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.
Showing posts with label Lost in Austen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lost in Austen. Show all posts
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:
Posts (Atom)