Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

It’s also the least helpful review I’ve read in a while.  So it’s a bit light—did anyone think it was dark and heavy?  Seriously, folks.  I think I knew Anne Hathaway starred in it, already, and that it was about a fictional love affair (although JA may have had love affairs, she died alone). I wanted to know if the historical accuracy was okay, or if the acting was even good, or if the plot made sense, or if the movie was worth seeing.  I bet the one-paragraph review in Entertainment Weekly was better.  Did she actually see the movie? 

I guess I’m saying that I could have written that review (had I felt like being snarky) from seeing the preview on TV.  I thought a review in something like Salon would have been a little more in-depth.

And my verification word is extent92: as in, the extent of her review was terrible.

OK, my country snob rears it’s chicken feed flecked head and thinks “Why is it that people this stupid think they are so smart?”

Cuz they writes fer some big’ole citified E-zine!  Dats wuh! Only smurt folks lik dem can understand’um!

Sheesh----My only regret that it isn’t a printed mag is that I can’t let the rooster poop on it.

[Quote from Chalcedony] I propose that Zacharek, Rebecca T., and other Slate writers critical of so-called genre fiction read and review 2-3 (single-title, non-series) books in each genre, all published within the last two years. If Zacharek argues that she is a film ,not literary critic, she should in her movie reviews refrain from making comparisons to and comments about entire literary genres. [End Quote]

The comments against the review seem to boil down to: “Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes.  Only then do you have the right to pass judgment.” Perhaps the reviewer forgot this lesson that is usually taught in elementary school.  It goes hand-in-hand with the (modified) Golden Rule: “if you don’t have anything nice to say, only say it if you can justify it logically and coherently without personal attacks.” *g*

You are hardly dizzy yourself and I don’t own a label maker although I do have labels, a pen and a husband with neat handwriting. I, of course, aspire to Become Sarah.  Or SB Sarah.

I read the reviewer loving Austen and despising the pulpy mass marketization of her beloved icon.  To the reviewer, Austen is so far above the current slate of genre fiction that the worst insult she could give was to compare the movie and the dramatization to a romance novel.  And not just any romance novel, but the dreaded Sheik/Mistress romance novel.

Of course, like Poison Ivy smartly pointed out, the reviewer lacks sufficient knowledge of the romance genre to given a meaningful smackdown.  Instead she employs what she finds most distasteful as she “struggles, in obvious ways, for authenticity.”

So… going by what Chalcedony has to say about Spencer’s book (which served as inspiration/basis for the movie, if my reading comprehension serves for anything), then the movie has quite a bit of historical basis with a good dose of “what if”

Now I know I want to see it.

As for Salon? no credibility from way back, but going on the negative points with this.

(spampoiler: british36 --scary, I tellz u!)

Sure, I emailed SB Sarah about this review and the subsequent comments, but I’d like to point out the following:

1-It’s Salon Magazine, not Slate.
2-I’m fairly sure Stephanie was kidding about going to see movies to watch beautiful people.
3-I’ve always thought she is a really good reviewer and it’s been wonderful to be able to read movie reviews from a woman’s perspective.
4-Stephen Holden of the NYT’s also did a throwaway line about chick-lit and this movie, writing, “Like a modern chick-lit heroine, Jane has no interest in marrying a juiceless man...” Uh, Shakespeare’s heroines didn’t want to marry a juiceless man either.

I think reviewers make these remarks reflexively.  After reading Stephanie’s excellent reviews for years, I’d guess that she would be interested in hearing reasoned opinions from fans of genre fiction.

Hey I admit to not only reading romances but helping write them.

I can not and will not defend Harlequin from the derisive comments made in regards to the quality of their output. They deserve it so.

I mean NASCAR! Come on people, NASCAR romances! *heavy sigh*

Stephanie’s remarks maybe reflexive, but still wrong and ignorant.  And since when is a bigot forgiven bigotry based on ignorance?

And Teddy!  LAY OFF NASCAR!  If I was 20 years younger, I’d be all over Dale Jr.  I mean ALL OVER that puppy. ;)

As for Salon?  Piffle...totally useless to me. I usually take the opposite approach with movies--- if they hate it, I’d probably love it.

<

Good question.  I’ve faced bigotry all my life, so I would say “all the time.” Bigotry is usually the result of ignorance, of not being challenged to question those “accepted” norms.

You never convince a bigot to change his or her mind by attacking them.  (And I wouldn’t compare the invidiousness of racial bigotry to a dislike for reading material.) You can change their minds by treating them as people intelligent enough to recognize faulty logic, and by looking for common ground.

If they don’t get it after that, well, they can go to hell.  But I’d give them the chance first.

I was going to jump through hoops and do whatever cookie crumbling I needed to do on my security settings to read the rest of this article and the comments, but then I said, “Screw it.”

I’m tired of reading hackneyed attacks on romance novels.  I’m tired of everything with an ounce of sentiment being relegated to the trash heap of “Ooooh, housewives in polyester pants read this junk!”

I know who reads romance, I know how big a share of the market we have, and I’m not going to defend myself anymore against those who think they alone are the arbiters of literature.

Anyone who liked that excreble Keira Knightley Pride and Prejudice is not someone whose opinion on anything Austen should be taken seriously. Particularly when her complaint is “lack of authenticity”.

December Quinn, I think I love you.

I may have misunderstood Zacharek’s point (and the fact that I enjoy Salon might be coloring my view, as well), but I got the sense that Zacharek’s disappointment in Becoming Jane wasn’t directed against Romance novels or even the possibility of sex in Jane Austen’s life.  I got the sense that she felt the movie was pandering to a new consumer cult of Jane Austen that has basically transformed her into a chick lit/Romance novel heroine:

The problem with “Becoming Jane” is that it snaps all too snugly into a modern template of romance, instead of going to the trouble of imagining—since we’ve already acknowledged that imagining is what we’re doing here—what romance may have meant to the real Austen. . . .

I suppose “Becoming Jane” might have worked as a flight of fancy, if only it didn’t seem so calculated to cash in on the weird contemporary Austen-mania phenomenon, to grab a piece of the pie that’s already stuffed with “What would Jane knit?” tote bags and T-shirts emblazoned with the shamelessly self-promoting slogan “An Elizabeth in a Darcy-less World.” (I wish I were making this stuff up.)

Is the review taking a swipe at Romance, or more particularly at Harlequin?  Maybe.  If her point is that turning a flight of fancy about Austen’s life into a Harlequin is belittling in some way to Austen, then yes, I think it’s a slap.  If her point is that the point of turning Austen’s life into the stuff of a Romance novel is purely for the sake of commercial exploitation of Austen’s name and popular resurgence, maybe not.  Personally, I think it’s a little bit of both: 

But Hathaway—who still may, I believe, prove herself to be a very good actress—is stiff and awkward here, and I can’t believe it’s completely her fault. Her quivery lips and liquid brown eyes turn her into a romance-novel version of Jane Austen—which is, perhaps, what the imagined target audience of this movie wants to see.

I don’t think that arguing that Becoming Jane has turned Austen into a Romance novel heroine is necessarily condescending if the point is to say that she’s been converted from an interesting historical figure to a stereotype.  And the stereotypes do exist in Romance.  Is it condescending to the genre and to Harlequin to slap Harlequin on to every Romance novel reference in a dismissive way?  Yeah.  But do those titles and covers make it easy to see past the stereotypes for someone who doesn’t read the genre?  Harlequin uses the stereotypes to make money, too, completely outside the perfectly respectable work of authors who write for the line (and the genre as a whole).

I’m not going to read it. I’m tired of reading articles written by people who use knee-jerks and cliches to lump all of Romance into one big pile of mushy fluff. It’s lazy, it’s snooty and it’s inaccurate.

Apparently there’s more to the article that I cannot read, having issues on my browser (the ‘watch these ads and read more!’ isn’t showing up).  How lovely for me.  I get to look ignorant in front of everyone every time the comment window gets opened.  *pissed at self*

Apparently there’s more to the article that I cannot read, having issues on my browser (the ‘watch these ads and read more!’ isn’t showing up).  How lovely for me.  I get to look ignorant in front of everyone every time the comment window gets opened.  *pissed at self*

Do you get the words “NEXT” on the article after the first paragraph or so?  If you can see that, and click on it, you will get an advertisement, and eventually, another link to return to the salon site. 

Also, try this link:
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2007/08/03/becoming_jane/

When I Googled “Salon Becoming Jane,” I got a link to the whole review, not just the teaser page.  So if the link doesn’t work, try that, as well.  If all else fails, try a different browser.  I’m on Firefox, but when that doesn’t work, I go to Netscape or Safari and sometimes one works better than the other.

My fractured response: http://letters.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2007/08/03/becoming_jane/permalink/cefba0bc9e32d9a49746b5831686efea.html

I was not impressed before I read her review of the 2005 P&P, and then I was forced to wonder about how she got the job reviewing things that she has no basis for understanding. I would put money on her never having read Austen. Is it just me, or was that an attack on women who want a romantic ideal just as much (if not more) than the movie?

I wonder how she liked Shakespeare In Love?

Well, having read the full review (thanks, Robin—AdBlock was confusing me), my original comments don’t stand a whit.  Although she basically admits in a paragraph about the dances and the dresses that she isn’t an expert on Austen (and I see she liked the KK Pride and Prejudice—oh wow, because my mother hated it and I refused to see it on that principle) she still manages to imply that she’s a purist and then take pot-shots at everyone who enjoys movies that aren’t, you know, Citizen Kane.

It’s probably still best to ignore her.

I just went and posted.  Can I say one thing?  Those of you (well, not YOU you...but romance authors in general) who think they are defending the genre by throwing Harlequin authors under the bus...that’s just wrong.

Look, I know some of the books have stupid titles.  I wasn’t jumping for joy when my old Temptation was named BRAZEN & BURNING, but hey, I got a call my title needed to change while I was on a Tilt-A-Whirl (no lie) ride with my daughter and the decision had to be made and...whatever.  I wanted the title SLOW BURN, but Heather Graham already had it and tough luck for me.  A title does not make a book.  I’m sick and tired of the general public dissing romance because the powers that be can’t ignore the fact that books like THE COWBOY’S MISTRESS’S BABY sell a bazillion copies.  To then get slapped on the other butt cheek by single title authors who insist their books “aren’t like those little Harlequins” is just wrong.

Geez.

December, a very good friend of mine said that the Keira Knightly version of P&P was as if the writers got confused and thought Charlotte Bronte had written it instead of Jane Austen.  I thought that was a very accurate description.

I have to say that my respect for Anne Hathaway went up a notch (not that it was down in any way...I think she’s cool) when she said that in an interview that with respect to Laurence Olivier, Colin Firth owned Mr. Darcy.  Damn straight.

~I just went and posted.  Can I say one thing?  Those of you (well, not YOU you...but romance authors in general) who think they are defending the genre by throwing Harlequin authors under the bus...that’s just wrong.~

True and meaningful point, Julie.

I love eBook shopping and I was visiting eHarlequin last week…

Sheikh Surgeon, Surprise Baby
*I think it was, sorry I was laughing*

(Because we need to work the Shiekh romance with the Medical romance and throw in some Secret Baby action or something.)

or

NASCAR: Hearts Under Caution

I ran over to New Concept Publishing and bought something werewolfy.

Kalen, I have been tempted to say that exact thing to you numerous times. :-) So thanks!

I do agree, it’s time we stopped giving HQ authors the fuzzy size of the lollipop.

And yeah, Julie, that does make sense. All I know is I found the film charmless, boring, and ignorant of its source material and period.

Teddy Pig, just realize that the authors at Harlequin, particularly in certain lines, have very little say over their titles.  Don’t judge books by it.  Of course, if you want something werewolfy...unless it’s at Nocture...Harlequin isn’t the place to shop.

December, I’m not disagreeing.  I didn’t get through the first five minutes before I popped in my BBC version.

Thanks, Nora.  I figured if I really wanted to rant, this was the place.

with respect to Laurence Olivier, Colin Firth owned Mr. Darcy.  Damn straight.

With respect to Colin Firth, David Rintoul owned Mr. Darcy.

Julie,

I judge Harlequin by what I have bought and read. Hell, what my aunt bought too since I read those when I was like 13.

You would not like what I can show you anymore than I enjoyed reading it.

I think Swan Hats wearing authors will give romance as a genre a better reputation than Harlequin has provided.

Whatever, Teddy Pig.  Unless you’re 14 now, it certainly isn’t fair to judge a publisher by books you read in the distant past.  And it’s really not fair to blanket all books from one publisher in the same bed of discontent.  But you’re entitled to your opinion.  I’ve read some fantastic books from Harlequin, so we all have different experiences and different standards.

Kalen, I’m going to seek out that version!

Just thought I’d throw in my two pence.  Sunday night I was watching Cold Case on CBS.  I’m sure it was an old episode.  Did anyone else see it?  Romance readers get no respect from the ignorant.  In this episode a young woman who was overweight, looked at the world through owlish glasses, and had a fashion sense that would rival Ugly Betty was murdered.  She also happened to be a reader of romances. 

I couldn’t believe how the writers of that episode savaged a very sucessful genre and sterotyped the people who read romances.  It was blatant bigotry.  If she’d been black or Asian and the writers had been as heavy handed about her race they’d have lost their jobs, but because she was fat, loved romanced, and couldn’t find a man it was okay for them to write what they did.

Romance sales could pay the national debt and there would still be snobs about it.  I’m sure if publishers had to rely on literary fiction to keep them going they’d be living in cardboard boxes in Central Park and eating out of dumpsters.

Colin Firth was the perfect Mr. Darcy, even in Bridget Jones.

Julie,

I was only pointing out that Harlequin has gone out of it’s way over a very long period of time to earn it’s “reputation” and a simple click through it’s website did not change my mind.

Or most importantly sell me a book.

Two more pence, the reviewer is smug because she thinks she has grasped some great wisdom or truth about the film that the untutored will not be able to see.  She knows little to nothing about the lives of people two hundred years ago and I suspect what she does know is from films like the most recent P&P. 

She thinks everyone went about tightly laced up and afraid of being found out.  I submit that people were quite interesting then and engaged in all sorts of to-do-ments.  It is not hard to suppose that Jane enjoyed her single life quite a bit and the fact that she did not marry is no reflection on how she lived that life.

At one point she “slyly” refers to Rev Austen as Mr. Bennet which makes me wonder where she thinks writers get their ideas from.  Perhaps Rev Austen was a lot like Mr. Bennet and suppose Jane did meet a disdainful yet beautiful man like Mr. Darcy...her writing would have been at least a little about her life.  Remember Mark Twain wrote about boys and the Mississippi and slavery because he’d once been a boy on the banks of the Mississippi and knew slaves.

Smug, silly woman.  Read a book now and again instead of watching so much film and television.

Whether burlesque or ballet, it is still dancing and people enjoy them both and everything else in between.  If the books didn’t sell the books wouldn’t be written. 

My first romance read way back in the seventies was a Harlequin.  It wasn’t long before I’d moved on to the longer stuff, but I’ve still got a copy of that book and I treasure it.  Even today I’ll read a couple of titles a year.

I think there are probably a lot of people like me out there.  That’s why the Harlequin section takes up so much space in bookstores.

A lot of writers got their start with Harlequin or books like them.

Yes, Kalen. And Elizabeth Garvey is Elizabeth Bennett. She of the fine eyes.

I have to say that the lines of books Harlequin has put out in the last few years to distance themselves from the reputation that the silly sheik/tycoon sorts of monthly series are pretty good. So good I’ve found myself shocked for a moment that the book I just enjoyed so much was a Harlequin.

Certainly a lot of excellent authors have books published by houses that also have secret baby series, so we can’t dismiss the whole thing out of hand. There’s a reason a mention of Harlequin is shorthand for the sort of snide opinions the literati have for romance in general, and I think we all know that Harlequin serves as a whipping boy for the genre. The silly series are just an easy (largely indefensible) target.

You know, I love Harlequins.  I particularly like them from the mid-80’s through to the mid-90’s, although I don’t really read many of the new ones, mainly because I don’t have any author recognition with them.  You can flop down on the bed with one on a nice summer afternoon and spend a pleasant couple of hours.  And it’ll cost you less than $5 (including the icy cold can of DC to go with it).  How good a deal is that?  Not everything in the world has to be High Culture before it can be worth something.

I read different genres (and sub genres) for different reasons.  Sometimes I want to educate myself, sometimes I want to expand my understanding of human nature, and sometimes I just want to lie back with a cold can of fizzy drink and drift away into a book for a couple of hours.  I don’t see any of these goals as being inherently “better” than another, but I don’t judge the books by the same standards because they’re not setting out to achieve the same things. 

I would be grossed out to be halfway through a Thomas Friedman and suddenly reading a description of his manly chest, but by the same token, kind of dissapointed if I were up to page 20 of a Stephanie Laurens and still didn’t know the dimensions of the hero’s chest! 

I think we do a disservice to all the subgenres of romance when we feel we have to rank the genres from “most worthy” to “least worthy”.

eggs.

Honestly, I was just amazed at how equating a movie with what the reviewer thinks is a cliched romantic plot line to a Harlequin is so hateful to Romance as a genre?

I have read them and yes, the Harlequin’s I read were formula driven. If Harlequin stopped making money off that well known formula and all those plot cliches and all those stereotypes, people point out again and again and again, not to mention the silly titles that go with it, I am sure they would stop doing it.

Why do people gasp when it’s mentioned like a fast food joint that people make jokes about. Even though they know the food is not gourmet they most likely do still crave those french fries. Who cares?

Why does it always come down to reading for High Culture or plain ol’ entertainment? Who’s arguing for one and not the other? Are any of us reading for our education or the snooty credentials of it all?

No.

We read to be entertained. Sometimes the story doesn’t have to be good--in terms of story, character, plot and writing--to be entertaining; other times nothing else will do.

For some people, Harlequins are not entertaining, because the ones they’ve read were not good; for others, the convenience of Harlequins is plenty satisfying.

Nothing to do with rarefied literary tastes, or the need to be schooled every time we turn a page. Just a matter of what works and what doesn’t.

No need to reduce it to entertainment vs. education. That’s nowhere to go with that.

With respect to Colin Firth, David Rintoul owned Mr. Darcy.

TOTALLY.

the reviewer is smug because she thinks she has grasped some great wisdom or truth about the film that the untutored will not be able to see

Huh?  I don’t see the smugness, or the elitism mentioned by one Salon commenter.  I thought Zacharek made some good points.  I find the Austen phenomenon weird too.  I think many of the fans are actually fans of Colin Firth in the role of Darcy (an inappropriately sexed-up and petulant Darcy at that); not fans of P&P the novel, or Austen’s other novels.  (Interestingly, I’m reading Austenland, and the main character is an Austen fangirl who seems to be into a chick lit-ized version of Austen.)

In the article itself Zacharek mostly talks about fitting Jane Austen into “a modern template of romance” (not genre romance novels, romance in the general sense).  The subtitle is the one line that could be a slam on genre romance, but I didn’t take it that way.  Zacharek says Jane Austen’s being squeezed into a “genteel, tasteful Harlequin romance”.  Do you disagree?  I don’t.  What are the characteristics of a Harlequin?  A grand romance and a guaranteed happy ending.  None of that is true to Austen’s life, but Zacharek feels it’s what the movie provides because it’s “what the imagined target audience of this movie wants to see.” I can imagine that may be true--hard to say, since I haven’t seen the film or interviewed the producer.  Regardless, I think it’s an apt comparison.

I’m also bothered by the slams on the entire article.  If you’d read the article without the subheading about Harlequins, would you still have found it worthless?  To me it’s an OK review and if I ever see the movie I’ll probably agree with some of it and disagree with some.

In short--I don’t see the slam everyone else here seems to.  And throwing around terms like “elitist”?  I hate to tell you but… if you read, you ARE the elite.

In short--I don’t see the slam everyone else here seems to.

I agree with so much of what you said, iffy.  Where I think there is some belittling of genre Romance is in the assertion that the movie is belittling Austen by turning her into a Harlequin heroine, which, in logical progression, then puts Harlequin Romances down.  But actually, I was way more offended by the single title authors hammering at the series titles in the letters and by the wholesale slamming of Zacharek with various and sundry unpleasant descriptors.  Because if the point is to say that genre Romance is being painted with an unfair stereotype, what is gained by doing the same to Zacharek.

think many of the fans are actually fans of Colin Firth in the role of Darcy (an inappropriately sexed-up and petulant Darcy at that); not fans of P&P the novel, or Austen’s other novels.

Do you really?  Because everyone I know who is a fan has read many of the books.  I, myself, have read all six, having taken an Austen class in college.  I mean, of course, some people are fans because of the film adaptations, but I don’t think most are.  I think Austen is actually very widely read, especially among romance readers.

everyone I know who is a fan has read many of the books....  some people are fans because of the film adaptations, but I don’t think most are.  I think Austen is actually very widely read, especially among romance readers.

I believe “Austen mania” in its current form started after the film with Colin Firth, and revved into high gear after Bridget Jones.  That would indicate that a lot of people fell in love with P&P based on the film and the Firth tie-in, not the book.

I have friends who’ve read everything Austen ever wrote… and friends who loved Bridget Jones, then watched P&P with Firth, but are indifferent to the book.  One friend says the Austenland description fits her: she watches the same few scenes of P&P over and over.  Firth dripping wet in a seethrough shirt, Firth in the bathtub, Darcy proposing the first time, and Darcy’s final proposal.  Two of those four scenes aren’t in the book, and are part of a general sexing-up in the Firth version.  Sounds pretty similar to Zacharek’s complaint about altering Austen.

The only recent version I kinda liked was Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow. That was a good role for her and I thought her better than in Shakespeare in Love.

I mean NASCAR! Come on people, NASCAR romances!

I haven’t seen these NASCAR romances in my usual book-buying haunts.  I’m still hoping it’s a mass delusion.

Kind of like 55 million people thinking George W Bush really is like one of them, only with a few more billion dollars.

Sorry, don’t know why he’s been grating on my nerves more than usual lately.

“it certainly isn’t fair to judge a publisher by books you read”

Julie,

I am currently reading Venom’s Bond from Loose-Id and am cussing out Loose-Id, not the author.

Maybe it’s wrong but after reading the lizard / unconscious man rape scene about mid-way through the book… I am damning Loose-Id. Damn them and their lizard too, straight to hell.

It’ just wrong on so many levels.
Reviewing eBooks should not be this horrid. The beer goggles are not working.

Robin, iffy and Teddy Pig, one more on your side. The point Zacharek is making about “beautiful people” is exactly what she says. The world turns now, not on skill but on looks and, from reading the review, she is deploring this spin even unto movies about Austen, who was not a “beautiful” woman. Once again, looks (Hathaway) win out over character (Austen).

I get the feeling that Zacharek loves and respects romance. Okay, she writes *one sentence* about Harlequin but, honestly, as Teddy Pig says, so what? We slam McDonald’s, yet we still love their french fries every now and then.

There have been some great authors come out of Harlequin, but the company has always been about pandering to the widest readership. (Look at how they’re now moving into ebooks. Harlequin will ALWAYS go where it thinks the punters are...just like every other BUSINESS out there.) I don’t think it’s heinous to put the first two facts together. And the first does not somehow imply the second doesn’t exist.

Will I be stoned if I say I’ve never seen the P&P with Colin Firth? I did see him in The Importance of Being Earnest, but I wasn’t impressed. Though I think he’s great in Bridget Jones.

I love P&P. The first time I read it was shortly after watching the 1940’s P&P with Olivier for a class in freshman year of high school. It kicked of a long standing love of Austen’s books and a willingness to give books/movies inspired by them a try.

Okay, I’ve scrolled through this whole line of responses and am left with only two things on my mind:

1.) the phrase juiceless man;

2.) the “vintage” Nora Roberts Silhouette title I’ve been meaning to read, just to see how it stacks up to current category fare.

When it comes to Jane Austen...pfff.  I’d rather read Dickinson.  (Dare Hollywood to glamorize that babe!)

Juiceless man...damn, it’s still there, echoing through my mind like an evocative, ghostly EVP.

I’m really going to have to fight the urge to plagiarize that one.

Geebus, I wasn’t expecting historical accuracy from Becoming Jane, because, y’know, there’s really not much established fact about Austen’s lovelife and I’m a sucker for fictional spinnings of what might have been out of these reality frameworks sort of a-la-Possession.

Although I did groan out loud in the KK P&P where Mr. Bingley entered Miss Jane’s sickroom and openly oogled her in her nightgown because bitch, please, SOMEONE should have caught that before the final edit; but there’s plenty of moments like that in several movies and it’s not like I’m going to get up and walk out because I paid my money and we’re already in too deep and I’m not running low on Glosettes yet. I’ve taken a few film studies courses in school and if I find something annoying in a film, I’ll try my best to focus on the aspects I like rather than the ones I didn’t. The latest P&P, for instance, had lovely costumes, well-done music, and breathtaking cinematography, IMO. Perhaps this means I’d make a crap reviewer because I gloss over the bits I don’t like, but it means I don’t lose my mind half so often as I would if I let myself obsess over what didn’t work in a movie.

That being said, I’d’ve cast Samantha Morton as Jane, but hey, they need a big name, I get it, whatever, it’s not like Morton has the classical soft kind of beauty such as I imagine Jane had, at that age, given the posthumous descriptions of her friends and relatives or was nominated for an Oscar or anythi--OH WAIT SHE DOES AND SHE WAS.

(history62. Alright, maybe I’m an anachronism nitpicker, but I’m a forgiving nitpicker.)

I just saw a tv ad for the movie, with the tag line “The greatest inspiration for Jane’s writing was her own love story” (paraphrasing slightly).  The film was also described as a “four star romance.” I don’t know what any of that means, but I thought it was interesting.

I’m sorry, what’s wrong with NASCAR romances? What’s wrong with liking auto racing?

My Dad used to race. We used to watch races every weekend. So please, I wish I understood why the idea of romances licensed to use the name and set in that world are such terrible, shocking, horrible indicators that HQ is awful and deserves to be picked on.

I… don’t really care if Zacharek slammed romance novels or not. However, she’s being inconsistent in her ‘beautification’ critique.

As much as she lurved the KK P&P, the casting of Jane (Bennett) was off by a long shot, because she was cast according to current ideas of beauty, rather than those of 200 years ago. Jane Austen’s description of Jane comes much closer to the actress who was cast for the 1995 series, and who would not be considered beautiful by Hollywood’s standards.

With this inconsistency (slamming the casting of Anne Hathaway because she is pretty and not even mentioning the miscasting for P&P), I can’t take her seriously.
And besides, we really have no idea what Jane Austen looked like. She might not have been stunningly beautiful in her time, but that *could* mean that we might just find her pretty now. I dpn’t trust the Cassandra portrait, because she doesn’t strike me as a particularly apt artist anyway.

Everyone’s going to jump on me, but I didn’t mind the last movie adaptation of P&P. Mind you, I think Colin Firth is vastly overrated, so you can see where I’m coming from already.

Matthew Macfadyen did a great Darcy. He’s not pretty, and nor is Darcy supposed to be. Claudie Blakley did an excellent Charlotte, and I think Tom Hollander does a fab Mr Collins. Donald Sutherland is good too, and who needs to say anything about Judi Dench? And, shoot me now, I found KK somewhat less jarring than Jennifer Ehle, who really could not do “young woman” convincingly, or unsmarmily.

Anyways, add me to the list of people who didn’t find the Zacharek review that bad. I don’t want to see Austen’s life shoe-horned into some exercise in Hollywood schmaltz either. If they want to do a “period romance”, why not come up with an original story that doesn’t play merry gyp with someone’s actual life?

Just my two bits, for what it’s worth I don’t know. One of the first romance novels I ever read was a Harlequin, so I guess I have a soft spot for them. But my opinion is, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Harlequin has used basically the same formula for years and they are still selling books. Yes it is a formula, but there is a small amount of comfort to that to some readers. You know what is going to happen, no suprise shockers. The same is true for chick flicks. It works and the studios make money hand over fist. Now, I didn’t like Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy but many of my friens who incredibly intelligent in their own right lurved him, it depends on your view point. To some of the huddled masses this may “gulp” be their first introduction to “double gulp” Jane Austen as an actual person, not just some woman who sat in a cramped attic and wrote all day. I guess I am happy that she has not been lost to history like so many other authors. I know I may seem a bit Pollyanna on this, but I agree with Monty Python and look on the bright side of life. I don’t care what people say or think. I like what I like, read what I want to read, and watch what I want to watch. Free will and all that good stuff we have allows me to. I refuse to get bent because of someone’s obviously generalized stereotypical comment about something which she probably has little to no firsthand knowledge.

Like I said, maybe a bit off topic, but my two bits for what its worth.

P.S. I still cannot understand the allure of NASCAR novels but then again I read Devil May Cry last night so to each their own.

As someone who wrote for Silhouette for about 20 years, I think the frustration comes from so many assuming every category Romance is The Cowboy Sheik’s Secret Baby’s Billionaire Pregnant Bride. And that Harlequin is so often the shorthand for dissing all Romance, and mushing into the lump of TCSSBBPB.

And when others who write Romance kinda give category a backslap, it’s tough to take.

If titles like the above didn’t sell books, Harlequin wouldn’t insist on using them (as most Harlequin writers don’t have much choice on titles and covers.) So lots of somebodies out there like that. Okay for them. Okay, too, for us to snark said titles, because we know this stuff. Not so okay, imo, for the media to continually use Harlequin as a derrogatory kind of shorthand for the genre--or for those who write out-of-category Romance to look down on an important spoke of the genre wheel.

“Not so okay,
imo, for the media to continually use Harlequin as a derrogatory kind of
shorthand for the genre--or for those who write out-of-category Romance to
look down on an important spoke of the genre wheel.”

Yet Harlequin by it’s own formula continues to provide the ammo for the media to use. So you have to admit that they themselves do not care since it seems to keep their name front and center. They are making bank off that.

I agree, TP, that Harlequin is making business decisions that perpetuate a bad image of romance.  However, as someone within the genre, who reads the genre, on a site that is devoted to the genre, shouldn’t we be careful of making the same critical errors of which we accuse the reviewer of the movie?

If she speaks out of ignorance and the commenters here also make presumptions about the quality of book without reading them, do we have any ground upon which to stand?

I’ve read four series books in the last three weeks.  Three were B reads, solid B reads.  Last night I read Julie Leto’s Stripped, another B read.  I often think that category romances are the true romances in that these are truly character driven books that focus primarily on the development of the relationship of the couple.  One of the books I read was Lisa Renee Jones’ Hard and Fast which featured a new female sports writer for an LA paper who was trying to establish her career while engaging in an affair with one of the star players.  Jones handled this very well, showing how the physical attraction the two characters had overrode their good judgment. In the end, the plot was rushed because of brevity but the slow unfolding of the relationship, from meeting to lust to love, was delightful.

So despite the bad names (although Hard and Fast isn’t necessarily as offensive as the Billionare’s Bidding which I also liked), there is quality writing inside the covers.  For romance readers to simply dismiss these books as worthless is to their own detriment because good, pure contemporary romances are so hard to come by these days. 

I’m a recent convert, admittedly, but I’ve been trying more and more and realizing that what was true in the 80s and 90s with authors like Joan Wolf, Kathleen Gilles Seidel, Judith Duncan, and Jennifer Crusie, is true today.  A well done category romance will hit the sweet spot almost better than a single title mass market.

Harlequin is to romance books
like Jello is to gelatin.

PS,
One of my issues with current movies today (and why I haven’t set foot in a theater in over 8 years) is that
a.  Our standard of beauty is now at the narrowist it has ever been in the history of humanity (size 0, big tits, blonde, tall)/sarc
b.  That reflects in movies to the point that even period costuming looks stupid because its ON THE WRONG BODY TYPE-- Think “The Necklace” full of anorexic size -4’s in dresses meant to show off Marie Antionette’s super plump curves and women like her…
All the actresses looked like chopsticks wrapped in duct tape.  And I rolled my eyes so much that I could have parted my hair without a mirror.

SO, getting back to Austen etc....The reviewer is a dolt on why people go to the movies and what romance is and should be.

Even my chickens agree.

My spaminator word is “appear85"---
OK, it’s a rough morning and I have on no make-up, but DAMN that’s harsh!

Jane,

The problem with that comes back to Harlequin.

I am not in any way saying the authors are all bad but you have to admit it is pretty hard to pull one fine example out of the pile when you are continually sold these books as A PILE. They are marketed as product, covers continue to resemble each other like product, titles are slapped on haphazardly like product and all of this done without, as you point out, any regard to the quality of the writing.

I recently bought some gay erotic comics from Japan created by Tagame. Now these are not considered great literature in any way there either. But… the effort that went into that printing was amazing, inner cover art, fancy binding, and just real class for a damn erotic comic book that sells cheap in Japan.

Which makes even our own US published single title covers look bad. It makes me sad in some ways that even single titles are treated rather mechanically.

I refuse to blame the public for a perception that is constantly supported by the publisher who makes no effort to change it because it sells.

Teddy, I’m wasn’t commenting on what Harlequin does, or what it minds. Other than opining that they wouldn’t publish what didn’t sell.

I’m saying it’s lazy and inaccurate for a reporter, a reviewer--even a commentator--to use Harlequin as a snarky shorthand for the entire genre. It is not the entire genre.

And it’s not okay for those who write on other lanes of the Romance highway to sniff and look down at those who ride the category lane.

First (because if you know me by now I think in a, b, c fashion, lol), Harlequin is in the business to sell books and not in the business of advocacy for romance genre.  Why should it make an effort to change because it sells?  Do they have some moral requirement as a publisher to raise the reputation if it would have a harmful impact on their business?

Second, a reviewer’s use of Harlequin should be questioned if she evinces no understanding of the genre.  It would be akin to me comparing something that I’ve read (aka Lisa Renee Jones’ Hard and Fast) to something that I’ve heard about but had not read (ie Prep by Sittenfeld).  That puts my reviewing credibility at risk.  If you engage in comparative analysis, then shouldn’t both ends of the comparison spectrum be something you understand?

Third, Harlequin’s equivalent to the your Japanese erotica may be in the editing and packaging of the item.  I.e., what sells in Japan is the “inner cover art, fancy binding.” Simply because Harlequin’s packaging is more commodity like doesn’t mean that the same thought and effort isn’t place into the product.  Otherwise, I don’t think that they would be thinking of titles like the Shiek’s Virgin Mistress.

Too lazy this morning to comment on anything *relevant* (except to admit that I did enjoy the KK P&P--which I fondly refer to as The Bronte Sisters’ Pride & Prejudice).

But I wanted to say to Wry Hag, your comment on Dickinson? (Dare Hollywood to glamorize that babe!)

Have you ever read the semi-erotic letters she wrote to her sister-in-law? I admit to knowing little about Dickinson on the whole (she’s American...American writers generally bore me), but unlike Austen, we know she had a few semi-romances, and I bet you could make a hell of a movie out of her life.

Maybe not a glamorous one, but bring in the homoerotic subtext (though the letters are, of course, much more sexual to modern eyes than they were in their own context), and you’d have a fairly interesting and potentially controversial movie there. :D

rascoagogo wrote:

Certainly a lot of excellent authors have books published by houses that also have secret baby series, so we can’t dismiss the whole thing out of hand.

And certainly a lot of excellent authors have excellent secret-babies books published by houses that put out all kinds of other books. Really, bashing the authors of one particular line isn’t much better than bashing all Harlequin authors.

Trix wrote:

Everyone’s going to jump on me, but I didn’t mind the last movie adaptation of P&P.

Ah nah, Trix. In order to jump on you I’d probably have to get onto a plane and squeeze myself into a narrow seat for 10 hours straight and would then suffer from jetlag. Nooo, way too much effort! *g* What bugged me about the Keira Knightley P&P is that it’s not true to the book and, even worse, it’s full of historical inaccuracies. However, I liked the casting of the secondary characters, and the film introduced a new generation to Austen’s works, which is always a good thing!

Harlequin is in the business to sell books and not in the business of advocacy for romance genre.  Why should it make an effort to change because it sells?  Do they have some moral requirement as a publisher to raise the reputation if it would have a harmful impact on their business?

Any moral obligation regarding PR would have to be to the authors that work with them. Since they have not changed their formula though I would not hold the public at fault first for the perception the publisher has earned. I would hold myself at fault first for doing business with them. Or… I get a really good sense of humor and a thick skin about the whole deal.

That puts my reviewing credibility at risk.  If you engage in comparative analysis, then shouldn’t both ends of the comparison spectrum be something you understand?

She saw the movie, I have not. To provide an accurate argument and the ability to say she can not compare these two things means I must see the movie in order to intelligently disagree with her review.

This comment is more about the movie itself and less about the HQ/Romance controversy:

I saw the movie not too long ago when I went to London. I do admit to having certain expectations going in, even knowing it was a reimagining of her life, and I came away from the movie scratching my head a bit.

The movie really did hit many of the modern romance stereotypes. I personally don’t think that’s a terribly bad thing. I love Regency romances and I read them voraciously. However, it was a bit odd and off-putting to have Jane Austen become the brassy, impetuous, fiery heroine hitting every Regency romancelandia stereotype on her way to a HEA that falls through in the end only because they had to have *some* nod to historical accuracy. I had the ghostly feeling of having read this all before, many times, only the heroine was nothing like the woman we came to love in Jane Austen’s letters and books.

I suppose that was the sticking point for me, and also why I can’t 100% disagree with the article, even if the anti-romance tone is grating. It was less of a retelling of Austen’s life and more...Jane Austen as a brassy American heiress come to England who doesn’t give a fig about quaint British customs wrapped in the trappings of Elizabeth Bennet. It was almost as if the writers couldn’t decide who their heroine really was, so they lumped them all together and used genre stereotypes to tell her (imagined) story.

It was definitely entertaining enough, if not great, and if it had been about anyone but Jane Austen, I would have probably enjoyed it as a fun—if not terribly original—romance. However, making the heroine Jane Austen and then forcing her into a romance novel stereotype that she really doesn’t fit… It just left a bad taste in my mouth, and I couldn’t help but think I would have liked it a whole lot more if I had no idea who Jane Austen was and had never read any of her books or letters.

Not so okay, imo, for the media to continually use Harlequin as a derrogatory kind of shorthand for the genre

I do hear where you’re coming from, but it’s inevitable.  Harlequin has done a great job of making its books the most visible, recognizable, prolific branch of romance for decades.  Of course they’re used as shorthand for the whole genre.

In the case of the Salon article, I’m not even sure Harlequins were used as shorthand in a derogatory way.  I thought that one sentence (which we’re all wildly overinterpreting) made an interesting comparison.  By all accounts, the producers romanticized Austen’s life into a tidy package of short, character-based, satisfying romanticism.  That sounds a lot like what the public recognizes as a Harlequin.

I think portraying *any* figure’s life as a 2-hour Harlequin-on-film would rile up fans.  That’s not a slam on Harlequins; just the truth that anyone’s *real* life would be a sprawling, messy, dull, unwatchable full-length TV series.

Thank you, KC.  It’s nice to get an actual review of the movie from a romance reader and Austen reader.  We’ve had a lot of talk about the tone of the review, but few comments on the actual movie or whether the review was accurate.

This whole debate about the casting of Keira Knightley in P&P reminds me very much of previous comments in which the casting of Heather Locklear in Angels Fall was called into question.  In that case, Nora Roberts defended the casting of her novel and stated that the age and hair color of the actress is not as important as her acting ability and her portrayal of the character.  I wonder what Jane Austen would say.

Bearing in mind, I have not read P&P in 12 or 15 years (definitely time for a reread)I am not so sure the casting of Knightley was so terribly off. If memory serves, Jane Bennet was the sister who met the standard of beauty of the time while Elizabeth was beautiful in a less conventional way.  So if KK meets today’s standard of beauty and not that one, I am not particularly bothered.  She is an excellent actress even if she doesn’t fill out a gown with an empire waist properly.  I agree that the BBC version is better all around, but the more recent movie was well-acted and visually compelling.  I enjoyed it too.

As for Harlequin...Yes, they make themselves excellent targets for scorn, but that is the work of the publishing house, not the authors.  I know for a fact there are a lot of very good stories hidden behind stupid names and ridiculous covers.

Oh, and NASCAR?  As a North Carolinian I am very familiar with the bias against that sport.  I am not a big NASCAR fan, although I have been to a couple of races and had a great time.  However, I find it very interesting that if you change the appearance of the car, put a European driver behind the wheel, and call it Formula Whatever, it suddenly becomes classy.  Whatever.  If someone who actually knows something about the sport wants to talk smack about it I will be happy to listen.  Otherwise,you are doing exactly what Sarah was calling Srephanie Z. on, comparing apples to guava when you have never even tasted guava.

Oh, and Yes.  Colin Firth OWNS Mr. Darcy.  Did anyone else see the Oprah several years ago when she had the cast of the second Bridget Jones movie on the show?  She asked Hugh Grant to Introduce Colin Firth and he said something along the lines of...”Perhaps you remember him from the BBC production of Pride and Prejudice, in which he portrayed Mr. Darcy, or Bridget Jones Diary in which he portrayed Mr. Darcy.  One of Britain’s most versatile actors...... “

LOL!

Kari - “and call it Formula Whatever, it suddenly becomes classy.”

No, but I am wiping coffee off my monitor.
I can see it now a Harlequin with the title Secret Sheik Surgeon Baby Formula 1.

hehehehehehe I would buy it and frame it.

I think my favorite P&P adaptation is Bride and Prejudice, the 2004 Bollywood film:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361411/trailers-screenplay-E23191-10-2

Not only did I find it incredibly lush and fun to watch (and sing along with!), but I felt that some of the core issues in the book around class and marriage were well illustrated in the Indian (well, Bollywood style) cultural context. 

However, making the heroine Jane Austen and then forcing her into a romance novel stereotype that she really doesn’t fit…

This comment made me think about the attempts to fit P&P into the genre Romance canon, as well.  Is there an analogy there to the way in which Austen is an uncomfortable fit as a contemporary Romance heroine?

A well done category romance will hit the sweet spot almost better than a single title mass market.

Some of my favorite Romances have been category/series books, from Seidel’s Mirrors and Mistakes to Crusie’s Getting Rid of Bradley and Anyone But You, to LaVyrle Spencer’s Spring Fancy, to most every Tom and Sharon Curtis series book (especially the Regency Romances).  My recent disgruntlement with single title contemp Romance has pulled me back to the series books, and I agree with you, Jane, that the satisfaction in reading a good category/series is like the books themselves:  quick and concentrated.  When you think of the word and page restrictions in category/series, let alone the particularity of the guidelines for each line, IMO a well-crafted category is no small feat.  I see it as the difference between an epic poem and a sonnet—each has their own pleasure in reading and their own challenges in writing.  And since I’m much more inclined to write the epic myself, I have a lot of respect for someone who can write a truly wonderful sonnet.

Oh, and as for the NASCAR controversy, beyond the question of what it means for a line of Romance to be so overtly branded (says the person who hates the label dropping in certain books *cough*JR Ward*cough*), isn’t there just some plain old class bias there, or at least some gentrification anxiety.

“isn’t there just some plain old class bias there”

Nah, Think of it as… Would it be different if they put McDonald’s on there? Yeah, think of it McDonald’s romances.

How about Louis Vuitton? They could be travel romances then.

I fully agree with you that more and more writers should be writing detailed catalogs and not romances with all the designers and labels being mentioned. I think it is more a crass bias, than a class bias.

I loved Bride & Prejudice aside from the casting for the Bingley siblings. The last thing I’d seen either of those actors in was Kama Sutra and they happened to be (unsurprisingly) going at it like rabbits.

Anyway, I think I’m over P&P as being the be-all-and-end-all of Austen. Now I’m waiting on a major bigscreen adaptation of Northanger Abbey to go squee over Henry Tileny.

Now I’m waiting on a major bigscreen adaptation of Northanger Abbey to go squee over Henry Tileny.

Word!

“I think my favorite P&P adaptation is Bride and Prejudice”

I lurve that movie! And not just because Aishwarya Rai is so damn good looking and the music was ridiculously fun. It’s hard to get a modern day version of P&P because you have to go really disparate with the class issue to pull it off. It’s why the 2003 adaptation, P&P: a latter-day comedy, just didn’t pull it off. The sad thing is ... I still can’t get Wagner for the Vicious out of my head.

Word!

I used youtube and tracked down ITV’s 90 minute offering from their Jane Austen season, which was great for what it was, and oh my God, JJ Feild is like a younger Alan Rickman when he talks.
We need more of that in a major motion picture, though!

“With respect to Colin Firth, David Rintoul owned Mr. Darcy.”

Hear! Hear! I’ve never understood why no one ever brings that version up whenever they talk about the Colin Firth one. David Rintoul oozes and looks high-bred noble much more which makes his eventual attraction to Elizabeth Garvie, who is in a league of her own as well, so utterly thrilling.

Then again they made the series in 1979, I guess it’s just too old for most viewers.

I went to YouTube prompted by another comment and found P&P “acted” by an assortment of Barbies, Kens, and Disney characters.  Hi-lar-i-ous!

Would Jane Austen be a successful writer in todays market?

I have a lot to say on the Harlequin thing.  But think I will later…

But for now I have to say Teddy I find it interesting you say you left the Harlequin site, you know the one giving romance a horrid name with their bad covers and silly names and so forth and so on…

To find greatness, perfect covers and a company going out of their way to fight for Romance Genre approval at New Concept Publishing.

Really?  I didn’t know they were now promoting themselves in such a way they will never again appear in a smart bitch cover snark.  Or use stupid ass titles or bad repeated erotic romance plots.  And of course since erotic romance is not bringing us respect in the eyes of people who don’t even read the genre, I would assume they are no long publishing such things.

I haven’t read a book by them in a few years and of course would never be small minded enough to judge them on a few books I read a couple years ago that I didn’t enjoy.  Then again I tend to think the person who wrote the book is the creative force at work and not just a name for a publishing machine.  Who knew?

How is it you expect ebooks and/or gay romance to have the same respect of any other romance novel but think Harlequin can be trashed for not writing books you enjoy? 

Or that we should not only accept Harlequin being trashed as they don’t write to what you consider good, acceptable plots but should just shake it off and expect it.  But stand up and fight for the right and approval of (mostly) straight women wanting to write erotic novels about hawt sweaty men having sex with each other?

Why does your subgenre of choice get to be anymore respected over anyone else’s subgenre of choice?

Just wondering as I have no issue with harlequin, gay romance, ebooks, slash, or erotic romance and really could give a flip about Jane Austin.  And my issue with the NASCAR line has to do with things other than it simply existing.

Sybil,

Quite frankly in my opinion Harlequin is formula, it is preprogrammed. Romance has rules but Harlequin exceeds even those and it is what it is.

To make you feel better gay romance wise, I think those silly Romentics books are pretty close to that style to me. Go look for yourself.

“How is it you expect ebooks and/or gay romance to have the same respect of any other romance novel but think Harlequin can be trashed for not writing books you enjoy?”

I do not expect anything, including respect for any genre I am not a cheerleader nor do I give Harlequin’s reputation much thought besides the fact they have only themselves to blame.

My point was and continues to be if Harlequin actually cared or wanted to change the publics perception of their product there are things they could do to change the product but they are not doing it and I do not place it on the authors to do it for them.

So why act so shocked about it?

May Sheik Surgeon, Surprise Baby sell millions. May NASCAR: Hearts Under Caution sell billions. If your only justification comes down to money fine, so does McDonalds.

~Romance has rules but Harlequin exceeds even those and it is what it is.~

Category Romance has its own fairly specific culture--and a culture for each individual line as well. That is what it is.

That doesn’t make it preprogrammed.

A lot of strongly-written, unique and interesting stories come out of the Harlequin label. And a lot of pedestrian, ordinary and mediocre as well. But what’s interesting and unique to some readers is ordinary and medicore to another reader.

“A lot of strongly-written, unique and interesting stories come out of the Harlequin label.”

I did not say there might not be. I am not saying that there are not talented authors there. Unfortunately they will sit next to titles and logos as I mentioned above or get stuck with one which is the sad part.

Well, I like a good romance, Harlequin or other brand, but I have trouble finding them because of the way they’re marketed. A part of me is really put off by the titles and cover art, and cover blurbs. We all know that the inside can be quite different, but I have to get PAST all that to find out. I have to pick up each and every one and read the first page--and all I’m looking for is the promise of good characterization and good prose. Not so much the big hook that’s supposed to capture the attention of the busy editor… you know, as advised by creative writing workshop teachers.

e.g., “It is a truth universally acknowledged...” Someone asked if Jane Austen would make it in today’s publishing field. I think it’s a great line, but I can also see it being thrown aside by the busy editor.

Anyway, I gravitate toward romantic comedy movies now because there is usually something to distract from its deficiencies, whereas in a book it’s just you and the author’s words. And I really liked Becoming Jane.

re deficiencies: whenever Anne Hathaway as Jane Austen tries to explain irony. Godawful, just like the lecture on irony in Reality Bites. And the use of novels as shorthand--if you don’t know all about Tom Jones, you don’t know what Tom Lefroy is getting at.

But to make up for it: genius cinematography--for example, the first shot of Tom Lefroy looks exactly like an 18th century woodcut of a boxing match (though I’m not sure about the gloves). His stance and weedy physique were exactly right. And it’s a good sign for the rest of the movie--which I’d say plays well within the rules of the time. So they kiss, whatever. Purists have complained about the tarting up of Jane Austen, but at least in this movie you don’t get everyone hanging about in their pyjamas all the time (latest P&P… should it be called Pride & Pyjamas or Pyjamas & Prejudice? Anyone?).

But basically, I