I can’t substantially disagree with this! Jane Austen was a great writer - in fact, to my mind, she was a greater writer than Flaubert. One brief word in defence of the original essay: if the novel has been about a specific technique since Austen, then it has, of necessity, been about that technique since Flaubert, too. Glimmers of free indirect discourse are detectable even in ancient literature. But Henry’s points about Austen are always worth listening to.
Jane Austen was a brilliant stylist, but since her novels are anachronistically considered "romances", some people (we all know who) have never respected her as the genius she was.
Spot on. Although in my experience studying/teaching literature Austen is credited… I remember reading Wood’s work & being slightly surprised because I’d been taught that Austen invented or at least pioneered free indirect discourse. & that was the conventional wisdom among narratology people, & it’s what I taught my students, & indeed even the Wikipedia page on free indirect credits Austen (& Goethe interestingly, though I can’t vouch for that). But this is all in an Australian context.
I’m sure there is something to this if we confine ourselves to elite literary circles, but as someone outside of those circles I’ve barely heard of Flaubert.
In the grand scheme of things how accurate is it to say Flaubert has gotten the credit for Austen’s genius when the latter is so much more famous and widely appreciated?
You may discover that here in America, Jane Austen is famous and Flaubert is obscure.
Good!
Love your picture legend, Henry! 🤣🤣
Haha thanks
Hard agree, Henry, hard agree.
It makes me so grouchy!
I can’t substantially disagree with this! Jane Austen was a great writer - in fact, to my mind, she was a greater writer than Flaubert. One brief word in defence of the original essay: if the novel has been about a specific technique since Austen, then it has, of necessity, been about that technique since Flaubert, too. Glimmers of free indirect discourse are detectable even in ancient literature. But Henry’s points about Austen are always worth listening to.
Sure but it’s important that we get the facts right!
When will Shakespeare get the recognition he deserves?
For what
Jane Austen was a brilliant stylist, but since her novels are anachronistically considered "romances", some people (we all know who) have never respected her as the genius she was.
Wood gives Austen her due in “The Birth of Inwardness” (New Republic)
sure but his book has mislead a few people imo
Spot on. Although in my experience studying/teaching literature Austen is credited… I remember reading Wood’s work & being slightly surprised because I’d been taught that Austen invented or at least pioneered free indirect discourse. & that was the conventional wisdom among narratology people, & it’s what I taught my students, & indeed even the Wikipedia page on free indirect credits Austen (& Goethe interestingly, though I can’t vouch for that). But this is all in an Australian context.
Yes scholars know all this
I’m sure there is something to this if we confine ourselves to elite literary circles, but as someone outside of those circles I’ve barely heard of Flaubert.
In the grand scheme of things how accurate is it to say Flaubert has gotten the credit for Austen’s genius when the latter is so much more famous and widely appreciated?
A lot of people repeat the line that it begins with Flaubert. Scholars know better.
I’ve argued that FID begins with ironic sarcasm and that in fact you can find it in King Lear.