When i was a kid and first read the book, to me, Mrs. Bennett was the ultimate embarrassing mother. Now I feel really sorry for her. She's the parent who fully realizes how precarious their situation is. Mr. Bennett, the 18th century epitome of cool, drifts through the novel without seeming to realize how chunky things are going to get if he drops dead. It's a romance novel, but it's also a scary one and Mrs. Bennett is the only one who seems to find it so.
I agree with this take, however, Mrs. Bennett is also highly manipulative and has a very shallow understanding of human behavior. I'm not sure that she understands her children at all, or even cares to know what makes them tick. It's no accident that Mr. Bennett sees Lizzie as his favorite, whereas Mrs. Bennett spends more time praising Lydia and Mary.
@@mcmurtryfan Yes, what you say I agree with. I think Austen even mentions how Mr. Bennett knows too well the folly of marrying a pretty face and cheerful personality without delving any deeper. She is nowhere near his intellectual equal, but on the other hand, she has a pretty fair assessment of the way things stand. I always thought that if I were to write a fanfiction take on P&P, I would write about what probably would have happened to those girls had the Bingleys not moved into Netherfield.
Mrs Bennet is practical, but to the extreme. Like an immigrant parent dismissing their child’s dream to be an artist or writer and pushing them to become a doctor or lawyer. She has a one track mind, and although it’s in good faith, it can steam roll over her children’s wants and desires. Like when she tried forcing Lizzy to marry Mr Collins. She’s practical to the point of not seeing the bigger picture that her daughters would think of when thinking of marriage. Mr Bennet on the other hand is obviously a lot more cynical of marriage to the point that he sometimes misses the practicality of it for women, especially his 5 daughters and wife who are vulnerable without it.
I love how Austen represented several different versions of love and marriage too. There's the incompatible one of Mr. & Mrs. Bennet, the marriage of Charlotte to Mr. Collins for the sake of economic security (which was a very real and common type of marriage then), the foolish "shot-gun" wedding of Lydia and Wickham, the happy marriage of the Gardiners, and then of course the also hopefully happy marriages of Jane & Bingley and Elizabeth & Darcy.
The Gardiner's are such overlooked characters! They aren't just the un-cringe characters that Lizzy can point Darcy towards. In many ways they are Lizzy's mentors and act in a parental role quite often. Without ever saying it even through Lizzy, Austen is very clearly holding them up as the ideal marriage. Loving but also a very practical partnership, both materially and personality wise. Rather than overt passion, their marital success is conveyed through respect and companionship. Austen's thesis is that this is the basis for a sound marriage rather than the tropes of the time, either purely mercenary or purely passionate motivations.
I find the contrast between the Bennets and the Collins very interesting because they’re both incompatible marriages. Neither partnership is built on shared values. The difference is that Charlotte wasn’t ignorant of Mr Collins’ faults and made a conscious decision that she could handle it, and she actually could. Mr Bennet had no idea what he was getting himself into because he overvalued outward appearance and was blindsided
@@EmL-kg5gn It happens easily in a society that thinks women and girls to be silly little creatures. One does not necessarily distinguish between those who indeed are and those who only seem to be - and what a difference it makes.
Jane Austen was a political commentator and satirist expertly hidden behind the veneer of what we thought was just a cute story. It’s a pantomime of society through interesting characters.
I actually once read a criticism of Jane Austen that it wasn't really true that all single men of "good fortune must be in want of a wife." This critic obviously had no ear at all for satire!@@kawaibakaneko
I think what is so interesting about Jane Austen is that she was able to write so many different kinds of heroine and admire qualities in all of them. It’s so obvious from her work that she loves and respects women of all kinds and I think that’s beautiful.
I suppose that the scullery maids and chambermaids and housekeepers don't really qualify as "women of all kinds." Austen wrote a romance that promoted "equality," but only as long as it was confined to certain levels of already-privileged women. Unlike Jonathon Swift, who used satire to enfranchise the most downtrodden of people LONG before Austen set pen to paper, she wasn't interested in championing ALL women. Just those who were apt to buy her books.
@@pricklypear7516Jonathan Swift is great, and I'm sorry to see how he was downgraded to children's lit author. However, Jane Austen had a shorter life and a different education from Swift. Should she lived until 70, we would have gotten more novels from her. And who knows what issues they woud have discussed.
You’re right but I think it’s actually good that she stuck to what she knew because this is exactly what allowed her to expose the ridiculousness and hypocrisy of the class structure so well. She also doesn’t write the nobility. I think sticking closer to her own class experience helped her social commentary ring true, she critiqued from a perspective that was genuine to herself. One of Austen’s biggest strengths as a writer is her insight into the psychology of others but she wouldn’t have had as many opportunities to develop insight into the experiences of lower classes. Instead she acknowledges their plight through things like the anxiety of Mrs Bennet about what might happen to her and her daughters if they lost their rank, a mindset she’d have had more opportunity to witness and understand. These days we put a really high value on representation, and rightly so, but I think there’s also value to Jane Austen’s approach. So much of the poor representation we see in media comes from people who vastly overestimate their ability to understand others who have a very different social background to themselves. It would’ve been very difficult for Austen to hear the perspective of a servant. Even if she’d asked, they wouldn’t have been able to answer honestly without some level of fear for their livelihood
@@EmL-kg5gn True! She wrote what she knew, and what she was ALLOWED to know. She certainly did not ignore the existence of the lower classes, nor talk smack about them. She simply wrote about her heroines and heroes (and villains and side-characters) existing near those people, but not among those people, because that was the TRUTH OF HER SOCIETY. In order for her to write about the lower classes being equal to the upper classes, she would have had to 1) actually socialize with the lower classes enough to understand them, and that was STRICTLY VERBOTEN, even moreso for an UNMARRIED woman; 2) portray the lower classes in a way that was both accurate and acceptable to the only people in the country who were actually literate enough to read her works, which is the middle and upper classes. For the middle classes, mostly MEN. It was hard enough to get men to accept a woman as a protagonist! But note, as well, that she did not write about the nobility, except in rare cases, and never as the main protagonists. The highest she actually goes is the daughter or second son of an Earl. No Marquesses or Dukes to be found. Check out any Regency Romance paperback, published by Harlequin or Signet or any other major modern Romance publishing house. It's chock-a-block full of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls, but very few Misters. Everyone is a Lord or Lady. And the servants are rarely mentioned, at all. If the servants ARE mentioned in a MODERN book set in Regency England, then it is because the servant is somehow stepping out of their sphere (frequently to assist the put-upon heroine to make her brave escape, by dressing as a scullery maid). You want to chide a Regency romance author for not writing about the lower classes? Chide the MODERN authors who actually HAVE ACCESS TO and KNOW the lower classes, but write about the high nobility, instead. Jane Austen wrote what she knew, and wrote it very well. And, FOR HER TIME, she was very progressive. Sadly, you can put one of the most reactionary people of today's world into Regency England, and they would be frozen out of society, for being TOO EXTREME in their progressiveness. Women voting?! Absurd! Even the Bluestockings did not go so far! Also, Jane Austen and Jonathan Swift weren't even alive at the same time. He died about 30 years before she was born. Now you're going to say that means she should have picked up his banner and run with it. However, remember, his banner applied to the POOR, not the FEMALE. It's an "apples and oranges" argument, at best. They're both yummy fruit.
so true about men thinking jane austen is only for women - my grandfather read pride and prejudice with his book club last year and he said it was a book he never would have picked up by choice but he couldn't believe how good it was, he considers it once of the best books he's ever read now that he's given it a chance
Wow, kudos to your grandfather for being a book club member! Usually men do not come to it. They probably consider it as part of women's culture. Like novels.
It had a basis in fact - soldiers in World War I read her novels in the trenches. It was partly escapism but I think they probably enjoyed upper class people being satirised and relationships between people is universal.
I’ve made my way through 5/6 of her novels and she is fucking spicy. With a very clear disregard for certain kinds of people. She shows what real kinds of consequences came with actions of the time and so much is still relevant. How many times have the young and silly been duped by the older and good looking? Some things never change.
Absolutely agree. So many times as I've read her work I've had to put the book down and ask myself "When was this written again?" Because it is so relatable, the characters' perspectives, reasoning, and even the humor is timeless.
Every time I read Jane Austin's novels ,I feel that they're more about the journey of maturing emotionally rather than plain romance. what makes her books so interesting is that, she creates really relatable characters with complex emotions and situations for them todisplay them so naturally,as if they are living and breathing right in front of you. It's very satisfying.
I agree. It’s why I hesitate to call them romance novels. They seem closer to coming of age stories mostly. The exception being Persuasion, which is something different altogether.
So true. Jane finishes her life with a compliment to attachment, stolidity. Loving best loves longest. The ephemeral Musgrave conception. The shocking admittance that some find romance without love, having a mistress and a thing that suits both parties. Jane knew the full span of human interaction, she had read Fielding. But I have a feeling that much of what she feels is to do with companionship. Because of her own disability, perhaps, she veers away from the physical.
I grew up in this toxic, mysogonistic sort of society where I rebelled against my own femininity when it started developing. I wanted to be very much 'not like other girls', and I would have done almost everything for that. Even though the most girls in my life where way more mature, tougher and kinder than me, all at once. Reading romance novels or anything female associated was like a guilty pleasure that I tried to keep even from myself - I would reach for science fiction or horror novels instead, even though I made sure to go for authors who I knew to write a decent romantic subplot. It wasn't romance, after all, it was sci fi, and if there were people flirting and kissing in it, well, I couldn't help that... I'm so glad to finally live in a world where there are people who remind everyone that, no, female doesn't mean low quality or stupid. Thanks for this awesome video, I'm sure to recommend it to the young girls I'm working with nowadays. They really need to see this. 🙂
I suspect we all grew up it this kind of society, more or less. Yes, things are changing but there is still a lot of covert misogyny, at least where I live. Women's interests are looked down on, women's films and books are vilified. When I tell people that I studied physics, I play video games, I knit and write sci-fi and erotica, they just don't know in which box to put me. Honestly, I don't know either. I don't think the existence of these boxes make us a good service, though. After all, we're all human.
A problem with the beauty vs brains views held by Lizzie’s parents is that Mr Bennett didn’t gain this wisdom until AFTER he married for beauty. Most men highly prize beauty in a partner and won’t date, let alone marry, unless they find their partner attractive. So Mrs Bennett’s point of view has a lot of merit, because beauty and spirits go herself, Jane and Lydia suitors and eventually husbands (though Lydia’s was a shotgun wedding). Even Lizzie was pretty and has been played be truly beautiful actresses. It would be interesting to see an adaptation where Lizzie was played by an average looking woman.
I feel Mr Palmer and Charlotte are another Mr and Mrs Bennett in the making and married for the same reason. Except with more money and they have a son to leave things to.
Having fine eyes and being vivacious are certainly attractive features in both human genders. But that doesn’t necessarily translate to Lizzie being beautiful, with flawless skin, hair and teeth - especially given how widespread diseases like smallpox were back then. So I agree with an earlier comment- it would be really interesting to see a TV or movie remake of P&P without someone who looks like a model playing Lizzie.
Another thing worth considering...what topic besides romance and light social commentary were women supposed to write about, really? You can only write about what you know. And back then, without tv/radio, never mind the internet, you only knew what you had experienced yourself, pretty much. And women back then didn't leave home for a higher education (university), didn't learn a trade or went into business (usually). They didn't go into politics or the military or (mostly) travel very much. Their home and local community and church was their domain and what they were most familiar with. And every girl would grow up with the importance of making a good match (or at least marrying a respectable man) firmly impressed upon her. It would have been a rare and fortunate woman, having seen enough of the world to have much else to write about, really.
1800s included some adventurous English women who wrote. For example, 1) 1 Austen---era English woman traveled around both sides of Mediterranean in various local clothes as travel correspondent til felled by disease in Egypt? 2) Also early 1800s, an English woman travelled around earl independent Argentina. 3) By mid & late 1800s, the no. of English + other European women who wrote from personal experiences about "non typical" places continued to increase.
@@darkwitnesslxx Mary Shelly came from a background that was different from the start and paid a very high price for many of her choices. \her example is not a normal example
My mother and I love Jane Austen books and movies. My father used to leave the room. Once, when we were watching P &P he was doing something in the background, it took him 1/2 an hour to become fascinated and by an hour , he was on the lounge thoroughly engrossed. (He has opinions about Lady Catherine!!!). His genre is westerns but it has taken him a lifetime to admit his favourites have the main subplot as romance. It is sad that because society characterises romance as for women only, men have to pretend not to enjoy it even though in real life romance would never occur without both sexes.
"men have to pretend not to enjoy it even though in real life romance would never occur without both sexes." Romance/dating is sex work/prostitution done by men in order to experience sex. It is prostitution because most men aren't into it. Just like female prostitutes participate in sex with the end goal of a cash payment in mind - most men are going through the motions of dating and romance with the end goal of sex in mind.
What makes Jane's writing so great is all the side characters she has and their little subplots. And she doesn't just dismiss them. She writes them in great detail. So you feel like you are in a little society. Plus that is where a lot of the social commentary comes from- like about the role of the clergy, the role of the military, social protocols etc. and she also makes her characters well rounded people with different facets that we can relate to- which makes it much more robust than something like Twilight- the kind of romance novel that gives the rest a bad name- which is pages and pages of a boring girl saying how much she loves a guy and not much else.
Thank you for this discussion. I love Austen because her books are so satisfying on so many levels simultaneously. I get my romantic fix while enjoying irony, social criticism and the opportunity to think about: what makes a good life partner? what is ethical behavior in various situations? what respect is due to parents, elders, people above and below us in social status, etc. Love your channel because you discuss serious topics without pedantry and with all the enthusiasm of a lover of Jane.
As a man I am definitely in agreement with you that more men need to be introduced to the joys of Ms. Austen's outstanding literature. I think that part of the problem as to why romance novels (and films) are looked down on is because too many associate those stories today as erotic or lust-driven, instead of the slow burning, tender romances in a lot classic literature (sorry Romeo and Juliet, but you're an exception in this case). There are, of course, exceptions on both ends as well as a vast variance in the level of talent various storytellers possess. Because of that view of romance stories being driven by physical desire instead of a complete picture of who the other is romance stories get dismissed as being more shallow and without as much to say about the human condition.
As a woman I 100% agree with your assessment! That’s why I thought I hated romance focused media. My sister loves shows like marriage at first sight, the bachelor, love island etc. because she loves the social aspect and the psychology but I can’t tolerate the sexualisation. Human sexuality isn’t inherently negative at all but it’s so often written as being shallow at best and degrading at worst! I’m inclined to avoid the topic because seeing that part of someone’s relationship feels invasive to me even if it’s fictional, and in some ways I think part of our problem is that people are used to looking at it as a performance. But I do wonder if more writing about the erotic side of relationships as respectful and loving could be healthy for people? We have so many depictions of shallow, degrading, and violent sexuality in our modern media that maybe having a better example/influence would be good. I’m not sure what the answer is but either way I’m actually very thankful for well written romances!
Deeply impressed with Ellie Dashwood’s feminist understanding of Jane Austin and her writing, and her deconstruction of our understanding of it in modern culture. I’m addicted to these excellent posts, but especially this one, which calls out the pernicious behavior of many women, though out patriarchal cultured societies (including modern western society), to diminish women’s interests and identify themselves as aligned with “men’s interests” in order to be considered more seriously. This has the overall effect of confirming the superiority of men and the continued subordination of women. As a reformed “guy’s girl/tomboy” I see the folly in this behavior and am astonished that Jane Austin called it out so well in the regency era- as has Ellie Dashwood by making these modern videos! Thank you.
If there’s not a romance in a book, I dont want to read it! I had no idea people dismissed the topic of romance in books considering it’s so popular. I’m thinking about all the fanfiction i’ve ever read and most of it has been related to romance it’s what the people are interested in!
I watch another lovely channel, Jill Bearup, who refers to this phenomenon as 'it's what the people want.' And that is nothing for us to be ashamed of. I believe another excellent term for it is 'democracy' 😆.
I think your analysis is spot on. Jane Austen actually has several stories of couples finding each other in "Pride and Prejudice" - and in almost every case, the character of the two is what makes the particular couple attracted to each other. Echoing real life, Austen doesn't separate romance from general satire or manners or incisive commentary on how society worked. I have always been particularly struck by Charlotte's discussion with Lizzie over romance and marriage, and I see it as one of the deepest insights in the book.
SO WELL SAID Ellie!!!!! I'm very tired of the girl power movement dismissing romance. What is wrong with having both? I always feel like dismissing romance in favour of female empowerment has negative implications for female identity itself. There is absolute nothing wrong with being strong AND romantic at the same time.
Rom coms help make up for the terrible time I had in high school, romance wise. I was so clueless about girls. Now all of my best friends are women. Since I am 81, not kidding about “friends”.
I tend to see a lineage from Austen, passing some other authors to "Anne of Green Gables", and what turned into "girls' books". I read AoGG many times in my childhood and youth, and when I later got into my Austen period, Brontë and Middlemarch ... It felt so familiar. Now rereading AoGG it is so very clear that it was not a children's book at the start ... and it annoyed me so much when a litterary history book brought up Tom Sawyer but not Anne Shirley. Other fun part: Science Fiction as a genre is also often judged by the worst trash, not by the master works, those are often instead called "real litterature".
I think it’s not only a romance novel. There is definitely the romantic structure there - the would be lovers being kept apart by various things - but there is the social commentary and the comedy of manners in there as well. Also, her characters always take a journey of self understanding and improvement which make them so relatable.
"The journey of self understanding and improvement" as you say is a part of a romance novel too I think. Even if it's not only a romance book thing. Because characters have to understand something about themselves and/or the other one in order to be together. If not why are they not together at the beginning of the book?
I discovered P&P by accident in my early 30’s by accident on TV and it grabbed me so much that I borrowed the novel from the library that same week (and the book impressed me even more!). Austen’s setup is really interesting from all sorts of perspectives, and her characters endure because so many of them reflect each other as opposites, but not in an obvious manner. For example, Darcy is proud and snobby, but has depth and honour under the surface. By contrast, Wickham is all amiability on the surface but lacks much virtue on the inside. And this contrast is somewhat matched by the difference between Lizzie (outwardly relatively poor and with limited options, but possessing intelligence, honesty and integrity) and Caroline Bingley (who outwardly has beauty and social standing, but lacks integrity, kindness or the ability to reflect upon her behaviour). Bingley is gentle, kind but lacks confidence, while Collins is neither and is full of his own (self-assumed) importance. The similar female counterparts here are Mrs Gardiner (calm, perceptive, and tactful) as opposed to Lady Catherine (arrogant, rude and full of her own self-importance). Georgina (shy, quiet, well-behaved) is the opposite of Lydia (loud, spoilt and with little to no self-control). Charlotte (practical, observant, patient and mostly unflappable) is in direct contrast to Mrs.Bennet (flippant, talkative, neurotic, uncouth). I find that the majority of JAFF variations that I read are pleasant enough, partially because they are familiar, but mostly because Austen’s original character tropes are so powerful and recognisable over 200 years later. However, the Happy Ever After angle makes many of them very predictable - and thus forgettable. Those that don’t just focus on the romance, but upon the personal growth of the characters, are far more powerful. So while I agree that the romance angle is important, I think that the broader human questions around character and values are what puts Austen’s books in the timeless category.
I love Mansfield Park. And one of the things I LOVE about Mansfield Park is the utter respect that Sir Thomas and his children show to Lady Bertram. They may not actually FEEL respect towards her, but they TREAT her with the utmost respect and affection. Sir Thomas, in particular, shows her love, whether he feels it, or not. Why? Because it is simply the correct and polite thing to do, and he entered into a marriage contract with her, which OBLIGES him to treat her best of all the women in the world, and to teach his sons to treat their wives well, and his daughters to treat their husbands well. He is attempting to train his children to have happy marriages (at least on the surface), though good behavior. It almost works. Mariah treats her husband well on the surface, right up until the moment she dumps him for another man. The rest of the children, however, seem to choose better, and, at the very least, know how to behave themselves. Apparently, nobody taught this lesson to Mr. Bennet.
I was in a bookclub 20 years ago in which one of the members, who was a PhD candidate in English Literature, told me condescendingly that P&P was a satire, not a romance. Oh. But, once he (snidely) said that, I actually began to appreciate the novel on a deeper level.
What I have always loved about Austen is that her work is a reflection of the complex, intelligent, and deeply empathetic writer that she is. I re-read Pride and Prejudice annually along with a few of my other favorite Austen novels, and what I love is that you can continuously reinvigorate your reading experience by taking on a different focus. You can read Pride and Prejudic as a commentary on class in Regency England, an opportunity to analyze conplex family dynamics, an examination of the impact of patriarchal systems on women's autonomy, a narrative on personal growth, and yes, a compelling and emotional romance among a myriad of other interpretations.
Fantastic analysis as always Ellie darling. I've always thought that Austen used the prism of romance to explore a number of themes, but that doesn't mean that romance in and of itself is unimportant. I've always thought that the fate of women in a male-dominated society was a vital interest to Austen. So much of a woman's life at that time was determined by class (it still is, frankly), and marriage was the means by which one sustained or improved one's social class, Thus romance, and I don't just mean a marriage plot, but the search for a true companion in life, was tremendously important. I think Austen's novels are fascinating explorations of family dynamics, especially between fathers and daughters. I've noticed that a theme sustained throughout Austen's novels is what happens to a young woman when her father fails to properly provide for her. Your many videos expanding upon the history, legal environment and hierarchy of the Regency era make a similar point. Women are treated as afterthoughts or pawns by any patriarchal society, and Austen's novels put that injustice into sharp relief, while remaining sparkling, witty entertainment. Every time I re-read an Austen novel, I gain some new insight into not only the manners and thinking of the Regency era, but our own era as well, even while I laugh out loud at her adept skewering of her society. That's genius. Denigrating the romance in the novels just further perpetuates the notion that what is of importance to women is "not really important," and does a disservice to Austen herself.
I am listening to Pride and Prejudice. It's definitely helping me understand the archaic language better. What's surprising to me is how well Jane Austen understood how people tick during a time when psyco analysis hadn't even started yet. Do you know if she studied philosophy? Like David Hume?
I love Jane Austen's writing for the fascinating characters. Love them or hate them, almost every character is developed enough to remind you of real people that you know, or of yourself. Her characters have flaws and sometimes make stupid decisions, but you can fallow the lodgic, of lack of lodgic in their choices based on their character. The twists do not feel like plot devices, even when they are unexpected. When the when Wickham is Wickham you think, "yeah, he would do that, the jerk!" And like Lizzy we sit back and think, "yeah, that makes sense." Many authors try to "surprise" their audience by making a character and then getting that character to behave in a way that makes no sense in order to further the plot. (E.g. having Mary run away to Scotland with Mr. Colins would be a surprise, but it would make no sense! Mary is too proper and Lady Catherine would never approve!) That wouldn't be subversion, it would just be bad writing. Jane Austen is never a sloppy writer. That's what I love about her work.
I enjoy the new and different kinds of content you've created lately, but my favorite will always be your commentary and analysis on Jane Austin, her works, and her world.
One of the 'real men' on your channel (lol). Your channel is really good. It is my true motivation for chopping logs, growing my beard, bench pressing with my anvil, target practice with my spittoon, IV'ing my daily rum allowance, and lifting up the occasional vehicle with one (well developed) forearm whilst changing the flat tyre with my other. Other than that your channel also helps me connect with my feminine side. So thank you 💪🏋️
I heard once that all the plots of modern novels or films if not comes from Shaskepeare it comes from Jane Austen. You can relate any plot to one of them. I think its true.
It's Jane Austen's confidence in her own opinion that always surprises me. Not for her the putting down of other authors to boost her own work, she had the confidence to defend what she sees as worthy and stand up for her fellow sister authors. She may not be a feminist writer is the sense we understand today, but she did believe women were capable of sensible thought and deserved respect - I keep thinking of Anne Elliot's conversation with Captain Harville - her depiction of two people of worth and character who had great respect for each other and each other's sex while debating each other on the other sex's qualities of commitment and suchlike. I can't articulate it as I'd like to - but Austen's deep self-worth stands out for me. And her belief in standing with other women - which I'd love you to touch on one day in the future if you have any time.
Beyond socially engrained sexism (we've all been there let's be real), I'm still struggling to see how anyone could read Jane Austen and claim she didn't (or didn't want to) write romance. It's true that her novels encompass a lot more than romance, but the romance plots are so intricately laid out, and so fundamental to not just the plot but the entire movement of her works. Yes, she wrote social commentary. But her primary frame for that social commentary was (quite obviously) romance and marriage.
P&P, at my first read at 14yrs, wholly a romance, rereading into my 20's and 30's a comedy of manners, further rereading into my 40s and 50s, added an enjoyment of the beauty of the flow of the words. Now entering my 60s what more can I get from this very special novel?
This is so true, like even in school they're like nooo it's a comedy of manners!! and sure it is but it's the way they say it. Honestly the older I get the more it feels hurtful because it's so pervasive how everything associated with femininity, half or more of all things, constantly has to be apologised for and put down, and we don't even know how to talk without doing it. it's like this wall between men and women, either you proudly say yes I like this and it is worthy and great and just hit a wall and communicate nothing and stand on two opposite sides misunderstanding each other, or you apologise and justify and rationalise and explain and slowly introduce the idea that maybe feminine things are okay and maybe make some headway. it's not even between men and women, it's between mysoginistic people and not mysoginistic people and also just all the men that have been raised without anything "feminine" and actually have not thought about romantic relationships that much at all. sometimes it just makes me so sad, it feels there's so much in the way of the truth in so many ways and people just can't communicate and learn from each other
About why Romance as a genre: when people talk about that, I keep thinking about something one of my English Lit professors had to say about a movie called _Hiroshima Mon Amour_, which was an interrace love story directly engaging with the emotional trauma of WWII. She said when it first came out, a lot of viewer had this really intense emotional experience that "if the lovers manage to reconcile, then the world won't end." And that's what a good love story does - it finds a way to reconcile differences so that the world won't end. In _Pride and Prejudice_, the Bennett family is directly saved by Mr Darcy's interventions, but also Elizabeth has time to reflect that she would lighten him up, and he would expand her. Their happy marriage, in the face of Mr and Mrs Bennett's unhappy one is the world refusing to end. By the way, I've been reading Gaskell's _North and South_ from a recommendation you made on this channel, and really love it. And for them, the love story parallels the industrial plot - if Thornton hadn't taken the time to make friends with workers like Nick Higgins, he wouldn't have the information about Frederick that lets him reconcile with Margaret; and his reconciliation with her is what saves the mill. The world doesn't end again. (It's such a great book.)
It can be both!!!!! I agree with the determination that dismissing the book as not a romance is deeply steeped in attempts to dismiss female interests and concerns.
It's fascinating that Jane Austen's novel Northanger Abbey is that same exploration as Michel Foucault's the History of Sexuality Vol 1. Not only was she capable of recognizing biopower expressed through the "repression" of sexuality; in that codifying/regulating it led to it becoming the center of societal concern. She managed to address in the style of a love story that not only typifies the point, but expands it to others in a more palatable way. You leave her novel questioning how sex was repressed in a world that seemed entrenched in it.
Your flowers turned out really lovely!!! When I have bad months emotionally, a lot of times romance novels are just what I need. Most of them, like a lot of books in general, are not in depth at all. They're light entertainment, light social commentary and there's nothing at all wrong with that. I'm seeking lightness! But sometimes I get blown away by how well the author combines the complex experience of emotional maturity, human nature, relationships of all types, humor, seriousness, heartache, etc. This month I was reading a full-on smut novel that had insane world building, actual fear for characters wellbeing, a necromancer leading an army against the human lands.... like I was not prepared. Honestly that book saved my life because I was either nervous giggling through a smut chapter or being enthralled by the danger of war. Was it perfect? Nah, but that world building tho. Damn. In the case of P&P women thought they were getting a nice little romantic read, but they got so much more and that's why Jane Austen is the queen of romance. Each character is unique and insightful in some way. Even the characters who feel amped up such as Mr. Collins... we can find a Mr. Collins in our life! We've seen couples where the husband is basically expertly handled by the wife to spend as little time bothering her as possible. Romance was serious business for women back then as well. They weren't allowed to inherit much, and their options for wealth were limited to the men in their lives. If you made a mistake when picking a husband, you were kind of screwed unless he predeceased you and you were able to marry again suitably. I think Jane treated romance novels with the seriousness they deserved, seeing as how many people's lives get wrecked in the modern day by a bad relationship cause the guy/gal is cuteeee but otherwise messed up. Back then.... you'd be married to that person.
I remember reading somewhere that Austen was quite popular among gentlemen. Bravo. You’re so right, Ellie, this is why modern readers HAVE to reread P&P to really get what Miss Austen was trying to say. It wasn’t til I hit Mrs Bennett’s age, that I could read it from her perspective. Late, I know. But thankfully you are here to break it down.
You're so right about Mrs. Bennet giving preference to the daughters who most resemble her as a young woman - and it's certainly telling that in spite of all her hard work to try to get Jane and Lizzy married off, it's Lydia who manages to snag a husband first!!
First, but not happiest. Mrs. Bennett got herself Mr. Bennett. But Lydia got herself a peice of scoundrel. It is obvious infidelity and quarrels will entertain their life together.
It makes alot more sense that people are surprised i love romance so much. I never had this thought about romance, that its frivolous. I would be sitting in corner as a rebellious teen, dressed goth/punk, reading and loving historical romance.🤷🏻♀️ I've always found it interesting how anyone actually finds love back then. I've loved Jane Austen since I first saw Pride and Prejudice too, in the early 2000s
Great video! "Romance" is the mating process of the human being. Clearly, that is a topic of interest. It is at the heart of human existence. And Austen was commenting on that process, doing what humans do, analyze themselves. How does it actually happen? How should we live wisely? What stakes are involved and what motivates the people concerned (potential spouses and their families)? And the women's interest being denigrated? Yes. Apparently, this is a male blindspot.
Loved the video, thanks so much. All your videos are great, but as someone who recently undertook to read classic novels having not been a great reader in the past, I especially enjoy videos like this one. Your analyses are instructive, helpful and much appreciated.
HI Ellie! I'm a scholar of race and class studying late 19th/ early 20th C America. I find Austin's analysis of class bias fascinating. Yes, she wrote social commentary on romance and personal relationships, but I find her observations of social class and the way it orders society most interesting of all.
Although I like all of JA's 6 novels, Pride and Prejudice is my favorite. I think it's the novel she wrote that has been adapted the most times, maybe even in the most languages (which I suspect is also true of the book itself). I think the reason is that the heroin had every inducement I could imagine possible in that society to accept the hero the first time he proposed, and her best friend wouldn't have believed it possible that she'd miss the chance of being Mrs. Darcy and mistress of Pemberley. So the fact that she does (in which choice her father might be the only person in her circle of acquaintance who would support her) seems to me to be a demonstration of power that I find staggering. As you pointed out in your video, in general, power has not been split down the middle between men and women. So when a woman has power, I notice.
I think romances are easy to lampoon because, as Ellie said, they're written with a mainly female audience in mind. I love modern romance novels (Jennifer Crusie!! So smart and so fun), but I know they aren't High Art. Of course they aren't! I view them as the reading equivalent of candy, with all the pleasure that implies. Wheezy Waiter had a video recently about how to eat healthily in which he and his wife talk about their relationship to junk-type food; China said, "happiness is also good for you," by which she means that she still eats sweets, just in moderation. "Happiness is also good for you" also pertains to other things we consume purely for the joy of it; you have to balance the serious with the fun.
I think the rabbit hole goes even deeper, even further than just looking down on feminine interests. Where does the dismissal of feminine interests even come from in the first place? I think this dismissive attitude fundamentally ties into issues with vulnerability. Specifically, issues with *being* vulnerable. First, we have to think about, what is femininity, and what does it mean to be feminine? I've been wondering about this question for a long time, and I think the RUclipsr "The Authentic Observer" put it perfectly, so I'll try to sum up her words. And note that when I say "the feminine" here, I don't mean it in the sense of biological genders or women vs men, I mean it in the philosophical sense, because everyone has a mix of both the feminine and the masculine in them. The feminine is about life. Nurturing it, caring for it, and allowing it to grow and flourish. This is completely impossible to do without any vulnerability. The feminine is inherently tied into vulnerability, both in a physical sense, in an emotional sense. One of the most carnal, physical examples of this is pregnancy and motherhood, where the mother becomes extremely physically vulnerable and puts herself at a lot of risk in order to create new life. At an emotional level, examples of this may include mentoring a child, caring for someone when they feel unwell, making up with someone after an argument, and yes, pursuing romance and forming romantic relationships. If you notice, most "feminine" interests have to do with things like relationship building Vulnerability means opening yourself up in a way where you risk getting hurt, and that scares people. I mean if you think of the most stereotypical "macho guys," they are so insecure and afraid of doing anything that shows vulnerability. They dismiss vulnerability, deriding it as weakness and laughing at those who show it, all the while not realizing that they're the ones who are weak, because they are so insecure. Vulnerability is not weakness. It is courage, because it takes a lot of courage to choose to become vulnerable, and be in touch with your vulnerability. And it's critical to our lives as human beings too, because societies, families, friendships, and relationships can not survive without it. Vulnerability, and everything else that's associated with femininity is critically undervalued and underappreciated by our society, all because people are too afraid of being seen as "weak" and don't have enough understanding of how important it is.
This. Is SOOO true and beautifully expressed! You almost made me tear up and I don't do that easily! Your comment inspires me as a woman to freely express my femininity (and great point that we ALL have both 'feminine' and 'masculine' traits). Thank you 🥰
@@cmm5542 Oh wow, thank you, I'm really glad to hear that what I said resonated with you! As a woman myself, it's been a long road for me as well to become comfortable with fully embracing and accepting my own femininity. But it's been so liberating and fulfilling to finally have gained the courage to do so. I've come to accept that I am someone who is naturally a lot more emotional, sensitive, and "soft", and I've learned to use those qualities order to bring more positivity, warmth, understanding, and encouragement to all the people around me. But I do *have* to be very emotionally vulnerable at times in order to do this effectively. And while occasionally I have gotten hurt who were not in the right place to be receptive to me, overall, my relationships with others and with myself has overwhelmingly improved. I sincerely hope that your journey to embracing and expressing your own unique gifts will bring you much peace and happiness as well! :D
I appreciate Jane Austen’s understanding of the complexity of her characters in temperament, personality, integrity, self-discipline, thoughts, etc. we, as fallible humans, exemplify. People are not black/white, but grey and multifaceted. Mindset, thoughts, and opinions can seemingly change from one setting/scenario to the next. There are two fiction books I want my boys to read before they leave are house. Pride and Prejudice and North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell. Gaskell ties in the complexity of character with a revealing approach to social issues so you see more grey instead of black/white. Definitely important in today’s society as well. We need to stop demonizing one another, but understand human natures complexities.
I think the reason romance novels in general are looked down upon is that so many of them are trash. Now don't get me wrong; there are plenty of sci-fi, western, war, etc. novels that are trash as well. So many of them are formulistic with very shallow writing, plots, and characters; and romance novels seem to attract that sort of writer like moths to a flame. I had a good friend who was a published authoress who used to sing (to the tune "She'll be comin' 'round the Mountain"): There's a bimbo on the cover of my book. There's a bimbo on the cover of my book. She is there in all her glory, But she's nowhere in the story. There's a bimbo on the cover of my book. The thing I admire most about Jane Austen is that she writes about real people. Even her secondary characters have depth. Oh, and yes. P&P is most definitely a romance novel for that is the theme that drives the plot.
Jane Austen è stata una scrittrice estremamente moderna per la sua epoca. La sua penna era pungente e a volte critica nei confronti di taluni personaggi.
Really enjoyed this. So many of my relatives don't understand the greatness of Austen. They only remember that she wrote about marriage and romance, totally missing her satire and social commentary. Guess now I have more of an argument to make when they shrug her off. I have a question: do you take topic suggestions? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on religion of the Regency Era, or in Austen's books, or her life. Just wondered. Thank you for your channel, really helps me understand Austen and the period better.
Good analysis Ellie, as usual. Similarly in our time TV was not taken seriously, and many top film actors would think that it was a sign of failure if they "lowered" themselves to act in TV programs, as opposed to only film and theater work. And the same could be said for pop music as opposed to classical music. Being topical, engaging, and popular doesn't have to be at odds with analyzing and expressing the human condition. But the work needs to be balanced to avoid being labeled dry/boring or trite/shallow.
Very interesting. I just finished a realistic romance novel (now in the publisher's hand) and I used elements from 'Pride and Prejudice' and it does takes place in London.
Romance gets dismissed because it is ~~~artistic~~~ to have a downer “realistic” ending. But I read for an escape - I WANT a happy ending. I read romance books not for the romance (the least interesting part of the plot to me, as a rule, due to my personal taste, not because there’s anything wrong with it), but because it’s the only genre that guarantees a happy ending. I can read a murder mystery where it’s possible everyone will die in the end and the murderer escape, or I can read a romance mystery where the main characters are guaranteed to survive because they’re going to get together in the end and have a happy ever after. I can read a fantasy that may degenerate into dystopian chaos and death, or I can read a fantasy romance where the characters are guaranteed a happy ending. I like my happy endings.
I agree. I also hate that unhappiness is marketed as more 'real' than happiness. Real life is a mixture of the two. Good things as well as bad happen to everyone. A book that ends with doom and gloom and misery for everyone is no more realistic than one where everyone has their wishes come true! The difference is that happy endings inspire us to make real life better, which I frankly think is more realistically practical!
Never thought of it as a romance. My favorite aspect of the story is the same thing I love about Dune, every character demonstrates a particular aspect of blindness. Each pays a consequence for it. Dune has huge love stories in it by the way. Literally begins with a woman's love of a man as the catalyst for the whole story. Still not a romance novel and often considered a male story. But then people think Romeo and Juliet is and there is a lot of evidence that the play was actually political satire. Best guess is Shakespeare was using the dangerous obsession of young romance as a catalyst to expose the hypocrisy of the elite and their power games against each other.
Thanks for pointing out the assumptions at 4:31, it really made me think. Similarly I feel that a woman who doesn't work and 'just organises parties' was a dismissive phrase for women (even before most women worked) but I'm more and more thinking that parties are an essential social glue and we are all suffering from a lack of parties. I think online dating has had to be invented becuase we don't have enough parties. Women gained equality, not by gaining recognition for the extra-market work they were doing, but by rejecting the value of all of 'womens work' and joining the workforce and market economy. That part is fine, but we never got round to valuing the work that was being done before. Also with mod cons that amount of work has been reduced.
Nothing to do with the subject, but I just wanted to say that I could listen to you talk about anything you enjoy for hours without tiring lol you have such a nice voice, it calms me down to a point where I binge watched your videos the other day when I was about to have an anxiety attack 😅
Thank you for always giving so much insight to the complexities of Jane Austen’s novels and the themes which, due to its contextual nature, is often lost on me! I find that I can, with much more pride, appreciate having read the works.
Hi Ellie, Thank you for this video. I was able to defend Jane's honor at a group meeting today! Someone asked 'who is Jane Austen'. I responded that she was a writer in the early 1800s. I explained that some scholars claim she wrote romance, but (thanks to you!) I believe she wrote about social commentary, history, finance and family. The group was impressed and intrigued! Thank you again for showing me that Jane's witty writing covers many deep subjects!
But is it not a romance too? Just because it’s a social commentary and intricate coming-of-age story does mean it is not also a romance. In my opinion, the fact that it is a romance only lifts it up, since romance is basically a fundamental and vulnerable aspect of human existence (barring some exceptions) and is basically the human mating ritual. We shouldn’t denigrate the romance of P&P, just because the story is a commentary on society as well. They are all worthy topics and it wouldn’t do right to split them apart since the story relies on all those themes.
Ellie I’ve watched all of your content and keep coming back to this video. I think it’s the best one yet on your channel. Such an insightful and well explained analysis! This is truly why I keep reading Austen
Now that I’m engaged, I’ve been seeing unbelievable parallels between my family and the Bennets and my fiancé’s family and the Darcy’s. Lizzie’s fight to maintain her independence, see the faults in her closest relations, but still maintain hers and her family’s dignity in the face of others is something I really resonate with. Comparing the story to my own situation has helped me see the strength in Mrs. Bennet, the exhaustion that must take over Mr. Bennet, and the unique inner worlds of Kitty and Mary. But most of all, P&P gave me the best and most helpful guide for navigating relations that no one else I know seems to have. I will defend Jane Austen’s writing to my grave because she put into words what so many people experience but have no idea how to articulate!
I disagree slightly. When I hear the word romance, I think of the movie "The Notebook". Rightly or wrongly in my mind that's the type of material I'm expecting when I see that tag. This why I have seen every romantic comedy movie ever, but if I just see "romance" on its own or "romantic drama" I'm out. Very few purely romantic movies get it right, probably because every one's idea of romance is more varied than we would like to admit. Romantic comedies focus on two key aspects. The chase and the awkward beginning. The chase is always the most exciting part of any relationship. The awkward nature of that chase tends to cut the sometimes-overbearing tension of a purely romantic piece of work with comedy. Keeping things fun, light and bubbly. In my view It's a drama with romantic elements, in addition it's not a romantic drama. This is a book that has a perfect title. Perfectly descriptive. The fundamental and pivotal moments in the book all tie back to how the characters ego's and prejudices' lead them to make misguided decisions. While most of those decisions are associated with romance, there are ton of other topics that covered as well. Finance, status, inheritance, greed, betrayal and ignorance. BTW I'm a 38 old straight African male from Zimbabwe. From the moment I read the book in high school, it has remained my favorite of all time. This idea that only woman would be into Jane Austen is ridiculous. Her writing is universal in my opinion. If an alien being asked me to recommend one book to them, I would give him one of my many copies of Pride & Prejudice.
Awww yeah! Yeti fam! 🎙 I still get kinda pedantic about it. "It's a social commentary with romantic elements!" Then break down all the definitions of "romantic" and how little of it has to do with love. I couldn't call it a "romantic social commentary", because if the social commentary were romanticized, I think Lydia would have been saved from Wickham.
I don’t categorize P&P as a romance. It has love and marriage in it but the romance of the characters (to me) is not the focus but rather a product of them growing as individuals. I haven’t read it in several years though so perhaps it’s time for a reread.
Yes I agree. Marriage is featured because it’s a story about women. Women are expected to marry at that time. You can’t not feature marriage in a story about women at this time. It’s to be expected. However the story is about Elizabeth and her growth. It’s about the Bennet family’s fortunes, and about not judging anyone from impressions alone. Elizabeth is even shown to be ignorant about Charlotte’s point of view early in the story when she marries Mr Collins. Then later Elizabeth has to eat her own words when she realizes Lydia HAS to Mary Wickham.
This is such a provocative video! It got me to thinking about some of the other books and authors I love to read; one of which is John Grisham. I don't love all of his books but one of my favorites is "The Broker" - a novel about a Washington lawyer who is running for his life after the CIA get him pardoned for an intricate satellite/ selling secrets crime and puts him in Italy to see who will kill him. But even Grisham flavors his spy thriller with a touch of romance...because as you've just pointed out...romance is a fundamental human connection that permeates almost everyone's life. Adding romance, even to a spy thriller, is a great way to flavor almost any book. Jane Austen embraces this so well!
I think P&P highlights the anxiety re trusting one’s instincts to choose a partner, especially given the grossly unequal, almost S&M-related parental marriage. The daughters start off knowing that they want only to not end up with the wrong husband, setting the stage for iconostasic Lizzy who is prepared to forego marriage entirely if need be. The chip on her shoulder intrigues and acts as a warning to any man who presumes to control her. It’s just short of being labeled a psychological thriller. It remains one of my all time favorites.
I recognized the “romance” but I loved the sly humor and, yes, snark in the novels. She was making a social commentary and clearly had aa perspective. They actually made me re-examine myself and my ideas about humanity.
I only recently got into austen, mainly because for a long time i did dismiss them for being romance novels and i didnt care about that. in my case it was a thought process of "this is the part of my favorite stories i relate to least >> therefore this is the part of my favorite stories i care about least >> why would i pick up a book that is only or primarily the part of the story i dont particularly care for". austen was still on my "i should read it at some point" list solely because of her books being Major Classics. I finally got around to reading pride and prejudice, and am working on moving on to her other books, and i've found that what i really enjoy is that while they're romances, there is (so far) always something else that holds my attention. for example, there were a few passages early on in P&P that made me find darcy particularly relatable, which made me intrested and invested in his character arc outside of its effect on the romance, and elizabeth is so fun to read about, and many of her conversations and interactions with people, especially, but importantly, not only, darcy meant that the story was a lot more interesting to me than most similar romance stories (or even romantic subplots in non-romance focused stories). She does her characters so well that i'm invested where i typically would have lost interest, and in a way that continues to hold that interest on a reread/rewatch of adaptations, which again in my case is not common for romantic subplots, much less romance stories. Its really all in the characters, any romances or romantic subplots that hold my interest do so because the writer gets me interested in and caring about the characters enough that the part i find boring ends up interesting (side note; are there any fellow aros also obsessing over austen novels that were suprised at getting so invested in them? )
Your analysis and descriptions are very well worded! Not been done before, I think: How a man of vast fortune goes about selecting a wife? He can marry anyone or no one..what did Darcy see uniquely in Elizabeth? Why didn’t he just marry Ms. Bingley?
I was thinking about what you said that f.ex. Austin books, any romance novels, or even your channel would be something like "oh, my wife would be interested in that". But from real life experience - I studies for my bachelors and Master's degree in Academy of Culture. And the only men were teachers or those that were getting degree in choreography or acting. We called our Academy "the convent" :D Also, it's exactly what my husband would say because he is an engineer. Even though he doesn't read novels, he appreciates me educating him on how fictional characters etc. actually talk about very real and important subjects.
Thanks for the video Ellie! I found the video interesting because I personally have never thought of P&P (my favourite book of all time) as a romance novel. When I think of a 'romance novel', I think of the 20th century Mills & Boon or Harlequin novels with the half-undressed couple on the cover, where the entire plot of the story is a woman chasing after a (seemingly) unavailable man, with few other characters and very little plotline other than the romance itself. I would struggle to compare these books to P&P, and I would personally place P&P in a completely different literary category. However, if a 'romance novel' is more broadly defined as 'a novel where the primary plot is romance', then yes, P&P would absolutely fall into that category and I would have no issue with that. I guess I consider P&P to be 'a social commentary about romance' rather than 'a romance novel'. I would say Ms Austen's social commentary is the far more important part of P&P than the romance itself. For example, if Darcy and Elizabeth ended up being good friends rather than getting married, but everything else stayed the same, I don't think it would have taken a great deal away from the plotline or social lessons of P&P, though it might have been less interesting. The romance gave the plot excitement, interest and weight, but it wasn't the point of the book, in my view.
Some great points made 😊 I never really noticed that Mrs Bennett is a combination of Jane (physically) and Lydia (personality wise) and Mr Bennett is like Lizzy. Love your analyses but can I also say I absolutely love your style! The dresses you wear in this video are perfection 🥰
The first time I watched P&P, it was the 2007 and I only began watching halfway through. I loved the vibe so I looked for the whole movie and watched it from the beginning. Then I loved Darcy’s character development so much that I looked into the 1995 version and read the book. Now I love it because of all the ironies, all the social commentary, and of course the character development of both Darcy AND Lizzie. It’s my favorite story of all time and I rewatch or re-read (listen to Jennifer Ehle reading) the book every year
The first 1,000 people to use the link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/elliedashwood10221
When i was a kid and first read the book, to me, Mrs. Bennett was the ultimate embarrassing mother. Now I feel really sorry for her. She's the parent who fully realizes how precarious their situation is. Mr. Bennett, the 18th century epitome of cool, drifts through the novel without seeming to realize how chunky things are going to get if he drops dead. It's a romance novel, but it's also a scary one and Mrs. Bennett is the only one who seems to find it so.
Mts Bennett loves her children, Mr Bennett not so much. He is careless about other peoples lives and every time I read or watch P&P I like him less.
@@dudleymaryannjones9509 He definitely loved Lizzie, but you're right, otherwise he didn't have much of a grasp of reality
I agree with this take, however, Mrs. Bennett is also highly manipulative and has a very shallow understanding of human behavior. I'm not sure that she understands her children at all, or even cares to know what makes them tick. It's no accident that Mr. Bennett sees Lizzie as his favorite, whereas Mrs. Bennett spends more time praising Lydia and Mary.
@@mcmurtryfan Yes, what you say I agree with. I think Austen even mentions how Mr. Bennett knows too well the folly of marrying a pretty face and cheerful personality without delving any deeper. She is nowhere near his intellectual equal, but on the other hand, she has a pretty fair assessment of the way things stand. I always thought that if I were to write a fanfiction take on P&P, I would write about what probably would have happened to those girls had the Bingleys not moved into Netherfield.
Mrs Bennet is practical, but to the extreme. Like an immigrant parent dismissing their child’s dream to be an artist or writer and pushing them to become a doctor or lawyer. She has a one track mind, and although it’s in good faith, it can steam roll over her children’s wants and desires. Like when she tried forcing Lizzy to marry Mr Collins. She’s practical to the point of not seeing the bigger picture that her daughters would think of when thinking of marriage. Mr Bennet on the other hand is obviously a lot more cynical of marriage to the point that he sometimes misses the practicality of it for women, especially his 5 daughters and wife who are vulnerable without it.
I love how Austen represented several different versions of love and marriage too. There's the incompatible one of Mr. & Mrs. Bennet, the marriage of Charlotte to Mr. Collins for the sake of economic security (which was a very real and common type of marriage then), the foolish "shot-gun" wedding of Lydia and Wickham, the happy marriage of the Gardiners, and then of course the also hopefully happy marriages of Jane & Bingley and Elizabeth & Darcy.
The Gardiner's are such overlooked characters! They aren't just the un-cringe characters that Lizzy can point Darcy towards. In many ways they are Lizzy's mentors and act in a parental role quite often. Without ever saying it even through Lizzy, Austen is very clearly holding them up as the ideal marriage. Loving but also a very practical partnership, both materially and personality wise. Rather than overt passion, their marital success is conveyed through respect and companionship. Austen's thesis is that this is the basis for a sound marriage rather than the tropes of the time, either purely mercenary or purely passionate motivations.
And this in only one book!
I find the contrast between the Bennets and the Collins very interesting because they’re both incompatible marriages. Neither partnership is built on shared values. The difference is that Charlotte wasn’t ignorant of Mr Collins’ faults and made a conscious decision that she could handle it, and she actually could. Mr Bennet had no idea what he was getting himself into because he overvalued outward appearance and was blindsided
@@EmL-kg5gn It happens easily in a society that thinks women and girls to be silly little creatures. One does not necessarily distinguish between those who indeed are and those who only seem to be - and what a difference it makes.
The Gardiners and Admiral and Mrs. Croft in Persuasion are my favorite Austen couples.
Jane Austen was a political commentator and satirist expertly hidden behind the veneer of what we thought was just a cute story. It’s a pantomime of society through interesting characters.
Agreed. After the first re-reading the political and cultural critique really stands out.
Reading P&P in high school is like being punk’d. Very few high schoolers have the life experience to appreciate it for what it is.
It is not exactly hidden, the opening of Pride and Prejudice is obviously biting satyre.
I actually once read a criticism of Jane Austen that it wasn't really true that all single men of "good fortune must be in want of a wife." This critic obviously had no ear at all for satire!@@kawaibakaneko
I think what is so interesting about Jane Austen is that she was able to write so many different kinds of heroine and admire qualities in all of them. It’s so obvious from her work that she loves and respects women of all kinds and I think that’s beautiful.
I suppose that the scullery maids and chambermaids and housekeepers don't really qualify as "women of all kinds." Austen wrote a romance that promoted "equality," but only as long as it was confined to certain levels of already-privileged women. Unlike Jonathon Swift, who used satire to enfranchise the most downtrodden of people LONG before Austen set pen to paper, she wasn't interested in championing ALL women. Just those who were apt to buy her books.
@@pricklypear7516Jonathan Swift is great, and I'm sorry to see how he was downgraded to children's lit author. However, Jane Austen had a shorter life and a different education from Swift. Should she lived until 70, we would have gotten more novels from her. And who knows what issues they woud have discussed.
You’re right but I think it’s actually good that she stuck to what she knew because this is exactly what allowed her to expose the ridiculousness and hypocrisy of the class structure so well. She also doesn’t write the nobility. I think sticking closer to her own class experience helped her social commentary ring true, she critiqued from a perspective that was genuine to herself. One of Austen’s biggest strengths as a writer is her insight into the psychology of others but she wouldn’t have had as many opportunities to develop insight into the experiences of lower classes. Instead she acknowledges their plight through things like the anxiety of Mrs Bennet about what might happen to her and her daughters if they lost their rank, a mindset she’d have had more opportunity to witness and understand.
These days we put a really high value on representation, and rightly so, but I think there’s also value to Jane Austen’s approach. So much of the poor representation we see in media comes from people who vastly overestimate their ability to understand others who have a very different social background to themselves. It would’ve been very difficult for Austen to hear the perspective of a servant. Even if she’d asked, they wouldn’t have been able to answer honestly without some level of fear for their livelihood
@@EmL-kg5gn True! She wrote what she knew, and what she was ALLOWED to know. She certainly did not ignore the existence of the lower classes, nor talk smack about them. She simply wrote about her heroines and heroes (and villains and side-characters) existing near those people, but not among those people, because that was the TRUTH OF HER SOCIETY.
In order for her to write about the lower classes being equal to the upper classes, she would have had to 1) actually socialize with the lower classes enough to understand them, and that was STRICTLY VERBOTEN, even moreso for an UNMARRIED woman; 2) portray the lower classes in a way that was both accurate and acceptable to the only people in the country who were actually literate enough to read her works, which is the middle and upper classes. For the middle classes, mostly MEN. It was hard enough to get men to accept a woman as a protagonist!
But note, as well, that she did not write about the nobility, except in rare cases, and never as the main protagonists. The highest she actually goes is the daughter or second son of an Earl. No Marquesses or Dukes to be found.
Check out any Regency Romance paperback, published by Harlequin or Signet or any other major modern Romance publishing house. It's chock-a-block full of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls, but very few Misters. Everyone is a Lord or Lady. And the servants are rarely mentioned, at all. If the servants ARE mentioned in a MODERN book set in Regency England, then it is because the servant is somehow stepping out of their sphere (frequently to assist the put-upon heroine to make her brave escape, by dressing as a scullery maid).
You want to chide a Regency romance author for not writing about the lower classes? Chide the MODERN authors who actually HAVE ACCESS TO and KNOW the lower classes, but write about the high nobility, instead.
Jane Austen wrote what she knew, and wrote it very well. And, FOR HER TIME, she was very progressive.
Sadly, you can put one of the most reactionary people of today's world into Regency England, and they would be frozen out of society, for being TOO EXTREME in their progressiveness. Women voting?! Absurd! Even the Bluestockings did not go so far!
Also, Jane Austen and Jonathan Swift weren't even alive at the same time. He died about 30 years before she was born.
Now you're going to say that means she should have picked up his banner and run with it. However, remember, his banner applied to the POOR, not the FEMALE.
It's an "apples and oranges" argument, at best. They're both yummy fruit.
so true about men thinking jane austen is only for women - my grandfather read pride and prejudice with his book club last year and he said it was a book he never would have picked up by choice but he couldn't believe how good it was, he considers it once of the best books he's ever read now that he's given it a chance
Wow, kudos to your grandfather for being a book club member! Usually men do not come to it. They probably consider it as part of women's culture. Like novels.
The English novelist Rudyard Kipling wrote a short story called "The Janeites" It's about a group of English soldiers who are fans of our Miss Jane.
Oh, I've GOT to read that!
It had a basis in fact - soldiers in World War I read her novels in the trenches. It was partly escapism but I think they probably enjoyed upper class people being satirised and relationships between people is universal.
Thank you for bringing Austen to light. She would surely appreciate your efforts if she were still with us. But, in a way she still is, thanks to you.
In Northanger Abbey as well Mr Tilney unabashedly admits to enjoying novels - clearly another reason for us to love him!
His charms have no ends 👌🏻🎩📖💕
@@EllieDashwood and i think i recall that John Thorpe badmouths novels.
@@kirstena4001 He does indeed.
Mr Darcy also praises Lizzie for reading- though she doesn't pick up on it.
Certainly Mr Collins wouldn't dane to read a novel aloud.
I think Jane Austen has spicy takes that I love and also the fact that her heroines are relatable beyond one’s identity. It has a timeless quality.
I’ve made my way through 5/6 of her novels and she is fucking spicy. With a very clear disregard for certain kinds of people. She shows what real kinds of consequences came with actions of the time and so much is still relevant.
How many times have the young and silly been duped by the older and good looking? Some things never change.
Absolutely agree. So many times as I've read her work I've had to put the book down and ask myself "When was this written again?" Because it is so relatable, the characters' perspectives, reasoning, and even the humor is timeless.
Every time I read Jane Austin's novels ,I feel that they're more about the journey of maturing emotionally rather than plain romance. what makes her books so interesting is that, she creates really relatable characters with complex emotions and situations for them todisplay them so naturally,as if they are living and breathing right in front of you. It's very satisfying.
I agree. It’s why I hesitate to call them romance novels. They seem closer to coming of age stories mostly. The exception being Persuasion, which is something different altogether.
So true. Jane finishes her life with a compliment to attachment, stolidity. Loving best loves longest. The ephemeral Musgrave conception. The shocking admittance that some find romance without love, having a mistress and a thing that suits both parties. Jane knew the full span of human interaction, she had read Fielding. But I have a feeling that much of what she feels is to do with companionship. Because of her own disability, perhaps, she veers away from the physical.
I grew up in this toxic, mysogonistic sort of society where I rebelled against my own femininity when it started developing. I wanted to be very much 'not like other girls', and I would have done almost everything for that. Even though the most girls in my life where way more mature, tougher and kinder than me, all at once. Reading romance novels or anything female associated was like a guilty pleasure that I tried to keep even from myself - I would reach for science fiction or horror novels instead, even though I made sure to go for authors who I knew to write a decent romantic subplot. It wasn't romance, after all, it was sci fi, and if there were people flirting and kissing in it, well, I couldn't help that...
I'm so glad to finally live in a world where there are people who remind everyone that, no, female doesn't mean low quality or stupid. Thanks for this awesome video, I'm sure to recommend it to the young girls I'm working with nowadays. They really need to see this. 🙂
I suspect we all grew up it this kind of society, more or less. Yes, things are changing but there is still a lot of covert misogyny, at least where I live. Women's interests are looked down on, women's films and books are vilified. When I tell people that I studied physics, I play video games, I knit and write sci-fi and erotica, they just don't know in which box to put me. Honestly, I don't know either. I don't think the existence of these boxes make us a good service, though. After all, we're all human.
Did you know that there’s a whole playlist of Jennifer Ehle reading ‘Pride and Prejudice’ out loud?
What?!?! That is so cool!!!!
@@EllieDashwood ruclips.net/p/PLL84Aw12nRu1NHMOltb9n7ca8XaYlnU77
I gotta check that out! She has such a pleasant voice.
Yes! She did it during the early days of the pandemic.
@@EllieDashwood it is amazing, you need to find it! It’s very casually read, she obviously has a blast!
A problem with the beauty vs brains views held by Lizzie’s parents is that Mr Bennett didn’t gain this wisdom until AFTER he married for beauty. Most men highly prize beauty in a partner and won’t date, let alone marry, unless they find their partner attractive. So Mrs Bennett’s point of view has a lot of merit, because beauty and spirits go herself, Jane and Lydia suitors and eventually husbands (though Lydia’s was a shotgun wedding). Even Lizzie was pretty and has been played be truly beautiful actresses. It would be interesting to see an adaptation where Lizzie was played by an average looking woman.
Except Lizzy isn't average looking. The book never stops telling us she has fine eyes and is vivacious.
Lizzy is the second pretties of a family of beautiful girls(except for Mary who is the only plain one). Lizzy is prettier than Lydia
I feel Mr Palmer and Charlotte are another Mr and Mrs Bennett in the making and married for the same reason. Except with more money and they have a son to leave things to.
@@Irina-Daniela If Lizzy is prettier than Lydia then why does Mrs. Bennett think they can marry off Lydia so much easier?
Having fine eyes and being vivacious are certainly attractive features in both human genders. But that doesn’t necessarily translate to Lizzie being beautiful, with flawless skin, hair and teeth - especially given how widespread diseases like smallpox were back then.
So I agree with an earlier comment- it would be really interesting to see a TV or movie remake of P&P without someone who looks like a model playing Lizzie.
Another thing worth considering...what topic besides romance and light social commentary were women supposed to write about, really? You can only write about what you know. And back then, without tv/radio, never mind the internet, you only knew what you had experienced yourself, pretty much.
And women back then didn't leave home for a higher education (university), didn't learn a trade or went into business (usually). They didn't go into politics or the military or (mostly) travel very much. Their home and local community and church was their domain and what they were most familiar with. And every girl would grow up with the importance of making a good match (or at least marrying a respectable man) firmly impressed upon her.
It would have been a rare and fortunate woman, having seen enough of the world to have much else to write about, really.
lol yeah she even talks about this in persuasion
Hmm...yet Mary Shelley was able to do it.
1800s included some adventurous
English women who wrote. For example,
1) 1 Austen---era English woman traveled
around both sides of Mediterranean in
various local clothes as travel correspondent til felled by disease in Egypt?
2) Also early 1800s, an English woman
travelled around earl independent
Argentina.
3) By mid & late 1800s, the no. of English + other European women who
wrote from personal experiences about
"non typical" places continued to increase.
@@darkwitnesslxxShe's not like other girls
@@darkwitnesslxx Mary Shelly came from a background that was different from the start and paid a very high price for many of her choices. \her example is not a normal example
My mother and I love Jane Austen books and movies. My father used to leave the room. Once, when we were watching P &P he was doing something in the background, it took him 1/2 an hour to become fascinated and by an hour , he was on the lounge thoroughly engrossed. (He has opinions about Lady Catherine!!!). His genre is westerns but it has taken him a lifetime to admit his favourites have the main subplot as romance. It is sad that because society characterises romance as for women only, men have to pretend not to enjoy it even though in real life romance would never occur without both sexes.
"men have to pretend not to enjoy it even though in real life romance would never occur without both sexes."
Romance/dating is sex work/prostitution done by men in order to experience sex. It is prostitution because most men aren't into it. Just like female prostitutes participate in sex with the end goal of a cash payment in mind - most men are going through the motions of dating and romance with the end goal of sex in mind.
What makes Jane's writing so great is all the side characters she has and their little subplots. And she doesn't just dismiss them. She writes them in great detail. So you feel like you are in a little society. Plus that is where a lot of the social commentary comes from- like about the role of the clergy, the role of the military, social protocols etc. and she also makes her characters well rounded people with different facets that we can relate to- which makes it much more robust than something like Twilight- the kind of romance novel that gives the rest a bad name- which is pages and pages of a boring girl saying how much she loves a guy and not much else.
Thank you for this discussion. I love Austen because her books are so satisfying on so many levels simultaneously. I get my romantic fix while enjoying irony, social criticism and the opportunity to think about: what makes a good life partner? what is ethical behavior in various situations? what respect is due to parents, elders, people above and below us in social status, etc. Love your channel because you discuss serious topics without pedantry and with all the enthusiasm of a lover of Jane.
As a man I am definitely in agreement with you that more men need to be introduced to the joys of Ms. Austen's outstanding literature.
I think that part of the problem as to why romance novels (and films) are looked down on is because too many associate those stories today as erotic or lust-driven, instead of the slow burning, tender romances in a lot classic literature (sorry Romeo and Juliet, but you're an exception in this case). There are, of course, exceptions on both ends as well as a vast variance in the level of talent various storytellers possess. Because of that view of romance stories being driven by physical desire instead of a complete picture of who the other is romance stories get dismissed as being more shallow and without as much to say about the human condition.
As a woman I 100% agree with your assessment! That’s why I thought I hated romance focused media.
My sister loves shows like marriage at first sight, the bachelor, love island etc. because she loves the social aspect and the psychology but I can’t tolerate the sexualisation. Human sexuality isn’t inherently negative at all but it’s so often written as being shallow at best and degrading at worst! I’m inclined to avoid the topic because seeing that part of someone’s relationship feels invasive to me even if it’s fictional, and in some ways I think part of our problem is that people are used to looking at it as a performance. But I do wonder if more writing about the erotic side of relationships as respectful and loving could be healthy for people? We have so many depictions of shallow, degrading, and violent sexuality in our modern media that maybe having a better example/influence would be good. I’m not sure what the answer is but either way I’m actually very thankful for well written romances!
I’m LIVING for the Podcast-esque Setup and it’s a nice reminder that you’ve grown and prospered as a creator. I’m happy to see this journey.
Awww! Thank you! It was fun switching things up! 😃😂
Deeply impressed with Ellie Dashwood’s feminist understanding of Jane Austin and her writing, and her deconstruction of our understanding of it in modern culture. I’m addicted to these excellent posts, but especially this one, which calls out the pernicious behavior of many women, though out patriarchal cultured societies (including modern western society), to diminish women’s interests and identify themselves as aligned with “men’s interests” in order to be considered more seriously. This has the overall effect of confirming the superiority of men and the continued subordination of women. As a reformed “guy’s girl/tomboy” I see the folly in this behavior and am astonished that Jane Austin called it out so well in the regency era- as has Ellie Dashwood by making these modern videos! Thank you.
If there’s not a romance in a book, I dont want to read it! I had no idea people dismissed the topic of romance in books considering it’s so popular. I’m thinking about all the fanfiction i’ve ever read and most of it has been related to romance it’s what the people are interested in!
I watch another lovely channel, Jill Bearup, who refers to this phenomenon as 'it's what the people want.' And that is nothing for us to be ashamed of. I believe another excellent term for it is 'democracy' 😆.
I think your analysis is spot on. Jane Austen actually has several stories of couples finding each other in "Pride and Prejudice" - and in almost every case, the character of the two is what makes the particular couple attracted to each other. Echoing real life, Austen doesn't separate romance from general satire or manners or incisive commentary on how society worked. I have always been particularly struck by Charlotte's discussion with Lizzie over romance and marriage, and I see it as one of the deepest insights in the book.
SO WELL SAID Ellie!!!!! I'm very tired of the girl power movement dismissing romance. What is wrong with having both? I always feel like dismissing romance in favour of female empowerment has negative implications for female identity itself. There is absolute nothing wrong with being strong AND romantic at the same time.
I see so many awesome men reacting to Rom-Coms and have positive reactions to female coded interests like why can’t we have more of this?
Rom coms help make up for the terrible time I had in high school, romance wise. I was so clueless about girls. Now all of my best friends are women. Since I am 81, not kidding about “friends”.
😊🌷
I tend to see a lineage from Austen, passing some other authors to "Anne of Green Gables", and what turned into "girls' books".
I read AoGG many times in my childhood and youth, and when I later got into my Austen period, Brontë and Middlemarch ... It felt so familiar.
Now rereading AoGG it is so very clear that it was not a children's book at the start ... and it annoyed me so much when a litterary history book brought up Tom Sawyer but not Anne Shirley.
Other fun part: Science Fiction as a genre is also often judged by the worst trash, not by the master works, those are often instead called "real litterature".
I think it’s not only a romance novel. There is definitely the romantic structure there - the would be lovers being kept apart by various things - but there is the social commentary and the comedy of manners in there as well. Also, her characters always take a journey of self understanding and improvement which make them so relatable.
"The journey of self understanding and improvement" as you say is a part of a romance novel too I think. Even if it's not only a romance book thing. Because characters have to understand something about themselves and/or the other one in order to be together. If not why are they not together at the beginning of the book?
I discovered P&P by accident in my early 30’s by accident on TV and it grabbed me so much that I borrowed the novel from the library that same week (and the book impressed me even more!).
Austen’s setup is really interesting from all sorts of perspectives, and her characters endure because so many of them reflect each other as opposites, but not in an obvious manner.
For example, Darcy is proud and snobby, but has depth and honour under the surface. By contrast, Wickham is all amiability on the surface but lacks much virtue on the inside. And this contrast is somewhat matched by the difference between Lizzie (outwardly relatively poor and with limited options, but possessing intelligence, honesty and integrity) and Caroline Bingley (who outwardly has beauty and social standing, but lacks integrity, kindness or the ability to reflect upon her behaviour).
Bingley is gentle, kind but lacks confidence, while Collins is neither and is full of his own (self-assumed) importance. The similar female counterparts here are Mrs Gardiner (calm, perceptive, and tactful) as opposed to Lady Catherine (arrogant, rude and full of her own self-importance).
Georgina (shy, quiet, well-behaved) is the opposite of Lydia (loud, spoilt and with little to no self-control).
Charlotte (practical, observant, patient and mostly unflappable) is in direct contrast to Mrs.Bennet (flippant, talkative, neurotic, uncouth).
I find that the majority of JAFF variations that I read are pleasant enough, partially because they are familiar, but mostly because Austen’s original character tropes are so powerful and recognisable over 200 years later. However, the Happy Ever After angle makes many of them very predictable - and thus forgettable.
Those that don’t just focus on the romance, but upon the personal growth of the characters, are far more powerful. So while I agree that the romance angle is important, I think that the broader human questions around character and values are what puts Austen’s books in the timeless category.
I made my husband read P&P and he likes it so much he made his father read It as well.
I love Mansfield Park. And one of the things I LOVE about Mansfield Park is the utter respect that Sir Thomas and his children show to Lady Bertram.
They may not actually FEEL respect towards her, but they TREAT her with the utmost respect and affection. Sir Thomas, in particular, shows her love, whether he feels it, or not. Why? Because it is simply the correct and polite thing to do, and he entered into a marriage contract with her, which OBLIGES him to treat her best of all the women in the world, and to teach his sons to treat their wives well, and his daughters to treat their husbands well. He is attempting to train his children to have happy marriages (at least on the surface), though good behavior.
It almost works. Mariah treats her husband well on the surface, right up until the moment she dumps him for another man.
The rest of the children, however, seem to choose better, and, at the very least, know how to behave themselves.
Apparently, nobody taught this lesson to Mr. Bennet.
I was in a bookclub 20 years ago in which one of the members, who was a PhD candidate in English Literature, told me condescendingly that P&P was a satire, not a romance. Oh. But, once he (snidely) said that, I actually began to appreciate the novel on a deeper level.
What I have always loved about Austen is that her work is a reflection of the complex, intelligent, and deeply empathetic writer that she is. I re-read Pride and Prejudice annually along with a few of my other favorite Austen novels, and what I love is that you can continuously reinvigorate your reading experience by taking on a different focus. You can read Pride and Prejudic as a commentary on class in Regency England, an opportunity to analyze conplex family dynamics, an examination of the impact of patriarchal systems on women's autonomy, a narrative on personal growth, and yes, a compelling and emotional romance among a myriad of other interpretations.
Love that one of the kitties decided to cameo. 💖
Can't tell if it's Remus or Romulus.
Indeed, and Ellie did not miss a beat of her explanation❣️👌🏽
As a connoisseur of Rom-Coms and Holiday Movies, they provided me with valuable knowledge and I could definitely write Academic Papers on them.
I recently learned that Emily Brontë wrote ‘Wüthering Heights’ but it was panned by critics and re-evaluated positively much later.
Fantastic analysis as always Ellie darling. I've always thought that Austen used the prism of romance to explore a number of themes, but that doesn't mean that romance in and of itself is unimportant. I've always thought that the fate of women in a male-dominated society was a vital interest to Austen. So much of a woman's life at that time was determined by class (it still is, frankly), and marriage was the means by which one sustained or improved one's social class, Thus romance, and I don't just mean a marriage plot, but the search for a true companion in life, was tremendously important. I think Austen's novels are fascinating explorations of family dynamics, especially between fathers and daughters. I've noticed that a theme sustained throughout Austen's novels is what happens to a young woman when her father fails to properly provide for her. Your many videos expanding upon the history, legal environment and hierarchy of the Regency era make a similar point. Women are treated as afterthoughts or pawns by any patriarchal society, and Austen's novels put that injustice into sharp relief, while remaining sparkling, witty entertainment. Every time I re-read an Austen novel, I gain some new insight into not only the manners and thinking of the Regency era, but our own era as well, even while I laugh out loud at her adept skewering of her society. That's genius. Denigrating the romance in the novels just further perpetuates the notion that what is of importance to women is "not really important," and does a disservice to Austen herself.
I am listening to Pride and Prejudice. It's definitely helping me understand the archaic language better. What's surprising to me is how well Jane Austen understood how people tick during a time when psyco analysis hadn't even started yet. Do you know if she studied philosophy? Like David Hume?
Women owned the psychological language and approach to life until Freud stole it for his own profit.
I love Jane Austen's writing for the fascinating characters. Love them or hate them, almost every character is developed enough to remind you of real people that you know, or of yourself. Her characters have flaws and sometimes make stupid decisions, but you can fallow the lodgic, of lack of lodgic in their choices based on their character. The twists do not feel like plot devices, even when they are unexpected. When the when Wickham is Wickham you think, "yeah, he would do that, the jerk!" And like Lizzy we sit back and think, "yeah, that makes sense." Many authors try to "surprise" their audience by making a character and then getting that character to behave in a way that makes no sense in order to further the plot. (E.g. having Mary run away to Scotland with Mr. Colins would be a surprise, but it would make no sense! Mary is too proper and Lady Catherine would never approve!) That wouldn't be subversion, it would just be bad writing. Jane Austen is never a sloppy writer. That's what I love about her work.
I enjoy the new and different kinds of content you've created lately, but my favorite will always be your commentary and analysis on Jane Austin, her works, and her world.
One of the 'real men' on your channel (lol). Your channel is really good. It is my true motivation for chopping logs, growing my beard, bench pressing with my anvil, target practice with my spittoon, IV'ing my daily rum allowance, and lifting up the occasional vehicle with one (well developed) forearm whilst changing the flat tyre with my other. Other than that your channel also helps me connect with my feminine side. So thank you 💪🏋️
I heard once that all the plots of modern novels or films if not comes from Shaskepeare it comes from Jane Austen. You can relate any plot to one of them. I think its true.
It's Jane Austen's confidence in her own opinion that always surprises me. Not for her the putting down of other authors to boost her own work, she had the confidence to defend what she sees as worthy and stand up for her fellow sister authors. She may not be a feminist writer is the sense we understand today, but she did believe women were capable of sensible thought and deserved respect - I keep thinking of Anne Elliot's conversation with Captain Harville - her depiction of two people of worth and character who had great respect for each other and each other's sex while debating each other on the other sex's qualities of commitment and suchlike. I can't articulate it as I'd like to - but Austen's deep self-worth stands out for me. And her belief in standing with other women - which I'd love you to touch on one day in the future if you have any time.
But Jane Austen, was very aware of the
philosophy of leading contemporary
English feminist thinker + writer Mary
Wollstonecraft.
Beyond socially engrained sexism (we've all been there let's be real), I'm still struggling to see how anyone could read Jane Austen and claim she didn't (or didn't want to) write romance. It's true that her novels encompass a lot more than romance, but the romance plots are so intricately laid out, and so fundamental to not just the plot but the entire movement of her works. Yes, she wrote social commentary. But her primary frame for that social commentary was (quite obviously) romance and marriage.
P&P, at my first read at 14yrs, wholly a romance, rereading into my 20's and 30's a comedy of manners, further rereading into my 40s and 50s, added an enjoyment of the beauty of the flow of the words. Now entering my 60s what more can I get from this very special novel?
This is so true, like even in school they're like nooo it's a comedy of manners!! and sure it is but it's the way they say it. Honestly the older I get the more it feels hurtful because it's so pervasive how everything associated with femininity, half or more of all things, constantly has to be apologised for and put down, and we don't even know how to talk without doing it. it's like this wall between men and women, either you proudly say yes I like this and it is worthy and great and just hit a wall and communicate nothing and stand on two opposite sides misunderstanding each other, or you apologise and justify and rationalise and explain and slowly introduce the idea that maybe feminine things are okay and maybe make some headway. it's not even between men and women, it's between mysoginistic people and not mysoginistic people and also just all the men that have been raised without anything "feminine" and actually have not thought about romantic relationships that much at all. sometimes it just makes me so sad, it feels there's so much in the way of the truth in so many ways and people just can't communicate and learn from each other
I think it's important to remember that teenage girls liked both the Beatles and Star Trek first. (I know what you mean, though.)
About why Romance as a genre: when people talk about that, I keep thinking about something one of my English Lit professors had to say about a movie called _Hiroshima Mon Amour_, which was an interrace love story directly engaging with the emotional trauma of WWII. She said when it first came out, a lot of viewer had this really intense emotional experience that "if the lovers manage to reconcile, then the world won't end." And that's what a good love story does - it finds a way to reconcile differences so that the world won't end. In _Pride and Prejudice_, the Bennett family is directly saved by Mr Darcy's interventions, but also Elizabeth has time to reflect that she would lighten him up, and he would expand her. Their happy marriage, in the face of Mr and Mrs Bennett's unhappy one is the world refusing to end.
By the way, I've been reading Gaskell's _North and South_ from a recommendation you made on this channel, and really love it. And for them, the love story parallels the industrial plot - if Thornton hadn't taken the time to make friends with workers like Nick Higgins, he wouldn't have the information about Frederick that lets him reconcile with Margaret; and his reconciliation with her is what saves the mill. The world doesn't end again. (It's such a great book.)
It can be both!!!!!
I agree with the determination that dismissing the book as not a romance is deeply steeped in attempts to dismiss female interests and concerns.
Thanks for acknowledging us guys out there. Love Jane Austen. Keep up the good work!
It's fascinating that Jane Austen's novel Northanger Abbey is that same exploration as Michel Foucault's the History of Sexuality Vol 1. Not only was she capable of recognizing biopower expressed through the "repression" of sexuality; in that codifying/regulating it led to it becoming the center of societal concern. She managed to address in the style of a love story that not only typifies the point, but expands it to others in a more palatable way. You leave her novel questioning how sex was repressed in a world that seemed entrenched in it.
Your flowers turned out really lovely!!!
When I have bad months emotionally, a lot of times romance novels are just what I need. Most of them, like a lot of books in general, are not in depth at all. They're light entertainment, light social commentary and there's nothing at all wrong with that. I'm seeking lightness! But sometimes I get blown away by how well the author combines the complex experience of emotional maturity, human nature, relationships of all types, humor, seriousness, heartache, etc. This month I was reading a full-on smut novel that had insane world building, actual fear for characters wellbeing, a necromancer leading an army against the human lands.... like I was not prepared. Honestly that book saved my life because I was either nervous giggling through a smut chapter or being enthralled by the danger of war. Was it perfect? Nah, but that world building tho. Damn.
In the case of P&P women thought they were getting a nice little romantic read, but they got so much more and that's why Jane Austen is the queen of romance. Each character is unique and insightful in some way. Even the characters who feel amped up such as Mr. Collins... we can find a Mr. Collins in our life! We've seen couples where the husband is basically expertly handled by the wife to spend as little time bothering her as possible.
Romance was serious business for women back then as well. They weren't allowed to inherit much, and their options for wealth were limited to the men in their lives. If you made a mistake when picking a husband, you were kind of screwed unless he predeceased you and you were able to marry again suitably. I think Jane treated romance novels with the seriousness they deserved, seeing as how many people's lives get wrecked in the modern day by a bad relationship cause the guy/gal is cuteeee but otherwise messed up. Back then.... you'd be married to that person.
I remember reading somewhere that Austen was quite popular among gentlemen.
Bravo. You’re so right, Ellie, this is why modern readers HAVE to reread P&P to really get what Miss Austen was trying to say. It wasn’t til I hit Mrs Bennett’s age, that I could read it from her perspective. Late, I know. But thankfully you are here to break it down.
You're so right about Mrs. Bennet giving preference to the daughters who most resemble her as a young woman - and it's certainly telling that in spite of all her hard work to try to get Jane and Lizzy married off, it's Lydia who manages to snag a husband first!!
First, but not happiest. Mrs. Bennett got herself Mr. Bennett. But Lydia got herself a peice of scoundrel. It is obvious infidelity and quarrels will entertain their life together.
It makes alot more sense that people are surprised i love romance so much.
I never had this thought about romance, that its frivolous. I would be sitting in corner as a rebellious teen, dressed goth/punk, reading and loving historical romance.🤷🏻♀️
I've always found it interesting how anyone actually finds love back then.
I've loved Jane Austen since I first saw Pride and Prejudice too, in the early 2000s
Great video! "Romance" is the mating process of the human being. Clearly, that is a topic of interest. It is at the heart of human existence. And Austen was commenting on that process, doing what humans do, analyze themselves. How does it actually happen? How should we live wisely? What stakes are involved and what motivates the people concerned (potential spouses and their families)?
And the women's interest being denigrated? Yes. Apparently, this is a male blindspot.
Loved the video, thanks so much. All your videos are great, but as someone who recently undertook to read classic novels having not been a great reader in the past, I especially enjoy videos like this one. Your analyses are instructive, helpful and much appreciated.
Aw, thank you so much! I’m so glad it was helpful! 😃 And I hope your classic novel reading has been going well! 😃
I love your videos and analysis. Your way of presenting information is very engaging!
Aw!!! Thank you!!! 😃
HI Ellie! I'm a scholar of race and class studying late 19th/ early 20th C America. I find Austin's analysis of class bias fascinating. Yes, she wrote social commentary on romance and personal relationships, but I find her observations of social class and the way it orders society most interesting of all.
Although I like all of JA's 6 novels, Pride and Prejudice is my favorite. I think it's the novel she wrote that has been adapted the most times, maybe even in the most languages (which I suspect is also true of the book itself). I think the reason is that the heroin had every inducement I could imagine possible in that society to accept the hero the first time he proposed, and her best friend wouldn't have believed it possible that she'd miss the chance of being Mrs. Darcy and mistress of Pemberley. So the fact that she does (in which choice her father might be the only person in her circle of acquaintance who would support her) seems to me to be a demonstration of power that I find staggering. As you pointed out in your video, in general, power has not been split down the middle between men and women. So when a woman has power, I notice.
I think romances are easy to lampoon because, as Ellie said, they're written with a mainly female audience in mind. I love modern romance novels (Jennifer Crusie!! So smart and so fun), but I know they aren't High Art. Of course they aren't! I view them as the reading equivalent of candy, with all the pleasure that implies. Wheezy Waiter had a video recently about how to eat healthily in which he and his wife talk about their relationship to junk-type food; China said, "happiness is also good for you," by which she means that she still eats sweets, just in moderation. "Happiness is also good for you" also pertains to other things we consume purely for the joy of it; you have to balance the serious with the fun.
I think the rabbit hole goes even deeper, even further than just looking down on feminine interests. Where does the dismissal of feminine interests even come from in the first place? I think this dismissive attitude fundamentally ties into issues with vulnerability. Specifically, issues with *being* vulnerable.
First, we have to think about, what is femininity, and what does it mean to be feminine? I've been wondering about this question for a long time, and I think the RUclipsr "The Authentic Observer" put it perfectly, so I'll try to sum up her words. And note that when I say "the feminine" here, I don't mean it in the sense of biological genders or women vs men, I mean it in the philosophical sense, because everyone has a mix of both the feminine and the masculine in them.
The feminine is about life. Nurturing it, caring for it, and allowing it to grow and flourish. This is completely impossible to do without any vulnerability. The feminine is inherently tied into vulnerability, both in a physical sense, in an emotional sense. One of the most carnal, physical examples of this is pregnancy and motherhood, where the mother becomes extremely physically vulnerable and puts herself at a lot of risk in order to create new life. At an emotional level, examples of this may include mentoring a child, caring for someone when they feel unwell, making up with someone after an argument, and yes, pursuing romance and forming romantic relationships. If you notice, most "feminine" interests have to do with things like relationship building
Vulnerability means opening yourself up in a way where you risk getting hurt, and that scares people. I mean if you think of the most stereotypical "macho guys," they are so insecure and afraid of doing anything that shows vulnerability. They dismiss vulnerability, deriding it as weakness and laughing at those who show it, all the while not realizing that they're the ones who are weak, because they are so insecure. Vulnerability is not weakness. It is courage, because it takes a lot of courage to choose to become vulnerable, and be in touch with your vulnerability. And it's critical to our lives as human beings too, because societies, families, friendships, and relationships can not survive without it.
Vulnerability, and everything else that's associated with femininity is critically undervalued and underappreciated by our society, all because people are too afraid of being seen as "weak" and don't have enough understanding of how important it is.
This. Is SOOO true and beautifully expressed! You almost made me tear up and I don't do that easily! Your comment inspires me as a woman to freely express my femininity (and great point that we ALL have both 'feminine' and 'masculine' traits). Thank you 🥰
@@cmm5542 Oh wow, thank you, I'm really glad to hear that what I said resonated with you! As a woman myself, it's been a long road for me as well to become comfortable with fully embracing and accepting my own femininity. But it's been so liberating and fulfilling to finally have gained the courage to do so.
I've come to accept that I am someone who is naturally a lot more emotional, sensitive, and "soft", and I've learned to use those qualities order to bring more positivity, warmth, understanding, and encouragement to all the people around me. But I do *have* to be very emotionally vulnerable at times in order to do this effectively. And while occasionally I have gotten hurt who were not in the right place to be receptive to me, overall, my relationships with others and with myself has overwhelmingly improved.
I sincerely hope that your journey to embracing and expressing your own unique gifts will bring you much peace and happiness as well! :D
@@JadestonePony Thank you 🙂. Wishing you all the best as well.
I appreciate Jane Austen’s understanding of the complexity of her characters in temperament, personality, integrity, self-discipline, thoughts, etc. we, as fallible humans, exemplify. People are not black/white, but grey and multifaceted. Mindset, thoughts, and opinions can seemingly change from one setting/scenario to the next. There are two fiction books I want my boys to read before they leave are house. Pride and Prejudice and North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell. Gaskell ties in the complexity of character with a revealing approach to social issues so you see more grey instead of black/white. Definitely important in today’s society as well. We need to stop demonizing one another, but understand human natures complexities.
I hope this is a series, break down every chap I’m here for it.
I think the reason romance novels in general are looked down upon is that so many of them are trash. Now don't get me wrong; there are plenty of sci-fi, western, war, etc. novels that are trash as well. So many of them are formulistic with very shallow writing, plots, and characters; and romance novels seem to attract that sort of writer like moths to a flame. I had a good friend who was a published authoress who used to sing (to the tune "She'll be comin' 'round the Mountain"):
There's a bimbo on the cover of my book.
There's a bimbo on the cover of my book.
She is there in all her glory,
But she's nowhere in the story.
There's a bimbo on the cover of my book.
The thing I admire most about Jane Austen is that she writes about real people. Even her secondary characters have depth.
Oh, and yes. P&P is most definitely a romance novel for that is the theme that drives the plot.
Jane Austen è stata una scrittrice estremamente moderna per la sua epoca. La sua penna era pungente e a volte critica nei confronti di taluni personaggi.
Really enjoyed this. So many of my relatives don't understand the greatness of Austen. They only remember that she wrote about marriage and romance, totally missing her satire and social commentary. Guess now I have more of an argument to make when they shrug her off. I have a question: do you take topic suggestions? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on religion of the Regency Era, or in Austen's books, or her life. Just wondered. Thank you for your channel, really helps me understand Austen and the period better.
Good analysis Ellie, as usual. Similarly in our time TV was not taken seriously, and many top film actors would think that it was a sign of failure if they "lowered" themselves to act in TV programs, as opposed to only film and theater work. And the same could be said for pop music as opposed to classical music. Being topical, engaging, and popular doesn't have to be at odds with analyzing and expressing the human condition. But the work needs to be balanced to avoid being labeled dry/boring or trite/shallow.
Very interesting. I just finished a realistic romance novel (now in the publisher's hand) and I used elements from 'Pride and Prejudice' and it does takes place in London.
Romance gets dismissed because it is ~~~artistic~~~ to have a downer “realistic” ending. But I read for an escape - I WANT a happy ending. I read romance books not for the romance (the least interesting part of the plot to me, as a rule, due to my personal taste, not because there’s anything wrong with it), but because it’s the only genre that guarantees a happy ending. I can read a murder mystery where it’s possible everyone will die in the end and the murderer escape, or I can read a romance mystery where the main characters are guaranteed to survive because they’re going to get together in the end and have a happy ever after. I can read a fantasy that may degenerate into dystopian chaos and death, or I can read a fantasy romance where the characters are guaranteed a happy ending. I like my happy endings.
I agree.
I also hate that unhappiness is marketed as more 'real' than happiness. Real life is a mixture of the two. Good things as well as bad happen to everyone. A book that ends with doom and gloom and misery for everyone is no more realistic than one where everyone has their wishes come true! The difference is that happy endings inspire us to make real life better, which I frankly think is more realistically practical!
This is so accurate, Jane Austen was a GENIUS for her times.
Or in any time.
Never thought of it as a romance. My favorite aspect of the story is the same thing I love about Dune, every character demonstrates a particular aspect of blindness. Each pays a consequence for it. Dune has huge love stories in it by the way. Literally begins with a woman's love of a man as the catalyst for the whole story. Still not a romance novel and often considered a male story. But then people think Romeo and Juliet is and there is a lot of evidence that the play was actually political satire. Best guess is Shakespeare was using the dangerous obsession of young romance as a catalyst to expose the hypocrisy of the elite and their power games against each other.
Thanks for pointing out the assumptions at 4:31, it really made me think. Similarly I feel that a woman who doesn't work and 'just organises parties' was a dismissive phrase for women (even before most women worked) but I'm more and more thinking that parties are an essential social glue and we are all suffering from a lack of parties. I think online dating has had to be invented becuase we don't have enough parties. Women gained equality, not by gaining recognition for the extra-market work they were doing, but by rejecting the value of all of 'womens work' and joining the workforce and market economy. That part is fine, but we never got round to valuing the work that was being done before. Also with mod cons that amount of work has been reduced.
Yes, well behaved women rarely make history
Nothing to do with the subject, but I just wanted to say that I could listen to you talk about anything you enjoy for hours without tiring lol you have such a nice voice, it calms me down to a point where I binge watched your videos the other day when I was about to have an anxiety attack 😅
So true. Ellie’s voice is very melodious, isn’t it. Hope you’re having a better day today, and the tomorrows too, of course btw
Thank you for always giving so much insight to the complexities of Jane Austen’s novels and the themes which, due to its contextual nature, is often lost on me! I find that I can, with much more pride, appreciate having read the works.
I absolutely LOVE this discussion and argument. What a beautiful job. Austen’s observation of human nature is over and again completely exquisite!
Hi Ellie, Thank you for this video. I was able to defend Jane's honor at a group meeting today! Someone asked 'who is Jane Austen'. I responded that she was a writer in the early 1800s. I explained that some scholars claim she wrote romance, but (thanks to you!) I believe she wrote about social commentary, history, finance and family. The group was impressed and intrigued! Thank you again for showing me that Jane's witty writing covers many deep subjects!
But is it not a romance too? Just because it’s a social commentary and intricate coming-of-age story does mean it is not also a romance. In my opinion, the fact that it is a romance only lifts it up, since romance is basically a fundamental and vulnerable aspect of human existence (barring some exceptions) and is basically the human mating ritual. We shouldn’t denigrate the romance of P&P, just because the story is a commentary on society as well. They are all worthy topics and it wouldn’t do right to split them apart since the story relies on all those themes.
Have you ever done a video on the process of breaking an entail? That would be absolutely fascinating!
Ellie I’ve watched all of your content and keep coming back to this video. I think it’s the best one yet on your channel. Such an insightful and well explained analysis! This is truly why I keep reading Austen
Now that I’m engaged, I’ve been seeing unbelievable parallels between my family and the Bennets and my fiancé’s family and the Darcy’s. Lizzie’s fight to maintain her independence, see the faults in her closest relations, but still maintain hers and her family’s dignity in the face of others is something I really resonate with. Comparing the story to my own situation has helped me see the strength in Mrs. Bennet, the exhaustion that must take over Mr. Bennet, and the unique inner worlds of Kitty and Mary. But most of all, P&P gave me the best and most helpful guide for navigating relations that no one else I know seems to have.
I will defend Jane Austen’s writing to my grave because she put into words what so many people experience but have no idea how to articulate!
I disagree slightly. When I hear the word romance, I think of the movie "The Notebook". Rightly or wrongly in my mind that's the type of material I'm expecting when I see that tag. This why I have seen every romantic comedy movie ever, but if I just see "romance" on its own or "romantic drama" I'm out. Very few purely romantic movies get it right, probably because every one's idea of romance is more varied than we would like to admit. Romantic comedies focus on two key aspects. The chase and the awkward beginning. The chase is always the most exciting part of any relationship. The awkward nature of that chase tends to cut the sometimes-overbearing tension of a purely romantic piece of work with comedy. Keeping things fun, light and bubbly.
In my view It's a drama with romantic elements, in addition it's not a romantic drama. This is a book that has a perfect title. Perfectly descriptive. The fundamental and pivotal moments in the book all tie back to how the characters ego's and prejudices' lead them to make misguided decisions. While most of those decisions are associated with romance, there are ton of other topics that covered as well. Finance, status, inheritance, greed, betrayal and ignorance.
BTW I'm a 38 old straight African male from Zimbabwe. From the moment I read the book in high school, it has remained my favorite of all time. This idea that only woman would be into Jane Austen is ridiculous. Her writing is universal in my opinion. If an alien being asked me to recommend one book to them, I would give him one of my many copies of Pride & Prejudice.
Awww yeah! Yeti fam! 🎙
I still get kinda pedantic about it. "It's a social commentary with romantic elements!" Then break down all the definitions of "romantic" and how little of it has to do with love. I couldn't call it a "romantic social commentary", because if the social commentary were romanticized, I think Lydia would have been saved from Wickham.
Perhaps “it’s a romance that’s also a work of social commentary” would be good…?
I don’t categorize P&P as a romance. It has love and marriage in it but the romance of the characters (to me) is not the focus but rather a product of them growing as individuals.
I haven’t read it in several years though so perhaps it’s time for a reread.
Yes I agree. Marriage is featured because it’s a story about women. Women are expected to marry at that time. You can’t not feature marriage in a story about women at this time. It’s to be expected. However the story is about Elizabeth and her growth. It’s about the Bennet family’s fortunes, and about not judging anyone from impressions alone. Elizabeth is even shown to be ignorant about Charlotte’s point of view early in the story when she marries Mr Collins. Then later Elizabeth has to eat her own words when she realizes Lydia HAS to Mary Wickham.
This is such a provocative video! It got me to thinking about some of the other books and authors I love to read; one of which is John Grisham. I don't love all of his books but one of my favorites is "The Broker" - a novel about a Washington lawyer who is running for his life after the CIA get him pardoned for an intricate satellite/ selling secrets crime and puts him in Italy to see who will kill him. But even Grisham flavors his spy thriller with a touch of romance...because as you've just pointed out...romance is a fundamental human connection that permeates almost everyone's life. Adding romance, even to a spy thriller, is a great way to flavor almost any book. Jane Austen embraces this so well!
0:39 Iconic first line argue with a wall.
I think P&P highlights the anxiety re trusting one’s instincts to choose a partner, especially given the grossly unequal, almost S&M-related parental marriage. The daughters start off knowing that they want only to not end up with the wrong husband, setting the stage for iconostasic Lizzy who is prepared to forego marriage entirely if need be. The chip on her shoulder intrigues and acts as a warning to any man who presumes to control her. It’s just short of being labeled a psychological thriller. It remains one of my all time favorites.
Lydia, of course, is the exception to the above.
Just watching for the first time! So well said Ellie -- you are an amazing, articulate scholar!
Thank God you are back with some good Austen content ❤
I recognized the “romance” but I loved the sly humor and, yes, snark in the novels. She was making a social commentary and clearly had aa perspective. They actually made me re-examine myself and my ideas about humanity.
Ellie this is one of your best essays yet. What a powerful conclusion
Love your videos 💜💜💜
😃😊☺️
I only recently got into austen, mainly because for a long time i did dismiss them for being romance novels and i didnt care about that. in my case it was a thought process of "this is the part of my favorite stories i relate to least >> therefore this is the part of my favorite stories i care about least >> why would i pick up a book that is only or primarily the part of the story i dont particularly care for". austen was still on my "i should read it at some point" list solely because of her books being Major Classics. I finally got around to reading pride and prejudice, and am working on moving on to her other books, and i've found that what i really enjoy is that while they're romances, there is (so far) always something else that holds my attention. for example, there were a few passages early on in P&P that made me find darcy particularly relatable, which made me intrested and invested in his character arc outside of its effect on the romance, and elizabeth is so fun to read about, and many of her conversations and interactions with people, especially, but importantly, not only, darcy meant that the story was a lot more interesting to me than most similar romance stories (or even romantic subplots in non-romance focused stories). She does her characters so well that i'm invested where i typically would have lost interest, and in a way that continues to hold that interest on a reread/rewatch of adaptations, which again in my case is not common for romantic subplots, much less romance stories. Its really all in the characters, any romances or romantic subplots that hold my interest do so because the writer gets me interested in and caring about the characters enough that the part i find boring ends up interesting
(side note; are there any fellow aros also obsessing over austen novels that were suprised at getting so invested in them? )
I love your videos about Jane Austen! The way you defend women's interests is wonderful. Congratulations on the excellency of your work!!!!!
Your analysis and descriptions are very well worded!
Not been done before, I think: How a man of vast fortune goes about selecting a wife? He can marry anyone or no one..what did Darcy see uniquely in Elizabeth? Why didn’t he just marry Ms. Bingley?
The more I watch your videos, the more I love and understand Jane Austen. Thanks a lot!
I was thinking about what you said that f.ex. Austin books, any romance novels, or even your channel would be something like "oh, my wife would be interested in that". But from real life experience - I studies for my bachelors and Master's degree in Academy of Culture. And the only men were teachers or those that were getting degree in choreography or acting. We called our Academy "the convent" :D Also, it's exactly what my husband would say because he is an engineer. Even though he doesn't read novels, he appreciates me educating him on how fictional characters etc. actually talk about very real and important subjects.
Your videos are one of my favorite things about Fridays! Re-watching today because I could talk about Jane Austen forever!!
I'm impressed! This is the most in-depth monologue I've ever heard on Austen. Have you read, "A Jane Austen Education" by William Deresiewicz?
Thanks for the video Ellie! I found the video interesting because I personally have never thought of P&P (my favourite book of all time) as a romance novel. When I think of a 'romance novel', I think of the 20th century Mills & Boon or Harlequin novels with the half-undressed couple on the cover, where the entire plot of the story is a woman chasing after a (seemingly) unavailable man, with few other characters and very little plotline other than the romance itself. I would struggle to compare these books to P&P, and I would personally place P&P in a completely different literary category. However, if a 'romance novel' is more broadly defined as 'a novel where the primary plot is romance', then yes, P&P would absolutely fall into that category and I would have no issue with that.
I guess I consider P&P to be 'a social commentary about romance' rather than 'a romance novel'. I would say Ms Austen's social commentary is the far more important part of P&P than the romance itself. For example, if Darcy and Elizabeth ended up being good friends rather than getting married, but everything else stayed the same, I don't think it would have taken a great deal away from the plotline or social lessons of P&P, though it might have been less interesting. The romance gave the plot excitement, interest and weight, but it wasn't the point of the book, in my view.
Some great points made 😊 I never really noticed that Mrs Bennett is a combination of Jane (physically) and Lydia (personality wise) and Mr Bennett is like Lizzy.
Love your analyses but can I also say I absolutely love your style! The dresses you wear in this video are perfection 🥰
I really like the new outfit!
Aw!!! Thank you!!!
Great video! I love how Jane Austen incorporated a lot of psychology in her books.
The first time I watched P&P, it was the 2007 and I only began watching halfway through. I loved the vibe so I looked for the whole movie and watched it from the beginning. Then I loved Darcy’s character development so much that I looked into the 1995 version and read the book. Now I love it because of all the ironies, all the social commentary, and of course the character development of both Darcy AND Lizzie. It’s my favorite story of all time and I rewatch or re-read (listen to Jennifer Ehle reading) the book every year
I think part of why I like writing stories about 2 main characters that contains romance is because I admire P&P