After having re-read (most of) Austen the last few months, it's funny to revisit 18th century novels and see the gap between earlier novels and Austen. Austen's characters are so much more fleshed out. Evelina the character resonates with me on some levels...the indecisiveness, the wanting to make sure you're being proper and all that...but overall, the characters are flat. As with Cecilia, the minor characters, over time, aggravate me to no end! Selwyn was funny, as a satirical woman, and I like some of the critiques that come out of her mouth. I like that those critiques are just baldly out there. But I skimmed like crazy through many of the minor character parts (and I know I missed some details).

It's funny that Burney is true to life on some of the annoying characters...it can seem like people are just surface level and annoying. But I've always found, as Austen shows, that the more you know someone, the more you, obviously, get past surface impressions. So, reading Evelina just makes me appreciate Austen all that much more. I wonder if Austen talks at length about Burney in letters...I wonder how Austen thought of her novels in relation to Burney: as an extension, growth out of, better product than Burney...if Burney was a model to show Austen what she did and did not want to do with her own novels...

It's also just fascinating to me to think that London was like the London that Burney describes--really?? Such dissipation...which makes me wonder how accurate her view was. It also makes me think, well, no wonder there is this notion of cities being evil and country life being good. And so strange that the rich go back and forth. And so crazy how these ridiculous rich people have all this money and do nothing for it...not so different today, but I don't think there's the extent of inherited wealth in the US. Maybe I'm wrong, not sure.

And, it's also scary thinking about how paper-thin and all-important a woman's reputation was. So many unspoken rules and so many ridiculous rules. Just being seen with someone could be so improper. Blech!

Overall, I do appreciate how Burney has shaped her novels, but Austen has greater depth, I think, which I love. And, I suppose that subtlety is part of it, too; Austen is more understated. You have to give more to her, and you get more out of her work. Plus, just having more flesh-and-blood type characters.

Funny...I "own" a copy of this as an ebook! maybe I should have searched for an ebook version to include...

dire di posizionare Fanny Burney dopo Jane Austen e Elizabeth Gaskell, ma prima di una qualsiasi delle sorelle Bronte.
bel libro

How have I never read this book before? All those years of reading Jane Austen and Anthony Trollope, and now here is the dark side. Not only does Evelina have to worry about how she can dance when she hasn't been introduced to any of the gentleman -- but also she has to spend all of her first ball being persecuted by someone she declined to dance with. She's always getting separated from her friends in public places, and then being harassed by predatory men. Or is that one of the "satirical" parts -- is Fanny Burney making fun of the idea that a beautiful young woman is always in danger of being dishonored when she goes into society? I can't tell. Amusing and horrifying.

A justly praised novel. But also a thoughtful analysis of the ways young men manipulate young women with guilt and psychological games for sexual exploitation.

It's always nice to read an 18th century period novel that was actually written in the 18th century to be reminded of how things really were, not re-cast with 21st century sensibilities. I also enjoy them because I have no idea what to expect from the plot twists, which is a wonderful escape from usually being able to predict a book's plot by halfway.

It's written in epistolary format, which is not my favorite - although it's nice when well-done and suits the story, as in The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society, which I whole-heartedly recommend. However, the vast majority of the letters are written by the protagonist to a single recipient, so it's easy to read it nearly as a first-person narrative.

I do wish that I could know how accurate this was to it's time. There were moments when I did think "is this satire?" In some scenes, I couldn't be sure whether the author was exaggerating to make a point or whether it was written in earnest as a bit of a guidebook for young women of the era.

Told in a series of letters, Evelina is the story of a naive country miss venturing forth into the dissolute world of London society, and teaches the perils of having an absurd amount of beauty and none of the wiles to make a success of it. Evelina is plagued on all sides by suitors ridiculous and admirable, and must cling to the bulwark of her virtue lest she be swept away by the frivolous winds of flirtation and vulgarity.

I sound flippant and everything but I will confess that I liked this book, despite the absurdity of some of the characters and indeed, occasionally of Evelina herself. This is not a book that will easily translate to contemporary times -- the delicacy of feeling is almost beyond understanding at one or two points. I saw nothing so outrageous in Orville's letter, for instance, but it fair drove Evelina to tears -- which happens a lot. Also a lot of falling to one's knees and crying out. Very melodramatic, this.

Still, I really enjoyed it. The characters are all lively and sweet and delightfully and uninhibitedly appalling when they need to be. Evelina's relationship with her adoptive father is touching, and Orville is really quite impressive, for all he puts up with. Evelina herself is charming and quiet, virtuous in the extreme until she learns to lighten up a little and let love in.