So I’m sure by now y’all have heard about the new book A Truth Universally Acknowledged: 33 Great Writers on Why We Read Jane Austen, edited by Susannah Carson. There has been a review in The Economist and an excerpt in The Wall Street Journal, of all places. I haven’t read the book yet—have any of you? I’m kind of torn between wanting it for Christmas [hint hint], and feeling just a mite rebellious about it. For one thing, my friends will tell you that I’m a little contrary, and I can’t help but think of the pamphlet 100 Authors Against Einstein, who were all denying his General Theory of Relativity, and his response: “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!” But I guess this does not hold in reverse: 33 reasons to read Jane Austen doesn’t mean one reason not to read Jane Austen would be enough if you never have.
Also, the excerpt in The Wall Street Journal, by James Collins, is, as alert reader Rosemary pointed out, stuffy and patronizing. Oh please, like no one but James has used Jane Austen as a moral compass in his, or, thank you very much, HER, life! When we’ve all been discussing this very thing for months. OK, not “moral” sometimes, but thanks very much, the Austen fan base is not just a bunch of drooling romantics! OK, maybe we drool sometimes (you know what I mean), but we appreciate subtleties too, you know! Mr. Collins (LOL) is just like Lady Catherine, all affability and condescension. Pooh!
Then, once nicely annoyed at being patronized at, my hackles got raised by Robert Fulford, writing in The National Post. He really does seem to read Jane Austen without any eye to what she’s talking about, and calls her just “a vicious gossip.” Now, many of my friends would take that as a compliment, and maybe Miss Austen would too, but he seems also to take pleasure in patronizing the fans, assuming we can’t see and enjoy her sharp side as much as her romantic side. Julie Ponzi at No Left Turns has an interesting reaction to Mr. Fulford (though this link isn’t working for me now, so good luck . . .). She points out the “pen envy” and contradictions in his article.
So what do we think about all this? I think, yay, at least they’re (good old “they”) talking about her. As Harriet Evans says over at The Guardian, female authors often don’t get talked about. I think, people underestimate us, and underestimate her. Somehow, Miss Austen’s reputation as a serious author is still on the line. Almost 200 years after her death, do people still see her as an early chick-lit figure? Heck, maybe she was chick-lit because she just wrote about ordinary women and men doing ordinary things. Depends on what you think about chick-lit, I guess. 🙂 At least they’re talking about her? That makes me so mad! But then, it’s always hard for comedy to get much respect.
Maybe the 33 would be better, would be spiced up in a truly Austen way, if there was some dissension among their ranks, or if they weren’t universally praising. Only Jane Bennet gets to be so sweet and still be interesting.
Photo credit:
austenacious 
My mom told me once that in her AP lit class in high school, each student was supposed to pick an author and study all their works. When she tried to pick Austen, her teacher told her that Jane Austen didn’t count as a real author. That was several decades ago, but I think that attitude still persists. I personally feel that she’s both a respectable author and a pioneer in chick lit. I mean, why can’t chick lit sometimes, in the hands of a great writer, be really good literature?
I read the James Collins article last week and felt that he did actually have some interesting points. His paragraph about how she was sort of a bridge between the Augustan and Romantic periods was quite good; I don’t know anything about the Augustan period but I do agree that a theme of certain of her writings is finding the balance between, as he says, “good dinners and good poetry.” However, I felt thoroughly insulted by his statement that “She can be positively priggish, and that is an embarrassment. The contemporary reader who loves Jane Austen sort of blips over the moralizing sections and tells himself that they don’t really count.” Sir, if all I wanted was romantic fluff with no substance, I’d stick with She’s All That and Kate and Leopold.
LikeLike
Some people are simply not acquainted with the idea of satire. These people thought that Jonathan Swift was actually suggesting that the people eat the babies of Ireland.
How can Austen be called a gossip and a moralist? Is it perhaps that she incorperated elements of both to paint a realistic, humorous, and yet sometimes heart wrending picture of the world? Perhaps some people are simply blinded by their own prejudices to see beyond one or the other.
If her characters were cartoons than so are half the people I know. Her heroines were lovable, but flawed; her rogues had some desirable qualities; and some times her heroes were not entirely worthy.
Okay, rant over.
LikeLike
“Vicious gossip” indeed. What’s vicious is the sexism that is rampant in so much of the writing about Austen. I thought Harriet Evans presented a great goose vs. gander argument in her spirited defense of writers that are deemed chick lit. But take one look at the bitter and mean-spirited comments to see just how deeply ingrained this bias is.
Dismissing Austen’s work is akin to saying that what matters to women doesn’t matter.
But we know better.
LikeLike