Posted by Chris on June 23, 1998 at 12:42:16:
In response to Ms. Tennant unpardonable fault, written by Martine on June 22, 1998 at 14:10:41
] 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
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.
I see your point. However, I believe E.T. did change them purposely in order to make people think and clarify her claim,
that in those days and even today, it is always the woman who has to take herself back and subdue her desires to those of
] 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 heroines in a
very traditional role (husband catchers, so that they can live in a traditional, comfortable style.) However, these heroines,
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.
It is a fact that women in J.A.'s work are not equal to their husbands or other men. This is probably what led E.T. to
continue J.A.'s work as she did. The role of women in society and in marriage is certainly the central point in E.T.'s
work. I really don't think that wanted to write a genuine continuation of J.A.'s novels. You are probably right in accusing
her for abusing J.A. for her own, feminist, purposes. This however, does not mean that she is necessarily a bad
She may have deceived you for writing something you did not expect, but still we should award her our respect as writer.
] Some of the admiration we have for those heroines 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.
Why do people get divorced then? I believe that even the heroines of J.A. will have difficulties in adjusting themselves to a
married life and therefore the have to live through some rocky time. I believe it even more realistic as a fairy-tale ending
where they live happily ever after.
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 heroines by showing how
their promising life ended up in adultery, sexual dissatisfaction, murder and whatnot...Well, I ask you! What do you
E.T. certainly is a feminist but certainly not a hard-liner. This brought her some discredit from her fellows.
] 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.
This is your personal opinion. I do not know what I should like better J.A.'s characters or E.T.'s, but I found it a nice try
to give the whole thing a feminist approach. I wonder how you would have responded, if the whole thing had been
published 15 years ago?
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.