I can understand why Fanny fancies him, but not sure where Mary is coming from.

https://preview.redd.it/llybnt63x94e1.jpg?width=736&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=db815b4bf3eca6e55aa77bea63c0fa2f4176a0ef

"EMMA" (2020) Review

Between 2009 and 2020, Hollywood and the British film/television industries have created a handful of productions that either spoofed or were inspired by Jane Austen's novels. Actually, I can only recall one movie that was more or less a straightforward adaptation - 2016's "LOVE & FRIENDSHIP", an adaptation of Austen's novella, "Lady Susan". So imagine my surprise when I learned a new and straightforward adaptation of an Austen novel was due to hit the theaters.

I was even more thrilled that this new movie would be a straightforward adaptation of Austen's 1815 novel, "Emma" . . . which happened to be my favorite written by her. This new adaptation, helmed by Autumn de Wilde and written by Eleanor Catton, starred Anya Taylor-Joy in the title role. I am certain that many Austen fans are familiar with the 1815 novel's narrative. "EMMA" is the story of a spoiled and over privileged young Englishwoman named Emma Woodhouse, who resides at her wealthy father's country estate near the town of Highbury. Emma is not only spoiled and over privileged, but overestimates her own matchmaking abilities and is blind to the dangers of meddling in other people's lives.

Ever since its release in February 2020, film critics and moviegoers have been praising "EMMA" to the skies. In fact, the movie is so high on the critical list that I would not be surprised if it ends up receiving major film award nominations next winter. A great deal of this praise has been focused on the performances of Anya Taylor-Joy, Johnny Flynn for his portrayal of George Knightley, Bill Nighy's portrayal of Mr. Woodhouse; and Autumn de Wilde's direction. Does the movie deserve such high praise? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I certainly cannot deny that "EMMA" is a beautiful looking film. I found Christopher Blauvelt's photography to be very sharp and colorful. In fact, the film's color palette almost seemed similar to the color schemes found in Alexandra Byrne's costume designs. Overall, the visual style for "EMMA" seemed to radiate strong and bright colors with a dash of pastels. Very stylized. But as much as I found all of this eye catching, I also found myself a little put off by this stylized artistry - especially for a movie in a period rural setting.

Speaking of artistry, there has been a great deal of praise for Byrne's costumes. And I can see why. Granted, I am not fond of some of the pastel color schemes. I cannot deny I found her creations - especially those for the movie's women characters - eye catching. I had a few complaints regarding the film's costumes and hairstyles. The men's trousers struck me as a little too baggy for the 1810s. I get it. Actors like Bill Nighy found historical trousers a bit tight. But I feel the trousers featured in "EMMA" struck me as a bit too comfortable looking from a visual viewpoint. And then there was the hairstyle used by Anya Taylor-Joy in the film. For some reason, I found her side curls a bit too long and rather frizzy looking. Instead of the mid-1810s, her hairstyle struck me as an example of hairstyles worn by women during the early-to-mid 1840s.

Someone had claimed that "EMMA" was a very faithful adaptation of Austen's novel. Was it? Frankly, I thought it was no more or less faithful than any of the costumed versions. De Wilde and screenwriter Eleanor Catton followed the major beats of Austen's novel, except for one scene - namely the Crown Inn ball. I will discuss that later. The movie also did an excellent job in capturing the comic nature of Austen's novel. This was apparent in nearly every scene featuring Bill Nighy as Mr. Woodhouse. I also enjoyed those scenes featuring the introduction of Augusta Elton, Emma's reactions to Jane Fairfax and her attempts to play matchmaker for Harriet Smith and Mr. Elton. But the movie also featured some good dramatic moments, thanks to De Wilde's direction and the film's cast. I am speaking of the scenes that featured Mr. Knightley's scolding of Emma for her rudeness towards the impoverished Miss Bates at the Box Hill picnic; Mr. Knightley's marriage proposal and the revelation of Harriet's engagement to tenant farmer Robert Martin.

"EMMA" had received a great deal of acclaim from film critics, moviegoers and Jane Austen fans. Many are claiming it as the best adaptation of the 1815 novel. Do I feel the same? No. No, I do not. In fact, out of the five film and television adaptations I have seen, I would probably rank it at the bottom. Perhaps I had very high expectations of this movie. It is an adaptation of my favorite Austen novel. And it is the first straightforward Austen adaptation since the 2009 television adaptation of same novel. Perhaps this movie is better than I had original assume. Then again, looking back on some of the film's aspects - perhaps not.

A good deal of my problems with "EMMA" stemmed from the portrayal of the main character, Emma Woodhouse. How can I say this? Thanks to Catton's screenplay and De Wilde's direction, Emma came off as more brittle and chilly than any other version I have ever seen. Granted, Emma Woodhouse was a snob. This was apparently in her strong sense of class status, which manifested in her erroneous belief that Harriet Smith was the illegitimate daughter of an aristocrat or gentry landowner, instead of someone from a lower class. Emma's snobbery was also reflected in her contempt towards the impoverished Miss Bates, despite the latter being a "gentlewoman" and a member of the landed gentry. Emma's snobbery, a product of her upbringing, also manifested in her own ego and belief that she is always right. Yes, Emma possessed negative traits. But she also had her share of positive ones. She possessed a warm heart, compassion for the poor (at least those not from her class), intelligence, and an ability to face her faults. This cinematic portrayal of Emma Woodhouse as a brittle and slightly chilly bitch struck me as a little off putting and extreme.

Another example of the exaggeration in this production was Mr. Knightley's reaction to his dance with Emma at the Crown Inn ball. Many have not only praised the sensuality of the pair's dance, but also Mr. Knightly's reaction upon returning home to his estate, Donwell Abbey. What happened? George Knightley seemed to be in some kind of emotional fit, while he stripped off some of his clothes and began writhing on the floor. What in the fuck was that about? That scene struck me as so ridiculous. Other actors who have portrayed Knightley have managed to portray the character's awareness of his love for Emma without behaving like a teenager in heat.

Speaking of heat, who can forget Harriet Smith's orgasmic reaction to Mr. Knightley's company? Many critics and Austen fans had thrilled over the sight of a female character in a Jane Austen production having an orgasm. I will not castigate De Wilde for this directorial choice. I am merely wondering why she had included this scene in the first place. If Harriet was going to have an orgasm, why not have her bring up the subject to a possibly flabbergasted Emma? Why include this moment without any real follow through? Having an orgasm must have been something of a novelty for a young woman like Harriet, who was inexperienced with sexual thoughts or feelings.

And then there was Emma and Mr. Knightley's dance at the Crown Inn ball. The latter sequence is usually one of my favorites in any adaptation of "EMMA". The one exception proved to be the 1972 miniseries, which ended the sequence after Emma had suggested they dance. I almost enjoyed the sequence in this film . . . except it featured Emma obviously feeling attracted to Mr. Knightley during this dance. And I thought this was a big mistake. Why? Because Emma was never that consciously aware of her attraction to Mr. Knightley, until Harriet had confessed her crush on the landowner. And that happened near the end of the story. In other words, by showing Emma's obvious feelings for Knightley during the ball, Autumn De Wilde rushed their story . . . and was forced to retract in the scene that featured Harriet's confession. I feel this was another poor decision on the filmmaker's part.

If I have to be honest, I think De Wilde, along with screenwriter Eleanor Catton, made a number of poor decisions regarding the film's narrative. I have already pointed out three of those decisions in the previous paragraphs. But there were more. De Wilde and Catton changed the dynamics between Mr. Woodhouse and his older daughter and son-in-law, Isabella and John Knightley. In the novel and previous adaptations, the younger Mr. Knightley had always seemed more annoyed and at times, cankerous toward Mr. Woodhouse's hypochondria. In this version, Isabella's hypochondria is portrayed as more irritating. And instead of reacting to his wife's complaints, John suppressed his reactions and ended up being portrayed as a henpecked husband. For some reason, De Wilde and Catton thought it was necessary to take the bite out of John Knightley, making him a weaker character. Why? I have not the foggiest idea, but I did miss the character's biting wit.

In my review of the 1996 television version of "Emma", I had complained how screenwriter Andrew Davies and director Diarmuid Lawrence had minimized part of Harriet's character arc and focused just a bit too much on Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax. In the 1996 movie version, the opposite happened. Writer-director Douglas McGrath had focused more on Harriet's arc than the Frank/Jane arc. Well De Wilde and Catton ended up repeating McGrath's mistake by focusing too much on Harriet, at the expense of Frank and Jane. Worse, Frank and Jane's arc seemed focused upon even less than in the 1996 McGrath film. The couple barely seemed to exist. And a result of this is that Frank's father, Colonel Weston, barely seemed to exist. Mrs. Weston fared better due to her being Emma's former governess. But I was really shocked at how little De Wilde and Catton focused on Mr. Elton and his overbearing bride, Augusta Elton. The movie did focus a good deal on Mr. Elton in those scenes featuring Emma's attempts to match him with Harriet. But following his marriage, his character - along with Mrs. Elton's - seemed to slowly recede into the background following their tea at Hartfield with the Woodhouses. By allowing very little focus on these characters, De Wilde and Catton had left out so many good moments in their effort to streamline Austen's story for theatrical film. Even more so than the two versions from 1996.

Because of this streamlining, a good deal of the cast had very little opportunity to develop their characters on screen. Oliver Chris and Chloe Pirrie gave solid comic performances in their portrayal of John and Isabella Knightley, despite my irritation at the changing dynamics of their relationship. Rupert Graves was pretty much wasted as the over-friendly Colonel Weston. Miranda Hart gave a funny performance as the impoverished spinster Miss Bates. Unfortunately, I was distracted by her less-than-impoverished wardrobe in several scenes. If you had asked for my opinion of Amber Anderson's portrayal of Jane Fairfax, I would not have been able to give it to you. I have no memory of her performance. She made no impact on the movie or its narrative. Tanya Reynolds struck me as a rather funny Mrs. Elton . . . at least in the scene featuring the Eltons' tea with the Woodhouses at Hartfield. Otherwise, I have no real memory of her other scenes in the movie. Callum Turner has always struck me as a memorable performer. And I have to admit that his portrayal of Frank Churchill certainly made an impression on me. But the impression was not always . . . negative. One, he did not have enough scenes in this movie and his character arc struck me as rather rushed. And two, I thought his Frank Churchill was a bit too smarmy for my tastes.

Thankfully, "EMMA" did feature some memorable supporting performances. Gemma Whalen gave a lovely and warm performance as Emma's former governess and close friend, Mrs. Weston. Josh O'Connor gave an excellent performance as the social-climbing vicar, Mr. Elton. I must say that I found his comic timing impeccable and thought he gave one of the best performances in the movie. However, I thought there were times when his Mr. Elton came off as a sexual predator. I get it . . . Mr. Elton was basically a fortune hunter. But I thought O'Connor went too far in the scene that featured Emma's rejection of his marriage proposal. For a moment, I thought he was going to sexually assault her. That was a bit too much. Mia Goth's portrayal of the clueless Harriet Smith struck me as spot-on and very skillful. Granted, I did not care for the "Harriet has an orgasm" moment, but I cannot deny that Goth's acting was excellent in the scene. Bill Nighy gave a skillfully comic portrayal as the hypochondriac Mr. Woodhouse. Yes, there were moments when his usual tics (found in many of his performances) threatened to overwhelm his performance in this film. But I think he managed to more or less keep it together.

One performance that had garnered a great deal of acclaim came from Johnny Flynn, who portrayed Mr. Knightley. In fact, many had regarded him as the best Mr. Knightley ever seen in the movies or on television. I believe Flynn is a pretty competent actor who did an excellent job of conveying his character's decency, maturity and burgeoning feelings for Emma. I was especially impressed by his performance in the Box Hill sequence in which Mr. Knightley chastised Emma for her rude comments at Miss Bates. But I do not regard him as the best screen version of Mr. Knightley I have seen. If I must be honest, I do not regard his interpretation of the character as even among the best. My problem with Flynn is that his Knightley struck me as a bit of a dull stick. And Knightley has always seemed like a man with a dry, yet witty sense of humor, which is why I have always regarded him as one of my favorite Austen heroes. For me, Flynn's Knightley simply came across as humorless to me. Flynn's portrayal of the character almost reminded me of his portrayal of the William Dobbin character from the 2018 miniseries, "VANITY FAIR". Perhaps "humorless" was the wrong word. There were scenes of Flynn's Mr. Knightley reacting to the comedic actions of other characters and uttering the occasional witty phrase or two. But there was something about Flynn's demeanor that made it seem he was trying too hard. I guess no amount of ass display, singing, laughing or writhing on the floor like a lovesick adolescent could make him more interesting to me.

Then we have the film's leading lady, Anya Taylor-Joy. Unlike Flynn, the actress was given more opportunity to display her skills as a comic actress. And she more than lived up to the task. Honestly, I thought Taylor-Joy displayed excellent comic timing. Yet . . . I could never regard her as one of my favorite screen versions of Emma Woodhouse. She was too much of a bitch. Let me re-phrase that. I thought Taylor-Joy overdid it in her portrayal of Emma's bitchiness and snobbery. To the point that her performance struck me as very brittle. Yes, Emma Woodhouse was a snob. But she could also be a warm and friendly young woman, capable of improving her character. I saw none of this in Taylor-Joy's performance. If Catton's screenplay demanded that Emma became aware of her flaws, the actress' conveyance of those moments did not strike as a natural progression. Otherwise, she made a satisfying Emma Woodhouse. I also have one more criticism to add - Taylor-Joy did not have great screen chemistry with her leading man, Johnny Flynn. Their on-screen chemistry struck me as pedestrian at best, if I must be honest.

One would think that I disliked "EMMA". Honestly, I did not. The movie managed to stick with Austen’s narrative. And although it did not change Austen’s story, it did feature some changes in some of the characteristics and character dynamics, thanks to director Autumn De Wilde and screenwriter Eleanor Catton. And some of these changes did not serve the movie well, thanks to De Wilde’s occasional bouts of ham-fisted direction. However, I still managed to enjoy the movie and the performances from a cast led by newcomer Anya Taylor-Joy. And if it had not been for the health crisis that had struck the world in recent years, I probably would have seen it again in theaters.

https://preview.redd.it/1hfarun1x94e1.jpg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f56a7fced3373f064cdbfd829a1a7cfb71b7ccc7

https://janeaustensworld.com/2009/02/12/black-sheep-by-georgette-heyer-a-review/

Vic of Jane Austen’s World has the similarity being Fanny falling ill as a major plot point. Yet, I would assert that GH inverts S&S; i.e., the older sister (Selina) is all nerves and fashionable illness, while the younger sister (Abigail) is common sense and brains. What do other readers of both think?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/01/opinion/pride-prejudice-jane-austen.html?unlocked_article_code=1.eE4.UTqO.pWfyffy5U9Xf&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the differences in principles that we can see between Fanny, Maria and Julia. They have all received the same education, yet have very different principles, and Jane Austen makes sure that that point is driven home on multiple occasions throughout the book, either by commenting on it directly, or through many of her characters.

What I wonder about is how did Fanny obtain such good principles? She hasn't exactly been guided, even when she lived with her own mother, as she was clearly a parentified daughter who had to be more grown up than the adults around her. Besides we are given an honest account of Mrs Price's own lack of principles, practicality and wisdom. She is overwhelmed, has no real interest in some of her children, and no time for teaching them how to behave with each other or in the world. The father is useless.

Did Edmund teach Fanny, or is she naturally gifted with a good, steady inner compass of what is right and wrong?

I keep thinking about Lydia and how I feel that she got a sweet deal in essence. She got the rich Darcy to basically pay a dowry for her because of his guilty conscience. The other sisters did not get their husband's debts paid of or basically gotten them a job. And she didn't even have to tolerate him. So she got what was essentially 10,000 pounds if I remember correctly(they are Wickams debts I know) and her mother's inheritance on top. That is a deal the other girls did not get sadly. Did she scam the system perhaps a ray of hope of what would have been a miserable life with Wickham. And Darcy had to help him further in his job because of Elizabeth. Was it win win for her?

Just got an email about the Jane Austen Festival Friend Membership for the 2025 Jane Austen Festival: https://janeausten.co.uk/pages/festival-friends?omnisendContactID=643fd1a53027ab0017d017df&utm_campaign=campaign%3A+General+2025+Friends+annnouncement+%28674a1dcb78fc2988309ac8b5%29&utm_medium=email&utm_source=omnisend

Can anyone who went for the Jane Austen Festival before advise on whether this membership is worth it? For example, are the events generally so oversubscribed that it is worth paying for priority booking via this membership?

I was reading Emma (for the 100th time) and it struck me that in most cases, Austen focuses too much on class and rank through birth. True, in P&P, she seems to challenge the notion a little bit, yet, it's the difference in wealth she challenges and not rank ( "He is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter- we are equals").

Especially, in Emma, her stream of consciousness revolves around class distinction too much, and Austen doesn't seem to highlight as yet another thing Emma is doing wrong.

What do you think?

Related to the Pride and Prejudice, I was thinking:

1. Jane Bennet (albeit without money) was a gentleman´s dauther, who had an estate (albeit again, it was entailed). Mr. Bingley was a son of a tradesman, but he had (probably) a decent education and money. He had no estate or a house in London at the time (he rented Netherfield), but bought an estate at the end.

Jane Bennet was a gentleman´s daughter, but with no prospects and connections. Bingley was not a gentleman per se, but with prospects and later an estate. Did Jane Bennet marry up or down socially? Or would it be the same level? Would Bingley become a gentleman, if he had an estate?

2. The second question I was wondering about: what if Wickham was Darcy´s half-brother? It seems very much like it, as Darcy´s father took an exceptional care of him, reserved for second sons. Enabling him to study at a prestigous university, and theoretically giving him a living (the promised clergyman position).

Given how (I think) it was quite common for the estate man having affairs with their servants, Wickham could very well be an illegitimate son of Mr. Darcy. In my imagination, if that happened, what if Wickham´s mother hinted about it to Wickham and Wickham had a resentment and thats why he went off the rails?

But maybe not, as he was planning to marry Georgiana, and that would be cross. What if Wickham tought that by marrying Georgiana, he would just got where he thought he is justified to be? A part of the legitimate family? It was not in the book, just my imagination of a fan-fiction type, based on the extremely care of Darcy´s father towards Wickham

what do you think?

Gratifying, however, and stimulative as was the letter in the material part, its sentiments, she yet found, when it was folded up and returned to Mrs. Weston, that it had not added any lasting warmth - that she could still do without the writer, and that he must learn to do without her.

Refers to Emma's disillusionment about her "love" for Frank Churchill, btw.

I'm at such a loss. Don't either "its sentiments" or "that it" have to be omitted for this sentence to work? Does "that it" refer to "its sentiments?"

Jane Austen's depictions of familial relationships are one of the best parts of her novels. Which familial relationships do you find the most interesting in Jane Austen's novels?

My answer:

Emma Woodhouse and Mr. Woodhouse

I find it interesting how Mr. Woodhouse cares greatly about Emma but also is the reason for many of her faults. If he gave her more guidance, she would be less vain and meddlesome. I also think Emma's meddlesome nature results partly from the fact that she is so isolated. By not wanting Emma to ever leave him, Mr. Woodhouse makes Emma's life rather boring, and she uses matchmaking to make it more interesting.

Henry Tilney and Eleanor Tilney

I love what a healthy relationship Henry and Eleanor Tilney have. They share literary interests, and Henry even has an impressive knowledge of muslins. Their love for each other must have helped them a great deal in enduring their oppressive father.

Hypothetical question. (Edit: Spelling error)

If George Wickham had not tarted around at University. Had gone into the church as planned and taken the living at Kympton. Had waited until Georgiana was at least 18 and then expressed his feelings honourably, having a love that had grown as they grew up together.

Do you think Mr Darcy would have:

View Poll

Hey everyone, I love Jane Austen like the rest of us here and I am trying to get a feel to see if anyone would be interested in receiving or exchanging letters from Mr. Darcy! Details would be a semi-sequel or continuation to Pride and Prejudice lore. As Mr. Darcy is married now he would not seeking romance but you could develop an intimate friendship and meaningful discourse. It would be a continuation of that regency universe - i.e. exploring regency era social norms and daily life through letter writing. I would write as proud, complex Mr. Darcy responding to whatever you decided to write to me.

🎁It would also be a WONDERFUL gift for this holiday season for yourself or someone you know would love such correspondence!🎁

You would receive (at least) monthly letters in the mail with wax seals and parchment paper that are typed up, except for the quilled signature from Mr. Darcy. Of course, confidentiality would be maintained. We could discuss topics like:

• Society's expectations and restrictions
• Managing estates
• Balls and social events
• Books and arts
• Family dynamics
• Relationships
• Proper etiquette
• Or anything else fitting the era!

I've studied the period extensively and would stay true to Darcy's character while engaging meaningfully with your character - whoever you choose to be. Let me know if you'd like to correspond! No chat/DM - just good old-fashioned letter writing. I have a landing page website set up, but I don't want to be suspected as spam for self promotion. Let me know what you think and if you're interested in such a subscription, I will describe it further.

I also have intentions on developing a regency universe, if there is enough interest, where each of us Jane Austen lovers can have a place in the story. Let me know your thoughts and suggestions :)

I think one of the reasons Elizabeth refuses both her proposals and her father supports her is that their future isn't as bad as Mrs. Bennet bemoaned. The Phillips inherited a successful practice where Mr. Gardiner saved dowries for his daughters. They had no children of their own. Mr. Gardiner was successful and could introduce them to tradesmen. What do you think? I believe her fear was "materially lessening " their social status and financial position. But not homelessness or destitute. ?

I am American, and I have always had a hard time reading British literature with any sort of accent in my head. When I try, it just feels forced and takes me out of the story. The first time I actually hear British accents is when I go to watch the movie adaptations of the book.

Does this happen to any of my other American Austen fans? Or conversely, British readers of American literature having the same issue.

Edit: I can hear different American accents in my mind when reading though which is quite funny in comparison.

Just a whimsical exercise. What would your list look like?

Lydia- latest celebrity gossip magazines.

Wickham- Think and Grow Rich.

Jane- Art Masterpieces.

Mary- microbiology textbook.

Kitty- teen romance.

Mrs Bennet- Help Me Help My Teen.

Mr Bennet- P.G. Wodehouse.

Mr Collins- Heaven and Hell: a Message of Hope and a Warning To Believers.

Charlotte Lucas- Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

Lady Catherine- Etiquette For Dummies (as a gift to others).

Anne de Bourge- English poetry.

Mr Darcy- the Ilyad in the original Greek.

Elizabeth- The Female Eunuch.

John Thorpe gets a lot of hate, and rightfully so, but in my opinion he's not as bad as his sister.

I believe he isn't after money as a first purpose as opposed to Isabella. We read that

With whomsoever he was, or was likely to be connected, his own consequence always required that theirs should be great, and as his intimacy with any acquaintance grew, so regularly grew their fortune.

I believe he befriended James because his simplicity suited his vanity, and probably really considered him a friend.

We can see he chooses friendship over money in this little story:

“I might have got it for less, I dare say; but I hate haggling, and poor Freeman wanted cash.”

Then there is this little remark that makes me think John's awefulness is much less intricate than Isabella's:

"(...) But I confess, as soon as I read his letter, I thought it a very foolish, imprudent business, and not likely to promote the good of either; for what were you to live upon, supposing you came together? You have both of you something, to be sure, but it is not a trifle that will support a family nowadays; and after all that romancers may say, there is no doing without money. I only wonder John could think of it; he could not have received my last."

I personally believe John did receive Isabella's information about the Morlands' financial state but disregarded it. We learn that

under the influence of exactly opposite feelings, irritated by Catherine’s refusal, and yet more by the failure of a very recent endeavour to accomplish a reconciliation between Morland and Isabella, convinced that they were separated forever, and spurning a friendship which could be no longer serviceable, hastened to contradict all that he had said before to the advantage of the Morlands.

Which tells us that his image of the family got ruined only after all those events, and not based on the information from Isabella.

I am aware that it says "friendship which could be no longer servicable" but it seems to me the case of his longing for importang connections and not particularly personal greed.

Otherwise I do believe he is a horrible human being but Isabella seems worse to me with all her schemes.

I’m 15:50 in and flabbergasted at the inaccuracy compared to the book. What. Is. Happening?!?!?!

Storytime for Grownups (Storytime for Grownups Podcast - Apple Podcasts) is a relatively new podcast, in which the reader pauses to give brief explanations about odd words or passages that may be difficult to understand. She calls it "an audiobook with build-in notes", and I think that is such an apt description. She just finished P&P, and is about to start "A Christmas Carol". She started with "Jane Eyre", which is her all-time favorite novel. I highly recommend it!

While I love listening to Elizabeth Klett and other audiobook versions, Faith K. Moore is also very easy to listen to, and it can be beneficial to understanding some of the passages that may be otherwise unclear. If you have any friends or family members that like audiobooks and might like P&P, but they find the grammar a bit off-putting, this is what they should probably start with.

As a bonus, she spends the first part of each podcast giving a synopsis of what the previous chapter(s) were about, and answering listener questions, so, again, very good for someone learning about Austen's worlds and works.

Just reading "The Making of Pride and Prejudice" and Sue Birtwistle, producer, relates the following conversation with an entertainment exec who called about investing in the film:

Exec: ‘Novel? What novel?’ SB: Er... the novel. By Jane Austen.’ Exec: ‘How are you spelling that?’ SB: A.U.S.T.E.N. Exec: ‘Is she selling well?’ SB: ‘Er... yes. Very well.’ Exec: ‘How many copies has she sold?’ SB: ‘You mean altogether?’ Exec: ‘Yeah. Since publication.’ .... SB: Er.....since 1813? Exec: [A long pause.] ‘You mean she’s dead?’ (Another pause.) ‘So she wouldn’t be available for book signings?’

Following the U.S. election, I decided I needed to step away from all the news and opinion content I normally consume, and wanted to lose myself in something new (to me). I’m a fan of both Anthony Trollope (writing a few decades after Austen) and of Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey-Maturin serial (a modern work that takes place at approximately the same time as Austen’s novels, although chiefly concerned with the British navy during the Napoleonic wars). I figured Austen’s novels might in a sense seem the lovechild of Trollope’s and O’Brian’s and I was correct.

So I started with Sense & Sensibility, then Pride & Prejudice, and am now reading Mansfield Park. It’s true as others have said that it’s hard to find a character to really root for. Obviously I want people to be kinder to Fanny and treat her with more respect, but it’s hard to really cheer for someone who seems to have no goals of her own, beyond an all-suffusing “Edmund” devotion.

But one thing I keep wondering about, thinking back to Pride & Prejudice: Does anyone else find it a bit odd that Austen named an important character — yet not the lead character — after herself. Perhaps this was an inside joke for her family, that the P&P Jane is nothing like their Jane. Otherwise, I can’t think why she would do it. Anyone else wondered this?

Me, to my child, as we navigate the logistics of traveling with an infant this holiday season 😆

It's hard not to imagine that Robert's sisters would resent Harriet for refusing their brother' first proposal. In their minds she must have come across as flying too high and snobbish with her relationship with upper class Emma. Harriet even sees this when they all met accidentally at Fords'. So marriage would have been difficult after that with them all living in the same household.