With much disdain and little amiability I must express that the drudgery I feel whilst trudging through the coarse pages of such a lengthy, albeit vocabulary enriching parcel of perplexing pages, and droll eighteenth century drawing-room intriques, more modernly known as lack luster soap operas, can only leave me with the following conclusion...the meticulous prudery with which Jane Austen writes does capture with dripping satire the ridiculousness of the period in which she pens. However, Austen's voraciousness to be witty among what are admittingly highly proletarian surroundings filled with the most absurd propriety and frustratingly controlled etiquettes is not enough to offset the pure silliness of the subjects on which she attempts to create something from absolute nothingness.
Um, what? Need smaller words, please. :) Bet you are thankful for the women's liberation movement, huh?
ReplyDeleteWell, silly, you missed the point. Jane Austen is all about HOW she writes, not so much about what she writes. That's my gripe with YA Lit: it's ONLY about what it says with rare attention to style and extremely clumsy characterization (generally speaking). What can I say: I cut my eye teeth on Brit. Lit. and can barely read Americans at all. Hemingway excepted.
ReplyDeleteI like Elizabeth because of all Austen's characters (except maybe the one in Persuasion), she seems most realistically autobiographical. I like female characters that make a world inside a drawing room because in my opinion a world made in such circumstances is much more carefully crafted--the details are fine, of course, and probably seem overly belabored, but still . . . . there's much to be said for doing what you can with what you've got.
Also, I love love LOVE Austen's wit. So sharp and lighthanded. Like a surgical instrument. My hero.
Sooooo . . . we shall agree to disagree! I still love you, though.