None of us are experts on her works, we see them as we see them as individuals.I wonder what you would think would make one an expert in her works? Certainly the fact that many of us here have devoted much time and effort into studying not only her works but also secondary literature about them, about her biography (which of course is largely irrelevant for the works in themselves), about Georgian history and culture and yes, also about their impact on popular culture, does not seem to earn much credit with you. Do we have to bring out academic credentials in order not to have our opinions waved away as amateur?
As for your claim that Jane Austen was essentially a closeted, inexperienced spinster, while you are undoubtedly aware of the concept of Death of the Author, which is pretty much standard these days in literary analysis and which would hold that it is entirely inconsequential what impact Jane Austen's life may or may not have had on her novels, if you still would like to find out more about how broad and varied Jane Austen's travels and experiences really were and how many different cultural, sociological and political phenomena influenced her life, if not her writing, I can only recommend Paula Byrne's
The Real Jane Austen: A Life in Small Things, recently published and very impressively researched. While some of her conclusions - especially about the presumptive portrait of Jane Austen - may be a bit controversial, and her approach is far more focused on cultural studies than on literary analysis, she has done meticulous research and thus proves an excellent starting point to the world of Jane Austen's novels.
Andas to the question whether her books are romantic fiction - well, it certainly depends on your definition of Romanticism, but I will argue that they fall neither under the literary school of the Romantic Movement, nor under the contemporary every-day use of relating to flat, insipid courtship plots.
Is it not strange that sheeps' guts should hale souls out of men's bodies?
