![]() ![]() ![]() This essay will seek to redress the balance in favour of Lady Susan, first through a discussion of the physical properties of the manuscript, its history and status in Austen's oeuvre, and then through a discussion of her stylistic use of the epistolary form. And even today, after theory has rescued the letter-form from oblivion, after Cultural Studies have undermined notions of canonicity, and in the wake of much critical revision, we nevertheless insist on classing the work as "minor": we can laugh along with the high spirits of the adolescent scribbler or stand in awed admiration of the genius that she became, but her epistolary novel of the mid-1790s never quite seems to fit comfortably anywhere. For many of the early Janeites, it was just far too Augustan for many of the canon makers of a later age, its formal properties were too outmoded for serious consideration. It is still, without a doubt, the black sheep in the family of Austen's writing. 1805-09), its physical value as an artefact is secure yet after more than two centuries its literary value remains in question. ![]() Written about 1794 (with the addition of a conclusion c. LADY SUSAN IS ONE of the few surviving literary manuscripts of Jane Austen. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |