When is a character essentially gendered?

Yesterday I finished reading Mary Robinette Kowal's Shades of Milk and Honey. Having read good reviews of the book and hearing it described as "the fantasy novel you wish Jane Austen had written", I had expectations of a historical romantic satire, with an interesting fantasy twist. Unfortunately, the novel didn't quite deliver.

Simply put, the book was far too gendered for my taste. I want to be cautious here, because I think this is an area in which feminists sometimes do more harm than good. They obsess over the representation of women in literature and cinema, and in doing so sometimes turn characters into gendered objects. In my ideal feminist world, female characters aren't considered good representations of women because they aren't considered as representations of gender at all. They are just characters. Fictional people with interesting motivations and complex personalities. Sometimes women are reduced to their biological or social roles by the critical feminist, who insists that a character's worth should be evaluated in terms of how successfully she represents women.

Literature and technology

The ill-fated matchmaking and meddling of Jane Austen's Emma Woodhouse, for example, was seamlessly updated to include cellphones in the 1995 movie "Clueless." Of course, an Emma transposed to 2010 would have a field day with Facebook, nudging acquaintances to friend each other and forming little groups like "People Who Have Heard Quite Enough in Praise of Jane Fairfax," to the dismay of Mr. Knightley.

Which classic literary characters would embrace modern technology? Read Laura Miller's musings on the topic here.

Collected thoughts

I have exactly  one week left of Honours...

In the meantime, here's a link to a recent interview of Neil Gaiman. One thing he said about comics caught my eye: "It is not a genre. It is simply a medium."


Meanwhile, I've been browsing through a book called Jane Austen: Antipodean Views when my brain can't handle any more study (and sometimes when it can) and was struck by the insight of Tim Flannery, which actually stands out amongst the writings of English Professors, teachers and celebrities:

One of the most significant evolutionary forces currently acting is sexual selection. Women are much more selective than men, and the sort of trade-offs and carefully calculated estimations of worth of men in various capacities elucidated by Austen is, in some ways, as fine an evolutionary study as Darwin's, though it is admittedly only a single-species perspective.

Austen also investigates that eternal battleground between the mind and the genes that is humanity's unique affliction. Because the choices women are forced to make in this area are so much more onerous than men's, Austen's insights are piquant indeed.

Unfortunately I can't link you to the book. I believe it's out of print.


Something else that's been in my procrastinatory thoughts is how my concept of having 'read a book' is changing as a result of my studies. I used to think that to have read a book I had to begin at page one and read it all the way through. While that still applies to fiction, I just don't think that way about non-fiction anymore. I can say, without a guilty conscience, that I have 'read' a non-fiction book as long as I feel I've read all the interesting and relevant bits.

Don't tell me I'm cheating. I am maximising my time.

Books that aren't overrated

As someone who enjoys fiction of the cult variety more than mainstream novels, I'm always wary of books recommended to me as 'must reads'. More often than not, when I read a universally acclaimed book I find myself disappointed. Every so often, though, somebody does convince me to read something generally acclaimed and I'm pleasantly surprised.

I've read a few of these lately, so in honour of these books I present to you:

Christina's list of books that aren't overrated.

1. The children's book:
The Finn Family Moomintroll is a gorgeous children's book by Finnish author Tove Jansson. The Moomin books are huge in Europe, and utterly charming.

2. The crime novel:

As discussed elsewhere in this blog, I've started reading the Sherlock Holmes books and have found them much more enjoyable than I expected. Who'd have thunk the famous detective would be so delightfully eccentric?

3. The science fiction series:

I'm currently working my way through Douglas Adams's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the trilogy in four parts- plus the other one). I was so sure these books would turn out to be overrated. They're not. They. Are. So. Funny. I keep attracting funny looks on public transport by (literally) laughing out loud whilst reading them on my ereader.

4. The romance:
How can you go past Pride and Prejudice? Yet so many people do- they assume this book is a sappy romance and pass it over. The men I know who have been brave enough to read it have loved its glittering satire. Go on, read it. I dare you.

Austenbook

Elizabeth Bennet became a fan of Pemberly.

Fitzwilliam Darcy is suprised and hopeful.


...You get the idea, but it doesn't really work with the formatting of my blog. Which is all the more reason to check out the Austenbook page for yourself. What a delightful way to spend ten minutes!

Literary crushes

The first crush I ever had was on a fictional character. Nuuskamuikkunen. Or, in the English translation of the Moomins, Snuffkin. The reason was simple. He was a thinker, and I liked that. I wanted to marry him. I must have been four or five years old.

Since then, I think the fictional characters I’ve ‘had a thing’ for have outnumbered the ‘real people’. I don’t think I’m alone in this, and I think the reason is simple. We get to know fictional characters, really know them, in a way we rarely know people we come across in day to day life. Isn’t that what happens when you fall in love? You get to know someone so well that their faults and their mistakes make sense to you, because you know their motivations and their history. Sometimes you know them better than they know themselves. That’s what love is. Is it any wonder that we sometimes feel a shadow of it for the characters we know intimately?

Here are a few of my literary loves:

Peter Pevensie, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis
Teddy Kent, the Emily series by L. M. Montgomery
Matthew, the Obernewtyn Chronicles by Isobelle Carmody
Fitzwilliam Darcy, Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
Wintrow Vestrit, The Liveship Traders trilogy by Robin Hobb

I actually began typing out a brief description of each of the characters, and then realized I was saying the same things about each of them: unflinchingly loyal, considerate, immovable on matters of integrity and conscience, confident in his own judgment. (Mind you, a lot of these characters are quite different. They just happen to share all of these qualities.)

I guess the fact that Peter Pevensie makes it onto the list shows that even at age seven I knew that standing for something is hot.

Miller on Austen

Laura Miller remains insightful as ever:


"Marvin Mudrick published 'Jane Austen: Irony as Defense and Discovery' in 1952. Irony (the real kind, not the Alanis Morissette variety) was Austen's predominant mode, as Mudrick pointed out, and this not only made her 'almost inhumanly cold and penetrating' but also positioned her against 'all the delusions intrinsic to conventional art and conventional society.' That was the manly '50s speaking; by the 2000s, Austen became, in the popular mind, a wistful reminder of all the chivalrous pleasures of a long-lost social order -- a society that would have driven the average contemporary Janeite to insurrection if she actually had to live in it.

"Like Dumbledore's mirror, Austen's fiction seems to have the ability to reflect whatever its readers most wish to see. Austen is the grandmother of chick lit, much as that fact may irk her highbrow admirers. But that's not all she is, and to persuade yourself that her novels are only about being courted by rich, handsome men well-versed in ballroom etiquette is to be as dangerously silly and frivolous as Elizabeth Bennet's youngest sister, Lydia. The chick-lit take on Austen is forever trying to subtract the brutal social and economic realities from her fiction (as well as ignoring the mortifications her heroines undergo)".


Thank you, Laura Miller. The rest of the story is here.

I’m all for resistant reading, but I think it’s just annoying when tragedies, satires and comedies get turned into ‘romance’ in the public consciousness. Think Romeo and Juliet, Pride and Prejudice and Wuthering Heights. Yes, romance is an aspect of these stories (and one which I enjoy, with the exception of Wuthering Heights) but if you read them purely as romance you’re missing so much.

For the record, I’m a Darcy fan because I like intellectual, argumentative, challenging men with integrity, not because I have any illusions about how ‘nice it would be’ to have doors opened for me by a 'gentleman' for the rest of my life.

Merch, merch, merch

Alas, summer brings with it summer reading habits. For me, this usually means a general inability to commit to a book from beginning to end unless it is a.) incredibly engaging, or b.) a piece of fluff. The result is that I have nothing interesting to report in terms of my personal reading.

I did, however, discover a fabulous website where you can order t-shirts with all kinds of esoteric and hilarious slogans. There are a lot of wonderful Jane Austen Ts. I'm going to order these:

If you don't get them, brush up on your grammar and read Pride and Prejudice. Both will enrich your life.

The film of the book

One of the things I most often hear over the counter at work is that “the book is always better than the film.” Well, the customer is not always right. I beg to differ. While in the public consciousness books and films enjoy a long history of antagonism, their actual relationship is one of mutual support.

Angela Meyer, in her awesome booky blog last month, pointed out that our “generation learns everything backwards –

Highlights '09

I'm subscribed to quite a few book blogs and book news feeds. At this time of year, a lot of 'best of ' and 'highlights' lists start coming through, pointing readers to the best books of the year. But the problem with book news is that it's all about new realeases. I started reading books towards the end of the 20th Century- I have the whole history of print to catch up on!

So these are (some of) the highlights of my '09 reading:

January - four weeks off in Toowoomba and Brisbane
   -The History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell (1946)
     A fascinating look at a fascinating topic
  -The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents, Terry Pratchett (2001)
     A magically intelligent cat and clan of rats figure there's always money to be made in faking rat plagues.

March-April - Semester 1
   -Beginning Logic, E. J. Lemmon (1965)
     An excellent guide to formal logic. I read it for uni, and it rocked my socks!

March 31- I meet Shaun Tan and a friend leaves the country
   -The Arrival, Shaun Tan (2006)
     A gorgeous graphic novel about the strangeness and beauty of immigration. I cried.

June - cruising on the Nile in Egypt
   -I was reading, but I don't quite remember what. The view was distracting me. =P

June/July - London & Oxford, England; and Wicklow, Ireland
   -The Inkworld trilogy, Cornelia Funke (2003, 2005, 2007)
     Because you have to read fantasy in Oxford.

July - a very long flight home
   -The Ghost, Robert Harris (2007)
     A surprisingly engaging modern thriller from a historical novelist.

August-October - Semester 2
   -The Graveyard Book, Neil Gaiman (2008)
     Brilliant. =)
   -The Magicians, Lev Grossman (2009)
     Equally brilliant. =)

mid-September - an awful sickness strikes
   -Sense and Sensibility, Jane Austen (1811)
     Thus completing my aim to read all of Austen's novels.

November-December - mixing up my reading habits
   -Preludes and Nocturnes, Neil Gaiman (1988/1989)
     The first installment of the classic Sandman comics. An excellent read.
   -Good Omens, Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett (1990)
     Read it.

(As always, I've posted links to authors' sites where possible. It's not my fault if their sites aren't helpful. Where these weren't available, I've posted links to the best information I can find about the book. Sometimes this means Amazon.)

Team Darcy

So I saw New Moon last night. It was god-awful, though not quite as god-awful as Twilight. Unfortunately this also meant it did not provide as much amusement as Twilight did. Of course I'm talking about the film, not the book, because I refuse to (publicly) judge something I haven't read.

Anyway, I didn't get the film. I didn't understand who I was supposed to be rooting for, or why I was supposed to care what happened to any of the characters. Except maybe Jacob. Victoria was kind of cool, but I suspect I wasn't supposed to think so. I do think I finally understand all that 'Team Edward'/'Team Jacob' stuff. As I see it, this is how it stands:

JACOB
Pros: hotness; charm; charisma; allows Bella her own autonomy; funny; fun to hang out with
Cons: might accidentally scratch half her face off

EDWARD
Pros: ... Um ... (thinking really, really hard) ... No, I've got nothing.
Cons: way too pale; looks like he's about to cry all the time; no sense of humour whatsoever; makes Bella depressed; has a strong desire to eat Bella; stalks her; won't allow her to make her own life choices

OK, I suppose that makes me Team Jacob. Except that I think Jacob could do way better than Bella. I think Jacob belongs in a different film altogether. In any case, Jacob is all well and good but he ain't no Darcy. At least in Pride & Prejudice the Byronic Darcy meets his match in Lizzy (as opposed to taking over her entire life and controlling her), and I don't have to feel like an old perv for having a little crush on him.

Now, for your viewing enjoyment, a picture almost as weird and impossible to understand as the film:

What Would Jane Satirise?

An article in this week's Wall Street Journal, What Would Jane Do, discusses the moral virtues of Jane Austen's writing and asserts that Austen's foremost goal "was to provide moral instruction."

My first response was to dismiss the article altogether. Austen wrote satire, everyone knows that. Then I thought about it more carefully. I still do not agree with the article. I don't believe Austen's 'formost goal' was to advise young women to act with sense, propriety and humility. (It is certainly clear that Austen admired these traits, but whether she preached them is a different question.) I have, however, come to the conclusion that Austen's satire and moral values are quite closely tied.

In Austen's time, she was criticised for the 'morals' of her books. Persuasion, for example, was criticised for “its moral, which appears to be that young people should always marry according to their own inclinations and upon their own judgement” (The British Critic, March 1818- in Kirkham, Jane Austen, Feminism and Fiction p.149). Of course, whether or not Persuasion advocates this principle is up for debate.

These are a Few of My Favourite Characters

I’m a bit baffled to see Harry Potter at the top of the list of UK children’s favourite book characters. Seriously, Harry? Hermione, sure. Ron, even. The Weasley twins, Hagrid, Luna. But not Harry. He’s such a whiney ass.

I was, however, quite pleased to see Charlie and Lola in the list.

You can see the whole list here.

Anyway, it got me thinking. Who are my favourite characters?

1. Emily Byrd Starr – the Emily series, L.M. Montgomery

2. Nuuskamuikkunen (pictured) – Moomintroll books, Tove Jansson

3. Inigo Montoya – The Princess Bride, William Goldman

4. Fitzwilliam Darcy – Pride & Prejudice, the divine Ms. Austen
5. Peregrin “Pippin” Took – The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien
6. Althea Vestrit – The Liveship Traders trilogy, Robin Hobb
7. Wintrow Vestrit – The Liveship Traders trilogy, Robin Hobb
8. Professor McGonagall – The Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling
9. Mr. Bennet – Pride & Prejudice, Jane Austen
10. Mr. Carpenter – the Emily series, L.M. Montgomery

I wonder if it says anything about me that only three of my ten are female? Narrowly missing the cut are Teddy Kent, also from L.M. Montgomery’s Emily series, and Maurice, the streetwise, smart-talking alley cat from Terry Pratchett’s The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents.

It's also interesting that a few of my favourite characters are from books that wouldn't even rate in my favourite books/series (e.g. Harry Potter), whilst other books which I adore (e.g. The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis) don't have any especially endearing (to me, anyway) characters.

Please leave your own lists in the comments section- I’d love to see them!

The Divine Ms. Austen

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Jane Austen was a satirical genius.

If you’re an intelligent reader of Austen’s novels, you’ll find any romantic “I-wish-I-lived-in-times-of-gentlemen-and-high-society” notions quickly supplanted by the more realistic impression that we can certainly be glad we no longer need to conform to the social pressures of Austen’s time.

Her novels are characterized by:
• the inescapable interference of well-meaning but overly-nosy family friends
• awkward encounters with past crushes
• lots of faked civility and pretending to be friends
• the obligation to ‘be seen’
• and the public broadcasting of relationship status.

Thank God we don’t endure any of that anymore!

Hang on a minute, did I just describe facebook?

Lost in Austen

I came a little late to Lost in Austen (coming late to TV shows is a deliberate habit of mine- I prefer them on recommendation and on DVD), but when I finally popped the first disc into the player and settled back with the thought 'I'll just watch one episode,' I found myself compelled to watch the next... and the next... and the last.

The show follows Amanda Price, a modern girl who inadvertently swaps places with Elizabeth Bennet, finding herself in the world of Pride & Prejudice, right at the beginning of Austen's classic story. From there, everything starts to go wrong and Amanda desperately tries to make events follow the book (most of the time, she only makes things worse).

I've never been a purist when it comes to film and TV adaptions of books (after all, what's interesting on the page is so often boring on the screen) and the series is probably best avoided by those who think the role of an adapted screenplay is to slavishly copy every detail of the original text. Pride & Prejudice is one of my absolute favourite books, but nonetheless I am unashamed to admit that I enjoyed every moment of this adaption, which works to honour the book as well as highlight the irony of modern girls daydreaming about a 'romantic' world in which most of their liberties would be removed.

Some favourite moments: Amanda's 'postmodern moment' (pictured), and the vindication of Mrs. Bennet. If you're planning on watching the series, watch out for these!

Some observations: it's interesting that the show, like many readers, seems to conflate the BBC series with the book. It has always mystified me that the literary buffs, usually so nit-picky when it comes to screen adaptions, embrace the Colin Firth version so readily. It seems that Colin Firth's Darcy is Darcy (forget Austen's Darcy who, dare I say, was somewhat different). I suspect this has something to do with the fact that many readers saw the series first. It is a bit of a shame that it seems to be a job requirement of all screen Darcys since (and probably all that will follow) that they look very much like Colin Firth.

Nevertheless, Elliot Cowan is a wonderful Darcy. If I were in Amanda Price's shoes, I'd spend less time worrying about getting the plot right and more time trying to steal Darcy.