This is the best critical article on Jane Austen I have ever read, the only one I ever finished reading, and the one that I cheered from beginning to end.
I love that Austen shows Willoughby complacent in the life he chose. She refuses to let her reader romanticize him by picturing him pining away. I confess to being not quite satisfied with Edward, but I still love the book and see it as Austen making very clear it is the sisters' proximity to one another which ensures their happy ending.
Bravo Henry! My admiration for your critical brilliance is tempered only by my chagrin that I could never emulate it! This article seems to me absolutely spot on… Thank you.
In part due to your enthusiastic advocacy, I've been reading and rereading Austen myself recently. I likewise find it striking both how straightforwardly evident Austen's ethical priors often are and how reluctant many modern scholars are to actually accept them, and sincerely grapple with the possibility that her perspective may be wiser and more humane than those of the modern academy. As noted in your podcast conversation with Oliver Traldi, there is plenty of philosophical content that one could profitably chew over in Austen if one is willing to take her (in my opinion) pretty unerring judgments of character seriously. I took a stab at advocating for the Austenian virtues myself this month:
Jane Austen, like Shakespeare, tends to make all the attempts to categorise her in totality as one thing or another entirely superfluous, she escapes them all, because she is many things at once. You can say she is conservative or liberal or patriarchal or feminist. Ultimately these are all ways of seeing things in refraction, partially and not the whole. One thing I realise about her now though is how her wit, and humour, is actually quite a deep weapon to examine and interrogate and question and scrutinise because nothing escapes her universal wit. That may make it all sound schematic, but I think its part of the delight. She asks how can we judge someone when so much clouds our view - status, desire, social expectation, money. And yet she doesn't then suggest these things are not important. Her characters have to balance things out to find truth and happiness. Everything is seen with that eye. And the whole thing. Love, marriage and the desire for 'a good match' with material security and mutual attraction, intellectual and conjugal, is the eternal story, so her stories will never pass they will always nag and delight us.
Your essay reminds me of the most important lesson I reaped from the many rich, enjoyable, enlightening literature courses I took in college in the ‘70s: Literary APPRECIATION must always precede literary commentary, which can take one of two forms: CRITIQUE or CRITICISM.
Critique is grounded in appreciation, and ideally deepens, highlights, promotes, and—as a final step—assesses overall merit and relative value in the literary pantheon. It doesn’t just serve the interests of a sheltered pseudo-profession. It contributes to the growth of the reader and, at its best, of the writer.
Criticism, on the other hand, does not require appreciation; it asks for mere perusal, which is usually sufficient for its primary tasks: theorize, intellectualize, objectify, and contextualize, with little concern for the intention of what’s communicated between author and reader. Ultimately, I have found criticism, as practiced today, to be deadening: It kills literature in the interest of dissecting it.
For me, reading and studying today’s criticism requires a gladiatorial-level capacity to separate wheat from chaff—to determine, without any harm to appreciation, whether amidst the mountains of intellectual verbiage there are any insights that deepen and enrich understanding. It’s a taxing task, with a very high cost/benefit ratio.
I salute the hardy, few literary appreciators who, without diminishing their hearts, possess the ability to distinguish wheat from chaff and are willing to do the job.
I’m firmly on the side of the cows here. If better pasturage is all Elinor and Edward have left to wish for, that sounds like a rather lovely ending! I enjoyed the contrast you drew with Willoughby getting on with his life...
This is a great review, and would have pleased Jane Austen, unlike the dessicated scholar-speak of some critics who seem to have missed the point of her novels entirely. But one cavil: wasn't Northanger Abbey the first Austen novel?
A wonderful review for those who love and reread Jane Austen and are left frustrated by so much superficial scholarship (except John Mullan!) Thank you, Henry, this is truly worthy of Jane Austen, and a great read.
A superb piece! So heartening that someone is writing like this, now.
Yes, these critics that 'stand outside the book'...exactly. And when you do that it so easily slips into an attitude of superiority.
Thank you!
“An individual deficient in the sense of humor represents more of a challenge to our idea of the human than a person of subnormal intelligence”
Christopher Hitchens
This is the best critical article on Jane Austen I have ever read, the only one I ever finished reading, and the one that I cheered from beginning to end.
Oh thank you
I love that Austen shows Willoughby complacent in the life he chose. She refuses to let her reader romanticize him by picturing him pining away. I confess to being not quite satisfied with Edward, but I still love the book and see it as Austen making very clear it is the sisters' proximity to one another which ensures their happy ending.
She’s very clear that their marriage ensures the happiness first
Bravo Henry! My admiration for your critical brilliance is tempered only by my chagrin that I could never emulate it! This article seems to me absolutely spot on… Thank you.
Thanks!
In part due to your enthusiastic advocacy, I've been reading and rereading Austen myself recently. I likewise find it striking both how straightforwardly evident Austen's ethical priors often are and how reluctant many modern scholars are to actually accept them, and sincerely grapple with the possibility that her perspective may be wiser and more humane than those of the modern academy. As noted in your podcast conversation with Oliver Traldi, there is plenty of philosophical content that one could profitably chew over in Austen if one is willing to take her (in my opinion) pretty unerring judgments of character seriously. I took a stab at advocating for the Austenian virtues myself this month:
https://www.untroubled.blog/p/jane-austen
Very glad to hear you are reading her!
Jane Austen, like Shakespeare, tends to make all the attempts to categorise her in totality as one thing or another entirely superfluous, she escapes them all, because she is many things at once. You can say she is conservative or liberal or patriarchal or feminist. Ultimately these are all ways of seeing things in refraction, partially and not the whole. One thing I realise about her now though is how her wit, and humour, is actually quite a deep weapon to examine and interrogate and question and scrutinise because nothing escapes her universal wit. That may make it all sound schematic, but I think its part of the delight. She asks how can we judge someone when so much clouds our view - status, desire, social expectation, money. And yet she doesn't then suggest these things are not important. Her characters have to balance things out to find truth and happiness. Everything is seen with that eye. And the whole thing. Love, marriage and the desire for 'a good match' with material security and mutual attraction, intellectual and conjugal, is the eternal story, so her stories will never pass they will always nag and delight us.
Your essay reminds me of the most important lesson I reaped from the many rich, enjoyable, enlightening literature courses I took in college in the ‘70s: Literary APPRECIATION must always precede literary commentary, which can take one of two forms: CRITIQUE or CRITICISM.
Critique is grounded in appreciation, and ideally deepens, highlights, promotes, and—as a final step—assesses overall merit and relative value in the literary pantheon. It doesn’t just serve the interests of a sheltered pseudo-profession. It contributes to the growth of the reader and, at its best, of the writer.
Criticism, on the other hand, does not require appreciation; it asks for mere perusal, which is usually sufficient for its primary tasks: theorize, intellectualize, objectify, and contextualize, with little concern for the intention of what’s communicated between author and reader. Ultimately, I have found criticism, as practiced today, to be deadening: It kills literature in the interest of dissecting it.
For me, reading and studying today’s criticism requires a gladiatorial-level capacity to separate wheat from chaff—to determine, without any harm to appreciation, whether amidst the mountains of intellectual verbiage there are any insights that deepen and enrich understanding. It’s a taxing task, with a very high cost/benefit ratio.
I salute the hardy, few literary appreciators who, without diminishing their hearts, possess the ability to distinguish wheat from chaff and are willing to do the job.
Thank you for this useful comment . I have copied it to my Readwise rotation to revisit now & then.
I’m firmly on the side of the cows here. If better pasturage is all Elinor and Edward have left to wish for, that sounds like a rather lovely ending! I enjoyed the contrast you drew with Willoughby getting on with his life...
Yes it’s bucolic isn’t it rather charming
This is a great review, and would have pleased Jane Austen, unlike the dessicated scholar-speak of some critics who seem to have missed the point of her novels entirely. But one cavil: wasn't Northanger Abbey the first Austen novel?
Wel we don’t know really but the first version of S&S seems to have been her first though it will have been rather different
Just re-read it and agree it is very funny. Thank you
I was really giggling
Thanks so much for this! Loved it! I've read all of Austen a few times over compulsively, and this piece explains why (or at least begins to). ❤️
I am becoming compulsive about her too
That quote from the introduction? What even does it mean?
A wonderful review for those who love and reread Jane Austen and are left frustrated by so much superficial scholarship (except John Mullan!) Thank you, Henry, this is truly worthy of Jane Austen, and a great read.
Thank you
Amen
The tragic truth is that academics are unequipped to deal with humor and thus ignore or misinterpret it.