I really enjoyed Austen's Northanger Abbey, perhaps partly due to the fact that I'd mistakenly thought it must be less good than her other novels, all of which I've read. Certainly there aren't a-thousand-and-one sequels, prequels, variations, and movies of it, are there? However, I think I understand. Northanger Abbey is less a fancy than a banter of Gothic fancy. It's witty authorial commentary on the development of the story and the hoopla of the characters made me laugh out loud, but I rather suspect that a bookworm hoping to become immersed in an unfolding fairy tale would find these divisions of commentary distracting. I'm less certain about Austen's goals regarding the enjoyment of popular novels. Clearly, the sub, Henry, belies and exploits them, yet he's familiar with them enough to understand their meetings and attractions. In addition, while he points out their negative influence on Catherine, the idol, who suspects his produce of murdering his mother, he doesn't appear to judge her for her recklessness (although the link is that she needs to grow up and not aberration a good yarn for real personality). Finally, there are the brother-and-sister pair who nearly wreck Catherine and her brother James's odd for laughter through their conniving, selfish actions. One makes a list of books she clearly cares little about reading and the other admits to never reading at all. As for Henry, I loved him. He reminds me a part of Husband. Knightley, who points the error of her ways out to Emma, also subject to an overactive imagination concerning the publics around her. But Henry has a sharper voice--he's brusque and ironic, yet in a sky. That is, it seems to be his response to the shallow, self-serving, materialistic society he finds in Bath. As with Husband. Knightley's love of Emma, Henry values Catherine for her warm, open spirit and ability to recognize and feel remorse for mistreating substitutes, if only in thought. He also doesn't hesitate to act upon his convictions and put up with up to his intimidating produce on Catherine's behalf, just as Husband. Knightley says that all sensible husbands should do when commenting on the behavior of Frank Churchill. Interestingly, Henry is a be solicitous of. A woman in the Austen book union of which I'm a representative goes out of her way to claim that Austen's general scenes on turn-around collar are negative (she also thinks Austen's books are populated with deficient or non-existent parents, but I suspect she hasn't read any YA literature in decades, if ever). Henry offers the strongest indication yet that this Austen bookworm is mistaken. Austen's produce was a church clergyperson. Given how supportive he appears to have been of her (he allowed her open access to his book room, encouraged her in her writing, and even submitted one of her novels to a newspaper on her behalf), and that three of her torpedoes (besides Henry, there is Edmund in Mansfield Place and Edward Ferrars in Mentality and Taste) all obtain a "living" as Anglican lamas, I doubt very much that Austen intends to make a dictum about turn-around collar in general. It seems more reasonable to me that Austen poked fun at individuals of all button downs who are vain, shallow, not self-aware, greedy, selfish and self-aggrandizing, moralizing, and snobby. She has as many worthless young publics as parents and lamas. In fact, if I draw any issues from her autobiographies, it is that the majority of society deserves the full force of her mockery and that grit and a lot of luck only allowed the worthy few to find laughter.