Last Sunday I pretended to be Cassandra Austen, sister of the famous writer. I was on a panel of “siblings” at the Denver/Boulder regional meeting of the Jane Austen Society of North America. We panelists fielded questions from our members regarding the sibs-four of the brothers and one sister.

The most compelling question for me as Cassandra was, of course, “Why did you destroy the letters?” What I wanted to say was, “It’s complicated!” But as Cassie, I couldn’t. So, here’s what I actually said:

“Jane and I had a habit of ‘censoring’ each other’s letters when we shared them with the family-leaving out sections when we read them out loud. We both desired this holding back of details meant for ourselves alone.

“I lived 28 years after Jane’s death, thus allowing me a great deal of time to decide what to do with her letters. I destroyed many of them due to their personal and private content. This is what Jane would have wanted. Some were written during periods of great stress, such as the aftermath of the family’s decision to move to Bath; others contained remarks which may have been hurtful to others.

“Jane never desired fame. She wanted recognition, to be taken seriously as a writer, but never fame. Publishing her most private and personal correspondence would have been disgusting to her.”

Other than her correspondence with Cassandra, Jane Austen’s surviving letters are mainly to her nieces and nephews, and a few to friends. Not one to her mother or father. None to Henry, her favorite brother, and the one who helped publish her novels not only in her lifetime, but also after her death. She didn’t live to see Persuasion and Northanger Abbey in print; Cassandra and Henry made certain that the world would have all her work. And we are eternally grateful!

One poignant image I haven’t been able to get out of my mind: Henry riding alongside the carriage carrying Jane Austen and Cassandra to Winchester, Jane’s final journey.  Apparently it rained throughout the 16 mile trip. How appropriate.

The crux of the story is that Amanda (the main character) and  Elizabeth Bennet basically change places. Amanda falls into the world of P&P. Not just into the world, but into the story itself. The whole thing begins when Elizabeth magically appears in Amanda’s twenty-first century bathroom.

The idea of Lizzy showing up in Amanda’s bathroom seemed ridiculous, and Amanda’s explanation of her presence among the Bennets, dressed in contemporary clothes, strained. And then there was that awful scene when Amanda reveals something of herself to Lydia that is, well, TMI. And there’s really never a believable explanation of the whereabouts of Elizabeth.

But somewhere along the way, I began to like it.

Initially, Amanda believes her mission is to correct everything that is not working out as it does in the novel. So, when Bingley is attracted to her, she steers him to Jane. Just as in the novel, Darcy separates Jane and Bingley.  Subsequently, Jane agrees to marry Mr. Collins, because she believes by doing so she will save Longbourn for the family. Charlotte Lucas goes off to Africa as a missionary. Wickham is a delightful rogue. Mr. Collins has three brothers who are even more repugnant that he himself. Lady Catherine is not nearly so hateful as in the novel. In other words, everything is topsy turvy. As Amanda tries to prod everybody in the right direction, things simply become worse or morph into something unrecognizable to her.

Meanwhile, Darcy is falling in love with Amanda. At first, they hate each other. Darcy is rude to her, leaving her alone on the dance floor in the middle of a set, chastising her for her foul language, and judging–misjudging–her. Amanda remains determined to unite Elizabeth and Darcy, even as it’s dawning on her that Darcy loves her and she very much wants to love him back. After all, she’s been longing for the manners, the civility, and the “love matches” of Jane Austen’s world.

Jemima Rooper as Amanda grows on you. All except the hair; I never got used to the modern haircut and bangs. Elliot Cowan, suffice it to say, is all you would want in an actor playing Darcy! The production is whimsical, charming, funny. And sweet…maybe most importantly, sweet.

So was it thumbs up or down for you?

Celebrating Jane Austen’s life, books, and characters was the real reason for gathering at the Brown Palace. Every year the Denver/Boulder Regional Chapter (and probably many other chapters) of the Jane Austen Society of North America holds a birthday tea in honor of the iconic writer. This year was Jane’s 233rd birthday.

Besides hearing reports from members who attended the Annual General Meeting, we matched quotes with novels and took a quiz on the characteristics of readers of Austen. Most of us failed it royally. Proves that Austen readers defy categorizing, I guess.

When I joined this group about a year ago, I expected to find a number of Austen readers like myself, who cherish the books and have read them over and over. I did find that, but I also discovered in the members a depth of knowledge of Jane Austen’s books, letters, unpublished work, juvenalia, life and family that astonished me. Many members are also quite knowledgable about writers who followed Jane and whose books perhaps owe a debt to her, such as Elizabeth Gaskell. Others are experts in all things Regency, including historical novels set in the Regency period.

I think it’s fascinating that all age levels are represented, from the very young, in their early twenties, to the 60-and-up crowd. There are also men who attend the meetings.

Two of our members have books out: Dr. Rebecca Dickson, Jane Austen: An Illustrated Treasury, and Janet Smith (under the name Jane Greensmith), Intimations of Austen: Stories Inspired by the Works of Jane Austen.

Our chapter voted the version of Sense and Sensibility, broadcast on PBS last winter, as our favorite of the new productions. Which was your favorite? Which characters did you feel best exemplified Austen’s portrayal of them?