This was my first Jane Austen reading, I always thought that I wouldn't like this style of novel, but one day I bought it and when I read it I fell in love! This book made me cry, laght and sigh. It's beautifully written and good from the start until the end. After I read it I bought lot's of other Austen books and books of the same style. It's my favorite book. ( )

I fell in love with this book immediately. It was my first Austen, and really my first introduction to this type of novel. How could I have waited so long?! Beautifully written and captivating, I couldn't put it down. Elizabeth's and Mr. Darcy's relationship is so true-to-life that anyone can relate to it. This book made me fall in love not only with the characters, but with the time period. I look forward to many future re-readings! ( )

I never thought on reading “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen. I always had heard of this book and I had seen part of the movie, but I really didn’t pay attention to it because I though it was boring and old to watch. What got my attention to read this book is the way my cousin referred to this book. She said “It was the best book she ever read”. I gave it a try and I loved the book. The way the author gets so into their characters’ personality and emotions really made me continue with it. The humorous, classical and romantic style she had. She combined all of this things and the dialogue made it really clear for me to understand a little bit more about the characters’ personality. This book is about Elizabeth Bennet, this young women is looking for love but her mother wants to make her marry with a rich men that she doesn’t love. She has four other sisters, their mother wants to do the same with them too. This phrase is mentioned at the beginning of the book and I think it reveals the whole point of this story. “It is truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife”. For me this means that a single men is always going to want a wife, but in this case a women in the ninetieth century English society in a low class level in want of a husband. This book is really romantic and humorous but in a mannered way. I really recommend this book to everybody that likes romanticism. ( )

I love this book! Elizabeth Bennett is probably my most favorite character of all time. This book is about five sisters who are looking to marry well, but also for love. ( )

Jane Austen

Pride and Prejudice

Penguin Classics, Paperback, 2003.
Edited with an Introduction and Notes by Vivien Jones.
With the original Penguin Classics Introduction by Tony Tanner.
8vo. xlii, 425 pp.

First published in 1813.
Published in Penguin Classics in 1996.
This edition reissued with new Chronology, updated further reading and 1972 Penguin Classics Introduction by Tony Tanner.

Contents:

Acknowledgements [Vivien Jones]
The Penguin Edition of the Novels of Jane Austen [Claire Lamont, textual adviser]
Chronology
Introduction [Vivien Jones, xi-xxxvi]
Further Reading
Note on the Text

Pride and Prejudice [pp. 3-367]
Volume One
Volume Two
Volume Three

Appendix: Original Penguin Classics Introduction by Tony Tanner [pp. 368-408]
Emendations to the Text
Notes

=============================================

ATTENTION! TONS OF SPOILERS AHEAD! IF YOU HAVEN'T READ PRIDE AND PREJUDICE YET, DO SO IMMEDIATELY! BY NO MEANS READ THE FOLLOWING LINES!

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

Small wonder this is, so they say, one the most famous opening sentences in the world literature. It is elegant and charming, witty and amusing, one can hardly read it without a smile, but it has also a certain and far from negligible streak of seriousness. The strange thing is that the whole novel is exactly like the opening sentence. Pride and Prejudice has been my first encounter with the writing of Jane Austen and it certainly won't be my last one.

Now I am asking myself a simple question that must have occurred to pretty much everybody who has ever read this novel: what makes it classic? And a classic it most certainly is. In a few years Pride and Prejudice will celebrate 200 years since it was first published in 1813; yet, you needn't look much to find at least several new editions in book form as well as film version of it. Most importantly, it continues to win new readers every day; which is of course the reason to be still very much in print almost two centuries after it first appeared. There must be something in this novel therefore that has appealed strongly to generation after generation. I wonder what it is.

The story is so commonplace and trite, even a trifle silly, that it hardly bears re-telling; it is focused on the most promising career for a respectable woman at the time: marriage for social position, wealth, comfort and last - and certainly least - love. Socially the story - hardly a plot - is completely obsolete; I think nowadays it is not only highly unlikely but utterly impossible to encounter such tremendous class-consciousness or such formality in the every day conversation; nor would putting on such airs because of social rank or making such a fuss because of somebody's elopement be less ludicrous. The whole series of events, such as they are, is limited to the English countryside and London is the end of the world; there is only nothingness beyond. Page after page nothing very much happens and one has no doubt whatsoever about what will happen in the end. Indeed, it is amusing to read the warning in the beginning of the Introduction to this Penguin Classics edition that it makes details of the plot explicit - as if it mattered.

It doesn't sound very promising, does it? Much less like a classic of the world literature. There are, however, several extenuating circumstances. I should like now to elaborate a bit on these pretending to do nothing but expressing my opinion; and the only adjective that can be attached to it is 'personal'. Since one of the main stimulus for me to read Pride and Prejudice was actually Somerset Maugham and I very often fully agree with his observations, I will allow myself extensive quoting from his essay written more than half a century or so ago and first published in Great Novelists and Their Novels (1948) and later, significantly rewritten and expanded, also in Ten Novels and Their Authors (1954). I suppose, considering the wealth of literature about Jane Austen available, few people today read an obscure collection of essays by Maugham. I think it's a pity since Maugham has a lot of fascinating things to say about Jane and her masterpiece; and he says them with his usual combination of succinctness, lucidity and humour.

No matter how timeless a book Pride and Prejudice may be, it is essential always to keep in mind that it was written two centuries ago. This explains a great deal that at first glance might well be exasperating. First and foremost, it gives an excellent explanation of the plot: it fits the age perfectly. As Somerset Maugham also observed, it was an age when a great deal of importance was attached to social rank and distinction; and the chief, if not the only one, business of a woman was 'to marry, for love certainly, but in satisfactory conditions'. No one would turn a hair to Lydia's elopement today, but in those times I suppose it was quite natural that such an event should cause so tremendous a disturbance. It would occur to no one today to be in such an awe of anybody and if Lady Catherine seems occasionally a little larger than life, one should remember that in those times persons of such social rank not only expected but actually were treated with utmost deference by their inferiors; they did have a firm sense of immense social superiority as indispensable part of their characters. Somerset Maugham recalls that even in his youth, that is to say, in late Victorian and Edwardian times, a century or so after Jane Austen wrote, he knew 'great ladies whose sense of importance, though not quite so blatant, was not far removed from Lady Catherine's.' And if Mr. Collins looks like a bit too perfect an incarnation of pompous rhetoric, 'who has not known, even to-day, men with that combination of obsequiousness and pomposity? That they have learnt to screen it with a front of geniality only makes it more odious' (Maugham). Yes, it is cynical, but is it so far away from the truth even today? Mr Maugham makes also another shrewd observation about these two characters, namely that there is, perhaps, 'some exaggeration in the drawing of Lady Catherine and Mr Collins, but to my mind little more than comedy allows.'

I will allow myself a little digression here since there is one point I should like to make and stress right away. The plot of Pride and Prejudice, commonplace and trivial as it certainly is, is executed with a charming elegance and excellent plausibility; the reader's sense of probability is never outraged, the events follow naturally one another and in firm, steady pace. Jane Austen takes care not to dwell too much her characters for too long; she is far too accomplished a novelist for that. Her sense of rhythm is immaculate; she knows quite well when to introduce a more dramatic scene - Darcy's proposal or Lydia's elopement, for instance - to keep the reader's interest unflagging. This skillful story-telling, in combination with her delightful irony on almost every page and simply astonishing insight into her characters, has had a most curious effect on myself. After a somewhat slow beginning, I was soon carried away and completely immersed in Pride and Prejudice eagerly turning page after page and I have to admit I simply couldn't care less how unremarkable its plot is. Speaking of this, let me give the word to Mr Maugham again:

Professor Garrod, a learned and witty critic, has said that Jane Austen was incapable of writing a story, by which, he explains, he means a sequence of happenings, either romantic or uncommon. But that is not what Jane had a talent for, and not what she tried to do. She had too much sense, and too sprightly a humour, to be romantic, and she was interested not in the uncommon, but in the common. She made it uncommon by the keenness of her observation, her irony and her playful wit.

Not only did she make the common uncommon but she also made it surprisingly dramatic. Moreover, Jane Austen has an excellent sense for dramatic climax. I don't mind telling you that the last ten chapters or so simply took my breath away, when I finished them and look outside through the window I was not a little surprised to see that the dawn was about to break; I had completely lost sense of time - and of place as well; I did need some time come back from the English countryside of the early XIX century. Indeed, the final sequence of scenes between Lizzy and three other characters (Lady Catherine, Mr Darcy and her father) shows Miss Austen in possession of sense for building of dramatic climax that is far from negligible. It is quite remarkable actually; I daresay the last chapters of Pride and Prejudice might well be the early XIX century analogue of the modern thriller. For once I disagree with Mr Maugham who claims that the most dramatic scene in the book is Darcy's proposal (the first one). Far from it. For my own part, this is the scene between Elizabeth and Lady Catherine in the end of the book; it's a tremendous clash between two exceptionally strong characters and two rather different classes. It has a rare dramatic intensity conveyed brilliantly by the dialogue:

"Miss Bennet, do you know who I am? I have not been accustomed to such language as this. I am almost the nearest relation he has in the world, and am entitled to know all his dearest concerns."
"But you are not entitled to know mine; nor will such behaviour as this, ever induce me to be explicit."

Can you feel it? The piercing coldness of Lady Catherine's voice? And Elizabeth's remarkable strenght of character in her reply? The whole scene is chilling and gripping indeed. Had I not already been madly in love with Lizzy, I would have fallen there and then. But this is subject I will refer to presently in more detail

Coming back to the historical age in which the novel was written, it also explains pretty well the peculiar style of Jane Austen. It is complex, elaborate and exceedingly formal, both in narrative and in conversation. To us today it may often sound positively ridiculous but I daresay two centuries ago people really did talk and think and write in that way. Moreover, that formality of language not only is far from unpleasant but 'it often adds point to a witty remark, and a demure savour to a malicious one' (Maugham). It must also be noted that Jane Austen must have had an excellent ear for words and her sentences have a singular elegance and charm; moreover, and most important indeed, her meaning is very seldom if ever unclear. Despite its complexity, Jane Austen's style is eminently readable. This is a merit that should never be underestimated as Somerset Maugham, another highly readable author, also noticed:

...nothing very much happens in her books, and yet, when you come to the bottom of a page, you eagerly turn it to learn what will happen next. Nothing very much does and again you eagerly turn the page. The novelist who has the power to achieve this has the most precious gift a novelist can possess.

I couldn't describe better how compelling Jane's prose is. As for her tremendously amusing sense of humour, despite having read no other author from the period, I am quite ready to believe it is unique.

And this, I think, is the first thing that really makes Pride and Prejudice a classic: Jane Austen's prodigious sense of humour allied with her formidable powers of observation. There is hardly a page of Pride and Prejudice that fails to bring a smile on my face, it is not seldom that I have to stop reading for a minute or two because I am laughing my head off. As far as I can remember, the last book that gave me so much fun was Hollywood Wives by Jackie Collins, first published in 1983. The comparison is more apt than it might look at first glance and ardent Jane Austen admirers needn't be offended by it. Not only are both books wonderfully readable and extremely funny, but both deal chiefly with women and their searching for happiness which invariably involves a number of relationships with the male part of the mankind. Of course the styles are completely different due to the many generations that separate the writing of both books. So are the details: of course you are not going to find a hint of sex in Jane Austen while you will get tons of it in Jacky Collins, for instance. But the foundation is the same in both cases. Of course, it remains to be seen if Jackie Collins will be read after 200 years. I shouldn't be surprised at all.

Coming back to Jane Austen, I continue to marvel at her extraordinary sharp and penetrating insight into the minds of her characters; and she is not at all shy to expose all their pretences and absurdities, vanity and superciliousness, silliness and pomposity, in short: pride and prejudices. Her style is a rare mixture of charming humour, playful wit and devastating sarcasm; if I have to describe it in two words, I would say that Jane Austen's style is deliciously malicious. But even her most biting and sarcastic lines are invariably elegant and charming; they never cross the thin red line that separates the kingdom of satire from the realm of vulgarity. But I would hardly better Maugham's description, not so much of her writing style than of her attitude to life which was doubtlessly reflected in her writing:

Miss Austen had a sharp tongue and a prodigious sense of humour. She liked to laugh, and she liked to make others laugh. It is asking too much of the humorist to expect him - or her - to keep a good thing to himself when he thinks it. And, heaven knows, it is hard to be funny without being sometimes a little malicious. There is not much kick in the milk of human kindness. Jane had a keen appreciation of the absurdity of the others, their pretensions, their affectations and their insincerities; and it is to her credit that they amused rather than annoyed her.

Very much to her credit indeed - and to our benefit as well.

But I don't think that would have been enough to make a classic out of Pride and Prejudice. A popular novel for decade or two after the first publishing maybe, a work of great interest for scholars almost certainly but what 'makes a classic is not that it is praised by critics, expounded by professors and studied in schools, but that large number of readers, generation after generation, have found pleasure and spiritual profit in reading it' (Maugham).

I think what especially makes Pride and Prejudice a timeless classic is that it is a book entirely dedicated to human nature; and that has hardly if at all changed for last two centuries. Considering how obsolete in terms of society the book really is, it is simply astounding how easy you can apply the joys and sorrows of the characters to the modern life. This is due no doubt to Jane's fabulous ability for character description. There are hardly any other descriptions in the whole novel but of the character of the characters; their clothes, houses, rooms and countryside are barely mentioned; their physical appearance is limited to a few words how handsome, or not, they are. As a compensation, you get straight into the heads of people as real and alive as it is possible to be on paper; indeed, it is funny how your imagination forms a physical portrait to the last detail of somebody in whose character you have immersed yourself for the last few hundred pages. So much the better for the lack of physical descriptions; at any rate with Jane's ability to reveal the human character who cares? Consider the last paragraph of the very first chapter:

Mr. Bennet was so odd a mixture of quick parts, sarcastic humour, reserve, and caprice, that the experience of three-and-twenty years had been insufficient to make his wife understand his character. Her mind was less difficult to develop. She was a woman of mean understanding, little information, and uncertain temper. When she was discontented, she fancied herself nervous. The business of her life was to get her daughters married; its solace was visiting and news.

In just a few lines you are given an excellent introduction into the characters of both Mr and Mrs Bennet. Later, they are to be made as complete as possible by their most remarkable daughter's reflections and especially by conversation. Indeed, the conversation is where Jane Austen is always at her very best; despite its elaborate complexity it is surprisingly often very much to the point. Her characters always speak in character. One might get somewhat impatient with one page speech of Lydia, but then one realises that her stupid chatter is the best possible description of a foolish girl that can be given. So Mrs Bennet's words are always an excellent depiction of a woman completely devoid of any mental resources and interested only in the material things. Money and position alter her opinion of a person in the blink of an eye; and her most precious aim in life is indeed to mary her daughters (cf. with the last sentence of the quote above). I think her final exaltation, when she is informed about the engagement of Lizzy and Mr Darcy (whom she dislikes a great deal), is definitely worth quoting:

"Good gracious! Lord bless me! only think! dear me! Mr. Darcy! Who would have thought it! And is it really true? Oh! my sweetest Lizzy! how rich and how great you will be! What pin-money, what jewels, what carriages you will have! Jane's is nothing to it—nothing at all. I am so pleased—so happy. Such a charming man!—so handsome! so tall!—Oh, my dear Lizzy! pray apologise for my having disliked him so much before. I hope he will overlook it. Dear, dear Lizzy. A house in town! Every thing that is charming! Three daughters married! Ten thousand a year! Oh, Lord! What will become of me. I shall go distracted."

So are Mr Collins' stupidity, servility and pomposity as well as Lady Catherine's incredible conceit and staggering condescension perfectly reflected in their speech. With narrative or with conversation, Jane Austen draws her characters with so consummate a skill and gives such a wealth of insight into human nature that, quite simply, I couldn't care less how socially dated the story really is; her characters are not just alive and captivating but amazingly modern as well. But the bottom line is that Jane, though witty, amusing, funny and hilarious, can also be very serious when she has to. This prevents her enchanting humour from degeneration into odious flippancy. Consider the following:

Affectation of candour is common enough - one meets with it everywhere. But to be candid without ostentation or design - to take the good of everybody's character and make it still better, and say nothing of the bad - belongs to you alone.

There are few people whom I really love, and still fewer of whom I think well. The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human characters, and of the little dependence that can be placed on the appearance of merit or sense.

Powerful and profound writing that does give me a pause - and a very serious one. Incidentally, both excerpts come from the lips of Elizabeth Bennet, the main character and 'as delightful a creature as ever appeared in print' - as Jane Austen herself described her. There are those who have said that Jane based Lizzy on herself and I think that's quite probable. Just like the author, the main heroine has sharp eye for pretence and insincerity, quick intelligence and amazing vitality, liveliness and charm, playful wit and merciless sarcasm, iron will and remarkable character. It is simply impossible not to fall in love with her, if not in the beginning of the book, probably in the middle and most certainly in the end. She is often ''sick of this folly'' when (almost) everybody around her behaves in the most idiotic way possible. She is both firmly rooted in her time and ahead of it as well. She refuses to marry only for social position, without any affection, and is at first astonished that her friend Charlotte Lucas, a rather vacuous girl, should do so; but then she realises, dimly perhaps, that Charlotte hasn't done anything unusual for the time and society they live in. In this respect she is clearly ahead of her time and her intelligence gives her an advantage over a great many other rather superficial creatures. But when she condemns her sister's elopement and her subsequent and shameful marriage, she is very much a woman of her time. That duality makes her only more believable and more enchanting. But to my mind, the most compelling feature of her character is her love. Here Mr Maugham has a perceptive point for Jane Austen's heroines in general that deserves to be quoted:

I do not believe that Miss Austen was capable of being very much in love. If she had been, she would surely have attributed to her heroines a greater warmth of emotion than in fact she did. There is no passion in their love. Their inclinations are tempered with prudence and controlled by common sense. Real love has no truck with these estimable qualities.

Quite to the point, as usual. I must admit that I find something inspiring in Lydia's love which is so obviously devoid of any material or social consideration. Hers is a passionate love. It is sad, perhaps, that such love, just like pure goodness, should be incompatible with somewhat advanced intelligence. When passion is violent enough to overrule any possible consideration, there is some trace of grandeur in it; but there is also something ridiculous in losing your head completely over something so short lived and, in the end, of small if any consequence. Elizabeth's love is quite another matter. It is more like affection, actually. She would never marry somebody to whom she is indifferent; but her common sense and her intelligence would never allow her to be romantic and marry a man only because she is so very fond of him; just like Jane Austen her favourite heroine is incapable of passionate love. She is not an exclusive materialist, like her mother, but that aspect of marriage, as well as the social side of it, are never absent from her mind. Now, that attitude to matrimony, as a perfect way of doing long-term business but always mingled with personal affection, I do admire very much. Strangely, but it seems to me that in this respect our modern society is more obsolete than Jane Austen's. Love, passionate love, is all very well but it isn't a good foundation for marriage; affection, common interest and similarity of characters are. Speaking of this, Elizabeth Bennet is more modern, or perhaps only less hypocritical, than most women today are. For my own part, her view of matrimony is the most sensible one that is most likely to bring lasting happiness I can imagine.

I think that one thing which makes a book really great is the opportunity for alternative (re-)readings. Pride and Prejudice is such a book. It can be read solely for pleasure and for getting a lot of fun from Jane Austen's fantastic ability to satirize people's folly. But it can be also be read as a fascinating study of human nature with all its vices and virtues; so alike today, two centuries or two millennia ago. At all events, the vivid characters and the charming atmosphere make for an unforgettable experience. It is socially so obsolete and it is so rigorously confined to a small part of the English countryside, that the whole experience is like an excursion to another planet; it's exhilarating and invigorating. At the same time, the deep penetration into human character makes it as relevant and as modern as it could be; as it will be, at least until the mankind remains in existence. And that is a moving, poignant and disturbing experience, yet it is never depressive or frustrating. Strange book. And a great one. I am already impatient to immerse myself into the other novels of Jane Austen. She is priceless.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P. S. Note on the Penguin Classics edition.

Nice octavo paperback printed not too closely and in font comfortable for reading, quite unlike the Penguin Popular Classics edition (which I strongly advise you not to read - at least if you want to keep your eyesight as long as possible). Scholarly very impressive. All emendations of the text, minor though they are, are listed and explained. The Notes are two types: general and explanatory; both are informative but the former are rather useless, while the latter are very useful indeed. They really help to enjoy the novel by explaining a number of words that are nowadays obsolete or have changed their meaning to a large degree.

The introductions are mixed bag.

The modern one of Vivien Jones is ridiculous and downright tedious. At least, trying to turn Jane into a feminist and social activist is certainly not my cup of tea. Vivien, my dear, are you serious? Unfortunately, she obviously is. For my part I should like to believe that Jane wrote her novels because it was so much fun and because she was interested in the intricacies of human nature; and if she was a feminist, I should like to believe that she never knew it.

Tony Tanner's Original Penguin Classics Introduction from 1972, wisely printed after the novel, is quite another matter. It contains a number of shrewd observations and is well written, even if it could have been ten pages shorter as well. Tony offers some fascinating alternative readings; his foray into philosophy or his comparison with Tolstoy are very much to the point and not at all far-fetched. At least, he doesn't try to turn Jane into fanatic follower of Locke or Hume, or an early incarnation of Freud. He just offers alternative interpretation of the novel, and he has something interesting, even fasctinating, to say for more or less every character in the book, especially about Lizzy, Darcy and their complicated relationship. Definitely worth reading; but only after reading the novel.

The Chronology is not exactly comprehensive but is still useful since both introductions contain scanty biographical information about Jane. The Further Reading section is impressive. ( )