We asked Robin Hutchinson, a regular AustenBlog commenter and university librarian, to review After Jane, since he takes great delight in bibliographical tools and wields them on our behalf on a regular basis. –Ed.

After Jane: A Review of the Continuations and Completions of Jane Austen’s Novels by Jennifer Scott (Privately Published: Second Edition, 2006.) http://www.lulu.com/content/217902

After Jane is an annotated bibliography of Jane Austen sequels (or, continuations and completions). In the introduction the author clearly states the scope of the work; what is to be included and what is not. Included are published sequels to Jane Austen’s novels and other works. Excluded are fictional treatments of Jane’s life, such as the series by Stephanie Barron, and works that only incidentally use names or locations from the canon but are not true sequels. The second type of exclusion is by format and is more serious. The author writes (page 5):

“There are several sites on the Internet where stories including Jane Austen and her characters are posted. These unedited contributions are added to daily. They vary in quality. As the stories have not been prepared for publication in printed form, they are considered outside the scope of this book.”

Now, I can see why the author would exclude fiction posted on the Internet; to try to cover it comprehensively would be a huge task and one perhaps better done online than via a printed book. But I’m not sure that I like her rationale; much content posted on the Internet has been meticulously edited and “prepared for publication” - online publication. On the other hand, many things put out in printed form appear to be unedited, and, if privately published like many of the fictions included in After Jane, are subject to no more quality control than items posted on the Internet. Is there really a simple distinction between “publication in printed form” and “posted on the internet?” Take Jennifer Paynter’s serialised novel Mary Bennet, for instance. It was published in the online magazine Bikwil, which is distributed as a pdf document to subscribers. However, the publisher is good enough to offer to send a hard copy in the mail to subscribers who do not have the means to print it. So, Bikwil has been prepared for publication in printed form - but Mary Bennet is not included in After Jane.

Within the scope stated, After Jane does seem fairly comprehensive. The sequels are organized into nine chapters; one for each of the novels, plus The Watsons, Sanditon and Lady Susan. Where a story includes characters from more than one of Jane’s novels, there are cross references. There is a tenth section for brief mentions of the materials excluded from the main body (novels about Jane Austen herself, etc.).

In the nine main chapters, one hundred and ten sequels are listed and described or reviewed. The earliest is from 1850 and the author claims coverage through the end of 2005. David Gilson, in his Bibliography of Jane Austen, lists just fourteen “continuations and completions” that fulfill similar criteria to Scott’s “sequels.” But Gilson was published in 1982 and most sequels have come out more recently than that. There are several bibliographies maintained on the Internet that seek to comprehensively list all Jane Austen sequels. There are two (apparently unrelated) lists at the Republic of Pemberley, and a carefully compiled bibliography and classified list maintained by Rolf Breuer. Breuer’s bibliography runs to 186 entries as opposed to Jennifer Scott’s 110, but Breuer includes adaptations; for instance, each radio adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is included in his list.

I have identified a few sequels that should have been included by Scott and are not; other readers may know more. For instance, “Resolve and Resistance” by S.N. Dyer (in The Year’s Best Fantasy and Horror: Ninth Annual Collection.) OK, it’s set in a parallel universe, but it has Lizzy and all the Bennet sisters, so it’s a sequel, right? It should be listed. Then, the recently published Flirting with Pride and Prejudice has several chapters that are P&P sequels (such as “The Secret Life of Mary”). These are not included, but perhaps should have been. Now, Flirting with Pride and Prejudice was published in 2005 and the author states in her introduction that “sequels published up to the end of 2005 are considered in this text.” Perhaps it would have been more prudent to say that those which have come to the author’s attention are included, and others will be included in a subsequent edition.

As well as listing the 110 sequels, the author gives an outline of the plot for each one. The intention is to give the potential reader enough information to make a choice whether or not to read it, without giving away the entire plot. Scott often makes her opinion clear in these plot outlines. She writes of one book “Mrs. Jennings’ letter to her daughter in which she says that she trusts that ‘her nipples are now drawn out and the child suckles and thrives’ is much too indelicate for nineteenth century literature.” Of another novel, she comments “There is an unusual stress on both religious and medical matters.” Most of the annotations are fairly dry, though, and one of the pleasures of reading through them (I read the entire book in one sitting) is the laundry list of names our sequelists give to the progeny and extended families of our favorite characters. We have Josie, Amelia Jane and Rebecca Collins; Pamela and Angelica Bertram; Dorothea Brandon; Cassandra, Henry and Juliet Darcy; Priscilla and Frederick Tilney. My favorites are Catriona and Torquil Fitzwilliam - they sound like they live in 1990s Islington rather than 1820s Derbyshire.

There was only one thing in the book that really annoyed me, and it was repeated several times. The author refers to Mr. Collins as “Reverend Collins.” Not “the Reverend Mr. Collins,” just “Reverend Collins.” He’s a Clergyman of the Church of England, for God’s sake, not a Southern Baptist. (No offence.)

One thing that could be improved in a new edition is the formatting of the index at the back of the book. The author calls it a bibliography, but, after all, the entire book is a bibliography, and the list at the back is really an index. It would be easier to use if it was in one alphabet, rather than divided up thematically. Also, there should be a space between each entry to make it easier to read, and each entry should have a page number to refer to. Apart from that, the index is good.

I would recommend this book to others, because it really serves its purpose - you can read it and get a sense of which sequels you might want to read, and which to avoid.