I'd say, if you're having so much trouble with the language of the book itself, then give it up (if you can, and aren't reading this as a school assignment) since you're missing out on the main reason to read it. It'd be like trying to convince yourself to enjoy an omelette, when you simply cannot stand eggs.

You're right. there's no compulsion so it's better to give it up and give it another chance when I'm more fluent. I have to admit that I love post-modern literature, specially American, and I'm afraid of this fact more than coming out to my parents because it's very embarrassing. (hypothetically).

19th century was not a good era for English literature. I mean there are authors like Dickens that have remarkable works, but his so called masterpieces just have good plots. there's no tension and desire in their lines. but 19th century was golden era for French literature. I prefer to read "Le Comte De monte-cristo" rather than anything in the world.

Aca wrote:i have a problem with English classics.

Not that they are bad books, but how much social drama can you take in before they all start to feel like rehashing of the same theme?

I know what i think does not do justice to some really good work, it's just how i feel about it...

Well, but, for me anyway, part of the enjoyment of such a book as P & P is in the reading itself--the journey taken with such a well-written book.

When you think about it, the plots of most of her books had some similar elements and seem to be a kind of wish-fulfillment for Austen. There's always the intelligent heroine who feels pressure to marry but has no suitable person. There's often the older married couple who are the model of the kind of marriage Austen felt to be ideal--a marriage of true love and friendship. And you always have one or two weddings at the end.

Aurlito wrote:19th century was not a good era for English literature. I mean there are authors like Dickens that have remarkable works, but his so called masterpieces just have good plots. there's no tension and desire in their lines.

Exsqueeze me? No tension?? Our Mutual Friend? The Woman In White (Collins)? Lady Audley's Secret (Braddon)?

"...just have good plots"??? Bejeez. Characters! WIT! Colour! Social commentary! Vivid reportage! If anything, Dickens' plots are his weakest point!

(Mind you, I'm struggling to think of something 19th-century-ish with overt "desire". Someone else can find you a counter-example for that one. )

Mr. Shrunk wrote:
See, that's what I love about Austen. You don't read her for the plot, or the characters, but for the words themselves, arranged into long, sensuous sentences that loop around and double back on themselves in surprising ways, all the time perfectly obeying all rules of syntax.

Exactly.

j.mills wrote:

Aurlito wrote:19th century was not a good era for English literature. I mean there are authors like Dickens that have remarkable works, but his so called masterpieces just have good plots. there's no tension and desire in their lines.

Exsqueeze me? No tension?? Our Mutual Friend? The Woman In White (Collins)? Lady Audley's Secret (Braddon)?

"...just have good plots"??? Bejeez. Characters! WIT! Colour! Social commentary! Vivid reportage! If anything, Dickens' plots are his weakest point!

(Mind you, I'm struggling to think of something 19th-century-ish with overt "desire". Someone else can find you a counter-example for that one. )

Maybe I just don't like them.

That's better. Now I have no grounds for disagreement.

Aurlito wrote:

19th century was not a good era for English literature. I mean there are authors like Dickens that have remarkable works, but his so called masterpieces just have good plots. there's no tension and desire in their lines. but 19th century was golden era for French literature. I prefer to read "Le Comte De monte-cristo" rather than anything in the world.

That's a good one. Got any more?

Well, I have read all of Austen's books (I know, how many times do you hear that in a day?) but seriously, I think her books are really enjoyable. You can analyse them if you want or you can just read them as excellent novels, which is what they are. A lot of people complain because are ''merely'' about women who get married. Apart from missing out on the fact that the main characters are always married off at the end of comedies for reasons I need not go into (think of Shakespeare, for example), this just mystifies me. I really don't care what a book is about as long as it is good: it can be about marriage, robots, serial killers, pedophilia, etc etc. And they are good. If you don't like them, don't read them.

Aurlito wrote:Is this book any good? I've read 30 pages and it was all about a stupid ballet and a rich man that danced twice with a girl. will there be any improvements in the story at all?

Yes and it has one of my favourite characters in literature-Mr. Wickham. I find comprehending hundred plus word sentences without modern grammar good practice for filling out most types of form sent to you by the British Civil Service.

I came to P&P a year or two ago after watching the ITV series Lost In Austen. Which it's loosely based upon. Liked the series, bought the book, almost put it down too because I thought Darcy was a twat. I came to warm to all the characters during the course of reading.

i especially love how she paints these scenes with her words and her sense of humor.
read her the first time over 20 years ago when i was looking for a novel by a woman writer from as early back as poss.
pride and prejudice used to be my favourite but changed later to mansfield park which gives an insight of how people in that situation of life thought at that time.though mansfield park is not as funny as the other books.
totally agree with shrunk that just reading her is a pleasure in itself.

It's a great book.
I'm not a fan of "girly" books, and was put off picking it up by all the fawning over Darcy. When I finally decided to give it a try, I instantly fell in love with Austen's language and wit. It's an absolute joy to read - not nearly as saccharine as I expected it to be and a hell of a lot of fun.

Wilde wrote:It's a great book.
I'm not a fan of "girly" books, and was put off picking it up by all the fawning over Darcy. When I finally decided to give it a try, I instantly fell in love with Austen's language and wit. It's an absolute joy to read - not nearly as saccharine as I expected it to be and a hell of a lot of fun.

Great!

Jane Austen was FAR from saccharine!

If you read a biography of her you will see. . .

I become quite exasperated when people judge Austen novels by the plot alone and write them off as "girly" just because there's romance in them. They are so full of wit, intelligence & social comment. She was a genius and I agree with those above who laugh at the notion of Austen being saccharine. Her pen is MUCH more acidic than sweet and there are many levels to mine in her books. Film & TV adaptations tend to exist on the top, most accessible level but there's much more beneath the surface than a skimmed plot and shallow character sketches for those willing (and able) to delve deeper by savouring the books over several readings of each one.

Topsy wrote:I become quite exasperated when people judge Austen novels by the plot alone and write them off as "girly" just because there's romance in them. They are so full of wit, intelligence & social comment. She was a genius and I agree with those above who laugh at the notion of Austen being saccharine. Her pen is MUCH more acidic than sweet and there are many levels to mine in her books. Film & TV adaptations tend to exist on the top, most accessible level but there's much more beneath the surface than a skimmed plot and shallow character sketches for those willing (and able) to delve deeper by savouring the books over several readings of each one.

Exactly.
I could have kicked my own arse after I finally got over the whole "sweet and girly" prejudice, actually read her books and discovered how incredibly clever they are. I could have enjoyed them much earlier had I not let the nostalgia-prone Darcy fangirls in my acquaintance drown out the voices of reason informing me that her books were brilliant. I thought I was reading a different novel.

And she had the good manners to only write 6 novels, not like that vulgar Mr Dickens!

j.mills wrote:And she had the good manners to only write 6 novels, not like that vulgar Mr Dickens!

You'd like Jeffrey Eugenides.

One of your more cryptic utterances, Spinozasgalt (which is saying something). However, googling indicates he has published only two novels and a handful of short stories, which I take to be your point. Of course, by this criterion of "the less, the more", I am myself a better writer than Eugenides, Austen or Dickens.

Spinozasgalt wrote:

j.mills wrote:And she had the good manners to only write 6 novels, not like that vulgar Mr Dickens!

You'd like Jeffrey Eugenides.

Ooooh, I love his work.
Middlesex was fantastic.

j.mills wrote:One of your more cryptic utterances, Spinozasgalt (which is saying something). However, googling indicates he has published only two novels and a handful of short stories, which I take to be your point. Of course, by this criterion of "the less, the more", I am myself a better writer than Eugenides, Austen or Dickens.

Expect to get that Nobel Prize call shortly.

mmmcheezy wrote:Ooooh, I love his work.
Middlesex was fantastic.

I have it waiting on my shelf. The Virgin Suicides took over all my thoughts when I read it.

Pride and Prejudice is a massively entertaining book. Literary classic status aside, Austen's dry British wit is an ageless treat.

Topsy wrote:I become quite exasperated when people judge Austen novels by the plot alone and write them off as "girly" just because there's romance in them. They are so full of wit, intelligence & social comment. She was a genius and I agree with those above who laugh at the notion of Austen being saccharine. Her pen is MUCH more acidic than sweet and there are many levels to mine in her books. Film & TV adaptations tend to exist on the top, most accessible level but there's much more beneath the surface than a skimmed plot and shallow character sketches for those willing (and able) to delve deeper by savouring the books over several readings of each one.

I don't think feminine reputation of Austen's books originate from their romance. Les Miserable has romance too, but it's a very manly book.