Thursday, April 30, 2009

"Are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted?"

I have come across a couple of items which, I am sure, would cause Jane Austen to roll in her grave.

The first:

"This is one of Marvel's first attempts to woo a mostly female readership, and if all goes well, you might be looking forward to more romance-driven Marvel Illustrated books."

Because we all know that Jane Austen fans and comic book readers are one and the same. However, I can appreciate Marvel's desire to increase their fan base, especially those of the female persuasion. What I can not appreciate is their portrayal of any of the characters--especially those who look as though they had just stepped off the set of Dallas. And really? Does the cover need to look like the front of Cosmopolitan? Gag me with a spoon.

The second travesty regarding all things Austen comes in the form of a novel:

I am currently listening to this book. It was one of the few titles that sounded interesting and was available to download through my library. However, it makes my ears bleed as well as offend all of my Austen sensibilities.

I am convinced that the author never even read Pride and Prejudice. Instead, she saw a cash cow in anything Austen related, gave a cursory glance of the novel to pick out the main characters and their relationships, and then wrote a very poor regency novel.

At present, I am one-fifth of the way through the novel, and so far, I have issues with Ms. McCullough on the following points:

1. Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy is called Fitz throughout the novel. Obviously, Ms. McCullough has a very poor grasp on the main male character if she thinks he would allow anyone to call him Fitz.

2. Elizabeth and Darcy are not happily married, and really never have been happily married. Sure, I can foresee a scenario where Elizabeth and Darcy would have rough patches in their marriage but to be so completely unhappy from the very beginning when it was so obvious from the book that would not be the case?

3. Darcy has basically assaulted Elizabeth to bring about their 5 children. Because, of course, Darcy is an inherently violent person, as seen in the original text. *eyebrow raised in disdain and disgust*

4. Darcy abhors his son because he is not "man" enough. I.e. he prefers books and study to the military. Again, there is nothing in the original novel that indicates AT ALL Darcy's preference for military pomp over serious study. In fact, if that were the case, I doubt he would have such a well stocked library (which IS mentioned in the book.)

5. Bingley treats Jane as a perpetual breeding machine and doesn't know when to "put a cork in it," to quote the novel. Again, the deference that Bingley shows to Jane in the original novel couldn't possibly transfer to all aspects of their relationship. Oh no. Regency men are all the same.

6. And really, is all this sex talk/inuendo really appropriate for a Pride and Prejudice "sequel." I don't think so.

We will see if I actually make it through the rest of the book. Perhaps I will, if only to complete my scathing review of what is obviously a waste of good paper.


Janssen said...

Oh my heavens. I . . . am shocked. That second book? How awful.

yola said...

Good thing I didn't get you the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies book for your birthday...

Lady Susan said...

Janssen--I KNOW! I was shocked and appalled! And Mr. Darcy's characters continues to get villified as the book progresses. Like Elizabeth would have ignored THAT red flag?

Yola--I am slightly curious about the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies book. However, I am really enjoying the choose your own Austen adventure book. However, the first time around the story was quite short--I took a wrong turn, got disfigured by gypsies, and led a very sad, and lonely life as a spinster. :( I know, tragic.

yola said...

Ha! Well sometimes that does happen in life...


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...