Last June I wrote a review of Jane Austen for Dummies for Jane Austen Today. I liked the book then, I like it still, and I use it often for reference. Several months after I shared my humble opinion, academician Stephanie Looser made a satirical reference to Professor Joan Klingel Ray’s book in her tongue in cheek essay, Jane Austen, Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. The comments under this article are as interesting to read as the article itself, including the response from Dr. Ray, who (accidentally I hope) dissed The Confessions of a Jane Austen Addict by my blogger friend, Laurie Viera Rigler. A few weeks ago, Laurel Ann from Austenprose wrote her astute assessment of the situation.
Let’s face it, Jane’s writing is more than brilliant, her stories are more than about mere romance, and her observations on the foibles of human nature are spot on and timeless. We all respond to her work in a very personal way. In fact, I am always open to others’ opinions about Jane and their reactions to her work. In turn, I ask for the same forbearance from others.
While a good debate is healthy (and I have exchanged opinionated ideas with several bloggers), some of the rabid, almost viral responses in discussion boards or the comment sections of blogs utterly perplex me. One individual, for example, jumped on Joan Klingel Ray’s supposedly wrong date for the French Revolution. Disliking the book for various other reasons, she dismissed Dr. Ray’s authority. Excuse me? Dr. Ray happens to be one of the premier authorities on Jane Austen.
Let’s lighten up folks, and take Stephanie Looser’s essay for what it was: irony and fun. We 21st century denizens might have more sophisticated toys to play with than our regency era counterparts, and 200 extra years of war, famine, pollution and inventions under our collective historical belts to put things in perspective, but our predictable behavior and reactions are of the sort that Jane relished satirizing.
Jane Austen's World 
Uh-oh. I don’t think my review of Confessions of a Jane Austen Addict was scathing, but I did have some problems with it ;-)
I’ve never heard of Jane Austen for Dummies. It sounds interesting. I’m going to have to check out more Austen blogs and read up on some of the conversations and behavior you mentioned.
I haven’t read Jane Austen for Dummies, but if they get the date of the French Revolution wrong, you have to admit that that’s a pretty bad mistake. How can you trust a historian that can’t even get that date right? How come they didn’t edit it out?
Marie, the date is indeed transposed on page 32. Instead of 1789, the year the Bastille was stormed, it reads 1798, a common proofing mistake. One hopes this date was corrected in later editions. At work our group publishes materials as a matter of course. Believe me, no matter how many “fresh eyes” scan the text before the pub is sent to the printer, simple mistakes still get through. Joan’s one mistake should not negate the immense amount of excellent reference information about Jane Austen in the book. On page 33, Dr. Ray writes clearly that Eliza de Feuillide’s husband was guillotined during the revolution in 1794, leading me to the conclusion that the earlier date was an edit mistake.
Elizabeth, I don’t think Dr. Ray meant to dis The Confessions of a Jane Austen Addict as much as point out that her factual reference book should not be confused with a work of light, fluffy fiction. The two are written for different audiences and have a different intent. I was trying to be ironic, and failed miserably.
As for discussion boards, after getting pummeled a couple of times on one well-known board for merely expressing my opinion about P&P 2005, which I described as the muddy hem version, I decided to leave well enough alone.
If you want to see viral and out of control comments, just read the ‘edit’ comments in the Wikipedia entry about Jane Austen. You will have to log in to view them, for they sit in the archives. Jane’s entry was completely hauled over last December, and two factions are fighting tooth and nail over every single change, often cannibalizing each others’ changes, and then whining and moaning over what the other faction has deleted. Jane would have a field day making fun of such behavior. Last November I had spent several hours entering bibliographic references, like William Austen Leigh’s Jane Austen: Her Life and her Letters. My changes were gone the next day and I haven’t been back since to enter a contribution.
I am glad the comments on my blog remain civilized debates and discussions.