i didn't like pride and prejudice

[bob]

i REALLY hope there are not people out there who actually enjoy reading pride and prejudice. Because that is sad. I found more intelligent social comment in the Daily Star. For gods sake, this book makes me want to stab my self repeatedly with something rusty. It makes me wanna scratch out my eyes. Reading it gives me the slow numbing sensation of bleeding to death.

[RobinHood3000]

I don't suppose you have any substantiated reason to support your claims? With the regards to finding more intelligent social commentary elsewhere, you do realize that the book was published in 1813, correct? You should probably try and understand a sense of context before trying to apply it to today--which is very doable, I might add.

[starrwriter]

I like the way you express yourself. And you're absolutely right about Prude and Prejudice. BOOOOOR-ING!

[starrwriter]

It has nothing to do with intellect. If a man has a pulse, he's qualified to dislike this book.

[Bluebiird]

I'm reading Pride and Prejudice now, and it's not boring. Okay, admittedly, one or two parts are detestably boring, but I'm finding it quite a good read actually. Though I'd like it better if we didn't have to take turns reading aloud it in class every lesson, that we have it, and were just allowed to read it ourselves. Perhaps those of you who hate the book would be better off watching the film; it's a bit easier to understand ;).

[Stanislaw]

I just didn't like the story...to be blunt I found it a little dumb (no carchases no explosions, no gang violence...) :D I'm just kiddning.

I suppose there are those out there who enjoy this type of story, however I am not of that group of people. I was raised on good literature, and for the most part don't like any of the so called "femanist classics" (though I am still not sure as to how pride and prejudice could be considered a feminist book, my teacher could not provide and adequate answer).

I have to agree with Starr, the book was boring, and I would not read it again or watch the movies, even though Keira Knightly stars. :brow:

[shortysweetp]

I must say that I have only met one guy who truly enjoyed works by Austen or even the Bronte sisters. That was dear Mono oh how I miss him. I think Pride and Prejudice is the ultimate classic romance novel. which is why they have made sooo many movies based on it or even losely based on it. Has anyone watched "You've got mail"? with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, it was based on the P & P. And the new P & P was on the top ten list of movies (top ticket sellers) for months. SO maybe you should try watching it. and for those that dont like the book maybe you just dont have the ability to understand the wit of Austen, a true female genius. Most men dont.

[RobinHood3000]

Eh, I've seen "You've Got Mail." It was okay, but in the romantic genre, I prefer "When Harry Met Sally" with Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan. It's funnier.

[Sleeping_Beauty]

I really disagree. Though the book is a very mature book, and yes it is very hard to read at some parts. But Jane Austen is a fantasic author. It takes good taste to enjoy her literature.

[Bluebiird]

(though I am still not sure as to how pride and prejudice could be considered a feminist book, my teacher could not provide and adequate answer).


Perhaps it's because it was written by a woman and is about stereotypical, "woman's" issues.

[Stanislaw]

Perhaps it's because it was written by a woman and is about stereotypical, "woman's" issues.

I suppose, however, the book seesm to be a very male dominated story, and the only goal the women have is to marry a richguy...regardless of love.
To me it appears to be an almost anti-feminist book (the happy ending is that the main character marries rich)

Maybe it is because I am male that I cannot comprehend the suttle feminist undertones?

[emily655321]

Nah, it's because it was written a good 130 years before the feminist movement began.

Still, I guess I'll have to stand as the lone female hater-of-Austen. I can sit through one of the movies, provided there's snacks and good company (my mother and her friend have made sure this happened more than once). But I've tried reading P&P, and I didn't get very far. Admittedly that's not a good standpoint from which to judge a book, but it still stands as the only book I've ever had to put down before I reached page 20. Otherwise, I might have taken a large knife to it.

[Stanislaw]

Nah, it's because it was written a good 130 years before the feminist movement began.

Still, I guess I'll have to stand as the lone female hater-of-Austen. I can sit through one of the movies, provided there's snacks and good company (my mother and her friend have made sure this happened more than once). But I've tried reading P&P, and I didn't get very far. Admittedly that's not a good standpoint from which to judge a book, but it still stands as the only book I've ever had to put down before I reached page 20. Otherwise, I might have taken a large knife to it.

I completely agree with you, and seriously doubt your dislike of the book has to do with "a lack of understanding" or being an "unsophisticated reader"

some books are just poor.

[RobinHood3000]

Bah! I liked at least some of Pride and Prejudice (though my memory is a bit fuzzy). I absolutely loved the part when Elizabeth reads Darcy's letter--makes me want to point at Elizabeth's name on the page and shout, "HA!! In your face!!"

[Stanislaw]

Bah! I liked at least some of Pride and Prejudice (though my memory is a bit fuzzy). I absolutely loved the part when Elizabeth reads Darcy's letter--makes me want to point at Elizabeth's name on the page and shout, "HA!! In your face!!"

The only thing I enjoyed about the book, was that when we read it in class, the prof would always be lady catherine (the old snobby rich realitive of darcy), it was funny when he read it in an odd old-lady-monty-python-like accent...but other than that...I much rather would have prefeered reading Kafka.

[adriennelane]

Ah, don't we just love flamers? If you don't like the book, then don't post here. There's no law forcing you to do so. If your idea of a good time entails irritating people who actually do have the mental faculties to read the book and enjoy it, then well, that's just terribly sad.

[Bluebiird]

Has anyone noticed that this whole thread was started by a guest? Isn't that just typical

[Scheherazade]

I completely agree with you, and seriously doubt your dislike of the book has to do with "a lack of understanding" or being an "unsophisticated reader"

some books are just poor. There is much more to P&P than a fussy mother trying to marry off her daughters; or a shrew being tamed; or a snob being humbled. And even though you see past these, you may not find it to your liking; however, I don't think the fact that you don't like the subject matter or writing style makes some book 'poor'. I would say they are simply not your cup of tea.

[Stanislaw]

There is much more to P&P than a fussy mother trying to marry off her daughters; or a shrew being tamed; or a snob being humbled. And even though you see past these, you may not find it to your liking; however, I don't think the fact that you don't like the subject matter or writing style makes some book 'poor'. I would say they are simply not your cup of tea.

you ar correct, poor was a "poor" choice of words. 'tis not my genre is more of what I was trying to convey, eventhough I did not enjoy it, I suppose the story was worded quite well.

[Nightshade]

Its more than worder well, its plain amusing if you turn it upside down and read it backwards. Or if you start listening for Austen's sarcasim.
What shrew?!
I get how you might not like the book after all its a 'mush" book, or as my mum puts it "The first ever Mills and Boons". What I think is people take it too seriously it was written to entertain after all. So just enjoy it like you would a nice slice of lemon cake, if thats your taste and if not go for somthing else like a choclate or a plain sponge or fruit cake.

:D:D

[emily655321]

Well put, Nightshade. :D

I don't think anyone meant to bash the book (well, besides the first poster). I think the impulse was more one of defending those who didn't like it against the initial accusations that anyone who dislikes it only does so because they lack the intelligence to understand it.

That said, is it weird that the title of the thread makes me giggle every time I see it? :D

[water lily]

I suppose, however, the book seesm to be a very male dominated story, and the only goal the women have is to marry a richguy...regardless of love.
To me it appears to be an almost anti-feminist book (the happy ending is that the main character marries rich)

Maybe it is because I am male that I cannot comprehend the suttle feminist undertones?

I'm afraid, I must disagree. I don't think Jane Austen is a particularly feminist author and if so then only in the subtlest way, but she certainly is not anti-feminist. The very first sentence of the novel refutes the idea that the only goal women have is to marry a rich guy regardless of love. It's true that the mother (Mrs. Bennet) can't see beyond that very goal, but she is more of a caricature than a character, used to show the ludicrousy of such ideas. Furthermore love is emphasized: we have examples of marriage without love and have seen the results (Charlotte's & Mr. Colins' [heh] and Mr & Mrs. Bennet's for example); whereas the unions based on love (Jane's with Bingley and Elizabeth with Darcy) are shown to be ideal (it's true that Bingley and Darcy happen to be rich, but the emotional attachment is there. the wealth is just a happy coindence. I'm sure you wouldn't mind marrying rich :P). Also an important note is that Jane Austen, herself, never married.

Despite my big rant, if you don't like the book it's okay. And for those of you who haven't seen it, the movie has some breathtaking music and beautiful scenery. :)

[zanyzenni]

Originally Posted by emily655321
I suppose, however, the book seesm to be a very male dominated story, and the only goal the women have is to marry a richguy...regardless of love.

I would like to contradict that. It may seem that the aim is to marry the rich guy, but the Bennet daughters actualy marry someone they love. Lizzy was the most verbal about remaining a spinster if she did not find someone to love. Instead she ended up marrying (and loving) the richest man of the lot.

Jane also married Bingly in love, the fact that he was rich was a help but they were most definatly in love.

[emily655321]

I'd just like to point out that I didn't say that, Stan did.

[malwethien]

Do you think gender plays a big part in whether or not someone liked P&P? I don't know the gender of the posters who hated it or liked it so I can't really say, but I think it's safe to say that more females like P&P then guys. Personally, I love P&P but none of my guy friends who I recommended this book to could stand reading it.

I think it's like a classic fairytale....meant to be enjoyed, but not really taken seriously. Some people hate it because they thought it was boring, some people loved it because they found it entertaining. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[The Unnamable]

Do you think gender plays a big part in whether or not someone liked P&P? I don't know the gender of the posters who hated it or liked it so I can't really say, but I think it's safe to say that more females like P&P then guys. Personally, I love P&P but none of my guy friends who I recommended this book to could stand reading it.

I think it's like a classic fairytale....meant to be enjoyed, but not really taken seriously. Some people hate it because they thought it was boring, some people loved it because they found it entertaining. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
This is an interesting question. I am male and consider Jane Austen as one of the best. I think both her fans and her detractors incorrectly assume that she is a romantic novelist, a sort of highbrow Barbara Cartland. She’s very hard-headed, even cynical about romantic love. I certainly don’t see her as a teller of fairy tales and think it unfair on her to say that her novels shouldn’t be taken seriously. Persuasion is the only novel with any real suffering in it but her novels are more for those who think than for those who merely feel.

[malwethien]

but her novels are more for those who think than for those who merely feel.

Maybe that's why a lot of people don't like them?

The Unnamable, what is your background when it comes to literature? Do you teach literature or have an extensive background in it? The reason I'm asking is because, do you think that guys who do have a good foundation or career in literature would naturally like Austen, whereas guys who read P&P out of curiosity (but with no real "literary" expertise or experience) won't appreciate much or at all?

Just wondering...?

[The Unnamable]

Sorry, only just noticed this.


Maybe that's why a lot of people don't like them?
Are you implying that people don’t like to think? :D

The Unnamable, what is your background when it comes to literature? Do you teach literature or have an extensive background in it? The reason I'm asking is because, do you think that guys who do have a good foundation or career in literature would naturally like Austen, whereas guys who read P&P out of curiosity (but with no real "literary" expertise or experience) won't appreciate much or at all?

Just wondering...?
I currently teach Literature to 11-18 year olds. To be honest, I don’t know that gender has much to do with it. When I studied her at university, there were two camps – those who ‘got’ her and those who didn’t. Each camp had about the same number of males and females. I suppose it was more likely for males to assume she wrote highbrow chick-lit and dismiss her accordingly. In terms of gender however, the main difference was that some of the female undergraduates enjoyed her as a writer of highbrow chick-lit but none of the males did. I think she is served as badly by her ardent admirers as she is by her detractors. Charlotte Brontë said of her that she “ruffles her reader with nothing vehement, disturbs him by nothing profound."

[malwethien]

I suppose it was more likely for males to assume she wrote highbrow chick-lit and dismiss her accordingly. In terms of gender however, the main difference was that some of the female undergraduates enjoyed her as a writer of highbrow chick-lit but none of the males did.

Yes I think I would have to agree with you on that :nod:

[Rosie Cotton]

I can read 80-100 pages of Pride and Prejudice a day and not in the least bit have spent all day reading it. It's so fast-paced, and if you know about Jane Austen's life, it's amazing (and hilarious) how much she's really just mocking her society.

[Reichenbach]

I guess some people just don't possess enough class or intellect to appreciate Jane Austen’s fast and witty humour through out the book. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, I was recommended it by a teacher when I finished the class book in four days (it was meant to last six weeks) I think you have to put yourself in the time zone to understand it fully, but then, that is just my opinion.

[yellowhelix]

I think what the problem might be is getting used to the old fashioned language. Once you figure out how to understand that, only people with NO sense of humour could seroiusly not enjoy this Hilarious, thrilling novel. C'mon, how can you not laugh at Mr. Collins, Mrs. Bennet, and the things Mr. Bennet says? And Lady Catherine, and Miss Bingly... the list goes on. It is a very funny book. AND it's simultaneously exciting. What with deception, confustion, the separation of bingly and jane, and EVERYTHING involving wickham, ...
Oh yes, and there's a love story somewhere in there too.

[Bandini]

'Perhaps you would enjoy Pride and Prejudice more if you actually had the intellectual faculties to do so.'

These and other simular comments on here are so patronising! I don't like Jane Austen. I have class and intellect in spades (!), adore Shakespeare, and certainly have no problem with the archaic language. I just find certain elements of some 19th Century literature - such as the pre-occupation with 'manners' (mocking or not) - gets on my...dugs. I really. Don't. Care. About the characters. Perhaps it's my English working class chip! That said, I haven't gone back to Austen since first trying her many years ago. Perhaps I'd enjoy her more now.

[yunnie]

I think this kind of novel is more appreciated by women! To my mind it's a great book (my favourite... with Lord of the Rings in another genre...). And I can understand that men find it boring. But it's not a simple love story, the most interresting is Jane Austen's point of view on the society of her time. She's so pertinent, so funny in her descriptions! I read Pride and Prejudice and her other novels with a great joy!

[The Unnamable]

These and other simular comments on here are so patronising! I don't like Jane Austen. I have class and intellect in spades (!), adore Shakespeare, and certainly have no problem with the archaic language. I just find certain elements of some 19th Century literature - such as the pre-occupation with 'manners' (mocking or not) - gets on my...dugs. I really. Don't. Care. About the characters.
That’s the saddest thing I’ve read on here for a while. I’ve read a few of your posts and think you should give her another go.


Perhaps it's my English working class chip!
I’m a Welsh Valleys council estate boy myself and I love reading her. She’s as vicious as Jimmy Porter at times.

Have you read any Tony Harrison? You aren’t that skinhead in V are you? :D

[CatonHotTinRoof]

I like the way you express yourself. And you're absolutely right about Prude and Prejudice. BOOOOOR-ING!


I personally like austen but your right, people have opinions and no one can tell them if their wrong. I like pride and prejudice but its gotten a little overrated. Just because keira knightley stars in the movie doesn't mean suddenly its time to read it. Its been a book for almost 200 years it didn't just come out.

[julia99]

I'm afraid that if you read P&P just because Keira Knightley is in the movie then you are going to be disappointed. Nothing wrong with the movie or with KK, but the book as others so rightly pointed out was written 200 years ago. The connection is there but a 'book of the movie' it ain't.

[kkitao]

I suppose, however, the book seesm to be a very male dominated story, and the only goal the women have is to marry a richguy...regardless of love.
To me it appears to be an almost anti-feminist book (the happy ending is that the main character marries rich)

Maybe it is because I am male that I cannot comprehend the suttle feminist undertones?

It doesn't sound to me as if you have read the book, or even an accurate summary.

Elizabeth Bennet, the main character, refuses to marry not one but two well-off men (including one very wealthy man), in spite of the fact that she could face a life of poverty after her father dies. She does so because she can neither love nor respect either man. So where do you get the idea that it is about marrying wealthy men, regardless of love?

There is a lot of argument over the degree to which Jane Austen in a feminist (or actualy proto-feminist) author, but the reason that the ending of Pride and Prejudice is considered to have a happy ending is definitely not that the heroine married a wealthy man. (She could have done that halfway through the book, and that would have been a sad ending.) It was a happy ending because both Elizabeth and Darcy learned and grew as a result of their experiences and because they have each married a person well-suited to them.

Feel free to like or dislike Pride and Prejudice, I don't really care -- but before you criticize it, please make sure you understand what it is you are criticizing.

[Billie_Bumble]

I'm new to classics and have just finished reading Pride and Prejudice. I loved it.
It amazes me that something written so long ago still has the power to entertain the way this book entertained me.

Obviously not everyone will like it. It's the 'chick-lit' of its day so probably won't have much appeal for men. Also, I think that being older helps. I tried reading some of these books when I was younger and I couldn't get into them. Now I'm in my 40's and I'm really appreciating the likes of Jane Austen and Dickens, etc.

[DoinIt4Soul]

I actually felt quite angry reading your post, bob. Austen's genius as a writer resides in her ability to make manifest the subtle nuances of human nature - in this case romance, attachment, and social propriety. It is an astute social commentary. I agree with Vedrana - it's a pity you don't have the faculty to grasp it. .

starrwriter - it has EVERYTHING to do with intellect. Austen, who wrote during a period where female writers could hardly find a voice, would've had to have discussed her concerns through more implicit means simply to avoid censure. Her readership would then have to approach the novel with at least an idea of the context in which the novel was written - or, indeed, a greater level of 'intellect'.

[Lulabelli]

I'm so surprisd by some of the replies on here.
Yeh, this is a forum so say what you like.
Im an Austen obsessive, i love all the books, because i find them very witty and a certain escapism in them to read about the rituals of marriage and what mothers would go through for their daughters during that period in history.
I think the bottom line is that in today's society, many can't appreciate that it was written in the 19th century and no longer have the attention span or intelligence to read an even slightly complex work that requires thinking about, whic is rather sad. I'm an English major and every day i come across people who are unable to read anything except the latest Heat magazine, i just believe that it is these brainless twerps that write on here- amd make sure stupid comments, because they are frustrated that they are unable to make a proper argument- thereforre resorting to "my god, it's just so crap!"
or "crappy crappy pride and prejudice"

Of course, i can see many men would n ot enjoy it very much- but generally it is all down to already veing decided against it having heard every woman on the planet sighing over Colin Firth's wet shirt moment (understandable!) and from that moment refusing to have anythig to do with it!

btw, scuse my typing skills- i tend to think faster than i can type!

[idea_aneesh]

As a part of its book review, i need to write something about "The use of words and narration".. if the narration is enjoyable or boring..

guys, plz help, i need to submit it tomorrow !!!

[Pip2006]

Perhaps you would enjoy Pride and Prejudice more if you actually had the intellectual faculties to do so.

And please, if you are going to stab yourself with something rusty, go and bloody well do it and stop moaning.

Well done.......:-)

[Alan_1984]

I rather resent the suggestion by several contributors that "... men don't/won't like it ..." I think it's a marvelous novel, I have read it several times, and no doubt will continue to do so (the more familiar you become with it the more subtle humour emerges from many of the characters utterances and behaviour). I think that Austen was a clever and witty writer and that this is one of the best of her fine set of books.
Incidentally I thought the Knightley film very poor (mainly because of mis-casting, and poor directing) and although there were occasional flashes of brilliance they were not enough in my view to redeem it as a whole.

[Lulabelli]

LOL! sorry Alan 1984!
I take it all back- if one guy does like them then there is hope for the rest fo them :D good stuff! x

[hopeless rmntc]

I suppose, however, the book seesm to be a very male dominated story, and the only goal the women have is to marry a richguy...regardless of love.
To me it appears to be an almost anti-feminist book (the happy ending is that the main character marries rich)

Maybe it is because I am male that I cannot comprehend the suttle feminist undertones?


Nah, it's because it was written a good 130 years before the feminist movement began.

Still, I guess I'll have to stand as the lone female hater-of-Austen. I can sit through one of the movies, provided there's snacks and good company (my mother and her friend have made sure this happened more than once). But I've tried reading P&P, and I didn't get very far. Admittedly that's not a good standpoint from which to judge a book, but it still stands as the only book I've ever had to put down before I reached page 20. Otherwise, I might have taken a large knife to it.



I don't think the fundamental ideal of feminism was ever confined to a specific period of time. It's been a belief and principle that's been with women all throughout history regardless of time period, country or religion. The Bronte sisters were around during Austen's time... and their works have a very strong feministic stand point. I just think Austen wasn't really concentrating on this idea... and wasn't passionate about renegating when she wrote this book. Yeah I guess you can say she's witty and full of humor. But the fact that she RAMBLES on and on about the ridiculous and silly issues of marriage was frankly exhaustingly irritating to me. I guess for the people who do have an appreciation for literature(classic literature most definitely included), as am I, and still didn't enjoy reading the book... well we have better and more important things to read than totally useless stories. Seriously... I'm so disappointed in this book. After allll the raving opinions I heard from people... this is all that it was? ECH!!

HI everyone! I'm new to the forum... and I'm SOOOO thankful for this thread. I needed to vent somewhere of how much I HATE THIS BOOK!

[RobinHood3000]

The Brontës, or at least Charlotte Brontë, wasn't anywhere near as feminist as people seem to think. She was feminist for her time, true, but in her best-known novel Jane Eyre, the protagonist flees her would-be husband and finds a happy life elsewhere, only to return to him, marry him, and become a domestic once more. Admittedly, the somewhat tacked-on ending may have been an editorial rather than creative decision, but all the same, Jane Eyre was no raving example of feminism.

As for Jane Austen, she wasn't trying to be feminist so much as she was trying to be funny. And if you read all four pages of this thread, you'll find the true dominant opinion.

[hopeless rmntc]

The Brontës, or at least Charlotte Brontë, wasn't anywhere near as feminist as people seem to think. She was feminist for her time, true, but in her best-known novel Jane Eyre, the protagonist flees her would-be husband and finds a happy life elsewhere, only to return to him, marry him, and become a domestic once more. Admittedly, the somewhat tacked-on ending may have been an editorial rather than creative decision, but all the same, Jane Eyre was no raving example of feminism.

As for Jane Austen, she wasn't trying to be feminist so much as she was trying to be funny. And if you read all four pages of this thread, you'll find the true dominant opinion.

Ummm... maybe you don't comprehend the definition of feminism. Just because someone is a feminist doesn't mean they're against marriage. Being a domestic wife doesn't make someone any less of a feminist than a suffragette. So many women who fought for women's rights were mothers and wives themselves.

Jane Eyre shouted feminism. It relayed the message to readers that a woman, even without a single penny, does not need to depend on someone for survival. Though she may be at a second-class level compared to the male gender, it still doesn't limit her from truly being independant. The fact that Jane Eyre CHOSE to leave an already wed Mr. Rochester because staying with him would be going against her dignity and honor, and then again CHOOSING to return to him when her morality would allow her to is the exact mentality a feminist preaches.

Feminism isn't about hating men. It's about gaining true independence regardless of gender. Maybe you should flip a few pages (dictionary, encyclopedia... textbook even?) before copying and pasting stuff from here and there.

[sciencefan]

Ah, don't we just love flamers? If you don't like the book, then don't post here. There's no law forcing you to do so. If your idea of a good time entails irritating people who actually do have the mental faculties to read the book and enjoy it, then well, that's just terribly sad.That's what I was thinking.
To go to a place where people love and appreciate a book just to dis it,
and even go so far as to blaspheme just does not make sense to me.
Apparently, Bob was never taught what Thumper was taught,
"If you can't say somethin' nice,
don't say nothin' at all."

[prankster]

i completely disagree with what you say about the book. its not that hopeless, you need to be a romantic person to understand and LIKE it.......

[ennison]

Reads the Daily Star? What be that?
Ah tis the porno press!
I think we see your problem.

[Billie_Bumble]

[QUOTE=hopeless rmntc;291884]It relayed the message to readers that a woman, even without a single penny, does not need to depend on someone for survival.

I can't agree with that. From what I remember, Jane Eyre fled from one end of the country to the other and ended up collapsing destitute on the doorstep of a sympathetic family who took her in. That the family later turned out to be her cousins was a great big cop out for me and ruined what, up until that point, had been a good book.

[Matrim Cuathon]

im offended that austen is considered a female author... i guess i could just be weird, but i really liked emma een when i readit when i was 10. ive read part of P&P but i lost it somewhere and i dont understand what is so detestable about it. the humor is funny, and so is the portrayol of the society. i brought emma to school while i was reading it (on purpose) and got exactly the ignorant comments that i expected about my being a sissy and being gay and such. it was quite amusing.
as for the part aboutit being boring. people dont seem to realize that a book can be good even if it isnt your kind of story. you have to appreciate the book for what it is and says and not whether its your favorite style.

[starbuck]

The Brontës, or at least Charlotte Brontë, wasn't anywhere near as feminist as people seem to think. She was feminist for her time, true, but in her best-known novel Jane Eyre, the protagonist flees her would-be husband and finds a happy life elsewhere, only to return to him, marry him, and become a domestic once more. Admittedly, the somewhat tacked-on ending may have been an editorial rather than creative decision, but all the same, Jane Eyre was no raving example of feminism.

As for Jane Austen, she wasn't trying to be feminist so much as she was trying to be funny. And if you read all four pages of this thread, you'll find the true dominant opinion.


Very much agree!

[00linfordh]

It doesn't matter how many people say Jane Austen is a literary genius. The fact is that most people die of boredom half way through reading this book. I can completely see where everyone thinks it's witty and brilliant but as entertainment...it's just rubbish!

[00linfordh]

Actually the original message for this forum was something about finding the book boring. if you wanna brown nose Austen...find a different forum.

[00linfordh]

I don't think the fundamental ideal of feminism was ever confined to a specific period of time. It's been a belief and principle that's been with women all throughout history regardless of time period, country or religion. The Bronte sisters were around during Austen's time... and their works have a very strong feministic stand point. I just think Austen wasn't really concentrating on this idea... and wasn't passionate about renegating when she wrote this book. Yeah I guess you can say she's witty and full of humor. But the fact that she RAMBLES on and on about the ridiculous and silly issues of marriage was frankly exhaustingly irritating to me. I guess for the people who do have an appreciation for literature(classic literature most definitely included), as am I, and still didn't enjoy reading the book... well we have better and more important things to read than totally useless stories. Seriously... I'm so disappointed in this book. After allll the raving opinions I heard from people... this is all that it was? ECH!!

HI everyone! I'm new to the forum... and I'm SOOOO thankful for this thread. I needed to vent somewhere of how much I HATE THIS BOOK!
You're not the only female who hates this novel. Trust me. My A level English class has 14 girls and the majority, including myself, are definitely NOT fans

[Dorian Gray]

I've read half so far but really liked it. The only book I ever read that I hated was If Beale Street Could Talk. Urgh. Unrealistic events, constant swearing, etc. Horrible. P&P is definitely a classic. Well-written, witty and the characters are interesting. It might be boring and uneventful compared to the action-packed novels that are out today, but the language is so much richer.

[JBI]

Alright, first things first. To start, I would like to say I am an 18 year old male, currently finishing highschool and going to attend University next year.

For everyone who says "People of intellect and class like this book, and everyone else is just immature and stupid," you are wrong. There are many books which are considered "literary" and "intellectual" which I despise, and many which I personally love.

On another note, I personally thoroughly enjoyed this book, I found it one of the better books I have read in my life (though I may not have read as many books as some people on these boards, I am no stranger to classic literature).

To say that the book only gained popularity after the release of the movie in 2002(I think that is correct, but my dates may be off) is a complete lie. First of all, the 1940 edition of the movie, when scaled to inflation, was the highest box office grossing movie of all time (even above all these modern ones). Second of all, a 2002 study in the U.K. put Pride and Prejudice as the United Kingdom's second most loved book, slightly behind the Lord of The Rings. To say that the book hasn't been loved until the movie's release is completely inaccurate.

I personally I enjoyed the book, to say that the book is "stupid", and that you can't believe people actually liked the book is just silly. As for the comment on finding more social comment in the Daily Star (I'm not even sure where that paper is by the way) I would have to say maybe you are right. I am not familiar with the paper therefore cannot access the intellectual level of its writing, but I can say that you must remember that Austen was writing her books in the early 19th century. To expect a book that old to be a huge statement on society today is just silly, and I am not surprised that you didn't find what you were looking for. That being said, there is no reason why that makes this book a "terrible book". It just makes some of its themes inapplicable today. That does not take away from the beautiful language of the book, or the comic touch that Austen puts into her writing.

On the topic of those who think all intellectual people must like this book, you are just as wrong as the others. You toss in subjective words like "good" and "bad" and think just because some intellectual people (I would say quite a few, specifically for this book) liked the novel, that everyone who is "smart" or "intellectual" adores this book. That is a terrible falacy, and is completely untrue. There will always be those who like things, and those who don't, regardless of their intellect (it could of course be due to a third party cause, such as having to read the book in school or something of the sort).

To sum it up, saying this book is stupid or boring is your opinion, there is no way to argue that statement, but saying the book appeals to all intellectual people is just as silly as the first statement. On the note of females liking Austen's work more than males, I would say that perhaps maybe true, but that does not mean there aren't many males who like, or even adore her work. Seeing as how you cannot argue over a comepletely subjective thing such as whether something is "good" or "bad", there is no real point in posting in this context. Instead, it would be more beneficial, and perhaps more civilized if you posted rather you enjoyed, or disliked the book, and of course instead of just saying "this book is terrible", state your reasons for disliking it.

~JBI

[Omniglot]

i REALLY hope there are not people out there who actually enjoy reading pride and prejudice. Because that is sad. I found more intelligent social comment in the Daily Star. For gods sake, this book makes me want to stab my self repeatedly with something rusty. It makes me wanna scratch out my eyes. Reading it gives me the slow numbing sensation of bleeding to death.


Thats a pity. I hope you had your tetanus injection prior to your sef harm episode! Or would that be defeating the object?

Anyway, I have just finished Pride and Prejudice and found it a wonderful novel. I would recommend it to everyone as a good read. Austen builds the story nicely and the resulting final chapters dont dissapoint.
I read Jane Eyre by Bronte prior to this and must say I enjoyed it slightly better, but both books seemed similarly written to me.

[Blackjack Davy]

"Of all the great writers, (Jane Austen) is the most difficult to pin down in the act of greatness" - Virginia Woolf.

[Miss Madison]

I don't suppose you have any substantiated reason to support your claims? With the regards to finding more intelligent social commentary elsewhere, you do realize that the book was published in 1813, correct? You should probably try and understand a sense of context before trying to apply it to today--which is very doable, I might add.

I personally find that that is what turns people away from what I would define as 'real' literature. By 'real' I mean, of course, those beloved classics! Bob, why not try using a search engine to find out more about the time period Pride and Prejudice was written in and give it a re-read? Austen's work is definately worth a second chance!
Or better still, read Fielding's 'Bridget Jones' [the first novel] and then read Pride and Prejudice, then you'll get a real sense of how different society was back then.
And I definately disagree with you comparing the genius of Austen with the piddle paddle written in the Sun! [I'm only 17, but I am strongly ANTI-SUN]

[DianaT]

The first time I read Pride and Prejudice, I did not enjoy it much. I read it after reading Jane Eyre--that was about six years ago. I was the typical young girl reading books that engaged my adolescent dreams of love. I am not an English major (in fact I study Mathematics) but I have always loved reading novels. I would like to think I am reasonably well-read in the classics (I have ventured past those romance-type novels :)) and recently I decided to give Austen another go by reading Emma. I was chiefly motivated by my mother's (English is her second language) desire for me to compare the book to the BBC movie version.

I have to say, I enjoyed Emma immensely. I finally "got" the satire! The first time I read Austen, I did not get it; and now that I have finished Mansfield Park and am halfway through Pride and Prejudice, I really appreciate Austen a great deal. I now see what makes her writing so impressive--her prose reads so effortlessly compared to the prose of someone like D.H. Lawrence. While reading Women in Love, I found myself thinking "He is really trying so hard to get his point across." Of course his style is more poetic than Austen, but his prose is not as effortless.

I have not come across a writer quite like Austen and I find her incredibly refreshing. When I am in the mood for a Hardy-like read I would not reach for Austen; but when I want to read an intelligent "comedy of manners," I will glady reach for anything Austen has written.

Diana

[shortysweetp]

hmm where do I start?!? Austen is by far my favorite author EVER! For those of you that are newer please go read my essay on her works and the MANY movies made from them.
I first read P & P in high school and immediately fell in love with it. I hadnt read literature other than school assigned and once I had read her works my love for literature grew. It opened my eyes to the wit of the the classic woman writer. I love the bronte sisters.
I just dont see anything wrong with P & P and I would have to say that the majority of the world would agree with me or they wouldn't have made at least 7 different movie versions of it. How many books can you say that has been made into that many different versions.
I think the book shows us the culture of the time and yet there is something there that is still how we are. Most people judge others on first impressions and never give them another chance and at the same time there are still people that are too proud to consider someone that may intiallu think is beneath them either family, money, popularity, or looks. I would have to agree with Diana, its definitely a "comedy of manners".

[kilted exile]

Hmmm, I am somewhat annoyed by the attitiude of many posters within this thread that:

a) you should only comment on something if you like it.

&

b) If you dont like Austen you are stupid.

[DianaT]

Kilted Exile,

I did not mean to imply that one is stupid if one does not like Austen. I know how one can interpret my response as such (the notion that I didn't like Austen simply because I was an adolescent girl), however that was not my intent. I merely meant, that I, personally, was not ready to enjoy her. Of course others (who are intelligent) have a right to dislike Jane Austen. There are authors that I do not like such as James Joyce. I am well aware many scholars think Joyce to be amazing, but I don't really like his style of writing. I hope that does not mean I am stupid--if that is the case I am throwing away thousands of money on a worthless education...

Anyway, I just wanted to share my opinion. There is nothing wrong with a little debate :)

Happy Mother's Day,
Diana

[Athos]

The first time I read Pride and Prejudice, believe it or not, I was in 7th grade. Of course I found it dull- I was 13 and just wanted to read a love story.

About...two years later, my Freshman year of high school- I decided to give it a try again.

I love this book. The social commentary- as already discussed- is remarkable. I found it lacked a bit symbolism (my favorite thing, grrr) and was pretty straight forward, but I still cherish it.

If you hated it, try it again, I'm very serious.

[Mr Darcy]

i REALLY hope there are not people out there who actually enjoy reading pride and prejudice. Because that is sad. I found more intelligent social comment in the Daily Star. For gods sake, this book makes me want to stab my self repeatedly with something rusty. It makes me wanna scratch out my eyes. Reading it gives me the slow numbing sensation of bleeding to death.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It is not sad that I enjoy Pride & Prejudice at all because it is one of the few good books around. If it makes you want to scratch out your eyes then maybe you should read more simple books, like children books. Maybe you won't have such a hard time reading.

[tulysg1982]

I must confess i liked pride and prejudice more after i watched the movie(BBC version).i remember our department arranged the movie in british counsil. it was 5 hours movie but we didn't get tired.after that all my friends have been decided to marry someone like mr.Darcy.Collin firth was extraordinary.i think Jane Austen was dexterously made the character- a proud, sophisticated, wealthy noble man who fall in love with a girl who disgusted him most.we cannot but love the character.Samething can ne said for Elizabeth( i think man liked her most).the theme of love which was brilliantly portrayed in the movie was the key aspect for liking the novel.Darcy and Elizabeth's love was beyond any limitations,shortcomings,physicality,wealth.their love has been tested,purified,and authorized by humiliation,dignity and reverence.the story has a touch of fairy tale classic quality and Darcy and Elizabeth become the prototype of perfection what most of us envisaged with.But surely there is not a single book in the world which is liked by all.So difference is welcome.but still the book is liked by the majority and the movie is my precious collection.

[emmsi_*tobyrox*]

To those who love P and P to bits, i see where you are coming from. I am an ardent Jane Austen fan myself and love her works. However, i disagree that P and P is her best work. Alright, so it is her most renowned, but i don't find it as heart breaking and yet heart warming as Persuasion, where i really felt Anne's emotions, and i know others do too. It's just a more realistic story and so subtly romantic.

The TV version though with Colin Firth makes Pride and Prejudice alive. I guess i prefer Persuasion more as it has not been adapted soooooo often that P and P has.

[ale]

Well, a humble opinion from B.A., Argentina (yes, that land far far away, to the south of America :lol: )
I'm afraid I don't agree with the fact that this is a feminist novel. Writing about women is simply not enough to qualify it as such. In fact, all female characters are criticized:
- Charlotte married for interest, and didn't take love into account
- Mrs Bennet and her younger daughters are a source of embarrassment. They are depicted as empty-headed, poorly educated ladies
- Jane is too reserved, too self-conscious. That resulted in Bingley's belief that she didn't love him
- Lady Catherine is a snobbish, bossy lady who looks down on everyone and ends up being outwitted by Elizabeth
- Caroline Bingley is to be laughed at for attempting to catch Darcy's attention. She strives to seduce him to no avail, and Elizabeth mocks her in secret
- And finally, our heroine. She is as proud and prejudiced as Darcy himself. She condemns him from the start, and falls for Wickham, merely because he happens to flatter her. She turns Collins down on account of their differences - they could never make each other happy. Yet she accepts Darcy. Can this really be a happy couple? Granted, he loves her. But does she really love him? It has always seemed suspicious to me that her mind changes after visiting Pemberley. Coincidence?
it maybe so. or not...
to sum up, the fact that Austen wrote about women does not mean that her novels are feminist. at least in P&P, female characters couldn't be more harshly portrayed

[JBI]

Ale, that's the point, she is satirizing the society she was living in.

The two heroes of the story must overcome their prejudices, and ignore their pride to finally achieve happiness together. Austen is deliberately making a statement out of Charlotte, and saying essentially "Charlotte is like a prostitute who sells her body for financial security." She is deliberately commenting on women who act like that in Charlotte's situation.

Of all the characters, Elizabeth ends up the happiest because she is the most outspoken, most three dimensional, most free thinking, and most evolved character throughout the book. The main point of this book being feminist is that it is not Darcy who gets the upper hand, and Elizabeth who tries to make him propose to her, it is Darcy who must try to convince Elizabeth that he is worth marrying. All the other characters are just being juxtaposed with Elizabeth and Darcy, and made to appear faulty, and inferior people. For instance, Austen is commenting on how Mr. and Mrs. Bennet's marriage is flawed, because it is made to seem that they married out of pure lust, and for nonsensical reasons. Likewise Lydia's marriage to Wickam appears quite similar, but to a higher extreme. Etc.

The most "femministical" woman in the story is the one who ends up the happiest, because she is the one who marries because of both sense and sensibility, and overcomes her prejudices, and beats her pride. Likewise is the same with Darcy, whereupon he has to defeat his pride in order to actually marry Elizabeth, and ignore the prejudices/embarrassments about her family.

[ale]

I see your point! Indeed you're right when you point out that Darcy and Elizabeth are the happiest couple in the novel, and that Darcy had to somehow "earn" her love (like in a medieval romance, where knights had to prove their worth to ladies by undertaking challenges!). Yet I still haven't managed to come to terms with the "feminist" point of view on the novel. Maybe because I notice some traces of Charlotte in Elizabeth herself. Why do we condemn the former and justify the latter? After all, for instance, Elizabeth agreed with her aunt that falling for Wickham would be improper due to his lack of fortune (before she learned the truth about him). Besides, can we be sure that she would have accepted Darcy if she hadn't visited Pemberley? Sorry, I know I'm destroying the romance in the novel! I should just be able to enjoy the magic sparks of love instead of picking on our heroine's materialistic side:D

[Newcomer]

...I'm afraid I don't agree with the fact that this is a feminist novel. Writing about women is simply not enough to qualify it as such.
.....to sum up, the fact that Austen wrote about women does not mean that her novels are feminist...

It's an ideological argument, based on belief, not reason. By necessity it's a long argument, so I ask for your patience.
Suppose I would argue that Eve was a proto-feminist. Committing the original sin she challenged a patriarchal deity, hence all women are feminists and all novels written by women are feminists novels. Case for belief. A theory can be disproved if one exception can be found. And I know at least one woman in the Forum who is not a feminist, hence this theory is false.
Case for reason.
However I also know of at least one woman who is a feminist and in the 20th. century there exists a feminist literature. So the question is a bit more complex than of belief vs reason.
In medical diagnosis a number of symptoms are considered before a likelihood of a disease is established. And even here we are left with a best guess, not a theological certainty. So what are the symptoms of a feminist literature? I shall use as a reference, The Female Imagination and the Modern Aesthetic, edited by Gilbert and Gubar. The preface states, “This collection of essays edited by Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar addresses topics that are central to feminist scholarship and gender studies, such as the relationship of female literary tradition to the larger literary context and inner-connection of social and sexual identity with historic and economic events.” With such an imprimatur, there should not be any question that the quotes used to establish the symptoms of a feminists literature are out of context or prejudicial.
а.Misogamy - In the essay, “Drunk with Chastity”: The poetry of Renee Vivien, by Pamela Annas. She quotes from Vivien's novel, A Woman Appeared to Me: “I neither love nor hate men ... What I hold against them is the great wrong they have done to women. They are political adversaries whom I want to injure for the good of the cause. Off the battlefield of ideas, I know them little and am indifferent to them.”. Shorn of poetics the operating principle is: - I want to injure for the good of the cause – hence the disclaimer, I neither love nor hate men, is disingenuous.

b. Sexuality – 'Chastity and virginity in Vivien's poetry explicitly refer to lesbian sexuality. In “I Will Stay Virgin” (Sappho, CK) it is clear that virginity does not mean sexual abstinence or inexperience but rather freedom from male sexual experience, which she describes as “the horrible embrace, / And the corroding kiss.”'

c. Creativity – The Female Artist in Kate Chopin's The Awakening, is used to analyze the problem of creativity from a feminist perspective. Woolf's “a room of one's own” is used as a metaphor for 'growing psychic and financial independence.' when Edna 'moves out her husbands house, using money from an inheritance and from the sale of her paintings, into a smaller house of her own. By itself, artistic expression is not sufficient as at the novel's end Edna commits suicide by walking into the sea. In Tomorrow is Another Day:Women Writers in the South, Anne Jones, a feminist, argues “she will not relinquish the core of her vision, which is not finally romance, but rather her own autonomous being ... so she freely goes to the sea, losing her life. But she does not lose herself.”. It is illustrative that Austen could create in a common room, seated at a small desk, lacking ' a room of her own'. Such a view of self is diametrical to Austen's view, to paraphrase, “A man in possession of a fortune is in need of a wife.”

d. Life affirming vs. life denying. - “Though death imagery is characteristic of the poetry of both (Plath / Vivien) these women, neither poet is simply working out a death wish in her verse .... point through death toward the rebirth of a transformed self into a transformed world”. This is pure sophistry, poetic imagery aside, death is absolute. The mind, the seat of self, ceases to exist, hence there is no transformation, no possible rebirth. My emphasis is solely with the contrast of the underlaying morality of Austen. Vivien's feminism is of “there is suffering, unfulfilled desire, death, violets and lilies, the artificial, shadows, lust, that which is cunning, artful, designing, colors which are dark, dull or wan, tombs, transience, tangled nets, water to drown in, weeping, dependence, weary decadence, sickness, frailty and faintness, whores, the corrosive and tainted, cruelty, spring, especially April, anxiety, night, perfume, being trapped, drugs, the drowned or dying lady, one's self as victim or slave.”. Compare it with Austen's social irony.

While I have used only 3 of the 14 essays to illustrate the salient points of feminism, they are sufficient to point out that none of them are present in Austen's novels and that the claim that Austen wrote as a proto-feminst is false. Criticism of laws of inheritance or the lack opportunities for self advancement, even of a patriarchal structure does not make one a feminist. The enumerated criteria of feminist ideology, a - d, would have been abhorrent to Austen regardless of their validity in the 20th. century.

[JBI]

It's an ideological argument, based on belief, not reason. By necessity it's a long argument, so I ask for your patience.
Suppose I would argue that Eve was a proto-feminist. Committing the original sin she challenged a patriarchal deity, hence all women are feminists and all novels written by women are feminists novels. Case for belief. A theory can be disproved if one exception can be found. And I know at least one woman in the Forum who is not a feminist, hence this theory is false.
Case for reason.
However I also know of at least one woman who is a feminist and in the 20th. century there exists a feminist literature. So the question is a bit more complex than of belief vs reason.
In medical diagnosis a number of symptoms are considered before a likelihood of a disease is established. And even here we are left with a best guess, not a theological certainty. So what are the symptoms of a feminist literature? I shall use as a reference, The Female Imagination and the Modern Aesthetic, edited by Gilbert and Gubar. The preface states, “This collection of essays edited by Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar addresses topics that are central to feminist scholarship and gender studies, such as the relationship of female literary tradition to the larger literary context and inner-connection of social and sexual identity with historic and economic events.” With such an imprimatur, there should not be any question that the quotes used to establish the symptoms of a feminists literature are out of context or prejudicial.
а.Misogamy - In the essay, “Drunk with Chastity”: The poetry of Renee Vivien, by Pamela Annas. She quotes from Vivien's novel, A Woman Appeared to Me: “I neither love nor hate men ... What I hold against them is the great wrong they have done to women. They are political adversaries whom I want to injure for the good of the cause. Off the battlefield of ideas, I know them little and am indifferent to them.”. Shorn of poetics the operating principle is: - I want to injure for the good of the cause – hence the disclaimer, I neither love nor hate men, is disingenuous.

b. Sexuality – 'Chastity and virginity in Vivien's poetry explicitly refer to lesbian sexuality. In “I Will Stay Virgin” (Sappho, CK) it is clear that virginity does not mean sexual abstinence or inexperience but rather freedom from male sexual experience, which she describes as “the horrible embrace, / And the corroding kiss.”'

c. Creativity – The Female Artist in Kate Chopin's The Awakening, is used to analyze the problem of creativity from a feminist perspective. Woolf's “a room of one's own” is used as a metaphor for 'growing psychic and financial independence.' when Edna 'moves out her husbands house, using money from an inheritance and from the sale of her paintings, into a smaller house of her own. By itself, artistic expression is not sufficient as at the novel's end Edna commits suicide by walking into the sea. In Tomorrow is Another Day:Women Writers in the South, Anne Jones, a feminist, argues “she will not relinquish the core of her vision, which is not finally romance, but rather her own autonomous being ... so she freely goes to the sea, losing her life. But she does not lose herself.”. It is illustrative that Austen could create in a common room, seated at a small desk, lacking ' a room of her own'. Such a view of self is diametrical to Austen's view, to paraphrase, “A man in possession of a fortune is in need of a wife.”

d. Life affirming vs. life denying. - “Though death imagery is characteristic of the poetry of both (Plath / Vivien) these women, neither poet is simply working out a death wish in her verse .... point through death toward the rebirth of a transformed self into a transformed world”. This is pure sophistry, poetic imagery aside, death is absolute. The mind, the seat of self, ceases to exist, hence there is no transformation, no possible rebirth. My emphasis is solely with the contrast of the underlaying morality of Austen. Vivien's feminism is of “there is suffering, unfulfilled desire, death, violets and lilies, the artificial, shadows, lust, that which is cunning, artful, designing, colors which are dark, dull or wan, tombs, transience, tangled nets, water to drown in, weeping, dependence, weary decadence, sickness, frailty and faintness, whores, the corrosive and tainted, cruelty, spring, especially April, anxiety, night, perfume, being trapped, drugs, the drowned or dying lady, one's self as victim or slave.”. Compare it with Austen's social irony.

While I have used only 3 of the 14 essays to illustrate the salient points of feminism, they are sufficient to point out that none of them are present in Austen's novels and that the claim that Austen wrote as a proto-feminst is false. Criticism of laws of inheritance or the lack opportunities for self advancement, even of a patriarchal structure does not make one a feminist. The enumerated criteria of feminist ideology, a - d, would have been abhorrent to Austen regardless of their validity in the 20th. century.

Feminism is by no means monolithic or static. thereby what feminist means in terms of early 19th century and today are very different. Thereby your proofs, though with some merit, are false, do to the fact that I feel for her time she is somewhat of a feminist, in the sense that she illustrates the "best" character as the one who imbues the most feminist ideals.

In the sense of feminism, the poet Sappho has gone in history as a feminist, yet her point of view (from what can be seen from the fragments and two remaining complete poems) is nothing like what we imagine feminism today.

[Newcomer]

Feminism is by no means monolithic or static. thereby what feminist means in terms of early 19th century and today are very different. Thereby your proofs, though with some merit, are false, do to the fact that I feel for her time she is somewhat of a feminist, in the sense that she illustrates the "best" character as the one who imbues the most feminist ideals.
In the sense of feminism, the poet Sappho has gone in history as a feminist, yet her point of view (from what can be seen from the fragments and two remaining complete poems) is nothing like what we imagine feminism today.

The cited reference - The Female Imagination and the Modern Aesthetic, edited by Gilbert and Gubar is not 19th. century but published in 1986. All of the literary analysis are of works of the 20th. century writers.
Gilbert and Gubar are acknowledged authority on feminism and used in many universities as reference in womens studies. The preface states unambiguously: “This collection of essays edited by Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar addresses topics that are central to feminist scholarship and gender studies, such as the relationship of female literary tradition to the larger literary context and inner-connection of social and sexual identity with historic and economic events.” The qualities used to define the pertinent ideology of feminist literature are not mine but defined in the essays. They are used solely to illustrate the contrast between the feminist ideology and the morality and social values inherent in Austen's work.
They are used also to give concreteness to the nebulous arguments and citation of feminism as used by the majority of the young women on the Forum.
Since you state that “ Thereby your proofs, though with some merit, are false” you will have to give a better argument than “do to the fact that I feel for her time she is somewhat of a feminist, in the sense that she illustrates the "best" character as the one who imbues the most feminist ideals.”.
Have you read The Female Imagination and the Modern Aesthetic and you dispute the premises that Gilbert and Gubar lays out as being out date or false? If so what are your references?
That you feel so is not sufficient, in the mathematical sense of profs, as necessary and sufficient. The statement In the sense of feminism, the poet Sappho has gone in history as a feminist, yet her point of view (from what can be seen from the fragments and two remaining complete poems) is nothing like what we imagine feminism today.. What are the history references that define Sappho as a feminist?I have read Sappho's fragments in translation and with the qualification that the denotation and connotation Archaic Greek words are open to interpretation, nowhere can I find the supposition that Sappho was a feminist.
In If Not Winter – Fragments of Sappho, the poet Anne Carson states “Sappho was a musician. ... Sappho was a poet” nowhere does she suggest that she was a feminist. She continues:”Controversies about her personal ethics and way of life have taken up a lot of people's time through the history of Sapphic scholarship. It seems that she knew and loved women as deeply as she did music. Can we leave the matter there?” Apparently the feminists can not.

[ale]

Feminism is by no means monolithic or static. thereby what feminist means in terms of early 19th century and today are very different. Thereby your proofs, though with some merit, are false, do to the fact that I feel for her time she is somewhat of a feminist, in the sense that she illustrates the "best" character as the one who imbues the most feminist ideals.

In the sense of feminism, the poet Sappho has gone in history as a feminist, yet her point of view (from what can be seen from the fragments and two remaining complete poems) is nothing like what we imagine feminism today.

I completely agree, feminism isn't static, and today it comprehends much more than it used to. at the beginning, it was a movement that supported women's rights, especially their right to vote and to have access to education & profession. Our heroine does not seem to mind not having had formal education (and Lady Catherine disagrees with that) or any kind of employment.
I see what you mean, anyway. For Austen's time, depicting a strong and outspoken female character was, shall we say, cutting edge?. Yet despite her strength, she does not attempt to challenge male domination in any sort of way (I don't mean to say that she should, just that she complies with the 'rules' of her time).
Would you forgive my boldness if I try to draw an analogy between her and Chaucer's Wife of Bath? She's an extremely strong and outspoken character, who does not mind challenging many of the principles of the Church. Yet, we wouldn't call her 'feminist', would we?

[Newcomer]

In the sense of feminism, the poet Sappho has gone in history as a feminist, yet her point of view (from what can be seen from the fragments and two remaining complete poems) is nothing like what we imagine feminism today.

“the poet Sappho has gone in history as a feminist”, surely that is a controversial claim. What is the connection? Lesbian love? In my view that would not be sufficient but to ascertain such a hypothetical, I have reread the fragments, using Anne Carson's translation and these are the only fragments that I found applicable. And only with a stretched imagination.

fragment30 - “night [ / girls / all night long / might sing of the love between you and the bride / with violets in her lap. / wake! And go call / the young men so that / no more than the bird with piercing voice / shall we sleep””

fragment49 - “I loved you, Atthis, once long ago / a little child you seemed to me and graceless.”
see reference.

fragment94 - “I simply want to be dead. / Weeping she left me / with many tears and said this: / O how badly things have turned out for us. / Sappho, I swear, against my will I leave you. / And I answered her: / Rejoice, go and / remember me. For you know how we cherished you. / But if not, I want / to remind you / ] and beautiful times we had. / For many crowns of violets / and roses ] at my side you put on / and many woven garlands / made of flowers / around your soft throat. / And with sweet oil / costly / you anointed yourself / and on a soft bed / delicate / you would let loose your longing / and neither any [ ] nor any / holy place nor / was there from which we were absent / nor grove [ ] no dance / [ ] no sound ]”

fragment 107 - “do I still yearn for my virginity?”

fragment112 - “blessed bridegroom, your marriage just as you prayed / has been accomplished / and you have the bride for whom you prayed / gracious your form and your eyes / as honey: desire is poured upon your lovely face / Aphrodite has honored you exceedingly.”

fragment115 – “to what / O beloved bridegroom may I compare you? / to a slender sapling / most of all / do I compare you”

fragment 121 - “ but if you love us / choose a younger bed / for I cannot bear / to live with you when I am the older one.”

Reference - pg361 If not Winter. A gloss on Atthis in fragment49 – Maximus of Tyre reads the matter philosophically:
The eros of the Lesbian woman – what else could it be than the Sokratic art of love? For they seem to me to have practices love each after their own fashion, she the love of women and he the love of men. They both said they loved many and were captured by all things beautiful. What Alkibeiades and Charmides and Phaidros were to Sokrates, Gyrinna and Atthis and Anaktoria were to the Lesbian woman. And what the rival artist Prodykos and Gorgias and Thrasymachos and Proagoras were to Sokrates, Goro and Andromeda were to Sappho. Sometimes she rebukes them, sometimes she interrogates them and she makes use of irony just like Sokrates. - Orations 18.9

It must be noted that the gloss on Atthis in fragment 49 by Maximus of Tyre was written in 2 AD. almost a century after Sappho and we simply do not know what the reference in the poetry of Sappho were available to him. Yet we can suppose that his interpretation was less tainted by ideology than those of the 18th. century or of the feminist ideology of the 20th.
Of the 189 fragments only fragments 49 and 94 can be viewed as referencing lesbian love, while fragments 30, 112, 115 reference heterosexual love and fragments 107 ,121, undefined eros. Thus 7 fragments out of 189 are not an indication of obsesion with sexuality, much less any possible connection with feminism.
If you shall maintain that my proofs are false, best of luck to provide the claim that your's are true.

[sarabear]

I disagree. The book is hard to get through at certain points, I will give you that, but the complexity of characters and the journey that they take is wonderful. The relationships make the book worth while. But it is all open to ones taste and opinion in novels and literature. I urge you to try it again one day. Your opinion may change.

[bookworm22]

Whoever doesnt read through this book misses on a lot. The adaptations of this literary work are always good, the essense is told but the good feeling is reading the actual book. The beggining I found it a bit confusing but once Lizzy desdains Mr Collins, their argument! was so rich and interesting, you begin to like Lizzy, understand her, feel her. Then when she falls in love with Mr Darcy, and the part of her first encounter with him and who she doesnt want to marry him him kept me pumped up for the rest of the book.

[learntodiscover]

There is an argument about wether she was feminist or otherwise. Although the female protagonist does not do anything out of the norm, she is a very strong character and holds herself together verywell. on the other hand I don't think jane austin was going for the feminist movment when she wrote the story......maybe she just wanted to change the roles woman played in literature at the time; weak, subservient and unimportant.

Then again everyone is allowed to have their views, even if it is indifferent.

[River]

I really disagree. Though the book is a very mature book, and yes it is very hard to read at some parts. But Jane Austen is a fantasic author. It takes good taste to enjoy her literature.

Exactly. Good taste.

[jessy2792]

I loved the movie and the book. Seeing the relationship between Darcy (who in my opinion is the most attracting fictional character I've ever read about) and Lizzy progress.
Austen is one of the best authors I've ever read. Yes, it's hard to get through certain parts of the book, but it's a thousand times worth it. For those who prefer "easy literature", as I call it, this book most certainly wold not be recommendable, but for those who are like me and despise "hollow" literature and appreciate books with something more to it this book surely is great. Hours well spend ;)

[cactus]

I must say that I have only met one guy who truly enjoyed works by Austen or even the Bronte sisters. That was dear Mono oh how I miss him. I think Pride and Prejudice is the ultimate classic romance novel. which is why they have made sooo many movies based on it or even losely based on it. Has anyone watched "You've got mail"? with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, it was based on the P & P. And the new P & P was on the top ten list of movies (top ticket sellers) for months. SO maybe you should try watching it. and for those that dont like the book maybe you just dont have the ability to understand the wit of Austen, a true female genius. Most men dont.

Yes, even Bridget Jones Diary is based on Pride and Prejudice as well. Same type of characters, same plot, different setting and details.

[Newcomer]

On Getting Austen

Yes, even Bridget Jones Diary is based on Pride and Prejudice as well. Same type of characters, same plot, different setting and details.

Shortysweetp (01-16-2006) - “I must say that I have only met one guy who truly enjoyed works by Austen or even the Bronte sisters. That was dear Mono oh how I miss him.... and for those that dont like the book maybe you just dont have the ability to understand the wit of Austen, a true female genius. Most men dont.”

Perhaps the example, “Mr. Darcy. *sigh* There honestly is no man I would rather meet.... he is perfect for Elizabeth in every way possible. Why can't that happen in real life? *sigh*”, is what you had in mind by 'getting it'?

Now I'll readily concede that most men do not gush over Austen. But to imply by 'Most men dont.', that they 'dont have the ability to understand the wit of Austen', is a bit far fetched, if not sexist. Gushing does not equate with understanding and judging by such a criteria, most girls don't. Note – girls, not women, as I think that they have neither the experience nor the comparative knowledge in literature to 'understand' Austen.
To suppose that because the stories end in marriage, Austen is a romance novelist, is to short-change- her. Pun intended. I have read as many incisive, interesting, analyses by men as by women. To name but a few: Harold Bloom in Canonical Memory on Persuasion, Frank Bradbrook on Jane Austen and her Predecessors, lastly but not the least, John Halperin on Jane Austen Bicentenary Essays. This is what I have in mind by 'getting it'.
Perhaps you would like to discuss what Austen meant by asking the 'sisters' to come to the defense of the novel in Northanger Abbey, or whether Emma's marriage is more patriarchal than heterosexual, or whether Elizabeth's values are more to the 'improvement of the estate' than just marrying for love not money, whether Austen identifies more with Marrianne's sensibility than with Elenor's sense, whether the novels have an early and late thematic difference and what such might be?
That is what I would define as a start to 'getting' Austen.
But then you probably were just gushing.

[Newcomer]

To correct the impression that my references were only of male critics, since Shortysweetp said that “Most men dont”, I'll include a very short list of women critics that I found interesting

1) Austen, Eliot, Charlotte Brontë, and the Mentor-lover By Patricia Menon - This lucid and tightly-argued study uses the motif of the mentor-lover--embodying diverse permutations of sexual love, power and judgment--to explore, evaluate and compare the works of Jane Austen, Charlotte Brontë and George Eliot as they contend with issues of sexuality, family, selfhood, freedom, conduct and gender. The figure also provides a means to probe their relationship to the reader as they become mentor-lovers through authorship, each eliciting a different form of love and electing a different style of instruction.

2) “Without Hate, Without Bitterness, Without Fear, Without Protest, Without Preaching”:Virginia Woolf Reads Jane Austen, by JUDITH LEE
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/printed/number12/lee.htm,
a view by a great woman writer on another.

3)And an astonishing overview placing Austen in a historic context,
Bardic Nationalism: The Romantic Novel and the British Empire By Katie Trumpener -This magisterial work links the literary and intellectual history of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Britain's overseas colonies during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries to redraw our picture of the origins of cultural nationalism, the lineages of the novel, and the literary history of the English-speaking world. Katie Trumpener recovers and recontextualizes a vast body of fiction to describe the history of the novel during a period of formal experimentation and political engagement, between its eighteenth-century "rise" and its Victorian "heyday."

[learntodiscover]

I reread the book, fully this time and I must say it was a very fine read. But I can now understand why some people might no be able to take it. It can get boring at times and it is very dificult to read at times but it just depends on wether those stories are your cup of tea or not........oh and darcy, you guys are right he is so perfect...*sigh* and colin firth just played that part so well.

[Amanda29]

I'm sure everyone has heard the cliche - 'Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder'. I believe that can be liberally applied to the readers of P&P, as well. Or to any book, for that matter.

One thing I find myself asking is how anyone who cannot SPELL correctly (as I've noticed in some of these replies) can accurately judge such a literary classic? Can they actually READ this book? I'm not intending to be cruel. After all, P&P is, admittedly, difficult to read in some passages. I just find myself wondering what kinds of people are judging this book.

[Gladys]

Reading it gives me the slow numbing sensation of bleeding to death.True it is that the plot is utterly predictable from beginning to end and that little of significance occurs, but I can't remember another novel where I read the last hundred pages laughing continuously. And yes, that includes all the sad bits!

I recently heard 'Pride and Prejudice' described as the comedy equivalent of 'King Lear' or 'Hamlet'. So true. :lol:

[Sir Bartholomew]

at least you didn't have the guts to say "it sucked", it's fine that you didn't like it. nobody can please everyone.

[kelby_lake]

I can understand why it wouldn't appeal to men. I've only flicked through it but I liked it. It wasn't how I expected it would be.

[Gladys]

Haven't some men a sense of humour too?

[JBI]

I can understand why it wouldn't appeal to men. I've only flicked through it but I liked it. It wasn't how I expected it would be.

It does appeal to men, men just don't appreciate it. I can see no reason why a man who is honest with himself should have difficulty enjoying any work, be it written by man or woman. That's like saying women shouldn't read Faulkner because he was male. {edit}

[kelby_lake]

You misunderstand! I never said they shouldn't read it, I'm just saying that it has more of a 'feminine wit' and feminine appeal.

[amanda_isabel]

Haven't some men a sense of humour too?


The only question is if their sense of humor holds together in front of Jane Austen's :D

I enjoyed P&P despite some of the (headache-inducing) passages, and I admit I was sorry to read the last page. (It's kinda hard to let go of Mr. Darcy, lol!) But hey, I don't think there is one single thing that appeals to everyone universally.

And, an observation: This thread was begun with, "I hope there are not people enjoying this book" or something like that. A little too much, in my opinion, but hey, that's what it is: an opinion.

[Equality72521]

It's easy to see why some men don't like Pride and Prejudice, but there are a few who do enjoy it. It is more of a feminine wit but it can appeal to both sexes.

"i REALLY hope there are not people out there who actually enjoy reading pride and prejudice. Because that is sad. I found more intelligent social comment in the Daily Star. For gods sake, this book makes me want to stab my self repeatedly with something rusty. It makes me wanna scratch out my eyes. Reading it gives me the slow numbing sensation of bleeding to death."

This was the first post in this thread and it's a bit extreme. I mean, I can understand someone not liking the novel, but I think wanting to stab oneself repeatedly with something rusty is kind of far. I dislike a lot of books, but Pride and Prejudice is definately not a book that should make someone want to kill themselves, but whatever melts your butter.

[Jozanny]

Quite a heated thread, so much so that I am a tad nervous posting to it, but what I will post is that I am closer to a centrist position than the love/hate camps.

I enjoy Austen, but only up to a point. She doesn't vary much from the formula

girl meets boy
girl has long association with boy
boy has head turned, girl licks wounds (or boy)
wounds cleared up
girl marries soul mate

That said, Emma remains an over-riding favorite, with one caveat: Her marriage to Knightly was never intended to be taken seriously (I agree with Wayne Booth here)-- but for me, the faux pas ending gives the novel a grandiose conflation which weakens it.

I will pass on the feminist debate--but I don't think it matters. Her talent transcends the isms of modern advocacy.

[black butterffl]

This was the first post in this thread and it's a bit extreme. I mean, I can understand someone not liking the novel, but I think wanting to stab oneself repeatedly with something rusty is kind of far. I dislike a lot of books, but Pride and Prejudice is definately not a book that should make someone want to kill themselves, but whatever melts your butter.


nicely said my friend :D :D good work :D

[Dobie]

No book (movie, picture, song, etc...) that someone somewhere enjoys is a bad book. A person has not the right to make that decision, however, anyone may express their opinion as an opinion, not a fact.

Personally, I LOVE P&P. I didn't find any part of it boring, slow, or hard to read.

I can, however, appreciate even the books my teenage boys read because they like them.........though they are definitely not my cup of tea.

Read what you like, and let others do the same without insult.
Remember.........somebody somewhere thinks your book is stupid too!

[aBIGsheep]

I didn't find any part of it boring, slow, or hard to read.


For the most part, that's all that this book is to me.

But that's just me of course. The wording in the book is so odd; its all over the place. You could take out almost 4 words (give or take a few) in the sentences and it'd be so much easier to understand.
Its the same thing with the dialogue. Most of the book is comprised of dialogue and its really easy to lose track of who's talking if you try and read quickly.

But what do I know. I'm just another guy.

[Dobie]

For the most part, that's all that this book is to me.

But that's just me of course. The wording in the book is so odd; its all over the place. You could take out almost 4 words (give or take a few) in the sentences and it'd be so much easier to understand.
Its the same thing with the dialogue. Most of the book is comprised of dialogue and its really easy to lose track of who's talking if you try and read quickly.

But what do I know. I'm just another guy.

Hey,........That's OK.......Don't beat yourself up for something you can't change....I LIKE guys! (most of the time)
Anyhow, some things might change with age.
Though I read a lot when I was,say,....a schoolgirl, I wasn't quite as fond of this book or others like it. I still read many of the same things (Koontz, Jeffrey Archer,.....etc), but I read a lot more Historical Fiction than I did then.
You know what? I didn't like beer the first time I had it either. Now,.....well,.....I guess I've acquired a taste!

[kiki1982]

At some points it was hilarious, particularly in the beginning. Laughing out loud during reading was especially hard on my husband... It became really a little too long when you knew Elizabeth had refused Darcy and you wanted to know what happened next... Maybe it would have been better if I hadn't known what had to happen afterwards (the wedding of Darcy and Elizabeth). I read the pages before her visit to Pemberley with great eagerness to arrive at the page where Darcy came on again...

I can understand that some people don't like it. It is really kind of drawn out, without action, but the characters make up for that. It is a great course in the system of courtship. The system is featured in other books, but never so much described as this! That's what probably made the survive for so long.

[Gladys]

At some points it was hilarious, particularly in the beginning. Particularly towards the end.

[Amanda29]

Yes, some men do like P & P. My husband does. He's 43 yrs. old, but he liked it even as a younger man. He's a history buff, who enjoys not only learning about historical time periods, but also reading (their modern-day) lit.

If you've ever studied Jane Austen's works, then you know that her books were considered humorous parodies of the day, meant to poke fun at certain attitudes and to show the snobbiness that could be found in most of the British social classes.

I agree with what several people have said on this post. These types of historical books, written in early 19th century English, are not everyone's cup of tea. It is difficult to read if you don't have the patience. Also, for those who like a clean copy when they read, these books tend to be elaborate in their wording - a bit fussy.

For all it's worth, I have to say that Pride and Prejudice is my fav from all of Jane's works.

[smile_yay456]

I agree i would like to burn every copy there is :P
Hmmm maybe not but its so dull .. but then maybe thats because i am being forced to study it at Alevel !!

[kacsing]

i REALLY hope there are not people out there who actually enjoy reading pride and prejudice. Because that is sad. I found more intelligent social comment in the Daily Star. For gods sake, this book makes me want to stab my self repeatedly with something rusty. It makes me wanna scratch out my eyes. Reading it gives me the slow numbing sensation of bleeding to death.

Tell us what you REALLY think!

[xlxlauraxlx]

Well i quite liked it actually lol :) I can admit it is somewhat a bit long so I post noted all the most enjoyable bits so I can read the best bits again and again. Although i did LOVE it.

[Reread]

[QUOTE=Stanislaw;149107]I suppose, however, the book seesm to be a very male dominated story, and the only goal the women have is to marry a richguy...regardless of love.
To me it appears to be an almost anti-feminist book (the happy ending is that the main character marries rich)QUOTE]

The point of pride and prejudace is that Elizabeth wants to marry for love - NOT MONEY- but money is essential in a marrige during that time period and Elizabeth's parents weren't exactly rolling in it. It is a happy ending because Elizabeth falls in love, and luckily the guy has money. She turns down Collins not because he was poor-he wasn't- but because the guy was a total boob and she did not love him. The ending is happy because Elizabeth fufills her sense of duty to her parents by marrying well and to herself because she didn't compromise her feelings in the process

[Silas Thorne]

I didn't really like Pride and Prejudice either, although I can't deny Austen's wonderful abilities at characterisation and description.

Maybe Austen is not everyone's bowl of squirrels.

I'll try and read it again sometime and see if my opinions change.

[faithalina]

Perhaps one of the greatest aspects of Austen's writing is her ability to capture and bring to life not only an individual's personality, but that of an entire village...whether they be sensible or ridiculous. Austen was very aware of the time in which she lived, and the very limited exposure women had to the world beyond their town, and this is evident in her writing. The every day intricacies and non-events that must be commented on and made a fuss of by her characters merely highlight, in my opinion, her attitude towards the expectations held by her peers that women should stay at home and wait for a man with money to 'save' them. For, what else was there, but to gossip and eat and gossip some more until their saviour came?

While this image may seem ridiculously outdated and irrelevant by today's standards, the fact is, there are still men and women equally as stupid, proud or prejudiced that walk this world, waiting to be 'saved'...and in the meantime, they gossip and eat and gossip some more...

Austen's happy endings portray an 'ideal', however, I do not believe it was the ideal she held for herself, entirely. Her mind and her art were her saviour and that in itself speaks volumes about the kind of person she was. Interestingly, Austen's heroines are generally very independent and strong willed, which is to be admired even today. But, does having a will and a mind of one's own mean that one must forgo things such as marriage and a 'traditional' way of life?

Lizzie (my favourite Austen character) presents a happy medium whereby, as mentioned by Reread, she is able to satisfy everyone, by being true to herself. Of course, such fortune does not meet everyone, and therein lies the injustice!

[Chap]

Ok for those of you who dislike Pride and Prejudice, perhaps this could be an improvement:

Actual book on Amazon mind you:

http://ideaity.com/archive/pride-prejudice-zombies/

[BroThadeus]

I am a 39 yr old male who just finished reading a number of Stephen King novels and needed a break from the Greek tragedy aspects...
My niece claimed this to be her favorite novel and so I decided to give it a shot.
I was bored to tears at the beginning, but did get into the swing of things once Bingley left for London. I started to find that I was interested in the back and forth when it would occur (which was too seldom in my opinion).

Overall I would rate this as readable and enjoyable, but not recommended. I feel for those forced to read it for school purposes. It must have been dreadful at that age.

Following in the same vein of High School assigned reading, I have now picked up To Kill A Mockingbird... we'll see.

~Thadeus

[Gladys]

I started to find that I was interested in the back and forth when it would occur (which was too seldom in my opinion).Half-way through the novel I began to see that every second sentence is loaded in some way - Austen's irony. I soon found myself laughing all the way to the end. That, in my opinion, is a thoroughly good read.

[merlyn]

I have always loved Pride and prejudice. I picked it up while reshelving book in my school library six years ago and I have been a devout fan ever since. While I admittedly prefer Persuaion, P&P has always just held that happy-making quality that makes me smile inside. I never quite grasped the fact that there was much to dislike about it until my kid sister had to read it for a school project and she absolutely detested it.

[BookWorm_x]

What? How could you think that of Pride and Prejudice? It is an amazing novel!!!!
Firstly, the novel marks a great stance in feminism, Elizabeth Bennett is such tremendous character. She's exactly the type of character that Georgian and Victorian literature needed. Look at novels like Jane Eyre. Jane has no idea how stand up for herself like Lizzie does! It shows a great deal about Austen's belief's. She ought to be greatly admired for publishing such a novel in the time period!!
Pride and Prejudice is an terrific book....it is full of great characters, and the plot is fantastic. Not only is one of the best love stories of all time, but it shows what life was like for Georgian/Victorian women. The fact that the Bennett women can not be supported if Mr Bennett died, Mr Collins can turn them out at his will, shows this.
Sorry, but I just can not agree with you at all.

[kiki1982]

While I do agree about the greatness of that novel, I find the feminist idea greatly exaggerated... Because of the feminist prejudice of some critics, P&P has been exploited so that no-one can actually see anymore what its real purpose really was... Satire. The fact that Collins could turn all the Bennets out of the house after Mr Bennet's death and the entailment were a perfectly normal thing then and I don't think that those things can be called ciritcism on Austen's part, not even the fact that their only concern seems to be a rich hubby. If only because Austen was part of that world and she did not know better. We do not think it is fair, though, but who are we as modern readers to question something normal in its historic context?

The 'marriage for love'-concept had been around for a while. Defoe goes for it already. Although it takes a great mind to think outside of what one is used to and is supposed to find normal, I wouldn't say that Austen was a critic. Otherwise she would have written essays and not mere satires.

Jane of Brontë's Jane Eyre was a self-conscious woman all the same. Maybe different, but that is obviously down to her education (and that of her creator) and the Victorian idea of women which was silghtly different. Her prupose is also not the same as Lizzie's, or it is not supposed to be anyway. I mean, she doesn't go out to look for a husband, she goes out to work and does not count on the fact of finding one, not being aware even of the worth of love to her personally.

The whole set-up of the purpose is different. Where Lizzie wants to marry for love, but is not sure what to look for, maybe is not even sure of what love is (see her first discussion with Jane about 'what a young man should be'), Jane does not even know about it, she is not even familiar with the concept 'man'; so bad that Mrs Fairfax sees the need to regularly warn her about Rochester. Marriage is a very far thing for her, and she is not even considering it, whether for love or money. Until of course Rochester steps into her way... The purpose of Jane Eyre is development, also for Rochester, where the purpose for Lizzie is that only secondarily. Both Darcy and she (and even Bingley) go through a process, but that is only secondary and probably because that was the fashion in writing, it is not a main subject. It could possibly also be a part of the satire: a satire of everything, even models in plots as Austen had a stab at that too in Northanger Abbey... The primary aim is satire in people and ways of society, which are sometimes absolutely ridiculous.

[Gladys]

Although I see germs of feminism in the rather serious Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice is satire of the most amusing variety. Jane aspires while Lizzie is fussy though prejudiced.

[Ecurb]

Jane Eyre is a strange feminist, if indeed she is one at all. She loves a tyrannical, autocratic would-be bigamist, who keeps his wife locked as a prisoner in the attic. Rochester has to be the least attractive hero in literature, let alone in feminist literature.

Austen was a satirist -- but she was also a realist. Sir Walter Scott, her exact contemporary, was one of the most popular novelists in history (in terms of the percentage of novels sold). Nonetheless, the novel did not develop in his direction (the "big bow wow" style that he mentions when praising Austen) -- it developed in Austen's direction.

[kiki1982]

I agree with that assessment of Austen v Scott. Read both, and Scott is just that little tad more 18th century. A lot of words, a lot of feelings etc, but not simple like Austen.

Though I do also agree on the strange feminism of Jane Eyre, I disagree with the fact that Rochester would be the least attractive hero... Oh my God! I think, if he were around today, you'd see the women flock! But I think that's more down to his blind version than the one which he is before, although, Byron seemed to have a lot of success and the two are definitely very similar.

[Ecurb]

Scott belonged to an older, romantic tradition. His novels are more akin to Epics than Austen's are. I love Scott (although not as much as Austen). His villians are more eloquent than any other writer's heros. From memory (so the quote may not be exactly right), I remember Du Bois Gilbert trying to talk Rebecca into running off and marrying him. Her options were either that, or being burned at the stake, so the offer was tempting. Nonetheless, Rebecca worried that once they ran off together, Du Bois might renege on his promise of marriage.

"All the laws of God and man have I broken," says the Templar. "But my promised word... Never!"

Austen's heroes eschew fine speeches -- "If I loved you less I might be able to speak about it more..." says Knightley.

He who fears bombast will never rise to eloquence, wrote some critic whose name I've forgotten. No doubt Scott was eloquent, as were his heroes and villians. Austen avoided bombast, but noone, I think, would accuse her of lacking eloquence.

[HarperR]

I see a troll in the house.
But seriously, I'm reading it right now. I'm not usually one for anything with romance but I love it, and I can see myself reading Austen's other works.
(I'll admit- I only started reading because everyone was saying how swoon-worthy Darcy was. I was like "All right, let me read the da** thing. And now I love it and can't stop reading.)

[tetyanaroi]

I like the way you express yourself. And you're absolutely right about Prude and Prejudice. BOOOOOR-ING!
I completely agree that the book is BORING but we should remember the time it was written and published...Jane Austen tried to manifest the Social concepts of the 18-19th century. Money, position in life even attractiveness...all of that was on the pedestral but not LOVE...That's true:nod:
In my opinion, Pride and Prejudice is really the classics of all times:nod:

[darcys-tango]

If I may express a view as a new poster:

Once an understanding of Pride and Prejudice is attained it is far from boring. The fact that it is so universally, massively popular two-hundred years after its writing must surely testify that boring is a rather harsh and indeed untrue title. I can well understand anyone preferring not to like it from personal preference, but boring? Having read the book in the distant past together with other Jane Austen works (and I admit to finding it hard going at first), my interest was renewed by the BBC series to the extent of buying the DVD's, another copy of the book and later the Keira Knightly film version, all of which I have spent countless hours watching and reading and still do.

Watching the BBC series decidedly fired my interest back towards the book and I have read it many dozen times since, know it inside out and it is a constant companion on my bookshelf. I will conceed that its charm comes mainly from an adult happy-ending story, but the characters and Jane Austen's manipulation of them is literary joy for myself as a male devotee. A tale of romance that is exquisitely sensual rather than blatantly sexual-as so many are today- is something worthy of far more than one reading and a title of boring. The multi-thousands who belong to Austen societies and forums all over the globe contest that it is anything less than magical.

Boring ladies and gentlemen, dam...that's insupportable.:wink5: