This study will argue that Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is little more than a portrait of self-centered individuals indulging in selfish, materialistic pursuits which have little or nothing to do with the real world. If Austen's book were not considered a "classic," and if she herself were not such a gifted writer, this superficiality would not be a problem. After all, there are hundreds of books written merely to distract and amuse the reader who has nothing better to do with his or her time than enter into the refined world of refined individuals who act as if being refined and getting married were the only things that mattered in life.
Clearly, the artistry of Austen is not to be denied. The reader cannot help but be impressed with the ability of the author to create a specific world peopled by individual characters. The problem is that she has wasted her talent drawing portraits of this world and these characters who are completely insulated from the deeper reality of actual human beings. Even supporters of the novel admit that there is little to the novel, although they usually go on to argue that Austen was restricted by the artistic expectations of the culture in which she lived and wrote. But could one not say the same about any era? Could one not say that Dostoevsky or Salinger or Solzynetsin wrote in times of restriction and oppression? To defend Austen's novel by saying that she wasn't writing about what she wanted in the way she wanted is to demean her as an artist.
With respect to such defenders, we read this from Dorothy Van Ghent:
It is the frequent response of readers who are making their first acquaintance with Jane Austen that her subject matter is . . . limited to the manners of a small section of English country gentry who apparently have never been worried about death or sex, hunger or war, guilt or God. . . . But if we expect artistic mastery of limited materials, we shall not be disappointed (Van ...