I finished "Northanger Abbey" last night, completing my reading of the Austen canon. When I read the works of one author, I like to read them in the order that they were written. That's especially true when there is some continuity between works because I don't want one book to spoil my reading of another. But even in the case of authors like Austen and/or Dickens where there is no continuity, I still like to read them in the order they were written.
At some level that's just due to a desire for order or routine, but it can also help to see how an author's work develops. That has been true with Jane Austen especially as I moved from the shorter "Sense and Sensibility" and "Pride and Prejudice" to the much longer "Mansfield Park" and "Emma." Of course, as any "Janeite" knows, I made a mistake with "Northhanger Abbey." The fact is that while it was the last of Austen's works to be published it was apparently the first to be written.
The introduction to the Penguin edition that I read indicates that the novel was written in the early 1790's and the editor believes that Austen made few changes to it later years. So what I was, in effect, doing was reading her first work after her reading her more fully developed novels. Perhaps that made me more conscious of the fact that I was reading something written in their early 20's. From that perspective, I think "Northanger Abbey" is quite an accomplishment, it is funny - to me funnier than Austen's other novels and creative in the way it uses books/reading and their affect on readers as sort of a structure for the book.
Some of my previously described doubts about Austen also exist in this novel. Once again at the end every one gets what they deserve especially in terms of "journeys end in lovers meeting." I am not sure why that bothers me so much. I think it especially relates to the fact that if marriage is the "happy ending" and Austen herself never had that ending why does she include it in all her novels. The marriage is only part of it, however, it is really the idea that everyone gets what they deserve - both good and bad. Life certainly doesn't always work out that way so I guess I believe that an author's art should reflect life in that way at least to some degree.
As someone who married later in life (by 1970's standards!), who never believed he would marry, I try to be sensitive to the idea that those who don't marry have somehow failed and can't have a happy ending. I guess it makes me feel as if Austen is somehow engaging in escapism in her fiction. That may be unfair, I don't claim to be an expert on Austen, and I also want to be sensitive to potential gender issues/differences. I need to do more thinking about Jane Austen's fiction, read more criticism, perhaps even take some kind of course in an effort to better understand her popularity. I will start "The Jane Austen Book club" tonight as a small, not very intensive way to do that. Certainly I don't in any way regret reading my way through her work and while I may not be a Janeite, like them, I wish she had survived to write even more.
At some level that's just due to a desire for order or routine, but it can also help to see how an author's work develops. That has been true with Jane Austen especially as I moved from the shorter "Sense and Sensibility" and "Pride and Prejudice" to the much longer "Mansfield Park" and "Emma." Of course, as any "Janeite" knows, I made a mistake with "Northhanger Abbey." The fact is that while it was the last of Austen's works to be published it was apparently the first to be written.
The introduction to the Penguin edition that I read indicates that the novel was written in the early 1790's and the editor believes that Austen made few changes to it later years. So what I was, in effect, doing was reading her first work after her reading her more fully developed novels. Perhaps that made me more conscious of the fact that I was reading something written in their early 20's. From that perspective, I think "Northanger Abbey" is quite an accomplishment, it is funny - to me funnier than Austen's other novels and creative in the way it uses books/reading and their affect on readers as sort of a structure for the book.
Some of my previously described doubts about Austen also exist in this novel. Once again at the end every one gets what they deserve especially in terms of "journeys end in lovers meeting." I am not sure why that bothers me so much. I think it especially relates to the fact that if marriage is the "happy ending" and Austen herself never had that ending why does she include it in all her novels. The marriage is only part of it, however, it is really the idea that everyone gets what they deserve - both good and bad. Life certainly doesn't always work out that way so I guess I believe that an author's art should reflect life in that way at least to some degree.
As someone who married later in life (by 1970's standards!), who never believed he would marry, I try to be sensitive to the idea that those who don't marry have somehow failed and can't have a happy ending. I guess it makes me feel as if Austen is somehow engaging in escapism in her fiction. That may be unfair, I don't claim to be an expert on Austen, and I also want to be sensitive to potential gender issues/differences. I need to do more thinking about Jane Austen's fiction, read more criticism, perhaps even take some kind of course in an effort to better understand her popularity. I will start "The Jane Austen Book club" tonight as a small, not very intensive way to do that. Certainly I don't in any way regret reading my way through her work and while I may not be a Janeite, like them, I wish she had survived to write even more.
No comments:
Post a Comment