Deborah Yaffe

Blog

By Deborah Yaffe, Oct 8 2018 01:00PM

Jane Austen’s books – usually Pride and Prejudice, sometimes Emma, occasionally one of the others -- perennially land on those ubiquitous, completely meaningless “best novel” lists (for instance, see here, here, here and here). Currently, P&P is duking it out with the dubious likes of Fifty Shades of Grey and The Da Vinci Code for the top spot in PBS’s Great American Read series.


A bit of a shock, then, to see Austen’s entry in the PBS sweepstakes coming in at #5 on someone’s semi-scientific list of Books People Most Often Start and Don’t Finish.


Over at Gizmodo, writer James O’Malley has combed through the Currently Reading logs of some 24,000 Goodreads users to find the books they’ve parked there for more than a year and therefore, he argues, aren’t likely to finish. His top-ten list is half fiction, half non-fiction, and Pride and Prejudice is there in the middle, sandwiched between The New Oxford American Dictionary and Susan Cain's Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking.


Before you get up a good head of Janeite outrage, it’s worth pointing out some oddities about O’Malley’s list. Even his top-ranked unfinished book, George R.R. Martin’s A Game of Thrones, has apparently been sitting untouched on the nightstands or in the Kindle queues of only thirty-one Goodreads members. By the time you get down to P&P, only twenty copies are gathering real or virtual dust – not exactly a tsunami of Austen-haters.


Meanwhile, two of the books on O’Malley’s list – the aforementioned dictionary, and Marie Kondo’s organizing manual, The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up -- aren’t the kinds of books that people typically read cover to cover. They’re dip-in-and-out-as-needed books. There’s no shame in not finishing the dictionary! (Indeed, if you did finish it, it might be time to, you know, Get A Life.)


It’s not hard to imagine how books like Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton (long, not as peppy as the musical) or Martin’s GoT (long, not as much skin as the TV series) or David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest (insanely long, kinda weird) end up marinating at the bottom of TBR piles.


To me, P&P, which is peppy and funny and not particularly long, seems out of place in this company, but of course pep, humor, and even length are subjective qualities. I suppose if you open the book expecting to find Matthew Macfadyen murmuring, “You have bewitched me body and soul,” the real thing could seem. . . different. Of course, if you don’t finish it, you won’t learn that Mr. Darcy never says, “You have bewitched me body and soul.” But perhaps you prefer to keep it that way.


In fact, the oddest thing about O’Malley’s list is that three of his five Most Unfinished novels – P&P, GoT, and George Orwell’s 1984 – are also among the Great American Read’s one hundred contenders for America’s Best-Loved Novel. Go figure. Or at least go back and finish what you’ve started.




By Deborah Yaffe, Oct 1 2018 01:00PM

Jane Austen’s novels are filled with marital mismatches. Clever, sardonic Mr. Bennet treats Mrs. Bennet with thinly veiled disrespect. In Sense and Sensibility, Mr. Palmer has discovered “like many others of his sex, that through some unaccountable bias in favor of beauty, he was the husband of a very silly woman.” The long-dead mothers of Anne Elliot and Henry Tilney seem to have suffered in their marriages to selfish, difficult men. As we close each novel, we trust that our heroine and hero will be happy together, but the specter of marital failure lurks everywhere.


Nevertheless, nearly a quarter-century of swoony screen adaptations of Austen’s novels have persuaded the non-Janeite public that she is the embodiment of all things romantic. Two examples of this phenomenon crossed my desk this week:


* “Derbyshire is the most romantic place in the UK,” declares the no-doubt-completely-impartial website DerbyshireLive, the online home of the Derbyshire Telegraph newspaper. The area “is visually stunning and has inspired love stories which have bewitched the world.”


Cue mention of Pride and Prejudice; unverifiable claim that Derbyshire landmark Chatsworth was the inspiration for Mr. Darcy’s Pemberley; and mention of other local sites featured in various filmed versions of the novel. (Jane Eyre merits a cameo, too.)


Derbyshire looks gorgeous, so don’t let me discourage anyone from proposing there. (Indeed, Among the Janeites includes the story of a man who proposed to his Austen-scholar wife at Chatsworth, which played Pemberley in the 2005 movie of Pride and Prejudice.) I’m just a little leery of this “Austen=lifelong happiness” equation.


* “Make the love of your life fall for you all over again with these 50 beautiful love quotes that say ‘I love you’ in different ways,” urges YourTango, which bills itself as “the leading online magazine dedicated to love and relationships.”


I must admit that whenever my Jane Austen Google alert highlights listicles like this one, I experience a certain all-too-familiar sinking sensation. I fear I am about to enter the Land of Faux Austen Quotes, that zone in which any line ever uttered by a character in an Austen movie is automatically attributed to the novelist herself.


Alas, YourTango has indeed harvested its beautiful love quotes from this same barren field. Amid the lines credited to the likes of Virginia Woolf, Maya Angelou, and Ed Sheeran – plus a selection from Lolita*: how creepy is that? – are two attributed to “Jane Austen.”


Brace yourself. At #25, we have “My heart is, and always will be, yours.” And at #27, we have that hoary classic “You have bewitched me body and soul.”


I loved hearing Hugh Grant sweetly deliver #25 to Emma Thompson in the 1995 movie of Sense and Sensibility. I was less enamored of Matthew Macfadyen delivering #27 to Keira Knightley in the 2005 P&P, but to each her own. Neither line, however, appears in the Austen novel on which the film is based.


Indeed, there’s a reason that romantic sayings from Jane Austen are so seldom drawn from the actual novels of Jane Austen: She didn’t write many swoony love scenes. Her novels are as determinedly un-swoony as it’s possible for courtship novels to be.


But hey: If you want to go around saying these things to the love of your life, perhaps while proposing in front of Chatsworth, be my guest. Just don’t blame Jane Austen if the marriage doesn’t work out.




* Which is, IMHO, one of the greatest novels of the twentieth century, but not my go-to choice for healthy expressions of romantic love.


By Deborah Yaffe, Sep 3 2018 01:00PM

Only two months ago, I announced that second-order Austen adaptations -- adaptations of adaptations of Austen novels -- were now officially A Trend. It seems I was onto something, for now comes word that yet another piece of Austen fanfic has been sold to the movies.


This time, the hot property is Ayesha At Last, by first-time novelist Uzma Jalaluddin, a Pride and Prejudice update set in the world of young Muslims in contemporary Toronto. Last week, rights to the book – already out in Canada and due to be published in the United States next year -- were acquired by Pascal Pictures, run by former Sony Pictures chair Amy Pascal.


Of course, a sale to the movies is not the same thing as an actual movie, so no point buying popcorn for the screen version of Ayesha At Last just yet. And I haven't read the book, so the all-important issue of quality remains an unknown, at least for me, though I'm intrigued by the premise. Austen's tales of life in socially constricted Regency England seem to resonate strongly for contemporary readers from similarly conservative cultures -- hence, perhaps, the vogue for Austen on the Indian subcontinent, which I've written about here and here.


Whatever happens with Ayesha At Last, however, it’s refreshing to see that the box-office mojo of Crazy Rich Asians and Black Panther has introduced Hollywood to the radical notion that not every movie has to be about white boys blowing things up. Who knew?


By Deborah Yaffe, Aug 30 2018 01:00PM

Once again, it’s time to play “If I Were a Rich Janeite.” (Cue klezmer music.) The British auctioneer Bonhams has announced that, later this fall, it will offer a first edition of Pride and Prejudice for sale.


Bonhams estimates that the three-volume set -- in original bindings, a big plus for collectors – will fetch £15,000-20,000 (about $19,300-25,740). But Austen items have a history of selling for far more than initial estimates: In 2008, the copy of Emma that Austen presented to her friend Anne Sharp sold for £180,000 ($233,400), more than double the pre-auction estimate, and two years later the same item sold again, for a whopping £325,000 ($421,500).


In 2012, Austen’s turquoise ring brought in £152,000 ($197,000), five times the pre-sale estimate, and in 2014, a copy of Emma in original bindings fetched £48,050 ($62,300).* [On the other hand, when the Sharp copy again came up for sale in 2012, it failed to reach its reserve price of £150,000 ($194,500) and remained unsold.]


Whatever the newly offered P&P eventually goes for at the auction, scheduled for November 28 in London, it’s certain to be out of my price range. Alas. (Cue sad violins.)


Lest we Janeites get too full of ourselves, it should be noted that at the same time Bonhams announced its impending Austen sale, it also publicized two other items it plans to auction: A World War II-vintage Enigma coding machine, and a rare early golf ball. (Delightful as it would be to imagine this random threesome on the same auction block, it seems unlikely that the golf ball and the Enigma machine will join P&P in Bonhams' Fine Books and Manuscripts sale.)


Given the mania for golf, perhaps it’s not surprising that the ball is expected to pull in £12,000 ($15,500), not far off the price for the Austen. And given the mania for WWII history, it’s probably equally unsurprising that the Enigma is expected to draw £100,000-150,000 ($130,000-$194,500), ten times the low estimate for the books. Still, the price differentials are a salutary reminder that, passionate as our fandom may be, it’s not the only fandom out there.



* Confusingly, the auction house described this as a world-record auction price for Emma, despite the far higher prices paid for the Sharp copy.


By Deborah Yaffe, Aug 2 2018 01:00PM

With their film adaptations and their fanfics and their Austen societies, residents of the Indian subcontinent seem to love Jane Austen just as much as do those of us in the Anglo-American-Australian axis.


So perhaps it is unsurprising that their websites should end up misquoting her just as much as ours do.


Yes, children, it is time once again for our favorite sport, Spot the Spurious Austen Quote -- now in a new international edition!


Last month, not one but two Indian news sites decided to mark the anniversary of Austen’s death by giving her another reason to spin in her grave. At the Indian Express, an English-language daily newspaper published in Mumbai, the tribute consisted of “10 quotes by the author on love and life,” interspersed with biographical tidbits. At iDiva, a gossip-beauty-fashion-relationships website, we were treated to “18 Jane Austen Quotes That Are Mantras For The Millennial Girl.”


Apparently, fact-checking the original text is a lost art in India, just as it seems to be here in the United States.


How else to explain why the Indian Express list manages to include two spurious Austen quotes and one kinda-right-kinda-wrong quote among its ten, for a less-than-impressive score of seventy-five percent?


The mistakes aren’t even original: There’s the ever-popular “It isn’t what we say or think that defines us, but what we do,” which -- as I have tried in vain to impress upon the Internet -- is not an Austen quote but a garbled version of a line from the 2008 TV mini-series of Sense and Sensibility. There’s the only slightly less hoary “We are all fools in love,” which comes from the 2005 movie of Pride and Prejudice. And there’s the garbled “Life seems but a quick succession of busy nothings,” which, as I’ve noted before, is not exactly what Austen wrote in Mansfield Park. (I still gave half-credit for it, because I’m an easy grader.)


Not to worry, though: iDiva has worked hard to get us the very best of Austen, offering “18 handpicked quotes that are totally going to get a nod from that millennial soul in you.” Handpicked! What could be better?


Well, maybe if the hand doing the picking actually knew what it was up to.


Alas, yes: iDiva’s carefully curated selection also includes two spurious Austen quotes. (Lo and behold, they are exactly the same as the two spurious quotes that Indian Express gave us!) But iDiva does better: It also provides us two genuine Austen quotes that it attributes to the wrong book; two slightly incorrect versions of genuine Austen quotes; and two more seriously garbled genuine quotes, one of which – in an impressive twofer – is also attributed to the wrong book.*


On the other hand, iDiva does manage ten certifiably correct Austen quotes attributed to the correct book (three of them overlapping with Indian Express selections). I’m in a generous mood, so I’m giving iDiva credit for its two only-slightly-incorrect quotes, for a total score of sixty-seven percent. Passing – but only just.


What is to be done? How can this international plague of Austen misquotation be rolled back? Is there no cure? No antidote? No vaccine?


Google, you say? No, Google is actually part of the problem: Search for any of those spurious or garbled quotes, and you’ll find a dozen websites assuring you that they are genuine Jane Austen.


Millennial girls, I’m afraid it can’t be helped: If you want to make sure your current mantra is a genuine quote from the novelist Jane Austen, you’re going to have to acquaint yourself with, at the very least, a searchable electronic text of her novels. The horror.



* For the nerdy among us: #1 omits a word; #4 is seriously garbled, probably because it’s a version of a movie line that is based on a book line; #5 has one incorrect word; #7 is a garbled line from Persuasion misattributed to Pride and Prejudice; #8 is spurious; #14 is a Pride and Prejudice line misattributed to Northanger Abbey; #15 is spurious; #17 is a Mansfield Park line misattributed to Pride and Prejudice.




Quill pen -- transparent BookTheWriter transparent facebook twitter