libbykerns's reviews
306 reviews

i’ve been sitting with this review for a while, because i wanted to be as fair to this book as i could while acknowledging the fact that i walked into it disagreeing with Feder… and did not agree with her after finishing the book. while there are certainly elements of P&P, and Darcy in particular, that rub against our modern sensibilities, i think that describing him as a monster—and a monstrous type which has echoed through the ages—is unfair both to Darcy and go the concept of a monster. Darcy is imperfect, absolutely (and the implications of his actions on Lydia are concerning, though no more, not particularly more, than the entirety of her fate in that historical context), but to call him a monster both vilifies him further than the original text supports and waters down the concept of a monster in general. 

i was able to better appreciate (ie feel less rage) towards this book once i realized that the Darcy argument was really an offshoot of Feder’s real project: to argue that Pride and Prejudice ought to be read as/in the context of the gothic novel. this is, at least, an interesting premise. unfortunately, i don’t think the argument works. while Austen was certainly aware of and in conversation with the gothic (see Northanger Abbey), the gothic elements needed to align Austen’s  other novels with the gothic simply aren’t there—even after Feder watered down the gothic as a genre, too. 

from these points, the rest of the book breaks down. i applaud Feder for her attempted analysis, and can hardly fault her interest in warning off impressionable young people (to whom i presume this book is aimed? given its style… which i can’t say i enjoyed. it was a girliepop millennial approach which i presume was aimed at engaging 14-year-olds), but the actual arguments of the book did not work. 

torn about this book because on the one hand it was fascinating and all the seeds of what later makes Steinbeck so good are there. on the other hand, it’s so clearly an early novel and lacks coherence in terms of thematic unity… but i’m glad to have read it and would recommend to a Steinbeck lover (which i might be becoming??? wild)

it’s really good, but depressing. i will probably come back to this later

“Thus we distinguished the locutionary act (and within it the phonetic, the phatic, and the rhetoric acts) which has a meaning; the illocutionary act which has a certain force in saying something; the perlocutionary act which is the achieving of certain effects by saying something” (121). 

there! you got the most important takeaways! you can move on now. :) 

no, but seriously. there were a few points of real interest. otherwise—many, many weeds amongst which to get lost. the absolute highlights of this edition were Austin’s little asides. he can be funny, and i’m glad his little jokes were preserved.

otherwise, though? this could have been an article. also, and even worse, i don’t have a good sense of what’s at stake here, which is really my biggest problem with this text. while i’ve certainly developed an understanding of how we use language and what language doing something can/might mean, i’m not sure what this text has really done… besides create some theoretical categories to play with. perhaps my seminar tomorrow will show me how this isn’t more masturbatory theory, but i’m unconvinced of its real value right now, though i don’t doubt its significance. 

i have mixed feelings about this book. on the one hand, Harry has undergone some seriously rough stuff—and both he and Megan have been abused by the press. no doubt. and the family dynamics? not good. his treatment of his military service, which i know has been controversial, struck me more as long-winded than distasteful. 
on the other hand, and the bigger issue for me, is this: Harry strikes me as having serious victim and inferiority complexes, which he doesn’t seem to recognize. he also does not at all seem to recognize the privileges he’s been given… which makes him a rather unreliable narrator. 
it was an informative read… sometimes with too many details. and sometimes with details i don’t know if i can trust. 

i stumbled across this book while doing research for a paper last semester—and found the brief section i needed so useful and insightful that i wanted to read the entire thing! i’m really not the target audience for this book, doing as i’m not attempting to lead/aid others in the Ignatian exercises… and so found sections of the book repetitive or not particularly interesting. HOWEVER—i got so much out of this book that i nevertheless highly rate it. the insights that i garnered regarding the role of desire and imagination in prayer are honestly life-changing and formative. Lord willing, i’ll put what i’ve learned into practice. 

this was cute! the fact that the MC, who lived in NYC, referred to the city as “NYC” drove me a bit insane—but as an enjoyer of reality TV, i liked this! pacing was good, stakes appropriate, and i can recommend it to my little sister. 

this was a fascinating and informative read! one of the best nonfiction histories i’ve read in a while. i learned a lot about a battle and it’s politics of which i’d previously only had glancing (and primarily Shakespearean) knowledge. while there were many, many details, i didn’t feel bogged down by the information; Livingston’s voice and pacing kept me engaged and not overwhelmed. i also particularly appreciated his explicit discussion of biases/worldview and the way he oriented us to the academic arguments surrounding the battle. masterfully written, with a compelling argument. highly recommend.  

this was super cute! it took an unwholesome twist at the end that i wasn’t expecting and don’t think it needed, but i really liked both main characters and thought their relationship was well-paced and realistic in its development :) 

ave i… outgrown percy jackson ?? 

no. this just felt too self-aware. but did i have a good time overall? yes.