Books on Film: Mary Poppins

One of the most iconic characters of all time is also the most confused. Mary Poppins on the page isn't a whole lot like the Disney version that would become famous three decades later. Mary Poppins was heavily adapted for the screen, yet the film version is probably more well-known than the book that came first.

The Book

Mary Poppins was published in 1934 by P. L. Travers, and it became only the first in an 8-book series that would spawn decades and even generations. But the first book created a legendary character that all children, young and old, recognize immediately...as Julie Andrews. 

Like the Disney film, the book revolves around the Banks family. They live at Number Seventeen Cherry Tree Lane in London. In the book, Mr. and Mrs. Banks have four children, not two. In addition to Jane and Michael, there is a pair of twins named John and Barbara. Mary Poppins arrives at the house on a gust of wind quite soon after Katie Nana, the nanny, storms out of the family home in a snit. 

Mary Poppins is cross, stern and vain -- but also magical, and wonder follows wherever she goes. They go on a trip around the world using a compass, experience a tea party on the ceiling, meet a bird woman, even celebrate a birthday party at the zoo with the animals. At the end of the book, the west wind blows Mary Poppins away from the Banks family because her work is done.

The Film

Disney released their Mary Poppins in 1964, with a then-unknown actress in the title role. Julie Andrews was a rising star on Broadway but she wasn't anyone on film...until 1965. Andrews scored the Oscar for her portrayal of Mary and became a legend as a result.

Rumor has it that Walt Disney himself tried to get the rights to the book as early as 1938, but Travers turned him down because she didn't want to see an animated version of her book. It wasn't until she was granted script approval, in 1961, that she relented and let him make the film. 

It's still one of the best Disney ever made. Putting the script and songs together alone took around two years, and Julie Andrews almost didn't do the role. Other actresses, like Bette Davis and Angela Lansbury, were being considered because the book Mary was prim and cool. Andrews was much warmer, but Walt Disney wanted her for the role after seeing her performing on Broadway. When Audrey Hepburn was confirmed to play the lead in the film version of My Fair Lady (a role Andrews had hoped to get), she agreed to become Mary. 

With Dick van Dyke in the supporting cast, the Disney version of Mary Poppins became a fun, musical tale filled with grinning chimney sweeps and colorful characters -- not to mention, animated friends. It's a true Disney flick...and in true Disney fashion, it was changed and re-arranged to no end with very little regard to the original narrative. They'll do it to history, they'll do it to any book.

What Got Adapted?

Mary Poppins isn't pretty. Nor is she sweet and charming and fun. In fact, she's rather cool and quite stern (which is why Bette Davis was considered for the cinema version). Jane and Michael are quite a bit worse than the movie would have you believe. Many little things are changed throughout the plot. 

Bert hardly appears in the book; his role was greatly beefed up because why wouldn't you want more of Dick van Dyke? He does go with Mary to the country through the painting...but not with the kids. Admiral Boom is mentioned but once in the book, only in passing. The entire chimney sweep scene in the movie is fabricated; there isn't really any reference to Bert being a chimney sweep in the original story. The bank run is also a fabrication for the film; it just doesn't happen.

The overall theme of the story was also changed, in my opinion for the worse. The book is more focused on the children. Mary Poppins is there to teach them how to use their imagination, and be better people. In the movie, she changes Mr. Banks and makes him less of a workaholic so he spends more time with them.

That said, Mary Poppins is still one of the most wonderful movies Disney's ever made, and a true classic that everyone should keep watching. The narrative of the book isn't a cohesive thread exactly; the way it's written, it reads more like a book that should be read to children. It's a perfect book for bedtime, and a sweet read for older people. But if you're going to give the original a try, brace yourself for a lot of differences.

Second Time Around: The Gospel of St. Luke

A while back, I blogged about a novel that's based on one of the books from the Old Testament. It's only fair to give equal space to a novel that's based on one of the books of the New Testament -- one of the most well-known and beloved, in fact.

The Original 

The Gospel of St. Luke, often titled simply Luke in the New Testament, details the life and times of Jesus Christ. No matter what you happen to believe, you're familiar with the unusual story surrounding his birth: a young, virginal girl is visited by an angel. The angel tells her that she will bear a Messiah, the son of God Himself, through immaculate conception.

Mary, the young girl who is chosen for this task, faces censure and trouble. Her husband, Joseph, proves to be an understanding man. He takes his wife away to have her baby, which they'll raise together, and the infant is born in a manger because they can find no shelter at he inn.

More than two thousand years later, this event is still celebrated around the world as the holiday of Christmas, the birth of Christ. It's celebrated on December 25 annually, though many scholars agree that if Jesus was an actual person he was most likely born in the summer time. Whether or not you celebrate it, you're familiar with the original story. You probably don't know much about the much more modern remake.

The Remake

It's bold to re-make a story that's two thousand years old. To re-tell a story that billions of people are familiar with...that's downright crazy. But this is what John Case does in The Genesis Code.

The book stars, appropriately, in a small church in a little Italian town. A parish priest is going about his usual day, but his whole world changes when he takes the confession of a world-famous physician. The priest immediately makes the journey to Rome...to Vatican City.

Over in America, an entrepreneur named Joe Lassister is about to have his world shattered, too. The head of a successful investigative firm, Joe receives a middle-of-the-night phone call to tell him that his only sister and his nephew are both dead due to a tragic house fire. An as-yet-unidentified man was also involved in the tragedy, suffering tramatic burns while trying to escape the scene. Joe knows something is wrong immediately, and begins to use all his considerable resources to unravel the strange mystery.

Joe soon discovers that his sister Kathy and nephew Brandon aren't the first mother and son to die in tragic house fires recently. He begins working backward until he discovers the clinic where Kathy was treated for infertility and artificial insemination, and learns that every other woman treated at the clinic has perished.

Every other woman...except for one. Joe attempts to track down the sole survivor and her child, a quest that's complicated by the fact that the former patient is also a former celebrity. Once an up-and-coming Hollywood actress, the patient has dropped out of the public eye and into deep cover. Joe at lasts locates the woman, who is calling herself Marie, after an exhaustive search.

He has no way of knowing that, one the other side of the world, the Vatican is already buzzing with things Joe hasn't yet begun to understand. There is a small religious sect at work within the walls of the Holy See, and they're protecting some pretty frightening secrets. The man who is still recovering from his terrible burns is actually a hired hitman...and a devout religious fanatic.

How does it all tie into the original book that inspired this modern-day remake/retelling? If I tell you that, I'll give away the best parts of the mystery (and you know how I love mysteries). Suffice it to say that by the final page of the book, you'll definitely understand. The Genesis Code is part re-telling of an old story, but it's thoroughly modern and its story is completely new. It's chilling, it's mysterious, it's well-paced -- it's an all-around great read, whether or not you're a fan of the Bible.

Another Amazing Review for Justice

 "Justice is AMAZING!"

 "This is an EXCELLENT book - it doesn’t matter if you label it as YA, suspense, thriller, drama...the perfect amount of romance, action and secrets to resolve."

Ruty at Reading...Dreaming has reviewed Justice, and I'm pleased to say she's given it 5/5 stars. Visit the blog to read the full review. 

The July release celebration for Death is ongoing, so you can download a FREE copy of Justice at Smashwords with the code SSWIN to see how your review of the book compares!

From the Trenches: Fortunate Son

One of America's most well-loved writers is also one of the unluckiest. Jack London faced rather miserable circumstances early in life, and before he found fame and fortune he had a mailbox stuffed full of ugly rejection letters. You can still see some of them today, on display at his famous estate. There are almost enough, in fact, to use as wallpaper. 

Jack London was born illegitimately in California to a single mother. As a child, London was raised by an ex-slave and worked in a cannery. As a teen, London worked on fishing and sealing boats before he returned to land to attend high school at 19. 

He loved to read, and as a natural extension of his love of words began to write when he wasn't working in the canning factory. London submitted many early poems, short stories and poems to publications throughout California in his early years of writing, but received rejection in return. His mother committed suicide when he was 21. Devastated by this and by his biological father's subsequent rejection, Jack London decided to quit school and went into the wilds of the Klondike. 

It would change him, and his writing, for ever.

Being Wild

Jack London joined the Gold Rush in 1897, sailing to the Klondike with his sister's husband. When he returned to California a year later, he was motivated to become a successful writer -- and now, he had the perfect setting to give him a good start. Using the backdrop of the Klondike, London began to write his first novel. He was offered 5 dollars for it from The Overland Monthly, and almost decided to give up on writing.

But he didn't. He received much more money for this story "A Thousand Deaths" and began writing more. It was a lucky coincidence that new printing technologies were also available for the first time, creating a magazine boom and a huge need for lots and lots of words. In 1900, London made thousands of dollars from his writing.

He sold his iconic work, The Call of the Wild, to the The Saturday Evening Post and Macmillan in 1903, and it cemented his career. As planned, Jack London became a successful working writer. Jack London was the highest-paid and most popular author and short story writer of his day, drawing on his own exciting experiences out in nature to craft vivid tales the public still devours. His book The Sea-Wolf was used as the basis for the first full-length American movie ever made.

Jack London didn't commit suicide, as urban myth would have readers believe. He developed kidney disease, possibly stemming from his days in the Klondike when his health was quite poor, and died of renal failure. He wanted to be a writer, and he was -- it's a story with a happy ending, not a sad one. 

You can see Jack London's history if you visit the House of Happy Walls, a museum decided to London established shortly after his death. Here, there are almost 600 rejection letters on display that London received from editors and other literary types during his career. Many writers could use that many letters to completely cover their workspace in wall-to-wall rejection. It didn't stop Jack London, who worked in the writing trenches with ambition firing his brain...and proved them all wrong. 

Books on Film: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is considered by many to be the only American fairy tale, a story that takes a little girl from a farm in the midwest to a fantasy land of talking lions and amazing wonders. More commonly known as The Wizard of Oz, the book turned into several sequels, a well-known stage play and one iconic film that's still a must-watch for anyone under the age of twelve.

But when you try to compare the book against the film, it's almost like talking about two totally different stories. The Hollywood version of the book is so over-altered it's nearly unrecognizable. In fact, one of the most famous elements of the story never factored into the book at all: it's complete movie fiction.

The Book

The first edition of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz had an initial printing of 10,000 copies. Baum assembled the very first copy of the book himself and hand-delivered it to his sister Mary Louise Baum. The first edition sold out in the months, and the second printing of 15,000 ran out before the year was out. By 1938, a year before MGM would make the story legendary, more than 1 million copies of the novel had been sold.

The story struck a chord with the public right away. It chronicles the adventures of Dorothy, who's being raised by Aunt Em and Uncle Henry. Her best friend is her little black dog Toto, and her landscape is a wind-swept plain of gray. A cyclone lifts her up and away into a much more colorful world, but Dorothy's entrance is rather dramatic: her house lands right on the Wicked Witch of the East.

To praise Dorothy for her good work in this regard, the Good Witch of the North gives her a pair of silver shoes, which belonged to the aforementioned Wicked Witch. The Good Witch encourages Dorothy to go to the City of Emeralds to speak to the Wizard of Oz.

Dorothy meets up with a talking Scarecrow, a rust-covered Tin Woodman and a frightened Cowardly Lion on her way to the Emerald City. They have to fight through many tribulations before reaching the city, where they each meet with the Wizard individually. 

Before they will get what they each want from the Wizard, they must kill the Wicked Witch of Winkie Country...a creature no one has ever managed to harm. More trouble follows. The Tin Woodman has to battle 40 wolves, Scarecrow must fight 40 crows, a torrent of killer bees even swarm in at one point. Eventually, the Wicked Witch is melted away with a bucket of water and Dorothy gets her silver shoes back. The Winkies ask for the Tin Woodman to become their new ruler. 

The adventurers end up going back to the Emerald City, where they discover the Wizard's secret, before they journey through other, bizarre areas of Oz. They travel to Quadling Country, which is filled with fighting trees, and venture through the fragile China Country before they reach the forest where the Cowardly Lion finally finds his courage. It isn't until they get over the mountain that Glinda the Good Witch of the South reveals the truth: Dorothy can use her silver shoes any time to go home.

Baum himself said that he was influenced by another author when writing The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. He created Dorothy, a female protagonist, because he liked the character Alice from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

Dorothy spends much more time in Oz in the book, and it's a very different place. The characters all look somewhat different and there are many, many more events the film leaves out. You can read the whole thing free online if you like; it's been part of the public domain since 1956.

The Film

MGM released the film version of the book, re-titled as The Wizard of Oz, in 1939. It was a big-budget, big name production...but it was competing with a much more popular book-turned-film released the same year: Gone With the Wind.

Many film historians consider 1939 to be the year of movies, and some say that the best films ever made were released that year. Wizard of Oz had a lot going for it: great music, great direction, and all the clout of MGM studios...not to mention Technicolor.

It's one of the most iconic films of all time, and one of the most popular. The score is one of the best-known, featuring songs like "Over the Rainbow" and "If I Only Had a Brain." But the movie was a nightmare to make. Crew members died in terrible accidents. One actor was poisoned by his make-up, and his role had to be re-cast. Judy Garland was too old to play Dorothy, the book was too wordy to fit into a script, the sets were so big and sweeping and expensive that it started to create problems. And how do you film flying monkeys, anyway?

In movie theaters, The Wizard of Oz became a beautiful fantasy film centering around a fun quartet. They sing and dance down the Yellow Brick Road, confront the Wicked Witch several times, discover the truth about the Wizard and eventually Dorothy gets back to Kansas. It's sort of the same tale, but many of the details are different and much of the original narrative is missing.

What Got Adapted

The danger in the book version of The Wizard of Oz in toned down greatly for the film adaptation. You don't know just how treacherous Oz really is until you've read it on the page. In the movie, it's pretty clear that Dorothy has only been dreaming of Oz, so the few dangers that still remain are all contrived anyway...but this isn't what happens in the book. Oz isn't a dream but a reality, danger and all. 

In the book, Glinda is the Good Witch of the South and the Good Witch of the North doesn't have a name. There is also a Queen of the Field Mice in the book, a character who was blended with Glinda on film. Dorothy's silver shoes were changed to ruby slippers for the film. The ruby slippers are legendary, and so famous they're actually on display at the Smithsonian...but they were added as a sort of marketing technique. MGM was using new Technicolor technology to make Wizard, and red shows out a whole lot better than silver. They wanted to show off what they could do, so the red slippers were slipped in. 

The Wicked Witch of the West isn't such a big character in the book. Her role is expanded on film, and many of Dorothy's adventures in Oz are cut completely. In the book, Dorothy is much more of a hero. She takes charge more often. On film, Dorothy needs to be saved quite a bit, which was totally at odds with Baum's feminist ideals.

The farmhands, the Professor and Miss Gultch are totally fabricated for the film; they were added to reinforce the idea that Oz was all a dream. The flying monkeys are in the book, but they're not such bad guys: they're being magically controlled, and in a sub-plot Dorothy frees them before she leaves Oz.

Basically, the book is changed a whole lot for the movie, and not all of the changes would seem to make sense at first blush. Garland is much older than Dorothy, only 11 or 12 in the book, there is no "horse of a different color" (more Technicolor magic on display), Scarecrow doesn't receive a diploma but a simulated brain...the list goes on. But at the end of the reel, the film version of The Wizard of Oz is absolutely fantastic. It's a sweeping, fantastical epic with memorable characters in a wonderful land, and much of the flavor of the book is captured if not a whole lot of the details. Judy Garland is amazing in the role, and she would be associated with "Over the Rainbow" for the whole of her life following the flick. There's a reason that everyone has seen the movie: it's truly wonderful. But if you want to get a peek at the real story, the book is free for the reading -- so take advantage!

Writing 101: Hiring a Professional Editor

Writers are naturally creative people. Their imaginations are finely-honed, their visualization skills superb...they're not necessarily imbued with great gifts for punctuation and grammar. Being an author doesn't automatically make you a gifted editor, too, and it takes a lot of time to read and re-read your work over and over again. Should you consider hiring a professional editor to get the job done instead? 

Professional Editors

The self-publishing industry has created its own market, and there's no shortage of professionals that authors can hire if they've got the money. Professional editing services abound if you need a little help cleaning up your pages. Some editing services are geared specifically toward indie authors, and along with traditional proofreading services they provide ebook formatting as well. 

Is it worth it? 

• Cost. Professional editing services don't come cheap, and everybody's got their own way of doing things. You may be charged on a per-project basis, with rates determined by word count, to the tune of around $125 to $400 for each book. Some editors charge by the hour (around $40 to $80 USD), per word (anywhere from 1 to 5 cents a pop), or even per page. That epic saga you need edited could literally break the bank. 
• Service. It's important to remember that, even when you hire a professional service, they have their own way of doing things. Their formatting may not look exactly as what you envisioned for your work, and their grammatical and punctuation style may not match your personal tone and voice. Before choosing a service, look at examples of their work and make sure it feels like a good fit. 
• Time. How long is it going to take? Some services may take several weeks or even months to return your manuscript. Make sure you get a clear time frame that you can live with if you're going to choose a professional editing service. 
• English. It's very important that you choose an editing service that matches your dialect. There are several forms of English out there; Australian, British and American are the most common. If you're a States-based writer and you hire a company based in England to edit your work, you're going to end up with something confusing to you and your target audience. If you depict specific dialects and speech patterns in your book, you'll need to choose an editing service that's familiar with these styles of speaking to avoid lots of back-and-forth conversations.

Hiring a professional editor can be a good way to save yourself some time and get your ebook beautifully polished before it's published. But it can also be a headache if you don't find an editor that's a good fit. Every author has their own distinct voice and tone, and this is something an editor can completely screw up if they don't understand it. Ideally, you'll find an editor that understands your writing and develop a good working relationship with them. In reality, it will probably take you a lot of wrong turns before you find that person. Shop around for the right editor by viewing their samples and giving them sample chapters to edit on a trial basis. Look for someone who's very open to communication and flexible with their methods. 

If you have the money to hire a professional editor, it's a good way to ready your book...but it's not the perfect way. Authors should always do at least some editing on their work themselves; half the writing process is in the editing. You've got to read your own book to get a sense of its tone and voice, and you can learn a lot about yourself and your writing in the process. Much of the learning process of writing is in the editing, and you don't want to deny yourself that experience. A professional editor should be used only for a final polish of your book, nothing more, and only after you've done quite a bit of editing yourself. This will make you a stronger writer, and eventually you may feel comfortable doing all the editing yourself so you can save money.

Writing 101: Review Swapping

Review swapping. It's always a hot forum topic on author boards, and it's a survival tactic for many indie writers who are trying to promote new books. But before you jump on the review swapping bandwagon and start putting your to-be-read list together, envisioning all those great reviews your work is about to receive, read this post...and find out why I'm passionately, deeply against the very idea of trading reviews -- with anyone. 

Tit for Tat

There's nothing wrong with trading. As a matter of fact, I've said more than once that we ought to simply do away with the money and go back to a system of bartering. Coinage is made up anyway; money has value because we give it value. Trading is the much older, much more reliable form of currency -- and it's been highly beneficial to a ton of indie authors out there. 

But it's also got a dark side...one that just might swallow your reputation whole. 

Review Swapping Pros

There are obvious benefits to be gained from agreeing to a review swap with another indie...that's why they're so popular. 

• You get reviews. When you agree to a review swap, you're pretty much guaranteed that you're going to get a review for your work -- and isn't that what it's all about? For many indies, this pro outweighs any potential con in review swap agreements. It shouldn't. 
• You meet other indies. You can meet other indie authors like you when you agree to review swaps. This may lead to future networking and marketing opportunities, even a friendship or a future collaboration. It's a lot of potential, and it's pretty exciting. There are, of course, other ways to meet indies and you don't have to agree to do anything. 
• You find great reads. In agreeing to review swaps with other indies, you might discover a great book or a great author you wouldn't have read otherwise. Since many authors are also readers, this is a thrilling possibility. 
• You gain experience. Through your review swaps, you're obligated to write a review of what you've read. You'll end up gaining experiencing with each new review you write, and before you know it you'll be well on your way to a polished, professional review style. 

Review Swapping Cons

Full disclosure: I've done review swaps. When I first became an indie author I was exposed to the possibility of review swaps early, and it seemed like a great idea...at first. In my experience, there's a lot of good that can come from them...but there's more bad that will. 

• You're obligated. Once you agree to do a review swap, you'd better do it. Your word as an author and as a person is on the line. Whenever you agree to do anything you should do it, so there's no backing out of a review swap agreement -- no matter how completely unreadable the book. The obligation can be a gigantic burden if you happen to discover the book you're supposed to review is a hate-filled, extremely offensive work that completely disparages one entire group of people (which is, yes, what happened to me). But it's also a huge burden if the book is bad, and to that end...
• What are you going to say when it stinks? If the book is riddled with errors and absolutely horrible, your first reaction is probably going to be terror. What if you tell the truth about this book, and the author who's reviewing yours retaliates? A bad review is the least of what you might face -- potentially, a pissed-off indie can slam you on Twitter, Facebook and any other website you might like to visit. As committed as you are to promoting your work, it's possible that you could create a nemesis who's just as passionate about destroying it.
• Are you a liar? So, okay. You don't want any backlash, and you're no idiot. So let's say you soften up your reviews a bit, maybe sugar-coat them, skip over all the editing errors and the glaring plot holes you found in that book you agreed to review. Here's the rub: people are capable of forming their own opinions. If they read a book based on the fact that you gave it 4 stars and it turns out to be terrible, do you know who looks bad? It's not the author who wrote the book -- it's you. You're the one who looks like a liar, and pretty soon others are going to know that your reviews aren't truthful. Think they're going to be lining up to read your latest book when you release it?
• You give up your reading rights. Once you start agreeing to a bunch of review swaps, you're giving up your basic rights as a reader. You can't really put the book down when it sickens you, give up reading it when the formatting errors become too much to handle. You've got to finish it, and you don't get to decide what you're going to read next. If you're already spending your time writing and formatting and editing and promoting, why in the hell would you want to screw around with your recreational reading time, too? Why force yourself to read something you don't like on your free time? 

I personally have had terrible experiences with review swapping, and I just won't ever do it anymore ever again under any circumstances whatsoever...so maybe I'm a little jaded on the topic. But at the end of the day, every indie has to make a choice. 

Choose integrity. Don't agree to do something you may not really want to do. Don't sweeten up a review of a book you know is bad and filled with flaws. Don't compromise your reputation to get a few cheap and easy reviews of your books. Don't fool yourself into thinking you can do review swaps and remain objective. You are a human being, and somewhere it's going to be in your head that your review could directly reflect on the review you're going to receive in exchange. That's not really an environment that lends itself to being truthful, is it?

It's a lot harder to comb book blogs and cultivate readers, but it's a lot more worth it -- and you won't have to suffer through any book you don't really want to read.

The Second Time Around: Pride and Prejudice

Though it was published way, way back in 1813, Pride and Prejudice is still one of today's most popular books. It's sold more than 20 million copies around the world, and not just because so many English teachers assign it as homework (which is what happened to me). Even though the story was written by an English miss who lived and died on the page nearly 200 years ago, the story resonates strongly with American readers and book lovers around the world....even when it's pushed into England of the twenty-first century.

The Original

 Elizabeth Bennet is the heroine of Pride and Prejudice, and one of the best-loved characters ever penned. She is a product of her times, and as such expected to conduct herself accordingly in all manners of education, morality and marriage. She is the daughter of a country gentleman in a small town outside London, much like the author Jane Austen herself. The excitement begins when an eligible young bachelor moves into nearby Netherfield. He is quickly popular in the neighborhood, unlike his uptight friend Mr. Darcy. Bingley's eye falls on Elizabeth's sister Jane. Darcy doesn't approve of Jane, and makes some nasty comments within Elizabeth's hearing.

She is forced to abide his company when her sister, caught in a rainstorm, falls ill and must stay at Netherfield or several days. Elizabeth arrives at the estate to care for Jane, and frequently finds herself in Mr. Darcy's company. Elizabeth also meets Mr. Wickham, who was a ward of Mr. Darcy's father. He tells her that he was treated poorly at Darcy's hands. This makes Elizabeth dislike Darcy even more, a feeling that's fueled by her growing attraction to Wickham.

When Bingley leaves Netherfield and Elizabeth later learns that Darcy played a part in it, she's even angrier. They bump into each other again in the spring, and Darcy is so overcome to see her again he immediately proposes marriage. Elizabeth tells him off in no uncertain terms. Later, she receives a letter from Darcy that quite reasonably explains all of his actions, including his ill treatment of Wickham. When she sees him again months later at his family home Pemberley, Elizabeth realizes that she's actually quite attracted to Darcy after all. When Darcy (eventually, after everyone else gets their happy ending) sees Elizabeth again, he proposes again and she accepts. 

Pride and Prejudice is a generous novel, and there are many more events that take place within its pages. I cannot hope to capture the flavor of Austen's poetic writing, because I'm not 200 years old. Unlike many readers, I'm not the biggest Austen fan. Honestly, I much prefer the much more comedic re-telling of the tale.

The Modern Version

Helen Fielding wrote her version of Pride and Prejudice in 1996. This time, it was re-titled as Bridget Jones's Diary and put in modern times...but still set in and around London. The heroine, Bridget, is a little older than Elizabeth Bennet, but that's because the age of your average "spinster" has changed in the past two centuries.

Bridget is a thoroughly modern heroine who smokes, drinks and supports herself through work, but like Elizabeth Bennet she's constrained by society's expectations that she ought to marry and have children.

She just doesn't expect to do it with Mark Darcy, a successful and very smug lawyer -- just like the Mr. Darcy of Pride and Prejudice. When Bridget and Mark meet, he insults her by making it obvious he doesn't want to schedule a date with her, much in the same way Mr. Darcy insults Elizabeth at a country gathering.

There is a big difference in narration between the two books. Bridget's story is told through Bridget's eyes, while Elizabeth's story is narrated by a third party. Wickham appears in the new book in the form of Daniel Cleaver, an incredibly handsome and outgoing character who charms Bridget right away. Like Wickham, however, he has only bad things to say about Mark -- and this makes Bridget dislike him even more.

Eventually, of course, the misunderstandings are cleared up and Darcy admits to liking Elizabeth -- sorry, I mean Bridget. The film version of the book is very true to the text, though some of the parallels between the two books are emphasized for the movie.The modern version of the story is completely delightful in print and in film, and it re-introduces a popular story very well. I'm sure Jane Austen, who wrote about a novel she liked in Northanger Abbey, would approve of Bridget Jones's Diary.