Jane Austen
Emma
This is probably my fourth? fifth? reading of Emma. I am now in midst of my regular rereading of Austen's works, but I probably won't post extensively on them, mainly because I can't step back sufficiently to comment coherently. But, occasionally a thought may strike me, as it has just recently while reading Pride and Prejudice. This will be a much, much shorter post, just an odd thought.
In the spirit of the novel, here's a riddle (well, maybe not a riddle):
Mr. Knightly (George) got the wife he wanted, but she was not the best wife for him.
Frank Churchill got the wife he wanted, but she wasn't the wife he deserved.
Emma Woodhouse got the husband she wanted, but he wasn't the husband she deserved.
Jane Fairfax got the husband she wanted, but he was not the best husband for her.
Comments?
That's interesting Fred. I've only read Emma once, so I'll need to reread it before answering. Or could I get by with watching a movie version. Which film version do you like best? But your four questions sound like an excellent way to evaluate the novel.
ReplyDeleteJim,
DeleteI've seen several of the film versions, but none stand out. In fact I can't remember anything about them, so I really can't recommend one.
The questions represent my dissatisfaction with the ending, although it does end as one might expect. I often wondered it Austen was illustrating, in her own fashion, the old cliche that love is blind.
The question wasn't for me, but I'm going to ignore that and answer anyway: my favourite adaptation of Emma is Clueless.
DeleteDi,
DeleteAre you saying that you don't care for any of the adaptations of Emma?
Oh no, that's not what I mean.
DeleteClueless is a modernisation of Emma, and it's excellent- 1 of the best Jane Austen adaptations I've seen.
2 other good ones are Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility and Whit Stillman's Love and Friendship, which is actually based on Jane Austen's Lady Susan.
The only other adaptation of Emma I've watched is the one with Gwyneth Paltrow. I don't dislike it as much as some people do, just don't like it much.
Di,
DeleteI may have seen the Ang Lee version, but I don't remember anything about it. I think I have seen the Gwyneth Paltrow adaptation, if that's the one with the archery? incident, but wasn't impressed that much. I haven't seen Clueless, but I might some time down the roadl
I'm waiting for Love and Friendship to become available on Netflix. So far the library hasn't seen fit to get it. I just may put in a request that they purchase it, but I've had little luck trying that route in the past.
Probably, I don't remember much.
DeleteHow can you forget the Ang Lee film? It's good. I like how Emma Thompson, the screenwriter, shifts the balance from sense to sensibility.
Love and Friendship will be on it soon, I guess. Do write about it when you can watch it. Love to hear your thoughts.
Di,
DeleteIf, as you say, she distorted it by shifting the focus away from Austen's POV to sensibility, then that's probably why I blocked it from memory.
Oh you wouldn't like that? I found it an interesting choice.
DeleteMost of the time, watching an adaptation I think "they don't understand the book!". But when I watched Isabelle Huppert's Madame Bovary, I thought it was too similar to the book, and what's the point of making a film adaptation if you have nothing new to say?
Di,
DeleteI think there's a difference between an adaptation of a novel to film and something new to say. The latter is something added to the novel which was not put in by the author and is a distortion of the novel.
Putting in new characters and events and reversing the author's POV goes beyond adaptation is no longer the novel, but something else. The film industry is certainly free to do that, but they should issue a warning about their changes and point out this is no longer the author's conception. This seldom happens because they want to piggyback on the author's popularity, hoping to bring in a ready-made audience.
The purpose of a film adaptation is to turn the words on a page into action, which is certainly new.
"something added to the novel which was not put in by the author".
DeleteI'd say, that happens to every single adaptation- the screenwriter always, always has to add something that isn't in the book.
"is a distortion of the novel".
Distortion is a negative word. I think, sometimes, or most of the time, it's a distortion, because the filmmaker either doesn't grasp the essence of the book and doesn't understand the author's intentions, or deliberately changes it and ruins it. In many cases, it's simply a different interpretation, and in other cases, the filmmaker takes the book as a basis from which they develop something else, say something else. As long as the end result is good, I don't mind anything. Fidelity isn't so important.
I like a film to be a work of art on its own.
Di,
DeleteIf it is to be "a work of art on its own," then it should not label itself as based upon another work of art. What is good is usually what comes from the book and what is bad is usually the director's improvement.
I suspect we differ so much that the only agreement we can come to here is that we agree to disagree.
i've started Ms. Austen several times and have not been able to get into her work. maybe it's time for a more concerted effort...
ReplyDeleteMudpuddle,
DeleteI know what you are saying. I tried reading Pride and Prejudice several times and then gave up on Austen.
When I entered grad school, one of the first assigned novels was Austen's Sense and Sensibility. I sighed, settled down with the book, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I then read everything she had written, and now she's one of my favorite authors, one of the ones I most frequently reread.
I was a bit over 42 when I read S&S, so maybe I had to mature a bit before I could appreciate her.
But she is not for everybody I realize. Many people I know feel about other authors the way I feel about Austen, but I just can't get that interested in them.
I came to Austen late in life too. Probably in my fifties. I'm not sure I could have appreciated her any sooner, but it sure would have helped me as a teenage boy if I could have. I had no clue to how girls thought.
DeleteJim,
DeleteAs I said, I tried several times and failed. I was in my 40s when I finally got it, whatever it is or was. I doubt that Austen could have reached me when I was a teen.
I don't know if Pride and Prejudiced would have worked for me in my teens either. But it's a shame my teachers didn't try to get us guys something to read that helped explain how girls thought. I'm afraid boys think girls are put on Earth for giving blow-jobs. They need to read more books about how girls see us.
Delete"I'm afraid boys think girls are put on Earth for giving blow-jobs."
DeleteHahahahhahahaa.
That's hilarious.
Boys wouldn't go near Jane Austen's novels though. No. Very few young men do that, let alone boys.
Di, but boys do need to read books to help them understand girls. I recently read Girls & Sex by Peggy Orenstein, who interviews 70 high school and college girls about their sex lives and it's quite obvious our mass media have programmed boys in horrible ways. The only way to correct that would be to get them to see how girls think. Pornography is corrupting our society in a very weird way. Many teen girls now watch porn to study how to act with boys. One thing that was very shocking in Orenstein's book, was many girls claimed they had to get drunk to have sex. This is a terrible step backwards from the feminism of the 1970s.
DeleteJim,
DeleteI might have tried to read Austen as a teen, but I doubt I would have finished. I wasn't able to read her in my 20s or my 30s either. I had to change in some way or learn something to appreciate what she was doing, but I have no idea what that was.
I know, I see your point and agree. What I mean is that it's not easy to convince boys to read Jane Austen, because pop culture, mostly the film adaptations, has associated her with pretty frocks, romance, chick-lit, Colin Firth fantasies, etc. As somebody, Rosenbaum I think, wrote once, Jane Austen's overhyped and dumbed down in the process, and therefore underrated.
DeleteI had an argument with a guy once- he's 27, older than me, because he spoke of Jane Austen with disdain, despite not having read any of her books.
Pornography also affects how girls think they're supposed to look, especially down there- just recently I've read an article about a rise in teenage girls and young women's genital cosmetic surgeries. Alarming.
But seriously, many girls had to get drunk to have sex? That's sickening. I don't understand it at all.
I wonder who is the Jane Austen of the 21st century? Who is writing the best novels with the most insightful commentary about men and women? On television that might be Lena Dunham.
DeleteLena Dunham? Are you serious?
DeleteI haven't read her book or watched Girls, but judging from what I've seen so far, I think she's too obsessed with gender. I tend to be prejudiced against people who see everything through the lens of gender or race, despite being an Asian woman myself.
Remember, we're giving Jane Austen credit for being a savvy observer of her times. I'm 64, so I'm mostly out-of-touch with the times. But I've watched Girls on HBO, and I wonder how savvy Dunham is with today's generation. The show fits with things I've read. The people in the show scare me because of their self-centered focus, but that might be the way things are. BTW, I highly recommend reading Girls & Sex by Peggy Orenstein. It is a fascinating snapshot.
DeleteBut I think we're still left with spotting a modern Jane Austen. I don't think just writing romances is enough. Was Nora Ephron her equal? Zadie Smith is a great observer.
Jim,
DeleteI know so little about contemporary fiction that I have no idea of anyone to even mention for consideration. But, I am interested in what others think and maybe pick up a name or two for my TBR list.
Well, I'm in my early 20s and I have no idea either.
DeleteMy focus is on classic literature. Breaking the rule right now with The Sympathiser, but it's an exception.
R.T.,
ReplyDeleteI'm looking forward to your postings on things Austen.
Oh Fred, don't be so negative about Emma. She has good intentions, and she can learn. The selfishness and officiousness will always be there, but she tries, and can learn, and will become better.
ReplyDeleteI do think Jane Fairfax deserves better, but I think Jane Austen's making a point there about the limited choice of a woman handsome, clever and not rich.
Di,
DeleteNot negative, realistic. It's all speculation anyway, but based on Austen's fine understanding of human behavior, I doubt she will change that much. W
We've seen numerous instances of Emma's efforts at reform, including her intention to be wise and never make any errors in judgement again, and those lasted maybe a half hour or so, if that long. No, I think Emma will keep on meddling until the day she dies, and if she doesn't, I think Mr. Knightly will be a bit disappointed. Her meddling seems to be part of her charm for him.
As for Jane, yes, I agree with you as both men and women had a very limited choices back then, especially those in the upper middle classes occupied by the Knightlys, the Fairfaxes, and the Woodhouses who did not live in a major urban center. Money means choices and opportunity for those people.
I have only read Emma once. Your comments make me want to read it again soon.
ReplyDeleteI think that Austen was a great psychologist. Perhaps she was trying to say something about people acting in their own best interests.
Brian Joseph,
DeleteOr what they mistakenly see as their own best interests? People aren't always the best judge of that, as we see in Austen's works, as well as in those of many other perceptive authors.
Now, now, now! You're being to harsh on poor Emma! She may not have gotten the husband she deserved but he, with his wisdom and maturity, was certainly the husband she needed to knock some common sense into her good, but young, misguided soul.
ReplyDeleteHe's not perfect either.
DeleteAt the beginning Knightley's rather unkind to Harriet, I'd say. Later he learns.
Sharon,
DeleteI don't think I'm being too harsh on her, but I do agree that Emma got the husband she needed. I'm just thinking of Mr. Knightly who could have done better. The same situation is true of Jane and Frank, only reversed.
Di,
DeleteNo, Knightly is not perfect.
He does judge Harriet a bit harshly, and he was jealous of Frank Churchill, which also affected his judgement about Frank prematurely, although at the end, I think he was overly generous to Frank. That, of course, was after Emma consented to marry him, which also may have affected his judgement, a bit.
Yes, go read Emma. It's Jane Austen's finest work.
ReplyDeleteTim,
ReplyDeleteI have two favorites. One is Mansfield Park because of the complexities of the plot and its well defined characters. The characters also are more complex.
The other top favorite is Persuasion, primarily because of its tone, which seems to me to be more adult in its treatment of the characters and of the plot. Anne, along with Elinor in S&S, are the two most mature heroines in Austen's works. By the way, Sense and Sensibility would rank next after the two I've mentioned. As you can see, my preferences are for Austen's more reserved heroines.
In fiction, I generally don't read Westerns or romances.