Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.88 AVERAGE
3.88 AVERAGE
I first read Pride & Prejudice in my late teens and Persuasion in my early 20s. For those brief years, I could only see what everyone else saw in her novels. Light. Fun. Fluffy.
Then I read her letters to her sister, Cassandra.
Since reading the letters, I've had a hard time reconciling Jane as a woman and author with the light, fluffy stories I was meant to find in her books. It simply didn't add up.
I don't remember how I stumbled on this book. It was probably a Goodreads reccomendation. However path led me here, I thank my lucky stars I decided to read this book.
It not only helped me put Jane's work in the right contemporary (to Austen) context, but compelled me to read the novels I hadn't read yet. When reading these novels (and revisiting my old favorites), I found a different Jane Austen than the one I was told I'd find. Caustically sarcastic and sharp to the point of being surgical. In short: a Jane Austen I not only recognize from her personal letters, but also one I can relate to and adore!
The book also offers interesting insights into the symbolism hidden within the books and some insight into what these symbols might have meant to Austen and her intended audience.
Lastly, the main lesson I learned from this book can be ssummarized in this quote: "Forget the Jane Austen you think you know. (...) Read Jane's novels. They are there to speak for her".
4.5☆
Then I read her letters to her sister, Cassandra.
Since reading the letters, I've had a hard time reconciling Jane as a woman and author with the light, fluffy stories I was meant to find in her books. It simply didn't add up.
I don't remember how I stumbled on this book. It was probably a Goodreads reccomendation. However path led me here, I thank my lucky stars I decided to read this book.
It not only helped me put Jane's work in the right contemporary (to Austen) context, but compelled me to read the novels I hadn't read yet. When reading these novels (and revisiting my old favorites), I found a different Jane Austen than the one I was told I'd find. Caustically sarcastic and sharp to the point of being surgical. In short: a Jane Austen I not only recognize from her personal letters, but also one I can relate to and adore!
The book also offers interesting insights into the symbolism hidden within the books and some insight into what these symbols might have meant to Austen and her intended audience.
Lastly, the main lesson I learned from this book can be ssummarized in this quote: "Forget the Jane Austen you think you know. (...) Read Jane's novels. They are there to speak for her".
4.5☆
3.5 stars
Radical writer – but is it truly Jane? Yes, Jane is but not this conspiracy theory radical as written. I know for sure who could be - it’s this author. The material is worth wading through but some of it goes beyond the pale. The author wants me to think, think exceptional hard and way outside the box. But she also wants me to suspend my belief and core values of Jane – at least she acknowledges that she intends to persuade me to get out of my Jane Austen comfort zone. However, I can not make the leaps offered, and they are tempting. This would make an awesome movie – think along the lines of Anonymous – the movie of all the Shakespeare theories. Excellent movie but can’t be taken at face value.
She makes some good and interesting (and disturbing) points and I love the history of life in Jane Austen’s time – that’s worth the price of admission for this book. I love the amount of attention she gave to my favorite - Mansfield Park.
Read it but keep one foot on the ground. I might buy this book because it's damn interesting and if anything, I will floor the casual Jane Austen observer with the speculations.
Radical writer – but is it truly Jane? Yes, Jane is but not this conspiracy theory radical as written. I know for sure who could be - it’s this author. The material is worth wading through but some of it goes beyond the pale. The author wants me to think, think exceptional hard and way outside the box. But she also wants me to suspend my belief and core values of Jane – at least she acknowledges that she intends to persuade me to get out of my Jane Austen comfort zone. However, I can not make the leaps offered, and they are tempting. This would make an awesome movie – think along the lines of Anonymous – the movie of all the Shakespeare theories. Excellent movie but can’t be taken at face value.
She makes some good and interesting (and disturbing) points and I love the history of life in Jane Austen’s time – that’s worth the price of admission for this book. I love the amount of attention she gave to my favorite - Mansfield Park.
Read it but keep one foot on the ground. I might buy this book because it's damn interesting and if anything, I will floor the casual Jane Austen observer with the speculations.
I learned so much from this book. That is a fact that I had to state because going into this book you have to be prepared not for a light read but an actual educational experience. This book and the very detailed research that Helena Kelly did adds a whole new depth to the classic books that Jane Austen wrote. As someone who has read some but not all of the novels by Jane Austen and enjoyed them, this book final confirmed to me that there was something deeper to these stories. Austen like many an author was making a commentary on her surroundings and as a woman there was a lot to say. Without giving too much away this book dived into the context of the novels Austen wrote, the references to other literature, political figures, and events of the early 19th century, and the deeper themes the novels contained. Of course, Kelly does acknowledge the romances, but as with any novel there is always more. Please if you like Austen but want to see beyond the surface of sweeping romances and twisting plots give this book a read!
3.5 stars. Kelly brings up some interesting points on each of Jane Austen’s novels which ranged utterly thought provoking to completely far fetched. I’m not sure I buy some of her wider arguments, and it’s a bit too much of “literary” picking apart/criticism that can be pretty subjective. Some of her throwaway comments are a little strange for an academic too.
The strongest chapters were on Pride and Prejudice, Emma, and Persuasion-mainly the ones on class. The Mansfield Park chapter is particularly notable, while her observations/points can be interesting, I’m not sure I agree with her overall argument.
The strongest chapters were on Pride and Prejudice, Emma, and Persuasion-mainly the ones on class. The Mansfield Park chapter is particularly notable, while her observations/points can be interesting, I’m not sure I agree with her overall argument.
My cup of (over-)analytical tea, or what one could call a gripping read. Mini-me would have had A LOT of fun with this book in English class back in the day. Points for the structure and the writing, which was far from dull and dry.
I kind of didn't want it to end, and would have actually liked a deeper delve into some of the author's interpretations of JA's writing - especially since they seem a tiny bit far-fetched in some parts, which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. JA's books are surely the sum of a lot more than just the angles the author chose to base her analysis on, which is kind of the point, since they are definitely more than the one-dimensional feel-good romances they are widely and ignorantly thought to be. (Many film adaptions are nothing short of cringeworthy, thanks in part to the lack of meaningful female representation in the directorial departments. Aaaanyway...)
We don't, as the author stresses, actually know a whole lot about JA's persona let alone her thought and writing process, so you might as well be bold with your assumptions, right? Well, maybe.
Any book can be interpreted in myriad ways, but it definitely always helps to unterstand the historical context it was written in.
Even if JA herself might not have intended her books as social criticism per se, they still reveal quite a lot more about the lives, opinions and perspectives of (some) women of her time - which is a hell of a lot more than I've ever learned in any history book.
I kind of didn't want it to end, and would have actually liked a deeper delve into some of the author's interpretations of JA's writing - especially since they seem a tiny bit far-fetched in some parts, which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. JA's books are surely the sum of a lot more than just the angles the author chose to base her analysis on, which is kind of the point, since they are definitely more than the one-dimensional feel-good romances they are widely and ignorantly thought to be. (Many film adaptions are nothing short of cringeworthy, thanks in part to the lack of meaningful female representation in the directorial departments. Aaaanyway...)
We don't, as the author stresses, actually know a whole lot about JA's persona let alone her thought and writing process, so you might as well be bold with your assumptions, right? Well, maybe.
Any book can be interpreted in myriad ways, but it definitely always helps to unterstand the historical context it was written in.
Even if JA herself might not have intended her books as social criticism per se, they still reveal quite a lot more about the lives, opinions and perspectives of (some) women of her time - which is a hell of a lot more than I've ever learned in any history book.
Fellow Janites, I fear we have been reading our dear Miss Austen's books all wrong! We've been missing important themes and deeper meanings.
The problem is, we rarely have the background that Jane's "first readers" (i.e., those contemporaneous to her) would have had. I mean, how many of us have read Ann Radcliffe's work? Fanny Burney? Maria Edgeworth? I haven't, and I took a Master's degree in English Lit. My European history is a bit shaky, too... but Jane's earliest readers would have been living it.
Fortunately, we have Helena Kelly, professor of classics and English literature at Oxford, and her wonderful book, Jane Austen, the Secret Radical. I learned so much from reading this book, so much that I've missed in Austen's work. For instance, Pride and Prejudice isn't just the model for "boy-meets-girl-they-hate-each-other-then-fall-in-love" romances. It's about breaking social barriers--or rather, ignoring social barriers. It's about the fears conjured up by the militias being billeted in towns around the country: fear of invasion, fear of revolution and revolt, fear of tyranny. It is, in short, about politics.
Kelly has opened my eyes to the true genius of Austen, and I am so happy that I purchased this book for my own library.
The problem is, we rarely have the background that Jane's "first readers" (i.e., those contemporaneous to her) would have had. I mean, how many of us have read Ann Radcliffe's work? Fanny Burney? Maria Edgeworth? I haven't, and I took a Master's degree in English Lit. My European history is a bit shaky, too... but Jane's earliest readers would have been living it.
Fortunately, we have Helena Kelly, professor of classics and English literature at Oxford, and her wonderful book, Jane Austen, the Secret Radical. I learned so much from reading this book, so much that I've missed in Austen's work. For instance, Pride and Prejudice isn't just the model for "boy-meets-girl-they-hate-each-other-then-fall-in-love" romances. It's about breaking social barriers--or rather, ignoring social barriers. It's about the fears conjured up by the militias being billeted in towns around the country: fear of invasion, fear of revolution and revolt, fear of tyranny. It is, in short, about politics.
Kelly has opened my eyes to the true genius of Austen, and I am so happy that I purchased this book for my own library.
A DNF for me sadly. Whilst obviously thoroughly researched, I got frustrated with the author's conviction in her own interpretation of Austen's work. Having warned the reader about how little is known about Jane and her intentions, she then spends the remainder of the book second-guessing authorial intent and inserting fictionalised scenes of Jane's life that might have prompted her novels. To me this just undermined the many good points that the book was making and eventually it frustrated me to the point where I just didn't want to continue. Other Austen fans might feel differently as this is certainly very well written and contains much that is of interest - but eventually I just lost the will to finish it I'm afraid.
I found it surprising and perhaps a bit disappointing that having speant the best part of 311 pages arguing that Austen's novels are NOT lovestories in the penultimate sentence Kelly recants in passing. I've never read these as love stories apart from maybe when I was 15 and had no "romance genre" under my belt to compare them to.
I liked the discussion in each chapter (better than the fanciful scenes at the beginning of each) but I wasn't sure how far to buy into it. The claim (for example) that Edward Ferrars cutting up a scissors' sheath is symbolic of sexual violence smacks of Freud and psychoanalysis (Sigmund was not born until decades after Jane died). I very much liked Austen's spinsterhood being to some degree reclaimed as independence rather than tragedy and the insight into things like "Aunt Jane" having to pay for that independence by babysitting for all family members all the time. I also loved the character assassinations on all the male romantic leads of every novel (when I read the wry and wicked Austin I can't be sure she did not mean to paint them all blackguards).
I'll leave it to Jane Austen experts to assess whether anything in this book makes sense to them. Apart from a few contradictions (the most staggering one the one I just pointed out) this was an enjoyable read.
I liked the discussion in each chapter (better than the fanciful scenes at the beginning of each) but I wasn't sure how far to buy into it. The claim (for example) that Edward Ferrars cutting up a scissors' sheath is symbolic of sexual violence smacks of Freud and psychoanalysis (Sigmund was not born until decades after Jane died). I very much liked Austen's spinsterhood being to some degree reclaimed as independence rather than tragedy and the insight into things like "Aunt Jane" having to pay for that independence by babysitting for all family members all the time. I also loved the character assassinations on all the male romantic leads of every novel (when I read the wry and wicked Austin I can't be sure she did not mean to paint them all blackguards).
I'll leave it to Jane Austen experts to assess whether anything in this book makes sense to them. Apart from a few contradictions (the most staggering one the one I just pointed out) this was an enjoyable read.
4.5
I loved this. I had a few issues with how it is organized and at times the text meanders. There was too much emphasis given to some points that were a bit far-fetched. HOWEVER, this is such a close and detailed look at Austen's novels. It gave me completely new ways to view certain aspects of her books. It doesn't matter so much if Austen intended all the things Kelly claims, but she has solid arguments for a great many points I have never considered before. There is a criticism that this book over analyzes Austen's writings and it does, but I don't find it to be a negative thing. Books ultimately belong to their readers and there are many valid interpretations to Austen's works. Kelly takes some liberties with her conclusions, but there are too many coincidences in some instances to not have been at least partially Austen's intention.
The most important point of this book? Jane was an intentional writer. She wasn't sloppy. Her books are not just fluffy romances* and I want to shove /this/ book into the hands of anyone who claims they have no depth. Austen's novels are full of social commentary and Kelly illustrates how much you can uncover from each story.
*Romance is a perfectly valid genre of its own, but Austen's novels are not romance. If they were, she did a terrible job because the happy ever afters are never entirely happy. If you read them as romance, they seem empty, which isn't what romance novels are.
I loved this. I had a few issues with how it is organized and at times the text meanders. There was too much emphasis given to some points that were a bit far-fetched. HOWEVER, this is such a close and detailed look at Austen's novels. It gave me completely new ways to view certain aspects of her books. It doesn't matter so much if Austen intended all the things Kelly claims, but she has solid arguments for a great many points I have never considered before. There is a criticism that this book over analyzes Austen's writings and it does, but I don't find it to be a negative thing. Books ultimately belong to their readers and there are many valid interpretations to Austen's works. Kelly takes some liberties with her conclusions, but there are too many coincidences in some instances to not have been at least partially Austen's intention.
The most important point of this book? Jane was an intentional writer. She wasn't sloppy. Her books are not just fluffy romances* and I want to shove /this/ book into the hands of anyone who claims they have no depth. Austen's novels are full of social commentary and Kelly illustrates how much you can uncover from each story.
*Romance is a perfectly valid genre of its own, but Austen's novels are not romance. If they were, she did a terrible job because the happy ever afters are never entirely happy. If you read them as romance, they seem empty, which isn't what romance novels are.
informative
medium-paced
Content Warnings
Minor: Chronic illness, Confinement, Death, Miscarriage, Racism, Slavery, Religious bigotry, Abortion, Pregnancy