I think overall it is a bad idea. If the author is good enough to write a good Austen sequel then they should be good enough to write their own characters, draw from an Austen character perhaps but create their own world. I don't know how Austen would feel about it but I do know that one contemporary author is terrified that anyone will carry on her work and has tried to write her stories to prevent it from happening- JK Rowling. It is similar to the Gone with the Wind sequels. I have chosen not to read them simply because I just feel like, "Is that what Mitchell would have written?" It also reminds me of movie sequels, how many times do they turn out well, very rarely.

I like the kind of story where a character reacts to or is affected in some way by a piece of literature or events in history. I also like novels that reinterpret legends or fairy tales, but in general I agree that it's a bad idea for a current author to presume they can write a sequel to a classic. AS Deborah says, they should be able to create their own characters.

I detest it when real people are used as the main characters in novels that then go on to distort history, especially when I know enough about them to know when history is being toyed with. The exception is sci-fi or fantasy stories - for some reason I don't mind those at all, perhaps because they are not twisting history to suit a story but rather playing with alternative realities that assume the existence of advanced technology or magic and how history could have been different because of it.

I could absolutely not stand to read the Jane Austen mysteries, because I know enough about her to know that while she might conceivably have enjoyed snooping around, she was not a sleuth and never solved any murders. However, if spaceships or unicorns were included in the stories, I might enjoy them for being outrageous. On the other hand, I am now reading The Dante Club, which features a number of figures from American history in both major and minor roles, but since I know little about them except their names and occupations and approximately when they lived, I am able to look past it and enjoy the story as pure fiction. Had I read, for example, a biography of James Lowell or Longfellow, I would have hated it.

I don't mind when historical figures are used as minor characters, for example when the made-up protagonist of a novel meets a famous real person. I think it can spice up a historical novel and make it more realistic. Neither do I mind novelisations of real events, as long as they are faithful to historical facts.

As to using characters from other author's works, you could say that such derivative works show a certain lack of imagination on the author's behalf, much like using real characters rather than basing fictional characters on real ones, but I think that if done well, they can be entertaining and give one a new perspective on familiar characters. For example, I quite like how Laurie R. King has continued the Sherlock Holmes stories. The problem with continuing Jane Austen's work, using her characters, is that to pull it off you would need to be an excellent writer, stylist and humourist like Austen was, and also possess an encyclopedic knowledge of Austen's work and the era. Georgette Heyer could possibly have pulled it off, but she had the good sense not to try.

As to modernisations of classical novels, by Austen and others, I have never read one that was much good. The best of the bunch was Kate Fenton's Lions and Liquorice (aka Vanity and Vexation) which is partially based on Pride and Prejudice, but the author had the sense to only use Austen's novel up to a point.

The best modernisation of an Austen novel I know is not a book, but a movie: Clueless, based on Emma. I have heard of an Indian film that does a good job of modernising Sense and Sensibility, but I haven't been able to find it to check for myself.

"I don't mind when historical figures are used as minor characters..."
I so agree with that. A perfect exaple is Tracy Chavelier's 'Girl With a Pearl Earring'.

What do you think about doing a movie based on a book? I think its quite allright if the film does JUSTICE to the book. But I wonder if the authors of classical works, if they were living, would like their books being put to film? I know many modern writers feel privilaged and even proud to have their books made into movies, so maybe the classical writers would too if they were living (except maybe for Dickens and Tolstoy).
CMK

I have attempted a couple, but whenDarcy is described as having his morning coffee (!!!), and Elizabeth Bennett is desribed as having "grinned,"...Well! That blew it for me.

The most successful books to movies usually involve the author's participation but it can be done. I think LOTR was done well. I think it takes a strong director with money and clout to overcome the Hollywood mentality of modernizing books.

Leel, that is the thing I hated most in Scarlett. In several instances, she giggled. I can't think of anything more un-Scarlett-like.

I recently read The Jane Austen Reading Club by Karen Joy Fowler and did find it charming and enjoyable. (Note that I didn't go out and look for this, but picked it up the local library sale. I had previously read a book of short stories by Fowler which I thought were very good.) I engaged with the various characters and their interactions with each other as loosely tied to their book club meetings covering each of Austen's titles.

After that I read an article I found by Martin Amis on the attraction of Jane Austen and her work in the New Yorker which may be of interest.

Here is a link that might be useful: Jane's Work by Martin Amis

Old Friends and New Fancies was written in 1913, and takes many of the minor characters from the 6 major Austen novels (Lady Susan is not included) and weaves them together as if they had all met in a fashionable "spa" town. It is the only sequel I have read, but I did enjoy it for what it was-Austen light. The characters do, for the most part, behave appropriately for the time and as Austen created them. Fortunately, there is a character list with source novels listed in the front-some of the characters were very minor in their original appearances!

I have had my "historic fiction gone awry" and "movies that use only the title, none of the plot of a book" rants here before...so I won't do it again.

Colleen McCullough, of The Thorn Birds fame, is about to release a book called The Independence of Miss Mary Bennet, featuring all of the sisters from P & P.

hmmmm. Do you have a release date in the States for that? I would be interested in what she does with it.

I may check these books out if I see one at the library and it happens to tickle my fancy, but im not going to buy any more. I dont want to support authors who steal the works of others. It is really plagerism. The only thing diffrent is that Jane Austen is dead and there no one to defend her life's work against this.
CMK

I wouldn't mind if the authors did a good job, but none of the several I've sampled were much good. It's a pity. Some Austen fans would enjoy Georgette Heyer. She wrote some excellent and literate popular novels set in Austen's historical era and social milieu. They do not use any of Austen's characters or continue any of her plots. These novels are well-researched, well-written, clever, and a great deal of fun to read. If any of the Austen knock-off authors did as well, I'd be more than pleased to give them a try.

Netla, the movie you were looking for is called Bride and Prejudice. I rather liked it, though it lacked the humor of Clueless.

Rosefolly

Rosefolly, it isn't Bride and Prejudice. The film I was thinking about is titled Kandukondain Kandukondain and it seems it's actually based on Ang Lee's movie that was based on Sense and Sensibility.

cece, I don't have a US date. The Aussie date is 1st October. We have an advanced reading copy at work and two of my colleagues have read it - one liked it a lot and the other hated it!

Yet another P&P spin-off will be hitting UK TV screens this Autumn with a new series Lost in Austen. The story line appears to be . . . our modern day heroine is a big JA fan and finds herself able to go back into the world of P&P. But will her knowledge of the outcome of the story alter what takes place in the world she has entered?

Also look out for yet another TV adaptation of Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Many of the outdoor rural scenes were shot in my area. They wanted a realistic 'backwards' landscape. :-) Pity I didn't know it was happening, maybe I could have got a part as an extra playing 'an aged crone' or 'third hag'.
Another Dickens series is coming up, this time Little Dorrit. Last year Bleak House was beautifully produced. Some of you may have seen it.

Went to Amazon to see if there was a US street date for the McCullough book-and my goodness there are a lot more "Austen-derivative" books than I had ever imagined...including a whole series of "Pride and Prejudice variations" by someone named Abigail Reynolds. sheesh. Can you say "gilding the lily?" I wish Austen had lived a long and prolific life, so that I would have more to read...but since she didn't, her body of work is a complete whole just as it is.
anyway...no street date, but A is saying that first US printing will be in paperback. hmmm.

hummm...I wonder when TESS will come out in the US. That should be really interesting. I didnt care for the book at all, but I love watching the classics on screen!
-veer,... or you could have played the crazy old woman with the pet chickens! ;-)
My favorite Dickens (so far) is Bleak House. I LOVED the movie, and have it on DVD. I thought that all the actors were perfect for their roles, especially Gillian Anderson! Gorgeously filmed.
-ccrdmrbks, I think we all wish Jane would have lived to write more. I think her unfinished books would have been fantastic (I particularly liked how 'The Watsons' was turning out). All these other Austen inspired books are simply Cubic zirconia to the real thing.
CMK