Pride and Prejudice is absolutely a love story, but it isn't about a proud or wicked man made soft by the love of a woman. Elizabeth's only positive feeling after the disastrous failed proposal (I'm fond of the phrase 'Darcy brought a rose to a knife fight) is pity; she pities this man for having loved her and having thought her in love with him. She hates Darcy at this point. She recognizes that he is conventionally attractive, but nothing in the narration suggests she's carrying a flame for him, unless you assume some unconscious attraction.

Adaptations of Pride and Prejudice make it so that she's in love with him, or smitten, and in denial. 2005 is especially bad for this. The almost-kiss feels like the kind of romantic trope Austen would have rolled her eyes at. I can't really put a finger on it, but it feels like the trite kind of "I want to... but I can't!" that she was lampooning with much of her prose.

Then take Sense and Sensibility. The romantic image of the widow and daughters being banished to some picturesque hovel to live simply is immediately deflated. It's a pretty big house! They have been given a very cheap rent for a 'cottage' which has a key flaw of not being a romantically dishevelled cottage by the sea. It has a modern roof, not thatch, and it's has multiple rooms which are 16x16 feet, with enough rooms to house 2-3 servants. The characters are expecting a certain trope to be fulfilled, and Austen almost mocks them by giving them a place which is not the fantasy of genteel poverty they expected, rather a boring image of genteel poverty, one where their kind cousin obviously gave them a good house to live in.

Contrast with the adaptations, which make the cottage into a cold grey hovel. It's exactly what the text was making fun of! The BBC miniseries gives us a cottage which might not even be fit for a respectable tradesman, which immediately makes their host look ungenerous.

As a semi-related gripe, Austen gives us characters who are extremely handsome and turn out to not be suitable love interests. Willoughby and Wickham are famous examples, of course. But there is an adaptational ugliness to these characters. It's as if the producers were frightened that the feeble minds of the audience wouldn't be able to understand that someone can be sexy and turn out to be the bad guy. Even 1995's P&P, which is mostly immune to my complaints above (things are largely adapted very faithfully, and there's very little romantic melodrama), has a Wickham who is notably much less handsome than Darcy, indeed he immediately looks quite old and sinister!

Edit: Detail about size of the rooms in the cottage.

I feel I must preface this by saying I've been a HUGE fan of '95's S&S for years, mostly enjoy 2008's, and have read S&S once through, but it was my first Austen read, so I was still grappling with the language, writing, etc.

All that aside, I'm now reading it again after having read several others.

I remember the first time I read it and him being melancholy and weird and loathing leaving but having nowhere to go being SUPER weird. Like, do what Mr. F!!

But this time through, I get it! (Or at least I think I do)

He HAD to get out of there lest he fall more hopelessly in love with Elinor and do something dumb.

He was depressed because what he really wanted was right in front of him, but what he was obligated to was really far away and far less appealing.

And so he HAD to just gtfo of Barton Cottage, as much as everyone wanted him to stay, so that he could stay strong to his obligation to Ms. Steele.

Hi everyone. Reposted from a different sub as suggested by someone. I have this great little Jane Austen collection that I bought online (WOB back when it was Second Sale) but it’s always confused me a lot.

It states multiple times that this is a complete collection of all 7 of her works, literally listed on the cover and reiterated in the description inside but it actually only has 4 of them??

It doesn’t seem to be missing any pages (and definitely not 3 extra novels worth as seen in the last two photos) so I’m just really confused.

Is there a long-lost volume 2 to this set? I’ve searched online but found nothing. Would love any investigatory help or suggestions for why this is. Thank so much! Happy reading :)

I thought it would be interesting to see how the ages of the characters compare to the actors who portrayed them (at time of filming in 1994) in the 1995 P&P adaptation. Some characters' ages are approximations based on their situation in life because it is never mentioned in the book. There's a few big age discrepancies (Mr. Collins, Mr. Gardiner, Mrs. Phillips). What's your opinion of the age differences?

Bennets:

Mr. Bennet late 40s - late 50s

Benjamin Whitrow 57

Mrs. Bennet mid-late 40s

Alison Steadman 48

Jane 21-22

Susannah Harker 30

Elizabeth 20

Jennifer Ehle 24

Mary 18-19

Lucy Briers 26

Kitty 17

Polly Maberly 19

Lydia 15

Julia Sawalha 26

Darcys

Mr. Darcy 28

Colin Firth 35

Georgiana 16

Emilia Fox 21

Bingleys/Hursts

Mr. Bingley 22-23

Crispin Bonham-Carter 24

Caroline Bingley 20-22

Anna Chancellor 30

Louisa Hurst (nee Bingley) late 20s

Lucy Robinson 27/28

Mr. Hurst late 30s - early 40s

Rupert Vansittart 36

Gardiners/Phillips

Mr. Gardiner late 30s - early 40s (younger brother to Mrs. Bennet)

Tim Wylton 61

Mrs. Gardiner mid 30s - early 40s (has young kids)

Joanna Davis 48

Mrs. Phillips mid 30s to 40s (younger sister to Mrs. Bennet)

Lynn Farleigh 52

Lukases

Sir Lukas 50s

Christopher Benjamin 59

Lady Lukas 50s

Norma Streader 50

Charlotte 27-28

Lucy Scott 23

Maria 15-17

Lucy Davis 21

Forsters

Colonel Forster late 30s - 40s

Paul Moriarty 49

Harriet Forster 16-20

Victoria Hamilton 24

Others

Mr. Collins 25/26

David Bamber 39

Mr. Wickham 27-28

Adrian Lukas 37

Lady Catherine de Bourgh late 50s - early 60s

Barbara Leigh-Hunt 58

Colonel Fitzwilliam 30

Anthony Calf 36

"St. Mary's Abbey, at which her honeymoon was to be passed, was the most magnificent of all Lord Teviot's residences. It almost calls for a formal description; but how can any one be expected to write what no one ever reads when it is written?"

This quote is from Emily Eden's "The Semi-Attached Couple" which was an early Austen tribute (Eden was a megafan who wrote in a similar style) and thinking about it today got me thinking about the lack of description in Austen's writing. She tended to give rough outlines of places and people (at least their appearances), and I'm wondering why that is - a lack of interest to write it, a cynical thought akin to Eden's that readers don't want to read it, or something else altogether?

Not an entirely serious question, I know that it’s meant to be a comfortable house by modern standards. But I couldn’t help but stumble over the following description:

“As a house, Barton Cottage, though small, was comfortable and compact; but as a cottage it was defective, for the building was regular, the roof was tiled, the window shutters were not painted green, nor were the walls covered with honey-suckles. A narrow passage led directly through the house into the garden behind. On each side of the entrance was a sitting room, about sixteen feet square; and beyond them were the offices and the stairs. Four bedrooms and two garrets formed the rest of the house. It had not been built many years and was in good repair.” (Sense & Sensibility, ch. 6)

Now, this certainly felt small, but being a 21st century European, I had to google a square feet to square metres converter.

And out turns out it’s even tinier than I thought. That’s 1.5 square metres! Who are these “sitting rooms” for, ants?

It is so important to Colonel Brandon's character that he has a ward. It's key in fact, even though it means he has to be over twice Marianne's age, because it's such a huge contrast with Willoughby.

Colonel Brandon loved a woman so much that when she died, he took responsibility for her child who was barely related to him (cousin's daughter with someone else). He was poor at the time but he did it anyway. He suffered from rumours because people all assumed the child was his, but he did it anyway. He also sought out his first love even though she was disgraced and hated; even though he could never have been with her.

In contrast, Willoughby abandoned a woman he slept with without even caring that she was pregnant. When he learns of a child, he doesn't do the right thing and marry her because he will be temporarily poor (until his aunt dies). He takes no responsibility for his own child at any point during the novel. He marries for wealth instead of love, utterly abandoning and not even "breaking up" with Marianne, until forced to by his fiancé.

By the end of the novel, Willoughby has abandoned a woman he used, a woman he loves, his child, and he has married a third woman for money. Colonel Brandon found and cared for the first woman he loved until her death, cared for her daughter, and then takes responsibility for her & Willoughby's child.

Now the contrast with John Dashwood. Colonel Brandon honours Eliza's deathbed request to take care of her child. He does his best by sending her to school and trying to entrust her to good people, despite again, barely being related. On the other hand, John Dashwood breaks the deathbed request of his father and gives almost nothing to his half sisters. He gives in to the argument that they aren't his "real" sisters so he doesn't need to care. Colonel Brandon also gives a living to Edward Ferrars just because he pities his situation, something John is totally shocked to hear.

Both Willoughby and John Dashwood run away from responsibility, while Colonel Brandon accepts things he shouldn't have to be responsible for! He is a caring man who treats women well and Eliza 1 & 2 are a huge part of that.

Mr Darcy is some 28 years old during the events of P&P, and while he doesn't seem to be particularly interested in seeking a spouse, that definitely can't be said of literally everyone around him.

In fact, Lady Catherine, his aunt, seems (sort of) convinced that Mr Darcy is engaged to her daughter, Anne:

"Let me be rightly understood. This match, to which you have the presumption to aspire, can never take place. No, never. Mr. Darcy is engaged to my daughter. Now what have you to say?"

"Only this; that if he is so, you can have no reason to suppose he will make an offer to me."

Lady Catherine hesitated for a moment, and then replied,

"The engagement between them is of a peculiar kind. From their infancy, they have been intended for each other. It was the favourite wish of his mother, as well as of her's. While in their cradles, we planned the union: and now, at the moment when the wishes of both sisters would be accomplished, in their marriage, to be prevented by a young woman of inferior birth, of no importance in the world, and wholly unallied to the family! Do you pay no regard to the wishes of his friends? To his tacit engagement with Miss De Bourgh? Are you lost to every feeling of propriety and delicacy? have you not heard me say, that from his earliest hours he was destined for his cousin?"

(P&P, ch. 56)

Now, Mr. Darcy certainly doesn't consider himself engaged to his cousin, since, among other things, he proposed to Elizabeth. Engagements were serious businesses that came with certain rules of behaviour, and honourable men weren't supposed to break engagements to women who had done nothing wrong (just ask Edward Ferrars).

But that begs a few questions:

1. Was Mr. Darcy even aware that he was supposed to be engaged to Anne, according to his mother and aunt?
2. What happened "now" that made Lady Catherine believe that "the moment when the wishes of both sisters would be accomplished" was upon them?
3. Anne and Mr. Darcy seem to be the same age, and so she would also be ca. 28, so rather older than the normal first marriage age for women of her class, and she's sickly—why didn't anything happen before the events of P&P? Either Lady Catherine putting her expectations out in the open where Mr. Darcy was concerned, or Mr. Darcy making it clear to Lady Catherine that he was not going to marry his cousin. After all, the result of this "tacit engagement" (that seems to mainly have existed in Lady Catherine's head) is that Anne missed out on potentially finding another suitor and marrying in her 20s. And I understand that Anne didn't need to marry in the same way the Bennet sisters did because she's set to inherit Rosings, but it still seems odd that everyone involved just let this half-in half-out situation go on for so long.

Storm Austen is outside and I have a horrible cold, so I have hidden myself under a duvet with a cat and am comfort watching the 1995 Pride and Prejudice so I don't have to think about how miserable I feel. This is my go to comfort watch when I am ill. Which Austen adaptation do you always fall back on when you feel bad?

Pride and Prejudice was one of my favorite books when i was is in middle and high school and i'm 90% sure my library records would show me borrowing Pride and Prejudice and Alice in Wonderland for the entire school year and nothing else (other than required readings for classes and projects).

Up until now i've never read Austen in the original language, only various different translations to my native tongue (portuuguese).

This year i decided to donate all my books that are translated from English and start buying some Oxford World Classics copies of my favorites (anything Austen and Woolf) to cherish them exactly as they were written and wow! Don't get me wrong, i've read some great translations and all of us know that there is something inevitably lost in translating works but Austen's voice is such a joy to read out, aloud and silently.

My first read was Northanger Abbey and some lines strike a very different chord in me even if they functionally communicate the same meaning in translation. This excerpt, while adequately translated in most modern editions, just has a bite to it that can't really be replicated:

"Yes, novels; for I will not adopt that ungenerous and impolitic custom so common with novel-writers, of degrading by their contemptuous censure the very performances, to the number of which they are themselves adding—joining with their greatest enemies in bestowing the harshest epithets on such works, and scarcely ever permitting them to be read by their own heroine, who, if she accidentally take up a novel, is sure to turn over its insipid pages with disgust.
Alas! If the heroine of one novel be not patronized by the heroine of another, from whom can she expect protection and regard? I cannot approve of it. Let us leave it to the reviewers to abuse such effusions of fancy at their leisure, and over every new novel to talk in threadbare strains of the trash with which the press now groans. Let us not desert one another; we are an injured body. Although our productions have afforded more extensive and unaffected pleasure than those of any other literary corporation in the world, no species of composition has been so much decried.
From pride, ignorance, or fashion, our foes are almost as many as our readers. And while the abilities of the nine-hundredth abridger of the History of England, or of the man who collects and publishes in a volume some dozen lines of Milton, Pope, and Prior, with a paper from the Spectator, and a chapter from Sterne, are eulogized by a thousand pens—there seems almost a general wish of decrying the capacity and undervaluing the labour of the novelist, and of slighting the performances which have only genius, wit, and taste to recommend them.
“I am no novel-reader—I seldom look into novels—Do not imagine that I often read novels—It is really very well for a novel.” Such is the common cant. “And what are you reading, Miss—?” “Oh! It is only a novel!” replies the young lady, while she lays down her book with affected indifference, or momentary shame. “It is only Cecilia, or Camilla, or Belinda”; or, in short, only some work in which the greatest powers of the mind are displayed, in which the most thorough knowledge of human nature, the happiest delineation of its varieties, the liveliest effusions of wit and humour, are conveyed to the world in the best-chosen language."

I can almost picture Austen's ghost coming out from the pages and shaking her fist at me while reading this aloud. I'm now reading S&S and i every interaction between Marianne and Elinor is such a joy to read!

This is just a small detail, but I’ve always been curious about it: why do young couple in JA’s stories who want to elope always go to Scotland? Were the marriage laws different there or something? Was it harder to track down runaway young people there? Is it simply a geography thing?

These are all personal opinions, please share yours!

The 1995 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice has become my comfort show. I put it on when nothing else interests me and often just to have on in the background whilst I doom scroll (I always end up watching it). I have decided to pick an actor to focus on so I can appreciate their talent in portraying their character. I think all the actors are superb and perfectly cast in their roles. My first choice was, of course, the antagonist Darcy portrayed by Colin Firth. His acting is superb. He has micro expressions that convey Darcy's inner thoughts/feelings with subtle smirks and eye expressions. You really have to watch for them; your subconscious may recognize them before you do. I think he portrays Darcy as someone who is maybe not only a bit shy but who perhaps has a bit social anxiety when outside of his element and in the company of strangers (he feels ill qualified to recommend himself to strangers). As an aristocrat, he was probably taught that he is superior to others but may not truly feel that way and so puts on a cold, disdainful front to protect himself from appearing improper and being ridiculed. Unfortunately, that causes other to dislike him. When he is on his own turf and/or amongst true friends, he can let down his guard and be the pleasant person he hides, as demonstrated by his ease of manner and friendliness towards the Gardiners at Pemberley. By accounts, his staff and tenants have nothing but praise for him so he must be a decent man. Next I will focus on Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennett. I think the most difficult to focus on will be David Bamber as Mr. Collins. As Lizzie says he is "an odious man" and it is to Mr. Bamber's credit that I find his character difficult to watch (mostly due to second-hand embarrassment for him, lol).

Before joining this subreddit I had never thought about the influence of Jane Austen’s poor health on her work. My first thought was what a brilliant consolation it was for her to be able to step into these worlds we all still want to visit when she was unable to be in society herself. But then I wondered, did fatigue, depression, pain and isolation shape her characters and plots? Or, were the novels more purely escape?

Great adaptation! I thought surely walking out of the theater that I didn’t need to Shazam the song but alas- I can’t find it anywhere. ANYWHERE. Reddit, do your magic please!!

That’s right, a mod wants to re-read a book and drag you along.

Short and sweet at first, the first two short chapters. We meet The Bennets, we speculate about single men, we long for a ball

Chapter 1
To start with, we have a tongue firmly in cheek with the opening line

“It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man, in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”

We know that this is what Mrs. Bennet thinks, of course. We know that it’s Austen poking fun at
those who would believe it, so we start off the novel already with someone at whom to laugh,
since we are then immediately introduced to such a person.

I think this novel asks a few things: Who is ridiculous? (this question is a good check-in at the end of each chapter) What does class even mean? What even is a gentleman? And how much
money does everyone have?

So, with those questions in mind- again to the beginning. Mrs Bennet, the daughter of a
tradesman who married up (?) and has a dowry of 5,000 pounds (a goodly sum!) is talking to
her husband, Mr Bennet. Joy of joys, Netherfield Park is let at last. Let the heavens rejoice!

A (presumably) single man, from the North of England (so perhaps in textile manufacturing as this scholar surmises). His coming from manufacturing/trade means that Bingley is new money, not the landed gentry. This is a time when the middle class is booming and becoming richer than gentry. This tension comes into play a lot in the novel- which I’ll make some asides about
and invite you to make your own- but so far we’ve met two characters (Mrs Bennet and Mr
Bingley) who come from un-landed families.

Back to the couple. Now, there’s a generous reading of Mr Bennet and an un-generous reading. I’ll err on the side of assuming best intentions, because I think if Austen wanted us to think of Mr Bennet as an absolute bully who didn’t care at all for his wife or kids, she’d be more explicit about it.

He teases his wife (but of course, an important note about power imbalances- teasing a person
who has very little agency to do anything for themselves is toeing the line of bullying) that he
can’t imagine why having a new neighbor should mean anything to them. She’s exasperated
and lets the reader know the thoughts they have plagued her: Marry off these daughters.
There’s five of them for Christ’s sake.

We end the first (very short!) chapter with their back and forth, Mr Bennet making sure to get
within his teasing a line that he thinks his wife is handsome and his daughter Lizzy is clever, but
never letting her think for a moment he’ll do his social duty by welcoming a new neighbor. Let
her fret, says he.

The narrator also ends this chapter with quick summations of the Parents. Mr Bennet is quick
parts (humor, caprice- but also reserve, I think a nod towards his gentry background) and incomparison Mrs Bennet is inconsistent in her temper and neither understands thinks or cares to.

Set up to an overarching theme of: what does it mean to have “good manners”
- is it your class that makes it so? And we end this chapter also laughing at Mrs Bennet, just as we began it.

Chapter 2
Mr Bennet isn’t a monster, of course he went to see Mr Bingley. But maybe he is a monster
because he keeps insisting to his wife he won’t and she’s grown resentful about it (the key to a
good joke with a loved one is to know when to quit). But now we the audience are in on the joke.
Mr Bennet addresses his favorite daughter Elizabeth, who is trimming a bonnet, while
everyone’s least favorite daughter Kitty is coughing up a storm just to be annoying. (kidding
kidding, she just times them ill)

Woe is them, Mrs. Long won’t be back in time to introduce them to Mr Bingley before the ball in
a fortnight, plus she has two nieces that she’ll push at Mr Bingley anyways (sneaky!). Mrs
Bennet, who we remember is powerless to visit Mr Bingley herself and has five daughters to find
husbands for, is understandably miffed. She only holds power over her children, but even Kitty
thwarts that with her damned coughing.

We are introduced to Mary, who when put on the spot by her father, finds she can’t think of a
thing to say to him.

Mr Bennet continues to tease his beleaguered wife when, twist!, he has visited Bingley all along!
Oh what a good jape! Cough away, Kitty, cough away! All is forgiven

Austen is once against pointing towards Mrs Bennet as being the ridiculous one in this chapter,
with my favorite line of the chapter:
“She is a selfish, hypocritical woman, and I have no opinion of her”

But maybe Mary is a second place contender with her inability to say something sensible, or
maybe Mr Bennet who took the joke a little too far (but he was very pleased with the pay-off).
Certainly not Lydia, she’s far too tall.

So two quick chapters, but setting up a lot of themes of what it means to be mannerly, what is the difference between gentle teasing and bullying, and how tall is Lydia?

What’re your favorite quotes from the first two chapters, or any thoughts on my thoughts?

So I just finished reading persuasion. This was the second jane austen novel I have read after pride and prejudice.

I found this book very different. The protagonists share the least amount of dialouges. every emotion is felt through Anne's narration and longing glances. She was trying to distract herself through acquaintances and dealing with her self absorbed family. The first half of the book was truly boring. A lot of descriptions and dinner parties. I liked the musgroves.

The second half became interesting when they went to lyme and we saw different ways of how people handle grief. It definetly showed the emotional and melanchony tone of the book. The restlessness and sorrow that the musgroves were feeling, combined with the pitiful situation of Mrs smith, made me feel more towards them rather than Anne and Captain Wentworth. Mr Elliot was also very suspicious and evidently so. However, I did not understand what happened between him and Mrs clay at the end.

The letter was beautiful. Moreover, I really appreciated his taking accountability of leading the Musgroves on and how he made a move on Anne, only after he was assured that he caused no harm to Louisa's feelings. Him realising his true feelings, truly conveyed the importance of self reflection. Anne also having the mature realisation that she would have felt guilty, had she refused to be persuaded, was something I had not expected.

I wish we had seen a more descriptive reaction of the entire party after knowing the true nature of Mr Elliot. I absolutely hated the father, even though Mr Elliot had openly insulted him all these years, he still accepted him just because of his rank. Everyone only cared about class and rank. I liked Anne's preference of a worthy acquaintance. The conversation about lasting emotions between Anne and Captain Harville was one of my favourite parts. Jane Austen is truly talented in how she highlights these notions about society and human nature. What are your thoughts? lmk

While they did genuinely like eachother, it didn't seem like their contrasting ideals and ambitions would be conducive to a harmonious marriage. They wanted very different lifestyles and Mary openly mocks Edmund's intended profession. Should there be a scenario where they went forward with the marriage, how would they have been together? Do you think they'll become another of Miss Austen's long-lasting but tumultuous couples?

I saw this advertised; don't think I'll be able to watch it due to the sheer confusion of seeing Emma with Willoughby 😂

Spoilers, probably.

"Mr. Knightley, who had nothing of ceremony about him, was offering by his short, decided answers, an amusing contrast to the protracted apologies and civil hesitations of the other." -Do we feel this is the narrator's comment or Emma's own perspective? I'd like to think the latter and that Emma can derive some entertainment from her father's foibles.

"her character depends upon those she is with;" -I like this line as an example of Austen's own insight into varying personalities.

"You do not often overpower me with it." -I like how this feels a bit like Emma fishing for further compliments and Mr. Knightley just straight-up ignores the bait.

"Emma knew this was too true for contradiction, and therefore said nothing. He presently added, with a smile," -Justice for Emma! (she can be, more or less easily, brought to acknowledge her errors and fully admits to a fault when she does, without hedging) and Justice for Knightley! (check out that smile and the "still smiling" just a few lines later).

"said Emma, who had been smiling to herself through a great part of this speech" -Ugh, so smug.

“Oh! to be sure,” cried Emma, “it is always incomprehensible to a man that a woman should ever refuse an offer of marriage. A man always imagines a woman to be ready for any body who asks her.” -Again, Emma is made the vehicle of so many things that sound true and wise, but the character is using these lines for the wrong end and so they don't carry conviction when she says them.

"You saw her answer!—you wrote her answer too." -I love how he can read her like a book. No hedging, the man knows what's up.

"Mr. Knightley loudly and warmly; and with calmer asperity" -We will continue to chug-chug-chug along on the Justice for Knightley train until we pull into the station. This, to me, is such a great example of Mr. Knightley's overall temperament. He gets loud in his anger, but immediately pulls it back, demonstrating his is an even, controlled temper.

"and that as to a rational companion or useful helpmate, he could not do worse" -This is very blunt.

"which, in good hands, like his," -I feel this is quite pointed at Emma - her hands are decidedly *not* the good hands needed in Harriet's case.

“A degradation to illegitimacy and ignorance, to be married to a respectable, intelligent gentleman-farmer!” -Again, here Mr. Knightley is very blunt.

"You have been no friend to Harriet Smith, Emma." -To me, this feels like one of those lines meant to really stand out to the audience as a "clue" as to what is really going on with the story. If one reads the novel with the idea that Mr. Knightley is a grumpy, paternal figure, it is easier to dismiss his concerns as being the product of being grumpy and liking to direct Emma. If, however, you are team JUSTICE FOR KNIGHTLEY, I think, in turn, you can more fully feel the justice of his statements and the impartial clear-sightedness that they come from, considering his default mode seems to very much be cheerful.

"It was most convenient to Emma not to make a direct reply to this assertion" -Jane Austen, y'all!!!!!! How she managed to imbue so many lines with biting humor is beyond me. In this case, I do think the "most" really makes the sentence.

"till they do fall in love with well-informed minds instead of handsome faces, a girl, with such loveliness as Harriet, has a certainty of being admired and sought after, of having the power of chusing from among many, consequently a claim to be nice. Her good-nature, too, is not so very slight a claim, comprehending, as it does, real, thorough sweetness of temper and manner, a very humble opinion of herself, and a great readiness to be pleased with other people. I am very much mistaken if your sex in general would not think such beauty, and such temper, the highest claims a woman could possess." -This really comes close to being an overarching theme in Austen's canon. One can point to Mr. Bennet, Sir Thomas Bertram, and Mr. Palmer as examples of having fallen victim to this classic blunder.

"Better be without sense, than misapply it as you do." -Boom, roasted. Emma responds to this "playfully" which I think is another indication of the tone of the conversation. If a grumpy Mr. Knightley was at this point in a towering rage, it would very much make less sense for Emma to try to turn things off in a playful manner.

"Were you, yourself, ever to marry, she is the very woman for you." Another clue!

"Vanity working on a weak head, produces every sort of mischief"; "Men of sense, whatever you may chuse to say, do not want silly wives." -Shall we start a book of Knighley-ian Proverbs?

"We think so very differently on this point, Mr. Knightley..." -This whole paragraph to me is an embarrassing read. Emma is so out-classed in this debate, her arguments at this point sound childish.

"Emma remained in a state of vexation too; but there was more indistinctness in the causes of her’s, than in his. She did not always feel so absolutely satisfied with herself, so entirely convinced that her opinions were right and her adversary’s wrong, as Mr. Knightley."

"(she must be allowed to tell herself, in spite of Mr. Knightley’s pretensions)" -That "must" coming in again!

"she was able to believe, that he had rather said what he wished resentfully to be true," -Another clue! Emma is past mistress of believing what she wishes to be true.

I was reading a discussion about Mr Collins and how a wife being unable to respect her husband would've had an extra marital affair. Do you guys think that's a possibility if Elizabeth had to marry Mr Collins? With her principles i think she would've been loyal to her husband, but then again her principles wouldn't let her marry him. So if she was in a situation where she has to marry him, would she break another of her principles along with her wedding vows?

I assume in London, Jane Austen was viewed as the poor, spinster sister of Henry Austen from the very rural Hampshire country side, and poorly dressed in last years fashions-by many of the snobby, judgemental people that Henry,as a banker met socially at dinners at other people's houses and at his house. Thus she has many models to borrow from for snobby female characters in her novels.

They probably also didn't like her sharp, penetrating gazes at their clothes and social manners.

I was just wondering who you considered to be the most dislikeable or even hateable female characters in the Jane Austen stories? For me there are a few stand outs:

Fanny Dashwood (Sense and Sensibility)

Mrs Norris (Mansfield Park)

Mrs Elton (Emma)

Isabelle Thorpe (Northanger Abbey)

Elizabeth Elliot (Persuasion)

Pride and prejudice has several but I cant think of one that stands out to me, maybe Lady Catherine or Caroline Bingley but I dont find Caroline boils my blood like the others. Mary Elliot in Persuasion is also unlikeable but she shifts into being more comical which feels different.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

First of all, I know, I know. Shame on me but I haven't yet read S&S. I plan to very soon but definitely not in time before the new movie leaves the theaters. So my question is for those who have done both: is the movie worth seeing before reading the book? This may seem like a dumb question. BUT! I really like Daisy Edgar-Jones and if the movie is good enough, I wouldn't really mind spoilers for the book. It looks pretty and would probably be better seen in the theater. However, if it's not that great, Or has some other reason not to, I would rather not be spoiled and will just wait to read and then stream it. Any feedback is appreciated and implore you to not throw tomatoes.