What do you think?
Rate this book
Sense and Sensibility
Sense and Sensibility is Austen's first published novel and the one now most scrutinized by historicist and feminist scholars, who offer new, complex readings of the work.
The text is that of the 1813 Second Edition (the origins of which can be traced back to 1795). The text is fully annotated and is accompanied by a map of nineteenth-century England."Contexts" explores the personal and social issues that loom large in Austen's novel: sense, sensibility, self-control, judgment, romantic attachments, family, and inheritance. Included are writings by Adam Smith, Samuel Johnson, Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft, Hannah Moore, and Maria Edgeworth.
"Criticism" collects six early and twelve modern assessments of the novel. Contributors include Alice Meynell, Reginald Farrer, Jan Fergus, Raymond Williams, Marilyn Butler, Mary Povey, Claudia L. Johnson, Gene Ruoff, Patricia Meyer Spacks, Isobel Armstrong, Mary Favret, Deidre Shauna Lynch, Eve Sedgwick, and Deborah Kaplan.
A Chronology and a Selected Bibliography are included.
416 pages, Paperback
First published October 30, 1811
About the author
Jane Austen
4,460 books78.2k followersJane Austen was an English novelist known primarily for her six novels, which implicitly interpret, critique, and comment upon the English landed gentry at the end of the 18th century. Austen's plots often explore the dependence of women on marriage for the pursuit of favourable social standing and economic security. Her works are an implicit critique of the novels of sensibility of the second half of the 18th century and are part of the transition to 19th-century literary realism. Her deft use of social commentary, realism and biting irony have earned her acclaim among critics and scholars.
The anonymously published Sense and Sensibility (1811), Pride and Prejudice (1813), Mansfield Park (1814), and Emma (1816), were a modest success but brought her little fame in her lifetime. She wrote two other novels—Northanger Abbey and Persuasion, both published posthumously in 1817—and began another, eventually titled Sanditon, but died before its completion. She also left behind three volumes of juvenile writings in manuscript, the short epistolary novel Lady Susan, and the unfinished novel The Watsons.
Since her death Austen's novels have rarely been out of print. A significant transition in her reputation occurred in 1833, when they were republished in Richard Bentley's Standard Novels series (illustrated by Ferdinand Pickering and sold as a set). They gradually gained wide acclaim and popular readership. In 1869, fifty-two years after her death, her nephew's publication of A Memoir of Jane Austen introduced a compelling version of her writing career and supposedly uneventful life to an eager audience. Her work has inspired a large number of critical essays and has been included in many literary anthologies. Her novels have also inspired many films, including 1940's Pride and Prejudice, 1995's Sense and Sensibility and 2016's Love & Friendship.
The anonymously published Sense and Sensibility (1811), Pride and Prejudice (1813), Mansfield Park (1814), and Emma (1816), were a modest success but brought her little fame in her lifetime. She wrote two other novels—Northanger Abbey and Persuasion, both published posthumously in 1817—and began another, eventually titled Sanditon, but died before its completion. She also left behind three volumes of juvenile writings in manuscript, the short epistolary novel Lady Susan, and the unfinished novel The Watsons.
Since her death Austen's novels have rarely been out of print. A significant transition in her reputation occurred in 1833, when they were republished in Richard Bentley's Standard Novels series (illustrated by Ferdinand Pickering and sold as a set). They gradually gained wide acclaim and popular readership. In 1869, fifty-two years after her death, her nephew's publication of A Memoir of Jane Austen introduced a compelling version of her writing career and supposedly uneventful life to an eager audience. Her work has inspired a large number of critical essays and has been included in many literary anthologies. Her novels have also inspired many films, including 1940's Pride and Prejudice, 1995's Sense and Sensibility and 2016's Love & Friendship.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41,283 reviews
October 4, 2017
Money. It's all about the money. I mean, why else would you marry someone?
In Sense and Sensibility there are three major factors beyond the usual considerations of appearance, personality and character conduct when looking for a marriage in 19th century England. Indeed, what the Dashwood sisters look for- well Elinor really because she has more refined tastes and is far more discerning in regards to men- is a man’s opinion on literature and his understanding of natural beauty. What most people look for is far removed from the realms of sentiment: they just look for money. The Dashwood sisters are wiser:
“The more I know of the world, the more I am convinced that I shall never see a man whom I can really love. I require so much!”
“.....If I could but know his heart, everything would become easy.”
And this is the problem with society, attaining money and keeping it, unfortunately, becomes the main signifier for someone’s worth. Austen, as per usual, is razor sharp with her wit here. There are so many ironic moments involving fortune hunters and extremely greedy (and selfish) relatives who only appear when they think there’s something to gain from their supposed loved ones. Everybody is so obsessed with money, more so than I’ve seen in a any other Austen. She always satirises the elites, though here most of them seem to seek the same thing with no regard for others.
I also loved the fact that there were two heroines opposed to one. Elinor and Marianne are very different people, and they interact with the world in very different ways, though they each have their values and their faults. Together, they help each other and look out for each other as sisters should. It’s a cruel world and it’s a hard world, though the Dashwood sisters have each other and their mother. They exemplify true family values which contrast against the self-involved (and rather moronic) approach of Sir John Dashwood.
This made me laugh:
He just loves money and seems unable, like many other characters, of finding new money. All their wealth comes from inheritance rather than actual incomes. They seem to have vast fortunes but don’t quite know how to add to them in an honest fashion. He is also completely controlled by his wife. At the start of the novel he seems so genuine but she twists him all too easily. Perhaps he loved her so much that he was willing to neglect his family or perhaps he was already on the verge of making such a harsh decision and she gave him the slightest of nudges to send him over. I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure.
The romances in here were more fickle and self-involved compared to her other novels. It’s one of the rare cases in fiction such as this where I was unaware who would actually end up with whom. But that’s just the nature of what Austen was trying to show here. It also made the reading experience far more entertaining. In Pride and Prejudice, Emma and even Persuasion it was so very clear how it would all end. This one, on the other hand, made things a little more lively.
And, of course, I could only ever give it five stars because of its subtle wit, eloquence of expression and sophisticated plot. How I do love Austen. I've just got Mansfield Park left to read now.
Facebook| Twitter| Insta| Academia
In Sense and Sensibility there are three major factors beyond the usual considerations of appearance, personality and character conduct when looking for a marriage in 19th century England. Indeed, what the Dashwood sisters look for- well Elinor really because she has more refined tastes and is far more discerning in regards to men- is a man’s opinion on literature and his understanding of natural beauty. What most people look for is far removed from the realms of sentiment: they just look for money. The Dashwood sisters are wiser:
“The more I know of the world, the more I am convinced that I shall never see a man whom I can really love. I require so much!”
“.....If I could but know his heart, everything would become easy.”
And this is the problem with society, attaining money and keeping it, unfortunately, becomes the main signifier for someone’s worth. Austen, as per usual, is razor sharp with her wit here. There are so many ironic moments involving fortune hunters and extremely greedy (and selfish) relatives who only appear when they think there’s something to gain from their supposed loved ones. Everybody is so obsessed with money, more so than I’ve seen in a any other Austen. She always satirises the elites, though here most of them seem to seek the same thing with no regard for others.
I also loved the fact that there were two heroines opposed to one. Elinor and Marianne are very different people, and they interact with the world in very different ways, though they each have their values and their faults. Together, they help each other and look out for each other as sisters should. It’s a cruel world and it’s a hard world, though the Dashwood sisters have each other and their mother. They exemplify true family values which contrast against the self-involved (and rather moronic) approach of Sir John Dashwood.
This made me laugh:
He just loves money and seems unable, like many other characters, of finding new money. All their wealth comes from inheritance rather than actual incomes. They seem to have vast fortunes but don’t quite know how to add to them in an honest fashion. He is also completely controlled by his wife. At the start of the novel he seems so genuine but she twists him all too easily. Perhaps he loved her so much that he was willing to neglect his family or perhaps he was already on the verge of making such a harsh decision and she gave him the slightest of nudges to send him over. I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure.
The romances in here were more fickle and self-involved compared to her other novels. It’s one of the rare cases in fiction such as this where I was unaware who would actually end up with whom. But that’s just the nature of what Austen was trying to show here. It also made the reading experience far more entertaining. In Pride and Prejudice, Emma and even Persuasion it was so very clear how it would all end. This one, on the other hand, made things a little more lively.
And, of course, I could only ever give it five stars because of its subtle wit, eloquence of expression and sophisticated plot. How I do love Austen. I've just got Mansfield Park left to read now.
Facebook| Twitter| Insta| Academia
April 23, 2010
I love Jane Austen.
I LOVE Jane Austen.
I LOVE JANE AUSTEN!!
I…LOVE…JANE…AUSTEN!!
I……LOVE…..JANE..…AUSTEN!!
I still twitch a bit, but I'm getting more and more man-comfortable saying that because there no denying that it’s true. Normally, I am not much of a soapy, chick-flick, mani-pedi kinda guy. I don’t spritz my wine, rarely eat quiche and have never had anything waxed (though the list of things that need it grows by the hour).
But I would walk across a desert in bloomers and a parasol to read Ms. Austen. Pride and Prejudice is one of my all time favorite books and Sense and Sensibility is certainly up among the elite. Jane can absolutely bust me when she starts penning that snappy prose laced with all those sly, subtle, sarcastic phrases. She’s like prim and proper meets saucy and bossy.
I find it interesting that the "descriptions" of her books never seem very appealing to me before I begin them (I would direct your attention to the non chick-flick portion of my “I’m a Man Intro” above). For example, Sense and Sensibility is the story of two sisters, one emotionally reserved (to put it mildly) and proper and the other emotionally volatile and prone to disregard convention, as they struggle with life and relationships following the death of their father. Doesn’t it sound kinda Hallmark Networky? While I can appreciate that stuff, it doesn’t generally produce boat float with me.
However, the quality of the writing and the nuanced sassiness of the dialogue just warms my cockles and makes me prone to bouts of squealing. Her characterization, primarily the two sisters, but true for the rest of the cast as well, is so impeccably done that I keep expecting one of them to tap me on the shoulder as I’m reading…..don’t worry, none of them have yet but I’m still hoping.
Probably the most appealing aspect of Jane’s novels is the need for her intelligent, strong-willed female characters to move through the emotionally stifling requirements of “Victorian” society. So much of the charm of Jane’s writing revolves around the characters being forced to find an “acceptable” mode of expressing raw emotions when “bitch slapping” and “Fuck offing” just won’t do. I love watching the characters having to comport themselves so “correctly” as they explain to each other that they are going to ruin their families, steal their lovers, etc.
I love the roadblocks that the Victorian setting erects in the emotional road of the story and how effortlessly Jane navigates around them. She draws her characters feeling the deepest and rawest of emotions while having to maintain an outward appearance of dignity and respectability. The fact that she is able to convey that crushing sense of emotion to the reader without depictions of expressive behavior is just another example of her boggle the mind brilliance.
Okay, the gush must end and here is as good a place as any. You should really read this one. It’s good. 5.0 to 5.5 STARS. HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!!!
P.S. I listened to the audio version of this narrated by Juliet Stevenson and she was superb.
I LOVE Jane Austen.
I LOVE JANE AUSTEN!!
I…LOVE…JANE…AUSTEN!!
I……LOVE…..JANE..…AUSTEN!!
I still twitch a bit, but I'm getting more and more man-comfortable saying that because there no denying that it’s true. Normally, I am not much of a soapy, chick-flick, mani-pedi kinda guy. I don’t spritz my wine, rarely eat quiche and have never had anything waxed (though the list of things that need it grows by the hour).
But I would walk across a desert in bloomers and a parasol to read Ms. Austen. Pride and Prejudice is one of my all time favorite books and Sense and Sensibility is certainly up among the elite. Jane can absolutely bust me when she starts penning that snappy prose laced with all those sly, subtle, sarcastic phrases. She’s like prim and proper meets saucy and bossy.
I find it interesting that the "descriptions" of her books never seem very appealing to me before I begin them (I would direct your attention to the non chick-flick portion of my “I’m a Man Intro” above). For example, Sense and Sensibility is the story of two sisters, one emotionally reserved (to put it mildly) and proper and the other emotionally volatile and prone to disregard convention, as they struggle with life and relationships following the death of their father. Doesn’t it sound kinda Hallmark Networky? While I can appreciate that stuff, it doesn’t generally produce boat float with me.
However, the quality of the writing and the nuanced sassiness of the dialogue just warms my cockles and makes me prone to bouts of squealing. Her characterization, primarily the two sisters, but true for the rest of the cast as well, is so impeccably done that I keep expecting one of them to tap me on the shoulder as I’m reading…..don’t worry, none of them have yet but I’m still hoping.
Probably the most appealing aspect of Jane’s novels is the need for her intelligent, strong-willed female characters to move through the emotionally stifling requirements of “Victorian” society. So much of the charm of Jane’s writing revolves around the characters being forced to find an “acceptable” mode of expressing raw emotions when “bitch slapping” and “Fuck offing” just won’t do. I love watching the characters having to comport themselves so “correctly” as they explain to each other that they are going to ruin their families, steal their lovers, etc.
I love the roadblocks that the Victorian setting erects in the emotional road of the story and how effortlessly Jane navigates around them. She draws her characters feeling the deepest and rawest of emotions while having to maintain an outward appearance of dignity and respectability. The fact that she is able to convey that crushing sense of emotion to the reader without depictions of expressive behavior is just another example of her boggle the mind brilliance.
Okay, the gush must end and here is as good a place as any. You should really read this one. It’s good. 5.0 to 5.5 STARS. HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!!!
P.S. I listened to the audio version of this narrated by Juliet Stevenson and she was superb.
October 14, 2019
*life goals: to be an Eleanor
*reality: being a Marianne
⬇️
*Classic example of men being gold diggers: John Willdoughy
Not all gold diggers are women
*Classic character reference of mean girls and vanity: Lucy Steele
*Most underrated character reference in history:
Colonel Brandon
*Most unsettling romance main man character of all times: Edward Ferrars
*Classic reference of being in a group project where your name is there but you are always absent to the point of being creepy: Margaret Dashwood
(The mere thought of Margeret being there not being there gave me chills throughout this read. Me and my character curiosity blown out of normalcy!)
Doesn't anyone else feel this way?
One of the most satisfactory endings of all times! I need to reread this one💘
*Even though everything else was perfectly written, I got tired of being with Marianne. I needed more of Edward and Eleanor. And more interaction between Brandon and Marianne.
*My most favourite chapter is of course without doubt Chapter 49 with the confession. It's so beautiful.
(*top 10 anticipated reads of 2019*)
*reality: being a Marianne
⬇️
*Classic example of men being gold diggers: John Willdoughy
Not all gold diggers are women
*Classic character reference of mean girls and vanity: Lucy Steele
*Most underrated character reference in history:
Colonel Brandon
*Most unsettling romance main man character of all times: Edward Ferrars
*Classic reference of being in a group project where your name is there but you are always absent to the point of being creepy: Margaret Dashwood
(The mere thought of Margeret being there not being there gave me chills throughout this read. Me and my character curiosity blown out of normalcy!)
Doesn't anyone else feel this way?
One of the most satisfactory endings of all times! I need to reread this one💘
*Even though everything else was perfectly written, I got tired of being with Marianne. I needed more of Edward and Eleanor. And more interaction between Brandon and Marianne.
*My most favourite chapter is of course without doubt Chapter 49 with the confession. It's so beautiful.
(*top 10 anticipated reads of 2019*)
September 20, 2022
While I enjoyed the relationship between the sisters, I didn't care for the romances.
Colonel Brandon is <3 but probably not the best match for
Trying to read all of her books... So far:
Pride and Prejudice
Emma
Lady Susan
*Sense and Sensibility
Persuasion
Northanger Abbey
Colonel Brandon is <3 but probably not the best match for
Trying to read all of her books... So far:
Pride and Prejudice
Emma
Lady Susan
*Sense and Sensibility
Persuasion
Northanger Abbey
August 3, 2024
thank you, Jane Austen, for affirming that you can find genuine, long-lasting love after being subjected to the most soul-harrowing, mind-crushing, heart-pulverizing situationship of your life
December 26, 2013
Sense and Sensibility is dense with inactivity.
December 2, 2025
Here I was, thinking I was going to have to run out and buy every single Jane Austen novel, to the consternation of my wallet. So it's with relief to realize that I can safely strike Sense and Sensibility off my list.
Coming off of Pride and Prejudice, I couldn't wait to dive into more Jane Austen, and Sense and Sensibility had always been high on my list. But from the very start, this book felt like the more lackluster and spiritless cousin of its more famous successor, and it never really picked up from there.
I think my biggest problem is that the vast majority of this book comes off as a lecture. It's essentially a monologue of social commentary, but camouflaged as dialogue. A character would expound at length about a certain view, then another character would take their leisurely turn on the opposite view. And so they'd go back and forth, back and forth, explaining every facet of the argument in overwhelming detail until I had no choice but to cry submission.
I don't know what to say except there are two things which annoy me to no end in writing—all tell no show, and overexplaining—and this book somehow managed to achieve both. And it did so for almost the entire length of this book.
There were moments when the story came alive, but it never lasted longer than a few paragraphs before the dreaded overexplaining was back. It was almost impossible to concentrate and lose myself in the story, for every time I did, I was immediately yanked out by more unnecessary yakking.
Where was the spark? Where was the wit? The characters were so flat, it was hard to imagine them falling in love or really feeling anything at all. I wanted to adore Elinor and Marianne and Edward and Colonel Brandon, but they were so bland on the pages, my imagination could not supply the necessary emotions.
This was a particularly bitter disappointment for me because the film adaptation (directed by Ang Lee and starring Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet) is one of my favorites of all time. Where the film was suffused with so much emotion and such dynamic characters, the book was but a watered down facsimile.
Is it possible that my love and previous experiences with the film colored my perspectives of the book? I mean, it's certainly possible. But it's hard to say which way it swayed me. Maybe the film set my expectations of the book so high it was bound to fall short. But it's just as likely that without having already adored the characters going in, I would've found the book even more lifeless than I already did.
As I understand it, this was Jane Austen's first full length novel, so it's possible she was using this to refine the social commentary and insightful wit that would bring her so much fame in her later works. And while I can see bits of them here and there, she hadn't quite gotten there yet with this book.
So if you haven't read Sense and Sensibility, I recommend skipping it altogether and just going straight to the film, because this is the rare case where the film is better. And if you haven't read any Jane Austen at all, I definitely don't recommend starting with this one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
See also, my thoughts on:
Pride and Prejudice
Emma
~~~~~~~~~~~~
✧ Connect with me ✧ Instagram ✧
Coming off of Pride and Prejudice, I couldn't wait to dive into more Jane Austen, and Sense and Sensibility had always been high on my list. But from the very start, this book felt like the more lackluster and spiritless cousin of its more famous successor, and it never really picked up from there.
I think my biggest problem is that the vast majority of this book comes off as a lecture. It's essentially a monologue of social commentary, but camouflaged as dialogue. A character would expound at length about a certain view, then another character would take their leisurely turn on the opposite view. And so they'd go back and forth, back and forth, explaining every facet of the argument in overwhelming detail until I had no choice but to cry submission.
I don't know what to say except there are two things which annoy me to no end in writing—all tell no show, and overexplaining—and this book somehow managed to achieve both. And it did so for almost the entire length of this book.
There were moments when the story came alive, but it never lasted longer than a few paragraphs before the dreaded overexplaining was back. It was almost impossible to concentrate and lose myself in the story, for every time I did, I was immediately yanked out by more unnecessary yakking.
Where was the spark? Where was the wit? The characters were so flat, it was hard to imagine them falling in love or really feeling anything at all. I wanted to adore Elinor and Marianne and Edward and Colonel Brandon, but they were so bland on the pages, my imagination could not supply the necessary emotions.
This was a particularly bitter disappointment for me because the film adaptation (directed by Ang Lee and starring Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet) is one of my favorites of all time. Where the film was suffused with so much emotion and such dynamic characters, the book was but a watered down facsimile.
Is it possible that my love and previous experiences with the film colored my perspectives of the book? I mean, it's certainly possible. But it's hard to say which way it swayed me. Maybe the film set my expectations of the book so high it was bound to fall short. But it's just as likely that without having already adored the characters going in, I would've found the book even more lifeless than I already did.
As I understand it, this was Jane Austen's first full length novel, so it's possible she was using this to refine the social commentary and insightful wit that would bring her so much fame in her later works. And while I can see bits of them here and there, she hadn't quite gotten there yet with this book.
So if you haven't read Sense and Sensibility, I recommend skipping it altogether and just going straight to the film, because this is the rare case where the film is better. And if you haven't read any Jane Austen at all, I definitely don't recommend starting with this one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
See also, my thoughts on:
Pride and Prejudice
Emma
~~~~~~~~~~~~
✧ Connect with me ✧ Instagram ✧
January 29, 2021
I'm not a fan of Jane Austen. I've given her many chances, and do really want to like her work, but am always let down -- until now, that is! I enjoyed Sense and Sensibility so much more than I was expecting to! I still wouldn't rank it on the same level as the Bronte sisters, but the story is sardonically funny, clever and surprisingly gripping for one with such a slow pace!
I thought the characters were really believable. Those characters who seemed more 2D at the beginning, grew out of later-revealed back-stories which made them more complex and complicated any notion of good and evil in the book. I particularly loved Marianne as a character, and how she transgresses what is expected of proper, upper-class ladies. Instead of talking in the drawing room, she will take up a book or stare out of the window or go on a long walk outside. She is strong and fiery and a new favourite of mine.
I would definitely recommend this to you -- even if you didn't like Pride and Prejudice, Persuasion and Mansfield Park (all of which I will now be giving another go!).
I thought the characters were really believable. Those characters who seemed more 2D at the beginning, grew out of later-revealed back-stories which made them more complex and complicated any notion of good and evil in the book. I particularly loved Marianne as a character, and how she transgresses what is expected of proper, upper-class ladies. Instead of talking in the drawing room, she will take up a book or stare out of the window or go on a long walk outside. She is strong and fiery and a new favourite of mine.
I would definitely recommend this to you -- even if you didn't like Pride and Prejudice, Persuasion and Mansfield Park (all of which I will now be giving another go!).
November 16, 2008
This is a great story even though neither heroine is my favorite.
And I'm not really crazy about the boys, either.
I'm not saying Austen wrote them incorrectly, but these were different times, and not all the stuff they did translates all that well into most people's version of what a modern-day heroine (or hero) should look like.
So. If you're a new-to-Austen reader, just keep that in mind.
The general gist of this one is that two sisters, who have recently fallen on hard financial times, also fall in love with two men. With vastly different ways of showing it, and vastly different outcomes to their respective romances.
Marianne is impetuous, full of life, sure of herself, and unwilling to tone it down, as my mother would say. Her ideas of love are pure romance, and anyone who looks at love differently has no soul. She very much represents how love is perceived by someone who is young or doesn't really have any experience with the many different ways real love makes an appearance.
Elinor is very much the woman who knows how to put her lipstick on and hide her crazy, as my mother would also say. In other words, she's got the Sense and Sensibility not to share her hopes and dreams, inner turmoil, or just her business in general with everyone. <--good or bad.
Today? I think that a combination of Marianne & Elinor would be the sort of woman that I would want to read about in a book.
Because let's face it, Marianne is ridiculous. Not her spirit, but her ideas of this perfect man and perfect love that will forever stamp your soul are just bonkers. Get out of here with that nonsense, says the older/wiser woman. I think we all (men and women) start out with a little bit of Marianne in ourselves.
You only know what you know.
This means that young people aren't particularly stupid, they just haven't had enough LIFE slap them upside their heads yet.
But they will.
Ooooooh, they will.
At the same time, I don't think Elinor is a paragon of womanhood just because she managed to stuff each and every emotion deeeeeep into some secret hidey-hole in her psyche.
I can't help but think it would have been better for her to confide in someone...or maybe just find that worm at the bottom of the bottle?
Don't judge.
We all have our ways of coping.
Ok, ok. So, even if Elinor & Marianne aren't Lizzie Bennet, this is still a fantastic story and a must for anyone who is Austen-curious. As always, she wrote characters who were (for the times) true to life, fully formed, and definitely worth taking a journey to get to know.
Recommended.
And I'm not really crazy about the boys, either.
I'm not saying Austen wrote them incorrectly, but these were different times, and not all the stuff they did translates all that well into most people's version of what a modern-day heroine (or hero) should look like.
So. If you're a new-to-Austen reader, just keep that in mind.
The general gist of this one is that two sisters, who have recently fallen on hard financial times, also fall in love with two men. With vastly different ways of showing it, and vastly different outcomes to their respective romances.
Marianne is impetuous, full of life, sure of herself, and unwilling to tone it down, as my mother would say. Her ideas of love are pure romance, and anyone who looks at love differently has no soul. She very much represents how love is perceived by someone who is young or doesn't really have any experience with the many different ways real love makes an appearance.
Elinor is very much the woman who knows how to put her lipstick on and hide her crazy, as my mother would also say. In other words, she's got the Sense and Sensibility not to share her hopes and dreams, inner turmoil, or just her business in general with everyone. <--good or bad.
Today? I think that a combination of Marianne & Elinor would be the sort of woman that I would want to read about in a book.
Because let's face it, Marianne is ridiculous. Not her spirit, but her ideas of this perfect man and perfect love that will forever stamp your soul are just bonkers. Get out of here with that nonsense, says the older/wiser woman. I think we all (men and women) start out with a little bit of Marianne in ourselves.
You only know what you know.
This means that young people aren't particularly stupid, they just haven't had enough LIFE slap them upside their heads yet.
But they will.
Ooooooh, they will.
At the same time, I don't think Elinor is a paragon of womanhood just because she managed to stuff each and every emotion deeeeeep into some secret hidey-hole in her psyche.
I can't help but think it would have been better for her to confide in someone...or maybe just find that worm at the bottom of the bottle?
Don't judge.
We all have our ways of coping.
Ok, ok. So, even if Elinor & Marianne aren't Lizzie Bennet, this is still a fantastic story and a must for anyone who is Austen-curious. As always, she wrote characters who were (for the times) true to life, fully formed, and definitely worth taking a journey to get to know.
Recommended.
January 2, 2013
Jane Austen’s first published work, Sense and Sensibility, published in 1811, is more straightforward than most of her later works. The story focuses on two sisters, ages 17 and 19, and how their romantic interests and relationships epitomize their different approaches to life. The older sister Elinor embodies sense, good judgment and discretion.
Her sister Marianne is emotional and volatile, following her heart with a supreme disregard for what society might – and does – think.
Elinor is pretty much always right.
Marianne’s parade gets rained on, in more ways than one.
Although at most points in this novel Austen seems to be saying very clearly that Elinor's approach of being sensible is superior to Marianne's sensibility, every once in a while the story suggests that maybe being sensible all the time isn't the best idea, and there needs to be some balance between the two extremes. . Food for thought.
One truly nice thing is that despite their vast differences and theiroccasional fairly frequent annoyances with each other, Elinor and Marianne have a deep love and loyalty for one another. Their relationship remains strong through all of the stresses that hit them, and is even strengthened during the course of the novel.
Another thing that struck me in this story is how many of the characters – other than the totally emotionally honest Marianne – are keeping secrets. Edward and Lucy. Elinor is honor-bound to keep Lucy’s secret, at the expense of her own emotional health. Willoughby? HAHAHA! Even Colonel Brandon has a secret past. The difference is, some people are keeping secrets to protect other people, for honorable reasons; others are doing it for self-serving reasons.
There are some slower parts but, honestly, I never got bored, even though I've seen both of the recent S&S movies so many times that there weren't any big surprises. There were several smaller surprises, as you might expect from reading any book after seeing a movie of it. It was interesting seeing what the 1995 filmmakers chose to omit or change (e.g., Lady Middleton and Lucy Steele's older sister are missing from Emma Thompson's 1995 film, and Margaret Dashwood was given an actual personality in the movie. Can't argue with any of those moves.).
You have to love a novel that includes a statement like this:
S&S might not be a perfect book, but based on the amount of highlighting I was doing at the end, and my happy smiles when I finished, it gets all the stars.
Initial comments: Here's my problem: I love both the 1995 Ang Lee/Emma Thompson film and the 2008 BBC version, have watched both of them, um, more than once (who's counting?) and now I can barely remember the original novel. That clearly needs to change.
Her sister Marianne is emotional and volatile, following her heart with a supreme disregard for what society might – and does – think.
Elinor is pretty much always right.
Marianne’s parade gets rained on, in more ways than one.
Although at most points in this novel Austen seems to be saying very clearly that Elinor's approach of being sensible is superior to Marianne's sensibility, every once in a while the story suggests that maybe being sensible all the time isn't the best idea, and there needs to be some balance between the two extremes. . Food for thought.
One truly nice thing is that despite their vast differences and their
Another thing that struck me in this story is how many of the characters – other than the totally emotionally honest Marianne – are keeping secrets. Edward and Lucy. Elinor is honor-bound to keep Lucy’s secret, at the expense of her own emotional health. Willoughby? HAHAHA! Even Colonel Brandon has a secret past. The difference is, some people are keeping secrets to protect other people, for honorable reasons; others are doing it for self-serving reasons.
There are some slower parts but, honestly, I never got bored, even though I've seen both of the recent S&S movies so many times that there weren't any big surprises. There were several smaller surprises, as you might expect from reading any book after seeing a movie of it. It was interesting seeing what the 1995 filmmakers chose to omit or change (e.g., Lady Middleton and Lucy Steele's older sister are missing from Emma Thompson's 1995 film, and Margaret Dashwood was given an actual personality in the movie. Can't argue with any of those moves.).
You have to love a novel that includes a statement like this:
The whole of Lucy's behaviour in the affair, and the prosperity which crowned it, therefore, may be held forth as a most encouraging instance of what an earnest, an unceasing attention to self-interest, however its progress may be apparently obstructed, will do in securing every advantage of fortune, with no other sacrifice than that of time and conscience.Jane Austen's wit and dry humor really make the story.
S&S might not be a perfect book, but based on the amount of highlighting I was doing at the end, and my happy smiles when I finished, it gets all the stars.
Initial comments: Here's my problem: I love both the 1995 Ang Lee/Emma Thompson film and the 2008 BBC version, have watched both of them, um, more than once (who's counting?) and now I can barely remember the original novel. That clearly needs to change.
June 24, 2020
This work was my first Jane Austen novel, and I enjoyed it. However, afterward, the story didn't thrill me as much as Jane Eyre, another Victorian tale that I had devoured and that deeply moved me.
There, I moaned and sympathized with the Dashwood sisters' disappointments in this basket of heartless and unscrupulous vipers, more interested in the size of their dowries than in their undeniable human qualities.
But it is pretty long and monotonous: the trips between London and the various residences, the inter-family gossip, the marital maneuvers, the sweet lines, and the sneaking shots. In short, this atmosphere is weighty, but the style is remarkable since I wanted to know how it would end for Elinor and Marianne at all costs. And finally, I am a little disappointed with this ending, which looks like dramatic bells have fallen.
It is nevertheless a beautiful read because of the characters' psychological depth and what it teaches about the customs of the time, as well as the disregard for women and their future.
There, I moaned and sympathized with the Dashwood sisters' disappointments in this basket of heartless and unscrupulous vipers, more interested in the size of their dowries than in their undeniable human qualities.
But it is pretty long and monotonous: the trips between London and the various residences, the inter-family gossip, the marital maneuvers, the sweet lines, and the sneaking shots. In short, this atmosphere is weighty, but the style is remarkable since I wanted to know how it would end for Elinor and Marianne at all costs. And finally, I am a little disappointed with this ending, which looks like dramatic bells have fallen.
It is nevertheless a beautiful read because of the characters' psychological depth and what it teaches about the customs of the time, as well as the disregard for women and their future.
![Profile Image for s.penkevich [hiatus-will return-miss you all].](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/users/1735525095i/6431467._UX200_CR0,11,200,200_.jpg)
September 14, 2012
'Know your own happiness. Want for nothing but patience -- or give it a more fascinating name: Call it hope.'
What does it mean for one to be 'sensible'? As we are all individuals, with our own needs, is it sensible to always act according to our countenance (to steal a lovely phrase from Austen), to keep true to ourselves, or is there a code of manners that we should adhere to in order to maintain a proper course of action? Austen’s aptly titled Sense and Sensibility, a staggeringly impressive first publication from 19 year old Austen, probes the very ideas of it’s title. Told through the juxtaposition of two sisters forging their own sensible rationalities as they find themselves in a society fueled by social standings and money, they discover that love does not always fit pleasantly into such a world.
An impressive feature of the Jane Austen novels is her ability to construct a broad scale society to immerse her heroines. She juggles a large cast of characters, each with a uniquely rounded personality and varied level of likeability, which gives a realistic scope and portrayal to the story. Just like in our own lives, we see Elinor and Marianne dealing with friends, rivals, busybodies and outright scoundrels. Austen manages to flesh her characters out with positive and negative traits, giving even the despicable ones a moment to plead their case. The reader is left to either accept or reject such justifications on their own terms, and, in a way, if even the ‘villainous’ act in what they see to be a sensible manner, Austen calls into question our own ideals and interpretations on the matter. She is clever at keeping an ironic flair to her characters, offering a dark side to ones you initially thought amiable, and bestowing grief of less-than-Prince-Charming characteristics to those who should be the true champion of hearts.
The actions of each character show the variety of ways one can interact and react within society, offering a wide number of actions to decide between when declaring what is ‘truly sensible’. The two sisters experience near-mirrored heartbreak and respond in polarizing manners. Is it more sensible to keep your feelings buried, suffering in solitude, always appearing calm and collect at the risk of seeming cold, or more sensible to wear one’s heart on their sleeve, falling into self-pity while drawing the attention of those who can care and offer support? Even the smallest characters can be looked at in this ways. Is sensibility, to toy with hearts, to stick your nose in another’s business, to marry for love with no money or for money with no love?
Perhaps a proper title could have also been Cents and Sensibility, as Austen takes careful aim at the dominating social constructs. The opinions on money, and it’s unavoidable, necessary power over society and the not-so-well-off Dashwood’s particularly, is a crucial element to what is sensible. The social commentary is thick and delicious. We witness many broken hearts in the name of money, and many hearts set on love faced with crippling financial consequences. The final results of the novel however, goes to prove the lyrics 'you can't always get what you want, but when you try sometimes, you'll find you get what you need.'
While I began reading the Austen/Bronte novels feeling like it is something I should know going into a literature degree, thinking ‘oh well, I guess I should know these’, I’ve come to discover I really enjoy them. Especially reading them alongside so many post-modernist works of genius; Austen has been the anchor keeping me from being lost in the Zone. Occasionally it is nice to escape the bells and whistles of modern lit, to step out of the multi-layered metafiction and swirling narratives that I so love, and read a novel that is just as incredible on a powerful but elegant voice, ironic wit, and an acute sense of society alone. I highly recommend Jane Austen to anyone. I want to show up with flowers for Elinor and spend all day sipping tea with her from dainty cups and sighing about weather and society. However, I would be doing a great disservice to you and two the two fine reviewers I am about to speak of, to continue keeping your time and not sending you to these two outstanding reviews: Liberty’s, who I’ve come to consider my professor in all that is Austen/Bronte/Woolf, etc, and the wonderful Kelly, who has said everything I wanted to say and more, but far better. Austen’s world makes us all question our morality and actions, and the world is a better place for it.
4/5
What does it mean for one to be 'sensible'? As we are all individuals, with our own needs, is it sensible to always act according to our countenance (to steal a lovely phrase from Austen), to keep true to ourselves, or is there a code of manners that we should adhere to in order to maintain a proper course of action? Austen’s aptly titled Sense and Sensibility, a staggeringly impressive first publication from 19 year old Austen, probes the very ideas of it’s title. Told through the juxtaposition of two sisters forging their own sensible rationalities as they find themselves in a society fueled by social standings and money, they discover that love does not always fit pleasantly into such a world.
An impressive feature of the Jane Austen novels is her ability to construct a broad scale society to immerse her heroines. She juggles a large cast of characters, each with a uniquely rounded personality and varied level of likeability, which gives a realistic scope and portrayal to the story. Just like in our own lives, we see Elinor and Marianne dealing with friends, rivals, busybodies and outright scoundrels. Austen manages to flesh her characters out with positive and negative traits, giving even the despicable ones a moment to plead their case. The reader is left to either accept or reject such justifications on their own terms, and, in a way, if even the ‘villainous’ act in what they see to be a sensible manner, Austen calls into question our own ideals and interpretations on the matter. She is clever at keeping an ironic flair to her characters, offering a dark side to ones you initially thought amiable, and bestowing grief of less-than-Prince-Charming characteristics to those who should be the true champion of hearts.
The actions of each character show the variety of ways one can interact and react within society, offering a wide number of actions to decide between when declaring what is ‘truly sensible’. The two sisters experience near-mirrored heartbreak and respond in polarizing manners. Is it more sensible to keep your feelings buried, suffering in solitude, always appearing calm and collect at the risk of seeming cold, or more sensible to wear one’s heart on their sleeve, falling into self-pity while drawing the attention of those who can care and offer support? Even the smallest characters can be looked at in this ways. Is sensibility, to toy with hearts, to stick your nose in another’s business, to marry for love with no money or for money with no love?
Perhaps a proper title could have also been Cents and Sensibility, as Austen takes careful aim at the dominating social constructs. The opinions on money, and it’s unavoidable, necessary power over society and the not-so-well-off Dashwood’s particularly, is a crucial element to what is sensible. The social commentary is thick and delicious. We witness many broken hearts in the name of money, and many hearts set on love faced with crippling financial consequences. The final results of the novel however, goes to prove the lyrics 'you can't always get what you want, but when you try sometimes, you'll find you get what you need.'
While I began reading the Austen/Bronte novels feeling like it is something I should know going into a literature degree, thinking ‘oh well, I guess I should know these’, I’ve come to discover I really enjoy them. Especially reading them alongside so many post-modernist works of genius; Austen has been the anchor keeping me from being lost in the Zone. Occasionally it is nice to escape the bells and whistles of modern lit, to step out of the multi-layered metafiction and swirling narratives that I so love, and read a novel that is just as incredible on a powerful but elegant voice, ironic wit, and an acute sense of society alone. I highly recommend Jane Austen to anyone. I want to show up with flowers for Elinor and spend all day sipping tea with her from dainty cups and sighing about weather and society. However, I would be doing a great disservice to you and two the two fine reviewers I am about to speak of, to continue keeping your time and not sending you to these two outstanding reviews: Liberty’s, who I’ve come to consider my professor in all that is Austen/Bronte/Woolf, etc, and the wonderful Kelly, who has said everything I wanted to say and more, but far better. Austen’s world makes us all question our morality and actions, and the world is a better place for it.
4/5
November 11, 2024
This book’s plot centers around the everyday trivialities, social interactions, and emotional journeys of a few women. Since that era feels so far removed from my own, I sometimes can’t help but chuckle at their narrow outlook - a story about somewhat snobby, pretentious women. But if you really take the time to get into it, you’ll notice its clever charm.
The book goes beyond surface appearances to get at the very core of human nature, which is why the characters still feel so real even 200 years later. The times might have changed, but as long as people make up society, we’ll always be able to see ourselves, the people around us, and the essence of our souls in it.
When it comes to Austen, literary fans are pretty split. Some compare her to Shakespeare and Dickens, while others dismiss her as completely worthless. I wouldn’t say I’m crazy about her, but I have a ton of respect for her. She never married and didn’t need a man, a family, or even kids to support her inner world. In this novel, the focus is entirely on a group of women, and the men just come and go as side characters. Even back then - and even today - this kind of lifestyle might subconsciously put most people off. But honestly, the world could use more of that independent voice.
The book tells a story of balancing sense and sensibility. It features characters who are all about cold, hard money and others who are driven by wild, unchecked emotion, but at its heart, it’s about someone learning to switch from being ruled by emotion to embracing reason. The story rejects the idea of being overly rational in a utilitarian way (like many modern thinkers) while also dismissing extreme, unfiltered emotion (like those who haven’t really experienced life). Instead, it advocates for a balanced, middle-of-the-road approach.
I’m really fond of Marianne - the super emotional, no-holds-barred kind of person. She loves and hates with abandon, is refreshingly genuine, and never plays games. She might seem a bit out of place in society, but her authentic charm wins me over - no artificial politeness, just raw, honest emotion. She’s hopelessly romantic and a believer in love at first sight, and she simply ignores anyone she doesn’t like. Thankfully, her older sister Elinor is always there to smooth things over. Elinor is like a perfect blend of feeling and reason: she knows how to navigate social norms, handles people with tact, and stays respectful without being servile or condescending. Although she has her own emotions, she always keeps them in check. When it comes to the man she likes, Edward, she never overdoes it or drops any hints. Even when she finds out he’s been engaged for 5 years, she stays remarkably composed. That kind of independence - recognizing that love isn’t everything and that life has so much more to offer - is a refreshing contrast to Marianne’s dramatic, over-the-top reactions. In the end, both sisters grow into women who embody a mix of both reason and emotion.
My favorite part of the book is when the 3 half-sisters’ half-brother starts off wanting to give them 3 thousand pounds, but his ultra-rational wife gradually talks him into holding onto every penny and even plotting to kick them out as soon as possible. It really shows how people can lose their way and how important it is to have a good partner. And if you can’t find 1, being single isn’t the end of the world. Another part I love is when Elinor, while listening to the crude, self-important Robert spout his disgusting values and moral standards, just smiles and goes along with him. In her head, she’s thinking there’s no point arguing because he doesn’t deserve the effort. It might just be a social trick, but I find it really appealing. With so many average people around, trying to fix each one is just a waste of time and energy. The best move is to let them be, because life’s too short to spend on them. So sometimes, it’s best not to explain, criticize, or even call them out - and a little flattery when needed is just a form of self-respect.
The conversations and internal monologues between Elinor and Marianne are brilliantly written. I honestly think the whole story might work even better as a play. It’s no wonder that Austen’s novels have been adapted into countless films and remade over and over again.
In this world, you need reason to appreciate comedy and emotion to understand tragedy. In short, mastering that balance between reason and emotion is the only way to truly grasp the ups and downs of life - without getting too caught up in external things or personal setbacks.
4.6 / 5 stars
The book goes beyond surface appearances to get at the very core of human nature, which is why the characters still feel so real even 200 years later. The times might have changed, but as long as people make up society, we’ll always be able to see ourselves, the people around us, and the essence of our souls in it.
When it comes to Austen, literary fans are pretty split. Some compare her to Shakespeare and Dickens, while others dismiss her as completely worthless. I wouldn’t say I’m crazy about her, but I have a ton of respect for her. She never married and didn’t need a man, a family, or even kids to support her inner world. In this novel, the focus is entirely on a group of women, and the men just come and go as side characters. Even back then - and even today - this kind of lifestyle might subconsciously put most people off. But honestly, the world could use more of that independent voice.
The book tells a story of balancing sense and sensibility. It features characters who are all about cold, hard money and others who are driven by wild, unchecked emotion, but at its heart, it’s about someone learning to switch from being ruled by emotion to embracing reason. The story rejects the idea of being overly rational in a utilitarian way (like many modern thinkers) while also dismissing extreme, unfiltered emotion (like those who haven’t really experienced life). Instead, it advocates for a balanced, middle-of-the-road approach.
I’m really fond of Marianne - the super emotional, no-holds-barred kind of person. She loves and hates with abandon, is refreshingly genuine, and never plays games. She might seem a bit out of place in society, but her authentic charm wins me over - no artificial politeness, just raw, honest emotion. She’s hopelessly romantic and a believer in love at first sight, and she simply ignores anyone she doesn’t like. Thankfully, her older sister Elinor is always there to smooth things over. Elinor is like a perfect blend of feeling and reason: she knows how to navigate social norms, handles people with tact, and stays respectful without being servile or condescending. Although she has her own emotions, she always keeps them in check. When it comes to the man she likes, Edward, she never overdoes it or drops any hints. Even when she finds out he’s been engaged for 5 years, she stays remarkably composed. That kind of independence - recognizing that love isn’t everything and that life has so much more to offer - is a refreshing contrast to Marianne’s dramatic, over-the-top reactions. In the end, both sisters grow into women who embody a mix of both reason and emotion.
My favorite part of the book is when the 3 half-sisters’ half-brother starts off wanting to give them 3 thousand pounds, but his ultra-rational wife gradually talks him into holding onto every penny and even plotting to kick them out as soon as possible. It really shows how people can lose their way and how important it is to have a good partner. And if you can’t find 1, being single isn’t the end of the world. Another part I love is when Elinor, while listening to the crude, self-important Robert spout his disgusting values and moral standards, just smiles and goes along with him. In her head, she’s thinking there’s no point arguing because he doesn’t deserve the effort. It might just be a social trick, but I find it really appealing. With so many average people around, trying to fix each one is just a waste of time and energy. The best move is to let them be, because life’s too short to spend on them. So sometimes, it’s best not to explain, criticize, or even call them out - and a little flattery when needed is just a form of self-respect.
The conversations and internal monologues between Elinor and Marianne are brilliantly written. I honestly think the whole story might work even better as a play. It’s no wonder that Austen’s novels have been adapted into countless films and remade over and over again.
In this world, you need reason to appreciate comedy and emotion to understand tragedy. In short, mastering that balance between reason and emotion is the only way to truly grasp the ups and downs of life - without getting too caught up in external things or personal setbacks.
4.6 / 5 stars
July 28, 2021
“Know your own happiness. You want nothing but patience- or give it a more fascinating name, call it hope.”
Undeniably Jane Austen, unquestionably timeless for the many arresting themes that still hold true today but also embrace the unsubtle snobbery and social structures of England’s Georgian period. But perhaps the most vivid and compelling portrayal of the books title ‘sense and sensibility’ is in the characters themselves.
Elinor - the heroine of ‘sense’ is undoubtedly my favourite and Marianne, the lesser hero in my eyes is the one that ‘dramatizes’ sensibility. Yes it is the story of two sisters whose lives become entwined with potential suitors as well as the guardians of morality who treat us with those all-important pearls of wisdom in a story of greed, love, immortality, deception and sensibility.
….and as a book that is undeniably Jane Austen, the characterisation is the standout as we’ve come to expect and adore with Jane Austen’s writing and stories.
The Plot
Henry Dashwood dies suddenly before he can build enough fortune to provide financial stability for his second wife and their three daughters: Elinor, Marianne, and the young Margaret. Attempting to remedy the seemingly lost cause, Henry secures a promise from his first son, John Dashwood, that he will always look after his stepsisters and their mother, when the estate falls to him. However, as a result of John Dashwood’s weakness and his wife’s greed, John reneges on the promise made to his father and he forces the four Dashwood women from Norland Park.
Although, an unexpected invitation comes from Sir John Middleton who provides the women with the opportunity to rent the modest Barton cottage in Devon near his home, and so life’s lessons really can begin for the family.
Marianne becomes infatuated with the dashing John Willoughby, who shares a love of poetry, music and art, with her, but she has yet to see his true character. For he is a fortune hunter. However, Marianne has already caught the attention of the thirty-five-year-old bachelor, Colonel Brandon, a wealthy man but to Marianne too old for her near 17 years to be any fitting match.
Meanwhile, Elinor has fallen hopelessly in love with her step brothers, brother in law, Edward Ferrars, also a man of means, but this relationship also hits a low note and Elinor is forced to detach herself of any notions of marriage as he finally admits to a secret engagement with another.
Review and Comments
Another standout in characterisation and character development as we are treated to a cast of unsavoury and delightful book characters that enthral but enrage, but also have us purr as the delectable and trusting people play their role as convincingly as the ‘hunters’ in the story.
Sense and Sensibility is a story that distinguishes innate morality from the unprincipled actions of others and as thus distinguishes sensibility or vulnerability as something different from personal will or even moral conduct. In the book ‘sensibility’ has come to represent the less controllable passions, exhibitions of grief, and unrestrained emotions that almost render the mind helpless and the person unrecognisable. None more noteworthy that Marianne's public displays of sentiment.
And it is for this reason I have less admiration for Marianne as a character. Normally it is the proponents of sensibility that appeal to me more as book characters than do those that display the tenets of sense. However not in this case, I did not connect nor care much for Marianne unfortunately which was quite important in a book where I disliked one of the two MC’s and the person who depicts ‘sensibility’ in the books title.
At the age of 17 she is beside herself for fear of not meeting the right suitor and marrying well. You could argue that life, customs, and traditions were unkind to women. That young girls were brought up knowing their only real hope and destiny was to marry for love and wealth. However even for the times I wanted to shake Marianne. I didn’t like how she professed her undying love for one man and with little substance offered to the reader then goes back to Colonel Bradford and claims she loves him- what !!!!!!.
The writing is stunning, but the plot also lost its way a little mid-way through, there was too much sentimental displays and weeping for my personal tastes while other parts in the book needed to be fleshed out a little more. Entirely forgiving because this was Jane Austen’s first published book and then she went on to write the fabulous Pride and Prejudice, Emma, and others.
A solid and timeless classic. A beautifully written book with great emotional intensity, sense and sensibility in the writing, as well as in the characters and another book that had me transfixed through most of it.
A book that is as prudent as it is imprudent, where honour sits comfortably alongside character traits far less scrupulous. Incredibly perceptible for the depiction of people, habits, and customs of the times. Dramatic and subtle in equal measures, and oh so compelling.
Wonderful and a 5 stars had Marianne not displayed so much of the wrong ‘sensibility’. So 4 stars for me.
“If a book is well written, I always find it too short.”
Other worthy and memorable quotes:
“Do not let the behavior of others destroy your inner peace.”
“It is not what we think or feel that makes us who we are. It is what we do. Or fail to do...”
“I come here with no expectations, only to profess, now that I am at liberty to do so, that my heart is and always will be...yours.”
“Yes, I found myself, by insensible degrees, sincerely fond of her; and the happiest hours of my life were what I spent with her.”
“To wish was to hope, and to hope was to expect”.
Undeniably Jane Austen, unquestionably timeless for the many arresting themes that still hold true today but also embrace the unsubtle snobbery and social structures of England’s Georgian period. But perhaps the most vivid and compelling portrayal of the books title ‘sense and sensibility’ is in the characters themselves.
Elinor - the heroine of ‘sense’ is undoubtedly my favourite and Marianne, the lesser hero in my eyes is the one that ‘dramatizes’ sensibility. Yes it is the story of two sisters whose lives become entwined with potential suitors as well as the guardians of morality who treat us with those all-important pearls of wisdom in a story of greed, love, immortality, deception and sensibility.
….and as a book that is undeniably Jane Austen, the characterisation is the standout as we’ve come to expect and adore with Jane Austen’s writing and stories.
The Plot
Henry Dashwood dies suddenly before he can build enough fortune to provide financial stability for his second wife and their three daughters: Elinor, Marianne, and the young Margaret. Attempting to remedy the seemingly lost cause, Henry secures a promise from his first son, John Dashwood, that he will always look after his stepsisters and their mother, when the estate falls to him. However, as a result of John Dashwood’s weakness and his wife’s greed, John reneges on the promise made to his father and he forces the four Dashwood women from Norland Park.
Although, an unexpected invitation comes from Sir John Middleton who provides the women with the opportunity to rent the modest Barton cottage in Devon near his home, and so life’s lessons really can begin for the family.
Marianne becomes infatuated with the dashing John Willoughby, who shares a love of poetry, music and art, with her, but she has yet to see his true character. For he is a fortune hunter. However, Marianne has already caught the attention of the thirty-five-year-old bachelor, Colonel Brandon, a wealthy man but to Marianne too old for her near 17 years to be any fitting match.
Meanwhile, Elinor has fallen hopelessly in love with her step brothers, brother in law, Edward Ferrars, also a man of means, but this relationship also hits a low note and Elinor is forced to detach herself of any notions of marriage as he finally admits to a secret engagement with another.
Review and Comments
Another standout in characterisation and character development as we are treated to a cast of unsavoury and delightful book characters that enthral but enrage, but also have us purr as the delectable and trusting people play their role as convincingly as the ‘hunters’ in the story.
Sense and Sensibility is a story that distinguishes innate morality from the unprincipled actions of others and as thus distinguishes sensibility or vulnerability as something different from personal will or even moral conduct. In the book ‘sensibility’ has come to represent the less controllable passions, exhibitions of grief, and unrestrained emotions that almost render the mind helpless and the person unrecognisable. None more noteworthy that Marianne's public displays of sentiment.
And it is for this reason I have less admiration for Marianne as a character. Normally it is the proponents of sensibility that appeal to me more as book characters than do those that display the tenets of sense. However not in this case, I did not connect nor care much for Marianne unfortunately which was quite important in a book where I disliked one of the two MC’s and the person who depicts ‘sensibility’ in the books title.
At the age of 17 she is beside herself for fear of not meeting the right suitor and marrying well. You could argue that life, customs, and traditions were unkind to women. That young girls were brought up knowing their only real hope and destiny was to marry for love and wealth. However even for the times I wanted to shake Marianne. I didn’t like how she professed her undying love for one man and with little substance offered to the reader then goes back to Colonel Bradford and claims she loves him- what !!!!!!.
The writing is stunning, but the plot also lost its way a little mid-way through, there was too much sentimental displays and weeping for my personal tastes while other parts in the book needed to be fleshed out a little more. Entirely forgiving because this was Jane Austen’s first published book and then she went on to write the fabulous Pride and Prejudice, Emma, and others.
A solid and timeless classic. A beautifully written book with great emotional intensity, sense and sensibility in the writing, as well as in the characters and another book that had me transfixed through most of it.
A book that is as prudent as it is imprudent, where honour sits comfortably alongside character traits far less scrupulous. Incredibly perceptible for the depiction of people, habits, and customs of the times. Dramatic and subtle in equal measures, and oh so compelling.
Wonderful and a 5 stars had Marianne not displayed so much of the wrong ‘sensibility’. So 4 stars for me.
“If a book is well written, I always find it too short.”
Other worthy and memorable quotes:
“Do not let the behavior of others destroy your inner peace.”
“It is not what we think or feel that makes us who we are. It is what we do. Or fail to do...”
“I come here with no expectations, only to profess, now that I am at liberty to do so, that my heart is and always will be...yours.”
“Yes, I found myself, by insensible degrees, sincerely fond of her; and the happiest hours of my life were what I spent with her.”
“To wish was to hope, and to hope was to expect”.
October 14, 2015
I loved this reread - Sense and Sensibility grows on me each time I reread it.
April 29, 2024
While I appreciated the backstory at the beginning, this book was so boring.
The pacing is far too slow. Each chapter had a particular plot point, but after the idea was conveyed, the chapter kept going on and on.
OK, we get it. Move on!
The Green Light at the End of the Dock (How much I spent):
Softcover Text – Gift from my father, a leftover book from his college days, a yellowed Signet classic
Audiobook – Free through Audible
2025 Reading Schedule
Jan A Town Like Alice
Feb Birdsong
Mar Captain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Berniere
Apr War and Peace
May The Woman in White
Jun Atonement
Jul The Shadow of the Wind
Aug Jude the Obscure
Sep Ulysses
Oct Vanity Fair
Nov A Fine Balance
Dec Germinal
Connect With Me!
Blog Twitter BookTube Facebook Insta My Bookstore at Pango
The pacing is far too slow. Each chapter had a particular plot point, but after the idea was conveyed, the chapter kept going on and on.
OK, we get it. Move on!
The Green Light at the End of the Dock (How much I spent):
Softcover Text – Gift from my father, a leftover book from his college days, a yellowed Signet classic
Audiobook – Free through Audible
2025 Reading Schedule
Jan A Town Like Alice
Feb Birdsong
Mar Captain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Berniere
Apr War and Peace
May The Woman in White
Jun Atonement
Jul The Shadow of the Wind
Aug Jude the Obscure
Sep Ulysses
Oct Vanity Fair
Nov A Fine Balance
Dec Germinal
Connect With Me!
Blog Twitter BookTube Facebook Insta My Bookstore at Pango
May 4, 2021
In a typical romantic comedy, two young characters meet, are attracted to each other, but experience all sorts of complications that keep them apart — social pressure, other partners, &c. Eventually though, love prevails, they are reunited and live happily ever after; the end. The tone is, for the most part, lighthearted. This romcom blueprint is as old as the hills but, in a way, never gets old. The earliest example of it would probably be Menander’s plays; endless variations came after that: from the chivalric romances to Shakespeare’s comedies, to Molière, to Marivaux, to countless fairy tales of would-be princesses. And closer to our time, Harlequin novels, French art-house films, and innumerable popular Hollywood comedies and Bollywood musicals.
One could bet that such an overabundant genre would keep banging on about the same old things ad nauseam. In a way, it does. But what is fascinating is that, while the basic plot has become completely formulaic and clichéd, each period, each author has managed to convey a specific view, a specific zeitgeist on love and the search for romantic bliss: from medieval courtly love to post-modern sexting and Tinder virtual dating tribulations. Jane Austen takes place in the middle of this long literary and artistic tradition.
Sense and Sensibility, her first published novel (1811), displays a significant command of modern writing techniques: free indirect speech, subtext, scenes, summaries, plot twists, red herrings, MacGuffins and cliffhangers. No wonder she is still widely read and considered one of the most entertaining writers in the English language. Austen builds her novels with plot devices that crime novels authors, a century later, will use to even greater dramatic effect. The only difference is that the quiz or puzzle isn’t who the murderer might be, but rather who will get married and with whom.
Sense and Sensibility is lighthearted and sparkly to all appearances, but there is also a darker side to this novel. It depicts the late 18-century English gentry, a social environment where romantic love is chiefly governed by financial considerations and parental interference. Marriages are, for the most part, arranged, and the conflicts that make the crispy bits of the story often come from a misalignment between the inclinations of the heart and the tyranny of household finances. Hence the constant obsession with income, inheritance, estate, property, dowry, annuity, economic power and so forth. Instead of Sense and Sensibility, the title of this novel could have been Love and Money.
Austen’s book is not just about the dichotomy of human dispositions — sense (Elinor) vs sensibility (Marianne). It is also and more essentially about the duplicity and treacherous pitfalls of social interactions. Austen marks almost every dialogue with ironic comments and subtle observations about physical signs, such as the flushing of the skin, the movement of the eyes, the fidgeting of the hands or feet, &c. All this reveals layer upon layer of cognitive dissonance below the seemingly well mannered verbal conversations. Underneath a masquerade of proper conduct and decorum, the whole social game gradually develops as a corrupt nest of vipers, booby-trapped with subterfuge, economic rapacity, concealed mindfucks, gossip-mongering old nags (Mrs Jennings), moneygrubbing fishwives (Mrs Ferrars, old and young), and devious, selfish young beaux (Willoughby and Edward).
Austen makes it amply clear that a character such as Marianne, always blunt and uncompromising, is maladjusted to this social milieu. In the course of the novel, we see her, at first, as a zesty, vibrant, high-spirited girl. She soon becomes an infatuated young woman, prone to outpours of suffocation and hyperventilation. She then falls into a severe state of depression and illness. And at the close of the novel, she is a weakened, dispirited housewife, married to an insipid older man she has never loved — yet, she is inexplicably happy! Meanwhile, Elinor, the level-headed, restrained, stilted and sightly boring sister, ends up with a happy (read: compromise) marriage of her own. In short: sense and sensibility, same difference.
The predictable “happy ending” feels completely artificial and botched, as if Austen had been reluctant to write the unavoidable conclusion of her book. But this mushy dénouement comes with a subtle morality bonus. Austen isn’t ready to smash every social convention of her time. Still, her acerbic satire is the first drop of acid that will eventually erode the oppressive lid of the age-old capitalistic patriarchy.
One could bet that such an overabundant genre would keep banging on about the same old things ad nauseam. In a way, it does. But what is fascinating is that, while the basic plot has become completely formulaic and clichéd, each period, each author has managed to convey a specific view, a specific zeitgeist on love and the search for romantic bliss: from medieval courtly love to post-modern sexting and Tinder virtual dating tribulations. Jane Austen takes place in the middle of this long literary and artistic tradition.
Sense and Sensibility, her first published novel (1811), displays a significant command of modern writing techniques: free indirect speech, subtext, scenes, summaries, plot twists, red herrings, MacGuffins and cliffhangers. No wonder she is still widely read and considered one of the most entertaining writers in the English language. Austen builds her novels with plot devices that crime novels authors, a century later, will use to even greater dramatic effect. The only difference is that the quiz or puzzle isn’t who the murderer might be, but rather who will get married and with whom.
Sense and Sensibility is lighthearted and sparkly to all appearances, but there is also a darker side to this novel. It depicts the late 18-century English gentry, a social environment where romantic love is chiefly governed by financial considerations and parental interference. Marriages are, for the most part, arranged, and the conflicts that make the crispy bits of the story often come from a misalignment between the inclinations of the heart and the tyranny of household finances. Hence the constant obsession with income, inheritance, estate, property, dowry, annuity, economic power and so forth. Instead of Sense and Sensibility, the title of this novel could have been Love and Money.
Austen’s book is not just about the dichotomy of human dispositions — sense (Elinor) vs sensibility (Marianne). It is also and more essentially about the duplicity and treacherous pitfalls of social interactions. Austen marks almost every dialogue with ironic comments and subtle observations about physical signs, such as the flushing of the skin, the movement of the eyes, the fidgeting of the hands or feet, &c. All this reveals layer upon layer of cognitive dissonance below the seemingly well mannered verbal conversations. Underneath a masquerade of proper conduct and decorum, the whole social game gradually develops as a corrupt nest of vipers, booby-trapped with subterfuge, economic rapacity, concealed mindfucks, gossip-mongering old nags (Mrs Jennings), moneygrubbing fishwives (Mrs Ferrars, old and young), and devious, selfish young beaux (Willoughby and Edward).
Austen makes it amply clear that a character such as Marianne, always blunt and uncompromising, is maladjusted to this social milieu. In the course of the novel, we see her, at first, as a zesty, vibrant, high-spirited girl. She soon becomes an infatuated young woman, prone to outpours of suffocation and hyperventilation. She then falls into a severe state of depression and illness. And at the close of the novel, she is a weakened, dispirited housewife, married to an insipid older man she has never loved — yet, she is inexplicably happy! Meanwhile, Elinor, the level-headed, restrained, stilted and sightly boring sister, ends up with a happy (read: compromise) marriage of her own. In short: sense and sensibility, same difference.
The predictable “happy ending” feels completely artificial and botched, as if Austen had been reluctant to write the unavoidable conclusion of her book. But this mushy dénouement comes with a subtle morality bonus. Austen isn’t ready to smash every social convention of her time. Still, her acerbic satire is the first drop of acid that will eventually erode the oppressive lid of the age-old capitalistic patriarchy.
April 22, 2024
“I wish, as well as everybody else, to be perfectly happy; but, like everybody else, it must be in my own way.“ - Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility
🌷
This story is delightful and delicate and I devoured every page. I haven’t felt so passionately about a classic in (what feels like) a very long time. Jane, you were — and remain to be — a literary genius.
🌷
I plan to think about this book from now until forever.
🌷
This story is delightful and delicate and I devoured every page. I haven’t felt so passionately about a classic in (what feels like) a very long time. Jane, you were — and remain to be — a literary genius.
🌷
I plan to think about this book from now until forever.
July 26, 2016
This debut publication of Jane Austen is, in my opinion, a complete book in itself, an excellent introduction to the world of Jane Austen. The dramatic quality of the work was such that the actions of the characters and the wealth of emotions they produced were astonishing. The reading experience was highly satisfying and rewarding, for it was more than mere reading; I lived it.
The story revolves around the lives, loves, desires, longings, and characters of the Dashwood sisters, Elinor and Marianne. Elinor is kind, sensible, and devoted, with rare strength and fortitude. Marianne, on the other hand, though equally kind and devoted like Elinor, is impulsive, emotional, and opinionated. The popular and accepted character interpretation of Elinor and Marianne is that the former represents sense and the latter, sensibility. However, I doubt whether such a strict distinction is possible. It wouldn't be fair to say that Elinor is neither sensible, nor Marianne has any sense. I believe the distinction lies in the degree.
The main element of the story is the love interests of Elinor and Marianne. Elinor's and Edward's attachment was subtly presented, similar to the one later developed between Colonel Brandon and Marianne. This was quite a contrast from Marianne's and Willoughby's spirited and somewhat imprudent courtship. However, Sense and Sensibility is more than a love story. It addresses many deeper issues, such as vanity, self-realization, class difference, and human nature. Jane Austen is well-known for her social criticism of the Regency period and her brilliance in human observation.
Austen’s hero in Sense and Sensibility is not a dashing young man but a mature man nearing his prime. It was a bit of an unusual choice, considering some of the later choices she made. Nevertheless, no reader can fail to love and admire Colonel Brandon - a kind-hearted, sensible, and benevolent man with an unhappy past, a man who has suffered, a man who can both sympathize and empathize. He was an excellent choice for a hero, and I highly commend Austen for her choice.
The rest of the characters who set the story in motion have the usual Austen flavour. The oppressed and misunderstood Edward, naive mother Dashwood, the silly but kind Mrs. Jennings and son-in-law Sir John, the prim and proper Lady Middleton, the greedy, the selfish lot of Willoughby, John and Fanny Dashwood, the artful Lucy Steel, the vain Robert Ferrars, and the despot Mrs. Ferrars provided so varied a contrast to keep the readers fully absorbed in the novel.
Jane Austen’s beautiful language, witty and humorous writing, and the engaging flow made the reading so enjoyable. I love her amazing ability of drawing you into the story and making you part of it. Her characters are so real that the good ones become your friends while the bad ones become your enemies :) I think this element of realism is one of the strongest reasons for the popularity of her works over the years.
More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/
The story revolves around the lives, loves, desires, longings, and characters of the Dashwood sisters, Elinor and Marianne. Elinor is kind, sensible, and devoted, with rare strength and fortitude. Marianne, on the other hand, though equally kind and devoted like Elinor, is impulsive, emotional, and opinionated. The popular and accepted character interpretation of Elinor and Marianne is that the former represents sense and the latter, sensibility. However, I doubt whether such a strict distinction is possible. It wouldn't be fair to say that Elinor is neither sensible, nor Marianne has any sense. I believe the distinction lies in the degree.
The main element of the story is the love interests of Elinor and Marianne. Elinor's and Edward's attachment was subtly presented, similar to the one later developed between Colonel Brandon and Marianne. This was quite a contrast from Marianne's and Willoughby's spirited and somewhat imprudent courtship. However, Sense and Sensibility is more than a love story. It addresses many deeper issues, such as vanity, self-realization, class difference, and human nature. Jane Austen is well-known for her social criticism of the Regency period and her brilliance in human observation.
Austen’s hero in Sense and Sensibility is not a dashing young man but a mature man nearing his prime. It was a bit of an unusual choice, considering some of the later choices she made. Nevertheless, no reader can fail to love and admire Colonel Brandon - a kind-hearted, sensible, and benevolent man with an unhappy past, a man who has suffered, a man who can both sympathize and empathize. He was an excellent choice for a hero, and I highly commend Austen for her choice.
The rest of the characters who set the story in motion have the usual Austen flavour. The oppressed and misunderstood Edward, naive mother Dashwood, the silly but kind Mrs. Jennings and son-in-law Sir John, the prim and proper Lady Middleton, the greedy, the selfish lot of Willoughby, John and Fanny Dashwood, the artful Lucy Steel, the vain Robert Ferrars, and the despot Mrs. Ferrars provided so varied a contrast to keep the readers fully absorbed in the novel.
Jane Austen’s beautiful language, witty and humorous writing, and the engaging flow made the reading so enjoyable. I love her amazing ability of drawing you into the story and making you part of it. Her characters are so real that the good ones become your friends while the bad ones become your enemies :) I think this element of realism is one of the strongest reasons for the popularity of her works over the years.
More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/
July 25, 2013
The story of two teenage girls with romantic troubles, caused by unreliable men (they have dark secrets, but who doesn't ? ) in 1790's England, calm Elinor Dashwood 19 and her younger sibling , by a couple of years the emotional Marianne, 17. When their father is no longer living, all the family including the mother, Mrs. Dashwood and third sister Margaret 13 must vacate their mansion in Sussex, Norland Park a large estate which many generations of the quiet respectable Dashwoods have resided. Only men can inherit this property says the law then, ( a rich uncle, they received it originally from, insisted in his will this provision) and relatives can be greedy. John Dashwood their half - brother has little family feelings and his cold-heart wife Fanny none, take over. Breaking his promise to his dying father to help his sisters and stepmother financially, selfish Fanny persuades him with not too much effort, that these women can survive very well without any assistance, she tells her wealthy husband ... And money is money and promises just words (otherwise, the couple's child, " poor little Harry", would starve ! ). Sir John Middleton a kindly cousin of the mother's offers the Dashwood's a small cottage low rent to live, close to his big house. Desperately wanting to leave the hostile environment of their former home they relocate there in far away Devonshire, by Allenham village. Being very pretty women the sisters soon attract admirers, the shy Mr. Edward Ferrars the eldest brother of Fanny who likes Elinor, unlike his sister, Miss Dashwood thinks, but she can never be sure he doesn't speak much. On a rainy day the two girls imprudently are walking outside, over the country hills they enjoy exploring the beautiful area, but the weather becomes too much, running for shelter Marianne takes a tumble hurts her leg and unable to go any further and still some distance from Barton Cottage . What to do ? Elinor can't get her home, Mr. John Willoughby hunting with his dog in the rain, comes along and carries Marianne back to the cottage. The amazed mother Margaret and the whole family are speechless. Handsome, charming well spoken Mr. Willoughby visits the injured girl every day to see that everything's all right ... But he doesn't fool anybody ... the youngest sister falls madly in love and he appears also to experience the same emotion. He's a good fun loving friend of Sir John's, well known and liked in the neighborhood with a rich old relative he wisely sees often nearby, Mrs. Smith. The perfect man has a rival Colonel Brandon more than ten years older at 35, with a huge house, a lonely honorable gentleman but Marianne has eyes only for Mr. Willoughby ( a secret libertine). And Mr. Ferrars has a fiancee, he never mentions ... Even the Colonel, might have skeletons in his closet... A great book by the incomparable Jane Austen, her likes will never arise again years go by relentlessly, customs and technology changes the Earth either for better or worse, but there will always be her words.
July 9, 2007
Hmmm, how to critique one of the most revered writers of romance literature? Now, before all of your Jane-ites get on my case for being unromantic or whatever, let me say only that unfortuantely, I read "Persuasion," Austen's last novel, and found it to be one of the best books I've ever read. Now having read "Sense and Sensibility," I will say that it truly doese feel like a first novel, as if the author was still trying to find her voice. So I've done the bookends of Austen, much like a concert of Beethoven's 1st and 9th symphonies...thus, comparisons between nascency and maturity are inevitable.
I will say that Austen's observations of the human mind, her cutting social critiques, and commentaries on the games and masquerades which were all but a necessity of British society in the 18th/19th centuries are fascinating and beautifully rendered. Her prose is art, but the story, in my opinion, is lacking. Two semi-rich young women do the social dance with men who are alternately gentlemanly or cads, reversals and revelations ensue, followed at the end by weddings which are not exactly meant to leave us with the warmest of feelings (as many weddings do). Many of the characters are unlikable (some are downright despicable) and I felt all along that much like Shakespeare, Austen's stories are meant to be performed rather than read, so that the subtleties of the social ingraces and the sublimations of true feelings can be more truly experienced by an audience. The plot itself is anything but complicated and I'm sorry to say that without Austen's ingenious prose, this novel would barely merit a footnote in history.
My recommendation for those of you who are not hardcore Austen fans, read "Persuasion" instead.
I will say that Austen's observations of the human mind, her cutting social critiques, and commentaries on the games and masquerades which were all but a necessity of British society in the 18th/19th centuries are fascinating and beautifully rendered. Her prose is art, but the story, in my opinion, is lacking. Two semi-rich young women do the social dance with men who are alternately gentlemanly or cads, reversals and revelations ensue, followed at the end by weddings which are not exactly meant to leave us with the warmest of feelings (as many weddings do). Many of the characters are unlikable (some are downright despicable) and I felt all along that much like Shakespeare, Austen's stories are meant to be performed rather than read, so that the subtleties of the social ingraces and the sublimations of true feelings can be more truly experienced by an audience. The plot itself is anything but complicated and I'm sorry to say that without Austen's ingenious prose, this novel would barely merit a footnote in history.
My recommendation for those of you who are not hardcore Austen fans, read "Persuasion" instead.
October 29, 2026
Well, this followed the same trajectory as Pride and Prejudice, rather than the one Emma did.
Honestly, I have such mixed feelings about this book that I’m afraid this review will be long. I loved it at first. By the halfway point, I only liked it, but I still found comfort in reading it. Then, in the later part of the book, everything started to go downhill.
You can tell this was Jane Austen’s first published novel, and I can clearly see why it has received such a mixed response. Austen is best known for her ability to poke fun at the upper classes without turning them into outright villains, but here, the balance between her trademark biting satire and grim social realism feels underdeveloped. What she seems to be saying doesn't always come across as she intends. I'm not saying the satire is wholly unsuccessful, but it is inconsistent.
Without looking more deeply at the book or considering what Austen may have been trying to convey, it can come across as deeply patriarchal and misogynistic. That impression is partly due to the way the satire fails to work consistently. Austen seems to want to show how difficult and restrictive life was for women at the time, and how society pitted women against one another, leaving them isolated, unable to form close friendships, and focused primarily on men. Sadly, in my opinion, that idea does not come through as clearly here as it does in her other two novels I have read. The narrative makes so many excuses for the mediocre and despicable men while vilifying the women (apart from the sisters, and sometimes even them) that it made me confused about what the book was trying to say at times. To me, when a story raises those kinds of questions, it suggests that its commentary has not been handled effectively. At some moments, the satire works well; at others, it disappears, leaving me stranded in a world that inspires little but frustration.
First, let's talk about Marianne, since I have a little less to say about her than I do about Elinor.
Marianne is meant to represent the sensibility in the title, and she certainly does. But she also has plenty of sense. She may be dramatic about her feelings, yet in most cases she sees people for who they really are. At times, her less charitable thoughts get the better of her, and she judges good and honorable people too harshly. For the most part, though, she strikes a balance between sense and sensibility.
It's funny: at the beginning, I didn't like Marianne very much and wasn’t especially interested in her. But as the story went on, she became my favorite sister. The narrative punishes her repeatedly for being so open and expressive about her feelings. I agree that she could have acted more prudently in some situations, but I don’t think the book’s criticism of sensibility alone is entirely deserved. She was certainly foolish to make it so obvious to everyone how much she loved Willoughby, but she was also free-spirited. She didn’t care much about other people’s opinions, which was rare at the time. I can understand why the narrative presents that lack of caution as dangerous: it could have cost her her reputation and even her future. Still, her behavior doesn’t seem so extreme to me that it warrants such a severe reprimand.
Marianne’s character development is handled so well that her ending ultimately feels like a punishment. Don't get me wrong, I loved Colonel Brandon, and I think he was the only character with any real sense and honor, but I’m not convinced that the book does enough to show that Marianne truly loves him, rather than simply settling into the kind of marriage people expect of her. So much of her story is devoted to her overcoming her sensibility and learning to value sense that, by the end, it feels as though she has been stripped of the qualities that made her so charmingly herself.
Now let's talk about the story’s principal protagonist, Elinor.
At first, I really loved her. I appreciated how the author presented her as the embodiment of sense, one half of the title’s central contrast. Elinor is self-disciplined and deeply aware of both her emotions and her own character. She seems able to hold her feelings firmly in check, understand them, and keep them from overwhelming her. I also admired her practical, no-nonsense views on how men and women behave and on the world around her. Early on, I found myself agreeing with many of her observations.
But this is where the execution began to falter for me. At a certain point, Elinor started to come across as something of a “pick-me” woman of her time, and I say that with genuine regret. I want to be clear that I understood what the author was trying to convey through the contrast between sense and sensibility. The idea itself came through, but its execution did not work for me.
The author seems to want Elinor to represent a woman who understands how society functions and recognizes what is expected of women in her era. That part of her characterization is clear. However, her repeated harsh judgments of women, paired with the warmth and generosity she so often extends to men, felt excessive. The imbalance became so pronounced that the satire stopped landing, and Elinor instead seemed to have internalized misogyny. I am not suggesting that every woman she criticizes is undeserving of criticism, or that every man she sympathizes with deserves none. Rather, the way she consistently responds to women and men revealed a great deal about how she views both genders. Elinor was a woman of great sense, but her understanding of right and wrong had become so distorted by her own rigid ideals that it eventually turned against her.
While the final scene with Willoughby is structurally meant to show his lingering regret, I found its inclusion unnecessary and frustrating. Readers already understood Willoughby’s motives and knew the broad outlines of his story, so I did not feel that we needed to hear his side in such detail. More troubling, though, was Elinor's reaction to what he told her. Her feelings made it clear just how readily she views men more favorably than women. Perhaps my modern expectations for accountability made it difficult for me to understand her pity, but her sudden shift in feeling toward a man who had been so deplorable left me confused.
And that is not even the cherry on top. Elinor’s opinions and feelings about the entire situation involving Edward and Lucy were even more difficult for me to accept. That whole storyline left me raising my eyebrows and rolling my eyes so often that I nearly gave myself a headache.
Now, on to the love interests: Colonel Brandon and Edward.
For Colonel Brandon, I have nothing but praise. He is the kind of romantic hero who is both dashing and deeply respectful, someone willing to love quietly and patiently if that is what will make the woman he loves happy. His enduring affection and selflessness make him the saving grace of this romance.
Edward, on the other hand, was a coward. He reminded me that even fictional men can be very much like real ones. His behavior was deplorable, and once I learned his secret, my opinion of him fell so far that I could never see him the same way again.
I truly tried to understand him. I tried to look at him from another perspective, make excuses for him, and find some reason to sympathize with him. But the narrative made it impossible for me to like him or see any redeeming qualities in his character. The saddest part is that I genuinely liked him before his secret was revealed.
To me, he showed no honor, and yes, I know that, by the standards of his time, his conduct may have been considered the height of honor. But that does not align with my own understanding of honor. Nor did he show Elinor the respect or love she deserved. As the story moved toward its ending, his actions only reinforced that impression.
Honestly, the ending felt almost horrifying to me. Elinor deserved so much better.
In conclusion, I understood what the author was trying to convey: women were expected to live within strict social constraints, while men were not held to the same standards. She also satirizes the way society excuses or indulges men, even when they are at fault, yet condemns women for conduct that is less serious than what men are allowed to get away with. I recognized these ideas, but I only picked up on them because I brought my existing familiarity with the author’s style and themes to the text, not because the novel's own execution worked well.
Honestly, I have such mixed feelings about this book that I’m afraid this review will be long. I loved it at first. By the halfway point, I only liked it, but I still found comfort in reading it. Then, in the later part of the book, everything started to go downhill.
You can tell this was Jane Austen’s first published novel, and I can clearly see why it has received such a mixed response. Austen is best known for her ability to poke fun at the upper classes without turning them into outright villains, but here, the balance between her trademark biting satire and grim social realism feels underdeveloped. What she seems to be saying doesn't always come across as she intends. I'm not saying the satire is wholly unsuccessful, but it is inconsistent.
Without looking more deeply at the book or considering what Austen may have been trying to convey, it can come across as deeply patriarchal and misogynistic. That impression is partly due to the way the satire fails to work consistently. Austen seems to want to show how difficult and restrictive life was for women at the time, and how society pitted women against one another, leaving them isolated, unable to form close friendships, and focused primarily on men. Sadly, in my opinion, that idea does not come through as clearly here as it does in her other two novels I have read. The narrative makes so many excuses for the mediocre and despicable men while vilifying the women (apart from the sisters, and sometimes even them) that it made me confused about what the book was trying to say at times. To me, when a story raises those kinds of questions, it suggests that its commentary has not been handled effectively. At some moments, the satire works well; at others, it disappears, leaving me stranded in a world that inspires little but frustration.
First, let's talk about Marianne, since I have a little less to say about her than I do about Elinor.
Marianne is meant to represent the sensibility in the title, and she certainly does. But she also has plenty of sense. She may be dramatic about her feelings, yet in most cases she sees people for who they really are. At times, her less charitable thoughts get the better of her, and she judges good and honorable people too harshly. For the most part, though, she strikes a balance between sense and sensibility.
It's funny: at the beginning, I didn't like Marianne very much and wasn’t especially interested in her. But as the story went on, she became my favorite sister. The narrative punishes her repeatedly for being so open and expressive about her feelings. I agree that she could have acted more prudently in some situations, but I don’t think the book’s criticism of sensibility alone is entirely deserved. She was certainly foolish to make it so obvious to everyone how much she loved Willoughby, but she was also free-spirited. She didn’t care much about other people’s opinions, which was rare at the time. I can understand why the narrative presents that lack of caution as dangerous: it could have cost her her reputation and even her future. Still, her behavior doesn’t seem so extreme to me that it warrants such a severe reprimand.
Marianne’s character development is handled so well that her ending ultimately feels like a punishment. Don't get me wrong, I loved Colonel Brandon, and I think he was the only character with any real sense and honor, but I’m not convinced that the book does enough to show that Marianne truly loves him, rather than simply settling into the kind of marriage people expect of her. So much of her story is devoted to her overcoming her sensibility and learning to value sense that, by the end, it feels as though she has been stripped of the qualities that made her so charmingly herself.
Now let's talk about the story’s principal protagonist, Elinor.
At first, I really loved her. I appreciated how the author presented her as the embodiment of sense, one half of the title’s central contrast. Elinor is self-disciplined and deeply aware of both her emotions and her own character. She seems able to hold her feelings firmly in check, understand them, and keep them from overwhelming her. I also admired her practical, no-nonsense views on how men and women behave and on the world around her. Early on, I found myself agreeing with many of her observations.
But this is where the execution began to falter for me. At a certain point, Elinor started to come across as something of a “pick-me” woman of her time, and I say that with genuine regret. I want to be clear that I understood what the author was trying to convey through the contrast between sense and sensibility. The idea itself came through, but its execution did not work for me.
The author seems to want Elinor to represent a woman who understands how society functions and recognizes what is expected of women in her era. That part of her characterization is clear. However, her repeated harsh judgments of women, paired with the warmth and generosity she so often extends to men, felt excessive. The imbalance became so pronounced that the satire stopped landing, and Elinor instead seemed to have internalized misogyny. I am not suggesting that every woman she criticizes is undeserving of criticism, or that every man she sympathizes with deserves none. Rather, the way she consistently responds to women and men revealed a great deal about how she views both genders. Elinor was a woman of great sense, but her understanding of right and wrong had become so distorted by her own rigid ideals that it eventually turned against her.
While the final scene with Willoughby is structurally meant to show his lingering regret, I found its inclusion unnecessary and frustrating. Readers already understood Willoughby’s motives and knew the broad outlines of his story, so I did not feel that we needed to hear his side in such detail. More troubling, though, was Elinor's reaction to what he told her. Her feelings made it clear just how readily she views men more favorably than women. Perhaps my modern expectations for accountability made it difficult for me to understand her pity, but her sudden shift in feeling toward a man who had been so deplorable left me confused.
And that is not even the cherry on top. Elinor’s opinions and feelings about the entire situation involving Edward and Lucy were even more difficult for me to accept. That whole storyline left me raising my eyebrows and rolling my eyes so often that I nearly gave myself a headache.
Now, on to the love interests: Colonel Brandon and Edward.
For Colonel Brandon, I have nothing but praise. He is the kind of romantic hero who is both dashing and deeply respectful, someone willing to love quietly and patiently if that is what will make the woman he loves happy. His enduring affection and selflessness make him the saving grace of this romance.
Edward, on the other hand, was a coward. He reminded me that even fictional men can be very much like real ones. His behavior was deplorable, and once I learned his secret, my opinion of him fell so far that I could never see him the same way again.
I truly tried to understand him. I tried to look at him from another perspective, make excuses for him, and find some reason to sympathize with him. But the narrative made it impossible for me to like him or see any redeeming qualities in his character. The saddest part is that I genuinely liked him before his secret was revealed.
To me, he showed no honor, and yes, I know that, by the standards of his time, his conduct may have been considered the height of honor. But that does not align with my own understanding of honor. Nor did he show Elinor the respect or love she deserved. As the story moved toward its ending, his actions only reinforced that impression.
Honestly, the ending felt almost horrifying to me. Elinor deserved so much better.
In conclusion, I understood what the author was trying to convey: women were expected to live within strict social constraints, while men were not held to the same standards. She also satirizes the way society excuses or indulges men, even when they are at fault, yet condemns women for conduct that is less serious than what men are allowed to get away with. I recognized these ideas, but I only picked up on them because I brought my existing familiarity with the author’s style and themes to the text, not because the novel's own execution worked well.
July 15, 2015
This is the third Jane Austen book I've read and it's by far my favorite. I love the story, love the heroines, love the MEN I just love everything about this. There was so much happening that it never felt slow or boring and the SUSPENSE and REVELATIONS at the end of the book were so fantastically done. AGH JUST SO GOOD.
TIME TO GO WATCH THE MOVIE.
Reread mid-Jan to early Feb 2016 for Austentatious
STILL MY FAVORITE
TIME TO GO WATCH THE MOVIE.
Reread mid-Jan to early Feb 2016 for Austentatious
STILL MY FAVORITE
July 1, 2015
God, there’s nothing quite like Jane Austen, is there? This is only my second time reading one of her works but with each novel I experienced a unique feeling–a combination of two types of satisfaction typically at odds: that of learning, of reading something intelligent and worthwhile, and that of a guilty pleasure. I’ve been reading this book since March, since I have to be in a certain mood to muster that kind of energy.
https://emmareadstoomuch.substack.com...
I didn’t love this book quite as much as Pride & Prejudice, though, mainly because of the last 50 pages. The two love stories that occurred in this book–or should I say the final two–weren’t as emotional, heart-wrenching, or even life-changing as Elizabeth and Darcy’s, likely because of the flatness of the love interests. This plotline could also be a hell of a lot more confusing. (Plus there are, like, three liberally used last names in the whole book and practically everybody is named John.) And Marianne, one of the two main characters, is pressed off onto the most convenient man and described frequently as his “reward” for being a good guy.
So that was not the best.
But these irritants were often the price of the aspects of this book that were so good–sometimes even better than P&P. The female characters (and a couple of the male ones) are fantastic, and I want to meet all of them. Reading this book felt like living in the world. Each character felt so real, and I could picture every face, every room, every landscape, every calling card. It was also much more willing to explore the society and the unspoken rules of the day. People always say Austen isn’t just valuable for her kickass love stories, but for her entertaining and educational depictions of the period. This one in particular is a fun read that teaches so much about what it was like to be a young woman at the time (and a more average young woman than one Elizabeth Bennet).
Plus, I just really, really love books about sisters, and I really really really love Jane Austen and the way she writes.
Bottom line: Read this. Read everything Jane Austen’s ever written. I know that’s my new quest.
https://emmareadstoomuch.substack.com...
I didn’t love this book quite as much as Pride & Prejudice, though, mainly because of the last 50 pages. The two love stories that occurred in this book–or should I say the final two–weren’t as emotional, heart-wrenching, or even life-changing as Elizabeth and Darcy’s, likely because of the flatness of the love interests. This plotline could also be a hell of a lot more confusing. (Plus there are, like, three liberally used last names in the whole book and practically everybody is named John.) And Marianne, one of the two main characters, is pressed off onto the most convenient man and described frequently as his “reward” for being a good guy.
So that was not the best.
But these irritants were often the price of the aspects of this book that were so good–sometimes even better than P&P. The female characters (and a couple of the male ones) are fantastic, and I want to meet all of them. Reading this book felt like living in the world. Each character felt so real, and I could picture every face, every room, every landscape, every calling card. It was also much more willing to explore the society and the unspoken rules of the day. People always say Austen isn’t just valuable for her kickass love stories, but for her entertaining and educational depictions of the period. This one in particular is a fun read that teaches so much about what it was like to be a young woman at the time (and a more average young woman than one Elizabeth Bennet).
Plus, I just really, really love books about sisters, and I really really really love Jane Austen and the way she writes.
Bottom line: Read this. Read everything Jane Austen’s ever written. I know that’s my new quest.
December 20, 2022
RATING BREAKDOWN
Characters: 5⭐️
Setting: 5⭐️
Plot: 5⭐️
Themes: 5⭐️
Emotional Impact: 3⭐️
Personal Enjoyment: 5⭐️
Total Rounded Average: 4.75 ⭐️
My favorite Austen novel. This depiction of sisters as they navigate coming of age in a society obsessed with match-making, advantageous social standing, accomplishment, and financial gain is both hilarious and emotionally stirring. It's chock-full of relatable wisdom, wit, and everyday acts of integrity and honor that inspire me.
I will always love Marianne and Eleanor each for their unique means of expression and feeling. Both such earnest characters, with an appreciation for intelligence and substance, both enamored with nature and art, and devoted to their mother and sisters. I love their relationship with one another. I love the growth they undergo in this story, and of course, I love the men they marry.
This is a comfort read I'll go back to again and again. I also highly recommend the film adaptation with Emma Thompson, but that is neither here nor there.
Characters: 5⭐️
Setting: 5⭐️
Plot: 5⭐️
Themes: 5⭐️
Emotional Impact: 3⭐️
Personal Enjoyment: 5⭐️
Total Rounded Average: 4.75 ⭐️
My favorite Austen novel. This depiction of sisters as they navigate coming of age in a society obsessed with match-making, advantageous social standing, accomplishment, and financial gain is both hilarious and emotionally stirring. It's chock-full of relatable wisdom, wit, and everyday acts of integrity and honor that inspire me.
I will always love Marianne and Eleanor each for their unique means of expression and feeling. Both such earnest characters, with an appreciation for intelligence and substance, both enamored with nature and art, and devoted to their mother and sisters. I love their relationship with one another. I love the growth they undergo in this story, and of course, I love the men they marry.
This is a comfort read I'll go back to again and again. I also highly recommend the film adaptation with Emma Thompson, but that is neither here nor there.
April 6, 2016
[reread] 01.29.18: added another star this time round
My penultimate Jane Austen novel. (nooooooo!)
For me, it took too long to get going. Not until they arrived in London that I started to get curious about how the story will unfold and what will happen to the Dashwood sisters. Elinor, I liked well enough but I found Marianne to be too self-righteous and annoying. She did turn a new leaf in the end but I think it came too late for me to start liking her at that point.
Owning to the fact that because of HER, I had to deal with a selfish man named Willoughby. And even after I thought I was in the clear, had to suffer through his long arse, asinine speech of how he pitied himself
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Insufferable man! Get lost already!
I'm afraid I was not partial to any of the men in this. Can you tell? Ha!
The only one with Y chromosome who was a bit interesting was Colonel Brandon but he had such a small role in the book. I wish we could see more of him! Even Mr. Palmer was entertaining to read about. As for the rest, I hated Willoughby (yes, needed to be point out again) and Edward was... well, he was kind of boring.
All these main characters in this book made me appreciate, probably for the first time, the 'mouthy' characters in Austen novels. I know, I know, I'm shocked myself. I never endeared myself to any of them before. Although I was real close to do that for Miss Bates in Emma but ended up didn't - she was okay but that was all.
Here, I loved it whenever Mrs. Jennings and Charlotte/Mrs. Palmer were in the scene. Delightful in contrast of several insipid, stoic characters.
My penultimate Jane Austen novel. (nooooooo!)
For me, it took too long to get going. Not until they arrived in London that I started to get curious about how the story will unfold and what will happen to the Dashwood sisters. Elinor, I liked well enough but I found Marianne to be too self-righteous and annoying. She did turn a new leaf in the end but I think it came too late for me to start liking her at that point.
Owning to the fact that because of HER, I had to deal with a selfish man named Willoughby. And even after I thought I was in the clear, had to suffer through his long arse, asinine speech of how he pitied himself
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Insufferable man! Get lost already!
I'm afraid I was not partial to any of the men in this. Can you tell? Ha!
The only one with Y chromosome who was a bit interesting was Colonel Brandon but he had such a small role in the book. I wish we could see more of him! Even Mr. Palmer was entertaining to read about. As for the rest, I hated Willoughby (yes, needed to be point out again) and Edward was... well, he was kind of boring.
All these main characters in this book made me appreciate, probably for the first time, the 'mouthy' characters in Austen novels. I know, I know, I'm shocked myself. I never endeared myself to any of them before. Although I was real close to do that for Miss Bates in Emma but ended up didn't - she was okay but that was all.
Here, I loved it whenever Mrs. Jennings and Charlotte/Mrs. Palmer were in the scene. Delightful in contrast of several insipid, stoic characters.
June 11, 2012
“The more I know of the world, the more am I convinced that I shall never see a man whom I can really love.”
if this quote doesn’t sum up the entirety of my twenty-something years on this earth…
August 5, 2008
August 2008:
This is my first Jane Austen.
Okay, I LOVED this book. I don't even know why. It's about . . . girls who like boys! Who are jerks! Um, the end! But it was funny. But clever funny, which is my favorite kind. And I enjoyed deciphering the late 18th century prose. It made me feel smart, just to figure out what she was saying half the time!
Also I love all the wacky British society stuff. Like sending notes! And walking places! And having breakfast at other peoples' houses! And I enjoyed figuring out the etiquette of the day. Like, it's improper to exchange letters with a member of the opposite sex with whom you are not engaged? Crazy! But it's cool to be engaged and not TELL anyone? Insane! I love it.
I didn't get a chance to return this to the library right away, so I'm currently audio-book free, and instead of listening to music like a normal person, I STARTED IT OVER AGAIN. Seriously, who would think I would like Jane Austen so much?
The narrator was Donada Peters. I've never heard of her before, but she did a great job. I don't think I'd've enjoyed it nearly as much had I actually had to READ the thing.
I am now going to listen to every Austen audiobook I can get my hands on, and also a biography. I'm reading Frank Herbert and Jane Austen at once! I love it.
September/October 2021:
I listened to this book again (for the fourth or fifth time) because of my new strategy of listening to Jane Austen audiobooks in order to fall asleep. (I have since read every Jane Austen novel, most of them several times over, and think of her as an old friend.) I always forget how much of it takes place in London! This is probably my third-favorite Austen, after Persuasion and Emma. This one is nice because most of the characters are decent people, even if they might be, like, rude or overbearing or boring or something. I mean obviously not the bad guys, the Dashwood son and his wife and her mother. But everybody else is okay. As opposed to, say, Mansfield Park, which I also reread recently, in which everybody suuuuuuuuucks, even the people we are ostensibly supposed to be rooting for (or are we??) Elinor is the best, obviously. (I have no idea how this Elinor is spelled, as I only have listened to his, but I think I have it right, because it's weird and old-fashioned.) (Oh and Willoughby sucks too, forgot about him. And I kept falling asleep at the conversation that he has with E at the end where he apparently partially vindicates himself and his actions so I can't remember why E partially forgives him.) She is possibly my favorite Austen protagonist? I'm not sure, I'll have to read Persuasion again. Anyway if you want to talk about Jane Austen, get at me.
This is my first Jane Austen.
Okay, I LOVED this book. I don't even know why. It's about . . . girls who like boys! Who are jerks! Um, the end! But it was funny. But clever funny, which is my favorite kind. And I enjoyed deciphering the late 18th century prose. It made me feel smart, just to figure out what she was saying half the time!
Also I love all the wacky British society stuff. Like sending notes! And walking places! And having breakfast at other peoples' houses! And I enjoyed figuring out the etiquette of the day. Like, it's improper to exchange letters with a member of the opposite sex with whom you are not engaged? Crazy! But it's cool to be engaged and not TELL anyone? Insane! I love it.
I didn't get a chance to return this to the library right away, so I'm currently audio-book free, and instead of listening to music like a normal person, I STARTED IT OVER AGAIN. Seriously, who would think I would like Jane Austen so much?
The narrator was Donada Peters. I've never heard of her before, but she did a great job. I don't think I'd've enjoyed it nearly as much had I actually had to READ the thing.
I am now going to listen to every Austen audiobook I can get my hands on, and also a biography. I'm reading Frank Herbert and Jane Austen at once! I love it.
September/October 2021:
I listened to this book again (for the fourth or fifth time) because of my new strategy of listening to Jane Austen audiobooks in order to fall asleep. (I have since read every Jane Austen novel, most of them several times over, and think of her as an old friend.) I always forget how much of it takes place in London! This is probably my third-favorite Austen, after Persuasion and Emma. This one is nice because most of the characters are decent people, even if they might be, like, rude or overbearing or boring or something. I mean obviously not the bad guys, the Dashwood son and his wife and her mother. But everybody else is okay. As opposed to, say, Mansfield Park, which I also reread recently, in which everybody suuuuuuuuucks, even the people we are ostensibly supposed to be rooting for (or are we??) Elinor is the best, obviously. (I have no idea how this Elinor is spelled, as I only have listened to his, but I think I have it right, because it's weird and old-fashioned.) (Oh and Willoughby sucks too, forgot about him. And I kept falling asleep at the conversation that he has with E at the end where he apparently partially vindicates himself and his actions so I can't remember why E partially forgives him.) She is possibly my favorite Austen protagonist? I'm not sure, I'll have to read Persuasion again. Anyway if you want to talk about Jane Austen, get at me.
October 30, 2014
CRACKING THE AUSTEN CODE! :)
...
...
... OR ATTEMPTING IT (Review still under construction)
"Many of Jane Austen's admirers, it is true, read her novels as a means of escape into a cozy sort of Old English nirvana, but they find this escape in her pages only because, as E. M. Foster has written, the devout "Janeite" "like all regular churchgoers ... scarcely notices what is being said."
(...)
Nor do we need such a great deal of ingenuity to see that all, or nearly all, the great issues in human life make their appearance on Jane Austen's narrow stage. True, it is only a stage of petty domestic circumstance; but that, after all, is the only stage where most of us are likely to meet them.
Jane Austen's stage, then, is narrow; it is also devoted to entertainment; and we may fail to recognize the great issues of life in their humorous garb unless we are prepared to view the comic mode as an entertainment which can be both intellectually and morally serious.
(...)
Today we are less accustomed to look for universal norms in what we read ... partly because we tend to see life, and therefore literature, mainly in terms of individual experience. Jane Austen's own standards were, like those of her age, much more absolute; and as a novelist she presented all her characters in terms of of their relations to a fixed code of values. " - Ian P. Watt
Note to self and readers in general: When you are reading Jane Austen, try to consider "the universal norms" of her and her times and not only your individual experience!
OK, so I was 15 when I first read S&S and I DID read it only according to "the terms of individual" experience. I read this PEARL OF A BOOK (my present, Austen-conscious self shudders and wants to perish the thought) as a common romance novel! No wonder, I was totally shocked at the unromantic ending.
A few years later -when my then-BF did a (kinda) Willoughby on me- I appreciated the ending a bit more, but it still left me unconvinced about the book's obvious merits.
And then came the film of 1995 with Alan Rickman, The Divine, which just so totally distorted my "objective" views of Colonel Brandon's character that I have not recovered ever since! (I know, I know, I am not alone in this and IT IS such a comfort! OH, OK, I liked David Morrissey a lot as well in the BBC mini-series of 2008!).
Anyway, time went by and I read & re-read this novel (as well as all the others) and found myself -as always with ALL AUSTEN NOVELS- with different feelings/thoughts/ideas at different times.
Maybe, just maybe, I am old enough now to venture a review.
Even when we consider Sense and Sensibility through the lense of romance (unadvised, but there you go), it is definitely the least romantic JA book, even though having Marianne Dashwood, the most romantic and truly tragic JA heroine as one of its centre. (So here's one in the eye of all who shun Austen in favour of the Brontes under the falsely construed grounds that she did not know/write about passion. And I am looking at you, Charlotte Brontë, who started this.)
The novel IS NOT ABOUT ROMANCE -even though on the surface there is little else to see-, IT IS ABOUT EQUILIBRIUM, about self-knowledge & acceptance. Until the heroines don't go through their "baptism of fire" that is self-knowledge, they don't gain the right of passage to a happy ending (This is the same for Elizabeth, Emma, Catherine and even for Anne, though maybe not for Fanny and Elinor). Admittedly, the "happy ending" is rather questionable here with our 21st century-sensibilities, but let's call it that anyway. And please don't forget Alan Rickman!
TO BE CONTINUED....
...
...
... OR ATTEMPTING IT (Review still under construction)
"Many of Jane Austen's admirers, it is true, read her novels as a means of escape into a cozy sort of Old English nirvana, but they find this escape in her pages only because, as E. M. Foster has written, the devout "Janeite" "like all regular churchgoers ... scarcely notices what is being said."
(...)
Nor do we need such a great deal of ingenuity to see that all, or nearly all, the great issues in human life make their appearance on Jane Austen's narrow stage. True, it is only a stage of petty domestic circumstance; but that, after all, is the only stage where most of us are likely to meet them.
Jane Austen's stage, then, is narrow; it is also devoted to entertainment; and we may fail to recognize the great issues of life in their humorous garb unless we are prepared to view the comic mode as an entertainment which can be both intellectually and morally serious.
(...)
Today we are less accustomed to look for universal norms in what we read ... partly because we tend to see life, and therefore literature, mainly in terms of individual experience. Jane Austen's own standards were, like those of her age, much more absolute; and as a novelist she presented all her characters in terms of of their relations to a fixed code of values. " - Ian P. Watt
Note to self and readers in general: When you are reading Jane Austen, try to consider "the universal norms" of her and her times and not only your individual experience!
OK, so I was 15 when I first read S&S and I DID read it only according to "the terms of individual" experience. I read this PEARL OF A BOOK (my present, Austen-conscious self shudders and wants to perish the thought) as a common romance novel! No wonder, I was totally shocked at the unromantic ending.
A few years later -when my then-BF did a (kinda) Willoughby on me- I appreciated the ending a bit more, but it still left me unconvinced about the book's obvious merits.
And then came the film of 1995 with Alan Rickman, The Divine, which just so totally distorted my "objective" views of Colonel Brandon's character that I have not recovered ever since! (I know, I know, I am not alone in this and IT IS such a comfort! OH, OK, I liked David Morrissey a lot as well in the BBC mini-series of 2008!).
Anyway, time went by and I read & re-read this novel (as well as all the others) and found myself -as always with ALL AUSTEN NOVELS- with different feelings/thoughts/ideas at different times.
Maybe, just maybe, I am old enough now to venture a review.
Even when we consider Sense and Sensibility through the lense of romance (unadvised, but there you go), it is definitely the least romantic JA book, even though having Marianne Dashwood, the most romantic and truly tragic JA heroine as one of its centre. (So here's one in the eye of all who shun Austen in favour of the Brontes under the falsely construed grounds that she did not know/write about passion. And I am looking at you, Charlotte Brontë, who started this.)
The novel IS NOT ABOUT ROMANCE -even though on the surface there is little else to see-, IT IS ABOUT EQUILIBRIUM, about self-knowledge & acceptance. Until the heroines don't go through their "baptism of fire" that is self-knowledge, they don't gain the right of passage to a happy ending (This is the same for Elizabeth, Emma, Catherine and even for Anne, though maybe not for Fanny and Elinor). Admittedly, the "happy ending" is rather questionable here with our 21st century-sensibilities, but let's call it that anyway. And please don't forget Alan Rickman!
TO BE CONTINUED....
March 13, 2012
I hate romantic comedies.
I hate them for a wide variety of reasons - I hate their formulaic plots, their repeated character tropes that never seem to change (hmm, will this one have a sassy best friend who only exists to dispense advice?), I hate their consistent failing of the the Bechdel test, and I hate the way they try to make me believe that a skinny and gorgeous woman is incapable of finding a man because she's clumsy or has a job or something.
But mostly, I hate them because their plots revolve entirely around what boy likes what girl and vice versa, and nothing else ever happens. Sure, there can be subplots, and yes, brilliant romantic comedies do exist, but I want my movie protagonists to do more than worry about who they're going to marry.
Reading Sense and Sensibility made me realize why I don't like Jane Austen's books, and probably never will: she was a brilliant author, and her novels are funny and well-written, but at the end of the day, her characters spend 90% of their time talking about boys. Nothing else happens: they go to a ball, where they worry about which boy isn't dancing with them; they have tea, where they talk about which girls have snagged which boys; and they write letters about which girls have done scandalous things with boys. It's just pages and pages of "I like you but you hate me!" "No, I really love you, you were just misinformed!" "My, what a silly misunderstanding!" "I agree! Let's get married!" and all its variations and it bores me to death. I love the humor, and I love the characters, I just want them to do something interesting. This is probably why Pride and Prejudice and Zombies resonated so well with me - finally, the Bennett sisters got to do something besides sit around and mope about the various boys who weren't talking to them for whatever reason!
Sense and Sensibility is one long slog of "I love this boy! But oh no, he's engaged to someone else!" and "This boy acted like he loved me but he really didn't and now I am sad and will ignore the other boy who has clearly been meant to marry me all along!" It's for this reason that, when faced with the prospect of reading the last 70 pages of this book in order to finish it, I was filled with dread and realized that I do not give a single flying fuck who the Dashwood sisters end up marrying. The only thing that would make me want to finish the book is if the story ends with Elinor and Marianne deciding to go off to college or travel to China or fight zombies or do something besides get married. But I know they won't, because this is an Austen novel, and things only end one way here.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with romantic comedies - they're funny, lighthearted entertainment where everyone is beautiful and nothing hurts, and the people who get unhappy endings were mean people and deserved it anyway. I do not begrudge anyone for liking this kind of entertainment - it's just not my taste, and I won't waste any time feeling bad about this.
Sorry, Ms. Austen. I gave it my all, but it's just not going to work out. But don't worry: it's not you, it's me.
I hate them for a wide variety of reasons - I hate their formulaic plots, their repeated character tropes that never seem to change (hmm, will this one have a sassy best friend who only exists to dispense advice?), I hate their consistent failing of the the Bechdel test, and I hate the way they try to make me believe that a skinny and gorgeous woman is incapable of finding a man because she's clumsy or has a job or something.
But mostly, I hate them because their plots revolve entirely around what boy likes what girl and vice versa, and nothing else ever happens. Sure, there can be subplots, and yes, brilliant romantic comedies do exist, but I want my movie protagonists to do more than worry about who they're going to marry.
Reading Sense and Sensibility made me realize why I don't like Jane Austen's books, and probably never will: she was a brilliant author, and her novels are funny and well-written, but at the end of the day, her characters spend 90% of their time talking about boys. Nothing else happens: they go to a ball, where they worry about which boy isn't dancing with them; they have tea, where they talk about which girls have snagged which boys; and they write letters about which girls have done scandalous things with boys. It's just pages and pages of "I like you but you hate me!" "No, I really love you, you were just misinformed!" "My, what a silly misunderstanding!" "I agree! Let's get married!" and all its variations and it bores me to death. I love the humor, and I love the characters, I just want them to do something interesting. This is probably why Pride and Prejudice and Zombies resonated so well with me - finally, the Bennett sisters got to do something besides sit around and mope about the various boys who weren't talking to them for whatever reason!
Sense and Sensibility is one long slog of "I love this boy! But oh no, he's engaged to someone else!" and "This boy acted like he loved me but he really didn't and now I am sad and will ignore the other boy who has clearly been meant to marry me all along!" It's for this reason that, when faced with the prospect of reading the last 70 pages of this book in order to finish it, I was filled with dread and realized that I do not give a single flying fuck who the Dashwood sisters end up marrying. The only thing that would make me want to finish the book is if the story ends with Elinor and Marianne deciding to go off to college or travel to China or fight zombies or do something besides get married. But I know they won't, because this is an Austen novel, and things only end one way here.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with romantic comedies - they're funny, lighthearted entertainment where everyone is beautiful and nothing hurts, and the people who get unhappy endings were mean people and deserved it anyway. I do not begrudge anyone for liking this kind of entertainment - it's just not my taste, and I won't waste any time feeling bad about this.
Sorry, Ms. Austen. I gave it my all, but it's just not going to work out. But don't worry: it's not you, it's me.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41,283 reviews