I know that I want to hear her side of the story!

Beware, spoilers.

"but Emma could not quarrel with herself." -Kinda the crux of the whole issue, isn't it?

"and the intention of going on to-morrow." -I emphasize deeply with this delightful description of procrastination.

"It was much easier to chat than to study; much pleasanter to let her imagination range and work at Harriet’s fortune, than to be labouring to enlarge her comprehension or exercise it on sober facts;" -I was too precipitous. *This* is the crux of the issue.

"the only mental provision she was making for the evening of life" -This is rather dark, isn't it?

"Miss Woodhouse”—he stopt a moment—“or Miss Smith" -Oho!

"The speech was more to Emma than to Harriet, which Emma could understand." -I love, love, love how the narration so align's itself with Emma's viewpoint, creating a third person unreliable narrator. But the fun of it is that a first-time reader doesn't necessarily know to be suspicious. The layers in the writing are so genius.

"Humph—Harriet’s ready wit!" -I am afraid I am not on the "Justice for Harriet" train. I won't even step on the caboose. The narration goes out of it's way to emphasize just how relatively empty-headed the girl is.

"For once in your life you would be obliged to own yourself mistaken." -One can feel, a bit, how badly Emma would like this to be true.

"or a shark?" -See note above about not hopping aboard the Justice for Harriet train.

"Emma spoke for her." -A likely thing to happen.

"Could it really be meant for me?" -When you start to look for those clues, they are everywhere! So many lines allow for inferences or double-meaning. Austen must have had so much fun writing this!

"Receive it on my judgment." -This is truer than Emma knows.

"There does seem to be a something in the air of Hartfield which gives love exactly the right direction, and sends it into the very channel where it ought to flow." -I love how, by the end, this does actually hold true.

"and a man that every body looks up to, quite like Mr. Knightley! " -Another little clue: from very early on Harriet does seem to be able to appreciate Mr. Knightley exactly as she ought.

"I love to hear you. You understand every thing." -A winning combination of flattery and delusion!

"It is as long again as almost all we have had before." / "to sit down and write a letter, and say just what you must, in a short way" -I could make a crude joke about Harriet being length obsessed (which I guess I just did), but I love how Austen keeps the basis of Harriet's literary critiques consistent.

"She read it to him, just as he liked to have any thing read, slowly and distinctly, and two or three times over, with explanations of every part as she proceeded—and he was very much pleased, and, as she had foreseen, especially struck with the complimentary conclusion." -Poor Emma, this is awfully tedious for her, but she does it without complaint.

"and as Emma saw his spirits affected by the idea of his daughter’s attachment to her husband," -Ha!

Mr. Woodhouse's idiolect seems to be made up of the words "pretty," "poor," and "gruel."

"One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other." -Another wonderful example of Emma saying something that sounds wonderfully wise. I think this time we can give her credit for not saying it (inadvertently or otherwise) speciously.

"here was a sort of parade in his speeches which was very apt to incline her to laugh." -Emma isn't entirely bad at reading people. She values Mr. Elton's performative compliments for exactly what they are worth.

Mr Darcy was absolutely a snob at the beginning. He deliberately insulted Elizabeth by snubbing her and was well aware about what he said.

It didn’t have anything to do with him having foot-in-mouth syndrome. He acted that way because he genuinely believed she was inferior to him.

He wasn’t secretly in love with her already and desperately trying to mask it by being dismissive.

He goes on to ruin Jane’s chances with Mr Bingley simply because he believes that the Bennets are improper and that there was no way Jane truly had feelings for Bingley.

When he proposes to Elizabeth and says that he’s in love with her despite her social status, it wasn’t that he had no idea that he was being rude. He was genuinely surprised that he could be attracted to her and chose to verbally express it.

He was certainly rather delusional in saying this out loud to Elizabeth, but that’s the point. He was arrogant enough to believe she would accept his proposal anyway, even though he had insulted her, because who would turn him down?

That’s the whole point of Mr Darcy’s character. He starts out with this pride, and eventually overcomes this character flaw, acknowledging he was wrong with what he did to Bingley and Jane, and shows Elizabeth that he has changed with what he did for Lydia, not demanding recognition in any way.

Elizabeth also overcomes her own flaws, realising that she was wrong about Wickham and seeing Mr Darcy’s change - this isn’t a story about Elizabeth sitting back and waiting for Mr Darcy to change into the perfect man that she can marry, but rather them both changing for the better. Hence, the title!

One of the more egregious decisions in the newest adaptations was the decision to slutshame Eliza (she’s an experienced older woman, Willoughby isn’t that bad!!) and the ostensible reason for this is to make the Col Brandon/Marianne age gap a little less dramatic.

However, boys as young as 9 were serving in the British army during the Colonial (aka American Revolution) and Napoleonic wars. Granted, they were usually drummers, fifers or messengers. He would probably have to wait for age of 16 to become an ensign - although maybe not, because Gen James Wolfe was barely 15 when he was commissioned.

But what about Eliza?

Girls as young as 12 could be married with parental consent prior to 1920.

So a 12 year old could find out that her guardian was planning on marring her off, run off with her slightly younger best friend … and the story wouldn’t change.

i forgot this happened

I noticed in Austen's novels and especially in discussions in this subreddit that most of the holidays and life events that we care about in the modern day were super low-key in the Regency era. They didn't seem to do much for weddings, Christmas, birthdays, or funerals. I heard that Michealmas was "more important" but it seems like they just collected rent and ate geese so I don't know if it was much of an actual fun holiday or if it just served as a quarter day. Did they just not have holidays or events that involved family gatherings or fun traditions? I understand that the Regency era was more conservative in response to the late 18th century, but it seems strange to me that the average family never used these events to celebrate and break up the humdrum of everyday life.

I love narrating & folks listening to and enjoying my performances makes it all worthwhile.
I've got a bunch of free codes for anyone who would like to hear me perform my FAVORITE Jane Austen book: Northanger Abbey.
DM me for a code to listen on Spotify for free.

...is there is an Emma adaptation for everyone! I do think that is the one novel that we are truly spoiled for choice with when it comes to adaptations. Why do you think Emma lends itself to that?

I've been wondering how much Wickham was actually welcomed by the Darcys and Bingleys. The final chapter gives us a glimpse at their respective attitudes:

Though Darcy could never receive him at Pemberley, yet, for Elizabeth's sake, he assisted him further in his profession. Lydia was occasionally a visitor there, when her husband was gone to enjoy himself in London or Bath; and with the Bingleys they both of them frequently stayed so long, that even Bingley's good-humour was overcome, and he proceeded so far as to talk of giving them a hint to be gone. (ch. 61)

Darcy and Elizabeth seem to have established clear boundaries; Bingley and Jane, on the other hand, appear to be more accommodating. But I'm still curious whether, for instance, Darcy and Elizabeth occasionally had to put up with Wickham's presence for the sake of family harmony, or did they try to avoid such situations entirely? What would happen if everyone were invited to the same ball, or family celebration at the Bingleys'? How do you envision the connection?

i see that there's the option to buy/rent sense and sensibility (2026). i was searching for a digital release date and the uk websites appeared. can anyone from the uk confirm if you guys already have the option to rent/buy it already?

Mr. Dashwood, with all the strength and urgency which illness could command: Please look after the interest of your mother-in-law and sisters

John Dashwood:

The family would have had £5k, which is £200 - £250 p.a. Pitiful, considering that Mrs Bennet brought a dowry of 4k. Twenty three ish years, and so little added!

All the same, they would have not have starved to death. In S&S Mrs Jennings envisages Edward and Lucy starting out married life on a curate's £50 p.a., with interest on his £2k, having a child a year and being very poor. £150 p.a. max then, probably with a poor quality vicarage to live in, and employing a maid of all work.

The difference is that the Bennet girls had quite prosperous uncles who would likely have stepped up and provided something... maybe a cottage like the Dashwoods, or rented rooms in Meryton similar to how the Bateses lived. It would have been a huge loss of status, and of the opportunity to meet potential suitors. The likelihood would have been marriages out of their class, to clerks or curates, as Austen envisioned for Mary and Kitty.

I did it less than a year ago, but I already kinda want to do it again. Seriously, why though? I really think it's the writing itself more than the content. I mean I love the content too but the writing itself is just addictive. Especially P&P.

Will I ever get tired of it? I hope not. Each time I do it, I think maybe I'll be a bit tired of it, and it keeps not happening.

So just about halfway through first reading of S & S. Have read 4 of the 6. P & P being the favorite. Most recently read Persuasion and enjoyed it quite well.

Anyway, on to the business at hand, In this one I am struck by the some characters ( most particularily voiced by Mrs. Jennings ) casual regard for the separation between themselves and the working class. The way she mentions Colonel Brandon's supposed " love child " being a minor inconvenience to the prospect of him marrying and that the child could easily be out out to an apprenticeship in some trade or the other.

I get that the may be some satire by our dear Jane ( as this book in particular seems full of it) , but still is kind of shocking to think many of this mostly idle upper class see themselves so far above the working classes .

So just posting to voice my thoughts so far and in general am really an admirer of Elinor in being in being able to cope with not only her own situation ( her inner thoughts are really the highlight of the book for me ) but attempting to guard her sister from total disaster .

Thanks in advance for any thoughts along these lines and P.S. No I have not seen the movie and will not until finished with book .

This could easily be set in the 21st century and it wouldn’t be out of place!

Poor Catherine, though, having taken Isabella at face value.

What if Edmund and Mary had already been engaged at the time his sister ran off with her brother?

Generally speaking, in that era, only the woman could break off the engagement; the man was duty-bound to persist in the engagement unless there was something grossly wrong with the woman or her morals. Would Mary's tacit approval of the adulterous affair have made it an acceptable reason for Edmund to break it off?

Even if it was, if they were already engaged, do you think Edmund would have had the strength of character to break it off, considering that even as things stood in the novel, he wavered for a moment when she called him back a final time?

I think it should have been sufficient moral grounds, but I don't know if he had the backbone to follow through.

I was rifling through a £1 book bin in my local second-hand bookshop and was so happy to come across this cute little edition of Jane Austen’s History of England. It also comes with Love and Friendship and some more short stories and letters (I’m guessing from her juvenilia). Such a bargain, can’t wait to start reading!

I have always wondered why Charlotte Lucas is 27 and Maria likely 18-20, but the young Lucases seem to be very young children. They don't appear to be "out", but do visit the Bennet family. Do you think Lady Lucas is a second wife, mother to the young Lucases?

So I just finished reading The Other Bennett Sister and it's an enjoyable enough read. But the aspect of it I absolutely hated was the Mr Ryder character.

Not only did his antics and that whole subplot break my immension but I kept thinking but what about Colonel Fitzwilliam! Did he die?

Witout going into spoilers, a certain development in the last part of the story involving Mr Ryder is only believable if we assume Colonel Fitzwilliam is dead. But he isn't referred to at all in The Other Bennett Sister. He just doesn't exist in that verse.

Which got me thinking of Colonel Fitzwilliam and Miss Bingley in canon Jane Austen verse. I don't know if we know what Jane Austen said about the fate of Colonel Fitzwilliam. If she said anything at all, that is. But if he is a man obligated to marry a woman of fortune due to his expensive habits, do you think he might have looked to Miss Bingley?

I don't think he would have married Anne de Bourgh, if only because I don't think he wanted to put up with his Aunt on a regular basis. I also don't think he would turn towards Georgiana Darcy. But Miss Bingley is possible, especially if she decides he's better than waiting on someone with an estate.

What do you guys think? Can you see Colonel Fitzwilliam getting together with Caroline Bingley? I mean, she plays the piano!

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 :)

"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?

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.

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.

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!!

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?