Talk:Reception history of Jane Austen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bowdlerised?

"Austen's novels had been published in the United States since 1832, often in bowdlerized editions," Really bowdlerised? Not merely pirated and imperfect, but actually deliberately expurgating passages considered unfit for innocent readers? jnestorius(talk) 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes - they removed inappropriate language like "Good God!". See source, which uses this word and describes the changes. Awadewit | talk 13:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image caption: "Written by woman"??

Not sure what "because it was written by a woman" is supposed to mean in this context, since the non-review of Emma is directly beneath a long review of another book written by a woman. For the real reason, see Talk:Jane_Austen/Archive_1#Image_from_New_Monthly_Magazine. Churchh (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • This reason was taken from a source; Simmaren has the citation, I think. We should add that in. Are you making your deduction from the NMM itself? The whole issue of whether Austen was trying to "elevate" the novel or not is rather complicated. See "Sensibility by the Numbers: Austen's Work as Regency Popular Fiction" by Barbara Benedict (in Janeites) for an example. Our notes are here for that essay. Awadewit | talk 17:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please discuss the changes before you remove the statement - I see now it had a source. We should figure out what the best way to phrase this statement is - "not important enough to review" is a bit vague. We need to explain more than that. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 17:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't reviewed because it was seen as not being above the common run of circulating-library novels (as opposed to types of writing which had some pretensions to status as high literature and/or elevating didactic moralism -- see the famous "defense of the novel" passage in Northanger Abbey). Condescension towards the female-oriented genre of "novels" (a word which had much the same connotations then as the phrase "romance novels" does today) definitely played a part, but the idea that Emma was not reviewed simply and only because its author was a woman is unfortunately wrong. Unless your source refers specifically to issue 25 of the 1816 New Monthly Magazine, then its direct relevance may be dubious. Churchh (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You're raised a reasonable question. I remember our earlier exchange. I'll check our references again and respond appropriately. Unfortunately. much of the drafting history of this replacement article is inaccessible, so I can't identify the moment when changes were made to the original caption. Simmaren (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the original statement was something much longer and more complex. It was reduced for the sake of its being a caption. I think it included several reasons. Perhaps a formulation like "one of the reasons..." would be more accurate? Awadewit | talk 17:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Awadewit is correct. We added the phrase "because it was by a woman" as shorthand for a longer explanation in the footnote as part of an effort to condense the text of the article to a reasonable length for "publication." We do not have a source that refers specifically to the New Monthly Magazine. I propose that we revert to something like the original approach and will take care of it later today or tomorrow unless someone objects. Simmaren (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Reaction

Honan has several pages (289-90, 346-48 318-320) dealing with the reactions of individuals ("opinion-makers"), as opposed to critics, to S & S, MP and P & P. There is similar material in the introduction to Southam's first "Critical Heritage" volume. This is probably too detailed to add to the main article (maybe) but is a part of the reception history and a few sentences might be useful to flesh out the beginning of this article under a heading something like "Individual Reactions." What say you? I'll be happy to do the work. Simmaren (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • What are you thinking of adding? We don't want to get mired down in detail. I already feel that this article is a bit mired in detail. Awadewit | talk 19:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I had in mind two to four sentences, sources as above, discussing what is known of the contemporary public reaction to Austen's books. Later parts of this article deal with public response, but this first section is limited to the reviews. Perhaps there is a way for me to write something (short) "on spec" and show it to you for comment? Simmaren (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Just throw it in and let's see. Awadewit | talk 00:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reception history of Jane Austen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This looks like a thorough, well written, and well researched treatment of the reception history of Jane Austen's works. It is well organized and well written, and seems free of any major problems. The areas that might be improved are:

General comments

  • The article could do with a brief (Main article perhaps) overview section of Austen and her works for context before diving into the reception history.
  • Added a brief "Background" section. Awadewit (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, splendid work. And with reference to our other GA discussion, of perfect size too. :-) --Xover (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • However feels a little to frequent in the article, and downright overused in the denser sections. Sometimes a but is good enough. :-)
  • Note that a high frequency of However may be an indication of overuse of contrasting sentences that replacing the word will not alone address. I didn't notice that as a problem in this article, but it might be worth keeping in mind. --Xover (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The use of ellipses are… confusing, at times. Liberally inserting spaces around them would alleviate the ambiguity. For example, anywhere an elision is marked with an ellipsis without a preceding space, there is the risk that it will read as if the sentence just trails off. Where ellipsis are used without a trailing space, it reads as if the following sentence is resumed somewhere in the middle. The current useage is within the bounds of what WP:MOS allows, I think, but it would be good to fix this none the less.

Lede

  • Second sentence is a bit much. Split with a period rather then semicolon?
  • During her lifetime, Austen's novels brought her little personal fame, because she chose to publish anonymously and her works received only a few positive reviews, although they were popular with people of fashion. That's a bit of a mouthfull. Split? And people of fashion just rubs me all the wrong ways. “fashionable people” perhaps? “…who considered themselves fashionable”? I'm going to go ahead and assume this doesn't refer to people in the fashion industry or who were themselves in vogue. :-)
  • Changed as suggested. Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • …her novels were admired by a literary elite… Which literary elite?
  • I'm afraid adding more detail would overburden the lead. We could add an example, but the best example is George Henry Lewes, and we didn't think that would help anyone understand the literary elite without reading the article. What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The use of a suggests this is one elite out of many, which begs for a description or definition of this specific one. If the defining property of this elite is that they consider an appreciation of her works as a mark of cultivation then the sentence works as it stands. If we're not talking about one out of a plurality of elites then the noun marker should be the, and then literary elite would be definition enough in itself. --Xover (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed to "the". Awadewit (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • …who viewed their appreciation of her works as a mark of cultivation. Only their own appreciation, or appreciation in general?
  • Yes, their appreciation. Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The publication of her nephew's Memoir of Jane Austen (1870)… “in 1870” would avoid the parenthetical.
  • By the turn of the twentieth century, Ninteenth perhaps?
  • This should be twentieth (1800s turning to 1900s). Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. --Xover (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • …some to worship her and some to defend her from the masses. Why does she need defending from the masses?
  • Slightly altered wording - elite defends from mass adoration which is not a subtle appreciation of Austen. Could we make this clearer? Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think this sentence accurately reflects what is actually covered in the Janeites section. The latter describes the contrast between the academic/elitist Janeites and the popular Janeites, but it doesn't specifically mention any society or “cult” whose purpose it was to defend her from the adoring masses. The bit after the colon in the lede might better say that one broad category favoured an intellectual and academic appreciation, and the other a more populist and general one. That there is a conflict between the two points of view is a given, but I don't think it's accurate (based on what's currently in the article) to say that one group had as a defining purpose to “defend” her from the other. At the very least I think the word “defend” needs to be in scare quotes. --Xover (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this does reflect the section, particularly the James quotes. The literary elite appreciated Austen in a different way than the masses, was proud of it, and saw themselves as a bulwark against "the vulgar masses" and their love of Austen. One of their defining purposes was to protect Austen from fandom. :) Awadewit (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Early in the twentieth century, scholars produced a carefully edited collection of her works—the first for any British novelist. Needs cite.
  • Cited later in article - unnecessary here. Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • By the 1940s, Austen was firmly ensconced in academia as a "great English novelist". Needs cite.
  • Cited later in article - unnecessary here. Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • With the advent of university English departments… When?
  • Fans, often disparaged by academics… Fans seems colloquial. And why were they disparaged by academics?
  • The word "fans" reflects popular culture, which is precisely what we talk about. I think this word works. Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think enthusiasts would convey the same sense and avoid repetition with fandom in the following sentence. --Xover (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • …have founded… Awkward transition to past tense. Drop the “have” perhaps?
  • …starting with the 1940 Pride and Prejudice and evolving to include such productions as the 2004 Bollywood Bride and Prejudice. Insert an “adaptation” or something between the Bollywood and Bride to make the linked terms easier to distinguish?
  • Reordered sentence instead. Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

1812–1821: Individual reactions and contemporary reviews

  • Austen's novels quickly became fashionable among opinion-makers. Lady Bessborough wrote… Who is Lady Bessborough?
  • We don't know, but we are going to look. Apparently she is just famous for having a reaction to the novel. Awadewit (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure of the link before, but I will take your word for it. I'm not going to include the reference to her daughter. The paragraph is already swimming in names. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • …her friends were "full of it [Sense and Sensibility] at Althorp"… It's preferable to avoid wikilinks inside quotations. Could the subject be introduced (and linked) outside the quote?
  • Would it perhaps be clearer to use a larger portion of the quote? Something like: Lady Bessborough wrote of Sense and Sensibility that her friends were "It is a clever novel. They were full of it at Althorpe, and tho' it ends stupidly, I was much amused by it." --Xover (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as I remember, there isn't any more to the quotation. Awadewit (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Uhm. *cough* --Xover (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Is that the actual quotation? I thought that was a joke! Sorry! I'll have to find that somewhere. Awadewit (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Added entire quote. Awadewit (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Austen's novels quickly became fashionable among opinion-makers. Lady Bessborough wrote that her friends were "full of it [Sense and Sensibility] at Althorp" and Princess Charlotte Augusta, daughter of the Prince Regent and then fifteen, compared herself to one of its heroines, Marianne: "I think Marianne & me are very like in disposition, that certainly I am not so good, the same imprudence, &tc". Marathon sentence. Split and possibly trim a bit?
  • …published together in December 1817 after Austen's death… Is it her death or the date that is the important point? “…after Austen's death in December 1817…” perhaps?
  • In the Quarterly Review in 1821, Richard Whately published the most serious and enthusiastic early posthumous review of Austen's work. Needs cite (“most”).
  • Copied footnote that was at end of paragraph earlier in paragraph. Awadewit (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

19th-century European translations

  • The first translation of Austen’s works appeared in 1813 with the French Pride and Prejudice… Was that the French title?
  • No, this is not the French title. I think this clearly states that it is the French translation of P&P. Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The current sentence parses a bit awkwardly. The structure suggests the title in French is literally "Pride and Prejudice" which induces a bit of a mental double-take. Perhaps it could be The first translation of Austen’s works appeared in 1813 with the French Pride and Prejudice in French… or possibly The first translation of Austen’s works appeared in 1813 with the French Orgueil et préjugés…? --Xover (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm really sorry to be stubborn about this one, but the grammar works out and I just can't see the problem here. Your first version sounds awkward and I'm not sure of the title of the French version - it is not given in my source. Do you have a source for that? Awadewit (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No, sorry, Cossy and Saglia doesn't give it so I had to google for it. The above was picked from Amazon.fr's title of the DVD, and a cursory scan of Google's Scholar and Books suggests it's correct. Do you want to leave it as it stands or keep trying for some alternate way to convey the information? --Xover (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to have a solid source for the actual nineteenth-century publication if we were to use the French title. I don't have time to track that down right now, however. Perhaps my co-editor can work on that. I'll let him know. Awadewit (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I've made some changes here that should address your concerns and perhaps improve the flow a bit. Let us know what you think. Simmaren (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • However, the first Russian translation did not appear until 1967. Awkward transition. What happened in between the previous sentence and this one?
  • Changed to "notably". Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think however was actually right here; it's contrasting the late Russian translation with the prompt translations to other languages. But the paragraph begins by talking about how rapidly the first few translations appeared, and then there is an abrupt gap of ~150 years with no explanation. Did no translations appear in the interim? Was Russian the last (major) language it was translated to? --Xover (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no gap. The entire section is only about 19th-century European translations. We just thought it important to mention that there was no Russian translation until the 20th century because Russia can be considered part of Europe. Awadewit (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Family biographies

  • This was followed by a proliferation of fancy illustrated editions… “fancy” feels colloquial here. “Elaborate” perhaps?

1930–the present: Modern scholarship

  • Section title has an expiration date. Just plain “Modern scholarship” perhaps? (the first para pegs it at 1930 and onwards, so there's no confusion).
  • Changed to 2000. Awadewit (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The second was Oxford Shakespearean scholar… Why is “Oxford” called out here?
  • Bradley was described that way in the sources. Awadewit (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I suspect this is either a) an attempt to establish notability (in the sources), since all the books and articles he's known for were apparently first written as lectures specifically in his function as Professor of Poetry at Oxford; or b) a simple honorific (i.e. serves the same function as calling him Professor, but emphasising that it's not just any professor, but an Oxford professor). Given it conveys no critical information (his relevance here is as a Shakespeare scholar), and MOS recommends avoiding honorifics, I would suggest dropping it. It could be misconstrued as indicating Bradley to be a follower of the Oxfordian theory (and that this distinction is somehow relevant to Austen). --Xover (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe in following the sources. If they emphasize the Oxford connection, Wikipedia should as well. Readers will not be confused regarding Oxfordian theory, since we have linked to the University of Oxford. Awadewit (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The 1920s saw a boom in Austen scholarship. Now we're moving back in time.
  • The first sentence describes where we are going and then the first paragraph is a "pave the way" description about the 1910s and the second paragraph is about the 1920s and 1930s. Awadewit (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I would suggest looking at ways to smooth this. By giving the periods down to the decade rather then century, you create an expectation that the text will stay within those bounds (i.e. overshoot the given boundaries by no more than years). In this specific instance, the text dealing with 1900–1920 might be moved to the preceeding section (and the section headings changed accordingly); or the two first sentences of the second paragraph might be moved to the end of the first paragraph. Since the second paragraph gives the decade early and prominently as The 1920s, but the paragraph in the main deals with the 1930s, the reader is left confused as to where we are in the timeline and needs to make an extra effort to orient themselves. It's not a big issue, but fixing it would reduce the cognitive impedance. --Xover (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The article is organized by both topic and chronology. I don't think it is too hard to follow, but we will look into this more. Awadewit (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The citation needed tag here should really be addressed.

Adaptations

  • This is the main article - it just isn't very good yet. We hope to recruit someone to do it. Want to help us? :) Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I would expect Popular Culture to be a subset of Adaptations, not vice versa? --Xover (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think "main" is the right choice, but if you want to change it, please be bold. Awadewit (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The Bollywood-inspired film Bride and Prejudice premiered in 2004. Yet another adaptation of Pride and Prejudice was released the following year, in 2005. Redundant. Drop either the following year or in 2005.

Holding this article is mostly just a formality. Apart from a few minor things, this is essentially already a Good Article. Excellent work; kudos to all involved! --Xover (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Inspired"

I would seriously argue with the wording regarding Bridget Jones Diary being 'inspired'. Because the author has pretentions of writing a modern Elizabeth Bennet it does not mean she was successful. Jones has none of Bennet's intellect, dignity or sophistication. Jones is an embarrassment. Why not list other romance novels where the heroine originally dislikes the man she eventually marries, Hollywood produces probably 10 scripts a day on such a theme. Miss Bennet would not be caught dead running around in her underwear after a man in the snow. Austen would consider it humiliating.

Apart from the inclusion of Bridget Jones Diary, I think the piece is well done, congratulations Awadewit, Simm. and all the others who worked on this page. Auchick (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Please note that the article says Bridge Jones Diary was "inspired by Pride and Prejudice", not that it is an "inspired adaptation" or anything of that sort. We are simply stating that it was based on a particular work, which is supported by the source material. Thanks for reading the article! Awadewit (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is understood. However I feel that just because the author has pretentions to write a modern Pride and Prejudice it does NOT mean she was successful. Why not include all references to movies where the heroine originally dislikes the hero, like When sally met Harry, or whatever. I would prefer all references to Bridget Jones be removed. She is NOTHING like Elizabeth Bennet. She has no dignity, no wit or intellect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchick (talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, what does the source you used say, exactly? I would prefer "inspired by", since it seems fairly neutral to me, but perhaps the language that Troost uses would be worth looking at.
I wrote the "Adaptations" section, but of course I don't have that particular source at the moment. Figures. :) "Inspired by" is correct, as several chapters attest to it in a similar way in Jane Austen and Co. María (habla conmigo) 01:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Auchick, on the separate point of whether Bridget Jones should be mentioned, I don't think our opinions of that are relevant -- it's up to whatever the best sources say. If good sources about Austen talk about Bridget Jones, so should we (though we may personally disagree with those sources). Mike Christie (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I messaged you on your talk page, Auchick, but I believe you're still missing the point. Bridget Jones's Diary is a modern-day retelling of Pride and Prejudice. This cannot be denied. The two do not merely share plot similarities; Fielding made it quite clear that the novel was inspired not only by Austen's novel, but also the 1995 BBC production. (That characters share similar names is a clue, I should think.) Whereas P&P's themes have been rehashed on the screen many times, Bridget Jones is an obvious retelling of Austen's story. Therefore, your change from "was inspired by" to "has plot references to" is incorrect. The article furthermore says nothing about the character of Bridget Jones, or her portrayal in the film, so I'm unsure as to your animosity. I believe the neutral and factually correct wording should be re-implemented. María (habla conmigo) 01:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I can call my dog Darcy, but it does not mean the dog is a modern day Darcy. Just because the author of Bridget JOnes calls her characters Darcy it does not mean the book is a modern day Pride and Prejudice. Bridget is definitely no Eliza Bennet and I would like you people who are so insistent that this awful book is a so called modern P&P to produce serious academics who call it so. As of now, I am writing a serious academic article saying it is not, however it will take some time to get it into print. Auchick (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you get it into print it may be possible to use it as a source for articles such as this, but in the meantime, both my opinion and yours count for little here; we have to go with what the sources say. You asked for serious scholarly references to Bridget Jones as inspired by Pride and Prejudice; Awadewit is the expert here and can no doubt deluge us with references, including the one she already cited from Troost. However, it's easy enough to go to Google Books and find such things as Appropriations of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" in contemporary British fiction, an MA thesis. There are many more; I just picked one from a quick search. Mike Christie (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
From the link I provided above: "The latest avatar of this Austen revival comes in the form of the film Bridget Jones's Diary. Austen's most fantasized about male screen hero, Darcy, is back in the guise of his modern brethren Mark Darcy played by Colin Firth, of Pride and Prejudice fame." (p. 229) From The Jane Austen Handbook by Margaret C. Sullivan: "...the two Bridget Jones novels were inspired by Jane Austen novels (Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion)." (p. 204) See also Appropriations of Jane Austen’s "Pride and Prejudice" in Contemporary British Fiction and The Novel Now: Contemporary British Fiction. The second source could perhaps be implemented directly after the corrected wording ("inspired by") in the article once it's fixed. María (habla conmigo) 02:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to reinforce both Mike and Maria's points about sourcing. Our views about the movie are irrelevant - as Wikipedians it is our job to include information that experts have published, not our own opinions on the matter (see WP:V and WP:NOR). As Maria has amply demonstrated, that is what has been done in this article. Awadewit (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You think Bridget Jones Diary can be compared to P&P because Fielding based her Darcy on the Darcy in the BBC 1995 adaptation of P&P? Fielding says she was only using the character of Darcy from P&P and none of the other characters, even Fielding thinks Bridget is NOT a modern Elizabeth Bennet. This does not make it a modern adaptation of P&P. You are putting words into Fieldings mouth by claiming Bridget Jones Diary intended her story to be a modern P&P.

Henry Fielding writes that 'despite being almost 200 years old, (P&P) addresses the politics of dating, courtship and mating that both foreshadows and outstrips those narratives of romance that can be considered its modern counterparts: Bridget Jones diary, A Girls Guide to Hunting and Fishing and Sex and the City’ This is taken from the collector's library afterword. But notice that the critic is putting BJD with Sex and the City rather than with P&P. How about these articles http://www.collegeresearch.us/show_essay/48347.html academic essays you can buy for college courses in the US. 'Bridget has a low esteem, she believes she can’t do anything right. ... The character Bridget is generally portrayed in terms of her as self-loathing. The first words Bridget writes in her diary were ‘lose weight’ ‘quit smoking and drinking’, which is a basic description of all her weaknesses.' These are NOT Eliza Bennet’s weaknesses. Eliza Bennet’s weakness is her cherry picking her data sources, which I am afraid, is happening here. Yes there are a lot of nonsense articles comparing BJD and P&P but I cannot find a serious academic article (and I have been through the Stanford Uni library sources), and I do not mean student essays that actually address the similarities. Fielding’s book is not considered seriously academically. Austen's book has been for at least a century. Awadewit is only a post graduate student, Mike Christie, you know nothing about me. Again I repeat P&P and Elizabeth Bennet do not bear comparison with this very stupid novel and perhaps should only be mentioned in the Mr.Darcy page at wiki because that is what Fielding says. Awadewit, perhaps given the research I have done on this for you based on what you would call experts, you will now agree that the reference to Bridget Jones Diary can now be removed. Maria all your article is saying is that Fielding was able to capitalize on the Austen revival by using a character named Darcy and saying she used Austen's character as a model for her own Darcy. Auchick (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I must reiterate again, it is not what we think that is important - this article merely reflects the scholarly sources. The academic sources indicate that Bridge Jones Diary is a modern adaptation of P&P that needs to be mentioned here - Maria has cited these sources above and we can give you more if need them. You have not cited academic, peer-reviewed sources in return, I might add - you have cited essays that are for sale on the internet - not essays written by Austen scholars. You might not agree with what scholars have said about this film, but I reiterate again, that is not the point. If you would like to argue about what scholars have said, please cite some scholarly sources. Awadewit (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Auchick, you're correct that I know nothing about you; I did not mean to insult you by saying that your opinions (and mine) count for little here. If I offended you, please accept my apology. For all I know you're the world's top expert on Jane Austen; it would be a fine thing for the article if someone with such a background became interested in helping improve it. Please don't belittle Awadewit's experience, though; it's hardly fair to Awadewit, and in any case external credentials don't count for very much here, though practically speaking knowledgeable editors are of course very useful. What I meant by saying our opinions don't count was that Wikipedia's focus is on verifiability, not on truth. This is a distinction that often takes new editors aback, and I was trying to clarify it. Take a look at this link, which explains the point more thoroughly.
To put it another way, Auchick, if you, I, Awadewit and Maria all agreed completely that your opinion of Bridget Jones was correct, it would make no difference to the article at all. The only way I see to remove that information from the article is to deny the reliability of the sources used to support it, or to demonstrate via other sources that it is a minority or eccentric position. That seems unlikely, given how widespread coverage of the plot of Bridget Jones has been.
We'd all like to improve the article too, so please believe that we are very interested to hear about sources that can change the article for the better. As Awadewit says, they need to be reliable sources, which are defined here.
To your specific points above: you say "You think Bridget Jones Diary can be compared to P&P because ..." but that's not what the article says. It says that it's a book that "uses the general storyline of Austen's novels but otherwise change[s] or modernises the story". There's no comparison of Elizabeth to Bridget in the article. It is clear from the sources that Fielding took P&P as the basis for her work; whether her work was good or bad isn't at issue. We mention it because it is mentioned in the sources that cover adaptations of Austen's books.
You also ask, further above, why we don't include When Harry Met Sally; the answer is that if the sources did so, we would do so too. Mike Christie (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you completely missed my point about the research I have just done - THERE IS NO CREDIBLE SOURCES that think BJD is a modern P&P. I went through all the academic texts, not blogs or IMDB or wherever or whatever you find in the web - I WENT THROUGH STANFORD UNIVERSITIES catalog looking for an ACADEMIC saying there was a serious connection. I have quoted the best sources I could find. The supposed sources supporting your view as well as Awadewit do not exist. Auchick (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, the sources Maria cites are NOT peer reviewed academic texts. Please provide better sources. What is amusing is you did not even read what Maria cites - one completely agrees with me that BJD is crap in comparison to P&P. Auchick (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That the work is "crap" is immaterial, as Mike has already pointed out to you. The main complaint seems to be the portrayal of the eponymous "heroine", who, to reiterate, isn't mentioned in the article. This is therefore a non-issue. I find it curious, however, to debate Bridget Jones's connection to P&P, but not connection between Clueless and Emma, or Bride and Prejudice and P&P. If we were to remove the mention to Bridget Jones (which we shouldn't do, as it's supported by sources), then we would have to remove the other two modern adaptations. Clueless and Bridget Jones signify a turning point in Austen recognition and deconstruction. Since the "Adaptations" section is about the history of Austen-inspired productions, whether they be historically accurate or modernized, all three works are noted for signifying a change in attitude towards Austen and her works. If you would like more sources, I can supply them for you. Most are available from my teeny university library. María (habla conmigo) 12:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Auchick, you are incorrect. The Novel Now, which was written by Richard Bradford, is certainly an academic work (published by Blackwell) and more than makes the connection between P&P and BJD. So does " Bridget Jones and Mark Darcy: Art Imitating Art . . . Imitating Art" by Cecilia Salber, an assistant professor. Once again, the point is not the relative quality of the movies, but whether or not BJD took any inspiration from P&P and without a doubt, these academic sources say that it did. We have amply supported our point here. Awadewit (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As we are interested in improving the article, and lets use Maria's references - and I have read them, we could say accurately: while many people have been lead to believe, thanks to the advertising for BJD that Fielding used P&P as a basis for her book. However, Fielding only used Darcy as an inspiration for her book. There are some similarities in plot points.

Would that suit everyone? Because if you actually read http://books.google.com/books?id=9kK6oI14AaIC&pg=PA80&dq=bridget+jones+jane+austen&ei=ZxjsSJLOEZW0yQTTr_0G&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U2BfTXO7glNcviHQoMh99MGDCfl0g#PPA80,M1 you will see the author is being vicious about Fielding's book. If you read http://books.google.com/books?id=DTma0TRv5oIC&pg=PA132&dq=bridget+jones+jane+austen&ei=ZxjsSJLOEZW0yQTTr_0G&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U0aJaZllriGIPfqncYZaEW_m_BOgg#PPA132,M1 you will find that Fielding's book only uses Darcy as a character. Auchick (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The very first paragraph of the Salber article I referenced above is "In Bridget Jones's Diary and its sequel Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason, Fielding presents a thoroughly modern heroine who is surprisingly reminiscent of, and at times as endearing as, Austen’s Elizabeth Bennet and Anne Elliot. What’s more, Fielding provides a glossy and humorous prism through which Austen’s themes are refracted." - Therefore restricting the statement to Darcy would not be accurate, according to the published scholarship. Awadewit (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but Salber's article isn't peer reviewed. She is just an academic, like me, expressing her view. Auchick (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. That is a peer-reviewed article - see here. Awadewit (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Some additional sources, all easily obtained from NetLibrary:
  • "Bridget – daffy, honest, good-natured Bridget, daughter of Cosmopolitan culture, traumatised by supermodels – resembles Northanger Abbey’s Catherine Morland more than she does Lizzy Bennet, but it’s not hard to read the novel as a reworking of Pride and Prejudice."(p. 1) "I began this book with Helen Fielding’s commentary, in the Diary of Bridget Jones, on popular versions of the classics. The second volume of the Diary, Bridget Jones: the Edge of Reason, contains an even more cheeky reworking of Jane Austen."(p. 140) Wiltshire, John. Recreating Jane Austen . Cambridge University Press, 2001.
  • "This chapter focuses on the intertextual dialogic interactions between the 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, Helen Fielding’s Bridget Jones’s Diary (1996), the film version of Fielding’s novel (2000) and Helen Fielding’s Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (1999), all of them presumably feeding from a common source, Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice (1813)..." "When asked whether she intended to follow Pride and Prejudice from the outset of writing her first Bridget Jones novel, Fielding replied: ‘Yes. I shamelessly stole the plot. I thought it had been very well market-researched over a number of centuries’ (Fielding 1998). Indeed, Bridget Jones’s Diary rewrites the plot of Austen’s novel to the extent of featuring a male protagonist with the same surname. But the novel also engages in intertextual dialogue with the 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, in which Colin Firth played a memorable Darcy..."(p. 203) Aragay, Mireia. Books in Motion : Adaptation, Intertextuality, Authorship Amsterdam, New York: Editions Rodopi, 2005.
Etc, etc. María (habla conmigo) 12:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to continue this debate, in my opinion. We have provided more than enough sources to support the claim in the article - that BJD was inspired by P&P. Auchick, you seem to want to insert your own opinion into the article. We cannot do that here. We must report what the sources say, which is what we have done. Awadewit (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


It is amazing what tripe will be published in peer review journals. Still it is a sad statement about your scholarship, I am sorry, Awadewit. But more importantly and extremely sadly is that Bridget Jones is considered what a modern Elizabeth Bennet - intelligent women are in short supply if we are meant to get drunk and make morons of ourselves 'chasing' very stupid men. Auchick (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • It is not my scholarship. You have not read anything that I have written on these topics. Please distinguish between a summary on Wikipedia and original, scholarly research. You do not know what I think about Austen or these adaptations. Awadewit (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you as an Eliza Bennet picking and chosing her sources. Auchick (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's remain WP:COOL and WP:CIVIL. Numerous sources have shown that the article is factually correct in that P&P was the inspiration for Bridget Jones. Unless there is a separate issue that has yet to be addressed, perhaps we should move on. María (habla conmigo) 13:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice you think that it is my POV that BJD is no P&P. Other academics also share this POV, including the author of one of Maria's sources. Just because you found one journal article saying something a kin to what you say you are reporting here, it does not mean that this is the mainstream thought in academia. I have tried to approach this in a number of ways, a) what the author actually says, b) what other academics say c) and what the actual texts say. The author says only one character was really taken from P&P and she cribbed a few ideas. That perhaps BJD is actually a good facsimile, which would require that Eliza Bennet was a good facsimile given one of Austen's biggest strengths is her characterization. We have seen that even student essays for sale prove this is not the case as well as the texts Maria provided and this is backed up by reading the respective books.

Scholarship is based on intelligent reading of source material, not just reading and repeating advertising campaigns to sell moviesn to an audience that really wants more Austen and will take whatever they can get. Auchick (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All of Maria's sources support the statement that BJD is based on P&P which is what the statement "inspired by" means. Let us look at your points:
a) "what the author actually says" - Fielding says "I shamelessly stole the plot from Pride and Prejudice for the first book. I thought it had been very well market-researched over a number of centuries and she probably wouldn’t mind" (Qtd. in the Salber article) - This statement supports the idea that BJD was inspired by P&P
b) "what other academics say" - You have not quoted any other academics, but we have. Here are the peer-reviewed, academic sources that we have used (we have less exalted sources as well, clearly, but these are the best). These all support the claim that BJC was inspired by P&P:
  • Troost, Linda. "The Nineteenth-Century Novel on Film: Jane Austen". The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen. Eds. Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007 (cited in article)
Your proffered sources, on the other hand, are essays for sale on the internet. We have no idea who wrote them and whether or not they went through a peer review process. They do not meet the criteria for reliable sources because we cannot verify that they are written by Austen scholars.
c) "what the actual text says" - We cannot refer to the primary text in this case. We must summarize the scholarship on this issue. Please read Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and original research. Going back to the primary work would be original research.
Again, we have more the adequately met your concerns about this claim. It is supported in the scholarship and it is rightfully included in this article. Awadewit (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reception_history_of_Jane_Austen/Archive_1&oldid=1223934961"