Pride and Prejudice
discussion
How can anyone like this piece of crap?
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..."I don't question someone's right to dislike a book, I've disliked many books including a few classics. But there’s a huge difference between saying I dislike something and calling it 'crap' and questioning the taste of anyone who doesn’t agree especially when talking about one of the most iconic pieces of English literature. And, yes, I agree that the school system can destroy the ability to appreciate a good book mainly by forcing young people to read something most can't personally relate to especially as many of these books including P&P weren't written for a young audience. But regardless of the books taught, schools should, and I stress should, teach critical thinking. Oddly, I doubt anyone over the age of twelve (or hopefully under it) would say Bieber is great music but Bach is crap and not expect a certain amount of blowback including questions about their ability to distinguish between personal choice and objective quality. And I doubt you will find many art galleries placing pictures of fluffy kittens hanging from poles beside Van Gogh's Starry Night although the majority, if one believes the internet, prefer fluffy kittens. Yet, where books are concerned questions of quality go out the window and personal preference becomes objective criticism.
As to defending it on the text, the poster seemed upset more by the historical context and the behaviour of the characters rather than the writing per se and that's fine - primogeniture and the laws of entailment as well as the position of women in society during the Regency period were complicated. P&P was actually considered quite racy and radical back in the day because Austen was questioning the system. Again, though, that's an important period of history and should be discussed at some point in school or at least the fact that the past differs in many ways from the present and we can't or shouldn’t judge it by today's standards.
And it's fine to start a discussion about a book with a negative review but starting the discussion with 'how can anyone like this piece of crap' is more than negative - it's meant to create a reaction and is, frankly, disrespectful not only to the book but to the thousands of readers over two centuries who have loved it. And, for that matter how is that an acceptable opening for a discussion but questioning its validity as criticism not to mention proper etiquette is condescending not to mention derisive. Are you suggesting that everyone’s opinion is acceptable as long as it critiques the book and not the form of criticism. If that’s the case, I respectfully have to disagree - to paraphrase Marshall McLuhan, the form of criticism is the criticism.
Cemre wrote: "Do you think a teacher's personality or political opinions might influence which books are required for reading and how they're taught in America ? (Or in Britain, Switzerland or India, whichever country you're from)"There is no "required reading" in Finland. One or two important books are often read in schools but we didn't read either in mine. We wrote book reports about the books we chose ourselves or I remember once we had to choose from a list (there were likes of The Clockwork Orange and All is Quiet at the Western Front on the list). Every teacher can decide how he or she will teach the subject. Unless you choose to study literature at a university, you don't have to read books someone else chooses for you. For some reason Finns still manage to read a lot: an average Finn visits a library ten times and borrows 17 books per year.
Maxine wrote: "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 t..."You raise very interesting points. I also think that it's very ironic and telling that people do just what you are criticizing the original poster for with popular contemporary books like Twilight and Fifty Shades all of the time.
Maxine wrote: "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 t..."Good post, and great points, thank you for saying this in such an eloquent way.
Great art exhibition idea that could engender cultural discussion, though: juxtapose Munch's The Scream and Van Gogh's Starry Night with looping videos of fluffy kittens. I have to point out that the negative and condescending nature of the opening remarks on this thread has managed to make both fans and detractors of the text engage in discussion about a classic work of fiction. From that standpoint--and this is Goodreads and not an academic site--that isn't a bad situation, overall.
Scorkpr wrote: "Great art exhibition idea that could engender cultural discussion, though: juxtapose Munch's The Scream and Van Gogh's Starry Night with looping videos of fluffy kittens. I have to point out that..."
Discussing literature in an intelligent way is always a good thing!!
Mochaspresso wrote: "Maxine wrote: "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 certa..."Well, admittedly, I doubt that either Twilight or Fifty Shades will stand the same test of time as P&P. However, it would make more sense to look at them in terms of their relation to the position of women in society today rather than just writing them off as 'crap' as tempting as that might be. It's interesting, at least to me although admittedly I may be alone here, that these two books gained popularity when the economy was still in recovery and that, as this new economy revolves around lower-paying service jobs that have replaced the better-paying manufacturing and male-dominated sector, it has resulted in a backlash to feminism, something reflected in both of these books. Or not...but I do think it would make a more interesting discussion than 'those books suck' which is guaranteed to create defensiveness on both sides.
That would be an intriguing discussion, particularly around the idea of a backlash to feminism and its cultural and economic roots.
Scorkpr wrote: "Great art exhibition idea that could engender cultural discussion, though: juxtapose Munch's The Scream and Van Gogh's Starry Night with looping videos of fluffy kittens. I have to point out that..."
I'd attend that art exhibition - just throw in Guernica, a fan painting of the Kardashians with big...er... eyes, add a Justin Bieber sound track and what a comment on the direction of modern culture you'd have.
And I agree, any discussion about a classic book is a good thing. I certainly wasn't trying to stop the discussion. I'll admit seeing my favourite book bashed like this feels somewhat personal and brings out the curmudgeon in me. But, if that were all, I wouldn't have written anything. I think there has to be at least a nod to what makes a classic book a classic, why some books are objectively better and more important, and why it matters. I'm certainly not an academic, I just feel that by trying to treat all books as subjectively equal, books and literature lose any value outside subjective taste - literature as Reality TV if that makes sense.
Tytti wrote: "There is no "required reading" in Finland. One or two important books are often read in schools but we didn't read either in mine. We wrote book reports about the books we chose ourselves or I remember once we had to choose from a list (there were likes of The Clockwork Orange and All is Quiet at the Western Front on the list). Every teacher can decide how he or she will teach the subject. Unless you choose to study literature at a university, you don't have to read books someone else chooses for you. For some reason Finns still manage to read a lot: an average Finn visits a library ten times and borrows 17 books per year. "
I had one unorthodox (to me) year in HS where we were not assigned specific books to read. We were given themes to choose from and lists of books for each theme or we could write a short essay to request permission for an alternate book that we thought fit into the theme if it was not listed.
That was an amazing year to me. I wrote an essay and was allowed to read the play "A Raisin in the Sun" along with "The Great Gatsby" and "My Antonia" under the theme of "The American Dream".
Mochaspresso wrote: "We were given themes to choose from and lists of books for each theme"Nowadays many schools have a voluntary reading diploma where you can choose books from the list and make some exercise about it. They read about 6-9 books depending on the grade. In general we concentrate more on writing essays and other texts, books are mainly just material for them.
Maxine, I completely agree with what you're saying about literature. Not all things are equal in art, and the reality TV analogy is apt. I like where this art exhibition idea is going, by the way. A bit of that "15 minutes of fame" notion is tucked into that.Mochaspresso, that method of letting you choose books based upon themes or ideas is far more meaningful than the way literature is all too often taught in high school. Bravo to the instructor for letting you choose and making you discover the ideas for yourself and synthesize them. Maybe having P & P on a list with other texts connected to women's issues or societal change might have made it far more meaningful.
Mochaspresso wrote: " 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. ."
I don't see her behavior so cynically. True, I like Elizabeth more than you do; but I think that taking Wickham's side was a way of protecting her pride from her attraction to Darcy. Austen is a subtle, psychological writer. She shows how Elizabeth contrives, in her feelings, to condemn Darcy for unfairly snubbing Wickham, as he snubbed her at their first meeting.
Maxine wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Maxine wrote: "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 thi..."They may stand the test of time, just not necessarily in the traditional manner that we are used to. I think the definitions and criteria for what becomes a classic and how a classic is "immortalized" is changing. If you only want to focus on the more traditional manner and ask will scholars be reading and assigning Twilight 50 years from now? Some say probably not....but I was in a bookstore the other day and I saw a GradeSaver "Twilight Study Guide". Also, depending on what direction the vampire genre takes in the future and what happens with all of the fan-fiction that Twilight has since inspired it may remain relevant in other aspects and capacities that were not available 100 years ago or even 30 years ago. Actually, I find the entire concept of "fan fiction" fascinating, to be honest. My niece tells me that
is all the rage among the girls at her school. It's supposedly originally a fan fiction based on the pop group One Direction. It may or may not be "good" (I haven't read it), but something that encouraged over 100 million reads on Wattpad and enough popularity to gain publishing and movie deals is quite an accomplishment and something plenty of aspiring authors dream of.
There are Harry Potter study guides as well, I'm sure. There is no doubt that Rowling, Meyer, and others have revitalized an interest in reading and studies now show that millenials are far more likely to have read a book in the past year than other age groups. Academics have responded by exploring ideas and suggesting links between these books and others more established in the "canon." Will they be assigning Twilight in the future? Consider this: during a course on Reformation Literature, we were assigned Samuel Pepys' Diary. I have read two academic essays in the past month about the Twilight Series, and they were published alongside academic essays about Frankenstein and A Picture of Dorian Gray. Many works by women weren't always included in the academic canon, and now they have been included in it. Literature is not a static entity.
Mochaspresso wrote: "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".Yes, people certainly form their own impressions, which can vary widely. For me personally, the 'gold-gigger' characterization for Lizzie just doesn't ring true. To get there, I would have to make the term so elastic that it would seem essentially meaningless to me. But I certainly don't think of her as perfect or flawless either. In any case, the conversation about it has attracted many posters expressing themselves well, which for me can be a real treat.
Cemre wrote: "P&P is just a conventional love story, a well written one that ı greatly enjoyed, but still. You've read this story before. I think Emma is a much better novel."We may have read the story but there are only so many stories of any sort, and few as deftly written or with such social and psychological insight.
I think it's completely okay that you didn't like the book. Not everybody's keen on reading this kind of literature, full of descriptions, characteristics and stuff, moreover when the book is a romance destined especially for female readers. But it's still one of the biggest classics in the history of literature and Jane Austen is one of the most significant writers of all time, so in my opinion it's important to keep it as a required reading (even though not everyone would fall in love with it) because her books are components of the headstones of the whole literature.PS: I liked it.
I know it seems to be a text female readers appreciate more than males, by virtue of its genre, but did you know that injured soldiers returning from WW I were given Jane Austen's works to read as a way of reassimilating back into the culture of "normal" life?
I just wanted to say that your comment about Twilight made me laugh so much. I don't even know why but you made my day so thanks. :)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 ..."
gertt wrote: "So many times it's what we're looking for at the time that determines whether we like or dislike a book. I'm sure there are books I liked when I was younger that I wouldn't enjoy today and vice versa."This is so very true. I always think that our reviews say as much or more about us than they do about the stories. We present pictures of ourselves-- our values, sensibilities, what we focus on and what we ignore, our expectations, what we prize and disdain-- in our expressions, which of course is also effected by particularities of the moment (age, mood, and a long et cetera of others I suppose). In a way it's like a Rorschach or some other projective test from psychology. One person sees a 'this' in some character or event, another person a 'that'. For me it's often fascinating to see the same thing through multiple sets of eyes, which these myriad points of view allow.
And personally I agree that belittling comments about artists, their works, or their fans, are much less appealing than simply identifying why a story or character, etc, failed to personally impress. On the other hand and perhaps ironically, such comments often seem to invigorate the most discussion and debate. Most of us seem to take personally, at least to some extent, what we experience as unwarranted attacks upon our favorite, esteemed, or cherished artists and their creations. Goodness I find so much that fascinates me within the round and round of it all, for whatever it may be worth to me ....
Literature plays a part in a reader's spiritual development and life, especially if a person identifies with no particular church or religious belief. Crude, reductive attacks on literature in which many people have found spiritual value (psychological, ethical, unvarnished yet artful truth, solace, etc.) seem to me like bullying and trollish bids for attention (or status: one has observed that the Emperor is nude! and everyone else is so stupid for not seeing that!). Those kinds of posts disrupt attempts at intellectual discussion and analysis and suggest that such interactions are worthless when it comes to said book. Usually the poster doesn't bother to share detailed comments about what they like instead.
Of course, there are behavioral gradations too; many of us (I include myself here) are still learning internet manners and don't mean to be rude but have not, at times, been respectful enough of other peoples' taste and opinions -- which doesn't mean that we don't want to learn how to be better at that.
I don't think anyone has figured out a good way to deal with trollish comments -- whether to ignore it or call people on their behavior.
On the topic of gold digger... the only person I see doing that in the book is Wickham. That should really be brought up more often.
Shilpita wrote: "What made you feel Elizabeth and her sister were gold diggers? You seem to have forgotten that she did refuse Darcy at the beginning. Just because they happened to fall in love with rich people doe..."Enjoyed your response, just wish to mention that this is pre-Victorian or rather Regency England around 1813. Victorian starts in the 1840's when Queen Victoria starts to rule. Think Napoleonic wars and classical vs romantic and moralistic Queen Victoria.
Actually the romantic movement began in the late 18th century and reached it's peak from 1800 to 1850 so it is pre-Victorian.
John wrote: "Actually the romantic movement began in the late 18th century and reached it's peak from 1800 to 1850 so it is pre-Victorian."Pre-revolutionary France was enamored with the discoveries in Pompeii and with the Terror came copies of Greek fashion, architecture, classic themes, art and theatre. This was what was reflected in the Regency period. After the slaughter of the Napoleonic wars a morbid interest in death, mourning, spirits, love lost, and the past started to predominate which became the romantic movement. The classic look was slowly abandoned and the emotional, gothic novels, La Sylphide took over. This was brewing in the 1830's and when Queen Victoria assumed the throne in 1837 she became a marker for this major change in tastes.
What in the late 1700's or the "peak from 1800" do you consider romantic style?
Well my three favorite poets from the Romantic period are Blake, Byron and Shelley.
Lariela wrote: "On the topic of gold digger... the only person I see doing that in the book is Wickham. That should really be brought up more often."And if we really want to identify a character from Jane Austen's work which seems to fit the modern definition of 'gold digger', I can't think of a more fitting character than Lucy Steele from Sense And Sensibility. She hadn't the least qualm or reluctance in hopping from one brother to the next in pursuit of the family fortune, routinely using manipulation, scheming, and deception along the way.
But again, at the time, when women had very few options and very little power to control the course of their lives, and when making financially advantageous marriages was normative and often expected, it seems questionable to apply a term that didn't even emerge until women had more and greater alternatives to choose from in life.
I agree with you on that. It is why I keep trying to get us to forego the use of the term, without much success. It simply isn't a valid term when discussing this time period.
kellyjane wrote: "Lariela wrote: "On the topic of gold digger... the only person I see doing that in the book is Wickham. That should really be brought up more often."And if we really want to identify a character ..."
Oh, I do love your piece of writing. I totally agree with you regarding George Wickham. I simply don't understand why some people read P&P, or in fact any Jane Austen, and look at it in terms of today - when, as you know, this has been written in the 1800's. Women were married for a piece of land, money and to procreate. Wickham certainly didn't have marriage in mind when "eloping", yeah right!
Elaine, There is a school of literary criticism that insists that all works of fiction must be read and analyzed according to contemporary standards and mores. Thus a book such as "Pride and Prejudice" must be read not in the context of the era Jane Austen wrote it in but rather the contemporary era.
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..."I just don't like it. I've had to read it four or five times in my life. Never ever been able to separate the snootiness of an author towards others. Just don't like Austin. Give me C. Bronte, L. M Alcott...but leave Austin on the shelf. As for the word "crap",I have a difficult time thinking this is one of the best works ever written, but its far from "crap". Now....50 Shades.....that's another story
Of course it's a choice. Personally I find it rather silly but I was just pointing out to Elaine why some people do comment on a book as if it was written today rather than putting it in the context of the times the book was written in.
John wrote: "Of course it's a choice. Personally I find it rather silly but I was just pointing out to Elaine why some people do comment on a book as if it was written today rather than putting it in the contex..."Silly, and incredibly lazy.
I suspect it was concocted by academics who had a point to make and were going to make it come hell or high water. I have noticed to that those using this approach tended to be on the left side of the polictical spectrum. Not sure why.
Renee wrote: "John wrote: "Of course it's a choice. Personally I find it rather silly but I was just pointing out to Elaine why some people do comment on a book as if it was written today rather than putting it ...". . . and incredibly narrow and arrogant.
Analyzing the text in a modern cultural context is a common assignment. So are personal reflections.http://www.glencoe.com/sec/literature...
One of the questions in the document above is "Do you see any parallels between yourself and Elizabeth?" Read through some of the activities and questions. Quite a few of them are questions that are of a more self-reflective nature and do not necessarily have a "right" or "wrong" answer.
One of the activities in next guide is to have a mock debate about whether Lizzie is or isn't a "gold digger". That specific term isn't used, of course, but the meaning is still the same. It's on pg. 23.
http://www.penguin.com/static/pdf/tea...
Mochaspresso wrote: "Analyzing the text in a modern cultural context is a common assignment. So are personal reflections.http://www.glencoe.com/sec/literature...
One of the ques..."
That sounds interesting and I may try it; but it is very different than judging the book on the basis of whether or not I find those parallels between myself and Austen characters. That fort of judgment is what I find arrogant.
Cemre wrote: "Elizabeth the gold digger" is definetely one of the possible readings of the novel. "
Not as I understand the cultural connotations of that label. For one thing, as some have repeatedly said (why is this point ignored?), Elizabeth refused matches on the basis of money alone and Jane was genuinely in love with Bingley. That is not gold digger behavior. Gold diggers marry for money alone, and have no feelings for their prey. The term describes their crude behavior, hence the crudity of the term and the image it evokes. Applying that term to the Bennett sisters is a gross distortion of character and language.
Cemre wrote: "I don't believe that Lizzie is a gold digger, but ı can't really say that money didn't play a role in her love for Darcy. I don't blame someone who thinks like that."I hope that it's not pointlessly splitting hairs to suggest that 'money playing a role in Lizzie's love for Mr. Darcy' and 'money playing a role in her willingness to marry Mr. Darcy' are not necessarily the same thing.
And having suggested this distinction, it seems to me that money may have played some sort of role in her willingness to marry him-- after all, had he been penniless and with fairly hopeless prospects financially, then it's certainly questionable whether Lizzie would have committed her whole future life to that kind of existence with him or anyone else. From the text, we know that she was unclear and undecided about whether she would accept Mr. Wickham under similar circumstances.
But I find little if anything in the text to support the idea that Mr. Darcy's fortune played a role in her actual feelings of love for him. There is the one joke that Lizzie made toward the end of the story. But her sister Jane, who knew her best of anyone in Lizzie's world, recognized it as another example of Lizzie's habitual inclination for making jokes-- and insisted on a more serious answer, which Lizzie finally supplied to her.
"Had Darcy been penniless with hopeless prospects financially, Lizzy would probably never have met him."True enough gertt. Lizzie did meet men in social situations who had uncertain financial prospects (eg, Mr. Wickham), solid financial prospects (eg, Mr. Collins), and extraordinary financial prospects (eg, Mr. Darcy). But she probably never met any men in social situations who were quite that destitute.
I had referred to the hypothetical 'penniless Darcy' for the sake of discussion, to acknowledge the real possibility that Lizzie may not have married any man who could not have sufficiently provided for a family. It seems to me wholly a matter of conjecture, as the text of the story doesn't declare it one way or another. In short, love by itself may not have been enough for Lizzie. Then again, it's not clear to me that she would have refused someone like Mr. Wickham, someone with uncertain financial prospects, if she had felt enough of an emotional attachment. In my reading of the story, that is a question only indirectly asked, and never answered, by the text. We know for certain that solid and even extraordinary financial prospects were not, in the absence of love grounded in genuine affection and respect, enough to induce Lizzie to marry. I don't see how Jane Austen could have been any clearer, short of a didactic lecture or expatiation, on the primacy of emotional and mental attachment as the basis for a marriage that was really worth having. And in her personal life, we know that she refused an offer of marriage that would have comfortably provided for herself and mother and sister, all of whom were in quite vulnerable positions at the time, because she could not bring herself to marry for money so to speak.
Anyway, I'm beginning to wonder if those who see 'gold digging' qualities in Lizzie to whatever extent-- I'm wondering if they believe (or at least question) whether Lizzie's eventual opening of mind and receptivity to Mr. Darcy was based primarily on seeing his estate at Pemberly. I don't see it that way; but perhaps some people do. (Shrug)
There's a reason the concept that what we most despise in others is what we despise in ourselves is still around. Now we refer to it as "projection."It's not always true, sometimes we despise people and their actions because we've been the victims of others like them.
Strong stories bring out those kinds of reactions.
Cemre wrote: "It's definetely a possibility."In my mind, it's a possibility in the same way that any conjecture lacking solid support from the text of the story might be. It's clear that Lizzie first began shifting her thinking about Mr. Darcy on the day following the first, unsuccessful proposal. It's also clear that her feelings were strongly impacted by Mr. Darcy's sincere and eager attentions to herself and Aunt and Uncle during their time in the neighborhood of Pemberly (as well as the maid's report, etc). The text makes all of that pretty explicit. And then Mr. Darcy's quiet, profoundly consequential assistance in Lydia's predicament clearly affected Lizzie still further (although she had already been wondering somewhat wistfully and regretfully about his attachment from the time that she had left Pemberly's environs).
This whole point brings to mind for me a previous conversation on Goodreads, though unfortunately I don't remember with whom. The poster seemed to believe that because Lizzie wasn't written as having a measure of overt and readily apparent physical lust for Mr. Darcy, that she must have married him for the money. It was more about what wasn't in the text than what was in the text for this poster. She couldn't discern any real heat on Lizzie's side of the coupling. I see it differently in a number of ways; but still, it's an angle on the discussion that I have heard expressed.
kellyjane wrote: " Cemre wrote: "It's definetely a possibility."In my mind, it's a possibility in the same way that any conjecture lacking solid support from the text of the story might be. It's clear that Lizzie..."
My reading interprets a genuine increase in affection for Mr. Darcy as his actions move Elizabeth beyond her pride and prejudice and closer to her real feelings about him.
"The poster seemed to believe that because Lizzie wasn't written as having a measure of overt and readily apparent physical lust for Mr. Darcy, that she must have married him for the money."
Jane Austen may not have experienced physical lust. She wasn't in very good health, or at least I recall reading that; which would explain her early death. Also, a woman writing about lust would have been seen as reprehensible and JA's rebellions tended to be of the quiet sort. I can't imagine her writing, even subtly, about lust though I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean she'd never felt it.
Kallie wrote: "Not as I understand the cultural connotations of that label. For one thing, as some have repeatedly said (why is this point ignored?), Elizabeth refused matches on the basis of money alone and Jane was genuinely in love with Bingley. That is not gold digger behavior. Gold diggers marry for money alone, and have no feelings for their prey. The term describes their crude behavior, hence the crudity of the term and the image it evokes. Applying that term to the Bennett sisters is a gross distortion of character and language. Your view/interpretation of the term seems a little more one-dimensional and black vs white/good vs evil than mine is. Lizzie Bennet was not of the "Anna Nicole Smith" type of gold digger. She's more of the "An Officer and a Gentlemen" variety. If you've seen that movie, Debra Winger's character eventually ended up marrying for love....but she was also VERY deliberate about where she looked for it. That type of regency era societal sanctioned gold-digging......attending a party that you already know is full of "suitable young men and ladies".....is not that much different from today's practice of hanging out at a bar that you already know is frequented by lawyers or doctors or investment bankers or hanging out at the hotspots near the military base with the hopes of meeting an officer. (Lizzie was very disdainful of her sisters doing this by the way, which I thought was rather hypocritical of her because the balls were used pretty much for the same purpose. It was just less overt, more high class and deemed as "respectable".....<---more on that word later.)
For the record, while I readily admit that I could be projecting, my view wasn't originally based on her visit to Darcy's estate as someone suggested. Although, now that it was mentioned....seeing his estate did seem to mark a major turning point in her thinking. I think it was more about talking to his employees and finding out that he was a kind employer rather than greed per se....but I'd have to re-read to be sure. It could have been a mix of both. Sometimes people are more willing to see the good in someone when it's surrounding things that they personally value.....which in Lizzie's case seemed to be a beautiful, tasteful and well maintained estate run by a kind owner. That's the type of man that she could see herself loving.
As for Elizabeth refusing Mr. Collins as proof that she wasn't a gold digger.....she had already met and developed a crush on Darcy when Collins proposed. (...yes, I do believe that she most definitely had a crush on him whether she admits that truth to herself at that point in the story or not. She had a crush on him all along. "pride and prejudice" got in the way and she refused to admit it.) Collins was not exactly wealthy, at least not on Darcy's and Bingsley's level. He was "respectable" because of his name, position and his inheritance. People don't want to think ill of this novel in any manner, but the book does make it quite clear that marrying someone like Collins or even a soldier was "respectable"....but to apply yet another modern concept, it was also "settling". Darcy and Bingsley were "the jackpots".
I didn't ignore your point. I said that money was not an issue for the Bennet sisters because they'd already narrowed down the list of suitable mates beforehand and the two men that become the objects of their affection also just so happened to be at the very top of the list. Bingsley and Darcy were among the wealthiest men in town and everyone knew it. Yes, the Bennet sisters married for love, but they also looked for love among a very select pool of "eligible" men. If you want to use the antiquated notion of "gold digging" and only see a 20 something marrying a 97 year old millionaire for his money, then Lizzie doesn't fit. However, if you think in terms of a generation that may have seen reality shows like "The Girls Next Door", "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" or "Basketball Wives" or even my generation of "An Officer and a Gentleman", I think I understand where the gold digging comment comes from and it's not entirely that far off the mark as you might initially want to think it is.
I have a small, but important distinction to insert about the Bennet sisters narrowing down "the list of suitable mates beforehand." Their parents and the social circle they were allowed to function inside of did the narrowing. The social functions were all put together under the watchful eyes of the adults issuing the invitations and attending the functions themselves. Note that Mrs. Bennet carefully pushes Mr. Bennet to introduce himself to Bingley, so that the girls may then meet him. The one exception seems to be the members of the militia, but they only get to meet eith the girls at social functions or out in public, in company with their sisters. Social protocol dictated their lives, and it's only because Mr. Bennet allows Lydia to travel away from home where rules become far more relaxed that Lydia runs off with Wickham. In other words, yes, they do have a pool of young men from which to select potential partners, but that is all done according to social protocol, and again, with a tacit understanding between parents and daughters that the oldest daughters have a responsibility to marry well, so that their younger siblings can move into a social circle through their brother-in-law's connections and marry well themselves.The difference is an important one, and it's one that Austen is demonstrating to the reader, even if you read the text from a modern perspective. A woman, today, can marry with money in mind, and she can inherit property and wealth because there are laws that grant her all the rights and privileges of full personhood (and I am not suggesting that we have full equality, by the way). Golddiggers can prosper.
Consider this scenario: Lizzie marries Darcy and Darcy dies before they have a son. Lizzie, as well as Darcy's sister, if she hasn't married, yet, could be thrown out of Darcy's home and left penniless. Lizzie's well-being and future is completely in the hands of a system that favors the exchanging of wealth from father to son or the next male heir if there is no son. That is the position the Bennet family is in. And, Mary's position, in marrying Bingley, is similarly precarious.
Golddigging carries a connotation with it that implies financial gain through marriage to someone wealthy. Lizzie, Mary, Mrs. Bennet, and even Charlotte cannot inherit wealth under the prevailing social structure of their day. I can't interpret their actions through the lens of golddigging, even if I read the text from a modern perspective. The definition just doesn't apply.
Scorkpr wrote: "I have a small, but important distinction to insert about the Bennet sisters narrowing down "the list of suitable mates beforehand." Their parents and the social circle they were allowed to functio..."Inheritance is not the only type of financial gain to be had, though. Gold diggers sign pre-nups, too. It doesn't mean that they don't benefit financially from their marriages in other ways.
Like I originally said, I understand the setting and the reasons why women felt that they had to have these types of considerations. That doesn't change my opinion of the practice, though. I understand why abortion should be legal....that doesn't mean that I also think the actual practice is "right". Two entirely different concepts to me.
But while we are on this topic, perhaps this is part of the reason why I always preferred "Jane Eyre" to "Pride and Prejudice"? I know the two novels are about 30-40 years apart....but the mindsets of the two heroines and their approaches to marriage are eons more than that apart.
The point is that they are free to make those decisions before and after they are married, and in states that uphold community property laws, women who have married for money have inherited based upon the earnings of a spouse during the time they were married (has also applied to the terms of divorce settlements). Lizzie has no such freedom under the constraints of the society she lives in.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Daniel Deronda (other topics)
Pride and Prejudice (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
After (other topics)Daniel Deronda (other topics)
Pride and Prejudice (other topics)
At that time, neither was I. However, I also didn't know about the concept of "gothic fiction" or "gothic romance" at that time and this particular teacher didn't touch upon it during our discussions of the book. I've since gained an appreciation for the genre, though.
It still happens today. My neighbor's son had a problem with an elementary school teacher over Shel Silverstein's "The Giving Tree". The teacher told the children that it is a wonderful story about giving and selflessness and her son viewed it as a story about selfishness because the boy kept taking from the tree without regard for how it was being affected. He kept taking and taking until there was nothing left but a stump. The tree didn't mind giving (selflessness)....but her son does have a point about the boy's willingness to keep taking (selfishness).
My point is that interpretive opinions like that shouldn't be discouraged in kids if they can explain it. I don't think education should be forcing children to read a book and then dictating what they should think about it.
edited to add: Just for the record, I am not referring to glaring and gross misinterpretations of the text here. If a student says that Lizzie murdered her mother and the rest of her family with an axe, you need to correct them as that didn't happen in Pride and Prejudice. I am talking about the types of interpretations that are more subjective.