A literary confession topic

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I agree about Darcy and his horrible attitude...but not quite sure who she would have ended up with...other than the cousin? That could have been a good match for her.

Perhaps Darcy's £10,000 a year (at least a million in today's money) will soften the blow... .

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps Darcy's £10,000 a year (at least a million in today's money) will soften the blow... .

Money can't make up for having an asshole husband, in my opinion.

But yeah, better than being POOR with an asshole husband.

To quote Dave Barry: "My mother always used to say, 'Son, it's better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick.' And I think that still has a lot of truth today."

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps Darcy's £10,000 a year (at least a million in today's money) will soften the blow... .

I think her bed of thorns will be nicely padded.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by RDaneel54

My sad confession is that I keep reading J. D. Robb's "In Death" series. No excuse.

I read them too.

[kkj2165]

Originally Posted by JOZAWUN

Everybody should read one book each by Henry James, Thomas Hardy and Joseph Conrad.

But life is too short to bother with more than one of each.

^^^ This about a million times ^^^ Headmasters of the "School of Writing Deep Thoughts to Impress the Illiterate Masses." Dickens might not have been as eloquent, but he had a wicked sense of humor.

Speaking of depressing Victorians.... Wuthering Heights is, was, and always will be, 400 pages of boring, whining sociopaths. Thank god for the rest of England they were stuck on the stupid moors and not inflicting their angst on the general populace.

And on the topic of angst infliction, Catcher in the Rye is one of the most over-rated books of all time. Hated every page of it.

KKJ

[kkj2165]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I just have to believe there was SOMEONE ELSE in the whole world that would have been a better husband than Darcy...

Where's your compassion??? Darcy obviously suffered from Social Anxiety Disorder - all he needed was a Zoloft every morning and a Xanax or two for the crowded, sweaty ballrooms.

I have mental health diagnoses for other characters too (literary forensics?), but I'll save those for a different thread and go back to daydreaming about Colin Firth.

KKJ

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

OK, fair enough, if the choice is between living with Darcy and living with her mother, then MAYBE Darcy is better. (Except, you know, that a key member of Darcy's family hates her.) But I still think Lizzy could have taken a third option. Somehow. There HAS to be something better on offer than being a Bennett or being a Darcy.

bah, the most important member is his sister and she adored Lizzy. That ancient hag will die soon anyway.

Originally Posted by anamardoll

And, yes, his behavior at the ball was inexcusable. You don't get to be a rude jerk to everybody just because you're richer than everyone else. I get that Austen had low tolerance for "silly" people, but there's a reason why it's not considered appropriate to be rude to people, silly or not.

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Money can't make up for having an asshole husband, in my opinion.

But yeah, better than being POOR with an asshole husband.

To quote Dave Barry: "My mother always used to say, 'Son, it's better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick.' And I think that still has a lot of truth today."

You're all forgetting the time it's playing. In that time of history, status and money was very important. As Darcy thought Lizzy was way below his station, his remarks become acceptable. For his class.

And P&P is the only true romantic book I really like. I generally hate those romances. Boooooring.

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by kkj2165

...
Speaking of depressing Victorians.... Wuthering Heights is, was, and always will be, 400 pages of boring, whining sociopaths.
...

Ahh, so Wuthering Heights is like the Victorian version of Facebook? (present Facebookers excepted, of course...okay, maybe not myself ).

I've said it elsewhere, but one book I cannot understand why it achieves any praise nor why achieved any award, was Iris Murdoch's The Sea, The Sea. For me, it has a boring, self-indulgent plot which saves this critic some descriptive words by having the characters precisely the same. But that's just me.

Cheers,
Marc

[Joykins]

I am not a horror fan but I like Stephen King, probably because he's close enough to dark fantasy for me to like him.

My guilty secret is that I'm capable of enjoying some really appallingly bad books as long as the actual prose is well-done, like, I read all Lorelei James' books when I didn't have to (the earlier ones are worse). Also I read way too much romance.

I was a lit major and I really enjoyed the classics.

Romeo and Juliet--yes, it's all about the DRAMA, like you're a TEENAGER and your PARENTS are the WORST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD and WON'T LET YOU SEE YOUR BOYFRIEND and YOU'LL DIE IF YOU DON'T SEE HIM and WON'T YOU BE SORRY THEN, MOM?

[Michael McLovin]

I find Stephen King's novels needlessly long. I grow bored of it before the main plot even begins.
His novellas are still something I enjoy though.

[Thtevie]

I have read most of Stephen King's works. I enjoyed them, and so I read mostly them for quite a while. But when I started writing seriously I found I was trying to write like King. Not intentionally - but when I went back to re-read, I saw impressions from him, and since it didn't work as well in my writing, I realized I needed to expand. So now I limit myself to at most 1 book by any 1 author in any 1 year.

It was a much tougher limitation when I was reading 100 books a year, now I'm about 15 - 20 so it's not hard to keep within my limit.

And I think my writing has improved too!

As for literature that you just can't stand, I was able to get through about 200pp of War and Peace, but gave up. I also gave up on Sophie's Choice. Most everything else I've started I've been able to finish.

[Sweetpea]

A confession by me: I still love children's books... And I'll still read any I can get my claws (virtual) on.

[italianReader]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I thought 1984 was good...but horribly boring and I would rather punch myself in the head than read it again.

I'm reading it in these days and I strongly agree with you.

[Sweetpea]

I read it not too long ago and while I do like the story in general, it was so boring!

[AkumaTakeshi]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

A confession by me: I still love children's books... And I'll still read any I can get my claws (virtual) on.

You really should try "Skulduggery Pleasant" if you haven't already then
Still love children's books too, but well, I'm still a bit of a child

Well as for me, I hate the "Twilight" series, too much nonsense for me, many people try to convince me to read them but I just can't.

I love "Harry Potter" books, but yes it's a gradual evolution, they keep getting better with each sequel.

As for classics I truly enjoyed "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" but I'm currently reading "Dracula" and it's starting to become such a drag that I don't know if I'll get to finish it, the beginning was interesting tho (maybe I'll try to continue reading it just to see if it gets better again).