One of the most infuriating things about like ALL SCHOLARSHIP that mention’s Jane Austen’s letters will INEVITABLY say something like “Cassandra burned around 2/3 of Jane Austen’s letters, so sadly only a portion survive to be studied” and then say like TWO SENTENCES LATER some bs like “Austen’s letters, unlike those of the characters in her novels, are largely mundane day-to-day accounts of the events of her life” because not only is it untrue that her letters are mundane but why is like EVERY SCHOLAR EVER simply neglecting to acknowledge the fact that IF WE ONLY HAVE A THIRD OF HER LETTERS BECAUSE HER SISTER BURNED THE REST THEN MAYBE THE SURVIVING “MUNDANE” LETTERS DON’T REPRESENT THE ENTIRETY OF HER WRITING STYLE IN CORRESPONDENCE
Two things the scholarly conversation seems to be unanimous about for some reason: A) her sister burned most of her letters and B) her letter-writing style is 100% defined by the letters we have and we should be judging what we have of her writing by those letters specifically