can you believe elizabeth and darcy invented the 'enemies to lovers' trope and have been the most iconic power couple to exist ever since

*austened*
*lizzied*
*darcied*

Some years back in one of my APAs, someone castigated Jane Austen's books like this: "All those daft twits rabbiting on about clothes and boyfriends and manners."

Since then, I’ve encountered other variations on the theme that a modern woman ought not to be reading such trash because it sets feminism back two centuries.

Well, much as I laughed over the first caveat, that isn't Austen. It sounds more like the silver fork romances inspired by Georgette Heyer. Austen's characters don't talk about clothes at all, outside of air-headed Mrs Allen of Northanger Abbey, who doesn't think of anything else.

Austen sticks her satiric quill into young ladies who think and talk about nothing but beaux, such as poor, luckless Anne Steele in Sense and Sensibility. Manners are emphasized but not manners without matter; Austen saves her spikiest irony for hypocrites.

I think it's important to remember that whereas Heyer was writing historical romances in the silver fork tradition, Austen was writing novels about contemporary life, especially the problems facing young women in her own walk of life, the country gentry. She criticized herself in a much-quoted letter to her sister Cassandra, saying in effect, 'the problem with Pride and Prejudice is it's too light and bright and sparkling.' Many have misinterpreted this remark. It seems to me, on close reading of her elsewhere, that she meant the novel to be taken more seriously than it was.

What is it about, really? It's about the wrong reasons for marrying, and how those can affect a woman for the rest of her life. Of course a hard-line feminist can point out that novels about marriage are hideously retro for today's woman, who has many choices before her. During Austen's time, marriage was the only choice a woman had, unless she was rich enough to shrug off the expectations of her society, or unless she was willing to live on as a pensioner to some family member or other, which more often than not meant being used as an unpaid maid. Of course there was teaching, but the salaries for women were so miserable one may as well have been a servant. The hours and demands were pretty much equal.

If one looks past the subject of marriage, the novel's focus is about relationships: between men and women; between sisters; between friends; between family members and between families. As for marriage, Austen sends up relationships that were formed with security as the goal, relationships that were sparked by physical attraction and not much else, relationships made with an eye to rank, money, social status, or competition. And, with abundant wit and style (or as she’d say, with éclat), she offers some truths about the differences between love and lust, and what relationships based on either mean to a marriage months—or decades—after the wedding.

The fact that Austen doesn't use modern terminology doesn't make it any less real than a contemporary novel that has a supposedly liberated woman romping desperately from bed to bed for forty pages while in search of the perfect relationship. The message is the same, that women who mistake falling in lust for falling in love are usually doomed to a very unhappy existence. And in Austen's time, you couldn't divorce, you were stuck for life.

I've had dedicated feminist friends give me appalled reactions when I admit to liking Austen. I don't consider reading Austen a guilty pleasure, as I do reading Wodehouse. I consider Jane Austen a forerunner of feminism. She doesn't stand out and preach as Mary Wollstonecroft did. Her influence was nevertheless profound. Again and again in those novels she portrays women thinking for themselves, choosing for themselves—even if their choices are within the conventions of the time. What the women think matters.

In Austen’s day (and too often, now) female characters were there as prizes for the men to possess, or to strive for, or as catalysts for male action. Jane Austen gave her female characters as much agency as a woman could have in those days, and the narrative is mostly seen through their eyes. Charlotte Lucas is a remarkable example for the time; she is not the least romantic, but she sees what she wants, and she gets it. And doesn't pay for getting what she wants by dying of consumption as too often happened to forthright females in novels of the period.

The famed relationship between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy makes it very clear that they were first attracted by one another's intellect—those two were clearly brain-snogging before they ever got to the fine sheets of Pemberley. It is also clear that the man—his higher social and economic status notwithstanding—had to earn the woman's respect, and rethink some of his assumptions, before she could see in him a possible partner. There is no dominant male making the decisions: those two are equal right down to the last page, and Austen makes it clear that it will continue to be so after the marriage.

Each time I reread the novel, I notice something new, but in the meantime, will I continue to recommend it to young women just venturing into literature? You bet.

welcome to my jane austen-athon! this is the first book out of seven!


★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
⤷ minimal spoilers (quotes + some references)

”you must allow me to tell you how ardently i admire and love you.”


ೃ⁀➷

my love for jane austen will always save my love of books and reading.

~ 5 stars ~

(Re-read 2021)


This is my second read of this book, and I am still shocked about how little I appreciated it the first time around. I mean, this book is a masterpiece in itself. Not all classics deserve that status, but this one surely does.

The drama? Top notch. The characters? To die for. The setting? *chefs kiss*

Jane Austen is a genius. Her writing is witty and charming. I know her writing style is not for everyone, but I personally really liked it. The way she is able to put all these characters together and produce such an atmospheric and immersive story is phenomenal. It isn't the strongest plot or high action by any means, but it is a fun time.

I adore Elizabeth Bennet. She is smart, strong, and so easy to love and root for. Plus she's definitely a feminist. I was invested in her and all the other Bennet family member's lives. Seeing Lizzie's and Mr. Darcy's character development and their journey to finding love was definitely an experience. Mr. Darcy is also just as iconic as Lizzy.

The lavish lifestyle of this story, while that is not something most people can say they relate too, made the book. Rich people drama is great. I honestly love the aesthetic of period dramas. I am due for a rewatch of the adaptation. I haven't watched the BBC version, but the 2005 version is one of my all time favorite movies.

There is not much about this book that hasn't already been said so many times, so there isn't much I feel the need to point out, but ultimately, to end this off, I want to recommend Pride and Prejudice to all that have not read it.

wowowow definitely want to read more Austen after this! that was beautiful

If you want to read one of the best books ever written, please don't think twice. Just grab a copy of this book and get yourself imbibed into this evocative story that right away establishes an emotional connection with us.

n  n    “There is a stubbornness about me that never can bear to be frightened at the will of others. My courage always rises at every attempt to intimidate me.” n  n

6.0 stars. Confession...this book gave me an earth-shattering Janeaustegasm and I am feeling a bit spent and vulnerable at the moment, so please bear with me. You see, I decided I wanted to get more literated by reading the "classicals" in between my steady flow of science fiction, mystery and horror. The question was where to begin.

After sherlocking through my Easton Press collection, I started by pulling out my Dickens and reading A Tale of Two Cities which I thought was jaw-dropping AMAZO and left me feeling warm, satisfied and content. It also made me made retrospectively pleased that I named my youngest daughter Sydney.

After Two City “Tale”ing, I decided to give this book a whirl as I kept seeing it on GR lists of "goodest books ever." However, I must admit I was hesitant going in to this for two big reasons. One, I thought it might be a bit too romantical for me. The second, and much more distressing, reason was that Twilight was on many of the same lists as this book. Austen fans should pull a nutty over that one.

So needless to say I went into this thinking I might hate it. Well, for the 999,987th time in my life (at least according to my wife’s records)...I was wrong!!! I absolutely loved this book and had a mammoth, raging heart-on for it from the opening scene at the breakfast table when Father Witty (Mr. Bennet) is giving sly sarcasm to Mrs. Mommie Put Upon. I literaphorically could not get enough of this story. I was instantly captivated by the characters and Elizabeth Bennet, the main protagonist, immediately became one of my all time favorite characters. Mr. Darcy joined that party as soon as he showed up in the narrative as I thought he was terrific as well.

Overall, the writing could not have been better. It was descriptive, lush and brilliant. The story could not have been more engaging or intelligent and the characters could not have been more magnificentastic. Elizabeth and Fitz are both smart, witty, self-confident and good. Austen could not have written them better. Oh, and I am sorry if this is a bit of a minor spoiler but I need to add that George Wickham is a cock-blocking braggadouche of startling proportions. I needed to say that and now I feel better.

This one has made it onto my list of All Time Favorite novels and is truly one of the classics that lives up to its billing. A FINAL WORD TO THE GUYS: ...Guys, do not fear the Austen...embrace the Austen...HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!!!

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...

listening to pride and prejudice while doing a puzzle and drinking tea is perhaps one of the most old lady things I have ever done, but I have no regrets.

I first read pride and prejudice back when I was about 12 to prove to myself that I was Mature and Sophisticated. Instead, I spent more time looking up what certain words meant than actually enjoying the story. Surprise! early 19th century language is quite a bit different to today's English. Once I got past my initial confusion, I enjoyed it. I then watched the BBC series adaptation and found myself liking it a lot more (no, it wasn't just because of Collin Firth as Mr Darcy...).

I finally bit the bullet to reread it after my mum did so for the first time and wanted to watch some of the adaptations with me. I was a little nervous because of my rocky experience the first time round, but this time I decided to borrow the audiobook from my library. That was a great decision, as it prevented me from interfering with the flow of the story to look up random words and instead get immersed. Hearing the accent and just someone read it out loud really helped to make me connect with the characters and the setting. If you are similarly intimidated by classics I would recommend trying out an audiobook of them!

Overall, this was such a warm, cozy read that I can finally understand why it is so well loved and been made into countless movies and tv shows. I can't wait to rewatch the 1995 and possibly 2005 version with Keira Knightly. (I am also kind of intrigued by Pride and Prejudice and Zombies- is it good?) If you have any opinions on the adaptions I would love to hear them and maybe binge some!

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.