Why do femcels love Jane Austen so much? She isn't very good imo

About halfway through Pride & Prejudice and I'm liking it. I hoenstly like all the characters besides lizzy desu

exactly

Jane Austen wasn't ruling class, she was from a middle class family

Did you like her before your balls were cut off?

Maybe economically, but her father was a pastor or whatever way you call the clergy and her brother (or cousin) administrated the property of a peer
So they were influent in society and knew people more influent than them

I hate women too, but Woolf and the Brontes are better examples of female talent

>Charlotte Brontë, however, in a letter to Lewes, wrote that Pride and Prejudice was a disappointment, "a carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers; but ... no open country, no fresh air, no blue hill, no bonny beck".

>Woolf and the Brontes
Completely different writers with almost nothing in common with Austen. Bizarre comparison.

She's one the greatest English writers in history.

They have their vaginas in common, which was my only point. Austen is presented as an exemplar of female literary talent when in reality there are much better English women writers who deserve her status

>mfw i’d take Murdoch and Spark over Austen and Woolf
Eh...

No she isn't, as an Englishman I find the implication that Miss Austen is one of our greatest writers to be highly insulting

same, too bad Yea Forums doesn't actually read books and just hypes up whatever Harold Bloom likes

>As an Englishman
Wanna medal ya fucking doylem?

Given the average IQ of the English, you should be proud to have a writer half as good as Austen.

Isn't it 100

Only because of the asians

>t. small yellow dick man

>Whenever I take up "Pride and Prejudice" or "Sense and Sensibility," I feel like a barkeeper entering the Kingdom of Heaven. I mean, I feel as he would probably feel, would almost certainly feel. I am quite sure I know what his sensations would be -- and his private comments. He would be certain to curl his lip, as those ultra-good Presbyterians went filing self-complacently along. ...

>She makes me detest all her people, without reserve. Is that her intention? It is not believable. Then is it her purpose to make the reader detest her people up to the middle of the book and like them in the rest of the chapters? That could be. That would be high art. It would be worth while, too. Some day I will examine the other end of her books and see.

>Jane Austen? Why I go so far as to say that any library is a good library that does not contain a volume by Jane Austen. Even if it contains no other book.

> To me his prose is unreadable -- like Jane Austin's [sic]. No there is a difference. I could read his prose on salary, but not Jane's. Jane is entirely impossible. It seems a great pity that they allowed her to die a natural death.

>I haven't any right to criticise books, and I don't do it except when I hate them. I often want to criticise Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can't conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Everytime I read 'Pride and Prejudice' I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone.

As usual with those topics on which Mark Twain expounded, he had the best take.

Based Twain

Why exactly did Mark Twain dislike her work so much? What exactly did he mean? Twain was awfully good at telling a tale as to how much he hated the work, but not exactly why. Thanks for the quotes. He had a way with words.

Still not seeing your point. How are the Bronte sisters or Woolf 'better'? They write in such utterly different styles, eras, genres, it's seems meaningless to compare them. Like comparing Kafka with Henry Fielding on the basis they both had dicks

In the same way that Shakespeare is "better" than Stephen King, despite having almost no basis for comparison aside from working in the same medium. If you need two artists to be identical in order to draw comparisons between them, then you might be autistic

I can't speak for him, but Pride & Prejudice was one of the driest books I've ever attempted to read, to the extent I stopped halfway through because I didn't care a whit about any of the characters. I also found the prose tortuous and displeasing.

I didn't know Mark Twain was such an edgy twat

Toasted roast detected.

Read her books, she's a boring cunt who has nothing to say beyond marriage gossip

Escapist. A break from Harry Potter. Makes them feel well-read. Pip pip Monty Python for chicks smug humor.

none of the women in her books are whores so they want to relate

>femcels
How are you retards still talking like this? Dude bussy lol

Twain wrote books that were adventure stories, Austen wrote books about marriage. He clearly just didn't like the subject matter and was too shallow to look past said subject matter.

Woolf's writings in A Room of One's Own about how female authors are judged overly harshly for their subject matter really puts Twain's reaction into perspective.

Her books can be a slog at time, but I think it's mainly because being a woman during that time meant she observed a shitload of weird, regency-era social nuances that she offloads in her dialogue and description.

One of the better ways I've found to read her is to not necessarily focus just on what's being said, but how long or short someone is saying something, and at what point or where they're saying it. She has a lot of great hidden reveals in character, oftentimes not by expressly stating it, but by pitting two characters against each other continually. In the beginning, oftentimes the conversations will be pithy and formal. As the characters grow closer, they still remain pithy, but they talk more and more, hinting at a burgeoning relationship or affinity between the two.

That's not to say she isn't a drag sometimes--but I'd recommend each user try her at least once.

If I never knew Jane Austen was a woman I would figure it out just from reading her books because there's such an obvious female perspective behind the writing. Her books consist almost totally of conversations taking place in various sitting rooms or while walking down a path in some park. She might throw in a conversation taking place in a carriage every once in a while to mix things up. There's no gambling and horse racing, or hunting parties like you see in Dostoevsky or Tolstoy and that makes it boring. If you're into cinema at all it''s the equivalent of the basic shot/reverse shot conversations that all the worst soap operas rely on to save money.

I've never seen a female talk about her in a meaningful way so I assume they pretend to like her just because she's a woman.