18 chapters in... I want that to sink in for a moment... ok. 18 chapters in and NOTHING has happened. I am enjoying her writing style very much, but I also enjoy the back of an occasional cereal box so that may not mean much. We will see.I am sitting here eating a tootsie roll, a Halloween left over, and I can't help notice the similarities between it and the novel Pride and Prejudice. First off, like P and P, the tootsie roll wasn't one of those dinky ones that you can almost swallow in a single bite so you know that I've been at this for a while and now that I finally got it down, I have to wonder why I put it into mouth to begin with. Secondly, tootsie rolls are a throwback to another age, there are far better candies out there and the 36 wrappers littering the floor will attest to this. You have to really like tootsie rolls to appreciate them. I don't.Pride and Prejudice is the dullest most wonderfully written book that I have ever read. I read it simply to get a feel for the author's fantastic ability at arranging words, and really I mean it when I say, oh what wonderful blather.I give the book one star. After 62 chapters, there is nothing that happens. There is barely a story to the story, at least not one that could be remotely interesting...even to people who like romance. In the age of bodices, there is nary a one that is ripped open, let alone one that is undone with the gentle exploring fingers of a lover. And then there is the hubbub over the book...Satirical? A witty comedy of manners? Sure, I smiled a few times at the only funny character in the book, Mr. Bennett, but overall, I read, studied the sentence structure, noticed the wall paper and waited patiently as the paint dried. Even the dramatic ending where Lizzy gets the guy, is a letdown and dull. Just to let you know, I was joking about it being in any way dramatic. Which brings me to the characters. Other than Lizzy, they are all stereotypical and lack even the most remote concept of depth. Jane is pretty and sweet from the first page to the last. The mom is overbearing, the dad aloof. Other than Darcy, no one grows or changes in a book that spans a few years and endless pages.Normally, I use one star for books that I just can't finish and if I wasn't an aspiring author, I wouldn't have bothered to get through half the book, but since I did... and when I compare it to yawner like A Tale of Two Cities, I had to bump this one up a notch.PS, Don't read Moby Dick either, if you know what's good for you.

Some years back in one of my APAs, someone castigated Jane Austen's books like this: "All those daft twits rabbiting on about clothes and boyfriends and manners."Since then, Ive encountered other variations on the theme that a modern woman ought not to be reading such trash because it sets feminism back two centuries.Well, much as I laughed over the first caveat, that isn't Austen. It sounds more like the silver fork romances inspired by Georgette Heyer. Austen's characters don't talk about clothes at all, outside of air-headed Mrs Allen of Northanger Abbey, who doesn't think of anything else. Austen sticks her satiric quill into young ladies who think and talk about nothing but beaux, such as poor, luckless Anne Steele in Sense and Sensibility. Manners are emphasized but not manners without matter; Austen saves her spikiest irony for hypocrites.I think it's important to remember that whereas Heyer was writing historical romances in the silver fork tradition, Austen was writing novels about contemporary life, especially the problems facing young women in her own walk of life, the country gentry. She criticized herself in a much-quoted letter to her sister Cassandra, saying in effect, 'the problem with Pride and Prejudice is it's too light and bright and sparkling.' Many have misinterpreted this remark. It seems to me, on close reading of her elsewhere, that she meant the novel to be taken more seriously than it was.What is it about, really? It's about the wrong reasons for marrying, and how those can affect a woman for the rest of her life. Of course a hard-line feminist can point out that novels about marriage are hideously retro for today's woman, who has many choices before her. During Austen's time, marriage was the only choice a woman had, unless she was rich enough to shrug off the expectations of her society, or unless she was willing to live on as a pensioner to some family member or other, which more often than not meant being used as an unpaid maid. Of course there was teaching, but the salaries for women were so miserable one may as well have been a servant. The hours and demands were pretty much equal.If one looks past the subject of marriage, the novel's focus is about relationships: between men and women; between sisters; between friends; between family members and between families. As for marriage, Austen sends up relationships that were formed with security as the goal, relationships that were sparked by physical attraction and not much else, relationships made with an eye to rank, money, social status, or competition. And, with abundant wit and style (or as shed say, with éclat), she offers some truths about the differences between love and lust, and what relationships based on either mean to a marriage monthsor decadesafter the wedding.The fact that Austen doesn't use modern terminology doesn't make it any less real than a contemporary novel that has a supposedly liberated woman romping from bed to bed for forty pages while in search of the perfect relationship. The message is the same, that women who mistake falling in lust for falling in love are usually doomed to a very unhappy existence. And in Austen's time, you couldn't divorce, you were stuck for life.I've had dedicated feminist friends give me appalled reactions when I admit to liking Austen. I don't consider reading Austen a guilty pleasure, as I do reading Wodehouse. I consider Jane Austen a forerunner of feminism. She doesn't stand out and preach as Mary Wollstonecroft did. Her influence was nevertheless profound. Again and again in those novels she portrays women thinking for themselves, choosing for themselveseven if their choices are within the conventions of the time. What the women think matters.In Austens day (and too often, now) female characters were there as prizes for the men to possess, or to strive for, or as catalysts for male action. These days we call them refrigerator women. Jane Austen gave her female characters as much agency as a woman could have in those days, and the narrative is mostly seen through their eyes.The famed relationship between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy makes it very clear that they were first attracted by one another's intellectthose two were clearly brain-snogging before they ever got to the fine sheets of Pemberley. It is also clear that the manhis higher social and economic status notwithstandinghad to earn the woman's respect, and rethink some of his assumptions, before she could see in him a possible partner. There is no dominant male making the decisions: those two are equal right down to the last page, and Austen makes it clear that it will continue to be so after the marriage. Each time I reread the novel, I notice something new, but in the meantime, will I continue to recommend it to young women just venturing into literature? You bet.

Will I read Pride and Prejudice again? Yes, a thousand times, yes!Near perfection! P & P is one of those rare gems that weds character, plot and language all in one harmonious marriage. Austen's plotting is so very precise here. It's an absolute pleasure to behold. The timing is impeccable and there is very little, if any, fat in the prose to slow it down. Finding new clues to future plot twists and turns with each reread has reached the level of a sport for me now! They say, write what you know. Austen knew the life of the upper class (more precisely, the lower ranks of the upper class). She knew all about sitting around in parlors waiting to one day possibly be wed. She knew the rules of engagement that her class and gender imposed upon her. And so she wrote about those things and wrote well, weaving complex love triangles in a realistic, down-to-earth style. Some readers, often American, complain that Austen's work is tedious and unimpassioned. They are annoyed by characters that do not speak out or act when action would resolve the problems that arise in the social situations that make up the basis of Austen's stories. They lose sight of the fact that the early 19th century is not early 21st. Heck, it's not even the same country. To some living 200 years after Austen published, these sensibilities do not readily make sense. You must understand that the basis of Austen's writing is founded upon the mores of her time.What makes P & P so exciting and intriguing is that our protagonist does push back, she does speak out. She does all those things we modern day readers wish she'd do. You just have to read very carefully to see it all happening. It's occasionally quite subtle, but it's there. A familiarity with early 19th century England, its language and customs will help unveil this novel's beauty and brilliance.While I would not have wanted to be a woman living then, essentially tied down and utterly reliant on a wealthy man's whim for my happiness or even salvation, I try to at least enjoy the spectacle of something absolutely foreign to the way I live. Watching these people in the midst of arguing or courting is much like watching the controlled chaos of a boxing match. The principle parties are dueling like fighters looking to beat the crap out of one another, yet under strict rules by which they are bound. Break the rules and you may be disqualified. The constraints these people put themselves under in the name of civility may seem fanciful to us outsiders, but for a woman whose very livelihood depended on winning this bizarre game, it was very real.(Reviews of film and television adaptations to come!)

We are all fools in love. Why have I not read this sooner?I must admit, I didn't initially understand all the fuss surrounding this novel. I did not understand why so many millions of readers love it. It seemed to me they were all a bunch of romantic fools. Now that I am 'one of them', I can report back that the Pride and Prejudice fandom is actually full of normal people who care passionately about the characters.I instantly fell in love with the story and its amazing characters. Marvellous, magnificent, superb, delightful... Just some words to describe how great this novel is. Im so damn sick and tired of hearing about 'alpha males' and how women just love them and how 'they're so hot'. I love beta men/nice guys.It's refreshing to read about a hero who doesn't have to use foul language and violence to get attention and power. Mr Darcy is a gentleman. He is intelligent and wellinformed, competent, cool-headed, strong, yet silent. He is also arrogant and prideful. Hey, nobody's perfect. He suffers from a social shyness and awkwardness that is received by others as rudeness. Mr. Darcy stands the test of time because he recognizes Elizabeth as an equal, he is not threatened by her intelligence and outspoken personality. In fact, Darcy appreciates all those traits.They're such different people but alike in many ways. He and Elizabeth have such respect for each other, and I think that's what makes the romance in Pride and Prejudice such a success. And now I'm just going to compare every man to him and basically, I'm ruined forever. FOREVER.And let's not forget his estate. Sure, Mr Darcy has his issues and his flaws (so many times I wanted to scream at him and Elizabeth to get over themselves and talk already, I mean come on just get together already good grief this is ridiculous).Antigone, Annabeth Chase, Arya Stark, Scout Finch, Clarice Starling and Scarlett O'Hara are pretty much guaranteed on any of my favourite heroines lists and now I can add Elizabeth Bennet to that list too. Elizabeth is such an admirable heroine. And boy is she one smart tough cookie. She stands up for herself and those who matter to her, she loves to read and she thinks for herself. She is a woman far ahead of her time. If you haven't read this yet, read it now. It's a wonderful book, easy to read, even though it was published in the early 19th century. It will play on your emotions, and it will make you think. Well done, Miss Austen. Nice try, sir. But you're no Mr Darcy. This never happened in the book but I couldn't help myself.

NOTE: The review you are about to read was written in 2009. 2009! That's almost 10 years ago! I was 17 and thought I was the smartest person ever! In all honesty I barely remember this book. So, negative comments regarding my intelligence are no longer necessary. They will be ignored. As they have been for probably 6 years now. CARRY ON!P.S. Can we all just LOL at my use of the words "mind-numbing balls"?? HA. This book is quite possibly the most insipid novel I have ever read in my life. Why this book is so highly treasured by society is beyond me. It is 345 pages of nothing. The characters are like wispy shadows of something that could be interesting, the language that could be beautiful ends up becoming difficult to decipher and lead me more than once to skip over entire paragraphs because I became tired of having to stumble through them only to emerge unsatisfied, and the plot is non-existent, as though Austen one day decided she wanted to write a novel and began without having any idea what would happen except that there would be a boy and a girl who seemingly didnt like each other but in the end got married. The story really probably could have been told in about 8 pages, but Austen makes us slog through 345 pages of mind-numbing balls and dinner-parties. I dont care what anyone says, this is not great literature. This is a snore.Read my review of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.