#Louisa Young

[autumnrose11]

Until recently, I thought it was sort of sacreligious to annotate novels. I was terrified of spoiling the book if I did something wrong. Until I discussed it with a friend of mine, and she told me .... "if you annotate a book, it means there's no other book in the world like it. You leave a part of yourself in the book when you annotate."

That sort of struck a chord with me, and so when I decided to take the plunge, and leave my fingerprints on my books .... I'm now starting to quite enjoy it, and I like drawing attention to certain lines that were particularly deep, or illuminated a character, or something I really loved. Also writing my observations or notes and things in the spaces above or on the sides of the text, how the words made me feel or what I thought about them.

This one is The Heroes' Welcome, by Louisa Young. One of my top 5 favourite books, and the copy is very, very special to me because it's definitely one of the best books I've ever read. So .... yeah. That's my experience with annotating :)

[diioonysus]

necklaces/chokers + art

[booksinpiles]

When trying to think of a wonderful book about being widowed and resilience to pair with Louisa Young’s newest, I quickly settled on Major Pettigrew. Make his acquaintance - you won’t regret it.

Bonus read: I always recommend Helprin. His breathtaking prose costs - but it’s worth it.

[15-lizards]

Need a film adaptation of Little Women where Jo clearly does not want to marry Bhaer and is pressured into it. A reflection of the publishers pressuring Louisa May Alcott to have Jo be married at the end, if you will. I think it would fix me in a really weird way

[claudia1829things]

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1978) Review

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1978) Review

There have been many adaptations of "Little Women", Louisa May Alcott's 1868 novel. And I have seen most, if not all of the live-action versions. But the first adaptation I have ever seen was NBC's adaptation that first aired back in 1978. If I might be honest, I ended up developing a rather high opinion of it.

Since my first viewing of 1978's "LITTLE WOMEN", I have seen other adaptations. And over the years, I had developed this belief that this television production from 1978 had not been good as I had originally believed. It took many years for me to give this two-part miniseries a second chance. "LITTLE WOMEN" told the story of Josephine (Jo) March and her three sisters during the 1860s - Meg, Beth and Amy. The two-part miniseries opened during the Christmas holidays in December 1861 and follow the sisters, their other family members and friends throughout the Civil War and the early post-war years. Because Jo is the main character, despite being the second sister, this adaptation of "Little Women" has the distinction of being the only version that allows her to serve as narrator.

After my recent re-watch, I could see why my opinion of "LITTLE WOMEN" had diminished over the years . . . at least from a superficial point-of-view. To be blunt, I was not that impressed by the miniseries' production values. The entire production was shot on the Universal Studios backlot and one could sometimes see the California hills in the background. Granted, I still believe set decorator Richard G. Goddard, art director Howard E. Johnson and cinematographer Joseph F. Biroc did the best they could to recreate 1860s Concord, Massachusetts, New York City and Italy. But I did have a problem with the miniseries' costume designs. On the surface, they seemed . . . serviceable for a television production set during the 1860s. But if I must be frank, the costumes also looked as if they had been taken from a costume warehouse for second-rate stage productions. Even worse, all or most of the actresses seemed to be wearing mid-to-late 1970s shoes underneath their mid-19th century dresses and gowns. I was shocked to discover that one of Hollywood's most iconic costume designer, Edith Head, had created the miniseries' costumes. So . . . what on earth happened? Head had created the costumes? "LITTLE WOMEN" was not even Head's first or last period drama. So, what happened?

Did I have any other problems with "LITTLE WOMEN"? Well . . . I did not care for leading actress Susan Dey's hairstyle in the second part of the miniseries. I realize her character, Jo March, had cut her hair to raise funds for her mother's journey to Washington D.C. But her hair never grew back. Never. Instead, it remained shorter than it originally was and styled into a bob. Why? And I had a problem with two particular performances. I will discuss one of them later. The other involved leading lady Susan Dey serving as the miniseries' narrator. Do not get me wrong. Dey is a fine actress and did the best she could. But I found her narration a bit clunky and unnecessary, thanks to the words provided to her by screenwriter Suzanne Clauser's teleplay.

Despite my quibbles, I found a lot to admire about "LITTLE WOMEN". I believe its status as a two-part miniseries, instead of a movie, screenwriter Suzanne Clauser had plenty of opportunities to fully adapt Alcott's novel with less shortcuts and more depth. I have always believed that Alcott's novel was basically a coming-of-age story for Jo March and her three sisters. To me, this made any adaptation of "LITTLE WOMEN" a major character study. And if there is one thing that the two-part miniseries did well was explore its characters and their situations with great depth.

This especially seemed to be the case of Jo's relationship with her neighbor and friend, Theodore "Laurie" Laurence, his personal relationship with his grandfather James Laurence, Amy's European trip and her romantic travails, and Meg's relationship with Laurie's tutor John Brooke. I was especially impressed by the production's handling of Jo's relationship with Professor Friedrich Bhaer. I found it very dynamic, thanks to Suzanne Clauser's screenplay, along with the performances involved. Some, but not all of the adaptations of Alcott's novel tend to forget - at times - that part of it spanned most of the U.S. Civil War. Fortunately, this adaptation never forgot. And as much as I seemed critical of the miniseries' narration, it also reminded television audiences that . . . yes, part of "LITTLE WOMEN" was partially set during the Civil War.

Speaking of performances, "LITTLE WOMEN" had the blessed luck to feature a first-rate cast. I may not have been impressed by the narration provided by Susan Dey (for which I blame another), I was more than impressed by her portrayal of the story's leading character, Josephine "Jo" March. I though she did a superb job in capturing Jo's mercurial personality and obsession with her developing profession as a writer. Meredith Baxter gave an excellent performance as the oldest March sister, Margaret "Meg" March. She conveyed Meg's vanity and obsession with the family's social status and stubborn refusal to give up her love for John Brooke. My only issue is that I believe the actress may have been a bit too old portraying a character that aged from 16 to her early 20s. Eve Plumb portrayed the shy, yet musical Elizabeth "Beth" March. I thought she did an excellent job of combining Beth's emotional, yet retiring nature and in the end, gave a very poignant performance. Ann Dusenberry was roughly 24 to 25 years old when she portrayed the youngest March sibling, Amy. Before my recent re-watch of "LITTLE WOMEN", I had assumed she was too old to portray a younger Amy. But upon my viewing, I realized that she actually managed to give a rather convincing and skillful performance of Amy during the war years (between ages 12 and 16) without to resorting to exaggerated histrionics. And I also admired her portrayal of the older Amy who found herself drawn between two men during her European trip.

I cannot deny that most of the actors who have portrayed Theodore "Laurie"/"Teddy" Laurence over the years gave some pretty damn good performances. But I believe that Richard Gilliland's portrayal of the emotional and moody "Laurie" has to be one of the two best I have ever seen, hands down. His only equal - at least in my eyes - is Jonah Hauer King's performance in the 2017 BBC miniseries. But if I had to choose my favorite portrayal of Laurie's stern, yet warm grandfather, James Laurence, it would be the one given by Hollywood icon Robert Young in this miniseries. May I be frank? I believe both actors provided some of the production's best dramatic moments in their depiction of the developing relationship between grandson and grandfather.

Dorothy McGuire gave a fine performance as Mrs. March aka "Marmie", the four sisters' mother. Thanks to the actress' performance, her Mrs. March seemed more like a well-rounded human being, instead of an archetype. Greer Garson was in fine form as the March family's tart-tongued, yet wealthy matriarch, Aunt Josephine March. William Shatner was excellent as the German-born professor who befriended Jo in New York City, Professor Friedrich Bhaer. Although I found his German accent a bit questionable, I cannot deny that he managed to provide a great deal of energy and complexity to Friedrich's relationship with Jo. Cliff Potts gave a solid performance as Meg's love interest and Laurie's tutor, John Brooke. I can say the same about Virginia Gregg, who portrayed the family's housekeeper, Hannah Mullet. I wish I could provide a better opinion of William Schallert's portrayal of the sisters' father, John March, but his presence in the miniseries seemed very limited, aside from one scene that featured the birth of Meg's children. One performance really failed to impress me and it came from John de Lancie, who portrayed Laurie's English-born classmate from Harvard and Amy's suitor, Frank Vaughan (Fred in the novel). Quite frankly, I found his performance a bit off. Knowing de Lancie for the first-rate actor he truly is, I suspect that between Alcott and screenwriter Suzanne Clauser's writing, the character ended up as a flat, one-note plot device - a situation that not even de Lancie could rise above.

Yes, I had some issues with "LITTLE WOMEN". I found some of the production values questionable, especially some of Edith Head's costumes, the hairstyles and one particular character. But overall, I believe it proved to be a first-rate adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's novel. If I must be frank, thanks to David Lowell Rich's direction, Suzanne Clauser's screenplay and a superb cast led by Susan Dey, I consider the 1978 adaptation of Alcott's novel to be among the three best I have ever seen.

[a-thief-with-patience]

JUST IN AWE OF WOMEN TODAY SO HERES A BUNCH OF MOVIES I LOVE THAT WERE DIRECTED BY WOMEN

Promising Young Woman (2020)

Directed by Emerald Fennell

Emma. (2020)

Directed by Autumn de Wilde

Little Women (2019) / Lady Bird (2017)

Directed by Greta Gerwig

Wonder Woman (2017)

Directed by Patty Jenkins

1/?

[littlewomenpodcast]

Jo Starts To Be Afraid To Be Alone With Laurie

One of Louisa May Alcott´s favorite writers was the German poet Goethe and Laurie´s character arc in Little Women is surprisingly similar to Goethe´s young hero, Werther. When Sorrows of Young Werther appeared it caused a national outrage because Werther's love interest, Lottie says no to him and chooses another man. In Little Women when Jo rejected Laurie, this caused an outrage (which still continues today, but more thanks to the movies, rather than the books). The way Werther treats Lottie, is at times very disturbing. Same as with Laurie.

[myspacechaos]

“Aunque fuese en su imaginación, vivía en un entorno nocivo, que la afectaba, pues tanto su corazón como su mente recibían alimentos poco nutritivos, incluso peligrosos, y aquel encuentro prematuro con el lado más oscuro de la vida, que siempre llega demasiado temprano para todos, había borrado demasiado rápido el rubor inocente propio de su edad.”

-Little Women

[yrsonpurpose]

now bring back ruby

[bshocommons]

...out of the grave of a boyish passion, there had risen a beautiful, strong friendship to bless them both.

Louisa May Alcott, Little Women

[bookaddict24-7]

(New Young Adult Releases Coming Out Today! (July 26th, 2022)

___

Have I missed any new Young Adult releases? Have you added any of these books to your TBR? Let me know!

___

New Standalones/First in a Series:

Boys I Know by Anna Gracia

Long Story Short by Serena Kaylor

A Girl’s Guide to Love & Magic by Debbie Rigaud

Beating Heart Baby by Lio Min

Into the Sublime by Kate A. Boorman

The Witchery by S. Isabelle 

Forest Hills Bootleg Society by Dave Baker & Nicole Goux

Violet Made of Thorns by Gina Chen

Accomplished by Amanda Quain 

Love Times Infinity by Lane Clarke

Lucas on the Line by Suyi Davies 

A Furry Faux Paw by Jessica Kara 

Padawan by Kiersten White 

The Valkyrie’s Daughter by Tiana Warner

Twice As Perfect by Louisa Onomé

New Sequels: 

Master if Iron (Bladesmith #2) by Tricia Levenseller

Beasts of Ruin (Beasts of Prey #2) by Ayana Gray

The Man or the Monster (The Marghazar Trials #2) by Aamna Qureshi

___

Happy reading!

[autumnrose11]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Anika | Book Reviewer (@a.n.i.k.a.reads)

"He had to pull the bayonet out again, which was strange. And that wasn't an end: it was just a moment in a long line of moments, and time went on, and they went on."

I was thinking about this one line today, and how deep it is. Normal, decent people are repulsed by murder. But here ... plunging a bayonet into a stranger's body, and watching them die, and knowing you were the cause of it - it's frightening. And at this point in the story, it's become so ordinary, so normal. When it shouldn't be. It was just a moment in a long line of moments. Murder after murder after murder. What's really crushing is that the soldiers were simply ordinary. They weren't built for war. They had their own lives to live, with families, with wives they loved and children they adored. Millions of Riley Purefoys.

Time went on, and they went on. They were being dragged along for this ride despite never wanting it. Sometimes, we come across descriptions such as "time stood still" when there's something particularly striking happening. Nothing of the sort happened here. Time goes on with each death. Nothing stops, least of all the artillery. Life and death go in tandem. They've been forced to embrace indecency.

(Rambling thoughts, sorry!!)

[therealmrpositive]

Macabre Month 5 Part VIII: Malignant (2021)

In today's review, I find the deep horrors are buried deep in the mind As I attempt a #positive review of the film Malignant #AnnabelleWallis #MckennaGrace #MaddieHasson #GeorgeYoung #MicholeBrianaWhite #JeanLouisaKelly #MadisonWolfe #SusannaThompson

Our mind is a complex machine, one we can take for granted. Sometimes, the greater details are lost, buried deeps in the perpetually expanding archives. Other times it is conjuring up strange new worlds that we could almost live in. From the mundane to the theoretical, there is not a lot it cannot accomplish. In 2021, a horror film broke the internet with the discussion of its polarising merits.…

[acceptsonlynttnightwing]

Persuasion 2022 makes me want to visit Jane Austen’s grave and apologise

So here’s a compilation of hilariously scathing reviews. Enjoy!

-Clarisse Loughrey

How exactly does the line, “it is said if you’re a five in London, you’re a 10 in Bath”, improve on Austen’s work or make it any more palatable to modern audiences? Or what about the comments on being “an empath” and focusing on “self-care”? 

When Anne is reunited with Wentworth (Cosmo Jarvis), the man she once rejected, Austen writes: “Now they were as strangers; nay, worse than strangers, for they could never become acquainted. It was a perpetual estrangement.” In the film? We get: “We are strangers. Worse than strangers. We’re exes.”

There’s nothing here that seems to drive her [Crackell’s] work (...) beyond the directive of capitalising on current trends. This is exactly what happens when art becomes a brand exercise.

There’s not even an attempt to be accurate here – Marianne Agertoft‘s costumes only look like Regency dress if you’d somehow been led to believe that the pages of this month’s Tatlermagazine had been shot out of a time machine. And, as much as I am loath to defend Bridgerton, the Netflix production Persuasion clearly modelled itself after, its anachronisms at least feel carefully chosen in order to give the series a poppy irreverence.

You can’t help but think what Austen would make of all this. She was nearly 40 when she wrote Persuasion, inches away from her deathbed. Anne’s pain in the novel is sharp, laced with the fear that she’s reached a point in life where she’s outrun every last opportunity, most especially for love. How do you absorb all of that feeling, only to give us an Anne who sighs performatively after she knocks a vessel of gravy on her head and boasts about dancing to Beethoven alone in her room “with a bottle of red”? How would the latter even happen in an era before record players?

                                   - x - x - x -                          - x - x - x -

Austen should be allowed a chance at the Instagram generation. But the frozen expression on romantic lead Cosmo Jarvis’s face throughout speaks louder than any review. (He can relax: one of the few things that can be said about this film with certainty is that it will be forgotten quickly.)

                                  - x - x - x -                          - x - x - x -

- Patrick Cremona

It all seems so forced and deliberate, more annoying and jarring than it is charming or inventive.

Then there are the frequent fourth-wall-breaking monologues, which start early on and continue to arrive at all too regular intervals throughout the runtime – with Alice providing a near-constant running commentary on the action, one that's neither witty nor insightful enough to be worth its while. It all allows a certain archness to take hold, a smugness that gets in the way of any emotional sincerity.

For the most part, it just feels rather drab and half-hearted, breezing along easily enough without ever injecting any real pizzazz into proceedings.

All this ensures the film commits one of cinema's cardinal sins – frankly, it's a little bit boring.

                                 - x - x - x -                          - x - x - x -

                                - x - x - x -                          - x - x - x -

In other words, the film’s Anne, unlike Austen’s quivering and stifled introvert, is that rom-com mainstay, the manic pixie dream girl, an ostensibly smart and capable woman whose klutziness and all-round-adorability ensures she’s completely non-threatening.

Sad but true, she (Dakota Johnson) is upstaged by the wallpaper on several occasions.

The famous ’letter scene’ is shrug-worthy. The final kiss moved me not.

                               - x - x - x -                          - x - x - x -

It’s set in the early 19th century, not remotely of Austen, but of Bridgerton, the success of which has unfortunately convinced Netflix that anything goes. Imagine flaunting an antique copy of the novel in a full-cosplay selfie, but holding it upside down.

Meanwhile, the dialogue perpetrates five war crimes per minute.

The way Michell finessed the most autumnal of Austen’s works, with Amanda Root cast to perfection, set a gold standard. This takes a flailing leap, but it’s neither audacious enough to commit to a singular vision, nor shrewd enough to get the novel right. It nosedives between two stools and never gets up.

                               - x - x - x -                          - x - x - x -

It is like an Austen amuse bouche — an entry-level cover version that tries to rev up the humor and speak directly to Gen Z by using its lingo — or at least an advertising executive's idea of what Gen Z sounds like. 

-Lindsey Bahr 

Instead, viewers get brief snippets of Anne’s internal character conflict and her yearning for Wentworth. By extension, Wentworth is always shafted and his character falls short due to the comedic tone of the film. Anne and Wentworth have clumsy and awkward exchanges that feature the sort of delivery you’d expect from an episode of The Office as opposed to a romance about healing the wounds of two heartbroken people.

Characters are constantly espousing modern beliefs. “A woman without a husband is not a problem to be solved,” says one sagely, greeted with a wry smile by Anne. Except that in 1817, unmarried women faced ridicule, lack of social agency and destitution, something Anne and Austen knew all too well. By removing Austen’s thematic concerns – class, spinsterhood, the questionable power of persuasion – there are simply no real barriers to Anne and Wentworth’s reunion. Indeed, it’s hard to see how this spirited person could be persuaded to do anything. With such low stakes, the film crawls along without momentum.

I’m all for modernising the classics (see 2020’s Emma for Austen with an injection of over-the-top fun) but this one can’t decide if it’s trying to amuse or edify and consequently does neither. Bring back Bridgerton, please.

- Francesca Steele

Sadly Persuasion, not only the worst Austen adaptation but one of the worst movies in recent memory, delivers on all the agony and none of the hope. 

The filmmakers have served up a soggy mess of limp rom-com clichés that does a disservice not only to Austen but to all her contemporary inheritors, from Cher Horowitz to Bridget Jones. As played by Dakota Johnson, the novel’s heroine Anne Elliot, a lovelorn, bookish, self-effacing woman on the cusp of spinsterhood, becomes an insufferably coy scatterbrain who speaks in 21st-century buzzwords 

There is updating classic literature to bring it in tune with modern sensibilities, and then there is insulting the viewer’s intelligence. Persuasion’s endlessly attempts to pander to young audiences presumed incapable of understanding any message not conveyed via Instagram hashtag 

Unfortunately, as played by Cosmo Jarvis, Wentworth is also something of a lifeless sad sack. His pining for Anne is believable enough, but his character is so thinly written that it’s hard to see whatever qualities induced her to spend eight years pining for him. 

In this movie, eligible men are mostly nattily attired scarecrows on which to hang romantic longing. 

The fine shadings of social class that drive the novel’s conflict are mostly lost in this translation to the screen. The presence of Black, Asian, and mixed-race actors in the cast at first feels refreshing, but any intended social commentary is lost in the script’s thematic muddle.

it’s hard to overstate what unpleasant company Johnson’s Anne Elliot is. She performatively chugs red wine straight from the bottle, goes everywhere cuddling a never-explained pet rabbit, and interrupts one stodgy teatime with an extended and charmless non sequitur about a recurring dream that an octopus is sucking her face.

she (Austen) describes Anne and Wentworth’s long-ago affair as “a short period of exquisite felicity.” The only such moment afforded by Persuasion is when the closing credits finally start to roll.

-Dana Stevens

(just read the whole review, seriously- https://slate.com/culture/2022/07/persuasion-netflix-movie-2022-dakota-johnson-jane-austen.html)

[liroyalty]

For no reason, I just decided to take one or two girls from each of the countries I've made(expect the main one) & put them in a wedding dress from this doll maker.

From Top left-to-bottom right: Lilianée of the Amaryllis Isles, Maria-Louisa of the Amaryllis Isles, Priscilla(with peach hair becuase there was no pink hair) of Lyttona, Lucrezia of Chrysan, Meihui of Ixora, Meganhilda of Hollie, Hinta(with black hair because there was no blue hair) of Vlaqinn, Kamelya of Ignis, Iyona of Jailiam, Grace(with brown hair because there was no purple hair) of Tempete, Stela(with blonde hair because there was no white hair) of Zedessa & Amelia of the Lareryth Empire

[llycaons]

oh the accident scene was so badly done. making louisa look like a foolhardy child and then...whatever they did, it was the worst editing job I'd ever seen. all janky, too rushed, cutting from her falling forward to hitting the ground backward? the impact audio wasn't right at all. the only good part was the acting, esp for whoever played henrietta