Author: Robin Henry

The Making of Jane Austen by Devoney Looser 

Johns Hopkins University Press (2017), 295 pages

Paperback (2019), $19.95

First published in 2017, I am reviewing the 2019 paperback version with a new afterword.  For those interested in reception history and Jane Austen reception in particular, this well-researched book contains much that is original and highly thought provoking, as well as wonderfully detailed. Dr. Looser treats readers to fresh ways to think about how Jane Austen became JANE AUSTEN! Looser included numerous endnotes and source lists for those who want to continue reading on the topic.  Sources include archival material and period specific analysis, as well as her own informed original analysis.  Her meticulous research allowed her to uncover an error in the identification of Austen’s first illustrator with convincing evidence that it was Ferdinand Pickering, not George.

Looser argues that Austen was not made by the literati alone.  Though the literary establishment had its share of Austen lovers (and haters), public interaction with her work contributed to her renown. Long lasting worldwide engagement with Austen belongs to casual readers, illustrators, dramatists, political movements, and school teachers. Her argument may sound familiar to Janeites; recent JASNA conferences included many presentations on this theme, most notably Janine Barchas, author of several talks about the forgotten editions of Austen.  However familiar the story of how Austen’s books went out of print and were “rediscovered” and reissued by Richard Bentley in the 1830s, only to experience a Victorian surge in popularity among literary elites in the 1870s, recent research goes beyond critics and collectible first editions.

Part I begins with the illustrations commissioned by Bentley. She examines how the illustrator’s choices–the focus of the action, who is in the illustration, even the captions–frame reader reception.  Pickering, Austen’s first illustrator, mostly depicted the heroines and female characters in domestic scenes (23). Later illustrators often followed Pickering’s lead, even down to choosing the same scenes to illustrate (51).  She helpfully places the illustrations in conversation, so the reader can see how they evolved and influenced reader reception, making Austen’s work recognizable to many people who may only have seen the illustrations.

In “Part II” Looser discusses the dramatization of Austen, including professional, college and school adaptations. One striking trend that emerges from these chapters is the evolution of the dramatizations from female centric to male centric. She includes a brief discussion of implications of this trend for film adaptations as well. I will never watch the 1940 Olivier P&P with quite the same condescending attitude as I have in the past.

“Part III: Jane, Politicized” demonstrates that politicians of all ilks have co-opted Austen to further their causes, from Suffragettes to second wave feminists to Conservatives to Marxists. Looser comments, “Whatever party Austen may or may not have affiliated with during life, her legacy puts her all over the political map…your sense of whether that would have pleased her or left her nonplussed, may hew more closely to your own political beliefs than to anything we can prove about hers.” (145)

“Part IV: Jane Austen, Schooled,” delves into the many and varied ways that Austen’s texts were used and taught in schools and out of schools.  Looser begins with George Pellew’s dissertation–the first written about Austen, and continues through Austen’s inclusion on reading lists, in readers, and in college courses–Lionel Trilling turned away students when too many signed up for his Austen course (212). Unafraid to examine less scholarly views of Austen, such as a 1971 mock-ad in National Lampoon (213), Looser handily makes her argument. 

According to Looser, Jane Austen became Jane Austen! because she could hold the “attention of scholarly and popular audiences alike.” (218) Reception does not have to be a zero sum, it can be both and. While frustrating to the literary establishment, ultimately Austen’s adaptability is what makes her great. In the afterward, Looser adds that perhaps we should take Austen’s declaration that she does not write except for those with great ingenuity, as a sign of her confidence in her readers (227). All readers, great and small can find meaning in Austen. 

Austen lovers of all types will enjoy the reference in Looser’s final words. “I leave it to be settled by whomsoever it may concern, whether the tendency of this work be altogether to recommend haughty, highbrow exclusivity or celebrate uncritical adulation.” (223) 

Both, please.

You can read a professional review here.  While I am a professional with regard to book reviews, I am not a professional movie critic, so this is just the opinion of one Janeite, take it for what it is worth. 

Overall, I found the new Emma very enjoyable.  The costumes and scenery–both the exteriors and the interiors, were gorgeous.  Some have noted that the director opted for bright colors; this is true, but the effect was to make certain things pop, and in my opinion, color was not overused, nor was it distracting–it enhanced the scenes rather than detracting or distracting from them. As far as casting, with the exception of Mr. Knightley, they were all wonderful.  Favorites included Bill Nighy as Mr. Woodhouse, Miranda Hart as Miss Bates, and Josh O’Conner as Mr. Elton. Of course, these three also had the most broadly comic roles, which they all made the most of. If O’Conner looks familiar to you, you may have seen him as Prince Charles in The Crown. His Mr. Elton is a completely different sort of character, so hats off to him. I felt that Mr. Knightley tended to fade in comparison to the other cast members, and he just didn’t seem “knightly” enough.  He wasn’t bad, just not as fantastic as Jeremy Northam (say what you want about the Gwyneth Paltrow version of Emma, Northam is the best Knightley ever).

First, let’s address the inevitable complaint form Austen purists, of which I normally count myself one. It is true that some of the colors used and some of the events in the movie are not completely faithful to the time period or the text. That being said, the essence of Emma was there and a lot of the dialogue, though it may have been moved to a different scene, was taken directly from Austen’s novel.  Unless one is making an 8 hour mini-series, one will never get everything from a book into a movie–that’s just a given. What is more important is the choice of scenes, the depiction of the plot and characters, and the theme of the work. 

The main characters, with the exception of the aforementioned Knightley, are all very well done and if not faithful exactly to the novel, they are definitely played in the spirit of the novel. Harriet is sheeplike, Mrs. Elton is hilarious (check out that hairdo), and Frank Churchill manages to be both pleasant and a little bit of a Rake. The important scenes, paramount of which is Box Hill, are there. I thought the Box Hill scene was well done–the viewer knows what is coming, but still wishes heartily that it wasn’t.  Hart’s Miss Bates has just the right combination of wounded bird and stiff upper lip. Emma manages to look surprised, as if thinking, “did I say that out loud?” She did.

One of the most interesting things about the movie was the soundtrack.  It is stylish, but unusual–the songs are almost like the narrator’s voice and they help imbue the irony that every true Janeite is looking for. The songs are of various genres–some operatic, some art songs, or what sound like art songs, and some gospel. An eclectic mix, but I thought it worked.

All in all, I would recommend the new Emma–there are a lot of Easter eggs for Austen fans and though the fourth wall is never broken, the viewer almost feels like the movie is winking–it is not taking itself too seriously, which I think is in the spirit of Austen.  She used humor to point out the unfairness in society, the petty wrongs, the silly rules. Somehow, I think she might have approved. (Except of course, for the inexplicable nude scene at the beginning. I am still trying to figure out why that was there. Just don’t look if you don’t want to see it.)