Don’t you dare say I got filtered. I couldn’t even make it half way through without legitimately wanting to kill myself. It is probably one of the most unpleasant, boring, irritating, and poorly composed stories I’ve ever attempted to read. How can anyone enjoy this?
>>22506668U stupid
>>22506668Nabokov wrote about it. Read that.
>>22506671You have bad taste.
>>22506678Nabokov disliked all of Austen novels but learned to appreciate her thanks to this novel, so you were probably filtered, bucko.
>>22506668Imagine being so fucking retarded you get filtered by a 18/19th century woman.
>>22506668I agree with you. Also, I did finish one of her novels (Northanger Abbey) and my opinion did not change.Austen is a decent writer, but her interests are too small-minded, she is the ultimate Anglo Protestant, you have to be an imbecile with erectile dysfunction to appreciate her. Total domesticity! Only George Eliot is worse.These female English novelists are for "men" who are against prostitution. >>22506673Vladimir Nabokov had erectile dysfunction.
>>22506668"*a yo sheit Niger, we wuz playing the trombone n SHEIT in dem... uh... ahmupu ah... ting ting ting... ORCHESTRA NIGER at Mans... uhhhhhhhhh... field! Mansfield Niger!*"How did Austen learn to talk like this?
>>22506748>Vladimir Nabokov had erectile dysfunction.Irrelevant.
>>22506673he loves it
>>22506748>her interests are too small-mindedYeah that is probably her major short-coming, but the precision of her thought as demonstrated through the structure of her sentences and paragraphs is more than decent I would say. She was very sharp, but she wrote what she knew and didn't seem all that interesting in knowing more than she knew.> she is the ultimate Anglo Protestant,You might be on to something with this. But somehow this bothers me more with Dickens. I don't really know why. I suppose I find more excusable in Austen. I just can't get my head around what is so culturally significant about Dickens. He's not very philosophical, he doesn't strike me as steeped in intellectual tradition, he's sort of "vaguely Christian," and his language, while good, doesn't make up for those other short comings. And you might be on to something. . .it's the Anglo Protestant problem
>>22506923so true, Anglos haven't written anything good.
>>22506923Dickens' characters are entertaining. He's an heir to Shakespeare.
>>22506989Entertaining characters isn't enough of a reason to have as prominent a place in the canon as Dickens enjoys. I don't think he's terrible by any means.
>>22507009yeah let's take your opinion over other canon authors
>>22507009Without giving much thought he’s one of the first, and definitely the biggest, society writers of the industrial age and the issues and classes that issue forth
>>22507026You mean like Oscar Wilde and Henry James ? They had some pretty sharp criticisms of Dickens.
>>22507124>Henry JamesGod, I hate his work.
>>22507029 This is true. He more or less wrote social novels, which I don't generally gravitate towards. So perhaps I am undercutting him slightly because of that. I think he's important to read for historical reasons, but is too lacking in the other qualities I mentioned to be considered one of "the greats" in an unqualified sense.
>>22507131Tastes differ. I am not wild about Dickens's novels and you hate James's. what else is there to say I guess?
>>22507124I could tell Wilde was a fag immediately, took maybe less than 10 pages inbunch of allegedly straight men sitting around acting like fairies, pulling poetry quotes out of their ass, dialogue consisting of eloquent flamboyant monologues about this and that society like it's a try hard broadway musical. Take the typical "charming British narrator" prose that every prominent anglo around that time seems to write in and add in the insufferableness of a flamboyant homosexual and you get A Picture of Dorian Gray. Dickens at least has a decent story, some good characters and doesn't come off like he's trying to show you how smart he is. I've heard his poetry is decent though.as far as Austen goes if all her books are like P&P and Persuasion then she can take her self inserting, lazy title writing ass back to the kitchen. I mean she literally has moments in P&P where the characters say the title of the book like it's a Marvel movie. And don't get me started on the "story". Plain Jane who's more into books than her betrothed sister/friend/cousin whose way more beautiful but somehow Plain Jane ends up matched with a different amazing gentleman who comes out of nowhere, oh by the way there's something off about him maybe they have history together or he seems like an asshole but turns out they're a great match in the end! Repeat, repeat, repeat across endless walks to nowhere talking about nothing in identical estates located in Whothefuckgivesashitershire, England. I'll never forget this bitch literally wrote it so a character falls down a set of stairs (!!!) for no reason just so her self insert could get together with the man. I will say this, it probably slaps if your reading it from the perspective of a 17th century young noble woman or even a peasant or artisan who wants to see how the lords live, but the thing is I'm a 21st century male and I'm not going to pretend this shit is anything except Twilight but 300 years earlierthanks for reading my post
>>22507185I'm actually not that wild about Wilde. I just listed two writers that immediately came to mind in response to the person (you?) who seemed to be implying that no prominent writer/critic during and after Dickens's time has taken issue with his work.>Dickens at least has a decent story, some good characters and doesn't come off like he's trying to show you how smart he is. I've heard his poetry is decent though.I didn't say that I hated Dickens with all my heart and that there is no value to reading him. I just don't think he offers as much as many of the other prominent novelists of the 19th century - - yet he often tops the list, as it were. >like it's a Marvel movie >except Twilight but 300 years earlierYou don't get Hallmark movie vibes from Dickens ever? You never find the sentimentalism cloying or at least a bit cheap?
>>22506668Filtered
>>22507167As another anon said he wrote great characters. Only Shakespeare has had more characters enter the all encompassing pop culture world. If you pick most canon writers, one can point out a summary or strength of their work and say “that’s it?”, but there is always more that goes into a book than can be talked about, and doing so doesn’t do justice. Dickens novels are alive and it’s hard to not feel the life in them
>>22507279nah I'm not that guy I'm just some random who reads books on /lit/ lists and hates Jane Austen and Oscar Wilde so felt the need to rantagreed Dickens has fair share of hallmark moments (end of two cities, oliver twist telling the lady he doesn't have a mom) but to be fair I mean he wrote A Christmas Carol which is pretty much the blueprint for every Hallmark movie ever so I think he gets the pass on that. Full disclosure I actually really liked those moments in Dickens, thought they sounded beautiful and were well written. Could very well just be biased for Austen I don't mean more cheesy/corny moments (although the endings for sure fit that description but again you can say the same for Dickens who I like) I mean almost fourth wall breaking spoon feeding, specifically I remember in P&P near the end someone (Elizabeth? Darcy? Bingley? Can't remember been so long) goes on a long rant along the lines of "ohh how horrible our prejudices are, see how if we overcome our pride and prejudices we can find true love!" obviously paraphrasing but it was just unbelievable to methe setup with Darcy too just feels like something out of a Twilight novel. "Mysterious stranger comes into town, acts like a total asshole, oh turns out he's rich so that's okay! (?), oh you know what turns out he's a good guy after all and it's his pride and prejudices who made him act like a bad guy and you know what Elizabeth it's your pride and prejudices that made you think he was an asshole too!" I felt scammedthanks for reading my post
>>22507311and you know what, I wouldn't actually mind it if there was a good story developing in the background but instead we get sitting room conversations about nothing.... walk in the grounds.... visit some summer home... more sitting room...walk in the grounds but this time Mr. Perfect looked at her for half a second longer than the last time.... more sitting room.... books overthanks for reading my post
>>22506668Mansfield Park is unusual in that despite it being a great public success, with the first edition selling out in six months and a second edition selling out two years later, it wasn’t publicly reviewed until 1821, seven years after it was first published. Contemporary reviews were generally good, praising the novel’s morality. Modern reviews are more mixed, making it one of Austen’s more controversial works. Modern critics have called it everything from eccentric and difficult to thoughtful and profound, with any number of interpretations possible depending on the lens one views the work through. What's your lens?
>>22506668Haven't read it but it sounds like you got other problems
>>22507311I actually haven't read P&P, so not sure if maybe this is less the case in that novel than her others, but there is actually a high degree of cynicism underneath the surface of her plots, which do admittedly have the structure of a romance. She also quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) makes fun of her characters (including protagonists) and seems to enjoy doing it.
