EPTIs this true?
Pride and Prejudice is the secret to girls
| Blogs > rinoh |
|
rinoh
United States335 Posts
Is this true? | ||
|
Nitrogen
United States5345 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
he was right. | ||
|
b3h47pte
United States1317 Posts
On January 31 2010 07:47 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Mark Twain once said "The only thing more useless than a library with no books, is a library filled with books by Jane Austen." he was right. did he really? oO | ||
|
Kyuukyuu
Canada6263 Posts
| ||
|
kaisr
Canada715 Posts
| ||
|
QuickStriker
United States3694 Posts
On January 31 2010 07:47 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Mark Twain once said "The only thing more useless than a library with no books, is a library filled with books by Jane Austen." he was right. I approve of this quote! Mark Twain is awesome man, he knows exactly what's going on! ^_^ | ||
|
d3_crescentia
United States4054 Posts
if you can come to terms with understanding how that works, then you might have a slightly better sense of things | ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
It's like the answer to the ultimate question in Douglas Adams' universe. If anybody every finds out both the question and the answer, the universe will adapt and the answer will change. Either that or there will be total mollecular collapse, ending all life as we know it. Some questions aren't meant to be answered. | ||
|
TerraIncognita
Germany55 Posts
| ||
|
ella_guru
Canada1741 Posts
| ||
|
DrywMz
United States394 Posts
| ||
|
Archaic
United States4024 Posts
EDIT: And Twain might just be one of my favorite authors now. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
|
illu
Canada2531 Posts
| ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
Don't worry about it. ... I work in a Library, and Jane Austin is basically the halmark of old, conservative style, superfically socially fixated trash of the time... thats considered a classic now. I would recommend reading some non fiction. Learn about Survival, or Science, or Economics >.<, or History (Howard Zinn). When reading fiction, I prefer very modern, well structured writers, so that I can learn to read faster. Reading ancient Shakespear or something for the turn of the 19th century isn't exactly going to boost your reading ability, youll just lumber through it. I'd reccomend anything 1950's or later and prefferably 1980's or later. Dean Koontz is one of my favorites, very well written and easy, you can eat one up in 1 sitting. Of course there are the modern classics like 1984 and Brave New World, of course everyone will recommend. GL HF | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36399 Posts
and the sequel with the zombies | ||
|
zer0das
United States8519 Posts
| ||
|
N.geNuity
United States5112 Posts
| ||
|
zer0das
United States8519 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On January 31 2010 08:22 Hot_Bid wrote: i liked pride and prejudice and the sequel with the zombies I think of them like the Matrix series. The first was very innovative, with the second being still quite entertaining, but by the third it was just getting ridiculous. | ||
|
N.geNuity
United States5112 Posts
On January 31 2010 08:39 zer0das wrote: A bad one. It's not that bad. But real quickly, somebody mentioned 1984 and Brave New World. Most guys like 1984. Most girls will like Pride and prejudice. But girls will look at 1984 and say "meh/bad" and vis versa for guys with pride and prejudice. | ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 31 2010 08:15 Chef wrote: I know quite a few types of girls who love the book, most of whom are not feeble or dependent or annoying. I do agree though that a lot of girls who love the book fit into an interesting category - they think they're Liz when they're really Lydia. It will help you understand one type of girl. I don't personally find that type of girl attractive, but I did watch the movie version with one of them who was a friend. Save your time unless you see the good in everything. It's not a guy movie. If you have a mind for literature, read it. The story telling is a bit meh but she's got some of the best conversational prose ever written. You're not going to figure out how girls think by reading it, but you'll get a general idea of some different thoughts, and at the very least you'll probably get a better understanding of how you think. It's even better if you can understand the context and how literature was in the early 19th century (it was a shitty time for literature), but a lot of the story can still hold up today. I made fun of it specifically with that Twain quote before having read it, and I'm 95% sure the people trashing it in this thread are the in the same boat I was in. There's some problems with it, but it's a good piece of literature. If you can't see past the first level of the story, you'll probably think it's just a trashy love story, but it's really not. Jane Austen was a pretty smart lady. | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
How many guys understand how girls think? Zero. Any man who claims to understand women is a liar. Clearly your friend lied to you. | ||
|
zer0das
United States8519 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 31 2010 08:49 zer0das wrote: I'm pretty sure most of them have read it. I certainly have, and I certainly detest it. She might have been smart, but the book is awful. All you do is say it's bad, but you're not actually making criticisms. | ||
|
Inzek
Chile802 Posts
movie is fine imo im a guy btw i think the book is well written and i like the history... i love women so thinking a book can describe them all is against my thoughts, and i hope human being could never get that understood... | ||
|
Spike
United States1392 Posts
Like Jibba mentioned, I though it was pretty good considering it was published in the early 1800s. | ||
|
Loanshark
China3094 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + or at least Twilight, but hey Wuthering Heights is mentioned in there too! | ||
|
Always
United States376 Posts
unless you find it interesting for whatever reason, don't read it. it doesn't tell you anything about girls or their modern behavior. if you want to score points, tell girls you prefer Darcy to Bingly, and that the p&p with Keira Knightly (2005) was good, but the one with Colin Firth (1995) as Darcy was unbeatable. ... i feel embarrassed. | ||
|
N.geNuity
United States5112 Posts
On January 31 2010 09:09 Spike wrote: What do people have against the book? Like Jibba mentioned, I though it was pretty good considering it was published in the early 1800s. The time is important too- I enjoy it more because of how it makes fun of the time it was published in. That's what Lydia is for. | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8074 Posts
Victorian litterature is what it is, but Jane Austen is a very good novelist. If you want to know a bit about England in XIX century, that really is a book you need to read, you won't find better. Jane Austen is also a good psychologist imo. So yes, read it if you have time. That's not Dostoievsky, that's not Celine or Shakespeare, but it is entertaining and is a must known for a cultivated person. I love the fact that she always starts by introducing character with 1) how much they earn 2) what kind of inheritance they can hope 3) what is their social status, money apart. That's soooo Victorian, it's hilarious. Oh... And I was forgetting. Believe me, it's harder to understand yourself than others, girls included. That's where I would start if I were you. Just my two cents. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 31 2010 09:23 Always wrote: it doesn't tell you anything about girls or their modern behavior. I think the one dimensional sisters were created on purpose so that they'd be only one aspect of a real person. Taken together, and in competition with each other, you get a fuller picture of how a real person thinks. I really like Inzek's post though. | ||
|
hellokitty[hk]
United States1309 Posts
| ||
|
Pyrrhuloxia
United States6700 Posts
| ||
|
vRoOk
United States1024 Posts
On January 31 2010 09:13 Loanshark wrote: Wuthering Heights is a much better book to read if you want to understand girls. + Show Spoiler + or at least Twilight, but hey Wuthering Heights is mentioned in there too! Wuthering heights is better | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
The matter with Elizabeth (and this is also true of Emma and Elinore) is that she is such a rational and likable person, that she transmits her prejudices to you. The realistic portrayal of Austenian heroines naturally tends toward reader identification whereby the reader grows and matures with the protagonist. Although P&P is wonderful, my favourite will always be Emma, partially because I identify with the heroine's hyperactive intuitive urges. I've been around the Republic of Pemberly long enough to see that a small fraction of humanity does aspire toward Austenian social norms. If you are fortunate enough to find such a one, by all means exploit your special insights. Wuthering Heights is a much better book to read if you want to understand girls. Wuthering Heights has no relevance to understanding anyone, the book intentionally mystifies its characters to effect whatever odd sublimity it achieves. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 31 2010 10:24 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: Pride and Prejudice is the one where the girl doesn't like the guy until she sees how rich he is right? Nope, his cashmoney is known from the beginning. Seeing the property helps, but it's more about seeing his environment. | ||
lilsusie
3861 Posts
On January 31 2010 10:24 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: Pride and Prejudice is the one where the girl doesn't like the guy until she sees how rich he is right? There are certainly a lot of women like that. And that part is not satirical at all. Even if you think it is a bad book (art-wise) it certainly offers a window into the average female psyche. Twilight does the same thing. It's probably much worse artistically than Pride and Prejudice but also much more up to date. I guess you haven't read the book. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
When reading fiction, I prefer very modern, well structured writers, so that I can learn to read faster. Reading ancient Shakespear or something for the turn of the 19th century isn't exactly going to boost your reading ability, youll just lumber through it. Shakespeare does boost your reading ability, although it requires a certain amount of literary maturity to appreciate it. By saying so I make no slander against anyone in particular, but anyone who thinks they've read Shakespeare to the point of having exhausted its nuances is wrong. For even the most brilliant readers, Shakespeare is nearly infinite, by which I mean when reading him, we are not limited by his work, but by our interpretive capacities. He is the one author who can be read again and again, who never ceases expanding, so long as we ourselves expand. | ||
|
mykyoyo
United States33 Posts
| ||
|
crate
United States2474 Posts
I don't tend to actually read books for anything other than shallow enjoyment lol. | ||
|
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
On January 31 2010 11:15 mykyoyo wrote: hm. by reading Pride and Prejudice it helps you look at yourself too though, through a womans point of view.Would anyone agree that the time spent attempting to understand a woman would be better off spent trying to understand oneself, as a man, instead? I would recommend every guy should read Pride and Prejudice at least once at some point. I did 4 years ago and didn't regret it one bit.  | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 31 2010 11:15 mykyoyo wrote: Would anyone agree that the time spent attempting to understand a woman would be better off spent trying to understand oneself, as a man, instead? I think we should probably stop pigeon holing men and women into two separate categories that can be understood by reading Fahrenheit 451 or P&P. | ||
|
GrayArea
United States872 Posts
| ||
|
uberMatt
Canada659 Posts
thats his good friend, mr. darcy he looks miserable, poor soul miserable he may be, but poor he is not tell me 10,000 a year and he owns half of derbyshire the miserable half? is it wrong ive played alli-pap.xvid.cd1.avi 127 times? | ||
|
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
| ||
|
Achromic
773 Posts
On January 31 2010 07:45 Nitrogen wrote: no | ||
|
GGQ
Canada2653 Posts
On January 31 2010 12:04 uberMatt wrote: and the person with the quizzical brow? thats his good friend, mr. darcy he looks miserable, poor soul miserable he may be, but poor he is not tell me 10,000 a year and he owns half of derbyshire the miserable half? is it wrong ive played alli-pap.xvid.cd1.avi 127 times? You can't help but love Austen's writing. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On January 18 1909 13:10 Mark Twain wrote: To me his prose is unreadable -- like Jane Austin's [sic]. No there is a difference. I could read his prose on salary, but not Jane's. Jane is entirely impossible. It seems a great pity that they allowed her to die a natural death. | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
If you have no empathy then you won't understand that, ever. | ||
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.freewebs.com/frogshair/ArichGuy.jpg) ok? | ||
|
rinoh
United States335 Posts
Thanks all for the entertaining replies. I'm going to just read it. | ||
|
GogoKodo
Canada1785 Posts
| ||
DivinO
United States4796 Posts
| ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9109 Posts
On January 31 2010 07:44 rinoh wrote: I dropped to part time student status and I got lots and lots of free time. One of my friends tells me to read Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. She says that I will understand exactly how girls think after reading this book. Is this true? She lies, this is impossible. | ||
|
love1another
United States1844 Posts
On January 31 2010 19:07 Rekrul wrote: ok? Wow! You've gained a lot of weight :\ Anyway, good book. I liked it almost as much as... my third least favorite book of all time. Much better than Jane Eyre though...  | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On January 31 2010 07:47 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Mark Twain once said "The only thing more useless than a library with no books, is a library filled with books by Jane Austen." he was right. lmao that's great | ||
|
N.geNuity
United States5112 Posts
| ||
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
- Letter to W. D. Howells, 18 January 1909 That's a bit harsh now isn't it? | ||
|
Megalisk
United States6095 Posts
"Everytime I read 'Pride and Prejudice' I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone." | ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
On January 31 2010 07:47 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Mark Twain once said "The only thing more useless than a library with no books, is a library filled with books by Jane Austen." he was right. holy shit is that for real? | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
i did not read the book, but judging from what i have seen of it jane austen seems like a suberb writer. the characters make sense, tell you about the time in which the storyline takes place and about the way human beings perceive and interact with their surroundings. will it tell you how to understand girls? i havent seen any indication of this, and i think it would take away from the greatness of the writing. id say read it and learn what you can. or dont if it is unbearably boring to you. On January 31 2010 11:11 MoltkeWarding wrote: talk about flattering yourself.Shakespeare does boost your reading ability, although it requires a certain amount of literary maturity to appreciate it. By saying so I make no slander against anyone in particular, but anyone who thinks they've read Shakespeare to the point of having exhausted its nuances is wrong. For even the most brilliant readers, Shakespeare is nearly infinite, by which I mean when reading him, we are not limited by his work, but by our interpretive capacities. He is the one author who can be read again and again, who never ceases expanding, so long as we ourselves expand. | ||
|
GrayArea
United States872 Posts
On February 03 2010 07:27 enzym wrote: i did not read the book, but judging from what i have seen of it jane austen seems like a suberb writer. the characters make sense, tell you about the time in which the storyline takes place and about the way human beings perceive and interact with their surroundings. will it tell you how to understand girls? i havent seen any indication of this, and i think it would take away from the greatness of the writing. id say read it and learn what you can. or dont if it is unbearably boring to you. Ya, I agree. The way she writes is really quite clear and even though its written in classic English, it's really easy to understand exactly what she means. You can even pick up the sarcasm and everything also. I really like the way she writes (although I've only read P&P of her books). The story is really good too. Excellent novel, highly recommend it. | ||
LosingID8
CA10830 Posts
| ||
|
Etherone
United States1898 Posts
On February 01 2010 04:52 Hypnosis wrote: It seems a great pity that they allowed her to die a natural death. - Letter to W. D. Howells, 18 January 1909 That's a bit harsh now isn't it? you haven't read the book i take it. | ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9109 Posts
On February 01 2010 04:52 Hypnosis wrote: It seems a great pity that they allowed her to die a natural death. - Letter to W. D. Howells, 18 January 1909 That's a bit harsh now isn't it? rofl that and the Mark Twain quote are great. I thought I would've heard of that Twain quote before if it was real though, but maybe not. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 31 2010 07:47 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Mark Twain once said "The only thing more useless than a library with no books, is a library filled with books by Jane Austen." he was right. I choked on water lol. Mark Twain is an awesome man if he said this. I fucking hate Jane Austen. Same with the Brontes -_-. | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On February 03 2010 15:47 Orome wrote: Try to learn to appreciate Jane Austen guys, it's worth it. At the very least stop taking cheap shots at her books without having read them just because they're 'girly' and Mark Twain didn't like them. On one hand, it's a matter of taste, and there is little to be done about it. On the other, none of the invectives hurled against her books have demonstrated any merit or understanding. Sometimes it's easier to admit that you don't understand how to enjoy something than to insist that it's unenjoyable. | ||
|
Durak
Canada3685 Posts
| ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
| ||
|
BanZu
United States3329 Posts
On February 04 2010 03:30 Undisputed- wrote: I got cliff notes for that one Likewise. | ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
My complaints are two-fold: 1) Her men aren't particularly realistic, and tend to fall into either The Good Guys or Evil Scoundrels (who, in modern parlance, only want to get inside your pants). My mother, sisters, etc. defend Austen as good reading for "realizing what kind of man a woman wants" but I'm not sure how applicable that ever is. Maybe she's right and I'm just being stubborn. 2) Her fans. It's not that I object to girls being soppy over some stud, it's just that I've never comprehended what, exactly, makes these people such models. It's not that they're wimps, exactly, it's just that the majority of her characters are gentry - roughly, the not-quite-idle not-always-rich of Austen's era - meaning kind of unrelated to actual life for the majority of human beings. (Actually, come to think of it, in this case Twilight starts to seem like a spiritual successor to Austen except that Austen could actually write fine English.) But yeah, Austen's worth reading - at least in small doses - both for general cultural knowledge and for the fact that many girls (and a few guys I know) really do think it's cool. At the very least, it can't hurt. | ||
| ||
