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

[TacoButt]

kiki, I like reading your posts and appreciate the dialogue.

I would not put Mr. Collins in the same class as Einstein, et al. Those who eschew social conventions to set their sights higher are usually fascinating models of character. Mr. Collins is not that...he still, nevertheless, gets my sympathy.

You said this:

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.

This is a profound idea that I see COULD fuel a timeless classic of literature. Is this what is going on in Pride and Prejudice?

Maybe I have the wrong idea, but it seems that the narrator is upholding the system for some silly reason. As to the idea that Elizabeth is outside the system and providing the commentary on it, I don't quite buy that.

[kiki1982]

Elizabeth is not really outside the system, she is definitely middle class. I mean, she is poorer than Darcy, say, and as such should not marry him (he should marry inside his sphere, paradocically, say a Miss Bingley, who has about the same fortune as him, 30,000 pounds as a dowry), but the Bennets are people of leisure, they don't have to work to support themselves. So she is part of that system and needs to 'catch' a hubby. Her sphere is a curate (modest, secure income and of enough standing in the community, despite the lack of money really)) or a member of the militia (a potential to rise or make a fortune and a dashing uniform).

She is a bit strange in that she refuses Mr Collins on perfectly normal grounds (imagine living with a man 24 hours a day and not even liking him), though there not being enough men due to the Napoleonic Wars. However she really ensures that the family will have to leave the house upon Mr Bennet's death as Mr Collins will inherit it. She knows that.

I don't think any of Austen's heroins really are outside-outside the system. Of course Lizzie believes she is quite independent thinking, but she is really more in it than she wants to admit as she has been raised in that society. Darcy, for example, defies the system and his aunt for Lizzie (I am sure you know that), but still has to conquer his own feelings first. In that, his first proposal is absolutely hilarious. Despite it not really seeming like that at first. Although she is quite independent (like her father), Lizzie still has very conservative views about hubbies and what young men should be. I.e. pleasant etc like Bingley. Darcy is insufferable... BUt who is the better and more interesting man?

I think, in mocking all the effects of that perverse system (Wickham is important as well in that respect), Austen really implicitly mocked the idea that everyone around her supported this very system. If she were to ask anyone why, they would probably only come up with 'tradition'. But what is 'tradition'? It is only there because the generation before her, and the one before that, and the one before etc etc 'decided' on that. You can't even really call it 'deciding', because everyone takes it from the other. It is an illusion that one is free despite everyone professing that he/she is. That is what Lost in Austen picked up on and what Mr Bennet, I think, knows so much that he locks himself up in his library in an attempt to forget it all...

Not that Austen's books really have a clear message on their own, in terms of the story and symbolic stuff, though (although it is worth noting the description of Pemberley as that carries the only real symbolism in P&P). She writes light-hearted stuff. Certainly worthy of reading, but thinking about it requires, in my opinion, more knowledge about the world she lived in, and more critical thought than a book with a clear message as she implicitly criticises not explicitly.

I think it takes a special person to be able to think critically about things which are commonplace. Most people do not understand what you mean if you explain such thoughts. They are puzzled (have experience).

[TacoButt]

Much appreciate your comments again, kiki. I wonder what writer is the "Jane Austen of today," who tours the reader through the maze of upper-crust society? Maybe Truman Capote?

[Seasider]

I have always thought it a very interesting aspect of Elizabeth's character that she refused Mr Collins because she recoiled from the idea of spending the rest of her life with an insufferable prig and toady. Even though the effect of her decision will be to reduce her mother and sisters to lives of poverty at worst and dependency at best, did not cause her any qualms of guilt apparently. And Mr Bennett who most critics scold for his selfishness and laziness,supports his daughter, though the fact that he himself being deceased, will not be affected.

When I think about P&P nowadays I realise that I never gave sufficient weight to the fact that Elizabeth Bennett was probably only 20 years old and still had the courage to follow her own principles. I think her determination to demand that D'Arcy treat her as a person of equal worth and merit despite the difference in their social and economic standing was so commendable. She used no wiles to get D'Arcy's love and respect. And not even the threats of Lady Catherine de Burgh could frighten her. A True Heroine

[kiki1982]

I am convinced the reason why Mr Bennet supports his daughter in refusing Mr Collins (despite all the conequences), is because he knows what a bad marriage is like. He allegedly married his wife because she was a great beauty, but really has nothing in common with her. He wishes, I think, that he had married another who was more intelligent and whom he could have (better) conversation with. Or maybe someone with more money, as that would have made things that little bit easier in terms of better society. As it is, he has no advantages and is stuck with a bunch of uneducated daughters, no son (in those days I believe still a woman's business) and a wife who is oblivious to anything really serious apart from a marriage for her daughters. And he has to go and court almost any man new in the town of Meriton to secure him for one of his daughters. That's really a sad life isn't it?

One would be unhappy for less.

He does not want Lizzie in the same position because she is like him. She mocks now, but she would become cynical like him when unhappy.

[mal4mac]

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!

Critics like F. R. Leavis and Ian Watts declared that Austen was one of the great writers of English fiction, suggesting that she combined Henry Fielding's and Samuel Richardson's qualities of interiority and irony, realism and satire to form an author superior to both.

But as you are not appreciating her irony, realism and satire then you should chuck her.

Actually I didn't read any of these critics, or any LitNet analysis, before reading Austen - who I *greatly* enjoy.

But after reading more than fifty pages and wanting to chuck her, you should chuck her.

There are thousands of authors out there who you might actually like reading!

But try coming back to Austen in a few years time, you might like reading her then. I did that with Cervantes and it worked!

I also missed the boat with the Grateful Dead - I don't intend to try and catch that boat again, though - Mahler seems a much richer seam - try his 4th (Szell) for starters - one day I might get his 6th....

[TacoButt]

But as you can't appreciate her irony, realism and satire then you should chuck her.

Your post helps me understand a bit more, thanks. I am skeptical about literary critics, though. Don't they tend to form "consensus" because they are fearful of dissent?

Even a group full of highly educated experts will sit in a room and say, "Invade Iraq! Yes, that's a great idea."

But I listen to what YOU as a reader have to say about Jane Austen and I appreciate it.

[cyberbob]

I don't think you should have to be convinced that a writer/book is good.

I've heard that P&P is a satire of society etc. but I don't really care about that. I like Austen because of her style, use of language, plot, and dialogue.

If these haven't convinced you, I doubt digging up a deeper meaning will do much even if you put more value on it than I do.

There's nothing deficient about you for not seeing the big deal, it's just a matter of different strokes being for different folks. For example, I don't care what truths Salinger has to say about life in the classic Catcher In The Rye, I don't wanna keep reading "Old So-and-So really got a bang out of that." and I don't wanna finish the book.

I don't lose any sleep over it and I doubt anyone could persuade me that Catcher doesn't suck. To you, P&P might just suck. That's a valid opinion.

[kiki1982]

I thought that was not the question of Taco (great name and how it came about, by the way ), but rather why this was great lit and that he/she did not like it because he/she likes deeper stuff, so we offered some deeper meanings and guidance as to the deepr meaning of Austen's work. If that is not to Taco's likng, then so be it (not everyone likes that kind of thing), but at least we may try in mking him/her discern those meanings.

Some people are not satisfied with mere style and vocab which is admittedly very good.

[kiki1982]

oh, joining in the dicussion again:

it depends what look you have on chuckng. I for example, have a detrimental habit of chucking things forever. Once I chuck a book, I will be very likely not finishing it ever. Because, I will start again and then get maybe a bit further and chuck it again. So if I chuck, it will be a defeat never to return to it.

If you want to read it and have the same attitude like me, but don't like it much, then perseverence will be the better course for you. If you have no issue with chukcing and you'll just try again in a few years, upon which you are likely to read it through because your perceptions change, then by all means chuck.

Books to me are like people: I either like them or I don't. If I don't, there is little chance I will keep in contact with them, if I do, then I'll gladly entertain them. First impressions count very much. Not how someone is, but his mind. Fortunately I am not like Lizzie, dismissing someone merely on seeing him/her , but if he has nothing interesting to say, I will, in all likelihood, not like him. Same goes for books. And I have sat through Waverley to my great displeasure because I found the thing did not get started until te last few chapters. I have persevered with The Mill on the Floss until 200 pages when it finally got interesting to me. did not think it was worth chucking. After all, it is not the Divina Commedia after 50 pages, is it?

Oh, and as an answer to your question about nowadays-Austen... Can't comment as I have to admit I do not read anything modern at all or rarely . I read too slowly so I have to prioritise.

[TacoButt]

And I have sat through Waverley to my great displeasure because I found the thing did not get started until te last few chapters. I have persevered with The Mill on the Floss until 200 pages when it finally got interesting to me. did not think it was worth chucking. After all, it is not the Divina Commedia after 50 pages, is it?

I have had the same experience. I have suffered through books only to end up liking them near the end. Foucalt's Pendulum was like that. I LOVED it finally.

Plus, when I start a book, I will almost always finish it, even if only to hate it more thoroughly. I am starting to enjoy my dislike of P&P, sort of how Elizabeth is enjoying her dislike of Mr. Darcy.

I sometimes watch people on YouTube talk about their hair or makeup just so I have something to cringe painfully at. There's nothing so satisfying and self-indulgent as a nice judgmental facepalm directed at someone who is self-indulgent and judgmental.


Pride and Prejudice...Pride and Prejudice...Maybe there IS something universal about this book.

[kiki1982]

It seems like you could write your own with the same title

Let's hope, if you are as indulgent and judgmental about P&P that you will end up the same as Lizzie.

I always think really revered books have something universal that there is to revere. There are as many that were popular in their day and age and which did not get the status which others have. Therefore the once that do must have a quality that goes beyond the nice, beautiful and entertaining.

[Gladys]

But as you are not appreciating her irony, realism and satire then you should chuck her ... But after reading more than fifty pages and wanting to chuck her, you should chuck her.

Halfway through the book, TacoButt, I too was struggling - apart from Mr Bennet's obvious wit - until I saw how Austen was playing with me. In an instant, I perceived her glorious irony, realism and satire, and I laughed all the way to the last page. Austen is clever.

[TacoButt]

Halfway through the book, TacoButt, I too was struggling - apart from Mr Bennet's obvious wit - until I saw how Austen was playing with me. In an instant, I perceived her glorious irony, realism and satire, and I laughed all the way to the last page. Austen is clever.

Ah, so you felt like you were wondering why this novel was considered such a great book?

I am settling into it a bit. I think that Austen's voice in P&P is wonderful and her descriptions are clever, as you've said.

This book has given me more reasons to think about a book than any I've ever read. I find myself obsessed about what others think about it. Questions going around my mind are, "why should we care about the Bennets and the Binglies." "Why does this novel have to tell us in the 21st century?" "What is the value of understanding social relationships of the early 19th Century England? Does it parallel anything else?" "Is it universal or peculiar?" "Does this story universally appeal to women and not as much to men somehow?" "If so, what does this say about the differences of the genders?"

For some reason, I can't just sit there are read this like a quaint little story. It has made it near the top of just about any list of classic books that anyone has ever come up with. It's too important to be a "quaint little story."

Do you think I am over-thinking this novel? Do you have conjectures to the above questions?

Why do you think it has survived the test of time?

[Gladys]

I think that Austen's voice in P&P is wonderful and her descriptions are clever, as you've said.

What I find particularly clever is the youthful, tongue-in-cheek humour that lies behind even the 'most serious' dialogue and narrative. Incidentally, I failed to discern it in the much later Emma, which I read afterwards.

Questions going around my mind are, "why should we care about the Bennets and the Binglies." "Why does this novel have to tell us in the 21st century?" "What is the value of understanding social relationships of the early 19th Century England? Does it parallel anything else?" "Is it universal or peculiar?" "Does this story universally appeal to women and not as much to men somehow?" "If so, what does this say about the differences of the genders?"

We should care because the social predicament is, at the same time, amusing and touching. Laugh and have a sense of humour like Austen herself is the novel's message for today. Is there a funnier novel?

We do learn a little of English middle and upper class relationships - an interesting contrast to the sharper Brontes. Austen hidden humour and indulgence is timeless and universal. For all these reasons the novel should appeal to men.