Austen spoilers galore (or are they?)
Last week I almost gave away a book in disgust after reading the first few pages of the introduction. Instead, I decided to start a collection of Austen-novels-with-erroneous-introductions. So now in addition to a copy of Northanger Abbey that claims Jane Austen never went to London and a copy of Emma that identifies (and makes a point of!) the incident with the gypsies as occurring in Sense and Sensibility, I now own a copy of Persuasion with an introduction that remarks on Fanny Price's first accepting then (next morning) rejecting a marriage proposal from Henry Crawford being so very similar to Jane Austen's first accepting then (next morning) rejecting a marriage proposal from Harris Bigg-Wither. The accuracy of the introduction's comments on Persuasion I cannot speak to; I didn't make it past the Mansfield Park comments.
That's only three books (of the what, ten copies of Austen novels that I own?) so I admit, it's currently a small collection, but, as I'm an optimist if nothing else, I'm sure time will correct that.
This sort of thing shouldn't bother me, but it does. I mean, when you are publishing a novel of Jane Austen's, what really is there for you to do? The text exists, has been edited for clarity n times (where n is large enough), including (for some novels) by the author herself. I understand the temptation for a "grabby" introduction - something new, something less dry than the ordinary academic paper, something provocative perhaps - but surely it's also important to find someone fluent in Austen. Is it that hard? Gosh, one quick trip to Austen-L or JASNA, and you'll find a ton (haha) of folks fluent in Austen - you don't even have to get up out of your chair. Who is in charge of publishing these books anyway, Bridget Jones?
Sheesh.
Incidentally, if anyone is inclined to worry because I'm posting to LJ about something other than illness, let me hasten to assure you that we are in fact cycling through another cold and/or sinus infection this week, and I used up the last of my vacation time staying home with S. so A. could teach his class. Joy.
Also, (some of) you note correctly that the promised (to some) review of Becoming Jane is still absent. It took me three tries to post just this bit - not because of LJ but rather because of interruptions galore - and I think I'd better not try my luck with anything longer. The usual excuse, I know; next time I'll try to come up with something better, an ant invasion (no, that was last week) or maybe we'll acquire a visitor or skunks in the garden or similar. I do apologize for the lack of a decent excuse, at least. As someone has recently informed me (by email), my LJ entries indicate that I've become rather insipid - my helpful adviser (whom mr_perker alone of my f-list has met) points this out, concerned, I suppose, that it might have escaped my attention that I spend most of my "free" time doing laundry, washing dishes, and trying to convince the ants to move out. I was tempted to reply that "resignation is never so perfect as when the blessing denied begins to lose somewhat of its value in our estimation", but refrained. It seemed too open to misconstruction as it was - and yet sometimes greater clarity is not your friend either.