Talk:Reception history of Jane Austen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
A fact from Reception history of Jane Austen appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 8 December 2007.
Wikipedia
To-do list for Reception history of Jane Austen: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand: Add film adaptations and European reaction to Austen

[edit] Bowdlerised?

"Austen's novels had been published in the United States since 1832, often in bowdlerized editions," Really bowdlerised? Not merely pirated and imperfect, but actually deliberately expurgating passages considered unfit for innocent readers? jnestorius(talk) 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes - they removed inappropriate language like "Good God!". See source, which uses this word and describes the changes. Awadewit | talk 13:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image caption: "Written by woman"??

Not sure what "because it was written by a woman" is supposed to mean in this context, since the non-review of Emma is directly beneath a long review of another book written by a woman. For the real reason, see Talk:Jane_Austen/Archive_1#Image_from_New_Monthly_Magazine. Churchh (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • This reason was taken from a source; Simmaren has the citation, I think. We should add that in. Are you making your deduction from the NMM itself? The whole issue of whether Austen was trying to "elevate" the novel or not is rather complicated. See "Sensibility by the Numbers: Austen's Work as Regency Popular Fiction" by Barbara Benedict (in Janeites) for an example. Our notes are here for that essay. Awadewit | talk 17:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please discuss the changes before you remove the statement - I see now it had a source. We should figure out what the best way to phrase this statement is - "not important enough to review" is a bit vague. We need to explain more than that. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 17:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't reviewed because it was seen as not being above the common run of circulating-library novels (as opposed to types of writing which had some pretensions to status as high literature and/or elevating didactic moralism -- see the famous "defense of the novel" passage in Northanger Abbey). Condescension towards the female-oriented genre of "novels" (a word which had much the same connotations then as the phrase "romance novels" does today) definitely played a part, but the idea that Emma was not reviewed simply and only because its author was a woman is unfortunately wrong. Unless your source refers specifically to issue 25 of the 1816 New Monthly Magazine, then its direct relevance may be dubious. Churchh (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You're raised a reasonable question. I remember our earlier exchange. I'll check our references again and respond appropriately. Unfortunately. much of the drafting history of this replacement article is inaccessible, so I can't identify the moment when changes were made to the original caption. Simmaren (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the original statement was something much longer and more complex. It was reduced for the sake of its being a caption. I think it included several reasons. Perhaps a formulation like "one of the reasons..." would be more accurate? Awadewit | talk 17:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Awadewit is correct. We added the phrase "because it was by a woman" as shorthand for a longer explanation in the footnote as part of an effort to condense the text of the article to a reasonable length for "publication." We do not have a source that refers specifically to the New Monthly Magazine. I propose that we revert to something like the original approach and will take care of it later today or tomorrow unless someone objects. Simmaren (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary Reaction

Honan has several pages (289-90, 346-48 318-320) dealing with the reactions of individuals ("opinion-makers"), as opposed to critics, to S & S, MP and P & P. There is similar material in the introduction to Southam's first "Critical Heritage" volume. This is probably too detailed to add to the main article (maybe) but is a part of the reception history and a few sentences might be useful to flesh out the beginning of this article under a heading something like "Individual Reactions." What say you? I'll be happy to do the work. Simmaren (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • What are you thinking of adding? We don't want to get mired down in detail. I already feel that this article is a bit mired in detail. Awadewit | talk 19:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I had in mind two to four sentences, sources as above, discussing what is known of the contemporary public reaction to Austen's books. Later parts of this article deal with public response, but this first section is limited to the reviews. Perhaps there is a way for me to write something (short) "on spec" and show it to you for comment? Simmaren (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Just throw it in and let's see. Awadewit | talk 00:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)