It's a pity that Austen passed away when Charlotte Bronte, one of her most condescending and vocal critics, was only a year old. The acclaim that women's literature started getting after Austen, made way for future female writers and the Bronte sisters are beneficiaries of that. To demean Austen's works as "simply romantic," as was repeated annoyingly enough in this video shows a decided lack of understanding of the period and her writing. She had an uncanny ability to make the readers feel intensely despite seemingly commonplace plots.. the Bronte sisters on the other hand depended upon intense plots to evoke that. Both are great styles of storytelling. Austen's magic was that she made the ordinary extraordinary and I for one am glad to be part of the global Janeite community.

@lalaholland5929

2 жыл бұрын

Beautifully put Samrudhi. The romantic opinion was once mine. But, i was corrected while at university.

@theculturedbumpkin

2 жыл бұрын

Well said! So am I!

@_Sakidora_

2 жыл бұрын

A bigger problem is the idea that to be romantic, simple or not, is a flaw or something to be dismissed or that love stories exist independent of all other considerations such as money or morality. It's equally amusing to see all those Austen scholars say their literary heroine wasn't romantic and didn't write write love stories, as if admitting she did makes her a Regency Barbara Cartland. Anyone who has read Persuasion and not seen it as a love story wasn't paying attention or has a heart of stone.

@samrudhik8757

2 жыл бұрын

@@_Sakidora_ very well put! I wish that's a dynamic I addressed in my comment as well. I was just so put off by the borderline condescending way (at least that's how I saw it) in which they addressed Austen's work sometimes that I became a little defensive. While there is a common element of romance in Austen's work, it's not just that and neither is it cheesy. You mentioned Persuasion which is my favourite of her works because it is about second chances and people overcoming their flaws and prejudices to finally acknowledge their feelings. It's certainly a romantic genre at the heart of it and there is nothing to defend in that.

@_Sakidora_

2 жыл бұрын

@@samrudhik8757 I definitely understand your defensiveness. So much fiction written by women is dismissed, often by women themselves, as are women's interests. Love stories are something trivial to be ignored and derided as the work of silly women writing for other women or pandering to the patriarchy or traditional gender roles or whatever nonsense is used currently to dismiss anything romantic or related to issues which concern women the most. Of course there have been much more perceptive men, such as Kipling or the Janeites, soldiers who read Austen's work to take their mind away from the horrors of WW1, who valued her work as more than just 'escapism' (as if that's a bad thing in itself), but the prejudice stubbornly remains. Persuasion is my favourite of hers too.

Austen is about marriage but also about money and power. How can anyone miss that?

@noorbashir577

3 жыл бұрын

And, of course, something that I haven’t seen anyone bring up in the comments is the satirical nature of her novels, which allowed her to very subtly critique society within her works which was a feat indeed for a woman in the Regency

@BeatriceFiona

3 жыл бұрын

and social class!

@03maggield

3 жыл бұрын

@@noorbashir577 YASSSSS! My satirical queen of queens!!

@tonyausten2168

3 жыл бұрын

Austen is about LOVE. Marriage comes with money and power in her books.

@_Sakidora_

2 жыл бұрын

Stupidity?

I like both, Jane is light and happy, Emily is torment and storm. You can not have light without darkness, you can not have darkness without light. They are like vanilla and chocolate ice cream, both taste different but both are ice cream, delightful and I will not choose between them, but enjoy both.

@marinazagrai1623

5 жыл бұрын

Jane is not light at all. She constantly brings up the nature of marriage for money (how 1st cousins were intended to marry...eww; the eldest children were meant to ensure that the parents or, at least the mother and any children would be taken care of [as a roof over their heads] in case the father would die). Watch Pride & Prejudice, and you pick new details after viewing it a few times. Really, not sarcastic.

@cassieearle9196

3 жыл бұрын

Jane's writing is in direct rejection of the Gothic novels of her time i.e Byron. Her writings reward those who do not fall to baseless passion. that said her romantic heroes still follow the path of love and marriage for love. a concept pretty uncommon in her time. The real art in her writing though is her sarcastic wit in criticizing British hierarchy and aristocracy. plus her dialogue is just amazing and so real like the gentlemen said.

@lizzy-wx4rx

3 жыл бұрын

This is an over-generalization. Sense and Sensibility, not discussed here at all, has much more light and shade than Austen's other novels, which is why it's my favorite, even though it's not as brilliantly witty as P&P (which I also love, as it is delightful). The second time I read S&S was right after a breakup, and it was emotionally devastating. It's also the least to do with 'courtship and marriage' of all her novels, it's much more about the sisters, their relationship, and growing up.

@bobstrong7117

3 жыл бұрын

Emma

@TheTwara

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, there is a lot of dark in Mansfield Park and Persuasion too. Just how unkind the world can be.

Austen for ME, because she mastered 3 personal passions: interpersonal psychology, iconic prose and humor. That said: Bronte was an oracle when describing the passion & rawness of the human condition. Placing them in battle is a fun exploration of literature, but it's just a tool. They dwelled in such different areas that meaningful comparison seems illogical for a reader. In my (irrelevant) case: both influenced a tomboy of color growing up in the modern American South. That power to transcend culture, era and personal reality, proves them both literary giants. I am grateful for both.

@upuliedivisekera6779

3 жыл бұрын

yes! the comparison is almost pointless, they are chalk and cheese, and both equally valuable.

@pereiraplaza222

3 жыл бұрын

Try Portrait of a lady by Henry James. It's even better.

@mayaluna11

3 жыл бұрын

@@pereiraplaza222 Yes! The dark tension between Gilbert & Isabel is so well written it grabs you no matter how many times you read it.

@pereiraplaza222

3 жыл бұрын

@@mayaluna11 Yes and the poor 2 guys desperately in love with Isabel, knowing they'll never have her... Although the ending leaves space for interpretation.

@ramonarosario6299

Жыл бұрын

I love, love how you articulated the seemingly paradoxical ideas here that it is both unnecessary and worthwhile to spend time, talent and wit comparing these two authors. My first reflex was to dismiss this preposterous comparison of two excellent artists and my second thought was, well, if we were never to propose such a comparison, there would be very little that is interesting to converse about. My reconsideration came about when I realized I was greatly enjoying this performance.

I was very irritated by the repeated sneer that Austen was only “romantic” because all her novels end with marriage. She is the very opposite of romantic and merciless in probing the shortcomings of marriage. In that very lecture we saw the scene between Mr and Mrs Bennet, in which his early romantic attraction has given way to the awareness he has married a very silly woman. On the other hand Bronte strikes me as all that is wrong with romanticism: the principal criterion for judgement is intensity of feeling, to the extent to making an abusive sadist a hero.

@scilines

8 жыл бұрын

Astute observation.

@Peabody6517

7 жыл бұрын

agreed

@ameliaram9820

7 жыл бұрын

Jackson Richardson, "making an abusive sadist a hero" that is also known as creating an antihero and of course there is nothing 'unromantic' about an antihero.

@lisellesloan3191

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, as Amy Ram mentions, he was an antihero, not a hero, and this is part of makes "Wuthering Heights" so iconic: it did not have a focus on a conventional hero or heroine. By the way, you have misspelled "judgment."

@juanmorata8851

6 жыл бұрын

They don't mean "romantic". They mean Romantic, the philosophical and artistic movement that took place roughly around 1790-1832, the period during which Austen and Bronte were writing. Bronte's work was much more Romantic (not romantic, which has to do with love and idealism), meaning that she was much more interested in making the reader sympathize with flawed, even villainous, characters. In very rough terms, Romanticism had to do with the importance of the individual, freedom, and feeling, while Austen was more of a Neoclassicist, which stressed the importance of poise and elegance. There are certainly Romantic features about Austen, but Bronte was more of a full blown Romantic. That's what they mean when they say Romantic.

Persuasion by Austen is a gripping novel in that the heroine sees the love of her life slipping away and the hope of a marriage of lovers gone forever. It breaks my heart. The ending sends you to the moon in happiness. Who can write words that take you on such a trip?

@kellynch

3 жыл бұрын

Wentworth's letter to Anne is achingly beautiful.

@kellynch

3 жыл бұрын

@Homediva How anyone can say that Austen's characters aren't passionate is beyond me. OK. Darcy isn't. His 2nd proposal sounds almost like a business deal. But men like Wentworth and Brandon simply ooze passion.

@neetadsouza7870

2 жыл бұрын

Persuasion gives me false hope :,)

@voulafisentzidis8830

2 жыл бұрын

Persuasion is my favourite of all her books. It's heartbreaking to feel as Anne must feel throughout the novel and her healing and joy in the way it ended. My favourite part is when it's referenced that men do the writing and when they leave they have much to do so have no time to look back. Whereas women, at a time in history when they didn't work, had only time to ponder and re-visit past hurts. Glorious.

@baku2461

2 жыл бұрын

@@voulafisentzidis8830 persuasion is my favourite also. I had read Pride and Prejudice several times, had tried and failed to get through Emma and then picked up Persuasion and devoured it quicker than any other book. It was wonderful.

I love his conclusion, which begins at 1:43:44 and ends with a marvelous sentiment that sums up my feelings: You can compare and contrast geniuses all day long, but in the end, we're fortunate to have any at all.

@silviamartinelli6848

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, that's the whole point.

I love John Mullen's support of Jane Austen; it's always wonderful to hear someone who understands and loves her so much!

Wonderful. Thanks for uploading. Jane Austen to me is the prim, trim, perfectly manicured English garden. The Bronte sisters are the wild, untrammelled forest - lushly beautiful by day, serenely ornate at twilight and dark and mysterious by night. There is really no sense in comparing the two. Each has its own blissful delight to offer.

@samuelphom9432

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly

@moominmay

3 жыл бұрын

Agree they’re quite different writers but I wouldn’t describe Austen in the way you have as she covered pre marital sex, emotional abuse and unrequited love before her perfectly manicured gardens could be arrived at!

@EkaterinaIHeris

2 жыл бұрын

Perfectly said 👏. Well said. We see the England that we all know through Jane Austen, whereas Emily Brontë shows you a much darker, secretive world of passion & tragedy.

@AllTheArtsy

Жыл бұрын

You have misread Austen

@Rohilla313

Жыл бұрын

@@AllTheArtsy How?

What a wonderfully entertaining way of spending nearly 2 hours.

Jane Austen hands down. Bronte's novel is brilliant but it is a one off and it does not have the wit and the piercing intelligence that one sees in Austen's novels. Austen's characters, like Shakespeare's, reveal all of man's foibles, strengths, weaknesses, charm, intelligence, folly, tragedy, etc. There is so much depth in Austen's novels, especially when taken as a whole body of work. As John Mullan noted, there is not just one novel to assess Austen's brilliance. Bronte's work is a love story with underlying themes, brilliantly realized, but it does not transcend centuries in the way Austen's work does. Austen's work is universal and timeless. Bronte's work is stuck in the 19th century with it's Romantic Period themes. If there had been no Jane Austen, it makes you wonder if there would have been the Bronte sisters. She paved the way for women novelists throughout the 19th century and onward with her genius.

@sarahpena9501

4 жыл бұрын

I think the same

@nalinimenon641

3 жыл бұрын

Nineveh

@emilycox6560

3 жыл бұрын

Whilst I agree with most of your points. Brontë was dead by the time she was 30 so didn’t have much opportunity to write many novels. Her life was so depressingly tragic, she probably couldn’t muster the comedy of Austen.

@diogenes3300

3 жыл бұрын

I agree. This comparison simply makes no sense! They are both women and they wrote English books. The similarities end there. A more interesting debate would have been Austen VS Shakespeare.

@art.in.aarti.

3 жыл бұрын

Its one off because she died. Death does that to plans.

I just have to say, that even if I like the Brontes better than Austen, I would have voted for Austen on this one, because the of the John Mullan. He was so fantastic here, I'm going to buy that book that he wrote about Jane Austen

@kerriejohnson983

3 жыл бұрын

Greetings, my dear friends! Today I wanted to release a new video, but something went wrong. Many videos did not want to open during installation. Ultimately, it was missing large parts of the video. And I made a decision that I do not want to show you bad work. I want you to say "wow" after every video. I hope you can understand me. Thank you for staying to watch me, no matter what! Take care of yourself. Sincerely, Victor!

I just want to say, I cannot recommend highly enough the book A Jane Austen Education, by William Deresiewicz. He does an incredible job of analyzing and explaining the deeper lessons in Jane Austen's writing, and exposing the powerful emotions. Once you look at her works in that light, you no longer see them as "romance novels", where the only goal and happy ending is marriage. There's so much more to her than that.

@amazingandrea9983

Жыл бұрын

Thank you! Am dashing to the library to get it now!

@amazingandrea9983

Жыл бұрын

Just got it from the library! Cant wait to dive in!! Thxxxx

@SyD961

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for the recommendation

@danielabattistella7876

Жыл бұрын

Yes, I picked it up in a bookstore in Portland and now read it at least once a year. Deresiewicz does a wonderful job of distilling the deep wisdom inside Jane Austen's deceptively light stories.

When I was younger, I preferred Bronte's novel because everything sounded more vivid and passionate, but as the years went by, I began to enjoy Austen's stories more and more, particularly her latest works. Beneath all that comedy, impeccable settings, sugary words and apparent happy endings, we sometimes overlook how brilliant she was in everything else: her social critique, how she tackled difficult topics with apparent levity, her disenchanted view of the world... The more I know of Jane Austen, the more I appreciate her work. Bronte imprinted her youth and vigor in her writing, but Austen is more mature and subtle... and yet, we can still feel there's a strong pulse behind it all, someone who desperately needs to live beyond her own confinement. Mrs. Smith, the sickly widow in Persuasion is perhaps the character that represents her best: someone who has lived in the world long enough to understand how people around her think and feel, who sees and suffers injustice, who is confined because of sickness and poverty, all the while depending on the charity of others, and still someone who finds comfort in the little things that other people never fully appreciate.

@rogerpropes7129

2 жыл бұрын

I think the enjoyment and understanding of a novel depends on how old you are when you read it. I read WH three times separated by many years and enjoyed it more each time. It has been called both the greatest love story and the greatest novel written by a woman. (As a man I liked 'War and Peace' more, but WH second of all the classic 19th century novels I have read.)

@glenbe4026

2 жыл бұрын

Growing up, I have always been a voracious reader, but I tended to stick to specific genres, SciFi/Fantasy/Adventure/Western/Horror/Thriller/Crime etc. I was forced to read WH at school and I absolutely detested it. At the same time i started reading Jane Austen after i saw the 1996 movie of Emma and Jane Austen became one of favourite authors.

@SouthCountyGal

2 жыл бұрын

I think it's unfair to pit these two authors against each other. The brilliance of Emily Bronte's writing is its emotion. She evokes ambiance and primal feelings. For all that it tends to appeal to adolescents, it is an incredibly sophisticated novel. I don't re-read it often (about once every 15 years) because it is exhausting; my accumulated life experience causes me to see the characters' toxicity and despair more clearly each time. Jane Austen's brilliance is cerebral. Her deftness of language requires her readers to work a little harder than usual to pinpoint evidence of her characters' emotions. I can re-read her books every few years and delight in something new each time. If these two were painters, Emily Bronte would be committing bold colors to the canvas with a palette knife, while Jane Austen would be creating an intricate tableau with a million tiny dots.

@Herm7es

Жыл бұрын

Ana, You write: "The more I know of Jane Austen, the more I appreciate her work. Bronte imprinted her youth and vigor in her writing, but Austen is more mature and subtle..." This is undoubtedly true - though though it seems just a little unfair, probably the inevitable result of a comparison between a writer with a single great novel and a small volume of poems pieced together by her sister after her death with a writer who wrote many novels and had eleven more years of life to write them in: Emily died at aged 30; Jane was 41.

@joyceburns1643

Жыл бұрын

1:20:51

John' defence was better. He does get Austen's novels and he is very gracious in explaining the themes in them.

@cassieearle9196

3 жыл бұрын

he also highlights the extremely important points of austin works like her wit, her ability to take us into the mind of her characters and the excellent dialogue.

@VijayKumar-xp2mp

3 жыл бұрын

Hi mam

@VijayKumar-xp2mp

3 жыл бұрын

Hi mam can you help to mee i do no english speaks you chat with mee pls you language very super

@VijayKumar-xp2mp

3 жыл бұрын

Mam can you can you tell about WhatsApp and Facebook number

@VijayKumar-xp2mp

3 жыл бұрын

@Dexy Nash can you tell whatsapp number

Kate Mosse gets Austen terribly, terribly wrong. Asserting that Wuthering Heights is about 'real passion and love', rather than 'simply courtship' (i.e. Jane Austen novels) is to fall into a very common (and basic) trap. It also ignores the passions simmering beneath the surfaces of works like Emma and Pride and Prejudice - and the love of Persuasion that has survived 7 years of separation 'after all hope is gone'. Also, what's wrong with a novel being about courtship? I guess we'll also have to write off about half of Shakespeare's canon, all E.M. Forster, Edith Wharton and Henry James.

@profd65

6 жыл бұрын

Jane Austen is a screaming bore. She was a great stylist but she either had nothing interesting to say, or she was too cowardly to say it. I'll take Emily Bronte over her any day.

@theL81Again

3 жыл бұрын

profd65 You didn’t read the meaning of Austen’s text. She demonstrates an inner strength as opposed to boorishness. It’s like the singer that only knows how to belt and can’t comprehend dynamics.

@robertwill23

3 жыл бұрын

Bronte's Wuthering Heights are hardly about real passion and love. It's too exagerrated passion and sensational love. Novel has all traits of gothic literature and of Romanticism period of great big loud exaggerated emotions that have nothing to do with reality. So I find her argument not convincing at all. Austin is definitely not only about courtship, but about relationship (silly, complicated, nuanced, confused, funny et cet). She is about reality and real life more than Bronte. Though some people (especially, impressionable young minds) want big and loud emotions and sensational events because those quickly draw you in. And because it's escapist fantasy and many people want to escape from mundane very often (especially, in our day and age). But, imho, great art must be about reality and real people. Escapism doesn't teach you anything.

@noorbashir577

3 жыл бұрын

profd65 it’s not that she was too cowardly to say it - context is vital in this argument. Austen had the privilege of writing under her real name, thus presenting herself as a woman, and because of that, society had limited what she could say because she needed to protect her reputation. As the Brontes wrote under pseudonyms, they were able to expand their content more

@lauramartin5579

3 жыл бұрын

@@profd65 or you missed the point?

Hace muchísimos años; cuando en el colegio religioso nos prohibían leer, incluso diarios y revistas. Mi madre viuda de 28 años de edad, vino a visitarme al internado. Salimos a recorrer las calles de Lima, y noté que tenía un libro en su cartera. Ella se dio cuenta de mi interés y me lo alcanzó, diciéndome: «Me lo han obsequiado como una propuesta de amistad..., pero nunca pude pasar del 1er capitulo.» Llegamos a la casa de una tía y salieron a realizar compras. En ese lapso, leí los tres primeros capítulos y quedé impactado. Tenía once años de edad y era la primera vez que leía algo. Tuve que esperar cerca de treinta años, para comprarlo y terminar de leerlo; porque no recordaba el nombre de la autora y menos el título. En una feria de libros, preguntando a vendedores expertos y con la anuencia de ojearlos lo encontré. Era "Cumbres Borrascosas" de Emily Bronte.

I am so happy I came across this debate. Admittedly I am more of an Austen fan, but I now have more of an appreciation for both writers. Also the actors were brilliant.

The first half of WUTHERING HEIGHTS does not take place in Victorian times as the Bronte advocate says. Also, she misses the fact that while a moody and atmospheric novel, there are funny parts in it (that often go unnoticed). Also, super important is the fact that the two narrators are both unreliable so the reader must read between the lines--an element that further makes the book unique and way ahead of its time. The Bronte advocate misses the point about Austen too. The topic of marriage is more about survival than finding a "happy ever after" in a frivolous way. Why she wants to diss Austen for this is odd since WUTHERING HEIGHTS ends with a happy ever after marriage.

@glen7318

3 жыл бұрын

None of Wuth Heights takes place in Victorian times.. its contemporary with much of Austen's early work which she wrote in the late 18th Century

@heatheralice89

Жыл бұрын

Yes, very correct!

Very interesting debate! I understand the comparison between Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights and Jane Austen's greater works but I do not get the point the competition since both were geniuses. It is impossible and unnecessary to find out who was the better genius since it is a matter of taste whether one prefers Bach, Beethoven or Mozart. It is like comparing a flute with a trumphet in the orchestra of life.

@yashguptakinjalk1732

6 жыл бұрын

Thomas Engqvist baap re...itni gehrai

@TheWriterWalker

5 жыл бұрын

Wonderful way to put it, Mr. Engqvist.

@sojournsmythe7627

5 жыл бұрын

i agree, but these types of things are enjoyable as well as learning opportunities

@carmenvelarde8400

4 жыл бұрын

I didn’t view this video as a “competition” as much as a reflection of both novelists’ styles and experience of life during their time.

@dianewalker9154

3 жыл бұрын

While it is set up as a competition, it’s really just a fun platform for engaging a knowledgeable discussion of two authors. It is fun to compare and contrast authors from similar periods.

Emily is for those with great emotionality, for those who love Nature even in its threatening aspects, for those who understand the underground depth of the human heart. Emily is for unconventional people, as was she. I love you Emily!

@animalsarebeautifulpeople3094

4 ай бұрын

Emily isn't grounded in the depth of human nature itself but driven by flights of fancy by a very imaginative but inexperienced mind. That's why in the end her novel rings hollow. True depth comes from understanding the hypocritical sordidness of human nature.

As a lover of novels, and literature, this was an absolute treat and pleasure to watch. The actors were simply stunning with their recitals, and both the debatees were a credit to the sides they were representing! Thoroughly enjoyable. Thanks so much for having this! :)

I've never read a so-called romance novel in my life, but Wuthering Heights caught me and held me, surprised me and then absolutely blew me away. And has continued to do so in readings over the past 20 years.

@animalsarebeautifulpeople3094

4 ай бұрын

It's actually a comedy. If you understand that then you understand emily

The construction of Wuthering Heights is very complicated. The interweaving of past and present narrative is brilliant. Charlotte's response to her sister's book was to say the least parochial, excusing her sister's genius as accidental and not representative of a 'simple country girl'. Demeaning to say the least. Everything that is Emily is Wuthering Heights. But how that brilliant woman created such a remarkable work of art is still a mystery.

@Katherine_The_Okay

5 жыл бұрын

See Min Lim, fun fact, but The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is, in some ways, Jane Austen fanfiction. That's not an insult, either. Charlotte Bronte actually wrote in a letter to a friend that the premise of Tenant was "what if Fanny Price (Mansfield Park) actually HAD married Mr. Crawford? How would that have ended?" and so Tenant of Wildfell Hall was born.

@annnee6818

5 жыл бұрын

@See Min Lim Well... she was wrong. Caused a right old hoohaa. How DARE a woman leave her abusive husband. Hang her!!!!

@annnee6818

5 жыл бұрын

The construction of Wuthering Heights is a clusterfuck😂😂😂😂

@pyewackett5

5 жыл бұрын

Charlotte trashed/erased/changed both her sisters work. Maybe even burnt Emily's next novel . I am no fan of Charlotte .

@StellaWaldvogel

4 жыл бұрын

Charlotte was being protective. She didn't want her sisters - or their memories - dragged over the coals. It absolutely would have happened in those days.

Bravo to all on the stage! What a great evening of entertainment and education. Thank you

No comparison should be there between those impeccable storytellers .I salute them.

Bram Stoker vs Mary Shelly

I've forgotten how much I loved Wuthering Heights. Those passages that were chosen for reading are so powerful.'He is more myself than I am' is a line that has something I cannot describe. It's amazing that it is said by such a selfish character, and yet I can't think of other two characters that have such a bond. And that simile is so great. The whole book is so haunting. I've read two Austen's novels and might read more in the future, but there is something so delicaate in them. I'm not saying I dislike it, but I keep wanting to tell them,'scream, for God's sake! Be angry and vindictive.' I know people say Emily's characters don't develop, but I like that. I think that I read novels in search of emotion. I love hating Heathcliff, I love being able to feel sorry for Edgar. I want to sympathise with those characters, to know that they feel what I feel. So far I haven't been able to do that with Austen's characters. My opinion might change after reading Persuasion, though. And I actually don't mind happy endings. I love well-earnt happy endings. And after reading something as dark and haunting as Wuthering Heights, Austen's novel is just the thing you need. Wuthering Heights can be emotionally draining. I think the same is true of Daphne du Maurier's works.

@mingailekieraite2168

2 жыл бұрын

I was talking about Catherine as it is her words that are quoted so there is no no need to explain anything to me.

@parthsarathik6242

Жыл бұрын

Deep and deeper

Wuthering heights gives me a joy i never found in other books.

@komal146

5 жыл бұрын

Ah yes...agreed . It's my all time favorite. And one of the most Romantic classics. But they should've compared Austen and Charlotte Bronte

How could a writer be so clueless to the point of saying that Jane Austen is "confined"?? My gosh! Jane Austen's text's filled with irony, and even its "prince charming happy end" she talked about is ironical (if you really peel the layers)... It broadens itself everytime you read it. It's a very good debate, though :) I really liked it.

@juanvelez8564

3 жыл бұрын

Ausen had a brain. Bronte had a ... I'll say "gut."

Give me dark, gothic, depressive, morbid tone of the Bronte sisters any day and I'm happy! ❤️❤️❤️

@jessica_jam4386

5 жыл бұрын

Bella Umbrellla yes! This comment section seems to be full of people hating on the Brontes and it makes me sad. I still love Jane Austen, don’t get me wrong. But Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights are both amazing in my mind. I love the atmospheres of both.

@StellaWaldvogel

4 жыл бұрын

Yes! And Villette - sad ending, just like much of life. Absolute masterworks.

@markfurnell6748

3 жыл бұрын

I simply cannot imagine anything more beautiful than Jane Eyre. Anna Karenina is a work of genius...as is Jane Eyre. But Jane Eyre moves me to tears. And the beauty of her writing....simply breathtaking!!!

@jas1049

3 жыл бұрын

Stella Waldvogel Yes Villette, what a masterpiece. People overlook Villette all the time, but is a fabulous novel and certainly up there with Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre. I think Wuthering Heights, of all novels I have read, had perhaps the most visceral impact on me. It caused me to read all of the other novels by the Brontes. Raw genius. Love them, love them.

@jimin585

3 жыл бұрын

3 sisters vs 1 is not fair....emily vs jane only

This man made me undust my Austen books! ❤ Persuasion hello old friend!

Austen readers didn't do justice to the text excerpts as they were unable to control their own emotions (amusement/laughing/giggling) during the dramatic reading during the coach ride. Austen is not only about marriage - it is about behaviour the melodrama of human self denial and self misunderstanding.

Jane Austen all the way. I have studied both authors and have read most of their books (referring to Austen), but my mind had been made up long ago because of her humor, compassion, and subtle way of poking fun of her society.

@4thlinemaniac356

9 ай бұрын

There is a term for that Cognitive Dissonance.

As a lad from Haworth, having just read Wuthering Heights again for the umpteenth time coupled with a passion for everything 'Kate Bush' - this debate has inspired me, for the first time, to read Jane Austen. I'd love to see a debate on the comparative merits of Thomas Hardy & Dickens.

To be honest you would put up Charlotte rather than Emily against Jane. Jane wrote more and better novels and so would win. Though Jane Eyre v Pride and Predjudice would be the ultimate heavyweight championship.

@AleksandarBloom

6 жыл бұрын

If there is one good book written by a female it's Emily's.

@profd65

6 жыл бұрын

Jane Austen wrote better novels than Emily Bronte? That's horseshit. I'd rather read the phone book than another Jane Austen novel.

@TheEntilza

6 жыл бұрын

Poor George Eliot gets no appreciation in these debates.

@SnowSNS11

5 жыл бұрын

I love Jane austen's simple yet complicated style, I've never read anything like it. Each time I read it, it just get better. There are times I'm terribly confused, but i do notice Jane's excellence in dialogue; I never knew before her that you can make something simple and even daily events so exciting and complicated; I'm never the same since. Now, I look at my day anticipating events enthusiastically. I know I can make this day great to the simple things and struggles. I just couldn't expressed how much I like her books, especially Emma.

@SnowSNS11

5 жыл бұрын

I think it is requirement to be patient when reading Jane Austen. Or perhaps any classics (or contemporaries too) really. It's just one need an appreciation with the simple things, and read between the lines. Though I do not compare them; they're equally geniuses. I supposed it's a matter of taste. Or mood?

Personally, I enjoy both writers, depending on my mood but, to me, Austen will always be the best. If you think that the Bronte sisters wrote on more serious subjects than Jane Austen did, or that Austen is all about balls and drawing rooms, you haven't been reading closely enough. She deals with premarital sex (Pride and Prejudice), unwed motherhood (Sense and Sensibility), emotional abuse (Mansfield Park), infidelity (again, Mansfield Park), forbidden romance (Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Persuasion), and the consequences of choosing a partner unwisely (every bloody thing she ever wrote, lol). She writes about good people, terrible people, and people never forced to chose between good and evil; she writes about good decisions, bad decisions, and every kind of decision in between. She writes about knowing when to stand on your convictions and knowing when to bend. The difference is that she doesn't need to beat you over the head with misery to get her point across. Plus, unlike anything by the Bronte's that I've ever read, Jane Austen knows how to make a reader smile and even laugh in a way that the Brontes and their misery porn never really could.

@jessica_jam4386

5 жыл бұрын

You literally just referred to the Brontes as “misery porn”. This is the most depressing internet comment I’ve seen today, congratulations.

@cassieearle9196

3 жыл бұрын

@@jessica_jam4386 i mean she has a point.

@jessica_jam4386

3 жыл бұрын

cassie earle I’m sorry I just disagree. I love Jane Austen and Emily and Charlotte Bronte, calling the Brontes writing “misery porn” is just as dismissive and simplistic a criticism as the og commented mentioned people claiming Jane Austen only writes about going to balls and getting married. You don’t have to like it, we all have our personal preferences of course, but some people are going to really find that kind of critique lame.

@WateryFire

3 жыл бұрын

Kat K Austen maybe knows how to make a reader smile or even laugh but doesn’t know how to make them feel. And feel in a good way.

@Katherine_The_Okay

3 жыл бұрын

@@WateryFire Speak for yourself. I'll never fail to feel sympathy for Anne Elliot as she watches the man she loves court another woman (one she knows will make him miserable), or for Fanny Price as she is abused, manipulated, and gaslit by the family members she should be able to trust and rely on.

This was very enjoyable! The actors were exceptional, and added such nuance to the excerpts they read. The debaters were also very persuasive. So well done! As to the relative value of the two authors, I can only say they are both unique! No one does what Jane Austen did better than she, and likewise, Emily Brontë was one of a kind who drew a vivid response from her readers, unlike that which anyone had done before. I deeply admire both. But I must say: Wuthering Heights exhausts me! I've read it and re-read it, but it wrings me out and leaves me feeling battered emotionally. I must be in a certain mood before I dare approach it, as the debater said who argued on behalf of Jane Austen, because by the end of reading Wuthering Heights you're going to be in that mood, like it or not. With Jane Austen, I can pick up one of her novels while in a rotten mood, but by the end I'll definitely feel better. That is the totally selfish and wimpy reason I much prefer to read Jane Austen.

@g.moeller308

8 жыл бұрын

What is the rationale for feeling obligated to read an author who emotionally batters you? Isn't that the equivalent of remaining in an abusive relationship? Authors are free to write whatever they please. They have every right to produce an emotionally and even spiritually abusive product if they choose. In like fashion, I am under no obligation to read such literature and will not do so if it does not please me.

@sarahburden7966

3 жыл бұрын

@@g.moeller308 it's about more than pleasure, Wuthering heights is frustrating, and emotionally draining but at the same time I am taken by how a writer can hold that power. How an atmosphere of intrigue and exhaustion can be created with such unlikeable characters, it's magic.

@juanvelez8564

3 жыл бұрын

"Totally selfish and wimpy"? You must have very low self-esteem. It's called "CIVILIZED."

@nora22000

2 жыл бұрын

Guinn Berger I thoroughly disliked 'Wuthering Heights' as it seemed to be a wringing-out of the bitterness of Emily Bronte's dispiriting social status. I much preferred her sister, Charlotte Bronte, because her books were slightly less caustic but just as poignant. I felt similarly about Jane Austen as Charlotte Bronte, and think they would have made a better comparison, quite frankly.

@voulafisentzidis8830

2 жыл бұрын

@@nora22000 I agree. Jane Eyre was my favourite Cinderella-type story, until I grew up and realised that Edward Rochester was a selfish git. Jane, on the other hand, was amazing in her strength, moral fibre, and ability to survive with her integrity intact.

I think both writers are greatest in their fields - Emily Bronte, with just a single novel made something absolutely fantastic, headstrong and disturbing in every way; whereas Austen wrote some very humorous social commentary, especially about the storm business of courtship. They are the best at what they do. I am always a die hard Austen fan, but I also love the book Wuthering Heights - which I think is miles better than Jane Eyre. Wuthering Heights is unsettling and very strong in its imagery. I love it all - whereas Austen makes me feel a lot of things; the books make me feel very passionately about courtship and the very nature of love and how very easily some people can be manipulated by their feelings.

@marinazagrai1623

5 жыл бұрын

With the Bronte sisters, the heaths are central to their stories...and, they're written further into the stern era of Vicky! You know, what I mean (nothing wrong with that); for me, the moors setting is really depressing. I am absolutely a huge fan of Austen's; and not because they end in the typical success of getting married (esp. to a rich man). She was satirical, to a point, of the aristocracy (Liz would not have married, or thought of Darcy in a romantic or even fond way) which I know dates back centuries (writers had to be careful how they expressed their satire). Love, love, love Jane Austen. I am sure she would have been shocked and pleased how we all enjoy her creations!

@rogerpropes7129

2 жыл бұрын

​@@marinazagrai1623 Austen deserves credit for her originality--she and Walter Scott invented the modern English novel--but her books are plain vanilla whereas Emily Bronte's is Rocky Road with chunks of dark chocolate, (lol). WH is one of the very few perfect classic novels, along with 'War and Peace', 'Madame Bovary', 'Silas Marner', 'David Copperfield', and 'Henry Esmond'. Read WH again, dissect the interlocking parts of the nested narratives, plot the 1700s timeline, and appreciate the happy ending for the second generation Cathy Linton and Hareton Earnshaw. 'Jane Eyre' is almost perfect except for the implausible random coincidence of the last section where she travels destitute halfway across England and faints in front of the house of her--own unknown cousins!.

@marinazagrai1623

2 жыл бұрын

@@rogerpropes7129 I didn’t imply Austen is the best, just the later 19th century is depressing to me. Women novelists of the era depict subjects that men can’t in the same way. I happen to have an arts degree, nothing fancy, in which I had to take a lot of lit classes…and I chose Brit lit so I learned to dissect novels of any era. I am not a fan of the romantic period. Austen was mostly in the Classical period.

@murielbaith5445

Жыл бұрын

I didn't care for Jane Eyre at 13, but at 16 I tried again and was immersed in it.

@murielbaith5445

Жыл бұрын

Over all I prefer Austen. I can barely live through all of the emotion and bad behavior and bad choices of the characters in Wuthering Heights. As another commenter said, I have to be in the mood for that.

Wasn't Austen's Northanger Abbey a satire/parody of gothic fiction? I'm sure this kind of debate had been going on before even then, but with other gothic writers in her lifetime.

@_Sakidora_

2 жыл бұрын

It was also a defence of them.

I'm a 13 year old (who most definitely loves books) and I absolutely am enjoying what I have read of Pride and Prejudice so far. I've never read Wuthering heights, so for now I am firmly on Austen's side, but I must read some more Brontë (I've only read Jane Eyre) and I will rewatch this when I have!

@_MFM

9 жыл бұрын

Maebhy Howell go on

@ameliaram9820

7 жыл бұрын

I read Wuthering Heights when I was 13 and it was no doubt the best book I've ever read! It's takes you on an emotional journey but it's so beautiful.

@pranisha6433

7 жыл бұрын

Maebhy Howell I have read pride and prejudice​ and am currently reading wuthering heights. Wuthering heights is quite more twisted and complex in comparison.

@rachelport3723

6 жыл бұрын

I had one summer when I was 11 or 12 when I read Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Ivanhoe, and one or two others. It was a wonderful time, discovering this whole new world. Enjoy your discoveries.

@davidmiranda4745

5 жыл бұрын

The 13 year old me didn't understand any of these books. I'm glad I renewed my interest at 23 and I'm now so thrilled about these brave works.

Austen, Austen, Austen. The characters are so varied, so full, so recognisable. Her writing witty, gripping, intelligent. Austen hands down!

Those "Wuthering Heights" actors are so splendid here! They brought me to tears, which is a rare thing in a movie or play. They are both great writers, but I definitely agree that Emily Bronte is greater--she really moved the novel forward as an art form.

I hold that Austen created a whole new genre with her genius. The Bronte sisters wrote gothic novels. There's really no comparison.

@njits789

4 жыл бұрын

Didn't Jane Austen take a jab at the gothic genre in Northanger Abbey?

@margo3367

4 жыл бұрын

njits789 She did! That novel was a hoot! I still hold that the Bronte sisters wrote gothic novels, but they elevated it into literature and created classics. I didn't mean to denigrate the sisters' accomplishments in any way, shape or form. I realized after I wrote the comment some people might think I did. Comparing authors is a tricky business; someone's always going to come out on top.

@njits789

4 жыл бұрын

Don't worry, I didn't think you denigrated anybody. :)

@cassieearle9196

3 жыл бұрын

@@njits789 yes jane was basically rebelling against the very popular Gothic genre of her time.

@lauramartin5579

3 жыл бұрын

@@cassieearle9196 If I had never read any Jane Austen I know I would have missed out. I read all her novels again and again, especially Emma and Persuasion. Ive read the Bronte sisters once, have no desire to re-read them and I'm certain they have added nothing to my inner life. Why they are debating who is the better author is beyond me.

The whole idea of competitive ratings between two great authors bothers me. I have both on my bookshelves. It seems that this premise was used to stimulate a discussion, which is a worthy objective, but the idea that one's better then the other is pernicious. Celebrate them both.

@jesseward568

6 жыл бұрын

It's not pernicious to say that one is better than another. Some things are better than other things and it's a worthwhile discussion because it's worth assessing the value of each in comparison. In this case, Emily Bronte is obviously better.

It isn’t really fair to pit Emily Brontë against Jane Austen as Emily only had one published novel and a few poems whereas Jane had a bigger body of work. Austen vs Charlotte Brontë would have been a better comparison.

I don't know where the people who said Brontë is more famous abroad than Austen are gathering their information from. How about you ask a real foreigner about that? The truth is, people in Asia, especially those who are in my age group (20 something) and younger, don't read classic english novels that much, and yet people know who Jane Austen is. As for Emily Brontë, I didn't even know she was the arthur of Wurthering Heights until today (thought it was Charlotte Brontë) and I'm actually the lone few that read lots of classic novels. There would have been more of a debate if it were Jane Austen vs. Charlotte Brontë, in my opinion, because Jane Eyre is a very popular novel. But I will choose Austen every time, because she's the only author I've ever wanted to read through all her works simply because I was hooked to one.

@anaelisa6893

9 жыл бұрын

GoYankeeBioHazard I totally agree. It's the same thing here in Brazil.

@profd65

6 жыл бұрын

Who cares what the opinion of an Asian is?

@trannguyen-po2ng

5 жыл бұрын

Well in Vietnam Wuthering Heights is spectacularly popular, especially with my parents generation. Now Jane Austen is more famous among the young because of all the movies & tv but everybody knows of WH

All the "don't know" people were Bronte fans trolling.

Wuthering Heights is a pretty violent novel. I can understand Heathcliff's character. Essentially abandoned as a child, lost the only father he had, looked down upon. I can see how he could become so violent. But he goes off the deep end. Too violent for me.

@StellaWaldvogel

4 жыл бұрын

That's the idea. Sometimes people DO go off the deep end. Heathcliff wasn't intended to be 100% palatable. He's an antihero.

@kathrinlindern2697

2 жыл бұрын

@@StellaWaldvogel He's the villain by the latter half of the book. Not necessarily a bad thing as the novel goes, but I at least gradually lost sympathy and simply wanted to strangle him. He was abusive towards children for the "crimes" their parents committed against him, paying back what he had to "endure" tenfold. It is a really interesting transformation, don't get me wrong, but there is nothing heroic about Heathcliff, and it can be argued that Cathy II rather than him is the protagonist of the second volume.

Persuasion is my favorite Jane Austen book and I was delighted with the selection he chose for the actors to read.

The splendour of english literature is its luxury of formidable writers whom became custodians of word artistry even for literature written in other languages. what a riveting debate! Awesome.

@TheChannelofaDisappointedMan

4 жыл бұрын

Whom! Wrong. School ypurself.

So pleased to see "Georgiana Darcy" from "Death Comes to Pemberley" in this. She's a great actress.

@cassieearle9196

3 жыл бұрын

i loved that minniseries. have you seen the actress in Poldark. excellent.

It's been a long time since I have enjoyed an intellectual debate this much. I am motivated to read the works all over again with a new point of view . Thank you very much for this enlightening event

Although I ADORE both authors, for me Ms. Austen holds my ❤️ forever! Loved the readings by my favorite actors too! Thank you!💖💖💖💖

Bronte wins hands down!

These debates probably just boils down to "tastes" and what seems resonant to one's life, right now. For example, people who have lived a smooth-sailing life would probably relate more to Austen's world, whereas there are people (like me) who have grown up as outcasts, in abusive households, and in generally direr circumstances that we found our solace in Emily's wild, storm-ravaged moors... because dancing halls and dinner parties almost seem to be too cruel a fantasy to try on (but hey, that's me; i'm not speaking for all who've experienced tough stuff in their life). However, to dismiss Emily's writing as "purely entertainment" is just as painful a barb as dismissing Austen's as "about balls and stuff." It does disservice to both women and their works. I for one, would have to disagree that there is no depth in Emily Bronte's writing. Having read them both, Bronte stirred in me something that is primeval, defying coherent explanations. It's repulsing and captivating all at once. Meanwhile, in Pride and Prejudice, I found myself being amazed more by the witty prose and the elaborate games going on. Sure, there is feeling, but the feeling is quite fleeting; I was happy for certain moments of the book, especially when Lizzie realizes her mistakes and Darcy achieves his change, but it was still a "book" for me. Wuthering Heights, however, felt like a tempestuous story from somewhere else, somewhere forbidden that Emily Bronte penned down for her sake and for posterity. It was unapologetic; it was bestial. I read WH at 12 years old, and P&P at 14. Both have entertained me immensely, but Bronte's work just... hits me in a different way. Austen's works, while very witty and masterpieces at dissecting motives and conflicts and power, seem to be sanitized or restrained. This is no surprise, really, because she *is* writing within the restrained society of her time (and making fun of it at that). While I appreciate her satire, the characters are still there, repressed and confined. Even in their inner moments, rarely do we get a blatant smudge or dirt in them. The darkness is still served carefully. In Bronte's work, I appreciate how she absolutely rips that facade away and doesn't play the game at all. And perhaps that's where the differences between these two authors totally divide people even centuries after. Here is a lady who embraces the darkness for all its monstrosity, unfettered by society, with her story set in inhospitable nature few would want to be in. Emily Bronte writes about the unsavory parts of life, something a lot would choose not to look at. Her choice of intensity isn't purely for shock value however. The layers of symbolism and meaning that could have only been weaved together through a writer's intuitive power and raw honesty fuels the whole of Wuthering Heights. It wouldn't be Wuthering Heights if Catherine isn't this selfish girl we've all loathed at some point; it would be weaker if Heathcliff has been anything less than this monster. People could be so tragically flawed in real life. It is a horrible truth. However, most seem to miss that Catherine and Heathcliff reached that point due to their poor, miserably childhood lives. It's even more heartbreaking when in the end, Emily "ends" this dark cycle by redeeming Catherine and Heathcliff through their parallels: Cathy and Hareton, without truly explaining how or why. I love how it leaves me with more questions than answers, the themes and messages resonating with the soul, rather than being fully captured by the mind. Yes, Emily might not be super witty or snarky, but she is passionate, poetic, and true. Just as true as Austen is, unapologetically true to their stories. For a girl in her time, it's amazing she allowed herself to be *this* passionate. It's amazing that characters like Heathcliff came from a seemingly reclusive young woman. Her study of human psychology might not have the "finesse" or elegance that Austen has, but it delivers something more crude and raw, brutally honest and devastating. So yeah, if you much prefer civility and politeness, you would fit better with Austen. But if you prefer wildness and passion, Bronte is the writer you'd pick. Due to life circumstances (and because I can't help but root for the underdog), I always pick Bronte. Wuthering Heights changed my life so much, and daresay, prepared me for a lot of sh*t that 12 year old me didn't know would face in the coming years. So yeah, there are tons of lessons to learn in WH, but it takes all of one's soul to join the madness in those pages.

Emily Brontë all the way

i'm only 15 mins in but this feels like it's going to be a wonderful debate! and you can tell how relaxed and warm the vibe was. oooh i hope it turns out as exciting as i am anticipating it to be :)

This was very enjoyable.Thank you and great job to everyone involved!

Emily Bronte hands down. Yes Austen will be voted best, because there are five good novels to go at, which all appeal to slightly different people. But the passion, incisive portraits and just sheer living life. Too many of Austen's characters are so ordinary. In Wuthering Heights you live the people, you want to meet everyone not just the nice people, because when you meet them, you are living life to the full.

@animalsarebeautifulpeople3094

4 ай бұрын

I think Emily's people "live life to the full" in the way inexperienced teenagers imagine living life to the full. Can be beguiling but in the end there is no actual depth.

For me, Wuthering Heights will always be "the one", even tho between the both of them is no "winner" because Austen is incomparable and unique and so is Bronte.

Why, when allowed to ask questions, do so many people refuse to do so and instead give their opinion?

@EricaShady10171972

9 жыл бұрын

because people are more interested in hearing their opinion than someone's elses. :-)

@sams6306

7 жыл бұрын

Couldn't agree more! Also: any man who proudly announces he is not in need of a microphone is always, always in need of a microphone

@TheChannelofaDisappointedMan

4 жыл бұрын

Go to any academic conference and hear "questions" that consist solely of an exhibition of the "questioners" knowledge.

@kahkah1986

4 жыл бұрын

Jane Austen would have had a field day about that. Emily Bronte, not so much.

Jane Austen is amazingly intelligent and humoristic. Certainly one of the best ever and mostly undervalued esp among the male gender. I love both Bronte sisters, but Jane will always be the best for me

So glad I found this. Watching from Wyoming-thank you!🙋🏼‍♀️

How can you compare them? They were so very different as authors, one sharply ironic and queen of happy endings and the other so very gothic and poetic in her intensity. Both geniuses in their own way although my favorite author of the period will always be Charlotte Bronte.

Jane Austen hands down, no contest really I would think, as she wrote more than one distinguished novel. The brilliant Pride & Prejudice and Persuasion have to be two of the most romantic stories ever written. Sense and Sensibilty, Mansfield Park and funny Emma, also great novels. Witty Austen was a great observer of English society. In Emily's Wuthering Heights, I found Cathy an irritating selfish tease, and abused Heathcliff turns into a vengeful sadist towards the end. Heathcliff was obsessed with his first love Cathy, but she did not return his love to the same extent. It's a miserable and dark novel, well written but not so romantic. Pity Emily didn't get to write more novels. Two very different authors, like chalk and cheese, both talented.

@fredfred7222

3 жыл бұрын

But we don't really know what Cathy and Heathcliff are like because everything is seen through the shattered glass of different narrators looking back in time. Plus you see see step by step how they got to be so unlikable. How each experience and choice led on inexorably to the next bad choice. When is it too late - was it always that way? I think it plays on the ideas of fate and "star crossed lovers". Then at the end you are left with this horrible sense of "what if?" How could that fate have been changed, and at what point was it too late for them. What would have saved them? Was it really each other like they say, or something else? They were victims of their environments, which shaped their personalities, and then they were victims of their personalities and beliefs too.

@HB-rx1le

2 жыл бұрын

Emily did write at least one other novel that Charlotte burned at Emily's death, and there may have been others. There is also a treasure trove of Emily Bronte's poetry, which is incredible on its own.

@EkaterinaIHeris

2 жыл бұрын

That is the point. Wuthering Heights is not our typical "romance" novel. It was a courageous, bold, daring work for its time and still shocks us today. All are timeless works. Comparing Austen with Brontë is like comparing apples and oranges. Who is better, Mozart or Beethoven? Mozart composed 600 works, far more than any composer including Beethoven. So should he be the best using that logic? Austen may have written more books but the only book / movie I personally like is "Pride & Prejudice". Unlike the Brontë sisters, whose novels /movies of Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights strike my imagination time and time again.

What a wonderful debate...so much fun and lovely to hear the lines delivered with so much joy.

This is interesting - brings an old debate with my grandmother to life. I have read the Brontes but I have read and reread Austin’s novels. My grandmother loved Wuthering Heights - I have a series of illustrations she made for the book in maybe the 60s.

@4thlinemaniac356

9 ай бұрын

Can you leave a link for the pictures???

as entertaining as this was I think it's technically wrong. it's like comparing two different genres of writing.

This was so very good! But how can we ensure to have more productions like this for all to see and experience? This debate opened my eyes to not only the brilliance of these two authors, but perhaps more importantly, it showcased how best to use platforms like KZread, etc. for artistic objectives.

and a wild Demelza Poldark appears to do a reading

The actress reading Cathy Earnshaw's lines is amazing.

@jennekalundeen8302

4 жыл бұрын

what's her name? can't find it.

@shellagiro935

3 жыл бұрын

@@jennekalundeen8302 Mariah Gale

I’ve already shared this with several friends. What a delight to find such intellectual stimulation on KZread! I’ve read all the books mentioned several times and yet so many new ideas were presented here. Having the excellent actors take part brought the written words to life. Bravo!

The relationship between Mr and Mrs Bennett reminds me so much of the relationship between my grandparents

Such a Fascinating debate... I enjoyed and learnt a great deal Thank you!

I have never read Wuthering Heights, but now with I must read it!!! This was wonderful!

@nycgingercat

Жыл бұрын

I just started reading it today.

Wonderful arguments, excellent acting- laughing and crying! Just off to read all the novels again!

If those 2 geniuses were alive now, they would be sipping tea giggling out how rubbish this debate have come to. Light Vs dark Love Vs pain Marriage Vs independent For god sake without both of them, there is no beauty to talk about or compared on.. I love them both equally❤️❤️

Not a fair comparison as Emily Brontë only produced one novel whereas Jane Austen produced many and they wrote in different genres.

Not only I am delighted to listen to this brillant intellectual production about two famous authors, but I enjoyed very much most of the comments, old and recent ones. I hope this YT video will keep being appreciated and shared. Bravo, c'est génial, rassurant et stimulant !

Sam West is absolutely wonderful in his scene as Mr. Elton! He was an extremely effective Mr. Elliot in that Persuasion adaptation , and I wished he had had more to do. I understand he's playing Siegfried in a radio adaptation of All Creatures Great and Small--I can just hear him!

I love English Literature

@hydrolito

3 жыл бұрын

My wife said Don Quixote was better in Spanish than the English translation. I wouldn't know poquito espanol.

Thank you for this, I did not expect to enjoy this debate nearly as much as I did. The passion of both debators and the performances were definitely a plus. I will reread both authors with new eyes!

Bronte is very ill served by the simplistic analysis presented by her advocate. For example, Nelly is not the good Victorian servant. She disobeys her master several times and knows she is doing wrong. Bronte lets her narrate most of the novel, but also makes her into a character as morally complicated as she does the others. There's no need to oppose Austen and Bronte. Both wrote great novels.

Jane Austen held up a mirror to the pretentious artifice of social class and shook it about, she taunted that society and rewrote its inevitable narrative, giving us endings that were light rather than dark (her own ending was darker). That she has lived on is a credit to her remarkable work, she is not dust or muslin, she is light. Emily Bronte found in the storm of the natural world and poured it into humans being and struggling. She roused and raised the passion of the natural world and showed that we are more wild than tamed that social constructs may be strong but it is our inner struggle against dark and light that links us to the natural world. That is our struggle and when I look at our world today I know that Jane and Emily would have much to write about. So much has changed. So much is the same.

Jane Austin is the Beatles, Emily Bronte is more like Rolling Stones) or Siouxsie and the Banshees.

Wow this was a great debate! I was absolutely moved to tears by the Wuthering Heights argument. John Mullan showed a wonderful side to Jane Austen that I have to admit I never thought of, and now I want to go back and read some more of her work as I have never really been a true fan. I tend to lean more into the darker gothic writing of the Brontes. I felt Kate Mosse summed it up beautifully when she said Wuthering Heights is a complete story that cannot be extended nor shortened. It is exactly how it should be and to me will always be the most perfect novel ever written.

@Ailorn

4 жыл бұрын

I read Persuasion for the first time recently and there is a lot there. It's very subtle. I strongly recommend that one. There's passion and regret but it's held back by guilt. Anne Elliot is a much more mature and passionate character than Austen's other leads. Captain Wentworth is also likable because he's trying to forget his broken heart and anger, but is still compassionate. I really enjoyed Karen Savage's reading of it.

@coloraturaElise

2 ай бұрын

Do read John Mullan's books on Austen, because he is just as wonderful a guide to her in print as he is here in person. One is "What Matters in Jane Austen?"

Nothing has made me cry or feel harder than the Bronte's. But Austen is my favorite author.

I read emily and i got upset closed the boom a few times. It is such a disturbing book. Jane on the other hand ^_^ i will love lizzy always. So both novelists have a special appeal to me and their work have a special place on my bookshelf

What a fabulous debate. I'm running out to my bookstore to purchase both authors. It would be wonderful to get lost in both their worlds again.

Wonderful performances by the actors and actresses. Bravo!

These are the best readings from these novels I've ever heard. They should be doing the audiobooks like this

For me neither. I would always say George Eliot. However, I do think that both Jane Austen and Emily Bronte are fantastic writers; but in a sense, they are too diametrically opposed for this debate to work.

@aodhanlynch5980

3 жыл бұрын

I agree. Eliot stands far above so many of the Rom/Vic authors (ignoring the focus on 'queens' this debate felt was necessary - these women all stand toe-to-toe with any of their bollocked contemporaries). She managed to unify Romantic and Enlightenment thought so impressively. And NO she is not a prude or boring (or anti feminist, I feel like she was conflicted about encouraging the same resilience that left her with so much suffering), she just tells the truth and knew that it usually fell somewhere in between agony and boredom. It is a crime that she was denied Poets Corner for reasons of morality when half of them, including her contemporary Dickens, were shagging like rabbits.

this is now my favorite channel

I don't believe in either / or--or one author against another. I know this debate is just a vehicle through which we can see some of the brilliant aspects of each of these women as writers. But it will always be "and" for me. Austin AND Bronte, either Bronte sister. I wanted to say that Jane Austen did not "just" write about love and marriage. This is a huge misrepresentation of her work. Austen wrote about marriage because it was the only way a woman could secure a comfortable future for herself and sometimes also for her family. Jane Austen, herself, and her sister became homeless when their father died. They was completely dependent on the kindness of relatives and whatever assistance their brother could provide. In characters like Miss Bates in Emma, the entire family of Fanny Price, and the Bennett sisters, Austen shows that a woman's security - - and even a man's - -hangs by a thread. Without the benevolent assistance of wealthy relatives, people without financial resources could suffer destitution. Marriage wasn't mainly about romance around the turn of the 19th century. It was about securing a home and one's estate through marriage and children. Austin may have portrayed her characters as having the romantic ideal, because she herself had been in love and suffered a broken heart because that relationship did not result in marriage. It seems strange to us, but the idea of going out and getting a job to support oneself was almost not even option for gentility. The idea of working for a living was the antithesis of gentility and respectability. One man could have a larger fortune than another, but if he gained that fortune by working in a business, even his own business, he was not considered a gentleman. He was not respected. This is illustrated in Chapter 8 of Pride and Prejudice. Austin writes that Bingley's sisters were polite to Elizabeth to her face. But on this particular evening, when Elizabeth left the downstairs to be with Jane, who was recovering from an illness, Austen writes that they began abusing her the moment she left the room. They criticized both of Jane and Elizabeth's uncles because one was an attorney and the other had a business near cheapside. Bingley says if they had many uncles near Cheapside, it would not make Jane less attractive to him. But Darcy sums up their societies conflict between being a working man and being a gentleman with this potent statement. "But it must very materially lessen their chance of marrying men of any consideration in the world..." For women with no independent fortune or inheritance, getting married was not just a way to maintain or advance social position, it was the difference between financial security and destitution. Austen knew this from personal experience. She displayed marriage as a social justice issue, emphasizing the importance of marriage as a matter of life and death, as an injustice at best and tremendous hardship at worst, in their society. It was such a necessity, that a very practical woman like Charlotte Lucas chose to marry without love or romance, simply to secure financial stability and to hopefully have children. One of the reasons why Virginia Wolf wrote that Jane Austen was difficult to catch in the act of greatness, was that Austin's writing style had the same polite restraint expected of women in her time period. All of the emotions seethe under the surface and sometimes break out in characters like Lydia Bennett and Maria Bertram (Mansfield Park). The passions, frustrations, joys and furies are all there, but they are held in check, with great restraint. For this reason, the novels of Austen and Bronte's Wuthering Heights make a fascinating comparison. But it is Austen AND Bronte, not Austen versus Emily Bronte. We need both, and, with an understanding of their societies and customs, we can appreciate the superlative skills of both writers.

@kaorimg1230

2 жыл бұрын

Wholeheartedly agree. It is difficult to fully enjoy Austen adaptations for TV and cinema because they focus on the romance over the satirical or more somber elements … even Northanger Abbey features a young woman seduced, the ‘vampirism’ of a loveless marriage, and a man forced to give up his inheritance to marry for love. In Persuasion a woman suffers from severe depression, having given up her chance at a love match and facing life as a dependent spinster.

I"m annoyed with the Bronte advocate who sees the world as a male vs female battleground.

I am so glad this subject was broached I always find myself comparing the two and I always have to stop myself because they're so different but none the less I always do probably because I love them both SO much so I found this absolutely fascinating.

I think the part about Wuthering Heights is breathtaking.

@irene2231

7 жыл бұрын

Limão totally agree! Just as the novel is and deserves.

Jane always peopled her books with characters you just want to slap across the room. Not villains, but just as annoying as possible. Emma's father, Mr. Collins, Mary (in Persuasion), come to mind.

@jakesalisbury9716

2 жыл бұрын

what’s wrong with mr wood house?

I don't I realized before quite how much Mr Elton drags Harriet in Emma. "Miss Smith?! Why, I never! I suppose everybody has their level..." 😂😂😂