Austen

fergalr

Roisinbunny wrote: »

First off, wow, there's lot to think about it this one and I'm reading it over and over. I'll try to do your post justice in my response.

Hey, thanks

Roisinbunny wrote: »

You really do have to take into account the times in which a particular novel is written- when you say you're not making allowances it seems that you are saying that an Austen novel has to be compared with a novel of similar material published today. All literature is shaped by the author's universe in which they lived, the era they belonged to.

I think this is a little complicated.

Maybe her books happened to be way ahead of the contemporary literature, in terms of how will she wrote her dialog, constructed her plot, etc. But I'm not really interested in that.

I'm asking something a little bit like "what would people think of the books if they were published today?" but with some exceptions.
I wouldn't, for example, judge her harshly for her social views, like I would a modern author that expressed the same views, because she's a product of her time. But if her social views caused her to write a less interesting, less real, novel, then I would count that against her.
I hope that distinction is clear enough...

I'm also trying to examine not whether Austen's work had more 'classic, timeless, quality' than her contemporaries, but whether her work had more 'classic, timeless, quality' than work today.

With that in mind...

Roisinbunny wrote: »

Austen belonged to a Georgian era, women had a "place" in society but yet she gained a degree of respect from all sexes by writing witty, descriptive stories, popular with men and women alike so perhaps that in itself dispels the "chick lit".

Not in itself, I would say. Perhaps men used to like reading the genre - which now called 'chick lit' - more than they now do. That doesn't change the novels genre assignment, only the name of the genre.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

I can't agree with your opinion that they are unreal - they are very real in that they present a vivid social snapshot of the time she lived in, social etiquette and conformities.

But they are unreal, in that the characters - which inhabit her very real and consistent social snapshot - do not resemble real human beings. They resemble too much social automata; puppets. The snapshot of the social system is vivid, because all the authors puppets are fulfilling their assigned roles according to the social etiquette. (Apart from the few puppets who are to deviate or get it wrong, which always ends badly for them. Like a social morality tale.)

But, the snapshot should be vivid because these are real people, who are trying to conform to the society of their times.
And thats not what we get. There's no sense of a private struggle, or tension there. The characters dont seem to have inner worlds, different from their purposes in the plot.

Take Mr George Knightly. Mr. Knightly exists to serve very simple plot points. He has to be a good man, but initially a bit scary, and later get the girl.
When he's he the garden with Emma at the end of the book, or alone with her in her house thereafter, what's going through his head?
We don't know. But is it possible that he's thinking about how much he wants to rip her clothes off?
I mean, we know he's not going to do that. He knows, and we know, that the rules of the social structure dictate that any attempt to do that will end badly. But he's being in love with this woman for ages, he now knows she loves him too, he's presumably lusting for her, so we'd at least expect the thought to cross his mind.
But that's the problem with Austen, there's no sense that this could happen - that the thought could even cross his mind. Because he's not like a real person.
Sure, she lives when she does, and she's got a publisher, so she can't write something explicitly say Mr. Knightly suppressed such urges.
But there's no sense that that passion is even there, lurking below the surface.

And that just isn't real, its not real people, here or then.
Those scenes are still fun to read, and its enjoyable to see the characters getting ready to live happily ever after.
But the characters are just acting out their social roles, and there's no sense of it being real people.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

Every writer has a niche and I think Austen's was in brilliant social commentary.When you say they are light - perhaps there you may a point. But then her niche was not in Thomas Hardy's style or Dicken's snapshot of a dark Victorian England. Austen was 21 when she wrote Pride and Prejudice - and a lot was probably based on her observances of all the drama going on around her. At that age, priority number 1 was more than likely in finding a suitable husband. I'm not diminishing her, its just the way it was.

I think the fact that she was young, and unwise, shows. She sees the world in black and white. Better social commentary would again be more realistic characters, more human humans, moving through this social world. (Also, and you didn't mention this; but just to be clear, the fact that she was 21 might make the book a great achievement for a 21 year old, of her time, but that does not make it a great book)

Roisinbunny wrote: »

I think you may have missed her point here - many of her characters lacked depth inherently, they were shallow, snobby, with no humanity or benevolance but she relished in bringing them and their petty concerns to life in her books.

This is exactly what I'm getting at.
Real people don't lack depth and humanity to the extent so many of her characters do. Her characters too frequently do not have 'souls'.
Her books are too often a study in soulless, shallow characters that lack humanity, pursuing their prearranged aims. Writing a book about characters like that is not the same as bringing them to life, any more so that a book about how a calculator works brings the calculator to life.

Can you imagine Emma going to the toilet? I mean, presumably, she does - but I think its hard to imagine, because she's not real enough, not viscerally present.

There's another side to this too, which is that I think even the author herself lacks empathy for her characters.

She has several puppets that she sets up as being 'bad' socially, and she really hammers them; she really seems to lack empathy towards them and their well being; she is cruel and mean to them. For example, see the treatment of Ms. Elton towards the end of Emma. There's no empathy there from the author. This seems to show even the author doesn't consider them to be real individuals.

(Yes, obviously they are not real individuals, but in really good writing, that should disappear).

Roisinbunny wrote: »

Austens seems to view people not so much as autonomous, self governing agents, but instead as puppets of the social roles they inhabit. She's obsessed with social compliance and fitting into your place. Its all very structured, and artificial.

Again, that's the society of England at the time! It was about status, elevation and conforming to norms and etiquette. It was not Austen's doing - she was merely documenting the little bubble in which people lived.

But, while the people of England may have had those socially assigned goals and roles, and complied with them, I don't believe the people of her time were really such puppets in their own heads.
I'm willing to believe that social compliance, norms, and etiquette were extremely important for people; but I think that underneath their perfectly conforming exteriors, there were real human beings, who struggled, who broke the rules, who had anger and tension and passion. English society may have pretended to be full of perfectly complying puppets, but people are never fully like that.

The idyllic towns and villages are too removed from reality. The crops don't fail, people don't get sick, no one wonders if the right thing to do is live in big houses or go to dinner parties.

My problem with Austen is that she writes about her characters as if they were the social personas people at the time inhabited; she should have wrote her characters about the people behind the masks.
There is no sense in her books that there are real humans behind the social masks they present.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

That's not how people are now, and not how the world works now, and it wasn't then either.

I'm afraid that is how the world worked at the time - most especially for women it was suffocatingly restrictive at the time.

Society may have been perfectly structured, and ordered, and adhere completely to the rules, but I don't believe the people did in their own heads. I don't believe people ever do.
Seeing as you mention the Bronte sisters, I think if you look at Jane Eyre, or Wuthering Heights, you can see this. Those characters are much more like real people. They have passions, problems, and while they inhabit their social roles, there is humanity and complexity behind the masks.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

Austen herself was blessed to find a publisher who would take her seriously. The Bronte sisters had to publish their works under a masculine sounding name! Perhaps, that's why the books are more popular today with women?

Or because they like the social simplicity of the characters, and find it light reading? Or because the books are mainly about social structure and rules, and women find this very interesting? I can think of less flattering reasons too, unfortunately, but I'd say its more these.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

Because they show us the role women were forced into so different from the semi-equality we have today. Of course the world doesn't work exactly like that now - but we still box people the way they were boxed back then and there is still that social snobbery.

You see, heres the thing.
Many people still box others in a similar way that they used to.
And hence, characters in books box others the way used to.
But, I would argue, and this is my key point I guess, really good authors don't box people like this, and never did. Jane Austen clearly does (in contrast, again, I would say, to the Bronte sisters). And thats part of why I don't think her books aren't that good. 'Chick-lit' authors box people similarly.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

Perhaps I should clarify my statement in an earlier post - the material is timeless in that it themes of love, disappointment, friendship, marriage, family that run through the novels enable the stories to remain timeless. These are themes that our childrens childrens children will be contemplating when we are long in the grave!

I don't think Austen knows very much about love. I think she understands the idea of love, but not the experience or feeling of love.
I also don't think she understand friendship. Patronage, yes, and mutual social utility, and even loyalty is important, but there doesn't seem to be much friendship.


Its strange that you put marriage in that list of timeless themes.
Her books are indeed very thematically concerned with marriage. However, I'd say that its not at all a timeless theme.
Its very socially dependent. I'd say that the predominance of marriage as a theme, marriage of the sort Austen talks about, is one reason why people find the books less and less relevant. Without a concept of marriage as this super-important social contract that defines your class, and is the only way for a woman of standing to survive, I think the books lose a lot of relevance.
Marriage may be gone utterly, by the time of our great-grandchildren. Austen possibly wouldn't even recognise what we have today as marriage, so I wouldn't say the theme is timeless.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

The novels themselves are really a painting of a time long gone - for me I get a huge amount of pleasure from reading them because it allows me briefly to feel immersed in an era that I will never belong to and as a history buff it's heaven. It's like when you stare at a painting in a museum - for a few minutes you are transported back to that moment in time when the artist was completing his masterpiece, you stare at the brush strokes and you feel part of it.

I really shouldn't admit this on the internet, where people I know could/will find it, but, I also sometimes found reading the books very enjoyable. And I think that its great that there are books from some time ago that people enjoy reading.
However, I also enjoyed reading all the Harry Potter books, and Bridget Jones' Diary, and I don't think these are classics, even if people still read them in 200 years time.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

Sounds fluffy I know, but that's how I feel when I read "classics". They are classics not only because people have related to their stories, which although may be light, allow us back to that time. It's why they have endured - people are innately fascinated with history and times long gone perhaps because we are trying to escape briefly from our even more superficial world of today.

Well... I don't think they are classics.
I think they have endured because they are enjoyable light reading, and also due to a certain inertia.
The fact that many people call them classics has caused a lot of people to read them. You can feel better about yourself reading 'Emma', than 'PS I Love You' (which I haven't read, incidentally), while still reading very light books.

I just don't think Austen's books do much to challenge the reader.
You read a lot of prose about people's thoughts, but they don't provide insight into how real people think.
They make you feel happy with people live happily ever after - but the books don't raise the human spirit.

There's also this huge undercurrent of social conformism, and, while I one way its not fair to judge an author like Austen for her limited view of the social roles of different sexes, reading about all the women submitting and obeying can be disheartening.


Tangentially, just on that the comment about 'our even more superficial world of today' - do you really think that's the case? I mean, for some people, its very superficial, but theres a great range of different perspectives catered to in our modern society. There might be a lot of superficiality, but theres a lot less socially enforced homogeneity. You can choose not to lead such a superficial life at all now, if you want - back in Austens time, such a choice would have lead to ruin, or social ostracism.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

For me as a woman, I sometimes envy the ladies caged yet simple life when I think of the weight on our shoulders today.

Without treading too far into very tricky territory, I suspect that aspects like that are a large part of the appeal for some.
Its always a bit of a faustian deal, escapism like that.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

No lynching at all will be necessary - your post was a very thought provoking one and I need a good strong cuppa after my reply because my brain cells are fried!

PS: If you are looking for something less light than you felt Austen was, please try Hardy's Victorian classics. Again universal themes but very dark, very tragic, fate chasing you down and all that. Be warned though when you read Hardy you'll need a good dose of Austen's charm and humour to cheer you up.:D;)

Interesting, might read some of those some time.

And thanks for the kind words, appreciated :-)



I've been thinking about it while reading the thread, and writing this post, and also reading parts of the books (it had been a while).

I guess, my problem with Austen, is not so much that she's bad, as that she's over rated.
It's probably not fair to call her books 'chick-lit'.

They've a lot of good points.
But I guess I think that they don't do much for the reader.

And I guess I don't think about people the way Austen does; whether we are both products of our times, or because she lacks insight, (or because I have it wrong) I can't say for sure - but I think its because she lacks insight into the people behind the social masks.

So, maybe I think her books are above 'chick-lit' but, while enjoyable, and well written, aren't *that* good; they don't raise our spirits, elevate our souls, give us new empathy or insight, or stretch our limits...

So while I guess 'chick-lit' is unfair (I don't think they were setup to be commercial vehicles, for one), in my opinion, 'classics' is too.

fergalr

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Right, I've decided I don't care either way, call them chick lit, call them classics, call them whatever you like.

Hey, fair enough - not taking from the validity of what you said - I don't think 'chick-lit' is a good genre name.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I like them.

I'm glad you like them. Sometimes thats all that matters.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I'm not dismissing what you're saying. You may well be right, you may well be wrong.

On balance, with the objective indications I have, I'm probably wrong, with the Austen criticism. In that, a lot of smart people who have studied them for a long time, and with a much better grasp of english literature than I have, seem to think thy are classics.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I always felt literature, like most art, is a matter of personal opinion.

Well, yeah, I'd agree.
I think, though, that you can still gain a lot from discussing matters of person opinion with those who differ; and also, that whereever they come from, we have certain 'objective' or apparently objective standards which make mutual debate possible.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Analysing and disecting everything is not my cup of tea at all.

You got me I tend to do this a bit; sometimes it works and I learn, sometimes it doesn't and I lose time. Trying to improve the intuitive basis for thinking about these things, to broaden my understanding in future.

Roisinbunny

fergalr wrote: »

I'm asking something a little bit like "what would people think of the books if they were published today?" but with some exceptions.

Well, not being flippant but that's like saying "what if" someone painted the Mona Lisa today what would people think- still a 'masterpiece'? you simply can't take them out of their historical setting, otherwise it's pointless- that's what they did with Alicia Silverstones "Clueless" loosely based on Emma and it was teenage drivel and easily forgotten- so that'll have to be put to rest in your mind. You seem to want to drag Jane into the 21st Century and that just won't do!

fergalr wrote: »

There's no sense of a private struggle, or tension there. The characters dont seem to have inner worlds, different from their purposes in the plot.

I think if you read Persuasion you might think better of Anne Elliott for her inner struggles, disappointments and selflessness..

fergalr wrote: »

We don't know. But is it possible that he's thinking about how much he wants to rip her clothes off?
I mean, we know he's not going to do that. He knows, and we know, that the rules of the social structure dictate that any attempt to do that will end badly. But he's being in love with this woman for ages, he now knows she loves him too, he's presumably lusting for her, so we'd at least expect the thought to cross his mind. But there's no sense that that passion is even there, lurking below the surface.

That's a bit Mills and Boon! Personally, what's left to the imagination is better, we don't always need to have it written out in black and white, what someone's romantic thoughts are! Of course there's passion there - but it's for the reader to interpret. Austen is just not that kind of "adult" reading material! That's the charm for many -it's very simple, and yes probably all a bit innocent..

fergalr wrote: »

There's another side to this too, which is that I think even the author herself lacks empathy for her characters.

She has several puppets that she sets up as being 'bad' socially, and she really hammers them; she really seems to lack empathy towards them and their well being; she is cruel and mean to them. For example, see the treatment of Ms. Elton towards the end of Emma. There's no empathy there from the author

Of course not! She's letting you make up your own mind.. Yes, at times Austen cuts in with little cutting descriptions of people but you have to remember she is ultimately just telling a story..

fergalr wrote: »

The idyllic towns and villages are too removed from reality. The crops don't fail, people don't get sick, no one wonders if the right thing to do is live in big houses or go to dinner parties.

You have spent a long time thinking about whether it's real or not - at the end of the day, they are stories of fictional places and characters drawn from her personal experiences and yes for many privileged people this is the way they lived. We are not saying this is how Georgian England was for everyone but a nice chunk of the population so try to enjoy it for what it is..Of course people got sick - wasn't Tom Bertram suffering from some strange tropical illness in Mansfield Park? - but how many novels interrupt the flow to say Mrs so and so had a fever unless its integral to the story

fergalr wrote: »

Seeing as you mention the Bronte sisters, I think if you look at Jane Eyre, or Wuthering Heights, you can see this. Those characters are much more like real people. They have passions, problems, and while they inhabit their social roles, there is humanity and complexity behind the masks

Don't get me started on Heathcliff! It's a touchy subject with me - undoubtedly one of the cruellest characters ever on paper. I see now sense of complexity or depth of character. Just a man who does horrible nasty things without any real justification. Now that is an author who had no empathy for her character - it's such a sense of relief when he passes.

fergalr wrote: »

I don't think Austen knows very much about love. I think she understands the idea of love, but not the experience or feeling of love.

I think she knew a great deal and it meant a lot to her hence why she never committed herself to anyone..

fergalr wrote: »

Its strange that you put marriage in that list of timeless themes.
Her books are indeed very thematically concerned with marriage. However, I'd say that its not at all a timeless theme.
Its very socially dependent. Without a concept of marriage as this super-important social contract that defines your class, and is the only way for a woman of standing to survive, I think the books lose a lot of relevance..

when I say marriage I don't mean the institution - I mean the union! Again its your personal opinion that it is socially dependent. I have a much higher opinion of a union than that.

fergalr wrote: »

They make you feel happy with people live happily ever after - but the books don't raise the human spirit.
Without treading too far into very tricky territory, I suspect that aspects like that are a large part of the appeal for some.
Its always a bit of a faustian deal, escapism like that.

Again, like Elmo said like Art, reading is a very personal venture. For me, the books raised my spirit at a time when I needed it and that was enough for me......:)

fergalr

Roisinbunny wrote: »

Well, not being flippant but that's like saying "what if" someone painted the Mona Lisa today what would people think- still a 'masterpiece'? you simply can't take them out of their historical setting, otherwise it's pointless- that's what they did with Alicia Silverstones "Clueless" loosely based on Emma and it was teenage drivel and easily forgotten- so that'll have to be put to rest in your mind. You seem to want to drag Jane into the 21st Century and that just won't do!

Lets imagine the Mona Lisa was pretty poor by today's standards - a fine work, but unremarkable, if produced these days. If that was the case, I'd be quite happy to say that its not a classic work. Because it wouldn't have that certain timelessness that these things should.

By way of an unartistic analogy - The special effects in Jurassic Park were great at the time. But they are pretty poor now. I would not advise someone to go see the movie for the special effects, just because they were good at the time it was produced.

I think something like Hamlet, doesn't have to be judged with reference to when it was written. It still stands as a great work, and I think it will probably continue to do so; so I think its worth of being called a classic.

I don't think its enough to say that Austens books were good in their time - if they want to be really good, they must still stand.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

I think if you read Persuasion you might think better of Anne Elliott for her inner struggles, disappointments and selflessness..

Maybe I shall...

Roisinbunny wrote: »

That's a bit Mills and Boon! Personally, what's left to the imagination is better, we don't always need to have it written out in black and white, what someone's romantic thoughts are! Of course there's passion there - but it's for the reader to interpret. Austen is just not that kind of "adult" reading material! That's the charm for many -it's very simple, and yes probably all a bit innocent..

I hadn't heard of mills and boon til I read another post in this forum today. Honest.

I'm not saying that it should have happened in the book - of course it shouldn't.
I'm saying that the reader shouldn't think the possibility of those thoughts crossing the characters mind is inconceivable.
If the character was more real, it wouldn't be so inconceivable.
But the characters are not like real people, they are more like characters from a childrens book, and that, I think, is a failing.

I think such simple, innocent characterisation makes the book less of a classic.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

Of course not! She's letting you make up your own mind.. Yes, at times Austen cuts in with little cutting descriptions of people but you have to remember she is ultimately just telling a story..

She is just telling a story, but she's also belittling her characters, taking cheap shots at them to amuse the reader. Its cheap, but more importantly, its mean, and again, serves to show a lack of empathy and understanding for people in the real world.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

You have spent a long time thinking about whether it's real or not - at the end of the day, they are stories of fictional places and characters drawn from her personal experiences and yes for many privileged people this is the way they lived. We are not saying this is how Georgian England was for everyone but a nice chunk of the population so try to enjoy it for what it is..Of course people got sick - wasn't Tom Bertram suffering from some strange tropical illness in Mansfield Park? - but how many novels interrupt the flow to say Mrs so and so had a fever unless its integral to the story

Well, when a book is all about social character interactions, I think the lack of reality of those characters is a fair criticism.

I put it to you like this, I once heard, somewhere, someone talking about the original star wars movie; maybe on TV or something.
They said that what was great about the movie, was that while you were watching it, you got the impression it was a real world you were watching, and that if the camera pointed a different way, you'd see something else. Now, its obviously fictional stuff, but it draws you in so much that it seems real. I think you don't get that in Austen; everything is too idyllic, but especially the characters. I should point out, that this is very subjective, an earlier post here talked about feeling that the whole village was real, etc - but I don't get that.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

Don't get me started on Heathcliff! It's a touchy subject with me - undoubtedly one of the cruellest characters ever on paper. I see now sense of complexity or depth of character. Just a man who does horrible nasty things without any real justification. Now that is an author who had no empathy for her character - it's such a sense of relief when he passes.

Well, I've definitely read about much crueller character, but yeah, he's not a nice guy. Thing is, while I don't find him particularly sympathetic, I do find him fairly real. I think he's more real, more plausible, than Mr. Knightly, for example. Heathcliff is damaged, he's had a tough time, and he's confused and hurt and wants to abuse people back, but he's plausible.
I would say that there's empathy there.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

I think she knew a great deal and it meant a lot to her hence why she never committed herself to anyone..

Fair enough; thats not what I take from her books. I think she has a very simplified view of love. Her love seems to be about either being charmed by the other party; or by esteeming the other party highly; or even by finding it socially suitable to be with the other party and convincing yourself you love them.
There's all these people 'developing an attachment' to each other without really knowing each other, and Austen calls it love. For her, I think love almost just a necessary prerequisite before you can form a socially binding marriage contract, and less of an end in itself. People who violate the social rules because they have feelings for each other are bad.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

when I say marriage I don't mean the institution - I mean the union! Again its your personal opinion that it is socially dependent. I have a much higher opinion of a union than that.

The 'union'? In what sense?

I'm referring to the institution, the social contract. I think that's the aspect of things which Austen is most engaged in. There's always so much about 'making a good match' which means something, not necessarily where the two will be happy, or in love, but where the social conditions are suitable.

Whether two characters are socially suitable for marrying each other is a major part of the books themes.

Its my opinion that this is a very transient theme.

Marriage between two people is no longer the same binding social contract that it was then, and the implications of getting married for a man or a woman, but particularly a woman, are much less huge now than they were then.
This is an opinion, sure, but I think its a pretty solid one. People now get divorced, fairly commonly, which they didn't. People in some cultures (parts of america, say) treat marriage as a much more casual entity than Austens characters would. The mere fact that women work and have careers lessens the relevance of the whole marriage theme - the 'career move' aspects of it so prevalent in Austens time are much diminished.
I definitely think the theme is less relevant than it would be to her original readership.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

Again, like Elmo said like Art, reading is a very personal venture. For me, the books raised my spirit at a time when I needed it and that was enough for me......:)

Fair enough - thats always nice to hear.
Can I ask what sense they raised your spirit? (I presume you don't mean they just cheered you up) Just don't answer, or answer broadly, if thats personal, but I'd really like to hear that - eg, did they make you consider humanity or yourself in a different, better light, expose you to a new, better way of thinking about something or something like that?

Roisinbunny

I think never will we really appreciate each other's standpoint. You seem really dissatisfied with Austen's work and so all I can say is browse other authors of the same time period. I would say maybe read the rest of her works so that you can satisfy yourself that all her books dissatisfy you (Again, I mean that in the most friendly way possible!)

I think ultimately you need to stop reading so much into Austen - you either like it or you don't, you gain some food from it or you don't- same as I'm not particularly blown away by the sci-fi genre. It doesn't speak to me on some 'higher level'! You need to accept that you don't appreciate her the way us Janeites do! Nothing wrong with that, but you seem to have put a LOT of thought into the 2 books you have read, with no satisfaction for you so put it to rest..

Like I said I'm a history buff - I enjoy being transported back in time to another time. Austen does that for me - as do Dickens and Hardy and Bronte. The beauty of reading and art for me is that I don't really need to analyse why I enjoy it - I'm just on another planet as I read them and yes for me it does feed my soul! Maybe it's just simple escapism. I don't know and I don't really dwell on it..I just know I love the stories, I love the characters, I soak up the narrative and description! Take music, I don't understand what pleasure my OH finds in Rage against the Machine but I can see he really enjoys that type - people gain an indescribable pleasure from certain types of music, for example classical - and Beethoven, Chopin, Ravel et al have and always will endure:)..

I hope you find a "classic" that will give you as much pleasure ( and I mean this is the nicest way) and that that won't leave you feeling dissatisfied or analytical or critical- just a book on a rainy day that you curl up to by the fire and immerse yourself in...Austen doesn't seem to do that for you although Bronte does. So just accept that you will never appreciate Austen the way I will never accept "angry" rock music and seek out another... I'm sure now there are 2 types of readers same as art critics - those that just know they appreciate and can't or don't need to explain why and then those like yourself.. I may be wrong but I don't think reading for you is escapism

As for me, its a miserable rainy day in Cork City, I've had a long tiring week at the office so I'm off to have a nice hot cuppa and start Northanger Abbey for the umpteenth time:D:D ... I hope you will find your "curl up by the fire" book soon.......:o

fergalr

Roisinbunny wrote: »

I think never will we really appreciate each other's standpoint.

Oh, I don't know... perhaps not, but perhaps its just that this stuff is hard to communicate.
For what its worth, I'm coming around a bit as I read the posts. I initially chimed in to argue that the books were 'chick-lit' and I've since come around to the conclusion that they aren't.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

You seem really dissatisfied with Austen's work and so all I can say is browse other authors of the same time period. I would say maybe read the rest of her works so that you can satisfy yourself that all her books dissatisfy you (Again, I mean that in the most friendly way possible!)

Well, I wouldn't so much say I was really dissatisfied with them; other than that because I had high expectations as A) She's so popular and the people who read her books say they are classic works and very good.
I was disappointed.
I think her books are fine, but I don't think they are truly excellent, or deserve to be called classics.

I've read some of the Bronte sisters (thatd be a similar enough time, right? Its slightly afterwards, but would be considered similar enough?) and really liked them.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

I think ultimately you need to stop reading so much into Austen - you either like it or you don't, you gain some food from it or you don't- same as I'm not particularly blown away by the sci-fi genre. It doesn't speak to me on some 'higher level'! You need to accept that you don't appreciate her the way us Janeites do! Nothing wrong with that, but you seem to have put a LOT of thought into the 2 books you have read, with no satisfaction for you so put it to rest..

Ah well, I don't think about her books all the time or anything. Like I said, I studied Emma for leaving cert, so I covered it in a lot of detail. I think this maybe wasn't fair on the book, as I think its too light to be studied in a lot of detail. Which is part of what I'm getting at.

You mention sci-fi there - some science fiction books are great; many are rubbish. I think as a genre it suffers from a lot of derivative ideas and poor writing. But there are great books, which, as well as entertaining you, expand your world view, and change the way you think about some things as a person.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

Like I said I'm a history buff - I enjoy being transported back in time to another time. Austen does that for me - as do Dickens and Hardy and Bronte.

I really like 'A tale of two cities' too; and dislike Oliver Twist. So its not that I don't like that general time period.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

The beauty of reading and art for me is that I don't really need to analyse why I enjoy it - I'm just on another planet as I read them and yes for me it does feed my soul! Maybe it's just simple escapism. I don't know and I don't really dwell on it..I just know I love the stories, I love the characters, I soak up the narrative and description!

Hey I totally get like that too, and I love reading for that side of things as well. I love escaping into a book and being entertained by it.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

Take music, I don't understand what pleasure my OH finds in Rage against the Machine but I can see he really enjoys that type - people gain an indescribable pleasure from certain types of music, for example classical - and Beethoven, Chopin, Ravel et al have and always will endure:)..

I hope you find a "classic" that will give you as much pleasure ( and I mean this is the nicest way) and that that won't leave you feeling dissatisfied or analytical or critical- just a book on a rainy day that you curl up to by the fire and immerse yourself in...Austen doesn't seem to do that for you although Bronte does. So just accept that you will never appreciate Austen the way I will never accept "angry" rock music and seek out another... I'm sure now there are 2 types of readers same as art critics - those that just know they appreciate and can't or don't need to explain why and then those like yourself.. I may be wrong but I don't think reading for you is escapism

Reading can indeed be escapism for me, and that's frequently a reason I'll read a book. But it's not just escapism. A good book will do other good things for me too.

Take 'The DaVinci Code' by Dan Brown. Pretty compelling reading, makes you want to keep turning the pages to see what will happen next. Definitely engaging stuff, and you are transported into another world of hunting down artefacts, conspiracy, ancient quests, good and evil. Very enjoyable reading.
Possibly one of the best books at doing what it does.

But is it any 'good'? Well, no I wouldn't say so. It didn't do anything for other than entertain me over the brief period I read it. That's one of the main things I'm trying to get at...
I didn't, for example, learn anything from the characters, or the way they dealt with their situations.

A classic book could have been just as entertaining and have just as much escapism, but I'd learn something from it, and ideally, it'd make me a slightly better person after reading it.

To me, there's more to what makes a book 'good' than just the pleasure of reading it.
Is this asking a lot, or being harsh? Possibly; but I'm happy to be that way.

I not got an issue with accepting how I feel about Austen; I'm not repressing anything here, honest

I guess to summarise, I'd feel that she's a good writer of light books that excellently describe the times and social conditions she was familiar with. She writes good dialog, but with fairly simple, idealised characters. Her books can be entertaining and enjoyable, but wouldn't do much to improve the reader. If you are willing to look past certain of the authors more constricting messages about society, its enjoyable, and well written, but light, escapist literature.

Roisinbunny wrote: »

As for me, its a miserable rainy day in Cork City, I've had a long tiring week at the office so I'm off to have a nice hot cuppa and start Northanger Abbey for the umpteenth time:D:D ... I hope you will find your "curl up by the fire" book soon.......:o

That sounds really nice, and definitely the thing to be at today...
I do have loads of books I like to curl up with, don't worry about me from that regard..!

Anyway, I think I've managed to say almost all I can say on the issue of Ms Austen... I'll read Persuasion some time (actually think I'll head into town and pick up a copy now), and see if thats any more like what I'm after.

I shall endeavour not to distract you further from your reading; but thanks for all the replies; as well as being entertaining, they changed the way I thought about things. :P

Mantra Dave

I like the sequels and fan fiction like this Jane Austen book

Barna77

randomguy wrote: »

I was in Chapters yesterday and saw "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" on sale - was tempted, but was already buying 4 books so decided to leave it. I'd read a review in the AV Club a while back and couldn't remember if it was good or not. Just checked there, and they gave it an A.

Anyone here read it? Although I'm a heterosexual male, I accidently* read all Jane Austen's novels as a teenager, and I was thinking that reading this would rebalance my macho-ness.


* I was stuck in a foreign country with only the Jane Austen collection as reading matter. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

Read it a few years ago. I remember the guy int he book shop telling me it was very funny. It was meh/alrightish in the end. A bit disappointing...

It ended up in some charity shop.