I think the first line of this novel sums it up better than I ever could:
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.
I’ve been familiar with the story of Pride and Prejudice for a long time, but this was the first time I’d read the original. Even though I don’t usually go for Regency romances, I have to say that I enjoyed this book very much!
Jane Austen has a genius for character. She knows exactly what little mannerism to show or what description to give to make her characters come alive. At several points in the book, I paused and said “holy cow, that’s just like so and so,” or “haha, I know exactly what this person is like.” At no point did I feel hit over the head or dragged through a long info dump explaining this or that character’s background. Of all the possible details she could share, Austen always chooses the exact ones you need to get a clear, distinct picture–no more, no less.
Austen drives her story with some snappy, entertaining dialogue. Far from being sappy or sentimental, her main character, Elizabeth, is snarky and spirited, and she clashes with a lot of people in ways that are much more interesting (and mature) than typical girl drama. Be that as it may, I found it entertaining to compare Elizabeth’s dating/relationship experiences with my own. As different as things were back then, in some very interesting ways they are still the same.
I did feel that the novel slowed down a bit in the middle, probably because that was when Elizabeth went on the tour of Derbyshire with her relatives and left behind most of the other characters that interested me. Also (since I am a straight guy), Mr. Darcy didn’t really turn me on much, so Elizabeth’s gradual change of mind as she toured his house wasn’t as engaging to me.
One thing that confuses me, having read this book, is why women all over the place set up Mr. Darcy as the ideal male. What exactly is his appeal? He’s a little rough around the edges, has an independent streak, speaks his mind even when doing so would be rude, and is constantly aloof from everyone else. Is this what women find so appealing about him? I can see how the “Beauty and the Beast” syndrome can also be a turn-on–Elizabeth essentially wins him over by taming him–but that has less to do with who he is than how Elizabeth changes him. Do women go for a guy who they have the power to change? Is that what it is? I’m still a bit confused.
One thing made me a little mad, and it had nothing to do with the book at all; it had to do with the blurb on the back. It reads:
One of the most universally loved and admired English novels, Pride and Prejudice, was penned as a popular entertainment. But the consummate artistry of Jane Austen (1775-1817) transformed this effervescent tale of rural romance into a witty, shrewdly observed satire of English country life that is now regarded as one of the principal treasures of English literature.
Austen’s “consummate artistry” transformed this novel from “popular entertainment” to “one of the principal treasures of English literature”? Come on. That statement is as pompous as it is illogical. Once her book came out in print, Austen “transformed” nothing–the only thing that changed was the way people looked at it. It started out as a popular genre novel, like anything by Rowling or Steele or Grisham or King, and when the literati decided to claim it, they rebranded it as something else.
What irks me is this idea that “popular entertainment” is somehow inherently devoid of literary worth. Come on, people–virtually all the “great authors” before 1920 were well-read and well-loved in their day, among the masses as much as the literary elite. It’s not a sin to make money writing books.
Overall, I enjoyed this book very much. Just as Lord of the Rings is the quintessential fantasy novel, Pride and Prejudice is probably the lodestar of the romance genre. I was pleased to find that it’s not a book that only women can enjoy!
Joe–
Interesting comments on the relationship to ‘popular’ literature and ‘high’ literature. Some of us try to make careers thinking about these kinds of things. Two thoughts:
–Are you familiar with the work/works of Michael Chabon? He is a gifted writer who has been on a personal crusade to efface the line between ‘genre fiction’ and ‘literary fiction.’ After winning the Pulitzer Prize for his early work, he set off to write works in various genres–detective stories, travel literature, etc. while retaining the merit and high standard of his writing. Highly recommended (both his fiction and his essays around the question.
–The line between novels as popular fiction and novels as high literature is particularly messy in the period in which the novel emerges in every language tradition. I would argue that while part of this is retrospective revisionism by later literati, it is in fact a real process that takes place in each set of circumstances. There comes a point (often centered in a certain group of authors/intellectuals) at which those people writing the books consciously begin to do something more than the pulp fiction that makes up so much of early fiction in every literary tradition.
I can elaborate if it interests you, but that’s probably more than enough for now.
Glad you liked the book!
I’m not familiar with Chabon, but I read a very interesting article by Robert Charles Wilson in a past issue of Locus, and it sounds like he’s trying to do the same thing from the opposite end of the divide. His science fiction is much more “literary” in artistry and scope, and I absolutely love it. I’ll have to check Chabon out sometime.
I Liked the comment you left about the query on the Writing on the wall blog – so I checked out your blog. Saw a book review on Pride and Prejudice and automatically thought you were a girl. Glad to know that there are men willing to read it and like it as well. Insightful review and query critique. I see you have finished at least one novel. Congrats – I’m just 1/3 the way done with my rough draft. Good luck with your writing.
Also – Why do women like Darcy? The simple fact is women just love a romance. Beyond that though we don’t like men who are rude or aloof – what we do like is men who are independent and have strong convictions. Underneath all of Darcy’s surly demeanor he is a man with a good heart and Elizabeth didn’t change him, she helped to draw it out. That is what women like – not to change men, but to have the ability to bring out the best in them.
So, I don’t know if you’ll see this comment (since you wrote this years ago)–but my personal opinion as to why women like Darcy is this: most men flaunt their virtues, and hide their weaknesses. He does the opposite. . He is virtuous and kind because that is who he is, not because it gains him praise by society. In a world where people’s appearances are often mistook for their virtues (think Wickham) he stands in stunning contrast. His kindness to his sister, the kind report by the servant who has worked for him all his life, the good respect of the people who rent from him, these all begin to win Elizabeth over. The capstone, however, is how he reacts when Elizabeth’s sister Lydia and Wickham run away together. Elizabeth is certain that he will revolt in wanting to be a brother-in-law to this man who has so betrayed him in times past. But quiet the opposite: he goes way out of his way to make sure that he can marry Elizabeth despite what Wickham’s done–and he doesn’t even brag about it to her afterwards. Can we see why that would spark at least a woman’s respect?
Still though, I would have to agree with you that that isn’t my own personal ideal: I married a man who is gentle, soft spoken, and kind. And indeed, if Darcy had been this as well, he probably would have won Elizabeth over the FIRST time he asked…but then he wouldn’t have been the very human, flawed, interesting character that makes this such a fun read. (:
Good points. I guess that would be a not insignificant sacrifice to be related through marriage to one of your old enemies. And I do admire Mr. Darcy’s independence and self-reliance. While that does make him a bit aloof, it also gives him the self-assurance to not flaunt himself too much, like you said.