Emma Hamilton in one of her 'Attitudes', Thomas Rowlandson caricature, 1790
Just when the rage for Jane Austen monster mash-ups seems to be over, our favorite author’s fine books have been targeted for a different sort of mangling, one that explores the sexual side of her characters’ lives.
Frankly I don’t care for Jane Austen sequels in general and so chose to ignore all the hoopla surrounding Mitzi Szereto’s 15 minutes of fame with Pride and Prejudice: Hidden Lusts. But then she wrote a blog post for Huffington Post and I found that my indifference over her x-rated foray into Pride and Prejudice could no longer be ignored. This statement particularly set up my hackles:
There appears to be this presumption by the pitchfork coalition that Jane Austen was some prim and proper spinster who wouldn’t have dared to be so impolitic as to address sexual matters in her novels. Therefore who was I, a lowly writer, to tamper with such purity? I wonder if these hecklers from the peanut gallery have even read the original Pride and Prejudice, since it alludes to matters most impolitic, indeed.
That’s a broad sweeping statement if ever I read one. If Mitzi had used her critical thinking skills she would have realized that even pitchfork carrying Janeites are conversant with the Regency era and its history. By and large they know about the scandals, the Hell Fire club, the mistresses, the revealing clothing, and the sexual proclivities of all segments of that society, not just the aristocrats. Thomas Rowlandson’s sexually charged cartoons are not unknown to this group. Neither are the stories of such well-known mistresses as Perdita, Emma Hamilton, and Harriette Wilson.
So if it isn’t ignorance about the Regency era and knowledge of Jane Austen’s awareness of the hanky panky that surrounded her that has kept a Janeite like me on the sidelines regarding Mitzi’s tome, why have I been unable to embrace her new novel?
I am simply not interested.
There are readers who will LOVE her sequel, and I say to each their own. But don’t expect EVERY reader to fall all over themselves to be the first to read yet another twist on the Pride and Prejudice tale. I am so over reading these countless variations on a single theme that I no longer review them. (By the way, the sensual side of Jane Austen characters has been explored by other sequel writers; Mitzi is the first one whose steamy version has caught the eye of mainstream media.) I don’t begrudge Mitzi’s enterprising nature, her talent, or her desire to explore different sides to Lizzie and Darcy; I begrudge that she is miffed that many of us are not impressed. Here’s another statement on Huffington Post:
Why do the re-imaginings of Austen’s works push so many buttons with these “literary purists” – especially re-imaginings that don’t follow the traditional romance route? And why the vitriol, some of which is not very gentlemanly or ladylike? If it’s the sexual content that’s getting these naysayers’ knickers in a twist, perhaps said naysayers should pay closer attention to the original Pride and Prejudice …
Vitriol? To that I say piffle. And before I am lumped in with the Puritans or some virginal sect group, I have read my share of romance novels and believe me, the traditional romance route of which Ms Szereto speaks is hotter than a Houston pavement in 101 degree heat. Ever since Kathleen Woodiwiss arrived on the scene in 1972 with The Flame and the Flower, the majority of romance novels could safely be labeled as soft porn. Some, like Thea Devine’s, are downright hard-core erotic. My point is that Ms. Szereto should have let sleeping dogs lie and not responded to her naysayers in such a public way, for she gained no fan in me. She concluded her rant with this statement:
Perhaps the members of the pitchfork brigade need to pull that stick out of their backsides and get a sense of humor. After all, Jane Austen had one!
Nice way to win me over. Talk to my friends, by the way, and none will accuse me of lacking humor or of not taking advantage of the bawdy side of my sensual nature to make a point. I am sure Mitzi’s novel will be a hit, for it has garnered more publicity than Casey Anthony sightings. I, for one, will not be reading it.
- This link leads to a cached page of Mitzi’s blog post on Huffington Post. The original article is no longer accessible.
- Interview with Mitzi Szereto on Book Talk
- Errant Ramblings
Click on image.
Jane Austen wrote a perfect little diamond of a book that keeps readers to this day turning pages, and laughing. Steamy details add nothing, and adding them doesn’t take much originality or talent.
Jane Austen had sense of humor, indeed… But we can not say the same for all authors, can we?
Thanks for saying what so many of us feel.
Hello Vic – I have been avoiding this book as well as the talk about it, so a bit out of the loop – but I agree with you completely – her post is very good and I agree with her as well on some of her main points, but she lost me with the last paragraph!
She has lumped all those who do not like her book into a pool of starched “purists” who should head back to the 19th century and shut up – I do agree that it is not fair to say much of anything if one hasn’t read the book – the fact I do not feel compelled to do so does not make me a puritan – it is more a question of time! – why spend it reading something I have been perfectly happy to envision in my own imagination! Jane Austen has all the passion right there in her book, so I would much rather re-read the original, as Ms. Szereto herself suggests!
I am not opposed to sequels – some of them are quite delightful – but if I cannot get beyond the first 25 pages because it is just not that well-written or it just doesn’t ring true, or it doesn’t have some originality to it for its own sake, it’s back to the shelf for that book! I just feel overwhelmed with it all to be honest – there are so many! – one must be impressed with how Jane Austen’s works continue to inspire writers! – but my pocket book requires choice, and that doesn’t make me a tight-lipped, nay-saying purist so much as cognizant of my own time and money!
Thanks for a thoughtful post Vic – always good to have a rant now and then, isn’t it?!
Best,
Deb
Deb, I agree with you. Had it not been for that last paragraph I might have chuckled. But authors need to know that it’s ok that their books will not please everyone. My silence and indifference had nothing to do with my thoughts about Mitizi’s talent, and everything to do with my personal preferences.
I simply prefer Jane’s original treatment of her characters, not because I am a prude, but because I love the rich layered depth of her novels. Jane does hint at the lustiness of her age, but let’s face it, she wrote her novels as “A Lady” for a reason, and that was to protect herself and her family. She followed convention, unlike Lady Caroline Lamb.
Jane was a minister’s daughter after all, and while she might have hungered after a beau’s body, she would not betray her desire in public. And most certainly not in a novel.
What about the fact that she wrote about what she knew. She didn’t know what happened after marriage in the first hand. She didn’t write men’s conversations with each other because she had never actually been privy to them, other than her family’s interactions. Correct me on this if I’m wrong.
Of whatever lustiness in the surrounding society Miss Austen may have been aware, yet she never permitted it to intrude upon her own compositions. Had she wished to, one has no doubt she could well have done so. But propriety forbade. Personally, I believe she would find the current work offensive and in profoundly bad taste, as well as poorly written.
I agree with Kathy, anyone can manage a sex scene. Even if it’s not very good, people will read it, if inclined. The only reason why anyone would be interested in the focus of this woman’s book is because Jane did all the brilliant leg work that captivated us so we passionately love her characters – their hearts and minds, what they stood for, their flaws. Without Jane’s efforts, this woman’s work would be just one more historical bodice ripper. I can hear her 15 minute timer running out right now. Ding!
I completely agree. I think getting personal in that way is not only in bad taste, but also disrespectful to the characters as well as their creator. This is the main reason I shy away from sequals of Austen’s lovely works.
I was around for the release of THE FLAME AND THE FLOWER, and read numerous books of that ilk. Some were well written and actually had stories to tell in between the encounters. However, I no longer read that type of novel because, frankly my dear, I no longer give a hoot. As a “woman of a certain age”, that style has become rather dull, more on the lines of “how-to” than titillating (and I don’t really need the “how-to” at this stage!). I am much more interested in plot, character development and dialogue. Taking an existing framework, building on it and throwing in sex may appeal to some readers, but I personally feel that dismissing those to whom it doesn’t as either prudes or humorless is not going to help her cause. I don’t plan to bother with it.
I won’t comment on the type of book and it’s, “what if?” and “this is what happened underneath sheets,” scenario.
I don’t think my comments and views criticising all that, “spin off,” stuff, goes down too well. I’m just an old stuck in the mud really.
But well done for being critical yourself in this case.
I like the Rowlandson picture of one of Emma Hamilton’s “attitudes,”
Phew!!! Cor!!!!!!
Tony, your comments, irreverent or not, are always welcome here.
I own Mitzi’s novel but have not gotten around to reading it yet. But I have to say that her comments do put me off a bit. It sounds as if she’s being way too defensive. We are all allowed to like and dislike whatever we please. Just because her choice of subject matter is not someone’s cup of tea does not mean that person is a prude, purist, has no sense of humor, etc. She needs to get a thicker skin.
I do read most of the fanfiction but that is because Jane Austen wrote such wonderful characters that I can’t get enough of them and I’m a sucker of seeing them come together again. I respect the purists, though I don’t think they respect the fanfiction readers. I’ve seen this happen in my quilting guild circles where the favorites were the new versions of classic American quilts to the new favorites being the Art quilts. People pick unnecessary sides and like to look down their noses at the other side.
There was a writer, whose name I’m blanking on, who wrote 2, well, I would say erotic books about Darcy and Elizabeth. I believe their names were Darcy Takes a Wife and then Elizabeth and Darcy. I believe that’s as far as I want to go. Read this new one if you will be don’t be so sanctimonious, actually, the opposite of that, by claiming that JA readers are too naive and virginal to read this new book. I, too, have a purse and a 24 hr day to draw from and I don’t choose to spend my resources on this book.
Hello and thanks for your comments! I think most reasonable people would agree that one should actually read a book before condemning it (or its author). This is my chief argument, and I’m standing by it. I likewise stand by my point that the sexual content is what seems to be getting most people into a dither.
I’ve been very clear in interviews, blog posts etc that my version is along the lines of the Zombies books – pure fun and pure parody. This is not the lost sex scenes from Austen, female fan fiction, or, for that matter, a book that is aspiring to win a Pulitzer. It is simply entertainment. If people would read the reviews and the blurbs that have been written about the book, they would realise that we aren’t talking sexed-up rehash, but something along the lines of a sex comedy. I’ve no problem at all if people do NOT wish to read the book, but to condemn a book they haven’t read (and the person who wrote it) is just plain silly. Mind you, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s happened! Perhaps I’ll change my name to Salman Rushdie. Now if only I can get into his bank account… ;-).
Well Mitzi you must admit, going by the quotations that Vic has highlighted, you have opened yourself to retaliation. Unless of course Vic has misquoted you.
Yes we do live in a free world where people can write what they want. And, as you say, if they haven’t read it how and why should they condemn it. Unfortunately we live in a world where it is impossible to read or do everything so we can comment on it from personal experience. We make choices at every stage. We filter things out. We have to. The reasons behind our decisions can be multi faceted.
So, Mitzi I would say in regards to your book, and I know this sounds like one of your purists talking, I would not read your book, not because of the sex, I actually enjoy good sex in all it’s many facets,but because it is not Jane Austen. I try and appreciate the depths and subtleness of her novels and there is enough there to keep me going a lifetime.
I think all these spin offs make people lazy when engaging with Austen. They take away the ability to enagage properly themselves.
I can comment on your book without reading it because of the information about it I can glean already just as I can comment on why I wouldn’t jump off a cliff just to see what it was like.
Perhaps Mitzi you should just go and write a book inspired by life itself rather than by Jane. See what you come with, something totally original. I might even give it a go.
Tony, perhaps you might check me out a bit. I’ve had many books published. This is not my first by any means! (Funnily enough, a lot of my critics seem to think that it is, though why I can’t imagine since a quick look at Amazon would set them straight!) You might find another of my titles of interest. Go on, get wild and take a look!
I’m not sure spin-offs make people lazy, Jane Austen is more popular now than ever before – and this is due in part to these very spin-offs of which you speak. I think that’s a good thing. To remember our literary heritage is important, especially in an era when people are actually reading less and less. I’ve had many of my readers tell me that they’re now going to read the original work just to see how I’ve altered it.
I am completely mystified by her continual mention of the “Original Pride and Prejudice” because I have no idea what she means.
I happen to own an “original,” 1813 edition in three volumes, inherited from my great grandmother, and the newer editions are, except for some minor spelling errors due to faulty typesetting, true to the original.
This is not my present day reading copy because it is too valuable, but sixty-some years ago, when I was a child and my great grandmother was still living, I was allowed to read them and there was nothing in the story that was considered unsuitable for a girl of ten. Note that I was supervised by real Victorians, my grandfather, born in 1875 and my great grandmother, born in 1844 (died in 1949, two months before she would have been 105).
(My grandmother was much younger than my grandpa!)
I have no idea of the “matters impolitic” to which she refers in the paragraph quoted above.
I haven’t read her book. I have read several “sequals and re-tellings” and am fortunate to have one sequal published in 1949, Pemberley Shades by Dorothy Bonavia-Hunt, that to me has the flavor of Jane Austen’s writing. The language and cadence of the writing is very similar and the behavior of the characters is what one would expect in a JA novel.
well, this is a most interesting discussion. I feel that the majority of us read for pleasure, regardless of the topic. I love the “real” Austen books and many of the “fan fiction” as well. I enjoying imagining what happened in my own imagination as well as the imaginations of others. With that being said, some versions are better than others. I do not have the gift of writing but you don’t need it to self publish your book, although many do. I enjoy many versions of fan fiction, from those using the original characters to creating modern re-tellings. I do not mind the “naughty” bits, if done within the context of the story. I admit, I have not read the current book in question, as the title did not particularly catch my attention.
My problem is both sides (sorry Mr. Grant) from being too entrenched that they are “right”. There is room for both versions, and as aptly put by other posts, we can CHOOSE which we like, without being labeled prudes.
So, that’s my 2 cents.
wow.
what a provocative conversation!
Just had a look at some of your books on Amazon, Mitzi. They are not what I would call about good sex. They are too one dimensional for my taste. I prefer sex within the context of real life and real relationships.I’m sure Jane Austen would too.
Laura you sound like one of my school pupils. Mr Grant indeed. ha! ha!
Anyway, thank you for being so polite.
“There appears to be this presumption by the pitchfork coalition that Jane Austen was some prim and proper spinster who wouldn’t have dared to be so impolitic as to address sexual matters in her novels.”
Didn’t you just answer yourself? How can a “prim and proper spinster” possibly write about sexual matters if she never had sexual relationships herself? She never married and there was never any (solid or hinted) proof of Jane Austen taking lovers.
“I wonder if these hecklers from the peanut gallery have even read the original Pride and Prejudice, since it alludes to matters most impolitic, indeed.”
Duh. I’m a Jane Austen purist who has NEVER read the original P&P, I’m from the info I’ve got from all the sequels I’ve read (not!)
“If it’s the sexual content that’s getting these naysayers’ knickers in a twist, perhaps said naysayers should pay closer attention to the original Pride and Prejudice …”
Yeah, all the multiple times I have read P&P, I have never really payed attention to the text…
“Perhaps the members of the pitchfork brigade need to pull that stick out of their backsides and get a sense of humor. After all, Jane Austen had one!”
Humph… I thought you were defending using sex in your sequel, not your use of “humor.”
I think overall, I’m shocked someone would be so stupid as to write against her very INTENDED audience. You think insulting us is going to make us want to read our book? Of course not! You attract more bees with honey, don’t you?
And not all Jane Austen fans are against sex. Want to know my list of other favorite books? “Lord of Desire” by Paula Quinn, “To Seduce a Sinner” by Elizabeth Hoyt,” “How to Seduce a Scoundrel” by Vicky Dreiling, would you like me to continue? It’s not sex that makes us (or at least me) angry, but how it’s used. If there is no storyline what’s the point? Your book will just be a porno version of P&P. So, before you go insulting Jane Austen fans (ahem! Again, your INTENDED audience), please, stop being so ignorant. Lumping all of us together in YOUR stereotype of Janeite isn’t going to get you any more readers than begging us to buy your book. If your book is wonderful it will sell well, regardless of what you do or don’t say against us. If it isn’t… well, I think you can find the proof in your sales.
Years ago I read a very long P&P “sequel” that purported to show what went on in the bedroom after Darcy and Elizabeth married. Quite a lot happened there. My favorite scene is one in which Lydia describes the wedding night to pre-wed Jane and Elizabeth. After that, the bedroom scenes became boring. The reason I stopped reading, however, was that what went on OUTSIDE the bedroom turned into a Victorian novel, at least in my estimation. Elizabeth lost her wit. Darcy lost his edge. I read Austen for the sparkle, and this book didn’t come close.