Have no idea why this video works so well, but maybe it fits my dark mood (more about that soon - nightmare job, slight blowup with new bf, have gained 10 lbs and there's only one week to reunion) - so, that's probably why I found Radiohead's song "Creep" makes a great trailer for the movie Becoming Jane. Thanks to Idolator.com for the heads up.
I still can't seem to catch onto this e-book craze. Just found this article from the Chicago Tribune about reading Pride & Prejudice on a BlackBerry. Don't I look at mine enough? Anyhow. I caught this on my way back from Chicago today (yes, I had to fly back on a Sat. because of flight delays), and was only in Chi-town because my boss sent me to go cover for him. But this time I'm learning. I'm documenting everything, so he can't accuse me of stealing his clients.
But back to Jane on BlackBerry's. The guy across the aisle had an ebook reader thingamajiggy so I asked to look at it. And, the printing did look like a real page. I think it was made by Sony. I still couldn't feel comfortable with it. I wasn't sure why, until I went back to reading my paperback and spilled my yogurt on it, and then a few minutes later dripped some coffee on my lap while rummaging through my purse for my iPod and realized that the nice thing about a paperback is that I can spill on it and not worry about losing it. Not sure I'll be getting an ebook gadget real soon.
Totally savvy gal pal, Kirsten Osolind, over at the re:invention blog, gave a great shout-out to The Savvy Gal's Guide to Online Networking (or What Would Jane Austen Do?). But she raised a question as to whether Jane would have been "snarky" (a word that seems to have only come into existence in the last few years). Snarky is defined as: Irritable or short-tempered; irascible. I guess my thoughts run to Emma, who given the anonymity of blogging, probably would be snarky like the rest of us! What do you think?
Hey - check this out. My pal, Diane is on Total Picture radio explaining just what the connection is between Jane Austen and online networking in her new book, The Savvy Gal's Guide to Online Networking (or What Would Jane Austen Do?). Our theory (yes I like to take credit for this as she and Lindsey claimed I was their inspiration): If Jane Austen was alive and well today, she'd be a blogger; and that networking (online or in person) is all about good manners.
Hmmmm. I wonder if I can download that to my ipod and listen while on the commute home. Doh! It would help if I hadn't dropped it in the loo last week. Guess I'll stop by the Apple store tonight to get a new one. May have to upgrade to video. Hmmmm. Maybe BD ("blind date") guy might have some input. He seems to be quite the gadget guy. I'll shoot him an email.
W.
Here's an oldie but goodie that I came across again - a quiz to see which Jane Austen character you are. Click here to take the quiz.
Personally, this savvy gal ended up as Eliza Bennet. Hmmm. Works for me. Who'd you get?
That seems to be the theme of the new Jane Austen-related movie "The Jane Austen Book Club." I recalled liking the book, but with a caveat that it's a much better experience if one is a true JA fan. Click here to read an early review from the Hollywood Reporter, who states a similar feeling about the movie.
One part of the movie review caught my eye, and it's not just because it references the subtitle of my pals Diane & Lindsey's new book.
In the film's one moment of surreal whimsy, a traffic light flashes "What Would Jane Do" at a character. In the end, Austen controls things much too much. The modern world is much different than Regency England, a point made during the opening credits that portray modern life as nerve-racking and mean-spirited. The film needs to take into account those differences. Someone needs to violate the Jane Austen Code of Ethics and Behavior. No one does.
I suppose I tend to disagree with the reviewer's take that our world is much different than Regency England. I seem to recall some nailbiting and mean-spiritedness in Jane Austen's world. But, perhaps he's right. However, then why would someone need to violate the JA code of Ethics and Behavior? Rather wouldn't we all need to adhere to them and bring some decency back to our world?!
I've decided to narrow down my Jane Austen postings to where I see her intersecting with the business world (since that was basically my blog beat anyhow). There are so many scholars out there who follow the other stuff so well (which I'll feature on occasion), but for me, I like to imagine that she would be a Savvy Business Gal if she were alive today.
Very impressive "placement" for Jane this morning.
I laughed when I saw that she made the front page of the Marketplace section in The Wall Street Journal. Their tech guy was testing an e-book reader by reading Pride and Prejudice. How perfect! Unfortunately, the WSJ doesn't put all their content online, AND even charges subscribers more $$ to read some of the print articles online, so I can't really link to it. But, here are some good quotes from Lee Gomes:
"For the first few minutes, I was too aware of the new technology, and had trouble concentrating on the story. But that didn't last long, and I soon settled in, laughing and worrying in all the right places. At the end, I was just as happy for Elizabeth Bennet as I had been when I first read it in paperback.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that reading a book for pleasure involves a lot of hard work. You have to fight to keep it open and pressed flat, and just when you've comfortably arranged everything, you have to turn the page and start all over again. ..."
Now, re: the e-reader. Not sure I'm there yet. There's something about the disposability of a paperback that I like. Especially in light of the fact that I lost my iPod charger on my London trip. That makes me worried about toting even more technical equipment with parts that can be lost, much of which cost more than a hardcover book. Also, if it's to save on costs or the environment, there is a way to do this already: try visiting one of my favorite places in the world called The Library (although they can be hard to get to during working hours - but most let you pre-order books online. And, overdue charges are minimal!)
As for the WSJ charging additional fees to print subscribers. Not sure I like that. But, I do realize they're reasons for it. However, I feel the same way about airline food. Why don't they just tack $5 or 10 more dollars per month onto my ticket/subscription fee and just give me the darn sandwich/online content for free instead of making me register and pay twice. But, then again, my company pays for flights and newspapers, so not coming out of my own pocket.
In following up on my last post about the fact that Jane Austen couldn't get herself published today (not enough designer duds name dropping is my theory). Seems that Jane had to "self-publish" a few of her books in order to make any money off them (although back then it was called "publish on commission"):
A writer could publish in four ways: sell the copyright and avoid further anxiety over production and sales; persuade a publisher to underwrite costs and share profits; get a subscription list to pay for publication, relying on friends, relatives, and patrons; or, less commonly, publish on commission, so paying for the book production, receiving profits minus a commission, and accepting any loss. In 1803 when ‘Susan’ had been offered to a publisher, Austen had tried the first option and had received the modest but usual sum of £10. In 1811 she tried the fourth when she sent Sense and Sensibility to Thomas Egerton, a London publisher, to be published on commission.
That is if she wants to catch the attention of a publisher today. I'm a little late on this story (working away on yet another project where I will get absolutely no credit). But, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this. It seems that some frustrated writer/Jane Austen fan submitted some of her manuscripts under a pseudonym and a different title but with only very minor changes. It was unanimously rejected by publishing houses with only one editor recognizing the joke. From the Guardian:
Her work has endured for two centuries, sold in its millions and inspired countless film and television adaptations. But would Jane Austen be able to find a publisher and an agent today? A cheeky experiment by an Austen enthusiast suggests not.
David Lassman, the director of the Jane Austen Festival in Bath decided to find out what sort of reception the writer might get if she approached publishers and agents in the age of Harry Potter and the airport blockbuster.
Seems that he should have changed her classic opening "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife," to:
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a divorced woman in possession of her ex-husband's good fortune, must be in want of a new Prada bag."
Now ... that would've gotten her a contract.
