Jane, creator of romance novels?

This week I finished reading a delightful book by Claire Harman called, Jane's Fame, How Jane Austen Conquered the World. If you read and like Jane Austen, I'd highly recommend this book. Harman writes in an accessible style, mixing her critical research into a flowing narrative. I never knew there was so little biographical information about Jane. So much of her life and work is left to the imagination. Which, I suppose is partly why she is beloved. People can find in her writing, ideas they feel directly relate to them. Jane's characters are friends to any who desire their companionship.

Now, I am admittedly not a Jane Austen addict because I've not even read all of her novels. But I want to. She intrigues me. And the ones I have read I've liked. I appreciate her work, but I do not moon over Mr. Darcy.

While reading, I was surprised and a little disturbed that Jane Austen is considered the mother of the romance genre. I rather mock romance novels, but found this passage fascinating:

When the American imprint Silhouette Romances was being planned in the 1970s, everything in them was written to a formula developed by market research: Even the name of the series (perhaps subconsciously evoking Austen) came from a consumer survey result. A group of women readers were asked what the ideal attributes of a romantic novel were, from the age of the heroine to the overall length of the book. The resulting tip sheet for writers could just as easily be applied to Austen's novels: the heroines were always to be "young and virginal," the heroes "strong and assertive," the plots utterly predictable, and the endings happy. There was to be no violence, blood, or pain; no slang language or obscenity, and no premarital sex. The heroine's age should be between nineteen and twenty-seven, and she should not be "beautiful in the high fashion sense." The hero should be eight to twelve years older than the heroine, "not necessarily handsome," but virile and not married, though he could be bereaved or divorced--as long as that wasn't his fault. Austen's novels clearly contributed to this formula as well as shared the basic instincts behind it.

Of course Harman doesn't leave it completely at that, she goes on to show the differences (and Austen definitely wins my favor, while romance novels will continue to get a bad rap from me). Austen's books obviously are devoid of much physical contact between men and women. But according to Harman, "the very absence of explicit eroticism leaves her books charged with sexual feeling...In a permissive age, the restraint and decorousness of her loves scenes seem in themselves erotic, and the idea of the heroines attracting so much male attention by making so few sexual concessions becomes, for the modern woman, an unattainable fantasy of female empowerment."

Interesting, at least. Have you read all of Jane Austen? What's your favorite?

Pecuniary

Do you know what pecuniary means?



A couple days ago, while working in the children's department at my library, a man sat at child-height table working on his computer. Barefoot. His military-style boots sat unused beneath the table. For a time he walked a lap around the room every 10 or so minutes. Barefoot. This you might expect of a three-year-old. But not him. I shelved some books near his table. He pulled out his ear-buds and asked, "Do you know what pecuniary means?" I said, "I'm pretty sure it has to do with money." He laughed in that way that alerted me to the fact that he might be flirting with me but it was hard to tell, and said, "I thought you might know, since you're a librarian you have a few extra IQ points. And I thought I'd borrow some of that knowledge. The wonderful thing about knowledge is that you can share it, but still keep it." And he laughed some more. I sort of acquiesced to the awkwardness of this and moved on, thinking that he was sitting in front of a computer and could have used dictionary.com and borrowed their knowledge and IQ points.

I returned to the reference desk and used dictionary.com myself. The first definition: of or pertaining to money. So, I'd steered him the right direction despite the fact that I had no context for his question. The strange thing is, I don't know why I knew the answer so readily. It was like the definition was resting in an area of my brain just waiting to be exercised. And of the handful of people that I told the story to, not one of them knew what the word meant. Strange. I guess I'm going to have to thank my dad for being a user of unusual words and my mom for all those years of teaching.

And so another day at the library passes...

That Spider

At night, a spider in the bathroom taunting me. Twice I take a tissue to remove it to the toilet. Twice it's jumped to safety. Tonight I expect to find that spider taunting me. Again.

Birthday Cards

I set out this year with good intentions of remembering family birthdays with a card (at the very least)--a timely card.

This is basically what the year looks like:
January: 1
February: 2
March: 2
April: 5
May: 2
June: 1
July: 3
August: 3
September: 3
October: 3
November: 3
December: 2

Can you understand why it's a lot to remember?

January came and I saw my sister just before her birthday so I remembered.
February I remembered my grandma's 90th birthday (is this because I was reminded?!) and I now can't remember if I sent my brother-in-law a card.
March, hmm, I think I missed both my brother and brother-in-laws birthday.
Okay, so April was going to be the month I really did well. I remembered I had five birthdays (which is a start, right?) on the 14th, 18th, 21st, 24th, 29th. How many got cards? 3 How many were on time? 0 What is the matter with me?
Last week I called my nephew Calvin on his birthday and his question to me? Are you giving me a present? He then proceeded to explain to me how I could send him something through the mail and it would arrive at his house. :) I do have a present, but I didn't get it in the mail or even a card. I'm justifying my poor performance as an aunt with the fact that I'll see him this weekend. And I'm packing that present along.

And also, Happy Birthday to my mom yesterday! I remembered to call, at least. The card, well, I'll be bringing it along this weekend so she can get it in person!

Music

I do not consider myself a music buff. In fact, many of the groups I've learned to enjoy over the years have been stolen from siblings. (Okay, maybe not stolen per se, just heavily influenced by, I suppose. Because you know they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I'm hoping they're flattered.)

Anyway, one group I love was suggested to me by my cousin Lana. I've mentioned her before in these pages. We have uncanny similarities in interests. Back before we were both married, we embarked on a series of cultural expansion through the arts. Together we attended an opera, a ballet, an off-Broadway musical, and a classical piano concert--the 5 Browns.

The 5 Browns became instant favorites. You must check them out on YouTube or a CD from your local library! This five-sibling group make classical piano exciting (I for one already love classical piano, but if you don't, I think you will now). Listening to them is wonderful; watching them is awing.

Last week Jeremy dropped me an email saying he'd checked out the new 5 Browns in Hollywood CD. I might have mentally squealed with excitement (I was at work, so had to refrain from squealing out loud). It's everything I expected. I love this new CD and the show tunes they tackle (Star Wars, Over the Rainbow, My Favorite Things, Romeo and Juliet to name a few), but I also love the traditional classical pieces from other Cd's.

I want to share the beauty that this family creates, so please listen to them and tell me what you think.

Two years ago today...

Jeremy asked me to be his wife and partner in life. I said, "Yes." Now here we are. :)

I love you, Jeremy!

Thoughts while reading.

Last night I finished reading The Kitchen House by Kathleen Grissom. Set during the 1790s-1810s, the story centers around Lavinia, an orphaned girl from Ireland. Her parents died on the trip to America and to pay for their passage Lavinia became an indentured servant at the captain's home in Virginia.

I'm really not here to give you a book review (although I will encourage you to read the book; it was quite good!), but to point out something that went through my head as I read.
Lavinia remembered little about herself at the time she took up residence in the kitchen house. She was just seven. She was housed with the slaves of the family and grew up as a servant/slave, but also white. As she'd come over from Ireland, she didn't fully grasp the concept of position and suitable relationships and she was often confused. But, she was very accepting and often didn't ask questions that might have propelled her forward out of some poor decisions.

I started pondering how when I'm uncertain of protocol or I hear others talk about something I don't quite get or I read a word I've never heard before, that I will go to the internet and I'll Google my question or I'll turn to a dictionary for a definition. When it comes to seeking information, I am largely self-sufficient as there is a whole world of stuff at my fingertips. That's not to say I don't talk to others about it as well, but I don't often have to to get answers. However, back in the days where the computer didn't exist and many people were illiterate (plus books weren't widely available), people had to depend on each other to learn. So much more was taught and passed on from one person to the next.

Now, I love the computer as much as the next person. Truly, I like being able to find answers myself; however, I wonder how much are we missing relationally by being so self-sufficient? I think an intimacy and vulnerability in relationships (friendship or otherwise) has been lost.
What do you think?