I’m reading “Pride and prejudice” and I’m strangely enjoying it. I like the characters and the story, I’m really hooked with the book, but I don’t really know why it is so interesting and how Austen makes me feel interested in a book that, maybe just in the surface, is so mundane.
In the past, I also read “Sense and sensibility” for University and I also enjoyed it very much.
How do you think Austen makes this? How does she make a realistic and simple book so interesting in its story and its characters?
IMO she’s so compelling because she writes character focused novels and has a good sense of humor.
Sometimes the way the plot comes together is very charming
I have zero idea why you would use the adverb strangely here – literally millions of readers have enjoyed the novel and millions more will too; there’s nothing remotely strange about enjoying P&P.
Martin Amis, long before he was a writer, fell under the spell of the novel; he writes: "When I was introduced to the novel, at the age of 15, I read 20 pages and then besieged my stepmother’s study until she told me what I needed to know. I needed to know that Darcy married Elizabeth. (I needed to know that Bingley married Jane.) I needed this information as badly as I had ever needed anything.
“Pride and Prejudice suckers you. Amazingly—and, I believe, uniquely—it goes on suckering you. Even now, as I open the book, I feel the same tizzy of unsatisfied expectation, despite five or six rereadings. How can this be, when the genre itself guarantees consummation? The simple answer is that these lovers really are “made for each other”—by their creator. They are constructed for each other: interlocked for wedlock. Their marriage has to be.”You are responding to a great plot, great wit, great prose–literally nothing strange about it.
Damn i just got spoiled. I know its my fault for not having yet read it but pls put spoiler tag
Nope nope nope. These books are hundreds of years old. Don’t read a thread on Hamlet if you don’t want it spoiled. The Austen canon, particularly P&P is damn near Biblical in its ubiquity in the larger conversation of literature. This is like spoiling one of Aesop’s Fables.
True
The OP says they are strangely enjoying it, not that it’s strange to enjoy it. Meaning their level of enjoyment is unusual. I would have said “uniquely” or “peculiarly” instead of “strangely” but I get what they mean. Austen is absorbing in a way that only a masterpiece is. This is a common opinion, as you say, millions of readers agree. It’s fine to ask what it is about her books that make them that way.
THIS. It’s weirder that OP is so shocked that they like Austen’s work than anything. These books are good enough to be beloved a century later, why does OP think it’s ‘strange’ that they enjoy such classic, loved novels? It low key smacks of an edge of “wow I can’t believe this girly thing is actually good! Who knew! (Besides the millions of people that love the books enough to keep them and their adaptations popular, or the many lit courses that include them for study).”
I wonder why Amis didn’t just look at the end of the book
I read “strangely” as for OP, meaning it’s different than most other books they read.
Me too. Also, “strangely” because it’s hard for them to describe what it is about the writing that makes it so fascinating.
“Strangely” because the synopsis of the book isn’t very catchy - “two people fall in love 200 years ago” as opposed to a genre like science fiction - “two people are trapped in a time bubble where they must harness the power of quantum snail mucous to escape… but which one of them is a clone of the other’s missing pet dog?”
I’m no Literary critique but her prose is poetic to me. When I read “Pride and Prejudice”, the entire book felt like a single poem. It’s Impossible not to enjoy every word.
I don’t know.
I found them insufferable. The humor just passed me by.
Her main characters are always very relatable and realistic, with quirks and issues and strengths and weaknesses. She easily imbues them with natural complexity and depth of character. While they are in some ways nothing special, they are still unique and totally believable, fitting into their setting while being clever enough to not quite fit in - just like so many people feel about themselves.
A little bit weird, a little bit rebellious, a little bit lost, a little bit faking it, a little bit brave, not afraid to admit when they were wrong 9at least to themselves - and us readers - if no one else) - all these qualities encourage us to feel sympathy and a sense of camaraderie. We cheer them on, we hope for the best, we laugh and cry with them because we feel like we know them - they are very much like us in some deep and human parts of our souls.
She was a master of character development because she was incredibly observant and gifted with the ability to put what she observed into words we can understand and relate to.
I feel like the conversation below sums up how Jane Austen’s writing is both so dense and so amusing and so enthralling.
Jane Bennet : My dearest sister, now be serious. I want to talk very seriously. Let me know every thing that I am to know, without delay. Will you tell me how long you have loved him?
Elizabeth Bennet : It has been coming on so gradually, that I hardly know when it began. But I believe I must date it from my first seeing his beautiful grounds at Pemberley.
If you dont know Elizabeth Bennett - this makes her sound like a fortune hunter. Which is instantly relatable on the surface.
If you read the book you know Elizabeth is very much NOT impressed with money, and is almost a snob in how she treats rich people. So here she is ACTUALLY admitting she is wrong. She misjudged Mr Darcy, and in saying she is wrong is actually poking QUITE A BIT of fun and derision at herself. She is exposing this to her favorite sister whose opinion she holds very high - so you also get the understanding and the deepness of connection between Jane and Elizabeth - that Jane feels so comfortable being so vulnerable, honest, and silly to her sislter.
Additionally, after you have read it many, many times and pick up other things from the book and sources, Elizabeth is also saying “Mr Darcy is a good landlord to his tenants and he takes good care of the people and lands that belong to him and he is responsible for.” This is in counterpoint to her Father. She loves her Father very very much, but through some fault of his own he will not be providing for his daughters. He could do more to secure them good marriages and watch out for their reputations, but he throws his hands up and walks away instead.
P&P is NOT EVEN my favorite Austen - but some of the lines in Austen are so dense with meaning and the deep interconnectness of these families. It is truly rereadable and reinterpretable every time you read it.
Tl;dr Jane Austen is a genius of dense thoughtful reading.
Thank you for this explanation. Somehow I didn’t realize Jane Austen’s writing was such “high context”. As a programmer who (sadly) primarily reads dry non-fiction and almost exclusively communicates in a “low context” manner, understanding the hidden depth and nuance of her writing is a delightful surprise.
This is a great illustration of the levels of meaning in Austen and I appreciate that you explained it so well because I also see people use this quote to say Lizzie loved him for his money. Which is so opposite to Austen’s meaning! I don’t think Elizabeth’s praise of Darcy is a comparison with her father though. We see no indication in the book that Mr Bennet poorly treats his tenants or servants. He does what’s required to get his daughters introduced to Mr Bingley. He doesn’t want his daughters to marry for money, which we know is huge for Austen. He misjudges Lydia but Darcy did the same thing with Georgiana, and both men learn their lesson. Mr Bennet is confident his daughters will do fine on their merits and while frustrating, it turns out he’s right, both Jane and Elizabeth marry excellent men who don’t care about their family’s shortcomings. Mr Bennet is one of the few people who at the end join “their family party at Pemberley.”
You wrote that beautifully.
Charlotte Bronte agreed with you about Austen’s writing being mundane (though well crafted). Here is what Charlotte wrote about Emma:
“She does her business of delineating the surface of the lives of genteel English people curiously well. There is a Chinese fidelity, a miniature delicacy in the painting. She ruffles her reader by nothing vehement, disturbs him by nothing profound. The passions are perfectly unknown to her; she rejects even a speaking acquaintance with that stormy sisterhood. Even to the feelings she vouchsafes no more than an occasional graceful but distant recognition—too frequent converse with them would ruffle the smooth elegance of her progress. Her business is not half so much with the human heart as with the human eyes, mouth, hands, and feet. What sees keenly, speaks aptly, moves flexibly, it suits her to study; but what throbs fast and full, though hidden, what the blood rushes through, what is the unseen seat of life and the sentient target of death—this Miss Austen ignores. She no more, with her mind’s eye, beholds the heart of her race than each man, with bodily vision, sees the heart in his heaving breast. Jane Austen was a complete and most sensible lady, but a very incomplete and rather insensible (not senseless) woman.”
Thanks for sharing this. I love the Brontes’ books but just can’t seem to find my pace with Austen. Charlotte articulates the challenge beautifully (as usual).
This is interesting! I take it as more reflective of Brontë – her artistic/aethetic concerns – and the rising tide of romanticism in literature. Put another way: Even if Jane Austen wanted to write a la Brontë, it would not be possible when she was writing P&P at the end of the 18th century (of course it was revised extensively c 1810-11).
Plus, Brontë is assuming things about Austen (that the was “a very incomplete and rather insensible…woman”) based on what? Only the reading of the novels.
Charlotte Brontë is an interesting critic. Her introduction to Wuthering Heights is fascinating.
Why are they so interesting? in general they aren’t. They are interesting to you and that’s what matters.
I’m not going to get into a debate on the merits of Austin because there’s no point and all I want to do is touch on why some people love an item while others can hate it.
Why you find it interesting? Right now your experience, desires, knowledge base, interests and a few other factors lineup with what the book presents in it’s text therefore you find it appealing.
If they do not line up then you do not find it appealing.
Variations between the general factors and the “bits of you” will cause different levels of enjoyment in different individuals. Sometimes say a shift in your knowledge base will wreck something you previously enjoyed.
As your life changes things become more and less appealing that’s life.
Basically right now you are in the same headspace where the author was when she was writing so you connect to it so enjoy it.
I agree. I had to make a couple stabs at Jane Eyre before it exploded as genius in my mind…when I became an introspective teenager…before that it seemed difficult to read.
It’s been popular since 1813! It’s not strange at all that you’re enjoying it. It’s strange when people don’t.
For me one big reason is because she makes the protagonists so multidimensional - they tend to be witty, independent, flawed, intelligent, and somewhat outsiders.
I think this contrasts really well with the formality of society of the time which is reflected in many of the antagonists/clowns/minor characters.
She let her characters play themselves out, instead of constantly trying to explain how evil the evil god is or how good the good guy is
It’s all a little wry, a little dry, and a little saucy, all buttoned up in a corset. What’s not to like?
I am struggling to finish Anna Karenina, but I am enjoying it.
Gahhh …
Pride and Prejeduce has so many good written characters and so many characters have they own storylines and when all comes together it just hits perfect She uses the right amount of sarcasm and it’s just good
Isn’t that subjective? I read the six big ones, and it was a slog.
Echoing what a couple others here have said: Jane Austen was a keen observer of human interaction, and likely took pleasure in doing so and then taking the best (worst?) of what she saw to reflect it back at the society of her day in her books. And she didn’t shy away from some characterizations that might have been mean (if not at least impertinent) that may not have been done by other contemporaries.