Good thing he's not in charge, then
The Guardian’s Anthony McGowan thinks teenagers shouldn’t read Jane Austen.
There are, of course, plenty of books that I don’t much like. Plenty more that I detest. The appalling conservatism of Jane Austen makes me retch (anyone who doubts it – I mean the conservatism, not the retching – should read Marilyn Butler’s stunning Jane Austen and the War of Ideas, which brilliantly nails Austen as one of the bad guys of Eng Lit, assuming you come at it from a Guardian-type liberal angle).
We don’t disagree that Jane Austen wrote very much from her experience as a high church Tory and that she frowned upon the excesses of emotion that characterized, for example, Wuthering Heights (which, if you scroll down to comments, Mr. McGowan thinks is just smashing). That being said, we think it’s a shame that anyone thinks teenagers should be limited from reading whatever they want, because then they might not learn to think and accept or reject ideas on their own and might grow up to be narrow-minded, humorless asses who write nonsense for the newspapers.
Comments are closed.
You can read an excerpt from Marilyn Butler’s book inside another book called the Realist Novel; the Butler excerpt begins at page 224. Here is the link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=hG1uko5gr0AC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=Jane+Austen+and+the+War+of+Ideas&source=web&ots=Zo00Ue4W7W&sig=_sWkLhA9ieyy2DkJjhDGdOiqqpo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA229,M1
You have such a way with words, Mags.
I read “Jane Austen and the War of Ideas” a few years back and I’m rather surprised that it appearently “nailed Austen as one of the bad guys of Eng Lit”. Maybe mine was a different edition?
Marilyn Butler has this insightful comment: she establishes two broad categories of plots: “whether the plot, broadly, suggests a victim suffering at the hands of society, or a misguided individual rebelling against it.”
I think this puts a spotlight on the question of whether Austen is engaging in satire. Someone who is satirizing society will portray a victim suffering at the hands of society, but that is not what Austen does. She presents a misguided individual rebelling against society. She satirizes certain personality types — showing her main characters as victims suffering at the hands of those individuals — but not the society itself.
The author of the article presenting Marilin Butler’s book “Jane Austen & the War of Ideas” asks some questions:
http://bookchronicle.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/jane-austen-the-war-of-ideas/
“ …. why are some books held up as memorable fiction or are canonized while other books and authors are forgotten …”
“ … why (conservative) Austen rather than more radical contemporaries? ….. “
“ … I do not have the answers to these questions … “
The author continues answering this question without noticing, as it seems, that he/she is giving the answer at the same time:
“ … Austen is most definitely gripping and a phenomenal story teller but it seems a healthy enterprise to question why one author over another … “
The audiences do not value an author by critics criterions – whether or not the author is conservative or radical, feminist or other “ist”, etc, but by their personal qualities and talents to write and tell stories and Jane Austen is the greatest genius among her contemporaries and influences mentioned in the article (Maria Edgeworth, Mary Astill, Hannah More, Marcet, Gaskell, G. Eliot, F. Burney, H. Mackenzie, A. Radcliffe, Goldsmith, C. Reeve, To. Holcroft, W. Godwin, E. Inchbald, C. Smith, M. Robinson, M. Hays, Godwin, Bage, Cowper, Scott). That is the answer.
As to the author of theblog books article:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/08/true_xcertificate_reading.html
I recollect a quote from “Following the Equator” by Mark Twain:
“…. Jane Austen’s books, too, are absent from this library. Just that one omission alone would make a fairly good library out of a library that hadn’t a book in it ….”
Author diagnosis: Mark Twain’s disease
Symptoms: paranoia about cleaning Jane Austen’s books from libraries.
As both a teenager and avid reader, I dislike McGowan’s presumptions very much indeed.
His assertion, “The novel is supposed (says who? says me) to exalt the soul, to show humanity what, in its greatest moments, it might achieve; and yet also to reveal our vulnerability and our helplessness,” puzzles me–had he read any Austen novels, he mind not find the two contradictory.
Gee, thanks, Ben!
And Boris…well said. (Mark Twain’s disease, indeed!)
I liked most of the “classics” I had to read in high school (except, go figure, Wuthering Heights…though I liked it a lot better when I read it at university). But I approached them not with dread but with lively curiosity. Books Are Nice!
Well said, Mags.
I had to laugh when McGowan said that anyone who doubts that JA is a conservative should read JA & the War of Ideas to become convinced. So very like the attitude Whit Stillman so elegantly skewered in Metropolitan. When Audrey Rouget asks Tom Townsend what his own opinion of Mansfield Park is (they’ve been discussing Fanny) Tom says:
‘I prefer good literary criticism. That way you get both the novelist’s idea as well as the critic’s thinking. With fiction I can never forget that none of it really happened, that it’s all just made up by the author.’
(JA and the War of Ideas is another book that is Nice, of course!)
What really, really irks me about attitudes like this guy’s is the implication that ideas are like viruses: if you get exposed, you’re likely to catch something, so best stay indoors and read only anti-bacterial books. How are teenagers — or adults, for that matter — supposed to figure out what they think about life, love, morality, politics, materialism, etc., etc., unless they spend some time learning about what other (usually smarter) people thought about these things? A book that you don’t agree with can be as valuable as one you do agree with. And the greatest writers, whether Nietzsche or Austen, are usually a lot more subtle and complicated than the bumper stickers (“Pro-Nazi! Arch-conservative!”) they get reduced to for the purposes of arguments like these.
I am a teenager, and I have read all of Jane Austen multiple times (and loved it).
I’ve also read Wuthering Heights. I didn’t really like it at all. I found it almost impossible to reconcile any of the characters/situations with reality. I’m afraid I smiled at all the wrong places…
I didn’t like Heathcliff much. He was so selfish – his love for Catherine was passionate, but very selfish. He wasn’t willing to put her best interests ahead of his own desires.
Very different to Austen’s heroes.
I’m not saying that Wuthering Heights is ‘bad’ or not worth reading – it just didn’t appeal to me nearly as much as JA or Elizabeth Gaskell. I haven’t read any of the Brontes other books – someone recommended Anne Bronte’s books in an earlier post. I’ll have to look into it.
Considering Jane Austen died before Emily Bronte was even born, I don’t think she had much of an opinion of Wuthering Heights…
How strange – would have been nice if any of you had actually bothered to read what i wrote, rather than suffer from that weird blindness that affects the janeites whenever your heroine is criticised. The article (just to help you out, if you can’t manage all 800 words of it) clearly states that there are those books that I, personally, don’t like – eg Austen. However I don’t for a second suggest that these should be banned or left unread. I then talk about the books for which a case could be made for banning – ie Nietzsche and de Sade and the crappy pink teeny chick lit. I don’t actually want anything banned, but if school library budgets are limited, then some thing will have to remain unbought. Did any of you manage to understand that? Ban de sade, don’t ban Austen. Not that hard to grasp. Did you reach the last line, where i encourage teenagers to read Austen? Honestly, you lot, grow up, learn to take criticism on the chin without bleating.
Oh, look who’s Googled himself! I have a hanky if you need to clean yourself up.
I will confess that I tend to grow accustomed to the “regulars” here and perhaps a little lazy about making my points very clear for the dull elves in the back, so to clarify, my objections to your piece are twofold:
1. The idea that Jane Austen’s “conservatism” is “retch”-worthy, and
2. The idea that teenagers should be discouraged, whether by commission or omission, from reading anything they can get their hands on, including de Sade and pink teeny chick lit. How are they going to learn to read critically or think analytically if they aren’t exposed to a wide selection of material? As to library budgets, in this day and age, most classics are available to download from the Internet, for free, and perfectly legally for the public domain works. There’s even a service called DailyLit that will e-mail you a chapter of a book each day, for free! They have hundreds of public domain books in their library ready to be e-mailed.
The tone of your piece could hardly be called encouraging teenagers (or anyone, for that matter) to read Jane Austen. Nice attempt at backpedaling, though. Rather than froth at the mouth and declare some books unworthy of library space, perhaps your time and platform would be better spent proposing solutions to library budgetary issues, such as e-books or DailyLit or other alternatives.
Oh, look who’s Googled himself! I have a hanky if you need to clean yourself up.
LOL – Mags, you know how long it’s gonna’ take me to clean the tea off my computer monitor??
“The novel is supposed (says who? says me) – doesn’t have a modesty problem, does he? – to exalt the soul, to show humanity what, in its greatest moments, it might achieve; and yet also to reveal our vulnerability and our helplessness.”
Very Noble, I’m sure. But man (and woman) do not live by Steinbeck, Doetoevsky and Hemingway alone – however much I admire some of their works. To sweepingly assert that those three goals alone are what the purpose of novels should be, I find smug and pretentious to the extreme.
Oh, I agree that these are things that – for me – can make a novel truly ‘stand out of the crowd’ and achieve excellence, and I also agree there is a lot of utter crap out there on the shelves that can actually be harmful. But your tone implies that there is nothing in between, and that if a novel that does not achieve these lofty standards you’ve set, it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on. But what about the pure and simple pleasure or escapist entertainment a novel can provide? I love Lawrence Durrell’s exquisite writing style and dense emotional plotting but, I’m sorry, I can’t read the guy all that often – he has no sense of humour whatsoever. Gotta’ have a Judith Krantz to refresh the palate in between.
The funny things is, I wonder if Tony actually has managed to read his way through Austen, because if he did, he would find stories full of the very things he says a novel should do. Timid, trembling Fanny Price daring to stand up to her uncle and do what she feels is morally right in refusing to marry Mr Crawford is enough to exalt my soul; What better evidence of what humanity can achieve in its greatest moments than Mr Darcy struggling to overcome the worst parts of his personality and actually help Wickham; and Emma’s mortification at realising how she had been arrogantly deluding herself all along is a perfect revelation of the innate, human weaknesses and vulnerabilities we all have to deal with at times.
Perhaps Austen’s ‘conservatism’ put him off so much that he was never able to get into the books and discover the jewels to be found on those ‘two inches of ivory’. That’s too bad, because it seems their mindsets – at least when it comes to novels – have some things in common. Take it away Jane…
“Let us leave it to the reviewers to abuse such effusions of fancy at their leisure, and over every new novel to talk in threadbare strains of the trash with which the press now groans. Let us not desert one another; we are an injured body. Although our productions have afforded more extensive and unaffected pleasure than those of any other literary corporation in the world, no species of composition has been so much decried. From pride, ignorance, or fashion, our foes are almost as many as our readers. And while the abilities of the nine-hundredth abridger of the History of England, or of the man who collects and publishes in a volume some dozen lines of Milton, Pope, and Prior, with a paper from the Spectator, and a chapter from Sterne, are eulogized by a thousand pens — there seems almost a general wish of decrying the capacity and undervaluing the labour of the novelist, and of slighting the performances which have only genius, wit, and taste to recommend them. “I am no novel-reader — I seldom look into novels — Do not imagine that I often read novels — It is really very well for a novel.” Such is the common cant. “And what are you reading, Miss — ?” “Oh! It is only a novel!” replies the young lady, while she lays down her book with affected indifference, or momentary shame. “It is only Cecilia, or Camilla, or Belinda”; or, in short, only some work in which the greatest powers of the mind are displayed, in which the most thorough knowledge of human nature, the happiest delineation of its varieties, the liveliest effusions of wit and humour, are conveyed to the world in the best-chosen language.”
So, Mr.McGowan is stating that he personally dislikes Jane Austen, who depicts women thinking independently, weighing choices, displaying wit and spirit, and being guided by something more than the immediate impulses of their limbic system, and therefore teenagers should be discouraged from reading her work. And yes I read the last line of the article. I am wondering if he has any sense of what teenagers are actually exposed to on a daily basis, including the social pressures and choices they must make. Is it possible that reading Austen’s works may leave girls dissatisfied with the “pink books” and thinking beyond being popular and looking hot?
*nods*
Many literary historians agree that Jane Austen took the ‘novel’ as it had been developing up until that time to a completely new level, and created the first ‘modern’ female protagonists – women who were utterly believable, and in [i]believable[/i] situations, in which their fortunes – for better or worse – were decided by their own intelligence, common sense and perception of the feelings of others (or lack thereof). Even better, almost none of JA’s heroines were the saintly, helpless idiots that they had been until then. Almost all of them had hard – and very interesting – lessons to learn about themselves before they got the happiness they deserved.
Ahhh, there’s nothing like a good old knockdown, drag out between a Nietzsche-hating, anti-Sadist, Brontëan and the Tilney-loving, High Priestess of Snark and All Things Austen.
I’m putting my money on the Irish lass.
I did “manage” to get through all 800 words and oh dear, Mr. McGowan is certainly wearing an impressive number of hats: reluctant book banner, defender of library budgets, champion of the tender teenage mind, even erstwhile defender of the Catholic Church. It is a positively heroic turn. And it made my stomach turn.
I sit on the board of directors of our county library and whenever anything remotely approaching censorship or book banning arises, I get my hackles up. We all walk on very dangerous ground when we even contemplate appointing any individual to be the guardian of “acceptable” books, and the clever Mr. McGowan is no exception.
What constitutes a “dangerous” book? How about Wuthering Heights with its panoply of neurotic adults and their obsessive and destructive compulsions; its unbelievably dysfunctional families; its characters who engage in appalling mental and physical cruelty, and who otherwise amuse themselves with spousal abuse, kidnapping, alcoholism, hallucinations, macabre dreams, and altogether rotten parenting?
But of course, Wuthering Heights is much more than that–though some critics considered it immoral and even demonic when it was first published. What if their views had carried the day? Would Emily Brontë still be on school library shelves today?
As the Editrix has pointed out, Mr. McGowan is missing the real problem facing all libraries and all of us who love books–it’s not about choosing to make certain books unavailable, it’s about how to make certain that with limited financial resources, all books remain available to anyone who desires to read them. Even the pink ones.
Moreover, turning some books into forbidden fruit will hardly protect young minds– it’s quite likely to send them quickly scrambling to find whatever it is the pompous old grownups are trying to keep from them. And frankly, in this day and age it is ludicrous to suggest that reading Nietzsche or the nasty de Sade is going to corrupt the teenage mind any more than reading the daily newspaper headlines. (Actually it is pretty ludicrous to suggest that any teenager is hung up on either author, though perhaps Mr. McGowan is running with a more intellectual teenage crowd….)
But Tony, don’t get your knickers into a knot. Personally I don’t care if you despise Austen. It’s your loss. (Though reducing her to a retchworthy conservative is a surprisingly narrow-minded comment from a very well educated man.) And as far as the Brontës go, all that Gothic melodrama and Sturm und Drang of Emily gets on my nerves; Anne’s the Brontë for me. Her Tenant of Wildfell Hall is a little gem.
Hmmm… Brilliant post Maria. But I’m actually wondering if he has read Wuthering Heights and can compare. Tony?
Stuck in the North York Moors with a dodgy internet connection and no mouse. So, a full rebuttal of the points made (variously hysterical, acute, rambling, incoherent, silly, interesting) will have to await my return to civilization. But for those of you anxious to find out my views in greater depth, feel free to check out the chapter on Gothic fiction in my PhD thesis, The Sublime Machine: Conceptions of masculine Beauty 1750-1850. It’s in the British library.
As for googling myself, well, of course I do – I’m a writer. I sit at my desk for 8 hours a day – I’ve got to find some way to fill my time.
Mr. MeGowan, perhaps you should be spending some of that time at your desk actually doing research. Or searching the online merchants to see if you could buy a clue, because in no world, literary or real, is it an intelligent decision to swing into a blog and announce that the members of it are in sore need of your manly guidance to override their own opinions, much less your grudging permission to know what they may read.
No wonder you don’t like Jane Austen. Every time one of her heroes tries that, it ends equally poorly for him. (As opposed to women who take Wuthering Heights as the idea of what constitutes true love in the real world. Those stories tend to end up fairly poorly for *her.*)
Ladies, I was pointed here by another blog I read, and I’m delighted to both make your acquaintance and share the love with my own readers. (http://neadods.livejournal.com/726248.html)
Mr. McGowan,
I accept your critic and have respect for your view of Austen.You consider Jane Austen as one of the bad guys of Eng Lit because of her appalling conservatism revealed in Marilyn Butler’s book “Jane Austen and the War of Ideas”. It is interesting to me why, in your opinion, conservative Jane Austen should have place in libraries and be read by teenagers. What is there so interesting and important to be read and learned from her conservative books?
I think that banned or not from libraries and even from scholar programmes, Jane Austen’s book will continue to be read and admired and inspire new adaptations and movies, not due to ideological reasons (appalling conservatism, good modernism, nice feminism, etc), but because of Austen’s personal qualities as a great author and teller of stories and explorer of human characters.
And there is another, widely spread, view of Jane Austen as being mother of “chick lit” which serves people for escape from reality, pre-sleeping read and improvement of one’s sexual life, here are links to some sources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/romantic-fiction.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7463417.stm
I hope it is not that sort of “crappy chick lit” to be banned.
Oh dear. An inconsistent use of lower case once more ensures that the newspaper’s reputation as the Grauniad remains unchallenged.
Is your thesis published or simply lodged? If the former, I will check it out. I write Gothic novels myself (science fiction, rather than the chick lit variety). Austen was scathing in turn about the emerging genre in her day (c.f. Northanger Abbey), so I suppose there is an element of literary karma in action here.
tony mcgowan Says:
“So, a full rebuttal of the points made (variously hysterical, acute, rambling, incoherent, silly, interesting)”
Astonishing. Better to be “hysterical, rambling, incoherent, and silly” than unbearably condescending. Oh please, Tony, condescend to enlighten us silly chicks with your Ph.D. wisdom.
I’m as liberal as the next Guardian reader, but…
Oh, dear. That’s a classic gambit, right up there with, “You know I’m not racist, but…” and other such tripe. It’s an unmistakable signal that whatever comes next is going to be appallingly whatever-the-author-just-said-he’s-not. And Tony doesn’t disappoint; the rest of his article is indeed neocon-book-burning trash. I hope he doesn’t have any daughters.
Nea and Ruth, my thoughts exactly. The use of the adjective “hysterical” to describe the comments from people who bothered to read his article, think about his ideas, and respond is unnecessary and suggests a sexist view of women. The idea that we would rush out to slog through his Ph.D. thesis for further enlightentment is amazing.
Tony, I would welcome the chance to read about your ideas and consider them without the condescencion and name calling.
As for googling myself, well, of course I do – I’m a writer. I sit at my desk for 8 hours a day – I’ve got to find some way to fill my time.
LOL! Aww… c’mon ladies and gentleman, if he can make that sort of poke at himself he can’t be a completely pretentious wanker. And Nea, welcome! Always nice to see a new face here. But do remember, Tony did not ‘swing into this blog and announce that the members of it are in sore need of your manly guidance’. Mags brought his opinions in here by hotlinking his article. Like Kathleen says, I would welcome the chance to further exchange ideas and consider them without condescension or name-calling (as well as not-so-slightly-veiled, knee-jerk insults from either side).
When he gets back to civilisation, the first thing I would really like to know is how much Jane Austen he’s actually read, whether he’s read any other commentaries about her writing than Butler’s, and to what extent he thinks that might have influenced his opinion of her work.
I just saw McGowan’s comments, and then went to read his article — fact is, he doesn’t say that teens shouldn’t read Austen, he just says he dislikes Austen because she’s conservative. And he provides a citation for his claim that she’s conservative, and the citation checks-out. The citation says she’s conservative, and backs it up, too. And I, too, agree that she is. In fact it’s one of the main things I like about her.
I’m happy McGowan came over here and I hope he drops by again, though really, the main point of his column had nothing to do with Austen, so I suspect it won’t be worth many repeat visits. The harshness and insults — I don’t like that, but it’s part of his style. Maybe being stuck in the North York Moors will do that to a man …
Also, is Mags really Irish?
Also, is Mags really Irish?
Half!
As to Jane Austen’s conservatism, as I said in my original comments about the article, she was a high church Tory, which for some metrics might put her in the “conservative” group, and I don’t think anyone is denying that. But I’m a little hesitant to use terms like “liberal” and “conservative” in regards to Jane Austen and her work, because they are such loaded terms and have a certain meaning in the 21st century that I don’t think should be applied to someone writing in the late 18th and early 19th century, or at least without qualification.
As I’ve said before, Jane Austen’s work appeals to a diverse group of modern readers, because she touches on subjects and ideas that fit into worldviews across the social spectrum. She’s not that easily categorized, I think.
I think all this traipsing about on the moors (undoubtedly with the “imp of Satan” Heathcliff dogging his steps) must have turned Mr. McGowan morose and ornery. I would definitely prescribe a dose of Northanger Abbey!
Mr. McGowan is not bereft of a sense of humor. He is in fact the author of a number of young adult books, one of which I’ve actually read: Hellbent. It’s the story of a boy, who gets hit by an ice cream truck, dies, and literally goes to hell. It is very odd, funny, offensive, disgusting, has lots of pee and poop, dashes of philosophy and is altogether just what a teenage boy would like. (Another of his books is about a boy with a talking tumor….I don’t think it’s been published on this side of the pond yet.)
Interestingly enough, at least in the neck of the woods where I live, Hellbent doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of ending up in a classroom or even in our local public library . I guess we’re just as queasy about teens being exposed to scatological humor as Tony seems to be about Nietzsche, Pullman, et al; silly, really. (Actually, we’ve got a fair number of paranoids about Pullman also.)
As far as Jane goes, he’s smart enough to know that the critical assessment doesn’t begin and end with Butler’s view of Austen as a kind of 18th century Margaret Thatcher. Since 1975 when Jane Austen and the War of Ideas was published, the critical scholarship has expanded upon and even rebutted her work (for instance, Peter Knox-Shaw’s Jane Austen and the Enlightenment.) I would hope Mr. McGowan’s opinion is based upon more than a reading of Butler’s book.
Well, I hope he does show up again because there are some contradictions in his arguments I don’t think he may have been aware of.
I must confess that his (perhaps overly-) idealistic list of what the ‘purpose’ of the novel should be is one I can somewhat identify and agree with. But what might be surprising to him is how closely his standpoint on the connection between societal values and literature actually dovetails with JA’s. It reminds me of how in Persuasion, Anne is ashamed how her father and sister are toadying and gloating in their newly re-established relation with their titled cousins, the Darlrymples, and her exchange with Mr Elliott on the matter.
“He agreed to their being nothing in themselves, but still maintained that, as a family connexion, as good company, as those who would collect good company around them, they had their value.
Anne smiled and said,
“My idea of good company, Mr Elliot, is the company of clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation; that is what I call good company.”
“You are mistaken,” said he gently, “that is not good company; that is the best. Good company requires only birth, education, and manners, and with regard to education is not very nice.”
Substitute the word ‘company’ with ‘novels’ and the passage – in a general way – is somewhat a parallel reflection on our discussion here of what is a good/bad novel.
The thing is, the novel – which in JA’s day was a literary form in its infancy – now has preeminence. Yes, there are still essays and biographies and philosophical treatises published, but they have nowhere near the readership they had in her day, when, to admit to be a novel reader was almost a shameful thing. Now, it is the all-powerful novel writers – or some of them – who attempt, and are in a position to, communicate idealistic ideas to the general public.
Which brings me back to McGowan’s (apparent) approval of Wuthering Heights, as compared to Austen. I must say I also find it a masterpiece of a book but, as as Maria M. so perfectly describes, “a panoply of neurotic adults and their obsessive and destructive compulsions; its unbelievably dysfunctional families; its characters who engage in appalling mental and physical cruelty, and who otherwise amuse themselves with spousal abuse, kidnapping, alcoholism, hallucinations, macabre dreams, and altogether rotten parenting.”
You must admit, the action in Wuthering Heights is not exactly what elevates the spirit, or is an example of what humanity can achieve in its greater moments. Yet – almost everyone will agree – it is a ‘great’ book. I thinks so too.
Someone else above – can’t quickly find who – suggests that it is actually being able to have these comparisons in books that most fully educates the human mind and spirit. What is good, bad, right, wrong, shallow, profound, vulgar, noble, emphemeral, lasting… these are all things we can only decide for ourselves. It is a big, sometimes bad, and always complicated world out there. Literature throws us a guideline in helping us to make sense of and react to it. But for better or worse, it is an extremely multi-faceted one.
All I know is that Krantz stands cheek to jowl with Austen (and Collette and Bill Bryson and Orson Scott Card and Isaak Dinesen and many others) on my bookshelf, and I wouldn’t want to have it any other way.
I think Mr. McGowan is probably accustomed to reactions to his provacative style, so he can hardly be surprised (or offended)by our reactions to his article. A good opportunity to discuss his ideas with a group of ” clever, well-informed people” was presented, I hope he will respond.
One wonders (but ever so slightly) about the randomness of all things, if the coincedence of Mags’ displeasure with Wuthering Heights and writer Tony McGowan being “stuck in the North York Moors with a dodgy internet connection and no mouse” may have some weird connection! Maybe the ghost of Catherine Earnshaw is at work in Jane Austen’s defence!
Cheers, Laurel Ann
P.S. If Mr. McGowan as a professional writer is uncertain how to fill his 8 hour day, might I suggest reading a book?
LOL-Laurel Ann, excellent suggestion! I am guessing that Catherine (or Emily?)would be interested in the clash of ideas and strong opinions. Jane Austen would definitely be amused.
Blimey. Okay, I asked for most of that – I was being deliberately provocative and, well, you were well and truly provoked. Obviously Jane Austen is a brilliantly witty writer, and will continue to be read as long as there is still such a thing as the novel. But the truth is, she was against giving women more rights, against expanding the suffrage in any way, in favour of the political and economic status quo, and, all in all, a very strange heroine for a feminist (such as myself). Compared to Maria Edgeworth and (another of my personal favourites) Elizabeth Inchbald, she was on the side of reaction and against revolution.
But really though, don’t you think your reactions to the statement that I personally don’t much like Jane Austen is a bit extreme? I mean, why do you care? Why the extreme defensiveness and pack mentality? Insecurity? And do you really have no sense of irony at all? Do you really think that I was encouraging you to go and check out my old PhD, or could it possibly be the case that I was taking the piss out of myself?
And returning to my original Guardian blog, didn’t you happen to notice that all the writers I recommended were women?
Anyway, I do enjoy a bit of rough and tumble, so thanks for all of you who bothered to join in
By the way, feel free to call me Tony, Anthony, McGowan, or any insult you can come up with. But, technically, ‘Mr’ McGowan is incorrect. Did I mention that PhD thesis of mine ….? (Not sure how to insert a smiley, so please imagine one here for me.)
“Why the extreme defensiveness and pack mentality? Insecurity? And do you really have no sense of irony at all?”
Yes, “Doc”, you’ve finally figured us out. We’re just a pack of insecure twits, wringing our hankies and crying in our sherry whenever we think (mistakenly, of course) Jane has been maligned.
Tony, thank you very much for your response and explanation of your views. I am very interested to read the authors that you mentioned. Some of the other respondents know more than I on Austen’s political views, my main source of information is Claire Tomalin’s book, But, in many ways it doesn’t matter. It has been mentioned above that it is difficult to judge her opinions on women’s rights with our modern frame of reference. Additionally, as you said, it does not change the impact of her work. I admire the work of many writers and scientists, but I don’t always agree with their views or lifestyle. Einstein was horribly cruel to his first wife, yet I would not criticize his work based on that.
I think you might be over interpeting the remarks on the blog. We all share a passion for Austen, but I would not describe us as a “pack.” Why shouldn’t we care about what you write? Or is your question reflecting a little insecurity (insert wink and smile here)?
Sorry about not referring to you as Dr. In the US we are more casual about the use of Dr. in social situations for academic degrees. I also have a Ph.D., but use Dr. only professionally (unless I think it will be helpful to impress people like car salesmen.)
Kathleen – are we in danger of reaching a civilized agreement to disagree? And I don’t at all mind not being referred to as doctor (except by car salespersons) – I just prefer Tony to Mr anything. Obviously we’re not going to agree about JA conservatism, and I quite agree that we shouldn’t judge the dead by standards that didn’t exist when they were alive. However, the point of Butler’s brilliant book was to show that there were a range of opinions at the time, and some women writers (Edgeworth, Wolstencroft) chose those which were ‘radical’ and some chose those which ‘conservative’. The radicals were and should still be seen as heroic. The conservatives cosied up to power. Of course JA is a better writer than any of her contemporaries, and lots of fun to boot. Just remember that your heroine wouldn’t have let you vote, would have denied you the right to own property if you were married, and would probably have broken your feet with a hammer and bound them in bandages turning you into a cripple. Well, okay, not the last one, but you get my meaning.
Deb – why not read the posts above, and tell me if you think the general mood is one of calm, rational debate, or more like a bunch of harpies dancing round a bonfire screeching, and yodeling in the nude. Mmmmmmm nude. What? Sorry, drifted off for a moment there. Did someone mention sherry?
Tony, I am happy to reach a civilized agreement to disagree. I had always thought Austen was a more neutral observer of society, but I am interested to learn more about her opinions and others on the rights of women. I am not sure if she was “cosying up to power” or just reflecting the views she lived with in her immediate society.
I am not happy with the harpy image, although I am always up for a dance around the bonfire. Aside from Jane Austen, I have heard that you are a pretty good writer and your books have gotten some good reviews. Good luck in your work!
I’m glad to have Dr McGowan’s formerly puzzling comment that Mr is not correct for him now clarified by the information that he holds a PhD.
However, this still left me puzzled, since in my experience one who earns a PhD (for example, my brother, PhD in Geology from MIT) still also may be referred to as Mr. It is one thing for a person to be entitled, himself, to use a title, but another to act as though others owe him a duty also to use the title. To signal an obligation upon us (we, the insulted ones) to refer to our critic more respectfully — especially a critic who wields invective, albeit with a light touch — struck me as a bit much.
But Wikipedia clears this up as one of those American/British differences: “Mr or Mr. is an English honorific used for a man too old to be addressed as Master, under the rank of knighthood, and, supposedly, though not really in practice, above some undefined level of social status (see below). In Britain, though not in the United States, the title also excludes those who have the title Dr.”
Edward – I’m particularly anxious not to get up your nose, given the civilized and courteous nature of your comments – indeed you’ve made me feel somewhat rude and strident. I suppose the truth is that even in the UK, using ‘Dr’ outside an academic context is a little stuffy and pretentious – which is why I prefer to stick to first names. It’s very different in continental Europe, where it would be seen as extremely eccentric not to insist on the correct title.
My original Guardian blog was expressed in rather extreme terms – but that (for me, at least) is the nature of the beast. And my philosophy has always been to respond vigorously to what others say – which to me seems to be the best way to have fun in a debate. But I also try to listen and learn. One of my few redeeming features is that I’m pretty quick to get it when i come across someone who knows more than I do, and I make sure that I listen to what they say, and adapt my own views in the light of new knowledge. So … when I next pop back to this entertaining site it’ll probably be to rave about some piece of Austen juvenilia.
Kathleen – I unreservedly withdraw the harpies!
Tony, this has really been delightful — I’m glad you came over to this blog. By the way, I watched the very funny video on-line of you at the school, when your bio said you had worked at a banana plantation on the west coast of Ireland and lots of other nonsense, and you were wandering around the cemetery getting character names (Woodd with two d’s) — if I may use a Britishism, I intend to follow your future career with considerable interest — all the best, ES
(Tony) “dancing round a bonfire … yodeling in the nude”
Since you’ve withdrawn the “harpies”, I can see the rest of your statement applying quite nicely to many in our party!
I have to keep slapping myself up side the head and remembering the admonishment of a writing teacher many moons ago who said that it is most difficult to express humor or sarcasm in the written word, because without the tone of your voice to convey your intention, the reader may only see it as mean or angry. I do believe we have experienced that in this discussion. Where are those winking smiley faces when you need them?
I would gladly invite you to our next book discussion round the bonfire. Your turn to bring the wine!
Obviously Jane Austen is a brilliantly witty writer, and will continue to be read as long as there is still such a thing as the novel. But the truth is, she was against giving women more rights, against expanding the suffrage in any way, in favour of the political and economic status quo, and, all in all, a very strange heroine for a feminist (such as myself).
She also avidly read the work of abolitionist writers such as Thomas Clarkson. As you pointed out, it’s not really a good idea to apply the values of the 21st century on an 18th-century person (which Jane Austen was), and I would add it’s not a good idea to apply extremes to anything to do with Jane Austen. She might have had some “conservative” (using your metric) ideas and some that were not. The Austens, as I said, were high church (and yet she supported the abolition, which was an idea propagated more by the Evangelicals and Methodists and low-church types) and were Tories. Considering that the Prince Regent, who Jane disliked (with good reason in my opinion), supported the Whigs, I don’t see where there is necessarily any inherent merit in that position. I would suggest you read Irene Collins’ books on Jane Austen. She (meaning Jane Austen) was really very much a person of her time, with all that implies, and she was not so easily categorized as you seem to think.
But really though, don’t you think your reactions to the statement that I personally don’t much like Jane Austen is a bit extreme? I mean, why do you care? Why the extreme defensiveness and pack mentality?
It’s not so much a pack mentality as a concentrated group of Jane Austen fans who are not shy of sharing their opinions.
But we’re not really homogenous, either. Don’t get this group started on the merits of various film adaptations–the fights rage for DAYS.
Tony, I am glad you have returned from your sojourn on the wuthering heights none the worse for wear, except for those troubling little hallucinations of the naked ladies round the bonfire. Alas, that’s what indulging in too much Gothic can do to you.
I’ll be interested to read Henry Tumour when he makes his way across the Atlantic—I might even let my children read it
(PS–Out of curiosity why are they changing his name to Jack?)
Dear Tony (since you insist), have you read Dr. Claudia Johnson’s brilliant refutation of Marilyn Butler’s thesis? In Dr. Johnson’s book, Jane Austen: Women, Politics, and the Novel (1988), she says this about Butler’s book, Jane Austen and the War of Ideas:
“Although I obviously disagree with Butler quite strenuously on the subject of Austen’s politics, I am also, like all Austenians, deeply indebted to her for having been the first to demonstrate Austen’s involvement with the war of political ideas. Butler somewhat softens her position on Austen’s conservatism in ‘History, Politics, and Religion,’ in The Jane Austen Companion,” edited by J. David Grey.
In the Jane Austen Society of North America, we continue to debate Austen’s politics, but we are more likely to cite Johnson than Butler on this side of the pond.
Maria – The name change was all to do (if you’ll excuse the sight of me disappearing up my own bottom) with Shakespeare’s Henry IV part 1. The Tumour in the novel is based on Falstaff – indeed much of what he says is taken straight out of Falstaff’s mouth. When I wrote it, I’d stupidly got it into my head that Henry IV was Henry Tudor, when of course he was Henry Bolingbroke. The Henry Tudor/Tumour pun (weak at the best of times) got somehow lodged in my brain, hence the title. I was pleased to have the chance to change it to Jack (Falstaff’s first name) Tumor for the US. And your son is quite safe – they’ve taken out a lot of the more, erm, scatological stuff for the delicate-minded American readers!
And thanks, Marsha, for the heads-up on the latest stages of the Austen politics debate. I’m afraid I’m sadly out of date, and I’ll happily bow out in favour of those of you who know what you’re talking about.
And Deb, I’ll happily bring round a bottle or, given the fact that I probably owe everyone here a drink, a case!
they’ve taken out a lot of the more, erm, scatological stuff for the delicate-minded American readers!
Tony: that’s a shame, really, but not surprising. I suppose it will help your sales over here. I’ll just have to get my hands on an unexpurgated version which my son is definitely strong enough to handle!
Mags: This has been a really fun post. You and your blog rock
I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s comments.
“But the truth is, she was against giving women more rights, against expanding the suffrage in any way, in favour of the political and economic status quo.”
My, you sound confident when you say that. But how in the world could Jane Austen have been ‘against’ issues that didn’t even exist yet in her day? It’s like saying she was against raising CO2 emission standards. The first widespread introduction of the idea of giving women the vote only came with in “A Plan for Parliamentary Reform”, which was published in 1818, the year after she died. And the whole concept of ‘women’s rights’, in general, didn’t evolve until later in the century.
Throughout her works and letters, you see her conviction that women were (or could be) every bit as intelligent, rational and worthy as men. You also see signs she occasionally felt frustrated at the limitations and restrictions placed on them, for instance in not being able to travel without a ‘proper’ chaperone. I think she would have been all for females having more autonomy and influence over their own – and public – life.
And as far as the political and economic status quo go, Jane actually approved of and lauded a significant shift in mindset that was starting to take place at that time: that of wealth and advancement in life being the just desserts of effort and merit, rather than of birth or family entitlement.
It’s not for nothing that she has the proud, stupid and conceited Sir Walter disparage those in the Navy. He objects to it as “being the means of bringing persons of obscure birth into undue distinction, and raising men to honours which their fathers and grandfathers never dreamt of.” If Sir Walter said it, you can be sure it was a sentiment that Jane did not agree with.
I wondered about it in one of my earlier posts, and I’m still curious… may I ask how much Austen you have actually read?
Karenlee – read all of the novels, none of the juvenilia. As for those ideas not existing when JA was around, haven’t you heard of Mary Wollstonecroft?
But I’ve already tried to bow out of this one, leaving the field to the feisty Janeites. I’m going to go and lick my wounds. I might pick some nice, easy reading while I’m at it. A pleasant love story with a happy ending, where the right girl gets the right man, ends up in a nice big house, that sort of thing. The kind of book where all social problems can be sorted out with a bit of common sense, so no need to upset the establishment apple cart. Elizabeth Gaskell is quite good, but there are too many poor people in her books – poor in the sense of not having enough to eat, rather than the proper sense of only having a few hundred a year, or having to rely on wealthy relatives, so you have to wear the same dress to two balls running. I wonder, could you recommend anyone?
The idea of using common sense to solve social problems does seem to upset the “establishment apple cart”-not thinking of any world leaders in particular of course (ahem).
Looks like the discussion of the value of work by certain women authors has come full circle. I think it just depends on the reader’s own values and point of view.
Yes, Tony, I have heard of Wollstonecraft, and am also familiar with some of her work. But I still maintain that those ideas were very far from widespread in Austen’s lifetime. Wollstonecraft was one of the very first, lone voices in the wilderness that introduced them. And they had nothing to do with suffrage – which is all about the right to vote – but simply the concept that women should be educated and able to enter professions just as men were. The main focus of her arguments was that women were just as rational beings as men, not empty-headed idiots, and should be treated as such. A standpoint that Austen clearly shared.
It’s not certain that Austen would even have had the chance to read anything of Wollstonecraft’s. Her books weren’t all that widely disseminated in her lifetime. Maybe in the larger cities, but the Hampshire countryside? And when her husband’s published his Memoirs about her the year after she died (when Jane had just entered her 20s), he was a little too honest. His details of her love affairs, illegitimate children and suicide attempts were a bit too strange and shocking for that day and age, and made many automatically discount whatever she had to say as the ravings of an unbalanced hysteric. Even Virginia Sapiro, one of the most eminent Wollstonecraft scholars, admits that very few people actually read her works in the 19th century. It was only many, many years later that people recognised how far ahead of her time she was and appreciated what she had to say.
Regarding your request for book recommendations. It confirms my initial impression that you style yourself to be provocative – in the sense of making people think – and facetious about what you’re talking about at the same time. It’s a very fine line you’re walking. You are grandstanding your intellectual muscle in a skimpy Speedo.
Nevertheless, I will bite. I suggest Judith Krantz. Mistral’s Daughter is, IMO, the best. No starving, no major class struggle, and the girl gets the right guy. Not quite as good character development as in another author-who-shall-not-be-named, but almost equally smart and determined heroines with their hearts and minds in the right place (even if they fuck up sometimes). And, oh – the clothes are fabulous. I’m sure you’ll love that.
P.S. Reading over my last post, I would like to clarify what I mean by walking a fine line. You are obviously a very smart guy, but also very cynical and sarcastic. I get the feeling you are more desirous of making sweeping statements and witty ‘bon mots’ on subjects than truly and seriously engaging in them.
Karen – there I was, trying to extract myself from this blog with a few shreds of dignity left intact, and you go and stick me in a pair of skimpy Speedos – and I promise no one wants to see or even imagine that. But I’m genuinely sorry if I’ve come across as cynical and sarcastic. I think I was aiming for amiable and ironic, but clearly I missed. And you’re right about me not properly engaging with the Austen scholars on this site – the truth is I’m a bit out of my depth, hence my retreat – even if it is a fighting one! But I have read carefully what’s been said, and will mull it over. Sadly, I don’t think my manhood is quite robust enough for me to have the guts to be seen out with a Judith Krantz. I’ll take your word about the clothes – my wife’s a fashion designer, but I look, as JA probably wouldn’t say, like something shat out by a vulture.
My best wishes to you and the other Janeites.
Ah, so you are preparing to leave us? Well, I think even the most hardcore harpies here would agree that you are leaving with some shreds of dignity definitely still intact. All the best Tony! A pity that they don’t adapt Judith Krantz book covers like they did for Harry Potter – so well-reasoning adults would not be ashamed to carry them around. But so it is.
I believe there is enough information presented here to cause Tony to question his rigid label of Austen as a conservative against women’s rights. Certainly as a scholar you would revise a hypothesis once the evidence mounts against it. Perhaps a “manly” act would be to write another article reflecting the new information.
Conservative yes, but not against women’s rights. Austen was conservative in her support for the moral ideals of the day — to be ever attentive to the feelings of others, never cause unnecessary harm, honor your promises. But surely she felt that women should have more rights than they did.