Austenathon 2011: Pride and Prejudice (Spoiler Thread)

This is the place to discuss Pride and Prejudice in as much detail as you like. Enjoy!

Austenathon Main Thread. All Austenathon threads can also be found on the 75ers wiki page.

OK, here to aid the roaring and very much looking forward to this reread!

Thank you for setting this up. I' going to (try to) do a comparison read with Pand P and Portrait of a Lady the last two weeks of this month. Pand P is a repeat for me, so perhaps it will all work out. Of course, this project has now revealed my insanity to all of the 75 Group...

ehh; it was probably too late to try to hide it anyway.

Don't worry, we're all mad here ;)

#3-4 Oh yes, quite insane, and proud of it! :-) I'm also reading Portrait of a Lady this month, so I'm quite certain I'll be comparing them one way or the other, though not in any official manner.

Setting up the thread is no trouble... someone had to do it sooner or later!
But I think I'll stay away from here until I've read at least a few chapters. Have several books to get out of the way first, but should get to P&P soon enough.

>3 Matke:: what an interesting idea, bohemima. I just finished a re-read of P&P so I won't be joining this "-thon", but I will be in the Portrait of a Lady group read. Will keep both books in mind as I do so.

I guess I will have to read Pride and Prejudice when I am done with my current book, a dispiriting non-fiction dash off regarding why gold is a good investment. I also am hoping to find my Portrait of a Lady for that group reading.

Robert

Started my re-read of P&P yesterday and it was so nice to allow myself to luxuriate in Austen's prose again. I found myself chuckling frequently. I'm reading a copy I used for an undergrad course in Austen and I continue to be impressed by comments from my instructor that I have as marginalia or just underlining. For example, after an entire chapter of Mr Bennet telling his wife he won't visit Mr Bingley, the next chapter begins, "Mr. Bennet was among the earliest of those who waited on Mr. Bingley." Such a subtle and interesting insight into Mr. Bennet's character.

I just read P&P in December, so it's fairly fresh in my mind. I had read all the other Austens and saved this one for last (since it was known as her masterpiece). I'm glad I did, because I really enjoyed it to its fullest and appreciated all the familiar Jane-isms.

Although I had not yet read this book, I had seen the 1996 mini-series (many times--own it), the Kiera Knightly version, the Bollywood Bride and Prejudice, Lost in Austen and Bridget Jones's Diary (another that I've seen countless times). I felt that I was well acquainted with the story, and hoped the book wouldn't be a huge let down. On the contrary, I was delighted in how much more there was that wasn't really in any of the film versions. One of the big things I noticed was how Mr Darcy has unabashed sexual hots for Elizabeth. Sorry, Colin Firth--even though I think you're a wonderful Darcy, your chilliness confused me in this regard. I have to admit, the first time I saw the film, I couldn't see what the women I was with saw in him. He was such a dreadful snob and NO FUN. I didn't get Darcy's appeal until I saw Bridget Jones's Diary (okay, so I'm a slow learner). Anyway, I was surprised at how sexy P&P was--not expecting that!

I still don't get Darcy's appeal. I read the book for the first time in the summer of 2008 and haven't read it since, so I'm planning to reread it in the next few weeks. I have seen the 1943(?) film version, which I thought was far superior to the book, and bits of the Colin Firth version...

As with Sense & Sensibility, my favorite character has always been the roguish young man whose name starts with a W, the military guy. (Also Mr Bennett) I always get Wickham and Willoughby's names mixed up.

Gad, I hated Wickham! Of course, that sister was a silly little fool, too. But I really love Mr. Bennett, although he gets much bad press.

Can't wait to see how the book has changed (heh) since I last read it.

I liked Wickham because he's awful. He's the most interesting character in the entire book! Or, that's how I felt back then. Plus, I hated Darcy so automatically began admiring his opposite (not that I cared for Wickham and Elizabeth to marry, because I hated her, too - she deserved nothing less than to be an old spinster, is what I thought).

It will be interesting to see if my opinion changes any with this second read.

Ouch, Keri!

It always surprises me, for all Jane Austen's lightness and humour, what cads those W fellows are; especially Willoughby, that he would abandon someone essentially not much more than a child destitute, sick and with a reputation so ruined she could not go back to her family. Although, since she doesn't dwell on the details, it isn't so horrifying unless you really think about it.

#12 Noooooo! How can you hate Elizabeth and Darcy?! ;o)

Darcy's attraction, I think, is that he's everything that Lizzie hasn't experienced before, even, to some degree, in her father (once she gets beyond his shy and thus seemingly haughty exterior that is). He's intelligent and challenges her, but he's also thoughtful. ...there's also definitely some sexual tension there, right from the start - Wickham just comes between that (before he manages to do it himself, messing with Bingley and Jane).

#13: I think Austen sort of made up for the "bad" W fellows by creating Wentworth in Persuasion. He is definitely NOT a cad;)

#14: I'm with you, Fliss!! :)

14> I hate them because even though they're the primary characters in the book, they're horrible people. The expectation of "isn't this a lovely romance story" and "these are the hero and heroine that everyone loves!" clashes with my experience, which is that I can't stand either of them, and that leads to hate. With Wickham, he's meant to be disliked, and plus he's far more interesting than anyone else (except Mr Bennett), so I love him. It's the same with the younger sisters - I love getting to be exasperated by them, the way it seems Austen intended.

But, again, it's been almost three years since I first read the book, so maybe I'll change my mind.

I love the enormous change Darcy has to go through in this book to turn into the fantastic creature by the time Elizabeth and the Gardiners are visiting Lambton.

He does start out very proud, not as well-rounded or educated as he thinks he is, and uncomfortable in any situation out of his own circle although you get hints early on that he actually finds his circle even then a bit tedious as we read of Caroline Bingley's attempts to engage him and his reactions to her.

Elizabeth also indulges in her weakness of believing in first impressions and being easily led by the opinions of others. They both undergo quite a few personality changes by the end of the book and I love that we see all their faults but then read how they both work to overcome and change them.

I don't think this is a lovely romantic story at all but a double journey of self-discovery.

For me, Wickham is so very bad that I couldn't like him but his character undergoes no changes like Darcy and Lizzie so I find his part of the story not as engaging. He just stays bad throughout, his 'wicked deeds' being slowly drip-fed out along the narrative.

Have to say though that I loved the Wickham character in 'Lost in Austen', he is such an intriguing person, full of surprises. I know it isn't strictly what Jane Austen wrote but it is a good wee series.

I've only just finished chapter VII of P&P and for some reason, having a bit of a hard time getting into it. Although I wasn't in love with S&S, I found the opening chapters grabbed me from the start. Not so much with this one. I'm hoping it's just my current state of mind and/or that things will get more interesting as the story evolves, since so many people I'd enjoy this one so much more than the first.

I finished the book last night and really enjoyed it. It was my first Austen. I really liked Darcy and could kinda feel for him. Although, Mr. Bennet was definitely my favorite character, for the most part.

This is a reread for me but I can't remember when I last read P&P which probably means it's been quite a while. I've just finished chapter 10 and so far I've found it a lot more satirical and less romance-y than I remembered.

Having read another novel set in the Regency period recently (Remarkable Creatures) has reminded me how strict the rules were about what women could do in that period. Elizabeth walking to Netherfield alone in chapter 7 is really not a socially acceptable thing to do and I think I'm realising on this reread how much Elizabeth pushed at the boundaries of what was considered socially acceptable or polite behaviour.

#20 I haven't started my re-read yet, but like you, Heather, it has been a long time since I last read it. But I think in general Austen is much more about gentle satire and much less about romance than many people seem to think. The 'romantic' plot, ie the journey towards finding a suitable marriage partner, is kind of a given; of course it is about a lot more than just romantic love in the modern sense (and sometimes is not at all about that and only about economic necessity and social convention - eg Charlotte and Mr Collins). It seems to me that this is the framework which gives Austen scope to examine and sometimes mock the attitudes and conventions that courtship and marriage entail - including having some characters who push, as Elizabeth does, at some of the boundaries.

#20/21 more about satire, less about romance - I completely agree - this is why I can never understand why people dub Jane Austen "chick-lit"...

>22 flissp: No car chases.

>23 norabelle414: - can just imagine carriages thundering down country lanes :)

I've just started my re-...-re-read. It made me smile when Mr Bennet asked Mrs B if she considered the forms of introduction and the stress laid on them as nonsense : in this day and age, it would be considered nonsense for a family (of ladies) not to be able to talk to another family if their father hadn't visited first and introduced himself.

To chime in on the satire vs. romance topic, I think Austen's work is primarily about satire. Too many of her characters are ridiculous (Mrs. Bennet), witty (Elizabeth), or mockable (Lady Catherine) to make it any sort of high romance. There are definitely romantic moments of her novel but I think this is more a reflection Jane writing of things which she knew. Courtship and marriage was the primary occupation for women and to marry for love AND fortune was the ideal situation, so to give her characters the best happy ending a little romance is required. But satire is definitely the bigger chunk of any of her works.

I'm fairly certain that the overwhelming "how romantic!!!" opinions about Pride & Prejudice are why I hate Darcy and Elizabeth so much. I went in expecting one thing, but it turned out to not match at all. It didn't help that I didn't even actually like them, though. (And I really need to get the book off my shelf to reread already. I finally got halfway through my other read with a horribly unlikable main character, so now I have a slot free.)

It makes me grateful that when I read Wuthering Heights, I hadn't been exposed to as much of the nonsense about Heathcliff and Cathy being a romantic and wonderful love affair (I started seeing that afterwards, though, and it was appalling). In fact, I don't think of Jane Eyre as a romantic love story, either, and I've seen it get grief over not being suitably happy for the romance readers...

Great discussion about the satire vs. Romance. I too was struck by that on my recent re-read, and really enjoyed the satirical aspect!

Although this was my first read of any Austen, I went in knowing it was satire. I mean, I understand that there is romance in the book, but it is definitely a satire. I guess I should thank my colleague the English teacher for giving me that heads up!

Keristars, Have to agree about the thinking on Wuthering Heights. I'd heard so much about how romantic and tragic the tale of Heathcliff and Cathy was but when I finally got round to reading it I discovered two horrible self-centered characters who made each other and other people absolutely miserable for most of the book. Romantic my foot!

Question for discussion: does anyone ever feel a bit bad for Mrs. Bennet? Sure she's ridiculous and ridiculously inappropriate but her husband's favourite past-time is doing his best to irritate her. Even for an oblivious woman, it's got to be a drag.

Briefly felt sorry for her during my last read of Pand P, but she's so danged irritating; talk about a complete mismatch; although if she hadn't married Bennet, heaven only knows what would have happened to her.

I'm up to the arrival of Mr. Collins. So far it does seem that he is at least teasing her, and that's how I've taken it so far. That is he has kept his relationship with his wife open and active even if a little contentious.

What I'll be looking for is whether there is anything, represented in the novel, that he could have done to alleviate the fears of his daughters about their financial future. I suspect that he'll come up short in 21st century terms.

Robert

I remember reading (or hearing a teacher or professor talk) about Mr. and Mrs. Bennett, and that there are some who see Mr. Bennett as the worse of the two. Mrs. Bennett, though irritating, is only trying to ensure her five (!) daughters' futures since they will inherit nothing and can't go out in the world to fend for themselves in any meaningful way. Mr. Bennett can be seen as a benevolent do-nothing - he's not bad, but it wouldn't hurt him to worry a bit more about his children. I am not sure I fully buy into this, but I am looking forward to re-reading P&P with this critique in mind and see what I think. I have a dim recollection that some of this is hinted at in the (not very good) Keira Knightley film version.

I remember reading (or hearing a teacher or professor talk) about Mr. and Mrs. Bennett, and that there are some who see Mr. Bennett as the worse of the two. Mrs. Bennett, though irritating, is only trying to ensure her five (!) daughters' futures since they will inherit nothing and can't go out in the world to fend for themselves in any meaningful way. Mr. Bennett can be seen as a benevolent do-nothing - he's not bad, but it wouldn't hurt him to worry a bit more about his children. I am not sure I fully buy into this,

What is it that you don't fully buy into?

I agree quite strongly, and I think this was clearer in the book than in the 96 film version. Mr. Bennett is lovable, and would make a charming friend. Mrs. Bennett on the other hand has horrific manners and would be an annoying friend. But she's right to worry about her daughters, and she must be very frustrated having no power to do anything about it, and watch her husband--who has some power--do nothing but sit in his library.

It's interesting because I much more sympathize with Mr. Bennet. I find Mrs. Bennet to be way overbearing and irritating. I think she meddles and gossips too much. Although, I can appreciate that this is a sign of the times in which Austen was writing.

>34 Nickelini: It's been too long since I read it (hope to start my re-read this weekend) to assert anything too strongly. But I do remember that Mr. Bennett gives his wife a hard time about visiting the Bingleys when they move in, but it turns out he had already gone, so that made me pause and think maybe he's not as clueless or uncaring as one might think.

It'll be interesting to see where my sympathy/understanding lays once I get into it again.

It's interesting because I much more sympathize with Mr. Bennet.

I think everyone does :-) But I don't think that makes him right.

But I do remember that Mr. Bennett gives his wife a hard time about visiting the Bingleys when they move in, but it turns out he had already gone, so that made me pause and think maybe he's not as clueless or uncaring as one might think.

That's a good point. And somewhere Austen says that he never expected to have five daughters, and by the time he figured out what a pickle they were in, it was too late to do anything about it. I still was surprised at how frustrated I was with his lack of concern--in the films he was more bumbling and lovable. In the book he was still lovable, but I wanted to kick his butt just a little.

Can someone explain to me why it is that Mr Collins is to inherit the estate via his father? I don't understand that part.

>39 Smiler69: Ilana - I don't understand all the intricacies, but some estates were structured (for lack of a better word) in such a way that they could not be willed to daughters (or any females for that matter). Mr. Collins, as the nearest male relation, would be in line to inherit the estate over the daughters.

Oh right, of course, why didn't I think of that? Makes my blood boil when I think about how little rights women had in those days, but then again, Austen wouldn't have had much to write about otherwise, right? ;-)

Wikipedia has pretty decent explanation of entails. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entail

I can provide more detail . . . land ownership was structured to maintain large estates. Therefore, it was inherited by the oldest son and not divided between the heirs (the right of primogeniture). To further protect Estates, they were entailed.This was a set of restrictions on what an owner could do with his estate. I'll just quote from What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew:

"The basis of wealth, status, and power in nineteenth-century England was fundamentally land, as it had been for centuries. And the overriding concern of the great landed families who dominated English life was to maintain their influence and affluence down through the years by transmitting their enormous landed estates intact, generation after generation, to their descendants."

"A girl should not inherit because if she remained single the line could die out and if she married the estate would pass in possession to someone outside the family."

"The restriction of entail . . . were a way of tying up the property so that the heir got only the income from the land--he couldn't sell or mortgage it. . In fact, the settlement was usually a deed giving the land to the eldest son, but only for use during his lifetime, his rights to the property being thus restricted or "entailed" (from the French tailler, meaning "to cut off"). . ."

"What if all the children were girls? . . . With daughters, as we have seen, the family name might disappear if they inherited the property, so what should be done in the situation? Quite often, the answer was that the deed of settlement or will entailing the property would provide for a lateral pass to another branch of the family that did have a young male. And this is what happens in Pride and Prejudice, where the obsequious Mr Collins inherits Mr Bennet's estate . . ."

The part I'm a little foggy on is the rule that allowed Lady Catherine to inherit her estate. I always got the impression that it was hers--not her deceased husband's.

Thanks for the information. I will go dive back into the book now armed with my newfound knowledge!

I'll try to explain what I know about entailed properties, hope it all makes sense.

Owning property Austen's day was also a means of income therefore the family didn't have to work as the property made a living that kept them solvent and they were then free to pursue education or whatever they wished. This situation gave the family more status within society, continuing on down through generations.

At any given time, the head of the family was in charge of the estate and could theoretically sell or divide the property up, thereby lessening the status for other family members and future generations. To try to keep the property intact within the family, it was passed down from male heir to male heir and only on to female heirs when there were no male ones living.

This person was always the eldest male in the family line and therefore the sense of duty was strong and properties were very rarely sold off or divided and dissipated.

If there were no male heirs then the property was usually divided equally among female siblings which did cause problems, and of course the property would be swallowed up into the estate of the husband's of the daughter's and therefore leave the family line completely. To prevent this, the heir apparent was also extended to other male relatives outside the immediate family and this explains Mr Collins.

In Persuasion Sir Walter Eilliot's property is entailed away from his daughters and onto his nephew so again a similar situation.

About Mr. Bennet: I don't really sympathize with him and agree with comments that he could exert more effort to secure his daughters' futures. But I think he also enjoys getting a rise out of Mrs. Bennet ... for example, by saying he won't go visit the Bingleys and then actually doing so. I saw that as his way of coping with being married to such a twit. I agree with Joyce (#38) that he comes across more bumbling/loving on screen. On my recent re-read of the book I also wanted to kick his butt a bit.

Not to divert us from the P&P discussion, but an entail is also the central issue in Downton Abbey, the fabulous mini-series recently broadcast on the BBC and PBS.

Re: entails.These could be broken under certain circumstances. That is what Mr. Bennett had planned to do. If he had had a son and he and that son were in agreement the entail could be broken giving the girls a share in the property. However after the five girls no son was born so there was no-one to agree with the breaking of the entail. Presumably Mr. Collins could have but that's not likely to happen is it!

And I don't think all property was entailed. Hence the mad scramblings in some Victorian novels to be "nice" to the ancient owner and thus pick up a piece of the pie. I've read in some other novels, too, that the physical property was entailed but the money wasn't, and that the onerous expense of keeping up one's family pile of stone could prove ruinous to the inheritor.

All quite difficult to sort out.

#43 > About Lady Catherine's estate, I just read the part in the book where she says that her property was not entailed. She kind of railed against the fee tail.
--BJ

#49 - Thanks! I sort of remember that. Now I wonder why or how her family kept the estate out of entail.

I may well be wrong here, but I thought that the entail only happened if some past ancestor had actually set it up to happen (to prevent the division of the property, as mentioned above) - hence the fact that it was difficult to get rid of once in place (although not impossible, see #47), but not every property was subject to the entail.

...and hence the fact that Lady Catherine de Burgh didn't have a problem.

I've also always assumed that the way Lady Catherine talks about the entail (her place vs the Bennetts) was subtly putting her on a par with Mrs Bennett. Austen's means of showing up the fact that her riches don't make her any less silly, they just make her superficially more respectable and, (until Lizzie comes along to disrupt everything), in less need of finding a suitable husband for her daughter. Of course she wants Anne to marry Mr Darcy, but at the end of the day, if she doesn't, Anne won't end up in penury as the Bennett daughters are likely to do.

Re Mr Bennett, well, I think we're supposed have more sympathy for him than Mrs Bennett (and, indeed, I personally do) - Lizzie is his favourite after all. However, no one is too good to be true and I think we are being given a bit of a cautionary tale about inappropriate marriages (a bit of a common theme of Austen's books) and also about the importance of self discipline.

He is an intelligent man, but he has married a very silly woman, who brings out the worst in him, and lived to regret it. He could have tried to bring out the best in her - or if not her then at least his children, but instead, he allows himself to become lazy in his duties and to take refuge in standing back at a distance and making fun of most of his family.

In many ways, Jane Austen is implying that inaction can be as bad as the wrong action - for example, he should have started saving for the future of his daughters, but he hasn't, because he assumed he would have a son (who would join with him in cutting off the entail when he was of age - and thus provide for his daughters). He should have made more of an effort to instill some discipline in his daughters, but he allows them to do what they like - with the consequence that the more sensible daughters Jane and Lizzie - and, in fact, also Mary do educate themselves, but Lydia and Kitty spend their time faffing around doing nothing. Instead of trying to do something about this, he just sits back and laughs.

While we laugh at Mr Bennett's ridicule of his wife and daughters, I think Austen is also trying to say that yes, this is funny and this man would probably be an amusing acquaintance, but his ridicule can also be inappropriate and have negative results. In a way, I feel she expects more of Mr Bennett than she does of Mrs Bennett due to his "superior understanding".

Perhaps the most telling description of Mr Bennett's character to me is one of his own comments towards the end of the book - when Lizzie tells him not to be too severe on himself following Lydia's disappearance:

"You may well warn me against such an evil. Human nature is so prone to fall into it! No, Lizzy, let me once in my life feel how much I have been to blame. I am not afraid of being overpowered by the impression. It will pass away soon enough."

Mrs Bennett would probably be a very tiresome woman and we are certainly invited to laugh at her, but she does, at the end of the day, want the best for her daughters.

Oooh, this has hyped me up for starting my reread again this weekend!

I read a big chunk of the book last night finishing where the search for Lydia has started.

There was in that reading a serious paragraph about marrying for love and then finding one's partner unsuitable; that was Mr. Bennett's circumstance. He was not just a distant paterfamilias; he was a deeply disappointed man, and it was not all his fault. He does have heartfelt obligation to his family as when he rushes off to London to trace down Lydia, one of his most foolish. He would rather indulge himself in his room, his library, but he does not.

I am troubled by the difference in Darcy's demeanor or the change in it. It feels forced even if explained. He had as a point of character a grumbling distance from things in the early ball, which shows up even in conversation with his friends, but becomes outright affable by the time he is encountered at Pemberley. I can accept it because I want to, but I think it is not very good writing, not very good development or exposition of character.

I am quite sure that I have read this book before. But I have no memory of Lydia's elopement. I don't remember what happened to Jane. I am, shamefully, looking for resolution of plot points and want to get to the end just to see what happens.

Robert

I always preferred Mr Bennet over Mrs but this thread raised a very good point that despite all of Mrs Bennet's personality defects scattered liberally throughout the book, she is very much concerned with the welfare of her daughter's and their futures and this is not a point I have picked up on before. It is so heavily cloaked in the ridiculous behaviour of the character that we almost miss it.

I'm sure it says somewhere in the book, or maybe just hints at it, that Mr Bennet chose his wife more for her beauty than her mind and spends the rest of his life regretting the decision. I do agree though that his active interest in his daughter's future's could have been more active and again, this was a point I hadn't picked up on before.

I do think though that both Mr and Mrs Bennet are equally culpable in regards to Lydia's elopement. The father was too happy to have her off his hands for a few weeks and the mother encouraged the daughter to go and have fun and enjoy the entertainment of the officers. Although, Lydia's character is so superficial (in part, a lack of education that someone else here mentioned) that she would've been easily swayed in most situations to behave inappropriately and so she too, is in part responsible for the outcome. The problem with that last point is that she doesn't see her elopement as a problem but rather an adventure.

Someone else mentioned that within this book, Austen seems to give us an example of so many of the struggles that people had to go through in her time and it is for these subtle issues that sit behind the main story of Lizzie and Darcy, that I love this book so much I guess and Austen's writing in general.

I am troubled by the difference in Darcy's demeanor or the change in it. It feels forced even if explained. He had as a point of character a grumbling distance from things in the early ball, which shows up even in conversation with his friends, but becomes outright affable by the time he is encountered at Pemberley. I can accept it because I want to, but I think it is not very good writing, not very good development or exposition of character.

You know, when I only had seen the film versions, I thought this too. But somehow the character conversion worked for me when I finally read the book. I do imagine that the earlier chilly traits were something that Darcy struggled with later in life (yes, I realize he actually has no later life, but in my mind . . . ). I don't image he was ever the life of the party!

Anyway, I just have to say that I'm really impressed and enjoying the level of conversation here. Everyone has such interesting and helpful comments!

#52> I am just at that same point of the book, and to me the transition worked. After he made that horrible proposal and she lets him have it, it was like a light dawned. He saw himself for the first time as others see him. Having so much, it is possible that others just fawned over him in his presence to benefit from his wealth. Here is the first person to tell him what she really thinks. Realizing how harsh his words were, he tries to rectify things with the letter. Seeing her again at Pemberley, he might think that she doesn't feel so harshly towards him now or she wouldn't be there. And he wants to do better this time, because he really does care for her.

Maybe I am just reading too much into it because I love the book so much. I am thoroughly enjoying this book. :)
--BJ

>54 Nickelini:: (yes, I realize he actually has no later life, but in my mind . . . ). LOL, I do that too !!!

Great to read these discussions! I think I will not reread the book but relisten it this time - and see if that makes a different experience :-)

Just curious: earlier in this thread some people talked about comparing P&P to Portrait of a Lady and I was wondering, why this specific comparison?

>57 celiacardun:: There is also a group read of The Portrait of a Lady happening as we speak, so some people are reading both books concurrently.

#55> I just finished the book, and I was reading a little too much into things. :) Still love the book. It was a great read!
--BJ

>59 billiejean: BJ, I don't think you read too much into it. I really agree with your take on it.

I just finished and it occurs to me I have not actually read P&P since high school. I've seen the various film versions so many times, I guess I felt like I had read it at least a few times. What really struck me in re-reading it was the tone - I got a lot more of a morality or cautionary tale out of it. Obviously, there is also a lot of humor, and I still love the romantic aspect of Lizzie and Darcy's story - but there is also much moralizing on Austen's part - I don't mean preachy or moralizing in that sense. I didn't remember that aspect of the story, or it didn't occur to me back when I was a teenager.

Also, does anyone else find Jane Bennett incredibly annoying? I've never understood how someone of Lizzie's wit and intelligence could have such affection for such a simpering, insipid creature. I often wished I could slap her.

I've had to skip about here and there as I'm not quite as far ahead as some commenters, so hope I won't be redundant with my question/comment.

I'd like to know how it came to be that Lizzie and her relations came to visit Darcy's estate. I didn't realize the well to do listed their estates as tourist attractions back then. And did people really point out to each other the cost of furniture in their houses? How tacky! I thought only the nouveau riche did that sort of thing!

61- I had heard (when I visited England) that it was customary when traveling in those days to take tours of great houses...especially if the owners were not there. But even if they were there, I believe tours were still admitted, most of the time, but they closed off the family's personal rooms.

I think it was like that in Russia too.

>61 Smiler69: Touring large houses was actually quite common. Austen's novels were written before museums were the major centre for collecting cultural artifacts. A great deal of important artworks were kept in private residences. The same can be said of books as public libraries were not really a thing yet either.

61> I happened to just get to that spot. In the P&P I borrowed from the library, the notes say for that section: Far from being a modern phenomenon, tourist visits to 'stately homes' became popular in the eighteenth century, and guide books, illustrated with prints and giving details of the owners, were published. See, for example, "Seats of the Nobility and Gentry in Great Britain and Wales", Engraved by W. Angus. From Pictures and Drawings by the most Eminent Artists (London, 1787)."

Thanks for the feedback. Though I really had to ask myself what rooms were off limits if they showed even the bedrooms!

I took great delight in Elizabeth's rebuttal of Lady Catherine, and that has stuck with me. But it made Elizabeth a quintessentially independent agent. Although she acted on her own accord in pairing with Darcy she sacrificed her independence in becoming the centerpiece of Pemberley. Unlike Darcy she had to repudiate her early actions telling herself not even to remember them, while Darcy merely explained his actions, and they stood as part of his character.

This kind of thing is mentioned in criticism as part of the subjugation of women at the time, but I don't think that is a sufficient explanation. I think that people of the wrong class, and the set of women may be taken as a kind of class although we don't hear it taken that way, were denied validity. Furthermore if Austen is as attentive as I think she was, she would have seen the dismissal of the validity of the emotional life of many men; we see a hint of this in the almost universal rejection of Mr. Collins. It is a horror, but a life well lived can make up for a lot of the horror.

***

In some of the notes on Austen's life I saw that she sat at dinner among strangers fairly silent and would speak only when she thought there was sufficient content to merit her participation. I wonder if self-reflection allowed her to make the transition between the two phases of Darcy's persona that troubled me above.

Robert

What fabulous discussion! A member on another post I've been following told me about the Austenathon.

I'm interested in the remarks about the Mr/Mrs Bennett and Lady Catherine deBurgh. As others have said, in spite of the fact that she is the most annoying creature, Mrs Bennett does at least take responsibility for the welfare of her daughters seriously. The father, while pleasant (book and films) really does fall short here. I don't think it has anything to do with how he feels about his daughters; I think perhaps he is married to a woman like Mrs Bennett because he is content to remain in the background (doesn't excuse him, however).

Thanks to those commenting on how Lady Catherine manages to have an estate. I'd read about the inheritance of property in uni, but that is LONG ago. I'm still not quite clear to be honest on the circumstances around Lady Catherine.

I expect everyone here has viewed BBC's film Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. If not, you must! That's an annual celebration for me!

I have that production and another on DVD. I'll watch them after I watch the two versions of Sense and Sensibility that I have.

Mr. Bennett married Mrs. Bennett because he was smitten. It turned out that they were not an apt couple, and he lived his life with that burden, under which he sought the comfort of his library. He had had a comfortable and not far fetched plan to provide for his offspring, but, like Zeus, was dealt with by fate.

Robert

lit_chick/67: Love that 5 hour BBC Pride and Prejudice! It's an annual celebration for me, as well, and I'd just watched it last month for my birthday. I had heard from many sources that it was the most faithful to the book. After seeing it for the first time, I started spending much too much time at the Republic of Pemberley website and then grabbed every version of every Austen film that I could find. (The early black and white with Greer Garson I hate with a purple passion for the way it twisted things after Lady Catherine's visit to Longbourne.) But until this group read, I had never READ Jane Austen!

Throughout the book, I found myself hearing the pages in the voices of those BBC actors. I just finished P&P last night and loved it even more than the movie. I kept finding passages that should have been in the movie and after reading one portion, a section in the movie that should not have been included. But I wasn't consulted, so shall continue to love that movie anyway. :-)

@69 What a wonderful idea to make my annual celebration of BBC's Pride and Prejudice a birthday gift! I too find that when I read P&P now, I hear the voices of the BBC actors. I even insert *smouldering looks* where I deem them appropriate.

Is there a lead thread for the Austenathon? If so, could someone please point me in that direction. What's after P&P, and when? Thanks : ).

>71 lit_chick: I believe the plan was to read Austen's books in publication order, one every two months. So the next one should be Mansfield Park around May 15.

>71 lit_chick: I didn't bookmark the original thread, but #72 is correct. The plan was to read them in order of publication beginning on the 15th of the odd numbered months, giving people 6 weeks to finish (if desired). Many are beginning them earlier in the month. Mansfield Park should be May 15-June. Emma would be July 15-August. Northanger Abbey would be September 15-October. Persuasion will wrap it up November 15-December.

Thanks for listing that all out for us. :)
--BJ

#73 Yes, thanks for that. It's useful having a clear schedule like that. Which makes me wonder, should we have an Austenathon Main Thread where we could post that information? I'll ask the people to vote on it:

...not looking forward to the Mansfield Park reread quite so much as the others...

It's been years since I read Mansfield Park, but I don't remember disliking it.

Ah, I don't dislike it, but it is my least favourite.

I've seen the movie Mansfield Park a couple of times. It's quite good ... I recommend.

#79 Which one - there are 3?

If you mean the 1999 one with Frances O'Connor and Johnny Lee Miller (as Edmund), I'll agree, it's great fun, but while not completely different, really doesn't bear a whole lot of relation to the book (I still like it though ;o) - Fanny is a lot less irritating...)

The 2007 ITV one with Billie Piper (as Fanny) is (largely) more accurate story-wise, but I have to say, I disliked it intensely and you can guess that most of the actors haven't read the book, because the majority of the characters completely miss their own points (actually, this is partially true of the 1999 one too, but it's more forgivable, for some reason - better directed perhaps).

There was also a BBC one in 1983 with Nicholas Farrell (as Edmund), which was (given when it was made) probably a lot closer to the book than either of them (definitely the characters were), but it's been such a long time since I've seen it, I can't remember that clearly - as with (although not as badly as) the BBC Sense and Sensibility of the same era (1981), it's quite slow moving (a factor of when it was made I think)...

Ok, because I love to stir up conversation (particularly when it comes to Austen), I offer the following:

Which letter included in P&P is your favourite? For me it's a tie between Darcy's letter to Elizabeth (some of the best exposition ever done) and Mr. Bennet's final letter to Mr. Collins after Darcy and Elizabeth's engagement.

Both of those are excellent, as is Mr. Collins' letter to Mr. Bennett regarding the Lydia/Wickham situation.

However, I really think Austen reached her epistolary heights with Wentworth's letter to Anne in Persuasion :-)

>82 katiekrug: So true!

80 I mean the 1999 film. It's the only one I've seen; in fact, I didn't even know there were three!

I'm with flissp on the Mansfield Parks. The 1999 was a pretty film but didn't seem very true to the book. I don't remember which of the others I've seen. They may have been more 'correct' but not as enjoyable, as the long P&P was. I'd love to see it remade.

I've just posted the Austenathon Main Thread for those interested. It can also be found on the 75ers wiki page.

#84 Yep, that's the one I like the best, even though it's not true to the book ;o)

Re the letters, hmmm, without having got round to rereading yet, I think I have to agree with #82 katiekrug on Mr Collins letter following Lydia's elopement with Wickham...

...and I have to admit that Captain Wentworth's letter makes me go a tad gooey :o)

#81 - Perhaps it is because I once found myself in the situation where I felt I had to persuade/prove myself to my future spouse, but I like Darcy's letter to Elizabeth. There is something slightly argumentative about his tone, not in a bad way, that draws me to it. I guess argumentative is a bad word, self-advocating? I'm not sure sure. Whatever the word is, there is quality to that letter that I connect with and deeply enjoyed reading.

I agree with weejane above. Darcy's letter had quite an impact on me too. It was the first time he truly revealed himself to both Lizzie and the reader, and what revelations too!

Slightly tangential but enjoyable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RFC3eKx2m0

90 = :-)

#81 - I never realized, until your question, just how many letters there are in Pride and Prejudice. Much of the plot is related that way, and this rereading made me want to return to Lady Susan, which is entirely epistolary. I'm trying to remember if the rest of Austen's novels have this much correspondance in them. I will definitely keep this in mind as we read through the others this year. I love Darcy's letter to Elizabeth, but I also really enjoy Lydia's letter when she runs away with Wickham - that girl is such an idiot! I know she is only sixteen, but still...

Woop woop. Finished P&P last night and whether the book is meant to be satire from one cover to the next, or a love story, I have to confess...I feel myself a little in love (presumably in the book, not particularly in Mr. Darcy;)

This is a very interesting discussion thread, and I'll be back with comments as soon is I can collect my thoughts!

#92 You know I'd just been thinking the same thing about Lydia's letter, although I'm going to keep Mr Collins' of the same period marginally ahead ;o) ...

From memory, I'm pretty sure that there are nothing like as many letters in the rest of her novels. Of course, the original version of S&S ("Elinor & Marianne") was supposed to be epistolary too and that wasn't written long after Lady Susan.

Maybe we're seeing a progression of her writing style here, from the entirely epistolary Lady Susan, to "Elinor & Marianne", to "First Impressions" (the earlier version of P&P) - and then on to S&S - fewer letters each time?

#94 - makes sense, re: progression of her writing. Pride and Prejudice is known for its use of dialog too - I guess novels before it had much less dialog, and way more narrative. I will be interested to see how the rest of her novels change, in terms of letters, dialog, narration, etc.

One other thing I noticed is that P&P shows the progression of the same types of characters we saw in S&S. Marianne's lack of sense is magnified in Lydia, Willoughby's conduct with Eliza Williams is like Wickham's treatment of Georgiana Darcy, and emotional Mrs. Dashwood is a lesser version of Mrs. Bennet.

>95 Cait86: Austen definitely has her archetypal set of characters that she uses in each of her novels. They're always a little different in each book but they're always there.

Finished just in time for the end of the March TIOLI. Ah how I love P&P ;o) - every time I read it I take away something different.

I'm reverting to my favourite letter being Mr Collins to Mr Bennett on Lydia's elopement. So wonderfully hypocritical.

It occurred to me this time round that this is probably the wittiest of her books - in nearly every other line there's a subtle barb.

I think someone above mentioned that they find Jane a bit of a drip - I have to admit that I used to agree with this, but I don't know, this time I looked out for it and I don't really think we see quite enough of her personality to see this in many ways - which would fit with her character as someone who doesn't show her emotions to the world. I didn't find her as irritating as I have in the past.

Does anyone else pity Mary though? I always have. She's such a prig, but she has 4 sisters, all of whom are prettier than her and more loved (by one or other parent) than her - the two eldest go off together and the two youngest go off together. Austen wants us to laugh at her, I think, and we do, but I always feel a little bad about it...

I liked Jane, but then I also really liked Esther in Bleak House and lots of people don't like her. And I did feel sorry for Mary, but sometimes she would bring things on herself.
--BJ

No, I'm an Esther fan too ;o)

Oh, I absolutely agree that Mary brings it on herself, but you can sort of see how she'd end up that way...

#97: I have actually always like Jane, though this time around i viewed her a little more critical because of the comment above. My new view did not alter my opinion of her, even if she at some times seems "too good to be true" (and she is a fictional character). I really like Jane and Mr. Bingley as a couple.

And then there is Mary. In my opinion she might actually be one of the more interesting characters, because we do not really get to know her. It seems like she is suffering from the middle child syndrome, with elder sisters more beautiful than her, and younger sisters who are more lively and popular. The only way for her to get any attention is by her skills/knowledge. She is not looked upon as a beauty and and maybe becomes her defense, the wall she hides behind, telling herself "at least I'm better at playing the pianoforte" or "at least I am smarter than the others". And maybe it is her way of showing that she is worth something too, not just her good looking sisters who get all the attention. I just wish Mary did not end up as her mothers companion, I think that would have been a good punishment for Lydia, who I do not really like at all.

Oh, and many of the letters were good in the book, and one of my favourites was Mr. Bennets letter to Mr Collins to announce Lizzy's engagement to Darcy. Almost like a mocking text message: "Oh, btw, Lizzy is engaged to Mr Darcy and is going to be filthy rich! Beat that!"

Good punishment for Lydia to end up her mother's companion! I like that!
--BJ

I don't feel bad for Mary when reading P&P but I do every time I watch the adaptation with Keira Knightley. Occasionally the actress playing Mary will give Mr. Collins these longing looks and you feel bad for her because they'd probably be a decent match but she's totally ignored. My mom read a novel last year (?) that was entirely about Mary Bennet following P&P and gave her some serious character development.

Oh, Mary. If only she'd married Mr. Collins. I agree entirely. They could have spent the evenings reading each other sententious bits out of improving books and addressing each other about Morals. I'm sure Mary could even have worked up a convincing cringe for Lady C de B.

And what about Kitty, the not-very-anything sister?

There were some good notes on entails above. My understanding is that you could only entail an estate for about two generations. Then, you depended on your to extort grandson your great-grandson's assent to re-entail the estate so his allowance wouldn't be cut off. :-)

Darcy and Lizzie - it's clear that Darcy's an unhappy man, I think. He blames himself for his sister's experience with Wickham, he's uncomfortable in society, and we see him surrounded with illiberal and narrow minds like Lady C de B and Miss Bingley. He takes his responsibilities seriously. He must have lost his parents quite young, as he seems to have been his sister's guardian for some time. I think it's clear that his love for Elizabeth, and her easy intelligence, snap him out of his petrification, and that her influence will be excellent for him.

Lizzie isn't unhappy in her life, but her future is unpromising. It's likely she would have found herself companioning her mother, living under the roof of a sister's husband, or making an unadventageous marriage to avoid one of the two previous fates. She's not accomplished enough or desperate enough to be a governness, so that's about it. Imagine living with Lydia and Wickham, or with Mary and whatever she landed. Dear god, imagine living with Mrs. Bennett in reduced circumstances.

Beyond that, Lizzie is taught to be more circumspect when judging people, but I don't think she covers as much character development ground as, say, Emma.

it's clear that Darcy's an unhappy man, I think. He blames himself for his sister's experience with Wickham, he's uncomfortable in society, and we see him surrounded with illiberal and narrow minds like Lady C de B and Miss Bingley. He takes his responsibilities seriously. He must have lost his parents quite young, as he seems to have been his sister's guardian for some time. I think it's clear that his love for Elizabeth, and her easy intelligence, snap him out of his petrification, and that her influence will be excellent for him.

Oh, I like that. Great insight!

#102: I guess that's how I see Mary most of the time. The misunderstood child who does not really fit in, and can not rely on either her sisters or parents for understanding, entertainment or friendship.

#103: I have never thought of Darcy as unhappy, but I have wondered why he was dragging the Bingley sisters along so often, though he was visiting the Bingleys at Netherfield. I guess it was fairly common for those kinds of parties to stay together for several weeks at the time. As Fliss mentioned in #97:

Does anyone else pity Mary though? I always have. She's such a prig, but she has 4 sisters, all of whom are prettier than her and more loved (by one or other parent) than her - the two eldest go off together and the two youngest go off together. Austen wants us to laugh at her, I think, and we do, but I always feel a little bad about it...

Maybe Austen portrayed Mary as a prig in such an extend, because she wanted to show the general treatment of girls in similar situations. Mary was the least likely to marry, and therefore not as important as her sisters. I just feel like there is more to Mary than we as readers get to know.

#103: I suspect Kitty, under the influence of her sisters Lizzie and Jane, would make a good match in time.

I am beginning to get more ... disappointed ... In Mr Bennett every time I re-read P&P. He shouldn't have left it so late to secure the future of his 5 daughters (which he eventually never did), and he really shouldn't have embarrassed Mary (when she was playing the piano). I've always liked his sense of humour and (of course) his partiality for Lizzie.

Eta: they're reshowing 'Lost in Austen' on cable. This week, Mr. Collins made his appearance, and - oh!- but he's gross! They show many of the characters in a different light, but I still shudder when I think of him on TV.

I agree with cynara in #103. Darcy needed Lizzie to lighten his outlook and make him see that life is really quite pleasant.

I love how Lizzie stood up to the horrid Lady Catherine and her incredibly rude, bullying ways. She's just as bad as Mrs. Bennett, though in the opposite direction; however, she's just as vulgar, with her prying, inappropriate questions and remarks. At least Mrs. B. tends to be just boring, rather than completely obnoxious.

Mr. Bennett: Ugh. I think he's irresponsible and so acidic as to not be funny. Mary: yes, poor thing, to be stuck by herself, not either parent's favorite, no sister to have a special bond with, just the odd girl out. Good catch on what a perfect match she would have been for Mr. Collins1

I liked this book much better on this, my second read. I smiled all the way through the last 50 pages or so. Amusing and delightful, if not in the heavyweight meaningful category.

#107, That is one of my favourite scenes ever. "That makes your ladyship's state more pitiable, but it shall have no effect upon me." Such an incomparable mixture of politeness, insolence, and wit. Lady Catherine never knew what hit her.

(Edit: and yes, I've always thought that Lady Catherine's oblivious arrogance and rudeness went a long way towards levelling the playing field between Elizabeth and Darcy; he may sniff at her mother, but she's seen his aunt. I like to think that Elizabeth's visit to Rosings makes him see the old harridan through new eyes, and that he's dying inwardly.)

He may sniff at her mother, but she's seen his aunt.

I laughed and laughed when I read that. Hilarious!
--BJ

I had not made that connection before, but it makes so much sense!

"and though Mrs. Collins has no instrument, she is very welcome, as I have often told her, to come to Rosings every day, and play on the piano forte in Mrs. Jenkinson's room. She would be in nobody's way, you know, in that part of the house.''

Huge slam outta nowhere on Mrs. Jenkinson. And then Darcy has the nerve to lecture Elizabeth about the degradation of associating with her family.

Thank you all for helping me get so much out of my re-read of this book! It has been a very successful group read. :)

#108 & 111: I've never thought of it that way, or I always thought the comment rude (Lady Cathrine about Mrs. Jenkinson), but I definitely see what you mean. Lady Cathrine is absolutely the most obnoxious person in the book.

Elizabeth's comment to Lady Cathrine is actually very admirable, come to think of it. I bet there's not many girls who would have the balls to pull it off, me included! I would have been appalled by her behavior, but not sure if I could have answered back.

And, even though I said Lydia's punishment should be to become her mothers companion for life, I have to admit I would rather choose to be a companion to the foolish Mrs. Bennet, than cursed to spend a lifetime at Rosings with Lady Cathrine. At least there is nothing evil in Mrs. Bennet, she just does not know any better.

It seems to me that Mrs. Bennett would lose track of you sometimes; Lady Catherine would always know exactly where you were and what you were doing.

#111: At least Darcy has the good grace to be embarassed by his aunt's comment.
Mr. Darcy looked a little ashamed of his aunt's ill–breeding, and made no answer

#113: Totally agree, at least with Mrs Bennet you'll have some amusement. With Lady Catherine, you'll be stuck with an obnoxious busybody who thinkshe knows it all
She inquired into Charlotte's domestic concerns familiarly and minutely, gave her a great deal of advice as to the management of them all

I would take Mrs. Bennet over Lady Catherine ANY day! :)

I'll have to see how I feel about it this time around, but the last time, I thought that they're pretty much the same, BUT because Lady C comes from an old family with loadsa dosh, she's allowed to get away with it, since people are so in awe of her position, whereas they look down on poor old Mrs B.

>117 humouress: SO true.

They're similar in their obliviousness, but I think Lacy C's are born of a blinding arrogance.

Mrs. B. is as imperceptive and self-centered, but although she has no sense of decorum, she's a little less loathsome. For some reason I can't blame her for her own faults. I assume she was raised poorly and never expected to be very intelligent or self-controlled. Some people rise above that, like Elizabeth and Jane, and some people don't, like Lydia. But then, does the same apply to Lady C?

I'm actually not convinced that Lydia being stuck with her mother would be such a great punishment for her - certainly not after the death of Mr Bennett anyway - Mrs Bennett is so silly, she would probably continue to allow Lydia to flaunt and flirt - she wouldn't really end up shut away. That said, I don't think her elder sisters would have allowed that to happen...

>120 flissp: I have to agree with you. Lydia is Mrs. Bennet's favourite and I shudder to think of the ridiculous antics the two of them would get into.

I just finished my reread of the book and was this time struck by the many times that Jane Austen just lets the characters speak for themselves and be ridiculous. In the many films you see their face, their acting, and the reactions of the people around it. In the book you just read a very serious but silly statement of Mr Collins and you just have to imagine everything around it. I like that, it keeps your mind active.

I also wondered this time why Darcy came to see Elizabeth in the inn in Lambton on the morning of the dinner at Pemberley. Why would he do that as they would see each other that afternoon? In one of the fanfiction books that this was interpreted as Darcy wanting to make her another offer (why otherwise would he come alone) - of course thwarted this time by the unfortunate news from Longbourne. I wonder whether that might be true. Any thoughts?

#108 such a great observation I hadn't made yet. Yes, they both have relations to cringe for, the difference is that one has money... I wonder though whether Jane Austen really had this fact in mind to have it work on Darcy, because there's not yet a change in him at Rosings when he has seen the behaviour of his aunt and is 'a little ashamed', and when Lady C. goes to see Lizzy he's already convinced.

And I love the confrontation scene between Lizzy and Catherine de Bourgh - such presence of mind and such perfect answers! Wish I had that talent :-)

#122 - thank you! Good points, yourself.

Good question about Darcy's visit to Lambton. It could be? He would expect to find her with her aunt & uncle, but it's possible he could have had some opportunity to talk privately with her. It would lack a certain climactic romance, but that doesn't matter to the author if it's a doomed attempt anyway.

About Darcy's embarrassment re. his loathsome aunt; while Austen tells us he feels it, I don't think he's classing it in the same category as Mrs. Bennett's behaviour. Also, Lizzie's 'inferiority' and his 'degradation' in marrying her (oh, you silver-tongued devil, Mr. Darcy!) spring partly from her immediate family's vulgarity, but also their relative poverty (Mr. B. only has 2,000 per year, as opposed to Mr. Darcy's famous 10,000, and a family of six to support), and from her uncle, who is "in trade" and lives in a mercantile area of London.

Now, Darcy later meets this detestable uncle, and it's partly his polite, warm treatment of her least socially acceptable relation (married to a daughter of one of his tenants, by god) that starts Lizzie's head spinning. Of course, for his part, Darcy learns that the Gardiners (such a solid middle-class name) are kind people with correct manners and real warmth.

Anyway, all that to say that it's the financial station and the money-grubbing relatives that turn Darcy's stomach as much as "and that shall throw the girls into the paths of other rich men" and "you have delighted us long enough."

#122: Good point! I have never thought about it before, why he came to see her I mean.

#123: Do you know how much 10,000 a year actually is worth today? I have always wondered how much it is supposed to be (in a scale I can understand).

And I have wondered what Mr. Bennet did to make Mr. Darcy look upon him as vulgar. Was it his comment to Mary "you have delighted us long enough"? Maybe I am missing the meaning, since English is not my first language, but I never seemed to understand that one. It does seem a bit rude comment to give a daughter in front of so many people, but what would the proper way have been?

The short answer is that how we make things and what we buy has changed so much that we really can't figure it out. Does anyone else recall the range given in What Charles Dickens etc.? Was it something like one pound then equals between $20 and $100 now? That book is a few years old now, too.

When you consider how cheap servants were in the early part of the century, even two thousand pounds could go quite a long way.

#124 - once she'd started playing, I can't think of anything short of faking an aneurysm that might have served. I suppose a more socially adept man might have escorted her from the piano before she'd started playing, or done the same plus subtle lecture after the second piece.

I've dug out my The Annotated Pride and Prejudice, which says ten thousand pounds would have put Darcy in the top one or two hundred wealthiest men in England; together with Pemberly, he might have been at least three times as wealthy as Bingley. A pound then could be equivalent to forty pounds now, and Bingley might be worth £150,000 - £200,000 a year.

As for the comment to Mary, I suppose in this day and age of blunt speaking, it would be reasonably subtle, but maybe a bit to blatant for those times? My book suggests it insults Mary with sarcasm (because she didn't play well), insults other ladies by imputing vanity as the reason for playing, and he speaks aloud, rather than going over to her, so other people can hear him.

I had the opportunity to watch the Keira Knightley movie this weekend--it was on TV, but labeled as the Greer Garson/Laurence Olivier which I have seen once before and remember mainly for the way in which the second half of the book was mostly eliminated. Anyway, it was good to see it to see what people have been talking about. Some things were well done, but others were not. Mr. Bingley bursting into Jane's bedroom to greet Lizzie at Netherfield, Mr. Darcy striding across the moor with open neckline, the proposal scene being at a pagoda in the rain, the many shots of Lizzie's fine eyes...

However, I then spent two afternoons with the A&E/BBC mini-series again--how totally delightful. That production certainly interprets Mr. Darcy's visit to the inn in Lambdon as a desire to renew his offer. I have been basking in the glow and mental reruns all week.

I certainly would not have had the presence of mind and spunk to deal with Lady Catherine as Lizzie did--I think this is the scene where I admire her the most.

The 1943 Greer Garson/Laurence Olivier version is my favorite of all of the film adaptations, in the way that it was the only one I've been able to sit through long enough to see the whole thing. ;) The fact that they completely disregarded so much of the historical setting and chopped away so many parts of the books to make it almost an entirely new story did a lot for me — but if there's one thing I hate, it's a film adaptation that is close to being accurate, but completely not (no hats, completely modern hairstyles, modern manners...). I say just do away with those trappings!

 

I had to stop reading at 100 pages out of 360 in my B&N edition, because I'm just not into the story at all. I never have been, but thought I'd try it again, since the first time I read it was before I was terribly familiar with the context. Unfortunately, it's still not doing anything for me, even if I do like Collins and Wickham and Lydia (they're interesting to read about, even if not likeable!).

123 - I think Mr Bennett's vulgarities in Darcy's mind come from the other part of his announcement aloud to Mary: "That will do extremely well, child. You have delighted us long enough. Let the other young ladies have time to exhibit."

I take the meaning here that there are plenty of rich and eligible men at the ball at Netherfield (2 especially) and he is making sure that all his daughters have a chance to attract attention. Not delicately done at all and I can see why Darcy, who possibly has had to put up with women fawning over him in the past for his money, will see this display as vulgar.

As to why Darcy takes it upon himself to visit Elizabeth at Lambton that morning, Austen really leaves it completely up to our imaginations. I've always thought that it is part of his trying more in company to please Lizzie, to practice his new-found social skills, and to simply spend time in Lizzie's company because he clearly still adores her as evidenced from the night before.

I like the way the BBC version hints that he was about to propose again, but I just love that production full-stop.

Hmm I'll have to see the 1995 version again to see how it hints at a proposal (oh what a punishment!).

#129 interesting point about Darcy interpreting Mr Bennet's remark that he would like his other daughters to show off (which I don't think he intended with his remark, just being sarcastic about females showing off in general), but it would indeed come across as vulgar to Darcy.

Another thing I was wondering about was the way the proposal of Bingley went in the end. There was a lot of Mrs Bennet trying to get everyone away from Jane and Bingley, with Lizzy rushing back again each time to save her sister (while she did suspect that they were both in love and thus would not need actual saving). While I get that it's not the proper way to have this done, I was wondering what the proper way would have been. Would Bingley have had to pluck up the courage to ask for a private interview with Jane if Mrs Bennet hadn't helped him like she did? Or go out for a walk and try to get separated from the rest like Darcy and Lizzy did?

It's very interesting though that a lot of what Mrs Bennett does is 'not done' but still quite effective... Would the same be accomplished if Mrs Bennett hadn't been there?

I get the impression that if it were a love match, the couple would come to an agreement, and then apply to the lady's parents, with the gentleman going to her father first, but if it were more formal, the man might get the parental consent before approaching the lady.

I think Lizzie kept going back because Jane asked her to, but she may not have hurried too much, because she knew that Jane did really want Bingley to propose :)

So maybe Mrs B's machinations just moved things along in that instance.
It brings to mind 'Lost in Austen' where the modern day heroine makes a right royal bungle of things, even knowing the story backwards; by trying to get the right characters together, she puts her foot in even deeper.

It does seem a bit self-defeating - on one hand, the couple needs just five minutes alone to come to an agreement. Everyone wants them to, but the impropriety of leaving them alone makes it almost impossible. Lizzie is truly embarrassed on Jane's behalf, as if the family is dressing Jane in a tank top and jeggings & pushing her into Bingley's lap.

Really, a small drawing-room visit wasn't the place for this kind of thing - I believe one sought privacy in numbers, and the sort of event where a man might properly escort a female and have a quiet conversation -balls, house visits, and the country walks that feature so prominently in P&P and in Persuasion (and Mansfield Park, come to think of it, when everyone's thrashing around on the wooded paths and getting in trouble). Later in the century the rules of propriety got even stricter, and you wouldn't have seen Lizzie walking alone to Netherfield.

>132 Cynara: Lizzie is truly embarrassed on Jane's behalf, as if the family is dressing Jane in a tank top and jeggings & pushing her into Bingley's lap. That made me laugh so hard.

I just finished reading Pride and Prejudice for the frist time and I know that most people prefer it over Sense and Sensibility but for some reason I prefer S&S. I liked the characters better and thought that the satire was better. I did enjoy P&P and can't wait till the next read.

One of the blogs I follow posted a fictitious conversation between the married Elizabeth Bennet and Jane Eyre. It amused me, so I thought I'd share: http://literarysluts.com/?p=2300

When Elizabeth tells Lady Catherine that even her younger sisters are out before the eldest are married, I suppose Jane Austen is criticising their upbringing, given Lydia's later behaviour?

Good question. I don't know. Elizabeth's reply, I think, admits that Kitty and Lydia are maybe a bit young to be "much in company." You're right that Lydia's elopement shows that she doesn't have the good sense to handle this freedom to meet young men, and it almost certainly wouldn't have happened if she hadn't been 'out'.

The economic reason for that custom, as I understand it, is to limit the number of marriageable young women on the market, i.e. making sure the elderly 20-yr olds like Elizabeth have a fair chance to catch a bachelor before her sparkly young sisters grab them all. Maybe it's a mark of her parents' lack of concern for their elder daughters and their desperation to marry any of them off, in any order at all?

Jane Austen does seem to like the Gardiners, though she doesn't say much about them (maybe she based them on people she personally knew, and admired?).

I wonder how Mr Gardiner, being, I assume, a much younger (and only?) brother of Mrs Bennet and Mrs Philips, turned out so sensibly that Darcy preferred dealing with him instead of Mr Bennet in Lydia's case?

>138 humouress: I think part of the reason was that Mr Bennet had put Mr Gardiner in charge of the search for Lydia when Mr Bennet left London, thus making Mr Gardiner the most logical person to talk to. In addition, given their positive interactions at Pemberley, Mr Darcy has a better opinion of Elizabeth's uncle as opposed to her father (at least based on some of the things he says during his first proposal). Plus, Mr Darcy is still rather reserved and I doubt he would want to deal with accompanying issue of Mrs Bennet if he had gone to Mr Bennet directly.

I had thought that he waited for Mr Bennet to leave London before going to Mr Gardiner, though I didn't spot that bit this time. But I was more intrigued by the fact that, even though he has two such vapid sisters, Mr Gardiner is one of the most (how to put it?) respectable people in the book, on par with Elizabeth and Jane. Mind you, in spite of such a family, they turned out well, too.

I suppose that's a theme in the book - how true gentility isn't necessarily conferred by gentle birth.
Not that Austen was some sort of radical anarchist; I think Emma makes it clear that class distinctions are there for a reason.

I suppose that latter day sequels to Jane Austen novels are no longer rare, but that P. D. James was writing one struck me as interesting. It is to be called Death Comes to Pemberley.

Robert

Wow, I didn't realize she's 91! Pretty impressive. I like the victim she picked. :-)

I wish it was Lydia who was killed :)

Hah! ROTFL - you got me, Katie!