He thinks he’s trading up
Alert Janeite Lisa and the GalleyCat blog pointed us towards One Boring Paperback, at which an enterprising fellow is attempting, in the spirit of One Red Paperclip, to trade a paperback copy of Pride and Prejudice for a set of the Encyclopedia Brittanica (sic).
I have had the misfortune of having to read three Austen novels in school — “Emma,” “Pride and Prejudice,” and “Mansfield Park.” I found each novel to be unbearable. Furthermore, each novel was indistinguishable to me from the other ones. I love literature and have an extensive collection of fiction and non-fiction books. But Austen is just impenetrable to me. I simply do not care who gets to marry whom; I do not care which suitor comes from a better family.
I sold “Emma” to someone in college. I have one copy of “Mansfield Park” on my shelf. I owned two copies of “Pride and Prejudice” — because it was assigned both in college and in law school (in a Law & Literature class).
Editorial aside: How cool is that??? Real estate law, probate law, marriage laws…yes, it’s all in there.
I donated one of those two copies to the public library several years ago.
Of the three novels, I recall liking “Mansfield Park” the most (for reasons that escape me); therefore, I will keep that book. That leaves me with one copy of “Pride and Prejudice” to give away.
Whatever.
Growing up, there were few things as exciting to me as randomly flipping through the Encyclopedia Brittanica. The huge number of topics and well-written articles mesmirized me for countless hours.
But apparently he was not sufficiently “mesmirized” to learn the proper spelling of the title.
Should we tell him that by the time his infant son is old enough to use an encyclopedia purchased today, it will be out of date? Should we tell him that any librarian with a pulse could explain quite easily to his child (who very likely will be computer-literate in his crib) how to use the CD/online versions of the encyclopedia, which by the bye can be more easily updated and also are interactive? What Would Jane Do, Gentle Readers? Would she say, perhaps, that he should have tried Sense and Sensibility, where he might have learned what happens to gentlemen who do not deserve the compliment of rational opposition? It’s a puzzler, all right.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Should we tell him that by the time his infant son is old enough to use an encyclopedia purchased today, it will be out of date? Should we tell him that any librarian with a pulse could explain quite easily to his child (who very likely will be computer-literate in his crib) how to use the CD/online versions of the encyclopedia, which by the bye can be more easily updated and also are interactive?
Very true - the encyclopaedia I use most often is wikipedia, which has the very great merit that if you don’t like the entry, you can go ahead and update it yourself. On the other hand, I own several old sets of encyclopaedias going back to the 1880s (acquired for mere pennies a volume at library booksales) which are great for random browsing.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Sorry - didn’t mean the whole comment to be in italics. Obviously I still haven’t got over switching the clocks back last weekend.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Hey, I have a set circa 1958 which I will gladly trade him — so long as he pays the shipping! Not even Goodwill will take them for doorstops.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I’m a librarian and we won’t take encylopaedias because we can’t get rid of them. Austen novels, however get top dollar in our booksale corner. I think it’s sad that he didn’t give the esteemed author a close enough reading to realize it’s not just romance.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I own the 1964 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, which I would never part with, since my father, in a mood of nerdy impulsiveness, rushed out and bought it when he learned my mother was pregnant with me. It therefore has great sentimental value! As a child, I always imagined the individual volumes as characters with peculiar names: Antarctica Balfe and Garrison Halibut, for instance. It’s strange having a set of encyclopedias that doesn’t include, for example, Martin Luther King, Jr. But the entry on Jane Austen, by Mary M. Lascelles, is quite entertaining.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I have always been astonished at the willingness of ignorant people to proudly broadcast their ignorance.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
I think he might like Fordyce’s Sermons.
November 11th, 2007 at 9:02 am
When I read that article I had such a good laugh. I know the man meant to be funny, perhaps even sarcastic and ironic, but he simply came across as a simpleton and buffoon.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
I do find encyclopedias in general to be far more entertaining than anything written by Ms. Austin. She is wholly responsible for creating generations of sycophantic, overbearing, aggressive gold diggers who make gentlemen’s lives simply unbearable. While I certainly appreciate how Austin places women in subservient roles, the power they employ over men, and the equally fawning males who accommodate them, make for dull and boring literature at its worst. Give me stacks of encyclopedias to read over one single Austin novel. I would gladly trade my Penguin classic Pride and Prejudice for a coat rack, armoir, or anything of lasting and functional value.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Yep. Doesn’t deserve the compliment of rational opposition. AND a misogynist. Double score!