It seems some screenwriter has taken the lovely Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen and based a fantasy called Lost in Austen on it. Now, I'm straying a bit, just a bit, from the topic of books because Lost in Austen is a television program; but, with its literary roots it seems an appropriate tangent to explore.
After thinking so much about the unfortunate-but-oddly-fun-at-the-same-time Lost in Austen, I thought back on the book Austenland by Shannon Hale. They're really quite similar (a romance in a regency-esque environment) as so many JA knock-offs tend to be, but I recently blogged about its relatively good taste.This stands in such dire contradiction to some aspects of the new Lost in Austen that I selfishly thought I'd ask JA lovers and readers a question or two: How do you compare or contrast the arguably more innocent Austenland (which has had its own criticisms of being too tame) and the arguably racier Lost in Austen?
Granted, I realize this is an apples and oranges situation, with one being a television production and one a novel, but as they are both related works of writing I thought, why not?
Is Austenland too innocent to be believable? Is Lost in Austen a bit vulgar at times?
This blog is basically about how good books are nice and bad books are the pits. And then I get grumpy.
Monday, September 8, 2008
How d'ya like them apples an' oranges?
Labels:
Austenland,
Jane Austen,
Lost in Austen,
Pride and Prejudice,
Shannon Hale
Posted by
Aniko
at
10:04 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment