HISTORY!!! Now that I have your attention…

Note: If you don’t care to read about my Oliver, scroll down to check out the movie poster of an upcoming period movie!

1) I’m researching for a major paper and came across one of the many rare books at my university (can’t wait to touch ’em all *creepy laughter*!). It contained pages so brown with age that I had to be careful as I flipped through, as the paper would literally break between my fingertips. I was enchanted.

The thought that I was holding within my bare hands a book published in 1852…meaning that 158 years ago another person had held this very book… To be exact, that other person had been OLIVER. My heart fluttered reading this name. I became curious about the hand, the MAN, who scribbled down his name. With a quill pen.

Quill pen *swoons* 

1852….that’s like….that’s around when North and South takes place!!! Maybe this Mr. Oliver gentleman was a Mr. Thornton? Hmmmm. *Caresses book* 

  2) Books I’m dying to get my hands on after the deluge of essays and readings comes to an end. Maybe during the winter break:

  • M.M. Bennetts’ Of Honest Fame (It’s by one of my favorite novelist & historian whom I had the honour of interviewing)
  • Michel Faber’s Crimson Petal and the White (Read the first few pages. A very unique voice. And I mean…quite, quite unique)
  • Emma Donoghue’s Slammerkin (Why do I want to read this book? It’s about a prostitute in 18th century. Go figure)
  • James Fenimore Cooper’s The Last Mohican (I loved the movie)

Yes, they’re all historical  fictions. And yes, I’m having a Historical-fic-fetish of late.

While I was in search of supporting evidences for my analysis of this one historical movie, I came across a very interesting passage in Rosenstone’s article “The Historical Film as Real History”. He discusses the difference between historical romance movies and historical movies—and I realized his points very much clarified for me the major difference between the two book genres: historical romance (HR) & historical fiction (HF). So, for anyone interested in a simple and  clear explanation as to the differences in these two genres:

To be considered historical, rather than simply a costume drama that uses the past as an exotic setting for romance and adventure, a film must engage, directly or obliquely, the issues, ideas, data, and arguments of the ongoing discourse of history. Like the book, the historical film cannot exist in a state of historical innocence, cannot indulge in capricious invention, cannot ignore the findings and assertions and arguments of what we already know from other sources. Like any work of history, a film must be judged in terms of the knowledge of the past that we already possess. Like any work of history, it must situate itself within a body of other works, the ongoing (multimedia) debate over the importance of events and the meaning of the past.

3) Check out this poster for the upcoming movie WUTHERING HEIGHTS (2011). “Lindsay Lohan campaigned for the role [of romantic heroine Catherine Earnshaw] but...” another actress replaced her. And then that replacement was eventually replaced. And replaced again. And now I’m not quite certain who the role was given to. Anyway…uhh….thank goodness Lohan didn’t get the role? I can’t imagine her playing the lead role in a PERIOD MOVIE. Maybe it’s because I’ve been exposed to so much bad press about Lohan on tabloids while waiting in line at grocery stores. So if I saw her on-screen as Catherine Earnshaw…I would not see Catherine Earnshaw but the celebrity-in-rehab-and-in-court-and-in-court-again. Gee, I remember the good old days when she was in Parents Trap….

I digress. 

Here’s a photo of Mia Wasikowska (she played Alice in…Alice in Wonderland) from the new JANE EYRE (2011) adaptation! Another adaptation that’ll hit theatres next year. I can see a bit of Alice in Ms. Eyre, peeking into the room without knowing that she’ll soon be tumbling down into a world of romantic madness!



Listening to:

17 thoughts on “HISTORY!!! Now that I have your attention…

  1. Great post!!! I love historical fiction. I love the quote about historical fiction vs. historical romance.

    I didn’t realize Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre were to be new movies.

    I don’t know… Lohan might be crazy enough to be Catherine, lol. 🙂


    • ” Lohan might be crazy enough to be Catherine” Hahaha, good point. Who knows, after all the drama she’s gone through, she might have some crazy good acting ability…if only she’d commit


  2. :O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Thank goodness it wasn’t Lohan. And do I see ‘from the makers of the Girl with a Pearl Earring’? YAY!!


  3. I think I’d cry if I held that book. Wow.

    And NO WAY could Lindsey do a period movie. No way. I’m so glad she’s nowhere NEAR Wuthering Heights.


  4. You had me at “Oliver”!! I don’t know why, but I have fallen for that name of late. I even named a restaurant in my novel after it, since I had no characters left.
    Your visceral experience touching the books…makes me feel way less neurotic :-).
    Okay, WH is coming out again?! *screaming girlfriend dance* !!! Lindsey…eeewwwww. Wish her all the best, but puh-lease, leave the historicals be…
    And thrilled about the Jane Eyre too–thanks for the head’s up.


    • Yes, WH is coming out….AGAIN. I’ve watched the most recent two adaptations–one the movie starring Fiennes (sp?) and the other one being a BBC mini-series. Well, I think it was BBC… Anyway, I’m not a fan of either. I’ve always felt that WH was one of those stories that are better left to our own imagination rather than having to watch the story come to life. Because it’s hard to like Heathcliffe after watching him being so violent…But when you imagine it…it isn’t half as bad?


  5. I’ve never read Wuthering Heights-I know that makes me sound so ignorant-but I’m still glad that Lohan didn’t get anywhere near it. I’ll just add that I think the movie poster looks like a historical romance novel cover. (As far as I know, Wuthering Heights is not a conventional romance…am I right?)

    On to the subject of Mia Wasikowska…She was AWESOME in Alice in Wonderland and I’m looking forward to seeing her in Jane Eyre (a novel I did read). Who’s playing Rochester?


    • I actually know of many avid readers who haven’t read WH. I know of Victorian-era fanatics who haven’t read t hat book either. I’m not sure what’s up with WH that so many people haven’t read it…. It’s pretty good? A very violent love story.

      OMG! I know!! That’s the thought that I immedately had upon seeing the movie poster: Huh??…this…looks like the cover art for a historical romance…hmmm…..kinda cheesy.

      I’m glad a younger actress is FINALLY playing Jane. In all the other adaptations she looked like a middle aged woman. Rochester is being played by the handsome dude from HUNGER. I forget his name…but yah…he’d pretty good looking


      • I think the fact that Jane was played by older-looking women is one of the reasons I don’t like the movie adaptions very much. As far as I know, Jane is somewhere in her twenties (nearer to 25). I know that people back then did age faster, but I mean, come on! Making her look 40 is stretching it a bit far.

        I’m so glad that someone good-looking is playing Rochester. Although I haven’t yet seen the guy your talking about, I will trust your judgement – afterall, you think Richard Armitage is dreamy (I agree) and that in my book gives you credibility to judge men’s looks.


  6. I can totally understand how a handwritten name (with a quill pen, no less) would make you swoon :). Thanks for that list of recommendations for historical fiction. I feel like running to the library right this second!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s