While I was reading What Matters in Jane Austen? by John Mullan earlier this year, I was consumed by one thought: I have read too many books about Jane Austen. I have become one of those people who has too many tiny details memorized and who, in a book that is consumed with pointing out the details that most readers forget, spent half my time wondering how the author could have omitted X,Y, and Z, examples that would have better illustrated his point if included. Oh dear. I am far too young to already be this neurotic.
It is a fun book, especially if you’re able to quiet your inner debater and just enjoy Mullan’s points. He addresses “twenty crucial puzzles” (hint: not remotely crucial and, for readers already familiar with the books, not particularly puzzling either) in essays such as “Why Is It Risky to Go to the Seaside?”, “Is There Any Sex in Jane Austen?”, “What Do the Characters Call Each Other?”, “How Much Money Is Enough?” and, “Do We Ever See the Lower Classes?” These five chapters I’ve just named were among my least favourite, largely because they did little more than pull examples from the books and leave it at that. If you’ve read the novels, you know why it is risky to go to the seaside, you know what servants are seen (and you know their names) and what lower class characters appear, and you certainly know who is calling each other “Miss” and “Mr” as opposed to by their first names. I did like that Mullan rightly put the more salacious interpretations of Austen’s books in their proper place in “Is There Any Sex in Jane Austen?” but it still managed to be a pretty dull chapter. If you’re a veteran of tricky Austen trivia quizzes there won’t be a lot of new information or analysis here, just a catalogue of events and people who fulfil the chapter’s criteria.
In contrast, my favourite chapters were “How Much Does Age Matter?”, “Who Dies in the Course of the Novels?”, and “Which Important Characters Never Speak?”. “How Much Does Age Matter?” won me over in the easiest way possible: by talking about Emma. Mullan argues that the difference in age between Emma and Mr Knightley matters primarily because it seems large enough to both of them to rule out a romantic relationship:
The sixteen years between them allowed them not to notice what they felt towards each other. They have behaved as if the gap between their ages precluded romance, but we know that they should have known better. Age does shape their relationship, but not at all as they expected.
“Who Dies in the Course of the Novels?” is just plain fun, probably the most fun that this book has to offer. There are obvious deaths that shape the fate of characters (the death of Frank Churchill’s aunt allowing him and Jane Fairfax to finally go public with their engagement is the first example that comes to mind) but it is the little details that don’t necessarily matter to the plot that interested me most:
No one dies during the course of Persuasion but the novel is full of the deaths that have mattered to its characters. As Linda Bree rightly says, ‘most of the characters would have been wearing black, in some form, throughout the novel.’
Does the wearing of black change our fundamental understanding of Persuasion or its characters in any way? No, of course not. But it is still an intriguing point to consider the next time you’re reading the book.
“What Do Characters Say?” looks at the speeches of characters who were granted a voice (since this is Austen, that means the vast majority). It is a bit of a muddled chapter but it does contain one very odd snippet: when discussing Mary and Henry Crawford’s relationship, specifically Mary’s teasing about her brother’s libertine ways, Mullan states that:
There is something chilling in the jesting of brother and sister. Mary Crawford’s mock-condemnation (“horrible”, “detestable”) measures her distance from any real disapproval of his habitual behaviour.
Chilling? That does not sit right with me, nor does the implication that Mary ought to disapprove of her brother’s behaviour.
(Query: most books about Austen touch on the relationships between sisters across her novels but do any look in depth at the relationships between brothers and sisters? I would love to read essays on that topic.)
The flip side of what characters say is what they do not say, a subject Mullan addresses in “Which Important Characters Never Speak?” Now, this is a topic so many Austen-lovers have touched on in the past that I am afraid Mullan was never going to be able to do justice to it in my eyes. It is that old problem of too many examples and not enough analysis. Why does Austen silence Susan Price, Fanny’s younger sister, who had once had so much to say? And, fascinating as it is that Benwick does not speak in Persuasion, why are so many other characters in that book rendered almost mute? Lady Russell, whose voice was of particular importance to Anne years before, is remarkably silent, denied speech for much of the novel. Why? It is a book that is notable for its overall lack of dialogue and yet Mullan never points that out or stops to consider why. I found this wildly frustrating since speech (or the lack thereof) in Austen’s novels is one of my favourite topics to discuss and I cannot understand why anyone would want to touch on it so lightly and superficially.
Though the chapters I had been most excited to read (“How Much Money Is Enough?” in particular) ended up disappointing me, this was still an interesting book. I just wanted a little more from it. It absolutely suffered from my having read Speaking of Jane Austen by Sheila Kaye-Smith and G.B. Stern only a few months before, which is much more fun and addresses the same questions (and many more) in greater depth.
Great review! I fear I may be going the same way – I was debating whether to get this but couldn’t believe there would be anything that ‘new’ in it, indeed it seems more like a (very thorough) primer for baby-Janeites… IDK though whether expecting ‘newness’ here is too much to hope for!
That said, your suggestion regarding a brother-sister relationship analysis is an excellent one (the Bingleys always fascinate me as a family – I find it troublingly hard to imagine their parents…)…
I think baby-Janeites (I love that phrase!) would be the best audience for this, or maybe all those awful people who consider themselves Austen fans but only know the stories through the television miniseries/films. But I do think there could have been more expansion on the chapters, on why Austen chose these techniques or even just personal musings and reactions from Mullan. I have to admit, my favourite style of Austen-related book is the personal essay that masquerades as lit crit, which is why I loved the fact-heavy but also gossipy Talking of Jane Austen so much.
Happy to hear that I’m not the only one who wants to examine the brother-sister relationships more! Most discussions of Mansfield Park go into this but it seems to be rarely considered elsewhere. I would love to ponder why Austen focused so much on families of sisters when she herself had brothers to spare and only one sister.
I would love to ponder why Austen focused so much on families of sisters when she herself had brothers to spare and only one sister.
Perhaps the (sub-conscious?) happy fantasy of keeping her brothers close at hand? Mind you, sometimes I think that if you combine all the Bennett sisters excluding Elizabeth you end up with one complete woman. Is that unkind?
Must read Talking of… soon! I have the very favourably reviewed The Real Jane Austen: A Life in Small Things (Paula Byrne) in my To Read collection…
You really must read Talking/Speaking of Jane Austen. I think it is one of the best Austen-related books out there, though it doesn’t seem to have been reprinted (shameful!). I haven’t read the sequel (More Talk of Jane Austen) but I’ve ordered myself a copy and am looking forward to it. Hope you enjoy the Byrne. I tried it a few months ago but didn’t find it all that enlightening and abandoned it midway.
It’s probably no comfort to know how many of us share that particular neurosis! I was so excited to get this book, but then I found myself becoming obsessed with the details in reading it – and taking far too many notes (neurosis!), so I set it aside for a while and haven’t gotten back to it yet.
Since this book is all details, I could see how getting caught up in them could make for an exhausting reading process! If you ever return to it, I’d been interested to hear what you think of it overall.
Fantastic review, Claire! I had been toying with reading this, but now I shan’t bother – it does sound as though the Sheila Kaye-Smith/GB Stern books are much more enjoyable for the avid Janeite.
(I also love your mention of Emma being enough to sway you to anything, and what you write in the comment above about those AWFUL people who just watch the adaptations – even worse when those people write sequels…)
I’m always fascinated by finding out which characters don’t speak, because I seldom notice – but the lack of dialogue in Persuasion is one of the reasons it is my least favourite Austen novel. But that’s not enough to make me read this. (Btw, if you haven’t read it, I also wouldn’t bother with most of Claire Harman’s ‘Jane’s Fame’, which just rehashes biography.)
Glad you enjoyed the review, Simon!
I did read Jane’s Fame a while back but the only part I really remember of it was the chapter towards the end when she looks at the modern-day success of the books.
Thanks for this interesting and helpful review, Claire. I have read far too much Austen criticism in my day to want to read this, though I do have a lot of respect for Mullen. But I think I disagree with you about his comments on Mary Crawford’s “mock-condemnation” — I don’t have the novel here to check where this passage comes from, but I can’t agree with you that she shouldn’t condemn him. I actually have a terrific soft spot for Henry, and often wish JA had let Fanny marry him, but both the Crawfords do lack essential morality and, if Mullen is right, this is Austen’s way of showing that Mary is not the right person for Edmund to marry.
So happy you found the review interesting, Harriet. To clarify, what bothered me re: the Mary Crawford discussion was Mullan’s feeling that she ought to feel one way and her refusal to do so makes her almost sinister. If the readers have such a soft spot for Henry, why can’t his sister as well? Why should she be better than he? Yes, a bit of moral indignation would make her a much more suitable mate for Edmund (though why you would want to spend time with Edmund remains another question) but she is what she is. She is not repulsive or so morally bankrupt as to send chills down our spines, she is just a wonderful contrast to the hero and heroine of the novel.
I am quite looking forward to picking this up on my holiday next week and I shall certainly be returning to your review when I’m done to see how our thoughts differ.
I hope you enjoy it! It is certainly a fun book to enjoy on holiday.