The main reason I ask is that, now that I’m thinking about it, I don’t know that Ulysses would fare any better than P&P in the ‘elevator pitch’ department. While its *literary* stakes are much higher certainly, the *plot* itself is as non-existent as P&P’s is mundane. If Joyce is trying to transcend literature, then it seems that a traditional plot is the first thing that needs to be jettisoned–perhaps *because* it’s thought of as the backbone of traditional literature. So I guess if you want to argue against Austen on those terms, you have to argue against Joyce as well…which is fine with me really.

You used the word ‘drama’ a couple of times in your last paragraph, and while I know this is not what you meant specifically, the word itself does recall a more visual/audible/interactive medium than the modern novel…in which, I think, plot does have a greater relevance (in part, because there includes an inherent element of spectacle). I think the novel, as opposed to the literature (poetry, drama, etc.) that came before it, explores the use of written language to its fullest potential, which can variably place emphases on plot, character development, or some other aspect (a la joyce’s stream of consciousness), without one particular style claiming superiority (as opposed to Aristotle’s preference of tragedy over comedy in poetry). With other modern media like film, or graphic novels, plot again takes on a bit more precedence because the spectacle element returns.

As to your other thought, I don’t normally think of there being a gender divide within literature. I know that there is sometimes, but I generally believe that if something is good than people should like it. But Austen just seems to be a weird bump…and I know I can only talk out of anecdotal experience here, but I’ve honestly never known any guy to love P&P whilst almost every girl (out of the ones who, you know, read) does. The only partial explanation is maybe a general male tendency towards ‘drama’ or ’stakes’ as you said, but that’s speaking in the utmost of generalities, and there doesn’t seem to be any logical rationale for it.

I’ve often wondered kind of the same thing, if there is some split between male and female authors/readership where the former admire/strive for formalism and formal inventiveness to a greater extent and the latter admire/strive for more apparent qualitatives like character, plot, setting, et al. Unfortunately, any examples I could give would be anecdotal and I’m sure there’s as much anecdotal evidence out there to contradict this as there is to support it. And I’m sure I Austen has her formal inventiveness that I’m not able to pick up on.

However! (You knew that was coming.)

While I don’t think plot is the be-all/end-all of storytelling, it does sort of have to be the seedling of the project, yes? Maybe saying P&P’s plot in a sentence exposes part of the reason people like me (say ‘men’ if you want, I’m sure there are male Austen fans out there) have a problem with Austen — there are no stakes. Without some kind of life-or-death drama at the core of a story, I personally have a hard time getting invested in it. Those aren’t the only stories that are worth telling — there is plenty than can be understood about the human condition through comedy and lighter fare — but drama just seems to satisfy something more… profound? To me, at least? I’d bust out a quote by Aristotle or Robert McKee, but it’s 7:30 AM! Come on, I’m surprised I got this much out!

It made me happy. I didn’t think they were going to give this thing a good ending and I needed a good ending for this one.

I’m sick of enigmatic post-modern “life has no meaning” endings pumped out by frustrated screen-writers fishing for an Emmy.

Great ending, guys. Absolutely lovely!