The Not Quite Austen's - Jane Austen Inspired Film Adaptations Ranked

This is the list of the not quite Jane Austen's and retellings I've seen.  Or rather, this is my ranked list of them.  I will add to this as I see more.  Why do I call these the "not quite Austen's"?  They are either movies that were inspired by Austen but are very original works, or in some cases retellings set in modern times, or movies simply about Jane Austen and her works.

If I want to watch an adaptation I want to revel in the clothes and beautiful manor houses in England, the beauty of the time on display visually in a movie.  I do not want to watch a movie set in modern times and in high school (I'm looking at you Clueless).  Unless it's doing something more, telling a different story, I don't want my adaptations to be set in modern times.  I don't mind the "not quite Austen's" that are set in modern times if they are telling a slightly different story, like Austenland, or The Jane Austen Book Club.

These movies have their own list because I couldn't quite place these in the other list.  But here is my ranking of the Not Quite Austen's and retellings.

1. Lost in Austen 2008

My favorite "not quite Austen".  In this story, Amanda, an avid fan of Pride and Prejudice ends up inside the Pride and Prejudice story and has to figure out how to not ruin it or her own happy ending.  It's cute, it's interesting.  It explores the original characters as they deal with life in very new situations.  All of them involving a very modern Amanda who does not fit in no matter how hard she tries.

It is not faithful to the book, obviously.  I find it delightful.  I like that we learn things about Caroline Bingley and George Wickham that feel appropriate and are still fun and new.  I like that we learn Mr. Bennet's first name.  I like the way she has to come to grips with living in a story and how desperately she tries to keep the story together as it falls apart ever faster.

I like that we briefly see some Pride and Prejudice characters in modern London, but not so much so that it overtakes the story.

I do love Pride and Prejudice enough to really worry about the characters as the story goes painfully sideways.  I had moments of real concern and that's what makes this such a lovely story.  This story, like Austen's work, has real circumstances and obstacles that pose true challenges for the characters.  Like Austen's work those characters who deserve it also end up with happy endings, even if they are nontraditional.

2. Austenland 2013

Simply fun.  An obsessive Pride and Prejudice fan goes on an expensive holiday to a Jane Austen immersive experience.  She arrives at a magnificent mansion is immediately told she is the least important guest and has the "basic copper package" while everyone else has the platinum elite packages.  She is dubbed Miss Erstwhile and things don't seem to be going as planned.

It's charming.  There is both romance and silliness.  The characters are over the top fans, hired actors to "romance" the guests, and airheads.  Yes, it's totally silly, but I think it's just fun.  It doesn't take itself too seriously.  The movie contains terrible sewing projects, beautifully terrible music and plays, and romance.  It is sort of a Pride and Prejudice retelling.  It's a feel-good movie.  And Kerri Russell and J.J. Field are utterly charming.

This is actually based on a book called Austenland by Shannon Hale.  It's a satisfying tribute to Jane Austen and subtly skewers the ridiculous while telling a lovely story.  It's not quite like the movie.  It's better, and I would highly recommend it.

3. Jane Austen Book Club 2007

Also based on a book, this story follows a group of women who form a book club to support each other through the problems of modern life.  Together they face death, divorce, relationships, and love with the help of their friendship and the "Jane Austen Book Club".  It is a charming story about friends and book lovers that both shows real-life experiences and explores the ways that reading can liberate you, inspire you, and help teach you to grow as a person.  A good book can help you through a crisis and bring you back to the world as a more thoughtful individual.  Part of this movie's charm is in the real friendships it displays and how they help each other through this book club that, as Grig says is "the all Jane Austen all the time" book club. 

It is a story that is mostly about the women and their friendships and relationships.  However, I do love the way that the men have a part to play in this story.  It's mostly from the women's point of view but we see the men getting influenced and drawn into this book club as the story progresses.  I love the way different parts of their lives mirror different parts of Jane Austen's books.  This allows us to have a teachable moment at the end where one of the men realizes that all the Austen men get a chance to explain themselves.  He is encouraged to try to repair his relationship with a well-written letter.

What makes this story fun is that it's all the Jane Austen stories rolled into one.  It has its rough moments, its tears, but it's also a celebration of endurance, humanity, friendship, and literature.  It's a better film than Austenland, but it's also slightly more about modern life than actual Austen stories, so it's third for me.

4. Becoming Jane 2007

This is a lovely movie about Jane Austen's younger life before she is a known author.  It's romantic, moving and beautifully filmed.  This movie makes me cry.  It more or less broke my heart for Jane.  This is a movie that weaves fact and fiction into a realistic and heartbreaking portrayal of Jane Austen's romance with Tom Lefroy.  Tom Lefroy is completely charming in this movie.   The movie is a moving portrayal of the facts that we know, with a story in between them that is fictional, yes, but could have been real.  It really was well done, but it was hard to watch.  I'm a softy, I like my movies to end well.

If you're interested in more on this story, a good place to start is with this article from the Jane Austen Society of North America, "Becoming Jane: Sorting Fact from Fiction".

5. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies 2016

Well, it's Pride and Prejudice.  And it's not.  And it's good actually.  Surprising as that may be.

It is a well-done movie with funny moments and beautiful cinematography.  It has zombies so it's also gruesome and strange.  But it has a certain appeal.

I won't lie, I wanted to hate it.  But I did not hate it.  Much to my shock (and possibly my regret?  I mean I'm glad I didn't feel my time was a waste but do I feel as though I've betrayed my own taste in liking the movie - if that makes any sense).  I really don't like zombie movies.  Yet, I liked this movie.  It was good.

It is a retelling of Pride and Prejudice with some obvious alterations.  I love that it's still set in the Regency era.  I don't love zombies, so I was never going to love this movie with my whole heart.  However, I found it surprisingly well-done and I do, in fact, mean to watch it again some day.  Though perhaps as a Halloween movie.

6. Miss Austen Regrets 2007

This is a movie about Jane Austen's life.  As one might suspect from the title this is not a light-hearted movie.  The story examines Jane Austen's life as she reaches her later years.  Through the eyes of Jane's niece Fanny, we see Jane Austen's choices and regrets in life.  

Fanny, Jane Austen's niece grounds much of the story

Olivia Williams is a fantastic Jane Austen, but the portrayal of Jane in this movie is a little sharp and difficult.  Since we are seeing Jane mostly through Fanny's story, we jump around a fair amount and it can be a bit difficult to follow who all the players are and what the story is for a few moments.  Much is obscure if one is not already familiar with Jane's life.  For instance, we know that Jane's sister Cassandra persuades her not to marry Harris Bigg and we know that she had her own reasons for it.  You have to know about Cassandra's life to know what's going on because this movie never tells you.  So, knowing, as I do that Cassandra's fiance died abroad leaving her heart-broken, the scene where "Cass" tells Jane she had her own reasons for not wanting Jane to marry makes sense.  If you don't know the history, you're left to wonder if Cass was jealous, or worried about her own future.  It leaves you asking lots of questions.   

Olivia Williams is such a lovely multi-faceted Jane in this film

It's a beautifully filmed movie and it is entirely believable.  I love that we see beautifully put together scenes of daily life, with Cassandra and Mrs. Austen doing chores along with the servants while Jane reads to them.  I love that we see a real difference in the cost of different character's clothes, without it being taken to an excessive degree.  The sets, the scenes, the landscapes, they're all just beautiful.  I love seeing the adorable scenes where Fanny is falling for Mr. Plumbtree.  Chasing each other about in the garden with a crimson ribbon was beautiful, romantic, lavish, and tender. 

I'm just not sure that I love this movie.  I don't love this particular interpretation of Jane Austen's personality.  I like to imagine that Jane Austen was a combination of some of her heroines, the wit and ability of Lizzy, the self-assured confidence of Emma.  It's all speculation, of course, so it's hard to draw firm lines.  And it may very well be that Jane had many regrets, but it was difficult to watch a deeply regretful, self-pitying, spiky Jane.  I don't mind seeing Jane proud of her work and at odds with conventional society.  I don't mind her being portrayed as a shameless flirt or a cynic.  I do not, however, like to see her being cruel to people not sharp enough to keep up with her wit.

It was definitely a good movie, but I had a hard time watching it. It was difficult for me to have an unvarnished look at hard choices and realities of the time without any comedy or pleasant twists to soften them.  Thinking about Jane reviewing her life and trying to pretend she's happy while being lonely is just difficult.  Anyone who loves Austen novels feels a little bit like they know and love the real Jane Austen behind them all.  And we none of us like to think of our beloved friends suffering (even if we only imagine them to be our friends).

I mean, the movie is titled Miss Austen Regrets.  It's good, but it's definitely heavier.  And it's fairly realistic which in this case is both intriguing and a bitter pill to swallow.  What I don't understand is how the movie is based on what we know of Jane's life through letters and yet Cassandra plays such a minor role.  We never read anything from Cassandra written to Jane.  Considering that some of Jane's major regrets (at least in this film's telling) are tangled up with Cassandra's fate as well.  

It's a beautiful film but it's so sad.  It's hard to believe that I ranked it below Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.  I'm not sure I believe it myself.  But the leaps in the story, and the fact that this isn't how I'd like to imagine Jane Austen make this not as fun for me.  Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was definitely fun.  I can't believe it either.  But I'll end with some more pretty photos from this beautiful film.

7. Pride and Prejudice, Cut 2019

It seems to also have a second title, called "Becoming Ms. Bennet: Pride & Prejudice".  Everywhere it is listed online under this title except for IMDb which has it listed as "Pride and Prejudice, Cut."  Go figure.  Well, whatever you call it, this was a cute little movie where an American internet star named Kate is cast as Lizzy in a British film production of Pride and Prejudice.  It's about acting, getting dialogues right, learning parts, navigating the film production drama and all the while they act lines from Pride and Prejudice, the characters are all experiencing the Pride and Prejudice story off screen as well.  

The parallel Pride and Prejudice storylines were very cute and done in a naturalistic and believable way.  Our Darcy is an accomplished and classically trained British actor who at first looks down on our Lizzy who is just an internet personality.  He comes to admire her and her work ethic as we watch Wickham being a self-obsessed actor who meddles with too many people, including the woman holding the purse-strings on this venture.  And of course, our Jane and Bingley and our Darcy and Elizabeth both end up together as couples in the end, as they should.

It's definitely more fun than Miss Austen Regrets, but it's not as well filmed.  Miss Austen Regrets is a far superior production of a sad story.  This is a cute little feel good movie, which I enjoyed more, but is definitely not on the same level.  The costumes are mostly modern since the majority of this little movie is done pre filming of their little movie and they rehearse in modern clothes.  The few Regency clothes we do see are really barely passable at all.  Nothing is glaringly wrong with it, it's just not as high a production value.  It's a little fluff piece, but it's worth a watch if you want something light and fluffy with a happy familiar ending.

8. Clueless 1995

          Technically this is an adaptation of Emma, though I personally consider it a "not quite Austen".  It's a modern retelling so it's set in Beverly Hills High School.  It does poke fun at the "in-crowd" which I appreciate.  But I didn't love this movie when I first saw it and I feel like I'm far too old to love it now. 

          Personally, I don't think it aged well.  The writers did an excellent job of setting the dialogue so firmly in the slang of 90's teens that it feels really cringe to me at this point.  Admittedly, I have not once ever been cool, so what do I know?

          I do actually think it's a better and more consistent story than the Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow from 1996.  However, I consider this movie a "not quite Austen" because it's set in modern L.A. in high school.  It's my list, and I didn't like it, so I've made it last.  I know that this may not align with popular opinion.

          Clueless does have its charming moments.  I like the father even though he has a rather minor role.  He is a busy lawyer, not a hypochondriac in this version, but nobody is perfect.  He is still a really cute father in this movie.  I appreciate that while he spoils Cher he sits her down to tell her that he doesn't want her dating some boy who can't see her merits.  It's a timelessly great message.  I also appreciate watching him smile as he sees his step-son falling for Cher.  Saying nothing about his protective behavior and then seeing that knowing smile, it's pretty cute.

          Perhaps my favorite scene is when Dionne is learning how to drive and accidentally gets on the highway in LA.  I laughed hysterically as they all screamed, convinced they were going to die.  I'm quite sure that this has nothing to do with my personal feelings about driving in LA.  How dare you even suggest it?  Ok, it does, but it's still a great scene.

          Another thing I appreciate about this film is what it does with the character of Frank Churchill.  In this movie, his name is Christian and he's gay.  I appreciate this so much more.  He has complex realities to deal with, he's not intentionally trying to lead Cher on.  Once he realizes that she's a little too into him, he backs off.  I appreciate that.  I never enjoy watching characters be total jerks, even when they have good reasons for it.  I have never been a fan of how Frank Churchill used Emma to hide his engagement to Jane Fairfax (who he is awful to throughout the story until the very end).  He doesn't deserve any of the women in my opinion.  In this version, Christian just becomes Cher's really good friend, and I prefer it this way.

          Maybe I'm just an old soul.  I don't think I've ever really enjoyed stories set in high school, with all the antics and drama that come with them.  Even though this film is making fun of the high school dynamics, it's still not my favorite thing to watch.  Yes, the drama does make a bit more sense when it's with high-schoolers.  Emma would have been 21 according to the book, but in some ways, her more juvenile antics make more sense as a 16-year-old character.  But watching a very drama-filled high school rendition of Emma sort of made me cringe.  Emma is not my favorite story to begin with, and setting it in high school was too much for me.  Perhaps I'm just too old.  Or maybe I've always been too old.

If there are other Jane Austen adjacent movies that are really good, I'd love to hear about them.  Is there anything that I simply must watch?

Other Austen Adaptation Rankings

To see my ranking of Every Jane Austen Adaptation, go here.
For my discussion/ranking of all the Pride and Prejudice adaptations, you can go here.
For my discussion/ranking of all the Persuasion Adaptations, you can go here.
For my discussion/ranking of all the Emma Adaptations, you can go here.
For my discussion/ranking of all the Sense and Sensibility Adaptations, you can go here.
For my discussion/ranking of all the Mansfield Park Adaptations, you can go here.

For my discussion of the Lady Susan Adaptation (Love and Friendship), you can go here. 
For my discussion/ranking of all the Northanger Abbey Adaptations, you can go here.

I have a whole page dedicated to Jane Austen where you can find my rankings of different movie adaptations and essays etc.

All Things Jane Austen

In Defense of a Murder of Crows

I read an article today that denounced the phrase Murder of Crows in particular and all other "absurd" words for groups of animals. While I accept that some of these terms, venery, dating from the Middle Ages, may in fact be antiquated I had several points at which I did not agree with the article. If you are interested you may find the original article here.

"Squamish 2015-01-11 064-LR" by jamesabbott1963 is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 

The first question Mr. Nicholas Lund asks is whether anyone actually uses these terms, because he contends that he has never heard them used. I've not going to sit here and argue that everyone uses all the plural animal nouns all the time.  However, if the author has never heard any grouping words for animals used aside from flock and herd, I would say he hasn't been talking to enough people in the world. I've heard plenty of them used by real people in all seriousness including the following terms: 

· Bats: colony 

· Bees: hive, swarm 

· Camels: caravan, train, or herd 

· Crows: murder 

· Dogs: litter (of puppies), pack (in the wild), 

· Dolphins: pod 

· Geese: gaggle 

· Lions: pride 

· Porpoises: pod, school 

· Prairie dogs: colonies 

· Rabbits: colony, nest, warren 

· Whales: pod 

· Wolves: pack 

· Vipers: nest 

Now, I agree that are some incredibly odd terms for specific animals are not used in normal parlance. I admit that I've never heard someone refer to a collective group of bears as a sleuth or rhinos as a stubbornness. But then, I also don't live in a place where I run into wild groups of rhinos. If I was late to work because a group of rhinos parked themselves in the road I could reasonably call them a stubbornness because it would describe the belligerent way that they collectively made my morning more difficult. Luckily, that has never happened to me in the Southwestern United States. But I have personally referred to bees as a hive and swarm, and geese as a gaggle, and crows as a murder, and I've heard plenty of other people do so. 

A small murder perched on a wire. - "Evening chat" by -Niloy- is licensed under CC BY 2.0 

Mr. Lund tries to argue that scientists don't use them and therefore nobody really does. That's simply not an accurate sampling of the population. It might prove that scientists don't use those terms but it doesn't answer his posed question: 

Are there actual people in the real world who use special group names for certain species? Or is there just one nerd in an office somewhere with a field guide in one hand and a dictionary in the other, matching each species with a cute little term and laughing maniacally when the world collectively coos over the pairing? 

After he proves that scientists don't use terms of venery he claims that they exist only in the "world of bar trivia," where, "without real-world applications" they are "just morsels of linguistic candy rotting cavities into our scientific integrity".  I argue that trivia is not really the point of these group names. I don't argue that the terms have no scientific value. My problem is in the vehemence with which he believes the words should be removed from the English language. He proposed we replace them with bland but more scientific words like group.

No doubt calling this crow a visitor or a friend is also a transgression against the purity of scientific integrity but I like the photographer's point of view - "Crow visitor" by Fernettes is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 

Would you really say... "Oh look at this group of jellyfish on the beach"?  You'd probably at least say this whole group, or, look at all of these jellyfish or, look there's thousands of jellyfish!  Because using the word group alone is too boring and entirely lacking in descriptive power. If thousands of jellyfish were surrounding a boat that I happened to be floating in, and they were slapping into the sides with every swell of water that lapped against the edges of my boat, I would probably call them a smack in that case too. I'd probably lean over the edge watch them smack into the boat, look further out and see an endless flotilla of them and say "Oh my God there's a smack of jellyfish out here, look!" Maybe it would come out slightly differently, but I would bet you substantial money that I would not say "look a GROUP of jellyfish!" 

Language is sometimes about tone and sometimes about feeling. And you can't convey those things with the word group.  I'm not arguing that some of these other words, these terms of venery, have any scientific value.  I merely believe that they have literary and poetic value.

Could you really capture the mood and tone of this moment by describing it as a group of three crows on a  roof?  I contend that you cannot. - "Cathedral of Our Lady" by marikoen is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0 

I personally have not heard people say "a group of crows". I admit that I'm unusual and have unusual preferences, but it would stand out to me if people said group, because it would not be my preferred word for this context. I don't hear people use this. I've heard them use an exact count of the crows or the word flock, but honestly, I've heard many, many people refer to crows as a murder. Now, you could use the work flock, or group, sure. It just seems to me that most people don't do so, because it doesn't convey as much feeling. 

Is this just a crow or is this a solitary crow?  Words matter even if there is no scientific value to that distinction. - "as the crow flies" by Simon Clarke is licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0 

Let me illustrate my point by telling you about the same morning in two different ways.  Firstly, using boring, strictly factual language and then again using poetic language Mr. Lund would disapprove of. 

Version A. 

I drove to work and I arrived about a minute late and there was this group of crows in my parking spot. I was briefly worried about hitting them while I parked, but I was also late. They scattered. Then I went inside and remembered it was my 90 day review. 

Version B. 

I drove to work this morning and arrived about a minute late. As I pulled into the parking lot there was a murder of crows waiting for me in my normal spot. I was ONLY a minute late but I was afraid to run over them, and then again, I was already late, so I hesitated briefly. I had this ominous feeling as their dark wings took to the sky and then I remembered as I looked over my shoulder at them on the way into the building that today was my 90 day review. 

Which version of my story conveys more of my internal emotional goings on? The one where I say group of crows and leave it to strict facts? There is nothing scientific about either story, but the story that contains the offensive "linguistic candy rotting cavities into our scientific integrity" is actually a much better story about my morning and how I felt about it. And despite his assertions, my poetic story has done no damage to any actual scientific integrity. 

If I called this a flurry of crows you would know what I meant, even if it's not the accepted collective noun for crows. - "as the crow flies" by Simon Clarke is licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0 

Another of his points is that these terms, being that they only exist in the world of bar trivia, could easily be replaced with more interesting and scientific facts. He is right in a way. Trivia could be more interesting and scientific (such as the shape of wombat poop). However, the way that I use the terms for different animals is not in a field of trivia, it's in how I actually describe things in my world. And I would personally much rather have a poetic discussion about the things I actually see and experience in the world than a factual one about the shape of wombat fecal matter, regardless of how unusual it may be. Sorry, Mr. Lund, I think replacing venery with fecal facts is simply not the way to go. 

Then there is the point in which he mentions that "I just don’t see enough groups of other animals to need more words". Mr. Lund, I am ashamed. You don't see any other animals than cows and birds?  You seriously don't need any other words than herd and flock?  Scientist, lifelong birder, or not, if he doesn't see enough groups of other animals to need other words than flock, herd, and group, I suggest he doesn't see enough animals. Or perhaps he does and he is simply not using English in an interesting enough way. Does he call dogs in a plural form a herd or a group?  Does he refer to swarms of bees as groups?  He can continue doing as he chooses of course. But I think his language is lacking if he uses strictly and only the words, flock, herd and group for all animals that he sees or talks about.

He concedes that "certain terms of venery have made the transition from factoid to actual phrase. Pod of whales. Troop of monkeys. Gaggle of geese. Pack of wolves."  That almost makes this article worse for me.  It seems to me that Mr. Lund is saying, you can use terms that don't irritate me, but if it irritates me I will say that you are morally corrupting our scientific integrity with your choice of words.  Do tell, Mr. Lund, when does something gain enough strength in popularity for you to deem it an "actual phrase" and allow us, in your great magnanimity to use it as part of the English language?

I will now concede that I personally think some of the terms are silly.  I do not see why anyone would refer to a roiling mass of rattlesnakes as a rhumba, I think it disgraces the dance and does not adequately convey the horror of such a mass of snakes.  I might even ask someone why they thought that was a good word for it, after I'd run a sufficiently safe distance from said coil of snakes.  But I think it's more a transgression against poetry than it is against science.  I don't need to know or have ever heard anyone refer to rattlesnakes as a rhumba to know that they are referring to a plurality of snakes I don't want to be near.  That's the thing about terms of venery, they mostly denote collective nouns rather than a single rattlesnake.  And I don't have to know or agree with the term to understand what is being conveyed. 

"Caw!" by molajen is licensed under CC BY 2.0 

All of this aside, I clearly disagree with Mr. Lund, but he may do as he likes.  He is entitled to his opinions of the proper way to use English terms, however much I disagree with them. However, he continues with his article and he takes it one step too far for me. 

At the end of his article he is clearly worked up about the sort of people who try to rot our collective scientific integrity with such linguistic candy. He says that the next time someone tells him a term of venery he will respond with: 

“Did you know anyone who believes that is part of a ‘gaggle of gullibles’?" 

Telling people they are gullible for using a term you don't like is technically neither true nor nice. Mr. Lund could say they are foolish, or perhaps sentimental, but he doesn't appear to have the aptitude for understanding how to use words that he deems too whimsical. Or, for that matter, patience for anyone who is not on his wavelength of morally upstanding scientific integrity.

Don't get me wrong, I am by no means perfect.  I have my particular veiwpoints that I defend with more vehemence than necessary.  I will own that there are words I simply hate.  I am fairly certain, however, that I have never told anyone they are gullible for using a real word that I hate.  I just cringe a little and try to move on.  

People who use words and phrases you don't like are not gullible.  They would only be gullible, Mr. Lund, if they believed you when and if you responded to them with made up terms of venery, as you did at the start of your article, specifically to mock them. I'm afraid, however, that to deliberately mislead them and mock them for things that are not false, simply not to your liking, would cost you your moral high ground, your scientific integrity, and lastly, Sir, I'm afraid, that if you do that intentionally, you're just being an ass. A solitary one.

A rather solitary, moody-looking fellow.  I think he is pontificating on some point dear to his heart. - "Gangsta Crow" by www.charlesthompsonphotography.com is licensed under CC BY 2.0 

Why aren't Mouse Cages More Interesting?

My Uncle has just started a business raising fancy mice as pets.  He breeds them to be docile and in all sorts of colors and varieties.  And so I was contemplating his selection of mice and remembering the hamsters we used to keep in childhood.  This started me down a whole weird path about what I did and didn't like about keeping hamsters as a kid.

It occurred to me that I don't actually mind mice or hamsters, but I really mind their cages.  Our hamster cage was a gaudy pile of interconnected and strangely shaped plastics in a variety of uncomplimentary colours.  So, it occurred to me that what I don't like is how very bold and ugly the cages are while at the same time remaining in largely boring shapes.  As an historian I've bemoaned the fact that we no longer make beautiful Victorian bird cages, but I've never heard of fancy looking cages for pet mice.  Well, I've never heard of or seen fancy cages for any animal these days.

And why is that?  They are made of plastic.  You could just as quickly mold them into any shape you wanted, complicated shapes being just as fast as boring shapes in the modern world of molds and factory production.  So, why don't we make them more interesting looking?  It's not like you can shove a giant cage away in an attic and not look at it.  So, why are we content with them looking the way they do?

I suppose all of this comes back to my longing for the world to be more beautiful, more interesting and more strange than it currently is.  I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way about large cages.  Even for fish tanks there are little columns and shipwreck things you can put at the bottom to make it look more interesting and piratey.  Why can't we do the same for mice?

I want my world to be filled with beautiful architectural shapes.  If I were designing a mouse cage I'd make it into a Greek temple, or a Moorish Palace.  I remember that cleaning out corners was particularly unpleasant, maybe I'd make a Roman Colosseum for my mice to live in.  Then I could name them all suitably impressive names and watch them manically run around in their wheels and pretend they were training for the gladiatorial Games.

Maximus would train ceaselessly while Claudius napped after a hard fight in the arena.  Arena just means sand in Latin by the way, not that sand is in any way recommended for mouse cages.  I simply got excited about the Latin.  Truly though, how can you get a fancy pet mouse and stick him in a boring square cage?  I think it would be much more fun to name your rex pet mouse Maximus and house him in something you don't hate looking at.  If I couldn't find a cool mouse cage I'd probably build him a Colosseum.  But then, I'm mad.  We all know this.

Anyway, if you happen to be looking for fancy pet mice and live anywhere near Rhode Island you should look no further.  And if you happen to find a cage that's actually interesting looking, do let me know.

Welcome Sweet Shrouding Fog of Unknown Futures

Goodnight World,

Rest in the peaceful shroud of unknown tomorrows.  May the languid winds of unformed futures gently smooth your weary brow.  Too long have you worried over the unnamed monsters of the morrow; turning desperately this way and that to thwart them.  Morning's harsh light may part the mist and reveal to you the fearful outlines of Scylla and Charybdis.  But here, now, in these final hours of rest welcome the sweet shrouding fog of unknown futures.  Scylla's slashing teeth cannot steal your slumber from you.  Neither can Charybdis change your course this final night of sightless sleep.  Inevitable fate awaits you, World, one man, or even many being powerless to change it.  Fate, ah The Fates, there is no room for fear in the unfamiliar future they have fixed for you.  Mist will rise, the shroud will part and tomorrow you will stride forth boldly into the fray, the fight, the future.  Tomorrow, deeds having been done, the course of the future will unfurl before you in all its fury.  Scylla and Charybdis will greet you and the terrible consequences of the course set before you will be plain to see.  Tonight, embrace the twilight of unrevealed tribulations.  Lay fear aside, thank all the stars that you were not born into Cassandra's curse and gather the dusk around you in the final slumber in the blissfully unknown future ahead of you.

History was Made This Very Evening

Most evenings do not find me communing with the collective spirit of sport frenzied enthusiasm.  In fact, most evenings that involve me and sports in the same room usually involve my unbridled invective against the barbarity of this sport or the stupidity of that one.  It's not even that I hate sports.  I simply hate watching other people play them.  I'd so much rather play the sport myself, or do anything actively, rather than watch others play sports.  However, this evening was different.

Now, maybe it's my deep American roots, but I've always had a fondness for a good ballgame.  (Not that I watch baseball often, but I tolerate the odd game here and there because I like the game.)  As a child I remember cheering on my Dad while he played in corporate ballgames.  I remember playing t-ball and Dad teaching us to bat.  My brother and I loved it when he would do the "real pitcher's wind up".  No doubt he went easy on us but we felt like pros when we would hit these real pitches.  As slightly older children we taught our dog to outfield for us so that we could take turns batting and pitching without having to run and get the ball ourselves.

So, this evening found me captivated by the world series game between the Chicago Cubs and the Cleveland Indians.  Mom, who has always been a die-hard Cubbies fan was too nervous to even sit in the room.  She feared that if she watched the Cubs would lose.  So she hovered in the adjacent doorway, fretting and finding busy work to keep her hands occupied between running in to see a play and running out of the room so as not to jinx her beloved Cubbies.

And there is something special about Cubbies fans.  They've been fans, dedicated fans, for the last 108 years without any world series wins to their credit, not since their last win in 1908.  To be fair, the Indians hadn't won a world series since 1948.  So, the stands were full of tense faces, hands over mouths and distractedly holding nervously onto baseball hats as fans of both teams watched 10 close innings.  And what a game it was.

The enthusiasm was high throughout the game.  It was exciting because it was such a close game.  With the batters who nobody expected anything of sometimes bringing it home.  So, when the Indians hit a ball at the bottom of the tenth the atmosphere was tense up until the moment that the Cubs' first baseman caught the ball and made the final out, winning the world series and delighting Cubbies fans everywhere.  A historic moment, 108 years of bad luck, curse, dryspell or whatever you would like to call it, was finally broken.  Just think about that for a minute.  People were born Cubbies fans, lived their whole lives and died without seeing the Cubs win a world series.  Almost two generations of people passed while waiting for tonight.  It has been pointed out that the last time the Cubs won the world series, Al Capone, Mark Twain, and Thomas Eddison were alive.  Tonight linked us back to a time that was a full century ago.  And I was caught up in the magic of the excitement, camaraderie and importance of this moment.  I watched history being made.  What a great feeling, knowing both teams played so well, were so close and wanted it so badly.  What a great game!  What a moment to remember.

The Sordid History of Couplets

How one line got lonely and started a relationship with another line.  
   

Photo via Flickr - "Poems" by Pascal Maramis

The Couplet was once just a lonely sentence
Whose thought didn't quite seem ended.
He thought he'd date the following line
Who thought that he looked mighty fine.
But their relationship was quickly ended
the moment the bad poet penned it.
For a lonely couplet is only truly fine
When it's made to be paired in perfect rhyme
Not when it starts a love affair
Out of loneliness and lack of punctuation.

Beards being radical and radically maddening?

This ancient stone figure is looking pretty shady with his curly beard. - Photo via Flickr "Beard" by Quinn Dombrowski

Tajikistan shaves beards to stop radicalization...

Shaving beards to stop radicalization?  You can read the article here.  And you will probably come to the same conclusion that almost any rational person would.  "That's stupid" you'll say.  "Mad," says I.  And we'd be right you know.

This is the maddest thing you've ever heard of.  And it's not just because it's the sort of headline that you can imagine an insane person like myself coming up with.  It's not just that you suspect it will turn out to be a piece written by The Onion.  Oh no.  It's not even the fact that it's true that makes it the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard of.  (Though I don't know what you've heard of, so perhaps it is...)

But the real truth is that this is the maddest thing to happen in the modern world precisely because it's been done before.  You are laughing, I can tell.  You don't believe me.  But it's all perfectly true.  The strangest things in this world are the facts.  No great work of fiction can ever rival the madness of real life.  "But, seriously," you think to yourself.  "It can't have happened before."

"Ah," I say knowingly.... "but it did.... many years ago in Russia."

The beard revolts.  Peter the 1st decided that Russia needed to be westernized.  And one of the ways that he thought he should go about this was to dispense with all the beards in his country and ensure that he and his countrymen were all clean shaven.  So he instituted a beard tax and tried to get the populace at large to shave.  Just as the Tajikistan police have been shaving the beards of their male population.  Since, beards in Russia were not just a choice of facial hair, but an ingrained part of the culture, the beard shaving was not met with much favor.  And I'm sure it will not be met with much favor in Tajikistan either.

Now, the article states that Tajik culture is what they are trying to uphold with this, er, practice.  But what it fails to mention is that beard wearing is very much a part of Muslim culture, which constitutes a whopping 99% of their citizens.  So, say what you like about beards being cultural.  Even if you can convincingly argue that beards are not an ingrained part of Tajik culture I still can't see anyone being pleased to be forcibly shaved.  Hair, whether facial or otherwise is rather personal and being forced to shave is not just shocking it's insulting as well.  Having a beard does not make you radical.  However, as the article suggests, having your beard forcibly shaved might make you into a radical.

In Russia, the people weren't having any of the beard shaving.  They revolted.  The beard revolts were large, violent and well, very Russian.  But the point is, forcing someone to shave their beard never solved anything.  It didn't westernize the Russian peasant automatically and it won't de-radicalize anyone automatically either.  It will only incite anger and possibly violence.

And the maddest thing of all is not that it's happening, which I think you and I might both agree is mad, but that it's happened before.

There really is nothing new under the sun.

Sadly, for those of us historians unfortunate enough to be well read, we are doomed to watch history repeating itself.  Slowly unfolding with it's inevitable consequences right before our eyes while we shout and rage in impotent frustration.

Just call me Cassandra.

(In case you aren't up on your ancient history.... ironic considering the post, no?  Anyway, I'm referring to that prophetess of Greek mythology; doomed to know the future but cursed so that nobody would ever believe her.  Yes, you ancient Greeks, thanks a lot for that one.)

And if I've just left you depressed I will give you a peace offering.  I'll leave you with two different articles.  An article on beards that is going in the opposite direction.  Read it here and don't dwell too much on the madness of the world.  And if that isn't enough to raise your spirits I offer you The Onion's take on beards here.  Just to amuse you, or to make you pause and think about how differently beards can be viewed.  Radical?  Conversation tool?  Hipster?

Photo via Flickr "beard" by urban_data

Transplantation: in which I have been moved

This is a simple post.  It has only one purpose and that is, namely, to inform the unfortunate souls who have stumbled upon this blog of a single fact.  No, wait, that's not quite right.  If you had by some great misfortune stumbled upon this blog you probably wouldn't be reading this post.  Most people stumble into things by finding peculiar images, and I admit that they abound on this blog.  Or perhaps by finding unusually mad titles associated with some term they've just searched...

Sunset through the fruit tree

No.  If you're reading this post, it would seem likely that you are in fact a reader of more than one post.  And the only reason for that must be madness.  Why else would you be reading this?  Well, I suppose you could be here out of curiosity.  This blog is sort of an online zoo for madness.  All manner and types of madness are present here, expressed in my thoughts and the absurd things that always seem to happen to me...

But I digress.  Whatever the reason you are here, and I'm sorry you must have put up with so much already, I must inform you that I have in fact moved.

I am now situated amongst the rolling hills of southern California.  I no longer have the good fortune to live on the rainy and perpetually cold island known as Great Britain.  I do enjoy the sunshine here in southern California.

Hey, where did all the rain go?

But I miss the history and vibrancy of life in London and I really don't enjoy the constant fear of wild fires.  But my transition to life here is for another day.  I merely wanted to inform you, my poor unfortunate reader, that I am now living here rather than there.

Now that I have done so, you must excuse me.  I have things to unpack, mad tea parties to host, and chaos to involve myself in. 

My bookshelf may actually define me

The other day I was strolling aimlessly along the streets, alleys and byways of the unfathomable internet when I came across a blog.  Gasp, how unusual.  Ok, perhaps not, but the post I found there did strike me as unusual.  It was a post about what your bookshelf says about you.  And that made me pause as I have always believed that a good poke around somebody's bookshelves can be highly instructive.

So, I stopped my aimless wandering about on the internet to read the post by Mayfair Mum.  As it turns out this post was part of a blog hop where several other bloggers also wrote about the content of their bookshelves and what it said about them. 

Over the past several days I have kept returning to this idea.  What do my books say about me?  Interestingly enough, I have come to the conclusion that they say a lot more about me than I had ever realized.

For a start I have been trying very hard to drastically limit the amount of books I accumulate.  I am not sure how long I will be living here in this house and if I'm perfectly honest in this country.  My life is all a bit vague in the plans area and I certainly feel the transience keenly.  So I have been limiting my book buying habits partly out of a sense of impermanence and the desire to not move them all about, and partly out of a sense of stubborn duty to hold myself to a strict book buying budget.

Minus the copy of Boccaccio's Decameron that I keep for flying (short stories are best for travel I think), these are all the books I have with me at the moment.  Not many at all, but still more than I'd like to move about.

If I didn't impose this budget and limit on myself I'd probably be drowning in books by now.  You see, I grew up in a household full of books.  My mother reads, and my father, well, he devours books.  He is constantly reading.  Reading was only interrupted by noisy children (I was one of them) and napping (he insisted he was checking for light leaks).  The rate of massive book consumption that ensued filled our house with over 2,000 books.  How do I know this?  Because my brother and I counted one summer.  A completely daft project only exceeded in silliness by his idea to alphabetize all our books.  The madness.  Anyhooo.

That was several years ago and by now I am not sure how many more there are.  Books never leave our family house.  We simply, buy, build and improvise more bookshelves for them.  So, I feel the absence of piles of books rather keenly and the small number I have at the moment points to my feelings of transience and my stubborn will to be logical and not overly indulge one of my pastimes. 

On to the books themselves.  My reading habits seem to be thematic.  There are books about love, no, not romance novels, just books that fall into the chick lit genre.  Modern women dealing with issues of family, friends, career and of course the inevitable sub plot of romance.  Books like the Little Lady Agency by Hester Brown, and The Finishing Touches.

Next on my list of must reads.

I suppose I am typical in this regard and like to read stories where the romantic issues all get sorted out nicely in the end and the couple you know belongs together ends up together.  Plus it is refreshing to read stories with strong female characters that live in a modern world that necessitates the holding down of jobs.

Then I also tend to read books that have a touch of history in them.  Sometimes they are full-blown historical fiction.  Sometimes they are only loosely based on a former time.  Sometimes, like the Glassblower of Murano by Marina Fiorato, they flick constantly between the Renaissance and modern times.

Excellent book, fascinatingly woven together.

I guess that just shows that I really do have an historian's soul.  I can't get enough of history, not even in my pleasure reading.

Moving Target by Elizabeth Lowell is the book that seems least related to my other reading choices.  It happens to be a bit about love and illuminated manuscripts, so it does fall into both my categories as well as being slightly suspenseful.

I read books that are aimed at young adults such as The Boyfriend List by E. Lockhart.  Because there are days that I've had to think too hard about way too many adult things and I just want to sit back and revel in easy fun reads.  I read books that are serious and also true, like My Dancing White Horses by Alois Podhajsky.  It is his autobiography and the story of the Lipizzaner's and the Spanish Riding School in Vienna during WWII.

I do not have much in the way of fantasy on my shelf at the moment.  This may be due to the fact that I'm more selective about my fantasy books.  I don't like them simply because they are fantasy.  I do like dragons, but that does not excuse poor writing.  I like the idea of magic but I also like well developed characters. I'm just picky.  That's not to say that I don't enjoy them though.  Howl's Moving Castle is one of my favorite books.   

So, really I think my bookcases tells you where I am in life.  Despite my logical maneuverings to keep my book habit in check I still have a number of books hanging about.  I need them to escape.  And I escape by reading about strong women who get things together and find love and happy endings.  And I read about history.  Being a historian, I think everybody needs to escape the modern age every now and then.  

I suppose the real question is what does your bookcase say about you?  Join this interesting blog hop and let us know, or simply have a quick read of what some other people think their books say about them.