Talk:Jane Austen

Subpages

• Talk:Jane Austen/Notes on final illness

Emma was 1816, not 1815...

It's Love and Freindship. The spelling is supposed to be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.176.58 (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Juvenilia again

I am puzzled by the number of "fair copies": 29 of them?

• I keep seeing 27, not 29, for instance with Alistair M. Duckworth, 2002, p. 8, in his Introduction to Emma.
• The list showing in the article gives only 26 pieces; Which would then be the threee missing ones? --Azurfrog (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to check Le Faye. I don't have a copy of Honan on hand, but I can check the library if Le Faye isn't clear. Awadewit (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have here Catharine and Other Writings (Oxford World's Classics), i.e. all the Juvenilia (plus a few other pieces), and it gives exactly the same list of 26 Juvenilia. Though I haven't been through all of Margaret Anne Doody's Introduction yet, I haven't seen so far any mention of 29 pieces. But... the book includes three other works :

• Plan of a Novel according to Hints..., written as you know at the time Emma was published;
• Verses (and charades, etc.), ranging from 1792 to 1817,
• Prayers.

I don't expect these account for the three missing Juvenilia (which they are not). Yet I am at a loss to imagine what else could be missing. Moreover, it still fails to explain why Alistair M. Duckworth is mentioning 27 Juvenilia. --Azurfrog (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Anonymity section

This material was added to the article recently: "Throughout the majority of Austen's career, she preferred anonymity. Stories say that at her home in Chawton, Jane wrote on small slips of paper that could be easily hidden if she heard someone entering through the squeaky door. She wrote under several pseudonyms including "Mrs. Ashton Dennis" (when she sold Susan originally), and "A Lady" (when Sense and Sensibility was published). Her next published novel, Pride and Prejudice was inscribed as "The Author of Sense and Sensibility," a method which was used in each consequential novel."

 References

It can be sourced to much better sources, which we should do, but it should also be integrated into the article better. That Austen wrote anonymously is already covered in the article and doesn't really deserve its own section. However, the material about her practice of writing on little slips of paper could be added. What do we think? Awadewit (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"She published anonymously" pretty well covers it, although some readers may want to know why. Interesting to see Kathryn Sutherland's findings added to the article, particularly to the Reception section (and in its own subsection, no less). Perhaps we could add a separate (and carefully written) "Writing style" or "Literary style" section to the article. This could also include Austen's little slips of paper – minus the "stories". Comments? – Liveste (talk • edits) 16:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree - see my comment below about the new information about her editor. Would you care to help me summarize the article Styles and themes of Jane Austen? I was thinking of two separate sections for this article--not shockingly, "Literary style" and "Themes". Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Getting across her lifespan in big-picture historical terms

I clearly value this more than some other editors do. I accept this, so I'm restoring the full dates of birth and death at the very opening. This information was already given in the appropriate sections, where it is entirely appropriate thematically and in terms of the detail of the text. I still do not believe that the fact she was born on 16 December and died on 18 July warrants cluttering up the all-important year range right at the opening. The lead is supposed to be a summary (i.e., a rationing of detail, to focus the readers on the big picture). See discussion at MONSUM Tony (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I will go with whatever is decided at the discussion. I don't have strong feelings either way. Awadewit (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also happy to wait for the MOSNUM discussion, although a consensus seems increasingly unlikely (sigh). Personally, I think in this case the simpler year range is sufficient for the lede, leaving the actual dates for the body of the article. But I really don't mind either way. – Liveste (talk • edits) 16:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

I went to add an infobox and saw an invisible note not to do so. Is there still a consensus against adding one? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There has long been a consensus against an infobox on this talk page. See the archives if you would like to see the arguments. Awadewit (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Editorial influence section

I have removed the following addition to the article:"Kathryn Sutherland, professor of the Faculty of English Language and Literature at Oxford University, has studied the manuscript of Jane Austen's Persuasion (her only surviving unedited manuscript) and has found that much of her polished style is probably the result of editorial tidying by William Gifford (who worked for the publisher John Murray). The original manuscript is full of misspellings (many of which (e.g. "tomatas" for "tomatoes" and "arraroot" for "arrowroot") show that Jane Austen spoke with a strong Hampshire accent), erratic punctuation, erratic word order, unseparated paragraphs, and not keeping separate the speeches of the speakers in conversations.".

1. This article is based on peer reviewed scholarship, so let's cite Sutherland's scholarship rather than a news source on it.
2. The news source actually misrepresents Sutherland's position, so we are doing Sutherland and her position a disservice.
3. I agree with the editor above that this material should be integrated into a "Style" section. I've already written a Styles and themes of Jane Austen article. That needs to be summarized here. Would anyone like to help me try? Awadewit (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The framing of this study galls me. In the flush of composition, the task at hand is to capture the main ideas on the page. If Austen had managed to engage a highly competent editor, what's the literary or economic upside of dithering over grade school niceties, when perhaps she has fresh ideas brewing? This result could as easily be reframed as prudent delegation, with creative attribution entirely dependent upon the nature of the (heretofore unrecognized) delegative process. Oh, darn, "delegative" does appear to be an accepted English word. My point is mired in personal error. — MaxEnt 14:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiment..the study deserves a mention, but nothing more.LisaSandford (talk) 11:35 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 8.225.199.10, 16 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Can someone please remove the "PLEASE THIS Klick" vandalism all over the page. Thanks!

8.225.199.10 (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Y Done - the vandalism was in Template:Cref2.   — Jeff G.  ツ 15:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit semi-protected}} External links: media coverage

• Jane Austen collected news and commentary at The Guardian
• Jane Austen collected news and commentary at The New York Times

Edit request from , 8 October 2011

Jane Austen was a social satirist. NOT a mere romance novelist. The "genre" section should be corrected, and Austen should be included in satire specific pages (eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satirists_and_satires).

124.191.124.42 (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source calling her a social satirist? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Jane Austen's death on Yahoo

This appeared on yahoo.... a conjecture that she died of Arsenic poisoning ... anyone else hear about this? Not sure how plausible it is. http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/crime-novelist-claims-jane-austen-died-arsenic-poisoning-173146375.html Ll1324 (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a new medical or pseudo-medical speculation every few years, and we shouldn't give any of them much prominence unless they've been commonly accepted by scholars. The idea of murder sounds rather implausible -- what did Jane Austen have that someone else would want, or what had she done that someone would want to take vengeance for? She wasn't a "celebrity" until after the 1870 Memoir was published, long after her death. Churchh (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Notable works in info-box

Notable work(s) Pride and Prejudice - Sense and Sensibility. While it's true these are arguably her most famous literal works, it may also imply they are her only notable works which is simply not the case. If it stated "Example of" or "Most" notable, then that might be better. Thought I would just bring it up. --Nutthida (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine to remove them; her works are well-covered in the lead. This is the problem with infoboxes imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. The fact she didn't live all too long, and the fact she didn't write masses of literal works means there easily covered in the lead. And yeah, info-boxes do have this problem. --Nutthida (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Portrait

It is common knowledge that Jane Austen's appearence is something of a mystery due to the lack of likenesses (other than that drawn by Cassandra Austen). However, there is another portrait that has surfaced recently that appears to be of a female writer from the Regency period. The owner of the portrait gathered a great deal of research in support of the possibility that the portrait is of Jane Austen herself, which was detailed in a documentary recently aired by the BBC. I see no mention of this in this article, yet consider it to be one of the most important Austen-related discoveries of recent years. Should there be mention of it here? Here is a link to the BBC new item on the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16027710 Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.53.64 (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

From the information (and small blurry image) that appears on that link, we can really afford to wait for a while until the dust settles and a scholarly consensus emerges. Churchh (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)