I remember my first love–my Tom Lefroy. I was in high school. I remember the giddy, hysterical happy feeling. I also think back on it now and wonder what the heck I was thinking because the only thing the guy had going for him was that he really liked me and pursued me. We really had nothing in common. This was very much a teenage romance, of the holding hands and kissing variety. Anyway, certainly I draw on this remembrance when writing, but it would be silly to use that remembrance for writing more mature relationships. (Have I Googled the guy? Oh, yes.)

One of my stories is basically a couple on their honeymoon. Since they were married in the Victorian era when a declaration of affection led to immediate engagement and marriage after a few weeks to cry the banns, the couple spent a lot of time on their honeymoon talking about when they first fell in love with one another, etc. Someone who read it asked me if I had ever been married. (I have not.) She was surprised as she thought I really nailed the way that newly-married couples talk about their relationship to increase their emotional intimacy–a really nice compliment! How did I do it, since I had never been married? I used my imagination, combined with knowledge of the characters and my observance of the married couples I’ve known. Jane Austen was obviously extremely observant of the society around her, and no, it’s NOT too much of a stretch to say that she was able to IMAGINE a great deal, based on observation if not necessarily first-hand knowledge.

Certainly one needs to do one’s research (and there is evidence in her letters that Jane Austen did so–Frank Austen corrected her on naval matters in MP and she had Cassandra ask about hedgerows in Northampton) but there’s a big difference between getting a fact correct and just understanding how people tick and what happens when you create characters and then throw them together and stir. When it works, readers acknowledge its truth, and a masterpiece is born.

I read Jane Austen as a writer as well as a reader so maybe that’s why I am resentful of the idea that she was some sort of stenographer rather than using her imagination and intelligence to create her stories (as she was, quite literally, shown to be doing in the movie). It DOES insult her genius to imply otherwise, especially if you read the fiction of her time. Jane Austen’s work is quite clearly a leap forward in style from her contemporaries.

In S&S, I especially love the piano piece that Marianne plays in Col. Brandon’s library. Someone on YT transcribed it by ear and plays it:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=f_SJdCjz5RY

And I love the music from North & South, but then again, there isn’t anything I don’t love about N&S!

And how was Elizabeth Bennett portrayed in that travesty 2005 version of “P&P”? Running around like a loon, spinning barefoot on a swing in a muddy yard (England was much colder/damper back then), running around the countryside in her nightclothes …

Movies are movies … they need to make a buck. I neither particularly liked it nor hated it, but I found it somewhat interesting. My post was in response to the responses to the film, which I found to be pretty over the top, considering no one knows that much about Austen, except from stuff she wrote.

I find it highly suspicious that most of her letters were destroyed. Writers are strange beasts and sometimes engage in certain behaviors just so they can later write about it. Clearly she never went through with an elopement, but she may have considered one.

And I have read all of her books very closely (at least once a year): all of the (main) women end up with the man they love (wishful thinking?). Even poor Lydia, with love fading to indifference, ends up in pretty good shape, considering.

Sorry for the length of this comment! I love Jane Austen, I really, really do.