Just delightful. =) ( )

from Bethany:

The timelessness of Austen’s writing is beautiful and astounding. Everyone knows of this classic. I myself have just now had the pleasure of reading this book for the first time. I assure you the time has been well spent. The descriptive nature of the book brings the author’s world to life within your own imagination. ( )

[Certain] cases testify to bad faith: for example the women whose disappointment in marriage has made them frigid—which is to say that they manage to conceal from themselves the pleasure they receive from the sexual act. For these women frequently, indeed, the husband reveals that his wife has shown objective signs of pleasure, and it is these signs that the wife, when questioned, fiercely endeavors to deny [. . .] The phenomenon here is clearly a case of bad faith, since the effort made to dissociate from the felt pleasure implies a recognition that the pleasure is felt, and implies it precisely in order to deny it.
— Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness

On Warmth

It is a mark of craft that Austen's novel begins with one of the most brazen shows of bourgeois sang-froid in literature: Mrs. Bennett sending anti-plain Jane out in the chilling rain to get her laid up with a fever in the abode of a potential suitor. It is humorous that she would risk her prettiest daughter in this way (conveying the chilling sense of "better dead than a spinster"), and it's somehow more amusing that the obvious calculation in this forward-froward gesture goes unremarked by the Darci entourage. One presumes it's a concession to good taste that one doesn't speak of such things in polite company.

"Good Taste" should be given its due as the so-called "ghost in the machine" of the (para-)Victorian novel. In these novels it seems to consist, for the most part, in freezing the nascent speech act, which accompanies the chilling of pleasure. This double movement seems to be entangled with what Sartre calls "bad faith" (we are also appreciating this term, in its original use (above), as a pejorative against Frigid Bitches.) "Bad Faith," and the violation of its protocol, is perhaps the reason why certain characters in Pride and Prejudice strike us as vulgar. Mr. Collins and his marriage proposal are ridiculous because, in making explicit his parvenu calculations, he says exactly what he means. (I don't know if schools teach how funny this scene is.) He has suppressed pleasure, but not its attendant speech act, and therefore speaks in bad taste (whereas he should have remained silent, per the rules of Bad Faith). Lady Catherine is an appropriate patroness for this gentleman since her dissuasive speech against marriage to Mr. Darci, this time on behalf of aristocratic primogeniture, is vulgar for laying everything out. Lady Catherine's remarkable speech, which can only have the opposite of its intended effect (Even the most cursory reader predicts this outcome, why doesn't Catherine?), is more remarkable for its depiction that the so-called upper classes seem to have no qualms displaying their own bad taste.

Sartre's "Bad Faith" as moderator of "Good Taste" is also the arbiter of its own exceptions — Bad Faith is always in good taste, but so is its opposite: outspoken, self-conscious independent movement is also worthy of approbation (at least in the Austen novel) — meaning it's possible to move behind the rule so as long as one is warm enough about it. (The link between warmth in the female protagonist and the tension between sexual gratification and "Bad Faith" in Sartre's text should not remain unremarked.) Elizabeth, who, against conventional taste, has traveled to the Darcy residence on foot, ends up dirtying her dress, yet shows up flushed and well-perfused and thereby acquits herself. Mr. Bennett who has had the good taste to hold his tongue about Mr. Collins, comes to speak his mind only after the young man has chilled himself in comparison, and carries it off with a warm turn-of-phrase. In such moments, characters like Elizabeth Bennet and her father are making themselves some of the best-beloved characters in fiction. This display of immaculate good taste (i.e. Be free! Speak and accept pleasure!) is good taste precisely because it is the inversion of the general rule (i.e. Hold your tongue! Deny pleasure!).

Good taste is habitually defining its own discourse — even in its state of exception. In the Austen novel we are always wondering what a character is doing in the moments in which we are not observing him; what will the curious behavior of a character skirting the boundary to good taste come to mean when his reasons are revealed. The occasion will never arise when we are able to ask certain other questions. It will always be inappropriate, as Edward Said notes (Culture and Imperialism, 1993) to inquire how Mr. Darcy makes his "ten thousand a year." (One must presume these are from his colonial holdings, just offstage). One imagines the Austen-ian colonial subject in her double bind with respect to imperial good taste. She has managed to preserve her life from day to day, we say if she has a problem she should speak up. Those who are toiling in a warm, shall we say sweltering, environs perhaps don't have the resources to do so, yet, granted that she does somehow speak, her statements are already in bad taste. She could speak truth-to-pleasure like Elizabeth only if she could also act like her in freedom. Of course this is the beating heart of the problem with which she began: being always already compelled to perform the "false" act. That we are demonstrating how the colonial subject is bound to a lower stratum is perhaps not so interesting in itself. What's more remarkable is how this person, as we imagine her place in the Austen novel — all fixity and false consciousness — is precisely the warmed-over silhouette of the hated upper classes against which the Bennet family (and reader) have defined themselves. In this relation we perceive Lady Catherine (and the subaltern in her shadow) as primitive accumulator(s) who, for the sake of good taste, ought to be finagled out of their allotment.

Mr. Darcy's anti-social silences are a problem for good taste, but not of this type. We are in alliance with him by the end of the novel because his refusal of social niceties seems to be because he feels it all so much. In this form, Darcy is the anti-model of Sartre's waiter who, in lieu of a tip, has found himself immortalized as the caricature of Bad Faith: acting the part but feeling nothing,"So we should make ourselves be what we are. But then what are we, if we are constantly obliged to make ourselves be what we are? Consider this café waiter. His movements are animated and intent, his voice and his eyes expressing an interest in the customer’s order that is a bit too solicitous. His behavior throughout strikes us as an act. He is playing, amusing himself. But what, then, is he playing at? One does not need to watch him for long to realize: he is playing at being a café waiter" (Being and Nothingness, 1943). Sartre's "Bad Faith" is perhaps useful for understanding bourgeois Good Taste (already an impoverished heuristic for middle-class socialization). It seems, however, an impoverished way to go about understanding a human being. One imagines Sartre conceiving the "human being" in his "true form" acting intentionally, perhaps at home where He [sic] is free to be himself. We are still on the lookout for this ubermensch who is free to act without always already "acting out" a social role. When we question this (subaltern) waiter possibly we learn something more than his caricature can tell us. There is a relation between the habits of labor and self perception; it may be that this waiter feels like his "true self," solicitous, acrobatic, perhaps a little genteel, only when he is on the job. At home watching television with the wife and kids (which he chooses with the choice of existentialist gravity) — this is the act. The forces of habit are perhaps the sole determining forces. We still allow certain people to wear their habitual labor as a personality, military men and doctors (such dispensations only seem to apply to men [sic] in respectable positions, why is that?) The demented person, on the return journey toward vegetative life, possesses only his habits of social nicety; such possessions become his "true self," as perhaps they always were.

We are digressing here from our discussion of Mr. Darcy — absent niceties — whose about-face, brushing against the grain of habit, is therefore dubious. We are impressed by his magnanimous act, forgiving Mr. Wickham who has done him wrong, and allowing news of this to reach Elizabeth only by third-hand rumor. He acquits himself admirably; our only problem being that he pulls it off as cleverly as he might play an immaculate hand of bridge to solve a contrived plot in a novel. Returning to his estate, secure in his victory, one imagines Mr. Darcy relapsing to old habits. This is not so hard for us. What may be more difficult is to imagine the world for Mrs. Elizabeth Darcy, constrained in wealthy marriage, forthright, unimpeachable, her parochial squabbles, sometimes in less-than-good-taste, unimpeachable (again), protecting her colonial holdings, losing warmth. We have known such couples. ( )

I am not a natural classics reader and only read this one because it is a book club choice. There is also nothing I can say that has not already been said about the book. It has been studied by academics and enjoyed by very many people so this review is really a list of thoughts.

I did enjoy Lydia and her loud ignorance. It is refreshing to know that this type of person was around in the 1700s. It must have been particularly racy at the time to write about a woman who went and lived with a man but had not married him. And it is her lack of understanding about this and its consequences on her family that I enjoyed. She sounds just like her mother!

I laughed at Mr Collins and his proposal of marriage to Elizabeth. So they had pompous asses in the 1700s too. His refusal to take no as an answer, with his understanding that she really meant yes but was just playing to the romantic notions of the day, the modesty and desire to heighten a man's interest, when read with the present-day filter, is a little alarming, but in the context of the book is farcical as there is no sinister follow-up once the notion of no is received. His perception of himself is dependent on the status of those that he has contact with and his squirming self-importance knows no bounds.

The first sentence is fantastic and really sets us up to understand that this is a story where there are misunderstandings galore but all will be righted in the end. It is a comedy and there are some elements that made me laugh - mostly the characters. In fact, the characters are very well observed and described and are part of the universality of the book that make it a classic.

Although I am not sure whether Austen was the first to use the structure of the romance - two people who appear to hate each other but then realise they were wrong and admit they are in love - it is a structure which is frequently used in romances. So if the definition of a classic is that it's impact is seen in writing today, this one definitely hits the mark. I did find the novel a bit slow in book 2 and enjoyed book 3 the most probably because all the action and undoing of the previous mistakes misunderstandings occurred in it.

I found it quite a challenge to read, having to slow down and reread sentences where I wasn't totally sure of the use of the vocabulary or the syntax. An example of this is when Lady Catherine, having vehemently told Elizabeth of her disapproval of an engagement between her and Darcy, it occurred to Elizabeth that Lady Catherine would need to:

. . . meditate an application to her nephew
p340

I doubt this is about sending a thought to her nephew as waves from one mind to another, or sitting cross-legged chanting an Om. Words have changed in meaning and this required a little care.

For me this is a book about marriage and the role of women, manners and to some smaller degree inheritance. We have marriages stemming from eloping and in Lydia's case passion, from an acceptance that a place in the world can only be gained through this institution, the prudence of Charlotte to use an Austen word, marriages stemming from misunderstandings - Jane and Elizabeth but also dependent on social class where Darcy and his cousin were promised to each other at birth. It seems that marriage absolves all sins. In Lydia's case it wiped away the social impropriety of living together even though their behaviour did not change.

Elizabeth's parents' marriage was not a happy one, passion and imprudence, with her father tiring of her mother after about five years and absconding to his office/library to read and take little part in the family life. Usually inequality in marriage is shown through wealth, as it is here due to the inheritance laws, but also inequality in interests, knowledge of the world and of feelings.

Elizabeth's marriage is one of respect for each other, as is Jane's, accompanied by the idea that people can change their minds. The lesson in Jane's courtship is that if you don't show your feelings clearly they can be misinterpreted and in Elizabeth's that speaking your mind is one way to gain respect with your future husband if not Lady Catherine. One of the symbols of this idea that minds do not have to be small and narrow is the size of Darcy's library. It suggests broad-mindedness and because it was built up over generations, a steadiness in the person and family and their ideas.

So, the marriage that contains both passion and prudence is the winner! One we should strive for and probably not the sort of marriage that was all that common at the time the book was written. It's yet another universal theme.

Our key question for book club is what makes a classic? Here are some of my ideas so far:

The universality of the story, be that characters, plot, themes or structure

It translates well to other media

You can see traces of the novel in present day books

It bears a rereading and you see more in it each time you do

Anything can be classic or a modern classic - each person can decide for themselves what a classic is

Classics are not always the same as those books that make up the literary canon. If a book is in the canon it will usually be a classic but not all classics are in the canon. ( )

EVERYTHING happens in this novel. Is incredibly readable and funny, mostly from Mr. Bennet and Elizabeth wich have a very sarcastic sense of humor. It seems that Jane Austen is talking through them and telling us how ridiculously superficial most relationships and judgment of people are, so much so as to be fearfully fragil. There is gossip a plenty, as for the name of the novel. ( )

A fantastic read. Certainly one of the books I'm ashamed it took me long to finally read. ( )

[Listened to the audiobook narrated by Kate Beckinsale.]

Wow. Oh wow. I did not expect to love this as much as I did.

Late last year, I read Pride by Ibi Zoboi. Prior to reading it, I stated that if I didn’t enjoy it I would read the actual Pride & Prejudice for comparison. (Spoiler Alert: I didn’t enjoy it.)

This was my first ever audiobook that I was able to listen to in full, which I think helped me to understand Austen’s very formal writing. I loved Elizabeth and Darcy (aka the original enemies-to-lovers blueprint), the Bennet sisters, the drama and the unexpected humor. This was a great read, and I will definitely be checking out Austen’s other works!

Edit: I’m raising this from four stars to five stars because I’ve had many revelations about this novel over the past few days and also Mr. Darcy is autistic because I (an autistic person) said so. ( )

Making it a work of both entertainment and thought-provoking depth.

Pride and Prejudice is a delightful classic. Jane Austen’s sharp wit and social insights shine through Elizabeth Bennet’s journey of love and self-discovery. The evolution of her relationships, along with the humor and depth of supporting characters, makes for an engaging read. ( )

My Number 1 book ( )

One of the foundational slow-burns, I suppose. I’m sure Elizabeth’s ideals were very progressive at the time.

The writing is a product of its time, and I had to constantly adjust to the style and wade through the sheer filler and overstuffed redundancy. Get to the point! When I tried to skim the page, I’d miss an important detail in the bloated fluff and have to reread the passage.

Bruh.

Elizabeth “Lizzie “ had a good head on her shoulders. She was outspoken and not easily shut up. She indirectly made a man work on his social skills and become genuinely pleasant to those around him. He said he got to get right to get with her lol

Honestly, I thought the Elizabeth and Darcy romance was spread thin. I wanted more of them. Her other sisters took up the brunt of the story.

Because of my reading experience, I think watching the movie version(s) would give me a better grasp of the story. This is a firm 3 for me. ( )

I love this book.

plot: ★★★★☆
I (of course) have seen the 2005 movie adaptation, so I was already familiar with the plot, which I think helped a lot for reading the book. This was my first attempt at reading a “classic” novel, so I wasn’t sure what to expect. I listened to the audio book version while reading a long if I was able to have the book near me, and it was a lot of fun! Elizabeth is a really fun character and narrator. She was relatable and funny and, for me, she really made the book enjoyable.
writing/prose: ★★★☆☆
it is a “classic”, so we go into it knowing the writing/language is going to be a bit different than “normal”. I will say some bits did go over my head at times, so I had to double back to figure out where I got lost, but it wasn’t THAT bad. I have to double back to figure out where I got lost in modern books as well, so perhaps I just do not know how to read as well as I thought I did.
pacing: ★★★☆☆
to me, it felt like a slower paced novel. I’m not sure if that was more with the writing going over my head, but there is a lot happening throughout the novel, so it does take a lot of time to cover. I wasn’t bored as I read though.
humor: ★★★★☆ (3.5 rounded up)
Elizabeth was hilarious. She was snarky and carried herself with an “IDGAF” attitude, but also got overwhelmed by emotion and times. as I said above, relatable AF.
characters: ★★★★★
the cast of characters were all super fun in their own way, but I wish I had a time machine to go back and ask Jane Austen what she was doing naming a character Bingley. I’m sure this was a common name (perhaps???) back then, but genuinely, all I could picture for Bingley was an overexaggerated circus clown.
spice level: ( )

I enjoyed this more than Emma. Emma and Elizabeth Bennett are so much alike. ( )

“Pride and Prejudice” has been on my list for a while. When this book popped up I figured since it’s supposed to be easier to read than the original I figured I would try it. I’m not so sure how abridged this is since it’s still 330+ pages and I question how hard to read the original version was. This was listed as being suitable for 11+. I read college textbooks for fun and I think this was quite a slog to get through and I had to take breaks. I read Dracula unabridged when I was 11 and there was no way I would have been able to get through this at 11 given I struggled enough as a 43 year old. I also recommend that you keep a pad of paper and a pen to keep track of the relationships.

The one other thing I’ve established is that this is the gentile version of Fiddler on the Roof. ( )

This book still makes me feel things because Darcy and Elizabeth are so amazing. Also the first time I finished it was one of those unseasonably warm days that makes you feel euphoric and I had my windows open and it was perfect. ( )

Muy interesante a lo que se refiere a relatar sentimientos y reacciones.
Muy muy realista en ese aspecto. Me gusta como en vez de poner dialogo, simplemente lo explica por ejemplo:
"le explico lo ocurrido y Mr Collins expreso su mas profundo pesar y ofrecio ayuda"
Esto lo hace muy rapido y da tiempo para decir cosas como:
"La reaccion de Mr collins le parecio evidente pero no podia dejar de sentir que ..." etc
Metiendose en la cabeza de la protagonista y enseñandonos con detalles como esta pensando

Pero no puedo dejar de pensar que esto no son mas que problemas superfluos de gente rica con mucho tiempo libre para pensar.

Que una de las chicas este tres semanas llorando y varios meses triste porque no la invitaron a una fiesta ... ( )

After years of starting and dropping this book, I have finally read it all the way through; and must say that I am not wholly benefited by this. I was utterly uninterested and unemotionally invested throughout most of the novel. None of the characters possessed any qualities to make me partial towards them or even really enjoy them (though, admittedly, several characters did provide some humor), and there was far too much irrelevant wording and plot development throughout. I also found all the preoccupation with manners and aristocracy very irksome.

Despite these shortcomings, I did enjoy the progressive softening of Mr. Darcy's character as well as Jane and Mr. Bingley's relationship. ( )

It seems a little shameful to admit that I reached the age of 31 without reading an Austen novel. I finally got round to ‘Pride and Prejudice’ thanks to a friend who not only gave me a copy but also lent me [b:Reading Lolita in Tehran|7603|Reading Lolita in Tehran|Azar Nafisi|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1397751318s/7603.jpg|903067], which piqued my interest about it. Living in Britain, I have of course seen multiple adaptations of the novel, so the plot was no surprise. What struck me, though, is that today it is popularly considered a romance. I found to be much more of a family drama. In fact, the central relationship between Lizzy and Darcy fascinated me for its lack of traditional epic romance. Their eventual engagement is based on a shift from mutual antipathy that occurs as both change over a period of more than a year. Although Darcy is said to be ‘violently in love’ in the end, the impression I got of Lizzy is that she comes to see Darcy as the kind of husband that would suit her best. The process of doing do is based on careful consideration of new information about his nature and behaviour, rather than emotional infatuation. She realises that he is willing to be much less of a snobbish, self-important jerk for her sake. This must be seen in the light of Lizzy’s obvious obligation to marry, something she is clearly rather ambivalent about. The various marriages depicted in ‘Pride and Prejudice’ are all very acutely observed. Mr and Mrs. Bennett’s is especially striking in its dysfunction, which has unfortunate implications for all the daughters. I found myself particularly interested in side characters, like Mary Bennett (whose bookish pomposity reminded me of myself at that age) and Charlotte Lucas. The latter’s views on her husband-to-be are revealing:

Her reflections were in general satisfactory. Mr Collins to be sure was neither sensible nor agreeable; his society was irksome, and his attachment to her must be imaginary. But still he would be her husband. Without thinking highly of men or matrimony, marriage had always been her object; it was the only honourable provision for well-educated young women of small fortune, and however uncertain of giving happiness, must be their pleasantest preservative from want. This preservative she had now obtained; and at the age of twenty-seven, without ever having been handsome, she felt all the good luck of it.

I was pleased that Austen gave the reader this insight into Charlotte, as a counterpoint to Lizzy’s shock and horror that she’d accepted Mr. Collins’ proposal. I think the important detail is their respective ages. Despite her own pressures to marry, Lizzy is seven years younger than Charlotte. Still, Lizzy’s incredulity is reasonable because Mr. Collins is superlatively terrible. His letters to Mr. Bennett are particularly hilarious. Just the sort of person it very entertaining to read about or hear anecdotes on the subject of, but should be otherwise avoided as much as possible. He is hardly the only point of humour in the book, of course. The writing is invariably witty, especially in the case of dialogue. I’m glad to have read ‘Pride and Prejudice’ and found in it both a sharply funny drama and an insight into the lives of 18th century gentlewomen. Maybe I’ll read [b:Sense and Sensibility|14935|Sense and Sensibility|Jane Austen|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1397245675s/14935.jpg|2809709] one day. ( )

One of the great classics of everyday life and the limits placed on upper class English women. ( )

Book 8
Pride and Prejudice.
Jane Austen.
Because Jane Austen was chosen to be on the new £10 note which we didn't see till we returned from Romania, I decided she had to go on the list. I had read this book in my 20's and seen the 1995 and 2005 film and TV series. Anne Boyce suggested I start with pride and prejudice. I thoroughly enjoyed the book and am going to (after talking to Dawn Rogers) re watch the film.
822 days left.
9/10
1/100 books that changed the world.
Now reading my 1986 diary I realise I also read this on my big trip to China with Nick Wannan.
Karen Matula. ( )

Most classic lovers would have already read Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. This edition, however, isn't just for new readers but for collectors. It takes the evergreen story by Jane Austen and presents in a beautiful new packaging. The overall effect is so compelling that it will be tough to resist purchasing this book, especially as the story is unabridged and hence will retain its original appeal.

The cover itself indicates how beautiful the inner content of this book will be. Every single chapter is embellished with lovely flowers. With a new chapter, the flower changes. The result is a floral extravaganza with the fragrance being provided by Jane Austen's everlasting story. Marjolein Bastin is a brilliant illustrator and it shows in her work.

I just wish the font used would have been something other than the typical Times New Roman. I understand that the classic novels were printed using this typeface but it looks plain next to the beautiful flowers.

But it's still a gorgeous book and worth adding to your collection.


I received an advance review copy of the book for free, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.


*************************************
Join me on the Facebook group, Readers Forever!, for more reviews, book-related discussions and fun. ( )

Having read this in my twenties, and not being impressed, I wanted to read it again to see if age, experience and understanding would change my opinion. It did. The story did not sweep me off my feet, however, I was able to see the depth of talent the writer had. Her use of subtlety, the dry humor, the gentle telling of the tale, all were captivating. I find it amazing that so little can happen in a story and yet it is able to hold the reader. There are very few descriptions of clothing, furniture or landscape, and yet I felt I was there observing. I knew the characters within a few sentences, not because they were described, but because they were shaped for me to see. Wonderful talent.

The illustrator of the version I have, Isabel Bishop, did a lovely job of interpreting the characters as well. She took her cue from Austen and went as minimal as possible, concentrating on the lines of the clothing and figures to portray them. Hard to describe, but lovely to look at. ( )

My feelings about P&P will never change. After 21 reads every time I read the first line, I am 16 again and reading it for the first time...life is simpler, my dad and grandparents are alive and I am taking the high school English class that made me fall in love with this book. I didn't know then how dear to me this book would become and how much warmth and comfort it would give me in years to come. These characters never fail to make me laugh when I need it -- looking at you Mr. Bennett and Lizzy. Once again, this book gave me everything I needed at this moment. I laughed, I shed a few tears, I got the butterflies. Mr. Darcy is still THE book boyfriend and always will be ( )

A classic tale of love and values tah unfolds in the class-concious England of the late eighteenth century. The five Bennet sisters-including strong-willed Elizabeth and young Lydia-have all been raised by their mother to have one purpose in life: finding a husband. When a wealthy bachelor takes up residence in a nearby mansion, the Bennets are abuzz. Among the man's sophisticated circle of friends, surely there will be no shortage of suitors for the Bennet sisters. But when Elizabeth meets up with the handsome and it would seeem-snobbish Mr. Darcy, the battle of the sexes is joined.