[ SECRET POST #4973 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4973 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 32 secrets from Secret Submission Post #712.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

01. https://i.imgur.com/xF6IgTN.png

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, OP. I don’t find Austen’s books difficult, but I do think they’re boring and not very funny. I got an anthology of her novels for Christmas and I’ve been reading them during quarantine, but the only one I kinda like is Northanger Abbey.

[(Anonymous)]

Look, there's nothing wrong with thinking that, and there's nothing wrong with just wanting to talk about your general opinion of Jane Austen, that's what this website is for.

But I have to ask - do you really think that what OP said was that they had a problem with people disliking Austen? It seems to me that OP is talking about people being unable to understand Austen, not about whether people like Austen or whether people find Austen boring or whatever other reactions to Austen people have. And it seems like most of the other early replies to the thread have been along the same lines - people just wanting to share their opinions about Austen. Which isn't a bad thing! It just feels like a disconnect.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, both can be true

Austen's novels are not difficult or boring compared to other books at large. But they are also 18th century basic-ass chick flicks, and those bore me. Reading her prose is not *hard*, but it *is* more effort than I wish to put into experiencing a basic-ass chick flick and I'd venture lots of people agree with that. So you they end up too much effort to read for what they are, and for what you get in return

I'm sure they were novel and different in the 18th century but we don't live there any more

[(Anonymous)]

19th century.

[(Anonymous)]

also 18th century basic-ass chick flicks

Enjoy Austen, don't enjoy Austen, I don't care, but that's patronising bollocks.

[philstar22]

They just aren't a genre I'm remotely interested in. And I personally don't find her prose that funny. I have no problems understanding them, I just have no interest whatsoever.

[(Anonymous)]

I take your point, but I also think it's hard to judge because not all people have the same degree of verbal and conceptual fluency, or the same education. It's hard for me to judge when not everyone had the same advantages that I did.

[(Anonymous)]

I judge a little ))) Because I'm Russian and those books are not a hard reading for me. Come on, it's your native language what's not to understand?

[(Anonymous)]

What font is this (in the secret part, not the book)?

[(Anonymous)]

Not the OP but I'm pretty sure it's "Bad Script".

[(Anonymous)]

Difficult and boring are two different things, though?

I don't think they're hard to read, but I also don't find them interesting, because they're just not the kinds of stories I like.

[tabaqui]

Same, really. It's not Beowulf or Shakespeare, it's just...English, with a bit of a gloss.

[(Anonymous)]

I've seen people say that about Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and I think the same applies - it's recognizably modern English, with a little gloss. And less stylized than Austen, IMO.

[sabotabby]

In my experience in schools, there's been a push to ensure that kids are reading contemporary, mainly YA novels, and in some cases, not being asked to read or write fiction at all. God forbid anything be slightly inaccessible, challenging, or not related to employability skills. It's not the only factor pushing reading levels down, but I see it as a factor.

(#NotAllEnglishTeachers; where I currently teach, the trend is towards more challenging literature. But it's a trend I've noticed overall.)

[(Anonymous)]

This is interesting to me because there actually was a class at my high school that was all YA and I really wanted to take it, but my guidance counselor said that class wasn’t for “college-bound people” and placed me in AP English instead. I’m still a little bitter about that because I could’ve taken both (I only needed four classes to graduate), but apparently colleges wouldn’t have liked it.

[(Anonymous)]

Jesus Christ there are some embarrassing replies in this thread

[(Anonymous)]

I've always enjoyed her humour more when it comes from the perspective of Elizabeth or Eleanor or Anne. Emma was at times painfully unfunny. The free indirect speaking style of narration she favours doesn't work for me when I don't think similarly to the character.

I think there are people who can't explain why they don't find it funny because they don't have the analytical skills to pick it apart, but they're not necessarily too stupid for the humour itself, which is pretty much "man is pompous","woman is silly" and variations of the same. I enjoy it, but it's not referencing anything you can't find in most comedy. It's certainly not inaccessible to a modern audience.

[(Anonymous)]

You are being unfair OP and smidge elitist. Austin's books were popular novels during her time. Just like popular books today are written with a language that is easy for us to understand with little references to things we recognize or events that we know so were her books. It makes the reader feel more engaged and it did then too. But calling out readers for not getting all the inside jokes isn't right. It can't be hard to understand if you don't know the time period and all the little inside jokes. It would be like me judging you for not understanding Beowulf in middle english.

BTW I adore Austen, the Brontes, and even Beowulf in middle english for what little I can translate. Useless English Lit degrees UNITE!

[(Anonymous)]

Same, OP. Same.

[(Anonymous)]

So the only reason to dislike Austen novels is a low reading level? Huh, that's new.

[(Anonymous)]

Hell, some of you Austen fans are acting hella superior for no real reason. Heaven forbid someone make a comment because they wanted to voice a thought or contribute to the comm. Just because they didn't say it in precisely the very exact way you wanted them too doesn't mean you got to act all pissy about it. Damn.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with you that it’s not difficult to understand Austen’s writing. So if the objection is that her writing is too difficult, then that does suggest the person isn’t a strong reader.

Personally, I do find her quite witty, and a lot less dry than the vast majority of writers of her era.

However, she’s still a bit dusty compared to a lot of modern lit. I don’t think that’s a weakness of her writing, I think it’s just a natural part of the way literature ages over the course of centuries. If anything, it speaks to the quality of her writing that it still feels so amusingly truthful and observant to so many people after all this time. But if what someone’s into is modern fiction, then I can totally understand why Austen might not be their thing. It’s not like you pick up an Austen novel and mistake her prose for the prose of one of the current best-selling authors.

I understand it less if someone is into the Brontes and Dickens and Wilkie Collins, but finds Austen boring and dusty, because to me, Austen is the least dusty of the lot, by a significant margin. But meh, I don’t need to understand why someone feels that way. I’ll just have to content myself with quietly disagreeing with their opinion.

Also, a lot of people might say of a book, "I found it hard to get through," as a way of explaining why they didn't like or finish it. That doesn't necessarily mean they literally found it difficult to follow. It probably means they didn't find it engaging. So if someone says they found Masfield Park "hard to get through" I'm probably not going to assume they're a weak reader. I'm probably going to assume they understood it, but didn't find it as engaging as what they're used to.

[(Anonymous)]

There just seems little point to this? I love and adore Austen's books but not everyone is going to like them and that’s okay.

[caecilia]

I didn't get her as a teen because not because I was at a low reading level, but because I didn't understand the world she was in. Now that I've read some contemporary romance novels set in the time period, I get it, and I love movies based on her work but, I dunno. I still find it hard to get into her actual books. But I think now it's more of an attention span thing than a reading level thing.