The inspration for "Becoming Jne" is from a biography "Becoming Jane Austen" by Jon Spence. The book lays out a lot of family history and context to explore how and why Jane bacame a writer, and such a good writer. (He served as historical consultant on the movie as well, though he reminds readers in his new edition that the film's "plot and incidents" are fictional).

According to Spence, Jane Austen was made proposals at least twice (once when she was the ripe old age of 30). Since she had no income, no fame (yet), and no lofty connections, she must have been "attractive" enough for her admireres to oerlook her marriage-market deficiencies. Anne Hathaway? Whay not?

Spence also champions the Tom Lefroy romance (though he doesn't make the speculative leaps that the movie does), and discusses at length how "Tom Jones" (A book Austen and Lefroy enjoyed in common, and which, according to Spence, becomes Austen's shorthand symbol for Lefroy) references crept into Jane Austen's own novels.

I suspect that's why the movie Jane is introduced to a novel the real Jane had read and admired. The vast majority of the movie-going public, including many Austen-iphiles, has probably never read "Tom Jones" and we need to get that exposition in somewhere.

I still plan on seeing the movie. But I'm glad I read the book first. Anyone who is disappointed with the film will get a thoughtful, detailed and suported impression of Jane Austen's creative and personal life.

...but if there is one thing that the history of popular cinema has taught us, it is that audiences do love gazing at beautiful people on the big screen. Living a vicarious fantasy life where you can pretend to be (or be with!) Cary Grant, Marilyn Monroe, Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie is a key component of cinema's allure and no toffee-nosed sniffles about the 'art' of the medium will change that.

I saw this film when it was released in England a couple of months ago and it does a pretty big disservice to Austen, especially after the triumph of Keira Knightley's Pride and Prejudice (which impressed me mightily despite previous misgivings about Knightley's ability to make a believable Elizabeth).

Given Austen's racy juvenilia, her wit, her wide reading, and the fact that you would be vastly uneducated if you didn't know Fielding, Smollett, Sterne in that period, it's just plain dumb that someone has to introduce her to Tom Jones, and that she's shocked. Reading that in two reviews has put me off the movie completely; it means that the screenwriter and director don't really care about more than surfaces (Empire waistlines, etc.). It's as false to the period as Kate Winslet giving someone the finger in "Titanic."

Hi. It's actually "Red Hot Riding Hood." Or, possibly, "Little Rural Riding Hood." Yes, I watch way too many cartoons.

Love your work.

"Part of the pleasure of watching movies comes from looking at beautiful people."

This is about the dumbest thing I have read on the movies. Only dumb asses go to the movies to see these so-called beautiful people.

I see beautiful people everyday; many even better looking then in the movies.

Yeah beer bellied slobs with backward baseball caps buy the Swim Suit edition so perhaps they go for that reason. Lonely fantasizing romance novel readers may go for those sad reasons.

I go to the movies for many reasons and not one is to see beautiful people. And I ain't no highbrow.

I am sick of this superficial shit already. This ruined the rest of the review.