Attention: Mr. Darcy is Fictional
Mr. Darcy is a fictional character. He is made up. He does not exist. He is part of the bleedin’ Choir Fictional. He’s not pining for the fjords. If he weren’t nailed to the perch written on the page, he just would not be. It’s time to stop declaring some casual acquaintance of Jane Austen’s as “The Real Mr. Darcy.” Just stop it now, because (as Georgette Heyer characters would say) you’re making a cake of yourself.
Alert Janeites Lisa and Kay sent us two articles about this silly Blackall book, one slightly less silly in The Telegraph and one rather sillier in the Daily Fail Mail, sillier mainly because it’s longer and more detailed and therefore contains a greater concentration of pure silliness.
He said: ‘Nothing much is heard until Jane found out that Blackall was getting married many years later, when she wrote a rather sour letter about it that was quite unlike her.’
Oh, yes, Jane never wrote ANYTHING nasty or mean or snarky in her letters. So unlike her.
Actually, we’ve always read that letter not as “sour grapes” or wishing an unpleasant wife on Mr. Blackall but as stating that such a wife would suit him best, as he was less than desirable as a partner himself.
The fact that Cassandra burnt a substantial number of letters is seen as indicative of the anger between them.
Back there again, are we?
Once again: the letters were burnt because THEY WERE NOBODY’S BUSINESS BUT JANE’S AND CASSANDRA’S. There is no conspiracy to hide Jane Austen’s Top Seekrit Romances from a curious and impertinent Publick. Stop making stuff up.
As further proof of the rivalry, Dr Norman points to a poem written by Jane in 1807, discovered among her letters.
It is entitled ‘Miss Austen (Cassandra)’ and describes her love.
It reads: ‘It is the cause of many woes/ It swells the eyes and reds the nose/ And very often changes those/ Who once were friends to bitter foes.’
And this poem we’ve always read as silly wordplay, as a wordsmith with an excellent ear stretching for rhyme and meter and scan, not as Deep Significant Messages. It’s a bit of doggerel poetry. Stop making stuff up.
Dr Norman said: ‘I have proved it beyond reasonable doubt that Jane and Cassandra fell out.
‘When you read Jane’s letters she’s often complaining that Cassandra’s not there when she should be, and it seems as if the feud carried on for much of their lives.
Has anyone else read Jane Austen’s letters and got that from them? I’ve never read anything in them but affection and occasionally a touching wish for her big sister’s approval.
And Cassandra’s words in the letter she wrote to Fanny Knight about Jane’s death are not the words of a woman plagued by guilt and regret, remembering a sister whom she wronged and with whom she feuded for years.
I have lost a treasure, such a sister, such a friend as never can have been surpassed. She was the sun of my life, the gilder of every pleasure, the soother of every sorrow; I had not a thought concealed from her, and it is as if I had lost a part of myself. I loved her only too well–not better than she deserved, but I am conscious that my affection for her made me sometimes unjust to and negligent of others; and I can acknowledge, more than as a general principle, the justice of the Hand which has struck this blow.
You know me too well to be at all afraid that I should suffer materially from my feelings; I am perfectly conscious of the extent of my irreparable loss, but I am not at all overpowered and very little indisposed, nothing but what a short time, with rest and change of air, will remove. I thank God that I was enabled to attend her to the last, and amongst my many causes of self-reproach I have not to add any wilful neglect of her comfort.
That anyone would pervert that for their own ends makes us very cross.
Comments are closed.





This post makes me HAPPY! Thank you for being sensible.
Ohhh, I’d heard rumors of this nonsense, too. Thanks for the links and, as Allie said, thanks for being so sensible!
Marilyn Brant
According to Jane, Oct. ’09
Whew! Thank goodness you are back in action
I’m just here to say thanks for the Monty Python reference!
You are my hero. Why can’t everyone be as sensible as you?
One of the worst parts was this:
“He believes that Austen’s 1804 book The Watsons, about a woman’s love affair that was destroyed by a sister with “no faith, no honour, no scruples, if she can promote her own advantage” was based on their dispute.”
Why do people persist in believing that Austen was incapable of just making stuff up?!
… because, you know, authors never make things up, especially female ones. And we aren’t real women unless we’re spending our entire lives pining for some man’s attention. *snort*
I’m especially annoyed that they’re using one of my favorite, hysterically funny letter passages as some kind of proof that Jane felt “snubbed.” Dear god, people, I know academics can suck the life out of anything (I can say that because I am one), but please! CONTEXT!
If Elizabeth Bennet had been written as the kind of character they’re making Jane Austen out to be with this nonsense, Pride & Prejudice would have been an enormous flop.
I do remember her “complaining” that Cassandra had been away at the Godmersham or somewhere else for too long, but I just took that to be her way of saying that she missed her when she was away. I never took it to mean that she was not getting along with Cassandra.
There’s absolutely no point in proving that “Austen didn’t mean that” to people who are ready to read either betrayal or homosexuality between the sisters from exactly the same lines.
What’s really sad is that a.) some people will believe in that crap b.) too many will buy the book.
I feel like Gothic: Would Austen’s ghost haunt the author!
When I told my friends I wrote romance story, the first thing they asked was did I put any of them in the story. Get real, am I not allowed to have imagination? He is literally saying Jane has no imagination, petty and without wit nor humour. I wonder if he has read her novels at all!
Steamy Darcy
I know I’m NOT the only sensible Janeite around, especially around here. I am just fortunate enough to have a soapbox to get up on and wave my arms around and shout when I read this sort of thing. Do please chime in.
(And I never need an excuse to toss in a Monty Python reference!)
Let’s apply this notion to all authors: Kurt Vonnegut was abducted by aliens; Margaret Atwood lived in a distopic future world; ditto for George Orwell; Shakespeare saw witches,fairies, had woodland adventures, and died many, many times. (Oh and don’t forget Jonathan Swift- he travelled to fantastical worlds and ate babies.)
Monty Python was my major obsession as a child.
Are you sure he’s not real? I think you just killed my dream of meeting him…
I don’t understand why people are convinced that Jane couldn’t have just had brilliant ability; they have to say that this was some life experienced that she was only talented enough to pen, not create.
What’s funny is that she never used the highly dramatic events that indisputably occurred in her life: none of her characters were ever tried with great publicity, or escaped (or not!) from the guillotine, or became bankrupt… She could have anticipated Dickens if she’d used all that!
Of course Jane and Cassandra got along well, what with them being incestuous lesbians and all.
Ironically, Mr. Norman seems to be suffering from an over-active imagination, while ascribing too little of of it to Austen herself! The spin he is putting on events in Austen’s life and words are emblematic of someone who has nothing more than a superficial acquaintance with Austen’s work and a sad inability to understand her sardonic voice.
Mr. Norman’s little gimmick strikes me as yet another lame attempt to latch on to the Austen marketing mania….though he probably would have gotten further by using Julie B’s angle of “incestuous lesbians”
Mags, you’ve done it again; loud huzzahs! A modest proposal: I’m going on a JA tour to England in July and will be attending a portion of the UK JAS AGM. If this Andrew Norman has the temerity to attend as well, may I have the inestimable honour of cluebatting him on your behalf?? Your choice of Louisville Slugger substitute: cricket bat, brolly, walking stick…
This line;
“That anyone would pervert that for their own ends makes us very cross.”
…says it all.
I’m really really cross!!
Next up – Austen was a Napoleonic spy. That’s why she never mentioned it in her novels. Didn’t want to give away any secrets.
Just read an article in my news paper about the book, the headline was (translated) “The real mr Darcy was a priest”. The article it self is much like the one liked above.