Ask Austenacious: Mr. Ferrars, Lucy Steele, and Austenland

You’ve got questions? We’ve got answers.

A few weeks back, we solicited your questions—Austen-related or not—and the Austenacious team will be answering them in upcoming posts.

This week we have a double header!

1) Reader Megan asks:

Why doesn’t Edward Ferrars throw off Lucy Steele early on in Sense and Sensibility? She’s horrible. Is she just Austen’s MacGuffin, or is there a good reason for his dedication to this succubus??

Mrs. Fitzpatrick answers:

Poor old Lucy Steele. Players never get any respect, know what I mean? Reader Miss Moore asked a version of this question several months ago, and I answered in Ask Mrs. Fitzpatrick: Is Lucy Steele evil or dumb? (For the click-lazy, the short answer is that Edward was like Lucy’s job, therefore she wasn’t going to throw him away until she got another one, and therefore there were laws and conventions ensuring that he wouldn’t throw her away.)

Having said that, though, there are an awful lot of stories in English literature that rely on this gambit of a man getting into an engagement, changing his mind, and not being able to just tell the lady to get lost—I’m looking at you, P.G. Wodehouse. Unlike Bertie Wooster, though, Edward doesn’t get creative in getting Lucy to break off the engagement. But of course the existence and secrecy of it does form a good part of the tension in the story. Austen didn’t have to have Lucy there to keep Edward and Elinor apart, because Mrs. Ferrars objected to Edward marrying Elinor anyway, and there was the lack-of-money complication. But she did get a lot of use out of her. Does that make Lucy Steele a Quasi-MacGuffin? Better experts than me will have to say.

2) Reader Mrs. Davis asks (via Facebook):

Are you going to see Austenland?

Mrs. Fitzpatrick answers:

I polled Team Austenacious on this, and the answers were “No!,” “Hell no,” and “Only if everyone else is going and I’m bored that night.” Bit of a secret, but we actually aren’t all that into these endless spinoffs/adaptations/etc. And I’m smelling a lot of meh coming off the reviews. For example, the Las Vegas Weekly explains that ‘Austenland’ is a tacky insult to Austen fans. And when the City of Tack calls something tacky. . .

Closer to home, I asked a friend what she thought, and got this: “It was cute. You can wait until it’s on Netflix, I’d say. 🙂 I had a couple cocktails before seeing it and it was girls night so perfect movie for that. It could use more character development. I wonder if the book is better?” I haven’t read the book, but Miss Osborne did. She was not impressed. And I’ve heard, though I forget where, that the movie carefully removed any subtlety the book might have had. However, if we’re bored in the future you may see a(nother) drunken Austenacious live-blogging event. That does sound kind of fun, actually.

 

 

Three, three, three Janes in one

A handful of Jane-osities this week:

1. The trailer for Austenland is out!

SO. Having not read the novel—you know how we can be about modern Austen take-offs around here—I keep trying to suss out what I think about this, purely via the trailer. Part of me wonders about the codification of Austen fans as such a Type: sad single women (who may or may not knowthey’re sad) so engaged in a fictional universe as to ignore the non-fictional one, particularly the handsome men inevitably trying to get their attention. (Which is an obnoxious assumption, but also…if only.) This isn’t a new phenomenon, but I find it interesting that we’re essentially one step below Trekkies in our identification by the outside world. Another part of me assumes we’ll be subverting this paradigm, hopefully in smart and interesting ways. The rest of me is silently screaming JANE SEYYYYYYMOUUUUUR IN A MOOOOOOVIE! So there you go.

2. From reader Sophie: Caroline Bingley’s chicanery to appear on England’s money! We’ve all heard by now that our Jane’s been chosen to appear on the new British ten-pound note. Less widely recognized is that Jane’s portrait—the Cassandra one—will be paired with what looks like a statement of sincere enthusiasm for books, but is actually Caroline Bingley’s thinly veiled attempt at convincing Darcy that she’s into reading. On one hand, this seems like the kind of thing a basic Google search could have caught; on the other, I kind of like it. It seems kind of appropriate for Caroline to elbow her way into everything, no?

3. Jane Brocket, chronicler of all things cozy, has just finished Mansfield Park  for the first time, with—what else?—mixed feelings. Her main concern is that Jane builds a cast of complex and well-realized characters, only to bow out on them in the end: “the bad ‘uns must be punished and the good ‘uns rewarded, and the stock endings go against all our carefully raised expectations and vested interests.” What do you think, readers? Could, or should, Jane have done better by Fanny & Co.?

Giant Colin Firth Emerges from Lake: London Buried Under Austenite Hordes!

The Lord of the Lake!

My friends, I honestly can’t decide whether This Week in Austen is a fit of hilarious headlines, whether we all need an immediate field-trip to London, or whether I need to take my meds. Possibly all three. Let’s see…

Giant Colin Firth Emerges from Lake – That’s right, your eyes do not deceive you. This is what victory looks like! According to the Daily Mail (Britain’s finest news source) “The installation was commissioned to celebrate the launch of UKTV’s new TV channel Drama and Mr Darcy was chosen because Colin Firth’s lake exit from the BBC’s 1995 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice was named the most memorable British TV drama moment of all time in a recent survey.” Pedants such as myself and John Mullan note that this scene isn’t even in the book, but I think Jane Austen—were she to be able to stop laughing—would appreciate the irony in that.

Related News: Women Scream as Men Discover Their Historic Erogenous Zones – Yeah, apparently “Nobody had the slightest inkling that Colin Firth, wearing a lightweight cotton voile shirt with his nipples showing underneath, would have such an effect.” By “nobody” we mean Simon Langton, director of the 1995 version. HAS HE NOT MET US? Has he not even read his Austen, who goes on about Mr. Tilney’s greatcoat in Northanger Abbey? I mean, I personally have had a Thing for these shirts since I was 12, long before Colin Firth came out of the water in one. And then sideburns…  so there was this: Hugh Jackman Says Wolverine’s Chops Look Ridiculous!, and then I had a vision… of Hugh Jackman in a billowy shirt… as Mr. Darcy…possibly crossed with Wolverine… I’m sorry, what were we talking about? Ahem!

Protesters Rally in Support of Jane Austen –  Miss Ball mentioned that Jane might be getting her face on the money (and we know it’s going to be Cassandra’s portrait, don’t we? Sigh.) Well, the new chairman of the Bank of England backpedalled and said she was waiting “quietly in the wings.” Yeah, with a blunt instrument, I don’t think! There’s been thoughtful soul-searching, grumblings about Jane as the perennial token woman, and protesters cosplaying as Queen Boudicca, Emily Pankhurst, and I sincerely hope as Jane Austen as well. Only time will tell.

Austenland Trailer Released – We’ve spoken of the book Austenland before. Oddly enough it combines the first three headlines, being about elaborate cosplay undertaken to fulfill sexual fantasies about Mr. Darcy. So of course the movie will be out this summer (August 16). Have to say, the trailer looks pretty funny, if formulaic. I love Jennifer Coolidge.

Missing Character Discovered in Pride and Prejudice – Rebecca Jane Stokes outlines the delightful character of Sarah Pebbletush, Lizzie Bennet’s “unnoticed best friend” who was “excised from the book for fear that her stolid, faithful nature and kind heart might misdirect the reader’s sympathies from Elizabeth.” Now here is a spin on Austen I might watch. 🙂 Though I wonder if Jennifer Coolidge’s character in Austenland essentially is Sarah Pebbletush. Sarah really does seem like an earlier Austen character, like she’s from the Juvenalia, or is a nicer Isabella Thorpe.

So, what say, my friends? I think we’ll have a great time in London together! After our ritual viewing of the Darcy statue, and our protesting at the Bank of England, we’ll already be dressed to live out our Austenland fantasies. Then we can hang out with this guy and write beautifully worded memos, which we’ll post to our social media, all with Our Jane’s blessing. We’ll have a fab time! Now I’m off to take my meds and fall asleep laughing at our wonderful Austen world.

 

RFP: Austen World

For immediate release: Austenacious requests proposals for a JANE AUSTEN THEME PARK!

Goals: To have a fun place irl to hang out with our peeps, being sarcastical, laughing at our neighbors, and trying not to be sport for them in return. Why? Why not, she said!

Rules for theme park proposals:

Note, we are not talking about some kind of holodeck adventures where we roleplay with low-rent actors dressed up as Mr. Darcy, ala Austenland. That is not a theme park. Nor is it, as AustenBlog pointed out, ironic enough for the Austen fans. We are as ironic as all hell, damn it. That is why we are Austen fans!

Nor, actually, do we want some kind of honest attempt to immerse tourists in Jane Austen’s Bath, or her villages, or even her country houses, with actors waylaying you and attempting to interact or something. How pathetically embarrassing! (OK, I am scared of those people. I admit it.) That sort of thing may be fine for Dickens’ World, but honest, vulgar sentimentality is not for us.

And we have no desire to sully Chawton, Bath, or even Lyme Regis with our water slides. You are talking to someone who almost cried when she saw the Anne of Green Gables theme park, Rainbow Valley.

But Austen is not Brontë. (I guess you knew that.) We can have some ironical, Austen-spirited fun, right? Sure, Bath is practically a Regency theme park, but the essence of Austen isn’t the world—it’s the snark. So we need a theme park with some snark, some fun, a Louisa Musgrove Drop ride, OK, yes, a Colin Firth splashing into the water roller coaster, and maybe Lady Catherine vs. Elizabeth Bennet paintball. The rest is up to you.

That’s the goal. Now hit us!

Book Review: Austenland

I’ll admit it. I was sucked in by the cover (the one you see above and not the horrible chick lit version used for the paperback). The dust jacket reads, “Jane Hayes is a seemingly normal young New Yorker, but she has a secret. Her obsession with Mr. Darcy, as played by Colin Firth in the BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, is ruining her life. No real man can compare.” Hmm, that sounds familiar (minus the ruined life. Miss Osborne thinks she has a fine life despite her spinsterhood). How could I not buy this book?

Sadly, Austenland did not live up to expectations. The first red flag was in Chapter 1, when the main character hides her Pride and Prejudice DVDs in a plant during a visit from her aunt. Sure, there are many people who don’t understand how someone can be content watching the same movie over and over again. I am not ashamed to admit that certain movies, TV shows, and books beckon me repeatedly. So I’m perplexed that a woman who loves the Colin Firth P&P would be embarrassed by anyone seeing her DVDs. (For the record, my DVDs sit comfortably next to the TV, ready at any moment for viewing.)

Another thing that rubbed me the wrong way was the Fantasy Island quality of Jane’s Regency vacation. I have to admit that my aversion to playing dress-up is probably outweighing my ability to go with the flow of the novel. See, if you go to enough Star Trek conventions (as I have been known to do) and you’re not into dressing up (as I am not), you start to worry that people might think everyone who goes to cons either likes to dress up as a Klingon or hang out at Ren Faires in wench attire. While I love the Regency-era dresses, I don’t want to dress up in them every day and prance around reading sonnets and drinking tea. Even more importantly, my aversion to play-acting is a hundred times stronger than not wanting to dress the part. Granted, Jane didn’t choose a Regency vacation, so my problem is less about the character’s choices than about being a little weirded out at the idea that anyone would spend their vacation that way.

Mostly, though, I’m offended by the idea that failed relationships are caused by a woman’s desire to have her Mr. Darcy. It’s bad enough hearing from my family that I’m single because I’m too picky. (Note: They don’t specifically cite my love of Colin-Firth-as-Darcy, but they may as well.) But to have a humorous book about relationships and Jane Austen support the idea, well, that cheeses me off. Clearly, there’s more to relationships than being able to check off the following attributes:

• Tall, dark, and handsome (and looks doubly good when fencing or drenched in pond water)
• Witty and good at letter-writing
• Desirable income
• Reserved in crowds but charming once he opens up
• Dedicated to family
• Pissy at douchebag former childhood friends with tendencies toward bedding minors

But there’s also nothing wrong with having high expectations about a potential mate’s basic moral fiber.

I can’t wholeheartedly recommend this book, but I vaguely recall the main character redeeming herself, and I had some laughs at the little bits that reminded me of myself and my girlfriends. So read, if you must. Or, better yet, rent Lost in Austen if you want to experience the wacky hijinks of a modern-day gal stuck in a Regency environment.