4.25 on Goodreads

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-04-05 at 1.22.28 AM.png (1370x440, 190K)

ya boi goethe

Good call.

I suppose Austen could be credited as first Anglo to do it, second/third in the world?

Not a landmark, but still reasonably newwave for being around 50 years off and in another language.

Because sometimes books need a twist, or something to make them more than a "average" book, in my opinion. Not all of the time, of course, but in this sort-of case, I think it's needed. I feel like a book like Oblomov, for example, does the love story thing much better than P&P, although much younger.

This was one of the worst books I have ever read and I will never stop being angry about it.

>reading for plot

muricans just cant into satire

How is cousin marriage creepy?

Because Austen is a master portraitist of character, a profound and detailed analyst of social psychology who manages to presente her insights within a light-hearted and humorous story that moves at a quick pace.

Her English is also delighftul, the way her characters's personalities come alive in the way they speak, it all shows an incredibly alert observer of the human condition.

Does anyone else feel that Austen would have been better as a short story writer?

Having her never ending sarcasm and cynicism span 200+ pages without a break gets fatiguing, but it's really good when read in small portions.

Lady Susan is the best thing she ever wrote and it's a novella so I'm inclined to agree with you.

>can see what is going to happen 1/4 of the way into the book?
What impact does that have on quality? Crime and Punishment's plot is completely obvious from the very title, and it's still a masterpiece. Go read some more whodunnits, fuckwit.

> he reads books for the plot
HAHAHAHAHA

Attached: kaguya_laugh.webm (700x480, 100K)

I like the tsundere romance.

Attached: confession.png (507x793, 420K)

>reading novels
That's your problem, grow up kid

Attached: hapsburg.jpg (700x372, 32K)

So you are saying that 40+ women not using contraception (unless they hit menopause) area creepy? They have significantly higher chance of birth defects, even higher than real incest (siblings or parentage child).

laurence sterne uses it and his books are actually high quality

only someone who doesnt read would think Jane Austen invented anything, literary scholar or not

>masterpiece
Yeah, ok homeboy. Again, refer to my Oblomov comment. If it were a short story, then you may have a point, but it goes on for 230 pages...

Attached: d4d553a69df79cd17ac7203106fbb5ac.png (1182x342, 74K)

Austen's humor is what we'd call stereotypically British. Have the British always had this sort of sense of humour? Until I read Austen I wasn't aware it went back that far. Does anyone know where it came from or why?

>16 year old girl and a 32 year old man
>creepy

Brit humour comes from living beneath perma pic-related with a load of other mongs who you hate, who hate each other, and who also hate you. It's impossible to take life seriously in such circumstances.

Attached: gray_sky3.jpg (700x469, 26K)

Based and otomepilled.

women

kek

>plot
i'm sick of this meme

Attached: 1541063028005.jpg (522x464, 34K)

British humour gets madder the further north you go. Scottish people have the most absurd and dark humour.

>uses goodreads as an indicator of quality
>uses plot as an indicator of quality

you cannot make this up

She invented literary realism years before Stendhal
It triggers incels to learn this. They think, because she had a vagoo, she can't be a significant writer, but she did and she is, and all your ideology is nonsense

The things I'd do to prime Keira Knightley, lads

Attached: 5252.jpg (800x450, 49K)

We don't find incest creepy directly because of the bad genetic outcomes; humans that exhibit negative assortative mating (in this case disgust towards relations with family members) will generally produce healthier offspring than those who exhibit incestuous tendencies. The poor genetic outcomes and high infertility rates among the children of incestuous couples contributed to the natural selection for more exogamous mating tendencies. This explanation does not apply to women over 40 because it is only recently in the history of humans that one could expect to live to that age, so not enough time has passed for sexual selection to result in a population with different attitudes on creepiness. Maybe in a few thousand years, if humanity survives that long, men will find older women creepy.

>le evolutionary psychology meme

Attached: MN0124245.gif (465x620, 30K)

>not all X

>It is Only recently in the history of humanity that you could expect a human being to outlive 40

Attached: ThankYou.png (554x410, 176K)

>Stendhal
>Realism
jfc lel

Anyway, Austen is trash. Wish we could talk about Scarron etc. instead. At least we could have some fun.

It's funny and has memorable characters. Darcy is 100% based.

>It also does not feature certain creepy aspects of the time period like cousin marriage or marriage between a 16 year old girl and a 32 year old man
Literally both of those things are major plot points. Collins proposes to Elizabeth, who is his cousin, and Darcy's aunt goes on and on about how her daughter was always intended to marry Darcy; and as for 16-year-olds getting married, did you forget about Lydia and Wickham?

its the other way around you pleb. if the only thing going for a book is its twist then its shit yo average.

Not seeing the genius of Austen is the mark of the terminally underread. Spend some more time with good literature and come back to realize what a fool you've made of yourself just to spite the more naive of her reader base.

Generally I agree. But on rare occasion you do end up with surprisingly good reviews on goodreads.

Attached: goodreads walden.png (490x792, 167K)

this
why are people so morally retarded?

It's a telltale sign that someone doesn't really understand how narrative voice works, I'd say 9/10 criticisms of Austen stem from this