Scan barcode
josiezx's review against another edition
4.0
Many of these works (essays, stories, diary entries, and of course the quiz) are very interesting, especially ones that I can relate to, or ones that I find helpful in understanding Jane Austen. Toward the end, a lot of them are quite funny—in fact I found myself laughing out loud—and toward the beginning, quite a few argued very good, valid points about the book. I really enjoyed reading this book; it opened me to many new perspectives of Pride and Prejudice that I otherwise wouldn't have thought about.
lauriestein's review against another edition
3.0
Light and fun. A few of the perspectives weren't quite as "fresh" as the title purports them to be, but none were as done to death as, say, the pedantry of Mary Bennet. Definitely anathema to anyone who can't countenance "Jane Austen" and "Chick-Lit" in the same sentence, for obvious reasons.
scarletohhara's review against another edition
3.0
I read this book only for the joy of reading something related to Jane Austen, and that, it served well.
balletbookworm's review against another edition
3.0
Solidly in the middling category. The essays were rather uneven (a blindingly terrible essay about Austen and war was followed by one by Jo Beverly who clearly did all HER research) and the back half of the book was Pride and Prejudice fanfic, some good, some not very good. Fun to read though.
sandlynn's review against another edition
3.0
Flirting with Pride and Prejudice is a book of 24 essays, divided into seven sections, all focusing on Jane Austen and particularly her most famous work, Pride and Prejudice. Published in 2005, it’s edited by the comedic romance writer, Jennifer Crusie. Each essay is by a author from a different genre. Not all of them are successful or novel in their attempt. Perhaps because the book was published 17 years ago and there have been even more adaptations of Austen’s work since then, there is not a whole lot new one can say about Pride and Prejudice that many of us have not already read or heard as a result of the boom in attempts to bring her works to the screen or write a story based on her characters. A number of the offerings are very self-referential — more about the author of the essay than its subject. Some try to do what a number of authors of entire books try to do, i.e., create a new story based on a side character, like Charlotte, Georgiana, or Mary. Others are downright puzzling, interjecting contemporary life or new contraptions into the story, like what if the characters all had cell phones. Just cell phones, nothing else modern which made no sense. Another essay set the story up as a reality TV show and another offered a sort of Cosmo quiz, where the reader can select a scenario and from the answers find out which character they most resemble. Hmm.
The most successful and interesting section of the anthology was titled “Jane and History”. Unfortunately, there were only two essays in that section. I wish there had been more. The first by Lawrence Watt-Evans, who is a fantasy, science fiction, and horror writer in his day job, discusses the actual events that were happening in the world in which Jane was writing, like the Napoleonic wars, press gangs, worker riots in the industrial north of England and yet almost none of this stuff was touched upon in her novels. Sure, the militia was infamously portrayed in Pride and Prejudice, but it seemed more like a young men’s club than an actual troop of soldiers whose biggest concern seemed to be hobnobbing with the local ladies at various dances rather than am I ready to fight the French and will I survive. As I recall, Persuasion seemed to be the novel which took the military a little more seriously, but it was a side issue in the story. The second essay in that section was by Jo Beverley who is a noted historical romance writer. She focused on money. Now, of course Jane focused on money too, but Jo Beverley really brings it home. How much money could actually buy during Jane’s life, what different incomes meant to people, how money could be willed away, leaving the inheritor with a much smaller chunk of change. It really was interesting.
I will give three honorable mentions to essays that were in different sections of the anthology. Laura Caldwell’s essay, “High-Class Problems” which put the problems of many of the characters in Jane’s books into perspective and another by Adam Roberts called — I kid you not — “Jane Austen and the Masturbatory Critic”. Okay! In actuality, it was an interesting, although not 100% original, take on the interaction between Austen’s fans and the critics who don’t always give her the same due they give male writers of her time. I also kind of liked, Cheryl Sawyer’s “Lord Byron and Miss A” which imagined a meeting between the two writers.
Well, since I did enjoy some of these essays and found a few others worth the read, I would give this anthology a B-. I’ll have to look up a book that spends more time on “Jane’s world” and how it did or did not relate to her work. That kind of thing might end up being a worthier effort.
The most successful and interesting section of the anthology was titled “Jane and History”. Unfortunately, there were only two essays in that section. I wish there had been more. The first by Lawrence Watt-Evans, who is a fantasy, science fiction, and horror writer in his day job, discusses the actual events that were happening in the world in which Jane was writing, like the Napoleonic wars, press gangs, worker riots in the industrial north of England and yet almost none of this stuff was touched upon in her novels. Sure, the militia was infamously portrayed in Pride and Prejudice, but it seemed more like a young men’s club than an actual troop of soldiers whose biggest concern seemed to be hobnobbing with the local ladies at various dances rather than am I ready to fight the French and will I survive. As I recall, Persuasion seemed to be the novel which took the military a little more seriously, but it was a side issue in the story. The second essay in that section was by Jo Beverley who is a noted historical romance writer. She focused on money. Now, of course Jane focused on money too, but Jo Beverley really brings it home. How much money could actually buy during Jane’s life, what different incomes meant to people, how money could be willed away, leaving the inheritor with a much smaller chunk of change. It really was interesting.
I will give three honorable mentions to essays that were in different sections of the anthology. Laura Caldwell’s essay, “High-Class Problems” which put the problems of many of the characters in Jane’s books into perspective and another by Adam Roberts called — I kid you not — “Jane Austen and the Masturbatory Critic”. Okay! In actuality, it was an interesting, although not 100% original, take on the interaction between Austen’s fans and the critics who don’t always give her the same due they give male writers of her time. I also kind of liked, Cheryl Sawyer’s “Lord Byron and Miss A” which imagined a meeting between the two writers.
Well, since I did enjoy some of these essays and found a few others worth the read, I would give this anthology a B-. I’ll have to look up a book that spends more time on “Jane’s world” and how it did or did not relate to her work. That kind of thing might end up being a worthier effort.
mdlaclair's review against another edition
3.0
I like the first three sections Jane the Universal social Commentator, Jane and history, and Jane and Academe. After that I could only read one essay a day with out feeling like my head would explode.
Having said that i did fine many of the essays gave a new light on Jane Austen works.
Having said that i did fine many of the essays gave a new light on Jane Austen works.
demottar's review against another edition
2.0
What a load of nonsense this anthology was. With the exception of maybe Karen Joy Fowler’s, the essays (if you can call them such) compiled here were as vapid and ill-thought as anything Lydia Bennett could write. Several authors even admitted within their contributions to not ever having read Jane Austen before being asked to write about her! While this is more of a reflection on the editor and publisher, the defect showed in the book’s utter lack of insight, true humor, or freshness.