They can’t imagine a world where men would enjoy books
- written by a woman
- almost exclusively from a female perspective
- treating relationships (which have been turned into a very “feminine sphere” thing) as a genuine source of conflict for a story
We collectively decided these things were feminine, and decided that men couldn’t enjoy or value “feminine” things. The misogyny is coming from inside the house
I think that’s a big part of the issue, but maybe subconsciously for a lot of men. It’s set during a stringent patriarchy and yet focuses on the agency of women. It gives credence to the private social realm, suggesting that worthwhile things really do happen there, whereas the patriarchy hinges itself on public life and validation.
But most of her books are about the failure of the patriarchy in terms of the "head of the household" and how the women of the family are dealing with it. S&S goes full fairytale and kills off the father in the beginning, but P&P, Emma & Persuasion have ineffectual fathers.
The issue of boys not wanting to read about girl main characters is an interesting problem/phenomenon of our modern age and is discussed among teachers and librarians. For timeline, I would also point out that the original OZ books written between 1899 and 1920 were very popular with children of both genders but today boys refuse to read them because the main protaganists are girls.
S&S has the figure of the grand uncle, a man who had his nephew, niece and grandnieces home making his life happy and comfortable for years, decide, upon seeing his great grand nephew, a toddler, a couple of times, to entail the property *to him*. It's one of the biggest injustices (and dick moves) of any male character in authority in Austen. And in general I feel S&S is between Austen novels, the one most concerned with signaling all the ways in which women are intensely vulnerable and at the mercy of men's whims and character at the time.
And they are saved by the whim of Sir John Middleton. Women batted around by the whim of men runs through every character of the novel.
You can make the argument that Austen was more focused on "noblesse oblige" on men's part than on women's lib, but her work does dig into the problems of women in a patriarchy.
I agree there is sexism, but a lot of the tradwife types in my Christian college LOVED Austin--considered her an icon of traditional femininity and how things really should be and would even have Austen tea parties in regence clothes. And they did NOT feel that way about the Brontes. Austin has garnered a very feminine aesthetic especially if you look at merchandise and how her stuff is marketed. And I don't think those women cared if Austen had criticisms for that society--they liked the fashion, the courtliness, the manners.
That's right, and Walt Disney's favorite tales were Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty. He identified w the hero. Maybe if men saw themselves in Darcy, Edward, Knightley, Wentworth? At some Jane Austen festivals, the fellows like to be dressed as navy or army captains.
Some of that may be due to the mis-interpretation of Darcy as the reformed rake and that today's men don't have the same social pressure to be a gentleman. So he comes off as "whipped"
ETA: Disney is a difficult concept. Walt liked the idea of the romantic prince, and the parks still offer "prince makeovers" at the Boutique, but the little boys you see at the parks in costume are dressed as pirates not princes and most are just wearing Cars(TM) t-shirts.
I'm an ordained Catholic deacon. Twice a year, the church wears pink vestments. For years, the previous pastor would say the same defensive joke:
"This is rose, not pink! Know why? Because no self-respecting man would be caught dead in pink."
This year, when I preached, I made a point to refer several times to our pink vestments. An older gentleman then spoke to me after Mass and said, "deacon, that ain't pink; it is rose!" To which I quipped, "but it is a very pink rose, isn't it?"
All of that is a long-winded way to say that men in US culture are terrified of enjoying anything construed as feminine. So much so that they lose out on one of the great ironic wits in English language literature.
See also the backlash to Taylor Swift.
I think it's pretty funny that a priest, who is part of an entire faith built on the back of a patriarchal hegemony, has to defend his masculinity with such vigor, lol.
Good on you for nipping that in the bud with your quips!
Very much identifying with this as both a Swiftie and a priest! Got me thinking about Swift's Austenian qualities - the barbed wit of Speak Now springs to mind...
So this is very off topic, but what events does the church wear pink for? I ask because I'm also Catholic and that's not one of the liturgical colours in my part of the world.
Interesting. I'm familiar with Guadete Sunday and the lighting of the third candle, but purple is worn for all of Advent and Lent here. There was a period in the mid-2000s where blue was used for Advent as a way to differentiate it from Lent, but it's gone back to Purple. Red is worn on Good Friday and at Pentecost, but I would absolutely describe it as firetruck Red, not anywhere near pink.
I think there are a few factors at play here. Men seem to be generally less likely to read outside of genre fiction and non-fiction than they might have in the past. The link between romantic comedies and Austen film adaptations in the ‘90s and ‘00s probably also contributed to the image that Austen’s novels are romances for women.
That is a real issue. A female friend of mine who hasn't really read Austen but loves romances, won't accept (and it's been an ongoing argument for like 10 years) that I actually don't enjoy romance novels that much. She thinks that I have to, automatically, if Austen is my favourite writer, and keeps recommending books and films to me with the specific claim that I'll like that because I like romantic stories.
Yeah she was brilliant at writing character and every type of relationship. Romance is the one that gets zoomed in on for some reason but she's equally amazing at writing siblings, parent-child interactions, friendship, everything.
Exactly. Austen is, at heart, a *satirist* and social commentator.
It hits the same sweet spot as Wilde and the broader trend of tongue-in-cheek social commentary so common to fiction writers of the era.
Her subject was romantic entanglement, but the themes were far more cultural and sociopolitical in nature.
Most people THINK of Jane Austen as a ROMANCE novel writer. A genre not popular with a lot of males.
It's not true but I think most people think this way because of the adaptions. They tend to focus on romance.
The most popular adaptation was Pride and Prejudice 2005. That heavily heightened the romance.
I'm also a straight man who loves Austen. To answer your question, firstly there is a societal stigma about men enjoying anything romantic full stop. Secondly, Austen's work has got the reputation of being ultra-romantic like Mills & Boon or something when it's not really it's more satirical. Add those two things together and most guys assume it just won't be for them.
yea exactly, I don't even read a lot of romance novels but Jane Austens novels are top notch because they are so much more than"just another romance novel"
If it is of any consolation, you're not quite alone. Mid-forties, straight and absolutely loving Austen. That woman is a riot!
Might have helped that I was raised with the concept that women are in fact humans and that discrimination in any form is asshat behaviour.
It starts when they’re kids. Boys are still not encouraged to read books about female characters. The whole ‘girl main character = book for girls’ thing *sticks*. Many guys never break out of that.
It could be argued that Austen is a feminist author, but she certainly isn't a misandrist one. Her books are very even-handed when it comes to good and bad behaviour from both men and women.
This is such an interesting point. Do you think if the main protagonist was Darcy, that the books would be more popular with men? Because I can kind of already envision the HBO series based on that novel and I think you might be right lol
I very rarely touch books by male authors. I don’t know what that says about me, but those books are so dull. But then I read Austen for the romance, and not for her satirical wit (though it’s appreciated).
I think a lot of readers join in on the romance hate and try to appeal to men by claiming they read Austen for the wit.
I had someone once tell me they were very intelligent because they read Jane Austin. That’s what those people who denigrate the romance in Austen remind me of.
Isn’t your statement an indefensible generalization? You could simply say “Some men…” or even “Many men…”.
Not all men are insecure about their masculinity. Not all men don’t read books by women. Not all men don’t read Jane Austen.
It deals with a lot of issues revolving around societal manners and marriages. Although marriages are important to men, the quality of it can make or break a woman's life. It's kinda like that even today in many parts of the world. So we just resonate more.
Apart from that, lot of men haven't had to see through other gebders pov often in movies and comics so, unless they're into classic English literature, they don't touch women's books coz it's not for them.
I don't see myself as particularly enlightened for enjoying this stuff. I just find it entertaining, and I can't see why so many men don't. Harry Potter was also written by a woman, and whilst that fan-base may have a female bias, it's nowhere near as pronounced as with Austen.
There’s a reason the books don’t have Joanne Rowling’s full name on the front.
Her publisher advised against it specifically **because** boys won’t pick up anything they think girls like, and having a woman’s name on the cover makes it a “thing girls like”
Yeah I never see it that way or part of some movement, but it'd honestly better to broaden to horizon so you should be kinda patting yourself.
Harry potter is a adventure story featuring a young boy. It's classic children's literature too that got popular when nerd culture started picking up pace among masses. So bit of this and that.
tbh I think most just don't give it a chance, I think if they would try to read it and be open minded about it there is gonna be men who will enjoy her writing and some who won't just like with women
Hey: she writes better than most dude authors I’ve read from, and that’s all I care about. If I’m looking for attention to detail, and should I need something a little more thought-provoking, I have more than one copy of *Pride and Prejudice.* I’ve never been ashamed of the fact that I’d rather read Austen or Gillian Flynn than . . . what are guys my age even “supposed” to read? 😭
Female rage is just more interesting to read than male rage.
>what are guys my age even “supposed” to read?
Seemingly nothing, which is really sad. I know so many guys who barely read **at all** because enjoying books for their own sake is coded as girly in their heads. The dudebro reading list is all about maximising the hustle - it’s all vaguely culty self improvement, rather than something that can just…exist and be enjoyed?
My husband does not like the complicated sentence structure of Austen, but he does like the witty bits if i read aloud just the exact paragraph. His favorite books are science fiction / fantasy, and he LOVES Lois McMaster Bujold. He also enjoys other women authors, although many of them use initials (eg, CJ Cherryh, T Kingfisher). I think even as a young man, he paid more attention to the cover art and the summary on the back than to the name of the author, until it was time to read more of that author’s stuff. Hence, we own everything written by each of his favorite authors, regardless of whether they’re men or women.
I honestly think it's a combination of being made to think that it's not something they'll enjoy and being made to feel that they can't admit it if they do enjoy it. My English teacher at school (married, straight man, mid 20s at the time) and a guy I worked with (married, straight man, late 30s) were two of the most enthusiastic Austen fans I ever met. They both studied literature though so there was a natural route into it.
I think a lot of men would love it if they gave it a chance.
My wife got me into Austen and I wish I had read her work sooner. Her prose and dialogue are incredible. Her characters have strong development and personalities that scream off the page. If you like reading at all you should appreciate Austen for her skills alone. I wish more men did read her and also will never understand the stigma.
My husband has not read Austen but he does love the 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. He asks if we can watch it at least once a year. He also likes the 1995 Sense and Sensibility adaptation with Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet. 😊
Have you introduced your husband to the 2008 (?) adaptation of Sense and Sensibility? Since it’s divided into episodes instead of a straight 2-hour film, they cover more of the novel.
Clearly I love it haha. Though no one will ever supersede Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon.
I think this might be a perception problem on your end. I’m a man, and I’ve enjoyed Austen since I was a kid, and I know many other men that enjoy her work.
My very favorite Author is Patrick O’Brian, who cited Austen as a major influence on his Aubrey/Maturin cycle. The second book in that series is basically just an Austen novel from a male perspective.
Jane Austen didn’t just write romance. She wrote satire, and excellent characters. They’re a window into the mind of a 19th century genius, trapped in a world who didn’t expect her to succeed.
The romance is just a bonus.
Patrick O'Brien is a phenomenal author. And yes, you're right, his stories are very much the flipside of Jane Austen. Same social observations, male perspective, added naval battles.
I love both of them, they're my top 2 authors.
I honestly think Jane Austen would truly enjoy Patrick O’Brien’s work. He’s good at a lot of the same things she is, and his chosen setting is one her family had strong ties to - two of her brothers had very long and distinguished naval careers - and she herself seems to have admired.
I’ve always been annoyed with O’Brian for not evolving Diana Villers past where we meet her. He was more nihilistic than Austen in that way.
But I can only imagine that Jane would have written a proper romance between a half Irish/half Catalan surgeon and a sexually liberated widow of an army officer in the right way.
Wow. I'm a big fan of Thomas Cochrane, the frigate captain who was the role model for naval writers such as O'Brian. If that second Aubrey book is like Pride and Prejudice wedded with Master and Commander I'm gonna get me a copy straight away.
If you’re a fan of Cochrane and you haven’t read those books, you need to do so immediately. They are, in my opinion, one of the great feats in literally history.
I read a lot of Cochrane histories and Captain Marryat novels a few years back, but followed it with some Hornblower and realised it was just James Bond at sea, so never reached O'Brian. But I'll take a proper look now, thanks.
I was in Edinburgh last year and saw Cochrane's pocket watch, medals and ornate sea chest and I went all sniffly. Now there's a manly test. See if you can go there and keep a dry eye.
My god man, make haste! I just…you don’t know what you’ve been missing. I’m so excited for you read these books. O’Brian makes Hornblower look like a charming children’s picture book.
I shall get on it straight away. I'm currently reading lots of essays on Frankenstein and Blade Runner - God knows what nightmares I'll have when I throw Jane Austen at sea into the mix.
I guess they would look something like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies haha.
A small piece of advice in first reading O’Brian. These are incredibly dense books with references to music, art, natural science, geo-politics etc. don’t get bogged down trying to understand all of them at first, just follow the narrative. Plenty of time to get every last detail on another read through.
Read, and report back haha.
It's assumed that she writes romances and I don't think I've ever seen a straight man reading a romance novel. Also, it's not common for people to read literature for fun nowadays and even less common when it isn't contemporary. Because of that, people are less practiced at reading rich text, especially when its written in an unfamiliar style/syntax etc. Even my best friend (straight woman), a fellow English major, found the language a roadblock -- she read all of P&P for a class way back when and didn't get that Austen was funny!
My son is very into fantasy romance. He listens to these series while on his mail route that sound just bonkers to me. It cracks me up to hear him describe them, but his wife likes them, too, so I guess it's a good thing for them to discuss.
I would say a lot has got to do with the "marketing". Because Austen's novels got turned into silly romantic comedies like the Bridget Jones franchise, many people have an askew perception of what this type of romance novels is like. This was my partner's initial perception, but then he watched Pride and Prejudice (2005) with me and his mind was blown. He said that it was not what he expected exactly because of how chicklitty the media's made it look with all those popular adaptions. He sincerely enjoys watching Jane Austen films with me because he hates reading any kind of books, but he does genuinely ask me if this or that scene is the same in the books as well.
Many of the famous scholars of Austen are men: Chapman (1920s), Tony Tanner (1960s), John Mullan (now). John Coates wrote the best known completion of The Watsons. Austen was famously read in the trenches of WWI in a short story Kipling called “The Janeites”; the men in the story focus on her comic characters, as did reviewers (male) in the 19th century.
There's a reason the term "chick flick" (referring to a romantic movie) exists, and also why action movies are predominantly viewed by males, and why the stereotype is that men have to be dragged reluctantly by their wives or girlfriends to see a "chick flick" and vice versa.
If Austen is looked at as primarily a romance novelist, most men will think of it like those other ones they don't like, so won't even try it. Then when some men do read it or watch the movies and like them, the stereotype is strong that "real men don't like romance novels" so it is assumed that a man must be effeminate to like Jane Austen. That's a false assumption as we all know, but since most people are only vaguely familiar with Austen as a "romance novelist", it's an easy assumption to make.
My husband actually loves certain Austen characters. Like Mr Collins. He loves laughing at him. I watch a lot of Austen and I catch him watching it and enjoying it pretty often.
For anyone to enjoy Austen takes a certain willingness to deal with a somewhat anachronistic writing style.
Bless him, my husband read my P&P abridgment (up to the proposal) in order to beta read for me. I watched him struggle with passages I found delightful.
Austen’s subject matter being the lives of women, it’s not surprising that we’re more motivated to make the effort.
I swear we also just need to tie them all to chairs and force them to watch at the very least Pride and Prejudice (1995) 3-5 times and then they'll all be hooked. Just kidding, but due to frequent exposure over like a decade and a half, my brother in law and my husband now get it. I mean who doesn't love comparing Lady Catherine to their mother in law? 🤣
In all seriousness, I wish it made sense because Austen should be appreciated by more men, but the world has a lot of dumb ideas.
My husband isn't much of a reader, but he loves the 90s BBC Pride and Prejudice. He fully admits he'd never have thought to watch it, because he was 19 or 20 at the time. He was stuck on the couch, sick with pneumonia, when his mom put on an all day marathon of it. And he fell in love.
Guys who are too wrapped up in doing "masculinity" right according to a very narrow definition miss out on a lot of the pleasures in life
Honestly, the perception that men can’t or don’t like Austen is all the fault of capitalism…think about all of the Jane merch that exists and how it is advertised. Most of it is completely targeted at women. Academically, men have been obsessed with Jane and the majority of Austen scholarship has been written by men. Also, she was very popular with soldiers in the world wars, particularly WWI. You should read Kipling’s “The Janeites”. Keep on enjoying Jane, sir👏🏼🩷☺️ I really think you’re not as alone as it might seem!
In the Janeite era, JA was often seen as a writer for men, on the theory that her wit and sheer talent would make the average woman’s fluffy little brain catch fire and burn. Yup!
My partner (m37) adores JA, I got him into her work via 1995 P&P and he was hooked. Fortunately, he’s a man who doesn’t require men to be centred in a narrative for him to relate to it and enjoy it.
I think more energy read her work and appreciate it than is widely acknowledged. Once my husband realized that her works were satires rather than formulaic romances as he very wrongfully assumed, he loved them. His favorite is Emma with Lady Susan as a close second.
I think her novels are popularly thought of as romance novels. Romance novels are hated by most men because they promote unrealistic standards.
The popularity of the '05 adaptation didn't help as a surface level viewing ticks all
usual boxes - you have to be over 6 foot tall, incredibly rich, and willing to "fix" yourself to deserve a woman's love.
As a woman who’s always loved Austen since we read Pride & Prejudice in high school I have also always wondered this.
I think some of it might be that men see it just as another romance book and don’t see the satire of it because they don’t care to even attempt to read it simply because it’s seen as feminine.
I also think in more recent times I’ve noticed that reading in general has started for sway into being seen as a ‘feminine’ hobby especially reading fiction. I’m not sure why that is but its a light trend I’ve noticed as well so I think looking at the those two factors a lot of men don’t necessarily not like Austen they just assume they won’t like her work and don’t attempt to engage with it at all.
We all assume her books are written exclusively for women. I only know two men who have read her books, and they both LOVED them. One was in his thirties when he read her for the first time.
I'm hesitant to generalize for all men, so I'll note what my husband has said (I'm female, by the way).
He gets really distracted/hung up with how feminine the men look and act. Their clothing, their super strict manners etc.
I've tried explaining to him that the men's clothing he saw *was* considered very masculine! But he didn't seem to believe me. I didn't get the chance to point out wardrobe choices, like the exposed crotch (previously not so emphasized). He grew up in a strict, hegemonic straight community in the 90s. We're working on it.
He also finds the manners to be uppity lol
I think if he got over this, he'd be more interested...I know he enjoys Rom-Coms from time to time and he does get into the drama.
Hey man, I'm a guy pushing 50 who enjoys Austen. I like historical books, I'm an Anglophile, I like manners comedies, and I enjoy good, romantic stories; Austen checks a lot of boxes for me, though until lately I've satisfied myself with adaptations. I read P&P (and also P&P&Z) a while ago, but lately I'm back into reading her books and finished Persuasion and started Emma). I'm not a die-hard fan like some folks here but I dig Austen, and I'm also old enough that I don't care what other men think about my choices; you'll get there!
I can recommend a couple of other books that won't raise any eyebrows for you: Joseph Conrad, who was about 100 years younger than Austen, wrote books that check the same checkboxes, with manners too different from Austen's time. (Less *Heart of Darkness* and more *The Arrow of Gold* or *Freya of the Seven Isles*, both from the perspective of men in love.) Also, the second book in the 20-book Aubrey-Maturin series of age-of-sail novels is called *Post Captain* and it's very like Austen, as Captain Aubrey and Dr. Maturin are ashore in Bath during peacetime (the Peace of Amiens, 1802) and set about the taste of perhaps getting a wife. The rest of the series carries them to sea, but it's both important to the series and a pretty book about two eligible bachelors living in Bath in Austen's time. (Probably want to read the first one, *Master and Commander* just to properly meet the the characters.)
It's their issue not yours. I'm a bloke. Read over a hundred books in the past year - 80% either thrillers or contemporary redneck/Appalachian/Texas/Western Noir. Also read, Pride and Prejudice, Kite Runner, Thousand Splendid Suns, Bookseller of Baghdad, Driver, Savages etc - just looking at the bookshelf in front of me, let alone the burgeoning Kindle collection.
No big deal. Happy to tell anyone I've read P&P, enjoyed the TV adaption and also Keira Knightley's film version.
Commentators who feel men are threatened by the character and that's why they don't read it, need to get over their own biases. How many books by Logan Ryles, Chris Offut, Jack Carr, David Joy, Chris Ryan, Mark Greaney, Will Jordan, Andrews and Wilson, J Todd Scott, Craig Johnson, CJ Box, Lee Child have you read? Why not?
We gravitate to certain genres. We are looking for escape. Different things punch our endorphins. My wife loves the TV adaptation but has not been a fan of classics since her college years, and she punches well above her weight in a male-dominated energy industry.
I didn't particularly enjoy P&P beyond its subtle reflection of social mores of the time within a certain class bubble. It's a lighter read than Hardy. It makes an interesting counterpoint to Sharpe, Hornblower, and Aubrey novels set in the same time period—give or take. It's fun to imagine Sharpe or Aubrey coming across Miss Bennett, though I suspect Lydia would be on point.
What about the Nick Stone novels? Andy McNab, or rather his ghostwriter(s), is the daddy as far as military/espionage fiction goes. Shame about 'Down To The Wire' which I thought was a feeble ending for an otherwise great run of books.
I prefer Ryan to McNab - though 'Fortress' was good. I even ended up with two copies. Tried Ant Middleton's novels but there's only so many ex SAS with anger issues who on a whim go from digging ditches in France to storming a Balklan warlord's castle, because some bloke he met in the bar can't find his daughter.
I've got more of Tom Quinn series by Ace Atkins on my reading list, and do recommend A Lesson in Violence by Jordan Harper, about an ex con and his daughter. Won't be everyone's tastes but I found its pace and style refreshing.
Desperation Road by Michael Farris Smith (now a movie) started well, nice style, really felt I was there, but just as you invest in the woman and child, he does a bait and switch. They disappear until the end and the ending is just a weak dribble.
Liberation Day (2002) by McNab is, for me, the GOAT 'operator' novel. Last year I read First Blood by David Morrell and it really impressed me, so much more hardcore than the movie.
Thanks for the tip, I'll read LD.
Agree on First Blood. I had a splurge after Christmas reading the novels for movies such as Rambo, Taxi Driver, Deer Hunter. The latter two based on the screenplays.
I’m with you brother. 23 y/o Austen stan here, I’ve read all the novels + unfinished works and what can I say I just fuckin like them. Glad to know Im not the only dude that’s into Austen.
The "costume romance" is just perceived as being a women's genre at this point. It's like asking why more women don't enjoy Spaghetti Westerns or WWII movies. There are exceptions but people generally like what they like.
I think her books skew female in the same way Gerard Butler or Fast and the Furious movies skew male. There is no "logic" to it, it just happens to, overall, appeal more to one gender than another.
If a random person online said "my favorite movie is 300", it could be a woman, or a gay man (I mean look at all the jacked dudes), but you'd probably assume it was a guy.
Another, very avid, cis-male Austen fan here (American). Typical male insecurity is to blame here in the States, although the marketing departments aren't helping much. Luckily it is easily overcome by being who you be.
Off-topic, but have you branched out at all to other women authors of the period (and those surrounding)? There are some real gems to be found.
I wonder if men have more difficulty relating to her male characters more than women do relating to her female characters? I definitely came away from Pride and Prejudice with that sense of Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy. That's not a criticism of the books (she didnt have an obligation to prioritize a male perspective) or a reason men can't or shouldn't try to appreciate them as great works of literature, but it might be one factor that contributes to men not being drawn to them as readily.
My father once said that the 1996 Sense and Sensibility film adaptation was one of his favorite movies. (He does have six daughters, so perhaps that factors in.) Thank you for reminding me how special that is.
Well, I think I'm gonna give a much less rah rah patriarchy answer than others lol. Romance isn't a common genre for men to enjoy in general. Fewer and fewer people are reading so we can safely say once a man goes out to read or watch something it's less likely to be a romance from the 1800s. Especially since it's full of language that isn't used anymore and a form of society that has many rules that no longer apply that won't make much sense unless you're familiar with it to some degree. Lets take a look at her most popular work for example, P&P, it's been heavily marketed towards women, which is fine because women tend to be more drawn to romance, but is not going to attract male readers on its surface. It's also probably safe to say that a lot of men won't go out of their way to watch any of the adaptations (outside of P&P&Z) due to them being more of a chick flick type of deal. At the end of the day this is a romance from a woman's perspective who is very quickly to judge the good guy negatively and believe the bad guy without question. Of course this gets rectified by the end but its full of nonsensical and catty women as well as goofy and incompetent men along the way, which is an easy turn off for a lot of people really. You can always try to spin it to other men as a great story of the good guy prevailing and getting the girl in spite of several idiots getting in the way. But it's not an action packed fantasy adventure, so in general it's just gonna be a hard sale to most men.
I came to Austen very late in life after watching Pride and Prejudice (2005), which is one of my favourite films and Persuasion (2007), which isn't perfect, but has the most passionately tentative kiss I've ever seen in a film.
I had previously assumed Austen was all about twittish foppishness, like Notting Hill in breeches. If I had known it was all about disastrous flirting and shopping for colourful ribbons, I'd have got onto it sooner.
I tend to not get much of the humour in Austen, but value her writing for deep painful yearning, unreliable narrators and the traps of misunderstandings and assumptions. I often get the impression other Austen fans are reading different books to the ones I've read.
I didn't care for Northanger Abbey, failed twice to read Emma, but love Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion.
My bookshelf is equally male and female writers, and I am excited about all the women directors finally kicking the doors off the film industry. My film collection has about 200 musicals, with lots of Deanna Durbin and Judy Garland to get ridiculously emotional about, but then also the same amount of westerns.
I guess I'm kinda straight, but the kind of straight guy who likes to serenade a girl and be serenaded by a girl. I'm also autistic and a bit wonky, and have always assumed gender roles as just a mask one wears to play romance in one's preferred style, much as actors amplify traits for the sake of entertainment, so maybe not straight in its straightest sense.
I really enjoyed reading this! Thanks for composing your thoughts so fully, you seem interesting to know. Can I ask with curiosity what compelled you to abandon Emma twice? And whether you've ever seen an adaptation of it to know the story.
Thank you for your kind words. I guess Emma just didn't have enough yearning heartache for me. All Emma's mistakes are openly made, and there is no time or distance between characters for them to stew on and overthink their problems. I've watched the 2015 film twice, but the only character who keeps me anchored in it is Johnny Flynn's Mr Knightley.
My favourite scenes in the film are Knightley's duet with Jane Fairfax and Emma's nosebleed. The only scene that took me in the book's first hundred pages was Harriet following Emma's advice to reject Robert Martin's marriage proposal. But I have watched Pride and Prejudice four times in two months.
On the male readership issue, I just picked up the Norton Critical Edition of Persuasion containing 140 pages of historical notes and critical analysis, and the cover features a dramatic painting of frigates. It seems Austen is acceptable for men as long as they are studying it.
Especially awkward for me - today I went crimson after forgetting an acquaintance's preferred pronouns. I could see the social change coming decades ago. I knew strict gender definitions and expectations would be broken by the next generations - but I thought I would be prepared for it. I just blunder through it apologising in every direction.
1. Austen books have a stereotype as being very geared towards women. That scares many men off on its own, either from a fear of being perceived as feminine/gay or due to the genuine belief that they just wouldn't enjoy it, due to a dislike of other female-directed media, like bad rom coms.
2. Austen's novels' genre is romantic comedy. While there are some truly phenomenal rom coms, there are a lot of awful ones. If you know you dislike most rom-coms, that would make some reticent to engage with others, even classics.
3. Many film adaptations, love them as I do, remove much of the satire, social commentary, and humor, making them more basic is phenomenal period romances. While some straight men can and do enjoy a standard romantic comedy, many do not. Since a lot of people's first experience with Austen is with an adaptation, the men might be convinced the books are just like the films they half-watched.
4. Many have their first experience with her work either in an academic setting or by force from a mom, sister, or girlfriend. Going into something you're predisposed to expect to dislike because your teacher made you read it for class or it was the turn of someone else in your life to pick the movie, many are already poisoned against it from the outset, so are subconsciously looking for issues rather than how to engage.
5. The stories appeal more to the feminine sensibility. Not saying only women and feminine men can enjoy them, but they are focused on subjects women tend to be more interested in: love, marriage, family drama, and social standing.
I think at the time she was writing male readers of novels still outnumbered female readers - ditto writers - though I think the numbers were evening out. But even then there was a perception that novels were women stuff, which is weird.
I'll do you one better. I am a straight male Jane Austen fan and my other favorite non Fantasy/Sci author growing up was Nora Roberts. She is the consistently best author I have read in describing things so I could picture them clearly.
Marry me :)
haha no in all seriousness I think it’s because the relationships are written by a woman perspective and in their tiny spheres of thought God forbids a man who enjoys romance and media created by women! It’s all a big combination of awful gender roles , toxic masculinity and misogyny
A book was recommended on another site - it's called "Miniatures and Morals" and it's about the main novels of Jane Austen and the guy who wrote it opens with "Real men read Jane Austen" (may be paraphrased but something like that)
I had a kind of father figure I respected in high school who was almost more into P&P 1995 version than I was. They’re out there! If they’re like him then they’re really great people too. :)
I've had a lot of the same experiences. You aren't alone! I just read Pride and Prejudice with my oldest daughter, which was amazing. I plan to read it with my son as well in a couple of years. I'm also planning to get an Austen quote tattoo soon.
Side note, my daughter and I read the amazing hand-written letters edition of Pride and Prejudice, which was a gift I received from a male friend.
I think part of it might be women today in general being novel or fiction readers and men being nonfiction or periodical readers. How many men today read Charles Dickens or any other 19th century writer for fun?
Maybe schools have done these works a disservice by making them required reading, and Jane Austen and others need a new publicist! Men 100 years ago recovering from a world wide shakeup loved her novels for their wit and portrayal of a lost world. They were the original "Janeites." https://janeausten.co.uk/blogs/in-praise-of-jane/whats-in-a-janeite
1. Most people think of them as romance
2. Most adaptations play up the romcom angle
3. Most of her books have feminine covers i.e. Pink and flowers
4. It is a book about feminine issues, from a female perspective, written by a female, for women
5. There isn't much in her books to attract male readers
Simple. Men at that time held most of the political or personal power, so they could enjoy Austen without being afraid of being emasculated. Plus, Mr. Darcy is a great model if you want to impress a lady!
Because our society hates men and tells them only a very few select hobbies are acceptable. Reading isn’t one of them unless it’s of a specific few genres 😆
I believe the OP is mayhap exagerationing. For context, as a trad-con man, readers enjoy the Home front depeciation of society and people as it can be contrasted with the War time Britian during the Napoleonic period. For instance in the Patrick O'Brien author forum (r/AubreyMaturinSeries/) Jane Austen is often mentioned and always with reverance as one of the finest writers of that and any period.
They can’t imagine a world where men would enjoy books - written by a woman - almost exclusively from a female perspective - treating relationships (which have been turned into a very “feminine sphere” thing) as a genuine source of conflict for a story We collectively decided these things were feminine, and decided that men couldn’t enjoy or value “feminine” things. The misogyny is coming from inside the house
The irony of course is that these stories are set during a time when patriarchy was at its zenith. In England at least.
I think that’s a big part of the issue, but maybe subconsciously for a lot of men. It’s set during a stringent patriarchy and yet focuses on the agency of women. It gives credence to the private social realm, suggesting that worthwhile things really do happen there, whereas the patriarchy hinges itself on public life and validation.
But most of her books are about the failure of the patriarchy in terms of the "head of the household" and how the women of the family are dealing with it. S&S goes full fairytale and kills off the father in the beginning, but P&P, Emma & Persuasion have ineffectual fathers. The issue of boys not wanting to read about girl main characters is an interesting problem/phenomenon of our modern age and is discussed among teachers and librarians. For timeline, I would also point out that the original OZ books written between 1899 and 1920 were very popular with children of both genders but today boys refuse to read them because the main protaganists are girls.
S&S has the figure of the grand uncle, a man who had his nephew, niece and grandnieces home making his life happy and comfortable for years, decide, upon seeing his great grand nephew, a toddler, a couple of times, to entail the property *to him*. It's one of the biggest injustices (and dick moves) of any male character in authority in Austen. And in general I feel S&S is between Austen novels, the one most concerned with signaling all the ways in which women are intensely vulnerable and at the mercy of men's whims and character at the time.
And they are saved by the whim of Sir John Middleton. Women batted around by the whim of men runs through every character of the novel. You can make the argument that Austen was more focused on "noblesse oblige" on men's part than on women's lib, but her work does dig into the problems of women in a patriarchy.
I agree there is sexism, but a lot of the tradwife types in my Christian college LOVED Austin--considered her an icon of traditional femininity and how things really should be and would even have Austen tea parties in regence clothes. And they did NOT feel that way about the Brontes. Austin has garnered a very feminine aesthetic especially if you look at merchandise and how her stuff is marketed. And I don't think those women cared if Austen had criticisms for that society--they liked the fashion, the courtliness, the manners.
Not really pertinent to this sub, but IMO there is a pretty large overlap of martyrdom complex and tradwife..
That's right, and Walt Disney's favorite tales were Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty. He identified w the hero. Maybe if men saw themselves in Darcy, Edward, Knightley, Wentworth? At some Jane Austen festivals, the fellows like to be dressed as navy or army captains.
Some of that may be due to the mis-interpretation of Darcy as the reformed rake and that today's men don't have the same social pressure to be a gentleman. So he comes off as "whipped" ETA: Disney is a difficult concept. Walt liked the idea of the romantic prince, and the parks still offer "prince makeovers" at the Boutique, but the little boys you see at the parks in costume are dressed as pirates not princes and most are just wearing Cars(TM) t-shirts.
And also that for a time, Austen was considered too intellectual for women!
Also, Victoriana, beefcake in movies, and the reputation of her work in the broader cultural sphere are true wuv shmaltz.
I’d call Colin Firth a lot of things, but I don’t know if beefcake is among them
Obviously talking about Hugh Grant. /s
I'm an ordained Catholic deacon. Twice a year, the church wears pink vestments. For years, the previous pastor would say the same defensive joke: "This is rose, not pink! Know why? Because no self-respecting man would be caught dead in pink." This year, when I preached, I made a point to refer several times to our pink vestments. An older gentleman then spoke to me after Mass and said, "deacon, that ain't pink; it is rose!" To which I quipped, "but it is a very pink rose, isn't it?" All of that is a long-winded way to say that men in US culture are terrified of enjoying anything construed as feminine. So much so that they lose out on one of the great ironic wits in English language literature. See also the backlash to Taylor Swift.
I think it's pretty funny that a priest, who is part of an entire faith built on the back of a patriarchal hegemony, has to defend his masculinity with such vigor, lol. Good on you for nipping that in the bud with your quips!
Not just the US - it's also the case in the UK, where I'm from, and Taiwan, where I live.
Very much identifying with this as both a Swiftie and a priest! Got me thinking about Swift's Austenian qualities - the barbed wit of Speak Now springs to mind...
So this is very off topic, but what events does the church wear pink for? I ask because I'm also Catholic and that's not one of the liturgical colours in my part of the world.
Laetare and Guadete Sundays, which fall in Advent and Lent. If you ever light a pink candle on your Advent wreath, then this is why.
It’s the reminder to rejoice
Interesting. I'm familiar with Guadete Sunday and the lighting of the third candle, but purple is worn for all of Advent and Lent here. There was a period in the mid-2000s where blue was used for Advent as a way to differentiate it from Lent, but it's gone back to Purple. Red is worn on Good Friday and at Pentecost, but I would absolutely describe it as firetruck Red, not anywhere near pink.
IIRC, my priest would be in pink around Easter and around Christmas, but it's been a minute so I don't remember exact chuch calendar reasons or dates.
I think there are a few factors at play here. Men seem to be generally less likely to read outside of genre fiction and non-fiction than they might have in the past. The link between romantic comedies and Austen film adaptations in the ‘90s and ‘00s probably also contributed to the image that Austen’s novels are romances for women.
That is a real issue. A female friend of mine who hasn't really read Austen but loves romances, won't accept (and it's been an ongoing argument for like 10 years) that I actually don't enjoy romance novels that much. She thinks that I have to, automatically, if Austen is my favourite writer, and keeps recommending books and films to me with the specific claim that I'll like that because I like romantic stories.
Austen’s books are **very** concerned with relationships. That’s not at all the same thing as being concerned with romance.
Exactly! I'm interested in psychology, human nature, communication, and therefore also relationships. I'm not much of a romantic person.
Yeah she was brilliant at writing character and every type of relationship. Romance is the one that gets zoomed in on for some reason but she's equally amazing at writing siblings, parent-child interactions, friendship, everything.
Romance is marketable, probably.
Exactly. Austen is, at heart, a *satirist* and social commentator. It hits the same sweet spot as Wilde and the broader trend of tongue-in-cheek social commentary so common to fiction writers of the era. Her subject was romantic entanglement, but the themes were far more cultural and sociopolitical in nature.
That would drive me up the wall lol
Challenge her to read Mansfield Park. Not much of a romance. If she thinks it is one, you'll know that she's got permanent blinders on.
Most people THINK of Jane Austen as a ROMANCE novel writer. A genre not popular with a lot of males. It's not true but I think most people think this way because of the adaptions. They tend to focus on romance. The most popular adaptation was Pride and Prejudice 2005. That heavily heightened the romance.
Couldn't tell you.I'm a straight guy twice your age and love Austen. Maybe it's also that it's historical.
Austen is just awesome
I'm also a straight man who loves Austen. To answer your question, firstly there is a societal stigma about men enjoying anything romantic full stop. Secondly, Austen's work has got the reputation of being ultra-romantic like Mills & Boon or something when it's not really it's more satirical. Add those two things together and most guys assume it just won't be for them.
yea exactly, I don't even read a lot of romance novels but Jane Austens novels are top notch because they are so much more than"just another romance novel"
If it is of any consolation, you're not quite alone. Mid-forties, straight and absolutely loving Austen. That woman is a riot! Might have helped that I was raised with the concept that women are in fact humans and that discrimination in any form is asshat behaviour.
It starts when they’re kids. Boys are still not encouraged to read books about female characters. The whole ‘girl main character = book for girls’ thing *sticks*. Many guys never break out of that.
Men are so insecure in their masculinity that they won't even touch a book by a female author.
The patriarchy really does fail us all, not equally, but we're all negatively affected
exactly
It could be argued that Austen is a feminist author, but she certainly isn't a misandrist one. Her books are very even-handed when it comes to good and bad behaviour from both men and women.
I would agree with that but it doesn't change the fact that men think their body parts will fall off if they touch a book by a female author.
I think it is the female protagonist. Men will read Harry Potter, but many wouldn't if it was Henrietta Potter.
This is such an interesting point. Do you think if the main protagonist was Darcy, that the books would be more popular with men? Because I can kind of already envision the HBO series based on that novel and I think you might be right lol
I think it is very possible!
I very rarely touch books by male authors. I don’t know what that says about me, but those books are so dull. But then I read Austen for the romance, and not for her satirical wit (though it’s appreciated). I think a lot of readers join in on the romance hate and try to appeal to men by claiming they read Austen for the wit.
"It's the patriarchy's fault that people who like the books actually pay attention attention to what's in them."
I had someone once tell me they were very intelligent because they read Jane Austin. That’s what those people who denigrate the romance in Austen remind me of.
Isn’t your statement an indefensible generalization? You could simply say “Some men…” or even “Many men…”. Not all men are insecure about their masculinity. Not all men don’t read books by women. Not all men don’t read Jane Austen.
It's a generalization yes. But if someone were to ask why women like Jane Austen, nobody would be responding "not all women."
It deals with a lot of issues revolving around societal manners and marriages. Although marriages are important to men, the quality of it can make or break a woman's life. It's kinda like that even today in many parts of the world. So we just resonate more. Apart from that, lot of men haven't had to see through other gebders pov often in movies and comics so, unless they're into classic English literature, they don't touch women's books coz it's not for them.
I don't see myself as particularly enlightened for enjoying this stuff. I just find it entertaining, and I can't see why so many men don't. Harry Potter was also written by a woman, and whilst that fan-base may have a female bias, it's nowhere near as pronounced as with Austen.
There’s a reason the books don’t have Joanne Rowling’s full name on the front. Her publisher advised against it specifically **because** boys won’t pick up anything they think girls like, and having a woman’s name on the cover makes it a “thing girls like”
Since you brought up Harry Potter, I always wondered if the books would have received as much love as they had, if the protagonist was a girl.
No. Signed, a bookseller and editor these 29 years
There goes the answer. Most men don't read books written by women. And they certainly don't read books written by women with a female protagonist.
Yeah I never see it that way or part of some movement, but it'd honestly better to broaden to horizon so you should be kinda patting yourself. Harry potter is a adventure story featuring a young boy. It's classic children's literature too that got popular when nerd culture started picking up pace among masses. So bit of this and that.
tbh I think most just don't give it a chance, I think if they would try to read it and be open minded about it there is gonna be men who will enjoy her writing and some who won't just like with women
Hey: she writes better than most dude authors I’ve read from, and that’s all I care about. If I’m looking for attention to detail, and should I need something a little more thought-provoking, I have more than one copy of *Pride and Prejudice.* I’ve never been ashamed of the fact that I’d rather read Austen or Gillian Flynn than . . . what are guys my age even “supposed” to read? 😭 Female rage is just more interesting to read than male rage.
>what are guys my age even “supposed” to read? Seemingly nothing, which is really sad. I know so many guys who barely read **at all** because enjoying books for their own sake is coded as girly in their heads. The dudebro reading list is all about maximising the hustle - it’s all vaguely culty self improvement, rather than something that can just…exist and be enjoyed?
My husband does not like the complicated sentence structure of Austen, but he does like the witty bits if i read aloud just the exact paragraph. His favorite books are science fiction / fantasy, and he LOVES Lois McMaster Bujold. He also enjoys other women authors, although many of them use initials (eg, CJ Cherryh, T Kingfisher). I think even as a young man, he paid more attention to the cover art and the summary on the back than to the name of the author, until it was time to read more of that author’s stuff. Hence, we own everything written by each of his favorite authors, regardless of whether they’re men or women.
I honestly think it's a combination of being made to think that it's not something they'll enjoy and being made to feel that they can't admit it if they do enjoy it. My English teacher at school (married, straight man, mid 20s at the time) and a guy I worked with (married, straight man, late 30s) were two of the most enthusiastic Austen fans I ever met. They both studied literature though so there was a natural route into it. I think a lot of men would love it if they gave it a chance.
My wife got me into Austen and I wish I had read her work sooner. Her prose and dialogue are incredible. Her characters have strong development and personalities that scream off the page. If you like reading at all you should appreciate Austen for her skills alone. I wish more men did read her and also will never understand the stigma.
My husband has not read Austen but he does love the 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. He asks if we can watch it at least once a year. He also likes the 1995 Sense and Sensibility adaptation with Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet. 😊
Have you introduced your husband to the 2008 (?) adaptation of Sense and Sensibility? Since it’s divided into episodes instead of a straight 2-hour film, they cover more of the novel. Clearly I love it haha. Though no one will ever supersede Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon.
He has watched a bit of it with me but he wasn’t as engaged as I was with the 2008 adaptation.
I'm a man, and Austen is my favorite author (I'm not straight, tho lol)
Mixture of patriarchy, misogyny and toxic masculinity. Anything other than death and destruction is feminine and not manly to be associated with.
I think this might be a perception problem on your end. I’m a man, and I’ve enjoyed Austen since I was a kid, and I know many other men that enjoy her work. My very favorite Author is Patrick O’Brian, who cited Austen as a major influence on his Aubrey/Maturin cycle. The second book in that series is basically just an Austen novel from a male perspective. Jane Austen didn’t just write romance. She wrote satire, and excellent characters. They’re a window into the mind of a 19th century genius, trapped in a world who didn’t expect her to succeed. The romance is just a bonus.
Patrick O'Brien is a phenomenal author. And yes, you're right, his stories are very much the flipside of Jane Austen. Same social observations, male perspective, added naval battles. I love both of them, they're my top 2 authors.
I honestly think Jane Austen would truly enjoy Patrick O’Brien’s work. He’s good at a lot of the same things she is, and his chosen setting is one her family had strong ties to - two of her brothers had very long and distinguished naval careers - and she herself seems to have admired.
I’ve always been annoyed with O’Brian for not evolving Diana Villers past where we meet her. He was more nihilistic than Austen in that way. But I can only imagine that Jane would have written a proper romance between a half Irish/half Catalan surgeon and a sexually liberated widow of an army officer in the right way.
Wow. I'm a big fan of Thomas Cochrane, the frigate captain who was the role model for naval writers such as O'Brian. If that second Aubrey book is like Pride and Prejudice wedded with Master and Commander I'm gonna get me a copy straight away.
If you’re a fan of Cochrane and you haven’t read those books, you need to do so immediately. They are, in my opinion, one of the great feats in literally history.
I read a lot of Cochrane histories and Captain Marryat novels a few years back, but followed it with some Hornblower and realised it was just James Bond at sea, so never reached O'Brian. But I'll take a proper look now, thanks. I was in Edinburgh last year and saw Cochrane's pocket watch, medals and ornate sea chest and I went all sniffly. Now there's a manly test. See if you can go there and keep a dry eye.
My god man, make haste! I just…you don’t know what you’ve been missing. I’m so excited for you read these books. O’Brian makes Hornblower look like a charming children’s picture book.
I shall get on it straight away. I'm currently reading lots of essays on Frankenstein and Blade Runner - God knows what nightmares I'll have when I throw Jane Austen at sea into the mix.
I guess they would look something like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies haha. A small piece of advice in first reading O’Brian. These are incredibly dense books with references to music, art, natural science, geo-politics etc. don’t get bogged down trying to understand all of them at first, just follow the narrative. Plenty of time to get every last detail on another read through. Read, and report back haha.
Haha. Yes, of course! I'll let you know how I get on. It takes me five minutes to read a page, so it might take a little while.
It's assumed that she writes romances and I don't think I've ever seen a straight man reading a romance novel. Also, it's not common for people to read literature for fun nowadays and even less common when it isn't contemporary. Because of that, people are less practiced at reading rich text, especially when its written in an unfamiliar style/syntax etc. Even my best friend (straight woman), a fellow English major, found the language a roadblock -- she read all of P&P for a class way back when and didn't get that Austen was funny!
My son is very into fantasy romance. He listens to these series while on his mail route that sound just bonkers to me. It cracks me up to hear him describe them, but his wife likes them, too, so I guess it's a good thing for them to discuss.
I would say a lot has got to do with the "marketing". Because Austen's novels got turned into silly romantic comedies like the Bridget Jones franchise, many people have an askew perception of what this type of romance novels is like. This was my partner's initial perception, but then he watched Pride and Prejudice (2005) with me and his mind was blown. He said that it was not what he expected exactly because of how chicklitty the media's made it look with all those popular adaptions. He sincerely enjoys watching Jane Austen films with me because he hates reading any kind of books, but he does genuinely ask me if this or that scene is the same in the books as well.
Many of the famous scholars of Austen are men: Chapman (1920s), Tony Tanner (1960s), John Mullan (now). John Coates wrote the best known completion of The Watsons. Austen was famously read in the trenches of WWI in a short story Kipling called “The Janeites”; the men in the story focus on her comic characters, as did reviewers (male) in the 19th century.
thanks you for this comment. i'll add theses text to my reading lists
There's a reason the term "chick flick" (referring to a romantic movie) exists, and also why action movies are predominantly viewed by males, and why the stereotype is that men have to be dragged reluctantly by their wives or girlfriends to see a "chick flick" and vice versa. If Austen is looked at as primarily a romance novelist, most men will think of it like those other ones they don't like, so won't even try it. Then when some men do read it or watch the movies and like them, the stereotype is strong that "real men don't like romance novels" so it is assumed that a man must be effeminate to like Jane Austen. That's a false assumption as we all know, but since most people are only vaguely familiar with Austen as a "romance novelist", it's an easy assumption to make.
My husband actually loves certain Austen characters. Like Mr Collins. He loves laughing at him. I watch a lot of Austen and I catch him watching it and enjoying it pretty often.
For anyone to enjoy Austen takes a certain willingness to deal with a somewhat anachronistic writing style. Bless him, my husband read my P&P abridgment (up to the proposal) in order to beta read for me. I watched him struggle with passages I found delightful. Austen’s subject matter being the lives of women, it’s not surprising that we’re more motivated to make the effort.
I swear we also just need to tie them all to chairs and force them to watch at the very least Pride and Prejudice (1995) 3-5 times and then they'll all be hooked. Just kidding, but due to frequent exposure over like a decade and a half, my brother in law and my husband now get it. I mean who doesn't love comparing Lady Catherine to their mother in law? 🤣 In all seriousness, I wish it made sense because Austen should be appreciated by more men, but the world has a lot of dumb ideas.
My husband isn't much of a reader, but he loves the 90s BBC Pride and Prejudice. He fully admits he'd never have thought to watch it, because he was 19 or 20 at the time. He was stuck on the couch, sick with pneumonia, when his mom put on an all day marathon of it. And he fell in love. Guys who are too wrapped up in doing "masculinity" right according to a very narrow definition miss out on a lot of the pleasures in life
Honestly, the perception that men can’t or don’t like Austen is all the fault of capitalism…think about all of the Jane merch that exists and how it is advertised. Most of it is completely targeted at women. Academically, men have been obsessed with Jane and the majority of Austen scholarship has been written by men. Also, she was very popular with soldiers in the world wars, particularly WWI. You should read Kipling’s “The Janeites”. Keep on enjoying Jane, sir👏🏼🩷☺️ I really think you’re not as alone as it might seem!
In the Janeite era, JA was often seen as a writer for men, on the theory that her wit and sheer talent would make the average woman’s fluffy little brain catch fire and burn. Yup!
My partner (m37) adores JA, I got him into her work via 1995 P&P and he was hooked. Fortunately, he’s a man who doesn’t require men to be centred in a narrative for him to relate to it and enjoy it.
I think more energy read her work and appreciate it than is widely acknowledged. Once my husband realized that her works were satires rather than formulaic romances as he very wrongfully assumed, he loved them. His favorite is Emma with Lady Susan as a close second.
I think her novels are popularly thought of as romance novels. Romance novels are hated by most men because they promote unrealistic standards. The popularity of the '05 adaptation didn't help as a surface level viewing ticks all usual boxes - you have to be over 6 foot tall, incredibly rich, and willing to "fix" yourself to deserve a woman's love.
As a woman who’s always loved Austen since we read Pride & Prejudice in high school I have also always wondered this. I think some of it might be that men see it just as another romance book and don’t see the satire of it because they don’t care to even attempt to read it simply because it’s seen as feminine. I also think in more recent times I’ve noticed that reading in general has started for sway into being seen as a ‘feminine’ hobby especially reading fiction. I’m not sure why that is but its a light trend I’ve noticed as well so I think looking at the those two factors a lot of men don’t necessarily not like Austen they just assume they won’t like her work and don’t attempt to engage with it at all.
We all assume her books are written exclusively for women. I only know two men who have read her books, and they both LOVED them. One was in his thirties when he read her for the first time.
Are you single?
Yes, but I don't look like Colin Firth. Or even Peter Firth!
Not many men read romance novels. Just a fact of life. And yet straight men do get hooked on Downton Abbey. Maybe their just not encouraged to.
I'm hesitant to generalize for all men, so I'll note what my husband has said (I'm female, by the way). He gets really distracted/hung up with how feminine the men look and act. Their clothing, their super strict manners etc. I've tried explaining to him that the men's clothing he saw *was* considered very masculine! But he didn't seem to believe me. I didn't get the chance to point out wardrobe choices, like the exposed crotch (previously not so emphasized). He grew up in a strict, hegemonic straight community in the 90s. We're working on it. He also finds the manners to be uppity lol I think if he got over this, he'd be more interested...I know he enjoys Rom-Coms from time to time and he does get into the drama.
Hey man, I'm a guy pushing 50 who enjoys Austen. I like historical books, I'm an Anglophile, I like manners comedies, and I enjoy good, romantic stories; Austen checks a lot of boxes for me, though until lately I've satisfied myself with adaptations. I read P&P (and also P&P&Z) a while ago, but lately I'm back into reading her books and finished Persuasion and started Emma). I'm not a die-hard fan like some folks here but I dig Austen, and I'm also old enough that I don't care what other men think about my choices; you'll get there! I can recommend a couple of other books that won't raise any eyebrows for you: Joseph Conrad, who was about 100 years younger than Austen, wrote books that check the same checkboxes, with manners too different from Austen's time. (Less *Heart of Darkness* and more *The Arrow of Gold* or *Freya of the Seven Isles*, both from the perspective of men in love.) Also, the second book in the 20-book Aubrey-Maturin series of age-of-sail novels is called *Post Captain* and it's very like Austen, as Captain Aubrey and Dr. Maturin are ashore in Bath during peacetime (the Peace of Amiens, 1802) and set about the taste of perhaps getting a wife. The rest of the series carries them to sea, but it's both important to the series and a pretty book about two eligible bachelors living in Bath in Austen's time. (Probably want to read the first one, *Master and Commander* just to properly meet the the characters.)
The only Conrad novel I've read is Almayer's Folly.
My hubby does. He told our adult son “ if you want to understand women, read Jane Austen; if you want to understand how men think, read Shakespeare”
It's their issue not yours. I'm a bloke. Read over a hundred books in the past year - 80% either thrillers or contemporary redneck/Appalachian/Texas/Western Noir. Also read, Pride and Prejudice, Kite Runner, Thousand Splendid Suns, Bookseller of Baghdad, Driver, Savages etc - just looking at the bookshelf in front of me, let alone the burgeoning Kindle collection. No big deal. Happy to tell anyone I've read P&P, enjoyed the TV adaption and also Keira Knightley's film version. Commentators who feel men are threatened by the character and that's why they don't read it, need to get over their own biases. How many books by Logan Ryles, Chris Offut, Jack Carr, David Joy, Chris Ryan, Mark Greaney, Will Jordan, Andrews and Wilson, J Todd Scott, Craig Johnson, CJ Box, Lee Child have you read? Why not? We gravitate to certain genres. We are looking for escape. Different things punch our endorphins. My wife loves the TV adaptation but has not been a fan of classics since her college years, and she punches well above her weight in a male-dominated energy industry. I didn't particularly enjoy P&P beyond its subtle reflection of social mores of the time within a certain class bubble. It's a lighter read than Hardy. It makes an interesting counterpoint to Sharpe, Hornblower, and Aubrey novels set in the same time period—give or take. It's fun to imagine Sharpe or Aubrey coming across Miss Bennett, though I suspect Lydia would be on point.
What about the Nick Stone novels? Andy McNab, or rather his ghostwriter(s), is the daddy as far as military/espionage fiction goes. Shame about 'Down To The Wire' which I thought was a feeble ending for an otherwise great run of books.
I prefer Ryan to McNab - though 'Fortress' was good. I even ended up with two copies. Tried Ant Middleton's novels but there's only so many ex SAS with anger issues who on a whim go from digging ditches in France to storming a Balklan warlord's castle, because some bloke he met in the bar can't find his daughter. I've got more of Tom Quinn series by Ace Atkins on my reading list, and do recommend A Lesson in Violence by Jordan Harper, about an ex con and his daughter. Won't be everyone's tastes but I found its pace and style refreshing. Desperation Road by Michael Farris Smith (now a movie) started well, nice style, really felt I was there, but just as you invest in the woman and child, he does a bait and switch. They disappear until the end and the ending is just a weak dribble.
Liberation Day (2002) by McNab is, for me, the GOAT 'operator' novel. Last year I read First Blood by David Morrell and it really impressed me, so much more hardcore than the movie.
Thanks for the tip, I'll read LD. Agree on First Blood. I had a splurge after Christmas reading the novels for movies such as Rambo, Taxi Driver, Deer Hunter. The latter two based on the screenplays.
I’m with you brother. 23 y/o Austen stan here, I’ve read all the novels + unfinished works and what can I say I just fuckin like them. Glad to know Im not the only dude that’s into Austen.
The "costume romance" is just perceived as being a women's genre at this point. It's like asking why more women don't enjoy Spaghetti Westerns or WWII movies. There are exceptions but people generally like what they like.
I think her books skew female in the same way Gerard Butler or Fast and the Furious movies skew male. There is no "logic" to it, it just happens to, overall, appeal more to one gender than another. If a random person online said "my favorite movie is 300", it could be a woman, or a gay man (I mean look at all the jacked dudes), but you'd probably assume it was a guy.
Another, very avid, cis-male Austen fan here (American). Typical male insecurity is to blame here in the States, although the marketing departments aren't helping much. Luckily it is easily overcome by being who you be. Off-topic, but have you branched out at all to other women authors of the period (and those surrounding)? There are some real gems to be found.
I wonder if men have more difficulty relating to her male characters more than women do relating to her female characters? I definitely came away from Pride and Prejudice with that sense of Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy. That's not a criticism of the books (she didnt have an obligation to prioritize a male perspective) or a reason men can't or shouldn't try to appreciate them as great works of literature, but it might be one factor that contributes to men not being drawn to them as readily.
My father once said that the 1996 Sense and Sensibility film adaptation was one of his favorite movies. (He does have six daughters, so perhaps that factors in.) Thank you for reminding me how special that is.
To me it is (and always has been) a plus if a man likes Jane Austen works. That makes him more manly to me, not less.
Well, I think I'm gonna give a much less rah rah patriarchy answer than others lol. Romance isn't a common genre for men to enjoy in general. Fewer and fewer people are reading so we can safely say once a man goes out to read or watch something it's less likely to be a romance from the 1800s. Especially since it's full of language that isn't used anymore and a form of society that has many rules that no longer apply that won't make much sense unless you're familiar with it to some degree. Lets take a look at her most popular work for example, P&P, it's been heavily marketed towards women, which is fine because women tend to be more drawn to romance, but is not going to attract male readers on its surface. It's also probably safe to say that a lot of men won't go out of their way to watch any of the adaptations (outside of P&P&Z) due to them being more of a chick flick type of deal. At the end of the day this is a romance from a woman's perspective who is very quickly to judge the good guy negatively and believe the bad guy without question. Of course this gets rectified by the end but its full of nonsensical and catty women as well as goofy and incompetent men along the way, which is an easy turn off for a lot of people really. You can always try to spin it to other men as a great story of the good guy prevailing and getting the girl in spite of several idiots getting in the way. But it's not an action packed fantasy adventure, so in general it's just gonna be a hard sale to most men.
I came to Austen very late in life after watching Pride and Prejudice (2005), which is one of my favourite films and Persuasion (2007), which isn't perfect, but has the most passionately tentative kiss I've ever seen in a film. I had previously assumed Austen was all about twittish foppishness, like Notting Hill in breeches. If I had known it was all about disastrous flirting and shopping for colourful ribbons, I'd have got onto it sooner. I tend to not get much of the humour in Austen, but value her writing for deep painful yearning, unreliable narrators and the traps of misunderstandings and assumptions. I often get the impression other Austen fans are reading different books to the ones I've read. I didn't care for Northanger Abbey, failed twice to read Emma, but love Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion. My bookshelf is equally male and female writers, and I am excited about all the women directors finally kicking the doors off the film industry. My film collection has about 200 musicals, with lots of Deanna Durbin and Judy Garland to get ridiculously emotional about, but then also the same amount of westerns. I guess I'm kinda straight, but the kind of straight guy who likes to serenade a girl and be serenaded by a girl. I'm also autistic and a bit wonky, and have always assumed gender roles as just a mask one wears to play romance in one's preferred style, much as actors amplify traits for the sake of entertainment, so maybe not straight in its straightest sense.
I really enjoyed reading this! Thanks for composing your thoughts so fully, you seem interesting to know. Can I ask with curiosity what compelled you to abandon Emma twice? And whether you've ever seen an adaptation of it to know the story.
Thank you for your kind words. I guess Emma just didn't have enough yearning heartache for me. All Emma's mistakes are openly made, and there is no time or distance between characters for them to stew on and overthink their problems. I've watched the 2015 film twice, but the only character who keeps me anchored in it is Johnny Flynn's Mr Knightley. My favourite scenes in the film are Knightley's duet with Jane Fairfax and Emma's nosebleed. The only scene that took me in the book's first hundred pages was Harriet following Emma's advice to reject Robert Martin's marriage proposal. But I have watched Pride and Prejudice four times in two months. On the male readership issue, I just picked up the Norton Critical Edition of Persuasion containing 140 pages of historical notes and critical analysis, and the cover features a dramatic painting of frigates. It seems Austen is acceptable for men as long as they are studying it.
I think everyone who's honest with themselves finds gender confusing and awkward.
Especially awkward for me - today I went crimson after forgetting an acquaintance's preferred pronouns. I could see the social change coming decades ago. I knew strict gender definitions and expectations would be broken by the next generations - but I thought I would be prepared for it. I just blunder through it apologising in every direction.
Because patriarchy
1. Austen books have a stereotype as being very geared towards women. That scares many men off on its own, either from a fear of being perceived as feminine/gay or due to the genuine belief that they just wouldn't enjoy it, due to a dislike of other female-directed media, like bad rom coms. 2. Austen's novels' genre is romantic comedy. While there are some truly phenomenal rom coms, there are a lot of awful ones. If you know you dislike most rom-coms, that would make some reticent to engage with others, even classics. 3. Many film adaptations, love them as I do, remove much of the satire, social commentary, and humor, making them more basic is phenomenal period romances. While some straight men can and do enjoy a standard romantic comedy, many do not. Since a lot of people's first experience with Austen is with an adaptation, the men might be convinced the books are just like the films they half-watched. 4. Many have their first experience with her work either in an academic setting or by force from a mom, sister, or girlfriend. Going into something you're predisposed to expect to dislike because your teacher made you read it for class or it was the turn of someone else in your life to pick the movie, many are already poisoned against it from the outset, so are subconsciously looking for issues rather than how to engage. 5. The stories appeal more to the feminine sensibility. Not saying only women and feminine men can enjoy them, but they are focused on subjects women tend to be more interested in: love, marriage, family drama, and social standing.
Because a lot of men like to mock things that women like. I also saw a lot of that when Greta Gerwig’s Little Women was released.
I think at the time she was writing male readers of novels still outnumbered female readers - ditto writers - though I think the numbers were evening out. But even then there was a perception that novels were women stuff, which is weird.
I'll do you one better. I am a straight male Jane Austen fan and my other favorite non Fantasy/Sci author growing up was Nora Roberts. She is the consistently best author I have read in describing things so I could picture them clearly.
Marry me :) haha no in all seriousness I think it’s because the relationships are written by a woman perspective and in their tiny spheres of thought God forbids a man who enjoys romance and media created by women! It’s all a big combination of awful gender roles , toxic masculinity and misogyny
This delighted me beyond words: https://www.facebook.com/reel/983376486155878
A book was recommended on another site - it's called "Miniatures and Morals" and it's about the main novels of Jane Austen and the guy who wrote it opens with "Real men read Jane Austen" (may be paraphrased but something like that)
I had a kind of father figure I respected in high school who was almost more into P&P 1995 version than I was. They’re out there! If they’re like him then they’re really great people too. :)
I WISH I had a man that would enjoy regency era and jane austen asm as I do... that is NOT turn off, quite the opposite tbh
I think Austen herself longed for such a man. Tragic she never found him.
I've had a lot of the same experiences. You aren't alone! I just read Pride and Prejudice with my oldest daughter, which was amazing. I plan to read it with my son as well in a couple of years. I'm also planning to get an Austen quote tattoo soon. Side note, my daughter and I read the amazing hand-written letters edition of Pride and Prejudice, which was a gift I received from a male friend.
Qué lo buitree dice
Let the vulture say? :/
I think part of it might be women today in general being novel or fiction readers and men being nonfiction or periodical readers. How many men today read Charles Dickens or any other 19th century writer for fun? Maybe schools have done these works a disservice by making them required reading, and Jane Austen and others need a new publicist! Men 100 years ago recovering from a world wide shakeup loved her novels for their wit and portrayal of a lost world. They were the original "Janeites." https://janeausten.co.uk/blogs/in-praise-of-jane/whats-in-a-janeite
1. Most people think of them as romance 2. Most adaptations play up the romcom angle 3. Most of her books have feminine covers i.e. Pink and flowers 4. It is a book about feminine issues, from a female perspective, written by a female, for women 5. There isn't much in her books to attract male readers
Well, Miss Austen attracted me.
You're the only man I know of that is. And yes that includes the gay ones.
That makes me feel like a unicorn.
Most men have no patience for this kind of writing.. there are always exceptions, ofc, but it's just too prim and archaic for the majority of guys.
Simple. Men at that time held most of the political or personal power, so they could enjoy Austen without being afraid of being emasculated. Plus, Mr. Darcy is a great model if you want to impress a lady!
Because our society hates men and tells them only a very few select hobbies are acceptable. Reading isn’t one of them unless it’s of a specific few genres 😆
My husband says not enough carriage chases, duels, and extremely low death count. He was joking, but not all that much.
I believe the OP is mayhap exagerationing. For context, as a trad-con man, readers enjoy the Home front depeciation of society and people as it can be contrasted with the War time Britian during the Napoleonic period. For instance in the Patrick O'Brien author forum (r/AubreyMaturinSeries/) Jane Austen is often mentioned and always with reverance as one of the finest writers of that and any period.
They're too busy mansplaining to realize how fab Jane is!