Pride and Prejudice discussion

I am really amused not only by the review but that the original poster has not once said anything after it to justify her point or argue her case and yet that one post has 196 responses.

She's not just telling a story, she's being satiric which is a whole other genre as far as I'm concerned. In some of the comments I feel like folks are trying to read someone like Mark Twain and taking his characters TOO seriously. I would suggest reading Sense and Sensibility before dropping Austen altogether--and Mansfield Park. Sometimes watching the movies helps--either the BBC or the more commercial versions: "Emma" with Gwyneth Paltrow and Toni Collette was a lot of fun.

The Brontes were great, but Austen is definitely more than a bit of goth...

Caroline wrote: "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.... (I am solidly in the Bronte camp."

Austen is sort of to Meryl Streep (so danged flawless) as the Brontes are to Bette Davis (fasten your seatbelt; it's gonna be a bumpy ride.) I do love P&P. It is an elegant and beautiful piece of precision clockwork (and Kallie, I wouldn't alter a word of it). But I am also a Bronte girl. Those ladies knock me silly every time. I did recently read Northanger Abbey and loved it. It was so funny. Not the sharp wit of P&P but just downright funny. It made me start on an old resolution to read the gothic classics. So far I have finished Castle of Otranto and The Monk. I have Radcliffe's Mysteries of Udolpho, which I will start one of these days. I've also gone back to Paradise Lost and may try to tackle Manfred so I can be ever so informed about Byronic heroes. Which is all to say that classics can also be weird and wacky and have magical elements and all the twists and turns anybody could hope for.

As for Mari dropping out after the OP--I'm still figuring out how Goodreads works. Am I understanding right that if you ignore a post, GR won't continue to alert you to more posts? Is it possible she has no idea how much activity her thread has had? (Also, can anybody explain how to use spoiler alerts?) Anyway, true trolls hang around so they can poke the poor souls who can't help taking the bait. Nasty critters.

RE: adaptations, my favorite is the Hollywood-Bollywood Bride and Prejudice. Not only is it amazingly faithful to the book despite having a contemporary setting, it applies the whole kaboodle to the modern world. And it has fabulous musical numbers. Best Mr. Collins ever.

Caroline wrote: "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 g..."

This is still mere opinion/labeling because you give no examples of these qualities in her writing, and it's way too easy. So many readers find Austen the opposite of how you describe her. I love and have repeatedly read the Brontes, and the same goes for Jane Austen. I wouldn't think of comparing them because they are very different. Some might say that the Brontes are, compared to Austen, melodramatic and lacking a sense of humor; that is, if we wanted to make overly simple, flat statements about them that totally ignore or don't appreciate their artistry.

"Because after all putting on a front is more import an then reality, right? Is that the message?"

Actually, no; that is absolutely not the message. You apparently missed the point entirely.

kellyjane wrote: "If 'Pride And Prejudice' had been about how Lizzy married a man she didn't respect and couldn't stand, purely from mercenary motives, due to fear-- ensuring thereafter a disappointed, degrading, lo..."

Wow! I wish these discussion boards had a 'like' button...

Margaret wrote: "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? ..."

Well said.

Mari, something tells me you weren't aware that Pride & Prejudice is a satire...

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..."

Thank you Hanan! Wow. I was stunned when I read her review and applaud your response. Wow. Just speechless. Wow.

Susan wrote: "kellyjane wrote: "If 'Pride And Prejudice' had been about how Lizzy married a man she didn't respect and couldn't stand, purely from mercenary motives, due to fear-- ensuring thereafter a disappoin..."

Susan, thank you. It's nice of you to make time for complimenting others in this discussion while adding your own thoughts about the book.

Kallie wrote: "This is still mere opinion/labeling because you give no examples of these qualities in her writing, and it's way too easy. So many readers find Austen the opposite of how you describe her. I love and have repeatedly read the Brontes, and the same goes for Jane Austen. I wouldn't think of comparing them because they are very different. Some might say that the Brontes are, compared to Austen, melodramatic and lacking a sense of humor; that is, if we wanted to make overly simple, flat statements about them that totally ignore or don't appreciate their artistry."

I am not providing any examples because A) I read the book years ago so off the top of my head remember very little of the finer details you probably expect and B) just on the practical level, I no longer own the book; I got rid of it because, well, I hated it and didn't wish to own it. So, I can't open it and quote from it.

Also, do I really owe anyone concrete examples? I am unwilling to write an official step-by-step analysis for an online discussion. I did that enough for English classes throughout high school and college while earning my degree. Because I sense defensive in your post, allow me to reiterate also that I absolutely do not judge anyone for liking Austen's work (many of my friends here and in real life love her, and I cherish these friends), only that I genuinely don't understand her appeal and popularity. I truly don't because I didn't like what I encountered from the first few pages. Additionally, as far as I'm concerned, P&P fails as a satire. I've read far better satire.

As for the Brontes versus Austen, I brought that up because they frequently are compared, despite being different. Yes, the Brontes don't have much of a sense of humor. Personally, that is to my taste, although not the main reason I prefer their work to Austen's.

Had a smile reading these comments. I love Jane Austen's books but not so much for the romance. I re-readn them for the sly comments on society and the wonderfully understated portraits of the foibles and pretensions of the 'middle class'. Austen used her pen to poke and dig and did it superbly. Perhaps she is to subtle for many readers. When I was 20 I read for the romance but as I approach 70 I'm laughing with her at the characters in society.

Nobody 'owes' concrete examples of why they dislike a book. But if I am going to dismiss a book of P&P's reputation I would try to share thoughtful observations. Otherwise it as though you are implying that those who enjoy it aren't discerning enough to notice that it is "flowery" (!) "pretentious" (!) and the characters are one-dimensional. Etc. For myself, I sometimes re-visit a book I read years ago and liked/didn't like and find it very different from how I remember. Also, although P&P has satirical elements, I don't see it as a satire.

Caroline wrote: "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 g..."

How was it pretentious, lifeless, or passionless?

Caroline wrote: "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 g..."

I'm not sure how you would consider the Brontes less pretentious than Austen.

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, have you ever studied satire? P&P is satire at its greatest. Good satire is meant to make us reconsider something in our society in the hopes that our views will change with regard to it. In the case of P&P, one of the views Austen sets out to change is that marriage for convenience is a desirable thing--for either men or women, as exemplified by Charlotte Lucas and George Wickham. The book is rich for discussion--why does Lizzy forgive Col. Fitzwilliam for having to marry well, but not be so forgiving to her own best friend who is desirous of her own home? My students have no problems seeing the connection to today's views with regards to "gold-diggers." In Austen's time, few married for love. Today in American and Britain, many marry for love. In Austen's time, divorce was practically unheard of, yet today divorce rates soar. Discussing the fickleness of love, my students explore whether Lizzy's contention that marriage for love is a wise choice. Maybe rereading this book for deeper meaning would make it more enjoyable.

It was very funny and enlightening reading all of these comments! (it made my morning) I applaud those who stood up for this book and author in a polite and appropriate manner, yet calling out that Mari's comment was probably not delivered in the best way. We really can't do anything about another person's opinion besides vent, no? Pride & Prejudice is not for everyone. That is Fact. But I enjoyed it, along with (some of) the movie/tv adaptions, and one reason is because it came from and centered around one of my favorite centuries and time periods.



(And BTW, I've been a bookworm since the 4th grade (Battle of the Books!!) and have read this book maybe around the age 11-13ish. (edit: I was 12) I'm 15. Whether or not you understand this book depends on the person, I personally think. Granted, when I read it, some parts I skipped over, like the long descriptions, and other parts I didn't fully understand until I reread it. But it still became a favorite of mine and still is. It's highly due for a reread so I can see all the points people have brought out:)

Monique wrote: "It was very funny and enlightening reading all of these comments! (it made my morning) I applaud those who stood up for this book and author in a polite and appropriate manner, yet calling out that..."

Monique, I'm so glad to hear that you reread classics at a young age. I did the same when I was your age. I think I reread The Scarlet Pimpernel annually for about 10 years. P&P is a favorite of mine in adulthood. You will always learn more from the book with each reread. And I agree that P&P is not for everyone. I would probably recommend Mari try the Lizzy Bennet Diaries to familiarize herself with the story in a modern context before trying it again if she was game.

Kallie wrote: "Nobody 'owes' concrete examples of why they dislike a book. But if I am going to dismiss a book of P&P's reputation I would try to share thoughtful observations. Otherwise it as though you are im..."

I could see making a strong argument for P&P not being satire, but the use of the elements of satire are so strong in this text: hyperbole (especially in characterization--thing Mr. Collins, Mrs. Bennet, and Lady Catherine), verbal and situational irony (the deceptive first impressions and appearances of the characters), reversal (the lowly Bennet girls versus the Bingley sisters, Anne de Bourgh and others from the moneyed class), and at times even incongruity (like when Elizabeth is in Derbyshire in Darcy's world and among his acquaintances).

True, the elements are strong in P&P particularly, and Emma. When I think of a novel as 'a satire' I think of Nathanael West, Pynchon, Faye Weldon and the like. In their writing, all the characters and situations are satirized.

Maybe because they actually like the story because it's a classic that transcended centuries and inspired so many readers.

Maybe because most form of modern romance was inspired by Pride and Prejudice. A girl refusing to marry a guy she doesn't love despite the trials that pushes like the prospect of poverty and disgrace... a girl choosing to be a vampire despite all odds even if she had to sacrifice and hurt people along the way...

I don't know, maybe they actually understood the story from the author's standpoint and era and not the shallow context of which you described because of all the things to describe Elizabeth, a whore is not one of them.

OR, maybe, just maybe, this book doesn't really apply to your tastes unlike the large majority who disagrees with you.

Overall, I'm just guessing.

You're not British, so it may or may not be possible that you don't fully understand the Georgian era in Britain at the time that this book was written, however it is clearly not a book from this era, and so cannot be viewed from a modern day feminist stand point, and so if you're looking at it from that kind of standpoint, I can see how the system whereby women aim to marry themselves off to suitable men may seem very strange, but again, clearly it was the culture and ways of the time. In fact, compared to the majority of the peasant population at that time, the Bennet's would have been in a desirable position!

We have critics who insist that you must look at classic works from only the eyes of their times and then those who insist that you must examine them from the perspective of today. What is a poor reader to do?

All I am going to say is I enjoyed Sense and Sensibility more than P&P. I thought the plot twists were more intriguing in S&S. I found myself a bit bored at times with P&P, but it is still fabulous. But S&S absolutely changed me.

John wrote: "We have critics who insist that you must look at classic works from only the eyes of their times and then those who insist that you must examine them from the perspective of today. What is a poor r..."

What sense does it make to judge those novels from our perspective? What do you learn about previous cultures by doing that? Part of this attitude stems from the assumption that we have nothing to learn from the past but that's not true. Many of the old values still affect our lives to some extent. The parallels are there if you look.

Hi there,
I guess you have interpreted P&P under an entirely wrong light. I would like to present some counter arguments.
Firstly, agreed that Marriage is not frivolous and this is exactly what Ms. Austen has pointed out. With her elder sister almost betrothed to a rich man, and her family conditions though poor not being a hands to mouth existence one, Elizabeth couldnt reason to herself why she would have to break the sanctity of marriage.
2ndly, one correction here,she had refused Mr. Collins way before she fell in love with Mr. Darcy. Her refusal was on the simple terms of modern day "compatibility issues".
3rdly, she wasnt aloof of her family's financial condition, as you could gather from various instances, she was optimistic in her outlook than her mother who always complained of weak financial status, which again was normal for women of those times, this still doesnt prove that they were in a state of beggary
She laughs and makes fun of others, a very immoral thing indeed. But please understand, Elizabeth was not trying to be an epitome of morals, instead Austen tried to represent the naive youth of a girl having a mind of her own.
As regards to laughing at her own mother, she just expresses her mind to the readers about how she doesnt see things in such bad shape and makes lite of the situation inspite of her mother pushing her girls to despair by her remarks. Please tell me which mother so openly talks so low about her daughters or feels daughters to be a means of barter system to get money in return.
Mr. Wickham's gold digging has been shunned because of the means followed by him. Going by your argument, Wickham should be a hero then, a true survivor. Please observe, its not the Bennett girls but their mother who is the gold seeker here, and she has been rightly mocked time and again in the book , as you have already mentioned.
And about the love point, well men/women dont fall in love (in true sense) judging the maintenance capability of a person, i dont think the humans work like machines.
One last thing, please understand that Austen works were never aimed at spreading moral values or showing characters to be the epitome of goodness. The fiction she created, a timeless masterpiece, were aimed at providing the reader an enjoyable reading experience by introducing him/her to characters one encounters every day and spinning a story full of ups and downs that in the end will be a treat for the tired mind.

Madhulika wrote: "Hi there,
I guess you have interpreted P&P under an entirely wrong light. I would like to present some counter arguments.
Firstly, agreed that Marriage is not frivolous and this is exactly what Ms...."

Good post. "a treat for the tired mind" for sure.

I loved this book soo much. But if you hate it, everyone is entitled to an opinion

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..."

You might like to check out Longbourne by Jo Baker, published in 2013. It is the P&P story but from the point of view of the the servants. It is more palatable to modern sensibilities and you get to see all the the familiar characters is a dramatically different light. Mary and Lydia become more sympathetic and Lizzie and Mary a bit less so.

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

Unlike Twilight which..."

Wait . . . You mean it has relevancy? Even momentary? Guess I missed it. I couldn't make myself read it.

I'm kind of confuzzled about the review being from a "modern" POV. Seems more like a POV firmly entrenched in the dark ages of chattel law.

And really, does anyone believe Mr. Bennet would have given his consent for Lizzie to marry the ludicrous Mr. Collins?

In general I respect others opinions, and more or less this was a thought provoking review, even if I still disagree. However I would like to point out that any argument becomes harder to listen to once you call one of the characters a 'whore' for no reason. Firstly, what you're describing is incredibly the opposite, and secondly it makes the argument sound childish.

Absolutely love P&P and each to their own, all I will say is the title to this discussion is ignorant and ignorance has no place when it comes to respecting others.

Tamara wrote: "Absolutely love P&P and each to their own, all I will say is the title to this discussion is ignorant and ignorance has no place when it comes to respecting others."

Totally agree...

The Bennet sisters are too far from gold digging, if they were Elizabeth wouldn't have refused Mr.Darcy's proposal in the fist place.
If the messages that you related are the ones that you concluded then you couldn't understand the book, or simply there is something wrong with you.

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

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

But any good book is bound to have some negative ..."

The shade.

I understand what she means, though. For a society in which marriages are convenient contracts, refusing good matches all the time seems a bit... weird?

Two possibles

Mari really is unable to take a balanced view on classic literature - or she is having a stir...

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

well that's your opinion..nice review.though, think about it..in the end she married the richest of them all!and her mother and sisters were so annoying i did not really care what would happen to them ..

Would you please consider some logical reasoning? it may help btw.

Well... there were 5 girls, so Elizabeth could pass on pompous Mr. Collins and the family would have a chance. Of course, Lydia nearly ruined all that. And while Mr. Collins was a jerk, he probably would have taken care of the Bennett girls when he inherited the property from Mr. Bennett, because society would expect him to.

I agree with you Ashely, I got a good chuckle. Words like "whore" and "shit" used in reference to Jane Austen is very strange and amusing.

I can think of lots of reasons some people can like P & P. I may make a list of the top 20 next time I'm stuck in traffic or in line at the post office, but one is that the world is just a better place because it contains so many readers who have read and loved this novel. Of course the same can be said for any of Jane Austin's novels.

There is an old saying that one can stand around with one's mouth shut and look stupid or open it and prove that you are. Mari has done just that with this post. Jane Austin is one of the greatest writers of fiction of all time and P&P is probably her greatest novel. I rate her second to Shakespeare. I won't comment on the rest of Mari's idiocy.

Linton wrote: "There is an old saying that one can stand around with one's mouth shut and look stupid or open it and prove that you are. Mari has done just that with this post. Jane Austin is one of the greatest ..."

You may rate her second to Shakespeare, but not everyone would or does. Personally I would rate William Blake second.

Shakespeare, William Blake and Jane Austen walk into a pub...

I don't have a punchline. I just really want it to happen.

Longhare wrote: "Shakespeare, William Blake and Jane Austen walk into a pub...

I don't have a punchline. I just really want it to happen."

I have a feeling the end result would be a couple of new words added to the English language, and someone carrying Blake out. :) Jane seems like she'd be a happy drunk, Blake, the handful and Shakespeare, the responsible one who gets the cab.

One point you made that makes sense is that it was acceptable for women to marry for money and security, but not for men. That's true, that is a double standard. However, they distanced themselves from Wickham for his other unfavorable acts.

P.S. Your review echoes Elizabeth's mother's tirades. (Which is not a good thing)

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

It actually should be removed, it shouldn't be associated with this book.

No sense rehashing what's already been covered with much eloquence. :-)

There is one thing though. I rather think P&P makes a lot of sense FROM a modern viewpoint. Especially so in fact.

But then maybe I really was born in the wrong century. ;-)

OMG, as I live and breathe, Lydia Bennet is trolling this site!

"I have often observed how little young ladies are interested by books of a serious stamp, though solely written for their benefit. It amazes me, I confess; for certainly there can be nothing so advantageous to them as instruction."

Wow! Well said Gertt!