chubby heroines

so, besides austen biographies that are missing important social issues that i feel should have been included, i also finished Wallflower (The Old Maids Club book 1) by Catherine Gayle.

Overall the book was pretty good.  a meh++

the hero was so sweet, the grand gestures he made to win her over was fantastic.  the problem was tabby's reticence to marry besides a pact made was not explained until 3/4 of the way through the story.  there were some major plot details thrown in and randomly thrown out at the hero that came way too late for me to not be annoyed with her self-hating.  once those stories were told, and some of her past details came out, much of her reluctance to believe our dashing hero made more sense.  but, some readers might not make it to that point because they get annoyed with poor tabby first.  i'd suggest sticking with it, the end is out of control!!

my problem is all the little details that went no where, just little mysteries included as ways to prepare the reader for the next books.  they felt to set-upish,  and so disconnected that i was distracted at those moments in the story.  these details for future books could've been introduced in a smoother manner so the story was more seamless, but alas, the great difficulty in romance novels is introducing multiple strong heroines to develop an entire series without overshadowing the heroine being featured in the current book.  parts of this book did not do that well.  i'll still read the next two, however, so they aren't that bad. 

jane austen biography

started reading a biography about jane austen by Peter Leithart.  it's part of the 'christian encounters' line of books trying to tell the 'truth' about authors, etc.  the first part makes jane seem like a pop culture phenomenon because we are currently a godless society, hmmmmm.  the second part is detailing the access to religious men in her life, to ultimately discuss how christian austen was and why that's important.  i find it very odd that the authors, leithart, spends so much time detailing the current austen craze, fanfic, movies, etc, and poinitng out all the ways a less christian  more godless society idolizes authors/authoresses like austen, then moves on to a 'true' account of her life and her christianity.  what about the social implications of her christianity, the social causes of her practicing christianity?  has he not read the opening line "it is a truth universally acknowledged."  biographies are never without social influence, leithart claims the christian influence as his, but then holds austen's current popularity against the godless fans currently worshiping her, while completely leaving out the societal influences of austen's christianity and claiming his retelling for the closest truth.  how can those two parts exist within the same chapter?  how can current popularity demonstrate unacceptable hero worship, being traced to less than ideal (according to leithart) christian practices, while social influences are not at all discussed when detailing austen's christian practices?  granted i'm not done with the book, but i'm already really taking issue with the methodology of this biography.  in my book you can't be up front with your influences (in this case christianity) then try to pass of different types of methodology in different era's as 'truth' about a long dead author.  reading austen fanfic should label me as an austen worshiper.  leaving out the social influences of attending church, some of the social reasons small communities attend church services beyond just worship is missing all the important social influences on religion that influenced the cultural practices of religion in austen's time period.  not being seen at church services would have made you a social outcast in a small community, your place, your pew, your practices, who you sat with said a lot about your position in the society.  this still holds true in many churches today, so why was this aspect of religion completely ignored?

austen work for sale

while it is exciting than a hand written version of The Watsons, see this article, is up for sale in London, the focus in this article on Austen's writing and editing style is particularly interesting to me.  to begin, a senior book specialist for Sotheby's highlights writers who edit versus writers who are inspired.  i'm constantly trying to correct the incorrect assumption that good writers don't revise, they just write (the way a poet just spits out poetry - which of course is not what really happens).  having jane austen as an example, with a very particular way of folding the paper to write her story, then cramming her editing into it, that's just amazing.  the next time i have to edit a paper for the hundredth time (oh, that will happen several times this summer) i'll have to channel austen and all her corrections so i can create an academic article as well dialogued as P&P.