I talked about my attempt to finish reading all of Jane Austen’s books a bit in my last post, and how 2023 is going to be my new Year of Jane. This year, I plan to read all of Jane Austens works, including rereading my old favorites, as well as some of her lesser-known and unfinished works. There are roughly enough to fill in a whole year if I pick one book a month. So here is a rough sketch of my yearly plan, though it may shift a bit here is my generalized reading schedule. And if you would like to join along for discussions and group reads, come join the Jane Austen Book Club today!
January: Pride and Prejudice
February: Sense and Sensibility
March: Sandition *season 3 of Sanditon premieres March 19
May: Mansfield Park
June: Love and Friendship
July: Lady Susan
September: The Watsons
October: Northanger Abbey and The Mysteries of Udolpho
December: Fanny Burney’s Camilla, Ceceliaand Evelina, or Maria Edgeworth’s Belinda(all of which were some of Jane Austen’s favorite books)
This new racy regency romance is everything and everyone should read it immediately!
I have truly never read anything quite like it. It is a story about a woman trying to find herself, and a man who loves her as she is. But it is more than that—it is also an exploration into identity, femininity, love, change, forgiveness; it is the story of two souls finding love, and learning to accept each other unconditionally.
The Regency Era was not a great time for the lgbtq+ community, and though this is a fiction story, it’s not hard to imagine people actually going through this. Which is incredibly sad, but also empowering, because Viola is truly a role model! Her story is powerful, and important, and valid.
“I am trapped between who I am and who I was, always terrified that one will swallow the other.”
Lady Viola struggles with self-acceptance, confidence, and identity. Her fears and struggles move the story forward and give readers a glimpse into the difficulties transgender people face daily. From navigating the alien territory of finding clothing to fit your body, to being uncomfortable with small daily tasks (needlepoint or tea pouring or letter writing) that women seem to know as second nature, Viola feels behind in her womanhood, as if she missed out on precious and formative moments of girlhood. She also wants to overcome the shame and fear she carries, and pushes to make her own space in the world, for the freedom to live authentically, no matter the costs, which is what makes her such a strong character.
“But it was hard to put into words. It took a long time.”
Duke Justin goes through an inner journey of learning to accept Viola as herself, and eventually understands that she always was Viola, and proves to be an ally as well as a friend. He struggles with addiction, ptsd, and the ghosts of his past, but Viola is able to help his overcome his struggles, just as he helps her. They are very cute together, and they have great chemistry!
“We can make our own world, Viola, with our own rules.”
Light is a huge theme of the book, fading sunsets and shadows show dark, sundials for the passing of time, and echoes to reference the past. Chrysanthemums are also a hugely important theme in the book. Viola returns to this flower again and again, as it means something to her. In the Victorian Language of Flowers, the chrysanthemum represents friendship, happiness, and well-being: everything she wishes for, what her soul seeks.
“Your life is yours, you did what you needed to live it.”
Also. I demand fan art for page 283, and all of chapter 34 & 35!!! The descriptions of Viola’s flowing gowns are to-die-for and I want to see every single bit of her wardrobe! If you are a fan of Jane Austen, Bridgerton, The Courtship, and period drama, THIS is the book for you!!!
Generally, I appreciate all page-to-screen adaptations: all press is good press, and whether you love or hate the new film, it is doing a lot for reigniting interest in the book.
When I found out that this adaptation would be inspired by the book rather than a faithful adaptation of Persuasion (a la Bridgerton) I had high hopes for it. HOWEVER. My personal opinion of this movie is that it is absolute trash.
“I am all agony, no hope”
I saw a lot of criticism around the film, and it kind of influenced my opinion before I could even watch for myself. TBH I was skeptical of the criticism. I wanted to believe that it couldn’t be as bad as people were saying. But after watching for myself, I wholeheartedly agree with the critics.
I think the most disappointing thing is that this adaptation was passed over for the Sarah Snook version, which seemed to lean more towards a faithful adaptation, whereas this version is clearly only based on the book and takes MANY creative liberties.
Fans of this version found the variety refreshing and funny, and seem to appreciate the deliberate changes. And if you found this version relatable and enjoyable, I am happy for you, and I am not here to change your mind. But I, personally, did not find this version relatable or enjoyable.
To be clear, I am a Janeite, but not a purist. I have no possession over Anne Elliot. I had never even read Persuasion until just before the release of this movie. So it’s not like I was set on hating this movie from the start. My personal favorite of Jane Austen’s is Pride and Prejudice. I bring it up to make this point about adaptations: I find value in the 1995 P&P for it’s gold-standard accuracy. I love the dreamy Hollywood 2005 version for its nostalgic soundtrack and cinematic scenes. I appreciate silly spin-offs like Lost in Austen and Austenland. Because, at the heart of them, they are able to take my favorite story and re-tell it, in different ways, but it is still the same story I love told over and over. Unfortunately, this ‘adaptation’ of Persuasion attempts to rewrite the story itself rather than retelling it, making it unrecognizable for those who do love the original story of Persuasion.
The point of an adaptation is found in the name—it is meant translate, modify, and adapt the text. At their worst, adaptations can lack real understanding of the source material, which seems to be exactly what happened here with Carrie Cracknell’s ‘adaptation’ of Persuasion.
I definitely agree that it seems like no one on the team at any point read Persuasion. It’s like they read the wiki summary and then wrote a play inspired by that bad summary. The script itself doesn’t seem to take much from the text. It seems that the actual story of Persuasion merely inspired the script. Which is weird. Fans understand the need to modernize the dialogue of Austen’s works, but here it was taken so far that it completely changes the story. It’s not at all how it goes in the book, and that is why fans are so upset. So many liberties are taken to make a new story, that at this point, they should have just written a new story. It’s irritating. Like, if they wanted to do a new modern movie set in the Regency Era, why not just do that? Don’t ruin a favorite classic and then claim to be reinventing the period drama.
So let’s begin with how they ruined Anne Elliot. Anne’s emotional intensity is a huge driving force of her character. Austen writes of Anne’s “elegance of mind and sweetness of character,” sensibilities, and compassion. In the book, her feelings are super intense inwardly, but she is still classy and has manners. Controlled passion! But this Anne is just a crybaby! In contrast to the book, the movie shows her pining from the start, and that just didn’t seem like Anne to me. The movie made her a damsel in distress, and completely misses the nuances that make Anne endearing. Which becomes an issue later in the film when we see Louisa’s declaration that “she won’t hear any ill talk of Anne”. Because as far as the film goes, it doesn’t make sense that Louisa would defend Anne like that. The film did a terrible job of showing Anne’s merits, making her snarky and dislikeable instead of the compassionate Anne we love.
I am seriously displeased that Anne’s ‘thing’ is breaking the fourth wall. It takes away from her character. If revolutionary was what they were going for, I hate to break it to them, but the rupturing of the fourth wall has already been done (see Patricia Rozema’s charming take on Mansfield Park from 1999). And it’s pointless if there’s no purpose behind any of it. Though Cracknell comes with a hefty portfolio, her work on Persuasion comes off as a gimmick capitalizing on current trends. How exactly does the line, “it is said if you’re a five in London, you’re a 10 in Bath”, improve on Austen’s work or make it any more palatable to modern audiences? Or what about the comments on being “an empath” and focusing on “self-care”? These are all just marketing buzzwords.
These memes really highlight the language barrier, for me:
And whyyyyy did they have to make her an alcoholic? What is the point of that? It was supposed to be funny and plucky, but it’s just painful. I really loved the cinematography during the hangover scene, with the ASMR toast-scratching… and then it was shattered with the bad acting. They didn’t have to make her an alcoholic to make that a powerful scene, she could have just been hungover one day, and it would have hit even harder.
I can’t even talk about the octopus. Please don’t ask.
Sir Walter, Mary and Elizabeth were all well cast. Mary is my favorite kind of Jane Austen character, and thankfully she seems to be a fan-favorite. I love the complain-y blabbering ones, and the humor that makes Mary worked really well with the tone of the film. She is the silver lining in a dark raincloud of horror.
I also liked Wentworth, but it didn’t seem like he had much chemistry with Anne unfortunately, It’s unique though because I don’t usually see a romance that only has chemistry on one side. His acting is really good, but Anne is ruining the illusion for me. I think she would’ve made a pretty good Jane Austen, like if they remade Becoming Jane she probably would’ve been good in that role. I don’t think she did bad in this role–I’m just upset that they made her break that fourth wall and do all of that like Jim-from-the-office eyebrow work. I admit that I liked what they did with the cinematography and the set design and the costumes I think the only thing I didn’t really like was the script. But it is so bad that it makes everything else unforgiveable. I really loved Mary’s Musgrove‘s character, but I think they really disrespected Anne and Wentworth, specifically.
The cinematography and set design were the standout early-on in the film. With lavish and bold sets, this show really could have done so much more as a satire of wealth, and unfortunately, misses so many points. The director was still able to do some great things with the camera though—take a look at this shot of Lyme, for example. Here we see everyone walking along the sea-wall, but the last lady (Mary) skips off on her own, oblivious, as-always marching to the beat of her own drum, while everyone else keeps in formation. This is a great play on the Regency rules of society, and gives us a small glimpse at women who break away from that mold (if only for a moment).
They should have done more with Sir Elliot, IMO. To me, his fall from grace was a huge point. The tone of the film could have done a lot as a parody of privilege, but instead they focus on modernizing Anne’s character, which just butchers the story. The vanity of Sir Walter Elliot of Kellynch Hall is highlighted really spectacularly with grand shots like this one:
And I really liked that last line about “dont let anyone tell you how to live, or who to love. “(But even then she was more narrating, she wasn’t talking at us through the screen, so maybe that’s why I liked that little scene). I like how they redeem it and they come back to the sextant thing, that’s cute too. But nowhere near enough to redeem the film, for me. This is an adaptation I will not be able to watch over and over, sadly, this is going to bottom of my list.
Reputation is a Regency-era historical romantic comedy from a hilarious new British voice, Lex Croucher. This book was described as Bridgerton meets Gossip Girl with a dash of Jane Austen, so naturally, I had to pick it up. I had high expectations for this book, and I was honestly disappointed. I would describe this book as edgier than expected, but not necessarily well-written. The dedication says it all. “For Jane Austen. Sorry, Jane.” Because any true regency lady would be completely shocked by the sordid behavior in Reputation.
So don’t read this if you are a stickler for historical accuracy, because you won’t find it in this book. I appreciate what this book is trying to do for diversity, but there are some passages that are just plain bad and positively inaccurate for any century.
I love learning about Jane Austen’s life and the history of fashion during her time. I absolutely love the costumes in the movie adaptations of her work, but there is one question that I have always had: is it Regency, or Georgian?
Jane Austen’s books are set in the Regency era (1811-1820), which is a sub-period of the Georgian era (1714-1830s). Austen’s books were written during the few short years when high-waisted empire dresses with short sleeves and décolletté necklines reigned supreme in the fashion world. When long sleeves were introduced in evening dress, she wrote Cassandra:
I wear my gauze gown today long sleeves & all; I shall see how they succeed, but as yet I have no reason to suppose long sleeves are allowable. Mrs. Tilson has long sleeves too, & she assured me that they are worn in the evening by many. I was glad to hear this. – Jane Austen, 1814