Pride and Prejudice discussion

Even Hellsing is better than twilight. A poorly written anime directed by an ex porn producer, about Count Dracula teaming up with Van Helsing's granddaughter to stop an army of Nazi vampires from slaughtering all of England. As a joke, there is also a Nazi werewolf with a heavy propensity for ripping off his shirt. I would rather my kids stick to more high brow literature like the original Dracula, but I would FAR rather let them watch Hellsing Ultimate than read Twilight.

Daniel wrote: "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..."

Yep my vampire has to be victorian, mean and bad...none of the sparkly stuf for me, thanks!

Best vampires-Lestat and Louie

Carrie wrote: "Best vampires-Lastat and Louie"

I don´t agree with Louie - all he did was whinge like a hagg! He was never happy, either when he was human neither when he was a vampire....no, Lestat, if we have to name one out of these two is my fave! he is mean, he enjoys his "perks" of being a vampire and immortal and he is sensuous, at the same time. Summig up - he love what he does!

I guess I liked Louie as the tortured soul. He was sensitive. But yes, Lestat was a very good bad vampire. I love Anne rice books and I loved that movie!

Twilight - how can anyone like that crap!

David wrote: "Twilight - how can anyone like that crap!"

I have never read it and, judging by the reaction i had to the 1st movie, the whole half an hour i saw of it - bored to death - i will most surely not try it....

Maria wrote: "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..."

Collins was not a gold digger, since he would inherit the estate whether he married Lizzie or not. He had been ordered to marry by his countess, and figured that he'd pick up a wife easily from one of the Bennetts, who figured to be anxious about the future.

Kirk wrote: "Maria wrote: "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, ..."

I guess the term gold digger was used loosily, maybe to portray his intent on getting the best wife - remember that he first tried to favor Jane. But, i guess it´s misplaced: after all, he was going to inherit anyway, it would be just a matter of time.

Mr. Collins was a pretty flat character; there are always such characters in social satire, aren't there? And he was so wittily observed that he had to be based on people Austen had encountered. People in real life can appear to be pretty one-dimensional; maybe they sometimes are, horrible thought.

Kallie wrote: "Mr. Collins was a pretty flat character; there are always such characters in social satire, aren't there? And he was so wittily observed that he had to be based on people Austen had encountered. ..."
I read somewhere that (I think it was) Forster didn't like Austen's writing because he thought her charcters were simply flat caricatures of people, the only round character being the protagonist (the one that actually thinks). I found this very curious, because that might be the reason why Austen appeals to so many of us- that's mostly how we see ourselves. Our egos, as contradictory and multiple as they are, lable and limit others with flat one-dimensional characteristics, with definitions.

Bia wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Mr. Collins was a pretty flat character; there are always such characters in social satire, aren't there? And he was so wittily observed that he had to be based on people Austen had..."

Yes, there's a human tendency to oversimplify others and thereby reduce them. I think racism is an extreme example of that so it's important to argue with that tendency when I see myself oversimplifying someone. But Austen was writing about an unjust social dynamic, and with great warmth and humor skewered the self-serving snobby behavior of some (which was, in that society, accepted behavior). I think it is possible to put such flattening to good use, as she did.

I don't think people read Austen because of the plots. Certainly her books reveal a lot about the attitudes of a certain segment of English society TWO HUNDRED years ago. There are probably upper middle class people in our country today that worry about the same "trivial" things and are acutely sensitive to their standing in society .

No, Austen fans like me read these books because of the language. Reading Austen is like getting dressed up in one's finest and reveling in the elegance of old fashioned manners . In a world of texting, and Tweets, it can be a lovely escape to read beautifully written prose.

Does anyne read Shakespeare for the characters? Does anyone attend opera for the story line?

Remember, when this book was written, 200 years ago, Americans still kept slaves, and women as a rule could not own property, even that in herited from their families.

But you don't read Austen for plot or preaching, it is the elegance of the langage that sustains it. In a time of text and tweeting, well written prose is a delightful escape from mediocrity and sloppy language. It's like getting dressed up in truly elegant clothing, once in a while.

Lynn wrote: "No, Austen fans like me read these books because of the language. Reading Austen is like getting dressed up in one's finest and reveling in the elegance of old fashioned manners . In a world of texting, and Tweets, it can be a lovely escape to read beautifully written prose.

An escape to a beautifull era? Yes, i get that to,when reading Austen. It´s like an injection of good taste, good manners, old-fashioned but so tastefull drama...an escape from a sometimes ugly world.

The language is beautiful, but the plot and characters are what kept me reading. They all add up to create a masterpiece. The same goes for Shakespeare and Opera. :)

Yes, I think the plots, based on character 'growth' (sorry, I don't like that word) are wonderful and suspenseful. But I also love the language, so deft and elegant and humorous in tone.

P&P is a wonderful book, but Mari made a lot of valid points. Everybody, read it again with a few things in mind, and you will find a richer book. P&P is so well written, the characters so endearing, and the plot so perfectly (and happily) worked out that readers usually consider it a pretty breezy read. Far from reading it from a modern POV, Mari is seeing all the things that would have made it rather provocative in its own time.

Marriage isn't frivolous if its the only way you have of making sure your family eats and has a place to live.

As Mrsbooks pointed out, the family income was from the estate. Also, keep in mind that the estate the Bennetts will lose is their home--and not one they spotted on Zillow a couple years ago. This is the estate handed down Bennett to Bennett. The fact that Mrs Bennett has produced only girls is not only a financial and social catastrophe waiting in the wings but also her fault. She is a silly woman of limited intelligence, but she has a real problem. Worst case scenario is that Mr. Bennett will die before at least one or two of the girls have been unloaded. For Mrs. Bennett and her five daughters to move into "genteel lodgings" would be a very real hardship. No doubt the uncles would help their newly poor relations, but "good" marriages would be considerably harder for the girls to come by, and heaven forbid any of them should be sent out as governesses. Icky Mr. Collins was the ONLY way any of the girls would inherit the family home, as he was by law the only heir. Lizzie's refusal was not merely her own business because the entire family was directly affected. When Mr. Bennett supports Lizzie's decision, he is saying "Let the house go. It isn't worth your sacrifice." No, the family won't starve, but the Bennett legacy will die with him. To a modern audience, this might not even ring a bell, but in Austen's day she wouldn't have needed to spell it out. Nevertheless, Lizzie is not being entirely selfish: As Mr. Collins choice, she is the one of the five girls who would keep the estate, so she is only refusing her own inheritance. But it is still fair to say that she has put herself, her sisters, and her mother in a less advantageous position by doing so. For more about how the genteel poor lived, read Cranford (Gaskell) or the American Senator (Trollope).

What kind of selfish whore puts her own romantic happiness ahead of that?

This was a major theme in the 19th century, especially with Austen. Charlotte Lucas is not a villain because she marries Mr. Collins. She is not like Lizzie, and with her more pragmatic good sense she will make all the accommodations necessary to make her own life, her husband's, and her children's comfortable and happy. She may even be a good influence over the more odious aspects of his character. She may even come to love him. This was certainly the expectation of such marriages but would be too boring to be played out in a novel. (Daniel Deronda, as Kressel suggested, is a way-ahead-of-its-time tale of a conjugal train wreck.) Lizzie could never have overcome her aversion for Mr. Collins. Selfish? Depends on how you look at it. If Lizzie had married him just to save the inheritance, that certainly would have been for the benefit of herself and her family--not in any way to serve the interests of her husband. If her aversion had persisted, it would have been a bad deal all around. So, it can be argued that Lizzie's refusal was as much in Mr. Collins' interest as her own.

She wants to be aloof, and act like she doesn't care. ...She likes dearly to laugh at people.

She does. She has a sharp tongue, high standards, and very little patience. In her defense, she doesn't ridicule people to their faces unless she feels herself affronted first. We all say snarky things behind people's backs. Mari is correct, though, that Lizzie doesn't temper her criticisms by checking the other side of the coin. In real life, this is exactly how mean girl stuff gets started. Caroline says mean stuff about the Bennetts to her friends, then Lizzie says mean stuff about Caroline to her friends. Without derailing the thread into all that--the message Mari was looking for is this: People are often better than they seem and should not be judged in light of one's prejudices. In the end Lizzie is both humbled and enlightened. So while Mari may have missed the message, she did point out that what readers love about Lizzie--her wit, her self-assurance, her pride--are actually double-edged aspects of her character.

And then when she has a second chance, she refuses because the proposal isn't nice enough.

Lizzie's pride at work. She is well aware that her mother and sisters (and herself) are seen as golddiggers. She knows her mother is silly, Kitty and Lydia are outrageous, Mary is a nerd. At that age, who doesn't think their family is weirder than everybody else's? She is painfully embarrassed by her family, but she loves them. Hence her defensiveness. D'Arcy doesn't botch his proposal by merely being awkward; he offends her where she is touchiest--her family. Point to Lizzie: she wants more than love in marriage, she wants respect. D'Arcy's money might help make her mother's twilight years more physically comfortable, but even Mrs. Bennett doesn't want a son-in-law who sneers down his nose at her.

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...

Yes, the irony drips from the first line of the novel. The difference though between Wickham's MO and the Bennett MO is extortion and bad intentions. He would not have been faulted for landing himself a wife with money. On the contrary.

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.

There is almost always an aspect of fantasy to novels. In this case, plucky heroine meets the one man in the world who is her perfect match, and so does her deserving sister, and just for kicks, so does her undeserving sister. Luckily, all ends happily. But I think readers can appreciate all of Austen's virtues as a writer and P&P's considerable glories, while taking a harder look at the realities of Regency England, the social class Austen wrote about, and the complexities that would have been obvious to readers at that time. Jane could easily have stayed jilted, Lydia could have ended up in the Thames, Mary could have retired on a small annuity after a long life as the embittered and deeply hated governess of bird-killing young gentlemen. Kitty might have been forgotten and left behind somewhere, and Lizzie would doubtless have ended up caring for her aged parent, an arch spinster administering boozy medicines to her complaining invalid mother in a dingy rented house owned by a prosperous grocer.

Far from being a troll or demonstrating poor taste, Mari seems to have read the book without prejudice. Her cool and honest appraisal raises very legitimate questions about Austen's values and brings to the fore the realities of Lizzie's course of action. Discussion of a work should include questions, objections, and challenges.

Lynn wrote: "Does anyne read Shakespeare for the characters? Does anyone attend opera for the story line? "

Well story vs music is a long running argument in opera. For me personally I find that I appreciate the music much more if I can place it within the context of the story, even if most opera plots are not particularly good.

Dismissing a novel as a piece of crap can hardly be called discussion. True discussion includes interest in other people's opinion even if that differs from yours. I see no evidence of that in Mari's post and though people have taken great pains to share the whys and wherefores of their interest, she does not return that effort with so much as a reply.

Kallie wrote: "Dismissing a novel as a piece of crap can hardly be called discussion. True discussion includes interest in other people's opinion even if that differs from yours. I see no evidence of that in Ma..."

Just to be contrary, I don't have a problem calling novels I don't respect pieces of crap. There are quite a few posts in this thread that execrate Twilight without offering constructive criticism justifying their appraisal of that novel. Mari described her objections to P&P with a fair amount of verve, but I don't see that the general reaction was any more congenial. I'm not surprised she tuned out rather than put up with having her taste and intelligence insulted. Mari's opinions, however expressed, were there to be answered--and there have been some great posts. But some responders chose to attack Mari's standing as a reader by going after her reading history and discrediting her for liking the wrong books rather than offering her alternative ways of seeing P&P's plot and characters. As shown by the fierce defense many of the posters have made on behalf of their beloved P&P, we tend to hold our favorite books close to our hearts, especially those that were formative in our development as readers. Attacking Twilight (and its readers) would have been a very effective way of driving a Twilight fan out of the discussion and, incidentally, confirming the divide between people who read classics and people who don't. It would be a shame if Mari wrote off attempting any more classics because she had been made to feel that they were off limits to her. The classics ARE for everybody. That's why they are classics. Discussion and instruction are what make difficult prose accessible and meaningful, and if we are interested in expanding the readership of books like P&P, we should not invent exclusionary prejudices based on our own reading preferences.

""Just to be contrary, I don't have a problem calling novels I don't respect pieces of crap""

For my part, it's an attitude that I can't really respect, though it's not one that is terribly troubling to me either, because I can simply move on from such kinds of comments. But declaring that something is piece of crap implicitly declares a posture of superiority relative to those who don't hold the same opinion. And doing this in a location known to be populated by heartfelt fans, comes comes across as obnoxious to me.

I have to agree with Kellie: I found nothing in the tone, content, or subsequent non-involvement of the OP that suggests an honest invitation to discussion. It strikes me more as (and excuse the crudity of this) entering a public domain to use the parlor carpet as a toilet and then disappearing. Now the OP certainly has the right to choose how to express her opinions in this or any other thread. But I am not at all surprised that dismissive and even hostile hostile energy was requited to the original example of the same. Personally speaking, I simply responded to the OP by making clear that I am glad the story followed Jane Austen's outlook for it, rather than her's. But mine is not the only way in the world, I know-- and it doesn't surprise me when rancor is met with rancor, nor condemnation with condemnation, within larger group contexts.

People read P&P because it isn't a piece of crap. It's well-written and is the forerunner to the romance genre enjoyed by contemporary readers: witty, bookish heroine and arrogant, billionaire hero. Hello, Anastasia and Christian, Monica and Jonathan, etc…Sometimes, I think CD Reiss is the reincarnation of Jane Austen - her grittier self without the social commentary. Anyway, Jane Austen's literature is wonderful and a testament to the importance of restraint in romance as a form of satire (even though readers wanted romance to prevail always) in its period of time.

I agree about demonstrating respect, which is why I argue that her original posting should have been either ignored or met with a respectful and illuminating reply. We learn by example. Reading P&P takes some chops and more than a little background info to understand. I'm not at all surprised that an unprepared reader might be offended by any of Austen's works, and if Mari had been correct in her interpretation of P&P, she would surely have been correct in her outrage and must have been wondering what on earth is wrong with people who love this book. Frankly, I'm just delighted when anyone articulates their reasons for liking or not liking a work of literature, especially someone who is fresh and new to a work. The fact that Mari reacted so emotionally to the book suggests that she is an engaged and demanding reader, one who should be nurtured and taught rather than shut out. I wouldn't expect her to re-enter the conversation at this point, but I hope she got past the harsher remarks and was able to get a better idea of what P&P is all about. If you're still reading these posts, Mari, try The Woman in White (Collins) or Villette (Bronte). These are both 19th century classics with more than a touch of the gothic most Twilight readers find so intriguing.

Longhare wrote: "I agree about demonstrating respect, which is why I argue that her original posting should have been either ignored or met with a respectful and illuminating reply. We learn by example. Reading P&P..."

Plenty of people responded to Mari in a neutral, informative way that you do not do justice. There is no excuse for being rude about something you don't understand and assuming a superior, scornful attitude. Some humility is called for, and many of us who are 'engaged and demanding' readers know how to honestly question the value of a novel we don't understand; "How can anyone like this piece of crap?" is not an honest question but a rhetorical one that assumes there is no good answer, an attitude evidenced by the hit-and-run behavior (kellyjane's toilet allusion was apt).

Longshare wrote: "I agree about demonstrating respect, which is why I argue that her original posting should have been either ignored or met with a respectful and illuminating reply. We learn by example. Reading P&P ..."

I appreciate your efforts to foster constructive and civil conversation even within a context that began on such a sour note. I perhaps may have taken Mari's post more seriously, and paid her the courtesy of a point-by-point response to her various opinions, had I felt that she was or would be the least bit interested in dialogue. But for me, the multiple instances of screaming in her original post (ie, all-cap expressions), combined with her subsequent silence in relation to many such even-handed responses, was enough for me to conclude that venting rather than dialogue had been her only purpose.

If Mari has, though not involving herself again in this discussion, read through some of the responses in the privacy of her own home, then she might not have derived any additional perspective on reading and discussing the classics, but may still see how angrily flinging mud in public venues is likely to be received. Which is a different opportunity for learning, undoubtedly-- yet not necessarily a lesser one in my opinion.

Mari showed no respect for either the book or us, the members of this site who more than politely answered her rude question, by re-entering the discussion and basically say something - she did not.

One can express whatever opinion they have on whatever subject, but one has to 1st back it up conveniently, with some good argumentation and 2nd respect other people.

But this thread has been feeding her for a long, long time...i would say call it quits.

Esha wrote: "i totally agree this book did not match up with any of my expectations!!!AND THEY SAY ITS A CLASSIC!!!!"

For someone who joined a group called "to hell with the classics", that's hardly surprising.

Kate wrote: "Esha wrote: "i totally agree this book did not match up with any of my expectations!!!AND THEY SAY ITS A CLASSIC!!!!"

For someone who joined a group called "to hell with the classics", that's hard..."

So Esha vehemently dislikes P&P because it didn't match her expectations of a 'classic' and she also belongs to a group called 'to hell with the classics'? Why does she care enough to post this? She's a troll (and I mean the Billy Goat's Gruff kind).

Esha wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Kate wrote: "Esha wrote: "i totally agree this book did not match up with any of my expectations!!!AND THEY SAY ITS A CLASSIC!!!!"

For someone who joined a group called "to hell wit..."

I agree that some classics are overrated, but you can't say you read all the classics. I read classics non-stop for 12 years and I'm not done with even 2% of him.

Esha wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Kate wrote: "Esha wrote: "i totally agree this book did not match up with any of my expectations!!!AND THEY SAY ITS A CLASSIC!!!!"

For someone who joined a group called "to hell wit..."

I apologize for calling you a troll. But it's hard to relate to vehement opinions, however heartfelt, and exclamation marks. I am interested in thoughtful comments about why someone doesn't like a book that so many people, with good reason, enjoy reading and re-reading.

That "its" needs an apostrophe.

Shelley, http://dustbowlstory.wordpress.com

Amanda wrote: "Esha wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Kate wrote: "Esha wrote: "i totally agree this book did not match up with any of my expectations!!!AND THEY SAY ITS A CLASSIC!!!!"

For someone who joined a group called..."

I agree. There are thousands and thousands of classics. There's no way you could read a few and determine that most of them are overrated.

I think that Austen was writing as a feminist in some ways. She (as a woman who did it) believed that a woman could take care of herself and didn't need a husband to provide for her. Elizabeth had that same confidence in herself. She wasn't about to marry someone just for something she could provide for herself.

Furthermore, it wasn't like her family didn't have relatives who could help them out in a pinch with somewhere to live should her father pass. It is also worth noting that Mrs. Bennet is constantly going on about when Mr. Bennet dies, but what evidence is there that this is a disaster soon to befall them? With five daughters, odds are one would be married and capable of helping the others should their situation become dire after Mr. Bennet's eventual passing.
Maybe Elizabeth was being a little selfish, but I think that's the way independence often looks to outsiders.

Esha wrote: "i totally agree this book did not match up with any of my expectations!!!AND THEY SAY ITS A CLASSIC!!!!"

An aside on screaming caps and exclamation points:

In US classrooms, exclamation points are strongly discouraged. We are told to reserve them for enthusiastic greetings (Happy Birthday!) or for when we really, really, really mean it (Body parts were strewn about and blood was everywhere. Astoundingly, the blood was green!) The ban on exclamation points is not universally embraced, and often, a profusion of them simply indicates a heightened level of energy, not necessarily personal or hostile energy. Similarly, words that are all caps are often interpreted as intended to wham the reader with their overpowering appearance. I once corresponded with a man who wrote letters to the editor that were extraordinarily vituperative. He turned out to be quite sweet and reasonable, and when I explained that all-capping words indicated shouting, he was surprised and said that he only meant to emphasize what he thought were important points. If you take Ian's comment (sorry, Ian) and re-punctuate it as:

"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 WEALTH HUNK TO MARRY!!! THIS IS FOR WOMEN WHAT CONAN THE BARBARIAN IS FOR MEN!!!!"


It reads much differently--aggressive, insulting, rabidly misogynistic--than Ian's own choice of presentation, which is none of these. Contrariwise, Esha's comment could be rewritten (I have not corrected for smartphone typing, which is a tough enough hurdle to communication but that's a different rant):

"i read all the classics and have heard a lot especially about this one. after reading it i realized that its super over-rated, like many of the so-called classics. thats when i made the group called to hell with the classics!"

I feel like I stripped all the liveliness out of it. It is, however, less ringing with challenge, and it is therefore easier to see that Esha was using "read" in the present tense--she wasn't claiming to have read them all. She reads classics and finds many of them to be disappointing, given their exalted status. I'm sure we've all had that experience. She started a group aimed at taking the hot air out of some of these books. Interesting. Could lead to some lively discussion. Of course, she is more likely to provoke discussion in a group where people will disagree with her than in an echo chamber where everybody shares a common opinion. If this thread had been posted in the To Hell with Classics group, she might have only had replies such as "Yeah, I didn't like it either. Dumb book." Which is neither edifying nor very entertaining. I have to say, though, that some of the most informative threads I've read have been in response to challenges to a book's worth. Mari listed her objections. I would be interested in hearing what Esha had hoped to discover in P&P and in what ways she was disappointed.

Esha wrote: "Through my group to hell with the classics i wana say is that many classics are over-rated"

Or you are just too young to understand what makes them great. I think I'll go with that.

Esha wrote: "thank you longhare! you seem to have understood me well. The reason for my earlier comments and my group are simple.There are many classics.i have read many of them.If a book is a classic you expec..."

Now this is a more sound reply, that doesn´t involve caps and exclamation points everywhere - i hate that.

And why not try some new and fresh author? And why not?
I read classics along side non-classics and indie stuff and there´s good and bad and overrated books everyhwhere - i remember Wolf Hall beying sooo talked and raved about and i stuggled through it; I did not stuggle with Vanity Fair or P&P....so, what´s the hubub?

But you still haven´t stated what were your expectations towards it and what failed. All of our POV´s will amount to anything if you do not explain what were, in your view, the flaws.

Sara wrote: "I think that Austen was writing as a feminist in some ways. She (as a woman who did it) believed that a woman could take care of herself and didn't need a husband to provide for her. Elizabeth had ..."

Yes and no. There is a legitimate source of conflict in the book, that is, Lizzie's right to choose her own husband (or none at all) and the social mechanisms that made her marriage intrinsic to the well-being of the whole family. Lizzie is determined not to marry against her own inclinations. Fair enough. But think of the burden if it were your own: Your large family would lose a home that had been in the family for generations, your mother's income would mostly evaporate and she'd have to either down-size in a big way or move in with a daughter or a brother's family. Oh, and your sisters can become dependent on the charity of relatives. The fact that nobody is going to starve doesn't mean there isn't a whole set of undesirable risks for the family that could be mitigated if Lizzie would just set aside her own ego and do what women had always done.

I'm far from saying Lizzie should have married Mr. Collins, or that Mrs. Bennett isn't a comic character. I'm only saying that beneath the "female wish fulfillment," there are real tensions running through the novel.`Austen never tried to bury the realities of the time that drive the motivations of the characters, though she avoided weighing the novel down (and wrecking it) by treating such tensions with comic relief. Mrs. Bennett is a great example. Mr. Bennett was always on the point of death with her because he had reached an age when he might pop off any time and because she had several daughters of marrying age who hadn't been snapped up yet. In a different kind of novel, her concerns might have been revealed to the reader in sober conversation with a sympathetic sister or neighbor. Ugh! What a downer. Instead, we get hysterics. She's hilarious, and it is far easier to sympathize with the very rational Lizzie when her mother is so silly. Also, subtly, we get a sense of where Mrs. Bennett's perplexity at Lizzie's independence comes from. She and Mr. Bennett (we almost doubt she even knows he has a first name) are oil and water. They live in each other's orbit, fairly amiably but apparently without any deep feeling for each other except that of long acquaintance and mutual interest. The young Mrs. Bennett-to-be had most likely found the young Mr. Bennett an attractive match for the obvious reasons, love not being one of them, and she is (hysterics aside) quite satisfied in her marriage. She believes, as many people did back then, that a woman who makes romantic love paramount has her priorities mixed up.

Also, isn't there something a little bit horrible about the idea that if just one of the five daughters could get a husband, this couple would be responsible for keeping four grown women (minus Lydia, I suppose) and their mother? Doesn't that mean that if Lizzie won't marry for money, one of them had better? What if Mary was the only one to ever fall in love (other than Jane, who never can look at another man), and her passionate beau was the village knacker? Nineteenth century lit is strewn with the tragic and comic carcasses of gentlemen's daughters. Oh, the horror!

Ooh, Tytti. Please don't be age-ist. P&P is a touchstone for many young readers. Age is only a factor if education level and developmental ability are, and that isn't fair game.

Taste, interest, reading habits, background knowledge of the work have a lot to do with how much a work is liked or not liked. As Ian said, one can appreciate a work and still not like it. Or one can love a work and still recognize that it is deficient is some respects as compared with other works. Me, I have weakness for Mickey Spillane and I didn't really enjoy Don Quixote--only got through Part 1. Experience has taught me that if I go back to Don Quixote someday I may be bowled over by it. So much love is a pretty good indication that there is something there worth investigating. Often, what's to love isn't obvious in a first encounter. In the meantime, dear Mickey makes me so happy! I may even branch out into Ian Fleming under his influence. Books can be good in so many ways.

To Esha's point that there are plenty of living authors out there writing new books we might be reading instead of musty nuggets from centuries past--personally, I don't use publication date as a measure of what makes a book good. I'll admit I read more dead people than live ones, but I do try to stay current. It's a problem. There are too many books. In defense of old books:
* they convey the history of human thought and experience better than anything
* they have been sifted by time so that the crappy ones (and there have always been plenty of lousy books) have dropped out of sight and the ones that remain inevitably have something timeless to share
* they are usually extremely enjoyable if you can get in the right groove with them

In defense of contemporary books:
* they are written in a current form of a modern language
* they often describe a familiar landscape/culture, thus validating our own time/place/experience
* they often describe an unfamiliar landscape/culture, thus exposing us to our own fellow travelers in our own time/different place/different experience
* they often address timeless concerns in an immediately relevant way
* their authors are alive and trying to make a living doing this, so sales are critical to the continuation of literature as a vital component of human culture

I don't think there is anything inherently better about getting lost in Longbourne and long skirts than there is in a mental stroll down Melrose in $600 dungarees, if that's what turns you on. It may very well be that the relatively serene and privileged Austen universe may leave a reader cold. Lizzie's problems may seem trivial beside a protagonist that has just lost everything and is scrabbling through horrors to escape civil war. La Bennett may not be your ideal heroine if Carrie White is. If you'd rather spend a day at the beach with Conan the Barbarian than Mr. D'Arcy, I wouldn't say you were crazy.

I think what Esha is resisting is the Tuna with good taste phenomenon. Do you read a book because it tastes good or because it shows you have good taste? Will people think you are smart or culturally intimidating because you have the right books on your Goodreads Read shelf? The mantra of my day was Question Authority. I still think it's healthy to check to see if the emperor has his clothes on. I would only argue that there is a difference between a naked emperor and a questionably dressed one. Esha is entitled to think the emp's outfit should have been left on the hanger, but two hundred years of devoted fans is proof that the emperor is wearing something remarkable, even if his ermines and crocodile boots strike some people as rather ridiculous.

Longhare wrote: "Ooh, Tytti. Please don't be age-ist. P&P is a touchstone for many young readers. Age is only a factor if education level and developmental ability are, and that isn't fair game."

Well I thought that saying young is better than saying ignorant or uneducated or something of that nature, but..

Besides, both myself and most of my friends have been reading both "adult" books and classics since we were kids. We don't do that "reading level" stuff nor we worry about books being inapproriate. But I am not that arrogant that I would say that classics are overrated because I didn't like some of them. There usually is a reason why they have survived decades or centuries.

Esha: "and after reading it i realized that its super over-rated!"!!

Just to make the point I guess, the most you can really say is that it's overrated in your opinion, obviously because you can't legitimately judge beyond your own personal opinion on this subject. Such kinds of things are exactly what come across as needlessly and pointlessly provocative. The simple truth is that everyone has their own reading tastes and preferences. And it seems to me that it would be more honest just to acknowledge that you, personally, didn't think very well of the story.

Tytti wrote: "Well I thought that saying young is better than saying ignorant or uneducated or something of that nature, but.."

I don't think Esha comes off as ignorant or uneducated. People generally don't express their reading impressions strongly unless they love reading and are powerfully affected by what they read. I don't want to speak for her, but I would guess that P&P didn't move her the way she hoped. Probably lots of people in this group felt that way first time out. It could have been because she didn't like the subject matter or the prose style or the dry humor or for any number of reasons.

The title is Pride and Prejudice, and the theme is that those particular attributes get in the way of people understanding each other. Timeless.

Esha wrote: "tytti i am not a 7 year old.I have given this book 3 stars meaning it was not very good but it was not extremely bad either.What i wanted in the book was more twists in the story...you know some up..."

I was thinking more of a 17-year-old...

Esha wrote: "What i wanted in the book was more twists in the story...you know some ups and downs something a little more realistic,fresh and believable."

Which sort of proves my point. Just because you think it should have had more twists and turns, doesn't mean that the rest of us want that. (Though I'm not really sure how more twists would have made it more realistic or believable.) Other people just may sometimes appreciate different aspects than you do and it seems you only appreciate one type of books, and that's what I would call uneducated, for the lack of a better word.

Esha wrote: "What i wanted in the book was more twists in the story...you know some ups and downs something a little more realistic,fresh and believable."

I feel the same way that gert does: I am getting lot more out of your most recent comment. Now I understand where you are coming from. And I know that you are not alone in your feeling about it. I've seen many reviews that have voiced the same kinds of disappointments, including reviews from teachers and professional writers and critics. Actually it's something that I find a little fascinating sometimes. Different people who are each intelligent and enthusiastic readers, often have very different impressions about the same book.

Anyway, I wanted to give you credit for your response, which gives fuel for thought as well as implicitly taking into consideration that others may love the work themselves. Nicely done Esha. :)

Esha wrote: "What i wanted in the book was more twists in the story...you know some ups and downs something a little more realistic,fresh and believable.
"

Yes, that´s what we meant - solid arguments. Now, this is much more debateble than your starting post.

I think that´s a solid question: why not more twists and turns?
I belive that, for a Regency period romance, it has the twists and turns that were realistic for the time in question. Austen wrote a ground-breaking novel based on the world and people that she so well knew. The mere thought of a woman not wanting to get married against her inclinations, even though her family sort of depended on that, i have to say it was as far-off as she could go. Lizzie´s stubborness in getting married for love was astounding, i am sure, for the people that read the novel, in the 19th century.

So, in response to your question i will say that the twists and turns were time-appropriate, in my opinion.

Point of novel, then and now, is satiric--poking fun at insistence that marriage is the only way for both men and women to exist. Austen's commentary on society is therefore right on from a female perspective.

Read more about Austen., her times and then I'd love to hear another review from you...

Sharon L. wrote: "Point of novel, then and now, is satiric--poking fun at insistence that marriage is the only way for both men and women to exist. Austen's commentary on society is therefore right on from a female ..."

I think she also felt the injustice in a society that excluded females from inheriting property in most instances. Since that is the case, she should ignore her feelings and marry (with all that entails) some buffoon to whom she is not the least attracted? Ugh. Further, there would have been no story if Elizabeth Bennett had behaved as Mari and Longhare suggest she should have behaved. I never understand that kind of criticism of a novel; perhaps the novelist has her/his reasons for a character acting (or not) as they do; perhaps that's the freaking story?

Maria 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."



There's no need to call her troll just because you have different opinions.

Wendy wrote: "There's no need to call her troll just because you have different opinions.


It´s not the different opinions that i have - as i´ve stated before, different persons, different tastes and we must respect that. But in turn, there has to be respect from the other side also.

Since she "dropped" in and stated to blatantly her opinion - and might i add rudely - and then just dropped out of sight, one might wonder if, indeed, she is a troll, because she did not dare to show up again to defend any of her opinions/views, whatever. We all answwred to her, showing that her opinion mattered, but she did not match that with the equal concern to post back to the response that she generated. and if she doesn´t care about the opinions that we stated, either taking them into account or not, then my opinion stands at, we should just stop. But then again, this kind of harsh opnion on a very much beloved book will always stirr some opinions, and really, the thread didn´t die there, did it?

I didn't like it just because I think the writing is flowery and pretentious, the characters lifeless and one-dimensional, and the romance completely and utterly passionless. After reading P&P, I gave Austen two other chances; I've read Emma and Northanger Abbey. Much to my disappointment, I felt similarly about those. Austen simply does not impress me. (I am solidly in the Bronte camp--all the Bronte sisters, in fact. I have read almost all the books the sisters wrote and enjoyed all of them.)

I certainly do not judge anyone who likes Austen (I am more than aware I'm very much in the minority in my opinion); however, I do have a difficult time understanding how anyone can find her a talented writer and an engaging storyteller.