I think something that is almost always forgotten in discussing the beginning of the novel, is that at that point in the story Mr Darcy is only a few months past the Georgiana/Wickham debacle; and perhaps therefore a little extra prickly where potential fortune hunters are concerned.
I can never excuse Mr. Darcy’s behavior at the beginning of the novel as just being shy. He clearly is capable of being social, of saying and doing the right things. He just doesn’t want to. He sees the people of Meryton as beneath him and undeserving of any effort to socialize. We see that after Lizzy tells him that he is conceited, arrogant, etc., he changes his behavior in an effort to prove to her that he has changed, not in an effort to win her love but to win her respect. To prove that he has become a better person overall. I think claiming his earlier behavior as purely shyness really takes away from his character and does him an injustice. Just my take though. I enjoyed this video, Ellie! Love all your Pride and Prejudice content! ❤️
I COMPLETELY agree. I love Darcy, and I love how well he takes accountability for his actions. I love how the book teaches us everyone deserves a second chance (heck, even Wickham and Lydia get a second chance!) And I do agree that is what can be lost. I find not only with Darcy but other characters, their 'reformation'' can only be accepted if they never did anything wrong to begin with! Then you're not actually taking the risk of giving a second chance to someone you know full well is capable of doing something wrong.
Yeah. At least people used to understand that character can be developed and improved. People making him into an introvert/autistic hero today are completely missing the point of the book. They should write their own book and call it Introversion and Prejudice or something like that.
@@Cat_Woods The character arguably reads as an introvert regardless. And the idea that an introverted or autistic person can't be prideful is ridiculous. Those interpretations of him are fine, the issue is deflecting from or devaluing Darcy's character flaws.
I don't think that men at that time really consider women equal to them, in order to prove or disapprove any point of view as if dealing with an equal partner. Darcy is merely seeking to win heart of Lizzie and guess what he wins ! 😉
He's both. People are complicated and Austen wrote them that way. He cares about his reputation, his tenants, his servants, his sister... Austen takes pains to show how kind and generous he can be. But also, he's a jerk in the beginning. I'm a nice person and I've also said awful things to and about people. On the balance, he's a good guy. And he works hard to fix his mistakes once Lizzy points them our to him. We love him for that.
Both Darcy siblings were perceived to be proud, but some of that, to varying degrees in each, was indeed due to shyness. Ironically, one thing the screen adaptations never bring out is that the Bingley siblings are the children of a merchant in the North: Which means two things: Darcy is not as snobbish as everyone initially thinks, because he is intimate friends with someone who would not be received in some aristocratic circles; yet Darcy chooses Bingley rather than another elder son to be his closest friend.. Another irony is that Elizabeth IS from a more acceptable status, as the daughter of a respected landowner whose estate, like Col. Brandon's, brings in 2000 pounds annually; while Miss Bingley, again in some circles, would not be considered as socially acceptable, as the daughter of a Northern merchant. Thus her sneerings at the Gardeners are especially hypocritical. Both points illustrate something that modern readers often overlook: Austen was a writer of comedy and irony, not just of romance--that why her novels have lasted as long as they have--they hold a mirror up to Western culture and to Western culture's individuals.
True about social status, but also, this was a time when social status was changing. In Persuasion chapter 9, Austen writes, "Mr Hayter had some property of his own, but it was insignificant compared with Mr Musgrove’s; and while the Musgroves were in the first class of society in the country, the young Hayters would, from their parents’ inferior, retired, and unpolished way of living, and their own defective education, have been hardly in any class at all, but for their connexion with Uppercross, this eldest son of course excepted, who had chosen to be a scholar and a gentleman." Darcy says almost the same thing about the Bennetts, Jane and Lizzie of course excepted, in his letter after the proposal.
Although I think the 2005 P&P is a beautifully filmed and acted, I have been a bit annoyed, ever since it came out, that they made Darcy look more awkward/possibly on the spectrum, and less haughty. Jane Austen clearly intended him to be a stuck-up prig at the beginning of the story - she says so herself, and PRIDE is in the title of the book. I think that's Darcy's whole character arc - he comes to RESPECT, rather than just be physically attracted to, a woman who is not on his social level (and class is STILL a big deal in England today, let alone in the Regency!) and who has embarrassing relatives. He also comes to see Jane's quiet love for Bingley as real and not just dismiss it. He grows as a person and learns that he shouldn't judge so quickly, and overcomes his pride. It's the whole point of the story, really. If he wasn't prideful, and was just an awkward dude or neurodivergent or something, the whole point of the novel would be lost, IMO.
Totally agree. I think you could say Darcy is ALSO uncomfortable with 'social graces' to an extent, and debate how that influenced/was influenced by his pride, but I don't think you can have him NOT be proud at all and it still be the same story!
@cmm5542 Except, he isn't. When Elizabeth sees him after the botched proposal, he is perfectly amiable with outstanding manners towards her and the Gardiners. He knows how to behave. He just doesn't do it. He labels himself a selfish being and tells Elizabeth that but for her rebuke, he would have continued to be so for the rest of his life.
@@Padmepotter4986 Exactly my point. If he were neurodivergent, or even just terribly awkward, there's a strong possibility he WOULDN'T know how to behave, or might struggle to "mask" or understand social norms. A prideful (and selfish) person WOULD know how to behave; he just wouldn't always choose to do it, because he's let his own desires and snobbery get in the way.
To be fair, Lizzy was actually in the same social class as Darcy. She says as much to Lady Catherine at the end of the book when Lady Catherine accuses her of being in a different social sphere; she says: "he is a gentleman, I am a Gentleman's daughter, in that respect we are equal." Lizzy's father is a landowning gentleman, and so is Darcy. However, Darcy has far more money than the Bennets. This puts him above them in terms of wealth, but not social class. She expects him to be rude to her aunt and uncle, since *they* are tradespeople, and therefore in a lower class, but he surprises her when he treats them with dignity and respect (after his whole character arc self reflection deal)
@@kiarona. True, both families are landed gentry. But between the immense wealth and the noble title of "Lady" (which admittedly came from her husband, and not her birth) Catherine de Bourgh certainly considers herself "above" the Bennets, and I think Darcy has been raised to think of himself similarly. But as we've all said... self-reflection, growth, etc have taught him that it's better to be respectful to others - "even" tradespeople like the Gardiners. :)
I think a key aspect of Mr. Darcy's character is that the deep aspects of his character, his morals and values, were always good, and that's why he was able to improve himself for the better. Early book Darcy is arrogant and dismissive, yes, but he's also an honest person who takes care of his loved ones and takes his position in society very seriously. That's why it was so devastating to him when Lizzie laid him out after his proposal, and why it led him to change his outward behavior to better align with his values.
At the beginning, he's got a heart of gold and some jerkish tendencies. By the end, he's still got that heart of gold and has worked through a lot of his haughtiness.
Labeling rude, selfish and prideful behavior as neurodivergent is insulting and demeaning to everyone who is neurodivergent. I know it's en vogue to label every behavior neurodivergent but some people are just jerks. Darcy isn't on the spectrum. He's a rude, selfish, and prideful jerk. He knows how to behave, he just doesn't if he feels company is beneath him. He literally spells this out in his speech to Elizabeth. The 2005 movie turned him into a YA romance trope.
I really liked what you said about people on the autistic spectrum having their own individual character traits, their autism isn't the only thing that defines them
I think one thing we often forget is that Darcy being so rich he probably was the richest person most places he would go and probably would be "chased" by so many people for his wealth. I think, to a degree, he also act like this as a way to protect himself, but also, he did not intend to go and live in the area, so he likely was like, I'll probably never see these people again, why bother? Not 100% an excuse because you can be nice anyway, but just food for thoughts!
Just a little note from someone who majored in English lit a long time ago (well, we did have electricity, class of 1973). Day one in covering Pride. On day one of studying Pride and Prejudice our professor noted Americans and British were divided in that Americans thought Darcy was prejudiced while Elizabeth had pride. British saw Elizabeth as being prejudiced while Darcy was prideful.
I heard that argument from an American video years ago and then I had the thought that those creators were idiots and I never watched another video from them, yes I'm American, but I have enough intellect to read it as it was to be read and not let my prejudices change the meaning of the book.
@@TheRealPrinceClub In my professor's case, she was pointing out the American reaction to the characters gets things backwards according to the actual text, which she went on to explain in terms of cultural history so we could better read the book as intended.
I thought they were both prideful and prejudiced. Lizzy was prideful about her family. She was prejudiced against Mr Darcy because she thought that he was the bad guy and Wickham the good. Darcy acts pridefully throughout the story, but he is also prejudiced against Lizzy's family which makes him act poorly towards Jane.
Darcy is someone who has not only lost his mother but also his father at a relatively young age. Taking on massive responsibilities not only of the families estate, but also having to take care of his young sister who clearly is easily manipulated. Do I think he is shy or a jerk? I think at such a young age he has become jaded to gatherings and balls. That he probably feels like he can’t be vulnerable with anyone because it will open him up to be taken advantage of.
*I always liked that about Lizzy,* she has some standards she won't back down on, she does not want to make the same mistake her parents made, she knows she'd just have to murder Collins!
Have to defend Lady Catherine: she is honest and forthright in what she wants. And what she wants is reasonable and appropriate for any mother: a good husband for her daughter. When she learns that Elizabeth is on the verge of marrying Darcy, she doesn't scheme or go behind people's backs, she directly confronts both of the principal actors who are going against her desires. She is an antagonist, but not a villain. Besides, all Darcy and Elizabeth have to do is say "no" to her. She doesn't hold any real power over their actions, so throwing her little fit was literally the worst she could do. She's just a mother acting gauchely in pursuit of her daughter's marriage prospects. In other words, Lady Catherine = Mrs. Bennet. Compare her to Fanny Dashwood in S&S who manipulates her husband against his own sisters and contrary to his oath to his dying father. Compare her to Mrs. Norris in Mansfield Park, who is an absolute terror to Fanny. Or Mrs. Ferrars, or Lucy Steele, or Mary Crawford or any of the other manipulative, two-faced backstabbing women in Jane Austen (I'm not even bringing in the male villains, some of whom are even worse) No, give me honest, straightforward Lady Catherine as an enemy any day of the week
I actually LOVE Lady Catherine and I think JA did too. There's that little hint at the end that she came around eventually, and she is a good person to have in your corner. I'll bet she would probably defend Darcy and Elizabeth VIGOROUSLY in public however much she might scold them in private! May I take the opportunity to offer a controversial take on Lucy Steele? I don't actually think she's all that bad. I definitely think JA herself disapproved of her and wanted her readers to as well, but she actually hasn't convinced me. Lucy is engaged to Edward. Yeah, she probably mostly wanted him for his money but that's honestly not always shown as a bad motive in Austen. She's jealous of Elinor - well, I probably would be too if my fiance fell for someone else! And so she breaks off the engagement she knows Edward doesn't want anyway (key bit of historical trivia here: only women could technically break engagements. Men could get sued for breach of promise if they did. It's a double standard but Lucy is merely utilising it, not inventing it.) JA's main objections towards Lucy's behaviour seem to be that she her decisions and actions were taken in an ill-bred manner, rather than because they were actually WRONG decisions and actions. And I'm not sure I would have been as well-bred as Elinor if I lived back then, or cared to be. Lucy is quite open and direct about how she feels about another woman taking away her fiance, without directly accusing Elinor. I honestly probably would have done the exact same: 'look, I know what's going on and I'm not at all happy with you two. But if you're happy TOGETHER, I'll just go find someone else, so there!' 😆 I'd be interested to hear any other thoughts/rebuttals on this. Happy to be proved wrong if there's some darker trait in Lucy I just missed!
@cmm5542 interesting! I would be much more inclined to agree if she hadn't waited until just after Mrs. Ferrars had cut Edward off and given Robert everything before jumping ship. But it is an interesting perspective to contemplate for sure
I think a lot of that is fair in modern terms, but her treatment of Charlotte, Lizzy, and the governess is pretty awful. She's very insulting, and all the ways she tries to be helpful are really just to make herself more important.
I remember when the 1995 version was released, I remember Jane Austen purists upset because the director took liberties and put in the wet-shirt scene. (I admit it; I loved it.) But I have always preferred the 1995 version because I felt the characters’ mannerisms were closer to how Austen portrayed Regency behavior. I admit I also prefer it because Colin Firth is the only one who can be Mr. Darcy.
Agreed 100%. To be honest I haven't even seen the 2005 version, simply because I've seen bits and pieces and they were enough to convince me that I don't need to waste my time on it. (also because I don't like KK)
Yes, Colin Firth is the one and only Mr Darcy. Controversially I prefer the 1940s version because honestly I care more about how it captured the same 'sparkling' HUMOUR and tone of the book than I do about exact textual detail? I love 1995 as well, so much more to it, but I just don't think it's as FUN as thr book. But Laurence Olivier, great actor though he is, simply was NOT as good a Darcy as Colin Firth.
@@cmm5542 I haven't seen the 1940s one, but there is a version from 1980 that I remember seeing and liking - in fact I've rewatched it not very many years ago and in my opinion it's quite delightful! Nobody else seems to have seen it, though, which is a pity.
@@MSN_63I saw this version (the '80s one) when I had just read the book for the first time! It was so delightful to see the characters coming to life.
I would love the 2005 movie if it didn't lean so heavily towards 'socially awkward' instead of 'jerk'. I think it fundamentally misunderstands one of the main themes of the book and misses his entire character arc.
I agree. If you minimise his flaws, there’s no need for him to change, which greatly lessens the impact Lizzie has on him. It just becomes not much more than them being hot for each other. The story is about more than a misunderstanding. That’s why it’s called “pride” and “prejudice” because those are the main points.
Hm I don't think interpreting him as socially awkward changes the theme of the book. I think time and perspective changes actually do that. And so it can be hard to preserve appreciation of books over time. But that is probably why some books are recognized after their time. (That's going off on a tangent, though, so I'll stop.) Social manners as a representation of who we are were much more important at the time. I think Darcy can still learn an important lesson and go through significant change to his behavior, while realizing it has a bearing on how his character is perceived. And overcoming his own personal sense of pride can still be part of that journey. ("Well, what should it matter how I'm perceived if I'm still a good person?" is still demonstrating a form of personal pride.) Ultimately, his issue isn't minimalized with that interpretation, as long as the reader has enough understanding of the culture during that historic period.
@@yundorphin Social awkwardness isn't a character flaw, especially is said awkwardness comes from a brain that is wired differently (neurodivergent). A person knowing how to act and behaving as appallingly as Darcy does is absolutely a character flaw that has to be overcome. Darcy's behavior with the Bingleys and the Hursts plus his behavior to Elizabeth and the Gardinerers after the botched proposal shows that Darcy knows how to behave but chooses not to do so.
@Padmepotter4986 I'm not saying social awkwardness itself is the character flaw, but not being willing to admit that you could put in more effort is. Apologies if it wasn't worded well. Let me try to explain again, since I do think he can be prideful *and* socially awkward and still go through an arc that allows himself to both change and be better understood as the good man he is. Knowing one can behave better socially, but not wanting to put in the effort because it feels incredibly difficult can be a character flaw. Some people think if they carry out good deeds, then it should be enough. They needn't always act out social niceties, since they feel or seem meaningless. (I am some people.) They neglect other people's feelings in the process, though. Being born into a privileged class or position of wealth and status probably makes that justification easier, since power and wealth make some people abandon even the "good deeds" part. But ultimately, it's still a sense of inherent personal pride excusing words or actions that have a negative effect on others or personal bearing/appearance. And that's what Darcy needs to overcome, though he may not realize it until Elizabeth points it out. When he proposes to her, he insults her family, status, and complete suitability as a bride. But he doesn't even realize that will affect her answer, thinking his personal status in society will be enough to convince her to marry him. He *is* prideful to be relying on basically clout to carry the proposal, but he is also incredibly socially inept. He's so socially inept to the degree I would say being social is just that difficult for him that he's given up on it, perhaps thinking he does not need that particular skill if he's got money and power and does enough good with it. Even Collins knows he should pay compliments and not insults when courting. And we know Darcy is intelligent, but this area seems to be a blind spot for him. The reason people are socially awkward is because being social doesn't come easy to them - it's not because they're jerks. On the other side of the coin, Elizabeth needs to overcome her prejudice and wilfully misunderstanding others. She has to recognize external appearances - Darcy's lack of manners, Wickham's abundant social charm - are not everything. *Her* journey doesn't work if she changes who he is at his core, which is still a good person.
Autism was not known as a "thing" in Jane Austen's day, I doubt she wrote him with that in mind, no wait, she did NOT, but maybe the person or people she modeled him after was, we will never know. But why do we love reading and movies and plays and ACTORS? Because there are a million ways to interpret good literature, and each time it is a little different. Makes you think about life and people, etc.
Your video is a good way of explaining death of the author (how audiences interpret a work regardless of the author's intent), and what may be considered an unreliable narrator. Is Mr. Darcy arrogant, socially awkward, or both? Debatable. I don't think he's a jerk though. A jerk would've refused to consider improving himself. He could've easily dismissed everything Elizabeth said to him after his disastrous proposal. He'd then either want to have nothing more to do with her, been spiteful, maybe tried to get revenge against her, or schemed to make her his wife. I don't want anyone to think that Pride and Prejudice is an example of how if a woman tries hard enough that she can change a man and then they'll live happily ever after together. That's an unhealthy approach to relationships. Elizabeth doesn't pine after Mr. Darcy, yearn for him to just change certain things about himself, and set out to be his life coach. She doesn't like him and tells him why. She doesn't expect him to change and doesn't want to see him again. Elizabeth is later surprised by what she reads in his letter to her as a response and is surprised even more by his behavior when they unintentionally see each other again. She learns that he thought about what she said and becomes a better man. Not everyone is willing to even consider changing, let alone put in the effort to do it. Mr. Darcy however is such a man. That was always within his capacity. Furthermore, she discovers more about him through his relationships with people he's known for years. He treats his staff at Pemberley well, is fair to his tenants, and a devoted older brother. Elizabeth learns to see him for who he really is.
In the end you have to accept Elizabeth's view of Mr. Darcy. Lizzy came around to love Mr. Darcy so I conclude he was not in reality an incurable, arrogant, rude, egotistical, bore but this was his mask of self-protection. His facade was cracked open by his love of Lizzy and she saw the real person behind the mask, fell in love and married. We get a happy ending, always my favorite....
I don't think it was a "mask", even one of "self-protection" (not sure how being those things would be protective in his case but I digress). I thought Austen's intent was that those traits are in part his weaknesses and in part Elizabeth's biased perspective (hence the "Prejudice").
@@briannab4037 If his negative attributes are the real Mr. Darcy than he couldn't love Elizabeth but only himself. In which case, I think Lizzy's good character would eventually force her to reject and not fall in love with such a monster.
@@X00000370 Darcy was never a "monster". His flaw was literally being too stuck up, that's it. Elizabeth also had to grow throughout the book. You're acting like Wickham's lies were true.
@@briannab4037 But her prejudice was "washed away" after getting to know the real, hidden Mr. Darcy, through his good acts, which is why I see the projected Mr. "Hyde" Darcy as more of a mask and not who he really is, the Mr. "Dr. Jeckel" Darcy. Jane Austen wrote Elizabeth as a smart and perceptive young woman so in the end I trust her judgement. By the way, it's common for individuals who need an aggressive personality to become what they think they must be in their life situation when in fact their introverted and shy (I call it the "little dog" aggression you can frequently observe from our little K-9 friends). An individual can project a personality which is not theirs, if smart and needed, but it does drain your energy.
That was a very interesting video. It's been a while since I read the whole book, but i guess that I always felt that the narrator was reliable in terms of giving information about what events happened and also how "society" in general viewed the characters and the events. However, I don't remember there being too much exposition by the narrator in terms of giving us access to any of the characters' inner lives (except Lizzie's). So therefore, when Mr. Darcy is described by the narrator as "haughty," I took that to mean that was how society in general viewed him based on his actions and discourse, rather than a definitive statement about his internal motivations and thoughts. And the book does make it clear that some people in the book (such as the servants) disagree with the assessment of Darcy being "haughty." If the narrative voice is infallible, then that would lead us to the conclusion that the servants were wrong about him, which I don't think is likely the intention. Again, I do think that your comments were really thought-provoking - thank you for that! ❤
I think to understand Darcy one has to ask a few questions. 1. Does Darcy look down on classes beneath him? Yes he does. He knows each class has its place and understands the ridicule he would get associating with them. 2. Can’t he just pretend not to be so prejudiced? He cannot. He’s honest to an extreme fault. He is bluntly honestly and can’t deceive while his foil Wickham is sweetly dishonest. 3. Is he socially awkward? He is comfortable within is own environment but doesn’t have the skill to be graceful outside of that. He hasn’t “practiced his instrument” as he does not like to “play to strangers.” 4. Can he change his point of view? It seems odd to believe that people can’t grow and improve themselves. He came to understand his previous mistakes and did his best to improve upon them.
In the critically acclaimed adaptation done for the Tv show Wishbone, Darcy (player by the dog Wishbone), explains his awkwardness with both shyness and his discomfort with the Bennett family's "liveliness". (Yes, this is real thing that can on LBS in the early 2000s in the US)
Austen was such a brilliant writer that even today, her characters are so real, alive, to us tho in a different era that we insert our feelings onto them. Thats a good writer. These are characters in a book. Yet people grow to adore Mr. Darcy to the point they defend him, make up other characteristics and backstory for this book character. That's what we do with (and to) each other in real life.
I absolutely LOVE your analysis of the balance between subjectivity and authorial intent in literature, Ellie, also the bit about Redemption vs being Just Misunderstood as having a lot of ideological background. I am so impressed by this vid, Ellie, kudos! 👏❤👏
With Austen, I like to discover the characters anew, each time I read. I don't feel I'm wedded to one idea of any of them. It's one of the sublime things about Austen, that there *is* always something new to discover. Fun fact: when the script of 1995 P&P was still a work in progress, screen writer Andrew Davies gave a talk at the Brighton Literary Festival entitled 'Mr Darcy In The Bath'. His aim was to give a sense of how he was going to show us a Darcy we hadn't seen before, a Darcy in some private moments.
The books title is pride and prejudice, of course Darcy is prideful and arrogant…it’s in the title 😂. His redeeming quality is he self reflects and adjusts his actions to help others see his caring side. My husband can come off like Darcy and when I point out he’s being a jerk he thinks about it, apologizes and doesn’t do it again. Darcy grows as a person and isn’t a flat character. That’s why he’s relatable, he does change. Not all men do but some do, especially for the right women. You can’t force a man to change but the man will change if he really wants a woman and that’s what Darcy does for Elizabeth.
I love this format, it's like a book club. I wish I could have watched while you were streaming but alas, I had to work. I'll try to defend Lady Catherine so far as this: she was a mother. She had a sickly, old maid daughter who never went out in society. Who was going to marry Ann and still have her best interest at heart? I believe Lady Catherine was depending on her nephew for this. Her other nephews couldn't do it because the elder was to be an earl and the younger might become earl and they needed healthy wives to produce viable heirs. That's all I've got for Lady Catherine. As to Mansfield Park, have you watched the 1983 version? That one is my favorite of any Jane Austen adaptation. I think it comes closest to the book anyway (pay attention to the windows in the east room and read the description in the book).
I'm pretty sure Anne has a hefty fortune (chapter 16), so she is definitely eligible to marry Col. Fitzwilliam. I wonder how much of her "sickliness" is imposed (unintentionally?) by her overbearing mother, who would never let her have any chance of marrying anyone but the arranged-at-birth cousin Darcy. Anne will have no personality or life until her mother dies, unless she can contrive to elope. Compare the effect of Mr Collins's "subjection" to his father (ch 15 - no wonder he fits so well into Lady Catherine's dominion).
@@joelledurben9854 Yes, if we can presume the sickness is real and that Col. Fitzwilliam doesn't have a fortune then there might be some justification for Lady Catherine's attitude. She was probably the first person in Mr. Collins' life who made him feel worthy. Typical control move for domineering people.
I agree with your take on Darcy and what a lot of people in the comments are saying. Which ultimately is “yes. Darcy was a donkeys butt in the beginning”. I think the best live action adaptation of pride and prejudice is the 1995 version. I fell in love with Jane Austen work because of the 05 film, but after learning more of each of her work, I’ve learned that the 95 is the closest adaption to what Miss Austen was saying of her characters.
On a related note to the idea of there being a right or wrong Mr. Darcy, adaptations don't necessarily have to be 100% book accurate to be a good adaptation. While I think a good adaptation should hold to the core themes/ideas of a story, there are many good adaptations that take great liberties with the story they're working with. There is great value in taking a known story and retelling it through a current lens to explore things being dealt with in current times. Of course, then there is the discussion of where the line between adaptation (if you take this to mean taking what is on the page and putting it on the screen with as little change as possible, given constraints) and retelling (its the same story at its core, but things are very noticeably changed deliberately) is or if there is even such a thing as an adaptation that isn't also a retelling. Of course, judging whether or not something is a good adaptation is also not necessarily the same thing as judging if it is good on its own (as if it has no previous thing it is drawing from).
Yes, I actually love the very liberty-taking 1940s version of P&P! I think what's important though, is to accept that adaptations are adaptations and while celebrating their cleverness in NOT being the original, avoid arguing that they ARE the original! 😆
Socially awkward is not necessary the right dichotomy. I think Darcy is an introvert. That doesn't mean he can't interact in social situations within being absolutely perfectly witty and charming and catching all nonverbal cues. Rather social interaction is draining. Extraverts are recharged by social interaction, introverts are drained. Darcy also has the misfortune of belonging to a social class in a period in which large amount of social interaction is required. That is he's already drained by previous required networking and come our first meeting, he doesn't want to expend the extra energy on the interactions. Yes there is discrimination on his part, but it's based on a cost vs reward model rather than pure snobbery. I don't think that goes against how she wrote him, it's just adding a psychological understanding that didn't exist in the Regency.
19:05 If the narrator says a character is handsome, that simply means that the character fits the mold of society's visual aesthetic at the time. What Jane Austen considered handsome might turn many of us off, today, and vice versa. And then, you must also consider, "Just how much does 'handsome is as handsome does' come into play in this particular character?" For example, the Bennet girls are largely declared to be uncommonly pretty, by the people of the neighborhood. However, is that because they fit the visual aesthetic of the time and place, or because they are simply WELL-LIKED? A popular girl may be plain, but be so dang charming that nobody even noticed, anymore. See Mr. Crawford of Mansfield Park. At first, Mariah and Julia call him "Black and plain," and the next thing you know, "He is not so VERY plain," and then, he's the most handsome man of their acquaintance. It's ALL subjective, including the narrative voice Actions are definitive. "John did this thing." Did John do the thing? Yes, he did. Unless the person speaking about John is a dirty, rotten LIAR, then John did the thing. But looks are subjective, and character must be, to a certain extent, subjective, as well, even from the narrative voice. Mr. Darcy was described by the narrator as haughty, but is that a description of CHARACTER or BEHAVIOR? He certainly BEHAVED haughtily. But was he ACTUALLY haughty? Personally, I like Darcy BEING haughty, to start, and gradually warming up to judging people with a different yardstick than before, and changing from being haughty and judgmental to compassionate and unjudgmental. Chapter 1 Darcy would not have given the Gardiners the time of day, UNLESS they were his tenants, in which case, he'd give them the time of day, as a landlord, but he would not socialize with them. He'd maintain excellent business relations, but make it clear that they are never going to dine at Pemberly. But, Chastened Darcy, who wants to prove that he IS a gentleman, (SO THERE, MISS ELIZABETH BENNET!!!) socializes with them, because they are with HER, and it would be rude to exclude them, while he is socializing with her, and then, very quickly sees that hey are TOTALLY AWESOME PEOPLE and likes them for who they are. After that, he'd socialize with them, even if Elizabeth turned him down again. He is willing to break the rules of his class, for PEOPLE. It's like how I prefer the ORIGINAL Star Wars, before George Lucas came back and "fixed things." HAN SHOT FIRST! In the original, he did NOT dodge a laser, just so he could be acting in self defense. Han Solo WAS a scoundrel, in the first place. He found his inner hero and brought that to the fore. But it took work and determination to BECOME the hero of Empire Strikes Back, and even more work to become the hero of Return of the Jedi. Han Solo's personal development was part of what made those movies so MAGNIFICENT. Therefore, while putting Mr. Darcy on the Autism spectrum may make him more accessible to a large number of modern readers (many of whom have loved ones on the spectrum), it does, in my opinion, subtract from the glory of Mr. Darcy's ACTUAL GROWTH as a person. If he's on the spectrum, then he merely learns better how to "mask," and work with people. But, if he was haughty, in the beginning (because he had been brought up with good principles, but left to follow them in selfishness and conceit), then it just shows how much 1) he actually, truly does love and respect Elizabeth, and that this is not just lust, and 2) their love is an actual transformative love that makes BOTH of them better people, in general, as well as better matches for each other, and 3) how much people NEED to have a partner who challenges them, as well as loves them, in order to become better people. Jane Austen was not ONLY writing about love and romance. She was also writing about morality, and how to be a better person. Emma needed her Mr. Knightly, and Mr. Knightley needed Emma (though it was not so obvious for him. She softened him. He learned to see the good in a woman he would have ignored, but for Emma). Catherine Moreland needed Mr. Tilney, to teach her sense and reason, and he needed her, to show him the truth about his father. It's a theme that repeats in Jane Austen's work. Fanny Price learned how to think and feel, at the hands of Edmund, but SHE taught him to honor truth and moral fortitude, and not to judge based on looks and charm, alone. Every one of Jane Austen's major works is, in its own way, a morality play, as well as a romance novel. She teaches her readers how to live a GOOD life, as well as how to live a HAPPY one. Well, she was the daughter of a clergyman, after all.
This movie depicted Darcy as someone who was very shy and had a hard time conversing with people. It doesn't entirely excuse his snobby attitudes, but he was a man of his times. In the end, his compassion and love prevailed over his more negative qualities. Jane Austen was depicting real attitudes she had observed.
In my opinion, Mr. Darcy is a snob but not truly a jerk. He is standoffish and assumes his judgments about people are always correct, but when he realizes his errors he does try to make things right. Mr. Wickham is unequivocally a jerk: selfish, greedy, manipulative, and opportunistic.
I can argue that there’s also a factor of, if we can feel Jane being a little too judgmental in general it creates this feeling of “the narrator is biased” therefore making the reader question whether or not to take everything they say as a universal truth, I also argue that even if Darcy was proud and rude, for him to change later on, it shows that he isn’t an inherently terrible person One can also argue Darcy could be both a bit shy and misunderstood while still being a jerk at the beginning of the story, a lot of introverts I’ve known have a tendency of being rude in order to keep people at a distance (definitely not everyone tho) Really interesting video btw 🫶🏻
Shy! I can speak from personal experience, and I can confirm that when you first enter a place full of people you've never met before, it's not easy to be as polite as you should!
Austen uses free indirect discourse in her narration. A few authors used it before but she perfected it. The narration cannot always be trusted like a normal omniscient narrator. Here and there, you don’t know if it’s true or if what the narrator is telling you a character’s opinion. Olivia Cox does a great breakdown of free indirect discourse in a few of her videos.
My initial take when I first met Darcy, I didn't think he was misunderstood, just that he was being engaged with on the surface level. People can be arrogant and not pleasant in public, but possess great love for people when they get to know them. Darcy was stabbed in the back by Wickham so why not keep people at arms length?
I like that. Very perceptive. I never thought about how Wickham’s actions could affect him. The first time I ever read it, I thought he was an introvert, as he reminded Bingley that he didn’t like to dance with people he didn’t know. I thought he’d probably feel awkward and not know what to say to a stranger. My take was that he only said that about Lizzie to shut Bingley up so he wouldn’t bother him anymore, not to intentionally insult her. I wish Austen included a scene where Lizzie called him on it. But then at the end, Darcy admits to Lizzie he was brought up well, but he did become arrogant and thought meanly of others below him. So perhaps he was just being an proud jerk!
@@outsideofenough6466 good points. People are complex and can become arrogant and condescending, justifiably or not. Sometimes we all need a little reminder to look outside ourselves.
She says in her first paragraph of that a rich man single man must be looking for a wife. She says in chapter four that mister Darcy is hauty. No one would suggest that the first is an absolute truth of her world.There seems to be no better argument for the second. She is the inventor of third person inperfect narration. The former seems to be the opinion of the mother.And the latter seems to be the opinion of elizabeth as opposed to some omniscient source.
I have heard from another source that the description of Darcy in the early parts of the novel is a form of narrative known as “free and direct discourse”,which is defined as a method of conveying a character's internal thoughts by embedding them within the narration, rather than expressing them directly. So in other words Jane Austen is using the prejudiced observations of the people of Meryton when describing Darcy through the narrative voice. It may not actually be Jane Austen’s opinion of him.
From my perspective it helps to remember that Mr. Darcy was born to someone who was buddies with Lady Catherine. She's clearly very conscious of social status, is of similar rank, and has a clear picture that it's not proper for her to interact with the likes of the Bennets except in the role of someone doing a favor. It seems entirely realistic to me that Darcy would've been counseled similarly as he grew. That he was nicer to interact with when he was in the role of benefactor and clearly understood his responsibilities, but that he had a clear idea of his sphere and that Bingley was enjoying slumming it.
I can see Mr Darcy being on the spectrum, but I can also see him as a child of his circumstance. Or both. Many people tend to forget that autism isn't a personality type, it's a neurodevelopmental condition. Autistic people are people too. With different personalities and traits. Two people can grow up in the same home, get treated the same, yet one grows up to be an arrogant, entitled narcissist, while the other is a kind, generous, philosophical introvert. Both are my brothers, both are Autistic. My son is autistic and very much an extrovert and loves making new friends and talking to strangers. But he also hates large social gatherings, making him seem arrogant and rude. Especially if there's people he doesn't know. Just like Mr Darcy. Mr. Darcy is, as he himself states in the book, a product of his upbringing. He was left to grow up in arrogance and conceit without anyone to check his manners. He's high status gentry, with noble linage. His family's behaviour and attitudes informed his behaviour. His character changes because he is capable of self reflection, and he has the motivation to change. Or he won't get Lizzie. To me Mr Darcy seems unapproachable and perhaps arrogant in the first half of the book, but his introduction to more normal people makes him realise that what he grew up with isn't the only way to be. This makes him realise that nurture doesn't need to be his nature. Even if both affect it, it's who you are at your core that decides if you're going to be an entitled jerk or a lovable gentleman. Then there's the issue of human nature to jump to conclusions and form our opinion of someone without seeing the full picture. Situation is also affecting our perception of people and their attitudes. Mr Darcy is perceived as arrogant because that's what someone thought of him when they first saw him, then spread that opinion to others. After his character was fixed, there was no changing it in the minds of others and everything he did was viewed from the lens of arrogance. Especially in Elisabeths point of view.
Well written, and thank you for sharing about your brothers. I think also, when we meet Darcy, he is there only because his good friend Bingley needs moral support, and *that's* his focus. He's not trying to be fallen in love with by more Miss Bingley types who refuse to be discouraged by anything less than offense. I've been flirted at by obnoxious strangers who were hard to put off and then got angry, and I learned to use icy politeness/aloofness in touristy areas, for self-preservation. Can you imagine what Mrs. Bennet would put him through if she weren't scared of him?
Since autism is an actual neurodevelopmental disorder it has always existed. It makes sense that some characteristics that autistic people have would be coded in fictional characters. I don't think we should erase an entire neurotype from our understanding of fictional characters before the diagnosis of "autism" was coined to describe the traits of people with that neurological condition. Autism isn't a culturally constructed idea like mental illness is. We can see that there is something different in the brains of autistic people. We've measured some of those differences in how the neurons function and even in the structure of autistic brains. I think this is an important element of this conversation. Autism isn't rare. Currently experts say about 1 in 36 individuals are on the spectrum. The number of estimated autistic people keeps rising as those of us that are highly masking get screened for the condition. Think of all the people you know that can only take crowds for short periods of time, hate small talk, are brutally honest and don't understand why that hurts your feelings, are preoccupied with a particular hobby, have weird food fixations, etc etc etc, you start to get an idea of the prevalence. I point this out because Jane Austen probably knew lots of autistic people with which to gather ideas and traits from. And from a narrative point of view autistic people are interesting because we are quirky and different than allistic people. Autistic traits are human traits. The entire name of the book is "pride and prejudice" because both characters are prideful and prejudiced against each other, Lizzy more so than Mr Darcy. It is the cornerstone of the romance genre of misunderstandings driving characters apart. I can tell you why autistic people would gravitate towards this trope, because we are constantly misunderstood. The idea that all of our problems with allistic people are just huge misunderstandings is sometimes true for us. Or at least we wish that were the case. So the idea that Mr Darcy is largely a misunderstood person is very attractive and it makes sense from our perspective. I will tell you, Darcy's first marriage proposal is so autistic. He is so blunt, so rude, so clueless as to why his unflinching honesty would hurt Elizabeth's pride, if Austen wasn't pulling from the traits of an autistic person to design that conversation I would begin to wonder if she was autistic to have dreamt it up. Is it possible that Darcy changed his ways of being an arrogant man because of love? Yeah. I suppose that could be the case. But that does not change the many times his fictional traits are common to people on the spectrum. We are often too blunt, we hate small talk, we often do not think of the feelings of others when we tell the truth, we are literal (we never exaggerate as Darcy's sister said). We have a sense of justice as well, it would totally be an autistic trait to make a man marry a girl he ruined because we felt responsible for it.
Hear, hear. Nicely put. The only thing I would say is that we often DO think of other people’s feelings, we’re just running on a different framework of what “rude” is.
@@brooke_reiverrose2949 We are all different, too. I don't have many of the stereotypical autistic traits because I have ADHD. But you're right, we are on a different framework. I feel an instant kinship with other autistic people now, almost a radar for them. Once you know what it is you're looking at it gets easier to recognize. If I met someone like Darcy I would probably clock him as being on the spectrum because he's so serious all of the time (another autistic trait)
The dress you're wearing is so lovely. And I think it was so cute when you read in a British accent, I know it's super hard to do well and if you don't think you can nail it to not try, but it's so much fun to see someone enjoying what they do ♥
As an autistic person I really relate to Mr. Darcy. But also he's a big jerk at the beginning of the book. I think he grows over the course of the book, but he doesn't become less autistic. I don't see why it has to be either "Mr Darcy was a jerk" or "Mr Darcy was misunderstood", why can't it be both? Maybe Mr. Darcy doesn't want to dance because he's socially awkward by nature, and he uses his prideful and hauty attitude to excuse himself. Both can be true. Then, once that prideful attitude is challenged, he grows past it, even if he's still awkward. In my reading of the book, Mr. Darcy is autistic, which means that his flaws present in autistic ways, but his flaws are not his autism.
Para comenzar, difiero totalmente que Darcy tuviera autismo, personas que tienen el espectro autista aunque tienen diferencias en su personalidad sí hay una serie de síntomas característicos y se evalúa en 1ro, 2do y 3er grado según su gravedad y tienen que ver con su comportamiento social, pero también con otras áreas de su neurodesarrollo. Es importante reconocer existen personalidades que no entran en el espectro y sí tienen características de introversión, malestar social en ciertos ambientes y que es completamente normal. Como leo el libro y como veo la interpretación del personaje de Darcy en la película de 2005, en mi imaginación creo que es una combinación de ambas interpretaciones que juegan con varios factores: Educación en un Ambiente familiar, más los convencionalismos sociales con los que crece Darcy, sumado con una personalidad introvertida y poco cómoda en situaciones sociales, sumado con formas de orgullo y pedantería al relacionarse con ciertos sectores de la sociedad (prejuicios). Darcy que al no tener muchas habilidades sociales y a su vez haber crecido en un ambiente que le ha enseñado que él está por encima de otros puede caer en estas actitudes groseras y es cuando lastima a Lizy. Sin embargo tiene la capacidad de observar sus errores y hacer cambios, sus prejuicios se van derrumbando al ver que aún en una sociedad menos afortunada hay personas con aguda inteligencia, buenos modales, belleza y perspicacia. Me encanta que cuando Darcy pierde toda esperanza de tener el amor de Lizy es cuando se interesa en hacer un cambio significativo para él y su crecimiento personal queriendo ser una mejor persona y hace cosas por ella porque simplemente la ama y es lo correcto.
Another great chapter and another great commentary! Have you ever tried the 1983 version of Mansfield Park? It's a little dated in the acting, but fairly close to the book.
Darcy came as Bingley's wingman, BUT Darcy is hotter and richer - he upstages Bingley just by walking into the room. His goal is to help his friend rent a house and settle in, but if he didn't behave hautily, the entire community might be disappointed to "only" get Bingley. Darcy has 10 years of experience running a big estate, and Bingley has none, so there's real experience to share, as well as moral support. Darcy is selective about how much he invests - a lot in his hometown, dependents, close friends - minimally in people he can't/shouldn't avoid long-term (Lady Catherine, Miss Bingley) - as little as possible in people he'll probably never see again (Meryton ball)
I just realised: if the movie is set in the Regency era, I want 'accurate' characters. If it is updated to the modern day, Lizzie Benneti diaries, then adapt away at characters too. I loved that they rescued Lydia and made her so much more sympathetic.
More than one thing can be true at once. There's nothing that says Darcy can't be arrogant AND shy (or autistic). I've met some genuinely shy, introverted people who were also complete jerks once you got to know them.
When I was in high school, I wrote a poem, and it got printed in our literary magazine, which was sold to the students. Well, one of my classmates came up to me and said, "I read your poem! I really like it!" And then she went on AT LENGTH, telling me what I meant. "No, I just wrote that I was really confused in math class one day." "Yeah, but what you MEANT was..." "Ummmm, OK." Similarly, whoever it was who wrote about "The path less traveled," and how he was tired, and had to get home, because he had promises to keep, has been told by avid readers, MANY TIMES, what he meant by those lines, only to be told by him, "Nope. I was TIRED, and had a long road to go to get home, and I STILL HAD STUFF TO DO, once I got there." It was all quite literal for him. As a writer, who has been told that I didn't mean what I meant, and even worse, that I did not KNOW what I meant when I wrote the thing, I can understand the sheer frustration of trying to convince people that I AM NOT THAT DEEP. And yet, at the same time, I was kind of proud that I had written something that SEEMED all deep, and that had, somehow, touched a person's soul. Art, be it visual, audible, written, filmed, sculpted, or performed, is weird. It's JUST WEIRD. It WILL be interpreted by the consumer, whether we, as creators, want them to interpret it, or not. We may simply want to say, "Look. I was JUST telling you about my DAY, OK?!" but there WILL be somebody, somewhere, who takes it as a metaphor for life. And that is the beauty of art. Something that seems so simple can touch people in ways that we never expected. I think it IS important to note that, as you say, Austen "baked" these characters, and created them the way she meant to. But, if we learn the lessons she wanted to teach us, by actually giving grace to characters she judged harshly, I think that is no bad thing. Within reason. Anyone who says, "Oh, Mr, Willoughby was a true gentleman, after all. Sure, he seduced a fifteen-year-old girl, impregnated her, and left her alone, but that's NO BIG DEAL because..." I will fight them. You want to give him grace? OK. Give him grace. But DO NOT say that he was a gentleman, after all. THERE ARE LIMITS. Speaking of giving grace to Mr. Collins, have you seen "The Lizzy Bennet Diaries"? It's a CZcams series adaptation of Pride and Prejudice that took a couple of years I think, to complete, with weekly posts. I do believe it actually got an Emmy. Anyway, if you have a few days to invest in a bit of marathon viewing, it's quite worth it. And not only do they give grace to Mr. Collins, and make him out to be a merely mildly annoying, but not so bad guy, what they do for Lydia is PHENOMENAL!!! Oh, my word! It's AMAZING! And highly educational, as well. It teaches about emotional abuse and manipulation and red flags, and just SO MUCH! It might actually be the best part of the whole adaptation, and that is saying something, because it is a BRILLiANT modern adaptation of Pride and Prejudice.
😅 Mr Darcy is an introvert who got taken to a party by their extrovert friend . He does not know anyone there, really has no interest to knowing them , he probably got sorrounded by mothers who got daughters to marry . If you look it from his point of view that party was a torture . Yes he was rude but that is actualy a pozitive point because he was sincere . He didnt fake smile at people and pretend , sweet talk them . Could he been more polite , yes , i think he was just not in the mood 😅.
On you're cake comment. King Arthur flour has a wonderful flourless chocolate cake recipe. I personally leave out the frosting and just dust with powdered sugar (too much chocolate others).
Please talk about Bingley, his character and intelligence. In chapter 4, it says he is by no means, lacking and understanding, but the 2005 movie seems to take a different approach.
I don't think Darcy is a bad guy, but he's always been a bit too severe for my tastes. And as someone who is a bit shy and bad at conversation, I've never bought that he was just shy or whatever.... like i can't just stop being shy if my crush tells me to. Rather, I've always seen him as being classist and elite with high walls to climb. Maybe not with his own staff, but with commoners... He does not employ them, nor have they earned his trust. His feelings for Elizabeth make him uncomfortable because they are exactly the type of undignified family to try to ensnare a rich man. And although he never takes joy in the inferiority of the Bennet family's status, he does hold it against them. What changed is when he saw how his prejudice wounded Elizabeth's pride. Afterward, he was willing to open his gates (literally at Pemberly) to meet and welcome Elizabeth's family as real people rather than shun them as outsiders and/or low-class schemers like Wickham. Once he does, he empathizes more with their plight (Lydia) and even sees his own part in failing to warn them... instead off marking it off as natural consequences following a bad upbringing, he wants to help.
Mr Darcy does indeed know commoners. He runs an estate that would most definitely employ them..how else would the work get done. And he must have some relationship with them. But it is likely he must maintain the perception that he is indeed the master and they are below him.
@nolan1640 I specifically said commoners outside of the people in his employ.... because yes his housekeeper loves him and yes he is fine with the common people he KNOWS. I was speaking of Darcy's mistrust of people who want his money.
I also think it's human to be a bit jerky at times, that adds to why Darcy is such a great romantic lead - he's not perfect and that's okay. He has many redeeming qualities as well that make up for his initial jerkiness.
My hot take on this was that the book starts out saying it is a truth universally accepted that a wealthy single man is in search of a wife so this chapter is saying "Darcy isn't looking for a wife but knows he isn't going to convince anyone of that so he is investing hard in saying he isn't interested in each individual person as a wife. Focusing on shooting down the person who he might actually want to wife."
I' m probably one of your oldest fans, and I enjoy you and your takes on issues. I've read P&P so many times that it is interesting to hear your thoughts and read those of others. Have you read any of her incompleted stories...finished by other authors?
OmG! Yes! Please give us a good Mansfield Park! And yeah, I agree with an older video of yours; Edmund is the worst 😂 But Fanny loves him and I love Fanny.
Interesting comparison: is Darcy more curt/rude to the people of Meryton than he is to Miss Bingley? And she won't leave him alone. Why would he want to invite MORE fawning flirtation? And the people of Merriton are very ready to flatter and flirt with him.
1995 P&P: Mr. Darcy is haughty, and undergoes a redemption arc, becoming less haughty and more welcoming. Meanwhile, his sister, Miss Darcy, is really shy, and thanks to her past, somewhat afraid of the world, and finds it difficult to trust newcomers (except she trusts Elizabeth from the start, because of the way Mr. Darcy spoke about her, and that trust is rewarded). 2005 P&): Mr. Darcy is shy and scared of people, and needs help coming out of his turtle shell. Meanwhile, his sister, Miss Darcy, is, despite her past with Mr. Wickham, open and trusting and willing to love anyone who happens to come into her path. I prefer 1995, not only because it is closer to the books, as written, but because I love a good redemption arc, AND I think it makes more sense for a young woman who has been wildly put-upon to be, in fact, a bit gun-shy and scared of the world, and new people. She has been HURT! Devastated, even. In 2005, it would appear she hasn't been affected by Wickham, at all! I don't like that. Probably because when I was young, I was hurt, and it made me unable to bear to be even touched by people I did not already know and love. I relate to 1995 Georgiana SO MUCH MORE. Although, as a film, and not as an adaptation (that is to say, if the people creating the movie were just making a movie, and not adapting a novel), I just love Georgiana. She's just SO COMPLETELY LOVABLE. Which makes me really just want to slap Wickham's face clean off his head for even trying to hurt her, even though it is clear that she got all the help she needed, so that it did not distress her for very long. It's sort of like watching Bridgerton, and telling myself, "This is a WAAAAAAAY OFF alternate universe, and there is NO actual history here, except for the names of the king and queen, and the fact that the king is, in fact, mad." I can enjoy the series, that way, if I keep reminding myself of that. But in actuality, Georgiana would have been spiritually and emotionally injured, as well as socially terrified. If her secret EVER got out, she'd be ruined. And she knows it. The part where she plays the pianoforte, with Ellizabeth turning the pages for her, in the 1995 version, is SO TELLING. I love it SO MUCH. And the only three people who actually know just how much it means are not saying anything to anyone about it. But in that moment, Georgiana would have told Darcy to marry Elizabeth, NO MATTER WHAT HE HAD TO DO TO GET HER. Maybe she DID. Maybe, off-screen, before Darcy went off to find Lydia and Wickham, he had a little chat with Georgiana about it, and explained that another young lady was in that man's clutches, and it was, in fact, Elizabeth's younger sister, and Elizabeth faced ruin, and Georgiana snapped at him, "Don't just stand there! SAVE THEM! SAVE THEM ALL! You cannot let Elizabeth be ruined on HIS account!" "But, she doesn't love me. She'll never marry me." "What does that matter?" "You're right." Yeah, it's not specified in the books, but in my head-cannon, Georgianna knows about what Darcy planned to do, because she TOLD HIM to do it. He was still feeling the last vestiges of pride, but HER love for Elizabeth was enough to push him right over the edge into actually HELPING THE MAN HE HATES MOST, and making it so that he would be RELATED to the guy, if Elizabeth ever said yes. I mean, that is HARD for any man to swallow, even if he is in love. But if the little sister he loves and adores tells him, "Not only is it OK, but it's THE ONLY THING TO DO, Brother!" I never really thought of it, before, but in "The Lizzie Bennet Diaries," they show Georgiana telling Darcy that he has to step up. "It's partly our fault, because we didn't expose him, when we had the chance. We hid the truth from the world, to protect our own feelings, and that allowed him to be free to prey on others." So, yeah, head-cannon. Although, in Liziie Bennet Diaries, they do make Darcy more of "an awkward turtle" than a pride man who needs redemption. But, there is definitely a small redemption arc for him, as well.
Speaking of Bridgerton, I was DELIGHTED when they began the "Queen Charlotte" spin-off series by pointing out that this was NOT history, but the story of Queen Charlotte IN THE BRIDGERTON UNIVERSE. I just about fell off my chair laughing when she chided her daughters for not getting married. In the real world, Queen Charlotte and King George FLATLY FORBID their daughters from marrying. They had to wait for the king to die, so they could beg their brother to give them permission. And, of course, getting married in your 40's, at that time, meant almost zero chance of producing a living child, so it was no surprise that they did not produce any living children. It made for a good story, of course. But, good grief, was it so far from the truth! But, because they OWNED that, right from the beginning, saying "This is NOTHING like real history. Just enjoy it for the FLUFF it is," it was quite enjoyable fluff. Meanwhile, at just about the same time, Netflix also put out the "documentary," which was actually labeled as a "documentary" about Cleopatra, that was filled with inaccuracies and downright lies. "My grandmother told me" only counts as a worthy source if your grandmother was THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED. If your grandmother was there when it happened, then it is called "a primary source" who just happens to be your grandmother. But nobody's grandmother was alive when Cleopatra VII was around. Contemporary artists, however, painted her as what she was: Macedonian Greek, and a very inbred one, at that. To say that she was descended from Ptolemy, but she was surely black, because SURELY the family would have intermarried with the native Egyptians so much by the time of her birth, that she would look just like them, is to COMPLETELY disregard her WELL-KNOWN FAMILY TREE. I mean, they had siblings marrying each other, and uncles marrying their neices, and it wasn't so much a family tree as it was a family branch. Just the one branch. Not even a whole, entire SHRUB. Just ONE BRANCH. The inbreeding was astonishing. It's really a miracle they lasted as long as they did. And don't forget, King Tut not only died at a young age, but was completely incapable of siring any children, due to his inbreeding. We have more modern versions of inbreeding, in the royal families of Europe, but they did not take it to the incestual extremes of uncles and nieces and brothers and sisters that the Ptolemaic dynasty did. So, no, Cleopatra VII was NOT black, with black parents, who were black because their ancestors had intermarried with the native black Egyptians. They were very, VERY Greek. If an entire country bans your "documentary" for being too false, you've got to look at yourself and think, "Hmmmmmm, maybe I'm a dirty rotten liar? Should I do something about that?" I will watch, and rewatch, Bridgerton and Queen Charlotte, enjoying the fluff it is. But I will NEVER watch that travesty of a "documentary." All that to say, if you read Pride and Prejudice and put a modern interpretation on it, that's fine. I'm OK with that. Just as long as you don't claim that this is THE TRUTH and THE ONLY WAY TO INTERPRET a book that was written in and for an entirely different culture, with different mores and views and understandings. I prefer 1995, but I accept 2005, and I will happily support anyone who prefers 2005 over 1995. However, I do have a tendency to throw a slight hissy fit, whenever I watch 2005, and see that ending, where they are sitting in their underwear on the balcony. As if Mr. Darcy would ever let his servants look out their window and see HIS WIFE IN HER CHEMISE. Her lady's maid would see her that way, but the butler?! Oh, Heavens, NO! He'd NEVER allow that to happen. Even 1995 Mr. Darcy of the wet shirt would never let MRS. Darcy be observed in her deshabille. But, other than that, I can look at it, cheerfully, as cinematic beauty, and a very relatable awkward turtle interpretation of a beloved novel. The story, itself, is timeless, because the characters ARE so relatable, across time and culture.
I'm definitely Team Anti-Emma. She gets on my last nerve, and so I find it so weird when people talk about how much they love her as a character LOL I'm also very much 1995 Pride and Prejudice is MY P&P. I don't like the changes in the 2005 version. But this was a delightful deep dive into the chapter! Thank you :)
If we look at the timeline, the party arrives in Netherfield in ? Mid/ late summer. Wasn’t that just after the business with Wickham and Georgiana? Could Darcy still be brooding from that?
What you are telling here is probably the biggest difference between Jane Austen books and modern regence historical romance. I know you don't talk about that but this could be an interesting topic for the channel (Evie Dunmore books are quite good if you want to avoir Bridgertons)
i think he's a jerk by behavior but not deeper character, and he decides to stop acting like a jerk because he loves elizabeth so much--but he can only make that change because he is inherently a good guy. he has a good character, but he grew up spoiled, and he behaves spoiled until he meets elizabeth. his love is so overpowering that it compels him to change for the better. but if he were inherently a jerk, he'd never be able to change for the better--he'd respond to elizabeth with a great big "heck with you."
Viewing these novels through a modern lens is a mistake. This is why certain factions want to ban Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Little Women, & the recent scholastic recommendation removal of the Little House books. Yes, by today’s “standards” some may be wrong in their view BUT we must read these from a prospective of the time period, history. And learn the lessons from there.
I read someone somewhere who said the Georgian idea was that person is flawed and practices their religion to improve themselves. The Victorian idea was to develop perfectly. They said Jane Austen was presenting the Georgian idea. I prefer that idea to the idea of perfection now. As a younger person I was looking for a hero, as the song said.
I think the point of the book is that he is not a jerk, but he acts like one, because in a way he feels as if he must, (because he's shy? because he feels like everyone is out to honeytrap him or his sister for their money? Because he's got culture and sophistication and his first impression of these people is that they are rubes and hicks?) we are not sure. He has to learn to not do that, or he misses his chance at happiness. He thinks it is just lust, and makes that awful proposal. Lizzie refuses him and proves she has a personality, later he realizes that she sticks up for her sister Jane just as he defends his own sister, she's got some steel he admires, he comes to realize his friend Bingley should be happy even if it is not on his terms, meanwhile *Lizzy realizes he has some culture and class and a really sweet sister and she could get along long term with a man like that - arranged marriage culture was in the recent past of these people and their goal was finding congeniality- married friendship, more avoiding a cruel or insane person chosen by your parents and their is absolutely no soul mate search in the modern sense.* (Also he is not ridiculous. She could have had the Reverend Collins if she could put up with that, not to mention being badgered constantly by the know it all neighbor and noble sponsor.) SO he tries to fix the honor of her family by tracking Lydia and forcing the marriage to Wickham, impressing Elizabeth, and she stands up to his horrible Auntie, impressing him.
The question is, "is he a jerk, or is he described as perceived?" as a way to introduce the pride and the prejudice. This makes the 2005 interpretation very reasonable, but it is not how I read it first in the 7th grade.
Clearly, Jane Austen wanted to portray Mr. Darcy as the haughty rich guy. That is what she wanted us to see. The same goes for the other characters in the book. She is telling a very specific story and she needs the characters to have the flaws and motivations that they do. But there is also merit in modern folks interpreting their own version of the characters. It helps us identify with someone we may not have. And you aren't exactly going to see any representations of autistic or other minority groups in Regency books. I think it's the fact that people can interpret the characters in different ways that has made the story so popular and persistent. I also think this is why you get so many adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, from movies to books to fanfiction to fanfiction books! It really is one of the most re-readable stories I've ever read. So hopefully we can have Jane Austin's original message come through as well as other interpretations that let us use our imaginations!
I often hear people read the famous line as "not handsome enough to tempt ME", while I hear it in my head as "not handsome enough to TEMPT me", which is about 10% less arrogant :) What do you think?
I think something that is almost always forgotten in discussing the beginning of the novel, is that at that point in the story Mr Darcy is only a few months past the Georgiana/Wickham debacle; and perhaps therefore a little extra prickly where potential fortune hunters are concerned.
Came here to comment this! I think this is an important factor.
This is a VERY good point!
Good point!
Mr. Darcy's mother was the sister of the very proud Lady Catherine
I can never excuse Mr. Darcy’s behavior at the beginning of the novel as just being shy. He clearly is capable of being social, of saying and doing the right things. He just doesn’t want to. He sees the people of Meryton as beneath him and undeserving of any effort to socialize. We see that after Lizzy tells him that he is conceited, arrogant, etc., he changes his behavior in an effort to prove to her that he has changed, not in an effort to win her love but to win her respect. To prove that he has become a better person overall. I think claiming his earlier behavior as purely shyness really takes away from his character and does him an injustice. Just my take though. I enjoyed this video, Ellie! Love all your Pride and Prejudice content! ❤️
I completely agree. It's the Han Shot First take on Darcy.
I COMPLETELY agree.
I love Darcy, and I love how well he takes accountability for his actions. I love how the book teaches us everyone deserves a second chance (heck, even Wickham and Lydia get a second chance!)
And I do agree that is what can be lost. I find not only with Darcy but other characters, their 'reformation'' can only be accepted if they never did anything wrong to begin with! Then you're not actually taking the risk of giving a second chance to someone you know full well is capable of doing something wrong.
Yeah. At least people used to understand that character can be developed and improved. People making him into an introvert/autistic hero today are completely missing the point of the book. They should write their own book and call it Introversion and Prejudice or something like that.
@@Cat_Woods The character arguably reads as an introvert regardless.
And the idea that an introverted or autistic person can't be prideful is ridiculous. Those interpretations of him are fine, the issue is deflecting from or devaluing Darcy's character flaws.
I don't think that men at that time really consider women equal to them, in order to prove or disapprove any point of view as if dealing with an equal partner. Darcy is merely seeking to win heart of Lizzie and guess what he wins ! 😉
He's both. People are complicated and Austen wrote them that way. He cares about his reputation, his tenants, his servants, his sister... Austen takes pains to show how kind and generous he can be. But also, he's a jerk in the beginning. I'm a nice person and I've also said awful things to and about people.
On the balance, he's a good guy. And he works hard to fix his mistakes once Lizzy points them our to him. We love him for that.
Exactly
Great points all! ❤
Both Darcy siblings were perceived to be proud, but some of that, to varying degrees in each, was indeed due to shyness. Ironically, one thing the screen adaptations never bring out is that the Bingley siblings are the children of a merchant in the North: Which means two things: Darcy is not as snobbish as everyone initially thinks, because he is intimate friends with someone who would not be received in some aristocratic circles; yet Darcy chooses Bingley rather than another elder son to be his closest friend..
Another irony is that Elizabeth IS from a more acceptable status, as the daughter of a respected landowner whose estate, like Col. Brandon's, brings in 2000 pounds annually; while Miss Bingley, again in some circles, would not be considered as socially acceptable, as the daughter of a Northern merchant. Thus her sneerings at the Gardeners are especially hypocritical.
Both points illustrate something that modern readers often overlook: Austen was a writer of comedy and irony, not just of romance--that why her novels have lasted as long as they have--they hold a mirror up to Western culture and to Western culture's individuals.
True about social status, but also, this was a time when social status was changing. In Persuasion chapter 9, Austen writes, "Mr Hayter had some property of his own, but it was insignificant compared with Mr Musgrove’s; and while the Musgroves were in the first class of society in the country, the young Hayters would, from their parents’ inferior, retired, and unpolished way of living, and their own defective education, have been hardly in any class at all, but for their connexion with Uppercross, this eldest son of course excepted, who had chosen to be a scholar and a gentleman." Darcy says almost the same thing about the Bennetts, Jane and Lizzie of course excepted, in his letter after the proposal.
Although I think the 2005 P&P is a beautifully filmed and acted, I have been a bit annoyed, ever since it came out, that they made Darcy look more awkward/possibly on the spectrum, and less haughty. Jane Austen clearly intended him to be a stuck-up prig at the beginning of the story - she says so herself, and PRIDE is in the title of the book. I think that's Darcy's whole character arc - he comes to RESPECT, rather than just be physically attracted to, a woman who is not on his social level (and class is STILL a big deal in England today, let alone in the Regency!) and who has embarrassing relatives. He also comes to see Jane's quiet love for Bingley as real and not just dismiss it. He grows as a person and learns that he shouldn't judge so quickly, and overcomes his pride. It's the whole point of the story, really. If he wasn't prideful, and was just an awkward dude or neurodivergent or something, the whole point of the novel would be lost, IMO.
Totally agree.
I think you could say Darcy is ALSO uncomfortable with 'social graces' to an extent, and debate how that influenced/was influenced by his pride, but I don't think you can have him NOT be proud at all and it still be the same story!
@cmm5542 Except, he isn't. When Elizabeth sees him after the botched proposal, he is perfectly amiable with outstanding manners towards her and the Gardiners. He knows how to behave. He just doesn't do it. He labels himself a selfish being and tells Elizabeth that but for her rebuke, he would have continued to be so for the rest of his life.
@@Padmepotter4986 Exactly my point. If he were neurodivergent, or even just terribly awkward, there's a strong possibility he WOULDN'T know how to behave, or might struggle to "mask" or understand social norms. A prideful (and selfish) person WOULD know how to behave; he just wouldn't always choose to do it, because he's let his own desires and snobbery get in the way.
To be fair, Lizzy was actually in the same social class as Darcy. She says as much to Lady Catherine at the end of the book when Lady Catherine accuses her of being in a different social sphere; she says: "he is a gentleman, I am a Gentleman's daughter, in that respect we are equal."
Lizzy's father is a landowning gentleman, and so is Darcy. However, Darcy has far more money than the Bennets. This puts him above them in terms of wealth, but not social class.
She expects him to be rude to her aunt and uncle, since *they* are tradespeople, and therefore in a lower class, but he surprises her when he treats them with dignity and respect (after his whole character arc self reflection deal)
@@kiarona. True, both families are landed gentry. But between the immense wealth and the noble title of "Lady" (which admittedly came from her husband, and not her birth) Catherine de Bourgh certainly considers herself "above" the Bennets, and I think Darcy has been raised to think of himself similarly. But as we've all said... self-reflection, growth, etc have taught him that it's better to be respectful to others - "even" tradespeople like the Gardiners. :)
I think a key aspect of Mr. Darcy's character is that the deep aspects of his character, his morals and values, were always good, and that's why he was able to improve himself for the better. Early book Darcy is arrogant and dismissive, yes, but he's also an honest person who takes care of his loved ones and takes his position in society very seriously. That's why it was so devastating to him when Lizzie laid him out after his proposal, and why it led him to change his outward behavior to better align with his values.
Very well said
At the beginning, he's got a heart of gold and some jerkish tendencies. By the end, he's still got that heart of gold and has worked through a lot of his haughtiness.
Labeling rude, selfish and prideful behavior as neurodivergent is insulting and demeaning to everyone who is neurodivergent. I know it's en vogue to label every behavior neurodivergent but some people are just jerks.
Darcy isn't on the spectrum. He's a rude, selfish, and prideful jerk. He knows how to behave, he just doesn't if he feels company is beneath him.
He literally spells this out in his speech to Elizabeth.
The 2005 movie turned him into a YA romance trope.
I really liked what you said about people on the autistic spectrum having their own individual character traits, their autism isn't the only thing that defines them
I think one thing we often forget is that Darcy being so rich he probably was the richest person most places he would go and probably would be "chased" by so many people for his wealth. I think, to a degree, he also act like this as a way to protect himself, but also, he did not intend to go and live in the area, so he likely was like, I'll probably never see these people again, why bother? Not 100% an excuse because you can be nice anyway, but just food for thoughts!
Just a little note from someone who majored in English lit a long time ago (well, we did have electricity, class of 1973). Day one in covering Pride. On day one of studying Pride and Prejudice our professor noted Americans and British were divided in that Americans thought Darcy was prejudiced while Elizabeth had pride. British saw Elizabeth as being prejudiced while Darcy was prideful.
I heard that argument from an American video years ago and then I had the thought that those creators were idiots and I never watched another video from them, yes I'm American, but I have enough intellect to read it as it was to be read and not let my prejudices change the meaning of the book.
@@TheRealPrinceClub
In my professor's case, she was pointing out the American reaction to the characters gets things backwards according to the actual text, which she went on to explain in terms of cultural history so we could better read the book as intended.
True. This has to do with shifting definitions of the words pride and prejudice over the years.
The real answer is they both have pride and that pride leads to prejudice.
I thought they were both prideful and prejudiced.
Lizzy was prideful about her family. She was prejudiced against Mr Darcy because she thought that he was the bad guy and Wickham the good.
Darcy acts pridefully throughout the story, but he is also prejudiced against Lizzy's family which makes him act poorly towards Jane.
Darcy is someone who has not only lost his mother but also his father at a relatively young age. Taking on massive responsibilities not only of the families estate, but also having to take care of his young sister who clearly is easily manipulated.
Do I think he is shy or a jerk? I think at such a young age he has become jaded to gatherings and balls. That he probably feels like he can’t be vulnerable with anyone because it will open him up to be taken advantage of.
*I always liked that about Lizzy,* she has some standards she won't back down on, she does not want to make the same mistake her parents made, she knows she'd just have to murder Collins!
Have to defend Lady Catherine: she is honest and forthright in what she wants. And what she wants is reasonable and appropriate for any mother: a good husband for her daughter. When she learns that Elizabeth is on the verge of marrying Darcy, she doesn't scheme or go behind people's backs, she directly confronts both of the principal actors who are going against her desires. She is an antagonist, but not a villain. Besides, all Darcy and Elizabeth have to do is say "no" to her. She doesn't hold any real power over their actions, so throwing her little fit was literally the worst she could do.
She's just a mother acting gauchely in pursuit of her daughter's marriage prospects. In other words, Lady Catherine = Mrs. Bennet.
Compare her to Fanny Dashwood in S&S who manipulates her husband against his own sisters and contrary to his oath to his dying father.
Compare her to Mrs. Norris in Mansfield Park, who is an absolute terror to Fanny.
Or Mrs. Ferrars, or Lucy Steele, or Mary Crawford or any of the other manipulative, two-faced backstabbing women in Jane Austen (I'm not even bringing in the male villains, some of whom are even worse)
No, give me honest, straightforward Lady Catherine as an enemy any day of the week
It really is difficult to choose the biggest villain of Austen's works. Sadly, such people still exist too.
I actually LOVE Lady Catherine and I think JA did too. There's that little hint at the end that she came around eventually, and she is a good person to have in your corner. I'll bet she would probably defend Darcy and Elizabeth VIGOROUSLY in public however much she might scold them in private!
May I take the opportunity to offer a controversial take on Lucy Steele? I don't actually think she's all that bad. I definitely think JA herself disapproved of her and wanted her readers to as well, but she actually hasn't convinced me. Lucy is engaged to Edward. Yeah, she probably mostly wanted him for his money but that's honestly not always shown as a bad motive in Austen. She's jealous of Elinor - well, I probably would be too if my fiance fell for someone else! And so she breaks off the engagement she knows Edward doesn't want anyway (key bit of historical trivia here: only women could technically break engagements. Men could get sued for breach of promise if they did. It's a double standard but Lucy is merely utilising it, not inventing it.) JA's main objections towards Lucy's behaviour seem to be that she her decisions and actions were taken in an ill-bred manner, rather than because they were actually WRONG decisions and actions. And I'm not sure I would have been as well-bred as Elinor if I lived back then, or cared to be. Lucy is quite open and direct about how she feels about another woman taking away her fiance, without directly accusing Elinor. I honestly probably would have done the exact same: 'look, I know what's going on and I'm not at all happy with you two. But if you're happy TOGETHER, I'll just go find someone else, so there!' 😆
I'd be interested to hear any other thoughts/rebuttals on this. Happy to be proved wrong if there's some darker trait in Lucy I just missed!
@cmm5542 interesting! I would be much more inclined to agree if she hadn't waited until just after Mrs. Ferrars had cut Edward off and given Robert everything before jumping ship. But it is an interesting perspective to contemplate for sure
@@cmm5542I do think Lucy and Robert have as decent a chance of being happy together as any tertiary Austen couple.
I think a lot of that is fair in modern terms, but her treatment of Charlotte, Lizzy, and the governess is pretty awful. She's very insulting, and all the ways she tries to be helpful are really just to make herself more important.
I remember when the 1995 version was released, I remember Jane Austen purists upset because the director took liberties and put in the wet-shirt scene. (I admit it; I loved it.)
But I have always preferred the 1995 version because I felt the characters’ mannerisms were closer to how Austen portrayed Regency behavior.
I admit I also prefer it because Colin Firth is the only one who can be Mr. Darcy.
Agreed 100%. To be honest I haven't even seen the 2005 version, simply because I've seen bits and pieces and they were enough to convince me that I don't need to waste my time on it. (also because I don't like KK)
Yes, Colin Firth is the one and only Mr Darcy.
Controversially I prefer the 1940s version because honestly I care more about how it captured the same 'sparkling' HUMOUR and tone of the book than I do about exact textual detail? I love 1995 as well, so much more to it, but I just don't think it's as FUN as thr book. But Laurence Olivier, great actor though he is, simply was NOT as good a Darcy as Colin Firth.
@@cmm5542 I haven't seen the 1940s one, but there is a version from 1980 that I remember seeing and liking - in fact I've rewatched it not very many years ago and in my opinion it's quite delightful! Nobody else seems to have seen it, though, which is a pity.
@@MSN_63 I saw the 1980 version, and I felt it was even closer to the book’s dialogue. But for obvious reasons, I prefer the 1995 version.
@@MSN_63I saw this version (the '80s one) when I had just read the book for the first time! It was so delightful to see the characters coming to life.
I would love the 2005 movie if it didn't lean so heavily towards 'socially awkward' instead of 'jerk'. I think it fundamentally misunderstands one of the main themes of the book and misses his entire character arc.
I agree. If you minimise his flaws, there’s no need for him to change, which greatly lessens the impact Lizzie has on him. It just becomes not much more than them being hot for each other. The story is about more than a misunderstanding. That’s why it’s called “pride” and “prejudice” because those are the main points.
Hm I don't think interpreting him as socially awkward changes the theme of the book. I think time and perspective changes actually do that. And so it can be hard to preserve appreciation of books over time. But that is probably why some books are recognized after their time. (That's going off on a tangent, though, so I'll stop.)
Social manners as a representation of who we are were much more important at the time. I think Darcy can still learn an important lesson and go through significant change to his behavior, while realizing it has a bearing on how his character is perceived. And overcoming his own personal sense of pride can still be part of that journey. ("Well, what should it matter how I'm perceived if I'm still a good person?" is still demonstrating a form of personal pride.)
Ultimately, his issue isn't minimalized with that interpretation, as long as the reader has enough understanding of the culture during that historic period.
@@yundorphin Social awkwardness isn't a character flaw, especially is said awkwardness comes from a brain that is wired differently (neurodivergent).
A person knowing how to act and behaving as appallingly as Darcy does is absolutely a character flaw that has to be overcome. Darcy's behavior with the Bingleys and the Hursts plus his behavior to Elizabeth and the Gardinerers after the botched proposal shows that Darcy knows how to behave but chooses not to do so.
@Padmepotter4986 I'm not saying social awkwardness itself is the character flaw, but not being willing to admit that you could put in more effort is. Apologies if it wasn't worded well. Let me try to explain again, since I do think he can be prideful *and* socially awkward and still go through an arc that allows himself to both change and be better understood as the good man he is.
Knowing one can behave better socially, but not wanting to put in the effort because it feels incredibly difficult can be a character flaw. Some people think if they carry out good deeds, then it should be enough. They needn't always act out social niceties, since they feel or seem meaningless. (I am some people.) They neglect other people's feelings in the process, though.
Being born into a privileged class or position of wealth and status probably makes that justification easier, since power and wealth make some people abandon even the "good deeds" part. But ultimately, it's still a sense of inherent personal pride excusing words or actions that have a negative effect on others or personal bearing/appearance. And that's what Darcy needs to overcome, though he may not realize it until Elizabeth points it out.
When he proposes to her, he insults her family, status, and complete suitability as a bride. But he doesn't even realize that will affect her answer, thinking his personal status in society will be enough to convince her to marry him. He *is* prideful to be relying on basically clout to carry the proposal, but he is also incredibly socially inept. He's so socially inept to the degree I would say being social is just that difficult for him that he's given up on it, perhaps thinking he does not need that particular skill if he's got money and power and does enough good with it.
Even Collins knows he should pay compliments and not insults when courting. And we know Darcy is intelligent, but this area seems to be a blind spot for him. The reason people are socially awkward is because being social doesn't come easy to them - it's not because they're jerks.
On the other side of the coin, Elizabeth needs to overcome her prejudice and wilfully misunderstanding others. She has to recognize external appearances - Darcy's lack of manners, Wickham's abundant social charm - are not everything. *Her* journey doesn't work if she changes who he is at his core, which is still a good person.
Autism was not known as a "thing" in Jane Austen's day, I doubt she wrote him with that in mind, no wait, she did NOT, but maybe the person or people she modeled him after was, we will never know.
But why do we love reading and movies and plays and ACTORS? Because there are a million ways to interpret good literature, and each time it is a little different. Makes you think about life and people, etc.
Darcy himself says he has been too proud until Lizzie tells him the truth and makes him rethink his actions.
Your video is a good way of explaining death of the author (how audiences interpret a work regardless of the author's intent), and what may be considered an unreliable narrator.
Is Mr. Darcy arrogant, socially awkward, or both? Debatable. I don't think he's a jerk though. A jerk would've refused to consider improving himself. He could've easily dismissed everything Elizabeth said to him after his disastrous proposal. He'd then either want to have nothing more to do with her, been spiteful, maybe tried to get revenge against her, or schemed to make her his wife.
I don't want anyone to think that Pride and Prejudice is an example of how if a woman tries hard enough that she can change a man and then they'll live happily ever after together. That's an unhealthy approach to relationships. Elizabeth doesn't pine after Mr. Darcy, yearn for him to just change certain things about himself, and set out to be his life coach. She doesn't like him and tells him why. She doesn't expect him to change and doesn't want to see him again. Elizabeth is later surprised by what she reads in his letter to her as a response and is surprised even more by his behavior when they unintentionally see each other again. She learns that he thought about what she said and becomes a better man. Not everyone is willing to even consider changing, let alone put in the effort to do it. Mr. Darcy however is such a man. That was always within his capacity. Furthermore, she discovers more about him through his relationships with people he's known for years. He treats his staff at Pemberley well, is fair to his tenants, and a devoted older brother. Elizabeth learns to see him for who he really is.
In the end you have to accept Elizabeth's view of Mr. Darcy. Lizzy came around to love Mr. Darcy so I conclude he was not in reality an incurable, arrogant, rude, egotistical, bore but this was his mask of self-protection. His facade was cracked open by his love of Lizzy and she saw the real person behind the mask, fell in love and married. We get a happy ending, always my favorite....
I don't think it was a "mask", even one of "self-protection" (not sure how being those things would be protective in his case but I digress). I thought Austen's intent was that those traits are in part his weaknesses and in part Elizabeth's biased perspective (hence the "Prejudice").
He was all those things, maybe just not "incurable" as you say 😁.
@@briannab4037 If his negative attributes are the real Mr. Darcy than he couldn't love Elizabeth but only himself. In which case, I think Lizzy's good character would eventually force her to reject and not fall in love with such a monster.
@@X00000370 Darcy was never a "monster". His flaw was literally being too stuck up, that's it. Elizabeth also had to grow throughout the book. You're acting like Wickham's lies were true.
@@briannab4037 But her prejudice was "washed away" after getting to know the real, hidden Mr. Darcy, through his good acts, which is why I see the projected Mr. "Hyde" Darcy as more of a mask and not who he really is, the Mr. "Dr. Jeckel" Darcy. Jane Austen wrote Elizabeth as a smart and perceptive young woman so in the end I trust her judgement. By the way, it's common for individuals who need an aggressive personality to become what they think they must be in their life situation when in fact their introverted and shy (I call it the "little dog" aggression you can frequently observe from our little K-9 friends). An individual can project a personality which is not theirs, if smart and needed, but it does drain your energy.
“Shy little cinnamon roll” really got me 😂😂 thanks for the video today! It was great company while I was sewing!
Aw, I'm so glad you enjoyed it! I hope your sewing is going swimmingly. ☺️
That was a very interesting video. It's been a while since I read the whole book, but i guess that I always felt that the narrator was reliable in terms of giving information about what events happened and also how "society" in general viewed the characters and the events. However, I don't remember there being too much exposition by the narrator in terms of giving us access to any of the characters' inner lives (except Lizzie's). So therefore, when Mr. Darcy is described by the narrator as "haughty," I took that to mean that was how society in general viewed him based on his actions and discourse, rather than a definitive statement about his internal motivations and thoughts. And the book does make it clear that some people in the book (such as the servants) disagree with the assessment of Darcy being "haughty." If the narrative voice is infallible, then that would lead us to the conclusion that the servants were wrong about him, which I don't think is likely the intention. Again, I do think that your comments were really thought-provoking - thank you for that! ❤
I think it's quite simple: people love Mr Darcy. So they can't accept that he has any flaws. But nobody is perfect.
Today felt like a longer chat than usual which I didn’t mind. Also, RIP DONALD SUTHERLAND
@@mlove.1376 He was very sweet
The best Mr. Bennett
I think to understand Darcy one has to ask a few questions.
1. Does Darcy look down on classes beneath him? Yes he does. He knows each class has its place and understands the ridicule he would get associating with them.
2. Can’t he just pretend not to be so prejudiced? He cannot. He’s honest to an extreme fault. He is bluntly honestly and can’t deceive while his foil Wickham is sweetly dishonest.
3. Is he socially awkward? He is comfortable within is own environment but doesn’t have the skill to be graceful outside of that. He hasn’t “practiced his instrument” as he does not like to “play to strangers.”
4. Can he change his point of view? It seems odd to believe that people can’t grow and improve themselves. He came to understand his previous mistakes and did his best to improve upon them.
This is spot on!
Ditto!
Except that Bingley is socially inferior to Darcy, but still Darcy travels with him to Netherfield for no other reason than friendship.
In the critically acclaimed adaptation done for the Tv show Wishbone, Darcy (player by the dog Wishbone), explains his awkwardness with both shyness and his discomfort with the Bennett family's "liveliness". (Yes, this is real thing that can on LBS in the early 2000s in the US)
In my opinion this is the best format
Aw, I'm so glad you're enjoying it!
Austen was such a brilliant writer that even today, her characters are so real, alive, to us tho in a different era that we insert our feelings onto them. Thats a good writer. These are characters in a book. Yet people grow to adore Mr. Darcy to the point they defend him, make up other characteristics and backstory for this book character. That's what we do with (and to) each other in real life.
I absolutely LOVE your analysis of the balance between subjectivity and authorial intent in literature, Ellie, also the bit about Redemption vs being Just Misunderstood as having a lot of ideological background. I am so impressed by this vid, Ellie, kudos! 👏❤👏
With Austen, I like to discover the characters anew, each time I read. I don't feel I'm wedded to one idea of any of them. It's one of the sublime things about Austen, that there *is* always something new to discover.
Fun fact: when the script of 1995 P&P was still a work in progress, screen writer Andrew Davies gave a talk at the Brighton Literary Festival entitled 'Mr Darcy In The Bath'. His aim was to give a sense of how he was going to show us a Darcy we hadn't seen before, a Darcy in some private moments.
The books title is pride and prejudice, of course Darcy is prideful and arrogant…it’s in the title 😂. His redeeming quality is he self reflects and adjusts his actions to help others see his caring side. My husband can come off like Darcy and when I point out he’s being a jerk he thinks about it, apologizes and doesn’t do it again. Darcy grows as a person and isn’t a flat character. That’s why he’s relatable, he does change. Not all men do but some do, especially for the right women. You can’t force a man to change but the man will change if he really wants a woman and that’s what Darcy does for Elizabeth.
Also, I’m missing the live stream but I do like you chatting about the chapter after. I’m enjoying the breakdowns and opinions 😊.
I really enjoy this format you've come up with, Ellie.
Love how you challenge those of us who challenge Austin. Well played!!!
I love this format, it's like a book club. I wish I could have watched while you were streaming but alas, I had to work. I'll try to defend Lady Catherine so far as this: she was a mother. She had a sickly, old maid daughter who never went out in society. Who was going to marry Ann and still have her best interest at heart? I believe Lady Catherine was depending on her nephew for this. Her other nephews couldn't do it because the elder was to be an earl and the younger might become earl and they needed healthy wives to produce viable heirs. That's all I've got for Lady Catherine. As to Mansfield Park, have you watched the 1983 version? That one is my favorite of any Jane Austen adaptation. I think it comes closest to the book anyway (pay attention to the windows in the east room and read the description in the book).
I'm pretty sure Anne has a hefty fortune (chapter 16), so she is definitely eligible to marry Col. Fitzwilliam.
I wonder how much of her "sickliness" is imposed (unintentionally?) by her overbearing mother, who would never let her have any chance of marrying anyone but the arranged-at-birth cousin Darcy. Anne will have no personality or life until her mother dies, unless she can contrive to elope. Compare the effect of Mr Collins's "subjection" to his father (ch 15 - no wonder he fits so well into Lady Catherine's dominion).
@@joelledurben9854 Yes, if we can presume the sickness is real and that Col. Fitzwilliam doesn't have a fortune then there might be some justification for Lady Catherine's attitude. She was probably the first person in Mr. Collins' life who made him feel worthy. Typical control move for domineering people.
I appreciate your reflections on our society and how it informs our personal interpretation.
I agree with your take on Darcy and what a lot of people in the comments are saying. Which ultimately is “yes. Darcy was a donkeys butt in the beginning”. I think the best live action adaptation of pride and prejudice is the 1995 version. I fell in love with Jane Austen work because of the 05 film, but after learning more of each of her work, I’ve learned that the 95 is the closest adaption to what Miss Austen was saying of her characters.
On a related note to the idea of there being a right or wrong Mr. Darcy, adaptations don't necessarily have to be 100% book accurate to be a good adaptation. While I think a good adaptation should hold to the core themes/ideas of a story, there are many good adaptations that take great liberties with the story they're working with. There is great value in taking a known story and retelling it through a current lens to explore things being dealt with in current times. Of course, then there is the discussion of where the line between adaptation (if you take this to mean taking what is on the page and putting it on the screen with as little change as possible, given constraints) and retelling (its the same story at its core, but things are very noticeably changed deliberately) is or if there is even such a thing as an adaptation that isn't also a retelling.
Of course, judging whether or not something is a good adaptation is also not necessarily the same thing as judging if it is good on its own (as if it has no previous thing it is drawing from).
Yes, I actually love the very liberty-taking 1940s version of P&P!
I think what's important though, is to accept that adaptations are adaptations and while celebrating their cleverness in NOT being the original, avoid arguing that they ARE the original! 😆
Socially awkward is not necessary the right dichotomy.
I think Darcy is an introvert. That doesn't mean he can't interact in social situations within being absolutely perfectly witty and charming and catching all nonverbal cues. Rather social interaction is draining. Extraverts are recharged by social interaction, introverts are drained.
Darcy also has the misfortune of belonging to a social class in a period in which large amount of social interaction is required. That is he's already drained by previous required networking and come our first meeting, he doesn't want to expend the extra energy on the interactions.
Yes there is discrimination on his part, but it's based on a cost vs reward model rather than pure snobbery.
I don't think that goes against how she wrote him, it's just adding a psychological understanding that didn't exist in the Regency.
19:05 If the narrator says a character is handsome, that simply means that the character fits the mold of society's visual aesthetic at the time. What Jane Austen considered handsome might turn many of us off, today, and vice versa. And then, you must also consider, "Just how much does 'handsome is as handsome does' come into play in this particular character?"
For example, the Bennet girls are largely declared to be uncommonly pretty, by the people of the neighborhood. However, is that because they fit the visual aesthetic of the time and place, or because they are simply WELL-LIKED? A popular girl may be plain, but be so dang charming that nobody even noticed, anymore.
See Mr. Crawford of Mansfield Park. At first, Mariah and Julia call him "Black and plain," and the next thing you know, "He is not so VERY plain," and then, he's the most handsome man of their acquaintance.
It's ALL subjective, including the narrative voice
Actions are definitive. "John did this thing." Did John do the thing? Yes, he did. Unless the person speaking about John is a dirty, rotten LIAR, then John did the thing.
But looks are subjective, and character must be, to a certain extent, subjective, as well, even from the narrative voice.
Mr. Darcy was described by the narrator as haughty, but is that a description of CHARACTER or BEHAVIOR? He certainly BEHAVED haughtily. But was he ACTUALLY haughty?
Personally, I like Darcy BEING haughty, to start, and gradually warming up to judging people with a different yardstick than before, and changing from being haughty and judgmental to compassionate and unjudgmental. Chapter 1 Darcy would not have given the Gardiners the time of day, UNLESS they were his tenants, in which case, he'd give them the time of day, as a landlord, but he would not socialize with them. He'd maintain excellent business relations, but make it clear that they are never going to dine at Pemberly. But, Chastened Darcy, who wants to prove that he IS a gentleman, (SO THERE, MISS ELIZABETH BENNET!!!) socializes with them, because they are with HER, and it would be rude to exclude them, while he is socializing with her, and then, very quickly sees that hey are TOTALLY AWESOME PEOPLE and likes them for who they are. After that, he'd socialize with them, even if Elizabeth turned him down again. He is willing to break the rules of his class, for PEOPLE.
It's like how I prefer the ORIGINAL Star Wars, before George Lucas came back and "fixed things." HAN SHOT FIRST! In the original, he did NOT dodge a laser, just so he could be acting in self defense. Han Solo WAS a scoundrel, in the first place. He found his inner hero and brought that to the fore. But it took work and determination to BECOME the hero of Empire Strikes Back, and even more work to become the hero of Return of the Jedi. Han Solo's personal development was part of what made those movies so MAGNIFICENT.
Therefore, while putting Mr. Darcy on the Autism spectrum may make him more accessible to a large number of modern readers (many of whom have loved ones on the spectrum), it does, in my opinion, subtract from the glory of Mr. Darcy's ACTUAL GROWTH as a person. If he's on the spectrum, then he merely learns better how to "mask," and work with people. But, if he was haughty, in the beginning (because he had been brought up with good principles, but left to follow them in selfishness and conceit), then it just shows how much 1) he actually, truly does love and respect Elizabeth, and that this is not just lust, and 2) their love is an actual transformative love that makes BOTH of them better people, in general, as well as better matches for each other, and 3) how much people NEED to have a partner who challenges them, as well as loves them, in order to become better people.
Jane Austen was not ONLY writing about love and romance. She was also writing about morality, and how to be a better person. Emma needed her Mr. Knightly, and Mr. Knightley needed Emma (though it was not so obvious for him. She softened him. He learned to see the good in a woman he would have ignored, but for Emma). Catherine Moreland needed Mr. Tilney, to teach her sense and reason, and he needed her, to show him the truth about his father. It's a theme that repeats in Jane Austen's work.
Fanny Price learned how to think and feel, at the hands of Edmund, but SHE taught him to honor truth and moral fortitude, and not to judge based on looks and charm, alone.
Every one of Jane Austen's major works is, in its own way, a morality play, as well as a romance novel. She teaches her readers how to live a GOOD life, as well as how to live a HAPPY one.
Well, she was the daughter of a clergyman, after all.
I think sometimes we got to accept that some characters/people are bad rather than saying they're misunderstood.
Love your comments about Austen’s good characters being the one who are willing to change!
This movie depicted Darcy as someone who was very shy and had a hard time conversing with people. It doesn't entirely excuse his snobby attitudes, but he was a man of his times. In the end, his compassion and love prevailed over his more negative qualities. Jane Austen was depicting real attitudes she had observed.
In my opinion, Mr. Darcy is a snob but not truly a jerk. He is standoffish and assumes his judgments about people are always correct, but when he realizes his errors he does try to make things right. Mr. Wickham is unequivocally a jerk: selfish, greedy, manipulative, and opportunistic.
Loving this and the chat afterwards too! I appreciate the insight and how well thought out your live streams are☺️
I'm so disappointed I missed this, so many good points discussed. I'm gonna try really hard to make the next one
I can argue that there’s also a factor of, if we can feel Jane being a little too judgmental in general it creates this feeling of “the narrator is biased” therefore making the reader question whether or not to take everything they say as a universal truth, I also argue that even if Darcy was proud and rude, for him to change later on, it shows that he isn’t an inherently terrible person
One can also argue Darcy could be both a bit shy and misunderstood while still being a jerk at the beginning of the story, a lot of introverts I’ve known have a tendency of being rude in order to keep people at a distance (definitely not everyone tho)
Really interesting video btw 🫶🏻
I enjoyed the chat at the end, and your cope of P&P is beautiful!
Darcy with his wealth is like a rock star, so he is used to shielding himself from fans and trades. He is also young and handsome. Hard to be open.
Shy! I can speak from personal experience, and I can confirm that when you first enter a place full of people you've never met before, it's not easy to be as polite as you should!
Austen uses free indirect discourse in her narration. A few authors used it before but she perfected it. The narration cannot always be trusted like a normal omniscient narrator. Here and there, you don’t know if it’s true or if what the narrator is telling you a character’s opinion. Olivia Cox does a great breakdown of free indirect discourse in a few of her videos.
When it comes to subjectivity in literature. I would say that all viewpoints are valid and yours is nearly as good as mine 😊
😂😂😂
Colin Firth is the best Mr Darcy
1000%!
He ruined me forever for every other Mr Darcy xD
Yes!
Gasp!!!!
There's another option? 🤭😁😆
I love our collective audacity to fight Austen on Mr. Darcy 😄
😂 I seriously think Austen would find it all incredibly amusing!
@@EllieDashwoodthink so too!
Oooh! I like it when you highlight the comment to which you are responding!
My initial take when I first met Darcy, I didn't think he was misunderstood, just that he was being engaged with on the surface level. People can be arrogant and not pleasant in public, but possess great love for people when they get to know them. Darcy was stabbed in the back by Wickham so why not keep people at arms length?
I like that. Very perceptive. I never thought about how Wickham’s actions could affect him.
The first time I ever read it, I thought he was an introvert, as he reminded Bingley that he didn’t like to dance with people he didn’t know. I thought he’d probably feel awkward and not know what to say to a stranger. My take was that he only said that about Lizzie to shut Bingley up so he wouldn’t bother him anymore, not to intentionally insult her. I wish Austen included a scene where Lizzie called him on it.
But then at the end, Darcy admits to Lizzie he was brought up well, but he did become arrogant and thought meanly of others below him. So perhaps he was just being an proud jerk!
@@outsideofenough6466 good points. People are complex and can become arrogant and condescending, justifiably or not. Sometimes we all need a little reminder to look outside ourselves.
She says in her first paragraph of that a rich man single man must be looking for a wife. She says in chapter four that mister Darcy is hauty. No one would suggest that the first is an absolute truth of her world.There seems to be no better argument for the second. She is the inventor of third person inperfect narration.
The former seems to be the opinion of the mother.And the latter seems to be the opinion of elizabeth as opposed to some omniscient source.
46:09 - Dr Octavia Cox also does a really great video on Jane Austen's use of free indirect discourse! It's quite fascinating
I have heard from another source that the description of Darcy in the early parts of the novel is a form of narrative known as “free and direct discourse”,which is defined as a method of conveying a character's internal thoughts by embedding them within the narration, rather than expressing them directly. So in other words Jane Austen is using the prejudiced observations of the people of Meryton when describing Darcy through the narrative voice. It may not actually be Jane Austen’s opinion of him.
Excuse me, the proper term is “ free indirect discourse”
From my perspective it helps to remember that Mr. Darcy was born to someone who was buddies with Lady Catherine. She's clearly very conscious of social status, is of similar rank, and has a clear picture that it's not proper for her to interact with the likes of the Bennets except in the role of someone doing a favor. It seems entirely realistic to me that Darcy would've been counseled similarly as he grew. That he was nicer to interact with when he was in the role of benefactor and clearly understood his responsibilities, but that he had a clear idea of his sphere and that Bingley was enjoying slumming it.
I can see Mr Darcy being on the spectrum, but I can also see him as a child of his circumstance. Or both.
Many people tend to forget that autism isn't a personality type, it's a neurodevelopmental condition. Autistic people are people too. With different personalities and traits.
Two people can grow up in the same home, get treated the same, yet one grows up to be an arrogant, entitled narcissist, while the other is a kind, generous, philosophical introvert. Both are my brothers, both are Autistic.
My son is autistic and very much an extrovert and loves making new friends and talking to strangers. But he also hates large social gatherings, making him seem arrogant and rude. Especially if there's people he doesn't know. Just like Mr Darcy.
Mr. Darcy is, as he himself states in the book, a product of his upbringing. He was left to grow up in arrogance and conceit without anyone to check his manners. He's high status gentry, with noble linage. His family's behaviour and attitudes informed his behaviour. His character changes because he is capable of self reflection, and he has the motivation to change. Or he won't get Lizzie.
To me Mr Darcy seems unapproachable and perhaps arrogant in the first half of the book, but his introduction to more normal people makes him realise that what he grew up with isn't the only way to be.
This makes him realise that nurture doesn't need to be his nature. Even if both affect it, it's who you are at your core that decides if you're going to be an entitled jerk or a lovable gentleman.
Then there's the issue of human nature to jump to conclusions and form our opinion of someone without seeing the full picture. Situation is also affecting our perception of people and their attitudes.
Mr Darcy is perceived as arrogant because that's what someone thought of him when they first saw him, then spread that opinion to others. After his character was fixed, there was no changing it in the minds of others and everything he did was viewed from the lens of arrogance. Especially in Elisabeths point of view.
Well written, and thank you for sharing about your brothers.
I think also, when we meet Darcy, he is there only because his good friend Bingley needs moral support, and *that's* his focus. He's not trying to be fallen in love with by more Miss Bingley types who refuse to be discouraged by anything less than offense. I've been flirted at by obnoxious strangers who were hard to put off and then got angry, and I learned to use icy politeness/aloofness in touristy areas, for self-preservation. Can you imagine what Mrs. Bennet would put him through if she weren't scared of him?
Since autism is an actual neurodevelopmental disorder it has always existed. It makes sense that some characteristics that autistic people have would be coded in fictional characters. I don't think we should erase an entire neurotype from our understanding of fictional characters before the diagnosis of "autism" was coined to describe the traits of people with that neurological condition. Autism isn't a culturally constructed idea like mental illness is. We can see that there is something different in the brains of autistic people. We've measured some of those differences in how the neurons function and even in the structure of autistic brains. I think this is an important element of this conversation.
Autism isn't rare. Currently experts say about 1 in 36 individuals are on the spectrum. The number of estimated autistic people keeps rising as those of us that are highly masking get screened for the condition. Think of all the people you know that can only take crowds for short periods of time, hate small talk, are brutally honest and don't understand why that hurts your feelings, are preoccupied with a particular hobby, have weird food fixations, etc etc etc, you start to get an idea of the prevalence. I point this out because Jane Austen probably knew lots of autistic people with which to gather ideas and traits from. And from a narrative point of view autistic people are interesting because we are quirky and different than allistic people. Autistic traits are human traits.
The entire name of the book is "pride and prejudice" because both characters are prideful and prejudiced against each other, Lizzy more so than Mr Darcy. It is the cornerstone of the romance genre of misunderstandings driving characters apart. I can tell you why autistic people would gravitate towards this trope, because we are constantly misunderstood. The idea that all of our problems with allistic people are just huge misunderstandings is sometimes true for us. Or at least we wish that were the case. So the idea that Mr Darcy is largely a misunderstood person is very attractive and it makes sense from our perspective.
I will tell you, Darcy's first marriage proposal is so autistic. He is so blunt, so rude, so clueless as to why his unflinching honesty would hurt Elizabeth's pride, if Austen wasn't pulling from the traits of an autistic person to design that conversation I would begin to wonder if she was autistic to have dreamt it up.
Is it possible that Darcy changed his ways of being an arrogant man because of love? Yeah. I suppose that could be the case. But that does not change the many times his fictional traits are common to people on the spectrum. We are often too blunt, we hate small talk, we often do not think of the feelings of others when we tell the truth, we are literal (we never exaggerate as Darcy's sister said). We have a sense of justice as well, it would totally be an autistic trait to make a man marry a girl he ruined because we felt responsible for it.
Great points!
Hear, hear. Nicely put. The only thing I would say is that we often DO think of other people’s feelings, we’re just running on a different framework of what “rude” is.
Thank you for making this case! ❤
@@brooke_reiverrose2949 We are all different, too. I don't have many of the stereotypical autistic traits because I have ADHD. But you're right, we are on a different framework. I feel an instant kinship with other autistic people now, almost a radar for them. Once you know what it is you're looking at it gets easier to recognize. If I met someone like Darcy I would probably clock him as being on the spectrum because he's so serious all of the time (another autistic trait)
Oh speaking of proposals that come off as incredibly autistic - I keep thinking of Mr. Collins'. XD
I think this is just a wonderful project, I hope you Will do this with all Jane Austin's work...
I Vote for "Emma" next 👍🏻
The dress you're wearing is so lovely. And I think it was so cute when you read in a British accent, I know it's super hard to do well and if you don't think you can nail it to not try, but it's so much fun to see someone enjoying what they do ♥
As an autistic person I really relate to Mr. Darcy. But also he's a big jerk at the beginning of the book. I think he grows over the course of the book, but he doesn't become less autistic.
I don't see why it has to be either "Mr Darcy was a jerk" or "Mr Darcy was misunderstood", why can't it be both?
Maybe Mr. Darcy doesn't want to dance because he's socially awkward by nature, and he uses his prideful and hauty attitude to excuse himself. Both can be true.
Then, once that prideful attitude is challenged, he grows past it, even if he's still awkward.
In my reading of the book, Mr. Darcy is autistic, which means that his flaws present in autistic ways, but his flaws are not his autism.
Para comenzar, difiero totalmente que Darcy tuviera autismo, personas que tienen el espectro autista aunque tienen diferencias en su personalidad sí hay una serie de síntomas característicos y se evalúa en 1ro, 2do y 3er grado según su gravedad y tienen que ver con su comportamiento social, pero también con otras áreas de su neurodesarrollo. Es importante reconocer existen personalidades que no entran en el espectro y sí tienen características de introversión, malestar social en ciertos ambientes y que es completamente normal. Como leo el libro y como veo la interpretación del personaje de Darcy en la película de 2005, en mi imaginación creo que es una combinación de ambas interpretaciones que juegan con varios factores: Educación en un Ambiente familiar, más los convencionalismos sociales con los que crece Darcy, sumado con una personalidad introvertida y poco cómoda en situaciones sociales, sumado con formas de orgullo y pedantería al relacionarse con ciertos sectores de la sociedad (prejuicios). Darcy que al no tener muchas habilidades sociales y a su vez haber crecido en un ambiente que le ha enseñado que él está por encima de otros puede caer en estas actitudes groseras y es cuando lastima a Lizy. Sin embargo tiene la capacidad de observar sus errores y hacer cambios, sus prejuicios se van derrumbando al ver que aún en una sociedad menos afortunada hay personas con aguda inteligencia, buenos modales, belleza y perspicacia. Me encanta que cuando Darcy pierde toda esperanza de tener el amor de Lizy es cuando se interesa en hacer un cambio significativo para él y su crecimiento personal queriendo ser una mejor persona y hace cosas por ella porque simplemente la ama y es lo correcto.
I'm so happy when I watch your videos 😊 That's a wonderful aesthetic experience and a romantic escape from a reality 💖 Thank you Ellie!
Awww!!! I'm so glad you enjoy them!
Another great chapter and another great commentary! Have you ever tried the 1983 version of Mansfield Park? It's a little dated in the acting, but fairly close to the book.
Darcy came as Bingley's wingman, BUT Darcy is hotter and richer - he upstages Bingley just by walking into the room. His goal is to help his friend rent a house and settle in, but if he didn't behave hautily, the entire community might be disappointed to "only" get Bingley.
Darcy has 10 years of experience running a big estate, and Bingley has none, so there's real experience to share, as well as moral support.
Darcy is selective about how much he invests
- a lot in his hometown, dependents, close friends
- minimally in people he can't/shouldn't avoid long-term (Lady Catherine, Miss Bingley)
- as little as possible in people he'll probably never see again (Meryton ball)
I just realised: if the movie is set in the Regency era, I want 'accurate' characters. If it is updated to the modern day, Lizzie Benneti diaries, then adapt away at characters too. I loved that they rescued Lydia and made her so much more sympathetic.
I love this series, Ellie! ❤
More than one thing can be true at once. There's nothing that says Darcy can't be arrogant AND shy (or autistic). I've met some genuinely shy, introverted people who were also complete jerks once you got to know them.
I somehow missed that you were doing these lives--yay! I guess that just means I have some catching up to do!
When I was in high school, I wrote a poem, and it got printed in our literary magazine, which was sold to the students.
Well, one of my classmates came up to me and said, "I read your poem! I really like it!" And then she went on AT LENGTH, telling me what I meant.
"No, I just wrote that I was really confused in math class one day."
"Yeah, but what you MEANT was..."
"Ummmm, OK."
Similarly, whoever it was who wrote about "The path less traveled," and how he was tired, and had to get home, because he had promises to keep, has been told by avid readers, MANY TIMES, what he meant by those lines, only to be told by him, "Nope. I was TIRED, and had a long road to go to get home, and I STILL HAD STUFF TO DO, once I got there." It was all quite literal for him.
As a writer, who has been told that I didn't mean what I meant, and even worse, that I did not KNOW what I meant when I wrote the thing, I can understand the sheer frustration of trying to convince people that I AM NOT THAT DEEP. And yet, at the same time, I was kind of proud that I had written something that SEEMED all deep, and that had, somehow, touched a person's soul.
Art, be it visual, audible, written, filmed, sculpted, or performed, is weird. It's JUST WEIRD. It WILL be interpreted by the consumer, whether we, as creators, want them to interpret it, or not. We may simply want to say, "Look. I was JUST telling you about my DAY, OK?!" but there WILL be somebody, somewhere, who takes it as a metaphor for life.
And that is the beauty of art. Something that seems so simple can touch people in ways that we never expected.
I think it IS important to note that, as you say, Austen "baked" these characters, and created them the way she meant to. But, if we learn the lessons she wanted to teach us, by actually giving grace to characters she judged harshly, I think that is no bad thing. Within reason.
Anyone who says, "Oh, Mr, Willoughby was a true gentleman, after all. Sure, he seduced a fifteen-year-old girl, impregnated her, and left her alone, but that's NO BIG DEAL because..." I will fight them. You want to give him grace? OK. Give him grace. But DO NOT say that he was a gentleman, after all.
THERE ARE LIMITS.
Speaking of giving grace to Mr. Collins, have you seen "The Lizzy Bennet Diaries"? It's a CZcams series adaptation of Pride and Prejudice that took a couple of years I think, to complete, with weekly posts. I do believe it actually got an Emmy. Anyway, if you have a few days to invest in a bit of marathon viewing, it's quite worth it.
And not only do they give grace to Mr. Collins, and make him out to be a merely mildly annoying, but not so bad guy, what they do for Lydia is PHENOMENAL!!! Oh, my word! It's AMAZING! And highly educational, as well. It teaches about emotional abuse and manipulation and red flags, and just SO MUCH! It might actually be the best part of the whole adaptation, and that is saying something, because it is a BRILLiANT modern adaptation of Pride and Prejudice.
😅 Mr Darcy is an introvert who got taken to a party by their extrovert friend . He does not know anyone there, really has no interest to knowing them , he probably got sorrounded by mothers who got daughters to marry . If you look it from his point of view that party was a torture . Yes he was rude but that is actualy a pozitive point because he was sincere . He didnt fake smile at people and pretend , sweet talk them . Could he been more polite , yes , i think he was just not in the mood 😅.
On you're cake comment. King Arthur flour has a wonderful flourless chocolate cake recipe. I personally leave out the frosting and just dust with powdered sugar (too much chocolate others).
Please talk about Bingley, his character and intelligence. In chapter 4, it says he is by no means, lacking and understanding, but the 2005 movie seems to take a different approach.
I don't think the 2005 movie makes him into an idiot. They were likely presenting him that way to make him more endearing to the audience.
I don't think Darcy is a bad guy, but he's always been a bit too severe for my tastes. And as someone who is a bit shy and bad at conversation, I've never bought that he was just shy or whatever.... like i can't just stop being shy if my crush tells me to.
Rather, I've always seen him as being classist and elite with high walls to climb. Maybe not with his own staff, but with commoners... He does not employ them, nor have they earned his trust.
His feelings for Elizabeth make him uncomfortable because they are exactly the type of undignified family to try to ensnare a rich man. And although he never takes joy in the inferiority of the Bennet family's status, he does hold it against them.
What changed is when he saw how his prejudice wounded Elizabeth's pride. Afterward, he was willing to open his gates (literally at Pemberly) to meet and welcome Elizabeth's family as real people rather than shun them as outsiders and/or low-class schemers like Wickham. Once he does, he empathizes more with their plight (Lydia) and even sees his own part in failing to warn them... instead off marking it off as natural consequences following a bad upbringing, he wants to help.
Mr Darcy does indeed know commoners. He runs an estate that would most definitely employ them..how else would the work get done. And he must have some relationship with them. But it is likely he must maintain the perception that he is indeed the master and they are below him.
@nolan1640 I specifically said commoners outside of the people in his employ.... because yes his housekeeper loves him and yes he is fine with the common people he KNOWS. I was speaking of Darcy's mistrust of people who want his money.
I also think it's human to be a bit jerky at times, that adds to why Darcy is such a great romantic lead - he's not perfect and that's okay. He has many redeeming qualities as well that make up for his initial jerkiness.
Oh heavens yes we need a proper version of Mansfield park !
My hot take on this was that the book starts out saying it is a truth universally accepted that a wealthy single man is in search of a wife so this chapter is saying "Darcy isn't looking for a wife but knows he isn't going to convince anyone of that so he is investing hard in saying he isn't interested in each individual person as a wife. Focusing on shooting down the person who he might actually want to wife."
I' m probably one of your oldest fans, and I enjoy you and your takes on issues. I've read P&P so many times that it is interesting to hear your thoughts and read those of others. Have you read any of her incompleted stories...finished by other authors?
OmG! Yes! Please give us a good Mansfield Park!
And yeah, I agree with an older video of yours; Edmund is the worst 😂 But Fanny loves him and I love Fanny.
Interesting comparison: is Darcy more curt/rude to the people of Meryton than he is to Miss Bingley?
And she won't leave him alone. Why would he want to invite MORE fawning flirtation? And the people of Merriton are very ready to flatter and flirt with him.
1995 P&P: Mr. Darcy is haughty, and undergoes a redemption arc, becoming less haughty and more welcoming. Meanwhile, his sister, Miss Darcy, is really shy, and thanks to her past, somewhat afraid of the world, and finds it difficult to trust newcomers (except she trusts Elizabeth from the start, because of the way Mr. Darcy spoke about her, and that trust is rewarded).
2005 P&): Mr. Darcy is shy and scared of people, and needs help coming out of his turtle shell. Meanwhile, his sister, Miss Darcy, is, despite her past with Mr. Wickham, open and trusting and willing to love anyone who happens to come into her path.
I prefer 1995, not only because it is closer to the books, as written, but because I love a good redemption arc, AND I think it makes more sense for a young woman who has been wildly put-upon to be, in fact, a bit gun-shy and scared of the world, and new people. She has been HURT! Devastated, even. In 2005, it would appear she hasn't been affected by Wickham, at all! I don't like that. Probably because when I was young, I was hurt, and it made me unable to bear to be even touched by people I did not already know and love. I relate to 1995 Georgiana SO MUCH MORE.
Although, as a film, and not as an adaptation (that is to say, if the people creating the movie were just making a movie, and not adapting a novel), I just love Georgiana. She's just SO COMPLETELY LOVABLE. Which makes me really just want to slap Wickham's face clean off his head for even trying to hurt her, even though it is clear that she got all the help she needed, so that it did not distress her for very long.
It's sort of like watching Bridgerton, and telling myself, "This is a WAAAAAAAY OFF alternate universe, and there is NO actual history here, except for the names of the king and queen, and the fact that the king is, in fact, mad." I can enjoy the series, that way, if I keep reminding myself of that.
But in actuality, Georgiana would have been spiritually and emotionally injured, as well as socially terrified. If her secret EVER got out, she'd be ruined. And she knows it.
The part where she plays the pianoforte, with Ellizabeth turning the pages for her, in the 1995 version, is SO TELLING. I love it SO MUCH. And the only three people who actually know just how much it means are not saying anything to anyone about it. But in that moment, Georgiana would have told Darcy to marry Elizabeth, NO MATTER WHAT HE HAD TO DO TO GET HER. Maybe she DID. Maybe, off-screen, before Darcy went off to find Lydia and Wickham, he had a little chat with Georgiana about it, and explained that another young lady was in that man's clutches, and it was, in fact, Elizabeth's younger sister, and Elizabeth faced ruin, and Georgiana snapped at him, "Don't just stand there! SAVE THEM! SAVE THEM ALL! You cannot let Elizabeth be ruined on HIS account!" "But, she doesn't love me. She'll never marry me." "What does that matter?" "You're right."
Yeah, it's not specified in the books, but in my head-cannon, Georgianna knows about what Darcy planned to do, because she TOLD HIM to do it. He was still feeling the last vestiges of pride, but HER love for Elizabeth was enough to push him right over the edge into actually HELPING THE MAN HE HATES MOST, and making it so that he would be RELATED to the guy, if Elizabeth ever said yes. I mean, that is HARD for any man to swallow, even if he is in love. But if the little sister he loves and adores tells him, "Not only is it OK, but it's THE ONLY THING TO DO, Brother!"
I never really thought of it, before, but in "The Lizzie Bennet Diaries," they show Georgiana telling Darcy that he has to step up. "It's partly our fault, because we didn't expose him, when we had the chance. We hid the truth from the world, to protect our own feelings, and that allowed him to be free to prey on others."
So, yeah, head-cannon.
Although, in Liziie Bennet Diaries, they do make Darcy more of "an awkward turtle" than a pride man who needs redemption. But, there is definitely a small redemption arc for him, as well.
Speaking of Bridgerton, I was DELIGHTED when they began the "Queen Charlotte" spin-off series by pointing out that this was NOT history, but the story of Queen Charlotte IN THE BRIDGERTON UNIVERSE.
I just about fell off my chair laughing when she chided her daughters for not getting married.
In the real world, Queen Charlotte and King George FLATLY FORBID their daughters from marrying. They had to wait for the king to die, so they could beg their brother to give them permission. And, of course, getting married in your 40's, at that time, meant almost zero chance of producing a living child, so it was no surprise that they did not produce any living children.
It made for a good story, of course. But, good grief, was it so far from the truth!
But, because they OWNED that, right from the beginning, saying "This is NOTHING like real history. Just enjoy it for the FLUFF it is," it was quite enjoyable fluff.
Meanwhile, at just about the same time, Netflix also put out the "documentary," which was actually labeled as a "documentary" about Cleopatra, that was filled with inaccuracies and downright lies.
"My grandmother told me" only counts as a worthy source if your grandmother was THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED. If your grandmother was there when it happened, then it is called "a primary source" who just happens to be your grandmother. But nobody's grandmother was alive when Cleopatra VII was around. Contemporary artists, however, painted her as what she was: Macedonian Greek, and a very inbred one, at that.
To say that she was descended from Ptolemy, but she was surely black, because SURELY the family would have intermarried with the native Egyptians so much by the time of her birth, that she would look just like them, is to COMPLETELY disregard her WELL-KNOWN FAMILY TREE.
I mean, they had siblings marrying each other, and uncles marrying their neices, and it wasn't so much a family tree as it was a family branch. Just the one branch. Not even a whole, entire SHRUB. Just ONE BRANCH.
The inbreeding was astonishing. It's really a miracle they lasted as long as they did. And don't forget, King Tut not only died at a young age, but was completely incapable of siring any children, due to his inbreeding.
We have more modern versions of inbreeding, in the royal families of Europe, but they did not take it to the incestual extremes of uncles and nieces and brothers and sisters that the Ptolemaic dynasty did.
So, no, Cleopatra VII was NOT black, with black parents, who were black because their ancestors had intermarried with the native black Egyptians. They were very, VERY Greek.
If an entire country bans your "documentary" for being too false, you've got to look at yourself and think, "Hmmmmmm, maybe I'm a dirty rotten liar? Should I do something about that?"
I will watch, and rewatch, Bridgerton and Queen Charlotte, enjoying the fluff it is. But I will NEVER watch that travesty of a "documentary."
All that to say, if you read Pride and Prejudice and put a modern interpretation on it, that's fine. I'm OK with that. Just as long as you don't claim that this is THE TRUTH and THE ONLY WAY TO INTERPRET a book that was written in and for an entirely different culture, with different mores and views and understandings.
I prefer 1995, but I accept 2005, and I will happily support anyone who prefers 2005 over 1995.
However, I do have a tendency to throw a slight hissy fit, whenever I watch 2005, and see that ending, where they are sitting in their underwear on the balcony. As if Mr. Darcy would ever let his servants look out their window and see HIS WIFE IN HER CHEMISE. Her lady's maid would see her that way, but the butler?! Oh, Heavens, NO! He'd NEVER allow that to happen. Even 1995 Mr. Darcy of the wet shirt would never let MRS. Darcy be observed in her deshabille.
But, other than that, I can look at it, cheerfully, as cinematic beauty, and a very relatable awkward turtle interpretation of a beloved novel.
The story, itself, is timeless, because the characters ARE so relatable, across time and culture.
I'm definitely Team Anti-Emma. She gets on my last nerve, and so I find it so weird when people talk about how much they love her as a character LOL
I'm also very much 1995 Pride and Prejudice is MY P&P. I don't like the changes in the 2005 version.
But this was a delightful deep dive into the chapter! Thank you :)
If we look at the timeline, the party arrives in Netherfield in ? Mid/ late summer. Wasn’t that just after the business with Wickham and Georgiana? Could Darcy still be brooding from that?
What you are telling here is probably the biggest difference between Jane Austen books and modern regence historical romance. I know you don't talk about that but this could be an interesting topic for the channel (Evie Dunmore books are quite good if you want to avoir Bridgertons)
i think he's a jerk by behavior but not deeper character, and he decides to stop acting like a jerk because he loves elizabeth so much--but he can only make that change because he is inherently a good guy. he has a good character, but he grew up spoiled, and he behaves spoiled until he meets elizabeth. his love is so overpowering that it compels him to change for the better. but if he were inherently a jerk, he'd never be able to change for the better--he'd respond to elizabeth with a great big "heck with you."
Viewing these novels through a modern lens is a mistake.
This is why certain factions want to ban Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Little Women, & the recent scholastic recommendation removal of the Little House books.
Yes, by today’s “standards” some may be wrong in their view BUT we must read these from a prospective of the time period, history. And learn the lessons from there.
Love how you chat after
I read someone somewhere who said the Georgian idea was that person is flawed and practices their religion to improve themselves. The Victorian idea was to develop perfectly. They said Jane Austen was presenting the Georgian idea. I prefer that idea to the idea of perfection now. As a younger person I was looking for a hero, as the song said.
I would love a "good" version of Manisfield Park. ❤
❤❤❤ Love this!!!
"A shy little cinnamon roll" 😭
I think the point of the book is that he is not a jerk, but he acts like one, because in a way he feels as if he must, (because he's shy? because he feels like everyone is out to honeytrap him or his sister for their money? Because he's got culture and sophistication and his first impression of these people is that they are rubes and hicks?) we are not sure.
He has to learn to not do that, or he misses his chance at happiness.
He thinks it is just lust, and makes that awful proposal. Lizzie refuses him and proves she has a personality, later he realizes that she sticks up for her sister Jane just as he defends his own sister, she's got some steel he admires, he comes to realize his friend Bingley should be happy even if it is not on his terms, meanwhile *Lizzy realizes he has some culture and class and a really sweet sister and she could get along long term with a man like that - arranged marriage culture was in the recent past of these people and their goal was finding congeniality- married friendship, more avoiding a cruel or insane person chosen by your parents and their is absolutely no soul mate search in the modern sense.*
(Also he is not ridiculous. She could have had the Reverend Collins if she could put up with that, not to mention being badgered constantly by the know it all neighbor and noble sponsor.)
SO he tries to fix the honor of her family by tracking Lydia and forcing the marriage to Wickham, impressing Elizabeth, and she stands up to his horrible Auntie, impressing him.
The question is, "is he a jerk, or is he described as perceived?" as a way to introduce the pride and the prejudice. This makes the 2005 interpretation very reasonable, but it is not how I read it first in the 7th grade.
I’m going to give a huge shoutout Conrad Ricamora in ‘Fire Island’
I 💗💗💗 these!!!!
Clearly, Jane Austen wanted to portray Mr. Darcy as the haughty rich guy. That is what she wanted us to see. The same goes for the other characters in the book. She is telling a very specific story and she needs the characters to have the flaws and motivations that they do.
But there is also merit in modern folks interpreting their own version of the characters. It helps us identify with someone we may not have. And you aren't exactly going to see any representations of autistic or other minority groups in Regency books. I think it's the fact that people can interpret the characters in different ways that has made the story so popular and persistent. I also think this is why you get so many adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, from movies to books to fanfiction to fanfiction books!
It really is one of the most re-readable stories I've ever read. So hopefully we can have Jane Austin's original message come through as well as other interpretations that let us use our imaginations!
I often hear people read the famous line as "not handsome enough to tempt ME", while I hear it in my head as "not handsome enough to TEMPT me", which is about 10% less arrogant :) What do you think?