Scan barcode
theknitgeek's review against another edition
5.0
Helena Kelly gives us an in-depth and intriguing look at the life of Jane Austen; how her surroundings, circumstances, and experiences might have shaped her opinions; and what her contemporary readers would have known that we, as future readers, are no longer aware of. Together, it shapes a compelling narrative of Austen as a radical, secret only with the passage of time. I highly recommend the audio version. The narrator, Emma Bering, brings the biographical sketches at the beginning of each chapter to life in a way that would be missed reading it on paper/screen (especially if you, like me, are American and can't read in a lovely British accent).
I think this is the first time I've given nonfiction five stars. This book definitely warrants it.
I think this is the first time I've given nonfiction five stars. This book definitely warrants it.
exlibrislynne's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
relaxing
medium-paced
5.0
mlirwin's review against another edition
5.0
A really amazing read. Kelly is now and forever my go to for anything relating to Jane Austen, her work and even the Regency period in England. The books offers a clear analysis of works that are well known, like Pride and Prejudice; and works that are less known, like Northanger Abbey. The amount of knowledge in this book is so finely woken and firmly packed, that the book should weight 100lbs rather than the 296 pages it ends up being.
The writing itself can seem to go on and the sentences run on and on, seemingly with no point. Kelly packs so much information into a sentence that it can be hard to remember what the original point was.
Kelly does a good job of understanding Jane Austen through what we know, mostly by deeply analysing her books, but references letters, books and reviews to understand the context of Jane's works. It's honestly the only way I think I could appreciate her works today, through this deep understanding of context. Makes the movies more interesting too.
The writing itself can seem to go on and the sentences run on and on, seemingly with no point. Kelly packs so much information into a sentence that it can be hard to remember what the original point was.
Kelly does a good job of understanding Jane Austen through what we know, mostly by deeply analysing her books, but references letters, books and reviews to understand the context of Jane's works. It's honestly the only way I think I could appreciate her works today, through this deep understanding of context. Makes the movies more interesting too.
nanvdand's review against another edition
4.0
My daughter gave me this book for Christmas because she knows that Jane Austen is my favorite author. Full disclosure - I have read all of Miss Austen’s books just once with the exception of P&P which I have read twice. And I read them several years ago and so my memory of plots and characters have faded. Each chapter of this book is devoted to one of Miss Austen’s books and describes what the author believes to be Miss Austen’s point she was trying to make. While some points are clearly conjecture, most of them have merit based on what historians know about Jane Austen.
An added bonus of reading this book was that I learned a lot about the common thinking and norms of Britain during the late 1700s and early 1800s. This helped me to better appreciate and understand some of the other classic British novels I have read. Topics such as abortion, slavery, the role of the church, unfairness of inheritance laws, and infidelity are all covered aptly.
I now have a significantly better appreciation for who Jane Austen was. And I will definitely read through Jane’s books with a more careful eye.
This may not be fair, but the reason I gave this book a 4 rather than a 5 is that, while interesting, it was not riveting for me. I read it with my morning coffee and then put it aside for more intriguing books. But all in all, I am a smarter person for having read it.
An added bonus of reading this book was that I learned a lot about the common thinking and norms of Britain during the late 1700s and early 1800s. This helped me to better appreciate and understand some of the other classic British novels I have read. Topics such as abortion, slavery, the role of the church, unfairness of inheritance laws, and infidelity are all covered aptly.
I now have a significantly better appreciation for who Jane Austen was. And I will definitely read through Jane’s books with a more careful eye.
This may not be fair, but the reason I gave this book a 4 rather than a 5 is that, while interesting, it was not riveting for me. I read it with my morning coffee and then put it aside for more intriguing books. But all in all, I am a smarter person for having read it.
marylandgeorgia's review against another edition
4.0
Very good, I can't say I agreed with everything, but I don't have to to enjoy a book.
I wouldn't recommend the audio version. Why didn't they get an English person to read?
I wouldn't recommend the audio version. Why didn't they get an English person to read?
teresathistle's review against another edition
2.0
It's unbelievable how many factual errors there are in this book - did nobody edit it? Kelly refers to the title of Earl as rare, there being only a "handful" of them in England, despite there being 191 earls today, excluding courtesy titels. Why not look up how many there are before making such a statement, that could have easily been omitted?
Most glaringly thought, she connects a review of Elizabeth Bennet descriping her as the "Beatrice of the tale" with the heroine of Shakespeare's As You Like It - but hold on, that one's named Rosalind. Beatrice is found in Much Ado About Nothing.
When Kelly gets such basic facts wrong, how can I trust her analyses, often based not on Austen's text at all but rather on forced connections to other texts written during the same time?
Underlying the wild speculations are observations that are worth further investigating, but when an author says two characters are "bitching" about another, she loses her academic cred and her work becomes baseless speculation.
Most glaringly thought, she connects a review of Elizabeth Bennet descriping her as the "Beatrice of the tale" with the heroine of Shakespeare's As You Like It - but hold on, that one's named Rosalind. Beatrice is found in Much Ado About Nothing.
When Kelly gets such basic facts wrong, how can I trust her analyses, often based not on Austen's text at all but rather on forced connections to other texts written during the same time?
Underlying the wild speculations are observations that are worth further investigating, but when an author says two characters are "bitching" about another, she loses her academic cred and her work becomes baseless speculation.