What am I missing?

[Amina]

Everyone seems to love this book and though I enjoyed reading it I honestly don't remember much of it.  My favorite Austen book has to be Persuasion because I just love that letter.  But everyone is full of praise for P&P and I feel like I might have missed something.
And I must add, why in the world did she name one of the sisters Jane?  Did she run out of names?

[Julian]

Amina wrote: "And I must add, why in the world did she name one of the sisters Jane? Did she run out of names?"

Jane was a very common and unremarkable name at the time, just like Mary or Anne or Elizabeth. It wouldn't have felt like an author self-insert to her readers, especially since she originally was just published as "A Lady."

[Stephen]

Personally, I love romances where the intended couple starts out by annoying each other and only later discover their love. This book fits that trope perfectly.

Second, as to using the name Jane... I've been thinking that it was a form of false modesty. Jane was the sister who ALWAYS thought good of everyone. She was also the most beautiful. Now if Austen had used the name Jane for the mother...

[Redd]

People in these books need to have more variety in their names.

Check out my webcomic, updates every Thursday: http://reddkaiman.blogspot.com/2013/0...

[Susan]

200 years ago, there was very little creativity in names. Even in Austen's books, there are plenty of children with the same names as their parents. Jane's sister's name, Cassandra, was actually rather unusual for the time. This is why there are a blue million nicknames for Elizabeth, Margaret, Edward, etc.

[Carey]

This book bored me. I felt like most of the characters in the book were pretentious. I really don't see the romance in the book between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth. It was way too restrained for me. Most of the book was just boring conversations of the elite. They do travel from one house to another and still the conversations are boring. As you can probably tell, this was not one of my favorite books. I read David Copperfield and Crime and Punishment around the same time and I loved them. Maybe my tastes are different. One thing I have to say is that Jane Austen is an excellent writer. Too bad about the subject matter.

[Amina]

Carey wrote: "This book bored me. I felt like most of the characters in the book were pretentious. I really don't see the romance in the book between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth. It was way too restrained for me. Mo..."

I have read three of JA's novels and really don't see the appeal in her books.  The letter in Persuasion was however a gem and I love the book for it but besides that there really isn't much.  To me all her characters seem one dimensional and there isn't much of a plot beyond balls and summer visits.  But I love her to death for not putting any marital infidelity in any of her books.  And I know she is an awesome writer.  In short I guess I just don't have the refined taste required to be an Austen fan.

[Amina]

gertt wrote: "Jane Austen wrote what she knew...balls and summer visits, romance and afternoon teas.

The beauty of Jane Austen, besides the stories themselves, is she wrote these books in an era where women w..."

Yes I know and thats what I am saying. There is always negativity floating around even the greatest of works but I have never come across any negativity towards Jane Austen. Her work can be termed as fluffy chick lit and at the same she is so highly respected. Aren't most of the classics dark tragedies? But her "happiness" not only survives the test of time, its on the top of the list! There is something about her, I can't understand what, but thats my lack not hers.

[Jettcatt]

I am totally blown away at the thought that we are still discussing Jane's books 200 years....did you get that...200 years later. Wow now that is a fantastic writer she was amazing for her time and amazing in our time.

[Nicole D.]

Not everyone loves Jane Austen's style and stories.It just they are not your kind of books like John Steinbeck's books aren't mine.

[Melanie]

Grrr, her novels aren't "fluffy chic lit". Will people please stop saying this?

Her novels are about the simple lives of upper class women in the early 1800's, which is a fantastic topic to write about (even if people prefer dramatic gothics for their classic romance). Austen's novels are historical and shine a light on a part of society that was rarely discussed without embellishment (such as Dickens who caricatures everyone)

Austen addresses real problems, such as the expectation for financially advantageous marriages, which was often considered more important than the character of the man or whether two people were actually compatible (or in love).

Austen's heroines get a happy ending because they rise above the pettiness and weaknesses of those around them; in fact, they are there to create a contrast. Isabella(Northanger) is Austen's example of a woman only interested in a marriage that will raise her position, and it is Catherine's presence that shows how foolish a goal this is. As Catherine is only interested in being happy with those she loves, a far better goal, she is rewarded with a great husband/life while Isabella is left alone and bitter (the reward for all her selfish scheming).

This type of element exists in all Austen's novels. They are social commentaries. Not chic lit. Chic lit usually features a "heroine" that is more or less cute and ditsy and she is swept of her feet by a tall dark stranger. Occasionally the heroine is allowed to be feisty and a little self sufficient but she will still be swept off her feet by a guy that is romantically creepy. Or creepily romantic, one of the two.

[Anna]

Perhaps rereading the book may help, because Darcys letter is also one of the best. Miss Austen was truly a master. Reread it and you'll probably understand better why it's popular. It is a very good book.