Not many books fustrated me more than The Story of Avis by Elizabeth Stuart Phelps.

But the fusration doesn’t lie in the writing, but in the story: in its reality and heartbreaking sublimation of self.  Avis is an artist, a talented artist who never wants to marry and who only wants to paint for the rest of her life. When she falls in love, mainly from the promises that she will continue to be an artist and not a sterotypical household wife, we join Avis through the journey of her marriage, and not the journey of her carrer.

Phelps is challenging. Her word structure and lanuage requires full attention and her motifs–birds are everywhere–are heavy-handed. But the book is brillant. I would rank it with both Aurora Leigh and Jane Eyre and that’s saying something from me.

Buy the Book here. Preview is on googleBOOKS here.

UK DVD cover

My day, has not been fabulous. Oh, its been great–class went very well, work was fun, and I even stole a little time not thinking about Dorian Gray perhaps never making it to American Theatres, and then I went to Keene. And there, packed away in a tiny brown box, not even out on display yet, was Easy Virtue. Even better? It was half off! Half off baby!!

Needless to say, my day is now fabulous. And oh, don’t worry, gushing will occur tomorrow if I can find at least a few minutes to let everyone know how great it is. Super excited!

Easy Virtue stars Jessica Biel, Colin Firth, Ben Barnes, and Kristen Scott-Thomas. It just released on DVD in the US.

Cassandra was never published in Nightingale’s own lifetime, but her thought-provoking ideas about her own era are astonishing. Astonishing because of just what she expresses in the Polemic. While reading her demands for social revision, I couldn’t help but think of Elizabeth Gaskell, whose novel North and South was published in 1885: only 3 years after Nightingale wrote Cassandra.

My goal is merely this: one, READ both of these fabulous works by brilliant women writers; and two, perhaps the cry of women’s vocation is more complex than we have known. Nightingale is in many ways arguing for the overall right to man’s work so women may be productive, Gaskell is highlighting a woman who does this in a man’s world. (Just as Nightingale did) Can they both be progressive entities for the same argument? Is Margaret Hale not progressive because she doesn’t demand her privileges for all womanhood? Is she not progressive because she marries Thornton in the end?

In Cassandra, Nightingale demands a new type of society for women; she demands a place where man’s work can also be woman’s work and that a woman’s time should be just a valuable. A crude, over simplification, I know, but for my purposes here, enough. Compared the Nightingale, Gaskell seems the saint of conservatives, an advocate for the angel in the house, and yet her character Margaret Hale is as brash and outspoken as Nightingale herself. (I’m not even going into how fabulously an argument could be made for Mrs. Thornton here.)

Richard Armitage and Daniela Denby-Ashe in BBC's 2004 adaptation

Unlike Nightingale who rejects the social constructions of the 19^th century, finding power then outside the normatives of Victorian life, Margaret takes power in the social constructions. I would, however, argue that Margaret Hale is not the typical type of charitable woman: she has thoughts, gives them decidedly, and seems to lack that simpering, delicate nature Fanny Thornton desperately wishes toto have. Certainly, we see a vocal and confident woman in Margaret upon her actions at the mill riot, as well as in her charity during the strike.

How are these actions justified? Margaret Hale for all intensive purposes has no mother (she acts as the mother figure much more than her own ill mother does), she has her rank as a clergyman’s daughter, and she’s read. She has a knowledge of language, and literature, as well as current events which rival any of the men’s knowledge in the novel—including her love interest John Thornton. Considering Nightingale’s demands, Margaret Hale seems to be her ideal woman. She has work to which she fully dedicated herself to, although far more abstract than Nightingale outlines, and is single-mindedly focused on pursuing her “vocation” fully.

Perhaps it is Gaskell’s outlook on society which is more progressive and forgiving than Nightingale. After all, the social circles they are viewing are quite different. Nightingale’s argument and rebukes and leveled square at her own class—the upper class. Gaskell’s novel focuses on the destitute and those how encounter them first hand. Yes her characters are gentlemen and ladies, but more connected individuals than those Nightingale is targeting.

Margaret’s outspoken ways seem to be at least heard and, while not fully welcome by other women, accepted in the North. She is not a woman abominably out of her place by speaking her mind. Thornton, in fact, loves her for her caring and determination, as well as other aspects which mark her and quite unladylike.

The question then is not about woman’s work in society, so much as society itself and the scale on which women wish their value known. Placing these novels in conflict is far more a hindrance than helpful, but somehow I feel neither woman would very much care for the other, or their opinion.

Like most costume dramas not done by BBC, this costuming and makeup have an almost distinct greasy look to them, and are not nearly as flattering (at least for Abbie Cornish) as I would like to see, but on the whole, this movie looks wonderful. I hope it comes to a theatre near me!

Bright Star opens September 18, 2009. Starring Abbie Cornish and Ben Whishaw.

Despite my general grumbling about how fan fiction is considered foolish, but people keep making money off it as long as Darcy and Elizabeth are in it, I was excited about P&P&Z. I thought it would be something different, something funny, at least a refreshingly different take on one of my favorite books. And on many levels it is. Quirk prompts,

What ensues is a delightful comedy of manners with plenty of civilized sparring between the two young lovers-and even more violent sparring on the blood-soaked battlefield as Elizabeth wages war against hordes of flesh-eating undead.

But in general, I find the book contrived and tired. Grahame-Smith (was has apparently taken an English class, so his “about the author” flap says) removes music for sparring and turns Elizabeth into a deadly, slightly annoying and self-righteous killer. (Now I see why Miss Bingley might loath her.) The zombies are not enough of an actual presence in the book and are only  a nuisance on the road or in the basement of a house. Ultimately they act simply as a vehicle for Samurai and Asian potshots.  The only zombie at all to really shine (can zombies shine?), however,  is a minor, yet still central character, who comes down with “the disease” and slowly decomposes before Elizabeth’s eyes. Meanwhile everyone else, EVERYONE who is supposed to be trained to notice these things, doesn’t and both Elizabeth and the reader are left to ponder the stupidity of all. Here the description, along with the emotions Elizabeth feels, mark some actual thought from the co-author. All other shards of brilliance, I find, are still derived from Jane Austen’s witty mind.

The biggest problem I have? The fact that most of the central character’s rely on martial arts to kill the zombies. Since when, I do say this with the up most respect to martial arts, do you have to know the 5 point palm exploding heart trick to kill zombies? Why don’t good old-fashioned English muskets work just as well? And why is Pemberley something out of the forbidden city?

I suppose all these complaints are childish, and trust me, I know they are; but for me, these changes reflect much larger and more tangible changes in the characters of our protagonists. I realize that this is fun and quirky storytelling, and in reading it as such it is very entertaining. I certainly kept reading, and thoroughly enjoyed many of the adventures that took place. I simply wish the story had been more. Certainly more funny, more bloody, and with lots more zombie action. After all, the title is Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, a little more zombie would have set me up forever.

Sea Monsters on the other hand, I think we will have no want of. The newest installment from Quirk is a retelling of Austen’s famous Dashwood sisters and their trials with love. From what I hear, Col. Brandon (and oh boy does this not sit so well with me) is a sea monster himself.

I would have thought, given most of Persuasion is set by the sea, about the sea, and what the sea does to love (I know, I ignored A LOT about what people do to love), it would have been a novel ready and raring to be parodied with sea monsters.  Anyway, I’ll still be buying my copy of Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters in September.

I know I should be more excited about this. Romola Garai, despite my irrational dislike of her, looks like she might actually make Emma likable, and much of the cast are seasoned period drama regulars, and yet Emma is my least favorite Jane Austen novel and I worry that I’ll continue to think of Dan Fedenburgh as Edmund from Mansfield Park. That being said, the above it the trailer for Emma, showing later this year on BBC. Enjoy.

Prince Caspian, your picture has just reaffirmed why it is above my computer.

Dorian Gray stars Ben Barnes and Colin Firth.

In the last 3 weeks, I’ve not only completely fell in love with BBC’s Merlin on CBS, but can’t get enough of Being Human, Tess of the D’Urbervilles, and Desperate Romantics.

How is this possible? Simple. For me, BBC simply has better tv. And two of them deal strictly within a historical/literary background.* This is where BBC always gets it right. They’re the masters of fantasy-drama or just the historical-drama.

Yes, Merlin is more modern retelling of the French/British classic and yet the storytellers of Merlin are able to mix a great amount of historical fantasy and plot, in a new and interesting way, with more modern relationships. Need I not remind everyone of the failure that was Crusoe on NBC? Such is an example of how the American tv medium gets it wrong consistently, especially with something that’s not a crime drama.

The point of this isn’t that American television is bad, but that British television gets it right. And when they get it right, they get it so right.  Turn to Desperate Romantics. Certainly not what I thought it was going to be, but most certainly not bad. Or perhaps my enjoyment of it springs from its general difference from everything else of tv: I can only watch so much reality and crime dramas are just NOT my thing.  Like many BBC shows, it is semi-historically accurate with enough modern spice to keep people uninterested in actual historical fact interested; it has the likable main character, the heart-throb bad boy, the self-deprecating do-gooder, and the boyishly cute one, and a bevy of pretty women just lining up to be models for the greater good of cultured society.

Even though the pilot was not as noteworthy as Merlin‘s pilot, or even episode one of Tess, it is the potential of the pilot that I want to see flourish and will keep me watching at least for another week. Particularly in Tom Hollander whose character and that character’s relationship with his wife is possible the most provocative story line to come out of the pilot. As John Ruskin, I see only a little of parts he’s played before and Hollander placed so much clear self-apprehension and self-hate into his performance, it is a surprise the league of romantics don’t see it. You know, since they have such a keen eye for the suffering.

Now if BBCamerica would just bring back Robin Hood, I’d be set.

Merlin airs on NBC Sundays at 8

Desperate Romantics airs on BBC2 Tuesdays at 10

*At this point, we’re going to quietly assume I’m not talking about Tess, since it was a mini-series and not an actual “series” in the way Merlin and Desperate Romantics are.