The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Here is where all are welcome to post any background information about the author, political or world situation of the time, photos/drawings of the setting, or any other information people might find interesting.

This was Austen's last novel, begun in 1815, and she was losing her health during the writing. (It is surmised that Austen may have died of Addison's disease or of Hodgkins disease, both of which would have left her struggling with fatigue and susceptible to infections.)

The settings include the usual country houses, but also spends significant time in Lyme Regis (on the south coast of England) and in the spa town of Bath.

Favourite screen versions? Mine is the 1995 BBC version starring Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds, although I've also enjoyed the 2007 version with Sally Hawkins and Rupert Penry-Jones. I haven't seen the 2022 version and hear it is rather anachronistic but look forward to hearing others' impressions.

I went into a good deal of background in a previous discussion a couple of years ago (I think). I will point out here that this is the only Austen novel with fairly firm internal dates. It is set in the period between Napoleon’s defeat and exile and his return from Elba.

As Austen’s intended readership would have been well aware, the sudden “outbreak of peace” was not handled particularly well by the British government.

It cancelled contracts, demobilized the army and navy, throwing great numbers of men with few skills into the workforce, ceased buying vast quantities of food and other supplies, and generally damaged an economy geared to a war effort that had lasted, with an interval of peace, for twenty-some years.

Across the country, banks created to handle government funds simply failed when business dried up: including one run by some of Jane’s brothers.

One group that came out of the peace better off than before was those naval officers who had made large sums in prize money, and contrived to keep it. Since some annotated editions suggest that this derived from looting captured ships, it should be made clear it was a legal process with strict rules, and the money was distributed according to Royal Navy regulations.

If a Prize Court agreed that a captured ship was a legitimate prize, a merchant vessel and its contents were auctioned, with the Prize Court itself getting a cut, as well as the Prize Agent who handled the case. Warships and privateers were purchased at a valuation by the Royal Navy, and either taken into service, or scrapped to prevent them from being transferred back to enemy hands. If the Court found that a ship was not a legal prize, the captain was liable to the owners for damages, so seizing ships at every opportunity was not a good idea.

Thanks Ian!

Chances of winning prize money were actually better for some of the more junior officers (lieutenants, commanders, and junior Post Captains) than for senior captains. The former commanded the smaller vessels, brigs, sloops (not the same thing as a modern sailing sloop), and frigates (roughly the cruiser class), which were employed on patrol and convoy duty, and had a chance of encountering merchant ships which has evaded, or were trying to evade, the British blockade of enemy ports.

The more senior Captains might expec to be given Ships-of-the-line (-of-battle), heavier vessels of 64 to 120 guns, which spent much of their time waiting outside enemy naval ports, waiting to pounce on any attempt to break out, especially on the part of enemy ships-of-the-line. There were few chances to take lucrative prizes, and when they were made the prize money was shared with the commanding admiral and the officers and crews of any Royal Navy ship in sight at the moment of surrender.

Thanks for the historical context, Ian!

Have to admit I don’t greatly enjoy any of the film adaptations. My favorite is the BBC miniseries from the 1970s—if you can get past the excessive hairdos. The actress playing Anne in that one is suitably elegant, unlike Amanda Root or Sally Hawkins. Because it’s longer, the 1970s version doesn’t skip nearly as much. I don’t like the two feature-film versions because they feel compelled to violate social norms so badly once the action gets to Bath.

Just as the book and film of Bridget Jones’s Diary were based on Pride & Prejudice, the 2nd book and film, Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason were based on Persuasion (roughly, of course, and it's more obvious in the book than the movie.)

Abigail wrote: "Have to admit I don’t greatly enjoy any of the film adaptations. My favorite is the BBC miniseries from the 1970s—if you can get past the excessive hairdos...."

When I was young, there was an English theatre company who toured my (non-English-speaking) country with one or the other English drama especially edited and performed for young students of English. It was all strictly second-rate but easy to understand ;-)) .

Trying to watch the miniseries is like a déjà-vu of those mandatory and thoroughly boring afternoons. I think I could watch it for the same reason I watched those lamentable theatre performances in my youth: as an easy way top get to know the book. But as I know the book quite well, there is no point for me to endure bad acting, bad directing, cheap production etc. (even back in 1970 cinematography could do better than this)

My favourite is the 1995 movie. One reason is the glorious casting of the secondary characters. Of course it's compressed, of course it takes some liberties - but then, if I want authenticity, I read Austen's book. In a movie, I look for what it has to add in terms of interpretation through sight and sound.

For those who want a statistical impression of what post-war demobilization meant to the Royal Navy, R.J.B. White's Britain Against Napoleon: The Organization of Victory, 1793-1815 gives some figures.

"Warships manned and in commission were cut in 1818 to a sixth of the total in 1814. Warships in commission fell from 713 in 1814 to 121 in 1818. The number of seaman 'borne' dropped by almost in half, from a peak of 147,000 in 1913 to just under 79,000 by the end of 1815, a figure that was to fall much further in subsequent years. By 1817 nearly 90 per cent of commissioned naval officers were unemployed and on 'half-pay'. For some, the employment situation hardly improved, with led to widespread suffering,"

The Army had a slower discharge rate, dropping from 240,000 soldiers in 1815 to 103,000 in 1828. The main reason for this disparity was that the government wanted troops at hand to suppress social disorder and political protests.

These figures for the army are bit misleading, since in many cases veteran troops were replaced by peacetime recruits.

According to Harry Smith, a veteran of the Peninsular War, the War of 1812, and Waterloo, he was urged by the civil authorities in Edinburgh to fire on a crowd (or mob, in their eyes), and begged off. He explained that his own, heavily outnumbered, men were green troops, whereas he had recognized many veterans in the front ranks of the crowd, men unlikely to flee from musket fire, and very likely to lead a successful attack if fired upon. The Autobiography of Sir Harry Smith 1787-1846

From Britain Against Napoleon: The Organization of Victory, 1793-1815:

"The country itself experienced prolonged economic disruption and destitution. Demobilized soldiers and seamen went home to find a much reduced labour market. Government contracts for shipbuilding, cannon and small arms ceased. Victualling contracts shrank dramatically, and lack of demand for naval and military provisions was instrumental in bringing down agricultural prices."

I’m greatly enjoying all of Ian’s fascinating economic and military background, but I have a little concern about its applicability to the story (as opposed to Austen’s mind-set). The action can be precisely dated to a few months between late summer 1814 and February 1815, and I don’t think the economic effects had happened yet. By the time Austen was writing the book, however, they would be starting to be felt—so they would be in her mind but not affecting the characters. This context is useful, however, in lending poignancy to the story: the “reality” the characters base their plans and choices on is more fragile than they can realize, and about to disappear.

I have a bunch to say about dates in this story and how they frame the subtext, but I’m not sure whether that discussion belongs in the background thread or in the discussion of chapter 1. Do the mods have a ruling on that?

The book was written in 1817, by which time the depression was well underway, and would have colored the readers’ view of events. The financial status of the Elliot family may be an indicator of troubles to come, as landowners suffer from the loss of the government market for their crops.

Well, it went to the printer in 1817 but it was written in 1815 and 1816—still, I agree that Austen was aware of the economic crisis when she was writing it. The distinction I was making was that economic crisis wasn’t part of the characters’ worldview.

It was unusual for Austen to be specific about the dating of the action in a novel, so her extraordinary specificity in Persuasion is a heads-up to the reader that the moment in time is meaningful to the plot.

Persuasion is my favourite Austen novel, followed by Mansfield Park partly because there are characters from the lower classes who feature in the plot. Interestingly, and probably due to Austen’s background, in both novels these characters have naval connections.

After reading the novels I came across these articles (below) which helped me to understand better the prevailing social and economic issues relevant to the characters. I would suggest that the articles are best read after reading the books because they contain some references to the text that may be considered as spoilers.

https://jasna.org/publications-2/pers...

https://jasna.org/publications-2/pers...

Abigail wrote: "I have a bunch to say about dates in this story and how they frame the subtext, but I’m not sure whether that discussion belongs in the background thread or in the discussion of chapter 1. Do the mods have a ruling on that?."

No strong feelings either way. If it is general stage setting for the time and place, probably best here. If there is something like "in chapter 8 when the heroine reads "Clarissa", this would have been considered a scandalous and unsuitable novel for a single woman at the time" this would go best in the thread for that particular section. However as long as there are no spoilers it is whatever works best for you and thanks in advance!

I didn’t enjoy the overall 2022 Persuasion but Mary Musgrove was perfect!

Thanks, Frances!

Movie versions have to be compressed. Austen goes over better in a miniseries, but so do most of the classics. Not having read the book yet in 1995, I wasn't aware of the compression. I liked the 1995 BBC version starring Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds, and I've seen one other, I think a theatrical film.

I am leery of most of the 'annotated' editions found online, but Anchor Books, a very reputable publisher, has The Annotated Persuasion, edited by David M Shapard on its list (along with other novels). This runs to 455 pages. The hyperlinks to the notes work well.

I have only read/used a fraction of it, but what I have seen appears to be both helpful and reliable. I should have a better idea of it by tomorrow, and will report back.

It is available in Kindle for $5.99 at https://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Pers...

For those who prefer a hard copy, there is a more expensive paperback at https://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Pers...

I agree that Shapard's edition is generally reliable, though I tend to find that his Austen editions are over-annotated, often explaining the same thing more than once or stating the obvious. Sometimes his annotations include spoilers.

My favorite annotated edition, though it’s spendy, is the Harvard/Belknap one edited by Robert Morrison. In my comments I'll be relying heavily on his insights, which I find both insightful and persuasive.

Abigail wrote: "In my comments I'll be relying heavily on his insights, which I find .... persuasive."

Given the book we are going to read - is this a good thing or a bad thing? ;-))

LOL, I try to allow myself to be persuaded sometimes—though not perhaps by Lady Russell.

So far I have found that Shapard is indeed redundant, for reasons that he explains politely, but which I would summarize as “for inattentive readers/students.,” and to avoid too-frequent back references. So far I have not found this to be a big problem.

So far as I have read, spoilers seem to come when he points out connections and foreshadowing: I am not sure they would be as obvious to first-time readers as they are to someone who knows the book from a previous reading.

He also supplies explanations where I never saw a problem, mainly in “unfamiliar” word usages and points of grammar. But I was an undergraduate and graduate English major, so I am a very poor test of what is necessary for the majority of readers.

(I am reminded of the new Folger Library Shakespeare editions, which offer explanations aimed at High School students, based on decades of responses from teachers about the failings of the old series. But the overall tone of the recent editions strikes me as geared more for college level classes.)

I somehow forgot to mention here a book that I think is invaluable to those who know the novels well, but bewildering to novices (not to mention being one long set of spoilers): Stuart M. Tave’s “Some Words of Jane Austen.” Basically it is a fairly rigorous study of Jane Austen’s moral vocabulary, but the final chapter, on “Persuasion,” is one of the best explications of what is going on in the verbal background that I have encountered. It is, of course, entitled “Anne Elliot: Whose Word Had No Weight.”

Thanks, Ian! That’s one I’ve never read and it looks interesting.

As to JA's comment on social class in Persuasion: I like Dr. Octavia Cox' video on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NAGX...

there are also a number of other videos in her channel about Persuasion (and other JA novels).

Thanks for sharing the link, Sabagrey! The sentence that most jumped out at me in the passage Dr. Cox highlights was when Austen says that Lady Russell “had a cultivated mind, and was, generally speaking, rational and consistent—but she had prejudices on the side of ancestry; she had a value for rank and consequence, which blinded her a little to the faults of those who possessed them.” This comes only a page after Elizabeth Elliot’s life is described as a “nothingness,” which places at least the narrator (and soon Anne) in opposition to Lady Russell’s worldview.

When I was young, t..."

I agree, the 1995 version is my favourite as well. I think it gives the sense and feel of the book.

I think in the 1970s, the BBC wanted to be more literal with their depictions of classic books, and their actors had usually came from a theatrical background, which was why they could be quite wooden.

I have mentioned these before, but for those who don’t know about them, I recommend reading the letters (or transcripts) of Jane Austen and her immediate family and friends. These often provide glimpses of Austen’s own social values and those of her peers.

Some of her letters, with a one or two relating to her naval brother Charles can be found here.

https://janeaustens.house/object/lett...

There are tons of books on the Royal Navy in the Napoleonic Wars, but most of them concentrate on strategy and fleet actions, or are biographies of notable figures (chiefly Lord Nelson), or describe rare, if important, episodes, like James Dugan's The Great Mutiny. Or get into technical matters, such as provisioning (Feeding Nelson's Navy: The True Story of Food at Sea in the Georgian Era, by Janet MacDonald, or administration.

For the war as experienced by relatively junior captains, like Wentworth, I would suggest Richard Woodman, The Sea Warriors (2002), which is available as a $3.99 Kindle edition. It is long (about 500 pages) but selected chapters should give a good impression of what was going on with the smaller vessels.
https://www.amazon.com/Sea-Warriors-R...

There is a later, illustrated, and considerably more expensive, Kindle edition, as The Sea Warriors: Fighting Captains and Frigate Warfare in the Age of Nelson (2014)
https://www.amazon.com/Sea-Warriors-F...

For what Jane Austen would have known about the Royal Navy from specific and personal, rather than general, knowledge the old (1906) Jane Austen's Sailor Brothers, by J. H. and Edith Hubback, is available in several editions, including one from Project Gutenberg, which is free. An inexpensive Kindle edition is "Jane Austen’s Sailor Brothers, Being the Adventures of Sir Francis Austen, G.C.B., Admiral of the Fleet and Rear-Admiral Charles"
https://www.amazon.com/Austens-Brothe...

There is a proof copy at https://janeaustens.house/object/jane...

I see most of you are huge fans of Jane Austen and this particular novel : )
This is my first time reading it, but I have seen all 3 movie adaptations.

I agree that the 1995 movie is the best of the 3.
The 2007 one was very forgettable.
The latest 2022 Netflix adaptation is strange to say the least, but not as awful as the reviews suggested. I think it has great cinematography and Dakota Johnson looks exactly like I imagined Anne.
None of the actors playing Wentworth look the way I imagine him. I thought he would be younger and more handsome/charming.

Ana wrote: "I see most of you are huge fans of Jane Austen and this particular novel : )
This is my first time reading it, but I have seen all 3 movie adaptations.

I agree that the 1995 movie is the best of t..."

You hit the nail on the head. None of the Wentworths are charismatic enough! In my opinion.