Pride and Prejudice
discussion
The Eternal Contest? Jane Austen vs Emily Brontë : The Queens of English Literature Debate
date
newest »
newest »
THAT is the "eternal contest"? I guess I'm gonna have to go back to the threads, where people try explaining Austen to me :-)
Perhaps it wasn't clear, but I was being hyperbolic. I'm not seriously suggesting that this debate is THE question for the ages. Just that it's kind of funny that people get so worked up about it.
That is a huge relief. I feel bad enough for not getting this woman.And to read, that she is in the eternal contest ... :-)
Honestly though: Would you say, that the Bronte sisters have a similar writing style than Austen does? Because ever since I read P&P, I am kind of over the whole genre. This does not have to be justified, though.
Daniel wrote: "That is a huge relief. I feel bad enough for not getting this woman.And to read, that she is in the eternal contest ... :-)
Honestly though: Would you say, that the Bronte sisters have a simila..."
No, definitely not. That's part of why they're often compared, as two sides of the emotional coin. It's a great thesis for a compare/contrast essay. Austen wrote subtle and satirical comedies of manners. Emily Brontë wrote a melodrama that ripped open the polite facade of British decency and let people stare fascinated and/or disgusted at the writhing emotions underneath. It's not a love story. It's like watching a car crash, you can't look away.
They are not the same genre at all, they just happen to both be female english writers...The only thing that they have in common is that people often get married in their novels.
What do you not like about Austen? It's probably something that wouldn't be in a Brontë novel. The most common issues people have with Austen is that it's all about Rich White Land-owning People Problems. Austen lived a very different life from the Brontë sisters -- I don't know if you've read anything about them, but to sum up, their childhood was rough. Charlotte used her actual experiences in a low-rent boarding school to inform the character of Jane Eyre. I prefer Jane Eyre to Wuthering Heights, because it's more of a love story- still a fucked-up one, but more relatable.
Emily Bronte. My favorite female writer of all time next to J K Rowling. Her genius far surpasses Austen's fluffy romance novels.
Anne doesn't get any credit because sadly I must say she is the least talented of her sisters, Tenant of Wildfell Hall is a perfect example of a "train wreck". Charlotte however should be included. I think actually a better comparison than Jane and Emily is Charlotte and Emily. They're more similar.
I think the perpetual comparison/contrasting/debate between any of the Brontes and Jane Austen just comes down to sexism. Where's the debate between Dickens and Henry James or Thomas Hardy or some other British male author? The writing styles and 'genre' (if you choose to call it that) between the Brontes and Miss Austen are so vastly different, as Elizabeth noted, that it's ridiculous to say one is better or worse than the other. The only thing the books have in common is that they were written within a hundred years of each other and that they were written by women, and love is one of the underlying themes, as it is in most novels at some level.It's for the same reason people in Canada often compare Alice Munro with Margaret Atwood, but rarely compare two male authors. Deep down there's a part of us that thinks, 'huh, cool, two women who are successful authors. Let's compare them.' We just don't do that for men, or not, certainly, to the same extent. C'est la vie.
Jane Austen was brilliant. I've often thought that those who don't like her books simply don't see the humour in them; they don't see how she is making fun of her society. Her satire is, indeed, subtle.
Charlotte Bronte was also brilliant but in a different way. She's probably the best writer I've ever read. Her ability to convey emotion is startling. But really, it's comparing apples to oranges.
(And bringing Emily Bronte into it gets even more strange, since she wrote only one book. )
^^ I agree completely, though it's probably a lot of sexism and a bit of "These are the only two female authors I had to read in sophmore English class".
It would make slightly more sense to compare 2 female authors that wrote in the same period (at least roughly). Jane Austen vs. Maria Edgeworth: Smackdown. Charlotte Showdown: Bronte vs. Gaskell
It would make slightly more sense to compare 2 female authors that wrote in the same period (at least roughly). Jane Austen vs. Maria Edgeworth: Smackdown. Charlotte Showdown: Bronte vs. Gaskell
Charlotte wrote: "^^ I agree completely, though it's probably a lot of sexism and a bit of "These are the only two female authors I had to read in sophmore English class". It would make slightly more sense to comp..."
Yes Charlotte, you're right about that. :)
Yes, it is odd that they chose Emily for this particular debate.( Did anyone watch it, by the way?) Is Wuthering Heights really as influential as the six novels Austen gave us? Kate Mosse seems to suggest that Emily Brontë was innovative in showing men crying and having emotions, but that existed before in classical literature.
I think that generally Austen was a great social commentator, and was influenced by the life and the class she lived in, whereas Emily spoke from the depths of her soul.
Hayley wrote: "I think the perpetual comparison/contrasting/debate between any of the Brontes and Jane Austen just comes down to sexism. Where's the debate between Dickens and Henry James or Thomas Hardy or some ..."So accurate. Mark Twain and Ernest Hemingway are supposed to be two of the best American authors ever, but no one ever compares them because it's obvious they they came from different time periods and tackled different genres. Female authors are automatically compared despite obvious differences.
But what's so bad about a general "Who's the better author?" debate? I constantly ask myself, whom among authors I've read I like the best. Those are books from different time periods, different genres and obviously different genders.
It's not bad, it's just too broad for real discussion. It's like "Which is better, steak or chocolate?" It also discounts the bazillion other female authors out there, since those two (er, three I guess, since they brought up Emily for some reason) are the only ones that get the limelight.
In many ways this harks back to the debate started by FR Leavis in 1948 when he identified Austen, Eliot, James and Conrad as the four most significant / important writers in creating what he called "The Great Tradition" in English literature. Leavis of course didn't intend for this to be a debate but rather a fait accompli of his views but the debate started nonetheless and has continued ever since.If I had to make a case for my own four great tradition-alists three of them would be different to those named by Leavis with my only point of agreement being Austen (though I do accept the case for James). None of the Brontes would make my list (though I do have a soft spot for Branwell) for both matters of personal taste and for my perception of their contribution to the English literature canon.
If I can ignore the views of Professor Leavis then I fully expect the rest of the world to ignore my views as well, but I do celebrate both the fact that we are able to have this debate and that the existence of the Brontes' body of work makes the world a better place.
I do enjoy this question. Although, can I replace Emily with Charlotte simply due to the fact that she published more works. They both wrote romances set in the English past, and they both have perspectives on society. Austen died around the time Bronte came into this world. This leads me to understand they each had and entirely different regard when it came so society in England,and Bronte might have even read Austen and gained inspiration from her. Bronte was more blunt, and she had amazing insight, empathy, independence and care for the world. Jane Austen's writing portrays her insight into her class, and her beautiful wit, humor and understanding of relationships. Compare to Bronte, Austen seems shallow, but nonetheless on her own she had quite the amount of depth she did not like to spell out to us, but rather make us think. Perhaps we are also seeing kaleidoscopes of different social standings as well - Austen wrote her protagonists of middle to upper standing, and Bronte wrote of lower to middle/middle upper. Each are different, beautiful, unique, and life would be sad without either.
Emma wrote: "I think that generally Austen was a great social commentator, and was influenced by the life and the class she lived in, whereas Emily spoke from the depths of her soul."I love this answer, brilliant. :)
Hannah wrote: "Emily Bronte. My favorite female writer of all time next to J K Rowling. Her genius far surpasses Austen's fluffy romance novels."Austen did not write "fluffy romance novels" but social comedies with plenty of substance. You just missed what they were about, apparently.
Hayley wrote: "I think the perpetual comparison/contrasting/debate between any of the Brontes and Jane Austen just comes down to sexism. Where's the debate between Dickens and Henry James or Thomas Hardy or some ..."Very well observed. Why compare incomparable women writers? Critics don't do that as if all male writers have this overwhelming quality in common: gender.
Kallie wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Emily Bronte. My favorite female writer of all time next to J K Rowling. Her genius far surpasses Austen's fluffy romance novels."
Austen did not write "fluffy romance novels" but s..."
It's so funny because I regarded Bronte novels as 'fluffy romance novels' for SO long, until I went back and read Wuthering heights as an adult and was horrified that it was considered 'romantic' ever.
I consider JA to write in the 18th century tradition of satire, insight into society and fun mixed in with the horrors of the modern world. We see the inner workings of people from their actions and letters and need to draw our own conclusions. Dickens and Trollope write in this style as well, IMO. You can read it as fluff, or look between the lines.
In the early 19th century, there was more of a focus on the insides of people's emotions, the drama and dirty side of the individual and of relationships.The psychological aspect, I guess. The Brontes write more in this tradition. It's all laid out there to be picked over. Again, this could be read as over-emo fluff, but I don't think it is either.
Austen did not write "fluffy romance novels" but s..."
It's so funny because I regarded Bronte novels as 'fluffy romance novels' for SO long, until I went back and read Wuthering heights as an adult and was horrified that it was considered 'romantic' ever.
I consider JA to write in the 18th century tradition of satire, insight into society and fun mixed in with the horrors of the modern world. We see the inner workings of people from their actions and letters and need to draw our own conclusions. Dickens and Trollope write in this style as well, IMO. You can read it as fluff, or look between the lines.
In the early 19th century, there was more of a focus on the insides of people's emotions, the drama and dirty side of the individual and of relationships.The psychological aspect, I guess. The Brontes write more in this tradition. It's all laid out there to be picked over. Again, this could be read as over-emo fluff, but I don't think it is either.
Kallie wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Emily Bronte. My favorite female writer of all time next to J K Rowling. Her genius far surpasses Austen's fluffy romance novels."Austen did not write "fluffy romance novels" but s..."
I agree. Austen's works are not 'fluffy romance' novels at all. They are satirical comments on society, and in particular the society a woman of the times and of that class would have found herself in.
Charlotte wrote: In the early 19th century, there was more of a focus on the insides of people's emotions, the drama and dirty side of the individual and of relationships.The psychological aspect, I guess. The Brontes write more in this tradition. It's all laid out there to be picked over. Again, this could be read as over-emo fluff, but I don't think it is either. "No, I don't think so either. That's interesting, about the psychological aspect . . . social context is important too. But the Brontes and Austen are great writers for different reasons. I've read them multiple times and probably will again.
I recently read Austen's Northanger Abbey, which, to me, is her funniest book, more satirical in some ways than the others, but with an immaturity that isn't apparent in Emma or P and P.The reason I read it was because my husband bought me Val McDiarmid's version of N A for my birthday, so I felt I needed to read the original as a point of comparison. In my view, writers should stop trying to ape Austen or write books based on hers in a modern context.
Wuthering. Heights. Forever.Emily Bronte.
I don't think that comparing Bronte vs. Austen is all that stupid. Some say they are too different... and while that may be true, they both embody the same thing on the opposite spectrums. I would say the same about the Lord of the Rings vs. Harry Potter debate. They may be very different, but really, they are in the same range but on the opposite spectrums (don't know if I said that correctly, but I'm sure you'll understand what I'm trying to say). Austen may seem a bit... not stiff, but formal, when it comes to emotion; but they are biting. Such subtle satire is lovely. She writes in perfection of the foibles of human ridiculousness. And I love. Besides, she offers a reading between the lines when it comes to the emotion.
Bronte (and both of them) are very emotive and raw and passionate and deep. And I love this too. (I have not read Wuthering Heights, but I have Jane Eyre just recently.)
However, they have much of the same settings. Not exactly the same; Austen is Regency, Bronte is Victorian. But they're in that Industrialist time, so it's safe to say that they're in the same spectrum, just on the opposite ends.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
In this particular case, I think the "contest" aspect is used as a kind of gimmick to draw people in, but the real purpose is to have a fun discussion about why these books remain perennial favorites. They even have actors to portray specific scenes, which is very fun. I don't know why they chose Emily over Charlotte specifically (poor Anne, she never gets any attention). And they could have gotten a better person to advocate for Wuthering Heights than Kate Mosse. But I found it interesting. Watch it, if you have two hours, and discuss, maybe?
http://youtu.be/mP8dllTkpEg