Welcome to viewers of Becoming Jane
We would like to welcome new visitors to AustenBlog who saw Becoming Jane last week or over the weekend and are looking for more information on Jane Austen’s life and work.
The first question many of you will have is: What parts of Becoming Jane are real and which are fiction?
A good place to start is with a page put together by JASNA, the Jane Austen Society of North America: Becoming Jane: Sorting Fact from Fiction. JASNA also has a brief biography of Jane Austen on their Web site.
Lori Smith also has an article on the Following Jane blog about fact and fiction in the film.
We also recommend several books as good starting places to learn more about Jane Austen.
Elizabeth Jenkins’ Jane Austen: A Biography is unfortunately out of print, but used copies are available, or you may be able to find it in your library. There are lots of other biographies around, but this is our favorite; it’s beautifully written and gives a good overview of Jane Austen’s life.
101 Things You Didn’t Know About Jane Austen by Patrice Hannon is a readable and very informative book about Jane Austen’s life and work.
Jane Austen: A Family Record by Deirdre Le Faye is an excellent follow-up to either of the above books and is loaded with all the dates, places, and names you could want.
A Memoir of Jane Austen, written by Jane Austen’s nephew James Edward Austen-Leigh, is available to read online or in an excellent print edition from Oxford University Press, which includes other biographical sketches and remembrances by Jane’s family members.
Some of Jane Austen’s letters are available online, or the complete, annotated print edition (including letters that became available later) is also available. (We do recommend that one read them for enjoyment, and resist the urge to read too much into them.)
The biography that inspired the film (though it is not a direct adaptation) is Becoming Jane Austen by Jon Spence. Read the AustenBlog review here.
If you really want to know more about Jane Austen, the most important suggestion we can make is to read her books. Don’t watch the movies; read the books. We are not suggesting that Jane Austen’s novels reflected events in her life or people that she knew; in fact, she said that was not the case. If Jane were around today to ask, we think she would suggest that her novels are the best memorial she could have.
If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in the comments and we will argue over them do our best to answer them. 
ETA: Added links to the Memoir and the letters.
Comments are closed.
Has there really been that many new internet surfers coming here? If so, I think that’s excellent. The more (reading) Austen fans the better.
Well I am new but only because I hadn’t come across this site before…not due to Becoming Jane
It’s a small increase, but I’m also seeing a lot of blog posts popping up in my Google Alert from non-Janeites or casual Jane fans wondering how much was real, and some of them are linking to AustenBlog or their commenters are linking to AustenBlog. I’m putting this is the can’t hurt, might help category.
I also have heard some anecdotal evidence (from a bookseller) that moviegoers are seeking out books by and about Jane Austen! La!
I wonder, is there a way for this entry to stay at the top for a little while to help those surfers that want the information right now! and don’t like searching through posts. Not that I have any experience, firsthand, of being that type of surfer. Not me. You’re just such a prolific blogger that this might end up in the archives before we know it!
This is a such a great post. I’ll have to send Jane Austen newbies here for information.
I can place a link to the post at the top of the page, at least. Will that do?
I can say one thing good has become of Becoming Jane. Since all this speculation is based in Jane’s letters, it’s caused me to pick my copy of her surviving and published letters in a quest for some truth. I’m laughing out loud just as often as I do in her books and it’s been very fun.
I think a link at the top of the page is a wonderful idea.
I like Jane just as she is, mysterious and a genius of an author. One thing I do know: Anne Hathaway looks nothing like Anne. I don’t need a glammed up Jane or a thwarted love affair to make her more interesting and to make me want to read her novels. This movie has finally opened in Richmond. I’ll see for myself what all this hullabaloo is about.
Nothing like Jane. I should proof my comments. Duh
I’ve never written a coment on any blog site before, and never thought i should, but i love Jane Austen and it would be nice to sare it with someone. I don’t really know the procedure though, do you just wright comments to each other from time to time? or do you find e-mail pals in here? Because I don’t think I can say all I wish to say about Austen in a short comment like this.
Helene, at AustenBlog we just write comments on the topics that are posted by Mags (the Editrix here). It sometimes leads to discussion, so in that way it works like a message board. When you really want to discuss Jane Austen’s novels or other things about her or the period she lived in, there are also some forums on the internet to post (like Pemberley.com, or Molland’s, see the link on the right of the page). But when you want to know all the updates about Jane Austen in films, books, articles, etc etc, AustenBlog is the place to visit!
By the way, I’m finally going to see ‘Becoming Jane’ tonight! I hope I won’t be too disappointed… Great you posted a link about the facts and fiction, Mags! I think that could be really handy for some people who’d like to know more (or in fact: the truth) about Jane Austen.
Franka;
Did you enjoy it?
James
Helene’s IP address indicates she is in Denmark; any Danish Jane fans out there who know of any local Janeite organizations?
I went to see Becoming Jane last night. It didn’t reach my tiny town in Montana until just now.
I knew beforehand that this was going to be full of fiction!
It was enjoyable to some degree, however, I honestly do not understand how Anne Hathaway, or any actress, could *act* as Jane Austen did in her day. How could anyone carry off Jane Austen’s mannerisms? And the scene where she leaned over and kissed Mr. Lefroy? Oh no no. And I had absolutely no idea she attempted to run away with him! It was to my understanding, she never saw Mr. Lefroy again. However, in this ending, she is meeting with his daughter years later.
After watching so many biographies done on Jane Austen’s life over the years, I always pictured her as quiet and somewhat withdrawn. Withdrawn that is, into her world of writing quietly in her room, listening for the creek in the door should anyone enter.
This movie portrays a vivacious, somewhat wreckless, outgoing girl who plays piano at dawn with gusto, waking the entire family. Was she really THAT angry, at some of her suitors?
I suppose I enjoyed some of the musical score, and the cinematography. But unfortunately I was not captured by our main characters as I hoped I would be.
This is a film that should have been left to someone who could have pieced it together with more fact, than fiction. And left to an actress that could portray her much better.
I hope they do not attempt to do a film on Edith Wharton next! I would fall over if Jenifer Aniston played her. (snarky snark)
You know, I read the letters that Jane wrote about the time she knew Tom Lefroy, and I see her listing the gentlemen she danced with, all the girlfriends she saw, all the acquaintances and friends and family members who were at various parties and balls, and I imagine her being young and enjoying life. There wasn’t anything like that in the film. I think that’s why I found it depressing.
To answer your question, James: as a period drama the movie was ok, a bit average, nothing too special, slightly enjoyable. As a movie about Jane Austen, it was absolutely awful, in my opinion. Besides the fact that it was of course a Made Up Story, it just wasn’t ‘Jane Austen’, if you know what I mean, as if it had nothing to do with her.
In fact, the movie was exactly what I expected.
On Becoming Jane. I too was disappointed in many ways. I felt the costuming was awful. Why was Jane the only person wearing Regency clothes? This should have been December, 1795 to January, 1796 when she met LeFroy. Everyone else wore clothes from the 1790′s.
I knew going in most of this was made-up, but being used to the quality production of BBC’s Pride & Prejudice and Emma Thompson’s Sense & Sensibility, it just fell short.
It was slightly more than entertaining and in fact received only a 2 1/2 star rating-about right. Probably not a movie I will buy and watch over and again.
Franka;
Thank You!
James
Re: costuming
I respectfully beg to differ. In the country, most people would have been a little behind, as today people from say, Buffalo are a little behind those in NYC. Most of what we know about fashion and history in general tends to be about the lives off the well-off and/or urban.
I expected Judge Langlois and Mme. la Comtesse to be out of fashion, the former because of his conservatism, and the latter from political opposition to the Directoire. Mrs. Radcliffe was quite well dressed. I also appreciated that few seemed to have the endless wardrobes of more spectacular productions; sadly, in real life only someone like Eliza de Feuillide could have afforded it. When I write my novel, I’ll multiply my father’s income by five and give myself a larger nose and a better wardrobe, too (smile).
I think Bonny’s point is that Jane’s ballgown was more of a style from 1810 or so.
And I wonder if Eliza’s political leanings were so strong as to prevent her from being in the latest fashion! Which in England, at that time, was more the chemise-dress-with-a-sash look, higher waists and the pouter-pigeon bodice and big floofy gathered skirts. But of course the studio would have nixed them because they would make the girls look “fat.”
Re: ballgowns
I concede the point about Jane; my collection of period fashion plates is French, and as we know that Channel crossing can be a little slow. Post-1804, French gowns are much fuller in the skirts, by imperial edict to sell more fabric. Under “website” I have pasted in a link to 1797 and 1799 gowns. Regarding Eliza, as an older, post-partum woman she may have preferred a more structured look. The merveilleuse thing is even harder to bring off than the chemise. As a child in the early 60′s I noticed the same phenomenon keeping my older aunts in 50′s corsetry and out of those little dresses my mother wore. I agree with you about the studio’s attitude, which is one reason why historical films always look so dated later on.
Thank you; lovely site! But I doubt the film producers were thinking that deeply about the costumes as to whether Eliza’s post-partum status would affect it, considering they sunk poor Hastings for a pug dog anyway.
Oooh, could we have the website link too?
Gown site: http://snipurl.com/1q4zk
Also, the silk industry in France was virtually defunct from 1792-1802, so anyone wanting (heavier) luxury fabric had to recut pre-Revolutionary garments when the old stock ran out. Tangential but cool: Vivienne Westwood’s merveilleuse revival collection. I can’t find a link, but if you can find the book (“Vivienne Westwood”) in the library, take a look. She studied period garments in museums to get the right cut.
Hi all,
Saw Becoming Jane a couple of weeks ago and quite enjoyed it. I found some very interesting articles about Jane and Tom on the web, but can’t seem to get back to at least one of them!
Anyway, what I hope you folks can help with is: in some biography of Jane, I read that there was a sequel to “Pride and Prejudice” that was supposedly based on some ideas she told her family. Of course I didn’t write this down… help, anyone?
Thanks!
ETA from the Editrix — discussion continued here.