she’s princess in the present War and Peace (PBS is out of the business of filming great novels so unless you have a BBC iplayer you must watch it interlarded with commercials on History Today, Lifeline or A&E. The videos also show much money was expended on what’s called production values. It looks like a strange luxurious fairy tale. Maybe they’ll get the same crowd as go to Twilight movies
I’ll now mention that I was invited to go to the showing on Dec 16th in Maryland. I didn’t before because I didn’t go. I didn’t for a few reasons; mostly because the invitation came two days before. No time to plan as far as I’m concerned. I was told by the person I invited to come with me (I got two invites by email) that this is typical. Such circuses are done with little lead-in time in order to create surprise and also seem exclusive. Seem is the operative; my friend — to be truthful, my daughter who is now a paid entertainment blogger — told me that it was going to be a huge crowd and she was too busy; needed more lead in time. An hour trip there and back (and more); then when we got there we were to wait on some line to get actual tickets. So you become a human advertisement yourself in a crowd of people submitting to this. All to see a movie I’d probably dislike not so much from the use of the Jane Austen material but the popular zombie idiocy.
I do want to see Whit Stillman’s latest Austen film. I’ve already suggested how much I respect his work. I also find Lady Susan a fascinating text. It is hard to say it’s enjoyable. The new movie may not please frequent Austen readers either probably — especially if they marginalized Lady Susan. In his book Irony as Defense and Discovery Murdock argued that Lady Susan is a central text for understanding Austen because it was unpublishable given her family. So we have her in a relatively uncensored state. To me there’s a pathos in looking at the fair copy manuscript. From the Cambridge Edition Later JA Manuscripts I reviewed I could see how hard she labored to make the fair copy look like a book. This is what Renaissance women did sometimes: when they had no hope of publication, and so longed for it, they would make beautiful fair copies in manuscripts. sometimes Italian families would not permit a woman to circulate her writing even in manuscript collections.
That’s the state of Lady Susan — the author has done all she could personally to make her text look like a book.
So here’s a praise for James-Edward Austen-Leigh, the first to publish Lady Susan with his memoir of his aunt, and he did it quickly. Maybe she told him she wanted it published? Or having known her he knew this to be so.
On Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennet contemplative: “Mine too.”
Georgiana, the Duchess of Devonshire and Emma; or The Unfortunate Attachment: A Case for De-Attribution” by Siv Gorel Brandtzaeg, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
From Notes and Queries, 1:1 (March 2014): 47-50.
THE attribution to Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, of the novel Emma; Or, The Unfortunate Attachment has become widely accepted in literary scholarship. This sentimental novel, published anonymously in three volumes by the London bookseller Thomas Hookham in 1773, has long been associated with the Duchess, and during the 1990s, when numerous ‘lost’ minor novels of the eighteenth century were being rediscovered, several prominent scholars treated her as the author of the work, albeit usually with a question mark.1 In 2004 Jonathan David Gross appeared to have settled the matter by presenting a modern edition of Emma with the Duchess’ name on the title page plus a long introduction presenting his case for the attribution. Following this edition, further scholars—among them Thomas Keymer, Katherine Binhammer, and Ruth Perry—have apparently accepted the provenance presented by Gross.
The motivation for linking Emma to the Duchess of Devonshire is obvious, not least where a new edition is concerned. Georgiana Cavendish (1757–1806) was one of the most prominent and influential aristocratic women of her time. She was both admired and despised for her involvement in Whig politics, and was notorious for her unhappy marriage to William Cavendish, the fifth Duke of Devonshire, as well as for her fashionable dresses and haircuts, her excessive gambling and drinking, and her clandestine relationship with Charles Grey, later Prime Minister Earl Grey. Notoriety in her time has been transformed into cultural capital in our own—not least through the popular 1998 biography by Amanda Foreman and the 2008 film which that biography inspired. The story presented in Emmais rather less glamorous and dramatic than the life of the Duchess. The work is an accomplished but fairly conventional novel-in-letters focusing upon distressed courtship and family relations. It is one of many ephemeral publications from a period when the English novel was deemed to have fallen into a fatal decline by many periodical reviewers, but with the aristocratic association the work gains considerable sheen. With Gross’ edition, the attribution to the Duchess has justified—or made marketable—a relatively rare republication of one of many overlooked novels from the late eighteenth-century British book trade, and as such it has secured the work an afterlife. However, as this note will suggest, this case for attribution is founded on decidedly poor ground and it is time, in spoilsport fashion, to restore a question mark to the author of this work.
The principal sign of the Duchess’ authorship presented by Gross—what he calls ‘the only external evidence we have’3—is a 1784 Dublin edition ofEmma (the second out of a total of four eighteenth-century editions of the novel) in which the title-page states that it is ‘written by the author of The Sylph’.4 There are several problems with treating this as evidence. The first concerns the authorship of The Sylph, a novel first published in London by Thomas Lowndes in December 1778 (with a 1779 dating on its title-page). Published anonymously, The Sylph, as Li-ping Geng has put it, ‘was imputed to Georgiana’, but she never admitted authorship of the work and, although the ESTC names her as the author, there is little evidence to suggest that she was indeed responsible for it. Reviewing a 2001 edition of The Sylph, with a foreword by Amanda Foreman, Geng effectively discredits the slight biographical evidence of authorship, and questions the attribution as put forward by Foreman in her 1998 biography and accepted in this edition.5 Geng furthermore cites evidence from the financial records of Lowndes (presented in The English Novel, 1770–1779) which suggests a more likely author to have been Sophia Briscoe, who had written other novels published by Lowndes.
But even if The Sylph was by the Duchess, an association of this work withEmma—made by someone in the business of promoting books—is hardly good evidence of the authorship of the latter title. Such a use of ‘by the author of … ’ was a common marketing device, and the claims made through that phrase cannot always be taken at face value. Gross indeed admits that this external evidence might be untrustworthy—that it could have been ‘a mere effort to attract more readers’ (12). And adding to these doubts concerning the ‘external evidence’, we should also consider the particular publisher who was encouraging the idea that the author of Emma was the author of The Sylph. Publishers working within the Irish book industry—and taking advantage of their geographical exemption from British copyright law—were known to take considerable liberties when producing reprints of works first published outside Ireland, and this included making dubious attributions. The Dublin edition of Emma was produced by the Irish publisher Stephen Colbert, who has been identified by James Raven as an opportunist figure known for distributing fake reviews in order to make his novels more marketable. This is seen in many of his publications which include laudatory evaluations of his forthcoming works.
Furthermore, we can point to at least one instance of a false attribution made by Colbert: in 1783 he published the novel Edwy and Edilda: a Gothic tale, claiming on the title-page that it was written ‘By the author of The Old English Baron’—in other words, Clara Reeve. But, in fact, the novel was by the far more obscure and less marketable Thomas Sedgwick Whalley. This information is, of course, no certain proof against a connection between The Sylph and Emma, but it does suggest that we should treat with great caution an attribution made by Colbert.
Gross also argues that there is internal evidence for the attribution, and he points to similarities between the themes and characters of Emma and the conflicts surrounding Georgiana and her social circle. ‘So autobiographical is the novel’, he claims in his introduction, ‘that it can be read as a roman à clef’ (12). Accordingly, he distributes roles so as to match up historical figures with the novel’s characters. The alleged relation between the fictional Emma and the real life Georgiana revolves, according to Gross, around the fact that they were both victims of arranged marriages, with all the fatal consequences that followed from these kinds of connections, first and foremost a scandalous ménage à trois …. First, Gross overlooks the conventionality of this theme in novels of the period. Such unfortunate attachments provide the narrative and thematic backbone of numerous contemporary works; they are a standard part of the recipe for the sentimental courtship novels which Emma closely resembles. …
More remarkable is a temporal logical flaw in Gross’ detection of internal evidence. Both in the edition’s blurb and in the preface we learn that the novel ‘anticipates many of the major events of [Georgiana’s] life’ (xiii, my italics). As Gross makes clear, the first edition of Emma appeared in 1773, when Georgiana was only sixteen years old and had yet to live the life supposedly fictionalized in Emma. The suggestion, then, is that when writing her roman à clef the Duchess was telling the future ….
With many interesting novels such as Emma which are worthy of the attention of modern readers, it is perhaps injudicious to act as a killjoy when faced with initiatives which give prominence to overlooked novels from the early modern period …
From the notes for the sake of bibliography:
• ↵1 See for example Cheryl Turner, Living by the Pen: Women Writers in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1992), 103, 168; Virginia Blain, Patricia Clements, and Isobel Grundy (eds), The Feminist Companion to Literature in English: Women Writers from the Middle Ages to the Present (New Haven, 1990), 288, and Peter Garside, James Raven, and Rainer Schöverling (eds), The English Novel, 1770–1829: A Bibliographical Survey of Fiction Published in the British Isles, vol. 1, 1770–1799 (Oxford, 2000), 203.
• ↵2 Thomas Keymer, ‘Sentimental Fiction’, in John Richetti (ed.), The Cambridge History of English Literature, 1660–1780 (Cambridge, 2005), 589; Katherine Binhammer, The Seduction Narrative in Britain: 1747–1800 (Cambridge, 2009), 74, 89, 220; Ruth Perry, Novel Relations: The Transformation of Kinship in English Literature and Culture, 1748–1818 (Cambridge, 2004), 249. See also Imke Heuer, ‘ “Something in Mme de Genlis Stile”: Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire’s “Zillia”, Playwriting and Female Aristocratic Authorship’,Women’s Writing, xviii (2011), 70. Reviewing Gross’ edition, Susan Allen Ford points to a ‘high level of carelessness throughout all parts of the volume’, but she does not question the attribution (The European Romantic Review, xvii (2006), 643). See also ‘Author’s Response to Reviewer’ and ‘Ford Responds’ in The European Romantic Review, xviii (2007), 551–5. The ESTC has not incorporated the attribution.
• ↵3 Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, Emma, or the Unfortunate Attachment: A Sentimental Novel, ed. Jonathan David Gross (Albany, NY, 2004), 12. Further references to this edition are given in parentheses after quotations in the text. In addition to this external evidence of authorship, Gross mentions two paratextual features which appear inEmma: a dedication to Lady Camden whose husband was a friend of the Spencers, and a subscription list carrying 116 names, many of which were associated with the Spencer circle. Gross argues that these connections are further indications of authorship—whilst also admitting that they, and in particular the dedication, are ‘inconclusive’ (12): dedications to illustrious noblewomen were very common in novels of the period …..
•
• ↵6 Li-ping Geng, ‘Review of: Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, The Sylph, intro. Amanda Foreman,’ xv; James Raven, The English Novel, 1770–1799, 277. Interestingly, it is Gross who is behind the most recent edition of The Sylph which he attributes to the Duchess of Devonshire. In his introduction he claims that it is unlikely that Sophia Briscoe wrote the novel, arguing that the records from Lowndes merely suggest that Briscoe ‘may have served as a middleperson between Lady Georgiana and her publisher.’ Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, The Sylph: a Novel, ed. Jonathan Gross (Northwestern University, 2007), p. xi. As for the attribution of The Sylph to the Duchess, one of Gross’ main indications of authorship is that she was also behind Emma, which he here, with great confidence, refers to as ‘Lady Georgiana’s first work’ (xi) ….
• ↵
All very interesting, Ellen. It’s surprising that all three novels should attributed to Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire when they are so different in style.
I am surprised by your use of the term “gay mash-up” for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. I didn’t note anything that felt “gay” to me in watching it.
Tyler
[I should mention that Tyler read Emma, or the Unfortunate Attachment and The Sylph with us.]
Interesting blog post. Good to be reminded of those three epistolary novels we read on WWTTA. I have a copy of The Recess at home and will read it if I have time before my spring courses begin. I too look forward to the Stillman film but will forgo the zombie mash-up. Good term. Like Diana, I was turned off by the book cover so will spare myself that unnecessary defacement. OTOH, The Invasion of the Bodies Snatchers is a classic zombie movie and worth reading about. Think of the zombies as brain-washed consumers in a cannibalizing capitalist culture. Much has been written on it, but I don’t get the impression that the Austen zombie piece makes any serious statement.
Thank you for the comment. I too (as with novels or other imaginative literature) often find reading about a work more interesting than the work itself — especially if it’s poor. I’ve not read much about zombie literature or films, and this is the first I’ve heard another way beyond its being gay camp (sending up heterosexuality) of its having any serious meaning. Most entertainment at some level really does make some statement about the culture it derives from — or it wouldn’t entertain. I guess I never read anything but what I looked at in passing didn’t attract at all. Corpses made fun of somehow was what they seemed to be.
Over on Austen-l Diane described the movie with enough detail and nuance to give me some idea of what this movie is like — just about all the descriptions online whether mainstream periodicals or non-professional give almost no sense of the concrete content. and she does mention that there is a queering in the movie (mainstream though it’s meant to be) – which matches my sense of the novel being a gay burlesque of heterosexual romance. Zombie movies seem to blend a ridiculous use of gothic furniture (rather as if you took the recipe descriptions of Radcliffe and just straight filmed them), gothic colors, the kinds of “comic” violence one sees in sub-genre movies (I mean that pun) so that exercise classes become what people do to one another (kick-box, kung fu), and a trivialization of corpses.
On Diane’s sense that the movie might have worked had it been genuinely over-the-top, genuinely burlesque straight through, that reminds me of the Desperate Romantics which I endured an hour of last week (for the sake of seeing one movie with Aidan Turner beyond the Poldark): the series is godawful because they don’t have the courage really to send up the romantic altogether. Had it been “highjinks” and silly mockery, with a camp (utterly distasteful to me) presentation of Ruskin as slathering over pictures of naked women while he can’t manage sexual intercourse with his wife (how sorry I felt for Tom Hollander reduced to such a role) sheerly, it might at least have been consistent, but no they feared to offend or wanted the part of the audience which might identify or like costume drama, so they showed some scenes sentimentally. That became wooden or gross.
Where I live Jane Austen movies are not favored by the movie-houses. P&P & Zombies is playing around the US but not one theater in my area has it and I’ve seen no ads. When an Austen movie comes most of the time it plays briefly and disappears. It’s almost as if the owners are anti-women’s movies and these are seen as just the pits. The JA Book Club was put in a tiny auditorium in one of the “art” movie-house in my area; it had full audiences for about a week and then he got rid of it.
The two decent movies on offer right now are 45 Years and Lady in the Van. All others are these overproduced melodramas where we are to care intensely about white male action-heroes, or strained sexuality voyeuristically done (to me) or simply supremely childish cartoons and/or fantasy. I’ve grown tired of the usual run of movies.
Ellen
[…] Outlander: a cross between Frank Yerby’s Border Lord, DuMaurier’s romances, Sophie Lee’s Recess, Dorothy in Wizard of Oz, and epistolary subjective novels […]