The 200th anniversary of Pride & Prejudice.

With an underlying theme of marrying for money, are we still in this kind of society today?

I would suggest it would depend on where it was posted, Bedlam or General.

I wonder if I would be allowed to post it in general, go on I need a laugh.

It has survived, indeed prospered, through two centuries.

Not just because it is a requirement for many national school curricula in the UK, but because it is a great romantic novel.

As to the basic premise, yes, people still marry for advantage. Maybe not always money, but almost always for some form of security / stability and because the support of a partner eases problems. Nowadays the breeding part doesn't seem to need marriage,

interesting because I see Pride and Prejudice about so much more than just "marrying for money" guess we all take out of it what we want.

It is a book I have not read, however it was a subject on the Jeremy Vine radio show and the subject was 'marrying for money', is it still relevant today, I did underline, the underlying part.

I found the programme a little sad, there was stories from both sides including one from a lady who told the listeners that she had been living with a guy for three years and were planning to marry. But the parents said no, sent the father to collect him and told them, we have a big house to pay for, you are marrying someone with money. Apart from being sad for the couple, it was even sadder they let it happen.

I don't know anybody like that in the US but then I have to admit I don't know that many people in the US. My family is not like that and would never promote those kinds of sad and shallow values.

It is an issue in Thailand and I know my MIL was a tad disappointed when my husband did not marry the woman she arranged for (lots of property) and instead talked his dad into buying a pickup truck instead of paying the sin sod (having a vehicle on the island was rather a big deal in those days). She was ok with him marrying me even though I am not rich because I am hard working and help in the family business.

seems to me that the idea in the novel was about not marrying for money as the heroine was resisting Darcy's (who reputedly owned most of Derbyshire) proposal of marriage on general principles...

but at the beginning the discussion was about the heroine (can't remember her name) and her sisters who needed to get married off and the difficulties inherent therein when seeking suitable arrangements...a consideration being money of course as the family wasn't that well off...

Pride and Prejudice is an entertaining story that I had intended to read being besotted with Emma Thompson who's film is considered to be the best version and that was a huge success and Jane Austen is someone that I never read in my english major days...

as for marrying for money, everyone does it...don't they?

Be curious to see who started reading the classics voluntarily rather than as part of an educational syllabus.

The only one I can recall is Oliver Twist but it never inspired me to read any more Dickens.

I got "Children of the New Forest" for Christmas once, does that qualify?

Robert Louis Stevenson and Jules Verne were from the same period but don't seem to have classic status, I suppose you have to be an English major to know why.

I read Pride and Prejudice after watching an early 80s BBC production. I was hooked and have read all of Austen's works more than once and own them all. After reading all of Austen I decided to branch out but the gothic writers were not to my taste. I like George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, Henry Field, Thackeray, and Trollope.

So yes I did read outside of school assignments.

The only one I can recall is Oliver Twist but it never inspired me to read any more Dickens.

I hope you get around to a 'Tale of two cities', which introduced me to my finest literary hero, Sidney Carton.

Opening lines

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way

Sidney's parting shot, an ending to unrequited love, the misery of a life of gargle and unfulfilled ambition.

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known

I read Pride and Prejudice after watching an early 80s BBC production. I was hooked and have read all of Austen's works more than once and own them all. After reading all of Austen I decided to branch out but the gothic writers were not to my taste. I like George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, Henry Field, Thackeray, and Trollope.

So yes I did read outside of school assignments.

Surprised at Thomas Hardy, I found his books quite a depressant, even Jude the Obscure, a favourite book of mine for obvious reasons, was just a litany of misfortune, death, murder, suicide, miscarriage, divorce and Church involvement.

Be curious to see who started reading the classics voluntarily rather than as part of an educational syllabus.

The only one I can recall is Oliver Twist but it never inspired me to read any more Dickens.

I got "Children of the New Forest" for Christmas once, does that qualify?

Robert Louis Stevenson and Jules Verne were from the same period but don't seem to have classic status, I suppose you have to be an English major to know why.

Don't know how you can say RL Stevenson and Jules Verne were not classics. They may be less emphasised by schools because they are entertaining enough that people might want to read them anyway, despite the dictates of the curriculum,

I quite enjoy a bit of Joseph Conrad, when the opportunity arises, and I read Defoe's Moll Flanders a while back

SC

Yes, you put your finger right on the key word, entertaining.

Some people read to be entertained, others to enjoy the way words are put together to make a story.

I wonder what will be on future curriculum's that students will eye with trepidation?

Stephen King and Wilbur smith will be absent I'm sure, yet both sell books in the millions of copies.

Cormac McCarthy? Probably.

Read the awards lists, the descendants of those that give out the prizes will probably be the ones teaching those books next century.

Just because no bugger reads them now won't prevent them being inflicted on our great grandkids as classics.

Yes, you put your finger right on the key word, entertaining.

<snip>

Just because no bugger reads them now won't prevent them being inflicted on our great grandkids as classics.

The Mayor of Casterbrige by Hardy was forced on us at school. A truly dreadful experience. I think for any work to be classified as a classic, there has to be an element of torture involved in reading it.

I've read all the Harry Potter books.

My grandkids will think me a genius!

I've also read all the Tintin books....I know....impressive huh?

Thomas Hardy novels...a few....prefer Dickens.

Be curious to see who started reading the classics voluntarily rather than as part of an educational syllabus.

The only one I can recall is Oliver Twist but it never inspired me to read any more Dickens.

I got "Children of the New Forest" for Christmas once, does that qualify?

Robert Louis Stevenson and Jules Verne were from the same period but don't seem to have classic status, I suppose you have to be an English major to know why.

I started reading a long time ago on the hour+ train rides to work and back everyday (tried the daily newspapers at first but quickly got bored of reading the same old same old news stories where the only things that ever seemed to change were the times, places and actors). Classics just seemed to me to offer reading material where you couldn't go wrong with choosing an excellent book.

I then went almost 10 years without owning a TV and built up a personal library . . . floor to ceiling with a length of shelving to accommodate 1,000+ volumes. Many enjoyable reads, though I didn't necessarily adhere strictly to classical literature. And my definition of classical literature is anything which stands the test of time.

Some of my favourites were Melville's Moby-Dick, Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, Shelley's Frankenstein, Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea and Journey to the Center of the Earth, Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray and The Importance of Being Earnest, Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, many Mark Twain selections, Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, to name a few.

I wish I had more time to curl up with a good book.

If anyone is interested in the old west I would recommend a most riveting and extremely entertaining read titled "Tough Trip Through Paradise." This was a manuscript of several thousand pages written by mountain man Andrew Garcia detailing his travels through Montana during 1878 and 1879 at the time of the Nez Perce Wars. He never published it fearing it would be turned into a dime novel and the manuscript was edited into book form posthumously.

The language is coarse and authentic and the adventures are remarkably spellbinding. It's an obscure book but a classic to me. I guarantee it to be more than enjoyable.

I'm on the hunt now...

Amazon carries it, and at a cheap price. Not sure of your location but that's all I've searched. I've read many a classic, shawdow-goer, and this one was exceptional. I've read it several times over.

I see some doubt about it's authenticity but it still looks like a good read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tough_Trip_Through_Paradise

Perhaps it is true that Garcia embellished his tales to a degree. Perhaps they are accurate and it is only another's disbelief who then throws it's legitimacy into question. The truth will never be known. But regardless, Garcia's experiences as he depicted them were fascinating and enthralling for me. I particularly enjoyed the style of language used during that era.

I've read, too, that the book is considered to be one of the most authentic accounts of that period in the American west.