Pride and Prejudice

January 28th was the 200th anniversary of the publication of Pride and Prejudice.  I'll confess that I only recently read it.  Indeed, by odd coincidence, my reading of it bracketed the anniversary, which I wasn't aware of until just after I finished it.  I probably started reading it on January 24th or so and finished it on January 30th.

I also have to admit that I felt a bit odd about reading it, and do about admitting I read it, as it can have a bit of a reputation in some quarters as a "woman's book."  Well, whatever those folks may think, it's a great book and I can see why it is still so widely read.

A friend of mine who is a published author once told me that he intentionally, from time to time, goes outside of the genera he writes and reads other things, including popular novels, and even some surprising novels, just to get a sense of prose and topic. That was part of the reason I read it, but also I keep catching snippets of the last film very of the book on television, which appears to be a well done production, and I finally grew very curious. It was well worth the read.  The prose is amazing, and it gives good evidence that later authors that are still taught in school, such as the rather bland Hemingway, will inevitably pass out of the common library entirely while Austen will remain.  Indeed, in reading authors of that general era, such as Austen, or the translated Tolstoy, a person can't help be left with the realization of what a poverty of language the popularity of Hemingway and his ilk inflicted on the English language. We're all the worse off for it, and when the last copy of Old Man and The Sea goes into the library book sale discount bin, we'll all be the better off for it.

Not only is Austen's prose fantastic, however, but the keen observations on human nature and intricate portrayal of the characters is really only rivaled by Tolstoy's in War and Peace, another fantastic novel.  Both have a stunning insight into the human character and show, no matter what we may now generally believe, the same thoughts and concerns that motivate people now always have and we're really only modern to the extent that we fool ourselves into believing that we are.

And while mentioning Tolstoy here, I guess I'll also note that books like these, that long endure, but which many have not read, should be.  My impression of Austen, before reading her, was largely inaccurate.  Likewise, I've heard many people make light of the length of Tolstoy's War and Peace, but that book is the greatest novel every written, and I have to conclude that most who make fun of its bulk just haven't read it.  The more or less equally bulky Twilight series doesn't seem to get that treatment, and I'd wager that its think fare compared to Tolstoy's great book.

Finally, I'm amazed by the extent to which Austen's era comes through in the book, and the extent to which she addressed topics I didn't expect.  The fleeting nature of unions formed in passion come up in more than one location, quite an observation from a woman who remained unmarried her entire life.  Not only love, but lust, is addressed.  And she was surprisingly daring on some topics, including poking fun at the views of English aristocracy at a time when it was still dominant in the country in which she wrote, and even taking some shots at Church of England by basically lampooning the clerical character in the novel.

Quite a read.  I should have read it a long time ago.