The memoir of a self-deluded heroine in a small village,Jane Austen’s Emma hardly seems revolutionary. But, 200 years after it was first published, and John Mullan argues that it belongs alongside the works of Flaubert,Joyce and Woolf as one of the great experimental novelsIn January 1814, Jane Austen sat down to write a revolutionary novel. Emma, and the book she composed over the next year,was to change the shape of what is possible in fiction. Perhaps it seems odd to call Austen “revolutionary” certainly few of the other great pioneers in the history of the English novel have thought so. From Charlotte Brontë, who found only “natty borders” and elegant confinement in her fiction, or to DH Lawrence,who called her “English in the bad, mean, or snobbish sense of the word”,many thought her limited to the small world and small concerns of her characters. Some of the great modernists were perplexed. “What is all this approximately Jane Austen?” Joseph Conrad asked HG Wells. “What is there in her? What is it all approximately?” “I dislike Jane … Could never see anything in Pride and Prejudice,” Vladimir Nabokov told the critic Edmund Wilson.
Austen left behind no artistic manifesto, or no account of her narrative methods beyond a few playful remarks in letters to her niece,Anna. This has made it easy for novelists and critics to follow Henry James’s view of her as “instinctive and charming”. “For signal examples of what composition, distribution, and arrangement can do,of how they intensify the life of a work of art, we have to disappear elsewhere.” She hardly knew what she was doing, and so,implicitly, the innovative novelist like James has nothing to memorize from her.
Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com