Austen the Icon
Two articles from two different countries present Jane Austen as a pop icon and representation of her time, and ours.
Alert Janeite Miss V. let us know that The Sydney Morning Herald has an article about how the England of Jane Austen is long gone, despite tourism fueled by film adaptations (which we blogged about a few days ago).
Is England about Austen and rose gardens, or is it really just a dreary island where the cost of living is too high and the clash of cultures too much?
It’s both, of course. If they were alive today, chances are Darcy and his creator would have thoroughly disapproved of a culture where ill-educated footballers (and their perma-tanned wives) are idolised, and where fluffy reality television shows such as Celebrity Big Brother direct the national debate on race relations.
But Austen probably would have loved the verve of the English press - for all its faults, it is probably the wildest, most passionate, and most free press in the world - and she would have adored watching the bungling royals. She was, after all, a serious gossip.
Alert Janeite Lisa sent us a link to a Newsday article about the recent emergence of Jane Austen as a pop culture icon.
So other than the sense and sensibility she brings to her novels, what is it about Austen that never seems to go out of favor? “I wrote my entire book trying to answer that question for myself,” Fowler said. “What I like about her is the romantic element, the happy endings and the chance to escape from our own wired world into a world with picnics, pastorals and swamps.”
And sandwiches aren’t the only things being attacked at those Austen picnics. “She’s just a brilliant social observer and a kind of gentle satirist,” said Scott Harshbarger, associate professor of English at Hofstra University. “She’s right in the middle of the romantic age, which was a very turbulent era with a great deal of social unrest. Yet her novels all take place in drawing rooms and balls and really explore the minutiae and ironies of society. People have read her novels as a way of escaping the scary world outside. It’s nice to escape to this wonderfully nuanced social reality that she’s created.”
August 30th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Pardon me, did she say… *swamps*?
August 30th, 2007 at 9:11 am
With regards to Austen and Darcy not recognising the ill-educated footballer and two-a-penny celebrity dominated culture- what do they think Beau Brummel and the Prince Regent were? Charitable geniuses? i think not. Don’t get me wrong, i’m not in favour of the ridickulously high wages of footballers, nor the instant and often destructive (and definitley unearned) fame of reality stars etc, but i don’t think it would be entirely unrecognisable to inhabitants of Austen’s England.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Yes, Joan. She said “swamps”. England does have a few marshes, fens, bogs, and very damp moors. However, as an Englishwoman, and as an ecologist, I believe I’d be hard put to find any swamps there, except in the reptile house at London Zoo! Ms Fowler is yet another author who should be careful and check her facts before she puts her foot in her mouth. Which brings me to the facts- the proof of what was , or was not, in Jane Austen’s England is surely based upon what she included in her novels , is it not? I do ask myself how often I escape to MP or Persuasion to experience the swamps that she vividly describes. I can’t remember doing it very often! Obviously Ms. Fowler would not approve of me!
August 30th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Well, that path between Donwell & Hartfield does get rather damp & dirty after a good rain. Just ask Mr. Woodhouse…
