Scan barcode
slelswick's review against another edition
4.0
As much as I adore reading Jane Austen again and again, I've come to enjoy reading literary criticism about JA's novels even more. I share Helena Kelly's notion that Jane Austen's novels aren't quite what they seem on the surface. I enjoyed the way Helena analyzed the text, infusing historical data that enriched my understanding of the novels. However, as the book progressed, I found myself objecting to some of Helena's ideas; she made quite a few inferences based on circumstantial evidence. In the chapter about "Persuasion", Helena included a rather long discourse on fossils and Mary Anning--all of it really not necessary. In the end, there's a lot we don't know about JA because her sister destroyed a lot of Jane's letters and quite a bit that we do know about JA are details funneled through the point of view of her male relatives who very much crafted a wholesome image of JA. Overall I recommend this book to all JA fans.
nikkic66's review against another edition
5.0
Wonderful academic evaluation written in a manner that non-academics and Austenites would love.
pixiebix's review against another edition
3.5
This was really fantastic, and did what it promised: to force the reader to view Austen's work in less of a rose-tinted light, and to expose the political underbelly and veiled messages therein.
Personally, I'm a visual learner, so I don't absorb vast quantities of information, nor remain engaged by that information, through reading (I learn much more through video format, or from a teacher), hence why I a) don't read non-fiction often and b) really need to learn my own lesson and start reading such works in bursts, not cover to cover all in the same period. Hence, I can't say I stayed engaged or interested the entire time, or that Kelly's (mindblowing and extremely perceptive) observations made as big as an impact as they probably should have 100% of the time. Then again, there is already so much I have taken away from it (which is a tribute to Kelly's writing and analysis style), and I now view Austen's skill and work in an even more elevated light than before. Some of Kelly's points did feel a bit far fetched, but the vast majority were extremely convincing, her logic and evidence rigorous and comprehensive.
A very solid book I'm very glad to have read; I just wish I'd read it in a way where I would've allowed myself to maximise on as much as its gold as possible.
Personally, I'm a visual learner, so I don't absorb vast quantities of information, nor remain engaged by that information, through reading (I learn much more through video format, or from a teacher), hence why I a) don't read non-fiction often and b) really need to learn my own lesson and start reading such works in bursts, not cover to cover all in the same period. Hence, I can't say I stayed engaged or interested the entire time, or that Kelly's (mindblowing and extremely perceptive) observations made as big as an impact as they probably should have 100% of the time. Then again, there is already so much I have taken away from it (which is a tribute to Kelly's writing and analysis style), and I now view Austen's skill and work in an even more elevated light than before. Some of Kelly's points did feel a bit far fetched, but the vast majority were extremely convincing, her logic and evidence rigorous and comprehensive.
A very solid book I'm very glad to have read; I just wish I'd read it in a way where I would've allowed myself to maximise on as much as its gold as possible.
_maia3_'s review against another edition
challenging
medium-paced
1.5
I am approaching this as someone who has read all of Austen's major works, as well as her Cambridge Companion, selected Juvenalia, and a smattering of secondary criticism. That is to say, I am familiar with the critical discourse surrounding Austen, especially that which concerns her involvement with early feminism.
To start with, the few positives:
The research into contemporary history (for example, slavery in the Mansfield Park chapter) is impressive and relevant, and is indeed capable of offering a differing (and perhaps, more authentic) view of the work. The structure of the work was quite neat, with one chapter dedicated to each novel, or theme - this allowed for quick progress.
However, this little does not do much. At best, this work uses its wealth of information to reach the same conclusions which "every self-respecting introduction to every paperback edition" (John Mullan for the Guardian) also includes. At worst, it draws dramatic conclusions out of singular lines and gets facts plainly incorrect (eg, where Edward Ferrars was educated, that Regency gowns were see-through, Shakespeare heroines)- which erodes any credibility in any valid analysis the author may be capable of in other parts of the book.
Other gripes include the blatant hypocrisy in claiming to offer a more 'real' or 'accurate' reading of Austen, then opening each chapter with vignettes of Austen's life, based on her letters, in which Austen appears as any fictional character would. In my view, this is no different to the warping of Austen by later scholars and family members that the author seemingly rails against in the opening chapters. I started skipping them by the second chapter because I couldn't stop cringing reading them.
Further, even though I praised the work's structure, it is not all that tight. Long digressions, including either contemporary sources or other Austen works, will fill entire pages before the chapter's full thesis statement comes out explicitly. The lack of direct quotation (in a work all about sticking only to the novels themselves, no less!), as well as the lack of quotations from other scholars, I found disturbing. I understand the argument for making the work accessible, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it helps the work not to be examined too closely.
Lastly, I found the work lacking in its treatment of the narrative in the novels. Too much time is given to casting doubt over Mr. Knightley's true intentions towards Emma (that he wants to enclose more land around Highbury, a fact evidenced by: it was the time of enclosure and Mr. Knightley seems to always need to talk about land things with various people - I hope you understand my frustration to such a conclusions from such circumstances), and not enough reconciling this with his position as the voice of reason of the novel and as its ultimate 'victor' as the hero. So maybe Mr. Knightley wishes to enclose land and cut poor people's yearly family income by half - what does this say about the heroine for choosing him? The author for inventing him? Are there previous allusions to Mr. Knightley's cruelty in the novel? None of these are explored and it's intensely frustrating.
Finally, I want to say that the core thesis of the work - that Austen may be been posthumously couched to hide her radical views - is interesting and would be an interesting angle to defend! Unfortunately there are so many flimsy claims given full weight, too many digressions, too many factual errors, that even valid claims are undone.
If you have your heart set on reading this book, I would highly recommend that you walk in knowing your opinions on the themes of each novel (even if it means consulting a quick sparknotes or the introduction to your Penguin edition), and that you read it extra attentively and critically!!
Would not recommend!
To start with, the few positives:
The research into contemporary history (for example, slavery in the Mansfield Park chapter) is impressive and relevant, and is indeed capable of offering a differing (and perhaps, more authentic) view of the work. The structure of the work was quite neat, with one chapter dedicated to each novel, or theme - this allowed for quick progress.
However, this little does not do much. At best, this work uses its wealth of information to reach the same conclusions which "every self-respecting introduction to every paperback edition" (John Mullan for the Guardian) also includes. At worst, it draws dramatic conclusions out of singular lines and gets facts plainly incorrect (eg, where Edward Ferrars was educated, that Regency gowns were see-through, Shakespeare heroines)- which erodes any credibility in any valid analysis the author may be capable of in other parts of the book.
Other gripes include the blatant hypocrisy in claiming to offer a more 'real' or 'accurate' reading of Austen, then opening each chapter with vignettes of Austen's life, based on her letters, in which Austen appears as any fictional character would. In my view, this is no different to the warping of Austen by later scholars and family members that the author seemingly rails against in the opening chapters. I started skipping them by the second chapter because I couldn't stop cringing reading them.
Further, even though I praised the work's structure, it is not all that tight. Long digressions, including either contemporary sources or other Austen works, will fill entire pages before the chapter's full thesis statement comes out explicitly. The lack of direct quotation (in a work all about sticking only to the novels themselves, no less!), as well as the lack of quotations from other scholars, I found disturbing. I understand the argument for making the work accessible, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it helps the work not to be examined too closely.
Lastly, I found the work lacking in its treatment of the narrative in the novels. Too much time is given to casting doubt over Mr. Knightley's true intentions towards Emma (that he wants to enclose more land around Highbury, a fact evidenced by: it was the time of enclosure and Mr. Knightley seems to always need to talk about land things with various people - I hope you understand my frustration to such a conclusions from such circumstances), and not enough reconciling this with his position as the voice of reason of the novel and as its ultimate 'victor' as the hero. So maybe Mr. Knightley wishes to enclose land and cut poor people's yearly family income by half - what does this say about the heroine for choosing him? The author for inventing him? Are there previous allusions to Mr. Knightley's cruelty in the novel? None of these are explored and it's intensely frustrating.
Finally, I want to say that the core thesis of the work - that Austen may be been posthumously couched to hide her radical views - is interesting and would be an interesting angle to defend! Unfortunately there are so many flimsy claims given full weight, too many digressions, too many factual errors, that even valid claims are undone.
If you have your heart set on reading this book, I would highly recommend that you walk in knowing your opinions on the themes of each novel (even if it means consulting a quick sparknotes or the introduction to your Penguin edition), and that you read it extra attentively and critically!!
Would not recommend!
mercedesjwood's review against another edition
4.0
I really love this book. While I have not read most of Austen's novels, I have more desire to now. I have new insights and understanding of the undertones of the books, which is always great and beneficial. Not only does it offer insights into Austen's novels, but to Austen herself.
Edit: she adds sexual context related to beloved characters that I don't think is required or believable. Sorry if that is a spoiler.
Edit: she adds sexual context related to beloved characters that I don't think is required or believable. Sorry if that is a spoiler.