Hacker News Reader

Comment by hinglenkle | Hacker News Reader

I was screamed down by an entire classroom in university for my interpretation of “pride and prejudice”; though I was one of only 5 of the 25 students who read it.

Jane Austen herself lived her life unwed, and the character whom shared her name in P&P also finishes the novel unwed.

It is my opinion that P&P is Austen’s way of saying “if these are the players and this is the game then I am uninterested in taking part”.

From this reading, instead of Mr Darcy being the perfect man he’s the perfect example of why Jane chose to forgo participation in the marriage practice of the day.

TFA’s focus on finances, I feel, is just another example of one such reason provided by Austen to highlight the insincere process.

View on HN

> Jane Austen herself lived her life unwed, and the character whom shared her name in P&P also finishes the novel unwed.

Doesn't Jane marry Charles Bingley at the end of the novel?

You’re completely right. I spoke incorrectly, but hold that Jane is a mouthpiece of the author who died unwed.

Bingley and Jane do wed though in a way largely in contrast to the rest of novels depictions of “the game”.

In the eleventh hour of the novel and in a more impulsive ceremony as a sort of ‘double marriage’ with Elizabeth and mr Darcy.

The bingley relationship is another example of the interpretation though because it appears the only one in the novel exhibiting “true love” and compatibility between both parties and is met with opposition from just about everyone else.

Is it possible the wedding was external pressure on Jane Austen?

It’s pretty commonplace now that traditional audiences, studio execs, editors, and even other creators push creators in to tropey “they got together in the end” endings. Is it possible that was true then as well?

It seems unlikely. Elizabeth's principle objection to Darcy was that in detaching Jane and Bingley, he had been the "means of ruining, perhaps for ever, the happiness of a most beloved sister". Darcy's correcting this mistake is therefore absolutely essential to reconciling himself to Elizabeth. The Jane-Bingley arc is also the longest in the novel and of secondary importance only to the Elizabeth-Darcy arc. The novel could not really have had a happy ending without resolving it.

I highly doubt that Jane is Austen's mouthpiece. Jane's defining characteristic is her almost preternatural goodness in contrast to the highly amusing flaws of the rest of the cast. I think it's unlikely Austen would use such a "perfect" character as her own stand-in.

Jane's marriage is also by far the least impulsive of the four marriages depicted in the novel. It is the culmination of the longest arc, and the fulfillment of the longest-held hopes.

I like that analysis! What were your classmates' critiques?

Do you have any examples to justify this interpretation? I've read the novel several times and I don't remember anything there to support this.

Damn, that wasn't right of them to scream you down. It sounds like an interesting argument.

>Damn, that wasn't right of them to scream you down.

What's going on in classrooms these days? Facing such a reaction for expressing an interpretation shows deep issues.

I see no evidence that the alleged screaming down wasn’t 30 years ago so “these days” is doing some interesting work

I suspect that “screamed down” is also hyperbole

Reply on news.ycombinator.com