It is quite serendipitous to have the opportunity read two books about Jane Austen, by the same author and in the same reading group. Admittedly, my position in the group meant that I received the books in reverse order, with the present book, Miss Austen, having arrived after its sequel, Godmersham Park. This also invites, and renders almost inevitable, comparison between the two books.
The present book, Miss Austen by Gill Hornby, is centred on the character of Cassandra Austen, making it a rather different story to that of the sequel. In this book, Cassandra has been appointed as the executor of Jane Austen’s literary estate, and must destroy any letters which may affect her growing reputation as a novelist. In addition to that, Cassandra has become something of an advocate for unmarried ladies and is making efforts to establish the recently bereaved Isabel in a tidy living arrangement with her two sisters.
As I have already mentioned, this is a rather different story to Godmersham Park, despite the Austen family connection. There is however, another common thread running through the two books: that of the plight of unmarried women, which was itself a recurring theme in Jane Austen’s writing.
Given the social attitudes of the time, it is entirely accurate to refer to the ‘plight’ of unmarried women, as their situation was largely dependent on the generosity, or otherwise, of the male members of their family. Of course, one of the few options open to an unmarried lady with a reasonable education was the equally unappealing and precarious position of governess; it was this which Gill Hornby chose to explore in Godmersham Park, providing the connection between two otherwise different books.
Jane, of course, was well aware of their precarious financial position, and as this book suggests, the decline in her health was in no small part due to that, and a series of ever smaller, but more unsuitable lodgings. While the apparent obsession with making good marriage now seems laughable when we read Jane Austen’s novels some two-hundred odd years later, it certainly wasn’t funny at the time, especially for those like, for example, the Bennets.
Equally, as Hornby also demonstrates, writing novels was no way out of the predicament as the income from Janes’s novels was hardly sufficient to make a difference to the ladies’ finances. It was, arguably, unfair of Mary to refer to Jane’s novels as “a fad, nothing more, nothing less” (p.354), however accurate it might have seemed at the time. History has nevertheless been rather kinder to Jane Austen as her books remain core reading on English literature syllabi everywhere!
It is also particularly striking, and more than a little incongruous that Cassandra should become such an advocate for women remaining unmarried, especially since she was herself betrothed to Tom Fowle, and along with her mother had once been so anxious to act as the matchmaker. Equally, she was considered rather more useful within her family for her role in relieving others of the responsibility of caring for their own children, allowing them to play the role expected of the married lady. While this was hardly an attractive proposition, it did at least provide her with board and lodging while offering gainful occupation.
The style of writing offers another similarity with Godmersham Park, and, by modern standards, appears to be unusually formal, but nevertheless does a good job of conveying the spirit of Jane Austen’s time and of her own writing. It is also fair to say that Miss Austen does not offer a particularly strong storyline, with parts of the plot being all to convenient, such as the remarkable ease with which Cassandra locates the bundle of Jane’s letters, even if she was observed while doing so. For that matter the housekeeper’s omnipresence seems quite remarkable. Likewise, the story tells us very little about the characters, which is a pity as they are all based on real historical characters. This along with the unusually large number of characters (a problem with the Austen family) does make the book difficult to follow at times, although a “who’s who” section at the beginning does help here.
In conclusion, like the sequel, Miss Austen is generally a well written and enjoyable book, which will certainly help the reader to look afresh at Jane Austen’s novels. While Hornby has remained faithful to the style of Jane’s writing, giving authenticity, it does come across as rather formal, while also lacking any significant plot. The real strength, however, like Jane Austen’s own fiction, is to offer a perspective on the plight of unmarried women, and by extension the unappealing options open to them. As to the inevitable question, I would have to say that I thought Godmersham Park the better of the two books, mainly because of a better developed storyline.