Wilde's wonderful, as are Bierce and Twain, but there is something serenely attractive about Austen which I don't see even in the Brontes.

(June 20, 2011 at 6:21 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Wilde's wonderful, as are Bierce and Twain, but there is something serenely attractive about Austen which I don't see even in the Brontes.

And I think even that had its match with Wodehouse. At least he can tell stories about avoiding unwanted marriages without coming off as dull.

Austen doesn't come off as dull. Really, it is great stuff and does a man good to read. Plenty of men expect women to understand sports: I think men can better themselves by understanding Austen.

(June 20, 2011 at 6:34 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Austen doesn't come off as dull. Really, it is great stuff and does a man good to read. Plenty of men expect women to understand sports: I think men can better themselves by understanding Austen.

Yeah, I'm just going by what I've read of her (Pride and Prejudice.) My mother's a big fan [to the extent that I can no longer perform basic bodily functions without staring a large Jane Austen quotation in the face] and has dragged me to several Jane Austen-related events in the hopes that forcing me to attend the four-hundredth adaptation of Pride and Prejudice would make me appreciate it more. If only there were as many adaptations of Requiem For a Dream that I could drag her to.

Cheers, Rev. That one is probably my favorite, but Emma's a fun read.

(June 20, 2011 at 6:04 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Austen is far from crappy literature.

---

In an era in which we expect worlds to blow up, werewolves to fight vampires for dominion over the earth, and in which the news is overrun with Jihadis and natural disasters, a quiet stroll with Miss Austen can be a balm for the nerves. I read Pride & Prejudice to learn a little more about a girl I liked, and went on to Sense & Sensibility and Emma.

---

There may not be any massive action, but the dialog is actually quite good-snappy at times, and the settings are lovingly detailed.

Wilde's wonderful, as are Bierce and Twain, but there is something serenely attractive about Austen which I don't see even in the Brontes.

Austen doesn't come off as dull. Really, it is great stuff and does a man good to read. Plenty of men expect women to understand sports: I think men can better themselves by understanding Austen.

I agree with you a lot. I find the delicate humor in her books the best. Though the social scene has become quite different, the behaviour is still there and it's no wonder that Austen's stories have been rewritten (and filmed) over and over again.

Even though I liked "Jane Eyre" somewhat, I must confess that I have yet to manage through "Wuthering Heights". Those sisters know how to come up with some depressing characters..

Though men might get something out of Austen's works, I don't know if I'd reccomend them to any of my male friends. Romance isn't the genre for everyone

I'm 14 and experiencing Friedrich Nietzsche for the first time with "Thus Spake Zarathustra". It is absolutely riveting.

(June 20, 2011 at 5:43 pm)Kayenneh Wrote: Ah, as I mentioned in another thread, crappy litterature and movies are my weak point. And so what if you don't approve/like her books, I enjoy it, and it's my kindle, now isn't it?

You're right, you shouldn't care whether I approve or not. I just think if you're reading Jane Austen you're somewhat masochistic.

If I'm going to read a classic, I will read 'Heart of Darkness,' 'Catcher in the Rye,' or something by Shakespeare like 'Othello.'

Well.. Who said I disclaimed being a masochist?

And the sadists need the masochists, so that can't be all bad.

---

(June 21, 2011 at 3:52 am)TheYoungAtheist Wrote: I'm 14 and experiencing Friedrich Nietzsche for the first time with "Thus Spake Zarathustra". It is absolutely riveting.

Oof. Careful with Nietzsche there. Best to have a grounding in Hegel and Schopenhauer before you go spelunking in that cave.