Pride and Prejudice discussion

Jenny wrote: "I didn't have that much of advanced schooling to understand that kind of writing."

How much schooling does one need to read Austen, then?

Kallie wrote: "Ellen wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Jenny wrote: "There is nothing wrong with liking Twilight maybe more than Pride and Prejudice. It might seem silly. Not all people can understand the style of the way..."

Hi, Kallie, nice to see you again. Yeah, it's funny, but it's so, so true!

Ellen wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Jenny wrote: "There is nothing wrong with liking Twilight maybe more than Pride and Prejudice. It might seem silly. Not all people can understand the style of the way Jane Austin w..."

Explain to me what the hell are you doing here.

David wrote: "Chick Lit...go figure."

HAHAHAHA. You.. you, sir.

Tytti wrote: "Jenny wrote: "I didn't have that much of advanced schooling to understand that kind of writing."

How much schooling does one need to read Austen, then?"

A teenager can easily grasp Pride and Prejudice.

Amanda wrote: "A teenager can easily grasp Pride and Prejudice."

That was sort of my point...

Amanda wrote: "Ellen wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Jenny wrote: "There is nothing wrong with liking Twilight maybe more than Pride and Prejudice. It might seem silly. Not all people can understand the style of the way..."

Me? I'm sorry, I just cannot believe anyone would seriously post a discussion like this one, and I honestly used to think it mattered that I defended the classics to my last drop of blood. But what you said is absolutely true, about sometimes people read books that may be beyond their life or experience level. I agree that Mari seems to make some very good points, but her manner of expression is very different from mine. Your "tone" (if a post can have a tone) seems to indicate that I've hurt your feelings, and if the post was directed to me, and if I have insulted you, it was purely unintentional. But there is a huge gap that simply cannot be bridged in this forum between people who grasp the classics and those who don't, and I think the article in The New Statesman (intended to be funny, certainly) is dead on the mark with what is happening in this thread in and many like it. I truly apologize, Amanda, if I was in any way discourteous; it was unintended.

Ellen wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Ellen wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Jenny wrote: "There is nothing wrong with liking Twilight maybe more than Pride and Prejudice. It might seem silly. Not all people can understand the s..."

And I wasn't talking, Amanda, about your post at all, except to the extent that there was a time I responded as thoughtfully and strongly as you have in defense of a book, or a theme, whatever the post contained that seemed to me in some way to sell the writer's work short. I have been talking about the original post in this thread. Sorry, sorry.

I'm sorry, but how does epilepsy make it difficult to pronounce words?
I can understand how someone might not like Pride and Prejudice because they may not understand some of the historical significants of the themes in the story.
I do think it is poor taste for someone to call a book 'crap' because they do not like it.

Vanessa Eden wrote: "I'm sorry, but how does epilepsy make it difficult to pronounce words?
I can understand how someone might not like Pride and Prejudice because they may not understand some of the historical signi..."

Epilepsy is a neurological disorder. Thus anything that relies on the use of nerves to function can be affected. Seizures are only a sympton of epilepsy, not the condition itself. So yes someone's ability to pronounce words can be affected by epilepsy.

What gets people's hackles up, consciously or subconsciously, is the insult inherent in a title like "How can anyone like this crap," implying that there's something wrong with those who enjoyed it.

Yes! Exactly. When I first read the title and the post, my initial reaction was " who the f&€@ are you to judge me". I understand not liking something but geez.

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 ..."

Oh man I laughed so hard when I read your comment about Twilight. Thank you for that.

i am curious about the gold digging thing, to marry someone you don't love just for money or position would be call gold digging, which is just what you complained that Lizzy didn't do with Mr Collins.

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 definitely read this book with a modern day Women's Lib type of view. This book was written over two centuries ago when women were used as political and financial pawns. Being forced to marry any man her parents chose, whether she knew them. Elizabeth rejected Mr. Collins not because she was being selfish, instead she wanted respect from the man she would marry, Mr. Collins insulted her a few times during his pompass proposal. Would you really say yes to a man who tells you that you'll never receive another offer of marriage and protection but from him? The way you wrote your review tells me you'd never stand for that, even if you had to make sure your sister and mother were fed. I doubt there is a woman alive in the modern world who would whore herself off like that - no woman is that honorable these days. And by the way, back that the 1700s Elizabeth wasn't a whore, she was a Lady. Whore's didn't live in Manor homes, they lived in shakes or were paid to stay out of the way. Giving this classic novel a one star proves to every reader on this site, you are too young for the classics. Go back and read it again once you get to be about 45 or 50, maybe then you'll appreciate the simplicity and the romance within the pages of P&P.

Ah the elitism of it. This is a classic work so you are not allowed to have a bad opinion of it or to rate it as you think it should be rated. Balderdash. If you are going to give an opinion of a book, or rate it, then it must be an honest one, else it is useless and a waste of your's and my time. If I see that someone who has rated several books I dislike highly and then see that they have given a low rating to a book I just might try it out. Not in this case as P&P doesn't interest me at all but the reasoning is valid.

John wrote: "Ah the elitism of it. This is a classic work so you are not allowed to have a bad opinion of it or to rate it as you think it should be rated. Balderdash. If you are going to give an opinion of a b..."

Elizabeth gave a lot of good reasons for liking P&P that had zero to do with elitism.

John, Mari mis-interpreted the novel, so her review is not accurate. If she had given solid reasons why she did not like it, fine. Some people may not like the time period it was written in or the style of writing- that would be accurate.

She did give solid reasons. Some people just won't accaept them because they disagree with them. And saying that a book can't be given one star because it is a classic is elitism in my book.

John wrote: "She did give solid reasons. Some people just won't accaept them because they disagree with them. And saying that a book can't be given one star because it is a classic is elitism in my book."

Of course it can be given one star, still, she mis-interpreted this book.

That is sort of open for debate methinks. There is a school oc literary criticism (not necessarily one I agree with mind you) that argues that all books, no matter when written, must be read and interpreted according to the mores and standards of our time, rather than those of when the book was written. Thus the young lady in question may have simply applied modern sensibilities to a book not written in this age. Although we may question that, it is a valid form of literary criticism, especially among the "intelligentsia".

What intelligentsia? If we all went along with that, we'd have thrown out the Bible etc. a long time ago, not to mention many really good books that still offer intelligent observations about life and character. I find P&P totally relevant. In it are addressed: the tyranny of status, snobbery, wealth, class entitlement, female disadvantage (especially those who are poor) in a patriarchal world. Yes, the manners and mores are of another era, but not the themes.

We humans don't, at our basic level of existence, change all that much.

Circumstances change greatly, but we don't.

Renee wrote: "We humans don't, at our basic level of existence, change all that much.

Circumstances change greatly, but we don't."

I agree with this, and that is why Pride and Prejudice is timeless. It is to be respected as a story of it's time period; the emotions are the same as today.

Karen wrote: "Renee wrote: "We humans don't, at our basic level of existence, change all that much.

Circumstances change greatly, but we don't."

I agree with this, and that is why Pride and Prejudice is timel..."
Sorry but I don't buy that argument. Under this rationale we should be extending to every story published in the Victorian era penny dreadfuls respect because they are both old and products of their times.

No, but you have supplied us with an example of a classic inductive fallacy.

Renee wrote: "No, but you have supplied us with an example of a classic inductive fallacy."

Good one.

John wrote: "Karen wrote: "Renee wrote: "We humans don't, at our basic level of existence, change all that much.

Circumstances change greatly, but we don't."

I agree with this, and that is why Pride and Prej..."

No, not every story

John wrote: "Karen wrote: "Renee wrote: "We humans don't, at our basic level of existence, change all that much.

Circumstances change greatly, but we don't."

I agree with this, and that is why Pride and Prej..."

No one said that penny dreadfuls or whatever are worthy of literary respect just because they are old and products of their time. We said that P&P is worthy of respect because it is a work of art that deals with timeless human conflicts and resolutions. You don't have to 'buy' that argument but come up with an effective argument of your own that counters what has actually been said instead of dragging in irrelevant penny dreadfuls.

Hey, she got a lot of people to comment on P&P. I wonder if Austen ever imagined that her biting satire would stretch this far? I'll bet Jane Austen would have had a few ideas for Bella to consider in the Twilight saga.

This is what was said of Pride and Prejudice: It is to be respected as a story of it's time period; the emotions are the same as today. The exact same thing can in fact be said of the material appearing in the penny dreadfuls, magazines such as The Strand (the home of Sherlock Holmes among others) etc. They are stories of their time period and the emotions they give rise to are the same emotions that are still prevalent in our society today. Oh and the dreadfuls are actually getting academic attention these days so be careful what you say about them, lest you be a footnote in some academic paper.

John wrote: "This is what was said of Pride and Prejudice: It is to be respected as a story of it's time period; the emotions are the same as today. The exact same thing can in fact be said of the material app..."

Have you read Pride and Prejudice? Do you have opinions based on reading the novel and can you argue those opinions? That might be interesting. Otherwise, you just seem to be harassing people who like the book and care enough to offer their thoughts and arguments about its merits. Expose your own thoughts about Pride and Prejudice, then there might be a real discussion instead of whatever this is you are doing.

because it is one of the most amusing novels I have ever read ... to understand a story, you have to put yourself in the frame of mind of the characters, if you can. In fact, understanding things from different points of view is supposed to be one of the advantages of reading... although it is also good fun to look at the story through contemporary moral lens.

John wrote: "Ah the elitism of it. This is a classic work so you are not allowed to have a bad opinion of it or to rate it as you think it should be rated. Balderdash. If you are going to give an opinion of a book, or rate it, then it must be an honest one, else it is useless and a waste of your's and my time. If I see that someone who has rated several books I dislike highly and then see that they have given a low rating to a book I just might try it out. Not in this case as P&P doesn't interest me at all but the reasoning is valid."

It seems to me that certain reactions to Mari's post had to do with the content of it (ie, whether her points were considered valid by various responders), while other reactions had to do with the expression of it (ie, its tone, choice of language, the contextual matter of her unwillingness to engage in further dialogue, and etc).

For my part, the content of her criticisms, though I see things in a different light than she does, do reflect her honest opinions and are perfectly valid in that sense. I think that you're right in standing up for her honesty, along with her perfect freedom to have and voice her particular impressions of the novel. Mari violated nothing at all in having an experience and being honest about it.

The 'expression' part is more of a social matter-- it's not about literature or this novel in particular, but rather about interacting and relating within a larger, ultimately diverse community. Obviously there are fans of this novel who cherish and treasure it. Supplying it with an identity (ie, a piece of crap) rather than a personal impression (ie, "I hated this novel, and here is why!): the 'reactive dynamics' are not essentially different than they would be if someone categorically belittled a loved one or revered object.

There are countless ways to express any particular sentiment. Some of those ways implicitly take into consideration the possible thoughts and feelings of those listening, while others maybe not so much. It's a social matter in 'real-time' so to speak, involving the whole social self in the now moment. Which is always quietly present within these otherwise informed and often substantive discussions of works of literature. Or so it all seems to me anyway.

I started the book years ago, found it uninteresting and gave up on it. Others may like it and obviously do, but I didn't. Only reason I haven't given it a rating is because I only rate a book after having completely finished it.

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..."

ummmmmm would you want to fk and obey a man for the rest of your life to feed ur family? i would actually rather die than fk someone i do not love
if you say yes then WOOWWWWW. u r a heartless creep. this is the most passive aggressive thing I've read in my life. don't be a h8r and free urself/free your mind baby b

Perhaps, Mari, you are a poor judge of literature.

Rachel wrote;
"mmmmmm would you want to fk and obey a man for the rest of your life to feed ur family? i would actually rather die than fk someone i do not love
if you say yes then WOOWWWWW. u r a heartless creep. this is the most passive aggressive thing I've read in my life. don't be a h8r and free urself/free your mind baby "

This isn't phone texting, this is goodreads

Mike wrote: "Perhaps, Mari, you are a poor judge of literature."

If you go to her profile page, you will see that Mari has only read one classic, Pride and Prejudice

Context, people. Goodreads, by its very nature, is not an academic literary site. It really doesn't matter if someone spends his/her time reading literary classics and expressing enjoyment doing so, or reading mass market fiction and giving it two thumbs up. Goodreads provides a forum for promoting literacy. That, in my opinion, is its redeeming element. Some people aren't going to enjoy Pride and Prejudice. The language, the theme, Austen's satire, the characters--while I embrace all of those, I realize that some people won't ever see what I'm seeing. I wrote a review of the popular A Discovery of Witches on here in which I eviscerated the text, and I'm sure people who have embraced it didn't appreciate my opinion. It's not about whether anyone is a "good" or a "poor" judge of literature. Goodreads and its promotion of reading provides a forum for everyone, no matter the reading preferences. I applaud Mari for reading something obviously outside of her preferred reading genre and giving her honest opinion of it. It reminded some of us of why we love P&P as much as we do, and it should remind us all to step outside of our own reading comfort zones and try something new.

Scorkpr, I think it is OK for goodreads members to be irritated by arrogant a-holes who judge books they do not understand in outrageous language such as "How can anyone like this piece of crap?" I also think it is OK to treat a-holes as a-holes.

Obviously, it's ok. This forum is full of responses to the original poster's language. I am just suggesting that we all come from different places with respect to our reading preferences as well as the language we use to frame a response to a reading selection. I am still encouraged by the fact that she read P&P and voiced an opinion about it. That is miles beyond the reading habits of many people in Western culture.

I would be encouraged (not really the correct word) that she tried P&P if she had something intelligent to say about it, even while realizing it is not for her. To spew vitriol at what is widely acknowledged to be a great book should be condemned. It would be another madder if the writer had used the book's reputation as an opportunity for self-reflection.

Mike wrote: "Scorkpr, I think it is OK for goodreads members to be irritated by arrogant a-holes who judge books they do not understand in outrageous language such as "How can anyone like this piece of crap?" I..."

I agree. Bad manners are as unpleasant on Goodreads as in any other situation and should not be encouraged as if to say "Well, to each his her own manner of communicating."

Actually, I have to disagree with you on a couple of your points.

One: Mari does raise a good point, even if you object to the language she uses to frame her argument. Jane Austen has us all rooting for Lizzie when she turns down the proposal from Mr. Collins. However, Lizzie, as the first daughter in that family to receive a marriage proposal, has an obligation in the context of Jane Austen's time and culture. Young women were not "supposed" to consider their own happiness, but the welfare of their younger sisters and their family's financial burden when considering a marriage proposal. Mr. Collins would have taken a burden off Lizzie's parents at a time when Mr. Bennet is stretched to make ends meet, and her younger siblings would have been placed in a better position (through Mr. Collins's contacts) to meet eligible, wealthy young men to marry. Charlotte, Lizzie's friend, acts responsibly, in the context of Austen's culture and time, when she marries Mr. Collins. However, Austen's biting satire and characterizations frame those obligations in such a way that we cannot imagine Lizzie marrying Mr. Collins, and we all cheer when she turns down Mr. Darcy's first proposal (even though that really would have improved her sisters' fortunes, especially Jane, who is dangling at that point with respect to Mr. Bingley).

It's our modern perspective and Austen's satirical poke at the norms of her time that make us cheer Lizzie's decisions. (So actually, it's most of us who approach this book from a modern perspective.)

Two: All books, whether we consider them "great" or outside the canon of "great literature" are open to discussion. I have a long-standing debate with a colleague over the merits of Dickens. He insists that Dickens was paid by the word and thus unworthy of consideration in the canon. I find his criticism of one of the great social reformers (via literature) to be petty and small minded. On the other hand, I detest Hemingway and see him as a misogynistic hack. My colleague loves all things Hemingway. Go figure. We both show a bit of "disrespect" in what we have to say, but our opinions are nevertheless valid.

Am I to be condemned because of my vitriol expressed about Mr. Hemingway? I sincerely hope not. Yet, Hemingway has a great reputation, and I find it impossible to engage in self-reflection when I read his works. Faulkner, now...Faulkner makes me think.

I do have a suggestion for Mari, though, if she is following any of this (which began in May?). Read Jane Austen's Persuasion.

Scorkpr wrote: "Actually, I have to disagree with you on a couple of your points.

One: Mari does raise a good point, even if you object to the language she uses to frame her argument. Jane Austen has us all rooti..."

It's all in the way the argument is presented. I don't think Mari presented it well. And despite Elizabeth's rebeliousness, Mr. Bennet was on her side, she was his favorite. Austen was way ahead of her tine.

Scorkpr wrote: "Actually, I have to disagree with you on a couple of your points.

One: Mari does raise a good point, even if you object to the language she uses to frame her argument. Jane Austen has us all rooti..."

It's only a good point if you completely ignore the fact that there would have been no continuing conflict and thus could have been no novel called 'Pride and Prejudice,' had Lizzy married Mr. Collins. I think Ebenezer Scrooge shouldn't have been such a d***, and Sidney Carton was just an f****** idiot for going to Paris. And what about that fool carting around a carcass in 'As I Lay Dying'? I could go on. What, exactly, IS the point?

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..."

Don't hold back Mari. Tell us how you really feel. :)

Kallie wrote:
"It's only a good point if you completely ignore the fact that there would have been no continuing conflict and thus could have been no novel called 'Pride and Prejudice,' had Lizzy married Mr. Collins. I think Ebenezer Scrooge shouldn't have been such a d***, and Sidney Carton was just an f****** idiot for going to Paris. And what about that fool carting around a carcass in 'As I Lay Dying'? I could go on. What, exactly, IS the point?"

Great post! And there probably would be no Faulkner at all.

Mari does not have points. She has reactions. Like sighing and choking. My worst students reacted to their assigned reading in very similar ways. Her tirade is much too familiar.