Jane Austen discussion
General questions & discussions
>
Lizzy did not change her mind because of the house!!!
Mod
Anyone care to challenge? Or (more likely) back me up?
Me! Me! Me! Well, it's not REALLY a challenge. More like backing you up, but doing it in a roundabout way.I'm sure several of you've probably come across this before, but anyway here goes. In a way Pemberley does affect Lizzie's point of Darcy, because in that time period the way a gentleman ran his estate and manor greatly reflected his own character and morals. In P&P there's a passage that talks about the perfect balance between nature and man's alterations - with Pemberley Darcy knew what to tweak and what to leave to nature - I think mostly (from what we hear of Lizzie's and the Gardiners' walk through his grounds) nature was left to take its own course, with only a few changes being made.
This is especially evident when you compare it to the descriptions of Lady Catherine de Bourgh's house and grounds where everything is artificial and contrived; every possible addition forcing you to acknowledge the extent of her wealth. Not so with Pemberley.
So yeah, it wasn't really the WEALTH of Pemberley that opens Lizzie's eyes so much as the knowledge and good judgment that's evidently gone into its care. And, of course, all the great accounts from Mrs. Reynolds of Darcy's character - the opinion of someone who's known a person for years, that's not something that can be faked. And even more so that it's an employee speaking so highly of her employer definitely impressed Lizzie.
Some great comments here! I agree, Lizzie gets to know Darcy better having heard a good account of him by his housekeeper. Also, he treats the Gardiners better than she expects and slowly her prejudices about him fade, she realises he isn't so proud as she thought and he goes up in her estimation.
Mod
This topic makes me angry too! As Lizzy clearly states at the start of the novel - "Only the deepest love will induce me into matrimony." Why in the world would that change immediately upon seeing a rich and beautiful house? I think it is more to the point that the events at Pemberley were those moments that gave Lizzie her biggest realizations, and faded her prejudices. Therefore though it is true that Lizzie began to like Darcy more at Pemberely, it is mere coincidence that a rich house is where that journey to love began. And as we all know she didn't admit her love there - only after Darcy had saved two of her sisters and she had truly realized her admiration for him. (and not his house!)Honestly, it sounds awful even saying it - "I like your house! Can we get married?" Grr. Although I suppose "palace" would almost be a more accurate description. :D
Love Lady Disdains points!
Also, Soph, I too find it appalling that so few people in your class liked Pride and Prejudice. How many of them were boys? :D I know boys can like it too, but to tell the truth it isn't so common.
Mod
Soph wrote: "Well in my class there were... 23 Ish. 2 were boys (the school had only recently gone co-ed) so really appalling how few, and how unromantic everyone must be... If it doesn't touch you, not a roman...":) Yup. *shakes head* silly boys. I think for some boys though, it's not that they aren't romantic, it's just that they can't see past the language of the time and the movements of society to the romance beneath.
^ This is very true. A lot of people are hampered by the way people talk in the book. I actually had quite an interesting convo with my brother about it. He thought I was naive to believe people actually went around and talked like that back in the day. But I have to disagree - authors write based on their own lives. Austen wasn't writing historical novels for HER time - to her and others in her time period, these were contemporary works. Though I do agree that people might not have gone on with paragraphs worth of dialogue.
And also, it's not JUST romance - there's tons of humor, in her books, especially P&P. I don't know why people don't see that :(
LadyDisdain wrote: "^ This is very true. A lot of people are hampered by the way people talk in the book. I actually had quite an interesting convo with my brother about it. He thought I was naive to believe people ac..."Agree with everything you said :). As to the humor, perhaps a lot of it is too clever for people nowadays? *pokes tongue out at general society* :D
Hehe! Maybe. I think I just want people to recognise that it isn't all just dry, serious stuff with Austen. She was hilarious! I just love her wit so mu-huuuuch. Might start on some gross sobbing right about now.
@Soph's original questionLizzie was just the type of person to joke about that kind of thing. She didn't regret her decision regarding Mr. Darcy because of his wealth, she just saw the irony of the situation. She fell in love with him because she finally saw his true character.
@current conversation
I completely agree with you guys. People have a sick sense of humor nowdays (or perhaps I should say no sense of humor at all). And what is really funny, they don't get. I think you are right, Becca, the really funny things are too clever for the general populus.
:D Glad you guys agree with me. That's one of the things I dislike most about today's society. While we Austen fans laugh and smile at Regency music and dances and wish we were there dancing and talking too, other people yawn. When we laugh at humor and wit, they all go "what?" When we feel love from the books, and pain, and grief and joy and depth, they start skipping pages. While we would love to have Regency dresses (or I would) other people call that "odd". It is honestly quite sad.
I think a lot of people assume because it's an old book that it's stuffy too. People don't seem to get the whole tongue-in-cheek humor that Austen had. Or they mistake it for something else entirely. I agree with everyone here that the physicality of the house does nothing to change her opinions of Darcy, but her experiences there do. The housekeeper, Mr. Darcy and his sister all have interactions that reinforce his good character and help to make him more agreeable "upon closer acquaintance." ;)
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
And "upon closer acquaintance" perfect! :D
She is funny!! People think that we didn't joke around and laugh back in the day?? Come on! lol
Mod
Soph wrote: "And it is such a shame Becca! I want all that you just said! People really think we are weird or just don't get it!!"Yeah :'(. Haha, comedy is OK nowadays - but it was good (and clever) back then too! :)
Mod
Soph wrote: "Some comedy is good. Some however of what passes for comedy now a days is appalling!":D Yeah, some is absolutely awful, isn't it? I can't think of any examples right now - except maybe that joke I read in a joke book once - Q: "What do you get if you cross a small furry animal with a pen?" A: "A ballpoint ferret." I haven't ever managed to get the point of that joke.
Anyways, my point is, so much of it is lame! And appalling, as you said.
We all have different tastes (it'd be a boring world if we didn't)... Some people may find JA books boring and stuffy and so on, but they may love an author or genre that none of us would appreciate. At least we all here know and can agree that we have great taste ;-)
Mod
But love that we can share the same opinions :)
Soph wrote: "Some comedy is good. Some however of what passes for comedy now a days is appalling!"I agree completely. Nowdays what people call 'comedy' is crude, vulgar, and offensive. I'm disgusted with it.
Mod
Finally, people with a sense of taste. Aaah. It's refreshing.
Anne wrote: "Finally, people with a sense of taste. Aaah. It's refreshing.":D Ditto.
Mod
Yeah, there is the two way stereotype problem too.1. Our age group stereotypes negatively against Jane Austen, and sometimes reading in general.
2. Other people stereotype against our age group because of this, and those of us in the age group who actually have taste are wronged.
I have to admit, I wouldn't have expected the average 16-17 year old to have similar tastes in reading to me! But happy to know that's wrong and love chatting with you guys about our beloved Jane :)(Feeling old now though!) ;-)
Mod
Sarah Louise wrote: "I have to admit, I wouldn't have expected the average 16-17 year old to have similar tastes in reading to me! But happy to know that's wrong and love chatting with you guys about our beloved Jane :..."lol i thought u were a teen!
Becca wrote: "Yeah, there is the two way stereotype problem too.1. Our age group stereotypes negatively against Jane Austen, and sometimes reading in general.
2. Other people stereotype against our age group..."
i cant recommend JA to most my friends (im in middle school) bc they wouldnt get it!!
Mod
Soph wrote: "Exactly Caro!"I'm in almost exactly the same situation too. :( Although I did hear a couple of girls in my class talking about Colin Firth and Matthew Macfadyen. :D So I suppose that's something, because they did mention Matthew in P&P... but that's the extent of Jane Austen in my age group as far as I'm aware. :(
Caro wrote: "i cant recommend JA to most my friends (im in middle school) bc they wouldnt get it!!"I got called out in middle school by the English teacher for reading The Scarlet Letter (for fun!). She couldn't figure out why I would read that stuff. I feel your pain. And I love that fact that you love JA too! Most of my friends didn't quite get it either, I'm afraid ;)
Laura wrote: "Caro wrote: "i cant recommend JA to most my friends (im in middle school) bc they wouldnt get it!!"I got called out in middle school by the English teacher for reading The Scarlet Letter (for fun..."
It totally sucks your English teacher called you out for reading something sophisticated! Jees! Although, admittedly, even the stuff we read in English has gone right down the toilet these days.
^ What do you guys read in English? I'm curious.
OK, well...1. Shakespeare - OK, that bit isn't bad at all.
2. If This is a Man - Wartime story, people dying
3. Great Gatsby - 1920's story, main character dies
4. Katherine Mansfield short stories - the ones we read all involved death or some kind of bad relationship
5. Sharon Old's poetry - she writes about sex, drugs, death and abusive relationships
6. Handmaids Tale - dystopian book where women are separated into three functions: wife, breeder, or cook (pretty much).
Honestly, it's ridiculous - if I wasn't a positive person I might have committed suicide from all the "classic" but bloody depressing stuff we have to read. I actually got into an argument with a random English teacher about whether or not Lord of the Rings could be considered a "classic" - the result of which is that I'm very pissed off and doing a class presentation next year on what makes something "classic".
What I wouldn't give to study Lord of the Rings or just one Jane Austen!
^ I'm curious too. I can only vouch for stuff 15 years or so ago. One of the worst for me though was Ethan Frome (Edith Wharton). It was just oddly painful at 16.
Ooh, Becca, I absolutely LOVE Katherine Mansfield. She writes beautifully! But I agree, her stories tend to show the rougher, sadder aspect of life - basically, she's not afraid of telling the truth. I suppose your teacher could have mixed things up a bit - I mean, there are classics out there that aren't depressing. I remember doing a lot of WWII poetry at highschool as well as Shakespeare. But somehow I didn't mind, I think I just loved English so much. We did do P&P in my last year, though. That was incredibly fun :D
LadyDisdain wrote: "Ooh, Becca, I absolutely LOVE Katherine Mansfield. She writes beautifully! But I agree, her stories tend to show the rougher, sadder aspect of life - basically, she's not afraid of telling the trut..."I know Mansfield writes well, I just don't like reading it - and I don't mind sad, but I guess it's complex in that the way I prefer hugely emotional sad placed in fantasy or historical settings, rather than the kind of sad Mansfield writes about closer to our own time and world.
Don't get me wrong - I love English, as a language and a study, enough to stick with it. But I would adore it, cherish it, whatever word you want to use, if we looked at Jane Austen and Lord of the Rings or Narnia or Shakespeare's Sonnet - or even just less depressing "classics"!
Still, I'm going to have great fun next year trying to prove to that teacher that she is wrong about what makes something "classic". :)
Of course - you're more than entitled to not like it. I guess I like her stories for the very reason you dislike them ;) That's definitely a good question though - what makes a classic - and I'm sure that would be a great project to accomplish. It actually sounds like fun and I kind of want to be in your place now :P
But, when I was studying Pride and Prejudice in my english classes last year, in my class there were very few other than me who like it! (appauling I know) i reckon about 5-6/43 actually liked it. Me and one other loved it! (Of course I would!) but one of my friend's, and many others, would aruge with me about why Lizzy accpeted Darcy the second time.
They were saying it was just because of Pemberley!
im sorry. NO.
I won't go into too much detail. I will shorten my rant.
1. One of the clinching points they use to back up their argument is how Lizzy thinks/says 'Maybe it would be something to be mistress of Pemberelery after all' (not quite the wording)
This is sarcastic and more a jokey comment! Things have happened before then!
2. Her opinion was already changing after the letter and truth about Wickham, it didn't immidiately change at Pembereley!!
3. He came to Lydia's rescue and undid his wrong doing regarding Jane and Bingley!
I will stop here ;)