"Many romance writers have openly bragged about writing a first draft in two to three weeks and mailing unedited draft to Harlequin editors. Their first drafts were immediately accepted"

Nonsense. Spoken like someone who is talking out of his or her hat. I am a published novelist, with a graduate degree in literature and 10 years teaching writing, and I've been trying for years to get a book accepted by Harlequin. I know many, many Harlequin authors, and many who would like to be Harlequin authors, and none of them "wrote a first draft in three weeks and got accepted immediately." That is, I actually KNOW what I'm talking about, unlike you. Harlequin is actually one of the hardest publishers to break into, and they also are hard to stay with-- I know writers who have had several books published by HQ and then later books are rejected.

If you think it's easy to write and sell a romance book, please try it and report back to us. But as someone who has suffered a lot of vicissitudes in this industry, I can save you the time and trouble-- you're wrong. I had a boss once-- the head of the English department at my college-- who said he wanted to make some easy money, and so over the summer he was going to write and sell a romance novel. I laughed and said, "Good luck with that!" And then, for the next couple years, every time I saw him, I'd ask, "Hey, how's that romance novel coming? All that easy money flowing in yet?"

He'd scowl at me and mutter something about it being harder than he thought. Well, duh. Most novels require an external plot or an internal plot. Some "relationship" books require mostly an interactional plot. Romances require all three, braided together, each supporting the other plots. This is much harder to do well that you can imagine from your perch of know-nothingness.

Just give it a try. Or maybe defer to those of us with actual writing and publishing experience and accept-- you're wrong. It's much harder than you think.

And just consider that a genre written for and by women might

engender contempt for reasons that have nothing to do with quality.... that is, one of the major attractions of romance for women is that it puts women's concerns and the woman's journey central in the plot, and also assumes that women can and do triumph in life and in love. I was thinking of this as I watched the new TV show Mad Men, which is interesting and beautifully crafted... with almost no interest in what's actually going on in women's lives. (There are, of course, women characters, but the presentation of them in their lives is shadowy except when they're next to the "Mad Men.") Women might be a lot more interested in the wife's inability to fully grieve for her mother than in whether Don is going to manage to get into another bed. Not saying one is more important than another... but in romance, the woman's journey is paramount, and that's important in and of itself.

I love Stephanie Zacharek's reviews. Like most of Salon's movie reviews, they give a different spin on the movie than the most of the media. They've made me go to movies I wouldn't have dreamed of seeing otherwise as well as avoid a few stinkers (wisely as I found at later when they ended up on cable). But I disagree with this one. I saw Becoming Jane yesterday and LOVED it. I loved the little scenes and bits of dialogue that hinted at the novels she would write later. The premise is inspired, the casting perfect, and the acting wonderful. I was especially touched by Wesley. Oh, maybe I'm using too many adjectives (as Jane might say). Anyway, I've read all her books and I think Jane would have enjoyed this sweet, happy, sad little flower of a movie. Thanks for all the great reviews, Stephanie. And thank you to the people who made this movie.

The dresses mentioned by Ms. Zacharek as historically appropriate were of two completely different styles throughout most of the movie. The character of Jane Austen was consistently dressed in Empire style gowns (high waists, etc.) while nearly all the other female characters were in an earlier syle of dress, including stiff bodices reaching to the waist, etc... This earlier style of dress (don't know the name offhand) was I believe worn during the time the supposed romance with LeFroy took place (late 18th C), whereas the Empire style would be more appropriate to the time when Jane Austen was already a famous author, in the early 19th C.

I'm not an expert, but this really bothered me during the movie.

Anonymous wrote:

Many romance writers have openly bragged about writing a first draft in two to three weeks and mailing unedited draft to Harlequin editors. Their first drafts were immediately accepted

Really? Name one. Name ONE romance writer who has bragged about this. Provide a source. Is it in the last ten years? The last five? Doubt it.

My "little Harlequin" romances and those written by my Harlequin and Silhouette colleagues and I can be every bit as entertaining, deep, emotional, soulful, fun, frivolous, exciting, sexy, (in other words...all the things a romance reader is looking for) as a "single-title" romance. Those of you who are trying to defend romance by kicking the Harlequin authors--we are not amused.

Stephanie, if you want to read a real Harlequin before you bash us again in a cliched generalization, send me an email. I'll send you a free book.

This review, as well as the one for the 2005 P&P, seem to favor the exchange of quietly nuanced accurate portrayals for the modernized, sexed-up versions. The movie sounds trite, what with the alpha hero introducing sex and mixing with the lower classes to show his manliness and fire, and I don't disagree with not liking it for some very good reasons.

Approaching it with blatant snobbery toward romanticism and the people who like fiction that falls into that genre has biased the review to the point of it being useless. Instead of finding the good points and groaning at the couple of dumb things that felt tacked-on to show Americans how non-stodgy the characters are, the whole thing is an elitist piece against the women who want to believe in the sort of love in Austen's novels. So what? The movie doesn't seem to be presenting itself as Art or Film in a way to merit it being examined as such.

The point of the review isn't about how it compares to the biography it was based on, but about how stupid women have to be to buy into it. Just because some women want romantic stories and love to get lost in Austen's (or anyone's) novels doesn't mean that they aren't intelligent or cultured. It's ironic that this movie is panned for heavy-handed modernizations, while the 2005 P&P is praised for removing the slow subtleties of the culture for faster and more blatant shortcuts.