The Austen Project rewrites Jane Austen's classics for modern readers

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Colorization is an abomination. Ever see the colorized version of Suddenly, in which Frank Sinatra morphed into Ol' Brown Eyes?

One film that came out worse for wear being colorized was "Night of the Living Dead." It was originally shot in b&w and someone decided to colorize it. The color choices for the 1st zombie in the graveyard (skin and clothes) were terrible (IMO). Granted some do come out not too bad (Captains Courageous comes to mind) but some of the flavor of the original is still lost, and I think the same can be said if someone tries to re-write a classic book. The word choice that the original author made is part of the tapestry of the book. Change that and the whole thing threatens to unravel.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

It is "dumbing down" because the operating assumption behind the series is that modern readers can't understand the language of the original book and can't use their imaginations to relate to the situations in the time period depicted, so it has to be presented to them in a way that doesn't strain their brains or cause them to want to learn more about a culture/historical period.

I would have thought that most people mis-understand words like "sensibility" that does not have the same meaning as the modern meaning.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

It is "dumbing down" because the operating assumption behind the series is that modern readers can't understand the language of the original book and can't use their imaginations to relate to the situations in the time period depicted, so it has to be presented to them in a way that doesn't strain their brains or cause them to want to learn more about a culture/historical period.

Presumably then, by the same token, you'd criticise Bernstein and Sondheim for "dumbing down" Shakespeare by writing "West Side Story"? You could apply precisely the same argument to that: "modern theatre-goers can't understand the language of the original play and can't use their imaginations to relate to the situations in the time period depicted, so it has to be presented to them in a way that doesn't strain their brains or cause them to want to learn more about a culture/historical period."

I would strongly disagree with this idea. "West Side Story", although it is indeed an adaptation of "Romeo and Juliet", is a work which has artistic merit in its own right.

I haven't read Joanna Trollope's book, and I don't know whether or not it is a work that has literary merit, but what I'm not prepared to do is condemn its mere existence on principle, as you're doing. That's really no different to the idea of "book burning", is it?

And the covers aren't even crediting the Austen work that they are ripping off?

And this comment merely proves that she's "damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't", given that several posters earlier in the thread criticised the book for having Austen's name on it (even though it doesn't!).

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Presumably then, by the same token, you'd criticise Bernstein and Sondheim for "dumbing down" Shakespeare by writing "West Side Story"? You could apply precisely the same argument to that: "modern theatre-goers can't understand the language of the original play and can't use their imaginations to relate to the situations in the time period depicted, so it has to be presented to them in a way that doesn't strain their brains or cause them to want to learn more about a culture/historical period."

I would strongly disagree with this idea. "West Side Story", although it is indeed an adaptation of "Romeo and Juliet", is a work which has artistic merit in its own right.

I haven't read Joanna Trollope's book, and I don't know whether or not it is a work that has literary merit, but what I'm not prepared to do is condemn its mere existence on principle, as you're doing. That's really no different to the idea of "book burning", is it?

And this comment merely proves that she's "damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't", given that several posters earlier in the thread criticised the book for having Austen's name on it (even though it doesn't!).

"West Side Story" is not named "Romeo & Juliet", though, is it? So I'm not criticizing Bernstein at all. Bernstein used a unique name for his adaptation to distinguish it from the original. You are comparing apples with oranges.

I can condemn something's existence on principle. That, however, does not correlate into me wanting to burn the book. Less hyperbole, please.

My point of the "head smack" icon isn't a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" moment. It was a comment on the hypocrisy of making money off of Austen's work without giving her visible credit on the cover.

[Joshua Grasso]

...should leave one in want of a readership.

The only time I would advise someone 're-writing' Jane Austen is in the case of her unfinished novels The Watsons and Sanditon, and even then, why bother? Even unfinished, they are glorious snapshots of what might have been (I particularly love what we have of Sanditon).

But re-writing them for a modern readership? A really sad, lowbrow way to make money. First it insults the readers for suggesting that Austen writes over their heads (as a professor, I have taught Austen numerous times, and rarely has anyone complained of the difficulty of her language); and second, it pompously suggests that Austen is no longer relevant as is, and she needs to be 'updated' as in Austen 2.0. This is why students resist literature so much in high school and college--our culture constantly tells them, "oh, this is no longer relevant for you! You're a 21st century Generation Z hypertext multimodal learner!" Sure, they make a buck but at the expense of many young readers who would love Austen just the way she is. And of course, re-writing changes her metaphors, her style, and the very essence of her insight. Austen didn't write romances, she wrote cutting social satire and insightful literature that responded to the other writers of her time--Fielding, Burney, Richardson, Radcliffe, etc. Re-writing that removes her from her cultural context and makes her into a sad doppleganger, but even worse than a remake ala Clueless, which at least translated ideas very loosely. God knows what these versions intend to do.

However well paid these authors are, they should be ashamed to remove Austen from some young person who will read their version of Emma or Pride and Prejudice and go, "hmm, it was okay, but nothing great. What's all the fuss?" I first read Pride and Prejudice at 16 and was totally bowled over. Smitten. In mad love. While these books won't knock Austen off the shelves--indeed, they'll probably come and go very quickly--it's still indicative of our approach to literature: anything old needs to be taken out back, shot, and stuffed into something useful. Enough already!

[speakingtohe]

A couple of asides.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...rollope-review
http://www.theguardian.com/books/sho...se-sensibility

And while it isn't explicitly stated on the shown cover I find it hard to believe that attribution is not listed either on the back or inside the book in pretty clear terms. Perhaps someone knows for sure that it isn't?

Helen

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

"West Side Story" is not named "Romeo & Juliet", though, is it? So I'm not criticizing Bernstein at all. Bernstein used a unique name for his adaptation to distinguish it from the original. You are comparing apples with oranges.

So you're not criticising the adaptation, but merely the title - is that what you're saying?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

"West Side Story" is not named "Romeo & Juliet", though, is it? So I'm not criticizing Bernstein at all. Bernstein used a unique name for his adaptation to distinguish it from the original. You are comparing apples with oranges.

There's also a fundamental difference between a theatrical work and a book. The former is always a collaborative process--WSS had music by Bernstein, lyrics by Sondheim, book by Laurents, choreography by Robbins--and each performance is different. A play is never static; it is reinvented every night. Not so a book.

Nor is rewriting a novel analogous to adapting a basic story from one form of entertainment (straight play) to another (musical).

But the digression to WSS has me humming "The Jet Song" and "Tonight," so it's been a good thing.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

There's also a fundamental difference between a theatrical work and a book. The former is always a collaborative process--WSS had music by Bernstein, lyrics by Sondheim, book by Laurents, choreography by Robbins--and each performance is different. A play is never static; it is reinvented every night. Not so a book.

Nor is rewriting a novel analogous to adapting a basic story from one form of entertainment (straight play) to another (musical).

But the digression to WSS has me humming "The Jet Song" and "Tonight," so it's been a good thing.

I agree for the most part. But there might be an analogy somewhere to study guides, condensations, movies, TV series etc.

I was recently aghast at watching the TV adaptation of Robert B. Parkers Spenser series. And Robert B. parker was part of the adaptation.

I am pretty sure that Jane Austen has been adapted and rewritten and totally changed many times. Why the outrage from so many?

Helen

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I agree for the most part. But there might be an analogy somewhere to study guides, condensations, movies, TV series etc.

I was recently aghast at watching the TV adaptation of Robert B. Parkers Spenser series. And Robert B. parker was part of the adaptation.

I am pretty sure that Jane Austen has been adapted and rewritten and totally changed many times. Why the outrage from so many?

Helen

I have no problem in principle with anyone wanting to adapt Austen for a movie or a musical or a TV series. I might be skeptical, but we'd all know from the get-go that the adaptation is necessarily going to be a different experience. There's something that just rankles about rewriting the books with the same titles; yes, I consider the titles a major sticking point. It creates confusion for the reader, and I don't understand why anyone would want to confuse the reader this way. It just feels wrong.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I have no problem in principle with anyone wanting to adapt Austen for a movie or a musical or a TV series. I might be skeptical, but we'd all know from the get-go that the adaptation is necessarily going to be a different experience. There's something that just rankles about rewriting the books with the same titles; yes, I consider the titles a major sticking point. It creates confusion for the reader, and I don't understand why anyone would want to confuse the reader this way. It just feels wrong.

I can see your point. But as this is a commissioned project, I doubt the authors have a choice if they want to get paid. It should say what it is on the cover, but I can't feel myself that actual harm is being done.

Helen

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

There's something that just rankles about rewriting the books with the same titles; yes, I consider the titles a major sticking point. It creates confusion for the reader, and I don't understand why anyone would want to confuse the reader this way. It just feels wrong.

I honestly cannot believe that anyone is going to be confused by the titles, especially given the fact that the blurb on the back of the book clearly explains what it's all about, and if you buy it online, the description in the bookstore tells you. Eg Amazon describes it as "Joanna Trollope’s much-anticipated contemporary reworking of Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility". That's really pretty clear, don't you think?

[Pulpmeister]

I once read an entertaining update of The Count of Monte Christo. It was written, and set, in the 1980s. It did not use the original characters' names, nor the original book title either, but the story was instantly recognisable on reading.

It is now quite a few years since I last read that book, and I can't recall the author's name, but he did a good job on it. I enjoyed it, even knowing perfectly well where the plot came from. I did not regard it as in any way a dumbing down.

But if he'd named it The Count of Monte Christo, I probably would not have bought it. I've read that, too, several times, albeit only in translation. (My French goes as about as far as "Trois pressione s'il vou plait" and, in due course, "Encore." )

I've read Pride several times, but can't imagine wanting to read someone else's rewrite. Just as I would not move an inch out of my chair to see a movie remake of The Maltese Falcon, nor spend one cent on a rewrite of the book.

[BearMountainBooks]

Austen spinoffs are quite popular. I ran across this one today from Anna Elliot. I've read some of her other books and I LOVED Demon Hunter and Baby. Was a great UF read. I read Suzanna and the Spy and it was your fairly typical period piece romance. Not that it was bad, but it wasn't particularly believable either. Not that those things are meant to be, of course.

One of her Austen spins is free right now.
http://www.amazon.com/Georgiana-Darc...2886573&sr=1-2

Haven't read it, but she seems to have a few spinoffs from the collection. Don't ask me about order as I haven't read any of them and spinoffs of that nature aren't really my thing.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I honestly cannot believe that anyone is going to be confused by the titles, especially given the fact that the blurb on the back of the book clearly explains what it's all about, and if you buy it online, the description in the bookstore tells you. Eg Amazon describes it as "Joanna Trollope’s much-anticipated contemporary reworking of Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility". That's really pretty clear, don't you think?

Why use the same titles except to try to confuse/fool/entice the reader into buying the imitation rather than the real thing?