What do you think?
Rate this book
Genius Of Jane Austen
Perfect for fans of Jane Austen, this updated edition of Paula Byrne's debut book includes new material that explores the history of Austen stage adaptations, why her books work so well on screen, and what that reveals about one of the world's most beloved authors.
Originally published by Bloomsbury Academic in 2003 as Jane Austen and the Theatre, Paula Byrne's first book was never made widely available in the US and is out of print today. An exploration of Austen's passion for the stage—she acted in amateur productions, frequently attended the theatre, and even scripted several early works in play form—it took a nuanced look at how powerfully her stories were influenced by theatrical comedy.
This updated edition features an introduction and a brand new chapter that delves into the long and lucrative history of Austen adaptations. The film world's love affair with Austen spans decades, from A.A. Milne's "Elizabeth Bennet," performed over the radio in 1944 to raise morale, to this year's Love and Friendship. Austen's work has proven so abidingly popular that these movies are more easily identifiable by lead actor than by title: the Emma Thompson Sense and Sensibility, the Carey Mulligan Northanger Abbey, the Laurence Olivier Pride and Prejudice. Byrne even takes a captivating detour into a multitude of successful spin-offs, including the phenomenally brilliant Clueless. And along the way, she overturns the notion of Jane Austen as a genteel, prim country mouse, demonstrating that Jane's enduring popularity in film, TV, and theater points to a woman of wild comedy and outrageous behavior.
For lovers of everything Jane Austen, as well as for a new generation discovering her for the first time, The Genius of Jane Austen demonstrates why this beloved author still resonates with readers and movie audiences today.
Originally published by Bloomsbury Academic in 2003 as Jane Austen and the Theatre, Paula Byrne's first book was never made widely available in the US and is out of print today. An exploration of Austen's passion for the stage—she acted in amateur productions, frequently attended the theatre, and even scripted several early works in play form—it took a nuanced look at how powerfully her stories were influenced by theatrical comedy.
This updated edition features an introduction and a brand new chapter that delves into the long and lucrative history of Austen adaptations. The film world's love affair with Austen spans decades, from A.A. Milne's "Elizabeth Bennet," performed over the radio in 1944 to raise morale, to this year's Love and Friendship. Austen's work has proven so abidingly popular that these movies are more easily identifiable by lead actor than by title: the Emma Thompson Sense and Sensibility, the Carey Mulligan Northanger Abbey, the Laurence Olivier Pride and Prejudice. Byrne even takes a captivating detour into a multitude of successful spin-offs, including the phenomenally brilliant Clueless. And along the way, she overturns the notion of Jane Austen as a genteel, prim country mouse, demonstrating that Jane's enduring popularity in film, TV, and theater points to a woman of wild comedy and outrageous behavior.
For lovers of everything Jane Austen, as well as for a new generation discovering her for the first time, The Genius of Jane Austen demonstrates why this beloved author still resonates with readers and movie audiences today.
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
51 people are currently reading
1171 people want to read
About the author
Paula Byrne
16 books151 followersPaula Byrne is a British author and biographer. She is married to writer Jonathan Bate, the Shakespeare scholar.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 63 reviews
July 7, 2022
A fantastic and thought-provoking read. I highly recommend it.
October 14, 2024
I liked how this one was about more than Jane Austen, leaving me with a sense of having a better understanding of the era she lived in.
Paula Byrne takes an indepth look at The Rivals by Richard Sheridan and Elizabeth Inchbald’s Lover’s Vows, to look at Jane Austens’ works.
I’ve never made the connection between Jane Austen and the theatre, this is a really interesting read.
Paula Byrne takes an indepth look at The Rivals by Richard Sheridan and Elizabeth Inchbald’s Lover’s Vows, to look at Jane Austens’ works.
I’ve never made the connection between Jane Austen and the theatre, this is a really interesting read.
November 27, 2017
This book reads like a dissertation that got expanded (awkwardly) into a book. In most cases I’d be more severe on such efforts, but there’s a great deal to value in The Genius of Jane Austen.
It starts out intimidatingly enough with a deep dive into eighteenth-century theater, littering the pages with playwrights I’d barely heard of and plays I’ve never read. But once I found my feet in this unfamiliar landscape, I was delighted with the fresh vistas opened on Jane Austen’s writings, from the juvenilia to the novels (well, some of the novels: there’s scarcely a word about Northanger Abbey or Persuasion, and Emma gets rather short shrift). The center of the book consists of two long chapters about Mansfield Park—no surprise, considering that private theatricals are a key plot element. These were definitely the strongest chapters, and they allowed me to see MP in whole new ways.
Earlier in the book, Byrne makes a very good case for how the roots of Austen’s art lie in drama, much more than they do in romance or gothic fiction. She shows Austen’s evolution in her use of dramatic techniques throughout the writing of the juvenilia and Lady Susan, laying a strong groundwork for the later chapters.
The last chapter is an odd and rambling bit on modern film adaptations, and I could have done without it. I agree with her praise of Patricia Rozema’s free adaptation of Mansfield Park—really more of a riff on the novel than an adaptation per se—but found little to interest me in the rest of her commentary. The dead giveaway for the book’s origin as a dissertation is that the text ends at 70-something percent of the ebook, the remainder being bibliography and such.
This is an important work for anyone who is interested in where Austen, a great mimic and spoofer, got some of her inspiration.
It starts out intimidatingly enough with a deep dive into eighteenth-century theater, littering the pages with playwrights I’d barely heard of and plays I’ve never read. But once I found my feet in this unfamiliar landscape, I was delighted with the fresh vistas opened on Jane Austen’s writings, from the juvenilia to the novels (well, some of the novels: there’s scarcely a word about Northanger Abbey or Persuasion, and Emma gets rather short shrift). The center of the book consists of two long chapters about Mansfield Park—no surprise, considering that private theatricals are a key plot element. These were definitely the strongest chapters, and they allowed me to see MP in whole new ways.
Earlier in the book, Byrne makes a very good case for how the roots of Austen’s art lie in drama, much more than they do in romance or gothic fiction. She shows Austen’s evolution in her use of dramatic techniques throughout the writing of the juvenilia and Lady Susan, laying a strong groundwork for the later chapters.
The last chapter is an odd and rambling bit on modern film adaptations, and I could have done without it. I agree with her praise of Patricia Rozema’s free adaptation of Mansfield Park—really more of a riff on the novel than an adaptation per se—but found little to interest me in the rest of her commentary. The dead giveaway for the book’s origin as a dissertation is that the text ends at 70-something percent of the ebook, the remainder being bibliography and such.
This is an important work for anyone who is interested in where Austen, a great mimic and spoofer, got some of her inspiration.
July 28, 2025
The chapters on Lovers Vows and Mansfield Park are definitely worth reading.
August 9, 2017
For my full review: http://girlwithherheadinabook.co.uk/2...
Paula Byrne's The Real Jane Austen: A Life in Small Things was a truly innovative biography in how it told the story of Austen's life through the objects which remain from her life-time. With this book, Byrne is expanding on her earlier book Jane Austen and the Theatre which was first released in 2002. It does rather beg the question whether this re-release and re-brand is little more than an attempt to cash in on the various bicentennials which Miss Austen has been enjoying over the past few years and the fact that she is shortly to star in a very ugly and inaccurate bank note. However, once I started the book, I was so caught up that any misgivings were set aside. Paula Byrne is an incredibly engaging writer and her enthusiasm for her subject is obvious and engaging. Due to the ill-starred amateur dramatics in Mansfield Park, there has been a long-held tradition that the strait-laced Miss Austen disapproved of the stage, but here Byrne argues not only that this was far from the case but also that Austen's knowledge of and passion for the theatre was in fact at the core of her writing.
On the surface, the question of whether Jane Austen liked watching plays may seem trivial but in piecing together the context in which her novels were written, Byrne helps us towards an entirely fresh understanding of Austen's work. Byrne goes through Austen's correspondence and shows that whenever she had the opportunity, Jane Austen went to the theatre around two or three times a week. Even when she was not able to, she maintained a keen interest in the careers of the celebrity stage performers of the day. She expressed dissatisfaction when one actor who had been a fixture in Bath theatres transferred to London. She wondered whether one particularly emotive player would be too much for her young nieces. At one point she says she felt like swearing when she heard that Sarah Siddons would not be appearing in King John that evening.
It hardly seems convincing that Austen disliked the theatre. Indeed, Byrne even puts forward the controversial theory that Austen's infamous long creative silence while she was living in Bath was less the sign of a depressed mind and more perhaps that she was going out a lot, seeing a lot of plays and maybe just not having the time to sit down and write. Byrne also points out the tradition of Austen family putting on amateur productions in their own home and that even when she got to the grand old age of thirty-five, Austen played Mrs Candour in Richard Sheridan's School for Scandal. Not so disapproving of home dramatics either then.
Indeed, setting aside the Lovers' Vows episode in Mansfield Park, many of the characters express admiration for the theatre. Byrne tracks how in Sense and Sensibility, Willoughby and the Dashwoods read Hamlet together. Emma Woodhouse is hardly literary - her penchant for drawing up reading lists rather than actually going through them is a plot point - but even she can quote from Romeo and Juliet. So clearly, plays are not even always bad within her books. More interestingly, Byrne analyses how certain theatrical traditions are echoed in the characters that Austen has created. Northanger's Catherine Moreland is the stereotypical naive country girl so popular in Regency drama. Pride and Prejudice's Mr Collins is an ignorant hypocrite along the lines of Moliere's Tartuffe. Even Elizabeth is another example of the sprightly heroine which also dominated Regency dramas, able to to defeat the high-ranking aristocrats despite her inferior connections. Byrne explains how in many popular Regency plays, there was the conflict between country and town, with the naive ingenue arriving in London from the country and having all of their illusions shattered. The battle lines are drawn. Pride and Prejudice inverts this since Mr Bingley and Mr Darcy bring the town to the country, with Mrs Bennet loudly defending her territory against the rude incomer. Austen was at heart a satirist, right from the beginning with the burlesques of Love and Freindship and although she sheathed her claws for the majority of her novels, she never quite abandoned her roots.
Particularly compelling was Byrne's analysis of Sense and Sensibility. She points out that the themes of Sheridan's play The Rivals echo the battle between sense and sensibility and in particular 'the errors of an ill-directed imagination', something which also overshadows much of Northanger Abbey. Yet it is also undeniable how many theatrical devices are at play in the action of Sense and Sensibility - Marianne leaps up and believes she sees Willoughby, but no, it is Edward Ferrars. Later she thinks Willoughby will be at the door, but it is Colonel Brandon. Edward expects to find Elinor, but there is Lucy Steele as well. The characters are constantly mistaking people for each other. Later Mrs Jennings and Elinor are at cross purposes over whether a proposal has taken place. The dialogue between Elinor and Lucy Steele is charged with what each of them are not saying - they both know that the other one knows they know they know. There is true absurdity that Edward Ferrars is giving up his inheritance to marry a poor fortune-less girl who he does not love. All of these are examples of the kind of mis-direction which was a classic feature of Regency comedy and puts the whole novel in a different light. Is it because Austen was such an avid follower of theatre that her dialogue remains quite so fresh?
Still, although an ex-English-literature student, Byrne helped me to see how my own textual ignorance had allowed me to misunderstand much of the action of Mansfield Park. Having had no idea of the significance of the play Lovers' Vows (I had had a vague notion that it was not actually a real play), it seems that I was missing a good deal of crucial context. Indeed, according to Byrne, the novel's first volume 'is only partially intelligible without knowledge of Lovers' Vows'. Small wonder then that it's the book which people tend to like the least. Byrne explains that the play signals 'Austen's engagement with the subject of prohibited relationships and with a long-standing debate about women's autonomy in courtship'. An intriguing choice for a book which sees one woman commit adultery, another elope and another flat out refuse to marry a man she dislikes. Famously, in Northanger Abbey, Austen mocked Samuel Richardson's assumption that no woman should fall in love before the man in question had proposed, so this should not be so surprising, but here something quite different is happening.
Lovers' Vows features a fallen woman (played by Maria Bertram) reunited with her son (played by Henry Crawford) while a vivacious young woman (played by Mary Crawford) propositions her tutor and clergyman (played by Edmund Bertram). The parallels are painfully obvious once you have some idea of the story, but given that most people read Mansfield Park in ignorance of all of this, we are missing out on a lot. Mr Yates plays the wicked Baron, but he too has a parallel when Sir Thomas comes home unexpectedly and the whole production has to cease. Yet there is even more going on here, Byrne explains how the play that Tom Bertram had wanted to pick was one where the apparent heir to an estate is inadequate and a more noble replacement is found. Then when they settle on Lovers' Vows, Tom decides to play the butler. All of this is Austen highlighting Tom's inadequacies and unsuitability to inherit Mansfield Park. Then there is the conflict between how Henry Crawford wants to speak his lines and how Mr Yates wishes to bellow them - this is Austen poking fun at a contemporary debate about new fashions in acting. We have missed all of this but Austen's contemporary readers would have got it all.
The Genius of Jane Austen explains why Austen never really seemed to consider becoming a dramatist herself - her use of the free indirect voice was revolutionary in the way that it took her both inside and outside of her characters but it also gave her far more control over her cast and how they behaved than a playwright or director would have ever had. That this is such a key part of her work is, Byrne postulates, the reason why 'film and television adaptations - brilliantly as they may render the surface of Jane Austen's comic world - can never fully satisfy the serious reader of the novels themselves. Screenwriters find it almost impossible to render the ironic third-person authorial voice that is so important to Austen's narrative method'. This explains why many of us heard the news that ITV plans to put together a new production of Pride and Prejudice with more of a sigh than a cheer.
With varying degrees of enthusiasm, Byrne tracks through the various adaptations which have graced stages and screens both big and small. She notes the boom in Austen-mania since the mid 1990s, but also notes the much earlier depictions such as AA Milne's Elizabeth Bennet and the fluffy and frivolous 1940 MGM production. I did find myself wondering whether Byrne's antipathy for Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma was influenced by Ms Paltrow's current popularity status, but I agreed wholeheartedly that Alicia Silverstone better embodies Emma Woodhouse's mixture of altruism and spoiled self-centredness. Byrne also notes how ubiquitous Austen spin-offs truly are in the modern day, pondering whether there will soon be 'a TV channel entirely devoted to Austen'.
We misunderstand Austen in so very many, many ways. We think of her as a romance novelist, we believe her family when they say that she preferred to stay at home even though we can see in her letters that she travelled. We believe them when they say that she never had a cross word to say about anyone even though her letters are full of digs at the neighbours and her novels are packed with mockery. Byrne states firmly that this 'twentieth century assumption' that Austen was 'deeply suspicious of urban pleasures' is false - Jane Austen was a clever woman. Byrne's novel is far more academic in its style than The Real Jane Austen but it makes the intelligence behind Austen's work inescapable, despite it being something so long denied even by those close to her - and just in case there was any risk of her point being missed, Byrne has even updated her book's title to make it more clear. Jane Austen. Genius. Read all about it here.
Paula Byrne's The Real Jane Austen: A Life in Small Things was a truly innovative biography in how it told the story of Austen's life through the objects which remain from her life-time. With this book, Byrne is expanding on her earlier book Jane Austen and the Theatre which was first released in 2002. It does rather beg the question whether this re-release and re-brand is little more than an attempt to cash in on the various bicentennials which Miss Austen has been enjoying over the past few years and the fact that she is shortly to star in a very ugly and inaccurate bank note. However, once I started the book, I was so caught up that any misgivings were set aside. Paula Byrne is an incredibly engaging writer and her enthusiasm for her subject is obvious and engaging. Due to the ill-starred amateur dramatics in Mansfield Park, there has been a long-held tradition that the strait-laced Miss Austen disapproved of the stage, but here Byrne argues not only that this was far from the case but also that Austen's knowledge of and passion for the theatre was in fact at the core of her writing.
On the surface, the question of whether Jane Austen liked watching plays may seem trivial but in piecing together the context in which her novels were written, Byrne helps us towards an entirely fresh understanding of Austen's work. Byrne goes through Austen's correspondence and shows that whenever she had the opportunity, Jane Austen went to the theatre around two or three times a week. Even when she was not able to, she maintained a keen interest in the careers of the celebrity stage performers of the day. She expressed dissatisfaction when one actor who had been a fixture in Bath theatres transferred to London. She wondered whether one particularly emotive player would be too much for her young nieces. At one point she says she felt like swearing when she heard that Sarah Siddons would not be appearing in King John that evening.
It hardly seems convincing that Austen disliked the theatre. Indeed, Byrne even puts forward the controversial theory that Austen's infamous long creative silence while she was living in Bath was less the sign of a depressed mind and more perhaps that she was going out a lot, seeing a lot of plays and maybe just not having the time to sit down and write. Byrne also points out the tradition of Austen family putting on amateur productions in their own home and that even when she got to the grand old age of thirty-five, Austen played Mrs Candour in Richard Sheridan's School for Scandal. Not so disapproving of home dramatics either then.
Indeed, setting aside the Lovers' Vows episode in Mansfield Park, many of the characters express admiration for the theatre. Byrne tracks how in Sense and Sensibility, Willoughby and the Dashwoods read Hamlet together. Emma Woodhouse is hardly literary - her penchant for drawing up reading lists rather than actually going through them is a plot point - but even she can quote from Romeo and Juliet. So clearly, plays are not even always bad within her books. More interestingly, Byrne analyses how certain theatrical traditions are echoed in the characters that Austen has created. Northanger's Catherine Moreland is the stereotypical naive country girl so popular in Regency drama. Pride and Prejudice's Mr Collins is an ignorant hypocrite along the lines of Moliere's Tartuffe. Even Elizabeth is another example of the sprightly heroine which also dominated Regency dramas, able to to defeat the high-ranking aristocrats despite her inferior connections. Byrne explains how in many popular Regency plays, there was the conflict between country and town, with the naive ingenue arriving in London from the country and having all of their illusions shattered. The battle lines are drawn. Pride and Prejudice inverts this since Mr Bingley and Mr Darcy bring the town to the country, with Mrs Bennet loudly defending her territory against the rude incomer. Austen was at heart a satirist, right from the beginning with the burlesques of Love and Freindship and although she sheathed her claws for the majority of her novels, she never quite abandoned her roots.
Particularly compelling was Byrne's analysis of Sense and Sensibility. She points out that the themes of Sheridan's play The Rivals echo the battle between sense and sensibility and in particular 'the errors of an ill-directed imagination', something which also overshadows much of Northanger Abbey. Yet it is also undeniable how many theatrical devices are at play in the action of Sense and Sensibility - Marianne leaps up and believes she sees Willoughby, but no, it is Edward Ferrars. Later she thinks Willoughby will be at the door, but it is Colonel Brandon. Edward expects to find Elinor, but there is Lucy Steele as well. The characters are constantly mistaking people for each other. Later Mrs Jennings and Elinor are at cross purposes over whether a proposal has taken place. The dialogue between Elinor and Lucy Steele is charged with what each of them are not saying - they both know that the other one knows they know they know. There is true absurdity that Edward Ferrars is giving up his inheritance to marry a poor fortune-less girl who he does not love. All of these are examples of the kind of mis-direction which was a classic feature of Regency comedy and puts the whole novel in a different light. Is it because Austen was such an avid follower of theatre that her dialogue remains quite so fresh?
Still, although an ex-English-literature student, Byrne helped me to see how my own textual ignorance had allowed me to misunderstand much of the action of Mansfield Park. Having had no idea of the significance of the play Lovers' Vows (I had had a vague notion that it was not actually a real play), it seems that I was missing a good deal of crucial context. Indeed, according to Byrne, the novel's first volume 'is only partially intelligible without knowledge of Lovers' Vows'. Small wonder then that it's the book which people tend to like the least. Byrne explains that the play signals 'Austen's engagement with the subject of prohibited relationships and with a long-standing debate about women's autonomy in courtship'. An intriguing choice for a book which sees one woman commit adultery, another elope and another flat out refuse to marry a man she dislikes. Famously, in Northanger Abbey, Austen mocked Samuel Richardson's assumption that no woman should fall in love before the man in question had proposed, so this should not be so surprising, but here something quite different is happening.
Lovers' Vows features a fallen woman (played by Maria Bertram) reunited with her son (played by Henry Crawford) while a vivacious young woman (played by Mary Crawford) propositions her tutor and clergyman (played by Edmund Bertram). The parallels are painfully obvious once you have some idea of the story, but given that most people read Mansfield Park in ignorance of all of this, we are missing out on a lot. Mr Yates plays the wicked Baron, but he too has a parallel when Sir Thomas comes home unexpectedly and the whole production has to cease. Yet there is even more going on here, Byrne explains how the play that Tom Bertram had wanted to pick was one where the apparent heir to an estate is inadequate and a more noble replacement is found. Then when they settle on Lovers' Vows, Tom decides to play the butler. All of this is Austen highlighting Tom's inadequacies and unsuitability to inherit Mansfield Park. Then there is the conflict between how Henry Crawford wants to speak his lines and how Mr Yates wishes to bellow them - this is Austen poking fun at a contemporary debate about new fashions in acting. We have missed all of this but Austen's contemporary readers would have got it all.
The Genius of Jane Austen explains why Austen never really seemed to consider becoming a dramatist herself - her use of the free indirect voice was revolutionary in the way that it took her both inside and outside of her characters but it also gave her far more control over her cast and how they behaved than a playwright or director would have ever had. That this is such a key part of her work is, Byrne postulates, the reason why 'film and television adaptations - brilliantly as they may render the surface of Jane Austen's comic world - can never fully satisfy the serious reader of the novels themselves. Screenwriters find it almost impossible to render the ironic third-person authorial voice that is so important to Austen's narrative method'. This explains why many of us heard the news that ITV plans to put together a new production of Pride and Prejudice with more of a sigh than a cheer.
With varying degrees of enthusiasm, Byrne tracks through the various adaptations which have graced stages and screens both big and small. She notes the boom in Austen-mania since the mid 1990s, but also notes the much earlier depictions such as AA Milne's Elizabeth Bennet and the fluffy and frivolous 1940 MGM production. I did find myself wondering whether Byrne's antipathy for Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma was influenced by Ms Paltrow's current popularity status, but I agreed wholeheartedly that Alicia Silverstone better embodies Emma Woodhouse's mixture of altruism and spoiled self-centredness. Byrne also notes how ubiquitous Austen spin-offs truly are in the modern day, pondering whether there will soon be 'a TV channel entirely devoted to Austen'.
We misunderstand Austen in so very many, many ways. We think of her as a romance novelist, we believe her family when they say that she preferred to stay at home even though we can see in her letters that she travelled. We believe them when they say that she never had a cross word to say about anyone even though her letters are full of digs at the neighbours and her novels are packed with mockery. Byrne states firmly that this 'twentieth century assumption' that Austen was 'deeply suspicious of urban pleasures' is false - Jane Austen was a clever woman. Byrne's novel is far more academic in its style than The Real Jane Austen but it makes the intelligence behind Austen's work inescapable, despite it being something so long denied even by those close to her - and just in case there was any risk of her point being missed, Byrne has even updated her book's title to make it more clear. Jane Austen. Genius. Read all about it here.
January 28, 2018
Most intriguing and insightful work of literary scholarship I have ever read. I am pleased to see Clueless getting the serious consideration of deserves. And now I want to read the Milne play.
March 1, 2024
Jane Austen was a theatre kid. At least, to as great an extent as her social class and time period would allow her to be. Unlike what some readers of Mansfield Park would have us believe, she participated in family theatricals, read aloud excellently, attended plays often, and incorporated many theatrical elements into her novels. This book examines most of her novels and compares them to popular regency plays to an almost exhausting degree.
I was expecting a lot more of the "Hollywood" section; it's just a short chapter that was added on years after publication. I was glad to read the author's defense of Clueless, one of my favorite movies, as both a film and an Austen adaptation. I'm a little skeptical of her claim that Jane Austen would be "baffled" by the film adaptations of her books; sure, I agree that she'd probably want a greater emphasis on the satire and wit, but it felt close to this weird, pushy insistence I often see in literary circles that Jane Austen is NOT a romance writer, because romance is simple and fluffy and below the notice of serious artists, or something. Can't she be a satirist who also loves romance? No one who didn't love a good ship would write a line like "If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more."
But maybe I'm being reactionary and defensive and the author is right and Jane Austen would think we are all ridiculous. I sure hope so. She'd write books about us, and they'd be funny.
I was expecting a lot more of the "Hollywood" section; it's just a short chapter that was added on years after publication. I was glad to read the author's defense of Clueless, one of my favorite movies, as both a film and an Austen adaptation. I'm a little skeptical of her claim that Jane Austen would be "baffled" by the film adaptations of her books; sure, I agree that she'd probably want a greater emphasis on the satire and wit, but it felt close to this weird, pushy insistence I often see in literary circles that Jane Austen is NOT a romance writer, because romance is simple and fluffy and below the notice of serious artists, or something. Can't she be a satirist who also loves romance? No one who didn't love a good ship would write a line like "If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more."
But maybe I'm being reactionary and defensive and the author is right and Jane Austen would think we are all ridiculous. I sure hope so. She'd write books about us, and they'd be funny.
January 1, 2022
With this book, Byrne brings the context of nineteenth-century drama to the conversation of Austen scholarship.
I particularly enjoyed the chapter on Lover’s Vows (the play Austen’s characters rehearse in Mansfield Park) and Byrne’s analysis of Austen’s novel in parallel with the primary source play. It brought me back to my seminar classes on Mansfield Park; Professor B wanting our thoughts on Mr. Bertram’s patriarchal authority and his frustration receiving blank stares as he went on about ‘the voice of the father.’ If I had read Byrne’s close reading of Mr. Bertram’s comparable interviews with his daughters, Maria and then Fanny, I would have had a lot more to say. Byrne also reveals Tom’s awareness of theatricality and play acting required in social situations. The evidence she unpacks for her reading of Tom is novel and inspiring; I wish she had taken it further to develop the essayist’s elusive end goal: the ‘so what?’ Does Tom’s closeness to theatricality mean he disdains social performance and will be a bad inheritor of the estate? Or will he mature like Austen’s heroines who are aware that “the social self is always performed” and successfully navigate society without sacrificing their personal integrity (Byrne 248). Byrne’s analysis points out how Elizabeth and Elinor possess this skill and Emma learns it (Byrne 240). Does Tom learn anything on his path and near miss (when he is deathly sick) to be the next Sir Thomas Bertram as the heir of Mansfield Park? Answers require a rereading of M.P.
Before analysing the novels, Byrne begins with Jane Austen’s relationship with theatre: her involvement in private theatricals, delight in attending public plays and her reviews of the great actors and actresses of her time, taken from her letters written to friends and relatives and put alongside contemporary critics’ published reviews. Most of the time, Austen was in line with the critics, singling out the same praises or criticisms of an actor’s rendition. She had a sharp eye and critical tongue.
Byrne explains how Austen experimented with the theatrical form in her early writing but chose the novel for its allowance for more narrative control and ability to get both inside and outside a character through free indirect discourse. Nevertheless, Austen does not leave theatre aside and uses what she saw on stage and learnt from theatrical comedy in her novels to set up comedic scenes, relationships between characters, dramatic irony, etc. The scene where Edward Ferrars walks in to find both his secret fiancée (Lucy Steele) and lover (Elinor Dashwood) in the same room is one example of a comedic entrance and set-piece that Byrne explains is a form taken from theatre. Another example is at the Netherfield ball, when Mr. Darcy is watching Mrs. Bennet make a spectacle of herself, and Elizabeth is watching Mr. Darcy watch Mrs. Bennet, which mimics the positioning of players on stage.
Although the narrative form allows for more control and subtlety, a lot can be told on screen that is sometimes not in the novel. In the last chapter “Why She Is a Hit in Hollywood,” Byrne argues that “the absolute key to the distinction between adaptations that succeed and those that fail” is “the test” of “truth to character, not truth to the original text” (Byrne 256). She is not an absolutist to the text. I tend to agree, after seeing an excellent adaptation that can stand on its own as well as bring something new to my appreciation of the original text. With the talent of actors and actresses, the ability of film to pan in on facial expressions, and good directorship and creative cutting of scenes, screen is able to give audiences meaning that is not always present in reading the text.
Byrne’s chapter on Hollywood adaptations is short. The main purpose of this book is to bring the knowledge of nineteenth-century drama to Austen scholarship. Reading Byrne’s book, I agree a lot can be brought to our understanding of the primary texts, from the stage and the screen.
I particularly enjoyed the chapter on Lover’s Vows (the play Austen’s characters rehearse in Mansfield Park) and Byrne’s analysis of Austen’s novel in parallel with the primary source play. It brought me back to my seminar classes on Mansfield Park; Professor B wanting our thoughts on Mr. Bertram’s patriarchal authority and his frustration receiving blank stares as he went on about ‘the voice of the father.’ If I had read Byrne’s close reading of Mr. Bertram’s comparable interviews with his daughters, Maria and then Fanny, I would have had a lot more to say. Byrne also reveals Tom’s awareness of theatricality and play acting required in social situations. The evidence she unpacks for her reading of Tom is novel and inspiring; I wish she had taken it further to develop the essayist’s elusive end goal: the ‘so what?’ Does Tom’s closeness to theatricality mean he disdains social performance and will be a bad inheritor of the estate? Or will he mature like Austen’s heroines who are aware that “the social self is always performed” and successfully navigate society without sacrificing their personal integrity (Byrne 248). Byrne’s analysis points out how Elizabeth and Elinor possess this skill and Emma learns it (Byrne 240). Does Tom learn anything on his path and near miss (when he is deathly sick) to be the next Sir Thomas Bertram as the heir of Mansfield Park? Answers require a rereading of M.P.
Before analysing the novels, Byrne begins with Jane Austen’s relationship with theatre: her involvement in private theatricals, delight in attending public plays and her reviews of the great actors and actresses of her time, taken from her letters written to friends and relatives and put alongside contemporary critics’ published reviews. Most of the time, Austen was in line with the critics, singling out the same praises or criticisms of an actor’s rendition. She had a sharp eye and critical tongue.
Byrne explains how Austen experimented with the theatrical form in her early writing but chose the novel for its allowance for more narrative control and ability to get both inside and outside a character through free indirect discourse. Nevertheless, Austen does not leave theatre aside and uses what she saw on stage and learnt from theatrical comedy in her novels to set up comedic scenes, relationships between characters, dramatic irony, etc. The scene where Edward Ferrars walks in to find both his secret fiancée (Lucy Steele) and lover (Elinor Dashwood) in the same room is one example of a comedic entrance and set-piece that Byrne explains is a form taken from theatre. Another example is at the Netherfield ball, when Mr. Darcy is watching Mrs. Bennet make a spectacle of herself, and Elizabeth is watching Mr. Darcy watch Mrs. Bennet, which mimics the positioning of players on stage.
Although the narrative form allows for more control and subtlety, a lot can be told on screen that is sometimes not in the novel. In the last chapter “Why She Is a Hit in Hollywood,” Byrne argues that “the absolute key to the distinction between adaptations that succeed and those that fail” is “the test” of “truth to character, not truth to the original text” (Byrne 256). She is not an absolutist to the text. I tend to agree, after seeing an excellent adaptation that can stand on its own as well as bring something new to my appreciation of the original text. With the talent of actors and actresses, the ability of film to pan in on facial expressions, and good directorship and creative cutting of scenes, screen is able to give audiences meaning that is not always present in reading the text.
Byrne’s chapter on Hollywood adaptations is short. The main purpose of this book is to bring the knowledge of nineteenth-century drama to Austen scholarship. Reading Byrne’s book, I agree a lot can be brought to our understanding of the primary texts, from the stage and the screen.
November 11, 2020
I bought this book purely because of the price and because it said “Jane Austen” somewhere on the title (when faced with cheap books, I am not the most discerning of buyers). Thankfully, I ended up enjoying this, and I think this will be a book that I return to in the future.
The Genius of Jane Austen argues that Jane Austen has been severely underrated as a comic genius (an idea that Katie at Never Not Reading introduced to me), and that her books were inspired by the comedic theatre that she was familiar with. The first section establishes convincingly that Jane Austen would have known the theatre well, and would even have participated in a few private performances, while the second (and longer) section analyses the potential theatrical references that Jane Austen is making through her books. As you can imagine, Mansfield Park gets a lot of analysis, since it actually features a play in the book, but Emma, Sense and Sensibility, and Pride and Prejudice are also analysed.
After reading this book, my eyes have been opened to the fact that Austen was familiar with popular plays and actors of her day. The first part is extremely detailed and I finished it convinced that Austen would have intimate knowledge of the theatre. And because of that, I have no problem believing that Austen would have been influenced by the theatre in her writing.
Now, am I convinced that all the references were deliberate? I’m not too sure. I believe that a few would have been conscious in her mind as she worked, but I’m not sure if it’s systematic as Byrne argues. After all, Byrne is arguing for this as one of the major influences of Austen.
Then again, this hesitancy for me to completely buy the argument could be because it feels strange to me to believe that something that reads as effortlessly as Austen’s works could contain so many deliberate references. Writing that out makes me wonder if I’m undervaluing the work that Austen put into her works, but as it is, my position is that Austen was influenced by the theatre, some of it perhaps unintentionally.
Overall, I enjoyed The Genius of Jane Austen and appreciated the arguments that it made. There’s a lot of information and arguments packed into the book, and some of it flew over my head, so I foresee myself returning to this book in the future.
This review was first posted at Eustea Reads
The Genius of Jane Austen argues that Jane Austen has been severely underrated as a comic genius (an idea that Katie at Never Not Reading introduced to me), and that her books were inspired by the comedic theatre that she was familiar with. The first section establishes convincingly that Jane Austen would have known the theatre well, and would even have participated in a few private performances, while the second (and longer) section analyses the potential theatrical references that Jane Austen is making through her books. As you can imagine, Mansfield Park gets a lot of analysis, since it actually features a play in the book, but Emma, Sense and Sensibility, and Pride and Prejudice are also analysed.
After reading this book, my eyes have been opened to the fact that Austen was familiar with popular plays and actors of her day. The first part is extremely detailed and I finished it convinced that Austen would have intimate knowledge of the theatre. And because of that, I have no problem believing that Austen would have been influenced by the theatre in her writing.
Now, am I convinced that all the references were deliberate? I’m not too sure. I believe that a few would have been conscious in her mind as she worked, but I’m not sure if it’s systematic as Byrne argues. After all, Byrne is arguing for this as one of the major influences of Austen.
Then again, this hesitancy for me to completely buy the argument could be because it feels strange to me to believe that something that reads as effortlessly as Austen’s works could contain so many deliberate references. Writing that out makes me wonder if I’m undervaluing the work that Austen put into her works, but as it is, my position is that Austen was influenced by the theatre, some of it perhaps unintentionally.
Overall, I enjoyed The Genius of Jane Austen and appreciated the arguments that it made. There’s a lot of information and arguments packed into the book, and some of it flew over my head, so I foresee myself returning to this book in the future.
This review was first posted at Eustea Reads
April 20, 2017
Byrne's enthusiasm shines through this but her thesis that Jane Austen was influenced by theatre is broad, unspecific, and hardly as novel as she claims. There's lots of interesting material in the first part which mines an array of primary material to explore the Austen family's engagements with public theatre, private theatricals and dramatised readings aloud. The final chapter, too, on Hollywood's receptions of Austen collects together material on the familiar and less familiar film adaptations.
The section in the middle, though, Byrne's 'readings' of the theatrical aspects of the novels is repetitive, unfocused and frequently states the obvious. Byrne isn't a nuanced literary scholar: she skims the surface, re-tells plots, reiterates what we already know, rather than uncovering new aspects of interpreting the books. There are certainly some interesting intertextual connections being made with theatre, comedy drama and other novels (the later rather undermining the thesis being proposed here) but do they re-open, change or illuminate Austen's novels themselves? No, not really.
The book, overall, seems to be arguing for a premise (that Austen was influenced by theatrical comedy) that no scholar would realistically doubt. A book, then, that may well delight Austen fans and undergraduates.
Review from an ARC courtesy of NetGalley
The section in the middle, though, Byrne's 'readings' of the theatrical aspects of the novels is repetitive, unfocused and frequently states the obvious. Byrne isn't a nuanced literary scholar: she skims the surface, re-tells plots, reiterates what we already know, rather than uncovering new aspects of interpreting the books. There are certainly some interesting intertextual connections being made with theatre, comedy drama and other novels (the later rather undermining the thesis being proposed here) but do they re-open, change or illuminate Austen's novels themselves? No, not really.
The book, overall, seems to be arguing for a premise (that Austen was influenced by theatrical comedy) that no scholar would realistically doubt. A book, then, that may well delight Austen fans and undergraduates.
Review from an ARC courtesy of NetGalley
December 30, 2017
I remember, several years ago, tracking down with difficulty the earlier version of this work, "Jane Austen and the Theatre," and reading it admiringly, but slowly. So much was new or only vaguely familiar to me that it took time to process. Reread now -- for pleasure instead of research, and far more conversant with the world of Jane Austen -- the book feels like an old friend.
Byrne begins with a look at the theater in Jane Austen's time, as well at Austen's own experience with play-going and amateur theatricals. She finds in many seemingly obscure references in Austen's letters her deep knowledge of and interest in the notable actors and plays of her era, then looks closely at the influence of drama on four of Austen's six completed novels. ("Northanger Abbey" and "Persuasion" are apparently not playlike enough, but "Lady Susan" and some of the juvenilia get a mention.) A final chapter looks at some of the more notable movie versions and reworkings to emerge in recent decades.
I highly recommend this for anyone who loves Jane Austen's work and is ready for a new and intriguing way of looking at it. As we might expect, it is particularly strong on the less-beloved but truly terrific "Mansfield Park."
Byrne begins with a look at the theater in Jane Austen's time, as well at Austen's own experience with play-going and amateur theatricals. She finds in many seemingly obscure references in Austen's letters her deep knowledge of and interest in the notable actors and plays of her era, then looks closely at the influence of drama on four of Austen's six completed novels. ("Northanger Abbey" and "Persuasion" are apparently not playlike enough, but "Lady Susan" and some of the juvenilia get a mention.) A final chapter looks at some of the more notable movie versions and reworkings to emerge in recent decades.
I highly recommend this for anyone who loves Jane Austen's work and is ready for a new and intriguing way of looking at it. As we might expect, it is particularly strong on the less-beloved but truly terrific "Mansfield Park."
August 5, 2018
If you’re just interested in the movie adaptations of Jane Austen’s novels, then skip right to the end; the author added a chapter just to cover that. As for the rest of the book, I don’t know who Byrne is trying to fool with that picture on the cover of Jane Austen by the pool, but this is straight up academic-paper-masquerading-as-pop-culture-nonfiction, following all the steps of “this is my thesis statement, this is why no one has researched this before, this is why it’s important, here are all my examples.” It’s possible to turn the book into an entertaining read, but the author didn’t take the time to structure her research for a different market or use a different tone in writing.
February 6, 2022
3,5 stars rounded to 4.
This is a very serious academic work about the relationship between the late Georgian and early Regency theater and Jane Austen works. It is fairly interesting at some sections but sometimes too detailed for my taste.
The best part was the analysis of the Austen adaptations which were two very last sections. I learned about the story of adaptations and some adaptations I was not aware of.
A good book for readers who want to know everything about Jane Austen works. And you will be spoiled for most of her works so read it after you finish all Austen novels.
This is a very serious academic work about the relationship between the late Georgian and early Regency theater and Jane Austen works. It is fairly interesting at some sections but sometimes too detailed for my taste.
The best part was the analysis of the Austen adaptations which were two very last sections. I learned about the story of adaptations and some adaptations I was not aware of.
A good book for readers who want to know everything about Jane Austen works. And you will be spoiled for most of her works so read it after you finish all Austen novels.
July 13, 2017
looks at Austen from a perspective I hadn't thought much about. tho I wish it had explored new media adaptations (lizzie bennet diaries, etc.) as well as films. but maybe this is the nudge I needed to read She Stoops to Conquer.
May 7, 2023
If the most famous connection between Jane Austen and the British theater is her complex use of Lover's Vows within Mansfield Park, there are a great many more connections to be made between Jane Austen's famous comic plots and characters and the theater tradition that she was intimately familiar with. Austen's familiarity is such that her surviving letters and the records of her relatives--including her favorite nieces--show that she was a regular attendee of plays and was familiar with and conversant about the discussion of actors and actresses and the world of plays. Her own novels and juvenilia, furthermore, feature references to the plots and characters of plays and demonstrate the complicated way she worked within the existing tradition of English comic literature in ways that are not often appreciated. This author has done a significant amount of research in demonstrating connections between Austen's novels and a whole host of both famous and forgotten plays from the British stage tradition. Those who think that Austen was hostile to plays because Sir Thomas was quite mistake the large and acknowledged debt that Austen had to the stage, an inheritance that in turn has often made Austen's work itself a hit with contemporary filmmakers and audiences.
As a whole, this book has between 250 and 300 pages of text, beginning with a list of illustrations, a foreword to the new edition (which renamed the book and added some additional content), acknowledgements, abbreviations, and a short introduction. The main body of the book is divided into two parts. The first part examines what the surviving historical record has to say about Austen's own familiarity with the theater. This part of the book includes a chapter on the record of Jane Austen's own involvement in private theatricals going back to her childhood (1), Austen's own visits to professional theater in London and elsewhere (2), as well as Austen's own comments on actors and plays (3). The second part of the book then examines the rich seam of evidence involving the connection between Austen's own writings and the British theater. This part of the book includes chapters on Austen's juvenilia (4), her manuscript of a play based on a favorite novel of hers in Sir Charles Grandison as well as Lady Susan (5), Sense & Sensibility (6), Pride & Prejudice (7), an entire chapter on Austen's use of Lover's Vows (8), the rest of Mansfield Park (9), Emma (10), and a closing chapter about why Austen's work remains vitally important for Hollywood today (11). After this the book ends with a substantial set of endnotes, a bibliography, and an index.
One of the more revealing aspects of Jane Austen's work in general is how our approach to Jane Austen's novels often reveals more about us than it does about Jane Austen herself or her writings. This particular book demonstrates a higher degree of fondness for Hollywood and its attention to "modern audiences" than might have been the case for Austen, but it is a perspective that is informed by a close reading of British plays that demonstrate a high degree of irony and a hostility to sentimentality. It is telling that the author sees in Jane Austen's complex use of Lovers' Vows in Mansfield Park a belief that the theatricals condemn Sir Thomas, rather than exhibiting any condemnation of the play itself. If there is one fault of this book with regards to its reading of Jane Austen, it is the way that the book seems to underplay Jane Austen's own moral standards in making her seem more cynical than she was, even as the accounts of Jane Austen by her relatives often served to make her seem less cynical than she was. Even so, those readers who wish to be informed about the intimate connection between Jane Austen and the theater of the 18th and 19th centuries will find much to enjoy here.
As a whole, this book has between 250 and 300 pages of text, beginning with a list of illustrations, a foreword to the new edition (which renamed the book and added some additional content), acknowledgements, abbreviations, and a short introduction. The main body of the book is divided into two parts. The first part examines what the surviving historical record has to say about Austen's own familiarity with the theater. This part of the book includes a chapter on the record of Jane Austen's own involvement in private theatricals going back to her childhood (1), Austen's own visits to professional theater in London and elsewhere (2), as well as Austen's own comments on actors and plays (3). The second part of the book then examines the rich seam of evidence involving the connection between Austen's own writings and the British theater. This part of the book includes chapters on Austen's juvenilia (4), her manuscript of a play based on a favorite novel of hers in Sir Charles Grandison as well as Lady Susan (5), Sense & Sensibility (6), Pride & Prejudice (7), an entire chapter on Austen's use of Lover's Vows (8), the rest of Mansfield Park (9), Emma (10), and a closing chapter about why Austen's work remains vitally important for Hollywood today (11). After this the book ends with a substantial set of endnotes, a bibliography, and an index.
One of the more revealing aspects of Jane Austen's work in general is how our approach to Jane Austen's novels often reveals more about us than it does about Jane Austen herself or her writings. This particular book demonstrates a higher degree of fondness for Hollywood and its attention to "modern audiences" than might have been the case for Austen, but it is a perspective that is informed by a close reading of British plays that demonstrate a high degree of irony and a hostility to sentimentality. It is telling that the author sees in Jane Austen's complex use of Lovers' Vows in Mansfield Park a belief that the theatricals condemn Sir Thomas, rather than exhibiting any condemnation of the play itself. If there is one fault of this book with regards to its reading of Jane Austen, it is the way that the book seems to underplay Jane Austen's own moral standards in making her seem more cynical than she was, even as the accounts of Jane Austen by her relatives often served to make her seem less cynical than she was. Even so, those readers who wish to be informed about the intimate connection between Jane Austen and the theater of the 18th and 19th centuries will find much to enjoy here.
August 6, 2025
4.5*
This is a dense, academic look at the deep intertwining of theatres, plays, and Austen. I didn't think the book flawless:
(a) it's clearly a dissertation/series of academic works smushed together into a book. This causes a lot of repetitive summations, especially in the middle of a chapter when the author is trying to transition between points (where was the editor?)
(b) Northanger Abbey and Persuasion deserved chapters in the book - their references to theatre and their inherent theatricality needed the same lens.
(c) The chapter on Hollywood was unnecessary and much less cohesive than the rest.
BUT - I'm still marking it as 5 stars for the sheer, exhilerating depth and insight that Byrne brings to the rest of the book, her lush and detailed descriptions of plays directly and indirectly referenced across works, and her masterful close reading of both canonical texts and primary sources such as letters. This has radically changed how I'll reread Austen's works, and that's worth 5 stars any day!
This is a dense, academic look at the deep intertwining of theatres, plays, and Austen. I didn't think the book flawless:
(a) it's clearly a dissertation/series of academic works smushed together into a book. This causes a lot of repetitive summations, especially in the middle of a chapter when the author is trying to transition between points (where was the editor?)
(b) Northanger Abbey and Persuasion deserved chapters in the book - their references to theatre and their inherent theatricality needed the same lens.
(c) The chapter on Hollywood was unnecessary and much less cohesive than the rest.
BUT - I'm still marking it as 5 stars for the sheer, exhilerating depth and insight that Byrne brings to the rest of the book, her lush and detailed descriptions of plays directly and indirectly referenced across works, and her masterful close reading of both canonical texts and primary sources such as letters. This has radically changed how I'll reread Austen's works, and that's worth 5 stars any day!
May 12, 2018
I feel like there are aspects of this book that were really well researched, and other parts that were expanded on them just to fill out to word count. Interesting read, just weirdly repetitive in a way that doesn't feel like it's enforcing a point.
July 7, 2022
Ikkje min kopp te, då eg ikkje har så meget stor interesse for teateret anna enn dei oppsetningane eg velger å sjå. I tillegg var det i overkant mykje litterære referanser som var av null interesse og teksten var skrevet vel akademisk.
December 26, 2023
4/5 Stars
Such a fascinating, in-depth and unique take in Jane Austen!
Such a fascinating, in-depth and unique take in Jane Austen!
January 26, 2019
Jane Austen might just be the most famous (and the most gifted) English writer of the Regency period. She certainly has held her own in an age where - it is often alleged - social media has taken over the culture of reading books.
Austen's popularity generates its own paradox. People are aware of her and read her, but they do not read her well. (It is telling that many think of her books as precursors to modern chick-lit.) I believe that The Genius of Jane Austen can help us remedy the aforementioned defect to some extent.
It is often argued that Austen disapproved of theatre and stage in general, and Mansfield Park is cited as a proof of her disapproval. Byrne endeavours to show that nothing can be farther from the truth. Austen was well-versed in the theatrical techniques and drama of the day, and her knowledge of theatricality and performance influenced her work greatly. While Mansfield Park emphasizes the role of spectator in the theatre (in the form of its heroine Fanny Price), Sense and Sensibility endorses the illegitimate theatres which were flourishing in eighteenth century London through the hyperbolic performances of Marianne Dashwood. Emma and Pride and Prejudice have their own shares of theatrical/stage allusions and homages.
One of the book's strengths is that Byrne begins with an overview of British stage history. Though only peripherally related to Austen's main body of work, it is crucial to understanding Austen's debt to theatre and drama. After all, the dramatic arts speak to us about the world we live in and about socio-cultural issues that affect our lives. They spoke to Austen as well.
And now, the disappointments.
Byrne is obviously under the (mistaken) impression that she is the first to notice that Austen loved theatre (as evidenced by her frequent use of phrases such as "critics have failed to take into account...", "it has hitherto been unnoticed...", "scholars mistakenly believe..." et cetera; seriously, it was off-putting). Sorry Ms. Byrne, you need to tone it down a bit.
The other thing is that the book's subtitle is misleading. Byrne devotes only one chapter - meandering and unsatisfactory, in my opinion - to the film and small screen adaptations of Austen's works, which may bother some people, though I was not affected much.
All in all, it is a fine book, though a better editor could have improved it substantially.
Austen's popularity generates its own paradox. People are aware of her and read her, but they do not read her well. (It is telling that many think of her books as precursors to modern chick-lit.) I believe that The Genius of Jane Austen can help us remedy the aforementioned defect to some extent.
It is often argued that Austen disapproved of theatre and stage in general, and Mansfield Park is cited as a proof of her disapproval. Byrne endeavours to show that nothing can be farther from the truth. Austen was well-versed in the theatrical techniques and drama of the day, and her knowledge of theatricality and performance influenced her work greatly. While Mansfield Park emphasizes the role of spectator in the theatre (in the form of its heroine Fanny Price), Sense and Sensibility endorses the illegitimate theatres which were flourishing in eighteenth century London through the hyperbolic performances of Marianne Dashwood. Emma and Pride and Prejudice have their own shares of theatrical/stage allusions and homages.
One of the book's strengths is that Byrne begins with an overview of British stage history. Though only peripherally related to Austen's main body of work, it is crucial to understanding Austen's debt to theatre and drama. After all, the dramatic arts speak to us about the world we live in and about socio-cultural issues that affect our lives. They spoke to Austen as well.
And now, the disappointments.
Byrne is obviously under the (mistaken) impression that she is the first to notice that Austen loved theatre (as evidenced by her frequent use of phrases such as "critics have failed to take into account...", "it has hitherto been unnoticed...", "scholars mistakenly believe..." et cetera; seriously, it was off-putting). Sorry Ms. Byrne, you need to tone it down a bit.
The other thing is that the book's subtitle is misleading. Byrne devotes only one chapter - meandering and unsatisfactory, in my opinion - to the film and small screen adaptations of Austen's works, which may bother some people, though I was not affected much.
All in all, it is a fine book, though a better editor could have improved it substantially.
August 7, 2017
The first two-thirds of Byrne's new edition are excellent overviews of the theatre and playwriting during Austen's lifetime and her opinion of playgoing as reflected in her letters (tl;dr: she liked the theatre and had decided opinions on actors). Byrne starts to fall off in examining the influence of theatre on the novels - two chapters examine Mansfield Park, one each for Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, and Emma, and none for Persuasion or Northanger Abbey. There is a nice chapter about Austen adaptations on the big screen (and small) but there isn't a good conclusion to the book.
May 19, 2017
Paula Byrne’s ‘The Genius of Jane Austen’ is subtitled ‘Her Love and Theatre and Why she is a Hit in Hollywood’ and represents an expanded edition of her critically acclaimed 2002 book ‘Jane Austen and the Theatre’ in which the central thesis was that Austen’s comic genius was decisively shaped by her love of theatre.
The book charts Austen’s interest in drama, originating in private family theatricals (sometimes wholly written by the Austen family), and developing through her attending professional performances in London, Bath and Southampton, before explaining how the theatre influenced Austen’s comedic fiction.
This influence is most obvious in relation to the rehearsals of Kotzebue’s play ‘Lover’s Vows’ which dominates the first quarter of ‘Mansfield Park’. Byrne not only considers this in great detail but combs all of Austen’s novels and even her juvenilia to justify her view that Austen was much influenced by drama both thematically and stylistically. This is done convincingly and in the process much light is shed on Austen’s texts, as well as helping to overturn the once conventional view, originating with Lionel Trilling, that Austen was morally opposed to theatrical undertakings.
When Byrne’s ‘Jane Austen and the Theatre’ was first published alongside Penny Gay’s book with the same title, that coincidence was attributed by at least one reviewer (John Mullan in ‘The Guardian’) to “ the spate of film and TV adaptations of recent years” which “alert us to the dramatic qualities” of Austen’s fiction, whilst reminding us of our ignorance “of the contemporary experience of drama out of which the novels come.”
In the fifteen years since that appraisal there’s been no let up in the interest in dramatizing Austen and it’s therefore fitting that the expansion to Byrne’s original volume should consist of the concluding chapter ‘Why She Is a Hit in Hollywood’, although given that this is only one of eleven chapters its prominence in the new title is somewhat misleading, as is the reference to ‘Hollywood’, which serves as shorthand for all stage and film adaptations of Austen’s novels. Indeed, in Byrne’s hands A.A. Milne’s 1936 play ‘Miss Elizabeth Bennet’ justifiably receives more attention that M.G.M.’s 1940 ‘Pride and Prejudice’.
Byrne’s assessment of various Austen-based productions is characteristically shrewd, particularly in explaining why Amy Heckerling’s ‘Clueless’ succeeds much better than Douglas McGrath’s ‘Emma” (because the former finds a way of treating Emma ironically which is much more in keeping with Austen’s intention of portraying “a heroine whom no one but myself will much like”).
In short, it is very gratifying indeed that ‘Jane Austen and the Theatre’ has been expanded and reprinted, to complement the author’s equally excellent biography of Austen (‘The Real Jane Austen: A Life in Small Things”), in this year marking the bicentenary of Austen’s death.
The book charts Austen’s interest in drama, originating in private family theatricals (sometimes wholly written by the Austen family), and developing through her attending professional performances in London, Bath and Southampton, before explaining how the theatre influenced Austen’s comedic fiction.
This influence is most obvious in relation to the rehearsals of Kotzebue’s play ‘Lover’s Vows’ which dominates the first quarter of ‘Mansfield Park’. Byrne not only considers this in great detail but combs all of Austen’s novels and even her juvenilia to justify her view that Austen was much influenced by drama both thematically and stylistically. This is done convincingly and in the process much light is shed on Austen’s texts, as well as helping to overturn the once conventional view, originating with Lionel Trilling, that Austen was morally opposed to theatrical undertakings.
When Byrne’s ‘Jane Austen and the Theatre’ was first published alongside Penny Gay’s book with the same title, that coincidence was attributed by at least one reviewer (John Mullan in ‘The Guardian’) to “ the spate of film and TV adaptations of recent years” which “alert us to the dramatic qualities” of Austen’s fiction, whilst reminding us of our ignorance “of the contemporary experience of drama out of which the novels come.”
In the fifteen years since that appraisal there’s been no let up in the interest in dramatizing Austen and it’s therefore fitting that the expansion to Byrne’s original volume should consist of the concluding chapter ‘Why She Is a Hit in Hollywood’, although given that this is only one of eleven chapters its prominence in the new title is somewhat misleading, as is the reference to ‘Hollywood’, which serves as shorthand for all stage and film adaptations of Austen’s novels. Indeed, in Byrne’s hands A.A. Milne’s 1936 play ‘Miss Elizabeth Bennet’ justifiably receives more attention that M.G.M.’s 1940 ‘Pride and Prejudice’.
Byrne’s assessment of various Austen-based productions is characteristically shrewd, particularly in explaining why Amy Heckerling’s ‘Clueless’ succeeds much better than Douglas McGrath’s ‘Emma” (because the former finds a way of treating Emma ironically which is much more in keeping with Austen’s intention of portraying “a heroine whom no one but myself will much like”).
In short, it is very gratifying indeed that ‘Jane Austen and the Theatre’ has been expanded and reprinted, to complement the author’s equally excellent biography of Austen (‘The Real Jane Austen: A Life in Small Things”), in this year marking the bicentenary of Austen’s death.
August 15, 2017
"We saw through his Character...They said he was Sensible, well informed, and Agreeable; we did not pretend to Judge of such trifles, but as we were convinced he had no soul, that he had never read the Sorrows of Werter, & that his Hair bore not the slightest resemblance to Auburn, we were certain that Janetta could feel no affection for him, or at least that she ought to feel none." (MW, 93)
"The contrasts and conflicts arising from clashes between Romantic idealism and prudent conservatism provide the comic dynamic of both Austen's and Sheridan's satire, and - as will be shown later - Austen was to rework this comic device in Sense and Sensibility." (94)
The School for Scandal:
CARELESS: Don't let that old Blockhead persuade you - to squander any of that money on old Musty debts, or any such Nonsense for tradesman - Charles are the most Exorbitant Fellows.
CHARLES: Very true, and paying them is only Encouraging them.
"The same characters and events are seen and judged from a variety of viewpoints; different characters reveal how all actions are open to many layers of interpretation and potential distortion." (106)
"...by the end of the novel it is the sensible sister who makes a romantic marriage and the romantic sister who makes a sensible marriage... The book is consciously structured around a series of ironic oppositions, which work to deflate fixed notions. Having two heroines allows the author's sympathy to be balanced between them as they are played off against one another." (122)
Cowley's Which is the man? "What dy'e think one has relations given one for? To be asham'd of 'em." (155)
Lady Catherine ..."monsters of egotism, selfishness and pride. She has the same contempt for the lower orders as these other fine ladies, and a misplaced love of her own dignity. Though she is obsessed with the minutiae of social decorum, she is also rude and unfeeling." (159)
"whenever any of the cottagers were disposed to be quarrelsome, discontented or too poor, she sallied forth into the village to settle their differences, silence their complaints, and scold them into harmony and plenty" (PP 169)
"Darcy's self-exculpatory letter, however, makes it abundantly clear that the real objection to Elizabeth's family is not their rank, but their behavior..." "She is made aware from this point on that breaches of social etiquette hold potentially damaging consequences." (160)
Emma:
"Emma denied none of it aloud, and agreed to none of it in private." (119)
"she had the comfort of appearing very polite, while feeling very cross" (E, 119)
"She listened with much inward suffering, but with great outward patience" (E, 409)
"...the contemporary American class system (based on beauty, wealth and celebrity" (263)
"Her lack of self-knowledge and her skewed perspective are made evident from the first two minutes of the film." (263)
"The contrasts and conflicts arising from clashes between Romantic idealism and prudent conservatism provide the comic dynamic of both Austen's and Sheridan's satire, and - as will be shown later - Austen was to rework this comic device in Sense and Sensibility." (94)
The School for Scandal:
CARELESS: Don't let that old Blockhead persuade you - to squander any of that money on old Musty debts, or any such Nonsense for tradesman - Charles are the most Exorbitant Fellows.
CHARLES: Very true, and paying them is only Encouraging them.
"The same characters and events are seen and judged from a variety of viewpoints; different characters reveal how all actions are open to many layers of interpretation and potential distortion." (106)
"...by the end of the novel it is the sensible sister who makes a romantic marriage and the romantic sister who makes a sensible marriage... The book is consciously structured around a series of ironic oppositions, which work to deflate fixed notions. Having two heroines allows the author's sympathy to be balanced between them as they are played off against one another." (122)
Cowley's Which is the man? "What dy'e think one has relations given one for? To be asham'd of 'em." (155)
Lady Catherine ..."monsters of egotism, selfishness and pride. She has the same contempt for the lower orders as these other fine ladies, and a misplaced love of her own dignity. Though she is obsessed with the minutiae of social decorum, she is also rude and unfeeling." (159)
"whenever any of the cottagers were disposed to be quarrelsome, discontented or too poor, she sallied forth into the village to settle their differences, silence their complaints, and scold them into harmony and plenty" (PP 169)
"Darcy's self-exculpatory letter, however, makes it abundantly clear that the real objection to Elizabeth's family is not their rank, but their behavior..." "She is made aware from this point on that breaches of social etiquette hold potentially damaging consequences." (160)
Emma:
"Emma denied none of it aloud, and agreed to none of it in private." (119)
"she had the comfort of appearing very polite, while feeling very cross" (E, 119)
"She listened with much inward suffering, but with great outward patience" (E, 409)
"...the contemporary American class system (based on beauty, wealth and celebrity" (263)
"Her lack of self-knowledge and her skewed perspective are made evident from the first two minutes of the film." (263)
Read
November 15, 2025Essa é uma obra bastante aprofundada e acadêmica, voltada principalmente para fãs mais dedicados de Jane Austen ou estudiosos de literatura. A autora, Paula Burn, também é conhecida por sua biografia íntima de Jane Austen, o que reforça sua autoridade no assunto.
O livro explora a influência do teatro na formação da personagem Jane Austen, especialmente o teatro do século XVI. A obra destaca como o teatro foi fundamental na formação da escritora, influenciando tanto seus romances quanto sua visão de mundo. Burn discute detalhadamente a relação de Jane com peças teatrais, desde as visitas às peças em Londres e Bath até os teatros privados em casa, onde ela e seus irmãos criavam suas próprias peças.
Um ponto central do livro é a forte presença do teatro na literatura de Austen, que se manifesta nos diálogos, na estrutura dos romances e no humor sutil das obras. Burn também analisa como o teatro satirizava as classes sociais, algo que Jane Austen faz de maneira bastante evidente em seus romances, muitas vezes retratando personagens de classes mais baixas com moralidade superior às classes altas.
Ela também aborda a questão das adaptações cinematográficas e teatrais das obras de Austen, destacando que as melhores são aquelas que conseguem captar o espírito teatral e humorístico da autora, como o filme clássico de Laurence Olivier de "Orgulho e Preconceito". No entanto, Burn critica algumas adaptações modernas, especialmente as que parecem se afastar do humor e da sátira presentes nos livros, como alguns filmes de "Mansfield Park" que ela considera pesados demais e sem o charme teatral do original.
Outro aspecto interessante do livro é a discussão sobre a representação das classes sociais no teatro da época, onde personagens de classes mais baixas muitas vezes eram moralmente superiores aos nobres, uma ideia que Jane Austen também transparece em seus romances. A autora também comenta sobre a estrutura teatral de seus próprios livros, que muitas vezes parecem peças divididas em atos com diálogos intensos, dando uma sensação de teatralidade às narrativas.
O livro explora a influência do teatro na formação da personagem Jane Austen, especialmente o teatro do século XVI. A obra destaca como o teatro foi fundamental na formação da escritora, influenciando tanto seus romances quanto sua visão de mundo. Burn discute detalhadamente a relação de Jane com peças teatrais, desde as visitas às peças em Londres e Bath até os teatros privados em casa, onde ela e seus irmãos criavam suas próprias peças.
Um ponto central do livro é a forte presença do teatro na literatura de Austen, que se manifesta nos diálogos, na estrutura dos romances e no humor sutil das obras. Burn também analisa como o teatro satirizava as classes sociais, algo que Jane Austen faz de maneira bastante evidente em seus romances, muitas vezes retratando personagens de classes mais baixas com moralidade superior às classes altas.
Ela também aborda a questão das adaptações cinematográficas e teatrais das obras de Austen, destacando que as melhores são aquelas que conseguem captar o espírito teatral e humorístico da autora, como o filme clássico de Laurence Olivier de "Orgulho e Preconceito". No entanto, Burn critica algumas adaptações modernas, especialmente as que parecem se afastar do humor e da sátira presentes nos livros, como alguns filmes de "Mansfield Park" que ela considera pesados demais e sem o charme teatral do original.
Outro aspecto interessante do livro é a discussão sobre a representação das classes sociais no teatro da época, onde personagens de classes mais baixas muitas vezes eram moralmente superiores aos nobres, uma ideia que Jane Austen também transparece em seus romances. A autora também comenta sobre a estrutura teatral de seus próprios livros, que muitas vezes parecem peças divididas em atos com diálogos intensos, dando uma sensação de teatralidade às narrativas.
June 9, 2017
I received a free copy of this book from NetGalley.
This is an updated edition of the book first published in 1983. It looks at how Jane Austen loved the theatre and reflected that love in her novels and in her juvenilia. Many critics have assumed that the failed performance of Lovers' Vows in Mansfield Park means that Austen herself disapproved of theatre in all its forms and especially private theatricals but that is actually far from being the case.
Her letters reveal that she visited the theatre whenever she could, took part in private theatricals, and discussed the famous actors of the day with a depth of knowledge which showed she kept up with the latest developments in the theatre. I have always thought that the first two chapters of Pride and Prejudice could be transferred to stage or screen almost without changes. Austen excels at dialogue and many scenes do read like a play.
The author traces theatrical references through all of Austen's work and highlights theatrical elements in many of the scenes. I particularly enjoyed the chapter about the play Lovers' Vows as I wasn't familiar with the play. Knowing more about it adds an extra dimension to Mansfield Park and helps the reader to understand that complex book.
For anyone who loves Austen's work this book is a must read as it really does show how closely related to theatre the novels are and why they adapt so well for the big screen and for television. There are notes on the text and a bibliography as well as an index.
This is an updated edition of the book first published in 1983. It looks at how Jane Austen loved the theatre and reflected that love in her novels and in her juvenilia. Many critics have assumed that the failed performance of Lovers' Vows in Mansfield Park means that Austen herself disapproved of theatre in all its forms and especially private theatricals but that is actually far from being the case.
Her letters reveal that she visited the theatre whenever she could, took part in private theatricals, and discussed the famous actors of the day with a depth of knowledge which showed she kept up with the latest developments in the theatre. I have always thought that the first two chapters of Pride and Prejudice could be transferred to stage or screen almost without changes. Austen excels at dialogue and many scenes do read like a play.
The author traces theatrical references through all of Austen's work and highlights theatrical elements in many of the scenes. I particularly enjoyed the chapter about the play Lovers' Vows as I wasn't familiar with the play. Knowing more about it adds an extra dimension to Mansfield Park and helps the reader to understand that complex book.
For anyone who loves Austen's work this book is a must read as it really does show how closely related to theatre the novels are and why they adapt so well for the big screen and for television. There are notes on the text and a bibliography as well as an index.
October 3, 2023
Don't be fooled by the title and cover. The original title was a much drier "Jane Austen and the Theatre," which more accurately reflects the book. Discusses, in detail, the plays Austen saw on the stage, read, and acted in (in amateur productions) and her enthusiasm for certain actors and playwrights. Then analyzes specific influences and references in her novels. Lovers Vows gets a whole chapter, in addition to the chapt on Mansfield Park. Only one chapter at the end discusses film adaptations, and the biggest takeaway from that is that we should all dig up AA Milne's 100 yr old script for a Pride & Prejudice adaptation.
That said, I loved it. Probably my favorite book *about* Austen so far. Read it if you've read Mansfield Park a couple times and still aren't quite sure what to make of it. Or if deep diving into 18th Century Theatre and Austen sounds like a good time to you.
That said, I loved it. Probably my favorite book *about* Austen so far. Read it if you've read Mansfield Park a couple times and still aren't quite sure what to make of it. Or if deep diving into 18th Century Theatre and Austen sounds like a good time to you.
April 13, 2025
I loved this book so much but it took me ages to read (nearly a whole week!) The author seems to be responding to a particular strain of Austenian criticism that purports that Austen disapproved of the Theatre of her day and oh boy - do we get a whole book on why that is absolute nonsense! I wish I knew more about 18th century Drama - we did one module on French farce at Drama school and it was sort of skipped over - straight from Jacobean tragedy to late 19th Century Realism, so I struggled a bit to keep all of the 18th C references straight. I also skimmed the Mansfield Park chapter! I tried but I don't know the book at all.
But basically, why does Austen work so well in Dramatic form (plays/movies etc)? Well, because she knows a lot about stagecraft and staging and thatrical dialogue and was a fan of the theatre of her day. The argument is sound, and I buy it completely!
But basically, why does Austen work so well in Dramatic form (plays/movies etc)? Well, because she knows a lot about stagecraft and staging and thatrical dialogue and was a fan of the theatre of her day. The argument is sound, and I buy it completely!
November 13, 2025
Вполне толковая, хоть и местами очевидная книжка о том, что Джейн Остен любила современный ей театр и использовала отдельные архитектурные элементы популярных пьес при написании своих романов.
Самое интересное тут, наверное, что пьеса «Любовные обеты», которую Элизабет Инчболд адаптировала буквально из-под Коцебу, была максимально смягчена для чувствительного английского зрителя и не только в области названия (в оригинале пьеса называется «Дитя любви», то есть, закаленные немцы буквально сразу понимали, что тут кто-то до брака потрахался), но и в целом в области куда более скандальных мест. Инчболд, по ее собственным словам, переписала тональность тех сцен, где героиня слишко уж смело и откровенно признается в любви главному герою, потому что «английской публике такое придется не по вкусу».
Самое интересное тут, наверное, что пьеса «Любовные обеты», которую Элизабет Инчболд адаптировала буквально из-под Коцебу, была максимально смягчена для чувствительного английского зрителя и не только в области названия (в оригинале пьеса называется «Дитя любви», то есть, закаленные немцы буквально сразу понимали, что тут кто-то до брака потрахался), но и в целом в области куда более скандальных мест. Инчболд, по ее собственным словам, переписала тональность тех сцен, где героиня слишко уж смело и откровенно признается в любви главному герою, потому что «английской публике такое придется не по вкусу».
June 18, 2017
I was not aware that this was an updated version of a precious book but that made no difference as I had not read the original. Themes related to the theatre run through all of Austen's writing and what Byrne does in this book is examine where those influences have come from and how Austen's writings relate to them. In a world of transient media it is easy to forget that the written and performed word were all that families had for entertainment two hundred years ago. I particularly liked the way that Byrne examined each of Austen's works to show progression in terms of writing style alongside the development of theatre in England. The update section looks at TV and film adaptations of Austen's works and Byrne shows how Austen is not that easy to translate to screen.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 63 reviews