Afterthoughts on The Janeites
by Elizabeth Newark

A character in the story speaks of Henry James as Jane Austen’s heir. I have to disagree strongly with Kipling there. James is humorless. He is wordy. And sometimes reading one of his novels is like trudging through thick oatmeal. I can see no connection whatsoever with Jane Austen except the language they wrote in. I remember in particular one chapter in The Golden Bowl. There is no dialogue. It goes on and on, all digression and introspection. The only action comes near the end, when a man kicks a log in a fireplace. Oh wow!

Jane is all action. Her ‘quiet’ stories of love and necessity and women and marriage dance from the page. Does anyone read Henry James for fun? Does one reach for him when one’s heart and mind are troubled? Does anyone pack his books in carry-on luggage, when setting out to travel to another Continent?

No, we need Jane Austen for all of that.

C.S. Lewis, as quoted at the back of the new book The Jane Austen Book Club, refers to The Janeites as Kipling’s WORST story. Interesting.

It is sentimental, yes, but why not? And the subject is unusual in the extreme. But most of all, I just don’t think of it in those terms — best, worst, whatever. To me it is an odd piece of history, told in an odd setting, combining my favorite author with a tragedy from another century, another world (a tragedy relieved by humor).

Marilyn Sachs once said to me that in times of trouble she turns to Jane Austen to help her through — and that, I think, just about sums up this story.

So: Glory, love and honor unto England’s Jane!

P.S. I’d love to hear comments from other members.