Londoner wrote:You say that deeper issues are not very apparent, yet you want to show people that they are there.
Why? Do you feel that because a book is famous, or popular, or on the syllabus, it must contain a discussion of 'controversial themes and issues'?
(I'm afraid that if you post requests for help with essays on philosophy boards, this is the sort of answer you will get!)
Hello. Firstly, I am here to make an introductory post because of the topic, rather than either a great knowledge of philosophy or any deep interest of it beyond the bounds of your average (reasonably intelligent) person. Philosophy-wise, I can quote half a dozen- possibly more- of Omar Khayyam's quatrains, although my copy of the Rubaiyat is always within reach, but that's about it. I am however, an avid ( and quite knowledgeable) fan of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice novel. I refer of course to the book and not the numerous adaptations of it. I have joined, and left, several forums purporting to discuss issues on such only to find somewhat bigoted and very narrow views on what are basically feminist Elizabeth Bennet adoration societies (mainly American, I might add without bias). I was attracted here and have read most of the replies except when they deviated to religious matters which I didn't see as applicable to respond to. So what exactly do we have in Pride and Prejudice that needs analysis?
Personally, I choose to view a lady of another era with a somewhat confined view of life, amusing herself by writing a likeable little tale and somewhat ignoring the adage "write about what you know!" I say this only in terms of any mention of love and romance, something seemingly lacking in her own life, but then again, to view Pride and Prejudice as a love story is, in my view, naive to say the least. ( I hear a million boos and hisses from Mr Darcy devotees between the ages of thirteen and seventy-nine, but choose to believe that there are enough sensible women to balance the scale). The book is almost a socially-based Georgian version of our English, long-running radio programme, "The Archers, an everyday story of country-folk " The intriguing part is that it was written partly by candlelight with a quill and ink a touch over two-hundred years ago as a rendition of those times. The first question then, is what applies now, that also did then, that accounts for the popularity the book still enjoys? So much has changed in that time that there has to be something more than romantic imagination ( although I must state, in fairness, that I don't believe in dictating how people should read the book or what they take from it. In that, take whatever pleasure one can) and there must be issues more than just happy endings that ring the right bells.
Hoping the questions are within the forum framework, that will do for now.....(-: