A few years ago, HarperCollins launched "The Austen Project," recruiting excellent authors to retell Jane's novels in a contemporary setting. I read only one so far, Joanna Trollope's attempt at Sense and Sensibility.
I have a fondness for Trollope's work. Even when I do not relate to her plots, her prose is arresting enough to keep me glued.
But it seems that Austen must remain in Regency times.
There are witty lines, sharp observations. She even casually sprinkles the names from other Austen novels throughout—Musgrove, Elliot, even the name Austen.
Yet the modern world cracks heads with the old world too many times. The idea of "heirs" or "heiresses" sounds absolutely archaic, along with Mrs. Ferrars' obsession that Edward marry a specific girl that he has not socialized with simply due to her father's money. It's not like a near stranger can propose nowadays and not expect pepper spray.
In addition, Edward's loyalty to Lucy Steele sounds rather weak. Maybe a century ago a man could not shame a woman by backing out of an official engagement, but today all it requires is a sit-down where he sadly informs her that he doesn't love her and she deserves better. There you go.
Additionally, Marianne's unchanged age—18—makes everything uncomfortable. Brandon's interest in her borders on perverted as well as incomprehensible, as Marianne is vilely rude to him. The idea that Willoughby would want to marry is laughable; why would a contemporary boy in his 20s marry a teenager after a few weeks' acquaintance?
Elinor spends more time with Brandon, and they seem to hit it off so well you wonder why he spends his time mooning after a nasty Marianne. They do seem more ideally suited, but for the purposes of repurposing they cannot end up together.
Elinor spends more time with Brandon, and they seem to hit it off so well you wonder why he spends his time mooning after a nasty Marianne. They do seem more ideally suited, but for the purposes of repurposing they cannot end up together.
The reason why women today love Austen is because she describes a world that no longer exists—a world where women could not support themselves, a world with strict courtship rules, a world where husbands and wives addressed each other as "Mr." and "Mrs."
But in a time when any woman can go to uni and become an earner, does any woman need to hang around for the attentions of an "heir"? Gold-diggers go after hot-shot lawyers, rather.
I don't think I'll be reading the other reboots. I prefer my Austen in the past.
3 comments:
I haven't read this one, but I did read the P&P attempt by Curtis Sittenfield, and it was pretty bad.
The only spin off I ever read that was actually good was Longbourne by Jo Baker. But it fits your criteria, it's not a modern day retelling, instead it's the same story just as seen from the POV of the maid.
Longbourne was EXCELLENT! But it wasn't a retooling - it was a spin off as you said, Anon, which means she had a solid background and excellent characters to start with, but for the rest her imagination had free reign - a modern retelling of of any story, doesn't have the liberty that a spin off does.
Then again, after Princess Lea's review, maybe writers should stick to spin-offs than modern versions...
Interesting! The reviewers (and my sister-in-law) loved "Eligible," but reading the review I decided I wouldn't like it. I ADORED "Longbourn"; it's official Shidduch Lit! Yes, it's a spin-off. I read another spin-off of Austen years ago that was very disappointing; the character meets up with Austen's "happily ever afters" and describes them being in miserable marriages. "Longbourn" was a delightful pleasure.
Post a Comment