Emily Auerbach

An excellent book on the image vs the reality of Jane Austen.

Emily Auerbach may be in danger of being drummed out of academia for writing a book that is so well-researched and so detailed, and yet so readable. Auerbach's concern is the attempts by Austen's relatives and earlier literary critics to present Austen as a meek and mild cardboard saint. There is nothing particularly new in this idea, but it is very well and thoroughly done. While several biographers have made similar arguments, none is a thorough and convincing as this specialized monograph.

Auerbach pays particular attention to the representations of Austen. She seems to feel that the portrait by Austen's sister Cassandra is the only valid image. Well, arguably it is the only portrait that shows her face. Auerbach does not examine other representations of doubtful authenticity. While I see what she is driving at, I think this is perhaps a trifle overdone. Cassandra's portrait is rough and unfinished, and I wonder whether it would have been used prior to some of the aesthetic changes of "modern art", even if JA looked timid and pious. The two most commonly reproduced engravings really don't strike me as such terrible revisions of Cassandra's portrait, with the significant exception of removing the lines around the mouth, and in one case, adding a wedding ring. I don't think the ruffles are a serious distortion: it's not like JA was in the habit of dressing like a man or a particularly no-nonsense Puritan. She may have had ruffles: CA's portrait is too unfinished to assert that she didn't. At least she is still wearing her habitual cap, unlike the portrait that shows her with her hair fashionably dressed. The issues of the lines around the mouth does reveal one tension in the book (and in several recent works about JA): Auerbach is rather annoyed that Valerie Myers describes JA as looking like a peevish hamster in CA's portrait. I would have said guinea pig was more like it, but what if she does? One the one hand, Auerbach seems to want warts and all, and on the other she seems to want to insist that there were no warts. I am not certain what Auerbach is saying about the picture that represents JA sitting by a Hollywood swimming pool talking on her cell phone, but I love that particular picture -- I think it's a hoot.

But, forget trivial cavils. The most important distortions are in the written record; Auerbach has obviously done heroic research and thoroughly supports her opinions about written materials. The critiques that she has made of certain books that I liked make me want to rush back and reread them in the light of her remarks. At one point, Auerbach begins an indepth analysis of the poem from which a quote is taken. I was originally somewhat dubious about this: sometimes when I quote a line out of context, I mean it to be understood out of context, but she carefully show how the quotes throughout the book complement and support one another. I was converted to her point of view.

Auerbach believes in my favorite Jane Austen; almost terrifyingly perceptive and well aware that life is complex and there are few simple answers. Auerbach seems to have a thorough understanding of the literature and was very taken with most of her arguments.

The book has numerous blank-and-white illustrations.

I would recommend this to any Jane Austen collection.… (plus d'informations)