Looking in the Weatherglass

Pride and Prejudice 1995

2013-01-16T21:51:08Z

It's only been two days and already I have the next installment in this series up! I confess myself somewhat startled.

(Previously: 1940, 1980)

I think it's fair to say that most people think of the 1995 BBC/A&E co-production, starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, as THE Pride and Prejudice adaptation,¹ and I am certainly one of those people. I saw it for the first time sometme in high school, when the Literature Club² watched the whole thing on VHS. Then I think I saw it again in English class when we read the novel in... Grade 10? And sometime after that I was given the box set as a gift, and I couldn't tell you how many times I've seen it since. Many many times, anyhow.

( cut for all the feelings )

comments

A puzzling kerfuffle.

2010-11-29T16:48:06Z

There has been a recent flurry of articles discussing evidence that Jane Austen's style was actually due to an editor, and people, I am confused by the discussion.

There's been some interesting discussion of this topic on Language Log, but I still feel it misses the point, which is this: surely many writers get enormous feedback from their editors not only on their spelling and punctuation, but on their general style, plot architecture, characterization, and many other things.

Is this a false impression I have based on fandom, where friends and beta-readers are known for hugely influencing the shape of finished works? I feel like every pro writer I've ever heard talk about their process also talks about having to rework enormous parts of what they've written based on feedback from others.

So what's the big deal? Is the claim that Jane Austen's (male) contemporaries didn't get this kind of feedback at the manuscript stage, and so she's not "really" a classic author? Is the claim that she didn't actually see/approve the relevant changes, so this wasn't input into her writing so much as an ex-post-facto change to her books?

As I said: so confused.

In other news, I'm totally on track with my writing goals!

14790 / 15000 (98.60%)

comments

It seems wrong to contemplate reading less.

2010-10-19T07:09:17Z

Once, talking to a councellor*, I was listing the kinds of books I like to read in my spare time (science fiction, fantasy, and romance), and she was like: "you realize those are all very escapist."

Yeah, no shit sherlock. I've known that since I was a pre-teen, though at the time maybe I didn't know the actual word 'escapist'.

In recent years this escapism has developed such that when I'm stressed I go into lock down mode and read some really epic sci-fi/fantasy romance fic. If I can't find any, I look harder. And when I'm finished the first one I find more.

And then suddenly it's 3AM the night before I have to give a practice talk and I don't have my handout finished. *headdesk*

Faced with exactly this situation, some time ago I commented here that I was going to try to stop reading fiction until I could develop a healthier relationship with it. That is slowly moving up my list of priorities, in much the same way that quitting smoking probably figures for other people. While it goes against my character and my upbringing to ever admit that reading less could possibly be a good thing, I am forced to admit that maybe in this case it would be.

In other news, wedding of cousin was very nice, and the caffeine necessary to manage the 7.5 hour drive home is also helpful when it comes to pulling all-nighters.

*Did you know that the 'e' and the second 'l' in this word are both canadianisms? I thought this was one of those words I Just Can't Spell, because despite all my efforts it remained underlined in red by my computer, but it turns out I'm just being oppressed by my resolutely American spell check!

comments