Why do reality television’s most popular stars so uncannily resemble the heroines of the 19th-century writer’s work?
“For Austen's heroines, an advantageous marriage is a necessity in a world that offers them next to no other choices—a fact that radically distinguishes the 18th-century husband-hunters from today’s dating-show contestants. Without a husband, Lady Susan could very easily end up on the street. Without the ability to work or inherit property, the Dashwood sisters of Sense and Sensibility are forced to move to a tiny cottage while their manipulative sister-in-law takes over their family home. “One of the points Austen is making is that Lady Susan is just what … books advised women to be,” Tomalin writes. “She has perfectly mastered the art of using the conventions of society to get what she wants.” So, too, the best reality-show stars master the conventions of their genre—without ever seeming even slightly tempted to question them.”
Beginning with an analogy between Blac Chyna and Austen’s Lady Susan, Atlantic senior editor, Sophie Gilbert, makes the case that a large portion of reality tv today echoes the concerns of image, gender performance, wealth, and status found in Austen early 19th-century novels. There is an implied difference between one body of texts critiquing conventions and the other reinforcing them, as well as the argument that women now have more choices than Austen’s heroines. But there is also the idea that performing idleness or other behaviours on a reality tv show is a form of work: that they are playing a part. Which leads to the question, why are we entertained by these shows? What draws us in? (You can excuses yourself from that collective pronoun, if you wish, but these are popular genres. Someone is watching).
I also found it interesting how much Gilbert includes recent adaptations, such as the film Love and Friendship and the novel Eligible. To what extent, if any, is it possible to discuss Austen’s influence on popular culture without also speaking about adaptations?