Pride and Prejudice

Re Leanna's comment about pride and prejudice (the concepts). No, they don't have to go hand in hand. I know this was a big topic of discussion very early in the blogging, but I think I sort of missed out on that since I was reading A Tale of Two Cities at first. I've always read the title as referring to Darcy and Elizabeth, respectively. Darcy's most notable trait is his pride, and Elizabeth's her prejudice. As the book progresses, however, it's interesting to watch Elizabeth lose a bit of her prejudice and Darcy lose a bit of his pride. Or maybe the traits just get restructured a little.

Firstly, I would like to respond to Allen's comment that "mostly all of the characters stuck out." Really, I see three characters that stick out. Elizabeth, because she is the protagonist; Darcy, because he is the protagonist's male counterpart; and Mrs. Bennet, because she is probably the most annoying and bothersome character I have ever come into contact with, in fiction or real life. Outside of these characters, I don't think Austen developed the other characters very deeply at all. We familiarized ourselves with them mostly through dialogue, and I don't feel that we knew their personalities very well at all. From the research I've done looking for literary critiques, I've learned that Austen wrote about her surroudings. She wasn't exposed to much outside of her homelife, so she wrote about what was familiar to her. The characters are normal people, and I wouldn't consider them to be extraordinarily fascinating or really even that interesting. The interest in the story lies in Austen's observances on daily life and, primarily, the progression of the relationship between Elizabeth and Darcy. I would argue that the characters themselves are not as worthy of distinction as is Austen's exquisite writing. It always took me a few paragraphs to reorient myself to her formal style, but I love her beautiful language, and it is worth reading the book just to experience her writing.

Firstly, I would like to respond to Allen's comment that "mostly all of the characters stuck out." Really, I see three characters that stick out. Elizabeth, because she is the protagonist; Darcy, because he is the protagonist's male counterpart; and Mrs. Bennet, because she is probably the most annoying and bothersome character I have ever come into contact with, in fiction or real life. Outside of these characters, I don't think Austen developed the other characters very deeply at all. We familiarized ourselves with them mostly through dialogue, and I don't feel that we knew their personalities very well at all. From the research I've done looking for literary critiques, I've learned that Austen wrote about her surroudings. She wasn't exposed to much outside of her homelife, so she wrote about what was familiar to her. The characters are normal people, and I wouldn't consider them to be extraordinarily fascinating or really even that interesting. The interest in the story lies in Austen's observances on daily life and, primarily, the progression of the relationship between Elizabeth and Darcy. I would argue that the characters themselves are not as worthy of distinction as is Austen's exquisite writing. It always took me a few paragraphs to reorient myself to her formal style, but I love her beautiful language, and it is worth reading the book just to experience her writing.

Part of what bothers me about this book is that I had expected a more feminist viewpoint from Austen, because that was what I had experienced before with female authors from previous time periods. The characters in Pride and Prejudice are women of their time period--I don't mean to generalize, there are always exceptions--but none of them are really feminist or even in my opinion assertive, with the possible exception of Elizabeth and her smart mouth. The women just let the men control society and their lives with little of their own influence. For example, when Bingley leaves Netherfield, Jane just waits for him without any contact or any real idea of what's going on with their relationship. Even when Lydia goes off with Wickham, her family just sits back without going after her, while they are more affected by her actions than anyone else. They are generally submissive and typical of the conservative viewpoint of women.

I definitely agree with Christin about Austen's style, although I think a large part of that extends to her descriptions of characters, and how well she portrays them through narration. The characters themselves have really made impressions on me, and not just for the way Austen describes them. Maybe I'm just not used to reading about the Victorian age, but several of the characters really stand out to me as interesting and unique: Elizabeth, Darcy, and Mr. Bennet. Mrs. Bennet stands out as annoying, but she's much more of a flat character, and much more of a stereotype, the sort of character I feel like I've seen before.

I'd like to respond to what Christin said about the lack of feminism in the book, and the lack of assertive women. A big part of that seems to be due to the actual personalities of the major female characters, rather than the fact that they're women. I mean, Mrs. Bennet and Lydia are annoying, ditzy people, and I don't think this is because they're conforming to the gender roles of the time (although they do), but rather because they're just annoying and stupid. If they were men, their stupidity might take slightly different forms based on gender roles, but they'd be just as stupid. The same goes for Jane. She's passive, and willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and not nearly as assertive as she has right to be. Certainly it's easier for her to do this since society lays out a passive role for women, but I think it's mostly just her personality. I mean, Bingley does basically the same thing- lets other people push him around all the time, doesn't take a stand for what he wants.