h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Jane Austen - A1149509
Author: Gubernatrix - U206615

I got this from the Flea Market, but it was really just a sketch and I've added to it substantially.

Your comments are welcome.

This is, as it stands, an excellent entry, I commend both of you, my only (small) comment, is that it is in the early paragraphs there is a slight over use of ()s. But that may be me being slightly fussy, as I always go to great lengths to take them out of entries I'm subbing.

A quite brilliant piece Gub, one of the best to appear for a long time. From someone who loathes Jane Austen with a passion you would find diificult to comprehend it is high praise indeed.

Well, if I've persuaded you not to dismiss her quite so vehemently in the future, I think that's a job well done! Thanks for the compliment.

Z, I agree with you. There's no reason why those can't be commas.

In the paragraph under the italicized quote by Emerson, his middle name, "Waldo," is spelled incorrectly--probably just a slip of the finger An awesome entry, I think, but I do have some suggestions that I hope will be helpful. If not, it's pretty darn good as it is, splendid in fact. Firstly, I suggest that in the early bits of the entry, you provide a brief synopsis of her various works--I know it sounds odd to assume that some people haven't read Austen, but frankly, some people haven't, and, the title being simply "Jane Austen" rather than "The Life of Jane Austen" or something similiar, when it's listed on the front page, it's going to draw people interested in her books too. (Besides, I've found the key to successful easy-to-read writing is to assume not that your reader is an idiot, but uninformed. This won't insult the intelligence of the readers who ARE informed, and it'll make those that aren't feel that much more at home.)

Secondly, didn't Jane Austen originally write under a pen name? I could be mistaken, as I don't know much about Austen's life (or at least I didn't until I read your entry ) but it seems to me I read that somewhere, and it makes sense (& sensibility! sorry I had to) since women writers were never truly taken seriously.

Third and finally, all your sections are neatly separated, aptly titled, and all rather lengthy, until the last few. My advice is either to beef them up or combine them (possibly both) so it doesn't seem to the reader that the author got bored. I hope these suggestions help. Terrific entry!!!!~!

Vieneriffic

By the by, no mention of Colonel Brandon, the best character ever created in english literature??

Thanks very much for your helpful comments.

>>Firstly, I suggest that in the early bits of the entry, you provide a brief synopsis of her various works

I will think about that. I was concerned that it might make the entry too long. I'll see if I can write anything concise enough.

>>Secondly, didn't Jane Austen originally write under a pen name?

No. She didn't write under her real name either, the novels were published as being 'by a Lady' or something. You are right, though, perhaps this is worth mentioning.

I didn't mention it initially because it's not peculiar to Jane Austen and people found out who she was anyway. It's also not quite true to say that women writers were not taken seriously. Some of the most popular novelists of the time - Ann Radcliffe, Fanny Burney - were very famous and celebrated. I think it's more to do with social pressures and what is right for you to be doing in certain positions. Aspiring middle-class women learned the piano and needlework, they didn't write novels. It could have been seen as rather racy.

>>beef them up or combine them

Actually I broke the last few down because I thought they were too long.

>>By the by, no mention of Colonel Brandon, the best character ever created in english literature??

No. I'm not of your opinion, although he is a safe dude.


Gubernatrix

What is wrong with "Waldo"?

The one had a "w" on the end Good stuff to know about her pen name or lack thereof, hope your entry gets into the Edited Guide!

Vieneriffic

The book covers I've seen don't have a 'w' on the end, although both versions seem to be floating around on the internet.

No mention of 'Clueless' in the section of Austen on Film?

I adore Clueless and also Bridget Jones' Diary, but I don't really want to go into that territory. Films based on a Jane Austen plot are out of my scope, I feel.

I'd suggest that works 'inspired' by her works could be a suitable topic for another entry- the entry is quite long as it stands. Perhaps the 'Austen on Film' section, together with inspired works, could form another entry? Just a thought.

Oh, and as it's a FM job, don't forget to let me know at A845390 The Hall of Scavengers when it's edited

Okey-dokey.

Hiya,

I've made some changes.

1. I've removed some of the offending parentheses!

2. I have also added the fact that Jane Austen's name was never on any of the books published during her lifetime.

3. Austen films as a separate entry.....it's an idea. The reason why I go into a bit of detail about Mansfield Park in particular is that Rozema was raising some interesting issues, and I wanted to talk about them under the heading of 'reputation'. The other films, whilst being very enjoyable to watch, are not nearly as interesting to talk about, apart from the wet shirt bit.

So I've taken out references to the other adaptations and renamed the paragraph in order to focus on the relevant issues.

4. I thought about adding synopses of the novels but as KerrAvon pointed out, the entry is already pretty long. Also Caper Plip has written a good one on P&P and is currently working on S&S, so I can point to those. Therefore I don't think I will include synopses, unless people object or think the entry would be lacking if they weren't included.

This looks to cover all points to me

Anyone else got any comments on it?

Researcher PSG

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Why, thank you! *curtsies*