TALKING JANE AUSTEN WITH ... VERA NAZARIAN + DOUBLE GIVEAWAY!!!

 Here I am with a new guest to talk Jane Austen with! Vera Nazarian is a young very original Austen-inspired writer. Her speciality are monster mash-up. Here she is to explain her choice answering my very indiscreet questions. 

How bothering/nosey  can I be? I guess, infinitely! I love asking questions. Here's my interview, then. Ready to read, ask Vera questions or leave your comments. Two of you will have the chance to win an autographed book. Vera Nazarian granted you a copy of "Mansfield Park and Mummies" and a copy of "Northanger Abbey and Angels and Dragons". Please, leave an e-mail address so that I can contact you in case you win and choose the book you'd like to win/read.

Good luck, everyone! And welcome to Vera Nazarian! Here's my first questions for her.

After writing fantasy and science fiction you came to write a "monster mash-up" parody of one Jane Austen’s novels,  “Mansfield Park and Mummies” . How did that happen?

An interesting question, thanks for asking!  Here is how it all began.

About three years ago, when the literary classics mash-up craze was born via the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies phenomenon, and everyone clamored to jump on the bandwagon, I received an unusual book submission from author and university professor Adam Campan for my small publishing house Norilana Books.

 For starters, it was different because it was a serious mash-up. James Fairfax by Adam Campan is an elegant, thoughtful gay and lesbian version of Jane Austen's Emma, with many characters' genders reversed. I found the story and language to be very true to the original, subtle, and yet a whole new take on the original classic. And, unlike the other mash-ups out there, it was genuinely well-written. It mimicked the style of Jane Austen seamlessly. I was proud to acquire Mr. Campan's unusual book, and released this title through the main Norilana Books imprint.

Then, as time went on, and the more I thought about it, I wanted to try my own hand at this mash-up genre. Except, I wanted to do it in a way that would combine the best of both worlds -- a wacky and humorous story that was also well-written and true to its own time period, and seamlessly fitting the style of Jane Austen.

 The humor was to come from wit, repartee, satire, and comic timing, as opposed to shock value and the juxtaposition of bloody gore and zombies and classic literature. The mayhem was to be harmless, like Abbott and Costello, and suitable for most readers.

And so, for my main supernatural element, I used mummies, historically relevant to the Egyptology craze of the time. They easily fit into and subtly expanded the original story of Mansfield Park.

 A mummy is such a complex, interesting "monster." It can be romantic, funny, tragic, and scary, all at the same time.  I also widened the supernatural milieu to include various other creatures -- vampires, werewolves, even the Brighton Duck  (a monstrous duck of my own creation, with a nod to the Hound of Baskervilles).  After all, a magical world that has one kind of monster will likely have them all -- the more, the merrier!

 Now, if a reader is expecting the same kind of blunt, crude, bloody kickass modern shocker mash-up as P&P&Z, they will not like my novels.  (Admittedly, there is nothing wrong with P&P&Z, and that kind of humor definitely has its place.) But if they want real satire -- subtle language, complexity, wit, and completely non-gory mayhem -- they've come to the right place.

In the process of writing Mansfield Park and Mummies, originally started on a lark, and as a way to help me out of a tough financial situation (I am in foreclosure, after years of struggle, illness, and death in the family) I found that I absolutely love working in this literary niche that combines comedy, parody, supernatural fantasy elements, and social satire. It's as if something truly magical has clicked for me, and it has become my own genre -- a combination of period-style language (at which I excel) and my skill at writing fantasy.

And now, I am resolved to single-handedly reclaim the classics mash-up as a respectable literary form.

And so I decided to commit myself to a three-year project called the Supernatural Jane Austen Series, and re-work all the Jane Austen novels into amusing, witty, charming and hilarious romantic fantasies. 

We know the Gothic Novel was a trendy genre when Jane was young and loved reading novels with her family. She teased the too sentimental, overreactive Gothic heroines through Catherine Morland’s misadventures at Northanger Abbey.  How do you explain this new trend in Austen-inspired fan-fiction mixing the two worlds, that of gothic/horror/terror and Austen?

First of all, I actually do not consider the previous mash-ups to be even remotely associated with the so-called Gothic genre. Gothic is narcissistic high emo, has little-to-no sense of humor, and truly loves to feed on itself.  P&P&Z on the other hand, is completely irreverent. It is the original example of the popular trend of infusing violent or gross monsters (zombies or vampires, but, notice, they're never pretty sparkling ones) and gory bloody mayhem into everything imaginable, for pure shock value.  It is its own genre, and should really be called the Monster Mash-up.

What I write instead is the Fantasy Mash-up, which takes a classic and expands it with all kinds of supernatural elements into a greater, wider 3D imaginary experience.  Think of it as a folded fan or umbrella of "story" that is one thing when collapsed, and becomes a completely new other thing when unfurled.  The underlying story remains the same, and yet it is now Story Plus.

Having said all that, the reason why Jane Austen seems so attractive and "vulnerable" to the gothic-supernatural-horror treatment of any kind, is because of how "peaceful, bland and genteel" her works appear to be on the surface, especially to those who don’t really know or understand Austen and are unaware of her dark side -- the biting wit, wicked satire skills and deep psychological insight and commentary. Jane Austen's books are thought to be stuffy and prudish romance and chick stuff.

And "messing with" Austen appeals to people who hate the "girly" stuff."  It's the act of stomping on the dainty rose beds and throwing a naughty baseball at the window… In modern terms, a monster is nothing more than a rude, awful frat boy being dropped into a formal ballroom, or crashing a proper ladies' tea party. And other supernatural elements (no matter how genteel and harmless in themselves) are also often perceived (incorrectly) as immature, nerdy, or "rude boy" stuff. So, mix in the rude boy attitude with the chick stuff and you get something palatable for the so-called macho crowd. It's perceived shock value and the "desire to despoil."

It is also the reason why so many classic literature purists justifiably find such monster mash-ups abominable. Unfortunately such purists also tend to lump together all things that have fantasy, gothic or supernatural elements, and that's rather unfair.

When and how did you happen to read Austen first? Was it at school /college/ university as for many of us?

I was assigned Pride and Prejudice in high school, and at the same time our class got to watch the Pride and Prejudice BBC mini-series starring David Rintoul and Elizabeth Garvie. That did it; I was enchanted, hooked completely, and in love with Austen, Darcy, Lizzy and the whole thing!

What do you like most in the world of her novels?

I love the romantic relationships and the happy endings, and the deft realist humor. But even more, I really think Jane Austen is balm for our painful stressed-out violent times. She represents what so many of us secretly crave -- not sensuality but stable companionship.  And the problems that are faced in Austen's novels are never worse than the vagaries of interpersonal relationships, as opposed to starvation, war, death, abuse, and basic struggles for sustenance.  She chooses to show a very specific, very narrow range of life's spectrum, the portion of the existential pie that we necessarily overlook when hardships pile on.  And because most of us are living in tough uncertain times, reading Austen reminds us of those overlooked things -- things that are experienced in more stable, quiet times -- and we can truly escape.

The world can all use a vacation from itself and shrink down into a comprehensible human-sized place, found only when reading Austen.

Which of her heroines do you feel you resemble most?

That's a tough one.  I think I am a cross between Elinor Dashwood and Fanny Price.  Probably two-thirds Elinor and one-third Fanny, with maybe a pinch of Charlotte Lucas tossed on top... While I might dream of grand romance, I am likely to do the less romantic and more sensible thing. Though, now and then I am a clown like Mr. Collins!

You’ve chosen to write your own mash-up parodies of Austen novels which are considered her less popular ones, MP and NA. Why?

I really admire Fanny Price as a character and can relate to her stubborn insistence on doing the right thing and making the right choice above all else. She is indomitable, and the novel Mansfield Park is sadly underrated, for the reason I mention below (in the question about re-writing a novel). Maybe for the same reason it is so complex and disturbing on an emotional level, I find it so fascinating. And I do believe Jane Austen herself held a very high opinion of MP, unfortunately not particularly shared by the readers and critics of her time.  In general, I feel that not enough has been done with MP in the sense of adaptations, and it is not as "tired" as the more popular P&P for example.

As for Northanger Abbey, it is also less "tired" and it has so much fun fodder for supernatural additions!  I simply took it to the next level, and made real the things only hinted at by Austen.  Bringing the Gothic wonders of the abbey to life was sheer joy and fun!  Add in the Udolpho Code, guardian angels that only our noble and naïve heroine can see, spooky ghosts, demons, and mysterious dragons, and you get the recipe for delightful wonder.

This is something I asked other writers of mash-up before, i.e. Michael Thomas Ford author of Jane Austen Bites Back and Jane Goes Batty. What do you think Jane Austen would think, reading your parodies?

I honestly think Jane with her wicked sense of humor would love them.  She would laugh uproariously, and be completely and utterly delighted with the pure and unadulterated satire. To the best of my abilities I stay true to Austen and the heart of all her characters.

Nothing that matters has been changed, only widened, expanded, and heightened -- like a sprinkling of MSG to heighten the flavor.  Jane would wholeheartedly approve.  And -- diehard Janeites, trust me on this.

What kind of readers do you have in your mind while writing your mash-up stories?

Definitely not zombie lovers! I am hoping for sophisticated readers with a sense of humor, and a love of the absurd, who enjoy the play of language, both period and modern, and the juxtaposition of modern pop culture notions, mores, and terminology cleverly disguised into period costume and beautiful glimmers of fantasy.

Lovers of satire, this is for you.  Also, lovers of sheer joy that can only be derived from mayhem and charming silliness -- plunge in!

As for language and style, did you try to mimic Austen witty prose in the Regency manner or have you tried to create your own style, a more contemporary language?

My own natural style is heavily old-fashioned, since I learned English mostly by reading 17th through 19th century English and English translation novels.  Russian is my first language and I am steeped in world classics.

So I am uniquely suited to mimic the period styles, and Austen in particular, I believe. However, please do judge for yourself by picking up a book of mine.

Blogging and surfing the Net, I’ve discovered what a successful and popular market the brand Jane Austen has got. What’s her huge popularity nowadays due to, in your opinion?

I think as I mentioned above, the world of her books brings a sort of calm and steadiness of mind to our troubled times. Jane Austen is truly balm for the modern soul.

Going back to Austen tradition, if you could change the destiny of an Austen hero/heroine, whose story would you rewrite?

I think it would have to be Mansfield Park. I really think that here was an opportunity the author did not take. Henry Crawford is bright, charming, fascinating. And, if rewritten as a man with more integrity and less flakiness, would make an excellent true reformed rake hero -- if only Jane Austen had taken him all the way.

As the story is, she basically put him on the road to redemption, but left him short. Because of the fundamental shortcoming of his character as written -- an ultimate shallowness, inability to follow through, and hence insufficient personal strength and not enough true love for Fanny -- Henry Crawford is and will always be such a dissonant figure for many readers who want him to be better than he really is.

Meanwhile, Edmund, the object of Fanny's love, is infatuated with Mary Crawford for most of the story, and his change of heart is barely touched upon by Austen in just a few frugal sentences at the end. So his eventual romantic appreciation of Fanny does not ring entirely true to the reader. Therefore, as a psychological story arc, Mansfield Park fails to truly satisfy. 

Overall, I do feel the original story works. As is, it underscores Fanny's moral fortitude and gives her a worthy and similar-minded mate (Edmund). It is complex and not "easily resolved," which makes it in some ways more "real" -- after all, in real life bad boys hardly ever change. But oh, it makes for a less deeply pleasing storyline.

So, in my rewritten version, I would give Henry Crawford a true inner nobility and have him not run off with Maria. He would prove his genuine love for Fanny by some profound means, maybe an act of self-sacrifice of some sort (not just an easy and contrived commission for her brother William). Then, once he has reformed, Henry and Fanny will be paired, and Edmund in turn would "reform" Mary Crawford and end up with her.

My story would be a more passionate story overall, possibly more emotionally satisfying for readers -- but it would not be true Jane Austen.

Which of the Austen famous matches do you think will be the most successful and happy, after the novel end? The couple who will have the least exciting married life, instead?

This is a bit of a trick question! I really do think that all of Austen's matches are perfectly happy as they are written, and in fact that is part of her underlying perennial appeal to the reader. There is no question in my mind they will all be equally happy and satisfied, though I do think that Emma Woodhouse might periodically drive Mr. Knightley crazy. 

However it is much easier to guess who might be a bit of a dull couple for the rest of us to observe (but never dull to each other!) -- it would be Elinor Dashwood and Edward Ferrars.  They both have very reserved and semi-repressed personalities, and they will be blissfully placid in their quiet daily lives.

Your latest release is “Northanger Abbey and Angels and Dragons”. Why don’t you tell us more about it?

The second book in the series, Northanger Abbey and Angels and Dragons, with a nod to Dan Brown and modern love of theological conspiracy theories, is available now. 

 It has wonder and absurdity, ludicrous indoor British weather, angels who follow Catherine in droves and give her endless advice (from how to comb her hair to which gentleman to dance with), demons (who belch), and a haunted gothic abbey. The Brighton Duck makes an encore appearance, the whole town of Bath goes on a scavenger hunt for hidden treasure (and absurd new fashions are born as a result), and dragons mysteriously fly in the skies overhead.

And here's the description:

Dragons in the skies of Regency England!

Gothic horrors collide with high satire in this elegant, hilarious, witty, insane, and unexpectedly romantic supernatural parody of Jane Austen's classic novel.

Young and naive Catherine Morland is constantly surrounded by angels only she alone can see. Leaving her country home for the first time, to embark on a grand adventure that begins in fashionable Bath, our romantic heroine must not only decrypt the mystery of the Udolpho Code but win her true love Henry Tilney.

Meanwhile she is beset by all the Gothic horrors known to Impressionable Young Ladies—odious demons, Regency balls, elusive ghosts, pleasure excursions, temperature-changing nephilim, secret clues, ogre suitors, and a terrifying ancient Dragon who has very likely hidden a secret treasure hoard somewhere in the depths of Northanger Abbey.

Have you already started writing your next? Top secret?

I am hard at work on the next novel in the Supernatural Jane Austen Series.  Each book takes the original Jane Austen storyline and adds in delightful fantastic elements.

Each one also comes with so-called Scholarly Footnotes -- absolutely inane and hilarious, and written by a complete lunatic. The footnotes insert anachronistic or purely silly commentary, harangue the reader, and include gag references to all kinds of things.

The other fun feature is the Appendices.  They must be seen to be appreciated.

Then of course there are the interior illustrations.  The books have some highly amusing line drawings by Yours Truly, and hopefully come as a fun surprise when you turn a page.

And so, next up in the series is:

Pride and Platypus: Mr. Darcy’s Dreadful Secret -- tackles all the werewolf and shape-shifter legends. When the moon is full over Regency England, all the gentlemen are subject to its curse.

And then, the other titles:

Pagan Persuasion: All Olympus Descends on Regency -- tackles the entire Greek Mythology fascination.  Ancient gods and heroes and creatures battle it out, and only the true love of Anne Eliot and Captain Wentworth can save the world from destruction!

Emma Enchanted -- takes on the current fad with fairies, and dips into The Faerie Queen. The Queen of all Faerie challenges Emma to a wondrous matchmaking contest.

Sense and Sanguine Sensibility -- tackles Twilight. (Oh boy, oh boy! Team Willoughby! Team Brandon!)

Lady Susan, Succubus -- takes on the popular sexy incubus/succubus demon fad.

For more information, go peek at the website:  http://www.norilana.com/norilana-curiosities.htm

 So that's all for now, Vera. Thanks for being my guest today  and kindly answer all my questions!

 Thanks for asking me these fun questions, it's been a pleasure!

Vera Nazarian is a two-time Nebula Award® Finalist, and a member of Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. She immigrated to the USA from the former USSR as a kid, sold her first story at 17, and has been published in numerous anthologies and magazines, honorably mentioned in Year's Best volumes, and translated into eight languages.

Vera made her novelist debut with the critically acclaimed Dreams of the Compass Rose, followed by Lords of Rainbow. Her novella The Clock King and the Queen of the Hourglass made the 2005 Locus Recommended Reading List. Her debut collection Salt of the Air contains the 2007 Nebula Award-nominated "The Story of Love." Recent work includes the 2008 Nebula Finalist novella The Duke in His Castle, science fiction collection After the Sundial (2010), and Jane Austen parodies, Mansfield Park and Mummies (2009), Northanger Abbey and Angels and Dragons (2010), and Pride and Platypus: Mr. Darcy's Dreadful Secret (forthcoming).

Vera lives in Los Angeles. She uses her Armenian sense of humor and her Russian sense of suffering to bake conflicted pirozhki and make art. In addition to being a writer and award-winning artist, she is also the publisher of Norilana Books. Visit her website at www.veranazarian.com. 

Now it's you turn. Vera and I are looking forward to your contributions, questions and comments! Good luck with the double giveaway!  The contest is open worldwide and ends next Wednesday 13th April when the names of the two winners will be announced.

THE SENSE AND SENSIBILITY BICENTENARY CELEBRATION - MARCH GIVEAWAY WINNER

Our celebration on The Sense and Sensibility Bicentenary goes on. Today I'm here to announce the name of the winner of March giveaway: a free copy of The Three Weissmann of Westport by Cathleen Schine, a modern version of Austen's Sense and Sensibility. 

The winner of this giveaway open worldwide is ... 

Kelly!

Congratulations and many thanks for commenting and taking part! More posts and more giveaways are coming soon, so I hope you'll stay tuned and drop by to get a chance to read interesting contributions, interviews, guestposts and comments as well as to win Austenesque reads! 

These are the guestposts so far in the Sense and Sensibility Bicentenary Celebration: 

January          Jennifer Becton    Men, Marriage and Money in Sense and Sensibility

February        Alexa Adams        Sense and Sensibility on Film
 
March           C. Allyn Pierson   Property and Inheritance Law in Sense & Sensibility

In April, Beth Pattillo will be my special guest for this event!

A VERY SPECIAL GIFT FOR JANEITES - POCKET POSH JANE AUSTEN

I've just received this lovely gift book directly from the publisher (Andrew McMeel Publishing) and I find it a great idea for a present to a Janeite friend, don't you?

It provides fun testing your knowledge of one of history's greatest authoresses, who continues to be loved by millions and to inspire so many all over the world. You'll find crossword puzzles, trivia questions and word scrambles which test your memory and knowledge of Jane Austen's characters, stories and life. I'm sure this small 100- puzzle book will captivate any Janeite, since it is a smart form of exercise for the mind as well as an object to collect which has both look and brains. Last but not least, it is the perfect size to fit in a pocket or purse, and is a convenient way to spend some quality time with a literary great. If you are interestedin the classics,  among the newest Pocket Posh puzzle books, not only Jane Austen but also William Shakespeare.

Stay tuned on My Jane Austen Book Club. You'll be given the chance to win a free copy of Pocket Posh Jane Austen very soon!

If you can't resist and  immediately want one for yourself ,

if  you need a nice gift for an Austenite friend soon,

have a look HERE or HERE!

JENNIFER BECTON PRESENTS HER "MARIA LUCAS"

Jennifer Becton is here on My Jane Austen Book Club today to present you her newest story, another continuation of Pride and Prejudice focusing on another minor character: Maria Lucas . It is a short story I’m eager to read soon. If you like me feel you can’t miss it, read what Jennifer has written for us. 

If you have read Charlotte Collins, then you know that Maria Lucas’s story did not end on a perfectly happy note. At the end of the novel, she has not yet found true love. Originally, I intended to leave her future to your imagination, but I couldn’t get her out of my mind. I felt that she too deserved a happier fate. So I wrote “Maria Lucas,” a short story that finishes her narrative. If you haven’t read Charlotte Collins, that’s ok; “Maria Lucas” can also stand on its own.

At 5,000 words, “Maria Lucas” is a true short story, and therefore, it is difficult to distribute in a traditional paper format. But through the brilliance of e-reading devices, short stories are becoming much easier to share. Now, I know that not everyone has made the switch to Kindle, Nook, or other such readers. They are expensive, and many people are just not interested in giving up paper books. I can understand that.

However, anyone who owns a computer can read “Maria Lucas” or any ebook out there. That’s right: you do not need a dedicated ereader to join the ebook revolution! All you have to do is go to Amazon.com or BN.com and download their free ereader applications. Then, you can download and read on your Mac, PC, or smartphone.

Alternatively, you can purchase electronic books or short stories from Smashwords.com, which provides even more reading options. You can download media as PDFs or even read online if you wish.

I hope you will read and enjoy “Maria Lucas” but even if you do not choose to read it, do take a few minutes to investigate these reading apps and websites. I think you’ll be glad you did.

“Maria Lucas” is available for only $0.99 US at the following locations:

Amazon.com (and at Amazon.uk.com)

BN.com

Smashwords.com

Also, keep watching for Caroline Bingley: A Continuation of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, which will be released this summer, and please visit me at my website.

Jennifer Becton

GIVEAWAY WINNER - KARA LOUISE, ONLY MR DARCY WILL DO

Just in brief. Thanks Kara for being my kind guest again and for the chance given to one of my readers to win a copy of your brand new book, Only Mr Darcy Will Do!
And the winner is ...

Cyn209

Congratulations to the lucky winner. And good luck to all the others who can have the chance to win in the international giveaway of The Three Weissmann of Westport. Have a look at my right sidebar.

JANE ODIWE ON THE "CONVERSATION PIECE". IS THIS A PORTRAIT OF THE AUSTEN FAMILY IN 1781?

Jane Odiwe has kindly sent me this interesting post proposing an intriguing Austen-related question. Read it and give us your thoughts.

 

Whilst conducting research into the ‘Rice’ portrait, Mr. Robin Roberts discovered a very interesting picture, which seems to have gone unnoticed in a Christie’s catalogue. The sale of the property of Mrs. Robert Tritton took place at Godmersham Park, Kent, between Monday, June 6th and Thursday, June 9th, 1983. Elsie Tritton and her husband had bought the estate in 1936, and the catalogue notes how she and her husband had lovingly rescued the house, and how Elsie, a New Yorker by birth, wished that after her death, their wonderful collection of furniture and clocks, English Conversation Pieces, objets d’art and textiles should be available for others to buy for their own collections. This is a fascinating catalogue to see, and I think the fact that the painting came out of the sale of Godmersham Park is most exciting! Click on the pictures to see a larger image.

The painting is described in the catalogue as belonging to the English School, circa 1780, pen, and black ink and watercolour, measuring 15½ by 19½ inches. It depicts a family sitting round a table, the adults at opposite ends, with four children beyond.
I think what’s so interesting about the picture is that the more you study it; the more the details become fascinating. It appears to be a wonderful allegorical puzzle, full of the humour and charade that the Austen family loved, reflecting so much of what we know about their family history, and finances, with all the literary symbolism they would have enjoyed so much. There are some significant allusions connected with the Austen family, and I am thrilled to share Mr. Roberts’ thoughts and discoveries with you.

He wonders if it could possibly be a work by Ozias Humphry painted to commemorate the adoption of Edward Austen by the Knight family who were childless relatives, and executed at a similar date as the commemorative silhouette.
 What could be the monogram symbols of Ozias Humphry appear to be scattered in several places about the painting, on the figures, in a curlicue above the mantelpiece, and there is a possible signature in the right hand corner, though it is difficult to be certain without seeing the original, and unfortunately, it is impossible to show all the small details on a blog.

If we assume that this is a painting of the Austen family, the central figure shows a young boy who is most likely to be Edward Austen. The family all have their attention turned towards him, and more importantly, their eyes are concentrated on the bunch of grapes, which he holds high up in the air, as if being presented to the viewer. You can almost hear him say, “Look at me, am I not the most fortunate boy in the world? Look what I have!”
Surely the grapes represent the good fortune and wealth that Edward is about to inherit, and the whole family who look as pleased as punch are celebrating with him.


George Herbert makes the connections between grapes, fruit, and inheritance in his poem, The Temple.

From The Temple by George Herbert, 1633
An extract from The Bunch of Grapes:

Then have we too our guardian fires and clouds;Our Scripture-dew drops fast:
We have our sands and serpents, tents and shrowds;Alas! our murmurings come not last. But where’s the cluster?  where’s the taste
Of mine inheritance?  Lord, if I must borrow,
Let me as well take up their joy, as sorrow.

But can he want the grape, who hath the wine?I have their fruit and more.
Blessed be God, who prosper’d Noahs vine,And made it bring forth grapes good store.But much more him I must adore,
Who of the Laws sowre juice sweet wine did make
Ev’n God himself being pressed for my sake.
 

As we observe the painting, the small girl with round cheeks to the left of Edward must be Jane Austen herself! This is also one of the most significant parts to the puzzle. She appears to be clutching what could be a horseshoe nail in her hand, which she points towards Edward, her arm held high in the same way as he holds his grapes aloft. This is where it gets most exciting, and where another connection to Edward Austen is made. On the painting of Edward Austen at Chawton House, there is most distinctly, a horseshoe nail on the ground pointing towards Edward’s feet. This little nail is a symbol, an allusion to the fact that the Knights adopted him. Most interestingly, Jane makes a reference to the horseshoe nail in a letter dated Tuesday, 9th February, 1813. She is talking about Miss Clewes, a new governess that Edward has engaged to look after his children.

Miss Clewes seems the very Governess they have been looking for these ten years; - longer coming than J. Bond’s last Shock of Corn. – If she will but only keep Good and Amiable and Perfect!  Clewes & (sic) is better than Clowes. And is it not a name for Edward to pun on? – is not a Clew a nail?

Jane was punning on the word clew (or clue) and the Old French word, clou (de girofle), which in its turn was derived from the Latin, clavus, meaning nail (of the clove tree). The dried flower bud of the clove tree resembles a small nail or tack. Of course, it was a name for Edward to pun on because of his own associations with a small horseshoe nail.


Now we turn to the gentleman on the left of the painting who is dressed exactly as Mr. Austen in the silhouette attributed to Wellings of Edward’s presentation to the Knight family. He is seated, hands clasped together as though offering up a grateful prayer for their good fortune. Within his grasp it appears he is holding a prayer book, or missal, the silk ribbon of which is draped over his fingers, an indication perhaps of his status as rector, and a man of the cloth. Interestingly, he is the only figure whose eyes are not concentrated on the bunch of grapes, but perhaps this is to indicate he is more concerned with offering grateful thanks in his role of clergyman.

In between Mr. Austen and Jane is Cassandra who rests her hand protectively on her sister’s shoulder, whilst also providing an excellent compositional device leading the eye along through to Jane’s arm to the tip of the Golden Triangle where the bunch of grapes are suspended. The painting follows the traditional composition based on a triangle for optimum placing of the main interest of the work. I also think it interesting to note that the girls’ dresses are of the simple muslin type usually worn by children at this time. Mostly white, they were worn with a ribbon sash, at waist height or higher as in Jane’s case.

On the other side of Edward, it is thought this child most likely to be Francis. James would have been at school at this time, and Henry could also have been away. Charles was too young to be depicted, and would still have been lodged with the family who looked after the infant Austens, as was the custom.

To the far right, as we look at the painting is the formidable figure of Mrs. Austen dressed for the occasion with a string of pearls and a ribbon choker around her neck, complete with more than one ‘feather in her cap’, which must represent her pride and pleasure at the whole event, and by extension, the symbols of nobility and glory. She is further emphasizing Edward’s importance by pointing in his direction, and I think it would be hard to imagine a more pleased mama, in her elegant air, and her smile.

On the table is a further connection with Mrs. Austen. The pineapple, a prized fruit, representing health and prosperity, was first introduced to England in 1772, and the Duke of Chandos, Mrs. Austen’s great uncle, was the first to grow them. The symbolism of the pineapple represents many things, not least the rank of the hostess, but was also associated with hospitality, good cheer, and family affection.
Other dishes of food illustrate further abundance, wealth, and the spiritual associations of Christian values. There is bread and wine on the table: Christian symbols, which represent not only life, and the Communion, but also show there is cause for thankfulness and celebration. The glasses are not yet filled, but there are glasses placed before the adults for a toast. Nearest to us in the foreground, there is another fruitful dish, perhaps plum pudding, representing not only the wealth to come, but also a plentiful future. Placed before Edward, another dish, which also appears to suggest the image of a spaniel dog, may be an allusion to Edward’s love of hunting.

The background to the painting holds its own clues. It’s been suggested that the painting above the mantelpiece could be Zeus abducting Ganymede to the Gods, another reference to the luck of young Edward who has been adopted by the Knight family, and on the opposite wall, could this be a reference to the miniature portrait of George Austen, the handsome proctor, even if this appears to be a larger portrait? In the carpet, the patterns suggest the date may again be replicated, and also an M to symbolize the fact that the couple in the painting are married. Above the looking glass is a crest with what appears to be the date. It would be lovely to have a look at the original to see everything in more detail!

Unfortunately, there appears to be no record of the sale of the painting, and I know that Mr. Roberts, and his sister, Mrs. Henry Rice, would be interested to learn more about the painting. They've asked me to make an appeal on their behalf for any information, and if anyone knows of the painting’s whereabouts or can tell us anything about it, please do get in touch with me or with Jane Austen’s House Museum.

Jane Odiwe

SENSE & SENSIBILITY BICENTENARY CELEBRATION - C. ALLYN PIERSON, PROPERTY AND INHERITANCE LAW IN SENSE AND SENSIBILITY + GIVEAWAY

Third virtual meeting to enjoy Sense and Sensibility in its Bicentenary. This month, C. Allyn Pierson writes about Property and Inheritance Law. Join us in the discussion and get the chance to win a modern retake of Austen 's S&S, THE THREE WEISSMANN OF WESTPORT by Cathleen Schine (My review HERE). Giveaway ends March 31st and is open internationally.

English inheritance and property laws are issues often on the minds of the characters in Jane Austen’s novels and are often the cause of worry and distress. Inheritance laws were based on the concept of primogeniture, or inheritance by the eldest son. If the owner of an estate did not leave a will, all of the estate would go to his eldest son. Unlike today, the assets would not be given to his wife, if living, or divided among his children if his wife had died. This law reflected the strong social norms of the time, and most men who did make wills left their estate to their eldest son, as well. The purpose of this custom was to keep the estate strong. If an estate was divided among the children of each generation, sooner or later the family members would not have enough land to provide a living. Moreover, land was what gave you power in pre-Twentieth Century England. If one person owns a huge estate, he has both money and influence in society and government. If that same estate is divided among five children, they each have 1/5^th the influence of their father, and so on.

One of the major aspects of property law which impacted the characters in Jane Austen’s novels was the entail. An entail was a legal entity which prevented the owner of the property from selling any of the entailed property. The entail was created by one of the previous owners of the estate and would impact his heirs until it expired. How long the entail lasted depended on how it was written, but British law forbade tying up property in perpetuity, i.e. you couldn’t tie it up forever, a situation which would leave an estate without an owner forever if there were no male heirs.

If an owner and his heir could agree to it, the entail could be set aside, which is what Mr Bennet had hoped to do if he had a son in Pride and Prejudice.  Naturally, Mr Collins would not want to do that, but he also could not legally break the entail with Mr Bennet, because he is only the heir presumptive.  If Mrs Bennet died and Mr Bennet remarried a young woman and had a son, then Mr Collins would not inherit. Only if Mr Bennet has an heir of his body could they break the entail, because he is an actual heir and could never be superseded by another.

A son who inherited his father’s estate was then the head of the family and it was presumed that he would assist any needy family members, whether indigent sisters or underage siblings. This often meant allowing his widowed mother and any single sisters to live with him if they did not have the means to survive on their own and helping young brothers to be educated and put in the way of a career. This assistance to mothers, brothers and sisters, however, was only a social expectation and he had no legal obligation to do so. Society would strongly censure a man who turned his sisters out to starve, but how he interpreted “helping” his family was up to him, an issue which seriously injured the Dashwood sisters.Having only a half-brother, and one who was selfish and under the thumb of his grasping wife, left his sisters and step-motheru nwanted interlopers in their former home.The Dashwoods were fortunate that a cousin of Mrs Dashwood offered them Barton Cottage for a very small rent, as John’s wife, Fanny, made it clear that they were not really welcome and that Elinor was not to be considering her brother as a husband.

The situation of Mrs Dashwood and her daughters was very similar to what would have happened to Mrs Bennet and her daughters if Mr Bennet had died when the girls were unmarried, but the cause of the Dashwoods’ distress is very different than the Bennets’. Unlike Longbourn, Norland was not entailed. Mr Henry Dashwood and his wife and daughters lived with his uncle at Norland and took care of him for the last years of his life. Henry Dashwood had been married before and had a son by his first wife. This son, John Dashwood, inherited half of his mother’s marriage settlement, money that had been set aside when she married Henry Dashwood, when he turned twenty-one. The other half of her money was left to Henry Dashwood for his lifetime. On his father’s death, John inherited whatever was left of his mother’s money. Thus, John Dashwood was comfortably provided for by his mother.

The difficulties came in when Henry Dashwood’s uncle died. Instead of leaving Norland outright to Henry, the uncle left it to him only for his lifetime, at which time it would pass to John’s young son, who had won the uncle’s heart with his childish behaviour. This would preclude Henry from selling any of the estate, but would allow him to keep any income earned by the estate, so he could put this cash away and keep it, leaving it to whomever he pleased.

In fact, Henry’s plan, upon learning how the estate was left, was to save as much income as he could and leave it for the support of his second wife and their three daughters. Unfortunately, he died less than a year after inheriting Norland, leaving only about £10,000 for the four women, most of which was Mrs Dashwood’s marriage settlement.  Commonly, this money would be invested in “the four-percents”, which were basically government bonds with a guaranteed four percent income, which could be used for them to live on. When their mother subsequently died, this money would be divided among the three girls, giving them each about £3,000 as a legacy.This amount was not enough to tempt a younger son or a gentleman without an independent fortune into marriage. In this way, although Norland was not entailed, the estate was tied up by the will of Henry’s uncle in such a way that Henry was left in a position that was not much different than it would have been with an entail.

(picture from Jane Austen Today )

In addition to these money problems, John Dashwood’s mother-in-law had inherited all of her husband’s estate and she used this money to try and control the futures of her sons. She, like her daughter, thought that money and power were the most important considerations in life, and she pressed her eldest son to take up a career in the military or politics rather than indulge his desire to be a minister in a country parish. That Edward Ferrars was unsuited to such a career was irrelevant to Mrs Ferrars and she was quite willing to blast Edward’s prospects and give over his desserts as eldest son to his brother if Edward did not dance to her tune.  This part of Sense and Sensibility demonstrates that having complete control over a fortune is only of use to your family if it is wielded for their good. Ultimately, Mrs Ferrars finds that her favoured younger son is also willing to defy her wishes, but it is too late for Edward; his brother had already been given the inheritance previously slated for Edward.

Women during this time were allowed to own property and have their own money, but when they married everything they owned became their husband’s property. Their marriage settlement would specify a specific amount of “pin money” which she would receive each year for her personal use, but she did not have access to any other money unless her husband gave her more. Thus, a woman from a wealthy family would be in the same situation as one from a poor family if the marriage went bad-she might be unable to leave the situation and support herself. A woman of independent wealth might want to think long and hard before she married!

C. Allyn Pierson is the nom de plume of physician Carey A. Bligard, who has combined her many years of interest in the works of Jane Austen and the history of the Regency England into this sequel to Pride and Prejudice.  She lives in Fort Dodge, Iowa, with her husband and two ill-behaved dogs.

Visit C. Allyn Pierson's Site

Now, your comments and e-mail addresses to get a chance to win the latest version of Sense and Sensibility! Giveaway open worldwide. Winner will be announced on March 31st.

WILL A MODERN DARCY DO FOR YOU? KARA LOUISE'S GUESTBLOG + GIVEAWAY

My guest today is Kara Louise, whom I've had the pleasure to interview not long ago in one of my "Talking Jane Austen with ... " sessions.  She's here to present her new Pride and Prejudice variation, "Only Mr Darcy Will Do",  as well as to discuss with us the idea of a ... modern Mr Darcy. Read and enjoy! Sourcebooks  have kindly  granted US and Canada readers, who will leave their comments to this post, the chance to win a copy of the book. 

Maria Grazia invited me to drop by today to talk about my new book, “Only Mr. Darcy Will Do,” and she also asked me my opinion of what a modern-day Darcy would look like (or whether it’s even possible to find one!

First of all, the easy part. Let me tell you about my book. “Only Mr. Darcy Will Do” is a variation of “Pride and Prejudice” in which Mrs. Bennet’s greatest fear has come to pass. Shortly following Elizabeth’s return from Kent (and after refusing Mr. Darcy’s proposal), her father dies. Mr. and Mrs. Collins soon move into Longbourn, forcing the Bennet ladies to move out of their home. Jane and Elizabeth become governesses in London while the rest of the family move into Meryton with Mr. and Mrs. Phillips.

Elizabeth is governess to 6 year-old Emily Willstone and she is enjoys her position. She enjoys imparting wisdom and guidance to this precocious little girl. When Mrs. Willstone’s sister, Rosalyn, comes to visit, she and Elizabeth become good friends. But Elizabeth soon comes to learn of a secret affection Rosalyn has had for years – none other than Mr. Darcy.

As Elizabeth comes to terms with her lower station in life, she struggles with the prospect of being thrown into Mr. Darcy’s presence, of Rosalyn coming to hear of his offer of marriage to her, or worse yet, her refusal.

An invitation to visit Pemberley is extended to the Willstones by Mr. Darcy and his sister. The Willstones are convinced it is because Mr. Darcy wants to further his acquaintance with Rosalyn, and Elizabeth is convinced it is going to be the most discomfiting two weeks of her life. She wonders if the invitation is merely to show her what all she turned down or that perhaps he does have his eyes set on Rosalyn. Or both.

From the moment they arrive at Pemberley, Mr. Darcy reassures Elizabeth that she has no reason to feel awkward and everything is behind them. But as she begins to see him in a new light, she finds herself falling in love with him. She readily sees in him the traits of a man who is everything she has ever really wanted. At the same time she realizes that she is much more beneath him now and cannot ever expect him to renew his offer.

Will the two of them find their way to happiness with each other? Hopefully you will read it and find out!

Now, let me address the more difficult question. What would a modern day Mr. Darcy look like? I did write a modern story that is currently self-published. It is called, “Drive and Determination” and the Darcy character is Will Denton, CEO of a coffee company. He is obviously wealthy and handsome, but is a very private person who doesn’t like the attention put on him when he was chosen as one of the top 50 eligible bachelors in the country.

Of course the Elizabeth Bennet character (Elyssa) misunderstands him and assumes he is arrogant, a workaholic, and cares little for others. In time, she obviously comes to discover that what she perceived about him is wrong and he is actually very down-to-earth, compassionate, and caring.

I think some of the traits of a modern day Darcy would be that he is refreshingly polite (a true gentleman), a man of integrity, a man with the right priorities, respectful, and one who is willing to listen to criticism and seeks to improve himself if needed.

There can be a lot said on trying to find your own modern day Mr. Darcy, and instead of trying to answer that myself, I thought I would direct you to a Wiki-How website I found that does a great job addressing this!

FIND A MODERN DAY MR DARCY

It tells you things to look for in a man, things to avoid, but also puts some responsibility on your own shoulders as to your own behavior.

I thought it was great and I could not improve on it. Go check it out if you are looking for your Mr. Darcy or if you just want to smile. I would be very interested in hearing whether or not you agree with what this article says – or if you think it is even possible.

Thanks Maria Grazia, for allowing me this visit!

Many thanks to you, Kara for this lovely guestpost and good luck with your "Only Mr Darcy Will Do". Now it is your turn, dear readers. Karen and I are curious to know your opinion on  a modern Mr Darcy. If you want to be entered the giveaway of one copy of Kara Louise's new novel, remember to add your e-mail address. The giveaway is open to US and Canada readers only and ends next Wednesday 23rd March. 

You can follow Kara  Louise on her blog  

Delightful diversions from the heart  

and on www.AustenAuthors.com