You might be hesitant to compare your work to Austen, but it is so apt! It's hard to think of a novel that reminded me as much of Austen than yours without becoming full-blown pastiche. I'm so looking forward to reading your next novel, whenever it makes its way into the world!
I just finished a reread of Mansfield Park last week so this landed in my inbox at the perfect time. I find MP the most baffling of Austen's novels, but I love rereading it because I feel like each time I inch a bit further towards some understanding of it. Your insights about the mimetic nature of the book are illuminating, and I'm looking forward to reading some of what you've linked here. Thanks for another great post! Enjoy your Northanger Abbey reread...it's my least read Austen as well so I might try to pick it up before the next Austen Math installment!
Yeah, I’ve thought about this a few times in both directions, honestly—and a contemporary model should probably proceed this way. But given the extreme disparities in marital norms in Austen’s time, ultimately I think my methodology justified.
Ha, my first thought on seeing the notification was "can't wait to see all these dudes with scores in the toilet" -- but of course I forgot how much fortune counts for with Austen! Still, a whole book with no man above the low 4s, that's striking.
Do you think you could share the raw values for the heroines' priorities? It's a little difficult to interpret the variance chart.
Sure, Fanny’s are in line w/ Austen’s (morals, fortune, manners, fuckability); Maria & Julia’s are manners, fuckability, fortune, morals; Mary’s are listed clearly above (fortune, fuckability, manners, morals)
I appreciate your insights esp re the comment that the name Fanny has a negative connotation. It did for me. That and social behavior in overdrive made this my least favored Austen novel. I simply didn’t like too many of the characters. I need to reread it for a more current take based on a more matured viewpoint(I hope) . I love these!
Just come across:"There are such beings in the world - perhaps one in a thousand - as the creature you and I should think perfection; where grace and spirit are united to worth, where the manners are equal to the heart and understanding; but such a person may not come into your way, or, if he does, he may not be the eldest son of a man of fortune..." JA to Fanny Knight 18 Nov 1814. Which you may already be aware of as it totally confirms Austen Math.
A question that has been nagging me: would this model even work for any contemporary novel that one can think of (will you apply it to your own next?)? I'm not widely enough read in contemporary fiction to have an answer. But my suspicion is that contemporary novels (mine included) are full of cads. But surely the world, though it's gone mad today and day's night today, still has its Edmunds and Knightlys... Have (why have?) contemporary novelists become incapable of depicting male uprightness? Unrelated, but related to Mansfield Park: did Jane read Les Liaisons dangereuses perhaps via her cousin Eliza? A literary mystery to which I keep hoping for an answer...
I think the answer is: partially. The primary and secondary dimensional analysis would still work, but the Austenian weights are highly contextual and would require revision. No plans for further application myself—but I’d be interested to know if someone adapted it!
It is a major virtue of this grille de lecture to reveal that something essential about the greatest novelist (yes, I think so) resides in the specific Austenian weights, with "morals" the weightiest
You might be hesitant to compare your work to Austen, but it is so apt! It's hard to think of a novel that reminded me as much of Austen than yours without becoming full-blown pastiche. I'm so looking forward to reading your next novel, whenever it makes its way into the world!
I just finished a reread of Mansfield Park last week so this landed in my inbox at the perfect time. I find MP the most baffling of Austen's novels, but I love rereading it because I feel like each time I inch a bit further towards some understanding of it. Your insights about the mimetic nature of the book are illuminating, and I'm looking forward to reading some of what you've linked here. Thanks for another great post! Enjoy your Northanger Abbey reread...it's my least read Austen as well so I might try to pick it up before the next Austen Math installment!
No greater compliment in this world, thank you! And I recommend Deceit, Desire, & the Novel—the key to Mansfield (among many other things) for me.
Wonderful as usual. I have only a slight regret : I wish you had also scored the eligibility of the single women on the same four criteria.
Yeah, I’ve thought about this a few times in both directions, honestly—and a contemporary model should probably proceed this way. But given the extreme disparities in marital norms in Austen’s time, ultimately I think my methodology justified.
Ha, my first thought on seeing the notification was "can't wait to see all these dudes with scores in the toilet" -- but of course I forgot how much fortune counts for with Austen! Still, a whole book with no man above the low 4s, that's striking.
Do you think you could share the raw values for the heroines' priorities? It's a little difficult to interpret the variance chart.
Sure, Fanny’s are in line w/ Austen’s (morals, fortune, manners, fuckability); Maria & Julia’s are manners, fuckability, fortune, morals; Mary’s are listed clearly above (fortune, fuckability, manners, morals)
I appreciate your insights esp re the comment that the name Fanny has a negative connotation. It did for me. That and social behavior in overdrive made this my least favored Austen novel. I simply didn’t like too many of the characters. I need to reread it for a more current take based on a more matured viewpoint(I hope) . I love these!
Yeah MP has really grown on me over time. Worth another try!
Just come across:"There are such beings in the world - perhaps one in a thousand - as the creature you and I should think perfection; where grace and spirit are united to worth, where the manners are equal to the heart and understanding; but such a person may not come into your way, or, if he does, he may not be the eldest son of a man of fortune..." JA to Fanny Knight 18 Nov 1814. Which you may already be aware of as it totally confirms Austen Math.
WOW! I was not aware. Thank you so much for sharing!!
Found it in ‘Jane Austen Illustrated Quotations’ published by the Bodleian Library Oxford. A suitaable present to oneself for JA Year 2025…
A question that has been nagging me: would this model even work for any contemporary novel that one can think of (will you apply it to your own next?)? I'm not widely enough read in contemporary fiction to have an answer. But my suspicion is that contemporary novels (mine included) are full of cads. But surely the world, though it's gone mad today and day's night today, still has its Edmunds and Knightlys... Have (why have?) contemporary novelists become incapable of depicting male uprightness? Unrelated, but related to Mansfield Park: did Jane read Les Liaisons dangereuses perhaps via her cousin Eliza? A literary mystery to which I keep hoping for an answer...
I think the answer is: partially. The primary and secondary dimensional analysis would still work, but the Austenian weights are highly contextual and would require revision. No plans for further application myself—but I’d be interested to know if someone adapted it!
It is a major virtue of this grille de lecture to reveal that something essential about the greatest novelist (yes, I think so) resides in the specific Austenian weights, with "morals" the weightiest
Aha thank you! (And if I didn’t agree unequivocally already I do now: she is the GOAT)