Subjective Superlatives

The Guardian put out a list of the "100 Greatest Novels of All Time." Like all such lists this one includes some that you'd expect, some you wouldn't, and some noteworthily appalling omissions (anything by Margaret Atwood) and inclusions (Charlotte's Web?!). Many in the blogosphere seem to agree, including Will at Crescat Sententia, from whence I first heard of this list.

More to the point as far as this blog is concerned, Austen is of course on the list, and even in the top 10. However, I don't personally consider Emma (#9) to be either her best or most popular (the two criteria which seem most handy for determining such a list) work. I would bet that most English majors, literary scholars, Janeites, and even members of the general non- Brit-lit-obsessed populace would agree with me. While Emma is one of her better, more solidly constructed works, it's really not that deep or profound of a story. It certainly has its share of wit and satire. I would maybe put it at number 3 if I had to rank her works. But there are reasons that it was the inspiration for Clueless (which was in fact an effective adaptation). But the characters and plot of Pride and Prejudice carry much greater cultural weight, and its prose and themes are far superior. Also, Persuasion is generally considered by critics to be her most 'mature' work as far as fully developed characters and themes, and a plot that is not afraid to depart from the expected ending. If I had to, I'd call Persuasion her best, but P&P is my favorite and probably the best pick for the Top 100 list.

What do you think?

p.s.-- I must say I'm a bit ashamed to admit that, for whatever this list is worth, I've only read about 25% of the books on it. I do own about 50% of them though, so that should count for something, right? One day when I become independently wealthy, I'll set about to reading everything in my library, which will at that point be vast indeed, and largely leatherbound.

I would also like to state for the record that Marilynne Robinson's Housekeeping is hands down the worst book I've ever been forced to read.

Ask and Ye Shall Receive, Part II

Chew Becca of the newly redesigned Chew's Place also had this to say regarding 'chick lit':

"Even before the term "chick lit" was applied to Austen's works, they were shunned by males. Sure, the author is female and that undoubtedly affects her works, as being male affects the writings of male authors. We live in a society where men are seen to be wise, whereas women remain the background of most professions... writing being one of those. Women's works often do not seem to be granted the same merit as those of their male counterparts, merely because they are women. I also think the term "Chick Lit" is derogatory...we don't call books written by men any sort of special term. The same goes for movies. I think the term chick lit ought not be applied, as it further drives a wedge between female authors and their male counterparts. It makes the works seem as if they are not up to the standards of the works written by males. That is simply untrue. Though what they write may appeal more to women than men, that does not in anyway reduce their literary value.

"I do think that Austen's stories appeal more to women than men, however, my husband quite enjoyed the A&E version of Pride and Prejudice (he doesn't read much, so I have no idea what he would think of the book).

"I do believe that a book ought to be judged on its merit rather than the gender of the author. Though the gender can, and probably should be, taken into account when analyzing the book. Jane Austen's view of society, as seen throughout her works, says a lot about how women felt about the society in which they lived. And I think we often miss that...how the people of the time related to their societies, not just how they felt but how they acted in response to those around them."

Great point about there not being a term for books and movies about/by men! (Although I did just run across a site the other day that referred to it as "lad lit.") As far as men avoiding Austen, and other works by and about women, it is sad but true, as Yale discovered. I must point out though that I went to a small liberal arts college, and there were at least 3 men in my Austen seminar! But I digress... Overall I think that Austen's works would appeal more to men than other works by female authors (I'm thinking specifically of the Bronte's and their Gothic predecessors) because Austen does attempt to interpret and express the male points of view as well. Her male characters, while not fully rounded out, are still far less one-dimensional than say Heathcliff or Mr. Rochester. Characters like Darcy and Captain Wentworth are depicted as having emotional depth and room for growth of their own, which Austen expressed as well as she could given the limited access her society afforded her to the masculine world.

That reminds me...I think I read somewhere that there are no scenes in any of Austen's works where only men are present. While that is likely, considering the author's viewpoint and experience, I still find it hard to believe. I'll have to research this further. If any one knows for certain that it is true or false, please let me know!

Ask and ye shall receive, Part I

I asked readers to respond, and lo and behold they did! So nice to know my humble blog has attracted attention! First to chime in on the tea patent issue was Will Baude, one of the erudite minds at Crescat Sententia. His response, "Night of the Living Jane," can (theoretically) be read in its entirety here. Will raises some excellent questions:

"What if Austen were still alive and her works were still in copyright? Then wouldn't she have some right to keep her likeness from being used to advertise a product she didn't believe in? [....] Can Jane Austen trademark her name? If not, can somebody else trademark her name? [....] At what point does that right to protect one's good name die? With Austen's death? With the expiration on the copyright of her work? Ever?"

Will admittedly has more questions than answers, and as my education in jurisprudence is doubtless far more limited than his, I shall refrain from responding lest I betray my ignorance.

Chew Becca, of the highly entertaining blog Chew's News, also sounded off in an e-mail:

"I expect the people who are angry are more upset about the patent than the fact that he makes tea and coffee. No author's name ought to be able to be patented like that, as it would prevent others from being able to use her name without paying the tea/coffee maker for its use. THAT would be exploitation of her name. Just using her name is not necessarily exploitation, and it is good to keep authors in the public eye so that others may hear of them and have a chance to read their works. Intellectual property is a dicey business....I hope they do not allow him to patent her name."

Now, as I understood it, the owner would be patenting the blend of tea itself under the name "Jane Austen tea" or whatever, so that none of his competitors could create a tea and call it "Jane Austen tea." Other entrepreneurs would presumably be able to add the name "Jane Austen" to other products and then in turn patent those specific products.... I don't think there is the possibility of this individual getting exclusive rights to Ms. Austen's name, but then again the general confusion, and the mere idea of such a possibility, seem to be large parts of the problem...

I better go catch up on the news and see if anything more has been decided, as I am about a week behind. My most gracious thanks to you for reading and responding! More from the mailbag to follow!

Are Austen's Works Chick Lit?

In this article, John Darkin of the New Zealand Herald defines 'chick lit' and suggests that Austen's works would fall into that category, and that modern works of 'chick lit' follow in her footsteps.

While I find the term 'chick lit' rather derisive and too exclusive of men (as is 'chick flick' in reference to movies), Darkin does make some good points, and seems to suggest that the popularity of modern 'chick lit' may bring a resurgence of appreciation for such classics as Austen and the Brontes. I particulary liked his description of such works:

"By reflecting that period of freedom between the end of education and early parenthood, the heroines echo the concerns and ambitions of their readers, their stories told in frank, uncompromising terms."

The problem though, with books about women's lives and loves, is that whether they are labeled 'chick lit' or not, they often scare men away. The Yale Daily News recently reported a large and increasingly distressing gender disparity in the university's upper-level English seminars, with one recent course on Austen consisting of 17 women and 1 man. One male English major stressed that:

"Man, woman, child, whoever wrote the book -- you judge it on its own merits," he said. "The author remains a God, a creator of the world you're exploring -- surely, the gender might affect the way that world is composed, but it's not as important as the morals of the author, [and his or her] ideas, [which are] genderless."

Do you agree?

My Cup of Tea

Sally Lunn’s Tearoom in Bath is causing quite a row. Apparently they’ve been selling a line of Jane Austen –inspired teas and coffees for a few months now, and just this week applied to patent their product’s name. This would be the first time that Austen’s name has been patented to promote a product. The Jane Austen Society is accusing them of exploitation and capitalization: honorary secretary Maggie Lane called it “nonsense,” and needlessly commercial and rather ridiculous” in this Bath Chronicle article. But proprietor Julian Abraham says he applied for the patent to protect his small business, and that he is “…bemused that some people do not approve -- we are keeping Jane Austen’s name alive and in the public eye, not exploiting it.” (from BBC article)

The teas, he claims, are blends that have been researched to approximate those popular in Austen’s time. Some detractors point out that references to tea and coffee in her novels were rare (in fact a character in Sanditon decries their ills), but remind us that her extensive letters do mention her favorite mead, a recipe for orange wine (I’ll have to look that up!) and a description of her favorite dish—souse (don’t ask!). They say nothing of the popular beverages. However, the Telegraph did some research and reported informatively:

"The Jane Austen tea is likely to be stronger in flavour than modern blends. In early 19th-century England, most tea imports came from China and were served as a form of green tea. Tea was generally taken after the evening meal, milk was added and sugar from the plantations in Jamaica and Antigua may also have been used.

"Coffee in the 19th century was, however, more in tune with modern palates. The first coffee house opened in England in 1652 and by Austen's time, roasting and crushing coffee beans was already an accepted practice."

So what do I think of all this? I suppose I should be outraged and appalled at this deplorable sullying of the author’s good name and character... to be sunk to such a low status hawking a beverage that is iconic of British culture, civility and gentility…

Really, I don’t see what the big fuss is. Tea is something that, accurately or not, is connected to Austen’s work in the minds of readers. These teas are supposedly a recreation of the types drank in her time, whether she personally cared for them or not. They are already being sold and are apparently popular—the patent would merely formalize and protect the name already being used. There is no implicit damage to the author’s reputation in marketing such a ‘high culture’ product as tea. (And I happen to like green tea a great deal, so I think that is what sealed it for me. I’m all for it! In fact, if I make it to Bath on my trip to England this summer, I'll get a cup.)

However, I do think that part of the proceeds from this product should be given to an Austen-related organization, whether it’s her home, the Jane Austen Society (if they’d take it!), or most appropriately the Jane Austen Centre in Bath, since the town is so synonymous with Austen, and is already gaining tourists from her reputation. In this way the tearoom would be making good on its claim of keeping the author’s name in the light, and spreading knowledge about her and appreciation of her works.

This is, of course a slippery slope, and I wouldn’t want to see a patent issued to just anyone to use her (or any famous author’s) name to sell just anything. And I’m sure it wouldn’t. But history does show other examples of author’s names being exploited (or not—you be the judge) to sell products. Notable examples include Shakespeare Vodka, with the tagline “Taste the Poetry!” (But they have cool bottles…). Also, I found a very informative article by Jim Zwick that details the range of products that have been marketed using Mark Twain’s name and image (some with permission, some not). They range from cigars and whiskey, to sewing machines, Cream of Wheat, and pizza parlors. Apparently even Bass Ale!

This brings to mind the snarky conclusion from the Guardian article on the Austen teas, which suggested that Ernest Hemingway rum, James Boswell condoms, and Christopher Marlowe tobacco follow suit.

But enough from me—Is anyone reading? Do you know of other examples ? Are the Austen teas exploitation or adulation? Respond!

The skies are not clear for Calamity Jane...

Posting to resume shortly... been a crazy week...