Perhaps only the Bible and the Bill of Rights can rival Pride and Prejudice for the sheer variety of interpretations it has undergone. Its irony and ambiguity mean that even those who don’t fall instantly in love with the novel usually find something to admire. A few, however, were unconvinced. Here are the thoughts of a few such fools, I mean, people.
Charlotte Bronte and Mark Twain united in their dislike of Pride and Prejudice
Early critical reception for Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice was good, but for Lady Jane Davy, writing in 1813, the book was found wanting. Written for mere amusement, in her view, the novel nevertheless largely failed to amuse:
‘Pride and Prejudice’ I do not like very much. Want of interest is the fault I can least excuse in works of mere amusement, and however natural the picture of vulgar minds and manners is there given, it is unrelieved by the agreeable contrast of more dignified and refined characters occasionally captivating attention.
Charlotte Bronte was another fierce critic, annoyed at the lack of wilderness, open air and the elements contained in the novel. A kind of mirror image of Mr Collins, with his endless lectures on the smallest details of Lady Catherine’s estate, it seems that Ms Bronte wanted more on the weather, the trees, the hills and the streams.
Why do you like Miss Austen so much? I am puzzled on that point… I got the book and studied it. And what did I find? An accurate daguerreotyped portrait of a common-place face; a carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden with neat borders and delicate flowers – but no glance of a bright, vivid physiognomy – no open country – no fresh air – no blue hill – no bonny beck. I should hardly like to live with her ladies and gentlemen in their elegant but confined houses.
Charlotte Bronte’s review was positively glowing next to Mark Twain’s, who’s contempt for Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice took his imagination to quite extraordinary places:
I haven’t any right to criticize books, and I don’t do it except when I hate them. I often want to criticize Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can’t conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Every time I read Pride and Prejudice I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin bone!
Later, Winston Churchill critiicized the book from a different angle. Its world was too small and isolated, and its characters insular to the point of self-obsession:
What calm lives they had, those people! No worries about the French Revolution or the crashing struggle of the Napoleonic Wars. Only manners controlling natural passion as far as they could, together with cultural explanations of any mischances.
So there we have it. If Pride and Prejudice had more refined characters, less refined wilderness, more on the Napoleonic Wars and generally less to encourage Mark Twain to pick up his spade, then everyone would be happy!
Jane Davy, Charlotte Bronte and Mark Twain are quoted in Robert Morrison’s Pride and Prejudice; A Sourcebook (2005) available from Amazon.
I would like to dig him up and beat him over the skull with his own shin bone when I read these words!
I agree with Raquel. Such violent words!!
So… anyone have something constructive to add?
Mr. Clemens’ humorous jab aside, I feel there’s a great deal of valid criticism here–Austen’s work *is* highly insular and precious. Better to address these aspects than mindlessly worship the author’s infallibility. Or are these “flaws” what make people like her work?
Gosh, I’m glad I never did meet mark Twain. And who was Charlotte Bronte, who wrote one book in her life, and one with Jane Austen-ish characters, complain about it? I think Mark Twain makes a point, if you read his books, but neither does Winston Churhill, who was PM of a modern-ish Britain, where we all certainly relate to Pride and Prejudice in every day life.
Anyway, Pride and Prejudice wasn’t meant to be so historically correct, it wasn’t meant to be about “blu hills and fresh air”. Its just a fun book to enjoy and take a look at human personalities, as well as the things most of us care about like money, love, society.
I had to laugh at Bronte’s criticism as most people these days feel their books are quite similar.
Bronte’s argument makes absolutely zero sense to me. Just because Austen doesn’t describe the country? We don’t all want to hear about rolling hills and pretty flowers, wake up! (oh wait, she can’t, she’s dead…)
@Taylor The only one out of the other 2 that came up with something close to constructive criticism would be Bronte and I’m not really sure what she was going for. Good ol’ Churchill wanted to add war-fueled drama…..into the mix.
The one from Mark Twain is disappointing. I would think, being an ironist, he would enjoy P&P since it’s so full of delicious irony. Unless, of course, he was being ironic in his quote, which would make more sense
To Regina: Bronte wrote more than just one book in her life, however, I think most would agree that it is much better to have written one great book, as oppose to have written many “okay” ones. With that said, I would have to say that I am one of the many fools who find great fault with “Pride and Prejudice”; although, I have read it often, mostly for homework assignments, and for my own amusement (I guess you can say that I love to hate “Pride and Prejudice”). The fact that this book is much loved by most people, especially by those who can claimed that “Pride and Prejudice” is the only book they have ever finished, is not surprising. It is a simple love story that is filled with unnecessary and frivolous drama – more like the Victorian version of “Twilight.” For those who wish to simply escape, a novel like “Pride and Prejudice,” is a good read.
My obsession with this book, however, is why this very silly book is regarded as great literature, so much so, that it is required reading in high schools and universities. I have read it several times, (again, mostly for homework and amusement) but find myself trying to find what makes this novel worthy of the title of good literature. The only thing that I have discovered is that the more I read this novel, the more I dislike it, especially the title character, Elizabeth Bennet. Really, much of the praise of her character, I find, are much like Elizabeth’s own judgments of every character she encountered: misguided or just flat out wrong. Really, I would find that much of the characteristics that many of her fans want to give her, really belong to another character of another novel, which for some strange reason, is often confuse with “Pride and Prejudice,” which is Jane Eyre from the novel of the same name (The ONE, I suppose, Regina was referring to). As for Jane Austen herself, I find that I have a hard time informing an opinion on her. In one novel, she seems to declare that love is most important in determining a good marriage, yet in another, like “Sense and Sensibility,” she seems to declare that only good sense makes for a good marriage. With this confusing ideology, it is not a surprise that she never married herself, since she probably did not know what she wanted in a marriage. With “Pride and Prejudice,” I cannot determine as to what message she really wanted to relay to her readers. In one sense, I want to believe that Austen’s purpose was to reveal, perhaps, that the fantasy of falling in love, where money and social standing didn’t matter, is just that, a fantasy; and any person, Elizabeth Bennet, who would make such a claim, especially in the Victorian era, is a hypocrite. However, if Jane Austen had much in common with Elizabeth Bennet, and indeed, felt that the only thing wrong in her character was that she judged Mr. Darcy too harshly at first, then I would have to say, in a most vulgar but precise manner, that Jane Austen was simply a bitch.
how do u cite this?