scrolling through the list of suggestions provided by my library (supposedly based on my reading history and habits), I came across the clearly chick-lit cover of austensibly ordinary by alyssa goodnight.
I knew some things right away, like,
1 this was a real cute retelling of one -- or possibly all! -- the austen novels, and
2 it sucked.
judgy mcjudgerson, book by its cover.
I made a bet with myself and clicked on the book link, just to be met by this review: "Sexy, saucy, fun! Jane Austen would be proud!"
-__-
I rarely feel so much rage towards an inanimate object -- or inane reviewer, who probably doesn't even know the author misspelled 'ostensibly' to make a painfully meaningless title just to recall an author who would actually hate it. no, worse: she'd laugh at it.
I don't think of myself as a janeite, but I am well-versed in her work and hold the classic lit of the classic brit in great veneration. I am not above satirical derivative works; I am not above adaptions (LBD was brilliant). but this is a cheap shot.
this is a woman who has misunderstood the fundamental meaning of austen's work, and done the exact thing austen was protesting when she shaped her heroines -- and heroes -- in the quiet drawing-room.
for jane, it's not about the romance. it's about the development. romance is almost the macguffin to get the characters to become better people. the goal of the story is not a resolved relationship -- none of the heroines set out to gain one.
for jane, it's about the women! it's not about how they need/want to be married/going steady with a really hot guy. in jane's time, marriage was status and life was hard for a single woman, so she ends her novels with married (read: secure & happy) heroines. but it's really about how they grow and become real people with real voices, if only in their immediate communities. the fact that they couldn't be respected before marriage may be a failing of society jane herself didn't recognize or feel capable of combatting, but she's working with what she has.
goodnight's book & others like it just reduce women to sex and relationship objects. it's all about them finding their match -- instead of having or developing worth on their own.
no, jane was not opposed to novels and disagreed with their detractors. novels are fun. but her "novels are fun" message appears within the novel she wrote to make fun of an overwrought storyline (see northanger abbey). compare to goodnight's stupid paranormal diary. austen would write a satire of this, if she could make it through the book in the first place.
moving away from jane, goodnight doesn't understand how austen plots work. unable to draw a good character herself, she can't even understand how a good character operates. she draws on superficial similarities (single cate = single emma; single friend evan = single mr. knightley) when the real similarities would be in their relationship (cate, full of herself and her abilities, would try to make decisions for the people she patronizes; evan, fed up with her selfishness, would tell her the tough truth. instead, we get sex-crazed cate who wants to date someone -- ANYONE!!! -- and evan who plays a little hard-to-get & mysterious). emma & knightley show real love, growing to put the other's best interests first; every successful austen couple has their relationship tested by hard-truth-telling -- not by a one-night stand with a guy whose tousled brown hair (...honestly...) makes you weak in the knees.
some subpoints about goodnight's book:
- it's the mark of a weak author who has to use implausibility as a motivator. when you have to make up fantastical happenings to move your plot along, you have a poor plot.*
*I'm not talking about a fantasy story, where the fictional world is founded upon principles that don't exist in ours. those should still be consistent within themselves, but I'm talking about a story set in our world that has to use ***MaGiC!!!*** because the author can't figure out how to get the characters out of a situation without just deus-ex-machinating them out of it.
- the petulant "heroine" is given lines in an attempt at clever banter, but it's just not. it's not even amusing. it's just stupid, and anyone who thinks it's funny hasn't read enough actual good written conversation. ...hey, I know a good author for that! jane austen!
probably my biggest issue: the point of mr. darcy. is not. to. be. hot. I don't know what austen people are reading. yes, darcy is rich. darcy is handsome. also, darcy is proud. darcy is rude to the people he sees as beneath him, which would be everyone he doesn't know who is also poor and/or uneducated (in the social niceties or intellectually). darcy is kind of a stick-in-the-mud even at the end. and heck, he's super awkward.
I love him as a character; I love that austen takes typical human foibles and works them out of him through a similarly obnoxious (but slightly more lovable) character and helps them make each other better people. would darcy be my favorite hero if he weren't so cliched? perhaps (but srsly henry tilney u guise). THAT STILL DOESN'T GIVE HIM A BROODING SMOLDER.
true love has never been built on a brooding smolder, plus darcy doesn't brood; he is disgusted with the pleb. that's you. do you think darcy would smolder broodingly at you, reader of alyssa goodnight, or do you think he would mutter "every savage can read" as he looks to caroline for the only source of civilized, educated conversation in the room? if you read it and think you're lizzy, you're actually behaving like lydia. darcy would as soon call your mother a wit.
austen wasn't about sex. austen wasn't about sauciness for sauciness' sake. austen was about questioning the social mores to determine what is actually right? what is actually equal? why do we do what we do, and how can we be happy even within unfair constraints? she used relationships to show those things, and yes, to give us the neat, happy ending we all want to see. "sonny, true love is the greatest thing in the world -- except for a nice MLT, mutton lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is sliced thin and the tomato is ripe. so perky, I love that."
I think austen would be amused and horrified at this book, which reduces the theoretically well-educated and thoughtful cate to a man-hungry, emotionally immature kindergartner. goodnight -- while claiming, through cate, to be an avid fan and deep reader of austen's novels -- writes a novel that mistakes jane's real messages and mistakes the actions of jane's characters. cate has to "make her own happy ending" like austen's heroines?? none of them does that. not a single one is on the lookout for a happy ending (read: relationship!) and in fact the characters who are (LYDIA) are examples of what not to do.
relationships come as the heroines are ready, and we see a plethora of bad combos in the secondaries: marriage for convenience, not love (charlotte + collins), marriage for love with little respect (jane f + frank c), marriage for superficial attraction (mr. + mrs. bennet), marriage for material gain (willoughby + miss grey), just sex (lydia + wickham, col. brandon's niece + willoughby), marriage for immediacy (charles + whichever elliot sister he married & regretted because he likes anne better). the only relationships that work are ones built on mutual esteem and respect, and that sets the foundation for true love whether before or after marriage: the gardiners. the darcys. the ferrars. the tilneys. the wentworths.
there is sexual tension in goodnight's story. there is physical attraction. there is flirtation and "witty" banter (reminds me of marianne and willoughby, those eternal symbols of constancy and truth). but there is no mutual respect and esteem. there is no true friendship, which is putting the friend first by speaking the hard truth that they need to hear. you want to read jane austen fanfic? okay. honestly, that's personal taste, and we aren't all going to agree on what should or shouldn't be liked. but you can't call it in any way like jane austen -- and certainly not something jane austen would like -- just because some superficial plot points resemble one another.
plus that's such a weird use of "ostensibly."
- - -
huge disclaimer: I didn't read the book. I read the first two chapters (library sample), and then I read several synopses and reviews on personal blogs and goodreads. ...positive reviews, no less, by people who gave this book five stars for its hilarity and engaging fun (like this one). I can only go off my excerpt (and to me, trust me, it was plenty) and the summary of the plot provided by people who "can't recommend it enough". take my discussion with a grain of salt, and form your own opinion -- which is all any of us can ever do, really.
