In defense of Jane

Reformed writer Andrew Sandlin is taking on Jane Austen:

“I first saw with Jim West the 1995 theatrical permutation of Sense and Sensibility (starring Hugh Grant and Emma Thompson) at its initial release. I disliked it then and deplore it now. In seeing this movie again on TV yesterday I was reminded how I’ve come increasingly to abominate much of the Victorian era — its conventions, sleights, artificialities, prejudices, scientism, formalism, class structure, hypocritical morality, and sublimated ferocity.”


I suppose it’s a sign of my own enthrallment to Victorian sensibilities that I rise to the lady’s defense. But I am constrained. For starters, Austen was safely in her grave before Victoria came to her throne, so her books do not qualify as Victorian. She lived through the era of romanticism (which Sandlin endorses in his short discussion) and she was not untouched by its sensibility. She writes like Samuel Johnson, but there’s a romantic spark running throughout her work.

Besides, one should hardly form an opinion about Jane from those who put her novels on film. Her best qualities as a writer are her wit, style, and social commentary – not things that translate easily to an hour-long visual medium. More importantly perhaps, no one can read far in Austen without recognizing that she abominates conventions, sleights, artificialities, prejudices, etc, etc. She is one of the best social satirists in English – far more devastating and subtle than Dickens (who actually was Victorian).

One of the oddest bits in Sandlin’s discussion was this: “I have come to believe that there is no substitute for simple, immediate, unadorned, direct, blunt, bottom-line living.” Surely, Sandlin has read deeply enough in postmodernism to know that someone who chooses to live in a simple and unadorned and direct manner has not foregone conventions; the simple and unadorned man simply chooses another set of conventions, a different ordering that is no less artificial than Victorian refinements. Nakedness is a sartorial choice.

To all of Jane’s detractors, I say: Unhand the lady.

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.

GIVE NOW

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.

Next
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

The Church in the Age of Therapy

Matthew Loftus

In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…

Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot

Anna Farrow

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

Mike Aquilina

Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…