tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6022230834119760805.post1576479954969951664..comments2024-03-28T21:47:07.510+00:00Comments on A Universe in Words: 'Lady Susan' and the Feminist Jane AustenJuli Rahelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15367150240867758577noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6022230834119760805.post-17874424993067780112014-08-22T19:52:46.550+01:002014-08-22T19:52:46.550+01:00Thanks for the review! I really enjoyed this book ...Thanks for the review! I really enjoyed this book as well and thought Lady Susan was a very interesting character. I agree with others comments that I don't think Austen was intentionally trying to be a feminist, but she had strong views on the role women had in society and wanted to express those ideas in her writing.ebookclassicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13508399438088766619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6022230834119760805.post-45391965909318467182014-08-08T03:14:53.955+01:002014-08-08T03:14:53.955+01:00Yes, Austen writes women as full human beings -- w...Yes, Austen writes women as full human beings -- within the constraints of their time. She's not feminist in the sense of explicitly trying to break out of those constraints, but just the idea that a woman could have a mind and a soul of her own was not that prevalent in her day. Great question!Loryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08519976394732029323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6022230834119760805.post-61251259880180106932014-08-06T11:38:56.232+01:002014-08-06T11:38:56.232+01:00Great review! I'm also a big fan of the episto...Great review! I'm also a big fan of the epistolary form when it's done well (<i>Frankenstein</i> is definitely an excellent example, as is <i>Les Liaisons dangereuses</i>, by Laclos). I read <i>Lady Susan</i> a few years ago and your review has made me want to revisit it - I'm ashamed to say that I can barely remember what happens!<br /><br />As for your last question, I'm sure it's one that has kept a lot of scholars up late at night. My personal opinion would be no, more because the concept of 'feminist' didn't really exist in Austen's time. I think, though, that she could potentially be called a 'proto-feminist'; though she doesn't engage directly with issues such as education, which were important for Mary Wollstonecraft (often dubbed the 'first feminist', but again it's a bit more complicated), Austen refuses to stereotype her female characters, and make them into either helpless victims or 'fallen women', which was the fashion at the time. As you pointed out, her female characters are realistic, and both her male and female characters can fall prey to selfishness, pettiness, and even cruelty; she certainly doesn't seem to privilege one sex over than the other. Her novels insist that women are human beings, not merely sexual objects of symbols of purity. I think it's probably one of the reasons her stories are still relatable today. <br /><br />(Sorry for rambling on so much - but it's a very thought-provoking question. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6022230834119760805.post-6658561174697442732014-08-06T07:57:00.609+01:002014-08-06T07:57:00.609+01:00I do have JA's short stories and unfinished no...I do have JA's short stories and unfinished novella's by my bed just in case I can fit them in around my S&S plans.<br /><br />I recall enjoying Lady Susan first time around, but I know that the reread brings out so much more...I will return if I get time to read it :-)Bronahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11110584237325026052noreply@blogger.com