Notes and Queries

Well, just one ‘note’ and one ‘query’, actually, and in fact the ‘note’ is more precisely ‘news’. But the pun wouldn’t have worked if I’d been accurate…

First off, the news – I got onto my Masters course! I’ve had a hard time explaining quite what it means to people – so settle back for a while. My BA automatically becomes an MA after a while, because Oxford is seen as being a harder course than most. I will be doing an MSt (Master of Studies) which is a basically what Oxford calls it so that it can be distinguished from the automatic masters… does that make sense?? Gramatically, rather than logically. Oxford doesn’t do logic.

It is exciting, but I’m trying not to get *too* excited, as I might very well not get funding, and then I’ll have to consider my options. But, as they say, my Plan B is God’s Plan A.

And the query – Patch’s starring role the other day reminded me of something I’ve been meaning to ask the world at large. The Carbon Copy and I discovered a while ago that we had the same recurring dream, from early childhood to (for me) 15 or 16. In it, there are multiple clones of our favourite cuddly toy (Patch for me; Pluggy for him – a polar bear who only eats plugs) – this never seems odd in the dream, but is accepted. Does everyone have this dream whist growing up, or is it to do with self-identity and being a twin? Hmm… answers on a postcard, please. Or in the comments…

“Only a Sequel”

A lot of you will have been enticed by Mrs. Darcy’s Dilemma by Diana Birchall, a sequel to Pride and Prejudice, which was reviewed by me here, and all over the blogosphere. Well, Diana has very kindly agreed to answer a few of my questions about herself and her novel… but, having stepped into Jane Austen’s shoes once, I shouldn’t expect her to relinquish them absolutely. Their voices intertwine throughout… see if you can spot the joins…

-So, Diana, tell us a bit about yourself…

(Looks furtive and uncomfortable) I’d much rather talk about Jane Austen, thanks. Perhaps, as I creepily channel everything through her anyway, I can try to imagine how she would have portrayed me. With you, Simon, she would have had no difficulty; she might have described you as “being to a precision the most charming young man in the world,” like Miss Tilney’s lover in Northanger Abbey. But this may be channeling Mr. Collins, who did not exactly have “the talent of flattering with delicacy,” and you would doubtless prefer to be called, like Captain Benwick in Persuasion, “a reading man.” (That would be a good blog title for you, too, if you didn’t have an excellent one already, and nobody else was using it.)
As for me, I’m American and would be an outsider to Jane Austen, so inevitably she would think my manners “in fault,” as Elizabeth once said her own were. Yes, I fear I should surely sink at once to be Mrs. Elton to Jane Austen. “A little upstart, vulgar being,” she would call me, one who “meant to shine and be very superior, but with manners which had been formed in a bad school, pert and familiar.” I hope she would not abuse me to quite the extent she did poor Mrs. Elton (“self-important, presuming, familiar, ignorant, and ill-bred”) but she certainly would consider me “hardened.” But then, she would think our whole century that.
….and maybe a bit more?…

“What wild imaginations one forms where dear self is concerned!” as Anne Elliot said in Persuasion. But you will say (like Elizabeth), “I cannot make you out. I hear such reports of you as puzzle me extremely.” So would Jane Austen have described me like Lady Catherine, with “strongly marked features, which might once have been handsome”? Or think me given to “fat sighings,” like Mrs. Musgrove in Persuasion? Perhaps we had better quit the subject, though you may protest, as Elizabeth did, “But if I do not take your likeness now, I may never have another opportunity.” I will only conclude that I am, like Elizabeth, a ‘studier of character,” and leave it at that.

-And how did you come to write Mrs. Darcy’s Dilemma?

You can be in little doubt by now that if you read Jane Austen so many thousands of times as will always be called ten, and start channeling her characters until they talk to you, you are in danger of becoming, as Mrs. Elton said about Mr. Knightley in Emma, “very eccentric,” at the very least. Trying to write in something like her style was a madness that first seized me when I won a contest in JASNA’s journal Persuasions, imitating Miss Bates. “Why not do a whole novel like that?” thought I. So that became Mrs. Darcy’s Dilemma, in 1994. It was the first Austen sequel written since Pemberley Shades in the 1940s, as far as I knew; and I thought I was inventing the form. Unfortunately for me, there are not so many ideas in the world as there are aspiring writers to seek them, and with uncanny synchronicity, others went and did likewise. I sent the manuscript to a London literary agent, who, since the idea was in public domain, “assigned” it to Emma Tennant to turn out in a couple of months to get ahead of the American competition. There ensued a War of the Sequels. I had a New York literary agent who’d been anticipating a bidding war centering around me, but it never happened: I was the least known of the aspirant sequellists, and no one would publish my effort. “Put it away for ten years,” the agent said, “and it will be published.” How right he was; but I remember flinging myself down on the floor of the Novel Cafe in Santa Monica where I write, and uttering a primal howl of despair. You will say that was not Jane Austen-like behaviour, but it did closely resemble Marianne’s paroxysms of grief over Willoughby’s defection in Sense and Sensibility. At the age of five I had declared I would be an Authoress, and forty years later, I still had not achieved it. I thought I was a most ill used creature; but I have since learned that a writer’s life has as many disappointments as joys – Jane Austen could have told me that, had I been really listening. As she has Elizabeth say, “But now suppose as much as you chuse; give a loose to your fancy, indulge your imagination in every possible flight which the subject will afford, and unless you believe me actually married, you cannot greatly err.” Substitute the word “published” for “married” and you will know how I feel.

-Describe the novel for us…

Well, first Jennifer Ehle comes on the screen, to be replaced by Keira Knightley. Or is it Elizabeth Garvie? And then Colin Finch takes off his wet shirt and Darcy and Elizabeth consummate their marriage on a Plinth outside Chatsworth with strobe lights on their beautiful depilated odalisque bodies. Oh, dear, I am running mad again. No vision that dreadful could possibly happen, no, not if Jane Austen’s novels lasted two – or even three – hundred years. But you mean my novel of course, not the movies. And my novel will never be a movie – as Mr. Crawford said in Mansfield Park, “That lady will never allow a theatre at Everingham.”

-How has time changed Mrs. Darcy?

“My dear sister, now be, be serious,” Jane Bennet said to Elizabeth. So I will tell you without embellishment that Mrs. Darcy’s Dilemma takes place in 1837, when the young Queen Victoria is coming to the throne. Mrs. Darcy has been married five and twenty years, and naturally she and the times have both changed. The Railroad is starting to alter the face of England for ever, and in manners a certain Regency roguishness is giving way to early Victorian decorum. Elizabeth herself, now between forty and fifty, is still in love with her husband, who still smiles tenderly when he looks at her. However, even living in a great house does not remove cares; and Elizabeth is anxious about many things, her grown children, her father, her sisters.

-What do you think Jane would think?

Allowing for adjustments to the horrors of our time, which would naturally kill her dead instantly, I have not the slightest doubt in the world that she would be amused and diverted, at her sly wit being blown up to the size of a cosmic joke. “Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies, do divert me, I own,” as Elizabeth said; and what could be greater folly and nonsense than the idea of as many as a hundred sequels to her novels, which were perfect to begin with?
As for what she would think of my particular practice of pseudo-Austen fiction, she was gentle with younger writers (and though, in her words, I must “leave off being young,” she will always have “seniority of mind,” as Anne did over Mr. Benwick). She criticized her niece for having a character fall into a “vortex of dissipation” and other literary crimes, but on the whole I suspect she rather approved of imitation as the sincerest form of flattery – “You are now collecting your people delightfully, getting them exactly into such a spot as is the delight of my life. Three or four families in a country village is the very thing to work on,” she wrote encouragingly to Anna. Why should we not interpret her famous defense of “Only a novel” as extending to include, “Only a sequel”? There are good books within despised forms, and bad ones within revered ones. What I try to do in my “day job” as a Story Analyst reading novels for Warner Bros. Studios, is to approach each novel on an individual case basis and to keep an open mind, though only too often I have to say with Jane Austen, that an expression is “so old that I daresay Adam met with it in the first novel he opened.”

-What makes an ideal hero in a novel?

If a novel has an ideal hero, than that novel is a bore. Mr. Darcy himself was never an ideal hero, but a man with plenty of flaws; in my imagination they are mellowed, but I regret to tell you that he is losing his hair.

-And what should be there in an ideal heroine?

I don’t deal in the ideal. Mrs. Darcy wears her maturity lightly, but maturity has come to her. In my view, it is more interesting to follow beloved couples in the changes that come to them with age, than to force a frantic flurry of picaresque adventures or “very striking beauties” and novelties, like those near Maple Grove in Emma. Rather than follow the beloved Darcy and Elizabeth to exotic locales, or planting a webcam in their bedroom, I wanted to see them undertake the great adventure of changing with time, and of practicing their happiness in middle age. What did Elizabeth herself say? “But people themselves alter so much, that there is something new to be observed in them for ever.”
-What can we expect from Diana’s pen in the future?
I am writing a book in which Lord Byron appears; and it is extremely vexing to me that he is thirteen years younger than Jane Austen and most inconveniently never can be made to be around where she is. It can’t be helped, however. I’m also finding him difficult to write about because I have not read him thousands of times, as with Austen, and he is so provocative and exasperating a man, so human, so glib, so base, so sublime. He clearly never had an Elizabeth to make him say, “By you I was properly humbled.”

But now I ought to conclude with Mrs. Bennet’s rejoinder, “Remember where you are, Lizzy, and do not run on in the wild manner that you are suffered to do at home.”

Diana Birchall

Patch Does The Honours

Time for the draw for the Hesperus competition, and the offer of any book from the backlist, so kindly offered by Ellie and the other lovely people at Hesperus. 35 names to put in a (metaphorical) hat – and who better to help out than experienced name-drawer, Patch. He’s dressed up warm at the moment, in a jumper made by Our Vicar’s Wife many a moon ago.


Lots of people to choose from…


But he’s settled on one in the end.



Well done Angela!

You went for Aphra Behn when you entered the draw (good choice!) but feel free to change your mind if you like, that is the reader’s prerogative. Let me know, and email me your address, and I’ll pass it along to Ellie at Hesperus. Hope everyone had fun!

If you like Hesperus…

you’ll probably like all sorts of other things, like tea and stately homes and kittens. But chances are you might also be interested in Capuchin Classics. As Hesperus Week draws to a close (the prize draw tomorrow, and maybe a sneak peek at what Hesperus have coming up in the future… no, I’m not on their payroll, honest) we’ll look a little further afield for publishers doing something similar. I’m sure the lovely people at Hesperus wouldn’t begrudge us getting some books elsewhere, at least not when we’ve read all the dozens and dozens they have to offer…

Just a brief bit on Capuchin Classics today, as there’ll hopefully be an interview here with the (metaphorical) doyenne of those white-and-mint covers, which I feel are going to become very familiar. Their slogan is “Books to keep alive” and they profess to ‘offer the booklover a range of reprints of outstanding works which have undeservedly been forgotten or are not easily available in the British market, alongside a choice of literary favourites which are themselves in the classic genre’.

What’s not to love?

Their first titles are Plain Tales from the Hills by Rudyard Kipling; An Error of Judgement by Pamela Hansford Johnson; On Horseback and other stories by Guy de Maupassant, and The Green Hat by Michael Arlen. Introduction-writers include Griff Rhys Jones and Ann Widdecombe. I’ve not read any of those works, but all sound like they’d be right up my street – and hopefully yours. Capuchin Classics have gone for that Persephone Books-ideal i.e. books which are instantly recognisable as a set, and will inspire collection-mania in the avid reader… just feast your eyes.

So, as I say, an interview to tell us more will be coming soon, but for now why not have a look at their website, and order a catalogue?

Any other publishers to recommend to Hesperus lovers?

Happy Families

The third Hesperus review this week (and don’t forget my competition draw) is from the pen of Elizabeth Gaskell – I can proudly state that I was one of those smug people who’d read Cranford before the Dames Eileen and Judi received their scripts. That’s not all, I had Wives and Daughters under my belt, as well as a couple of short story collections. No matter that I got Wives and Daughters confused with Sons and Lovers on occasion (titles only, you understand) and had avoided all the grim-oop-North novels, I think I could count myself a Gaskell aficiando. Or at least admirer.

So I swooped on Cousin Phillis like a swallow, er, swooping somewhere. If not simply for the author, also for the beautiful cover, and the fact that Jenny Uglow (a Gaskell biographer) wrote the Foreword.

Paul Manning is the first person narrator, who goes off into the countryside to make the acquaintance of distant relatives – Mr. and Mrs. Holman, and their young daughter Phillis. Their simple kindness wins over both Paul and the reader – Gaskell’s portrait of uncomplex country folk with hearts of gold has none of the absurdity of Dickens, nor a hint of patronisation, but comes across as both genuine and touching. When Manning’s sophisticated and admired colleague, Holdsworth, makes a lengthy visit, the trails of quiet passion and potential romance become far from simple, and leave a subtle and subdued heartache for more than one.

Cousin Phillis is a gentle tragedy without a baddie, a perfectly structured depiction of friendship, family, honesty and romance which is all the more moving for its verisimilitude. It is the sort of situation Gaskell would often frame in her short stories, though never so toucingly. Another Cranford this is not, neither in scope nor tone, but I can only agree with Uglow when she calls it a ‘perfect miniature nestling among the great Victorian three-volume novels’. Yesterday we saw that the Russians could do concise – who knew the Victorians could too? At this rate we’ll find a short sentence by Henry James.

Russian Around Hesperus


Isn’t this the most wonderful thing for Hesperus Week? Thank you so much Peta (aka The Bookling) for emailing it to me. I’m not sure of its provenance, but thank you to anyone else if Peta wasn’t the creator, and thank you to Peta if you were!

There is still plenty of time to enter the draw for a free Hesperus book of your choice, but Hesperus Week continues with a foray into Russian territory. It was one of my most shameful literary lackings that I hadn’t read any of the Russian writers – it’s possible I skimmed a Chekhov once, I don’t recall, and I might have read a modern Russian (or perhaps Hungarian…) but I’d not read any of the Russian Master Novelists, and that was very remiss. So when Ellie from Hesperus sent me a little bundle a while ago, I was delighted to see she included The Eternal Husband by Fyodor Dostoevsky. How did you first enter the Russian world? Or are you a stranger to it too?

Oh yes, this is what I’d always thought the Russians would be. They leap out of their chairs, they leap back as quickly – everything is exclaimed and announced, and mood swings come quicker than a pregnant acrobat. And with names like Alexei Ivanovich Velchaninov and Pavel Pavlovich Trusotsky, for what more could I ask?

I jest. Beneath these flourishes, and indeed through them, lies a touching and well-told tale of intrigue and mistrust, love and malice, innocence and memory. Velchaninov keeps noticing a man in a crepe hat following him (or is it vice versa?) and the first few chapters create an increasingly taut and haunting tension as to what this mysterious figure could want. Don’t read the next paragraph if you want to keep it all a secret.

He eventually reveals himself as the husband of Velchaninov’s ex-lover, and brings with him a small child. The rest of this novel/la (short only by Russian standards) presents a wavering web of the emotions between these figures, and the absent lover Natalya Vasilyevna. (On a side note, someone asked the other day for the definition of ‘novella’ – good question! More or less a short novel – but without the strutural singularity and unity which characterises the short story. But it is a norotiously difficult term to place.)

Occasionally frenetic, The Eternal Husband is also a thoroughly psychological.work. The blurb puts it best – Dostoevsky is ‘engaging with his favoured themes of tortured minds and neurosis, and treating them in a captivating and highly revelaing way.’ I didn’t always find this an easy book to read, by any means, but I think it’s a good ‘way in’ if, like me, the Russians are foreign territory for you.

Hesperus Week : Hesperus Competition

FREE BOOK ALERT!

That ought to grab your attention, if you’re anything like me. I’m delighted to tell you that, as part of Hesperus Week, the lovely people at Hesperus are offering one of you lot any one of their backlist, gratis. Hurray!

You probably know the drill – just put your name in the comments, or email me at simondavidthomas@yahoo.co.uk if the comments box is playing up, and I’ll put your name in.

The list of books Hesperus print can be found at their website, just click on the ‘titles’ or ‘authors’ or ‘subjects’ in the left-hand column, and have a look through. You can even search by the Foreword Writers – and they have snared some wonderful writers for these. Doris Lessing, Margaret Drabble, A.S. Byatt, Germaine Greer, Victoria Glendinning, Umberto Eco, Hermione Lee, Simon Schama, Fay Weldon, Zadie Smith, Will Self… I absolutely defy anyone to leave their catalogue without wanting something. Personally, I want more or less the lot…

It might be nice if, with your name in the comments, you suggested the book you’ve got your eye on – though this is, of course, completely optional. A word of warning, though – some of the books listed aren’t yet published, or aren’t on the backlist. Have a look at the publication date – anything 2007 or earlier and we’re cooking with gas, as they say.

Don’t worry if this is your first time to Stuck-in-a-Book, or you’ve never commented before – the more the merrier.

I’ve littered this post with a few pictoral suggestions… but don’t let me influence you… have a look for yourself! And don’t forget to put your name in the comments. Good luck! I’ll leave it open until Saturday.

Simonetta


No, today’s title doesn’t suggest a foray into the world of female impersonation (for the record, Simone is my preferred equivalent) but rather the beginning of what I will whimsically call Hesperus Week!

Hesperus have been mentioned a few times on here before, but it’s worth doing again. A while ago they sent me four books, and I gobbled up Jerome K. Jerome’s The Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow very speedily, loving every word. It’s taken me a while to read the other three, since I decided I’d finish them all before I wrote about them individually. Before I get onto the first of those, I’ll remind you a little bit about Hesperus Press. They specialise in reprinting the neglected works of famous authors, and also translations of modern foreign novels. It is the former in which I am especially interested, with authors including Austen, Woolf, Bronte, Alcott, Pope, Balzac, Dickens, Defoe… etc. etc.

On the train to London I read L. P. Hartley’s Simonetta Perkins. My first experience with LPH was The Go-Between, which I read last year and was a very close contender for my favourite ten books of 2007. Simonetta Perkins was also an absolute delight, told with panache and a wry wit. The novella opens with Lavinia Johnstone perusing a book in Venice, a book which makes bold statements such as “Love is the greatest of the passions; the first and the last”. She cannot agree, having turned down several suitors and felt little more than irritation towards them. It is not long, however, before the romance of Venice persuades her otherwise – but she is attracted in an inconvenient and unsuitable direction. Through this slim volume Hartley explores a hypothetical relationship of unequal power, obsession and self-exploration. Think the scenario of Lady Chatterley’s Lover in the hands of an author who is Lawrence’s opposite.

What of Simonetta, you ask? Well, she takes a while to appear in her own novella, but is quite significant and intriguing when she does.

Hartley’s work is subtle, sensitive and, above all, extremely funny. We can laugh at Lavinia because she laughs at herself, and not compromise pathos. For example, Lavinia’s proper, dignified, insensitive and gently xenophobic mother warns her against letting any situation, especially of the male variety, get the upper hand of her: ‘[Lavinia] sighed, realising from past experience how improbable it was that any situation would put itself to the trouble.’

Do go and enjoy Simonetta Perkins – there is a wonderful novella waiting for you.

Back from Londontown

I’ve just had a very enjoyable and busy weekend in London, seeing a few friends who have migrated there from university. The downside is that I’ve lost my glasses – last seen on a table in the coffee bar at Tate Modern. Perhaps they will become an exhibit. Very irritating, and blearily made my way home – and had to cancel my driving lesson. Oh dear. But, aside from this, had a wonderful time in the Big City. Too many bookshops around, which wrought temptation… So, thanks to Lorna, Ashini, Matt, Joy and Becky for providing such a fun couple of days!

Postjudiced

It seems Mrs. Darcy has been a busy woman, paying calls on more or less every blog in the neighbourhood, and Stuck-in-a-Book is no different. In fact, despite Diana Birchall (whom I know from an online literary discussion list) contacting me a while ago, her book Mrs. Darcy’s Dilemma has been hither and thither, all around Oxfordshire and most of the departments of the Bodleian. Hallowed company indeed. Finally she landed at my doorstop (or, more precisely, the janitors’ desk) and I read this lovely novel in little under a day.

I have a healthy scepticism of prequels and sequels and so forth, if not written by the original author, and no author comes more sacred than our Jane. Advocacy has bordered on obsession ever since the earliest days of general access to her writings, and though national Jane-addiction comes in peaks and troughs, it has never truly been absent. I came to Pride and Prejudice in 1995 along with so many others, through the BBC TV version, when I was nine or ten. Though I’ve only read the novel once, I have listened to an unabridged cassette and watched a fairly faithful television version probably some hundred or so times. There is not a book in the world I would less like to see sullied.

Lucky Diana Birchall feels the same, isn’t it?
What shines from every page of Mrs. Darcy’s Dilemma is a love of Jane Austen, a respect for her great craft, and a deep affection for every single one of her characters, whether likeable or not. We have moved on twenty-five years, the wedding which concluded Pride and Prejudice has become a lengthy marriage and produced three children – Fitzwilliam, Henry and Jane. When Lydia’s progeny, Bettina and Cloe, come to visit their Aunt, Uncle and Cousins, romance, scandal and a sororal reunion cannot be far behind.
Within the first few pages, I had to make a decision – as will any reader, and it is the only way to read a sequel, I think. That decision was to read Mrs. Darcy’s Dilemma as a exercise in hypothetical speculation; a diverting game of “what if?”, not “and then…” For there were a hundred times when I thought “No! She wouldn’t have ended up like that”, or “Surely they would have…” and so forth. I am certain that Diana would welcome such a response – she is not laying down Mrs. Darcy’s Dilemma as a definitive continuation of Pride and Prejudice, but rather a skilful and witty piece of fantasy. If I were writing (or, rather, plotting) a sequel, then I’d have been kinder to Lydia and Kitty, certainly given Jane a pleasing and humble daughter, and maybe even… no, you see, each reader has her/his projections, affinities and affections.

To return to the novel. It has been many months since I read something so addictively, so keen to dedicate all my spare time to reading it. Yes, it even entered read-whilst-walking-to-work territory, which only happens once or twice a year. This was helped by the fact that Diana cleverly divides the narrative focus between revisiting old characters, and exploring the antics of their children. Most of P&P’s characters appear, or are at least mentioned. We see Lizzy and Lydia making the same mistakes as their father and mother respectively, and watch the good ‘uns and bad ‘uns (as usual in Jane country, the bad ‘uns are foolish more than wicked) from the next generation make a mess of things, and, of course, sort themselves out.

Naturally, Diana Birchall isn’t as good a writer as Jane Austen – it would be an odd coincidence if she were, since nobody else has achieved that in the last two centuries – but I can think of no finer hands into which to place this playful task. Playful in theory, of course, but I daresay terribly difficult in practice. Diana gets the tone so right: witty and ironic and moving and very, very Austen. I think the greatest compliment I can pay Mrs Darcy’s Dilemma is that I was left not mourning the handling of beloved characters who appeared, but wondering what she’d have done with the ones who did not.