Scan barcode
A review by anna
Jane Austen, the Secret Radical by Helena Kelly
5.0
4.5
I loved this. I had a few issues with how it is organized and at times the text meanders. There was too much emphasis given to some points that were a bit far-fetched. HOWEVER, this is such a close and detailed look at Austen's novels. It gave me completely new ways to view certain aspects of her books. It doesn't matter so much if Austen intended all the things Kelly claims, but she has solid arguments for a great many points I have never considered before. There is a criticism that this book over analyzes Austen's writings and it does, but I don't find it to be a negative thing. Books ultimately belong to their readers and there are many valid interpretations to Austen's works. Kelly takes some liberties with her conclusions, but there are too many coincidences in some instances to not have been at least partially Austen's intention.
The most important point of this book? Jane was an intentional writer. She wasn't sloppy. Her books are not just fluffy romances* and I want to shove /this/ book into the hands of anyone who claims they have no depth. Austen's novels are full of social commentary and Kelly illustrates how much you can uncover from each story.
*Romance is a perfectly valid genre of its own, but Austen's novels are not romance. If they were, she did a terrible job because the happy ever afters are never entirely happy. If you read them as romance, they seem empty, which isn't what romance novels are.
I loved this. I had a few issues with how it is organized and at times the text meanders. There was too much emphasis given to some points that were a bit far-fetched. HOWEVER, this is such a close and detailed look at Austen's novels. It gave me completely new ways to view certain aspects of her books. It doesn't matter so much if Austen intended all the things Kelly claims, but she has solid arguments for a great many points I have never considered before. There is a criticism that this book over analyzes Austen's writings and it does, but I don't find it to be a negative thing. Books ultimately belong to their readers and there are many valid interpretations to Austen's works. Kelly takes some liberties with her conclusions, but there are too many coincidences in some instances to not have been at least partially Austen's intention.
The most important point of this book? Jane was an intentional writer. She wasn't sloppy. Her books are not just fluffy romances* and I want to shove /this/ book into the hands of anyone who claims they have no depth. Austen's novels are full of social commentary and Kelly illustrates how much you can uncover from each story.
*Romance is a perfectly valid genre of its own, but Austen's novels are not romance. If they were, she did a terrible job because the happy ever afters are never entirely happy. If you read them as romance, they seem empty, which isn't what romance novels are.