Pride and Prejudice discussion

I'm sorry, but its completely inexplicable. Yes, I am female. No, that didn't make it any easier to relate. To start off, I didn't find it frivolous. Marriage isn't frivolous if its the only way you have of making sure your family eats and has a place to live. Then, its as important as not dying.
Except to Elizabeth, of course. She refuses to marry Mr Collins, even knowing that the marriage would secure her family food and shelter. FOOD and SHELTER for your mother, your young sisters! How can anything be more important? What kind of selfish whore puts her own romantic happiness ahead of that? I would marry a man with permanent bad great, no sense of humor, and a perpetual harden before I would see MY MOTHER STARVE IN THE STREET. I would do more then that, even. But not dear Lizzie. She wants to be aloof, and act like she doesn't care. Because after all putting on a front is more import an then reality, right? Is that the message?
Lizzie has other good qualities too; She likes dearly to laugh at people. Huh? Yeah, so does every bully. She makes fun of Mr Collins because he isn't tall, isn't aloof, and isn't rich. She makes fun of Caroline Bingley…well because Caroline Bingley calls her family on its shit. And she makes fun of her own mother, because her mother is foolishly worried about her children being destitute.
And then when she has a second chance to make sure that she can help her family, she refuses because the proposal isn't nice enough.

In fact, I don't even understand WHy its perfectly OK for the Bennett girls to be gold diggers, but when Mr Wickham goes gold digging its like the worst thing ever.
So what is the moral of the story? Its more important to marry for love then for your own mother and young sisters to have food in their belly?

I have to mention that in real life I haven't noticed that men just love women that are high maintenance and contrary. But in a fantasy I suppose they do.

This is the first time for me to read a review about Pride and prejudice like yours. I feel like you were looking at the matter from a modern point of view, but the book was written in a century ago. Marriages at that time and still in some socities today, like where I came from, still thinking marriage is the reason for female's existence.
Thank you for sharing your thought on the book.

I love P&P but it is not for everyone.Your review reminds me of how I feel about The Pearl by John Steinbeck.

Yep you looked at it from a modern POV, which it cannot be, in this case.

The book was supposed to portray convenience marriages and the foolish games to get in to them. Mr Collins, as you pointed out, was scorned and laughed about, not for lack of riches or appearance, simply because he was an egotistical hypocrite and, also, a gold digger.Also, i don´t think that the Bennetts would be in very dire straits, as they were land owners and peers to the kingdom, so the "starvation" that you refer to, might simply mean that they would have to move to a small cottage....
There are a lot more examples of things that you seem to have taken a very unusual take on them, but i feel it is quite useless to point them out, since you seem to have flown by the whole meaning by thousands of miles.

Hanan wrote: "but the book was written in a century ago"

Actually it was exactly two centuries ago last year. Don't worry, it happens to me, too.

But any good book is bound to have some negative reviews. Mari seems to have given Twilight five stars, so I'm not sure how much I would trust her taste.

People like this book because it's one of the best novels ever written.
It's very noble to say that you would chain yourself to any man, sacrificing yourself for your family. But I assure you, that would be much easier said than done.
Also the whole point of having characters like Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy is to love them for who they are, flaws and all. They are very human, and that's why we can relate.
What good would it be to read a novel where everyone acted noble and pure and never did or said anything you didn't agree with?
I would also recommend you do a bit of research on Jane Austen's life. You might be surprised, and come to understand her work a little better.

I think I'll just be repeating to some extent, but I think people like it because it shows them what life was like back then.
Plus, thinking of it in that respect, it's quite admirable how strong Elizabeth was as a character.
For me, it just showed me the diversity and similarities between that era and today.
Marriage is considered a big deal in my culture, even today and although things are changing slowly it's still given lots of importance- particularly, and unfortunately for females. So I guess I related to it somehow.
It also might give some people the message that it does not matter how you look, or what your social status is, you'll eventually find the right person. And I must also add that it teaches us about forgiveness and the complexity of humans to some extent.

As much as any of us would like for Mari to come round in her ideas, i fear that tastes will be tastes and in this case...trolls will be trolls, so, ladies, do not feed them anymore.

She just bashed my favorite female romantic hero of all time.

Yes, it is important that one of the sisters marry well, but it does not have to be immediately. Mr. Collins is not their last hope. Both Jane and Elizabeth are attractive young women. Young ladies of their class did not have to grab the first offer they received. As it happened, if Elizabeth had never married, the family would have survived comfortably based upon Jane's marriage. The histrionic attitude by Mrs Bennett was one individual's self-centered perspective.

I do not understand why you call Elizabeth a whore. What part of the reading gave you that impression?

Ah well. Different people have different ideas. I would be interested in hearing which books have characters that you respect and like?

Charlotte Lucas embodied Mari's solution. She married to secure comfort for herself, if not necessarily for her family. Love didn't have anything to do with her marriage to Mr. Collins. So Jane Austen DID include a convenience marriage without love for some contrast.

The Bennets were not destitute. Like in Sense and Sensibility, the worst that would have happened would have been a move to smaller cottage. It was Mrs. Bennet, in her hysterics, that made it seem as if they would be thrown into the street and that they were destitute. She loved to exaggerate and guilt-trip her husband and daughters into doing what she wanted.

I believe, Booksingarden, that Mari called Elizabeth that name because she was appalled with Elizabeth's seemingly selfish decision to marry for love.

It's beautifully written and very very funny. It skewers society as Jane Austen knew it. Mr. Bennet has put away money for his family, it's just not much. They'll be turned out of their home because Mr. Collins is nasty like that, but don't forget that Mrs. Bennet has two brothers that are well enough to pass, especially Mr. Gardiner who is comfortably middle class. Would YOU marry Mr. Collins? He's just too icky for words. I pity poor Charlotte. Elizabeth would wither away and die being married to a man like that. Even her father recognizes that it's not a prudent match. Now, if Mr. Collins had offered for Mary, I'm sure Mr. Bennet wouldn't care. Mrs. Bennet was reaching very high with her hopes that one of the girls would marry Bingley. Though as daughters of a gentleman, they're technically higher on the social scale than Bingley, he could probably find an impoverished nobleman's daughter to marry or another Cit or Mushroom's daughter to unite their fortunes while the Bennet girls without much in the way of a dowry, would be stuck with marrying the Lucas boys or Squire Justin's sons at best.

No, seriously: i have never seen anyone batter P&P so much! It´s exquisitly funny, especcialy de fits of Mrs Bennett, in order for everyone to do her bid, clever and sharp and an overall portrayal of the society of that time and place, that Jane Austen so well knowned and explored.

I believe that the measure of a good book, for her, it´s Twillight.....

P&P is one of my favorite books. How can anyone like it? How could you not?: great plot, great characters, full of comedic elements, and offered a good look at 19th Century British society.

Haha. 1 star to P&P and 5 stars to Twilight. Such choices, much wow.

I think you got a lot of things wrong.

"She refuses to marry Mr Collins, even knowing that the marriage would secure her family food and shelter."

Blame it on the society that forbids women to inherit what rightfully belongs to them, not my poor Lizzy.

"She likes dearly to laugh at people. Huh? Yeah, so does every bully."
I like my character flawed, thank you. I know it's difficult for YA readers to understand, since Mary Sues are supposed to be the norm in this genre, but making your characters flawed can actually make them MORE relatable.
And Lizzy only laugh of arrogant people. She would never laugh on her friend Charlotte, for example, even if she was old and had almost zero expectancy of getting married.
Bu the way, bullies like to provocate public humiliation on their targets. Lizzy never did.

"I don't even understand WHy its perfectly OK for the Bennett girls to be gold diggers, but when Mr Wickham goes gold digging its like the worst thing ever."
Of course, it was the XIX century. Women's merits were measured on their marriages and genre double-standards were stronger than ever.

"I have to mention that in real life I haven't noticed that men just love women that are high maintenance and contrary. But in a fantasy I suppose they do."
I agree in parts. But some men like the challenge.

Wickham goes about his gold digging in the most unacceptable ways and also because it was the 19th century, women had to marry money. They couldn't earn it. They could, in some instances, inherit money, but they couldn't keep it after they married so it was best to aim for the highest match. Neither Lizzy nor Jane is a fortune hunter. Only Mrs. Bennet is because she's the type of person who has to best her rivals at everything and have her nose in everyone else's business. She's what they would call a toad-eater. She's prepared to suck up to anyone who can offer her an advantage. She's shown to be weak-minded and silly.

Elizabeth refused to marry without RESPECT which is different, and more important, than love. She couldn't respect Mr. Collins because he was a fool. She learns to respect Darcy and only then can love follow. As Elinor in Sense and Sensibility states ""no one can, I think, be in doubt, ... said she, "that I think very highly of him -- that I greatly esteem, that I like him." At the time, Marianne thinks Elinor is cold hearted but she soon learns that esteem and like are the best foundation for true love. That's the message Jane Austen was trying to get across. She couldn't bring herself to marry her neighbor even though she would be impoverished upon her father's death.

Mari - you might like the book Longbourne. It takes the setting of P&P (Longbourne, naturally) and then tells the story of the servants living in the household. It was a very fun read and added some fresh perspective to the story. I happen to love P&P both as a sheer escapist romance and as a wry comment on the mores of the time period (which is what Jane Austen was going for). It is precisely because young women in that day and age were supposed to marry for money and were not supposed to have an opinion (or a job or inherit, etc.) that made and makes these characters so popular. Austen's characters are both rebelling against the norm and fulfilling an acceptable place for characters in a novel. It is a sly writer who could accomplish both while making her characters realistic with flaws and fancy. The only modern perspective I see you are taking is that about novels themselves. In the early 1800s when P&P was published, novels were seen as vehicles for frivolous women and disparaged mightily. But some novels, Austen's included, began to be recognized as valuable not only for their excellent writing but for containing themes and ideas universal to our understanding. This is why they have stood the test of time. However, I feel certain that you could find college thesis and graduate students galore to advocate your perspective. Another reason why a book like P&P survives is because it can withstand so many interpretive outlooks.

BTW - it has been my experience that most men fall captive to high maintenance woman. It is the sweet girls who get the fuzzy end of the lolly - this is why we love and root for Jane so much.

Mari wrote: "I'm sorry, but its completely inexplicable. Yes, I am female. No, that didn't make it any easier to relate. To start off, I didn't find it frivolous. Marriage isn't frivolous if its the only way yo..."

I understand your point of view, but you seem to be on such a rage against Elizabeth Bennet that your own opinion is quite biased. Of course she is not the wisest Austenian character and, let us also consider, she is only 19 years old, which makes quite difficult for her to see the big picture of her actions. Elizabeth does think Mr Collins non appealing, so at the end of the day, had she accepted his proposal, she would have to spend the next 40 years or so of her life sharing a roof (AND a bed) with a man whose sight and conversation she could not stand. Also, it was not her duty to care for the maintainance of the family - it was her father's. Women were not given much choice in those times, it was therefore only fair money had to be one of the men's worries.

I'm sorry,I know that we all are entitled to our own opinion,but this has to be the most stupid review of this book,that I ever read.

The novel was not written at the start of this decade, it is a historical novel and thus contains elements of its time. Marriage was a social marker, it was not based on love in a lot of instances but property and there must be a certain naive element to the original poster as this can sometimes still be the case and has not been completely eradicated.

In order to read and enjoy a novel truly, it must be seen as a capsule of another time, another person's experience (a teenager in this instance) and a social commentary (hardly feminist in this case) of something that is beyond our own level of comfort. In challenging our comfort levels, some people therefore prefer modern fiction as they do not feel they can comprehend other times or periods, other experiences and so on.

Wandahost wrote: "I'm sorry,I know that we all are entitled to our own opinion,but this has to be the most stupid review of this book,that I ever read."

I couldn't say it better -.-

What made you feel Elizabeth and her sister were gold diggers? You seem to have forgotten that she did refuse Darcy at the beginning. Just because they happened to fall in love with rich people doesn't necessarily make them gold diggers. And it's getting repepititive, but I'll mention once again, when you read something which was refers to the Victorian times, you had better look at it from that point of view; you'll probably like it better. And as for Mr. Collins, Elizabeth was well aware of the fact that her mother wouldn't starve on the street(as you mentioned) even if she didn't marry Collins.

It's much more likely that if they'd been forced to, the Bennet girls would have found jobs as governesses and ladies' maids. Or they would have married businessmen or attorneys, like their uncles. So which is better: marrying a man you don't love so your mother can keep her home or going out and working for a living?

Wandahost wrote: "I'm sorry,I know that we all are entitled to our own opinion,but this has to be the most stupid review of this book,that I ever read."

I'm inclined to agree with you, except I once came across a 1-star review of it which chided it for its lack of supernatural elements. That takes the cake as far as stupid goes. Some people...

You are probably not mature enough to appreciate it. try it again when your older. This book is a classic beauty, you might not understand it if you never have been in love. Or your only 12

Pride and Prejudice is a classic work of fiction and one of the greatest novels of all time. It will be read and studied for decades if not centuries to come and rightly so.

Unlike Twilight which will cease to be relevant in less than a few years.

Old_motters wrote: "Pride and Prejudice is a classic work of fiction and one of the greatest novels of all time. It will be read and studied for decades if not centuries to come and rightly so.

Unlike Twilight which..."
YESSSSSS WHAT SHE SAID

Old_motters wrote: "Pride and Prejudice is a classic work of fiction and one of the greatest novels of all time. It will be read and studied for decades if not centuries to come and rightly so.

Unlike Twilight which..."

I think Twilight's downfall already started.

While I enjoyed the book somewhat, I thought your review was pretty awesome. It's how I feel about most romance novels in general. This is the only one I kind of liked.

Mari,

I think you just wanted to stir things up a little. Well, you couldn't have done it better if you had tried!

You are so proud of your prejudice towards this book...there's an irony there if you look for it..

Mark M., touche!

Hanan wrote: "but the book was written in a century ago"

Actually it was exactly two centuries ago last year. Don't worry, it happens to me, too.

But any good book is bound to have some negative reviews. Mari seems to have given Twilight five stars, so I'm not sure how much I would trust her taste.
Touché.

Kitten wrote: "People like this book because it's one of the best novels ever written."

Can you say "circular argument"?

I agree with Mari (maybe because I seem to have the wrong gender to enjoy the book anyways). I've heard so many great things about the book, but the only part I enjoyed was her father talking to Lizzy. How can one book bore me so much?

Btw: How is it fair to criticize a persons other book evaluations? Leave other people their opinions, especially if they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The twilight novels are not good books, but why drag those into this?

Mark M. wrote: "You are so proud of your prejudice towards this book...there's an irony there if you look for it.."

True. . .

some of the replies to this review are really funny. lol

as for Mari i am biting my tongue to keep silent from giving a comment on that review.

Mari, Mari, look what you've gotten yourself into lol.

I understand where you're coming from for most of your review, although I think it's a little exaggerated.

I'm surprised people are saying you've looked at the book from a modern point of view when it's obvious the opposite has happened which is exactly why you think Lizzy is selfish for not marrying Mr.Colins when her doing so would have been the norm of her time.

I'm also surprised people are saying that the family wouldn't be destitute and would only have to move into a smaller cottage when their Father died and Mr.Colins inherited. Correct me if I'm wrong, but their money comes from the estate, does it not? They are not poor by any means but doesn't most of what they own, including moneys go to Mr.Colins upon their Father's death? If the estate is what brings in their lively hood, and they no longer have that estate which means no income, and they aren't allowed to work, then isn't Mari right? They would eventually be destitute?

If all that is true though, I still don't think it was selfish of Lizzy to say No to Mr.Colins proposal. There are her other sisters, all who might possibly gain decent matches. Plus her sister was being courted by Mr.Bingly when Lizzy said no to Mr.Colins. If Mr.Colins hadn't have been so completely and utterly ridiculous I think it would have been the mature thing to at least think it over and consider his proposal as it would have solved everything. However why marry solely for money or security when you don't have to? And at the time, it looked like she didn't have to because of Mr.Bingly courting her sister. It was obvious to her that both were in love.

What makes me think Lizzy might have been a little too modern in character for back then was saying NO, to Mr.Darcy. Not because he was so enormously rich but because he had enough to take care of her family without being utterly ridiculous. At the same time, I can see her being caught totally off guard by his proposal. She didn't expect it, she didn't think he liked her. And she was also under the impression that he ruined the happiness of her sister for his own selfish reasons.

Marrying someone to keep your family from starving is all good and completely unselfish. But unless and until it was required I can't blame her for not doing it. I can't imagine what my life would have been like marrying Mr.Colins. Can you imagine how you would feel if you'd said yes and then a few short months later your sister married someone else that could have saved everyone? Your sacrifice would have been moot. I think that would have made dealing with a ridiculous husband even more difficult to bare.

You also have to sleep with said husband for the rest of your life...... eewwwww

I also don't agree with calling Lizzy a whore though. By definition, she would have been more so a whore had she married for financial gain. Even then I don't think the term fits, but it matches more with that scenario than it does her saying NO to the matches.

Daniel wrote: "Btw: How is it fair to criticize a persons other book evaluations? Leave other people their opinions, especially if they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The twilight novels are not good books, but why drag those into this?"

Come on now... Mari (or a troll) started a very controversial discussion about the book. I for one am interested what kind of books she then thinks ARE great. If she had read a varied selection of books I might take her opinion seriously but as it is, I don't really care enough to debate with her about it. She is entitled to her opinion, eventhough it seems she hasn't really even understood the book.

Well, I guess it's all up to personal tastes isn't it? Nevermind if it is a classic or a new novel, some books you like, some you don't, probably something in the subject or the writing style or the author's point of view that resonates with you. I absolutely hate Twilight, Da Vinci Code which are great literary successes of recent years, while I'd gladly put them to good use kindling fire, not to speak of many classics such as Pamela, Tess of the d'Ubervilles which I honestly cannot abide, even though I read them out of curiosity. I find Mari's critics to P&P ridiculous to say the least, as much as she would probably think of mine about one of the above mentioned books. Different people, different tastes.

If 'Pride And Prejudice' had been about how Lizzy married a man she didn't respect and couldn't stand, purely from mercenary motives, due to fear-- ensuring thereafter a disappointed, degrading, loveless existence for herself, then I doubt very much that anyone would be talking about it two-hundred years later.

No thank you. Lizzy was an early literary inspiration for personal integrity despite challenging circumstances; and I wouldn't want her any other way.

@Tytti: I find it hard to disregard a person's opinion just on the grounds of different taste in books.

I find the twilight series mediocre. But that series (probably the Austen books as well) were not written for me. Mrs. Meyer wrote for a much younger audience.
But just because I did not like the books, does not mean I do not value opinions of people, who did like them.
I love talking about what people like about books I did not get. And talking to people, who share your opinion is boring!

There will always be someone who ... does not like chocolate ... puppies ... frilly dresses ... or, the book which has been a classic best seller since the 1800's, and made into a movie/t.v. mini-series six times. And, that's NOT counting "Pride & Prejudice and Zombies" expected to be released in 2015. Ok, I'm not sure I'll go see that movie, but 'someone' will like it. I read to learn, for entertainment, to feel ... and for me P&P gave me all three. Mari, you didn't like P&P, and that's ok. You did like "Twilight" and so did I. At least you are reading!

kellyjane wrote: "If 'Pride And Prejudice' had been about how Lizzy married a man she didn't respect and couldn't stand, purely from mercenary motives, due to fear-- ensuring thereafter a disappointed, degrading, loveless existence for herself, then I doubt very much that anyone would be talking about it two-hundred years later."

For that, there's the character of Gwendolen in George Eliot's Daniel Deronda .

Daniel wrote: "@Tytti: I find it hard to disregard a person's opinion just on the grounds of different taste in books..."

Except she seems to like/read books I have no interest reading or hearing about. I wouldn't touch Twilight, I couldn't even finish the movie, it was that bad. I wonder what made her read P&P...

But in the end I don't really think we would have anything to discuss. She didn't like the characters, that seemed to have been her "problem" with the book. I don't like books that have "only nice" characters, except of course those that are "bad". I prefer more complex novels.

It´s a troll that made all this stirr!

Have you noticed that she no longer posted, at least to defend her POV?

Tastes will be tastes, but i simply do not waste my time battering on a book that i didn´t like: i simply give my 1 star rate and move on. It would even more waste of my time to give a bashing review....i just never think about it ever. But this review was simply rude.

Stop feeding it, because that´s whar trolls like.

Kressel wrote: "For that, there's the character of Gwendolen in George Eliot's Daniel Deronda."

Thank you Kressel. I had tried to think of an example myself, but have never read 'Daniel Deronda', and couldn't come up with any example in the moment.

Everyone has their own and is entitled to opinions. To my opinion the book was confusing. I'm 13. The only reason my English class read this book is because we are "Advanced". I, myself like more of The Giver. This review was very rude though. Don't be childish, just rate the book, put your comment and move on.

I loved the review even though P&P is one of my favorite books, it made me laugh, esp. about the Bennet Sisters and Mr. Collins "gold digging."

Let me get things straight. According to her book grading on Goodreads (1 to P&P and 5 to Twilight) she can't relate to a woman who wants to respect and love her future husband, but can relate to a teenage girl in love with an ancient but eternally young (phisically) vampire and is desperate to lose her virginity?

Well, I'm kind of glad she didn't like this book.