Is Austen verbose?

[Munro]

I am currently studying Pride and Prejudice in my English class, and at first I found Austen's style difficult to read. She could be considered stuffy and verbose, that is, using more words than she really needs to. My teacher says that she structures complex sentences to make them effective, but many writers and readers follow the idea that clear writing is best.
When does an author become unnecessarily verbose, then? Is Austen showing off her command of language without needing to? If an author writes a story at what point can one say that they are showing off and using too many words, or is just using complex sentences for a purpose?

[Shea]

I also had a difficult time grasping the language of Pride and Prejudice. I remember enjoying the story and how it moved, however, I think because I got lost in the words, I can't seem to remember the details of the story though I read it only 3 years ago. But the characters seemed kind of stuffy and "upper class" anyway, so I kept on reading because to me the language enhanced the settings of the story. Though this is one that I plan to re-read. I feel that clear writing is best, I certainly can remember the story better, but I also feel that Austen's verbose language reflected the complex rules and regulations that were expected from higher society conduct of that time. Did I forget too much of the story?

[Blackadder]

If you want verbose, look at Samuel Johnson. His sentences are like marathons. :) Also Samuel Richardson--though his plots are like soap operas with MORALS. Tch.

But on the issue of verbosity, I think you're forgetting that long sentences, etc. were part of the writing style of the time. It's only at the end of the last century, with realist and naturalist movements in literature that you get really terse and taut prose and writers started paring down their prose. Even the adventure stories of the time like Robison Crusoe and Dumas' books can get a little wordy at times. And comic books, like Henry Fielding's and John Gay's The Beggar's Opera, also can be considered wordy by our standards.

But in Austen's time, she was prefectly normal in her prose.

[Vronaqueen]

I think the language of this time period was verbose, the authors couldn't help it. Female authors in this victorian age all seem to sound similar because of that fact. but Austen has much more wit than others of her time. Elizabeth, though verbose for modern language is very clever, unusual for a woman of that age--literally speaking

[Blackadder]

Prose styles have really pared themselves down over the last 100+ years. Vronaqueen, you are absolutely right.

[Munro]

Thanks for the answers and for taking an interest.
I ended up really enjoying Austen's writing, after I finished volume I, the language started to flow (if I was awake enough) and I grew to love her wit, her clarity of expression and her subtle and sharp criticisms of characters and her societies. Each sentence in Pride and Prejudice, I found, was beautifully or masterfully constructed.

And the story was lovely too. Even though I'm a guy, and guys are traditionally supposed to dislike Austen's stories for being too romantic or whatever, I became fond of Elizabeth and Darcy, and was entranced by the story. The BBC series written by Andrew Davies is brilliant by the way, well cast too, if you want something to watch on TV.

[Blackadder]

Yeah, Austen is kind of the first chick lit author. :) But the language does take some getting used to. Last fall I took an Eighteenth century literature class (because I liked Swift and Fielding) and I remember having such a hard time with the language. The sentences were often so long that I would lose track of where they started, especially with Johnson (who I now enjoy). Now I can read just about anything from that period.

It's a wonderful style of writing, masterful and elegant and just classy, if you know what I mean.

I've seen the A&E Pride and Prejudice. It's brilliant, isn't it? I love seeing the book come to life like that.

[jmark1949]

Pride and Prejudice is one of my three favorite novels of all time, so I do have some opinions about it and Jane Austen. I agree with the previous writer who said that even the adventure stories of a hundred + years ago were wordy. Robinson Crusoe does not play like an Indiana Jones movie. And anyone who can carefully read their way through every paragraph Moby Dick has my admiration. And what are we then to make of Joyce or Faulkner. Reading either of those two almost makes me like Hemingway. Almost. He at least understood the value of brevity.

But Jane Austen is NOT verbose in the least. (Verbose = using an unnecessarily excessive number of words.) Her language, if anything, is precise, insightful, clever, even ironic. We must never forget the times in which writers like Austen and Dickens lived in. There was no radio or TV, no interstate highways, no 3 minute pop songs, and (worst of all) no email! In Austen's case, she had the luxury of being in the upper class... among the gentry. Conversation, clear (sensible) thinking, proper judgement and discernment, ... these were both virtues and entertainment. Austen delights in words, but she never goes on needlessly. At times she is even concise. For me, reading Austen is like reading a very intelligent attorney who also happens to be brief and almost poetic in his (or her) prose.

Has anyone out there ever tackled G.K. Chesterton? I loved his quips and quotes which other writers borrowed, so I tried reading him myself. Oh my. Talk about verbose. He runs down so many philosophical rabbit trails that I forget where we started in the first place. But then, I had to hurry so I wouldn't miss Survivor on TV. See the problem?

[fayefaye]

i didn't find it verbose when i started reading it - i found it relatively simple compared to shakespeare and - worse, dickens. can someone pls tell me why anyone would like dickens?? anyway, i don't think her writing style's the problem- it's amusing and satirical. what sucks is the lack of storyline. oh, mr darcy!! if it'd had a bit more going on it would've been great. D

[Shea]

That's funny, :-? I found Dickens easier to read.

[alidif]

I agree with fayefaye. Austen's work is satirical, but it is also a bit boring because there's really not much happening. Romance novels are modeled after her writing except that most romance novelists haven't a clue as to how to write satire (and aren't interested in learning how). Her precise and imaginative use of language is the ONLY thing that makes her an interesting author (in my opinion).

[I hate Jane Austen]

Jane Austen is definitely verbose and I totally agree with FayeFaye that Pride and Predjudice lacks a story line. It was so sacharine and predictable. Although I grudgingly finished the book, I didn't need to as it was obvious from the beginning how it would end. Some books are so well written that even though you know how the book ends you enjoy every page from front to back. This book was not one of those kinds of books. And it was so sugary that I felt I needed to brush my teeth and floss after every few pages. In fact, at my next dentist appointment, my hygienist commented that my teeth looked unusually clean. Fortunately, I didn't get any literary cavities from this novel. Ugh, I hate Jane Austen. :x

[den]

:D So I take this as `no', your `sensibilities' are offended by Austen? But do you use mouthwash?



Jane Austen is definitely verbose and I totally agree with FayeFaye that Pride and Predjudice lacks a story line. It was so sacharine and predictable. Although I grudgingly finished the book, I didn't need to as it was obvious from the beginning how it would end. Some books are so well written that even though you know how the book ends you enjoy every page from front to back. This book was not one of those kinds of books. And it was so sugary that I felt I needed to brush my teeth and floss after every few pages. In fact, at my next dentist appointment, my hygienist commented that my teeth looked unusually clean. Fortunately, I didn't get any literary cavities from this novel. Ugh, I hate Jane Austen. :x

[jmark1949]

There's no accounting for taste. And even though I was a lit major in college, I love fun-reading page-turner detective novels so I'm not a lit-snob. But I have to put in a word for lady Jane. First, in an Austen novel, plot is not the point. The reader is not waiting to find out what happens. Instead, she creates a world one can, for a while, live in. This world of manners, gentility, values, thought, language, and even interpersonal intrigue is a good place in which we over hurried and over "F worded" people of 2003 may vacation with benefit.

This close up look at a culture so different from our own, helps us both to enjoy the virtues of modern life, and to temper the less desirable parts as well.

Here's a test, if you can stomach it. Read a Danielle Steele novel. (Ok, just the first few chapters. No need anyone being tortured.) Then read Jane Austen. I doubt anyone reading and writing on this site can fail to appreciate the latter's genius and beauty. Austen is not all things to all people, and we do well to make a place for other kinds of reading. But this long gone woman's skills with the art of language are undeniable. So go ahead and not enjoy her, if you will, at your own loss. But don't say unkind things about her work. When reading an author we don't immediately enjoy, it's not a bad thing to ask if the problem lies with the poor quality of the writer, or a lack of understanding on our own part. Most of us, at a first pass, don't find easy enjoyment in artists ranging from Mozart to Puccini, or from Shakespeare to Faulkner.

All that said, there's still no accounting for taste. Mark

[leonthepupil]

As Chinese reader,my experience of reading Pride and prejudice is quite different.I was impressed about the story in cinema first and then turned to the book--Chinese Version.There must be loss in the translation and what i got from the book is just the sotry itself and the lovely characters.Only when i read the Original book,did i realise how nice Austen's writing is at her time.
the first sentence impressed me very much:
IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.
the structure of the sentence is amazing.I can't tell why i like this style.Later i started to enjoy her way of writing.
Speaking of the wordy problem,i think it's common at that time.I was rather bored when i read "Red and Black" etc..Authors tend to add their own opinions in the book which i think at some time interrupt the going of the story.
Hehe,sometimes i just jump certain paragraphs.I can't change anything,so i just try to appreciate it fully.
thanks.