Pride and Prejudice

Yes.

Yes.

>>9235535
Almost got the new writing format (the novel) banned, becuase it put unrealistic expectations in the minds of women, women too stupid to understand it's fiction.

>Did not contain a single example of realistic dialogue, historically innacurate, everything is a contrived drawn out speech.
>Silly bitches today still romanticize the language.

>>9235535
much better with zombies

>>9235535
I hated it. 200 pages of women gossiping about men, followed by 200 pages of gossip inducing scandals and romantic repartee between women and men.

It is the 18th century's soap opera.

Well written, sure, but boring - very boring.

>austen is essentially telling you to marry for love
>her main character just happens to marry one of the richest people in the country

hmmmmm

Women write shit books because they don't have valuable or relevant insights

>>9236392
unlike you?

>>9236398
Yes, I am a little girl and not a woman

>>9236400
pls post relevant insight my sweet loli

>>9236404
Women aren't capable of critical thought and I like to make onii-chan happy

>>9236407
that's a statement, not an insight. i'll give you one more try because you're cute

>>9235535
>>9235543
easy answer didn't require whole thread

>>9235535
It's Sass: the Book. Lots of one liners for young girls to quote and a super duper realistic love interest for them to swoon over. At the time it was something new so theres that.

>>9235535

pretty much invented a consistent and complex implementation of free indirect discourse and yet still managed to appeal the the masses of the time,

so yeah it's a pretty astounding text desu

>>9235535
>can it be seen as the 19th century precursor to shitty generic romance stories?
It's literally the opposite, Austen was reacting AGAINST the shitty romance novels of her time by writing with a greater psychological depth than has ever been done before.

File: this.png (322KB, 446x399px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 446x399px

>>9237093
ITT: Murcans with no grasp of historical context.

>>9235535
If you're honestly interested, I believe Woolf's 'A room of one's own' is a good introductory essay into the merit of Austen, Bronte etc.

>…all the literary training that a woman had in the early nineteenth century was training in the observation of character, in the analysis of emotion. Her sensibility had been educated for centuries by the influences of the common sitting-room. People’s feelings were impressed on her; personal relations were always before her eyes. Therefore, when the middle-class woman took to writing, she naturally wrote novels…

Virginia disliked some of Bronte's writing for being too directly feminist, too brutal in its way of achieving equality. On Austen she wrote
>Here was a woman about the year 1800 writing without hate, without bitterness, without fear, without protest, without preaching. That was how Shakespeare wrote.

The only Austen I've read is Northanger Abbey, for school, but it was pretty good. I don't think I could take the opinion seriously of anyone who fully dismisses her as trash for little girls. She does a really good job at capturing the world she knew, flaws and strengths.

There's some revisionism of her as a feminist now that's probably why the edgelords on 4chan dislike her so much.

>>9237093
>a greater psychological depth than has ever been done before.

Could you elaborate on this? What psychological depth was there in the novel? What I got from it was that the majority of the 'psychological' part was just the main character conflicted over whether or not she liked the main love interest because of mannerisms and wealth and class and other generic love story barriers.