Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Strictly only for girls?
but cue huge slagging off of a really great writer thread
but this year ive got to read at least pride and prejudice and persuasion for my english course.
I dunno. It all strikes me as a bit irrelevant and.... gay.
since she was dealing with the concerns of a class that no longer exists today.
however her stories are pretty good (though admittedly a bit girly) but she is also a very sharp, very amusing writer with a keen sense of irony and is INCREDIBLY STUNNINGLY MASSIVELY important in the development of the novel as an artform
the life of the upper-middle classes in the 18th century. it's interesting to see how people lived.
work is so widely praised. Then you can make a proper opinion on it. Not to everyone's tastes but I suppose people must like her for a reason.
and all that. but doesn't mean she's rubbish. quite the opposite.
I have never read much chick lit, but somehow I can't imagine it having anything of the craftsmanship of an Austen novel. I've seen her ranked up with Shakespeare and people by some critics for her command of the English language.
i don't agree with them. shakespeare rocks so hard.
other famous authors who suck, relatively to their hype:
I'm a girl and I can't stand her. I'm pretty sure there's some boys that like her...
the literary version of Joe Satriani (rather, Joe Satriani the musical version of Jane Austen). You can appreciate the talent and complexity there, but you wouldn't be able to listen to a whole album.
none of the characters were believable (although this is hard for me to judge as i wasn't living during the romantic period).
for three years i 'understand' her writing and can write about it and can, at times, enjoy it.
i don't like it, because without having studied it i would not have found it sharp, witty or entertaining.
and that's the crunch right there.
sounds like one hell of repetitive course!
Emma last year at AS
Emma & Pride and Prejudice this year at A2.
seriously they need to rethink that. what fucking 15yr old boy is going to be able to connect with and be bothered with Jane Austen? English syllabuses are aimed at girls.
that is pretty relentless!
i seem to remember endless war poetry and an obsession with alliteration! i don't miss those days
i got lesbianism in literature
feminism in poetry
feminism in shakespeare
so bloody dull. no austen though.
it's all my teachers ever talk about.
just to spite them i gave a long talk about Charles Bukowski in my schools English Society, and read out a number of his more, semingly, misogynistic poetry.
i mean, i suppose i could be brandished a bit of a 'feminist', as i believe both sexes should be totally equal. but surely that's not 'feminism' that's 'equalism' or something.
feminism can be a good view point, but why not focus on something else for a change?????
GOD it gets me mad.
see how they like that
as they have to mark it right as it 'considers other view points' but it's clearly bullshit.
'the image of Mr Knightly looking 'proud and tall' as he dances is clearly phallic, the subconcious sexual desire of Austen manifesting itself in her writing'
a modern reader may find this comic'
i got through my whole second year at uni with tenuous references to freud - it's clearly the way to go. i'll probably have to find a new thory next year ..... maybe back to feminism or the biggest cop-out ever: new historicism
saying that works of literature can only be judged bearing in mind the historical context?
it's an outdated view amongst feminists that women are superior to men or anything. lots of people don't seem to realise this though.
i wouldn't hesitate to call myself a feminist though
but thankfully those dinasaur like men, who still enjoy treating women badly are slowly dying out.