Thoughts, Feelings on Pride and Prejudice?

[Ashoka]

In my class, we have just finished reading Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. I am very underwhelmed. I am a male, and my prejudice against this book may stem from that and the annoying hysteria this book has stricken my female class mates with. In fact, I am more than underwhelmed, I really don't like this book. But in truth, I have very few tangible reasons for not liking it, so I would like to brought to my senses, instead of being overcome by prejudice... (yes, that was slightly intentional, but true none the less)

Someone please defend this book, tell me why it is a great piece of literature.

[JBI]

Good to know you hate it because some girls seem to like it - what a fantastic reason. Perhaps you hate it because of some other reason, or perhaps you don't understand the irony. As it is, it isn't my job to convince you the book is great - if you cannot figure out why some people think it is great by reading it, then most likely you cannot understand the book itself, or perhaps unstable irony in general.

P.S., you may wish to check for this thread in the Jane Austen subforum if you can't find it later.

[Ashoka]

sorry I didn't mean to be offensive, but I was. However, the hysteria I am talking about is just as ungrounded as my vague dislike, at least in my classroom it is. Now that I think about it, Austen's detailing of first impressions and the resulting prejudices is interesting, and relevant as this discussion is proving (which my attempt to display in my original post clearly didn't indicate). Again, I am sensing some concealed outrage at the insensitivity of my post, and maybe this is one reason why people, women in particular, enjoy Pride and Prejudice because of Lizzy's heroic skirmishes with the unwarranted disdain, insensitivity, pride, and general foolery of the male population and the other enablers of such poor treatment that don't happen to be male, such as Lady Catherine. I guess I didn't mean I wanted someone to defend it but rather enumerate its good qualities.

But please, I suspected that my dislike for this book was rooted in some deep seated misogyny that had escaped the my surface purge that most people with any ounce of empathy/compassion have also begun to do. But this vague, seemingly sourceless dislike of an admittedly feminine piece disturbed me because of the fundamental problems with the human psyche it was potentially unearthing. So maybe instead of a defense, because it doesn't need defending as it is undoubtedly well written, and valuable for the interpersonal relationship analysis it contains, and the female empowerment it has. I am looking for reasons why I disliked it.

Also, is it not valuable to understand the reasons why some people think the book is great? I don't think that indicates me not understanding things. I understand that Elizabeth's sharp mind and biting wit, when put up against the foil of the flawed characters and the flaws of society make her a legitimate heroine. But maybe I am not getting it. What else is there to understand about it (This is not to say that Lizzy being an empowering female character is not enough by itself, but I suspect there is more)

[JBI]

Perhaps your problem is in essentializing gender, and thinking the text is "female" because its author is female, or "women's literature." Lets be honest, there is no such thing as a feminine book or a masculine book really, and maybe once one gets beyond that, they can really start appreciating it. As it is though, you really need to read carefully to get most of the jokes. You would note that many of them aren't from the characters, but from the narrator - from the very opening the whole thing is made ironic, almost ridiculous.

[Ashoka]

yes I think you are right. Essentializing gender is a problem.

I agree the narrator makes some of the jokes but it seems to me that most of the jokes, sarcasm, irony, etc are made through the characters and their dialogue. The heavy focus on dialogue and interaction struck me when I first started reading the book, this is basically my first experience with victorian era english literature and maybe this was the style but I was also thinking it might be due to the relatively second-class role females had in that time period, especially authors, where Austen would not make very many progressive/controversial statements through the narrator because that would be essentially her voice, but she used the characters as a mouthpiece. I don't know. But I appreciate the observation about me essentialising gender because it is true, and I haven't really realized that I had been doing it. Thanks.

Also, I am slogging though an essay on the Pride and Prejudice right now, so I suspect, actually I am sure, that I am venting my frustrations.

[blazeofglory]

Liking and disliking a particular book depends mainly on whether your mindset tones with the writer or not. I have read her books much earlier; and of course she was good at giving accounts of feminist penchants and of course I too found so many things to disagree on yet I consider her a good writer notwithstanding the fact that there are things that do not go consistent with what we think

[Ashoka]

thats true. I find this pertinent whenever I read news articles that have even a faintly conservative tone, and suddenly I am vehemently opposed to what they are saying.

funny thing is that Ive heard of studies that document people reading and the amount they believe and take int, and the studies show that people usually can't help believing and siding with whatever they are reading. I have also found this to be true when I read pieces that are more rhetorically focused. Like Lately I have been reading the Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, and I find myself switching between eating up her objectivism and indivdualism, and then returning to my previous agreement with the more collective humanity stuff

[Gladys]

I guess I didn't mean I wanted someone to defend it but rather enumerate its good qualities.

That's easy: the book is most amusing. Perhaps slow to get it, I laughed non-stop only from the half-way mark. In almost every paragraph, Austen's irony is light-footed and funny - but too subtle, it seems, for many a reader. For instance, Mr Bennet's:

"I admire all my three sons-in-law highly," said he. "Wickham, perhaps, is my favourite; but I think I shall like your husband quite as well as Jane's."

I agree the narrator makes some of the jokes but it seems to me that most of the jokes, sarcasm, irony, etc are made through the characters and their dialogue.

Oh no! The narrator is ever funny. Austen's masterly use of free indirect speech to confound the narrator's opinion with that of each character is exemplary. For instance, the sentence preceding the quote above is:

Elizabeth had the satisfaction of seeing her father taking pains to get acquainted with him; and Mr. Bennet soon assured her that he was rising every hour in his esteem.

What else is there to understand about it?

Simply that Jane Austen has the wit of an Oscar Wilde or a W.S. Gilbert, with an even greater command of the language. And all three could be accused of writing more than one 'admittedly feminine piece'. If comedy can be a 'great piece of literature', Pride and Prejudice surely qualifies.