i didn't like pride and prejudice

[adriennelane]

Ah, don't we just love flamers? If you don't like the book, then don't post here. There's no law forcing you to do so. If your idea of a good time entails irritating people who actually do have the mental faculties to read the book and enjoy it, then well, that's just terribly sad.

[Bluebiird]

Has anyone noticed that this whole thread was started by a guest? Isn't that just typical

[Scheherazade]

I completely agree with you, and seriously doubt your dislike of the book has to do with "a lack of understanding" or being an "unsophisticated reader"

some books are just poor.

There is much more to P&P than a fussy mother trying to marry off her daughters; or a shrew being tamed; or a snob being humbled. And even though you see past these, you may not find it to your liking; however, I don't think the fact that you don't like the subject matter or writing style makes some book 'poor'. I would say they are simply not your cup of tea.

[Stanislaw]

There is much more to P&P than a fussy mother trying to marry off her daughters; or a shrew being tamed; or a snob being humbled. And even though you see past these, you may not find it to your liking; however, I don't think the fact that you don't like the subject matter or writing style makes some book 'poor'. I would say they are simply not your cup of tea.

you ar correct, poor was a "poor" choice of words. 'tis not my genre is more of what I was trying to convey, eventhough I did not enjoy it, I suppose the story was worded quite well.

[Nightshade]

Its more than worder well, its plain amusing if you turn it upside down and read it backwards. Or if you start listening for Austen's sarcasim.
What shrew?!
I get how you might not like the book after all its a 'mush" book, or as my mum puts it "The first ever Mills and Boons". What I think is people take it too seriously it was written to entertain after all. So just enjoy it like you would a nice slice of lemon cake, if thats your taste and if not go for somthing else like a choclate or a plain sponge or fruit cake.

[emily655321]

Well put, Nightshade.

I don't think anyone meant to bash the book (well, besides the first poster). I think the impulse was more one of defending those who didn't like it against the initial accusations that anyone who dislikes it only does so because they lack the intelligence to understand it.

That said, is it weird that the title of the thread makes me giggle every time I see it?

[water lily]

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)

Maybe it is because I am male that I cannot comprehend the suttle feminist undertones?

I'm afraid, I must disagree. I don't think Jane Austen is a particularly feminist author and if so then only in the subtlest way, but she certainly is not anti-feminist. The very first sentence of the novel refutes the idea that the only goal women have is to marry a rich guy regardless of love. It's true that the mother (Mrs. Bennet) can't see beyond that very goal, but she is more of a caricature than a character, used to show the ludicrousy of such ideas. Furthermore love is emphasized: we have examples of marriage without love and have seen the results (Charlotte's & Mr. Colins' [heh] and Mr & Mrs. Bennet's for example); whereas the unions based on love (Jane's with Bingley and Elizabeth with Darcy) are shown to be ideal (it's true that Bingley and Darcy happen to be rich, but the emotional attachment is there. the wealth is just a happy coindence. I'm sure you wouldn't mind marrying rich :P). Also an important note is that Jane Austen, herself, never married.

Despite my big rant, if you don't like the book it's okay. And for those of you who haven't seen it, the movie has some breathtaking music and beautiful scenery.

[zanyzenni]

Originally Posted by emily655321
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.

I would like to contradict that. It may seem that the aim is to marry the rich guy, but the Bennet daughters actualy marry someone they love. Lizzy was the most verbal about remaining a spinster if she did not find someone to love. Instead she ended up marrying (and loving) the richest man of the lot.

Jane also married Bingly in love, the fact that he was rich was a help but they were most definatly in love.

[emily655321]

I'd just like to point out that I didn't say that, Stan did.

[malwethien]

Do you think gender plays a big part in whether or not someone liked P&P? I don't know the gender of the posters who hated it or liked it so I can't really say, but I think it's safe to say that more females like P&P then guys. Personally, I love P&P but none of my guy friends who I recommended this book to could stand reading it.

I think it's like a classic fairytale....meant to be enjoyed, but not really taken seriously. Some people hate it because they thought it was boring, some people loved it because they found it entertaining. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[The Unnamable]

Do you think gender plays a big part in whether or not someone liked P&P? I don't know the gender of the posters who hated it or liked it so I can't really say, but I think it's safe to say that more females like P&P then guys. Personally, I love P&P but none of my guy friends who I recommended this book to could stand reading it.

I think it's like a classic fairytale....meant to be enjoyed, but not really taken seriously. Some people hate it because they thought it was boring, some people loved it because they found it entertaining. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

This is an interesting question. I am male and consider Jane Austen as one of the best. I think both her fans and her detractors incorrectly assume that she is a romantic novelist, a sort of highbrow Barbara Cartland. She’s very hard-headed, even cynical about romantic love. I certainly don’t see her as a teller of fairy tales and think it unfair on her to say that her novels shouldn’t be taken seriously. Persuasion is the only novel with any real suffering in it but her novels are more for those who think than for those who merely feel.

[malwethien]

but her novels are more for those who think than for those who merely feel.

Maybe that's why a lot of people don't like them?

The Unnamable, what is your background when it comes to literature? Do you teach literature or have an extensive background in it? The reason I'm asking is because, do you think that guys who do have a good foundation or career in literature would naturally like Austen, whereas guys who read P&P out of curiosity (but with no real "literary" expertise or experience) won't appreciate much or at all?

Just wondering...?

[The Unnamable]

Sorry, only just noticed this.

Maybe that's why a lot of people don't like them?

Are you implying that people don’t like to think?

The Unnamable, what is your background when it comes to literature? Do you teach literature or have an extensive background in it? The reason I'm asking is because, do you think that guys who do have a good foundation or career in literature would naturally like Austen, whereas guys who read P&P out of curiosity (but with no real "literary" expertise or experience) won't appreciate much or at all?

Just wondering...?

I currently teach Literature to 11-18 year olds. To be honest, I don’t know that gender has much to do with it. When I studied her at university, there were two camps – those who ‘got’ her and those who didn’t. Each camp had about the same number of males and females. I suppose it was more likely for males to assume she wrote highbrow chick-lit and dismiss her accordingly. In terms of gender however, the main difference was that some of the female undergraduates enjoyed her as a writer of highbrow chick-lit but none of the males did. I think she is served as badly by her ardent admirers as she is by her detractors. Charlotte Brontë said of her that she “ruffles her reader with nothing vehement, disturbs him by nothing profound."

[malwethien]

I suppose it was more likely for males to assume she wrote highbrow chick-lit and dismiss her accordingly. In terms of gender however, the main difference was that some of the female undergraduates enjoyed her as a writer of highbrow chick-lit but none of the males did.

Yes I think I would have to agree with you on that

[Rosie Cotton]

I can read 80-100 pages of Pride and Prejudice a day and not in the least bit have spent all day reading it. It's so fast-paced, and if you know about Jane Austen's life, it's amazing (and hilarious) how much she's really just mocking her society.