Featuring Curigwen Lewis as Elizabeth Bennet, who also played Desdemona and Jane Eyre around the same time, and Andrew Osborn (who would eventually become a BBC Television Executive Producer) as Mr. Darcy, it’s hard to seek out details as both of the actors have been dead for some time. IMDb credits Michael Barry with screenplay and production of the piece, and lists the cast:

Allan Jeayes as Mr. Bennet
Antoinette Cellier as Jane Bennet
Dorothy Green as Lady Catherine de Bourgh
Mervyn Johns as Sir William Lucas
André Morell as Mr. Wickham
John Whiting Servant as Organ Grinder, Apothecary (Yes, organ grinder has me pretty curious too)
Richard Gilbert as Mr. Denny
Bettina Stern as Servant

Below is an image of Lewis as Jane Eyre. Has anyone seen images of her in Pride and Prejudice?

Apparently, a review in The Times (30 May 1938) labelled it as ‘charming’. I’m currently in the process of digging out this review as the archives I have access to only go back as far as 1985 (or historically from 18th century ish) however I have put a few friends on the case who have access to other university libraries, so fingers crossed I will be able to detail, in full, the review to you all soon.

Interestingly, it was produced, and the screenplay written, by Michael Barry who was a producer with the BBC and then the first Head of Television Drama. He also produced Orwell’s 1984 in the 1950s for about three and a half thousand pounds. He was influential in shaping the direction of BBC period drama (and drama in general) in the early years, and his creation of Pride and Prejudice was said to be ‘charming’ in a Times review in the era. At 55 minutes long, it makes sense that it is said to be a ‘reduced’ adaptation. What is interesting, is that as pre-recording was not yet en vogue (or even developed I believe) the productions were generally live to air and repeating them involved actually re-performing the pieces. This may explain why it has been so hard to get a hold of, and even to find general information about.

There is a small reference to the adaptation in “Women writers dramatized: a calendar of performances from narrative works published in English to 1900″ by H Philip Bolton which lists different adaptations of women novelists. Bolton backs up this idea that it was a play-to-air that was probably live, as it is noted as: “100. TELEPLAY: PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. BLACK-AND-WHITE. 55 MIN SCREENWRITER: MICHAEL BARRY BBC TV, 22 & 27 MAY 1938 CHADWYCK-HEALEY CATALOGUE Seven men and seven women.” For the interested, I believe that Chadwyck-Healey refers to a big listing of performances. That it was perhaps performed twice is also interesting, and as the 1984 production was also a live teleplay (and far more easy to find info about) I think it would have cost around the same amount to create. The term teleplay emerged in the 50s, so I think we can expect that any recording of P&P around would not be labelled as such.

Information from Jane Austen’s Pride and prejudice: the relationship between text and film by Deborah Cartmell explains that “Unfortunately, typical of this vintage of broadcast, there appear to be no surviving recordings of this production. Archiving broadcasts is a relatively recent enterprise, the storage of kinescope and video recordings was implemented in hindsight in the 1970s but tended to be selective and hit and miss. Given that the 1938 Pride and Prejudice was transmitted from the eastern part of Alexandra Palace with a guaranteed range of a mere 25 miles, it’s not surprising that it didn’t make a long-lasting impact.” According to historical references, it looks as though only a few hundred viewers would have been able to see the first broadcasts from North London’s Alexandra Palace (leased to the BBC by the trustees for production and transmission) in 1936 but up to 25-40 thousand homes may have been reached by September 1939 (where broadcasts were suspended due to the war). More conservative estimates place viewers at 12-15 thousand maximum, but admit it was more likely that only a few hundred viewers tuned in to some showings. These London broadcasts were the first high-definition transmissions and were screened four hours each day between ’36 to ’39. These were experimental services (and for the interested, Greer Garson from the 1940s Pride and Prejudice was in the first Shakespeare play performed on TV, also broadcast from Alexandra Palace, a 30 minute production of Twelfth Night). Fittingly, Alexandra Palace is known as the “birthplace of television”.

More information hopefully to come. If you know anything about it, feel free to send me a message or to comment below.

Expect big British names (Alan Rickman – Harry Potter, Victoria Wood – who has been in several period spoofs, Imelda Staunton – Harry Potter, Bill Paterson –  Law & Order UK, Richard E Grant – you’ll soon see him in The Iron Lady, James Bolam – when the boat comes in, Geraldine McEwan – Miss Marple, Pete Postlethwaite – Inception/Jurassic Park/Romeo and Juliet, Honeysuckle Weeks – Foyle’s War and on stage as Eliza Doolittle and apparently there’s a Delia Smith cameo) but also expect a niche little video that not many other people have seen. Finding information on this parody is difficult.

It was filmed in the Georgian style home Squerryes Court in Westerham, Kent, which is a 17th Century manor house surrounded by gardens that you get a fair view of in the video, and apparently there are gorgeous views. (For the keen: you can actually rent the place out for weddings and corporate events according to the website). There are drawing rooms, dining rooms, a gazebo, historical paintings, porcelain, tapestries and furniture, and it just looks gorgeous. The gardens are 10 acres in size and have daffodils, herb borders, roses, hedges, bluebells, a parterre, a dovecote, lakes and water features. Unfortunately, the official website mentions that in 2012 the home will be passed to the next generation and as such visiting may no longer be applicable. You’ve probably seen the house in other adaptations without realising it before, including as Hartfield in the 2009 BBC Emma adaptation, in the Foyle’s War TV series (also featuring Honeysuckle Weeks) and even 2009′s The Boat That Rocked.

For another fun tidbit, IMDb trivia says that the costume worn by Alice Cottisloe when she opens the door is the same as worn by Billie Piper in Mansfield Park, Emma Thompson in Sense and Sensibility and Rosamund Stephen in Persuasion.

You’ll see plenty of tea-cup clinking, wordplay and banter. It is a bit on the ridiculous side- accidental proposals that you can’t wriggle out of, handkerchief wailing and a huge number of letters. It is this last point that I think parodies Pride and Prejudice the most. The vast number of important and pressing letters, arriving weeks or months later to the recipient (particularly admirals and similar at war) reminded me of how amusing it was when Lizzy received the news about Lydia, only for it basically to be old news by the time she had gotten home.

Despite this piece being called a P&P parody by numerous blogs (including in a janeausten.co.uk forum and many fan fic sites), I see it more as a period drama parody. I found an interesting tidbit where Honeysuckle Weeks (yes, that’s her real name) who was the main love interest in the piece said: “I filmed a Victoria Wood Christmas Special there, a spoof of Sense and Sensibility called Plots and Proposals. It was quite different this time. In Plots and Proposals, I played Kate Winslet’s character and was dressed in a Regency outfit, frolicking in the garden with ringlets.” To me, this makes a whole lot more sense (particularly with the kickback in costuming mentioned above).

That it does not mention anything specifically Pride and Prej related may then stand to reason, but it does giggle at some of the quirks of the era: ”I don’t know it’s a funny period, Regency” it at one moment points out. Criticisms of the piece include that there are too many distracting celebrity cameos, and Neil Brandwood writes of the skit briefly in his book ‘Victoria Wood: The Biography’ saying: “Typifying ‘BBC Upmarket’ was a parody of a period costume drama. Plots and Proposals was tired, unoriginal and smacked of indulgence.” Personally I’m not sure it warrants that sort scathing response.

I stumbled on this fun outtake (if you find any more let me know!):

Have you seen it? Are you a fan? Do you think it warrants the title a “Pride and Prejudice Parody”?

“Like Elizabeth Bennet, I had found my freedom.” – William Deresiewicz

This book is the type of read that makes you go “Why didn’t I think of it like that?”. It is not only gorgeous on the cover (who doesn’t love paper dolls?) and offers plenty of new and personal insights into how you can interpret the works of Austen, but is gorgeous on the inside too. I found a slight battered hardback version for about $5 at my local haunt Basement Books in Central Station, Sydney. You can also pick it up from Amazon for under $20 (and get the wonderful sneak preview read).

Mixing academic writing, textual analysis and a lovely running commentary on Jane Austen set within an autobiographical framework this is a different take on being a Janeite. Deresiewicz, an Austen scholar, explains from the start that he was once a cynic of Austen’s work (and a bit of a self-admitted pretentious git) because of the ‘girly’ connotations surrounding books such as Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility, but after reading them and studying them – breaking through the tedium – it dawned on him just what it is that Jane is saying, and why she is as intelligent and interesting as the rest of us think. This book spans his life from student-hood onwards and ends like a Jane novel would.

The book is structured with each novel to describe a different part of his life, and with each comes a lesson. I will leave it for you to read to uncover the many lessons Jane taught him, however Pride and Prejudice is explained to have instructed him on “growing up” which, to me, is a fairly interesting observation in itself. He explains, situating himself in the preparation for a big “academic endurance test” in the third year of graduate school in which he had to read an obscene number of books in a short space of time, “And one of those days, about halfway through the summer, I very suddenly, and very unexpectedly, fell in love. The object of my infatuation, of course, was Elizabeth Bennet.” He explained that this love, that we all feel for Lizzy, was due to her exuberance, her wit, that she is the type of character who “makes you feel more alive just by being around.”

Pride and Prejudice does make you fall deep into the way Lizzy thinks. Because she is such an attractive, amusing character we immediately identify and want to be her, or at least her friend (!), and as such view things the way that she does. He explains that as Lizzy has to realise her faults through the book in turn Jane Austen asks us to view ourselves, and as a result we start to grow up and understand our feelings and faults.

Another P&P lesson learned in the book: Mistakes are normal. Learn from them. Sometimes being wrong is more valuable and sometimes your ego needs to take a step down for this to happen. This can be enforced, and you may end up humiliated. Guess what – it’s probably good for you.

By growing through suffering and understanding, we are led through Deresiewicz’s life. He is blatant about his own poor performance in relationships, his feelings of isolation and the times when he has gone with high-flying friends that were fake but for a while made him feel right. All the way through, Jane Austen explained through her novels about social interactions, why the minutiae is important (Emma – the first novel he read that he found so tedious, before moving on to the gripping Pride and Prej) and why friends are the family you choose (Persuasion).

An interesting and unexpected part of this P&P chapter is where we see it compared with Jane Eyre (due to a study choice that involved picking either Pride and Prej or the Bronte classic). For those of us that are quite widely integrated with the online Janeite community and read across the sites, and may even be fans of the Brontes on the side, there is some intense rivalry that is quite apparent between the two camps. As he puts it “In Pride and Prejudice, reason triumphs over feeling and will. In Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte’s own typically romantic coming-of-age story, emotion and ego overcome all obstacles. Those of us who chose Pride and Prejudice couldn’t imagine how you could stand to read anything so immature and overwrought as Jane Eyre. Those who chose Jane Eyre couldn’t believe that you would subject your students to something as stuffy and insipid as Pride and Prejudice. Our choices, of course, reflected our personalities.” What can I say? I adore this explanation of the two camps (as debatable as his reasoning may be here). I have always viewed Austen as practical, down-to-earth and knowledgable. While she understands and believes in emotions and love, she doesn’t believe that they are everything nor should dictate your behaviour. Passion still exists within Austen.

He manages to intertwine quotes from Jane’s letters, information from biographer Claire Tomalin and other background information on texts (e.g. The Watsons) really nicely. His parallels between the books, his life and Austen’s life are interesting and honest. I don’t know if the fact that this is a male perspective makes a great deal of difference (I have been asked that in the process of reading it) but I think that he approaches Jane with a different sense of reverence. To us, she is a sister, an Aunt, a confidante. To him, as a literary student, teacher and so on, she is an author (first and foremost) and a text. She only becomes a person by the time Persuasion is explored (second to last novel discussed in the book) and even then it is kept quite factual, and not as imaginative as many of us become.

The only main pitfall with this book was some serious parental loathing that I felt uncomfortable reading after several pages (there’s only a small amount of parent bashing you can get away with unless your David Pelzer or something) as well as lengthy re-hashing of each books plot. Honestly, I don’t think people who haven’t read the Austen novels (at least most) would choose this book in the first place, and even with paraphrasing I don’t think it would make sense to them regardless. In that sense, if Deresiewicz had identified his audience from the out (Janeites?) then he might be in a better area. If it is aimed at those who are being forced to read Austen and looking for some sympathy then I’m still not sure he has hit the mark. Regardless, despite this confusion over audience-intent, I found the book entertaining and the reflections on the books fresh and original. And that, to me, is what I really like to see in any Austen-related books (fan fiction or otherwise).

It’s sort of like reading an extended one-man book club (and I don’t mean that in a negative way at all) So… what did you think of it? Who do you think it is aimed at?

Firstly, while Persuasion is no Pride and Prejudice, I must proclaim my love for it. I have a great adoration for every Jane product (with, perhaps, an avoidance of Mansfield Park) and this reading of Persuasion touched my heart as it told of individuality and independence, such that Lizzy would be proud of, even after being wrongfully swayed by others. I think everyone can relate to some time in their life when those around them have changed their mind- even if they were unable to change their heart. I do envy people that say their love, or their emotions, cannot be altered by others… but I daresay they are proclaiming falsehoods as everyone is fallible in this respect.

Unfortunately, Persuasion was not touched upon at this meeting. With one member sick, I having been ill previously, we decided to wait until we were all together for the final Austen. We did, however, meet at an Austen-appropriate venue. Having spent the night at my best friend Pauline’s house, watching the gorgeous 2007 BBC Persuasion adaptation, in the morning we took the train from Seven Hills to King’s Cross. Our ultimate location was The Victoria Room, Darlinghurst. Stepping in, the dark mood lighting and overall hush of the place has this really romantic atmosphere. With gorgeous lamps, tea cups, tea strainers and richly decorated wallpaper, the restaurant is described as “British-Raj” style and it is absolutely perfect for an Austen-themed meal.

Particularly when that meal is high tea ($45) and the menu includes: Tea (comes in a gorgeous tea pot, with a little jug of milk, and refills are included in the price) of which you can choose from an extensive list or coffee. Sandwiches (whch come cut up in gorgeous tiny triangles). An assortment of sweets/pastries/cheesecakes and, the most lovely part, scones with lovely jam and cream. All on tiered plates.

They provided me with a wonderful vegan alternative too- my sandwiches had avocado and tomato bruschetta in two triangles, and vegannaise with buk choy in another. I had two “chocolate” type brownies and two heart-shaped shortbread cookies, as well as two vegan scones and jam. They also provided soy milk for my tea, of which I chose China Sencha- a lovely light flavoured tea that reminded me of white vanilla tea.

While the food, the company and the conversation was all lovely- and it was terrific to have a catch up, the service was a little over the top and just too-friendly for my liking. However, that’s a small qualm and it was nice to just be able to relax and eat, and enjoy the atmosphere. You can see from the photos how gorgeous it was! I think I spent much of the first twenty minutes coo-ing over the different finishings.

It’s in the details. From brown and white sugar cubes that are naturally shaped and not cubes at all to matching saucers and teaspoons, it’s beautiful. Similarly, the light fittings- chandeliers inside material lamp shades- were stunning. Even the bill comes on a nice plate with flowers and potpourri scattered on top of it.

I have to say, this is definitely a girly day out. Reserve it for someone special, and remember that high tea is served between midday and 5pm and you should always lift your saucer with your teacup.

We have resolved to continue with book club after Persuasion, and to read Bronte, Gaskell and all our other favourites. Have you ever had high tea? And who do you recommend for next reading?

Maggie Lane is a Jane Austen academic, the author of many leading scholarly articles and the book ’Austen’s World: the life and times of England’s most popular author’, a member of the British Jane Austen Society (and a spokesperson for the organisation in an Austen BBC documentary), a lecturer about Jane Austen for many JA societies, and was heavily involved with important Austen projects in Bath including the creation of a new Jane Austen Visitor’s Centre. She had also produced similar quiz books for the Bronte sisters and Shakespeare.

First published in 1982 by Abson Books, most avid Austen readers will recognise the accompanying illustrations in this 40-page paperback as those from the 1890s Macmillan editions of the canonical books (juvenilia etc are not included in the quizzes) from Hugh Thomson and Charles Brock. Throughout, you are asked to guess the quotation that fits the picture. If you have the Jane Austen Illustrated Treasury that I grabbed on my Melbourne adventure, then you can be a bit cheeky, cheat and just look at the removable pictures with the original quotations below them.

Maggie Lane has developed a thoroughly challenging, amusing and (dare I say it) diverting quiz book for all those of us who not only have a (not unhealthy at all) Austen fetish but also a nerdish obsession with crosswords, word searches, knowing parts of quotes, ridiculously specific trivia and word play in general. If you’re like me and the first page you turn to in any magazine is to the quizzes, then this is for you. Quizzes are plentiful through the Austen novels, but even as an admittedly obsessive Janeite there were questions that stumped me completely, for instance: In Mansfield Park “Who wore Lace-up half-boots?” and “What was the colour of: The curtains at Highbury Vicarage” are very difficult yet common types of questions asked by Lane. However, don’t be put off if that sounds difficult- half the fun lies in rifling through your collection and searching for the answers, and for each difficult one there as an equally simple one to make you feel worthy again (e.g. fill in the quote “What are men __ rocks and mountains?”). If you find it too hard, or you’re just perusing a copy, the full answers are at the back as is normal quiz-book practice.

But how much Pride and Prejudice is there? A tonne. The first quiz asks straight away “Who: Acquired a sun tan” and if you don’t know the answer to that one, then I will shun you from P&P forever more! If you think that answering the Christian name of Mr. Bingley is easy, then I challenge you with answering what type of soup he offered at his ball, or in what month did Elizabeth refuse Mr. Darcy… or even who wore a nightcap and powerdering gown at some stage during the novel? Simple in layout, and easy to understand and use, it’s nonetheless a great brain stretcher.

You can order The Jane Austen Quiz and Puzzle book either through JASA (Jane Austen Society of Australia) or through Amazon and similar book sites. Have you completed any of the quizzes or know of other Austen quiz books? What do you think?

Books like these leave a literary imprint on who you are and, in my belief, your reading habits forever. So when I stumbled across a new book series called “BabyLit” where youngsters are introduced to Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet) and our Jane (Pride and Prejudice) early I just about died with joy. It also helps that the cover is Squee-Worthy.

These adorable “Counting Primer” board-books are brought to you by Gibbs Smith publishers, and I can tell you from the sneak peek I’ve been given of the contents that they are truly adorable (and involve ball gowns, violins, horses, marriage proposals and a mention of our Darcy’s 10,000 a year). If you want to get your little bub interested in Jane Austen as much as you, then with words by Jennifer Adams and quaint cartoon illustrations by Alison Oliver (that remind me of a mixture of Roger Hargreave’s Mr.Men/Little Miss books blended with Satoshi Kitamura’s UFO Diary), you can’t go past this. With gorgeous pinks, greens, blues and other dusty colours it’s the most elegant children’s book I’ve seen in a while, and if your child is learning their 1 to ten then this is a must buy.

Not only was Jennifer Adams kind enough to answer some questions about her creation, but her publishing team, via the wonderful Jill, has also given me permission to provide One Free Copy as a giveaway to a reader. I am going to grace one lucky reader with this free copy (Postage and Handling paid for, and all countries welcome!). All you need to do is leave a comment below stating why you want a copy. The best answer wins! I will contact you requesting your postal address after deciding the winner, so please include your email in the appropriate field.

Without much more fuss… on to the Q&A with Jennifer Adams. As avid Janeites, you may recognise the name from one of her previous books “Remarkably Jane: Notable Quotations on Jane Austen” which received a rave review from the lovely Laurel Ann over at Austenprose.

Why do you think it’s important to get young children interested in Jane Austen (and literature) at a young age?

Your parents reading to you, being held while you are being read to, the physical, tactile experience of holding a book and turning the pages—these are things that are imprinted on us so early. If you teach a child to love books when they are a baby—read to them, surround them with books—they will grow up to love books and be enriched by them throughout their lives.

Where did the concept for the BabyLit books come from?

My brilliant editor, Suzanne Taylor, came up with the idea of board books to introduce babies to the classics. Her tagline is “BabyLit is a fashionable way to introduce your child to the world of classic literature.” And it really is!

How did you go about choosing what would suit each number from 1 to 10?

Turning Pride and Prejudice into a book of twenty words is a lot more tricky than you would think! I wrote several different versions of the manuscript before we settled on making it into a counting book. As far as deciding what to put with each number, I tried to capture the characters of the book, and the flavor of Jane Austen’s world. The illustrator did a fabulous job helping with this. I also tried to capture major themes: like love, marriage, class, and money. So the three houses represent three houses to the babies, but to the adult reading the book, the size and affluence of Longbourn, Netherfield, and Pemberley tell a different, more layered, more textured story. That’s one reason I think these book will have a lot of appeal to adults as well as babies. There is a lot to them.

What other BabyLit books are there coming out? Any others planned?

We do have exciting plans for more BabyLit books in the wings. Let’s just say be on the lookout for orphans, vampires, and some interesting aristocracy.

Who is your favourite Austen heroine and why?

I love Elizabeth Bennet the most. Kiera Knightly said: “Everyone believes in some way that they are Lizzie Bennet.”  And I think that’s why as readers we’re so drawn to her. We want to be her; we think we are her. Another reason I like Elizabeth is that she is flawed. She makes big lapses in judgment, big mistakes. But she is both young enough and wise enough to laugh at her mistakes. And I also love her because she learns from her mistakes and finds such happiness in the end. Isn’t that what we want for ourselves, and for all the people and characters who we love?

You previously wrote “Remarkably Jane: Notable Quotations on Jane Austen”. Are there any other Austen-related books planned?

Oh, what a great question! There has always got to be something lovely or fun or clever to do with Jane Austen. I can’t get over what a kick I got out of the whole Pride and Prejudice and Zombies dreamed up by Jason Rekulak at Quirk Books. I’m not sure what the next Austen book will be, but I’ll know it when it comes to me.

When did you first read Pride and Prejudice? What did you think of it?

I read Pride and Prejudice when I was seventeen. I remember sitting up in the late hours of the night reading a old copy at my grandma’s house. I was fascinated and intrigued by Mr. Darcy and the interplay of his and Elizabeth’s relationship. I remember reading that interaction when they are dancing at the ball like three times and trying to soak in all the undercurrents and sexual tension. I’ve read Pride and Prejudice probably seven times, and each time have gotten something new from it. The last time I read Austen, it was Mansfield Park, and I remember just sitting and laughing out loud and being surprised that I didn’t remember how absolutely biting and funny her sarcasm is.

What is your favourite Pride and Prejudice adaptation?

I love Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy, and I love Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet. I guess the BBC version is my favorite, but I do love director Joe Wright’s version for a couple of reasons—I love the lushness of the cinematogrphy, and I love that the atcors playing the characters are so young, like Keira Knightley was twenty when she played the role, the exact age of Elizabeth Bennet’s character. In some versions the actors are older so people think of those characters as a lot older than they actually are. The characters are very young and are full of spirit and spriteliness and angst just like twenty-year-olds should be.

BabyLit books are available on Amazon and http://www.indiebound.org/ for anyone to buy them at their local independent bookstore. Isn’t it the most charming children’s book you’ve seen for a long time? So, tell me for a chance of winning this book, why do you want a copy of BabyLit’s Little Miss Austen: Pride and Prejudice? (Giveaway ends: Friday 22nd July 2011, the book will be sent directly from Gibbs Smith and all details will be treated with confidentiality).

This is a dazzling 2009 version of a “Janeite heads to the past” type storyline. Downloaded for free onto my Kindle on Jane Austen’s birthday, while it took me a while to get around reading it… when I did I was gripped. Packed with historical nuances, detailed comments about the fashion of the time and some raunchy Regency sex (pulled off semi-tastefully, although it did surprise me a little when I first stumbled out of “cute dancing in a ball” chapters and before I even noticed I’m reading “certain-dashing-heroes cutting open beautiful-eligible-female’s corset with knife”)  it’s not one to be missed.

It begins with Eleanor Pottinger, a modern-day period costume maker, who is attending the Jane Austen Society conference. She gets her rooms messed about and ends up in an older wing of Twixton Manor Inn where she quickly falls asleep. Only to wake up to two young female ghosts, Mina and Deirdre, determined that Eleanor will help their past selves and change the course of their lives, and history- stopping their brother Teddy from dying in a duel. In repayment, Eleanor is promised to meet Cassandra and Jane Austen, friends of Mina and Deirdre’s. After the usual “this must be a dream”, “I’m going crazy” type responses, Eleanor wakes up in the Regency era and has to quickly adjust and fulfil the ghosts’ wishes. Unfortunately, love and romance, intrigue, betrayal and hiccups with Regency manners (and food, and dancing) all get in the way. Shermont, the potential villain who could kill Teddy, has a much deeper character than suspected and Eleanor finds herself falling hard. Shermont, suspecting that Eleanor could be a spy, struggles with his own conflicting feelings too.

While it’s not fantastic as a historical fiction piece, the little details it offers up are delicious. The imagery of the dining table is adorable, and there are plenty of lessons Eleanor has to learn that most average readers are more than likely unaware of. The language of the characters is not at all Regency sounding and the behaviour even far less so, however I was fairly willing to overlook it throughout… plus, the household stages a play so I was pretty much beyond caring by this point! And there are a lot of butterflies. A lot.

For those of you sitting on the edge of your seat, waiting for the Pride and Prejudice mentions, I can assure you there are plenty. Not including general Jane Austen discussion (which peppers every few pages at least), Pride and Prejudice is mentioned explicitly a handful of times. Eleanor, upon looking through the library while stuck in the Regency era, digs out a copy of Pride and Prejudice for solace. It “was like a surprise visit from an old friend” (and anyone who has ever looked through another’s bookcase and found a copy of P&P knows that lovely rush of familiarity). Eleanor also notes Pride and Prejudice as her favourite, and while she wants to carry it downstairs upon meeting Jane Austen, she is advised not to as her identity as the author is not well known.

There’s a lovely mention of the 1940s black and white version of Pride and Prejudice as, sitting in a moonlight garden with Shermont, she “almost expected Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier to approach along the garden path”. And she eventually admits to Jane Austen that Pride and Prejudice has her gushing, for instance: “I am compelled to tell you how much I enjoy reading the story. I find the characters so filled with life. Every time I read it, I fall in love with the hero Mr. Darcy all over again … I want to have Elizabeth Bennet for a sister or at least for my best friend.” And Jane Austen retorts “… but if you were her friend, then you might wind up marrying Mr. Collins…” Eleanor also explains her love for the book as also coming from the valuable lessons it teaches about relationships (not listening to your brain or your heart exclusively). The last mention is of a first edition copy of Pride and Prejudice Eleanor holds in the later chapters. I shan’t mention any further as I think it would ruin the surprise at the end of the book.

Sad: Not to see more Jane Austen. Happy: To have details of Jane Austen’s appearance compared to the drawing/art that we have access to today.

For a Jane Austen period drama meets mystery bodice-ripper, I found the whole thing flowed nicely. It’s an easy read, although a little long for its genre (certain chapters feel as though they drag on a little). If you’re a fan of Lost In Austen, Prada and Prejudice or Confessions of a Jane Austen Addict then you’ll love this.  I was happy with the conclusion as all the ends were well tied in, however it was extremely close to Prada and Prejudice and a little predictable. Have you read this one? What did you think? Was Shermont the ultimate hero? Shermont or Darcy?

The Jane Austen Book Club is one of the few books I’ve seen the film version of first. I have been hesitant to read it, as I had heard that it was distinctly different from the film, but when I saw it on the shelves of Basement Books (yet again) for $5.95, I couldn’t help but buy it for the train. It surprised me, in a number of ways. Firstly, it’s chick lit but it manages to include those subtle Janeite jokes, and secondly, the different storylines blend seamlessly into a delicious little read.

It’s a very different style to read if you’re into that beach-read culture. Firstly, there isn’t one single plotline, or even a defined plotline, in the entire piece. While romances do blossom, you are swept along, diving in and out of the different book club member’s memories and histories- be it Jocelyn and Sylvia’s highschool prom, or Prudie’s memories of her mother. You become close to them, and understand why they are how they are, and you don’t even realise that you’ve spent most of the book looking back on their experiences rather than what’s actually going on. I love this. Despite the relationship we see in the film version (that I reviewed about a year ago) between Prudie and the highschool boy not existing to the same extent in this book, it is nonetheless far darker than the movie. Sexual assault, betrayal and general emotional fuckwittage (that was for the Bridget Jones fans) are rampant. All the characters are fleshed out tremendously well, with particular emphasis on Allegra, the “teen lesbian alliance” girl from the film, as a mature 30-something jewellery-maker who comes alive in the book more than she ever did on screen.

The book is written in first person plural (“us”, “we”) that immerses you into the book club, and though which character it is written by is unstated- treating all the members of the club as separate, delving in and out of their lives impersonally and knowing only what an omniscient narrator might know about each of them. This technique, while different, works really well. The book’s structure is such that it is divided into the different months and Austen novels- one for each of those month of book club and we see certain aspects of the characters’ lives reflecting the novels. While each character ‘controls’ or ‘hosts’ a month, the chapters are never defined to describing one character’s life. The order of reading is: Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park, Northanger Abbey, Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion. The Pride and Prejudice chapter, in which “we listen to Bernadette” goes through the flippant first impressions of the characters towards each other, which I think is fitting. “Sylvia’s first impression of Grigg was that he had nice eyelashes and a funny name, and didn’t interest her in the slightest” “Grigg’s first impression of Jocelyn was that she appeared to think sharing an elevator with him for a few floors was some sort of punishment.” We see the lives of the characters become increasingly entwined, and there’s this lovely sense of seeing them say the wrong things to each other (and unintentionally offend) but knowing the reasons behind what they’re saying, and knowing when they’re deflecting (as Sylvia does to many of the other members of book club).

The chapter then goes on detailing their month- the Library Dinner, discussions of dancing and similar. Allegra suggests that Charlotte Lucas is perhaps gay, and then my favourite line of the book arises: “There was something appealing in thinking of a character with a secret life that her author knew nothing about. Slipping off while the author’s back was turned, to find love in her own way. Showing up just in time to deliver the next bit of the dialogue with an innocent face.” That is a truly wonderful observation. While the chapter deviates from Pride and Prejudice, and Austen, for large segments (alike the rest of the book) parallels are eventually seen between the characters. And the chapter ends with the lovely summation, as seen in Austen’s nephew’s letters, that in Jane’s mind she married off Kitty to a clergyman who lived near the Darcy estate, and Mary to a clerk from her uncle Philips’ office so she could remain near home.

At the end of the book is a lovely appendices. Firstly, the bare facts of each novel are laid out. The original titles of the books, the year written and published (1796-1797, 1813 for Pride and Prejudice), what Austen felt about each novel (P&P: “rather too light and bright, and sparkling”, needing some “solemn specious nonsense”) and an outline of the plot. Then we are given responses from people over time in the form of quote lists. Mary Russell Mitford on Pride and Prejudice and assorted quotes from 1810-2003. And the last section is “Questions for Discussion” from the characters in the book club themselves. They are not academic (in general), are very fitting to the characters and are generally multi-layered. An absolute must-read section.

A fun, quick read that is best read after having devoured all of the Austen novels. It would have been great to see a bit more Austen in there, and being involved in my own book club there are points of conversation that I’m surprised weren’t mentioned (I wonder if Karen Joy Fowler ever had her own book club, and what the people in that were like?). It’s nice and reflective to read if you have or have ever been in a book club yourself and definitely one to get for any friends who are big fans. Have you read it? What did you think in comparison to the film?

He mentions that the structure of the book is “organic”, a point that I wholeheartedly agree with- it is written seamlessly. In the same way that judges on So You Think You Can Dance always lament that you shouldn’t be able to see the dancer “thinking” about the steps, you should never be able to see an author planning the next chapter. He explains that it is a novel about choices. About choosing to love, choosing your actions and that “A work of art, like love, is the ideal become real, and so in love we all get to be artists.” I might be gushing, but I adore this foreword for making me feel all “Squee” and squishy inside with romance over My Favourite Book once again. His focus on the importance, the duality, the multi-facets and the prominence of love sums up Pride and Prejudice perfectly.

While being very different to your average run-of-the-mill Pride and Prejudice cover (classical painting, possibly some sort of swirly unreadable calligraphy) it also holds the elements we adore: the barouche-landau, the large estates, the sense of romance and the unknown. The beautiful typography of the title. And then there’s a mobile phone on the ground. Amy Hills Halberda, the literary manager for The Art Cannot Be Damaged team says: “It is amazing though how fast technology changes. We have a “flip phone” on the cover and already that technology is a thing of the past!”. It’s updated, re-modelled and perfect for the younger artsy types to get their hands on.

Several things also really appealed to me about the layout. I adore the font, to start with, but my number one hang up with most classics is that I like to underline and add notes to my books- underscoring my favourite points, and basically scribbling thoughts all through it (to me, this is what books are for) and they never have room for me to write in, or the pages bleed the highlighter through to the other side. I don’t think this will be a problem with this copy, and it has beautiful wide margins all around the text.

The team at The Art Cannot Be Damaged also answered some questions for me about the book cover, as us journalists can’t resist from chucking in a couple of questions at any moment in time! It was a collaboration between Mike, Doug and Amy (who contacted me to send me a copy!).

Where did the inspiration come from for the cover? It’s very different to most Pride and Prejudice covers, what sort of feel were you going for?

The art was designed by an NYC based artist Doug Stromenger – he has also designed the cover art for our upcoming series, Sir Walter Scott’s IVANHOE. I cannot tell you the inspiration behind his art, but we did ask for a classic representation of the book, and I think he did a good job of that. As “book designer” I set up all of the type both on the cover and interior. I did do a great deal of research to find the different incarnations that the book has had from its initial printing to now. Most of the current paprback versions cram as many words on to the page as possible to make them cheaper to produce. We wanted to make sure that the book was readable and as true to its original form as possible, while being gun and attractive for young or first-time readers. The page numbering, for example, is based on the first edition of the book. The cell-phone txt on the back cover was written by Rumeka – based on the book of course. Again, just trying to make it accessible to a younger “hip” audience.

Were there any hurdles to jump over or was it a smooth process?

We try to make our book releases as fun as possible. We bounce ideas around until we find on that fits. This book was a really fun, easy release.

Did you look at any other covers for reference?

We did, there are so many versions of this book out there in the world (and so many that are boring and unattractive!). We made a conscious effort to create something that we found beautiful, fun and accessible.

What books are you looking at publishing in future?

Our next release in this series of Classics is Sir Walter Scott’s IVANHOE. Mike has a long list of favorites to release, we are going to try and aim for one a year from now on.

They not only sent me a copy of Pride and Prejudice but also review copies of Dog is Cat by Mike Tyler, and Mike Tyler’s The Warm Animals, both from The No. America series.  The former, “The world as it is not as language makes it in 762 remarkable sayings” was completely up my street, particularly as a fan of the Penguin Book of Cliches, Words Words Words and other similarly phrase-centric books.  It is, essentially, a long list of things compared by the word “is”, for instance: “mildew is dew”, “brook is missed”, “nurture is human” and “hierarchy is translucent” to name some favourites. I think this would be a great tool to help overcome a writer’s block or an uninspired moment. The latter is a book of thought-provoking and sometimes amusing poetry, that I heartily recommend getting a copy of. Tyler’s style is specific, but experimental and interesting- a bit of different poetry is brilliant, I get sick of reading the same measured lines again and again and I found this completely refreshing- you can check out a sample of it here.

To buy a copy of Pride and Prejudice, or any other The Art Cannot Be Damaged books, and browse more, head over the the official website Cute Poet.

If you enjoyed Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, then you’ll be overjoyed by this graphic adaptation. Personally, I found it twice as humorous and far more easy to hack through than the original zombie-Austen mashup.  And who doesn’t like more pictures, really?

I was going to be a little unorthodox (*giggles*) and give you some more pictures straight up, because they pretty much say everything that needs to be said about the book, however in having a look at some of the current copyright issues around it you’ll have to do with some comparisons and my own descriptions. Big thanks to Caroline, a friend of my sisters from the University of Sydney, who let me borrow her copy of the book to review and enjoy! She can rest assured that I’ve enjoyed it thoroughly.

The charming illustrations, sitting somewhere between From Hell, Sin City and House of the Dead (and maybe even with a slight head-nod to anime), might not appeal to everyone’s tastes. I’ve heard it described as “half-arsed” and “unfinished” perhaps because of several construction lines left, but the sketch-style leaves enough to the imagination to not steal all personal interpretation away. It uses light and shade heavily, and in black and white style it could have done with a splash of colour here and there (utlisied in SC and HotD as mentioned) or a wash of colour (zombies are colourful entities, you know?!). The cover of the book could also have been more appealing, or at least be of the same style as the inside illustrations- while it sits well with the novel Pride and Prej and Zombies cover, it just doesn’t match its own content and seems confused, at best, and at worst misleading (this especially applies as it is the sort of book that appeals to Janeites and literary mashup fans, not solely graphic novel/comic readers)! While it is text-heavy, and more like incredible graphic From Hell in this sense, it is a fairly quick read.

House of the Dead:

Sin City:

The main complication and difficulty in this graphic novel were the lack of distinguishing features between several of the characters, meaning that unless you have a fairly good grasp of PPZ you’re going to be confused over which sister is which fairly early on. Similarly, the ages of characters aren’t clear and Mrs Bennet can go anywhere from looking like a hag to looking like another one of the teenaged sisters.

Symbolism is something I put a lot of stock in when reading a graphic novel, and this just didn’t come up to the standard I expect of a graphic novel, and there were only one or two images that I thought really stood out (if you have it then the silhouette of Lizzy and Wickham in Meryton is gorgeous, and a few pages after that is a fabulous image of two decayed zombies with grass coming out of the border in black.  Other notables: the zombie baby image and the subsequent few frames, images of Lizzy through the lattice-windows of Pemberley and the liberal blood splattering throughout.)  Horses and costuming were specifically well illustrated. Unfortunately, hairstyles left a lot to be desired for most of the characters and I never would have given Jane Bennet dark hair.  I also felt that Lydia looked far too old although the cheeky little grin after her marriage with Wickham was fantastic.

It definitely made me laugh more than the PPZ book itself, and certain comedic points were well emphasized (particularly in regards to the double entendre around “balls”).  If you have a specific love of onomatopaeia then this will serve you well, as in true comic style anything from “CRUNCH”, “THUMP” and “SHUNK” (that one’s a personal favourite when it comes to beheading) to “THWACK”, “SPLUT” and “CLATTER” can be found (and all of those on one double page). Some of these words just get annoying though. What exactly is “FOOM”? Why “KRAK” and not “CRACK” at points? And isn’t “CHUNK” a word, and not a sound? What sort of zombie noise is “GRUHHAAIIII!!!” anyway? These are my personal hangups though, and a lot of people may actually enjoy this sort of word-sound association.

Overall, it’s pretty fabulous, although it lacks a certain knowledge of the Regency era in the drawings that would have pushed me over the edge from minor gushing and into a gibbering drooling fan-girl wreck.  I recommend checking it out and having a flip through in the book store first to see if you’ll enjoy it and can deal without coloured illustrations. However with an RRP at around ten pounds, and I’ve seen it for about 20-30 dollars (Australian) it’s not a bank breaker and is worth adding to the collection.

What do you think? Was it a good adaptation of the monster mashup we love (if you loved it)? What could have been done better? Any favourite images?