Sign in with Facebook
Marquise's Reviews > Emma
Emma
by
by
This novel had everything I could possibly dislike:
One, a female lead that's an annoying meddler and busybody whose immature and snobbish entitlement leads her to cause mischief, who indulges in bouts of blatant hypocrisy and whose regrets at the bad results of her behaviour is paper-thin at best, and who, in typical Austen fashion, never really pays the consequences because in the end everything is right for her and for the woman she damaged with her actions. I don't get along well with meddlers of this nature, and when they don't weather the outcome it's particularly tiresome. I wish Austen had the courage to make her characters pay for the logical consequences of certain actions instead of shoving a happily ever after down our throats.
Two, the plot is superfluous. A rich and handsome girl who's so bored that she entertains herself by matchmaking for people she doesn't really know that well? Doesn´t work even as an amusing comedy because the consequences are serious even though the author tries her hardest to smooth them out by the end.
Three, after a while, Austen's tone starts to sound sanctimonious, judgy and preachy, especially because of the things she chooses to focus her darts on. Besides, she tends to use the tell, tell, tell, tell a time too many as if wanting us to think of the character a certain way instead of letting us draw our own conclusions from the story itself. I've been noticing this for a while, perhaps because I've read all her novels fairly close to each other, and in time her style can grate.
Four, perhaps her biggest weakness as a writer: she cannot wrap up a story at swordpoint! She just cannot. All her novels, even the best written, have terrible epilogues, some less terrible than others perhaps. And when the story isn't so good, the bad endings leave an even worse impression.
I could go on citing all the things I disliked in this book, were it not that it was so exhausting that I just want to leave it behind me. A moderately good point was that the male lead was nice enough, but he can't save the novel all by himself.
One, a female lead that's an annoying meddler and busybody whose immature and snobbish entitlement leads her to cause mischief, who indulges in bouts of blatant hypocrisy and whose regrets at the bad results of her behaviour is paper-thin at best, and who, in typical Austen fashion, never really pays the consequences because in the end everything is right for her and for the woman she damaged with her actions. I don't get along well with meddlers of this nature, and when they don't weather the outcome it's particularly tiresome. I wish Austen had the courage to make her characters pay for the logical consequences of certain actions instead of shoving a happily ever after down our throats.
Two, the plot is superfluous. A rich and handsome girl who's so bored that she entertains herself by matchmaking for people she doesn't really know that well? Doesn´t work even as an amusing comedy because the consequences are serious even though the author tries her hardest to smooth them out by the end.
Three, after a while, Austen's tone starts to sound sanctimonious, judgy and preachy, especially because of the things she chooses to focus her darts on. Besides, she tends to use the tell, tell, tell, tell a time too many as if wanting us to think of the character a certain way instead of letting us draw our own conclusions from the story itself. I've been noticing this for a while, perhaps because I've read all her novels fairly close to each other, and in time her style can grate.
Four, perhaps her biggest weakness as a writer: she cannot wrap up a story at swordpoint! She just cannot. All her novels, even the best written, have terrible epilogues, some less terrible than others perhaps. And when the story isn't so good, the bad endings leave an even worse impression.
I could go on citing all the things I disliked in this book, were it not that it was so exhausting that I just want to leave it behind me. A moderately good point was that the male lead was nice enough, but he can't save the novel all by himself.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Emma.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
October 12, 2015
– Shelved as:
to-read
October 12, 2015
– Shelved
October 12, 2015
– Shelved as:
classics
January 29, 2016
–
Started Reading
January 29, 2016
–
22.62%
"“I have none of the usual inducements of women to marry. Were I to fall in love, indeed, it would be a different thing; but I never have been in love: it is not my way, or my nature; and I do not think I ever shall. And, without love, I am sure I should be a fool to change such a situation as mine."
Famous last words, little meddler. :)"
page
102
Famous last words, little meddler. :)"
January 30, 2016
–
56.76%
"My dear Mrs. Weston, do not take to match-making. You do it very ill. Jane Fairfax mistress of the Abbey! Oh no, no;—every feeling revolts. For his own sake, I would not have him do so mad a thing.�
The hypocrisy is strong in this one . . .
Surely I am not the only one that finds Emma very, very trying?"
page
256
The hypocrisy is strong in this one . . .
Surely I am not the only one that finds Emma very, very trying?"
January 30, 2016
–
79.16%
"How Harriet could ever have had the presumption to raise her thoughts to Mr. Knightley!—How she could dare to fancy herself the chosen of such a man till actually assured of it! But Harriet was less humble, had fewer scruples than formerly.
Well, little Miss Woodhouse keeps sinking deeper and deeper into the mud."
page
357
Well, little Miss Woodhouse keeps sinking deeper and deeper into the mud."
January 30, 2016
–
Finished Reading
November 8, 2021
– Shelved as:
have-reviewed
Comments Showing 1-50 of 74 (74 new)
message 1:
by
Bubu
(new)
Jan 30, 2016 04:54PM
Emma is the prototype of the TSTL heroines we get read about nowadays. Absolutely hated her. Spoiled brat.
reply
|
flag
The only Austen woman I hate more than Emma is Persuasion's Anne, but Emma is (purposely capitalized) Totally Horrible and Knightley could do 100x better. This book was a total slog for me to get through.
Bubulinea wrote: "Emma is the prototype of the TSTL heroines we get read about nowadays. Absolutely hated her. Spoiled brat."You know, I think I'd have found this more palatable if the price to pay hadn't been brushed away as it was. I mean, this girl did damage three times to the same person, and made two other big mistakes, but in the end all is "solved" to her favour and she's rewarded for a supposed maturing that's hard to see. This isn't the first time Austen shies away from showing the real consequences, and I no longer have any patience left for that after seeing a couple cases more in her books. Making her victim end up with that man Emma campaigned against after all felt like the author was telling "See, folks? No real damage done, they all ended up happily married."
Christine wrote: "... and Knightley could do 100x better."This brings me to another point that I found objectionable: Knightley is conveniently made to declare his love to her after she suddenly realises out of nowhere that she has feelings for him . . . moments after she's told by the woman she's so ill-used that she has her eyes set on him now that she thinks she can aspire to anyone "superior" on Emma's advice.
The Just-About-Average Ms M wrote: "Oh, dear! The Austen Fan Club folks and all those Twee Squeeeee Ladies will be sharpening their respective quills to retaliate! Anathema to dislike an Austen Girl, any one of them..."I've not had any encounter with those fans yet, Ms M. :)
I've enjoyed some of Austen's novels, but I by no means am of the belief that everything she's ever written is gold. And as for the derivative Austenian fiction, I've never been interested in that, but that's more a general preference than something to do with JA's novels. It often feels like I'm paying for fanfiction and it doesn't feel right to me, because when I like an author I prefer to stay with them. Retellings, reimaginings and mashups are a bit of a minefield to me, for as much as I love those for tales and myths especially, I occasionally put my foot on the wrong spot and the mine goes off on me. :D
I've always thought Emma to be the more toned down version of Lydia from P&P. Less empty-headed, more feeling than Lydia, but a distinctive similarity in her belief that she isn't doing any actual damage. So I guess if I were to interpret JA's wish to reward Emma's foolishness, it would be that she didn't mean to cause any harm, that she only wanted to 'help'. Doesn't make her anymore likeable, though.
Bubulinea wrote: "So I guess if I were to interpret JA's wish to reward Emma's foolishness, it would be that she didn't mean to cause any harm, that she only wanted to 'help'."That's the thing: regardless of intentions, the damage stays the same, and so should've the consequences. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as the saying goes, and the difference intention makes with regard to malice or lack thereof concerns the perception of the reader, for we're more willing to forgive or excuse someone who does damage without malice or out of pure ignorance/lack of information. But in the case of Emma, although malice is ruled out, ignorance is no excuse for her as she was repeatedly warned to not do what she did, by her father first and by Knightley after, but she thought too well of herself, that she knew better than older and more sensible people, and she cannot even be excused with her own conviction that she wanted "only good" for Harriet through the lens of her own epoch's morals, because even Knightley disagrees with her on what's good or not for Harriet, and he's in the same time period and has the same moral convictions.
Marquise wrote: "That's the thing: r..."Hence why I dislike her so much. And that's where my problem with JA's work starts. I acknowledge that JA is considered almost source material regarding the time period. I also understand that she's one of the pioneers of independent female literature. It's when I look at the novels individually, that I find almost all of them rather bland, apart from Persuasion, Northanger Abbey and Pride and Prejudice, the first two being my favourites, but that's personal taste.
I'm going a little off-topic here but I believe the admittedly brilliant BBC version of Pride and Prejudice from 1995, which I watch again at least once a year, had a huge impact - and still continues to do so - on the image of JA's work. If I look at Lizzie, for example, I do think she's morally quite ambiguous and I've always doubted her true feelings for Mr Darcy.
And I agree with you, Emma is beyond redemption.
Bubulinea wrote: "And that's where my problem with JA's work starts. I acknowledge that JA is considered almost source material regarding the time period. I also understand that she's one of the pioneers of independent female literature."Her value as a source for the time period always seemed narrow to me, very restricted in its scope. She mostly represents the ideals of the time about idyllic life in the countryside, and that affects the value of the "social commentary" that's always argued in favour of her novels.
I've never watched the 1995 serials of P&P, but I'm cognisant of its ripple effects being felt even this day. One only has to ask any new wave of incoming fans to the club how they came to know her work, and like as not most of them will cite a film or a serials. And these screen representations stress more on the romance too, which contributes to the public perception of what Austen's work is. Many people who've never read her or that came to read just one book due to the media hype have commented to me disparagingly that they were led to believe she was more than "one of those romance writers" or something along those lines. I've often wondered if the tendency to like her books for the male leads also has something to do with the media, because once you get into the books . . . well, suffice to say that Colin Firth's Darcy isn't Book Darcy exactly. In the books, the male leads have a more limited role, often so limited that they read like they're there to service the heroine's story and bring the much-needed HEA.
But then, it's not like Austen herself doesn't contribute to encouraging the reader to like the book for the hero. Because, whilst her heroines are varied and more nuanced, some likable, some not, some annoying, some endearing, some proactive, others TSTL, etc., her heroes are uniformly "good guys." Some so good that they're a dead bore. And whatever flaws they have are hardly worth mentioning in most cases. Austen idealises masculinity, which is a bit sad seeing that she never married and her experience with men isn't exacly substantial. Those men who're most flawed are secondaries, she doesn't go for the bad boy or anti-hero or merely flawed-but-likable as male leads, just as secondaries, like Wickham.
I actually love Austen's works, I just feel like her books vary enough that each one is going to appeal to a different audience. I know a good deal of people who love Emma and Persuasion both of which I don't like on a personal level. Emma is a selfish meddler and Anne wallows in self-pity and those are traits I can't take. Yet I have had friends talk to me about the brilliance of Emma's journey and the power of Anne's love. However, I could read Mansfield Park, Sense and Sensibility, and Northanger Abbey over and over again and never get bored. (Pride and Prejudice I enjoyed but it wasn't at the top for me.)I also have never made it through the 1995 P&P even though I've tried it on several occasions, nor have I ever enjoyed the 90s S&S, but I love the 2000s ones.
Jane Austen famously declared that Emma was a heroine "No one but me will much like." So you're not alone in hating Emma. She's not my favorite Austen heroine and the romance does come out of thin air but she does realize with help from Knightley that she was wrong. To be fair to Emma, she was aided by Frank Churchill to tease Jane Fairfax.
QNPoohBear wrote: "Jane Austen famously declared that Emma was a heroine."I didn't know that tidbit, interesting. She certainly did like this creation of hers, seeing what she spared her. :)
QNPoohBear wrote: "To be fair to Emma, she was aided by Frank Churchill to tease Jane Fairfax."
I didn't get into elaborating on this, because my major issue with Emma is the matter of Harriet. What follows after, the two other big mistakes she makes, are subsumed into this one. Emma wasn't dragged by Churchill into doing anything she'd not want to Jane, for whom she had a feeling of jealousy too, so I'm not sure the excuse that she had an accomplice in Frank works nor diminishes her own initiative in this.
Christine wrote: "I also have never made it through the 1995 P&P even though I've tried it on several occasions, nor have I ever enjoyed the 90s S&S, but I love the 2000s ones."I do think that enjoying a given book doesn't have to necessarily translate to wanting to watch the screen adaptation, and I'm glad we can see eye to eye on this. Most times, I'm happy with just the book and reading more on the subject/similar stuff.
Christine wrote: "II actually love Austen's works, I just feel like her books vary enough that each one is going to appeal to a different audience.."
Yes, that's certainly one point in favour. But, speaking for my own experience only, I don't see as much variety when I take them as a whole. Her women are definitely different and for all tastes, but her men are frankly cut from the same cloth, and the storytelling is also quite similar and often the same for all the stories, not to mention the settings hardly vary from Bath to Fullerton, which contributes to the "narrowness" of her works. Not to mention that, in the end, her strong emphasis on relationships does make her books feel much the same, and that's thrown into sharper relief when you read her in a row. One interesting discovery I made reading one novel after another of hers is that I have with Austen the same issues I have with Georgette Heyer, another hit or miss author for me.
For all those reasons, and with the benefit of a global view, I can't say I'd consider her an author I can like. I've enjoyed some of her books, but none has made it into my favourites.
I also read all of her books in one go, but had a very different reaction to them as a whole. I actually don't find all of her male characters to be cut from the same cloth, instead I find them each to be uniquely flawed but to benefit from being suitable for the heroine who loves them. Meaning, an Edmund Bertram would appear far less appealing in the eyes of Elizabeth Bennet, and Fanny Price would never go for someone like Catherine Morland's Henry Tilney. So in the eyes of the specific leading lady, that leading man is seen as the mate of choice, but would not be the case were he in another book.I also like that she keeps her geographic scope minimal, partly because my personal taste (and historian's background) is heavily grounded in early 19th century England and France. However, I also quite enjoy knowing that all of her characters could, and yet don't, ever cross paths. Adding to this the multitude of personalities that she develops throughout her books and I think they provide a very interesting show of how different personalities can handle themselves in a similar society and ultimately still end up with positive outcomes.
Of course this is all based on personal preference, which is the entire point of reading and discussing, that these impressions are different for each reader.
(my phone deleted this on me the first time I wrote it, even though I thought I posted it, so forgive me if similar comments come up twice)
Christine wrote: "I also read all of her books in one go, but had a very different reaction to them as a whole. I actually don't find all of her male characters to be cut from the same cloth, instead I find them each to be uniquely flawed but to benefit from being suitable for the heroine who loves them. Meaning, an Edmund Bertram would appear far less appealing in the eyes of Elizabeth Bennet, and Fanny Price would never go for someone like Catherine Morland's Henry Tilney. So in the eyes of the specific leading lady, that leading man is seen as the mate of choice, but would not be the case were he in another book.."My meaning may be better expressed in my reply to Bubulinea, perhaps. But if not, I'd like to clarify that I wasn't thinking of cut from the same cloth in the sense that all the heroes are exactly the same. Of course they have their personalities, Tilney is no Darcy and Knightley is no Edmund, etc. But where I'm going is more or less along the lines you mention that each hero is suited to each heroine: there's no real variety amongst them in terms of layered characterisation, so whilst each suits their heroine, their characterisation is rather shallow. You can detest Anne, you can love Lizzy, you can despair with Elinor, and so on, because their personalities and stories aren't quite the same, and they have identifiable flaws that are such. But what can you really have against Edmund, for example? That's he's a bore? And how can that be a flaw to put off any reader? Readers are turned off and hate a given Austen heroine, but the worst I've ever heard of an Austen hero is that he's boring, and some of the criticism hurled at them is more a matter of preference than a real flaw, like for example my friend Pooh here doesn't care for Tilney's teasing whereas I find it funny, but we both can loathe Emma and cite specific reasons that really are character flaws. And why does this happen? Because Austen's heroes are all invariably nice men, nice guys, to the point that some are even idealised depictions of masculinity. That's what I meant. The really flawed, realistic ones aren't protagonists.
En fin! Yes, it's really nice to discuss these things and see different reactions. :)
So sorry you didn't like it at all, my dear!! Although I personally loved that book and rather liked Emma, I can certainly understand why so many readers are turned off by her and can't stand her. I watched many different movie versions before reading the book and loved the 2009 mini-series. Romola Garai portrayed Emma in a very fun, lively way, and I didn't see her as annoying at all. While reading the book I rather found her meddling entertaining and really enjoyed following her progress. It's too bad the last Austen novel you read had to be the bad one!!
Anne wrote: "It's too bad the last Austen novel you read had to be the bad one!!Yes, what a way to finish my self-challenge with a steep fall. But at least I did have good times before this one. :)
Marquise wrote: "Anne wrote: "It's too bad the last Austen novel you read had to be the bad one!!Yes, what a way to finish my self-challenge with a steep fall. But at least I did have good times before this one. :)"
I'm glad you didn't start with that one, you might have decided not to finish your self-challenge after all!
It was a very random choice and very disorderly, but for once that was fortunate!
A refreshing review! I have read and heard many times that "Emma" is considered sometimes for a better Austen's novel than P&P. I can't understand why. I thought that maybe there is something wrong with me ;-)
Mela wrote: "I have read and heard many times that "Emma" is considered sometimes for a better Austen's novel than P&P. I can't understand why."Thank you, Mela!
I haven't read the arguments for why this would be better than P&P, so I can't comment on their merits. In any case, I'd probably disagree if I knew.
What I do know is that "Emma" partisans are convinced Knightley is leagues ahead of Darcy. So I have a suspicion or two about what their arguments are like. ;)
Marquise wrote: "I haven't read the arguments for why this would be better than P&P, so I can't comment on their merits. In any case, I'd probably disagree if I knew.What I do know is that "Emma" partisans are convinced Knightley is leagues ahead of Darcy. So I have a suspicion or two about what their arguments are like. ;) "
I don't remember if here [] they go so far as to say that "Emma" is better than P&P but I remember that when I listened this I felt a little ashamed that I didn't like "Emma" more ;-)
Oh, I see now what you meant. For the 200th anniversary, they were publishing articles and podcasts and TV specials, with people arguin for which of her works was best, but I never paid attention.I go against the grain a bit in this matter, unintentionally, because I've never liked P&P the way most do. If you read the comments under my review for the second reread, you'll see my opinion fluctuated over the years. My personal favourites aren't nearly as popular either, so you're not alone. Sometimes, it just that one story appeals to each more, and no amount of brainy scholarly analysis can change that. :)
Peggy wrote: "I like Emma even though I don't much like Emma. :)"Let me guess, because of a certain other character? Or is it the story overall?
No crush on Mr. Knightley; I just like the story overall. :)Marquise wrote: "Peggy wrote: "I like Emma even though I don't much like Emma. :)"
Let me guess, because of a certain other character? Or is it the story overall?"
Peggy wrote: "No crush on Mr. Knightley; I just like the story overall. :)"Ah! I understand. Amongst people I know, the appeal seems to be primarily the characters.
Thank you
See, I found it. :D
Srivalli wrote: "See, I found it. :D"*avoids looking at review*
Do . . . do I want to go down this memory lane? ðŸ¤
Marquise wrote: "*avoids looking at review*Do . . . do I want to go down this memory lane? ðŸ¤"
Yes!! You do. Give it a read, M. *makes puppy eyes*
Srivalli wrote: "Yes!! You do. Give it a read, M. *makes puppy eyes*"Haha, I did! Vintage Marquise, this review. I haven't changed. :P
It’s been so many years since I tried reading Jane Austen. If I remember correctly, I don’t think I liked any of the books I tried.
Rachel wrote: "It’s been so many years since I tried reading Jane Austen. If I remember correctly, I don’t think I liked any of the books I tried."Not even Persuasion? You can hate all her books, but please spare Persuasion!
I never read that one! Maybe I should try that
Rachel wrote: "I never read that one! Maybe I should try that"es! You shouldYes! You should. And I pinkie-promise I won't challenge you to a duel if you don't like it. :D
Emma is a book I find exasperating to read and yet love. I mainly enjoy all the secondary characters and Mr. Knightley. Emma is exhausting. And yet I love it and reread it. I don't really have a rational explanation for it though. Her other novels I can pinpoint why I love it or merely like it.
Rebecca wrote: "And yet I love it and reread it. I don't really have a rational explanation for it though."It happens! :)
Rebecca wrote: "Emma is a book I find exasperating to read and yet love. I mainly enjoy all the secondary characters and Mr. Knightley. Emma is exhausting. And yet I love it and reread it. I don't really have a ra..."I feel the same way.
Marquise wrote: "Haha, I did! Vintage Marquise, this review. I haven't changed. :P"Haha... Glad to see that you haven't changed. Though maybe you did sharpen the knives (in a good way). ;)
Srivalli wrote: "Haha... Glad to see that you haven't changed. Though maybe you did sharpen the knives (in a good way). ;)"Yeah... Looking at some reviews Thibault has been digging up with his 'likes', I've often paused and asked why on Earth I rated that thing so highly and what I was having for breakfast at the time! :D
This review reminded me of how I feel about Northanger Abbey XD
Jane Austen is a hit or miss for me. I didn't like this book all that much either.
Marquise wrote: "Yeah... Looking at some reviews Thibault has been digging up with his 'likes', I've often paused and asked why on Earth I rated that thing so highly and what I was having for breakfast at the time! :D"Haha... You can down rate them now. I sometimes go through my read shelf and do that. Makes me wonder why and how I rated that book so high.
I love your review because I've always had my reservations at the canonical reverence accorded to Austen - and because so many of the people who love her books just really piss me off. Too many are one step up from Barbara Cartland and Mills & Boon readers. In my experience they would never read Madam Bovary or Anna Karenina. They like Austen in the same way they like Laura Ashley prints - safe, middle class, 'nice', something that won't frighten horses or children - you don't need to think. Her humour, even when sharp, is clearly class based, she is a very 'u' writer (if you don't understand look up 'u' and 'non-u' use in English as a class indicator.Also way to many of the same people thought the books/film of Jane Austen with Zombies were terrifically funny and clever.
So congratulations to you again!
Mariella wrote: "This review reminded me of how I feel about Northanger Abbey XD"It was because Tilney makes fun of Catherine's silliness? :)
(The only other friend that doesn't like NA says it's because of that.)
Elentarri wrote: "Jane Austen is a hit or miss for me."I want your list of hits and misses now. :)
Marquise wrote: "I want your list of hits and misses now. :)"hmmm... I particularly liked Lady Susan, then Persuasion, Pride and Prejudice, and then Sense and Sensibility. I dislike Emma and can't remember anything about Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey. I haven't read Sanditon or The Watsons. Austen tends to be too long winded for my taste and goes on too much about how agreeable people are and how much they are worth in monetary terms. Once or twice - fine. But a whole novel full - blah. Silly teenagers doesn't do anything for me either and most of Austen's women are silly teenagers (more or less).
I recently read your review of Persuasion, which I've now added to my massive TBR list, but it's a book I may actually get around to reading this year, because I really enjoyed P&P. Thanks for steering me away from Emma and toward Persuasion.
Austen's books are fantasies from the regency era of the early 19th century in England. She was a pastor's daughter and spinster who lost her chance at marriage due to class snobbery. The man she loved was taken away to Ireland. She was thus doomed to take care of her elderly parents until they died. Her novels were her escapism from a dreary life in which women had no options and thus the pursuit of wealthy men, as shown in her novels. She died of Addison's disease at age 41.
