Coming from a Christian perspective.....

Are you asking why people are interested in this movie, why are the characters of the movie interested in Jane Austen, or why are people still reading Jane Austen's books?

If it is the first, the movie is about modern people, with 21st century ideals. None of them seem to be "keeping it zipped".

If it is the 2nd, I believe each of these characters are seeking some safety and comfort from the perils of their modern lives by retreating to an imagined "simpler time"....which is an overly romantic view of a time in history when women had no rights, no voice, no vote, and no power --- outside the bedroom.

If you are asking why people today are still reading Jane Austen, nearly 200 years later, that's a complex question and whole college courses are dedicated to that subject.

In a nutshell I think it's interesting to see how women lived, what kind of legal and moral rights they had, what their options were, and how they coped. It's as much anthropology and human nature as entertainment.

If you're interested in meeting other people (usually women) in your area that enjoy Austen, you might try to find a local chapter of the Jane Austen Society of North America. They are in many cities, enjoy studying JA, and generally have monthly meetings.

Jane Austen's novels, or this movie, have nothing to do with christian "morals."

Austen wrote in a time of repressed sexuality and her writing reflects that. And her writing is anything but "pure." There is plenty of "immorality" if judged by the standards of Austen's time.

And I think if you read "Pride and Prejudice" closely you'll find that Austen disapproved of society shaming Lydia for her "immorality." Nobody says "Lydia is a slut"--the concern is all about how society would perceive her actions. I think Austen knew that society's rules about morality were ridiculous. It's subtle, but writing when she did she couldn't very well come right out and say what she really thought.

"Sense and Sensibility" is another good condemnation of society's expectations. Austen makes it pretty clear that it is horrible for a woman to have to be dependent that way.

I'm trying to be nice, but the assumption that people behaving in moral ways could only be appreciated by Christians is pretty rude.

And I don't think Jesus ever preached "watch out for what the world will think of you." That was invented by uptight social-climbing hypocrites.

What grumpy otter said. You might think that Austen was "pure" and a goody two-shoes today, but in her times her writing was quite daring. Her works were subtly critical of the hypocritical high culture of her time. You see, she was a romantic. That alone was barely considered above immorality at a time when most marriages were arranged and strictly limited by class or wealth.

We take those things for granted now, because even the most rigid fundamentalists today have discarded those practices (well... except for people like the Taliban). But if you're the romantic kind, Christian or not, you really wouldn't like living in Austen's world were women were mostly treated like trophies or at worst, like breeding mares for heirs.

Morals are societal rules. They are artificial, often their only merit being that they are traditional. Morality should never be equated with true virtues like compassion, honesty, kindness, mercy, etc. In fact, that is the core of Jesus' teachings. That goodness does not come from following rules. Jesus himself preached to and forgave sinners, from prostitutes to thieves, something considered immoral by the Jewish clergy. Fundamentalists seem to have missed that point completely, in favor of strict adherence to unbreakable "laws", which ironically make them reminiscent of the Pharisees whom Jesus hated.

The greatest and most profound examples of true goodness are when people insist on doing them even when they break a moral law in doing so. Nobody remembers the people who simply followed the rules of their society, no matter what. Instead, history is filled with people who did good DESPITE the prevailing rules of their society. We usually call them heroes, saints, or martyrs. Goodness that does not come from memorization of proper behavior, but goodness that is given for its own sake. The parable of the good Samaritan is one of the best examples of that.

And there is nothing "pure" about watching out for what the world will think of you. That's called vanity and pride.

[deleted]

Wait, so you think only Christians are "pure"? Only Christians wait until marriage? Only Christians care about morals? Only Christians care about what the world thinks? I certainly hope that in the years since you posted this you have learned not to be such a narrow minded person. I hope you have learn from your past ignorance, and have opened yourself up to learning more about other people in the world.

That was always one of my biggest issues about Austen fan groups (social, online, JASNA, etc.) — fundamentalist Christians who got involved because they thought Austen was “safe” reading. (They used terms like pure, clean, G-rated, wholesome, godly, etc.)

Ick.

They didn’t read her fiction closely enough.


Plus there’s also how People are always projecting the morality of the Victorian era onto the morality in the regency period.