Since 1940, there have been countless adaptations of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, some of them films, some theatrical rendtions, some miniseries, and some PBS and BBC productions.
Even a Bollywood version of the novel recently made it to the big screen --- sarongs and Vindaloo instead of corsets and Yorkshire pudding. How refreshing.
No single Dickens' novel has ever garnered nearly this much attention.
How many books have been written about Jane Austen? Probably hundreds. The most recent tripe to grace the shelves is Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. The movie version will star Natalie Portman.
Even more astounding is the seemingly infinite number of Jane Austen fan clubs, book discussion groups, gushing websites and adoring blogs, all of which obsess breathlessly over every detail of her life and oeuvre.
I can’t think of another author whose books have received such enduring passion. Perhaps there’s a Melville fan club somewhere –- an odd lot no doubt --- but how many people are that fanatical about Moby Dick? And even zombies wouldn’t be enough to get somebody to buy that estimable book.
Although Pride and Prejudice is Austen’s most famous novel, there have been numerous (read: too many) productions of her other sleep-inducing books --– Emma, Mansfield Park and Sense and Sensibility, among others.
I’ve read a few of these so-called “classics,” and, in between snores, I’ve concluded that all of them are pretty much the same.
They all take place in 19th Century England, and usually revolve around the landed gentry or landed-gentry wannabes. The pompous blowhards that populate most of Ms. Austen’s books all spend their time knitting, taking walks, pretending to read books, having picnics, writing too many letters, gossiping, matchmaking (ineptly), and attending lavish parties, at which they engage in wooden dances, and wonder cluelessly why the person they “truly love” is boogying with someone else.
Yawn.
Let’s face it – there’s virtually no difference between Austen’s heroines. They all spend their time pathetically pining away for the haughty gentlemen they profess to love, men who are usually spoiled, affluent, and too dense to know that these whining, pouting women have schoolgirl crushes on them. Eventually -- wild guess –- these befuddled chaps (all of whom have excellent postures) see the light shining blindingly in their eyes, and they all somehow blunder into making the romantic connection. (Surprise, surprise.)
Later, they get married and have sex with their underwear on.
Is it any surprise that the acronym for the novel is PAP?
So why are these books so popular? Simple. They’re all glorified romance novels that have somehow earned the cachet of being “literature,” although for my money, the writing is dull, stilted and plodding and the characters are ordinary simpletons in fancy costumes, but then I’m not the romantic type. If you don’t believe me, ask my wife.
For starters, I would venture to guess that most men- -- with the exception of academics -- don’t have much use for Jane Austen. But then, most men don’t read romance novels either.
(Don’t get me wrong –- I’m not saying these books are lousy because men don’t read them. I’m just saying they’re lousy.)
The fact is, contemporary romance novels sell five times more than all other literary genres put together. That’s a lot of books. Millions of lovelorn, dreamy, unfulfilled women read this dreck because they hope they’ll meet a handsome prince in the produce section and he’ll sweep them off their feet, or because the books just make them horny, probably both.
But reading trashy-looking romance novels on the subway is embarrassing, as it should be. But if you show up with a Jane Austin novel you can delude yourself and others into thinking you’re reading something literary, thus making you appear “educated,” while actually dreaming of gallant princes and getting horny. Suddenly, you’re the weepy heroine longing for the guy in a waistcoat, high boots, and the brain power of lawn furniture.
That’s why I’m capitalizing on this craze with my new novel “Nonsense and Nonsensibilty,” which will be out in October. The movie version will star Sarah Silverman.


Salon.com
Comments
Yep, they ARE glorified romance novels, far from real lit. But those who read Austen still keep the other romance novels by their beds.
Funny and true, rated.
But, in the interest of full disclosure, I love reading today's junk food novels (paranormal, scifi, fantasy, detective), so it could just be that that is my favorite flavor no matter what century I'm exposed to.
But then, as soon as it dawned on me that Clueless was a contemporary version of Emma, well then I gained a full appreciation of just how flexible Austin can be. Isn't the true test of any work of fiction just how well it can be recycled into a contemporary knockoff?
Of course ... since the subject matter is about love and the situations of daily living, clearly it can't be as important a subject as all those boys and their sleds, yes?
I think you're a great guy, John, but on this one, I'm guessing we disagree. On Melville, on the other hand, I recognize he too has stood the test of time and is a great writer, even if he and his subject matter aren't my cup of tea. It's probably just that. Her subject matter isn't your thing. But that doesn't make her a lesser writer. It just makes it not your cup of tea.
Mrs. B: "You take delight in vexing me. You have no compassion for my poor nerves."
Mr. B: "You mistake me, my dear. I have a high respect for your nerves. They are my old friends. I have heard you mention them with consideration these last twenty years at least."
Or:
Whenever Charlotte came to see them, she [Mrs. Bennett] concluded her to be anticipating the hour of possession; and whenever she spoke in a low voice to Mr. Collins, was convinced that they were talking of the Longbourn estate, and resolving to turn herself and her daughters out of the house, as soon as Mr. Bennet were dead. She complained bitterly of all this to her husband.
"Indeed, Mr. Bennet," said she, "it is very hard to think that Charlotte Lucas should ever be mistress of this house, that I should be forced to make way for her, and live to see her take her place in it!"
"My dear, do not give way to such gloomy thoughts. Let us hope for better things. Let us flatter ourselves that I may be the survivor."
In short: Let women dream of Mr. Darcy all they want. When I grow up, I want to be Mr. Bennett.
By the way, it's easy to see why they make movies of these books. The screenplay is practically finished. I remember Emma Thompson being a bit embarrassed about getting an Oscar for adapting "Sense and Sensibility", as she only had to grab the dialogue straight out of the book.
I think I'll go and have a good cry now...
Having said that, the romance issue you raise is something else entirely. I'm not sure, but I think the female predeliction for romance has something to do with a particular base pair on the second X chromosome. I understand the Human Genome Project is studying the issue. Maybe with a little gene therapy women can have that nasty romance thing gone and we can be just like you men.:-) r
I'l be eagerly awaiting Nonsense and Nonsensibility. If Sarah Silverman is not available, try to get Chelsea Handler.
She's like coffee mug art. Monet.
Everybody thinks its great...
well, it WAS, but do we have to see it
on a shower curtain?
Although my perspective on what Jane Austen has to offer is different than yours, I understand your point of view above. I have always felt the same way about many male writers and the so-called classics authored by men. I don't understand them, find little with which to identify, and consequently find them of little value.
Rated.
Here's a money making idea for someone with the start-up capital to make it happen: literary dust jackets. If you're too embarrassed to be seen reading the latest Twilight in public, simply slide on your faux Dickens dust jacket to conceal the trash you're really reading.
Couldn't you pretty much say the same thing about Charles Dickens? Seems to me, while Jane Austen wrote "romance novels", Dickens wrote what could be called "Poverty porn"
Maybe I'm just a literary illiterate, but I don't see much, if any difference between the two
Or something to that effect.
@Brawer ... you've got a better chance of working Moby Dick into NASCAR, then visa versa. Particularly with Danica P. on board. Word has it she loves Moby. {{{R}}}
I'm a Dickens man myself. Almost all my ninth-grade reading was devoted to Dickens.
A college friend had read the works of Jane Austen so many times that she no longer felt compelled to begin reading on page 1. She would just open the book randomly and start reading wherever her eyes landed. I think Austen was her therapy.
Fun post!
actually writing Sense and Sensibility screenplay was much more difficult than just grabbing the dialogue straight from the book. You probably have not read it in a while, there barely is any dialogue. It is mostly narrative and carving out a good story flow acceptable for a movie was no mean feat. Ms.Thompson most definitely deserves her Oscar.
John,
I usually enjoy your posts very much, but here I must disagree. Austen's portrayal of her contemporary society is quite interesting and insightful. It is one of the few women's views on life at the time and because of that it is an important piece of literature. She has something to say and she says it with skill and lovely language. Actually it is quite fun to imitate this language in writing exercises. I am no fan of romance literature at all, but I am a big fan of Austen because of historical aspects of her fiction. So your theory about women reading Austen cause they are horny and want to marry a rich guy does not really hold. And while Emma and Mansfield Park have benefited from being put on screen as they are a bit longish and boring, P&P and S&S are unquestionably great pieces of literature. They are just not your cup of tea as was already pointed out by somebody else here. You want really boring? Try War and Peace. Trust me, I wrote loads of essays on it in school and I still don't like it.
I think there are yawnable moments John, but the language is what grabs me in her work. Not so much the stories which, as you write, are pretty much the same. I have always had trouble with "privilage", but in early 19th Century England you actually see a humane treatment of emotional realism in some of the charachters. And the arguments and other exchanges, rife with wit and logic are down right entertaining......
I do violence to my old English lit. major background, but I find I like Jane a lot better once I've seen the movie version. We are so far removed from Jane's time - its manners, customs, assumptions, language - that updating her via film allows us to better participate in and appreciate what she's up to - stories of human beings who must try to achieve personal happiness in a world whose conventions seldom allow for any such thing. Of course it doesn't hurt to have attractive actors, nice costumes, pretty scenery, and a good sound track.
Shakespeare, who of course wrote for performance, also benefits from a good dramatic portrayal. I hope you like you some Shakespeare, John, at least once in a while.
She has written enduring literature in sparkling prose with characters that jump off the page and are almost real to the people who love them. They are not romance novels. The plot is so centered on finding a good marriage because that was the ONLY option for women back then, who had few rights and were NOT allowed to work except as servants and governesses. That, my dear John, is not romantic, it's tragic. She is a very good chronicler of life, family and the human heart. Not your cup of tea? Fine. But no need to be rude about it.
Here's a question: Was Gustave Flaubert's "Madame Bovary" a romance novel?
Perhaps if she were alive now, she would have less censorship and her novels would be racier and full of sex.
If you're looking for a portrayal of the poor woman's version of life, try "the Dress Lodger." it's raw and tragic, full of nasty things the gentlewomen were protected from by their good marriages.
I will be looking for your version of Jane Austen.
It's like shoe shopping and Chocolate Mocha Hagen Daz -- if you have a vagina, you're supposed to like it, or there is something wrong with you.
I've always thought Pride and Prejudice would be way more interesting if written from Wickham's perspective, with his cad-like tail chasing charm. Darcy might have been something new in Austen's time, but the sensitive Bad Boy Who Really Isn't is such a worn out cliche by today's standards.
I'll take a story about a giant, mysterious, man-eating whale and the crazy, obsessed peg-leg captain who pursues him over some silly British girl trying to land herself a Darcy. *yawn*
Rated.
So there!
I thought I was the only one.
Most (though not all) of Austen is worth not only reading but re-reading. Perhaps many people (mostly women, I imagine) read Austen as romance novels, but as a previous commentor has pointed out with quotes from Pride & Prejudice, while the plots of her novels are often structured around romance leading to marriage, it's her wit and sometimes biting social commentary.
I personally both dislike romance novels and admire romance novelists - it's really, really hard to do something new-feeling and entertaining on a so-often-repeated theme. Modern romance novels seem to me like porn for women (romance-with-sex). Austen doesn't really fit that category.
Two subjects she tackles that wouldn't appear in a romance novel: in P&P, a younger sister's elopement threatens the marital prospects (and hence financial survival) of the four remaining sisters; the protagonist, Elizabeth, has a complete meltdown over it. (Yes, Mr. Darcy rescues the family, but this scene would NOT appear in a bodice ripper - distracts too much from the romance.) And Northanger Abbey is less of a romance than a spoof of the gothic novel (example: a mysterious document found in a cupboard turns out to be a laundry list).
That said, while I disagree, I laughed heartily both at your post and the quotes of Mark Twain. Rated.
I loved this line: "Later, they get married and have sex with their underwear on." That says it all. :)
Austen doesn't make good movies -- not enough action.
Obviously lots of commenters here haven't read Austen or have forgotten what the books are about. I particularly liked this comment, "Fairytale romance, girl gets handsome guy with big estate." Most of Austen's heros were not rich and poor Edward and Elinor in S&S have to live on less than Willoughby spends on his horses. But, right Austen shows (not tells) why Ed and El will be happy and Willoughby miserable for the rest of their lives.
But your cover proves you can never go unrewarded by underestimating the intelligence of the OS editors.
Besides, I find her husband Steve much more interesting. I mean can Jane run 60 miles per hour ?
Or compare Austen to Fielding or Dickens or Twain or one of my favorites of the Romantic era who wasn't a Romantic at all -- Laurence Sterne. Jane Austen's work can be credited as a progenitor of today's soap operas, but great literature? Not so much. I will now escape to the cellar to avoid tomatoes, cabbages and brickbats.
That said, I am also a keen enthusiast of Austen's works in and of themselves. She and Wodehouse are authors who never cease to amuse me.
However, for those who want something to bring them down and help them mourn the black soul of humanity, I can heartily recommend the "spoiled child" sections of Eliot's Daniel Deronda. (Avoid the sections about the eponymous hero; they're a bit flaccid.)
They're not romance novels. They're social commentary, written with perfect wit and irony. They're about money and commerce and trafficking in flesh and love. They're brilliant.
libertarius: I thinl you captured the essence of Austen's works with the phrase "...sloppy analogies, bankrupt gender stereotypes, and subway psychology."
MadamRuth: Choose your weapon.
Malusinka: Austen has stood the test of time better than Mark Twain? I beg to differ. Besides, Twain didn't write the same stories over and over again.
I've enjoyed a few of the film adaptations, but that's about it. I'd rather read something by Norman Mailer or historical stuff . . hell even mythology. When I want smut or "romancy" type picking, I head to AdultfanFiction.net and get my naughty fix.
Hehehehee.
-R-
Just a thought.
Smells like revisionism to me. Your post damned Austen's works as "glorified romance novels," evincing not the slightest awareness that they are in fact satirical. Now that a few commentators have pointed out that inconvenient truth, you damn the satire as "lame." To paraphrase your response to me, I think the term "lame" captures the essence of your performance here.
Shiral: Clearly she was wasted when she wrote them.
LadyMiko: Shakespeare does indeed "kick serious ass." Austen knocks over teacups.
libertarius: If you're so great at detecting satire, how come you failed to notice that my post was largely satirical?
Bravo!
Brian: #1: Austen had no romantic life. #2: Beethoven wrote the "Eroica" for Napoleon and you're right, nobody listens to it anymore.
you have got to be the most bilious idiot among OS's share of various idiots. How your family (if you have one) tolerates you is beyond me, but happily, how you tolerate yourself is entirely your own problem. You are contrary for its own sake, the opposite of amusing, the very essence of rudeness and intentional uncivility, and saddest of all, totally classless, immature, and very badly (though copiously) educated. Frankly your lack of writing talent is such that you're not fit to wash Jane's underwear let alone to comment on her priceless and, thankfully for the rest of us, immortal prose.
That scene where Martin Lawrence pretends to be a pizza man is worth more than all of the words in Jane Austen's ouvre.
ha. Silverman rocks.
paris pace: Thanks for the levity. I needed some, what with the plethora of negative nellies. Actually, I think the pros and cons are about equal, although the cons seem to be more longwinded.
Brian: I'm giving up on you.
O'Really: There's a thong in my heart. Left ventricle, just below the aorta.
Also, 'paris pace' needs to learn some god-damned. "Jane Austen isn't a feminist!" Nice argument, dick. How many beloved and critically acclaimed female authors were there in the 18th-early 19th century? Hmm...
Following paris pace's reasoning, George Eliot wouldn't be considered a feminist, regardless of the fact that George Eliot put many of her male counter-parts to shame in style and content during her time.
All because it doesn't fit a 21st century idea of 'feminism'. Small-minded high-five!
I waited until my thirties to read P&P, and I probably would have found it dull if I were younger and impatient. Instead I found it pretty fucking thrilling on an emotional level (as opposed to a Lizzie captured by pirates level). So, maybe when you grow up, you'll like it, too.
Anticlimactic now, I know.
What people don't seem to get is that, although couched in the style of literary criticism, the piece is partly satirical. The phrase, "Later, they have sex in their underwear" should have been a tip-off. I doubt that a lit crit would have said something like that.
I am primarily known on OS as a comedy writer. If you read some of my past posts, you'll see that there is very litle in this world that I take seriously, including Jane Austen and lit crits. Nuf said.
I'm in agreement. It's fluff from a long time ago. Because its older fluff, we somehow consider it better fluff. Its the Lifetime movie of literature.
It seems you're taking a very male perspective on Austen's work. We women outnumber you men (except in China) and we tend to read more fiction than you all do.
So, is she overrated? Maybe. But so are thousands of other male writers, including Dickens.
I also feel sorry for whomever is in a relationship with the guy who is knocking reading romance novels. Which bothers you the most about romance, the romance or the sex?
Without that, the viewer of the dramatizations gets, yes, a witty romance novel plot without the bodice ripping-- which is boring after you've read three of them. But Austen makes fun of her heroines from time to time, and mocks many of her secondary characters. The novels keep you laughing if you get what you're reading. Austen plays a how-they-met-and-married story line for laughs. And if you are paying attention, you meet the fools from Austen's novels in real life. I've attended the wedding of a Lydia and Wickham pair (Pride & Prejudice) and sat next to a Mrs. Elton (Emma) at dinner. As it dawns on you that you are listening to one of these characters that Austen captured from real life, your eyes glaze over in smiling wonderment. The rattle John Thorpe from Northanger Abbey is a character of the modern age. Aunt Norris from Mansfield Park is found everywhere today. Rarely, maybe never, are these characters accurately rendered on a movie or television screen. Some of the dramatizations are downright unwatchable for the insipid, sugary adherence to the romance story line without any of the satire or fine use of language that makes Austen a good read.
Winston Churchill got through WWII on two things: booze and Jane Austen. Truly, on a visit to the White House, the Roosevelts found him giggling as he read Jane Austen late one night.
And, no, I don't read romance novels. Can't stand them. But if you love language and light, silly satire, Jane Austen is your author. The problem is, of course, that the satire can go right over your head, so just like the tediously over done dramatizations, I suspect that there is a cadre of Austen fans who read the novels for the romantic plot and entirely miss what makes her work really worthwhile. I suppose the litmus test for whether you get Austen is whether you enjoy Wodehouse. Yes, his characters tend to roam the remote world of the English country house, but it is the commentary on human nature that amuses and makes the stories, forgive the term, accessible.
Not everybody has to like Austen, but it would be a relief to both her non-fans and the readers who get her satire if there was a long moratorium on trying to dramatize her books.
Another overrated author in my book, F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Personally, I like 'em both, and Melville's Moby Dick at least (Don't get me started on "Billy Budd"...but, of course he didn't finish that one).
I do wonder if your rant has to do with the perceived subject matter rather than the actual writing. Many here have addressed that issue (Norwonk, AtHomePilgrim, parispace and BrianBowman to name a few!) You have not responded, and I do wonder if you've read the books, or just seen the (admitted) profusion of film adaptations.
Do you dislike Eliot, ho writes about similar subject matter in "Middlemarch"...but at more Dickensian length? Or Emily Bronte's "Wuthering Heights"? (a corker of a 'romance'...but much more as well). How about Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre? It inspired Jean Rhys',"Wide Sargasso Sea" and countless movie versions. Is there a female writer, or writer of more "domestic" content that appeals to you?
As for the necessity of books including atmospheric "historic detail", that's pretty silly. We do have Tolstoy, but not everyone has to include the "big events"...the Brontes don't cover the coronation of Victoria or the Afghan campaigns or the Opium War in China...though each of these was ongoing during their careers, not to mention a nasty cholera epidemic in England!
I will agree that Melville and Dickens are too seldom read, though Dickens' canon is much larger than that of Austen.
i consider it a sign of our regression in modern society that people like you find yourselves so superior. frankly after being forced to watch blue streak by my brother's drunken college friends i find it difficult to believe you can even look in the mirror and take yourself seriously.
your lips smack with the hiss of jealousy sir. you lack creativity and as a creator of crappy pop drama you parasitically leach true talent out of older classics in an effort to gird you wallet.
here's a little anthropology for you. the human brain has been shrinking for about the last 2000 years. each generation has been, according to many anthropologists, declining in brain capacity across the globe for decades now. each passing generation is slightly more devolved than the next. is it jane austen that lacks talent or do you lack the ability to distinguish insight and perspective that humans are more and more unlikely to be able to recognize.
It is to laugh.
As for the heroines pining for the heros, I am certain that you were not reading the same books I was. The shocking thing to Jane Austen's contemporaries was, more than anything else, the scandalous independence of her heroines. In, for example, P and P, Elizabeth's younger sisters are silly romantics. And her older sister, a noble romantic, walks away from the man she loves, believing that he is looking for a better match. But Elizabeth? She would rather sit and chat with her father than to deal with the nonsense of her sisters.
I do find it amusing that the bulk of the respondents who agree with you are male. How horribly stereotyped of them! I, personally, can't stand romance novels, finding them tediously coy and badly written. But I've had a soft spot in my book-loving little heart for Jane Austen since I was in college, decades ago.
In fact, in the end, I think I should thank you. I'll go down in the basement this evening, and sort through the shelves and shelves of books, from my husband's and my college texts, to children's books from the 80's and all the way through my kids' college texts. Somewhere in there is the Complete Works of Jane Austen that I read, cover to cover, after the birth of my third child.
I definitely need to enjoy her, once again.
JA’s works aren’t even remotely similar to modern romance novels… except maybe the backdrops and the Regency period itself that many modern romance novelists like to frame their schlock on. Jane’s works were subtle and brilliant satires of romantic notions. Her characters are deliciously three-dimensional—almost to a fault. I read your article and found example after example of how little you really know about the subject you’re mocking.
Just because people sit on the subway reading JA instead of Crichton or Brown or some other crappy novelist doesn’t denote a sense of superiority; it just means that JA is an engaging, good freakin’ read. It’s as simple as that. Would you be happier if they had a novel with Fabio on the cover? Feel less condescended upon?
If someone doesn’t resonate to JA or they find the language too flowery or too British to follow… then it’s simply a matter of taste. JA’s books haven’t managed to carry themselves as best-sellers for two centuries because she’s ‘a Victorian Danielle Steele’ as someone so eloquently blathered (it’s the Regency period by the way). I’d like to see Danielle Steele accomplish that. Hah! Please.
And FYI: Women did not wear underwear during the Regency period. They wore pantalettes that were crotchless.
The most disturbing part of it is that the mercenary focus of these relationships seems to strike such a chord with contemporary women - despite decades of feminism it seems a lot of women still yearn to be parasites who 'marry up'. The pining for high status, wealthy, arrogant males like Darcy who "can be changed by a good woman" is a dysfunctional template. I mean, Austen was atrocious at understanding & writing male characters -- in real life a jerk like Darcy would be banging all the chamber maids & the flower girl within two weeks of marriage - think of a 19th century Tiger Woods, Letterman (or any of the 2,000 Congressmen who have been in the news in the past year ... )
This has all been put far better than I could ever do in this post:
http://www.loveromancepassion.com/the-darcy-syndrome/
The Darcy Syndrome
(AKA – you women are nuts)
I have a feeling if I stick it out with Jane I might really like her books also.
One thing did surprise me, though, is how each television or film version is nearly word for word of dialogue from the book. I think someone else mentioned that in the comments, how easy it must be to adapt because the book can be used as its own screenplay. There was one thing I missed in the book. Maybe I didn't read it thoroughly, but I don't recall the whole Mr. Darcy taking a dip in the pond thing, and strolling along like a male version of a wet t-shirt contestant. That scene is an integral part of every film version but I don't think the book mentions it. Did I miss it? Maybe I have to reread the book.
I'd rather read (or have written) one good novel (say Pride and Prejudice) than lots of mediocre novels (say a good deal of Hemingway).