Ageless Jane
A lovely by-product of the hype around a new film adaptation is journalists revisiting the age-old question: why is Jane Austen still popular 200 years after she lived and wrote?
Kristi Turnquist, writing in the Oregonian (yes, this is the journalist who asked for our assistance last week), hung out with Portland-area Janeites to find out what makes us tick.
But those who swoon only at the love stories miss the meat of Austen’s worldview, says the Los Angeles-based Taylor. “Jane Austen did not write romances,” says the 32-year-old. “They were social satires, making fun of people and commenting on the society of the time.” We’ve turned it into romance, Taylor believes, because Austen created “the ultimate heroine” in Elizabeth Bennet, whose wit, strength and vulnerability have endeared her to readers since the novel was first published in 1813. Lizzy’s love-hate relationship with Darcy also set a template, she says. “Every romance novel that’s ever been written since then is a takeoff on these two characters.”
We don’t know about every romance novel, but this is still great stuff. There are so many levels to Jane Austen’s work beyond the romantic; there’s something for everyone.
David Elliott writes about Austen adaptations in the San Diego Union-Tribune.
I recall a guest lecturer at college, stoking the fever before it really caught fire in America: “The cocked finger over a teacup in Austen has all the tension of a cocked trigger in Hammett or Hemingway.” Indeed, more. Ham and Hem fire off virile blasts of ammo, while Austen makes her doting and darting ladies, her stuffy but often very sexed gentlemen, run the gantlet of a continuous gun range of subtle, social and specific emotions.
The first Austen book that the Editrix read (at the woefully advanced age of 29) was Emma. While reading the scene about Mr. Weston’s ball at the Crown, we stopped reading and checked the biographical blurb at the beginning of the Signet edition of the book. Why? Because we wanted to know when Jane Austen lived and wrote; we had a vague idea it was sometime in the 19th century, but the prose seemed so modern to us, we thought perhaps we had misapprehended and she actually lived in the 1920s or 30s and was writing about a historical period a century before. Jane Austen didn’t write like any 19th century author we’d ever read.
At the current time we are reading Elizabeth Gaskell’s North and South. While we are enjoying it very much, we are bemused by the many passages describing Margaret Hale’s charming looks and personality. Such descriptions are discouraged for modern writers; the mantra is “show, don’t tell.” (Also it’s corny and kind of Mary Sueish, but that’s beside the point we’re trying to make.) Jane Austen rarely indulges in such descriptions; she follows the rule. Show, don’t tell. That is only one example of why Jane Austen reads like a modern writer.
That being said, it was not until we read Persuasion (after Emma and P&P) that we became a raging Austen maniac; in fact, it was The Letter that did it. 
Feel free to tell your Jane story in the comments.
November 11th, 2005 at 9:51 am
I know what you mean about Elizabeth Gaskell, but then again works by her like Cranford and especially Wives & Daughters do remind me of Jane Austen somehow.
November 11th, 2005 at 9:57 am
The only other Gaskell I’ve read is Cranford, and I agree wholeheartedly; it is kind of a cross between Jane Austen and Miss Read.
November 11th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Then read Wives & Daughters and you’ll find more similarities! And I think you’ll like it too. Except it was left unfinished, that is
November 11th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
My Jane story:
At the age of 12, I read everything I could get my hands on. “Mooooom, I need something to read!” could be heard at least once a week in our house. In desperation for something to offer that would be appropriate for my age, mom turned to the classics. “Here, try Pride and Prejudice. I remember that was a good one.” It was a Reader’s Digest abridged version, and I took it with me on a babysitting job, put the poor kid to bed early, and read at top speed for the rest of the evening. I had just gotten to the visit to Pemberley when the parents came home. Oh the suspense! I finished it the next day, and read the other 5 novels within the next few years. Being so young when I first read them, I only appreciate them more and more all the time. It’s the re-reading that really convinces me, Jane Austen is the greatest novelist in the English language! There! Raving maniac Janeite and proud of it!
November 11th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Katharine, that’s a great story. I wish someone had given me Jane Austen’s books at twelve. I was more likely to be told to “put down the book and go outside and play” at that age.
November 11th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
I first read Jane as a senior in high school, after having seen the Thompson S&S and Paltrow Emma. I read S&S first, was less than thrilled with it, decided to try Emma, and again was less than thrilled with it. I wondered why everyone thought Austen was so amazing. But I decided to give it a final shot, with P&P (which story I was only vaguely familiar with, from seeing the Wishbone version). And for a good part of the novel, I was– less than thrilled with it. It was the second proposal that got me. I fell in love. After rereading P&P several times, I did go back and reread Emma and S&S and enjoyed them both much more (I think I only had to get used to her style, which was very different from most fiction I was reading at the time), devoured Northanger Abbey and Persuasion, and even managed to enjoy Mansfield Park. By the end of my senior year, I was a confirmed Janeite, and I’ve never looked back.
November 11th, 2005 at 6:04 pm
I first came across JA when I was 10, home from school, sick in bed reading anything and everything.
)
(My Mother’s fault, she taught me how to read in kindergarten and I have not stopped yet!
I was reading through a collection of Reader’s Digest Abridged edition, like Katharine T. above, and came across Pride and Prejudice. I absolutely loved it, and when I discovered we had the unabridged version (hate abridged books) was even happier.
Then I eventually discovered JA had written more books, and read them all. I always loved P&P,Per and Emma, enjoyed NA- But I never could really, really enjoy S&S until a couple of years ago when I forced my self to watch 2 movie versions of it and finally could enjoy it, and now can honestly say it is one of my favorites.
Never really cared for MP and probally never will, even though I will reread it from time to time.
Never saw a movie version of any of the books until years after I read them all, but now I have seen at least one version of every book.
Sorry I rambled on so.
Maria B.
November 11th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
My love affair with Jane’s books didn’t start until about a year ago, actually. I first tried to read Pride and Prejudice when I was ten, after devouring Gone with the Wind. My librarian recommended it to me as a good book to try next, but I suppose my mind just wasn’t ready for it yet…I put it aside and didn’t think about it again, until my aunt gave me a boxed set as a gift. I started Pride and Prejudice out of idle boredom—and was amazed to discover that not only was it good, but addicting as well! I quickly jumped on the other books and ever since then, I worry my friends with endless talk my obsessions about Mr.Darcy and other excellent male characters that Jane dreamed up.
November 14th, 2005 at 9:37 am
I know what you mean Christina about Wives and Daughters! I so wish Gaskell had finished it! You know what’ll happen but you still want to READ it!
Dear whoever runs this site (I don’t know your name):
I don’t know if this is a genuine or reliable source but I found some news that ITV is going to create three new adaptions of JA books (MP, NA, and P). And something about the S+S we’ve already heard about. Here’s the link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417349/board/nest/29508849. Or if that doesn’t work, go to http://www.imdb.com, to page for North and South(2004) and click on the thread “3 New Austen Adaptions From ITV.”
Hopefully it’s real! A new Mansfield Park! AND Northanger Abbey, like we’ve all be waiting and hoping for!
November 14th, 2005 at 10:34 am
Hi Chantel,
We posted about the new films a little below this post. Thanks for letting us know.
I’m not really thrilled about this new version of NA–I’ve read the script and it’s not the adaptation I’d hoped for.
November 14th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
I first read P&P when I was 10 or so. I then read Emma and Jane Eyre and preferred P&P to the others. I am the first to admit that I probably didn’t “get” everything in those books, but my parents placed very few restrictions on what I was allowed to read, so I just read everything in their bookshelves that looked interesting.
I re-read P&P in 10th grade (when I was also introduced to P&P0) and then again in college. I’ve read it several times for pleasure since then, including a very careful, very slow, re-read now in honor of the movie.
I know they’re considered chick books, but my father loves them too. He also owns P&P2, P2 and S&S2. My brother has not read them, and probably never will. His wife has and, if you consider that she mostly reads new fiction, that’s quite something.
November 14th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
Oops! I didn’t read that, Mags! *blushes* Yeah, I heard that NA doesn’t seem like it’ll be any good, but still, at least it’s SOMETHING, you know. Maybe, just maybe we’ll get a good Henry!! It sure won’t be hard to beat the last one! Wow. I hadn’t read the book totally (and not at all closely) before I watched the movie, and I didn’t even KNOW that Henry was supposed to be, like, funny and flirty! That’s how bad that Henry was.