litlover12: (Beethoven)
Just a few scattered thoughts on part 2 . . .

Read more... )
litlover12: (P&P3)
I don't know about you all, but I'm really looking forward to seeing the adaptation of Death Comes to Pemberley. I know the book was polarizing, but I liked it!

I did it!

Dec. 24th, 2013 08:49 am
litlover12: (Books)
I finished Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell! Below is my review (cross-posted from Goodreads):

Read more... )
litlover12: (Darth)
Just a little book meme I thought of. Feel free to put your own unpopular opinions about books and adaptations on your LJ or in the comments section!

So, here are mine . . .

Spoilerish talk below )
litlover12: (Books)
Just wanted to show you all what I ordered with the gift card I won in the Book Riot contest!

Goodies below the cut . . . )

Book meme

Feb. 13th, 2013 08:46 am
litlover12: (Books)
I got this from a message board, and modified it a bit. The idea is simple: Suppose that for some reason you had to pare your library down to 25 single volumes, plus 1 series. You're allowed to read other books, but these 25 (plus 1) are the only books you're allowed to keep or to reread.

(The original meme said 20 books plus 1 series, but that would be inhuman. I think there's something in the Geneva Convention about it.)

You can put the series anywhere in your list, but mark it with an asterisk.

Here are mine . . .


The indispensables )
litlover12: (LD5)
[livejournal.com profile] rachkmc did this at her blog, and asked me to do it too. Since it's her birthday, how can I say no? (She just called hers "Rachel's Favorite Romances," but she stuck to literature and literary adaptations. I'm going to follow her lead in that, or I could never narrow it down to ten. But I'm counting plays as literature. Also, I stole one or two of the pictures off her blog. Thanks, Rachel!)


Image-heavy post ahead! )
litlover12: (P&P)
My 4-out-of-5-star review is up on Goodreads. Short version: The book has a few flaws, but on the whole it's very well done and I enjoyed it!
litlover12: (P&P)
Death Comes to Pemberley got here this morning.

I may have danced around the room a bit when I opened it.
litlover12: (P&P)
Having reamed out Jane Austen for her love scenes, I now feel like saying something nice about her. :-) Here's something I recently noticed about the book and that I really love.

Have you ever noticed that there's no real physical description of Elizabeth? I've always thought, and still think, that Jennifer Ehle looked exactly right for the part, but that's not based on anything in the text -- it's just based on how I think Elizabeth should look. (It's probably also based on this picture on the cover of my copy.) But the narrator tells us nothing directly of how she looks -- only how other people perceive her. Most interesting, of course, are the perceptions of Darcy, whose view of her goes from "tolerable" to "pretty" to "one of the handsomest women of my acquaintance" to "loveliest Elizabeth."

Having written this, it occurs to me that doubtless there's some scholar out there who's written a dissertation on Elizabeth as the "object of the male gaze" or some such rot -- as if Elizabeth Bennet could ever be any sort of passive "object."

[Edited to add: I'm sorry that came out sounding rude. As I clarified in the comments, I don't mind when it's pointed out that some female character really is being objectified; I only mind those scholars who see objectification everywhere they look, without ceasing. That's the kind of scholar I was complaining about.]

Personally, I think it's a brilliant move on Austen's part, for several reasons. Mainly because Darcy is so undemonstrative that this subtle technique is perfect for giving us insight into his feelings . . . not to mention serving as a rather amusing commentary on beauty being in the eye of the beholder.
litlover12: (P&P)
I've finished another viewing of the 1995 P&P, which I love. But oh, how the second proposal scene bugs me. And it bugs me that it bugs me. Because I don't want it to bug me. It's very sweet and the actors are terrific and their facial expressions are all that could be desired. But they don't kiss, and they don't touch -- they look away from each other and keep walking! It drives me NUTS! I'm going "Kiss her! Kiss her!!" like that nosy old man in It's a Wonderful Life. I know this is Austen and she's prim and proper to the nth degree, and the whole thing is true to her vision, but for heaven's sake. . . . couldn't they at least hold hands?

Of course, it's not much better than what happens in the book. I love Austen, I really do. She was a genius and many of her books are right up there among my favorites. But her love scenes are just so . . . unsatisfying.
litlover12: (CSL)
New meme! I was tagged by [livejournal.com profile] birdienl .

The Rules )
litlover12: (Default)
(Cross-posted at Dickensblog)

Just a few thoughts inspired by my recent viewing of North and South:

It occurs to me that many of the most popular 19th-century romantic heroes are the haughty, brooding ones, and that a lot of these were created by women. Jane Austen's Mr. Darcy, Charlotte Brontë's Mr. Rochester, Emily Brontë's Heathcliff, Elizabeth Gaskell's John Thornton -- they all fit this pattern. (Say what you will about Heathcliff -- I hear a lot of people say nowadays that he shouldn't be considered a romantic hero at all -- but I still think he counts.) This is not to say that Austen and the other women never wrote about sensitive men, or even sensitive heroes, but generally their best known heroes seem to be the proud brooders. There are probably at least five Mr. Darcy fangirls for every Captain Wentworth fangirl.

On the other hand, when Dickens gives us a romantic hero -- say, Arthur Clennam, David Copperfield, or Nicholas Nickleby -- that hero tends to be outwardly gentler and more warm-hearted. A "sensitive male," if you will, though I don't really care for the term. I find it fascinating that these are the sort of romantic heroes that the century's greatest male novelist was creating, while the women were fashioning a very different sort of model.

And personally, I also find it fascinating that the vast majority of modern women prefer the haughty types, while I, a traditionalist in many ways, am so much more drawn to the Dickensian heroes. If one adhered to stereotypes, one might expect it to be the other way around.

What this all means . . . I'm not really sure! But it's interesting to think about. At least, I think it is.

litlover12: (Default)
Mm, nope, I don't think so. Pretty clever idea, though. Don't miss the clip from the '80s dance scene at 1:04, and the head toss at 1:48 is a hoot. :-)



(Thanks to Jane Austen Today)

Hurray!

Jan. 25th, 2010 12:26 am
litlover12: (LD3)
I took the "Bachelors of Highbury" quiz at PBS's website . . . and got Mr. Knightley as my perfect match!
litlover12: (GK1)
Just found out -- thanks, tempestsarekind! -- that Ludwig van Beethoven and Jane Austen share a birthday (yes, it's today).

For some obscure reason, this pleases me greatly.

Profile

litlover12: (Default)
litlover12

July 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
1617 1819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 24th, 2017 08:43 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios