Shirley, you don't mean that: A Review

A new year means a new trek through England, and I began my journey on the wild Yorkshire Moors. In British Literature, the Brontë sisters and the Moors are so frequently paired together that it is difficult to imagine one without the other. The two Brontë staples -- Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights -- paint a vivid, Gothic, and even romantic picture of this wasteland. But Jane and Cathy aren't the only Brontë heroines, and I decided that it was time to explore two lesser-known characters in an underrated and relatively unknown novel: Shirley.

The synopsis is fairly simple: wealthy heiress Shirley Keeldar takes up residence in her family home and quickly becomes friends with the rector's niece, Caroline Helstone. These two girls are passionately in love, unbeknownst to them and the rest of the world, with brothers. Shirley is in love with the elder brother, Louis Moore, who was her tutor. Caroline is in love with the younger brother, Robert Moore, the owner of a textile mill. When Shirley arrives, everyone assumes that she will marry Robert -- or one of the other countless suitors -- but she remains single. Both women struggle with loving men who cannot love them in return: Robert cannot love Caroline because he is financially unable to marry (except for money) because of trade restrictions hampering his business, and Louis cannot love Shirley because they are not equals in terms of their fortunes. It became obvious to me early on that both heroines would receive their happy endings, but the journey they took to get there and the depth of this novel is where its true beauty lies.

In a nutshell, Shirley is the story of two women trying to find a way to be with the men they love in the midst of war, class struggles, and family drama. Sounds almost like a Jane Austen novel, doesn't it? In a way, this novel and Austen's novels have a good deal in common. Shirley is Charlotte Brontë's only historical novel; it takes place in 1811, the same year that Sense and Sensibility was published. But once you get past the time period, sensible heroines, and witty characters, the differences become evident. One of the most interesting things about classics which are historical novels is that you get a feel for how that era was viewed during the author's life. In this case, we see how a Yorkshire woman writing in 1849 viewed the Napoleonic Wars and the industrial movement of the early 19th Century.

The good life: reading, drinking bourbon, and watching my husband work on the bike.

To me, the most breathtaking part of this novel is the history. Shirley takes place in a period of growing industrialization stunted by the war with Napoleon, and the subsequent riots within the working class: the Luddite movement. As the novel begins, Robert Moore struggles to keep his textile mill afloat. He seeks to combat this industrial depression by bringing in new machinery that will cut costs, allowing his mill to work more efficiently. The workers, many of whom are dismissed, strike back at Moore, and this struggle between employer and employees set the stage for the rest of the novel. While the Luddite movement was an integral part of domestic politics during the 1810's, it is easy to see where Charlotte is getting her inspiration. One of the quintessential characteristics of the early Victorian Era (and really, the 19th century throughout the Western world) is the struggles and consequential rise of the working class. The year before this novel was published, The Communist Manifesto sparked a revolution with its epicenter in Germany, rippling throughout the entire world. At the same time, Charles Dickens had been discussing the trials of the lower classes beginning in the 1830s until his death in 1870, and Elizabeth Gaskell, who is perhaps the most famous female British author devoted to exposing the working classes struggles, published her first novel just a year before Charlotte published Shirley. So Charlotte Brontë certainly had plenty of inspiration for a historical novel illuminating working class struggles.

Other characteristics of the novel also illuminate important influences on her life. The clergy play a huge role in the direction of the novel, particularly in the form of Caroline's controlling uncle/guardian. Charlotte delves into complex theological matters (a little too deep at times -- it's almost as overwhelming as Tolstoy with his 19th century Russian farming techniques) concerning both the Anglican church and the dissenters, which suggests that her clergyman father discussed theology with his daughters. She generally portrays the clergy favorably but, similar to Austen and her various fictional clergymen, still discusses their foibles at length. But probably the greatest inspiration developed during arguably two of the hardest years in Charlotte's life: 1848 and 1849. Charlotte was the middle of six children. Two sisters died as children, and the other three, Emily, Anne, and the only boy, Branwell, died between September of 1848 and May of 1849. With this knowledge, the characters of Shirley and Caroline are even more appealing to the reader as they are a direct reflection of the grief Charlotte felt. The character of Shirley is based on Emily, and when Caroline becomes so ill that she nearly dies, Charlotte writes the blissful, romantic ending that her sisters would never have.

Charlotte's passion and dedication for the working class and the clergy are immediately evident to the reader, but the real gems are the characters. The heroines are two vastly different women with different needs and desires, and yet they are in virtually the same situation. Shirley's fierceness and philanthropy are reminiscent of Emma Woodhouse and Bathsheba Everdene. She is wealthy, and uses that wealth for good, but she needs a guiding force in her life -- just like these two women received in George Knightley and Gabriel Oak. Caroline, on the other hand, is timid and shy, yet loyal and persistent when it comes to the man that she loves, much like Fanny Price and Amy Dorritt. Nothing would deter these women from loving Edmund Bertram and Arthur Clennam, no matter their vices or foolish mistakes, and Caroline was no different. No matter how cruelly Robert Moore treated her, she knew her own heart and would not be persuaded otherwise. And yet, despite Caroline's sweetness and Shirley's wealth, they cannot achieve happiness on their own.

But despite Shirley's fierceness and Caroline's loyalty, these two heroines offer a striking contrast with Jane Eyre. Over the years, the Brontë sisters have become an icon for feminists. Jane Eyre certainly fits the feminist agenda as she declares: "I am no bird; and no net ensnares me; I am a free human being with an independent will, which I now exert to leave you." (Jane Eyre, Chapter 23) But the characters of Shirley and Caroline are the complete opposite. In fact, the last two chapters of this book discuss how these women are eternally tethered and domesticated to the men that they love -- whether their love is returned or not. Louis Moore is the "keeper" of Shirley, the one who tames her wildness. She says to him:

"Mr. Moore," said she, looking up with a sweet, open, earnest countenance, "teach me and help me to be good. I do not ask you to take off my shoulders all the cares and duties of property, but I ask you to share the burden, and to show me how to sustain my part well. Your judgment is well balanced, your heart is kind, your principles are sound. I know you are wise; I feel you are benevolent; I believe you are conscientious. Be my companion through life; be my guide where I am ignorant; be my master where I am faulty; be my friend always!" (Shirley, Chapter 36)

In the following chapter, Shirley is seen submitting to her husband completely:

He was virtually master of Fieldhead weeks before he became so nominally—the least presumptuous, the kindest master that ever was, but with his lady absolute. She abdicated without a word or a struggle. "Go to Mr. Moore, ask Mr. Moore," was her answer when applied to for orders... In all this Miss Keeldar partly yielded to her disposition; but a remark she made a year afterwards proved that she partly also acted on system. "Louis," she said, "would never have learned to rule if she had not ceased to govern. The incapacity of the sovereign had developed the powers of the premier." (Shirley, Chapter 37)

What a blow to modern feminism! Surely, she can't mean that she "abdicated without a word or a struggle." In a world that condemns a woman sharing her wealth and power to her husband is scoffed, feminist icon Charlotte Brontë's heroine submits everything to her husband. Caroline is different in that she is poor with nothing to give, but she still submits everything to Robert. But I don't think this was Charlotte's point. These two women would not submit to just any man. Shirley will not submit to her tyrannical uncle's demand that she marries one of the wealthy suitors, but she does submit to the man who loves her ardently, tenderly, and wholly. She submits to the man who is worthy of her. Caroline submits to her uncle because he is her guardian, but she would become a governess before marrying and submitting to a man who was not her equal.

My adorable, late-night reading buddies.

Shirley does have a few flaws which are more a flaw of the time and modern literary expectations than a flaw of the novel. For one, Charlotte Brontë loved switching for entire pages into French. Since Robert, Louis, and Hortense Moore were all half-Flemish, they frequently switch between French and English in their dialogue. In 19th Century England, this would not have been a problem as French was commonly taught to the gentry. It was difficult to follow when it would switch back and forth between the two languages without giving a translation.

The other flaw is that the climax is so drawn out that it feels like something was missing at the end. It was a very difficult book to get into for the first half, but the second half flew by because it was filled with excitement. The climax spans almost 100 pages of the novel (out of 300) where you feel it must get resolved soon but the characters simply will not communicate their emotions. I think this is less of a flaw of the novel and more of modern expectations for a spectacular ending with explosions and passionate declarations of love. Technically this novel had plenty of both of those things, but I suppose it was a simpler ending than I expected from such a complex novel.

But that's how this different, and why it is such a splendid work of art. The story flows better than many of its contemporary novels. Charlotte paints a realistic picture instead of trying to make it overly romantic. It isn't Gothic like Wuthering Heights, or dreary like Dickens, or pastoral like Hardy -- but it does incorporate many of these elements into the story to give you a realistic picture. And it is truly a beautiful picture filled with love and loss and longing. Charlotte was able to weave a story that kept the magic of the Moors while adding a painfully realistic romance and a historically accurate fictionalization of the early labor movement. There are so many more details in this novel which I did not discuss, but all of them add volume and character to this already brilliant novel. Why this novel was not more popular, I will never know. But what I do know is that it rekindled my love of the Brontë sisters' works.

And feminists, next time you claim an authoress as your poster child, make sure she doesn't have any skeletons in her closet -- like Shirley.

The Mystery of Charles Dickens... um, I mean, Edwin Drood: A Review

Every summer I start reading my yearly Dickens novel and I wonder "will this novel be better than the others?" Sometimes, as was the case with Oliver Twist and Nicholas Nickleby, the answer was that there are Dickens novels worthier of the reader's time. More often than not, my conclusion is that Dickens is a genius and deserves all the praise that he gets. In my mind, none of Dickens' novels could ever compare with Bleak House and Little Dorrit, and frankly they will always be the Dickens standard for me.

Upon beginning The Mystery of Edwin Drood about a month ago, I struggled with Dickens the same way that I always do. It normally takes me the first hundred pages or so to get into the style and language, and gradually enjoy the novel more as the pages pass. The problem with Edwin Drood is that there isn't much beyond the first hundred pages; Charles Dickens never had the luxury of finishing this novel. He died in June of 1870, halfway through writing Edwin Drood.

The main plot can be boiled down to a single sentence. Edwin Drood disappears, presumably murdered, but the clues surrounding his disappearance are scarce. It is unusual that a Dickens novel can be so concisely summarized, but all the clues that Dickens gives us, before and after Edwin's disappearance, all points toward the culprit. Of course, there is much more to the story than just the murder -- it wouldn't be a Dickens novel without characters' fate being interwoven.

But here's the most amazing thing about this novel: even though Dickens never finished it, I can speak with absolute certainty on who murdered Edwin. That's the fantastic thing about Dickens. Not a single paragraph is unnecessary in a Dickens novel; every character and every minute, over-detailed description has a unique, crucial purpose. (All of this is even more amazing when you realize that Dickens submitted his novels for publication in installments before he even finished them. He couldn't go back and add a little detail here and there to make everything connect.) Almost before Edwin even disappeared, I could have told you who was going to kill him and where his dead body could be found. The murder scene was never described, but all the clues are clearly visible for the reader to piece the puzzle together. But what is even more amazing is that you don't realize that you're being handed pieces to the puzzle until you really sit and think about it and everything falls into place. Suddenly, the chapters about the opium house, the odd old woman, and the cathedral crypt are not as seemingly random as they seem. And when the last pieces of the puzzle are put into place, the picture on top is nothing less than astonishing.

Upon finishing Edwin Drood, I sent my best friend a text something to the effect of "Charlie died at a really inopportune time." This novel had the potential of being his best novel, in my opinion, but nobody knows word-for-word how it would have ended. But upon considering the "seemingly random" details, I realized that he finished enough of the novel that it isn't as "inopportune" as one might think. There are minor details which are up for speculation, like whom marries whom, but for the most part he answers all the important questions. Had he died a chapter sooner, a major detail would have been left unaddressed. Of course, it would have been nice to read more but death can only be controlled on the pages of fiction.

This is why Dickens is a literary genius. How many authors can weave such a masterful tale, let alone leave it unfinished but gift the audience with all the clues that they need? He says nothing definitely, and yet he doesn't need to. His manner of laying out a novel and stating the facts allows the reader put two and two together on his own. That, I believe, is a remarkable achievement. Dickens uses the reader's intelligence to his advantage, and solves the mystery without even finishing the book.

The moral to this story is don't judge a book by it's cover. Or in this case, don't ignore The Mystery of Edwin Drood because Dickens died before finishing it. This is, without a doubt, one of Dickens' greatest accomplishments as an author. Despite the fact that we only have half the story, it deserves to be on the list of great Dickens novels because it was left unfinished and it is still perfection. He didn't need 800 pages to create a masterpiece like he did in Bleak House. He only needed 250 pages to simultaneously produce a masterpiece and the greatest cliffhanger of all time. Only Dickens could have made a mystery out of a mystery novel.

One more stop in Reading Europe 2016. Back to the Continent!

Pride and Prejudice and Ruined Movies: A Review

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Hollywood ruins every book they look at. The better the book, the worse the film adaptation will be. This is particularly true for period drama in particular, because the writers, producers, and costume designers don’t research the era enough to understand what is proper or fashionable. 

I read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies earlier this month to prepare for the film adaptation starring Lily James, Sam Riley, and, most importantly, Matt Smith. While I questioned the casting of a tall, thin man to play Mr. Collins when he is always described at short and plump, and raised an eyebrow over the numerous explosions in the trailer that did not appear in the book, I still looked forward to the film. But now that I have seen the film, I can say that I was genuinely impressed that Hollywood could ruin a zombie movie.

First, let’s talk about how fantastic the book was. Seth Grahame-Smith took a classic – potentially the most well-known piece of British literature outside of Shakespeare – and created another classic. Zombies are a fad right now. From movies, TV shows, and games to people who too seriously prepare for the zombie apocalypse, zombies are everywhere. Grahame-Smith created a pretty valid explanation to the creation of zombies, added a bit of humor, and turned Elizabeth Bennet into a bad-ass warrior. In fact, he created his own universe where Regency era prejudices still existed, but expanded it to include Oriental training and different priorities, such as staying alive.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies changed very little about the story which Jane Austen penned two hundred years ago. Instead he changed the universe in which the Bennet sisters lived. None of the events actually changed. Lizzy meets Darcy at the ball, Jane is heartbroken when Bingley closes up Netherfield and returns to London, Darcy proposes in Kent and Lizzy rejects him, they meet again in Derbyshire and Lizzy’s opinion of him begins to change, and Lydia elopes with Wickham and Darcy rectifies the situation. Now insert zombies to this mix. Lizzy meets Darcy and then the sisters slaughter the zombies that attacks the ball. Bingley returns to London to attend a conference on how to combat “unmentionables” (zombies) at the encouragement of Darcy when he believes that Jane has been infected. Charlotte Lucas accepts Mr. Collins because she has been infected and she wants to live the rest of her life comfortably. Mr. Darcy proposes and Lizzy rejects him by roundhouse kicking him into the fireplace mantle. Darcy tells Lizzy of Wickham’s ruthlessness, but Lizzy withholds the truth from her sisters. Lizzy meets Darcy again in Derbyshire and Darcy saves Lizzy when zombies attack their party while walking at Pemberley. Lydia elopes with Wickham, and Darcy forces Wickham to marry Lydia by beating him until he is a cripple and the Wickham’s leave for Ireland. Lady Catherine approaches Lizzy and they fight each other, but Lizzy spares Lady Catherine’s life.

What makes this tale even more enjoyable is the splendid integration of Oriental fighting style and culture with Regency England. Darcy and Lady Catherine look down on the Bennet family because they received their training in China, where Japan was the fashionable place to train. Lizzy constantly remembers her training, and that training guides many of her actions. When Darcy informs her of Wickham’s character, Lizzy punishes herself for being so blind to his true character. And, most interestingly, Pemberley is styled in a Japanese style. At first, I questioned the addition of ninjas and throwing stars, but after finishing the novel, I realized that the Oriental influences introduced a unique and appropriate perspective that no western culture could have added.

The story is the same, but with zombies and Oriental architecture. And frankly, it’s brilliant. Elizabeth is just as clever as she was, but now her sword is just as deadly as her words. Lady Catherine is protected by a contingent of ninjas, and Lizzy disembowels them. Darcy insults her, so she fights him. Lizzy has to make difficult choices, like killing her friends, because they are undead. And those decisions makes her into the strong woman that countless people have admired for centuries. All of Austen’s characters are just as Austen intended them, and they come to an end which they deserve, just like Austen sought to do. Jane is shy and Bingley is awkward. Lydia is wild and Mr. Wickham is wicked. Mr. Collins is clumsy and Lady Catherine is condescending. Mrs. Bennet is ridiculous and Mr. Bennet is aloof. Mr. Darcy is proud and Lizzy is prejudiced. Seth Grahame-Smith put swords and muskets in their hands, a different impetus for their actions, and tons of zombies to be annihilated.

Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith put a great deal of thought into these two novels, as I hope I made clear. Austen understood the world in which she lived, and Grahame-Smith understood Austen. Unfortunately, Hollywood did not understand Austen, Grahame-Smith, or the Regency Era. At all. They took a good book and decided that it wasn’t exciting enough. They had to Hollywood-ize it. Make it more glamorous and sexy, when really it’s not a glamorous or sexy novel. It’s a novel about ordinary people protecting themselves and falling in love because two people were equals; Hollywood put the zombie war on steroids and treated romance as a side-story. While it’s going to be extremely difficult to limit myself to just eight things that easily could have made this film adaptation better, here’s where the film failed.

Lizzy would not have done that. Ok, if you’re going to make a film adaptation, you first have to understand the characters, particularly the main character. Lizzy Bennet is a strong, witty woman who can take care of herself. But she also understands propriety. She never would have compromised her values for anything, even a zombie. Meeting Wickham alone in a creepy garden in the middle of the night would have mortified her propriety. Traveling unescorted also would have mortified her. Hollywood thought that they were covering their bases when Charlotte Lucas asked Lizzy to accompany her to Rosings Park with her, but really, either a male family member or a married woman needed to escort both of them. Lizzy certainly could have protected her friend, but their traveling alone would have reconfirmed their inferior birth and morals to Lady Catherine. Lizzy and Jane’s values is what sets them apart from their younger sisters. Hollywood places Lizzy on the same level as Lydia when Lizzy rides off alone with Mr. Wickham to St. Lazarus. The reason why females were considered “damaged goods” after an elopement is that their purity could have been tainted, hence no respectable man would want them anymore. Lizzy would have been suspected of the same taint by accompanying Wickham. Lizzy is no longer morally superior to her sisters, and therefore does not deserve Darcy’s good opinion.

You had ONE JOB. If you ask any Austen fan what their favorite scene in the book/film is, they will probably say the scene where Lizzy and Darcy dance at Netherfield. There’s just so much sexual tension that you can feel, but they continue to gently insult each other. Or they will say when Lizzy and Darcy meet at Pemberley, because Lizzy’s heart is softened to Darcy and Darcy is actually nice. Or when Lizzy discovers how generous Darcy truly is, which leads her to discover that she loves him too but she fears that she will never find true happiness because surely he will not renew his proposal again. But he does and everyone lives happily ever after. These are the things that pretty much anyone who has read Pride and Prejudice will say. But Hollywood said “Oh you like those parts? Let’s not put them in the movie then.” Well, obviously Lizzy and Darcy had to get together at the end, but it wasn’t half as romantic as it could have been. The Netherfield dance is iconic. Lizzy is disappointed because Wickham is not there, and she has to dance with Darcy! What a disappointment! But in the film, Wickham shows up then disappears later, and Darcy asks Lizzy to dance but they never actually show the dance. For an industry that tries to sex-up everything, they eliminate the sexiest scene of the book! The second major elimination, the Gardiner’s trip to Derbyshire, segues into my next point…

People change, but no need to show that. In the book, Darcy’s letter shows Lizzy where she had misjudged him. But even though her heart softened toward him, Darcy changed too. When they met at Pemberley, they could see that the other had changed. Without the mutual changes that occurred, they never would have seen each other in a way that allowed them to fall in love. By removing part of that progression, Hollywood made the romance less believable. In the film, Elizabeth smacks Darcy around after the proposal, and the next time they meet suddenly all of their differences are gone even though they have no idea that the other has changed. If Darcy did not realize that he was being irrational, Lizzy’s change of heart would not have mattered, and if Lizzy did not realize that she was being blind, Darcy’s change of heart would have been insignificant. Instead, Lizzy looks fickle, as if the letter alone made her fall in love with him, and Darcy seems as if he’s the same person he always was. By leaving out half of the romance, they made the love story unrealistic. They needed the time at Pemberley, or time in general other than half a conversation about Lydia eloping, to get to know each other without their previous prejudices in order to fall in love.

Good overcomes evil… and not because of a woman. When Darcy finally discovers what Wickham is really up to, they begin to fight and Wickham seems to be getting the upper hand until Lizzy rides in on her white steed and chops Wickham’s arm off. Since when does Darcy need a woman to save him? And to be fair, since when would Lizzy need Darcy to save her? Darcy and Lizzy are both warriors, the best of the best. But Darcy cannot overcome Wickham? This battle is the epitome of good vs. evil in this film. Darcy is self-sacrificing and Wickham is conniving. Darcy wants to save the human race and Wickham wants to destroy it. While Darcy still saves Lydia, his inability to defeat Wickham implies that he is unworthy of Lizzy. Now they are no longer equals who can defeat any foe who comes their way, but instead the inappropriately feminist portrayal of Lizzy as the savior places Darcy beneath her. The entire reason why Darcy is able to put aside his reservations about Lizzy is because they are equals. And when Lizzy rides in and saves the day, she says that Darcy is not worthy of her. Darcy has to defeat Wickham, or Wickham still wins.

But wait, who is the real bad guy here? There are two antagonists in the story: Wickham and Lady Catherine. Wickham is Darcy’s nemesis because he fails to put him in his place years before when Wickham seduces Georgiana. Darcy places his father’s wishes for Wickham’s future above his own desires to smite Wickham. Lady Catherine is Elizabeth’s nemesis because she dishonors and insults the Bennet family, which Lizzy cannot allow. Elizabeth has to defend her honor, hence demonstrating that she is indeed worthy of Mr. Darcy. Now in the film, Lizzy fights Lady Catherine’s body guard before fighting Lady Catherine herself, and prevails over both her foes. Then seconds later, after Lizzy has proven herself Lady Catherine’s superior, Lady Catherine agrees to take the younger Bennet sisters and Mrs. Bennet to Rosings? The only reason why Lady Catherine would do that is because she feels something for Lizzy, such as respect, when in fact she hates Lizzy because she is a threat. Why on earth did the Bennets need to go to Rosings anyway? They are some of the best-trained warriors in all of England and they run to safety instead of defending their home? Even selfish, immature Lydia had more honor than that. Lady Catherine becomes the good guy, and Wickham becomes the main antagonist. Wickham wants revenge on Darcy, but a plot twist from way out in left field reveals Wickham as the leader of the zombies! Since when does Wickham want more than money from Darcy? He is certainly a fortune-seeking womanizer, but a traitor who wants the human race to die? Unlikely. Wickham never sought power, he sought revenge and money; being the bringer of the apocalypse really isn’t his style.

Enough with the explosions already. Hollywood has to make everything more exciting. Because Darcy making Wickham a cripple and Lizzy kicking the snot out of Lady Catherine wasn’t good enough, they had to add an entire subplot that didn’t exist in the book. Darcy was the commander of the battle for London, in which the zombies continued to overtake the military until their only option was the blow up the final bridge to London and trap all the zombies inside. Apparently all the real military officers were turned into zombies and they had to turn to a civilian for leadership. Lizzy and Darcy make it back across the bridge just in time, leaving the audience sitting on the edge of their seat. This entire subplot was added simply to make it more appealing, because explosions are the only way to make an uninterested viewer more interested. I would have preferred to see Lady Catherine and Lizzy throwing punches and swinging samurai swords over a bridge blowing up.

Guys, this is really confusing. The biggest issue that I had with this movie is that the writing was crap. Half the dialogue made sense, and the other half was pointless. For example, when the Bennet sisters and Mr. Collins are walking to Meryton to see their Aunt Phillips, Lizzy stops to talk to Wickham and he tells her all about why Mr. Darcy cannot be trusted. Apart from the fact that Lizzy was WAY too familiar with a man that she’d met, literally, seconds before, Aunt Phillips calls out for Lizzy to hurry so that they can discuss their trip to the Lake District. Ignoring the fact that Mrs. Bennet’s brother, not sister, invited Lizzy to travel with them, the entire trip to the Lake District was removed from the film. Why was this even mentioned when it wasn’t happening in the film to begin with? Another prime example was when Darcy took extreme curiosity in Jane’s illness, suspecting that she was infected instead of having a simple cold. When Darcy is explaining to Lizzy why he separated Jane and Bingley, he fails to bring this up as a reason for his actions. This is Darcy’s main impetus in the book, and frankly it’s a much better explanation than he gives in the film. The movie script read like they were trying to keep certain things from the book, while completely ignoring something that directly related, and it made the plot infinitely more complicated. Oh, and another point: they never actually mentioned Mary and Kitty's names. They were just these two awkward sisters who were in half the movie but got completely ignored. Kinda rude, if you ask me.

Do you even know what the Regency Era was? Time for my obligatory that’s-not-historically-accurate section. Even though it’s a zombie movie, there are still certain things that easily could have been addressed. First, Lily James may look fantastic in dark blue, but unmarried ladies never wore dark colors. Light colors, particularly white, was a symbol of purity. Likewise, married women rarely wore white. Sorry, Mrs. Bennet. Second, aristocratic men wore primarily white cravats. While military men wore black cravats, Darcy was not a military man, even though they tried to make him into one. And if they really wanted to make him into an Army Colonel, he should have been in uniform on the battlefield. Third, unmarried ladies rarely rode astride. None of the women were shown riding side saddle. And they certainly never would have ridden double ESPECIALLY with a man. I could keep going, but I will refrain.

I am very particular when it comes to period drama, perhaps even too picky. The casting was fantastic and the sets were lovely, but this film could have been a great deal better if they could decide exactly what they wanted to do in the story and stick with it. Unfortunately the writers failed to make the story flow well, and I walked away doubting how Darcy and Lizzy had enough time to really fall in love each other. And even if you change part of the story to make it shorter, costumes and hairstyles do not depend on good writing, for goodness sake.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was a fantastic book. It was clever and well-written and amusing. The film was “entertaining”, as my husband called it, and if I hadn't read the book I probably would have rather enjoyed the movie. But don’t expect Hollywood to make a good period drama that follows a book, even when it’s a zombie movie. I’ll await the BBC’s adaptation if I want a period drama I can truly enjoy.

New Year, New City, New Projects

A new year means new adventures and new challenges for most people, and being married to a Naval officer (or any military personnel) only means change is inevitable. The month of December was one of the most chaotic months of my life, but January is threatening to be even more hectic, if that's possible. Once everything settles down, 2015 looks promising. So here's a rundown of changes and what is to come.


Changes Aplenty

In the second week of December, my husband finished Primary flight training and selected his platform. When I say "selected", I mean that he told the Navy what his top three choices for what he would like to fly and they tell him what he's actually going to fly. Fortunately, the needs of the Navy aligned with the desires of the aviator-in-training. So my husband will be flying the E-6 Mercury, which is based at Tinker Air Force Base, located right outside of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

E-6 Mercury -- a.k.a. the other woman.

But before we get to Oklahoma, he still has a lot of training to do. Advanced flight training for future E-6 pilots takes place at NAS Corpus Christi (Texas). So, after spending two weeks visiting family, we returned to Florida in time to welcome the movers and watch all of our belongings disappear in the matter of a few hours. On January 6, we loaded the trucks with the valuables (the bike, the Xbox, the weapons, the sewing machines, and the cat) and made the trek to Texas. The cat behaved and nothing flew off the trailer, so I call that a successful day's journey.

Trying to figure out what is going on while stopping to gas up.

The last several days have involved living in the Navy Lodge, surprising the cleaning ladies by telling them that we only needed them to take the trash, playing lots of Xbox, and eating more microwavable meals than I have at any other time in my life. Tomorrow we will get the keys to our new house on base, freshly painted and carpeted, and hopefully our furniture will arrive sometime before we move to Oklahoma. Alas, I will almost miss the coffee and pre-packaged blueberry muffins in the hotel lobby, just because I didn't have to make either of them.

Returning to "normal" life almost won't seem normal because something, whether it was visiting family for two weeks or living without furniture/in a hotel, has been abnormal for such a long time that I almost don't remember what normal feels like. But hopefully we will discover normalcy and return to it within a few days.


Projects Aplenty  

A new year means new projects and challenging one's self in new and different ways. As a housewife, I have a slew of new recipes that I hope to try and a new house to decorate with new curtains and quilted treasures. But these minor projects aside, I have two goals for the new year which should keep me preoccupied for many months.

Wardrobe renovation: Every year fashion changes, and I get increasingly tired of my clothing choices. So, this year I hope to make new outfits using mostly fabric which has been lying around my parent's house for upwards of ten years. I plan to fight with a few Vogue patterns (and will probably lose) but ultimately I hope create some new, stylish dresses. Pictures to come in future months!

Books, books, books: Each year, I try to read books on diverse topics. I always read one fantasy series, Dickens novel, classic female author, political theory, historical, and theological, and the rest of the year is filled in by historical fiction. But this year I'm challenging myself to read more classics by Reading England 2015. This challenges readers to read different books which take place in different counties in England. My mom and I are doing this challenge together, and starting with three books and adding more depending on how quickly we read the first ones. The first book we are planning to read is Far From the Madding Crowd by Thomas Hardy. In May, a film adaptation (trailer found here) of this book is coming to the silver screen, starring one of my favorite actresses, Carey Mulligan. So in preparation for this masterpiece from the BBC, Hardy's classic Dorset novel is the first on our list. As for my yearly Dickens novel, I have chosen Nicholas Nickleby. Like most Dickens novels, this book takes place in several different cities but it primarily occurs in Yorkshire. Again, I am looking forward to watching the 2002 film adaptation of this movie, starring Charlie Hunnam, Anne Hathaway, Romola Garai, and a handful of other wonderful actors. My yearly female author selection is the Lancashire-based North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell. I adore the film adaptation of this book starring Richard Armitage and Daniela Denby-Ashe. I have been hoping to read this novel for several years and I am very excited to finally read it.

If you are interested in traveling to England through literature, I highly suggest looking into this challenge. It is a fantastic way to read a wide variety of literature from different eras and counties. If you want or need suggestions, I'll readily give my opinion. (Austen and Dickens are my favorites, and are always excellent places to begin.)

And if you aren't into reading, I encourage you to do something in the new year to increase your knowledge or skill set in this new year.