Scan barcode
A review by liisp_cvr2cvr
The Darcy Myth: Jane Austen, Literary Heartthrobs, and the Monsters They Taught Us to Love by Rachel Feder
1.0
I am thoroughly disappointed in this book, for multiple reasons.
The theory that the title poses: I have a whole separate write up brewing for it. It's going to take me a while to write it and post it. It's not something that can be done quickly because I want it to be concise and make a point without undue repetition. Plus, the book gave me SO MUCH material to waffle on about. But ultimately, to blame a fictional book for our behaviour in the real world is preposterous. It implies that women read a 19th Century romance novel and then expect real life to behave the same way, today. The way our lives go has nothing to do with books or expectations set in fiction (let me repeat that: fiction). We have our own brains that we need to use to deal with reality. We choose for ourselves, let's stop blaming literature. You end up in a bad relationship, don't blame Darcy, he didn't decide for you.
The examples through which Feder analyzes the hardships of love (or, horror and terror of love as author says) for women are from Pride and Prejudice (book), Bridgerton (TV Show), Gossip Girl (TV Show), Twilight(book) and Taylor Swift song lyrics. The scene Feder brought as an example from Twilight was so over analyzed I could not help but think about that example which goes along the lines of: 'sometimes blue curtains are just blue curtains'.
Would I recommend this book to others? Sure, if you're young and exploring the world. I firmly believe in looking at things from every possible angle so one can make their own informed decisions and take a stance on something. This book has the potential to offend the more level/headed, mature reader who would not dare leave their life choices up to fictional representations.
Was the writing good? Yeah, I mean, Feder made her point. But, personally and as an example, I disliked how an English professor decided to 'level' with the cool kids and use terms like 'fuccboi'. The language used can be a massive factor in credibility for a wider audience. For me, the 'leveling' discounted much of the theory. There's no need to make discounts on language itself to level with the readers. It just made me stop in my tracks, it was unexpected and I'm not novice to a good session of swear words. But everything has it's own place and time. And maybe I am not the intended audience for the book. I don't listen to Taylor Swift either.
Additionally, there was a section that brought real life examples of relationships gone bad. The real life Darcy's. I don't mean disrespect toward anyone's real life feelings, but you give me a one-sided relationship story and I immediately take it with a pinch of salt. Yes, I believe there are bad people out there. I do. But if you're only presenting the woman as the victim and the male as the bad, I think of it as skewed. Last I checked, it takes 2 to tango. Last I checked, every situation has 2 sides. And if only 1 side tells their story, I believe only half of it. If you're a female, it does not make you innocent and 'do no wrong' by default'. It's good enough for gossip, it's not good enough to make a point. And herein lies my issue - perhaps I was expecting a more serious, a more academic take on this theory. To me, this is not it.
But what really pissed me off? To the point of hissing out expletives? It was that the author, Feder, and English professor, spoiled a classic title to drive home her point and then ask the reader not to read the title, and I quote, and obviously the book doesn't have spoiler tags which I have used below:
The theory that the title poses: I have a whole separate write up brewing for it. It's going to take me a while to write it and post it. It's not something that can be done quickly because I want it to be concise and make a point without undue repetition. Plus, the book gave me SO MUCH material to waffle on about. But ultimately, to blame a fictional book for our behaviour in the real world is preposterous. It implies that women read a 19th Century romance novel and then expect real life to behave the same way, today. The way our lives go has nothing to do with books or expectations set in fiction (let me repeat that: fiction). We have our own brains that we need to use to deal with reality. We choose for ourselves, let's stop blaming literature. You end up in a bad relationship, don't blame Darcy, he didn't decide for you.
The examples through which Feder analyzes the hardships of love (or, horror and terror of love as author says) for women are from Pride and Prejudice (book), Bridgerton (TV Show), Gossip Girl (TV Show), Twilight(book) and Taylor Swift song lyrics. The scene Feder brought as an example from Twilight was so over analyzed I could not help but think about that example which goes along the lines of: 'sometimes blue curtains are just blue curtains'.
Would I recommend this book to others? Sure, if you're young and exploring the world. I firmly believe in looking at things from every possible angle so one can make their own informed decisions and take a stance on something. This book has the potential to offend the more level/headed, mature reader who would not dare leave their life choices up to fictional representations.
Was the writing good? Yeah, I mean, Feder made her point. But, personally and as an example, I disliked how an English professor decided to 'level' with the cool kids and use terms like 'fuccboi'. The language used can be a massive factor in credibility for a wider audience. For me, the 'leveling' discounted much of the theory. There's no need to make discounts on language itself to level with the readers. It just made me stop in my tracks, it was unexpected and I'm not novice to a good session of swear words. But everything has it's own place and time. And maybe I am not the intended audience for the book. I don't listen to Taylor Swift either.
Additionally, there was a section that brought real life examples of relationships gone bad. The real life Darcy's. I don't mean disrespect toward anyone's real life feelings, but you give me a one-sided relationship story and I immediately take it with a pinch of salt. Yes, I believe there are bad people out there. I do. But if you're only presenting the woman as the victim and the male as the bad, I think of it as skewed. Last I checked, it takes 2 to tango. Last I checked, every situation has 2 sides. And if only 1 side tells their story, I believe only half of it. If you're a female, it does not make you innocent and 'do no wrong' by default'. It's good enough for gossip, it's not good enough to make a point. And herein lies my issue - perhaps I was expecting a more serious, a more academic take on this theory. To me, this is not it.
But what really pissed me off? To the point of hissing out expletives? It was that the author, Feder, and English professor, spoiled a classic title to drive home her point and then ask the reader not to read the title, and I quote, and obviously the book doesn't have spoiler tags which I have used below:
Lewis's extremely disturbing novel The Monk exults in the depravity of violent acts; at the end of the book, we learn thatthe Devil himself has been pulling the strings . (I spoiled this one on purpose; don't read it.)
Excuse me, but what the hell?! This is not right. Not right at all. You can tell someone not to read The Monk, by all means... But don't spoil the book to those who haven't read it! Good grief!