If at first you don't succeed... by Lynne Benton

If this blog should sound vaguely familiar, that's because it is: I first wrote, and publshed, it three years ago.  However, there is a reason - or actually, two reasons - for republishing it now.

1) Because I've been too busy finishing my novel to come up with another fresh idea.

and 

2) Because I'm about to start sending said novel out on submission, and this is just the blog I need to remind myself of the golden rule:

If at first you don't succeed, TRY, TRY AGAIN!

All writers get rejections, right?  They are never nice, but we just have to get used to them.  But does getting a rejection from a publisher mean our work is no good?

Not necessarily.

I recently came across a list of famous books which had originally been rejected by publishers, and found it quite fascinating.  For example, how could anyone have decided that Kenneth Grahame’s The Wind in the Willows wasn’t good enough?

Originally Grahame made up stories of Mole, Ratty, Badger and Toad for his four-year-old son as bedtime stories, but when he took early retirement from his job at the Bank of England, he used these bedtime stories as a basis for The Wind in the Willows.  However, a number of publishers rejected the manuscript before it was finally accepted and published in 1908. 

The public, of course, loved it, and The Wind in the Willows was subsequently listed as one of the Top Ten Books of All Time!

Another book which nearly didn’t make it was Agatha Christie’s The Mysterious Affair at Styles.  This was the first of her many crime novels featuring the indomitable Hercule Poirot, inspired by an influx of Belgian refugees into the UK after the First World War.  The manuscript was rejected by two publishers before being accepted by a third, after she’d agreed to making slight changes to the ending.  It was finally published in the US in October 1920, and in the UK in 1921, and this and many of her subsequent Poirot novels have been filmed and televised numerous times.  In fact, David Suchet has filmed every one of the Poirot stories for television.  Imagine if Agatha Christie hadn’t persisted with her first book in the series, maybe  nobody would have ever heard of Hercule Poirot!

Given the difficulties faced by women doing anything outside the home in the early 19^th century, it is good to know that at least Jane Austen’s family believed in her work.  In 1793 her father thought enough of Pride and Prejudice, which she’d read aloud to the family, to ask a publisher if he would like to publish it.  It was, however, firmly rejected by return, and was only published in 1813, after the success of Sense and Sensibility. 

Later, in 1803, her brother Henry offered the ms of Northanger Abbey to Crosby & Company, a London publisher, who paid £10 for the copyright and promised early publication, but did nothing more with it.  In 1809 Jane wrote an angry letter to Richard Crosby, offering him a rewritten version of the novel if needed to secure its immediate publication.  If he didn’t want it, she requested the return of the original so she could find another publisher. Crosby loftily replied that he had not agreed to publish the book by any particular time, or at all, and that she could repurchase the manuscript for the £10 he had paid her brother, and then she could find another publisher. Sadly she couldn’t afford to buy it back until 1816, so it wasn’t finally published, along with Persuasion, until after her death in 1817.

And these are not the only examples of famous books initially rejected.  Who can forget the story of a young orphaned wizard at boarding school, which was rejected several times before a brave publisher took a chance on it…

All of which I find immensely cheering.  The main message seems to be, “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again!”  So good luck to all writers out there, keep sending your work out, and just remember those best-sellers which were initially rejected!

Visit my website: www.lynnebenton.com

Miss Austen's Cautionary Tales by Val Tyler

Jane Austen primarily wrote love stories about women of good sense and principal, falling in love with men of good character; but the more I read her books, the more I wonder if she had another purpose.

Miss Austen often has a subplot or backstory about a man who entices a young lady to run away with him. He may do this simply for his own amusement or vanity, or for financial gain, but he never considers the consequences that will befall the lady.

In Pride and Prejudice there is a backstory about George Wickham trying to, and very nearly succeeding in, seducing fifteen year-old Georgiana Darcy. Fortunately for Georgiana, her brother, Mr Darcy, has a great deal of sense and influence and is able to save her, thus denying Wickham her £30,000 that had been his object. If he had succeeded there would have been no alternative but to make poor Georgiana marry the womanising and profligate Wentworth, as Lydia Bennett did some time later.

Lydia Bennett and George Wickham:BBC

Wickham ran off with Lydia for his own amusement. This selfish act opened her up to malicious gossip and precluded her from decent society. The only course of action was for Lydia to marry Wickham as quickly as possible, and this she willingly did. Even so, they were a tainted couple and Lydia’s life became less than enviable. ‘Their manner of living… was unsettled in the extreme. They were always moving from place to place in quest of a cheap situation, and always spending more than they ought. His affection for her soon sunk into indifference; hers lasted a little longer…’

In Sense and Sensibility, John Willoughby is introduced to the reader as a Knight in Shining Armour, rescuing the injured Marianne Dashwood from a wet and uncomfortable hillside. As the story unfolds, the reader begins to notice his lack of judgement. He encourages Marianne to be imprudent and we begin to realise that Mr Willoughby is not quite the gentleman we originally took him for. Marianne does not have direct male protection and her mother does not have the good sense of her sister, Elinor.

Marianne Dashwood and John Willoughby:BBC

Eventually, Colonel Brandon relates to Elinor the treatment of his ward at the hands of Willoughby who, some time before, had had taken sixteen year-old Eliza away from the protection Colonel Brandon had secured for her, seduced the poor girl and, to use Brandon’s words, left her ‘in a situation of the utmost distress, with no creditable home, no help, no friends, ignorant of his address! He had left her, promising to return; he neither returned, nor wrote, nor relieved her.’

Colonel Brandon did not force Willoughby to marry Eliza, it was too late for that and, illegitimate as she was, Eliza has little value in society as we see in Emma with Harriet Smith. Willoughby is not even expected to provide for, or even acknowledge, his child.

In Mansfield Park, Maria Rushworth is a well-connected and wealthy married woman with male protection and an enviable place in society. She throws all this away when she runs off with Henry Crawford. He soon tires of her and her family are left with the problem of what to do with a disgraced woman. There is no way she can return to her former home and husband, and it is decided that she and her unpleasant Aunt Norris are to be found an ‘establishment… in another country, remote and private, where, shut up together with little society, on one side no affection, on the other no judgement, it may be reasonably supposed that their tempers became their mutual punishment.’

Henry Crawford and Maria Rushworth:BBC

Miss Austen seldom comments on the rights and wrongs of society, but she verges on criticism when she says that, ‘...the public punishment of disgrace...’ is ‘in this world …less equal than could be wished…’

Unfair and boring though Maria’s punishment may have been, the fate of Colonel Brandon’s first love, the mother of Eliza, turned out to be tragic. Rich and well-connected though she had been, she left her loveless and miserable marriage to be with the man she loved. Her husband divorced her and, deserted by her lover and penniless (a woman’s wealth automatically passed to her husband when she married), she had no place in society. Thus, she was passed from man to man and when Colonel Brandon eventually returned to England and found her, he describes how she was, ‘So altered – so faded – worn down by acute suffering of every kind! hardly could I believe the melancholy and sickly figure before me, to see the remains of the lovely, blooming, healthful girl, on whom I had once doted…’

It is noticeable that he ‘had once doted’ on her and, excellent man though he is, Brandon had no inclination to marry her and give Eliza a name. He is a kind man and did all any man with a good name could be expected to do; he provided for them. The mother was ‘in the last stage of a consumption’. He thought that ‘life could do nothing for her, beyond giving time for a better preparation for death…’ Disgraced as she was, she was better off dead. Surely any female reader would sit up and take note.

In Northanger Abbey, Miss Austen is not explicit as to what happens between Isabella Thorpe and Captain Frederick Tilney, but society judges Isabella because she has allowed his attentions while being engaged to another man. She is disgraced and her friends, the Mitchells, are shocked to see her out in public. Shamed girls should be hidden away, and poor Isabella had no money to cushion the blow.

Isabella Thorpe and Captain Tilney:ITV 

I wonder why Miss Austen entwined such plots in her charming stories about manners and love and I suggest she was doing so for more than entertainment. There is little doubt that gossip can be delicious and people like to ooh and ah at the misfortunes of others, but I wonder if Miss Austen’s aim was to help young, innocent or bored ladies to understand the importance of protecting their reputation.

I do not suggest this was her prime motivation, but I do suggest she might have wanted her books not only to interest her reader, but to alert ladies to a certain kind of man who might not be trusted; especially young women who might be romantically inclined, but naïve. Her tales are witty and interesting, but they also demonstrate how everything can go desperately wrong. Women had to be careful. Only the very fortunate, and here I am thinking of Marianne Dashwood who had Colonel Brandon to make her respectable after tongues had wagged about her very unflatteringly. Fortunately for Marianne, she had stayed the right side of propriety and, consequently, could be accepted not only by Brandon, but by society if a man like the Colonel married her; which, of course, he did.

I like to think Miss Austen wove cautionary tales into her stories to remind women that a dalliance simply would not be worth the excitement.

Jane Austen – Feminist Icon? by Val Tyler

Jane Austen

According to the historian, Lucy Worsley, Jane Austen was a feminist icon ‘ahead of her time’. She also states that Miss Austen, ‘turned down four or five proposals of marriage and financial security to have a go at living by her pen,’ listing six possible suitors.

These claims are extraordinary. I do not believe she was a feminist icon and the most likely explanation for refusing her one and only proposal of marriage was because she was not in love with the young man. His man was Harris Bigg Wither and he was a rich family friend. Like all good early-19^th century young ladies she initially accepted him, but unlike the majority, she changed her mind overnight.

Manydown, Harris Bigg Withers' home

We cannot know for sure why she did this. It was a prudent match and would have secured the futures of not only herself, but also her mother and unmarried sister. But something stopped her and, soon afterwards, she started wearing a lace cap. At 26 she was effectively proclaiming she was no longer on the marriage market.

These are verifiable historical facts. What we don’t know is why she acted as she did. Lucy Worsley would have us believe it was to follow a career that was not socially respectable. I think it is more likely she turned to writing simply because needed the money. As a woman her options were severely limited. If she was rejecting marriage, writing was all she had. Some years later she wrote, ‘...tho I like praise as well as anybody, I like what Edward (her brother) calls Pewter too.’

Without verifiable historical facts, I turn to Jane Austen’s novels to help me understand her actions. All her heroines finish their story by marrying, even Emma who initially had no intention of doing so – she was rich and did not need a husband – but she did marry and not just anyone. None of Jane Austen’s heroines fell for a man below their social status. Emma could have fallen in love with Robert Martin and shocked her family and friends by marrying him, but she did not. Instead, she says that a young farmer was the very last sort of person to raise her curiosity.

If Jane Austen had been passionate about taking a career, surely Anne Elliot would have done the same instead of languishing over the loss of Frederick Wentworth. Poor Anne spent years longing for the man she felt she had lost forever and, consequently, lost her bloom.

Jane Austen’s heroines never challenged the status quo. They accepted that marriage for financial security was a prudent action. Even Lizzy Bennett eventually accepted Charlotte Lucas’ marriage to the stupidest man in England because it gave her financial security and social status.

Jane Austen’s heroines were fulfilled by marriage; they never spurned it in favour of a career. Where she did challenge society was by continually affirming that only the deepest love would draw her ladies into matrimony. Most fell in love with men of considerable means. Elinor Dashwood and Catherine Morland married clergymen who were not rich, but had adequate means and social status. Fanny Price also married a clergyman, but not before refusing a rich man. Her family was horrified and put all sorts of pressure on her to accept Henry Crawford, but she stood firm. I wonder if this corresponds to Jane Austen’s own experience after she refused Bigg-Wither.

When I look at Jane Austen’s novels I conclude that she refused Bigg Wither because she did not love him. Initially, she had tried to do the right thing by her family, but she simply could not accept the idea of marrying a man she did not love. Having put herself in this situation, she had to find a way of earning some money. She not only enjoyed writing, but was extremely good at it. Consequently, she finished Susan and sold it the following year for £10.

I think Jane Austen was a brilliant writer who was ahead of her time when it came to her writing style, but she never railed against the woman’s lot. She is not a feminist icon.

I wonder whether Jane Austen would have minded Lucy Worsley’s speculation. I suspect not. She would probably have understood the historian’s need of ‘Pewter’.

Jane Austen on YouTube by Keren David

Last week felt a little empty. No sense of anticipation at 4.55pm on Monday and Thursday. No twitter feeds to check and recheck. No twitter chats with fellow author Zoe Marriott about the nuance, the romance, the drama of our latest fix.

Darcy and Lizzie play Darcy and Lizzie ...

If you felt similarly afflicted you’ll know what I’m talking about. The Lizzie Bennet Diaries ended last week, a project that made me think anew about the future of books, television, story-telling in general.

The Lizzie Bennet Diaries is an adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, updated to the present day, re-located to California and told through social media. Lizzie has a video blog, posting twice a week for a year, so does her sister Lydia. Her other sister Jane posts on Pinterest, Lookbook and Tumblr. Almost every character  is on Twitter, even Kitty Bennet, who is a cat (a clever move, Kitty in the book does little except cough and stare).

 Later in the series there are videos from Georgiana Darcy (renamed Gigi) and most of the main characters make appearances in Lizzie’s vlogs, or are  played by other characters in scripted ‘costume dramas.’  In one of my favourite episodes Lizzie forces Darcy to act as himself.

Some people I know couldn’t get past the first few videos, and indeed didn't really get it at all (‘Some ghastly American woman  murdering Jane Austen,’  as one of my friends put it.) I resisted trying it out for a long time. But then I watched one video. And another. And then I watched 80 in one day, completely transfixed by the sheer cleverness, the inventiveness, the new insights and the performances – especially that of Mary-Kate Wiles as Lydia. And for the last ten weeks of the series I was hooked. A new video was posted and life stopped for the few minutes it took to watch. 

Hank Green (brother of the YA author John Green) and Bernie Su, creators of the LBD Diaries are planning a spin off, in which GG Darcy goes to Sanditon. They're raising funds to bring out the LBD dvd and talking about adapting other classics. 

Some UK authors create twitter accounts for their characters, some write blogs in their names. Some make film trailers for their books, others  sell film, television or theatre rights and may be lucky enough to see their work performed. In the meantime there’s a boom in UK vloggers, building up big audiences for their films on YouTube. As the mother of two teenagers I can confirm that YouTube is big right now, with kids seeking out vloggers to follow.
 

When will we see a British LBD? If they can take on Austen, why can’t we nab The Great Gatsby? Or how about  adapting out own books for YouTube?  I've seen the future and I think that Jane Austen would approve.