Pride and Prejudice
discussion
How can anyone like this piece of crap?
Kimcarla wrote: "Lots of people said that this book is amazing but most of them are my FEMALE TEACHER IN ENGLISH!!! I am FEMALE but this books is not my thing and our generation now is way too different for this."The same thing could have been said of my classmates, and that was a long, long time ago. I doubt my mother's generation was all that big on P&P--though to be honest, I'm not sure they studied it way back then. And Austen certainly had her detractors in her own day. Often, people hate the books they are forced to read in school, only to return to them later in life to discover the "amazing" thing about them.
Enjoy the books that make you happy now, and keep reading. But put up with the boring stuff your English teachers throw at you because what you glean from it will help you as your tastes and interests change.
You may never be an Austen fan, but having gone through the exercise of reading the book and trying to understand it has (though you may not have noticed it yet) ramped up your reading skills.
Plus, you've been introduced to one of the Great novels and the greatest period of novel production. It would have been a shame for your school to have denied you that introduction because they didn't think your future was bright enough to warrant it.
P&P is not one of my favourite books, but, tough it is kind of pretensious, it is a nice read, I think. I actually liked it a lot, I think Mr Darcy becomes a loveable character, after a while. The book, tough was written a long time ago, so there are part which should be refreshed. As the love plot of the sotry may be too sweet at times, I guess...
The book may seem pretentious to modern readers because of Austen's hoity-toity tone, but that's because this is 2014 and the conventions of language have changed. When Marce suggests refreshing bits of it, it isn't as sacrilegious as it may sound. Most of us read Chaucer in translation, though it was written in English. While I don't think we are so far from nineteenth century British English that we can't read it in the original without some serious help, there is something to be said for alternative ways of presenting the story for modern audiences. There are good film versions of P&P. I recently spotted a line of classics in a pulp fiction format--Wuthering Heights with a brooding Humphry Bogart style Heathcliff, cigarette dangling. Check it out (DangerousMinds.net Ultimately, though, it is the language of Austen that sets P&P at the pinnacle of English literature.
Oh, come on. Shall we alter all classic lit to suit present tastes? No! Up to you to expand your mind and worldview a bit. You might learn something.
I've learned so much about using language from reading writers like Austen, the Brontes and other "archaics."It's helped me to write with a very modern voice.
Knowing something inside out enables you to use it, change it, grow it, mutate it, evolve it and take it to new places.
gertt wrote: "Kimcarla wrote: "Lots of people said that this book is amazing but most of them are my FEMALE TEACHER IN ENGLISH!!! I am FEMALE but this books is not my thing and our generation now is way too diff..."I think the real life Susan B. Anthony might be more responsible for the situation of women today then the fictional Elizabeth Bennett.
I always thought the point of P&P was that Elizabeth refuses to marry unless she loves the man concerned. That was quite radical at the time as women generally married as a survival mechanism. Of course it so happened that she fell in love with *a very rich man*. And so got the best of both worlds, which I bet 99% of women in those days didn't.Jane Austen died unmarried - so presumably she followed the same philosophy. She certainly had offers, but rejected them.
So,you spend the first three quarters of your review ranting at how Elizabeth refuses to be a gold digger and then in your last breath, you berate gold diggers? Make up your mind! Choose an opinion and stick to it!
What is the point of discussing anything if everybody takes the position "choose your opinion and stick to it". Pigheadedness is and reasoned debate are not a good partners. The whole point of book groups, or discussions like these is that intelligent people are able to see things from different points of view after further discussion and thought.
John said: "I think the real life Susan B. Anthony might be more responsible for the situation of women today then the fictional Elizabeth Bennett." Those who work for change in political contexts are only one part of effecting mass change. Seeding, dramatizing, and popularizing new social constructs is very often carried out by artists, who reach many people (and after all, mass changes in cultural outlook require the reaching of many people).
Agree, KellyJane.Then there's the old question, which came first the artist or the activist?
Renee wrote: "Then there's the old question, which came first the artist or the activist?"I wonder if there have been situations in which they didn't go hand in hand?
Usually something or someone flints a spark under tinder that's ready for burning, but once that's done it all flames together. I tend to think that artists (especially writers) are most often the ones who ready the tinder, fomenting ideas that may or may not have begun to become collectively conscious but are, metaphorically, the twigs and branches being blown down by the winds of change — the collective UNconscious, needing to be prepared and gathered and then given a voice by that spark, which is usually the activist.
Who may well have been awakened by something portrayed by an artist that sparked something in their un or subconscious.
Nothing happens without creative thought, even if it's destruction.
That's a really nice evaluation. And I especially appreciate your conclusion, that nothing happens without creative thought. Activists and artists both traffick in them, and bring them for consideration to the mass consciousness of the general public. I tend to think of artists as 'dramatizing' the new ideal, and activists as 'practical-izing' that new ideal. Artists can appeal more directly to the emotions, while activists tend to appeal more directly to reason (although both can appeal to both). But both qualities of our consciousness, feeling and reason, are impacted in the course of mass cultural changes.And I tend to think of the sequence of progress in the same way that you do (artists as tinder gatherers, and activists as sparking it into a flame of heat and light, perhaps after they had been affected by what had come before from the arts). That would be like a circle of influence rather than a straight line. In our times for example (speaking of art and activism), there were many dramatic representations of various homosexual characters and lives portrayed in popular media through the 70s, 80s, & 90s-- whether of normalizing or dramatizing kinds-- that preceded the high-profile political activism of the 2000s. Perhaps this pattern happened with the Civil Rights political movement in the 60s as well ....
Sometimes the artist, wittingly or not, winds up evolving into the activist.Oh, it certainly did in the revolution of the 60s! One example: this was the generation who *discovered* Tolkien and TLotR and The Hobbit and embraced it as a metaphor for what was happening politically. Mordor/Sauron was The Government, orcs and all . . . and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, with Chief Bromden's talk of the Combine. And in Kesey's case, the artist definitely became activist as well.
Quite a number of the protesters and activists were liberal arts people . . . they'd read lots of classics on their road to learning to think freely.
there were many dramatic representations of various homosexual characters and lives portrayed in popular media through the 70s, 80s, & 90s-- whether of normalizing or dramatizing kinds-- that preceded the high-profile political activism of the 2000s.But positive portrayals in the US didn't happen until after the Stonewall Riots (1969). Quentin Crisp's The Naked Civil Servant was published in the UK in 1968 and was made into a TV movie (with John Hurt) in 1975. There were older novels with gay themes and many popular gay celebrities, and there was a vibrant gay subculture long before Stonewall. The move toward uncloseted "normalization," however, didn't begin until Stonewall. So the question, I guess, is whether Stonewall would have happened at all if there hadn't been gay subculture (subcultures always have artists to define and foster them) and whether a gay rights movement would have gotten off the ground without artist's voices to make the broader appeal.
I'm not sure what this has to do with Jane Austen, but I suppose you can extrapolate from P&P the lesson that pride and prejudice are barriers to a personally and socially beneficial understanding of the Other. Also, that cranking up yer reading skills develops critical thinking and the ability to grasp and evaluate challenging and complex ideas that cannot be delivered in easy to chew sound bites.
Where we got here from Jane Austen is in the way she was gently subverting the culture of marriage in her time. Her heroines held out, refused the traditional propositions, and married the men they loved.Austen was, in her genteel way, quite the revolutionary.
Excellent commentary!And now that you say that, the book To Kill A Mockingbird comes to mind as a rather powerful precursor to the high-profile Civil Rights activism of the 60s, a book which undoubtedly exercised some kind of a humanizing influence within a prejudiced society. For that matter, Uncle Tom's Cabin had a rather profound impact on antebellum American society and culture, with President Lincoln purportedly characterizing Harriet Beacher Stowe (upon meeting her) as "the little lady who started this great conflict". Of course that is simplistic, but does highlight the multifaceted and circular nature of social progress.
Back to Susan B. Anthony.She fought for women to have political rights.
Jane Austen showed us we had the right to be happy, to be real people . . . and how to fight for that.
Longshare wrote: "But positive portrayals in the US didn't happen until after the Stonewall Riots (1969). Quentin Crisp's The Naked Civil Servant was published in the UK in 1968 and was made into a TV movie (with John Hurt) in 1975. There were older novels with gay themes and many popular gay celebrities, and there was a vibrant gay subculture long before Stonewall. The move toward uncloseted "normalization," however, didn't begin until Stonewall. So the question, I guess, is whether Stonewall would have happened at all if there hadn't been gay subculture (subcultures always have artists to define and foster them) and whether a gay rights movement would have gotten off the ground without artist's voices to make the broader appeal."That's the real point, not that artists or activists are exclusively instrumental in social progress, but rather that they are parts of a circle that move through time together. The Stonewall Riots were a watershed-- but did not lead to immediate social or legislative change (and for that matter, one can look to influences that came before those riots too). But yes, actual legislative change was preceded by about thirty years of normalizing and dramatizing homosexual characters and lives through the popular media. In my view social progress necessarily involves a mass shifting of outlook, mass because until enough people are willing to support legislation, it doesn't get passed. So it seems necessarily artificial to identify the activist as exclusively or even as more important.
I'm not sure what this has to do with Jane Austen, but I suppose you can extrapolate from P&P the lesson that pride and prejudice are barriers to a personally and socially beneficial understanding of the Other. Also, that cranking up yer reading skills develops critical thinking and the ability to grasp and evaluate challenging and complex ideas that cannot be delivered in easy to chew sound bites.
We got here because a poster commented that the real life of Susan B. Anthony had more to do with female social & political progress than a fictional character like Elizabeth Bennett-- and I presented a modified point of view to that statement. Renee responded to your post in concise and eloquent way; but I want to explain why I challenged the other poster's statement in the first place.
When Jane Austen was chosen to have her picture placed on English money, a lot of people had a problem with it. Setting aside whether it should have been Jane Austen or some other female writer (eg, Charlotte Bronte, George Eliot, Virginia Woolf, etc), a lot of people had no problem with a female being chosen-- but why not a female scientist, activist, inventor, rather than a mere writer? And it struck me as myopic, the more so because no one seemed to have a similar problem when Shakespeare or Dickens were chosen to grace English currency. So when a poster somewhat echoed that kind of sentiment in this particular discussion (ie, Susan B Anthony versus Elizabeth Bennett), I wanted to present a different point of view.
We got here because a poster commented that the real life of Susan B. Anthony had more to do with female social & political progress than a fictional character like Elizabeth BennettAh! I remember that controversy about the Austen currency. Right. People argued that if you were going to put a woman on money she should have done something important. Certainly, many people underestimate how much their ideas have been influenced by what they've read and by what their peers have read and by what their role models have read. Literacy is forbidden where ideas are feared--think American slavery and Taliban occupied areas.
My point was that activism without a voice is just rattling the bars--it won't get anybody out of jail. A voice in the wilderness reaches no one. I'm not sure it matters which comes first, but for that spark to happen, there has to be both.
It's worth mentioning that activists are frequently writers. Milton and Dante were politicians. Voltaire. Muir. We don't remember political speeches that were duds, and many of the most ringing phrases (at least from the second half of the twentieth century) were written by speech writers, not the public figures who delivered them. It is a fact that the novel has been responsible for changing attitudes on a massive scale for more three hundred years or so.
P&P is a beautifully articulated argument for love as a primary ingredient in choosing a marriage partner. It remains a touchstone for societies that hold that value. No, we can't allow Austen's original text to go out of print or be supplanted by a modified version, but there is nothing wrong with artists riffing on it or creating variations on its themes. Examples, West Side Story on Romeo and Juliet. Or The Wide Sargasso Sea on Jane Eyre. Or Grendel on Beowulf. Or Bride a Prejudice (set in 21st century India), which I much prefer over the depressing Keira Knightly version.
I think I still have a Susan B. Anthony dollar around here somewhere.
I couldn't agree more with your eloquent summary Longhare.
I have read the above post. Does anyone have any idea what it has to do with this discussion as I sure don't know.
It's spam. I flagged it already.
Wandahost wrote: "I'm sorry,I know that we all are entitled to our own opinion,but this has to be the most stupid review of this book,that I ever read."Stupid is the word!
I love that this book has inspired so many to comment on it. A good book inspires strong feelings and there have been a wide variety of strong feelings in these comments.
Just because it was what their mother wanted them to do does not mean it wasn't gold digging. I do find it rather a rather amusing term as the female back-up singers on the old Dean Martin show were known as "The Golddiggers"
One thing to remember in all this is that the use of the term gold digger to refer to a woman seeking a wealthy marriage partner only dates to the early part of the 20th century. Prior to that it simply referred to a miner who searched for gold. Jane Austen would not have been familiar with our use of the term gold digger.
I think this is the first time I have ever found a bad review of a book I love to be offensive to me. I really disagree with your opinion Mari...you have to remember what that time period was like and the way things worked back then. I also admire Elizabeth. I found this to be a great book, but you're entitled to your own opinion.
My point was that behaviour that we find fault with now in that time period may have been totally acceptable.
I followed Mari's reviews back to where she 'liked' every negative review of P&P. I especially appreciated the one by a young gent that compared P&P to TV shows like 90210. I guess maybe he felt that Jane Austen should have had the prescience to have predicted TV some 150 years before it was invented. He also wished the Frankenstein monster had stomped through the novel, again requiring some prescience on Austen's part since P&P was published first. But my favourite part of his criticism was that it was as predictable as the next chord in a techno song. Now, maybe the lad has read a great deal of literature written before 1813 so felt he has the expertise to make this statement but a techno song, really?... a waltz, maybe, but certainly not techno.Hopefully the fellow's review was meant as satire, a kind of homage to Jane Austen's wit because, otherwise, dear God! It was written back in 2008 so here's hoping he was just being humorous or he has gained perspective since. I suppose it's a bit unfair to bring up his review here since he's not here to defend or explain it. However, Mari's own review suggests she took his as serious. Her review is the same as her post here which suggests a real lack of knowledge of both history and literature. She's entitled, of course, to her opinion although calling P&P 'crap' seems to suggest a somewhat undiscerning reader. I can only hope she is very young.
John wrote: "My point was that behaviour that we find fault with now in that time period may have been totally acceptable."Yes. Marrying well was one of the only options for women at the time. Other than becoming a governess, there were very few options for women. It seems rather unfair to judge the Bennets by today's standards when they didn't have today's choices.
Maxine wrote: "I followed Mari's reviews back to where she 'liked' every negative review of P&P. I especially appreciated the one by a young gent that compared P&P to TV shows like 90210. I guess maybe he felt th..."I agree, it is everyone's right to dislike a classic work of literature and give an argument about why they think it is not up to all the adulation, but ignorant comments aren't arguments.
Jamie Lynn wrote: "Jane Austen's book didn't use the word gold digger but that is what the were."The book opens with an admission that in that particular society at that particular time, rich men were like the last pair of boots in your size on clearance. Excuse me. I mean, that they were in need of a wife. Austen makes light of it, and P&P is candid about the dark side of the marriage market. But her understanding of golddigging would have been quite different from ours.
For one thing, the class system in our time is pretty broken down from her time, and while it still exists, questions of social mobility and stigma are not what they once were. Lizzie wants to marry for love--but she is not looking for husbands outside of her own class. She might have happily settled down with a gentleman of limited means, but I think we can be assured that his qualities would have ensured a comfortable, if not wealthy, future. He would not have been a stable hand, whatever his virtues. D'Arcy was rich, but he was not out of reach, socially, for the Bennetts. By the standards, he was a good match and a very good catch. Today, an English major might marry a software engineer--that would not be golddigging unless "ample provider" topped his/her list of most desirable qualities in a spouse and love fell somewhere below "trust funds from at least two out of four grandparents."
Wickham, however, was a different case. He was not looking for love in any case and did not view marriage (with or without love) as anything but a cash machine. His motives were entirely craven, so I don't think there's any objection to labeling him a golddigger.
Mr. Collins wasn't golddigging because he was looking for a suitable wife rather than a rich wife. Longbourne would eventually be his regardless, and selecting from its current occupants would have been both convenient and laudable.
I think P&P is a perfect novel, and I do like and admire it. But I will admit that I am a little uncomfortable in Austen's very pretty but narrow universe. I wouldn't trust Austen to stand by Lizzie if she had been the kitchen maid instead of a gentleman's daughter. I'm willing to set that aside as a reasonable concession for the enjoyment of a book that otherwise argued for good things.
I don't think I'm a troll. I just didn't like the book. It's ok to dislike a book. It's even ok to intensely dislike a book.
It is okay to dislike a book, and voicing objections does not make anybody a troll. Some members were offended by the OP's tone and choice of words, which have made this a hot thread and kept it simmering for a surprisingly long time. If you haven't read through the whole thread, there is a lot of good discussion in it.
Good points, Longhare! Wickham is a classic example of the 'golddigger' that was present throughout 18th century literature. It was generally 'poor rich men' who were on the look out for rich wives in books of that time, since women were regarding as walking purveyors of property (with a little bit of charm/looks/breeding thrown in). Books like Evelina or Cecilia show a more standard plot of the time: Heiress (or poor orphan revealed to be an heiress)tries to avoid golddiggers and other horrible people and finds sort of true love with someone who seems better than the rest (but probably needs her money anyway).
It is a bit of a twist that two of the Bennets marry so well, without inheriting extra money or being revealed as secret royalty. We get a probably more realistic look than most books at what happens to not-wealthy gentleman's daughters at a time when they had few choices but marry well or head down the road to Miss Bates-ville (JA works with this theme more than once!).
It is a bit of a twist that two of the Bennets marry so well, without inheriting extra money or being revealed as secret royalty. We get a probably more realistic look than most books at what happens to not-wealthy gentleman's daughters at a time when they had few choices but marry well or head down the road to Miss Bates-ville (JA works with this theme more than once!).
Charlotte wrote: "Good points, Longhare! Wickham is a classic example of the 'golddigger' that was present throughout 18th century literature. It was generally 'poor rich men' who were on the look out for rich wives..."Men did plenty of golddigging. One enormous difference between English men and women of that period (and previously of course) is that women had few legal rights over their finances; a husband could squander his wife's money as he pleased. You can be sure Wickham would have done that. This was true for women who worked, too. I can't remember the name of the 18th Century English actress whose husband spent all the money she earned and put her seriously in debt. Women had few legal rights in England before the 20th century.
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..."It's definitely more of a Cinderella story than anything. Jane Austen died single.
Kallie wrote: "Charlotte wrote: "Good points, Longhare! Wickham is a classic example of the 'golddigger' that was present throughout 18th century literature. It was generally 'poor rich men' who were on the look ..."
Yup, it was really not a great time to be a woman, unless you were a widow or peer (even then). Your parents could try and have a certain amount of money guaranteed to you from your husband in the marriage settlements(pin money), but that's assuming he has it and is actually willing to give it to you.
If anyone's read Emmeline, Mrs. Stafford was based on the author's own experience with a financially dumb husband.
Yup, it was really not a great time to be a woman, unless you were a widow or peer (even then). Your parents could try and have a certain amount of money guaranteed to you from your husband in the marriage settlements(pin money), but that's assuming he has it and is actually willing to give it to you.
If anyone's read Emmeline, Mrs. Stafford was based on the author's own experience with a financially dumb husband.
Jamie Lynn wrote: "Maria wrote: "It´s a troll that made all this stirr!Have you noticed that she no longer posted, at least to defend her POV?
Tastes will be tastes, but i simply do not waste my time battering on ..."
I was refering to Mari - are you Mari? Where you the one to open the thread? I was under the impression that was her....
Of course she can have her opinion - no one has to think alike, but a good and valid opinion had to have some very solid reasons, which she didn´t presented, maybe because she was not aware of the historical background of the day, which is essential when reading Jane Austen. When one reads and not knows about the social and historical circumstances - because Austen wrote her novel completly immersed in her own time - then along comes the affirmations of the Bennets being golddigers, which is not the case.
gertt wrote: "The Bennetts weren't good diggers, they simply wanted their daughters to marry men that could provide them with a comfortable life and possibly a Social Standing. This was a time period when women..."That's a good distinction, because golddigger refers to someone who is only after someone's money with no intention of taking marital (or other) responsibility towards them, and that does not describe the Bennett family at all. They were honorable people, whatever their faults.
Renee wrote: "I've learned so much about using language from reading writers like Austen, the Brontes and other "archaics."
It's helped me to write with a very modern voice.
Knowing something inside out enable..."
It's a good book, I read it in the 6th grade.
It's helped me to write with a very modern voice.
Knowing something inside out enable..."
It's a good book, I read it in the 6th grade.
Mari, it makes me sad that you gave Pride and Prejudice one star. I understand that you are saying that Elizabeth is selfish.However, I noticed that you gave Eclipse and Breaking Down both 5 stars. Both of those books are about a female who thinks that her relationship is everything. She is willing to give up friends and family for a marriage. To me, this is even more selfish than anything that Elizabeth Bennett did or did not do.
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..."
This has to be a put-on. I agree very much with TruthHurtsSowwy, who wrote a very perceptive and well expressed response. TruthHurtsSowwy, I was in advanced classes, also, and I read some things too young, and it took me years to come back and learn to appreciate them; it's great that you recognize that. I bet this discussion posting is one of those psycho-social, cognitive sciences kind of experiments. You know, "Let's post something really quite stupid on Goodreads and see how people respond and then correlate their responses back to their book lists, and then we'll know ..." something. Really, there's a wannabe Masters or Ph.D. hiding behind that posting, isn't there? Ha, that was a good one!
This has to be a put-on. I agree very much with TruthHurtsSowwy, who wrote a very perceptive and well expressed response. TruthHurtsSowwy, I was in advanced classes, also, and I read some things too young, and it took me years to come back and learn to appreciate them; it's great that you recognize that. I bet this discussion posting is one of those psycho-social, cognitive sciences kind of experiments. You know, "Let's post something really quite stupid on Goodreads and see how people respond and then correlate their responses back to their book lists, and then we'll know ..." something. Really, there's a wannabe Masters or Ph.D. hiding behind that posting, isn't there? Ha, that was a good one!
Jenny wrote: "There is nothing wrong with liking Twilight maybe more than Pride and Prejudice. It might seem silly. Not all people can understand the style of the way Jane Austin writes. Like me. I didn't ha..."But we have to remember that one of the reasons the OP stated as the book being crap is that Lizzy is selfish and Bella, on the other hand, is extremely abnegated towards her love.
And you know Twilight is written on a lower level and that Jane Austen is too much for some. You have perspective over it.
But when the OP 5-star Twilight and dismisses a classic for being "crap" and a protagonist for making her own decisions, than it is an ad hominem falacy waiting to happen...
Amanda wrote: "Jenny wrote: "There is nothing wrong with liking Twilight maybe more than Pride and Prejudice. It might seem silly. Not all people can understand the style of the way Jane Austin writes. Like me..."
You know, Amanda, you're doing what I used to do, and it almost drove me insane. Listen, Goodreads is not about literature. It's not a forum, Amanda, to discuss literature. It's about advertising. It's about money. Don't get invested in these threads, it's such a waste of time. There's a wonderful discussion of the loss of distinction between "high" and "low" culture in The New Statesman, found at http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2...
This essay explained so very much to me. Don't stress over what is a worldwide cultural phenomenon, just try to maintain your own intellectual life among people you can relate to. That's what matters.
You know, Amanda, you're doing what I used to do, and it almost drove me insane. Listen, Goodreads is not about literature. It's not a forum, Amanda, to discuss literature. It's about advertising. It's about money. Don't get invested in these threads, it's such a waste of time. There's a wonderful discussion of the loss of distinction between "high" and "low" culture in The New Statesman, found at http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2...
This essay explained so very much to me. Don't stress over what is a worldwide cultural phenomenon, just try to maintain your own intellectual life among people you can relate to. That's what matters.
Jenny wrote: "You know, what I think is crap is people going crazy defending this book like it is a true story. Now, if the person was saying that Twilight was better than lets say the bible, that's a totally d..."The Bible is a true story? That's news to me.
Ellen wrote: "Amanda wrote: "Jenny wrote: "There is nothing wrong with liking Twilight maybe more than Pride and Prejudice. It might seem silly. Not all people can understand the style of the way Jane Austin w..."Thanks for the laugh. Will Self is a very funny guy.
Jenny wrote: "You know, what I think is crap is people going crazy defending this book like it is a true story. Now, if the person was saying that Twilight was better than lets say the bible, that's a totally d..."We are not defending this book like it is a true story. We are clarifying the OP about some remarks that she said, because she needs guidance on how to make a moral appreciation on a book written centuries ago.
We are not "going crazy" defending this book. On the contrary, the defenders are very balanced around here. It is the OP's use of words that can be deemed as "crazy" or juvenile, in my opinion.
I liked a lot of terrible books. And disliked a lot of respected ones. But I am conscious that it is just my taste, and I don't dismiss classics from being crap, (okay, I do, but when I do, I don't define them so lazily as "crap"), because I know classics have a reputation behind them and I need to put a little extra work to break them. The OP tried to do that, but couldn't for a lack of historical context.
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)
Sadly, your post demonstrates your point better than you realize. Perhaps our generation is too different, and this is one change I cannot celebrate.
One of the best parts of a book is that it provides an opportunity to understand other perspectives that are not necessarily "your thing." It promotes empathy and creativity and depth of mind and everything else good about being human. The irony here is that the people who see the value of this book are the ones desperately trying to see the validity in even the most ill-formed opinions spouted on this discussion and counter them (probably because their reading habits have allowed them to see beyond their own opinions). Meanwhile, people with opinions similar to yours are figuratively sticking their fingers in their ears, shouting their own perspective and giving not one thought to why they have that perspective and why other people might actually like the book. You and the OP are not suitably entertained by Ms. Austen; therefore, her work should be tossed out completely. It's one thing to not identify with a classic and dislike it on the whole, but it's downright arrogant and presumptuous to discard the value of a highly respected work out of hand when you clearly do not have the scholarship and expertise to do so.
It's a heart-breaking trend to see happen before my eyes, but at least I can find some solace in books like P&P because I bothered to give it a chance.