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.

So the other day Elizabeth and I are in the book store and she saw this book, and said she really wanted me to read it. In horror at the thought of reading what I thought was a 'chick book', i immediately countered that she would then have to read one of my favorites: Dune. She agreed!

So I read it, and I have to admit, it was good - damn good. Even though there was a serious lack of any gratuitous violence, I tore through it in several days. Austen is an amazing writer, and has a particular talent for explaining her characters deep motivations (or prejudices) in a few defining sentences.

I think my favorite part of it is the unwinding of Elizabeths' prejudices against Mr Darcy. It is done so slowly and artfully and believably that the reader is completely pulled into the story.

It is a definite period piece - here are a few funny observations:
- Nobody in the book had a job - they all earned income from their estates
- Since nobody had jobs they spent all day gossiping
- People were judged not by what they did for a living but what family they were from and how they behaved in society. Completely different from today!
- Dating was much tougher back then. You needed at least 10 dates to get anywhere, and you probably had to marry in order to go all the way.

Jokes aside, this is a classic, and I highly recommend it for any guy or girl.

Reviewing few masterpiece-classics is like undermining them. I was assiduously searching through my pile of treasured-classics to pick up one to re-read. Re-reading helps me to exponentially increase my thirst for books and quench it at the same time (helps me with my vanity, hope not sounding like Mr. Darcy

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

*austened*
*lizzied*
*darcied*

کتاب بدی نبود. من این کتاب رو در دو مرحله خوندم. یه بار خلاصه ی انگلیسیش رو خوندم. بار دوم، با علم به ماجرا و پایان داستان، متن اصلی فارسیش رو خوندم. ارزشش رو داشت به نظرم.

تمام داستان، حول شخصیت دارسی است. مثل داستان گتسبی بزرگ که شخصیت محوری در حقیقت گتسبیه، ولی راوی یک نفر دیگه است. این جا هم شخصیت محوری دارسیه ولی راوی الیزابت بنته که اول به اشتباه راجع بهش پیشداوری می کنه و توصیف نادرستی ازش به دست می ده. بعداً که بیشتر باهاش آشنا میشه، و از پشت پرده ی غرور دارسی، به دارسی حقیقی نگاه میندازه، تازه دارسی رو میشناسه و این بار توصیف درستی ازش ارائه می کنه.
با این حساب، عنوان غرور و تعصب (پیشداوری) در حقیقت ترکیبی از صفت این دو شخصیته. غرور صفت دارسی و تعصب (پیشداوری) صفت الیزابته.

ضعف بزرگ داستان، اینه که فقط همین دو نفر (الیزابت و دارسی) هستن که شخصیت واقعی و چند بعدی دارن. بقیه ی افراد، فقط شخصیت های یک بعدی دارن. یعنی فقط و فقط یه صفت دارن و همون یه صفت در طول داستان نشون داده میشه.
مثلاً مادر الیزابت، احمقه. در طول داستان، فقط و فقط رفتارهای احمقانه ازش سر میزنه. حرفی نمیزنه، مگه این که بخواد حماقتش رو نشون بده و اصولاً علت حضورش در داستان، فقط همين يه صفته. همین طور شخصیت جین (خواهر بزرگ الیزابت) خوش قلبه. در طول داستان، همه ی حرفهاش و رفتارهاش، فقط در راستای نشون دادن این خوش قلبيه. هیچ وقت حسودى نميكنه، هیچ وقت عصبانی نمیشه، هیچ وقت دلتنگ نمیشه، انگار هیچ خصوصیت دیگه ای نداره، جز این که خوش قلب باشه. همين طور دو خواهر كوچك اليزابت، همين طور خواهر وسطى (مارى)، همين طور كشيش، همين طور خواهر آقاى بينگلى و...

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 :))

I had forgotten just how witty this novel is. And how key reticence is to the plot. In particular Elizabeth’s, in stark contrast with her mother who shoots off her mouth at every opportunity with a vulgarity that constantly has one squirming on Elizabeth’s behalf. Elizabeth is like the family editor, the family censor. It’s her who receives most of the critical information in the novel and very rarely does she share it. I often found myself puzzling why. In an age when women were largely silenced it seemed odd that Elizabeth voluntarily silenced herself. But it also made me keenly aware at times of how much human nature – or maybe female social decorum - has changed. When Elizabeth finds out why Bingley has dumped her sister she doesn’t tell her sister. I’m pretty sure all of us now would be on the phone to our sisters in a jiffy. Clearly Austen didn’t find this a strange decision; in fact she breezes over the disclosure so swiftly it’s as if she assumes the reader would perfectly understand Elizabeth’s motive without any explanation. Maybe Elizabeth’s extreme reticence was a plot device, a very effective one to be sure because it enables Darcy to remain mysterious and it even enables Elizabeth to remain mysterious to herself. It’s super clever of Austen to refer to Darcy as proud throughout the novel when in fact it’s Elizabeth who is the more entrenched culprit of that emotional stance. It’s largely her pride that creates the atmosphere of prejudice around Darcy.

It’s also a novel that makes you miss being in love. As much for all the anxiety, embarrassment, keyed-up second guessing, girly gossiping/speculation and ghastly self-consciousness as the elation and well-being.

In short, I loved it again and found it didn’t matter one iota that I knew what was coming. Only brilliant writing and craftsmanship can sustain dramatic tension when you know what is going to happen next.

As a footnote when I was seventeen my mother told me I needed to develop the Elizabeth in my nature and curb the Lydia. Thing is, the Lydia type has more kudos now than she had in Austen’s time. Psychotherapy would probably argue for a balance between the impulsive Lydia and editorial Elizabeth as a model of behaviour. You sense Austen held a similar view.

n  n    “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”n  n

~ Rating- 5 stars ~

(Content/ Trigger Warnings )

-No Mention of these in the review-

After over a month of trying to write a review, I have officially given up. I cannot review Pride and Prejudice the way I review the rest of the books I read.

Part of it might be because this book is on such a high literally level compared to the rest of the books I usually read, and the other part may be because I always struggle with reviewing classics, but my point still stays the same: Pride and Prejudice is one of the best books I've had the pleasure of reading.

Why?

This book has everything you might want to read in a book. It has amazing characters, who are flawed and realistic, but still have a ton of development, it has incredible writing, which will keep you hooked, and it is set in 1700-1800 England.


In short, Pride and Prejudice has everything that is worth the read.

n  n    “I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading! How much sooner one tires of any thing than of a book! -- When I have a house of my own, I shall be miserable if I have not an excellent library.”n  n

Pride and Prejudice is hands down my favourite book of Jane Austen, and one of my favourite books this year. (2021)

I have no idea what to say except to urge you to pick this book up. This is the book everyone must read at least once in your lifetime.

n  n    “Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonymously. A person may be proud without being vain. Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves, vanity to what we would have others think of us.”n  n

My ratings and reviews for all of Austen's works based on preference-
Pride & Prejudice- 5 stars
Northanger Abbey- 5 stars
Sense and Sensibility- 4 stars
Love and Friendship- 4 stars
Persuasion- 3 stars
Emma- 3 stars
Mansfield Park- 1.5 stars

DISCLAIMER- All opinions on books I’ve read and reviewed are my own, and are with no intention to offend anyone. If you feel offended by my reviews, let me know how I can fix it.

How I Rate-
1 star- Hardly liked anything/ was disappointed
2 star- Had potential but did not deliver/ was disappointed
3 stars- Was ok but could have been better/ was average / Enjoyed a lot but something was missing
4 stars- Loved a lot but something was missing
5 stars- Loved it/ new favourite


...............................................

Update 14th April 2021

I am so blank on what to write.

‘It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife,’ begins Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, an opening sentence nearly as famous as the novel itself. Austen’s comedy of manners has taken on an immortality, being a title frequently represented in art, knick knacks or decor for book lovers. I mean, this is a book that has tshirts for it as recognizable as a Pink Floyd shirt and if there were a Mt. Rushmore for white people popular classics this would be one of the first to be carved into the rock. Luckily for readers everywhere, it is a book that truly deserves such status and is eminently readable and enjoyable to this day. Pride and Prejudice is sharp, humorous and picturesquely romantic with a cast of characters that practically walk off the page, shake your hand and intermingle in your life as Austen dives into criticisms of class and conventions.

‘I could easily forgive his pride, if he had not mortified mine.’

Of the many reasons Pride and Prejudice has captured hearts for generations, Austen’s heroine, Elizabeth Bennet, is the most endearing of them. A woman with a great wit and cutting dialogue, she is not without her flaws and hubris which makes her feel so authentic and approachable. The dynamic between Elizabeth and Darcy is a perfectly balanced power struggle of personal judgements as they attempt to maintain individuality under social pressures and obdurate conventions, each stradling a position of both protagonist and antagonist. And antagonize each other they do! Though in the end they come to each other with equal scars and blame. Elizabeth’s belief in her ability to judge others leads her to misjudge—a trait not unlike Emma Woodhouse of Emma who’s pride in her own wit obscured what was right before her—overlooking the blatant flaws of Wickham simply over his adversarial role towards Darcy, and coming too harshly to conclusions on Darcy before knowing him better. It should be with no surprise to learn that Austen originally intended to title the novel ‘First Impressions’.

‘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 the groundwork of disapprobation on which succeeding events have built so immovable 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.’

We see Elizabeth working on herself internally while also working on the external social factors. ‘There is a stubbornness about me that never can bear to be frightened at the will of others,’ Elizabeth confesses, ‘my courage always rises at every attempt to intimidate me.’ Her pride makes her malign others, assuming Miss darcy, for instance, to be a ‘proud, reserved, disagreeable girl’ only to find she is ‘amiable and unpretending.’ It is her intelligence I find most charming, and while she may misjudge, she has the emotional intelligence to self-diagnose and course correct.

Darcy, on the other hand, must overcome his own pride and snobbery. His disdain for those who work a trade, for instance, is part of a larger depiction of those held in high esteem of class being crude and cruel and a predominant theme in the novel. Caroline, Mr. Collins and Lady Catherine are among those who operate like an extension of class hierarchy, allowing their ideas of social position to guide their thoughts and actions and making them feel immune to criticism. Darcy and Elizabeth lowering their guard, looking at the individual instead of at their social circle/status, and coming to a mutual understanding gives the novel a tender nature, one that asks for empathy and understanding in the world and warns against holding on to judgements too tightly.

‘Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonymously. A person may be proud without being vain. Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves, vanity to what we would have others think of us.’

Another aspect of the novel that really resonates is just how visual it is. Austen has a gift for description and this quality has lent itself to many visually stunning film adaptations. Austen excels at embedding much of her social commentary into her depictions of settings and characters, such as Elizabeth’s first visit to Darcy’s house, with ‘high woody hills’ and a large, tall garden surrounding a the house, ‘a stream of some natural importance was swelled into greater, but without any artificial appearance.’ This is a major insight into Darcy as a character: a man without artifice and full of ‘natural beauty’ that he keeps hidden from view. His arrogance is merely his grandiose garden that obscures the him beneath the exterior. Similarly, judgements on character are often made in dialogue that focuses on aspects of dress or decor. ‘By describing a material object,’ Roland Barthes writes in The Language of Fashion, ‘if it is not to construct it or to use it, we are led to link the qualities of its matter to a second meaning.’ The criticisms of taste are, in this regard, a criticism of character, so when Caroline and Louisa talk at length about the mud on Elizabeth’s petticoat, we can infer they are telling us they find her herself to be wild, unkempt and unruly. It is in ways such as these that Austen can make such keen observations that don't announce themselves yet amalgamate to portray a life-like impression of a society that thrives on gossip and social interactions that are plotted like chess pieces moving across the board.

‘I must learn to be content with being happier than I deserve.’

Austen’s Pride and Prejudice drifts at the pace of life, enrapturing you in its lush language, vibrant landscapes, dancing with you through the great halls of ornate homes and giving you an introduction to the high society of the times. This is an eternally charming novel that bites with sharp satire and humor while letting deep lessons and emotional bubble up from tender moments and brilliant insights. It is quite funny at times as well. Jane Austen is remembered for a reason, and while I still favor Emma to be my favorite, this comedy of manners is certainly a Must Read.

4.5/5

‘What do I not owe you! You taught me a lesson, hard indeed at first, but most advantageous. By you, I was properly humbled. I came to you without a doubt of my reception. You showed me how insufficient were all my pretensions to please a woman worthy of being pleased.’

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*

The Olympus of protagonist focused classic writing

Austen owned her era
The perfection of this novel is amazing and until today it´s difficult to impossible to name another book that has the same character development, hidden social critique, and amazing characters in a classical setting dealing with the grievances of an epoch. So less action and so much suspense just created by the inner perspective of the main protagonists that it´s a pleasure to read and reread. I just can´t get behind how Austen could write like a goddess and what makes each scene, word, setting, and plot twist so smooth and easy-going, while diving so deep under the skin of this bizarre, ancient society.

Insider jokes to avoid the censors of the time
What I love about classics is the background, the society, norms and rules, and how the authors integrated, criticized, and commented on the big topics of their time and avoided censorship. Like Twain, London and a handful of other writers Austen has conserved the spirit of those days for eternity, making it a funny, intense, and unique novel.

Evolution of feminist emancipation
It shows how complex women's roles evolved during history and how the immense stupidity of male-made humanities restricted much freedom and human rights and integrated hilarious, epic monuments of facepalmgasms instead. Just irony and satire in their highest form can be used as a mirror to reflect the impressions of a not so far away past, and to be able to laugh instead of sigh about it. If it just was history everywhere.

So much better than most of the male writers of that time
At a time when great writing could just be powered by talent, perseverance, intelligence, exercise, and passion (because there was no creative writing course just around the next corner or online), avoiding conservative worldviews and dogmas of the time, Austen wrote vivid, cliffhangery, and in perfect length with an inherent instinct for the rules of how to make true art. Not like many, mostly male, others, who praised their stupid beliefs in their racist, intolerant, and bad novels, or became pseudointellectual and impossible to understand for mentally healthy readers without narcissistic tendencies to push their ego (here, gratuitously hyped author, take that Nobel prize for that. Again), she wrote literature at it´s best.

Unfounded criticism of her work
I guess that many critics don´t have the time or interest to invest more effort than just reading it without a bit of researching history and the authors' biography to get the full pleasure of all the hidden easter eggs. Without that, it may really seem much more superficial and less well constructed than with the extra knowledge that enables one to enjoy it in full fan mode.

It aged well
Just as a good wine (I don´t like wine, I´m a beer and vodka guy, it´s just about the allegory) classics need time, have to breathe, have to be consumed mindfully and consciously in certain doses, and a bit of decadent study about where the grapes were grown, what meal applies to it, etc. is never a bad idea. Otherwise, they would be indistinguishable from the mass-produced, blockbuster, media-hyped, disposable clone armies of today's literature. The same cheap booze that was already winepressed in each epoch to meet the expectations of ( then bigoted, now too uncritical) readers, that don´t care about the hangover more sophisticated consumers get from mental intoxication.
That´s of course only true for non favorite genres I´m not (cognitively) biased, and thereby subjectively and emotionally bound, on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

Tropes show how literature is conceptualized and created and which mixture of elements makes works and genres unique:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...

A wiki walk can be as refreshing to the mind as a walk through nature in this completely overrated real life outside books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Au...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_a...