I have been studying this book for quite some time, And I have absolutely dreaded every page of it. All over the internet there are articles praising the "genius" of Jane Austen, In a book lauded as the greatest of all time, But really has one of the most basic plots in any story ever written. If I had a dollar for every children's picture book about a person who didn't like something at first but liked it in the end, I'd fly to Longbourn myself. The book has absolutely no significance in today's world because there are no stakes in any of the scenes. Nobody is at all drastically affected if something goes wrong(except for the annoyingly dramatic matriarch of the Bennets) because everyone is rich and attractive as it is(except Mary Bennet, Who is the only daughter who doesn't marry someone. Funny how that works). Who knew that 300 pages of rich people gossiping with sticks up their asses would get boring. None of the characters are likable enough to want to spend more than a page reading about them, And none of them have any depth. I am a theater fan, And when I listen through the score of Next to Normal or Natasha, Pierre, And the Great Comet of 1812, I am immersed in the complexities of every character's drive and their emotional structures, As well as their consequential relationships. With Pride and Prejudice, It's pretty much- Jane is pretty, So she gets attention. Darcy is introverted and makes a bad impression, So nobody likes him. There is nothing remotely important or universalizing about Pride and Prejudice the way it is told to be.
It’s interesting that JA wasn’t a powerhouse back in the day, we keep hearing from her fan base today how hard she had it...Let’s talk about that, a doting brother that looked after her more than keeping body and soul together, a spinster by proud choice and ample facility’s to write her fantasy drivel with impunity. And then gets the arse because people of her day were “meh” about her piss taking storys.
To me JA is severely shallow and has a lot to answer for, she was one of the pioneer toxic guys chase girls, girls chose high, expectations nuts who today has ruined the poorest and ugliest people , whilst the Darcys and Miss Bennett’s have multiple partners and has the cream of the crop in relationships.
In short , because of her women over the years invest in lust and selfish desire. Men lust, but are simple to satisfy, and demand much less from their partners. As long as the woman is attractive enough, (and men’s standards are generally low) as long as the woman is loyal enough, marry them,breed, love them, provide for them, and don’t judge either...All over the place we have females swooning and no concept of reality . Women are the ones with more partners, dress up in tight pants, skirts and shorts revealing much - same back in regency England, women exposure of shoulders and cleavage, so women are the ones obsessed with the opposite sex, status and wealth, from the filth on tv today to Austen’s nonsense in her crap storys. Cheers a bunch...Not.
Who cares about women in literature in the 1800s? The big battles were - and she is ignorant of them - to an extent that precludes the pocket agendas that seem to obsess people today - freedom of speech and the press, civil rights before the law, habeas corpus, the right to organise and trade unions, social and working conditions....The reason Austen has been crow barred into this over rated position is she embodies much of the insular petty and broken neo-liberal values that have been cultivated on an industrial scale in the West since the fall of the Soviet bloc in the 1980s. We have a couple of generations who have been brainwashed into unquestioning obedience to the world view she represents.
In her writing, Austen conceived of characters that she intended to be satirical, a comment on social norms and peoples strangeness. Unfortunately, none of these characters lived up to even the most generous standards of incisive satire. Satire is achieved when the reader laughs at a character and recognizes that he is laughing at traits that he, himself possesses. By making all of her characters so over-the-top that they are clownish and cartoonish, the only thought she left in my mind was, "Goodness me, this is the most overrated author I have ever read."
Her novels are about as "biting" as a toothless old man. Her writing is beautiful, sure. I actually enjoy her books, but the obsessive fan-culture that she has and devoted following of people who treat her books as the bible? I don't get it. I think the people who become obsessive are just trying to romanticize the time period. Kinda like Steampunk or when people recreate 20s jazz parties. Jane Austen devotees try to recreate the Regency period (NOT Victorian!) with all the balls, dresses, tea parties, and of course, all the classism-racist-sexist undertones. It is truly bizarre.
Two interchangeable stock characters which may be further subdivided into the plain one and the pretty one. All set in a sealed bubble where no real events occur and no one who is poor or a servant appears. Arid and lifeless -compare the vitality in Dickens, Defoe, Smollet, Thackeray, Richardson or Fielding.
I think Jane Austen’s popularity today is quite mysterious. There is no explanation for the kind of extraordinary fame which Austen enjoys, which I believe to be just one more example of the arbitrariness of history, blindly choosing – with no rhyme or reason – who will be remembered, and who will be forgotten.
Why is Austen so freakishly famous, and not (for example) author Thomas Hardy? “Austenites” abound, but I don’t see any “Hardy-ites” about these days. Why don’t Emily Bronte or Eliza Haywood have the kind of fame that Austen has? (Eliza Haywood certainly deserves fame – she was a fantastically successful 1700’s erotic novelist and playwright, an important innovator of the novel, who is now almost totally forgotten. She wrote amazing amorous stories such as Fantomina, in which a young woman disguises herself as three different women, to seduce the same man over and over again – Haywood’s stories are BY FAR much more interesting and thrilling than anything Austen ever wrote.)
What accounts for Jane Austen’s remarkable fame? And, come to that, why is SHERLOCK HOLMES so bizarrely famous today, either? I thought those old Holmes stories were dead and buried, the kind of stodgy, dry old things that nobody reads anymore, like Robinson Crusoe – and now suddenly both Austen and Holmes are shockingly famous – Austenites everywhere, fans of Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock all over the place. I don’t see any Robinson “Crusoe-ites” having national get-togethers that are big business today. There is an “Austenland” (movie), but no “Crusoeland.”
The only real explanation would seem to be that history is weird. Publishers frequently say that there are absolutely no rules in the publishing business, about why one writer becomes famous and another does not. It would seem that Austen’s fame today is just another example of that – a weird quirk of publishing history, that just happened because it happened, and for no other reason.
I personally find Austen’s writing style to be astonishingly difficult to read. I believe her to be a fine storyteller, but with horrible, horrible writing – with impenetrable prose that makes my head throb with pain when I try to read it. I cannot truly imagine anybody having a genuinely pleasant or easy time reading such ugly, technically-demanding sentences; it’s like reading a computer-program printout, and about as interesting, from a dramatic point of view.
Thus, with so many other better-written, fascinating authors out there, why Austen? Again, I would suspect there is no reason at all. When the American Thomas Paine died, he was seen by most of America as a rabble-rouser – arrogant, mean-spirited, and a dangerous atheist. Yet within a few decades of his death, his reputation inexplicably turned around, and today he is seen as one of America’s Founding Fathers. No reason. It just did because it did. Austen's fame would seem kind of like that; she gets famous, while many other more interesting writers do not, and I guess we to have to live with.
A decent feminist writer that's about it, pride and prejudice her most acclaimed work is genuinely the most yawn evoking piece of writing it has ever been my displeasure to read that having been said her creative style and wit are to be commended however this is not enough to save her excitement barren works in my eyes
I mean yes she is good, but their novels have too much fantasy,they are easy very ease to read,There is no complexity or depth in her novels.Compared with other big autors. And i know she is so famous maybe because she was one of the first female autors but there were much better like the bronte sisters,elizabeth gaskell. etc. i think she is too overrated in this time
Maybe we can't blame her for having little to right about, perhaps she led a closeted life. But the fact is that she produced nothing interesting to read in terms of a good story, during a time in which a lot of very interesting events indeed took place.
They were merely the overly elaborate Mills and boon novels of their time, and they are popular because women like to have something from their gender that they can be proud about.
Here is the thing, Lets forgett about al the great love stories she wrote...The woman understood us women...She captures our escence and was able to express it so well, her novels are still readed nowadays. You cannot determine how great a writer is by looking if their work is hard or easy to read...I´ve read children books that have more sense and feeling than many old, complex novels...Many women writers, old or modern ones are not able to really show how we are, as women; but Jane wasn´t the case...She just didn´t wrote about a simple girls that wanted love, found their true prince and got married...She wrote about the problems on the society at that time (ande even on our time to) and how love...True love....Not only one night "love", could stand before all of that. She alos had great plots; not like nowadays that people has runned out of ideas and decides to write about a pale, boring girl that falls in love with a vampire and a wolf...
Jane Austen died in 1817. Queen Victoria did not come to the throne until 1837. So Austen is not a "Victorian" writer, she's much earlier than that. In her day, even moderately well-off women were not formally educated, and were simply expected to marry well, and cease to rely on their parents for support. Work was considered demeaning, and careers for women were unheard of. Jane Austen never married, and earned her living from her writing. That was an extraordinary thing for her to do in her day. She wrote about the world she knew, but with a critical eye, plenty of irony, and humanity. She was a great writer, and one whose novels can be re-read again and again, and still enjoyed. She paved the way for later women writers such as Elizabeth Gaskell, and George Eliot. Women writers still struggle in a male-dominated publishing world. Long live Jane Austen - a true pioneer of her craft.
Which essentially speaks for itself, especially considering the range of reasons why different groups of people praise and appreciate her work. One can google her name and find countless books, articles, essays, blogs, dissertations, theses, discussions, and the like, extolling some or many features of her work-- historically as well as contemporaneously; from other writers whether illustrious or not, statesmen and public figures whether famous or not, critics, academecians, to legions of fans throughout English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries alike. Her works have inspired a 'Jane Austen Society' in many countries, as well as a large and burgeoning fan fiction industry. And then there are all of the movie adaptations, stage adaptations, and other references within popular culture to her body of work. Asking if she is 'overrated' seems a little specious, because each individual will 'rate' her according to personal tastes and standards. But there seems little doubt that Jane Austen has accumulated more admirers and greater attention than almost any other-- if any other-- writer in the history of English literature (excepting perhaps Shakespeare).
Yet this discussion forum itself shows that her work is not universally lauded. No writer's work has ever reached that level, without exception; and very probably none ever will.
I don't think that Jane Austen is the most amazing author in the world, but for a woman living in her time, her ideas were revolutionary and her characters really put female voice in perspective. She did a lot for female authors and helped to advance the narrative even for today.
Many people even today still really enjoy Jane Austen's work. In this day and age she may hold less value to us than she did back then, but she was a very powerful female author that deserves credit for her works and strength in writing such unique and powerful things at the time.
Jane Austen is a celebrated literary author because of the real impact of her works. Millions of people have read then and been influenced by her work. She was also one of the first female authors of her time to be recognized as a person of real merit. Her works celebrate life and are important to everyone. She is by no means overrated.