Pride and Prejudice (1813)

(Original Review, 1981-02-20)

If Jane Austen had never become a novelist, what would have happened? What would have happened to the British? Have Jane Austen's works become an antidote to a harshness in the world? Are they a key to disarming totalitarian societies? To making the world decide to be happier and freer? People read Jane Austen's novels to be entertained, after all. The problem with the world today is that it does not really know how to entertain itself or fears doing so - even in this busy, time-aware technological age - and even in Western societies where the hubs of the world's light entertainment have been developed in the last one hundred and fifty years (with theatre and music hall and all that) (and their milieu) would be far poorer.

For me Austen is brilliant at conveying the restricted options that women of this period and class had (privileged as they were). Marriage was really the only decent "career" option to them; everything else (spinsterhood and governess) conferred real loser status. Austen, while seemingly amused at the shenanigans centered around the game and rituals of marriage, also managed to convey just how desperate the situation could be for women (and their families) reliant on a "good match" - particularly if they chose badly or acquired "reputations" that knocked them out of contention for a solid "settlement". For all the emphasis on marrying for love, such as that between Mr. Darcy and Lizzie B - there was a very mercenary eye towards the fortunes that Mr. Darcy brought to such a marriage - the economic reality of marriage was never far from Austen's (or her contemporary audience's-) mind. Why do women admire D'Arcy so much? He was at best a toad for most of the book. In fact, a cut n' shut, modeled on one bloke until just before he goes to London, and someone else after that. No wonder he reformed - it's someone else! Captain Wentworth now, that is a man to admire, an exemplar of masculine virtue. Jane Austen had an exceptional understanding of women, but the young Austen knew very little about men.

For me, Austen reminds me of how little agency women of that time had - rather than making me nostalgic, it makes me grateful to be living in a time and society that allows far more options for women in how they can live their lives (as imperfect as they can often be).

I was also interested in the notes on the significance of the mourning clothing. Some years ago I read a book specifically dealing with the history of mourning costume in Europe. The conventions over the centuries are as complex as they are fascinating and elaborate. One snippet: in the 19th century, a widower marrying again within the mourning period, was expected to hold a "mourning wedding"; this included the requirement that the current bride wearing mourning for the previous wife for the duration of the mourning period's run (both in terms of the dress worn for the wedding), any wedding decorations were also expected to be appropriate to the period of mourning. ( )

how is anybody supposed to say that they possibly didn't like this? oh wait, that's impossible...everybody likes Jane Austen. ( )

It took almost exactly 4 months to the day to finish it but I loved every minute! I get it now! I understand what the "big deal" is! These characters will likely stay with me forever, and not just because we took 4 months to get to know each other ;-) ( )

4.5 Could definitely see myself rereading this in the future if only to catch all the little things I'm sure that I missed! ( )

I finally can say I read this classic - although I listened to it on audio. Being not big on romance stories, I focused on the language and wit, and I enjoyed it a lot. This was largele due to the silky-smooth voice of Rosamund Pike, her lively performance and wonderful British accent. I do wish for substance, however, because I there was none. I suspect I would have enjoyed it a lot less if I was reading it. ( )