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.

I've had a hard time reading this book, mainly because I don't like the way Austen presents the story. It's a very casual presentation of every day life during this time period--there's nothing extraordinarily profound in my opinion. A lot of my opinions have to do with the position of women at the time, which I think is really horrible. It's really annoying how women are so inferior, and their only future, their only means of success, lies in who they marry. I hate that women had to rely on men for success, and not just that fact, but that that mindset was accepted and common. I don't think this book really changed the face of literature when it was published, because it really just recounted their average way of life. Today, we can appreciate the novel because we can see the different perspectives of a culture many years ago and compare it to our own; outside of that, it's really just a romance story. Some people may enjoy that, but I just didn't get really into it. The only characer I really liked was Elizabeth, as many of you have mentioned, mainly because she was the only bearable one. She stuck to her guns, and stayed true to herself. When she had the opportunity to get married, she chose to sacrifice her potential social status for a chance at true love, and I respect her for that.

Mr. Bennet has been appearing in a more interesting light lately in my reading. After Elizabeth received Darcy's letter and realized that her father would do nothing to make her mother and younger sisters behave better, my opinion of him was considerably lowered. However, not long after that, as Lydia prepares to go to Brighton and Elizabeth tries to enlist her father's help in stopping Lydia, Mr. Bennet said something that changed my mind again: "Lydia will never be at ease until she has exposed herself in some public place or other, and we can never expect her to do it with so little expense or inconvenience to her family as under the present circumstances." This made me think that perhaps there is more design and wisdom in his parenting strategy than I had previously thought. Maybe he's just rationalizing the fact that he's too tired and disinterested to play an active role in steering his daughters' course, but I think there's at least a grain of truth in his statement about Lydia.

Bridget Jones' mother is unmistakably based on the character of Mrs. Bennet. She's always pushing her to attend parties, especially well-to-do ones, even though it drives Bridget crazy. She was also the one who first saw the possible connection with Mark Darcy, which turned Bridget away, mostly because it was another one of her mother's crazy ideas. I remember feeling pity for Bridget's father when Bridget's mother runs off with another man, and I feel some of that same sympathy concerning Mr. Bennet. It is rather unfortunate to have five daughers, all of them unmarried, when all you need is a male to inherit your property. Like Bridget's father, he seems to go along with Mrs. Bennet in her ramblings, making her think she makes sense but really he pretty much ignores her. He changes some when Lydia gets married on a whim; I think he realizes that he hasn't been the best parent in the world. What does everyone else think about Mr. and Mrs. Bennet?

Has anyone read Bridget Jones's Diary? I heard that Helen Fielding was a big fan of Jane Austen and used some of Austen's themes in her book. I think that's what pushed me to read this book in the first place. It makes this book easier to relate with, because Bridget is so easy to relate with. They really are very similar- Bridget Jones is in her 30s, feeling bad that all of her friends are married and she's single. Although Bridget is rather shallow and pathetic, she is often amusing in her entries. The other major character is Mark Darcy, who is almost exactly like Mr. Darcy from P & P. Darcy acts like he hates Bridget from the start, so she automatically dislikes him (sounds like a little prejudice and pride to me). I don't want to spoil the ending, but their relationship ends up developing almost exactly like Elizabeth and Darcy's. I wouldn't go as far to say Bridget Jones's Diary is a 20th/21st century rendition of P & P, but it is fun to relate the two.

Hey everyone, I'm new here because I was originally reading A Tale of Two Cities. This is Ben Lacker, by the way. On the subject of narration, I can easily see how you could think the book as being written from Elizabeth's perspective, at least most of the time. The narrator tends to make brief, insightful, often trenchant comments on the characters, and Elizabeth's prejudice seems to dispose her to make similar sorts of observations. You might say that the narrator and Elizabeth have similar personalities. I'm a little behind you guys in the book, since I switched, so excuse me if any of what I say only pertains to the first half of the novel. I do hope these little comments on the characters by the narrator continue, though, because they are one of my favorite things about Pride and Prejudice.