Ron Rosenbaum thinks Jane Austen is overhyped . Not, he insists, overrated. But lost in what he calls “the tsunami of schlocky, rapturous, over-the-top, wall-to-wall multiplatform of celebration of the 200th anniversary of Pride and Prejudice .
He’s got plenty of evidence to back it up: Erotic Austen, Tweeting Elizabeth Bennet, TV Austen, and “Austenland,” a film about an Austen lover who falls in love at a theme park.
What he finds most dispiriting is William Deresiewicz’s A Jane Austen Education: How Six Novels Taught Me About Love, Friendship, and the Things That Really Matter 
“he could have any number of gorgeous, knowing, bisexual babes at the drop of a hat, but he’s become a better person than that now. A more virtuous person. He says so himself. And he’s even willing to impart to his implicitly oafish and clueless reader some super-obvious lessons about interpersonal interaction that he claims he only grokked to after reading dear Jane . . . . This is the basic theme throughout the book: Jane Austen schools him out of his bad behavior.” It sounds like a very Victorian reading of Austen, the kind of reading that drove Mark Twain to distraction.
Rosenbaum has two problems with this, one Austen-specific and one generally literary. The Austen specific one is that Jane “would surely have made fun of [Deresiewicz’s] overbrimming self-satisfaction. Deresiewicz is exactly the kind of sententious character she particularly liked to skewer in a not-nice way.” The generic literary reason is that literature is not merely for moral training. He asks, not a little plaintively, “Is Lolita not literature? Is Anna Karenina not literature? Is Coriolanus not literature? I rest my case.”
You can’t reduce even a morally interested author like Austen to a series of “teachable moments.” He’s right about Austen’s limitations; she doesn’t question “the moral order of the universe.” Probably she never thought to do so. But he also has a sense of what she does “inimitably”: “Austen writes brilliantly about Bad Behavior in a little world,” and the novels are cheapened when turned into “little sermons on Good Behavior.”
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
