You are a new hero of mine. As a musician, I struggle a lot with people wanting to talk music and who really rocks. It drives me nuts when people mention the Doors and get this “they were significant” look on their faces. I usually reply with “they represent everything that is wrong with rock n’ roll to me.”
Doesn’t earn that many friends, but it makes me feel better…
Sal Ammoniac:
Which of Jane Austen’s books feature a dashing, handsome hero and a beautiful, spirited heroine?
As for me, I’m much less impressed with Tom Robbins than I was when I was younger. Yes, the metaphors are pretty. We get it.
Don’t most of JA’s books - Darcy and Liza qualify (and Jane and Bingley), as do the couples in S&S. You could say that the heroine of Persuasion is a bit of a dowdy type, but I get the impression she was a librarian who could take off her glasses and shake down her hair and be attractive type…
Oh, and Emma qualifies, too.
Don’t get me wrong - I love Jane Austen and disagree violently with her being included in this type of list. But Sal’s argument is sound - it’s just that Austen’s work is so much more than mere romance and is so beautifully paced, plotted and written, than to reduce it, to me, is heresy. The fact that some hacks stole part of her blueprint and used it to crank out lousy houses doesn’t dull the beauty of her mansion.
This is really a great question, Art. I think it reflects how everyone of us grows and changes with a culture that also grows and changes. The first thing that comes to my mind is --The first “Star Wars” movie. It seemed so great at the time, and then they re-released it in the 90s and it just seemed stupid.
–Also: To me, the Doors have been completely over-rated and I never fell for the phoniness of Jim Morrison (ok, pit me now; he was a good performer, but never really had the talent that he wanted everyone to think he had.). That guy wanted to be buried with Rimbaud, I think it was, but he couldn’t even get his English grammar right.
Please don’t get me wrong. The Doors put out some good songs, but Morrison tried so hard to be seen as a “genius” that it’s prettry insulting. All you have to do is listen to some of the lyrics…YMMV. He and the keyboard player were a great combination; but I never could figure out the idea that Morrison was some knind of genius. Maybe it was just his sex appeal.
Hmmm. Then that might mean that–hmmm–Paris Hilton is a “genius”? Sorry. Paris Hilton is about as sexy as a paper clip. If she were handed over to me I’d put her in the top right drawer of my desk with the other paper clips, and wouldn’t pay her no mind until I needed to fasten some papers.
WordMan:
A response from my friend who knows far more about Austen than I do:
Bingley’s not really dashing, just very polite, and Jane certainly isn’t spirited, that’s her whole problem. That aside, none of the heroines are beautiful except Emma. Elizabeth is constantly being told that she’s not as pretty as Jane, and even Mr. Darcy doesn’t think she’s very pretty at first. Anne (the heroine of Persuasion) is constantly told that she looks old and tired. Fanny (Mansfield Park) is not even remotely spirited or lively, and neither is Anne, and neither is Elinor (Sense and Sensibility). And all of them are passed over at one point or another for a prettier or more “lively” girl.
Plus none of the heroes are really very dashing: Mr. Darcy is by the end, but he spends most of the novel stalking about being rude. Mr. Knightley (Emma) spends the entire novel scolding Emma. Edward (S&S) is so boring that Elinor’s sister doesn’t think she should marry him at first. And Edmund (MP) is so un-dashing that he constantly ignores Fanny in favor of the prettier girl. I have to say, the Captain in Persuasion is pretty dashing. But the whole point of most of JA’s novels is that the dashing, handsome guy (Wickham, Willoughby, Henry Crawford, Frank Churchill, Mr. Elliot) is never as good as he seems, and the seemingly boring, unattractive, or un-lively guy (Edward, Darcy, Colonel Brandon) is always worth more. The heroine is always the thoughtful girl who’s more rooted in reality than the other women around her (let’s leave Northanger Abbey out of this, because that’s an outlier; and Emma is again the exception), and the only “lively” girl portrayed in a really positive light is Elizabeth. The others – especially Mary Crawford – all come in for a comeuppance. Anyone who thinks all the heroes and heroines are gorgeous and dashing and clever has seen too many of the movies, and needs to go back and read the books.
One other thing: except for commentary by other characters (Captain says Anne looks old; Mrs. Bennet says Jane is more beautiful than Elizabeth), Austen never describes what any of her characters look like, or whether she (the narrator) conceives them as attractive or not. I think the one exception might be Emma, but otherwise we never know so much as Elizabeth’s hair color or whether Elinor is short or tall. We do know Mr. Darcy is tall. That’s about it.
The novels aren’t about women finding hot, dashing men to have great big Harlequin heaving bosoms with. The novels are about the fact that hot, dashing men often deceive women who know that their economic security depends on being married, and that a person’s actual worth usually takes longer to suss out than the brightness of his sparkling wit.
I think your friend got the trees right but missed the forest. Austen’s books use the pursuit of true love and the relationships between women and men in general, as their foundation - each resolves with our heroine finding Mr. Right and living Happily Ever After. To that degree - and that is the degree I intended - one can argue for a Harlequin feel. But, as I said, anyone who misses Austen’s dense characterizations, use of her novels’ structures as leaping-off points to comment on class distinctions, the burden of women in society, etc. are missing the difference between Jackson Pollack and a kid’s drippings. The fact that Austen allows - demands - that her characters are more than Ken or Barbie supports my assertions of her quality. But the basic model she innovated has been perverted to evil use by the Danielle Steels of the the world…
Just about every CD I’ve ever bought. I go through phases:
There were some threads I started on here that at the time I thought were just brilliant. Now, not so much.
On a more serious note, I think it’s natural for artistic efforts one enjoys in one’s teens and 20s to look somewhat ridiculous with the passage of time. This can be particularly true for films, songs and literature, because these often draw on the pop culture of the time for their influence.
I wonder sometimes about the bands that have been around for 20 years or more. I’m sure it makes sense when you’re 22 to write a haunting heavy-metal love song to the woman who broke your heart, and have thousands of angsty teenagers sing along with you in concert. When you’re 50, though, and you’re touring and you have to sing that stupid song again, I’m guessing you’re ready to stick a blowtorch into your rectum and quick-broil your lower gastrointestinal tract.
Kentucky Fried Movie and What’s Up, Tiger Lily?
I still like them, but they’re not as absolutely hilarious as when I first saw them in college. Something’s missing. You have to be college-student aged to get the full impact I wouldn’t show these to friends, today.
a professor of mine had a similar experience. He showed The Optics Movie to a local meeting of the Optical Society of America. The Optics Movie was a film made by some grad students at Imperial College in London (which also has an Optics program, one of the few in the world at the time). The film is full color and sound, and has a very Monty Pythonesque quality to it. It has remarkably few in-jokes, so you could watch it without knowing the people and still laugh. This fol;m knocked them dead at the University of Rochester.
so one of the professors took it and showed it to the local section OSA. You could hear the crickets chirping in the background. Went over like the proverbial lead balloon. You don’t get the same reaction showing some moviers to an auditorium full of circa 50 year old professionals in suits that you do showing it to jeans-wearing grad students piled into a room.
>>
Really? Anne Elliot, Fanny Price, Eleanor… none of these main characters really match “beautiful, spirited” heroines. Nor does Colonel Brandon or Edward Ferrars, or Edmund in Mansfield Park meet the description of “dashing”.
I guess I find Jane Austen anything but predictable- while Elizabeth/Darcy make a pretty romantic pair, they are the only two in the novels that work out the way you might expect. Emma is beautiful & spirited, but deeply flawed and her handsome, dashing love interest (initially Frank Churchhill) was all along engaged to someone else. Willoughby, the most “dashing & handsome” character in the novels (IMHO), turns out to be a real butthead, for lack of a better word and ends up marrying for money.
Every time I read (or even watch) Austen material, I see something new and surprising…
Sorry guys,
Should have read through before posting…looks like its been covered.
I responded to your comment that it “served up every imaginable stereotype, yet had the audacity to think itself profound. Hardly trenchant or original.”
Pretentious isn’t exactly the word I wanted, but I can’t think of a better one. It takes itself too seriously, and it’s new-agey.
First of all, let me say that my friend “got the trees right” because what I was asking her to speak to was the handsome/dashing and beautiful/spirited characterizations. I was responding initially to the statement that Jane Austen’s books are filled with dashing, handsome heroes and beautiful, spirited heroines. And as my friend and Smokinjbc have demonstrated, this is simply not the case. Do you concede that? I made no comment one way or the other about whether Austen has served as an archetype, however misguided, for the romance genre.
But here’s my friend’s response to you:
Mmmm, maybe. But my opinion of her books is that while she does base the plot around the pursuit of . . . let’s say the ideal marriage, she does this as a way of looking at society, i.e. what should the ideal marriage be like, because her society is based on marriages and family and some of them are really dysfunctional. I don’t think she uses this plot as a way to gratify the romantic urges of her readers, which is what really distinguishes her from Danielle Steele and the Harlequin oeuvre. I think Austen’s marriages serve a purpose, which is to point out that well-intentioned people can come out okay in the marriage game, which for a woman is really all there is. And while I don’t think the novels are primarily romantic, I do think they are primarily Romantic, as the emphasis is on self-awareness and growth which are rewarded by the hero or heroine being worthy of another well-developed human being.
We’ve hijacked this thread so I don’t want to spend a long time on this. Bottom line - it feels like we are more or less on the same page, and quibbling over details. If you are looking for confirmation that, in a precise way, Austen’s protagonists are rarely generically physically ideal specimens, fine - you have it. I agree. However, please consider thinking bigger: Austen goes out of her way to create protagonists that we empathize with, even love. The fact that she does this in a complex layered way that doesn’t rely on simply appearance is an indication of her skills and intent. However, as with any co-opted art form, hacks will “short-hand” that complexity and in fact leverage the artfully-created character to fill in their blanks. One can imagine a Harlequin romance describing their lead as “a beautiful Eliza Bennet type” and let you fill in the blanks.
The point is - there is a Romantic-Story plot model that involves finding an ideal mate. The fact that Austen’s folks are imperfect and “ideal” translates to growth-oriented spiritual connectedness, and a Harlequin romance bastardizes that so that the leads are beautiful and “ideal” is some Paris Hilton rich fantasy is the difference between art and dross. But the basic structure of a “boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl” romance still holds for Austen.
Are we done yet?
The Vampire genre of entertainment, especially Anne Rice.
I used to be fascinated with the concept, how the pressures of immortality and vampirism drive characters into a dark, brooding, reflective, despair.
Now, it seems like self-indulgent whining. I have rarely seen a movie or book that isn’t just a pile of vacuous whining and posing.
Vampire 1: “I carry the weight of history on my shoulders…woe…despair”
Vamp 2: “Ah, but my pain is so much greater, look at how much black I wear, my pain is boundless…”
Vamp 3: “Youngster, you new vamps have it good these days, you don’t know true pain. Why, I not only wear black, but accessorize it with a ruffled white collar. Now that, my friend, is suffering.”
Vamp 1:“You always belittle my pain!” smashes crystal decanter and goes to stand next to priceless Edwardian velvet draperies
You get the idea…I’d just like to see a vampire story that isn’t saturated with brooding teen goths. Really, Conner McCleod was immortal also, but at least he managed to smile about it.
WordMan:
Sure, we can be done.
Well, it was the dashing/spirited stuff I was, and am, taking primary issue with.
In fact, however, it’s not that she doesn’t rely on simply appearance; it’s that the fact that her heroines are not “the beautiful ones” is part of her point. She’s not asking you to fill in the blanks in your head and assume that everyone’s good-looking. She’s saying that looks don’t matter as much as other things.
And what hacks will do should be in no way a reflection on Austen’s work itself.
The only reason to reference the hacks is because this whole hijack on Austen was because Sal stated that her work felt like a Harlequin romance. My comment on his/her post was simply “they follow a similar structure, so I suppose I get the comment, but there is so much more to her work.” The fact that I cited that her protagonists are attractive is more a by-product of watching Colin Firth, Jennifer Ehle, Gwyneth Paltrow and others play her leads in movies.
this horse is officially beaten to death.
Well, since Donaldson has started a third Tomas Covenant series, I’m sure he’s sharing it with her. And that’s why I wasn’t as enthusiastic about the first series when I read it again this year as I was when it was first released.
Sal, I certainly won’t kill you for saying this, though I can’t say whether Austen is really responsible for the Harlequin Romance. BUT…I have to admit, I’ve never actually read a Harlequin Romance. Anyway, though I may (or may not) agree with you, it takes guts to name Austen in this thread. You’ve inspired me to read some Harequin Romance novels. After all, Dickens established the soap opera, in a way. Should we blame him for “The Young and the Restlesss”?
And not to highjack, but are there any other “Betty La Fea” fans out there? I’ve recorded almost every episode. After all, it was the most popular television show in the world a few years ago, and still has a lot of loyal fans watching re-runs.
You’re in my generation. Basically agree with you on every point. SbtB, on the other hand, still holds a special place in my heart, although a large part of that is because I’m afraid to look at the old episodes for fear of ‘ruining’ the series for me.
When I saw Easy Rider I thought it was a great film and loved it. That sense of freedom, being able to go wherever you want without a care in the world experiencing the great landscape of America. The peaceful folk being harassed by a prejudiced and violent Establishment (or what have you) and how good, decent people are lost. And the feeling created when Nicholson gives the line “This used to be a helluva good country. I can’t understand what’s gone wrong with it.”
The ending so pissed me off :mad:.
But then again, there seems to be a generation gap between me and Art. A lot of stuff I thought was great -like revolutionary communism, overthrow of the US government, Nirvana (awesome when 14, still good but not the same), Power Rangers, Donnie Darko, - I know cringe at. That in mind I’m sure in a few years or decades I’ll agree with him :(.
I’ll still say I understand Holden Caulfield.
Here’s my contribution: Anyone remember all the buzz on Titanic?