Everyone point and laugh at the Janeites
Just get it out of your system. The Sunday Herald examines the strange behavior of those odd Jane Austen fans, rather with the air of National Geographic examining an unusual species of chimpanzee.
“They’re really into it,” says local historian Jane Hurst. This seems to be an understatement, given her descriptions of these conventions, though any criticism of the cult is couched in careful terms. “The first time I went, there were several Americans completely dressed the part. Unfortunately, the ladies were not young or slim and the gentlemen didn’t look much like Mr Darcy. I’d not been to anything like that before and I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. The way people talk about the characters, one doesn’t know if they’ve quite separated fiction from reality.”
Pray excuse up whilst we bind up our wounds. If those are careful terms, we’d hate to hear her speak bluntly. We also were not aware there was an age or weight requirement to wear Regency gowns. And we know some Brits who are just as into dressing up in period clothing (and danged serious about it) as the Yanks!
Despite putting herself forward as secretary of the local branch of the Jane Austen society “like a mug”, Hurst differs from other Janeites in that she is decidedly cool on the novels.
No comment.
The rest of this article is too depressing to parse. We suspect that at least some of these people were misrepresented in the article (one certainly hopes so). Yes, some of us have a little fun with our Austen fandom. It is not a crime, and as weird goes, it is way down on the list. If we are wild beasts, we cannot help it.
Comments are closed.
Hey, cultdom of all sorts is a large, serious and intriguing phenomenon. Yes, Janeites are a cult, but we are only part of a larger village of fans who take their chosen hobbies very seriously: viz, the Trekkies, Buffies, Society of Creative Anachronisms (“history as it should have been”), the British Society (is it the Knot of the Rose?) that refights the British Civil War, our own US Civil War Reenactors, the French & Indian War Reenactors (quite different from the Revolutionary War reenactors), the Gilmore Girls fans (my son is one) and so on and so on.
We have no difficulty separating fiction from fact–we know quite well that we’re a tad eccentric and, yes, certainly obsessive. But think how much richer our lives are because of the depth of interest in our chosen obsession(s). I feel very sorry for the many people who don’t have such a rich life! So there.
I agree with you Allison. We have a hobby we enjoy and we have found other people who share the same interests–so why are we to be attacked for it? Hmmph! And I can very well separate fact from fiction, thank you very much!
Sounds to me as though the Herald writer is either a tad jealous and wishes to join in or this man needs a vacation.
“…and the gentlemen didn’t look much like Mr Darcy.”
Well, DUH !!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps the gentlemen seen exhibiting were more in the fashion of Messrs. Bennet, Phillips, Gardiner, etc.
I am so hurt and insulted by Jane Hurst’s comments. If she thinks so poorly of us, why doesn’t she just throw the towle in and let someone else, someone who actually cares about and (gasp!) likes Jane Austen, do her job, insstead of acting so superior to the rest of us? Thank you, Allison T., for your comments on that score–they make me feel a little better.
Also, after have claimed to have tracked down actual die-hard Austen fans, I can’t help noticing that only one of the people the author mentions is actually a Janite. The others are “cool” or indifferent admirerers. Hello? That’s not exactly primary source material.
Her last name would be Hurst. What a killjoy.
Anyone who is “decidedly cool on the novels” does not deserve a seat at the table.
As a big books-over-movies Janeite, I have to say this quote from the article is something to ponder:
“The Jane Austen industry is balanced on a knife-edge at the moment,” says Nicholas. “I have enjoyed every film of one of her novels that I have ever seen and there are things in them that I have loved, but they have been films, they have not been Jane Austen books. Given the choice I reach for Persuasion and open it, I don’t put on the video. I wonder how common a reaction that still is and how common that will be as time goes on.”
I do love the adaptations, but audiences really need to go to the source, lest they get confused about the books like the woman who thought JA was ahead of her time for writing about Darcy in a wet shirt. Egads.
I’m a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism and we take heat sometimes too. My one sister refers to the SCA as “Dungeons and Dragons for the over-40 set.” And I’m not in that age group. I’m just a history nut.
Like everyone else, I’m agreed with Allison T. All of this makes life richer. It’s precisely because of our ability to separate fantasy from reality that these things are so enjoyable for us.
Idea for a bumper sticker: If loving Jane Austen is wrong, I don’t want to be right.
the footage of Colin Firth clambering out of a pond, all see-through shirt and mumbled lines, arguably did more for the author than any well-placed turn of phrase
I don’t know how this could have done anything for Jane Austen, because there is no footage of Colin Firth (or even his double) actually coming out of the pond.
All eye-rolling aside, though, Jane Hurst sounds like she needs to loosen up a notch or two. What kind of hobby would she rather people take up? There are worse things in life than slightly obsessing over an author’s world. I think the air might be a bit too thin up in her ivory tower.
I take it back — more eye-rolling is required. Get over yourself, Ms. Hurst. I’ll tell you what’s worse than an obsessive Janeite: a condescending historian.
Ina, bumpersticker—lol. I want one.