Skip to main content

Pride and Prejudice, a Review

So, I've been reading "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen, as part of some light bed-time reading to maintain my sanity. I thought it would be nice to share my views on the book with the world (not that anyone cares).

I shared a link to the book on Facebook, and on Google+, a link to the efforts of Google to preserve an ancient trove of knowledge and pleasure. Google has been systematically been scanning books from public libraries, in the public domain, and has made them available for the world. However, the first comment I received on my Facebook post was:

Now why would you want to read something as horrible and banal as Jane Austen?

A bit harsh, but not unrelated to my views. Of course, I will not be foolish enough to denounce Jane Austen just based on one book; but let me review the book, and try to explain what I liked, and what seemed trite.

Let me start with the title itself. "Pride and Prejudice" can be applied at many levels. Primarily, it may refer to the pride of Mr. Darcy, and the prejudice of Elizabeth, as she rebuffs his feelings towards her. Of course, pride and prejudice is a running theme in the book, and appears all through, prejudice starting with the very first sentence in the novel.

Consider the first sentence.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.
Now, much as all academicians hate Wikipedia, they must agree that even on Wikipedia, such drivel would be flagged almost instantly, to become
It is a truth universally acknowledged[by whom?], that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.[citation needed]

Glossing over that first sentence, I happen to see a lot of pride and prejudice on the part of the author. Almost all characters (with the exception of Elizabeth, Jane, Mr. Bingley, and Mr. Darcy) are foolish. All that varies is their level of foolishness. Mrs. Bennet's stupidity is exemplified right in the fist page of the novel, when she discloses her plan of marrying one of her daughters to Mr. Bingley. In retrospect, that stupidity was not so stupid. Mr. Bennet was thoughtless the way he went headlong into an unsuitable marriage, having fallen for Mrs. Bennet just on the basis of her beauty, and the way he humours himself at her expense.

The stupidity of people in the novel exasperates me. In fact, I cringe every time I think of Mr. Collins and his letters (as an aside, I find Mr. Collins overly formal style of letter writing extremely similar to Mr. Micawber) and his veneration of Lady de Bourgh. Charlotte is stupid in the way she accepts Mr. Collins as her husband. Do I even need to speak of Lydia's foolishness in eloping with Mr. Wickham.

However, I do like the characters that are not "stupid", and although Jane and Mr. Bingley hardly have any major role to play in the novel, I loved the way Elizabeth's character developed in the novel, from her highly prejudiced opinion of Mr. Darcy to finally accepting him as her husband. Mr. Darcy's change also was remarkable, from the haughty, proud person he is first presented to be, to the civil, genteel person he becomes at the end of the novel. His handling of the Wickham-Lydia case ought to be praised.

There's also a lot of subtle humour on the part of the author, at the expense of almost all the characters. Mrs. Bennet is mortified of her husband being killed in a duel with Wickham, and of her being turned out of her house by Mr. Collins; yet she is aghast when Mr. Gardiner sends Mr. Bennet back to his family.

"What! is he coming home, and without poor Lydia?" she cried, "Sure he will not leave London before he has found them. Who is to fight Wickham, and make him marry her, if he comes away?"
Similarly, the letter Mr. Bennet writes to Mr. Collins announcing Elizabeth's engagement sure makes me laugh.
But, if I were you, I would stand by the nephew. He has more to give.

Of course, one of the defining characteristics of the classics is the inherent simplicity (as compared to modernist and post-modernist works). However, I would have liked the characters to have a tad more shade of grey, than the near absolute black-and-white way in which most of them are portrayed. That being said, "Pride and Prejudice" made an extremely interesting read. In fact, I think it's rather relevant even in the present context.

EDIT: I came across what Salman Rushdie has to say about Jane Austen in his latest "Joseph Anton: A Memoir"

This was no longer the age of Jane Austen, who could write her entire oeuvre during the Napoleonic Wars without mentioning them, and for whom the major role of the British Army was to wear dress uniforms and look cute at parties.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

On Harry Potter and why I dislike the series

There could not be a better time for this post. There could not have been a worse time for this post. Now that the penultimate movie of the series is out, and my facebook wall filled with people who loved the movie. But this is something I really wanted to say, and I shall say it anyway. Harry Potter is pathetic literature. Now, you must be wondering why I say that. There are many reasons. Firstly, the storyline itself is flawed. When a writer sits down to write anything, he/she must set up some essential rules about what is happening. These rules must remain constant irrespective of how many times he/she changes his/her mind. This is so that the readers are allowed to have some sensibility in what they are reading. In the fourth book, Rowling goes ahead and kills Cedric. Then, at the end of the book, the horseless carriages are there again. Nothing special. We all knew that they are horseless. But then comes the fifth book, and BAM, the horses are actually winged beasts that only thos...

On the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard

This is a post that I have been meaning to write from quite some time. Long hours spent typing code on my computer left my hands fatigued, and left me with a lot of pain in my wrists and fingers. That is when I decided to use the Dvorak. But I have got the same bad habit as Dr. Watson, to tell a story backwards. Of course, you must be wondering what the Dvorak is. The story of keyboards starts with the invention of the typewriter. Christopher Sholes, the inventor of the typewriter, tried with a two row piano style keyboard. But then, he got into many difficulties with the design. Then he finally settled for a four row design. This was similar to the QWERTY layout that most computers and typewriters today possess. The engineers at Remington, to whom Sholes had presented his design modified the layout a little further, and then the QWERTY was born. As typewriters became popular, people got used to the layout, and started practising touch typing, i.e. typing without looking at the keys...

The paradox of government

I'm fascinated by the concept of government, and the paradoxes it presents. On one hand, governments grant us a certain set of rights or liberties. On the other hand, they work to strip us of the very liberties they promise. Now, I don't mean that all governments strip people of liberties, but there are liberal regimes, and there are sufficiently restrictive and dictatorial ones. Both models may have results to show, it does not mean that people in a restrictive regime are unhappy (refer to Dan Dennett's TED talk , where he states that ideas or memes can be dangerous when taken from one part of the world, where they are widespread, and, using the virus analogy, where people are immune to the memes; to a part of the world where they are foreign, where people may not be immune to the memes and where people may get infected). History has shown that people were sufficiently satisfied with autocratic governments with a benevolent dictator, and that people in other parts of the ...