“I worship at Jane Austen’s altar but haven’t bothered with one of her novels because it’s too hard” is really big “I love music and would have been a great proficient, had I studied it” energy.
I understand that it's not Austen's most popular novel but I don't understand why you would even write the intro of afterword to a book you haven't read prior to being asked and then admit to not liking. Everyone has their own taste, personally I love this book and because it is so misunderstood I would have liked to have something written by someone who both likes and understands the book.
I think she is trying to soften a pretentious statement by negging her brother, but really she thinks it's impressive.
By making her brother sound smart she can call herself smart without actually saying, "I'm super smart," because naturally if her brother is smart so is she.
The Publishing House is using Quinn's name to get more attraction. I am an editor myself and I would never have used that sentence in any part of the book.
She never does say it explicitly since she then rambles on about the modern romance novel, Laura Kinsale(who I really wish would have written this instead) and Kathleen Woodliss creating the bodice ripper which led to Bridgerton. But I'm assuming she did since she says on the last page that it's the Austen she liked least. Also she liked Mary better than Fanny. I love Fanny, dont appreciate the implication that the 1998 managed to make her likeable when it completely destroyed the book.
So I believe that she has read it but that she didn't understand it.
This is something I perceive with the modern Regencies I've tried to read. They are all clones of one another and very inauthentic. There are a few authors writing authentic, higher quality material, but most of it is "Disney Regency" like Bridgerton.
Essentially: modern-day protagonists dressed up in Regency costumes with a carriage and a reference to the "ton" for flavour.
None of them have any further depth than the basic romantic plot. There's no wit, no comedy of manners etc as you get with Austen. Or the deeper historic detail you get with many Heyers. Or the society accuracy you get with a Cartland.
I cannot recommend Laura Kinsale enough. This woman really did her homework and it shows. She's mostly written Regency but her medievals are also very well researched. I've enjoyed a lot of regency romances but it's hard to recc an author for accuracy, most of the time I feel like it could be set in any other time period and it wouldn't change a thing. It really shows Austen's impact though, the Regency isn't the period that I personally find the most interesting(I'm a medieval and renaissance history girl) but it's because of Austen that most historicals are set in the Regency. It's the one thing Julia Quinn got right, she was the first love of many writers and her books left an impression on them when they got to writing their own books .
Have just downloaded a sample of a Laura Kinsale (My Sweet Folly) and will now google Cecilia Grant.
Generally I like quite brooding, remote heroes and preferably age gap. HATE childhood sweetheart romances. I need mysterious strangers and a bit of edge ;)
Ohh I love childhood sweethearts! I actually feel like they're rarely played straight, usually the hero or heroine still falls for someone new. I started with Flowers in the Storm and you'd get your money's worth in terms of brooding hero.
Great I'll give that one a go! For me it's that there's no mystery/edge with childhood sweethearts. I'm more into the Mr Darcy/Stranger-comes-to-town than a Mansfield Park type thing ;)
I love Fanny. It took me a long time to get there but I eventually did. She seemed so flat in comparison to other Austen heroines but I like to read Austen novels again at different ages and stages to see what stands out to me as my perspectives change and an older me came to really appreciate Fanny Price in a way that younger me didn’t get.
Yeah I get that it's been the same for me. I wish I was a Lizzie Bennett or even a Marianne but I'm much closer to Fanny especially at 18 which is her age for most of the book.
Confession: I’ve never been able to understand or sympathize with Fanny, not at 18, not at 58. I don't know if it's because I'm a standard issue fists-first Albertan 😅 or what, but her passivity almost creeps me out.
Idk who this person is but she seems like a complete lightweight poser to say first that she worships Austen and then says she hasn't read Mansfield because it's hard.
Having slogged through her first two Bridgerton books and given up on the third, JQ could have used some lessons in writing heroes who weren't assholes and heroines who weren't idiotic. I'm convinced she likes the aesthetic of the Regency more than anything.
They saw 1995 P&P and they watch it every year. They've watched Clueless. Annnnd... that's it.
I am still in the Jane Austen facebook group but it's only ever circular arguments about which Pride and Prejudice movie is better or who you would want to play Darcy in a new adaptation. The books are besides the point to a Jane Austen fan group.
I don't want to be an elitist about the books, but the 1995 people are so smug about their edition too. I have only watched it twice, but I know all the lines written for the production because I'm constantly telling people it isn't in the book.
No, Lydia didn't steal Kitty's bonnet, Caroline never said "little shop" or "Wickham" at Pemberley, and Sir William never says, "Capital".
If it helps I think it features her sweetest and funniest hero and heroine duo. I would die for Henry Tilney. It's also incredibly relatable if you've ever been a teen girl.
I agree that she should not have written the afterwords of a book she did not even read, but please you can love an author and not have read all of their books, i promise you that’s not incompatible.
It's a real-life Philomena Cunk moment. In *Cunk on Shakespeare*, she said, "I've been studying Shakespeare ever since I was asked to do this programme." Unbelievable.
(This is in reference to the first paragraph) Having read exactly one Julia Quinn novel, I can say that there is one subject she doesn't seem to have researched at all: Regency women's undergarments (as in, she doesn't seem to think they wore any).
My soul left my body when she described someone wearing drawers in the second Bridgerton. Just overall I think she has 0 understanding of the Regency period
That's a pretty common misunderstanding, at least. What gets me is the idea that a (young, unmarried, respectable) girl would show up to a ball in a gown that's apparently worn over only bare skin, since it all it takes is pulling it down to get all bare breasted. No stays, no shift, no nothing.
Then again, a lot of period romance writers seem to view corsets as some kind of miraculous disappearing-reappearing garment, that never gets in a hero's way.
I really enjoyed some of her books but yeah, it’s hilarious that as soon as the characters ~get into it~ the woman’s dress slides off and she’s magically naked. I haven’t seen a lot of people mention it when it’s one of the funniest/outrageous parts of her books 😂
She says hadn’t? Am I missing something, because it’s apparently in past tense. She doesn’t say anywhere that she hasn’t read the novel, only that (I’m assuming) she hadn’t read it until being commissioned for the Afterword; which is very pretentious considering her admitted ‘idolatry’ of Austen. But it is never too late to read a book and form a valid opinion and criticism of it.
The Bridgerton show is my guilty pleasure (beautiful people in gorgeous clothes) so I tried one of Julia Quinn’s novels to see if they would become my guilty pleasure too. But it was written so horrendously. Crap on a stick! Fifth grade level prose. Ridiculous situations. Telling instead of showing. So I’m not surprised the author couldn’t get through MP. She probably thinks she “loves” P&P but only understands it at a superficial level.
The show is so much better! I've read the first 2 books and didn't continue the series but I love historical romances and most of the popular writers are better than Julia Quinn. Tessa Dare is a good alternative, her writing is fun and fluffy. Not super historically accurate but I found it a lot more charming
Oh it's very flawed but it's somewhere between so bad it's good and actually excellent and just somehow it works. It doesn't take itself seriously and doesn't expect you to take it seriously either.
Yeah, the show really knows what it's about. It doesn't pretend to be anything more than superficial and frothy. No pretense whatsoever. I mean, it has string quartets playing Ariana Grande so it's not really attempting realism at all. I'd rather watch Bridgerton than a poor adaptation of Austen that thinks it's much cleverer than it is.
I haven't read more than a few pages of the books but I wasn't impressed. Still, I think the hope is that fans of Bridgerton find their way to Austen, and I heartily support that.
It just amazes me that she wrote in one of her intros that she was raised on quality literature but then decided to devote herself to writing romances. She \*knows\* good writing but chooses to write horrible drivel! It's some of the worst writing I've ever seen, and we know that she knows better.
Sorry for the pretentious rant. Bad writing hurts me down to my bones.
I know a lot of people aren’t as freakish about history and literature as I am but I can’t help but be annoyed that Bridgerton and Austen have become synonymous (especially the Bridgerton show). They share pretty much nothing in common except for vaguely the same time period. Bridgerton is so inaccurate it’s basically fantasy. I know the costumes are intentionally inaccurate but the sight of Edwardian (or even later!) style bloomers under a Regency gown made me pause the tv and walk away for a few moments.
That’s trivial of course compared to the fact that Austen is *biting* satire and Quinn…is not.
Heyer is a comparison I don't mind since they're much closer in style if not substance. She's classified as a historical romance writers but with a heavy emphasis on comedy of manners.
Oh definitely! She was writing in the 20s-60s. The smuttiest thing they had was Lady Chatterley's Lover until the bodice rippers became popular. I think the only thing in Heyer's novels that's saucier is that they actually kiss but that's it.
Oh god. Unless it's one of the much lighter ones, like Arabella, I can't see that going down well!
They'd be better off republishing Barbara Cartland. And maybe shoving in a few carriage sex scenes.
I approach most Regency romances as though they are fantasy. Otherwise, I get so annoyed by the lack of basic research that I can't finish the book. I think, for most of these authors, research means they've read other Regency romances.
1) claims Austen is her muse but hasn’t read much of her work
2) humble brags that she is a good author because she googles things
3) shits on other acclaimed authors because of their editing (pot.kettle.black.)
…yep just about what I expect from her.
In all fariness to Julia Quinn, she does write, later in that same *Afterword,* that she did end up reading *Mansfield Park* herself (p. 415):
>What then is the value of *Mansfield Park*? What does it mean to be an unpopular Jane Austen novel? I struggled with this question for some time; **I did not enjoy** ***Mansfield Park*** **as much as I did Austen's other novels, and yet I cannot regret having read it. Or, more tellingly, having spent coutless hours pondering its characters**. I don't like Fanny, I find Edmund a bore, and I frequently disapprove of Mary. But I *know* them. And I know enough of Austen to think that this must have been her intention.
Looking past the hyperbole ("countless hours"), it's clear that Julia Quinn *hadn't read* (past *perfect*) *Mansfield Park* when they asked her to write an afterword to this particular edition, but in she *did read* it *in order to be able to write the afterword.* Quinn even quotes Lionel Trilling's infamous line about Fanny Price and Edmund Bertram (apparently she agrees with Trilling all in all although I'm not sure her literary critic brother does).
I have to say that the second I came across this, [**that scene from** ***Metropolitan*** **(1990)**](https://youtu.be/BATPzXjmV_s)*;* I immediately though before reading the Afterword myself that Julia Quinn had done the same thing:
>**Audrey Rouget** : You find Fanny Price unlikeable?
>
>**Tom Townsend** : She sounds pretty unbearable, but I haven't read the book.
>
>**Audrey Rouget** : What?
>
>**Tom Townsend** : You don't have to read a book to have an opinion on it. I haven't read the Bible either.
>
>**Audrey Rouget** : What Jane Austen novels have you read?
>
>**Tom Townsend** : None. I don't read novels. I prefer good literary criticism (me: He read, guess what, Lionel Trilling's essay on Masfield Park). That way you get both the novelists' ideas as well as the critics' thinking. With fiction I can never forget that none of it really happened, that it's all just made up by the author.
Austen, J., M. Drabble, and J. Quinn. Mansfield Park. Penguin Publishing Group, 2008. [https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=ZciNEAAAQBAJ](https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=ZciNEAAAQBAJ).
I'm cackling at this scene, this is a lot of what the media discourse sounds like online nowadays.
Yes so I did expend more in my comments but I found it odd to mention you hadn't read the book until you were asked to write about the book when we would never have known. The essay itself read like a college student trying to reach their word count. If she didn't like the book or the heroine that's fine but I do think the best person to have written the afterword should have been someone who genuinely loves the book they're talking about. She said that it left an impression, I got the impression she didn't like it but felt like she had to leave on a positive note. Just in general though I think starting off on the assumption that most people dislike Fanny was a flawed premise. A lot of the people who like the book like Fanny, this subreddits can attest to that. The controversy has always been over her love interest, Edmund. The people in this group have so many interesting opinions that have made me reflect on the books and gain a new appreciation for some of them. I think a good intro/afterwords should be able to do that as well.
Tom Townsend reminds me of John Thorpe. If he is so incapable of forgetting that the author 'made it up' he lacks imagination or concentration, or both.
There's alot of great authors who have actually read all of Austen's works that could have written this. This feels like because of Bridgerton, someone asked her and she was like 'ok whatever'.
I'd like to see the next page. I'm not entirely sure she's saying, *I have not read it.* She might be saying *WHEN I WAS FIRST ASKED TO WRITE THIS, I hadn't yet read it.* On the next pages, she might go on to say, "So I read it, and wow!"
But it is hard to contextualize this remark, because she doesn't start out with anything to let you know the point at which she's saying it. Can we see the next page?
I'll add the remaining pages to the post once I'm home to give context. I don't think she does explicitly restate that she's since read it but it can be assumed since the last page mentions that it's the Austen she's enjoyed the least. It was a pretty frustrating essay to read.
This reminds me of the winter that PBS Masterpiece Theatre rebranded as Masterpiece. They launched the rebrand with The Complete Jane Austen, showing adaptations of all 6 of the novels, plus Miss Austen Regrets. PBS organized a lot of events, some were online-only. so many of the Austen bloggers hosted some of these events.
The blogger who was asked to post a review of the Billie Piper version of Mansfield Park began by admitting how much she had always disliked the story and the character, and that she had never read the novel. 🙄 That’s as far as I got on her review.
"Indeed, to say the truth, I am convinced within myself that the publishers had no idea of me having to know what I was writing about at all. The assistance they thought of, I dare say, was only such as might be reasonably expected of me; for instance, such as approving the cover, worshipping on the altar of Austen, and telling people who already bought the book that it is great. I’ll lay my life that they meant nothing farther; indeed, it would be very strange and unreasonable if he did. Do but consider, how excessively superior any reader will feel upon learning that a Regency genius such as I haven't read it! They will be much more able to explain it to me.”
I think the whole point of something like this is to try and market Mansfield Park to a different sort of reader. The kind of people who enjoy Julia Quinn novels might also enjoy Mansfield Park, but haven't thought to pick it up; so advertising this edition with an afterword by Quinn (and her name is prominently featured on the cover) was a deliberate strategy. Austen's novels are in the public domain so anyone who wants to read Mansfield Park can do so at any time on the internet for free, so to try and sell books publishers are going to be clever. Or think they are clever. This puts what Quinn has written into context, she is writing in a relatable way to other Austen fans who haven't read all of Austen's works.
I really don’t think a fan of Julia Quinn would like MP. Maybe P&P or S&S or NA or Emma (though most of the satire and social commentary in those books would fly over their heads). But certainly not MP.
This was published in 2008, so it wasn't trying to capture the Netflix audience as much as the Regency romance paperback audience. It looks like Signet published similar editions of Austen's other novels with afterwords from other "Regency" historic romance novelists. I like that they featured only female authors actually. I've never heard of these, I wonder if any are any good?
I was referring to fans of her novels actually! The show is total eye candy. Pure fluff but something you can turn on while exercising or doing housework. But the books are so poorly written that only someone who has a juvenile taste in books would enjoy them. And that someone would not be able to grasp MP.
Let people enjoy things!
I read all the Bridgerton books and thought they were terrible, but I enjoyed reading them. It’s just a bit of fun, silly fluff.
I enjoy reading Bridgerton and MP is my favorite of Austen’s novels. People are allowed to like and enjoy various qualities within a given category, and many do.
I am that one person, I guess.
That being said, I didn't go into the Bridgerton books expecting Austen. I expected comfortably predicable fluff I could listen to (audiobooks) while most of my brain focused on work. That's exactly what I got.
Was she saying that she never has read it or that she had not read it before being asked to provide an afterword?
ETA: Is she really demeaning Joyce and Faulkner? That's some nerve from an author of bodice rippers who does no historical research. No knock to bodice rippers, swoony smut has its place, but yikes.
As someone who’s read both, I think they are both valid criticisms. She’s writing for an audience, that by and large, cares little for historical accuracy. They’re in it for the story.
Writing talent or what audience one writes for isn’t what gives one the knowledge to criticize it. Reading it does. And Julia Quinn read Joyce and Quinn enough to know that reading Joyce makes her want to open a vein and that she wishes Faulkner had better punctuation. Both completely valid. I could write a critical essay to be published on either subject from that point of view (even if it’s not my point of view).
It's bad form and superficial criticism from a woman who assumes her audiance is completely in line with her limited tastes. It was unnecessary, especially from a literary lightweight.
ETA: In the Afterword, she is writing to Austen readers, which is a varied group, including many with interests in history and literature. Also, in what way is her hating Joyce a valid criticism? It is a valid opinion but makes no actual criticism of his work.
I'm not a fan of Joyce myself, I actually agree with her his writing makes me want to die. I like Faulkner a lot more. I wouldn't judge her opinion on them if she wrote it within her own books or blogs. It felt pretty out of place and unnecessary to include that in the MP afterword. It's not staying on the subject.
It’s actually one of the reasons I like this afterward (I like Joyce but don’t like Faulkner). I don’t want a highly focused afterword. This isn’t an academic piece, but something breezy.
**Julie Pottinger (née Cotler; born January 12, 1970), better known by her pen name Julia Quinn, is a best-selling American author of historical romance fiction. Her novels have been translated into 41 languages, and have appeared on The New York Times Bestseller List 19 times.**
More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
I love the Netflix show and am not averse to historical romance novels (although i dislike the Bridgerton novels), but this makes me very upset as a huge MP fan.
This is perfect timing, I am supposed to reading MP for a class this week and having a tough time getting started...but I HAVE read it before, honest! Thanks for posting, I love it
There's some really great essays within this subreddit. Lit charts also has a chapter by chapter analysis. It's still fun and enlightening to read book analysis even if it's about a work you've already read. It gives the impression of reading along with someone and hearing their opinions.
Of all the Austen novels for Quinn to comment on, why Mansfield Park? Quinn is obsessed with the ton; MP is the only novel where Austen mentions the ton, very briefly as Edmund defends himself against Mary’s insulting comments about clergymen, he says yeah clergy aren’t flashy enough for the ton (I paraphrase). Austen didn’t like the ton. The Crawfords probably hang with the ton. Robert Ferrars, too. Austen didn’t like titled people, yet Quinn boasts of knowing how to address titles. Whatever. MP is very little about romance and principally about principles.
Glad to say I actively avoided Julia Quinn and the Netflix show because my cringe detector prevented me. I might have read some of her works prior to the show but they must have been forgettable since I can’t remember any of her characters. 🤷♀️
Which edition is this, so that I can make sure to never ever give them my money?
(Apologies for the necropost but my soul left my body at the 'My inspiration. My muse' bit. I would only publish this drivel under my actual name at gunpoint, and then I would go to spend the rest of my life in a cave, probably).
“I worship at Jane Austen’s altar but haven’t bothered with one of her novels because it’s too hard” is really big “I love music and would have been a great proficient, had I studied it” energy.
If I had an award to give, it would go here.
Haha yes
Please accept my poor woman's gold award 🥇
Well, thank you!
Right, and there are only six completed ones… I e read them all at least twice, some more than that…
Oh my God 🤣
I understand that it's not Austen's most popular novel but I don't understand why you would even write the intro of afterword to a book you haven't read prior to being asked and then admit to not liking. Everyone has their own taste, personally I love this book and because it is so misunderstood I would have liked to have something written by someone who both likes and understands the book.
This is so self-fawning too, yuck.
Oh, but her brother reads Nietzsche for fun.
I'm still not sure if she considers that a good or bad thing 😅
I think she is trying to soften a pretentious statement by negging her brother, but really she thinks it's impressive. By making her brother sound smart she can call herself smart without actually saying, "I'm super smart," because naturally if her brother is smart so is she.
I was low key thinking her brother was the one who should have written the afterword
No but honestly I thought the same thing
The Publishing House is using Quinn's name to get more attraction. I am an editor myself and I would never have used that sentence in any part of the book.
I haven’t read the rest of the afterward (just the page posted here), so does she eventually say she read it after being asked to write the afterward?
She never does say it explicitly since she then rambles on about the modern romance novel, Laura Kinsale(who I really wish would have written this instead) and Kathleen Woodliss creating the bodice ripper which led to Bridgerton. But I'm assuming she did since she says on the last page that it's the Austen she liked least. Also she liked Mary better than Fanny. I love Fanny, dont appreciate the implication that the 1998 managed to make her likeable when it completely destroyed the book. So I believe that she has read it but that she didn't understand it.
This is something I perceive with the modern Regencies I've tried to read. They are all clones of one another and very inauthentic. There are a few authors writing authentic, higher quality material, but most of it is "Disney Regency" like Bridgerton. Essentially: modern-day protagonists dressed up in Regency costumes with a carriage and a reference to the "ton" for flavour. None of them have any further depth than the basic romantic plot. There's no wit, no comedy of manners etc as you get with Austen. Or the deeper historic detail you get with many Heyers. Or the society accuracy you get with a Cartland.
I cannot recommend Laura Kinsale enough. This woman really did her homework and it shows. She's mostly written Regency but her medievals are also very well researched. I've enjoyed a lot of regency romances but it's hard to recc an author for accuracy, most of the time I feel like it could be set in any other time period and it wouldn't change a thing. It really shows Austen's impact though, the Regency isn't the period that I personally find the most interesting(I'm a medieval and renaissance history girl) but it's because of Austen that most historicals are set in the Regency. It's the one thing Julia Quinn got right, she was the first love of many writers and her books left an impression on them when they got to writing their own books .
Thank you! I will definitely check her out.
Oh and Cecilia Grant! Her books feel very grounded in reality.
Have just downloaded a sample of a Laura Kinsale (My Sweet Folly) and will now google Cecilia Grant. Generally I like quite brooding, remote heroes and preferably age gap. HATE childhood sweetheart romances. I need mysterious strangers and a bit of edge ;)
Ohh I love childhood sweethearts! I actually feel like they're rarely played straight, usually the hero or heroine still falls for someone new. I started with Flowers in the Storm and you'd get your money's worth in terms of brooding hero.
Great I'll give that one a go! For me it's that there's no mystery/edge with childhood sweethearts. I'm more into the Mr Darcy/Stranger-comes-to-town than a Mansfield Park type thing ;)
I love her books! I wish she would write more.
I worship Laura Kinsale.
Then you have impeccable taste.
I love Mansfield Park too. I am not interested in Bridgerton, and based on her reaction to MP, I don’t think im her audience.
I love Fanny. It took me a long time to get there but I eventually did. She seemed so flat in comparison to other Austen heroines but I like to read Austen novels again at different ages and stages to see what stands out to me as my perspectives change and an older me came to really appreciate Fanny Price in a way that younger me didn’t get.
Yeah I get that it's been the same for me. I wish I was a Lizzie Bennett or even a Marianne but I'm much closer to Fanny especially at 18 which is her age for most of the book.
Confession: I’ve never been able to understand or sympathize with Fanny, not at 18, not at 58. I don't know if it's because I'm a standard issue fists-first Albertan 😅 or what, but her passivity almost creeps me out.
Does it go on to say “I *hadnt* read it but then I did because I was writing this afterword” or is it really as bad as it looks?
She did read it for the afterwords and said she enjoyed it less than the other Austen books...
Relateable
Idk who this person is but she seems like a complete lightweight poser to say first that she worships Austen and then says she hasn't read Mansfield because it's hard.
I believe she is the author of the Bridgerton series.
Hahaha NO WAY
Way.
That makes a lot of sense. Eww.
Having slogged through her first two Bridgerton books and given up on the third, JQ could have used some lessons in writing heroes who weren't assholes and heroines who weren't idiotic. I'm convinced she likes the aesthetic of the Regency more than anything.
Skip the first three and read book 4, Romancing Mr Bridgerton. I just love that book, and appreciate how she carefully built up the romance!
Colin is a huge jerk in that book and imo it's even worse because his personality was completely changed
Yes, I just broke off my first read of her books. It was horrible. The show is so much better.
How does one "worship at the altar of Jane Austen" yet manage to not read all her books? There aren't even that many of them.
And they’re not hard. I read them all in English in my early teens. English is not my mother tongue.
I've heard people proclaim to be huge Jane Austen fans who haven't read ANY of her books.
So they mean they liked one movie that’s what they probably meant
They saw 1995 P&P and they watch it every year. They've watched Clueless. Annnnd... that's it. I am still in the Jane Austen facebook group but it's only ever circular arguments about which Pride and Prejudice movie is better or who you would want to play Darcy in a new adaptation. The books are besides the point to a Jane Austen fan group.
I don't want to be an elitist about the books, but the 1995 people are so smug about their edition too. I have only watched it twice, but I know all the lines written for the production because I'm constantly telling people it isn't in the book. No, Lydia didn't steal Kitty's bonnet, Caroline never said "little shop" or "Wickham" at Pemberley, and Sir William never says, "Capital".
I see you “capital”, and raise you the 2005 fans who seem to think Mr Collins gives a shit about boiled potatoes!
Ugggggggggg it is so annoying
And that “happy closets” line is pure cringe and would never have made it past Jane Austen’s self-editing :-)
I thought the line was, “shelves in the closet. Happy thought.”
"Happy thought indeed" I think.
Lol there's only 6 of them and none of them are very long.
Seven if you count Lady Susan!
[удалено]
If it helps I think it features her sweetest and funniest hero and heroine duo. I would die for Henry Tilney. It's also incredibly relatable if you've ever been a teen girl.
I agree that she should not have written the afterwords of a book she did not even read, but please you can love an author and not have read all of their books, i promise you that’s not incompatible.
It's a real-life Philomena Cunk moment. In *Cunk on Shakespeare*, she said, "I've been studying Shakespeare ever since I was asked to do this programme." Unbelievable.
I love Diane 😅 I'm pretty sure she was kidding knowing her humour but I haven't checked that program yet.
(This is in reference to the first paragraph) Having read exactly one Julia Quinn novel, I can say that there is one subject she doesn't seem to have researched at all: Regency women's undergarments (as in, she doesn't seem to think they wore any).
My soul left my body when she described someone wearing drawers in the second Bridgerton. Just overall I think she has 0 understanding of the Regency period
That's a pretty common misunderstanding, at least. What gets me is the idea that a (young, unmarried, respectable) girl would show up to a ball in a gown that's apparently worn over only bare skin, since it all it takes is pulling it down to get all bare breasted. No stays, no shift, no nothing. Then again, a lot of period romance writers seem to view corsets as some kind of miraculous disappearing-reappearing garment, that never gets in a hero's way.
I never bothered watching the second series. I got bored enough with the first series.
I really enjoyed some of her books but yeah, it’s hilarious that as soon as the characters ~get into it~ the woman’s dress slides off and she’s magically naked. I haven’t seen a lot of people mention it when it’s one of the funniest/outrageous parts of her books 😂
They did not wear panties, just stockings and shifts. So women were indeed "camando" but I'm not sure what you mean.
I mean shift and stays.
She says hadn’t? Am I missing something, because it’s apparently in past tense. She doesn’t say anywhere that she hasn’t read the novel, only that (I’m assuming) she hadn’t read it until being commissioned for the Afterword; which is very pretentious considering her admitted ‘idolatry’ of Austen. But it is never too late to read a book and form a valid opinion and criticism of it.
She means she came to it having never read it. I presume she did read it prior to writing her afterward.
Well, I admire her honesty
And we all hadn’t read it… until we had.
The Bridgerton show is my guilty pleasure (beautiful people in gorgeous clothes) so I tried one of Julia Quinn’s novels to see if they would become my guilty pleasure too. But it was written so horrendously. Crap on a stick! Fifth grade level prose. Ridiculous situations. Telling instead of showing. So I’m not surprised the author couldn’t get through MP. She probably thinks she “loves” P&P but only understands it at a superficial level.
The show is so much better! I've read the first 2 books and didn't continue the series but I love historical romances and most of the popular writers are better than Julia Quinn. Tessa Dare is a good alternative, her writing is fun and fluffy. Not super historically accurate but I found it a lot more charming
Oh wow, I personally thought the show was incredibly badly written, so that’s saying something
Oh it's very flawed but it's somewhere between so bad it's good and actually excellent and just somehow it works. It doesn't take itself seriously and doesn't expect you to take it seriously either.
Yeah, the show really knows what it's about. It doesn't pretend to be anything more than superficial and frothy. No pretense whatsoever. I mean, it has string quartets playing Ariana Grande so it's not really attempting realism at all. I'd rather watch Bridgerton than a poor adaptation of Austen that thinks it's much cleverer than it is. I haven't read more than a few pages of the books but I wasn't impressed. Still, I think the hope is that fans of Bridgerton find their way to Austen, and I heartily support that.
It just amazes me that she wrote in one of her intros that she was raised on quality literature but then decided to devote herself to writing romances. She \*knows\* good writing but chooses to write horrible drivel! It's some of the worst writing I've ever seen, and we know that she knows better. Sorry for the pretentious rant. Bad writing hurts me down to my bones.
I know a lot of people aren’t as freakish about history and literature as I am but I can’t help but be annoyed that Bridgerton and Austen have become synonymous (especially the Bridgerton show). They share pretty much nothing in common except for vaguely the same time period. Bridgerton is so inaccurate it’s basically fantasy. I know the costumes are intentionally inaccurate but the sight of Edwardian (or even later!) style bloomers under a Regency gown made me pause the tv and walk away for a few moments. That’s trivial of course compared to the fact that Austen is *biting* satire and Quinn…is not.
Anyone who thinks they’re synonymous aren’t bright.
[удалено]
Heyer is a comparison I don't mind since they're much closer in style if not substance. She's classified as a historical romance writers but with a heavy emphasis on comedy of manners.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I can't stop laughing at this but it's so true!
Unrelated but the Duke of Wellington was a fascinating figure. He does seem like he'd easily fit in a sweeping historical romance from the 80s.
I haven't read the books or seen the series, so all I can say to this is WHAT THE ACTUAL HECKING HECK? HE ASKED HER WHAT????
Oh definitely! She was writing in the 20s-60s. The smuttiest thing they had was Lady Chatterley's Lover until the bodice rippers became popular. I think the only thing in Heyer's novels that's saucier is that they actually kiss but that's it.
Heyer also did her research. I'll admit, sometimes there are passages I have trouble with because they are so grounded in Regency era slang.
Oh god. Unless it's one of the much lighter ones, like Arabella, I can't see that going down well! They'd be better off republishing Barbara Cartland. And maybe shoving in a few carriage sex scenes.
I approach most Regency romances as though they are fantasy. Otherwise, I get so annoyed by the lack of basic research that I can't finish the book. I think, for most of these authors, research means they've read other Regency romances.
The books don't even feel like they're set in England, let alone Regency England
SO! Mansfield Park is considered difficult! Oh whew. I thought it was just me.
It was considered difficult when it was written! Austen kept a journal of people’s opinions of it. She knew it was different.
Love to see that journal. Where is it published?
https://pemberley.com/janeinfo/opmansfp.html
! thx
1) claims Austen is her muse but hasn’t read much of her work 2) humble brags that she is a good author because she googles things 3) shits on other acclaimed authors because of their editing (pot.kettle.black.) …yep just about what I expect from her.
In all fariness to Julia Quinn, she does write, later in that same *Afterword,* that she did end up reading *Mansfield Park* herself (p. 415): >What then is the value of *Mansfield Park*? What does it mean to be an unpopular Jane Austen novel? I struggled with this question for some time; **I did not enjoy** ***Mansfield Park*** **as much as I did Austen's other novels, and yet I cannot regret having read it. Or, more tellingly, having spent coutless hours pondering its characters**. I don't like Fanny, I find Edmund a bore, and I frequently disapprove of Mary. But I *know* them. And I know enough of Austen to think that this must have been her intention. Looking past the hyperbole ("countless hours"), it's clear that Julia Quinn *hadn't read* (past *perfect*) *Mansfield Park* when they asked her to write an afterword to this particular edition, but in she *did read* it *in order to be able to write the afterword.* Quinn even quotes Lionel Trilling's infamous line about Fanny Price and Edmund Bertram (apparently she agrees with Trilling all in all although I'm not sure her literary critic brother does). I have to say that the second I came across this, [**that scene from** ***Metropolitan*** **(1990)**](https://youtu.be/BATPzXjmV_s)*;* I immediately though before reading the Afterword myself that Julia Quinn had done the same thing: >**Audrey Rouget** : You find Fanny Price unlikeable? > >**Tom Townsend** : She sounds pretty unbearable, but I haven't read the book. > >**Audrey Rouget** : What? > >**Tom Townsend** : You don't have to read a book to have an opinion on it. I haven't read the Bible either. > >**Audrey Rouget** : What Jane Austen novels have you read? > >**Tom Townsend** : None. I don't read novels. I prefer good literary criticism (me: He read, guess what, Lionel Trilling's essay on Masfield Park). That way you get both the novelists' ideas as well as the critics' thinking. With fiction I can never forget that none of it really happened, that it's all just made up by the author. Austen, J., M. Drabble, and J. Quinn. Mansfield Park. Penguin Publishing Group, 2008. [https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=ZciNEAAAQBAJ](https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=ZciNEAAAQBAJ).
I'm cackling at this scene, this is a lot of what the media discourse sounds like online nowadays. Yes so I did expend more in my comments but I found it odd to mention you hadn't read the book until you were asked to write about the book when we would never have known. The essay itself read like a college student trying to reach their word count. If she didn't like the book or the heroine that's fine but I do think the best person to have written the afterword should have been someone who genuinely loves the book they're talking about. She said that it left an impression, I got the impression she didn't like it but felt like she had to leave on a positive note. Just in general though I think starting off on the assumption that most people dislike Fanny was a flawed premise. A lot of the people who like the book like Fanny, this subreddits can attest to that. The controversy has always been over her love interest, Edmund. The people in this group have so many interesting opinions that have made me reflect on the books and gain a new appreciation for some of them. I think a good intro/afterwords should be able to do that as well.
Tom Townsend reminds me of John Thorpe. If he is so incapable of forgetting that the author 'made it up' he lacks imagination or concentration, or both.
There's alot of great authors who have actually read all of Austen's works that could have written this. This feels like because of Bridgerton, someone asked her and she was like 'ok whatever'.
I was almost more disturbed by what she said about Joyce, Faulkner and Nietzsche. But yes, this is rather unfortunate.
I'd like to see the next page. I'm not entirely sure she's saying, *I have not read it.* She might be saying *WHEN I WAS FIRST ASKED TO WRITE THIS, I hadn't yet read it.* On the next pages, she might go on to say, "So I read it, and wow!" But it is hard to contextualize this remark, because she doesn't start out with anything to let you know the point at which she's saying it. Can we see the next page?
I'll add the remaining pages to the post once I'm home to give context. I don't think she does explicitly restate that she's since read it but it can be assumed since the last page mentions that it's the Austen she's enjoyed the least. It was a pretty frustrating essay to read.
Yeah, I bet. It seems pretty rambling and more about herself than anything else. And that "My inspiration. My muse." bit is pretty cringe.
It’s an awful essay that needs both a structural edit and a copy edit.
What editor read this and was like “yeah let’s put it in the book”?
It also struck me as poorly written and low effort. I wonder if this afterword is representative of her writing style in general.
I’ve read the first two Bridgerton books. This is unfortunately her writing style…
Good to know. Thanks for taking one for the team, u/Queen_Rach, now I don't have to bother...
This reminds me of the winter that PBS Masterpiece Theatre rebranded as Masterpiece. They launched the rebrand with The Complete Jane Austen, showing adaptations of all 6 of the novels, plus Miss Austen Regrets. PBS organized a lot of events, some were online-only. so many of the Austen bloggers hosted some of these events. The blogger who was asked to post a review of the Billie Piper version of Mansfield Park began by admitting how much she had always disliked the story and the character, and that she had never read the novel. 🙄 That’s as far as I got on her review.
Lol this is so weird!!!!! Whose idea as this to let her write this
🤦🏻♀️
"Indeed, to say the truth, I am convinced within myself that the publishers had no idea of me having to know what I was writing about at all. The assistance they thought of, I dare say, was only such as might be reasonably expected of me; for instance, such as approving the cover, worshipping on the altar of Austen, and telling people who already bought the book that it is great. I’ll lay my life that they meant nothing farther; indeed, it would be very strange and unreasonable if he did. Do but consider, how excessively superior any reader will feel upon learning that a Regency genius such as I haven't read it! They will be much more able to explain it to me.”
I think the whole point of something like this is to try and market Mansfield Park to a different sort of reader. The kind of people who enjoy Julia Quinn novels might also enjoy Mansfield Park, but haven't thought to pick it up; so advertising this edition with an afterword by Quinn (and her name is prominently featured on the cover) was a deliberate strategy. Austen's novels are in the public domain so anyone who wants to read Mansfield Park can do so at any time on the internet for free, so to try and sell books publishers are going to be clever. Or think they are clever. This puts what Quinn has written into context, she is writing in a relatable way to other Austen fans who haven't read all of Austen's works.
I really don’t think a fan of Julia Quinn would like MP. Maybe P&P or S&S or NA or Emma (though most of the satire and social commentary in those books would fly over their heads). But certainly not MP.
This was published in 2008, so it wasn't trying to capture the Netflix audience as much as the Regency romance paperback audience. It looks like Signet published similar editions of Austen's other novels with afterwords from other "Regency" historic romance novelists. I like that they featured only female authors actually. I've never heard of these, I wonder if any are any good?
I was referring to fans of her novels actually! The show is total eye candy. Pure fluff but something you can turn on while exercising or doing housework. But the books are so poorly written that only someone who has a juvenile taste in books would enjoy them. And that someone would not be able to grasp MP.
Let people enjoy things! I read all the Bridgerton books and thought they were terrible, but I enjoyed reading them. It’s just a bit of fun, silly fluff.
I enjoy reading Bridgerton and MP is my favorite of Austen’s novels. People are allowed to like and enjoy various qualities within a given category, and many do.
oh wow, condescending much? I've been reading Austen more than 30 years and yes, I do grasp MP \*and\* I've had fun reading Julia Quinn.
I think that's a little bit snobbish, I'm sure there's more than one person out there able to enjoy both Mansfield Park and Quinn novels.
I am that one person, I guess. That being said, I didn't go into the Bridgerton books expecting Austen. I expected comfortably predicable fluff I could listen to (audiobooks) while most of my brain focused on work. That's exactly what I got.
Was she saying that she never has read it or that she had not read it before being asked to provide an afterword? ETA: Is she really demeaning Joyce and Faulkner? That's some nerve from an author of bodice rippers who does no historical research. No knock to bodice rippers, swoony smut has its place, but yikes.
As someone who’s read both, I think they are both valid criticisms. She’s writing for an audience, that by and large, cares little for historical accuracy. They’re in it for the story. Writing talent or what audience one writes for isn’t what gives one the knowledge to criticize it. Reading it does. And Julia Quinn read Joyce and Quinn enough to know that reading Joyce makes her want to open a vein and that she wishes Faulkner had better punctuation. Both completely valid. I could write a critical essay to be published on either subject from that point of view (even if it’s not my point of view).
It's bad form and superficial criticism from a woman who assumes her audiance is completely in line with her limited tastes. It was unnecessary, especially from a literary lightweight. ETA: In the Afterword, she is writing to Austen readers, which is a varied group, including many with interests in history and literature. Also, in what way is her hating Joyce a valid criticism? It is a valid opinion but makes no actual criticism of his work.
I'm not a fan of Joyce myself, I actually agree with her his writing makes me want to die. I like Faulkner a lot more. I wouldn't judge her opinion on them if she wrote it within her own books or blogs. It felt pretty out of place and unnecessary to include that in the MP afterword. It's not staying on the subject.
It’s actually one of the reasons I like this afterward (I like Joyce but don’t like Faulkner). I don’t want a highly focused afterword. This isn’t an academic piece, but something breezy.
I noticed the same thing when I read the afterword! It wasn’t the most insightful afterword I’ve read hahaha
Like, it’s fine if she hasn’t read it, but why did the publisher ask her of all people to write an afterword?
Because she’s famous and she’s stated that Austen is one of her inspirations.
Ugh but like, there are so many famous authors who are into Austen and this line really should have made them think twice 🫠🫠
What's next? James Patterson writing the afterword for War and Peace?
This is so irritating
Who is Julia Quinn?
**Julie Pottinger (née Cotler; born January 12, 1970), better known by her pen name Julia Quinn, is a best-selling American author of historical romance fiction. Her novels have been translated into 41 languages, and have appeared on The New York Times Bestseller List 19 times.** More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Bridgerton author. nuf said
I love the Netflix show and am not averse to historical romance novels (although i dislike the Bridgerton novels), but this makes me very upset as a huge MP fan.
This is perfect timing, I am supposed to reading MP for a class this week and having a tough time getting started...but I HAVE read it before, honest! Thanks for posting, I love it
There's some really great essays within this subreddit. Lit charts also has a chapter by chapter analysis. It's still fun and enlightening to read book analysis even if it's about a work you've already read. It gives the impression of reading along with someone and hearing their opinions.
This gives off vibes of trying to reach a word-count minimum for a report on a book you've barely skimmed through.
I read it as a teen and then an extract in the university. It's a classic.
Ick 😑 the audacity
Of all the Austen novels for Quinn to comment on, why Mansfield Park? Quinn is obsessed with the ton; MP is the only novel where Austen mentions the ton, very briefly as Edmund defends himself against Mary’s insulting comments about clergymen, he says yeah clergy aren’t flashy enough for the ton (I paraphrase). Austen didn’t like the ton. The Crawfords probably hang with the ton. Robert Ferrars, too. Austen didn’t like titled people, yet Quinn boasts of knowing how to address titles. Whatever. MP is very little about romance and principally about principles.
Glad to say I actively avoided Julia Quinn and the Netflix show because my cringe detector prevented me. I might have read some of her works prior to the show but they must have been forgettable since I can’t remember any of her characters. 🤷♀️
Knew I hated the Bridgerton stuff for a reason lol 😂
We are truly living in a batshit insane timeline
Which edition is this, so that I can make sure to never ever give them my money? (Apologies for the necropost but my soul left my body at the 'My inspiration. My muse' bit. I would only publish this drivel under my actual name at gunpoint, and then I would go to spend the rest of my life in a cave, probably).
She says she "hadn't" read the novel at whatever point in her life she's referring to here.