Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen

Last updated on Apr 21, 2023

You know what it is.

I was telling a friend about my romance-novel-writing project and they said "oh, have you read Pride and Prejudice?", and I laughed delightedly, because... is Pride and Prejudice a romance novel, really? (There have presumably been 2342 academic essays written on this question, and I have no interest in any of them). Anyway, it was a good excuse to finally read P&P -- I'd never even seen the film, and everything I thought I knew about it came by analogy from Bridget Jones' Diary (the movie), which it turns out is only a partial reflection of the plot.

And look.... without arguing over whether it's a romance novel, it's kind of amazing how many of the tropes of modern romance novels are already present in it? The heroine is smart and quirky and independent, and meets a staggeringly wealthy man who falls head-over-heels for her smart-quirky-independence, then after some mishaps and miscommunications and an implausible inability to believe that someone who is clearly in love with you might possibly be in love with you, there's a moving confession of feelings and they All Live Happily Ever After. Has anything changed in the world, at all, ever?

I am reaffirmed in my belief that, according to romance novels, the smartest choice a man can make in life is to be born rich. (The world's top universities agree: their search for the most intelligent students weighs heavily the intelligent choice to be born to rich parents). Having failed this test at a very early age, I am now left to regret it, forever -- what becomes of the man who is not in possession of a good fortune, I ask you? But I digress.

Some other things about this novel:

Mr Bennett, the heroine's father, is just the best -- is this a widely held opinion?, I don't know. He's just kind of wry and coy and world-weary and good-hearted but withdraws himself from the horror of society and keeps his head while all about him are losing theirs, etc. Also his fondness and bond-ness with Lizzy is a delight! Frankly I want a romance novel entirely about him -- given that it's Pride and Prejudice presumably this has already been done, and presumably it is awful, but whatever.
I feel that the men in this book are much better-drawn, and get more real time devoted to them and their internal worlds, than in most modern romance novels? I fear that this might be a byproduct of, you know, a time and place where women weren't taken seriously, and even in "women's novels" maybe there was pressure to focus a fair amount on the men. (Austen apparently published her first book under the title A Lady, and was always anonymous even though her identity was an open secret). But... I think it makes for a better book, frankly? Obviously I have my biases here but I've been consistently shocked in most of the mainstream modern romance novels I read how implausible and unrelatable I find the men, and surely it's a better story when both leads feel real?
I thought the book had way too many characters -- I do not understand why books have so many characters, I can't follow it, I can't remember who anyone is. Do other readers actively-like having lots of characters? I want to research this someday, whether there's a split in reader preferences and whether it maps onto any interesting differences about human minds. (I also tend to prefer short, tightly-written books to long sprawling ones, maybe this is part of the same thing? I need to read War and Peace eventually, and try to appreciate that style of novel too).
one of the characters says "his pride does not offend me so much as pride often does, because there is an excuse for it -- one cannot wonder that so very fine a young man with family, fortune, everything in his favour should think highly of himself. If I may so express it, he has a right to be proud." I had this thought when I was a teenager!, whether we overly-harshly-judge talented but arrogant people, and whether we should judge arrogance only by the delta between their self-perception and their "objective" abilities. I'm not sure I would have this thought now, but it's just that classic feeling of "everything I've ever thought has been thought before" (including the thought that everything I've ever thought has been thought before).
Austen is very good at the way that the rich and powerful (or just the self-important) believe their interventions in other people's affairs to be very very helpful indeed, even when they're not. Her pompous/officious/self-aggrandising characters are very well done; Austen doesn't have to tell you they're full of it, she just renders them perfectly and you can see both how great the characters think they are and how little anyone else (especially our reader-stand-in Elizabeth Bennet) agrees.

Overall: I endorse this book, I think it is good, and everything I'd heard about Austen being an excellent observer of social life and status dynamics was absolutely true. You do not need my endorsement for this book obviously, either you wanted to read it already or you didn't, but here we are: I approve this long-beloved novel.

---

Some quotes and things I noted:

"Happiness is entirely a matter of chance, it's better to know as little as possible of the defects of the person with whom you're to pass your life"

Darcy complains that every young woman these days is described as "accomplished," and has six different hobbies, but none of them are really accomplished at any of them -- elite overproduction! Gaming the system for College Admission (or in this case Marriage Admission!) Has literally everything in our society happened before? Does anything ever change?
Darcy to Bingley: you're secretly proud of your defects in writing because you think they stem from a "rapidity of thought and carelessness of execution which if not estimable you think at least highly interesting". Move fast and break things! (ok this is a stretch)
"Mr Bennet's expectations were fully answered; his cousin was as absurd as he had hoped, and he listened to him with the keenest enjoyment"
Elizabeth rejects a suitor, and he just keeps convincing himself that her repeated refusals are flattering encouragement. She replies: "I would rather be paid the compliment of being believed sincere. Can I speak plainer? Do not consider me as an elegant female intending to plague you, but a rational creature speaking the truth from her heart." Elizabeth realises that she might have to go to her dad, who will believe her, and whose rejection to the suitor "might be uttered in such a manner as to be decisive, and whose behaviour at least could not be mistaken for the affectation and coquetry of an elegant female." This is all so heartbreaking!
"Oh, what hours of transport we shall spend! And when we do return, it shall not be like other travelers,without being able to give one accurate account of anything. We will know where we have gone; we will recollect what we have seen. Lakes, mountains and rivers shall not be jumbled together in our imaginations; nor, when we attempt to describe any particular scene, will we begin quarrelling about its relevant situations. Let our first effusions be less insupportable than those of the generality of travellers." Making fun of travel bloggers before travel bloggers!
for one character, who initially seems good but is actually really bad, Elizabeth later realises that she can remember "no more substantial good than the general approbation of the neighbourhood." This is so real, relatable.
Darcy says his behaviour to her deserves reproof. But what did he do wrong exactly? He seems pretty blameless to me?