Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray

Totally not the edition I read. Mine doesn't even
have an ISBN because it's from like 1965.

I've loved Vanity Fair for a long time now. My introduction to it came in the form of the BBC's 1998 mini-series, which I immediately fell in love with. Natasha Little was perfect as Becky Sharp, and everything about it was basically brilliant.

At some point, I studied it?? I'm not sure if it was for Literature in year 11 or 12, or if it was first year university. Honestly, the only reason I remember that I studied it is because my copy (which is technically my mum's copy) still has some of my incredibly helpful notes in it:

I've read the book three or four times now, and I love it a little bit more every time I read it. Becky is a fabulous anti-heroine. Despite being incredibly manipulative and conniving and out to get whatever she can for herself, she somehow manages to be almost likeable and you find yourself appreciating the somewhat insane lengths that she'll go to. That said, the way she treats her son is fairly horrific, and it's understandable that a lot of people find that unforgivable.

The story that would traditionally be the centre of any classic novel - that of Emmy and Dobbin - is, in Thackeray's hands, somewhat foolish. Dobbin spends fifteen years pining away over his dead best friend's widow, rushing from India to England when a letter from his sister says that Emmy might marry someone else. And yet, it still takes another three years for anything to happen.

Emmy, similarly, is portrayed as simpering and ridiculous, seeing George as an angel, a martyr in Heaven. She prays before his picture every night, when in reality George was a philandering, gambling scumbag who only thought of himself and only married Emmy because Dobbin pushed him into it.

Thackeray is incredibly cynical and sarcastic throughout, with the authorial voice cutting into the story time and time again. And it's BRILLIANT. He mocks society throughout the whole eight hundred odd pages, He mocks the elite and how easily they fall from grace. He mocks polite society for refusing to see what's right in front of its face. He mocks poor Jos Sedley from start to finish. He mocks practically every character he created, and I loved every single second of it.

It's definitely one of my favourite classic novels, and I'm incredibly glad I took the time to reread it. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to rewatch the mini-series.

Have you read it? What did you think??

K xx

The Lost World and Other Thrilling Tales - Arthur Conan Doyle

My first encounter with The Lost World came in the form of the 2001 BBC miniseries, starring Bob Hoskins and Matthew Rhys. I loved it instantly. It's full of adventure and silliness and awesome dinosaurs, courtesy of the Walking With Dinosaurs team. And it also features Tom Ward sporting very Hugh Grant hair and a truly hilarious moustache.

I mean, really. Source.

So obviously, I decided that I should read the book soon after, and I remember enjoying it. I haven't revisited the book since, though I've seen the miniseries numerous times. So I was somewhat surprised to see this time around how different the book is to the series. The gist of things is the same - a mysterious plateau somewhere in South America where prehistoric life has survived unchecked, and an expedition to confirm its existence. Through a series of unfortunate events, the expedition find themselves trapped on top of the plateau, unable to get down again, and must fight for survival in a world filled with allosaurs, hostile natives, and some kind of missing link between apes and humans.

The story is a LOT of fun, I must say. The biggest change in the miniseries is the addition of Agnes and her religious uncle. I'd totally forgotten that she wasn't in the book, and I was slightly disappointed by her absence because she's pretty great. There were also some relatively minor changes to the ending that weren't as big of a deal for me. Still, there was plenty to entertain, and it's an action packed story.

Sure, there are moments when you're like "Wow, that's kind of racist...", but it's set in 1912, and when it comes to the classics, you just have to shudder over the racism and misogyny and press on regardless. Doyle created some fabulous characters, and while parts of the story - allosaurs hopping like kangaroos and killing their prey by falling over on them - may be more funny than anything, it's an enjoyable and action packed story, topped off nicely with illustrations and photographs.

My volume also contained three other, much shorter stories. The first of these, The Poison Belt, features the same characters as The Lost World. It's fun to see them on another adventure, and The Poison Belt is definitely a fast-paced read. The gist of it is that the earth is passing through a band of ether that's killing every living thing on the planet. Professor Challenger and the others obtain a bunch of oxygen cylinders and lock themselves in a sealed room to see if they can survive it. It's got a very H.G. Wells feel about it, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I was less taken with The Terror of Blue John Gap, which is a 20 page story in which an invalid goes to the country to take the air and decides to investigate why a bunch of sheep have gone missing, only to find a mysterious cave system inhabited by a giant beastie. It was so short that it felt more like an outline than a fully fleshed out story, and the narrator, James Hardcastle, is kind of a pain.

The final story was very much early fantasy, and though it dragged a bit at times, I thoroughly enjoyed The Horror of the Heights. Written in a time when aviation was just starting to find its feet and was essentially taking over from nineteenth century explorers, it makes perfect sense to set an adventure story up in the sky where who-knows-what could happen. I kind of wish this had been a fully fleshed out novel rather than a short story, but a short story is better than nothing!

If you've read and enjoyed any of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, I'd definitely recommend picking up The Lost World, because it really is a lot of fun. (If you'd prefer the slightly more modern interpretation, I really would recommend the miniseries. It's got some great actors in it, and the changes to the story made it even better)

Have you read it? WOULD you read it based on this??

K xx

TTT - My Favourite Classics

It's time to link up with the Broke and the Bookish again!

The topic this week was to talk about our favourite classics, or the ten classics we most want to read. Given that I have an entire list of classics that I want to read, it seemed silly to try and pick ten of them. So I've gone with listing my favourites. And yes, almost all of them are English authors and from the nineteenth century, because Victorian England is my jam. 

1. Persuasion - Jane Austen

Hands down my favourite Austen book. Sure, I love Pride and Prejudice as much as anyone. But there's just something about Persuasion that makes me love it just that little bit more. The characters are fabulous, and it's more relateable in a lot of ways than Pride and Prejudice is. 

2. Wives and Daughters - Elizabeth Gaskell

I was honestly tossing up between this and North & South. In the end, this won out mostly because it's been a while since I've read North & South, and I'm having trouble separating the events of the book from the events of the spectacular BBC miniseries from 2004. I studied Wives and Daughters in first year university, and loved every second of it (except for the whole "Gaskell died before she finished it" part). I reread it at the start of the year and I still love it just as much. 

3. Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte

I first read this in 1998 for year 10 English, and when I saw the cover, I was absolutely convinced that I was going to hate it. It only took me about fifty pages - read in the back of the car en route to The Dandenongs (I have this weirdly vivid memory of the first time I read it) - to realise that I absolutely adored everything about it. That remains true today.

4. Bleak House - Charles Dickens

Admittedly, Bleak House is one of the most complex and difficult-to-get-through Dickens novels. The characters are phenomenal, the way their stories interweave is incredible, and there's a case of spontaneous human combustion. What more could you want from a book?! 

5. The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins

Another one that I read for first year university and loved. The story is great and crammed full of secrets, the characters are amazing, and Count Fosco, the major villain, is weirdly likeable. And there are moments that are almost nothing in the course of the story, but which will come back to you, years after reading. 

6. The Day of the Triffids - John Wyndham

I reread this in January, and HOLY CRAP it's still terrifying. But while it was the triffids that scared the crap out of me as a teenager, it was the politics and the implications for society that scared the crap out of me as an adult. It's basically a dystopian novel with added carnivorous plants, and it is AMAZING. 

7. The Mystery of a Hansom Cab - Fergus Hume

The best selling crime novel of the nineteenth century, contrary to what you might think, was this relatively little known Australian work. For something that was written 120 years ago, it's incredibly readable. The story may be a little on the standard whodunnit side, but Hume's descriptions - particularly where secondary characters are concerned - are to die for.

8. Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray

Oh my God, I adore Becky Sharp and everything about this massively snarky book. Becky is the epitome of an anti-hero. She makes terrible decisions time and time again - she steals, she uses her friends, she gambles, she marries to mess with people's minds, she doesn't give a crap about her kid - and yet somehow? You're still left wanting her to come out on top. Brilliant from start to finish. 

9. To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee

There's a reason why this book is still on the English syllabus of high school classes the world over. It's an amazing story from start to finish, and so much more complex than you think it will be when you start reading it. 

10. The Importance of Being Earnest - Oscar Wilde

Does including a play count as cheating?? Whatever, it's one of my favourites, so I don't really care if it's cheating. This play is absolutely hilarious from start to finish. I adore all the characters, even Aunt Augusta, and the story is so ridiculous that you can't help but love it. 

What are your favourite classics?

K xx

Same same but different

Do you ever watch one version of a particular story and you absolutely adore it to the point where no other version can even quite compare because It's Just Not Right? Yeah, I experienced this again over the weekend when I watched The Philadelphia Story. Which isn't to say The Philadelphia Story is a bad movie - it's pretty great, in fact, and totally deserves the Oscars that it won.

BUT.

It's not High Society, which I fell in love with about 15 years ago. While The Philadelphia Story may feature Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant, and James Stewart all being amazing, it doesn't feature Grace Kelly, Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra singing utterly ridiculous songs and dancing around like loons. So while we get this:

Source

We don't get this:

Source

Or Louis Armstrong playing the trumpet. Which is a shame, because he's awesome.

Admittedly, this is something that mostly occurs with adaptations of the classics, because they're the ones that get new movie/TV versions every year. But there are a few other adaptations that spring to mind here:

Pride and Prejudice

Source

Always the 1995 version. I have an irrational hatred of the Keira Knightley version, which may have something to do with Matthew Macfadyen (ugh) and that ridiculously awful foot fondling scene that was added to the American release to demonstrate that they actually did get married. In short, six hours of Colin Firth? YES. Two hours of Macfadyen? LOL NOPE. And don't even get me started on the 1940 version and its awful costumes. (The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, I should mention, is a close second to the 1995 version)

Vanity Fair

Source

I have an undying love for this incredibly silly story and its deeply flawed anti-heroine, Becky Sharp. But when it comes to film versions of it, the 1998 BBC version starring Natasha Little captures Becky's playfully sneaky nature much better than the 2004 movie starring Reese Witherspoon. Also, the music is excellent.

Sense and Sensibility

Source

The BBC miniseries from 2008 is pretty damned good. But it just can't compare to the 1995 movie, which has a lot more heart to it along with that delightfully ridiculous scene of Emma Thompson's hysterical sobbing. Plus, Hugh Laurie's eternal sassiness.

Psycho

Source

I can't believe anyone would actually prefer the 1998 version of Psycho. Because it was TERRIBLE. Man, what was it about 1998 and terrible remakes? The original, on the other hand, is an absolute classic for a reason: it's phenomenal.

Les Miserables

Source

Much like The Philadelphia Story/High Society, I will always take the version that includes singing and dancing. I know, taking Russell Crowe and his decidedly average singing over the brilliant acting of Geoffrey Rush seems like a total travesty, but the 1998 movie was JUST SO BORING without the songs.

Jane Eyre

Source

The first adaptation of Jane Eyre that I ever saw was the 1983 version starring Timothy Dalton that we had to watch in year 10 English. And it's terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible. Partly because Zelah Clarke, who plays Jane, is like a foot shorter than Timothy Dalton, so every time they kissed it looked like he was breaking her neck. I saw the recent movie version (the Michael Fassbender one), and wasn't a huge fan of it - movies can never do the book justice in the way a mini-series can. But the 2006 BBC version with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens? Perfection.

The Italian Job

Source

This one is kind of a travesty, I know. But I actually prefer the 2003 version to the original. I don't quite know WHY, but there's just something about it that makes it fun. And the lack of an ambiguous ending is definitely a plus!

Needless to say, I am terrified about some of the adaptations that are slated for development in the next five years. Remaking The Birds? My Fair Lady? Police Academy? DIRTY DANCING?!?! WHY. WHY ARE THESE THINGS NECESSARY, HOLLYWOOD??

Do you have a preferred version of any of these? What else would you add to the list?

K xx

Movie Monday: Persuasion

You guys know that I loves me a costume drama, and this one is one of my favourites. It's not readily available on DVD (my copy was recorded off TV like five years ago and burnt to DVD from there, so the quality is craptastic), but if you can get hold of a copy it's VERY worth watching. It's interesting in that it was made in the same year as the beloved Colin Firth BBC Pride and Prejudice, but has a completely different feel.

Reasons why Persuasion is awesome:
1. Amanda Root as Anne Elliot. She's absolutely brilliant, especially the way she gradually brings the character out of her shell over the course of the film.
2. Ciaran Hinds as Frederick Wentworth.

Source

3. The music.
4. The opening contrasts between the lives of the navy and the nobility.
5. Corin Redgrave as Sir Walter Elliot. He. Is. FABULOUS.
6. I love that the costumes and the hairstyles are far less ornate than those in Pride and Prejudice.

Source

7. The lighting during the evening scenes. It's something approaching authentic.
8. Phoebe Nicholls as Elizabeth Elliot. She's the epitome of the fantastic awfulness that is Austen's character.
9. Love letters in the shape of boats.
10. The Musgroves.

Source

11. Anne's sneaky eye rolls in the background when Mary acts like an idiot.
12. Mrs. Croft. She's pretty much a Regency era feminist.
13. Oblivious strolling through Bath.

Source

14. Lyme and everything that happens.
15. The scene in the tea shop.
16. Causing a scene at the concert.

Plus, the following quotes:
- "Women without children are the very best preservers of furniture."
- "I hate to hear you talking about all women as if they were fine ladies instead of rational creatures; we none of us want to be in calm waters all our lives."
- "Are you here for the concert?" "No, I'm here for a lecture on navigation. Am I in the wrong place?"
- "Poor Phoebe, she would not have forgotten him so soon. It was not in her nature." "It would not be in the nature of any woman who truly loved." "Do you claim that for your sex?" "We do not forget you as soon as you forget us. We cannot help ourselves. We live at home, quiet, confined, and our feelings prey upon us. You always have business of some sort or other to take you back into the world." "I won't allow it to be any more man's nature than women's to be inconstant or to forget those they love or have loved. I believe the reverse. I believe... Let me just observe that all histories are against you, all stories, prose, and verse. I do not think I ever opened a book in my life which did not have something to say on women's fickleness." "But they were all written by men."
- "If I may, so long as the woman you love lives, and lives for you, all the privilege I claim for my own sex, and it is not a very enviable one - you need not covet it, is that of loving longest when all hope is gone."
- "Anne? You want to marry Anne? Whatever for??"
- "Have you thought any more about my offer?" "What offer was that?" "My offer to flatter and adore you all the days of your life." "I haven't had a moment, Mr Elliot, to turn my mind to it."
- "I strongly object to the Navy. It brings people of obscure birth into undue distinction and it cuts up a man's youth and vigor most horribly!"
- "Could you not put off this old person until tomorrow?"
- "You pierce my soul. I am half agony, half hope. Tell me not that I am too late, that such precious feelings are gone for ever."

Have you seen it? Or have you seen the 2007 version? If both, which did you prefer?

K xx

On why I prefer Elementary to Sherlock

Last night, I wrote a Facebook status that seems to have hit a nerve for quite a few people. That status? "Can we talk about how fabulous Elementary is? Because seriously. Sherlock ain't got nothing on this piece of amazingness."

Source

It's an opinion that seems to be unpopular on the internet no matter where you go. Sherlock - by default of being a BBC production and arriving on the scene two years earlier - is seen as the superior show. In many cases, the person claiming that hasn't even watched Elementary, because "Ew, American version. Bound to be shit. Won't bother."

But in adopting such an attitude, people are depriving themselves of something wonderful. Personally, I prefer Elementary, due in large part to the writing on Sherlock, which I was unable to get past. So I totally understand having a preference for one or the other. I just wanted to put down on paper (pixels?!) some of the reasons WHY I feel the way I do, rather than just making a sweeping statement and not backing it up with evidence.

For a lot of people, it seems like their major problem is that Elementary strays from canon. It uses the names and natures of the characters, and puts them into new scenarios in a new location. While the essential core characters - Holmes, Watson, Mrs Hudson, Irene Adler and Moriarty - remain, the other recurring characters are new.

To me, however, this is where the show finds life. It's difficult to take a series of 120-ish year old short stories and dump them directly into the modern world. Sherlock itself proves that - while each episode may be based on a story taken from Doyle's canon, the plots are changed to fit the modern world. The Sherlock episode 'The Hounds of Baskerville', for example, features a drug created on a military base that leads people to hallucinate giant dogs. The original novel, The Hound of the Baskervilles, in contrast, features a large dog that's been covered in phosphorus to make it look all creepy, and which is used to scare people to death. So while the basic concept may be canon, it does not automatically follow that the eventual episode is.

Hounds of Baskerville hallucination. Source

Elementary, by distancing itself from Doyle's canon stories, can explore new territory with ease. It can deal with subjects that simply weren't discussed in Doyle's time - rape, human trafficking, assassins for hire. Despite the American setting, not every case comes down to confronting the suspect at the point of a gun.

Where Elementary really shines, however, is the characters and their relationships. The show is nothing but character development from the get go. Sherlock - perhaps not surprisingly, given Steven Moffat as showrunner - features a limited number of characters who are female or people of colour. When it does, they tend to be stereotypes. Similarly, the relationship between Sherlock and Watson is guilty of constant queerbaiting - long, lingering looks between characters and jokes about how they're definitely absolutely not gay in any way, designed to play on the interests of fangirls when the showrunners have no intention of going anywhere near the development of a homosexual relationship.

Source

Elementary is commonly criticised for the genderbent role of Joan Watson, with claims that "the Americans did this so they can introduce a sexual relationship easily!". If you watch the show, however, you'll see that nothing could be further from the truth. Sherlock and Joan start out in a client/practitioner relationship, and gradually move towards friendship. They are a literal broTP. Similarly, the genderbend allows for the introduction of a competent female character, who is Sherlock's equal in many ways.

I have yet to see a stereotype in Elementary. While Joan's mother is still the Asian mother who wants what is best for her daughter, she is far from the "you will do what I tell you" stereotype that is seen far too often. Detective Bell's race is never mentioned. Alfredo and Detective Bell's brother demonstrate that people are not what they first appear, that anyone can redeem themselves given time and motivation. And Ms. Hudson's biological gender is barely even noteworthy. Neither Sherlock or Joan are bothered. It is simply accepted without a second glance, without any "Oh God, what pronoun do we use?!" or "Wait, a BOYFRIEND?".

Detective Bell. Source

The acting in both shows is phenomenal, but what sells it for me is Jonny Lee Miller. He's brilliant as the recovering drug addict, pouring himself into his work. He brings emotion, wit, and depth to the role. Miller's Sherlock is able to admit that he's wrong, that others may know more than him. The mannerisms he brings - bouncing on his toes when mulling over a case, running his fingers over his thumb in a style reminiscent of violin fingering when putting forth a hypothesis, making decisions that seem logical to him but bizarre to other characters - take the character to the next level, creating a real person. Elementary's Sherlock is flawed, which allows the other characters to play a significant role, filling in key details that he - tunnel-visioned as Holmes tends to be throughout canon and all adaptations - can't see.

At the end of the day, though, it doesn't matter. Because the die hard Sherlock fans will never watch Elementary, deeming it a rip-off and not worthy of their BAFTA winning attention. And in doing so, they're depriving themselves of a treat. Because - despite appearances - the two shows are dramatically different and can't really be compared. Because despite the apparent war between the two shows - which are notoriously polarising - it is possible to watch and enjoy both.

Have you seen Elementary? Have you seen Sherlock? Which did you prefer and why?

K xx

Pride and Prejudice

Apparently the world has decided that it's been far too long since I've read or watched Pride and Prejudice, and has conspired to present me with ALL the Pride and Prejudice reminders in one day to make me aware of this fact.

It started this morning when I had myself a little fangirl moment. And for once, it wasn't in regards to Doctor Who or Buffy or Mulder and Scully #secretsexytimes. No, this fangirl moment was in regards to the latest episode of the Lizzie Bennet Diaries. Because from the second it started rolling, I knew what was coming - DARCY. If you're not watching the Lizzie Bennet Diaries, you should go and watch the whole lot right now. Because, AWESOMENESS. If you've been watching intermittently or haven't seen today's episode yet, I'll just tell you that this was episode #59, and this was the first glimpse of Darcy we've had. So yeah, it's been a LONG time coming.

Anyway, after my little fangirl moment, I was scrolling through my Facebook news feed when I came across this:

Shamelessly stolen from Ness. I'm sure she won't mind........

NESS WENT TO PEMBERLEY. (Okay, technically Ness went to Lyme Park. But whatever. It's PEMBERLEY.) And I am so freaking jealous.

And then I was scrolling though my Google Reader and came across this post from Emily about how when you think about it, the characters in Pride and Prejudice are just as weird and socially awkward as the rest of us. Only without the blogging and the mobile phones...

Anyway, all of this made me realise that I haven't read Pride and Prejudice since before I left Canberra over a year ago. And it's been about the same length of time since I watched the 1995 BBC version (which is the ONLY version, as far as I'm concerned). Both of these facts are completely and utterly horrifying to me. I've read it at least once a year since 1998, with multiple readings in 1999 when we studied it in Year 11 English. Because I'm a giant nerd who keeps stuff way longer than I need to, I can show you this:

Our English teacher handed us a sheet listing all the characters, and told us to draw links between them. That up there? Is what Must be Thrifty and I came up with. We came up with a colour-coded system and everything. Yellow is marriages, orange is Darcy family relationships, blue is Bennet family relationships, pink is friendships etc etc etc. Yeah. We're cool like that.

Anyway, the moral of the story? If you need me, I'll be here:

Yes, that's my very mangled, 13 year old copy of P&P

Or possibly here:

Source

K xx

At least if it goes to Hell, it'll have cheese on toast

So have you guys ever seen Outnumbered? Because yesterday, I felt like I was living in it.

First of all, y'all need to see this:

Having watched that, my story will now make sense. Yesterday, Little Miss A was over for the day. Also yesterday? I found a mummified worm stuck to the bottom of my apple. And then this happened:

Me: Eeeeeeeeeeeeuw...
Mum: What?
Me: [shows her dried worm]
Little Miss A: What???? I WANT TO SEE!!!!
Mum: DON'T...
Me: [shows her dried worm]
Mum: Oh God. Here we go.
Little Miss A: YOU KILLED THE WORM???
Me: No. It was already dead.
Little Miss A: What are you going to do with it?
Me: Wash it off and eat the apple?
Little Miss A: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!
Me: What?!?!?!
Little Miss A: You need to take it out to the garden and bury it!
Me: Seriously??
Little Miss A: YES. It's a poor little dead worm and it doesn't want to go down the sink. We need to take it outside and bury it!
Me: Do you want some bread and cheese to give it??
Mum: *cracks up*
Little Miss A: Worms don't eat bread. DUH.
Me: Of course not...

Needless to say, the worm went down the sink when she wasn't looking. I think I'm going to have to start calling her Karen...

K xx

Hmmmmmm...

So remember when I went to see X-Men: First Class a few months ago and forked out for a Gold Class ticket? And when I was all "OMG, Michael Fassbender is AWESOME and I can't wait to see him in Jane Eyre when it finally comes out here"?

Yeah. I *finally* got to see Jane Eyre at the weekend. Considering it was released in the US in FEBRUARY, there was a hell of a lot of anticipation associated with it. And honestly? I was a little disappointed. The chronology of the story was kind of jumpy, to the point where if you hadn't read the book multiple times you'd probably be a little confused. (WARNING: SPOILERS PENDING)

I will say that the violence towards Jane at the beginning of the story was done well. But her time at Lowood was pretty much skimmed over in five minutes. A lot of Mr Rochester's back story was cut out. Fair enough, they're trying to make a 2 hour movie so can't include everything. But cutting out Rochester's back story mostly just makes him seem like a douche. Or, in the immortal words of Bridget Jones, "a big knobhead with no knob". And there were entire portions of the movie that I didn't really pay attention to because I was so terrified of Mia Whatshername's collar bones. You could have used them to cut...oh God, I don't know. Something that requires a very sharp cutting implement.

Oh, and they randomly decided to ditch the part where St. John, Mary and Diana turn out to be Jane's cousins. Which makes her giving way three-quarters of her money to them really random and weird... Plus, I found it more than a little odd that they basically left Bertha out of the story up until the cancelled wedding. Sure, there was the rescuing-Rochester-from-his-burning-bed thing, but none of the Grace Poole involving follow up.

ANYWAY. Enough nitpicking. Pros?

Source

Michael Fassbender.

Cons?

Source

Jamie Bell's RIDICULOUS facial hair. Mostly because all I could think of was Mr Weasley Mark Williams playing a goat in Stardust:

Source

There *were* other pros, including Judi Dench, gorgeous locations and some truly beautiful shots. But personally? It felt like it JUST covered all the basics without actually providing any of the details that make the story what it is.

So despite the SIX MONTHS of anticipation? I'll be sticking to the Toby Stephens/Ruth Wilson BBC version from a couple of years ago...

K xx

Apparently, I'm a moron

So as you guys will know if you read my 30 Days of Books posts, I love me some Charles Dickens. I also love me some BBC costume drama. When Bleak House came out a few years ago (holy crap, I just IMDB'd it and it came out in TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE. I feel old now...), I was all over it. Obviously, because Andrew Davies did the screenplay, and the man is a genius. Seriously - he's responsible for House of Cards, Pride & Prejudice, Little Dorrit, Wives & Daughters, Sense & Sensibility, Vanity Fair, and BRIDGET JONES' DIARY. That's a pretty spectacular list.

AnyIhaveapoint, despite the miniseries coming out in 2005, I still haven't read the book. So when I found a copy of the Penguin Classics edition at the Borders closing down sale recently, I jumped on it and had every intention of reading it straight away. But then I got distracted by the need to reread all of Harry Potter before seeing the last movie, not to mention moving back to Melbourne, so I still hadn't had a chance to pick it up.

Now, you may have noticed Little Dorrit in the Andrew Davies list above. I watched his adaptation last year, and loved it, despite the presence of Matthew McFugly Macfadyen (who I can't stand) and Russell Tovey crying CONSTANTLY. (I swear to God, Russell Tovey cries more than Dean Winchester. And if you watch Supernatural, you'll know that's saying something...) And Little Dorrit is ALSO on the list of Dickens books I haven't read. So when I wandered into a shop this time last week that was selling all books for $5, I picked up a copy of Little Dorrit.

And apparently Little Dorrit was foremost of the two in my mind because when I started reading Bleak House this morning, I got horribly confused as to why the story suddenly revolved around a court case and not around a debtor's prison like I thought it would.

So basically, to sum up? I read 30 pages of Bleak House before realising I wasn't reading the book I thought I was. Nice work, me. Nice work...

K xx

PS. Since watching the first disc of Doctor Who series 1 last week, I rather want to read The Mystery of Edwin Drood as well. But I suspect adding a THIRD Dickens book to the equation would just tip me over the edge into full insanity, so that might have to wait a while!!

Dear BBC, I love you forever

Today was a wonderful day, for one simple reason. My boss gave me back my copy of North & South, which she borrowed in JANUARY. I've been going through withdrawal symptoms ever since... If you've never seen North & South, you need to go out and find it IMMEDIATELY. Cos, look:

Rawr. And also, source

Or you could just watch this (EPIC spoiler...):


*swoon*

As far as I'm concerned, North & South is, hands down, the best costume drama the BBC has ever produced. Course, it doesn't hurt that I have a serious weak spot for a Midlands accent, courtesy of doing a study abroad program in Leicester in 2002...

While North & South tops my list, I've yet to meet a BBC costume drama that I don't love. Actually, that's a lie. The ones that were made before 1995 are pretty crap. Speaking of 1995, it brought us Colin Firth this:

Source

Source

Since then, there've been these:

• Vanity Fair. I spent most of 1998 obsessed with this, and I still love it.
• David Copperfield. It introduced Daniel Radcliffe to the world, and for that I shall be eternally grateful.
• Wives & Daughters. My introduction to Elizabeth Gaskell. Plus, Justine Waddell is great in it.
• The Scarlet Pimpernel. Richard E. Grant is a genius. And the portion of 1998 that wasn't taken up with Vanity Fair was taken up with this.
• Jane Eyre. The Toby Stephens version. SO much better than the 1983 version with Timothy Dalton that we were subjected to in high school. I'm kind of curious to see how the new movie version with Michael Fassbender stacks up.
• Little Dorrit. If it hadn't starred Matthew McFugly McFaddyn, who I hate with a fiery passion, this would have been pretty much perfect. Okay, Russell Tovey could have cried a little less too...
• Cranford. Brilliant. That's all there is to it! Kind of weird, because the book was really quite dull...
• Sense & Sensibility. Minus the movie version's horrific Emma Thompson sobfest when she's proposed to. Plus Dan Stevens chopping wood in the rain. Yes please.
• The Forsyte Saga. Damian Lewis plays quite possibly the creepiest ginger in history, other than Uriah Heep...
• Daniel Deronda. I can't stand George Eliot books, I really can't. But I enjoyed this.
• The Lost World. Sure, the story was completely changed from Arthur Conan Doyle's original text, but you get Tom Ward sporting a hilarious moustache and generally acting like Lord Flashart. Woof! And speaking of which...
• Blackadder. Okay, not a costume drama. But it's still the Beeb and it's still genius!
• Great Expectations. Good grief, they really did cast Justine Waddell in everything for a while there... Still, it was good! 
• Bleak House. Apparently the most difficult of Dickens' books to get through (I'll let you know - I bought it the other week and it's sitting in the pile waiting for me to finish Harry Potter). The series was completely incredible.
• Emma. Somehow, I've managed to not see this yet. Probably because Emma is my least favourite Austen book by a LONG way...
• Tess of the D'Urbervilles. Aah, Thomas Hardy. Makes you want to slit your wrists, but it was beautifully done.
• Persuasion. The 1995 movie version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. Well...it's the Beeb, so I imagine it aired on TV in the UK. But I saw this at the movies for my 13th birthday, and I love every single second of it. 

(There are probably a bunch more, but that's all that springs to mind, and it seems the Beeb themselves don't have a list available anywhere. Weird...) Basically? The BBC costume dramas are amazeballs and they make me stupidly happy.

What's your favourite BBC costume drama?

K xx

PS. Oh dear God. There's apparently a new version of Great Expectations coming out next year. And it stars Gillian Anderson as Miss Havisham.......... *brain explodes* Wait. Now I'm really confused. IMDB says there are TWO versions of Great Expectations coming out next year, and both are affiliated with the BBC. One stars Gillian Anderson as Miss Havisham, and the other stars Helena Bonham Carter. I'm really not sure which is worse! O.o