How Radical Was Jane Austen? || On Subversive Readings of Austen's Works

In which I rant about Jane Austen... aka discuss my opinions on Helena Kelly's book Jane Austen, the Secret Radical and touch on biographical readings and literary criticism. If you have any literary criticism to recommend, Austen or otherwise, please let me know!

Books mentioned:
-Jane Austen, The Secret Radical by Helena Kelly
-What Matters in Jane Austen?: Twenty Crucial Puzzles Solved by John Mullan
-Jane's Fame: How Jane Austen Conquered the World by Claire Harman
-Jane Austen's England: Daily Life in the Georgian and Regency Periods by Roy and Lesley Adkins

✦ ✧ ✦ ✧ ✦ ✧ ✦ ✧ ✦ ✧ ✦ ✧ ✦ ✧ ✦ ✧ ✦ ✧ ✦ ✧ ✦ ✧ ✦ ✧ ✦ ✧
Let's be friends!

[colazi]

So interesting. I had so many arguments with The Secret Radical as I was reading it and it's great to have some of my thoughts expressed so clearly by you. It is so annoying when modern mind sets are applied to classical works of fiction. A recommendation : The Mad woman in the Attic by Gilbert and Gubar.

[FHMS]

what matters in jane austen is AMAZING. John Mullan is so so familiar with all of Austens work!! Id also recommend Searching for Jane Austen by Emily Auerbach. its so well written and a comprehensive, accessible analysis of Austens books :)

[TheReadersAthenaeum]

This is a really interesting topic and one I'm interested in learning more about. I've not read the book you reference but your criticisms of it seem very valid. I think it's tricky to interpret how 'radical' an author is without very thoroughly analysing not only their work, but the literary context in which they wrote, their personal views and experiences.

[katiejlumsden]

I'm just watching this and nodding all the way through - such a great video and I completely agree. It was great to see this after we'd discussed it so much - I feel like I've read this book by proxy! :)

[ClaireReadsBooks]

This was a wonderful discussion — I love all the work and thought you seemed to put into it (and I always wish there was more commentary like this on Booktube). I haven't read as much Austen as you have, but I do think it's interesting to see the ways that people try to shoehorn literary heroines (and by extension their authors) from past centuries into our modern definition of "feminist" or "radical." I do love to seek out literary criticism or biographies/nonfiction that provide some of the context that we, as modern readers, might be missing when we read those older works, and I think it always helps me to position authors like Austen within their own time periods and literary context. One of the things to be wary of with academia and literary criticism, I think, are the ways that scholars try to distinguish themselves within their own fields — I sometimes find that an academic work will cherry-pick evidence in order to present the most "original" or "radical" argument. But it definitely gives us all a lot of things to consider and think about!

Also, I haven't read "Jane's Fame, " but I did read Claire Harman's recently biography of Charlotte Brontë and really loved it.

[amandalavelle]

I found this really interesting. I actually went to a talk this author gave on this book earlier this year. I must stress I haven't finished reading it yet, but I found it particularly interesting that you said you thought her chapter on persuasion was her weakest, because she spoke of persuasion as her favourite Austen novel, the one she knows the best, and the one which after years of teaching and studying Austen, it's the one she still reads for pleasure. I guess she didn't manage to convey all that for you in her book. It's certainly thought provoking how we think we can be saying one thing quite clearly- yet it's still open to interpretation. Thanks for making this video- I love opening up a deeper conversation about what we read, and starting to think about it more analytically. I'm off to watch Katie's video now, as I missed that one. Take care xx

[booksbyleynes]

This was such a fascinating discussion to watch. And even though you disagreed quite a bit with Kelly, I am super intrigued to check out her book now. I am quite new to literary criticsm as well, so I, sadly, don't have any recommendations for you. I thought it was super interesting what you said about Mr Darcy being just stuck up, instead of socially awkward. I totally read him as my socially awkward bae because I have next to zero knowlegde about the Regency era and etiquette and all of that stuff. This really makes me want to educate myself and reread Jane's novels with a more timely perspective. :D Thanks for sharing all of your brilliant thoughts!

[JohnSmith-zqmo]

In Pride&Prejudice the lesson of Georgianna Darcy and Lydia Bennet is that men who love their female relatives need to make sure to keep them under control because they can not be trusted with their sexuality. That does not seem very radical. Nor does portraying marrying into the wealthiest class in England as a happy ending seem very subversive.

[micaro]

Very interesting discussion! Sometimes I think people want to read more in classic books than the author meant to write. What stood out to me most while reading Jane Austen, is that she had humor, which sometimes I had  to read twice to get. My most "did she just...? moment was in Persuasion:

'He had, in fact, though his sisters were now doing all they could for him, by calling him "poor Richard, " been nothing better than a thick-headed, unfeeling, unprofitable Dick Musgrave, who had never done anything to entitle himself to more than the abbreviation of his name, living or dead.'

I never read any literary criticism, but I think it would be interesting to read it someday, and perhaps do a re-read of all Austen her books.

Just curious, did you watch the Lizzie Bennet Diaries? If yes, did you like it?

[tortoisedreams]

Awesome video -- great analysis. Austen is so important to her readers that we each come up with our own personal view of her ("my Jane"), so that she becomes a Feminist, gay, pro-Brexit, a Tory, a parodist, etc. Kelly went the same way -- this is only her Austen & she's trying to shock just to shock (u know the parts I'm thinking of: sadism, selfabuse, ) & she thinks she's the only one who understands Austen. Of interest is the ground-breaking "Jane Austen & the War of Ideas" (1975) by Marilyn Butler which reaches the exact opposite conclusion to Kelly: that Austen supported the King, the English church (she was a vicar's daughter, like the Brontes), & the class system; that Austen was a Tory. Also good is the 1997 Austen biography by Claire Tomalin. Kelly needs to be taken with a salt mine -- one example, the classes in Emma are so malleable (tho the guy doesn't marry Harriet because of class) because the town is so small -- & the enclosure idea is simply fantasy. A valuable book only because Kelly is thought provoking (it's good to examine our beliefs) & knowledgeable about the books, but that knowledge usually doesn't translate into supportable statements. A little digging & her ideas on the novels fall apart. Warren Roberts wrote about Austen & the French Revolution (which was pretty creative) & R.W. Chapman is another good critic on Austen studies. Sorry to go on so long, but as the only reader who actually *does* understand my Jane ;o) Kelly's book is kind of painful. Thanks for this great video.

[amandacalling]

Have you read Jane Austen, Game Theorist? Not the best written book, but very interesting. I definitely recommend it.

[EmoBearRights]

Actually I do kinda see P&P as fairytale like in some ways - Lizzy is sort of a Cinderella with attitude and with her intelligence and bravery and feeling for family she's a bit like Disney's Belle and like Belle she manages to improve a kind of arrogant prince.