( Read more... )
Seen through Dickensian eyes, this translates to "John Jasper is getting together with Esther Summerson."
Joking aside, though, this sounds very interesting! I liked Death Comes to Pemberley and I like both those actors.
(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 )
Then I was reminded that 2013 marks the 50th anniversary of C. S. Lewis's death.
So there's that.
On a happier note*, though, ibmiller reminds me that it will also mark the bicentennial of Pride and Prejudice!
*Not saying that it wasn't a happy occasion for Lewis -- the Lewis Institute calls it "his passing from death to life," and I'm sure he saw it the same way himself! But it makes for kind of a different celebration . . .
List fifteen of your favorite characters from different fandoms, and ask people to spot patterns in your choices. (Via goldvermilion87 and eanor)
1. Sydney Carton (A Tale of Two Cities)
2. Arthur Clennam (Little Dorrit)
3. Harriet Vane (Lord Peter Wimsey series)
4. Lord Peter Wimsey (Lord Peter Wimsey series)
5. Anne Shirley (Anne of Green Gables series)
6. Jean Valjean (Les Miserables)
7. Eliza Doolittle (My Fair Lady)
8. Harold Finch (Person of Interest)
9. John Reese (Person of Interest)
10. Frodo Baggins (The Lord of the Rings)
11. Lily Bart (The House of Mirth)
12. Elizabeth Bennet (Pride and Prejudice)
13. Betsey Trotwood (David Copperfield)
14. Amy Dorrit (Little Dorrit)
15. Sir Percy Blakeney (The Scarlet Pimpernel)
. . . Only fifteen? I have so many more favorites!
( Image-heavy post ahead! )
2. I will give you a letter.
3. Post the names of five fictional characters whose names begin with that letter, and your thoughts on each. The characters can be from books, movies, or TV shows.
2theriver2pray gave me the letter E.
( Enter here . . . )
Fond as I am of the Sense and Sensibility feature film, I really wish The King's Speech could beat it and advance to the next round. It doesn't have a snowball's chance in a very hot place, I know, but I still wish it could. However, I'm comforted by the fact that Little Dorrit, Our Mutual Friend, The Scarlet Pimpernel, the BBC Pride and Prejudice, and several of my other favorites are doing well.
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.
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.
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.