"Of all the great writers, (Jane Austen) is the most difficult to pin down in the act of greatness" - Virginia Woolf.
Printable View
"Of all the great writers, (Jane Austen) is the most difficult to pin down in the act of greatness" - Virginia Woolf.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
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]
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
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".
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.
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob
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.
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.
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
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.
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
It's an ideological argument, based on belief, not reason. By necessity it's a long argument, so I ask for your patience.Quote:
Originally Posted by ale
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.