I finished reading "The Jane Austen Book Club" in two days. Reading at that rate would be about 180 books a year which would still put me well behind Elaine at Random Jottings and there is no way I could read at even that rate. For the first 75% or so of this book I was reminded that I don't like American fiction written say after 1970, I can't think of a single piece of American fiction written in the past 40 or so years that I have enjoyed. That may say more about me than about anything else.
This book is the story of five women and one man who form a Jane Austen book club in California to read and discuss Austen's six novels. I am sure I have led a sheltered life, but I find it had to accept the probabilities of finding any group of six people that are so dysfunctional in one way or another. All of us have some quirks, but the background of this group makes looks Ozzie and Harriet look like some kind of commune. From the woman who's mother pretended she had given her a birthday party and the daughter forgot, to the man who's father took him to what sounds like an orgy when they were supposed to be on a camping trip, these people have had some strange experiences. Perhaps they looked at the book club as a less expensive form of therapy.
However, I found the last part of the book more enjoyable and I got something out of it. One thing was the correction of my blanket statement that all of Austen's characters get what they deserve. Certainly it would be a stretch to say that of Charlotte Lucas in her marriage to Mr. Collins in "Pride and Prejudice." I don't know if it was intentional or not, but it seemed to me that the six members of the book club got what they deserved at the end plus one of the endings was a Deux Ex Machina almost worthy of Austen herself.
There is a long appendix like section at the end of the book called the Response. It consists of critics and other writers reaction to Austen's work beginning in her time through 2003. The comments range from very positive to very negative. One of the especially negative comments that comes early in the book is Ralph Waldo Emerson's statement that he is "at a loss to understand why people how Miss Austen's novels at so high a rate." He goes on to say that "All that interests in any character (is): has he (or she) the money to marry with? . . . Suicide is more respectable."
I think that is probably a fairly typical American reaction especially written within one years of the American Revolution - the who cares about caste ridden British society attitude. In thinking about this, however, I was reminded about something that I believe about Shakespeare - especially the history plays. These eight plays cover a period of English history over 500 years ago - what possible relevance could they have to the 21st century. I think the answer is found in Mary Ann Evans' (George Eliot) comment that art is not the subject, but the treatment of the subject.
For example, the history plays are relevant because of what they say about leadership - good leadership and bad leadership - something that will always be relevant. I think the same thing might be true of Jane Austen's work. Their enduring appeal is at least partially because the issues raised in the novels, especially about relationships, will always be issues so that the setting of the story does not block out the relevance of the story. That may at some level be obvious, but it helps me see more clearly the merits of Austen work. I also feel a little better knowing that she does not receive universal praise so that I am not out there by myself with some negative views.
I have may have finished the novels, but I am not finished with Austen - there is reading of criticism, re-reading of the novels plus more thinking and probably posting to come.
This book is the story of five women and one man who form a Jane Austen book club in California to read and discuss Austen's six novels. I am sure I have led a sheltered life, but I find it had to accept the probabilities of finding any group of six people that are so dysfunctional in one way or another. All of us have some quirks, but the background of this group makes looks Ozzie and Harriet look like some kind of commune. From the woman who's mother pretended she had given her a birthday party and the daughter forgot, to the man who's father took him to what sounds like an orgy when they were supposed to be on a camping trip, these people have had some strange experiences. Perhaps they looked at the book club as a less expensive form of therapy.
However, I found the last part of the book more enjoyable and I got something out of it. One thing was the correction of my blanket statement that all of Austen's characters get what they deserve. Certainly it would be a stretch to say that of Charlotte Lucas in her marriage to Mr. Collins in "Pride and Prejudice." I don't know if it was intentional or not, but it seemed to me that the six members of the book club got what they deserved at the end plus one of the endings was a Deux Ex Machina almost worthy of Austen herself.
There is a long appendix like section at the end of the book called the Response. It consists of critics and other writers reaction to Austen's work beginning in her time through 2003. The comments range from very positive to very negative. One of the especially negative comments that comes early in the book is Ralph Waldo Emerson's statement that he is "at a loss to understand why people how Miss Austen's novels at so high a rate." He goes on to say that "All that interests in any character (is): has he (or she) the money to marry with? . . . Suicide is more respectable."
I think that is probably a fairly typical American reaction especially written within one years of the American Revolution - the who cares about caste ridden British society attitude. In thinking about this, however, I was reminded about something that I believe about Shakespeare - especially the history plays. These eight plays cover a period of English history over 500 years ago - what possible relevance could they have to the 21st century. I think the answer is found in Mary Ann Evans' (George Eliot) comment that art is not the subject, but the treatment of the subject.
For example, the history plays are relevant because of what they say about leadership - good leadership and bad leadership - something that will always be relevant. I think the same thing might be true of Jane Austen's work. Their enduring appeal is at least partially because the issues raised in the novels, especially about relationships, will always be issues so that the setting of the story does not block out the relevance of the story. That may at some level be obvious, but it helps me see more clearly the merits of Austen work. I also feel a little better knowing that she does not receive universal praise so that I am not out there by myself with some negative views.
I have may have finished the novels, but I am not finished with Austen - there is reading of criticism, re-reading of the novels plus more thinking and probably posting to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment