Jane Austen July

 

Jane Austen, by her sister Cassandra, c. 1810

Most anyone reading this might wonder what the hell Jane Austen July is. It’s rather self-explanatory, I imagine. It’s simply a celebration of Jane Austen’s works in the month of July. It’s nothing official, just something that some Booktubers dreamed up some years ago.

It’s also something I began “participating” in some years ago (four years ago, to be exact, at time of writing), if participating is proper usage here, considering my depth of participation, or lack thereof, as it were: it’s not like I’m actively engaged in some group activity, aside from reading something by Jane Austen during said month. There are those who do participate in the Booktube community, in “group readings” and discussions, over on certain Booktubers’ Patreans, and the like. I do not. I just like that I might make the personal dedication to finally consuming the body of work of one of the most celebrated authors of English Lit canon.

Why? Why not. It’s about time I’d set my mind to finally read them, given my age. I’ve no excuse as to why I waited so long to do so, other than the usual male prejudice against what certain males might label “chick lit.” Is it? Chick lit? Her books were most certainly written by a woman, obviously, and originally published as such, as well, under the anonymous pseudonym “By a Lady.”  But I would now (now that I’ve read her) never consider her oeuvre an example of that now somewhat maligned category of modern marketing. It is serious literature and should be considered such. It’s riven with social commentary, to say nothing of complex characters, and biting wit. It matters not a whit that its subject matter focuses on women’s lives (Jane was a women, after all, and wrote what was within her experience), and their deathly serious pursuit of the best matrimonial match they can gain (woe to those, in her time, who did not). Are they sentimental fiction? They are indeed novels of sensibility, but they are also excellent examples of 19^th Century literary realism. If you are still of a mind that works about women are only about women, and should only be read by women, it’s high time you divorced yourself of the notion. Henry James wrote novels about women. So did Thomas Hardy. I’d neglected classical works by women for far to long. Better late than never, I say. 

Back to the subject at hand. What must one do to participate in Jane Austen July? It’s simple, really:

1.      Read one of Jane Austen’s six novels

2.      Read something by Jane Austen that is not one of her main six novels

3.      Read a non-fiction work about Jane Austen or her time

4.      Read a retelling of a Jane Austen book OR a work of historical fiction set in Jane Austen’s time

5.      Read a book by a contemporary of Jane Austen

6.      Watch a direct screen adaptation of a Jane Austen book

7.      Watch a modern screen adaptation of a Jane Austen book

In truth, no one need read anything other than a single one of her novels to have participated; anything more is a bonus.

What do I intend? I’m reading Emma this year. In prior years I’ve read Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, and Mansfield Park. I’ve also read “Lady Susan,” and “The Watsons” in years past. I’ve also read Death Comes to Pemberly, by P.D. James. Longbourn, by Jo Baker, was a wonderful discovery, well worth your time. It illuminates the lives of the servants of Pride and Prejudice.

I’ve cheated some, truth be told: I’ve read “contemporaries” published outside Jane’s lifespan (1775 to 1817) during Jane Austen July. But, seeing that I’m not involved in JAJ in any official capacity, I tend to do what I choose. Those supposed contemporaries were Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights (1847), and Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre (also1847). The year I read Jane Eyre I also read Wide Sargasso Sea (1966), by Jean Rhys, a reimagining of Charlotte’s classic novel.

Personally, I believe participation in this “event” is an excellent use of your leisure time, whether you’ve read Jane Austen or not. If you’re a fast reader you could, conceivably, read most, if not all, of her novels in the course of the month; if not, as I said, one will do. I believe delayed gratification is a good thing. One per year gives one something to look forward to. It also gives one time and licence to become acquainted with other Regency writers: Sir Walter Scott, for instance; or Robbie Burns. Playwrights and poets are as admissible as novelists, so indulge in a whole host of Romantics, if you’ve a mind to.

As to contemporaries, there’s a whole host to choose from: Bridget Jones Diary, Where the Rhythm Take You, Unequal Affections, The Other Bennet Sister, etc. o nuts, if you will, with Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters, if the mood takes you.

Whatever. There are not hard and fast rules. Unless you wish to follow those noted above; so, I suppose there are hard and fast rules. I just choose to ignore them and colour outside the lines.

“I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading! How much sooner one tires of any thing than of a book! – When I have a house of my own, I shall be miserable if I have not an excellent library.”
― Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice