Olivia Williams as Jane Austen
Even the most sheltered person will have been bombarded by these recent headlines:
Jane Austen had a helping hand!
Jane Austen had an editor!
Jane Austen had a spell checker!
Jane Austen couldn’t spell!
Jane Austen would have flunked English!
Jane Austen’s notes messy!
Each headline that rolled off my RSS reader became increasingly more ridiculous. What can we expect next?
Jane Austen did not write her own novels!
Jane Austen is really a male.
Jane Austen is a fraud!
So Jane Austen’s Emma and Persuasion were heavily proofed and edited. SO WHAT!? The source for all this brouhaha is Professor Kathryn Sutherland, who, after studying 1,100 of Jane’s handwritten manuscripts up close came to the conclusion that Jane had HELP.
Professor Sutherland of the Faculty of English Language and Literature claims her findings refute the notion of Austen as “a perfect stylist”. It suggests, she continues, that someone else was “heavily involved” in the editing process. She believes that person to be William Gifford, an editor who worked for Austen’s publisher John Murray II. – BBC news
Now any fan of Jane Austen knows that while John Murray might have published Emma and Persuasion, William Edgerton oversaw the publication of Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, and Mansfield Park. Since her first published novel, she was actively involved in reworking her novels and perfecting them.
Professor Sutherland clarified her statements and also came to the conclusion that Jane was experimental in her writing and that she was innovative and willing to try new things, and that she placed a great emphasis on dialog. Eh, yeah. And, duh, wasn’t that obvious to begin with? It’s one of the reasons why Jane’s novels translate so well to film – her characters are defined by their speech.
As for using an editor, as far as I know any writer worth their salt turns their work over to an editor and proofer before their work is published. During the writing process, Jane was known to bounce ideas off her sister Cassandra. Her family expressed their opinions about her characters and stories, and she would certainly be influenced by those she trusted.
Many writers I know belong to writing groups in which their first drafts are scrutinized, dissected, and discussed. After such a discussion, the writer is free to take their advice or ignore it. This, for many, is part of the creative writing process. Would such a group claim authorship of a book published under an individual writer’s name? Of course not. While they were instrumental in making that book happen, one would never claim after the fact that the writer’s role in crafting that novel was in any way diminished. I’m not saying that Professor Sutherland made these claims, but certain reporters have certainly taken up that way of thinking.
The headline that declared that Jane Austen’s notes were messy made me guffaw out loud. If any of you saw my first draft of anything, you would declare that I am illiterate. In addition, if you saw my first draft in my own handwriting, you would KNOW I am illiterate. Some writers in a creative frenzy, wanting to capture their thoughts quickly on paper before losing the thought, will actually write in a hurry, crossing out words, spilling ink, and forgetting their spelling and grammar.
As for preparing a work for publication, during her lifetime, Jane was heavily involved in rewriting her novels. She visited London and stayed with her brother Henry to prepare her Emma manuscript, and one imagines that she worked closely with William Gifford, the editor. The fact that she changed publishers and that John Murray, whose association with Byron made the poet a star, was significant for Jane. She had high hopes for her salability when making this move. Sadly, she would live long enough to see only one of her works published by this man, for Persuasion and Northanger Abbey were published posthumously.
Now, for the reporters’ sakes (for they really were showing their ignorance with those ridiculous headlines,) let’s go over a turbo review of the history of spelling and grammar for the English language.*
1) Spelling was a free for all and writers wrote names and words according to how they sounded. The same name might be spelled a hundred different ways, such as Smith, Smyth, Smythe, Smithe, and so forth.
2) In 1712 Jonathan Swift wanted to create an Academy of the English Language that would provide people with grammatical and spelling rules. He was turned down by Parliament. Nevertheless, grammar books and spelling books began to appear in increasing numbers.
3) In 1755 Samuel Johnson published A Dictionary of the English Language.
4) In 1762, Robert Lowth wrote an Introduction to English Grammar.
5) The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) was first proposed in 1859. This seminal work would lay to rest any confusion about the meaning of English words and their origin by systematically studying every word since the year 1000AD, and including meanings, spelling variations, parts of speech, pronunciation, etc. for each one of them. James Murray began the project in 1879, but it was not until 1928 that the first edition was published.
So, gentle reporters: There was a reason for Jane Austen’s creative spelling. She lived in a time of flux for the English language and it took a while for the dust to settle and for linguists and grammarians to see eye to eye on how the English language should be systematized, regulated, and presented in dictionaries and grammar books. To those who profess that Jane’s spelling would have flunked her out of English, I say “Phoey!”
- For an exciting history about the OED, read The Professor and the Mad Man by Simon Winchester
- Jane Austen Original writing, London Calling
- *History of English
- Jane Austen and her Editor, Jane Austen in Vermont
Use a translation device to read the next two worthy articles:
- Jane Austen Could Not Write? Adriana Zardini’s take on JASBRA
- Jane Austen em Portugues’s thoughts on the topic
Jane Austen's World 
![Jane Austen Original writing](http://janeaustensworld.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/jane-writes.jpg?w=300" alt="" width="300" height="168" /></a>[/caption]){kind=link}
Bravo Vic! – well said and a fine defense of Jane! all the headlines so eager to assault her abillities – that was my first thought as well, that her earlier works were published by Egerton, and how very involved she was in the editing / proof reading process for all her works. And yes, her spelling was appalling [a great history of spelling you have presented!]- thankfully the ability to spell or not has no effect on one’s imagination! And one must also recall that paper was a commodity – look at her letters and the cross-writing to conserve – she wrote her works that way as well – one has only to read The Watsons or Sanditon to see how closely she wrote – going in to edit spelling or add paragraphs does nothing to change the beauty of the words, the strength of the characterization.
I cannot believe that Sutherland was anticipating such a ruckus! – looks as though Jane Austen will do nearly anything to stay in the headlines!
Thanks for a great post Vic! – I am assuming your notes for this are quite illegible…
Deb
I kind of get tired of the way that people insinuate all you need to know how to do in order to do well in English is spell correctly, too. It makes me wonder exactly what kind of English classes these folks took.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vic , Andy Boddington, Laura , Victoria Passmore, Miriam Cady and others. Miriam Cady said: RT @janeaustenworld: Jane Austen's Novels Were EDITED by a Man: http://t.co/f8ReDrR New post on Jane Austen's World analyzing recent loo … […]
Well done, Vic, and timely to boot!
I knew you’d have the facts at your fingertips and would set us all to rights.
One of the reasons I don’t have television is I detest playing the role of the marionette to the erroneous string pulling of the press.
Wait a minute, are you saying that it was John Murray who wrote Byron’s works???
I kid.
This whole thing is so preposterous, it’s almost funny. Almost.
To be fair to Professor Sutherland, Vic, any academic worth their salt is not going to make a pronouncement, as she did, without seeing every shred of evidence.The whole body of her handwritten work, all 1,100 pieces,has only for the first time been seen in their entirety. We knew her spelling has always been varied and her punctuation creative,but only based on some of her writing. This study brings together everything.
Again,in defence of Professor Sutherland, if you listen to the radio interview I attached to my blog and I think in all the written interviews too, she comes to the conclusion that Jane was perhaps a greater writer than we thought before because she was creative and experimental. Not until Woolf and Joyce do we get that level of experimentation. I don’t think Professor Sutherland puts down Jane at all. She just tells us that she was a different writer from what we thought.
Murrays friend, William Gifford, is responsible for the polished sentences, though.
I you read this link to The Oxford University site it might give you a more balanced view of the professors report.
I haven’t read other headlines around the world, but I am sure they are alarmist. Sells papers you see. Ha! Ha! Rupert Murdoch, are you around??????
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2010/102310.html
You expressed exactly what I was thinking, Vic. While I am a stickler for spelling (just ask my 2 teenagers!), I have read enough history to know that, as you stated, spelling was erratic at best and most people just spelled as they saw fit. To criticize Jane by today’s grammatical standards is simply ridiculous. However, sadly most people will agree with the article as they know nothing about how things were done 200 years ago.
Tony, You make some good points. I am not faulting Professor Sutherland in my rant as much as the reporters with their silly headlines and premises, although the professor’s opinions did start these viral responses.
As for William Gifford polishing Jane Austen’s work, I am a bit surprised that this would be NEWS. Many writers have their works proofed and polished. Also, it does not surprise me that Jane’s writing would seem different with a different publisher and editor.
And, yes, I agree with Professor Sutherland that Jane was extraordinarily creative. Witness how her writing grew with each new novel.
But this business about grammar and spelling and polish making a difference? That stuff has little to do with the thoughts and plots that a great writer comes up with, and everything to do with readying a book for publication. Most writers employ or are given a William Gifford in their professional lives. If they don’t, then they are at a disadvantage.
I guess I am puzzled, for I studied her rough manuscript for Lady Susan at the Morgan Library exhibit and saw physical evidence of her mind at work. I have also seen a facsimile of the remnant of Persuasion that she worked on, and just assumed that it was common knowledge that her working drafts were rough and raw.
As Deb said: Bravo Vic! Such headlines seems ridiculous!
Of course, most of us know that every writer, must review his work…
“Professor Sutherland said: ‘It’s widely assumed that Austen was a perfect stylist – her brother Henry famously said in 1818 that “Everything came finished from her pen” and commentators continue to share this view today.” – from the Oxford article Tony Grant linked to.
I guess that’s the problem. At least the people commenting here doesn’t really assume that Austen was a perfect stylist – Henry as her brother might have been somewhat biased. Instead at least I think that some of her novels are very close to being perfect novels.
Anyway they made that big project about putting the manuscripts online and I’m sure that they need some publicity to go with it, so they needed some kind of story that would lead to headlines.
Vic, here is my post: http://janeaustenclub.blogspot.com/2010/10/jane-austen-nao-sabia-escrever.html
ADriana
[…] Simples vaidade de lançar um tema que sabia despertaria controvérsias (vide o brouhaha no Jane Austen’s Word)? Seja qual for agora só resta aguentar as críticas com a famosa fleuma […]
Vic,
I cannot blame only the newspapers.
The tone of suspicion, even if slight, that the errors would be this level and corrections so deep that would modify the Jane’s text style, lead to final texts.
In my opinnion they have been influenced by the teacher’s own statements with expressions such “heavily involved”, “Gifford as the culprit”, plus the title of the article (at Oxford page) “The famous style of Jane Austen can not be hers after all,”.
[…] to bring Austen down a peg or two, tossing her from her very high literary pedestal! Vic at Jane Austen’s World has addressed the issue most adequately, so I send you there to read her near perfect defense of […]
Hmmm, I thought that all authors need an editor’s touch for style and grammar/spelling. I wonder what the fuss is all about, about Jane being a bad speller or that her manuscripts being messy. I remember reading about Jane’s writing habits – she hid her manscripts constantly from prying eyes and even used a squeaky door in her parlour/living room that would warn her about visitors while she was busy writing, so she could put them away. Anyway all that this article confirms in my opinion is that Jane was the funny, creative and original novel writer that I think her to be. Too bad she did not have a word processor to put all these doubters to rest!
Great post! I definitely agree, every writer should have an editor and multiple sources to bounce ideas off of! Some of the greatest works ever written, in my opinion, were written in writing circles, with all kinds of critiqueing!
This whole thing has been so stupid. Thank you, Vic, for your great defense of Jane and your explanation of her editing process. I wish reporters would research their facts more carefully. Anyone familiar with 18th century writing knows that spelling was in flux–Prof. Sutherland seems at fault in her comments as well. I’ll refer any questions I get to your post!
[…] Vic at Jane Austen’s World explains the evolution of spelling and grammar (thank Goodness) […]
[…] “Jane Austen’s Novels Were EDITED by a Man” | Jane Austen’s World […]
Fabulous post! Just saw this Letter of Note in which Mark Twain rails against proofreaders, editors and printers — so I’m reminded that those folks aren’t necessarily the ones who should get credit for Austen’s brilliance!
When I read Jane Austen’s juvenilia – which were not proof-read and did not have the benefit of any editorial work – I was amazed at the style and elegance of the writing and all this from a girl in her early teens.
Yes, the spelling is, in today’s eyes, somewhat erratic, but mainly the errors are to do with the ‘i before e, except after c’ rule.
[…] Jane visited Town on numerous occasions and stayed with her favorite brother, Henry, and his wife Eliza. Henry not only actively supported his sister’s writing career, but served as her agent, negotiating on her behalf with publishers and printers. When a book required editing and proofing, Jane would visit Henry to accomplish these ordinary, rather time-consuming tasks, Kathryn Sullivan’s opinions notwithstanding. […]
[…] Jane Austen’s Novels Were Edited by a Man […]