When I can completely get irritated
with my Mon – Fri corporate life, I often escape for an alone time lunch to a
café…a café that is closest to a bookstore. Reason? Well, I am closer to my
first love, books; second I simply adore café food; and third, I am privy to
the most interesting conversations ;-) Yes eavesdropping on the tete-a-tete of the
tables nearby can have its own effects J
J
Although, both Kinsella’s
Becky & Austen’s heroines are Brits belonging to completely different eras,
but their intent differs. In fact if you look at both characters from this
point of view, their character study actually becomes quite interesting to
observe. Becky Bloomwood is a type A shopaholic, like many women around her.
She is a very relatable character, agreed. We all face situations she faces
everyday…we end up shopping what we do not need on impulse & then try
hiding the mounting credit card bills, thinking if we don’t see it, we don’t have
to pay it; or we will deal with this later, not now. I can understand how Becky
instantly became likeable & relatable to so many women…but is she as real
as Emma? No, not at all.. Apart from this first comparison, Becky keeps falling
into over-dramatised un-real situations. Emma is a victim of hapless &
bemusing everyday situations, but Emma is not over the top, her intentions to
do good for others are not sugar-saccharine sweet or over dramatized. Whereas,
Becky’s need for doing something for someone is many times so largely over the
top & dramatic that you want to shake her up & admonish her for living
in a la-la land all the time. The damages Emma causes are very situational
& her intentions are not OTT, but Becky – she is desperate for some serious
do-gooder badges. It is here that Emma scores over Becky as a character.
Anyways, coming back to the
topic; I was, as usual, busy digging in my lunch in this café that was full of
college goers & young readers; readers who have all the time in the world
to revel in the joy of books, whether for course material or whether out of
sheer choice in life. This one group of young women sitting next to me was
particularly chatty about chick-lit genre, its emergence & the popular
titles they love….interesting, right?
Until, one of them mentioned,
“I can say hands down, Sophie Kinsella is the new age Jane Austen”
(shock..shock..horror…gasp); meanwhile I choked on my soup, I could hear an
almost similar response from some of the concerned party “No way!!” “Are you
mad” & “How can you say that-s” followed with some nodding & agreeing
with the woman who had unleashed this debate. “Why not” she piped further”
Isn’t Becky (Rebecca Bloomwood of Kinsella’s bestselling Shopaholic series)
almost like Emma? (Austen’s iconic heroine in Emma)…doesn’t she want to do good
for everyone & ends up goofing up just like Emma” POINT. “Isn’t she a
dreamer just like Emma” POINT again. “Don’t you think Luke (Becky’s hero in
Shopaholic series) has some traits of Mr. Darcy – smart, debonair, simmering,
brooding & observant” oooh…POINT POINT POINT.
The lady’s debate was
followed by a poignant silence all across…then suddenly the table erupted in a
collective debate, and with that it was time for me to get up & go back to
my usual 9-5 life.
But the debate left me
contemplating & thinking on the subject. Is it true? Does this debate hold
any ground? I have written a post earlier on Austen which also focussed on the
point, that how she was much more than a Victorian Chick-lit author that many
readers deem her to be; but this comparison never dies down. Austen’s work is
often compared with modern day chick lit writers, & her work is often
deemed “light reads”, since her focus is her strong heroines & their
everyday lives & situations. Does that mean that a Kinsella, a Bushnell
(SATC), a Weisberger (The Devil Wears Prada) or a Fielding (Bridget Jones
Diary) are a modern day versions of Austen, and that their best-selling works
can be compared to Austen’s cult classics?
As a reader, my own personal
opinion would be “NO”. I have my reasons
to support my opinion. Let’s just take Kinsella & Austen head on right now…
1.) BECKY vs
EMMA:
2.) Luke’s
love for Becky vs Mr. Darcy’s love for Lizzy Bennett:
On the hindsight, this is not
even worth comparing. Mr. Darcy & Lizzy are winners from the word go; and I
am not saying this because Pride & Prejudice is a 200 year old cult English
classic. Luke is a little aloof & then drawn towards Becky, almost like Mr.
Darcy is initially recluse & aloof & then drawn towards Lizzy. Both
men, silent & brooding, find a certain playful & carefree qualities in
their respective love interests that make them curious & drawn towards
them. But this is where it ends. The relationship between Lizzy & Mr. Darcy
is so beautiful & real, that a reader feels like these characters are
him/her or someone around them. Lizzy’s playfulness & witticism is a
perfect foil to Mr. Darcy’s silent brooding sexuality. The two seem so perfect
& complimentary to each other’s personalities. Whereas, with Luke &
Becky, post the first book, I simply do not get why they are together. Becky,
as a wife, or a partner, seems to just be an over-sweet over-doing silly girl
rather than someone who can understand or relate to Luke’s gravity or even
lighten it with well-chosen witticism ala Lizzy’s foil to Mr. Dracy’s
temperament. An unreal OTT situation again delivers laughs for the time being
but not ever-lasting impact.
3.) Becky’s
relationship with siblings vs the Austen world siblings:
The sisters in Austen world
are so real & so relatable. The relationship between all 5 Bennett sisters
is how siblings actually grow up; or for that matter the relationship between
the Dashwood children in Sense & Sensibility is how most real-life
relations are. On the other hand, Becky’s relationship with her half-sister is
very unreal from the word go. Agreeably it is just meant to induce some good
laughs, but to compare it to Austen’s works is a bit too much. The way Becky
overwhelms her half-sister with over-dramatic emotions is funny (and at times
irritating) to read once, but can you read it again & again…I seriously
doubt.
4.) Humour:
There is no scope of
comparison in this at all- Austen’s humour is subtle, yet creates way more
impact, as it is derived from everyday situations that still hold true. Of
course, Austen’s humour is very Victorian in nature coming from that age, but
its impact leaves a great after-taste for long after being read. Kinsella’s
humour will make you laugh out loud then, but loses its impact immediately
after; in fact due to unreal & over-dramatised situations her humour also
tends to become irritating & repetitive after a point. Now I am not saying
Austen was not repetitive, but due to subtlety used by her characters’
situations her humour always seemed fresh in all her books. This is where our
new age chick lit author fails to score.
To summarise, it will be
wrong to say I do not enjoy a stray Kinsella here & there, but can I ever
compare it to Austen’s lovely works – no way!! Kinsella & many of her ilk
tend to be inspired by Austen’s works time & again or rather again &
again, but can we claim that they match up to the legend – I think not. There
is some reason that even after 200 years Austen’s works continue to inspire, enthral
& awe its readers still & of all genders & age groups, whereas
Kinsella’s work, though an instant bestseller, remains confined to a certain
set of audience only. Austen’s deep study of her characters present you the
readers with finer nuances every time the book is read & re-read, whereas,
Kinsella’s characters are merely skin-deep, & hardly evoke more than a
momentary emotion.
Give me a Kinsella for quick laughs,
but to revel in human emotions & situations, I can depend only on an
Austen.
No comments:
Post a Comment