Anonymous wrote:Now I want to reread Evelina (again). I love that book. The little monkey dressed like a fop causing chaos at dinner, the octogenarian foot race…it reads like a sitcom. Fanny Burney must’ve been a delight at parties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently read a book called Jane Austen's Bookshelf that explores some of the women writers who influenced Jane Austen. I was annoyed by the author's tone and comments, especially at the beginning of the book, because she repeatedly talks about how she's such an experienced reader (and a rare book dealer) and she'd never heard of any of these women. I didn't think at least half of them were obscure at all for someone in her field and with her interests, so those comments made me roll my eyes a bit.

Have you heard of or read any of the following authors?
Frances Burney
Ann Radcliffe
Charlotte Lennox
Charlotte Smith
Hannah More
Elizabeth Inchbald
Hester Lynch Thrale Piozzi
Maria Edgeworth

I had read books by four of these authors before reading Jane Austen's Bookshelf.

I have to say, as a Gen-X female, I have no memory of these names. I am pretty well read but pretty much stopped reading classics after college. I read four Jane Austen novels in high school on my own. I never took any course specifically on female authors in college. We didn't cover many.

I remember Anne Bradstreet's poetry and Ayn Rand's Anthem from high school. And Middlemarch and contemporary 20th century short story writers from college. On my own, I remember the medieval Margery Kempe's diary and more Ayn Rand (the Fountainhead and We the Living). I also have read most of Louisa Alcott's published books. I chose not to read Frankenstein and Jane Eyre because of subject matter. Finally read Wuthering Heights rather recently. I'm drawing a blank on anything else.

I feel old. I went to college in the late 1980s during the "Closing of the American Mind" era. There were plenty of derogatory comments circulating about the "dead white men" great books curriculum but since I did not take "studies" classes, I got a pretty traditional great books education (Plato to Shakespeare to Walden to Fitzgerald).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Closing_of_the_American_Mind

I do recall reading the work of female historians.

OP here. I think that's fair that as a Gen X as well, I wasn't introduced to these authors in college or high school. But as a reader into adulthood, it seems like a natural jump if you love Jane Austen to at least know of or have read Frances Burney and Ann Radcliffe. The others I've read I was probably introduced to by either the "1001 books to read before you die" list or this great book called "500 great books by women".

But I admit to be pretty nerdy in my reading trends.

I highly recommend Evelina by Frances Burney!

PP. I'm fresh back from summer vacation in NYC, where there is a 250th anniversary of the birth of Jane Austen exhibit at the Morgan Library in Manhattan. It's open through September 14th. There's a short trailer worth watching at the link below.

https://www.themorgan.org/exhibitions/lively-mind-jane-austen-250

The exhibit notes that Jane subscribed to Frances Burney's novel Camilla and that this was one of the three times in her life where her name appeared in print (subscribers received acknowledgement in the printed copy). She did not reveal her name on her published novels.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really liked Jane Austen’s bookshelf. I do not remember the author writing that she had never heard of them as they are mentioned in Jane Austen’s book. Her thesis was that even though those authors are right there in Austen’s books, they have been systematically removed from popular reading and replaced by Austen’s works as though she sprang from whole cloth with no antecedents. So, it had not occurred to the author to have read them.

Yes, NP here, I have to say that I think this is a fair point, even if OP thought it was made in an annoying way. I was a lit major, though focused on German lit, so did not have much academic introduction to the writers OP lists. But I have read perhaps about 1/2 of Austen's works on my own and agree that, at least in the popular imagination, she is presented as a sort of sui generis talent, not as part of a broader literary movement. I mean there are the "Romantic poets" but it's not like we recognize an early 19th-century "domestic satirists" movement or something!

(Also I have only ever heard of Radcliff.)