Talk:Jane Austen/Archive 1

Male conversation
"It should be noted, however, that almost every scene in her novels features women, purportedly because she did not know how men spoke when not in the presence of women." How is any woman supposed to know how to men behave when they are alone? I understand that this is meant to suppose that she in fact didn't know men very well and only had small talk with them, but this sentence is rather strange.--Martewa 18:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Suppose we invert it:
 * Almost every scene in his novels features men, purportedly because he did not know how women spoke when not in the presence of men.
 * This is equally true of countless male authors, yet no one levels it as criticism. If no one defends this construction I'll delete it.
 * Durova 19:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Proceeded to edit. Made a few other alterations, mentioning her anonymous publication and absence from literary circles.  Made some NPOV alterations.  Described her artistic values as an inheritance of the Enlightenment rather than as a failure to embrace Romanticism.  I still think the article mentions her spinsterhood about three times too many. Durova 01:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Which literary circles? That part of the article strikes me as a bit odd. 00:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jane Austen didn't make any effort to meet or hob-nob with artistic or literary types, even though she lived within a day's journey of London, and sometimes visited her borther who lived in London. To be sure, there were limits to what she could have done as a never-married genteel woman, but Jane Austen doesn't seem to have had much desire to insinuate herself within the literary social scene even within such limits (as opposed to Fanny Burney, who frequently dined with Dr. Johnson, etc.).  The one out-of-the-ordinary thing that seems to have happened to her in person as a result of her writing was that she got a private look inside Carleton House with the Prince Regent's librarian (when the Prince Regent was residing elsewhere).  Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to have liked the Prince Regent or his librarian very much... Churchh 03:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable; thanks for the explanation -- I was a bit skeptical, but the comparison with Fanny Burney helps.


 * It’s true that Jane Austen didn’t describe men’s conversations in her books with the one exception from Mansfield Park:


 * Edmund's first object the next morning was to see his father alone, and give him a fair statement of the whole acting scheme; defending his own share in it as far only as he could then, in a soberer moment, feel his motives to deserve; and acknowledging, with perfect ingenuousness, that his concession had been attended with such partial good as to make his judgment in it very doubtful. He was anxious, while vindicating himself, to say nothing unkind of the others; but there was only one amongst them whose conduct he could mention without some necessity of defence or palliation. "We have all been more or less to blame," said he, "every one of us, excepting Fanny. Fanny is the only one who has judged rightly throughout; who has been consistent. Her feelings have been steadily against it from first to last. She never ceased to think of what was due to you. You will find Fanny everything you could wish."


 * And even here the conversation refers to a subject well known to Austen. It’s not a typical male conversation on politics which would not have been allowed in women’s company. However, stating it like in the sentence above is a big simplification. Jane Austen was generally of an opinion that she should not write about things or places she did not know from her own personal experience, and so there are many things she never describes. (See her advice to her niece here ). Is it good or bad is a personal opinion of a reader. Many writers would describe things using their imagination. She preferred not to, but thanks to that her books are so real.--SylwiaS 14:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Portrait" Image
I would say so. At least under U.S. law, images before 1923 are public domain--a criterion that Cassandra's drawing of Jane can definitely meet. RivGuySC 03:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

picture of JA
The image shown is not the original by Cassandra. It is an 'embellished' version of Cassandra's drawing.


 * Do we need both pictures??FlaviaR 05:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfinished writings
isn't one of the shorter works listed an unfinished novel? -- Tarquin

yes, both The Watsons and Sanditon were unfinished. She was working on Sanditon just before she died. The Watsons was an earleir work that she never finished. It has been suggested that this was because she realised that she had set her protagonists in too low a social stratum to make a credible "good marriage" Ping 07:42 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)


 * -too low a social stratum- was first suggested in the "Memoir" (1870) by her admirable but very Victorian nephew who was concerned about such things. Another possible scenario was that she was writing The Watsons in 1803-4 (the watermark on the manuscript paper is dated 1803) and in January 1805 her father died and with the subsequent upheaval (her father was the bread winner, when he died, so did his income and her financial security) she never got around to finishing it. Chug 29th April 2007

"edenic garden literature"
What is "edenic garden literature?" Is it a genre in which Austen's novels figure? It's a new one on me, so it might bear some explanation, or even a separate article. -- IHCOYC 18:50 19 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't know either, the obvious interpretation doesn't make sense. Come to that the rest of that sentence needs explanation. Jane Austen was very careful with her facts, I have never spotted a mistake like that. Anyway a lot of country houses had "Successiion Houses" designed to produce fruit out of season. Ping 10:41 20 May 2003 (UTC)

According to Google, the entire Internet is ignorant of the phrase "edenic garden literature," except for the Wikipedia page on Jane Austen. The point about fruits and vegetables seems a slight matter in any case; no doubt Austen paid more attention to husbands than husbandry. -- IHCOYC 13:38 20 May 2003 (UTC)

I suspect it is a snide comment, in the garden of eden and similar places all fruits are always available, perfectly ripe, all the time. Should one of us edit the article?Ping 09:38 21 May 2003 (UTC)

The history suggests that it was meant to be a criticism of Austen's novels. I've removed the Garden of Eden and added my own opinion, which I hope is more to the point. --- IHCOYC 14:43 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I like your edit, much more to the point; I added a comment to try and put it into a modern contextPing 08:45 22 May 2003 (UTC)

The Canon?
Although there is always going to be some dispute about the canon, I think Austen is one of those who is often left out, because of the fairly narrow scope of her writing (middle class Englishwomen on the marriage market), and its relevance is not considered by everyone to be universal.


 * Middle class? The Dashwoods considered it a terrible blow when they were reduced to only three servants.  The Bennets kept a housekeeper, two maids, and a footman.  The list goes on, with some of them living in outright mansions.  I'd love to be that sort of "middle class." -- unsigned comment by User:Durova 18:14, 8 March 2006


 * How rather strikingly anachronistic of you -- you may not be aware of the fact, but vacuum cleaners, washing machines, refrigerators, and microwave ovens didn't yet exist during Jane Austen's lifetime (difficult as it may be to believe in a world without these things!). Since inventors were thus shockingly negligent and remiss in their expected duties, therefore servants were necessary to maintain what was then called a "genteel" lifestyle.  Having only one servant (perhaps a "stout girl of all work", as Mrs. Jennings imagines for Edward Ferrars and Lucy Steele) was to just barely maintain a tenuous fingernail's-grip on the lower fringes of the genteel -- people with quite modest genteel lifestyles (such as Jane Austen, her father and mother, and her sister Cassandra living in Bath) needed more than one.  The Dashwoods' having three servants wasn't enough for them to keep up any horses or a carriage, and bicycles and motorized vehicles were also not invented at that time (shocking as it may be for you to hear), so that the Dashwoods in Devon had very little mobility other than walking, or Sir John Middleton sending over his carriage to take them to an evening at his house -- which doesn't sound like a very glamorous uppper-class lifestyle to me!


 * The Bennets at Longborne were living fairly comfortably, but they by no means would have been considered to be part of the rich or ultra-rich of the time (especially since they couldn't transmit most of their wealth to their daughters). Churchh 15:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Pseudonyms
I've got a question. I've read that pre 20th century women writers, given the temper of the times, pretty much had to adopt a male pseudonym. How did Jane Austen avoid this? (Duf Davis)

I have posted my answer to this on Duf's homepage. Mitzy 18:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Mitzy - Thanks for the info. It goes to show how easy it is to pick up on someone else's assumption and be led astray.

Teenage "Jane Austen portrait" dubious last time I heard
Theo, you've put in a claim that a painting "traditionally held to be of Jane as a teenager, is now increasingly considered authentic by authorities". Could you supply the source for that, please? The last time I heard, the authorities were rather making fun of the claim. There was a big discussion of this painting in the TLS a few years ago, which I may or may not find the time to chase down, where art historians declared the tradition to be not only bogus but crackpot, as far as I remember, and the painting to be either much older or much newer than JA's teenage period. But there could well be new information in, I'm no expert. Bishonen|Talk 16:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not guilty, m'lud. That claim was added by User:206.72.65.101 on January 31 2005 in this edit. I assume that this refers to the Rice portrait. The Jane Austen Society rejected the authenticity of this on costume grounds. Richard James Wheeler, The Rice Portrait of Jane Austen (Westerham: Codex, 1996) argues for its authenticity. Or are you thinking of the painting by James Stanier Clarke? For that see Daily Telegraph March 4 1995. Here is a POV site about it. I am unaware of any developments in these stories. --Theo  (Talk) 23:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The Rice, yeah. Sorry, I carelessly misread this edit—of course you were just restoring text that had been vandalously deleted. Bishonen|Talk 23:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rice portrait again
IP 217.137.240.1 added back in the Rice portrait. Anyone who thinks this is not extremely doubtful should try to justify their position here on the talk page before adding it to the article. Churchh 02:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I have no idea where to argue this as Wikipedia is for referenced information, not original arguments, but in my eyes the Rice portrait cannot possibly be Jane Austen. 1.  Jane Austen was born in 1775.  2.  The fashions in the Rice portrait -- even if you account for French-style fashions being more advanced than English -- cannot possibly be earlier than 1800, and are probably closer to 1810.  3.  The image is said to be a fifteen-year-old, but in fact appears considerably younger.  One might be able to argue twelve or thirteen, but to my eyes she could be as young as eight.  I think the only reason that child is called fifteen is so one can stretch -- if one does not look at the facts too closely -- Miss Austen's birthdate forwards and a physical description (but no damning imagery) of fashions of the time backwards to the only point they might conceivably overlap.  Anyone familiar with clothing of the era will know instantly that it cannot be Jane Austen -- who would be 25 to 35 -- in that portrait. Artemis-Arethusa 22:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In April of this year, the Rice Portrait came up for auction and did not sell. The provenance is still in question, although extremely knowledgeable camps are divided. The National Portrait Gallery possesses the only known, unquestioned portrait of Jane drawn from life. This is her sister Cassandra's very inept watercolour drawing of her. User:Vsanborn 17:41, 04 November 2007 (UTC)

Tuberculosis?
Jane Austen is listed on the List of famous tuberculosis victims, but the disease is not mentioned on her page. Which is correct? According to Fay Weldon's Letters to Alice on First Reading Jane Austen, she died of Addison's disease "an insufficiency of the adrenal glands."


 * There's a tendency among historians to attribute posthumous diagnoses rather loosely. Unless a contemporary letter names her doctor's diagnosis, it's best to either leave it unsaid or to include the symptoms and competing theories. Durova 18:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The diagnosis of Jane Austen's last illness as Addisons Disease was first given in a medical journal in the 1960's. Dr Thomas Addison didn't name the disease until 1848, thirty years after her death so any contemporary sources are non existant. The symptoms she states in her letters are consistant with Addison's, but obviously it can't be proved. The commonest cause of Addison's Disease in the 19th Century was Tuberculosis and Dr Addison found it in 70-90% of patients with the disease and it seems likely it was so with Austen especially as she mentions fever and nightsweats which would indicate an active infection rather than some other pathological process but it can also be caused by a secondary cancer tumour or most commonly today, an autoimmune response where the bodies own immune system destroys it's own organs. Chug 23:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

questionable phrasing
"Few modern authors share his opinion; or at least, few would admit to it." -- isn't there enough praise of Austen on the page without this rather cute remark? - I'm dumb 07:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Jane Austen's Depth
It's a rather biased judgement to assert that Jane Austen was unaware of deeper feelings in human nature. She lived at the height of the Romantic movement in English literature. Significant parts of her work are a critique of that movement, most overtly in Sense and Sensibility and Northanger Abbey. The No Original Research rule makes me hesitate to correct this, but surely some critical study has made the observation. Durova 20:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Some improvements
What this article needs is a dedicated scholar. I've mentioned Trilling and Said and added Charlotte Bronte's complaint to Twain's. I've named more of Austen's actual influences and distinguished her from the Romantic movement. The article now reflects Austen's reputation more in the way it developed: several decades of relative neglect preceding the acclaim. Still the syntax is often clumsy. The quotations aren't sourced. This piece reads like it was written by a committee of clock watchers. A writer this important deserves a better article. Durova 09:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Frankly, those who aren't deconstructionist post-modernist ultra-relativist post-everythingists are rather less than impressed with Edward Said's so-called "critique" of Austen, which seemed to use Austen as a convenient whipping-girl scapegoat for things that he personally disliked, without displaying much real interest in the subject of Jane Austen and her writings themselves specifically. But the article does need work. Churchh 13:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Where Wikipedia is concerned, it's the prominence and influence of a well-known critic's analysis that matters. The place to express one's own disagreement with Said is a scholarly journal, not here. Durova 18:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and outside of the involuted navel-gazing world of Post-Everythingist Studies, Said has no particular influence on views of Jane Austen -- the initial shock value (if any), has faded with time, leaving behind the fact that there's not much there there... Churchh 15:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see a timeline of her works and their respective lengths -- unsigned comment by IP 24.24.238.126 05:45, 8 March 2006


 * I made some tiny stylistic changes and added what I think is the best recent Austen biography, Tomalin's, to the Further Reading list. CND


 * I have made some improvements to the Work section regarding her work as a novelist of manners, and also included some additional information regarding the literary influences on Jane Austen, in particular Fielding and Richardson. I have also tried to place her work more in the context of the age she was writing in as well as her main literary themes. Ivankinsman 09:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Her popularity at the time
Jane Austen's novels were well-appreciated by some discerning connoisseurs at the time (including Sir Walter Scott and the Prince Regent!), but they were by no means runaway best-sellers -- and considering that she was publishing in a genre which was considered trashy reading at the time ("novels" then had much the same reputation that Harlequin romances have today), she couldn't then aquire a serious "high" literary reputation. Also, while her authorship of the novels was pretty much an open secret by 1815 (if you ran in the right circles, or were willing to take a little effort to find out), she was not in any sense any kind of well-known public figure at the time. So the article should not imply that Austen was famous or best-selling or highly literarily-influential at the time. The first sign that her appeal might be enduring was when the novels were reprinted in the 1830's (accompanied by illustrations of the heroines wearing the big-sleeve styles of the 1830's of course!), and the real boom in her popularity didn't come until after the publication of the Memoir in 1870. Churchh 13:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. If you have time, how about you edit the article to reflect this analysis, Churchh? Bishonen | talk 16:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

I've taken the liberty of correcting the part about the Regent specifically the bit about her visiting him at Brighton which simply isn't true and added the bit about the Carlton House visit and Emma's dedication, which is. Chug 29th April 2007

Love and Freindship
The juvenilia title Love and Freindship is a famous misspelling, and should be left as is, but of course people keep "correcting" it — I don't blame them. I've now put in a commented-out plea to leave it and expanded the [sic] a bit — not sure it'll help. Any other ideas? Bishonen | talk 16:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC).


 * The famous mispelling is somehow seen as "cute" or at least an example of her youthful mind I think, but in fact she uses this mispelling in her letters and manuscripts throughout her adult life too - Chug 29th April 2007


 * In her written manuscripts, she almost always used "ei" instead "ie", including in that French leavetaking, "adeiu"! Churchh 16:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Pemberley
Feel free to copy over some of the basic facts from http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/janelife.html to this article (though don't merely cut-and-paste long passages...). Churchh 04:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Style
Jane Austen is considered by many to have brought in a very new/real away the notion of "style" to novels -- being unburdened by describing everything, or even everything relevant: saying things by omitting them, &c. Yet this article is free of any mention about her innovations in the realm of style. Thoughts? 12.47.208.34 00:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A previous user referred to Austen's novels as comedies of manners but they are, in fact, novels of manners and I have amended this detail. Pride and Prejudice is a typical novel of manners. Ivankinsman 10:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Family
Is it worth beefing up the family section a touch. That through Austen's brother she is related via the late Lord Brabourne to QEII In general for brothers she idolised we skip past them with little mention atm. Alci12 18:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up tag
Someone took it down after just a few hours. This article should be written in compelling, even brilliant prose, since it's dealing with one of the great literatary figures of all time. Take the lead, for example:


 * Jane Austen (16 December 1775 – 18 July 1817) was an English novelist whose work is considered part of the Western canon. Her insights into women's lives and her mastery of form and irony have made her one of the most noted and influential novelists of her era despite being only moderately successful during her lifetime.

This is a brush-off. The lead should be much more substantial (two or three paragraphs), and should prepare the reader for the greater level of detail in the body of the article. It doesn't. The reference to the Western canon is not the way I'd characterise her in the first sentence. A lot of readers won't understand what that means, and some would regard it as a put-down. She surely had insights into men's lives too. I hate "noted".

Tony 13:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable links: Please discuss
Article contains many non-notable links, which help to contribute to a less-than-brilliant style. I removed them. Severa restored them. Please give me some justification for these these trivial links. -- 201.51.231.141 02:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please consult WP:CONTEXT. In my opinion, linking in this article is hardly obtrusive, excessive, or non-notable. It's not as though every other noun and verb are linked. One of the cornerstones of Wikipedia, as a dynamic, online encylopaedia, is that articles should be formatted in such a way as to make relevant topics easily accessible through in-article hyperlinking. Many of the concepts and terms you de-linked — "gatehouse," "elope," "posthumous" — are concepts which may not be familiar to some. Linking to these removes the need to explain them within this article. -Severa  (!!!) 04:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. WP:CONTEXT: "Only make links that are relevant to the context. It is not useful and can be very distracting to mark all possible words as hyperlinks. Links should add to the user's experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read. A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links..." -- I tried to strike a balance. I note that "wife", "writing", "family", "wealthy", etc, etc, are also linked. Persons who need these terms explained could hardly be expected to be able to comprehend the article at all (nor the other articles that they'd arrive at by clicking). Perhaps we can remove such exceedingly basic terms, while leaving such challenging items as "posthumous" linked? -- 201.51.231.141 07:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent) While I certainly think argument could be made for the retainment of terms like "literature," "law," or "inheritance," given that context of these topics within the 18th- and 19th-centuries might not be familiar to some — I see no issue in doing away with the basic nouns. I tend to over-Wikify everything for the simple fact that I don't find it distracting, but rather highly entertaining and informative, to hop from subject to subject. But, that's just me. :) -Severa (!!!) 08:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Righto. I expect to be away for most of the weekend. I might fiddle with this on Monday. Have a good one. :-) -- 201.51.231.141 15:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the user about creating unnecessary links for words like wife, writing, family etc. Let's try and keep these to a minimum. Ivankinsman 10:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
I notice that Edward Said has been removed again. Although User:Churchh disputes Said's importance, nothing has taken his place. Trilling remains as the only example of twentieth century analysis, which is a disservice to Austen. Said is certainly notable enough for Wikipedia and the proper way to dispute an expert is not to eliminate mention of him but to add opposing citations. This top-importance biography article is getting shabby treatment. I wish I knew the subject well enough to give it more help. Durova 07:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have the slightest objection to mentioning Said's name (since Said's efforts did result in some superficial "controversy" -- however meretricious -- which is moderately worthy of note here). I would, however, object to any claims that Said produced any alleged stunning critical insights which have had any real lasting influence outside of the narrow involuted navel-gazing incestuous clique of the theoreticians of Post-Everythingist Studies. Churchh 15:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Critical studies is not my specialty. If you know of other important critics then by all means add them also.  My concern is that, other than Trilling, all the criticism cited is from the nineteenth century.  Jane Austen's reputation really rose to its current level much later than most of the critical quotes. Durova 18:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry for those (User:Churchh) who can thoughtlessly dismiss most academic criticism and theory done in the last 40 years without knowing or understanding that same material. Post-Colonial Studies is a very legitimate field that has indeed changed, over the course of 30 years, the way that scholars understand authors as diverse as Shakespeare, Jane Eyre, Austen and many others--those writers lived in a world that increasingly understood itself as civilized and Western by constant comparison to colonized territories that were "barbaric" and/or Eastern.  I dislike Said for all kinds of reasons, but kudos to him for demonstrating this in a convincing way that was and continues to be tremendously influential in mainstream academic circles.  Now, you may be completely dismissive of  everything that is said in academic circles as "navel gazing" or worse, but the point of this exercise was to list some of the major 20th century academic critics who have written about her.  You cannot have it both ways.  That said, for contemporary critics, Claudia Johnson, Mary Poovey, Tony Tanner and Marilyn Butler come to mind. I'll see what I can dig up for a more substantial and historical bibliography.  Prosopopeia 22:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a new editor but willing to help out, and I'm an academic with a fairly strong background in this area. I'm finding the "criticism" section to be a bit disjointed. It contains mostly scattered quotes followed by generalizations about what "some contemporary readers" might think. With permission, I'd be willing to revise to take a more historical approach to this section, beginning with a discussion of how her work was received by her contemporaries and then noting how reception to her work has changed over time, but of course always noting important dissenters from whatever the received view is at the time under discussion. I'd also like to add references to John Halperin, the definitive biographer who finally wrested from the academy the belief propagated by Jane Austen's family that she was a very sweet and gentle woman writing sweet and modest tales of gentility. Thoughts? 67.189.218.121 13:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as you provide reliable sources for the content you insert, you don't need our permission. Be bold, and if you do something that doesn't fit on Wikipedia, we can go in and correct it for you. Thanks! | Mr. Darcy talk 15:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"...Shakespeare, Jane Eyre, Austen..."? Hmmmm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.118.71 (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Jane Austen
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards,  Durova  16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it depictions of her, or of her work? --plange 17:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure how useful this would be, since while Jane Austen has had a significant highly-fervent fandom for about a hundred years, she hasn't really been a prominent public personality until the last ten years or so, and her appearance as a character in secondary works is rather limited. Maybe start a new section in this article (on Kipling's "Janeites",  the Jane Austen mysteries, the upcoming British movie, etc.), and see how that works, before starting a new article... Churchh 10:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of listing dramatizations separately from references to her and her work, so Pride & Prejudice (2005 film) would appear separately from Jane Austen in Manhattan. I don't want to step on any toes here (although I've edited this article a bit I'm hardly a regular) so if people think no-go or not yet I'll defer to the folks who are active.  Durova  18:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By the "upcoming British movie", I didn't mean adaptations of her works at all, but the flick that supposedly recounts a highly-colored version of her semi-affair with Tom Lefroy: Becoming Jane (2007). I'm still not 100% clear on what you intend for a "Cultural depictions of Jane Austen" article to contain, but my advice stands -- establish a section, and if the section is found valuable and starts to grow, then establish a new article. Churchh 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. There's actually already an article on Becoming Jane! Churchh 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to the editors here if you'd rather keep the section within the article for now. Regards,  Durova  03:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark Twain Quote
The wikiquote page seems to have a different wording - are they different instances of effectively the same utterance, or has somebody paraphrased his words? • Le  on  21:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Janeites
I notice there is no article on Janeites? Is this possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosopopeia (talk • contribs) 22:10, 28 November 2006


 * If you mean an article on Jane Austen's following, it might be better to start that as a section of this article rather than as its own article. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Prosopopeia may have meant the Kipling short story (mentioned above in the "Cultural depictions" section). Churchh 13:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The current rewrite of this article (underway in a sandbox - see below) will include a discussion of the history of Austen criticism that will discuss Janeites among many other things. Simmaren 13:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's make this an FA
Jane Austen is, in my own opinion, one of the most influential writers of the last two centuries, so it's disappointing to me that her article isn't more developed. For instance, "Criticism" section is a lot longer than the "Biography" section. I don't know if the conventions for biographies of deceased persons are the same as they are for biographies of living ones, but, from recent discussions at Talk:Richard Dawkins, I've come to the conclusion that seperate "Criticism" sections within a biographical article are faux pas, and that all criticism of an author's work should be integrated into the sections dealing with the his or her writing. The only other biographical Wikipedia article with a seperate "Criticism" section that I recall seeing is Sylvia Browne. I would love to see this article reflect the qualities of other articles about authors which have reached Featured Article status: J.R.R. Tolkien, Rudyard Kipling, and Douglas Adams. One characteristic I notice about those articles is that the biographical information is broken down into chronological sections. Perhaps it would be a good idea to fashion this article in a similar manner, centering around the important events in Jane's Austen's life and breaking them into sections, and thus expanding the article from there:

I think this might be a good place to start. We could start section by section, I think. - Severa (!!!) 05:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Childhood:" information on Austen's family, parents, upbringing, and juvenilia.
 * "Years in Bath:" covering the move to Bath and engagement to Harris Bigg-Wither.
 * "Career as a writer:" covering Austen's process of writing, her literary influences, her attempts to get her works published, books published during her lifetime, and reactions to them.
 * "Correspondance with sister Cassandra"
 * "Later life and death:" move to Southhampton, life in the cottage at Chawton, failing health, death and burial, and the posthumous publication of Northanger Abbey and Persuasion.
 * "Legacy:" covering Austen's impact on literature, derivative works and adaptations, fandom ("Janeites"), and criticism and scholarly analysis of Jane Austen's life and work.
 * I agree with this sentiment. Unless we're talking about criticism of her entire oeuvre, criticism belongs in the various articles on her specific works. What we need is a solid source or set of sources for the biography information, so that those sections can grow as Criticism shrinks. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some of the books listed in "Further reading" would be a good place to start. I'm sure that Jane Austen: A Life has a lot more to offer than our "Life" section does currently. -Severa (!!!) 01:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

links
I think the link to a Polish site would be rather more valuable in the Polish Wikipedia Article on this. And there it is already listed. Would everyone agree to delete this link, because people who CAN speak Polish would probably refer to the Polish article anyway for information in Polish and everyone else is not helped by a link to a Polish site. Tummel 08:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This comment was added by Tummel, removed without explanation by an anon, and put back by Severa. I can't see any Polish link in the Jane Austen article. Perhaps Tummel added a comment here which he meant for a different talk page, realized his mistake, and then removed the comment, after accidentally getting logged off. In any case, whether or not it was Tummel who removed it, it doesn't seem relevant to this article. Where is the link to a Polish site? Grandad 12:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography and Filmography
I wonder if the detail of Jane Austen's books should be placed higher in the article than the filmography? It would make more logical sense to me to list the books first. Rebeccaj munro 22:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to make the comment/suggestion that the 2006 film, "The Lakehouse", starring Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock, may be based off of "Persuasion" seeing as how the book was mentioned and related to the perdicament to the characters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lake_House_%28film%29 Jamina_chan 15:58, 6 May 2007

Tagged for cleanup
A two sentence lead, wikilinked section headers, zero inline citations, and several 1-2 sentence paragraphs; this article needs cleanup. Appears to have a lot of useful info just needs to be polished, sourced, and formatted. Quadzilla99 02:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And as this is an English author, whose first works were published in England, language should be British (not US) English - Manual_of_Style The Yeti 11:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jane Austen actually used some spellings which might be considered American today (such as "ize" endings). Churchh 16:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If quoting her works this is a valid argument. Else, standard British English should be used. Shakespeare used lots of variants of word spellings (including his own surname), but we don't use them all today! The Yeti 21:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Only portrait of J.Austen to be sold this week
The only know portrait of J.Austen is going to be sold this week at Christie's in New York this week (april 19th, 2007). Interestingly, the authenticity of the picture is contested.

Is this worthwhile to put in the article here? Here are some sources: Yahoo news, UK Telegraph and NewsDaily

Witty lama 04:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, I would say that the auction would be noteworthy had the painting sold; however, it received no bids and failed to sell. On the other hand, it is rather interesting that critics contest its authenticity; I'll try to add that in, thanks. :) María ( habla  con migo ) 18:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not the "only-known portrait", and it's the same as the "Rice portrait" which has occasioned sharp doubts above on this page. Churchh 16:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image from New Monthly Magazine
I suggest that this image be removed or, at the least, recaptioned. The implication of the current caption, that the item evidences some sort of negative or slighting judgment of Emma, is misleading. This item is not a review, simply a notice of publication, and expresses no opinion. The fact that this paper did not publish a review is probably not evidence of any judgment about Emma. The novel was well-covered (and basically favorably reviewed) elsewhere. See: Mary Waldron, "Critical Responses, Early" in Edward Copeland and Juliette McMaster, editors, The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, U.K. 1997) [ISBN 0-521-49867-8], pp.85-89. While it is interesting to see a contemporary newspaper or journal, if this is simply a book listing it is not significant and doesn't contribute to the article — we don't need visual confirmation that the book was published or that its publication was noticed.

Can anyone with a digital camera and access to a good university library make and add an image of one of the contemporary reviews? An image of the March 1816 review by Walter Scott in The Quarterly Review would be [out of copyright and] wonderful. Simmaren 14:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Emma was moderately well reviewed among those who deigned to take any notice of mere novels -- which most serious literary critics didn't condescend to do, since ordinary novels had much the same reputation then as Harlequin / Mills&Boon romance novels do today. Scott seems to have been one of the very few who thought it had any special literary merit beyond the common run of circulating-library trash, so his was not necessarily a typical reaction.
 * The New Monthly Magazine except (which I stumbled across semi-randomly in the University library here) does in fact indicate something rather typical, in that those who considered themselves to be serious about literature and morality placed an explicitly didactic and improving "moral tale", such as The Shipwreck appears to be, on a level above a common circulating-library novel without such pretensions (as Emma was considered to be). Churchh 16:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
Isn't a criticism section unencyclopedic? I mean I've never seen one in an encyclopedia. Marcus Taylor 04:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A section that offered original literary criticism of Jane Austen's works would be "original research" and therefore against the rules. A properly referenced section that provided a history of criticism of her work would be appropriate. The article on Walter Scott has a criticism section and so does the article on Ernest Hemmingway. Simmaren 12:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor stylistic quibble (so far) re. Simmaren's article
I would rephrase "Jane Austen's immediate family was large — two sisters (including Jane) and six brothers all survived to be adults - and close-knit." as "Jane Austen's immediate family was large and close-knit: six brothers - James, George, Charles, Francis, Henry and Edward - and a beloved older sister, Cassandra, all of whom lived to adulthood." Clarityfiend 07:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Change made. Thanks for the comment. I look forward to more as you have time. Simmaren 13:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of those who may not understand this exchange, I am researching and writing a replacement for this article, with a view to trying for GA status. I will invite general review and comment shortly, when I've completed more of the article, before making any wholesale replacement. Simmaren 13:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Small suggestion
I'm new here, so bear with me, but I don't think that this sentence maintains the NPOV: "It is regrettable that Cassandra destroyed some of it after Jane's death; no one knows why." It is regrettable, but that's just an opinion. I suggest something like this to replace it: "Cassandra destroyed some of this correspondence after Jane's death, though her reasons are unknown." What do you think?

Original Research
This whole paragraph strikes me as original research. It's well written and thoughtful, but seems to belong in a critical article, rather than a summary of her critical reception:
 * "Austen's literary strength lies in the delineation of character, especially of women, by delicate touches arising out of the most natural and everyday incidents in the life of the middle and upper classes, from which her subjects are generally taken. Her characters, though of quite ordinary types, are drawn with such firmness and precision and with such significant detail as to retain their individuality intact through their entire development, and they are uncoloured by her own personality. Her view of life seems largely genial, with a strong dash of gentle but keen irony."

I think that it should be removed, or else the author needs to find references to support these claims. Aslauson 21:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Replacement Jane Austen Article
I am researching and writing a replacement for the main article on Jane Austen. I've substantially finished the "Life/Works/Criticism" sections (you can see from the outline where I plan to go from here). I believe that it is both customary and good manners to invite comments and constructive criticism before I make a wholesale substitution.

The replacement article may be found here: Replacement Jane Austen Article

Please review it and leave comments here or on the talk page of the replacement article. I plan to travel for the next week or so but will collect comments and respond when I return. Simmaren 21:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Choice of portrait
The Cassandra Austen sketch is indisputably authentic, but not really very satisfactory. Jane Austen's surviving relatives who remembered her weren't generally too happy with it in 1870. I kind of like Image:Jane-Austen-portrait-victorian-engraving.png (though it may be less authentic). Churchh 14:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-write intro?
The opening of the current article could definitely use some improvement: "She never married and died at age 41." is clunky, and the two statements shouldn't be combined like that. Yay or nay? CaptainJae 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yay, but the article is currently being re-written. I don't really see the need for any major changes to the article if it's going to be altered in its entirety soon after the fact. María ( críticame ) 20:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Groovy. CaptainJae 18:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

proposed new external link
I'd like to add a link like: to the 'Works' section. This links to a list of Austen works that you can download to read on a cell phone. I have read quite a few from this site and got a lot of value out being able to read the PD texts away from the PC.
 * Free to read on a cell phone - Jane Austen works.

The texts are Public Domain in the US, just like Project Gutenberg, they are packaged with the reader and available under a creative commons licence (share if (attribution, non-commercial, no derivative) ). The site is non-commercial without registration, subscription, or advertising. The texts as packaged together with the reader as a java program that runs on cell phones, this is a way for people to access the authors work that adds to the range in the existing external links (hopefully translating to more reading going on).

I checked WP:EL and the link seems appropriate: Filomath 23:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What should be linked: '...should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.'
 * Links normally to be avoided: it seems only #8 might apply; 'Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content...'. The site lets you download java programs that only run on a J2ME environment, this means most/all current cell phones. So although they are limited to being read on a phone they do add an access method to all the others in the existing External Links, in the same way that LibriVox adds a format but requires an mp3 player.

Cleaned up Further Reading
I'm sure I made a few mistakes as I rarely contribute to Wikipedia, but I alphabetized the authors in Further Reading. Under the old helter skelter system it was difficult to see which selections had already been entered. I have added some classical selections about Jane's life in my possession, and some that are more current. Vsanborn 22:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that none of my contributions yesterday, which took several hours, are included. Have they ALL been erased? Vsanborn 13:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am re-introducing some of the bibliography and text that were erased or cannibalized yesterday. Due to lack of feedback from Wikipedia staff, I am resolved to be persistent. These citings are legitimate. Jane Austen's section needs beefing up, frankly, so I am adding my Jane Austen bibliography collection in "Further readings." These tomes are still readily available through second hand bookstores and current sources.

In addition, Pride and Prejudice, the Musical, though new, is legitimate. The creators are offering one tune per week for listening on their website, and they are serious about putting this musical on in various venues across the country. If you listen to the music, the play is cleverly done and by professionals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsanborn (talk • contribs) 01:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 19:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)