Jane Austen discussion
Anatomy of a Janeite
message 1:
by
Joy
(new)
Jul 20, 2010 02:47PM

reply
|
flag
Wow Joy, that article will be interesting to look through. I'll return with thoughts here after I have read it. Thanks!

It just goes to show how truly special (and dare I say advanced?) you are Chris!

It just goes to show how truly special (and dare I say advanced?) you are Chris!"
I was pretty much gobsmacked at the paucity of men that responded! I really don't get it why more men don't read Austen? I know lots of my male friends that have read many of the great authors of literature, but their eyes glaze over when you mention Austen, Eliot, the Brontes, or Gaskell. It is a level of ignorance that I find virtually inexcusable.
I have found, over the years, that women are nowhere near as picky about the gender of an author that they are reading. Very, very odd. As a rhetorical question I wonder if maybe it has to do with how we raise little boys, or if it is something that is taught (or not taught) in school?

I do think it is also interesting that Austen seems to be regarded by some academics as less prestigious than some of the other female authors you mentioned. In all of my British Literature courses there was never an Austen novel assigned (except for a course devoted to Austen and that was led by a female professor), although I did read Eliot, two Brontes, and Gaskell in various classes.

A very interesting observation, Joy! I remember that the only Austen I read in an advanced British literature survey course I took was, amazingly enough, "Mansfield Park." One of the lesser-liked and more complicated Austen novels to get into; which, of course, was precisely the professor's point in selecting it.
I think another reason that Austen is typically not taught is because she is the top-of-the-heap in 'classics popularity.' Most English departments want you to delve a little deeper and become exposed to a broader cross-section. Don't you think?

I agree, and I think that it is important for one to have one's horizons broadened in college. On the other hand, there is never a lack of Dickens in British Literature courses and he doesn't seem to do too badly for himself in the popularity department!

Yeah, that's true about Dickens. You know, Joy, [just among us friends here:] as much as I do like Dickens, I truly like so many other authors even better. Dickens is good, and a couple of his novels are great (e.g., "Bleak House" and "Our Mutual Friend"), but overall his work isn't as 'deep' as a lot of our favorite authors. What say you to my 'heresy'? ;-)
If I may comment on the survey - ahem - you might want to consider that the respondents were members of JASNA and had to have read all 6 novels. 68% of the Janeites lived in the US and a mere 16% in the UK. So, maybe the question is: Why are so few men members of JASNA?
But, I do agree that Austen is seen as "women's lit" and rather lightweight. And, at first glance, Austen's novels are about getting a good husband, right? So, I can see how her books can get passed over by someone who wants to read something more "worthwhile". But, as I am a literary lightweight myself, and read for enjoyment first, I can read Austen with no misgivings and enjoy what the others are missing. :)
But, I do agree that Austen is seen as "women's lit" and rather lightweight. And, at first glance, Austen's novels are about getting a good husband, right? So, I can see how her books can get passed over by someone who wants to read something more "worthwhile". But, as I am a literary lightweight myself, and read for enjoyment first, I can read Austen with no misgivings and enjoy what the others are missing. :)

I think that your assessment that "at first glance, Austen's novels are about getting a good husband" is quite accurate in identifying why more men don't find Austen appealing!


And that, Joy, Austen does time and time again! I read her novels over and over again for just that experience; and I get more out of 'em each and every time.
Joy wrote: "I have to add, that I also expect to be entertained when I read, Jeannette! In fact, in my opinion, the mark of good literature is its ability to entertain me and make me think or challenge me in s..."
I was referring to those Lit classes where they want to broaden your horizons, not to either of you personally. Some of the required reading is definitely not enjoyable, and I've been called out for disliking a work because, well, I didn't like it. (I didn't fit in with the English majors generally). Personal example: JA was excluded from my daughter's Major British Writer's course. She was required to read one of Beckett's plays, about some people living in bins. She thought the play was weird. :)
As for the survey, it was slanted towards JASNA, and then blog sites, which I think are also mostly populated by women. I don't think we will ever see a fair count of men who have actually read and enjoyed one of Jane's books. Not unless we put a check box on the 1040 or something similar. (I don't like poll results with such small sample sizes, statistically accurate or not. Am I being a grump today?)
I was referring to those Lit classes where they want to broaden your horizons, not to either of you personally. Some of the required reading is definitely not enjoyable, and I've been called out for disliking a work because, well, I didn't like it. (I didn't fit in with the English majors generally). Personal example: JA was excluded from my daughter's Major British Writer's course. She was required to read one of Beckett's plays, about some people living in bins. She thought the play was weird. :)
As for the survey, it was slanted towards JASNA, and then blog sites, which I think are also mostly populated by women. I don't think we will ever see a fair count of men who have actually read and enjoyed one of Jane's books. Not unless we put a check box on the 1040 or something similar. (I don't like poll results with such small sample sizes, statistically accurate or not. Am I being a grump today?)

Jeannette, I need to fess up. I am a member of JASNA; and I remember the poll. I was tardy in responding ( my male procrastination thing). I do think that you are right in that where the poll was circulated probably only came in front of women generally.
I also think that most English departments try and stay away from the most popular fiction (classic or contemporary) whilst trying to expose students to a more broad cross-section of lit. You can take courses that focus on Dickens, Austen, et al., at the senior or graduate level, but they really want you to focus on becoming a critical reader.
Men read Austen, in the same way that women read Hardy or O'Brian. If you look at this group, for example, you'll see that something less than 10% of all of the members are male. It is what it is.
No, you are not being a grump!
I really think that is most of it. In her day, Austen had a wider readership among both sexes, I would think. I think in our modern times, with so much to choose from, it's easy to read just what you are most interested in and/or comfortable reading. So, my husband reads M&C and Sharpe, and historical accounts (battles, wars, military strategies) and science books. I don't read many of his books, but I like some of them. He doesn't read any manga, which I really enjoy. He does read Marvel comics.
But, he enjoyed it when I read Persuasion out loud. And, he does enjoy the adaptations. He just has other books that he prefers to read.
Now I'm off to read more Hardy. It is starting to get interesting. That is one thing that talking with friends like you and Joy has done for me: it has expanded my taste in books, and my understanding of old favorites, tremendously! :)
But, he enjoyed it when I read Persuasion out loud. And, he does enjoy the adaptations. He just has other books that he prefers to read.
Now I'm off to read more Hardy. It is starting to get interesting. That is one thing that talking with friends like you and Joy has done for me: it has expanded my taste in books, and my understanding of old favorites, tremendously! :)

Oh, I don't think so at all, Jeannette. I don't think Jane Austen was well read at all in her time, or even in the 50-years following her death. Her stature and following has only improved with time.
I guess I meant that she was more likely read by both sexes when she became popular the first time around. (Oh, bad Dobby, I have not really read much biography about JA.) To make amends, here is a rather interesting article relating to this discussion:
“In March 1915, the Kiplings had visited Bath and he re-read the works of Jane Austen there. He wrote to a friend that “the more I read the more I admire and respect and do reverence… When she looks straight at a man or a woman she is greater than those who were alive with her - by a whole head… with a more delicate hand and a keener scalpel.”
In 1923, the author had completed writing The Janeites. The short story, begun the year before, was completed after Kipling’s discussion with critic George Saintsbury, who is credited with first using the term in an introduction to Pride and Prejudice.
“However, it was Rudyard Kipling's story 'The Janeites' which made the name famous. The story concerns a simple and uneducated soldier and mess waiter in the trenches who reads Jane Austen's novels so that he can join the 'secret society' of officers who read her. At first Humberst doesn't like her novels, but eventually he becomes a big fan. Ironically, after the war is over, reading Jane Austen reminds him of the comradeship and camaraderie that he found in the trenches. Humberst praises this soothing quality of JA: "There's no one to match Jane when you're in a tight place."”
“In March 1915, the Kiplings had visited Bath and he re-read the works of Jane Austen there. He wrote to a friend that “the more I read the more I admire and respect and do reverence… When she looks straight at a man or a woman she is greater than those who were alive with her - by a whole head… with a more delicate hand and a keener scalpel.”
In 1923, the author had completed writing The Janeites. The short story, begun the year before, was completed after Kipling’s discussion with critic George Saintsbury, who is credited with first using the term in an introduction to Pride and Prejudice.
“However, it was Rudyard Kipling's story 'The Janeites' which made the name famous. The story concerns a simple and uneducated soldier and mess waiter in the trenches who reads Jane Austen's novels so that he can join the 'secret society' of officers who read her. At first Humberst doesn't like her novels, but eventually he becomes a big fan. Ironically, after the war is over, reading Jane Austen reminds him of the comradeship and camaraderie that he found in the trenches. Humberst praises this soothing quality of JA: "There's no one to match Jane when you're in a tight place."”

It actually was quite common for the the young soldiers, especially the officer class, to take 'England' with them, in their pockets, across the Channel to the battlefields of France; and most of the time it was Austen and Dickens. Kipling's short-story was indeed the genesis of the term 'Janeites.'
What a difference eighty years makes!

And that is why Austen's work is not merely good literature, but rather ranks among the best literature!

Yes, in the early part of the 20th century, her most loyal (and vocal) supporters were indeed men! There was an interesting section in Jane's Fame that outlined this important time in the development of, well for lack of a better phrase, Jane's fame!
(I feel like Jack Aubrey, giggling at my small pun!)

I agree that it was slanted toward JASNA participants, however, since the survey was intended to capture the opinions of those who "1) had read all six major Austen novels, and 2) considered themselves to be 'sincere admirers'", I suppose that was the easiest way to track down those who met the requirements. And since the survey was conducted in order to present at the JASNA yearly meeting, perhaps the bias made sense. Although, it would be wonderful to see a more wide-spread survey!
p.s. I was telling my husband about the survey and he said that from what he recalled from his statistics course in his MBA program, a sample size of 501 participants is an appropriate size for a large study and accounts for demographic variations (ie age, gender, etc.) and any group larger than that has no more statistical validity.
Statistics is just something I can never get my head around. In this case, for example, there could be whole towns full of Austen-reading men who don't use the internet and/or don't read English! I think the telling part, at least the one that makes me skeptical of the results, is the very low percentage of Janeites in the UK. I think it most likely accurately reflects the membership of JASNA, but I am not convinced it accurately reflects the wider population.
Joy,
Speaking of Aubrey and puns: Did you watch the M&C movie?
Speaking of Aubrey and puns: Did you watch the M&C movie?

I think that the survey was only circulated among members of the "Jane Austen Society of North America," and not its equivalent in the UK, or other countries.
Finally, wasn't it Disraeli that said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"?
So, there is hope for my small town in one of those nations that end in -stan, full of men reading Austen? :)
Joy wrote: "I have to add, that I also expect to be entertained when I read, Jeannette! In fact, in my opinion, the mark of good literature is its ability to entertain me and make me think or challenge me in s..."
I wanted to add another comment about the appeal of Jane Austen. Even though her books are written in a rather narrow setting (time period, manners and customs) her themes are really timeless. I might daydream about the balls and the gowns, but I can honestly relate to the stories of dysfunctional families, miscommunication in love, desire, loss, and finally the happy ending.
I wanted to add another comment about the appeal of Jane Austen. Even though her books are written in a rather narrow setting (time period, manners and customs) her themes are really timeless. I might daydream about the balls and the gowns, but I can honestly relate to the stories of dysfunctional families, miscommunication in love, desire, loss, and finally the happy ending.

Speaking of Aubrey and puns: Did you watch the M&C movie?"
Not yet, my TV has been commandeered by 3 hours of the Tour de France each evening (!!) but my hubby will be gone tomorrow night, so I am going to watch it :)
Commandeer: a nautical term.
I am looking forward to your reaction to Russell Crowe delivering some fine Aubrey puns. :)
I am looking forward to your reaction to Russell Crowe delivering some fine Aubrey puns. :)

And as far as Master and Commander goes, I'm still trying to find a copy of it. I live in a teeny town and haven't had luck with the library or friends, so I may just have to order it!


Having said all of this; yes, I agree. I think women do tend to read more than men, and I'm not quite sure why?


I probably wouldn't disagree. I was kind of hoping for a female President, just for example.

It is interesting that so many other countries other than the US have elected women to their highest political authority. I would certainly like to see it happen in my lifetime (and it would be quite ridiculous if I don't)!

It is inte..."
It would indeed. I am pretty confident that it'll happen in my life-time. I await the day (as long as it isn't Palin!).

My heart stopped for a second when I read that and an involuntary "Oh God" escaped from my terror-filled heart.

fascinating
Do you think that women read more because historically they were confined to indoor pursuits (especially among the upper classes, who had the leisure time to both read and to be taught to read)? Needlework and reading, with the men sitting and contemplating (snoozing) in front of the fire.
My husband is an avid reader, but he doesn't have the time to read like I do. His mom is a reader, but his dad isn't.
My husband is an avid reader, but he doesn't have the time to read like I do. His mom is a reader, but his dad isn't.
Joy wrote: "My heart stopped for a second when I read that and an involuntary "Oh God" escaped from my terror-filled heart. "
Me, too!
Me, too!
I read the survey, and I just don't know that it told me anything really. I have to confess I am a little critical of statistical reports because I worked in marketing for years and these were a part of my tasks. I think a statistical report can be just be noise if it doesn't tell us anything needed. If it is just for fun, that's another thing (as long as it isn't a high budget item!) I guess maybe saying it another way, there are a lot of numbers in there, but maybe too many. And I just wonder -- where do "sincere admirers" of Austen like to vacation? Hmmm. Anatomy of a Janeite -- is it really?
But the issue that you GR JA group members brought up was much more important -- why are men not reading Austen? or are they? somewhere in North America? I have had both boys and girls in my household and I just find that young men have some social restrictions on them that us liberated women do not -- sad to say in the 21st century.
I don't know if it just my part of the country and the social leanings of this region, but boys are encouraged to read boy books, choose boy colors, play with other boys, decorate their rooms with boy furnishings, lean toward team sports over other pursuits... you see where I am going with this. So I think boys may get little chance to decide for themselves what great authors strike a note with them, when they they are steered away from so many things at an early age. The view of the sexes in our country is a troubling thing, at least from where I am standing.
But the issue that you GR JA group members brought up was much more important -- why are men not reading Austen? or are they? somewhere in North America? I have had both boys and girls in my household and I just find that young men have some social restrictions on them that us liberated women do not -- sad to say in the 21st century.
I don't know if it just my part of the country and the social leanings of this region, but boys are encouraged to read boy books, choose boy colors, play with other boys, decorate their rooms with boy furnishings, lean toward team sports over other pursuits... you see where I am going with this. So I think boys may get little chance to decide for themselves what great authors strike a note with them, when they they are steered away from so many things at an early age. The view of the sexes in our country is a troubling thing, at least from where I am standing.

But, an interesting comment, Sue. :) My daughter was never a girly-girl. She didn't like pink or frilly, but she did like her Barbie's. She didn't read Little House on the Prairie, she preferred humor or fantasy. She still hasn't read any Austen (maybe because I like it so much), but she is expanding her tastes.
Sue, you and everyone else are all adding great comments to the group. I love that we at least think about these things and are brave enough to talk about gender stuff, because in my surroundings it is a sensitive issue. Jeannette, I expect that you allowed your daughter a lot of room to decide not to go in for things that are deemed extra-feminine.
And I guess the Little House books were deemed for girls, weren't they. That is an interesting example because they were so much more than just books about little girls growing up -- they really told a large story, but boys may not read them either -- of course few male characters in them I suppose.
Sue, it sounds like the men in your family branched out well! They were able to decide what they were comfortable with as a person not a part of one gender maybe.
I wonder too if all this cautious gender stuff is really that old. My grandfather grew up on a farm, a farmer, worked in law enforcement -- but his reading tastes were vast. Is it because he grew up in a less commercial age -- no multimedia helping to shape his or his parents views on what a boy should pick up. I think of other older relatives who are interested in music or studying things that these days seem viewed less manly around where I live.
And I guess the Little House books were deemed for girls, weren't they. That is an interesting example because they were so much more than just books about little girls growing up -- they really told a large story, but boys may not read them either -- of course few male characters in them I suppose.
Sue, it sounds like the men in your family branched out well! They were able to decide what they were comfortable with as a person not a part of one gender maybe.
I wonder too if all this cautious gender stuff is really that old. My grandfather grew up on a farm, a farmer, worked in law enforcement -- but his reading tastes were vast. Is it because he grew up in a less commercial age -- no multimedia helping to shape his or his parents views on what a boy should pick up. I think of other older relatives who are interested in music or studying things that these days seem viewed less manly around where I live.
