Pride and Prejudice discussion

I think you have a bit of a false analogy going on there, since abortion choices are still choices. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the concept of golddigging being applied to Lizzie and P & P.

Two different books, and two women in completely different circumstances. I can't compare them since I love them for very different reasons. I am not as fond of Jane's final choice in that text because I can't get past Rochester's duplicity despite his marital conundrum. Jane, however, is one of my all time favorite literary characters.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Your view/interpretation of the term seems a little more one-dimensional and black vs white/good vs evil than mine is...."

Some terms are simply pejorative -- "one-dimensional, black and white." I don't make them that way. I doubt you would like be called a gold digger or hear someone you are fond of referred to as one. "She's a gold digger" invokes the image of a cold, predatory woman incapable of loving anyone and I don't see any of the other women you allude to in your post in that way either. I can think of many other names none of us would like to be called and it's not one-dimensional to feel that way about those names.

Kallie wrote: "My reading interprets a genuine increase in affection for Mr. Darcy as his actions move Elizabeth beyond her pride and prejudice and closer to her real feelings about him."

Mine too Kallie. I sense that she was always 'attached' to him, albeit in an entirely unexamined way through much of the story. She loved engaging him in verbal sparring even during the height of her prejudice against him. She regularly tried to anticipate his thoughts or motives for given actions, and 'thwart' them. She repeatedly singled him out for quiet observation. Indifferent she never was. I believe that some critic once wrote that Lizzie and Darcy clearly were 'brain-snogging' throughout the novel. There was something about Mr. Darcy that regularly drew her vested focus.

And gradually she began seeing him in a whole different light through his reported and observed actions, as you wrote. She saw qualities of his heart behind the facade of arrogance, indifference, and imperturbability that formerly had seemed his only attributes. She saw a sweetheart of a man who had in the power of his decisions the basic well-being of many, many people-- and who consistently made those decisions guided by thoughtfulness, consideration, and kindness. She felt grateful to him for his unnecessarily attentive, warm, and welcoming treatment of her Aunt and Uncle at Pemberly-- and then profoundly grateful to him for his unheralded assistance with Lydia's predicament. And all of it made her question herself, the intensity and deliberate obduracy of her initial snap-judgment. She recognized prideful prejudice within herself. "Until now I never knew myself", she spontaneously offered to the air at some point in her mental and emotional shifting.

Even the grounds and manor of Pemberly revealed to Elizabeth certain attractive qualities of the man-- the attention to details, and appreciation of natural beauties over contrived adornments, for example. Her eyes were opened to him and and with them, her heart. Or so it seems to me anyway.

"Jane Austen may not have experienced physical lust. She wasn't in very good health, or at least I recall reading that; which would explain her early death. Also, a woman writing about lust would have been seen as reprehensible and JA's rebellions tended to be of the quiet sort. I can't imagine her writing, even subtly, about lust though I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean she'd never felt it."

I couldn't agree more. However much or little familiar Jane Austen may have been with private experiences of passion or lust, she probably could not have gotten published had she too readily portrayed the same in any of her heroines. And I doubt that she would have wanted to anyway. She was interested in heart and character-- she wanted to look at the interplay between mind and heart as it plays out in ordinary domestic (rather than extraordinary/heroic) circumstances. I sense that she said exactly what she felt inspired to say though the body of her work.

They just didn't want to have to work, not that it would necesarily stop them from having food and shelter.

@ Mochaspresso

Not to pile on here, but I have to agree with both Scorkpr and Kallie in their points. The Bennett sisters looked for potential suitors where the social customs of the day allowed them to look. There was nothing like a more modern notion of choice in the matter. Life handed and demanded a certain circle of social activity and participation; and they dutifully obliged. Had their father belonged to a 'lesser' than the gentry class, then they necessarily would have have taken part in a different social circle. They would not have been invited to balls and dinners and visitations peopled by financially promising suitors. Nor could they, as daughters of a gentleman, have frequented intimate social gatherings comprised of people of the 'lower classes' at that time. So it seems problematic to describe as calculated what was, after all, a mere matter of course for them.

And however many gradations of 'gold-digging' that there may be, it's still an essentially pejorative term. It seems to me that the resistance you're getting to your point of view is not so much because anyone intends to change your mind, but because several posters reject the disparaging implication as a fair assessment of Lizzie or Jane. Which obviously doesn't invalidate your point of view; but what's to be done when one doesn't see what another is seeing?

kellyjane wrote: "@ Mochaspresso

Not to pile on here, but I have to agree with both Scorkpr and Kallie in their points. The Bennett sisters looked for potential suitors where the social customs of the day allowed..."

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree. That is always fine. My intent was not necessarily to change anyone's mind. I was attempting to share and add some perspective on why some readers possibly come to that conclusion. Regardless of how or why it happened in the story, I didn't approve of some of her actions in Pride and Prejudice and my lack of approval was not because I didn't understand the times. As reader, I feel that I should attempt to understand how the setting affects the story and the character's actions but I don't "HAVE TO" like it and it's ok to ultimately not like the story because of it. Those are two entirely different concepts.

I liked Jane Eyre, but I also didn't approve of Rochester's treatment of Bertha and her illness. I understand that for the times, he thought what he was doing was far better for her than the alternative of placing her in an institution, which were horrid during those times. That doesn't mean that I *HAVE TO* approve of it as a reader and it is not *WRONG* for a reader to say that they don't like Rochester or the book for reasons such as this. I view Pride and Prejudice and what I perceived as "gold digging" in that same vein.

FWIW, other than the overall tone of the post, the biggest problem that I had with the original poster's comments was the insinuation that everyone MUST or SHOULD share the same pov and opinion and that something is wrong with their taste if they don't. Many of the comments in response seemed to be of the same type.

Very very true. That has been my problem as well. Just becuase a book is a "classic" does not mean that everyone must like it and that it cannot be criticized by some. That attitude stikes me as being somewhat eiitist. There are "classics" I enjoyed that I am sure others do not but so be it. On a more amusing sidenote while browsing through my local Chapters store the other day I came across this book: "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies".

My disagreement with the term 'gold digger' is about language and cultural relativity, and not at all about holding P&P too classic to be criticized.

@ mochaspresso & John

You both make points that I share wholeheartedly. There is no 'one right way' to experience or evaluate any given literary creation, whether a book or character or whatever. And to me all arguments about 'taste' are ultimately specious. It's not even an interesting question except possibly for what it may reveal about one's individuality. I have little if any patience with the framework itself, feeling that it can't lead to anything of substance and will only squander mental energy that could be used to better purpose. Most of all, I champion something about the inviolate validity of our authentic personal experience and its expression. I may not see things in the same light as another, may not interpret or evaluate even in similar terms; but as an ultimately limited, imperfect consciousness amid a world full of other ultimately limited, imperfect consciousness, I prefer to champion authenticity and settle for sharing our points of view.

mochasprssso wrote: "Regardless of how or why it happened in the story, I didn't approve of some of her actions in Pride and Prejudice and my lack of approval was not because I didn't understand the times. As reader, I feel that I should attempt to understand how the setting affects the story and the character's actions but I don't "HAVE TO" like it and it's ok to ultimately not like the story because of it. Those are two entirely different concepts."

Again I share wholeheartedly the sentiment (ie, not having to like Lizzie), though I confess that I still don't understand your reason(s). I have gathered that perhaps you feel she was flawed for not even looking at relatively poorer men as potential suitors (or perhaps a better way of putting it-- that she would have excluded from consideration many otherwise worthy men because of their poor financial prospects). Honestly, this is my best surmise of your point of view. Not that it's imperative that you explicate it beyond your natural interest in this topic or discussion; I certainly don't mean to ask more from you than your own inspiration would give. But as I value understanding even more than agreement, I have endeavored for it, and for better or worse have managed only so much ....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Col. Fitzwilliam being a second son would've had to make his own way (hence he joined the military rather than the church as many younger sons did). Lizzy would have most certainly entertained Col. Fitzwilliam asked a suitor and she fully acknowledged that he needed to marry well. She even acknowledges that Mr. Collins was suitable in situation, but he was lacking in intelligence and social grace while actively engaging in sycophantic behavior to cement his status. Lizzy's dislike of the need for women to make marriages of convenience is duly noted. While she seems to accept that men make these same types of convenient marriages, she laments rather than rebel over this.

Julie wrote: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but Col. Fitzwilliam being a second son would've had to make his own way (hence he joined the military rather than the church as many younger sons did). Lizzy would have most certainly entertained Col. Fitzwilliam asked a suitor and she fully acknowledged that he needed to marry well. She even acknowledges that Mr. Collins was suitable in situation, but he was lacking in intelligence and social grace while actively engaging in sycophantic behavior to cement his status. Lizzy's dislike of the need for women to make marriages of convenience is duly noted. While she seems to accept that men make these same types of convenient marriages, she laments rather than rebel over this."

I think that you're right about Colonel Fitzwilliam. As a second son he had to make his own way in the world. And one of the ironic things about this to me-- well, as oppressively limited and restrictive as female 'career' choices were at that time, male career choices (for those born into the gentry class) were quite limited and restrictive also (though comparatively speaking were far greater). By social custom they could become clergymen, lawyers, or military officers, none of which necessarily promising great wealth, but all of which capable of providing a sustainable family income.

But in dialoguing with mochaspresso, a different angle on this whole topic has occurred to me. We have been questioning whether Lizzie would have been willing to marry, say, a stable boy or domestic servant assuming that she had found herself in love with one. But to me a more interesting question is whether she would have been willing to marry a successful farmer or merchant assuming the same thing. In other words, even in cases where a man's financial prospects were comfortably stable, would Lizzie have been willing to marry beneath her class as defined by the society of her day, for the sake of love?

And it occurs to me that maybe this question gets to the heart of why some readers perceive or intuit something less than completely admirable in Lizzie. For all of her genuine fidelity to the quest for a marriage of heartfelt attachment, was she nonetheless snobbish to some extent about the class of the man who could gain her hand?

Which seems to me a legitimate question and also one which ties into something you wrote. In my view, Lizzie may have been subtly subversive in her ways, but was not a rebel. She abided the norms of her society even as she saw through the hypocrisy or ridiculousness of many of them. I can think of nothing in the text of the story that suggests Lizzie may have married beneath her class given the right man and circumstances, etc. (On the other hand, nothing in the text definitively rules out the possibility either, at least that I can tell).

Point taken. And maybe right. But she was very serious about George Wickham, son of a steward, till he proved unworthy. Now whether Austen chose to make the son of the steward a rake due to unchecked bias is an interesting topic. And remember that Bingley, though wealthy, was a son of a merchant--he was nouveau riche, not the old family, titled sort. I would love to open this conversation with my students when we read P&P next month. I do think class plays a role in Lizzy's choices, but other considerations besides class do as well.

I'm sorry, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
To me Elisabeth is a confident worldly woman who knows her destiny isn't to merely spawn her children and then die, though Ms Austen didn't mention how, but she had a list of fair alternatives in her mind that would let her lead a life of independence in a world bent to dominate her being. Work for her living rather than being a predatory person who would try to barter her being for a life of indulgence. She was not asexual but like her writer had a view of how to mange her life. She dared to feel on behalf of someone else when another would've deemed it too much hassle. That her defendee wasn't a noble character is just the way real life is. You don't have the benefit of hindsight straight up. a much needed touch of reality in what is essentially fiction.
I do think if Mr Bingley was only the steward lisa would still vehemently support her sister's choices. so there you have it.
that the book still resonates even after 2 centuries it telling that it deserves its title as a classic as opposed to a passing fad.

Just when you think a thread is dead. One thing about younger sons. Apparently there was one other option open to them. That being wine merchant. It was the only type of merchant open to them. but it was there. The general principle being that only a real gentleman would be in the position of being able to properly advise people on the purchasing of wines. I learned this when we had our family tree done as one of my ancestors was both a gentleman's son and a wine merchant (there is a specific term for this but I have forgotten it) and the person doing the booklet for us made note of that in the book.

Thanks for the interesting information, John. You are correct that younger sons had limited options prior to economic diversification in the 1800's. Was the term "vintner"?

No, a vintner is the person who actually makes the wine. It might be 'sommelier', which now refers to the person who chooses the wine and sometimes serves it in the classier restaurants. I recall someone of that profession competing on an episode of Iron Chef and he had a wine for each specific dish he served.
And I am glad you appreciated the information.

I must admit that when I read the book the second time (and carefully) I still found Elizabeth's visiting the Collins after their marriage one of the most boring parts of the book.

I say second time, because my first reading was a skim, designed to boast that I had read a classic. Later, I felt guilty, and read it much more thoroughly.

There is no shame in skimming a book necessarily. I did that in university on more than one occassion. In fact one essay for my first year English class (Modern English) I used a book I had read the year before in grade 13, a book that I party skimmed and partly read and a book that I just read a few pages here and there. Got my best mark of the year on that one actually.

I really love P&P, as well as every other Jane Austen Novel I've read so far. The reason why I love her books so much are the charakters. Elisabeth, Emma, Catherine etc. are all independent women who are looking for true love and (different than other women in their century) not richest men. I think you compare the book a little bit too much with the way live works out now in the 21 century. (:

The family was in Victoria today due to the wife having a medical appointment, myself not working (not by choice) and of course the kids being off school for the summer. Went to our favourite bookstore (Bolen Books, Hillside Mall) and while there noticed that among all those magnetic poetry kits there was a Jane Austen one.

Tytti wrote:
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.

reply | flag *



Your comment really cracked me up!

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..."

Bravo...great review. Spot on!

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 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.'

First of all: be careful. Don't judge Pride and Prejudice by modern standards BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN MORE THAN TWO CENTURIES AGO.
Marriage was an integral thing, yes; not only could it make necessities a guarantee, it could also give or take consequence, part of an intricate social dance in JA's time. But you see, the Bennet family, no matter its matriarch's histrionics, is NOT poor!
They won't starve if Lizzy doesn't marry Mr. Collins. Sure, they'll lose Longbourn, but remember, there's still a bit of interest for them to live on. Mr. Bennet isn't stupid, he's put away A BIT. The worst that could happen is that they'd have to work, moving to a small cottage like the Dashwoods in Sense and Sensibility. Plus, Mrs. Bennet has a brother and a brother-in-law who would doubtless support them. I REPEAT: NEVER WOULD THE BENNETS STARVE IN THE STREET!
What front are we talking about? Dignity? Elizabeth knows that she'll be belittled in a marriage to Collins, and not only does she not love the man, he's a total idiot as well - heck, Lydia's cleverer than he is!
In any case, should the family be forced to give up their 'gentle' status and earn their living with blood, sweat and tears, OF COURSE Lizzy would join. She loves her family, however ridiculous it is. She does love her father and Jane at least.
And as for the laughing bit... she never spread harmful gossip except in the case of Mr. Darcy himself (the news of his insult). She laughs at other people, true, but only because IT'S REALLY FUNNY! It really is funny to see such an egotistical man as Collins bow and scrape to such a prideful, childish woman as Lady Catherine. It really is funny to see a tradesman's daughter belittle a gentleman's daughter (btw, tradesmen are lower-class than gentlemen) simply because she's got a big dowry and an even bigger head! Lizzy makes fun of the mother who's making a mountain out of an anthill and a suitor out of every young male that passes by. Seriously though, the Bennets, even without Longbourn, would be far from destitute. Read up again.
That's the point of Lizzy's humor: it's to point out the irony! She isn't a bully because she only points out the genuinely funny bits, and never in a way or situation that could publicly humiliate them. A chuckle behind her fan and an amused glance exchanged with her father is all she'll do.
Elizabeth refuses Darcy because HE'S AN ARROGANT PRICK! I swear, whenever I reread P&P's first half, I want to either laugh at his pride or scream at him. Boy is that man a rich kid. Here are her reasons:
1. she doesn't love him.
2. she wants to wait for the man she'll TRULY love.
3. he's been a complete and utter prick and basically the world's epitome of a prideful jerk. He'd make a terrible husband, honestly, at that point in time.
4. he broke up Jane and Charles, who DID truly love each other despite what his limited worldview told him.
The Bennet girls (Kitty and Lydia, namely) are gold diggers to some extent, yes, but at least they only go so far as flirting. Wickham, on the other hand, is willing to FRICKEN ELOPE with a 16-Y/O for her dowry. Eloping was a shameful business here, especially since it implied that you broke the laws of England (if you were Scottish it didn't really matter).
So there are NO STAKES here if Elizabeth doesn't marry at all! Like Elinor, Marianne, and Margaret Dashwood, they can live with their mother in a cottage smaller than what they're used to, but decent.
The driving point is Lizzy's belief 'If I don't marry for love, I'll never marry at all.' The only reason she STICKS to it is because she can AFFORD TO.

A Miuda Geek wrote: "Yep you looked at it from a modern POV, which it cannot be, in this case.

Looking at it in historical context makes it an even worse piece of shit that should be left in ashes in the dustbin of history. It doesn't stand the test of time and as Charlotte Bronte said of it, “Why do you like Miss Austen so very much? I am puzzled on that point."

Oh boy! Someone has re-opened a can of worms, methinks.

Watched an episode of Midsomer Murders which featured a hotel that was attempting to have a events were the participants are dressed in Georgian attire.

Tu punto de vista no me parce correcto ya que este libro fue escrito hace mas de dos siglos y como todos sabemos en esta época todo era muy diferente.

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..."
@mari
Dear Mari,
First, before I put forward my case, I want to say that I think it's great that you put out your opinion, even though it is unpopular and time proves you wrong. Well, they call it "classics" for a reason, and classics only become classics because millions of people love the book, and they carry it into their cultures.
But let's get to your points! :)
Here is the message of the whole book: Marriage is for love, not money. Not big houses. (If you are saying HOLD ON what about the food for the fam etc...I think that point is so important that I'll address it separately). If you fall in love with someone, and they are in love with you back (along with other things like being equally yoked etc), you will have a happy marriage. People who are poor still have happy marriages! If you marry for money and status (like how Mr. Collins only wanted to marry Elizabeth to look good in the eyes of Lady Catherine), you will grow to hate the person you are living with because, after all the money, you will still be stuck with that person and still see their faults. Jane Austen proved this with Charlot Lucus. She married Collins only to loath him and be forever embarrassed.
So you see, the point that you have argued against is the complete opposite of what Jane Austen wanted to tell you! Fancy that.
Ok, ok. About the Food. If you actually study the regency times, you will find that the Bennets were very well off. Yes, granted, not the richest, but Mr. Bennet had a grand house and land, and his daughters would often have spending money for frivolous hats! AND dresses....and dinner-parties. Maybe they wouldn't have the richest food for the parties, but they still would have food on their table...for the family AND guests. So, Mari, they were far from poor. And even if they were, in those days if you became poor, you went to a relative. And the Bennets had those.
I don't know if you are married, but let me guess that you aren't. You (or someone else) had to choose between
1. A rich man, yes, but he has a rotten soul and you can tell you will never be happy with him AS A PERSON, no matter how happy you would be with his money. Charlotte Lucus realized this with Mr. Collins...Don't make the same mistake.
2. A poor man, but he happens to be your soul-mate, and you would be happy the rest of your life with him AS A PERSON. He works hard, and you know he will make ends meet.
But what about your Mrs. Bennet and children starving on the streets!!!! They weren't that poor, lol. But if they were, that would be a predicament and would depend on the situation. But if I married the rich guy you don't like or your family starves...I would marry the dude to save my family.
In a heartbeat.
But that was not the situation in P and P.
It just wasn't.
So, study your history. Look at the regency period. Then look at the situation of the Bennets, and realize they were middle class.
Now for the "gold diggers", I assume you meant to marry for love? Well hate to drop the bomb on you, but Mr. Wickham didn't marry for love. He never did. He was a rascal that only married to get out of his depts. And when it came to Ms. Darcy earlier, he meant to marry her for her money. So he is with you on the marry for money and riches, not love, and against Jane Austen's message.
With all due respect, read the book again. Get a different perspective. You picked the wrong side, and JA would want you to see it as she does. The truth is: marry for love, not money. If you marry for love, you will be happy for the rest of your life.
(In exception that you artfully put out about marrying for money if your family will starve without it, you will not have a happy marriage. It will be a great sacrifice.
And lastly, you said "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." That is true. Men do not just love woman that are high maintenance. Of course! But JA was not saying that. She was saying that among the other attributes of Elizabeth Bennet, Mr. Darcy loved her wit. NOT JUST for her wit, though.
And I know what I'm talking about. I've read this book over 3 times.
I know this book in and out and I have read almost all of JA works. So I know the author well. If you would respond to this with questions or points, or even point out I'm incorrect (however I am not), please do. I would love to hear what you have to say and help. :)

Brad wrote: ... It doesn't stand the test of time ": a manifestly absurd statement. If P&P did not stand the test of time we would not be discussing it 223 years later.

@Kallie
YES! They call them CLASSICS for a reason! Thank you!!
(I don't mean to sound rude, but it's the truth and I can't help that)

Age doth not make a book a classic. Four one thing it has too speak to later generations. I get the feeling from reading comments on this thread that for some today the book doesn’t speak to them at all.

C. John wrote: "Age doth not make a book a classic. Four one thing it has too speak to later generations. I get the feeling from reading comments on this thread that for some today the book doesn’t speak to them a..."

I actually have to disagree, because, in order for a book to become a classic, it has to stand the test of time. Some people might rave over a book that just came out but then forget about it soon afterward. Never heard of it? Well, that is because it never became a classic. Although I do agree that a classic is not only due to the time factor, it also has to be a more than excellent book with (at least) some amount of truth to it. Don't believe me? Ok think of any classic. No, I mean a real classic. Let's take Oliver Twist for example. Oliver told the truth about the poor in England at the time. And that children need to be loved and cared for. Not satisfied maybe? Ok granted. How about Pride and Prejudice, now that we are on the subject. JA was giving the truth that marriage is not for money, but for love. But you can't just have a book written by a four-year-old with just the truth in it. It needs to be delivered artfully and be a beautiful piece of art. And it doesn't need to be accepted and praised by all, but only by most.

As support foR my argument about age many, if not all, of Hemingway’s works are considered classics. They only date from the early 20th century.

C. John wrote: "As support foR my argument about age many, if not all, of Hemingway’s works are considered classics. They only date from the early 20th century."
Good point, but some agree with quora by saying "Many books may initially be considered to be classics, or may gain that status 25 to 50 years after they are written."
But that might just be a matter of opinion. I'll have to think on it and get back to you. :)

Hanan wrote: "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 ag..."

It was written nearly two centuries ago. Sorry to be pedantic, good comment otherwise.

Ashwise wrote: "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.""

I know right!

BookishBrunette wrote: "Ashwise wrote: "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.""

I know right!"

Hi my friend Im totally against your opinion this review is missing a big point : Jain Austin was poor so she made her characters average , not wealthy nor poor. So Elizabeth s family werent suffering from hunger. So Lizzy wasnt getting married because of her family or any thing . It is Lizzy s absolute right to choose her partner for life.

This novel pretends questioning the mandatory social traditions that were assumed by the whole society two centuries ago, specially the female role. Reject a marriage because you don’t love the other person was an act of rebellion. The woman place at that time was accepting your father and husband will and have children. The simple act of being married with someone you love is a modern way of conceiving relationships. It is even a fairytale dream in many societies nowadays where the woman does not have any decision over her own life.
In my opinion, P&P it’s a document with valuable information about the past and how traditions changed. It’s a piece of art.

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..."
Greetings Mari. Rather excoriating. That is fine. I enjoyed your observations. Me, for a male, I simply read the story. It was entertaining to me and I never go digging for meaning out of books but I think that is o.k. as well. You have probably caught fire and brimstone for this review. Not sure that is o.k. Criticisms should never be to explode on others. Opinions are like ass holes. Everyone has one. Thanks for sharing what your values are.

Elisa Santos wrote: "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."

Elisa. Why is it so necessary to excoriate Mari? Attacking others is so inhumane. We are in a world with so much hatred and vilness and if we persist in this vein how is it possible to get out of the shit hole we humans seem to want to dig. Is it to just make us feel good. You make fair and reasonable assessments but to attack and name call is beneath us as human beings, and it is simply an act of being a bully. I hope you are not a bully.

Nouran wrote: "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."
Thank you for biting your tongue. Too much hate and violence in our world to no end. There is a time for silence but there are times we must speak up, even shout against the hate.

THANK YOU! Everyone judges me for disliking Elizabeth Bennet. Good on you if you like P+P but it's not for me.

Thank you for the kind reply. How is it possible for all of us to like the same books. We vary in so many things of which we do not always agree with given view-points but it is so critically important that we remain respectful to each-other.

The problem with some books is that because it is a so-called classic and because its fans are so passionate about it they feel everyone should like it. I have run into this before with other books and authors. As for books being classics and I not sure how that it determined. Age can't be the reason as there are books as old or older that Pride and Prejudice that are not considered classics. Heck some are most likely completely forgotten. So no we can't all like the same books, thankfully

I have decided that this thread is never going to die.

Take a deep breath, accept it and move on.

Tom wrote: "Take a deep breath, accept it and move on."
Yes. Acknowledge that someone's opinion differs from yours, and know your opinion isn't any more important than their's. We have more pressing things to be arguing about. This is a safe haven for book lovers. We don't need anyone's fascism here.

Unfortunately there are individuals who can be very crass about remarks. I use to be relatively blunt in my remarks but I try to temper my responses. Sometimes it is all we can do by just taking a deep breath, accept it and move on. Yes, definitely there are more important things to be discussing/

Tom wrote: "Unfortunately there are individuals who can be very crass about remarks. I use to be relatively blunt in my remarks but I try to temper my responses. Sometimes it is all we can do by just taking a ..."
Books are so personal to me that when someone insults one I adore, I get very worked up. So I agree calling your favourite book 'a piece of crap' isn't ideal, but other people's opinions don't stop you from staying true to yours <3

It is difficult to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, Mari.