Scan barcode
stuff4bd's review against another edition
5.0
I absolutely loved this book! This is saying a lot as the introductions had a fictional Jane Austen scene and fictionalizing real people is a major pet peeve of mine. So informative about events in and adjacent to Jane’s life that gave me a fresh perspective on her work. However be warned you may never think the same of Mr Knightley again.
lora_h's review against another edition
5.0
This book was given to me for Christmas, & as soon as I saw the title, I said, 'Not a very well kept secret.' The gift giver pointed out that when Jane Austen is mentioned, many people think Colin Firth in a wet shirt.
Fair enough. And once I started reading, it became evident how little I knew about her radicalism.
Helena Kelly analyses Austen's 6 published novels by submerging them in their historical era (both when first printed & when originally written), explaining Austen's meticulous language choices, & setting forth the social/legal (are you a treasonous writer?)/moral barriers Austen faced not simply as an early 19th century author, but as a female author.
Considering what information it covers, this book is incredibly reader friendly. Kelly writes complex 19th century societal issues with such clarity, they become the most fascinating & easy to read aspects of the book. She expects her reader to know the novels' plots & characters, giving the barest of synopses, but any of her readers can find plenty of online sources for Austen's plots.
The only criticism I have for Kelly is her fascination with Austen's word choice. No doubt that Austen is a master wordsmith, but Kelly recites how many times certain words are used in one novel as compared to how many times the same word is used in the other 5. By this, I mean she says, word X appears 245 times in novel A as compared to 7 times in novel B. Frequently, after giving these numbers, Kelly then asks why Austen made those decisions instead of others - radical, you think? Hmm? Hmm? Hmm?????? I periodically had to remind myself this was scholastic debate, not conspiracy theory. (And to be clear, nothing Kelly suggests is in the least bit unhinged.)
Kelly did use plot in Pride & Prejudice (& to a much lesser extent in Emma) to further illustrate her perspective on just how radical Austen was. This gave me a broader appreciation of both novels (& a little bit of horror at Mr Knightly's character). I would've loved her to address the plot of all Austen's novels.
The last sentence of Kelly's book is, Read them again. Many of her readers will be inspired to do just that.
Fair enough. And once I started reading, it became evident how little I knew about her radicalism.
Helena Kelly analyses Austen's 6 published novels by submerging them in their historical era (both when first printed & when originally written), explaining Austen's meticulous language choices, & setting forth the social/legal (are you a treasonous writer?)/moral barriers Austen faced not simply as an early 19th century author, but as a female author.
Considering what information it covers, this book is incredibly reader friendly. Kelly writes complex 19th century societal issues with such clarity, they become the most fascinating & easy to read aspects of the book. She expects her reader to know the novels' plots & characters, giving the barest of synopses, but any of her readers can find plenty of online sources for Austen's plots.
The only criticism I have for Kelly is her fascination with Austen's word choice. No doubt that Austen is a master wordsmith, but Kelly recites how many times certain words are used in one novel as compared to how many times the same word is used in the other 5. By this, I mean she says, word X appears 245 times in novel A as compared to 7 times in novel B. Frequently, after giving these numbers, Kelly then asks why Austen made those decisions instead of others - radical, you think? Hmm? Hmm? Hmm?????? I periodically had to remind myself this was scholastic debate, not conspiracy theory. (And to be clear, nothing Kelly suggests is in the least bit unhinged.)
Kelly did use plot in Pride & Prejudice (& to a much lesser extent in Emma) to further illustrate her perspective on just how radical Austen was. This gave me a broader appreciation of both novels (& a little bit of horror at Mr Knightly's character). I would've loved her to address the plot of all Austen's novels.
The last sentence of Kelly's book is, Read them again. Many of her readers will be inspired to do just that.
bad_bookworm_h's review against another edition
3.0
Fascinating read! But the author did Knightley so dirty
paging_snidget's review against another edition
3.0
An interesting but also at times frustrating read.
I was not impressed by the little fictional sections at the start of each chapter and felt that they added nothing to the text. I also hated the way Kelly consistently referred to Jane Austen as Jane as if she were her personal friend - that really irritated me.
Overall I found her conclusions to be hit and miss. Some things were incredibly interesting and I did learn a few things. However, there were also more than a few occasions where I felt that the conclusions were reached after some rather wild leaps of logic or with very little evidence. (Edward Ferrars' apparent sexual appetites for one. Harriet Smith's possible parentage for another.)
Nothing incredibly eye-opening here, at least the plausible theories weren't. A good read but the author's proprietary attitude toward Austen and her works - as if she was the only one who really knew Austen, and her reading of the novels was the only true one - kept me from really enjoying it.
I was not impressed by the little fictional sections at the start of each chapter and felt that they added nothing to the text. I also hated the way Kelly consistently referred to Jane Austen as Jane as if she were her personal friend - that really irritated me.
Overall I found her conclusions to be hit and miss. Some things were incredibly interesting and I did learn a few things. However, there were also more than a few occasions where I felt that the conclusions were reached after some rather wild leaps of logic or with very little evidence. (Edward Ferrars' apparent sexual appetites for one. Harriet Smith's possible parentage for another.)
Nothing incredibly eye-opening here, at least the plausible theories weren't. A good read but the author's proprietary attitude toward Austen and her works - as if she was the only one who really knew Austen, and her reading of the novels was the only true one - kept me from really enjoying it.