Authors as Characters

[Ashley]

Here’s a question to keep us thinking about Louisa May until July 1st without needing to detail much plot: Can you think of other real authors who have been fictionalized by movies and novels—with unrequited love as the theme?

“Becoming Jane” comes to mind, and there are a lot of similarities between that film and this book. What about MALE authors? Wasn’t there a movie based on Ernest Hemmingway with Sandra Bullock? “Love and War” or some such? Any others?

Why do we do this? Do we like to romanticize the writing life? Or, can we not imagine that someone like Louisa May or Jane could POSSIBLY die a SPINSTER without some sort of secret love life to guide the creations of, in Jane’s case, Colonel Brandon (my fav), Mr. Darcey, or Mr. Knightley? Or, in Lousia May’s case, Laurie?

Is it just exploitation on the parts of authors and screenwriters, or something else?

I admit, when “Becoming Jane” hit theaters, I was peeved. I didn’t want my precious Jane reduced so a simpering love-struck idiot, or a caricature of a headstrong shrew to be “tamed” by some man. But I was pleasantly surprised—Ann Hathaway’s portrayal was very much how I imagined the real Jane. A bit too tall and skinny, but the essence of her character seemed to ring true.

What are your thoughts?

[Lauren]

Great questions ... let's see if I can give them some credible answers ...

Female authors are definitely not alone in being made into characters. The first one that came to mind for me is Shakespeare - particularly Shakespeare in Love. Oh, and there's also Bright Star about John Keats, which I didn't finish because I found the Wikipedia entry more interesting. While not quite unrequited love, Finding Neverland (JM Barrie) also comes to mind.

Here's my rationale for why we've seen an increase in using authors as characters.

1. Readers are curious. They want to understand how some authors can create such beautiful accounts of love. I think that's especially true with Alcott and Austen, because they never married and there's a societal belief that love is one of those things one must experience to understand. In Little Women, Alcott drew heavily from her own life (which might even explain the one-hit wonder claim made in another thread) in crafting the story. Given that use of her personal life in crafting a fictional world, it's not a tremendous stretch to wonder how she gained such insight into love and attraction or, in the alternative, how she managed to convincingly insert something entirely fictitious within this 'based on a true story' tale.

2. Profit and tapping into an established audience. Movie studios especially - but also publishers - like products with a built-in marketing platform. That can mean sequels, but it's hard to create a sequel off many of the classic romances. Fictional accounts of the author's lives and loves allow publishers and studios to tap into that market with a new but somewhat safe product (as compared to a sequel that finds Marianne looking for love after the death of Colonel Brandon, which would royally anger many, many, many women). On the flip side, it also gives certain stories a much higher likelihood of being published or produced and attracting attention - I'm not sure either Becoming Jane or Lost Summer would have been made if everything was the same but the protagonists were not famous authors.

I'd say Lost Summer is part of that trend. Lost Summer gives its publisher its own protected entry into the Louisa May Alcott universe, and readers have a chance to quench their curiosity about the author's life.

Thoughts?

[Ashley]

Oh, duh. “Shakespeare in Love.”

Lauren, you make very good points, especially about the built-in marketing angles.

I think one of the things that irritated me was on the back cover of Lost Summer (of my edition, at least) there’s this corny marketing line, “She taught us how to love . . . but who taught her?” When I read that, I just rolled my eyes, like when the marketing for “Becoming Jane” said something along the line of “. . . behind the world’s greatest love stories. . . ”

Jane Austen’s novels are NOT “love stories”—or romances, if you will. They are subtle, ironic, witty, subversive pieces of literature! And then, with the Louisa May marketing blurb, we have Little Women reduced to a love story, not an examination of the relationships among sisters and girls who are struggling to grow up and become themselves.

Oddly enough, I think McNees actually picked up on this, as she portrays Louisa May as a bit of an eye-roller too. I know that publishers take all sorts of liberties with book covers, so I wonder if McNees resisted the “love” marketing blurb. I mean, at my work, our contracts with authors stipulate that the publisher (us) has total say in what goes on book covers, because they’re ALL about marketing. I’ve had knock-down, drag-out, to-the-death fights with authors over things like colors on the cover, putting credentials after names, starburst wording, and so on. We even have final say on title. To be blunt, authors don’t have a clue as to the best way to market their books. They want a picture of X on the cover, but don’t realize that it won’t be clear on a thumbnail image on Amazon. They want to say this book is FOR EVERYBODY! when its audience is actually far more defined.

So, if my puny office is that controlling, I can only imagine how mercenary a publishing giant like Putnam would be (as they must be—publishing is painful business these days, and they HAVE to make a profit, or publishing will be reduced the self-published slush pile and we’ll all spend our days reading through unedited CRAP).

My point? Putnam probably pegged us readers as female, and thus in need of a love story.

Sigh.

[Lauren]

Just noticed that "She taught the world ... " blurb on the back (it's partially covered by a bar code). Gag. Oh, and creepy, because it makes me think Louisa's hooking up with some old dude who has been around the block a few times rather than with someone as inexperienced as she was.

And now, I'm going to risk the wrath of our kindly leader and ask: What's so wrong about romance?

Romance has a reputation of being somehow pedestrian, and it drives me crazy. Romances don't have to be fluff or only for girls. Yes, there are trashy romances, just like there are trashy adventure books that have no redeeming value. I don't understand why society continues to use the lowest common denominator in defining an entire genre.

Women read Pride and Prejudice because it's a love story. It's a very good love story - and a good deal smarter than many books on more 'serious' subjects - but, at the end of the day, most women read it because it's a dang good romance. Yes, it has many, many more layers than that, but it probably wouldn't be quite as well known if it didn't have such a happy ending. It's just unfortunate that, because it's classified as romance, it's somehow a book only for women and not taken as seriously.

As for Little Women, I think it's less the romance angle than the fact it's a book little girls read and therefore not to be taken terribly seriously (something Around the World in Eighty Days also contends with - if I remember correctly, it's Verne's only novel to not have serious scholarship surrounding it because it's considered a children's book).

To be fair, Austen and Alcott are not alone in this tendency to pigeonhole books with a central romance. Romeo and Juliet is another great example, as it has this sort of bizarre label as Shakespeare's "girl" tragedy (as compared to Hamlet or even Richard II). It's not for serious actors - it's for angst-obsessed teenage girls fascinated with two overly dramatic teens with crushes and burning desires to be rebels taking things too far. Somehow, the fact the central plot device is a romance diminishes the tragedy and Shakespeare's message about the dangers of blind hatred.

So I can't say I'm surprised Putnam gave us such a horrific tag. Romance is not serious literature, and that tag fits right into that need little box.

And, yes, discussing this subject with the women who first introduced me to the field of women's studies makes me nervous.

[Ashley]

Interesting points, my dear Lauren.

And…isn’t it interesting that regardless of whether it’s Shakespeare or Little Women, assigning something to the girl category somehow diminishes it? As though women aren’t “serious” readers? Or (gasp!) WORTH the same as men?

And yet, I’ll go out on a limb and say, yes, the romance genre is pedestrian. I hate saying it, because it’s obviously aimed at women. But I’ll say the same thing about the silly CIA thrillers Chris reads—it’s just that nobody else but me seems to view THOSE as being on the same level. I’ve read my fair share of romance novels—the majority of them are poorly written crap. There are some I admit to liking—Julia Quinn, for example. Totally romance, in the “romance” section of the bookstore, for romance fans. But I still like her books because there’s just enough wit to keep me going. And she writes a damn good sex scene.

From a publishing perspective: Not a thing is wrong with romance! It is insanely profitable. And avid romance readers will read hundreds of romance novels in their lifetimes. That’s a nice little market.

From a feminist perspective, the romance genre is mostly just irritating. Grocery-store romance novels perpetuate the idea of a man saving you, whether it’s from poverty, idleness, loneliness, boredom, or an orgasm-free existence. (Note to self: my mom is on this forum.) No matter how “fiery” a heroine is, she’s always “tamed” by the man (and her inner sex kitten is unleashed, no?). HE is always just what she wants and needs. It’s just a questionable message, in my opinion.

There have been studies done (and finally, grad school pays off) that studied avid romance readers, and they could accept almost any plot twist thrown at them and any flaw of the man, up until the point of rape. Heroines falling in love with their rapists is the line. (Publishers know this; they won’t publish such a book.) But domestic violence? Yep. Readers can get past it—if, you know, the man tries to change. (Now, fictional men can change. The real type? Not so much.)

I’ve met very successful romance writers, and they’re terrifyingly intelligent and stand by their genre. They understand how to plot a book, create motivation for events to unfold, and create interestingly flat characters (e.g., the lesbian, one-legged barmaid who is nothing interesting, just a lesbian, one-legged barmaid). They can create one hell of a story, no problem. But there is no art to the language, or truth rumbling below the surface of a character. ‘Tis all plotting and cartoon characters.

This is the type of stuff that gets argued about for hours on end in graduate literature courses (believe me—I’ve been there). That age-old question of what separates crap from literature. And, by the way, who decides? And oh, how bourgeois that anything accessible and liked by the masses MUST be total poo.

My view of the romance GENRE? It’s mostly well-plotted poo. As for romantic elements of a story? Why, they can be the centerpiece of a piece of literature. Why not? Love lends itself so easy to a story, no? My favorite book in the world—Jane Eyre—is a love story.

My eye-rolling on the marketing blurbs is that statements about LOVE inspiring Austen and Alcott (1) subtly credits men who “inspired” their work, not Austen’s (or Alcott’s) talent, and (2) reduces their literature to the romance genre, not “real” literature.

[Carol]

WOW. What a powerful string going on here this afternoon. Ashamed of this now, but it was the good old Harlequin Romances that got this girl to hold a book in her hand. I never had developed a true love of reading till I'd read 50 or 100 of those. So, grateful even for the cheap, sometimes smutty romances that just might teach someone to get their hands on a book. I then expanded, and LOVE TO READ!!!

This is the epitaph that Lewis had put on Joy Gresham's grave. Very beautiful:

Here the whole world (stars, water, air,
And field, and forest, as they were
Reflected in a single mind)
Like cast off clothes was left behind
In ashes, yet with hopes that she,
Re-born from holy poverty,
In lenten lands, hereafter may
Resume them on her Easter Day.


This epitaph by C. S. Lewis was originally written on the death of Charles Williams--he later adapted it to place on his wife's grave.

Books written by Joy Gresham (as Joy Davidman)

Letter to a Comrade. Yale University Press, 1938.

Anya. The Macmillan Company, 1940.

War Poems of the United Nations: The Songs and Battle Cries of a World at War. Three Hundred Poems. One Hundred and Fifty Poets from Twenty Countries. Joy Davidman, editor. Dial Press, 1943.

Weeping Bay. MacMillan, 1950.

Smoke on the Mountain: An Interpretation of the Ten Commandments in Terms of Today. Foreword by C. S. Lewis. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954.

Out of My Bone: The Letters of Joy Davidman. Don W. King, editor. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009.

These, too, are powerful books, and she definitely left a place for us to realize there are places for romance, love, work, and passion in our lives. I've read some small bio's on her, and she is quite the gal.

I haven't seen Becoming Jane, will have to get that on my list.

Now for one of my favorites is Shadowlands, where Anthony Hopkins plays C.S. Lewis (One of my favorite authors), known as Jack teaching at an Oxford College, during the 1930's. Then an American fan, Joy Gresham (played by Debra Winger) comes along, and they have such a wonderful relationship. She is a poet, writer, activist. She had been married to a first husband, had two children, divorced, then moved to England where she met Lewis. I love their story. Though she gets ill and inevitably dies, to me that is a true love story. And they are men AND women that are writers/authors that have made a terrific inroad into our reading today.

In a favorable note to the guys and the rough rider type of books. They are enjoyable to me. I've always been an "action" person in movies and books. I think my hubby wished I weren't as actiony as I am. But I love a good thriller.

[Lauren]

Carol, why are you ashamed? Reading is reading, and frankly, people who think only high-minded literature is worth the time and effort are absolute snobs and mistake the purpose of reading. I'll have to check out Shadowlands at some point - thanks for the recommendation.

But I wanted to come back around to something Ashley said, because, knowingly or not, she just added a wonderful dimension to this discussion:

"And yet, I’ll go out on a limb and say, yes, the romance genre is pedestrian. I hate saying it, because it’s obviously aimed at women. But I’ll say the same thing about the silly CIA thrillers Chris reads—it’s just that nobody else but me seems to view THOSE as being on the same level. "

Why is it that no one ever questions authors who write those 'silly CIA thrillers' about their experience? We all just accept that it's a imagination that allows them to imagine those situations, yet we insist that women such as Alcott and Austen must have some torrid love affair in their lives. What accounts for this difference?

[Carol]

Lauren, I LOVE CIA Thrillers, and you won't get silly from me. I read and then share my library with others when I finish stuff. Love to go to yard sales and get books cheap if I can't find them at the library (getting worried about Skippy by the way, still a LONG list). My point is, that at these sales, both men and women both enjoy the thriller type books. I haven't taken the time to find out all their histories that promote them to write this type of genre. But who cares, if its a good read, just like you said above, "Reading is reading." We all come from different backgrounds. Some of you take this a little more "professionally" serious than I ever will, but again you care about the nuts and bolts, where I'm out for the enjoyment, and sometimes a book prompts me to learn something else from what I've read. Nothing like a personal thread that drives yourself. Several of you have mentioned such types.

By the way, I like "READERS INK" if anyone else does. Otherwise it's fine.

[Ashley]

Ah, Lauren. What accounts for the difference? Maybe because deep CIA involvement is beyond most of us, but the majority of us know love and romance in some form or another?

And let me address this CIA "silly" business. I've read more Vince Flynn and Brian Haig than I care to admit, and I like them for what they are: entertainment. (I prefer Haig--he's wittier. Flynn just tries to fill pages.)

At the risk of coming across as the book club snob, my main point is that Jane Austen should not be in the romance section at Barnes and Noble because Jane Austen is better than that genre. And yes, that means that "literature" is at a separate standard than romance novels. My dears, I'll stand by that statement. I mean, come on. Auntie Cheryl, back me up here!

BUT! Need a book be considered "literature" to be entertaining? Of course not. And does entertainment constitute a good use of time? Of course! And frankly, much "literature" is as entertaining as staring at a mud puddle.

ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FORMULAIC ROMANCE NOVEL AND JANE AUSTEN.

That is all.

Wait, no it's not. I thought it was, but it's not. Let me give an example of why a good story is grand and all (really, it is), but sometimes nifty stories fall short. Earlier in the year, I read a book called "Olive Kitteridge" which was WONDERFUL. I read reviews (on Goodreads) and was SHOCKED at the negative reviews. Over and over, folks cited it as "depressing" and "just a story of a woman past her prime." Sure, it was a bit of a downer, but I thought the author (Elizabeth Strout) so brilliantly revealed one of the most complex everyday characters I had ever read. But the book was thrown under the bus because it wasn't perky enough. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, sure. But her book was a work of art, but people didn't like it because it wasn't a traditional story with a happy ending and an obvious villain and a likeable hero. I think books like Strout's (AND AUSTEN!!) need to be adequately given their due, and it's okay to set them apart from authors who generate 5 romance novels per year. A book is more than just "I enjoyed it," just as a a work of art is more than whether or not it will match your living room decor if put on your wall at home or the scene is pleasant.

I'm truly sorry if that makes me sound snobby, but there it is. That's what I think, and you ladies deserve my genuine opinion! Not all books are created equal. There's not a thing in the world wrong with enjoying CIA thrillers or romances (seriously, I read them both frequently, along with cheesy mysteries, which I also love).

[Lauren]

Carol: I was at no point trying to argue that CIA thrillers are the domain of men - sorry for not making that clear. Ashley's comment comparing the dime-store thrillers and romances as being essentially the same struck a chord with me, because it's so true. I don't know about everyone else, but I hate that, when it comes to romantic comedies, that's a girls' night, but we're all supposed to love seeing any action adventure movie in theaters (and I say that as someone who very much enjoys a good, not-too-misogynist adventure flick).

You know, I have a feeling Ashley and I are more or less arguing the same point regarding romance. Not that we'll stop, because, hey, we're Oxy alumni, which means we tend to debate any and everything into the ground ...

I absolutely agree that there's a difference between Jane Austen and formulaic romance. My point was that it is a romance - that the concept of romance in fiction is broader than the genre as listed at a bookstore. For example, there's the very forgettable Beginner's Greek that's considered general fiction but is very much a romance (a bad one, but a a romance is the center of the plot). That two books have the same central idea for a plot doesn't mean they're identical or worthy of comparison. My frustration stems from the tendency to consider a work that features a romance as somehow 'less' than a story that involves another central plot point.

In reading reviews of Little Women, I see some of the same desire to lessen the work because of the subject matter. Not so much the romance but because of the very obvious religious messages. That the characters are very much devout Christians shouldn't make the book less of a classic or somehow outdated or out of place in modern society. Neither does that mean it should be shelved with the Christian section.

As to Ashley's second point: I agree absolutely. Also, I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume the "woman past her prime" comment was made by Hollywood executives and people sadly mistaken about the simple truth that we all get old.

[Carol]

Touche' on getting old. I'm in the older half of this group, and am past my prime. Health circumstances have expedited some of this, but I'm doing as good as I can. Tonight I started reading March. I'm really just in the first few pages, but I will use the words love and passion as I read what he is writing about--his love to his family or sweetheart. (Not absolutely clear to me yet who he is writing to, but obviously home.) Is that not love and is that not romance. Quite a contrast so far from the thrillers. I hope this book continues to be as calming as the first few pages, I fear not, but I'm enjoying the start. Like one of you said, I'm not not sure if I actually read Little Women, after all, but like most of you did see the later Movie, and have thought of items I remember about that--and Susan S. Thanks for the referral. I just received an email from another Goodreads friend wanting to know how I like March. She likes this author and has read several of her works.

I'm rambling a bit. To get back on point: Our group of 8 come from a diverse group. Some of you are closer knit through relations, same schools, friendships, similar philosophies. I have some similarities to you too, and look forward to learning more. Lauren, lets let the thrillers argument drop. In re-reading our posts, we can agree to agree, or agree to disagree, yet we are here to learn, appreciate the different viewpoints, I stress APPRECIATE!!!! We are allowed to have different opinions, that is what is so enjoyable about this group so far to me. I belong to another book club, that is mega wimpy in comparison to you ladies. You challenge my thinking, my beliefs, and help me to think of what do I really care about. I hope you don't mind not having another relative or an Oxy graduate, or a teacher in your midst. I am me, and I bring me to the group. And you bring you to the group. I'm not being emotional here. Just very genuine. I like you, want this to be a fun and successful experience for us all!!! :-)

[Meghan]

I have been MIA for a week or so but just read this entire thread....Love the debate going back and forth ( and I didn't even have to instigate it!)...Ashley I have to say you left the lasting impression with me...All books are entertainment in a pure form...the genre they fall in is simply a sub category of that. Whether it is romance, thriller, literature, non-fiction, etc...they all entertain in some form or we wouldn't read them ( exclude text books and required reading...as those are not usually my form of entertainment).

Ashley I think your example Of Olive Kitteridge is perfection...I read that book and loved it...also thought it was a work of art..and it got slammed by most for its plot line. Here is a question ...as the media and entertainment industry become accessible and the public more demanding..I find that the literary world is beginning to mold to the HOllywood story line more and more, instead of Hollywood using pure literary works as inspiration for film and tv. I think in many senses the push to MEGA hits is forcing authors to temper their plots to sell to the masses...It seems all to often these days books are written with the intent to become billion dollar hollywood blockbusters ( Twilight, harry potter, etc). If anything I guess what I am trying to say is that a lot of new books feel watered down ( dumbed down) to please the masses. Inevitable? unavoidable?
When we put all written word into the entertainment category we risk creating a hollywood perspective where if it doesn't sell it is not worth producing. I hope for the sake of BOOKS in general this trend does not continue-I will take an Author's piece of art over watered down blockbuster any day.
okay rant done.

[Cheryl]

OMG! MY COMPUTER GOES SOUTH FOR A DAY, AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENS! FIRST OF ALL, LAUREN, HOW CAN YOU REMEMBER ALL THOSE RELATIVELY OBSCURE MOVIES? I BARELY REMEMBER THE RITLES, LET ALONE THE PLOTS! ALSO, TO DEFINE "LITERATURE" OR IT'S GENRES SEEMS A BIT COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO ME. I AM USUALLY READING 2 OR THREE NOVELS AT ONCE, AND THEY ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE. TO ME, IT'S LIKE CHANGING CHANNELS ON THE TV. I AGREE THAT "LITERATURE" HAS MORE THOUGHT PROVOKING LEVELS TO IT, BUT GENRE IS IRRELEVANT. I THINK AS ONE OF YOU INTIMATED THAT THE BOOKS WRITTEN DURING A PARTICULAR TIME REFLECT THE BIASES, POLITICS, PHILOSOPHIES OF THE TIME IN WHICH THEY WERE WRITTEN. EVEN CONTEMPORARY WRITERS WHO WRITE "PERIOD PIECES" CAN'T HELP BUT PROJECT THEIR OWN FEELINGS INTO THEIR WORK. WHY ELSE WOULD WE BE SO OBSESSED WITH AUTHORS IN THE FIRST PLACE? TO ME, IF A BOOK IS GOOD, IT'S GOOD. I READ IT MORE THAN ONCE, AND I RECOMMEND IT TO MY FRIENDS WHO DON'T WANT TO WASTE TIME WITH SOMETHING I THINK IS NOT GOOD. (MOST OF THOSE FRIENDS ARE STILL PLOWING THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL PAPERS ON THE GREAT GATSBY OR TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD.) I STILL READ WUTHERING HEIGHTS EVERY YEAR AND WEEP WHEN HEATHCLIFF DIES FOR THE LOVE OF HIS CATHY IN SPITE OF THE FACT HE IS A PERFECT BASTARD. I LOVE THE DEPTH OF THIS NOVEL THAT I CONSIDER UNMATCHED BY HER CONTEMPORARIES. BUT THAT'S JUST ME. I READ THAT FIRST IN 1967 IN ENGISH LIT AT SANGER HIGH SCHOOL, AND HAVE BEEN HOOKED ON READING, DRAMA, AND EMOTIONAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL SUSPENSE EVER SINCE. I'LL READ ANYTHING AND GIVE YOU MY OPINION. YOU GUYS CRACK ME UP! YOU ARE SOOOO SERIOUS! TAKE A BREATH AND READ FOR FUN AND TO KEEP OUR BRAINS TWEEKED. I NEED TWEEKING, AND YOU GUYS ARE CERTAINLY DOING THAT!

[Carol]

Go Cheryl...you said it in such a masterful way, much much much better than I did. Hey guys, that was what I was trying to say...from your "I'll read anything...to the end." Perfectly written.

I have my favorites that I may read and re-read too, but they are on my shelf with warm feelings every time I look or pull them off the shelf again. Way to go Cheryl!!

[Ashley]

Auntie Cheryl, we're not too serious. . . .we're lively! And hopelessly OPINIONATED. And YOU are the most opinionated woman I know. (There is nobody else on earth who barks at ugly clothes when we go shopping.)

Question: Would you shelve Wuthering Heights in the romance section? (ducking)

[Lauren]

Meghan, I so agree with the movie comment! I went to an author event last year where the author pretty much said "Oh, I wrote the book to give me a platform for television and film." And it wasn't even a big blockbuster-type thing, just a tiny little memoir. I wanted to throw something at him.

[Cheryl]

I HAVE TAUGHT THE HEIGHTS AS A CLASSIC GOTHIC ROMANCE OF THE MID 19TH CENTURY WHEN THEY WERE MOST POPULAR IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MORE CURRENT REBECCA BY DAPHNE DU MAURIER. IT'S THAT UNDERCURRENT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DARKNESS COUPLED WITH THE SUPERNATURAL THAT SEEMS TO DEFY THE COMMON ROMANCE GENRE. BOTH YOU WILL FIND IN THE CLASSICAL LITERATURE SECTIONS OF LIBRARIES AND BOOK STORES...

[Lauren]

To bring us back to Ashley's original question, I was at the library this weekend (and now have a copy of Skippy Dies) when I saw a copy of Paula McLain's newest book, The Paris Wife, which is a fictionalized account of Ernest Hemingway's years in Paris with his first wife Hadley. So it is a male author, but the focus is on the wife rather than the author.

[Meghan]

That could make for an interesting perspective/representation...might have to pick that one up.

[Lauren]

Watched Becoming Jane last night - I cannot believe the number of similarities between it and Lost Summer (you know, beyond the more shallow comparisons).