Decir que me ha encantado, es poco! Me ha requeteencantado!!! Sobre todo, y supongo que soy muy rara, por el señor Bennett: su ironía me ha conquistado jajaja... (Con permiso de Darcy, claro :))

Jesus Christ, just have sex.

I finally did it!!!! And I loved it!!!!

I heartily enjoy period romance. Jane Austen's particular style of writing, however, leaves me a bit cold.

It's a rule that writers are supposed to write what they know. If Austen stayed true to that rule, I really feel bad for her. Because she must have known nothing but shallow, self-absorbed, slightly idiotic people.

While the sisters Bronte were capable of creating characters that even today's reader can identify with (complete with passion and realistic, heart-warming flaws), Austen's characters are devoid of any depth whatsoever. They all just seem to be flitting through life with one goal in mind; for the men, finding a woman who's easy on the eyes, and for the women, finding a man who's heavy on the bank.

Now, I'll concede that Austen was technically a good writer, but that doesn't mean her stories were interesting, engrossing, or even slightly entertaining. In fact, I found that I had to force myself to finish Pride and Prejudice, and was fueled mostly by a deep resentment and anger for having even started it in the first place. "If this is how it begins", I thought to myself, "How pissed am I going to be by the end?"

The answer? Pretty pissed.

I made the mistake of reading this book after watching the 2005 movie version starring Keira Knightley. Big mistake. While the movie was sigh-inducing with its romance, the book reads like a 19th century woman's guide to bagging a rich husband. The final scene, where Darcy finally proposes to Elizabeth, was something I was looking forward to with cautious trepidation, cautious trepidation that ended up being well-founded; two people bartering over a used car would have been more romantic.

I loved this so much more than I thought I would! Can’t believe it’s taken me this long to finally get to it, but now that I have it’s time to watch alllll the adaptations mwahaha

Mr. Darcy...
*swoons*



First, we need to clear something up. Colin Firth is the only Mr. Darcy.
That other Mr. Darcy was horrible! No, no, no, no, nooooo!
Make it stop. Make. It. Stop.



So, quite obviously, the BBC miniseries (in all its 327 minute glory) is the only version that is acceptable. The other movie was such a travesty to this book, that I wept big, fat, angry tears...like the spoiled brat that I am.
Or maybe I'm exaggerating slightly.
What were they thinking?! You don't mess with perfection!
What did you think, Elizabeth?



Exactly.

I'm kidding. Sort of.

Anyway, instead of reading it this time around, I listened to an audiobook version. Apparently, which audio version you listen to makes a difference.
My real-life BFF said her version had an American n  doing British accentsn and she found it terribly annoying. I, however, had a version with an actual lady from the land of tea 'n crumpets, and she did a fine job. Well, she did have this lounge singerish voice, so instead of sounding like a fresh-faced 20 year old, Elizabeth sounded like she had been smoking 3 packs a day for about 40 years.
Eh, I was ok with it. I kept imagining Lizzie with a cigarette dangling from her lips like a truck stop hooker, and it gave the story a fresh perspective.



I've read this so many times over the years that I've lost count, but I still wish I could go back and read it for the first time all over again.
I hated that stupid, arrogant, arse-faced Mr. Darcy when he first showed up at the ball. Ugh. What a prick!
So, just like Lizzie, I remember being shocked at his proposal. And just like Lizzie, I was horrified by the way he dissed her family while he did it!
And how could he think she would ever agree to marry him after the way he convinced Bingley that Jane didn't love him?!
And the way he treated poor Wickham!
Just who did this guy think he was!



But then...The Letter!
Oh, my! Well, that certainly put a different spin on things didn't it?!
Elizabeth & I were so ashamed that we had judged him so harshly.
*hangs head*
And the way he acted toward us when we met near the lake!
So kind...such a gentleman!



Ok, I've probably read that particular scene (at Pemberley) a million times. Sometimes, I would just pick up and start the book from there.
Total comfort food.
It's just...ahhhhhhhhhhh.

Of course, Lydia has to go and ruin everything! How could she be such a stupid, selfish, uncaring twat!? Grrrrrrr!
*strangle, strangle, strangle*



How will Darcy and I...I mean, Darcy and Elizabeth...manage to get their Happily Ever After?
Feelings! Oh, the feelings!



So. Yes, I'm unashamed to admit that I am that cliché of a woman who loves Pride and Prejudice. Unashamed!
I just...{insert fangirl screaming and crying}
*Throws panties at Mr. Darcy*

Where my massive crush on Jane Austen began: alone, on a hot day in Montana, cursing her name.

I had to read it for AP English and I could not see the point. Girls need to marry. Girls can't get married. Girls are sad. Girls get married. Girls are happy.

I went to school to half heartedly discuss it and waffled and wavered in an effort to please my teacher. Finally she said: "was it good or not, Ben?"

"No it wasn't."

"Thank you...now read this twenty pages of literary criticism for homework."

Twenty pages of literary criticism later, I was hooked. Once you know what to look for, it's hilarious. Once you're keyed into the contextual life of women, you have to feel for the plight of the Bennet sisters, and laugh at the crudity of their mother and Mr. Collins.

So yes: I'm a guy and I love Jane Austen. You got a problem with that? Huh? Huh? Do you? Huh??? Well if you do, I'll be over here nursing my dorkiness just waiting for a fight for the honor of my beloved Jane.

Pulls me in every time, regardless of how wordy it is. I need to read more Austen now, and obvs watch every adaptation of every of her novels.
______
Finished my post-election therapeutic P&P binge.

I re-watched this:


and this:


and even this:


and then listened to this:


And yet, I am still not sufficiently comforted. What to do?

jane austen, i fucking love you.

Revived review to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the death of Jane Austen. Go Jane - like a cute little tortoise you have outlasted all of those bustling hares.

****


It is a truth which I would like to see universally acknowledged, that no one voluntarily reads any 19th century novels unless they are by Jane Austen. I fear that modern readers think all these Radcliffes, Disraelis, Eliots, Gissings and so forth tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt them, or even, that they are most disagreeable, horrid books, not at all worth reading. They look at them without admiration at the library. They tell me they are all too long, but for my own part, if a book is well written, I always find it too short. But it is particularly incumbent on those who never change their opinion, to be secure of judging properly at first, lest it be considered prejudice. Such perseverance in wilful self-deception! In vain I have struggled to tell them about Thackeray, Dickens and Bennett. It will not do. Somewhere they have formed the groundwork of disapprobation on which succeeding events have built so immovable a dislike; and I firmly believe that Moby Dick is the last book in the world that they could ever be prevailed on to read. The modern reader is so well disposed towards those who are in interesting situations, that a young person, who is either a vampire, or a zombie, is sure of being kindly spoken of. Well, well. One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other. My idea of good company is the company of clever, well-informed dead people who have a great deal of conversation; that is what I call good company. Laugh as much as you choose, but you will not laugh me out of my opinion.

18 chapters in... I want that to sink in for a moment... ok. 18 chapters in and NOTHING has happened. I am enjoying her writing style very much, but I also enjoy the back of an occasional cereal box so that may not mean much. We will see.
I am sitting here eating a tootsie roll, a Halloween left over, and I can't help notice the similarities between it and the novel Pride and Prejudice. First off, like P and P, the tootsie roll wasn't one of those dinky ones that you can almost swallow in a single bite so you know that I've been at this for a while and now that I finally got it down, I have to wonder why I put it into mouth to begin with. Secondly, tootsie rolls are a throwback to another age, there are far better candies out there and the 36 wrappers littering the floor will attest to this. You have to really like tootsie rolls to appreciate them. I don't.
Pride and Prejudice is the dullest most wonderfully written book that I have ever read. I read it simply to get a feel for the author's fantastic ability at arranging words, and really I mean it when I say, oh what wonderful blather.
I give the book one star.
After 62 chapters, there is nothing that happens. There is barely a story to the story, at least not one that could be remotely interesting...even to people who like romance. In the age of bodices, there is nary a one that is ripped open, let alone one that is undone with the gentle exploring fingers of a lover.
And then there is the hubbub over the book...Satirical? A witty comedy of manners? Sure, I smiled a few times at the only funny character in the book, Mr. Bennett, but overall, I read, studied the sentence structure, noticed the wall paper and waited patiently as the paint dried. Even the dramatic ending where Lizzy gets the guy, is a letdown and dull. Just to let you know, I was joking about it being in any way dramatic. Which brings me to the characters. Other than Lizzy, they are all stereotypical and lack even the most remote concept of depth. Jane is pretty and sweet from the first page to the last. The mom is overbearing, the dad aloof. Other than Darcy, no one grows or changes in a book that spans a few years and endless pages.
Normally, I use one star for books that I just can't finish and if I wasn't an aspiring author, I wouldn't have bothered to get through half the book, but since I did... and when I compare it to yawner like A Tale of Two Cities, I had to bump this one up a notch.
PS, Don't read Moby Dick either, if you know what's good for you.

The first time I came across this book was in high school. My mom, a humanities teacher, had a bookshelf filled with various literary novels, but I only took a liking to books by n  George Orwelln and n  Haruki Murakamin - those that I can't even understand, as a teenager. I was not particularly interested in classics like n  Jane Austenn’s works. Occasionally, I'd pick one up, but the intricate lives of the women waiting for marriage in her stories never held my attention.

But frankly speaking, Jane Austen really excelled in writing about women. In that era of feudal thought and oppression, she sought to use her words to rebel and to take control of her own destiny. For women, love and marriage were lifelong concerns, and she used these as tools of resistance. The prevailing view on marriage at the time was centered on money and social standing. Yet, Austen, who herself remained unmarried, did not subscribe to this notion. The concept of marriage in this novel, Pride and Prejudice is subtly built upon the foundation of love.

Austen set clear standards for the quality of a marriage. Unhappy marriages typically fell into 2 categories: 1 like Charlotte and Mr. Collins's marriage, based on economic necessity; the other like Lydia and Wickham's, based purely on physical attraction and lust.

Charlotte was Elizabeth's close friend but accepted Mr. Collins's proposal after Elizabeth had refused him. She was an old maid with little fortune, and marriage was her only goal. She believed, ”Marriage might not make you happy, but it is a convenient safety net for women to ensure they don't starve or freeze, and she didn’t care much about the man or the marriage itself." Charlotte represented the mindset of many single women of her time. Many critique her marriage as being based solely on economics, but I always saw Charlotte as a victim of her era, making a choice due to her limited circumstances (lack of beauty, talent, or wealth). Charlotte's choice was another form of resistance: she didn’t want to remain at her father’s and brother’s mercy and die alone; she sought a lifelong reliable meal ticket.

Lydia’s actions, on the other hand, depict the creation of a problematic young woman. Lydia’s flirtatiousness, promiscuity, vanity, and selfishness are traits detested by everyone. Lydia embodies the societal tendencies of her time - a woman eager to marry a handsome and respectable man, enamored with soldiers, and finally eloping with Wickham. After being rescued and married off by Darcy, she feels neither regret nor shame.

Treasure the person willing to change for you.

In contrast, the marriage of Elizabeth and Darcy, and Jane and Bingley, were based on love. They loved and tolerated each other.

First impressions are just unreliable, and prejudice is more terrifying than ignorance. Elizabeth formed a prejudice against Darcy due to his initial aloofness and later, after listening to malicious gossip, swore she would never marry him. Yet, Darcy gradually recognized the charm hidden within Elizabeth’s seemingly plain appearance.

Truly, after resolving their misunderstandings and prejudices, both characters changed. They altered themselves for each other, and the flaws in their personalities were gradually eradicated through the deepening of their feelings. This foundation in mutual transformation makes their relationship more robust. Elizabeth clearly reflects Austen’s own shadow, her fantasy of an ideal life. She transformed her ideals into Elizabeth and achieved happiness; however, faced with the harsh realities of her time, she remained unmarried.

I have always considered Austen’s lifelong single status somewhat tragic. She sought to handle emotions with reason, believing, "Never marry without love." But as an idealist, she preferred to hope for true love rather than marry without it. This stubborn woman, while not succumbing to reality’s harshness, also retained a touch of romanticism.

Undoubtedly, the issue of balancing economics and love in marriage, as highlighted in Austen’s novels, is still relevant today. People wish to base their relationships on a stable economic foundation. With financial security comes the strength to pursue love. It’s important to note that Austen’s characters were all middle - class, not lower - class; they had certain incomes, statuses, and knowledge. If not, how could they afford servants and so much "imposed leisure"? Without considering this background, discussions about money and love only represent a subset of society. What about those at the bottom, with no hope? How would they choose between money and love?

Ideally, having both love and financial security is perfect, just like Elizabeth and Darcy. However, not every Elizabeth will be fortunate enough to meet a Darcy in today’s world.

I can't definitively say how one should choose between money and love. Choices should be made based on certain conditions. Just like multiple - choice questions in exams, you can only choose from the given options, which is the condition of the choice.

3.8 / 5 stars