Showing posts with label literature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label literature. Show all posts

Friday, 28 January 2011

Proud & Prejudiced: Female writers in the early nineteenth century

For Christmas, my lovely friend Christina got me a copy of the novel Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen. I've never read it, nor indeed any other of Austen's works, and I haven't seen any of the film or TV adaptations of it either, but the copy she bought me is an absolutely beautiful book (look! It has swans on! Or at least, I think they're swans... And it's gold! What's not to love?!) and Christina insisted that I simply had to read it because it would revolutionize the way I looked at love and I figured that since so so many people rave on about it, it can't be all that bad, so I'm reading it. And it is pretty interesting. 

It's not the first thing I would have picked up in a bookshop, so I'm glad it was given to me because there isn't much chance I'd have read it otherwise, and it's actually quite good. For something that was written at the beginning of the nineteenth century, it's still very readable, and the love story itself (yeah, I'm yet to finish it, but I'm pretty sure of exactly who is going to end up betrothed to whom...) is a fairly timeless one.

By which I mean to say, 'Thank you very much for this gift Christina, I'm actually enjoying it'. But I'm not an English student thank God not that they aren't completely lovely people; I just loathe most poetry and I have no idea how to analyse a text, so I couldn't tell you about the writing styles and the hidden metaphors and whatever else it is that write-y people bang on about. Not that you would want to read my analysis of a half-read book anyway. No, I'd much rather talk about the book's author, Jane Austen herself, as today in 1813 was the day the book I've been rambling on about was first published.

There are books and website a-plenty out there about her, so I'm not going to waste time filling you in on facts about her birth, death or daily life - instead, I'm going to attempt to put her writing into context: how, as a woman in the early nineteenth century, did you get published?

With great difficulty, it appears. Pride and Prejudice was not Austen's first published novel, and had in fact been a work in progress for many years prior to it's publishing, but when it finally went to print in 1813, it did so anonymously and only after Austen's brother, Henry, had persuaded Thomas Egerton to publish the novel. Her books, once published, remained steady sellers; they were often reviewed favourably and were fashionable amongst the elite aristocracy of the early nineteenth century, but despite this success, Austen was not persuaded to 'come out' as the author of the books, and when she died, in 1817, her achievements as a writer were not mentioned at her funeral, though the 'extraordinary endowments' of her mind were.

Austen was not the only female author in the nineteenth century and beyond to hide behind a veil. Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein, which was first published a year after Austen's death in 1818, had the first few editions of her book published anonymously; Charlotte Bronte wrote under two pen names - Lord Charles Albert Florian Wellesley and Currer Bell,  the name which appears on early versions of her most famous novel, Jane Eyre. 

It wasn't until much later in the nineteenth century that authors such as Louisa May Alcott were able to print under their own names as men were - Little Women was published in 1868. Though Alcott herself was a passionate advocate of women's suffrage - she was the first woman to register to vote in the state of Massachusetts - there are some schools of thought which say that she was only published because her novels were deemed 'mere' women's books. Her semi-autobiographical stories were seen as fairly trivial, and not radical enough to be threatening to most men, who in the nineteenth century, and beyond had a firm idea of where women 'belonged' - and it was not in the publishing house. 

Clearly, this is not something I agree with at all, but I can at least understand where most of these men were coming from. They had been brought up in an incredibly patriarchal society, which firmly believed that women should not be involved in business of any description - some even believed that educating women beyond the basic skills needed to write letters or perhaps speak a little French was too much. They were a product of the society they had been brought up in; it took a World War and the womens' suffrage movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to show them how wrong they had been in their ideas, and fortunately for us today, there would be no need for a female author to publish anonymously or under a male pseudonym, because we no longer live in such a sexist society.

Except, a few years ago, around the turn of the millennium, I remember listening to a radio interview with a female author, who was asked why she had used a pseudonym (of sorts) to publish her (very well selling, and well written) books under. The author replied that she had been advised that publishing her stories, which had been written to appeal to neither boys nor girls specifically, under her obviously female name might turn boys off reading the books - young boys wouldn't want to been seen reading a book written by an (eurgh!) GIRL. Her publishing house advised her that she should at least attempt to make her name less obviously feminine, in order to appeal to a male fanbase. 

So she did, choosing to publish using her first initials and surname - 'J' and 'K' and 'Rowling'. It's such a remarkably progressive society we live in.     

Monday, 6 December 2010

Bibliophilia

Today is excellent, because I get to talk about books. I like books a lot. I don't go out, I stay in and read books. (This is honestly true. When other parents were berating their teenaged children for going out late and getting drunk underage, mine were berating me for staying up reading too late on a school night...) I read fiction - I have a soft spot for young adult fantasy (who honestly doesn't love Harry Potter?), but I also enjoy serious adult stuff from any genre, but particularly sci-fi and fantasy. When I'm feeling the need to become less bitter, I read romance novels (though I'm yet to find a good Mills & Boone). I'm also a big fan non-fiction - most of my bookshelf is taken up by history books (obviously...) though I enjoy well written science books too, and even once read a maths book. (Slash it was a book on fractals so I basically just looked at the pictures but they were really pretty and in a vaguely trippy kind of way. And when I say 'vaguely trippy', I basically mean 'what I imagine you might experience should you take some drugs because I am far too busy reading to partake in such activities'...)

Speaking of drugs, have you ever just inhaled a book? I honestly can't work out what smells best - a brand new book in all it's freshness, or an old book from a charity shop, with that very specific musty smell...
Anyway. BOOKS.

Today in 1768, the first Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica was published, in Edinburgh. This was such a mammoth task that it wasn't completed until 1771, and when the second edition was published, in 1797 (and completed in 1801), it ran to more than 20 volumes. As you probably know, it's still going today, and even though it is now published in the United States, it maintains it's British English spelling. Which leads me on nicely onto something I'm proud of Britain for doing.

I'm British/English but I don't really identify with that label. I'm not patriotic - I don't support my country in sports or sing God Save the Queen at every opportunity or do anything typically British or English really, except drink lots of tea. I think that's partially because I find the whole "What-ho old chap, aren't we Brits really quite something, eh? Jolly good show we put on against those dastardly Aussies in the cricket this weekend, and what!" thing very Conservative, which as a socialist I am (of course) very much against, but also, historically, we did so much wrong to the world that I just feel embarrassed and ashamed to even think about celebrating it. Everyone knows about how 'the sun never sets on the British Empire!', but frankly it's embarrassing that this is still presented to young school children as a Good Thing. The fact that our subjugation of many, many other nations is presented as an achievement just disgusts me, so I therefore refuse to be patriotic.

With the exception of one thing. As a country, we should celebrate at every opportunity we have just how great our literature is. Now, this is quite a hard thing to prove, you might say. Every country in the world likes to claim that they have (or had) the "world's greatest author" - the English might claim Shakespeare, the French Hugo, the Americans Twain, and because obviously everyone has a different opinion on what the 'best' type of literature is, it is impossible to say which out of those three alone is the greatest author. However, one way of measuring just how good an author is, is to measure their total book sales.

Now, this is obviously fairly imprecise, but we are looking for a general number of sales, rather than exact figures. Part of what makes an author 'great' is word of mouth - when all of your friends start saying "Hey, have you read ABC? It's really good!" you are more inclined to check out a book than if they'd gone "Urgh, don't read ABC, it's really rubbish and I couldn't even be bothered to finish it!". Anyway, in 1979, UNESCO decided to publish a list of the top 50 authors in the world at the time, based on total book sales alone.

The decisions they made regarding who to include on the list are somewhat perplexing. The original list included authors who weren't really authors (Walt Disney Inc. and the Bible, for example); the same authors twice (sort of - they included each of the Grimm brothers separately, for some bizarre reason) and people whose books were printed more for supply than demanded (Lenin, Marx, the Pope and so on). Once you take out these non-entries though, you're left with a list of 41 authors - of which 14 are British. 
 
They are, with their world ranking based on how may books they've sold in brackets: Agatha Christie (1), Enid Blyton (3), William Shakespeare (4), Barbara Cartland (5), Arthur Conan Doyal (14), Robert Louis Stevenson (19), Charles Dickens (20), Victoria Holt (23), Oscar Wilde (25), Alistair MacLean (27), James Hadley Chase (32), JRR Tolkien (34), Ruth Rendell (35) and Rudyard Kipling (40). 

In comparison, the United States has a mere 11 authors on the list (their best-selling author being Danielle Steele, coming in at number six), leaving the rest of the world to make up the remaining 16 authors. Now, as this list is clearly based on popularity, I am sure that if it were to be repeated today, the order would have changed slightly - and I would bet all £3.82 of my life-savings that both JK Rowling and Stephenie Mayer would appear on the list as well.

Also, I would hope that, if it were to be repeated today, African and Asian authors would be better represented on the list, as it is admittedly very Western-centric. However, for all we should (rightly) decry the exclusion of these countries from the list, it seems odd that, say, France isn't as well represented on the list as Britain is. (The list counts all copies of a book, no matter what language it's in, so the argument that a book isn't on there because it only counts books published in English, which obviously Britain would have a monopoly on, is rendered null and void). None of the other major European countries - which have a very, very similar history generically to Britain, are nearly as well represented on the list.

From this, we can only conclude that our great strength as a nation is novel writing, something I am more than happy to be proud of and patriotic about. That is what a real achievement is, not however many foreign countries we once ruled over.