What are you reading in 2025?

[prabe]

You do realise that the one woman who found an alternative to marriage, was the author?

You do realize that doesn't change the smug and smarmy tone?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You do realize that doesn't change the smug and smarmy tone?

It’s supposed to be. Because it’s not “a truth”, it’s a belief of the mother’s of eligible daughters, that Darcy intends to defend his friend from. The whole book is about deconstructing the opening statement - as you would know if you had read it.

 

[prabe]

It’s supposed to be. Because it’s not “a truth”, it’s a belief of the mother’s of eligible daughters, that Darcy intends to defend his friend from. The whole book is about deconstructing the opening statement - as you would know if you had read it.

I dunno, from what I've seen people say about the book, it seems to be more about demonstrating the truth of the opening statement. In any rate, I'm clearly too stupid to get Austen and we don't need to talk about her anymore.

 

[jian]

It was the only book I was assigned in high school or college that I flat didn't read. Even other books that I didn't enjoy, I was able to get through. Not that one, though.

People keep telling me that, but the smug and the smarm of that opening sentence don't seem self-aware enough to me to be satire. (And I'm someone who found Georgette Heyer to be at least occasionally amusing, when I worked recording audiobooks.)

Heyer is an interesting contrast to Austen because she’s basically writing Georgian romantic fiction more than a century after the fact with impeccable research but an oddly more old-fashioned romantic approach. Her stuff wouldn’t exist without Austen but it’s like she wanted to write those stories with more romance and less clear-sighted cynicism.

That said, Austen rarely avoids romance, especially in the conclusion (“and they all married happily ever after”) so there’s not much in it. Her approach is more “patriarchy sucks (1810 edition) but I still want to end up in a happy marriage with a rich guy”.

I actually prefer Heyer’s murder mysteries, which are also pretty traditional but more fun to read, at least for me.

(Georgette Heyer is notable for having done a metric ton of social research for her Regency books which are the foundation of almost every modern book set there since, especially by someone like Barbara Cartland who stole all her research and was a pretty lazy writer.)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Ninja editor notes that Austin was busy being dead in 1820.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Let's not forget that part of Tolkien's professional legacy was apologism for Beowulf- getting it taken more seriously as a literary work and not merely a historical artifact.

A very good and salient point, that.

Also, Beowulf is awesome when it's not being yelled at disinterested sixth graders.

I saw Benjamin Bagby perform the first part of Beowulf live, accompanied by a Saxon harp, and it was sooooo amazing.

Maybe get them started younger.

Nice. My mom read Beowulf to my brother and I before we could read. Blood and gore and everything. That's one of my earliest memories.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I’ve seen Julian Glover (General Veers) perform Beowulf.

 

[billd91]

Had to do a lot of sitting around this last weekend, so I started The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson. I've been enjoying it so far a couple of hundred pages in.

 

[jian]

Ninja editor notes that Austin was busy being dead in 1820.

Yes, I realised that so that’s why I changed it to 1810.

 

[Mannahnin]

Had to do a lot of sitting around this last weekend, so I started The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson. I've been enjoying it so far a couple of hundred pages in.

I read the first four of this series. They're pretty good. Some of Larsson's writing comes off a bit... "fan-service-y"? Lisbeth gets a bit superhuman.