I never see Jane Austen discussed here, what does /lit/ think of her?
I've never read anything by her, here should I start?
Also, would you fuck her? Looks like a solid 8/10 if you ask me
Brilliant prose stylist.
I feel like I'm watching SOL anime reading her work, but I mean that in a good way, it's cute and comfy. And I don't find Austin's interjections as a narrator as annoying as I thought it would be.
Some chick thought I was gay because I've read most of her stuff
>>7957906
Iirc that picture is actually a "beautified" version of an original. It appears that she wasn't very attractive, and she was never married. That said, I find her novels clever and very well-written, but if you aren't interested in Georgian England, marriage structures, and romance (lowercase and capital r), then you might not find them very enjoyable. I say that not to discourage you, that's just my opinion of her books.
I would suggest starting with either Pride and Prejudice or Northanger Abbey. Pride and Prejudice is her most famous, and it's pretty enjoyable, her writing just has this sort of airy, easeful quality that can be very soothing. It can also be boring as hell, though, depending on your taste. Northanger Abbey is much more witty and humorous (though all her books are humorous to a degree). However, most of the humor will be lost if you aren't at least a little familiar with the conventions of the Gothic novel (if this interests you, I would recommend The Mysteries of Udolpho or The Romance of the Forest, both by Ann Radcliffe, or The Monk by Matthew Lewis (which is very sensational and erotically charged, very notorious at its time)).
I've never read her, but I did like Wuthering Heights. How does her works compare?
>>7957971
Night and day.
>>7957971
In terms of time period, they're both Victorian I believe (or maybe late Romantic) but Wuthering Heights is MUCH more Romantic in theme and writing. They are quite different, as the above poster rightly indicates.
Great sentences, and she's smart and funny.
The things that get said about her are ridiculous. She's not half the writer our critics say she is. But in her way she was a fine writer, and her books are excellent.
>>7958031
>In terms of time period, they're both Victorian I believe
>Victorian
>Jane Austen
she died 20 years before the reign of Queen Victoria
>>7958031
> late Romantic
Pride and Prejudice predates the Lyrical Ballads by two years.
good
>>7959996
thanks for digging up this thread just to say that, really appreciate it
Surprisingly good. Only reason I don't recommend is that no guys read her, and any girl you tell won't be impressed and will think you're a fag
I'm reassured to see this much sense being talked about Jane Austen on /lit/. Good show guys.
Personally Emma is my favourite.
If this helps anybody who is wondering whether all the people saying she's good are white knight Redditors and all the people saying she's bad are just he-man woman haters, I am also a he-man woman hater, and I think Jane Austen is great.
She's boring as fuck to read and I hate her and I don't give a shit about the thing she's great at, but she is actually great.
One of the finest prose stylists to write in this language. Also one of the funniest.
>>7960055
This. Emma is Austen's best work.
Ms. Austen's narrative style simple oozes a festering necessity in the most convenient sense. At every opportunity she has to stick a harpoon in to the flaws of mannerism, she falls back on her dead-horse glib irony.
>>7957971
Read middlemarch instead. It'll ruin Jane Austen for you.
>>7957906
Dry as fuck.
Eveery time I read Jane Austen I slowly feel like am becoming an old housewife with a dried up cunt.
>>7960141
>At every opportunity she has to stick a harpoon in to the flaws of mannerism, she falls back on her dead-horse glib irony.
...what?
>>7957906
If you were only to read one, I recommend Sense and Sensibility, I think that encompasses most of what she does with her work.
If you want more, Northanger Abbey is a fun one, it's her first novel and is probably her most meta work.
>>7960163
Her gambit was satirizing the heavily mannered game of matchmaking, but she failed to make me laugh at the faux-pas, the pas-faux, and the gaffes of this game/social dance of courtship. Her purpose, as can be deduced from the outcome, the setting, and the conflict, of effectively flame-broiling the institution, remained unrealized by the comfiness level of the story. None of the unexpected edges of a Henry James. . .
>>7960192
Sense and Sensibility is pretty universally considered her weakest novel. What do you mean by saying that it "encompasses what she does with her work"? The trajectory from S&S to her later works (Emma, Persuasion) sees her undergo some pretty substantial changes. In terms of literary style, S&S belongs to an era that Austen would quickly leave behind, of simplistic characters defined by a single character trait, as opposed to the more complex characters that you find in her later novels. Austen's use of the style indirect libre in Emma makes it a direct precursor of Flaubert etc. I love S&S and it's the best starting-point to reading Austen. But if you're going to read only one work of Austen, S&S would probably be the bottom of my list...
>>7960150
Can't agree with that, Middlemarch is one of my favourite novels and I still love Jane Austen
>>7957942
That is beautified?
>>7960642
Which is your favorite of her works?
This is 4chan, Jane Austen is a woman, you figure it out
>>7957906
Because its fucking shit thats why
For nineteenth century women who needed reminding theres a bloke for them. literally like those cheap supermarket books where they run off with the tennis coach but the 200 years old version making them "classic"
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.
- quoted in Remembered Yesterdays, Robert Underwood Johnson
/lit/ doesn't get Austen for the most part because it's full of insecure men who masturbate to fantasies of Melville throatfucking Hemingway.
>>7961200
and theres something wrong with that? stop being gay.
shes no emily bronte
>>7961200
nah she's just not a great writer
>>7961200
>it's full of insecure men
Enjoy your stay!
>>7961228
Why not?
>>7961192
Literally who?
>>7961185
>reading for story like a dirty pleb
Austen is probably the best English novelist.
>at one point in time you could have sucked Jane Austen's pert tits
>now she's a skeleton
Is this what it feels like to be "a recherche du temps perdu" ?
>>7961575
I don't know what you mean, I met her L’année dernière à Marienbad.
>>7960192
Northanger was my favorite.
I read a handful of early gothics afterwards when I found out the Northanger horrids were real.
>>7960202
Wrong again my man
