Jane Austen: Not just a romance novelist
We knew that, of course, but it’s still always nice to see it in the press.
You see, Jane Austen’s novels are set in late 1700s / early 1800s England and are sometimes mistaken for simple romances in more Victorian times. But that is not their entire story.
Austen makes certain that her readers (and consequently those who watch movies based upon her books) understand how important it was for’ genteel’ women during this time to ‘make a match’ or find a husband. Their very welfare depended upon it.
Under English laws at the time, the first-born son of a family inherited most and sometimes all of the wealth. Women had no rights at all and received absolutely nothing from the family estate.
Weeeeelllll…that’s about three-quarters right. In a family with no sons, and no entailment (see also: Miss Anne de Bourgh, heiress of Rosings Park), the widow and daughters divided the husband’s estate. That’s why they had entailments, to prevent estates from being broken up and given away to the daughters’ husbands.
Mark Twain, who lived to the age of 75, was born in 1835, 18 years after the death of the 42-year old Jane Austen.
He was a rascal who dished out the criticism but apparently did not take too kindly to being on the receiving end of it. He quipped in his autobiography: “I like criticism, but it must be my way.”
Austen was no shrinking violet, herself, and - given the opportunity in time - would probably have met Twain’s comments about her books with a humorous and stinging retort of her own.
Oh how we Jane Austen fans would have loved that!
Oh, indeed!
January 5th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
She railed, in her way, against the social caste system in place at the time, against the lack of opportunities and equality for women and against the stern laws which kept all women from achieving their potential in life.
I basically agree. Railed against the social caste system? I don’t know about that, not in an obvious way. I do think Jane herself embodied a woman who managed to achieve her potential in life, which I admire.
That may be because I am a woman who 1) loves romance and 2) does understand and have empathy for the plight of women during Austen’s time. (In the interest of fair reporting, I feel I must insert here that my husband did not exactly love the movies. In fact, he fell asleep on the family room sofa while they were playing and snoozed through each of them!)
I don’t read Jane’s novels for romance. I read them for the humor, wit, delicious razor sharp observations, and satire. I think men can relate to that intelligence in Jane, her profundity. Just this week Simon (who has never read Jane, and knowing I love Jane so) asked to watch P&P2 with me, with a caution that if it were mushy, he’d quit. I knew when he first chuckled at Mr. Bennet’s dry humor that he got it, the essence of why I love her. It is her snarkiness I love, not romance!
January 8th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I second everything you said Jessica Irene.
The men in my life all love P&P if not all Austen works. My husband and father love P&P 1995, as does my 7 year old son. And my 3 year old loves the music so much that he’ll watch each tape’s title sequence one after another. He also loves the 2005 movie, mostly for the music and the dancing (which looks to him like jumping up and down) and clapping.
The 5 year old doesn’t have a preference yet. He’ll watch them if I put one in, but he rarely asks for them.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Ditto both previous comments. My husband actively dislikes Jane Austen (masters in English, right?), but somehow I conned him into watching P&P2, and now he’s actually pulled it out twice to watch of his own initiative and wants to read the book and give Jane another chance. He finally got the snarky aspect!