Some interesting reading and a poem for your week. An interesting history of homoerotic sonnets and the work of Richard Barnfield, a contemporary of Shakespeare, who was at times thought to have written Barnfield’s work. On the forgotten history of theater advocate, patron, actress, writer, producer, director, and feminist
This new book that calls to question romance in Austen’s books sounds particularly interesting to me. I was obsessed with her books as a teenager. I always felt that the adaptations did so little justice to the complexity of her characters. I’m curious, what’s your hang up with the adaptations’ focus on romance?
I completely agree--as much as I love *most* of the adaptations, they can never quite capture the sparkling wit and character studies of Austen. I think the romance emphasis obscures that too, partly why I think I cringe at it being so often as addressed as 'the first romance novel' (not true) or what makes romance so easy to dismiss, unfortunately. But when I first read her books I was young and never was convinced of the romance--it was practical, it was a love of having a home of one's own (Pemberley! ha!), and in many cases it felt like having to settle into practicality again into what is safe. I get why--Willoughby would be an awful husband, Colonel Brandon is far more reliable--but as a seventeen year old those men were old! They didn't look like Alan Rickman. ;) Same with Emma and Knightley. They were nearly brother and sister and there's so much weirdness about it that it too felt like settling. The only one that is unabashedly romantic to me is Persuasion--but it too has so much sadness in it, of being overlooked, not trusted to have one's own opinions, a mother dead who actually was measured and kind, a horribly vain and flippant father and sister... Sweet Anne had to have some better resolution ultimately. But what romance also misses is that the women of Austen's time (and for so much of time) had no other option in life than to marry--which means that the marriage plot is ultimately too a kind of compromise.... which is why it doesn't feel like romance to me--not when there was such a precarity of being left homeless and penniless (S&S, P&P, MP and P). Emma too feels confined by her circumstances, naivety, and a helpless father. SO just a few thoughts. ha! ;)
These are such great points! Yeah, I also really enjoy the movies for what they are. I’m totally with you. The overemphasis on romance feels out of touch with the socioeconomic reality of the women leads. Not that their stories are complete tragedies by any means, but when watered down to a straightforward romance it feels a bit like the smiling slaves in Gone With the Wind. Like, are we going to address the elephant in the room? I think Austen herself consistently did, but that stuff gets lost—or willfully abandoned—somewhere in the writers’ room.
Yes! That's exactly it--it's the lack of nuance and detail in so many that gloss over that--and I think Austen was actually saying a LOT about that in her novels. The way she was also commenting on what 'new money' in her day was really about--the enslavement of people on plantations in the Caribbean and colonization in India that were funding so much of country house wealth. We always want her to say more, but for what she was doing, she was definitely interrogating and hinting at those conflicting social contexts in the subtle way that she could as a writer and a woman.
I read Nickole Brown's article on the cicadas - what a beautifully written piece and what a wealth of knowledge. I loved every line. And so thank you also for linking to Orion magazine - I knew of it but hadn't really had the chance to explore.
And I suspect I too will never tire of the colour green.
Such a beautiful essay--and yes, I sometimes remember to read Orion and I'm like oof--I need to remember to read it more, there are always beauties to be found there. 💜
This new book that calls to question romance in Austen’s books sounds particularly interesting to me. I was obsessed with her books as a teenager. I always felt that the adaptations did so little justice to the complexity of her characters. I’m curious, what’s your hang up with the adaptations’ focus on romance?
I completely agree--as much as I love *most* of the adaptations, they can never quite capture the sparkling wit and character studies of Austen. I think the romance emphasis obscures that too, partly why I think I cringe at it being so often as addressed as 'the first romance novel' (not true) or what makes romance so easy to dismiss, unfortunately. But when I first read her books I was young and never was convinced of the romance--it was practical, it was a love of having a home of one's own (Pemberley! ha!), and in many cases it felt like having to settle into practicality again into what is safe. I get why--Willoughby would be an awful husband, Colonel Brandon is far more reliable--but as a seventeen year old those men were old! They didn't look like Alan Rickman. ;) Same with Emma and Knightley. They were nearly brother and sister and there's so much weirdness about it that it too felt like settling. The only one that is unabashedly romantic to me is Persuasion--but it too has so much sadness in it, of being overlooked, not trusted to have one's own opinions, a mother dead who actually was measured and kind, a horribly vain and flippant father and sister... Sweet Anne had to have some better resolution ultimately. But what romance also misses is that the women of Austen's time (and for so much of time) had no other option in life than to marry--which means that the marriage plot is ultimately too a kind of compromise.... which is why it doesn't feel like romance to me--not when there was such a precarity of being left homeless and penniless (S&S, P&P, MP and P). Emma too feels confined by her circumstances, naivety, and a helpless father. SO just a few thoughts. ha! ;)
These are such great points! Yeah, I also really enjoy the movies for what they are. I’m totally with you. The overemphasis on romance feels out of touch with the socioeconomic reality of the women leads. Not that their stories are complete tragedies by any means, but when watered down to a straightforward romance it feels a bit like the smiling slaves in Gone With the Wind. Like, are we going to address the elephant in the room? I think Austen herself consistently did, but that stuff gets lost—or willfully abandoned—somewhere in the writers’ room.
Yes! That's exactly it--it's the lack of nuance and detail in so many that gloss over that--and I think Austen was actually saying a LOT about that in her novels. The way she was also commenting on what 'new money' in her day was really about--the enslavement of people on plantations in the Caribbean and colonization in India that were funding so much of country house wealth. We always want her to say more, but for what she was doing, she was definitely interrogating and hinting at those conflicting social contexts in the subtle way that she could as a writer and a woman.
I really enjoyed Nicole Brown's article on the simultaneous emergence of the 13 and 17-year cicadas. Thanks so much for sharing, Freya! :)
I'm so glad, I thought it was beautiful too. 💜
Those maps! (I'm a map nerd.)
ha! I love maps too--and those are amazing, both in their design/color and their history and detail!
A lovely, thought-provoking selection, Freya - thank you.
💜🙏
Oh my gosh, I wanted to cheer when I finished that cicada piece! Thank you for sharing!!💗
I'm so glad--it's such a gem. 💜🙏
Thank you so much, Freya, for sharing these!
I read Nickole Brown's article on the cicadas - what a beautifully written piece and what a wealth of knowledge. I loved every line. And so thank you also for linking to Orion magazine - I knew of it but hadn't really had the chance to explore.
And I suspect I too will never tire of the colour green.
Such a beautiful essay--and yes, I sometimes remember to read Orion and I'm like oof--I need to remember to read it more, there are always beauties to be found there. 💜