Valerie Grosvenor Myer. Jane Austen: Obstinate Heart. New
York: Arcade, 1997.
&
David Nokes. Jane Austen: A Life. New
York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1997.
Review by Elvira Casal, Middle Tennessee State University
Biographies of Jane Austen have proliferated in recent years as a
result of the fresh interest in the author caused by the new film
versions of the novels. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly,
none of the recent biographies seem to have much to add to our
knowledge about Jane Austen. It must be difficult to write a new
biography of Jane Austen because there is seldom any new material
about her. All that each biographer can do is rearrange familiar
material according to a new interpretation.
Two biographies that, within the past year, have presented us
with somewhat new interpretations of Jane Austen's life are
Valerie Grosvenor Myer's Jane Austen: Obstinate Heart (New
York: Arcade, 1997) and David Nokes's Jane Austen: A Life (New
York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1997). Valerie Grosvenor Myer's
work does not seem intended as a scholarly biography. It is not
annotated at all, and the bibliographical data is skimpy. David
Nokes' work, on the other hand, has copious annotation and would
seem to be intended for a scholarly audience. However, Nokes's
chosen approach to the subject is clearly intended to appeal also
to a popular audience. The style of Jane Austen: A Life is that
of a novel. As shall be discussed below, Nokes's novelistic
approach to biography tends to undermine scholarly reliability.
For a "popular" biography, Jane Austen: Obstinate Heart is
readable, but not exciting to read. Despite the catchy title,
very little is said (after the preface) about Austen's heart,
obstinate or otherwise. What we read is a rehashing of Austen's
not very exciting daily life. The biography mainly follows the
letters in a manner similar to that of Halperin's 1984 biography
and Dierdre Le Faye's more recent revision of Austen-Leigh's
Family Record. However, both Halperin and LeFaye provide the
reader with exact references to the letters while Myer does not.
Myer's Jane Austen is a woman who, although she recognized the
importance of marriage for women in her society, could
nevertheless not force herself to make a marriage of convenience.
In choosing to remain single, Austen accepted a life of poverty
and dependency on her brothers. This poverty was often painful to
bear and, as Myer reads Austen's correspondence, the author of
Pride and Prejudice was often "peevish" in her comments about
the greater fortune of others. Another reading of the same
letters might see the tone as "self-mocking" rather than
"peevish," but Myer is undoubtedly right that Jane Austen was not
always content with her lot in life and that she often resented
the greater fortune of others.
On the whole, Myer's interpretation of Austen's life is in
keeping with currently accepted views about Austen. Obstinate
Heart does not repeat the "dear aunt Jane was always cheerful
and never made fun of anyone" myth, but it also does not fall
into the opposite error of portraying Jane Austen as an
embittered, shrewish old maid. Aside from the lack of any new
insights or interpretations, the main problem with the biography
is the abundance of what seem to be careless errors.
These errors range from the relatively harmless one of
forgetting to put quotation marks around some of Jane Austen's
words and expression to mistakes and omissions that suggest that
Myer overlooked important details when putting together the
biography. For example, the account of Austen's efforts to get
Crosby to publish her parody of Gothic novels ends with: "He
offered to sell her manuscript back to her for £10. She bought
it."
In fact, Jane Austen was not able to buy the manuscript right
away. She could not afford to return the £10 that she'd received
for the work until after she succeeded in making money from
publishing her other novels. For Myer not to highlight this point
when her whole book insists on the importance of poverty in
Austen's life is somewhat astonishing.
To summarize, this biography has no major new insights to offer
to the study of Austen, and it has many small errors and some
oversights that would tend to irritate the reader who knows a
good deal about Austen's life. However, it is clearly written,
and it might satisfy the beginner reader's desire to know more
about Austen.
Jane Austen: A Life, is a very different sort of biography.
Possibly in order to appeal to the popular reader, David Nokes
chose to present most of his material through what he assumes
were the thoughts and perceptions of one of the "characters" in
the work. In his introduction Nokes states that "nothing is
spoken which cannot be authenticated, and no incident is
presented for which there is no documentary evidence. But in the
disposition of a character's thoughts, as in the interpretation
of his or her actions, there is some degree of invention." The
result is a curious blend of sound scholarship and downright
fabrication which is disconcerting to the experienced reader and
can only be confusing for the person who knows little about Jane
Austen and her family.
Although Nokes's approach is entertaining, it has the unfortunate
effect of blurring the distinction between what he perceives and
understands and what Jane Austen and her contemporaries perceived
and understood. Too often David Nokes's insights and prejudices
are assigned to the "consciousness" of people in Austen's world
who may not have thought the same way that Nokes does. As a
result, Eliza de Feuillide comes across as a sensitive, acute
literary critic, and the semi-literate Francis Cullum (who took
care of Jane Austen's handicapped brother George) is assumed to
have read Jane Austen's novels thoughtfully enough to observe the
"great emphasis" placed "on the shared love of brothers and
sisters" and to reflect on the irony of how her "poor brother
George" was treated.
Another problem with Nokes's approach lies in his decision "to
present each moment . . . as it was experienced at the time, not
with the detached knowingness of hindsight." What it means in
practice is that when we read the account of Mrs. Leigh-Perrot's
and the allegedly stolen lace, we get the impression that the
author believes Mrs. Leigh-Perrot to have been innocent. However,
a little less than 100 pages later we get the account of Mrs.
Leigh-Perrot being caught stealing some plants and the
corresponding discussion concludes that she probably was a
kleptomaniac.
The effect is disconcerting, the more so since on other instances
Nokes doesn't refrain from hinting at what the future may hold
for his "characters." For example, when telling of how Henry
Austen gives his sister a "fantasy cheque" as part of one of
their playful exchanges, the author cannot resist a hint about
Henry's future, "in later years [Eliza] reflected that a
whimsical fondness for issuing fantasy cheques was perhaps an
unhappy omen for a future banker." That it was Eliza de
Feuillide who pressured Henry to go into banking and that Eliza
did not live to see the failure of Henry's bank seem to be
forgotten for the moment.
Nokes's handling and interpretation of quotations from Austen's
novels and letters is also problematic. The most obvious flaw is
a tendency to repeat the same quotation two or three times. A
more subtle weakness is the way in which quotations are taken out
of context and sometimes given associations which are at odds
with the way Austen used language. Perhaps the best example is
the quotation with which Nokes closes the book: "If I am a wild
beast, I cannot help it." Nokes's implication is that the
reference to herself as a "wild beast" implies Austen's admission
of her anarchic, rebellious feelings. However, the quotation
comes from a letter in which Austen is saying that knowing that
someone wants to meet her makes her nervous. Austen did not mean
that she felt "wild" in the sense of rebellious. What she meant
was that she felt like a wild beast that wants to run away from
the human society that will stare at and put her on display as
"lady authoress."
Despite these serious faults, Jane Austen: A Life has several
contributions to make to Austen scholarship. Nokes's suggestion
that Jane Austen may not have been as idyllically happy at
Steventon as other biographers (following the Austen family
tradition) have assumed is provocative and perceptive, though he
seems to miss the irony in some of the letters from Austen that
he quotes in support of his position. His analysis of the
silhouette of Edward Austen being handed over for adoption by the
Knights is excellent, rightly pointing out that the
"composition...is as much about power as about family feeling."
Nokes has also included some new details about Austen family
life, which, when they can be sorted from his speculations, might
help provide new insights into Austen's background. For example,
he includes new information on the life and fate of the Count de
Feuillide and seems to have done considerable research on the
fate of George Austen, Jane Austen's handicapped brother.
Like most recent biographers, Nokes questions the traditional
view of Jane Austen as a sort of quintessential maiden aunt and
shows us a woman who, without being a shrew, was not always
patient, not always kind, and not always easy-tempered. Nokes's
Jane Austen is aware of her own genius and constantly forced to
suppress and disguise it in order to fit in with her society.
Although not all of Nokes's interpretations of individual
incidents seem accurate, he has occasional insights into Austen's
possible feelings and motivation which are worth taking into
account.
In summary, the new facts and insights included in David Nokes's
book should make this biography of interest to the Austen
scholar. However, the scholarship of the work is weakened by
Nokes's novelistic approach and the resulting confusion between
fact and speculation. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all
is the way in which twentieth century ways of viewing life and
the family are attributed to eighteenth and nineteenth century
figures.
Although all biography involves reinterpretation of the subject,
there is a fine line between reinterpretation and invention which
Nokes's work crosses more than once. Ironically, it is doubtful
that the novelistic approach will make this biography popular
with the common reader because Nokes, like Park Honan in his 1987
biography, includes much information about people that only the
Austen enthusiast could be interested in. Therefore it would seem
that Nokes's chosen approach was the wrong one. This would have
been a good biography of Austen if it had been frankly organized
around the point of view and opinions of the author instead of
pretending to capture the thoughts and feelings of Austen and the
people around her.
You may write to Prof. Casal at:
Elvira Casal, Assistant Professor
Middle Tennessee State University
Murfreesboro, TN
Back to the ASJAS Homepage
Back to The Austen Quarterly
Email Elvira Casal