4 ms·

A book that helped me understand what's going on in Austen the best was titled "Jane Austen and the Fiction of Her Time". Jane Austen loved novels, but was als

by gwd 1y ago

A book that helped me understand what's going on in Austen the best was titled "Jane Austen and the Fiction of Her Time". Jane Austen loved novels, but was also dissatisfied with what she saw as the flaws of a lot of the novels around her -- both in the plots (unrealistic situations or unrealistic characters), and with the message they were trying to present. So many of the situations are direct allusions to other novels, and many of the main messages are subtle and subversive. One of the things pointed out about Mansfield Park is that although all ends well for the main characters, it's basically by accident. If Henry Crawford had just gone back to check on his steward, as he knew he should have, he never would have been snubbed by Julia; would never have been tempted by wounded vanity to win her back; would never have run off with her, putting himself completely out of Fanny's reach; and would, in the author's estimation, have won her over eventually. And if Henry hadn't run off with Julia, Mary would never have exposed her lack of principles to Edmund, and they would have been married shortly too.

gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
the most complex of the Austen rakes, destined to be "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life", according to another regency quip, HC was https://www.commonreader.co.uk/p/jane-austens-rake-problem https://www.commonreader.co.uk/p/jane-austens-rake-problem
- gwd 1y ago
  I don't see that quip in that link? It seems to think that Mr. Elliot is the most dangerous of rakes, and I'm inclined to agree. But there's an unexamined assumption in that piece that good characters should be rewarded and bad characters punished by the author. That's exactly the sort of thing that Austen hated. She wanted things to be things like real life, where adultery and cheating and lying and defying the law can bring you hundreds of millions of loyal followers and a second presidency. Why was Henry not punished like Julia was? Because he owned land and she didn't. That's the beginning and end of it. It's unfair because society is unfair. And it's not just men who get away with things. Lucy Steele lies and schemes and manipulates her way all the way through Sense and Sensibility, and is rewarded by being not only an heiress of a great fortune, but a favored daughter-in-law. The difference between Lucy and Julia aren't their morals -- Lucy is far less moral than Julia. She's just a lot smarter and more disciplined.
  - gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
    Ah.. realism you say? Elliott was not nearly as attractive (=less of a danger, even in the mind of the author, I venture-- its not a coincidence he is related to Anne! ) Otoh HC was (apparently) as reformable as a boy can get without actually being good = seductive (Should have made clear that it's from Wellington, an admirer of Napoleon https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-Wellingtons-quote-in-modern-vernacular-of-the-nearest-run-thing-you-ever-saw-in-your-life-when-referring-to-Napoleon-and-the-Battle-of-Waterloo https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-Wellingtons-quo...)
    - gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
      Update: Austen could have gone with cool vs bad[0] but that wouldn't be drama would it (& she's been there: that business with Mr Darcy, quite cringe to modern readers no?) [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44423529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44423529
ivape 1y ago
Jane Austen loved novels, but was also dissatisfied with what she saw as the flaws of a lot of the novels around her I always got the sense that she disliked the length and pacing of other books of her time. She has absolutely no qualms about moving the story from step to step with very little exposition in between. She’s just really dope, treats the reader in a very accelerated way. Romance is corny stuff to write but she does it in such a cut throat, sharp and fast way that you don’t really get a chance to not get invested. Before you even realize what you’re reading, she already has you at the ball with the two characters dancing. To put it shortly, she tells entire love stories in pamphlet sized books. Masterclass in brevity.
- masswerk 1y ago
  In Northanger Abbey we get an explicit reference to one of those books, The Mysteries of Udolpho by Ann Radcliffe, which started the entire Gothic novel craze. Comparing the two is quite informative: Where Radcliffe describes the basic character traits over a page or two, followed by another page how fortunately this added up with the specific situation in life, Austen gives us a one-sentence-or-less description of the social characteristics of a character, maybe followed by a short remark on how this character deviated from what was to be expected from this. And, where Radcliffe's characters break into tears to assert their humanity, over and over again (something that can be still observed in Bram Stoker's Dracula, but thankfully much rarer), Austen's characters just chase their follies, which are more often than not a class marker. (If you thought modern times were car-crazy, just look at those gigs!) In this sense, where characters are established by just dropping social position and economic status as sort of a blueprint, Jane Austen is a surprisingly materialist author. To paraphrase a well known quote, she turned Radcliffe from the head to the feet. ;-)
- gwd 1y ago
  > She has absolutely no qualms about moving the story from step to step with very little exposition in between. She’s just really dope, treats the reader in a very accelerated way. I dunno, the pacing I always think was really weird, even though it clearly works. Most of the time, you don't even know who the main characters are until chapter 2 at a minimum. Read the opening lines of Persuasion, all about some arrogant fool of a baronet, and you're like, "Why is this so interesting?" And then, usually it seems loads of stuff happens in the beginning that sets up the basic tension of the story, then a long middle where almost nothing seems to happen (but for some reason you're not bored), and then suddenly everything resolves at the end.

by gwd 1y ago

gsf_emergency_2 1y ago

the most complex of the Austen rakes, destined to be "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life", according to another regency quip, HC was https://www.commonreader.co.uk/p/jane-austens-rake-problem https://www.commonreader.co.uk/p/jane-austens-rake-problem

gwd 1y ago
I don't see that quip in that link? It seems to think that Mr. Elliot is the most dangerous of rakes, and I'm inclined to agree. But there's an unexamined assumption in that piece that good characters should be rewarded and bad characters punished by the author. That's exactly the sort of thing that Austen hated. She wanted things to be things like real life, where adultery and cheating and lying and defying the law can bring you hundreds of millions of loyal followers and a second presidency. Why was Henry not punished like Julia was? Because he owned land and she didn't. That's the beginning and end of it. It's unfair because society is unfair. And it's not just men who get away with things. Lucy Steele lies and schemes and manipulates her way all the way through Sense and Sensibility, and is rewarded by being not only an heiress of a great fortune, but a favored daughter-in-law. The difference between Lucy and Julia aren't their morals -- Lucy is far less moral than Julia. She's just a lot smarter and more disciplined.
- gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
  Ah.. realism you say? Elliott was not nearly as attractive (=less of a danger, even in the mind of the author, I venture-- its not a coincidence he is related to Anne! ) Otoh HC was (apparently) as reformable as a boy can get without actually being good = seductive (Should have made clear that it's from Wellington, an admirer of Napoleon https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-Wellingtons-quote-in-modern-vernacular-of-the-nearest-run-thing-you-ever-saw-in-your-life-when-referring-to-Napoleon-and-the-Battle-of-Waterloo https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-Wellingtons-quo...)
  - gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
    Update: Austen could have gone with cool vs bad[0] but that wouldn't be drama would it (& she's been there: that business with Mr Darcy, quite cringe to modern readers no?) [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44423529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44423529

ivape 1y ago

Jane Austen loved novels, but was also dissatisfied with what she saw as the flaws of a lot of the novels around her I always got the sense that she disliked the length and pacing of other books of her time. She has absolutely no qualms about moving the story from step to step with very little exposition in between. She’s just really dope, treats the reader in a very accelerated way. Romance is corny stuff to write but she does it in such a cut throat, sharp and fast way that you don’t really get a chance to not get invested. Before you even realize what you’re reading, she already has you at the ball with the two characters dancing. To put it shortly, she tells entire love stories in pamphlet sized books. Masterclass in brevity.

masswerk 1y ago
In Northanger Abbey we get an explicit reference to one of those books, The Mysteries of Udolpho by Ann Radcliffe, which started the entire Gothic novel craze. Comparing the two is quite informative: Where Radcliffe describes the basic character traits over a page or two, followed by another page how fortunately this added up with the specific situation in life, Austen gives us a one-sentence-or-less description of the social characteristics of a character, maybe followed by a short remark on how this character deviated from what was to be expected from this. And, where Radcliffe's characters break into tears to assert their humanity, over and over again (something that can be still observed in Bram Stoker's Dracula, but thankfully much rarer), Austen's characters just chase their follies, which are more often than not a class marker. (If you thought modern times were car-crazy, just look at those gigs!) In this sense, where characters are established by just dropping social position and economic status as sort of a blueprint, Jane Austen is a surprisingly materialist author. To paraphrase a well known quote, she turned Radcliffe from the head to the feet. ;-)
gwd 1y ago
> She has absolutely no qualms about moving the story from step to step with very little exposition in between. She’s just really dope, treats the reader in a very accelerated way. I dunno, the pacing I always think was really weird, even though it clearly works. Most of the time, you don't even know who the main characters are until chapter 2 at a minimum. Read the opening lines of Persuasion, all about some arrogant fool of a baronet, and you're like, "Why is this so interesting?" And then, usually it seems loads of stuff happens in the beginning that sets up the basic tension of the story, then a long middle where almost nothing seems to happen (but for some reason you're not bored), and then suddenly everything resolves at the end.