I don't understand why it would be necessary for Austen to have had similar experiences to those portrayed in her books in order to explain her genius. Is it so hard to accept that her books are wonderful because she had a great imagination and keen insight into the world in which she inhabited? To me, the movie seems almost like a stunt to get Austen fans into theaters. I'm not an Austen fangirl, but I can't imagine a true fan of the author would be particular thrilled with the movie.

I am, as you say, an "Austen fangirl," and although I appreciate all of her sociopolitical statements and sexism ironies love will, probably, always outweigh those. I think the reason for this is because it's what everyone can relate to. Love is binding and powerful, it draws you in and changes you. I think humans will be searching for true love forever. I love that Jane Austen wrote as I would. I love that she said exactly what she was thinking in a time most didn't care to hear it. I love her imagination and keen insight, but in a world full of, what seems to be, lackluster heroes is it so wrong to want the ultimate heroin to find what we're all looking for?

Becoming Jane is the kind of competent costume drama that the British can stamp out like Toyota stamps out family sedans. The production credits show that its a UK-Irish production; a quick look at IMDb shows that it was released in the UK months before the USA. Whatever faults it has, they aren't American faults.

Jane Austen is not sweet and did not write all that much about love. She wrote about manners (a lot) and marriage(important). Yes Jane and Darcy and Anne and Captain Wentworth are love stories we remember but don't forget Charlotte Lucas and poor Marianne in Sense and Sensibility, not to mention Emma and her dry, elderly swain. Sensible but hardly swoon worthy.

She had friends, family and a created a tremendous immortal body of work. I for one could care less if she had a boyfriend.

You see something very similar in fictionalized accounts of Lady Jane Grey. Almost every book written about her (and the movie) give Jane a love story, either with her husband or some suitor she wished to marry but was forbidden by her family. I think it's because the real story of her life is so sad that authors want her to have at least a bit of happiness, no matter how brief.

ebg57:

Jane Austen is not sweet and did not write all that much about love. She wrote about manners (a lot) and marriage(important). Yes Jane and Darcy and Anne and Captain Wentworth are love stories we remember but don't forget Charlotte Lucas and poor Marianne in Sense and Sensibility, not to mention Emma and her dry, elderly swain. Sensible but hardly swoon worthy.

She had friends, family and a created a tremendous immortal body of work. I for one could care less if she had a boyfriend.

Interesting that not one of the Fray commentators on Ms. Austen mention the obvious, gay people can't write about love or manners?

That's an interesting idea. I hadn't ever thought of that. Why doesn't anyone raise that? (or maybe I've just never heard it - I'm a fan, but not a lit expert). I think we can all agree that Jane Austen was incredibly observant of and intuitive about human behavior. She wouldn't need to love men anymore that she would need to love any one man, to write the stories that she did.

And I hate the word spinster. It really does have negative connotations, of fifteen cats and a frigid sex life (or no sex life) and a empty home. Not at all. Just because it wasn't really permissible in her time, doesn't mean she wasn't perfectly content without "a man."

Regarding the implication of awotter I don't think that "it's obvious" that Jane Austen was a homosexual. It might be a possibility but the probability of it cannot be determined by the scraps of evidence that is available. I don't think it makes a difference anyway.

People of ANY sexual persuasion who are born with the writer's gift are perfectly capable of writing about love and manners (whether hetero or homo)--but in my opinion the author's preferences in who their bed-partner is (or who they would like it to be) doesn't make a difference. A well-crafted, engaging and enduring novel, epistolary essay, or even screenplay is always a joy to read.

I find it hard to quantify why Jane Austen's works have endured so long. I was introduced to Pride and Prejudice as a high school reading and research assignment--something guaranteed to turn any teenager against an author's work in my opinion (I still can't read any Hemingway to this day thanks to the assignment of "The Fisherman and the Sea" in my freshman year)--and it only made me want to find more of her work and read it.

I've re-read all Jane Austen's extant works repeatedly over the years since and find them just as clever and engaging as the first time, though as I've aged I find myself musing over the social commentary and the peculiarity of why it is acceptable to speak of one thing but not another rather than the romantic foibles of the characters.

Perhaps that is the reason her books have remained popular and have been a staple of a particular segment of hte film industry. We don't outgrow them, even as our attitudes and preferences shift and change through the years. It's not surprising that someone wants to make the author of these books a heroine in her own right. And though a film could have been made about her focusing on manners, morals, and social commentary, economics makes it damn near impossible to sell such a film. Romance sells and if in this case, a fictionalised account of an author's life brings people to picking up and reading the books she wrote, then I find it hard to be condemening of any unsupported suppositions.