Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Jane Austen Must Die!

By Jennifer Armstrong, Sirens Magazine. Posted November 30, 2007.


There is more to female characters than the Jane Austen paradigm.
Advertisement

Want to sell your book or your screenplay? Of course you do! And lucky you -- I'm going to tell you how, right now, free of charge: Put the words Jane Austen in the title.

In the past few years, in particular, we've been assaulted by the beloved 19th century British authoress' name with startling regularity at the multiplex and the bookstore: The Jane Austen Book Club, a good, if chicklitty, novel, followed by a film version; Becoming Jane, a pretty much made-up, highly idealized look at the romantic life of the writer that was a book and then a movie; the novel Confessions of a Jane Austen Addict; pretty much annual movie adaptations and readaptations of her works (including an admittedly stunning Pride & Prejudice, starring Keira Knightley two years back). Oh, and don't think we're done yet: There are Clueless and Bridget Jones' Diary, two modern masterpieces modeled on Austen works, all the way down to lazy how-to books that slap her name onto the cover to legitimize their existence -- The Jane Austen Handbook, Jane Austen's Guide to Dating, Jane Austen's Guide to Good Manners.

We're overwhelmed by versions of heroines who are a touch feisty but always, in the end, well-behaved, and, god knows, assuaged by the locating of The Right Man. I'm as much a sucker for Elizabeth Bennett as Mr. Darcy is, but centuries later, is this the best we can do as a model of womanhood to continue regurgitating?

The closest we've come to making her more "modern," more human, is to add a few pounds and an amusing trifle of a drinking problem and call her Bridget Jones. Men have grown up reading about the exploits of fictionalized versions of Hemingway and Kerouac, drinkers and womanizers who didn't always learn valuable lessons or warm people's hearts but somehow still offered plenty of insights into what it means to be male. (Imagine a book called "Confessions of an Ernest Hemingway Addict" or Sal Paradise reinvented as a popular Beverly Hills high schooler. No one would dare.)

Those men's seminal works, in fact, addressed, at their cores, what it's like not just to be men, but to be human. And to be clear, that's not because men are naturally better at writing universal characters -- it's because male characters are simply more freely allowed to be messed up. Thus they're the ones who become the classics, the ones who show us what life really has to offer to the flawed among us (read: all of us). Try telling someone your favorite author of all time is Kerouac, then tell someone it's Austen. See the different reactions you'll get, even though, for all my carping here, Austen was supremely talented. It's not her fault she became apparently the only female author worth worshipping as a lifestyle. ("Virginia Woolf's Guide to Dating," anyone?)

God knows we've progressed in so many ways, but even though women are the clear majority of readers, we still, apparently, allegedly, don't like our female protagonists to have faults -- any of real consequence, anyway. Honest memoirs about real women's real sexual adventures (like Cindy Guidry's forthcoming The Last Single Woman in America ) are dinged as "tawdry" in some reviews. Meanwhile zaftig-narrator-confronts-minor-problems books have pretty much formed their own subgenre of chicklit because, of course, overweight = relatable flaw that women can handle. If you're wondering why Sex and the City continues its stranglehold on the entire female population of America -- we have -- it's simply because it's one of the few major pop-culture touchstones that come close to depicting stuff we've actually gone through, even though it still makes a lot of us squeamish to admit it. And if those still wildly unrealistic Manolo-wearing, movie star-dating, dirty-talking girls are the closest our culture can stand to get to our reality, we haven't come very far at all, baby.

Even more interesting is the fact that while the chicklit craze has retreated demurely into piles of cheap, powder pink paperbacks, women have -- thanks to Carrie Bradshaw, et al., perhaps -- started coming into their own on TV. Summer brought us some delightfully devious female anti-heroes (most memorably, Glenn Close in Damages), and a slew of "Sex and the City" knockoffs are arriving later this season (or at least they're slated to, though nothing's sure now with TV writers striking). Yes, it can get grating to watch wealthy people whine about their love lives over endless martinis. But there is at least the whiff of truth to some of the women's struggles -- one of the hotties in ABC's Cashmere Mafia even has a real, live relationship with a woman (not a one-off kiss for ratings or even a Samantha-style I've-tried-everything-else affair). ABC, in fact, seems to have decided straight men are a lost cause as an audience after its blockbuster success with TV's girliest (Grey's Anatomy), gayest (Ugly Betty), and girliest-and-gayest (Desperate Housewives) shows, and in marketing to us has actually stumbled upon some genuine, multidimensional chicks. "Housewives," despite various missteps along the way, became a phenomenon by taking some of the most traditionally female archetypes, mixing them with Douglas Sirk-like subversiveness and making them wonderfully human. Grey's Anatomy creator Shonda Rhimes is so adept at writing flawed women that even though the show's message boards flame with (well-founded) hatred for the main female characters this season -- I've blogged some of the complaints myself -- yet clearly those bitching are still watching, rapt, every week.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: media, austen, chick lit, female

Jennifer Armstrong is the co-founder/editorial director of SirensMag.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Sherri Tepper
Posted by: bookie on Nov 30, 2007 12:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you like science fiction, and you want to see some strong female characters, Sherri Tepper is a good place to start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sherri Tepper Posted by: polyquat50
» RE: Sherri Tepper Posted by: bookie
» Female Characters Posted by: BenCaxton12
» RE: Female Characters Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Female Characters Posted by: bookie
» Octavia Butler Posted by: Kym525
At your service Your Lordship!
Posted by: strahlungsamt on Nov 30, 2007 3:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in Jane Austen's day, women sat in the Drawing Room, playing the piano and doing embroidery and had only one goal in life: to find and marry His Lordship. Everything those women did in their lives revolved around getting the prize husband with the manor and the horses and all the rest of it.

Meanwhile, the Feminist movement happened. Today women have all sorts of opportunities they never had before: they can go to college, have a career, choose to marry or stay single, sleep with multiple partners without consequence, divorce, inherit etc. All things unimaginable in the 19th century.

Yet today I see more and more women and young girls jumping back into this romantic fantasy. Every guy is a potential knight on a white horse (another 19th century invention) who will marry them and buy a house and a car and have kids together while she makes no effort on here own part to strive for anything. At least in Jane Austen's time, women had an excuse, they couldn't do anything else. Today it's just laziness.

Is this what the Feminist movement has achieved?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: At your service Your Lordship! Posted by: VannaLaRoche
Jane Austen - World's Greatest Screenwriter
Posted by: US Citizen on Nov 30, 2007 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You say that female protagonists in Jane Austen novels are not allowed to have major faults. This is true of the main protagonist in each novel whether it be Elizabeth Bennett in Pride and Prejudice or Eleanor Dashwood in Sense and Sensibility. But all the other female characters besides the main characters have plenty of faults, especially the younger sisters and friends of the family. These other females are always too impetuous or infatuated or deceitful to keep their eyes on the prize which is always some dull middle-aged man with at least a 2000 pound a year retainer.
I'm a male, and I love Jane Austen, but also get infuriated at her world view. I do think she is the world's greatest screen writer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well put, Jennifer
Posted by: Urstrly on Nov 30, 2007 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Jane Austen were alive today, she'd probably be a fundamentalist Christian. Funny you don't see many of those on tv dramas these days, because if they were portrayed uncritically, they'd lose half their audience (me included) and if they were portrayed negatively, they'd lose the other half. Mass market can't touch the complexity of American life today. I miss the Sopranos and its complicated female characters already; Sex and the City was getting a little stale, but the point is both shows were on HBO.

A feminist ought to engage the issues of her time, which means not obsessing exclusively about relationships when the society in which she lives is coming apart. That's why I was happy to see Doris Lessing get the Nobel, and I read everything Margaret Atwood publishes. Could it be that their citizenship in a diminished British empire forced them to think about how passion and politics often intertwine? The American Jane Smiley can go there, and so can Lionel Shriver, who divides her time between the UK and the US. And, of course, there's Toni Morrison, who is political simply by laying out our history and isn't afraid of the erotic.

The NY Times Best Books of 2007 list came out yesterday, and there wasn't a single novel by a woman on it. In Jane Austen's day, that wouldn't have been a surprise, but today it ought to be a scandal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Well put, Jennifer Posted by: aahb21
» RE: Well put, Jennifer Posted by: astockton
» not true Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: Well put, Jennifer Posted by: pfinerty
» get over your slanted point of view Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» well, that was misplaced criticism Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
JANE AUSTIN, A VACATION FOR THE FEMALE BRAIN
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 30, 2007 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole way of life borders on comical and I find it to be a break from responsibility and being productive and useful. Like Sex & The City it's just fun. I don't read much into it, just get some laughs. I don't see how any woman with a real life could see her self in any of these situations as a way of life. Maybe women just take it all too seriously, men do not. No guy really thinks he's a Hollywood hero & stud. Maybe women try too hard. Time to lighten up. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» another well-made point, anna Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Oh Puh-Leeze, This is a Stupid Argument
Posted by: Kym525 on Nov 30, 2007 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And too typical of white middle-class feminists who don't have anything else better to do. No wonder no one takes this movement seriously anymore and why we're losing the hearts and minds of young women and women of colour.

I adore Jane Austen and I am an ardent feminist, which is why I'm stepping up to the plate on her behalf. I read her the way I have always read her--as a glimpse into a past that in spite of all the strictures, a love between two people who actually have a high regard for each other manages to flourish in spite of the machinations of others. Had Ms. Austen wanted to "sell out", then it would have been the sickly Anne deBourgh who would have ended up as Mrs. Darcy--after all, they were from the same social class.

If you knew anything about Ms. Austen and the times she lived in, then you'd know she was unmarried and a published woman author--both of which were considered scandalous. All three Bronte sisters had to publish their works under masculine psuedonyms--and it caused quite the scandal when the public found out that the passionate 'Wuthering Heights' was indeed written by a woman.

So NO--she would not have been a fundamentalist Christian. Let's lay that asinine statement to rest right now.

Of course Austen is popular, but so are heavily erotic romance novels that leave nothing to the imagination. Women are reading and writing all over the board these days--and just because it's not featured in the New York Times doesn't negate that fact. Besides, there have always been strong female characters in the speculative/science-fiction and fantasy genres. One poster named Sherry S. Tepper. There's also Marion Zimmer Bradley (who's Mists of Avalon I consider one of the greatest literary works of the latter 20th century); Jacqueline Lichtenberg, Octavia Butler (and how many of you supposed "feminists" have ever read 'Kindred' or 'Parable of the Sower'--oh wait, she's BLACK), as well as Anne McCaffrey.

I have always viewed Lizzie Bennett as one of the first female characters who knew her own mind--an early feminist in her own way. Unlike many young women of her day, she didn't simper over Mr. Darcy and frankly gave him the perfect set down because of his arrogance. That fact alone was enough to have matchmaking mamas in that time period decrying Austen's heroine as being 'a bluestocking'.

Okay, so Hollywood is rediscovering Ms. Austen. Compared to much of the dreck they keep foisting off on the public, I think it's a step up. Besides, it's not Lizzie most women are there to see. Frankly, I just like looking at a hot Mr. Darcy in those tight trousers and Hessian boots...oh baby!!! *fans self*. Then again, realistically speaking, why the bloody hell does anyone expect Hollywood to do anything that's not directly related to profit?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Amen sister Posted by: jbur816
Jane Austen=Entertainment
Posted by: jbur816 on Nov 30, 2007 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lighten up people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a curmudgeonly heretic.
Posted by: ankhet on Nov 30, 2007 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I adore historical fiction, male or female authored unless... I loved the EAgle and the Raven, Child of the Morning. Mists of Avalon drove me nuts because of all the endless discussion. I can't bear Austen(NOT a criticism of her skill at all)because her concerns are too limited to a specific social class. I can't stand Sex and the city, Desperate Housewivews, or Bridget Jones! The Housewives are pathetic cartoons, and Bridget isn't much more herself.
The endless discussions, nattering over intentions, etiquette, real motives, fashion, sex, food, diets, exercise, makeup, hair-hey, aren't women's magazines doing the same prefab marketing swill month after month already? yawn.yawn.yawn - yapyapyap - empty - who's offended or happy or doing it now gossip - the repetitive and boring settings in a pathetically tiny world of shops, malls, restaurants, the sausage factory or romantic scenarios - yuk. Please! It's more like the female version of American Psycho. Their worlds are too narrow and trivial. Give me a book or a story where a woman actually DOES or ACCOMPLISHES something - then I'd be interested in her inner monologue or her interactions. Give me something to admire besides her "attractiveness" or her choice of Prada over Chanel. Again, these modern heroines come from a narrow slice of society, as in Austen. Give me a heroine who's a pirate, a politician, a royal, a scientist, an axe-murderer ...something with some layers and complexity, with some real conflict, a good plot, and some meat on its bones, not this monthly magazine story insert posing as literature. I had hoped Ugly Betty was better, and in a lot of ways it was, but it can't get away from the basic assumptions either. so it's off my list too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Child of the Morning Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Child of the Morning Posted by: ankhet
» RE: Child of the Morning Posted by: bookie
"...what it's like not just to be men, but to be human"
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 30, 2007 12:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a male, I figured I was tredding in forbidden territory from the title of this piece. Glad I dared to take a peek.

I know it is addressed to women, so I will not presume to address the issues. But if you have not seen "Volver," it's a universal movie with an all women lead cast. It has the kind of characters Ms. Armstrong suggests--all strong but in four different ways. Lots of room for me, as a male, to identify--and not just myself, but a bunch of people I've known well.

My middle-aged daughter belongs to a small film club. I have made the suggestion she use "Volver" next time she gets to host. (Must it be "hostess"?) Should dear old dad's suggestions still carry any weight, I am looking forward to the local reviews.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cultural garbage
Posted by: ArtemInox on Nov 30, 2007 6:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's what a lot of people really need to hear. If you take your cues about life, get your ideas, attitudes and approaches to every day life from Books. Music. Magazines. TV.....so called pop culture *shudder*. You really need to wake up and invest some time in getting a personality of your own, some experience in the real world, and try to find some depth and meaning in your very own life that is lived every day.

Entertainment. That's it, that's all it is. If someone can get inspiration from it, great. Turn it into something real for yourself.

Fiction and pop culture is not what's happening. It isn't profound, meaningful, deep, important, or worth investing a lot of thought and time in. No. Clever quotations and quips are the mark of a shallow, unimaginative and usually petty ego. Think up your own f'ing material.
http://www.addictedtoaggravation.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Cultural garbage Posted by: mr. joshua
» pfft! Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Nor is it
Posted by: ArtemInox on Nov 30, 2007 6:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
any sort of indication or reflection about any new trends or ways of thinking. It is...marketing, posturing, manipulated perception and spin. Don't believe the hype.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sal Paradise
Posted by: EJ on Nov 30, 2007 7:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine a book called "Confessions of an Ernest Hemingway Addict" or Sal Paradise reinvented as a popular Beverly Hills high schooler. No one would dare.

The author has obviously never read fan fiction...almost any character can be "reinvented" as a popular high school student. Just get young adolescents interested, and the (often bad) reinventions will follow.

Yes, I know that fan fiction isn't considered literature, but there's a lot of it out there, showing an amazing amount of imagination, if not always talent. Even if the professional writers might have a hard time getting their "reinventions" published, the amateurs (good writers and bad) can find endless places to post their stories and endless numbers of people to read them. Take a look at FanFiction.net for reinventions of just about any character you can think of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Winnie The Pooh must die!
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Dec 2, 2007 8:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hasn't that fat furry fuck heard about all the beehive colonies collapsing?

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Winnie The Pooh must die! Posted by: first wave bluestocking
Commercializing Jane
Posted by: first wave bluestocking on Dec 2, 2007 9:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems every concept with a Jane Austen basis has been sold, but I have yet to see an adaptation that unites with my perspective of her writing. Light-hearted, good-naturedly sarcastic, and with characters who have a detailed history explaining why they are the way they are. The romantic realism (to me, at least) is preferrable to the hormonal passion I read about in Emily or Charlotte Bronte's novels, which are beautifully poetic, but somehow not quite as popular as Austen. It seems that no adaptation stresses sense or real love over selfish, thoughtless passion. It is just entertainment, but I wouldn't invest so much time reading for entertainment alone. Self-evaluation is easier when we see characters in similar predicaments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pooh on Ms. Armstrong
Posted by: elliemarie on Dec 3, 2007 3:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems our columnist has equated the devolution of our societal mores with the complex relationships in Regency England that Ms. Austen so cleverly depicts. Yes, Austen's novels beg for modern adaptations, and there have been, along with good ones, poor ones.

But take her writing for what it is, and you'll find gems. Think of Eleanor’s altruism, her undaunted love for her weaker, fooled and foiled-in-love sister, Marianne, in Sense and Sensibility.

Admittedly, I never liked Austen to begin with, but over time she grew on me, and as a subjective observer, I fell in love with her heroines, particularly "Ann" of Persuasion, who is nothing like the malformed caricatures that Hollywood (a la “Desperate Housewives” and the seedy rest) has made of them.

Jane is insightful at the very least, and I daresay it isn’t her fault that, centuries later, angry chicks like Armstrong assign Austen as the root cause of our trashiest modern moments in television, books, and movies. It'd be a pity to dismiss Austen on the grounds that she is somehow “ruining” our sense of reality. If only half of us knew reality as Austen did, we might be half aware that most of us look for love in all of the wrong places, and sometimes end up in obsessive, perhaps abusive, relationships because of it.

Poor Jane is probably rolling in her grave at the saccharine treatment so-called “literary” adaptors have given to her novels. Jane's ouvre is and never will be perfect, but, to her credit, she amiably refrains from glorifying what poorer wits do when they pit syrupy, sex-crazed women (I’m thinking Carrie of Sex and the City) against men who are feline and feeble at best…and at worst, charlatans who wouldn’t know what chivalry was if it hit them over the head like some blazing, Pauline revelation.

Live on Jane! And, may every woman find at least some trace of Captain Wentworth, some pulse that beats like the repentant Darcy, in her own lover’s soul!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kind of harsh aint you?
Posted by: kkmedia1 on Dec 24, 2007 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
online casinos USA | leather jackets The essential one-step product for Il migliore Casino Online complete leather care. URAD NEUTRAL buy cigarettes |brings back and revives the original buy diamond earings color and is remarkable buy cigarettes online |leather and fur is always great leathers to casino bonus |mint condition. Also, it offers efficient casino and poker no problems, Casino Online casino and poker no problems. Whether used as a simple shoe polish, as a cleaner for golf shoes or as a online casino gambling Online Casino Games
das beste internet casino best internet casino best online casinos casino spielen | blog for all | conditioner for Best Online Casinos leather and fur is always greatblog for all |car interior, URAD will surpass Das beste casino | any other product as to ease of use, dry time and leather and fur is always great on leather furniture and saddles, and URAD COLOR to bring a Das beste casino | better shine and hide scuff marks play bingo online casino and poker no problems.
online Casino bonus | Livonia transmission repair shop Michigan | Online Casino Gambling leather and fur is always great casino links and casino and poker no problems on we also have online casino links and more like cigarette links exchange always great| tamiflu, viagra, cialis buy tamiflu, viagra, buy cialis | pharmacy links | link directory, free link exchange | Online Casino United States | online casino US players leather and fur is always great judaica, kotel, menora | Casino Bonus Code | free casino bonus

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]