Pride and Prejudice discussion

Daniel wrote: "@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) we..."

That's why I love Goodreads; it's a forum to talk about books in many different ways. It's great. :)

TruthHurtsSowwy wrote:To my opinion the book was confusing.

I too read the book once at about your age and found parts of it confusing.... Read it once more when you are older. By that time, your point of view will have changed just like mine did. You'll be able to understand the why Elizabeth is one of the most popular heroines of English Literature

Daniel wrote: "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 ..."

Lol, not sure why you are quoting me, then using said quote to ramble about what other people have posted that you didn't agree with. I said nothing in my post in reference to Twilight. Perhaps you would consider quoting each person you'd like to stir the pot with individually... just an idea.
As for my argument, you may not like it, and that's just fine. I won't be losing any sleep over it ;)

It beats me to hear criticism of Elizabeth for refusing Mr Collins. Why should any woman would be criticised for believing in her own self-worth and right to reject an unsuitable marriage partner? Her father obviously shared her opinion of him.

The OP's post brings up some interesting points, some which really must be addressed for a critical reading of Pride and Prejudice.

Yes, Elizabeth (and her father, Mr. Bennett) are often a bit too sarcastic. In a scene of self-examination, Mr. Bennett admits this to Elizabeth. Mr. Bennett is funny and makes fun of stupid people, and Elizabeth follows his example, and while we're supposed to laugh with him, Austen does not intend us to love him for it. He finds his wife odious (and who wouldn't), but he also dismisses her real concerns about where she and her five daughters would go, and how they would support themselves, upon his death. He admits this to Elizabeth--it's right there in the book. He apologizes for retreating into himself and treating life as if it were a joke.

He realizes in the end that his carelessness has rubbed off on his daughters, and that in part their silly worldlessness (in particular, Lydia's) is at least a great deal his fault for not having a more sincere presence in their lives.

As for marrying Mr. Collins, Elizabeth is not leaving her family to starve. She is only 20, and has a good chance of other offers in her lifetime, ones she would find less irksome. Remember, when she marries, she marries for her whole life. There were no starter marriages in those days. Charlottle Lucas was 27 at that time, and had thrown in the towel.

She disparages Caroline Bingley because she understands Miss Bingley is the kind of person who looks out for her own interests and pretends to be kind to others.

Mr. Wickham married into money to settle his horrific gambling debts. I don't think his character is comparable to the Bennett sisters, who only marry into their husbands' livings, as all women did then.

None of that post made any sense to me. I'm not even sure you read the book. You don't seem to understand it at all.

TruthHurtsSowwy wrote: "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 o..."

Well said. Try the book in 15 years or so. Being smart is not the only quality one brings to appreciating a novel like this; you also need some experience of life. I think it was not a very well thoughtful choice as reading material for you, which should reflect at least some of your world and experience.

I don't think you really have to have life experience to understand the book. It's a personality difference. I first read the book for school when I was 16. It's been my favorite book since then.

Chester wrote: "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..."

Me too!! I couldn't bear to have twilight and P&P to be equally ranked.

Kate wrote: "I don't think you really have to have life experience to understand the book. It's a personality difference. I first read the book for school when I was 16. It's been my favorite book since then."

16 maybe; that's how old I was too. But 13???

My delight in all the Austen characters is recognizing people I know. Yes, their phrasing is a little stilted or they're talking about barouches, but they're acting just like people I encounter all the time. The obnoxious wife in Emma always has a Brooklyn accent in my head. (Sorry Brooklyn.)

As a woman with a B.A. in English and an appreciation for the finer points of good writing, I can definitely say this book isn't for someone who isn't capable of interpreting subtlety. Austen is known for her delicate sarcastic portraits of common people. This isn't a live-or-die dystopian epic struggle, it's been considered one of the first feminist novels. The question isn't whether Elizabeth was wrong to turn down Mr. Collins, a man who she detested. Clearly, Austen, as a woman in that society, believes that she was right to do so. Instead, the question Austen always asks is what makes a well-bred, well-educated, well-rounded person, and in turn, what leads to happiness. Is it money? Well, probably not, because Mr. Collins has that and he's still a moron, ditto Lady Catherine. Is it bloodlines? Mr. Bennett has the bloodlines of a gentleman, but still fails in decorum and manners, embarrassing himself and his family--Lady Catherine is no better. The people who do come out well are those who have discipline of character, of manner, of their emotions and their mind.

I could go on about the things I disagree with here, but let's face it. Honestly, the classics aren't all for everyone. For example, I can't get through Catch-22 even though I know it's one of the best books out there. If you don't like Austen, don't read Austen; if you don't understand her and want to talk about it, talk about it. I don't think there's any reason, however, to be incensed because you can't understand why other people like her. I'm all for spirited debate, but calling something "a piece of crap" isn't debate, it's a foul-mouthed and ugly way of preventing debate. I think we have enough of that going on in our world right now, don't you?

Rebecca wrote: "... I think we have enough of that going on in our world right now, don't you? "

Yes, in fact too much disrespect for differences causes a lot of our social problems now.

Kate wrote: "I don't think you really have to have life experience to understand the book. It's a personality difference. I first read the book for school when I was 16. It's been my favorite book since then."

I don't think you need life experience, either. I was older when I read P&P, I recognized its quality but it didn't become my favourite. But I read Gone with the Wind when I was 11 and loved it, my friend read The Egyptian by Waltari when she was 13 and loved that though its about a man telling about his life that had not been so succesful or happy.

Tytti wrote: "Kate wrote: "I don't think you really have to have life experience to understand the book. It's a personality difference. I first read the book for school when I was 16. It's been my favorite book ..."

Good point. I liked The Egyptian and GTW at that age too. However, The Egyptian is an adventure story and GTW a historical romance. You could say P&P is the latter too; however it is subtler, more psychological, and more demanding in terms of language (an earlier form of English) than either of those books.

I recently read the book, I'm now 15, (but I saw the mini-series 2 years ago) and although I loved it, I really felt that I missed loads of things. Now is English my second langauge, so I'm planning to read it again when I'm older and beter at English.

I can understand that people complain that there doesn't happen much, because, to be honest, if you always read about books where the main character at least save some lives and probably a whole planet, there really doesn't happen much.

That isn't wrong if you like it, but it isn't wrong either if you don't like it.
So, not liking the book is no problem, but if you want to pronounce your opinion, you'll have to come with better arguments than Mari's.

Kallie wrote: "The Egyptian is an adventure story"

I haven't read it yet but I judging by other reviews/comments by older readers, I wouldn't describe it as "just" an adventure story. Many people have read it many times and find different, philosophical aspects in it when they are older. Knowing the time it was written I wouldn't be surprised by that. Though of course the English edition is quite heavily abridged (and translated from Swedish) so it might be missing something important. (Oh, and I wouldn't describe GwtW as "just" a historical romance. For me it was more about survival.)

Gandalfgrijs wrote: "I can understand that people complain that there doesn't happen much, because, to be honest, if you always read about books where the main character at least save some lives and probably a whole planet, there really doesn't happen much."

This is why I am interested to see what kind of books people who give negative reviews (and positive, too, for other books) read.

Tytti wrote: "Kallie wrote: "The Egyptian is an adventure story"

I haven't read it yet but I judging by other reviews/comments by older readers, I wouldn't describe it as "just" an adventure story. Many people ..."

I'm not putting down The Egyptian or GWtW. My main point is that the three are too different from each other to be comparable, and that P&P is the most demanding of the three because it is more about what happens inside the characters and subtler manifestations of social behavior and class prejudice. In P&P, no one is a foundling, or goes through a civil war.

Kallie wrote: "P&P is the most demanding of the three because it is more about what happens inside the characters and subtler manifestations of social behavior and class prejudice. In P&P, no one is a foundling"

One reviewer wrote about The Egyptian:

A most remarkable tale of the dangers of fanaticism, the comfort of the familiar suffering, the superiority of wanting to having, the pitfalls of pride and the often hideous reality of human nature - the basest aspects of which we are so eager to ignore, thereby allowing to grow greater that the noble, which we fixate on desperately in order to assuage our collective shame as we keep our heads purposefully buried in the sand.

So there are deeper issues in it, too, not just adventures and foundlings. I believe that's why my father recommended that I would read it later (I was about 9 or 10) because he knew I would not fully grasp everything, yet.

Looking at Mari's shelves Pride and Prejudice does seem to be out of place. I would be interested to know why she chose to read it. Personally it is not a book I would choose to read myself, simply because it doesn't appeal to me. As for her review and the response to it, well we are all entitled to our opinions and have the right to express them. However I do agree that some tact could be used. Referring to a book as crap is not really necessary (at least 99% of the time, as there are some that do deserve that description). At the same time I also detect a tone in some of the responses that says "you have to like this book as it is a classic". That is an attitude that can turn people off of a book as much as the book itself. I just wonder if that is what happened here.

Tytti wrote: "So there are deeper issues in it, too, not just adventures and foundlings. I believe that's why my father recommended that I would read it later (I was about 9 or 10) because he knew I would not fully grasp everything, yet. "

I'm no making my point clear or you are missing it, but that's okay.

John wrote: "Looking at Mari's shelves Pride and Prejudice does seem to be out of place. I would be interested to know why she chose to read it. Personally it is not a book I would choose to read myself, simply..."

Just because a book is a classic doesn't necessarily mean it is good. Sorry, but it doesn't. I enjoy reading classics. Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorites. However, Mansfield Park, a "classic" book by the same author, is not one of my favorites. In my opinion, it moves very slowly and dragged on and on.

My point is, each classic has something to offer for everyone. There may be someone out there who feels the complete opposite of what I feel about Mansfield Park and Pride and Prejudice.

However, tact should be used when reviewing a classic. Certainly. Give legitimate reasons for disliking a book. Mari did, but it was with obvious rancor.

Exactly. Exactly right, gertt. :)

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 have tried several times to read a Jane Austen book. I am an avid reader and will continue to read a book even if I do not like it because as a writer I will at least read it to know what not to do to lose a reader's interest; however, I cannot get through a Jane Austen novel. I feel as if I am wasting my time, the novel will neither teach or entertain me, and should use the time to read fine literature. As an author I know that not everyone will like my novels, and knowing the arduous work that goes into producing a novel, I respect her and am happy she found an audience. I prefer not to be in that audience.

Hello, my name is Ian and I also HATED this book. Fortunately I am not alone. I think most humans with a Y chromosome hate this book. It is pure female fantasy wish fulfillment with nothing but dances, card games, elegant dresses and no worries except which wealthy hunk to marry. This is for women what Conan the Barbarian is for men.

Ian wrote: "This is for women what Conan the Barbarian is for men. "

So, you didn't get the themes; that doesn't mean they are not there, though Austen doesn't bash anyone over the head with them but relates them through story. In fact, the themes are some of the titles: Pride and Prejudice, Persuasion, Sense and Sensibility. These themes are shown in character interaction and thought, and Austen gives a very detailed rendering of how the protagonists, and the society in which they live with all its class a cultural strictures, conspire against true feelings.

Wow- there my only words for that monologue!!!

While I appreciate that everyone reads differently, I do believe you are mistaken about the context of Austen’s novels. It’s important to remember that she writes about the gentry and not the average person in early nineteenth century England. You are taking Mrs. Bennet far too seriously. She grossly exaggerates their situation. Admittedly, If Mr. Bennet were to die unexpectedly, Mrs. Bennet and the girls would take a step down the social ladder, but they certainly would not be starving in the streets. For one thing, Mr. Collins is not likely to throw them out of their own house immediately; even he would understand that to be an utter disgrace. If he did throw them out for whatever reason, the Bennets are certainly not without options. Mrs. Bennet has at least two successful, if unfashionable, connections in trade through her brother and brother-in-law. They would not stand idly by as their sister and nieces were thrown out in the streets. In the worst case scenario, they would have to take up some work to support themselves, like becoming governesses. It would not be ideal, but it would be far better than how the majority of the English people were living at the time.

Your reading of Lizzie is very unusual. She certainly isn’t aloof. If anything, she’s a little hotheaded. She’s noted for her ability to make friends and make people feel at ease. Her laughter is not the laughter of cruelty; she just enjoys the irony of people. (For instance, her mother rambles on for a page about how she doesn’t like to talk. Mr. Collins is a parson who says nothing of his God but everything of his patroness, Lady Catherine. The only positive way to deal with such people is to laugh at their silliness.) I’m also confused about how you can accuse her of being a gold-digger while also ridiculing her for not marrying for the money to keep her family fed. You undermine your own argument there. In any case, if Lizzie were a gold-digger, she would have jumped at Mr.Darcy’s proposal. (His income translates into millions a year in current dollars.) She not only turned him down but did it mercilessly (because she wrongly believed he was a cruel man who had ruined the lives of those around her). As far as bullies go, Caroline is the book’s bully, not Lizzie. For one thing, Lizzie exerts no power; there is nothing for her to bully people with. Caroline, on the other hand, constantly belittles everyone around her. She accuses Lizzie of trying to make other women look bad so that she can win Darcy (clearly not Lizzie’s goal at the time, or ever, really) when that is what she herself is doing by criticizing Lizzie. (Let’s note that while she’s poorer, Lizzie technically has the better social standing as a gentleman’s daughter even with her connections in trade; Caroline’s family is all trade, yet she trumps herself up like she’s a duchess. The Bennets do not point that out.) She bullies her brother around and out of a relationship of real love. (Trust me, if Jane were a gold-digger, her looks alone would have had her married five years earlier.) Even if they ARE gold-diggers, they are at least dealing with grown men. Mr. Wickham seduced a barely fifteen-year-old girl, Georgiana, (That’s a high school freshman, and he’s somewhere near his thirties.) and then almost ruined another girl of the same age in Lydia. Only an obscene amount of money saved her.

You defend Mrs. Bennet so heartily, yet if she really cared about her children’s futures, she would have been a better mother. She would have seen to their accomplishments, the only defense for a woman with a small dowry in those days. She would have bothered to put some sense into the heads of her younger girls. (Blame for Lydia’s antics lands squarely at her door.) She would not have them out and eligible for marriage at fifteen and sixteen years old. She would have curbed her spending to save up for Mr. Bennet’s eventual death. She would not have been such a relentless gossip bragging about every “advantageous” match her daughters might have, scaring off any potential suitors they could have. The only gold-digging Bennet is her.

If you think Lizzie Bennet is high maintenance (the girl who trudges miles through mud to take care of her sister) but you defend Caroline Bingley of all people, I seriously cannot understand your reasoning.

Austen can be a difficult read. She’s more than two centuries removed from us (and therefore requires a lot of context), and she was a subtle writer even in her own time. Her irony is a quiet kind of irony, but it’s beautiful and hilarious once you recognize it. I’m not sure where the root of your misunderstanding is, but Pride & Prejudice certainly does not do what you accuse it of.

Bri wrote: "While I appreciate that everyone reads differently, I do believe you are mistaken about the context of Austen’s novels. It’s important to remember that she writes about the gentry and not the avera..."
Thanks. The best thing about this thread is reading the detailed, discerning posts from readers like you who appreciate Jane Austen's artistry as a writer, and as an observer of character and the society in which she lived. Applicable to contemporary times: her sense of irony (I love that too) and that, though she is never mean-spirited, she catches and deftly portrays human foibles and flaws that are as common as ever.

Bri wrote: "While I appreciate that everyone reads differently, I do believe you are mistaken about the context of Austen’s novels. It’s important to remember that she writes about the gentry and not the avera..."

Wow. That's beautiful. Wonderful. :)

Bri wrote: "While I appreciate that everyone reads differently, I do believe you are mistaken about the context of Austen’s novels. It’s important to remember that she writes about the gentry and not the avera..."

Yes. That was the best explanation of Pride and Prejudice I've ever seen.

This novel is a classic. There is a reason that it is still around after 200 years. People may choose not to like it, but that doesn't make it a "piece of crap". I can't stand reading F. Scott Fitzgerald, but I do realize his contribution to American literature. Just don't bother to read any more Jane Austen novels.

Well said Bri. Let's also not forget a widow's jointure would be settled upon Mrs. Bennet when Mr. Bennet dies. It's not much, obviously, but she won't starve. I know Mr. Gardner would take her in if he had to. We know how much Mr. Bennet is prepared to settle on the girls because of what he offers Wickham. It's not enough to settle Wickham's debts and get him to marry Lydia. It's enough for Darcy and Bingley who don't need the money, it's enough for Mr. Collins who could use the money. If you translate the amount into today's dollars or pounds, it's a lot more than it sounds!

Did you actually read the book or did you just watch the movie and base your review on that. I think if you had read the book you might have a greater understanding of the motives of the characters. The assumption that the Bennett's would starve in the streets was a result of Mrs. Bennett's dramatics. You should probably stick to reading books that require a little less intelligence to understand.

Kaytie wrote: "Did you actually read the book or did you just watch the movie and base your review on that. I think if you had read the book you might have a greater understanding of the motives of the character..."

In fact, I have wondered if either Mari or Ian actually read the book since their comments don't reflect anything about the story that a person wouldn't learn from one of the movies based on P&P. As for their intelligence, I know really bright people who have no use for Jane Austen, or any literary novels (by which I mean novels that not directed at a particular market). Fortunately, they don't (yet) determine what the rest of us get to read though they certainly have an unfortunate influence on the publishing industry.

Bri wrote: "While I appreciate that everyone reads differently, I do believe you are mistaken about the context of Austen’s novels. It’s important to remember that she writes about the gentry and not the avera..."
Very well put.

I admit I didn't give due credit to Austen's prose and exaggerated my view for comedic effect. Admittedly I am not a fan of Austen and this book left a bitter taste in my mouth, but just to clarify, I don't really consider this Conan the Barbarian for women. It DOES have literary value, which is what kept me from rating it one star instead of two.

Ian wrote: "I admit I didn't give due credit to Austen's prose and exaggerated my view for comedic effect. Admittedly I am not a fan of Austen and this book left a bitter taste in my mouth, but just to clarify..."

Thanks for admitting this.

At first I thought that I was going to have to stab a knife in something... or someone... then I looked at the books that she likes and let me tell you: you can tell a lot by someone's library and what type of a person they are.
Usually I respect all sorts of reviews and appreciate how not everyone likes the same sort of thing. I mean I hate a lot of books that other people love. But I think it's sort of... um... childish to call what has been noted as one of the greatest pieces of literature crap.
I mean I call a lot of modern books crap but I don't think that anyone has the right to call something like Pride and Prejudice crap. You may not like it but it has withstood the test of time as something that many people love. In fact it's read in schools which last time I checked Twilight wasn't being taught for a curriculum (if it is then that school needs to get their priorities straight).
So I think this reviewer needs to get her priorities straight and realize that Lizzie is ten times better than Bella Swan will ever be and Mr. Darcy beats Edward Cullen every day of the week.

Mia wrote: "At first I thought that I was going to have to stab a knife in something... or someone... then I looked at the books that she likes and let me tell you: you can tell a lot by someone's library and ..."

Actually, much to my disgust, I found out that Twilight is actually being taught in some schools.

I love Pride and Prejudice but I think an important aspect that has been pointed out is that Elizabeth mocks her family a lot, even though she hates it when Darcy does it. She's offended by what everyone says about her mother and sisters, but is very often embarassed by their behaviour. Elizabeth herself holds prejudice against them. She's herself very proud and arrogant. She's somewhat of a hypocrite too if you think about it. That's why I found it very odd that Darcy and her didn't hit it off in the first place (if he hadn't made that comment about her appearance, she would've been all over him since the beggining).
From a historical point of view, however, we need to understand that everything about this book, including her rejection of Mr. Collin's proposal, is about fighting for independence, not only economical (even though it leads us to think it is), but existential. Elizabeth is a woman from the beggining of the 1800s that was given the right to choose. Instead of doing what her mother wanted her to do, she did something else. She fought for her own individuality. Jane didn't, and that's why Jane seems so blurry to us. We know she's pretty, but everything else is relative; like we know she's a kind girl who has no personality whatsoever. The only sisters who seem to have a well-defined personality are Elizabeth and Lydia, who do what they want and always have something bold to say.
They're both very flawed human beings, but Elizabeth recognizes her faults-mostly the fact that she judges people way too much-, and eventually realizes she isn't always right (just like most Austen heroines- more famously Emma Woodhouse.). Being aware of their imperfections make them stronger and real. It makes them powerful individuals, that chose for themselves and think and have their own regrets. That's the ultimate redemption for them. It's the Austen formula: criticizing the hipocrits, making the critics realize they themselves are hipocrits, have them live happily ever after. With irony and humor; of course.

About Twillight- that is a book about a stupid girl with no professional goals that gives up her entire life to marry a vampire who wants to kill her.
I don't want to start a discussion about whether it should be considered art or not (although it is clear to me that it shouldn't), but I don't think anyone will disagree when I say it's misogynistic.

Kaytie wrote: "Actually, much to my disgust, I found out that Twilight is actually being taught in some schools. "

"shudder" The world is coming to an end, i tell you.....

Maria wrote: "Kaytie wrote: "Actually, much to my disgust, I found out that Twilight is actually being taught in some schools. "

"shudder" The world is coming to an end, i tell you....."

Not promising. What school districts? I think they need to hear from any of us willing to write.

Kallie wrote: "Maria wrote: "Kaytie wrote: "Actually, much to my disgust, I found out that Twilight is actually being taught in some schools. "

"shudder" The world is coming to an end, i tell you....."

Not prom..."

Fortunatly not anywhere near here....

I would say that having students reading Twilight instead of the good, classic writters like Fernando Pessoa or Eça de Queiroz makes me wonder where the heck is the education sistem, worldwide, going to.

What seems senseless about this is the number of good writers, from everywhere in the world, to choose from. And what a difference that could make in how a student views the world and people from other cultures! It's as though they bow to the kids narrow desires instead of encouraging them to grow -- making them pop-culture consumers I guess; that's sure where the money is.

My 11 year old niece who LOVES Harry Potter has recently started reading Twilight. I almost cried when she told me she likes them both equally now :(

Alyssa wrote: "My 11 year old niece who LOVES Harry Potter has recently started reading Twilight. I almost cried when she told me she likes them both equally now :("

She is only 11. I don't know if I would hate or love Twilight if I read it when I was 11.

Actually if you think about it, Twilight might be a good read at young age. The books might seem more interesting theme-wise and maybe you even like some of the characters.

Just make sure you give her Dracula afterwards. So that she knows that vampires aren't supposed to sparkle.