Jane Austen fans, how do you feel about this new argument that Austen's writing style may be attributed to her editor William Gifford? You can read the reaction of one Jane Austen fan here (which also includes quotations by Kathryn Sutherland, the academic who came forth with this new editor argument).For those who are interested, the Jane Austen Fiction Manuscripts Digital Edition (the new project lauched by Sutherland which is mentioned in the first link) is now available online. If anyone wants to spend a few years debunking (or supporting) Sutherland, have at it! I'd love to research this project a little more (in order to form my own opinion), but I think the task would require too much time. It took Sutherland three years to compile this database, so it obviously wouldn't be a quick research project. Still, I think it would be fun to read bits of Austen's novels in her own handwriting.
P.S. The watercolor/pencil sketch of Austen was painted by Cassandra Austen (Jane's sister) in c. 1810. It is thought to have been painted/sketched from life. Given the context of this post, Jane doesn't look too happy about the reattribution of her writing style, does she?
Posts
4 comments:
I heard Kathryn Sutherland on NPR yesterday. I have a lot of thoughts about her work and the (weird weird) outrage over it. Um, but to attempt a succinct reply (while putting on my professional editor hat) I think it's very important to point out that editors may place commas and periods in the right place, and tighten up verbiage and attempt to direct narrative and conversational flow. HOWEVER editing is just a teensy step in the writing process. Editors, even 200 years ago, didn't create the Bennets or Eliots or rewrite how those characters come alive with just a few revealing descriptions.
I also have a lot of envy for Sutherland for her access to those papers - what a dream!!!
(PS: Bennetts. Two Ts. Bah!)
I read about this a few days ago.
It's hard for me to decide how I feel about this.
I got my undergrad in news writing and editing, plus I wrote for the U's paper.
I remember the utter frustration I had when my editor would (in my opinion) overly edit my articles.
I come from the mind frame (thanks to a brilliant editing professor) that the editor's job is to correct grammar and flow, but never to rewrite.
However, I also realize that editing is just one step in the series. A book, story, article, etc. just isn't complete until it is done. Sometimes an author has a great concept, but just lacks the ability to put it all down.
Rebekah and e, I think that you both bring up a good point about how Austen's writing is not embodied in her punctuation. Nor do I think her wit was created by an editor (and I'm not in a place to judge whether the editor's punctuation helped capture the wit. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.).
Anyhow, you're right Rebekah: editors didn't create Darcy or Elizabeth or Anne or Fanny. Those are Jane Austen's creations. Great point.
P.S. There is a lot of outrage on this subject, isn't there? Sutherland knew that she would get a lot of publicity for her new online database with such an argument.
Post a Comment