Quick Index Board Index Home FAQ Site Map
Written by teri-mc
(6/20/2006 4:33 p.m.)
in consequence of the missive, Agree and not, penned by Cheryl
Reading the "Introduction" in the edition shown in the Amazon box, it appears that there is a lot of opinion on how to view these early works. Lord David Cecil says they are "trifling enough...squibs and skits of the light literature of the day." (xxiii) on through being "concerned with satirizing the worst excesses of the French Revolution and of sentimental romanticism." (xxv) to more recent scholar's views that JA had an "active engagement with political ideals" both for conservative and liberal politcs. (xxv footnote 15)
Doody says "Personal experience, political or moral views, and formal techniques and structures of course do not emanate from separate or even entirely separable facets of the writer, and it is somewhat disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Yet if we do not pay sufficient attention to the formal properties of these early works, we may miss an enormous amout that is of interest, rendering our moral or biographical commentary thin and pale. Some damage has beend one to these early works by the determined tendency to consider them only or chiefly in the light of the great works to come." (xxix-xxx)
I think this last section I quoted is important because I feel myself and see where others do just this. The Juvenalia is the practice grounds for P&P and S&S, etc. I wonder if we read these stories and skits enough if we can find similiar depth in them that we find in the later novels?
Groupread is maintained by Myretta with WebBBS 3.21.