They are novels, not history books
Historian Trevor Fawcett gave a talk in Bath last night (sorry for the lack of notice, we’re just getting this) and told This Is Bath that Jane Austen’s books set in Bath did not represent “real life” in Bath.
Austen’s characters keep within their social spheres and her books pay no real regard to those outside it. Mr Fawcett, who lives in Lansdown, said: “Jane Austen wrote very selectively. She was not making a record of everything about Bath and its people, she was writing about her characters, and they were from a very narrow social group.”
This is not a revelation. Jane kept her cast of characters small. Please don’t confuse her with Charles Dickens. That’s not a slam on Dickens; we like Dickens; but his books were sprawling epics. Jane Austen’s books were small but exquisite slices of life. Different, but both enjoyable in their way.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Jane Austen wrote of what she knew. I think that´s one of the reasons her novels are so great, she knows what she is talking about. I believe you can consider her one of the best english authors because of the way she describes human beings, their characters, way of thinking and acting. I´m sure you can recognize different persons you know when you are reading her. I´m not english, my mother language is not english, I live in a very different world right now than Jane Austen´s, but her books express so well how people act in different situations that I identify with her characters.