/lit/ - Literature

she's basically pretty much always being sarcastic

>>4655042
and i don't find her sarcasm funny in the least.

>omg jane austen satirizes the upper class
>such edge, so funny

big fucking yawn.

>>4655038
literally she's like top 5 greatest english novelists

dat prose, dem sublimely constructed plots, dat free and indirect discourse

mah dick

>>4655054
i don't think that anyone's going to change your mind on this
obviously just not for you, let it go and move on

>>4655038
>Can any of you defend her work?
From what? She's an author of what mostly amounted to entertainment literature (nothing wrong with that) but with some social commentary thrown in and from a woman's perspective, not common for that time.

>>4655083
And you know, there's the whole "first author to use free indirect speech" thing. That thing which basically constitutes the foundation for the novel ever since she did it. It's literally the most important innovation the novel has ever seen, and she was one of the central figures in inventing it.

>>4655093
Where are you getting this from? Goethe used FIS in 1809 before Austen had published a single book, and he was far from the first to use it.

>>4655038

Personally, I can't fucking stand Jane Austen. Her shit is the fucking worst. I pretty much blame her for the terrible genre that is Romantic Comedy and modern Romance in general.

Objectively, she was an immensely gifted writer with a unique talent for strong characterization, satire, and plot development.

In context of her time, she really was remarkable.

>>4655108
it's debatable if it was goethe or austen, but austen probably used it before 1809, she just hadn't published yet

either way austen independently invented it, there's no way she read goethe before writing in that style

>>4655078
>dat prose

“I can listen no longer in silence. I must speak to you by such means as are within my reach. You pierce my soul. I am half agony, half hope. Tell me not that I am too late, that such precious feelings are gone for ever. I offer myself to you again with a heart even more your own than when you almost broke it, eight years and a half ago. Dare not say that man forgets sooner than woman, that his love has an earlier death. I have loved none but you. Unjust I may have been, weak and resentful I have been, but never inconstant. You alone have brought me to Bath. For you alone, I think and plan. Have you not seen this? Can you fail to have understood my wishes? I had not waited even these ten days, could I have read your feelings, as I think you must have penetrated mine. I can hardly write. I am every instant hearing something which overpowers me. You sink your voice, but I can distinguish the tones of that voice when they would be lost on others. Too good, too excellent creature! You do us justice, indeed. You do believe that there is true attachment and constancy among men. Believe it to be most fervent, most undeviating, in F. W.

I must go, uncertain of my fate; but I shall return hither, or follow your party, as soon as possible. A word, a look, will be enough to decide whether I enter your father's house this evening or never.”

>>4655093
>free indirect speech
>the most important innovation to the novel

>>4655267
>but austen probably used it before 1809, she just hadn't published yet
Is that it? Not only is that unprovable, but there's not really any reason to think that Goethe never used it before then either but left it unpublished.

>>4655108
I'm not commenting on who used FID first, but want to point out that Austen had written three novels by 1800, though they weren't published until later.

>>4655303
funny how quickly the defense of austen goes from her ability to her innovation. she can't be defended on grounds of her art alone, she has to have contributed to history. but fine. what is the source of austen "inventing" fis?

"Indeed, when it first appears as a prominent and continuous feature in a novel, in Goethe and Jane Austen, it is already used with the greatest skill and propriety."

>>4655324
Are you joking? Revisionism is HUGE with the left right now. Didn't you know Egyptians, Beethoven and Bill Clinton were all black?

>>4655328
this isnt a left vs. right thing imo. just typical lazy research and convenient delusion.

>>4655324

Roy Pascal, "The Dual Voice", Manchester University Press, 1977, page 34

There's your source.

Also the way you say "the defense of austen", kinda implies that she is being accused of doing something wrong? You are absolutely free to dislike her writing, but dont act as if she is universally hated and we are her only defenders (meaning we carry the burden of proof to show that she isnt terrible).

>I don't like this book, YOU MUST DEFEND THIS HORRIBLE AUTHOR

>>4655376

hey dummy. that quote i had in my post was *from* that roy pascal book. the laziness of this site's research when it has so many resources at its fingertips is astounding.

>Also the way you say "the defense of austen", kinda implies that she is being accused of doing something wrong?

its the premise of the thread.

>>4655038

Her books are intelligent, witty, right-headed and entertaining.

Thankfully though, nobody really needs to defend her because she's generally accepted as one of the greatest English novelists. More to the point, can you muster an actual attack on her?

>>4655384
>Her books are intelligent, witty, right-headed and entertaining.

the same descriptions are used for things like south park. try being an intellectual.

>>4655383

yes and I am saying the premise of your thread is shit. What are we defending? What ill deed is it that we have to justify? Come up with an actual attack, and we can defend her.

Her books being popular while you dislike them?
This entire thread is just
>stop liking things I dont like

>>4655393

Maybe that's why South Park is also well liked and critically acclaimed?

>>4655396
>your thread

nope.

>>4655384

/thread

>>4655400
well liked by plebs, critically acclaimed is misleading because all critics are not created equally.

>>4655384
>argumentum ad populum

patriarchy is pretty popular too, but you don't seem so lax about that one.

>>4655444
Is it "wrongly accused others of fallacies" day on /lit/ ??

>>4655433

>maybe if I keep calling them plebs, I'll win the argument

You are a pleb. Have a counterargument for that?

>>4655460
>Is it "wrongly accused others of fallacies" day on /lit/ ??

calm down casey anthony, you haven't been wrongly accused.

>>4655376
I like how you cribbed a source from wikipedia without bothering to read the actual document and thus discovering that Pascal states the exact opposite of what you're saying.

Of course Austen was influential, but the argument that she invented FIS is just blatantly incorrect.

I hate persuasion with a passion.

In my university career, persuasion was only ever on a syllabus once (they have a jane austen course separate from everything else thank God!).

Even when it was on the syllabus, I refused to read it, instead opting for the wikipedia summary.

Worst fuckin shit ever.

Prose reads like a bumpy diarrhea dirt road.

Persuasion is a very excellent novel so I don't know what you mean, OP. What's your favorite, by the way?

>>4655520
>Prose
retard

>>4655520
>I refused to read it
>Prose reads like a bumpy diarrhea dirt road

As long as you realize how stupid you look, I'm fine with your opinion.

>>4655520

>Wikipedia summary
>dat prose

19th century chick-lit, nothing more. Better quality than toady's chick-lit, for the sole reason that 200 years ago plebs didn't read and the literate expected more, but still, chick-lit. Her characters are two-dimensional (although in fairness, 19th century women were pretty two-dimensional) her plots are - well she used the same plot every time, 'girl needs husband, girl finds suitable man, slight difficulties consummating the arrangement, they get married'. Apart from a few witticisms (which are a bit dated now to say the least) she's one of the dullest authors I've ever read. If you're taking an early 19th century history course, read her, she perfectly captures the era and that's why she was popular back then, but if you're interested in reading a good book then stay the hell away.

>>4655650

>19th century history course

I only now realise that the entire 19th century took place in the English countryside, and the main events of the 19th century revolve around young women marrying.

>>4655598
Her prose is notoriously awful.

>>4655670
>If you're taking an early 19th century history course, you only need to read her, and nothing else

...oh wait, I didn't say that. She captures the social history and mores of the time well; that's all.

>>4655690
She captures characters living in their milieu well. That's what a novelist does.
>tfw Austen-bashers ITT probably have Orwell or someone simiarly pleb as their favorite writer

>>4655699
>That's what a novelist does.

and a good novelist actually manages to make this interesting. although as I said she did have a slight handicap in that 19th century women were fucking boring in reality as well as in her fiction.

>>4655716
Witty conversation and complex, conflicted emotions are interesting. What's the matter with it? Needs some more murders to be interesting?

>>4655589
>>4655598
>>4655649

Let us examine austen's prose in question (this is going to hurt my soul):

Vanity was the beginning and the end of Sir Walter Elliot's character; vanity of person and of situation. He had been remarkably handsome in his youth; and, at fifty-four, was still a very fine man. Few women could think more of their personal appearance than he did; nor could the valet of any new made lord be more delighted with the place he held in society. He considered the blessing of beauty as inferior only to the blessing of a baronetcy; and the Sir Walter Elliot, who united these gifts, was the constant object of his warmest respect and devotion.

Jesus Christ! That’s awful! I’m just going to highlight and green text all the shit that’s wrong with the prose (and explain in brackets)

1.> vanity of person and of situation.
(“vanity of person and situation” reads much better. The extra “of” also adds no rhetorical flair what so ever—and if rhetorical flair were wanted out of the extra “of” it would ready “vanity of person, and of character,” the added comma would add pause making a graceful inclusion of a second “of”. On its own, the extra of is tantamount to a big stone in the middle of a road, stepping over it is a nuisance.

Moving on...

2.> He had been remarkably handsome in his youth; and, at fifty-four, was still a very fine man.
(Jesus Christ woman command your commas better. “He had been remarkably handsome in his youth, and at fifty-four was still a very fine man,” reads much better for god’s sake.

3.> Few women could think more of their personal appearance than he did; nor could the valet of any new made lord be more delighted with the place he held in society.
(dear god what a mess. Let me show you how it’s done Austen: “He thought more about his personal appearance than most women did of theirs; and he was more delighted in his social position than a valet of a newly made lord”

You have been schooled, class dismissed.

>>4655679
you are notoriously a faggot

After speaking with my classmates, I really do find that most of our problems with Austen are related to the big gap between us and her. Her novels are hundreds of years old, and as such require some context to get the most out of them. As college students, we were obliged to try to bridge that gap and educate ourselves so that we could better understand what *was* a damn good story.

If you're not interested in the history of western literature and it's evolution, don't feel like spending hours reading articles and books about the time period, and (of course) don't enjoy reading the first few pages (always got to try it out--some people like reading Austen w/o context), then you should skip Austen. Fuck her. Normal people ("plebs") aren't obliged to put in an ass-ton of work to enjoy an old, god damned boring work. There's lots of other shit to read that's understandable and relevant. But this is coming from somebody who likes reading and writing "pleb" tier work. I'm writing now, not 200 years ago.

If you're interested in literary theory and criticism, you should probably read Emma.

>>4655744
fix'd version

Let us examine austen's prose in question (this is going to hurt my soul):

>Vanity was the beginning and the end of Sir Walter Elliot's character; vanity of person and of situation. He had been remarkably handsome in his youth; and, at fifty-four, was still a very fine man. Few women could think more of their personal appearance than he did; nor could the valet of any new made lord be more delighted with the place he held in society. He considered the blessing of beauty as inferior only to the blessing of a baronetcy; and the Sir Walter Elliot, who united these gifts, was the constant object of his warmest respect and devotion.

Jesus Christ! That’s awful! I’m just going to highlight and green text all the shit that’s wrong with the prose (and explain in brackets)

1. >vanity of person and of situation.
(“vanity of person and situation” reads much better. The extra “of” also adds no rhetorical flair what so ever—and if rhetorical flair were wanted out of the extra “of” it would ready “vanity of person, and of character,” the added comma would add pause making a graceful inclusion of a second “of”. On its own, the extra of is tantamount to a big stone in the middle of a road, stepping over it is a nuisance.

Moving on...

2. >He had been remarkably handsome in his youth; and, at fifty-four, was still a very fine man.
(Jesus Christ woman command your commas better. “He had been remarkably handsome in his youth, and at fifty-four was still a very fine man,” reads much better for god’s sake.

3. >Few women could think more of their personal appearance than he did; nor could the valet of any new made lord be more delighted with the place he held in society.
(dear god what a mess. Let me show you how it’s done Austen: “He thought more about his personal appearance than most women did of theirs; and he was more delighted in his social position than a valet of a newly made lord”

You have been schooled, class dismissed.

>>4655728
>Needs some more murders to be interesting?

now that you mention it, her books would be immeasurably better if most of the characters dropped dead at some point.

>>4655744
Literally all of those are just the way English was written 200 years ago, except your omission of the commas around "fifty-four" which is wrong. Your version of 3 is also painfully boring and reads like a freshman essay

Read more

>>4655744
>>4655589
>>4655598
>>4655649


rekt.

>>4655781
>blaming bad prose on a time period
that's not how it works

>Your version of 3 is also painfully boring and reads like a freshman essay
You fanny-flustered that I put you in your place?

>>4655801
>Changes in the language over time constitute "bad prose"
I am being trolled, right?

>>4655809
>arguing that "bad prose" is anything other than "bad prose", period.

>>4655801
>>4655785
>>4655763
>>4655744
Your reading-comprehension skills are bad enough, but it's not half as bad as your attempt to change gears into trolling.

>>4655828
You gonna refute my points I made or...?

>mfw when I'll never be a filthy rich landowner with a sweet as fuck country estate who gets to marry a cuty like Eliza Bennet

>>4655837
Using may-may images next to all of your posts does not enhance your trolling technique, anon. It's amateur as fuck

>>4655846
Still waiting for you to refute my points...

>>4655861
>>4655781

Not him, but there's no points to refute. >>4655837 already pointed out that you criticized Austen's style of writing is simply how writers wrote back then. If complicated sentences make your teenaged head spin, then stay away from all the 18 and 19th century classics.

It all comes down to you being shitty reader, and no one can refute that.

>>4655837
>>4655861

Not him, but there's no points to refute. >>4655781 already pointed out that you criticized Austen's style of writing is simply how writers wrote back then. If complicated sentences make your teenaged head spin, then stay away from all the 18 and 19th century classics.

It all comes down to you being shitty reader, and no one can refute that.

>>4655837
>>4655861

Not him, but there's no points to refute. >>4655781 already pointed out that you criticized Austen's style of writing—which is simply how writers wrote back then. If complicated sentences make your teenaged head spin, then stay away from all the 18 and 19th century classics.

It all comes down to you being shitty reader, and no one can refute that.

>>4655093
Everything about this post is incorrect

>>4655905
>complicated sentences
Complicated sentences does not merit bad prose to be good.

Nabokov's sentences in Lolita are complicated, often containing more than two or three languages in a single sentence, yet the prose is paramount and reads like butter.

>>4655905
>It all comes down to you being shitty reader, and no one can refute that.
Ad hominen, nice refutation of the central point.

There, I've whooped you again. Come back for more, anytime.

>>4655846
>Le xD maymay everything is trolling me posting this four dozen times per day totally isn't shitposting

>>4655934
>Nabokov's sentences in Lolita are complicated, often containing more than two or three languages in a single sentence, yet the prose is paramount and reads like butter.
To me, Jane Austen reads like jelly. What is that supposed to mean? Come up with some actual arguments if you want anyone to take you seriously, kid.

>>4655934
>Ad hominen, nice refutation of the central point.
You've provided all the proof with your posts that you're a shitty reader; unfortunately, you can't do the same for Austen's writing.

>>4655910
>>4655934
rekt again.

>>4655078
I was about to upvote this. Then I realized this wasn't reddit.

Do what I do, which is to acknowledge that the books are meritorious and are exceptionally well-loved but refuse to touch them with a fucking bargepole.

>>4655960
>Come up with some actual arguments if you want anyone to take you seriously, kid.
I did here:>>4655744
I've astutely shown (by quoting from the actual text) that she has terrible control of commas, verbose to the point of breaking the flow of the reader (such as with the inclusion of an extra unecessary "of"), and that her syntax (and arrangement of concepts and ideas, and logical flow) is awful.

I've even taken the step to improving her writing, and vastly improving it.

You just sit back and hurl insults at me, claim that her prose is "too complex for me to understand" and "period sensitive", yet I've proven quite the contrary, I have a perfect understanding of her text and I've demonstrated it by literally improving her prose by making it flow better, correcting comma usage, and improving the syntax.

I have a feeling that you're quite below my league when debating, use of logic, and intelligence is concerned--as you've so aptly demonstrated for me.

Till next.

P.S, you keep referring to me as "kid". Gentle reminder, wisdom is not determined by age.

>>4655987
The "unnecessary" of actually is necessary because "vanity and situation" does not make sense, and until recently it was accepted to make the single "of" join "person" and "situation" to "vanity." All you're showing here is that you have no experience with old literature

>>4655998
*not accepted

>>4655987
And your arguments were very easily put down by more than one person.

Her use of commas are no problem for those who are familiar with classic writing styles. Your improvements were mediocre and made the text bland and read like a Harry Potter book. I call you a kid because you've proved that you're childish in your attempts at trolling, debating, and reading. And I insult you because this is 4chan. Welcome, newfag.

>>4656011
Harry Potter would never use a phrase as charmless as "social position"

>>4655998
>>4656011
>anons have their points refuted
>no! no! no! It's just how they wrote during the time.
Wrong.

Smollett, Lewis, Mary Shelley, Fielding, and many many more wrote better prose than Austen.

Her terrible bumpy menstral blood prose can't be blamed on age.

Try again or admit defeat in our little debate.

>>4656090
Who is arguing that no one writes better than Austen? Set up your strawman elsewhere, kid.

>Her terrible bumpy menstral blood prose can't be blamed on age.
>muh edge

>>4656118
>blames bad prose on "the age it was written"
>refutes point by naming other author's "from her age" who wrote good prose, thus utterly dispelling your argument that Austen's prose is bad because of how people from her age wrote
>cry strawman

haha, you're making this too easy.

Come back when you actually have an argument against my flawless points.

>>4656134
Confirmed for an attempt at troll coverup. Game over, newfag. Learn to read, learn to troll. You lost on both fronts.

>>4655038
>I had to read Persuasion for three classes as an undergrad.
>I don't fucking get it.

The simplest explanation is that the problem is with you, not Austen.

>>4656159
Nice, I won an internet debates against a vastly inferior opponent.

*sigh*

>>4656180

>>4655744
>misusing a semi-colon in 3
>mine is much better!!