⋙ Libro Jane Austen at Home A Biography Lucy Worsley 9781250131607 Books

Jane Austen at Home A Biography Lucy Worsley 9781250131607 Books

Download As PDF : Jane Austen at Home A Biography Lucy Worsley 9781250131607 Books

Jane Austen at Home A Biography Lucy Worsley 9781250131607 Books

Normally, I do not really enjoy reading biographical books. But Jane Austen is one of my all time favorite authors, so I had read this book. I was very surprised because it was not just a spewing of facts but a very entertaining account of her home life. At times, this book is really funny and at other times it is heartbreaking.

I would highly recommend this book to all book lovers especially to any Jane Austen enthusiast.


Tags : Jane Austen at Home: A Biography [Lucy Worsley] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. <b> Jane Austen at Home</i> offers a fascinating look at Jane Austen's world through the lens of the homes in which she lived and worked throughout her life. The result is a refreshingly unique perspective on Austen and her work and a beautifully nuanced exploration of gender,Lucy Worsley,Jane Austen at Home: A Biography,St. Martin's Press,125013160X,Literary,Austen, Jane - Family,Austen, Jane - Homes and haunts - England,BIOGRAPHY & AUTOBIOGRAPHY Literary,Biographies,England - In literature,Literary landmarks - England,Literary landmarks;England.,Novelists, English - 19th century,Novelists, English - Homes and haunts - England,Novelists, English;19th century;Biography.,Novelists, English;Homes and haunts;England.,060201 St Martin Trade Non Fict Cr Yr,AUSTEN, JANE, 1775-1817,BIOGRAPHY & AUTOBIOGRAPHY Literary Figures,BIOGRAPHY & AUTOBIOGRAPHY Women,BIOGRAPHY AND AUTOBIOGRAPHY,Biography,Biography & Autobiography,Biography & AutobiographyWomen,BiographyAutobiography,GENERAL,General Adult,Great BritainBritish Isles,Non-Fiction,United States,WOMEN AS AUTHORS (ENGLISH LITERATURE),Women,jane austen; jane austen biography; literary history; english literature; british literature; 19th century literature; english authors; women authors; austen jane; english history,BIOGRAPHY & AUTOBIOGRAPHY Literary Figures,BIOGRAPHY & AUTOBIOGRAPHY Women,Biography & AutobiographyWomen,Women,Austen, Jane, 1775-1817,Biography And Autobiography,Biography & Autobiography,BiographyAutobiography

Jane Austen at Home A Biography Lucy Worsley 9781250131607 Books Reviews

Worsley is best known for her work on Henry VIII's wives on television - something she did very well, if slightly twee. This book is a very different take on the life of Jane Austen, and it is excellent. I've read numerous bios on this author (I'm a fan) and this is probably the most accessible one I've come across. Lucy is an excellent scholar, and her investigation on the huge number of items (books, letters, memoirs, etc. etc. etc.) dealing with Jane Austen is almost inexhaustible, and it shows. The pictures are useful and well done. My only issue is she did not address the painting of an author that certainly looks like Jane Austen found by Paula Byrnes and shown in 'The Real Jane Austen A life in small things" (which is also highly recommended). Really, if you love Jane Austen, read this book.
What would it be like to be invited into Jane Austen's sitting room and ask her anything? Since we can't time-travel to wangle that invitation and find out, Lucy Worsley gives us the next best thing, taking us into Jane Austen's intimate home life, showing how what happened there influenced her six treasured novels. Worsley is that unusual historian - witty, passionate, irreverent and always good company. I always grab whatever she writes and settle down for a really good read as she gives us a fresh take on what we already knew [as the life and times of Austen have already been deeply and thoroughly mined] and even comes up with a few nuggets and intriguing insights not already well known by the legions of readers smitten by Jane Austen and her Georgian world. A delightful book - thank you Lucy!
I've read a few Jane Austen biographies over the years, and this one quickly became my favorite. I read it in just a few short days and definitely recommend it to others interested in Jane Austen's life or in the lives of Georgian- and Regency-era women.

At first glance, the organization of the book by the homes that Austen lived in seems a bit contrived — it's basically just chronological order by another name, right? — but it's a contrivance that I 100 percent buy into. Home, and the precarious living situation of women, is a theme in Austen's work that always stands out to me, so the closer look at her own precious and precarious home life provides a meaningful framework here.

The details of Austen's life aren't particularly accessible, but the author's writing style is, and the research seems solid (and owes much to previous biographers, which is acknowledged). I'm not familiar with the author's other books or television work, but I've seen her writing style criticized, for this book in particular, as being a bit "breathless" (overly enthusiastic and star-struck). I thought it was fine. It's chummy and appreciative, but not fawning and overly eager. There is a bit more speculation than I need (I don't care to guess whether infant Jane Austen was swaddled or not) and some of the wide brushstrokes used to paint a scene for which little relevant information remains are sometimes too obvious and distracting. And I would have appreciated a family tree to reference, since the extended Austen family is somewhat sprawling and it's easy to lose track of the friends and family that are mentioned throughout.

Those are minor complaints, however, for a book that I enjoyed and certainly recommend.
UPDATE Read Byrne's "The Real Jane Austen" instead. While also prone to anti-Austenism, the analysis is more subtle and thorough and, frankly, more intelligent. In fact, the present book appears to be a "parroting" of Ms. Byrne's book and a poor copy at that.

*****************************************************************************************************

This is a mess of a book. Long-winded and self-important. The author has done substantial research on the era and, for better and more often for worse, cannot help herself from spewing everything she had found into her book - even at the expense of creating a cogent, progressive text.

In example, when discussing the cause of Ms. Austen's death, the author mentions that several of the symptoms are similar to the symptoms now found in diagnosing Depression. She goes on to note that such emotional diseases were not recognized in 19th C. England and, so, many people (by the author's belief, mainly women) were misdiagnosed and often criticized for being hypochondriacs simply because society failed to recognize Depression.

However, what does this actually have to do with Ms. Austen?

Depression is not terminal and Ms. Austen's illness was terminal so the author knows that Depression would not have been an accurate diagnose, even if it existed in 19th C. England. In fact, the only reason Depression is discussed is because the author decided she wanted to show what she had found out during her research, even if it is not particularly relevant, so she simply latches on a few pages of discussion about Depression, thereby losing track of Jane Austen in a book reputedly devoted to Ms. Austen.

And that is far from the worse example of the author using Ms. Austen's life to spout opinion rather than provide facts. The author notes that "Sensibility" was a fashionable movement in the late 1700s, a movement in which persons would affect a certain "depth of soul" by attempting to appear more refined by overly exaggerating their responses to emotional stimuli and, otherwise, go without eating to appear pale and, thereby, ethereal. By definition, it is a mannered way of acting and, so, falsely portrays the person's "true nature".

Once again realizing this information may not particularly be relevant to Ms. Austen's life, the author decides that Marianne in "Sense and Sensibility" was a portrayal of such a person. She tries to convince the reader that this is so by alleging Marianne was a "passive" character and, so, prone to court other's opinion of herself as "sensitive" and argues that Marianne was clearly prone to other's opinion since she allows "others" to convince her into marrying Colonel Brandon.

In short, she believes Marianne is portrayed living a mannered life in which she falsely portrays herself as having great "depth" that she truly does in fact possess.

Anyone who has read "Sense and Sensibility" must question whether the author ever read the book given her understanding of Marianne. Marianne is defined as intelligent and as full of propriety as her sister, Elinor. Marianne is not pretending to feel more than she does in hopes that others will believe to be more refined and ethereal than she is. In fact, Marianne is the one character who acts rudely at times because she does not care how she is seen. Marianne would not be defined as have propriety if she were the "drama queen" as she is imagined by the author.

In fact, she represents what a true sensitive, yet intelligent person would be. Each of us is both an individual and a part of society. Elinor places great value in being a good social partner, while Marianne places great value on being an individual. She believes that hiding emotions is lying, that is why she is a sincere character and, also, leads to the moral of the story because truly allowing her emotions to rule her life as the only "honest" way to live has led her to ignore her physical needs which weakened her so she became prone to a life-threatening illness. So, balance (sense) may appear as a compromise and, therefore, somehow false to a true sensitive, however, balance is shown to be more healthy and health is its own truth.

Further, Marianne is decidedly not a "passive" character. She is principled (perhaps wrongly so) and head strong. Just remember her open disdain for Mrs. Ferrars when she slights Elinor's artwork. Marianne is not "passive", if anything, she is too "active" emotionally. And no one who reads the book could believe anyone forced Marianne into falling in love with Colonel Brandon. Given all of this, I can only assume the author watched a film version and has never actually read the book.

Another albeit trivial example, the author argues that, despite Ms. Austen frequently being described as "pretty" by persons who actually knew her, the author believes she was a plain looking woman because she never describes anyone of her characters as "beautiful".

Okay. First off, that is the most amateurish of pop pyschology.

Second, an author trying to describe reality is never going to has an overly beautiful or handsome lead character since most of us are pleasantly attractive at best and not a paragon of good looks.

Third, Ms. Austen's use of physical attractiveness is far more nuanced than the author seems to realize.

Anne Elliott in "Persuasion" is described as once attractive tho now her "bloom" has gone. However, this is as much a temporal description as an accurate one. Once Anne is away from her unloving father and sister and around people she likes and, otherwise, is around a man she once loved and now realizes she still loves, she becomes decidedly beautiful.

This can be the only interpretation of the scene at Lyme where Anne, her sister, and the younger "pretty" Musgrove sisters all pass a stranger. He politely nods to the "pretty" Musgroves and to the sister, Mary, but stares dumbfoundedly at Anne. He is clearly a man entranced by her looks. So, Anne in the glow of happiness is a beautiful creature to behold!

Similarly, Emma Woodhouse may be defined as "handsome"; however, she is clearly also "beautiful". Her sister is described as "pretty" and Emma is stated to be better looking. Her friend, Harriet Smith, is continually said to be "very pretty" yet never is there a doubt that Emma is the better looking of the two. Finally, Mr. Knightley, a man given to stating his beliefs honestly and without flattery, when asked by Mrs. Weston whether or not Emma is attractive, states that he could spend 10 or 15 minutes simply looking at Emma while she talks and later comments on Emma's lack of conceit about her looks though most others would take excessive pride in being so attractive. So, while Emma is not stated to be "beautiful" by Ms. Austen, she decidedly is very beautiful.

The author's book is often described as written in a "lively" manner. However, any "liveliness" it possesses tends to arise from the author manufacturing a controversy.

Ms. Austen's eldest brother started a subscription magazine while at college. In one edition, a "Sophia Sentimental" writes a letter to the editor silly complaining of the lack of good sob stories. The author decides without any other evidence than a "female" writer and the sarcastic tone, that this letter was written by Jane Austen. Problem is, Jane Austen was only twelve years old at the time and the letter shows more sophistication that her Juvenalia of that period. Solution, the author simply decides it was written by Jane but family members helped. All speculation - yet, the author has no problem later in the book stating "factually" that 'Sophia Sentimental' was Ms. Austen.

The author notes that some critics claim Ms. Austen's books are lesser because they failed to address the actual world but use realistic techniques to present a fantasy world. In example, the Napleonic Wars were fought throughout Ms. Austen's life, yet only incidental effects (e.g. the milita in P&P) are found in her novels.

The author bolds states that, unlike the past 200 years of assessment in which no analysis of the Wars or other social issues were found, she has "discovered" Ms. Austen's social commentary, particular in "Mansfield Park".

It happens that 'Mansfield' is the name of a judge whose rulings harmed the slave trade and 'Norris' was the name of a famous slave trader so Ms. Austen's use of these names in the book may (or may not) be purposeful and, so, a "commentary" on the slave trade.

But how?!? Ms. Austen did not write overly symbolic books and, otherwise, it is impossible to read "Mansfield Park" as a symbolic treatise on slavery. So, all the writer is arguing is that Ms. Austen may have used names associated with slavery in naming characters and places in "Mansfield Park". However, since the book is not about slavery per se, it is not a commentary on slavery as the author claims she has discovered.

The author, however, is undaunted. She notes a passing reference in MP to a servant having to mend a hedgerow.

You ask, so what? Well, the author spends an endless amount of time explaining that pre-War, landholders often let their neighbors pasture their cattle on the holder's land. However, during the War, wheat prices rose an, so, often landholders inclosed (as opposed to "enclosed", a distinct legal act according to the author) their fields to prevent their neighbors' use of that land so they could plant it with wheat. Often, in inclosing the land, the holder placed a hedgerow as a border fence.

So, the author argues that in making a passing reference to mending of a hedgerow, Ms. Austin may (or may not) have intended her audience to realize that Mansfield Park was inclosed.

Even assuming Ms. Austen meant her audience to assume inclosure, so what?!? How is the passing reference to mending a hedgerow (implying inclosure) a social commentary on the War. It is, as with all of Ms. Austen's fact, just an observation without symbolic weight.

So, once again, the author is making self-important claims of new discovery which is not remotely backed up with any fact.

Perhaps her worst use of this practice is her attempt to "prove" Ms. Austen was somehow morally betrayed by her male relatives. The author repeatedly implies the men of the Austen family set out to "control" Jane Austen in life and, thereafter, to control her "image" after her death. This is a bit far-fetched and a bit pathetic on the author's behalf.

The author does not dispute that those men directly encouraged Ms. Austen and, otherwise, sought out publishers for her work; however, she claims they arrogantly stated they were the main force in promoting her literary career and, thereby, tried to subsume this female achievement as an achievement of the male line.

In support of this strained argument, the author notes that Ms. Austen had a lively cousin, Eliza, and a worldly neighbor, Mrs. Lefroy, who possibly, by example, led her to believe that there was more to life for a woman than being a spinster.

Now, if the Austen men had stated they "inspired" Ms. Austen into having a literary career, the author's argument might make sense; however, the Austen men only took credit for encouraging Ms. Austen to continue writing and, otherwise, in taking steps to help her achieve her ambition of publishing her work.

Whether Eliza or Mrs. Lefoy inspired Ms. Austen is debatable since there is no evidence either way. However, neither Eliza nor Mrs. Lefoy ever encouraged Ms. Austen to write, let alone took steps to help her achieve publication. At best, they indirectly inspired her to believe her writing was good enough, to believe that women could publish. (However, this assumes Ms. Austen ever doubted this, which is unlikely given that a substantial number of novelist in her day were women.)

In other words, the author manufactures a "controversy" by claiming the Austen men tried to exclude women who "inspired" Ms. Austen so they could take complete "credit" for Ms. Austen's success. However, since the Austen men never claimed to "inspire" but only to "promote" and none of the women discussed by the author either encouraged or promoted Ms. Austen's career; the controversy is non-existent.

This dislike of the Austen men and the false claim that they somehow are "controlling" of Ms. Austen and, after her death, of her legacy is woven throughout the book. And so, by the end, the author has so convinced herself of this "conspiracy" that she becomes ridiculous.

The Austen placed the following epitaph on Jane Austen's gravestone

the benevolence of her heart / the sweetness of her temper / the extraordinary endowments of her mind.

Sweet, simple and proportional. Valuing the wonderful person she was and also acknowledging that, beyond such personal charm, she was extraordinary and brilliant.

The author will have none of this. To her, by putting the impersonal fact that Ms. Austen was a genius after the personal fact that she was loving and kind, the Austen men's "cover-up of how extraordinary Aunt Jane really was had already begun".

I frankly cannot fathom how someone can read that loving epitaph and immediately decide that Ms. Austen's brothers were undermining her legacy by listing her literary genius as only her third best characteristic after being loving and kind.

Apparently, the author believes her brothers should have foreseen at her death that Jane Austen over the next 150 years would become the most read English novelist and, having so foreseen, the brothers were morally obligated to ignore their personal loss and require to prioritize future society loss, Ms. Austen's genius. By failing to do so, the Austen men showed they were 'covering up' their loved one's genius and, so, acting for their own "benefit".

And having noted that the Austen family "controlled" Ms. Austen's image and "falsely" portrayed her as "perfection", the author notes that Ms. Austen's niece had criticized her by stating, though Jane and Cassandra were exceptionally intelligent and kind, they were not "elegant" for high society and, so, Fanny believed they learned their elegance from their time spent with her father, Edward, who through a luck break was an owner of two massive estates and so a member of high society.

You would think the author would applaud any member of the Austen clan being critical of Jane Austen, though this criticism is fairly tame as Fanny acknowledge her aunt was brilliant and refined but simply not use to the required elegance of high society. But no, the author bemoans how Fanny had "betrayed" her aunts by stating her opinion.

A good historian would simply present the facts and let her reader decide what they meant. Not this author, she cannot help spewing her opinions - even when they are contradictory to her general theme that the Austen "sugar-coated" Jane's personality.

So by the end, the book is foolishness compounded by foolishness. Yes, the book has some interesting things to say and note; however, the author cannot stay out of her own way and her opinions, often unfounded, and attitude, too often snide and superior, often making this a tedious and, at times, depressing book to read.
Normally, I do not really enjoy reading biographical books. But Jane Austen is one of my all time favorite authors, so I had read this book. I was very surprised because it was not just a spewing of facts but a very entertaining account of her home life. At times, this book is really funny and at other times it is heartbreaking.

I would highly recommend this book to all book lovers especially to any Jane Austen enthusiast.