There is one little area where I think you are quite incorrect, and that’s the history of women’s rights back then. I stand by my statements that women had basically nothing unless it belonged to some dumb guy. Austen focused on a very small group of women in a very large underclass. She wrote about the rule for this small segment of society and the exceptions to that rule (like Ms. de Burgh). Unmarried women and widows weren’t always allowed to own their family’s estates. Once again, it was often men in the extended family who made the decisions about whether these women would live well or live as paupers.

I know I should try to give Austen another chance. So many people have told me that her novels represent the apex of literate fiction. Even my own daughter has called me an ass about this. She claims that Austen wrote the best dialogue she’s ever read.

So, I will retract my “formula” statements. Since I have never finished an Austen novel, I shouldn’t rush to judgement about this.

Thank you for your comments.

‘…and it really is a formula. (…) The female protagonist needs to marry as soon as possible so that she won’t become a (gasp) spinster and will have enough money to enable her to live comfortably for the rest of her life. She meets a guy with all the requisite qualities and falls in love. Soon after this, something comes between her and her true love to jeopardize her future with this “man of her dreams,” but it all turns out well in the end. Yuck!’

Yuck indeed. Not one single Austen novel has a plot like the one you described (you must have got that ridiculous idea from watching the films, most of which are just simply awful). To elaborate on this would take too much space (I’ll only do it if required), so let’s just contemplate another of your preconceived notions:

‘(Women) weren’t allowed to go to college, get divorced or own property.’ While it’s an indisputable fact that women weren’t allowed to go to college, everything else in this assertion is nonsense. You claim to have read PRIDE & PREJUDCE; now, there is a Lady Catherine de Burgh in that book who has inherited a vast estate from her husband, and will pass it down to her daughter… Mrs Ferrrars in SENSE & SENSIBILITY has all her family dancing attendance because she holds the strings of a sack of money, and Emma Woodhouse will inherit 30.000 pounds (e.g., a few millions in today’s money)! Fact is, unmarried women and widows were absolutely allowed to own estates; it was marriage that disowned them, joining their property to their husband’s. As for divorces, they were generally rare; and even most men would not seek them, for two reasons. Firstly, divorces were incredibly expensive. Secondly, those who could afford them, were prominent enough to create a huge scandal by such procedures. Therefore, lots of people who were tired of their married life preferred a quiet separation (only drawback was they couldn’t marry again as long as their partner was alive; but this should be fine with you).

By all means, don’t read Jane Austen. But please don’t comment on things you know nothing about, either.

GeorgeD

(As to Austen sequels, I abhor them. It’s certainly not my fault that there are so many of them around.)

BTW, I realize that you tagged me twice not that long ago for memes. Sorry I haven’t gotten to them! I’m just a bad, bad girl….

I also do not understand why there are too many sequels…i can’t afford them this time so i haven’t read them.

The best part of your comment is when you mention reading Moby Dick as a chase novel. Moby Dick is near and dear to my heart, and I was thinking about rereading it just the other day, so this really hit home with me. Since I can’t seem to be able to get through Austen on the printed page, maybe I should try an audio version of one of her books.

But the key here may be in saying that you don’t like romance lit, on which a lot of readers would agree, but they still love Austen (one in the comments already, and me as well). And how does one explain that?

My guess is that perhaps you’ve been reading Austen for plot, which is all very predictable. Character is predictable as well, but what I (and I think many others) love about Austen’s books is the precision, depth, and subtle style and wit of the writing. She can somehow be catty and insightful and so many other things all at the same time, and the omniscience has a spice to it. We see how Elizabeth Bennett is smarter than everybody else, but at the exact same time she’s also making a big mistake in judgment–which makes Austen and the narrator smarter than she is. So in the end, it’s the writing, and the psychological elements, within the specific historical context.

Tracing Austen from epistolary novels and books like Richardson’s Clarissa is also helpful. Reading the endless pages of Clarissa for the story and romance is similar to reading Moby Dick as a chase novel. Clarissa is a brilliant study of human character and psychology and moral dilemmas, and romantic jeopardy keeps things going, but it’s not really the point. And we’re also talking about authors writing before William James or Freud, who don’t have the same toolkit for investigating psychology that we do. Austen seems to be a refined, acute version of the effort of Richardson, and a set of highly readable romantic novels is the product, but they aren’t the source. If you work backwards from romance fiction, which isn’t so great or interesting, and read Austen in that way, it makes sense that you might find it ordinary and unappealing. And I’ll add that I have no interest in any sequels. I like biography (and the movie versions, like you) so I’m sure I’ll like Becoming Jane when I get around to seeing it.

None of which is to say that you have to like Austen.

I read W&P in English, yes. I wish I knew Russian, but unfortunately not.

As for Austen’s P&P, I’ve read that in three different languages. ;D

I’m still thinking that some people are saying they like her simply because it’s the “in” thing to do, i.e. teeny-boppers pretending to like Hannah Montana.

Did you read W & P in English?

Mostly because I absolutely HATE romance in general, but LOVE Jane Austen specifically. I’ve read a couple of sequels (actually, more of different takes on the same story. I seem to be allergic to actual sequels) lately. Not because I think they will be better, or even equally good, but because sometimes I love a story so much I can’t get enough. Which is why I tend to read a lot of fan fiction, and this just happens to be published in book form, rather than floating about on the internet.

Also, I actually have read War and Peace. ;D