'I watched “Wuthering Heights” over and over before we started'

To the Center has an interesting post on publishing novels when the authors died before seeing them in print.

With PBS’s Masterpiece Theatre currently featuring the novels of Jane Austen (and one of them being Northanger Abbey), it raised for me the issue that is often discussed with regard to Charlotte Brontë’s The Professor, and that is simply: Should a literary work an author was unable to have published during their lifetime be published after their death? (Tim Holland)

If The Professor wasn't published in Charlotte's lifetime it wasn't because Charlotte wasn't interested. Charlotte went as far as saying that her feelings for the book were similar to 'those of a doting parent to an idiot child'. She tried to get Smith, Elder - her publishers - to publish the book, always to no avail. When she died and someone suggested it be published at last, Arthur Bell Nicholls - Charlotte's husband - didn't think twice.

Many arguments can be presented for both points of view, with two of the most often heard being: The author’s readers have a “right” to the works of a revered writer, and they were not published because they were not critically on a par with other works. There is much to be said for both arguments, but what I find interesting are the similarities that occur with regard to Jane Austen and Charlotte Brontë. (Tim Holland)

We don't think the author would be appalled at finding their work published. We do see the dilemma when it comes to publishing letters, journals, diaries, private writings never meant to be seen by the public, though.

The Professor, on the other hand, was the first novel written and completed by Charlotte Brontë, but resoundingly rejected by the publisher, Thomas Cautley Newby, as the third novel in a three volume set to be issued as authored by the “Bell brothers,” when accepting the other two volumes, being the novels of sisters Emily (Wuthering Heights) and Anne (Agnes Grey).
So here we have two unknown authors, who will achieve a degree of recognition and success during their lifetimes, with novels they never saw in print. Should their families arrange to have the novels printed, even though the authors themselves seemed to have abandoned them and moved on to other projects? It is always a tricky problem.
The argument that is often used relates to the wishes of the authors themselves. If they wanted them published, then they would have insisted on it during their lifetimes—especially once they achieved a degree of literary success and finally became the masters of their own fate and had leverage within the publishing world. So the answer would be that the authors did not want them published; that they thought the works to be inferior in some way and therefore decided to let them go. I’m not so sure that is a valid approach. (Tim Holland)

Again, see above. In Charlotte Brontë's case she did insist to her publishers and they still refused. They changed their mind, however, when they saw it was one of their last few chances to profit from the author's creativity (oh, George Smith, forgive us for speaking so plainly).

But do read the rest of the article, as it poses interesting questions, although we find that further research would have helped the article be better.

On to something else. Off Off Broadway reviews the latest stage version of Jane Eyre, currently on stage in New York.

There is a lot that occurs in the story of Jane Eyre and the play struggles to convey the novel's depth and breadth. Watching the play jump from place to place and from past to present makes one wonder if the neoclassicists were somehow right to enforce the unities of time and place so strictly. Several scenes are flashbacks, which are initially confusing, due to actor doubling and the fact that not much is done to suggest that we are leaving the present world of the play and traveling back to Jane's past. Something seems to be missing as the play progresses; there are gaps in the story that are meagerly filled in by exposition, often a monologue that begins with Jane writing in her diary.
The performances of the actors are occasionally stellar. Alice Connorton brings the necessary sternness of demeanor to her role as Alice Fairfax and is downright scary in her role as Aunt Reed. Mary Murphy purses her lips and holds tension in her arms and shoulders, suggesting that her Jane Eyre is both plain and proper. Her enunciation is good, and is believably what a Regency-era governess should sound like. Greg Oliver Bodine falters a bit initially by seeming to inject a bit of postmodern insincerity and sarcasm into his early flirtations with Jane. Bodine strengthens in the end, when his character has lost everything and is in the depths of despair.
Jane Eyre questions the role of women in society. Jane refuses to be a kept woman, and does not return to Rochester until she has secured financial independence. The woman in the attic, named Antoinette in the stage version, represents the domination of men in the nineteenth century. Is she really insane or is her insanity a result of being used as a pawn and her resulting loveless marriage? The production does not portray Antoinette sympathetically. She draws blood after biting her brother's neck, sets fire to Rochester's bed curtains, and tears Jane's wedding veil. The portrayal of Antoinette, a character who should be pitied, seems at odds with the portrayal of Jane, another strong woman, who has been allowed her independence, and therefore will avoid the fate of Antoinette.
It is best for fans of Bronte's novel to stick to the book, as even the best of actors cannot replace the beauty that is to be found in there. McClernan makes a valiant effort in transplanting the sprawling work to the confines of the stage, but in the end, as our high school teachers always said, it's best just to read the book. (Amy Freeman)

We find we didn't really need that last sentence. What would be the point of adaptations? Books are books, plays are plays, films are films. They're totally different forms of art but it's nice and interesting to see them blurring their edges around each other.

Oh, and don't forget that you can see the play for just $12 thanks to this promotion.

Another review of another version of Jane Eyre. The Woking News and Mail reviews Jane Eyre. The Musical, currently on stage in Staines, UK. You see, sometimes reviewers shouldn't rely on their 'great' literary knowledge:

Families and children from the area will perform in a musical version of a Jane Austen classic. (Our bold)

The Sunday Paper interviews Collin Farrell. They mostly chat about In Bruges:

You mentioned audiences sometimes having preconceived ideas about an actor’s public persona. Has that been a problem for you, in terms of playing different types of roles? There’s a sensitivity to this character that we don’t often get to see from you.
Was it hard getting in touch with my sensitive side? I don’t know. I watched “Wuthering Heights” over and over before we started [laughs]. No, I’m a fairly sensitive guy, I suppose. Ray’s an incredibly raw and agitated and despairing character who’s been through a tragic ordeal in his past, but parts of him are almost childlike. He doesn’t have much of a poker face, for sure. (Bert Osborne)

We're sorry, Mr Farrell, but Johnny Depp already made that joke.

The Telegraph from Calcutta wonders if there's an Indian version of Mills & Boon.

From Jane Eyre to Daddy-Long-Legs, from Austen to Daphne du Maurier, the classic romantic plot reveals the wisdom of the Mills & Boon plot designers. (Ratheesh Radhakrishnan)

[Insert our usual grunts and counter-arguments here.]

Fresh from the blogosphere: You can see a Hungarian edition of Jane Eyre here. MundoLiterature - in Spanish - has a short biography on Emily and Charlotte, we only wish the'd put the umlaut above the e, not the o. And finally Le Karibloug has a post about Jane Eyre in French.

Categories: Jane Eyre, Music, Theatre, The Professor, Wuthering Heights