The Jane Austen Book Club

[coalescent]

Each of us has a private Austen

So begins Karen Joy Fowler's novel about, yes, a Jane Austen book club. It's a novel that received generally rapturous reviews on its publication in the US and a slightly cooler response (and a much nastier cover) over here. Karen Joy Fowler has been on my read-more list for some time, and this book was the one that achieved a critical mass of recommendations. I'm not up to serious thought tonight, so this is definitely notes on, rather than a review.

The story is divided into months. Each month the group reads another one of the novels and discusses it; each month the personal lives and loves of the group develop some more; and each month we learn more about one of the members of the group, usually through detailed flashbacks. For the media-inclined among you, the closest match I can think of to this structure is Lost; and despite their many differences, the two works also share a certain attitude to secrets. The Jane Austen Book Club is narrated in the first person plural (always 'we did this', 'we thought that') by an unidentified member of the book club. The narrator knows everyone's secrets and stories, but the individuals in the group have more limited knowledge. It's a slightly odd conceit, and though the tone is very enjoyable--dry, witty, arch--I'm not exactly certain what it adds to the book to be told in this way.

Actually, I have to say I'm a little nonplussed about the point of the entire exercise. To be fair I haven't read Austen, and 'What I Didn't See' left me cold until I'd read 'The Women Men Don't See', so it may just be that I'm lacking context. I'm never sure how comfortable I am with the idea of a book that requires (rather than merely rewards) familiarity with previous works, though. The brief notes at the end of the book help, but are never going to be an adequate substitute.

Mind you, it's not that I didn't enjoy it--as I say, I did, quite a lot actually. There are many, many wonderful anecdotes scattered through the book (Allegra's adventures in ant publishing stick in my mind), the characters are entertaining and memorable (if perhaps not, as we are told someone once said about some of Austen's characters, the sort of people you would want to have over to tea), and everything comes together satisfyingly enough in the end. It's just that I can't really see a larger point to any of it; for all the satisfying observations about human nature sprinkled into the narative I get no feeling that this book had to be written, only that it's quite nice that it has been.

In the back of the book, and on Fowler's website, there are discussion questions, of the sort you might get in a book group, posed by the characters about the novel. A couple:

Prudie asks: Like Shakespeare, it's hard to read Austen and know what her opinions really were about much of anything. Can the same be said of Karen Joy Fowler?

I think maybe this is why I'm left a little unsatisfied by the book. It's not just that I can't tell what Karen Joy Fowler thinks of anything--that's clearly a strength--it's that I can't tell what the book thinks of anything. It takes no stance; it's so neutral that there's almost nothing to engage with, in some ways.

Grigg asks: Many science fiction readers also love Austen. Why do you suppose this is true? Can the reverse also be said?

Ah, Grigg. The science fiction reader. veggiesu commented that she thought I'd walked into the novel at one point (I'm guessing it's when Grigg defends his collection to the other members of the club). The nice thing is that Fowler is obviously familiar with fans and fandom, so she gets it right; her portrait is affectionate, but also fair, of the community as well as the individuals.

As to the specific question ... well, I don't know. Do many science fiction readers also love Austen? I suppose I now have a fresh urge to go and try one of her novels again--although please, not Pride and Prejudice.

Bernadette asks: Do you believe in happy endings? Are they harder to believe in than sad ones? When do you generally read the ending of a book? After the beginning and middle or before? Defend this choice.

Bernadette is the eccentric old lady of the group, although there's more to her than that just as there's more to Grigg than his sf appreciation. There's a lovely moment when one of the other characters asks her if she still believes in happy endings, and she replies 'I should. I've had enough of them.' I guess that sums up my view; there are happy endings, but no ending is forever. And yeah, it's probably true to say I generally consider books that end sadly, or even better in a mixed way, as somehow more 'honest', for that reason.

And to close, a quiz. Rather entertainingly, this actually comes from Karen Joy Fowler's site, as well:

Who's Your Jane Austen?

Like Jocelyn, your Austen wrote wonderful books about love and courtship, but never married. You may believe in reintroducing Jane Austin into your life regularly and letting her look around. You also may own a dog kennel and breed Rhodesian Ridgebacks.

Jocelyn spends most of her time playing matchmaker, then ends up with Grigg. Read into that what you will.

Comments

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

[ignores review for now, but will return to it, promise]

I am also Jocelyn, although I feel more like Bernadette :-p

[hawleygriffen.livejournal.com]

Also Jocelyn, too. Haven't read the book. Now, I feel intrigued to...

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

It's not a review! Didn't you see where I said it's not a review?

And I can see the Bernadette thing. [g]

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

It's worth reading (and was certainly a nice change of pace for me). I actually borrowed this copy from a colleague at work; I'll be interested to compare notes tomorrow and see what she made of it.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Okay, oaky, I was ignoring *the notes*. Sheesh :-p

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

Having read the New York Times article I correctly predicted who Grigg would end up with.

'What I Didn't See' left me cold until I'd read 'The Women Men Don't See', so it may just be that I'm lacking context.

*ping*
This is the little lightbulb in my head turning on.

And I am Grigg.

[sbisson.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed it.

It was interesting to see genre tools being used in a very different way. It was still very much a Karen Joy Fowler novel.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

*ping*
This is the little lightbulb in my head turning on.

Oh?

And I am Grigg.

You're probably the most normal of the bunch, to be honest. :)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

It was certainly of a piece with what little other Fowler I've read, but it didn't strike me as using genre tools (certainly not like something like Pattern Recognition) so much as just using Karen Joy Fowler tools. Was there something in particular you were thinking of?

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

I didn't realise "What I Didn't See" was connected to the other story, I just thought it was a bit crap.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Ah, right. I still don't think it's a masterpiece, or anything, but it is much more interesting once you know what it's riffing from.

[majuran.livejournal.com]

... me three four

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

You're also Jocelyn or you also feel inspired to read the book?

Man, if everyone ends up reading this and not River of Gods I might end up getting bitter and twisted. I'm just saying.

[majuran.livejournal.com]

Am also Jocelyn. Me... read a book? For fun? *boggle* ;)

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I didn't think it focused--and her summations of the books made me wince several times.

I did love the quotes she garnered from various sources, printed at the end.

[white_hart]

What's wrong with Pride and Prejudice? It's probably my favourite Austen. Still, if you're set against it you could do worse than start with Emma - Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey are both slightly more difficult, and Sense and Sensibility and Persuasion have a lot more social-background stuff to assimilate.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

I'm comedy Jane Austen. Wacky fun. I recommend Northanger Abbey because it's a kind of gothic fan fiction. Not that you are a fanfic type, but you know what it is, it would be an easy way in.

[truecatachresis.livejournal.com]

What's wrong with Pride and Prejudice?

It's stiflingly dull.

[white_hart]

Hmmmm. I tend to think that NA would be quite difficult for anyone who didn't have some background in Gothic novels...

[colours.livejournal.com]

Mansfield Park is one of the dullest books I've ever had to read. Northanger Abbey is better.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

What's wrong with P&P is only that I've tried it and found it unreadable. :)

From this book, Persuasion sounds like it might appeal to me most.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Northanger Abbey is Grigg's favourite. There's a great scene where they're talking about The Mysteries of Udolpho:

[Grigg said] "And while she makes fun of Catherine for being so influenced by Udolpho, you have to say that Northanger Abbey is completely under that same influence. Austen's imitated the structure, made all her choices in opposition to that original text. Assumes everyone has read it."

"You've read The Mysteries of Udolpho?" Allegra asked.

"Black veils and Laurentina's skeleton? You bet. Didn't you think it sounded good?"

We had not. We'd thought it sounded overheated, overdone, old-fashionedly lurid. We'd thought it sounded ridiculous.

Actually, it hadn't occurred to any of us to read it. Some of us hadn't even realised it was a real book.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, some of those are great. :)

You know, this book has more extras than a DVD ...

[white_hart]

Persuasion is probably almost universally acknowleged to be her most accomplished novel. And it may well appeal to you more - I adore Emma, but it is quite a girly novel.

What did you find 'unreadable' about P&P, specifically? I think you do have to be prepared to make some adjustment to be able to read Austen if you're used to reading predominantly contemporary fiction - apart from anything, her plots move at the pace of a society where news travelled, at best, at a gallop.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

What did you find 'unreadable' about P&P, specifically?

I hated all the characters. [g] Also, it felt really schematic--just a bunch of talking heads, no sense of place or atmosphere.