Ms. Tennant unpardonable fault
Posted by Martine on June 22, 1998 at 14:10:41:
In response to Do we all remain the same?, written by Chris on June 22, 1998 at 05:34:53
I hear your plea, and I do not pretend to say that she is not a good writer when it comes to other subjects. However, there is a big problem with her doing JA sequels: when doing a sequel, one is supposed to follow the internal logic of the characters. That includes defining their future actions in relation to the timeline the characters live in (Regency here,) a detailed analysis of the characters, their past actions and the few projections in their future that JA herself had made (like Marianne, in time, loving Brandon as much if not more than she had loved Willoughby,) and the intentions of the author who originally wrote the work.
My problem with Ms Tennant here is that she did not follow the characters where their logical path should have led. There is NO WAY that Marianne would runaway with Willoughby in the manner described, or dislike her husband so, because JA SAID SO! There is not even a doubt here. And Margaret and Willoughby...Come on! Willoughby is not bright at times, but unless Ms. Tennant mistook JA's S&S for Anne Bronte's The Tenant at Wildfell Hall, I really don't see how she could come to such a conclusion.
Let me follow your take and ask myself why would Ms. Tennant writes such things. My opinion is that she writes these sequels with an agenda. Her agenda is to superimpose her modern view of feminity/feminism to JA's in order to discredit some of JA's work. From a feminist point of view of nowadays, JA's works can be considered as showing heroins in a very traditional role (husband catchers, so that they can live in a traditional, comfortable style.) However, these heroins, despite their living in the traditional role assigned to women at the time, still manage to capture the imagination of women nowadays through their strength and willpower.
Some of the admiration we have for those heroins rests on the assumption that they did live successful lives after their respective marriages, and that therefore, marriage, dependence on a man for one's happiness and welfare can be justified at times, if one has chosen the right partner in life. That kind of argument does not bode well with some factions of the feminist clans, who consider that men are basically a nuisance. I don't know if Ms. Tennant is one of them, but the way she tries to discredit the heroins by showing how their promising life ended up in adultery, sexual disatisfaction, murder and whatnot...Well, I ask you! What do you think?
Ok, enough rambling on a subject that does not deserve such attention. Sorry for this little diatribe, but Ms. Tennant's left me with such a bad taste in my mouth that I don't particularly feel the necessity to do anything but demonstrate how a twisted mind can reuse beloved characters in order to send through her own message that has nothing to do with what the original author intended. I would not mind if she had said so from the start and had announced her books as a modern take on JA's works, but she fooled people into thinking she was writing a REAL sequel, meaning a follow-up in the way JA might have written it, and that, to me, was a major breach of trust between an author and its readers.
And now I'll shut up.
Martine
- Feminist? Chris 12:42:16 6/23/98
(2)
- My Opinion Stephanie S 18:24:49 6/23/98
(1)
- LOL! Martine 09:52:53 6/24/98
(0)
- LOL! Martine 09:52:53 6/24/98
(0)
- My Opinion Stephanie S 18:24:49 6/23/98
(1)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.
