“Modern” Anne Reboot?

So, yeah. My fellow Anne fans out there may already know that L.M. Montgomery’s heirs are looking to bring Anne back to the small screen… but it will be a revamped version “set in a more modern era.”

Has anyone heard any updates on this? According to this 2012 article, filming was set to start this summer.

Hmm. My initial reaction was, of course, to recoil in horror at the very thought. I would probably feel this way over any potential reboot. I am a child of the 80s, after all. For me, Megan Follows was Anne. (And need we discuss my immediate and everlasting love of Jonathan Crombie as Gilbert? I think not. That could be a whole post in and of itself.)

To clarify: when I speak of the Sullivan Entertainment version of Anne, I speak of the first two installments. Purists will remind me that a third installment was made in 2000. I choose to ignore that The Continuing Story ever existed. It messed with the timeline! Gilbert involved in World War I? Oh, please. So you can imagine my feelings about an Anne set in contemporary times. Shudder.

One of my favorite parts of the series was the fact that Anne was such a ground-breaker for her time! I looked up to Anne; I thought it was so cool that she went to college (which certainly wasn’t expected in her day). Anne of the Island remains my favorite book in the series, in fact (followed closely by Anne’s House of Dreams, now that I’m a wife and mother). Removing Anne from her era seems to… I don’t know. Taint the story? Smack of condescension for young adult readers/viewers? (We couldn’t possibly be interested in Anne Shirley unless she looks and sounds just like us!)

But then I read some of the comments on this post and it occurs to me that I’ve loved modern versions of older stories. I’m a huge fan of the BBC Sherlock, which reimagines Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories in 21st century London. I thought 10 Things I Hate About You was delightful… and this coming from a huge Shrew fan.

Perhaps the difference is that, much as I enjoy Shakespeare and Sherlock, they weren’t my childhood reading material. There’s something truly precious about those first novels you read and love. Witness my similar devotion to the Narnia series, and my reaction to the recent movies (I only saw one, have scrubbed it from my brain, and choose to ignore that others were made).

So… yeah. Mixed feelings. What are your thoughts?

Austen for Babies

Perhaps I should change the name of this blog to “Nerdy Fantastica.” Let’s see. In the past few posts, I’ve treated you to my obsessions with Richard III and Anne of Green Gables.

Which means, of course, that it’s time to move on to Jane Austen.

As I’m sure you know, Pride and Prejudice is celebrating its 200th birthday. Hurray! I wish I could tell you that Colin Firth came over to my house so we could snuggle, snog, and mark the milestone together.

Alas, it is not so!

Perhaps Babylit is the next best thing. If you’re not familiar, this brand bills itself as “a fashionable way to introduce your toddler to the world of classic literature.” Well. I hardly care about being fashionable (as evidenced by the less-than-impressive contents of my closet). But I care quite a lot about exposing my daughter to the fabulous Ms. Austen.

That’s right, folks. Thanks to this delightful board book, Sweet Pea could say “Mr. Darcy” at eighteen months old. Hot damn! I call that proper parenting.

There’s actually a whole series of these books: multiple titles from classic literature reimagined as exuberantly illustrated counting primers. This Christmas presented quite a dilemma. I was debating whether or not to get the Babylit Romeo and Juliet for Sweet Pea. But, much as I love Shakespeare, I decided on the story whose original plot does NOT involve a double suicide.

Call me crazy, but it seemed more child-appropriate somehow.

Portrait of the Writer as a Young Fan

I’m sure my last post implied that I’m an epic Anne fan. But just in case there was any doubt:

Behold, 6th grade me swanning about in a Gibson Girl up-do! Was it a special occasion? Not at all! I was just bored on a Saturday and wishing I’d been born as a certain Canadian redhead.

(The hairdo was courtesy of my mother, a former beautician and infinitely patient parent.)

Anne with an “e”… and red hair

What. The. Hell.

Monica Hesse of The Washington Post said it better than I ever could, yet I’m still compelled to sound off.

The Internet is all a-buzz because CreateSpace (some time ago, apparently) released an edition of L.M. Montgomery’s classic Anne of Green Gables. The cover art would lead one to believe… what, exactly? That this is a 21st century young adult novel about a Taylor-Swift wannabe?

First and foremost, there’s the blonde factor. Okay, I could understand if someone misrepresented Jane Stuart on a cover. She’s not well-known. Her looks don’t really matter all that much. (Bonus points to all of you who’ve actually read Jane of Lantern Hill. A heroine who dreams of polishing the moon? Yawn. Yet still, as a dutiful Montgomery fan, part of my collection.)

But Anne Shirley? Anne is an icon! She’s on a freaking license plate. And her red hair plays a significant role in the plot of Green Gables. If you were a literate individual who’d ever encountered this text (say, for instance, me at age seven) or even a movie version of said text, then you would know that she has red hair.

Not cool, CreateSpace. Not cool.

And another thing. The Anne books are set in the late Victorian era on Prince Edward Island. That’s part of their charm. I spent much of my childhood wishing I could go back in time and live in Anne’s world. I considered “Gibson Girl” hair an integral part of playing dress-up. And I loved the slow, sweet way that Anne’s relationship with Gilbert progressed.  The books just felt like a window into another world.

This cover photo looks like something a teenager trying to be “hot but not slutty” would post on her Facebook account. (Again, yawn.)

Give me the classic Anne any day.

Come on, fellow Anne fans. Share your thoughts.