Pride and Prejudice

SnakSomeone explain it to me...

Bliv bruger af LibraryThing, hvis du vil skrive et indlæg

Pride and Prejudice

Dette emne er markeret som "i hvile"—det seneste indlæg er mere end 90 dage gammel. Du kan vække emnet til live ved at poste et indlæg.

1weener
dec 12, 2007, 2:29 pm

Will someone explain to me how this book is anything but boring, sexist drivel about rich people getting married?

I've heard some people make a case that it's satire, but I'm not seeing it. Many women nowadays seem to have deified Jane Austen (See: large amount of Jane Austen fanfic), but as a master of romance stories, not of satire.

Thanks!

2atimco
dec 12, 2007, 2:51 pm

I just can't stop posting in this group today, LOL.

I love P&P because it tells the story of a girl who was able to see the absurdities of her society and yet avoid becoming cynical. She could laugh at the silliness without being bitter about it.

And Elizabeth is not rich. Her family is actually just hanging on to their status as part of the gentry. She and her sisters have no dowry, and in those days that was a big deal. Now don't take offense at the characters because dowry was important in their world — that's not their fault, and in any case Austen is subtly criticizing that element of her culture.

As for the story being boring... I think our modern culture has accustomed us overmuch to "action" being fantastic explosions and car chases and gunfights, to the point where intense internal struggles depicted in a story simply aren't exciting enough. We've been desensitized to the everyday issues people have to deal with. How do you deal with attraction to someone your head tells you to hate? Have you ever felt mixed-up about a crush you did NOT want to have? Have you ever been embarassed by your family in public? Is your love for reading misunderstood by the majority of your acquaintance?

I think Austen has a fair amount of both romance and satire. The satire is for certain aspects of society and certain ridiculous/shallow/selfish/materialistic/just plain stupid people within it. But the romance in her stories is just as real as the satire. True love is possible. There are good men out there (honest! :-P I found one, and he watches Jane Austen movies with me, woohoo!).

And the humor! This usually results from the satirical observations that Austen makes, but it's so cleverly done. Often it's so understated that you have to be on the lookout for it — but when you do see it, it's downright hilarious! Northanger Abbey is a wonderful example of this. Read it in conjunction with Anne Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho and you will see Austen's biting wit. It's brilliant.

And Austen's characters... It's sometimes scary how much they resemble people I know.

PLEASE don't judge a book by the fanfic it generates! I abhor fanfiction; it is always so dreadful. And stories like P&P seem to attract such a lot of erotically minded fanfic writers; it's positively sickening.

3frogbelly
dec 12, 2007, 2:55 pm

Someone will come along behind me and say it better, but here goes...

Yes, it's all about finding a husband, selling yourself to the highest bidder and her novels do end with a marriage, just like any mass market romance novel. But it's not like Austen is unaware that something is wrong with this. She is merely illustrating the reality of the time, even critiquing it by showing the fear and helplessness of her women characters. I think one of the things that women respond to in her work (or I certainly do) are the relationships between women. The backbiting and competition that supports a system that makes it necessary in the first place.

4atimco
dec 12, 2007, 3:24 pm

Selling yourself to the highest bidder???

*faints in a swoon*

*recovers because she has more to say* ;)

I must respectfully disagree with you there, frogbelly. Looking at Austen's novels as a whole... did Anne of Persuasion sell herself to (who appeared to be) the highest bidder? Did Catherine of Northanger Abbey? Did Harriet of Emma? Did Fanny of Mansfield Park?

And come on now, it's not Darcy's fault that he's disgustingly rich :-P

Though I suppose if you understand "highest bidder" to mean a currency of integrity, honesty, and goodness rather than mere money — isn't that what we all want? A mate who has the highest possible amounts of those things?

One of the things I value so much about Austen's works is that she shows how young women could survive — and not only survive, but also find true happiness — in a culture like that. Conditions may not be exactly liberated, but a happy life was possible.

5frogbelly
dec 12, 2007, 3:38 pm

No, I agree, actually, when it comes to many of Austen's characters. They manage to have a little integrity in spite of the social and financial pressure to find the "highest bidder."
I meant that Austen is aware of this pressure and the incongruency between that whole mentality and that of a smart woman of character. It was my very unclear way of defending her. :) I really shouldn't post on here, probably. It just ends up being an incoherent ramble.

6atimco
dec 12, 2007, 3:42 pm

No, please, do post! Perhaps if I had read your first post a little more carefully I would have understood you better. Don't leave us, please? :-)

7weener
dec 12, 2007, 3:42 pm

I guess what gets me about it, is there is no way I can read these books and think that going along with that system can be romantic instead of sad. If, instead of searching for a proper suitor, Elizabeth had said, "Screw this! I'm running off with a black guy!" it would be very different. But Austen would have to have some pretty big stones to do that.

@#2: It's not lack of car chases and gunfights that make me think this book is boring. It's that I do not consider the characters' conflicts worthwhile, but petty and silly.

8Bahiyya
dec 12, 2007, 3:49 pm

The satire is discernible from the novel's first line, but I'll add the following paragraph to give it firmer grounding:

IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.


Austen has done several things with these few lines, and are as good an example of any of her subtle style that can often move undetected because she is so humorous.

1. Marriage is presented as a meat market. Women are certainly vulnerable in this transaction but Austen makes a point of noting that the men pursued are as objectified as the women in that particular sphere.

2. Although she pokes fun at the proprietorial families a theme developed throughout this and other novels is that this aggressiveness is largely driven out of necessity. In the latter parts of the book Mrs. Bennett, a favourite object of ridicule, is given a sympathetic moment as she points out the harsh realities of being a genteel family with five daughters, no sons, and no large, attractive dowries.

The fact is that if they do not get married they are looking at Jane Eyre's fate: servitude in one of the better households.

3. There is irony in the opening lines. That isn't at all a "universal truth". We are not given any indication at all that Darcy and Bingley were actively on the look out for wives.

There is much more of this throughout the novel. Off the top of my head there are scenes like Caroline Bingley, Elizabeth's and Darcy's discussion on the criteria for deeming a woman "accomplished"; the decided contrast between the Gardiners' real compassion and the aristocrat's callous egocentricity eg. Lady Catherine de Borough -- and even in comparison to Mr. Bennett who is a gentlemen and from a "better" social class than Mrs. Bennett and her Cheapside relatives, but is still rather self-absorbed; the clergy's hypocrisy in forgetting Christian charity in order to play into the worst class assumptions -- and the living situation that pretty much places them in that obliged position. I could go on.

It is rather easy to get caught up in the drawing room amusements and forget that these women's livelihoods were at stake. Lydia's elopement placed her in serious jeopardy after all -- if Darcy had not arranged her marriage she would have been permanently removed from decent society. I doubt she could even have gotten a serving position. It is more likely that she would have had to turned to prostitution or something only a little higher.

Perhaps it would help if you read some good editions of the Austen novels, one with informative introductions that gave you a better idea of their historical and social context? That may help you in getting a clearer idea what Austen was aiming at. It is never wise to base one's assessment of an author's oeuvre on fan fiction.

9frogbelly
dec 12, 2007, 3:52 pm

wisewoman- Oh, I wont leave. I enjoy this place too much. haha. I just need to organize my thoughts better.

weener- Not everyone is cut out for the life of the rebel. ha. What is that quote from Mother Theresa about there being no great deeds, just small deeds done with great love? In her own, personal way, Elizabeth was rebellious. It's just difficult to see from our viewpoint, when running around with muddy shoes is not the height of "conceited independence" that it was then.

10dchaikin
dec 12, 2007, 3:56 pm

My summary of P&P, soon after I read it, was "Wonderfully precise, delicate, enjoyable language. Petty story."

It's how Austen wrote that won me over. Reading this book effected how I spoke and how I constructed my own thoughts for awhile afterwards. Also, I loved her characters in P&P. I thought the story itself could be picked apart. But, post #2-5 are enlightening.

11Bahiyya
dec 12, 2007, 3:57 pm

Yes, having read your second comment, I would say that a primer on early 19th century British society is required, one that includes some brief details on Austen's life as well. You are essentially asking Austen to espouse in her literature a point of view that even the leaders of the Enlightenment did not hold. The Atlantic Slave trade had only recently been abolished and efforts to prevent actual trade still in progress. And despite the rhetoric at the time, black people were still not recognised as equal beings.

But besides all that why on earth would you expect there to be a black community, one with land, property and social status, in rural England? Come, come.

12atimco
dec 12, 2007, 4:34 pm

Indeed... if you want P&P to be something it's not, no wonder you are disappointed. There is plenty of fiction out there about interracial marriage, young people defying HUGE conventions, etc. — and if that is what you want, by all means, do find and enjoy it. But don't slam P&P for being what it is, i.e., not that.

I don't think the characters' struggles are petty. Perhaps they seem that way to us in our modern culture, but back then, it was a big deal to defy your mother over a marriage proposal, no matter how odious the man (Mr. Collins, anyone?). For Darcy, it was a big deal to "marry down" in the world. Lydia's — ahem — adventures were seriously scandalous and had the potential to ostracize the rest of her sisters from all respectable society. These problems are HUGE.

I am enjoying your posts, Bahiyya. And frogbelly, glad you're sticking around. Are any of you members of the "I Love Jane Austen" group?

13lilithcat
dec 12, 2007, 4:56 pm

> 12

I agree completely. I'm always surprised when people expect books written decades and centuries ago to reflect a 21st-century sensibility.

14weener
dec 12, 2007, 5:15 pm

21st Century sensibility? Pride and Prejudice came out only a few decades before Huckleberry Finn. If Austen had been critical of societal norms to the extent Mark Twain was, I think that her books would have been much more compelling.

I guess that I've always found literature about defying conventions more interesting than literature about celebrating them...and that would probably explain why I'm not big on P&P.

15dchaikin
dec 12, 2007, 5:26 pm

Actually, it was more like 70 years. Pride & Prejudice is from ~ 1813, Huckleberry Finn is from ~ 1884. Different worlds, really.

16frogbelly
dec 12, 2007, 5:27 pm

It's actually more of a seventy-five year difference. Just think of that in terms of 1932 and now.

Elizabeth IS defiant. She tells Lady Catherine where to get off. She rejects a marriage that would've ensured her family's security. This is all in the name of her autonomy, which is certainly not respected by most of the authority figures in her life.

17Bookmarque
dec 12, 2007, 5:27 pm

If you read JA, Weener, you will see that she indeed does defy conventions in many cases. However the TIMES would not allow for much of that. I know it's difficult to imagine, but it's true. People were not 'forgiven' for transgressing social laws we deem silly these days.

18Talbin
dec 12, 2007, 5:49 pm

>14 weener: Plus, I don't think you can compare the "societal norms" of Austen and Twain - they lived in two completely different worlds. Austen, as a woman of her time born into the "lower upper class" in rural England, could hardly have the worldview of Twain, who began working at age 12 in the frontier of Missouri.

19Bahiyya
dec 12, 2007, 5:56 pm

Never mind that the writers live in two different countries and therefore were raised in two different cultures. The American south is not rural England.

Austen did not celebrate a society in which a woman is dependent on getting a reasonably employed or funded husband in order to get by.

Weener, you have not responded to my first comment. Mark Twain's satirical tone is certainly closer to the surface. But surely you're not asking authors to all write the same and make their points so explicitly? Again, a brief bio on Austen's life and the time period, I feel, would really help you out. I'm not saying that it would change your opinion entirely, but your criticisms would be more informed. The Penguin classics are usually good for that sort of thing, but there are many Austen sites online that should have some helpful information. Even Wikipedia ought to be worth a look.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Austen revised her novels several times and their publishing order does not necessarily correspond with which books were started first.

Thanks, wisewoman. I'm not in that group, actually, maybe I should take a look? :) If I were completely honest I do think that Austen's novels are not the straight forward feminist and egalitarian texts that they are often made out to be (and I hesitate to post this less weener exaggerate my position) but the most one could say is that it causes some friction in the text. They are hardly cheerleaders for their times.

20donandpatti
dec 12, 2007, 6:27 pm

My wife and I were lucky enough to participate in a week-long seminar last summer that read and discussed Pride and Prejudice together with Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments. With no known evidence that she had read Smith's work (1759), the juxtaposition of the two texts strongly suggested that Austen had read Smith's work: The Theory provided general theses about certain human behavior in society and Pride and Prejudice illustrated the theory in individual characters and their interaction. Two apparently widely divergent books illuminating each other.

21Nickelini
dec 12, 2007, 6:55 pm

Lots of interesting discussion here! This is great. Anyway, I want to throw in my two-bits about reading Jane Austen. The first novel of hers that I read was Emma. It was a pretty miserable experience. I think Emma is a bit of a twit, but mostly I was just frustrated with Jane Austen's world. Hadn't Napoleon just sacked most of Europe? But here I was was reading four pages about whether or not the window should be left open or closed. I felt like screaming. In fact, I probably did scream. It took me four years to finish the book, and when I did I threw it across the room.

But then I thought about it a bit and remembered that not every writer needs to write about the horrors of the world. Jane Austen wrote about the world she knew, and viewed it from an intelligent and discerning point of view. But I still preferred the Brontes with their angst and insanity.

But then last year I took a course in which we read Mansfield Park, and the instructor was brilliant. I learned two valuable things. One is that I was reading Austen too fast. I know, if you don't like it, or you think you don't like it, the last thing you want to be told is to read slower. But there is so much packed into each sentence. The other thing I learned was that if something could in anyway be found humorous, then that's the way to read it. As soon as I started doing these two things--reading slowly with keen attention, and finding the humour--the book went from "okay" to "awesome."

And talking about references, one that I really like is What Jane Austen ate and Charles Dickens Knew: From Fox-hunting to Whist--The Facts of Daily Life in Nineteenth-Century England.

22kaelirenee
dec 12, 2007, 7:44 pm

I could not get into this novel until I saw the A&E version of the movie. It helped me visualize the novel better, hear the voices, and understand the pacing. Plus, I was already emotionally invested in the characters when I started reading it, not chapters into it. There are some novels that are much easier to appreciate after you watch a (good) movie adaptation of them.

I'm glad I gave this one a second chance. Granted, it's not one of my favorites nor have I don't much venturing into more Austen novels (except maybe watching Clueless). However, this novel spoke to me. I read it after reading A History of the Wife, so it was a great look at the problems a woman's marriage can cause for an entire family. Even if it doesn't have the timelessness of overall themes that Shakespeare has or even the national social commentary that Twain has, this novel describes the control women had to have over their own emotions, while at the same time being seen as senseless and emotional creatures.

And if that doesn't sell you, try reading the Thursday Next series; the family plays a big role in Lost in a Good Book (I think that one), and having read them makes it so much funnier.

23weener
dec 12, 2007, 10:32 pm

So many things to respond to.......

Maybe I should try the book again and read it slower. I guess my main problem was not being able to care about the characters and I did not find their problems compelling (What? Elizabeth's family can't afford a dowry, so if she can't get a rich guy to fall for her she might be condemned to, what, being an old maid schoolmarm or librarian? Horrors!!).

See, I rather liked The Great Gatsby and Wuthering Heights, which were also about rich peoples' romances. I suspect I might have enjoyed them more because the authors took more risks with the subject matter, and didn't tie up the end in a neat little happy package. I know P&P was 71 years before Huckleberry Finn, and 39 years before Uncle Tom's Cabin, but I don't think that's too early to expect a smart writer to be critical, more than just in passing, of obviously messed-up societal institutions.

It does say something about the time period, though, it just occured to me that I kind of apologize for H.P. Lovecraft's being racist because of his time period. There I go, expecting more of Jane Austen just because she's a woman. XD

However, maybe the second time around with P&P, I won't be *expecting* something that I can easily relate to, and can concentrate on trying to sympathize with the characters - and trying to catch the risks Austen is taking as a writer. I read someone over in the Conservative forums say that he couldn't stand P&P because it "reeked of feminism." I couldn't disagree more at this point, but maybe I'll catch it next time!

24Bahiyya
dec 13, 2007, 12:05 am

This will probably be the last time I comment since I'm just repeating a single point: your criticism betrays your lack of historical knowledge. Only the lowest paying professions were available to women at the time. The most realistic options available to any of the girls if they did not marry was not to become a "schoolmarm or a librarian" but to be a governess, which was little more than a servant. And *again* if Lydia's elopement had not ended in a marriage, serving in any respectable household of whatever class would be unthinkable. (Maybe you should read Jane Eyre.)

Austen was critical of obviously messed-up societal institutions: she simply did not choose to critique the ones that you care about (but somehow that makes her less "smart"). No matter how often people stress the time gap, and in so many ways the completely different societies and experiences authors like Mark Twain, Stowe and Austen had, you still somehow expect them all to come out and write a certain kind of book. (For one thing Twain and Stowe lived in a country that imported slaves and had a far more sizeable black population. England's plantations were all overseas.)

A novelist cannot be all things to all people.

I do find it amusing that Wuthering Heights is deemed more risky even though the heroine could not get over, among other things, her class prejudice to pick her soul mate of questionable origin and inferior class. Yet Austen consistently has her characters see beyond such materialistic differences in order to find true happiness but that's "conservative". Tragedies always seem to carry more weight because they're...well, tragic.

Personally, I find both of them impressive for their portrayal of female characters which they express in different ways because, you know, they're not the same person. :P

The defence rests.

25frogbelly
Redigeret: dec 13, 2007, 12:59 am

Marry me.*

*edit: This is a quote from a TV show which just means that I emphatically agree and bow in the style of old school stage actors in your general direction.

26littlebookworm
dec 13, 2007, 12:54 am

The whole point of Jane Austen is her subtle criticism of society and her sneaky combination of humor and irony. She's not blatant about anything, but instead crafts a careful story that appears to be a romance but on the inside is much deeper. Without some historical background in the period, there isn't any way to appreciate what's underneath her basic story. Austen is giving us a picture of a specific section of society and quietly criticizing it. She could only write about what she knew, and you can't fault her for that.

I think part of the reason Pride and Prejudice is so popular is because it appeals to girls who want their own Mr. Darcy, but the novel is so, so much more than that, and it's a mistake to see it on that surface level. Elizabeth Bennet is constantly challenging societal norms, and while that doesn't seem unrealistic to us now, viewed in the context of the time period she is extraordinary. It makes me sad that people can't see that and write her off as a romance novelist.

I recommend Eighteenth-Century English Society: Shuttles and Swords by Douglas Hay or perhaps Britons: Forging the Nation by Linda Colley for historical background, if you're interested. Not necessarily only for what Austen deals with, but just in a general history sense.

27thorold
dec 13, 2007, 4:27 am

As several people have already said, you have to be aware of the precise moment in history where Jane Austen was writing, and also of the audience she was writing for. It's easy enough to say the P&P was published twenty years after A vindication of the rights of woman or 75 years before Huckleberry Finn, but you also have to remember that this was England in the Napoleonic wars. The middle classes (i.e. the people who buy novels) had had a big scare from the French revolution, and wouldn't have touched anything "radical" with a bargepole, still less allowed their wives and daughters to read it. Austen had to write within the constraints of her chosen market. And I think her novels are all the more interesting because of what she achieves within those constraints.

28Enraptured
dec 13, 2007, 8:16 am

I wasn't offended by the plot of Pride and Prejudice - it never occurred to me to see it as sexist, and honestly, I still don't - it just didn't interest me. Jane Austen seems to be one of those authors that it's assumed that everyone (or at least all women) like, but I just don't find her plots interesting. I struggled through Pride and Prejudice, but I didn't really care about what happened to the characters.

29scaifea
dec 13, 2007, 8:26 am

#3 frogbelly: I'm coming into this conversation a little late, it seems, and my 2 short comments aren't nearly as intellectually sound as those before me (and most likely after me too), but that's not going to stop me, so I beg your indulgence.

1) There's nothing wrong in my mind with works ending in marriage. I'm a simple girl, and I like happy endings. Plus, Shakespeare ends his comedies with marriage; in fact, some say that's part of the definition of a good Shakespearean (and Plautine, from whom Shakespeare, ahem, copies some of his ideas) comedy.

2) P&P is worth reading if for no other reason than to then watch Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy, as Bridget Jones (and I'm sure other ladies out there as well), would agree.

30lilithcat
dec 13, 2007, 8:55 am

> 23

I don't think that's too early to expect a smart writer to be critical, more than just in passing, of obviously messed-up societal institutions.

Here, I think, is where you go wrong in your approach. What is "obviously messed-up" to us, in the beginning of the 21st-century, would not have been viewed that way in the beginning of the 19th-century.

maybe the second time around with P&P, I won't be *expecting* something that I can easily relate to . . .

I'm glad to hear that you are willing to give P&P another shot! I hope you enjoy it.

31frogbelly
dec 13, 2007, 12:44 pm

scaifea- I hope I didn't sound uppity about that. That wasn't my intent. It just sometimes makes me wonder about stories that end when people get married. I mean, what happens after? It seems to be taking it for granted that things are going to be smooth sailing after that. It wasn't a quality judgement on my part, just something I've wondered about.

and yes, Colin Firth is a lovely, lovely man.

32scaifea
dec 13, 2007, 1:32 pm

#31 frogbelly: No uppity-ness was inferred.

33geneg
dec 13, 2007, 4:17 pm

Two things:

When I think of Jane Austen, I am amazed that, given the conditions under which she wrote, we have anything of hers.

Jane Austen created a world that women of the time would recognize as theirs. I think while her heroines seemed to be flighty female birds, she was teaching women how to get what they wanted, rather than what was thrust on them. This is not a man's view of the world, thus men are attracted to her writing more or less based on their empathy with women as chattel and ways women must manipulate an unfriendly world.

As the old spinster aunt, Jane would not and did not play the game.

34atimco
dec 13, 2007, 7:45 pm

Wow. Great comments, everyone! Keep 'em coming.

I do agree with kaelirenee about the A&E/BBC version (otherwise known as the '95 P&P). It is a simply superb adaptation. Perhaps watching it with some friends would help reluctant readers care more about the characters... and be inspired to pick up the book.

And Bahiyya, you do need to join the I Love Jane Austen group! Really all of you Austenites here do, if you're not members already :-)

35Nickelini
dec 13, 2007, 10:03 pm

#31 It just sometimes makes me wonder about stories that end when people get married. I mean, what happens after? It seems to be taking it for granted that things are going to be smooth sailing after that.

--------------

Frogbelly: I believe it's called "happily ever after." The End. Nothing else to say! :-)

36barney67
dec 13, 2007, 10:16 pm

If it smells like feminism, I avoid it.

37dchaikin
dec 14, 2007, 11:44 am

#36 Deniro -
Is this an expression of your maturity, or of your humble respect for LT Talk in general?

38scaifea
dec 14, 2007, 11:58 am

What I'd like to know is, exactly what does feminism smell like? Is it anything like teen spirit? ;)

39frogbelly
dec 14, 2007, 6:19 pm

It smells like the burning of bibles and American flags...I mean, obviously.*

*sarcasm

40citygirl
dec 14, 2007, 7:54 pm

Maybe it smells like empowered women. You know, some people can't stand that, understandably.

41atimco
dec 15, 2007, 4:11 pm

Maybe we are getting off-topic here... No need for nastiness. We're all LTers here :-)

42citygirl
Redigeret: dec 15, 2007, 4:23 pm

Fine...back to the Bennets. *grumps*

I kinda like stories that end in marriage and happily ever after. I'm a romantic. And I can appreciate anyone who can credibly take her readers to a different place and time, and JA definitely does that. It gives us an idea of what it was like that we'll never get from history books alone. And she gave a perspective that was not usually given. I don't think we should fault her for not declaring revolution. She expressed herself her way and that's the most we should expect from authors. They are just people living lives like the rest of us.

43scaifea
dec 15, 2007, 4:46 pm

Wisewoman: Sorry - I meant no nastiness in my post. In fact, I was trying to lighten the potentially nasty mood! Anyways, how is it that I always find myself in the middle of the off-topic bits? Sorry again.

44Jargoneer
dec 15, 2007, 5:19 pm

Just an aside here - the two ancient doctrines of literature are comedy and tragedy. Comedy ends in marriage; tragedy ends in death. Therefore P&P, ending in marriage, complies to an existing template for literature.

45Bookmarque
dec 15, 2007, 5:30 pm

Am watching the miniseries on DVD now (Lizzie just came home from seeing the Collinses and refusing Mr. Darcy). So great. It really does manage to capture the subtlety and irony so prevalent in the novel.

46frogbelly
dec 15, 2007, 7:59 pm

I'm not sure how anyone who loves the book can sit through the newest P&P with Keira Knightley, especially after the wonderful BBC version. I think the problem there is similar to what we've been discussing here- modern sensibilities forced upon a novel written in the early 19th century. Although, I'm pretty sure that there is a huge, monster thread on here debating that very thing.

Also, sorry if I seemed snarky earlier. I've found that if I don't put in my dorky "haha" then my smart mouth can seem uglier than I meant to sound. oops.

47Bahiyya
dec 15, 2007, 11:27 pm

I love the one with Keira Knightley so you may want to rescind that earlier marriage proposal. ;) The BBC version is exceptional as a literary adaptation but visually speaking it was very ho hum and average. Joe Wright's version, on the other hand, took far better advantage of the visuals. He developed moments, visual motifs, a distinct style which, along with the cinematographer's excellent skills, raised the film above its script. (I fully acknowledge that they cornified it a great deal.)

48littlebookworm
dec 16, 2007, 12:10 am

I love both but really prefer the BBC version just because it's so like the book, the casting is perfect, and so on. I like the Keira Knightley film when I don't have as much time, because it's still good. I agree that it is quite a bit cornier, though. Sometimes I'm in the mood for that though, so as I own both, it works.

49kaelirenee
dec 16, 2007, 9:30 am

I liked the BBC one because it made me actually care about the characters and get into their mindset. There are only two other books I've really needed to do that with before reading the books (Clockwork Orange and Trainspotting-not exactly parallel reading with P&P). I couldn't do the Keira Knightly one because of Keira Knightly-she looks like she is constantly in pain.

I think it's important that a classic have a timeless message, so you don't have to understand all the history of the time to appreciate the story (please don't evisserate me here LOL). I do think P&P does that. Even as a feminist and a nice modern woman and all, marriage is still one of the biggest decisions I've made and it still had to be a fairly practical one. Sure I wasn't going to marry a man for his money, but I also couldn't marry a man with absolutly no drive. I wanted a man who could keep up with me career-wise and intellectually. I had to learn to work through bad first impressions. I had a mother-in-law to contend with who was amazingly like Mrs. Bennett. I think those are (very simplified) some of the same issues Elizabeth had to deal with.

50atimco
dec 16, 2007, 1:56 pm

frogbelly wrote: I think the problem there is similar to what we've been discussing here- modern sensibilities forced upon a novel written in the early 19th century. Although, I'm pretty sure that there is a huge, monster thread on here debating that very thing.

Ask and ye shall receive. Note especially some excellent dissections done by desideo near the end of the thread.

http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=9851

51fannyprice
Redigeret: dec 28, 2007, 4:50 pm

(uh, weird, I apparently posted a blank message?)

>25 frogbelly:, hey frogbelly, are you a fan of "Arrested Development," by chance?

52frogbelly
dec 29, 2007, 12:28 am

I am. It's probably my favorite show- and so quotable.

53fannyprice
dec 29, 2007, 12:47 pm

Nice - I thought so.

54karenmarie
maj 27, 2008, 12:36 pm

I just found this group and this thread.

Wonderful comments, everybody!!!

I love P&P. One of my favorite books of all time. I also love the A&E/BBC version and HATE the Keira Knightly version. It's not her fault, because she does a pretty good acting job. But really. Phenomenonally largely male pigs running through the house? It trivializes the whole story and goes for the yucks. Plus the movie left most of the book out. And Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennett? Slovenly!?! Mr. Bennett was never slovenly. Etc., etc.


55atimco
maj 27, 2008, 2:08 pm

Heehee. karenmarie, if you haven't already, you need to look up the I Love Jane Austen group. We have a whole thread for ranting against the KK version ;-)

56karenmarie
maj 27, 2008, 4:39 pm

Hi wisewoman - already a member, and have already ranted there, too, I believe.

Thanks, I'll check in again over there soon.

57atimco
maj 28, 2008, 11:11 am

Cool :-)

58Sodapop
jun 8, 2008, 12:37 am

Dang, for a moment I thought I'd finally found a Pride and Prejudice thread that didn't dissolve into an "I hate the Keira Knightley version of the movie" thread.
The earlier part of the thread though was excellent. It made me want to run off and find my o-level English Lit. teacher (if I thought there was a chance of him still being alive) and thank him for explaining it all to me so well, when I was 15 and had to read P&P the first time.

59fannyprice
jun 8, 2008, 12:50 pm

>58 Sodapop:, Hah, Sodapop, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a lot of fans of that movie around here. I've noticed that on LT, people tend to like their adaptations to be pretty true to the book and a lot of people find the Keira Knightley version to be anything but.

60ejj1955
jun 8, 2008, 1:59 pm

#49 Kaelirenee

What you say gets close to one of the reasons I think this novel, and books that deal with romance/marriage in general (even without the brilliance and irony of Jane Austen's work), are worthwhile and why women, especially, continue to read them, formulaic happy endings and all. It enrages me for this topic to be treated as though it's not important, when, in fact, choosing a life partner is one of the most significant things human beings do.

What's more, it's something that almost everyone--men and women alike--face in their lives, much more than some of the so-called serious topics in film/literature/whatever--most people won't ever go hunting a white whale or go on an epic journey up a river to find the crazy guy, or go to war (one hopes), but love and marriage and having a family are truly universal concerns--even more so in Austen's time than ours, when marriage was one of the very few choices open to a woman for survival, never mind prosperity.

And yes, I do understand that the hunt for the whale, etc., is symbolic of other things, blah blah blah. About as relevant to me as the inner life of an amoeba, all the same. I've ranted elsewhere about my struggle to read Lord Jim. Ugh.

But the choices made by the Bennett girls were vitally important, not only for their own lives, but for the lives of their sisters and parents and friends. And though it's a brief comic interval in the novel, Elizabeth really was taking a chance in rejecting Mr. Collins. I think he makes the point that she may never receive another offer.

One more note . . . someone makes a mention of Jane Austen herself being an old spinster aunt--she died when she was 42, I believe, so not that old, sadly.

61Sodapop
jun 8, 2008, 4:52 pm

#59 I wasn't looking for fans merely expressing my frustration that so many of the Pride and Prejudice threads seem to dissolve into a rant about that movie.
#60 Ejj. That's a great point and I think one of the reasons that Pride and Prejudice remains relevant more than 200 years after it was written.

62Mr.Durick
Redigeret: jun 9, 2008, 1:19 am

I am an admirer of Jane Austen; pick a sentence at random, it seems, and what you have found will be exquisite. Her take on society seems penetrating and true. I, nevertheless, can't get any momentum reading her.

So I ordered The Annotated Pride and Prejudice from Edward R. Hamilton yesterday and have hopes that the annotations will spur me along.

Robert

63atimco
mar 5, 2009, 9:11 am

*reawakens this thread, maybe*

Have you read that annotated version yet, rdurick?

64Mr.Durick
mar 5, 2009, 5:02 pm

No, and I don't foresee reading it any time soon. There are so many books.

Robert

65Medellia
mar 5, 2009, 5:06 pm

I'm reading and enjoying the Annotated P&P right now. In general, though, I wouldn't recommend it to a first-time P&P reader, as the notes are so copious that they seriously interrupt the flow of the novel. My two cents.

66Nickelini
mar 5, 2009, 5:10 pm

I agree that the annotated version would be overwhelming and distracting to a first time reader. There's just so much there.

67humouress
mar 22, 2010, 2:23 pm

Jumping in very late on this one, and weener probably isn't around anymore.

I love the humour in Austen's writing, but to get the full benefit, you would have to know the context, and relate it to the times she lived in. I love all her books, but we studied P&P in school, so our teacher could point out more 'obscure' references.

For example, there is an apparently throw-away line (I think it's when Elizabeth and others are walking to Rosings for dinner) about the number of windows Rosings has; but in that one line is a whole social commentary, because at that time, in England, glass was expensive, and there was a tax on the number of (glassed) windows a house had. So anyone who wanted to show off how wealthy they were had a lot of glass windows that everyone passing by could see - and so that line is a dig at Lady Catherine. But that's not something I would have realised on reading it by myself.

#7 - "If, instead of searching for a proper suitor, Elizabeth had said, "Screw this! I'm running off with a black guy!" it would be very different" - she kind of did, within the context of her life.