Reading "Pride and Prejudice"

[qos]

I'm risking losing perhaps one-third of my friends list with this post. . .

Motivated entirely by the warm comments made by friends here over the past several years, I finally obtained a copy of Pride and Prejudice on Friday and started to read it. I've just finished reading Darcy's letter to Elizabeth and her reactions, so I'm about halfway through.

I've been reading attentively, open to the virtues expounded upon by so many people whose opinions I respect, wanting to like the story, to like Elizabeth, to like the writing style -- but I simply can not understand the passionate love and loyalty this book and its characters inspire. If it were any other book, I would not have kept reading beyond the first chapter.

If I read one more time about how a person's "amiable conversation" and fine manners obviously mean that he or she is person of good character, I shall choke. And maybe that's part of the point of the book, that Elizabeth and others learn that being a model member of society has little to do with a person's actual worth or quality, but it's not a storytelling journey I feel any need to take. Likewise, the sheer monotony of the characters' lives makes me skim over paragraphs at a time and send up countless prayers of thanksgiving that I do not live in a world where my primary entertainments are visiting and going to balls. What do these women have to talk about besides men, clothing, and marriage prospects?

It feels churlish to write such things about a book and characters that are so deeply beloved by others. . . and I feel like there must be some part of myself that is lacking in discernment since I can't even be engaged by the plot.

What am I missing? Do I need to read through to the end to appreciate the rest of the book? Or should I just give up now and admit myself a hopeless savage, incapable of appreciating the divine Austen?

Comments

[jillwheezul.livejournal.com]

I am hopelessly bored by this genre. Frankly, I think those who connect with this may have past life connections...

[qos.livejournal.com]

Indeed. . . I suspect that during this era I was on campaign with the likes of Richard Sharpe, far from any drawing rooms.

[labelleizzy.livejournal.com]

ooo, Richard Sharpe! thanks for the reminder!!!
(adds to Amazon Wishlist)

[sharpchick.livejournal.com]

Not to worry. . . you do not risk losing me from the flist.

I was also underwhelmed by the novel. It was a first for its time. . . a romantic comedy, and has also garnered acclaim because the author was of the "gentler" sex.

Uh huh.

And so I view it much as I view mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, bedbugs and lice. There has to be a reason for them to exist, right? And we should be thankful for all the living things of this wondrous creation, yes? So I spent considerable time pondering this, and finally puzzled through the mystery.

So I would be grateful when they were not around. . .

[qos.livejournal.com]

Indeed.

Since the comment came much later in the thread, I'm going to quote tamnonlinear, whose final observation goes along with yours to some degree:

Baby, the relationship just isn't working out and you need to start seeing other literature.

[nepthytis.livejournal.com]

It's not to your taste. You're to be applauded for giving it a go. I like the work of the Brontes better, but understand completely why not everyone finds Wuthering Heights or Jane Eyre as compelling to read as I do.

Never have been able to read Virginia Woolf. I feel like a bad feminist for saying so, too, but that's just the way it is.

[qos.livejournal.com]

There are some books I feel guilty (or inadequate) about not liking, and others I dislike gleefully.

It's been a long time since I tried Woolf, but I don't remember getting very far with her either. . .

[tx-cronopio.livejournal.com]

Oh, thank you. Virginia Woolf makes me want to throw her books against the wall, except for the fact that I'm usually too soporific from her prose to do so.

[oakmouse]

Me too!

[blessed-harlot.livejournal.com]

Here's the part where I look like a literary yokel - I very much enjoy the filmed version with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. I also enjoy Emma Thompson's adaptation of Sense and Sensibility. While I'm glad Austen had the courage to write and break new ground, and I'm personally glad that writers saw enough there in the novels to create some fine films, I've really never been attracted enough to the stories themselves for Austen to appeal to me as a writer. I saw the same things you do. It's all so... frivolous.

[qos.livejournal.com]

There have been several occasions in recent years where I've watched a movie and felt no desire to read the book, or simply preferred the movie to the book. (The Lord of the Rings movies/books leap immediately to mind.)

It always makes me wonder if I'm losing some of my intellectual and/or literary sophistication.

[blessed-harlot.livejournal.com]

I think filmmakers' understanding of literary adaptation has improved greatly over the last couple of decades. Now that film has been its own art form for a century, the consciousness of its makers is changing a bit, and they can really "translate" more accurately (or artistically, if you prefer) from one language to the next. I can't speak to your literary sophistication, because I've rarely had any, but I don't think a valuing of visual art necessarily lessens it.

[bodhibird.livejournal.com]

I only read S&S because I liked the film so much... Emma Thompson understands and loves Austen far more than I ever will.

[tamnonlinear.livejournal.com]

I love and adore P&P, but I'll entirely understand if it does not work for you. Taste may differ, and as dad says, if everyone in the world wanted the same thing, mom would be a busy woman.

I can tell you what I find in it; I think it's a finely crafted glimpse into a particular world, it's quite often very funny, and the characters are extremely well done and realistic people. Austen excels at miniatures, at telling details, and at having characters who are flawed without being stupid.

I think that's the main thing for me; I detest stories where the main characters are either shallow puppets or idiots (fraught! with! tension! makes me hate people). I can enjoy a story that's just a fun ride, but if there are no additional layers, I'll never go back to it. Every time I go back to P&P, I find more to it, a new way of viewing it, more to catch.

If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work. I've certainly had that experience, and slogged through books or movies that I was told I would love and resented wasting my time on (oh god, some of the books I've made myself read. If only I could target specific brain cells, I'd drink more just to get rid of them).

Austen's books really are character studies. The plot often isn't amazingly engaging in and of itself, it's just a dance floor where you can see how the people move around each other. If it isn't a book for you, then it isn't a book for you.

Feel free to give up on it. It's a great book (IMO) but if it isn't a great book for you, then better to sigh and say Baby, the relationship just isn't working out and you need to start seeing other literature.

[qos.livejournal.com]

Baby, the relationship just isn't working out and you need to start seeing other literature.

Brilliant!

Honestly: I find you a far more witty observer of daily life, miniatures, and telling details than Austen.

[spring-heel-jim.livejournal.com]

I adore Jane Austen - but she can be something of an acquired taste. And you do have to get into that regency era mindset - where manners are everything.

It's difficult to explain - but there's a bit later in the book where Elizabeth finally stands up for herself and I found myself punching the air when I read it and shouting ' go girl, you fucking tell her ! '

Ahem..

[qos.livejournal.com]

Those moments can be so cathartic!

I have to admit, I'm having a bit of a giggle imagining you getting caught up in Jane Austen in the midst of your 'other' activities. ;-)

[spring-heel-jim.livejournal.com]

I tend not to read when I'm having dirty filthy sex. I find it's considered rude...

Plus, the pages get stuck together.

But yes, persevere with Austen if you can. Just promise me never to go near Thomas Hardy. He's so depressing he can suck the joy out of a room even if you don't even open the book...

[rocket-jockey.livejournal.com]

Pride and Prejudice is a comedy of manners and commentary on society for a culture that is so far removed from yours that it's difficult to feel connected. I personally thought the main characters needed their horizons widened a bit beyond the imediate social circle and stratified class snobbishness they were obsessed over.

If this book did not appeal to you, then I very much encourage you to avoid George Eliot, as well, especially Middlemarch, which is supposed to be one of the greatest English novels ever written and which I found more annoying than anything else because the characters were completely moribund.

If you'd like to get the gist of Pride and Prejudice I would actually recommend the movie,

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<bride [...] prejudice</i>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<i>Pride and Prejudice</i> is a comedy of manners and commentary on society for a culture that is so far removed from yours that it's difficult to feel connected. I personally thought the main characters needed their horizons widened a bit beyond the imediate social circle and stratified class snobbishness they were obsessed over.

If this book did not appeal to you, then I very much encourage you to avoid George Eliot, as well, especially <i>Middlemarch</i>, which is supposed to be one of the greatest English novels ever written and which I found more annoying than anything else because the characters were completely moribund.

If you'd like to get the gist of <i>Pride and Prejudice</i> I would actually recommend the movie, <Bride and Prejudice</i> which moves the venue to modern-day India, adds musical numbers, and lasts ninety minutes as opposed to umty-ump pages

[qos.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the movie recommendation. I've been aware of it, but hadn't made a point of seeing it.

[blessed-harlot.livejournal.com]

Oh, I enjoyed Bride and Prejudice a lot. Bollywood Austen!

[a-belletrist.livejournal.com]

Austen was written for another time entirely, and for a completely different audience. She wasn't groundbreaking for the genre of her works themselves, as the domestic novel was already well-represented in that time's literary scene, but she was groundbreaking because she was a woman, and did it so very well.

There are a ton of people I know who are completely bored with Austen and the whole genre of books that she was a part of. I'm not one of them ... but then I had my second major in Victorian Lit. ;) Maybe it is a past life connection, as jillwheezul wrote.

What I love about them is their ability to provide a snapshot of what life was like then, from a woman's perspective. Even if it is fiction, the details provided make her works rich with history on the drawing room scale. Beyond that, her heroines are women whose characters were often unconventional even while they struggled to stay well within the conventions. Her stories are always places where virtue, literally Virtue, triumphs, as does goodness, patience, and being true to one's self (as long as you were virtuous!). I am always comforted by that, as I am by a time when excellent manners counted for something. I miss manners.

No, Austen isn't for everyone. No more so than the Brontes, Dickens, Gaskell, Collins, etc. And not liking them is no more damning than me not liking the works of Stephen King. Which I don't. ;)

I'm glad you gave it a try, though. Because you'll never know until you do.

[qos.livejournal.com]

her heroines are women whose characters were often unconventional even while they struggled to stay well within the conventions

This is the part I wish came out a bit more strongly for me.

Or maybe, because of my own issues in this life, I'm simply more drawn to stories about heroines who are daringly unconventional.

I'm glad I gave it a try too.

And, in line with what blessed_harlot wrote above, I may give the miniseries a try as well. Mom was recently expressing a desire to get the DVD's.

[labelleizzy.livejournal.com]

"part of the point of the book, that Elizabeth and others learn that being a model member of society has little to do with a person's actual worth or quality,"
... no that is the point.

the thing I liked most about Pride is that moment toward the end where Lizzy actually can see how GOOD a man Darcy is and comes to regret her harshness toward him...

oh, and yes, every time I read Austen I am grateful to be a child of Virginia Woolf, with a Room of My Own and a bit of income and everything of freedom and independent choice that allows... whew...

eh, if it feels like you're wasting your time reading it, you would probably like the movie anyway and get all the point AND get to ogle Colin Firth (who plays Mr. Darcy in the long A&E version)...

[qos.livejournal.com]

*Love* your icon!

And yes, I think I'm going to try the miniseries.

Be warned...

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

I think the ending is going to make you scream.

Re: Be warned...

[qos.livejournal.com]

Would that be a good scream or a bad scream?


Edit: Ooops, your subject line did say "Be warned. . ."

So I guess that would be a bad scream. ..

Re: Be warned...

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

A very bad scream. Your common sense will be inspired to go on a killing spree.

Re: Be warned...

[(Anonymous)]

You crack me up, even if I have not read it myself.

Re: Be warned...

[iswari.livejournal.com]

Oops, that was me.

[qos.livejournal.com]

I can understand what you're saying about it being a documentary -- but there are quite a few other times/places/cultures that interest me more than this one.

Sounds like I should put the book down and focus on something that's more suited to my interests and tastes.

[qos.livejournal.com]

*grin

I just posted something to that effect in a response to the comment above, probably at the very moment you were typing your comment!

[elevengirl.livejournal.com]

You are safe on my friends list. I rarely pay attention to what other people happen to be reading, and I even more rarely talk about what I'm perusing. The one hard and fast rule I have for myself about reading at this stage (i.e., no longer need to read for classes) is that the reading material must be enjoyable on some level.

[die-uberfrau.livejournal.com]

I think I love you for this post <3333

I HATE JANE AUSTEN. No, you're not a hopeless savage. I think her books are... well... drivel, to put it nicely.

Like you said, what do these women have to talk about besides men, clothing, and marriage prospects? In archaic, flowery English, no less.

I HATE JANE AUSTEN and I have hated her vile, anti-feminist writing since I was a teenager.

Personally, I like the Bronte sisters more, for that era.

[nepthytis.livejournal.com]

I like the Brontes too :)

[oakmouse]

What Tamnonlinear said.

Two quick points: One, yes, women's entire social lives in that period consisted of visiting and going to balls, dinners, parties, etc. And yes, they really truly never set foot outside the house when it rained or snowed. What she writes about is how women of her class actually lived back then.

Two, it's useless to try to read this book (or any older piece of fiction) as though it's modern. You've simply got to pay attention to the period which gave it birth. Hating Austen for giving an accurate picture of what women's lives were like in her time, long before such concepts as feminism entered the social and political sphere, is like hating Mark Twain for showing an accurate picture of what race relations were like in the shallow south before the Civil War or civil rights. This doesn't mean you can't find their writings upsetting or offensive or unreadable, but if you don't take it with a dose of perspective you'll be reacting from your own internalized biases instead of from a position of understanding.

(Try imagining what Austen would have thought of, say, Erica Jong. It's illuminating.)

And yes, you can put the book down if you really don't like it!

[veronica-milvus.livejournal.com]

It's a subtle comedy of manners and a lot of its impact is lost on those of us women who now live much freer lives than Jane or her heroines.

However, I spend a lot of my time when reading Austen feeling sorry for the protagonists and thinking "why couldn't they go to a proper school and then get a proper job...? The hopelessness of the 18th and 19th century middle classes is so alien to us, we should be grateful.

[amqu.livejournal.com]

I've never read Austen. I don't watch Austen movies (unless forced to be in the same room with my sister while she has one on).

On the one hand, your above commenters have a point that this was written in and for a different time. But your friends list is packed mostly with a certain kind of feminine viewpoint, one that I don't generally share. Neither do I share the feminine viewpoint that generally will go gaga for Austen.

The fact is there are huge swathes of women in America whose lives resemble the basic outline of Ms. Austen's society. The things that interested Austen interest them. The specific manners may be different, but they are still very conventional. Many woman do not find that conventional life in any way binding or confining. They are happy with it and enjoy it. That woman is going to find P&P a much more enjoyable book than you are going to.

[bodhibird.livejournal.com]

I suspect there's a sort of window of opportunity for Austen, and for many writers or genres. If you encounter X at the right time and it speaks to you then, you will love it forever, but if you miss that window, you just won't connect with it. E.g., it's too late to read the Wimsey mysteries if you're past your early twenties.

"You're a terrible book with a horrible ending that I didn't believe even for a second!"

[unicorndelamer.livejournal.com]

Quite a few comments on this one. I am relieved to read that there are others out there who stop reading a book if they really have come to feel they don't like the book...even if they haven't finished reading that book. This is something I've only recently come to, myself. I felt guilty for not reading a book all the way through. This guilt applied to books that I'd received for free and/or borrowed from the library. Craziness! I find that I can offset the guilt for not finishing a book that I own by donating it. I can recognize that while I may despise a book, someone else may love it. And the time I save in not finishing a book I hate can be applied to reading something that I really love.

I haven't felt any intense desire to read Jane Austen, though I have a few of her books because people find out I like to read and feel I need to own those "great classics". I know I'll have to be in a certain "mood" to attempt reading it, but am not sure if I'll enjoy the books. I think that one of the reasons some people may like the story of Pride & Prejudice is that it might be a story that teaches them something (I'm basing these opinions on the various film versions I've seen.). And I feel that you've progressed so much further beyond the lessons that it doesn't feel novel to you. I experienced this phenomenon when I read The Da Vinci Code. I loved Angels and Demons (which actually takes place before TDVC) and assumed all the hype surrounding TDVC meant it was even better. By the end of the book I was disgusted that I'd wasted my time reading it, but later understood that was because people were impressed by the big "ah-hah" moment at the end, and this was not news to me.

Re: "You're a terrible book with a horrible ending that I didn't believe even for a second!"

[qos.livejournal.com]

I felt the same way about "The DaVinci Code." Everything I heard other people ooh-ing and aah-ing about seemed to be ideas and themes I'd been aware of for years -- and much of it based on discredited "scholarship." I have better things to do!