Everyone knows something written by Jane Austen, even if you haven't actually read the books you know the stories.

Jane Austen was born in Steventon, Hampshire on 16th December 1775. She was the seventh child of George and Cassandra Austen. Jane did a lot of reading and wrote a Love and Friendship at the age of fourteen. This was followed by;_

Catharine, or the Bower/The Beautiful Cassandra/The History of England. The latter was written becasue Jane felt that there were not enough women written about in British History. Her published novels were:-

• Sense and Sensibility
• Pride and Pejudice
• Mansfield Park
• Emma
• Persuasion
• Northanger Abbey

Her unfinished works were:-

• Lady Susan
• The Watsons
• Sanditon

There is much to discuss about the works of Jane Austen and the film adaptations that have been made from her most popular novels. Her family was particularly colourful and a lot of what Jane wrote was influenced by what she knew and saw around her in her everyday life. She died at the young age of 42 on 18th July 1817 of what is now believed to have been Addisons disease. She was buried at Winchester Cathedral.

This thread is here for you to discuss any aspect of Jane Austens life. Whether you are a fan of her books the films that have been made or indeed if you are drawn to the time that Jane lived, the clothes, the way people lived, the way couple courted, anything at all, post your comments here.

The VTM Jane Austen Book Club Member List:

etphonehome (Elaine)
passerby (Janet)

I was wondering when a Jane Austen topic would go up!

This is great, because my three favorite characters in all English fiction are Elizabeth Bennet, Fitzwilliam Darcy, and Charles Bingley. Pride and Prejudice has been my favorite book ever since I first read it when I was 15.

Who has seen the A&E version of Pride and Prejudice (with Colin Firth), and who has seen the 2005 version with Keira Knightley?

Which is better, and which does the book better justice?

Brilliant question. You know if you'd asked me a year ago, I would have said the Colin Firth adaptation hands down. The acting was brilliant and because it was a series over 6 or 7 hours, more of the content of the book got into the script. But on a second, third or even fourth viewing of Joe Wrights recent outing and you appreciate the cinematography, the music and the film as a whole. They both have plusses, the Joe Wright film looks more realistic, given that the clothes they wore were duller, the house in which the Bennets lived was not opulently decorated and to me that is a truer representation of what I think life would have been like for a family of those means in that period. However, I believe that Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth captured the essence of the lead characters better. I particularly like the look on JE's face when she is shown Pemberley for the first time. You can almost see her falling in love with Mr Darcy.

However I really liked the scene in which Keira Knightley has just discovered that Darcy has thwarted her sister Janes chances with Mr Bingley and the shot that shows Mr Darcy standing so close to Eliza in the rain, you know that he wanted to kiss her. That just makes me sigh!

So here's my summary, Mr Darcy ~ Colin Firth, Elizabeth Bennett ~ Jennifer Ehle, for the scenary, music and overall feel of the period ~ The Keira Knightley movie.

I agree with you that the cinematography was gorgeous in the Keira Knightly movie, but I'd have to differ about the Bennets' style of living in that movie being realistic.

Reading up on Regency England, I have found that members of the gentry (like Mr. Bennet) tried to live as cleanly and respectably as they could. I highly doubt, for instance, that any of the Bennets would allow farm animals to walk through their house. What was that about?

A hundred or two hundred years before 1812, that might have been more realistic, but for a member of the English gentry in 1812, that is not the typical of living. Not after the enlightenment, anyway.

But besides that, the music and scenery in that movie were amazing. The version with Colin Firth, however, is really amazing because they cast the perfect people for the parts.

My favorite parts in both movies were these: Mr. Collins' proposal to Elizabeth in the Keira Knightly version (he was so short! ), and from the A&E version, the scene when Mr. Bingley arrives at Longbourn so early that none of the Bennet ladies are dressed, and then Mrs. Bennet starts winking at Kitty, Lizzy, and Mary.

And one question: How do you pronounce Jennifer Ehle's last name?

EE-lee! Doesn't look right does it? But that's how it is. Did you know that Jennifer Ehle's mum is none other than Rosemary Harris, aka Aunt May in the Spiderman movies!! Totally off topic trivia there.

No! Wow.

Did you know that Crispen Bonham-Carter who plays Mr. Bingley is the cousin of the actress who plays Bellatrix in Order of the Phoenix?

Connections, connections.

First off, what an excellent topic, Elaine! Indeed! Just a week ago, I found my way back to Jane Austen and now I’m enjoying every word and gesture of her characters in Pride and Prejudice.

I remember reading and watching Sense and Sensibility and enjoying it to a great extent a long long time ago. And just recently, I’ve spotted Janet’s avatar (well, she doesn’t have it any longer, but it was Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy) along with some hints at Jane Austen’s texts in some people’s signatures (maybe it was even yours, Elizabeth) and I decided it was time I finally finished Pride and Prejudice. I started reading it some five years ago, never finishing it, as I had a lot of course assignments and only a week for this marvelous novel then. Anyway, I have a hunch that some time now, I will also get from my fiance both the series and the movie you are discussing. Once I finish the novel and get myself to watching the two pieces, I will come back to share my opinions on them in more detail.

Reading through your posts, I can’t wait to see the two versions.

And I would like to ask,

Why do we like Jane Austen’s world?

What is so appealing to us about the world where women are viewed as beautiful objects worth or worthless of marrying? When we ourselves are living at a time of proclaimed female emancipation. Is it a kind of nostalgia that attracts us to the novels and the world depicted in them? Or is it anything else?

~Jana

PS: I'm sorry, but I cannot participate in the connection or pronunciation debate. My knowledge on these topics is highly limited.

The simple answer for me would be, we all want to find our Mr Darcy. Strong, rich and handsome and fall passionately in love with him. But I think it's more than this. The majority of Jane Austen's heroines are strong minded, intelligent women who, in the age they were written and with the possible exception of Elizabeth Bennet, in danger of being left on the shelf, that is never being married at all. They all stand up for what they believe in, that is, they believe that they should marry for love. Elizabeth Bennet proves this point when faced with a proposal from her cousin Mr Collins, whom she finds ridiculous. Even though she knows that such a marriage would mean security for her families future, she turns him down since she know's she will not be happy in such a marriage. Luckily Mr Bennet is on her side, much to the annoyance of Mrs Bennet and her poor nerves.

Ann Elliot, the heroine of Persuasion is also a strong minded woman. She, as you know is persuaded by her godmother at the age of 19 that a match with Captain Wentworth would not be advatageous. He has neither rank nor money and she is also told she is too young. However, love proves stronger than family when they are unexpectedly reintroduced 8 years later. Ann is the sensible one in her family. The middle of 3 sisters, the eldest friivilous the younger a hypchondriac, Jane is the carer, the accountant and the organiser. Despite her families indifference to her, she is the one who comes out on top, because she knows her own mind. I think of all Jane Austens characters, Ann is my favourite.

I think we love JA's world because her heriones are strong. They marry for love and are not subserviant and down trodden.



Jana, please do not exclude yourself from any discussion. Feel free to interupt this type of banter, it's just side tracking

Awesome idea, Elaine! Great topic!

For me, the attraction to Jane Austen is that she lived and wrote in a very special time for women. Everything had changed because of the French Revolution. We saw this most in their mode of dress. It changed drastically, overnight! Women no longer wore dresses that weighed a hundred pounds, they no longer wore corsets so tight they couldn't breathe, or high-heeled shoes that made them totter about in a ridiculous way. They wore simple sheaths with a high waist--dresses that followed their natural form.

Women were also encouraged in this period to be natural, to show their intelligence, and to use it. The young men of that period didn't necessarily want "a stupid wife" as Mr. Bennet remarked, showing his age. Women were encouraged to be 'accomplished,' to be well-read, up on the issues of the day, adept at dancing and needlework, and languages. A woman's purpose in life was still centered around men, but in a new way--they were encouraged to enhance and enrich their partner's life, be his true companion, not just be a mother for his children and a manager of his household.

Of course it didn't last. With the advent of the Bourgeousie, women were once again restricted by tight corsets, heavy skirts, and confined to home, hearth, and motherhood. But that's what makes Jane Austen's era so precious. We didn't see another such time for women until 170 years later!

EDIT--I swear I am the queen of the half-baked thought.

OK, to finish. The reason that Jane Austen and her works appeal so much to me is that Jane was a woman of her times. She explored the new ideas or roles for women, validating them through her strong female characters, who moved graciously through the world without compromising their principles. As Elaine was saying about Lizzy Bennett--she knew marrying Mr. Collins would make her family safe, but she just could not compromise herself in that way. And in the end, she is vindicated! Not only by her father's approval, but by winning the right man for her. Who doesn't want that?

Women supposedly have more freedom now, but many roles remain rigid--some things are easier, and many are more difficult. I think Jane Austen's world helps us to remember that it's always been a struggle, but if we can remain true to ourselves and not sell ourselves cheap, we will be happier.

Well said Darcy. I think that just about sums it up. She wrote about what she wanted in a time that was changing, moving away from a more rigid era to something a bit more romantic I suppose. She had the freedom to choose between love and duty, something that we strive for even now. The way she wrote showed how far women had come, although sadly she wasn't extraordinary in her own lifetime only after her death when her novels were at last published in her own name.

Great topic! Jane Austen is one of my favorite authors. I've only read four of her books : Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, Mansfield Park, and Emma. Pride and Prejudice being my ultimate favorite.

For years all of my siblings and I have sat down and watched the A&E version of Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. Every certain amount of time, my mom will announce that it is time to watch it and we all sit down for all those hours and watch it. (My brothers love the movie too.) We own the videos, but most of them had broken after so much use, so my siblings and I got together and bought my mom the DVD's for Christmas last year. We quote from the movie and book all the time. We don't like the new Pride and Prejudice movie with Keira Knightly though. It doesn't do the books justice by any means. I got really annoyed while watching it. I've gotten spoiled with the perfect A&E version.

We also love the movie Sense and Sensibility. We don't own that one though. Unfortunately. I haven't seen it in a few years. I really need to watch it again. I love seeing Alan Rickman in the film with Kate Winslett. Same with Emma and Mansfield park. Actually, I take that back. I've only seen one version of Mansfield Park and I didn't like it. I think it was BBC. I can't remember. I love the movie Emma though.

Every now and then I have a Jane Austen party with my sisters and my friend. We get together and discuss the books and film adaptations, then watch the movies. It's so fun.

Just goes to show, we all like things different.

I thought that you would be interested in this link to earlier adaptations of Janes novels up to and including Pride and Prejudice (1995) Of course these wre for television and not film. The first version of Pride and Prejudice I recall is one aired in 1980 starring Elizabeth Garvie as Lizzy Bennet. The Laurence Oliver film of 1940 never appealled as it looked far too over dramatised.

There have been 3 versions of Emma, one in 1972, the BBC adaptation starring Kate Beckinsale in 1996 and the movie starring Gwyneth Paltrow, also in 1996.

Persuasion numbers 4, first in 1960, 1971, then a really good one in 1995 and my favourite which was aired in the UK last year starring Sally Hawkings and Rupert Penry-Jones as Anne and Wentworth.

Sense and Sensibilty had an outing in 1990, again in 1995 (Emma Thompson) and again thsi year, in an Andrew Davies adaptation which I personal can only describe as a clone of the 1995 film but with less good looking people! The acting was superb though!

Northanger Abbey was aired in 1986 with another adaptation last year.

Mansfield Park has had 3 outings in 1983, 1999 and in 2007 (incedently the cat Mrs Norris is named after the busy body in Mansfield Park).

And another connection is Ranulph Feinnes who is a decsendent of the Austen family and cousin to Ralph (Voldemort) Feinnes.

If anyone knows of any other versions we should be on the look out for let us know.

I love Jane Austen's work, mainly, for their satirical and ironic humor with which she seamlessly peppered her writing! She would make fun of anything and everything; and it was done so well that instead of being offended by it, those she was making fun of felt they were in on the joke! I love how her opinions on people were distinct, yet they were multi layered. You get the feeling that she thinks members of the clergy are selfish pretenders to rank in the characters like Mr. Elton and Mr. Collins - yet she also creates a perfectly gentlemanly character who aspires to be a clergyman in Mr. Ferrars. She has great esteem for human plights and she had wonderful ability to create sympathy with any situation the characters might be going through. Her work just evokes such passionate feelings one way or the other that it's difficult to be exposed to Jane Austen and not feel something for the characters. And I really love how I can get so caught up in the daily life of regular people! It doesn't take a superhuman story or something with tanks and guns to get me to sit down for a few hours to read a book by Jane Austen!

Pride and Prejudice. It's difficult to find redeeming qualities in something when you've already got one thing that you think nothing else can surpass. However, I enjoy both versions of Pride and Prejudice. For most of the reasons already given! I do appreciate in the Kiera Knightly version the grittiness of set and costume. Where I'm not sure what the pig was doing in the house . . . I think that the representation is pretty accurate for who the Bennets were. Not the pig, but the grit. We have a very short time in that film to make the connection that though these people were rich in comparison to their neighbors, nothing afforded the women comfort or assurance. And we have to realize very quickly that they are not up to the social standards of their neighbors. A very quick way to show us their depravity in some respect is to depict them in the grit. Not that I necessarily think that the dirt was indicative of how they lived, but I think the sets gave the film a feeling of realism that lacked in the older version. Not to say that i don't find the Ehle/Firth version gratifying in set design, because it's beautiful. . .but I appreciate the differences just the same. Keira Knightly doesn't bother me as she does some as Elizabeth, and I sometimes enjoy the ability to watch the whole thing in an hour and a half instead of six!

And now I have to go switch my avatar again. Keep with the spirit of things.

Keira Knightley bothers me less and less as time goes on. And as you say Janet, it's nice to get your fix in one and half hours instead of six!

I never could fathom out the pig, but I agree about the grittiness of their lives. Mr Bennet only saw an income of £2000 a year plus £5000 for his wife. The Gardiners were the ones with money. Anyone could be considered gentry, it just meant that you had land. Consider trying to run a house with 6 woman, plus help, the staff must have numbered at least 6 on that kind of money especially when you had a wife and daughters who were fond of socialising. Once dresses (and ribbons) were purchased, there can't have been much left to maintain the house in any form of splendour. Like you said Janet not poor, but not rich to the level of their neighbours.

I love this quote



Can you imagine what a young man today would say? "So what about it then, are we still on or what?"

Actually, Mr Darcy had some of the better lines

He was so dry!



I wander that this love hate relationship with the clergy is because of her father and brothers being rectors? Her closest brother Henry, who became a clergyman after his bank failed, could have been the influence for the Mr Ferrars character.

It could very well be. It strikes me as slightly amusing that becoming clergy seems less about faith and more about a profitable business at times in her writing. That one is probably influenced by her family as well.

I was reading last night about Jane when it mentions that in a letter she wrote to her sister she said something to the effect of: I don't know what I will ever do with someone who does not like Lizzie. HA! It makes me laugh because I have such a love/hate relationship with Lizzie! At times I find her to be incredibly annoying and other times endearing! I think I like Austen's men more than the women sometimes!

Do you guys have a favorite character? I'm sure lots of people's favorite is Lizzie. I'm not sure who mine is. I have a special affection for Emma probably because that was the first of Austen's books that I read. But she, too, can be annoying! Just another reason to love Austen's writing: the characters aren't perfect!

|Now it's funny that yu should say this, because I always found the men easily lead, a bit hen pecked and definitely afraid of their mothers! With one exception.

Let's look at our heros, Edward Ferrars, a bit of a wimp in my view. Because muumy wants him to marry a woman of means, he doesn't tell Elinor how he feels. I mean a bit of back bone, he could have said, "Look live, I've got the hots for you but I secretly engaged to this silly girl and I can't break a promise. Besides which mummy would go bonkers is she found out, which she will, and when she does, I'll give you a call". No, he waits until said fiance dumps him for his brother and takes an eternity to get it on with Elinor, I'd have kicked him to the kerb! (I'll come back to Colonel Brandon)

Then we have Charles Bingley, what a school boy! Totally smitten with Jane from the get go, but because his sisters and best friend think she's a bit beneath him, or appears not to reciprocate his feelings he kicks her to the kerb. Why didn't he ask her for himself...twit?
(Mr Darcy..later)

Edmund Bertram, supposedly Fanny Prices friend, doesn't know she fancies him...yeah. He flirts with Miss Crawford and poor Fanny who has known and loved Edmund all her life has to accept it, even when she knows that treacheryand scandal is afoot. Why are these men so blind?

Henry Tilney...well I'm not sure about him, I always though he was too old for Catherine Moorland from day one, but he was ok I guess.

Capt. Frederick Wentworth....Get over it man, he could have got in touch with her before the eight years. Surely he knew that it was all about the money?

George Knightley, I think was very patient with Emma so I liked him.

Colonel Brandon, never faltered did he? Was taken with Marianne from day one and stood by her through thick and thin...pretty good hero in my mind.

And of course Mr Darcy....apart from being an interferring busy body, he was true to himself I think. He never hit his feelings either positive of negative...you got what you got. Straight as a di...

My favourite...it's a toss up between Colonel Brandon and Mr Darcy.

As for females...I like Elinor Dashwood, and Anne Elliot..and Lizzie Bennet...I can't choose

I don't think they're easily led so much as they're staunch. I'll go through and perhaps point out what I mean some day when I'm not so tired and can think of them more clearly.

The women just don't seem to get on with it, so much, either! Jane needs to just show him she's interested. Poor Bingley. I'd have told him to move on, too, with as much indication as Jane was giving him!

And Anne could have told her family to stuff it and that she loved him anyways. I think he earned the right to have a chip on his shoulder! Don't get me wrong, I love Anne!

Colonel Brandon fell for the whim of a pretty face and a well played song. No, he didn't waver, but he certainly fell for a girl of whimsy who only looked at him after so long because he proved better than the guy who led her on!

Mr. Darcy cannot be contested. I don't care if he did put his nose in where it might not have belonged. He was right! Well, not about Jane. . .but he only acted to keep his friend from being hurt.

Edward. Well. Yeah, mummy's boy. Can't really help him. At least he figured it out before Elinor died an old maid, right?

I had something else to say, but now that I've rambled, I can't think of it.

I got Northinger Abbey the other day to watch. I have no idea which version. It was that or Mansfield Park, and the actors impressed me more with Northinger Abbey. That they looked, you know, personable on the cover!

I think we should have our own Jane Austen Book Club! I've got that book so I can read it soon. . .anyone seen the movie?

I have never seen it, I don't thinks it's reached these shores yet. I'd agree to a JA book club though. I have a rather tatty paperback of P and P and the others I read eons ago, from the library. I keep hinting, there are a couple of DVD's missing from my collection plus, I'd like a shiney new set of books. It's mothers day here on March 2nd so fingers crossed.

Last year there were new adaptations of both Northanger Abbey and Mansfield Park. I still can't get over Billie Piper as Fanny Price, it was ok I guess, but...it was Billie Piper



True, and when you watch Rupert Penry-Jones rather than read the book it's easier to forgive that chip on that perfect shoulder

Most the females were pretty young. Jane Austen I think expected a lot from her heroines...maybe Catherine was a bit dipsy and fanciful...and naive, but she was in love with being in love in a book if you know what I mean? I think that was her wasn't it. I can't remember it was so long ago!

I make no apologies for the double post since it has been more than a week since my last.

So I have in my hand a copy of Sense and Sensibility. So who's up for a bit of book discussion?

The idea of a Jane Austen book club has been bandied about (see Janets post above), starting with her first published novel, Sense and Sensibility. If you are intersted, please send me a PM. The basic format would be to read/ review a couple of chapters per week or more, dependent on who and how many people become involved. This will be totally independent of the Bookshelf.

Janet, please feel free to throw in your two knuts worth whenever you feel like it!

All right, so here's the deal. We're going to start our very own Jane Austen Book Club! (Not intended to be like the book "The Jane Austen Book Club" because I can't stand it. . . )

Anyone and everyone is invited to join, but we would like to know of your interest, so please give an Owl to etphonehome or myself (click link at bottom) if you'd like to join in and we can make an official Members List! There will be no leader, per se, but we will have set dates and such when you're allowed to comment on which chapters and such so that the book isn't spoiled for those not as far along as you at the time of discussion.

We'll be starting with "Sense and Sensibility". We'll start on a Monday and have the goal of three chapters a week. If you think it's too high, please just say so and we'll move it down to two. Starting on the Monday of the week, you are allowed to post your thoughts and questions about the three chapters that we are up to for that week. Please don't post about later chapters, though.

Hopefully that made sense. I kind of have a feeling that I made it too convoluted!

You do not have to have your name in the list in order to participate in the thread, but if you're going to be a regular, it would be nice to know!

So, get out your copies of S&S and start reading! Let me know if you have any suggestions!

We'll put the members list in the first post of the thread. Thanks, everyone!

Thanks Janet, I think we have a little interest from some of our more senior (that's not age) members, which is nice.Although, it would be nice if some of our younger members got involved.

Jane Austen novels are classics and I didn't learn to appreciate them until I left school. To some I know they seem to be romantic tosh, but they are beautifully written and the language used is so poetic, I would encourage anyone, male or female to pick up a copy of any of her books.

Okay, so I was reading last night and doing the math, and I figured that it would take us almost a year to get through the book with two chapters a week! the chapters are relatively short, so I was thinking we could do 10 chapters a week. Don't get overwhelmed, they go quickly and are very short. This coming from someone who could read the book in two days, I know.

As for the discussion.

The first couple of chapters are merely introductory. It kind of establishes a few of the minor characters and a few of the major ones. We've got Mrs. Dashwood, Mrs. John Dashwood, John Dashwood, Elinore (who we don't see much of in the first couple of chapters), and Marianne, who is merely mentioned. We've got Mr. Dashwood's wealthy uncle who dies, and then Mr. Dashwood, who also dies. The placement of fortune is established and the plight of the daughters and step-mother is hinted upon, though not determined as we think Mr. John Dashwood might come through with his promise.

Money is a pretty big theme in most of her novels; as is the distinction of marrying for money and marrying for love. Marrying for money seems to be the goal of most parents but the horror to most of the daughters who would rather marry for nothing but love. Do you think that this comes from Jane's life, living as a daughter of a rector who had to depend on a wealthy brother after her father's passing? Social pressures to marry to convenience of living must have been great.

This novel was originally a series of letters entitled "Elinor and Marianne". Respectively, Elinor is "Sense" and Marianne is "Sensibility". She doesn't conceal in her writing which is which! She often describes Elinor's sense and Marianne's sensibility! I find that rather amusing, myself.

I've found Elinor's meaning as "shining light", and it certainly appears in the two early chapters that she shines the light of reason for her mother and sisters. Marianne is the combination of Marie and Anne - Marie meaning "star of the sea" and Anne meaning "grace". To the French, the name symbolizes their spirit for "liberty, equality and fraternity". We certainly can see, even in the early chapters, that Marianne certainly has spirit!

Anyways, let me know if 10 chapters a week is doable for you guys. I think it's more realistic and will save me the suffering of having to read a book so slowly!

I think 10 chpaters a weeks is perfectly doable. Like you said less than that and we'll be reasing this time next year. The chapters very short and I think I would go mental trying to read that slow.

Laudine was buying her book this weekend, and I think Potions Mistress is on board too.

I apologize for the delay, but I'm finally (and officially) joining the discussion, if I may.

As I'm reading anything and everything basically all the time, ten chapters a week of any JA book don't hurt at all, as far as my reading capabilites are concerned. The only trouble with me at the moment is that I obviously left my S&S copy at my parents'. Or more precisely, I haven't moved it yet to my new appartment. I have all of my Bronte's, Dickens' and Hardy's here, but by JA only P&P. My father is coming over on Friday, so I'll have the book only by then. Can I catch up and join in the discussions then, please? Otherwise, I'd like to be a regular member of the Club.

~Jana

Sorry I missed the first few posts. I will be able to read ten chapters. I like fast reading, I don't like slow reading, so I think we'll all be happy.

However, I'll leave for Spain on Thursday and come back on the 29th. Therefore I'll miss the first discussion. I hope that's okay for you all. I will join you as soon as I get back.

At least in Spain I will have plenty of time to read the 20 chapters. Yay! I'm so happy when I get time to read.

Yay! More readers! No worries, Olivia! Just join in when you can, whenever it is that you feel you want to!

I love the settings in Sense and Sensibility. So pastoral and romantic. Her description of the cottage really made me laugh, though. For a house, it was good. For a cottage it had deficiencies! Of course, the "cottage" as it's describes sounds very much like my house, and, though I have no servants to put up anywhere, it's funny to hear that it's so much smaller than their accustomed living spaces and that they'll just have to make due!

Jane's wit comes through very clearly throughout, I think. Her sarcasm in her descriptions crack me up! The whole thing where she says "there should always be an infant at every party to give people something to discuss"! So hilarious because it's still so true today!

Sorry, all of my quotes are paraphrases at the moment.

I have a difficult time finding sympathy with Marianne. She's just 17, and youth has a lot to do with her opinions, but the girl is so high maintenance that she grates on my nerves! A man can't possibly feel anything close to love after he's 35 and a woman of 27 is beyond hope so they can only hope to marry to guarantee their comfort - which is the greatest sin, according to Marianne, that anyone could ever commit!

It's very amusing to me how quickly attachments are formed and how little dialogue we see. It seems like this one could also have been a candidate to bear the title "First Impressions"!

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I find her, particularly in the first chapters, to be nothing more than an opinionated spoiled brat. Her mother is encouraging the behaviour and Elinor seems the only one who thinks she needs to shut up and be less obvious.

I love Janes description of Mrs John Dashwood. She wrote Fanny so well that you can feel yourself dispising her, in the same way JKR wrote Umbridge. I will admit that when reading the discussion between her and her husband with regard to his promise to his father, I said out loud, "You selfish, spiteful, greedy cow"! Do you know what? I am so glad that the way wills work in England has changed

I love the exchanges between Mrs Dashwood and Elinor. The latter is so mature that you wonder just who is the parent at times. Mrs Dashwood (do we ever discover her name?) is said to be only 40. I would assume that her late husband was much older and I wonder why she doesn't set Marianne straight on being attached to an older man, and on second marriages, both of which seem to abhor Marianne.God she's so shallow!

I also have my problems with Marianne. But she's 17 and maybe has to look a bit like that, you know in the way of 'as a teenage girl we all just want to be violently in love and regard everyone over 22 as old'. I never really started to like Mrs. Dashwood either.

But this actually goes for Elinor as well. Those three women just think they're the ones with the best style, the best education, the best sense ... they're superior to others. The narrator criticeses (spelling?) this on Marianne's character, but what about Elinor's? Isn't she the same?! Yes, Mrs. Jennings can be annoying, but she's also a very kind woman. All three Dashwoods seem to forget that for most of the time they live of the 'charity' of others.

It's just black-and-white-writing-style: everyone's a bit silly exept Elinor. Is that good writing?

It's a pity, really, because Austen sets her critisicm (again spelling?) very well and in an amazing ironic writing style. But why doesn't she do this for Elinor?

Argh! Olivia, you posted. Sorry I didn't notice



I always thought that of Mrs Dashwood and Marianne, but never of Elinor although in some paragraphs, I wondered was the narrative from Elinors point of view or in third person?

I sort of forgive them this though. They have been used to a life of privilege and all of a sudden they are reduced to relying on the kindness of others. I do find Mariannes attitude towards Mrs Jennings particularly immature and Elinor does remind her once or twice that she is being rude. I suspect that Marianne is far less informed about the family's financial crisis than Elinor.



I personal think this is because with Elinor she sees as beyond anything ironic. She's the sense in the title but I may be wrong.

I feel a sort of need to defend Elinor. She's cautious and a bit insular. I don't think she's afraid to show her emotions, but because the other women in her family are so opposite she holds back more than she would if they were a little more reserved.

I'm pretty far into the book (sorry, I tried not to keep reading) and at the end of the first part of the book there is another character introduced to us who I am dying to know what you all think of her character.

I read ahead as well. I actually finished the book. And I just got very annoyed by the way Elinor thinks about Lucy Steele when the latter tells her 'the secret'. But I think you're right, it all comes down to the narrator. I don't really know who it is. Is some of the story told by a narrator who knows everything, who has also his/her own view and then just states that view and you mix it up with Elinor's? Or is it sometimes Elinor? I mean the characterisation of the other characters - is it Elinor's or the narrator's?

If it is the narrator's I take everything back about Elinor.

Lucy Steele is the character I meant. I don't want to delve into any analysis about her at the moment, at least not until Janet has had some input. But I will say this. What motives were behind Lucy Steele revealing her secrets to Elinor in the first place beyond what she claims?

Great question: I wanted to ask that all through the book. Lucy Steele, what a character! I think that Lucy-Elinor-relationship or incident or whatever you want to call is a great thing written by Austen. Because it's something so typical for women, I had that at least three times in my life.

But now I'll stay quiet and wait for Janet ...

The narrator is third person, though not third person omniscient. We mostly get the third person in depth look at Elinor and what she is thinking.

And is Elinor above reproach, no. . .of course not. She is, though, by the author's design a cut above the rest of the characters. At least a cut above them as far as propriety of the times, goes. She disdains Mrs. Jennings, but she is able to treat her with respect whereas Maryanne makes it pretty obvious that she thinks the woman is absurd.


I feel for Elinor because, despite everything that poor girl undertakes, she remains constant. She seeks to rise above the situations that life has thrown at her, all the while reining in her two sisters and her mother who all share a similar disposition. Her heart is crushed, yet - though for her own desire for information - she willingly throws a hand of friendship (pretense, but oh well) to Lucy. Her sister who should have seen something in Elinor has no idea what Elinor is enduring because she's so wrapped up in herself. I don't excuse that, no matter the age. Maryanne is a selfish girl. I still don't know what Brandon sees in her, though he sure stares at her enough. I mean, if someone ran from the room when I entered it, I think I'd pretty much be done with it, right?

Lucy Steele's confidence in Elinor, I think, stems from the need to mark her territory! Elinor guessed this as well. Lucy knew that Edward esteemed Elinor, and Lucy was eager to claim him beyond any doubt and put a stop to Elinor.

All cleverly disguised by silliness, of course!

They were my thoughts of Lucy Syeele precisely. She knew that Edward, as you say esteemed Elinor, and I am pretty sure that all she could see was her future financial security slipping through the net. Who better to take into ones confidence that the esteemed one. What a nasty little schemer she was

And I too really have no patience with Marianne at all. I can only see that Brandon is completely blinkered by her beauty and must be totally blind to her indifference. Ofcourse he holds vital information about her beloved Willoughby that, if he were a vindictive sort of chap, he could use, for the most part I wonder if when he was fighting in some war somewhere he didn't recieve a rather large bang on the head.

Despite Elinors obvious annoyance with Mrs Jennings ways, she shows herself to be above the intolerance that her sister shows towards her. Elinor has been used to a certain position in society and socialising with a certain pedigree of people, so to show any patience with Mrs Jennings and her daughters, I feel is quite admirable.

urgh, Brandon and Marianne. (How sad is it that I just now realized I've been misspelling her name?!) I swear, the more he talks, the more I'm convinced that he's merely in love with what she represents to him! He loves her because she reminds him so much of his lost love . . . looks and spirit. He doesn't seem to care that she's a different person, so long as he has the opportunity to make right what he once messed up. Hello. Not the same girl, Brandon.

I mean, eventually it works out, but I get so irritated with him. Chasing after a girl whose mood changes with the wind. Drives me batty! Brandon's spirit, I guess, would never be appeased with the constancy of Elinor, no matter what her brother thinks!

I also think that Brandon just sees in Marianne his lost first love. I think their story, Marianne's and Brandon's isn't romantic at all. And in the end it all goes a bit fast, the narrator says she fell in love with him, but that was it. So it's not really romantic.

I guess my problem is that I like the main character to go through some sort of development, but with Elinor that doesn't happen. She's sort of perfect from the very beginning. There is never any change in her. There is change in Marianne (although I'm not so sure if I can believe that). And then the narrator once says from her point of view that she knows Edward can't love Lucy as she's so silly, he must love Elinor because she's not. First I got annoyed with those words and thought Elinor arrogant. But then I thought I would propably reassure so the same if I were her. Lucy, on the other hand isn't actually silly, she's a brilliant schemer. She's got a very bad character but she is a brilliant schemer.

Could we talk about Edward?

Sorry, I left this so long to reply Olivia. I hadn't finished the book and felt I didn't have a full grasp of Edwards character to make a proper judgment.

When you think about it, Edward doesn't really feature much in the book at all until the final chapters. Elinor's esteem for him is based on a 2 week liaison at Norland when, apart for the odd walk/ride around the park, they were hardly left alone long enough to begin a love affair. In fact speaking of any of the characters becoming lovers, the only couple I can see who did were Willoughby and Eliza!

Back to Edward. In the time up until Lucy went off with Robert, he didn't once attempt to write to Elinor. Of course I can see why he didn't, because he was bound by his promise to Lucy. Yet if he had done such a good job of convincing himself that he and Elinor were such good friends, why then did he spend time with them at the cottage at Barton? Why did he inflict his obvious misery on his 'friend'. Then after it had all come out about his secret engagement, did he not contact Elinor to explain himself. It's obvoius that he intended to tell her something because otherwise why visit her in London? Once he knew of Elinor aquaintence with Lucy, was he afraid or did he realise what she knew?

Personally, I think Edward was a bit of a wuss. He was very admirable in sticking to his engagement, but surely he wasn't so blinded by Lucy to think that she was really still in love with him. This whole situation confuses me a great deal. Even at the end, Robert is the one that despite marrying Lucy, is the favourite son of Mr Ferrars. The one who gets the income to live off. Edward even blames his mother for his lack of employment until he was 19. Was he not man enough to go out and find employment for himself?

And also where are all the senior male characters in this? Mr Dashwood we know dies at the beginning, but what about Mr Ferrars, Mr (and Mrs) Steele. Willoughly's parents. Apart from Lucy and Nancy being it would appear, supported by their uncle, all the others are at the liberty of an elder female relative. If Mr Dashwood's fortune was inherited by his son and not his wife, why then was this not the case for Edward.

This is more confusing than Lost

Heck, I'm more annoyed with Edward than I am with anyone else in the whole darned book!

You know, rereading this book, it reminds me that it isn't my favorite! The characters are very linear and not much change occurs. The only character who changes is Marianne - and her change is pretty extraordinary; almost unbelievable!

So, they all annoyed me to no end, and they all ended up happily wed. Okay, so some of them were already wed, if not happily, poor Mr. Palmer.

What's next? I'd say we just pick a book and read it and then just discuss as we feel like it. The whole keeping up and in time with everyone else doesn't work so well.

Overall, I have to agree with you on this one Janet. It's very...wordy if you know what I mean. The entire story could have been written in about 10 chapters. She spends at least half of it on dialogue from Marianne who has this holier than thou stance on love and whom she will and won't marry only to do a total about turn and marry someone totally different.

I really hate Marianne!

I have just started Persuasion. I have never read it ..ever. I think this is the only JA book I haven't read. The character of Anne Eliot always left me a bit disappointed in woman kind, but basing my assumptions of her on a few tv adaptations I feel is a little unfair of me. The character started to redeem herself a little in the hands of Sally Hawkins but I think I need to be open minded.

I have read all the other books, but it was years ago. I had thought that the last time I read P & P was only 3 or 4 years back but it turns out it was probably nearer 11! So I think my judgement has been blurred by watching two very good adaptations for the screen. That's the trouble when it's been a long time since reading any book and a film being made more recently, you lose sight of what has been changed for ease of direction and what was actually in the book. This is very true of Sense and Sensability which I last read even before P & P. I kept recalling things from the movie thinking they were in the book!

I agree with Janet, read what you like, I'm pretty sure that whatever we post here, those of us that do post have enough knowledge on the chracters, plot etc to make a comment.

If you get the chance to watch Miss Austen Regrets you should do. It was far superior than the Hollywood-ised Becoming Jane.

The story was about her final years after her first novels had been published and based on the surviving letters that she wrote to her sister Cassandra and her niece Fanny. It has already aired in the US as stated in the link I have given. I am a bit confused why the picture is that of the actress who played Fanny?

I watched this when it first aired just before the new adaptation of Sense and Sensibility (both had the same producer) and was very pleased when it aired again on Sunday evening. Olivia Williams made a cracking good Jane Austen and the casting of Greta Scacchi as Cassandra was sheer brilliance, they look so alike they really could be sisters.

Anyway, it's out on DVD, and I know how you like to own anything Jane Austen on DVD ...Janet

I can't find it for sale here, which is quite annoying. I liked "Becomming Jane", though. Of course, as with most like that, there were major issues, not the least of which she never met the guy in real life! But, I like James McAvoy, so I was happy.

I didn't mean that we should abandon the idea of reading the books at the same time! I just think it didn't work so well with the time line of when to have it finished for discussion. I was thinking we should read the same books, but read at your own pace then discuss in here when you're ready. We could keep the discussion on a certain book for, say, one month before moving onto the next one. That way everyone can contribute when and as they want to.

You're reading "Persuasion" then? I'll dig it out and give it a read!

I'm with you now **lightbulb moment**

That's a shame that Miss Austen Regrets isn't available on DVD for you. I really think you'd enjoy it.

I only started reading Persuassion because it's one of the books the girls bought me for mothers day and they kept asking if I'd read it. Anyway, I though I'd dig out P &P but I can't find it which is kind of annoying!!

Edit: I just got a bit exited, Northanger Abbey is going to be shown on TV this Bank Holiday Monday. I don't think it's the most recent adaptation but that's good because I didn't see anything prior to the most recent one.

if Miss Austen Regrets isnt available to you on DVD, im sure its somewhere on the internet so that you can watch it. like im pretty sure its on youtube

*sigh* i love all of Jane Austens books. especially Pride & Prejudice. its definately my fav. in fact, im re-reading it now!

I've only read one Austen novel but I absolutely loved it. I couldn't put it down!

Of course I read Pride and Prejudice. I love the plot, I think Jane Austen did a fabulous job when writing this. It includes romance, issues throught society about wealth and the meaning of family. I loved it! I fell in love with Mr Darcy...*sighs* if only he was real.

The only Jane Austen book I've ever read... or tried to read was Emma. I just don't like the sentence structure or some of the words she uses that I'm sure were used way back then but that I'm not very familiar with. I got through most of the book but eventually I just gave up because I correctly guessed the ending and there didn't seem to be a point anymore.