There are Jane Austen fans and Jane Austen fans. Enough die-hards fall into the latter category to fuel a lively trade in Austen-themed knickknacks, costumes and accessories -- but it's unlikely that many Jane-lovers will be able to trump Thursday's major Austen acquisition.

Sotheby's has sold a partial manuscript of Austen's unfinished 1804 work "The Watsons" in London for $1.6 million. The AP says the auction house has confirmed that "it is the only major manuscript by the author still in private hands" -- but the name of the buyer (person or institution) hasn't been made public. (The rest of the "Watsons" manuscript, which resides at the Morgan Library in New York, can be seen here.)

Heartfelt though their feelings for the late English prose-smith might be, few run-of-the mill fans can afford to splurge on an original manuscript (not that they'll get many opportunities). Here are some more modest -- and, in certain cases, eccentric -- options:

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

But I am going to quarrel, just a little, and not because "A Jane Austen Education" isn't a delightful and enlightening book. It is both of those things. Furthermore, Austen's reputation is sinking, quicksand-style, into that of a purveyor of romantic wish-fulfillment and empire-waist nostalgia; Deresiewicz offers it a gallant hand up. His book is a reminder of why she has long been regarded as among the greatest novelists of the English language, even by those who do not swoon for Colin Firth. The legendary prime minister Benjamin Disraeli (a man of the world if there ever was one), when asked if he found the time to read novels, replied that indeed he did: "All six of them, every year."

Continue Reading...

It makes sense; Holmes -- played as a chilly yet frisky über-nerd by the wondrously named Benedict Cumberbatch -- would naturally prefer to issue his opinions and summons without having to suffer the responses of average "idiots." In the first episode of "Sherlock," a beleaguered Inspector Lestrade, in the midst of a press conference about a rash of suspicious deaths, receives a barrage of one-word texts from the detective: "WRONG," "WRONG" and "WRONG." A moment later, the whole press corps starts getting them, too.

When it comes to integrating new technologies into familiar fictional forms, we've mostly seen one of three things: forgettably gimmicky novels told entirely in e-mails; hysteria about the demonic properties of the Internet; or complaints about how cellphones and GPS have ruined a handful of reliable thriller and horror tricks. It's a lot harder these days to believably strand the hero or heroine in some remote, sinister locale, cut off from any opportunity to summon help.

Continue Reading...

It's pretty funny, but a remark from Mashable's Brenna Ehrlich got some of us at the Salon offices thinking: "We imagine," Ehrlich wrote, "a whole lot more boys would have been OK with reading 'Pride and Prejudice' had Lizzy [sic] busted out with a roundhouse once in a while." Maybe so, but we couldn't help noticing that the vast majority of the Austen mash-ups involve injecting some action element from contemporary pop culture into Austen's stories in order to make the novels more interesting. This seems to work for quite a few readers, but those of us who find Austen's books sufficiently interesting on their own are left to wonder when the favor will be returned. We've been shown what zombies and monsters and bare-knuckle brawlers can do for Jane -- when do we get to see what Jane can do for them?

Continue Reading...

While she didn't quite invent the romantic comedy (Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing," a clear inspiration for "Pride and Prejudice," can probably claim that honor), Austen surely conceived and perfected it in its modern form; no one has ever surpassed "Pride and Prejudice," and not due to any lack of trying. Still, literary achievement can hardly explain the Austen craze. Many books labeled "classics" can also be fairly called "beloved," but Austen is canonical in two senses of the word at once. Who else among the acknowledged greatest novelists of all time has inspired such an abundant and robust body of fan fiction? What other author's fan fiction gets published so extensively?

Continue Reading...

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Jane Austen has ridden quite the wave of popularity in the past few years, from cheeky instruction manuals to Keira Knightley films. And now, perhaps inevitably, we see the blessed union of two beloved trends in Seth Grahame-Smith's "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies." To be released by Quirk Books later this year, the book promises to update the comedy of manners "with all-new scenes of bone-crunching zombie action." Grahame-Smith is the author of "How to Survive a Horror Movie" and "The Big Book of Porn," two of the many indications that this will not be featured at your mother's next book club. One obvious question, of course, is what would Ms. Austen think of this unconventional adaptation? To this, I turned to Salon book critic and Austen fan Laura Miller, who replied:

"Well, she'd be astonished, of course, since her age was, sadly, as bereft of zombie movies as it was of indoor plumbing. However, I don't doubt that Elizabeth Bennet would adapt quickly to the imperatives of a zombie attack and in time prove one of our ablest leaders in the war against the undead. The real question is: If Mr. Darcy became infected, would Elizabeth have the fortitude to behead him in time?" 

(via Galleycat)

Continue Reading...

So why not reimagine Austen as a lithe brunette with pillowy lips and airbrushed skin, a magnificent creature who looks remarkably like Anne Hathaway? And why not give her a bold, witty suitor -- James McAvoy, anyone? -- who looks smashing in his velvet frockcoats and dashingly masculine leather boots? Part of the pleasure of watching movies comes from looking at beautiful people: Choosing a "plainer" Jane (there are very few likenesses of the author for us to go on, anyway) wouldn't have made "Becoming Jane" a better or more authentic movie, but perhaps only duller to look at.

Continue Reading...

There is no better illustration of this truth than the stack of books, recently or just about to be published, that draw on the early 19th century novelist's work not simply as inspiration but as a fantasy ideal for 21st century women -- especially the single ones.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single girl in possession of her right mind must be in want of a decent man" ... "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a 30-something woman in possession of a satisfying career and fabulous hairdo must be in want of very little" ... "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a young Austen heroine must be in want of a husband, and you are no exception."

Continue Reading...

As it turns out, the latest Photoshop miracle has been wrought not in any magazine or on any cast member of "Grey's Anatomy." For the new cover of a reissued biography, British publisher Wordsworth Editions has seen fit to perform an extreme makeover on the closest-to-definitive portrait of venerable 19th century novelist Jane Austen.

"She was not much of a looker. Very, very plain," Helen Trayler, the publisher's managing director, told the Guardian. "Jane Austen wasn't very good looking. She's the most inspiring, readable author, but to put her on the cover wouldn't be very inspiring at all. It's just a bit off-putting."

Continue Reading...

So I tried to let it go. I tried not to think about it. Mostly because I knew anything I said (or, still worse, wrote) would invariably be interpreted as the ramblings of a crazed Jane Austen-loving spinster, and I didn't want to put myself out there as one of those bookish Austen-ites who gets all nutty about things like, Why in God's name do all the people stop dancing when Mr. Darcy walks into the room? or Tell me again why Lady Catherine is paying a social call in the middle of the night. These are not actual quotes, mind you. Just little thoughts that may or may not have occurred to me as I fidgeted and stewed, praying for the film to be over as quickly as possible so I could go home and start rereading the book.

Continue Reading...

I'll get right to it: I'm in love with a female co-worker. We've been friends for a number of years, we're both married, both have children and neither of us has any intention of leaving our current spouses or lives for the other. In fact, she has no idea that I love her as much as I do.

She is one of the most amazing, beautiful, intelligent people I've ever met. When I'm around her, I feel totally alive, completely engaged and incredibly connected to her. I've worked on sublimating all this into a warm and wonderful friendship, but it's becoming more and more of a strain not to just come out and tell her I love her.

If I were to do that, it wouldn't be that I'd want her to leave her husband for me. The very idea of that seems preposterous. I'm not entirely clear what I would want by telling her I love her, but I think I just need for her to know that I have these incredible feelings. I want her to know that I am her friend, but also that I truly love her as a woman.

Writing it down has made it all seem so tawdry and just kind of pathetic, but here I am sitting with these same feelings, about to burst with the intensity of it all. I just wonder what she would say, how it would affect our relationship and if it even makes sense at all to do it.

Continue Reading...

Stanley's Week in Review piece sums up both sides of the debate over messing with Austen. But what I liked best about her piece was the headline, which read: "Oh, Mr. Darcy ... Yes, I Said Yes!"

Continue Reading...

But I snarfed my coffee this morning while reading his excellent -- three stars! -- review of the new adaptation of "Pride & Prejudice" that was headlined "The Ultimate Guy Movie. No, Really."

"Listen up, guys, have I got a flick for you," begins Smith. "It's all about money, sex and slammin' babes in saucy-wench get-ups, and it goes down in the same country that gave us Led Zeppelin and the Clash. This weekend ... If you're lucky, you can con your girlfriend into seeing 'Pride & Prejudice.'"

Smith's plot synopsis introduces readers to the Bennet family of "four raging hotties ... looking for action in the randy years of the Regency." The two sisters "most worthy of knocking boots with," he alleges, are Jane and Elizabeth, played respectively by Rosamund Pike and Keira Knightley, who, Smith reminds guys, was "No. 53 on Maxim's Hot 100 List this year, down from No. 18 last year -- she's 20 years old, guys, catch her before she wrinkles up." Ack!

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

-- James Joyce, "Ulysses"

Whether one chooses to admit it or not, every reader has a secret list of writers one is, for whatever reason, incapable of reading. To get it over with, what follows is my own: Toni Morrison, William Faulkner, Henry James, Jane Austen, Samuel Beckett ... already embarrassment keeps me from going on.

For a long time, I was careful to keep this information from falling into the wrong hands -- praising Faulkner, comparing work unfavorably with Beckett's, nodding indulgently at mentions of Morrison. But secrets are nothing if not what we carefully choose to share, and thus I would, if pressed, admit that Morrison, excepting her strong early work, struck me as suffering from a terminal case of allegorical bloat; that Faulkner, perhaps the streakiest writer to have ever lived, seemed to me only intermittently good; that, despite his staggering descriptive gifts, even James' shorter work left me feeling as though a very large screw indeed were turning into my brain; that Austen made me certain I would never care this much about my own wedding, much less the weddings of people who do not exist; and that not even Beckett's inarguable brilliance could relieve me of the suspicion that his godless pose was one of effortful heresy.

Continue Reading...

The premise of the book is rather clever: to pursue the Austen-obsessed heroine beyond the marriage that so conveniently closes the classic novelist's six completed works. "Austen never looked at life after her heroine's marriage," Bokat writes, "the swelling of Elizabeth Bennet's belly, the agony of childbirth, the potential that Mr. Darcy could lose his fortune."

Eve, Bokat's heroine, is a New York grad student writing a dissertation titled "Emma's Entitlement: Jane Austen's Feminist Models." The finished project is rejected by her advisor, which prompts a major crisis of identity. Eve then leaves her mild-mannered husband, infant daughter and overbearing Jewish mother for an indefinite sojourn in England. By the end, her husband forgives her and her dissertation is awarded a book contract.

Continue Reading...

As a parent of a little girl, I am astonished that any government would
administer the morning-after pill to a child without the consent of that
child's parents or guardians. It amazes me that the French government sees
this as a "quick fix" to the problem of teen pregnancy, when the problem
lies with the child's sexuality. Perhaps if young girls were
taught that becoming pregnant before marriage was no one else's fault but
their own (except in the case of rape), and that they must live with the consequences
of sex, then we might solve this problem. It is about time we taught our
children that abstinence is the only safe and effective method to avoid
becoming pregnant.

-- Andre Konstant

The morning-after pill does not function by preventing implantation of the
embryo. It functions in exactly the same way ordinary oral
contraceptives work: prevention of the release of the mature egg from the
ovary.

Continue Reading...

Oh, yeah? Amelia Atwater-Rhodes is the latest counterexample. She finished her first novel, "In the Forests of the Night," last year when she was only 13. An atmospheric revenge tale about a teen vampire, it's as suspenseful and well-constructed as many novels by authors several times her age. "As a teen, I bring a different perspective to writing," Atwater-Rhodes told Teen People. "I can offer immediate emotions, experiences and insight that adult writers often have to reach back and find in order to write about them."

Continue Reading...

Although "Shrew" is easily one of Shakespeare's funniest works, it's also one of the hardest for modern audiences to wrap their egalitarian sensibilities around. It's the story of a difficult young woman who's not just tamed, but psychologically tormented into loving surrender. For all the play's 16th century genius, its Stepford wife-style emotional lobotomizing doesn't quite float in the contemporary high school genre. So instead, "10 Things" is a classic comedy of misunderstandings, false starts and, eventually, true love -- all tempered with the very 20th century point of view that if the guy is strong enough, the girl doesn't need to be weak.

Continue Reading...