After years of shielding my pride, of trying to convince myself I’m of another persuasion, of losing my sensibilities in the attempt, I’ve finally come to the conclusion that I must, once and for all, admit the truth:
I don’t particularly care for Jane Austen.
Oh, how it pains me to write those words! I feel positively wretched because for years I’ve done my best to watch every movie adaption and read every book, including Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters, and now I must confess that I rarely finished reading any of them because . . . I got bored.
Oh, I’m so sorry Jane! I’m so sorry all of my dear friends who love, love, love the regency period!
I love it too. I’ve sewn empire waist dresses for my daughters as costumes, would wear one to church (the non-cleavage kind, of course) if I had the bosom to do it justice, and my oldest daughter’s wedding dress was obviously Austen-inspired.
But I slog through Austen’s books as if they are philosophy texts.
Actually, I’d prefer philosophy texts.
I came to this horrible conclusion as I tried to read one of my favorite authors about one of her favorite periods which was adapted into a movie that I thoroughly enjoyed: “Austenland.”
About one-third of the way through the book I found myself skimming—yes, skimming, as if I’m in college again and have to get through Thomas Hardy! How could I do this to Shannon Hale?
What’s wrong with me?!
I was hungrily looking, searching for the interesting parts . . .
And last night I nearly cried when I realized that the conversations, the nuances, the descriptions—all of that is supposed to be “the interesting parts”!
Where’s my romantic gene that revels in significant looks and subtle dialogue? I get completely lost in Austen-esque language, just like I was always lost in my college poetry classes.
(Hey, if your breaking heart feels the same way the stormy sky looks, just say so, ok? Don’t ramble on with images for three pages, because I have to write an essay on this, and my stupid grade depends on my inability to figure out a dumb puzzle written by a depressive dude hundreds of years ago!)
(Little wonder that when I pursued my graduate English degree, I shifted to rhetoric and technical writing.)
I have a sister who reads Pride and Prejudice every year.
I have daughters that do the same.
But I simply can’t. It took me my fourth reading attempt before I even finished it.
I fear that I am alone in this I Don’t Understand this Madness for Pride and Prejudice (I-DUMPP).
It seems everyone else gets it.
“You’ve Got Mail” is essentially an adaption of Pride and Prejudice, and the book plays a part in the movie. Even if Tom Hanks’s character rolls his eyes as he muddles through the “hithers” and “dithers” he finishes it his first time around so he can discuss it with Meg Ryan.
Even Sheldon Cooper on “The Big Bang Theory” read and had to acknowledge that Pride and Prejudice is a perfect novel.
Except that I find it . . . dull.
I love the time period; perhaps that’s why I adore Terry Pratchett; all the stories of DiscWorld are set in a similar time. But maybe my I-DUMPP is because I’m no good with subtlety. Since Pratchett’s characters frequently have the delicacy of a sledgehammer, I can relate to them.
Or maybe I suffer from I-DUMPP because I don’t have a romantic cell in me. My book club read a nauseatingly sappy book which had me cringing for so long my face was cramped for a week. As we discussed it, I mentioned that the kissing scenes were a bit too detailed and long, and I was met with several blank stares as if I’d just said I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t have a third hand like I do.
My friend/editor said sweetly, “That explains a lot in the first book you wrote—you really don’t do romance, do you?”
Nope. I simply don’t get it.
I try to, though. I chuckled when Shannon Hale wrote, “Colin Firth, in a wet, white shirt,” was that all women would need to hear to understand the appeal of Mr. Darcy.
But I don’t understand.
The I-DUMPP in me rather preferred Colin Firth in “Nanny McPhee,” or even better as King George in “The King’s Speech.”
That’s because in every screen adaption and in every BBC version of P&P I keep trying to understand why Mr. Darcy is attractive. He just strikes me as a moody, quiet man without much to say or do except to brood.
Brooding is . . . boring.
I’m so sorry.
A British literary character I do appreciate is Commander Samuel Vimes of Ankh Morpork: ragged, rugged, and using his sword for more than foil practice. Perhaps this is why I write stories about men in dark suits and uniforms who run after the bad guys, rather than reading about men who stand around in parlors saying underhanded yet witty things that go over my head. I get fidgety when I read such passages, and want to drag the men out of those stuffy rooms and over to the pond so we can do something more constructive, like chase geese.
My husband doesn’t understand this notion of romance either—and he’s dutifully watched nearly all of the adaptations with me—which is probably why we’re such a good match. He proposed to me off-handedly in a baseball dugout after a spectacularly embarrassing intramural game I played in college (my fantastically hit ball—intended to impress my boyfriend–instead turned foul, and also the umpire into a soprano).
My husband doesn’t bring me flowers, nor do I want them. Instead, we buy each other fruit trees or berry bushes, because those are far more practical. Our idea of date is wandering around HomeDepot sniffing the lumber, driving up the canyon looking for moose, or sharing a slice of cheesecake while watching something starring Rowan Atkinson in something entitled “Sense and Senility.”
And yet, we have nine children, so something seems to work.
I want to love Jane Austen. I like and respect the woman, and all that she accomplished.
And I want to see the purpose of taking long turns about the park (what the heck does that even mean?) and gossiping about people (although I thought that was a socially unacceptable thing to do).
I want to see the long dances as something more than dull exercise where you have to touch men you wouldn’t touch in any other circumstances.
I want to see these people doing nothing more than talking, picnicking, talking, walking, talking and riding as something interesting, but I just can’t.
Instead, I want to smack them out of their fretting and lecture them like Sam Vimes did in Snuff, (a book I just finished reading for the fifth time, in two years. Oh dear.):
“Ladies, the solution to your problem would be to get off your quite attractive backsides, go out there in the world and make your own way! . . . Trust me, ladies, self-respect is what you get when you don’t have to spend your life waiting for some rich old lady to pop her clogs. And takers?”
(Sledgehammer diplomacy; I understand that.)
So forgive me, my dear friends, for while I love the idea of Jane Austen and all that revolves around her, she has become to me like peppers: I thought I loved them, I know I like the idea of them, and I certainly see their value in so many dishes, but on the rare occasions I actually get to eat one, I find myself gagging at the rubbery texture, at the flavor that’s too piquant for my tastes, so I spit it out and think, “Darn it—I really wanted to like that.”
If anyone else is willing to come out of the closet and admit to I-DUMPP, I’m here for you.
She’d read a few silly love stories when she was a teenager, trying to understand her friends and their longings for admirers. Most of the secretive tales were slid from girl to girl under desks where teachers wouldn’t notice, and were so sappy that she was surprised the well-worn pages weren’t stuck together from the goo.
~ “The Forest at the Edge of the World”
11 thoughts on “I don’t like Jane Austen, and I’m so sorry about that”
I hate Jane Austen too. I couldn’t understand all the hype about her. One day I decided to read Sense and Sensibility because I heard it was good. My god, it is the most driest, most emotionless, and uptight, upper class British nonsense I’ve ever read. This lady writes books, but not even once have I ever felt the intensity of emotions her characters feel, because they don’t show any! In great books, I am always moved by the words of the writer, but in her works, I cannot find even one sentence that could blow me away, or that could cause any small strain in emotion. The Romantics kick her ass any day, and every day, they throw her down to the ground. Even the Bronte sisters, and Virginia Wolfe hated her writing. By the way I’m a girl, if you think I’m being sexist by insulting her.
I realize you may have not disliked her writing as much as me, but I needed someone that had even an ounce of disdain for her, because apparently everyone loves her.
Yes! They go on, and on, and on . . . the editor in me is cutting entire paragraphs! I read Sense and Sensibility just last summer, because I felt obligated, but it was HARD.
The movies, however, are another matter. They’ve been edited for length!
Toss Austenland the book, but watch Austenland the movie. Far more hilarious!
I’m so glad I’m not the only one who just doesn’t quite get it. I’ll have check out A Civil Campaign. I loved Thief of Time, but then again you can never go wrong with Terry Pratchett.
The Miles Vorkosigan books (by Lois McMaster Bujold) are a long series. You do not need to have read the first ones to enjoy the later ones, although the background adds richness to the continuing story. If you are going to read A Civil Campaign, however, I recommend you read Komarr, first, which is where Miles and Ekaterin first meet.
And yeah – Terry Pratchett is never a mistake. 🙂
I loved this. I’ve never been able to get into Jane Austen, and I’ve tried several times. Never been able to last more than a half hour in one of the movies, or more than a couple of chapters in one of her books. Sooo BORING.
Several years ago I asked for Shannon Hale books for Christmas. My well-meaning husband got me … Austenland. I forced myself to read it and wound up deciding it wasn’t so bad. Not that I’ve read it since.
I do love romance, though, if it’s happening in the middle of a great story. Susan and Lobsang in Thief of Time, or Miles and Ekaterin in A Civil Campaign. (That one made me qo all squee, I’ll admit – closest thing to a Jane Austen type book I’ve ever read, but with the fate of the world at stake and a major slapdown for the bad guys at the end.)
I have been listening to audio books of a lot of the classics lately and I tried with Pride and Prejudice. I get the significance of what she has done with her books, I have read them in high school and have author friends and others discuss Jane Austen’s significance with me, but man, is it ever tedious and boring. I also love all Terry Pratchett discworld books so I had to say something. Looks like I might lack that romantic gene as well, haha. I had to switch to Dickens in the middle of Pride and Prejudice and any Dickens novel is mich more interesting to me.
The main problem with listening to Jane Austen is that you can’t skim the audio book past all those looooonng conversations! When you read you can pick up the main idea and move along, but with audio? Trapped!
I haven’t listened to Terry Pratchett, though. I’m currently rereading “Thief of Time” and am going to have my AP Lit students read “Eric” after the exam on May 8th. That’ll be fun to discuss!
Dickens–also very long but he has so many plots that come together in such interesting ways at the end. I love how they all link together!
I loved this! I have never read the books or seen any of the movies. (Don’t tell Kim, because she gave me one of the movies a few years ago and it’s still not opened.) I’m not fond of “chick flicks” either. I have often questioned my own womanhood on this issue.
But I have to ask what is I-DUMPP? I figure the PP is Pride and Prejudice, but I can’t figure the other letters.
Tonight I also read your “Don’t Play the Game” blog. I enjoyed that one, too, and I tried to think of the games I don’t or didn’t play.
I didn’t play “My toddler’s birthday party with too many other toddlers” game.
I walk away from conversations about kids’ grades, and the big game that contains the sentence, “I want my child to get into a good college.” I usually answer that one with, “I don’t care where they go to school. I’m more concerned with whether they follow Jesus, can work and interact well with people, and if they think about serving their community.” I don’t get much of a response to that. But what I really want to do, and may start doing, is ask “What’s a bad college?”
I try not to play the Christmas letter game either. Last year I wrote a haiku. I mailed new years cards this year, and I did include a short letter, because 2014 will be very different for us. (Yours will arrive in the mail soon.) I was concerned with it sounding “braggy”, because I mentioned we paid off our house. I wanted to include that because it is almost counter cultural in the age of consumerism and debt. Hey, maybe I am bragging?? And maybe because it’s the first letter you are receiving from me, yes, for some odd reason, I am concerned that you will think my letter is puffed up. But I know you are kind enough not to tell me. 🙂
I do enjoy your blog, Trish. Happy New Year to you!
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Welcome to the Forest at the Edge of the
Great additions to the games you don’t play. I’m probably going to have a follow-up with what people have told me, and add those to the list.
I-DUMPP: I Don’t Understand the Madness for Pride and Prejudice. (Ok, so I manipulated the letters a bit. It’s my blog, and I can do whatever I want!)
You paid off your mortgage?! That’s amazing and truly worth mentioning, as motivation to others that yes, it IS possible.
And really, there are no bad colleges. I’ve met people who have gone to expensive schools and got nothing out of it, and others who went “only” to community colleges but grew immensely from the experience. As long as our kids have a good relationship with God, they’ll be fine anywhere they go. I love your response, and I can’t wait to read your letter. (Are you getting nervous yet?)
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Welcome to the Forest at the Edge of the
Hey there, don’t drag me into your world of denial. I liked Alan Rickman in that one movie about a Jane Austin book. To me all the movies were the same. Girl is alone and can’t seem to notice there is some one there for her. Spends most of the time trying get her sisters or friends married off. Misses many opportunities for herself and the poor guy waiting around for her to take the blinders off.
Hey Ryan, glad you liked Alan Rickman (that was “Sense and Sensibility” by the way). You strike me as the kind of man who prefers his Austen men to moonlight as moody potion makers. (Ah, moodiness again.) But you’re proving my point exactly: while harping on the same themes, the books all begin to sound the same. (“Emma” was the one where the character was trying to marry everyone off, incidentally.)
Probably a good thing for you that your wife didn’t leave you waiting around while she bustled off with her blinders on, right?