The fine art of transforming siblings into bookworms. . .

I am so proud of my little sister! Grace - 12 years old - recently finished reading Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South. She had never read anything this heavy or challenging before, but she made it, with no problems! (The fact that I had said she could watch N&S for the first time after - and only after - she'd read the book, probably egged her on a bit, too. ;-).

Inspired by her achievement, she is now reading Jane Eyre! And yes, I said that she had to read the book before she could watch the series. ;-) I stopped short of making Naomi read Bleak House before she watched it - I still haven't read Bleak House myself, so it would perhaps have slightly hypocritical of me. . .

Congratulations, Grace! (Read her review of N&S here.)

Other news: my 15-year-old brother is *finally* reading The Lord of the Rings! (And loving it, needless to say!) I've been trying to get him to read LOTR for years! I can't wait to watch the movies again - with my brother, for the first time! - when he finishes.

And. . . I'm making a Janeite of my two-year-old sister. No harm starting early, eh? "Mr. Darcy" - her name for P&P 1995 (you gotta admit, "Pride and Prejudice" is bit of a mouthful, especially for a two-year-old) is already one of her favourite movies. She squeals out "Oooh, look, it's Missar Darcy!" whenever he comes onscreen, and whenever there's dancing, she gets up and jumps and dances around the room! 

And I shouldn't close without mentioning what was perhaps the single greatest triumph of my literary life - getting my teenage brother to read Pride and Prejudice. (He liked it, too!) I'm telling you, it warmed the cockles of my book-loving heart.

PS - of course the title for this post was tongue-in-cheek. The love of books - as with all kinds of love - cannot be forced, though it can be nurtured and encouraged.

Friday Caption Contest

And the winner is. . . Elisabeth! Congratulations!

"Strictly in confidence of course, my dear!"

Please feel free to put one of these buttons on your blog if you wish:

~~~~~

And now, time for this weeks picture:

Elizabeth Bennet (Keira Knightley) and Mr. Collins (Tom Hollander), Pride & Prejudice 2005

Remember, you can enter as many different captions as you like.

Friday Caption Contest

Mrs. Bennet the centre of attention (Pride and Prejudice 1995).

Comment away! Remember, you can enter as many captions as you like.

Aussie readers: P&P on TV

95% of my readers have probably seen it, but just in case you wanted to watch it again (and you happen to live in Australia), Pride and Prejudice 1995 will be on TV every Sunday night for the next few weeks, so you can get your P&P fix. :P It'll be on at 7:30pm on ABC2, starting this Sunday (6th Dec.).

Top 10 Austen adaptations: #7

~No. 7 - Pride and Prejudice 1995~

Hoo boy. . . where to start? By now you're probably all aware that this isn't my favourite P&P and that, shockingly, Colin Firth is not my favourite Mr. Darcy. :P So I'll try not to make comparisons between the different versions of P&P, and instead just write down some of my thoughts on this particular adaptation.

One of the most obvious positives about this production is its length - some 5 hours. This is the only version that includes almost all of the characters and plot points from the book. But, on the other hand, some of my favourite dialogue from the book still didn't manage to find its way in. In fact, there are snippets of dialogue from the book that are included in the 2 hour 2005 adaptation, but not this version! But I said I wasn't going to make comparisons. . . oops. 

I think the major reason why this adaptation is so popular (besides Colin Firth), is the way that it has been subtly modernised and contemporized. It appeals to both die-hard Janeites and fans of contemporary romantic comedies. Jennifer Ehle's Lizzy is easy for the modern woman to relate to - she's outspoken, intelligent, and not easily intimidated. She could almost be a feisty, modern heroine simply transplanted into 19th century society. The dialogue is distinctly early-19th-century, and yet it's delivered in such a way as to make it understandable and engaging for modern audiences. This was the series that made people realise that period drama - and specifically Jane Austen - needn't be stuffy or "boring"!

There's no denying the fun and charm of P&P 95. The acting is good, and there's great chemistry between all of the actors. As a series, it just works so well. As a truly faithful translation of Pride and Prejudice, it doesn't succeed as well. Not to my mind, anyway.

I thought that about 80% of the actors were miscast - including the two leads, Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. As someone who grew up watching P&P 95, when I read the book for the first time, the thing that struck me most was how different all the characters were from the miniseries. Colin Firth wasn't so very bad, but Ehle in particular didn't seem to be at all like the Lizzy from the book - not only in appearance, but in voice, manner, even in personality. Many of the characters were played as caricatures - Jane Austen doesn't write caricatures, she doesn't exaggerate.  

I didn't like all the choices that Andrew Davies made when writing the script. (LOL, here I am, whingeing about Andrew Davies once again. . . ) The choice to flesh out Darcy's character by inventing new scenes was an interesting one, but I'm not convinced that it worked. You lose all of the suspense of the plot by knowing what Darcy is thinking and doing. Jane Austen almost always writes from the heroine's perspective - and the suspense of the story usually comes from not knowing what the hero's feelings or intentions are until the very end of the novel.

But beyond these two complaints, there's something else that bothers me about the 1995 P&P that is more difficult to define. Perhaps it's just that my vision of the novel doesn't line up with the one presented in this adaptation?

Pride and Prejudice 1995 is, in my opinion, a good example of a literary adaptation following the letter of the novel, without capturing its spirit, its essence (to use a horribly cliched phrase). Even though it may seem a faithful adaptation, something about it just isn't right. I know many people consider it to be the definitive adaptation of the novel, but I can never regard it as such.

But, having said all that, it is still an essential part of my DVD collection, and something to enjoy watching with my family over and over again. :-) I don't dislike this version - I like it! I just can't think of it as the definitive P&P.

One piece of trivia to finish - did you know that Jennifer Ehle/Lizzy is a natural blonde, and had to wear a wig for the part? Or that Colin Firth is a natural redhead, and had to dye his hair dark? Hmm, a blonde Lizzy and a ginger Darcy - no wonder there seemed to be something wrong with P&P 95. :P Just joking, of course. . . 

Voluntary readers of Dickens: an endangered species?

Matthew MacFadyen as Arthur Clennam (Little Dorrit)

I've been flipping through a book I found at the library today - The Friendly Dickens, a sort of "Dickens for Dummies". In putting this book together, the author interviewed numerous critics, actors, and Dickens aficionados. Something that seemed to be coming through in some of the interviews, and even some of the author's own comments, was the belief that ardent fans of Dickens' novels are becoming a rare breed. The consensus seemed to be that the majority of devoted readers of Dickens are 50+, and that unless children and young adults are made to read Dickens in school, "they'll probably never read him at all" (see p. 369).

Claire Foy as Amy Dorrit (Little Dorrit)

Is this true to your own experience? Is this what you have observed? I don't have a lot of friends my own age who I know in person - the majority of my friends are online friends! And since internet users tend to congregate into different groups depending on their interests, most of my online friends are bookworms like myself - many of them are also Dickens fans. - Therefore, even though it may seem to me that a lot of younger people are still reading and enjoying Dickens today, this probably isn't an accurate reflection of the rest of society. . .

This scene always makes me cry. :-( (Bleak House)

It deeply saddens me to think that most of my generation may never read any Dickens or any of the other great novelists of the 19th century for their own pleasure. Just the thought of it makes me want to go out and "preach the gospel" of Dickens, trying to get as many people as possible to read his books! 

Do young adults feel that Dickens is irrelevant? Boring? Too long-winded? Honestly, I don't think children and teenagers have any trouble getting through long books if they have the inclination - just look at the Harry Potter books, for instance!

Bleak House 2005

Do bear in mind that the book I mentioned was published in 1998 - just before the recent slew of Dickens adaptations began, starting with Our Mutual Friend, and culminating in the BBC's two immensely popular series, Bleak House and Little Dorrit. Hopefully, all of these new Dickens adaptations will encourage people who normally wouldn't bother with Dickens to give his books a try. (I know this has certainly been the case with me!)

Darcymania. . . 

One only has to look at the 1995 adapation of Pride and Prejudice and the Austen revival that followed to see how just one really good TV or movie adaptation can have a domino effect on popular culture, bringing the works of a particular author into the spotlight. Do you think Bleak House has done this for Dickens? Are people (particular young adults and teens) finally starting to realise that Dickens' stories and characters are still very relevant (not to mention entertaining!) for us today? 

Pride and Prejudice poll results

The results are in! Thankyou everyone for voting!

~~~~~

P&P 2005 - 41 votes, 38% of total

P&P 1995 - 59 votes, 55%

P&P 1980 - 2 votes, 1%

P&P 1940 - 4 votes, 3%

It comes as no surprise that the BBC's 1995 adaptation reigns as the most popular version of Jane Austen's novel. In the end, though, the results were a good deal closer than I expected. For most of the time the poll was open, P&P '95 had about twice as many votes as the 2005 version. Just in the last few days, however, there have been a lot of votes for P&P '05, bringing it within 18 votes of P&P '95.

Once again, a big thanks to everyone who voted in this poll! This was such fun. In fact, I think think there'll be a new poll coming soon. . . any suggestions or ideas for a new poll?

Current Mood: Sleepy

Thoughts on re-reading P&P for the 2137th time

I've just finished reading Pride and Prejudice (again). I generally read it once or twice a year. It's one of those rare books that one can read over and over and over again, without ever tiring of it. (Well, I certainly never tire of it.) I gain something new, some fresh insight into some aspect of the novel, upon every re-read. Here are a couple of the things that struck me as I was reading it again over the past couple of days:

*I sometimes lost patience with Elizabeth. She is such a delighful heroine, it is very hard to be irritated by her. But this time, as I was reading, I tried as much as possible to see things from Darcy's perspective, rather than Elizabeth's. I couldn't help being a little frustrated with her when she misjudges and abuses Darcy.

*I realised just how "light and bright and sparkling" P&P really is. A couple of months ago, I re-read Sense and Sensibility. The atmosphere of S&S is, by comparison to P&P, almost dark and depressing - claustrophobic would be a good way to describe it, as Elinor and Marianne endure months of agony, and, eventually, heartbreak. Austen's wit is at its sharpest in S&S, but much of the irony comes from the speech and behaviour of very unpleasant personalities. The overall feel of Pride and Prejudice is much lighter and brighter.

*I was once again confirmed in my opinion that P&P 05 is, if not the best adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, certainly my favourite adaptation. I've recently watched both the 1995 and 2005 version again - which is actually what inspired me to re-read the book. Matthew MacFadyen is Fitzwilliam Darcy - for me, at least. - As I read, it was his voice coming off the page.

*With each re-read of Pride and Prejudice, I grow to like Darcy more and more. :-) I must join in the chorus of millions of females voices from all over the world - "Why can't there be more men like Mr. Darcy today!!" 

BTW - instead of reading my Penguin Classics copy of P&P, I borrowed a different edition from the library - it's an illustrated Dorling Kindersley edition, recently published. I found it to be quite good - it had many double-page spreads interspersed through the text, dealing with various aspects of Regency life, as well as footnotes explaining various words and phrases not in common use today.

Current Mood: Giggly

Pride and Prejudice poll!

Please vote! :-)

It is a truth universally acknowledged. . .

I have been sick with a cold these last few days, and haven't felt like doing much other than sitting down and watching Pride and Prejudice DVDs. (For all who weren't already aware, Jane Austen is the perfect antidote to a cold.) I've watched P&P'05 (the Matthew MacFadyen one) and P&P'95 (the Colin Firth one). And I've also been reading the book. This is the third time I've read Pride and Prejudice. Or is it the fourth? I can't remember. All the while, my mind has been busily engaged in trying to find the answer to that much-debated question: which is the best screen adaptation of Pride and Prejudice?

I still haven't decided which one is the best, but I do know which one I like the best. My favourite adaption of Pride and Prejudice is. . . (drum roll please!) P&P'05!! Here are a couple of my reasons for liking it better than any other version.

Firstly, the cast. I watched P&P'95 many times before I read the book. (I would probably have been around 10-12 years old when I read P&P for the first time.) When I finally did read the book, I found it difficult to reconcile Jane Austen's description of Elizabeth Bennet's character and appearance with Jennifer Ehle's depiction of Lizzy. Have a look at these lines from the book:

Mr Darcy had at first scarcely allowed her to be pretty... [however] he began to find that [her face] was rendered uncommonly intelligent by the beautiful expression of her dark eyes. To this discovery succeeded some others equally mortifying... he was forced to acknowledge her figure to be light and pleasing...

I don't know about you, but to me this seems to be describing a Keira Knightley-esque figure, and indeed to me Keira is and always will be Lizzy. She really did put in a wonderful performance. It earned her an Oscar nomination for best actress... she didn't win it. Reese Witherspoon won it.

I also have to admit that I prefer MacFadyen's Darcy over Colin Firth's. I know that His Royal Firthness has been idolised and adored by millions of females worldwide, but for some reason I just never "got" the whole Colin Firth thing. The thing is, I've grown up watching P&P'95. In 1995 I was just a tiny little thing. Colin Firth is about thirty years older than me, and so to me, he's always been like a sort of old uncle or an older brother or something like that, but never really 'crush' material. But anyway, as I was saying, I do actually prefer MacFadyen as Darcy. I've always been partial to blue eyes, so maybe that's what it is. ;-)

But I think it's in the supporting cast as well as the two lead roles where P&P'05 has the edge. Several of the characters in P&P'95 - especially Mrs Bennet, Mr Collins and Lady Catherine de Bourgh - seemed to have been over-acted, to the point where they almost seemed to become caricatures, stereotypes rather than real people. The portrayal of these characters in particular was, I thought, more natural and relaxed in P&P'05.

All of the cast seemed to meld together seamlessly. This is something that the actors talked about in video interviews on the DVD - that those who played the Bennets really did become like a family of sorts during shooting. I know that sounds dreadfully cliche, but watching the onscreen chemistry between all of the actors, one almost has to believe it!

The other thing I wanted to highlight was the 'look' and 'feel' of the film.

The director of P&P'05, Joe Wright, would have been used to working with minuscule budgets and making the most of what he had, so when he was finally given the opportunity to make P&P'05, his first cinematic release, you can imagine what the result was bound to be. Breathtaking, stunningly beautiful scenes rich in detail. The scene of the Ball at the Assembly Rooms near the beginning of the film is a good example of what I'm talking about.

Masses of people dancing, talking, eating and drinking. It's an assault on the senses - the music, the heat, the smell - it does manage to convey the thrill and excitement the young Bennet sisters would have felt. (Of course we don't actually feel the stifling heat or smell anything, but the movie makes us imagine that we do - that's the whole point.)

The setting for film is the late 18th century. This is around the same time Austen wrote the first version of Pride and Prejudice, First Impressions, in 1796-7. Most other screen adaptions of the novel have been set in the 1810s, the time when P&P was finally published in 1813.

The variance in historical period is noticeable particularly in the costumes. In 1797, the empire line had only just begun its period of domination of women's fashion. Caroline Bingley wears wears high-waisted empire line dresses, the latest fashion from London. Most of the other female characters, however, wear dresses with lower waists. Also, compare the clothes and short hairdos of Darcy and Bingley with the more out-of-date outfits worn by many of the other men. And also the hairstyles of Lady Catherine de Bourgh and Mrs Gardiner - it's definitely the 18th century!

P&P'05 gives a much dirtier, grittier, and more down-to-earth picture of the world in which the Bennet family lived. I know that this has become a bit of a cliche, but in this instance I think the film really did capture the 'spirit' of the book.

One review at ChristianityToday.com sums it up nicely by likening P&P'95 to a beautifully detailed portrait of the Bennet family and P&P'05 to a dazzlingly colourful impressionist painting, beautiful in it's own right. (For the record, Christianity today also included P&P'05 in it's list of the 10 Most Redeeming Films of 2005. They even put together a Bible study for it!)

You can read some more Christian reviews of Pride and Prejudice here, here, here, here, and here.

But what do you think? Which is you're favourite adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, and why?