Wednesday Linkapalooza: Inaugural Edition

Standard

Yeah, yeah, we know: little late on this one; it’s been a busy week! But do please add your links to comments anyway! We’ll start things off with a few:

The BBC has a short report about the memorial service for Jane Austen at Winchester Cathedral.

Congratulations to El Sitio de Jane, a Spanish-language site run by our friend Carmen, which is celebrating its eighth anniversary! ¡Feliz cumpleaños!

Author Orson Scott Card reviews the latest adaptation of Emma.

So what else have you found flying around the Internet this week?

11 thoughts on “Wednesday Linkapalooza: Inaugural Edition”

  1. Geez. I used to follow Card’s website when I was first reading his books, but I hate how prissy he is about the Emma adaptations. Emma’s my least favorite Austen. I admit that freely. I read it last because I tried reading it second and just could not get through it the first time. The Paltrow adaptation is actually what made Emma easier to swallow for me. I thought Paltrow did just fine as Emma and Jeremy Northam is a wonderful Mr. Knightley. I thought the cast for that version was just about perfect. I’ve only seen about an hour of the Garai/Miller adaptation (it’s on my to-do list), but from what I remember from all the comments on here, Card is pretty much alone in his fawning all over it, is he not? I don’t quite know why he’s so enamored. He just seems to be a big fanboy of the cast and a Paltrow hater…

    Like

  2. I must be tired because the first time I read the BBC article, I missed the last words of one of the sentences and thought it said, “The service was attended by some of her descendants and a bible that belonged to her father.” How nice that the bible could attend!

    I guess it is good to have differences of opinion, if only so there is some variety in life. However, I’m quite inclined to think that Card and I watched completely different versions of both the Paltrow and the Garai Emma adaptations. If Romola’s eye-popping was subtle, I’d hate to see Card’s definition of “over the top.” The Paltrow version is what really got me hooked on Austen and is still one of my favorite Austen adaptations.

    Like

  3. While I was and am no fan of Gwyneth’s performance in that particular movie, I don’t think it deserves the amount of vitriol Card gave, any more than the latest version deserves such encomiums. Frankly the McGrath is closer to the book. For a long time I didn’t think it was, but then shortly after re-reading the novel, I watched it and realized that it really does use a lot of the dialogue from the book. I don’t love it, but I like it well enough, which is the way I feel about all the Emma adaptations except Clueless. I still haven’t been motivated to finish watching the latest adaptation, but the beginning with the Poor Pitiful Orphans bit and what I saw of the portrayal of Miss Bates does not jibe at all with the book I have read. AND THEY LEFT OUT THE BROTHER AND SISTER LINE WHAT. (STILL TRAUMATIZED) That doesn’t mean it wasn’t enjoyable, of course, but I don’t think it’s a definitive adaptation. I await the definitive Emma adaptation, and until then I have Clueless. *hugs Clueless*

    Like

  5. Baja Janeite

    ¡Felicidades Carmen y Amigos de Jane!

    Que cumplan muchos más años disfrutando las obras de Jane.

    Like

    • ¡Gracias Baja Janeite! We’re very happy to celebrate this new birthday!

      I hope you want to join in our celebration with prizes! 😉

      Like

  6. Emily Michelle

    I think Card went too far in his praise of the new Emma and in his condemnation of the old, but he does make some good points. I agree with him that Emma can be a hard character to really get into: “How in the world do you make a good film out of a story in which the leading character is so amazingly and consistently stupid?” That’s pretty harsh, but who hasn’t wanted to throttle Emma a time or two?

    I personally feel like the new version does a nice job of giving us Emma’s motivations. As Card says, “The key is to understand that she is not stupid at all, merely young . . . and her life is spent flailing about for something — anything — to occupy her attention and give her purpose.” And that’s exactly what I (and a friend of mine who is an Emma enthusiast) got out of the new film: after her governess marries, she really has no friends anymore–at least not in the way Miss Taylor was her friend. Of course she’s going to cling to Harriet, who’s her age, so of course she’s going to convince herself that Harriet is her social equal. It gives us a reason for Emma to act the way she does, and, for me, makes her easier to stomach in that particular version of the film.

    That said, I don’t actually remember if Emma is portrayed that way in the book. It’s been a long time since I read it and I don’t think I finished it at that time. So take my opinion or leave it.

    Like

  8. Reeba

    Yes, I wonder at the review. Extreme on both sides.

    I love Emma (the novel) as well as Emma the character. Both my favourite in all literaturedom.
    -Gwenyth Paltrow did a very good job of it.
    -The latest Emma adaptation has grown on me though I still think Grai was not really that good. I had great problems with her expressions.
    -Kate Beckinsale – less said the better.
    -Clueless. Well, I couldn’t relate to it so I have no opinion there. Perhaps it was too American? I couldn’t understand all that ‘marks’ business. Anyway, the fashionable and clothes loving character was not the Emma of my imagination. It was more ‘Harriet’.

    Like

  9. Pingback: This is what it’s come to « AustenBlog

Comments are closed.