Girl crazy: madwomen in booksThe Mitfords, the Gattys, the MacDonald sisters... and now the Erdrich siblings. There are Brontë lookalikes everywhere:
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë, 1847
The original madwoman in the attic, Bertha is confined by her husband, Mr Rochester.
How much talent can one family have? Ask anyone who knows the Erdriches and you'll hear about seven accomplished siblings - three of them writers who might be the Midwest's answer to the Bronte sisters. (...)The New York Times reviews Betrayed by George Packer, a new play opening Wednesday in New York about a group of Iraqi translators. Even in this context, a Brontë reference finds its way:
Before you draw any conclusions about family rivalries, there are three things to know about the writing Erdrich sisters - Louise, Lise and Heid - who've published 27 books between them.
First, they may be the only trio of siblings in the Midwest who consistently publish books, although nobody keeps track of sisters who write.
Even more unusual, each of the sisters has a new book, and they are celebrating with their first joint Twin Cities reading at the Minneapolis Public Library.
Lise's debut short-story collection, "Night Train," is out now. Louise's novel, "The Plague of Doves," will be published April 29, and Heid's third poetry collection, "National Monuments," will be available in the fall.
"The Erdrichs are our Bronte sisters," says former Minnesotan Jonis Agee, a novelist, literature teacher and Heid's longtime friend. (Mary Ann Grossmann in St. Paul Pioneer Press)What: "Night Train" and Other Ojibwe Stories: A Celebration of Writing and Sisterhood With the Erdriches
When: 7 p.m. Feb. 12 (doors open at 6:15 p.m.)
Where: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall
Like hundreds of Iraqis in real life, the fictional Intisar enthusiastically offered her services to the Americans after they toppled Saddam Hussein in April 2003. She’d spent her youth dreaming of America, memorized the prose of Emily Brontë and saw in the invasion the promise of renewal for her country and herself. (Dexter Flikins)The Texas local newspaper The Facts has an article on fog. And Wuthering Heights 1939 apparently has plenty of it:
People who make motion pictures have always seen fog as a handy way to convey setting and mood. Heathcliff and Catherine wandered through a good bit of it out on the lonely moors in “Wuthering Heights.” (Ron Rozelle)Critical Mass reviews Wuthering Heights 1992 and thinks that,
The result, as I've spent so much time dodging, is one of the better Heights adaptations I have ever seen, the best in fact.Find your neutral space raises the question who is wealthier Rochester or Mr Darcy? Apparently Mr Rochester is richer:
So far, I know that:Nevertheless, Jane Eyre is supposedly backdated, so the difference could be even greater.However, I understand that I have to consider the real difference in value that £10,000 in 1813 (the year P&P was published) has over £20,000 in 1847 (the year Jane Eyre came out) -- but I can barely keep track of how much money I have in my own bank account at any time, much less be able to compute relative values allowing for inflation and other factors in 19th Century finance. So as much as it pains my black little OC husk of a heart, I'm going to take the figures strictly as they are. (...)
- Edward Rochester has £20,000 a year (I'd have to verify that figure first) and owns Thornfield Hall. Jane Eyre inherits £20,000 from her uncle, but divides it amongst her cousins, the Rivers siblings -- leaving her with £5,000;
- Fitzwilliam Darcy has £10,000 a year and owns Pemberley. His friend, Charles Bingley, has £5,000 a year.
Thanks to blinovitch (with this link), I discovered that even with a 30-year difference, Rochester can still flash a thicker wad of cash than Darcy on his best day.
Ummm...being a Minnesotan with a great respect and love for the work of the Erdrich threesome, I think the comparison ends with the trio. The Bronte sisters of the Midwest? Urgh.
ReplyDeleteHi Amy,
ReplyDeleteWell, that's about as deep as many journalists go in the matter. If it's three sisters - regardless of whatever or whomever they are besides that - they're totally like the Brontës.
As far as I know the book never mentions the total sum of Rochester's wealth. The only sum we know for sure is that Jane ends up with 5,000 pounds to her name. I believe it's only the miniseries which bestows upon Rochester his supposed 20,000 pounds, whereas we know from Jane Austen that Darcy has 10,000 a year.
ReplyDeleteSo it doesn't seem to me there are many grounds for speculation here. The Orson Welles film gives Rochester a wealth of 5,000 pounds (as far as I can remember) which is less than Darcy's whichever way you look at it. I think it's enough to know that Rochester was well-off, that his wealth was rooted in his land and whatever he gained from marrying Bertha Mason. But it's annoying that people are basing their comparisons on information that's merely a screenwriter's guess, rather than canon knowledge.
You're right, of course... but let's not forget that this was more a game than a scholarly paper.
ReplyDelete