Jane Austen Fan Fiction and the Situated Fantext
The Example of Pamela Aidan’s Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman
Veerle Van Steenhuyse
1
Universiteit Gent
Building on recent findings in the field of fan fiction studies, I claim that
Pamela Aidan’s Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman is indirectly influenced by
three cultural phenomena which centre around Jane Austen and her
work. Aidan’s fan fiction text stays close to the spirit of Austen’s Pride
and Prejudice because she “reimagines” the novel according to the
interpretive conventions of the Republic of Pemberley, a fan community.
These conventions demand respect for Austen and her novels because
they are shaped by the broader, cultural conventions of Janeitism and
Austen criticism. Similarly, Aidan’s text is more individualistic and
“Harlequinesque” than Austen’s novel, because the Republic allows
writers to reproduce the cultural reading which underlies BBC / A&E’s
adaptation of Austen’s novel.
1. Introduction
Jane Austen has a fan base, and a creative one at that. For decades, her
devotees have written stories on the basis of her fictional worlds—
recounting what happened after Emma’s wedding, for example, or what
might have taken place after Mr. Bennet’s death. Such narratives are
instances of “fan fiction”: fiction written by and for fans, which is
founded on the characters, settings, concepts, or plots of antecedent
texts. These may be literary classics, like Austen’s novels, but more often
they are non-canonical novels, Japanese anime and manga, video games,
television shows, and films. Fans have published their stories in fanzines,
letterzines, and other amateur forms of press since the 1930s, but with
the rise of the Internet, the tradition exists on a considerably larger scale:
the World Wide Web now houses millions of “fics,” posted by hundreds
of thousands of writers (Coppa 2006a: 42-3; Sendlor 2011). Since Austen
fan fiction has always been a niche phenomenon, it has received less
academic attention than fan fiction based on media texts (such as the
Star Trek franchise) or popular novels (such as the Harry Potter sequence)
(Busse and Hellekson 2006: 17-24). As a consequence, Austen fan fiction
sometimes jars with the “central readings and theoretical approaches” of
fan fiction studies (17-8).
1 The author would like to thank Gert Buelens for his constructive and detailed comments on the drafts of this
article and Jean Pierre Vander Motten for his supervision of the research on which it is based. Her current research
project is supported by a PhD fellowship of the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO).
2 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
Many theorists have argued, for instance, that fans write in response
to “the seemingly all-encompassing force of commercial media” (Busse
and Hellekson 2006: 18; Parrish 2007: 57; e.g. Kustritz 2003: 373-4). This
line of thinking has its roots in Henry Jenkins’s Textual Poachers (1992), an
ethnographic study of media fans which builds on Michel de Certeau’s
The Practice of Everyday Life (1984). Jenkins typifies fans as “textual
poachers,” who “appropriate popular texts and reread them in a fashion
that serves different interests” (23, 24). “Slash” fans, for example, can be
said to commandeer the intellectual property of others because they
reinterpret the sexual orientation of their favourite characters (Parrish
2007: 69; Jones 2006: 264) and write fan fiction from this “corrective”
reading (Parrish 2007: 65). Juli J. Parrish has pointed out, however, that
Jenkins’s metaphor does not apply to every form of fan fiction (69-70).
This certainly holds true for Austen fan fiction. Janeites, as Austen fans
are commonly known, know very well that their idol’s work is out of
copyright and, therefore, “fair game” (Austen.com 2009b; Bowles 2003:
19).
The poaching paradigm has been challenged in other ways, too. In
“Canons and Fanons: Literary Fanfiction Online” (2007), Bronwen
Thomas calls into question the poaching metaphor’s connotation of
unbridled freedom. She points out that the creative licence of fan writers
is typically restricted by interpretive conventions, which are created in a
top-down and bottom-up fashion. While fan fiction sites “police the
content submitted by users” according to specific contributor guidelines,
users continually generate conventions of their own, by reviewing other
texts and inserting details into their own fictions (Thomas 2007).
Thomas supports this analysis with a study of the “Republic of
Pemberley,” a website which, between 1997 and 2008, hosted an archive
of Austen fan fiction. Writers were asked to set their fics in “the same
historical era” as Austen’s novels, to present her characters “in a manner
faithful to their original conception,” and to take their cue from “Jane
Austen’s own sense of taste and humanity” (Pemberley.com 2003; cf.
Pugh 2005: 37-9). At the same time, the site’s community developed
conventions about the married life of the Darcys, and borrowed
materials from the screen adaptations of Austen’s novels (Thomas 2007).
While the Republic’s “critical apparatus” resembles that of most other
fan fiction sites, its contributor guidelines are remarkably protective of
Austen’s “legacy”. Considering this “respect for the source texts and
their author,” and the “almost Leavisite tone” of the guidelines in
question, Thomas concludes that the notion of literary canon, “not just
as some kind of badge of quality, but also as guarantor of moral
improvement and education,” still holds sway in the Austen fandom
(Thomas 2007). This has some very interesting implications, which
Thomas does not explore in depth. It implies that fan writers are not just
influenced by fancultural constraints, such as the expectations of their
readership or the “technological interfaces” they use (Stein and Busse
3 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
2009: 192; Stein 2006: 248-9), but also by broader, cultural conventions.
The influence of these conventions should be discussed in greater detail
and so this essay examines how they impact upon Pamela Aidan’s
Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman, a rewrite of Pride and Prejudice, whose form is
shaped by the complex system of practices, evaluations, and
interpretations which surround Jane Austen and her work.
This system is very extensive and diverse. Austen’s novels have held a
secure place in high culture since the early twentieth century, inspiring a
wealth of reviews, books, essays, and other forms of academic discourse
(Kaplan 2005). Unlike many canonical texts, moreover, Austen’s work
has a rich history in popular culture, where it has inspired numerous
adaptations, completions, and sequels, as well as Jane Austen Societies,
fan sites, and merchandise (Macdonald and Macdonald 2003: 1; Breuer
2000; Thompson 2008). Her work has generated several clusters of
interpretations, values, physical and discursive practices, products and
social structures, associated with particular groups of people and labelled
as “high” or “popular”. Aidan’s text bears traces of three such clusters,
having been informed, firstly, by the practices of Janeitism, secondly, by
the value system of Austen criticism, and finally, by the interpretation of
BBC/A&E’s 1995 production of Pride and Prejudice. This influence is not
as straightforward as it may seem, however, since cultural conventions,
whether highbrow or popular, are swept up in the process of fan writing,
and its incessant interplay of “canon,” “fantext,” and creativity.
2. Writing Fan Fiction: Constraint and Negotiation
2.1 Canon and Creativity
In “Brownian Motion: Women, Tactics, and Technology” (1991),
Constance Penley offers an alternative view of the relationship between
fan writers and their source texts. While Henry Jenkins’s fans “take
something from a private cultural preserve,” Penley’s “reimagine the
preserve itself” (Parrish 2007: 67-8). In fandom, a fan writer’s preserve,
or source text, is known as her “canon” (Busse and Hellekson 2006: 9).
This concept is related to canon in its common usage. Just as the
Western canon comprises the pillars of Western culture, or rather, what a
community believes those pillars to be, a fan writer’s canon comprises
every event a group of fans accepts as “real” or authorised. This is where
the similarity ends, however. Fans do not limit their canon to “great”
works of art; indeed, they tend to draw on works which are excluded
from the Western canon
2
(Thomas 2007).
2 This implies that, while there is only one “canon” in Western culture, there are many “canons” in fandom. This is
reflected in the term’s usage, both in academic and fannish circles. While “Western canon” is invariably used with a
definite article, its fannish equivalent is used in a plural form (e.g. “closed canons”—Pugh 2005: 27; Parrish 2007: 28;
Fanlore.com 2011b), with an indefinite article (e.g. “a closed canon”—Pugh 2005: 26; Parrish 2007: 70, 151;
Fanlore.com), with a definite article (e.g. “In the case of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the canon includes . . . ”—Parrish
4 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
Penley’s characterisation highlights two aspects of canon. On the one
hand, it presents the fan writer’s source text as a framework within
which fans are creative. In effect, source texts tend to provide the
“universe, setting, and characters” of a fan fiction text, while fans weave
in events of their own creation (Busse and Hellekson 2006: 9). Fan
writers share their enthusiasm for the source text with a “fandom,” a
group of fans assembled around a specific object of interest (Parrish
2007: 26). These fans may disagree on what is canonical and what is not.
In many of today’s literary fandoms, such as Lord of the Rings and Harry
Potter, a fan writer’s canon can include any configuration of novels,
screen adaptations, “and even interviews and comments made by the
authors” (Thomas 2007; Busse and Hellekson 2006: 9-10). The
preferences of fan writers can be very apparent in the fan fiction they
produce and, indeed, in the fandom itself. In the Austen fandom, for
example, there is a rift between fans who base their stories primarily on
the adaptations and fans who “focus principally on the books” because
the latter “claim some intellectual superiority over the first group”
(Thompson 2008).
On the other hand, Penley’s characterisation indicates that fan writers
rewrite the source text. Henry Jenkins has stressed that fan writers use
canon as a jumping point for their own creative efforts (Jenkins 2008b;
cf. Thomas 2006: 227, Parrish 2007: 32). Fan texts, he believes, are
ultimately grounded in “negative capability,” by which he means gaps
and details in the source text which invite readers to use their own
imagination
3
(Jenkins 2008a; cf. Pugh 2005: 41). Jenkins distinguishes
five such elements, including holes (events which are not narrated, but
which must have happened), silences (elements which appear to be
excluded for ideological reasons), and potentials (elements which suggest
how the narrative could have continued or, I would add, how it could
have taken an alternative course) (Jenkins 2008b). Fans appear to have a
predilection for negative capability which relates to characters and their
relationships (Jenkins, 2008b; cf. Coppa 2006b: 229). To some extent,
fan writers withdraw these from canon as they would artefacts from an
archive (cf. Derecho 2006: 65). They treat characters as “complex
creations complete with physical descriptions, histories,” and
“personalities” (Kaplan 2006: 135; Pugh 2005: 70-1, 65-6). At the same
time, however, they accept that there is room for debate. A source
character’s personality is largely a matter of interpretation, as is his exact
eye colour, his background, or his relationship with other people. Faced
2007: 28; Pugh 2005: 27), and, perhaps most strikingly, without an article (e.g. “without contradicting canon” (Pugh
2005: 26), “any departure from canon,” “adherence to canon” (Parrish 2007: 33), and a detail “easily inferred in
canon” (Fanlore.com 2011b)). In addition, the term is used as an adjective, interchangeably with “canonical” (e.g. a
character “is canon”—Parrish 2007: 32; Fanlore.com 2011b).
3 Jenkins has drawn “negative capability” from the work of John Keats, but he uses it in a completely different sense.
While Keats understands “negative capability” as the ability to be “in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any
irritable reaching after fact & reason” (qtd. in Jenkins 2008a), Jenkins relates it to an “encyclopedic impulse” on the
reader’s part, i.e. a desire to “know all of the details of a favorite story” (Jenkins 2008a).
5 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
with these obscurities, fan writers tend to reproduce the reading they
prefer, while they weave in “all kinds of argumentation” to defend their
interpretation (Jenkins 2008b; Kaplan 2006: 151).
Fans, then, may respond to a text’s negative capability by filling its
gaps. According to Sheenagh Pugh, this response is the hallmark of fans
who want “more of” canon (42). These fans are reluctant to leave the
universe of their choice and create additional material to prolong the
experience (42-3). They may fill Jenkins’s “holes,” for example, with
stories called “missing scenes”—stories which recount “incidents,
conversations, interactions that take place within the timescale of canon
and are compatible with canon, that might have happened and in some
cases must have happened, but which are not seen on the page or the
screen” (57). Fans can also want “more from” canon, however (Pugh
2005: 42). In that case, they feel that their canon is not “perfect or fully
realised,” and see “possibilities in it which were never explored as they
might have been” (43). This response may result in stories which depart
from canon. These may be corrective to a greater or a lesser degree.
Some fans set out to correct annoying parts of canon, such as Jenkins’s
“silences,” or write with another agenda in mind. Others simply find it
enjoyable to realise the “potentials” of characters, relationships, and
events (Jenkins 2008a).
A fan’s departures may likewise be more or less extreme. This is
indicated by the double meaning of “alternate universe,” a term used in
fandom to describe stories which feature source characters but take place
in a different universe than the canonical one. This universe may be
entirely different (for example, when characters are dropped into a
different time period) or practically identical to canon (Fanlore.com
2011a). Pugh has argued that a missing scene becomes an alternate
universe story the moment it seems illogical that later canonical action
follows from it (63). By this view, a story in which Elizabeth believes a
warning about Wickham earlier in the story, and changes her behaviour
toward Darcy, is an alternate universe story, while a story in which she
dismisses such a warning is a missing scene (63-4). Whether fans
reproduce most of their source text, however, or rewrite it almost
entirely, they always adhere to and diverge from canon. After all, fan
stories must refer to a source text to qualify as fan fiction, but they must
also diverge from it to be worth telling (Parrish 2007: 34, 138). Fan
fiction, then, is always shaped by the interplay of canon and individual
creativity.
2.2 Creativity in a Community Context
Fan fiction texts are not usually produced in a vacuum. As Louisa Stein
and Kristina Busse note, many fans, “especially those who choose to
share their work with other fans, are aware of and engage with already
existing fan communities and traditions during their creative process”
6 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
(196). Fan communities are, quite literally, groups of fans who interact
socially, for example on blogs, forums, mailing lists, and bulletin boards
(Parrish 2007: 26). These communities may assemble around a very
narrow field of interest. Increasingly, for example, they are devoted to
particular ‘ships, i.e. romantic pairings of source characters (Parrish 2007:
86; Busse and Hellekson 2006: 15). Fan communities are also
interpretive communities, in Stanley Fish’s sense of the word (Stein and
Busse 2009: 197; Costello and Moore 2007: 126). Their members tend to
share particular “interpretations and interpretive strategies” when it
comes to the source text (Stein and Busse 2009: 197). If a community
centres around a particular ‘ship, for example, its members will “agree on
the centrality of particular events, characteristics, and interpretations that
support their favored romantic pairing” (Stein and Busse 2009: 197). The
members of a Star Trek community may agree, for instance, to interpret
the interactions of Kirk and Spock in a romantic light. In that case, they
agree to reread the source text in a similar way.
Because fan writers are aware of these interpretive conventions, and
know that their readership is aware of them too, a community’s
preferred reading of the source text acts as an additional constraint (Stein
2006: 248). This restriction is created very gradually. I have noted that
fan fiction texts contain a wealth of fan-made materials, which
supplement or contradict canon. These additions may become “generally
accepted and used by other writers” in the community (Pugh 2005: 41;
Thomas 2007), to the extent that certain details, tropes, and plot
elements become cliché (Marley 2003). This fannish canon is known as
the community’s “fanon” (Busse and Hellekson 2006: 9). This fanon is
never carved in stone, however. Fans can always voice their opinion in
reviews, conversations, and, indeed, in fics of their own (Parrish 2007:
105). As a result, community conventions are always a “work in
progress” (Busse and Hellekson 2006: 6, 7; Pugh 2005: 222).
Because the term “fanon” can have negative connotations in fandom
(Driscoll 2006: 90), a related concept serves better. By reading, writing,
and reviewing fics, fans constantly add to the “fantext” of their fandom,
i.e. “the entirety of stories and critical commentary written in a fandom
(or even in a pairing or genre)” (Busse and Hellekson 2006: 7). Because
each community produces texts from particular readings, this fantext
contains “multitudes of interpretations of characters and canon scenes,”
which are “contradictory yet complementary to one another and the
source text” (Busse and Hellekson 2006: 7; Kaplan 2006: 137). The
interpretive conventions of fan communities, then, can be typified as
“fantextual” conventions. The influence of this fantext can be enormous,
as a fan’s “understanding of the source is always already filtered through
the interpretations and characterizations” that it contains (Busse and
Hellekson 2007: 7). Since the advent of the Internet, however, it has
become increasingly difficult to trace the finer points of this impact in
fan fiction texts. Before the 1990s, “fandom was a face-to-face
7 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
proposition”: fans socialised and distributed their fan fiction in fan clubs
and on conventions (13). They were introduced to the fandom,
moreover, through a process of enculturation (13; Karpovich 2006: 178).
This made it relatively easy for communities to uphold a number of
rules, also with respect to fan fiction. Fan writers could be instructed, for
example, not to write “real person slash”—slash fiction about real people
rather than characters (Busse and Hellekson 2006: 13).
This is difficult to achieve in an online environment. Fan writers no
longer depend on fan communities to get their work published, while
“lurkers” can get hold of fan fiction “without interacting with other
fans” (13). As a result, writers can have a readership even if their texts go
against the guidelines of particular communities. Indeed, it has become
easier to find like-minded fans as technologies became more advanced.
ListServs, newsgroups, bulletin boards, and blogs have allowed fans to
discuss topics more efficiently, and to assemble around specific fields of
interest (13-5). As a consequence, today’s fandoms are splintered “into
nearly innumerable factions,” devoted to different “stories, styles, or
pairings” (15). This increased fragmentation has made it easier for fans
to avoid fics which are not to their taste (15). At the same time, “online
fanfic libraries” have collected stories from all over fandom, and made it
possible for readers to search them on such details as the presence or
absence of particular characters or even of “happy endings” (Pugh 2005:
229). As a result, prospective fan writers are no longer “enculturated” by
a particular community (Karpovich 2006: 186; Parrish 2007: 24-5), but
infer standards and expectations from a wide range of stories, be it in the
style or pairing they are interested in. The process whereby fans negotiate
fantextual conventions, then, has become increasingly difficult to follow.
3. Contextualising the Fantext
While several theorists have discussed the fantext and its role in the
process of fan writing, few have considered the cultural context in which
that fantext is embedded. I believe, however, that the boundaries
between fantext and context become blurred in the process of fan
writing—especially in the Austen fandom. I will demonstrate this with
Pamela Aidan’s Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman. This fan fiction text needs to
be understood against the background I have just outlined. An Internet
fic, Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman was posted in instalments between 1997
and 2005. This is no coincidence. Though Aidan had been a fan of Pride
and Prejudice since secondary school, she only became fascinated by Mr.
Darcy after she watched BBC/A&E’s 1995 adaptation of the novel,
which starred Colin Firth as Darcy (Aidan 2006b: 252). Because Aidan
“could not get enough of the film,” she went in search of “more” on the
Internet (Irene 2007). She discovered a number of sites devoted to Jane
Austen and the BBC/A&E adaptation, becoming most “appreciative of
8 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
The Republic of Pemberley (pemberley.com) and The Derbyshire
Writer’s Guild (austen.com)” (sic) (Aidan 2006d: 286).
To satisfy her craving, Aidan started reading fan fiction, which she
found in the sites’ archives (Irene 2007). Because few fics actually told
the story “in real time from Darcy’s point of view,” however, Aidan
decided to write such a story herself (Irene 2007). She started posting it
on the two sites I mentioned, on Austenesque, and on Firthness.com
(Aidan 2009; Aidan 2006b: 247). Once completed, her text comprised
three parts: At An Assembly Such As This, Duty and Desire, and These Three
Remain
4
. Aidan received feedback throughout her creative process (Irene
2007). These reviews showed her that she “could depart from Austen,
sometimes in some very shocking ways, and still not only keep [her]
readership but get them to agree to the twists [she] was giving the story”
(Aidan 2009). In the following, I will consider these departures in light of
three cultural phenomena: the practices of Janeitism, the value system of
Austen criticism, and the preferred reading which underlies the
BBC/A&E adaptation. I will argue that although Aidan seems to
negotiate little more than the contributor guidelines of the Republic of
Pemberley, she also reproduces three conventions which underlie the
Republic’s policy. I will argue that her staying close to the spirit of
Austen’s text is attuned to the interests of Janeitism, on the one hand,
and the highbrow notion that Jane Austen is a canonical author, on the
other. Similarly, her portrayal of Darcy is grounded in the idea that Pride
and Prejudice is individualistic and romantic—a reading made particularly
popular by BBC/A&E’s 1995 production of the novel.
3.1 Fidelity to Canon
Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice has as much negative capability as any
other source text. Her novel can be reread, for example, from the idea
that Darcy and George Wickham have feelings for each other. Similarly,
it is possible to offer a sobering perspective on Austen’s world, if one
adopts the viewpoint of the men, “servants, traders and workers who are
present but silent in her books” (Pugh 2005: 195). Although Aidan
adopts Mr. Darcy’s viewpoint, however, Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman does
not offer such a perspective on Pride and Prejudice. As I will demonstrate,
Aidan stays relatively close to Austen’s text, departing from the letter of
the novel, but staying true to the spirit of it. Notably, Aidan uses
Austen’s novel, rather than its adaptation, as her primary point of
reference. This preference is particularly clear when the series departs
from Austen, staging scenes differently (cf. Aidan 2006a: 6-7; Austen
4 Aidan eventually decided to publish the series, keeping most of the original text intact (Aidan 2009). An Assembly
Such As This appeared in 2003, Duty and Desire in 2004, and These Three Remain in 2005. All three books were removed
from their original locations, but they can still be retrieved with the Wayback Machine (from Austen.com). The title
of At An Assembly Such As This was ultimately changed to An Assembly Such As This. Similarly, the trilogy’s title was
changed from The Chronicles of Pemberley to Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman.
9 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
2003: 13-4; I.2
5
), for example, or leaving them out entirely (Aidan 2006a:
65-8; Austen 2003: 25). Aidan does not lift events (Aidan 2006a: 1; I.2)
or dialogue (Aidan 2006a: 3; I.2) from the series as she does from
Austen, although, as I shall discuss in greater detail below, some of her
additions are clearly influenced by it.
In essence, Aidan supports everything Austen mentions about Darcy.
This amounts to snippets of information, such as the ones provided by
Austen’s narrator (e.g. Austen 2003: 18, 12), and a brief account of
Darcy’s past, which he gives to Elizabeth in the novel’s final chapters
(Austen 2003: 346-351, 359-361). These details are “embodied” in
Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman: they underlie Aidan’s version of the source
text’s events, and the events of her own invention. In the following
excerpt, for example, Darcy follows “good principles” in “pride and
conceit” (Austen 2003: 349) during and after his first meeting with
Charles Bingley:
It was just this exuberance of character that had made Charles the
object of several cruel jokes among the more sophisticated young
gentlemen in Town and had been the means of bringing him to
Darcy’s notice. Unwillingly privy to the planning of one such
humiliation conducted during a game of cards at his club, he had heard
enough to disgust him and form the resolve to seek out the
unfortunate youth and warn him away from those he had thought his
friends. To Darcy’s surprise, what had started as Christian duty became
a satisfying friendship. Charles had come far since his first visit to
Town, but there were still moments, like the present, when Darcy
despaired of ever cultivating in him a proper reserve. (Aidan 2006a: 2-
3)
Here, Darcy knows that it is right to warn Bingley, but he does not see
how overbearing it is to instruct his friend in “proper reserve”. Aidan
confirms this paradox in Darcy’s character throughout her trilogy, by
writing out his thoughts and feelings (for example, about the Darcy
name—Aidan 2007a: 26) and by adding a number of missing scenes
(such as his adventures at Norwycke Castle—Aidan 2007a: 49).
This does not mean that Aidan is not creative. Her additions are
always coloured by her preferred reading of Darcy’s behaviour, person,
and transformation. While Austen’s Darcy separates Bingley and Jane
because he does not see any symptoms of love on her side (Austen 2003:
192), for example, Aidan’s Darcy cannot believe that Jane Bennet is
sincere in her regard for Bingley because of his own experiences with
Wickham (Aidan 2006a: 17-8) and scheming society women (56).
Similarly, Aidan’s Darcy is a man of the world, who is confronted with
such matters as the Luddite movement (Aidan 2006c: 19) and the “Irish
5 I have numbered the scenes according to the scene selection on the DVD (Langton 2001). The Roman numerals
refer to episodes.
10 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
Question” (Aidan 2007a: 180-1)—historical facts which Austen
systematically excludes from her work (Irene 2007). Finally, Aidan
weaves in her own reading of Darcy’s transformation. Fitzwilliam Darcy,
Gentleman is meant to solve a specific question: “how did Fitzwilliam
Darcy change so dramatically between the opening pages of the book
and his reacquaintance with Elizabeth at Pemberley, a change not only in
his inner man, but one that carries him to great personal acts of charity
involving a man he has every reason to hate?” (Aidan 2007b: 446). In
answer to this question, Aidan describes how Darcy rediscovers his faith.
In Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman, Darcy’s response to Wickham’s deceit
is partly presented through conversations with religious characters, such
as Mrs. Annesley (Aidan 2006c: 44-5) and Georgiana (Aidan 2007a: 220-
5). These dialogues show that Darcy is unable to consider Wickham’s
deception in terms of Providence (Aidan 2006c: 44-5). As a result, he
cannot “pity” the “natural frailty” of his enemy, let alone help him to
overcome it (Aidan 2006c: 3-4). In a number of missing scenes, set
before his visit to Rosings, Darcy is tempted to deny the workings of
Providence (Aidan 2006c: 208-9) and confronted with his (unchristian)
desire for revenge (Aidan 2006c: 272, 280; Aidan 2007a: 4, 9). This
confrontation is key to his development. Faced with “the dark depths in
his heart,” Darcy has to admit that he is not as gentlemanly as he once
wanted become and, later on, that there might be some truth in
Elizabeth’s “epithets” (156). Encouraged by Georgiana, he learns to see
Elizabeth’s refusal as providential, and tries to change, with the help of
“a newborn compassion joined with determined practice” (267).
Although his further development is shaped by Elizabeth’s reproofs
(252), just as his actions are inspired by her distress and his feeling
responsible for it (369, 374-5), the “good principles” Darcy rediscovers
in Aidan’s trilogy are actually Christian principles: he learns to do the
right thing by his enemy (360), as well as his friends, his peers, his family,
and, indeed, Elizabeth.
These examples show that Pamela Aidan negotiates the constraints of
her canon without violating the guidelines of the Republic of Pemberley.
Although she departs from the letter of Pride and Prejudice, her text
ultimately supports the novel, with “Jane Austen’s characters behaving as
she wrote them in scenes we might wish she had an opportunity to write
herself” (Pemberley.com 2003). Aidan’s tendency to fill gaps, rather than
make them, is not exceptional in the Austen fandom. Jane Austen’s
writing has long been acclaimed for its economy. Indeed, modernist
authors like Virginia Woolf used her work in a “campaign against the
over-decorated gushiness of Victorian fiction” (Lynch 1996: 174),
holding up her novels as “the compact ideal that women’s novels of the
future” should try to attain (173). Many fans respond to this economy in
a “more of” fashion. Some work out the “love scenes” Austen left out
(Pugh 2005: 60) or rendered “in reported speech or paraphrase” (60).
Others simply “spell out emotions where Austen herself did not choose
11 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
to” (60) or write out missing scenes “among the male characters and
minor characters” (61). Still others are inspired by Austen’s “non-
endings” and write sequels (O’Connell 2000; Pugh 2005: 47).
Considering that the Republic is an online community, it is remarkable
that so many fan writers chose to stay true to the spirit of Austen’s work
(cf. Pugh 2005: 37-8). It is impossible for one online community to
control everything that is written in a fandom; and this is also true of the
responses to Austen. Two of the four sites which accepted Pamela
Aidan’s story had, and still maintain, a different editorial policy than the
Republic of Pemberley. The largest of these, the Derbyshire Writers’
Guild, shares many contributor guidelines with the Republic, but it is
more tolerant of alternate universe stories set in Austen’s universe. In
addition, the site archives “modern stories, time-shifted stories, stories
with fanciful elements,” and “more irreverent stories” (Austen.com
2009a; O’Connell 2000). Firthness, a smaller site, is even less prescriptive
and accepts “adult fanfic”
6
(Pugh 2005: 246). These communities give
fans the chance to get “more from” Austen, within certain limits. Like
Bronwen Thomas, I believe that the Republic’s popularity, in spite of
these alternative possibilities, is due to Austen’s status as a canonical
author. I wish to contend, however, that the Republic’s heritage is far
more complex than Thomas has suggested. To fully understand the
fantextual conventions of the Republic, one needs to understand the
particulars and the history of its cultural context. This context was
shaped by Janeites, on the one hand, and Austen critics, on the other.
3.1.1 Janeitism
“Janeitism” can be defined as the “self-consciously idolatrous
enthusiasm for ‘Jane’ and every detail relative to her” (Johnson 1997:
211). It first appeared in “the last two decades of the nineteenth century”
(211). This was mainly due to J. E. Austen-Leigh’s A Memoir of Jane
Austen (1870), in which her nephew gives a “familial, insider’s view of the
novelist” (Lynch 2005: 112; Johnson 1997: 211). However, Austen’s
popularity also benefited from Richard Bentley’s “deluxe Steventon Edition
of Jane Austen’s Work” (1882) (Johnson 1997: 211) and from the
appearance of cheaper editions of her work (1883 and later) (211). By the
early twentieth century, Janeitism was widespread among the day’s
“publishers, professors, and literati” (213). Apart from Caroline
Spurgeon, a lone female Janeite, Austen’s champions included Montague
Summers, A. C. Bradley, Lord David Cecil, Walter Raleigh, R. W.
Chapman, and E. M. Forster (Johnson 1997: 213-4). Assembled in
reading communities like the Royal Society of Literature (Lynch 2005:
115; Johnson 1997: 214), these enthusiasts transgressed “the dogmas
6 To some extent, this is the case because of the site’s demographic. Both the Republic of Pemberley and the
Derbyshire Writers’ Guild ban adult fiction from their archives because some of their members are still minors
(Pemberley.com 2007; Austen.com 2009b).
12 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
later instituted by professional academics presiding over the emergent
field of novel studies,” for example by talking “about characters as if
they were real people” or by speculating “upon their lives before, after,
or outside the text itself” (Johnson 1997: 214).
Janeitism fell into disrepute, however, as novel studies became
institutionalised. To be a Janeite slowly became synonymous with being a
fan—a term which has, from the first, carried similar connotations of
enthusiasm, but in a negative sense (Jenkins 1992: 12). Interestingly,
modern-day Janeites take an approach to Jane Austen and her works
which is very similar to that of their predecessors, even though they are
now predominantly female (Johnson 1997: 222-3; Lynch 2005: 115).
According to Deidre Lynch, Austen still “fosters in her readers, as most
other literary giants do not, the devotion and fantasies of personal
access” we now associate with “the fan” (Lynch 2005: 111). Claudia L.
Johnson has noted, moreover, that Janeites still want to know as much as
possible about “Janean” artefacts, ranging from “balls” and “picnics” to
“Addison’s disease” and “petty-theft” (Johnson 1997: 223). Finally, it is
still a “common Janeite game” to imagine “how a character in one novel
might behave towards a character in another,” or to speculate “how the
novels might continue after the wedding” (223). The Republic of
Pemberley seems to cater to these interests. While its contributor
guidelines ensure that fans respect Jane Austen and her work, its boards
provide general information about her life and times, and its archive of
fan fiction satisfies cravings for “more of” (Pemberley.com 2009). The
reverent tone of the Republic’s guidelines (Thomas 2007), then, appears
to be part of a broader discourse, inspired by the site’s cultural context.
3.1.2 Austen criticism
Claudia L. Johnson has noted that “Austen’s novels hold a secure place
in the canon of high as well as popular culture” (Johnson 1997: 224).
They have, in other words, “a popular audience and an academic one”
(Lynch 2005: 113)
7
. This divide in Austen’s readership dates back to the
mid-twentieth century (Kramp 2007: 151), when “the New Criticism”
established a “reformed” field of “English studies in the American
university” (Brown 1996: 12). Mainly due to Ian Watt’s The Rise of the
Novel (1957), this reformation had a particularly great impact on novel
studies
8
. Most importantly, it became accepted that to study the novel was
to study a number of formal features which supposedly characterised the
7 Of course, it is possible that these two groups overlap, considering that book-based fan sites tend to be even “more
literate” (Pugh 2005: 121) than those of media fandoms, the writers of which have always had a high standard of
education (Coppa 2006: 45; Pugh 2005: 130, 131). However, “academic” fans tend to behave differently according to
the situation they are in (Parrish 2007: 51-2).
8 Written mainly to solicit the attention of New Critics (Brown 1996: 34), Watt’s Rise emphasises the novel’s “formal
realism” and lays its origins in the mid-eighteenth century (Hunter 1990: 7; Brown 1996: 32). Although his thesis has
been questioned ever since (Hunter 1990: 7), it held considerable sway at contemporary American universities
(Brown 1996: 32).
13 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
genre (Hunter 1990: 29-30). Both Watt and the New Critics treated
Austen as a “pivotal figure” in the history of this form (Brown 1996: 34),
because her work appeared to merge “Fieldingesque and Richardsonian
novelistic modes” (15). Because novels, however, still “lacked the
cultural prestige of poetry and drama,” Austen scholars felt the need to
distinguish themselves from non-academic, Janeite readers (Johnson
1997: 221; Hunter 1990: 29). After all, “so long as novels were believed
to be about characters, novel studies could seem to be species of gossip
of precisely the sort in which Janeites delight” (Johnson 1997: 221). To
“consolidate” their authority, this “new professerate” began to develop a
different way of reading Austen, creating some of the dogmas still in use
today (213).
Modernist authors, such as Virginia Woolf, had already praised
Austen’s economy and restraint and portrayed her as “a prim and
passionless authoress” (Lynch 1996: 175), whose “stiff upper lip” would
become the trademark of every “modern Englishwoman” (176). This
version of the author was subsequently professed by Q. D. and F. R.
Leavis, who adjusted it to include Austen’s satirical eye, with which she
was said to embark on a “historical mission, which was to target those
novels (sentimental fiction in the juvenilia; Gothic romance in Northanger
Abbey) which give the novel a bad name” (184). Janeites were eventually
attacked from this perspective. In 1940, D. W. Harding claimed that
“Austen’s ‘books are . . . read and enjoyed by precisely the sort of people
whom she disliked’ ” (qtd. in Johnson 1997: 213; George 2007: 35). Since
then, many “professional scholars, whose claim to prestige is validated
by their vocation’s protocols of dispassion and objectivity,” have
similarly been bothered by “amateur cultures of Austenian
appreciation—because they are associated with, variously, unbecoming
levity, sentimentality, a determination to integrate fiction into life or a
conservative nostalgia” (Lynch 2005: 118). Interestingly, there is a similar
“divide” between theorists and fans of popular culture, such as film
scholars and cinephiles (Hills 2002: 3-6). Considering this tension, Matt
Hills has pointed out that although academics approach their object of
study in an “objective” way, they have an admiration and respect for it
which is not dissimilar to that of fans (4-5). The Republic of Pemberley’s
respect for Austen’s work, then, may also be due to the fact that her
novels have received academic attention.
3.2 Individualism and “Harlequinisation”
I have argued that the Republic of Pemberley, in general, and Pamela
Aidan, in particular, seek to preserve Austen’s fictional world as much as
possible, because Jane Austen is generally considered to be an admirable,
canonical author. It is interesting to note, then, that the Republic actually
originated as “a support group for people addicted to” the BBC/A&E
production of Pride and Prejudice (Pemberley.com 2007). This adaptation
14 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
outstrips many others in terms of “distribution and mass appeal”
(Kaplan 2005). An immediate hit, it “attracted at least 10 million viewers
when it was first serialized on British television in 1995 (and before it
was broadcast in more than 40 other countries)” (Kaplan 2005). This had
a considerable impact on the book market, with Penguin selling “430,000
copies of Pride and Prejudice in the year after the serial was first broadcast”
(Kaplan 2005). A product of this Austenmania, the Republic has always
honoured its “gushing roots, and the Austen-for-the-masses feel that a
demonstrative love of the adaptations brings to the site” (Pemberley.com
2007). I believe that Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman is shaped by this
loophole in the Republic’s editorial policy. Pugh has argued that “[f]or
many who have read the book, Davies’ adaptation has added something
to their understanding of the characters” (22, 70). This is certainly the
case for Aidan, who began to see Darcy in a different light after she
watched the adaptation. While she had found Darcy’s character
“sketchy” and “unlikable” in Austen’s novel, Colin Firth’s performance
“brought to the fore intriguing suggestions of who Darcy might really
be” (Aidan 2006b: 252).
The adaptation’s influence is most obvious, perhaps, in Aidan’s
descriptions of Darcy. When Colin Firth accepted the part of Austen’s
romantic lead, he knew he would “have to get together a very lively,
dynamic, varied performance and then not act it,” because “nobody ever
knows quite what Darcy’s thinking” (Firth, qtd. in Birtwistle and Conklin
1995: 99-100). To hint at this inner turmoil, Firth developed a distinct
“physical vocabulary” (Cherly Nixon, qtd. in Belton 2003: 187). Aidan
has incorporated elements of this vocabulary in her text. Both in the
series and the trilogy, for example, Darcy twists his ring when he is
uncomfortable (IV.24, Aidan 2006a: 34, 96; 2007a: 32) and turns away to
look out the window when he wants to keep his reactions and thoughts
to himself (VI.33; Aidan 2007a: 34, 58, 391). This suggests that Aidan’s
reading of Pride and Prejudice is influenced by the BBC/A&E adaptation.
In fact, one could argue that it functions as an additional source of
information—as a secondary canon.
Aidan’s portrayal of Darcy is also shaped, however, by the preferred
reading which underlies the adaptation. Even though the BBC/A&E
series is hailed for its faithfulness to the novel (Belton 2003: 186; George
2007: 35), several theorists have shown that it actually “creates the
illusion of fidelity to the original by presenting an interpretation of
Austen’s narrative that is also attuned to the sensibilities of a 1995
audience” (Belton 2003: 186; cf. Margolis 2003: 34-5). Ellen Belton has
argued, quite convincingly, that this interpretation is grounded in the
“late twentieth-century assumption that the needs and desires of the
individual take precedence over other values” (194). The 1995 audience,
in other words, wanted “Elizabeth to have it all” (187)—and that
includes a lover who sees her “as an independent subject” (191). Because
of the “cultural acceptance of the idea of the New Age Man,” Austen’s
15 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
Darcy needed to be softened and romanticised (187, 193). The
adaptation achieves this by highlighting the way he takes into account
Elizabeth’s “feelings and wishes,” after he has disregarded them so
blatantly before his first proposal (191). As I shall demonstrate,
this lays the 1995 production open to a charge of “Harlequinization”
(Margolis 23, 37): it creates a chemistry between Darcy and Elizabeth
which resembles the sexual tension of a Harlequin romance novel
9
.
Aidan’s picture of Darcy is very similar, as it is both individualistic
and “Harlequinesque”. The first is exemplified by the trilogy’s ending.
While Austen ends her novel with “a careful discrimination among
relationships and a weighing of personal inclinations against moral and
social obligations” (Belton 2003: 186), the final lines of Fitzwilliam Darcy,
Gentleman read:
Sweeping up her other hand, Darcy brought both to his heart. She was
his; he was hers. He was in want of nothing more. ‘Elizabeth,’ he
whispered. She looked up into his eyes. ‘Dearest loveliest Elizabeth.’
(Aidan 2007a: 437)
This conclusion clearly focuses on Darcy’s needs, and Darcy’s needs
alone. Like the series, which ends with a kiss, Aidan’s ending suggests
that individual happiness is more important than other considerations
(Belton 2003: 186).
Aidan’s Darcy is also more Harlequinesque than Austen’s, because
she reproduces some of the series’ changes. To make visible Darcy’s
evolution, the BBC/A&E adaptation builds on the “looks, glances, and
facial expressions” with which Austen tried to say what could not be
spoken (Belton 2003: 187). Although Elizabeth is still the main focaliser
of the story, Darcy is occasionally “given the floor”. This alternating
focalisation makes it “a story about Elizabeth and Darcy, rather than a
story about Elizabeth” (Andrew Davies, qtd. in Birtwistle and Conklin
1995: 4). Most importantly, the progress of their relationship “is charted
through a movement from sidelong glances to direct contemplation to
mutual admiration” (Belton 2003: 190). This gives the couple’s
interactions “a powerful erotic charge” (Lisa Hopkins, qtd. in Belton
2003: 188), which is emphasised by a number of “anachronistic
alterations pertaining to sexuality” (Margolis 2003: 34). While Austen’s
Darcy meets Elizabeth at Pemberley, for example, looking like “he was .
. . that moment alighted from his horse or his carriage” (Austen 2003:
242), Firth’s Darcy has just taken a swim in the Pemberley lake (IV.23).
Aidan does not include such “anachronistic alterations” in her story.
True to form, she uses Austen’s novel as her primary source text,
refusing to draw on the series or on her own imagination if the latter
9 Outside of the United States, these novels are commonly known as Mills and Boon novels. The typical Harlequin or
Mills and Boon novel tells the love story of a beautiful young woman and a handsome man, who get married after
many difficulties. The genre is also notorious, however, for its erotic content (Morrissey 2008: 11, 24, 29).
16 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
provides an alternative. Instead, she incorporates Darcy’s side of the
“regard” in her story (having him observe Elizabeth’s behaviour to
assess her state of mind) and emphasises it by means of close character
focalisation. This appears, for example, when you compare the accounts
Austen and Aidan give of Darcy and Elizabeth’s meeting at Pemberley:
They were within twenty yards of each other, and so abrupt was his
appearance, that it was impossible to avoid his sight. Their eyes
instantly met, and the cheeks of each were overspread with the deepest
blush. He absolutely started, and for a moment seemed immovable
from surprise; but shortly recovering himself, advanced towards the
party, and spoke to Elizabeth, if not in terms of perfect composure, at
least of perfect civility. (Austen 240-1)
As [Darcy] took a step backward, one of the ladies turned, her eyes
coming to rest full upon him. The light in them struck him like a bolt.
Elizabeth! My God, Elizabeth? Every nerve in his body came alive, yet he
seemed unable to command them to any purposeful action.
Elizabeth—here! The truth of it raced through him, yet his mind reeled
into denial. How could it be? But it must be; for there she stood not
twenty yards away, her lovely eyes wide in surprise and then turned
from him as a blush suffused her cheeks. An answering heat flushed
his face as he searched for a sign, and indication of how he should
approach her. None came, and she remained a picture of beautiful
confusion. That he must relieve her anxiety was his only thought; he
must be the one to make a beginning. Willing his limbs forward, he
went to her. (Aidan 2007a: 273)
Like most fan writers, Aidan uses a “relatively transparent style of prose
conducive to an immersive reading experience” (Coppa 2006b: 240).
What makes Aidan’s style transparent and visual is the amount of detail
she uses. In line with Darcy and Elizabeth’s meeting in the series (IV.23),
Aidan pays particular attention to the look Elizabeth and Darcy share;
however, she also gives a detailed description of Darcy’s physical
behaviour (“took a step backward”) and sensations (“like a bolt,” “every
nerve in his body came alive,” “heat”), his observations (“her lovely eyes
wide in surprise”), and his thoughts (“Elizabeth! My God, Elizabeth?”).
In this respect, Aidan departs from Austen. Jane Austen adds
information about “contextual cues, setting, and paralinguistic cues of
character behavior” (Thomas 2006: 231) to her text, but she uses such
references sparingly. Aidan, in contrast, adds enough information to
make explicit her interpretation of the scene. In this excerpt, her
attention to “nonverbal” detail suggests that Darcy is infatuated with
Elizabeth. Aidan does this throughout the trilogy. While her Darcy
constantly registers the sounds, smells, textures, and sights of his
environment, he displays a heightened awareness of Elizabeth. This is
17 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
the case when he sees her (e.g. Aidan 2006a: 155-6; 2007a: 47, 389),
(nearly) touches her (Aidan 2006a: 63; Aidan 2007a: 300), smells her
(Aidan 2006a: 114; Aidan 2007a: 27, 299), or even thinks of her (Aidan
2006c: 108; Aidan 2007a: 51, 64, 281). I believe this adds a layer of
unresolved sexual tension to Aidan’s trilogy, which resembles that of the
series.
Aidan’s use of close character focalisation adds a layer of unresolved
sexual tension, much as “anachronistic alterations” do in the series.
However, close character focalisation also allows Aidan to bring together
a wide range of different readings. Deborah Kaplan has remarked that
“close character focalization” is quite common in “relationship-based”
fics, especially if the pairing is not supported by canon, because it is
particularly suited to defend an interpretation (2006: 139). Fitzwilliam
Darcy, Gentleman is such a “fictional essay,” too, but one that resonates
with a wide range of readings.
4. Conclusion
Pamela Aidan’s Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman is shaped by the interplay of
canon, fantext, and creativity. This interplay, however, also takes place in
a rich cultural context. My case study suggests that Austen fans negotiate
the cultural readings which circulate in this context on two interrelated
levels: on the micro-level of the fan fiction text and on the macro-level
of the fantext. I have traced the impact of three such readings from the
micro-level of Aidan’s trilogy to the macro-level of the Republic of
Pemberley’s fantextual conventions. First, I have pointed out that Aidan
stays relatively close to Austen’s novel. Like other fan writers, Aidan
“reimagines” her source text: she uses the negative capability of Pride and
Prejudice, in this case Darcy’s perspective, as a jumping point for her own
creative efforts. On the one hand, she “reimagines” her canon because
she is creative within the framework of Pride and Prejudice. She accepts
everything Austen mentions about Darcy’s behaviour, character, and
transformation, and supports it with missing scenes, back-stories,
thoughts and feelings of her own invention.
On the other hand, however, she also rewrites Austen’s text. Faced
with the latter’s economy, Aidan reproduces, and defends, the readings
she prefers. She weaves in her own interpretation of Darcy’s
motivations, his viewpoint, and his transformation. There can be no
doubt that these readings depart from the letter of Austen’s novel.
Because they stay true to the “spirit” of her work, however, Aidan’s
response is of the “more of” type, rather than the “more from”. I have
related this to the fantextual conventions of the Republic of Pemberley.
These conventions are interpretive conventions. Members of the
Republic agree to “reread” Austen’s novels in a respectful way. This
policy appears to be grounded in two broader cultural discourses. The
discourse of Janeitism combines a devotion to Jane Austen and her
18 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
work, an interest in her life and times, and a fascination with the
“potentials” of her work. The discourse of Austen criticism, though
developed in response to that of Janeitism, is likewise underlain by an
admiration and respect for Austen’s work. The Republic of Pemberley
caters to Janeite interests, but its protectiveness appears to be fuelled by
an awareness of Austen’s canonicity. Just as Aidan weaves her own
reading into Austen’s text, then, the Republic appears to weave elements
of Janeitism and Austen criticism into its contributor guidelines.
Secondly, I have noted that Aidan’s reading of Pride and Prejudice
resembles that of the BBC/A&E adaptation, one that “embodies” a
distinct interpretation of the novel, particularly of the character of Mr.
Darcy. On the one hand, it captures Austen’s character in a specific
physical vocabulary. On the other, it tailors Darcy to the needs of its
late-twentieth-century audience. He is softened, romanticised, and shown
to respect Elizabeth as an independent subject. At the same time, the
series uses looks and glances to suggest that Darcy is infatuated with
Elizabeth, and that she comes to admire him, too. This creates an erotic
charge, which is emphasised with a number of departures from the
novel. Aidan does not incorporate these departures in her trilogy but,
with the help of close character focalisation, she does weave in the
adaptation’s reading of Darcy and its unresolved sexual tension. I have
related this to a loophole in the Republic’s editorial policy. Because the
community still honours its “gushing” roots, it does not ban
Harlequinesque elements from its archives. Both Aidan’s text and the
Republic’s guidelines, then, contain elements of yet another reading.
Ultimately, Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman suggests that cultural readings are
swept up in the dynamics of canon, fantext, and individual creativity. As
such, they contribute to the incessant movement which characterises the
fandom’s fantext. Unique interpretations such as Aidan’s can become
widely accepted in the fan community. This can change the community’s
fantextual conventions and the cultural readings embedded in them.
Approaching the source text from these new interpretive conventions,
other fans can then begin to see new creative possibilities in their canon.
As long as these fans defend their views, as hundreds have done before
them, Austen’s characters will lead a life of their own in cyberspace.
References
Aidan, Pamela. 2006a [2003]. An Assembly Such as This [Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman 1]. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Aidan, Pamela. 2006b. Q&A with Pamela Aidan. In An Assembly Such as This [Fitzwilliam Darcy,
Gentleman 1], Pamela Aidan. New York: Simon & Schuster, 252-255.
Aidan, Pamela. 2006c [2004]. Duty and Desire [Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman 2]. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
19 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
Aidan, Pamela. 2006d. Q&A with Pamela Aidan. In Duty and Desire [Fitzwilliam Darcy,
Gentleman 2], Pamela Aidan. New York: Simon & Schuster , 284-287.
Aidan, Pamela. 2007a [2005]. These Three Remain [Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman 3]. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Aidan, Pamela. 2007b. Q&A with Pamela Aidan. In These Three Remain [Fitzwilliam Darcy,
Gentleman 3], Pamela Aidan. New York: Simon & Schuster, 444-448.
Aidan, Pamela. 2009. Darcy. E-mail to Veerle Van Steenhuyse.
Austen, Jane. 2003 [1813]. Pride and Prejudice. London: Penguin Books.
Austen.com [The Derbyshire Writers’ Guild]. 2009a. Home page. 15 Apr. 2009
.
Austen.com [The Derbyshire Writers’ Guild]. 2009b. Contributor Guidelines. 14 Apr. 2009
.
Belton, Ellen. 2003. Reimagining Jane Austen: The 1940 and 1995 Film Versions of Pride and
Prejudice. In Jane Austen on Screen, Gina Macdonald & Andrew Macdonald (eds.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 175-196.
Birtwistle, Sue & Susie Conklin. 1995. The Making of Pride and Prejudice. London: Penguin
Books/BBC Books.
Bowles, Kate. Commodifying Austen: The Janeite Culture of the Internet and Commercialization
Through Product and Television Series Spinoffs. In Jane Austen on Screen, Gina Macdonald &
Andrew Macdonald (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 15-21.
Breuer, Rolf. 2000. Jane Austen etc.: The Completions, Continuations and Adaptations of Her
Novels. EESE Resources: Jane Austen. 14 Mar. 2011
.
Brown, Homer. 1996. Why the Story of the Origin of the (English) Novel Is an American
Romance (If Not the Great American Novel). In Cultural Institutions of the Novel, Deidre
Lynch & William B. Warner (eds.). Durham: Duke University Press, 11-43.
Busse, Kristina & Karen Hellekson. 2006. Introduction: Work in Progress. In Fan Fiction and Fan
Communities in the Age of the Internet, Karen Hellekson & Kristina Busse (eds.). Jefferson:
McFarland & Company, 5-32.
Coppa, Francesca. 2006a. A Brief History of Media Fandom. In Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in
the Age of the Internet, Karen Hellekson & Kristina Busse (eds.). Jefferson: McFarland &
Company, 41-59.
Coppa, Francesca. 2006b. Writing Bodies in Space: Media Fan Fiction as Theatrical Performance.
In Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet, Karen Hellekson & Kristina Busse
(eds.). Jefferson: McFarland & Company, 225-244.
Costello, Victor & Barbara Moore. 2007. Cultural Outlaws: An Examination of Audience Activity
and Online Television Fandom. Television New Media 8(2): 124-143.
Derecho, Abigail. 2006. Archontic Literature: A Definition, a History, and Several Theories of
Fan Fiction. In Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet, Karen Hellekson &
Kristina Busse (eds.). Jefferson: McFarland & Company, 61-78.
Driscoll, Catherine. 2006. One True Pairing: The Romance of Pornography and the Pornography
of Romance. In Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet, Karen Hellekson &
Kristina Busse (eds.). Jefferson: McFarland & Company, 79-96.
Fanlore.com. 2011a. Alternate Universe. 14 Mar. 2011
.
Fanlore.com. 2011b. Canon. 14 Mar. 2011 .
http://www.austen.com/phorum/read.php?5,2413,2413#msg-2413
20 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
George, Lianne. 2007. The Opposite of Sex: Why We’re Obsessed with Jane Austen and
Regency-Era Romance. Maclean’s 120: 35.
Hills, Matt. 2002. Fan Cultures [Sussex Studies in Culture and Communication 5]. London:
Routledge.
Hunter, J. Paul. 1990. Before Novels: The Cultural Contexts of Eighteenth-Century English Fiction. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Irene, Jessica. 2007. Reader Report: Pamela Aidan Signing at Third Place Books. Online posting.
AustenBlog. 18 December 2008 .
Jenkins, Henry. 1992. Textual Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Culture. London: Routledge.
Jenkins, Henry. 2008a. How Fan Fiction Can Teach Us a New Way to Read Moby-Dick (Part
One). Online posting. Confessions of an Aca-Fan: The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins. 21
Feb. 2009 .
Jenkins, Henry. 2008b. How Fan Fiction Can Teach Us a New Way to Read Moby-Dick (Part
Two). Online posting. Confessions of an Aca-Fan: The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins. 21
Feb. 2009 .
Johnson, Claudia L. 1997. Austen Cults and Cultures. In The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen,
Edward Copeland & Juliet McMaster (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 211-226.
Jones, Robert. 2006. From Shooting Monsters to Shooting Movies: Machinima and the
Transformative Play of Video Game Fan Culture. In Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age
of the Internet, Karen Hellekson & Kristina Busse (eds.). Jefferson: McFarland & Company,
261-280.
Kaplan, Deborah. 2005. The Pride of Austen Critics: A Prejudice? Chronicle of Higher Education (11
Mar.): B10-B12.
Kaplan, Deborah. 2006. Construction of Fan Fiction Character Through Narrative. In Fan Fiction
and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet, Karen Hellekson & Kristina Busse (eds.). Jefferson:
McFarland & Company, 134-152.
Karpovich, Angelina I. 2006. The Audience as Editor: The Role of Beta Readers in Online Fan
Fiction Communities. In Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet, Karen
Hellekson & Kristina Busse (eds.). Jefferson: McFarland & Company, 171-188.
Kramp, Michael. 2007. Austen, the Late-Millennial Moment, and the Modern Man. In Disciplining
Love: Austen and the Modern Man. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 150-2.
Kustritz, Anne. 2003. Slashing the Romance Narrative. Journal of American Culture 26(3): 371-384.
Lynch, Deidre Shauna. 2005. Cult of Jane Austen. In Jane Austen in Context, Janet Todd (ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 111-120.
Lynch, Deidre. 1996. At Home with Jane Austen. In Cultural Institutions of the Novel, Deidre Lynch
& William B. Warner (eds.). Durham: Duke University Press, 159-192.
Macdonald, Gina & Andrew Macdonald. 2003. Introduction. In Jane Austen on Screen, Gina
Macdonald & Andrew Macdonald (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-8.
Margolis, Harriet. 2003. Janeite Culture: What Does The Name ‘Jane Austen’ Authorize? In Jane
Austen on Screen, Gina Macdonald & Andrew Macdonald (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 22-43.
Marley, Dorothy. 2003. The Seven Deadly Fanons of Characterization: A Spotter’s Guide. Online
posting. The Fanfic Symposium. 18 December 2008
.
http://www.austenblog.com/2007/01/22/reader-report-pamela-aidan-signing-at-third-place-books/
http://www.austenblog.com/2007/01/22/reader-report-pamela-aidan-signing-at-third-place-books/
http://henryjenkins.org/2008/08/how_fan_fiction_can_teach_us_a.html
http://henryjenkins.org/2008/08/how_fan_fiction_can_teach_us_a_1.html
http://www.trickster.org/symposium/symp138.html
21 Veerle Van Steenhuyse
Morrissey, Katherine E. 2008. Fanning the Flames of Romance: An Exploration of Fan Fiction
and the Romance Novel. MA thesis. Georgetown University.
O’Connell, Pamela Licalzi. 2000. A World Without End For Fans of Jane Austen. New York
Times: G10.
Parrish, Juli J. 2007. Inventing a Universe: Reading and Writing Internet Fan Fiction. Diss.
University of Pittsburgh.
Pemberley.com [The Republic of Pemberley]. 2009. Home page. 8 May 2009
.
Pemberley.com [The Republic of Pemberley]. Bits of Ivory Guidelines. 2003. 14 Apr. 2009
.
Pemberley.com [The Republic of Pemberley]. Frequently Asked Questions. 2007. 18 Dec. 2008
.
Langton, Simon (dir.). 2001. Pride and Prejudice. Colin Firth (perf.). Andrew Davies (swr). BBC /
Arts and Entertainment Network, 1995. DVD. Universal Pictures (Benelux), 2001.
Pugh, Sheenagh. 2005. The Democratic Genre: Fan Fiction in a Literary Context. Bridgend: Seren.
Sendlor, Charles. 2011. FanFiction.Net Fandoms: Story and Traffic Statistics. Online posting.
Fan Fiction Statistics – FFN Research. 14 Mar. 2011 .
Stein, Louisa & Kristina Busse. 2009. Limit Play: Fan Authorship between Source Text, Intertext,
and Context. Popular Communication 7(4): 192-207.
Stein, Louisa Ellen. 2006. “This Dratted Thing”: Fannish Storytelling Through New Media. In
Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet, Karen Hellekson & Kristina Busse
(eds.). Jefferson: McFarland & Company, 245-260.
Thomas, Angela. 2006. Fan Fiction Online: Engagement, Critical Response and Affective Play
through Writing. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 29(3): 226-239.
Thomas, Bronwen. 2007. Canons and Fanons: Literary Fanfiction Online. Dichtung-digital 37(1).
Thompson, Allison. 2008. Trinkets and Treasures: Consuming Jane Austen. Persuasions On-Line
28(2).
Author’s address:
Veerle Van Steenhuyse
Universiteit Gent
Rozier 44
9000 Gent
Belgium
Veerle.VanSteenhuyse@UGent.be
http://www.pemberley.com/
http://www.pemberley.com/derby/guidenew.html
http://www.pemberley.com/faq.html