Jane Austen: Gold Foil Cloth Editions

I have Pride and Prejudice, and will get Emma this year. I notice the FS web page for Emma says:

"Published in series with Pride and Prejudice"

Do we know if this series will continue to eventually include all six Austen novels? I certainly hope so.

-Shawn

I haven't heard anything, but I really do think they should continue the series, and even include Lady Susan Love & Freindship.

Jane Austen fans may be interested to inow that the FS published a limited edition (1000 copies) of Jane Austen's works in full leather (blue/green) in 1996.
It may be possible to find copies on Abe, Biblio etc.

For Austen fans I recommend the Folio (1957) first edition seven-volume set of collected works, bound in quarter grey cloth. Unlike subsequent re-issues, including the unnumbered limited edition Warwick refers to, the patterned boards of each volume are a different colour for each work, a charming feature as are Joan Hassall's evocative wood engravings. This first edition set in fine condition can sometimes be found for around £75 on the secondary market if you're lucky, but sellers in the know charge a lot more.

(Be careful if you're hunting for the variegated set, some early re-printings also used grey cloth but economised with uniformly coloured boards)

> thank you both.

>4 cronshaw:

The grey cloth edition you refer to was "reset" in 1975. I don't know if the boards were uniform, because I only have one copy - Mansfield Park. The copy I have isn't that great, though, as the prior owner wrote her name on the half title - someone named "Katherine Anne Porter."

>7 EclecticIndulgence:

I have a collection of her short stories that was published as a signed edition, so I was able to compare sigs and confirm that the FS Austen is really signed by her. And dated, about three years before she died. I don't think the person who sold it to me knew who she was.

>7 EclecticIndulgence: Well done Holmes!

>8 vanb: Congratulations on the inscription!

I'd certainly be interested if the FS were to publish a full set of Austen's works, but otherwise not in the slightest. I'm aware that the previous 'set', illustrated by Niroot Puttapipat, didn't get beyond partial completion. To be honest, though, I wasn't overly struck (although I think Puttapipat's Fairy Book illustrations are spot on) - too prissy. If the current series was all illustrated by the Balbussos, then it would have probably been a dead cert, as I do like their P&P work, but the Emma illustrations aren't in the same league. Even so, whilst I haven't got a first edition, my Joan Hassall illustrated set (1989, red, 7th impression - my introductory offer) remains amongst my favourites. It just seems to perfectly echo Austen's style.

>11 EclecticIndulgence: I'm impressed. Being an ignoramus, I'd never heard of the clearly accomplished Katherine Anne Porter :/

I have the new Pride and prejudice and love the illustrations but was unimpressed by the introduction. The illustrations for Emma didn't tempt me as much but I might be convinced later.
I also saw somewhere on the internet that Sense and sensibility would be next, sometime in autumn/winter, but now I can't find it again and thus don't know whether the source was credible. Anyone else seen anything?

Indeed! I must admit the introduction almost ruined the book for me, I was sorry I read it. However a few chapters in and the magic slowly came back! I would also love to see the gold foil set continue, I'm hoping sense and sensibility is next.

>15 NiecyG:

That's why I always read the introduction last in fiction works. ;)

And I, too, want this series to continue. Reading S&S at the moment (Oxford World Classics edition on the Kindle).

>15 NiecyG: NiceyG:
I found myself arguing angrily throughout the introduction but it didn't change a word in response. Fortunately the rest of the volume is lovely, and the poor introduction means that I can easily defend the shelf-space for my Penguine Classic volume of the same book which do have a good introduction (or actually two, a new one and one from an older edition).

>17 alvaret:

I don't have this edition and I don't intend to buy this, as I already have the old FS set, not to mention two others. So, without spoilers, what exactly is so wrong with this introduction?

He questions everyone’s motives including the central love story. This is of course in itself disturbing for all of us who like the romantic story but would have been an interesting, if depressing, perspective if I could be convinced by his arguments. Unfortunately I find them weak or at least poorly argued. If someone wants to present these beloved characters in such an unflattering light they should at least make the effort to come up with some credible evidence. As it is I can come up with credible counter-arguments to most of his interpretations but nevertheless I find that the next time I read the introduction neither the depressing interpretations nor the unconvincing arguments have changed, it is really rather frustrating...

Yes I agree completely! I really felt as if he was ambivalent at best towards the book and the central characters at times bordering on dislike, for fans of the book or those new to it I don't know why the editors would include such an introdction. One could say he does make you reflect on the theme and characters and like you said argue and interpret the opposite ;)

>19 alvaret:, >20 NiecyG:

Many thanks. He sounds like a very bad choice indeed for such iconic works. Of course, Austen should not be above criticism, but as you say any criticism should at least be credible.

The whole thing reminded me of one of those parodies from The Pooh Perplex (one of the pseudo-psychological ones -- Darcy as clinically depressed??) but I don't think it was meant to be funny. What a waste of good paper.

Almost tempted to buy it to see what the fuss is about now ...

>15ff.

I think you may be overemphasising the point in order to preserve your romantic(ised) perception of the novel.

True, Faulks does baldly state that he considers Darcy to be a clinical depressive (xi), but he does preface this by stressing that, for him, the key to the novel lies in the 'multiple and inconsistent narrative standpoints Jane Austen adopts' (x); Darcy's perceived depression is one of these standpoints, as is the question of what exactly causes Elizabeth to finally accept him (xii-xiii). To me, these are perfectly legitimate questions, even if they strongly challenge the popular notion of P&P as the classic romantic novel.

I will agree that I find Faulks' comments on Darcy's depression dubious, though I don't think that should serve as a unilateral rejection of the possibility that Mr Darcy is depressed to some extent. I've always been struck by how morose and quiet he is, and having dealt with mental depression in the family, I admit that I certainly do see something of the depressive in Mr Darcy. I'm sure there's a far more cogent argument in favour of Mr Darcy's depression out there than in Faulks' introduction, though. If I ever find one, I'll be glad to pass it along if anyone's interested.

As for questioning the central love story, I have always found Elizabeth's ambiguous, half-joking(?) comment to Jane that she may be able to date the time of loving Mr Darcy to having seen him at Pemberley fascinating. Faulks certainly raises a very legitimate question as to whether or not Elizabeth is marrying for love, particularly when she clearly implies money in mentioning Pemberley. After all, she muses to herself during the visit that she could have been mistress of Pemberley by now as she's constantly amazed by the elegant furniture, large house, and the fact that it is a very decided symbol of wealth and privilege. Why should this not be a legitimate question? After all, we've been constantly told throughout the novel that the Bennetts are in a fairly dire situation, so on purely financial terms, to have two daughters marry rich gentlemen would certainly be a very good thing. Austen certainly doesn't shy away from the fact that marriage is a business proposition in many ways.

And FWIW, I have always found Mr Bennett the most aggravating of all the characters in the novel: I will never understand why people consider him to be an excellent and indulgent father. If anything, I consider him a terrible parent, particularly given that it's intimated he rushed into the marriage in the first place, then pinned his hopes on a son without much caring about saving - a point he freely admits late on. But more than that, I have always found his interactions with his daughters oddly fascinating and somewhat repellent: it's as if Mr Bennett can't decide if he wants to be a father or a stranger to his children whenever he brings out his particular brand of levity, such as when he tells Kitty after Lydia's elopement that now he shall be strict and that she may not stir from the house until she has spent at least 'ten minutes a day employed in a rational manner' before trying to take away the sting by remarking that if she does well 'these ten years,' he'll take her 'to a revue at the end of them.' Mr Bennett can certainly be excellent and indulgent, but I can't ever see how he could be both simultaneously, but that's just me. :) (I do agree with him that his three youngest are 'the silliest girls in all England,' though!)

I suppose at the end of the day, I have always wondered if Mr and Mrs Bennett are a hint at the future Mr and Mrs Darcy in some regards, but fortunately Austen didn't pen a sequel, nor do I have any intentions of reading any of the fanfic out there related to P&P!

>24 scholasticus:

Thanks for your comments, Greg. Useful insights, as ever.

>24 scholasticus: I am fine with a critical perspective but I do believe that it should be properly supported by evidence. I am not saying that Faulks is necessarily wrong in all his suggestions, he might have some good points, but he fails to support them. I like when an introduction makes me see things in a new perspective, even if it's a more negative one, and I expect there to be more hidden in the novel than what I have understood yet but this is not showing a new perspective, it is just claiming that it exists without even bothering to meet the most obvious counter-arguments.

Take for example his comparison between Mr Collins and Mr Darcy: "In comparison to Darcy's estrangement from himself and others, Mr Collins's silliness and snobbery seem mere foibles. But because Mr Collins is himself a snob, we are invited to look down on him and believe him beyond redemption; and while Darcy's faults are graver than Collins's, we are asked to believe them curable"

The comparison of who's faults are the worst is interesting but it very conveniently ignores the fact that we are NOT asked to believe Darcy to be better until we have already been told that a) some of what was told about him was false or misunderstood, b) that he has many good qualities which were previously unknown, and most importantly c) that he actually starts acting contrary to his faults. After that I am ready to believe him curable with or without Elizabeth. That is just not sound argumentation.

The rest of his claims were better but I found none of them really convincingly argued. Some of them may anyway be reasonable but if so that is left for the reader to prove...

>26 alvaret:

Very true. As I should probably have clarified a bit, Faulks' introduction is not one of the better ones I've read pertaining P&P; truth be told, it would not rank in any 'top list' of mine in terms of critical analyses of P&P!

The sentence you quoted baffles me, admittedly. I can't decide who is 'inviting us' to 'look down' upon Mr Collins and conversely 'believe' Mr Darcy' to be 'curable' - is he asking us that, or is he intending us to understand that Austen herself is the one challenging us to take this view? Or both him and Austen?

I'd also point out that there's an interesting question here in terms of who's 'better' - how are we defining 'better'? By that I mean that if we mean 'better' in terms of social superiority, of course Darcy wins that contest hands down over Mr Collins right from the start. Even though Elizabeth - and us readers - are primed to dislike him from the beginning based on the snippets of information we receive, there is no denying that in terms of rank and social status he is the 'best' person in the room, and Mrs Bennett is certainly accurate - if quite undiplomatic! - in her constant assertion that money is worth considering in terms of a girl's 'betterment' as well.

I also find it interesting that you place the onus of not being expected to believe that Darcy is better upon Austen. There's nothing preventing the reader from challenging Austen from the get-go as to whether Darcy is or isn't better. I admit that on my first read of P&P years ago, I was the same in that I agreed with Elizabeth's views of Mr Darcy in perfect lockstep. Now on my re-reads, I am slowly starting to realise that there is far more to Mr Darcy than first meets the eye, and that in some ways he and Mr Collins are wonderful foils for each other. True, one is rich and (self-)entitled; the other is pandering and excessively over-polite, but Mr Darcy, to me, appears 'better' in that he chooses the lesser of the two extremes in saying and doing less, particularly compared to Mr Collins' overzealousness.

It is also clear from Faulks' introduction that he intends that the reader has already read the novel, so your three points (a through c) would be hopefully apparent to the reader already. Faulks clearly didn't intend to set out to write a scholarly introduction, and I have no issues with that, though I do agree that this introduction could have been better composed.

Mr Collins also gets short shrift if you ask me in that his character isn't as fully developed as Mr Darcy's. By that I mean that we only see him from Elizabeth's perspective primarily, with some insights from Charlotte. I actually disagree with Faulks that Mr Collins is a snob. If anything, I consider him to be a very insecure character and thus even a 'moody' Darcy would be preferable to a man who is excessively obsessive about proper social deportment and commentary. I would dearly love to know what Charlotte thought of Mr Collins ten years into their marriage sometimes, but this is denied us as opposed to Darcy's confession to Elizabeth towards the end of the novel, so this is a roundabout way of saying that I agree with your criticism of Faulks' argument here to some extent, but from the opposite direction.

EDIT:

In matter of fact, I must admit that after reading P&P again last week, I was struck by how prescient the title itself is if one accepts that it's not only the two central characters who must struggle with pride and prejudice; it's us readers who have to overcome our own pride and prejudice alongside Elizabeth and Mr Darcy as well. Austen really picked a brilliant title for this novel if you ask me.

(It would be really interesting to have a thread discussing the various introductions/analyses to P&P out there, I think!)

>24 scholasticus:
>25 boldface:
>26 alvaret:

"Faulks on Fiction" is worth a read. Indeed Jonathan, as a fellow resident in Her Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I guess you may have seen the feast of televisual entertainment of the same title broadcast a few years ago. In both the book and the BBC TV series, Faulks expounds his theory which is only abbreviated in the introduction to the FS edition of P&P. FoF introduces the reader / viewer to 28 novels (P&P being just one of them), and he presents some deliberately provocative views. Most of them are pretty credible. Perhaps his views on P&P a little more of a stretch. But whatever ones views on Faulk's views, the one accusation you can't level at him is that he dislikes (or is ambivalent towards) the book. Having read FoF, and seen the TV series, it is clear to me he is actually a very huge fan indeed. He just sees it through a different lens than some.

Other than accusations he didn't admire P&P, I think Faulks would be pleased with the reaction the introduction has prompted. It has generated some interesting debate about a much loved book, and that was very much his aim with FoF.

>28 Conte_Mosca:

Michael,

Thank you for that book suggestion! I shall look up that book. I'm glad you corrected me in that this is indeed an abbreviated summary of his thesis.

And I agree - I quite enjoy provocative arguments, even though I may not always like them.

>Conte_Mosca:
Good to know that this is only an abbreviated text. I can easily imagine that an expansion on his theories could be interesting. I still consider the introduction a failure but I will give the underlying theories the benefit of doubt until I have had the opportunity to read the full version. I like a provocative argument but without the argument I find it only provocative.

>scholasticus
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. You are of course correct that it is possible to challenge Austen earlier, I meant that the logic of the story does not require you to believe Darcy 's fault curable until he has proven them to be so.When you re-read the book you get the opportunity to analyse and compare their behaviour much earlier. In my opinion the silliness and over-politeness in Mr Collins or the moodiness in Darcy are not what primarily makes them unsuitable for marriage at the time when they propose (for the first time in Darcy's case). For a potential husband I find it much more worrying that both of them only seem to consider Elizabeth in relation to themselves, not as an actual person with opinions and needs of her own. Collins wants a suitable wife, Darcy is blindly in love with a beautiful and witty woman, none of them bothers to ask themselves what Elizabeth might want. That's how Darcy can harm Elizabeth's family in thoughts and actions without even seeming to realize that he also harms Elizabeth who loves them. Both think that since they are suitable and happen to want her they are entitled to her love, Collins to the point where he doesn't even give her credit of an opinion of her own when she clearly states it. It is only in what happens afterwards that Darcy really shows that he is capable of better. On the other hand Collins letter of "support" when Lydia elopes shows no sign of character improvement but he might of course change later.

I agree that Faulks obviously expects everyone to know the novel already but a proper argument should still have acknowledged that there is reason to believe Darcy's faults curable and then stated why it doesn't undermine the whole argument. From Conte-Mosca's comment I suspect that that is one of the things that disappeared when shortening the text.

>4 cronshaw: >6 vanb: It is 7 years, 4 months and 18 days late but since I was researching 7-volume editions of Jane Austen, here are some photos of the FS 1975-reset and 1978 (2nd imp.) multi-coloured covers.





(Photos belong to this listing: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/265765276208)