I remember "shew", I think. Now you mention it.
There are others that are even more fun, but those don't occur as often. I think one of the typos I was thinking of was "neice" for "niece", that occurred a few times iirc. Shew and surprize obviously aren't typos, just antiquated spelling.
Yes, that neice one is in Pride and Prejudice. The editor (or annotator?) actually commented on it. She wrote that
I have followed R. W. Chapman in retaining Austen's characteristic spelling of words with `ie' (cf. Love and Friendship, when that spelling appears in the first edition of the novel.
In the ``Note of the Text'' of the fairly recent ``Penguin Edition'' there is a lot on the many typographical errors and variations in spelling and capitalisation, which it apparently has chosen to keep as it was in the first edition. I think the edition you are reading is also Penguin, so that will probably look the same.
And while we're at the language: what's with the paraphrases between quotes? That's just weird. Either it's a quote, or it's a paraphrase.
The whowhatwhere? Do you have an example?
For instance, at one point Emma sends Jane a note to say she'll come by and pick her up with her carriage. She gets a note in return which is quoted (as in, put between quotes) as being "Miss Fairfax' compliments and thanks, but is quite unequal to any exercise". Now obviously that wouldn't have been what Jane wrote, she'd have written "My compliments and thanks, but I'm quite unequal to any exercise". Hence, paraphrases presented as quotes. It's odd.
Or further on the same page, Miss Bates is quoted as saying "Indeed, the truth was, that poor dear Jane could not bear to see anybody". Again, obviously, the literal quote would have to be different (is instead of was and can instead of could, at the very least).
Huh. I'll have to look into that when I inevitably reread it.
There's tons of those, so evidently it was the custom at the time, but I find it weird. 
Indeed.
Hmm, well, it's been a while since I read it, too.
I see I have to stop talking about this or you'll just reread the full 1300 pages worth of Austen novels. 
There is a danger of that, yes.
It's not a confirmed pattern, but a tendency. Well, "child-bride" may be giving the wrong impression. They are not actually children when they get married. But they are sometimes groomed from an early age and marry young.
I find it interesting how "old" the women in Austen marry, now that you mention it. That is, there are some who do marry quite young (Lydia Bennet, for one), but the heroines are generally over twenty. In the books I've read, that is. I suppose lower class girls would marry earlier, though, and Dickens does of course write a lot more about lower class people.
Yes.
They are good. Northanger Abbey is different from the "typical" Austen, though. More ironic. You might want to read some Radcliffe or some such before you read it, if you haven't already.
I haven't, no. I think I'll just read it anyway and see what I think of it.
Ok. But keep in mind the conventions of the gothic novel.
*MySmiley*
structured procrastinator
structured procrastinator
Jane Austen - Emma
- 29/09/2010 06:37:01 PM
619 Views
It has been a while since I have read the book, but I am not sure I agree on all counts.
- 29/09/2010 08:17:35 PM
586 Views
All the better, it's so boring when everyone agrees.
- 29/09/2010 09:01:09 PM
601 Views
- 29/09/2010 09:01:09 PM
601 Views
Re: All the better, it's so boring when everyone agrees.
- 29/09/2010 09:39:25 PM
580 Views
- 29/09/2010 09:39:25 PM
580 Views
Okay, fair enough, I'm talking about her view as appears in her books, there might be a difference.
- 29/09/2010 09:48:31 PM
542 Views
Pet peeve, sorry.
- 29/09/2010 10:19:03 PM
568 Views
Re: Pet peeve, sorry.
- 29/09/2010 11:24:21 PM
555 Views
Re: Pet peeve, sorry.
- 29/09/2010 11:32:50 PM
498 Views
Re: Pet peeve, sorry.
- 29/09/2010 11:50:36 PM
496 Views
Re: Pet peeve, sorry.
- 30/09/2010 12:03:54 AM
546 Views