Down to Earth

[altariel]

communicator once said that anything could be improved by setting it in space. I've cheerfully pinched co-opted this idea on several occasions, because it's true:

• Upstairs Downstairs - In Space


• Boston Legal - In Space


• Law and Order: Criminal Intent - In Space


• Mansfield Park - In Space

See?

However, long and considered discussion has revealed that there is something that could be improved by not setting it in space. Blake's 7.

I was trying to think of how I'd do the show again, if someone handed me the money. And realized that if I did get to do it, I'd make it all about resistance against an Evil Earth Administration in a near future. No need for spaceships. It would be the programme that you think you're going to get when you watch 'The Way Back'. And it'd be great (well, it is in my head).

Callan In Space would be brilliant though.

Comments

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Them's fightin' words in this journal! ;-D

[aervir.livejournal.com]

So you're one of the maybe half dozen people who actually likes them? :D

[aervir.livejournal.com]

[altariel.livejournal.com]

It's like 1066 And All That isn't it? Right But Repulsive, Wrong But Wromantic. (Not that Fanny and Edmund are repulsive, just quieter and less immediately likeable than other characters. You'd want them around in a crisis.)

[aervir.livejournal.com]

Okay -- quiet, useful and resourceful describes the two very well, and especially Fanny has more (inner) strength than most readers normally give her credit for.

Still, it bothers me that neither she nor Edmund seem to have any discernible sense of fun or humour. But maybe I'm just the wrong but wromantic Mary Crawford sort of girl myself...

Hmmm, now I suddenly feel like rereading MP (which I haven't picked up for ages) and see whether my perception of the characters might have changed since last time.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I think this is exactly what makes Mansfield Park her best book. That there are no obvious heroes or heroines - there are just people, with a variety of flaws and qualities. Fanny is not sparkling like Emma or Lizzie, but she wins through in the end. Resourceful is exactly right.

[aervir.livejournal.com]

That there are no obvious heroes or heroines - there are just people, with a variety of flaws and qualities.

That's what I've been wondering: Is Fanny supposed to be the heroine? Was she ever seen by 19th-century readers as some shining model of perfection? Or has she actually been one of Austen's most ambiguous characters all the time?

As I have recently changed my opinion on Marianne Dashwood, I might also find it in my heart to like Fanny Price... ;)

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Is Fanny supposed to be the heroine? Was she ever seen by 19th-century readers as some shining model of perfection? Or has she actually been one of Austen's most ambiguous characters all the time?

I don't know nearly enough about the context, but I'd like to speculate that Austen was sending up that kind of heroine in much the same way she sent up the heroines of Gothic novels: well, here is your model of perfection, do you still like her set against Mary Crawford?

But Fanny is not a cipher, she's fully-rounded. As a character, as opposed to an ideal of womanhood, she has qualities that can be admired.

And I guess 19th-century readers were no more homogeneous than 21st-century readers. I gather there are people who read Lolita and think Humbert Humbert is in some way admirable.

[aervir.livejournal.com]

I don't know nearly enough about the context, but I'd like to speculate that Austen was sending up that kind of heroine in much the same way she sent up the heroines of Gothic novels.

There are interpretations of MP in literary criticism that do share this opinion, reading Fanny as a less obvious parody of the sentimental heroine. (And if anything deserves to be parodied, it's the sentimental novel, IMHO. I was traumatized by Richardson.) Unfortunately, I don't remember in which book or essay I've read this so that I might look up the details of this line of argumentation. Argh.

I gather there are people who read "Lolita" and think Humbert Humbert is in some way admirable.

It's very embarassing to confess, but when I read it the first time I found myself sympathising with him occasionally... I often tend to lose critical distance with first-person narrators in books I don't know yet. However, Humbert Humbert? Eeek.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I've read practically no crit of Austen; I have the Cambridge Companion kicking around, but have only dipped into it.

[aervir.livejournal.com]

Have you already read the article on "Austen cult and cultures" by Claudia L. Johnson in the Companion?

Among other things, it defends the non-academic Janeite fandom. And implicitly compares them to Star Trek fans, who are -- according to Johnson -- often unfairly maligned as well. I was most amused.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's the one I've read :-D And I liked its approach to fandom too.

[executrix.livejournal.com]

Like the unjust vis a vis just's umbrella, the Crawfords would unquestionably steal Fanny and Edmund's modest spacehopper.

Possibly Crazy Space Incest would ensue.

[aervir.livejournal.com]

I should have suspected as much... ;)

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I'm bound to like anything that legitimizes me ;-D (Damn, they're cute in that icon!)

[aervir.livejournal.com]

I'm bound to like anything that legitimizes me.

That sums up my own reaction to the essay pretty neatly. Hooray, I'm now officially no longer just an anorak! (Or, in the case of Jane Austen fans, whatever the Regency equivalent to an anorak might be. Greatcoat? Pelisse?)

Damn, they're cute in that icon!

*g*

I hope that Kasiopea will draw a few more wee!Gondorians cartoons...

[altariel.livejournal.com]

whatever the Regency equivalent to an anorak might be. Greatcoat? Pelisse?

*snort!*