Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.51 AVERAGE
3.51 AVERAGE
Johnson examines the afterlife of Jane's influence--the campaign to make her gravesite in Winchester Cathedral a tourist destination (and the stained glass window no one really likes), the assembling of relics and the family's wave of memoirs in the 19th century and the creation of the Jane Austen House Museum in 1947. The two really interesting chapters, though, are on Jane Austen in WWI (where her works were read widely among the upper class officers, and reflected in the Kipling story "The Janeites," which I had never encountered before and had to seek out) and in WWII (attracting much wider following because of cheap paperbacks distributed to troops, many of whom loved the male characters and the vision of England standing alone against Napoleon, as well as the Americans who liked the recent movie with Laurence Olivier). Just as a note, some mindful book designer added end papers textured like ostrich skin.
I had to stop. I just had too. Mainly because I just read a ridiculously long paragraph about spoons. Yes you read that right. SPOONS. WTF do spoons have to do with Jane Austen?? I read the paragraph twice and I still have NO IDEA!
This entire book has been a complete struggle for me. I'm sure the author knows her shit and totally knows Jane Austen but she is seriously lacking when it comes to relating that material in a succinct and animated way. Every paragraph was the length of 2-4 paragraphs in any other book - EVEN SCHOLARLY ONES. the vocabulary was if she where writing with a thesaurus in her lap. I mean why use a 1-2 syllable word when you can use an obscure 4-5 syllable word?!? And a third of this book has been references to others writing on Jane Austen and most of the reflections about those writings were snide and degrading.
Im sorry but any book that takes something I am obsessed with, enjoy, and love and turns it into a boring chore that I am begging to be done with is a disservice to that love.
This entire book has been a complete struggle for me. I'm sure the author knows her shit and totally knows Jane Austen but she is seriously lacking when it comes to relating that material in a succinct and animated way. Every paragraph was the length of 2-4 paragraphs in any other book - EVEN SCHOLARLY ONES. the vocabulary was if she where writing with a thesaurus in her lap. I mean why use a 1-2 syllable word when you can use an obscure 4-5 syllable word?!? And a third of this book has been references to others writing on Jane Austen and most of the reflections about those writings were snide and degrading.
Im sorry but any book that takes something I am obsessed with, enjoy, and love and turns it into a boring chore that I am begging to be done with is a disservice to that love.
Having just finished this book, I cannot but mourn the afterword of this otherwise interesting and informative book. In her last pages, Johnson is so negative about screen adaptations and other modern Austenian paraphernalia, and speaks in such discriminatory tones of fans of the television series and films that it left a bad taste in my mouth. In the other chapters, she provides a wealth of information on Austen's stature throughout the ages and zooms in on interesting artifacts and critical works. But in her introduction and afterword, she comes forward as a Janeite herself, and one that is very haughty considering her status as a reader and editor of Austen's works. Pity, really.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
I've had the pleasure of reviewing this book: Looser, Devoney. “The State of the Union of Jane Austen, Fact and Fiction” (Review essay). Los Angeles Review of Books (27 Jan 2013): n. pag. Web. http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?id=1349.
Like any collection of essays written over a long period, the essays here are very uneven in quality and interest for the general reader, even a Janeite reader. I found the essays on magic and fairies (and fairy tales) unreadable and the essays on Austen's body and Austen's house to be fascinating. The WWI and WWII essays were interesting reviews of Kipling's story and other Jane-centered writing as they contributed to the culture of Britain at the time, but I wasn't enthralled. Johnson's writing shows here background as an American academic steeped in the language and thinking of the late 20th century humanities; I could wish for clearer organization and insights, fewer syllables, and shorter sentences. Since Jane Austen is perfectly readable with much the same afflictions (due to the language of the early 19th century), I can't criticize too much. I find very different things in Jane Austen than does Johnson, but that's the beauty and wonder of her writing, as Johnson points out, and why she has become a saint (with relics) in the religion of everyday life.