Pride & Prejudice: Thank God It's Free...

[TacoButt]

I am on chapter 16 and THISSSSSSSS close to chucking it.

All I see is a bunch of petty social drama...he said this so I don't like him...she wants this so I will thwart her...he likes her so I am jealous...:sick:

I thought this was classic literature, not 19th century's version of facebook.

Should I finish this novel? Why is this such cherished literature? I feel like, as in the example of the Grateful Dead, I am totally missing the boat here. A billion fans can't be wrong.

Thank you for any efforts you are willing to provide!

[kelby_lake]

It's a comedy of manners. How relationships worked in the 19th century.

[Drkshadow03]

I am on chapter 16 and THISSSSSSSS close to chucking it.

All I see is a bunch of petty social drama...he said this so I don't like him...she wants this so I will thwart her...he likes her so I am jealous...:sick:

I thought this was classic literature, not 19th century's version of facebook.

Should I finish this novel? Why is this such cherished literature? I feel like, as in the example of the Grateful Dead, I am totally missing the boat here. A billion fans can't be wrong.

Thank you for any efforts you are willing to provide!

Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorite books. I like the petty social drama elements that you're disliking. It's a love story, more about marriage than love, but it also has philosophical implications like how people misjudge another person based on first impressions. Austen in her books explore love and the many different reasons people engage in relationships: social climbing, true love, not wanting to be a spinster.

Austen's ironic almost tongue-in-cheek tone is infamous. The tone of her narrative almost pokes fun at her characters, while being sympathetic to them.

I think you're right that you can view the ideas explored as Facebook drama, but then again you could also view Hamlet as mere emo-whiny over daddy-issues.

I suppose I am left wondering what you think classic literature is supposed to be like?

[TacoButt]

I suppose I am left wondering what you think classic literature is supposed to be like?

That's a fair question! My "pride and prejudice" is coming out here, I guess.

So, my favorite books are ones that help me see life differently. They present a subtle way of viewing reality which can be earth-shattering if I choose to embrace it fully.

I just got done with Moby Dick and I really appreciated Ishmael's ruminations and commentaries on life, God, and a human's perspective compared with the depths of the oceans and the stretch of time since creation began, etc.

I like writers who write about things which transcend the pedestrian concerns of day-to-day existence and point my view toward a larger pattern that I am a small part of.

P&P seems to (so far) revel and delight in the lowest and most transitory aspects of human life...relationship dynamics of status, attraction, power and manipulation.

I am glad to hear you say that there are philosophical implications in this novel and wonderful insights. I want to GET what this novel has to offer. I am sorry to seem so negative about things. I shouldn't post when I am recently feeling disgusted and frustrated with a book.

Thanks for replying!

[cyberbob]

Well it might be petty social drama, but petty social drama by one of the best of all time.

If Hollywood had writers like Austen on staff, soap operas might be the highest form of art!

[Drkshadow03]

That's a fair question! My "pride and prejudice" is coming out here, I guess.

So, my favorite books are ones that help me see life differently. They present a subtle way of viewing reality which can be earth-shattering if I choose to embrace it fully.

I just got done with Moby Dick and I really appreciated Ishmael's ruminations and commentaries on life, God, and a human's perspective compared with the depths of the oceans and the stretch of time since creation began, etc.

I like writers who write about things which transcend the pedestrian concerns of day-to-day existence and point my view toward a larger pattern that I am a small part of.

P&P seems to (so far) revel and delight in the lowest and most transitory aspects of human life...relationship dynamics of status, attraction, power and manipulation.

I am glad to hear you say that there are philosophical implications in this novel and wonderful insights. I want to GET what this novel has to offer. I am sorry to seem so negative about things. I shouldn't post when I am recently feeling disgusted and frustrated with a book.

Thanks for replying!

I think you're comment that P&P "revel[s] and delight[s] in the lowest and most transitory aspects of human life...relationship dynamics of status, attraction, power and manipulation" is spot-on actually. Of course, I think she develops some of these issues into transcendental ones. After all, power and manipulation is eternal. Certainly, Moby Dick deals with power and manipulation among other things.

Austen never directly gets into deep philosophical issues, but I do think it's the implication of her narrative and a lot have critics have commented along these lines.

From what I'm hearing though you might not like Austen. David Denby in his book, The Great Books, had a good chapter on Pride and Prejudice. A lot of criticism of her work (http://www.literaryhistory.com/19thC/AUSTEN.htm), although not the best necessarily, is available online.

[TacoButt]

Well it might be petty social drama, but petty social drama by one of the best of all time.

If Hollywood had writers like Austen on staff, soap operas might be the highest form of art!

I'd like to see a soap opera that had the usual characters but absolutely no dialogue in it. Just eyebrow movements and pipe organ music. :idea:

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm certainly not suggesting you watch the DVD over the book, but the BBC version of this is about the greatest thing the BBC have ever produced. Wonderful, highly recommended.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pride-Prejudice-Special-Colin-Firth/dp/B001E454FC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1296866162&sr=8-1

[kiki1982]

Ok, so it's no use telling you that it is great. You know that a billion (probably a gazilion if you write that like that) are fans, you also know you 'should' like it, but you don't, so what's wrong?

I like it, but that's not a valid argument either anyway.

So... Firstly, get yourself familiarised with the rules of the day. They were really ridiculous: one could not marry anyone outside one's class because that was an affront, one could cheat on one's partner in marriage if only it was discreet, one could not introduce oneself to anyone without prior formal acquaintance (I am at a loss how one got those acquaintances :lol:), one could not tell nasty things about another even if they were true (sad, because other people got cheated like you as well), men were valued by their income a year and such are a bit like game that can be shot (who will get the biggest :p), one must impress no matter what and one must certainly be nice to everyone, particularly to the richest people desite them maybe being nasty, one had to be witty which meant essentially being able to insult someone in the most elegant way possible... Certainly saying something and then denying it in the same breath or comparing the thing to something really trivial is the thing to do... But you have to learn to get that, as I found it a bit tricky at first, but I acquired a taste for it (I am not anglophone).

If you'd like any more info on manners and societal things in Austen's day and books, go here (http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/janeinfo.html). It has links about all sorts of things.

Most of all, I find that the people who walk around in the Austen novels are so amazinly alike to the people I meet on the street today. People who always agree with anyone else despite those opinions differing like heaven and earth, people calling their acquaintances friends straight away (hello Facebook!), people who are overconcerned with themselves and like to talk about themselves incessantly, etc etc. It is no matter that she wrote those stories in the early 19th century, the people in that society were the very same.

I would say, take your time and maybe look at the former chapters again and try to get what is said. It may be a matter of not feeling the humour that is in that work (and in the rest of Austen).

Otherwise, it may not be for you, who knows ;)

And yes, the BBC 1995 version is absolutely great, but a bit serious in places (not out of place, though). Only for the wet shirt you should do it :p (sorry Mr Firth). You could take a look at LOst in Austen for more fun, but I think that it is better to read the novel first.

[TacoButt]

(good stuff)


Thank you for your great reply. You really took the time to explain what's in that novel and what's going on, which I am grateful for.

I think I'll try to stick it out with an open mind. Maybe I will at least get literary karma points or something.

[Seasider]

P&P seems to (so far) revel and delight in the lowest and most transitory aspects of human life...relationship dynamics of status, attraction, power and manipulation.
Thanks for replying!

No to relationships.status.attraction, power and manipulation??!!!

What's your life about then??

[TacoButt]

No to relationships.status.attraction, power and manipulation??!!!

What's your life about then??

Well, that's the point. I wouldn't WRITE a novel about my life. :lol:

[kiki1982]

You see you get it already :lol:. That's the point!

It was I think Scott (a contemporary of Austen and revered writer if you don't happen to know him) who said that she had the most essential quality of a writer, namely keeping the attention of her reader... No matter what trivial stuff she writes.

I concede, it is trivial but that is probably one aspect of tht irony: we are not reading a gripping story like there were in the 19th century, we are just reading about the man in the street (the middle-class street at any rate ;)). Austen is not about great philosophy (although it is worth reading Davies's writing approach to the 1995 adaptation of P&P on wikipedia), but she is terribly fun if you get her. And even funnier when you read her again. As you then know the plot the assertions that some characters come up with :lol:. If they had known, they'd never show their face again. :lol:

On Pemberley.com, there was this quote as a great example of her irony:

"After long thought and much perplexity, to be very brief was all that she could determine on with any confidence of safety." (Northanger Abbey, Austen's first)

You see, that is hilarious. Catherine, I think it must be, has to think very long and hesitate very long in order to finally firmly decide that she must be brief in order to be safe. As if she could not have thought about that earlier... Austen does these absurd associations constantly.

oh, and you must also remember that Austen writes in 'free indirect speech', which is a kind of strange way of writing dialogue in full text. It is not direct speech (i.e. he said, 'Are you coming') and not indirect speech (i.e. 'he said that he was coming'), but a combination of the two (have a look on wikipedia). She uses it often when putting thoughts of certain characters on the page or as a voice for the general public, where it works sio lifelike. So you can constantly 'hear' the tone changing when you read it (or at least I do).

;)

[TacoButt]

Thanks, Kiki...I did research a bit while getting started and learned a bit about "free indirect speech" techniques and Austen's manner of conveying character tone through multiple "channels."

I will hang in there with it. So far I am not too enchanted with the main character. She seems to be no better than any of the others. The quote you mentioned about the character choosing her words strategically and dealing with her own lack of social cleverness...it's funny in a sad sort of way, but the narrator is also JUDGING the character and exploiting her lack of ability to create humor. I wish, Austen would judge or criticize the ridiculous land gentry social system and its wicked machinery instead of those who are poor at struggling to navigate it.

And the reader is supposed to roll their eyes at Mr. Collins' cluelessness? I like him and feel sorry for him. God bless the clueless! From my understanding, Einstein, Copernicus, Tesla, Mendel, Newton were all socially clueless.

[kiki1982]

I understand your point, but they are all the system, though. The system is made by the people, there is no system from the moment people decide there is no sytem, yet everyone seems convinced that there is a system which they should uphold for some silly reason.

Mr Collins is a bit of a sad character because, he is socially clueless, but also because he is hypnotised by class despite being a small fish himself. I mean, he is going to inherit a mere 2000 pounds a year (a fortune/estate of about 20,000 pounds, approximately 750,000 pounds in today's money). And a curacy which brought in nearly nothing. But because he has a perpetual curacy at Rosings (for ever, until his death upon which his wife and children will be destitue if he has no male heir), he imagines himself somehow part of that high society. Nothing is less true. His curacy cannot be worth more than about 1000 or even 500 pounds a year and he will have to live on that with his family until Bennet passes away upon which he will have to care for everyone else who is unmarried as well, if he marries one of the Bennets. The manner in which he says he will take a wife (thanks for asking!) from the Bennet girls is a bit insulting. It's like saying, 'I'll take one of you, because otherwise all of you and your mother will be destitute if Mr Bennet dies. There, there. Don't worry." And then he comes in and really samples the place, as if thinking, 'When will all this be mine? Ooh, what a nice cupboard, I think I'll put my shirts in that one when Mr Bennet has passed on...' He choose Jane, but then doesn't seem to be too sad when Jane is 'taken' already, so moves on to Lizzie. His love must have been very great... What a marriage. And would anyone want to live with such a pedantic talker? Not even Charlotte as it seems.

Ok, Einstein, and his consorts were socially clueless, but... at least there was more in their heads than mere empty words and class reverence.

[TacoButt]

kiki, I like reading your posts and appreciate the dialogue.

I would not put Mr. Collins in the same class as Einstein, et al. Those who eschew social conventions to set their sights higher are usually fascinating models of character. Mr. Collins is not that...he still, nevertheless, gets my sympathy.

You said this:


The system is made by the people, there is no system from the moment people decide there is no sytem, yet everyone seems convinced that there is a system which they should uphold for some silly reason.

This is a profound idea that I see COULD fuel a timeless classic of literature. Is this what is going on in Pride and Prejudice?

Maybe I have the wrong idea, but it seems that the narrator is upholding the system for some silly reason. As to the idea that Elizabeth is outside the system and providing the commentary on it, I don't quite buy that.

[kiki1982]

Elizabeth is not really outside the system, she is definitely middle class. I mean, she is poorer than Darcy, say, and as such should not marry him (he should marry inside his sphere, paradocically, say a Miss Bingley, who has about the same fortune as him, 30,000 pounds as a dowry), but the Bennets are people of leisure, they don't have to work to support themselves. So she is part of that system and needs to 'catch' a hubby. Her sphere is a curate (modest, secure income and of enough standing in the community, despite the lack of money really)) or a member of the militia (a potential to rise or make a fortune and a dashing uniform).

She is a bit strange in that she refuses Mr Collins on perfectly normal grounds (imagine living with a man 24 hours a day and not even liking him), though there not being enough men due to the Napoleonic Wars. However she really ensures that the family will have to leave the house upon Mr Bennet's death as Mr Collins will inherit it. She knows that.

I don't think any of Austen's heroins really are outside-outside the system. Of course Lizzie believes she is quite independent thinking, but she is really more in it than she wants to admit as she has been raised in that society. Darcy, for example, defies the system and his aunt for Lizzie (I am sure you know that), but still has to conquer his own feelings first. In that, his first proposal is absolutely hilarious. :lol: Despite it not really seeming like that at first. Although she is quite independent (like her father), Lizzie still has very conservative views about hubbies and what young men should be. I.e. pleasant etc like Bingley. Darcy is insufferable... :lol: BUt who is the better and more interesting man?

I think, in mocking all the effects of that perverse system (Wickham is important as well in that respect), Austen really implicitly mocked the idea that everyone around her supported this very system. If she were to ask anyone why, they would probably only come up with 'tradition'. But what is 'tradition'? It is only there because the generation before her, and the one before that, and the one before etc etc 'decided' on that. You can't even really call it 'deciding', because everyone takes it from the other. It is an illusion that one is free despite everyone professing that he/she is. That is what Lost in Austen picked up on and what Mr Bennet, I think, knows so much that he locks himself up in his library in an attempt to forget it all...

Not that Austen's books really have a clear message on their own, in terms of the story and symbolic stuff, though (although it is worth noting the description of Pemberley as that carries the only real symbolism in P&P). She writes light-hearted stuff. Certainly worthy of reading, but thinking about it requires, in my opinion, more knowledge about the world she lived in, and more critical thought than a book with a clear message as she implicitly criticises not explicitly.

I think it takes a special person to be able to think critically about things which are commonplace. Most people do not understand what you mean if you explain such thoughts. They are puzzled (have experience).

[TacoButt]

Much appreciate your comments again, kiki. I wonder what writer is the "Jane Austen of today," who tours the reader through the maze of upper-crust society? Maybe Truman Capote?

[Seasider]

I have always thought it a very interesting aspect of Elizabeth's character that she refused Mr Collins because she recoiled from the idea of spending the rest of her life with an insufferable prig and toady. Even though the effect of her decision will be to reduce her mother and sisters to lives of poverty at worst and dependency at best, did not cause her any qualms of guilt apparently. And Mr Bennett who most critics scold for his selfishness and laziness,supports his daughter, though the fact that he himself being deceased, will not be affected.

When I think about P&P nowadays I realise that I never gave sufficient weight to the fact that Elizabeth Bennett was probably only 20 years old and still had the courage to follow her own principles. I think her determination to demand that D'Arcy treat her as a person of equal worth and merit despite the difference in their social and economic standing was so commendable. She used no wiles to get D'Arcy's love and respect. And not even the threats of Lady Catherine de Burgh could frighten her. A True Heroine

[kiki1982]

I am convinced the reason why Mr Bennet supports his daughter in refusing Mr Collins (despite all the conequences), is because he knows what a bad marriage is like. He allegedly married his wife because she was a great beauty, but really has nothing in common with her. He wishes, I think, that he had married another who was more intelligent and whom he could have (better) conversation with. Or maybe someone with more money, as that would have made things that little bit easier in terms of better society. As it is, he has no advantages and is stuck with a bunch of uneducated daughters, no son (in those days I believe still a woman's business) and a wife who is oblivious to anything really serious apart from a marriage for her daughters. And he has to go and court almost any man new in the town of Meriton to secure him for one of his daughters. That's really a sad life isn't it?

One would be unhappy for less.

He does not want Lizzie in the same position because she is like him. She mocks now, but she would become cynical like him when unhappy.

[mal4mac]

I am on chapter 16 and THISSSSSSSS close to chucking it.

All I see is a bunch of petty social drama...he said this so I don't like him...she wants this so I will thwart her...he likes her so I am jealous...:sick:

I thought this was classic literature, not 19th century's version of facebook.

Should I finish this novel? Why is this such cherished literature? I feel like, as in the example of the Grateful Dead, I am totally missing the boat here. A billion fans can't be wrong.

Thank you for any efforts you are willing to provide!

Critics like F. R. Leavis and Ian Watts declared that Austen was one of the great writers of English fiction, suggesting that she combined Henry Fielding's and Samuel Richardson's qualities of interiority and irony, realism and satire to form an author superior to both.

But as you are not appreciating her irony, realism and satire then you should chuck her.

Actually I didn't read any of these critics, or any LitNet analysis, before reading Austen - who I *greatly* enjoy.

But after reading more than fifty pages and wanting to chuck her, you should chuck her.

There are thousands of authors out there who you might actually like reading!

But try coming back to Austen in a few years time, you might like reading her then. I did that with Cervantes and it worked!

I also missed the boat with the Grateful Dead - I don't intend to try and catch that boat again, though - Mahler seems a much richer seam - try his 4th (Szell) for starters - one day I might get his 6th.... :)

[TacoButt]

But as you can't appreciate her irony, realism and satire then you should chuck her.


Your post helps me understand a bit more, thanks. I am skeptical about literary critics, though. Don't they tend to form "consensus" because they are fearful of dissent?

Even a group full of highly educated experts will sit in a room and say, "Invade Iraq! Yes, that's a great idea."

But I listen to what YOU as a reader have to say about Jane Austen and I appreciate it.

[cyberbob]

I don't think you should have to be convinced that a writer/book is good.

I've heard that P&P is a satire of society etc. but I don't really care about that. I like Austen because of her style, use of language, plot, and dialogue.

If these haven't convinced you, I doubt digging up a deeper meaning will do much even if you put more value on it than I do.

There's nothing deficient about you for not seeing the big deal, it's just a matter of different strokes being for different folks. For example, I don't care what truths Salinger has to say about life in the classic Catcher In The Rye, I don't wanna keep reading "Old So-and-So really got a bang out of that." and I don't wanna finish the book.

I don't lose any sleep over it and I doubt anyone could persuade me that Catcher doesn't suck. To you, P&P might just suck. That's a valid opinion.

[kiki1982]

I thought that was not the question of Taco (great name and how it came about, by the way ;)), but rather why this was great lit and that he/she did not like it because he/she likes deeper stuff, so we offered some deeper meanings and guidance as to the deepr meaning of Austen's work. If that is not to Taco's likng, then so be it (not everyone likes that kind of thing), but at least we may try in mking him/her discern those meanings.

Some people are not satisfied with mere style and vocab which is admittedly very good.

[kiki1982]

oh, joining in the dicussion again:

it depends what look you have on chuckng. I for example, have a detrimental habit of chucking things forever. Once I chuck a book, I will be very likely not finishing it ever. Because, I will start again and then get maybe a bit further and chuck it again. So if I chuck, it will be a defeat never to return to it.

If you want to read it and have the same attitude like me, but don't like it much, then perseverence will be the better course for you. If you have no issue with chukcing and you'll just try again in a few years, upon which you are likely to read it through because your perceptions change, then by all means chuck.

Books to me are like people: I either like them or I don't. If I don't, there is little chance I will keep in contact with them, if I do, then I'll gladly entertain them. First impressions count very much. Not how someone is, but his mind. Fortunately I am not like Lizzie, dismissing someone merely on seeing him/her :p, but if he has nothing interesting to say, I will, in all likelihood, not like him. Same goes for books. And I have sat through Waverley to my great displeasure because I found the thing did not get started until te last few chapters. I have persevered with The Mill on the Floss until 200 pages when it finally got interesting to me. did not think it was worth chucking. After all, it is not the Divina Commedia after 50 pages, is it?

Oh, and as an answer to your question about nowadays-Austen... Can't comment as I have to admit I do not read anything modern at all or rarely :blush:. I read too slowly so I have to prioritise.

[TacoButt]

And I have sat through Waverley to my great displeasure because I found the thing did not get started until te last few chapters. I have persevered with The Mill on the Floss until 200 pages when it finally got interesting to me. did not think it was worth chucking. After all, it is not the Divina Commedia after 50 pages, is it?



I have had the same experience. I have suffered through books only to end up liking them near the end. Foucalt's Pendulum was like that. I LOVED it finally.

Plus, when I start a book, I will almost always finish it, even if only to hate it more thoroughly. I am starting to enjoy my dislike of P&P, sort of how Elizabeth is enjoying her dislike of Mr. Darcy.

I sometimes watch people on YouTube talk about their hair or makeup just so I have something to cringe painfully at. There's nothing so satisfying and self-indulgent as a nice judgmental facepalm directed at someone who is self-indulgent and judgmental.
:reddevil:

Pride and Prejudice...Pride and Prejudice...Maybe there IS something universal about this book.

[kiki1982]

:lol:

It seems like you could write your own with the same title :lol:

Let's hope, if you are as indulgent and judgmental about P&P that you will end up the same as Lizzie.

I always think really revered books have something universal that there is to revere. There are as many that were popular in their day and age and which did not get the status which others have. Therefore the once that do must have a quality that goes beyond the nice, beautiful and entertaining.

[Gladys]

But as you are not appreciating her irony, realism and satire then you should chuck her ... But after reading more than fifty pages and wanting to chuck her, you should chuck her.

Halfway through the book, TacoButt, I too was struggling - apart from Mr Bennet's obvious wit - until I saw how Austen was playing with me. In an instant, I perceived her glorious irony, realism and satire, and I laughed all the way to the last page. Austen is clever.

[TacoButt]

Halfway through the book, TacoButt, I too was struggling - apart from Mr Bennet's obvious wit - until I saw how Austen was playing with me. In an instant, I perceived her glorious irony, realism and satire, and I laughed all the way to the last page. Austen is clever.

Ah, so you felt like you were wondering why this novel was considered such a great book?

I am settling into it a bit. I think that Austen's voice in P&P is wonderful and her descriptions are clever, as you've said.

This book has given me more reasons to think about a book than any I've ever read. I find myself obsessed about what others think about it. Questions going around my mind are, "why should we care about the Bennets and the Binglies." "Why does this novel have to tell us in the 21st century?" "What is the value of understanding social relationships of the early 19th Century England? Does it parallel anything else?" "Is it universal or peculiar?" "Does this story universally appeal to women and not as much to men somehow?" "If so, what does this say about the differences of the genders?"

For some reason, I can't just sit there are read this like a quaint little story. It has made it near the top of just about any list of classic books that anyone has ever come up with. It's too important to be a "quaint little story."

Do you think I am over-thinking this novel? Do you have conjectures to the above questions?

Why do you think it has survived the test of time?

[Gladys]

I think that Austen's voice in P&P is wonderful and her descriptions are clever, as you've said.

What I find particularly clever is the youthful, tongue-in-cheek humour that lies behind even the 'most serious' dialogue and narrative. Incidentally, I failed to discern it in the much later Emma, which I read afterwards.


Questions going around my mind are, "why should we care about the Bennets and the Binglies." "Why does this novel have to tell us in the 21st century?" "What is the value of understanding social relationships of the early 19th Century England? Does it parallel anything else?" "Is it universal or peculiar?" "Does this story universally appeal to women and not as much to men somehow?" "If so, what does this say about the differences of the genders?"

We should care because the social predicament is, at the same time, amusing and touching. Laugh and have a sense of humour like Austen herself is the novel's message for today. Is there a funnier novel?

We do learn a little of English middle and upper class relationships - an interesting contrast to the sharper Brontes. Austen hidden humour and indulgence is timeless and universal. For all these reasons the novel should appeal to men.

[kiki1982]

haha :lol: you got it!

The satirist asks the most stupid 'why'-questions and in that, Austen makes you wonder about people.

Most readers, though, see P&P as the quaint little story, but it is much more fun. We are all in there :biggrinjester: wondering why everything. It's pretty scary :eek:.

[Ecurb]

Austen is admired by critics for both the quality of her novels, and their importance in the development of the art form. Austen's exact contemporary (and admirer) Sir Walter Scott may have been the most popular novelist of all time (in terms of the percentage of novels sold). Nonetheless, the novel went Austen's way -- not Scott's way. That is, it moved toward realism rather than toward romance.

Scott's novels abound in bombast and eloquence. From memory, I recall the conversation between Rebecca and Bois de Gilbert in "Ivanhoe". Gilbert has asked Rebecca to run off with him, which is tempting mainly because her other option is to be burned at the stake. Rebecca hesitates, though, thinking that Gilbert's promises to marry her may be lies. Gilbert, as villainous a creep as any reader could desire, responds, "All the laws of man and God have I borken, but my sworn oath, Never!" Scott's villains were more heroic than most heroes.

Austen is equally eloquent with Scott, but less bombastic. Hers is the quiet humor of the real world. She is probably the first "realistic" novelist -- earlier novelists like Fielding, or Scott, filled their books with action and adventure, and their characters with genius. Pride and Prejudice is probably the least typical (and most popular) of the Austen novels because it is a bit more of a fairy tale than the others, with it's rich, dashing hero and it's witty, fiesty, Cinderella heroine. However, in general, Austen's novels are as quiet as an English Country Lane. Some readers prefer the precipices of Switzerland -- but the novel has wandered down Austen's country lanes for two centuries now, with some excursions to Dublin, Moscow, and a variety of sanitoriums.

[SFG75]

The "petty drama" is one of the aspects that I enjoyed most!:lol: I loved the intrigue and the back-stabbing behavior, not to mention how the different characters tried to influence one another through talking to, positioning of others, or by simply not appearing at certain functions. It is a microcosm of society operating under Machiavellian principles based on their own self interest. Mr. Collins shifting his interest from one sister to another, only to marry a cousin of theirs, is a key case in point. There is also some rich humor in the book, and I love how Mr. & Mrs. Bennet tangling over the marriage state of their daughters.

The title of the book is a very apt description, as the actions clearly show how "pride" and "prejudice" colored the viewpoints of the characters, which would ultimately serve to injure the characters. Collins is a wet noodle, Wickham is a smooth talking shyster, and Darcy is a noble and kind man. These realizations only come about as the story progresses and Elizabeth for one, has a hard time fixing her preconceived notions.

I really enjoyed this book, it was a bit plodding at first, but the action picked up soon afterwords. I think getting past the part where Jane is deathly ill away from him is required to get to the "good part" for some people, so to speak.

[TacoButt]

I am 4/5 of the way through this novel now. I am trying to finish it because I hate bailing on a book. But it's not pleasurable reading. I intensely dislike the main character. There is not one whit of empathy for her.

That this book is an enduring classic says very uncomfortable things about humanity, I think. Somewhere in the evolution of the cerebral cortex, things went horribly wrong. After the basic survival and hunting/gathering instincts had been biologically provided for, there became leftover mental processing power to dwell on the inconsequential.

God help us all.

[Ecurb]

Gee, Taco. If you can hate on Elizabeth Bennet I shudder to consider your possible reaction to Emma Woodhouse or Marianne Dashwood! You have zero empathy for one of the most popular heroines in the history of fiction.

I'll grant that Miss Bennet is proud (or is it prejudiced?), but who objects to that in a woman? Women should be proud, and lovers should be prejudiced (what, after all, is love other than a form of prejudice?). Why is prejudice a such good thing: as Hamlet said, "Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?" Only the prejudiced, after all, can think WE'RE so wonderful.

[TacoButt]

Only the prejudiced, after all, can think WE'RE so wonderful.

Those points are very interesting. Is love, even love or belief in the nobility (or divinity) of humanity a prejudice?

If love of the world is a prejudice and prejudice is a conclusion prior to investigation, then disdain for humanity must therefore be the inevitable reasoned conclusion arrived at after a thorough investigation. :troll:

[TacoButt]

I keep seeing the blank in the name of the area, "----shire."

Can anyone explain why this blank exists in P&P?

[kiki1982]

Haha, that first point is great! But I think then that disdain is the conclusion of a thorough investigation provided that the person doing the investigation and reaching disdain as its conclusion is prejudiced to find still worse than the prejudice he already had. Otherwise he would not find disdain but bewilderment. :p

So, '--shire' and 'the river A', 'the village of P'... Those things often occur in earlier literature (19th century and earlier) because they have the same effect as putting 'B looked at me this afternoon. Would he be in love with me?' in your diary. If anyone reads it, you can be sure (not really :rolleyes:) that he won't know who B is, but the story is still true and writing his initial allows you to write about it comfortably. So it is with the things above. Before the 18th century, things were supposed to be always true when written down. When the novel came about, people were not so accustomed to fiction yet so as to distance themselves altogether from the place the story happened. Not like we are now. It is very rare that people will go and visit a place where something happened in a novel, although there are a few exceptions like The Da Vinci Code. So, in order to prevent people from identifying the characters (surely, they must exist :rolleyes:), they put it in a county '--shire' of which there are several, even in the north, and in a fictive village, but clearly identified in space (x miles/hours by coach from London). So, it really makes the story more 'true' than it is.
But, more than not identifiable from a direct perspective or making it 'truer', it also gives your story a more general idea. If you were writing about characters in Cambridgeshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, your story would become more restricted and would not be about the whole of England. Now, it is about the whole of that society, although, taking pains, you can actually more or less situate the place where Meryton is.

Is that a bit clear or is it a bit muddled? :blush:

[Ecurb]

"Love is the dillusion that one woman differs from another." -- H.L. Mencken

Those of us less cynical than Mencken might soften the sentiment to: "Love is the biased opinion that one particular woman is superior to all others."

[SFG75]

"Love is the dillusion that one woman differs from another." -- H.L. Mencken

Those of us less cynical than Mencken might soften the sentiment to: "Love is the biased opinion that one particular woman is superior to all others."

I bet Austen would not disagree with that. Our "prejudices" lead us to pair up with others for a variety of reasons. Mr. Collins had his own material and shallow ambitions. Elizabeth was willing to go through the potential "cost" of having an old society benefactor face off against her over love. When I first started the book, I felt she was making a radical commentary about the state of marriage and women in her time, much like Emma Goldman would say in more crude, less thought out, less well-written way. Elizabeth's progress towards marriage had me rethink that perspective however, as she came into her own and saw the folly of her "prejudice," and perhaps D's "pride.":conehead:

[Ecurb]

I bet Austen would not disagree with that. Our "prejudices" lead us to pair up with others for a variety of reasons. Mr. Collins had his own material and shallow ambitions. Elizabeth was willing to go through the potential "cost" of having an old society benefactor face off against her over love. When I first started the book, I felt she was making a radical commentary about the state of marriage and women in her time, much like Emma Goldman would say in more crude, less thought out, less well-written way. Elizabeth's progress towards marriage had me rethink that perspective however, as she came into her own and saw the folly of her "prejudice," and perhaps D's "pride.":conehead:

A guy named Arnie Pearlman (who posts on Austen-L list and others) has a theory that Austen (in part) represents herself in P & P as the maligned Mary Benet. Mary, of course, is the "accomplished" and "intellectual" sister, who likes to perform on the piano and moralize at the dinner table. But Jane Austen likes to toy with her readers. Some of Mary's comments can be read in two ways. For example, when Bingley and Darcy show up near the end of the novel, Mary says to Elizabeth, ""The men shan't come and part us, I am determined. We want none of them; do we?"

A straightforward reading shows Mary as naive and perhaps jealous. Perhaps she is. However, perhaps she is expressing Austen's own opinions. After all, Austen and her sister Cassandra remained unmarried (we know Jane turned down at least one eligible suitor). In her letters, Jane pokes fun at the status of wives as unpaid servants, and as breeding machines. Many wives had 10 or more babies -- and many died in childbirth.

Here's Mary talking to Elizabeth about the Lydia affair: "This is a most unfortunate affair; and will probably be much talked of. But we must stem the tide of malice, and pour into the wounded bosoms of each other the balm of sisterly consolation…..Unhappy as the event must be for Lydia, we may draw from it this useful lesson: that loss of
virtue in a female is irretrievable -- that**one false step involves her
in endless ruin**-- that her reputation is no less brittle than it is
beautiful, -- and that she cannot be too much guarded in her behaviour
towards the undeserving of the other sex."

Again, the initial reading portrays Mary as a prosy, moralizing fifteen-year-old know-it-all. Indeed, in all of the movies, the scene is played that way – with Mary moralizing in front of the entire family. However, in the book, Mary is talking to Elizabeth alone – and perhaps Mary (if we see her as a feminist Jane Austen surrogate) is warning her sister about the dangers of men and marriage. Jane was, like Mary, the most accomplished girl in the neighborhood (one of the most accomplished of all time, in fact) – and mightn’t she see trading that for a life as a domestic and breeding machine as a poor trade off?

[Gladys]

A straightforward reading shows Mary as naive and perhaps jealous. Perhaps she is. However, perhaps she is expressing Austen's own opinions.

Sounds plausible. Mary lacks social nicety but, direct like a sledgehammer, there is truth in all she utters though she speaks rarely. Here's a few quotes.



...her sister Mary, who having, in consequence of being the only plain one in the family, worked hard for knowledge and accomplishments, was always impatient for display.

They found Mary, as usual, deep in the study of thorough-bass and human nature; and had some extracts to admire, and some new observations of threadbare morality to listen to.

To this Mary very gravely replied, "Far be it from me, my dear sister, to depreciate such pleasures! They would doubtless be congenial with the generality of female minds. But I confess they would have no charms for me—I should infinitely prefer a book."

Mary petitioned for the use of the library at Netherfield; and Kitty begged very hard for a few balls there every winter.

Mary was the only daughter who remained at home; and she was necessarily drawn from the pursuit of accomplishments by Mrs. Bennet's being quite unable to sit alone. Mary was obliged to mix more with the world, but she could still moralize over every morning visit; and as she was no longer mortified by comparisons between her sisters' beauty and her own, it was suspected by her
father that she submitted to the change without much reluctance.