I have to disagree that a modern novel in English can have nothing new to say about Austen (or any other writer, for that matter). I just finished Longbourn, for example, which brings a fresh new approach to Pride & Prejudice. It was one of the best books I read this year. Would Longbourn be more effective as a film? I don't believe so. I can't imagine why it would be, anyway.

And I think you can make similar arguments for Valerie Martin's Mary Reilly (a spin on The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde) or, to a lesser extent Margot Livesey's The Flight of Gemma Hardy (a retelling of Jane Eyre). Should Geoffrey Maguire not have written Wicked? (The book is much, much better than the musical.)

It seems to me that what you're really objecting to is how literal and unimaginative Trollope's take on Austen seems to be. (And I admit it bugs me that she and/or her publishers couldn't be bothered to change the title.) And there are way too many bad adaptations of Austen whose authors can't seem to see beyond the romantic plots. But Austen's themes resonate today and I think a talented novelist (such as Jo Baker, the author of Longbourn) would find a lot to mine there.

I agree with you--as does my post. Longbourn IS a different novel, a new take on Austen themes without re-writing the actual book. That's why I said above that I like Clueless (a new take on Emma, but not the actual story--which is why it was named Clueless, and not 'Emma'). I think you should be inspired by the original to make a stand-alone work, which is not what Trollope did. She--or Harper Collins, perhaps--decided to make a buck by redoing Austen; indeed, they call it a "reinvention" of her work. Why does it need that? Longbourn, which I haven't read but am interested in, tells the 'downstairs' side of the story, which Austen couldn't have told. This could be a great way to add a layer to the P & P story. But merely updating the story with cool characters and lingo seems silly to me. It seems like a marketing opportunity in a way that none of the novels you mention are. To me, a re-telling is simply that; a re-make just like all the bad re-makes that clutter our movie theaters today. There's simply no point for them. A work should stand alone and be inspired by, but not "re-imagining" a work verbatim.

Also, by a "modern novel in English," I mean translating the same story and characters from an 'older' novel into a 'modern' novel. Nothing is gained, but much is lost. This is all marketing and commercialism, no sense or sensibility to be found...

Congrats! Very well written. You all know I am NOT a YA fan. I have tried trust me. When I was young, YA was "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret." I have found only two YA books liked. As a 42 year old, the YA reworking of any Austin novels, or classics into this junky YA category makes me mad. I would always read first before I made my opinion of course but I do not see it helping. I did like the point you brought up about Nabakov and the translation and book to movie translation. (Which I despise also). But YA is where the money is now so I guess it is not to far to imagine that this would happen It will be a shame if children these days know a different and maybe Paris Hilton like Jane Austin? loL!
. But again very incisive piece and thank you for it.