Printable View
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.
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 like the way you express yourself. And you're absolutely right about Prude and Prejudice. BOOOOOR-ING!
It has nothing to do with intellect. If a man has a pulse, he's qualified to dislike this book.
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 ;).
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:
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps it's because it was written by a woman and is about stereotypical, "woman's" issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebiird
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 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"Quote:
Originally Posted by emily655321
some books are just poor.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
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.
Has anyone noticed that this whole thread was started by a guest? Isn't that just typical
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
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
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
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. :)
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.Quote:
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.
Jane also married Bingly in love, the fact that he was rich was a help but they were most definatly in love.
I'd just like to point out that I didn't say that, Stan did.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by malwethien
Maybe that's why a lot of people don't like them?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
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...?
Sorry, only just noticed this.
Are you implying that people don’t like to think? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by malwethien
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by malwethien
Yes I think I would have to agree with you on that :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
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.
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.
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.
'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.
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandini
I’m a Welsh Valleys council estate boy myself and I love reading her. She’s as vicious as Jimmy Porter at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandini
Have you read any Tony Harrison? You aren’t that skinhead in V are you? :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
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.
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.
It doesn't sound to me as if you have read the book, or even an accurate summary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
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.
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.
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'.