Some years back in one of my APAs, someone castigated Jane Austen's books like this: "All those daft twits rabbiting on about clothes and boyfriends and manners."Since then, I’ve encountered other variations on the theme that a modern woman ought not to be reading such trash because it sets feminism back two centuries.Well, much as I laughed over the first caveat, that isn't Austen. It sounds more like the silver fork romances inspired by Georgette Heyer. Austen's characters don't talk about clothes at all, outside of air-headed Mrs Allen of Northanger Abbey, who doesn't think of anything else. Austen sticks her satiric quill into young ladies who think and talk about nothing but beaux, such as poor, luckless Anne Steele in Sense and Sensibility. Manners are emphasized but not manners without matter; Austen saves her spikiest irony for hypocrites.I think it's important to remember that whereas Heyer was writing historical romances in the silver fork tradition, Austen was writing novels about contemporary life, especially the problems facing young women in her own walk of life, the country gentry. She criticized herself in a much-quoted letter to her sister Cassandra, saying in effect, 'the problem with Pride and Prejudice is it's too light and bright and sparkling.' Many have misinterpreted this remark. It seems to me, on close reading of her elsewhere, that she meant the novel to be taken more seriously than it was.What is it about, really? It's about the wrong reasons for marrying, and how those can affect a woman for the rest of her life. Of course a hard-line feminist can point out that novels about marriage are hideously retro for today's woman, who has many choices before her. During Austen's time, marriage was the only choice a woman had, unless she was rich enough to shrug off the expectations of her society, or unless she was willing to live on as a pensioner to some family member or other, which more often than not meant being used as an unpaid maid. Of course there was teaching, but the salaries for women were so miserable one may as well have been a servant. The hours and demands were pretty much equal.If one looks past the subject of marriage, the novel's focus is about relationships: between men and women; between sisters; between friends; between family members and between families. As for marriage, Austen sends up relationships that were formed with security as the goal, relationships that were sparked by physical attraction and not much else, relationships made with an eye to rank, money, social status, or competition. And, with abundant wit and style (or as she’d say, with éclat), she offers some truths about the differences between love and lust, and what relationships based on either mean to a marriage months—or decades—after the wedding.The fact that Austen doesn't use modern terminology doesn't make it any less real than a contemporary novel that has a supposedly liberated woman romping from bed to bed for forty pages while in search of the perfect relationship. The message is the same, that women who mistake falling in lust for falling in love are usually doomed to a very unhappy existence. And in Austen's time, you couldn't divorce, you were stuck for life.I've had dedicated feminist friends give me appalled reactions when I admit to liking Austen. I don't consider reading Austen a guilty pleasure, as I do reading Wodehouse. I consider Jane Austen a forerunner of feminism. She doesn't stand out and preach as Mary Wollstonecroft did. Her influence was nevertheless profound. Again and again in those novels she portrays women thinking for themselves, choosing for themselves—even if their choices are within the conventions of the time. What the women think matters.In Austen’s day (and too often, now) female characters were there as prizes for the men to possess, or to strive for, or as catalysts for male action. These days we call them refrigerator women. Jane Austen gave her female characters as much agency as a woman could have in those days, and the narrative is mostly seen through their eyes.The famed relationship between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy makes it very clear that they were first attracted by one another's intellect—those two were clearly brain-snogging before they ever got to the fine sheets of Pemberley. It is also clear that the man—his higher social and economic status notwithstanding—had to earn the woman's respect, and rethink some of his assumptions, before she could see in him a possible partner. There is no dominant male making the decisions: those two are equal right down to the last page, and Austen makes it clear that it will continue to be so after the marriage. Each time I reread the novel, I notice something new, but in the meantime, will I continue to recommend it to young women just venturing into literature? You bet.
Well-loathed books I've re-readRating: 4 very annoyed, crow-feathered stars out of fiveThe Book Report: No. Seriously. If your first language isn't English, or if you're like nine years old, you might not know the story. Note use of conditional. My Review: All right. All right, dammit! I re-read the bloody thing. I gave it two stars before. I was wrong-headed and obtuse and testosterone poisoned. I refuse to give it five stars, though. Look, I've admitted I was wrong about how beautiful the writing is, and how amusing the story is. Don't push.Stephen Sullivan, who rated this with six stars of five, is now on a summer travel break from Goodreads, so I can publish this admission: He was right. It is a wonderful book. I had to grow into it, much as I had to grow into my love for Mrs. Dalloway. But now that I'm here, I am a full-on fan.Deft is a word that seems to have been created for Austen. She writes deftly, she creates scenes deftly. She isn't, despite being prolix to a fault, at all heavy-handed or nineteenth-century-ish in her long, long, long descriptions. She is the anti-Dickens: Nothing slapdash or gimcrack or brummagem about her prose, oh nay nay nay. Words are deployed, not flung or splodged or simply wasted. The long, long, long sentences and paragraphs aren't meant to be speed-read, which is what most of us do now. They are meant to be savored, to be treated like Louis XIII cognac served in a cut-crystal snifter after a simple sole meunière served with haricots verts and a perfect ripe peach for dessert.The romantic elements seem, at first blush, a wee tidge trite. And they are. Now. Why are they? Because, when Miss Jane first used them in Pride and Prejudice, they worked brilliantly and they continue so to do unto this good day. Why? Because these are real feelings expressed in a real, genuine, heartfelt way, as constrained by the customs of the country and times. And isn't that, in the end, what makes reading books so delicious? I, a fat mean old man with no redeeming graces, a true ignorant lower-class lout of the twenty-first century, am in full contact with the mind, the heart, the emotional core of a lady of slender means born during the reign of George III.You tell me what, on the surface of this earth, is more astonishing, more astounding, more miraculous than that. Jane Austen and I Had A Moment. She's Had A Moment with literally millions of English-speakers for over 200 years. She's had moments with non-English speakers for more than a century. Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy are cultural furniture for a large percentage of the seven billion people on the planet. (Large here is a relative term. Less than one? Still amazing for a book 200 years old.)Reading is traveling in time, in space, but most importantly inside. Inside yourself, inside the characters' emotions, inside the author's head and heart. It is a voyage of discovery, whether you're reading some bizarro mess, Dan Brown's mess, religious tracts, Twilight, whatever. You-the-reader are going somewhere in a more intimate contact than you-the-reader have with any other being on the planet. Movies, TV, sex, none of them take you as deep into the essence of feeling and emotion as reading does. And no, snobs, it does NOT matter if it's well written, it matters that the book speaks to the reader. (Sometimes, of course, what one learns is how very shallow and vapid some people are...I'm lookin' at you, Ms. Fifty Shades.)So I thank that rotten, stinkin' Stephen-the-absent Sullivan, safe in the knowledge he won't see me admitting this, for reminding me to live up to my own goal of remaining open to change. I heard him yodeling his rapture, and I revisited the book, and I learned something valuable: Only admit you're wrong when the person you don't want to embarrass yourself in front of isn't around to see. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
What do You think about Pride And Prejudice (2000)?
This is a great love story with some very silly characters in it! From the beginning, I almost couldn't believe Kitty's and Lydia's behaviour, and the silly mother was adorable but also abominable. Jane seemed too shy for my taste, and the only two characters from the Bennet family that really grew on me were Elizabeth and her father. However, if it wasn't for those silly caricatures I don't think this story would have worked. They helped enhance the story, and I ended up appreciating reading about them because they made me smile and sigh. This was my first time actually reading this story (even though I have watched the movie multiple times) and this book comes with some of my favourite lines! I wanted to underline then but decided not to because I was reading the beautiful Penguin Clothbound edition, but I specifically remember one scene containing Elizabeth, her father and her mother discussion a certain Mr. Collins (no spoilers!). I loved it and scenes like those were what made me root for Elizabeth (and her father!). One of the things that I love the most about this story, though, is the struggle and opposition between the two main characters. It created a very interesting tension and it made me root for both of them - even though Mr. Darcy is quite despicable in the beginning! I'm happy I finally managed to actually read the book, and I'm happy I ended up liking it as much as I did :-)
—helen the bookowl
6.0 stars. Confession...this book gave me an earth-shattering Janeaustegasm and I am feeling a bit spent and vulnerable at the moment, so please bear with me. You see, I decided I wanted to get more literated by reading the "classicals" in between my steady flow of science fiction, mystery and horror. The question was where to begin.After sherlocking through my Easton Press collection, I started by pulling out my Dickens and reading A Tale of Two Cities which I thought was jaw-dropping AMAZO and left me feeling warm, satisfied and content. It also made me made retrospectively pleased that I named my youngest daughter Sydney.After Two City “Tale”ing, I decided to give this book a whirl as I kept seeing it on GR lists of "goodest books ever." However, I must admit I was hesitant going in to this for two big reasons. One, I thought it might be a bit too romantical for me. The second, and much more distressing, reason was that Twilight was on many of the same lists as this book. Austen fans should pull a nutty over that one.So needless to say I went into this thinking I might hate it. Well, for the 999,987th time in my life (at least according to my wife’s records)...I was wrong!!! I absolutely loved this book and had a mammoth, raging heart-on for it from the opening scene at the breakfast table when Father Witty (Mr. Bennet) is giving sly sarcasm to Mrs. Mommie Put Upon. I literaphorically could not get enough of this story. I was instantly captivated by the characters and Elizabeth Bennet, the main protagonist, immediately became one of my all time favorite characters. Mr. Darcy joined that party as soon as he showed up in the narrative as I thought he was terrific as well.Overall, the writing could not have been better. It was descriptive, lush and brilliant. The story could not have been more engaging or intelligent and the characters could not have been more magnificentastic. Elizabeth and Fitz are both smart, witty, self-confident and good. Austen could not have written them better. Oh, and I am sorry if this is a bit of a minor spoiler but I need to add that George Wickham is a cock-blocking braggadouche of startling proportions. I needed to say that and now I feel better. This one has made it onto my list of All Time Favorite novels and is truly one of the classics that lives up to its billing. A FINAL WORD TO THE GUYS: ...Guys, do not fear the Austen...embrace the Austen...HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!!!
—Stephen
Edit: 01/30/15I watched the movie (the Knightley version) and can I just tell you guys that I FELL IN LOVE WITH THIS WHOLE STORY A BIT MORE. okay. A LOT. I want all my friends to read this because I CANNOT FANGIRL WITH ANYONE!!! (sadly, it's not a required reading in our school like in some other places.)I was like oh no no no so not a good time (BUT ALL THE FEELS)hi hi hi---At first, this was really so hard to get into because of some terms that I've encountered only for the first time. English wasn't my first language but I thought I was fluent with it enough until this book forced me to go get my dictionary.Moving on, I was quite peeved by the long sentences. It felt like the articles in our law subject which I cannot read without stopping at the middle to catch my breath. I have to read them again to have a better comprehension of what happened.As for the characters, I have something to say for each of them which I will insert a spoiler tag as to not spoil those who haven't read the book.(view spoiler)[Elizabeth Bennet - Sarcastic. Truthful. She doesn't worry about speaking what's on her mind if she knew it was right. I like her. Both she and Mr. Darcy suffered pride and prejudice. I kind of liked when she started getting feelings for Darcy. Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy - Holy craaaaap. Okay okay. I understood now why he was always mentioned in a lot of books! I was quite sad however when he was betrayed, he started seeing all people to have motives of any kind. But that is perfectly understandable. Jane Bennet - Wow. Handsome and so kind. I kind of admired how she operate because seeing evil being done doesn't mean you have to do it too, right? Mr. Bingley - Uhm. I don't know. But I don't really get why he was affected by what his friend thinks. I get that they really trust each other but.. to leave Jane just like that? Or did Jane didn't really felt the same way for Bingley at first? Mrs. Bennet - How many times was I mortified by what she was doing like Elizabeth? I cannot count. But I believe she just wants what's best for her daughters, like any mother, even thoug she didn't do things in the best approach possible.Lydia Bennet - I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT SHE GOT MARRIED FIRST. Miss Bingley - HAHAHAHA. Eat that! (hide spoiler)]
—Marga
