Home Resources Livejournal Feed Wordpress

Friday, July 08, 2005

This post is utter silliness.

...Where do I start? Well, something ordinary, I think. I finally figured out how to create a links list on this blog by stealing the codes from my good friend, Glaukopidos! ha ha! And so, now you can find the best Bronte related links that I have stumbled upon, on the left. The umlauts are not working today. I am very sorry for that.

Last Christmas my sister sent me a gift certificate for a website where you can download audiobooks. After a friend recommended the Emma Fielding audiobook of Jane Eyre, I bought that one, as well as their unabridged Pride and Prejudice. I have been having a really tought time appreciating Miss Austen. I have never liked Neo-Classicism in any form. And yes, I know that I am a Classicist- but shut up. I don't like it. It's not the same thing as Classicism. I wanted to tear my hair out while reading Emma, and even with this very good audiobook of P&P I still not only fell asleep several times, but I also zoned out, and once I caught myself reading Jane Eyre. I kid you not. I keep it close by me, and I must have sought it out for comfort.

Anyway, several of my friends who appreciate Austen's works told me that it might be a good idea for me to see the A&E adaptation first. I did. And it was very good. It did help me to stay focussed, I think, but when I came to the scene where Mr.Darcy and Elizabeth meet suddenly at Pemberley, I couldn't help but notice that he had not been swimming in a pond a few minutes earlier. While I was telling my friends my feelings about this, I remembered something. I remember how odd it seemed to me that Austen would include such a scene. It seemed like something Charlotte might do- I mused. And then I realised that she had.

Several times.

4 times, if I remember correctly.

Mr Rochester gets soaked 4 times in Jane Eyre: once when Jane so liberally baptises him in bed, once when he and Jane are caught in the rain after the proposal under the Chestnut tree, once while he is riding home in a storm, and once while he stands outside of Ferndean! I really have been ruined by my education... all I could think about was whether or not this solved a sticky point in one of my papers on the novel. *sigh*



"In the name of all the elves in Christendom..."

12 comments:

Glaukôpis said...

Awww, so cute! hee.

But I don't see the links. :-/

Brontëana said...

to glaukopis:

*sigh* There is a very good reason for that. I must have deleted some vital code when I spliced the links in. So long as I didn't update my blog everything was fine. As soon as I posted again, everything was GONE. Everything but the brown background. I don't know how I managed to do that, but I did. ;)

ThisbeCiel said...

Every good scholar must go into all aspects of their expertise, so good job Bronteana! Charlotte must have done it for a reason... it doesn't have to be a very good one... ;)

Brontëana said...

to thisbeciel:

I'm so glad that someone appreciates the work I do here!

rinabeana said...

I detested Emma. It was so not worth the time I spent reading it.

However, the number of times my sister and I have watched Colin Firth/Darcy jump in the pond (rewind, watch again, rewind, watch again, rewind...) is rather ridiculous. Hee hee!

Brontëana said...

to rinabeana:

...Ahem... I must confess that the only reason I tried to read Emma is that I knew Charlotte had ;) Also it was the only work of Austen's that I owned, since I had bought it for my mom (who couldn't get into it either) ;)

loL! Before I knew anything about P&P my friends were all telling me about 'The Scene' which is of course the part when Darcy goes swimming. :P

rinabeana said...

I wasn't maligning you for reading Emma, only commiserating...

As for "the scene," you don't know how I laughed when I read in Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason how Bridget, Jules, and Shazzer watched the scene over and over again. I realized that my sister and I were officially crazy after I saw our actions outlined in Bridget Jones! Hee hee...

Brontëana said...

to Rinabeana:

I didn't think you were. I just feel a little awkward about admitting how cold JA leaves me.

I think I'll try again, and read it before classes start again.

Martha said...

Have you ever seen the Zeffirelli version of Jane Eyre, with William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg? It´s the only one that actually captures the book´s atmosphere, even though it´s not true to the book.

What annoys me most about the Jayston version is that the actress has a smile on her face, *no matter* what situation she´s in - even in the most dramatic moments, she´s got this smile on her face, I felt like slapping her for it! LOL!

The Dalton version is awful because of Timothy himself. He does not talk to her: he barks! There´s an aggressiveness about this Rochester I don´t like!

And oh my goodness, watching the Hinds-Morton version is pure torture! The actor is absolutely incapable, he´s portraying Rochester as a whimp the way he constantly pulls faces and overacts that one wants to slap him as well for this bad acting! LOL!

Hurt is the way I see Rochester, a wounded soul, gentle, you know?

The only one who could play this part as well is ALAN RICKMAN! What do you think?



bye:-),
Martha

Brontëana said...

to Martha,

Your comments are really interesting to me, because in most cases, I say the same... except for different versions! For example, you said Hinds played Rochester like a whimp while Dalton was too agressive. I think Hinds went over the line, making Rochester a batterer- he even drags Jane down the stairs in one scene and throws her luggage! Dalton, I didn't see him raging much... although he did shake Jane during that one scene, but this is straight from the book.

As for Cusack, I can't see that either, although other people have aired the same opinion- that she smiles too often. They seem to be a sign of Jane's shyness. I also tend to think of Clark as having little variation of expression. She is either sad or hyperactive. ;)

I have seen the 1997 version. It was the first I ever saw, and shortly afterwards I read the novel. Hurt was my vision of Rochester for years. A lot of people hate his portrayal but I see a lot f good in it. It's a side of the character we don't often see, but it's shown at the expense of his harsher qualities.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bronteana

I don´t know what made me express myself
so freely, but it felt SOOO good to finally get
it off my chest! As I was in the right mood,
I came back today - and was surprised to
see that my message had not been deleted.
Thank you for that as well! :-))

Hey, the Hurt-version was the first I saw,
too! :-)) ... and then I stormed into the
bookstore to get a copy! yeah, I agree with
you that Hurt focused on Rochester`s softer
side -in the book, he`s darker, moodier,
more cynical & harsh to her... when I saw
it, it moved me more than *anything* I had
ever seen before, it was a revelation! It`s
hard to explain this, but I will try: Aggression,
cynicism, moodiness is a sign that the
person is unhappy deep down, that`s where
all the anger comes from, you know? And
when I look at Hurt`s Rochester, I feel that
Hurt let this aggressiveness -which is just
a mask- aside, that he stripped off this mask,
to show his hurt, his pain, his torment that
lies beneath!!! THAT`s what moved me, that`s
the reason why Hurt is, and will always be,
my favourite Rochester! :-)))


BTW:
I created a huge collection of links about the
Bronte Sisters (including a section about the
Victorian Era) - 1790 links in total, freely
accessible and non-commerical, of course!
Just a labor of love! :-)))))

If you´re interested, visit this site:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BronteSistersLinks/

if you wish, tell me what you think of it!
And if you find it useful, feel free to add
it to your collection of links! :-)

bye:-),
Martha

Anonymous said...

sorry for the mess: texts
always look fine before
I send them! :-/

bye:-),
Martha