Is it alright for men to read Jane Austen?

Of course it is ok. Brilliant books. why is this even an issue?

I hesitate to draw equivalence between Austin and the Brontes. Or George Elliott for that matter. Easy to conflate because of tv and film costume dramas, but they are really very distinct as writers.
 
Last edited:
Any fans here of Jane Austen’s unfinished novels Sanditon and The Watsons? I don’t think I’ve ever read those.
 
I tried each of those but didn't get far. In addition to the stories being unfinished the writing felt unsatisfactory. Not surprising for first drafts, of course.

Last year I watched the Masterpiece Theater dramatization of Sanditon. Of course they added a lot that wasn't in the original and changed some things that were. It wasn't the worst adaption I have ever seen—I didn't hate it, but I could have done without the addition of sex—but I didn't find it particularly satisfying. One thing I can say, the result did not feel like Austen.
 
I assume it's not the woman writer issue, it is the perception that it's like reading a Victorian age version of a Harlequin romance or Danielle Steele book. I re-read Frankenstein a while ago and while I used to think all the little digressions about people's family problems (so-and-so was orphaned and so-and-so moved in with this family) was just young author filler writing-I could now see that it was related to reinforcing the theme of compassionate relationships.


Anyway, what would the Captain think? ;)

"These are all novels, all about people that never existed, the people that read them it makes them unhappy with their own lives. Makes them want to live in other ways they can never really be. ..The books have nothing to say. "
 
It's strange that when I first read Austen it did not occur to me that it was anything other than a highly acclaimed novel. What? Are you telling me that the author was a woman? Ekkkk!!! Whatever will I do? Nonsense.
 
Just for the consideration of any non-readers (so far!) of Jane Austen -- she wasn't a Victorian; her six novels were published 1811-1818 (Austen died in 1817); Victoria was born in 1819 and became queen in 1837. Rather than being a "Victorian" before the time, she has been considered, as it were, the daughter of Samuel Johnson, that is, to suggest the emphasis on wit characteristic of the "Age of Johnson." Her novels are typically short as compared to what we usually think of as a Victorian novel. (Mansfield Park could be considered in some ways a proto-Victorian novel, though; in it, Jane Austen was, I think deliberately setting herself to write differently than in her other books; it's a little like watching a movie that casts Jimmy Stewart as the bad guy. Mansfield Park is very good but not the first novel one should read by Austen.)
 
She also wrote the early drafts of some of her novels before 1800, so definitely not a Victorian novelist. And although you can see the 18th century in her writing, in some ways I would say her style was far more modern than that of the Victorians. Her books were shorter than the novels that came before her and the novels that came immediately after. She did not indulge in long digressions. Of course she was writing for her contemporaries and expected them to know a lot of things without needing to be told. I imagine she would have been astonished to know that her books would still be read 200 years after they were first published.
 
I meant the perception is that her work is like a Victorian Age romance novel-with all the negative assumptions about the period--i.e. "restricted and boring." If there was such a thing as a Samuel Johnson Romance Novel, I dread to think what the reputation of that would be!

I suspect the reason they chose her for doing a zombie spoof was because the assumption is how boring people think it is--so let's put some zombies in it.

We had to read one of her books in high school. I am not sure if Wuthering Heights was on a reading list. Frankenstein was not.
 
KGeo777 said:
I suspect the reason they chose her for doing a zombie spoof was because the assumption is how boring people think it is--so let's put some zombies in it.
Click to expand...

Oh, I think it was just the opposite. There was such a revival of interest in Austen at the time that book was written, I think the connection with Pride and Prejudice was expected to be—and was—a big selling point.
 
I have no doubt they were thinking they could ride the coattails of the name-for certain that was a big part of it-a public domain classical work-but the joke to the title is due to it being such a different genre-and they mash it with something completely unrelated. Like Abraham Lincoln and vampires.

It's the mundane being confronted with the fantastic. Austen is associated with the mundane.
 
What is the exact reading order for Jane Austen? Mind you I have treated myself to the omnibus penguin edition, so I will probably read as printed.

I would not consider Austen as mundane though.
 
All the books are stand-alones so there really is no reading order. You could read them in the order they were published, but that would not actually be the order in which they were written. I'd suggest starting with Pride and Prejudice since that is the wittiest and the most popular, though lots of people like Emma best (on the other hand, lots of people don't). Persuasion is my favorite after P & P. Northanger Abbey makes the lightest reading.
 
KGeo777 said:
I have no doubt they were thinking they could ride the coattails of the name-for certain that was a big part of it-a public domain classical work-but the joke to the title is due to it being such a different genre-and they mash it with something completely unrelated. Like Abraham Lincoln and vampires.

It's the mundane being confronted with the fantastic. Austen is associated with the mundane.
Click to expand...
jeepers we have some wide interpretations of Austen. Mundane isn’t a word I would ever associate with her.
Ian, no reading order as her books are mostly standalone but Emma or Pride and Prejudice are both very accesssible.
as to your original question - I have been known to read (and Write elements of) military sci fi which is marketed at men. What would you advise me if it wondered if I should be?
 
I suppose that I was just putting out feelers as to whether Jane Austen amongst others was suitable reading for men. Of course women do read military and thrillers, and I wouldn't stop them doing so.

My viewing is traversing in the same direction. I was watching films and found myself shaking and frightened, which seems not to be normal.

So I am now watching and reading gentle stuff and feel very much more relaxed.

Please feel free to comment and recommend other authors that may suit my current mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Plucky Novice All right vs Alright Grammar & Spelling 34
Alexa KIlljoys 4.09: The Kids Are Alright Killjoys 2
Ray McCarthy All Right vs Alright Grammar & Spelling 30
B A science fiction book Alright, the book is about humans sent to a planet/dimension, Book Search 3
S Alright, This is what I got for a plot outline tell me what you think Writing Discussion 3

Similar threads


Back
Top