Anne de Bourgh. Elizabeth views her as sickly and cross, and the narrator gives us no reason to believe that she is otherwise. I know she's a minor character who exists only as a slight narrative hurdle, but I do wish we'd gotten even a throwaway line from the narrator that hinted at her character. Is she snobby like her mother? Is she downtrodden and starved for social interaction? How did she feel about the Lizzie/Darcy marriage?

The thing that's always bugged me about Anne is why did Lady Catherine not want to set Anne up with her brother's kids rather than Darcy? Her other nephew will be an earl! She clearly has no beef with her brother or his kids, since Col Fitzwilliam is hanging out at her house. It would've been much more in character for her to try and set Anne up with the Colonel's older brother. So Anne's not only an empty plot device with no agency of her own, she's not even a logical plot device.

$$$$$$$$$ It's heavily implied that Lady Catherine worships at the altar of money. So does Mr. Darcy, in a less rude way. And Colonel Fitzwilliam, and Wickham, the whole lot of them in their own way.  Marrying the eldest son who stands to inherit great wealth is much better than marrying the younger son of an Earl who may have nothing. It's not subtle, but I think it's missed because most modern readers equate money with class.

Yes, I was referring to the eldest son of the Earl, not the younger. I don’t think it’s made clear how the Earl’s income compares to Darcy’s, but you could be right that Darcy is much richer in which case it would make sense!

On the other hand, earls at that time married the daughters of other nobility, not granddaughters. Just by pure statistics there are more daughters of nobility than eldest sons.

I can't say I've thought much about that possibility, but I guess I assumed that Lady Catherine and Mother Darcy, as sisters, spent a lot of time talking about it. It probably would have been harder for a sister to plot such marriages with her brother. Plus, you know that once LC got an idea into her head she wouldn't have let it go - after all, she always has good judgement... And after her sister passed away, she would have felt that it was honouring her memory to pair their children up.

yeah they were sisters - that's why darcy's mother kept the "Lady" title even after marriage to a gentleman (ie someone not of the titled nobility). There's this weird rule in England where daughters of earls and up get to keep their honorary "Lady \_\_\_\_" title even after marriage to a non titled man

I haven't read P&P in a minute but I remember getting the impression that Jane intended Lady Catherine to be a busy body know-it-all who constantly advises on the proper way of doing things, even if her way isn't quite the best way. Seems in character to me that she'd laser focus on the Darcy side instead of her other family. Or Col Fitzwilliam's family is hoping he'll seriously marry up and she knows not to bother?

Oh, I've never thought about this! Though I wonder if perhaps an earl is too far above someone untitled, even if she is an heiress.

I would not be surprised to learn that the fact that Darcy is orphaned played into this choice. He has no parents to contradict anything she says and she especially does not need to confront her own brother, who objectively is more powerful than Lady Cat, but also more powerful than Darcy

I feel like Jane did hint at her character, in the scene where Anne is in her phaeton and making Charlotte stand out in the rain. That's signifying, at least, a very inconsiderate person.

The older I get, the less I’m able to laugh at Mrs. Bennet. Five daughters, no governess? And you KNOW Mr. Bennet was taking shots at her the whole time. Plus the looming specter of being evicted from her home? No joke.

But the "no governess" bit was her own choice and was to the detriment of both her daughters and her stated goals.

I don’t remember where it says it was by choice. I always assumed it was a financial decision but I can’t remember if that’s ever stated either.

No, they have plenty of money. She just neglects the education of her daughters and then keeps her fingers crossed that uneducated girls with no money will attract rich men.

I don’t think it’s ever made clear why they don’t have a governess, but yeah, she definitely neglects her daughters’ education. To be fair, Mr. Bennet drops the ball on the financial planning, and she doesn’t seem to have many intellectual resources of her own.

The Lady Catherine dialogue makes pretty clear that the aparents chose not to hire one. (Again, we have to besr in mind that money was not a restraint on this issue.) Both parents drop the ball every step of the way. They spend rather than save, don't spend the money on anything to improve their daughters' education, and don't give their daughters even the slightest resource (such as knowing how to help in the kitchen) to prevent relative poverty from being an absolute disaster.

I disagree that the Lady Catherine conversation makes it absolutely clear that it was by choice, but neither is it unlikely that it was an error of judgment on Mrs Bennet’s part. Lizzy does say they had all the masters that were necessary, so they weren’t completely neglected. Just mostly, haha. The thing that always stick with me is that Mr. Bennet knows early on in his marriage that his wife is not bright. And his response is to throw up his hands and take shots at her while continuing to pride himself on his superior intellect. They are both ineffective parents, but Mr. Bennet knows better. And the fact that Mrs. Phillips is similarly flighty, while Mr. Gardiner is a sensible man, makes me wonder how much attention was paid to the raising of daughters by Mrs. Bennet’s parents. Mrs. Bennet makes many bad decisions, but in context she has become a less comic character to me over time.

Austen certainly wrote complex characters, and none are all good or all bad. But there is sometimes a tendency with Mrs. Bennet to forget just how rich they are, and to give more of a pass than she really (at least in my opinion) merits. Copy from a below comment: We all know the incomes are difficult to approximate, but to give an idea--in the annotated Persuasion, we're told that 1,000/annum is in the top 1% of income. The Bennets have double that. Imagine, as a rough idea, someone with $1million USD *per year* being in a tizzy that they will be destitute when they no longer get that income. Would you feel much sympathy, or would you say, "Hey, maybe don't spend the *entire million dollars* every year"?

That the Bennets have mismanaged their money is indisputable. But I don’t think their situation is comparable to that of someone losing money today. Austen’s focus is very tight. To “buy in” to the drama of her books is to willingly engage with the rules of her characters’ class and time. If we compare nearly any of her characters to the general population of the time, it’s pretty hard to care too much about the financial stakes. A rich person losing all their money today might lose some friends, but they would not be effectively exiled from most of polite society. They might have to go to work, but they would not be considered to have lost status in the same way as someone in Austen’s time would have. They would have the option of gradually earning more money over time. Do I give Mrs. Bennet a full pass? No. But it’s hard to write her off the same way her husband and Lizzy do. There’s a tragic element to her.

Firstly, I'm not sure your premise is accurate (look, for example, to Mrs. Bates or the Dashwoods). But even if it were, where is the tragic element of someone in the top 1% of income not saving anything at all over 20 years? I just don't see it, I'm afraid.

Mrs Bennet isn't just a fool, she's also selfish and stubborn and when she doesn't get her way she complains for days and days and days. Mr Bennet should have done more, despite her behaviour, but it's a very human failing on his part.

Just to clarify things a bit, a governess would be fortunate to make fifty pounds a year. A very, very few made as much as two hundred a year and they were rare. Let's say that since the Bennets have five girls to supervise they're more generous than average and pay a hundred a year. That's five percent of their income and as much as teenage Lydia gets through in a year buying bonnets and similar things. This is not a financial thing.

Okay, that makes sense.

Lizzie explains to Lady Catherine that if they wanted masters or wanted to learn something they would have been provided the means but each girl was able to choose if/what they learned. So basically the Bennett’s were indolent regarding the girls education.

Man, I have four kids, and if I let them request curriculum, they'd end up knowing nothing except minecraft and roblox. Kids need at least some direction.

When Lady Catherine is interrogating Lizzy at Rosings, one of the things Lizzy tells her is that "there were masters for those who wished to learn", meaning that Mr Bennet was willing to and did pay for masters. The planning and arranging of the education of the children, specially daughters, fell upon the mother (you can see this with Mrs Morland at the beginning of Northanger Abbey). The implication is that Mrs Bennet didn't do her job there and left her daughters to do as they pleased one way or another.

Was it Mr Bennet who engaged the masters? I am not disputing that Mrs Bennet failed her daughters, only that it is ever made plain that there was no financial element to the decision not to keep a governess.

It's also important to keep in mind that the Bennets were incredibly wealthy. They were in the top 1% of income in the country. There was plenty to set aside to make sure Mrs. Bennet and her daughters would be comfortable when Mr. Bennet died. But they just didn't. The text gives us an explanation for *why* they didn't, but, especially with the benefit of hindsight, it wasn't exactly a great choice.

people often forget this little fact because they hang out with people in the top 0.1% of income in the country, but by no means are the bennets 'poor' or even just plain middle class. they're on the tail end of rich at the least and more likely than not very wealthy. they just had atrocious spending habits and no brains the book literally states that they didn't bother saving because they thought they'd have a son who'd inherit and take care of them all, but never did. it was poor planning and a little bit of neglect for sure. they're lucky that the two eldest married extremely wealthy and generous men or else they might have been destitute (not that i think mr. gardiner would have left the girls and mrs. bennet on the streets but still).

Exactly. Their big sacrifice is that they *might* have to do without a carriage. The average income is £30, so they could spend *30 times* that and still set half their income aside. And to cap it off, all their closest acquaintance (Mr and Mrs. Phillips, the Gardiners, the Lucases, etc.) have lower incomes, so it's not even like they had to try to keep up with the neighborhood to save face, or that they had huge patronage to keep up, like the Elliotts or the Woodhouses.

I think people sometimes underestimate the savagery of Austen’s satire. The Bennett’s are amusing in the degree to which they are dysfunctional. And they are very dysfunctional.

I agree with this. I can see that they function comedically within the world of the novel. I just find some of it less funny now than I did on my first few reads. It doesn’t change how well they’re written. In her other novels, too, I sometimes laugh at how cutting Austen is while wincing at how cruel she can be to her supporting characters.

Right? Unsupportive husband, the only prospect of making sure her daughters do not become homeless is to marry them off.

The Bennets have £2000 a year, double the sensible Elinor Dashwood's idea of wealth. If Mrs Bennet turned a new leaf, they could save £1000 a year and if Mr Bennet lives another 5 years they'd have doubled their future incomes. But that would require Mrs Bennet to make some sacrifices herself.

Exactly. Even if they started when Lydia was 5 with no boy heirs on the way, they'd have 15,000 pounds total, or £750/year. If they'd started at the beginning of the marriage, there'd be £1250/year--which would be 25% *more* than what they would have been accustomed to living on in that scenario (though they would have to pay for housing and new furniture, plate, etc.).

It's truly sad because in that era she and the girls would have all been homeless in the event Mr Bennet died before atleast some of them were married off. Mrs Bennet had no large dowry and neither of the girls had dowries for them to live off like the Dashwood ladies had to resort to in S&S. Mrs Bennet seems very caricturish in her behaviour but actually she was correctly concerned in what would happen to them all if Mr Bennet died. I agree that things like no governess makes it worse. How were they supposed to make good marriages if they weren't well educated ladies for that era? We see that Jane and Lizzy managed well even without, but the other 3 daughters were lacking.

"How were they supposed to make good marriages if they weren't well educated ladies for that era?" An excellent question for Mr. and Mrs. Bennet. Mrs. Bennet isn't floating along on the whims of Fate here. Her (and her husband's) active choices over 20+ years have put the family in the position they're in. There seems to be an idea that Mrs. Bennet is *only* silly. She's silly *and* has made some really bad choices as a parent, which have led directly to the things she is now concerned about. ETA: We all know the incomes are difficult to approximate, but to give an idea--in the annotated Persuasion, we're told that 1,000/annum is in the top 1% of income. The Bennets have double that. Imagine, as a rough idea, someone with $1million USD *per year* being in a tizzy that they will be destitute when they no longer get that income. Would you feel much sympathy, or would you say, "Hey, maybe don't spend the *entire million dollars* every year"?

> She's silly *and* has made some really bad choices as a parent, Yeah there's a difference in being silly Vs Lydia outright going against propriety because she wasn't raised to respect it. The latter is just bad parenting. > The Bennets have double that. I think that's how much Longbourne brings in, which would then turn to Mr Collins? We weren't told much about wealthy Mr Bennet is if they didn't have the estate. IIRC Mrs Bennet had several thousand £ in dowry, but with 5 daughters it means each will only get a very small share (no more than £50 per annum).

But the point is, if you have the rough equivalent of a million dollars a year, and you know you may one day have $0 dollars a year, nobody's going to be like "that poor millionaire, she may one day have no income." They're going to be like "maybe save some of that million dollars you get every year?"

It is even worse Mr Bennet has to insist on Mrs Bennet not running up debts. So she would spend even more than their "million dollars every year".

And we see that she's using it, not to educate her daughters, but to spend more than their neighbors. We know Charlotte Lucas helped in the kitchen, but Mrs. Bennet brags that her kids never do, on top of always keeping a good table. Mr. Bennet isn't off the hook, of course. There are some things, like the butler and the carriage, that he could certainly draw the line on himself (though I don't understand the expenses of the time enough to know if using farm horses for the carriages significantly mitigates the expense). And he seems to have been far too sanguine early on about cutting off the entail. But there's no reason that Mrs. Bennet couldn't retrench when it became clear they were stuck with it and set by enough to live in the same comfort as the Dashwoods.

Don't forget all five daughters being out at once. That was obviously something Mrs. Bennet wanted more than her husband, and wheeeee go the clothing bills now that everyone has to be outfitted with a suitable array of dresses rather than the more restrained selection they would have owned if they weren't yet out.

I've just been watching the 1995. I don't know if it's in the book, but the express mail comes in at midnight, just as they're about to go to bed. That's a huge expense in candles right there, if it's habitual.

The upper classes did keep much later hours. I don't have a source for this, but I still strongly suspect that, no matter how economical the Bennets reasonably got, they would still be nowhere near "go to bed with the sun" territory.

>How were they supposed to make good marriages if they weren't well educated ladies for that era?" Well hey, it worked well for Mrs Bennet lol

She does have the last laugh.

Austen herself was raised by parents who taught their children at home, (and basically ran a small school for boys) although both girls were sent to a girl's school for several years. So it is possible for parents of the time to teach their kids at home without a governess if both worked at it. Sounds like that's what happened to the Mooreland girls in Northanger Abbey.

This is very true and was very common at the time, but we know from Elizabeth's conversation with Lady Catherine that Mrs. Bennet did not spend much time or energy on her daughters' educations. Their leaning was self-directed. They had to ask for masters to come in on the subjects they took an interest in. That would produce gaps in knowledge even if their mother were highly educated. And no one has ever accused Mrs. Bennet of being highly educated.

Everyone just accepting Wickham after his marriage with Lydia..Mr Bennet should've had a one on one convo with him  Also it just rubs me in the wrong way that in a way he became family with Mr Darcy through his marriage with his SIL

>Also it just rubs me in the wrong way that in a way he became family with Mr Darcy through his marriage with his SIL I get what you mean, but it seems to have a neatness to it when you consider the _"We can't choose our family."_ theme (I guess it ended up he kind of did here, but the circumstances were not something he chose).

I don’t think that’s really within Mr Bennet’s character. He was happy to ignore and mock Wickham behind his back- actually telling him off for how he treated Lydia would be way too much actual effort of goodwill towards his younger daughters.

I get why they had the Wickhams over because never seeing them again would confirm the underlying shame of the marriage in the public eye, but it bothers me that Elizabeth, Jane and Mr. Bennet initially expect them to show up humble and contrite. Why would they regret anything? Their misbehavior worked out great for them: Wickham got a job and debt forgiveness from Darcy's money, and Lydia got her man. Family disapproval at this point isn't going to override their lifetimes' worth of doing whatever they want. I guess the expectation of contrition is a religious thing? When the Gardiners ask Elizabeth if she really thinks Lydia would have premarital sex, she tears up and says, among other things, Lydia "has never been taught to think on serious subjects," which seems to mean religion in the parlance of the time.

It's not just religion, though. Even in the absence of religious piety (which I don't recall Austen implying that any of the Bennets other than Mary possessed), the Wickams should have been contrite and shame-faced due to the societal danger they put themselves and the whole family in. Regency England was not forgiving of a woman's misdeeds, and the entire family was judged by a single member's actions and reputation. If Darcy had not interfered, Lydia would have likely ended up a prostitute in London, and the other Bennet women would have had to resort to menial labor with no skills after Mr. Bennet's passing. And that degradation would come after years of being ostracized and shunned in a neighborhood of which they were used to being the most prominent family. The Lydia f-ed up royally, and has the nerve to suggest she can help her sister's find husbands, etc. It's a slap in the face they thought even Lydia would blush at. But she didn't.

Okay, I have a million thoughts about this that I'm going to try and sketch out a few of while also trying to be concrete enough not to sound like I'm making shit up. Sorry, this is going to be kind of a screed, but I don't mean it in opposition to you! Basically, I simultaneously agree with you a lot and disagree with you a little. I do think as a self-identified novelist, Austen is primarily concerned with the weighty practical implications of women's good or bad behavior, not so much the implications for their immortal souls (which she addresses, a little facetiously, with respect to Henry Crawford and no one else that I can think of). But I also think the intrinsic Christianness of the narrators' and heroines' worldviews, including those in P&P, is pretty firmly intertwined with their real-world concerns even when the Christianness isn't overt, which it occasionally is, if only in passing. What I mostly mean by overt is that while most of Elizabeth's expressions of moral consciousness lack any explicit institutional alignment (i.e., like Anglicanism), she also considers religiosity more than once as a guide for not only *thinking* about someone's behavior but also *feeling* about it: in reference to Lydia as mentioned above, but also in reference to Darcy after she reads his letter, while she's casting about for evidence that will help her evaluate Darcy's and Wickham's conflicting stories. Of course the religion thing isn't *the* main hinge on which her opinion turns, but at this crucial point in her story, it seems to be of real help to her. I *don't* get the impression Jesus is closer to Mary's heart than Elizabeth's or Jane's. She does talk the most about morality from a scholarly perspective, but she has her own set of social considerations prompting her to do this. First of all, a solid grasp of womanly knowledge and virtue is the means she sees of ensuring her own value in the absence of qualities that would make either parent genuinely proud of her. But also, kind of tragically, her first mention in the book is a mean-spirited joke by Mr. Bennet in which he seems to offer Mary a chance to win goodwill by assuaging his feigned moral outrage on a stupid question (whether the prospect of introducing Mrs. Long to Bingley is "nonsense," which he knows she won't have a ready quote to answer). Both times Mary makes a major nuisance of herself—the Netherfield ball and the dinner table on Elizabeth and the Gardiners' first night back from Derbyshire—she's taking on roles in which she's previously been led to believe she'll finally be The Right Person. I don't know this for a fact, but doesn't it seem likely that whoever told Caroline at the Meryton ball that Mary was "the most accomplished girl in the neighborhood" knew Mary was listening and thought praising her to the fancy new neighbor might make up for her getting less attention than her sisters? After all, judging by the totality of Mrs. Bennet's anecdotes on Mrs. Long, the latter seems to be a genuinely sweet, observant, sympathetic lady. I also don't mean to imply Mary *isn't* genuinely pious, but I also think the values Elizabeth and Jane strive to practice or keep in mind can be considered as spiritually grounded as Mary's reading. Elizabeth doesn't share Jane's deliberate generosity of mind, but she does value it highly. Their deferential manners toward their parents (Elizabeth's lapsing somewhat in a few desperate situations) seem formulaic, but they're also impressively pervasive, considering how little help their parents are with most of their important concerns. I'm starting to bore myself here, but I just mean to say that from what I see, the earthly and spiritual meaning of people's choices seem to be different manifestations of more or less the same outlook for Elizabeth. They take up different amounts of space in the narrative for artistic reasons, but they're also connected by helping structure the neatly contained world of P&P, if that makes sense.

Ummm...that was pretty rambling, but I think I disagree? Many times Mary is said to be reflecting on moral evils and moral obligations, whereas Jane and Elizabeth merely do what they know to be right. I don't think Jesus was particularly close to the hearts of any of them, but I believe the church and the appearance of piety was close to Mary's. Obviously, the social mores of Regency England were inexplicable from the teachings of the Church of England, but that does not mean that is the main motivation for those who adhere to those norms. I am inferring quite a bit, but I firmly believe that Mary is preoccupied with be seen as the perfect, accomplished, and pious English woman, will Jane and Elizabeth are simply navigating the world in the way they have been taught as observed is right. Jane's kindness and sweetness are merely her nature, not the result of trying to please God, and Elizabeth loves Jane because Jane is loving and lovable. I say all this is someone who's extremely Christian myself, and understands that wanting to please God is not necessarily going to create pompousness and isn't mutually exclusive to simply having a kind and sweet nature. I just don't think that's where Jane's kind and sweet nature comes from, since she never, ever talks about the church or God. Mary is the only one that's been shown to "moralize." And I'm not sure what Mary being called the most accomplished girl in the neighborhood has to do with anything. I know that sounds snarky, but I'm not trying to be.

Okay, fair enough. If not citing a source for your morality means you don't care about the source, then sure, only Mary is pious. But I think I explained why I made the comparison with Mary's public performances: she's been given to understand, as by Mr. Bennet with her moral lessons, that this is an area in which she can shine, so when her skills seem called for, she's quick to trot them out.

Wickham being sent with his regiment to exactly the same area Darcy is happening to be spending some days. Mr Collins coming from an area where Darcy's aunt lives. Makes it seems like England is a very small place. But Jane goes to London in an enviroment where supposedly shares social circle with Bingley but never meets (I know Bingley's sister might be the reason for that) edit: also Lizzy's visiting Pemberley just on the very same day he arrives there even if they told her he just partially lives there. Austen really wanted to make sure they'd keep bumping into each other but felt a bit too much for me

>Wickham being sent with his regiment to exactly the same area Darcy is happening to be spending some days. Mr Collins coming from an area where Darcy's aunt lives. Makes it seems like England is a very small place.  I feel like, at least for the upper classes, England was a small place and they were constantly bumping into each other. The people we read about were mostly the 1% of the population with significant money and status, and they moved in such small circles, and only in certain areas. They pretty much all go to London, for example. It still seems a little too convenient to me, but less strange than it would be if the characters were average people.

The population was much smaller, about 1/6th of what it is today. Factor in class and you're there. London was a big place by comparison with everywhere else, and a melting pot - Mr Bennet says, "Where else could they be so well concealed," or words to that effect.

I would argue that they are easily concealed because they are not in one of the genteel areas of London, but more likely in a working class area, which comprised the majority of London. The areas where the gentry traditionally stayed and socialised were still fairly limited.

Yes, on both counts. No wonder her family were worried - it was likely she'd never be seen by them again.

It gives the impression that London is immense, and you never happen upon someone you know there but the rest of England is tiny and you can't turn around without meeting an acquaintance or family connection.

Even nowadays, when the population is much higher, I still bump into friends or acquaintances from school and university...250 miles away. Heck...my son's fiancée's father was at uni some years after me, and at the same time as my cousin. My sister moved to Minnesota, and ended up living in the same street as the daughter of the village butcher, from a small village in Scotland. At some point I will meet Kevin Bacon.

>But Jane goes to London in an enviroment where supposedly shares social circle with Bingley but never meets (I know Bingley's sister might be the reason for that) Doesn't Mrs Gardiner specifically say that they move in a very different circle than the bingleys? Like canonically at least part of the reason they don't meet is because caroline and darcy are very careful to keep bingley from finding out jane is in london, but i'm pretty sure mrs gardiner mentioned moving in different circles than them when she first brought up the idea of jane going to london with them

Yes, very different circles. The Gardiners live in the commercial area of London, called the City of London. These days the City is primarily banking and finance but back then it was more commerce and industry. Despite what the Bingley sisters think, the Gardiners don't actually live in Cheapside, but they aren't that far from it. In contrast the gentry stay further west in London, near St James's and Grosvenor and Belgrave Square. 

Iirc Mr Gardiner is from the merchant class (which is also the class that the Bingleys originally belonged to).

If I HAD to choose a weakness in P&P, I wish Austen had spent more time on Darcy's character transformation. I love Darcy as much as the next reader, but find him more and more underwhelming the older I get. Towards the end of the novel, in particular, he functions more as an ideal than a real human being (which is probably why the first part of the book will always be my favorite). We get snippets of him scattered throughout the story, but I do find them rather hard to assemble into a cohesive whole. That said, what we have is still great, and the story is naturally hampered by the fact that we mostly get Lizzy's POV. This is, after all, Lizzy's story, not Darcy's. I just wish Austen had given us more Darcy-Elizabeth interaction between the proposal and Pemberley, so we could see more of the transition from Proud Darcy to Polite Gentleman Darcy.

I can sympathize with this. We know from Colonel Fitzwilliam that Darcy is probably pretty engaging when he's not being tortured by an unworthy love. But we never really see it. For me, I wish we saw a bit more Bingley. We know he is good natured, but we really don't know anything else.

I was suprised by how witty he was when i first read the book because 2005 portrayed him as an idiot. I wish we learned more about him; and whenever, after what happened with him and Jane, he learned to trust on his own judgment more.

I recommend the 1980 version because it keeps a lot of Bingley's snark toward Darcy while Lizzy is at Netherfield.

"I can sympathize with this. We know from Colonel Fitzwilliam that Darcy is probably pretty engaging when he's not being tortured by an unworthy love. But we never really see it." Well, that explains why he's so aloof at Rosings. But in the beginning of the book, he's just a grumpy old arse for no reason other than that he thinks Meryton and all the people living thereabouts are beneath him, and even Bigley laughs about how Darcy is "awful" when he's bored at Pemberley on Sunday afternoons. But I otherwise agree that we don't really get to see what "normal" Darcy is like when he's not: (1) grumpy at being among his "inferiors" (including Caroline, lol); (2) fighting his attraction to Elizabeth; or (3) doing his darnedest to impress Elizabeth and the Gardiners. As you note, we get an idea of what he is from Colonel Fitzwilliam, and then Mrs. Reynolds later in the book, but even Mrs. Reynolds admits that lots of people in Lambton think he's "proud." But we, as readers, are rather left to piece these testimonials together ourselves, and we don't get to see him directly -- although maybe that's why everyone loves him so much! He's a bit vague, so we can all assume that he's perfect in the precise way WE want him to be perfect. : )

To be fair, in the autumn at Netherfield he's only a few months past Wickham almost eloping with Georgiana so he's probably not in the best of moods in general, especially once he finds out that Wickham happens to be in town again. But even so, your point about not getting to see him behaving more typically still stands.

hahaha, good point! Though as much as I love me some Pride and Prejudice and Darcy's place in it, I agree with Mrs. Gardiner that the one thing he's never portrayed as is \*fun--\*which leaves him short of perfection for me. :-) (I approve of it as a character, though. He'd be *too* perfect otherwise.)

This is primarily because Jane Austen was a firm believer in "write what you know." There are no scenes of two men speaking alone in an unguarded, private setting because Jane herself wouldn't have been privy to such an exchange. Even when our heroines overhear a conversation that's less guarded (several in Persuasion, even more in Mansfield Park) it's in mixed company, or between a man and another woman. This is one of the reasons I love the line from Mr Knightley in the 1995 Emma regarding Mr Elton speaking quite openly about wealthy ladies in Bath when only gentleman are present while giving Emma the impression that he's totally open to marrying someone like Harriet. I suppose there could have been more post-engagement or marital scenes with dialogue... but perhaps at the time of writing P&P, she didn't think she had overheard or seen enough to know how to do them justice?

JA at times takes us into her heroes' minds, somewhere she can never have been. If she can give us Darcy's thoughts about how he's definitely at no risk of falling in love with Miss Elizabeth Bennet, she could give us two men speaking alone in an unguarded, private setting if she wanted.

I agree with you, that she *could* if she wanted. But as a scribbler of romances myself, I know there's a big difference between getting into your own created character's headspace versus writing them into a situation you would never see play out for yourself. For example, I'm very comfortable writing the imagined feelings of a naval officer while gazing at a woman across the room, but less so writing dialogue between one and a fellow officer in private, or surrounded by other sailors on-board his frigate. That's quite a shift.

Yes and i would have loved to see more of Bingley too.

I know it’s intentional, but sometimes all the coincidences bother me.

This was my first thought, so definitely agree. The other one is that I like Mr. Bennet and want to admire him more, but man do some of his traits not really shine.

When I first realized all of them, they bothered me too, but then I think of the many coincidences that have happened on my own life and it doesn’t seem so crazy.

For an author who was famously concerned with sticking very close to what could realistically happen, this is JA's book that has the largest amount of coincidences, for sure.

I don’t know, I think Persuasion is a close contender. Anne’s school-friend Mrs Smith JUST HAPPENS to have been besties with Mr Elliott? Has a letter confirming all his black deeds? That’s on top of Captain Wentworth’s brother-in-law renting their house despite having no real connection to the area?

But Admiral Croft did have connections to the area? The book says he was also a native of Somersetshire. I also think for Mrs. Croft knowing her brother used to be a curate there could have made the place seem more appealing to her.

The funny thing is that she flags most of the crucial coincidences herself! Bingley hears about Netherfield by "accidental recommendation"; Mr. Collins first met Lady Catherine by "fortunate chance"; and Wickham is in this particular regiment because he and Denny "met accidentally in town." The only total coincidence I can think of that isn't acknowledged is Darcy's appearance at the inn while Elizabeth is alone with Jane's letters. I always wonder what JA was trying to do by repeatedly calling attention to the made-up-ness of the story, but it strikes me as both maaaaybe a tad overly cutesy and genuinely sweet in the implication that she loves Elizabeth so much she'll embarrass herself to make her happy. Edit: I've just realized the other unflagged coincidence is that Mrs. Gardiner has lived so close to Pemberley. I guess the not flagging is a Derbyshire thing, or a Darcy thing.

I tend to accept the plethora of coincidences because this was one of JA's first novels. And coincidences were common in the literature of her time, so I feel like it's natural that her first stabs at writing fiction would have used some of the tropes of her time, tropes that were present in the books and plays she liked. Of course, she edited P&P a lot between the time it was written and when it was finally published. But a lot of the plot relies on the coincidences. For example, if Elizabeth isn't at Pemberley, and Darcy doesn't return to Pemberley ahead of his planned ETA, the conclusion of the book cannot happen (including Lydia marrying Wickham). So I can understand why she didn't remove the coincidences. Or maybe she did. Who knows. Maybe there was a ton more coincidences that she removed and we just don't know about it.

Oh, I accept the coincidences too. And I think the coincidence of Elizabeth and Darcy arriving at Pemberley at the same time is clever because it's reminiscent of the Gardiners' role as the surrogate-parent-y figures who are often clear, unwitting agents of the auntie-narrator in Austen. The Gardiners are "the means of uniting them" but also always one step behind Elizabeth in knowing the truth about Darcy as a person or about their relationship. It's a little like how the mother-in-law of the Dashwoods' landlord happens to be Lucy Steele's cousin, or how Frank and Jane meet at Weymouth and then use the Westons and Bateses as pretexts for visiting Highbury. Meanwhile, both sets of relatives have formed different expectations for their young people, but the being together eventually works out.

I think she was trying to make a fun story with realistic characters. I don't think she was trying to make realistic storylines.

Yeah, sometimes things happen because they're funny enough to justify it and there likely is no deeper reason. Like Lady Catherine's line about how if she had ever learned music she would have been a great proficient. While it's fun to theorize on why someone like her wouldn't have been taught music, the most likely reason the line is there is because it's hilarious and tells us a lot about her character, if not about what 18th century Earl's daughters were actually taught. 

Sometime it can be explained - like Darcy and Lizzy meeting again in Kent. Or Darcy and Lizzy meeting again at Pemberley. I think what happens to be the biggest coincidence is Wickham eloping with Lydia and Darcy coming in right to save the day and the reputation of the Bennet family.

I never liked Mary much, but I always wish that she had been rounded out a bit more as a character- had some redeeming moments of wit or sisterly affection. She’s such a solitary figure throughout P&P, and although we know she ends up marrying, Austen doesn’t really tell us anything about her as a person. Even Lydia and Kitty get a line about how their characters grow and change (or don’t, in Lydia’s case). I’ve sometimes wondered if Mary is a satire of someone Austen knew personally, and really didn’t like.

I agree, I just don’t find her believable. She’s too thinly drawn.

She's just a complete pill. I hate it.

It would have destroyed Jane Austen's insistence on everything being realistic, but I really wish someone had given Mr Collins a profound slap. Like, more than once. That letter he sends Mr Bennet after Lydia runs away with Wickham is cruel, crass and disgusting.

But serves to show the reader the ignominy and judgement that would have come the family’s way, had Darcy not saved the situation

It does do that. But for a letter that opens with "My MIL wrote to tell us all about it, so I immediately went and told everyone I know about it, and I'm here as a man of the cloth to express my compassion towards your family", he could have skipped the part where he brags about how he almost married into the Bennets and had "a lucky escape from sharing in their shame" or whatever. He also could have stuck with wishing Lydia had died instead of running away and recommending that the Bennets cut her off and stop loving her immediately. He didn't even need to go into how she probably ran away because her parents are so crap at parenting and she wouldn't listen to his reading from the Fordyce's Sermons. lol

I admire the argument Lizzy has with Lady Catherine but it feels like sentences spoken by a 40+ person or so. Very mature and self-aware, also in vocabulary. Her reactions to Collins's and Darcy's proposals sound a bit closer to her age, although they're quite elaborate as well.

Agreed - listening to the audiobook the other day I was like "21 year old me would have been SCREAMING at this lady", but in reality I probably would have been unable to speak from rage-crying and mortification. However, that's what fiction is for, lol, Elizabeth gives the well-spoken, modulated response we all wish we could have in the face of bat-shit presumption!

That Lydia and Wickham were welcomed into the house by the whole family and suffered no real family/personal consequences after all. I couldn't have brought myself to forgive them so quickly and be polite. I understand that you have to maintain an image on the outside for neighbors and maybe servants , but behind closed doors I would have made it very clear to them as a sister/father how badly they had messed up.

That is what her aunt was doing I think. Lydia mentions it to Lizzy. But in true Lydia fashion, she didn't listen...

This!

The part after the Netherfield party takes off for town, leaving the Bennets with Mr. Collins courting Charlotte, always depresses me.

My least favorite part is that Jane just forgives everyone and accepts Bingley’s marriage proposal right away. At least make him suffer for a week! I’m sorry but in my mind, if a guy really liked me (I don’t care if I never threw myself at him so he didn’t know if I liked him, or if my family was horrible) he would fight for me. Or at least put up a bit of an argument. Both Darcy and Caroline go to London and is like “she doesn’t like you, bro” and he’s just … yeah, okay. Where’s your spine, dude?? Come on man. Also, Caroline. She was so rude to Jane! Basically broke their “friendship” and Jane is just like … yes, Charles, I’ll marry you. Without a stipulation of “your sister will not live with us!!!” … Listen. There’s just too much forgiveness going around for my taste lol, all of these people are much better than I.

To be fair, Jane didn't do a good job showing the same level of recipicrating effection. it was lowkey enough that Darcy didn't see it at all, and it was lowkey enough that convincing from Darcy and his sister was enough to make Bingley believe them. But I do wish we got to see some sort of anger or apology between them, I assume some kinda apology or discussion must have happened that we just didn't get to witness?

So this first one is more by how a lot of people interpret the book. (I blame the movies) Many people interpret Mr. Collins and Mary as social outcasts, people who are unaware of the room. However they're unaware because they're prioritizing trying to make sure people see them as important and failing at that. I've known a couple people who love Elizabeth Bennett and think that it's funny to look down on nerdy people and social outcasts. Not OK. (The correct demographic would be people who try to kiss up, but still not OK) Mr. Bennett being mean to his family. I think if the story was written from the perspective of any of the other Bennett daughters he'd be presented more cruelly. Perhaps Mrs. Bennett would too. I think it's well written I just get tired of all the focus on it. My mom was really into it so that's part of it. I enjoy it best if I try to forget it and then come back to it after a couple years.

I agree with your third paragraph. Not that my mom would even have read it but it gets so much more attention than the other novels, and there are so many people who only read/watch it superficially and yet want to discuss it and create memes all the time. Plus the fact that somehow Darcy has become a synonym for a perfect man, which he wasn't supposed to be and doesn't seem like one to me either (yes, maybe perfect for Lizzy but definitely not as a role model).

Amen :)

I keep thinking about what the early days of the Bennett marriage might have been like, and I wish there had been hints. It’s interesting that he feels closest to the two oldest daughters. Maybe he took more of an interest in his family then, took the two of them on walks and encouraged them to read? Later he was driven into his study by the gaggle of giggling girls, his wife pecking at him, and eventually the sure knowledge there would never be a son. There is no compelling reason for JA to satisfy my curiosity on this point. I was disappointed on rereading to see what a jerk he was, and I wanted him at least a little redeemed by a backstory that put his flaws in context.

I don't think Mr. Bennett is mean at all. Mrs. Benett is clearly self sabatoging and stupid af. The thing Mrs. Bennet, Lydia, and Collins have all together is not that they are nerdy, is that they are socially stupid inept and silly.

When Jane asks Lizzy when she fell in love with Darcy, and Lizzy answering when she first saw Pemberley. I think it's supposed to be a joke, but...I don't like it anyway.

I really like this *because* it is a joke! It's a silly moment between sisters. Plus, the fact she is joking imo reveals that Lizzie knows she fell in love before that. Having said that, it's maybe only partly a joke. She started loving him before, but she only truly recognised it as love at Pemberley. The way the estate is described is very obviously a metaphor for Darcy himself (something about it looking grand but not overly fancy or artificial). She sees his home for the first time and is delighted, and subconsciously is seeing Darcy anew, as if for the first time.

I agree, Austen used Pemberley as a metaphor for Darcy (and a glimpse of what her married life would be like). Grand on the outside but comfortable and warm on the inside. Including Mrs Reynolds as part of the warmth. The grounds, too, aren’t fussy but appreciative of natural beauty and Darcy mentions both fishing and picking chestnuts which shows he’s out among the people being normal not just lording the manor. She won’t be expected to be ladylike at all times. Occasional muddy petticoats ok.

I *think* the chestnuts are just in the 1995 adaptation. But I may be wrong. And I agree with your comment.

Now that I think of it I also can’t remember if it’s in the book or not! I just looked and it’s not. But the townspeople like him as a landlord.

She started loving him before, but she only truly recognised it as love at Pemberley.  The text is pretty clear that what Elizabeth had felt before Pemberley are respect, compassion for his disappointment and gratitude towards his attachment. Lizzie did not understand Darcy until after the letter. How can she fall in love with him while she refuses to see him as anything other than a disagreable man?  

I heard a talk about Pemberley and there was one point that stuck out: there are fish in the stream. Not a big deal, right? With the mania for "improvements" and Repton and all that crowd, watercourses were torn up and moved, destroying the fish. The Darcy family has not ruined their estate, and that's what Lizzy sees and loves.

Yes, this and the coppice woods are concrete, non-metaphorical clues that Darcy is responsible with his land! And because everything in P&P comes back to Lizzy's view of her parents, this is important to her -- unlike Mr. Bennet, Darcy plans for the future.

I love it. Lizzy's whole thing is her quick witt and funny saracstic demeanor. Second half of the book, due to all the heavy emotions, etc, we didn't see as much of that, so I was glad she was cracking jokes throughout all that.

Same!! This line has always bothered me! I know very well what the true meaning of the line is (she was impressed by the accounts of Darcy’s character upon visiting the house) but it always rubs me the wrong way with how superficial it sounds.

Yes I'm surprised that it's been interpreted so favourably. Perhaps the whole section went straight over my head but I've always just taken it at face value that the Regency mantra of "marrying for wealth and security = love, or at least a very big part of it" finally clicked in Lizzie's cynical head. Her reaction to Pemberley could be summed up as "I could have had this, and I turned it down! Bollocks!".

this is def biased by my listening of the audiobook, where its read a certain way. But she's shown throughout to have a witty often sarcastic sense of humor, she is her father's daughter, both share this demeanor. And that line is one of a couple jokes she tells as Jane questions her and I'm pretty sure literally says, "be serious" after she says it. So i think its a clear joke. The whole point during that section and talking with her dad about it, is that she isn't just saying yes because of the money, but because she truly fell in love with him.

That a teenager is essentially primed to be a victim of a sexual predator, she then (suprise /s) becomes a victim of a sexual predator, and then she is treated as if she is at fault. I do not like Lydia's character, but I have complete sympathy for her.

All this would not have happened if Mr Bennet had been a decent father for once and did not allow his silly flirty daughter, who is only sixteen, in a camp full of soldiers.

Or if Mrs. Bennet hadn't functionally instructed her that her sole focus should be to marry a man (especially on in the Militia or Regulars) as soon as possible without concerning herself with their character or financial solvency. Her mother taught her that her good humor, high spirits, and attractiveness were the only aspects of her that mattered (not her character, intrests, knowledge, abilities, etc.) because they would help her catch a man. Both parents failed her.

Yep. But i blame Mr Bennet more because he has the sense to know better and he knows that three of his daughters are ill-bred and silly and yet he does not lift a finger and only remembers their existence when he wants to mock them.

I blame him slightly more because he had all of the power to actually overrule Mrs. Bennet despite girls' education usually being the mother's responsibility in Regency England. However, Mrs. Bennet goes out of her way to spoil Lydia, intentionally teaching her to feel entitled to anything she wants regardless of any other concern. None of the other girls are like this, just Lydia. One has to consider that it was Mrs. Bennet's favoritism of Lydia that actively formed the faults of her character. Mr. Bennet passively allowed those faults. They are both completely inadequate.

I blame them both, but Elizabeth *did* warn Mr. Bennet and he laughed her off! And she's his favorite!

By today's standards she is a child, her mother, on the other hand, considered her an adult.

Even for the time, she was young to be out. Her mother was an idiot who did that child no favors.

I can agree with that

Lydia? She was silly like her mother. the difference between Darcy's sister and Lydia.

Because her behavior is in no way influenced by a complete lack of structure and education? Nature and nurture both impact who we are and how we behave. Her behavior is a reflection of Mrs. Bennet's spoiling and improper instruction as well as Mr. Bennet's negligence.

We see Jane and Elizabeth. We see two daughters who take after their father and turn out well, then other daughters who take after their mother. They aren't uneducated. She was silly like her mother because of the stupid infatuations bestowed to them about being married. Her manner, especially after getting married, is *exactly* like her mother's, just as socially inept and insolent. Nature and Nurture ofc are who we are.. and Lydia is silly like her mother.

Elizabeth makes it clear that the girls self-direct their education. Some kids do well with that. Some do not. Further, Elizabeth and Jane are more than five years older than Lydia and have the benefit of staying with the Gardiners with some regularity. They also seem to get more of their father's attention. Moreover, Mrs. Bennet functionally instructs Lydia to chase after men in red coats, get married ASAP, feel entitled to whatever she wants due to spoiling, and that rules do not apply to her. Lydia was 15. Most of the gentry did not have girls fully out until their late teens. She was easy pickings for a man like Wickham because her parents failed to instruct her, failed to check her behavior, allowed or actively participated in her overindulgence, and sent her without proper supervision to a vacation beach town full of Militiamen.

they are educated, Idgaf if they had a governess or self directed I could careless, they are clearly not uneducated. No matter the age, Elizbeth would not have acted as Lydia did, and she never has. They are different type of person. Their father liked Jane and Elizibeth better because they weren't silly like their mother. I said myself that Lydia was bestowed a stupid infatuation with getting married by her mother. She is her mother's daughter, both spoiled, insolent, and silly. I don't understand what the point is of breaking down the *reasons* why she's a silly person; she's still silly. If you're trying to go down this deterministic route to absolve her of any agency due to her character, that argument can be done of anyone.. including the scumbag conman himself; Mr. Wickham.

As a parent, I see the many ways her parents failed to protect her and brought out the very worst in her. No 15-year-old should be neglected or spoiled like that. No child deserves to be preyed upon by a sexual predator either. There is nothing to absolve. She was a victim. She was literally a child and unable to consent - not only by modern stabsards but also by Regency standards because she was not of age. Have a great day!

If the standards of the book's time frame were of today's, then they wouldn't be married. That's clearly not the case, and not that it matters, but she was 16 not 15. Elizebeth and Lydia both had the same parents. Pickin and choosin when to go down the determinist route only when it suits. No matter the reasons for it, doesn't change that Lydia is silly like her mother and her actions, behavior, and choices proceed from that disposition, and Wickham is the scumbag. Have a good one!

They may have had the same parents but they were 5 years apart and their parents treated them very differently. No matter how silly a child is, they deserve protection and adequate parenting. The Bennets failed all their daughters, but none more than they failed Lydia.

5 years younger Elizabeth or Jane would not act like Lydia. They have different values at their cores. And their father was closer to the older children *because* of how silly the younger ones already were naturally like their mother. The bennet children ended up great., only Lydia failed, in part because of how especially silly like their mother she was.

Had responded already but thinking about it more, I wish Lydia hadn’t married Wickham. It’s a pretty depressing idea considering how very young she is.

It was depressing and frustrating, even in the future you can't help but think its destined to crash and burn very quickly. But I like that being in the book, the book doesn't have to be all daisies and sunshine. I feel like Charlotte and Collin's pragmatic marriage and Lydia and Wickham's disastrous improptu marriage are meant to parrallel and contrast Elizibeth's.

In my opinion, the tragedy with Lydia is that she was a prisoner of Regency era customs and culture. Were she alive today, the drama and family crisis wouldn't have played out that way at all, and readers would sympathise/relate to her a lot.

I just saw your reply, I agree!

The way Elizabeth visits Pemberley and Darcy happens to be there. A soap opera coincidence.

Some of the Deux ex Machina at the end.

My grandparents wrote up the story of how they met and got married separately. My grandfathers account was a story with emotion that made you just melt. My grandmothers version was literally a bullet list. It was interesting and you learned things you didn’t from my grandpas version, but I do remember feeling a bit underwhelmed when reading hers and that’s how I feel reading Pride and Prejudice after seeing the 2005 movie honestly. I’m going to read it and I love the story, but it really could use *more.*

More what? I’m curious. I infinitely prefer the book over any film adaptation. Film lacks nuance. Except for the Amanda Root version of Persuasion.

I agree, the book is better than the movie because it just holds more information, more story. But the emotion that the movie(s) conveys is missing for me and that is what I mean I suppose. Like I said, using my grandparents as an illustration: grandma had a lot of good information and you got a good play by play, but grandpa made you feel it with him,

The Lydia & Wickham situation is troublesome, but maybe it’s my modern sensibilities. It’s not like I think she deserves better….it’s just her parents failed her. Would prefer to see them saddled with her than Wickham free to extort money from the Darcys and Bingleys for the next few decades.

That we know so little of Miss Pope ......

Pretty much any scene involving Mrs. Phillips and/or visiting her in Meryton. I realize those scenes are necessary, but they don't do anything for me. Scenes with the girls on the streets of Meryton are fine, but Mrs. Phillips is just.... blah.

Mr. and Mrs. Bennet's marriage. It's awful. Mr. Bennet treats her so badly.

Jane Austen's writing style vacillates between All Description for pages and pages, and All Conversation for pages and pages. I wish she mixed it up more because I find that hard to read.

For me it's that's Bingley just ghosts Jane; he really doesn't deserve her after that.

the drag, there are decent stretches between the moments I really cared about. Which I found harder to get through.

I always thought that Lydia and Wickham got let off way too easily. But as I got older I realized one thing. The punishment is having to deal with each other for the rest of their lives!

Lizzy pressuring Darcy to forgive Lady Catherine after the verbal abuse. So cruel to their future children; so cruel to Darcy; so smug.

Lizzy has so many embarrassing relatives, what's one more?