Austen Rant! Ignore if you like.

Jane Austen's writings are not entirely about romance. She is a social satirist, poking fun of what is to be expected while also commenting on the restraints of women during her time period. Can you imagine what she could have written were she alive today? Her dry sense of humor, her sarcasm, her sometimes bleak, realistic look on life and women's options (Charlotte Lucas; Fanny Price's mother), but also her enduring hope would have given us great contemporary literature. But I am more than pleased with what she did write and the time period in which she wrote it. Trying to be a bit more academic: Northanger Abbey, one of her earliest works, is not meant to be read seriously (as I first tried to read it) but was written with a fun, though appreciative, poke at the Gothic novels that were so popular among women during her time period. Pride and Prejudice looks at (among the two obvious topics of pride and prejudice) class. Does money guarantee class? Look at Lady Catherine. Considered part of the upper class, her feeling of entitlement leads her to act in a non-classy manner. Really. "I must have my share in the conversation", "Are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted?", "I take no leave of you, I leave no compliments to your mother, you deserve no such attention". Emma, well, I have trouble with this one, because Emma Woodhouse annoys me. It's a compliment to Austen that she can write characters that I absolutely loathe as well as characters I absolutely identify with (*coughs*Darcy*coughs*). Another thought with Emma is her insistence to be involved in everyone else's lives, how presumptuous it is of her to think she can make the best decisions for other people's lives. Does Emma truly learn to stop meddling in the lives of others? If she stops meddling, does she still believe that she can make the best decisions for people, but chooses not to? (I'm just not a fan.) Sense & Sensibility. Injustice of the status of women and that the ladies Dashwood have to be saved by marrying. That sucks. Mansfield Park and Fanny Price, the country cousin. I wonder if Jane ever felt like the country cousin in her life, not up to snuff fashion-wise, shy, reserved, loving from afar. Or perhaps she's showing the evils of too forward women. Is Mary Crawford too forward? Perhaps I'm putting my own definitions upon her. What about Maria Bertram, willing to marry Rushworth for money and comfort, but not for love? Finally, what is growing to become my second favorite, Persuasion. Are Anne's regrets Jane's? Anne's growth and courage to stand up to her family and be her own woman shows it's never too late to change. And get what you want. The one thing I will say about Austen's novels is the persistence of hope throughout her novels. Her heroines bravely handle the slings and arrows tossed at them, continue to be the women they are (or improve upon the women they are), and still manage to marry the men they love and who are worthy of them. This could be much more profound, but frankly, I'm tired. So I'll end with my continual refrain of Austen's novels are not all about romance. Look at the proposals in her novels. The dialogue of the proposals is sometimes not even included in the novels. Look at P&P proposals (because I know those by heart). Collins's proposal is included because it's absurd. Darcy's first proposal is included because it shows his cockiness and his totally misreading Elizabeth. But his second proposal: "You are too good to trifle with me. If your feelings are what they were last April, tell me so at once, and I will be silent on this subject forever. My feelings and wishes are unchanged." That's it. No long mushy speech. I'm ok with that. (Might it have something to do with my fond affection for and identification with Darcy? Never.) In sum: more than love stories. I don't deny the love stories in them. I just know there's more to them. Open your minds, those of you who dismiss Austen as merely love stories.