Proof you can take it all too seriously

In honor of Jane Austen’s birthday (we guess), the Washington Post has a roundup/review of several recent books related to Jane Austen and her work. The author doesn’t come right out and say they’re all abominations, and in fact says some are quite good, but we think, if you will excuse the cliché, she is missing the forest for the trees. Oh, and missing something else as well…

Any search for the key to her 200-year survival as a beloved novelist combined with the current outpouring of television series, movies, books and even create-your-own-adventures runs smack into the hero of Pride and Prejudice, Henry Fitzwilliam Darcy.

Henry?!? Way to blow your legitimacy for reviewing this stuff in the second paragraph, sweetie, for the dashing Mr. D. uses that particular Christian name only in Bad Fanfictionland, written by women who can’t imagine themselves Lizzy moaning in ecstasy, “Fitzwilliam! Oh, Fitzwilliam!” Because why else change the poor guy’s perfectly good, usable Christian name, indeed the one that Jane Austen saw fit to bestow upon him? Which makes it good enough for us. We know it’s too bad he couldn’t have a nice, easy name like Colin or Matthew, but if you can’t handle the Fitzwilliam, we suggest you get out of the library.

Although, of course, Henry is a perfectly wonderful name for a hero and we like it a bunch.

Is there a danger here for Austen lovers? Is this derivative work a manifestation of admiration: the better the novels the more profound the tribute? Or do these doubly fictitious characters intrude? Does a married Lizzy Bennet, Emma seen through George Knightley’s eyes, or Caroline Bingley in avaricious pursuit of a wealthy husband creep into our minds and take up residence shoulder to shoulder with the characters their creator presented? Do we want to think of Lydia suffering from syphilis, or Lizzy having a miscarriage? Are these tributes or acts of vandalism?

Oh, for crying out loud. They’re just a bit of fun for Janeites who enjoyed the novels and want to learn something about her or her world, or just want a little more story. We’re glad the author addressed each book as an individual item, even if we don’t agree with all of her reviews, because at least she didn’t say they all stink on general principles. It’s one thing if they’re not your cup of tea, but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily bad. Each book deserves to be considered on its own merits.

That being said, while we and the other Austen authors we know take our work quite seriously and do our research and try to get it right and make it fun and enjoyable for our readers, ultimately we know they’re not as good as Jane Austen’s work and never will be. We’re just having some fun with it, and hoping to give some fun to our fellow Janeites, and maybe giving our fellow Janeites a different way to look at the novels, which makes the experience of reading them that much richer. And we submit there is nothing wrong with that.

At times, the better the sequel, the harder I find it to hold on to the originals. My new Mr. Darcy as a husband and father is not the romantic hero of Pride and Prejudice.

Oh, now who’s romanticizing? Mr. Darcy of the novel is not just the rich, handsome, brooding Alpha Male, he also is a kind master and landlord who takes care of his estate and, therefore, the welfare of people who are under his domain. We modern folks are brought up to the idea that Self-Determination Is Good and Feudalism Is Bad, and it’s not that we don’t agree, but placing oneself in Jane Austen’s world, the place of the master of a large estate like Pemberley is huge. He provides social security for the people who live on his estate. Some people might see that as exploitation, but Jane Austen, clearly, does not, because let’s face it, those people had no other safety net. There was no NHS, no unions, no welfare. There was just Mr. Darcy. That he takes his responsibilities seriously and ensures the livelihood of the people under his care is extremely important in Jane Austen’s consideration. It’s when Elizabeth finds out just how good a master and landlord is Darcy that she falls completely in love with him. Compare him to, say, Sir Walter Elliot, who does just the opposite, and see what we mean. Mr. Darcy the “husband and father” is probably not much unlike Mr. Darcy the squire, and if readers insist on romanticizing him, we think they’re missing the point.

But clearly, a large number of readers don’t care. They want to linger in those drawing rooms and take comfort from a society that knew exactly who took precedence at the dinner table. The tiny but vibrant business of becoming Jane is unlikely to die out anytime soon. What would Miss Austen have made of it all?

Is that the only way to find fascination in history? As a refuge? We think not.

And what would Miss Jane Austen have thought of it all? She probably would have wanted a cut of the profits, and who can blame her?

EDITED to make sense. Sorry, we have a splitting sinus headache and words aren’t working well for us at the moment.