What is Austen trying to say here? Darcy knows he and his friend, who is comparatively of far lower standing than Darcy, are making disadvantageous marriages, with the Bennets being parvenus and all. Darcy, despite being stated to be a fine master of Pemberley, does not seem to take into consideration how the marriage will impact his descendants and the livelihood of his household. He just does it out of fondness for Elizabeth. Wickham is lambasted as a fortune hunter when the Bennets are really only one level above that. From a male perspective Austen seems to be saying you should marry who you love and should ignore your pride, but that is not a very good lesson especially if you are a person of Darcy or Bingley’s standing. Elizabeth is not the type of person someone like Darcy should consider marrying, even if he has a deep fondness for her, because of her personality and her family, and her being prejudicial. As a member of the gentry he has responsibilities to consider above his own desires.
>>25082428>What is Austen trying to say here?muh vagina
>>25082428>From a male perspective Austen seems to be saying you should marry who you love and should ignore your pride,Are you fucking retarded, /pol/tard? Yes, that's the fucking point of the story. Marrying who you love. But surely you can jack off to more hentai thinking you're some rich tradLARPer owning da thots.
>>25082439Could you refrain from the gaslighting and projection and just do wholesome shitposting like the first guy?
>>25082439No one generally disagrees with the sentiment of the book but rather the stories themselves. Marrying for sense is rational while sensibilities are fast moving. The actual stories themselves are for 15 ur old girls
>>25082439Why are you so upset? Is it that time of the month?
>>25082428She's illustrating the difference between superficial and actual goodness. But the book is just entertainment, she didn't write it for you, or anyone else, to try to find a life lesson in it.
You could be reading poetry and you’re reading that shit lol.
>>25082572In the rare chance OP is a 15 yr old girl I wouldn’t begrudge her for reading Jane Austen.
>>25082428>If you're a rich Chad who's dark triad but secretly le sensitive, you should marry some dumpy country chick because she's not like the other girls and she's so much smarter than those dumb, evil rich girls.Truly the beginnings of modern women's "literature" can be found here.
>>25082439
> As a member of the gentry he has responsibilities to consider above his own desires.Catherine in WH did that and look how that turned out.
>>25083098>A character in a fictional work did that and failed, so you are wrongHoly shit, OP DESTROYED with FACTS and LOGIC
>>25082814>she's not like the other girls and she's so much smarter than those dumb, evil rich girlsCorrect
>>25082572Truly the words of a connoisseur.
>>25082428you typed all that out thinking you were defending aristocratic duty but what you actually wrote was a personal ad for a woman who won't challenge you. that's it. that's the post. darcy's "mistake" is wanting a woman who makes him feel something other than correct & you can't parse that as anything but bad strategy. austen knew your type--she wrote an entire character for you, his name is mr collins, the man who marries for standing & never has to feel the sick hot vertigo of wanting someone who sees through him, who calculates his engagement the way you'd calculate a land purchase, & whose reward for all that calculation is charlotte lucas politely tolerating him in a sitting room for the rest of his life. you want elizabeth to be unworthy because if she's worthy the system you've built your self-concept around is cope with a trust fund. you don't want a wife you want a credit rating with a womb. cope. darcy's whole arc is realizing that pemberley without elizabeth is just a man jerking off in a nice house & austen is laughing at you from 1813 for not getting the joke.
>>25083982ignore the tripfag, forgot to remove it. :^) point stands.
>>25083987No, you fucked up and your point is retarded. This shitty true love it's only in your imagination, people get tired of eachother in a few years. So if you're gonna get in a shitty marriage for the rest of your life, at least get a woman that suits your position.
>>25084000sad incel
>>25084005The only reason why you idealize marriage is because you're a virgin without the balls to ask a woman for a date, so you see marriage as free sex without effort.Let me tell you kid, women became very annoying after you go serious with the relationship, it's basically slavery, like having a second mom.So kid, grow up, socialise, flirt with women and stop believing in teenage romance.
>>25084000>>25084038you posted twice. once to say love isn't real & once to say marriage is slavery & both times you described a woman who stops being fuckable the moment she develops a preference about how the kitchen gets cleaned. she didn't become annoying. she became a person. that's the part you can't metabolize."like having a second mom." you said it. not me. you want someone who feeds you, cleans your shit, manages your schedule & fucks you on demand & when she develops a single opinion about the dishes you call it slavery. you described wanting to fuck your mother & posted it as dating advice. freud is dead & you're out here doing his job for free on a cave painting symposium."women became very annoying after you go serious." translated: she stopped auditioning. she showed up with morning breath & a bad mood & preferences about the thermostat & you looked at that thought defective product. the annoyance you're describing is a woman who stopped performing for a man who was never going to perform back. you wanted a fleshlight that cooks. she wanted a partner. the mismatch isn't her fault; it's your spec sheet & the spec sheet reads like a boy who never left his mother's house, just keeps looking for her in every woman he dates then getting furious when he finds her."grow up, socialise, flirt" you say, from a thread where you just told a stranger commitment is a trap & women are annoying. you're telling someone to go outside while you sit here writing your mother's tinder bio & calling it philosophy.
>>25082428Darcy and Bingley really wouldn't lose that much social standing. It's not like the Bennets are beggars and prostitutes. And it really wouldn't matter much in the grand scheme of things as the strict noble hierarchy would be more or less dissolved in the coming decades.In way P&P is just a pure reflection of the changing norms and attitudes that were occurring in society at that time for numerous reasons.Anyway I don't know who could resist marrying this qt.
>>25084087Nice cope kid, you can psychoanalyze my words all you want to build an imaginary story of my life, instead of facing the possibility that love is not actually real and it's only sexual attraction. >sit here writing your mother's tinder bio & calling it philosophyThis is just bullshit and you know it.So before going to sleep I'm gonna give you two advices kid.>Don't take Freud seriously, he's basically a meme.>Go out, socialise and get a date, the perfect and pure waifu you're looking for will not magically knock your door. Because the only actual way of proving me wrong is actually having yourself a happy marriage.
>>25083982Mr Collins does not marry for standing. He pursues a Bennet because he thinks it would be nice to have continuity with the old branch of the family. Then he marries the first random woman who shows him affection. This is just virulent projection from you. Darcy literally separates Bingley from Jane because he knows the match would be terrible for him. Darcy pursues Elizabeth because he thinks he can tank the reputation hit, and doesn’t seem to comprehend that Elizabeth is abrasive towards him because she hates him, not because she’s some strong-willed bookish cutie. >>25084113After the Wickham fiasco it is definitely a bad marriage. The Bennetts would be totally screwed if Darcy didn’t bail them out.
>>25084453>Mr Collins does not marry for standing.of course the /pol/tard is going to defend the most awful and low-quality male of the book. you people are too fucking pathetic.
>>25084469How am I defending Mr Collins you fucking retard, he objectively does not marry for social standing
>>25082428It's really just a precursor to modern romance novels. Just consider the fact that Darcy explicitly states that Elizabeth isn't physically attractive, but then falls in love with her anyway due to her personality, which mostly consists of baselessly berating him morally over things she's misunderstood and snide quips. That has not happened IRL one time in the entire history of the universe.
>>25085322>She is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me;Well she is over the threshold of being ugly imo.
>>25084453collins lists three reasons for proposing & you remembered the one that made him sound vertebrate. lady catherine issued the directive the way a thermostat issues instructions to a boiler; he pivots from elizabeth to charlotte in seventy-two hours because the aperture was wife-shaped & any body that fit the exposure would do. you said "first random woman who shows him affection" like that disproved something. that is the thesis. you developed my film for me & called it a rebuttal.darcy's letter chapter 35. two reasons: jane's insufficient feeling & the bennets' insufficient standing. you kept one deleted the other. selective. surgical. wrong.darcy can't process elizabeth's hatred because a woman with her income saying no doesn't register as language to him; he hears static where she's saying words & austen wrote a man whose class position runs so deep through his perceptual apparatus that it overrides direct speech delivered to his face by a woman standing in front of him saying the words you are the last man in the world. (austen already wrote this exchange. she gave her version a whole novel to recover in; you got a thread.)three corrections. three deletions. all in all, same operation. you're performing a close reading with the close part removed.
>>25085322Yeah, it's bizarre to me that Anglos read this wet dream fanfic in schools. In the curriculum of Russian schools there are some questionable choices but there's nothing on the level of Wuthering Heights and Pride and Prejudice, both of which were written by women below 22 just describing their own fantasies about men. Yikes
>>25085618>jane's insufficient feelingWhich only arises because Darcy is on the lookout for fortune hunters, which means this is downstream from the low standing of the Bennets. >it overrides direct speech delivered to his face by a woman standing in front of him saying the words you are the last man in the worldUh, no it doesn’t. This embarrassment makes him see his pride and the error of his ways. What the fuck is this formatting. Are you drunk or trying to read as nonchalant or something? Because it’s not working, try again in proper english.
>>25085784you said jane's insufficient feeling is downstream from the standing. darcy didn't. he listed them separately in the letter, gave them separate paragraphs, treated them as independent objections. you consolidated what he distinguished. that's a creative choice but it's yours, not austen's.the reform point is correct & irrelevant. i described the proposal. you described what happened after. a doctor diagnosing the disease isn't refuted by the patient recovering. the recovery confirms the diagnosis. social mobility in regency england was functionally zero -- the rate barely moved. darcy's reform is remarkable precisely because his class was built to prevent it. you're citing the exception as evidence that the rule doesn't exist.the formatting complaint is sweet. noted. <3
>>25085625Wuthering Heights does not have a single female fantasy man, everything is a flawed sack of shit.
>>25086260>implying women don't fantasise over bad boys
>>25085784>What the fuck is this formattingRule #1 of /lit/ - never argue with a lowercase poster. They're literally all trannies.
>>25086260It is a female fantasy about men, Heathcliff just isn't a fantasy of an ideal man. Some critic observed that the book reads like a fantasy of what love might feel like written by a girl who's never had any experience with it and that's pretty much bang on target.Granted you could also read it as the Alchemized or whatever pervert version equivalent to P&P's more straightforward "obnoxious plain girl marries hot billionaire" romance.
>>25082428I get what you're saying. It's biased because it's written by a woman. "I refuse to do this" but if you're a man I desire you need to do it. On a related note I watched Bridget Jone's Diary which is a modern version of this and a particular scene stuck out where she reminds the guy saying how he loves her just the way she is, which she follows up with a list of things she dislikes about him down to how he needs to "rethink" his fucking sideburns kek. Women.
>>25086536Heathcliff isn't a bad boy rebel badass, he is a broken person and not that attractive.>>25086580The Heathcliff x Catherine love is just an outward expression of Christian love, where Man and Female were once one but then got cut in half.
>>25087370>Christian love, where Man and Female were once one but then got cut in halfYou idiot, that's not Christian, that's a Platonist trope. It's from the Symposium.
>>25087502"So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”-Matthew 19:6
>>25087667Yeah AFTER the marriage, you illiterate retard, the Christian conception is of two individuals FUSED by God, which is the opposite of the Platonist fable (which also is something that they didn't believe, it's meant as an artful metaphor).
>>25087502Thomas Aquinas cites that story from Symposium in the Summa (question 28 if it matters) so clearly some scholastics read a Christian analysis into that story.
>>25087857God already joined them together, pre figuratively.
>>25087857Go to question 28 in the summa theologicae. Aquinas states that the story of men and women having been originally joined but then separated and that marriage is the closest and most acceptable union to recompense this has a Christian metaphorical nature.
>>25087861>>25087876Aquinas can such a fatty with his Aristotle fanboying, that contradicts the word of Christ himself that in heaven the saved will neither marry nor be given in marriage (a statement he gives in response to a Sadducee who tries to catch him out for his belief in a world to come via an argument presenting the exact above idea of union of souls as absurd given the possibility in the law of remarriage).
>>25088197Aristotle got snyched into Christianity way early, just read Boethius'
>>25088197Here is the direct Aquinas quote if you were wondering.>> Again there is a union, which is the effect of love. This is real union, which the lover seeks with the object of his love. Moreover this union is in keeping with the demands of love: for as the Philosopher relates (Polit. ii, 1), "Aristophanes stated that lovers would wish to be united both into one," but since "this would result in either one or both being destroyed," they seek a suitable and becoming union—to live together, speak together, and be united together in other like things.https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2028.htm#article3
