Jane Austen couldn't write

One of the best English novelists ever was bad at spelling and grammar:

Jane Austen couldn't spell, had no grasp of punctuation and her writing betrayed an accent straight out of The Archers, according to an Oxford University academic.

Prof Kathryn Sutherland said analysis of Austen's handwritten letters and manuscripts reveal that her finished novels owed as much to the intervention of her editor as to the genius of the author.

Page after page was written without paragraphs, including the sparkling dialogue for which Austen is known. The manuscript for Persuasion, the only one of her novels to survive in its unedited form, looks very different from the finished product.

"The reputation of no other English novelist rests so firmly on the issue of style, on the poise and emphasis of sentence and phrase, captured in precisely weighed punctuation. But in reading the manuscripts it quickly becomes clear that this delicate precision is missing.

"This suggests somebody else was heavily involved in the editing process between manuscript and printed book," Prof Sutherland said.

The editor in question is believed to have been William Gifford, a poet and critic who worked for Austen's second publisher, John Murray.

"Gifford was a classical scholar known for being quite a pedant. He took Austen's English and turned it into something different - an almost Johnsonian, formal style," Prof Sutherland said.

"Austen broke many of the rules for writing 'good' English. Her words were jumbled together and there was a level of eccentricity in her spelling - what we would call wrong.

"She has this reputation for clear and elegant English but her writing was actually more interesting than that. She was a more experimental writer than we give her credit for. Her exchanges between characters don't separate out one speaker from another, but that can heighten the drama of a scene.

"It was closer to the style of Virginia Woolf. She was very much ahead of her time."

Amongst Austen's grammatical misdemeanours was an inability to master the 'i before e' rule. Her manuscripts are littered with distant 'veiws' and characters who 'recieve' guests.

Elsewhere, she wrote "tomatoes" as "tomatas" and "arraroot" for "arrowroot" - peculiarities of spelling that reflect Austen's regional accent, Prof Sutherland explained. "In some of her writing, her Hampshire accent is very strong. She had an Archers-like voice with a definite Hampshire burr."

Over 1,000 of these handwritten pages will be placed online from Monday as the culmination of a three-year project led by Prof Sutherland in collaboration with the Bodleian Libraries, King's College London and the British Library. The collection reunites the letters and manuscripts for the first time since 1845, when they were scattered by the terms of her sister Cassandra's will.

They range from fiction written in early childhood to the manuscript for Sanditon, the novel that Austen was writing when she died in 1817. Sadly, the manuscripts for Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility and Emma, her most famous novels, were destroyed after being set in print.

Shakespeare couldn't spell either.

Jane Austen

Quite a few people have said to me, when I've confessed my love for Jane Austen, that her books are "romantic novels for women." Not really. Romantic novels for women usually start with descriptions of their heroines physical beauty not by telling you how clever and witty they are or how much money they are worth - as Austen usually does.

Austen's novels are satires (or "social studies") or simply straightforward comedies - a fact that is not often obvious because Austen had a very dry sense of humor. But that does not mean that Austen was cynical about true love. On the contrary: she valued true love so much that she made fun of "romance." Of course most movie versions of Austen's novels are romanticized sometimes to the point of schmaltz.

From the contemporary novelist Jay McInerney's essay "Beautiful Minds: Jane Austen's Heroines":

“Critics have remarked that there is no real delineation of true love in Jane Austen and that is true enough,” David Dachies claims in an influential and otherwise sensible essay entitled “Jane Austen, Karl Marx and the Aristocratic Dance”. “Austen knew only too well that in that kind of society genteel young ladies cannot afford true love. The only object must be marriage, and marriage with someone eligible. In Jane Austen, only the poor can afford passion.” It’s hard to believe a reader of sense could be so preposterously obtuse and misguided, although Charlotte Brontë made a similar argument a hundred years earlier (“The passions are perfectly unknown to her”). For all of their differences, a belief in true love, with passion as its signal component, is precisely what distinguishes Austen heroines from most of their contemporaries.

It's a delicious essay for Austen fans.