Suzanne,
Re your comment
> If you would like to engage in a discussion on the
> original book, I would be happy to do that. But
> the majority of fan-fiction involves writing
> stories about things that didn't happen in the
> books and that, one could certainly argue, never
> would have. I myself wrote a book about a scenario
> I think never could have actually happened
> with the characters as written by Austen (that is,
> Elizabeth accepting Darcy's first proposal), but
> to just leave it at that is to leave the question
> unanswered, the story untold.
To say that a particular character created by Austen would never act a particular way given changed circumstances, and then have them act that way anyhow, begs a question.
Why use the characters if they're acting contrary to the way their creator intended?
It's one thing to change the circumstances, and speculate how Austen's characters would react to those circumstances. Reasonable people may disagree about whether or not the speculation is correct, but, in such a case, the intent isn't to change the characters, it's to change the circumstances in one way or another, and see how those characters would react. Suppose Lizzy had news that her dad was injured and not expected to live just before Darcy makes the obnoxious proposal at Hunsford, or just before Parson Collins's even more obnoxious post-Netherfield Ball proposal? Suppose Wentworth was persuaded to write to Anne two years after their break-up instead of eight. Suppose Marianne died, and the colonel and Elinor consoled each other in their loss. Suppose the characters found themselves in modern times, or WW2, or the Old West, or some other time or place.
It's quite another, however, to deliberately change the characters. Supporting characters who are little more than tabula rasas existing to move the plot froward are one thing. Their characters are undefined enough to accommodate a wealth of interpretations. I've seen Col. Fitzwilliam portrayed as everything from a gallant soldier taking pride in his profession, to a guy anxious to find a way to get out of the service, to a violent sexual predator.
But the main characters are another issue, and it has never set well with me when they're depicted as doing something that Jane Austen would never portray them doing in any circumstances. Lizzy and Darcy would never anticipate their vows. Neither would Anne Elliot and Capt. Fred. Jane Bennett would never suddenly turn mean and selfish. Fanny would never become forward, let alone wanton. And deliberately having characters behave in a way contrary to the the depiction of the characters by their creator strikes a note of dissonance.
I know it's not my story, and writers can, and will, write their stories the way they want. And, of course there are exceptions to the "rule" (for lack of a better rule) of adhering to Jane Austen's characterizations, such as when it's done for comic effect, or when that change is the very changed circumstance the rest of the characters have to deal with.
But if the character's personality is materially, and deliberately altered for no reason than to fulfill a plot point, one has to ask, why use the characters at all? Why not simply create one's own characters, with whom one is free to do what one likes?
Yes the story is the author's. But, in fan fiction, the characters are not. Of course if one is determined to have a character do something that Jane Austen would never have them do, this argument will not change their path. And, to a degree, I have to admit that it really shouldn't.
But, since posing the question generates discussion, I have to ask. Why use the characters, if you're intending to so materially change them that they're not really the characters anymore, just someone who has the same name?
JIM
Re your comment
> If you would like to engage in a discussion on the
> original book, I would be happy to do that. But
> the majority of fan-fiction involves writing
> stories about things that didn't happen in the
> books and that, one could certainly argue, never
> would have. I myself wrote a book about a scenario
> I think never could have actually happened
> with the characters as written by Austen (that is,
> Elizabeth accepting Darcy's first proposal), but
> to just leave it at that is to leave the question
> unanswered, the story untold.
To say that a particular character created by Austen would never act a particular way given changed circumstances, and then have them act that way anyhow, begs a question.
Why use the characters if they're acting contrary to the way their creator intended?
It's one thing to change the circumstances, and speculate how Austen's characters would react to those circumstances. Reasonable people may disagree about whether or not the speculation is correct, but, in such a case, the intent isn't to change the characters, it's to change the circumstances in one way or another, and see how those characters would react. Suppose Lizzy had news that her dad was injured and not expected to live just before Darcy makes the obnoxious proposal at Hunsford, or just before Parson Collins's even more obnoxious post-Netherfield Ball proposal? Suppose Wentworth was persuaded to write to Anne two years after their break-up instead of eight. Suppose Marianne died, and the colonel and Elinor consoled each other in their loss. Suppose the characters found themselves in modern times, or WW2, or the Old West, or some other time or place.
It's quite another, however, to deliberately change the characters. Supporting characters who are little more than tabula rasas existing to move the plot froward are one thing. Their characters are undefined enough to accommodate a wealth of interpretations. I've seen Col. Fitzwilliam portrayed as everything from a gallant soldier taking pride in his profession, to a guy anxious to find a way to get out of the service, to a violent sexual predator.
But the main characters are another issue, and it has never set well with me when they're depicted as doing something that Jane Austen would never portray them doing in any circumstances. Lizzy and Darcy would never anticipate their vows. Neither would Anne Elliot and Capt. Fred. Jane Bennett would never suddenly turn mean and selfish. Fanny would never become forward, let alone wanton. And deliberately having characters behave in a way contrary to the the depiction of the characters by their creator strikes a note of dissonance.
I know it's not my story, and writers can, and will, write their stories the way they want. And, of course there are exceptions to the "rule" (for lack of a better rule) of adhering to Jane Austen's characterizations, such as when it's done for comic effect, or when that change is the very changed circumstance the rest of the characters have to deal with.
But if the character's personality is materially, and deliberately altered for no reason than to fulfill a plot point, one has to ask, why use the characters at all? Why not simply create one's own characters, with whom one is free to do what one likes?
Yes the story is the author's. But, in fan fiction, the characters are not. Of course if one is determined to have a character do something that Jane Austen would never have them do, this argument will not change their path. And, to a degree, I have to admit that it really shouldn't.
But, since posing the question generates discussion, I have to ask. Why use the characters, if you're intending to so materially change them that they're not really the characters anymore, just someone who has the same name?
JIM