It's Only Sensible

We're all guilty of it. We mean to read more classic works of literature than we actually do. I love many of the classics, but I get so caught up keeping up with modern books and publications, that I don't read nearly as many of these works as people assume I do. And looking back over the books I've read since January, I realized I haven't read any so far this year.

Among my reading friends, it's well known I'm a Jane Austen fan, so I figured what better way to get back at it than to pull "Sense and Sensibility" off the shelf. I love Pride and Prejudice (before you ask, yes, the Colin Firth BBC adaptation is my favorite of the screen versions), so I'm hoping S & S is just as good.

And while this may sound crazy to some, I think Austen is a good place to start for people who normally read fantasy. Let me explain: As we all know, most fantasy novels takes place in what many characterize as medieval or prior times in terms of technology, so fantasy fans, by choice read stories in which there are no phones, cars, electricity, etc. Also, Austen is know for her witty characters and rapid fire dialogue to keep readers engaged and propelled forward. Which means the only adjustment fantasy fans have to make is the lack of magic or strange creatures -- something some fantasy novels even use sparingly, if at all.

Okay, maybe I'm stretching here a little, but seriously... Austen is a fun author to read, one who engages her readers early and let's the dialogue and characters' actions propel the story forward.
If I did have to recommended one Austen novel, it would be "Pride," but I know others who recommend "Northanger Abbey", "Emma", or "Sense" (all of which have screen version, either via the BBC or Hollywood, or both).

It's time for me to stop gabbing and head back to the 19th century.

Until Next Time...
Sensibly Yours,
Michael