This group read is staring April 10th for anyone interested in joining!

I'm personally looking forward to re-reading this one with all of you.

Came across this. Wanted to share it with people who care about such things! :)

http://thebillfold.com/2014/04/how-much-was-jane-austen-paid-for-some-of-historys-best-books/#more

Yes, it's certainly clear that Austen's own financial circumstances played a part in her works -- AND a huge pity that she didn't actually live to see the popularity of her books blossom. I can only hope that she's looking down from Heaven with a huge smile on her face now! What a shame she had to sign away the rights to P&P as well (of all books). Just imagine she would have been able to keep them ...

(According to the chart from the Bath Austen center (post #33), 100 £ would have been the annual income of a poor curate -- on her first two books, Austen made lump sums of 140 and 110 £, respectively, but she had to pay for printing all by herself, and whatever money she made on "Emma" (book 4), was eaten up by the reprint of "Mansfield Park" (book 3). So it cost her a curate's yearly wages, or even more, to have her books printed in the first place ...)

Well, I've started. Only a couple of chapters in but it's coming back to me. The nuances though seem a bit different. Not sure if that's from age or from the modern version I've read recently. We'll see!

Reply to post #4 (show post):
Interesting. Different in what way?

Reply to post #5 (show post):
I'm reading some of the characters differently (Mr. Dashwood and the mother particularly right now) and...I don't know quite how to say it. I'm noticing the small things versus the big things this time around, I guess.

Can you give an example?

I love the way John and Fanny Dashwood are introduced:

"He (John) was not an ill-disposed young man, unless to be rather cold hearted and rather selfish is to be ill-disposed: but he was, in general, well respected; for he conducted himself with propriety in the discharge of his ordinary duties. Had he married a more amiable woman, he might have been made still more respectable than he was:—he might even have been made amiable himself; for he was very young when he married, and very fond of his wife. But Mrs. John Dashwood was a strong caricature of himself;—more narrow-minded and selfish."

Also, does anybody else notice how similar Mrs. Dashwood (Elinor's and Marianne's mother) and Marianne are? (As well as Margaret, we are told, though she isn't as prominent in the book as Emma Thompson made her in the movie.)

I savoring every precious page, doling it out a chapter at a time. I agree with the similarity between Marianne and her mother. At least in the first chapters Marianne gets more attention than Elinor and, as you say, Margaret is practically a ghost. I'm loving all the garden porn. Who else but JA could make a view and a nature trail seem sexy ;-) I keep mixing up the characters with the actors from the film, which I loved although it may not have been as true to the original as I had thought.

Reply to post #8 (show post):
I rewatched the movie last night with the Emma Thompson / Lindsay Doran audio comment track on, and Thompson and Doran both repeatedly mention how few lines of dialogue from the novel remained in the screenplay verbatim -- they said it ended up being something like six lines, all told, and everyone ended being super-protective about them. All the more amazing that the movie feels so authentically Austen nevertheless!

I am looking forward to watching the movie again after I've finished reading this. I like seeing how much she developed as a writer. In P&P she was able to fine-tune the dramatic action and flesh out the characters through such exquisite dialogue. Here she sometimes gets carried away in her lengthy explanations.

True, that's part of why I so love the introduction of John and Fanny -- an early example of Austen at her best. (Also, of course, Fanny's "people always live for ever when there is an annuity to be paid them".)

And then, of course,

"some mothers might have encouraged [Edward's and Elinor's] intimacy from motives of interest, for Edward Ferrars was the eldest son of a man who had died very rich; and some might have repressed it from motives of prudence, for, except a trifling sum, the whole of his fortune depended on the will of his mother. But Mrs. Dashwood was alike uninfluenced by either consideration. It was enough for her that he appeared to be amiable, that he loved her daughter, and that Elinor returned the partiality. It was contrary to every doctrine of hers that difference of fortune should keep any couple asunder who were attracted by resemblance of disposition"

... that, too, is core Austen from the very start (and quite revolutionary).

Reply to post #7 (show post):
For one thing, Marianne and her mother. I didn't notice when I first read it that line of how similar they were. So I had never seen the mother through that lens; things make more sense and I'm able to see how her actions set up future things - like Elinor seeming to be the one in charge, etc.

And yes, the description of John Dashwood. I knew his wife talked him out of things, but I hadn't seen his character like that.

I think, because I read this before I ever read P&P, I had not known to really focus on the descriptions and at that time, I read for speed rather then at times understanding. I ruined so many books for myself back then.

@ Grasshopper - I've been savoring it too. Only reading it when I can really focus on it...which has made it slow going.

This is my third Austen reread since December. Once I started rereading P&P and Persuasion, I couldn't put them down. This one is not as compelling. I'm enjoying it and I see the seeds of Austen's genius, but the pacing is off for me. I wonder why?

Once the Palmers and the Steele sisters showed up, things started to improve for me. Now they're all in London and I'm hooked.

Reply to post #13 (show post):
Somehow your post from two weeks ago didn't make it to my notifications. I'll agree with you on that. The pacing is off. There's too many details in some places and not in others. And she goes off track sometimes, or at least it seem to me. It's simply not as...tight as her later novels.

Or that's at least what I'm seeing.