By

Becoming Jane: How Austen Transformed into a Chick Lit1Icon

ByClaire Fallon

On the 2013 “Austenland” movie poster, Jane (Keri Russell) holds up a tote bag2tote bag容量較大的單肩包。that reads “I ? Mr. Darcy.”

[2] Two hundred years after her untimely death, this is what we think of when we think of Jane Austen. Darcythemed T-shirts. Lizzie Bennet action figures. Colin Firth in a soaking-wet top. Lonely women who nurse visions of Regency elegance and old-fashioned courtship. Movies in which studly men profess undying love to beautiful women in the midst of astonishingly cinematic rainstorms.

[3] To those who have a passing familiarity with Austen, this, no doubt,makes perfect sense. In our cultural consciousness, the author stands for decorous, chaste courtship; rags-toriches romance; elegant ballgowns and gallant suitors who invite eligible maidens to dance rather than Net fl ix and chill3Netflix一家在線影片租賃提供商，成立于1997年，主要提供Netflix超大數(shù)量的DVD并免費(fèi)遞送，總部位于美國加利福尼亞州洛斯蓋圖?！癉o you want to come to my house for Netflix and chill?”是當(dāng)今年輕人找一夜情的常用語，字面意思是看看片子放松一下。作者意指現(xiàn)在男女約會以看網(wǎng)劇始，以交歡終。. She represents an escapist, sentimental fantasy structured around speci fi c female desires, which makes some passionately devoted to her and others disdainful.

[4] But to others―critics, scholars and many readers―this whole idea of Austen is wrong. This conception glosses over her pointed satire, which often critiqued the social sphere she depicted.It also ignores Austen’s own skepticism about unbridled romantic sentiment.

[5] How did we get here, to this state of simultaneous Austen-mania and Austen-disdain? How did Jane Austen become the Jane Austen we know today?

Jane, The Realist

[6] Austen may not have been the poster child for romance back when she began publishing her books, but scholars have noticed a bifurcation in her reader response from the very beginning: Some read her for a bit of escapism and love stories, and some enjoyed the complexity and wit of her narratives.

[7] Her books were viewed seriously by critics, who admired her observation of social and familial dynamics, her nimble prose and her psychologically complete characters. At the time, they were hardly on the frivolous end of the spectrum. “Historically, Austen’s books have not been viewed as ‘chick lit,’ that is, as novels occupied with subjects like marriage and love, subjects which are supposed to please and interest women,” said Karen Bloom Gevirtz, associate professor of English and co-director of the Women and Gender Studies Program at Seton Hall University.

[8] In a contemporaneous review ofEmma, a critic (speculated by scholars to have been Sir Walter Scott4（1771—1832），英國著名歷史小說作家。) admiringly, and humorously, contrasts Austen’s work with the overwrought romances of most popular novels of the time, which typically starred a heroine who “was regularly exposed to being forcibly carried off like a Sabine5古代意大利中部的一個民族，公元前三世紀(jì)被羅馬人征服。virgin by some frantic admirer” and rarely managed to evade “masked ruffians, an insidious ravisher, a cloak wrapped forcibly around her head, and a coach with the blinds up driving she could not conjecture whither.”Emma, on the other hand,keeps “close to common incidents, and to such characters as occupy the ordinary walks of life.” Austen, he gushes,“has produced sketches of such spirit and originality, that we never miss the excitation which depends upon a narra-tive of uncommon events.”

Jane, The Escapist

[9] Initially, Austen broke with novel-writing conventions by writing everyday stories rather than escapist ones. But something happened in between then and now: 200 years passed.The everyday life of the minor gentry in early 19th century England no longer seems like a commonplace setting to Austen’s readers―it’s become exotic through distance.

[10] But it’s not just the sepia-toned filter6一種色彩偏黃、有復(fù)古感覺的濾鏡，置于鏡頭前以改善畫面效果。作者意指現(xiàn)在人們通過影視作品了解奧斯丁的方式。through which we now see Austen novels that changes the way we interpret her stories. Though the author subverted conventions of the Gothic romances of her day, she didn’t exactly blow it up―she satirized it within the confines of a marriage plot narrative.“The novels certainly feature heroines who feel acutely and suffer (generally in silence) because of love,” pointed out Lynch. Amidst the satire, Austen also speaks in a “psychological idiom that makes us feel, almost as though as it were our own, the experience of melancholy or distressed heroines like Anne Elliot or Elinor Dashwood7《理智與情感》的兩位女主人公。.”

[11] In short, Austen’s empathetic portrayals of women in love are just as powerful as her caustic wit. The entire plot of each book hinges on at least one potential love match, featuring well-developed, charming heroes and heroines,which makes it easy to engage with them on the level of a romance novel.The romantic angle of Austen is easier to pick up on, and to replicate, than her social commentary.

[12] “Austen’s social representation is actually quite hard to interpret,”explained Deidre Lynch, Ernest Bernbaum8美國學(xué)者，英語教育家，曾在哈佛大學(xué)任教。此處指學(xué)術(shù)榮譽(yù)。Professor of Literature at Harvard University. ” [S]he’s so subtle―and that subtlety leaves much room for disagreement.” The love stories, on the other hand, are pretty straightforward,not to mention less controversial. “Because it’s so easy to empty her work of its sharp social, political and economic criticism,” Gevirtz toldHuffPost, “an Austen adaptation can please a wide variety of viewers.”

Jane, The Hollywood Star

[13]Pride and Prejudice, in particular, slots neatly into a romantic comedy template that predated Austen. In comparison to hectic Gothic and sprawling Victorian novels, her relatively compact, universally appealing plots were perfect for fi lm adaptation.

[14] As these screen versions proliferate, film has increasingly become the mode through which people encounter Austen’s work. “Although adapting the novels as screen romances goes back at least to MGM9=Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer米高梅電影公司，曾為美國好萊塢八大影業(yè)公司之一?！痵 1940 fi lm of ‘Pride and Prejudice,’ it’s become a particularly intense cultural practice since the mid-1990s,” said Gevirtz. Even the versions lauded as the most faithful, however,can’t replicate the experience of reading her novels―and essential aspects of her genius are easily lost in translation.

[15] The dialogical humor only comprises part of the biting, revealing comedy of the novels, which is often driven by Austen’s drily observant narrator―which is typically the fi rst thing to go in a fi lm version. “The narrator in particular can be difficult to establish with a camera,” noted Gevirtz, “and although some productions use voice-overs or particular filming techniques, it’s not the same.”

[16] The novels’ association with their generally sappy film adaptations has only fed Austen’s image as a purveyor of insubstantial chick lit. “While Austen’s novels are Great Books, the film adaptations are often seen by scholars as sentimental and frivolous,”writes scholar Pamela Demory. The result has been a shift in how we see Austen herself.

[17] For one thing, as the fi lms comprise an increasingly large part of our Austen diet, we begin to weave images and moods of the movies into our cultural idea of the books. Take one famous example: There’s no scene, in Austen’sPride and Prejudice, in which Mr. Darcy emerges, sopping wet, from a pond. Nor is there a scene in which he and Elizabeth encounter each other amid a rainstorm, drenched from head to toe. And yet, sexy-wet Darcy has become almost inextricable from canonical Darcy.

[18] Always an appealing romantic lead, handsome and warm-hearted despite his forbidding demeanor, his brooding depth and unquenchable passion have been drawn out in film adaptations. Darcy’s emergence as a delectable, crushworthy celebrity has positionedPride and Prejudiceas a wishfulfillment fantasy for straight women rather than a social commentary.

[19] Biopics of Austen herself have borrowed from the romantic plots of her books to craft a portrait of an author inspired and motivated by her own heartbreak. Gevirtz pointed to “Becoming Jane,” a 2007 Anne Hathaway fl ick,which suggests Austen suffered an early heartbreak which inspired the love story ofPride and Prejudice. “The trailer for[‘Becoming Jane’] urged, ‘Discover Jane Austen’s untold romance, that would become the inspiration for her greatest love stories,’” said Gevirtz.“The facts of Austen’s life, however, do not support a narrative of a romantically-disappointed Jane endlessly seeking solace by compulsively rewriting her ruined romance with a happy ending.”Rather, there’s plenty of evidence that she was a gifted and dedicated artist who honed her craft for many years,beginning in her youth. By recasting the author as a lovelorn woman dwelling on her own loss, argues Gevirtz, we allow the novels to be “reduced to love stories and nothing but love stories.”

Jane Contains Multitudes

[20] The relentless churn of Austen adaptations, which increasingly allude to each other rather than the original work, has spawned a new idea of the author and her fans, a smaller understanding of her novels that has grown big enough to overshadow their real complexities. When we defend Austen by saying she’s more than that, we risk reinforcing the idea that chick lit is dumb; when we defend her by saying chick lit is worthwhile, we risk rein-forcing the idea that her work fi ts neatly into the genre rather than acknowledging her unique genius.

[21] But both are true, and Austen is worth defending on both fronts. Austen’s deftly handled marriage plots offer a relatively empowering path through a patriarchal realm that continues to resonate today: a marital partnership based on mutual love and respect. It makes sense that this Austen was a forerunner to a chick fl ick genre in which women and their desires take center stage.Much of the delicate irony and layered social commentary, however, don’t make it to the screen alongside the love stories―and this precise, observant wit is what originally elevated her work above other marriage plot novels of the time.

[22] Two hundred years after her death, it feels only right to celebrate both Austen’s cultural ascendancy,which continues to balloon, and the genius of her novels, which hasn’t changed or diminished in two centuries.Her loyal fans tend to struggle with embracing all of these aspects―the schmaltz and the satire, the lowbrow and the highbrow. Her readers’ passionate sense of ownership, and the multiplicity of ways in which we read her work, might be the most profound possible testament to her art’s enduring power.

在2013年上映的《奧斯丁莊園》的電影海報上，簡（凱麗·拉瑟爾飾）手拿一個托特包，上面寫著“我?達(dá)西先生”。

[2]在奧斯丁過早離世200年之后，緬懷斯人，斯人如斯。達(dá)西主題的T恤衫。莉齊·貝內(nèi)特人偶。身著濕漉漉上衣的科林·費(fèi)斯。向往攝政時期的優(yōu)雅和老式求婚的單身女子。描述健碩男子在駭人暴雨中向麗人傾訴永恒愛情的電影。

[3]無疑，對那些一時興起而了解奧斯丁的人來說，這完全可以理解。在我們的文化意識中，作者奧斯丁代表的是正統(tǒng)、純潔的戀愛，是乞丐變富翁的浪漫故事，是優(yōu)雅的晚禮服，是殷勤求婚者邀請中意的少女跳舞而不是找一夜情。她代表避世者，圍繞特定的女性欲望構(gòu)筑的情感故事，這使一些人狂熱忠實(shí)于她，而另一些人則對她嗤之以鼻。

[4]然而，對另一些人，即批評家、學(xué)者和許多讀者來講，對奧斯丁的這些看法全都錯了。這些看法掩蓋了她對自己所描寫的社交圈常有的尖銳諷刺，也忽略了奧斯丁本人對于不加克制的浪漫感情的懷疑。

[5]那么我們怎么理解奧斯丁熱和厭惡奧斯丁這同時存在的兩種情緒呢？過去的簡·奧斯丁是怎樣成為今天我們心目中的奧斯丁的？

現(xiàn)實(shí)主義者——簡

[6]在奧斯丁小說出版之初，她也許并非浪漫故事的代言人，但是學(xué)者們一開始就從讀者反應(yīng)中，注意到了態(tài)度的分歧：一些人將其作品當(dāng)作逃避現(xiàn)實(shí)的一種方式或當(dāng)作愛情故事來閱讀，還有一些人喜歡復(fù)雜的小說情節(jié)和其睿智的敘事才能。

[7]批評家們嚴(yán)肅看待她的小說。他們欣賞其對社會和家庭動態(tài)的觀察、靈活的行文及其對人物所作的全方位心理描寫。那時，他們并不關(guān)心小情小愛的情感故事。西頓大學(xué)英語副教授兼婦女與性屬研究項目聯(lián)合主任卡倫·布盧姆·格沃茨說：“以前，奧斯丁的小說一直未被視為‘少女文學(xué)’。少女文學(xué)就是指以婚姻和愛情為主題并以此取悅和吸引女性的文學(xué)?！?/p>

[8]在《愛瑪》一書同時代的書評中，一個批評家（學(xué)者們推測應(yīng)該是沃爾特·斯科特爵士）抱著欣賞的態(tài)度十分幽默地將奧斯丁的作品和當(dāng)時最受歡迎的一些浪漫故事做了對比。那些故事情節(jié)過度緊張，女主角通常“像一個薩賓少女，被某個狂熱的追求者強(qiáng)行抬走”，很少能夠逃脫“蒙面的惡棍，陰險的強(qiáng)奸犯。她的頭上被強(qiáng)行遮著斗篷，還有窗簾卷起的四輪馬車，不知會去到何處” 。相反，《愛瑪》的故事“近似于平常之事，與普通的各行各業(yè)的人物很接近”。他夸張地贊賞說，奧斯丁“作品呈現(xiàn)出的精神和獨(dú)創(chuàng)性，總是讓我們激動不已，這種激動源于她對非尋常之事的描繪”。

避世者——簡

[9]一開始，奧斯丁一反小說寫作傳統(tǒng)，記述日?，嵤露潜荛_現(xiàn)實(shí)。然而從那時至今，200年過去了，對奧斯丁的讀者們來說，19世紀(jì)早期英國未成年貴族的日常生活不再是普通的小說背景，它因年代久遠(yuǎn)而變得新奇。

[10]然而，并不只是我們現(xiàn)在用以欣賞奧斯丁小說的棕色濾鏡會改變我們對其故事的解讀。奧斯丁盡管顛覆但并未摧毀那個時代的哥特小說傳統(tǒng)。她在有關(guān)婚姻情節(jié)的敘事中對當(dāng)時的傳統(tǒng)冷嘲熱諷。“小說的女主人公常常性格敏感，（通常是默默地）被愛所傷?！绷制嬷赋觥Ｔ诶涑盁嶂S中，奧斯丁還會以一種“我們幾乎感同身受的心理風(fēng)格敘述，讓我們?nèi)ンw會安妮·艾略特或埃莉諾·達(dá)什伍德等女主人公的憂郁哀傷或煩惱?！?/p>

[11]簡言之，奧斯丁對戀愛中女性善解人意的描寫和她的尖銳刻薄所體現(xiàn)的機(jī)智一樣有力。每本小說的整體情節(jié)都至少聚焦于一個可能發(fā)生的自>由戀愛，男女主角皆性格成熟，魅力十足，這些特點(diǎn)使得他們很容易成為愛情小說的主線聯(lián)系。相比奧斯丁對社會的評論，其愛情視角更容易讓人領(lǐng)悟和模仿。

[12]“實(shí)際上奧斯丁對當(dāng)時社會狀態(tài)的再現(xiàn)讓人難以解讀?！惫鸫髮W(xué)歐內(nèi)斯特·伯恩鮑姆文學(xué)教授戴德麗·林奇解釋說，“她太含蓄了，含蓄得讓人大可產(chǎn)生有異于她所表達(dá)的解讀。”從另一方面來說，愛情故事相當(dāng)直白，不用說也更少爭議。格沃茨告訴《赫芬頓郵報》說：“因?yàn)楹苋菀讋h除作品中對社會、政治和經(jīng)濟(jì)的尖銳批評，所以改編的奧斯丁作品能夠取悅很多趣味各異的觀眾?！?/p>

好萊塢明星——簡

[13]《傲慢與偏見》特意將情節(jié)巧妙裝入早在奧斯丁創(chuàng)作之前就已經(jīng)存在的浪漫喜劇模式。與焦躁不安的哥特小說及枝節(jié)繁多的維多利亞小說相比，她的小說相對緊湊，情節(jié)動人，不分國界，是改編電影的絕佳素材。

[14]隨著奧斯丁作品越來越多地出現(xiàn)在銀屏上，電影愈加成為人們邂逅奧斯丁作品的方式。格沃茨說：“雖然將小說改編為電影故事至少可追溯至1940年米高梅公司拍攝的《傲慢與偏見》，但自90年代中期以來，這種做法已成為人們爭相進(jìn)行的文化活動?！奔词鼓切┍毁潪樽钪覍?shí)于小說的改編，也無法與閱讀小說的體驗(yàn)完全一致——另外，作品中顯示其天賦的重要方面也很容易在改編中丟失殆盡。

[15]小說中最具諷刺、最有說服力的喜劇效果只有部分來自幽默的對話，這通常是由奧斯丁筆下不動聲色又善于觀察的敘事者來推動的，而敘事者總是改編電影第一個被消除的元素。格沃茨說：“用鏡頭來塑造敘事者可能尤其困難。雖然有些影片采用畫外音或其他特殊的拍攝技巧，但還是不一樣?！?/p>

[16]通常，電影將小說改編得十分多愁善感，結(jié)果強(qiáng)化了這種認(rèn)知，即奧斯丁只會寫毫無營養(yǎng)的少女文學(xué)。學(xué)者帕梅拉·德莫里寫道：“在學(xué)者們看來，如果說奧斯丁的小說是偉大的作品，電影改編則多為多愁善感而無甚價值?！苯Y(jié)果卻導(dǎo)致我們看待奧斯丁本人的方式發(fā)生了變化。

[17]首先，對于我們所了解的奧斯丁，電影提供了越來越多的素材。所以我們開始把電影中的形象和情緒植入我們對小說的文化認(rèn)知中。一個眾所周知的例子是：在奧斯丁的小說《傲慢與偏見》中，并沒有達(dá)西先生濕漉漉地從池塘爬出來的一幕，也沒有他和伊麗莎白在暴風(fēng)雨中邂逅被雨水淋透的場景。然而，濕身性感的達(dá)西和經(jīng)典達(dá)西幾乎已融為一體。

[18]盡管他態(tài)度冷峻，但仍是帥氣、熱心、浪漫的榜樣，讓人怦然心動。而電影并未表現(xiàn)出他深邃的思想和難以克制的愛情。電影版達(dá)西，一個讓人喜愛、值得為之傾心的名人，已使《傲慢與偏見》成為直女們愿望實(shí)現(xiàn)的幻想故事，書中的社會批評被大大忽略。

[19]奧斯丁的傳記電影借用小說中的浪漫情節(jié)，塑造了一個為情所傷并因此迸發(fā)出創(chuàng)作動力的作者形象。格沃茨指的是2007年由安妮·海瑟薇出演的電影《成為簡·奧斯丁》。影片暗示，奧斯丁早年為情所困而寫下愛情故事《傲慢與偏見》。“《成為簡·奧斯丁》的預(yù)告片鼓動道：‘揭秘簡·奧斯丁不為人知的羅曼史，其筆下最偉大愛情故事的靈感來源’?！备裎执恼f，“可是，從奧斯丁本人的生平故事來看，沒有跡象表明，情場失意的她通過給失敗的戀情硬生生寫出幸福結(jié)局來不斷尋求慰藉。”非但如此，大量證據(jù)表明，奧斯丁是個全心投入的天才作家，自年輕時起，多年來一直在錘煉自己的寫作技巧。格沃茨表示，將奧斯丁重塑為深陷失戀之痛的婦女，我們不過是任由偉大的小說“降格為愛情故事，單純的愛情故事”。

多面體——簡

[20]奧斯丁作品改編不斷出現(xiàn)，這些作品并非借鑒原著，而是越來越多地互相借鑒，這使人們對奧斯丁及其粉絲產(chǎn)生了新的看法。這些改編作品對其小說的理解更加狹隘，而這樣的理解得到越來越廣泛的接受，已導(dǎo)致小說本身的豐富性被遮蔽。當(dāng)我們說奧斯丁作品的意義遠(yuǎn)不止于此并以此來捍衛(wèi)她時，我們是在冒險強(qiáng)化這種觀點(diǎn)，即少女文學(xué)是愚蠢的；當(dāng)我們說少女文學(xué)值得欣賞并以此來捍衛(wèi)她時，我們又是在冒險忽略她獨(dú)特的天賦而強(qiáng)化這種觀點(diǎn)，即奧斯丁的作品只能歸入少女文學(xué)。

[21]但是上面提到的兩種情況都是事實(shí)。在這兩個方面，奧斯丁都是值得我們捍衛(wèi)的。奧斯丁對婚姻情節(jié)的精湛處理，為直至今日父權(quán)之聲依然回蕩的世界指出了一條頗為有力的途徑：婚姻是建立在互尊互愛基礎(chǔ)上的合伙人制。這樣的奧斯丁將女性及其欲望作為作品焦點(diǎn)，是言情片這一體裁的先驅(qū)者，這是很有意義的。然而，其作品中許多精妙的諷刺以及不同層次的社會批評，并未與愛情故事一起在屏幕上呈現(xiàn)——而原本正是作品中這些精確、洞見的智慧，使其作品的成就高于當(dāng)時以婚姻為主題的其他作品。

[22]奧斯丁辭世200年之后，人們確實(shí)應(yīng)該紀(jì)念她，既因其作品的文化優(yōu)勢依然在擴(kuò)大，也因其小說呈現(xiàn)的天賦兩個世紀(jì)后依然沒有改變或減少。她的忠實(shí)粉絲在面對作品中的傷感和諷刺、媚俗和高雅時，往往會糾結(jié)不已。讀者所感受到的濃濃的歸屬感以及對其作品的多種解讀，也許就是奧斯丁經(jīng)久不衰的藝術(shù)魅力最深遠(yuǎn)、最切實(shí)的證明。

奧斯丁何以變身少女文學(xué)偶像

文／克萊爾·法倫譯／凱希

1 chick lit小妞文學(xué)（旨在迎合女性口味、主角常為單身少女的小說）。