Jane Austen & Twilight

[osprey_archer]

My friend Micky shared this with me, and I must pass it on to you because if I do not share the pain, my head may explode.

Is Jane Austen So Popular Because Her Books Are Kinda Just Highbrow Twlight?

This is a troll, right? This article has to be in bad faith. Baker is insulting Austen fans (because Austen fans clearly don't get insulted enough) by comparing their beloved books to Twilight, which is even more socially despised - Austen fans may be a little weird, but Twilight fans are positively derided.

Of course being lumped in with literary pariahs will infuriate Austen fans! The article is designed lure us into reiterating the misogyny which is inherent in so much Twilight criticism in an attempt to distance ourselves from it. "Darcy is not like Edward Cullen at all! He differs in X, Y, and Z respects! I may be into girly things, but not I'm not that kind of girl!"

It has lines like "Stephenie Meyer produced a movie about 'about a lonely Jane Austen fan who falls in love at an Austen theme park.' Triple gag."

Because ew, Stephanie Meyer! She has girl cooties! As do lonely Jane Austen fans and Austen resorts, because it is a clear and obvious fact that all things Austen are girl-cootie-ful and therefore gag-worthy. Because girly things are ipso facto gagtastic. Because REASONS.

Baker also comments that her favorite classic novels are Wharton's, because "Wharton's novels are actually cynical (read: realistic) and the opposite of romantic" - read: completely devoid of girl cooties.

Wharton books are not only unromantic, but aggressively anti-romantic - romance pretty much requires characters who are capable of loving someone other than themselves, which Wharton characters generally are not (except Gertie Farish. I love you, Gertie Farish!).

Why did Jezebel publish this? Is it a cynic ploy for hits? Or do they intend to sit back and feel superior in the face of the frothing Twilight hate? (So far, most of the commenters are refraining from froth. Is it a bad sign when the commenters are more thoughtful than the original article?)

Comments

[entwashian.livejournal.com]

Well. It's from Jezebel. That pretty much tells you everything you need to know.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

I am unfamiliar with Jezebel. Aren't they supposed to be feminist? Is that a secret cynical ploy to make the blogosphere erupt in rage at their articles?

[entwashian.livejournal.com]

Yeah, they're supposed to be feminist, but they're idiots.

IIRC they used to be pretty good, but then they got taken over by Gawker, and then it became junk.

[cordialcount]

As entwashian suggested, Jezebel now posts tiny nuggets of thought-provoking (read: not necessarily thoughtful) ideas sandwiched between material just wrong enough to make you froth. Frothing is good for pageviews, linking in, and attention, and reading the same bs repeatedly may even convert readers. I do my best not to click when they come up on the io9 sidebar. ;__;

And hell, I like aggressively cynical and grimdark works, but the idea that that somehow makes my taste objectively better than someone who appreciates people in compassionate, loving relationships sickens me.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

*sadface* *sadface*

Wharton isn't even that cynical, because her character never manage to do anything. They are just good enough for it to stop them from running away with their own true love, but not good enough to actually try to get along with their lawfully wedded spouse.

I suppose in a way that's a kind of cynicism. But it's a very boring kind.

[cordialcount]

Not surprised posters indulging in one mass hallucination/cynical ploys for pageviews would beget more misinterpretations.

(Aha, the literary origins of Unrequited Angst -> Cheating Without Divorce fic.)

[x-los.livejournal.com]

I had similar feelings about this article and the politics of posting it. If their contention is that the media entity of Austen appeals to a broad commercial base in the same ways the Twilight fandom does (which sounds more reasonable than a textual comparison, which must be immediately undermined by Austen's wit, her feminist readings of and attention to socioeconomic detail (which enabled later writers like Wharton to exist and develop on this theme), and a prose style Woolf endlessly admired in Room of One's Own), that still falls quite flat. It doesn't take into account Meyers' primary appeal to demographics that are not necessarily Austen's, or the ways Austen benefits from heritage marketing. It ignores the ways the Austen canon lends itself to the miniseries/costume genre format. Such sprawling comedies of manners have little of Twilight's appeal. It ignores the very different conversations both texts are having with the Gothic genre. And I think perhaps the key issue is, it ignores how even in terrible Austen film adaptations, you still have things like Lizzie's consciousness and domestic problems at the forefront. You still have she and Charlotte's friendship, and Charlotte making a tough life-choice Lizzie cannot agree with, and them falling out for a period over it. You still have how shit Mr. Collins is as a person, and that's imminently relatable. Core female characters/their friendships and strong characterization generally are key to Austen's appeal in a way they aren't to Meyers'.

I think all of this is wasted on Jezebel, though, because the thing is, we just finished the Banner Year of Dickens, when we did a million things to celebrate his life and work. There's little way they could have missed it, if they're poking around anywhere Year of Austen's getting mentioned. You know what no one thought was undeserved or suspect? That year. You know /where Dickens learned his trick of humanized ridiculous characterization/? Suckling Austen's mighty teat, is where. As we may all hope to do, tbh. And the sexism of critiques of Meyers aside (though it's core to many of them, and I heartily thumbs-up you for noting it here!), the unvoiced sexism of this dichotomy creeps me the fuck out.

Someone pointed out that maybe we all felt warmer towards Dickens because he was so manifestly SJ, but /what did Austen ever talk about but gender and class and their effects on human lives/?

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

It's clearly not a fair comparison at all. The writer is using Twilight to mean "all things bad, girly, and popular," and then arguing that Austen is exactly the same, because it is definitely popular, is arguably girly (lots of men used to read it and publicly enjoy it, but never mind) - and all girly things are exactly the same, in some intrinsic way - and Austen must therefore be bad, because popular + girly = bad. Not that that's a toxic equation at all.

If Jezebel wanted a substantive article about feminist literary criticism, why not focus on Dickens and his procession of angelic childish heroines? I don't think it's fair to argue that he's more social justice-y than Jane Austen; they both have their strengths and weaknesses.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

(What an awesome comment! I'd like to read more articles like this comment!)

[x-los.livejournal.com]

Awh, thanks!

[silverusagi]

So basically, any book that features a standoffish guy is like Twilight. That describes like 90% of romances out there, literary or mass market.

Also, Austenland was a HORRIBLE book.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

Clearly. Because if there is one thing I think of when I think of Edward Cullen, it is definitely standoffish, rather than so clingy that he can't stand to be apart from Bella ever and therefore spends his nights standing her room watching her sleep.

I liked Austenland. To each her own.

[silverusagi]

Way to make a good impression, self. Everyone likes different things, but I generally try not to boo things that others like in their own LJ. I shouldn't have assumed.

What think you of Lost in Austen? I loved it, but haven't run across anyone else who has.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

No worries! Sometimes my feelings carry me away too.

I haven't actually seen Lost in Austen.

[isiscolo.livejournal.com]

I liked Austenland (although I didn't love it) and I loved Lost in Austen. It's a total Mary Sue, but it's so engagingly done, I think!

I received an adorable Lost in Austen vid for Festivids a few years ago: http://fv-poster.livejournal.com/2327.html (and there are some other nice ones in other years, http://www.festivids.net/festivids). There's also some Yuletide fic, if you haven't seen it.

osprey_archer, you should see Lost in Austen! It's a lot of fun!

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

Someday! It is on my list.

[silverusagi]

It's all on Youtube....

[silverusagi]

IDK, I just found the characters in Austenland to be flat.

Lost in Austen. It's a total Mary Sue, but it's so engagingly done, I think!

I do like that despite the Mary Sue-ness, Amanda manages to COMPLETELY wreck the story from the first time she bowed to Bingley. And despite all her love of Austen, she actually has no idea how to ACT in Regency society. But as I said of Lost in Austen on my LJ: "it's like complete crack that someone filmed just me for me." lol

And thanks for the links!

[laurelcrowned.livejournal.com]

i am so angry and offended about this that i can't even.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

I know, right? I am trying not to be, because clearly that's what the author wants, but I can't help myself.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

The very title of the article is so eye-rollingly bad that I can't be bothered to read it, but I very much appreciate your post and the super comments it generated.

I do think it's a cynical play for attention--let's criticize two popular things, one that PLUs ("people like us"--in this case, Jezebel's sense of its perceived readers) despise and one that maybe half of them like and the other half of are sick of, and then sit back and laugh as the links and views and arguing ensue.

Two things I really dislike are zero sum games in terms of what can be liked ("you can only like this to the degree that you also dislike this other thing" ahhh, no) and the notion that there's only one approved way to be, oh anything. A reader. A feminist. A woman. Ahh, double no.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

Good for you for not clicking on it. Let's keep their hit count down.

And yes, the zero sum game. The whole way that the author structured her article just reeks of bad faith.