First of all, “The Real Jane Austen: A Life in Small Things” is a fascinating, well-written, and intriguing book, with a very few small problems.
Even so, I would never suggest Paula Byrnes book to someone who had not read at least one conventional biography of Jane Austen beforehand, just to to get a clearer chronological order of events. (See, strictly for an example, Jane Aiken Hodge’s “Only A Novel: The Double Life of Jane Austen,” which is from the point of view of an experienced novelist.)
This is not because Paula Byrnes’ biographical material is bad: It is very good, and produces evidence supporting some unusual positions about Jane Austen's life and characteristics, quoted from the letters and family documents. Some arguments rely heavily on other period documents, and reader may feel that the arguments are sometimes stretched thin: but they are at least interesting.
The problem for the novice would be that the book designedly is made up largely of fascinating “digressions,” which tend to overwhelm the main lines of Jane Austen’s life before the reader gets to the next milestone event.
While in more-or-less chronological order, the chapters are built up around physical objects surviving from Jane Austen’s life, her family, and contemporary events: manuscripts and printed books, a newspaper clipping, the cocked hat of a militia officer (a role filled by one of her brothers), Jane’s portable writing desk, etc. etc. (Hence the subtitle, “A Life in Small Things.”) The main objects are illustrated in attractive plates.
This is a technique which takes may take time to get used to, but which provides some interesting insights.
However, although the Author's Note refers to “plate sections throughout the book,” in the Kindle edition (at least) the plates are all gathered near the end, instead, which is reasonable; but in a section called, in the table of contents, simply "Insert," which is a bit opaque. (It took me a while to figure that one out.)
The plates, some of which, at least, can be expanded on a Kindle for closer inspection, should not be confused with the line drawings of the same subjects at the heads of chapters, which do save one from having to refer constantly to another part of the book (there are no hyperlinks to or from the plates).
The book is full of information about the Austen's relatives, friends, and neighbors (even some of their descendants), the city of Bath, London, theaters and plays Jane attended, or may have attended (when we have no surviving letters to tell us whether and what she saw), the careers of her brothers, places she visited and how they appear in the novels, etc.
In most biographies (that I have seen, at least), such topics usually are relegated to the notes, or are the subject of special studies, whether in academic journals or more popular books (such as Maggie Lane’s “Jane Austen and Food,” or John Mullan’s “What Matters in Jane Austen?: Twenty Crucial Puzzles Solved”).
Some of this information can be dug out of the notes in the long-standard “Oxford Edition of Jane Austen,” edited by R.W. Chapman in the 1920s, or B.C. Southam’s revision in the 1970s, but these are not usually ready to hand. Only part of the information appears in more popular annotated editions, such as those from Penguin or the Oxford World’s Classics. (The latter provided the base text for Byrne’s quotations from the novels.)
As with most Austen biographies, too, it is filled with spoilers: I would not suggest it to anyone who has not already read the novels (and probably the short “Lady Susan”). Besides giving away too much about the plots, some of the comments are going to be less than helpful to anyone who doesn’t know the fiction well enough to see the connection being made.
For example, it is especially good on the *very* complex background to "Mansfield Park,” picking up on allusions that would have been clearer to contemporaries, and showing where Jane Austen found realistic details for her descriptions of buildings and estates, the implications of characters’ and places’ names, and the like.
I'm not familiar enough with most of these topics to identify errors. However, Byrnes slips up at least once (or twice) in this same chapter. Rather than leaving this hanging as an unsubstantiated complaint, I will go into a little detail.
In the discussion of Jane's Naval brothers we are told that one of them (Charles) was awarded prize money for his heroic role in capturing an enemy ship (which relates to one of the characters in “Mansfield Park” receiving prize money from a capture).
I've read enough serious non-fiction about the Royal Navy in the Napoleonic wars to be aware that, according to law and regulations, prize money was allocated to a ship's company -- and the admiral commanding the fleet or station -- by rank. So far as I have ever been able to find out, *nothing* was drawn from the total to reward specific acts.
For one thing, such a practice would foster favoritism, and it would reduce, however slightly, the total to be divided among the others. Someone would be sure to consider it a grievance, something the system was supposed to eliminate.
Various “Patriotic Societies,” ship-owner’s associations, etc., did present expensive ceremonial swords, and the like, to officers they regarded as especially heroic, or to whom they were grateful, but this was not in the Admiralty’s control; and may have given rise to some hard feelings, anyway.
Since Byrnes acknowledges help from internet sites (including the ability to access scarce books from Jane Austen’s reading), it is a pity that she did not check Wikipedia’s article on Prize Money, describes the complex way that it was allocated by the Royal Navy, and follow up from there. (Or perhaps the article was not yet available; even so, a bit more research should have turned this up.)
This is, of course, not an issue vital to the book: but it will disturb some readers who (like me), are acquainted with the relevant history.
There is a problem in the same passage, concerning how the real and the fictitious prize money was spent, in life and in “Mansfield Park.” Unless the topaz crosses their brother Charles brought out of his prize money for his sisters Jane and Cassandra were also made in part of amber (as separators?), the book muddles them with the amber cross bought for the book’s heroine, Fanny Price, by *her* brother, referring to "beautiful amber crosses, made out of topaz." Or perhaps “amber” describes the color of the topaz, in which case it ought to have been made clearer.
All told, though, a very interesting book: one which I expect to read again.