Jane Austen discussion

Did anyone else read this? Thoughts?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101023/a...

So...Ms. Austen had an editor. Big deal. Every good writer has one.

I agree with Lani. Remember when we saw the earlier work of her unfinished last chapter of Persuasion, and no mention of "The Letter" that everyone was drooling for, anyway when I read what she wrote I for one thought it would have been more polished but everyone does need good editing. I have read books where I think they didn't use editing and it makes the book incongruous to read. So in the end who added the letter in Persuasion, just a thought.

I posted it this because my initial thought was like Lani - she had an editor. Big Woop.

But the tone of the article struck me like it was being portrayed as some huge revelation. As you have said, the vast majority of writers need someone else to look at that work. After a while, one can't "see" what one wrote anymore.

The other thing about this - it seems to assume that Austen's novels just sprang forth as the finished pieces. Ever read her surviving letters? Quite different (and fun) from her finished published pieces.

This article made me think that Austen isn't being allowed to be human - that she is presumed to be this Icon of Literature. Of course she had an editor. Didn't she read her manuscripts to the family and keep tweaking them based on the family reactions?

But the tone of the article struck me like it was being portrayed as some huge revelation. As you have said..."

Do you think its a matter of needing something new to say? A reason for her research?

Lani wrote: " But the tone of the article struck me like it was being portrayed as some huge revelation. As you have said..."

Do you think its a matter of needing something new to say? A reason for her resea..."

Exactly. Because so much of Austen's manuscripts and letters were lost or destroyed by her family and lacking the "stash in somebody's attic" discovery, I think that researchers have to plow over the same material that has been examined before.

They probably had nothing better to do and decided to bring this topic up, Sometimes they are looking for controversy when there isn't any.

Two more articles about this:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/...

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-f...

It is funny because it doesn't seem to be monumental research -- apologies to those involved -- but doesn't it lead to discrediting Austen's genius? Belittling a revered, deceased author? Are they just trying to say that she was good, but not as good as we thought?

You know it seems with the many issues of literacy, the disconnect between young people and great literature, and teh need to encourage adult reading even, scholars could develop and work on programs that address these community and social issues rather than the minute studies of a great author's inadequacies. Like programs that introduce the readability of great works or something.

If I was a scholar, I would be much more proud of that work than the things we are reading about here. And I don't just say that because I AM a fan of the brilliance of Austen. I would say that of other great authors who did help to change literature and give us joyous stories to read.

Goodness, that was well said Sarah and I agree 100%

Sabrina wrote: "Goodness, that was well said Sarah and I agree 100%"

Me too.

Mountain out of molehill when there are so many other things that need and deserve attention.

Here here! Well said Sarah!

My co-moderators are absolutely right. The issue of Austen having had an editor is almost not enough to even warrant a news story. NO ONE writes in completely perfect spelling and grammar 100% of the time, but a finished book needs to be as perfect in those respects as it can be. It doesn't mean anything we love Austen for is any less a result of her own creativity. Plus, the English language has evolved (some would say devolved) since her time--who's to say some of her spelling and grammar errors were actually errors back then. Just my thoughts!

Rachel, I agree and also think about the comparison to today in other ways. Even authors on a modest income may have the opportunity to go to free writers' workshops and things like that. Plus, the average student in the modern day may even have more grammar training than Austen would have had in her day and schooling circumstance.

I am not even agreeing that there was anything so faulty with Jane's manuscripts (I am waiting to see the evidence! ha ha). I am just saying if she did have some weak areas that would be understandable, do you think Rachel?

Totally agree with what you say about research, Sarah. A writer needing an editor is beside the point. IMO, every writer could use an editor for, at the very least, a second opinion. I'm sure Austen valued hers.

SarahC wrote: "Rachel, I agree and also think about the comparison to today in other ways. Even authors on a modest income may have the opportunity to go to free writers' workshops and things like that. Plus, th..."

Absolutely, Sarah!

I agree wholeheartedly, big Whoop.

The truth is, no early draft looks like the final product, and a great deal of credit should be given to good editing; and, after the first editorial passes, there are the copyedits.
What we do have of Austen's - her juvenilia and her letters - certainly support that she authored her books. You do see a shift in tone as she matures, after she loses her father, when her life situation becomes more stable and finally, when she is ill, and there may be some merit to the position that the tone of her works reflected her life situation.
If what the researcher is saying is that Jane Austen's work was edited, that's a non-issue. All novels are edited. If, on the other hand, she is saying that someone other than Austen wrote her works, you can only prove that by a comparison of that author's work with Austen's, and I don't believe the researcher produces any of the editor's fiction.
In addition, you do have, in Austen's later letters, her critiques of a niece's work, which do suggest an "authorial philosophy".
As Megan wrote, the tone of the article struck me, too, as being a revelation, when there seemed to be something tautological about it - Jane Austen's work was edited. I suspect that there is a book in the works, the issue of this research, and I would be very surprised if this book was not edited.

J. wrote: "The truth is, no early draft looks like the final product, and a great deal of credit should be given to good editing; and, after the first editorial passes, there are the copyedits.
What we do ..."

Well said J

I suspect that there is a book in the works, the issue of this research, and I would be very surprised if this book was not edited

Ah another cynic like myself or would that be realist? And do you think HER editor will get credit? I think not. But I am sure we will hear how she upset the "faithful" with her so called revelations.

Personally I think if there is any justice in the universe, Ms Austen is somewhere laughing at her celebrity status. She wrote like an entertaining realist to me.

Lani - there are other "cynics" like us out there! Read and enjoy!

http://janitesonthejames.blogspot.com/

http://austenacious.com/

(this is a good topic, thanks you folks for bringing it into discussion!)

Thanks Megan

Another good article although I don't care for the title.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/...

I especially like the last paragraph. It pretty much sums up the press in these "revelations."

Lani wrote: "Thanks Megan

Another good article although I don't care for the title.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/...

I especially like the la..."

Oh I do like that last line! And you are right - the title is a very poor choice of words.

Thanks for the link. This thing seems to be all over the internet, doesn't it?

Oh, that last line is great! The "i before e" rule gets me every time!;)

Lani wrote: "Thanks Megan

Another good article although I don't care for the title.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/...

I especially like the la..."

That's a GREAT article about this issue, Lani! The writer, John E. McIntyre, has an excellent grasp on the whole picture. The ending IS fabulous, isn't it? Good to know there are sensible, intelligent journalists and scholars out there to counter the others!

Yes. I agree.

I loved the article; it made me laugh out loud. Has anyone seen the old Cary Grant "Arsenic & Old Lace"? In it, the budding playwright/cop O'Hara (played by Jack Carson) says, "I get great ideas; I just can't spell 'em." That makes me laugh out loud, too.

I must have overlooked that dialogue, there was so much going on in that film, what with the Teddy Roosevelt guy, and of course Cary Grant's antics in it as well.