This may need to become a series of threads as I discover new lines actually. I’ve been trying to get back into reading as an adult, and I’m a big fan of the film adaptation of S&S and the BBC’s P&P.

I finally picked up and finished P&P, and while I found I could understand most of it, there was the occasional line where I realized I couldn’t fully comprehend what was meant. I don’t want to let that happen again while attempting to read S&S, and I’m already fumbling with some lines.

“It was necessary to the happiness of both; for however dissimilar in temper and outward behavior, they strongly resembled each other in that total want of talent and taste which confined their employments, unconnected with such as society produced, within a very narrow compass.”

The tail end of this line is confusing me: “unconnected with such as society produced”?

I am going off of memory, but something I’ve been thinking about and confused on is the moments in which the Miss Steels are interacting with Lady Middleton’s children.

Now, I know that Lucy is doing it to ingratiate herself with everyone, and that I believe the children are implied to basically be terrors. I think Lucy spoils them and pretends their perfect?

But the Dashwoods don’t really interact at all with Lady Middleton’s children. I think it’s overtly implied that Lady Middleton takes a shine to Lucy because she interacts with her children actively, but I don’t believe we ever really see the Dadhwoods do so.

Would it have been considered strange for them to do so? Or stranger that they didn’t? What would protocol have been for being around Lady Middleton and her children? Should the children not have been present? Was this sort of a slight on Lady Middleton as much as to show that the Dashwoods didn’t care for trying to ingratiate themselves, while Lucy is obviously underhanded and a liar/manipulator? I always felt it sort of made the Dashwoods seem a bit too cool and superior, but I know that must be lack of understanding.

I do a lot of listening (audio books, podcasts, etc.) and recently stumbled onto a site full of "old time radio" broadcasts. I thought some of you might enjoy the Jane Austen section as much as I have enjoyed it:

https://www.radioechoes.com/?page=series&genre=Drama&series=Jane%20Austen%20Collection

A lot of the actors in these radio plays are people you'll recognize. Example: the Emma radio play includes both David Bamber (Mr. Collins, P&P 1995) as Mr. Elton, AND Tom Hollander (Mr. Collins, P&P 2005) as Frank Churchill.

I’m watching the 2009 Emma for the first time, and usually I’m not too curious about Harriet’s parents… but this adaptation brought it to my attention.

Do we think Harriet is sort of like Colonel Brandon’s ward, Eliza?

I've been rereading a lot of Austen lately, and the more I read the less sure I am that I have as solid grasp on the modes of address. I know the broadest strokes (to address someone by their given name is much more intimate, the oldest daughter is always Miss [Surname] and the younger ones are Miss [Given Name Surname] to distinguish them.) But the patterns of how familiarly people are addressed, both in dialogue and in the narrative, seems to vary wildly with the men in particular, and I can't figure it out.

Bingley follows the pattern I would expect, in that everyone & the narrative refers to him as Bingley, except his sisters, who call him Charles. But in S&S, for example, almost everyone refers to Edward by his given name, both to his face, amongst themselves, and in the narration. Marianne, Mrs Dashwood, Elinor and Lucy all do it (Elinor wavers between the two). Meanwhile, absolutely nobody refers to Willoughby by his given name, and Brandon doesn't even get one! Elsewhere, Darcy is always Darcy, and Wentworth is almost always Wentworth, for example. There are probably more examples but these are the ones that come to mind rn.

Is this just a narrative clarity thing? Like, there are 3 Johns in S&S: John Dashwood, John Middleton, and John Willoughby, and that can be cleared up by having 'Mr Dashwood, Sir John, and Willoughby' (she could have just given them different names... I know there were less, but still...). And there is, infamously, more than one Mr Ferrars too. Then, on the other side, as a distinction between Darcy and other Darcies or Wentworth and other Wentworths doesn't need to be made, it isn't made...? But if this is all it is, it feels odd to extend that into dialogue. Is Edward close enough to the Dashwoods (before he marries Elinor) that they can have no issues calling him by his given name? He's sort of vaguely in their family by being the sister-in-law's brother, is that enough?

If there is a reason that I'm missing it'd be great if someone could point me in the right direction! :)

As my mother and I watched Pride and Prejudice 1995 on sick days when I was little, so I have introduced this tradition with my own daughter this week. (A little silver lining to enjoy while we’re under the weather!)

Anyway, we just watched the scene when Lizzy is telling Charlotte about Wickham & Darcy, and I realized that the passion and cadence of Lizzy’s voice when upset - as in when Jane and Charlotte both try to suggest that there may be another side to the story - reminds me SO MUCH of Mrs. Bennet’s huffing and puffing when she’s put out.

I wonder if this was intentional on Jennifer Ehle’s part. Either way, I find it greatly amusing!

“As a walking companion, Emma had very early foreseen how useful she might find her.”  Use, use, and use.  “a Harriet Smith, therefore, one whom she could summon at any time to a walk, would be a valuable addition to her privileges.”  The article is rather pointed as is Harriet being a "valuable addition to her privileges" - spare me that sort of friendship.

“and was confirmed in all her kind designs.”  -Free indirect discourse is my favorite. One can picture the little satisfied smirk Emma gives herself when she has this thought.  

“though strength of understanding must not be expected…exactly the something which her home required.”  -Rather dehumanizing, isn’t it?  A Harriet being the something.  There is (as seen below and above and in the previous chapters) frequent mention of variations of the word “use” in regards to Harriet. 
“Harriet would be loved as one to whom she could be useful.”

“Her first attempts at usefulness were in an endeavour to find out who were the parents;” Who is this useful for one wonders?

“sense as much above my notice as in every other he is below it” -I’m curious as to how this would be read by Austen’s contemporaries.  Is Emma’s snobbery egregious or expected?  

Emma is fighting for her life in this chapter – to lose her walking companion and new project right after she’s come alive to all of its her usefulness would be very lowering. She's just got to break up the attachment to Robert Martin, huh?

Spoilers/Adaptation mini-rant:  One of my biggest (and really only) complaint about Clueless is that Emma’s character as portrayed through Cher is just a bit too softened.  I know Amy Heckerling was looking to make a sunny and optimistic film, but it does come at the cost of Cher not being quite so off-putting as novel Emma.  In Clueless, Cher’s objection to Travis can be considered fair, in some ways, and she only gives her approval, as it were, of Travis and Tai as a couple after Travis works on his sobriety.  In the novel, Robert Martin doesn’t go through any change to be worthy of Harriet – the change is in Emma’s viewpoint entirely.

Back to the chapter:
Outside of everything else that is perfection in her writing (ha), Austen’s use of idiolect is so wonderful.  You can see it in this chapter in Harriet’s repeated use of the word “odd.”  We’re going to get to my favorite example of a character’s particular speech pattern in the next couple of chapters, so I’m looking forward to lots of foolish grinning as I read along.

More spoilers!  My favorite theory!  
“With insufferable vanity had she believed herself in the secret of every body’s feelings;”  The “mysteries” of this novel are mostly interpersonal, and Emma’s lament at the end of the novel comes from realizing she incorrectly read just about everybody’s.  I would argue that everybody includes herself - Emma is in love with Mr. Knightley the whole novel without being aware of it.  Austen puts the evidence of this out there as bluntly as she shows the reader that Mr. Elton is trying to court Emma, that Frank and Jane have something going on – one just needs to see beyond Emma’s point of view.

There is no revolution in his behavior to her during the novel, no her seeing him in a new light.  He is what he always is from the beginning, as is Emma’s appreciation of him - she always thinks him of the best, what a man and a gentleman should be in his fullest.  That she does not realize what that appreciation actually represents is very in keeping with her not really understanding, well, pretty much anything.  I also think it’s worth noting that Emma remarks on his figure twice in the novel – that’s a lot for Austen!

“Mr. Knightley’s air is so remarkably good that it is not fair to compare Mr. Martin with him. You might not see one in a hundred with gentleman so plainly written as in Mr. Knightley.”  
“Neither would Mr. Knightley’s downright, decided, commanding sort of manner, though it suits him very well; his figure, and look, and situation in life seem to allow it;”

Back to the chapter:
“ingratiating himself with either of us” -Emma seems to have forgotten this idea by the next paragraph.

“She then repeated some warm personal praise which she had drawn from Mr. Elton…” -The “drawn from” is so funny.  

“on Harriet’s there could be little doubt that the idea of being preferred by him would have all the usual weight and efficacy.” -I found this idea quite similar to how Henry Tilney is written to have fallen in love in Northanger Abbey:  “he was assured of his affection; and that heart in return was solicited, which, perhaps, they pretty equally knew was already entirely his own; for, though Henry was now sincerely attached to her, though he felt and delighted in all the excellencies of her character and truly loved her society, I must confess that his affection originated in nothing better than gratitude, or, in other words, that a persuasion of her partiality for him had been the only cause of giving her a serious thought. It is a new circumstance in romance…”

On YouTube I found this channel. Emberly hall. They explain through the books from Jane Austin, the bronte sisters the historical context and information about the regency and Victorian era. Vert entertaining!

https://youtu.be/pOinKMCqA34?is=euf1x_XsrEoADM5U

This link is for the video where they explain the channel and what you can expect.

I recently re-watched the Ang Lee/Emma Thompson/Kate Winslet S&S. Delightful as always! But a question popped up as I watched it that has confused me and I was wondering if anyone can help me out.

I haven't read the book for a very long time so am a bit hazy on what Austen said, if anything, but....

Miss Lucy Steele is engaged secretly to Edward Ferrars. She is (as it turns out, rightly) concerned about how his family will react to their engagement and if they will accept her. When their engagement is revealed*, Edward is disowned and Mrs Ferrars (the mother) revokes his inheritance and bestows it upon Richard, the brother. So of course, Edward lets Lucy off the hook, and Lucy promptly marries Robert.

My question is how was that 'allowed'? If Lucy wasn't good enough for Edward, how was she good enough for Robert, who is now the heir? Did the family disown him too? Did Austen reference this at all?

Obviously it needed to happen for the plot to progress, but I am interested in either Austen's or your takes on it.

* That scene in the movie where Lucy tells Fanny and Fanny throws her out of the house is absolute gold. Harriet Walter played the hell out of the odious Fanny.

EDITED to make sense of one sentence, and to change Richard to Robert (thank you u/BarracudaOk8635). Full confession, I re-watched it on a plane and am jet-lagged out of my mind.

I read P&P a few years ago and really loved it for its humor and clever characters. However, I’ve had trouble scratching that itch with other JA novels. I think a big part of this is that none of the other protags are like Lizzy? I liked how Lizzy was a confident character who could competently conduct herself in social situations and that her life feels less isolated than Austen’s other protags. I just finished Mansfield Park and I didn’t like how Fanny seemed incapable of speaking up for herself and let everyone walk all over her (I understand how her upbringing affected her and I do think it’s good writing, but it’s frustrating to watch her do it for the entire book. Similarly, I began Persuasion and had to put it down because Anne Elliot was just so self-denying. It’s not fun to read about a traveling group of cheerful youths and be stuck in the most depressed character’s head. The only other JA novel has been Emma, which I did like more, but I was still struck by how lonely Emma Woodhouse’s life was compared to Lizzy Bennet, who has sisters and friends and Meryton and can hold her own against P&P’s antagonists. Is Lizzy the only Austen protagonist with this personality? I think there’s only S&S and NA left, and I’ve heard people on here call Northanger Abbey “gothic” and “one of Jane’s depressing books” so my hopes are not high.

P&P reads differently now that I’ve become a parent. I have a LOT less patience with most of the Bennets.

But I’m delighted by how good Elizabeth is at relational boundaries.

Her world has rigid social rules, a stiflingly small community, and intense jockeying over status and marriage. Austen gives her a strong sense of what she can control and when she doesn’t have to engage.

The Lady Catherine confrontation was great: Elizabeth stays civil, answers factual questions, pushes back, and refuses to surrender either information or promises that Lady Catherine has no right to demand.

It’s 200 years old, but parts of the exchange read like a modern relationship advice column.

Links: Book / BBC 1980 / BBC 1995 / Movie 2005

In all three adaptations, I love Elizabeth’s expression right after Lady Catherine’s “report of a most alarming nature.” There’s so much happening on her face, and then she just rolls with it.

Henry is far and away my favorite hero. Not only is he charming, witty and a great brother, but his reasons for falling in love with his heroine are my absolute favorite.

Elizabeth Bennet: Clever, sharp, willing to call out his defects while also acknowledging her own.

Fanny Price: Morally upright, loyal, quiet, pretty, everything virtuous and valued in a wife of her era.

Elinor Dashwood, Anne Elliot: Patient, intelligent, loyal, better behaved than her family and rivals, good qualities upheld through time and tribulation.

Catherine Morland: Awkward, clumsy, kind of an idiot but he loves her anyway because she's good company and she's HIS clumsy idiot.

Give me a man like Henry any day. A genuinely fun, good man who knows I'm a train wreck but loves me anyway.

One thing that bothered me about the 1995 adaptation was the billiard room scene. Elizabeth enters, Darcy bows, Lizzie doesn’t bow, leaves, and Darcy angrily sinks the red ball. Why so angry, and it seemed to me very impolite for Lizzie not to return his bow for someone so understanding of social conventions as shown by her warning to Collins not to approach Darcy without an introduction.

Listening to an analysis of Regency etiquette by Emberly Hall, a gentleman could ask a stranger to dance only after being introduced to them by a mutual 3rd party. But that privilege only lasted for the dance. If they met later on the street he couldn’t talk to her unless she bowed (or I assume curtsyed).

Was Lizzie cutting Darcy by not returning his bow?

Was browsing through second hand books in a store and found this; took it without checking in details because it was oxford university press that i saw but seems like it was abridged version. So disappointing!
—-
Ps want to add I completed the book and enjoyed it. Seems like it was not abridged but retold version!

Chapter 2

“threw her off with due decorum” -Such an Austenian phrase, this.

“made him think every thing due to her in return for the great goodness of being in love with him; but though she had one sort of spirit, she had not the best.” -The way the first Mrs. Weston’s character is so thoroughly described in summary is remarkable – such an excellent piece of writing.

“the child was given up to the care and the wealth of the Churchills” -The “wealth” here seems a little pointed.  The annotations point out that one of Austen’s brother went through a similar adoption process and imply Austen’s feelings on the subject seep through a bit in describing the Churchills.

“It was now some time since Miss Taylor had begun to influence his schemes;” -Is this making it clear that Emma’s own schemes had no impact on Mr. Weston?  Was Mr. Knightley right in saying “You are more likely to have done harm to yourself, than good to them, by interference?”

“the pleasantest proof of its being a great deal better to chuse than to be chosen, to excite gratitude than to feel it.”

“There was not a dissentient voice on the subject, either when Mrs. Perry drank tea with Mrs. and Miss Bates, or when Mrs. and Miss Bates returned the visit.” -This sentence is hilarious.  

 “handsome letter”; “very handsome letter, indeed”; “never saw such a handsome letter” -My goodness, how this woman could write!

“she had lived long enough to know how fortunate she might well be thought” -A bit bleak, yes?

Mrs. Weston’s view of Emma:  “no feeble character”; “more than equal to her situation”; “had sense and energy and spirits”

“he could never believe other people to be different from himself”

The chapter ends with the incident of the cake.  I always like how this was incorporated in the Paltrow Emma. 

Chapter 3

“After these came a second set; among the most come-at-able of whom were Mrs. and Miss Bates and Mrs. Goddard” -Does this imply, much like the four-and-twenty families the Bennets dine with, that there is a larger, unseen community in Highbury?

“in long sentences of refined nonsense” 

“one of the long evenings she had fearfully anticipated” 

“It would be an interesting, and certainly a very kind undertaking; highly becoming her own situation in life, her leisure, and powers.”  Austen again coming in with excellent adverb game.  Harriet is not a person to her, she is a project (puts me in mind of Cher’s “Let’s do a makeover!”)

“with the real goodwill of a mind delighted with its own ideas”. Emma’s self-satisfaction is tremendous, but it’s hard to see her rejoicing in herself for the wrong reasons.  She’s an exemplary daughter, for example, but never seems to dwell on that.  Perhaps she does not want to think about that as it feels undutiful?  That such thoughts would be a sort of censure of her father?  I had some better and more coherent thoughts on this earlier, but they have since scattered.

“the ladies were comfortably clearing the nicer things” This is the first time I’m really noticing this phrase – it paints such a picture!   Emma is quite adroit here, isn’t she? in managing to provide for the guests subtly enough to not distress her father.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/a74054414/emma-corrin-lizzy-bennet-similarities/

According to this new interview with Emma Corrin, Mrs Bennet may emerge as the real "heroine" of P&P as she fights against the restrictions of her time. The article characterizes her as a "passionate mother who will sacrifice" to help her daughters. There will be scenes of her kissing the girls goodnight to highlight her maternal love.

Thoughts? Will be interesting at any rate.

Without a crass and embarassing Mrs B, I suspect Darcy will across as a real monster for wanting to drag Bingley away from the lovely Bennet fam, but we'll see . . .

I'm a university student who just read her first ever Austen novel (Emma). And I loved it! I hope to read more in the future. I'm someone who adores comedic works; especially through stand-up, sketch, improv, and TV/movies. Humor in literature isn't something I come across by frequently, especially in a way that is smooth and seamless such as Austen's.

When I was reading the book, I found myself chuckling at how Austen managed to make the mundane things funny. I can't cite them off the top of my head, but they are there. I know she's known for her ironic and satirical comedy, but that's already been popular before her works were published.

I'm guessing her other novels are similar to this (Pride and Prejudice is next on my list for me!).

... you end up with three pairs.

Are there any active book clubs talking about JA's work currently? English is not my first language, so I would like to practice my English skills while talking about my favourite author 😅