I wrote about Bridget Jones a little while ago when her creator Helen Fielding revealed to Jenni Murray that she was reviving Bridget once again. We all wondered how Bridget would be negotiating Twitter and Facebook, whether she'd read 50 Shades of Grey, if she'd have indulged in some botox for her TV career and of course if she had married Mark Darcy. Or lost that stone.
That was until all the media dropped the clanger/spoiler for those waiting to read the whole thing that Darcy was dead and that, at the age of 51, Bridget a widow of 5 years with 2 children called Mabel and Billy.
That was until all the media dropped the clanger/spoiler for those waiting to read the whole thing that Darcy was dead and that, at the age of 51, Bridget a widow of 5 years with 2 children called Mabel and Billy.
Really of course it makes sense. Bridget couldn't be a smug married. As I said before, she because a necessity, a shorthand for people (journalists) discussing single women old enough to be classed as 'on the shelf' but young enough to still be sexy: "Jones became both a role model and a go-to stereotype for single women and those writing about single women. Both convinced life would improve immeasurably once that stubborn half stone was lost. Then that job would become a career, that fuckwit would become that fiancé and, well I am all out of possible ambition for today's single women."
If Bridget is actually truly happy then we are not happy. We have to not be having it quite as bad as Bridget (I believe the current shorthand for this is White People Problems). Mark Darcy was the love of her life, so we couldn't have a divorce, the confusion over their relationship seemed rather frivolous for two thirty-somethings to partake in and it would be ridiculous for the couple to still be on and off now. Not because of their age so much as 20 years of on and off is more than most people can take. Therefore we should not be surprised that bumping off the reserved Mark Darcy was deemed necessary by Fielding.
If Bridget is actually truly happy then we are not happy. We have to not be having it quite as bad as Bridget (I believe the current shorthand for this is White People Problems). Mark Darcy was the love of her life, so we couldn't have a divorce, the confusion over their relationship seemed rather frivolous for two thirty-somethings to partake in and it would be ridiculous for the couple to still be on and off now. Not because of their age so much as 20 years of on and off is more than most people can take. Therefore we should not be surprised that bumping off the reserved Mark Darcy was deemed necessary by Fielding.
| I, for one, am surprised she is back at all. At 51 is she still appealing and will people want to know a middle aged Bridget? Were Bridget (and, for that matter, Helen Fielding) not already established I seriously wonder whether this next diary installment would be published. | I don't think women need to identify with Bridget to like her, or enjoy the books. |
AsSuzanne Moore noted in her 'Why I hate Bridget Jones' column: "Who is Fielding writing for now? I am her age, and I can't work it out. It may be heresy but I just never identified with her heroine in any way. The ditziness, the choice between the good man and the bad boy (Darcy and Cleaver), the overbearing parents all seemed infantilising."
I don't think women need to identify with Bridget to like her, or enjoy the books. Which never pretend to be anything other than rather silly romps you can read in a sitting or diary entry by diary entry. What might come across as ridiculous and no way for a grown women to act would not be questioned were we reading about a man.
Fine we'd be surprised to read of a man who obsessed about a woman so much, or fretted over his diet (or would we, since the metrosexual was 'invented')and where his life was going. We would not think it odd for his mother to frequently interfere or air a desire to dress him. We would not think him in any way stunted we would think indulgently 'oh men.'
Or we'd think he was just a man. Bridget is just a woman. Some people are like her, some aren't. The frustrating thing is not Bridget, it is to be tarred with her brush for no nuanced reason.
As Fielding said: "I would like to think that Bridget has allowed women to think it's alright just to muddle through the complicated, over-stuffed world that we live in." Reading the diaries as a 14 year old the important thing Bridget taught me was that women could, would and are silly. And that's fine.
I wonder if this time she will teach us that 50-something women are not to be ignored.
Squeamish Kate
I don't think women need to identify with Bridget to like her, or enjoy the books. Which never pretend to be anything other than rather silly romps you can read in a sitting or diary entry by diary entry. What might come across as ridiculous and no way for a grown women to act would not be questioned were we reading about a man.
Fine we'd be surprised to read of a man who obsessed about a woman so much, or fretted over his diet (or would we, since the metrosexual was 'invented')and where his life was going. We would not think it odd for his mother to frequently interfere or air a desire to dress him. We would not think him in any way stunted we would think indulgently 'oh men.'
Or we'd think he was just a man. Bridget is just a woman. Some people are like her, some aren't. The frustrating thing is not Bridget, it is to be tarred with her brush for no nuanced reason.
As Fielding said: "I would like to think that Bridget has allowed women to think it's alright just to muddle through the complicated, over-stuffed world that we live in." Reading the diaries as a 14 year old the important thing Bridget taught me was that women could, would and are silly. And that's fine.
I wonder if this time she will teach us that 50-something women are not to be ignored.
Squeamish Kate
RSS Feed