The dialogue, wit, and characters I am not puzzled about.
Dan Send a noteboard - 28/04/2012 03:17:37 AM
It's not quite my cup of tea, but it may just be a matter of time.
But I seem to recall a thread where more than a couple people whose opinions are generally very good brought her up as an exemplar of excellent prose in the English language. I think the thread was one of those circlejerks about Fantasy novels not being well written or something (I actually like those threads, don't get me wrong.) I think one of those was you, or Doma, maybe you both, but I could be mistaken. Anyway, I recall seeing "X is no Jane Austen, though" more than once. So I was just curious as to what made her prose well-formed, apart from dialogue or wit or characters. If that makes sense. I'm seriously interested, because I think I'm missing something. The fact that it was simply a product of a different trend in style doesn't cut it for me, though- I'm interested in a positive description, her stylistic context already acknowledged. Anyway, jw.
But then, few books are great in every aspect (though I won't deny there are some that certainly come closer to that ideal than Austen's).
I glanced through the first few chapters of P&P on Project Gutenberg just now, and to the extent that those can be considered representative (not very), the conclusion is that much of Austen's writing is simply dialogue, and her dialogue is good, as I'm sure you'll agree. Of the rest, a good part is taken up by witty or ironic touches (which I at least find amusing). The descriptive prose is very simple indeed, but why should that bother us? It's the characters and the dialogue that make the novels such classics, and the ironic comments like the famous "truth universally acknowledged". And of course a good part of Austen's reputation is simply that she wrote those books when she did, and that she was already a classic to the Victorians. If there are other English writers who have written novels comparable to Austen's prior to 1820, they certainly haven't stood the test of time.
But I seem to recall a thread where more than a couple people whose opinions are generally very good brought her up as an exemplar of excellent prose in the English language. I think the thread was one of those circlejerks about Fantasy novels not being well written or something (I actually like those threads, don't get me wrong.) I think one of those was you, or Doma, maybe you both, but I could be mistaken. Anyway, I recall seeing "X is no Jane Austen, though" more than once. So I was just curious as to what made her prose well-formed, apart from dialogue or wit or characters. If that makes sense. I'm seriously interested, because I think I'm missing something. The fact that it was simply a product of a different trend in style doesn't cut it for me, though- I'm interested in a positive description, her stylistic context already acknowledged. Anyway, jw.
I'm not trolling, and I don't want to hate on the book, but I can barely make it through a paragraph without getting bored and tired. Everyone here seems to swear by her prose, though, so I really think I'm perhaps missing something in appreciating it. Could someone explain to me why it's good? Preferably with some textual examples?
But then, few books are great in every aspect (though I won't deny there are some that certainly come closer to that ideal than Austen's).
I glanced through the first few chapters of P&P on Project Gutenberg just now, and to the extent that those can be considered representative (not very), the conclusion is that much of Austen's writing is simply dialogue, and her dialogue is good, as I'm sure you'll agree. Of the rest, a good part is taken up by witty or ironic touches (which I at least find amusing). The descriptive prose is very simple indeed, but why should that bother us? It's the characters and the dialogue that make the novels such classics, and the ironic comments like the famous "truth universally acknowledged". And of course a good part of Austen's reputation is simply that she wrote those books when she did, and that she was already a classic to the Victorians. If there are other English writers who have written novels comparable to Austen's prior to 1820, they certainly haven't stood the test of time.
This message last edited by Dan on 28/04/2012 at 03:18:43 AM
Just read Pride and Prejudice again.
- 25/04/2012 04:21:27 PM
1406 Views
honestly...I liked it better with zombies.
- 25/04/2012 05:15:12 PM
1055 Views
Never read that.
- 25/04/2012 10:14:51 PM
1049 Views
it has a lot of the charm of the original, and then the additional charm of zombies
- 25/04/2012 11:36:55 PM
1164 Views
I don't know what it is about that book, but yes, I do love it.
- 25/04/2012 06:56:28 PM
1105 Views
I love Thomas Hardy.
- 25/04/2012 08:33:41 PM
1027 Views
Hm. I never could. Which book particularly?
- 25/04/2012 10:09:16 PM
1118 Views
Jude the Obscure.
- 26/04/2012 03:10:25 AM
1174 Views
Mary's still presented as better than Lydia and their mother. Kind of.
- 26/04/2012 08:40:40 PM
1083 Views
Re: Mary's still presented as better than Lydia and their mother. Kind of.
- 26/04/2012 09:40:14 PM
1321 Views
See, I keep thinking Jane Austen books are "chick lit" but I like them anyway.
- 26/04/2012 02:43:07 AM
1019 Views
Oh, come on. Jane Eyre is a great book.
- 26/04/2012 08:42:17 PM
1023 Views
Hated Wuthering Heights. (but not as much as I hate Rochester of course)
- 26/04/2012 09:31:13 PM
1086 Views
I don't think the first adaptation is cheating
- 26/04/2012 10:04:14 PM
941 Views
I admit she's too good for him - but isn't that part of the point?
- 26/04/2012 10:08:13 PM
1038 Views
Could someone explain to me why Jane Austen's prose is considered good?
- 27/04/2012 12:24:00 AM
1226 Views
Dialogue, wit, characters. The plot and descriptive prose are merely functional, true.
- 27/04/2012 11:26:27 PM
973 Views
The dialogue, wit, and characters I am not puzzled about.
- 28/04/2012 03:17:37 AM
1103 Views