Why Veeky Forums hates Austen?

have you read Sense and Sensibility? Apparently not because otherwise you would know exactly what I am talking about. At least Shakespeare knows how to write. Also I would like to point out that just because someone doesn't like a book that you do doesn't mean you need to try and belittle their literacy you pseud

Austen is generally considered one of fhe best prose stylists in English. She's the opposite of flashy.

autists gonna Austen

I find it really funny. Is like rediscovering English. Its simple to read yet strangely elegant. It feels cotidian and mundane but elaborated at the same time.

These for the pleb teens

People with actual taste can fuck with Austen

this

the only reason Austen isn't read much is because Veeky Forums doesn't read British lit as much as they read American lit

I like her.

Thirded.

She was the original meme author.

Did you find the beginning 100 pages or so of Pride and Prejudice boring? I had a really tough time getting through it, but after that point it became pretty enjoyable.

>Veeky Forums doesn't read British lit as much as they read American lit
american lit sucks
american classics are shit compared to british classics

>have you read Sense and Sensibility?

of course i fucking have. you know it's one of the most popular books ever published, right?

>Also I would like to point out that just because someone doesn't like a book that you do doesn't mean you need to try and belittle their literacy you pseud

cry me a fucking river you goldfish-brained millennial

pic unrelated

wahhh wahhh someone doesn't like a book that i do i'd better call him an idiot that'll show him waah

waahhh wahhh someone likes a book i don't like i'd better call him a pseud that'll show him waaaahh

your turn you idiot

If you like a book then more power to you. It was the fact that you immediately assumed that because I don't have the same taste as you that i must be a "goldfish-brained millennial". It's just infantile

I dont?

Nothing specifically against her, I just hate women in general and on principle desu

I felt more of a sense of difficulty probably due to th new language and style. The plot was pretty direct since the begining but yeah, after page 80-90 I started reading it a lot faster and fluider. Maybe it's just an adaptation issue.
Oh, and the story became so much more interesting when it started going around Elizabeth, her relation with Mr.Darcy is really interesting.

Fluidly*
Perdón anons.

>Maybe it's just an adaptation issue

This. Once you get used to her she is a very enjoyable read. Pride and Prejudice is one of my all time favs.

She wrote genre fiction trash.

>Because she knows nothing of life and thinks she knows everything

says Veeky Forums

Because she knows nothing of life and thinks she knows everything. Because she invites the reader to feel superior to all her characters, who she resents for having romantic experiences and sex lives. Her books depict the relationship between men and women as imagined by an old maid sitting out every dance. This is mistakenly conflated with their distance in time - her fans think she depicts how decorous things were in her culture, when in fact her perceptions are as much fantasies as theirs. Because she has no spark of the ingredient now thought to be essential to a serious writer - curiosity. She doesn't know how things are in any other part of the world but her own, or want to know. Soldiers are men who socialize in uniform. The only cause for concern is your position on the economic ladder of a tiny band of the landed gentry. She was the sort of woman who wants to hit anything she doesn't understand with her umbrella. Naturally, complacent people adore her - Martin Amis thinks she's a genius. But when you could be reading, to take only British woman writers, the Brontes, Elizabeth Gaskell, George Eliot or Virginia Woolf, or, to take only nineteen-century writers - Dickens, Thackeray, Collins, Hardy - even Stevenson, Trollope or Wells - why read Jane Austen?

>the characters are boring
>the plot is that of a soap opera
Nah I think you're the pleb here m8.
You literally just said the exact opposite of .

Says anyone who's done more in their life than read romantic fiction.

I find her austentatious.

Obviously. Its called an opinion you plebeian

Because she knows nothing of life and thinks she knows everything. Because she invites the reader to feel superior to all her characters, who she resents for having romantic experiences and sex lives. Her books depict the relationship between men and women as imagined by an old maid sitting out every dance. This is mistakenly conflated with their distance in time - her fans think she depicts how decorous things were in her culture, when in fact her perceptions are as much fantasies as theirs. Because she has no spark of the ingredient now thought to be essential to a serious writer - curiosity. She doesn't know how things are in any other part of the world but her own, or want to know. Soldiers are men who socialize in uniform. The only cause for concern is your position on the economic ladder of a tiny band of the landed gentry. She was the sort of woman who wants to hit anything she doesn't understand with her umbrella. Naturally, complacent people adore her - Martin Amis thinks she's a genius. But when you could be reading, to take only British woman writers, the Brontes, Elizabeth Gaskell, George Eliot or Virginia Woolf, or, to take only nineteenth-century writers - Dickens, Thackeray, Collins, Hardy - even Stevenson, Trollope or Wells - why read Jane Austen?

The fact you have an opinion on it makes you a pleb.

why

Typo in the first posting.

that just doesn't even make sense you retard. You're clutching at straws in an effort to justify your overly aggressive response to someone stating an opinion

>it was just an opinion man!
That's just, like, you're opinion, man.

Plot and characters are for plebs, and you are a pleb, and are unnecessarily butthurt about it, too.

>plot and characters are for plebs

wew lad you might wanna rethink that

I don't think you're a good fit for this board.

>Plot and characters are for plebs

Plot maybe, but characters no

that's pretty ironic considering you just belittled the importance of characters and plots

unless you mean im not a good fit because i actually care about literature, in which case i think you might be right

Characters no?

Who cares about characters, beyond what they are as tools? They don't have to be believable unless that is part of their use. You don't complain about characters in fables, or fairytales, being unbelievable/simplistic, do you?

>british high society
The characters Austen wrote of were all very much the middle class of the period, the social realism of her writing was quite novel in fact.

"Middle Class"? More like the lower fringes of the upper class.

That describes me and my distaste for Austen well.

I'm pretty sure you're arguing with a woman or a faggot, stop wasting your time dog

that certainly seems to be the case

No. Upper Class means titled gentry. As far as I can recall, only Mansfield Park centred on characters who could be described as Upper Class, and even then Fanny was a poor relation with a distinctly lower social status than the Bertrams.

None of Austen's protagonists are upper class.

You've missed the point. Austen doesn't invite her readers to feel superior to her characters. Austen is on one big mission to skewer her readers for all their bullshit. If you didn't understand that most basic point, I don't think you can presume to chat shit about one of the most respected writers in the language.

>Who cares about characters, beyond what they are as tools?

No one aside from fanbois and girls. But their utility of being relatable, or didactic, or whatever an author can make of them is what exactly what makes them not "for plebs". Plot can be entirely superfluous, but characters cannot. A character doesn't necessarily have to be a person either.

Then they're being used as tools.

This is the stupidest fucking conversation

You sound like a real character.

By which I mean you're a tool.

You're just stupid. You're also the reason we have to take accusations of misogyny whenever we point out an actual female hack like beauvoir or woolf

Of course she isn't. This ludicrous, suburban-puritan notion that writers accuse their readers is from the twentieth century redbrick lecture hall. As the user said, Austen invites you to laugh at her characters; to think otherwise is to misunderstand how time and culture work.

>comedy of manners about bourgeois matchmaking

So in other words it's 19th century Twilight.

WOW SO DEEP SO PATRICIAN
How stupid do you fuckers have to be to get memed by Jane Austen of all writers? She's a hack, and no it isn't r9k to say so, leftist shills.

I really like Northanger Abbey, it's quite cute.

Austen doesn't write like Meyers.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

her books read like a SOL anime

I don't mind that

>stating the obvious in response to a point no one made

The point is that if you aren't literally retarded then no amount of verbiage can conceal hackery. Thanks to idiots like you, in 200 years from now people will be inventing reasons why the only way you could possibly hate Twilight is if you were a pleb misogynist who doesn't understand our times.
You're saying that Austen's voice isn't like Meyer's voice, therefore, they're different.
It's exactly the kind of superficial meme analysis that makes Veeky Forums a pile of shit these days.

>>>/reddit/

Her writing clearly shows that she is no hack. Meyers clearly shows the opposite.

Now go discuss the size of labia

Essentially, yes. It became important to pretend she was a better writer than she was after the Second World War, when in order to try to put the women-in-the-workplace genie back in the bottle, male professors wanted to make out that the limited lives of women in past centuries was no obstacle to their achieving things. In fact, yes, quite obviously, Jane Austen was a ninny with zero perspective on or insight into her society beyond what a bitter plain girl who laughs at all her father's jokes can acquire. Quite obviously, you cannot be isolated from all meaningful education and all varieties of instructive experience and emerge a great writer.

>Her writing clearly shows that she is no hack.

You're in a thread arguing about Jane Austen and you've never read Jane Austen. Think about that.

>reading for anything other than prose

kek

>implying Austen's prose is worth reading

kek

I do read for prose, there's nothing else to read for. Where prose is concerned, Austen gives you nothing. The reason it's meaningful to challenge her grasp of society is that social insight is the main plank of the claims made for her.

Have you ever read a female author who was really good at this whole bookwriting lark?

Yes, many, but I assume you don't want recommendations?

Only if they aren't meme-tier or liberal propaganda

My favorite as well. After hearing that the Northanger Horrids were real books I checked out some early gothic: The Castle of Otranto, Mysteries of Udolpho, The Monk. Pretty bad, but worth reading, especially the last one.

Try Edith Wharton.

>muh boring bourgeois problems

No thakn you.

Oh right, you're not interested in any literature. Well, this is the literature board.

>t. Alberto Barbosa

>ywn

youtube.com/watch?v=ZbQbrSSn9eQ

also Mr. Darcy would totally shitpost on Veeky Forums right

>Wharton
What do I start with?

>why Veeky Forums hates Austen?

She writes fiction

GOAT Jane Austen movie tbqh

Wrote shitty soap operas

Generally, British lit post Milton is pretty shitty

I personally enjoy her but maybe that's because I am a woman

>Just finished reading pride and prejudiced.
>Thought it was charming and enjoyable, particularly the lurid writing style. Reminds me of poe.
>Come to lit.
>This thread.

Impotent negativity is the cancer killing criticism.

LONDON
O
N
D
O
N

So let me get this straight. With your sweeping assertions and offhand derisive memes about established critical opinion, you're putting forward the position that... what, that Austen's novels were read so widely by an audience of people who weren't snobs, didn't ever try to marry for social advantage or money rather than love, and valued keen intelligence in women more highly than any other quality except moral sense? Total self-evident nonsense. Austen is a very consistent champion for a certain set of values, and she mostly sets out her stall by satirising their opposites. Those opposites were far more widespread in her society than her own ideas; therefore it goes without saying that a majority of her audience are accused through her writings.

show feet

You're just parrotting Leavisite burble.

> Those opposites were far more widespread in her society than her own ideas

Prove it. Protip: you can't.

The House of Mirth.

>Austen is on one big mission to skewer her readers for all their bullshit
No, she's on a mission to write an enjoyable story which incidentally deals with morality—the fact that actions have consequences.

The point of satire has been oft debated (to what advantage for us readers, I don't know) without being settled; but what I think none would say is that it intends (except in the most Juvenalian forms of satire) to "skewer" its readers. Nor would anyone accuse Austen of being Juvenalian.

Austen does not, in writing the character of Mr. Bennett, set out to demolish her reader, for the simple reason that she cannot know whether her reader is a Mr. Bennett. In writing that character she is concerned to satirize every Mr. Bennett she knows—including the reader if he happens to be one—and to entertain her readers who have met him, as we all have. This is satire yes, but it is satire that can laugh with and love a Mr. Bennett however much it acknowledges his follies. I have read (can't remember where) that some readers attested that they knew a Mr. Bennett and told him so—I can't imagine they would have been so rude as to insult him like that, if it was really an insult.

Though she seldom invites readers to feel superior to her characters, I'm afraid she sometimes does, and that this is a slight deficiency of her style resulting from her own not-perfectly-concealed snobbery. It is no use to pretend that Elizabeth and Mr. Collins are really conceived equally. We can sympathize with Elizabeth's follies, but we can only smile at Mr. Collins in a superior way. Compare it to Scott's more romantic treatment of ridiculous personages and you'll see what I mean.

Great post, thank you!

I've been meaning to start another Austen book since I read Pride and Prejudice a few years ago. Anyone have any recommendations? I'm familiar with most of her stories; I want to know where she really shows off her writing chops.

because she literally writes for plot, they are glorified chick literature which points out the deficiencies in her own life

Emma

Mansfield Park is wonderful, and in my opinion much better than Pride and Prejudice. Some people find the protagonist boring because she is more avowedly moral and is less sarcastic and proud than Elizabeth—she has a lot more in common with Jane. But for anybody who thinks humility is a real virtue, it's a wonderful story that is as romantic as P&P but deals more especially with the difficulties of discipline and gratitude. It is a more mature work and a more moralistic one—I think it's her best.

Thanks for the suggestions, anons

Harold Bloom worships Persuasion, if his opinion matters to you.

quality post