Dickens, Trollope -- and Anna Nicole?

[DeepModem Mom]

LAT: Dickens, Trollope -- and Anna Nicole?
Looking at classic fiction, it's easy to understand our fascination with the deceased model.
By John Sutherland (JOHN SUTHERLAND is professor emeritus of modern English literature at University College, London, and a visiting professor of literature at Caltech.)
February 23, 2007

AS EVERYONE who is not locked in a dungeon knows, the story of Anna Nicole Smith has received overwhelming attention in recent weeks. The mainstream American press, in fact, has taken a good deal of stick from its more highbrow readers for devoting so many inches to the unfolding narrative of this woman, her lovers and her child.

But how could it be otherwise? This story was destined from the outset to take over Page 1 — precisely because it is a classic, a melodrama with exactly the kind of plot that has fascinated people as long as there's been literature and stories to tell. Following its twists and turns, it's impossible not to get the blurry feeling that one is reading a good old-fashioned novel.

Does this, for instance, sound familiar? In 1878, Anthony Trollope (that greatest of Victorian storytellers) offered his loyal readers "Is He Popenjoy?" It's my favorite of the 47 novels he published, and it has an irresistible, hook-in-the-jaw story. A British aristocrat, fabulously wealthy, goes off to Italy and is trapped into marriage by a scheming foreign Delilah. He has a son and heir — thus disowning the thoroughly decent, and somewhat distant, English relative who had expected to inherit. But did the Marquis of Brotherton actually marry his foreign floozy? Is this young son indeed the heir, or is he a bastard? Can the lawyers save the day? A title, a vast fortune, a great country house hang in the balance.

That fundamental plot — the child without clear parentage who ultimately stands (when his identity is finally revealed) to inherit a vast fortune — was a favorite of the Victorian era. Think of Dickens' "Great Expectations" or "Oliver Twist."...There is a lot of snobbery about our addictive love of all kinds of stories — whether those stories appear in newspapers or trashy potboilers or even in the great Victorian novels. The fact is, we need them as much as we need oxygenated air....Nonetheless, we persist in being reflexively snooty about storytelling. The best books, according to some critics, are those with the least amount of plot. There are more important issues, we're told, than Anna Nicole Smith, just as there are better writers than Jaqueline Susann. Why waste the space on Smith, they want to know? Answer: because she satisfies our need for a good story....

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-sutherland23feb23,0,107315.story?track=mostemailedlink

[Demeter]

1. Am I The Only One Who Knows Nothing and Cares Less About This Woman?

I would read an article about tapeworms first--as it might have some relevance to the world.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. This article is not really about Anna Nicole Smith. And, to be sure....

you are not alone in not knowing or caring. It's almost universal here at DU.

[CTyankee]

4. I would have said the same thing, at first. But I do see what the Brit was trying to say.

It is interesting from the way we view ANS and either dismiss or hunger after her story. The whole thing is both a travesty and a tragedy. At first ANS was just a buffoon. She is now looking like a full blown tragedy and the circus going on over her body/money/baby is beyond belief. Just incredible.

[izzie]

2. Right on and I still read all those. Vanity Fair, etc.

They have sure great people you love to hate and love in them. One day some one will have to set up the social ways and means so we will understand just what went on with the Smith thing. To really enjoy the Victorian great novels but one has to know a little about their society. Same with the Regency and that time.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. Thanks for your post -- I thought the article was quite interesting! nt

[MasonJar]

6. The Smith story is a tragedy and should be left out of the media.

[shrike]

7. One big difference

Dickens and Trollope used fictional characters, even when they were veiled references to real people. Smith was a real, obviously disturbed person whose life was exploited for our amusement.