A Curious Statistical Anomaly

Marsha Altman was gracious enough to make A Curious Statistical Anomaly a stop on her Blog Tour and talk about her newest book, The Plight of the Darcy Brothers. We’ll be giving away 1 set of Marsha’s two books: The Darcy’s and the Bingleys and The Plight of the Darcy Brothers (must have a mailing address in the US or Canada). I will pick a random person who as posted a comment on this blog post as the winner. Winner will be chosen on August 19th.

I’m the author of The Plight of the Darcy Brothers, a sequel to The Darcys and the Bingleys, which is a sequel to Pride and Prejudice. And it is a series; book 3 (Mr. Darcy’s Great Escape) is due out in Feb 2010. Gayle asked me to talk about the problems of remaining true to the original characters once I’m beyond the scope of the original Austen book, and in book 2, about four years have passed since the wedding, other people are married too, and there are kids. I would say I’m pretty past the scope.

The real answer, as I see it, is that there is no way to remain true to the original characters because there is no one set of “original characters.” Every person who reads Pride and Prejudice comes away with a different impression of how the characters acted and how they would like them to act in a sequel. I have my own interpretation; at times it’s wild and at times it’s pretty straightforward. As an author, my job is to make it presentable, so even if the reader doesn’t agree with it, the reader is at least willing to accept it.

A prime example is the first book, which got a lot of criticism for having Darcy be a lush and therefore the butt of several jokes while in college. I didn’t think making Darcy a lush was at all negative to his character. You work up a tolerance for alcohol by drinking a lot, and Regency gentlemen drank more than a lot. The idea that Darcy has a lower tolerance means that he is very conservative in his alcohol consumption, perhaps fearing that a slovenly image would harm his family name (which is so clearly important to him in Austen’s work), and as a result he doesn’t have much of a tolerance compared to his peers, so when he does drink, he gets very drunk quickly. Since Darcy lives on his high horse, his college friends (and Wickham, of course) take any advantage they can get to knock him off it. In other words, he’s so virtuous that people enjoy seeing him knocked down a peg, albeit in a friendly way. I felt it was an amusing way to soften Darcy, but some readers didn’t agree, as Darcy is not supposed to be ridiculous. I can see their point, but it’s the story I wanted to write, so I wrote it.

Much less controversial methods of maintaining a tone involve simply expanding a character, keeping the old ideas in place but implying there are other facets of a character’s personality we haven’t seen before. Bingley is still overly sweet and has bad handwriting, and knows his judgment when it comes to assessing relationships can be flawed, something he learned in Pride and Prejudice, which is why he went to Darcy for help vetting Caroline Bingley’s suitor in my first book. On the other hand I felt no need to make him a complete idiot. His father was massively successful in trade, so Bingley is good with numbers and languages. He’s not experienced running an estate but he’s a fast learner. Caroline and Louisa show the same qualities; Caroline’s knowledge of Italian was what put her so constantly in Dr. Maddox’s presence that she married him. In Pride and Prejudice, Caroline Bingley was a snob, obsessed with fashion, stature, and putting other people down. Adding intelligence doesn’t contradict that. Even after she marries someone arguably below her station (though he was born well above her station), she maintains a certain edge absent in Jane and even Elizabeth. The important thing is that it isn’t directed at her husband and doesn’t bother him, and being married and settled predictably makes her a bit softer, as most of her cattiness in Austen’s work was due to trying to woo Darcy and shun Elizabeth, something she no longer has to do.

I’m supposed to end these guest blog posts with a question to start a discussion pertaining to my novel, but as this is the last stop on my blog tour, so I’ll ask this instead: Chicken or fish?

About the Author

Marsha Altman is a historian specializing in Rabbinic literature in late antiquity, and an author. She is also an expert on Jane Austen sequels, having read nearly every single one that’s been written, whether published or unpublished. She has worked in the publishing industry with a literary agency and is writing a series continuing the story of the Darcys and the Bingleys. She lives in New York.

Mr. Darcy, Vampyre starts on the morning of the wedding of Elizabeth and Jane to Darcy and Bingley. Austen always married her heroines off and ends with the wedding or the wedding on the horizon. I imagine that she wanted us all to dream of their happily ever afters. Austen had enough couples around her to know that not all matches ended in happiness — so she never went beyond the joyful anticipation of the wedding.

Jane and Elizabeth are nervous and ecstatically happy to be marrying men they love — that these men are also rich adds to the joy of the day. Immediately after the service Darcy and Elizabeth are to tour the Lake District. But once in the carriage, Darcy reveals that he has changed their plans and they are going to Paris. Elizabeth is surprised but not against the plan. However, as the days pass, she become uneasy as Darcy seems to be struggling with some inner turmoil. Even more troubling to Elizabeth is that he hasn’t yet come to her room. She fears that he’s regretting the match.

It’s hard to discuss Mr. Darcy, Vampyre — or even read it — without being reminded of Bran Stoker’s Dracula; though the author said she was more influenced by Dr. Polidori’s The Vampyre. Jonathan Harker kept a journal. It was the pages of his journal that let the reader and his dear Mina vicariously experience the terror of his ordeal. These journal entries, as well as the more familiar narrative and newspaper reports,  give Dracula an  immediacy and a sense of reality to unrealistic events. In Mr. Darcy, Vampyre, Elizabeth writes letters to Jane trying in her own way to share her fears and misgivings about her marriage, Darcy’s withdrawn nature, and their erratic travels, and the people that they meet.

Darcy moves them from Paris to visit a relative he wants to consult with. They travel through the Alps and beyond where people greet the carriage by hastily crossing themselves. There’s more journeys to Venice and then Italy. Elizabeth is sure that something more is going on than what she sees or hears, but she’s unsure what it means or what to do. Phrases that don’t make sense. Lady Catherine showing up to fight with Darcy over his marriage. No matter how much she begs Darcy to talk to her he demurs and puts her off.

Elizabeth is such a strong character in Pride and Prejudice that her confusion and insecurity is cause for alarm in the reader. The parallels with Stoker’s Dracula echo throughout the narrative — subtle but enough to cue readers into what’s going on even if the title has been Mr. Darcy and his Bride. The book is dedicated to Catherine Morland of Northanger Abbey, but Elizabeth is no Catherine lost to her imagination and waiting to be rescued. Elizabeth’s “courage always rises with every attempt to intimidate” her. She stands up for herself making some difficult decisions. She doesn’t wait to be rescued she takes matters into her own hands.

Grange deviates significantly from the traditional tropes of vampire fiction. While the differences are significant there are other authors who have used some of these same deviations so a fan of vampire fiction would not scoff at the books –at least not until they read the ending. However, fans of Pride and Prejudice, with some exceptions, will be willing to forgive the deus ex machine ending simply because it allows of our favorite literary couples to continue their journey.

This is not a spoof of Gothic literature but a true melding of vampire fiction with a Pride and Prejudice follow on story. If you’re a Austen purists you probably won’t pick the book up anyway, but if you enjoy taking a chance on something a bit different, I think you’ll find the Darcy and Elizabeth of Pride and Prejudice working through some tough, and rather unexpected problems as they settle into their marriage.

There’s been so much going on that I’m still in a tail-spin. Hopefully, since I spent the last three days working about 14 hours each on various things — I’m caught up. Tomorrow, I plan to post a book review of Mr. Darcy, Vampyre by Amanda Grange. So, check back then. I should then be back on schedule.

Have you ever sat down to read a new novel and found hours later that it’s after midnight and you need to work tomorrow but what the heck, you need to finish this story? Well, that’s getting lost in a good book. Some people get so wrapped up in the story and the world between the covers of the book that the world in which they live just disappears for a while.

I remember when I was around 11 or so, my mother had to go out and left the pot roast cooking, and I was to check it every now and then and, if I could see the roast, add a bit of water. I’d done that before lots of time with her there and she was only going next door. But I was reading a book about a jungle and the main character was hiding from the bad guys in the fog in the jungle. Mom came home to a house full of smoke and a burnt pot roast. I realized that there was smoke or fog, but it was part of the story, so I just thought it was really real, I could even smell the burning campfire. Mom never let me forget that and I could never make her understand that I didn’t know the pot roast was burning because I was in the jungle a gazillion miles away.

Well, evidently, some scientists wondered if people who read text actually had physical reactions as they read as if they were doing what they were reading about. An article in New Science written by Andrea Thompson called “Why We Get Lost in a Book” explains the research study and some of their results. Evidently, if you read about throwing a ball or moving to a new area, the parts of the brain that would be activated if you were doing it for real also get activated, but to a lesser degree, if you’re reading about it.

Of course the study group was fairly small (28 people) and the reading material as described was bland and boring. I’m surprised they got any results at all, especially since there were 20 women and 8 men and the reading material was from a book called One Boy’s Day. Just the title makes me think of the fascinating activity of watching paint dry — wonder why?

But, at least it’s a beginning. They also found that some people have stronger reactions to reading than others — no surprise there. I might suggest that those with stronger MRI reactions found the material more interesting than those who didn’t, but that’s just me.

Reading is an activity that we all hope people will participate in. In this day and age, everyone needs a basic reading skill level in order to function. For some that’s enough but others spend their free time reading. There are non-readers, people who read for work and necessity and those that also read for pleasure. I often think that reading for pleasure is a nerd activity in a lot of ways, or at least I was always told it was because I preferred a book to sports or watching TV or just hanging out.

Now that we have the first “proof” that reading effect the various centers of the brain as if the activity we’re reading about was happening — what makes some people react more than others. Why do some people go on and become readers and some become extreme-readers and some just give it up and become non-readers (meaning they can read but don’t).

And will definitions of reading change as more and more of our material goes online. I know many people (including teens/students) who read constantly online but seldom crack a book — instead reading books online or on their cell phones or Kindles. For some reason, some researchers don’t consider that reading because it’s not on paper.

To me, reading is reading no matter whether the words are on paper, cereal box, sides of buses and building, street signs, ipods, Kindles, laptop or desktops. However, it’s nice to know that some of us really do get lost in good books — but we usually find our way out with new ideas, new experiences, and new knowledge.

That’s right. We managed to get an interview with Terry Pratchett for SFRevu this month. Emily Whitten, the Vice-Chair of the North American Discworld Convention 2009, actually interviewed him late last year and was kind enough to share it with us.

We also have Drew Bittner’s interview with Mike Carey about his work on The Torch comic series. He also interviewed Scott Neitlich of Mattel about how toys get from the drawing board to your shelves.

The issue is rounded out with a short memorium for Charles Brown and of course our columns and reviews.

Check it out and let us know what you think.

Tonight we watched Tuck Everlasting. Released in 2003 and starring Alexis Bledel, Jonathan Jackson, Sissy Spacek, William Hurt, Scott Bairstow and directed by Jay Russell. It’s based on the book of the same name by Natalie Babbitt. It’s been years since I read the book but it seemed to me to follow the basic story line.

Years ago when I read the book, I didn’t understand why Winnie chose to not drink — to get old and die. Now, I think I do understand to a degree. But I still think I would have wanted that time — an eternity. To not grow old. To not be sick or ill. To have all the time in the world. Most people think they’d like that — to live forever — but then most people are bored out of their minds if they have to sit for ten minutes with nothing to do.

I’ve always been fascinated by vampires. Not because they are strong and sexy and whatever else is attributed to them but because they live forever if they don’t get staked. All that time to learn, to see new things, to experience the wonder of a changing world. But they have that drawback of drinking blood — ewwww — I don’t think so…

On the other hand, the Tucks drink water. So, all the benefits and none of the drawbacks except the one big one. You can’t let people know you live forever or they’ll all want longer life. And the big one — the people you love will grow old and die. If you marry you’ll want your spouse to live forever, and then your children, and then their spouses and children and soon there’s a world of people who live forever. So, you live secretly and alone.

Still there’s the unlimited time to learn and learn, to read, to study, to explore. It is seductive. Yet, Winnie chose to live her life fully and to greet each day with joy and move along on the wheel of life. Courage. She made her choice at 15 and yet could have changed her mind at any time and didn’t.

Babbitt’s book asked some hard questions and posed some possibilities, and the movie and the book leave the reader/viewer to continue to think about life, time, and eternity. I believe this film was extremely well done. And, I further believe that some of the best writing, asking the big questions without giving answers, is in the young adult field.

If you haven’t seen the film, check it out. Even better than the film is the book.

It’s been a long two days. I lost about 8 hours of prime work time when we lost power on Wednesday after the storm. So, it’s been a wild two days getting the zines up and live for your reading pleasure.

Please check out:
SFrevu
Gumshoe Review
and our weekly zine:
TechRevu

and as always feedback on the issues is welcome. I’m so looking forward to a good nights’ sleep.