An observation
The cover of this all-in-one edition of Jane Austen’s work annoys the crap out of the Editrix.
You see, the Editrix was engaged in a debate with an otherwise-intelligent person elsewhere on the internet who claimed that Jane Austen’s novels were about “upper class drips obsessed with marriage.” We begged to differ, naturally. Images such as that cover associated with Jane Austen’s work do not help our argument, and in our not so humble opinion are completely misplaced.
Humph.
March 14th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
I don’t like it either. That’s what my boyfriend says about Jane’s books, and he’ll think this cover is supporting his opinion!
March 14th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
I agree completely. Romance and marriage plays an important part in JA’s novels, but IMHO, JA was much more interested in the quirks, faults, and personalities of the characters in her books than in just plain romance writing.
March 14th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
I’m outraged. This is just the sort of cover that keeps millions of clever people (my boyfriend, my brother and my father included!) from ever reading an Austen novel. Thanks for pointing this out, Editrix.
March 15th, 2005 at 12:01 am
on the other hand, it’s good to see an omnibus edition that includes more JA than the usual Big Six, don’t you think?
I can’t imagine what cover art might entice my boyfriend to read another Austen novel. Perhaps it wasn’t such a good idea starting him off on MP….
March 15th, 2005 at 9:29 am
But why is this cover worse than the absolutely tasteless and ugly paintings dredged up from who knows what museum? Or the wretched cover of “Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife”? I for one, am a male Jane Austen fan (I suppose I can use the classic “Janite” since the Editrix has written such a spirited defense of the term, though I’m not completely convinced, but where was I…) and I think one of the things that attracts me is that the novels have such a realistic yet moving view of marriage.
I think the best cover for Jane Austen’s novels are the Everyman’s library editions. This is their cover for Emma. The other novels are variously closer views of the same portrait.
March 15th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Well, ibmiller, first of all, call yourself a Janeite, loud and proud.
Secondly, my point is that the books are about so much MORE than the marriage plot, which is certainly there (and I’m as much of a mushpot romantic as the next person). They are intricate sociological studies. Jane’s metaphor about the “bit of ivory” is apt: she worked on a small canvas, but nonetheless dealt in universal themes. That’s part of her genius, and part of what many of us appreciate.
It turned out that my acquaintance who likened the books to “upper class drips obsessed with marriage” simply prefers what Sir Walter Scott called “the big Bow-wow strain.” Nothing wrong with that. But to limit Jane Austen’s work to simple happy-ever-after romances, no matter how delightful those romances or the happy-ever-after, is to do her a grave disservice.
I agree with Laura that it’s nice to see a really complete omnibus edition such as that book.
March 15th, 2005 at 10:08 am
On the other hand, I’ve never quite seen the point of those omnibus editions, when there are so many good, very inexpensive editions of the individual novels. Why hump around a book that must have like 1200 pages or more, when you are reading one novel? But the worst of it is, the pages are set with so many words and such narrow margins, which in itself takes away from the aesthetic/artifactual quality of the book, if you know what I mean.
I think I know what Walter Scott was getting at with his Bow-wow strain; but I wonder where he got the phrase from, and what associations it had for contemporary readers? Did bow-wow suggest a dog’s bark, as it does now?
March 15th, 2005 at 10:19 am
I’ve toyed with the idea of buying one to take on my travels. But I think I’d rather take along a couple of little paperbacks than a big heavy book, as you said, Robin. (When I go to Bath this year, I MUST have at least Persuasion and NA with me. I must.)
March 15th, 2005 at 10:19 am
[...] n was pretty hard on mothers. This ties in nicely to the discussion we’re having in the comments for The Editrix’s Cranky Post below. The [...]
March 16th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Well, okay, I understand. I’m not as interested in the social commentary as in the realism of characterization, but it’s certainly there and done excellently (as is all that Jane Austen does).
I think, on consideration, I’m a Gentle Jane reader.