P&P&Z is hilarious, only pretentious faggots think it's ruining a classic.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-14 20:20
>>8
The author of that book is a nerd and a hack and he has no literary talent at all (which is absolutely necessary if you want to write a decent parody of Austen).
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-14 22:24
Yuck. Romantic dribble.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-15 21:01
I wish it had more character development.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-16 6:25
P&P is a classic, but the language is archaic by now. It's like reading Shakespeare - you don't just have to concentrate on the story, you basically have to translate it as well.
Hence, it's fucking irritating.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-16 13:56
I have no problem reading other books written around the same time period. It's her writing style that sucks.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-16 15:42
>>12 It's like reading Shakespeare - you don't just have to concentrate on the story, you basically have to translate it as well.
Not even remotely.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-16 20:38
Pride & Prejudice was pretty good. Much better than other overrated shit like anything by Bronte or Dickens.
>>15
Dickens was indeed a boring cunt who waffled far too much. The only writer where i've preferred watching a film or play adaptation of his work to reading his overly strung out bullshit. He was being paid a penny a word and it shows
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-17 19:35
>>16
Reading Austen, you mean? Mostly modern English, but written in a style that may seem stuffy to contemporary readers, and expecting the reader to follow more involved sentences than most recent books would. A few words that may not be familiar (“chaise and four”) but should be clear.