The Real Jane Austen: A Life in Small Things Audiobook by Paula Byrne, Narrated by Kate Reading
Back in 2013 I was adding different books to my endless to-read list on Goodreads.
When I saw this book and added it to my list and then forgot all about it.
Fast forward to 2023 and I was scrolling the audiobooks on the Libby app looking for something new to listen to when I spotted this book, The Real Jane Austen, and decided to give it a listen.
I really enjoyed this book a lot, my only regret is that I didn’t have the print version which would have been easier for me to take notes; as I really, really loved this biography. It was so good!
However, the audiobook was still extremely enjoyable and I strongly recommend this to any Jane Austen fan.
The Real Jane Austen is a biography in a completely different format. Most biographies start with Jane Austen’s life and follow a timeline from birth to death. In The Real Jane Austen each chapter starts with an object in Jane Austen’s world-vellum notebook, a barouche, a simple gold chain, a bathing machine, etc.; and discusses it significance to her and it’s role in her novels.
One of my favorite chapters was the one on The Barouhe. I always knew transportation was important, but I never really thought about how important it was, and how not having your own carriages, barouches, or other modes of transportation left you at the mercy of others schedules and plans. Bryne talks about how without your own vehicle, especially as a woman, one would have to wait for elder brothers to come and get them; sometimes having to leave earlier then they wished or stay much longer than they liked.
Also having your own barouche or other vehicle meant you “arrived in society”; and if you drove your own vehicle you were both glamorous and dangerous.
It also gave new meaning to me about John Thorpe’s bragging about his vehicle.
“What do you think of my gig, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it? Well hung; town-built; I have not had it a month. It was built for a Christchurch man, a friend of mine, a very good sort of fellow…Curricle-hung, you see; seat, trunk, sword-case, splashing-board, lamps, silver moulding, all you see complete; the iron-work as good as new, or better. He asked fifty guineas; I closed with him directly, threw down the money, and the carriage was mine.”
John Thorpe in Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen
He’s really trying to impress Catherine. I mean he is really trying to show her how glamorous, dangerous, and flourishing he is.
Another part I really enjoyed was hearing about how Jane Austen used to write on the back of the novels she owned (by other authors) what she thought happened to the characters. That made me think she would be happy to hear that her readers do the same with her characters.
Or at least most of them. 😆
But happy to see all the variations out there
Another point I found very interesting was how Bryne points out that Jane Austen heroines are never described really as attractive physically, typically being average, and it’s their internal qualities and intelligence that are more beautiful and draw people to them. Catherine is not a great beauty, Emma is handsome not beautiful, Elizabeth has fine eyes but the rest of her features are average, etc. I like that their brain, intelligence, and personality is what first strikes people’s attention; their beauty growing the more they spend time together.
These are just a few of the thoughts I had after reading this biography, I do have a few more percolating into becoming the possibility of a full blown post.
Again, I recommend this book to any Jane Austen fan. It was extremely interesting, and I really enjoyed every part. I do think that it would be best to read a traditional biography first to have a sense of Jane Austen’s life; but if you already have read one, or several, then definitely check this book out.
Non-Austen Reads for Austen Readers is something I started a while back for fans of Jane Austen who after reading all her works are looking for something else to read.
There are numerous variations of Jane Austen’s works, but while those adaptations are fun, sometimes you don’t always want to read the same story. Sometimes you want Austen-like works, but not exactly the same as Austen’s works. But what can you read instead?
That’s why I started this series. I will be reviewing books that have components of what we love about the Austen novels, but are not just another retelling, but their own unique story.
A Match Made in Mehendi by Nandini Bajpai
Simran “Simi” Samgha is fifteen years old and comes from a long line of matchmakers. However, she doesn’t want to be a matchmaker, she wants to be an “artist”.
I know, well off “rich” girl going against her family to be an artist; it’s a tired old cliche, but I actually enjoyed this one.
However, after Simi is able to match up her cousin Preet (who the talented matchmakers/family members have failed to do so) with a soon-to-be lawyer Jolly (who both her aunt and mother overlooked as they thought he was a employee instead of the owner’s son); they are convinced that Simi has the “gift”.
Simi’s wants nothing to do with it as she is already preoccupied; she and her friend Noah are determined to do something in order to make more friends and be higher up on the social scale.
Hmm…?
Noah asks more about her family’s matchmaking and comes up with the idea to use The Shagun Matchmaking Guide principles and turn it into an app that all the kids at high school can use. Noah and Simi plot out the questions and other parts of the app and then recruit Simi’s brother to actually build Matched!
They do and it is a success, mostly. People get matched up with those they might not have spoken to due to who they normally hang out with. Everything is done by percentages so you know our of all those who are on the app and your sexual preference, the top people you matched up with.
Problems arise when Amanda wants to use the app to get back with her boyfriend Ethan. Ethan and Amanda are both very popular, but while Ethan is incredibly kind and friendly, Amanda is terrible and mean to all. She picks on everybody, but especially Simi; Ethan caught her and that’s what ended their relationship. Instead of Amanda, Ethan gets matched up with new girl, Teá. Simi helps the two meet up for dates, but while they enjoy each other’s company, Ethan is extremely popular and Amanda definitely will not let this go without a fight. It looks like trouble is on the horizon for this couple.
That’s not good.
On the Simi and Noah front, Simi gets matched up with her crush and dream guy, Aidan. Aidan is everything she has wanted in a guy, cute, funny, and an artist. The hang out a couple times but he turns out to not be that dreamy of a guy, having her help him make art but then turning it in as all his own project.
Simi starts to develop for new boy and Jolly’s cousin Suraj. However, Suraj matched really high with Simi’s friend Jassi. Will Simi go after the boy she likes? Or like a good matchmaker put her clients ahead of herself?
While Simi and Noah work on helping their Matched! couples, Amanda starts a campaign to try and stop them, harasses Teá and Simi, and even tries to get them suspended.
But everything comes to a head when the ancient The Shagun Matchmaking Guide is stolen from Simi. Now she has to admit everything to her mother and hope that she won’t be too mad when she hears about the app making, the stolen book, and possible suspension.
Of course the most obvious connection of this to Austen’s work is Emma. While Simi is not so extroverted as Emma Woodhouse, being more of an Anne Elliot; quiet, friendly, always lending a hand, and there for everyone; the matchmaking connection definitely has some Emma vibes. However in Matched in Mehendi, Simi is more of a Harriet just going along with her best friend, and Noah is the Emma Woodhouse in this story. He’s the one that pushes the matchmaking and wants to move the two into the spotlight.
However the real Emma connection is Aiden. Aiden is who Simi has built up as her perfect dream guy, he’s everything she wants in a guy and matches what she thinks is the “perfect” artist. This is similar to Emma and Frank as from the letters, what was said about him, and his appearance; Frank matched what she envisioned was perfect, but in reality he had a lot of faults. And the person she never thought about being interested in Mr. Knightley, becomes her dream guy; just like how Simi feels Suraj and her are not right but he turns out to be her dream guy.
How sweet!
I definitely recommend this for romance, Jane Austen, and Emma fans.
Non-Austen Reads for Austen Readers is something I started a while back for fans of Jane Austen who after reading all her works are looking for something else to read.
There are numerous variations of Jane Austen’s works, but while those adaptations are fun, sometimes you don’t always want to read the same story. Sometimes you want Austen-like works, but not exactly the same as Austen’s works. But what can you read instead?
That’s why I started this series. I will be reviewing books that have components of what we love about the Austen novels, but are not just another retelling, but their own unique story.
A Castaway in Cornwall by Julie Klassen
The book begins with our main character Laura Callaway once again feeling left out of her family and community. She was born and raised in London, but ended up moving to Cornwall when her parents died, having been sent to live with her aunt and uncle in Truro. When her aunt passed, her uncle Matthew moved them to the rural Cornwall seaside and remarried, Laura gaining a step-aunt and step-cousin.
Not having been raised in Cornwall, Laura often feels left out and alone; this further exacerbated by her aunt who treats her as a stranger and tries her best to exclude her. Laura has tried to form a bond with her step-cousin but her aunt tries to keep them separated.
So sad.
Even in 1813, Cornwall practices the tradition of “wrecking”, taking goods from wrecked ships. This is seen as a way for many people to survive and a part of Cornwall life. For Laura, her conscience won’t let her partake in the same way, before she keeps or sells anything she tries to locate the owner; along with saving it for a year and a day. After that she does whatever she wants with the items.
Her days seem very much the same until one night she hears of a wreck and goes out to help with taking care of the dead (back in the early 19th century there was no coastguard and many did not know how to swim). While combing the beach she happens upon a man, alive but soaked through and doing poorly. She manages to save him and with help from her uncle and neighbors, nurse him back to health. But while this man, Alexander Lucas, introduces himself as a man from the island of Jersey trying to get home admits the war, something about him doesn’t quite ring true. What secrets could he be holding?
Hmm…
Alexander wants to trust this beautiful woman who saved his life, and she and her family seem to be ones he can rely on, but he’s still not sure. Alexander is plagued with a mission to save his brother, one he has risked his life, his reputation, and his freedom to accomplish. Every day he stays on English soil is another day that his brother may be lost to him forever. Alexander tries to recuperate, find the evidence needed to save his sibling and get home as quickly as he can.
When Laura discovers Alexander’s secret that he is a French soldier who escaped from imprisonment (for a good cause) will she be willing to help him? Or will her interference only harm him? Can romance bloom in the midst of a war?
Why do I recommend for fans of Jane Austen? First of all, this books brings another view of life in the Regency era. While the war with France is mentioned in several of Austen’s novels, and there are multiple soldiers in her works, we don’t see it’s effect on people like we do in this book. In this novel the characters live on the shores of England (much closer to France), have their fishing and trade affected by war, etc.; the war is very present in the daily lives of the people.
Kind of like in Poldark
The other reasons I recommend this to Jane Austen fans is that Laura reminds me a bit of Anne Elliot from Persuasion and Fanny Price from Mansfield Park. Like Fanny, Laura is sent to be raised with family but often feels like she’s not really a part of them and lonely. Like Anne, Laura feels as if she doesn’t really belong with her family (although she does have a bond with her uncle) and often acquiesces what she wants to keep the peace. However Laura, like both of Austen’s women, stands up for what she believes in and will not be forced into doing something she does not agree with. While all three women are not the typical headstrong outspoken ladies, all have an iron backbone.
The character of Alexander and his relationship with former best friend Francois mimic Darcy’s relationship with Wickham. Darcy and Wickham were friends from childhood and grew up together. Darcy of course was the heir of Pemberley and Wickham was the steward’s son, but the elder Mr. Darcy treated him well and even prepared to pay for his schooling. Of course we know that Wickham housed some resentment against Darcy and over not being lord of the manor; later one trying to hurt Darcy and ruin his family and reputation. Francois is the same as his friendship turns to hate as it becomes twisted with jealousy of Alexander’s wealth and status; Francois doing everything he can to destroy the Alexander’s family name and spirit.
The end was a happy one but I do appreciate how it took a little while to get there instead of most historical fiction romances. At first I wasn’t sure if Laura would get TBE happy ending she wanted.
I really enjoyed this book as I after I started reading it, after a only few chapters I could not put it down.
I have to be honest, when I heard Netflix was making a new Persuasion I immediately had a bad feeling about it. I decided to reserve judgement and hope that it wouldn’t be terrible, but I didn’t really believe we would get a miracle.
Then I saw the trailer and I knew it was going to be bad. I could see in those few clips they has completely misunderstood the character of Anne and that this was going to be another Mansfield Park (1999).
It was worse.
MadsenCreations and I watched it together, she did Instagram live while I live tweeted. You can read my tweets but more terrible and horrible moments happened that I actually couldn’t tweet as fast as the film went. It was a hot mess.
But before I go into what I didn’t like, let’s start off with what I did like
Set & Costume Design
The set was beautiful and the director knew how to utilize the home, forest, seaside, country and city. Unlike some other Austen novels these characters do spend a fair amount of time indoors and outdoors, the weather and scenery tying into the story and the emotions of the characters. This was probably the best thing about the film was how well the director understood to use the set.
The costumes are also well done, as MadsenCreations pointed out there are no large glaring zippers (Netflix has learned since Bridgerton). Although, I am sad that there weren’t any ones from previous Austen adaptions, or if there were any I didn’t catch it. I really love seeing the same gown pop up in adaption after adaption.
Visually the film was good, it was the other choices that were terrible.
Diversity
As with Bridgerton they chose to do a rainbow cast (for those who have never heard the term before rainbow cast means that you cast people for characters regardless of the color of their skin, hence having a “rainbow” cast). While other productions that have done this have either made the character’s skin tone their only character trait (I hate when they do that), this production didn’t go that route. In fact it reminded me a lot of Cinderella (1997), the one that stars Brandy, where they had a family unit that contains a white father, African-American mother, and Filipino son; but nothing is made to explain it and being those races are not the characters only personality; instead they are just people. I really enjoyed it, and feel that of other films and TV shows want to that they should definitely go this route. Although I have noticed that like in Bridgerton, Persuasion has no one of Latin descent. As someone who is Latina. I do find that offensive that they promote how inclusive they are yet there is no one of Latino descent. And if someone wants to say that perhaps they couldn’t find a British-Latino person, while I find that to false. First of all Dakota Johnson isn’t even British and they gave her the main character, and secondly I googled it and found 24 right away. Netflix I’m expecting the next adaption to have someone!
Dialogue
The dialogue in this was horrendous. I’m not sure who was paid for this because it was beyond terrible. If I was Netflix, I’d demand that money back. First we have all these modern sayings, phrases, and slang that just do not fit right with the atmosphere. I think if that’s the route they wanted to take they should have just made a modern Persuasion. Or if they wanted to make this a cross between modern + Regency they should have done it Romeo + Juliet (1996) style with her in the Regency clothes and all modern language; or modern clothes and regency language. But this mishmash, some Regency and some Modern did not work out well at all.
There is a lot of truly terrible dialogue but the biggest offenders to be was when Henrietta tells Anne that to win a guy she should pretend she didn’t know how to use cutlery. Not only is that the dumbest thing I have ever heard, but now a whole generation are going to think that Jane Austen wrote that.
I asked a friend if that would be attractive to him and this was his response was “no” and that he would wonder about her mental capacities. The reason I find this particular scene so offensive is first of all Jane Austen wrote very strong and intelligent characters, there are silly ones but these women were not. And not only are we perpetuating this idea that women need to be dumb and have a man help them in order to be attractive, they are making it sound as if Jane Austen herself agrees with that and promoted it as well!
But that was just the beginning. So much of it is terrible that even the good dialogue is lost in the cesspool of words. And let’s not even begin on the octopus line.
The other truly terrible parts of this dialogue is that there is no subtlety or secrets. Everything is out in the open. In the book no one besides Lady Russell knew that Anne and Captain Wentworth had been engaged; in this everyone knows. In the book, no one is certain of Mr. Eliot’s intentions-he saying that he just wants to fix the rift; but Anne suspecting more. However, in this Mr. Eliot tells Anne right away he wants to keep her father from having a male heir. It’s like did anyone read this book?!!
Where are the Austen things and characters I love??!!
They completely destroyed my two favorite parts: 1) when they discuss the loyalty of women and Anne points out that all the “proof” of men loving more are written by men; 2) the letter scene. It really felt like someone took the bare, bare, almost nonexistent bones of the story to write this production.
Mary Musgrove (Mia McKenna-Bruce), Sir Walter Elliot (Richard E. Grant), Charles Musgrove (Ben Bailey Smith), Elizabeth Elliot (Yolanda Kettle), & the Musgrove Children (Jake Siame and Hardy Yusuf)
So some of the characters and the decisions made about the characters were not good, but I’ll save my complaints for a little later. The ones I did enjoy were the above few. Sir Walter and Elizabeth were so horrible and rude, just as they should be, although I think it would have been better to include a bit more of them as they are hardly in there, but they did good.
Charles Musgrove although he too wasn’t in the film that much. The little Musgrove boys were adorable and they stole the scene every time they were on screen.
The one they blew me away though was Mia McKenna-Bruce as Mary Musgrove. You liked her and hated her, she was extremely awful but at the same time she also said a lot of things I agreed with when it came to Anne. Anne was such a mess that Mary (yes Mary), seemed to be the only adjusted character. She was a narcissist, that didn’t change, but she was more together than Anne (which is not how it should be). Out of everyone, I think she did the best.
Henry Golding as Mr. Elliot
Henry Golding was charming but too charming. He’s supposed to be somewhat suspect from Anne’s pov as he hasn’t done anything outwardly wrong, but she is questioning his interest and sudden appearance with her family. When Anne’s friend warns her against him and tells her she spotted Mrs. Clay and Mr. Elliot together, Anne immediately believes her and thinks something is up (which of course we later discover later that he ran off with Mrs. Clay to keep Sir Walter from siring a male heir [although he should be more afraid that Sir Walter will lose all his inheritance]).
However, someone in their great wisdom (read that sarcastically please) decides to reveal Mr. Elliot’s intentions in the first meeting. That’s supposed to be a big plot point! That’d be like if in Great Expectations when Pip goes to school if Magwitch sent him a letter saying that hey I’m your benefactor! By the way I also have a little girl that was adopted named Estella, do you know anyone by that name?
In this adaption Mr. Elliot also asks Anne to marry him (something not in the book), is messing around with Mrs Clay (which Anne catches instead of everyone finding out later), and they also change his character when he marries Mrs. Clay instead of just putting her up as his mistress. They completely changed the character and while it fit for Henry Golding; I this role was not the right one for him. He would have been better as a Frank Churchill, Mr. Tilney, or as Captain Wentworth as as Golding and a lot more chemistry with Dakota Johnson/Anne than Cosmo Jarvis.
Captain Harville (Edward Bluemel) and Captain Benwick (Afolabi Alli)
These actors did well in their parts but the problem was that there wasn’t a lot of them in the film. Benwick and Anne are supposed to spend quite a bit of time together, that’s why when he is engaged to Louisa all are surprised. In this he and Anne have one conversation and didn’t even use the amazing dialogue that Jane Austen wrote. Harville was also just used as a piece of the scenery.
Louisa (Nia Towle) and Henrietta Musgrove (Izuka Hoyle)
Most adaptions hardly use Henrietta but this one does it the least, blink, and you’ll miss her.
Louisa was not very well done in this either. She is made to be so silly, such as that line about how to get a guy. She also doesn’t make sense as a character. In the original book, she and Anne are close but she doesn’t know about their previous engagement, so when she meets Captain Wentworth it makes sense that she goes after this nice, rich, single man. However, in this production they show Louisa and Anne as best friends; Louisa knowing about the engagement and encouraging Anne to go after him. However, after dinner she then reverses that and tells Anne she is making a play for him. Seriously, what a jerk move to do.
The other thing that didn’t make any sense was that there was hardly any flirting and time spent between her and Captain Wentworth for us to even believe they were interested in each othe. In the book the two flirt a lot as Louisa is interested and Captain Wentworth appreciates having her attention in front of the woman who rejected him. The two do several jump and catch me little scenes, that later caused the accident as Louisa does it in an unsafe area. In this they cut out the previous scenes so when she does the jump it doesn’t make any sense and looks like she just decided to yeet herself.
Cosmo Jarvis as Captain Wentworth
I really didn’t care for Cosmo Jarvis as Captain Wentworth. I felt this version of the character was pretty boring and seemed to have no substance or relation to what was going on in the scenes. He never seemed upset or at all like the book character. And of course a big chunk is off because there are no secrets in this adaption like in the book.
I also didn’t feel as if Jarvis really fit in the regnecy times. He seemed out of place to me, as if he was not really apart of his surroundings.
Dakota Johnson as Anne Elliot
I haven’t really seen Dakota Johnson in that many things so I can’t really attest to her acting but in this it was deplorable. A major portion of it has to do with her being the main character and pushing the film forward, but the script was terrible. Like Jarvis, I feel the bigger problem was that she never seemed to really inhabit the scenery as well.
Also her character is terrible. She’s trying so hard to be the “quirky” girl but it feels so out of place. They also made a majority of her character like little wine memes; basically this was her in a nutshell “It’s always wine o’clock”, “don’t give a carafe”, “wine not”, etc. She drank way too much, that is basically all she does-drink and fall down. She looks and acts like she needs to get help as she can barely function and cannot without alcohol.
In conclusion, I don’t care how much Netflix is trying to convince me this movie was “good”, I feel this is one of the worst Austen adaptations I have ever seen.
Jane Austen (Little People. BIG DREAMS) by Maria Isabel Sanchez Vegara
Another Jane Austen biography for children?
What can I say?
But before I start my review, let me pause and say:
Happy Birthday Jane Austen!
Yes, today marks her 246th birthday, and I thought what better way to celebrate than by reviewing a Jane Austen biography.
This year for my littlest niece’s (5 years old) Christmas gift, I bought her some tiny tea cups that she could have tea with. You see when she visited this summer I converted her to a love of tea and tea parties and want to reenforce that as much as possible.
Party time!
Of course something else I am trying to brainwash encourage in the younger members of my family is a love of Jane Austen. I had already bought this niece the Babylit books and needed something else Jane Austen related that fit her age. I thought about gifting her the same book I gave my 10 year old niece, A Most Clever Girl: How Jane Austen Discovered Her Voice, but decided to wait as that book was more advanced and designed for older children. Instead I starting searching for something suitable for a 5 year old.
Hmm…?
I started searching through Amazon (I don’t have a local bookstore) and found this biography from the Little People, BIG DREAMS series. It looked cute so I ordered it, and of course had to give it a quick read and review.
I really liked the amount of pictures to text this book had as it was a great balance for a children’s book. It gave a basic biography in easy to understand terms, while still telling a cute story that children in the age range of 4-7 years will enjoy following.
I also loved how it highlighted her playwriting and the way her family would act her works out.
But the thing I enjoyed most of all about this book is that instead of just mentioning Pride and Prejudice or Elizabeth Bennet, it actually highlights all the heroines of her novels. You hardly ever see anything that mentions Fanny Price/Mansfield Park, Catherine Morland/Northanger Abbey, or Anne Elliot/Persuasion in kids books and I’m so happy this one did. I need to lay the groundwork for Northanger Abbey.
If there are parents, or kids, who are interested in knowing more about Jane Austen, there is an expanded short biography in the back of the book.
I thought it was a cute book and a great one for kids.
If interested in purchasing, click on this link. (If you do choose to purchase through the link provided, a small percentage does go to me through the Amazon affiliate program).
janeaustenrunsmylife 