Pride & Prejudice: Thank God It's Free...

[TacoButt]

I am on chapter 16 and THISSSSSSSS close to chucking it.

All I see is a bunch of petty social drama...he said this so I don't like him...she wants this so I will thwart her...he likes her so I am jealous...

I thought this was classic literature, not 19th century's version of facebook.

Should I finish this novel? Why is this such cherished literature? I feel like, as in the example of the Grateful Dead, I am totally missing the boat here. A billion fans can't be wrong.

Thank you for any efforts you are willing to provide!

[kelby_lake]

It's a comedy of manners. How relationships worked in the 19th century.

[Drkshadow03]

I am on chapter 16 and THISSSSSSSS close to chucking it.

All I see is a bunch of petty social drama...he said this so I don't like him...she wants this so I will thwart her...he likes her so I am jealous...

I thought this was classic literature, not 19th century's version of facebook.

Should I finish this novel? Why is this such cherished literature? I feel like, as in the example of the Grateful Dead, I am totally missing the boat here. A billion fans can't be wrong.

Thank you for any efforts you are willing to provide!

Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorite books. I like the petty social drama elements that you're disliking. It's a love story, more about marriage than love, but it also has philosophical implications like how people misjudge another person based on first impressions. Austen in her books explore love and the many different reasons people engage in relationships: social climbing, true love, not wanting to be a spinster.

Austen's ironic almost tongue-in-cheek tone is infamous. The tone of her narrative almost pokes fun at her characters, while being sympathetic to them.

I think you're right that you can view the ideas explored as Facebook drama, but then again you could also view Hamlet as mere emo-whiny over daddy-issues.

I suppose I am left wondering what you think classic literature is supposed to be like?

[TacoButt]

I suppose I am left wondering what you think classic literature is supposed to be like?

That's a fair question! My "pride and prejudice" is coming out here, I guess.

So, my favorite books are ones that help me see life differently. They present a subtle way of viewing reality which can be earth-shattering if I choose to embrace it fully.

I just got done with Moby Dick and I really appreciated Ishmael's ruminations and commentaries on life, God, and a human's perspective compared with the depths of the oceans and the stretch of time since creation began, etc.

I like writers who write about things which transcend the pedestrian concerns of day-to-day existence and point my view toward a larger pattern that I am a small part of.

P&P seems to (so far) revel and delight in the lowest and most transitory aspects of human life...relationship dynamics of status, attraction, power and manipulation.

I am glad to hear you say that there are philosophical implications in this novel and wonderful insights. I want to GET what this novel has to offer. I am sorry to seem so negative about things. I shouldn't post when I am recently feeling disgusted and frustrated with a book.

Thanks for replying!

[cyberbob]

Well it might be petty social drama, but petty social drama by one of the best of all time.

If Hollywood had writers like Austen on staff, soap operas might be the highest form of art!

[Drkshadow03]

That's a fair question! My "pride and prejudice" is coming out here, I guess.

So, my favorite books are ones that help me see life differently. They present a subtle way of viewing reality which can be earth-shattering if I choose to embrace it fully.

I just got done with Moby Dick and I really appreciated Ishmael's ruminations and commentaries on life, God, and a human's perspective compared with the depths of the oceans and the stretch of time since creation began, etc.

I like writers who write about things which transcend the pedestrian concerns of day-to-day existence and point my view toward a larger pattern that I am a small part of.

P&P seems to (so far) revel and delight in the lowest and most transitory aspects of human life...relationship dynamics of status, attraction, power and manipulation.

I am glad to hear you say that there are philosophical implications in this novel and wonderful insights. I want to GET what this novel has to offer. I am sorry to seem so negative about things. I shouldn't post when I am recently feeling disgusted and frustrated with a book.

Thanks for replying!

I think you're comment that P&P "revel[s] and delight[s] in the lowest and most transitory aspects of human life...relationship dynamics of status, attraction, power and manipulation" is spot-on actually. Of course, I think she develops some of these issues into transcendental ones. After all, power and manipulation is eternal. Certainly, Moby Dick deals with power and manipulation among other things.

Austen never directly gets into deep philosophical issues, but I do think it's the implication of her narrative and a lot have critics have commented along these lines.

From what I'm hearing though you might not like Austen. David Denby in his book, The Great Books, had a good chapter on Pride and Prejudice. A lot of criticism of her work, although not the best necessarily, is available online.

[TacoButt]

Well it might be petty social drama, but petty social drama by one of the best of all time.

If Hollywood had writers like Austen on staff, soap operas might be the highest form of art!

I'd like to see a soap opera that had the usual characters but absolutely no dialogue in it. Just eyebrow movements and pipe organ music.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm certainly not suggesting you watch the DVD over the book, but the BBC version of this is about the greatest thing the BBC have ever produced. Wonderful, highly recommended.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pride-Prejud...6866162&sr=8-1

[kiki1982]

Ok, so it's no use telling you that it is great. You know that a billion (probably a gazilion if you write that like that) are fans, you also know you 'should' like it, but you don't, so what's wrong?

I like it, but that's not a valid argument either anyway.

So... Firstly, get yourself familiarised with the rules of the day. They were really ridiculous: one could not marry anyone outside one's class because that was an affront, one could cheat on one's partner in marriage if only it was discreet, one could not introduce oneself to anyone without prior formal acquaintance (I am at a loss how one got those acquaintances ), one could not tell nasty things about another even if they were true (sad, because other people got cheated like you as well), men were valued by their income a year and such are a bit like game that can be shot (who will get the biggest ), one must impress no matter what and one must certainly be nice to everyone, particularly to the richest people desite them maybe being nasty, one had to be witty which meant essentially being able to insult someone in the most elegant way possible... Certainly saying something and then denying it in the same breath or comparing the thing to something really trivial is the thing to do... But you have to learn to get that, as I found it a bit tricky at first, but I acquired a taste for it (I am not anglophone).

If you'd like any more info on manners and societal things in Austen's day and books, go here. It has links about all sorts of things.

Most of all, I find that the people who walk around in the Austen novels are so amazinly alike to the people I meet on the street today. People who always agree with anyone else despite those opinions differing like heaven and earth, people calling their acquaintances friends straight away (hello Facebook!), people who are overconcerned with themselves and like to talk about themselves incessantly, etc etc. It is no matter that she wrote those stories in the early 19th century, the people in that society were the very same.

I would say, take your time and maybe look at the former chapters again and try to get what is said. It may be a matter of not feeling the humour that is in that work (and in the rest of Austen).

Otherwise, it may not be for you, who knows

And yes, the BBC 1995 version is absolutely great, but a bit serious in places (not out of place, though). Only for the wet shirt you should do it (sorry Mr Firth). You could take a look at LOst in Austen for more fun, but I think that it is better to read the novel first.

[TacoButt]

(good stuff)

Thank you for your great reply. You really took the time to explain what's in that novel and what's going on, which I am grateful for.

I think I'll try to stick it out with an open mind. Maybe I will at least get literary karma points or something.

[Seasider]

P&P seems to (so far) revel and delight in the lowest and most transitory aspects of human life...relationship dynamics of status, attraction, power and manipulation.
Thanks for replying!

No to relationships.status.attraction, power and manipulation??!!!

What's your life about then??

[TacoButt]

No to relationships.status.attraction, power and manipulation??!!!

What's your life about then??

Well, that's the point. I wouldn't WRITE a novel about my life.

[kiki1982]

You see you get it already . That's the point!

It was I think Scott (a contemporary of Austen and revered writer if you don't happen to know him) who said that she had the most essential quality of a writer, namely keeping the attention of her reader... No matter what trivial stuff she writes.

I concede, it is trivial but that is probably one aspect of tht irony: we are not reading a gripping story like there were in the 19th century, we are just reading about the man in the street (the middle-class street at any rate ). Austen is not about great philosophy (although it is worth reading Davies's writing approach to the 1995 adaptation of P&P on wikipedia), but she is terribly fun if you get her. And even funnier when you read her again. As you then know the plot the assertions that some characters come up with . If they had known, they'd never show their face again.

On Pemberley.com, there was this quote as a great example of her irony:

"After long thought and much perplexity, to be very brief was all that she could determine on with any confidence of safety." (Northanger Abbey, Austen's first)

You see, that is hilarious. Catherine, I think it must be, has to think very long and hesitate very long in order to finally firmly decide that she must be brief in order to be safe. As if she could not have thought about that earlier... Austen does these absurd associations constantly.

oh, and you must also remember that Austen writes in 'free indirect speech', which is a kind of strange way of writing dialogue in full text. It is not direct speech (i.e. he said, 'Are you coming') and not indirect speech (i.e. 'he said that he was coming'), but a combination of the two (have a look on wikipedia). She uses it often when putting thoughts of certain characters on the page or as a voice for the general public, where it works sio lifelike. So you can constantly 'hear' the tone changing when you read it (or at least I do).

[TacoButt]

Thanks, Kiki...I did research a bit while getting started and learned a bit about "free indirect speech" techniques and Austen's manner of conveying character tone through multiple "channels."

I will hang in there with it. So far I am not too enchanted with the main character. She seems to be no better than any of the others. The quote you mentioned about the character choosing her words strategically and dealing with her own lack of social cleverness...it's funny in a sad sort of way, but the narrator is also JUDGING the character and exploiting her lack of ability to create humor. I wish, Austen would judge or criticize the ridiculous land gentry social system and its wicked machinery instead of those who are poor at struggling to navigate it.

And the reader is supposed to roll their eyes at Mr. Collins' cluelessness? I like him and feel sorry for him. God bless the clueless! From my understanding, Einstein, Copernicus, Tesla, Mendel, Newton were all socially clueless.

[kiki1982]

I understand your point, but they are all the system, though. The system is made by the people, there is no system from the moment people decide there is no sytem, yet everyone seems convinced that there is a system which they should uphold for some silly reason.

Mr Collins is a bit of a sad character because, he is socially clueless, but also because he is hypnotised by class despite being a small fish himself. I mean, he is going to inherit a mere 2000 pounds a year (a fortune/estate of about 20,000 pounds, approximately 750,000 pounds in today's money). And a curacy which brought in nearly nothing. But because he has a perpetual curacy at Rosings (for ever, until his death upon which his wife and children will be destitue if he has no male heir), he imagines himself somehow part of that high society. Nothing is less true. His curacy cannot be worth more than about 1000 or even 500 pounds a year and he will have to live on that with his family until Bennet passes away upon which he will have to care for everyone else who is unmarried as well, if he marries one of the Bennets. The manner in which he says he will take a wife (thanks for asking!) from the Bennet girls is a bit insulting. It's like saying, 'I'll take one of you, because otherwise all of you and your mother will be destitute if Mr Bennet dies. There, there. Don't worry." And then he comes in and really samples the place, as if thinking, 'When will all this be mine? Ooh, what a nice cupboard, I think I'll put my shirts in that one when Mr Bennet has passed on...' He choose Jane, but then doesn't seem to be too sad when Jane is 'taken' already, so moves on to Lizzie. His love must have been very great... What a marriage. And would anyone want to live with such a pedantic talker? Not even Charlotte as it seems.

Ok, Einstein, and his consorts were socially clueless, but... at least there was more in their heads than mere empty words and class reverence.