Austen, Jane - Pride and Prejudice
Sep. 28th, 2007 11:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chomijiI had meant to read this for some time now, because I enjoy the various "fantasy of manners" books that have come out in the past decade or so, such as Ellen Kushner's Swordspoint and Patricia Wrede and Caroline Stervermer's Sorcery and Cecelia. I felt I should read the acknowledged inspiration for these. I have to say that it was an uphill struggle for me. The early 19th-century writing style - where much is "told" rather than "shown" - didn't give me much pleasure, but I was actually somewhat prepared for it because Susanna Clarke did such an effective pastiche of it in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. However, the fact that the story is completely dependent on a series of misunderstandings drove me crazy. I kept wanting to reach into the book, grab the chief protagonists forcefully by their shoulders, and shake sense into them: "Just talk to each other, already!"
Elizabeth Bennett, the lively and intelligent second daughter of a bookish squire with a rather revolting, materialistic wife, meets the wealthy Mr. Darcy at a ball and quickly dismisses him as arrogant and unfeeling. During the course of a great many events and mishaps surrounding the social lives of Elizabeth and her four sisters - sweet eldest sister Jane, would-be bluestocking Mary, colorless and empty-headed Kitty, and spoiled, impulsive "baby" Lydia - she begins to discover that her first impressions are wrong, and realizes that she has made a terrible mistake in her original judgment. Meanwhile, Mr. Darcy, who has dismissed Elizabeth because of her vulgar relatives, begins to realize that she's a worthy person despite her unfortunate connections. The resolution of the situation between the two is the heart of the story.
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen - review
It's true that Austen's writing can be drily witty. Awful Mrs. Bennett seems to inspire her humor the most: she's a money-grubbing harridan whose main determination of suitability in suitors for her five daughters is annual income, and at one point she's pleased to be able to offer Elizabeth up to a smarmy clergyman cousin. (Elizabeth is, thank goodness, spirited enough to turn him down - and her father, despite his general hands-off attitude toward his wife's machinations, backs her up.) Darcy's officious rich aunt Lady Catherine is another favorite target: Austen's mockingly bland and respectful descriptions of this woman's antics were among my favorite parts of the book.
But in general, I found that the dense writing obscured a lot of the force of the events of the story. A really good example is the section near the end in which, I suppose, Darcy finally proposes and Elizabeth finally accepts. I have to say "I suppose," because there's just an amazing amount of obfuscation in the passages there. What should have been a really dramatic moment is hidden completely hidden in a tangle of words.
I know that many, many people really love this book, and I feel churlish and ignoble in my lack of appreciation for it. But it really is not to my taste.
(Wikipedia informs me that Mr. Darcy's first name is Fitzwilliam. I guess that's why no one ever calls him by it ... .)
no subject
Date: 2007-09-29 01:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-29 01:21 pm (UTC)It's better on re-reading, for me. I was able to get better used to the style and see the drama communicated better because of it. Maybe in a few years pick it up again--but definitely check out Persuasion, and Sense and Sensibility. I've never been able to re-read Emma, because I get a few chapters in and just want to slap the girl. But others like it very much.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-29 01:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-30 03:21 am (UTC)I need to go back and re-read that one as well, to see whether recent exposure to the language helps.
What's really funny is that the Young Lady is flipping back and forth in what she tells me about P&P ... . I was impressed that she grabbed it to read, and at first she told me she liked it. Then, when she was assigned to read and report on "anything by a female author" for her personal choice book-of-the-month in English, and I suggested that, she said she didn't like it. Then, when it came up at supper tonight, and I said I didn't enjoy it much, she said "Oh! But I liked Pride and Prejudice!"
XD
Slow down, kid - you're confusing me!
no subject
Date: 2007-09-30 03:27 am (UTC)Yes, the things I've heard about the main character in Emma make me sure it's a no-go for me.
Well, even with my negative take on the book, I felt it was more that Elizabeth had got a different view of him upon visiting the house and seeing the aesthetics of it, and talking to the housekeeper. I was taken with the comment about "what is more significant than the praise of an intelligent servant?" (or however it was put). But what a young cynic you were! XD
I read Persuasion when I was on vacation as well - I'll have to take another pass through it.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-30 03:35 am (UTC)See, I know what you're saying. It was a different world back then, and I understand that this is giving us a view into it. And I can respect that, and if I was writing a scholarly paper, I would take that into account.
But I am writing this up as to how it affected me - a 21st century middle-aged geek person who has too much on her plate and reads for escape and fun. And it didn't do a lot for me, in that respect. I couldn't even immerse myself in that world via Austen's writing - I'd need a somewhat different writing style and a different viewpoint character to do that.
BTW, I admire your argument there - that last sentence is a real zinger.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-30 04:19 am (UTC)(I find it amusing that I'm defending Austen here; I'm really not that much of a fan, heh. I find her overly bitter and actually fairly heartless in her criticism of people in general. There's no warmth in her sarcasm for me.)
Also--haha, thank you. I try :)
no subject
Date: 2007-09-30 04:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-01 02:35 am (UTC)Weli, no, it's not her job, poor thing - but it's not my job to like the works all the famous authors of English Lit either ... . I was just saying what type of approach might work better with me if the idea was to get me immersed in that period of history.
As a matter of fact, I love the "thought experiment" of trying to explain things in the current era to someone from a given historical era (with, one would hope, more success than Cyril and Anthea had at explaining Victorian London to the Queen of Babylon, or Eliza and Ann had at explaining mid-20th-century America to Elizabeth I ... ).
(Likewise, I'm on the other side of the fence from my usual argument - I'm the one who gets annoyed that people can't realize that the mindset was not the same as it is now during eras past ... my favorite example was the folks on an RPG forum who were insisting that no one can kill lots of people without trauma unless he is a psychopath - even in the context of a war ... .)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-01 02:38 am (UTC)Emma was the idol of a college roommate of mine, a girl who was nicknamed "Space" for a reason. If I had realized the implications more thoroughly, I would never have said to her "someone ought to tell so-and-so that she really can't draw ... ." And that was neither the first nor the last time that she tried to interfere helpfully in other people's relationships.
So don't worry, I have no intention of reading Emma ... .
no subject
Date: 2007-10-01 03:32 am (UTC)Aw man, I know. I would time travel just for the chance to have a real go at that, I would.
(Oof.)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-01 03:33 am (UTC)