It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man (OP) in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.
However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.
Leave it to someone on lit to not know the first fricking lines in the thread of the book they thought they ought to spew their bullshit in. maybe go read it little buddy. I'm sure you can white knight when you're finished
Upon my word, pretty accurate summary. And timeless. I’m only half way through but is it just me or is the character depth sort of teasingly shallow after the first couple chapters. There were small snippets of gold like when Kitty mentioned how she doesn’t cough for amusement. Or when it mentions how Liz gets so entertained by (or copes from) simple awkward social situations then it all just drops the little cute things about the girls and goes into endless gossip.
I don't think it does, really. I enjoyed it greatly because of the exposure it gave me to the sentiments that could be possible at the time. The value of a family's name, the complications of courtship, and many out of fashion customs. Makes me want to give my children some form of inheritance, once I have them.
Not enough, I'm working part time (I go to uni). But I'll start buying gold soon at the very least. Land and a house are what I want to leave behind one day.
11 months ago
Anonymous
hmhm.
Have you found a good woman to get betrothed with eventually? What all computing devices do you use?
11 months ago
Anonymous
I committed premarital sex with said partner, we both agreed to the vow. I use this pc a lot and my phone occasionally. I'm also converting to catholicism, so a lot of the things I want seemed on par with what I read in the book to be fair
11 months ago
Anonymous
My best wishes to ma'am and you. Have a fulfilling life ahead. Have a joyous and jovial July!
I don't think it does, really. I enjoyed it greatly because of the exposure it gave me to the sentiments that could be possible at the time. The value of a family's name, the complications of courtship, and many out of fashion customs. Makes me want to give my children some form of inheritance, once I have them.
Upon my word, pretty accurate summary. And timeless. I’m only half way through but is it just me or is the character depth sort of teasingly shallow after the first couple chapters. There were small snippets of gold like when Kitty mentioned how she doesn’t cough for amusement. Or when it mentions how Liz gets so entertained by (or copes from) simple awkward social situations then it all just drops the little cute things about the girls and goes into endless gossip.
It's a fable about the power of love to elevate people and bring them out of themselves, thus allowing them to transcend their flaws (the pride and prejudice of the title); love leads to a marriage which leads to the creation of a household. The household is seen as a compositional unit of the entire social order, so the pipeline goes virtuous love -> well-ordered household -> flourishing society.
That's the broader framework of meaning, the specific polemic is to show how the true social value of a marriage and a household cannot be reduced to name and rank. It's not egalitarian, as evidenced very clearly by Lydia's arc, it just attempts to demonstrate how the elite needs to be refreshed with new blood. You can compare it to Richardson's Pamela in the sense that, when Pamela achieves her "apotheosis", it is presented as a divine reward for transcendent virtue which is good in itself and has no instrumental purpose, whereas in Elizabeth's case we understand that the household would be worse off without her, her purpose is more functional - her independence is recognized by Darcy as a marker of strength and integrity, thus (though this part is for Darcy probably at this point an unconscious subtext) of a partner who will be able to provide meaningful support, counsel, judgment, etc. in the course of their shared household-building odyssey. Whereas on the other hand Anne de Bourgh would be a useless burden to take care of, or Caroline Bingley would be a shallow, self-centered void. The book is more or less just the bildungsroman of an ideal household, and a defense of love as the proper agent of the household's creation.
I want to vigorous, steamy & intimate coitus with Elizabeth ma'am and make love throughout the night, then have some scrumptious breakfast with her, the following morning.
Kiss Kiss Fight Kiss
"It's Not Rape If He Is Rich" Part 4
Outfits
Christmas with Chad 5: The Return of Brad
Rampant Materialism
Cool Wine Aunt 2
Career v. Motherhood: Dawn of Menopause
Feelings Love Feelings
Super Scary Serial Killer (starring Chad)
Traveling and Fricking
I'm Actually Royalty
Singalong 3
Rich Guy Loves You
Cheat Cheat Cheat
How so? I find it frivolous and dull, its characters vapid and archetypal, and its underlying philosophy thin.
It's unpoetic, unintelligent, and unimportant.
[...]
[...]
It's a fable about the power of love to elevate people and bring them out of themselves, thus allowing them to transcend their flaws (the pride and prejudice of the title); love leads to a marriage which leads to the creation of a household. The household is seen as a compositional unit of the entire social order, so the pipeline goes virtuous love -> well-ordered household -> flourishing society.
That's the broader framework of meaning, the specific polemic is to show how the true social value of a marriage and a household cannot be reduced to name and rank. It's not egalitarian, as evidenced very clearly by Lydia's arc, it just attempts to demonstrate how the elite needs to be refreshed with new blood. You can compare it to Richardson's Pamela in the sense that, when Pamela achieves her "apotheosis", it is presented as a divine reward for transcendent virtue which is good in itself and has no instrumental purpose, whereas in Elizabeth's case we understand that the household would be worse off without her, her purpose is more functional - her independence is recognized by Darcy as a marker of strength and integrity, thus (though this part is for Darcy probably at this point an unconscious subtext) of a partner who will be able to provide meaningful support, counsel, judgment, etc. in the course of their shared household-building odyssey. Whereas on the other hand Anne de Bourgh would be a useless burden to take care of, or Caroline Bingley would be a shallow, self-centered void. The book is more or less just the bildungsroman of an ideal household, and a defense of love as the proper agent of the household's creation.
). If you consider its stakes to be low, that's only because you are stuck in a superficial 20th century worldview that has thrown out the implicit holistic understanding of society which allowed people to take marriage as seriously as it should be taken.
>its characters vapid and archetypal
Could you point me to their archetypal predecessors? As for being vapid, it's all relative, and as I said above it is (like just about every story ever written before Realism got started) to some extent a fable and doesn't intend to portray fully "real" people. I think that within that paradigm the characters were quite well-drawn, with enough nuance to make them stand out from any of their contemporaries.
>its underlying philosophy thin
What do you believe to be the underlying philosophy and what exactly makes it "thin"? It's literally just expounding the worth of personal virtue in a marriage, it's built on a foundation as old as literature itself - the Iliad and the Odyssey both dealt with the proper behavior of a wife as an essential concern, implying that her virtue and character are of great importance.
>It's unpoetic
I'll assume you're still stating your opinion here and not pretending to speak objectively. I think most people would agree that the subtly complicated path, building tension the entire way, by which the couple find their way to each other, the straining against obligations and boundaries, the understated and withheld emotions, the revelations and realizations, capped by bashful confessions, a grand gesture and the brazen defense of an individual's worth against sclerotic convention, constitute sufficiently poetic elements.
>unintelligent
Again, I think most would agree that the social observation is admirably done, and interactions are depicted with a refined eye for detail (with the caveat that of course there is a certain standard of politeness followed and some corners are thus left unexplored, but the ability to navigate around those things is itself a demonstration of intelligence). As for the plotting, there are many interwoven threads: Wickham's situation, the question of Bingley's choice between Jane and Georgiana, the different dynamics surrounding how Collins and the de Bourghs relate to the main cast, Miss Bingley's interference with both of the Bennet sisters' matches; and Austen unites them all effectively in order to create the aforementioned poetic effect. Really, some of your other criticisms are common enough and I can understand where they come from, but this one is just mystifying.
>unimportant
I already addressed the importance of the subject matter. If you mean unimportant in literary history, idk if it's Austen's most important or not but she was without a doubt one of if not the most advanced novelist to appear up to that time. She united complex dramatic elements, the didactic and satirical traditions of the novel, and subtle (1/2)
>frivolous and dull
See my post above ([...]). If you consider its stakes to be low, that's only because you are stuck in a superficial 20th century worldview that has thrown out the implicit holistic understanding of society which allowed people to take marriage as seriously as it should be taken.
>its characters vapid and archetypal
Could you point me to their archetypal predecessors? As for being vapid, it's all relative, and as I said above it is (like just about every story ever written before Realism got started) to some extent a fable and doesn't intend to portray fully "real" people. I think that within that paradigm the characters were quite well-drawn, with enough nuance to make them stand out from any of their contemporaries.
>its underlying philosophy thin
What do you believe to be the underlying philosophy and what exactly makes it "thin"? It's literally just expounding the worth of personal virtue in a marriage, it's built on a foundation as old as literature itself - the Iliad and the Odyssey both dealt with the proper behavior of a wife as an essential concern, implying that her virtue and character are of great importance.
>It's unpoetic
I'll assume you're still stating your opinion here and not pretending to speak objectively. I think most people would agree that the subtly complicated path, building tension the entire way, by which the couple find their way to each other, the straining against obligations and boundaries, the understated and withheld emotions, the revelations and realizations, capped by bashful confessions, a grand gesture and the brazen defense of an individual's worth against sclerotic convention, constitute sufficiently poetic elements.
>unintelligent
Again, I think most would agree that the social observation is admirably done, and interactions are depicted with a refined eye for detail (with the caveat that of course there is a certain standard of politeness followed and some corners are thus left unexplored, but the ability to navigate around those things is itself a demonstration of intelligence). As for the plotting, there are many interwoven threads: Wickham's situation, the question of Bingley's choice between Jane and Georgiana, the different dynamics surrounding how Collins and the de Bourghs relate to the main cast, Miss Bingley's interference with both of the Bennet sisters' matches; and Austen unites them all effectively in order to create the aforementioned poetic effect. Really, some of your other criticisms are common enough and I can understand where they come from, but this one is just mystifying.
>unimportant
I already addressed the importance of the subject matter. If you mean unimportant in literary history, idk if it's Austen's most important or not but she was without a doubt one of if not the most advanced novelist to appear up to that time. She united complex dramatic elements, the didactic and satirical traditions of the novel, and subtle (1/2)
observation, ultimately succeeding in creating a fuller, more refined iteration of the novel than any that had come before. Given my current understanding I would hesitate to call her career a true qualitative leap but obviously that's very rare, and even so I wouldn't feel confident in denying that it might have been one. If nothing else it was probably the biggest step in the direction of Realism since Cervantes, albeit accomplished in a completely different fashion.
Your style of typing leads me to think you probably don't have completely coarse entry-level taste, so I assume you're either being contrarian or you're just narrow-minded and unwilling to expend the mental energy to apprehend the value of something that doesn't directly cater to you. (2/2)
Congratulations on successfully being brainwashed.
What's he been brainwashed into? Marriage? As opposed to being a monk? Impregnating random women? A huge part of the point of the book is that one's spouse must be chosen well and carefully, if anon didn't pay attention to that (I'm sure he most likely either already understood it or assumed it was implied and he didn't need to spell it out) then that's on him, nothing to do with "brainwashing".
>frivolous and dull
See my post above ([...]). If you consider its stakes to be low, that's only because you are stuck in a superficial 20th century worldview that has thrown out the implicit holistic understanding of society which allowed people to take marriage as seriously as it should be taken.
>its characters vapid and archetypal
Could you point me to their archetypal predecessors? As for being vapid, it's all relative, and as I said above it is (like just about every story ever written before Realism got started) to some extent a fable and doesn't intend to portray fully "real" people. I think that within that paradigm the characters were quite well-drawn, with enough nuance to make them stand out from any of their contemporaries.
>its underlying philosophy thin
What do you believe to be the underlying philosophy and what exactly makes it "thin"? It's literally just expounding the worth of personal virtue in a marriage, it's built on a foundation as old as literature itself - the Iliad and the Odyssey both dealt with the proper behavior of a wife as an essential concern, implying that her virtue and character are of great importance.
>It's unpoetic
I'll assume you're still stating your opinion here and not pretending to speak objectively. I think most people would agree that the subtly complicated path, building tension the entire way, by which the couple find their way to each other, the straining against obligations and boundaries, the understated and withheld emotions, the revelations and realizations, capped by bashful confessions, a grand gesture and the brazen defense of an individual's worth against sclerotic convention, constitute sufficiently poetic elements.
>unintelligent
Again, I think most would agree that the social observation is admirably done, and interactions are depicted with a refined eye for detail (with the caveat that of course there is a certain standard of politeness followed and some corners are thus left unexplored, but the ability to navigate around those things is itself a demonstration of intelligence). As for the plotting, there are many interwoven threads: Wickham's situation, the question of Bingley's choice between Jane and Georgiana, the different dynamics surrounding how Collins and the de Bourghs relate to the main cast, Miss Bingley's interference with both of the Bennet sisters' matches; and Austen unites them all effectively in order to create the aforementioned poetic effect. Really, some of your other criticisms are common enough and I can understand where they come from, but this one is just mystifying.
>unimportant
I already addressed the importance of the subject matter. If you mean unimportant in literary history, idk if it's Austen's most important or not but she was without a doubt one of if not the most advanced novelist to appear up to that time. She united complex dramatic elements, the didactic and satirical traditions of the novel, and subtle (1/2)
Is this all chat-gpt or organically written?
If it's the latter, then goddamn you guys can really write fantastically well. Keep it up!
No anon, it's just me, the rest of them speak like rough mechanicals, they should've been left in the factories, not given a public "education" and thus enabled to act out this tragic burlesque of literacy; they possess not a hint of grace.
Also frick you, an automaton canNOT replicate my penetrating insight!!
11 months ago
Anonymous
>No anon, it's just me, the rest of them speak like rough mechanicals
11 months ago
Anonymous
>they should've been left in the factories, not given a public "education" and thus enabled to act out this tragic burlesque of literacy; they possess not a hint of grace.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Also frick you, an automaton canNOT replicate my penetrating insight!!
does charming mean gay?
No, it means it makes me joyful that people like this existed at one point before me
Did they, though?
yeah it's pretty good
I started reading it yesterday but fell asleep somewhere during the first chapter. I hope I don't fall asleep again
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man (OP) in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.
However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.
low value male insecurity
Leave it to someone on lit to not know the first fricking lines in the thread of the book they thought they ought to spew their bullshit in. maybe go read it little buddy. I'm sure you can white knight when you're finished
Girl from money pines for guy with frick you money
Upon my word, pretty accurate summary. And timeless. I’m only half way through but is it just me or is the character depth sort of teasingly shallow after the first couple chapters. There were small snippets of gold like when Kitty mentioned how she doesn’t cough for amusement. Or when it mentions how Liz gets so entertained by (or copes from) simple awkward social situations then it all just drops the little cute things about the girls and goes into endless gossip.
gilmore girls for great grandma
Yeah I like it a lot
I've read the book three times and watched the 1995 BBC adaptation twice
Probably one of my favourite novels
Do watch the 2005 movie as well.
Friend told me to watch that series also, might as well give it a watch
I don't know if this book has a deeper meaning but it's a fun read.
I don't think it does, really. I enjoyed it greatly because of the exposure it gave me to the sentiments that could be possible at the time. The value of a family's name, the complications of courtship, and many out of fashion customs. Makes me want to give my children some form of inheritance, once I have them.
How much money do you make?
Not enough, I'm working part time (I go to uni). But I'll start buying gold soon at the very least. Land and a house are what I want to leave behind one day.
hmhm.
Have you found a good woman to get betrothed with eventually? What all computing devices do you use?
I committed premarital sex with said partner, we both agreed to the vow. I use this pc a lot and my phone occasionally. I'm also converting to catholicism, so a lot of the things I want seemed on par with what I read in the book to be fair
My best wishes to ma'am and you. Have a fulfilling life ahead. Have a joyous and jovial July!
You too
It's a fable about the power of love to elevate people and bring them out of themselves, thus allowing them to transcend their flaws (the pride and prejudice of the title); love leads to a marriage which leads to the creation of a household. The household is seen as a compositional unit of the entire social order, so the pipeline goes virtuous love -> well-ordered household -> flourishing society.
That's the broader framework of meaning, the specific polemic is to show how the true social value of a marriage and a household cannot be reduced to name and rank. It's not egalitarian, as evidenced very clearly by Lydia's arc, it just attempts to demonstrate how the elite needs to be refreshed with new blood. You can compare it to Richardson's Pamela in the sense that, when Pamela achieves her "apotheosis", it is presented as a divine reward for transcendent virtue which is good in itself and has no instrumental purpose, whereas in Elizabeth's case we understand that the household would be worse off without her, her purpose is more functional - her independence is recognized by Darcy as a marker of strength and integrity, thus (though this part is for Darcy probably at this point an unconscious subtext) of a partner who will be able to provide meaningful support, counsel, judgment, etc. in the course of their shared household-building odyssey. Whereas on the other hand Anne de Bourgh would be a useless burden to take care of, or Caroline Bingley would be a shallow, self-centered void. The book is more or less just the bildungsroman of an ideal household, and a defense of love as the proper agent of the household's creation.
I thought it greatly showed how complementary man is to woman for sure. Made me realize how quickly I should marry.
What are you thoughts on pre-marital sex?
I've done it and realized I was wrong in it, but I've been committing to a vow of purity.
I took a long break from this website, and I definitely missed this kind of shitposting.
Nice digits, fitting for a person on a return!
What compelled you to take a long break?
Anyways, welcome back bro.
🙂
Congratulations on successfully being brainwashed.
I want to vigorous, steamy & intimate coitus with Elizabeth ma'am and make love throughout the night, then have some scrumptious breakfast with her, the following morning.
I'd highly recommend the movie The Chess Players (1977) by Satyajit Ray.
mr willoughby > mr darcy
For me, it's Mr. Collins.
Kiss Kiss Fight Kiss
"It's Not Rape If He Is Rich" Part 4
Outfits
Christmas with Chad 5: The Return of Brad
Rampant Materialism
Cool Wine Aunt 2
Career v. Motherhood: Dawn of Menopause
Feelings Love Feelings
Super Scary Serial Killer (starring Chad)
Traveling and Fricking
I'm Actually Royalty
Singalong 3
Rich Guy Loves You
Cheat Cheat Cheat
How so? I find it frivolous and dull, its characters vapid and archetypal, and its underlying philosophy thin.
It's unpoetic, unintelligent, and unimportant.
Sounds like a reader's skill issue, Anon.
>frivolous and dull
See my post above (
). If you consider its stakes to be low, that's only because you are stuck in a superficial 20th century worldview that has thrown out the implicit holistic understanding of society which allowed people to take marriage as seriously as it should be taken.
>its characters vapid and archetypal
Could you point me to their archetypal predecessors? As for being vapid, it's all relative, and as I said above it is (like just about every story ever written before Realism got started) to some extent a fable and doesn't intend to portray fully "real" people. I think that within that paradigm the characters were quite well-drawn, with enough nuance to make them stand out from any of their contemporaries.
>its underlying philosophy thin
What do you believe to be the underlying philosophy and what exactly makes it "thin"? It's literally just expounding the worth of personal virtue in a marriage, it's built on a foundation as old as literature itself - the Iliad and the Odyssey both dealt with the proper behavior of a wife as an essential concern, implying that her virtue and character are of great importance.
>It's unpoetic
I'll assume you're still stating your opinion here and not pretending to speak objectively. I think most people would agree that the subtly complicated path, building tension the entire way, by which the couple find their way to each other, the straining against obligations and boundaries, the understated and withheld emotions, the revelations and realizations, capped by bashful confessions, a grand gesture and the brazen defense of an individual's worth against sclerotic convention, constitute sufficiently poetic elements.
>unintelligent
Again, I think most would agree that the social observation is admirably done, and interactions are depicted with a refined eye for detail (with the caveat that of course there is a certain standard of politeness followed and some corners are thus left unexplored, but the ability to navigate around those things is itself a demonstration of intelligence). As for the plotting, there are many interwoven threads: Wickham's situation, the question of Bingley's choice between Jane and Georgiana, the different dynamics surrounding how Collins and the de Bourghs relate to the main cast, Miss Bingley's interference with both of the Bennet sisters' matches; and Austen unites them all effectively in order to create the aforementioned poetic effect. Really, some of your other criticisms are common enough and I can understand where they come from, but this one is just mystifying.
>unimportant
I already addressed the importance of the subject matter. If you mean unimportant in literary history, idk if it's Austen's most important or not but she was without a doubt one of if not the most advanced novelist to appear up to that time. She united complex dramatic elements, the didactic and satirical traditions of the novel, and subtle (1/2)
observation, ultimately succeeding in creating a fuller, more refined iteration of the novel than any that had come before. Given my current understanding I would hesitate to call her career a true qualitative leap but obviously that's very rare, and even so I wouldn't feel confident in denying that it might have been one. If nothing else it was probably the biggest step in the direction of Realism since Cervantes, albeit accomplished in a completely different fashion.
Your style of typing leads me to think you probably don't have completely coarse entry-level taste, so I assume you're either being contrarian or you're just narrow-minded and unwilling to expend the mental energy to apprehend the value of something that doesn't directly cater to you. (2/2)
What's he been brainwashed into? Marriage? As opposed to being a monk? Impregnating random women? A huge part of the point of the book is that one's spouse must be chosen well and carefully, if anon didn't pay attention to that (I'm sure he most likely either already understood it or assumed it was implied and he didn't need to spell it out) then that's on him, nothing to do with "brainwashing".
Is this all chat-gpt or organically written?
If it's the latter, then goddamn you guys can really write fantastically well. Keep it up!
>you guys can really write fantastically well
No anon, it's just me, the rest of them speak like rough mechanicals, they should've been left in the factories, not given a public "education" and thus enabled to act out this tragic burlesque of literacy; they possess not a hint of grace.
Also frick you, an automaton canNOT replicate my penetrating insight!!
>No anon, it's just me, the rest of them speak like rough mechanicals
>they should've been left in the factories, not given a public "education" and thus enabled to act out this tragic burlesque of literacy; they possess not a hint of grace.
>Also frick you, an automaton canNOT replicate my penetrating insight!!