What do you think?
Rate this book
Jane Austen: A Life
It's refreshing to get such a passionate and contrarian account of Jane Austen's life, though the book's emphasis on thwarted emotions and family misdeeds will undoubtedly displease the more traditional-minded of her admirers. David Nokes, a prominent scholar of 18th-century English literature, views Austen as "a wild beast" (her phrase) transformed by well-meaning relatives into a demure spinster through wholesale bowdlerizing of her letters and personal papers. Nokes's narrative doesn't tell us anything new, but by stressing Austen's ambition and acerbity, he offers a welcome alternative perspective.
578 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1997
10 people are currently reading
359 people want to read
About the author
David Nokes
12 books3 followersA scholar of 18th-century English literature, David Nokes, FRSL, was Professor of English Literature at King's College London. He attended King's College School, Wimbledon, London. He received an MA from Christ's College, Cambridge in 1972 and a Ph.D. in 1974.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
March 4, 2022
According to the foreword, Nokes claims that he wants to challenge the perception of Jane Austen as "an angel" and instead provide a fuller portrait of the author. Does Nokes accomplish this? Perhaps. Does he layer so much extraneous detail into this thing that it starts to feel outright stodgy? Sure. But does he let the actual perspective of Austen prevail through all else? ...Maybe.
The thing is: Austen is always going to be a woman shrouded in mystery. She was born one of eight children to a reverend, and grew up, like many of her siblings, writing little sketches and bits for her family to enjoy. It wasn't until 1811 that her first novel (Sense & Sensibility) was published and set her on the path of becoming An Authoress.
After her death, her family seems to have in many ways closed ranks in order to preserve the idea of a woman faultless and virtuous: Henry Austen's posthumously published short biography offers a glimpse at the shape of the woman who authored those books; Cassandra Austen pruned her sister's letters and removed anything she thought too revealing. At the end of it, we're left with an understanding of Jane Austen through the lens of those most desirous of protecting both her, and the Austen legacy.
So does Nokes truly undo any of that historic meddling? I'm not sure: there's a lot of information in this thing, and a lot of asides and examples of some of the other skeletons in the Austen closets (e.g., her cast-aside brother George Austen; her Aunt Leigh-Perrot's trial for theft), but it doesn't feel that much like a revelation about Austen herself, especially because so much of this is merely restating her itinerary and quoting her letters.
I also want to specifically call out how terribly this ends: Austen's final years (1816-1817) are a brief chapter, capped off with a handful of pages tying off a few outstanding threads (such as Cassandra's retaining the cottage at Chawton; Frank Austen marrying Jane's roommate / friend Martha Lloyd) but it doesn't do anything with the momentum built by the previous 500+ pages. Austen's legacy, her impact, her life merely tapers off as if Nokes was exhausted with the thing. (And this is also worsened by the introduction which spends so much time with Austen's parents' parents before anything even remotely Jane-based!)
A final complaint: there are so many Janes and Marys and Frannys floating about the thing that the latter half (once all the nieces and nephews and great-nieces and -nephews roll into town) that it's almost impossible to keep straight. Any context would have been extremely useful—but such a thing would also have called to attention the number of individuals who we get no resolution on. What happens to Franny Knight? What of the sour Mrs.J.A. (James Austen's wife nee Mary Lloyd) who so alienated Cassandra and Jane? Did Edward Austen Knight win the case for Chawton? I assume, based on Cassandra continuing to live there until her death, that he did, but.
Ultimately, this was a whole lot of information that goes to spaghetti noodles rather quickly.
The thing is: Austen is always going to be a woman shrouded in mystery. She was born one of eight children to a reverend, and grew up, like many of her siblings, writing little sketches and bits for her family to enjoy. It wasn't until 1811 that her first novel (Sense & Sensibility) was published and set her on the path of becoming An Authoress.
After her death, her family seems to have in many ways closed ranks in order to preserve the idea of a woman faultless and virtuous: Henry Austen's posthumously published short biography offers a glimpse at the shape of the woman who authored those books; Cassandra Austen pruned her sister's letters and removed anything she thought too revealing. At the end of it, we're left with an understanding of Jane Austen through the lens of those most desirous of protecting both her, and the Austen legacy.
So does Nokes truly undo any of that historic meddling? I'm not sure: there's a lot of information in this thing, and a lot of asides and examples of some of the other skeletons in the Austen closets (e.g., her cast-aside brother George Austen; her Aunt Leigh-Perrot's trial for theft), but it doesn't feel that much like a revelation about Austen herself, especially because so much of this is merely restating her itinerary and quoting her letters.
I also want to specifically call out how terribly this ends: Austen's final years (1816-1817) are a brief chapter, capped off with a handful of pages tying off a few outstanding threads (such as Cassandra's retaining the cottage at Chawton; Frank Austen marrying Jane's roommate / friend Martha Lloyd) but it doesn't do anything with the momentum built by the previous 500+ pages. Austen's legacy, her impact, her life merely tapers off as if Nokes was exhausted with the thing. (And this is also worsened by the introduction which spends so much time with Austen's parents' parents before anything even remotely Jane-based!)
A final complaint: there are so many Janes and Marys and Frannys floating about the thing that the latter half (once all the nieces and nephews and great-nieces and -nephews roll into town) that it's almost impossible to keep straight. Any context would have been extremely useful—but such a thing would also have called to attention the number of individuals who we get no resolution on. What happens to Franny Knight? What of the sour Mrs.J.A. (James Austen's wife nee Mary Lloyd) who so alienated Cassandra and Jane? Did Edward Austen Knight win the case for Chawton? I assume, based on Cassandra continuing to live there until her death, that he did, but.
Ultimately, this was a whole lot of information that goes to spaghetti noodles rather quickly.
May 5, 2019
I'll give Jane Austen: A Life one thing - up until I read this I had no idea that a biography could be such a thing as TOO THOROUGH.
Because it is. Jane Austen did not leave much in the way of assets for future biographers. Or to be more accurate, she might have done but her sister Cassandra destroyed the bulk of her letters etc when she died because she didn't want anything hanging around that might 'harm' her sister's legacy (sadly Cassandra was way more conservative than Jane and so she probably considered rather a lot of Jane's personal writing inappropriate).
So most Jane biographies aren't that long (I would know, I've got half a dozen). Nokes gets around this issue by basically writing a history not just of Jane but of everyone she ever spoke more than two words to. I'm not joking, there are chapters devoted to minor characters such as her maternal uncle and his wife, who has been accused of shoplifting.
Some of this is interesting and some of it isn't. A lot of it feels like padding. All the constant referalls to her brothers and their growing families gets especially tedious.
It's a nice snapshot of Georgian, and then Regency life for the middle classes, but the good stuff - the stuff about Jane actually writing her books - is too few and far between, though it gets more focused towards the end.
The juicy bits - about Tom LeFroy, about her broken engagement, about how she channelled her own outlook on life at any given time into the novel she was writing - they're all there, but in my opinion they are covered in a more superior fashion in the Claire Tomalin biography.
What this book does do well is present a version of Jane that is different (but far more accurate) than the impression most people have of her, of some passive, meek spinster who wrote frothy stories. Jane Austen had a wicked, and sometimes savage, sense of humour. She was witty and charming and sarcastic, and to be honest a bit of a goer back in her day. She flirted and teased and the fact that she never married seems to be more a case of the stars never aligning more than her being a virtuous, pious character.
This book seems like a good representation of JA. It just also seems to be a good representation of a load of randoms who had only a tenuous connection to her too.
Because it is. Jane Austen did not leave much in the way of assets for future biographers. Or to be more accurate, she might have done but her sister Cassandra destroyed the bulk of her letters etc when she died because she didn't want anything hanging around that might 'harm' her sister's legacy (sadly Cassandra was way more conservative than Jane and so she probably considered rather a lot of Jane's personal writing inappropriate).
So most Jane biographies aren't that long (I would know, I've got half a dozen). Nokes gets around this issue by basically writing a history not just of Jane but of everyone she ever spoke more than two words to. I'm not joking, there are chapters devoted to minor characters such as her maternal uncle and his wife, who has been accused of shoplifting.
Some of this is interesting and some of it isn't. A lot of it feels like padding. All the constant referalls to her brothers and their growing families gets especially tedious.
It's a nice snapshot of Georgian, and then Regency life for the middle classes, but the good stuff - the stuff about Jane actually writing her books - is too few and far between, though it gets more focused towards the end.
The juicy bits - about Tom LeFroy, about her broken engagement, about how she channelled her own outlook on life at any given time into the novel she was writing - they're all there, but in my opinion they are covered in a more superior fashion in the Claire Tomalin biography.
What this book does do well is present a version of Jane that is different (but far more accurate) than the impression most people have of her, of some passive, meek spinster who wrote frothy stories. Jane Austen had a wicked, and sometimes savage, sense of humour. She was witty and charming and sarcastic, and to be honest a bit of a goer back in her day. She flirted and teased and the fact that she never married seems to be more a case of the stars never aligning more than her being a virtuous, pious character.
This book seems like a good representation of JA. It just also seems to be a good representation of a load of randoms who had only a tenuous connection to her too.
March 20, 2013
This bio was a 5 star read. It paints Austen in a different light than other bios. This bio was well written and I was glad to see another side of this important writer portrayed.
May 22, 2022
A brilliant achievement, Nokes takes on the biography of Jane Austen with fresh new eyes and a depth of research not seen before. Not only was it immensely readable, the book gave me insight into the period that I did not have before. The book also shows the not "perfect" sides of the Austen family. They become truly human to the reader, especially Jane herself. Her sister's glowing reverence for Jane after her death does not hold up to scrutiny. Instead, we find that Jane is very much like most of us.
I was sad to learn of the brother who was "sent away" and forgotten by the rest of the family because he was an "idiot." The term we disdain today is used to describe a man who is possibly autistic. How incredibly sad that such as George Austen were considered an embarassment and not given the help and love we can offer today.
The difficulty of a woman who is not of "means" is also a sad testament to the times. Their choices beyond making a good match in matrimony, were incredibly few. Family members helped spinsters and widows as much as possible. Even a man's choice of occupation is limited beyond the military and the clergy, both which pay little...or the law or banking, which might produce some wealth. For Jane to be the success she became, as a female novelist, is a wonderful testament to her talent.
The book is very interesting, and scholarly and certainly an enlightening read. Highly recommended.
I was sad to learn of the brother who was "sent away" and forgotten by the rest of the family because he was an "idiot." The term we disdain today is used to describe a man who is possibly autistic. How incredibly sad that such as George Austen were considered an embarassment and not given the help and love we can offer today.
The difficulty of a woman who is not of "means" is also a sad testament to the times. Their choices beyond making a good match in matrimony, were incredibly few. Family members helped spinsters and widows as much as possible. Even a man's choice of occupation is limited beyond the military and the clergy, both which pay little...or the law or banking, which might produce some wealth. For Jane to be the success she became, as a female novelist, is a wonderful testament to her talent.
The book is very interesting, and scholarly and certainly an enlightening read. Highly recommended.
June 4, 2019
Well, this one's certainly different!
This book reads more like a novel, a story of Jane Austen's life. David Nokes attempts to get away (and succeeds) from the saccharine Jane of her family's memoirs. We get to see more of the acid-tongued and even at times depressive Jane, the one whose letters her sister burnt after her death. Her wit became more vinegary as she got older, she became less patient with little children and less enjoying of a good night out as her health began to deteriorate.
Along with this we see how the family's attitudes to her writing differed, from the hero-worshipping nieces and nephews ("Aunt Jane, let me read you my stories, tell me if they're any good!") to the brothers who didn't really encourage her hugely.
We learn where she got some of the names of characters from, and some of the inspiration for people like Mr. Collins (P&P) and Maria Crawford (Mansfield Park).
I really enjoyed this biography for being so lively and interesting, bringing the whole Austen family to life.
This book reads more like a novel, a story of Jane Austen's life. David Nokes attempts to get away (and succeeds) from the saccharine Jane of her family's memoirs. We get to see more of the acid-tongued and even at times depressive Jane, the one whose letters her sister burnt after her death. Her wit became more vinegary as she got older, she became less patient with little children and less enjoying of a good night out as her health began to deteriorate.
Along with this we see how the family's attitudes to her writing differed, from the hero-worshipping nieces and nephews ("Aunt Jane, let me read you my stories, tell me if they're any good!") to the brothers who didn't really encourage her hugely.
We learn where she got some of the names of characters from, and some of the inspiration for people like Mr. Collins (P&P) and Maria Crawford (Mansfield Park).
I really enjoyed this biography for being so lively and interesting, bringing the whole Austen family to life.
July 23, 2019
I was perfectly pleased by this biography, although I freely concede it was overflowing with information. You can't say every page was gold you couldn't live without, but if you like to drink from a fire hose and get a credible view into the Life and Times of Jane Austen, this will do the trick. I frequently wondered how on earth Nokes knew all that he wrote. Maybe it isn't all so sure a thing, but I will leave it to others to show me where and if he erred. I had a good time with him and thank him for a very human portrait of a real flesh and blood Jane Austen.
April 29, 2020
A surfeit of detail meant to be context, but with nary a family tree or map to ground it as context. We start with Jane’s cousin’s father in India, I know not why, perhaps because they were the earliest papers connected to the family.
I did enjoy seeing Jane’s rebellious side- her works make sense as seen from the point of view of someone who is very spirited, imaginative, and not afraid to form her own opinions. People who see her as meek may well think meekness the default state of women. (They cannot have read and understood the comedy and satire in her books- and I do understand how it’s difficult to separate the old-fashioned language from the funny things happening in the books.)
There are a LOT of people here and more than every detail is presented. The reader is often told how people felt, or must have felt- as it seems to me, and it rang false to me. There is a prodigious lot of notes and sources, but a lot of suppositions have no quotes.
I suppose if one is a completist this would be a book for them. I felt like the author was simultaneously trying to imply that Jane was sad about never marrying even as he quoted her pity for women worn out from childbearing. She did not like the poor part of being unmarried, I can buy that, but why am I meant to pity her if she created romantic endings instead of experiencing them?
It took getting through two-thirds of 527 pages to get to the part where writing was a big part of her life, though she was writing novels half her life. I understand source material was limited, but.
A lot of work went in to this book and I learned a lot, but I won’t seek out more of Nokes’ work. The fact that he felt the need to contrast Jane’s death with the death of her brother that her family had farmed out to caretakers in the last pages of the book- let’s just say that I don’t agree with what he chose to highlight (if indeed he made any choices about what he chose instead of throwing in the kitchen sink).
I don’t know that a man can do something like this justice. I am come away with a desire to know more, though, and that is to the good.
I did enjoy seeing Jane’s rebellious side- her works make sense as seen from the point of view of someone who is very spirited, imaginative, and not afraid to form her own opinions. People who see her as meek may well think meekness the default state of women. (They cannot have read and understood the comedy and satire in her books- and I do understand how it’s difficult to separate the old-fashioned language from the funny things happening in the books.)
There are a LOT of people here and more than every detail is presented. The reader is often told how people felt, or must have felt- as it seems to me, and it rang false to me. There is a prodigious lot of notes and sources, but a lot of suppositions have no quotes.
I suppose if one is a completist this would be a book for them. I felt like the author was simultaneously trying to imply that Jane was sad about never marrying even as he quoted her pity for women worn out from childbearing. She did not like the poor part of being unmarried, I can buy that, but why am I meant to pity her if she created romantic endings instead of experiencing them?
It took getting through two-thirds of 527 pages to get to the part where writing was a big part of her life, though she was writing novels half her life. I understand source material was limited, but.
A lot of work went in to this book and I learned a lot, but I won’t seek out more of Nokes’ work. The fact that he felt the need to contrast Jane’s death with the death of her brother that her family had farmed out to caretakers in the last pages of the book- let’s just say that I don’t agree with what he chose to highlight (if indeed he made any choices about what he chose instead of throwing in the kitchen sink).
I don’t know that a man can do something like this justice. I am come away with a desire to know more, though, and that is to the good.
July 28, 2017
A nice biography of Jane Austen, looking into her extended family and how they interacted with her. Written in a more fiction style than the usual, dry biographies, this book brings to life many people Jane Austen lovers have known only as names before.
February 19, 2020
I enjoyed this engaging biography, which often read like an Austen book and was loaded with withering quips from Austen's letters. Still, it seemed to brush only lightly over her life and didn't delve too deeply into the books themselves.
May 25, 2017
More than 100 pages in and Jane is a background character in her own biography.
April 13, 2023
This book should be titled “Jane Austen and Her Entire Extended Family: Their Lives,” but I did enjoy it. It could have used a family tree page to keep everyone straight though.
Read
March 17, 2013This book made me want to write on Jane Austen. He mocks those that cliam Austen fainted on learning she would move to Bath and claims instead she was excited for the adventure. In the same vien, he argues that she was not depressed while in Bath but simply too busy, too distracted by city life, too sick of writing, as she tells Cassandra, to write. He doesn't seem terribly bothered that she stops writing during the Bath period.
I especially enjoyed the bit where Austen writes a conduct book for her nieces that include throwing stones at ducks and putting brickbats into people's beds.
Nokes seemed to believe she loved Tom Lefroy. Incredibly informative and a good biography. I have to add that the best parts were still all written by Jane Austen.
I especially enjoyed the bit where Austen writes a conduct book for her nieces that include throwing stones at ducks and putting brickbats into people's beds.
Nokes seemed to believe she loved Tom Lefroy. Incredibly informative and a good biography. I have to add that the best parts were still all written by Jane Austen.
February 8, 2016
I listened to this biography, driving across the country. A bit too full of detail, but I certainly understand Austen better now than I did before. It draws heavily on Jane's letters to her sister Cassandra, as well as everyone's letters to everyone else, and since they wrote letters to one another daily, we end up knowing a lot about their daily lives.
Nokes does draw some different conclusions from those of other biographers--for instance, he attributes the six-year silence between her first three novels and her last three not to being unhappy, but to being too busy. So, food for thought. Anyway, thorough research, and some interesting interpretations of the limited evidence we have.
Nokes does draw some different conclusions from those of other biographers--for instance, he attributes the six-year silence between her first three novels and her last three not to being unhappy, but to being too busy. So, food for thought. Anyway, thorough research, and some interesting interpretations of the limited evidence we have.
May 27, 2015
I got this book from the library several years ago, and I've been looking for it in stores ever since. Finally I had to break down and order it at Barnes & Noble, and now I'm re-reading it.
This is a wonderful, recent, unbiased biography of Jane Austen. This feels like a more accurate portrait of the woman, rather than the romanticized version we're used to hearing about. All you have to do is read her early works to realize that she was a spicy woman with strong opinions and a biting wit, more like Emma than Anne Elliot. Great book.
This is a wonderful, recent, unbiased biography of Jane Austen. This feels like a more accurate portrait of the woman, rather than the romanticized version we're used to hearing about. All you have to do is read her early works to realize that she was a spicy woman with strong opinions and a biting wit, more like Emma than Anne Elliot. Great book.
September 11, 2010
The book was written like a novel rather than like other biographies that I've read. I was surprised that I could picture the scenes that related to her books (quotes or scenarios) because my reference is to the movies that I've seen. I guess that shows that the movies were well made. From reading this, though, the other books that I've read with Jane Austen as the character in the book, the stories fit her personality that comes out in this book. Even though it took so long to read (standard time for me), I enjoyed reading it.
October 16, 2013
An excellent biography of Jane Austen, taken mostly from letters to and by her family and friends, especially her sister, Cassandra. Although there aren't any great insights into Ms. Austen's novels, it's easy to see how many of the things in her books were drawn from her real life.
One example: when she was an adolescent, she had fantasies about running away with any man who had "Fitz" as a part of his name (Fitz meaning "son of") and especially of a man called "Fitzwilliam" which of course is ultimately the first name of Mr. Darcy in "Pride and Prejudice."
One example: when she was an adolescent, she had fantasies about running away with any man who had "Fitz" as a part of his name (Fitz meaning "son of") and especially of a man called "Fitzwilliam" which of course is ultimately the first name of Mr. Darcy in "Pride and Prejudice."
August 11, 2008
I liked this biography because it covered so much of the known details of her life. I borrowed a copy from the library that didn't include any sort of pedigree chart, which made keeping up with some of Jane's relatives (who belongs to whom, etc.)in order a bit difficult. I also don't like the way the author took the liberty of stating how Jane felt or what she thought. Those are conjectures and assumptions, but it was very informative and not a difficult read.
August 14, 2015
It was quite good. It sounded more of a gossipy read than a biography. But the most interesting part is Mr. Nokes's disenchantment of the otherwise perfectly portrayed Jane Austen by her surviving family after her death. This, with the frequent, almost dependent reliance on family letters, made the book more interesting. I never imagined that Jane Austen had had an interesting life until I read this book.
August 5, 2008
This book was okay but troublesome to me. The author seemed to be "imagining" a lot of feelings, thoughts, etc. It seemed like he was trying to write a serious biography but historial fiction kept getting in the way. These two genres should NOT be mixed, interesting read but certainly open to criticism.
February 5, 2013
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Austen's novels, settings, and characters are all so much more meaningful to me now that I've read where and how she gleaned the life experience that helped shape her brilliant brilliant perspectives on human nature, love, and social politics. I borrowed this from the library, but now I want to buy my own copy so I can re-read and underline/make notes
July 26, 2013
Although I've never read a biography on Jane Austen before, I have done many research projects on her and I am a huge fan. This biography taught me nothing new about Jane Austen, only relatives I cared nothing about. It was highly speculative and, in my opinion, unreliable.
April 17, 2008
Amazingly easy to read and intriguing for a biography.
February 17, 2009
run-of-the-mill biography with occasional supernatural touches i.e. "she wondered" , "she thought"
August 19, 2012
One of the most thorough biographies on Jane Austen.
Read
January 29, 2016A rather dense book, however I found it interesting and not as lengthy as I thought it would be.
Read
August 29, 2015Maybe a good popular biography, but there's a bit too much imagining of thoughts and feelings for me to really take it seriously as scholarship.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews