Em’s mini-essay below the post and my response.

“ok except its way less about WILL THE STRAIGHT PPL GET TOGETHER (which is how the majority of ppl read it nowadays) and way more about WILL THESE PEOPLE GET OVER THEIR HANGUPS AND LEARN HOW TO BE GOOD?

fundamentally austen is about the comedy of manners— both in the literary sense and in the way that it’s about “how weird is it people behave this way?”

for example pride and prejudice: they make a felicitous romantic match, yes, but fundamentally the novel is about two egos first clashing and then learning to accommodate one another; it is about human frailty and misconceptions, before rom ants

which is why i HATE, yes, its synthesis into modern culture and the way its watered down as romance drama, when really it’s more about… people, being people, trying to cope with being people

like lbr “chick lit” did not exist then. there was a social purpose to writing and a social purpose to these books. ok miniessay done”

oddly enough I actually tried reading Sense and Sensibility with a very similar mindset – like “this is about characters, let me get to know them and then I’ll deal with their romance bullshit if it happens” – and I did not enjoy it in the least. there is my actual dislike of her style and techniques – I don’t perhaps actively dislike them, like I wouldn’t go out of my way to badmouth them, except that: then on top of that is my acute distaste for the way the modern culture has absorbed, diluted, and regurgitated the concepts.

I wish I could get past all of that and enjoy the comedy of manners and frailty because those are topics I delight in reading about. sigh oh well.