JA in the nineties

I've had an offhand silly opinoin about it: she'd be doing web pages of parodies on Fordyce's Sermons. But I'd like to think about it more seriously. Thanks for the idea, Caroline.

"she'd be doing web pages of parodies on Fordyce's Sermons. " ROTFLOL!!!

And Fordyce's would be....? I think she would be as progressive as .... I don't know. I think if I wrote a book I would not want bodice ripping. I would write like a 1950's movie: fade to black during the kiss. Which would mean no one would want to buy my books. Which would mean I would be stuck reading about old, morally prudent writers on the internet. Hmmmm. Wouldn't it be grand to be such a great writer that you could imply things so beautifully that graphic descriptions would be banal? Like Lydia and Wickham: you know what's going on there but we don't have to hear all the slimy details. I know I am being naive, but isn't that required in a romantic? Amy, oh wise one, I wait your appraisal.

In the 90's, Austen would have opportunities she never had, more avenues to express her self and her art. She would not have to even be a novelist. Anna Quindlan's old job is still open, isn't it?

She would not have to even be a novelist You don't think she would have had stories buzzing around her head all the time ?Somehow, with talent like hers, I think a few books would have been produced. (Anna Quindlan? don't know her- please tell!) she'd be doing web pages of parodies on Fordyce's Sermons. And writng "The Vicar of Dibley," no doubt! I think she would be a feminist, for sure.

The feminin side to Michael Crichton or Tom Clancy's blockbusters, instead of war/thriller/criminal plot a more femininist (and feminin) point of view on human relationship thriller type of novels, and definitely movies adaptations. Something of quality, BBC's like, definitely not movie of the week.

JA with a word processor - how many great stories would we have had!!!

You know, it could be that she was not driven to write, but just to do something, and writing was one of her few options.

Perhaps a sociologist, a folklorist, or a columnist (like a cross b/t Herb Caen and Anna Quindlen...very common-sense and subtle, upbeat, appreciative of life, and very hard on the longfaced and serious of the world).

Very true, Amy...but she was very good at it. She would have a plethora of verbal-type options open to her today because of that fact.

] verbal-type options __ Court TV commentator?

Sorry JA. Not funny. Kali are you going over to meet Amy2?

I'm on my way...I've been trying to clean up here...My modem is broken, and I'm at the computer lab...

Caroline: I meant to say she would not have even HAD to be a novelist. What Austen committed to paper is not so much stories and plots as it is character study and commentary on human nature. Anna Quindlan left the New York Times about a year ago, where she wrote a column a couple of times a week about her observations of the world. She also has a couple of books out, one being a fantastic collection of her essays. My guess that a woman in Jane's day was not taken as seriously as a writer like Quindla is today. What little I have read about how Austen's writings were viewed then, seemed to be that her books were basicly considered "fluff' pieces. The reality is, she is pretty damn deep.

Sharon, unfortunately, there are still many today that think JA is fluff.

Karen: That is true, and perhaps we project more into the work than she ever indended. But is would not have lasted 184 years without something inherent in it that we still respond to.

Do you think she could have written the screenplay for "Clueless"?I havn't seen it, so I don't know.

Maybe, Caroline, but I don't know if she would have had in so many double-enterdes(sorry. The last spelling bee I was in was in 3rd grade). Jane as a screenwriter does sound intersting, though. Any ideas out there?