Scan barcode
A review by _maia3_
Jane Austen, the Secret Radical by Helena Kelly
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!