Pride and Prejudice

[Duxwing]

Dear Forum,

I HATE THIS BOOK! It's just a bunch of British people talking about gossip, romance, and feelings, and it makes me want to take a chainsaw to its author's heart and an ice pick to my own head. I can't believe that I actually have to read this drek for my English class! Euagh!

And that's not the worst of it: There's no sensory detail, just dialogue, dialogue, and more... boring... infuriating... dialogue! At least with The Picture of Dorian Gray, our class's previous book, we got to enjoy beautiful depictions of various objects and drink in the richness of Wilde's world, but no, not in Pride and Prejudice. Instead, we just GET. MORE. DIALOGUE. I don't read books to dive deep into the characters' interpersonal angsts and relationships, I read books to escape such problems. To describe my reaction via an analogy, the experience of reading Pride and Prejudice for the first time was that of seeing my birthday cake in the distance only to find that, on closer inspection, it is actually a cement-filled car tire frosted with mashed-up bars of industrial soap: disgusting, inedible, and poisonous.

And furthermore, I hate all of the characters. No. Really. All of them. The guy is a jerk, the girl is a wuss, and everyone around them is so gag-inducingly proud, prejudiced, and otherwise deeply, deeply flawed that I want to pull a Yossarian and machine-gun them down so that the story can end. When I try to immerse myself and enjoy the work, I instead find myself drowning in the maelstrom of angsty tears that composes the plot and figuratively desiring to mutilate or kill someone, even myself! Finally, and just to prove that I'm not a romance-novel hater, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I've read at least a hundred romance novels and short stories*, and all but ten of them were better than the cart of stinking turd that we call Pride and Prejudice.

So how do you all feel about this book? How many polar bears would you fight bare-handed in order to prevent it from ever being published? How many polar bears would you fight to stop me?

-Duxwing

*And mind you that these were not professionally written and edited stories. These were works of fanfiction; yes, I'd rather read fanfiction than this book. And gladly, too, for some of it was quite good.

 

[crippli]

Sounds an odd choice to have children learn in class. More like Lust & Greed. I only read a few pages some years ago, and was lucky enough that it was in a private setting so I could put the book down when I found it didn't please me, with no further questions asked. I only picked it up, since it was a favorite of the other person in the room.

I watched the Dorian Grey film, and read a few pages too. 19'th century splendor and Gothic horror is nice. Certainly the better choice.

I think it's fairly common that mediocre work of literature is thought at school. Why not download a resume and do something else during this time?

 

[SpaceYeti]

The thing about classic literature is that it's not necessarily good, it's just old. Authors back then got paid by the word, so they made long, driveling books about nothing in particular. Have you ever read The Scarlet Letter? Prime example. Nothing happens. It's just people feeling like assholes all day.

It's not really out of place to study them, though, because it shows us just how long literature has come. We now know how to entertain people with it, how to communicate information properly, make likeable and interesting characters, etc. Just like old games allowed us to develop new games, and old cars allowed us to develop modern cars, and everything else which has evolved in our society. Classic literature is like examples of what not to do if you want to sell your book.

I'm not sure why people consider them good, except that they, personally, like them. Which is fine, but that doesn't make them good. It's kind of like how Romeo and Juliet is Shakespeare's most well known play, and it's also his worst. I think it has sort of a sophistry appeal. Other people don't like it because "they just don't get it".

No, I get it, it just sucks.

 

[nightstreaking]

lol Jane Austen is entertaining. There is no real depth or meaning in the work, and that might be annoying, but the narrative wit makes for passable reading. I mean, I get it, it's just a bunch of girls talking about stuff (like handsome, taciturn men! mmmm), but it's beautiful if you just frolic along with it. Plus, Dorian Gray was a self-destructive asshat, and I like Wilde but the book was a bit grotesque, which is to say that it's completely different from Austen's book and therefore not really comparable. Take one for the team, Dux. I've read all of her books. Muahahaha!

No, but really, virtually casing out a live ballroom with people smattering words at each other can be fun. A study in human (social) nature! Thank god I don't have to marry young.

 

[crippli]

The thing about classic literature is that it's not necessarily good, it's just old. Authors back then got paid by the word, so they made long, driveling books about nothing in particular. Have you ever read The Scarlet Letter? Prime example. Nothing happens. It's just people feeling like assholes all day.

It's not really out of place to study them, though, because it shows us just how long literature has come. We now know how to entertain people with it, how to communicate information properly, make likeable and interesting characters, etc. Just like old games allowed us to develop new games, and old cars allowed us to develop modern cars, and everything else which has evolved in our society. Classic literature is like examples of what not to do if you want to sell your book.

I'm not sure why people consider them good, except that they, personally, like them. Which is fine, but that doesn't make them good. It's kind of like how Romeo and Juliet is Shakespeare's most well known play, and it's also his worst. I think it has sort of a sophistry appeal. Other people don't like it because "they just don't get it".

No, I get it, it just sucks.

Older still is the work of Socrates and Plato. I'm sure many will consider this also to be endless drivel about nothings. Old architecture vs new. New isn't always better, rather the contrary I'd say. There are people on here that press the point of learning the history.

But it takes effort, so much easier to download a resume.

There are clearly lessons to be learned from pride and prejudice. Even if I didn't read the whole book, I did watch the film, without lasting harm. Maybe I shall recommend that instead, as cheating isn't really in good taste. It will help on the sensory detail. I find at least the time period to have interesting design on fashion.

Romeo and Juliet sophistry? Depends how much one believe it, doesn't it? It's a play. It's not supposed to be real, at least I don't think so, as no text can ever be. Likewise with Star-Trek. And the bible for that matter. Also not real, but something one may wish for.

 

[nightstreaking]

The thing about classic literature is that it's not necessarily good, it's just old. Authors back then got paid by the word, so they made long, driveling books about nothing in particular. Have you ever read The Scarlet Letter? Prime example. Nothing happens. It's just people feeling like assholes all day.

It's not really out of place to study them, though, because it shows us just how long literature has come. We now know how to entertain people with it, how to communicate information properly, make likeable and interesting characters, etc. Just like old games allowed us to develop new games, and old cars allowed us to develop modern cars, and everything else which has evolved in our society. Classic literature is like examples of what not to do if you want to sell your book.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter3.html

Schopenhauer:

But what can be more miserable than the fate of a reading public of this kind, that feels always impelled to read the latest writings of extremely commonplace authors who write for money only, and therefore exist in numbers? And for the sake of this they merely know by name the works of the rare and superior writers, of all ages and countries.

 

[Duxwing]

Older still is the work of Socrates and Plato. I'm sure many will consider this also to be endless drivel about nothings. Old architecture vs new. New isn't always better, rather the contrary I'd say. There are people on here that press the point of learning the history.

SpaceYeti's logic was not, as you claim, "Old, therefore bad"; instead, it was "Old fiction, therefore designed to be long, therefore full of text unrelated to the themes, therefore bad".

But it takes effort, so much easier to download a resume.

And "it takes effort" to cut my legs off with a spoon, too, but I wouldn't do that.

There are clearly lessons to be learned from pride and prejudice. Even if I didn't read the whole book, I did watch the film, without lasting harm. Maybe I shall recommend that instead, as cheating isn't really in good taste. It will help on the sensory detail. I find at least the time period to have interesting design on fashion.

Yes, perhaps I ought to watch the movie.

Romeo and Juliet sophistry? Depends how much one believe it, doesn't it? It's a play. It's not supposed to be real, at least I don't think so, as no text can ever be. Likewise with Star-Trek. And the bible for that matter. Also not real, but something one may wish for.

Shakespeare had originally intended that the star-crossed lovers' romance would last a few months, not a few days, but the unfortunate constraints of time forced him to sharply shorten the play's duration-- a decision that created the tragic tale of love at first sight that we know today.

-Duxwing

 

[Cognisant]

Pride and Prejudice is chick fiction, or to be more accurate old lady fiction, I wouldn't say it's good or bad, just that it's written for a completely different audience than yourself, y'know it's basically a soap opera, and if judged on those terms I'm sure it's one of the best literary soap operas out there.

Not that I'm going to read it.

I've done essays on To Kill a Mocking Bird, that wasn't so bad, but it still isn't the sort of book I'd read unless I had to.

 

[Hawkeye]

Perhaps you should try reading this

 

[Kuu]

I HATE THIS BOOK! It's just a bunch of British people talking about gossip, romance, and feelings

And furthermore, I hate all of the characters. No. Really. All of them. The guy is a jerk, the girl is a wuss, and everyone around them is so gag-inducingly proud, prejudiced, and otherwise deeply, deeply flawed

19th century aristocracy for you. Not that it's all that different from the 21st century one. Although one needs to be acquainted with such things to fully appreciate the setting and critique.

I don't read books to dive deep into the characters' interpersonal angsts and relationships, I read books to escape such problems.

One eye blind.

Perhaps you should try reading this

I've got Android Karenina waiting in my bedside

 

[Duxwing]

19th century aristocracy for you. Not that it's all that different from the 21st century one. Although one needs to be acquainted with such things to fully appreciate the setting and critique.

Oh! It's a critique? I sincerely thought that the book espoused such flagrantly disgusting behavior.

One eye blind.

You're right. I overstated my point: I don't read books in order to experience nothing but the inner angsts of jerks in agonizing detail.

-Duxwing

 

[Lostwitheal]

Oh! It's a critique? I sincerely thought that the book espoused such flagrantly disgusting behavior.
-Duxwing

You read the bit where Darcy gets rejected for, essentially, embodying this very thing, right?

 

[Duxwing]

You read the bit where Darcy gets rejected for, essentially, embodying this very thing, right?

I couldn't bring myself to read any more than a few pages because I didn't know that it was intended as a critique. Also, thanks for ruining whatever was left of that sack of wine.

-Duxwing

 

[Lostwitheal]

I couldn't bring myself to read any more than a few pages because I didn't know that it was intended as a critique. Also, thanks for ruining whatever was left of that sack of wine.

-Duxwing

Oh that's by no means the end and has not been ruined for you. Don't worry

 

[Duxwing]

Oh that's by no means the end and has not been ruined for you. Don't worry

Oh, thanks!

-Duxwing

 

[Cavallier]

Oh! It's a critique? I sincerely thought that the book espoused such flagrantly disgusting behavior.

Ouch. It's okay, you weren't to know. Really, unless you've taken a class on it and the prof does a good job of explaining the historical setting and whatnot...or done a lot of research you weren't to know.

Anyway, at least you are in good company when it comes to your disgust for Jane Austen...

She makes me detest all her people, without reserve. Is that her intention? It is not believable. Then is it her purpose to make the reader detest her people up to the middle of the book and like them in the rest of the chapters? That could be. That would be high art. It would be worth while, too. Some day I will examine the other end of her books and see.

Jane Austen? Why I go so far as to say that any library is a good library that does not contain a volume by Jane Austen. Even if it contains no other book.

and of course the immortal...

I haven't any right to criticise books, and I don't do it except when I hate them. I often want to criticise Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can't conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Everytime I read 'Pride and Prejudice' I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone.​

 

[Duxwing]

Ouch. It's okay, you weren't to know. Really, unless you've taken a class on it and the prof does a good job of explaining the historical setting and whatnot...or done a lot of research you weren't to know.

We've just started the horrific torture reading the book.

Anyway, at least you are in good company when it comes to your disgust for Jane Austen...

and of course the immortal...

Given my desire to re-animate and kill Jane Austen, then, Samuel Clemens and I think alike on this matter.

-Duxwing

 

[SpaceYeti]

Older still is the work of Socrates and Plato. I'm sure many will consider this also to be endless drivel about nothings. Old architecture vs new. New isn't always better, rather the contrary I'd say. There are people on here that press the point of learning the history.

You're kind of ignoring the point I was actually making and replacing it with a straw man. As Dux pointed out, I was speaking of old fiction specifically, the kind written by the people who were getting paid for making each work as long as they could. Further, Plato's writings of Socrates do tend to be more wordy than they need to be, though I don't think Plato was paid by the word.

But it takes effort, so much easier to download a resume.

Many things take effort. How much effort is put in is only a functional aspect of judging value when you include the payoff, the reward for the effort. While I can't claim all older fiction is outright bad, mostly due to the fact I haven't read it, it was born in a time when the general rules for writers existed in such a way that produced things I wouldn't like to read. That is, when you reward someone for writing a lot of words, they tend to put effort into writing a lot of words, instead of into being concise. Even if they have legitimately moving stories, with identifiable characters and an interesting plot, they still tend to miss out on the conciseness. The book may not be "bad", just wordy.

There are clearly lessons to be learned from pride and prejudice. Even if I didn't read the whole book, I did watch the film, without lasting harm. Maybe I shall recommend that instead, as cheating isn't really in good taste. It will help on the sensory detail. I find at least the time period to have interesting design on fashion.

I've never cared too much for fashion. I like to good good, but the specifics of fashion are irrelevant when you're just plain attractive.

Romeo and Juliet sophistry? Depends how much one believe it, doesn't it? It's a play. It's not supposed to be real, at least I don't think so, as no text can ever be. Likewise with Star-Trek. And the bible for that matter. Also not real, but something one may wish for.

Not Romeo and Juliet specifically, more like old fiction sophistry. Many people actually enjoy Romeo and Juliet, and that's fine, but when it comes to intriguing characters and fun plot, it's one of Shake's worst plays, written decades before Shake's other classics. It's also used in high school literature classes instead of the more interesting plays, for whatever reason. The same environment which, at least when I was there, encouraged you to write a number of pages, not make a number of points in a convincing manner.

 

[Cavallier]

At Op and Samuel Clemmens: I thought you might. He is quite rabid on the subject.

Personally, I don't really mind Pride and Prejudice. It's a nice little stroll down cultured Regency Era Britian. I think that's the main reason why we all have to read it in school. It is interesting at least from a historical standpoint. In Lit class you have to cover various inane questions such as, "Does Mr. Darcy or Elizabeth represent Pride and which is Prejudice?" and of course "In what ways are they brought down a peg?". You'll finally be faced with the idea that for a women during that time the only way she really has of finding financial security is through marrying. Thus, much of the time women are running after coat tails hoping and begging for a male to take care of them. They often have no other choice. That is why Elizabeth's friend ends up marrying someone...so distasteful. She's a spinster and her outlook is grim. But of course, Pride and Prejudice is not everybody's idea of an interesting read. I'll read just about anything ravenously because I'm that sort of person.

Emma on the other hand I really truely despise. At least with Pride and Prejudice some of the characters learn something by the end. In Emma the main character is weak and continues on weak until the last chapter. For that one reason she is hateable.

Edit: Just watch this version and you'll be fine. It is the most faithful adaptation and generally speaking the most beloved of the Jane Austen Pride and Prejudice devotees.

 

[Cavallier]

Pride and Prejudice is chick fiction, or to be more accurate old lady fiction, I wouldn't say it's good or bad, just that it's written for a completely different audience than yourself, y'know it's basically a soap opera, and if judged on those terms I'm sure it's one of the best literary soap operas out there.

Not that I'm going to read it.

I've done essays on To Kill a Mocking Bird, that wasn't so bad, but it still isn't the sort of book I'd read unless I had to.

To be fair it were not for it's sarcastic look at social mores it would very much be the "Chick Lit" of it's time.

 

[Duxwing]

To be fair it were not for it's sarcastic look at social morays it would very much be the "Chick Lit" of it's time.

I think that you mean "mores"; social morays would be the following, but with a tuxedo and cocktail.

-Duxwing

 

[Cavallier]

Fixed.

A song I wrote to the tune of That's Amore:

When you swim in a creek
and an eel bites your cheek
That's a Moray!!!!!!

 

[Duxwing]

Fixed.

A song I wrote to the tune of That's Amore:

When you swim in a creek
and an eel bites your cheek
That's a Moray!!!!!!

*Gazes through the walking throngs and out into the glowing windows of Venice's bars and shops as Cavallier pushes the gondola along. A bottle of sparkling cider fills the well-worn seat beside him, and upon his back there is neither pleated shirt nor silky jacket, only a running sweatshirt as grey as a rain-filled sky. He takes a swig from the bottle and sets it down, wiping his lips with the top of his fist.

*As the two pass a ballroom bearing the title "Antonio," he breaks out into song*

The girl, she left me in Paris.
The girl, she left me in Spain.
The girl, she left me in London.
And now, she has left me again.

How I miss those soft rolling breakers
Beneath sun shining bright.
How I miss the sound of the mainsail
Rising up 'neath the stars of the night.

The girl, she left me in Paris.
The girl, she left me in Spain.
The girl, she left me in London.
And now, she has left me again.

Oh why did I ever leave England
To take this long trip on the sea?
Oh why did I dare trust my captain
When he spoke of long days proud and free?

The girl, she left me in Paris.
The girl, she left me in Spain.
The girl, she left me in London.
And now, she has left me again.

Though I know I will never come back here
My heart knows no end to this pain.
For whether it's Venice or London,
The girl will leave me again.

-Duxwing

 

[crippli]

SpaceYeti's logic was not, as you claim, "Old, therefore bad"; instead, it was "Old fiction, therefore designed to be long, therefore full of text unrelated to the themes, therefore bad".

You're kind of ignoring the point I was actually making and replacing it with a straw man. As Dux pointed out, I was speaking of old fiction specifically, the kind written by the people who were getting paid for making each work as long as they could. Further, Plato's writings of Socrates do tend to be more wordy than they need to be, though I don't think Plato was paid by the word.

Thanks guys, for correcting the error. I think I got caught up in the wording. 'Classical literature' and 'Authors back then', 'just old'

Not Romeo and Juliet specifically, more like old fiction sophistry. Many people actually enjoy Romeo and Juliet, and that's fine, but when it comes to intriguing characters and fun plot, it's one of Shake's worst plays, written decades before Shake's other classics. It's also used in high school literature classes instead of the more interesting plays, for whatever reason. The same environment which, at least when I was there, encouraged you to write a number of pages, not make a number of points in a convincing manner.

Oh, kay. That clears it up. I thought you meant all classical literature. I'm still mulling over your logic and point as Duxwing worded it above. There is still the artist pride. What you suggest is that all of them let themselves be corrupted by money. But i'll leave it at that, as I haven't studied these works enough to make up an opinion as to if you are correct or not on your point. But certainly, money does corrupt. But I had hoped artists would be more immune, and that these literate works where as they are for other reasons. Like as pointed out earlier, for the narrative wit.

 

[defghi]

I'm late to the party, but what?!?! Jane Austen hate? I didn't even know such a thing was possible. I cannot be otherwise than entertained when reading irony, and so am always entertained when reading Austen.

P&P was the first Austen book I read, and I loved it immediately. The initial irony of "a single man in possession of a large fortune must be in want of a wife" compared with the desperation of Mrs. Bennet to marry her daughters (in fact, a single daughter in possession of no fortune must be in want of a husband), and then the sarcastic way in which Mr. Bennet makes fun of his wife, drew me in right away. I was attracted to Elizabeth by her teasing playfulness, thought Darcy was very relatable, and so I loved watching their interactions as their relationship progressed.

This relates to most other old/19th century literature as well, but I like being able to see through a window into an entirely different world. There is so much for me to learn from their social customs, propriety, and manners. The dialogue is a lot of what I like so much about Austen- the characters (at least the ones we are supposed to like) are so incredibly well-spoken, I can't even come close to matching them even while writing, let alone while speaking on the fly.

I would love to have Pride and Prejudice for a school assignment, so maybe my perspective will make it more enjoyable for you (if I'm not entirely too late). If you ever need to find anything to discuss or write about this book, irony should be an endless source.

 

[Duxwing]

I'm late to the party, but what?!?! Jane Austen hate? I didn't even know such a thing was possible. I cannot be otherwise than entertained when reading irony, and so am always entertained when reading Austen.

P&P was the first Austen book I read, and I loved it immediately. The initial irony of "a single man in possession of a large fortune must be in want of a wife" compared with the desperation of Mrs. Bennet to marry her daughters (in fact, a single daughter in possession of no fortune must be in want of a husband), and then the sarcastic way in which Mr. Bennet makes fun of his wife, drew me in right away. I was attracted to Elizabeth by her teasing playfulness, thought Darcy was very relatable, and so I loved watching their interactions as their relationship progressed.

This relates to most other old/19th century literature as well, but I like being able to see through a window into an entirely different world. There is so much for me to learn from their social customs, propriety, and manners. The dialogue is a lot of what I like so much about Austen- the characters (at least the ones we are supposed to like) are so incredibly well-spoken, I can't even come close to matching them even while writing, let alone while speaking on the fly.

I would love to have Pride and Prejudice for a school assignment, so maybe my perspective will make it more enjoyable for you (if I'm not entirely too late). If you ever need to find anything to discuss or write about this book, irony should be an endless source.

Yes, I've later realized that P&P is essentially a study in dirtbag-ology; an examination of the failings and foibles of Regency England. As such, I can enjoy it, but its crushingly despairing view is tiresome-- even with Lizzy and Darcy's romance. I'm frankly just not interested in watching horrendous Darwinistic social games play out as anything other than a cautionary tale.

-Duxwing

 

[walfin]

Oh I liked the book!

But I did find it a bit unfair that the male protagonist is always rich.

And the ones with no money are always not very good (like the army lieutenant guy who married Elizabeth's younger sister).

I did wonder why it was so difficult to purchase a property though, that somebody could possibly want to enjoy his money and leave it to the next generation to purchase (Elizabeth's other younger sister's suitor, whose name I have forgotten).

I'd like to watch Bride and Prejudice too (if I have got the time).

 

[Rocco]

Provided without comment:

 

[Duxwing]

Hahaha!

-Duxwing

 

[MrsGberg]

I love Jane Austen, and love "Pride and Prejudice." Ms. Austen has a quick and cutting humor and is not afraid to criticize her society's mannerisms and mind sets. One of my favorite quotes comes from this book - "Some comments are not worth the compliment of an argument." How can you not love that?