Pride and Prejudice discussion

I think you just supported my point, Mike. This isn't "assigned reading." Students in our classes are expected to approach their reading more critically and academically. This isn't that forum.

As to the lack of continuing conflict, had Lizzie married Mr. Collins, that really isn't the point. Mari raised the idea that Lizzie ignored the cultural norms of her day. She did. That's something Austen brilliantly did to satirically tweak the culture she lived in on the nose. Mari is annoyed by that. People living in Austen's time and culture would have been outraged at Lizzie's independence and insistence upon following her heart rather than doing her "duty" by her family. What Mari is pointing out is something I would use in the classroom if one of those "worst" students brought up that point and take the opportunity to point out what it is that Austen's really doing in her books. It's not just a romance--it goes further and deeper than that. It's brilliantly put together.

As for Mr. Bennet? He's a complete twit. He's an irresponsible parent who applauds Lizzie's choices (mostly just to tweak Mrs. Bennet), shuts himself in his office to get away from the conflict that he should be involved with, and ultimately his lack of parenting skills lead to Lydia's bad choices. He is redeemed (a bit) at the end by his self-reflection on all of that, but Austen obviously had a few opinions on parental involvement and responsibility.

Sidney Carton? That might be a character our Mari would like.

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..."

LOL. All valid points Mari, but it's still a great read and quite an accomplishment for a woman in the early 1800s. Ceilings then weren't made of glass...they were ship's timber. I think Austin was capturing the sentiments of the age, which are very different than today's. Reading it through the filter of today's standards in society is not fair. Austin could not have predicted 2014. Good piece, though. :-)

Scorkpr wrote: "I think you just supported my point, Mike. This isn't "assigned reading." Students in our classes are expected to approach their reading more critically and academically. This isn't that forum.

A..."
What Mari wrote IS a a good opportunity for a classroom, I agree. And a good teacher would take that opportunity for further discussion on her points. I liked Mr. Bennet- his wife was out of her mind.

Scorkpr wrote: "Mari raised the idea that Lizzie ignored the cultural norms of her day. She did. That's something Austen brilliantly did to satirically tweak the culture she lived in on the nose. Mari is annoyed by that. ..."

Yes, I'm sure Mari is a real champion of Regency England's cultural norms (about which she clearly knows such a lot), not to mention ours. That's why she rudely excoriated Elizabeth Bennet and P&P, for not reflecting her high standards of behavior.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I love Mr. Bennet. He's great fun. He's just not a good parent. And his wife is certainly out of her mind. How the two of them ever got together and had children is something I try not to think about.

I'm not suggesting that Mari is a champion of anything but her own opinion. I understand your objection to her rude use of language in expressing her opinion, but I don't think what she said should be dismissed completely. P&P is clearly not easily accessible reading for everyone. I read Middlemarch this summer (something I hadn't read all the way through before) with the Atlantic Magazine book club. There were folks who clearly enjoyed it and others who just couldn't stand plowing through it. In my opinion, that's the unique experience of reading.

I still applaud Mari for reading P&P and expressing an opinion--some of which raised some intriguing discussion about what Austen was doing in her novel, but overall made for a lively discussion that is now...what...4 months old?

I look forward to chatting with all of you again.

I personally love P&P. I have it on my kindle and a hard copy. I read it with the knowledge of how life was back then. Not how life is now. Women in those days could not vote, own anything, or work. There only hope was to marry well. The book is about the human condition of being contradictory. All people have contradictions in them. A girls search for a man who would grab her mind not just her body was what Elizabeth wanted. She would not settle for less. And pride can get in the way of something good standing right in front of a person. So to the original writer of this review, please open your mind to new ideas/old ideas and try to understand the era you are reading about.

Scorkpr wrote: "Hey, don't get me wrong. I love Mr. Bennet. He's great fun. He's just not a good parent. And his wife is certainly out of her mind. How the two of them ever got together and had children is somethi..."

How they wound up together?

No doubt by complying with societal expectations of the day.

I always wanted to drop Mrs. Bennet down an abandoned well.

Brandie wrote: "I personally love P&P. I have it on my kindle and a hard copy. I read it with the knowledge of how life was back then. Not how life is now. Women in those days could not vote, own anything, or work..."

The title became more significant for me, with successive readings. Austen's Pride & Prejudice, Sense & Sensibility, and Persuasion had very apt titles that related very well to the stories.

Renee wrote: "lways wanted to drop Mrs. Bennet down an abandoned well."

Haha, she would be obnoxious the whole way down! No wonder her husband locked himself away most of the time!

Renee wrote: "Scorkpr wrote: "Hey, don't get me wrong. I love Mr. Bennet. He's great fun. He's just not a good parent. And his wife is certainly out of her mind. How the two of them ever got together and had chi..."

Mrs. Bennet was literally a product of her times, but Lizzie wasn't willing to be a product. She's a great role model. Her dad annoyed me, but he also encouraged her intelligence. His lack was in parenting the younger flighty daughters.

I liked Mr. Bennett, and had sympathy for him. I always felt like he'd done his best and it took with Jane and Lizzie, in spite of his wife, but that the younger ones were too much like Mrs. Bennett in temperament and he'd finally realized that nothing he did was going to have any lasting impact, that his wife was going to undo any effect he might have, that he knew it was a lost cause.

There wasn't any point in arguing it with her, or throwing her part in Lydia's debacle back in Mrs. Bennett's face because she'd never have recognized it and someone like her never sees that they have any blame or responsibility in anything when it hits the fan.

Oh, geez, whether P&P was assigned reading is beside my point, which was the reaction. Sigh.

You were referencing assigned reading and student responses, no? My suggestion was merely that this is not a classroom nor an academic situation. Goodreads is an open marketplace of ideas about books that anyone is free to join. Their reactions are just that...their reactions. They aren't the ones we'd necessarily welcome in a classroom, but I still think Mari's would be an opening for discussion. Yep...even the reactions that make us sigh.

Renee wrote;
"There wasn't any point in arguing it with her, or throwing her part in Lydia's debacle back in Mrs. Bennett's face because she'd never have recognized it and someone like her never sees that they have any blame or responsibility in anything when it hits the fan"

I think that is absolutely true, and that's why he hid from her, he knew that.

Scorkpr wrote: "You were referencing assigned reading and student responses, no? My suggestion was merely that this is not a classroom nor an academic situation. Goodreads is an open marketplace of ideas about boo..."
You have been making some valid points. Any reaction to a book is a valid reaction because it is based upon the readers life experience, thought processes and such. They make not be expressed as we would like (there is a previous post I cannot read as it is in text talk and I can't understand it) but they are valid nonetheless. The problem is when someone expresses an opinion that is at odds with what we would like them to be. We tend to get defensive and dismiss their opinions as being worthless. I know that for fact having had an author say to my face my liking of another author was "my problem". At least Mari has read the actual book, rather than a comic book adaptation of it (and they do exist-Marvel for one did a five issue miniseries apparently). For that she should be given credit.

Mary wrote: "It should have been called "Gold Diggers." I never finished it. It's obnoxious."

Mary wrote: "It should have been called "Gold Diggers." I never finished it. It's obnoxious."

You obviously know nothing about the era that the book was written in.

Mary wrote: "It should have been called "Gold Diggers." I never finished it. It's obnoxious."

Not only do you know nothing of the time period this book was written in, you also come across as a non-thinking person. You are probably smart, but your reasoning skills regarding literature are questionable.

Brandie wrote: "Mary wrote: "It should have been called "Gold Diggers." I never finished it. It's obnoxious."."

You obviously know nothing about the era that the book was written in.

I secund that.

Karen wrote: "Mary wrote: "It should have been called "Gold Diggers." I never finished it. It's obnoxious."

Not only do you know nothing of the time period this book was written in, you also come across as a no..."

Agree, Karen, and simplistic, devoid-of-understanding statements like that always make me wonder about the speaker, more than the subject, and why they reacted so strongly — and wrongly:

"... when you speak truth to weakness, weakness gets mad and queasy. It accuses you of its own insecurity."
"The Off Season: A Victorian Sequel”
― Jack Cady

Renee wrote;
""... when you speak truth to weakness, weakness gets mad and queasy. It accuses you of its own insecurity."

Interesting quote- it fits.

Maria wrote: "Brandie wrote: "Mary wrote: "It should have been called "Gold Diggers." I never finished it. It's obnoxious."."

You obviously know nothing about the era that the book was written in.

I secund that."

Actually one could know about the era and still describe the book as obnoxious. If one thinks the era is obnoxious (not my choice of words but the initial comment wasn't mine so I go with what I am given) then one could reasonably think the book to be obnoxious. Still that comment doesn't really tell us much about the person's perception of the book.

Any era is obnoxious to a latter era that shares its faults — but likes to consider itself new an improved.

Only now people do background checks and run credit inquiries and ask, "what do you do for a living."

The "truth to weakness" bears itself out ;-)

I adore this book, and I loved seeing the family dynamics of the Bennet household. I could relate a great deal to the sisterly aspect. The reason why this novel has endured is because, especially women, truly love Elizabeth's smart yet critical ways. That is the entire premise of the Austen novel: to find fault and essentially "laugh at" society. If Elizabeth seems cruel for doing so, it is only because that is the deepest purpose of the work.

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, WOW! LOL! You really didn't mince any words on this one!

You are right and many women in that day and age DID marry out of a sense of responsibility towards themselves and their families. And P & P simply shows they didn't have to and good things come to those who wait. It is fiction after all! And Austen's critics have always pointed out to her writing about the world of the rich and showing a particular sanitized version of England than the ugliness Dickens, James, Elliott and Gaskell/Cookson showed. Austen wrote love stories not social commentaries.

And you are absolutely right in pointing out the disparity between a man going after money and a woman marrying for money. Well, that's gender roles for you: men are seen as 'exploitative' in the same situation that women would be deemed as 'securing a future'. But you see, Wickham would have continued with whims and affairs even after marriage and have total control over his wife's money while a woman would not dare an affair for risk of abandonment by a well-to-do husband and losing the allowance. So women do get the raw end of the deal even in gold-digging!

Anyways nice post. Tc.

John wrote: "Actually one could know about the era and still describe the book as obnoxious. If one thinks the era is obnoxious (not my choice of words but the initial comment wasn't mine so I go with what I am given) then one could reasonably think the book to be obnoxious. Still that comment doesn't really tell us much about the person's perception of the book.

The original poster did not made an explanation. You are right in your assertion that even with knowledge of the era, the book (that inserts itself in that era) could be seen as obnoxious. But the poster chose to not differentiate between those 2 concepts.

I love the book but the era itself would prove to be somewhat strange and yes, obnoxious to me, accoustumed that i am to this era. But i always bear in mind that it is a book written and set at that period in time, so my notions, or most of them do not apply and i read it accordingly.

Austen was writing social commentary, and not just love stories. She isn't quite as obvious about it as Dickens and others, perhaps, but within those love stories she wrote there is satire and wit about the social norms of her age and the ridiculous nature of such elements as social class (by accident of birth) and societal expectations based upon gender. Even the title of this book hints at her satirical intentions.

Scorkpr wrote: "Austen was writing social commentary, and not just love stories. She isn't quite as obvious about it as Dickens and others, perhaps, but within those love stories she wrote there is satire and wit ..."

Yes, her social commentary was acute though really pretty mild; it doesn't become satirical. To describe her as a writer of romances leading to matrimony sells her short. She was a brilliant observer and writer.

Mary wrote: "It should have been called "Gold Diggers." I never finished it. It's obnoxious."

I have to be honest and say that I don't think the criticism that Mary is receiving for this comment is fair. The gold digger label does technically apply. Marrying for money is "gold-digging". I loved the book, but that doesn't interfere with my ability to acknowledge certain truths about it...good or bad. Imo, there is a very valid and very understandable reason for the women of that time to have those types of considerations, but that doesn't and shouldn't change what it is.

This is confusing. First Elizabeth Bennett is selfish because she won't marry Mr. Collins (in a way, marry for money since the result is she will save her family home); then she is a gold-digger for 1) spurning a man who has money before she; 2) realizes that she loves him, which is why she marries him? Criticisms should be of the actual story.

I don't see the point of criticizing a novel's characters for their behavior anyway, especially when the conflict and suspense their behavior creates in the story drive the novel.

"Austen wrote love stories not social commentaries."

Jane Austen did write social commentary, otherwise, I would not read her, as I don't read romance novels. Austen subtly poked fun at the norms of her time.

Austen was writing romances while exaggerating the characteristics and actions of the people who lived around her and the prevailing social system. What she wrote qualifies as satire, even if it wasn't the biting satire of someone like Jonathan Swift. It becomes quite pointed at times; check out the characters in Persuasion, for example. She was a brilliant observer, as you say.

gertt wrote: "Gold digger is slang for a greedy person who only dates wealthy partners with the intention of exploiting said wealth.

Women in the 1800's may have tried to marry a man that would be able to prov..."

I understand. I just think that what you've described is also a very sugar-coated pc way of putting it. Regardless of the reasoning and circumstances, it technically is still gold-digging. I also think the mere act of specifically choosing a mate because of the wealth and/or social standing that he or she can offer you is actually a form of "exploitation" regardless of one's motivations or whether one is greedy about it. Everyone in that era, males and females, were technically guilty of gold-digging. It was a part of that society. If you closely examine the institution of marriage that exists today, I think I could argue that it is still very much a part of our society today.

Women had few choices beyond "gold digging" as some have called it, if they were to live a respectable life in Austen's time. The author herself raised eyebrows by not marrying. Times were different. Context matters when reading books from bother era.
Most remarkable to me? Given the different social mores of the time, the book still nails universal bits of human nature, 1813 OR 2014.

We should remember that the term "romance" in the era of Jane Austen had a different connotation then it does now.

Um....since I'm a huge JA fan...I"m going to repeat a few things that have already been said in this forum.....Lizzy is not a gold digger nor are her sisters except for maybe Lydia but she's too young to know anything beyond having a good time. Lizzy turned down Mr. Colins because she wanted to marry for love and in those times that's a noble thing as most women had to make sure they secured a husband who could support them beyond their first year of marriage and any children she bore, also in those times people died young usually the man so women had to make sure they were not destitute if their husband died suddenly. The mantra was, marry well, love will come later. YOU HOPE!

The original rant…..by what I read, I’m getting the feeling the person did not absorb the story nor did she understand the story was not written in our time, nor did she get Lizzy and Darcy’s whole character transformation.. Lizzy pokes fun at Caroline Bingley because Caroline was jealous, mean and vindictive and was sure she would secure Darcy’s hand (we all know how that turned out) And Lizzy makes fun of her mother because her mother just blurts out inappropriate things in front of the wrong people and Lizzy is embarrassed by her, remember she’s only a 20 year old girl who is more or less being pushed to marry or she’ll be a spinster by 25. And Lizzy’s is not Mrs. Bennett’s favorite child, they thought when Lizzy was in utero she was a boy who would inherit the estate and keep it thriving after Mr. Bennett’s death, as back then women could not inherit only males, usually first born. Women had no rights whatsoever and relied on their fathers first, then their husbands. I could wax poetic for hours on this topic. I'll stop here.

I think the fact that we can still have discussions about this 200 year old book, speaks volumes of Jane Austen’s writing. I love everyone's POV on this topic! You All Rock! (Please note my icon is Pemberley)

I wonder if Lizzie and Darcy would have had the same story and outcome if he were penniless w/ no title or rank? I loved Pride and Prejudice.....but I don't think Lizzie would have considered Darcy at all if he'd been a lowborn common laborer. It's very easy to claim to not care about money when you don't have to worry about it because the object of your affection has enough of it anyway. I'm not judging her or the book for it. I understand the times that the book was set in. However, at the same time, I understand why some readers label it gold-digging because it technically is just that.

I always thought about that myself, and I think so, she challenged him in discussions, she was well read, she didn't place too much on her looks, she knew how to manage a household. And in essence other than his clothes Darcy didn't flaunt his wealth. So i think if they met in that ballroom, they may have started a courtship right away instead of the pride and prejudice that plagued them both in the original story.

Mochaspresso wrote: "I wonder if Lizzie and Darcy would have had the same story and outcome if he were penniless w/ no title or rank? I loved Pride and Prejudice.....but I don't think Lizzie would have considered Darc..."

Darcy would not have been Darcy then, and Elizabeth would never have met him. This reminds me of: "If I were you, I would . . ." Respectfully, Mocha, this is absurd reasoning.

Mochaepresso wrote: I wonder if Lizzie and Darcy would have had the same story and outcome if he were penniless w/ no title or rank?

Probably not. In the beginning of the book when everyone thought highly of Wickham, Lizzie was reluctant to consider him simply because he had such uncertain financial prospects.

But in my understanding, that was part of the point of the book. Marrying without any consideration of future practical realities was not trivial and not necesarily sensible-- but, marrying without affection and respect was worst of all, self-degrading and likely to lead to a lifetime of regret.

In other words, Jane Austen implicitly champions balance between the head and the heart, which is true for all of her mature works. She wasn't promoting extreme 'all-or-nothing' outlooks in her stories. She wasn't two-dimensional in her thinking. She seemed to believe that the head and the heart are best meant to cooperate together, with each playing the role that it's designed to do, and each modifying the extremes of the other. Or so it seems to me anyway.

kellyjane wrote: "Probably not. In the beginning of the book when everyone thought highly of Wickham, Lizzie was reluctant to consider him simply because he had such uncertain financial prospects.

But in my understanding, that was part of the point of the book. Marrying without any consideration of future practical realities was not trivial and not necesarily sensible-- but, marrying without affection and respect was worst of all, degrading and likely to lead to a lifetime of regret.

In other words, Jane Austen implicitly champions balance between the head and the heart, which is true for all of her mature works. She wasn't promoting extreme 'all-or-nothing' outlooks in her stories. She wasn't two-dimensional in her thinking. She seemed to believe that the head and the heart are best meant to cooperate together, with each playing the role that it's designed to do, and each modifying the extremes of the other. Or so it seems to me anyway.




"I ain't sayin' she's a gold digger....but she ain't messin' with a broke #$%^@!!..." Sorry. That Kanye West lyric comes to mind every time I discuss Pride and Prejudice. :)

I completely agree that "Jane Austen implicitly champions balance between the head and the heart." Elizabeth Bennet wanted both a suitable match and a marriage of love, respect and affection and she found both of those things with Darcy.

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

Circumstances change greatly, but we don't."

That's one of the reasons I enjoyed Pride and Prejudice so much. People are still people and still have the same concerns and feelings. Yes, times and customs may change, but people are still people.

I don't think Lizzy can be accused of gold-digging--after all, she rejected Mr. Collins who would have provided her with considerably social rank and a comfortable life. And even so, she rejected Mr. Darcy upon his first proposal. Elizabeth was obviously cognizant of his social standing, but in some respects, Mr. Darcy's wealth also contributed to her prejudice against his character.

And just look at all the discussion P & P still elicits from readers. I think that's the best answer of all to the question posed at the top of this thread: "How can anyone like this piece of crap?" Because it still makes people engage in meaningful discussion.

As has been pointed out earlier "golddigger" in the sense the term is being used in this discussion is really a 20th century usage. In the age these books were written it meant only someone who dug/mined for gold.

deleted user 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..."

The book is really confusing, back when this was written people had a very different way of speaking/writing/thinking which is hard to understand.
Try reading it when you are older, you might enjoy it more.

I fully realize that gold-digger is modern slang and that my feelings have been heavily influenced by the times that I have been raised in. I also understand that during the time that the book was written, women had valid reasons for how they went about choosing a mate.
I understand it, but that doesn't mean that I have to also like it. I don't think it's fair to say that I (or any other reader) obviously have no understanding the times simply because I admit that I didn't like that particular aspect of the novel.

A very similar discussion came up in the threads for the book "Outlander" by Diana Gabaldon. The book is set in 18th century Scotland and there is a scene where the hero takes the heroine over his knee and spanks her as punishment for being disobedient and jeopardizing the safety of entire clan in the process. Some readers were offended and objected to it, while others did not since the practice was reflective of the times and setting that it was written in. I don't think there necessarily is a "right" or "wrong" in that type of discussion.

I don't fault Lizzie Bennet's character. However, I also don't think that I should have to sugar coat what I think just because it's a Jane Austen novel and considered a classic. I think the way they went about arranging marriages was a legitimized form of regency era gold-digging. I also get the impression that Miss Austen was probably not particularly happy about the plight of women during her time and that's why she wrote about it in that manner.

It's not 'sugarcoating' to understand that different eras and cultures have different points of view and mores that make trying to judge them on our cultural terms absurd -- unless they involve gross violations of human rights (slavery, physical or mental abuse, etc.). None of that happened in this story, though if Elizabeth had been forced to marry Colins you could say soul-crushing emotional abuse was involved. How was anyone abused by her marrying a man she respected and loved? I keep writing this, and read no reasonable retort.

Lady Catherine De Bourgh, her daughter, and Miss Bingley all felt themselves highly abused by Mr Darcy's marriage to Lizzie Bennet.

Mochaspresso wrote: "I ain't sayin' she's a gold digger....but she ain't messin' with a broke #$%^@!!..." Sorry. That Kanye West lyric comes to mind every time I discuss Pride and Prejudice. :)

Lol, I love the uncanny juxtaposition of those two artists.

In an overall sense, here's how I look at Pride And Prejudice. I think that it was very much a book about marriage-- specifically, how to go about the process of considering whether and whom to marry. The book presents six different marriages: two that occurred before the story begins (Mr & Mrs Bennett; Aunt & Uncle Gardiner), and four that took place through the course of the story (Charlotte Lucas & Mr. Collins; Lydia & Wickham; Jane & Bingley; and of course Lizzie & Mr. Darcy). Even Colonel Fitzwilliam riffs a little on the theme of whether and with whom he must look for marriage; and Aunt Gardiner attempts to analyze Wickham's possible motives for pursuing Miss Gray (I think that was her name). The story is saturated with the theme.

Anyway, of the six presented marriages, three are portrayed generally as 'undesirable' or 'unsuccessful', while three are generally portrayed as desirable/successful. Mr & Mrs Bennett, along with Lydia & Wickham, seemed to marry in relatively'unbalanced' ways priortizing 'heart' (feeling) while disregarding 'head' (reason). The other 'undesirable/unsuccessful' coupling, Charlotte Lucas & Mr. Collins, presented the opposite imbalance-- all reason and no feeling. None of these marriages provide fertile environments for personal joy or growth.

Whereas the desirable/successful marriages seem to present more balanced individuals, and therefore marriages. Neither side of the Whole Self is neglected or disregarded in those connections-- reason and feeling are both essential parts of the connections. In a way, it was Sense And Sensibility all over again, how best to embrace both cooperatively, and the potential pitfalls of going too far in either direction. Or something like that anyway.

And in my view it's that basic issue (cohesively integrating feeling and reason) that helps lend a timelessness to Jane Austen's works-- regardless of era, age, setting, or circumstances, we as humans grapple with the phenomenon.

I have enjoyed your perspective and kinda' used it as a springboard to riff a little about the story as I see it. I hope it's okay. Anyway ...

Kallie wrote: "It's not 'sugarcoating' to understand that different eras and cultures have different points of view and mores that make trying to judge them on our cultural terms absurd -- unless they involve gro..."

I'm with you Kallie, all the way on this. It is absurd but I see it all the time. The first clue to reading a book like Pride and Prejudice is to look at the date it was written. Personally, I like reading books from different time periods other than the one I am in. It gives a fascinating learning perspective on history and social norms, behaviors, and a time before cell phones.