Will I have to give up my literary girl status if I admit

[Hyacinth]

that I am not liking Pride and Prejudice?

 

I'm on chapter 16. Blech.

[katilac]

No, but every time someone posts about not liking Pride and Prejudice, a kitten dies. 

[lavender's green]

I love it.  But I'll admit that I found it dry until I watched a good film version (the BBC version is most true to the book and characters, IMO).  That made it come to life and now the book is one of my favorites. 

 

Since then I've heard several people say that Austen would have been a screenwriter if she were alive today, meaning that to some extent you have to fill in some gaps yourself.  I find it really hard to read plays unless I've seen the play.  I just don't get how the emotion is supposed to be, how lively or serious the conversation is, or what the setting looks like, etc.  That's how I felt reading P&P for the first time too.

 

But in any case, P&P isn't everyone's cup of tea and that's okay. :)

[indigomama]

Yes.

[Mergath]

I love it.  But I'll admit that I found it dry until I watched a good film version (the BBC version is most true to the book and characters, IMO).  That made it come to life and now the book is one of my favorites. 

 

:iagree:  Some books are enhanced by watching a good screen version, and some are totally ruined.  P&P is definitely made better by seeing a good movie adaptation, imho, though I'm sure plenty of people will disagree.

[BrookValley.]

I'm not a fan, either.

[EmilyGF]

I couldn't read Emma, P&P, or Wives and Daughters until watching adaptations of them. (Though, admittedly, the adaptation of Emma that helped me was Clueless.)

 

Emily

[FaithManor]

You are okay. I will not kick you out of the group. However, if you admit to LIKING Moby Dick, I may have to view you with suspicion! :D

[Mrs Mungo]

Austen's books are character studies. How do people change? Why do they change? What should we look for in a marriage partner? In a friend? How can we be a good sister? How should we make decisions? How much influence should our families have in our decisions? What should we do when we make grave mistakes and hurt the ones that we love? Yes, they are deeper and require more reflection than your typical modern novel. Modern novels tend to slap the reader upside the head with the point. Austen requires a bit more from the reader.

[Mrs Mungo]

You are okay. I will not kick you out of the group. However, if you admit to LIKING Moby Dick, I may have to view you with suspicion! :D

The only people I find suspicious are people who claim Joyce's Ulysses as their favorite book. I just can't believe any of those people actually read it.

[Ailaena]

I didn't care for it either.

 

I might give Pride, Prejudice, and Zombies a try.

 

 

The zombies made it slightly more readable ;)

:leaving:

[Seasider]

I do agree Austen would be a fantastic screenwriter. P & P is really a much more satisfying read if you can really get the delivery, the wit, the irony... I think that takes a few readings.

[Outdoorsy Type]

I agree that they benefit from watching the movie first. I hated S&S the first time I tried to read through it, so didn't read Jane Austen for years. Then, I watched the movie P&P and fell in love with the book. After I had read one, I went on to read all the other books and really liked them. Persuasion is my favorite, Northanger Abbey is my least favorite, and all the others fall in the middle.

[Emma S]

I don't enjoy reading Jane Austen, but I do like watching the adaptations of her books. Sense and Sensibility with Alan Rickman being one of my favourites ;) ...I do however love the Brontes. I've often found that people much prefer one over the other.

[OhanaBee]

I don't enjoy reading Jane Austen, but I do like watching the adaptations of her books. Sense and Sensibility with Alan Rickman being one of my favourites ;) ...I do however love the Brontes. I've often found that people much prefer one over the other.

 

LOL, that's been my observation too!  One of my good friends hates P&P but loves Jane Eyre.  I can't stand "Jane" and actually threw the book across the room at one point [i think Rochester needed a good therapist].

 

I do agree with all those who think watching an adaptation of  Austen's books is a big help.

[Word Nerd]

I loved it and enjoy Austen's wit. I admit that when I hear people say they don't like her writing, my first thought is that they don't get dry humor. (That may or may not be true, but that's always my suspicion.) You only have to turn in your literary card if you spell Jane's name Austin. ;)

[elegantlion]

You are okay. I will not kick you out of the group. However, if you admit to LIKING Moby Dick, I may have to view you with suspicion! :D

 

I am not a fan of Austen, but I very much enjoyed Moby Dick. Ds and I just finished it. It could have been about 70 chapters shorter, but I loved the humor. 

 

I think I was marred forever by Austen by reading Witch of Blackbird Pond right before Pride and Prejudice. I didn't care about Regency girls and marrying well and learning rules of society, blah! I found Sense and Sensibility to be more palatable, yet still not a fan. 

[MtnMama]

Yes. Sorry. Jane rules!

[OhanaBee]

I am not a fan of Austen, but I very much enjoyed Moby Dick. Ds and I just finished it. It could have been about 70 chapters shorter, but I loved the humor. 

 

I think I was marred forever by Austen by reading Witch of Blackbird Pond right before Pride and Prejudice. I didn't care about Regency girls and marrying well and learning rules of society, blah! I found Sense and Sensibility to be more palatable, yet still not a fan. 

 

There was HUMOUR in Moby Dick?????  Oh I have such a bone to pick with my American Lit teacher, now!

 

My favorite part of that horrid book was the end.

 

 

SPOILER ALERT

 

 

 

 

 

***

 

I was rooting for the whale the whole time. :thumbup1:

 

[Heather in Neverland]

I didn't love it the first time I read it but the second time I read it, I really liked it!

[Seasider]

I am not a fan of Austen, but I very much enjoyed Moby Dick. Ds and I just finished it. It could have been about 70 chapters shorter, but I loved the humor.

 

I think I was marred forever by Austen by reading Witch of Blackbird Pond right before Pride and Prejudice. I didn't care about Regency girls and marrying well and learning rules of society, blah! I found Sense and Sensibility to be more palatable, yet still not a fan.

I was surprised to find myself laughing aloud at parts of MD! Glad to know it wasn't just me.

[shanvan]

I do agree Austen would be a fantastic screenwriter. P & P is really a much more satisfying read if you can really get the delivery, the wit, the irony... I think that takes a few readings.

I can see your point.  I didn't realize how insanely funny Mr. Bennett was until a professor read a page out loud.  In later years, after another reading, I no longer thought he was so funny as I realized what it would be like to have a marriage like Mr. & Mrs. Bennett.

[Catwoman]

Not for anything, but I believe it is entirely possible to understand Austen's work and "get" her characters, her wit, and her humor, and still not particularly enjoy reading her books.

 

I don't think disliking Jane Austen's work is any indication that a person lacks good taste in literature. Different people like different things.

[Angie in VA]

The book is usually better, but why read it when you can look at Colin Firth for 5+ hours?

[Lori D.]

I have to say, P&P is the rare instance in which I liked a movie version MORE than the book…

 

The book really was such a let-down. It broke the #1 rule of what makes a well-written book: "show, don't tell" -- sadly, so much of P&P is all second-hand explanations of what was said or done -- telling *rather than* showing. It felt like I was reading an outline for what would someday be fleshed out into a well-written novel. I wonder if that was the writing style of the moment -- much of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, written in the similar timeframe, reads like Austen -- just with a huge dollop of "travelogue-itis" (lol). (Yes, I know, that's an aspect of the Romanticism going on in Shelley. :) )

 

I know Mrs. Mungo just gave the literary reasons why Austen's works are considered classics. But… I don't really see it. Don't get me wrong -- they are fun as they poke at character and conventions. I've read P&P, Mansfield Park, and Northanger Abbey. They all have good parts, but they just are not *consistent* in the writing. When compared with the solid character study and subtle power of the Brontes (Wuthering Heights especially, but also, Jane Eyre), I can't help but say that Jane Austen needed a good editor to help her polish up.

 

But it's okay; I own 4 different movie versions of P&P, and enjoy them regularly. ;)

[eternalsummer]

I loved Jane Eyre and was terminally bored by Austen. The prose is fine; it's good in small doses.  Otherwise, no.

 

eta: and I'm pretty well read and have an English degree.  I also don't believe 95% of people who say Ulysses is their favorite book; they haven't read it.

[JeneralMom]

I love Austen and admit that I like several film adaptations just as much as the books. I also love Jane Eyre, but would rather have my fingernails ripped out than read and/or watch Wuthering Heights again.

[Mrs Mungo]

Maybe it is more of a split between the Elinors and Mariannes of the world, lol. I like Jane Eyre to some degree, but Wuthering Heights is almost silly-it is practically the Twilight of its time. I don't like brooding, smoldering or games, none of those things impress me. Tell me what you think; be nice to my insane family; provide some stability to my life; tell me you love my reading and independent spirit, not that you love me in spite of those things; forgive me when I have done you a grave wrong that I thought was right at the time-those things impress me.

[Emma S]

I love Wuthering Heights! So much so that rather a long time ago I dragged (my then) boyfriend off to Haworth for the day, and wandered about (got lost) on the moors. There were lots of sheep from what I remember. We did eventually find the Bronte waterfalls though. I'd love to go back now. Part of my thesis at university was on Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre :) .

 

Edited to add my youngest dds middle name is Emily. My dh did not like the name (hence my oldest dd does not have the it), but my perseverance worked in the end! 

[musicianmom]

I think JA's writing in Emma is much better than P&P.

[LatteMama]

I could never get into Austen.  She was so boring.  But enough years have gone by and I'm old and boring, so maybe I'll actually like it now.

 

Austen's books are character studies. How do people change? Why do they change? What should we look for in a marriage partner? In a friend? How can we be a good sister? How should we make decisions? How much influence should our families have in our decisions? What should we do when we make grave mistakes and hurt the ones that we love? Yes, they are deeper and require more reflection than your typical modern novel. Modern novels tend to slap the reader upside the head with the point. Austen requires a bit more from the reader.

 

Nope.  I've read lots of classics.  I almost exclusively read classics throughout my teen years, so I know how to read a book that is a little bit deep.  But Austen is just such a snore-fest! 

I have to say, P&P is the rare instance in which I liked a movie version MORE than the book…

 

The book really was such a let-down. It broke the #1 rule of what makes a well-written book: "show, don't tell" -- sadly, so much of P&P is all second-hand explanations of what was said or done -- telling *rather than* showing. It felt like I was reading an outline for what would someday be fleshed out into a well-written novel. I wonder if that was the writing style of the moment -- much of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, written in the similar timeframe, reads like Austen -- just with a huge dollop of "travelogue-itis" (lol). (Yes, I know, that's an aspect of the Romanticism going on in Shelley. :) )

 

I know Mrs. Mungo just gave the literary reasons why Austen's works are considered classics. But… I don't really see it. Don't get me wrong -- they are fun as they poke at character and conventions. I've read P&P, Mansfield Park, and Northanger Abbey. They all have good parts, but they just are not *consistent* in the writing. When compared with the solid character study and subtle power of the Brontes (Wuthering Heights especially, but also, Jane Eyre), I can't help but say that Jane Austen needed a good editor to help her polish up.

 

:iagree:

 

The book is usually better, but why read it when you can look at Colin Firth for 5+ hours?

 

Yes!

 

[Word Nerd]

Really funny photo deleted. Sigh.

[Miss Mousie]

Literary girl status:  intact.

 

Poetic License:  suspended.

 

;)

 

 

I think everyone should get a "free pass" or two to not like some classic.  So many books, so little time.

[Beth S]

I am not a pushy, arguing Austen fan.  Honestly.  But maybe this (newest) modern adaption can catch you.  It's geared toward the YA market, but I felt like the character development was heightened and makes you think about Life Issues And Decisions As Subtly Illustrated In Pride & Prejudice.  Both this version, and the book, are not intended to be just Chick Flicks.  Really.

 

There are 100 5-minute youtube episodes of this.  And the same creators are currently producing an adaption of Emma, called "Emma Approved".

 

 

 

ETA:  I would rate Lizzie Bennet Diaries PG+, for a few cuss words, about once every 5 episodes. Could be a little much for pre-teens.    Emma Approved is easily rated G.  (And I guess my Avatar gives me away as a P&P fan . . . .)

[Word Nerd]

I've been meaning to watch the Lizzie Bennet Diaries for a while. I think I'll watch it this weekend.

[DawnM]

I read it in high school.  I didn't like it then. I like it a *little* better now.  My 14 year old read it on his own accord and liked it.......sigh.

[HS Mom in NC]

Not every classic and/or author is for every literary girl. Keep your card.

[Word Nerd]

I would like to see a scene involving Mrs. Bennet (P&P) and Mr. Woodhouse (Emma). They're both such drama queens! 

[Lori D.]

… Wuthering Heights is almost silly-it is practically the Twilight of its time. I don't like brooding, smoldering or games...

 

I LOVE that you made that connection and brought that up! :) I am now going to sidetrack into my Wuthering Heights cheerleading… ;)

 

 

See, that's exactly what I see everyone THINKING Wuthering Heights is about -- a Twilight-ish type of tragic, undying love.  :ack2:  I think the film versions of WH are to blame for that, as that is a very typical Hollywood theme.

 

Sadly, the film versions of WH twist and avoid the very tough themes that Bronte wrote into her novel: she reveals Cathy/Heathcliffe relationship for the perverse obsession that it IS -- while Hollywood twists it into some sort of "noble suffering", and "love enduring through all eternity" BS.

 

But when you read the book, you see that the Hollywood view is exactly NOT what Bronte is doing; through incredibly strong writing and character development, she's showing the horrible consequences of obsession, brutality, and selfishness. Bronte is expressing the ultimate consequences Romanticism.

 

Romanticism is driven by two major themes:

1. an elevation of nature -- coupled with the use of nature (in literature) to reflect a character's emotional state (i.e., what's happening outwardly in nature / the weather / the landscape reveals the character's inner passions)

2. AND, those emotions are of supreme importance and the authentic source of self -- above reason, logic/truth, moral values, spiritual considerations, etc.

 

In WH, Bronte is showing the horrible, inevitable outcome when the characters of Cathy and Heathcliffe live out Romanticism. Unfortunately, many people miss not only the horror of the consequences of their choice (living based on their emotions destroys not only themselves, but those around them), but people also mistake the Romanticism for "romance/romantic" .

 

Romanticism is the 18th/19th century art, music and literature movement, based on the use of the word roman/romanesque to mean "in praise of nature", and stands in contrast to "classical" (man-made). So, Romanticism the movement (uppercase) is an emphasis on nature and the natural feelings/passions of people. In contrast, romance/romantic is the lowercase noun/adjective meaning "feeling of mystery and excitement, assoc. with love" / "loving, passionate, affectionate".

 

Cathy and Heathcliff may have felt passion or excitement around each other, but it certainly wasn't love or affection -- it was enflamed, destructive, self-focused obsession. Same as in Twilight -- crazy girl with abused emotional mindset is "torn" between the emotionally unavailable dude who won't commit and the animal-instinct brutal/abusing dude.  :ack2:  Blech! To read that as "romantic" is to make the same mistake as misreading Cathy & Heathcliff's relationship as a "tragic, undying love story".

 

 

Okay, end of my rant and passion… (wind and rain now settling down -- LOL!). Hey, and if anyone is up for a really great conversation on the fascinating stuff going on in Jane Eyre, check out this past thread (Jane Eyre and boys) -- CajunClassical really knows her stuff and made that a fascinating read for me! :)

 

Thanks for the opportunity to chat empassionedly! ;) Cheers, Lori D.

 

 

PS --

Just wanted to add, that I do LIKE Austen -- It's just that my first outing with P&P was after SO MUCH build up of how fabulous a writer she is, AND after I'd seen oodles of film and TV versions of all the stories. The book was just… not as good as the hype.

 

I just finished Northanger Abbey, and parts of it are a real hoot. Austen is very sharp witted and funny, and a great commentary on the social interactions and status of women in her time. And in NA, she's even gently poking fun at her heroine. :)  It's just that at times (like the last 2 chapters of NA), where Austen suddenly just starts telling us that "this, this, and this happened" -- an outline of events, rather than actually fleshing out events and characters, and letting us SEE events unfold and characters further develop. It's the same sort of thing that happens to so many modern authors -- the publisher puts the pressure on of a deadline: "we need to publish NOW!", and you get a sequel that is rough and more of an outline, than the wonderful polished first novel where the author had loads of time to perfect it.

 

That's why I think the films of Austen are often so very good -- they condense all her best parts into a strong, cohesive whole. Just my 2 cents worth! :)

[Lori D.]

:smilielol5: Okay, WordNerd, I keep scrolling past the Mrs. Bennet ferret and dying laughing!

[Mom-ninja.]

One shouldn't read P & P without reading it along with Bitch in a Bonnet

[mama27]

:iagree:  Some books are enhanced by watching a good screen version, and some are totally ruined.  P&P is definitely made better by seeing a good movie adaptation, imho, though I'm sure plenty of people will disagree.

 

I agree. And some versions are better than others. Don't watch the one with Kiera Knightly. Blech!

[Mrs Mungo]

See, that's exactly what I see everyone THINKING Wuthering Heights is about -- a Twilight-ish type of tragic, undying love. :ack2: I think the film versions of WH are to blame for that, as that is a very typical Hollywood theme.

 

Sadly, the film versions of WH twist and avoid the very tough themes that Bronte wrote into her novel: she reveals Cathy/Heathcliffe relationship for the perverse obsession that it IS -- while Hollywood twists it into some sort of "noble suffering", and "love enduring through all eternity" BS.

 

But when you read the book, you see that the Hollywood view is exactly NOT what Bronte is doing; through incredibly strong writing and character development, she's showing the horrible consequences of obsession, brutality, and selfishness. Bronte is expressing the ultimate consequences Romanticism.<snip>

 

In WH, Bronte is showing the horrible, inevitable outcome when the characters of Cathy and Heathcliffe live out Romanticism. Unfortunately, many people miss not only the horror of the consequences of their choice (living based on their emotions destroys not only themselves, but those around them), but people also mistake the Romanticism for "romance/romantic" .

<snip>

Cathy and Heathcliff may have felt passion or excitement around each other, but it certainly wasn't love or affection -- it was enflamed, destructive, self-focused obsession. Same as in Twilight -- crazy girl with abused emotional mindset is "torn" between the emotionally unavailable dude who won't commit and the animal-instinct brutal/abusing dude. :ack2: Blech! To read that as "romantic" is to make the same mistake as misreading Cathy & Heathcliff's relationship as a "tragic, undying love story".

I have read the book, MANY times, lol!!

 

The problem with your assertion is that the Brontes and many people who wrote in the Romantic period definitely sympathized and identified with idealized love, obsession, all of that. Yes, it is unhealthy and destructive, but that didn't necessarily make it *bad* to the Romantics.

 

At the end of Frankenstein the ship captain decides to turn around and go home, which I think is framed as a wise decision, but not necessarily the "ultimate" decision, kwim?

[Lori D.]

never mind :( 

 

[Jenny in Florida]

I don't enjoy reading Jane Austen, but I do like watching the adaptations of her books. Sense and Sensibility with Alan Rickman being one of my favourites ;) ...I do however love the Brontes. I've often found that people much prefer one over the other.

 

I'm one of the weirdoes who loves both Austen and (most of the) Bronte novels.

 

[elegantlion]

Just to be silly- for those who haven't seen them. 

 

 

1. Bronte Sisters power dolls 

 

2. Jane Austen Fight Club

 

and as to bid you all goodnight, a dance with Colin Firth

[Jenny in Florida]

Nope.  I've read lots of classics.  I almost exclusively read classics throughout my teen years, so I know how to read a book that is a little bit deep.  But Austen is just such a snore-fest! 

 

Boring? I think much of Austen's writing is laugh-out-loud funny. I actually don't think the novels are especially challenging to read or terribly "deep." They are like literary candy.

[Garga]

I don't enjoy reading Jane Austen, but I do like watching the adaptations of her books. Sense and Sensibility with Alan Rickman being one of my favourites ;) ...I do however love the Brontes. I've often found that people much prefer one over the other.

Gasp! That's me! I finally understand. I am a Bronte Girl! Oh, what a relief. I've wondered why I struggle with Austen but love the Brontes.

[Danestress]

I agree. And some versions are better than others. Don't watch the one with Kiera Knightly. Blech!

she was not the right person to play EB, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I thought this version had some stunningly beautiful moments. I think everyone should watch it. And while I prefer the BBC version, that one took me several attempts. The screaching bennet sister scenes in the beginning were so unpleasant I couldn't deal with it.