We're probably a little late to this, but it's too good not to share: Fran Lebowitz discusses Jane Austen. [Via]
Thursday, January 14, 2010
18
Loved these bursts of wisdom: the explanation of the English lack of explanation, the anathema of American letters to irony, the causticity of Austen, and then of course, "You have only to meet a writer to not really care about meeting writers."
What a class act. I wish she would do a video book (as opposed to an audio book) and punctuate everything with those little hand flourishes around me all the time.
I'd settle for a book book. Fran is brilliant and curmudgeonly but so unbelievably non-prolific, it's a marvel.
She's totally turning into James Woods!
Wood
From an entirely different perspective, I think Gene Simmons may be turning into Fran Lebowitz.
I Was Told There'd Be Zombies
I will accept girls enjoy Austen because we are entranced the Empire waist if you admit boys like the Wire because they believe they too have the makings of drug dealer of unparalleled emotional and psychological depth. Who gets a lot of ladies.
Hah! Brilliant! I've been comparing The Wire to Tolstoy, not Austen - this changes everything!
I initially read that as "boys like Wire"--this changes everything!
I don't fully agree with Lebowitz: the romances are not the only reason Austen's novels are wonderful, yes, but they are an important one. To engage with Austen for the romance alone is perhaps superficial, but I can't bring myself to argue that doing so is shallow or trivial. The romantic plots are the outward and most visible aspect of her novels. There are worlds within worlds in Austen; I've never reread one of her books without discovering some new depth, but I still dig Mr. Darcy.
Hear, hear.
Now I've seen the whole Lebowitz video, there's a lot to quarrel with ... in particular, I wouldn't say call Austen the least bit "corrosive." She is a gimlet-eyed observer, but she is also warm, open-hearted and forgiving, even of the very worst; a meaner novelist would have killed off George Wickham, or ruined Mrs. Elton. There is always a lovely, happy ending, however wryly described.
Oh I don't know...she's not mean, but her descriptions of people's faults are pretty merciless. And possibly even corrosive.
Also, take "Persuasion" (which I reread last week). If anything, there is too much genial character assassination -- and if Austen did not marry it to the great depth of Anne's sadness it would seem almost clumsy. So much of the novel is Anne's quietly illustrative internal monologue and Austen's occasional ironic jabs at the assembled you would have to find the idea of *walking* inherently romantic to miss it, as it's really the only thing the characters do.
God I love this woman.
I thought Austen novels continued to be popular because their adaptations invariably introduce us to really hot and broody English guys. But maybe that's just me.
As FL points out, Austen isn't Bronté. No young bucks galloping over the Fens (or whatever the fuck they gallop over).
Ignorant or non-caring movie producers cast every male lead for a film that's based on any British novel written before 1968 with either Hugh Grant or one of the Fiennes twins. Could be worse, I suppose. Brad Pitt and Colin Farrel. Vey ist mir.
i know she has writers block, but fuck lady come up with a new metaphor. she used this line of thought - about being taken, the book not being a mirror, etc - to talk about a mercy in a nypl talk with toni morrison. (and i say this as a huuuge fan.)