Austen
Jane Austen’s name came up frequently on the recent Summer Reading thread–and, indeed, whose better? But a few Consenters didn’t, um, consent, didn’t make hers a unanimous choice for inclusion.
So why do so many of us delight in Austen’s “two inches of ivory,” as she describes her work? Whence cometh this almost universal love?
Well, here’s whence. Here’s what sends me back to Austen novels for rereadings, summer or winter. I’m purposely keeping this list short, knowing that other Consenters have comments a-plenty to add.
1. Austen is a hoot, and not just occasionally but on every page. You know how you had to pay pretty careful attention when watching West Wing if you wanted to catch both the plotline and the wisecracks? Same thing with Austen, times three. Except that in her books, the plot is just the vehicle: the ride is all about the humor.
2. No other writer does a more skillful job of wielding all the satirist’s weapons. All of them. In a senior seminar one semester, my students and I examined satire rather close up. Irony in all its varieties, both dark and light, Juvenalian and Horatian; invective, innuendo, double entendre, burlesque, parody, understatement– we looked at most of the great masters to study how they used these and other devices of satire. Only in Austen did we find a writer who used so many so well.
2. There’s always more to find. When I lived in Utah and did my best to abide by the gardening commandments, I would go out each evening and pluck every cucumber big enough to pickle. If it was the size of my thumb, I harvested it. But every morning, egad! Out of nowhere, there were more good-sized, nay, hefty cucumbers! Where had they come from? Had someone tiptoed in at night and welded them onto the vine as a joke?
Ask anyone who reads Austen habitually: you can think you’ve found every juicy bit of wit on every page, and then–egad! Next time you read, here’s a brand-new snort!
Well, there’s much more to love, of course. But that’s my short list for now. Permit me two footnotes and I’m done.
Dark subtext: One Consenter used this phrase, and I want to second it. Marrying off five daughters was not a matter of frivolity, despite Mrs. Bennet’s terminal silliness about it. Austen’s Sense and Sensibility makes a little clearer the fate of women who don’t own the roof over their heads. Mrs. B. could scream and squawk about Mr. Collins throwing them all out on the street after Mr. B’s demise–but it would have been entirely possible, and legal. What careers would be available then to gentle women of reduced circumstances? Not nursing. Not teaching. Governess only, a hired servant paid a pittance to attempt to educate the Lydias and the Kittys of a more fortunate family.
“Maybe I’m unromantic. . . .” One Consenter thought she might not have found Austen to her taste because she, the reader, may be unromantic. Ah, but that’s the key: Austen is not romantic! Though born in the Romantic era, she is definitely more in tune with the earlier Classical period, and it is the romantics, those with so-called “sensibility” (one definition thereof: “excessive sensitiveness in emotion and taste with especial responsiveness to the pathetic”) that she satirizes with such wicked wit. Elizabeth Bennet has all the normal human passions, but she refuses to let them make a fool of her.
On your dark subtext note, I’ve used your very example from S&S to show the hardships worked by the old law of entailment of estates to the male line, and have made that an entree in GD classes to examining various instances of the ill working of primogeniture (and the injustices effected thereby) in the OT.
Count me among the Austen fans (Elisabeth, are you reading this? (g))
Comment by Kevin Barney — June 27, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
In an age of the single entendre, where anyone with a brick wall, a mike and a 4 letter word is a comedian, Austen might be perceived as too elegant, complicated or even fussy. Twain once said something like fine writers are like wine, whereas he was like water. Everybody drinks water. Austen is a pinot noir (not that I’ve ever tasted one, just seen it in a movie).
Comment by Ed Snow — June 27, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
To be a bit more explicit, what I meant in #2 above is that I drink a lot of literary water, but I also savor a well written wine every now and then. Therefore, Austen is on my list.
Comment by Ed Snow — June 27, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
Elouise, I’m so glad you did your Austen post.
I completely agree with #2. I think Austen is a master satirist; her touch is deft, breathtaking, perfect. Jonathan Swift, for example, does not even come close. (This is why I would be terrified to meet the woman. I would not want to get on the wrong end of that formidable wit.)
I wonder if we miss #3 partly because of her subtlety–easy to focus on the happy ending and miss all of the ironic reversals and sly wry commentaries and social tragedies along the way.(?)
Comment by Eve — June 27, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
Yes, thanks for this!
Comment by s — June 27, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
So, I like Austen but I admittedly loved her in my high school days and like her now more in memory rather than based in the actual experience.
Is that because I am 1)dumb? 2)not at all witty? 3)slow on the draw? or 4) unromantic?
heh.
Comment by Amri — June 27, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
Amri, since I don’t believe literature is diagnostic (heck, I don’t believe diagnostic tests are diagnostic, a point of long, heartfelt debate between my psychologist husband and me) the answer is, in my book
(5) None of the above.
In other words, of course you’re s(1) smart (2) entirely witty (3) fast on the draw and (4) romantic.
!
Comment by Eve — June 27, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
Edgar: “The single entendre”–clap! clap! clap! How aptly you pinpoint the shortcomings of so many wanna-be’s!
Eve: Indeed, neither Austen nor Swift would be routinely comfortable dinner companions, especially if you crossed either. Yet according to the testimony of those who knew them well, both were wonderful friends.(What did Swift say? “I hate mankind but love Tom and Dick.” )
Amri: You like Austen more in memory;does that mean that though you read her now, the spark is gone? Or cooled? That’s an unusual response! I’ve always thought Austen was not the right stuff for high school students, except perhaps an AP group. But, I guess ’tis better to have loved and yawned than never to have, etc.
Comment by Elouise — June 27, 2006 @ 9:30 pm
My degree in Spanish means that I didn’t read anything “English” in college, but it affords me to pull out some interesting trump cards in the “what are you reading”, can-you-top-this queries from my wife’s literary friends.
My own summer reading consists of rereading “Las obras completas de Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz”, finishing (finally) RSR, and reading “La casa de los espÃritus” by Isabel Allende.
[Allende does interesting stuff, but she's still standing on the shoulders -- or the grave, be it that it may -- of her martyr uncle. I've read most of her other work, but never The House of Spirits. And, I feel it's cheating to read them in English.]
However, in honor of this post, and since I feel a little guilty for being so light on the English, I’m going to steal my wife’s copy of S&S and add it to my list.
Comment by queuno — June 27, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
Eloise
Thank you so much for your comment. I can only echo your comments.
the only thing i wish to add - and unfortunately my comment though not offensive but somewhat controversial - was removed from the summer reading post and i hope you do not do the same as i am merely stating my different opinion.
I took offense to the comment by the author that a progressive woman in todays day and age could not possibly like Austen.
I am not a progressive woman but rather a gay male - but am surrounded by high achieving progressing modern woman who challenge stereotypes everyday and yet…adore Austen. They see in her what you see…a wit and intelligence and a very progressive woman for her time.
I think we must be careful in todays modern world to not make the mistake of assuming a progressive woman is only one who completely rejects past traditions and values. For her time, Austen was an extremely intelligent and progressive woman who appears to have fooled even some ‘intelligent’ people today into thinking her writing supported oppressive social structures of the time. Ironically, Austen very cleverly mocked and attacked them. sublety and wisdom are often much more powerfool tools of the progressive woman than bravado and grand standing. Progressive woman can also embrace old fashioned ways along side and be the most influential progressive womem of our time. One of the most progressive woman i know who has achieved amazing feats internationally in a male dominated profession still sees her greatest challenge in life…not as running her international business or negotiating multimillion dollar deals or dealing with stereotypes that constantly challenge her or thwart her path but rather….the most traditional…having a child and raising it well….she sees that as her biggest life challenge and more fulfilling than any of the many career achievements, public movements, social obstacles and stereotypes she has defeated and feminist causes she has been involved in to date…interesting perspective!! Being a good mother and trying to raise a child well is what she shes as lifes biggest challenge and what she always worrys she will not be able to do the way she should…(and she likes a bit of romance after a heavy day in the office)..does this mean despite all her other achievements and because she LOVES Austen, that she is not a progressive woman who influences countless young woman and peers!!
Comment by paul — June 28, 2006 @ 8:50 am
Eve, you are generous. Sometimes. I. am. slow. on. the. draw.
That prolly has nothing to do with Jane Austen though.
Elouise, when I was in high school I couldn’t sleep til I finished Jane Austen novels. I’ve prolly read P&P 10 times. I loved J.A. so much. But as I’ve picked her up since, she hasn’t done as much for me, I definitely couldn’t stay up a whole night reading like I used to. I don’t know what happened.
Comment by Amri — June 28, 2006 @ 9:10 am
Yes, I am quite hilarious aren’t I?
You know, you Mormons should really appreciate my works… said Mark Twain of me:
He felt quite similarly about your Book of Mormon. A tough critic to be sure.
Comment by Jane Austen — June 28, 2006 @ 10:09 am
Just to be fussy, there are plenty of great writers of history who thought Austen’s work to be… quite unreadable, a huge bore.
Comment by D. Fletcher — June 28, 2006 @ 10:45 am
I agree with everything Elouise says above…
Count me among the Austen admirers. She’d make my short list of favorite authors ever. I’ve read P&P twice, as well as S&S, Persuasion, and Mansfield Park. I have not yet read Emma or Northanger Abbey, but I’m well-versed in their respective plots, characters, etc.
I’ve been met with raised eyebrows (by both women and men) when I’ve mentioned my admiration for Jane Austen. It seems in the past 10-15 years or so that women have co-opted Austen, to the point that she seems to belong to the fairer sex almost exclusively, like Oprah Winfrey or chocolate. Or has it always been this way? As for Oprah Winfrey or Bridget Jones (or Chick Lit in general) or Romantic Comedies… you can keep them for yourselves; but, speaking for the males of the species, can we please share Jane Austen?
Any other men out there feel the same? What about the women?
Comment by Matt Thurston — June 28, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
I didn’t read any Austen until after seeing the movie Clueless, which was a modern update of Emma. Since then I’ve read all of Austen’s novels, some of them twice. She has a wit that I find very appealing, and her characters work very well for me.
For Austen fans, I highly recommend the Jane Austen mysteries by Stephanie Barron. They are a series of books that purport to be journal entries and letters by Jane Austen, in which she solves murder mysteries. The books are filled with allusions to her novels, which makes them fun for those familiar with her works.
Comment by Eric James Stone — June 28, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
Love Austen.
Comment by Adam Greenwood — June 28, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
D. Fletcher–Ah yes, “even Homer nods,” as they say. (Homer = “great writers of history,” of course, not Austen, of course. )
Seriously, there’s no “of course” about any of it, is there? Two friends of mine, brilliant, wickedly witty, hugely well read, et al, cannot be paid to read Austen but rave about–wait for it–Alexander McCall Smith, as in Portuguese Irregular Verbs, which on their sayso I tried to finish and simply could not.
Austen wrote about what she knew. Since hers was the limited world of the genteel women of her day, her scope was not broad, and I can understand that some men may not enjoy her subject matter. What might she have satirized had she lived in our day?
But what in the world is this, Matt Thurston? MEN ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CHOCOLATE ADDICTION? I have never heard that before! I mean, personal preference in reading matter is one thing–but immune to chocolate? IS THIS TRUE, BRETHREN?
Comment by ElouiseBell — June 28, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
Glad to see I am not the only Austen-loving male on the Bloggernacle. But how many times have you heard a writer refered to as “he/she is like Jane Austen, for men”? I’ve heard that moniker applied to Patrick O’Brian, for one.
Elouise, men love chocolate too, but when I hear someone exclaim: “I LOVE CHOCOLATE!!!! I CAN’T LIVE WITHOUT IT!!!” — 9 times out of 10 that person is a woman. In other words, you women have appropriated chocolate addiction from us! To that list I’d add the VW Bug, the names “Hunter” or “Dakota” or “Bailey” or “Darcy”, the TV show “Friends”, and Ugg Boots.
Comment by Matt Thurston — June 28, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
Great post. I thoroughly enjoy Austen (subtle and witty dialogue reminds me of Shakespeare more than any other writer I can think of).
I’d be curious what Elouise and others here think about movie versions of Austen. My opinion is that of course they miss a lot of the brilliant subtleties in her work, but still make for very good film.
P.S. Count me as a male addicted to chocolate, at least of the very dark variety.
P.P.S. Thanks for the Swift quote in #4, it contrasts nicely with this Dostoevsky quote: “I have often come to making enthusiastic schemes for the service of humanity, and perhaps I might actually have faced crucifixion if it had been suddenly necessary; and yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone for two days . . . [I]t has always happened that the more I detest men individually the more ardent becomes my love for humanity.”
Comment by Robert C. — June 28, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
Count me as an Austen Fan. Definitely not “Chick Lit” and definitely not an upper case “R” Romantic. She reminds me a little of Mark Twain, actually, although I think she is a much better writer, especially in terms of economy, which was Samuel Clemens purported ideal - more time, shorter book, and all that.
Comment by Mark Butler — June 29, 2006 @ 12:40 am
LOL - awesome that my Summer Reading thread sparked so much controversy that it demanded a rebuttal
This is a great post - I love the part about the brand-new snorts!
Just for the record, I never said Jane Austen was a bad writer. I really do think she’s brilliant, incisive, and all the rest. She’s just not my cup of tea, so to speak.
Comment by ECS — June 29, 2006 @ 7:50 am
Mark, #20, Twain was often constrained by by the demands of the subscription book business which required a lot of padding–if you removed the padding from a couple of pieces you might very well be left with a pamphlet.
His shorter pieces are fairly economical (er, I guess that is an uncontested statement, but you know what I mean).
That said, I don’t think Austen wrote anything greater than Huck Finn, however. As flawed as Huck Finn might be with the beginning and ending of a child’s book slapped onto a very adult book in between, it is possibly still the best American novel ever produced–I think so, at least.
Comment by Ed Snow — June 29, 2006 @ 8:35 am
Elouise,
Your “wait for it” comment about Alexander McCall Smith smacks of a “you and I and every educated reader knows it’s trash” tone. How in the world could you not have finished a 128 page book that shows wit, oozes drollery and is frequently laugh out loud funny to anyone acquainted with the inbred and pompous world of academia?
There are lots of bad books in the world, there are few great ones. Just because McCall Smith’s books don’t fall into the latter category doesn’t mean they therefore must be part of the first.
Comment by KLC — June 29, 2006 @ 8:56 am
KLC, I didn’t catch even a whiff of trash talk in Elouise’s tone. In fact, she said her brilliant, witty, well-read friends–not her lumbering, dull, narrowly read friends, mind you–liked it.
For the record, I love Alexander McCall Smith, but I’d suggest that, in the name of pleasure in reading and civility in discussion, we all permit one another the right to dislike a bestseller without being thought a snob and to dislike a classic without being thought an oaf.
Comment by Eve — June 29, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
Good point, Eve. I remember in college at BYU, back in the days when the Seventh East Press was still in business (my, I am dating myself), I think it was Ron Priddis who published an editorial going after Homer and the Iliad as boring, stuffy, not worth all the attention paid to it/him, etc. I suspect he was just trying get a rise out of people. My classics major friends were outraged and ready to go on the warpath, but I took the view you so eloquently express at the end of your post.
Comment by Kevin Barney — June 29, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
Eve,
I don’t think I impugned the spirit of civility to say that Eloise’s throw-away phrase of “wait for it” gave me the impression she was appealing to a negative shared value judgement about Alexander McCall Smith.
I completely agree that “…we all permit one another the right to dislike a bestseller without being thought a snob and to dislike a classic without being thought an oaf.” Which is why I made my comment in the first place.
Comment by KLC — June 29, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
Ed Snow, I agree Huckleberry Finn is a true classic, although I last read it as a teenager, so perhaps I do not appreciate its true greatness. My general perception of it is despite the wonderful social commentary and satire it displays, it often appears to be rather sloppy in its construction - satirizing the adventure story itself as much as anything else.
I somewhat reluctantly agree it is probably the greatest American novel, though I think that Dickens and Austen are both better writers, at least in terms of the works they actually produced. Nothing else by Mark Twain impresses me very much.
Comment by Mark Butler — June 29, 2006 @ 7:09 pm
Two quick points:
1. A Jane Austen action figure does exist. And really, no mantle is complete without it.
2. I am deeply disappointed in Supergenius for his failure to point this out previously. Pop culture expert, indeed! I hope he has some good excuse for his dereliction of duty. (Frightened off by thread topic, perhaps?)
Comment by Kaimi — June 29, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
Mark #27, read Roughing It or Life on the Missippi. These longer works are worth reading. The Library of America collection of short works is also worth looking at.
Huck Finn should be read every couple of years–it’s my 5th gospel. It never fails to inspire, delight and intrigue (other than the tedious ending). The rest is for us Twainophiles probably.
Comment by Ed Snow — June 30, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
I enjoy reading Austen for her wit and satire. However, if I’m going to dive into the “wine” rather than the “water,” I much rather read Chopin or Fanny Fern, (Has anyone read Ruth Hall?) These women bent all the rules of the time and was, what I deem, to be truly progressive.
Having said this opinion, Paul’s comment has enlightened me, and perhaps I should re-read S&S, but please, no P&P.
Comment by jilopa — July 1, 2006 @ 8:37 am
The old movie of Pride and Prejudice (my favorite adaptation of the book) is coming on DVD, October 10.
Comment by D. Fletcher — July 4, 2006 @ 9:43 am
I’ve rarely laughed harder than I did at Book-a-Minute’s “ultra-condensation” of the collected works of Jane Austen here.
Comment by sharq — July 6, 2006 @ 3:05 pm