i didn't like pride and prejudice

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Exactly. Good taste.

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 ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

On Getting Austen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cactus

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.

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/pri...mber12/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."

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob

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:

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.

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.

Haven't some men a sense of humour too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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}

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Equality72521

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

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dobie

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aBIGsheep

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

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

---

Particularly towards the end.

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.

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 !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Tell us what you REALLY think!

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.

[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

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.

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!

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/

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BroThadeus

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.