Talk:Pride and Prejudice/Archive 1

Archive 1

General Discussion

I think you're right that some of this discussion could use some revision. What it's in particular need of is some sourcing--if we can start going to specific critics or groups of critics for some of these claims, I think it'll all come together more logically. Good luck in revision! --Dvyost 12:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

In what sense can pride and prejudice appeal to a contemporary reader so much that she says that everything happens? How else might P&P be interpreted

A novels architecture exerts such a significant influence on a readers interpretation that the reader's gender and cultural identity is irrelevant

One should question the status of pride and prejudice as a classic, its settings are irrelevant, its major characters are superior and it's moral context outdated

Pride and prejudice deals honestly with the fraught nature of relationships and tha hazards of quick and easy assuming judgment.

I'm not sure it's the place of a NPOV encylopedia to address these questions. Majts 10:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I second this opinion. I have rearranged the sections with hope of beginning productive discussion threads that will aid the article. For now, it's still very rough.

You know what? The book cover image does nothing for me, you know. Austen certainly didn't contract with Penguin Classics; there are other editions not by them; and the article is, after all, about Austen's novel and not about Penguin's printing of it. Anyone want to argue that the graphic does in fact enhance the article (other than as eye candy)? eritain 00:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Small historical detail: the previous version of the page mentioned the Napoleonic war. But, if the action of the book takes place in 1796-1797, we are still in the pre-Napoleonic period. Napoleon came to power only during the fall of 1799. At the time, England is fighting revolutionary France which is waging war against most of Europe since 1792.

Plot

There's no mention of the later reconciliation between Lady Catherine and Mr. and Mrs. Darcy.

its a minor detail, and even in the the book it is only given a few sparse sentences...

It is in the final chapter of the book. Elizabeth encourages Darcy to reconcile with his aunt. Auchick (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This sentence in the first paragraph needs to be fixed:

Upon hearing Wickham's story that Darcy broke a promise to his father (a friend of Wickham's father) to provide Wickham with a living after his death.

Character Relationships Web

Pride and Prejudice character web

I don't know if this is wanted or necessary, but I created a character web (click on the thumb to view) to illustrate the dynamics existing between all the primary and most of the secondary characters in Pride and Prejudice. I believe that this could be a very useful tool, especially for one who is reading the book and wants to get a better grasp on what is being read. But before I add this to the article, I would appreciate your input:

• First of all, is such a web needed and (most importantly) wanted? If so...
• What improvements would you suggest? Some examples might include-
  • Downsizing file so less screen and/or memory room is taken up
  • Addition of colors to help make diagram more comprehensive
  • Addition of characters (such as Sir William Lucas) or deletion of characters already included
  • Revision, addition, or clarification of relationship descriptions (married to, aunt of)
  • Change in placement of characters in web
• Finally, (and I just realized this now)- is it a Wikipedia no-no to add my name to this image? I did is without realizing (I suppose it was just pride in one's work) but I will be happy to remove it if necessary.

Thanks all! --Canadian Joeldude 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Great character web. I like it.

You inquired about clarification of relationship descriptions. Referring to Anne de Bourgh as "betrothed to" Fitzwilliam Darcy (and vice versa) is problematic, as there was no official engagement between the characters. You might want to reword that description. Perhaps change the line between Anne and Darcy to an arrow originating from Anne and pointing to Darcy, then reword the relationship description to something like "intended for."

What do you think? BellyOption 02:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds good. I suppose that the word "betrothed" implies consent between the parties involved. Anyone else? --Canadian Joeldude 19:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

New character map

Okay, people. i have made the suggested changes, and am know posting the new web to the article. The new web can be viewed by clicking the thumbnail. Also, suggestions for any more changes are still welcome. --Canadian Joeldude 07:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO, it could be organized a bit differently. I feel that Elizabeth and Darcy should be at the top of the diagram, with the position of the remaining characters determined by their importance (lesser = lower), though I don't know if this is practical. Also, the intermediate circle for the five sisters doesn't really serve a purpose.

Interesting concept though. Now what about War and Peace? Clarityfiend 06:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think putting Elizabeth and Darcy at the top would work, because it would get too cluttered underneath. Also, this shows that the character relationships tend to revolve around these two. I tried to show their importance by bolding the text of those characters. Perhaps I could show more levels of importance by using color or font size. As for the "Bennet sisters" circle, I thought that it eliminated the need to show lines reading "sister of" connecting all the sisters. However, if you have a better idea, perhaps again the use of color, I will take it into consideration. Canadian Joeldude 22:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said in the above section, doesn't it just take your breathe away?

It would be nice if the character map could be centered or perhaps a full picture instead of a thumbnail as in Psychoactive drug. --// >|< Shablog 17:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision of Map

It has been a while since I have visited Wikipedia, and it seems that during this time, someone has revised this character map. They added an "attracted to" line between Colonel Fitzwilliam and Elizabeth. Now, I know that these two hit it off in the book, but is there any evidence to show that these people were actually interested in each other? One concern is that I might be able to see that Colonel Fitzwilliam was attracted to Elizabeth, but I can't recall it happening vice versa, at leact concretely. But my main concern is clarity. There isnt every single character in the book on the map, and neither is there every possible connection. Is this added connection significant? Canadian Joeldude 07:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the map is brilliant. I printed it off because sometimes I couldn't even remember who was the eldest daughter and who the youngest. I now have the chart stuck in the back of the book to refer to for the future. Thank you!! Katie1971 ( Let's talk!! ) 15:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

---

This is just to point out an error in the map: Mr. Collins is not the cousin of Mr. Bennet, but his nephew. Collins is the cousin of the Bennet girls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.69.94 (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Read it again. -- Zsero (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if you review the part where Mr. Bennet reads Mr. Collins' letter at the dinner table, he refers to Mr. Collins as his cousin. That would make Mr. Collins a second cousin to the girls.

Boosterbaby, 2-20-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.40.171 (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. If Collins were Mr Bennet's first cousin, then he'd be the girls' first cousin once removed. But he's not Bennet's first cousin, he's "a distant relation". Thus he's simply a cousin, of unspecified degree, to all the Bennets. -- Zsero (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Entail

If one of the married daughters has a son, will he inherit the estate from Mr Bennet? Because if not, how does Mr Collins (clearly a female-line descendant if he is named Collins and not Bennet) stand to inherit? If anyone knows, please could they explain: I would be very interested to know the answer. Michaelsanders 23:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope they couldn't. As to Mr. Collins, the supposition is that Mr Collins' line at some point took a name from a benefactor, a la Frank Churchill in Emma who was actually a Weston... Hope that helps. It is definitely only male to male... plange 00:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'd forgotten about Frank Churchill. Thanks! Michaelsanders 00:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely it depends upon the terms of the entail? A common ancestor, without sons, could have left his estates to his elder daughter and her heirs-male (of whom Mr Bennet is the last) failing whom to his younger daughter and her heirs-male (of whom Mr Collins is the senior). Opera hat (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Huuh?

"Immediately after the opening sentence, which sets forth matchmaking as a postulate of social mathematics..." What in the world does that mean? Clarityfiend 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

pretty much saying that matchmaking is a product of studying social interaction (or something like that anyway)

Original research

This section appears to be original research - it lacks citation of any kind and reads like "Cliff Notes." The information below needs to be researched, with critics and citations included, and cleaned up if it is to be reinserted back into the article. -Classicfilms 16:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(Major Themes): As the original title First Impressions suggests, the text can be read as a conservative criticism of the Romantic movement and in particular its conceit of love at first sight. Early in the story, Charlotte Lucas declares that happiness in marriage is a matter of chance and that a woman has equal odds of being happy with a man if she marries immediately after meeting him or if she studies his character for a year - yet she speaks from cynicism. Elizabeth Bennet's first suitor, Mr. Collins, mouths Romantic clichés without a trace of genuine feeling when he proposes marriage and claims to have experienced love at first sight for Elizabeth, even though his first choice was Elizabeth's more beautiful sister Jane. Shortly after Elizabeth's refusal, he proposes to Charlotte, who tests her theory of marital happiness with dubious success. Elizabeth's two other romantic interests, Wickham and Darcy, amount to another test of Charlotte's theory. Over the course of a year, the former makes a wonderful first impression before proving to be a scoundrel and the other overcomes several early faux pas and a very poor first impression to demonstrate warmth, generosity, and goodness. A further warning about Romanticism's excesses is the subplot involving Lydia's elopement, which nearly ruins her own future as well as her entire family's social standing.

Actually Elizabeth has another romantic interest, Col Fitzwilliam whom she meets in Kent when he visits with Darcy. Fitzwilliam does let Lizzy know he can't marry where he'd like to because he is dependent. Auchick (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Irony also permeates the novel. Immediately after the opening sentence, which sets forth matchmaking as a postulate of social mathematics, the text undercuts its premise. Superficial ironies delineate several minor characters such as Lady de Bourgh's pompousness in boasting her expertise about music despite not knowing how to play any instrument and Miss Bingley's insincerity in declaring how well she likes books while she yawns and sets one down. A deeper irony is that, despite Elizabeth's insistence to Mr. Collins that she would never want a man to propose to her twice, she spends much of the story regretting her initial refusal of Mr. Darcy.

The greatest irony, is that Darcy says in his letter to her that her family behave badly, yet his own relations, ie Lady Catherine, has appalling manners. But she is excused because she is very wealthy. Auchick (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Another irony is that Mary would gladly have married Mr Collins but because she wasn't so handsome she was over looked by him and her mother didn't help set up the match as was her mother's job. Austen's theme regarding marriage in this novel is that we only marry for love by luck. Charlotte Lucas was the only one able to bring about a marriage by her own machinations because she was not in love. Jane had Mr Bingley taken from her, and her marriage to him was only brought about because Lizzy abused Mr Darcy for ruining her sister's happiness. When Lizzy decides she does love Darcy, was was then powerless to act on her behalf and needed Lady Catherine to act on her behalf, although unwittingly by trying to make sure it didn't occur. I can only assume that Lady Catherine heard something from Miss Darcy on the matter which provoked her to act. Auchick (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlike most novels of its era, which describe fantastic or improbable events, Pride and Prejudice depicts ordinary provincial life with keen observation. It sidesteps flashy scenes: Lydia's elopement occurs "offstage" and she returns before the reader only after her marriage; the sole hint of the ongoing Napoleonic wars is a militia regiment that seems to exist for the amusement of teenage girls. The active mind of the protagonist and her sparring courtship provide most of the story's interest.

Marriage plays a huge role in Pride and Prejudice. Some characters marry for security, some marry for wealth, and some marry for love. The idea of marriage is very important throughout the novel, primarily because it was often the only way for a woman of the period to secure her freedom, social status, and living standard. But this is an ongoing theme in all of Austen's novels. Auchick (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Social classes are also taken into account and play a major role as a theme in Pride and Prejudice. People of higher class are often depicted as being very proud of themselves (in several cases to the point of arrogance) and disdaining to socialise with those of lower class. A good example, at least initially, is Mr. Darcy himself. Also, the Bingley sisters often talk together about the way people of lower classes act and look bitterly upon them, and it is frequently the view of the upper classes that mingling with lower classes is looked down upon. Notable exceptions are Colonel Fitzwilliam, the polite and intelligent younger son of an earl who exhibits embarrassment at the rudeness of his wealthier relatives, and Mr. Bingley, a pleasant and sociable man who eagerly embraces and mingles with his lower-class neighbours. Jane Austen ridicules almost all of her aristocratic characters, and her heroes tend to be the landed gentry or the upper-middle class. Lizzy Bennet insists that she is of the same class as Mr. Darcy, and snobbery is one of the characteristics of a villain in Jane Austen's novels.

Appearance versus reality is a recurring motif all throughout the novel. Near the beginning of the novel, Mr. Darcy points out that humility is the most deceitful appearance of all, and that it is often a careless remark, but can be a way to uplift one's view among others. This is demonstrated most obviously through the character of Wickham, a seemingly decent person upon first appearances who is soon revealed to be less scrupulous than he at first appears.

An important theme of all of Jane Austen's novels is how one correctly assesses the characters of the people one meets. Because Elizabeth Bennet and her sisters need to marry, and need to marry well, it is vital that they be able to "read" the men in their social circle—or they might end up married to unprincipled, immoral men like Wickham. The "pride" of the book's title refers not only to Mr. Darcy's pride, but also to Lizzy's pride in her ability to read characters, which turns out to be faulty.

Another major theme is that pride and prejudice both stand in the way of relationships, as embodied in the persons of Darcy and Elizabeth respectively. Pride narrows the vision of a person and causes one to underestimate other mortals. Prejudice blinds the vision and leads to false perceptions about others. Darcy’s pride and Elizabeth’s prejudice come in their way of understanding each other and keep them apart. Only when Darcy becomes more humble and Elizabeth becomes more accepting can they relate to one another and find happiness together.

Another major theme is family. Austen portrays the family as primarily responsible for the intellectual and moral education of children. Mr. and Mrs. Bennet's failure to provide this education for their daughters leads to the utter shamelessness, foolishness, frivolity, and immorality of Lydia. Elizabeth and Jane have managed to develop virtue and strong characters in spite of the negligence of their parents, perhaps through the help of their studies and the good influence of Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner, who are the only relatives in the novel that take a serious concern in the girls' well-being and provide sound guidance. Elizabeth and Jane are constantly forced to put up with the foolishness and poor judgment of their mother and the sarcasm and detachment of their father. Even when Elizabeth advises her father not to allow Lydia to go to Brighton, he ignores the advice because he thinks it would be too difficult to deal with Lydia's complaining. The result is the scandal of Lydia's elopement with Wickham. It is only when Lydia elopes with Wickham that Mr. Bennet is moved (ineffectively) to action. The conclusion indicates that Mr. Bennet has learned little from the crisis, as he indulges in sarcastic comments at his younger daughters' expense.

The primary theme of the novel is determining one's prejudices, what one takes one's opinion from, its foundation and what constitutes a good basis of judgment. Basically Elizabeth makes her judgment that Darcy is proud because she wasn't handsome enough to tempt him. Then she found all kinds of evidence to support her belief, despite being warned against making rash judgments. She cherry picked her information. This validates what Charlotte says about flattery being essential to romance. Few of us have the heart to be in love without encouragement. Auchick (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Another idea is that Darcy would never have fallen in love with Elizabeth if Carolyn Bingley hadn't harassed him so much about her fine eyes. Miss Bingley immediately suggested to him that they'd get married and harped on it until Darcy was forced into defending his opinion constantly. Which also reinforces Austen's belief that a person's appearance improves on people as people begin to like them better. As Darcy finds her eyes attractive and then finds by the time he is determined to marry her that she is one of the handsomest women of his acquaintance. Auchick (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge Character Articles?

I agree with the notion that Mrs. Bennet should be merged into this article. I would also suggest merging Mr. Bennett, as his article does not contain much additional information either. In my opinion, these characters are not the "major" characters in the novel.--// >|< Shablog 17:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with merging both. Clarityfiend 09:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree also. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Bennet merit their own articles.--Joseph Q Publique 13:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The creator of the article agrees that it should be merged[1]. Pairadox 21:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The list of characters

Perhaps it might be worth making a separate article for the list of characters? The list just seems a little long and unwieldy on this page. Just a thought.--Joseph Q Publique 01:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Georgiana Darcy has her own rather lengthy article! Did I miss something? Was she the heroine of the novel? Clarityfiend 17:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No it just means that all of them do--there are very few novels about which one could say that. But since her article his unfortunately about to be deleted, then a article for the characters would seem the practical way to go. DGG 04:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The following comments relate both to the above and to the discussion of the character list which is under "General suggestions" below. ... Today I revised the list of characters in an attempt to get rid of the in-universe perspective. My goals were to list each character's station in life, relevant character traits, and relationships in a consistent pattern, without going too much into their later actions or transformations. I also reordered the list a little to group related characters together. Unfortunately I still didn't succeed in making the descriptions any shorter. Further edits welcome.

By the way, I tried not to put in anything that needed a citation from outside the novel itself. The one citation about Elizabeth was already there. -Ferronier (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

General suggestions

This summary is far too long! One does not have to retell the entire story. Hence the word "summary." Also, I found the list of characters unnecessary; I don't think it needs to be here or on another page - what purpose would it serve?. What is most important to know about P&P? The details of each and every character? I was disappointed that there was no "themes" section or "criticism" section. What is the meaning of this novel? That is what the page should try to get across. One can find certain lines of agreement amongst scholars - a handful of "standard" readings, if you will. And what about its reception history or its impact on later writers? Please broaden the scope of the page! Awadewit 03:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree the list of characters doesn't add anything, but good luck trying to get rid of it. There are some fanatical Austenites lurking about. Clarityfiend 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm far from a 'fanatical Austenite', but I do think the list of characters is worthwhile just from the point of view that it's helpful to know who's who and what their purpose in the novel is - there's more characters in the book than just Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy, after all. I do agree that the list as is clutters up this page a bit, though. I also agree that there should be more space devoted to the historical importance and themes of the novel, though. There used to be a 'themes' / 'criticism' section, but I think it was deleted, and the problem with having one is that it tends to be a magnet for original research.--Joseph Q Publique 04:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would think that the characters' "purposes," as you say, would be clear from the summary. Sticking to the "standard readings" of Austen presented by scholars such as Marilyn Butler, William Galperin, Claudia Johnson, Edward Said, Eve Sedgwick, and Nancy Armstrong would help avoid original scholarship. A good place to start might be Deidre Lynch's edited collection _Janeites_. Awadewit 04:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not really an full-on Austen scholar myself, so I'll defer that part of the article to others who know better. I still think a list of characters is helpful just for the reader who wants to see who's who without going through the entire summary, though (and it's not unheard of for articles dealing with fictional works to have lists of characters, whether separate or on the same page), whereas it seems to me that a summary that details both the plot and how the characters work within it would have to be of some amount of detail and length.--Joseph Q Publique 05:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the list could be more limited? Include only the major figures in the novel? It seems to me that this page has fallen into WP:NOT (see "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"). It just lists and summarizes. Awadewit 06:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'd get rid of Mary and Kitty, Louisa Hurst, Anne de Bourgh (does she even make an appearance?), and Mrs. Phillips at the very least. The Gardners are borderline, but I lean toward ditching them too. When I have time, I'll see about trimming the summary. It does seem to have accumulated some unnecessary details. Clarityfiend 06:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd go along with that too.--Joseph Q Publique 07:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've chopped away the characters that Clarityfiend suggested and also did away with the Gardiners (they can always be restored if it's decided they're absolutely vital). I'll also see if I can trim some of the character descriptions of the ones remaining a bit as well.--Joseph Q Publique 07:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted even more characters and tried to tighten up the summary. Awadewit 08:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought - is it absolutely necessary to have both that plot introduction AND the plot summary? The former doesn't really say anything that isn't said in the plot summary.--Joseph Q Publique 23:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the plot introduction is necessary. Awadewit 01:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Any section that calls Elizabeth "plain" deserves to be erased off the face of the Earth. Clarityfiend 04:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed that. I think that it is crucial for readers to recognize that Elizabeth is not the beautiful sister - Jane is. Even Darcy's descriptions of Elizabeth when he begins to fall in love with her do not suggest traditional beauty. We are more in the world of Bronte's Jane, another famous plain heroine. Awadewit 05:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

While Jane is the most beautiful of the sisters, that surely does not consign Elizabeth to being plain.

Bingley: But there is one of her sisters sitting down just behind you, who is very pretty...

Darcy: I have been meditating on the very great pleasure which a pair of fine eyes in the face of a pretty woman can bestow.

...as she [Mary] was no longer mortified by comparisons between her sisters' beauty and her own...

The defense rests. Clarityfiend 17:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

One must, of course, always take the speaker into consideration. When Bingley says Elizabeth is pretty, we are skeptical, because he is pleased with everyone and everything. One must, also, take context into consideration. I believe the Darcy quotation occurs when he is trying to provoke Miss Bingley? Therefore, the question is, does he believe Elizabeth is actually pretty or is he needling Miss Bingley? Finally, Mary is contrasting herself to her sisters; this is, again, far from a neutral description of Elizabeth and Jane. Austen's writing is subtle; please do not simplify it. Awadewit 21:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Darcy says at the ball, "She is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me..." Since he was making no attempt to be kind at that point, it is evident that he did not ever consider her to be plain. Also, somewhere there is a reference to the Bennet girls as "reputed beauties", which indicates that Elizabeth was considered attractive by the neighbourhood, no? Subtle is one thing, finding hidden meanings where they are not evident is another. Clarityfiend 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this might settle the issue:

"I remember, when we first knew her in Hertfordshire, how amazed we all were to find that she was a reputed beauty, and I particularly recall your saying one night, after they had been dining at Netherfield, "She a beauty? I should as soon call her mother a wit!"...

"Yes," said Darcy, who could contain himself no longer, "but that was only when I first knew her, for it has been many months now since I have considered her one of the handsomest women of my acquaintance." (Page 259, 1996 Penguin Classics edition)

Granted, that's long after Darcy's fallen for her, but the 'reputed beauty' suggests that Austen intended people to think that Elizabeth herself was also considered a beauty, if not as (reputedly) beautiful as her sister. Certainly, the term 'plain' doesn't seem entirely appropriate.--Joseph Q Publique 06:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

All this philosophising is of no use, since the text explicitly calls Mary "the only plain one in the family". Therefore Elizabeth is not plain. QED. -- Zsero (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A recurring theme throughout Austen's novels is that people's appearance improves on them as they grow to like the person. Darcy by the time he wants to marry Lizzy thinks she is one of the handsomest women in his acquaintance, whereas originally she was merely pretty. The very vain Sir Eliot couldn't see Mrs Clay's freckles by the time Anne was in Bath. The Miss Bertrams thought Mr Crawford very plain at first but after third meeting with him they would not hear anything of it. Austen really wants to drive this point home to make explicit mention of it in at least 3 novels. Perhaps her point is that a person's appearance is over rated, yet it is interesting to see how many people even now obsess about it, which I am seeing even from the above comments. Auchick (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, whilst I don't have any problems with any of the characters that have been removed from the list so far, wouldn't Lady Catherine de Burgh qualify as being a main character? She's central to the resolution of the novel, after all. I'm open to being convinced, however.--Joseph Q Publique 06:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that main characters have to have a crucial role throughout the text and, as you point out, Lady C is only essential at the end. But, add her back in if you think that in a five-minute summary of the novel, she would be indispensible. Awadewit 07:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

everything is explain on phoenixia75.skyblog.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.206.80.50 (talk) 02:53, May 11, 2007

Georgiana is extremely talented at the piano. I think she should try a didgeridoo next!

Age of Elizabeth

I could not find anywhere where it tells Elizabeth's age. She gets asked by Miss Caroline, but Eliza refuses to answer. Where is it? 72.235.251.192 06:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I know in Chapter 19 she has a discussion with Lady Catherine about her age as well:

Lady C: "You cannot be more than twenty, I am sure, therefore you need not conceal your age."

Elizabeth: "I am not one-and-twenty"

She's still cryptic, but we do know that she's not older than twenty.

Aslauson 21:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, from that we could deduce that she was twenty, but not yet twenty-one. In fact, given the ages of the other sisters, I have always assumed she was twenty - especially given the growing desperation of her mother to marry her off.FlaviaR 05:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Her mother's growing desparation of marrying her off? Jane must be an old maid then! We know Charlotte is an old maid being 27. Jane is 23. Lizzy is 20, Lydia is 15, Kitty 17 and I can't remember how old Mary is. Auchick (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Correction of the article

The article states that:

Mr. Bennet is a somewhat gentle and eccentric man who can only derive amusement from his "nervous" wife and three "silly" daughters--Mary, Kitty and Lydia. He is closer to Jane and especially Elizabeth, his two eldest and most sensible offspring. He prefers the solitude of his study, neglecting the raising of his children, which leads to near-disaster.

"Three "silly daughters" ??????

I disagree.

There are only two (2) silly sisters Kitty and Lydia.

Mary is the most serious of all the girls.

end Pomahony2 11:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm 99% certain that he refers at least once to his younger daughters as "three of the silliest girls in England" — but I don't exactly have a copy in front of me so I can't give a reference.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 13:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As I remember, it's established in the narrative that Mr. Bennet considers Mary as silly as her two giggly, flighty sisters, probably for the opposite reasons - she's shown in the novel to be far too serious, and has a pompous regard for her own intelligence that isn't entirely justified.--Joseph Q Publique 15:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I found in Chapter 7 these lines

Chapter 7

"After listening one morning to their effusions on this subject, Mr. Bennet coolly observed,

``From all that I can collect by your manner of talking, you must be two of the silliest girls in the country. I have suspected it some time, but I am now convinced.

Catherine was disconcerted, and made no answer; but Lydia, with perfect indifference, continued to express her admiration of Captain Carter, and her hope of seeing him in the course of the day, as he was going the next morning to London."

1. It says two. 2. But I do like the idea presented, that Mary is also "silly" because she is so serious. I will try to find the exact line and think more about this. Pat O'Mahony Pomahony2 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I found it in Chapter 41:

"Mr. Bennet saw that her whole heart was in the subject; and affectionately taking her hand, said in reply,

'Do not make yourself uneasy, my love. Wherever you and Jane are known, you must be respected and valued; and you will not appear to less advantage for having a couple of -- or I may say, three -- very silly sisters.'"

Not quite the silliest in England, but he still considers them silly. Psyche825 21:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because Mary is not giggly, it does not mean her ideas or understanding is any less silly. Auchick (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the line about Jane being her mother's favourite in the character summaries. Some may argue that she is later on but that is only conditional; and even then it only lasts until Elizabeth's declares that she is to wed Mr. Darcy.

Please change it back if you think that it is highly inappropriate. :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.95.213 (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

---I've made two minor corrections to the article.

1. Mrs. Bennet's name is mentioned once as Fanny. It's when Mrs. Bennet's brother and his wife come to Longbourne (I believe for Christmas). She is complaining about her ills and Mr. Gardiner reassures her and uses her first name in the conversation.

2. Nowhere is a pregnancy mentioned for Charlotte (Lucas) Collins. I've read the book through many, many times, and I practically have the A&E version memorized. I feel quite certain that is never mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.40.171 (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong on both counts. Read it again. -- Zsero (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - In the book Mr. Bennet tells Elizabeth that Mr. Collins wrote to him that they were expecting a young "olive branch." I don't remember the exact quote, but its there. ----Eapierce (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Its in the letter he sends Mr Bennet when he is congratulating him on the marriage of his eldest daughter and he is warning of Lady Catherine's displeasure in the rumours of Lizzy being about to marry her nephew. Auchick (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironies in characterization

I would like to point out that there is some irony in the presentation of the Bennett parents. Mr. Bennett's wit and fondness for Elizabeth may make him superficially likable, but he has done absolutely nothing to provide for his daughters after his death. Mrs. Bennett's obsession with match-making may seem laughable, but she grasps something that her husband doesn't: that their society has no place for an intelligent woman like Elizabeth (or Jane Austen?), unless she is able to "catch" a rich husband. Nearly everybody in the novel either has or wants money, yet none of them (except maybe the soldiers) lift a finger to earn it. CharlesTheBold 21:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Link to chapter summaries

I recently re-included a link to chapter summaries for Pride and Prejudice in the external links section. The site is licensed under the GNU FDL and is therefore free to users and "compatible" with Wikipedia. These summaries could be helpful to people revisiting a book as complicated as P&P. --Geneffects 14:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Critical reaction

This article focuses too much on summarising the plot and characters, without dealing with critical response to the book. This seems a major oversight to me. Johnleemk | Talk 18:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Lucas

I don't think Elizabeth lost her respect towards Charlotte. She understood very well the predicament of her best friend and the rationale of her being married to that man.

No, she very explicitly states that Charlotte had "sunk in her esteem". Vol i chapter xxii, last line. Even if she understood Charlotte's rationale, she doesn't approve of a marriage that isn't based on love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.120.68.71 (talk) 16:23, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it wasn't so much that Charlotte's marriage was not based on love, but that it was deliberately contracted with a man who even Charlotte knew was an idiot. Eliza's affections remained unchanged, but her respect did diminish. FlaviaR (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

Could someone please explain to me (and write on the article) why this book is important? Reading it at face value, it seems so... bland, in my opinion. The major conflict involved is just marriage amongst the different ranks of upper class, and I guess it could be a look into the sociological aspect of the rich English families of the time... but I can't help but see it as a Gossip Girl type novel written in the late 1700s. I honestly hope that there is something that I'm not seeing, because I want to enjoy reading this book but the conflict seems so... shallow to me. Is it supposed to be read as Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, where the focus is not on conflict, but more metaphorical/sociological? I hope I haven't offended any Jane Austen fans, and if worse comes to worse, I hope we can all agree to disagree. Miggyb 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is written in the style of a study guide -- a style makes even Shakespeare bland. In short, Pride and Prejudice is the best novel of the best English novelist. Since we are not allowed original research on that point we'll need to appeal to its inclusion in FR Leavis' "The great tradition", to the statements of many well-known novelists, such as Fay Weldon in "On first reading Jane Austen"; to the existence of homages like "Bridget Jones' diary", "Bride and Prejudice" and "Pride and Promiscuity"; to the regular inclusion of Mr Collins' first proposal in collections of comedic prose; and to the existence of four film/TV adaptations. The conflict is anything but shallow -- she chooses not to marry a man she does not respect and runs the real risk of impoverishing her family by following this whim (and in Regency England impoverished women without support from their extended family would be reduced to prostitution). But really, it's a short book and I simply suggest you read it and make your own mind up. Any English-speaking library will have the book (or be severely embarrassed that it does not) or you can follow the links to the on-line copies. The website the Republic of Pemberly has good guides which are useful in explaining social and economic customs of this former age (eg, why it matters to Elizabeth's reputation that her sister is living in sin). 150.101.246.227 04:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Role of women in the 18th century

I have edited this section for clarity, but it needs sourcing/citations regarding women's position in society and Jane Austen's views on marriage. --Csonnich 04:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures?

I have no real objection to the picture of "Charlotte Lucas", except that surely we should have one of "Eliza", or even "Darcy"?FlaviaR 05:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Name disclosure

FYI: The recent edit by Anon...184, is aka Jbeans. (sorry, working too many projects at the same time.--Jbeans (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Darcy not a shy person

The author does not portray Darcy as shy; instead, in Chapter 1 of the novel she decribes him: "...his manners gave a disgust...; for he was discovered to be proud, to be above his company, and above being pleased;".

In other words, Darcy was haughty, and ill-mannered towards all but his own. He looked down on those around him, and refused to mingle --or dance-- with them, because he considered them beneath him; not because he felt shy. Nowhere in the novel can you find the author describing her character FitzWilliam Darcy as shy.[--Jbeans (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject:Novels collaboration of the month

I've made a start on adapting the format of the article to the Wikiproject:Novels article template. I know the "plot introduction" section has been removed before but I've restored it - the rationale behind it is to provide users with a highly condensed summary of the book in a paragraph which doesn't necessarily include spoilers, unlike the longer "plot summary", which is more for those attempting to understand the finer twists and turns of the plot, and who don't mind knowing the ending. I've also condensed the plot summary itself a bit, although I still reckon it's too long!

I'm in agreement with earlier posters on this page - the character list really is ridiculously long and detailed compared with those in similar articles. The major characters have their own articles, which is quite right considering the novel's importance, but I can't see why we need more than a word or two here about such minor characters as Mary and Kitty Bennet. Far more important is the lack of properly cited sections on the novel's themes and its critical and literary reception. I'll make a start on collecting some references that may help with providing the latter during the next few weeks. -- Karenjc 10:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see that this collaboration is starting better than the last one. I think that the Novel WikiProject's style guideline would be a better template to use for this article: the style guideline is more up-to-date than the article template, and can better accommodate high-profile novel articles for which substantial scholarship is easily accessible.

The plot summary and character descriptions are indeed way too long. I'll try to write a 750-word (-ish) summary this week. Some of the better-written novel articles actually relegate the list of characters to a separate article, to focus more on style, themes and criticism – something worth considering. I'll also try to collect references for the various analysis sections. Looking forward to seeing this article developed. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The major problem with the Character section is not really the length per se, but that it is all in-universe with no real-world context. Unfortunately, the linked character articles suffer from the same defect and have no useful sources listed. It might be a good idea to remove the Character section altogether and ensure any useful description is included in the Plot summary. This will reduce the SparkNotes impression of the article.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fleshed out the Publication history and Reception sections a little, with citations. (And got logged out unknowingly in the process - the anon edit is me too, grrrr...) Working on Themes. -- Karenjc 20:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Tackled the character list, removing most of the plot material replicated in the Plot summary section and (I hope) toning down the in-universe feel in the process. More concise, but I hope still informative enough. -- Karenjc 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've created a separate "Publication history" section and renamed the previous one "Background". These section names are mentioned the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines: "Background" covers everything before first publication, while "Publication history" covers everything afterwards. I was thinking about an overall structure for the article that would be roughly chronological, from "composition" (background and content-related sections) to "publication" (publication history) to "reception and legacy" (reception history and adaptations). I had this in mind when I put "Publication history" later in the article structure (the WP:NOVELS style guidelines places this section immediately after "Background"). But it's just an idea, and I wouldn't object to anyone reworking the information I've added.

Pride and Prejudice is one of those few lucky novels for which we could collect a substantial and varied number of reliable sources. With this in mind, I wonder if we could use a more detailed referencing system, like the ones used in Jane Austen or in Reception history of Jane Austen. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be a very good idea if the references continue to accumulate. The "Background" section was one I was considering myself, strangely enough, as the contents of "Publication history" seemed to be getting excessive according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines but it was all good informative stuff. By the way, the new character list looks much better now. --Karenjc 17:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Found some useful stuff on free indirect speech in P&P and started a style section per Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, though it's sketchy as yet. -- Karenjc 09:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

rewording Mr. Collins & C. Lucas

Hello, I feel that this sentence could be better worded:

Eventually, to Elizabeth's surprise and disappointment, he is accepted by her friend Charlotte Lucas, who neither loves nor respects him but wishes to escape the fate of becoming an old maid.

As currently written, a reader might make the mistake of thinking that Elizabeth is disappointed because Mr. Collins' attentions have turned from her, and not because of her friend's decision. I propose something more like the following:

Eventually, Elizabeth becomes disappointed at her friend Charlotte Lucas' decision to marry Mr. Collins solely to avoid becoming an old maid.

It still doesn't sound quite right, but I hope that it is less ambiguous. --Kyoko 19:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it was ambiguous. I have reworded for clarity. -- Karenjc 08:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Captain Wickham

Wickham deserves his own character page. He is one of the most famous dudes in the story.86.139.149.25 (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr Bennet

I cut the description of Longbourn as "financially troubled". The most recent movie rather exaggerated the family's poverty. Although the family isn't wealthy by some standards, this manifests mostly in the inability to provide a suitable endowment for 5 daughters. The estate itself is shown to be on sound footing. The family is not in want, and is even shown as being able to afford the occasional luxury.

Mr Bennet was described as "scholarly". This cannot be shown from the text. He reads a lot, but we're shown no signs of scholarship. A volume Mr Collins selects at random to read proves to be from a circulating library and not particularly edifying. I have changed the word to "bookish".

I think he rather did attempt to correct the behavior of his wife and younger daughters, but his wry, ironic observations were lost on them. 192.91.147.35 (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, particularly regarding "financially troubled". However, I wonder if "frivolity" is as appropriate for Mary as for Kitty and Lydia? I know you didn't add that word, but since you edited that section, the diff made me aware of it. Stratford490 (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Romantic comedy

I removed the label "romantic comedy" from the infobox. As an academic, this tag is never applied to novels or works of literature, but rather is a popular term for fiction films. Let's keep the tone of Wikipedia professional and consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorianist (talk • contribs) 21:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed --from the lead sentence-- the phrase claiming 'romantic comedy' for lack of verifiablility; although challenged for nearly six months now no one has cited a reliable source for this claim. --Jbeans (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Aging Cheeses and People

If Mary Bennet were a cheese --or perhaps a fine wine-- instead of a person, it would be apt to describe her as: "aged around eighteen"; but, fortunately for 'us all everyone', Jane Austin wrote about people. Her English language, and ours, provides for distinguishing the age of a person from the aging of a cheese; one is a noun, an intrinsic characteristic of a human being, where the latter is a verb, calling for an object of it's action --i.e., the cheese, i.e., ON the cheese. Of course we know that both the verb- and the adjective- forms may also be applied to people; i.e., children age parents, and divorce ages soon-to-be-former spouses, sometimes. But the context here is the intrinsic human quality of age, a noun. (Please note that the decription of Charlotte Lucas got it right.)--Jbeans (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're just wrong. "Aged" is an adjective, and is certainly just as applicable to people as to other things. See definition 3: "3. of the age of: a man aged 40 years." "Age", however, can be a noun or a verb, but not an adjective. -- Zsero (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, your response, i.e., the opening line, is offensive: you made an ad hominem attack on me; you castigated the messenger and avoided speaking to the message. I resent the personal bullying of "you" pronouncing "me" as "wrong" --particularly in these community spaces. Please note here: I believe it is the article language that should receive our attention and analysis; and that the use of ungracious personal pronouncements on good faith contributors --forcing them to feel defensive, or to want go away-- must be taken to other venues.

Instead, you: (1) pronounced the contributor as "wrong"; (2) thereby seized for yourself the domain of "right" --that's another of the hidden motives for branding another person with pejorative; --and thereby, (3) you avoided doing your job, which is, to answer the question:

Why, in the given context, is the status quo language better than the revised language offered? Professional, impersonal analysis is what is needed here. Please.--Jbeans (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Come off it, "you are wrong" is not ad hominem. You are wrong. The language as it stands is perfectly good English; the language you seek to introduce is not. If you think otherwise, the onus is on you to prove it. Start with a good dictionary. -- Zsero (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Themes

Class

I don't mean to be critical, but why on earth are the Bennets described as middle class in this article? They most certainly are not. The middle class, especially in 18th and 19th century England, was constituted by professional and business people and their families. The Philips and Gardiner familiers are middle class, but the Bennets are firmly gentry. Nor are they on the lowest rungs of the gentry. The daughters are "poor" because of the entail on Mr Bennets estate, which is itself of a respectable size. In any case, the whole discussion of class in this article strikes me as immature, and unless there are objections, I propose to undertake its revision as my time permits. 129.67.120.12 11:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[Yes, agree most emphatically. The Bennets, and any other *major* characters in Austen's fiction, are, I think, never middle-class. The article should be revised as the writer above advises. Musset 03:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)musset]

Trying to describe the Bennets as "lower class" is absolutely ridiculous--there are no lower class characters of consequence in Pride and Prejudice. Far more interesting (to the modern reader, though I suspect not to Austen's contemporary readers) would, I think, be to point out that the novel deals with the striation within the upper classes. Binabik80 02:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I do believe that Binabik80 may be mistaken. No offence meant here but it never says that the Bennett family is lower class. It says they are of a lower class than Mr. Darcy, and that they are upper-middle or middle class, NOT lower class. Sorry, although I too support the idea of revising the article. Good luck with that.

They are middle class!

I have to agree that the Bennets are definitely gentry. Elizabeth is a gentleman's daughter. Her father is a land holder, which is as good as it gets. They are higher class than the Bingley's who made their money in trade in the North so they are not middle class. Auchick (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

This section needs major help, as indicated above by others.

i agree there...

Question to be answered: Which class does Mr.Darcy and Mr.Bingley belong to ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.76.172 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 7 June 2009

Carrying on from the previous discussion, Mr. Darcy clearly belongs to the landed gentry. Mr. Bingley is upper class, but only becomes part of the landed gentry once he purchases an estate of his own outright. At the beginning of the novel he merely rents the Netherfield estate, but by the end of the novel he buys one of his own near Derbyshire. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 08:41, 7 June 2009 (UTc)

HELP~! name of a song in the film pride and prejudice （2005）

the song when Lizzy dancing with Mr.Collins

I have been looking for it for a long time but still can`t make it clear

We need it in our school`s ball

If u know it ,please tell me

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.144.54.46 (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

no philosopher

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife". Not universally acknowledged, Jane (that is, everywhere). What about a gay man? So she was no philosopher. Nadquilp7 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In that time period it was true. Not a good idea to compare 19th centuary; phrases about such things to modern day life and expect them to hold exactly true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.90.166 (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement was ironically made, a deliberate exaggeration to emphasise the way the world (in particular Mrs Bennett) viewed rich single men such as Darcy and Bingley. --John Price (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

'Tis most undesirable... Darcy, Mr. Darcy, or Fitz?

'Tis most undesirable, in narrative writing/reporting, to rigidly refer to (one) character —why not all the characters— by his/her (highest) formal title. The numbing consistency makes a reader irritable, if not drives 'm mad —similar to waiting for the next "you know" from a person with a nervous speech pattern. Result: you 'dull the edge' (of the reading) for the reader.

Note, there is no controlling rule here that stipulates the always correct way to refer to a character or person —it depends on too many variables, although there are style manuals for individual publications, including this one. But the controlling guide is, always: readibility. (After all, even Jane made variable references to her characters, depending on the setting and scene —except for Lady Catherine, who shall always be referred to as Lady Catherine; no "Aunt Kate" here.)--Jbeans (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Fitzwilliam & the Earl of Matlock

Colonel Fitzwilliam is the son of an Earl but the Earl of what we don't know.

There were two nephews of Lady Catherine to require them, for Mr. Darcy had brought with him a Colonel Fitzwilliam, the younger son of his uncle Lord ----,

volume II chapter VII

"He likes to have his own way very well," replied Colonel Fitzwilliam. "But so we all do. It is only that he has better means of having it than many others, because he is rich, and many others are poor. I speak feelingly. A younger son, you know, must be inured to self-denial and dependence."

"In my opinion, the younger son of an earl can know very little of either. Now seriously, what have you ever known of self-denial and dependence? When have you been prevented by want of money from going wherever you chose, or procuring anything you had a fancy for?"
"These are home questions--and perhaps I cannot say that I have experienced many hardships of that nature. But in matters of greater weight, I may suffer from want of money. Younger sons cannot marry where they like."
"Unless where they like women of fortune, which I think they very often do."
"Our habits of expense make us too dependent, and there are not many in my rank of life who can afford to marry without some attention to money."

"Is this," thought Elizabeth, "meant for me?" and she coloured at the idea; but, recovering herself, said in a lively tone, "And pray, what is the usual price of an earl's younger son? Unless the elder brother is very sickly, I suppose you would not ask above fifty thousand pounds."

volume II chapter X

Time to remove the unsourced "Matlock" in the genealogy box. JIMp _talk·cont 11:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal implausibility?

From Talk:The_Quincunx#Core issue:

...novels built around entails frequently have got their law wrong. In Pride and Prejudice, the entail is far more likely to have been created under the will of an uncle, than on Mr Bennett's marriage, as parents rarely left their own daughters out from inheriting. User:Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Humphrey Jungle (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless a reliable citation is found, an editor's opinion is not an appropriate addition to the article. -Sketchmoose (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously its very unlikely. But then the book isn't exactly all that realistic in any other way. Is it likely that the father would allow Lizzie to avoid marrying Collins considering the risk of her being homeless? No. None of it is likely. maybe possible, but not likely.Lollipopfop (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the interrelation map is wrong

Elizabeth and Colonel Fitzwilliam weren't attracted to each other. It was colonel Fitzwilliam's one-way interest toward Elizabeth. So one arrow should be pointing to Elizabth from Fitz. But As you can see, the line that draws the two characters together has no arrow, implying that it is a shared feeling.

Anyone disagree that Eliza had no feeling toward fitz 'cause although she wasn't aware of it, she was already by then irrevocably in <3 with Darcy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.51.38.176 (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm the original creator of this map, and the "attracted to" line was added by an anonymous Wikipedia editor. When that happened, I did have similar concerns to yours (although your last sentence is difficult to justify). I would prefer, however, that the line be removed entirely; second best to me would be to replace "attracted to" with a descriptor like "hit it off with" (but better). Any thoughts? Canadian Joeldude (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

They are attracted to each other. It is plainly stated that Colonel Fitzwilliam is attracted to Lizzie: Chapter 31: "Mrs Collins's pretty friend had moreover caught his fancy very much". He also makes what is essentially an apology to Elizabeth that he cannot marry where he pleases because he is not financially independent: Chapter 33: "in matters of greater weight, I may suffer from the want of money. Younger sons cannot marry where they like"... "'Is this,' thought Elizabeth, 'meant for me?' and she coloured at the idea" Elizabeth is attracted to him too: Chapter 32: "Elizabeth was reminded by her own satisfaction in being with him, as well as by his evident admiration of her, of her former favourite George Wickham" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.242.34 (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

'Read this', then repeat 'Read this'..

The "Background" section was almost completely repititious of facts, even phrases, written immediately above in the preamble and first graphic; so I edited away such --and moved (most) of the balance into the preamble section. Also revised for the 'active voice', and against 'errancy' from the novel; e.g: --pls correct me if there is a citation otherwise (in the novel, not an adaption)-- but, IMO, the author does not write nor imply that Mr. Bennet is "relatively poor". She may indeed have invented some characters who think so, but it 'ain't the same' as reporting it here (the article) as a fact.--Jbeans (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)/edits by this User--Jbeans (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, don't complete understand the commentary, but you did a good job on the edit.SADADS (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

'Thanks be' for kind words, and apologies for my mumbles --the above edit may help; if not, pls specify your question and I will respond.--Jbeans (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr C. segues..

Rvtd edit; these two clauses are better conjoined, as by the semicolon, because: 1) tho' separate, they are closely related thoughts--more so than a period implies; 2) and, conjoined, the relative pronoun 'her' is not widowed from its antecedent 'Jane', as by the period.--Jbeans (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Revisions (of 20 Jan) track better with the novel's actual narrative: 1)JA uses four chapters and writes of "three days" between Collins's proposals to two different women; >'tis better that this is not reported as "immediately" (a word used overmuch in this article). 2)And, 'tis better that the phrase: "Once the marriage is arranged.." is not sequenced after: ..(he) "marries.. Charlotte Lucas", (a phrase now removed).--Jbeans (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lady Catherine speaks to Darcy

Welcome!, 'SweetCaramel' to Wikipedia—but: replaced your good faith edit-that-came-with-no-explanation, 'cause the original phrase tracks better the author's narrative (of her characters' behaviors). Here, IMO, Lady Catherine (who is keenly aware of 'pride-of-place', and knows ev-v-erybody's place) would never give an imperious order (ie: you will; you will not) to such a 'proud' man as her nephew, Mr. Darcy.

Per JA's character-narrative, 1) Darcy is of equal or greater 'pride-of-place', and 2) Lady C would know that a direct order from her to him would be disrepectful of him and his social rank. (Obviously, from the narrative of chapters 56 out, we learn that Lady C confronted Darcy and "made her feelings known". We readers are not provided the scene nor the words actually exchanged, but in the author's narrative we are given no reason to believe that Lady C strayed from boundaries of propriety in addressing Darcy—ie, no hint that she attempted to command a direct order upon him). Again, >> welcome 'SweetCaramel' to Wikipedia {>any relation to '-Caroline'?}; we're glad you're joining—hope you'll stay— the 'wordy workyard' here. --Jbeans (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Help Wanted

Plot Summary/ c-e & word-smithing: 1) major rewrite for readability, incld'g better syntax, x'ed redundancies and repetition of words; downsized paragraph; left details in link(s); 2) corrected events, sequences & word choices, all to report >>The Novel, >>Not the movie or tv drama!

Help Wanted> 1) Please: edit any 'plot summary' on basis of: >'report' the story, pls don't 'tell it' in your own words; >>ie, report 'what the author tells'. 2) Pls check my changes re these tests: >>that all reporting on this page should reflect the novel only, not the adaptions---and that narrative should not be reported here unless it can be reasonably identified in the author's novel.

For example, I cannot find in the novel where the author puts into Elizabeth's speech (or thoughts) the following: "Elizabeth, the heroine, has decided to marry only for love, even though she has no real ideas about how she will survive financially. She jokingly notes that her sister Jane, being kind and beautiful, may be responsible for finding a wealthy husband, thus providing for the female members of the family." ((NB: There are similar lines in the '05 movie, but that must not be conflated with the novel.)). >>If you know the chapter(s) where these explicit sentiments are found, please advise here.--Jbeans (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)>0830crrctd spelling--Jbeans (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary ('2nd half' of section;0904)> continued major rewrite for improved readability and 'less (=shorter) summary'; copy-edits generally as per '1st half'—described above; and particularly to track the narrative of the novel.--Jbeans (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

C-e (0907) Lede Section> 3 problems with the (replaced) lede-section sentence> (="It was begun in 1796, her second novel, but her first serious attempt at publication."): (1) it interprets the author's thinking—ie, .. 'her first serious attempt' at publication.(?)>(how do we know her mind about that?). >>We must not report internal thinking—unless we cite the reliable source that documents it; (2) besides, such interpretation is contradicted by the Wiki-narrative on the Jane Austen page; (3) different verb(s) are better for the second and third predicates; eg, 'was' (understood) seems to be implied, as: "..(it was) her second novel...", "..(it was) her first serious attempt...".

C-e (0907) Links> Not every link-word should-be-linked-with-every-subject-page-to-which-it-is-linkable; else many a good wikipdia page is destined to become a blue-snow-field. ((The Good-Reason-For> linking is: the link-page article provides information that is immediately relevant to—ie, in context with, of high-value to—the 'subject-page' article; see WP: STYLE, Wikilinks. When such is Not the case, that's a Good-Reason-Not> to link)). >>In this case, only the "landed gentry" link-page is of 'high-value' to the subject-page article—ie, P&P. Re the other (seven) link-words, they each refer to English "landed gentry" of the P&P period—but, alas, the link-page narratives are not of much (or any) value in that P&P-specific context. Therefore, they are de-linked.

C-e (0907) 'Fanny'> Throughout the novel, Mrs Bennet is presented (by the author, to the reader) only as 'Mrs Bennet'; even mentioning her once as 'Fanny' doesn't merit reporting it here, in a summary.

C-e (0907) Aunt and Uncle Gardiner> 'Aunt' Gardiner is, at least, an equal character to the plot as 'Uncle' Gardiner --Jbeans (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me you are doing a pretty good job. Unfortunately I am in the middle of several other projects, or I would help, but I appreciate you Being Bold, Sadads (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sadads; I appreciate the notice from one who contributes so much to the Wikipedia community.--Jbeans (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the plot summary as requested, I hope it suits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.20.107 (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Laws of inheritance

"...the laws of the day by which he inherited Longbourn prohibit the women from inheriting it." This is wrong. The laws of the day didn’t prevent women from inheriting property in general or this property in particular. It was the terms of the will under which Mr Bennett inherited it. The property was “entailed” on male heirs by a past owner. I changed the text to reflect this."Campolongo (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for respecting your fellow editors by explaining your reasoning.

I don't dispute your edit as it now reads, because it has the salutary advantage of saying that which needed saying with fewer words---almost always a plus in report writing. But, as you feel the replaced phrasing (as above) is wrong, then---I feel---you make a distinction without a difference.

It was indeed these laws of entail that established the "terms of the will under which Mr. Bennet inherited.."; (ie, these were "the laws of the day" by which Mr. B inherited Longbourn).

>>And these were the very same laws which certainly prevented Mr. B from devising his own 'terms of will' to favor his wife and daughters---and thereby to alienate the 'lawful' entail away from Mr. Collins. It was these laws of entail---not terms of a will---that were the actual source of the mischief. When they were abolished, the English entail was 'done-in'. (pls see Fee tail). (Thanks for your edit!)--Jbeans (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the article on entail and what you say seems about right. Entails seem to have been both introduced and abolished “by law”. 93.36.193.80 (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Weird text/spam I cannot delete

There is a line under Mr. Bennett that says "you why he do this becoze he was a ullu ka patha" but I can't see it on the edit page to remove it. Any thoughts? GinaDana (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it didn't appear in the edit page because ClueBot NG had already removed it. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Miss Bingley makes her moves

This sentence needs to be amended:

She also attempts to pursuade Mr. Darcy to not like Elizabeth.

How about:

She also attempts to persuade Mr. Darcy not to like Elizabeth.

or:

She also attempts to persuade Mr. Darcy to dislike Elizabeth.

or:

She also attempts to steer Mr. Darcy away from Elizabeth.

95.75.169.171 (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

--95.75.169.171 (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right. (that is, I agree with you!) IMO the last two of your suggestions would improve the reading; I favor the 3rd. But you decide and forge ahead! (Thanks for editing.)--Jbeans (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears as though someone pranked the page

Pride and Prejudice is a novel by Jane Austen, first published in 1813 but was really written in 2012 because she's a ghost and a time traveller.

I'll fix it for now. Georgekwatson (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for editing Wikipedia! Feel free to make changes (within reason) without asking. Be bold! Computergeeksjw (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Only 20 million copies sold?

The article states that some 20 million copies of P&P have been sold. I think this should be removed, because this sounds like a ridiculously low figure. P&P is one of the most popular classic books of recent decades, Jane Austen is one of the most popular classic authors. The TV adaption from the nineties is still extremely popular, there has been a film made of the book recently and a Bollywood version. (My point being that this novel is very, very popular.) P&P was second in the Big Read survey. First was the Lord of the Rings, which according to its Wikipedia page is the second best selling novel ever, with 150 million copies sold. It just is not believable that Pride and Prejudice has sold 13% of the copies that the Lord of the Rings has. The source for this figure of 20 million is a website that reviews the TV adaptation that does not have any explanation or background for how this figure was calculated.KBry (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Consols?

The main section of the article Consol (bond) says that P&P contains mention(s) of consolodated annuities (financial instruments contemporary to the novel).

I think it would be nice to be able to follow a reference from there to the relevant specific passage(s) of P&P, but I don't know what they are, myself. Could some trufan with a head for high finance possibly be so kind as to add one or more precise references in that article? (Ideally, to a popular online hypertext of P&P). Thanks in advance. AHMartin (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Literature section - need to set standards

The "Literature" section contains many published books that began as fanfiction, and that are repeated in the List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice article. Similarly, the Mansfield Park page has sections for "Related works" and "Notes" that contain some blurbs for published fanfiction.

I think that the Wikipedia editors should establish guidelines, so that pages for novels such as "Pride and Prejudice" and "Mansfield Park" do not become cluttered with lists of spin-offs. I'm not opposed to spin-offs or published fanfiction; I just think they belong on separate pages. Look at the Star trek page – all the books are on List of Star Trek novels, instead of sharing the Star Trek page.

Comments, anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by June w (talk • contribs) 09:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr Darcy's wealth

There's been some widespread discussion recently about what Mr Darcy's fortune is equivalent to in modern day terms, but there's a wide range of possible figures, and all are equally valid in their own context. I've attempted to cover that while still making clear that he was very rich in his day, but I may just be confusing people by an overly pedantic insistence on accuracy.

Oh, and the source I added is largely irrelevant, but does discuss the different ways of calculating the modern day equivalent of £10,000 a year. I hope that's OK. 77.96.230.11 (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Me

Plot Summary???

You do realize what "plot" and "summary" means? I think this article is way too long... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.186.26 (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the summary more consisely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.242.34 (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations and thank you---Anon/s 86..34 and 86..107--btw, are you one & the same?---for the excellent work, especially the BOLD 'chop' on the overlong Summary; the smaller ratio definitely improves the reading of the article; |>>now, if we could only get a concensus strategy on how to (respectfully) 'hold the line'. Regardless---again, thanks for the great work and a good move!--Jbeans (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, they were both me... I should probably create an account and get involved properly. I'm glad my first foray into Wikipedia was welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.20.107 (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The plot summary is still very long, nearly 1500 words. Charles Dickens long novels have shorter summaries on Wikipedia. Is there any consistency required on the length of summaries of famous novels? Wikipedia suggests four paragraphs and fewer than 800 words for novels in general. I am glad I did not come on the summary when it was longer than it is now. It seems easy to trim, as so much detail is left in, that is not needed in a summary. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Set in England in the early 19th century

Is it? It was written in 1796 to 97 and presumably set in the contemporary present day, so surely it's set in the late 18th century. No?89.240.155.170 (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

In literature and film adaptations, is it appropriate (or "proper") to mention Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, book and movie, which faithfully follow the Jane Austen story but add the further difficulty to marriage endeavours by adding zombies, and avoiding the social faux-pas of accidentally marrying one before they fully manifest? It's a rollicking comedy. You don't have to use 19th-century standards of propriety to decide this! 66.241.130.86 (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The zombies have already taken over the literature section (or at least a paragraph of it). The film, television and stage section is holding out for faithful adaptations, which I think appropriate, though cinematic brain cuisine is mentioned in Jane Austen in popular culture#Looser adaptations. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive lead

What we have now is beating the same beats like a dead horse:

Pride and Prejudice retains the fascination of modern readers, consistently appearing near the top of lists of "most-loved books" among both literary scholars and the general public. It has become one of the most popular novels in English literature, with over 20 million copies sold, and paved the way[specify] for many archetypes that abound in modern literature. Continuing interest in the book has resulted in a number of dramatic adaptations and an abundance of novels and stories imitating Austen's memorable characters or themes.

I'd prefer the following:

Pride and Prejudice retains the fascination of modern readers, consistently appearing near the top of lists of "most-loved books" among both literary scholars and the general public, and has been widely adapted in print and film.

If something needs to be said about "zillions of archetypes established" (e.g. the Hamburgler), a second (substantive) sentence is my suggestion. — MaxEnt 02:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree. In reality the whole page needs adjustments but that's a good point. Justmeonhere (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Quotation syntax, opening paragraph

I put the famous opening line between left and right double quotes, as swiped from my word processor. (I'm not sure of the actual characters, in HTML they would be “ and ”, respectively.

Should I have used the HTML character entities or does it work as is?

TIA. MartinRinehart (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Somewhat weirdly, Wikipedia's Manual of Style demands straight quotemarks; see MOS:QUOTEMARKS, and User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Register#Reasons to prefer straight quotation marks and apostrophes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Plot Summary is NOT too long.

I think the warning re Plot Summary length may be a leftover. I was thinking about writing a shorter one so I decided to first look for a "correct" length. What I found was this:

Length, in words, of Wikipedia plot summaries of five novels by Jane Austen (as counted by Libre Office Writer 6 June, 2017):

Sense and Sensibility, 924 Pride and Prejudice, 1059 Mansfield Park, 1173 Emma, 844 Persuasion, 898

average, 980

The P&P summary is slightly above average, but shorter than the Mansfield Park summary, which has no length warning.

I conclude that the warning is now in error. I'll leave this here for a while in the hope that someone with more Wiki edit experience than I will remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRinehart (talk • contribs) 12:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Periods after personal titles: be consistent

This article contains a mix of personal titles with periods, as in “Mr. Darcy”, and without, as in “Mr Darcy”. We should pick one style and use it across all the Pride and Prejudice-related articles. I tend towards using the period, as American English always uses it and British English sometimes does. Thoughts? MacMog (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The period should be used because that's what's used in the book (AFAIK—that's what's in my copy and in what I can find online). If there's no opposition, I'll change the article in a couple days. Computergeeksjw (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it again a little later, it looks like a big project to change most of the article to MacMog's suggested style. I agree with his suggestion as before, but I want some other input before I make a change. Please, any other thoughts/opinions? Computergeeksjw (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Manual of Style (MoS) says almost (but not quite) what MacMog suggested, that a period is more usual in American usage, which is not the same as, "American English always uses it". The MoS also says that, "Use of periods... should be consistent within any given article, and congruent with the variety of English used by that article", which means that if the article is written in American English then American punctuation would be preferred, and vice versa. My own preference (I am British English) is that if the article is not noticeably written in American English it should not be punctuated in American English. This article, Pride and Prejudice, would seem to be written (as is common on Wikipedia) in a mixture, containing words like center, favorable, humor, and rumored that are American English but also coloured, favourable, favourite, favoured, harbours, neighbourhood, and rumour, that are British English. The British English spelling seems to predominate, as does the terminology; I can't imagine an American writing, "amused by his obsequious veneration". On balance, I think the article should be converted to British English throughout, not just with the abbreviations MacMog queried. Cottonshirtτ 05:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the honorifics should include the period to be match the text of book. It's disconcerting to read "Mr. Darcy" in the text and "Mr Darcy" here. The spelling convention should probably be British for a British book though. Ahsen (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Renditions of the original text of the novel place a period after the title, e.g. "Mr. Darcy". See, for example, the Gutenberg rendition. User:HopsonRoad 21:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)