Review: Pride and Prejudice

I’m sure you’re misinterpreted that image. Those poor, misunderstood faces carriers. They are only doing what’s right. Only a woman would criticize them, especially women who are men who think women aren’t always to blame for men’s problems!

Unless, it is possible, that interracial marriage, like ending slavery, is a good thing, and homosexual marriage, like abortion, is a great evil. I believe that while there is sometimes acceptance of things that were previously unthinkable, there are some things I believe God, by His grace, will allow us to continue seeing as evil.

Well, I was keeping it in the P&P narrative, but yes, there are many types of men Austen delineates. There’s also the Captain Benwicks – too self indulgent in grief and emotions, the Tom Bertrams – almost a classic Millenial, born to privilege but complains that no one ever lets him do what he wants :)…

Well, yes, but I was thinking of the “not scurrilous but lousy husband” genre in particular. Tilney is really a pretty horrible person but he doesn’t violate basic social morality, he’s just so proud and greedy and wrathful that he makes everyone around him unhappy, in large ways and small. Palmer OTOH comes through in the clutch but he isn’t living with his wife in an understanding way. Fortunately she’s too dumb to notice. Almost an Edith Bunker thing going on there. Benwick probably came right. I don’t think he’s portrayed as poor marriage material, just as somebody who needs… Read more »

Tilney – could one perhaps say he sucks the happiness from the lives of those around him…like a vampire ;) (2007 adaptation joke). Palmer only comes through in the Thompson/Lee film – in the book, he pretty much stays consistently foolish all the way through. At least, that’s my memory. I think Benwick is possibly a casualty of Austen never truly finishing Persuasion (I’ve read some convincing essays arguing that Austen probably would have added enough to break the book into three volumes, like her other novels). He rockets from overly-poetry-indulging to getting better to Wentworth being really upset at… Read more »

No, in the book he comes through exactly the same way as in the adaptation. Even before Marianne’s crisis, Austen has Elinor notice that in his own family and in his own home, he is more sensible and respectable, which is why she has no qualms going to him when Marianne’s danger becomes evident. He probably just gets a bit fed up in situations where the like of Charlotte, Mrs. Jennings, and Sir John are socially dominant, and retreats into Mr. Bennetness. I think that is Wentworth’s pricked conscience talking. I view it as more of a matter of, after… Read more »

Hmm. Perhaps it’s time for a reread – I recently reread Emma and P&P, so S&S is on the list. :) My recollection just has a bit of dissonance with the film portrayal. I have read the cancelled chapters – they are nice, but I wish the films would see if the story works without them – both the 1995 film as you say, and the 2007 film try to squeeze in bits from them. I personally like the original ending better. :) That said, the weaving together of the chapters was not one of the problems I have with… Read more »

Misrepresent, really. It’s not so much exaggerate — it would be hard to exaggerate. He was a toad. He cozied up to Elizabeth, Anne, and Sir Walter in an attempt to become a son-in-law and interfere with any possible marriage, that would jeopardize his accession to the title. (The movie version represents it as “he wants the money,” but the money was gone. He wanted the title and the estate to go with the money he’d gotten from his wife.) And there was the letter Mrs. Smith had saved showing how nasty he could be, and how little actual honor… Read more »

It was the “He wants the money” thing that really annoyed me, since it’s ridiculous based on the fact that the Eliots are already having to rent out their house. The rest you are absolutely correct about. I think I was wrong to say exaggerate – it’s the plot hole the “he wants the money” creates that frustrated me.

Yes, I find that frustrating, too. The observant viewer who hadn’t read the book would be puzzled by that.

Well, even those who have read the book are puzzled, because it’s an illogical change. :)

What I mean is, even those who hadn’t read the book would be puzzled by it. Those who read the book would know it was a change. It’s also interesting that if Anne had been Emma or Lizzie, she would probably have thrown Mrs. Smith in Elliot’s face at some point. But she’s Anne, so she doesn’t ever (that I can recall) even let on to him that she knows her. She just quietly makes up her own mind as to how to act. She doesn’t even tell him off when she learns his true character. I think she’s a… Read more »

It’s interesting that Austen’s quiet heroines (Elinor, Anne, Fanny) tend to have more garbage thrown at them by the other characters. I’m curious to know if the reason for this is to increase our sympathy for them (as Fanny in particular gets a lot of unnecessary hatred from readers for being insipid and priggish), or if it’s because Austen wanted to be realistic, and characters who are less likely to stand up for themselves get more garbage thrown because bullies like easy targets? Or both?

And one of the things that makes her not as “hateable” as some make out. Her arrogant meddling and snobbery are real flaws, but she is not the “awful person” some critics want to make her out to be.

Totally agree! I really identify with Emma’s particular flaws of arrogance, and lack of application to giftings. But I also think she’s a character with true virtue and nobility – even her flaws are often intermingled with them – her friendship with Harriet, though destructive in many ways, has good in it when she attempts to protect her from the cruel and vapid Eltons.