Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.88 AVERAGE
3.88 AVERAGE
adventurous
challenging
dark
funny
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
This is a brilliant read about the real meanings behind Austen's books. As a huge fan of her work I was apprehensive about what I might learn and what it could ruin. However, it made me appreciate her writing, wit, politics & humour even more. I've always thought her books were deeper than we understood and this book takes you beat through beat on how they are. Sometimes the points are laboured hence my 4 stars instead of 5. I recommend this to any Austen sceptics & fans alike. But be warned that it examines the "romances" of her works and sheds new light which may make for uncomfortable reading. It gave me a deeper appreciation for her work & Pride & Prejudice, a favourite of mine, comes off better than I'd have thought
As other reviewers have pointed out in varying degrees, this book is a problematic voice for Austen, from its tone, its imaginary section, and less-than-innovative ideas.
There are also flaws in the arguments - the beginning of her argument about Mansfield Park centres around the oddness that it has a location as a title, conveniently forgetting Northanger Abbey . Kelly uses the literary allusions in the novels to date their creation, then proceeds to call the references in the unfinished Sanditon outdated. Perhaps most controversially, she essentially accuses Austen's family of killing her.
Many of the arguments are weak, forgetting in many cases the flow of the plot, not backing ideas with enough textual analysis, Persuasion in particular. The Pride and Prejudice section is a nice little capsule, however, a good piece of detective work into turn-of-the-century manners.
There are also flaws in the arguments - the beginning of her argument about Mansfield Park centres around the oddness that it has a location as a title, conveniently forgetting Northanger Abbey . Kelly uses the literary allusions in the novels to date their creation, then proceeds to call the references in the unfinished Sanditon outdated. Perhaps most controversially, she essentially accuses Austen's family of killing her.
Many of the arguments are weak, forgetting in many cases the flow of the plot, not backing ideas with enough textual analysis, Persuasion in particular. The Pride and Prejudice section is a nice little capsule, however, a good piece of detective work into turn-of-the-century manners.
Kelly's work made me feel really excited about reading, Austen, and literary criticism. As a person who is very interested in theology, this book reminded me of studying the bible and trying to understand historical context and deeper meaning. While not completely convinced by all of her conclusions, it made me think about the historic settings of classic novels, and it was a blast to read. I sped through 3 (50-page) chapters in a day. I could have done without the fictionalized accounts of Jane Austen's life in the beginning of her chapters, but otherwise it was well written.
More 4.5 stars but a very good read
If you are a fan of Jane Austen because you like the books as light, diverting romances that warn of the perils of money and morality, AND you really don't want that opinion shaken, this book is not for you.
However if you're like me and you've read all Jane Austen's work both with pleasure and with a certain inexplicable frustration, then give this ago. Secret Radical helped nudge me in the direction I needed to go in to fully enjoy Austen's work. So much so that at times you feel almost as if you are reading a codex for an ancient text in a long dead language. The Da Vinci code has nothing on this!
Helena Kelly put it best when she referred to Austen as a miniturist with every almost invisible stroke mattering and contributing to the whole. Once you really take that on board and start looking at the context of the books in their time, it's like pulling open a secret drawer in a dresser. I'd always felt that Jane Austen's work was political but I couldn't entirely access why. As sarcastic and irreverant and occadionally daringly reckless as she is in her work, access this lower layer and you realise how small your reading was.
Anyone a Chaucer fan? I remember as a child reading the knight's tale and thinking it was inconsistent with historical fact. This was the first inkling I'd had that author's might say one thing while cleverly leading you to see they mean something else entirely. This is the same.
On the surface Jane Austen's six published novels are romances although not necessarily happy ones. But what are the real themes behind them embodied both by the story and the characters?
Well for Jane Austen's contemporaries - when you could be imprisoned for writing anything which seemed to criticise the church or the government, it's pretty damning stuff.
Here's two examples;
I had never understood why exactly I wasn't that fond of Emma and yet I kept returning over and over again to Mansfield Park when I really didn't like Fanny Price that much.
The reason is the deep rooted underlying themes situated in both. Not just situated but buried in every phrase, folded around every scene. It's pervasive and inescapable and yet subtle enough that we with 200 yrs standing between us and the author, have missed the point entirely.
I'd always found Emma to be uncomfortablt claustrophobic, a weird reaction given how much time is spent in the book outside in gardens, on picnics, walking to the village. But the answer is obvious. Emma is about the enclousure act that removed the right of commoning and prevented the poor from subsidising their livlihoods gleaming food from the common land. Once you see one description of a hedge or barrier you realise just how many their are. Without ever cominv right out and saying it Austen is showing her readers just what the consequences of parceling up the land in order to swell the coffers of the rich whilst making no provision to aid the poor who became even poorer and desperate with it. No wonder I found it claustrophobic. It is literally about being shut in and enclosed.
Mansfield Park? A book so risky that of all Jane's novels it was never reviewed? It's all about slavery and the corruption of the Church of England who at that time owned slaves in America and Haiti etc Does that sound far fetched? I invite you to read up on it. I'd known some of it and I was shocked. In fact reread the novel and look how often Austen calls the themes of slavery, oppression, emancipation and corruption to mind. At the time of writing England was congratulating itself on having banned slavery in the British Isles. This allowed a platform of if not morally dubious at least selectively forgetful behaviour since Britain still took imports produced by slave labour, many wealthy families owed their wealth to their foreign plantations, the C of E was actually endorsing slavery with propaganda so absurd it would be funny if it wasn't sould destroying. The reasi this book kept calling me back was because it's underlying message was don't pretend you can't see. seek the truth.
The other examples are just as illuminating.
While I found myself coming to many of the same conclusions as Kelly, I was drawn up short by her view of certain heros. Not because I needed them untouched abd unquestioned but because I felt that some of her connections were too tenuous. In other instances either Kelky did not follow links to their logical cinclusion or like Austen herself was asking us to draw our own conclusions.
Overall though I really enjoyed this and plan to reread all Austen's books to compare.
If you are a fan of Jane Austen because you like the books as light, diverting romances that warn of the perils of money and morality, AND you really don't want that opinion shaken, this book is not for you.
However if you're like me and you've read all Jane Austen's work both with pleasure and with a certain inexplicable frustration, then give this ago. Secret Radical helped nudge me in the direction I needed to go in to fully enjoy Austen's work. So much so that at times you feel almost as if you are reading a codex for an ancient text in a long dead language. The Da Vinci code has nothing on this!
Helena Kelly put it best when she referred to Austen as a miniturist with every almost invisible stroke mattering and contributing to the whole. Once you really take that on board and start looking at the context of the books in their time, it's like pulling open a secret drawer in a dresser. I'd always felt that Jane Austen's work was political but I couldn't entirely access why. As sarcastic and irreverant and occadionally daringly reckless as she is in her work, access this lower layer and you realise how small your reading was.
Anyone a Chaucer fan? I remember as a child reading the knight's tale and thinking it was inconsistent with historical fact. This was the first inkling I'd had that author's might say one thing while cleverly leading you to see they mean something else entirely. This is the same.
On the surface Jane Austen's six published novels are romances although not necessarily happy ones. But what are the real themes behind them embodied both by the story and the characters?
Well for Jane Austen's contemporaries - when you could be imprisoned for writing anything which seemed to criticise the church or the government, it's pretty damning stuff.
Here's two examples;
I had never understood why exactly I wasn't that fond of Emma and yet I kept returning over and over again to Mansfield Park when I really didn't like Fanny Price that much.
The reason is the deep rooted underlying themes situated in both. Not just situated but buried in every phrase, folded around every scene. It's pervasive and inescapable and yet subtle enough that we with 200 yrs standing between us and the author, have missed the point entirely.
I'd always found Emma to be uncomfortablt claustrophobic, a weird reaction given how much time is spent in the book outside in gardens, on picnics, walking to the village. But the answer is obvious. Emma is about the enclousure act that removed the right of commoning and prevented the poor from subsidising their livlihoods gleaming food from the common land. Once you see one description of a hedge or barrier you realise just how many their are. Without ever cominv right out and saying it Austen is showing her readers just what the consequences of parceling up the land in order to swell the coffers of the rich whilst making no provision to aid the poor who became even poorer and desperate with it. No wonder I found it claustrophobic. It is literally about being shut in and enclosed.
Mansfield Park? A book so risky that of all Jane's novels it was never reviewed? It's all about slavery and the corruption of the Church of England who at that time owned slaves in America and Haiti etc Does that sound far fetched? I invite you to read up on it. I'd known some of it and I was shocked. In fact reread the novel and look how often Austen calls the themes of slavery, oppression, emancipation and corruption to mind. At the time of writing England was congratulating itself on having banned slavery in the British Isles. This allowed a platform of if not morally dubious at least selectively forgetful behaviour since Britain still took imports produced by slave labour, many wealthy families owed their wealth to their foreign plantations, the C of E was actually endorsing slavery with propaganda so absurd it would be funny if it wasn't sould destroying. The reasi this book kept calling me back was because it's underlying message was don't pretend you can't see. seek the truth.
The other examples are just as illuminating.
While I found myself coming to many of the same conclusions as Kelly, I was drawn up short by her view of certain heros. Not because I needed them untouched abd unquestioned but because I felt that some of her connections were too tenuous. In other instances either Kelky did not follow links to their logical cinclusion or like Austen herself was asking us to draw our own conclusions.
Overall though I really enjoyed this and plan to reread all Austen's books to compare.
4 stars for pure enjoyment and an interesting argument about how the world has misread Jane Austen's books.
Whilst I did not always agree with the author and I do think she was reaching in some instances (the scissors incident in S&S comes to mind), I think it is a valuable addition to any fan of Austen. Austen seems to be often put down and trivialised by the so-called heavy-weights and this book goes a way to showing why this is a massive disservice to skeptics. There is more to her writing than genteel romance with some social commentary thrown in on the insular live of the middle classes at the turn of the 18th-19th century.
However, those that came to reading this due to the marketing around the book that not only was it a massive departure of conventional discussion but a revelation will be disappointed. Much discussed here has been in the discourse for a long time; what comes to mind foremost is that of Mansfield Park in the context of slavery. Where it really does shine though is the way Kelly builds her case - she really does present her case well and the frequent use and variety of external evidence to build on her points are effectively deployed. The chapters on Sense and Sensibility and Emma are particular highlights, and the author does a good job of tracing hints in the novels of Austen's subtle criticisms of the church.
Of course, there are also some quite out there interpretations of her works, which did not always convince me despite Kelly's conviction. I (usually) enjoyed reading about them all the same even when I completely disagreed, some of which has also been discussed in other reviews (e.g. the cabinet scene is a metaphor of female masturbation? Fanny's father maybe molested her sisters because of.. I'm not really sure? Apparently because he hugged his daughter after not seeing her for years/Fanny's sisters share a knife? Edward Ferrars and his supposed sexual violence on Lucy Steele because he cuts up the scissor sheaf? Harriet Smith and Jane Fairfax are half-sisters?)
Further, like other readers have noted here, the author's strange narrative decision to include fictional excerpts of Jane Austen's life at the beginning of each chapter seemed a bit out of place. It did not really add anything either. It is odd but the vignettes are thankfully short-lived and it does not take long to get reabsorbed in the content.
Despite these flaws, I really enjoyed reading this book and it definitely achieved its mission statement: I now really want a reread of all Austen's novels.
Whilst I did not always agree with the author and I do think she was reaching in some instances (the scissors incident in S&S comes to mind), I think it is a valuable addition to any fan of Austen. Austen seems to be often put down and trivialised by the so-called heavy-weights and this book goes a way to showing why this is a massive disservice to skeptics. There is more to her writing than genteel romance with some social commentary thrown in on the insular live of the middle classes at the turn of the 18th-19th century.
However, those that came to reading this due to the marketing around the book that not only was it a massive departure of conventional discussion but a revelation will be disappointed. Much discussed here has been in the discourse for a long time; what comes to mind foremost is that of Mansfield Park in the context of slavery. Where it really does shine though is the way Kelly builds her case - she really does present her case well and the frequent use and variety of external evidence to build on her points are effectively deployed. The chapters on Sense and Sensibility and Emma are particular highlights, and the author does a good job of tracing hints in the novels of Austen's subtle criticisms of the church.
Of course, there are also some quite out there interpretations of her works, which did not always convince me despite Kelly's conviction. I (usually) enjoyed reading about them all the same even when I completely disagreed, some of which has also been discussed in other reviews (e.g. the cabinet scene is a metaphor of female masturbation? Fanny's father maybe molested her sisters because of.. I'm not really sure? Apparently because he hugged his daughter after not seeing her for years/Fanny's sisters share a knife? Edward Ferrars and his supposed sexual violence on Lucy Steele because he cuts up the scissor sheaf? Harriet Smith and Jane Fairfax are half-sisters?)
Further, like other readers have noted here, the author's strange narrative decision to include fictional excerpts of Jane Austen's life at the beginning of each chapter seemed a bit out of place. It did not really add anything either. It is odd but the vignettes are thankfully short-lived and it does not take long to get reabsorbed in the content.
Despite these flaws, I really enjoyed reading this book and it definitely achieved its mission statement: I now really want a reread of all Austen's novels.
I read the first chapter or so then dismissed the author as prizing her own agenda over scholarship.
I'm really torn as to where I should put this book, and think I'll probably continue to be. Bits of the insight are really useful - Emma through the eyes of enclosure is very interesting, and I've had cemented other parts of the other novels. But it's written oddly, and structured strangely, and I can't help but notice that the majority of these arguments would have been picked apart if I'd handed them in as part of a tute essay - nothing is quite backed up enough. Still, I had fun.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.5 stars
I enjoyed this book a great deal. While I never looked at Austen's work as being "simply romances" and certainly saw subversiveness and a great deal of humor at the expense of period norms in those books of Austen's that I've read, Kelly takes it much, much deeper. I can't say she convinced me on everything but a great deal of what she had to say about the novels, their historical context, and how the ideas in them might have looked to readers when they were first published was interesting and made me thing about the works in new ways.
I enjoyed this book a great deal. While I never looked at Austen's work as being "simply romances" and certainly saw subversiveness and a great deal of humor at the expense of period norms in those books of Austen's that I've read, Kelly takes it much, much deeper. I can't say she convinced me on everything but a great deal of what she had to say about the novels, their historical context, and how the ideas in them might have looked to readers when they were first published was interesting and made me thing about the works in new ways.