Defending Jane
Women’s eNews has a great article about the public perception of Jane Austen’s work after the recent spate of film adaptations.
“Sense and Sensibility,” which concludes this Sunday, is capping off a series of new Jane Austen adaptations on PBS, mostly featuring heroines in low-cut bodices falling desperately in love and often distressed about it.
While adding to Austen’s fame, the series also seems to have stoked the image of the Regency England author as a chronicler of passionate romance and sugary patron saint of chick flicks.
“Hyacinth and amethyst adorned the landscape of her heart, betrothed to fragrant oakmoss,” began the Austen section in a February parody of famous authors by McSweeney’s, an online humor magazine.
While Shane Ryan, the parody’s writer convincingly aped the styles of Cormac McCarthy and James Joyce, his Austen was off base. Instead of Austen’s spare style, his parody seemed to be responding to the costume-drama flavor of Austen film posters.
So true–even when the film is pretty good, sometimes the publicity is downright embarrassing–think about the Nibblers VHS cover for P95, for instance. And the trailers are usually pretty laughable. Look at all the recent directors who were determined to Do Away With Bonnets In Jane Austen Adaptations! Never mind that bonnets are correct and proper for an adaptation set in the late 18th or early 19th century. They’re a CLICHÉ! We cannot have them! It’s all about perception, and the perception is often so skewed that the wonderful stories get lost beneath them.
The Editrix has her share in the conversation…
One place Austen may get a more diverse audience is online, where plenty of male Janeites can be found, says Austenblog’s Sullivan. “On the Internet, you meet people with whom the one thing you have in common is Jane Austen,” she says. “She appeals to everyone, conservative to liberal, atheists to those who are very into their religion.”
Do check out the whole article, it’s really well-done, and we’re not just saying that because we were quoted. 
April 5th, 2008 at 11:17 am
A well written article sprinkled with quotes from a variety of Janeites. Nicely done!
April 5th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Good article, however, I have a few points to make about this:
“Sullivan and other “Janeite” scholars say Austen was a wickedly satirical social commentator whose main preoccupation was the vulnerability of women in a society where–as the opening scenes of “Sense and Sensibility” emphasize–property can only be inherited by a male.”
First, I’m sure Mags did not say that women can’t inherit, which is quite wrong.
Second, I agree with the article that Austen is about the human condition, not just the vulnerability of women economically, but the vulnerability of all people to emotional injury. Austen shows that the hallmark of a good person is constant awareness of the feelings others are experiencing, and the desire never to cause those feelings to be painful or embarrassing. In Austen, good manners have moral significance, because they protect feelings.
Third, I have never detected in any of the novels a satirical attitude towards the society Austen and her characters lived in — to the contrary, the satire is always directed at characters who fail to live up to the ideals and expectations of that society. It is true that Austen disagreed with her society’s attitudes about women — limited opportunities for earning and occupation, not felt able to go to sea — but her criticism of her society on that point is not in the form of satire, but is instead a direct statement. I think Austen greatly loved and esteemed the society of her time, and agreed that manners were and ought to be important, not because of a dedication to formalities but because they serve the important moral obligation not to inflict emotional pain.
Recently my aunt, a Bryn Mawr graduate, asked me about Emma, because her “Bryn Mawr book club” was reading it. Apparently I knew enough about it, and the various filmed versions, that she invited me to the club meeting. Several of the women there agreed with the view that Austen is satirizing her society. But it seemed to me that these readers themselves felt that the society of Austen’s day deserved to be satirized, and so saw in Austen the satire that they felt a truly insightful writer would direct against that society. They liked the romance, but didn’t really like the society in which the romance plays-out. But I do not see any foundation for that attitude in Jane Austen herself.
April 5th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Hey Ed! Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
I don’t know if satire is exactly the right word, but I do think that Austen was critical, if gently and subtly so, about certain aspects of her society–mostly the situation of dependence that women were forced into. Speaking of Emma, look at Jane Fairfax and her description of the governessing trade–comparing it to slavery. Very strong words, and many might be offended in our more politically correct time, but I don’t think they were chosen by accident (nor, I hasten to add, do I think Jane Fairfax was speaking for Jane Austen). In MP, there is so much imagery of confinement–the thing with the starling (and that’s Maria, who comes from a rich family and marries a rich man! so it’s not just about money), and the gate at Sotherton, and so much about who would drive Fanny back to Mansfield Park from Portsmouth (in other words, she had to stay in an unpleasant situation until a man could take her away). And then Jane Fairfax, with her “the comfort of being sometimes alone” bit, can be construed as an image of confinement. I’m not sure that Jane Austen wanted sweeping changes, or that she would approve of modern feminism, but I do think she was critical of the situation of women in her society. She managed to have life on her terms, as an artist and not only as someone’s wife–but it was only the generosity of her brothers that allowed her to do it. Though if she had lived longer and written more books, she might have had a fortune of her own to command. Okay, I’m starting to ramble now so I’ll stop!
April 5th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Mags, my question is not quite on the topic but I would really like you to enlighten me if you can. Who the heck are the people on the “nibbler” cover? It would be one thing if Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root were the ones in that rediculous picture but neither of the cover art people were even in Persuasion 95. WTF?!?!? LOL
April 5th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
WTFerrars indeed! I think it was just a stock image photo that they slapped in there to make people think it was a sexy movie about sexy people who didn’t wear support garments.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I think there’s a very critical point made in this article that isn’t expressed anywhere near often enough, and one that is thus very poorly understood - let alone known - by the general populace:
“Festa says Austen made a major contribution to the rise of the novel as an art form with her perfection of free indirect discourse, a writing style in which the narrator seamlessly enters the thoughts of characters”.
Few nowadays can understand, let alone appreciate, the major historical significance of this. Patron Saint of chick lit/flicks my Arse!! One of the most significant Patron Saints of the novel as an art form as we know it today more like!!
April 6th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Edward, I am also a Bryn Mawr graduate, but I do not see things the way your aunt and her acquaintances do. I’ve never thought of Austen as being quite that subversive. Yes, the books contain satire. Yes, the books contain romance. Personally, I find that there’s a balance between the two and, IMNSHO, the books wouldn’t be as much fun if they leaned too much to one side or the other.
Austen really just pokes fun at people who deserve to be poked fun at, like Lady Catherine or Sir Walter. For example, some of the “she’s mostly satire” crowd point to Mr. Elton and Mr. Collins as examples that Austen didn’t have much respect for the clergy. But they don’t take into account that Austen’s father and two of her brothers were Anglican priests (and she was very fond of her father and brothers), nor do they take into account that Edward Ferrars, Henry Tilney and Edmund Bertram are also Anglican priests, and none of these men is a pompous, bumbling fool like Messrs Elton or Collins (Edmund might be a drip, but he’s no Mr. Collins or Mr. Elton).
April 6th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
>Third, I have never detected in any of the novels a satirical attitude towards the society Austen and her characters lived in — to the contrary, the satire is always directed at characters who fail to live up to the ideals and expectations of that society.
Like Julie P, I too disagree with Edward Sisson. *Emma* does a good job of doing exactly that. JA supported the rising Coles family and satired Emma’s (the established ones) dislike of being in competition with them. She would have to sit in ’solitary grandeur’ if she didn’t go to their party, makes me laugh at JA’s way of telling us that that would be the case if one didn’t accept this change.
While she didn’t ridicule the rise of Coles, she did ridicule the pretentiousness of people imitating the established class, like Mrs Elton.
It shows JA appreciating and accepting both sides - when done right.
The starting line of P&P for is also one. Then, Mrs Bennet being more concerned about what people will say if Lydia had no new gowns, rather than what she had done - a satire on how some members of society gave importance to the wrong thing, and this part of society is silly and empty headed.
But of course one must remember - it was the society she knew, in other words, the one in which her characters lived.
I think JA not only talks about women having problems in that society, but men too.
Being breadwinners and protectors they were heavily burdened. Not all were Darcys and Knightleys.
Family and connections were important. The following were men dependent on others.
-Edward Ferrars on Col Brandon
-Mr Collins on Lady Catherine
-men like Wickham and Thorpe and Mr Eliot, wanted to be like Darcys and Knightleys went in search of rich women, like some women did men
-William Price depended first on Sir Thomas and then on Henry Crawford to be made
April 6th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
I do also agree that JA’s writings contain satire, people might miss them in the novels, though Julie P and Reeba have presented very good examples. Her Juvenilia is even more openly satirical IMHO.
Amen to what Mags has emphasized regarding JA and the free indirect speech.