Pride and Prejudice discussion

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 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.


edited to add: I'm not sure what I am supposed to say to appear "reasonable". Being forced to marry anyone is abuse in my view. I also don't think "force" has to just mean a father ordering a daughter to marry. Society is forcing the women of that time to marry because that is the best way to ensure financial security.

The sugarcoating applies to saying that what was happening wasn't a form of gold-digging. Yes, she married for love....but she was also fully aware of how rich he was and made sure he was suitable to her in every other way too. You simply say that money didn't matter to her. I think that there is a little more to it than that. The only reason that money didn't matter to her was because there was never any doubt that Darcy had it. Had he not had it, money would have mattered. Like I said, I understand the times. My not liking the reasons and circumstances surrounding why such a practice was deemed necessary for women has nothing to do w/ a lack of understanding of the times.

And a comment on 'gold digging', since it's been discussed by a few different readers in this conversation.

For me personally, the phrase 'gold-digging' connotes marrying primarily for mercenary financial reasons, with a relative absence of meaningful affection, respect, or love accompanying the decision. It has a negative connotation indicating an emotionally shallow connection. And if this is a fitting description of what the phrase connotes, then maybe Charlotte Lucas might qualify for the description, but Jane and Lizzie Bennett wouldn't.

But I do understand the point about applying modern descriptors to former eras. Girls in Jane Austen's time were taught, conditioned, socialized to make 'advantageous' marriages as well as possible It was not only normative, but expected-- and not only for the sake of a woman's individual well-being, but for that of her whole family as well. It was just about the only socially meaningful and consequential decision that many females would ever get to make in their lives; and society in general inculcated and reinforced the idea that females should look to practical/social advantage as their highest good (and even familial duty).

We know that Charlotte Lucas had never thought highly of matrimony or of men for that matter. To her thinking, marrying Mr. Collins without respect or affection was a perfectly normal, acceptable fidelity with her personal and familial duty. And I honestly don't know if the negative connotation associated with the modern phrase 'gold digging' can be perfectly fitting in her case. I can see both sides; and it's an interesting question.

Is it "gold digging" if it was Charlotte Lucas's only avenue to some sort of autonomy in her life? Lizzie is one of the few women in Austen's text who exercises any sort of freedom of choice, and that puts her at odds with her mother's expectations (and would not have helped her younger sisters, either). Women who did not marry had very few options (at least those in Charlotte's societal class (the one she was born into) or, for that matter, Miss Bingley's class. Such women relied upon their families to support them, with few exceptions. Some became governesses, a situation the Bronte sisters address in their books. That was no easy position to be in, either, and as for working class people--they had even fewer options if they expected to eat and stay warm. Women could not inherit property, which is why Lizzie's family must tolerate Mr. Collins. Taken to its extreme, Mr. Bennet dies and Charlotte and Mr. Collins can move into the Bennet home and force Mrs.Bennet and her younger daughters to leave, without any real place to go. I understand the dislike of women's place in the world at the time, and it's my belief that Austen shows us just how ridiculous it was to place women in that position. In my opinion, a gold digger is a modern and negatively applied description for a woman who has the freedom to choose and chooses money or financial gain in place of marrying for love. By the way, if Lizzie was a gold digger, why did she develop any affection for Mr. Wickham early on? He was just a charming soldier.

Mochaspresso wrote: "I'm not sure what I am supposed to say to appear "reasonable". Being forced to marry anyone is abuse in my view. I"

You might prefer reading Mary Wollstonecraft, if you expect women of that era to express a feminist sensibility. She didn't write novels but had an interesting life. Her daughter, Mary Shelley, wrote Frankenstein which I think every bit as good as Wuthering Heights.

I also think you compared it to modern day today. Pride and Prejudice is a classic novel of how things where back then. I'm really not into classic novels but this one was alright.

"There is no IF in history."

And it should be remembered that in earlier times the ladies in question would have had no choice in who the married. It was a matter of course for marriages to be arranged by parents without any thought of whether it was an agreeable marriage to their children or not.

Stop commenting please I keep getting notifications and do not care. Go for a walk or something

Stop commenting please I keep getting notifications and do not care

If you do want to receive notifications then uncheck the box that says "email me when people reply". If you can't be bothered to make the small effort to do that then you get what you deserve.

Why don't you choose the option to not get notifications? It's a free country, I guess people will keep talking regardless of your caring or not.

Skorkpr wrote: Is it "gold digging" if it was Charlotte Lucas's only avenue to some sort of autonomy in her life? Lizzie is one of the few women in Austen's text who exercises any sort of freedom of choice ...

I think that you make very good points. And this discussion of whether the phrase 'gold digger'can be applied to Charlotte Lucas (or anyone in the story) brings something to mind for me. Interesting as the discussion may be, it is focused on a label rather than on the actual socio-psychological realities of the characters involved. It's as if the label can be more substantive, meaningful, defining, in a sense more real, than the life itself.

But if we just set the label aside for a moment and leave it in abeyance, it's not difficult to see and understand, even appreciate, why Charlotte Lucas chose as she did (for example). In truth, Mr. Collins was no more in love with Charlotte than she was with him. And Charlotte certainly had no illusions about that. But by marrying Mr. Collins, she could not only secure her own practical stability, but spare her brothers (and their eventual families) from a lifelong burden of supporting her, while bringing social credit to her whole family. None of this was considered in a generally negative light by her society or family-- on the contrary, she probably would have been considered by many foolish and self-centered had she refused his proposal. And as you and others have pointed out, realistically she was facing an almost certain future of personal impoverishment and social derision as her alternative.

The substance of Charlotte's psychological and social realities say much more about her than any one label can accommodate (let alone a label that was coined in an era of meaningfully different psychological and social realities for women). And much as I do find the discussion about the label interesting, it can obscure more than it reveals in my opinion, if the greater reality is left too far out of focus.

John omg, that was funny.

Vanessa Eden wrote: "John omg, that was funny."

If you are referring to our posting similar comments at almost the same time I thought so to. It is quite annoying to be told to stop commenting on a thread.

Yea, it takes alot if balls and lack of brain cells to tell people to stop posting on a forum. Some people's kids *shrugs*.

kellyjane wrote: "Skorkpr wrote: Is it "gold digging" if it was Charlotte Lucas's only avenue to some sort of autonomy in her life? Lizzie is one of the few women in Austen's text who exercises any sort of freedom o...

The substance of Charlotte's psychological and social realities say much more about her than any one label can accommodate (let alone a label that was coined in an era of meaningfully different psychological and social realities for women). "

Labels always oversimplify and to me are of limited interest. As said, though she definitely married for money, security and some status, Charlotte's response to her situation was complex and nuanced and not at all cold, as the term "gold digger" suggests (a gold digger would not treat Mr. Collins with the respect, deference and even affection that Charlotte gives him). If you care to learn about how women fared in England without the protection of marriage and a decent income, read Hardy's 'Tess of the D'Urbervilles,' or 'Jude the Obscure.' Poor women's lives before the 20th century were brutal. Their 'best' chance of being cared for was to go into service as maids etc. for the wealthy. Ugh.

John wrote: "If you do want to receive notifications then uncheck the box that says "email me when people reply". If you can't be bothered to make the small effort to do that then you get what you deserve."

m8 notifications on my goodreads account, not my email

Hi Rachel. Try going to your Goodreads Profile and Settings. You can choose to turn off comment notifications by email and via Goodreads about midway down in the Settings choices. Choose "nothing," and that should fix it for you.

Scorkpr wrote: "Hi Rachel. Try going to your Goodreads Profile and Settings. You can choose to turn off comment notifications by email and via Goodreads about midway down in the Settings choices. Choose "nothing,"..."

Ty much <3

You're welcome.

Kallie wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "I'm not sure what I am supposed to say to appear "reasonable". Being forced to marry anyone is abuse in my view. I"

You might prefer reading Mary Wollstonecraft, if you expec..."

I don't expect women of the era to express feminist sensibilities. That isn't what I said or meant. I said that I understand why some readers view some of the methods utilized to choose a suitable mate in P&P as gold-digging. I understand that gold-digger has negative connotations. Lizzie Bennet may not necessarily be a "stereotypical" gold-digger, but won't pretend that Darcy's money didn't matter at all when it's quite clear that he would never have been considered as a contender for her affection had he not had any. Jane and Elizabeth made sure that they married for love......BUT they also made sure that they looked for love among a select pool of suitable husbands (as was the custom for women of that time). Money didn't matter ONLY BECAUSE there was never any doubt that the men that they were choosing already had plenty of it.

Then how do you explain Lizzie's early attraction to Mr. Wickham?

Btw, I don't think Charlotte married just for money. I think her main motivation was also fear of being a spinster. In her mind, a loveless marriage to Collins was not only practical and sensible from a financial standpoint, it was also better than what she believed her alternative would ultimately be, which was spinsterhood. She and Collins also seemed to be on the same page about it. When Lizzie visited them, they seemed to be at peace with their choices. Their marriage doesn't seem ideal, but I do believe that there is actually something healthy about two people on the same page entering into a mutually beneficial relationship with their eyes wide open and with the same goals and expectations in mind. Color me crazy, but I actually respect Charlotte's "honesty" about what she wants for herself far more than I do Lizzie and Jane.

Scorkpr wrote: "Then how do you explain Lizzie's early attraction to Mr. Wickham?"

Was she genuinely and seriously attracted to Wickham? I didn't get the impression that she was seriously considering him as a potential husband. She was just flirting and he was feeding her the gossip that she was eagerly eating up.

...in essence, while she did originally like him as a person because he seemed charming, she was really just using Wickham. To assign another modern label, Wickham was the "placeholder".

Mochaspresso wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "I'm not sure what I am supposed to say to appear "reasonable". Being forced to marry anyone is abuse in my view. I"

You might prefer reading Mary Wollstonecraf..."

I suppose Elizabeth should have married into an itinerant Irish tinker family, and Jane fallen in love with a stable boy so they would seem more romantically admirable to our 20th century sensibilities but if, as I suggested, you read Hardy you would find them starving and working at brutal agricultural jobs because their families would have disowned them. Not to mention that that we would no longer have Pride & Prejudice but something entirely different that JA probably would not have written as well.

Just wondering, how many female college professors marry 6th grade drop outs living in trailer parks for love?

But they must be believable exceptions.

Thomas wrote: "Just wondering, how many female college professors marry 6th grade drop outs living in trailer parks for love?"
I don't know of any but I won't be surprised if it has happened. Reality is always stranger than fiction.

My point isn't focused on whether or not Lizzie sees Wickham as her future husband. She is obviously attracted to him, and early on, she looks for him at a social gathering he fails to attend (he is avoiding Darcy). She listens to him, believes his story about losing his living through no fault of his own--a story she throws in Darcy's face when she rejects Darcy's first proposal. I believe she is attracted enough to him to believe what he has to say, initially, but Lizzie also gets to observe Mr. Wickham and his pursuit of a young heiress who attends one of the social gatherings they both attend. Lydia expresses a bit of jealousy that Lizzie is keeping Mr. Wickham to herself, at one point.

The point you have raised about Lizzie and others only looking for love among a "select pool" of suitors isn't so much a product of the young women and their preferences as it is a product of the time they lived in. Such young ladies (Lizzie reminds Lady Catherine that she is, in fact, a gentlewoman whose father is a gentleman) were only allowed to mix and mingle in certain circles, and Mrs. Bennet has vetted the fortune of Mr. Bingley before the Bennet girls ever met him, his family, and Mr. Darcy.

Mr. Wickham is less of a placeholder, in my opinion, than a foil by which Austen develops Lizzie's character for us. Lizzie rejects her first offer of marriage which had title and position connected with it (Mr. Collins), is attracted to Wickham, despite his story about losing his living (thus no title or money involved there), defends Mr. Wickham to Darcy, and rejects Darcy's first proposal. I think Austen clearly makes a case for Lizzie having a bit of flagrant disregard for money and title in favor of respect and consideration.

To what concerns the gold-digging notion, i agree with the poster who say that, like today people follow common sense - everyone looks for a partner that has a steady job and means to keep a house and a future family. In that sense, then almost all of the world can be called gold-diggers because very few will care nothing about means of sustaining themselves.

To the matter of Lizzie beying atracted to Whickham - yes, she was, at the very begining. Because he was new in town, had a pleasant speech and figure and above all, he had a heart-breaking story, that fitted her view (at the time) of Darcy. So, he elevated himself in her esteem by these very simple features. I think, that even without the misfortune of him directing his attentions elsewhere (a rich girl, a Mary) eventually, she would have figured out that something was fishy about him, that he was not what was cracked up to be.

It is amaizing that we are still discussing these characters and this book after all this time. This speaks volumes about the immortality of the subject.

Mochaespresso wrote: "Color me crazy, but I actually respect Charlotte's "honesty" about what she wants for herself far more than I do Lizzie and Jane."

I also respect Charlotte's self-honesty. But what in the world was disrespectable about Lizzie or Jane? As far as I can tell, they never pretended, to themselves or anyone else, that they had no consideration for the financial prospects of their potential suitors.

In Jane's case, she met a guy who she really liked that, yes, could provide for a family-- and thought that she had lost him, and quietly grappled to cope with the disappointment-- and then came together with him again.

And in Lizzie's case, she's obviously trying to figure out the various issues for herself through much of the novel. She couldn't promise her Aunt Gardiner that she would or wouldn't be receptive to Wickham, because she didn't really know, and could only promise to do her best in considering the different factors of that potential match. And she let Mr. Darcy know in terms crystal clear that he could not have enough money or bestow enough advantages to make up for (what she perceived as) gross defects of his heart and character. As far as I can tell, she deliberately deceived no one about anything.

I guess that I'm surprised to hear that you found either of them lacking in respectability, and am curious the reasons.

Kallie wrote: "Poor women's lives before the 20th century were brutal. Their 'best' chance of being cared for was to go into service as maids etc. for the wealthy. Ugh."

Certainly so. Maids and governesses at that time were paid poorly and were very vulnerable to those who employed them, largely at the mercy of the particular caprices (or worse) of their Masters/Mistresses. Often they were looked down upon and treated as inferiors undeserving of more courteous treatment. And they were stuck in such undesirable situations, beholden to those who subordinated and exploited them. What job security they might have had depended as much on obeisance and obsequy as job skills. And as you wrote, this was a comparatively fortunate situation for most women who didn't marry.

Undoubtedly some maids and governesses found themselves in more healthy and desirable situations than others. But it was a crapshoot undergirded by complacent social norms and expectations.

Sense and Sensibility demonsrates just how vulnerable women were--at the mercy of whomever inherited the family property or, in the case of working class women, even worse, as several folks have pointed out. JA's Persuasion has a story of a disabled woman left to cope any way she can. And subject to the disdain of nearly everyone except JA's protagonist.

I often find the attitudes about books confusing. Most of us understand that there is a difference between good and bad art and good and bad music but books, well, that must be seen as subjective - all books must be treated as equal and all criticism is justified. Too often it comes in the 'I may not know anything about books but I know what I like' variety. There is a reason why a book like P&P has survived, not only survived but is still loved, after two centuries while the vast majority of books from the same era have been consigned to the dust bin of history. Jane Austen is considered one of the best writers of English literature for good reason. She is almost impossible to pin down in terms of genre. Some people love the romance in her books while others, myself included, love them for their social commentary and wit. She took the usual tropes of her day, whether it was the gothic novel or the works of the Romantics, and stood them on their heads while critiquing the social mores prevalent at the time.

Austen was writing at a very unique period in history - the Regency. The world was in flux - the French and American Revolutions were still well within living memory, England was just coming out of a war with Napoleon, the Industrial Revolution was just beginning, and the Regent had replaced mad King George on the throne of England. This was a period of relative liberality where mores and attitudes existed somewhere between the Enlightenment and the Victorian era, between the last gasps of feudalism and the birth of capitalism and Austen portrays this era beautifully while reflecting the universal in the human condition. She saw the restrictions on not only people but the writing of her time and, instead of accepting them, she played with them - she made them her own in ways that had never been done before and have never been equalled since. One can say you don't like her writing, that's fine, I get it no writer appeals to everyone but to call it 'crap' - well, that's more a sad reflection on the state of education and the level of narcissism in the world today than it is on P&P.

Maxine wrote: " One can say you don't like her writing, that's fine, I get it no writer appeals to everyone but to call it 'crap' - well, that's more a sad reflection on the state of education and the level of narcissism in the world today than it is on P&P. ..."

Well said.

Echoing Kallie: wonderful post, Maxine.

Bravo, Maxine! Well said, indeed.

See, this is where I get extremely iffy with the directions of these types of discussions. Is education supposed to teach you to only think one way about certain texts? I think forming an opinion, even one that is not necessarily popular or widely agreed upon is perfectly fine as long as one can clearly explain why or how they formed it. It's also okay for others to think that the opinion is wrong as long as they can clearly explain why they think so. That's when a true discussion takes place. When you don't listen to another person and dismiss their opinion as indicative of the sad state of education.....well, sorry to say it, that is probably what is truly wrong with education. A teacher probably did the same exact thing to a student in a classroom and that student is inclined to despise reading classics because of how overzealous teachers with specific preferences and agendas present it to them and don't allow students to have their own opinions.

(I readily admit that I am projecting a bit here. I'm convinced that this is where my hate of Wuthering Heights for 20 plus years came from. An overzealous teacher that would not allow me to have the opinion that Cathy was spoiled and that Heathcliff devolved into a miserable abusive wretch and that theirs is not necessarily one of the greatest love stories ever written.)

I don't think a dislike of a book like Pride and Prejudice is a reflection on the state of education. Quite the opposite. I think it's great that people are reading and talking about what they read. If you think their opinion is wrong, defend it with evidence from the text....not with condescension and derision.

Mochaspresso wrote: "See, this is where I get extremely iffy with the directions of these types of discussions. Is education supposed to teach you to only think one way about certain texts? I think forming an opinio..."

Opinions need to backed up with a well-written argument if you want them taken seriously; for example, the opinion that the Bennett sisters, characters from an entirely different era and society than our own, should be seen as "gold-diggers." No such argument has been presented, so why should I respect this opinion? Do you respect someone's opinion that a novel you like is "utter crap" based on their say-so? I doubt it.

As for teachers and their agendas, I don't remember any who attempted to brainwash me though I do remember arguing with them at times. Maybe I cared more about the books than what they thought of them. (Yes, I had teachers who were passionate about literature; to me, that's a plus.)

Cemre, we were required to read certain books that represented a history of English and American literature and absorb them well enough to discuss their content.

I don't get feeling victimized by exposure to that. What I'd find oppressive is all the testing students have to tolerate now.

kellyjane wrote: "I also respect Charlotte's self-honesty. But what in the world was disrespectable about Lizzie or Jane? As far as I can tell, they never pretended, to themselves or anyone else, that they had no consideration for the financial prospects of their potential suitors.

In Jane's case, she met a guy who she really liked that, yes, could provide for a family-- and thought that she had lost him, and quietly grappled to cope with the disappointment-- and then came together with him again.

And in Lizzie's case, she's obviously trying to figure out the various issues for herself through much of the novel. She couldn't promise her Aunt Gardiner that she would or wouldn't be receptive to Wickham, because she didn't really know, and could only promise to do her best in considering the different factors of that potential match. And she let Mr. Darcy know in terms crystal clear that he could not have had enough money or bestow enough advantages to make up for (what she perceived as) gross defects of his heart and character. As far as I can tell, she deliberately deceived no one about anything.

I guess that I'm surprised to hear that you found either of them lacking in respectability, and am curious the reasons.



I liked Jane, but she also seemed a bit passive to me and allowed things to happen to her. She never attempted to take matters into her own hands. Everything either fell into her lap or was resolved for her by others. Bingsley also falls into this same category. I was turned off to their characters by how easily they both could be manipulated and influenced by others. It seems to me that out of all the relationship issues presented in P&P, their's should have been the easiest to solve with a simple honest conversation. (That's also one of my biggest pet peeves in romance novels in general....I love the genre and read it widely, but I cannot stand it when the conflict is nothing but a big misunderstanding due to lack of communication. It makes me want to throw the book. How can you possibly genuinely love a person that you've never meaningfully talked to? :)

As for Lizzie, it's not so much that I disliked her character. I didn't at all. I liked her spirit. My criticism of her mostly stems from people trying to convince me or others of certain things about her as if she wasn't flawed. Lizzie wasn't perfect. I get why a reader might see her as a gold digger. Imo, it wasn't necessarily one of those opinions that is just plain "wrong".

Mochaspresso wrote: "kellyjane wrote: "I also respect Charlotte's self-honesty. But what in the world was disrespectable about Lizzie or Jane? As far as I can tell, they never pretended, to themselves or anyone else, t..."

I'm not saying they aren't flawed and neither is anyone else. What I'm saying is SO WHAT!!! It's whether or not characters come alive that matters, not whether or not they are perfect; a perfect character would seem perfectly unreal.

Cemre wrote: "I don't think required reading is opression at all. Quiet the contrary actually."

I never saw it as opression, either. I would nort have met some great authors in my teens, had not have been for required reading. But my classmates saw it as punnishment and tried to get away with it, reading the lowest amount of pages that they possibly could.

Lizzie is flawed, especially when you consider her in terms of the obvious conflict she has between doing what's best for her family and doing what's best for herself. She's been encouraged by her father to think for herself (and his own example of that is to think for himself to the exclusion of what might be best for his family). As a reader, I admire her willingness to stand up for herself, and yet I also feel the tension JA intentionally put into this text about what Lizzie's responsibilities to her family are. I also understand that it's hard to consider all of that from the perspective of the highly prized and more modern ideas we have about individual autonomy and freedom to choose what's best for ourselves.

And Wuthering Heights is a place I always love to go with a discussion. Bring it on!

Maybe seeing it as punishment depends upon some factors like an early introduction to reading, and especially encouragement to read some of the classics. Having them read to you as a child can also influence reading preferences.

Scorkpr wrote: "Lizzie is flawed, especially when you consider her in terms of the obvious conflict she has between doing what's best for her family and doing what's best for herself. She's been encouraged by her ..."

Very nicely put. JA deliberatly provoques this contra-sense, just so that the reader can make their own judgment. But we have a very different world than that she had 200 years ago. But the conflit still stands: duty and heart coliding.

Kallie wrote: "I suppose Elizabeth should have married into an itinerant Irish tinker family, and Jane fallen in love with a stable boy so they would seem more romantically admirable to our 20th century sensibilities but if, as I suggested, you read Hardy you would find them starving and working at brutal agricultural jobs because their families would have disowned them. Not to mention that that we would no longer have Pride & Prejudice but something entirely different that JA probably would not have written as well.
"

I've actually read Tess of the D'Ubervilles. Twice, as a matter of fact. Once in school and then I was inspired to read it again after it was referenced in "Fifty Shades of Gray" of all places! I actually know quite of few people who read Tess for the first time ever just because of Fifty Shades.

Back to P&P, I wasn't trying to imply that Jane and Elizabeth should have married poor men. I was saying that a blanket statement like "money doesn't matter to Lizzie" doesn't truly apply. Perhaps I need to re-read it, but I didn't get the impression that she was serious about Wickham. It seemed to me that she used him as a "placeholder" or a "Mr. Right Now" and it was mostly fueled by a desire to learn more about Darcy and later, as a way to get under his skin because of their dislike for one another.

Cemre wrote: "What's with second rate romance writers referencing to literary classics ?"

Oh, poo. I aced European History in school because of the likes of Georgette Heyer.

Don't know what's up with that, but it may indicate that writers, even of what we consider second tier or mass market fiction recognize the roots of their stories (or see abstract connections). How many works reference Shakespeare or mythology, if only as a passing reference? An academic essay I read actually compares Twilight to P&P, from the standpoint of marrying outside of one's group having become more acceptable.

Cemre wrote: "I don't think required reading is opression at all. Quiet the contrary actually."

Speaking only for me and some of my personal experiences, the oppression was not in required reading. It was in "required thinking" and "required interpretations".