Oh my gosh I was finishing up Pride and Prejudice yesterday and I also noticed this! I think that’s just how things were back then, but I thought it was interesting that the idea of being “not like other girls” has been around in some form or another for so long!

[deleted]

> Truthfully I think most women have some "not like other girls" thoughts sometimes, although I think it's more common when we're younger. But yeah, even though Lizzie is "prejudice" and Darcy is "pride", I think they both display a good amount of the other's main character flaw. Lizzie is quite proud of her intellectual superiority, and that comes out quite a few times in the novel.

Yes, I think with Lizzie I mostly read it as this. I think Austen also amuses herself (and us) with really silly characters like Mr. Collins and Mrs. Bennet, so it doesn’t seem out of place to feel superior to them. But in this passage, it came off as weird.

>As for craftiness being portrayed negatively, that's just a product of the time, I think. I think when reading Austen, people need to keep in mind that she wasn't some kind of revolutionary seeking to change the status quo. The reason for her longevity in pop culture is based more on her brilliant and timeless satirization of human nature and hypocrisy. As a result, even though I love her work and still think it's relevant, I do think some of the morals, attitudes, and customs in her novels will be a bit jarring to modern readers.

Ahh, I like this take on it. I think I got swept away and forgot that Austen wasn’t trying to instigate a revolution.

I think he liked her as a person in general, if she had been considering him as a potential partner she might have been slightly less insulting to him and therefore less witty. Maybe her cutting wit was what it took to push him over the edge of wanting to marry someone without the right social status, or maybe he would have liked her enough no matter what. Hard to tell what would have happened

Truthfully I think most women have some "not like other girls" thoughts sometimes, although I think it's more common when we're younger. But yeah, even though Lizzie is "prejudice" and Darcy is "pride", I think they both display a good amount of the other's main character flaw. Lizzie is quite proud of her intellectual superiority, and that comes out quite a few times in the novel.

As for craftiness being portrayed negatively, that's just a product of the time, I think. I think when reading Austen, people need to keep in mind that she wasn't some kind of revolutionary seeking to change the status quo. The reason for her longevity in pop culture is based more on her brilliant and timeless satirization of human nature and hypocrisy. As a result, even though I love her work and still think it's relevant, I do think some of the morals, attitudes, and customs in her novels will be a bit jarring to modern readers.

Do you think he did like her cause she was impertinent?

Yeah, I guess. It’s just interesting to me how I saw this now but as a 16 year old I probably didn’t notice it. As a character, it probably would have been boring if Lizzie didn’t have a single flaw.

That's the objective truth, everyone tries to marry Darcy because of his money and status, but Elizabeth doesn't because of what he did to her sister and what she thinks he did to mr Wickham, as well as because he insulted her when they met

[deleted]

Right there's plenty relatable in the story, and I'm glad you enjoyed it, but I feel the aspect of sexual abuse was not done well , and that's enough to turn me off from the book.

That's totally fair, like I'm no expert on what goes on in the mind of a child who's being abused (thank God) so it might be way off, but there were somethings in the book that Turtle went through that I could relate to so that he got right for me atleast. If that kinda stuff happend to you I'm so goddamn sorry

I don't think we're going to agree here, especially because we're coming at this from completely different places. I am not saying that a story like this shouldn't be told. I have definitely really liked books that feature CSA. But this one did not feel authentic to me (and many other people with experiences regarding CSA). The author is free to write about it - I am free to say I don't think the story should have been written like this or by him.

I agree, it is voyeuristic, but what would be the altenative? If the invicible narriator stepped in to clarify the horribleness of the situation it would stop being from Turtle's perspective. It wouldn't be orfentic to the realness of the situation because the author knows that all that he describes is awful, and he knows that all of the people reading it thinks so too and that's the point. This is as normal to Turtle as having a stable family life is to so many others, and I think only by describing it as normal as possible we get that orfentic voyeuristic point of view that you get in real life, where you can point and criticize and know better than a broken person but it don't really mean a damn thing cause you ain't in it, and you can't sway a person to see their world in anyways different than they see if from their perspective, they have to learn that on their own, and that's what happens here. That's the magic of books, to see another life from a different soul, where their point of view matters more than your own. And I honestly think that the only way to write this book or any book is to write it voyeruristicly, we don't get the whole picture if a guy keeps pausing the emotions to confirm to us that this is indeed bad

This book destroyed me but it was so bloody good! That ending broke my heart and made me cry and i loved the garden scene afterwards. Turtle was amazing. Her dad was pure pure evil and the lovebombing was awful. I agreed with you, i saw it as her grasping at straws and lying to herself until she couldnt anymore. It was a coping mechanism

Think im due a reread.

[deleted]

I really hated this book, and felt it was voyeuristic and gross. From what you're saying here:

>Just because what you reads disgusts you dosen't mean that the writer is a dirtback for writing it, if you ask me he got the reaction out of you that he wanted.

I think you are missing some honest critique of the work as a whole and being dismissive of people who disagree with how you felt about it.

Edit: also if you or someone you love has experienced childhood sexual abuse, I would absolutely not recommend this.

You ain't got to be no dick about it :))

You haaaaaaaave something to say

This was the first book I read after finishing college and being done with school assigned readings. It’s a gem.

Wow, wow. I’ve avoided this one for a while due to the subject matter but you’re making me think this could break open the grief for me that I cannot seem to let out.

[deleted]

r/bookclub runs multiple bookclubs at all time. New ones starting frequently. Check it out!

I found it disappointing. I really like Richard Osman (as a presenter). I found the book contrived & unoriginal. It’s perfectly readable, but not worth the hype in my opinion.

Please post 'Should I keep reading' questions, in our Weekly Recommendation Thread.

I loved it. Had me from the beginning. I also listened to it on Audible, maybe try that, the reader was very good.

The style reminded me of A Brief History of Seven Killings.