Ten Mistakes Writers Don't See (But Can Easily Fix When They Do)

REPEATS
Just about every writer unconsciously leans on a "crutch" word. Hillary Clinton's repeated word is "eager" (can you believe it? the committee that wrote "Living History" should be ashamed). Cosmopolitan magazine editor Kate White uses "quickly" over a dozen times in "A Body To Die For." Jack Kerouac's crutch word in "On the Road" is "sad," sometimes doubly so - "sad, sad." Ann Packer's in "The Dive from Clausen's Pier" is "weird."

Crutch words are usually unremarkable. That's why they slip under editorial radar - they're not even worth repeating, but there you have it, pop, pop, pop, up they come. Readers, however, notice them, get irked by them and are eventually distracted by them, and down goes your book, never to be opened again.

But even if the word is unusual, and even if you use it differently when you repeat it, don't: Set a higher standard for yourself even if readers won't notice. In Jennifer Egan's "Look at me," the core word - a good word, but because it's good, you get *one* per book - is "abraded." Here's the problem:
"Victoria's blue gaze abraded me with the texture of ground glass." page 202
"...(metal trucks abrading the concrete)..." page 217
"...he relished the abrasion of her skepticism..." page 256
"...since his abrasion with Z ..." page 272

The same goes for repeats of several words together - a phrase or sentence that may seem fresh at first, but, restated many times, draws attention from the author's strengths. Sheldon Siegel nearly bludgeons us in his otherwise witty and articulate courtroom thriller, "Final Verdict" with a sentence construction that's repeated throughout the book:

"His tone oozes self-righteousness when he says..." page 188
"His voice is barely audible when he says..." page 193
"His tone is unapologetic when he says..." page 199
"Rosie keeps her tone even when she says..." page 200
"His tone is even when he says..." page 205
"I switch to my lawyer voice when I say ..." page 211
"He sounds like Grace when he says..." page 211

What a tragedy. I'm not saying all forms of this sentence should be lopped off. Lawyers find their rhythm in the courtroom by phrasing questions in the same or similar way. It's just that you can't do it too often on the page. After the third or fourth or 16th time, readers exclaim silently, "Where was the editor who shoulda caught this?" or "What was the author thinking?"

So if you are the author, don't wait for the agent or house or even editorial consultant to catch this stuff *for* you. Attune your eye now. Vow to yourself, NO REPEATS.

And by the way, even deliberate repeats should always be questioned: "Here are the documents." says one character. "If these are the documents, I'll oppose you," says another. A repeat like that just keeps us on the surface. Figure out a different word; or rewrite the exchange. Repeats rarely allow you to probe deeper.


FLAT WRITING
"He wanted to know but couldn't understand what she had to say, so he waited until she was ready to tell him before asking what she meant."

Something is conveyed in this sentence, but who cares? The writing is so flat, it just dies on the page. You can't fix it with a few replacement words - you have to give it depth, texture, character. Here's another:

"Bob looked at the clock and wondered if he would have time to stop for gas before driving to school to pick up his son after band practice." True, this could be important - his wife might have hired a private investigator to document Bob's inability to pick up his son on time - and it could be that making the sentence bland invests it with more tension. (This is the editorial consultant giving you the benefit of the doubt.) Most of the time, though, a sentence like this acts as filler. It gets us from A to B, all right, but not if we go to the kitchen to make a sandwich and find something else to read when we sit down.

Flat writing is a sign that you've lost interest or are intimidated by your own narrative. It shows that you're veering toward mediocrity, that your brain is fatigued, that you've lost your inspiration. So use it as a lesson. When you see flat writing on the page, it's time to rethink, refuel and rewrite.


EMPTY ADVERBS
Actually, totally, absolutely, completely, continually, constantly, continuously, literally, really, unfortunately, ironically, incredibly, hopefully, finally - these and others are words that promise emphasis, but too often they do the reverse. They suck the meaning out of every sentence.

I defer to People Magazine for larding its articles with empty adverbs. A recent issue refers to an "incredibly popular, groundbreakingly racy sitcom." That's tough to say even when your lips aren't moving.

In "Still Life with Crows," Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child describe a mysterious row of corn in the middle of a field: "It was, in fact, the only row that actually opened onto the creek." Here are two attempts at emphasis ("in fact," "actually"), but they just junk up the sentence. Remove them both and the word "only" carries the burden of the sentence with efficiency and precision.

(When in doubt, try this mantra: Precise and spare; precise and spare; precise and spare.)

In dialogue, empty adverbs may sound appropriate, even authentic, but that's because they've crept into American conversation in a trendy way. If you're not watchful, they'll make your characters sound wordy, infantile and dated.

In Julia Glass's "Three Junes," a character named Stavros is a forthright and matter-of-fact guy who talks to his lover without pretense or affectation. But when he mentions an offbeat tourist souvenir, he says, "It's absolutely wild. I love it." Now he sounds fey, spoiled, superficial.. (Granted, "wild" nearly does him in; but "absolutely" is the killer.)

The word "actually" seems to emerge most frequently, I find. Ann Packer's narrator recalls running in the rain with her boyfriend, "his hand clasping mine as if he could actually make me go fast." Delete "actually" and the sentence is more powerful without it.

The same holds true when the protagonist named Miles hears some information in "Empire Falls" by Richard Russo. "Actually, Miles had no doubt of it," we're told. Well, if he had no doubt, remove "actually" - it's cleaner, clearer that way. "Actually" mushes up sentence after sentence; it gets in the way every time. I now think it should *never* be used.

Another problem with empty adverbs: You can't just stick them at the beginning of a sentence to introduce a general idea or wishful thinking, as in "Hopefully, the clock will run out." Adverbs have to modify a verb or other adverb, and in this sentence, "run out" ain't it.

Look at this hilarious clunker from "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown: "Almost inconceivably, the gun into which she was now staring was clutched in the pale hand of an enormous albino."

Ack, "almost inconceivably" - that's like being a little bit infertile! Hopefully, that "enormous albino" will ironically go back to actually flogging himself while incredibly saying his prayers continually.


PHONY DIALOGUE
Be careful of using dialogue to advance the plot. Readers can tell when characters talk about things they already know, or when the speakers appear to be having a conversation for our benefit. You never want one character to imply or say to the other, "Tell me again, Bruce: What are we doing next?"

Avoid words that are fashionable in conversation. Ann Packer's characters are so trendy the reader recoils. " 'What's up with that?' I said. 'Is this a thing [love affair]?' " "We both smiled. " 'What is it with him?' I said. 'I mean, really.' " Her book is only a few years old, and already it's dated.

Dialogue offers glimpses into character the author can't provide through description. Hidden wit, thoughtful observations, a shy revelation, a charming aside all come out in dialogue, so the characters *show* us what the author can't *tell* us. But if dialogue helps the author distinguish each character, it also nails the culprit who's promoting a hidden agenda by speaking out of character.

An unfortunate pattern within the dialogue in "Three Junes," by the way, is that all the male characters begin to sound like the author's version of Noel Coward - fey, acerbic, witty, superior, puckish, diffident. Pretty soon the credibility of the entire novel is shot. You owe it to each character's unique nature to make every one of them an original.

Now don't tell me that because Julia Glass won the National Book Award, you can get away with lack of credibility in dialogue. Setting your own high standards and sticking to them - being proud of *having* them - is the mark of a pro. Be one, write like one, and don't cheat.


NO-GOOD SUFFIXES
Don't take a perfectly good word and give it a new backside so it functions as something else. The New York Times does this all the time. Instead of saying, "as a director, she is meticulous," the reviewer will write, "as a director, she is known for her meticulousness." Until she is known for her obtuseness.

The "ness" words cause the eye to stumble, come back, reread: Mindlessness, characterlessness, courageousness, statuesqueness, preciousness - you get the idea. You might as well pour marbles into your readers' mouths. Not all "ness" words are bad - goodness, no - but they are all suspect.

The "ize" words are no better - finalize, conceptualize, fantasize, categorize. The "ize" hooks itself onto words as a short-cut but stays there like a parasite. Cops now say to each other about witnesses they've interrogated, "Did you statementize him?" Some shortcut. Not all "ize" words are bad, either, but they do have the ring of the vulgate to them - "he was brutalized by his father," "she finalized her report." Just try to use them rarely.

Adding "ly" to "ing" words has a little history to it. Remember the old Tom Swifties? "I hate that incision," the surgeon said cuttingly. "I got first prize!" the boy said winningly. But the point to a good Tom Swiftie is to make a punchline out of the last adverb. If you do that in your book, the reader is unnecessarily distracted. Serious writing suffers from such antics.

Some "ingly" words do have their place. I can accept "swimmingly," "annoyingly," "surprisingly" as descriptive if overlong "ingly" words. But not "startlingly," "harrowingly" or "angeringly," "careeningly" - all hell to pronounce, even in silence, like the "groundbreakingly" used by People magazine above. Try to use all "ingly" words (can't help it) sparingly.


THE 'TO BE' WORDS:
Once your eye is attuned to the frequent use of the "to be" words - "am," "is," "are," "was," "were," "be," "being," "been" and others - you'll be appalled at how quickly they flatten prose and slow your pace to a crawl.

The "to be" words represent the existence of things - "I am here. You are there." Think of Hamlet's query, "to be, or not to be." To exist is not to act, so the "to be" words pretty much just there sit on the page. "I am the maid." "It was cold." "You were away."

I blame mystery writers for turning the "to be" words into a trend: Look how much burden is placed on the word "was" in this sentence: "Around the corner, behind the stove, under the linoleum, was the gun." All the suspense of finding the gun dissipates. The "to be" word is not fair to the gun, which gets lost in a sea of prepositions.

Sometimes, "to be" words do earn a place in writing: "In a frenzy by now, he pushed the stove away from the wall and ripped up the linoleum. Cold metal glinted from under the floorboards. He peered closer. Sure enough, it was the gun." Okay, I'm lousy at this, but you get the point: Don't squander the "to be" words - save them for special moments.

Not so long ago, "it was" *defined* emphasis. Even now, if you want to say, "It was Margaret who found the gun," meaning nobody else but Margaret, fine. But watch out - "it was" can be habitual: "It was Jack who joined the Million Man March. It was Bob who said he would go, too. But it was Bill who went with them." Flat, flat, flat.

Try also to reserve the use of "there was" or "there is" for special occasions. If used too often, this crutch also bogs down sentence after sentence. "He couldn't believe there was furniture in the room. There was an open dresser drawer. There was a sock on the bed. There was a stack of laundry in the corner. There was a handkerchief on the floor...." By this time, we're dozing off, and you haven't even gotten to the kitchen

One finds the dreaded "there was/is" in jacket copy all the time. "Smith's book offers a range of lively characters: There is Jim, the puzzle-loving dad. There is Winky, the mom who sits on the 9th Court of Appeals. There is Barbie, brain surgeon to the stars...."

Attune your eye to the "to be" words and you'll see them everywhere. When in doubt, replace them with active, vivid, engaging verbs. Muscle up that prose.


LISTS
"She was entranced by the roses, hyacinths, impatiens, mums, carnations, pansies, irises, peonies, hollyhocks, daylillies, morning glories, larkspur..." Well, she may be entranced, but our eyes are glazing over.

If you're going to describe a number of items, jack up the visuals. Lay out the the scene as the eye sees it, with emphasis and emotion in unlikely places. When you list the items as though we're checking them off with a clipboard, the internal eye will shut.

It doesn't matter what you list - nouns, adjectives, verbs - the result is always static. "He drove, he sighed, he swallowed, he yawned in impatience." So do we. Dunk the whole thing. Rethink and rewrite. If you've got many ingredients and we aren't transported, you've got a list.


SHOW, DON'T TELL
If you say, "she was stunning and powerful," you're *telling* us. But if you say, "I was stunned by her elegant carriage as she strode past the jury - shoulders erect, elbows back, her eyes wide and watchful," you're *showing* us. The moment we can visualize the picture you're trying to paint, you're showing us, not telling us what we *should* see..

Handsome, attractive, momentous, embarrassing, fabulous, powerful, hilarious, stupid, fascinating are all words that "tell" us in an arbitrary way what to think. They don't reveal, don't open up, don't describe in specifics what is unique to the person or event described. Often they begin with cliches.

Here is Gail Sheehy's depiction of a former "surfer girl" from the New Jersey shore in "Middletown, America":

"This was a tall blond tomboy who grew up with all guy friends. A natural beauty who still had age on her side, being thirty; she didn't give a thought to taming her flyaway hair or painting makeup on her smooth Swedish skin."

Here I *think* I know what Sheehy means, but I'm not sure. Don't let the reader make such assumptions. You're the author; it's your charge to show us what you mean with authentic detail. Don't pretend the job is accomplished by cliches such as "smooth Swedish skin," "flyaway hair," "tall blond tomboy," "the surfer girl" - how smooth? how tall? how blond?

Or try this from Faye Kellerman in "Street Dreams": "[Louise's] features were regular, and once she had been pretty. Now she was handsome in her black skirt, suit, and crisp, white blouse."

Well, that's it for Louise, poor thing. Can you see the character in front of you? A previous sentence tells us that Louise has "blunt-cut hair" framing an "oval face," which helps, but not much - millions of women have a face like that. What makes Louise distinctive? Again, we may think we know what Kellerman means by "pretty" and "handsome" (good luck), but the inexcusable word here is "regular," as in "her features were regular." What *are* "regular" features?

The difference between telling and showing usually boils down to the physical senses. Visual, aural aromatic words take us out of our skin and place us in the scene you've created. In conventional narrative it's fine to use a "to be" word to talk us into the distinctive word, such as "wandered" in this brief, easily imagined sentence by John Steinbeck in "East of Eden." "His eyes were very blue, and when he was tired, one of them wandered outward a little." We don't care if he is "handsome" or "regular."

Granted, context is everything, as writing experts say, and certainly that's true of the sweltering West African heat in Graham Greene's "The Heart of the Matter": "Her face had the ivory tinge of atabrine; her hair which had once been the color of bottled honey was dark and stringy with sweat." Except for "atabrine" (a medicine for malaria), the words aren't all that distinctive, but they quietly do the job - they don't tell us; they show us.

Commercial novels sometimes abound with the most revealing examples of this problem. The boss in Linda Lael Miller's "Don't Look Now" is "drop-dead gorgeous"; a former boyfriend is "seriously fine to look at: 35, half Irish and half Hispanic, his hair almost black, his eyes brown." A friend, Betsy, is "a gorgeous, leggy blonde, thin as a model." Careful of that word "gorgeous" - used too many times, it might lose its meaning.


AWKWARD PHRASING
"Mrs. Fletcher's face pinkened slightly." Whoa. This is an author trying too hard. "I sat down and ran a finger up the bottom of his foot, and he startled so dramatically .... " Egad, "he startled"? You mean "he started"?

Awkward phrasing makes the reader stop in the midst of reading and ponder the meaning of a word or phrase. This you never want as an author. A rule of thumb - always give your work a little percolatin' time before you come back to it. Never write right up to deadline. Return to it with fresh eyes. You'll spot those overworked tangles of prose and know exactly how to fix them.


COMMAS
Compound sentences, most modifying clauses and many phrases *require* commas. You may find it necessary to break the rules from time to time, but you can't delete commas just because you don't like the pause they bring to a sentence or just because you want to add tension.

"Bob ran up the stairs and looking down he realized his shoelace was untied but he couldn't stop because they were after him so he decided to get to the roof where he'd retie it." This is what happens when an author believes that omitting commas can make the narrative sound breathless and racy. Instead it sounds the reverse - it's heavy and garbled.

The Graham Greene quote above is dying for commas, which I'll insert here: "Her face had the ivory tinge of atabrine; her hair, which had once been the color of bottled honey, was dark and stringy with sweat." This makes the sentence accessible to the reader, an image one needs to slow down and absorb.

Entire books have been written about punctuation. Get one. "The Chicago Manual of Style" shows why punctuation is necessary in specific instances. If you don't know what the rules are for, your writing will show it.

The point to the List above is that even the best writers make these mistakes, but you can't afford to. The way manuscripts are thrown into the Rejection pile on the basis of early mistakes is a crime. Don't be a victim.

Care of Holt Uncensored.

How ironic

It's a great concept for a shirt, but funny that it proudly proclaims "Made in the USA". Out of anyone, Americans are the worst murderers of the English language.

This and other gear for writers here.

An interview with the author of "Jane Austen for Dummies"

Brought to you by our friends at Austenblog.

Joan Klingel Ray, Ph.D., is in her third term as President of the Jane Austen Society of North America, a title she will hold until December 2006. A native of New York City, she is a professor of English and a President’s Teaching Scholar at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Dr. Ray is the author of Jane Austen for Dummies, recently published by Wiley.



Getting to Know You

When and under what circumstances did you first read Jane Austen’s novels?

Like many an Austen reader, I first read Pride and Prejudice when I was about 13. I was at summer camp and loved the book at first read. I’ve re-read it many times. Pride and Prejudice is the most approachable of Austen’s novels in terms of its wonderful plot, hero, and heroine, and wondering if they will ever get together. But I did not read all of Austen’s works until I was in a grad course that lasted two semesters and included all the novels of JA. I think this was a great time to read them as I was then 22 and had developed a strong sense of irony, myself. Not that younger readers don’t read and appreciate Austen’s novels. But the older and more experienced in life and literature one becomes, the more one appreciates the full Austen–really a very sophisticated writer.

Which of her novels is your favorite, and why?

When I visited Philadelphia and stayed with Elizabeth (Steele, the Regional Coordinator), we found that we had the same two favorite Austen books and for the same reasons. Using Elizabeth’s words, “Pride and Prejudice is the book of my heart, while Emma is the book of my head.” Re Pride and Prejudice: I love the whole story-line of the way Elizabeth is too clever for her own good and so plays Miss Pert to Darcy, who is remarkably patient with her. I also admire the subtle way Austen presents Darcy–a way that misleads many readers and actors (or their scriptwriters!). Austen tells us that he enjoys conversation, that he smiles a lot at her, that he is–as I’ve already noted–remarkably patient with her, and that the wonderful smile Elizabeth sees on his face in the Pemberley portrait reminds her of the way he smiled at her. So Austen’s Darcy is not the dour, sullen Darcy that we normally see on the screen! This is part of Austen’s witty, subtle treatment of her character. Re Emma: I adore the Emma character because she means well so much of the time, but is so clueless almost all of the time. I love her true sorrow and chagrin for screwing things up. And I love the way Austen lays out the clues of Jane and Frank. When Emma, after realizing how wrong she was to think Elton liked Harriet, and thinking that she should be less clever, like Harriet, then recognizes that “‘It was rather too late in the day to set about being stupid and ignorant,’” I just hoot–sometimes in recognition of myself! Austen is at her most clever and mischievous in this book.

What is your favorite non-Austen reading–fiction or non? Any particular author or book that you particularly like?

I love reading the poetry of George Herbert, which appeals to me spiritually. I admire Middlemarch; but none of Eliot’s books has the charm and wit of Austen’s. (Ain’t that the truth! –Ed.) I have fun reading the novels of Alexander McCall Smith, Jasper Fforde, and Janet Evanovich, all of which I can whip through in a few hours. I read the New York Times daily and admire the non-fiction of Thomas Friedman. I have a long list of novels I plan to read when I retire!

Do you have any non-Austen hobbies or interests that you would like to share with our readers?

Like Austen, I am a desperate walker! But I prefer walking in cities, rather than on country roads, because cities always offer something new to see that interests me more than what the country offers. (All I see is green!) After all, I am a 5th-generation New York City person, born and bred. I am an opera-lover and travel to opera in NYC, San Francisco, Chicago, and Santa Fe, and Denver. When in London, I attend the Royal Opera and the English National Opera. This summer (06) I saw Tosca at the former and Nixon in China at the latter; this was my 12th Tosca and my first Nixon in China, and I loved the ENO production of NIC. In fact, NIC may well be my new favorite opera, but it must be seen, as well as heard, to fully appreciate–unlike Tosca, which I love even just hearing.

What do you think of the recent resurgence of interest in Jane Austen among the general public (that is, not us fanatics, who of course are always interested in Jane Austen)?

Great! Austen wrote for her contemporary audience or the common reader, and it was only in the mid- to late 19th century that the idea spread that one must be especially sensitive and cultured to appreciate Austen. The more readers who come to Austen, the better, as far as I am concerned. One point for newcomers to keep in mind, though, is that the culture of Austen’s period, which is also the period in which her novels are set, was quite different from ours. Consequently, certain customs and manners may seem unusual for readers who are unfamiliar with the novels’ cultural foundations. Austen, of course, assumed her readers would understand them. Reading Jane Austen For Dummies, about which you ask me later in this interview, will help newcomers to the novels understand the culture.

About JASNA

When did you join JASNA? What was your impulse to join?

I joined in 1991, having purchased The Jane Austen Companion, edited by Jack Grey, then President of JASNA, and others. That book mentioned JASNA and how to join. So I sent a postcard to the address provided and received an enrollment form, which I immediately returned with the dues. I thought it would be great to join a group of my own kind: Janeites! Shortly thereafter I saw in the JASNA newsletter (JASNA News) that there would be an AGM (Annual General Meeting) in Lake Louise and that the topic would be Persuasion. I had written a paper on Persuasion called “In Defense of Lady Russell: The God Mother Knew Best,” and I decided to send the précis to the organizers’ (Juliet McMaster and Bruce Stovel) request for paper proposals. (Meanwhile, I had already sent a paper to Persuasions, the JASNA annual journal. The essay, which was accepted, was “Fanny Price as a Case Study of Child Abuse,” and it has led to many a graduate student’s writing to me to say how helpful reading that essay was to his or her thinking and writing about Mansfield Park!)

What has been the most interesting or amusing thing that has happened to you as a result of your involvement with JASNA?

Having been introduced at the 2000 AGM in Boston as the incoming JASNA President, I attended in December, two months after the Boston AGM, an off-Broadway show at which I left my hat under my seat. I had to wait until everyone came downstairs to return to the theater to look for it. The staircase was Λ-shaped, with attendees coming both two staircases at once. Suddenly, a JASNA-NYC member whom I recognized and who recognized me from the 2000 AGM in Boston waved to me as I waved to her. She was being pushed forward by the crowd and so could not stop to talk to me, but she did look back at me as the crowd continued to propel her towards the exit and said to her husband, pointing in my direction, “That’s the new president of the Jane Austen Society…” Those behind her only heard her say, “Jane Austen,” and soon persons were exclaiming, “Jane Austen is here; Jane Austen is here!” What a hoot, especially when the house manager came and escorted me back into the theater through another door to look for my hat (missing, alas!): people must have thought Jane Austen was being escorted backstage to meet the actors!

What is your best or most memorable JASNA moment ever?

My first AGM at Lake Louise, where I gave my Lady Russell talk, gave me my best moments. When I came to the AGM, I did not know a soul as I was brand new to AGMs. (And we did not have a JASNA Region in Colorado at that time.) First, I met a Pennsylvania woman who subsequently became a good friend as we waited for the busses to take us from Calgary airport to the hotel in Lake Louise. Then, as I waited in the hotel lobby for a bus tour to Banff, Joan Pawelski of Chicago, by then a longtime JASNA, came over with a group of her fellow Chicago JASNA members. She introduced herself to me, saw that my badge said I was a speaker, invited me to join her group on the bus and at lunch in Banff, and encouraged her friends to come to my talk! Later, I gave the right talk in the right style (I do not read my papers; I “talk” them) to the right group at the right time. The next thing I knew, I was asked to be on the JASNA Board. And the rest is history. These were my best JASNA moments because I saw that JASNA members were amiable.

What is your best or most memorable AGM moment ever?

As Co-coordinator of the 1999-AGM in Colorado Springs on Emma, I was able to feature Joan Austen-Leigh (one of JASNA’s 3 founders and a collateral descendent of Jane Austen via Jane’s brother James) on the stage at the banquet for an extended period of time: 1. JAL did the champagne toast to Jane Austen. 2. JAL returned to the stage when we introduced the winners of the Young Writers Workshop (high school students), and she gave them their awards. The 1st–prize winner read her hysterical essay about Emma in the voice of Cher from “Clueless,” which had everyone, especially JAL, laughing uncontrollably. 3. Just prior to the piano recital that ended the banquet, I presented to JAL a large, framed proclamation from the Mayor of Colorado Springs saying this was “Jane Austen Day.” This was an especially memorable JASNA moment for me because Joan Austen-Leigh was (unknown to me) ailing at that time, and 1999 was her final AGM. I have since learned that she was very touched by the way we honored her.

Of which of your accomplishments as president of JASNA are you most proud?

There are really two accomplishments: I am the first college professor to be JASNA’s President. While JASNA is a society that is not based in academia–though many academics are members and give talks at meetings–I think it helped JASNA to have me, as a Professor of English, as its president because I could immediately come up with several topics for talks to regions, and I knew how to deliver them. This led to much travel as JASNA’s President, for I not only visited with, but provided substantial talks at the meetings about varying aspects of Austen’s work and life. Students tell me that my classroom demeanor is both entertaining and instructive. This is how I present my talks, as well. My reputation as an entertaining, yet instructive speaker, has led to my visiting dozens of regions, from the biggest to the tiniest (with whom I shared ideas about “growing” their region). For me, size does not matter! My visiting the regions–with a word-of-mouth reputation about my talks preceding me–has led to many new persons coming and then joining JASNA. So I am proud of being a good ambassador for the society. As a veteran of nearly 30 years in the university classroom, I can handle questions and comments easily from the floor. This adds to the congeniality of the meetings.

The other accomplishment of which I am proud is something else I learned from years in university administration, particularly from my last University Chancellor for whom I worked as Interim Vice Chancellor: personally greeting as many persons as possible in the room. When I attend a regional meeting, I go to as many attendees as possible and introduce myself to them, shake their hands, ask how long they have been members, what their favorite Austen novel is, etc. I do this with any JASNA or Austen audience: even when I had the honor to give an Austen-talk at the Library of Congress, I likewise greeted audience members as they took their seats. On the same score, after it was announced at the Boston AGM that I was to be the next President, I made it a point at the banquet to start at the back of the banquet hall and go to as many tables as time permits to greet members, old and new. (The Editrix was one of the n00bz, and was rather bowled over by the encounter. –Ed.) I do this at every AGM, at both the banquet and the cash bar, as well as at any time I can meets folks. I want the members to know that as President, I am grateful that they are members, and that the Society sincerely welcomes and appreciates them. In fact, members have told me how much they appreciate that. I think all future Presidents of JASNA should do the same thing: go to the tables and greet the members at the banquet, etc. (By the way, persons have asked me how I can go to the tables at the banquet and miss my dinner: my trick is to order room service, on my own nickel, in my room about an hour before the banquet. So I am well fed when the banquet starts and do not go hungry! This way I have the strength to go to the tables.)

What’s the best part about being president of JASNA?

The best part has been the travel that has allowed me to meet so many wonderful members! Many of the persons I’ve met have become my good friends outside of JASNA visits, too.

May I please share another “best part?” (Of course! –Ed.) I had two great opportunities as JASNA President in Washington DC in April 2005, when I was on sabbatical from the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs: to speak about Jane Austen at the Library of Congress, where 280+ persons showed up, and then to appear on “The Diane Rehm Show” on NPR on April 11, 2005, again to talk about and field callers’ questions about Jane Austen and JASNA. These were excellent opportunities for me to share my enthusiasm for Jane Austen and JASNA, which I very much appreciated.

Would you like to say anything to encourage AustenBlog readers to join JASNA? (Or for our international readers, their local Austen Society?)

As I noted in a reply to an earlier question, the Jane Austen Society, whether of North America or of any other location, is a great way to meet persons who have in common with you a love of Jane Austen. Interestingly, when I meet fellow JASNA-members, I find that we also have many other interests in common! JASNA has over 60 regional groups, which you can locate at our website, www.jasna.org. Besides the friendship and fellowship, the Societies give you the opportunities to learn more about Austen, her life, times, and works in a fun-filled and friendly atmosphere. I recently had a note from a gentleman whose wife, a longtime JASNA member, had just passed away. He made a donation to JASNA because his wife always came home from JASNA meetings–in his words–”bubbling with excitement and joy.” That says it all!

Jane Austen for Dummies

Did Wiley approach you about writing the book or did you pitch it to them? If the latter, what gave you the idea for the book?

I had been approached by a literary agent in NYC who was interested in having me do a book of Austen quotations. She knew I was President of JASNA and also a Professor of English; she had read about my talks and read some of my articles. As a result, she knew that when I wrote about Austen, or any other writer for that matter, I did not sprinkle my prose with literary jargon. (I’m a full professor, and I have nobody to try to impress!) We then saw that Barnes and Noble had beaten us to the punch on a JA quotation book. About a month or two went by, and this same agent met an editor from Wiley who said they were looking for someone to write Jane Austen for Dummies. The agent said, thinking of me, “Have I got the person for you!” She had me send Wiley my curriculum vitae and a sample or two of my professional writing on Austen (articles I had written and that were published). Wiley then sent me a sample table of contents, which I was free to revise and send back to Wiley’s editorial board for approval. I was glad to see that the Dummies book was not going to include plot summaries, etc., because I did not want to write Cliff’s Notes©! The board members at Wiley liked what they saw and then asked for a sample chapter by the following week. I wrote it; they liked it and sent me the contract.

What do you like best and least about the book?

The best thing I like about the book is that it offers newcomers to Austen an excellent background on the culture of the period, which is crucial to a fuller understanding her novels. It also explains her place in the development of the novel. Any teacher of high school or college students could assign this book as supplementary reading for Austen’s novels. And anyone not in school will read this book and come away with a better knowledge of all things Austen.

The thing I like least about the book is the proofreading. I wish Wiley had let me have 48 hours with the final version before it went to press, so I could catch the typos and the little editorial changes they made to simplify my writing, but which caused grammar errors. The good news is that I was able to send corrections to them for future editions.

Did you learn anything new or exciting about Jane Austen while writing it?

I was very happy to be forced to read Deirdre Le Faye’s edition of Austen’s letters carefully again. Every Austen lover should read her letters.

Why should AustenBlog readers rush out and purchase a copy?

This book is a reader-friendly introduction to Austen and her times. It’s a good place for Austen readers to start. Much of what I included in the book is what I have to be sure to include in my Austen classes, what students have asked me about, and what JASNA members ask me about when they see me. So I think the book’s contents will answer a lot of questions that readers either have or should have about Austen and her world.

The Great Pig Kerfluffle

You stirred up a controversy when some harshly critical comments about the recent film adaptation of Pride and Prejudice were published in the British press shortly before the release of the film. We understand that your comments to the reporter were spun a bit out of context. Here’s your opportunity to clarify or expand upon what was published: to paraphrase Eleanor Tilney, “Clear your character handsomely before the Internets.” Or publicly tell Joe Wright to go jump in a lake; your choice.

What I said to the reporter was this:

“Joe Wright’s having a large pig with his sexual equipment dangling walk into the Bennets’ house was inappropriate for the Bennets’ home. The Bennets’ farm was undoubtedly some distance from the house, not right up to the back door as the film showed it. Just look at Anna Lefroy’s drawings of Steventon and the drawings by Austen’s contemporaries of other Austen-related homes that appear on the walls of Jane Austen’s House in Chawton: they all had farms, but not right up the door of the main house as Wright placed it for the Bennets’ house in the film. The 2005 Pride & Prejudice film needed more background research. Wright’s boar-with-the-dangling-equipment-walking-into-the-house scene is more appropriate for a film version of a Fielding novel–such as another film version of Tom Jones, where a barnyard and a well-endowed boar is in keeping with the rowdy humor of Fielding’s novel and the settings of the poorer farmers in Tom Jones. But the Bennets’ lovely home would not have livestock entering the house, and the farmyard would not be right next to the house.”

My lengthy comment (after all, I’m a teacher and thus go into detailed answers in class!) clearly overwhelmed the reporter, who admitted he had an undergrad degree in English, but couldn’t quite remember the novel Tom Jones, though he fondly recalled its film version. When the reporter finally wrote the interview, he restated my admittedly wordy comment as my talking of Darcy’s supposed “jewels” represented by the boar’s. The reporter’s revision of my remark was then picked up by the wire. The Fielding reference must have been too literary for him.

On this subject of Austen and sexual innuendo: I disagree strongly with Austen critic Jill Heydt Stevenson’s conclusion that in Persuasion in the scene where Anne Elliot, riding with Lady Russell in the latter’s carriage in Bath, sees Captain Wentworth walking down the street and hopes that Lady Russell does not see Wentworth, Austen insinuates a sexual innuendo when Lady Russell, looking intently at the other side of the street for some curtains that she observes are particularly “well hung,” means that the words “well hung” refer to Wentworth’s jewels! Lady Russell is not even looking at Wentworth’s side of the street, let alone at his pants! (But what about Sir Walter describing Mr. Elliot as being “very much under-hung?” Inquiring dirty minds want to know. –Ed.) Stevenson also assumes that the scene in Pride and Prejudice, at Netherfield, where Miss Bingley asks Darcy if she can sharpen his quill pen is meant as sexual innuendo. If one knows anything about writing with quills, one knows that one’s quill point was as idiosyncratic as fountain pen points today are for extra fine, fine, medium, broad, and italics are! His quill is not his penis.

But I do think–and have always thought, back to grad school in 1974!–that Mansfield Park’s Mary Crawford’s reference to Vices and Rears is meant as a pun to show readers how worldly Mary is when compared to Edmund and Fanny, who don’t catch the pun and complain, instead, how the remark shows how disrespectful Mary is towards her uncle who raised her! Austen was born and raised in Georgian England, and so she is direct and candid; however, she is also a lady. And on her being a lady: I still remember the review of the Gwyneth Paltrow’s Emma film in The New Yorker where Anthony Lane–whose reviews I normally respect very much–complained of Paltrow, as Emma, saying “Good God!” several times in the film as Mrs. Weston surprises her about the Frank / Jane engagement: in the novel, Emma says, “Good God!” several times in that scene!

A final word, if I may: I have heard and read persons comparing Jane Austen to writers such as Shakespeare, Fanny Burney, and Alexander Pope, and to artists like Vermeer or Japanese painters. This is all well and good. But Jane Austen is like . . . Jane Austen! There’s no one quite like her, and she’s like nobody else.

Auckland is an Asset

Something that we Aucklanders have always known has now been made official...



Reports show Auckland is an 'asset to the nation'

Tuesday September 19, 2006
By Bernard Orsman

The widely held belief that Aucklanders are a drain on the country is challenged in two reports claiming the Queen City sends $3.8 billion more in tax down to Wellington than it gets back in government spending.

The rest of the country needs to start seeing Auckland as a "national asset" that can drive growth, according to the reports prepared by the Auckland City Council and the Committee for Auckland, a non-political charitable trust.

Finance Minister Michael Cullen once famously quipped that "Auckland now sits atop the nation like a great crushing weight".

Committee for Auckland chairman Sir Ron Carter yesterday said there was nothing defensive about the reports.

"This certainly will dismiss any argument that Auckland is a drain on the nation, or that it consumes more than its share of government resources. Rather, Auckland is a positive contributor to the rest of the economy," Sir Ron said.

He said to avoid a "tug of war" between communities on sharing the tax take, there was a need to increase the performance of the nation as a whole and that required looking to Auckland.

"We would like to see every region of New Zealand lifting its game and making the whole nation more successful," Sir Ron said.

The reports - The Case for Auckland, and Auckland's Contribution to the Government's Surplus in 2005 - delve into the city's economic and social dynamics.

The figures show 34 per cent of New Zealanders live in Auckland and one in three Aucklanders was born overseas.

Among the "brakes" on the region were one in five students leaving secondary school without formal qualifications and some low-decile schools producing no A or B bursaries.

Auckland City Mayor Dick Hubbard said the reports showed the Government needed to spend more money in Auckland.

Statistics showed that there was a lack of investment in infrastructure in the 1980s and 1990s.

Over the next 20 years, he said, the region needed $20 billion invested in infrastructure such as broadband, transport and energy.

How well do you know your Jane Austen?

Play Mastermind and find out. Apparently a score of over 20 is 'very good'... I scored 16.

Recipe: Citrus Tart

The great thing about this tart is that your don't have to bake it blind. You can make the base several hours or a day ahead if you like - but cover it in the fridge so it doesn't dry out.

Mix 125g butter, 1 cup flour and 1/2 icing sugar in a food processor. With floured hands, press the dough into a 21 cm loose bottom flan tin. Refrigerate for at least 30 minutes (it bakes best from cold).

Preheat the oven to 180 degrees celcius. Place 1 cup sugar, 1/2 cup lemon juice, rind of 2 lemons, 2 tablespoons custard powder and 3 eggs into the food processor and mix. Pour into the chilled base. Bake for 25 minutes until the pastry is crisp and the filling set. Dust with icing sugar.