I only recently read Pride & Prejudice for the first time, having seen 2/6 episodes of the BBC dramatization (Colin Firth ) and I did asbolutely love it - I read it in two days, which for me is unheard of!
I'm no expert on classic literature, far from it, but I did have a few thoughts about P&P which I haven't heard anybody else mention (anywhere, not just on this forum.) Firstly, I didn't really think Jane Austen was as amazing an author as she's made out to be. She made me laugh in parts, and I love her sarcasm, but beyond that nothing about her writing style jumped out at me. I've also started reading Northanger Abbey, and found bits in both to be a bit repeititive, or skipped over quickly for the sake of getting to the next big event or meeting.
Mr. Darcy seemed to turn up every five minutes at the most unlikely places, just because it would make any fangirl (myself included) giggle and read on to see more of him. That's not necessarily a bad thing (although it was a similar element in Twilight that made me plow through that, so maybe it is...) but it did lead me to view Austen from a comic perspective than a serious one.
I also didn't think the characters had much depth. What she seems to do is take a virtue or vice, give it a name and a face, and construct a story where two of them interplay and make for what is, admittedly, a very enjoyable plot. Again, not saying it's a bad thing, I absolutely adored this book and it's easily now one of my favourites, but I really don't think she's all she's cracked up to be.
Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Pride and Prejudice
- LoveHistory
- Bibliomaniac
- Posts: 3751
- Joined: September 2008
- Location: Wisconsin, USA
- Contact:
Roxi, the main reason Jane Austen is held up as such a standard of excellence was her observations on human nature. We like her characters because we recognize them from our own lives, even at a distance of more than 200 years.
When reading Northanger, please remember that it is a satire of the gothic novels which were so popular in Austen's day. As it's own story it wouldn't be as funny.
When reading Northanger, please remember that it is a satire of the gothic novels which were so popular in Austen's day. As it's own story it wouldn't be as funny.
I didn't say she wasn't observant, I just said I think the characters are a little one dimensional. And that's really the teeniest issue I had with it, it was more the incredibly unlikely plot. Still loved it though.
And I know Northanger is a parody, I studied it this year in English Lit. It is very funny, I never said it wasn't.
And I know Northanger is a parody, I studied it this year in English Lit. It is very funny, I never said it wasn't.
[quote=""RoxiS.C.""]Firstly, I didn't really think Jane Austen was as amazing an author as she's made out to be. She made me laugh in parts, and I love her sarcasm, but beyond that nothing about her writing style jumped out at me.
I also didn't think the characters had much depth. What she seems to do is take a virtue or vice, give it a name and a face, and construct a story where two of them interplay and make for what is, admittedly, a very enjoyable plot. .[/quote]
Not everyone is enamoured with Austens writing style, but I think one of the things that sets her apart is her economy of words. She can convey so much in one sentence. No pages of florid descriptions here, in fact, we know hardly anything about what the characters look like, what they wore, what their houses were like etc. and yet by the end of the novel we know them intimately.
I dont understand though what you mean when you say characters are given a vice or virtue and the story is constructed around them. Austen certainly has characters whose personality quirks are often poked fun at, but her novels are full of people whose true character we are unaware of until the novel unfolds. Wickham and Darcy in P&P for example.
I also didn't think the characters had much depth. What she seems to do is take a virtue or vice, give it a name and a face, and construct a story where two of them interplay and make for what is, admittedly, a very enjoyable plot. .[/quote]
Not everyone is enamoured with Austens writing style, but I think one of the things that sets her apart is her economy of words. She can convey so much in one sentence. No pages of florid descriptions here, in fact, we know hardly anything about what the characters look like, what they wore, what their houses were like etc. and yet by the end of the novel we know them intimately.
I dont understand though what you mean when you say characters are given a vice or virtue and the story is constructed around them. Austen certainly has characters whose personality quirks are often poked fun at, but her novels are full of people whose true character we are unaware of until the novel unfolds. Wickham and Darcy in P&P for example.
- LoveHistory
- Bibliomaniac
- Posts: 3751
- Joined: September 2008
- Location: Wisconsin, USA
- Contact:
Austen does my head in. I can't stand her twittering. I've tried several times to get into Pride and Prejudice and every time the 'tweety, tweety,' leads me to put it down again. I have decided that while I would love to like her, she is not for me. I can appreciate that many others love her and I recently enjoyed a film of P&P. Just don't give me the books! I guess it's like porridge. I know it's wholesome, I know it's good for me. I love descriptions of it in books - piping hot on a winter's morning with brown sugar or salt. But when I try it for myself, the reality is still wallpaper paste! Vive la difference!
Les proz e les vassals
Souvent entre piez de chevals
Kar ja li coard nI chasront
'The Brave and the valiant
Are always to be found between the hooves of horses
For never will cowards fall down there.'
Histoire de Guillaume le Mareschal
www.elizabethchadwick.com
Souvent entre piez de chevals
Kar ja li coard nI chasront
'The Brave and the valiant
Are always to be found between the hooves of horses
For never will cowards fall down there.'
Histoire de Guillaume le Mareschal
www.elizabethchadwick.com
- sweetpotatoboy
- Bibliophile
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: August 2008
- Location: London, UK
Oh no -- I could take the 'dissing' Austen (though I do enjoy her). But I can't let you lay into porridge and get away with it!!! Granted, on its own, it's a bit unappealing but the options are endless. I make mine with water, not milk, and add either fruit puree, mashed banana and/or honey (or my new discovery, date syrup). Yummy, warming and healthy!!
LOL Sweetpotato boy! It is to my shame that I don't like porridge - I really want to. I guess I'm saying that with both Austen and porridge it's my fault not the product's! I am really happy to read literary descriptions of the latter if that's any apology.
Les proz e les vassals
Souvent entre piez de chevals
Kar ja li coard nI chasront
'The Brave and the valiant
Are always to be found between the hooves of horses
For never will cowards fall down there.'
Histoire de Guillaume le Mareschal
www.elizabethchadwick.com
Souvent entre piez de chevals
Kar ja li coard nI chasront
'The Brave and the valiant
Are always to be found between the hooves of horses
For never will cowards fall down there.'
Histoire de Guillaume le Mareschal
www.elizabethchadwick.com
-
- Bibliophile
- Posts: 1667
- Joined: April 2009
- Location: New York
-
- Bibliophile
- Posts: 1667
- Joined: April 2009
- Location: New York
[quote=""RoxiS.C.""]What she seems to do is take a virtue or vice, give it a name and a face, and construct a story where two of them interplay and make for what is, admittedly, a very enjoyable plot. Again, not saying it's a bad thing, I absolutely adored this book and it's easily now one of my favourites, but I really don't think she's all she's cracked up to be.[/quote]
I would disagree with you on this -- her characters grow on you gradually until you realize you know enough about Elizabeth Bennet to see how she will react in given circumstances. Some are certainly very broadly drawn, almost caricatures -- but that's also a skill, to mock someone (Miss Bingley, say) as Austen does is far harder to do without looking too heavy handed than it may seem.
Something else to think of as to why Austen may be all that she's cracked up to be is her time & place. When she was writing, she wasn't self-consciously trying to 'create literature that would live through the ages'. (People who try to do this usually fail anyway, IMO). She was writing what turned out to be particularly good chick lit for her day -- novels that drew on recognized stereotypes of characters, were witty social commentaries, etc. And it's those achievements that make her a pioneer for her time (one reason she is seen as a 'classic' writer today) as well as a writer we still respond to (because we have all met a Mr. Collins or a Miss Bingley somewhere in our lives, even if they aren't parsons.) The fact that we can recognize her characters is the people around us is a trademark of a very skilled writer, especially after the lapse of two centuries.
For me, her writing comes secondary to her knowledge of her characters. She's the literary equivalent of an artist who specializes in drawings vs oil paintings. You lose the fine detail, the layers of paint -- you gain a sense of immediacy.
I would disagree with you on this -- her characters grow on you gradually until you realize you know enough about Elizabeth Bennet to see how she will react in given circumstances. Some are certainly very broadly drawn, almost caricatures -- but that's also a skill, to mock someone (Miss Bingley, say) as Austen does is far harder to do without looking too heavy handed than it may seem.
Something else to think of as to why Austen may be all that she's cracked up to be is her time & place. When she was writing, she wasn't self-consciously trying to 'create literature that would live through the ages'. (People who try to do this usually fail anyway, IMO). She was writing what turned out to be particularly good chick lit for her day -- novels that drew on recognized stereotypes of characters, were witty social commentaries, etc. And it's those achievements that make her a pioneer for her time (one reason she is seen as a 'classic' writer today) as well as a writer we still respond to (because we have all met a Mr. Collins or a Miss Bingley somewhere in our lives, even if they aren't parsons.) The fact that we can recognize her characters is the people around us is a trademark of a very skilled writer, especially after the lapse of two centuries.
For me, her writing comes secondary to her knowledge of her characters. She's the literary equivalent of an artist who specializes in drawings vs oil paintings. You lose the fine detail, the layers of paint -- you gain a sense of immediacy.