Jane Austen - why the fuss?

[Scheherazade]

By Denise Winterman
BBC News Magazine


With newspapers giving away her novels, Pride and Prejudice being voted the nation's top book and a new biopic in the cinemas, Jane Austen is riding the crest of a revival. But for those who've never picked up one of her books, what's the big deal?
For many women Jane Austen's appeal is encapsulated in two words: Mr Darcy.

It might not have been faithful to the book, but when Colin Firth, as Fitzwilliam Darcy, strode out of a lake in a wet shirt and breeches, in the 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, you could hear half the population applauding artistic licence.

After that now infamous scene, women across the land - single or not - said goodbye to waiting for their Prince Charming to come along and sweep them off their feet. They wanted a Mr Darcy.

It seems we just can't get enough of Austen. On Friday a film about her life - Becoming Jane - opens nationwide. Four adaptations of her novels are due on ITV this year alone and the man who gave us "that" Darcy moment - writer Andrew Davies - is adapting Sense and Sensibility for the BBC.

Last week Pride and Prejudice topped a poll of the books "we cannot live without" and Penguin is preparing to re-issue all of Austen's novels to meet the predicted rush for copies after Becoming Jane's release.

But not everyone is a fully conscripted member of her fan club. Indeed, Austen has a habit of dividing opinion, often down gender-specific lines. So what is it about Austen?

'Claustrophobic'

Her creation of characters, the clever dialogue and the irony with which she writes that makes her stand out from other writers, say experts.

"They are easy to read and have a simplicity that is hard to get as a writer, which Austen worked hard to achieve," says Professor Janet Todd, the general editor of the nine-volume Cambridge edition of the Works of Jane Austen.

"But it's a surface simplicity, there is a lot more going on. It combines wish fulfilment with a sense of the unlikelihood of it happening. There is always a modification to the romantic ending which points us back to real life."

Making her novel work on different levels means people can take what they need from them, say critics. You can choose to see the politics and feminism in them, but if you don't want to take on those issue you can "turn a blind eye".

Yet it's not all one big love-in. They might be in the minority, but Austen has her detractors. And despite the stereotypes, they're not all men.

"I think she betrays her time and I'm always gob smacked by what she ignored," says Celia Brayfield, author and lecturer at Brunel University. "She focused on such a narrow strain of human reality. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the Napoleonic War going on at the time when she was writing, she doesn't mention it.

'Enemy territory'

"There is no poverty in her novels, no corruption, ambition, wickedness or war. Yes her wit is enchanting and her human observations enduringly accurate, but the world she writes about is so tiny. I find it claustrophobic."

It's all too graceful and lacks guts, says writer Zoe Williams, who prefers those other 19th Century romantic writers - the Bronte sisters.

"I'm not crazy for Austen. The Brontes' novels are so overheated, so female, you have to look them in the eye when you read them.

"Austen's popular because everyone likes a good costume drama and with Austen you know what you're getting. You're guaranteed a manor house, daughters, dresses and weddings. You're not with authors like Gaskell and Dickens, their stories are not so pretty."

AUSTEN FACTS

Born in 1775 in Hampshire
Died in 1817
Sense and Sensibility was her first novel and published in 1811 at her own expense
Pride and Prejudice published in 1813

Too "nice" or not, the characterisation and dialogue of her novels have made them ripe for TV and film adaptation. According to some it's talented film makers, casting directors and actors who are keeping Austen's stock so high.

"In recent years the one person who has done the most for Austen's popularity is Emma Thompson," says Williams. "She wrote the screen play for the film Sense and Sensibility and won an Oscar for it. It is the definitive Austen film and that's largely down to her."

She may have a point: when we think of Darcy do we envisage the novel or Colin Firth? If he hadn't been cast to play the part - and he very nearly turned it down because he didn't think he had the sex appeal the role required - would the book be topping the "nation's favourite" list?

Some purists argue that by "sexing up" Austen's novels for a modern audience has resulted in the more complex social and political commentary being lost. But is the hunt for ratings necessarily a bad thing?

Unsophisticated

"Those films have made Jane Austen into a brand," says Brayfield. "I hate them with a passion but you have to admit they do a great job of selling 19th Century literature.

"Often my students are only inspired to grapple with Austen after seeing a film of one of her novels with Keira Knightley in it, but at least it's a way in for them."

Knightley might also draw in another audience that has issues with Austen - men. It's by no means a rule, but they don't usually find period drama an appealing combination of words. While Austen's wit and irony might appeal, the romance usually does not.

There's always the exception of course - and, on paper at least, Phil Hilton, ex-editor of lads' magazine Nuts, couldn't be more distanced from the stereotypical Austen fan. But Hilton freely confesses his love of her work and says Austen has a false reputation simply as "posh, romantic fiction".

"She is fun, dry, ironic - as funny as any male writer out there," he says.

"She is about more than romance, that's just the engine that drives the plot along. Unfortunately when adapted for film and TV the good stuff often ends up on the cutting room floor in favour of a handsome actor walking out of a lake.

"The challenge is to get men to read one of her books, most would like it if they did. I was forced to read Austen at school and discovered her that way, but males usually considered her novels 'owned' by women and enemy territory."

Critics tend to see this "romantic image" as a failing of the ironic Austen, says Professor Todd. But saying her books are just about women and marriage is a very "unsophisticated reading" of her novels, says Williams.

Maybe Austen was simply very shrewd in her choice of subject, says Gill Hornby, author of Jane Austen: The Girl with the Magic Pen.

"Her novels are only about romantic love and family life and they are two of the few things that haven't change in the world since she was alive. Both things still absorb us and annoy us in equal measure. If she'd written about the Napoleonic Wars no one would have read her books." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6426195.stm

[kilted exile]

"There is no poverty in her novels, no corruption, ambition, wickedness or war. Yes her wit is enchanting and her human observations enduringly accurate, but the world she writes about is so tiny. I find it claustrophobic."

It's all too graceful and lacks guts, says writer Zoe Williams........"Austen's popular because everyone likes a good costume drama and with Austen you know what you're getting. You're guaranteed a manor house, daughters, dresses and weddings. You're not with authors like Gaskell and Dickens, their stories are not so pretty."

Hear, Hear

[grace86]

I thought I was the only one who took notice to the Mr. Darcy and the wet shirt scene ;)

Her critics are kind of silly in a way: An author is definitely influenced by the happenings around them, but I don't think that means they have to write about or mention them.

But there is definitely a popularity for her books now. I don't care how people get turned toward reading them...if they see the movie first and want to read the book...who's to get upset? As long as they are reading...

But I have noticed that there are a lot more "continuations" of Pride and Prejudice, books that go on to further the story on Lizzy and Darcy's marriage...I don't know if I'd want to read one of those.

[Scheherazade]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42720000/jpg/_42720269_austen_cassandra203.jpghttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42720000/jpg/_42720261_austen_makeover203.jpg

Novelist Jane Austen has been given a makeover for the cover of a book about her life after publishers decided an original image of her was unattractive. "She was not much of a looker," said Helen Trayler, managing director of publisher Wordsworth Editions.

Publishers traditionally use a portrait of Austen painted by her sister but Wordsworth have added make-up, hair extensions and removed her night-cap.

The book is a new edition of a memoir by Austen's nephew.

"I know you are not supposed to judge a book by its cover. Sadly people do. If you look more attractive, you just stand out more," said Ms Trayler.

The original painting by Cassandra Austen, which hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in London, is thought by some scholars to be the only authentic portrait of the celebrated author.

The oil painting, known as the Rice Portrait of Jane Austen after a former owner, Henry Rice, has been the subject of debate after some scholars said it was not authentic.

The painting by Ozias Humphry first came to prominence in 1884 when it appeared on the front of a first edition of Jane Austen's letters collection.

Some scholars have argued that the costume Austen is wearing in the picture dates to about 1805, making her about 30 when it was painted - earlier experts thought the painting dated to 1788 to 1879, making Austen about 14.

This has led to doubts about the portrait in some quarters, although a number of academics in recent years have supported the original attribution, as does auction house Christie's.

Jane Austen's novels include Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Emma and Mansfield Park. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6484281.stm

[AChristieFan]

The book contents is the only thing that matters to me. I really don't see the big deal about changing Jane Austen's cover.

[kandaurov]

I agree with most objections pointed out by detractors. I must have 'Sense and Sensibility' read by the end of the month, and, quite honestly, I don't know if I will ever make it.

Not saying that she doesn't write well, no, by no means. I just don't find the "o when will I find my happy prince" premisse engaging enough. Not a tenth as engaging as Wuthering Heights' tempestuous little world.

About the cover: wow, they went all "extreme makeover" on her! That should be illegal! I think that those who do want to read English 19th century classics won't (better say shouldn't) be hindered from their purpose by a mere face. Readers should know better, and only judge the book by its cover in terms of the title.

[Blackjack Davy]

You can look back on Austen's critical heritage and find these very same arguments and detractions have been going on for more than 150 years and her reputation, both academic and popular has not diminished, in fact it's grown exponentially. Says it all really.

[andave_ya]

fascinating article. But I do agree with Phil Hilton in that she is fun, dry, and ironic. It especially shows, for instance, in the arguing scene with Lady Catherine. I absolutely adore that part!

[Newcomer]

Jane Austen - why the fuss?
There are many answers to the question. A particular one, is an early retrospective of a critic about 40 years after Austen's death. George Henry Lewes was a man of numerous talents and interests, (physiology, psychology and botany, for example, as well as literature) with a wide reputation as a journalist, critic and scientist.' He was also George Eliot's husband and literary advisor. In the fifties to late-seventies George Eliot's influence on her contemporaries was prodigious and it is probable that he influenced her reading of Austen. In a 1847 essay he states that what he values in fiction is 'truth in delineation of life and character ... a correct representation of life.' He states that Fielding and Jane Austen are 'the greatest novelist in our language.' In judging character by the standard of psychological realism he compares 'her marvelous dramatic power' to Shakespeare's.' In another essay he refers to Jane Austen, as 'Shakespeare's younger sister'.
Let me finish with an analogy. A dog is taken into a flower garden. The woman admires the roses, the various shades of red, a red that's almost black, the velvety reds, the soft blush of pink. Her eyes move to the yellows, then lingers on the pure whites, the petals tinged with pink, with scarlet, with the softest yellow. She is ecstatic. The dog looks at her and thinks – why the fuss?
Dogs are color blind.

[SleepyWitch]

hum, grrr.. i don't like Jane Austen...
yep, she's a good writer and all that.. but all her irony and subtlety are wasted on boring plots...
i mean aren't all her books essentially about the same thing?
"Should I marry Mr A. or Mr B? Mr A. is such a jolly fellow and Mr B. is so grumpy. But Mr B. is soooo much richer. Oops Mr, A. was a wicked crook after all, so I'll marry Mr. B"

seriously, when I read Emma, I knew after half a page what the ending would be.

i try to view her novels as historical documents of her time, when most middle class women had nothing better to do than paint, draw and marry....
but even at that time there must have been some independent women who did more interesting things... Funnily enought it's the male authors of the same period (and the Brontes) who created the most interesting female characters

[Scheherazade]

Funnily enought it's the male authors of the same period (and the Brontes) who created the most interesting female charactersPossibily because they didn't have the foggiest about what kind of lives 'real' women led?

:p

[SleepyWitch]

hm.. that's a good point.. but didn't they have sisters, cousins, wives, mothers, neighbours whose life they could use as a model?

seriously, Jane Austen nearly put me off reading classics for good. when i was a little witch i thought all classics were like Austen.
now I've read Charlotte Bronte and Charles Dickens and am eager to read more classics (Thakerey, Hardy, Wuthering Hights, etc)

[Newcomer]

hum, grrr.. i don't like Jane Austen...
yep, she's a good writer and all that.. but all her irony and subtlety are wasted on boring plots...
i mean aren't all her books essentially about the same thing?

i try to view her novels as historical documents of her time, when most middle class women had nothing better to do than paint, draw and marry....
characters

Scott talking of Jane Austen, “This writer's novels, he says, remind him ' of the merits of the Flemish school of painting. The subjects are not often elegant, and certainly newer grand; but they are finished up to nature, and with a precision which delights the reader.'”
Now you might like the subject mater, theSturm und Drang, of Delacroix over a Vermeer but as the subject mater in the Flemish school is limited, so is it in Austen's plots but it is in the detail, in the execution where the magic lies.
By all means read Bronte, read Hardy, read Elliot for only in knowing them can you make comparisons. I think that teachers in forcing literature on students do a great disservice, very few young and inexperienced minds have the capacity to like what is subtle and complex. And Austen is just such a writer, as the effects she is after change with each novel: it is a process of paring down, of elimination of the extraneous.
I do not wish to inflame - “when most middle class women had nothing better to do than paint, draw and marry”, - but can most present middle class women paint, draw, or play the piano? From what I see the only thing they do is talk on the cell phone! In 200 years is this an accomplishment?

[SleepyWitch]

“when most middle class women had nothing better to do than paint, draw and marry”, - but can most present middle class women paint, draw, or play the piano? From what I see the only thing they do is talk on the cell phone! In 200 years is this an accomplishment?

hahaha :) I hadn't thought about that:lol: :lol:

[Newcomer]

hahaha :) I hadn't thought about that:lol: :lol:

Thinking and laughing are good qualities to have when reading Austen. You'll do well.

[mazz]

I agree newcomer, I have been a critic of you at one time I take it back as now I am more familiar with your knowledge in your posts. I think you get more from Austen the more you read it. I think she has an incredible ability with words. Maybe the subject matter is simple for some but it's about life. The old man and the sea, is about catching a fish... and it's a perfect story. Anyway in regards to the Bennet girls i don't think it says anywhere in the book that any of them draw or paint. I can draw, I play the piano poorly and I like to write letters, maybe that's why I'm doing this. oops my phones ringing. Seriously, I like what you said though. Thanks to Scher. for posting the info.

[Newcomer]

Dear Mazz,
I hope that you shall remain a critic of me as I consider it a compliment when one considers my notes serious enough to criticize. Knowledge is mostly memory but memory without emotions lacks understanding. And laugter is a uniquely human trait.
And don't forget to dance, even if one's partner is barely tolerable.

[mazz]

well it's been a month...oh dear can there be any other opinions on the subject?

[DianaT]

Unlikes most things in life, Jane Austen gets better with every re-read--she doesn't suffer from the margin of diminishing returns. Austen is appropriate for any mood I am in. When I am happy, I love Austen; when I am depressed, Austen makes me laugh. Some of my favorite authors cannot do that for me; only when I am ready can I enjoy Jude the Obscure or my favorite novel Tess of the D'Urbervilles.

Diana

[tinustijger]

Let me finish with an analogy. A dog is taken into a flower garden. The woman admires the roses, the various shades of red, a red that's almost black, the velvety reds, the soft blush of pink. Her eyes move to the yellows, then lingers on the pure whites, the petals tinged with pink, with scarlet, with the softest yellow. She is ecstatic. The dog looks at her and thinks – why the fuss?
Dogs are color blind.

Cracked me up! So right though!

[Lady Elizabeth]

I love Jane Austen's work!!!!! Who wouldn't???? She paid attention to details, and has always managed to pull me into one of her books.

[Ashley Rose]

I find Jane Austen's, Pride and Prejudice wonderful! I love Lizzy's sarcastic nature and Jane's quiet manner. I believe that most people give classics a bad reputation. They think that all classic literature can be summed up by one word, "boring!" I love the innocence that Jane's characters exude. It seems to me that many people today have lost their childish enthusiasm and yes their innocence! Classic literature is like a time machine. Everytime I need to escape I can pick up a Jane Austen novel or read Charlotte Bronte.

As for giving Jane a makeover I think that its a waste. Who really cares if she is beautiful or plain? It doesn't diminish her writing abilities. It shows you how todays society has become more superficial! I find it sad and pathetic!

[andave_ya]

Ashley Rose, I agree with you wholeheartedly! EVERYONE (exaggeration: read most) call classics boring without understanding why they're classics -- they've withstood the test of time!

[cactus]

I picked up Pride and Prejudice accidentially at the library when I was 16 and fell in love with Jane Austen. In Australia we do not study Jane Austen or Charles Dickens or anyone of that caliber.. pity I say. Since then I have probably read Pride and Prejudice over 20 times. When I miss it, I open up passages I love most and read it over and over.

A few years later when I moved out of home and my younger sister occupied my room and happened upon my copy of Pride and Prejudice, she subsequently fell in love with Jane Austen... Darcy... and of course.. Colin Firth (in that order).

I believe given the right opportunity, young people will continue to fall in love with Jane Austen's novels.. although I understand that they are not always everyone's cup of tea.. For a true Austenite like me, it always help to revive my interest to a more intense degree when a new Jane Austen film or TV series is made.

[SleepyWitch]

hey, I've just reread Pride and Prejudice and this time round I even finished it. actually, I finished it in less than a week, which is the shortest it's ever taken me to read a classic.
so, yeah, I don't think she's the worst author in the world anymore.
I laughed out loud several times while reading the book.
On the other hand, I've always found it hilarious and the irony never escaped me. So if I didn't like it before, it's not because I didn't understand it.
I doubt I could have finished the whole book, though, if it wasn't for the 1995 BBC film starring Colin Firth :blush: at least this way, I could imagine his face and gestures whenever Darcy appeared in the book. This made it much more enjoyable, becaues Austen doesn't really describe her characters' appearance appart from saying that they have a 'fine figure' or how tall they are, so that makes it difficult for me to visualize what I'm reading.....
what I still don't like is the subject matter, though (all this marriage business). I don't know if I should read another Austen straigth away. If I had to read all of her books in a row, I think I'd go berserk.
Anway, what to read next? Persuasion? Emma?.
(please not Emma ....)

[manolia]

Hehe having Colin Firth in mind really helps ;) :p

I'd say, read "Persuasion" next or "Sense and sensibility". I personally didn't much like "Emma".

[Scheherazade]

I find Northanger Abbey far more entertaining than her other books. No doubt, Austen is not at her best as an author in this book but it is very endearing and quirky.

[Niamh]

Persuasion is the better choice of the two.

[LadyWentworth]

As soon as I saw your choices I was going to immediately tell you to read Persuasion, but somebody else beat me to it! ;) It is actually, in its own little way, much different than Pride and Prejudice. Plus, it is a much better story. At least, I think it is. :)

[Prometheus]

I love Jane Austen's work!!!!! Who wouldn't???? She paid attention to details, and has always managed to pull me into one of her books.

I, for one, don't 'love' them at all. I've only read Emma, and I find it really boring and tedious! Unfortunately, we study it for A-Level Lit, so my only choice is to force myself to read it; siding with the lot who can't see what all the fuss is about.

...I'm told Austen gets better the more you read her, which is one prophecy I'd like to see fulfilled.

Hello, all, btw.

:)

[Niamh]

As soon as I saw your choices I was going to immediately tell you to read Persuasion, but somebody else beat me to it! ;) It is actually, in its own little way, much different than Pride and Prejudice. Plus, it is a much better story. At least, I think it is. :)

And I whole heartily agree!!!

[antonia1990]

And I whole heartily agree!!!

So do I

[Teffi]

Plus, it is a much better story. At least, I think it is.

I would prefer not to compare Persuassion and P&P in this way: Better/worse. They are totally different, with absolutely different characters and plot. They give us different lessons of how the one should act (except the principal advice to stick to your own judgments). So to say, in P&P the basic lines of the opposition is totally distinguished from Persuassion. Pride and prejudice VS modest sequacity & noble faithfulness.

[Sepulchrave]

I just don't find the "o when will I find my happy prince" premisse engaging enough. Not a tenth as engaging as Wuthering Heights' tempestuous little world.

I have to agree.

At the moment I'm being slightly unfair, as I've only read one of her works (Pride and Prejudice) but I got the distinct feeling that it was, at essence, just comfort food. There was no real edge to the work that I could detect. It felt like dazzling gloss and shine, but not much else. The dialogue, however, was quite snappy and entertaining, I suppose. Wuthering Heights, on the other hand...now that's one hell of a novel. Even Jane Eyre has more 'bite' than what I've read from Austen so far.

As I said, however, I may be unfair here, as I should read more of her work before I dismiss her. Does anyone have any recommendations on what I should read from her next?

[kiki1982]

Well, I started Austen entirely with P&P because I saw Lost in Austen on ITV. Hysterical! If you get the chance to see it, do! It is so entertaining and yet so true to the original feeling of that book, and equally surprising at the end (even for readers of the original!).

But anyway: I started with P&P and now I am reading S&S, but it is totally different. Although I like it for the style and for my vocabulary (because I am not englishspeaking), I do see your point about it being comfort food... P&P, though, was very entertaining, but I am kind of having trouble with S&S as it is much more subdued and not so hysterical, which I found a great merit of P&P. At the same time it's a great teacher towards other books like Jane Eyre as you get more inside-information about that society, but it does not go all that deep.

Let's say it is a light break amongst others to read. (ok, I'm gonna get slaughtered by the Austen-fans now)

Persuasion is more like P&P, then?

[Egmond Codfried]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6484281.stm


Novelist Jane Austen has been given a makeover for the cover of a book about her life after publishers decided an original image of her was unattractive. "She was not much of a looker," said Helen Trayler, managing director of publisher Wordsworth Editions.

Jane Austen is described as pretty and the picture of health. But these scholars never seem to use her many personal descriptions, which to me are and should be, the starting point.

[Mudkip]

"There is no poverty in her novels, no corruption, ambition, wickedness or war. Yes her wit is enchanting and her human observations enduringly accurate, but the world she writes about is so tiny. I find it claustrophobic."
This person has never read one of her books. She wants poverty? Try Persuasion. Try Mansfield Park. Austen didn't JUST write Pride & Prejudice. As for corruption and ambition, again, Persuasion. And wickedness is present in all of her novels but Emma.


I agree with most objections pointed out by detractors. I must have 'Sense and Sensibility' read by the end of the month, and, quite honestly, I don't know if I will ever make it.

Sense and Sensibility is her worst book. I thank my lucky stars I started off with Emma.


hum, grrr.. i don't like Jane Austen...
yep, she's a good writer and all that.. but all her irony and subtlety are wasted on boring plots...
i mean aren't all her books essentially about the same thing?
"Should I marry Mr A. or Mr B? Mr A. is such a jolly fellow and Mr B. is so grumpy. But Mr B. is soooo much richer. Oops Mr, A. was a wicked crook after all, so I'll marry Mr. B"

seriously, when I read Emma, I knew after half a page what the ending would be.

i try to view her novels as historical documents of her time, when most middle class women had nothing better to do than paint, draw and marry....
but even at that time there must have been some independent women who did more interesting things... Funnily enought it's the male authors of the same period (and the Brontes) who created the most interesting female characters
If this is all you see in her books, you really miss the point.

The SETTING is the world in which women had extremely limited options, yes... but the PLOT is a lot more than marriage. "Emma" isn't about Emma finding a man... it's about her struggle to overcome her vanity and to start treating other people with more respect. "Mansfield Park" isn't about Fanny pursuing anyone, it's a Moralistic story about how what's "flashy" isn't always what's right.



At the moment I'm being slightly unfair, as I've only read one of her works (Pride and Prejudice) but I got the distinct feeling that it was, at essence, just comfort food. There was no real edge to the work that I could detect. It felt like dazzling gloss and shine, but not much else.

Does anyone have any recommendations on what I should read from her next?
Pride & Prejudice is about a family with five unmarried daughters and no sons. If none of them married before the father died, the whole family would become homeless and impoverished. They literally depended on marriage for survival-- when Elizabeth rejected Mr. Collins' proposal, she betrayed her family's only hope of keeping their house after Mr. Bennet died.

If you don't feel the edge, you aren't looking for it.

As for what to read next, that depends entirely on your taste. You're a fan of Romantic writing, so I'd go with Persuasion.

[Jassy Melson]

A lot of people seem to think that Jane Austen had no sense of humor. They should read Northanger Abbey. It is a witty attack on the Gothic genre, and there are scenes in it that are truly funny.

[Niamh]

A lot of people seem to think that Jane Austen had no sense of humor. They should read Northanger Abbey. It is a witty attack on the Gothic genre, and there are scenes in it that are truly funny.

I couldnt agree with you more.

[kiki1982]

I think a lot of people just get thrown firstly by the topic (women looking for a spouse) and secondly by the language that is so amazingly dry, but so funny in that dryness. It is a lot of words though, and some things you have to consider twice in their idea or concept to actually understand the joke and laugh at it.

I agree about Northanger Abbey, though.

[L.M. The Third]

^ :iagree:

I've just been rereading Northanger Abbey which had been my least favorite Austen. However I've been struck by how hilariously funny it is. It is perhaps undervalued because many people today haven't read the novels she was satirizing.
Austen, to me, is so much about morality and realizing one's own faults and selfish, impolite, and improper behaviors. Austen though can make these things a major theme without coming across as 'preachy' because of her incomparable and truly funny irony, which is her 'sentence'.

I don't agree with the statement that evil is not present in Emma as contrasted with the other books. Emma has been referred to as one of the first female characters in English literature with a moral life. The evil in Emma does not come so much in the form of a Wickam (sp?) to seduce a virgin and throw a whole family into disgrace. The evil is something in Emma's own character, nature, and behavior, that at some point in the novel she must discover.

I think that the media and our modern day conceptions have contributed to a belief that Austen was a writer of romantic novels. There's actually a nascent feminism in Austen heroines and outlook. And despite the undeniable 'courtship' themes, it's very obvious that Austen realized that marriage was about so much more than mere 'romance' or mere 'convenience' . She shows us couples who have married for either reason, and then she makes us laugh at them. Although obstacles to marriage serve as a plot device in novels, Austen bent this to her purpose. The time between the introduction of her hero and heroine and their eventual understanding is filled up with journeys of self-awareness. If Lizzy, for mercenary reasons, had agreed to marry Darcy at the time of the first proposal the marriage would have been treated with irony. Austen wants her heroines (Lizzy, Marianne, Emma and Anne most notably) to learn about themselves, before they can enter upon a successful marriage based on respect. For a time when marriage was a girl's only prospect, and when one might receive only one good proposal , this was a nascent feminist statement. (I'm not entirely sure where :rolleyes5: but I know that I'm indebted to my friend Mette for some thought here.)

[kiki1982]

I agree that all characters I have seen up till now in her novels (which are all of them minus Mansfield Park and Lady Susan, which wasn't complete, right?) need to go through a proces of cleansing before they can start on their life. Also their counterpart, whose process is not so much addressed as the heroine goes through the same, goes through it in secret. Still, his changes are apparent in small hints, the same as developments in Austen's society went on in secret, but had their appearances on the surface. There is always a lot to be added to the secret plot.

That idea of self-development is very much present in 18th and 19th century lit (eventually the Bildungsroman) and even earlier. Moll Flanders is portrayed like that (excellent excuse for writing all the filth, 'I am just doing it to prove a point' :D), Fanny Hill too (great filth that was :eek2:), and it carries on with Scott and Brontë, not to mention Hardy.

Beside all this moralistic stuff, which Austen must have read as well, she really had had it with the world and decided to blow things taken as matters of course up to ridiculous proportions so that people would see how ridiculous they were. She did that very much in Northanger Abbey with Gothic novels, vanity, words ('best friend in the world' :lol:). It takes a great mind to be able to detatch oneself from reality and in-bred ways in order to question all. Most people cannot do that unless they are faced with satire and then it still takes a little effort to see what that satire is really about. Otherwise, they just find it normal. They cannot see beyond their own nose, so to say. Austen was one who saw past the end of her nose.

I am not sure, though, if that feminist idea is intended. Sure, Lizzie refuses two proposals because she does not deem her husbands-to-be worthy, but possibly it is also her own blindness that moves her to it. Mr Collins she did not have to marry for comfort. Her comfort would have been the same as her mother's if she didn't have a son (which was still down to the woman in those days; now we know better): being expelled and end up like the Dashwoods in poverty in Sense and Sensibility. Imagine her husband were to die when her children were still small... Big trouble and poverty awaits. Not to mention that she would have been stuck in a small parsonage with a nasty landlady and a husband who is insufferable, uneducated, slimy etc. I think that is an argument for anyone to say, nah. Her father even agreed with her. Her second refusal, though, she seems to regret (why otherwise would she burst out in tears after Darcy has left in a huff?). In this case, she would have lived in a great mansion, so she could have escaped her (insufferable) husband and she would never have had to worry about finance anymore and had all her little heart desired with a hubby who worshipped the ground she walked on. But, as he bursts into that parsonage and declares his love in such a stupid and a little impolite manner, her pride stands in the way of saying yes. Firstly, she is taken by surprise and cannot deal worthily with it all. She would have imagined something nicer (walk in the park, you know; gradual development, you know), but no, this man bursts in there and demands a decision; no, wait, even takes it as a matter of course that her decision is favorable. She had probably hoped that it was Mr Fitzwilliam and not the guy with a first name Fitzwilliam himself. After all, their walks in the park of Rosings denoted more than mere walks, didn't they? Secondly, she is picked by his declaration about her connections (rightly so), so she refuses, but regrets it afterwards. She let all the money go. He was the biggest fish in the pond, and she threw him back again, never to see him ever again because which gentleman would make a second attempt? That is really sad. For her pride. How magnificent she would have looked with a name 'Mrs Darcy'.

I have always thought that Mr Darcy was more like his sister than merely proud alone. He does admit to his views being conceited, but I think his silence is more down to shyness than anything else. For a man that is really not done (see Jane and Lizzie's comments at the beginning about how young men should be). I think his first proposal is a little conceited but I think he is rather saying, 'see what I leave for you. I worship you and so I will defy society and my aunt to have you.' She interprets it differently, but I think he didn't mean it like that, it only came out totally wrongly like it always does when one does not know what to say. The same principle he will employ in order to help her sister (though for his own gain, tssss). There is no gradual development because he doesn't want to know, but also because he is too shy to show it, unlike his friend. Maybe he is too shy of feelings in themselves, even to himself, like she is to her feelings for him too. Maybe he is too shy to admit to his friend Bingley that he does find her handsome at that frist ball. She is certainly the handsomest lady in the room (everyone agree about that), but he is not disposed to admit it within hearing distance of her and so gives the honour to her sister. He must get himself free from that façade which has been forced upon him by education ('you are a man, you will not show any emotion.')

If anything, her refusals of those propsals can also be taken as a symptom of her pride.

All her characters go through a different cleansing process, though. Lizzie and Darcy through one of pride and pragmatism; Emma through one of egoism and self-awareness (something that also counts for Knightley); Anne and Wentworth through one of anger (they are both angry at each other and other people SPOILER for preventing their frist plans SPOILERS OVER though that was for the best, although the feeling is double in view of that family in Lyme); Elenor and Marianne take over some things of each other.

I think Northanger Abbey stands on its own in that it is not really a cleansing process, only maybe in childishness... Catherine needs to get out of that girlish and meaningless world of Gothic romances and see that they are great for amusement, but otherwise, not worth much. Tilney needs to be less of a 'son' and more of a 'man', independent of his father. The father of course neds to be more of a 'father' than a tyrant.

I think I will need to read Udolpho. I am sure that Northanger Abbey will even be funnier if I have read that, somehow. Especially General Tilney I suspect to be hilarious.

[L.M. The Third]

Lady Susan is actually complete, although it's short. Lady Susan is different from Austen's other protaganists because she does not become morally aware. She is essentially a miscreant.






Beside all this moralistic stuff, which Austen must have read as well, she really had had it with the world and decided to blow things taken as matters of course up to ridiculous proportions so that people would see how ridiculous they were. She did that very much in Northanger Abbey with Gothic novels, vanity, words ('best friend in the world' :lol:). It takes a great mind to be able to detatch oneself from reality and in-bred ways in order to question all. Most people cannot do that unless they are faced with satire and then it still takes a little effort to see what that satire is really about. Otherwise, they just find it normal. They cannot see beyond their own nose, so to say. Austen was one who saw past the end of her nose.




Yes, it takes a great mind and a certain bravery too.

Okay, about the feminism, I was very careful to call it nascent. The very idea of feminism was only nascent at the time. And, yes, Elizabeth's rejections of both proposals stem from pride. But I beg to remind you that Mr. Collins was to inherit the Bennett's home. Yes, a son might not result from the union and Elizabeth might be in the Dashwood's situation, but a son might result. Her mother certainly was placing pressure on her. Lizzy's pride (although sometimes leading her astray) could be said to stem from her self-worth and intelligence and her decision only to marry where there was true respect. So, I guess this is really going back to issues of self-awareness and moral behavior. I don't have the time to explore the feminist aspect right now.

[kiki1982]

Well of course, it could be that, I agree, but it is all too often attributed to that alone. That is all I wanted to say, though. ;)

[kiki1982]

Uhm, this website takes care to discuss the POINT, not your classmates (who may be b****es for all I know) or the fact that Austen can 'lick your sack'. Saying that one great writer is far superior on another one can be offensive to fans of the latter. You realise that, I suppose.

Ok, maybe you didn't want to be offensive, and that's fine, but it would be good for yourself that you were to take some effort in trying to understand why you didn't like it.

I realise you are a male, which is a downside fo reading Austen, and I can't imagine why your teacher (as there are so many) regard this book as to be read by all, male and female alike. There is a lot of female energy in Austen (of course, she was a female, doh :biggrinjester:) which some men do not get, and certainly not in high school.

Why didn't you like it?

Forget the film, I found it marvellous, but I found it slightly lacking in just fun. It was fun by moments, but it was really a little flat and too sugary in parts (mind you not everywhere). Particularly Mr Collins was great.

Maybe you saw the novel as too factual and true and don't know much about the ways then which Austen was trying to make ridiculous.

Tell us. I promise you, it'll be of great use to you (and not only for this book, also for David Copperfield, on another forum of course ;)) to express your arguments.

gr
k
:wave:

[DickZ]

. . .I realise you are a male, which is a downside for reading Austen, and I can't imagine why your teacher (as there are so many) regard this book as to be read by all, male and female alike. There is a lot of female energy in Austen (of course, she was a female, doh :biggrinjester:) which some men do not get, and certainly not in high school. . .
:wave:

I'm a male, and just finished Pride and Prejudice, my first Austen novel. I'm now eagerly looking forward to completing the whole set of her works. What I liked best were the well-worded quotations that apply as well to people today as they did 200 years ago. Just two examples are:

“He then went away, and Miss Bingley was left to all the satisfaction of having forced him to say what gave no one any pain but herself.”

“Her father captivated by youth and beauty, and that appearance of good humour which youth and beauty generally give, had married a woman whose weak understanding and illiberal mind, had very early in their marriage put an end to all real affection for her. Respect, esteem, and confidence had vanished forever, and all his views of domestic happiness were overthrown . . . To his wife he was very little otherwise indebted, than as her ignorance and folly had contributed to his amusement. This is not the sort of happiness which a man would in general wish to owe to his wife; but where other powers of entertainment are wanting, the true philosopher will derive benefit from such as are given.”

[MarkBastable]

I think one has to get away from the idea that liking something and it being good are the same thing. It's entirely possible to know—intellectually, historically, analytically—that Jane Austen was a talented, influential and important writer, but at the same time to profess that you find her work irrelevant, smug and irritating.

[kiki1982]

I'm a male, and just finished Pride and Prejudice, my first Austen novel. I'm now eagerly looking forward to completing the whole set of her works. What I liked best were the well-worded quotations that apply as well to people today as they did 200 years ago. Just two examples are:

“He then went away, and Miss Bingley was left to all the satisfaction of having forced him to say what gave no one any pain but herself.”

“Her father captivated by youth and beauty, and that appearance of good humour which youth and beauty generally give, had married a woman whose weak understanding and illiberal mind, had very early in their marriage put an end to all real affection for her. Respect, esteem, and confidence had vanished forever, and all his views of domestic happiness were overthrown . . . To his wife he was very little otherwise indebted, than as her ignorance and folly had contributed to his amusement. This is not the sort of happiness which a man would in general wish to owe to his wife; but where other powers of entertainment are wanting, the true philosopher will derive benefit from such as are given.”

Good on you! My hubby would not be seen dead with an Austen book as he calls it 'women's politics', but he enjoyed Lost in Austen. He just doesn't like focussing on something so trivial as landing a husband and can't see how that can be funny. I think he is also faintly annoyed by how some men are portrayed and kind of 'evaluated' in those books. That would make me uncomfortable if I were a man, I tell you... I don't know, I would just prefer not to know what women think about me and thought about me in the past... That would make me uncomfortable in their presence forever.
Not liking it is fine, and there will be many other men who prefer thins like Dostoevsky to Austen.

There is the other kind, of course.

And yes, Mark, there is a difference between finding something irritating and it being bad in an absolute way.

[StephenLazarus]

Ok let me first reproach myself slightly:
Jane Austen's not realy that bad. I mean, I can see just by reading over a page that she has a formidable writing ability. It's on my shelves in my basement: "The complete novels of Jane Austen". And I wouldn't throw it out or sell it, even though I don't plan on reading it.

BUT- I still hate Jane Austen: allow me to elaborate.

Right off the bat when I opened the first page and read the first sentance, here's what I see:
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." (end of paragaraph)
I don't know why, but everything about it just immediately pissed me off. And since the entire book functions off of that single smug assumption, the entire book pisses me off. I geuss that's the simplest way to put it. The whole book just seems plastic to me.

But beyond that, what REALY put me off was to have to sit through class, day after day, for like TWO MONTHS, discussing the book, watching the movie, hating every second of it, and yet being completely surrounded by a classroom full of crooning admirers, showering Austen with their ardent praise!
It's not that I mind particularly, but why wasn't this happening during Hamlet or Lord of the Flies?? Normaly I DO like to see ardent praise being showered, but only where it's RIGHTFULY deserved... Most of the students, save a small handful, seemed to remain completely unphased by Hamlet, and during LOTF, I would ocasionaly have to overhear the group of girls who sat in front of me casualy denouncing, rolling their eyes at the book.
Well, I geuss it's just a matter of opinion, but HAMLET AND LOTF ARE ON AN ENTIRELY HIGHER LITERARY ECHELON. (IN MY OPINION)
Them dumb B's can just keep reading their silly Twilight and Harry Potters, and if they like Jane Austen too, they can go ahead and read that as well.

To be honest, it's not fair of me to lump it in alongside twilight like that; But realy though, I geuss that, in a way, it actualy just prooves the mastery of Janes craft; to be able to write somthing in 1810, that still manages to remain completely viable and apealing to the masses of today. Even if the masses are mostly asses. Which they mostly are.

And I must admit, I didn't even finish the whole book, quit half way. I have a kind of bad habit of being in the middle of 3 or 4 books at once; I was being beckoned by several other novels and was sick of wasting my time on P&P. This was only last year, senior year in highschool.

I apologize for being a bastard; It's strictly for dramatic effect!
And I respect Austen's literature... somewhat.
I'd write a bit more, but not tonight, I seriously need to get to bed NOW

[kiki1982]

Ok let me first reproach myself slightly:
Jane Austen's not realy that bad. I mean, I can see just by reading over a page that she has a formidable writing ability. It's on my shelves in my basement: "The complete novels of Jane Austen". And I wouldn't throw it out or sell it, even though I don't plan on reading it.

BUT- I still hate Jane Austen: allow me to elaborate.

Right off the bat when I opened the first page and read the first sentance, here's what I see:
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." (end of paragaraph)
I don't know why, but everything about it just immediately pissed me off. And since the entire book functions off of that single smug assumption, the entire book pisses me off. I geuss that's the simplest way to put it. The whole book just seems plastic to me.

:smilielol5: :lol: That made me laugh out loud! Not out of contempt, mind you, but I can see you feeling like Mr Bennet feels eevry day and I can see too how sometimes Austen's books can reall drive men up the wall. Let's face it, there will be very few who enjoy that kind of typical female patronising stuff. And, believe me, there is a big chance that you will be addressed the same way as Mr Bennet by your wife, one day. Not about your daughters, mind you, but about something else. A handbag perhaps, or the new Lagerfeld collection :biggrinjester:.

That's why I think it would be fun to write the whole thing again with observations from Mr Bennet's side... That would seriously amuse all the men! There he is, in his haven of manhood (his library, a very male room in the house), sheltering from all the bonnets, shawls and dresses, not to mention the balls and the anticipation of it all. Oh, and not to forget his wife's incessant chattering.

Makes me smile already. ;)


But beyond that, what REALY put me off was to have to sit through class, day after day, for like TWO MONTHS, discussing the book, watching the movie, hating every second of it, and yet being completely surrounded by a classroom full of crooning admirers, showering Austen with their ardent praise!
It's not that I mind particularly, but why wasn't this happening during Hamlet or Lord of the Flies?? Normaly I DO like to see ardent praise being showered, but only where it's RIGHTFULY deserved... Most of the students, save a small handful, seemed to remain completely unphased by Hamlet, and during LOTF, I would ocasionaly have to overhear the group of girls who sat in front of me casualy denouncing, rolling their eyes at the book.
Well, I geuss it's just a matter of opinion, but HAMLET AND LOTF ARE ON AN ENTIRELY HIGHER LITERARY ECHELON. (IN MY OPINION)
Them dumb B's can just keep reading their silly Twilight and Harry Potters, and if they like Jane Austen too, they can go ahead and read that as well.

No, that's doesn't sound like much fun. Usually I refrain from ardent praise (nicely put) as it is mainly given by people who have nothing else to say but ardent praise. And let me guess (I was saddled with the same thing in class years and years ago), the teacher had nothing to say, but that she was a fan and that Austen was fantastic?


In a way, it actualy just prooves the mastery of Janes craft; to be able to write somthing in 1810, that still manages to remain completely viable and apealing to the masses of today. Even if the masses are mostly asses. Which they mostly are.

There you have touched upon the whole point. However, that is mostly not what the masses see. How amazingly normal people in her books are! Women these days maybe do not get in raptures when they think about muslin (that is Northanger Abbey), but an Alexander McQueen may do the trick. Particularly those comments following the long-awaited revealing of Kate Middleton's wedding dress were very telling ('Oh my God, I can't tell you what a moment this is, I am speechless...!' Shut up then and franly it is *only* a wedding dress).
Austen is not even only about that (people), but she is also about the ways and ridicule resulting from those ways back then.


And I must admit, I didn't even finish the whole book, quit half way. I have a kind of bad habit of being in the middle of 3 or 4 books at once; I was being beckoned by several other novels and was sick of wasting my time on P&P. This was only last year, senior year in highschool.

It is entirely up to you, but at least you know why you do not like her. I am sure half your classmates would take longer to argue their ardent praise ;).


I apologize for being a bastard; It's strictly for dramatic effect!
And I respect Austen's literature... somewhat.

I'll leave you with that :)

[L.M. The Third]

Right off the bat when I opened the first page and read the first sentance, here's what I see:
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." (end of paragaraph)
I don't know why, but everything about it just immediately pissed me off. And since the entire book functions off of that single smug assumption, the entire book pisses me off. I geuss that's the simplest way to put it. The whole book just seems plastic to me.

You have to realize that that sentence is ironic; and ironic on multiple levels. That's certainly the assumption that Mrs Bennet (and many of the females in the neighborhood) functions on - why? Because it's what she wants out of life. To quote Jane, "How quick come the reasons for approving what we like!" So naturally everyone is at first delighted to meet a man as rich as Mr Darcy - until they are offended by him and he loses importance - in all eyes by his own. By the time he proposes to her daughter, Mrs Bennet is back to adoring him. Another man (who is not rich) is at first adored by the community, but when he elopes they suddenly remember how they all distrusted him from the first.

The sentence also comes back to haunt us when, after being led through the whole novel (by the narrator and Mr Bennet) to despise Mrs Bennet, she is the one who's favorite theories and efforts yield the most satisfactory results.

This is the surface irony of the story - but Austen's irony extends to her hero and heroine - as they (ostensibly) discover their true selves and, to quote Shakespeare, "hearing their retractions, put them to mending." Indeed, Austen's irony is so all-pervading that some suspect that Mr Darcy never actually changes but is acting yet another part that "clever" Elizabeth is deluded by.

One of Austen's primary themes, in all her novels, is self-delusion. So while her laugh-out-loud funny irony is reserved for side-characters, the climaxes of the novels take place when the protagonists realize how ironically they've been acting. Elizabeth and Emma have been priding themselves on perspicacity and they were "doomed to blindness".

Austen frequently leads her readers to identify with certain characters (such as Elizabeth in P&P or Mary Crawford in Mansfield Park) and turns her irony on the readers' assumptions, by humiliating that character and us with them.

Frankly, sometimes I'm downright scared of how ironic Jane is. I'm almost afraid to argue certain positions by saying, "Jane said such and such" because she can "speak" ironically with such a perfectly straight face. I'm about to read her letters and I fear that I'll miss some of the irony, since many Janeites consider the compiler of the letters to have been too dull an elf to recognize many of the ironies and literary references.

(For example, Austen was urged to dedicate Emma to the despicable Prince Regent, and he probably thought the dedication perfectly nice. However, it resembles her sadistically sarcastic juvenilia. She also included a charade in the book, mocking him as the "Prince of Whales (http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol27no1/sheehan2.htm)".



But beyond that, what REALY put me off was to have to sit through class, day after day, for like TWO MONTHS, discussing the book, watching the movie, hating every second of it, and yet being completely surrounded by a classroom full of crooning admirers, showering Austen with their ardent praise!
It's not that I mind particularly, but why wasn't this happening during Hamlet or Lord of the Flies?? Normaly I DO like to see ardent praise being showered, but only where it's RIGHTFULY deserved... Most of the students, save a small handful, seemed to remain completely unphased by Hamlet, and during LOTF, I would ocasionaly have to overhear the group of girls who sat in front of me casualy denouncing, rolling their eyes at the book.
Well, I geuss it's just a matter of opinion, but HAMLET AND LOTF ARE ON AN ENTIRELY HIGHER LITERARY ECHELON. (IN MY OPINION)
Them dumb B's can just keep reading their silly Twilight and Harry Potters, and if they like Jane Austen too, they can go ahead and read that as well.

To be honest, it's not fair of me to lump it in alongside twilight like that; But realy though, I geuss that, in a way, it actualy just prooves the mastery of Janes craft; to be able to write somthing in 1810, that still manages to remain completely viable and apealing to the masses of today. Even if the masses are mostly asses. Which they mostly are.



I'm as devout a Janeite as can be and there is little that disgusts me more than people raving over Austen as though she was a fluffy romance writer. Anyone who has really read Austen with careful attention knows that she is the epitome of anti-Romantic - diametrically opposed to the ideologies that drive the Twilight obsession.

Actually, I think if Austen lived today she'd be delighted to parody the superficial readers of her own novels - just as she parodied the superficial or credulous readers of the gothic novels of her day in Northanger Abbey.

Forgive me for saying this, but in your confidence in your judgment you sound remarkably like Elizabeth Bennet. But coming from a Janeite that's a compliment. Kinda. ;)

[StephenLazarus]

And let me guess (I was saddled with the same thing in class years and years ago), the teacher had nothing to say, but that she was a fan and that Austen was fantastic?

Quite so, haha in fact, exactly so. Yeah, she realy never explained anything in that class, lol from what i remember she basicly just played movies half the time, and was therefor in very high favor among my fellow classmates. She never realy got down to any technical analysis, which frankly was the thing I was most looking forward to when I chose to take it. I was holding her in comparison to the teacher I had the year before, Mr Williams; -'dude was INSANE. Like when we read gatsby, he'd be going on and on about all these extremely discrete symbols, to every smallest detail, it blew my mind. we asked him one time "HOW DO YOU KNOW ALL THIS STUFF?" and he was like "Oh, I've read the book probably about 30 or 40 times by know; I re-read it every year for the class." haha a dedicated teacher- he knew his stuff inside and out.

well, forum, I must say; you guys are a rather respectable bunch! I'm quite impressed, considering I was basicly just trollin' in my first post (:brow: heh).
If I were to perhaps, consider reconsidering Jane Austen in the future, which novel besides P&P would be most recomended? I mean hypothetically, if I were to consider reconsidering? (Not like there's any chance I ever would, of course)

By the way, I think its kind of funny to add; I basicly took a complete failing grade for that whole semester- I was down to like a 20/100 by the time we finished the book hahaha. I didn't even sparknote (I'm a stuburn bastard, what can I say?) It was a moral victory nontheless.
Luckily the teacher showed some sympathy; For the final I wrote THE most insane essay for Lord of the Flies- had all the symbolism completely figured out (which I had to do on my own since she scarcly told us a thing about it of course.) She must have been impressed; gave me an A+ for it and even gave me a few bonus points for a passing grade :biggrin5:

[kiki1982]

Haha, i won't get any illusions into my head about reconsidering, but if you ever do, then read Emma (as long as you start from the viewpoint that she is absolutely totally looking the wrong way and extremely smug in order to be prooved wrong :D) or Northanger Abbey, but then you could read The Mysteries of Udolpho first as it seems to be a parody on it. That is not romance mind you, but really a little bit of mindless English 18th century/beginning 19th century middleclass scary story (very period Gothic) set in Italy about a girl who is engaged to the son of the scary Udolpho, whisked off to a castle where her husband dies (I think) and then is forced to marry his father Udolpho. hehehe :D Although you might not like the girliness of NA... It was Austen's first, so she was still a teenager, but she already mocked all that mindless novel-reading (as opposed to serious books/novels of better quality)...

Now on a less serious note:

haha, we also had a very dedicated teacher whose literature list was as long as all the English classics you could find. and I mean everything, including the whole of Agatha Christie's collection too. In opposition to other years, we were free to choose our books (I just think the other teachers were too lazy, like yours), but as we were in a girls' school, I think about 90% of the class chose Austen's Sense and Sensibility (it was the age of Hugh Grant's role as Edward Ferrars and Kate Winslet's rise as Marianne)... Anyway, I was one of the exceptions, because I had got S&S for my friend in the library, and had borrowed P&P, but, I kid you not, I did not understand at all what this thing was about. English was not my first language, you see, so I was planning to read something else like Dickens but wondered what the hell the rest was going to do whose English wasn't much better apart from the odd exception like my friend. So, the day of the return of the paper came and the teacher walks in with a smug smile. So they all get their essay back, 90% of the class, with very low marks apart from my friend. The teacher said, 'You all watched the film which was on last night, didn't you?' One brave one says, 'Why do you think so, Miss, I did not watch it, I really read the book.' The teacher says, 'Nope you didn't because the ending was different.' There were indeed a few changes to the film... Not bad, but distinctly different from the plot of the book... Including characters who vanished.

But you see, girls will always pick romance things because they like them. That is not to say that Austen writes romance. She doesn't. Well, she does, but out of spite.

There is one piece of symbolism, I have to say, in P&P when Darcy's Pemberley is portrayed for the first time. It is in essence an evocation of him as a man inside, after which he emerges and really seems to be gentle, friendly and generous, beautiful, and everything Lizzie can wish for, like his mansion.

I grant you, Austen does not carry much symbolism, but the strength of her work is endless mockery, of all: people, habits, traditions and situations.

Which film did you watch, by the way? Not that thing with Keira Knightley, did you? You could have sworn the Bennets were farmers! The thing was so devoid of any Austen content that it should not even bear the name. Nononono, the only ever film/adaptation to watch is 1995. There will never be a better one and you can't beat Firth in his wet shirt (there, he will hate me for saying it again). However, if you really want to have a taste of real Austen from a modern perspective, watch Lost in Austen (it's probably on YouTube so you don't even have to spend money on it). A modern woman and ardent Austen fan finds herself in P&P, taking up the part of Lizzie she doesn't want. It includes surprising lesbian love from an original character, a very good Darcy, a very very good Mr Collins (yuck :sick:) and an adorable Mr Bingley. Oh, and not to forget a very good Mrs Bennet too. Read my take on it in the thread with the same name.

Your teacher should have picked a work which was maybe not more basic, but more polyvalent or should have highlighted other points than romance :rolleyes:, that is very basic reading not worth a class...

You see, we are not out to 'get' you, but to convert you :D. We are very respectible people :D.

[anishastrologer]

this a bit harsh on Austen's artistic talents. i have not seen a single adaptation of her novels, yet i feel that the novel itself is capable of making Mr. Darcy popular with women. Austen wrote in a time when novel writing was considered to be a menial job and was left for women to pursue it. yet novels by many women could seldom see the light of publication. so we should rather praise her that she was and is sstill able to cause stir in a readers mind. before judging her, place her novels in her contemporary social structure and do not judge hjer by the film or TV adaptations of her novels.

[L.M. The Third]

. She never realy got down to any technical analysis, which frankly was the thing I was most looking forward to when I chose to take it. I was holding her in comparison to the teacher I had the year before, Mr Williams; -'dude was INSANE. Like when we read gatsby, he'd be going on and on about all these extremely discrete symbols, to every smallest detail, it blew my mind. we asked him one time "HOW DO YOU KNOW ALL THIS STUFF?" and he was like "Oh, I've read the book probably about 30 or 40 times by know; I re-read it every year for the class." haha a dedicated teacher- he knew his stuff inside and out.

If you actually ever do read Austen, don't go in with the assumption that you can't do a literary, critical reading of her. The Jane Austen Society of North America (http://jasna.org/) has many fabulous articles (many by academics) archived on the historical, economic and political details and themes in her works. And, although I'm skeptical, this blogger (http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/) would be quick to assure you that Austen used countless symbols and literary allusions.


If I were to perhaps, consider reconsidering Jane Austen in the future, which novel besides P&P would be most recomended? I mean hypothetically, if I were to consider reconsidering? (Not like there's any chance I ever would, of course)

With Kiki I'd probably say Northanger Abbey or Emma. However, for something short and hilarious, I'd recommend her juvenilia which gives you an understanding of just how irreverent and unromantic she was. Some of it is available here on Litnet.

[Der Prozess]

I rather like Jane Austen's work.

[kev67]

I started reading Emma recently. I read Pride and Prejudice several years ago. The writer she most reminds me of is P.G. Wodehouse. Their books are romantic comedies (Bertie Wooster and Jeeves are always trying to put right some courtship that has gone wrong). Their worlds are small and privileged; only small hints of the big, cruel world encroach from time to time. It is a permanent weekend. Emma takes some concentration, but it is very funny. I am already far ahead of her, vis à vis her plan to bring Mr Elton and Harriet together. I was amused reading Mr Elton's charade (a sort of riddle) last night. My reaction was like Harriet's: dumb confusion. I was a little surprised to find the character Emma so different to Lizzie Bennet, and I remember P&P being easier to read. Reading Emma late at night may be part of the reason for that. It seems to me comic writers are at a disadvantage when being evaluated in the greatness stakes. I suspect readers tend to regard tragedies as art because they move you, and comedies as mere entertainment because they make you laugh.

[Iain Sparrow]

You would have to look long and hard to find a writer more overrated than Jane Austen.
I will defer to the criticism of one Charlotte Brontë on the subject of Ms. Jane...

"I have likewise read one of Miss Austen's works, Emma—read it with interest and with just the right degree of admiration which the Miss Austen herself would have thought sensible and suitable—anything like warmth or enthusiasm; anything energetic, poignant, heartfelt, is utterly out of place in commending these works: all such demonstration the authoress would have met with a well-bred sneer, would have calmly scorned as outre and extravagant. She does her business of delineating the surface of the lives of genteel English people curiously well; there is a Chinese fidelity, a miniature delicacy in the painting: she ruffles her reader by nothing vehement, disturbs him by nothing profound: the Passions are perfectly unknown to her; she rejects even a speaking acquaintance with that stormy Sisterhood; even to the Feelings she vouchsafes no more than an occasional graceful but distant recognition; too frequent converse with them would ruffle the smooth elegance of her progress. ... Jane Austen was a complete and most sensible lady, but a very incomplete, and rather insensible (not senseless) woman, if this is heresy—I cannot help it. If I said it to some people (Lewes for example) they would accuse me of advocating exaggerated heroics, but I am not afraid of your falling into any such vulgar error."

Charlotte Brontë, April 12, 1850

[Ecurb]

Jane Austen was the great, early genius of modern realism. Here's what Frank O'Connor said about her: ""Jane Austen was a strict contemporary of the most popular novelist who ever lived, Sir Walter Scott, and though at the time ... her work was overshadowed by his, the novel did not go his way; it went her way."

Charlotte Bronte was a great writer, but she had no sense of humor. Perhaps Ms. Bronte SHOULD have been afraid of falling into "vulgar error". Here G.K. Chesterton compares the two:


Her originals and even her contemporaries had shown the feminine power in fiction as well or better than she. Charlotte Bronte, understood along her own instincts, was as great; Jane Austen was greater. The latter comes into our present consideration only as that most exasperating thing, an ideal unachieved. It is like leaving an unconquered fortress in the rear. No woman later has captured the complete common sense of Jane Austen. She could keep her head, while all the after women went looking for their brains. She could describe a man cooly; which neither George Eliot nor Charlotte Bronte could do. She knew what she knew, like a sound dogmatist: she did not know what she did not know--like a sound agnostic. But she belongs to a vanished world before the great progressive age of which I write.

Here WH Auden includes her in his poem "A Letter to Lord Byron":


"...
There is one other author in my pack
For some time I debated which to write to.
Which would least likely send my letter back?
But I decided I'd give a fright to
Jane Austen if I wrote when I'd no right to,
And share in her contempt the dreadful fates
Of Crawford, Musgrove, and of Mr. Yates.

Then she's a novelist. I don't know whether
You will agree, but novel writing is
A higher art than poetry altogether
In my opinion, and success implies
Both finer character and faculties
Perhaps that's why real novels are as rare
As winter thunder or a polar bear.
...
I must remember, though, that you were dead
Before the four great Russians lived, who brought
The art of novel writing to a head;
The help of Boots had not been sought.
But now the art for which Jane Austen fought,
Under the right persuasion bravely warms
And is the most prodigious of the forms.

She was not an unshockable blue-stocking;
If shades remain the characters they were,
No doubt she still considers you as shocking.
But tell Jane Austen, that is if you dare,
How much her novels are beloved down here.
She wrote them for posterity, she said;
'Twas rash, but by posterity she's read.

You could not shock her more than she shocks me;
Beside her Joyce seems innocent as grass.
It makes me most uncomfortable to see
An English spinster of the middle-class
Describe the amorous effects of 'brass',
Reveal so frankly and with such sobriety
The economic basis of society.

Not all great authors adore Austen. Mark Twain was sufficiently a curmudgeon to write:



"I haven't any right to criticize books, and I don't do it except when I hate them. I often want to criticize Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can't conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Every time I read 'Pride and Prejudice' I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone."

Perhaps. However, "every time I read..." suggests Twain, despite his hatred, read P & P over and over again.

Here's E.M. Forster:


"... Why do the characters in Jane Austen give us a slightly new pleasure each time they come in, as opposed to the merely repetitive pleasure that is caused by a character in Dickens? ... The answer to this question can be put in several ways; that, unlike Dickens, she was a real artist, that she never stooped to caricature, etc. But the best reply is that her characters, though smaller than his, are more highly organized. They function all round, and even if her plot made greater demands on them than it does they would still be adequate. ... All the Jane Austen characters are ready for an extended life which the scheme of her books seldom requires them to lead, and that is why they lead their actual lives so satisfactorily. ... How Jane Austen can write! "

And here is Sir Walter Scott, whom O'Connor called the most popular novelist in English history (based on percentage of novels sold), and Austen's contemporary:



"Read again, for the third time at least, Miss Austen's finely written novel of 'Pride And Prejudice'. That young Lady had a talent for describing the involvements and feelings and characters of ordinary life, which is to me the most wonderful I ever met with. The big Bow-Wow strain I can do myself like any now going; but the exquisite touch which renders ordinary common-place things and characters interesting from the truth of the description and the sentiment is denied to me. What a pity such a gifted creature died so early!"

If you are reading "Emma", Kev, pay attention how Miss Bates -- considered a bore and a buffoon by the other characters and by most readers -- is actually the only one who sees things clearly.

[prendrelemick]

The Walter Scott quotation above (that I haven't seen before) says everything I'd want to say about her, only put much better than I could.

Charlotte Bronte (also above) is describing is realism. Real people (heroines or otherwise) don't really go running off into storms after an emotional reversal, nor do those appropriate storms and landscape appear right on cue to match their mood. All that Brontesque passion I find false and formulaic. Ok, It may well have been innovative back then, but every time I read of a heroine clutching her breast and crying out some jibber-jabber against a backdrop of louring clouds, I find myself rolling my eyes.:rolleyes5: I find more true emotion in the subtle descriptions of Jane and Lizzie Bennet - their hopes dashed- trying to carry on (because that is all they know and anyway they are powerless beyond their own parlour,) than page after page of Jane Eyre type palaver.