Jane Austen

[Joykins]

I reread her from time to time. I really enjoy her sly wit--something nearly all her "sequel" writers don't have enough of. I giggle my way through _Northanger Abbey_ every time.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

And yet Elizabeth Bennet turned down TWO very eligible proposals of marriage: one from a man who was to inherit her family home--which would protect her and her sisters and mother from becoming homeless in the event of her father's death--and one from a man of excellent fortune and high social standing. Golddigger!

Yeah, but we -- or at least I, since I picked the zombie option -- am not saying that the girls are gold diggers. Just that the story of Jane trying to get Blandy McBlanderson and Lizzie trying to get Prickface the Third to marry them is boring to me.

I especially hate it when Lizzie starts reprimanding herself for being so rude to Darcy and OMG I COULD HAVE HAD THIS PRETTY HOUSE AND THIS NICE MAN AND WHAT WAS I THINKING when (a) he had been incredibly rude to her and richly deserved a verbal lashing and (b) this is so freaking dull that my brain is trying to evacuate my head.

Honestly, I dislike Lizzie for the same reasons I dislike Bella from Twilight. (Heresy, I know!) The first half of the book seems to involve Lizzie being intensely catty in her head to the various friends, relations, and family members around her. (Particularly her younger sisters who we are Not Supposed To Like, despite the fact that I think they are sometimes more sensible than the designated protagonists.) The second half of the book involves her excoriating herself for precisely the wrong thing: i.e., for not realizing how obviously AWESOME Darcy is/was in the first half of the book.

I don't find her to be a sympathetic character. I like Jane well enough, but she's so limp and simpering that I don't really care for her either. Rather than being shy (Jane) or catty (Lizzie), I'd prefer everyone were just candid.

"Mr. Darcy, I don't appreciate how rude you were to me just there. Please don't speak to me again unless you wish to make amends and start over."

How hard would that have been, really? And it would have saved us the Big Misunderstanding -- which is the most boring of all romantic storylines ever, period.

Totally my subjective opinion.

[MaggieScratch]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Yeah, but we -- or at least I, since I picked the zombie option -- am not saying that the girls are gold diggers. Just that the story of Jane trying to get Blandy McBlanderson and Lizzie trying to get Prickface the Third to marry them is boring to me.

But they're NOT trying to get them to marry them. The reason Darcy discourages Bingley from marrying Jane (besides the vulgar family thing) is that he is not convinced that Jane feels the same way about Bingley that Bingley feels about Jane. Her demeanor is sweet and calm, and she doesn't show her feelings externally, and the culture demanded that she not talk much about her feelings except to very close friends and family.

And as I said, Lizzy actively discourages Darcy from hanging around her. He misinterprets her discouragement, but that's not her fault. And then he proposes and is instantly shot down. It's the modern equivalent of turning down a very easy job that pays a six-figure salary for which you aren't really qualified. It would be a surprising thing if someone turned it down. It's very surprising that Elizabeth Bennet turns down Darcy's proposal.

I especially hate it when Lizzie starts reprimanding herself for being so rude to Darcy and OMG I COULD HAVE HAD THIS PRETTY HOUSE AND THIS NICE MAN AND WHAT WAS I THINKING

Like anyone, she has a moment of thinking it would be pretty cool to be mistress of Pemberley--to live in a fabulous house in a gorgeous area and have the freedom of it all. But then she realizes that she would likely have to give up her more beloved relatives, and she is no longer upset about it. From the novel:

"And of this place," thought she, "I might have been mistress! With these rooms I might now have been familiarly acquainted! Instead of viewing them as a stranger, I might have rejoiced in them as my own, and welcomed to them as visitors my uncle and aunt. -- But no," -- recollecting herself, -- "that could never be: my uncle and aunt would have been lost to me: I should not have been allowed to invite them." This was a lucky recollection -- it saved her from something like regret.

Of course Darcy allows her to invite the Gardiners to Pemberley--he comes to love them as much as she does. But Elizabeth is still adjusting her views at this point. In fact, his kind treatment of the Gardiners, in a very class-conscious time, is part of what helps her see his true quality of character.

The second half of the book involves her excoriating herself for precisely the wrong thing: i.e., for not realizing how obviously AWESOME Darcy is/was in the first half of the book.

No, she's excoriating herself for not thinking through the things that Wickham was telling her and allowing her prejudice against Darcy to help convince her that Wickham's falsehoods are true. She is distressed that she misjudged Darcy, because he is a man of good character and doesn't deserve to have been misjudged. Like I said, all the clues are there that Wickham is a lying git, and when Elizabeth reflects on the past, she sees that. She knows Darcy didn't deserve the way she treated him. She didn't have to like him, but she shouldn't have thought he was evil for keeping Wickham from earning a living. This is, I know, a higher sense of morality and honor than people hold themselves to in this degenerate age.

I'm not a big Darcy fan for the first half of the book, either. My private nickname for him is Snarky McJerkpants. He comes around, though. His behavior from the time he encounters her at Pemberley is designed to make her like him ("showing you, by every civility in my power, that I was not so mean as to resent the past"). She already knows she misjudged him, so she is willing to start over.

I don't find her to be a sympathetic character. I like Jane well enough, but she's so limp and simpering that I don't really care for her either. Rather than being shy (Jane) or catty (Lizzie), I'd prefer everyone were just candid.

Unfortunately the social mores of the time didn't really allow for that. The cultural perspectives help. As I said in my previous post, that's why we read great literature--to learn about other perspectives on the world. It also helps you to understand how fortunate we are in some ways to live when we live--though of course it's possible to overshare one's feelings!

"Mr. Darcy, I don't appreciate how rude you were to me just there. Please don't speak to me again unless you wish to make amends and start over."

How hard would that have been, really?

Which was pretty much what she said when she refused his proposal. Again, from the book:

"You are mistaken, Mr. Darcy, if you suppose that the mode of your declaration affected me in any other way, than as it spared me the concern which I might have felt in refusing you, had you behaved in a more gentleman-like manner. . . From the very beginning, from the first moment I may almost say, of my acquaintance with you, your manners, impressing me with the fullest belief of your arrogance, your conceit, and your selfish disdain of the feelings of others, were such as to form that ground-work of disapprobation, on which succeeding events have built so immoveable a dislike; and I had not known you a month before I felt that you were the last man in the world whom I could ever be prevailed on to marry."

And then later we learn this was the BIG moment for him--the one that made him reassess and change his behavior. From the second, accepted proposal scene:

"The recollection of what I then said, of my conduct, my manners, my expressions during the whole of it, is now, and has been many months, inexpressibly painful to me. Your reproof, so well applied, I shall never forget: "had you behaved in a more gentleman-like manner." Those were your words. You know not, you can scarcely conceive, how they have tortured me. . ."

Totally my subjective opinion.

I honestly don't expect everyone to love Jane Austen's work. I like the results of the survey--most people are casual fans, which is probably as it should be. But it distressed me to see your expressed views as I felt they were a pretty serious misrepresentation of the plot. Perhaps you need to re-read the book--with more information, and having abandoned your prejudices; much like Elizabeth Bennet treated Mr. Darcy.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

But they're NOT trying to get them to marry them.

Depending on where you are in the book, this statement is untrue. (Unless you're going to argue that Jane doesn't give a flip either way.)

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

And as I said, Lizzy actively discourages Darcy from hanging around her. He misinterprets her discouragement, but that's not her fault. And then he proposes and is instantly shot down. It's the modern equivalent of turning down a very easy job that pays a six-figure salary for which you aren't really qualified. It would be a surprising thing if someone turned it down. It's very surprising that Elizabeth Bennet turns down Darcy's proposal.

Yeah. That's great, really it is. What I DON'T like and what I was referring to earlier is the PAGES AND PAGES later where she beats herself up over her rejection. It's not a daring feminist act if the rest of the book is devoted to how it was a terrible, terrible move on her part.

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

No, she's excoriating herself for not thinking through the things that Wickham was telling her and allowing her prejudice against Darcy to help convince her that Wickham's falsehoods are true. She is distressed that she misjudged Darcy, because he is a man of good character and doesn't deserve to have been misjudged. Like I said, all the clues are there that Wickham is a lying git, and when Elizabeth reflects on the past, she sees that. She knows Darcy didn't deserve the way she treated him. She didn't have to like him, but she shouldn't have thought he was evil for keeping Wickham from earning a living. This is, I know, a higher sense of morality and honor than people hold themselves to in this degenerate age.

Except it doesn't read that way to me. Yes, she's frustrated that she listened to a bad source, but it goes too far into "Well, if Wickham is a jerk, then Darcy MUST be all that is good in this cold world." It doesn't work that way to me -- they are BOTH jerks.

Whether or not someone is a jerk is subjective, I know. But Darcy is a rude, catty, nasty, antisocial person who gets away with it by being incredibly rich. Austen tries to pull a fast one in the second half and make him a big woobie misunderstood pretty boy, but I'm not going to swallow that. No matter how stupid, banal, or annoying Lizzie's mom is, or Blandy McBlandperson's sisters or whatever, Darcy still gets off on being a jerk to people he perceives as his inferiors, and Lizzie totally excuses it because he's not a complete ass to his servants. WELL GIVE THAT MAN A MEDAL.

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

I'm not a big Darcy fan for the first half of the book, either. My private nickname for him is Snarky McJerkpants. He comes around, though. His behavior from the time he encounters her at Pemberley is designed to make her like him ("showing you, by every civility in my power, that I was not so mean as to resent the past"). She already knows she misjudged him, so she is willing to start over.

Unfortunately the social mores of the time didn't really allow for that. The cultural perspectives help. As I said in my previous post, that's why we read great literature--to learn about other perspectives on the world. It also helps you to understand how fortunate we are in some ways to live when we live--though of course it's possible to overshare one's feelings!

Except Lizzie hasn't misjudged him at that point except on the issue of whether or not he wants in her pants. Er, dress. He IS a jerk. He DOES get off on being rude to her mother and to Blandy's friends and relations. He's not QUITE as bad as Wickham makes him out to be, but the fact that Wickham is lying does not make Darcy a good man. It's not binary.

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

I honestly don't expect everyone to love Jane Austen's work. I like the results of the survey--most people are casual fans, which is probably as it should be. But it distressed me to see your expressed views as I felt they were a pretty serious misrepresentation of the plot. Perhaps you need to re-read the book--with more information, and having abandoned your prejudices; much like Elizabeth Bennet treated Mr. Darcy.

Nor do I except everyone to loathe the work. But you needn't lecture me about misconceptions on my personal interpretation of a book -- not when you keep seeing the "the girls want the boys to marry them and it's boring" posts as being some sort of accusation of gold digging. Some people have made that criticism about Jane Austen in the past, but it is not MY point -- obviously if the girls wanted the boys to marry them for money it would be a different book, but that doesn't change the fact that they DO want them to marry them.

How a person views a book is ultimately subjective -- I've seen this especially in character studies of Bella Swan. I won't call your interpretation of the book invalid, but you have to (I'm afraid) extend the same courtesy in return.

[MaggieScratch]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Depending on where you are in the book, this statement is untrue. (Unless you're going to argue that Jane doesn't give a flip either way.)

I have not the pleasure of understanding you. Can you point me to the place in the novel where either Jane or Elizabeth are trying to get Bingley and Darcy, respectively, to marry them?

I don't think it's a matter of interpretation. I don't think such a scene exists. They might wish for it, or be sad because they don't think it will happen (and both of them think that right up till the time the gentlemen actually propose), but they do nothing active to make it happen. They both know it would be pretty vulgar to do so.

[anamardoll]

So you agree that they wish for marriage. And you agree that they are sad at the prospect of losing the marriage. And you presumably believe that their behavior is influenced by these feelings of wanting marriage.

But you disagree with my statement that they are trying to get the boys to marry them?

I guess we aren't spreken ze dutch here.

[MaggieScratch]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

And you presumably believe that their behavior is influenced by these feelings of wanting marriage.

No, I don't believe that, actually. Their behavior, with regard to their romantic feelings and everything else, was influenced by character and contemporary social mores. This goes back to my former comments about context.

But you disagree with my statement that they are trying to get the boys to marry them?

Yes. Jane and Elizabeth are not trying to get anyone to marry them. Like the book or not--that is a fact. The things you have claimed are boring or unlikeable are not in the book. That's what I've been arguing all along. Dislike the book if you must, but false arguments don't carry a point, and claiming "it's my opinion" doesn't make them any more factual.

[anamardoll]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I do not agree that it's a "fact" that the girls aren't trying to get the boys to marry them.

I think the source of the disagreement lies in our definition of "trying to get", but if anything bores me more than Austen, it's arguing with an Austen fan about the exact definition of "trying to get", so I'm going to politely bow out now.

[khalleron]

If a book bores me, I don't read it.

I certainly don't waste vast amounts of time arguing with people who do enjoy it.

Life's too short.

[hidari]

Finally got through Pride and Prejudice on the third try. Definitely not for me, yet she has got the wit. Prefer to stick to the film adaptations of her work....

[Peetwing]

I do like her books. She made so much for literature and for women. I like her language, pure and aristocratic.