Remember the Jane Austen thread from the UDBB?

[KathyK]

I saw something on vqronline.org today that reminded me of the thread I started about Jane Austen on the old board. I had plowed through about 50 pages of Sense and Sensibility and found it unreadable. It seems that Mark Twain really hated her writing. Here's what he had to say about Ms. Austen's Pride and Prejudice:
“Every time I read 'Pride and Prejudice' I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone.”

His invective didn't stop there.
http://www.vqronline.org/essay/barkeepe ... ane-austen

Wow!

[PaulaO]

I cannot abide literature from that period. It's totally unreadable, the plots are all about finding twue wove, barf.

[Koolkat]

And I heard a movie review the other morning about a movie called (more or less), "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies".

[AmityBee]

And I heard a movie review the other morning about a movie called (more or less), "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies".

That's actually a book And I AM looking forward to the movie...

[piedmontfields]

Surely I am not the only one on this board who re-reads P & P and S & S yearly...

sincerely,
P-F, not exactly a romantic but I do have a literature degree...

[PaulaO]

I'm rather odd in that I have no interest in history earlier than 1890. I'm so firmly enmeshed in today that I cannot understand the behavior or social conventions or thinking of yesteryear. I know there are lots of Austen fans. My friend is a Dickens fiend--another author I find unreadable except for A Christmas Carol.

[Josette]

I had read several Charles Dickens novels in the past and enjoyed them. I called recall reading any Austen novels. I attempted War & Peace but gave up - better enjoyed it in the PBS mini series years ago with Anthony Hopkins as Pierre.

[Chisamba]

Surely I am not the only one on this board who re-reads P & P and S & S yearly...

sincerely,
P-F, not exactly a romantic but I do have a literature degree...

I enjoy Pride and Prejudice, love it actually, and even read Emma, who is rather an unlikeable heroine. Sense and sensibility, less so, however, i really do not like Mark Twain at all. I think you have to enjoy language to like books like P and P, and even the writings of Tolkien.

I think the Russian classics do not translate well, it is the clumsiness of the language in translation that loses impact with War and Peace, and Anna Karenin.

[KathyK]

I think the Russian classics do not translate well, it is the clumsiness of the language in translation that loses impact with War and Peace, and Anna Karenin.

I must have lucked into a good translation of War and Peace (which I read many, many years ago). I absolutely loved it. I will admit it took three attempts to get past page 50 or so, but once I was in, I was in.

I remember thinking at the time that I should learn Russian so I could read the original. I may just put that on my bucket list.

[Paints]

I find the same true of books written before 1900. You have to get used to the language before the characters and plots speak to you. I struggled with Dickens for awhile but now enjoy the earlier authors including Austen.

When I was in high school I tried getting into the Russian authors. I read The Idiot by Dostoyevsky. I remember there was one whole chapter devoted to a description of a tree. But my favourite line ever is from it and I am sure I am paraphrasing: " Of course you are wrong, I don't understand you."

[pawsplus]

Surely I am not the only one on this board who re-reads P & P and S & S yearly...

You are not.

[heddylamar]

Not a fan of pre-20th century British lit. But bring on the Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, de Maupassant and Chekhov.

[AnnCohrs]

Surely I am not the only one on this board who re-reads P & P and S & S yearly...

I've fallen off a bit - I only reread every two or three years now.

There are few books of an era that I cannot stand to read. However MOVIES from the 1950s and early 60s are just unbearable to me. Ditzy heroines drive me mad.

[Alex]

I have a fascination w/Jane Austen's books but I also despite how she panders to the social norms of her time. To me she is hardly a woman one should designate a feminist, she's more someone who has an awareness of British social norms of her time and she somewhat fought them. Ultimately though, Jane Austen conceded to all the social norms of her time. All her heroines do the right thing that successful British heroines do, and they marry FOR LOVE and MONEY. It rankles me that Jane Austen has the gall to sneer at those friends of her heroines who aren't as good-looking as her heroines and who must settle for marrying her heroines' cast off male suitors.

[KathyK]

Yeah, that too.

[Chisamba]

I have a fascination w/Jane Austen's books but I also despite how she panders to the social norms of her time. To me she is hardly a woman one should designate a feminist, she's more someone who has an awareness of British social norms of her time and she somewhat fought them. Ultimately though, Jane Austen conceded to all the social norms of her time. All her heroines do the right thing that successful British heroines do, and they marry FOR LOVE and MONEY. It rankles me that Jane Austen has the gall to sneer at those friends of her heroines who aren't as good-looking as her heroines and who must settle for marrying her heroines' cast off male suitors.

she does not sneer at them, in my opinion she writes sympathetically of them, and you are the one sneering at them. in some cases by making them seem pitiful she clearly illustrates the minimal options women had. She sneers at people who revel in the society norms which is sad because i think it is sad that women are the harshest critics of other women. She does make her heroines human, with many failings including sneering.

[Code3]

Surely I am not the only one on this board who re-reads P & P and S & S yearly...

sincerely,
P-F, not exactly a romantic but I do have a literature degree...

You are not alone. I re-read it yearly and also have a degree in English Lit.

[bascar]

Like many things, an acquired taste I suppose. I love Austen, hate Dickens, love Dostoyevsky, hate Tolstoy, love John D McDonald, hate Elmore Leonard.

[KathyK]

Just goes to prove, once again, that not everything is for everyone. If it were, there'd be way too many things to read, movies to see, music to listen to, etc. I'd never get anything done!

[Abby Kogler]

I have a fascination w/Jane Austen's books but I also despite how she panders to the social norms of her time. To me she is hardly a woman one should designate a feminist, she's more someone who has an awareness of British social norms of her time and she somewhat fought them. Ultimately though, Jane Austen conceded to all the social norms of her time. All her heroines do the right thing that successful British heroines do, and they marry FOR LOVE and MONEY. It rankles me that Jane Austen has the gall to sneer at those friends of her heroines who aren't as good-looking as her heroines and who must settle for marrying her heroines' cast off male suitors.

she does not sneer at them, in my opinion she writes sympathetically of them, and you are the one sneering at them. in some cases by making them seem pitiful she clearly illustrates the minimal options women had. She sneers at people who revel in the society norms which is sad because i think it is sad that women are the harshest critics of other women. She does make her heroines human, with many failings including sneering.

Thank you!!!

What a misunderstanding of her whole nature and world, Alex.

I too read them all, over and over, sometimes once or twice a year. I love her language, her phrasing, the wit and sympathy, the manners, the dress...Mansfield Park has turned in to my favorite over the years. I absolutely love that book.

While flyint to FL and back this last week I reread Jane Austens England. Its an excellent reference for the times; the country, city, houses, foods, mores, monies, music, enjoyments, political atmosphere, economic realities, etc . Its fascinating. There is also a very interesting book on the foods and cooking practices of the time. I am currently reading the biography by her nephew. Kindle has many reference book regarding JA and England and the world at that time.

I like Mark Twain and I like Dickens. But I am not compelled to read and reread them over and over like I am JA. I just never tire of the language and the personalities.

I just discovered Elizabeth McCaskill (sp) I loved Cranford. I read everything available on Kindle and just loved them. I first read Lark Rise to Candleford in 1989 and I reread that every couple of years. I love it. 4

Life is too short to read a shitty book >;-> Id rather read the ones I know I already love, and read them again and again.

Oh! And I am just now for the first time reading Harry Potter. My girls loved those books as did several adult friends but I never was interested. Read the first straight through and really liked it, will download the others now and do the whole series.

Also love Peter Wimsey. And everything Wodehouse, and also Georgette Heyer. I reread them over and over. And all the Herriots; I laugh out loud at scenes and tear up at scenes as much as the first time I read them.

I so enjoyed the UDBB JA thread; thanks for starting it here >;->

[Alex]

Well, I love many things about Jane Austen's books but I don't feel the need to fail to recognize what she did and didn't do in terms of her themes and characters. I think she was aware of the societal limitations of her time but didn't seem to have a clue how to change them. In other words, she wasn't a suffragette before her time. That's not putting her down. That's simply stating that some writers seem to have a time machine in their pens/typewriters/souls and can see into the next era to some degree and others don't seem to possess that quality of introspection and insights into the future.

[Moutaineer]

I'm not sure her irony translates well into American.

[Code3]

I'm not sure her irony translates well into American.

It does for this American.

[Abby Kogler]

I'm not sure her irony translates well into American.

It does for this American.

This one too. I still laugh out loud at the dry, dry witty commentary.

[Moutaineer]

I think we tend to forget that she was simply observing the world around her, not campaigning for change.

[Hoof'n it]

Surely I am not the only one on this board who re-reads P & P and S & S yearly...

sincerely,
P-F, not exactly a romantic but I do have a literature degree...

You are not alone. I re-read it yearly and also have a degree in English Lit.

It's a yearly read for me too! With no lit degree

I'm not a huge fan of her other work though.

[Alex]

Yes, Mountaineer, that's what I find so tragic about the books. If Jane had only taken a few of her heroines ONE STEP FARTHER, she would be even more remarkable. There's no problem w/me understanding the irony of her time period and how she reflected on it. But for me to award her any kind of feminism prize, she would have had to have gone several steps farther.

[Moutaineer]

Why would you assume she was going for some kind of feminism prize? That's looking at her work through a far too modern glass. She was equally sharply observant about all her characters, male and female.

[Alex]

I'm suggesting that if she was the far-sighted feminist that some English professors portray her as she would have written some characters that beat the British system of the time by forging lives outside the system. None of her characters ever did anything like that... Her heroines beat the system by finding love within the British caste system rather than breaking out of it.

[Chisamba]

I'm suggesting that if she was the far-sighted feminist that some English professors portray her as she would have written some characters that beat the British system of the time by forging lives outside the system. None of her characters ever did anything like that... Her heroines beat the system by finding love within the British caste system rather than breaking out of it.

She wrote love stories, romances. She was not a political activist. If you want to read one of those, read Wollstonecraft. Her contribution as an author was realism. At that time popular literature was hysterical, unrealistic, but she wrote her tales within the realism of her society at the time.
That is what is priceless about her social commentary. It realistically portrays challenges and living in society during the Georgian time.

[Alex]

Exactly, chisamba. Jane Austen wasn't a feminist since she didn't envision women undermining the sociological constructs of their time and place, (emphasis on place), and arriving at a new sociological construct. This doesn't mean she didn't have some inkling that such an event would come in the future. Her books are wonderful. Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorite books featuring one of my favorite women characters but I don't confuse her w/other British women authors whose intentions were more revolutionary. I'd love to see Jane Austen being interviewed on some of the women's TV and radio shows.. Hearing her talk about the status of women w/Kerri Miller or Terry Gross would be great fun.

Just a funny way to think about NPR hosts:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jenerous/how-np ... think-7tuz

[Chisamba]

Alex, you fail to recognize that she did something that women of the time did not do, wrote,was successfully published, albeit under a pseudonym.

I find it kind of amusing that you are so insistent on judging her against a skill she never ascribed to. it would be like criticizing Valegro for not having a sliding stop.

[no.stirrups]

I confess I haven't read Jane Austen. It always sounded too heavy for my taste. But I was wondering whether any of you had read Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke? I was just re-reading it, and noticed that 3 of the 8 critics quoted on the back cover compared it to the work of Austen, specifically in terms of "dry wit" and "delicious social commentary." I think when I am done I will look for some Austen books! Any recommendations on which I should start with, specifically given that Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell is among my all-time favorites?

[pawsplus]

Alex, you fail to recognize that she did something that women of the time did not do, wrote,was successfully published, albeit under a pseudonym.

?? She didn't use a pseudonym. Her name was Jane Austen.

[pawsplus]

I confess I haven't read Jane Austen. It always sounded too heavy for my taste. But I was wondering whether any of you had read Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke? I was just re-reading it, and noticed that 3 of the 8 critics quoted on the back cover compared it to the work of Austen, specifically in terms of "dry wit" and "delicious social commentary." I think when I am done I will look for some Austen books! Any recommendations on which I should start with, specifically given that Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell is among my all-time favorites?

Pride and Prejudice.

[heddylamar]

Alex, you fail to recognize that she did something that women of the time did not do, wrote,was successfully published, albeit under a pseudonym.

?? She didn't use a pseudonym. Her name was Jane Austen.

During Austen's lifetime, none of her novels were published under her name.
Sense and Sensibility was by "a Lady”
Pride and Prejudice was by the "author of Sense and Sensibility"

[pawsplus]

Ah, OK. I was aware of that--not what I think of as a pseudonym. I see Chisamba's point, then.