Talk:Jane Austen/Archive 5

Protection and spelling of Love and Freindship [sic]

I am requesting semi-protection for this article. All but two of the edits in the last fifty edits are clearly vandalism (or reversion of vandalism) by unregistered users. There have been few if any recent positive contributions by unregistered editors. The supply of vandals seems unlimited. Twenty-eight of the last 50 edits (56%) are vandalism by unregistered users. Therefore, according to the criteria at WP:Rough, this page clearly qualifies for semi-protection. Simmaren (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Then again, good faith edits on this article are also usually removed or reverted. I would suggest, for instance, changing the title of the minor work to "Love and Friendship" (in line with Christine Alexander's observation about deliberate 'juvenilising' of this text, and in view of the fact that it's spelled this way in the new Cambridge edition edited by Peter Sabor) but I see little point given that it's been altered before, and switched back. In fact, maybe the page should just be locked and be done with it.Sills bend (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I requested semi-protection against a flood of vandalism. It seems to have been effective. Good faith edits by definition are not vandalism, and registered editors are not hampered in any way by semi-protection. Simmaren (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• In my experience, previous changes from "Freindship" (the title given the work in Austen's manuscript) to "Friendship" were made without prior discussion in what appeared to be mindless efforts to "correct" what seemed to be a typographical error. The spelling of "Friendship" versus "Freindship" is open to discussion, right here. There is a legitimate debate waiting to happen on this point, but it hasn't happened yet. Please feel free to make your case. And before giving up in disgust, take a look at Archive 3 for examples of how good faith discussion resolved two similar issues to everyone's satisfaction.Simmaren (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In her manuscripts, Jane Austen almost always switched "ie" to "ei", including in that French leave-taking "adeiu"...Churchh (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The archived talk page you directed me to was not reassuring, actually. Sills bend (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We are very thorough and reliable editors, actually. If you would like to see examples of the work I have produced, please see my userpage. And despite what may look like a difficult dispute, you might look at what User:Pointillist says about the experience you read. Both Simmaren and I are dedicated to making the encyclopedia a better place, with reliable articles. I hope that reassures you to some degree. Awadewit (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Sills bend. Not sure how well that archived thread presents the to-and-fro, but in my experience the Jane Austen Talk page is a great place to have serious discussion, and if Simmaren says there's a legitimate debate to have about "Freindship" then the door is wide open. Be careful if you win, though: my prize was the opportunityto write a Death of Jane Austen article for them. - Pointillist (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the friendship/freindship debate, The six-volume Oxford Illustrated Jane Austen uses "friendship". The Penguin ClassicJuvinilia of Jane Austen and Charlotte Brontë also gives "friendship", and has a note on page 371, saying "Southam notes in his edition of Volume the Second that Austen herself has amended the traditionally accepted 'Freindship' to read 'Friendship': a change that 'may not be welcome to those of Jane Austen's devotees who value her spelling for its charm' (Volume II, p. vii)." The Oxford World's Classics edition of Catharine and Other Writings gives the traditional "freindship" spelling. I haven't followed the debate here, and haven't checked the archives, so my apologies if I'm repeating something already stated.Stratford490 (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think we have satisfactorily resolved this. Apparently there are conflicting editorial styles. At this point I am leaning towards changing it from the above summary, but I haven't checked all of the multi-volume editions yet. Thoughts?Awadewit (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I like 'freindship' because it is what Austen originally wrote. I don't know who Southam is. Only if he was her original publisher would I accept that that is what she indeed meant to do. Auchick (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Austen never published these works in her lifetime, so we can't return to her original publisher on this point. Southam is one of the most pre-eminent Austen scholars, who has investigated the reception of Austen in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I'm still on the fence on this one. Both spellings are apparently Austenian, so either one would work. I'm leaning towards the "correct" spelling simply because then we won't have to revert all of the people who come to fix the spelling!Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• We should investigate, when we find the time (for an example, see the discussion (and yes, results of research) on the cause of Austen's death by following the link under the "Subpages" heading), to see what the "best" choice would be from the point of view of current scholarly practice. This shouldn't be our highest priority but should be decided before peer review. Because this misspelling is so well known and so charming, I'm confident that we will have to revert changes whichever of the two alternatives is ultimately agreed upon. Simmaren (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• The Chapman edition has "friendship" in the table of contents and "freindship" in the actual text. I'm waiting to receive the new Sabor edition of juvenilia. Awadewit (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Sabor edition as "Love and Friendship" in the TOC of Volume the Second with the note "'Freindship' changed to 'Friendship'". The text itself has "Love and Freindship a novel in a series of Letters". I think we could develop an argument for either one. "Freindship" is the original spelling and it occurs throughout the manuscript; "Friendship" is the correct spelling and Austen corrected it in the TOC. Thoughts? Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception history of Jane Austen

Reception history of Jane Austen is now up for GA. Simmaren and I will be taking it topeer review and FAC after that. Help from other Austen editors would be appreciated!Awadewit (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

English literature

English literature is what is written in the English language or, arguably more importantly, what pertains to England. There is no such thing as 'British' literature. I doubt whether Irish, Welsh or Scottish authors would like to be classified as 'British' literature.

• This is all very arguable. Considering Blackwell has an anthology of British Literature:1640-1789 and Norton has chosen English literature of the 18th century, I think we can start by saying there is no agreement. :) (By the way, all posts should be signed with four tildas (~~~~). Awadewit (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a degree in British Literature. I guess my Diploma was wrong. You'd think they'd get that right or something.....Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Word Count

In its current state, this article consists of 4,774 words of "readable prose", more or less. As provided in WP:Length, this count includes captions and headings but omits picture captions, the text of footnotes and reference ("see also") sections, the list of works at the end and some but not all formatting text. The word count may seem deceptively small because, among other reasons, a large fraction of the total text seen on the edit page is comprised of footnotes. Simmaren (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Excellent. That means we have room for a good "Styles and themes" section and perhaps to expand the bio a bit.Awadewit (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Becoming Jane (Reception Section)

On 10 August I added a reference to a 2007 movie, Becoming Jane [1], that was about the early life of Jane Austen. My change was reverted with only a comment of "do not add information randomly." I admit to being a very novice Wikipedia editor, but I do not understand why my addition was considered random. The current section includes a discussion of 19th century and 20th century works (print & film) about Jane Austen. The section does not include any reference to the Becoming Jane movie. There can be no argument that this movie is related to Jane Austen's life.

If my addition was not formatted properly, then the proper action should have been to edit it, but to keep the information intact. Deleting the reference to this movie was not necessary. Subbob (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• The "Reception history" section is a summary of Reception history of Jane Austen and Jane Austen in popular culture, therefore we rarely add information to it. We usually just add information to the daughter articles. Only if the information is incredibly important do we add it to the main article. The film Becoming Jane is a fictional portrayal of the life of Jane Austen, which has not been deemed important by scholars yet. Since there isn't room to list every film, sequel, prequel, etc., we have included only those scholars have deemed important. So far, no case has been made in the scholarly literature for the importance of this film. Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial), on the other hand, is clearly a turning point in Austen adaptations and fandom. Perhaps adding Becoming Jane to Jane Austen in popular culture would be the best way to go for the moment. That is a more exhaustive list of Austen films, etc. Would you like to help us work on that article? We need help in that area! Thanks again. Awadewit (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the explanation. I understand the linkages and differences between the various Jane Austen articles now. Regarding the request to help with the other articles, I am not a follower or fan of Jane Austen. I had just happened to watch the movie with my wife, checked something on Wikipedia and noted that movie was not part of the article. I appreciate you taking the time to explain why my original edit was not appropriate for this page. Subbob (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Becoming Jane" was so depressing that I had to turn it off very quickly. I have no idea how factual the movie was, but it seemed pretty fictional. Auchick (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See also section

The see also section contains links to images of Jane Austen's family tree rather than a collection of links to related articles. I propose switching it to either a Gallery or Family tree to better reflect its contents. I prefer Gallery since this would open a space to place other related images if we so necessary. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Let's try out the gallery and see what it looks like. Awadewit (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've added the gallery and added a few more images however there are still more in the commons. Nevertheless I think you currently hold the authority over judgment calls on what should be included and what should not in addition to captions. There are several fields in the gallery that I did not specify: a title for the gallery although it is usually unnecessary if the gallery is in a section of its own, and the footer. You can see {{Gallery}} for full documentation. ChyranandChloe(talk) 17:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• I just took out the duplicates. Let's see what other people think. Awadewit (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently, galleries are discouraged: see WP:IUP#Photo galleries. I wonder if we should improve the Commons gallery instead. Awadewit (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm just going to go ahead and delete the gallery. People are just going to keep adding images to it and it will get out of control. Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't catch the discussion, but you're right, galleries are discouraged somewhat. The idea actually stems from "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" (WP:NOTREPOSITORY); whose purpose is essentially to prevent people from uploading and using irrelevant images. In my opinion the family tree isn't that much irrelevant as it is useful, and perhaps it may be of interest to reintroduced that under "Family tree". I don't have much of an opinion on the remaining images though, but what I've noticed is that some people add a link to the commons if they want a gallery.ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Would you be interested in working on the Commons gallery? I think a good Commons gallery is a nice addition to an article. I've worked a bit on the Mary Shelley gallery. Awadewit (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) What do you mean specifically? The gallery in the commons seems to be in good shape and I don't see much that I can do.

I don't like how the "See also" section is used, this section is generally reserved a list of links to articles related to the subject. Perhaps "Family tree" would be more appropriate. There is also another option to using either links or galleries, that is to use a HTML chart of Jane Austen's family tree (see below). I used the {{Chart}} template along with some custom HTML for the show/hide. The colors are default, but I can change that to whatever best suits the article. Another feature is that you can use the full wiki-markup along with images. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)(UTC)

Family tree showing Jane Austen, her parents and her siblings

William Austen (1701-1737)

Rebbecca Austen (née Hampson)

Philadelphia (1730-1792)

Tyoe Saul Hancock (d. 1775)

Rev. George (1731-1805)

Cassandra Leigh (1739-1827)

Leonora (1732-1783)

Jean Capot de Feuillide (guillotined 1794)

Eliza (Elizabeth) (1761-1813)

Henry Austen

Rev. James (1765-1819)

George (1766-1838)

Edward (1767-1852)

Hentry (1771-1850)

Cassandra (1773-1845)

Francis (1774-1865)

Jane (1775-1817)

Charles (1779-1852)

Family tree showing Jane Austen's siblings and her nephews and nieces

Rev. George (1731-1805)

Cassandra Leigh (1739-1827)

Rev. James (1765-1819)

Mary Lloyd (1771-1843)

EdwardKnight (1767-1852)

Elizabeth Bridges

(Sir) Francis (1774-1865)

Mary Gibson

Frances Palmer

Charles (1779-1852)

Rev James Edward Austen-Leigh (1798-1874) Caroline Mary Craven (1805-1880)

Fanny (1793-1882) Edward (1794-1879) George (1795-1867) Henry (1797-1843)

William (1798-1873) Elizabeth (1800-1884) Marianne (1801-1896) Charles (1803-1867)

Louisa (1804-1889) Cassandra Jane (1806-1842) Brook John (1808-1878)

Mary Jane (1807-1836) Francis William (1809-1858) Henry Edgar (1811-1854) George (1812-1903)

Cassandra Eliza (1814-1849) Herbert Grey (1815-1888) Elizabeth (1817-1830) Catherine Anne (1818-1877)

Edward Thomas (1820-1908) Frances Sophia (1821-1904) Cholmely (1823-1824)

Cassandra Ester (1808-1897) Harriet Jane (1810-1865) Frances Palmer (1812-1882) Elizabeth (b. & d. 1814)

Anna (1793-1872)

Harriet Palmer

Rev. James Edward Austen-Leigh (1798-1874) Caroline Mary Craven(1805-1880)

Charles John (1821-1867) George (1822-1824) Jane (1824-1825) Henry (1826-1851)

I don't really see these boxes are being necessary. The files we have are excellent and there is nothing wrong with linking to images in a "See also" section (see did so at Mary Shelley, for example, which recently passed FA). I think we should also retain the name "See also". I've already the Timeline of Jane Austen link and hope to add other pages someday, such as theList of works of Jane Austen. Awadewit (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, seeing that it was all about the family tree I thought you were trying to set up a section for it.ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Jane Austen's grave

I had to remove our image of JA's grave because of copyright problems and I haven't been able to find a good replacement. Anyone have a good one? Awadewit (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There's this image available from Flickr; perCOM:FLICKR, it can be uploaded to Commons. María (habla conmigo) 16:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought maybe we could find a better one - without the glare. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

All of the others seem to be covered under "all rights reserved". Unless you want one of some fangirl/boy mugging for the camera while hovering over the tomb? Talk about morbid... María(habla conmigo) 17:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Many people come by this article - I was hoping someone could take a really good picture. :) (Some day this will be featured - it would be nice to have high-quality images.) Awadewit (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Education

Jane Austen was sent away from home for some of her education, but this is not included, I'm wondering why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by96.52.144.177 (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned -- see the early life and education section. Mike Christie (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Family

This article describes Austen's 6 brothers and her sister Cassandra - -- HOWEVER upon a recent visit to the official Jane Austen Centre in Bath, England one learns that Austen had an older brother who was institutionalized. Probaby he was simply bi-polar but they are not 100% certain. According to the centre, in the centure having any type of a mental disorder was frieghtening and disgraceful. The curator of the centre described the dificulty of an English pastor/christian to put his eldest son into a home and probably not see him again. It was difficult choice. HOWEVER, according to this article the mentally-challenged son is George who interacted with Jane, somewhat. According to the centre, the mentally challenged brother had to be constantly restrained! Indeed, Jane had another brother who was the eldest who she probalby only saw briefly through a window or bard 3-4 times in her entire life! This information came from a lecture at the centre which they hold 2-3 times daily - see:http://www.janeausten.co.uk/index.ihtml Roz Lipschitz (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Roz, thank you for your interest in the Austen article! You should know that the sources for this article all have to be published somewhere (see Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources). We have also tried to use the most scholarly sources. The situation surrounding George is extremely difficult since the family deliberately tried to suppress information about him for many decades. It is difficult to know exactly what he suffered from. Right now, we have this statement in the article: George was sent to live with a local family at a young age because, as Austen biographer Le Faye describes it, he was "mentally abnormal and subject to fits". You are absolutely right that having any sort of mental disorder during the nineteenth century was considered shameful and perhaps we need to make this clearer in the article - I think adding a few sentence on that would help the reader understand the historical context. I will go back to the Austen biographies and add the appropriate material - thank you for bringing this to our attention. Of all of the Austen biographies, it is Le Faye who goes into the most detail about the Austen family members and is at the same time the most meticulous. Some other biographies describe him as having epilepsy, but I have not read the bi-polar theory anywhere yet. If you could point us to some published sources explaining that theory, we would be enormously grateful. Simmaren and I are working on a draft article about the Austen family here, which will eventually go into more depth about each of Austen's siblings. Perhaps you would like to help us research this article? Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Juvenilia

Simmaren, I see you have altered the Juvenilia list. I took that list from Chapman and footnoted it. Since you have now taken the list from a different edition, can you change the footnote so that it reflects the edition you took it from? Thanks.Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I will change the footnote temporarily and investigate further. I'm reluctant to contradict so eminent a scholar as Chapman unless I'm sure he's wrong. Sorry that I didn't think of the need to reflect the change in the footnote --that's a real DUH moment!. Simmaren (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• I replaced the ampersands. Doody and Murray are clear that they "modernized" this in editing the texts, and I would prefer the original orthography. The rest is more interesting. Doody and Murray did not rely on Chapman in preparing their edition. Instead, they examined each of the original manuscripts themselves. While Doody and Murray do not discuss their differences from Chapman in their textual notes (i.e., "We are not following Chapman in these respects because..."), they apparently decided to include several works under their own titles that Chapman aggregated under the headings "Scraps" and "Detached pieces". I prefer Doody and Murray on this. In addition, there are a few differences in capitalization and a few additional words in the titles that apear to come from their examination of the manuscripts. Again, I prefer Doody and Murray. If you disagree on any of this, let me know. I am open to the argument that "nobody ever got fired by buying IBM (oops, 'Chapman')" but these may be instances where his mistakes and shortcuts have been perpetuated because nobody felt the need to reexamine the manuscripts, given his reputation. Alternatively, we could go examine the manuscripts ourselves. ;) Simmaren (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• I'd appreciate it if you wold check and correct the format of the material I added to FN 117. Thanks. Simmaren(talk) 16:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Added links for two "derivative works"

Added links to the novel The Jane Austen Book Club and The Jane Austen Book Club (film). I think that these should be linked from this article, but we don't seem to have a section on "derivative works" (other than film treatments of Austen's novels themselves).

Hmm, now I see that these are in a separate article "Jane Austen in popular culture". I think that Jane Austen in popular culture should be (re-)merged with Jane Austen.
-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

These links should not be added to the article without substantial sources to support them. See Reception history of Jane Austen, which outlines in much more detail what scholars have deemed the important derivative works. I would strongly resist remerging. Jane Austen in popular culture can be an article on its own and there is no need to clutter up a biography of Austen with lists of derivative works. We still need to add a section on Austen's own novels to this article! Awadewit(talk) 19:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

This image has been proposed for the "Family" section and at the moment is being excluded because of MOS rules about images sandwiching text. I'd just like to say that even if the text was reformatted I don't think this is a useful image in this context.

The actual image is not of encyclopedic quality, having been post-processed to remove detail and add "rudimentary" colour. I think the original is more like http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austarms.gif. Anyway, Austen is not famous because of her family, and the coat of arms wasn't granted because of anything she did. How is it relevant? - Pointillist (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The image was on the article for several months previously. It's relevant because it was the symbol of Jane Austen's paternal family, according to the conventions of the society of her time, and this article discusses a number of members of her family, many of whom would have borne this coat of arms or a variation of this coat of arms (including Jane Austen herself). And in heraldry the "original" is always the blazon or non-visual formal description (here Or, a chevron gules between three lions' gambs erect erased sable armed of the second). Any particular image is merely one interpretation of the blazon. The fact that I pruned away a large amount of ultraelaborate non-functional decoration (belonging to what is now widely recognized as one of the most degenerate periods of heraldic artwork), and that I could use color (while the engraver had to resort to using the conventions of representing red by closely-spaced vertical lines and yellow by scattered dots) could be considered to compromise the authenticity of the John Austen Esq. of Broadford, Kent heraldic bookplate (if that was what we were interested in), but it does nothing to compromise the image's faithfulness to the original blazon description of Jane Austen's family coat of arms. If you desire to see the bookplate in all its rococo "glory", look at the illustrations to the old R. W. Chapman hardback edition of Jane Austen's letters, but I imagine most people would agree with me in considering the bookplate as a whole to be rather ugly. In fact, I really wish that I could have gotten rid of the winged child's head also...

Also, I don't know how "pinching" is supposed to rule out the addition of the coat of arms image, because there was no "pinching" in my browser, and the possibility of "pinching" is strongly dependent on many different variable factors, including the browsing software used, the screen size, the font size, the Wikipedia skin chosen, etc. If you feel the need to strongly guard against any possibility of "pinching" occuring, then please rearrange things so that your concerns are assuaged, but do not use the remote contingency of "pinching" as an excuse to get rid of relevant images. The coat of arms image is in fact far more relevant than the Henry Lewes image -- Lewes had some nice things to say about Jane Austen during a period when few other serious literary types did, but Lewes' comments had little influence on the growth of popular interest in Austen's writings (which occurred mainly after the 1870 publication of the Memoir) or the literary critical interest in her writings (which lagged behind the popular interest). There's no real reason why there should be an image of Lewes on this article, except that otherwise there might be a long paragraph of text without any image (which I consider to be a poor reason to add an image, just as having more than one image associated with a paragraph is a poor reason to delete an image from an article). Churchh (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, my main question was whether the image was sufficiently relevant—obviously there's a limit to the number of pictures an article can support—concerns about quality and pinching are secondary. I saw that Simmaren asked about the arms in December 2007 (on your talk page), but I couldn't see a reply. -Pointillist (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The coat of arms would be more relevant to an article on Austen's family. I do not think that Austen herself used this coat of arms. Also the image sandwiches the text, which is prohibited by the MOS. Awadewit (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor cleanup

I moved the images below the header for accessibility and prescribed by WP:LS. When going through the text with a screen reader, you would want the computer to read the title then the image caption. Moved the See also below the List of works section as prescribed by WP:LAYOUT. Use {{clear}} at the end the text in a section if you want a gap below the image and the next header. This method is more reliable, especially when screen when vary. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Many of the most important scholarly works on Austen are included in the "Reference" section, but a serious omission is Nina Auerbach's Romantic Imprisonment: Women and Other Glorified Outcasts. Among its numerous insights, this book's pathbreaking contribution is its explanation of Fanny Price's fundamental aversiveness. Auerbach's findings here are generally relevant to any reader of Mansfield Park, but they have been especially useful--pivotal, even--to feminist scholars on Austen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafster07 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many important works not included here. We made a list from what is cited in works such as the Cambridge Companionand other such works that provide recommended reading lists. Awadewit (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We could add the Auerbach (which sounds interesting) to our "to do' reading list on the notes page. Simmaren(talk) 03:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice 1995

"Starting with Emma Thompson's film of Sense and Sensibility, a great wave of Austen adaptations began to appear around 1995.[116]"

Ang Lee's and Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility's release date was December 12, 1995. A&E's Pride and Prejudice was aired by BBC One in the fall of 1995, and by the A&E Network in the U.S. in January 1996. I would at the very least include this seminal television production in this section, distinguishing between movie and television adaptations. Vsanborn (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added a reference. Awadewit (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bride and Prejudice in 20th Century

I left this message elsewhere.

I am responding to your comment about Bride and Prejudice on the Jane Austen page. I see that my contribution has been swiftly deleted, which absolutely amazes me. Frankly, Bride and Prejudice merits a mention on the main page because of its unique quality of demonstrating world wide (intercontinental) interest in Jane, which is different than Amy Heckerling's Clueless, which interpreted Jane in a modern way. I was quite careful to introduce this smidgen of information on the main Jane Austen page and thought about it carefully.

I also left a message about the A&E Pride and Prejudice adaptation. Strictly speaking, it was broadcast before Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility hit the theatres and should at least be mentioned on the main page as having ushered in a series of television adaptations that continue to this day.Vsanborn (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

While I personally agree with your sentiments regarding Bride and Prejudice, the movie does not yet appear in much Austen scholarship, the foundation of this series of articles. Per Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view, our articles are supposed to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Clueless is mentioned far more often in Austen scholarship than Bride and Prejudice. I fully expect this to change and in a few years, this part of the article may change. However, scholarship is slow and we have to wait. Wikipedia is, actually, quite conservative in that way. In the meantime, one way to increase the visibility of Bride and Prejudice is to work on its article, as I suggested on your talk page. Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial) has been quite well developed, for example. If you were to develop Bride and Prejudice to a featured article, it could even be placed on Wikipedia's main page for a day. Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Family member

Hi, not sure if this is relevant or interesting, and not sure if information on Jane Austen's extended family has a place in this or any other article, but I've just put together a short article on Thomas Williams (Royal Navy officer), Austen's maternal uncle by marriage. He married Jane Leigh, sister of Cassandra Austen in 1792, and became a widower when she was killed in a carriage accident on the Isle of Wight, caused by a runaway horse in 1798.

Source: Williams, Sir Thomas, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, J. K. Laughton, (subscription required), Retrieved 12 April 2009

Not sure if either of these people are of interest, but thought I'd bring it here in case it was.--Jackyd101(talk) 13:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! We are developing an article on Austen's family here. Please add material as appropriate. Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Cnote2

On August 11, I updated the notes system from {{Ref_label}} to a more effective hard coded XHTML.[2][3] I'm updating "Notes" section to take advantage of the {{Cnote2}} template system, it's easier to manage than hard coding everything in XHTML. The documentation is on the template Template:Cnote2, which describes its usage. Removed the fourth note down (note "D") in the old version[4] since it was unused, here is the text: "As reported by Austen's niece, Anna, the family crest appeared on George Austen's carriage at the time of Henry Austen's 1797 marriage to Eliza de Feuillide.". ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Zombies!

Jane Austen was listed as a co-author of a reworking of Pride and Prejudice - Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Should that be listed here as a posthumous work? I'm hesitant to add it without discussion, but the book did end up on the NYT Bestseller list, which isn't exactly small potatos. 64.56.102.242 (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly this is nothing to do with Jane Austin's authorship. This is a re-work or adaptation i.e. someonelse's work based on Austin's. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Becoming Jane

I think some mention should be made of the 2007 film Becoming Jane, based on Austen's relationship with Tom Lefroy. --Webbie1234 (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This could be added to Jane Austen in popular culture. Note that this a fictionalization of Austen's life. Moreover, we have included adaptations that have received scholarly commentary. In order to choose among the hundreds of adaptations, we decided to include those most often mentioned by scholars. If Becoming Jane begins to attracts scholarly commentary, we can add it to the article. As of now, it does not have the kind of in-depth analysis as the other items we included. Awadewit(talk) 12:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A Memoir of Jane Austen

The frontispiece to A Memoir of Jane Austen

I have the images from this book, and will work my way through them. If you tell me about any you want to have quickly, I'll try to prioritise those. But, anyway, here's the first. Much, much higher resolution than the tiny little one we formerly had; however, given the revisionism, I didn't want to shove it into the article without giving time for it to be properly framed.Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 201 FCs served} 04:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it works well in the Memoir article. We are using the Steventon Rectory imagefrom the Memoir, so if you want to do that one, that would be wonderful. Awadewit (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on that one slowly. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 19:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Snide and Prejudice

I am guessing that the information/perspectives in the essay I found here: [5] would most likely be already covered in the refs/books provided in the article but if not, I thought I would post it here for a potential use/future ref. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"What really killed Jane Austen?"

CNN published the article "What really killed Jane Austen?" - It may be an interesting source for debate about her death. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems a bit over the top

"Jane Austen (16 December 1775 – 18 July 1817) was an English novelist, whose realism, biting social commentary and use of free indirect speech have earned her a place as one of the most widely read and most beloved writers in English literature."

Maybe the source says it -- I don't know -- but is "biting" not just a tad over the top here? I think that characterising her works in this way in the very first paragraph risks giving readers the wrong impression.86.146.47.248 (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

Her social commentary is "biting" according to the sources. You are welcome to read our notes here to verify this. I'm not really sure why you think this would give readers the "wrong" impression. Awadewit (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

To me, "biting" suggests something much more savage than the mild satire of Austen's works.81.129.128.20 (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

Ouch, modern connotation seems to hurt. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that many modern critics don't find Austen's works a "mild satire" at all. Please read the linked notes. Thanks.Awadewit (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I noticed the following sentence in the article:

"However, the continuing disconnection between the popular appreciation of Austen, particularly by modern Janeites, and the academic appreciation of Austen has widened considerably."

Is this talking about essentially the same difference of opinion, do you think? (In other words, the difference between my "popular" opinion, which might be exemplified by the romantic-TV-drama treatment, and the academic opinion that it's "biting social commentary".) 86.150.102.21 (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC).

That is one difference, yes. A good example of that is the film of Emma made with Gwyneth Paltrowand the novel. If you read what scholars have said about the novel, you will see that they often point to it as Austen's most insightful social critique, however the movie shows very little of that. If you are curious about the scholarly viewpoint, you might read Jane Todd's Cambridge Introduction to Jane Austen. It is quite accessible and very interesting.Awadewit (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead paragraph doesn't mention that it is describing a scholarly, rather than popular, view. I suggest that it is not primarily her "realism" and "biting social commentary" that have "earned her a place as one of the most widely read and most beloved writers in English literature" as the article claims. My guess is that most "ordinary" readers -- those who have elevated her to this position -- view her works as light romantic fiction. Not that I'm suggesting the article should be modelled on my speculation and guesswork, of course. It is just a thought. 86.134.10.10 (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC).

(outindent) What would you suggest as a revision? I agree there is a slight disjunction there. Awadewit (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is what I came up with:

Jane Austen (16 December 1775 – 18 July 1817) was an English novelist whose works of romantic fiction set in upper middle class English society have earned her a place as one of the most widely read and most beloved writers in English literature. Scholars and critics also identify in Austen's works a realism and biting social commentary that cement her historical importance as a writer.

86.137.136.2 (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How about a slight revision: Jane Austen (16 December 1775 – 18 July 1817) was an English novelist whose works of romantic fiction set among the gentry have earned her a place as one of the most widely read and most beloved writers in English literature. Her realism and biting social commentary, according to scholars and critics, have cemented her historical importance as a writer.(By the way, might you think about registering an account and continuing to edit Wikipedia? We could certainly use the help on the Jane Austen articles! See, for example, Jane Austen in popular culture, which is in dire need of assistance!)Awadewit (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"gentry" is a welcome shortening! My only other comment is a slightly picky one. To me, the last sentence kind of implies that her historical importance is disputed by people other than scholars and critics, which I'm not sure is the case, and I'm not sure is the real intention of the sentence. To me, the main point is that "ordinary readers" may not be so aware of the realism or (especially) biting social commentary, but may just enjoy the works as romantic fiction. I think this comes across more clearly in my original version. However, I think either version is an improvement over what the article currently says.86.152.242.96 (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC).

I've added a slightly modified version to the article - thanks for your input! Awadewit (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me! 81.129.129.180 (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

I must admit that if there were one word which describes why JA's books (not the films made from them) are so great, it would probably be 'biting'. Cooke (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox? and NPOV

It would be a smart idea to add the Template:Infobox writer to the article. I know that this has already been discussed before, but most, if not all, major writers have one up. Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to provide information to everyone about everything? Remember, not everyone is going to read the article (specially since it's so long). I think getting the basic information out there in a quick way will greatly benefit the article.

I looked over Archive 1, 2, and 3 but it seams the suggestion was mainly talked down by the same two users! And it's not just that, but they seam to control the whole article. I have no wish to begin an "edit war" or resort to "wikilawyering." Isn't this the "encyclopedia anyone can edit"? Where a neutral point of view should always be endeavored for? I know they were probably acting in good faith, but we should try to be open to new ideas. The "infobox" arguments were in 2007 and 2008 where infoboxes were mostly optional. Now that's almost 2010, infoboxes have become standard if not required in all articles. Proof of that is the Wikipedia banner...

Anyway, the article has grown so long, it would take a regular reader a long time to just get the basic information. I propose we bring the infobox back. Perhaps not use all the fields provided (since I understand would damage the 'aesthetics' of it, but some key few. However, in an encyclopedia, isn't information supposed to be valued above 'aesthetics.' -ImperialJaineite (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not required on articles (there is no policy that requires such boxes) and NPOV has little to do with infoboxes. If you would like to add an infobox, please provide an argument for why readers would be helped by it. The information provided by the box is in the lead - there is no need to repeat it. By the way, rather than thinking of those us who have written the article as "controlling" the article, you might thank us for writing the article. You are welcome to help us. We have notes available onlinehere and are currently working on Styles and themes of Jane Austen. We could certainly use the help! Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think NPOV is a good argument, this has nothing to do with advocacy. You're talking about WP:OWN, and if you've read it, this is not how you start a discussion. Although I disagree with ImperialJaineite's argument, I hope this does not implicate my position. WP:UF is implementing microformats in infoboxes to make information more machine readable. For example, if you search "English writers in the 1700s", Google could provide more meaningful results rather than what's popular, and their using Wikipedia to fill out their database.[6] WolframAlpha is probably ahead of Google, and as you can see Nathanial Hawthorne[7] is more complete than Jane Austen.[8] I also don't see why Infoboxes are such a serious detriment to the article. There's some duplication, but is that your whole argument? ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Here are at least two more points to consider: 1) Once infoboxes are installed, editors feel a need to fill all of the fields. Debates over what should be in those fields often take place and I've seen them get out of hand on other pages and since such issues can't really be explained in an infobox anyway, there is no need to introduce them (e.g. "is Austen's occupation really "novelist"?"). People can't be reduced to fields the way an element can (I'm all for infoboxes on chemical element pages, by the way, where they serve a wonderful function.) 2) Have you seen the usability videos (e.g. File:Wiki feel stupid v2.ogv)? The more code at the top of pages, the less likely people are to edit. Infoboxes add a lot of code for little benefit in a biography article. Why scare away new editors only to repeat information? We really need new editors! Awadewit (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but don't I get to have my previous supporting point addressed? Readers above editors always, help readers find the right pages. (1) I've never been in a debate about which fields should be filled out, although I'm sure you have, please enlighten me. Yes some categorical data is shallow, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. (2) We could leave comments to give new editors some direction, and there are ways to compact the infobox to be no larger than a dablink. Those test subjects from the usability initiative are having trouble with more than just infoboxes. Furthermore the usability initiative is hell bent on a WYSIWYG, which would make WikiCode entirely irrelevant. Come on Awadewit, you're a great editor, I expect greater comments :) !ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that infoboxes take up more space than they are worth. They're not always useless but the format can force summarization in a way that gives the illusion of being informative but in fact is of little value. What could a reader want to know about Jane Austen that they can't get from the lead but could get more quickly, and just as reliably, from an infobox? The lead is already a summary; summarizing the summary is, I feel, usually going too far. Mike Christie(talk) 20:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Juvenilia again

I am puzzled by the number of "fair copies": 29 of them?

• I keep seeing 27, not 29, for instance with Alistair M. Duckworth, 2002, p. 8, in his Introduction to Emma.
• The list showing in the article gives only 26 pieces; Which would then be the threee missing ones? --Azurfrog (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to check Le Faye. I don't have a copy of Honan on hand, but I can check the library if Le Faye isn't clear. Awadewit (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have here Catharine and Other Writings (Oxford World's Classics), i.e. all the Juvenilia (plus a few other pieces), and it gives exactly the same list of 26 Juvenilia. Though I haven't been through all of Margaret Anne Doody's Introduction yet, I haven't seen so far any mention of 29 pieces. But... the book includes three other works :

• Plan of a Novel according to Hints..., written as you know at the time Emma was published;
• Verses (and charades, etc.), ranging from 1792 to 1817,
• Prayers.

I don't expect these account for the three missing Juvenilia (which they are not). Yet I am at a loss to imagine what else could be missing. Moreover, it still fails to explain why Alistair M. Duckworth is mentioning 27 Juvenilia. --Azurfrog (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Anonymity section

This material was added to the article recently: "Throughout the majority of Austen's career, she preferred anonymity. Stories say that at her home in Chawton, Jane wrote on small slips of paper that could be easily hidden if she heard someone entering through the squeaky door. She wrote under several pseudonyms including "Mrs. Ashton Dennis" (when she sold Susan originally), and "A Lady" (when Sense and Sensibility was published). Her next published novel, Pride and Prejudice was inscribed as "The Author of Sense and Sensibility," a method which was used in each consequential novel."

References

It can be sourced to much better sources, which we should do, but it should also be integrated into the article better. That Austen wrote anonymously is already covered in the article and doesn't really deserve its own section. However, the material about her practice of writing on little slips of paper could be added. What do we think? Awadewit (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"She published anonymously" pretty well covers it, although some readers may want to know why. Interesting to see Kathryn Sutherland's findings added to the article, particularly to the Reception section (and in its own subsection, no less). Perhaps we could add a separate (and carefully written) "Writing style" or "Literary style" section to the article. This could also include Austen's little slips of paper – minus the "stories". Comments? – Liveste (talk • edits) 16:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree - see my comment below about the new information about her editor. Would you care to help me summarize the article Styles and themes of Jane Austen? I was thinking of two separate sections for this article--not shockingly, "Literary style" and "Themes". Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Getting across her lifespan in big-picture historical terms

I clearly value this more than some other editors do. I accept this, so I'm restoring the full dates of birth and death at the very opening. This information was already given in the appropriate sections, where it is entirely appropriate thematically and in terms of the detail of the text. I still do not believe that the fact she was born on 16 December and died on 18 July warrants cluttering up the all-important year range right at the opening. The lead is supposed to be a summary (i.e., a rationing of detail, to focus the readers on the big picture). See discussion at MONSUM Tony (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I will go with whatever is decided at the discussion. I don't have strong feelings either way. Awadewit (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also happy to wait for the MOSNUM discussion, although a consensus seems increasingly unlikely (sigh). Personally, I think in this case the simpler year range is sufficient for the lede, leaving the actual dates for the body of the article. But I really don't mind either way. – Liveste (talk • edits) 16:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

I went to add an infobox and saw an invisible note not to do so. Is there still a consensus against adding one? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There has long been a consensus against an infobox on this talk page. See the archives if you would like to see the arguments. Awadewit (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Editorial influence section

I have removed the following addition to the article:"Kathryn Sutherland, professor of the Faculty of English Language and Literature at Oxford University, has studied the manuscript of Jane Austen's Persuasion (her only surviving unedited manuscript) and has found that much of her polished style is probably the result of editorial tidying by William Gifford (who worked for the publisher John Murray). The original manuscript is full of misspellings (many of which (e.g. "tomatas" for "tomatoes" and "arraroot" for "arrowroot") show that Jane Austen spoke with a strong Hampshire accent), erratic punctuation, erratic word order, unseparated paragraphs, and not keeping separate the speeches of the speakers in conversations.".

1. This article is based on peer reviewed scholarship, so let's cite Sutherland's scholarship rather than a news source on it.
2. The news source actually misrepresents Sutherland's position, so we are doing Sutherland and her position a disservice.
3. I agree with the editor above that this material should be integrated into a "Style" section. I've already written a Styles and themes of Jane Austen article. That needs to be summarized here. Would anyone like to help me try? Awadewit (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The framing of this study galls me. In the flush of composition, the task at hand is to capture the main ideas on the page. If Austen had managed to engage a highly competent editor, what's the literary or economic upside of dithering over grade school niceties, when perhaps she has fresh ideas brewing? This result could as easily be reframed as prudent delegation, with creative attribution entirely dependent upon the nature of the (heretofore unrecognized) delegative process. Oh, darn, "delegative" does appear to be an accepted English word. My point is mired in personal error. — MaxEnt 14:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiment..the study deserves a mention, but nothing more.LisaSandford (talk) 11:35 7 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Edit request from 8.225.199.10, 16 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Can someone please remove the "PLEASE THIS Klick" vandalism all over the page. Thanks!

8.225.199.10 (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done - the vandalism was in Template:Cref2.   — Jeff G.  ツ 15:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Subpages

• Talk:Jane Austen/Notes on final illness

Emma was 1816, not 1815...

It's Love and Freindship. The spelling is supposed to be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.176.58 (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Jane Austen/Archive 5#Protection and spelling of Love and Freindship .5Bsic.5D - M0rphzone (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit semi-protected}} External links: media coverage

• Jane Austen/Archive 5 collected news and commentary at The Guardian
• Jane Austen/Archive 5 collected news and commentary at The New York Times

Edit request from , 8 October 2011

Jane Austen was a social satirist. NOT a mere romance novelist. The "genre" section should be corrected, and Austen should be included in satire specific pages (eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satirists_and_satires).

124.191.124.42 (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source calling her a social satirist? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Jane Austen's death on Yahoo

This appeared on yahoo.... a conjecture that she died of Arsenic poisoning ... anyone else hear about this? Not sure how plausible it is. http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/crime-novelist-claims-jane-austen-died-arsenic-poisoning-173146375.html Ll1324 (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a new medical or pseudo-medical speculation every few years, and we shouldn't give any of them much prominence unless they've been commonly accepted by scholars. The idea of murder sounds rather implausible -- what did Jane Austen have that someone else would want, or what had she done that someone would want to take vengeance for? She wasn't a "celebrity" until after the 1870 Memoir was published, long after her death. Churchh (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Arsenic poisoning does NOT have to be murder. It's entirely possible to intake arsenic from household paint and other sources, esepcially during that period, when arsenic was even a component of certain cosmetics. --Michael K Smith^Talk 22:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

In the 19th century, death by poisoning was quite common. The poisons included lead, mercury, and arsenic, found not only in common household products, but in patent medicines as well. If someone died of arsenic poisoning in the 19th century, it was almost always accidental. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Notable works in info-box

Notable work(s) Pride and Prejudice - Sense and Sensibility. While it's true these are arguably her most famous literal works, it may also imply they are her only notable works which is simply not the case. If it stated "Example of" or "Most" notable, then that might be better. Thought I would just bring it up. --Nutthida (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine to remove them; her works are well-covered in the lead. This is the problem with infoboxes imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. The fact she didn't live all too long, and the fact she didn't write masses of literal works means there easily covered in the lead. And yeah, info-boxes do have this problem. --Nutthida (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Portrait

It is common knowledge that Jane Austen's appearence is something of a mystery due to the lack of likenesses (other than that drawn by Cassandra Austen). However, there is another portrait that has surfaced recently that appears to be of a female writer from the Regency period. The owner of the portrait gathered a great deal of research in support of the possibility that the portrait is of Jane Austen herself, which was detailed in a documentary recently aired by the BBC. I see no mention of this in this article, yet consider it to be one of the most important Austen-related discoveries of recent years. Should there be mention of it here? Here is a link to the BBC new item on the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16027710 Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.53.64 (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

From the information (and small blurry image) that appears on that link, we can really afford to wait for a while until the dust settles and a scholarly consensus emerges. Churchh (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian just did a big story on this. I think it's now at least worth a mention. LHM 14:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian article is mainly about the old "Rice portrait", which has been kicking around for at least 10 years, and rejected by many. It's not a new discovery. The new one is mentioned briefly near the end. Churchh (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Merging Jane Austen pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I move towards merging Reception history of Jane Austen with the Reception (sorry, I don't know how to link a subpage) subpage of Jane Austen. Theophilec (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Modifying Introduction

The introduction contains this misleading sentence: Her work brought her little personal fame and only a few positive reviews during her lifetime, but… It's accurate, but it incorrectly implies that her works weren't much noticed in her own time. I"m changing it to this: Her works, though usually popular, were first published anonymously and brought her little personal fame and only a few positive reviews during her lifetime, but… —MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

All the books that were published during her lifetime were published anonymously (though by the time "Emma" came out, gossip about her authorship was spreading in certain circles). Her books mostly sold reasonably well, and were appreciated by some cognoscenti (such as Sir Walter Scott) but they were not best sellers. All evidence is that she had no real desire to meet literary celebrities or to become a literary celebrity. Churchh (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A dead link to a non-source

What's currently reference 17 has a (bare) link to www.westminster.gov.uk/services/leisureandculture/greenplaques/. This brings "Sorry, we can't find this page." But the Wayback Machine has it archived.

More worrisomely, it's merely a very humdrum page about green plaques in general. Unsurprisingly, it provides no evidence whatever for the set of assertions that follow the preceding citation of a reference, namely:

Of her brothers, Austen felt closest to Henry, who became a banker and, after his bank failed, an Anglican clergyman. Henry was also his sister's literary agent. A memorial plaque on her brother’s former home at 10 Henrietta Street, was unveiled on 29 April 1999 by actress Amanda Root, accompanied by Jane Austen’s donkey cart from Chawton. It was while staying here that Jane Austen wrote most of her best letters.

It's not unlikely that the content of the page changed over time. It seems to me extremely unlikely that any version of the page would have said anything about Austen.

I'm no Austenist, but the fourth and fifth of these five sentences strike me as very disposable, and the first to third seem the kind of material that (if widely believed true) could be found in the entry for her brother in some reputable publisher's "companion" to Jane Austen. (Unfortunately I don't have such a book, or anything like it, to hand.) Espressi (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

When I wrote the above, I was new and not "autoconfirmed". Now I'm "autoconfirmed", so I went ahead and made the edits that I recommended above. Espressi (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's the Austen plaque page. However, you'll need to find another source for Henry Austen comments: http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/greenplaques/displaybyname.cfm Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

In the news

In the news, a new "researched" image of Austen, from the Jane Austen Centre. [9]

Also, why nothing about the forthcoming £10 note with Austen's picture? [10] Choor monster (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

For portraits, there's the infamous Cassandra sketch (which those who were alive in 1869/1870 with memories of Jane Austen generally considered unsatisfactory), various artworks which some have sought to connect with Austen without any particularly firm evidence (the "Rice portrait", the James Stanier Clarke drawing, etc.), and pure personal guesswork. Not sure whether anything in the latter two categories should be included on this article. The currency note might go on Reception history of Jane Austen (though many have pointed out that it strangely includes a Caroline Bingley quote which is false in context). Churchh (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

"Infamous"? what do you mean by that, Churchh? It's the only undisputed image known to be truly of Jane Austen. There's no infamy or deception about it. Cassandra was a loving sister and an amateur artist. It is what it is. Since Jane did not enjoy the fame during her lifetime that has now accrued to her and was from a cash-strapped family, I think we are probably lucky to have this much. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

To start with, when the Memoir was being prepared in 1869/1870, those with living memories of Jane Austen generally it considered unsatisfactory, as I said. Many find it unflattering, and Victorian and Edwardian engravers compensated with prettified versions which created a new round of dubiousness... Churchh (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

see this paper

for an appreciation of Austen's subversiveness in commenting on a social ill. http://scholarship.rollins.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=mls 71.163.117.143 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That seems to give great prominence to something which Austen herself gave very little prominence. In her novels, Austen was always very hesitant about writing about things which she didn't know personally, and most of this falls into that category... Churchh (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Ancestry

This was removed last April. Not sure why. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC).

Proposed merge with Jane Austen Waxwork

authors main article Shrikanthv (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not merge it with the Jane Austen Centre page? I think that's the more logical move. After all, the image has a strong amount of speculation about it. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(And it was commissioned by the JA Centre to display on their premises.) Wordreader (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Putting the Waxwork article into the main article on Jane Austen does not seem very logical. The Jane Austen Centre is a stub and could use more content. The Waxwork is about modern day activities, while the Jane Austen article is about her life. --Prairieplant (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Also agree the Waxwork shouldn't be merged with the main article. Merging with Jane Austen Centre could work if the rest of the article was fleshed out first (no pun intended)... Since this seems to be the consensus, and no-one's supported merging into the main article since April, I'm removing that merge proposal from this article, but keeping the headers between the other two pages, and linking the discussion there to this one. ‑‑Yodin^T 01:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have now done the merge (and toned down some of the promotional language) If anyone could take a look at Jane Austen Centre that would be great.— Rod ^talk 08:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)