Tell us what you REALLY think!Quote:
Originally Posted by bob
Printable View
Tell us what you REALLY think!Quote:
Originally Posted by bob
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While this image may seem ridiculously outdated and irrelevant by today's standards, the fact is, there are still men and women equally as stupid, proud or prejudiced that walk this world, waiting to be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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BroThadeus
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 Brontė'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.