It really isn't that easy, actually
January 22, 2007
Alert Janeite Zoe sent us a link to an article listing the hardest novels to film. No, Jane Austen’s novels are NOT included on the list.
While many novels can be almost directly translated to screen, especially pre-20th century novels such as Jane Austen’s gossip columns, more recent novels can prove difficult.
*brushes dust off Cluebat, fondles it lovingly*
Perhaps if Jane, like J.D. Salinger or Jasper Fforde (who probably should be on that list as well), were actually around to prevent filmmakers from adapting her novels–or at least keeping them on their toes when they do–know-it-all film writers would understand that her novels are much, much more than “gossip columns.” Just saying.
Leave a Comment
Comments are closed.
Exactly… And appearently it can’t be that easy as alsmost every adaption so far fails to convey that wide range of subtle humor, biting sarcasm and the masterly balance between romance and realism which I find in her books.
But who cares for nuances?
*grindsteeth*
Gossip columns? Gossip columns?? I have a more than sneaking suspicion that the person who wrote this has never read an Austen novel in their life. I find it amusing to note that they confidently point to Proust’s ‘Remembrance of Things Past’ as being unfilmable – while confessing in almost the same breath they’d never even finished it!
P.S. I scrolled down through comments that people made and found this little gem…
“Calling Austen’s novels gossip columns is like calling Beethoven’s symphonies ad jingles.”
C’mon ‘fess up – which one of you was it?
Why does the blogger think Jane Austen is easy to adapt? Maybe it’s because she writes in such a straightforward way, with a little bit (okay, a lot) of humor, with plots that don’t wander off into nowhere, and dialogue that actually flows, that didn’t need profanity, explicitly described sex and innuendo to make their points, and that are not literary contemplations of the navel. She writes, in a deceptively simple way, things that make sense when you first read them, but even more sense when you read them again. And they are interesting enough that you want to read them again.
I agree completely with that line about Beethoven and Austen.
I suppose I’m not big on obscure fiction and long novels. I’ve yet to get though Les Miserables and David Copperfield (about halfway through each). But I’m not sure I understand, from the descriptions of some of them, why they are worth reading. If you have to have a Bachelor’s degree in some branch of literature in order to understand some of them, are they really all that much worth reading?
A seven-book length novel (Remembrance Of Things Past) that is essentially an autobiography of someone whose only significant accomplishment was writing long novels? I’m sorry if I offend Proust fans, but that doesn’t sound like a book I’d even want to read, let alone see a movie of.
Hi, I am the writer of the article.
I’m only being honest about Proust. Besides, I have read two of his novels, and surely that is enough to judge the collection as a whole. He doesn’t become a private detective in 1940s US, he doesn’t discover a crashed UFO, he doesn’t don a cape and mask and fight crime for a living, does he???
I have read Austen, I really have. And yes, I was being glib, as I do admit that she does have an obvious sense of character and character relations within her society. But personally, I feel that the style of writing is so uninteresting that I would never read another. Beethoven’s symphonies they are not. Austen’s novels are more like average pop songs, there’s a charm to them, but overall they’re not very memorable. In fact I actually prefer ‘Sense and Sensibility’ the movie than the book.
Oh crap, I just realised that this is an Austen blog. I must be your greatest enemy at the moment! Anyway, thanks for your input, it’s been better than a lot of the comments on the site.
Eoin, you just outlined very well why not all people like writers like Austen or Proust – the action isn’t obvious, in any given level. Different people respond to different things; most of my friends don’t read books at all (Austen or otherwise), and I don’t hold that against them
Personally, I have always thought Austen was writing about me when she wrote Persuasion; many others probably feel the same.
But here is one argument you cannot deny: Austen is not a contemporary writer – our contemporary, that is. But she us Beethoven’s contemporary, and just his work, her work still today is alive and widely read, just like Beethoven’s music is alive and widely listened.
I’ll play devil’s advocate here: who would be, as a writer, Beethoven’s equivalent, if Austen it isn’t?
Eoin, first we are not alone in admiring Jane, nor comparing her to great composers:
“It is possible to say of Jane Austen, as perhaps we can say of no other writer, that the opinions which are held of her work are almost as interesting, and almost as important to think about, as the work itself,” -Lionel Trilling
“She is perfect in literature as Mozart is in music, and she gives me the same sort of feeling. But apart from that, she is the first of the great novelists.” -Frank O’Connor
“A little aloof, a little inscrutable and mysterious she will always remain, but serene and beautiful because of her greatness as an artist.” -Virginia Woolf
Second, I happen to like popular music, and find much of it memorable. But Jane goes deeper than that, and you’d have to like her enough to read more and see that for yourself. As for being an enemy, there is nothing more than a true Janeite perfers than lively debate on a relevant subject! Jane was known to make fun of many a writer in her time.
Eoin, when I read this post I was quite tempted to tease and laugh at you–however when I scrolled through the comments and saw that you had come here and left your personal remarks, I no longer had the heart for teasing.
Although I think it was grossly unfair of you to characterize Jane Austen’s novels as gossip columns, it certainly doesn’t make you an enemy. Apparently you do not see the uniqueness of JA–she possessed the ablity to make the common-place interesting and as she crafted her stories she revealed her knowledge of the secrets of people’s hearts, as told through the average events of life. It’s what makes her novels so enduring through time and many re-reads! Actually I hope you will join us from time to time and perhaps we might just persuade you one day to try again…
Personally, I have always thought Austen was writing about me when she wrote Persuasion; I agree Lisa…I too feel a bit of Anne Elliot in me.
Glib is good. Austen is like wool: adored by devotees but not for everyone. There are also people who don’t like Beethoven. You can’t like everything.
I won’t aruge with the remark about Austen’s novels translating almost directly to the screen. They do translate. The faults have lain with the translators, not the material.
If you want gossip columns, her letters are a better selection. Try filming those.
No hard feelings here, Eoin.