Seeing Red for Jane Austen

My friend Mr. Broughton doesn’t like Pride and Prejudice. He read it about 10 years ago, and claims he remembers nothing about the plot or characters, but only a great exasperation with them all and annoyance with Jane Austen. (We are still friends. I am broadminded.) I had to get to the bottom of this, and we had a spirited little discussion on Facebook. He was fond of Wuthering Heights, he reported, though he is less so now, “the teenage angst having worn off.” We postulated that, he being from the South, he identified more with the bitterness of the looked-down-upon Northern English than with the comfortable mentality of the Home Counties. He claimed, not unusually, that Jane was just a chick-lit writer. He even had the temerity to compare Pride and Prejudice to Beverly Hills, 90210. That’s when I saw red. Was he implying, I said, that his sci-fi books have more truth, more knowledge useful to daily life, than Pride and Prejudice? Well, it ended with him agreeing to read Pride and Prejudice again (for Science), and me agreeing to read Dune (his favorite book).

I’m disturbed by the force of my reaction to his 90210 comment. I was trembling with rage. I mean, naturally we would all die in Jane’s defense, but why should his comment have upset me if I didn’t see some truth in it? Oh, I threw up lots of arguments to convince him of Jane’s awesomeness. Think of it as a detailed study of group dynamics, I said. Remember to read between the lines, I said. I asked him to try to identify with Lizzie’s situation and motives, even though they were “as alien to him as a space princess” (more alien, really). I popped out Austen’s famous dead baby quote to show him she wasn’t all sweetness and light.

Do any of you feel cut by the criticism that Jane was shallow? That she didn’t address the social issues of her day, or go into the depths of despair? That she was perhaps the Mozart to the Brontës’ Beethoven (or Liszt if one’s feeling catty)? I know perfectly well that she told the truth, as did Mozart. It isn’t the truth of sleepless nights, but it is the truth of daily life. And that’s just as valuable. Isn’t it?

Moral Compass vs Vicious Gossip

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:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dionc/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0