Contemporary Authors

• Not Just Jane: Rediscovering Seven Amazing Women Writers Who Transformed British Literature Harper Perennial (New York, NY), 2016

https://lccn.loc.gov/2016001019 DeWees, Shelley, author. Not just Jane : rediscovering seven amazing women writers who transformed British literature / Shelley DeWees. New York : Harper Perennial, 2016. pages cm PR111 .D49 2016 ISBN: 9780062394620 (paperback)

• Harper Collins - https://www.harpercollins.com/cr-123624/shelley-dewees

  Discover Author
  Shelley DeWees

  Shelley DeWees
  Biography
  Shelley DeWees has a graduate degree in ethnomusicology, several tattoos, and a documented obsession with British literature. Her writing has appeared in Austenprose, Jane Austen’s World, and Jane Austen Today, and after time spent teaching in Korea she recently moved back to Minneapolis with her husband.

• Los Angeles Review of Books - https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/tattoo-soul-interview-shelley-dewees/

  QUOTED: "So many movies are still failing the Bechdel test, whereby the work of fiction features at least two women, that these two women speak to each other, and that they speak to each other about something other than a man. That’s how low the bar is."
  "Their tenacity and brazen bravery. They just went out and did it. They just went for it. Despite the obstacles, despite their position as writers, they were still able to participate in their culture. ... I have such an affinity for all of them. Each grew in all my heart as I wrote each new chapter. After I finished a chapter, I would say, “She’s my favorite.” But, that said, I felt a particularly strong connection with Sara Coleridge. There is something awe-inspiring in how she negotiated her path."
  "A lot of these women have remained hidden because of it, this idea that they need to live in a leather-bound volume on some shelf in a library, that we have to be reverent, hushed, careful in our approach. But I believe books are conduits between people—an author’s words are their voice, and we all deserve to hear them. They need to be available to be appreciated."

  Tattoo of the Soul: An Interview with Shelley DeWees
  By Aleksandra Kamila Krzywicka

  18 1 1

  NOVEMBER 1, 2016

  FOR MONTHS, my books called to me while I focused on tests, activities, clubs, and homework assignments. On the last day of school, I came home with a bag full of books, finally able to give these friends my full attention. I lay down that afternoon and read. I read for two days straight. My back began to hurt from being quiescent, but I kept reading, caught by the siren song woven by the books’ pages, and a sigh from deep within my belly filled the air. I was finally home.
  Talking with Shelley DeWees for this interview felt like that: comfortable, honest. She has a bubbly laugh, a clear even voice that fills the phone connection with inflection and musicality as if she is singing to a song only she can hear. Her words are eloquent. Her answers thoughtful. The hour disappears and I keep wanting to ask her more questions, trying to squeeze out just a little more time with this friend I just made, this educated, world-traveling former teacher who loves British literature as much as I do.
  In her 20s, Shelley DeWees taught music in public school as arts and music programs were under fire, the first on the list to be cut from school curricula, to be drained of funds, and to be undervalued. Leaving teaching after a year, she studied and received a degree in ethnomusicology. But prospects in the field were dim, the job market inundated. She had loans to pay. What could she do?
  Feeling adrift and rudderless in the sea of possibilities, Shelley went to work as a chef at a spiritual retreat called the Garden of One Thousand Buddhas, in her native Montana. At the center of the garden, a statue of Yum Chenmo, also known as the Mother of Transcendent Wisdom — and according to Shelley a powerful, badass woman — reigns over 1,000 Buddha replicas. A tattoo of Yum Chenmo also adorns the whole of DeWees’s back, signifying, she says, admiration and connection and rediscovery. While reading the book, I felt as if Mary Elizabeth Braddon, Helen Maria Williams, Catherine Crowe, Sara Coleridge, Charlotte Turner Smith, Dinah Mulock Craik, and Mary Robinson were becoming my friends; women that I wanted to emulate, to know more about, and to draw inspiration from — maybe even get tattoos of them. There are many reasons to mark one’s body, to let the ink filter beneath the skin and permanently sign and reveal one’s self. For DeWees, the tattoo serves to memorialize her life in Montana, and more importantly, she says, “I felt more like myself when I got it.”
  Shelley DeWees is a writer, a researcher, a traveler, an explorer, and an excavator. She enjoys music and understanding how that music fits into the puzzle of history, how time and place influence composition. Her degree in ethnomusicology and the skills she developed there are evident in her book, Not Just Jane.
  But before she began her three-year journey to complete her project, she lived in South Korea and taught college-level English courses on her favorite writers of British literature. Through the lens of her students’ answers she realized her own biases, her own limitations. After watching a stage production of Pride and Prejudice, and then flying back to South Korea, she gazed at her beloved bookshelf in her small, compact, and simple Korean apartment and wondered, “Are these the only women who wrote during Jane Austen’s time? What am I missing?”
  From these musings, DeWees went on a quest that became Not Just Jane, a book that focuses on seven remarkable English female writers who published over a span of 150 years. These writers include the aforementioned Mary Elizabeth Braddon, Helen Maria Williams, Catherine Crowe, Sara Coleridge, Charlotte Turner Smith, Dinah Mulock Craik, and Mary Robinson. Not Just Jane masterfully weaves a tale of history, culture, and writing. Each of these women is fascinating, but their works had been consigned to oblivion until DeWees started her quest.
  Not Just Jane is a gem, a rediscovery of female perseverance in a patriarchal society, and shows how deftly, artfully, and successfully female writers can navigate their circumstances, even in a society where women are expected to exist solely for the benefit of their husbands and families. These remarkable women managed to overcome their difficult childhoods, their often terrible marriages, the restrictions of class, and the expectations of society to create works that propelled new ideas to the fore — the role of women in society, freedom, and revolution — and do so in cunning and subversive ways.
  DeWees writes about these women as if they are her friends, as if she had a window into their lives, as if she was their confidante. Her prose is smooth and flowing, like her voice. It is pleasant to listen to, and just like the works of her seven new friends, it deftly and clearly conveys the struggles of being a female writer during pre-Victorian and Victorian times. Introducing new writers to the canon also helps clarify what being in Jane Austen’s world really meant. The picture that Austen only outlined, these other writers color in. DeWees provides the reality behind the prevalent Jane Austen fantasy. Her honesty, her voice, and her prose invite the reader on a journey into the past and into the lives of seven talented, educated, progressive women who shaped their surroundings as much as those surroundings shaped them.
  ¤
  ALEKSANDRA KAMILA KRZYWICKA: Has the fantasy aspect of Jane Austen’s books changed for you through the course of your research and writing about these seven other women writers? How?
  SHELLEY DEWEES: It has changed. That fantasy, in my mind, is still valid, still something I enjoy escaping to, especially in this time, during this toxic election: Jane Austen provides a comforting image. But now these images are more fully rendered. I understand more about the paradox of female experience. It wasn’t ever all perfect. It was inconvenient. People were sick and it was difficult being female. These women had to reconcile how to be a relative being, a being always compared to their male counterparts. To write was really brave.
  Not Just Jane reveals the complex pressures faced by these seven female writers in a historical period when marriage was the woman’s sole goal in life. How do you feel about this as a woman and a writer and now a mother?
  Marriage is complicated. It is, I find, a giving relationship. I believe, inside, that there has to be a way that I can be a female and be a wife and that these two concepts can coexist. As I researched, being my own person became a bone of contention — my husband kept saying, “You’re not anti-marriage but you’re writing as though you are.” Historically, marriage has done so much damage to women’s lives and has colored our experience of ourselves.
  I don’t have a good way to reconcile these two things. I believe that they can coexist in the same world, and staying married as I’ve aged has influenced me. I believe that I can stand on my own, and to go through this research on my own. I can discover this idea of marriage and how oppressive it is, and yet not reject it for myself. For some reason it works.
  What parallels struck you between our time and the past that these women occupied?
  It is all still happening today. So many movies are still failing the Bechdel test, whereby the work of fiction features at least two women, that these two women speak to each other, and that they speak to each other about something other than a man. That’s how low the bar is.
  There were many obstacles that these seven women had to face, at a time when writing and publishing were the only places where they could have a chance to achieve success and meet men on almost equal ground. What obstacles do you think are facing women today?
  I would love to say that we are facing new obstacles and that we’re no longer fighting for equal footing. To our great misfortune, I feel the obstacles have not really changed. Women are still fighting for the same kinds of things and to have the same critical standard applied to them, for their work to be valued the way men’s work is valued. That is one of our society’s greatest challenges. It’s a difficult row to hoe. I hope that one day we will be as enlightened as the Star Trek universe, where there is a meritocracy without the bias of gender.
  How much of our identity is defined by gender?
  It would be silly to think that we could separate ourselves from gender in our current society. Truly, a genderless world is not something we can currently aim for. But I do think women and men can coexist on this planet, and without us having to be 24-hour women, constantly made up and on the go. As a society we should work toward equality. But these changes are slow. We can’t separate ourselves from our culture, but I hope that women will soon have equal footing with men.
  These seven women were often criticized not just by men, but also policed by women, specifically in terms of morality and conduct. What are your thoughts on such conflict in our current culture? What role do women play in each other’s lives?
  Conflict in people is, unfortunately, a natural quality — we are far better at building fences than at building bridges. But I believe that women could stand together better as a sisterhood. Competition among females has historical roots in the marriage market, which appeared at this time, the idea that as a woman you had to grab the right guy because he’s going to be responsible for every last thing. On top of that, these women were making decisions like these as teenagers, often doing it in competition with older women.
  As a sisterhood, I implore women to see how we have been acculturated into seeing men as something we need to acquire to be whole. I wish women could see that they are autonomous. They are just like men, and can stand on their own two feet. If women saw this, that we are all on this blue ball together, I think it would strengthen that sisterhood and reduce the conflict among us.
  What are the qualities you admire in these seven women?
  Their tenacity and brazen bravery. They just went out and did it. They just went for it. Despite the obstacles, despite their position as writers, they were still able to participate in their culture.
  If you could meet one of these women to talk to them, which would you pick?
  That is so hard. I have such an affinity for all of them. Each grew in all my heart as I wrote each new chapter. After I finished a chapter, I would say, “She’s my favorite.” But, that said, I felt a particularly strong connection with Sara Coleridge. There is something awe-inspiring in how she negotiated her path. I would love to ask her, “Where did you stand, mentally? Did you even know that you were shirking so many values? Were you aware of your own paradoxical position, and how did you manage it so cannily?” She showed incredible perception.
  If all seven could meet up with you, what do you think that conversation would be like?
  Becoming a mother has opened me to a whole group of women that I might not have met otherwise. In much the same way, I feel that these women would bond over their shared experience of being writers. They would come together at a party or a bar, and we could all just relax. We would get along famously.
  What would their Twitter feeds look like?
  Charlotte Turner Smith would have an enormous amount of baby pictures. She’d also write occasional poetry (and it would be effusively sad), and she might also post a GoFundMe campaign to help with her financial troubles.
  Helen Maria Williams would be all about politics; every piece out there would somehow find its way to her page. She would also contribute works of her own on the subject, in English and French.
  Mary Robinson, being at the tippy top of the fashionable world but also profoundly observant, would likely have forward-thinking fashion pieces of her own creation. They wouldn’t be all fluff, though: she’d write something like “The Sexual Politics of Dark Florals.”
  Catherine Crowe would be all about the mystical. She’d probably also have a profile photo that included her aura.
  Sara Coleridge’s Twitter page would have erudite musings on the classics from ancient Greece and Rome, not to mention more than a few of her father’s works. There would also be pictures from when she went on vacation alone.
  Dinah Mulock Craik would have lots about feminism, most especially of the “You don’t need a man” variety. She would emphasize female autonomy over all else, and be a proud supporter of the Lean In philosophy.
  Mary Elizabeth Braddon, being one of those people who finds the time to do 200 percent more than the rest of us, would have a new piece of original fiction posted every day, alongside pictures of her children wearing hand-stitched clothing and a great many home improvement projects.
  How important do you think having a writing role model is to you as a writer?
  Women writers, historically, had only been able to emulate male authors until the women’s tradition grew and came into its own. Women’s fiction, a sexist term, back then was a new genre. It evolved into something really different.
  Models are important, at least to me. Charles Dickens serves really well as a role model for me, with his commitment to quality, his ability to dig and just go and go, and his ability to make his characters come alive.
  Margaret Atwood is another. She embodies the seven women authors’ commitment to their art and being prolific.
  The idea of honesty and facility in using language to convey ideas without offending sensibilities appears in the book. How honest should a writer be? How aware of audience?
  Is the point of writing to please an audience? Or is it art, without an audience? No matter your position on this, if your writing is a mercenary venture you must have a culture of trust between you and your reader. For myself, I want people to connect with me, and I to them, through the book. Most of all, though, I wanted to be me. I wanted the book to be voice-driven.
  My approach, in other words, is to talk to people through my writing. I’m an open person by nature; I find it important to just say it, and that speaks to an important theme in my writing, this notion of exclusivity in literature. A lot of these women have remained hidden because of it, this idea that they need to live in a leather-bound volume on some shelf in a library, that we have to be reverent, hushed, careful in our approach. But I believe books are conduits between people — an author’s words are their voice, and we all deserve to hear them. They need to be available to be appreciated.
  What is your next project?
  I would love to rerelease these women’s works with new introductions. I would love it if I could pen an introduction to them or even focus on just one of the women and delve even deeper. Another option is to take the Not Just Jane approach and do a whole other set of women from an earlier time period. There is still so much to do.
  I love nonfiction. I love the process of researching to find something interesting that no one else knows about. I want to keep working with these girls. I want them to be loved like Jane Austen.

QUOTED: "If DeWees’ goal is to encourage “a
bookshelf full of new titles,” she succeeds in planting the seed that there are many treasures out there waiting for a second chance."

Shelley DeWees: NOT JUST JANE
Kirkus Reviews.
(Sept. 15, 2016):
COPYRIGHT 2016 Kirkus Media LLC
http://www.kirkusreviews.com/
Full Text: 
Shelley DeWees NOT JUST JANE Perennial/HarperCollins (Adult Nonfiction) 15.99 10, 25 ISBN: 978-0-06-239462-0
Debut author DeWees brings back to life seven Victorian women writers with the hope of proving them worthy of shelf space alongside Austen
and the Brontes.The British women of this book lived from the mid-1700s to the late 1800s, a time when society expected them to find husbands
and not do much else. But these were no ordinary women; all had "broad disregard for convention…an unabashed sense of selfworth.”
Some wrote because their situations forced them to, after bad marriages left them unsupported (Charlotte Turner Smith). Others
did it because they were compelled by their beliefs, whether political or personal, in protest against the negative connotations of
"spinsterhood.” Mary Elizabeth Braddon wrote in search of a successful career and, despite the rage of critics, made a fortune. Catherine
Crowe penned one of the first detective novels complete with a “resourceful, industrious, lionhearted” female lead. Sara
Coleridge wrote Phantasmion, considered by some as the first fairy-tale novel in English. What DeWees does best is reveal the interesting lives
and strong characters of these oft-forgotten writers, proving to readers that there were many more successful Victorian women writers than the
handful that populate syllabi. The most memorable chapters belong to Mary Robinson, who left a loveless marriage to become a commanding
actress and mistress to the Prince of Wales, using her fame to become a definitive cultural voice of her time, and to Coleridge, whose gripping
story reveals a constant struggle against the binding duties of motherhood and marriage. Virginia Woolf summed up Coleridge’s tragedy
well: “She meant to write her life. But she was interrupted.” While some chapters blend together and the accomplishments
become indistinguishable, this book succeeds at making readers aware of the gaps in our knowledge of British literature. Read this not as serious
literary criticism but as an appreciation of writers who deserve to be remembered. If DeWees’ goal is to encourage “a
bookshelf full of new titles,” she succeeds in planting the seed that there are many treasures out there waiting for a second chance.
Source Citation   (MLA 8th
Edition)
"Shelley DeWees: NOT JUST JANE." Kirkus Reviews, 15 Sept. 2016. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA463215899&it=r&asid=6c5cbcde6a7b3921f6f30bb5814b9949. Accessed 5 Feb.
2017.
2/5/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1486329826837 2/9
Gale Document Number: GALE|A463215899

---
QUOTED: "In addition to being a lively read, this group biography is an important contribution."

2/5/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1486329826837 3/9
Not Just Jane: Rediscovering Seven Amazing Women
Writers Who Transformed British Literature
Margaret Flanagan
Booklist.
113.4 (Oct. 15, 2016): p11.
COPYRIGHT 2016 American Library Association
http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/publishing/booklist_publications/booklist/booklist.cfm
Full Text: 
Not Just Jane: Rediscovering Seven Amazing Women Writers Who Transformed British Literature. By Shelley DeWees. Oct. 2016. 336p. Harper,
paper, $15.99 (9780062394620). 820.9.
DeWees seeks to rectify a longstanding literary oversight by profiling some of the forgotten ladies of English literature. While considerable praise
is heaped upon and much deserved homage paid to Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters, many of their female contemporaries languish in obscurity.
Dusting off the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century bookshelves, DeWeese resurrects seven worthy female scribes. From interweaving the
fascinating stories of Charlotte Turner Smith, Helen Maria Williams, Mary Robinson, Catherine Crowe, Sara Coleridge, Dinah Mulock Craik,
and Mary Elizabeth Braddon and the social, cultural, and economic realities of their times, an insightful group portrait of these groundbreaking
women emerges. Their shared pioneer spirit is reflected by the way they lived their lives and cleverly enhanced their financial and personal
prospects while making important contributions to the literature of the era. In addition to being a lively read, this group biography is an important
contribution to the scholarship of women's literature. --Margaret Flanagan
Flanagan, Margaret
Source Citation   (MLA 8th
Edition)
Flanagan, Margaret. "Not Just Jane: Rediscovering Seven Amazing Women Writers Who Transformed British Literature." Booklist, 15 Oct. 2016,
p. 11. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA468771191&it=r&asid=d9b12df6209255882c05b9806e29cbde. Accessed 5 Feb.
2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A468771191

---
QUOTED: "Lovers of Austen's books and film adaptations
of her work will find much to enjoy in this informative overview."

2/5/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1486329826837 4/9
DeWees, Shelley. Not Just Jane: Rediscovering Seven
Amazing Women Writers Who Transformed British
Literature
Emily Bowles
Library Journal.
141.10 (June 1, 2016): p87.
COPYRIGHT 2016 Library Journals, LLC. A wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
http://www.libraryjournal.com/
Full Text: 
DeWees, Shelley. Not Just Jane: Rediscovering Seven Amazing Women Writers Who Transformed British Literature. Harper Perennial. Oct.
2016.336p. notes. bibliog. ISBN 9780062394620. pap. $15.99; ebk. ISBN 9780062394637. LIT
First-time author DeWees here illuminates the stories of Charlotte Turner Smith, Helen Maria Williams, Mary Robinson, Catherine Crowe, Sara
Coleridge, Dinah Mulock Craik, and Mary Elizabeth Braddon, so that these women can take their place alongside Jane Austen in readers' minds.
DeWees positions herself as a fan of Austen, which lends a fun and breezy approach. For readers with a more academic bent, the use of "Jane"
rather than "Austen" may seem reductive, and phrases such as "our forgotten ladies of literature," and their predecessors a "cadre of female
scribblers," minimize decades of scholarship that has recuperated earlier women writers to their rightful status. Furthermore, DeWees suggests
that women lacked a genre model and mentions the masculine picaresque style of Henry Fielding's Tom Jones yet neglects to discuss Samuel
Richardson's Pamela, which indeed provided a template for women's domestic fiction. VERDICT Lovers of Austen's books and film adaptations
of her work will find much to enjoy in this informative overview of authors in conversation with Austen. Unfortunately, DeWees misses an
opportunity to showcase the complex, multifarious dialogs that Austen and her successors inherited, participated in, and challenged.--Emily
Bowles, Homeless Connections, Appleton, WI
Bowles, Emily
Source Citation   (MLA 8th
Edition)
Bowles, Emily. "DeWees, Shelley. Not Just Jane: Rediscovering Seven Amazing Women Writers Who Transformed British Literature." Library
Journal, 1 June 2016, p. 87. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA453919892&it=r&asid=432b42ffb1fa11634518671737cb7451. Accessed 5 Feb.
2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A453919892

---
QUOTED: "She does important work in challenging the notion of canon."

2/5/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1486329826837 5/9
Not Just Jane: Rediscovering Seven Amazing Women
Writers Who Transformed British Literature
Publishers Weekly.
263.20 (May 16, 2016): p42.
COPYRIGHT 2016 PWxyz, LLC
http://www.publishersweekly.com/
Full Text: 
Not Just Jane: Rediscovering Seven Amazing Women Writers Who Transformed British Literature
Shelley DeWees. Harper Perennial, $15.99 trade paper (336p) ISBN 978-0-06-239-462-0
DeWees's biographical assessment of seven English women authors of the 18th and 19th centuries marks an enthusiastic, if uneven, addition to
the ongoing project of recovering "lost" women writers and addressing the gender imbalance in English literature. She profiles Charlotte Turner
Smith, Helena Maria Williams, Mary Robinson, Catherine Crowe, Sara Coleridge (daughter of Samuel Taylor Coleridge), Dinah Mulcock Craik,
and Mary Elizabeth Braddon. Their stories are complex, involving dissolute husbands, illness, opium, and the French Revolution. The best
chapter belongs to Robinson, who had a lively career on the stage; gained the patronage of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire; and caught the eye
of the Prince of Wales. DeWees can be almost too enthusiastic a tour guide, given to twee salutations to her "dear reader," and her write-ups are
light on substantive critique. Nonetheless, she does important work in challenging the notion of canon, pointing out that the advent of digital
libraries has made many of these lesser-known works easily accessible. That accessibility, combined with the awareness spurred by books like
DeWees's, may be the best step of all toward redressing the literary canon's historical imbalance. Agent'. Noah Ballard, Curtis Brown. (Oct.)
Source Citation   (MLA 8th
Edition)
"Not Just Jane: Rediscovering Seven Amazing Women Writers Who Transformed British Literature." Publishers Weekly, 16 May 2016, p. 42.
General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA453506791&it=r&asid=0b9e33ca849fe3335a770acc959d5de9. Accessed 5 Feb.
2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A453506791

---
QUOTED: "most of them are, quite manifestly, terrible. Why is one being directed towards Mary Robinson instead of Elizabeth Inchbald,
or Catherine Crowe rather than Ouida? Indeed why read any rubbish by justly forgotten women when Peacock and Surtees lie genuinely
neglected?"
"it would be nice if DeWees's accounts had a bit more historical plausibility. Which world war she thinks George Eliot lived through I could not tell you. It's baffling that she says, as a matter of fact, that the 18th-century picaresque could not possibly be about a woman's experiences, since 'a woman could not wander aimlessly about the countryside.'"

2/5/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1486329826837 6/9
An unmagnificent seven: when resurrecting forgotten writers
of the past, make sure they're not neglected for good reason
Philip Hensher
Spectator.
333.9828 (Jan. 7, 2017): p26.
COPYRIGHT 2017 The Spectator Ltd. (UK)
http://www.spectator.co.uk
Full Text: 
Not Just Jane: Rediscovering Seven Amazing Women Writers Who Transformed British Literature
by Shelley DeWees
Harper Perennial, 9.99 [pounds sterling], pp. 320
One of the most interesting developments in modern publishing has surely been the revival of interest in women writers of the past. Beginning
with Virago Press, publishers have delved back and rediscovered exceptional female writers from the 17th century onwards. These have either
been rescued from oblivion, or from the frequent fate of being dismissed as middlebrow and narrowly domestic. Editors and a new generation of
scholars have unearthed excellent writers, from Fanny Burney to Elizabeth Taylor, and have changed literary taste forever.
The success of the enterprise probably means that it is now easier to find a new readership for a once-popular female author than for a largely
forgotten male author. The first generation of literary archaeologists had a traditional and rather strict criterion of literary quality. Carmen Callil,
the founder of Virago, was very clear that there was a level beneath which those green-backed classics would not sink. Germaine Greer wrote an
excellent and scrupulous book, Slip-shod Sibyls, arguing that many women poets of the past were actually very bad: they had no possibility of
being otherwise.
Women writers may still need excavation, but it is crucial that critical judgment is preserved. The excellent work that Virago did--along with
underrated investigators of particular fields, such as Roger Lonsdale, who produced an astounding anthology of 18th-century women poets for
OUP--demonstrated what good writers these were. But if judgment is abandoned, we might reasonably question why we are being encouraged to
read terrible writers on the basis of their sex alone.
Inquiring readers ought to be steered towards really good women writers. Elizabeth Inchbald's A Simple Story is an exquisitely refined piece of
work. Hardly anyone reads Hannah More. Susan Ferrier's three novels are a delight. Maria Edgeworth clings on by the skin of her teeth, but
Castle Rack-rent is quite a minor work compared to her longer novels. I don't understand why Charlotte Yonge has never been revived
extensively (I simply adore The Daisy Chain ). Margaret Oliphant is dauntingly prolific, but splendidly inventive. Even very curious readers only
2/5/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1486329826837 7/9
get as far as the Chronicles of Carlingford and the ghost stories. Patient investigation by a writer with good judgment would probably unearth
many more.
Shelley DeWees has written a book about the lives of 'seven amazing women writers who transformed British literature'. She ingenuously
confesses that when she started out, she only really knew of five female British authors between 1800 and 1940: Jane Austen, two Brontës,
George Eliot and Virginia Woolf. (I suppose she had heard of a third Brontë, but still ...). She investigated, and found that Elizabeth Gaskell had
'some fame in modern England, due to recent BBC adaptations', as well as some others. She decided to write a book about seven 'missing' women
writers in the 18th and 19th century.
The trouble is that most of them are, quite manifestly, terrible. Why is one being directed towards Mary Robinson instead of Elizabeth Inchbald,
or Catherine Crowe rather than Ouida? Indeed why read any rubbish by justly forgotten women when Peacock and Surtees lie genuinely
neglected? Pope's contemporary Eliza Haywood is quite an interesting writer in some ways, but it seems odd that she is now more read than The
Dunciad.
The two genuinely enjoyable writers DeWees has hit upon are Dinah Craik and Mary Elizabeth Braddon. Neither is particularly obscure or
neglected. Dinah Craik's John Halifax, Gentleman was a popular favourite until quite recently, and was dramatised in the 1970s for BBC Sunday
teatime TV. I quite like its moral fervour and insistence on self-improvement, but many now find its priggishness comical. Braddon's Lady
Audley's Secret was one of the bestselling novels of the 'sensation' boom of the early 1860s and is still widely read with much pleasure. Braddon
was a game sort, who led the kind of mildly scandalous life that was later useful in the promotion of writers like Rebecca West.
Apart from that, I can't say a lot for DeWees's choices. Charlotte Turner Smith was a poet and novelist at the end of the 18th century who couldn't
write. The following is a sample line of dialogue, amazingly quoted with admiration by DeWees:
Yet has not my pre-sentiments, tho' most of
them have been unhappily verified, enabled
me to avoid one of those thorns with which
my path has been thickly strewn.
Helen Maria Williams was an interesting case, the most fervent of British supporters of the French revolution and an associate of Wordsworth in
his radical phase. DeWees expresses astonishment that, growing up in 'chilly' Berwick-upon-Tweed, Williams managed to become well read
'despite the distance from London'. Berwick-upon-Tweed is 48 miles from Edinburgh, one of the capitals of 18th-century European thought.
Shelley DeWees is an American scholar.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Mary Robinson was an actress and borderline prostitute ('an independent woman with lovers aplenty'). She was the mistress ('Perdita') of the
Prince of Wales and wrote an awful novel about their affair, thinly disguised, which naturally sold like hot cakes. If she belongs in a history of
English literature, in two centuries' time people will be writing admiring essays about the autobiography of Major James Hewitt.
Sara Coleridge, the poet's daughter, ought to be good: she was certainly highly intelligent. But I have never managed to read her, and another
attempt this week on her novel-length 'wondertale' Phantasmion convinced me again that she is pretty much unreadable.
2/5/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1486329826837 8/9
Catherine Crowe is a sad case. She had some ability, and a single chapter of one of her novels might seem promising. But they soon reveal
themselves as utterly chaotic and ill-planned, and she as someone in a difficult situation, writing as quickly as possible the first thing that came
into her head. Susan Hopley (1841) was a success, and contains some early indications of detective fiction, with its servant-girl heroine at the
centre of what investigations there are. I tried to read Men and Women, but it defeated me: it seems a tragically misguided attempt at the 'silver
fork' style, with a first chapter entirely made up of unconvincing posh women talking about bonnets and dress silk. If you like this sort of thing,
Catherine Gore, her contemporary, isn't at all bad. Crowe went mad, fixated in a paranoid way on supernatural causes, and, convinced she was
invisible, walked the streets naked before being placed in an asylum.
Obviously I'm a tool of the patriarchal conspiracy in suggesting that perhaps some female writers, just like some male writers, were not actually
very good, and we might be better off directing our attention to the ones with more obvious literary qualities. But it would be nice if DeWees's
accounts had a bit more historical plausibility. Which world war she thinks George Eliot lived through I could not tell you. It's baffling that she
says, as a matter of fact, that the 18th-century picaresque could not possibly be about a woman's experiences, since 'a woman could not wander
aimlessly about the countryside'; but the century is bookended by Moll Flanders and Justine. Later on, George Eliot and Dickens are identified
with 'the aristocracy' and with
2/5/2017 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1486329826837 9/9
high-minded litterateurs ... who could never
survive in a world where the success of a book
or magazine was in the hands of a clever,
pushing, semi-educated middle class.
If you can't get that right, why would anyone trust you when you say that a writer they've never heard of is worth reading? It was probably a
mistake on DeWees's part to quote any of her writers. This, offered in a spirit of pure mockery, is Mary Robinson's idea of an elegy. Justly
neglected, indeed:
That Shepherd so blithesome and fair,
Whose truth was the pride of the plains,
Has left us alas! in despair,
For no such a Shepherd remains.
Source Citation   (MLA 8th
Edition)
Hensher, Philip. "An unmagnificent seven: when resurrecting forgotten writers of the past, make sure they're not neglected for good reason."
Spectator, 7 Jan. 2017, p. 26+. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA476665427&it=r&asid=c94fd4dcbb6aa8f66e3153c2cf05a577. Accessed 5 Feb. 2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A476665427

"Shelley DeWees: NOT JUST JANE." Kirkus Reviews, 15 Sept. 2016. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do? p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA463215899&it=r. Accessed 5 Feb. 2017. Flanagan, Margaret. "Not Just Jane: Rediscovering Seven Amazing Women Writers Who Transformed British Literature." Booklist, 15 Oct. 2016, p. 11. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA468771191&it=r. Accessed 5 Feb. 2017. Bowles, Emily. "DeWees, Shelley. Not Just Jane: Rediscovering Seven Amazing Women Writers Who Transformed British Literature." Library Journal, 1 June 2016, p. 87. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do? p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA453919892&it=r. Accessed 5 Feb. 2017. "Not Just Jane: Rediscovering Seven Amazing Women Writers Who Transformed British Literature." Publishers Weekly, 16 May 2016, p. 42. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA453506791&it=r. Accessed 5 Feb. 2017. Hensher, Philip. "An unmagnificent seven: when resurrecting forgotten writers of the past, make sure they're not neglected for good reason." Spectator, 7 Jan. 2017, p. 26+. General OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do? p=ITOF&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA476665427&it=r. Accessed 5 Feb. 2017.

• Smart Bitches Trashy Books
  http://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/reviews/not-just-jane-shelley-dewees/
  Word count: 1328

  BOOK REVIEW
  Not Just Jane by Shelley DeWees
  by Carrie S · Dec 22, 2016 at 4:00 am · View all 11 comments

  Not Just Jane by Shelley DeWees
  SBTB Media Page
  Not Just Jane
  by Shelley DeWees
  OCTOBER 25, 2016 · HARPER PERENNIAL

  Order →
  B-
  GENRE: Nonfiction

  Not Just Jane: Rediscovering Seven Amazing Women Writers Who Transformed British Literature is a fascinating look at the works and lives of seven English authors: Charlotte Turner Smith, Helen Maria Williams, Mary Robinson, Catherine Crowe, Sara Coleridge, Dinah Mulock Craik, and Mary Elizabeth Braddon. The book profiles how their careers were shaped by the society they lived in, and how their writing, in turn, shaped society.

  Because the author, Shelley DeWees, is primarily writing about books that I haven’t read (YET) I can’t assess whether she’s a good critic of the books by the women she’s profiling.

  However, I can say with VERY OPINIONATED CAPSLOCK that her grouping of Wuthering Heights with Jane Austen’s works and with Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre is so off-base as to be bizarre:

  Jane [Austen], and Charlotte and Emily Bronte (though from a slightly different angle) reflect in their writing the England many people long for, a place where heroines are good and generous, unfailingly perceptive, and able to admit their faults…Deserving women are thus rewarded for their kind, warm spirits in the form of a union with men who submit themselves for polish and reformation under the women’s gentle care. Unscrupulous people, on the other hand, are given their just deserts…Still, at the end of these novels, all is serenity and calm, even if, during the course of the book some darker and more contentious theme (like hunger, or death, or women’s restricted role in society) has been broached.

  RANT ALERT.

  I’m pretty sure no one who has read Wuthering Heights (as opposed to having seen the more romanticized movies) longs for the version of England that is dominated by raving alcoholism, child abuse, racism, sexism, classism, animal abuse, rape, and early death that the book depicts. I suppose it does end in serenity and calm in the sense that all the people who have spent the book screaming at each other die off. And I suppose that for the same reason, one could say that the unscrupulous people get their just deserts in the sense that pretty much everybody dies.

  But DeWees goes on to restate a common misreading of Wuthering Heights, that Heathcliff is a romantic hero waiting to be tamed by a good woman. This is the concept that Emily Bronte savages in the pages of Wuthering Heights by introducing Isabella, a good woman who tries to heal Heathcliff’s troubled soul only to be kidnapped, raped, and beaten. DeWees claims that:

  We can co-opt Charlotte’s, and Emily’s, and Jane’s, settings as places of refuge for our tired souls, seek shelter among the ivy-shrouded walls, and set up shop in an idyllic England where the houses are beautiful and so are the heroines.

  WHAT THE HELL.

  Wuthering Heights (the house) is a SHITHOLE. It’s badly lit and freezing cold and there’s not a lot to eat. People toss babies off of balconies and hang puppies from the backs of chairs and lock kids in the barn (which is probably warmer than the house). THIS IS NOT IDYLLIC. At the beginning of the book, a guy literally tries to seek shelter at the house and he’s attacked by dogs and later he’s attacked by a ghost. He leaves as soon as possible BECAUSE IT’S NOT IDYLLIC. And the other house in the book, Thrushcross Grange, is pretty, but it’s hideously boring and full of nasty people who set their dogs (again with the dogs) on two little kids. If Wuthering Heights has any message at all, it’s that England is not idyllic.

  THUS CONCLUDES MY RANT.

  I realize I’m devoting a lot of review space to criticizing the introduction, but it’s important because it eroded my trust in the rest of the book. Luckily, there’s plenty of information here to enjoy other than the author’s interpretations of books. DeWees has chosen a fascinating selection of women to profile. While I knew the names of some of them, I knew almost nothing about them and I thoroughly enjoyed learning about them. The book starts with Charlotte Turner Smith (1749-1806) and proceeds chronologically up to Mary Elizabeth Braddon (1835 – 1915).

  One of the fun things about the book is that while all of the women have many things in common, their lives also are quite different. Charlotte Turner Smith had a horrible marriage and finally managed to dump her husband, more or less, but always had to give him money. For the most part, other than her writing, she led a pretty conventional life. On the other end of the “respectable” spectrum is Mary Robinson, the mistress of Prince George (who became King George IV). All of these women paid some kind of social price for their writing and their choices, but many ended up quite happy, like Mary Elizabeth Braddon, who weathered years of devastating scandal but was lauded as a mainstay of English literature by the time of her death.

  It’s also interesting to see what kinds of books women wrote, and how they found success. Sara Coleridge focused on collecting, editing, and curating her father’s work (her father was Samuel Taylor Coleridge). Helen Maria Williams moved to France and reported about life during the French Revolution. Mary Elizabeth Braddon took advantage of the market in scandalous stories to write gloriously insane scandalous novels and short stories with titles like Lady Audley’s Secret. (FYI, DeWees totally spills the beans on what the secret is, so if you plan to read Lady Audley I guess you might want to hold off on reading the Mary Elizabeth Braddon chapter.) The styles in which the women wrote reflected their own preferences, but also reflected what was in vogue at the time – most of them were writing very specifically as a means towards making money. The most successful women were those who caught onto a trend just as it was beginning, and shaped it in a unique, boundary pushing way.

  While it’s true that the introduction caused me to practically rend my hair with incredulous rage, it’s also true that I very much enjoyed all the rest of the book. It’s gossipy yet intellectual, very approachable in terms of language, and fairly short. Pro tip – I have discovered that one could read exactly one chapter in the time it takes to have a hot bath.

  All of these women were kickass in their own way and to the best of their abilities. Most experienced tragedy, and some seemed consistently immersed in it, like poor Sara Coleridge who deeply resented her domestic duties and became addicted to opium. But other prevailed, like Dinah Mulock Craik, who married late and for love, and adopted a baby, all the while supporting herself with her pen.

  This is a niche book that will only appeal to people who have a specific interest in the subject matter. As it happens, I’m pretty sure we have several readers who do have such an interest. To these readers, I say, avoid the introduction and you’ll be happy. It truly is a lovely book, one which has greatly expanded my knowledge on the topic. And yes, I will be reading Lady Audley’s Secret, even though I already know what the secret is.

  Just don’t get me started on Wuthering Heights.

• Nut Free Nerd
  https://nutfreenerd.com/2017/01/05/not-just-jane-by-shelley-dewees-review/
  Word count: 736

  NOT JUST JANE by Shelley DeWees | Review
  JANUARY 5, 2017 ~ HOLLY
  *** I received a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own. **

  28925229-2“In Not Just Jane, Shelley DeWees weaves history, biography, and critical analysis into a rip-roaring narrative of the nation’s fabulous, yet mostly forgotten, female literary heritage. As the country, and women’s roles within it, evolved, so did the publishing industry, driving legions of ladies to pick up their pens and hit the parchment. Focusing on the creative contributions and personal stories of seven astonishing women, among them pioneers of detective fiction and the modern fantasy novel, DeWees assembles a riveting, intimate, and ruthlessly unromanticized portrait of female life—and the literary landscape—during this era. In doing so, she comes closer to understanding how a society could forget so many of these women, who all enjoyed success, critical acclaim, and a fair amount of notoriety during their time, and realizes why, now more than ever, it’s vital that we remember.

  Rediscover Charlotte Turner Smith, Helen Maria Williams, Mary Robinson, Catherine Crowe, Sara Coleridge, Dinah Mulock Craik, and Mary Elizabeth Braddon.”

  ~ Goodreads.com

  DeWees does exactly what I think modern literary scholarship and research should do: uncover and highlight little known texts and writers while putting a new twist on old favorites. She does this expertly, writing with charm and wit about several women writers have been overshadowed by Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, and other popular authors.

  Not Just Jane offers so much more than a mere summary of these writers’ texts; instead, DeWees provides a comprehensive view of the lives of these incredible women in order to help explain their rise to (albeit temporary) success. She discusses both their familial and romantic relationships, their struggles with poverty, mental illness, and overcoming the stigma surrounding women writers at the time. Several of them turned to writing as a last resort, a way to financially support themselves in troubling times of financial need. Though many were not respected by their peers, a few of these talented women climbed the ranks of the social ladder and worked their way into impressive literary circles. For instance, who would have known that Catherine Crowe rivaled Charlotte Bronte in social prowess, was betrayed by Charles Dickens, and influenced much of Edgar Allan Poe’s work? DeWees shows us these women as human beings first and foremost before delving into their literary lives on the page.

  fullsizerenderThis book also has an excellent layout and organization that contributes to the effectiveness of DeWees’ delivery. Though each chapter is dedicated to a different writer, they are all connected into a cohesive collection through smooth transitions and common threads. In this way Not Just Jane can be picked up and put down at the reader’s leisure without suffering from a lack of continuity. With that being said, my favorite aspects of this book are the themes interwoven throughout the chapters. All of these women challenged traditional gender roles in some way and faced obstacles and adversity on their road to publishing their works. Not only did were they looked down upon for entering the male-dominated world of literature, but their personal reputations often dictated the success of their work. When a scandalous affair erupted, the secrets of a marriage were uncovered, or a women’s “true” persona was exposed, these revelations ultimately had a huge influence on book sales. I think the inability to separate women’s reputations and personal lives from their work is one of the most fascinating topics discussed in this book, in part because it is also relevant in modern society.

  Overall, Not Just Jane is a must-read for readers interested in British literature, the role of women throughout history, and expanding their literary horizons. While reading this book I scribbled down countless titles of interesting works to check out in the future and gained a greater appreciation for those writers whom we hear very little about in both literature classes and mainstream media nowadays. If only more writers would follow in DeWees‘ footsteps and conduct such valuable literary detective work!

  My Rating: :0) :0) :0) :0) 4 out of 5

  Would I recommend it to a friend?: Yes, especially to someone interested in writers such as Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, etc.

• Zuzu's Petals
  http://hlshepler.com/2016/12/25/book-review-not-just-jane/
  Word count: 541

  Book Review: Not Just Jane
  The cover of the book "Not Just Jane" is shown.

  Not Just Jane: Rediscovering Seven Amazing Women Writers Who Transformed British Literature
  Written by Shelley DeWees
  Published in 2016 by Harper Perennial

  SUMMARY

  There is this ridiculous idea out there that Jane Austen and Charlotte Brontë are the only English women novelists worth reading. Intelligent, sophisticated people actually believe this. And it drives me bonkers.

  There is in fact a fuckton of brilliant writing from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that almost no one reads or studies. Mostly because women wrote it. Women who, you know, forged the literary landscape as we know it.

  In Not Just Jane, Shelley DeWees does her part to solve this problem by lionizing seven of England’s underappreciated women writers.

  Each chapter is devoted to one of England’s prolific, brilliant, defiant, genre-busting, convention-flouting, revolutionary, gifted women writers. All of them were famous and successful in their own time, but all are largely forgotten today. (Why? Because patriarchy. And shit academic criticism, but that’s another post.) DeWees puts each writer in historical context, and then provides a sort of literary biography, detailing how each of the writers’ most famous and influential works came to be.

  PROS AND CONS

  Because of my academic background, DeWees’ approach was both refreshing and a bit jarring. Her writing style is warm, informal, and approachable. She does not drown the reader with theory and pretension, as one must in academia. Her target audience is anyone genuinely interested in the subject. Which is why I found this book both interesting and fun to read.

  There was one major drawback. DeWees insists on referring to all seven writers by their first names. I understand why: she’s deliberately refusing to put these women on a pedestal. But I still don’t like it. In a book that is meant to “rediscover seven amazing writers,” I expect these women to be given the same respect as male writers. That includes surnaming. Also, please no use of the term “authoress.” Just no.

  That said, Not Just Jane is fantastic. This field has seen a flowering of interest in recent years, so I loved that instead of focusing on more famous writers like Francis Burney (who is amazing by the way) DeWees wrote about seven virtual unknowns. Each chapter gave enough background to make me invested in the author. Reading of the struggles these women went through just to be able to write was both heartbreaking and inspiring. There were also tantalizing excerpts from each writer’s work that made me determined to read everything they wrote. This book was an introduction, a guidebook, a map.

  THE VERDICT

  I loved it. Read it! And then go to Project Gutenburg, Google Books, and Archive.org to find all of the writing by these seven remarkable women.

  I also highly, highly recommend Hidden Histories: The New Statesman’s History Podcast. In it, Helen Lewis and a rotating cast of (all women!) guests discuss eighteenth century novelists and writers. It is wonderful.

Word Count