Background, Resources, and Other Related Comments

[Kerstin]

I imagine most of us participating in this discussion know the story of Pride and Prejudice, either from reading the book and/or seen the TV and film productions. I am curious though, is anyone participating not familiar with it?

I haven’t read the novel in easily ten years, even though I’ve watched the movie multiple times. It will be fun to rediscover in Jane Austen’s own words why Pride and Prejudice has become her most beloved novel.

Jane Austen was born in 1775 and died in 1817. She never married. Her father, George Austen, came from a long line of wool merchants and served as and Anglican rector. Their line of the family, however, was not first to inherit the fortune and had been impoverished over the generations.

Jane Austen’s novels on the whole are delightful, funny, and ultimately emotionally satisfying. Austen lived in a time where society was very much stratified, and her novels predominately remain within the world of the landed gentry she knew best. She doesn’t delve deeply into the social ills of her time, these are not her focus. Yet, if one pays attention, they are not completely glossed over either. She is a keen observer of people and how they interact within their given sphere.

Pride and Prejudice is Austen’s 2nd novel, Sense and Sensibility being her first, and was published in 1813. Within the historical context, Napoleon is rapidly putting Europe into his back pocket, and it won’t be until 1815 and the battle of Waterloo, Belgium, that he is dealt with. In England we are in the Regency period which started around 1811 when King George III (1738 – 1820) succumbs to mental illness and his son, Prince George (1762 – 1830) rules as prince regent, or proxy, until the death of his father in 1820. He is then crowned King George IV.


Despite the tumult of world politics, culturally speaking the Regency period was an era of great refinement of the arts and architecture, of fashion and literature. It is an interesting contrast, the expectation and upholding of high cultural refinement in the midst of the existential threat Napoleon posed.

As a literary period, we are in the time of Romanticism, which went roughly from the 1770s to the 1850s. It was a preceded by the Enlightenment and the Neoclassical period. The Romantics emphasized experience from an emotional perspective, much in contrast to the Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason. Jane Austen poked much fun in Northanger Abbey, on a product of Romanticism, the Gothic novel.

[Aiden]

For anyone who needs the ebook.

Project Gutenberg (HTML, EPUB, MOBI): Pride and Prejudice

[Jen]

I seem to re-read all of Austen every 5 years or so. P&P is my second favourite after Northanger Abbey.

[David]

Fearless moderator confession: I am completely unfamiliar with P&P and have no experience reading, watching, or listening to it.

Speaking of listening to it, I am finding my reading time this summer is severely restricted. I would like to try and keep up and was wondering if anyone has experience with any of the audio books on audible.com and could recommend an edition with a good narrator? Otherwise, I might choose the one with the longest running time in the hope they will narrate slowly enough for me to get it the first time through. :)

[Tamara]

David, I found this on youtube. I listened to a few minutes of it. The narrator has a crisp British accent. So you might give this a try.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVHu5...

[Ian]

The Oxford World's Classics used to have available a not-very-expensive (I think) Kindle edition of "Pride and Prejudice," edited by James Kinsley, solidly based on the original 1813 edition, with volume breaks indicated, and with an introduction and notes by Fiona Stafford. (Which I was fortunate to get on sale, and I don't remember the original price.) Jane Austen's England sometimes needs explaining for moderns, so notes can be of major help, even for those who know the book well, and I found Stafford's notes very useful. But I checked with Amazon before recommending it here, and found that it has been dropped by the publisher.

Oxford World's Classics now offers a new edition (not in Kindle, but currently $5.95 in paperback). It is still the text as edited by Kinsley, but with a new introduction and notes by Christina Lupton -- see https://www.amazon.com/Pride-Prejudic...
(The other formats on the Amazon page, including Kindle, are for different editions entirely.)

I decided to splurge a bit, and I propose to compare the notes over the next few days (once it arrives), and see if the new edition makes a favorable impression. I'll try to remember to post here, in case anyone is looking for more than a bare-bones text, for the reason indicated above.

[[deleted user]]

I'm in the process of reading all of Austen's works in another group and highly recommend an annotated edition. Also will look through my notes from that group on good background reads re: P & P.

[Ian]

I am not familiar with the current Norton Critical Edition of Pride and Prejudice (Fourth Edition), but these are usually well-edited, with clarifying notes and interesting selected critical articles. I assume that the annotations to this form of the text are similar to those in what I suspect was the first edition, which years ago I consulted in a library (it was on reserve for a class, so I couldn't just read it.) If so, they should be quite good.

There is a whole LOT of secondary literature on Jane Austen, some of which is both good and aimed at a popular readership. But I'm hesitant to suggest any of them, as, besides being spoiler-ridden, are kind of expensive. But three of my favorites have Kindle editions, and may be available for download from libraries.

Two were published in 2012:

The Real Jane Austen: A Life in Small Things, by Paula Byrne, pretty much requires that you already know the novels, and some of her biography. It is focused on surviving objects, and what they reveal about her physical and social environment.

What Matters in Jane Austen?: Twenty Crucial Puzzles Solved, by John Mullan (also spelled Mullen in some listings) brings clarity to a lot of potentially confusing issues in the novels. These include implications we may miss, but would have been obvious in the early nineteenth century. And some things might have eluded even alert readers, as they form patterns over the course of the novels. This one is definitely for those who know the books fairly well -- unless you enjoy some fairly baffling discussions, or really want spoilers.

The oldest, from 1995, is Jane Austen and Food, by Maggie Lane, which was reissued in 2013. It connects a lot of dots, including showing what it took, physically, to feed a household in England c. 1800. Plus explanations for the names of the foods and prepared dishes that are mentioned, for which Austen could rely on common knowledge among her readers.

[Ian]

A quick report on the 2019 Oxford World's Classics edition, which I now have in hand, and can compare to its predecessor.

As previously observed, it still uses James Kingsley's edition of the text, originally prepared for the Oxford English Novels series: it also still includes the Textual Notes (a few pages of limited general interest, but valuable for those who care how the text they are reading reached us).

The two useful appendices, by Vivien Jones, "Rank and Social Status" and "Dancing," are carried over without (evident) change. Her Select Bibliography has been updated (I think), and I have spotted at least one small omission in the "Chronology" (setting Jane Austen's life in parallel with public events) -- there may be others.

The Explanatory Notes (which are signaled by asterisks in the text) are based on those by Fiona Strafford, but with some condensations and some new material: there are also bibliographic updates in the references. They are still full of useful information, and some of the additions are welcome explanations of puzzling passages (avoiding examples / spoilers here).

My only objection to these notes is common to print editions of the whole OWC series: unlike the main text, they are in a (smaller) type which, at my age, I find a bit of a strain to read. (I much preferred the adjustable Kindle edition on this point.)

[Lee]

I waited a long time to read Jane Austen as I was convinced that it just wasn't going to be my cup of tea. So two years ago I read Pride and Prejudice as my first Austen, then read the rest in publication order. I thought P&P was okay but yeah, I did have some trouble with the whole milieu, however I enjoyed Austen more as I went along so I'm curious if returning to P&P now, and with the benefit of a group reading here, will raise its spot in my personal ranking of Austen (Mansfield Park and then Emma for me after one time through them).

I own a reading copy though my library owns the prior third edition of the Norton Critical Edition so I'm requesting that.

This will be my first time active in this group; couldn't resist when I saw Jane Austen was coming up.

[Kerstin]

Lee wrote: "I waited a long time to read Jane Austen as I was convinced that it just wasn't going to be my cup of tea. So two years ago I read Pride and Prejudice as my first Austen, then read the rest in publ..."

Glad you are joining us Lee!
Getting into the cultural setting of the Regency period, let alone the older English spoken at the time, can be a challenge. With my first one, which was Emma if I remember correctly, it took me months to gnaw myself through the book. I had the added challenge of German being my native language, so it took perseverance!

[Ian]

Kerstin wrote: "I had the added challenge of German being my native language, so it took perseverance! ..."

I admire your endurance.

But Jane Austen often seems delightfully clear to native speakers of modern English-- with the exception of some period-specific terms.

This can be misleading.

Among other hidden obstacles, she was the conscious inheritor of a moral vocabulary from the eighteenth century, full of words whose exact meanings have shifted during two centuries. ("Conscious" itself is one of those tricky words.)

We may miss the strength of her approval -- or disapproval, conveyed in a single word or phrase. Stuart M. Tave got a good book out of this: Some Words of Jane Austen (1971).

C.S. Lewis did the same, in much smaller form, in 1954, with "A Note On Jane Austen," which is now chapter 13 in his Selected Literary Essays, although one has to take his arguments on trust. There is no room for illustrative quotations at length from, say, Samuel Johnson.

[Anne-Hélène]

Hi everyone,

I've just joined Goodreads and your group, so I'm not 100% sure of the rules, but it says resources in the title, so I think (hope) I'm in the right place...

I've been a Jane Austen fan for the longest time, and I've own two copies of P&P. One has been stolen by my sister (ok, I may have given it to her), and the other one is a huge volume of her complete work that is now falling in pieces. I'm looking for a new copy to buy, just of P&P (easier to read !).

I'd like it to be a good version of the text, no preface or commentary necessary, and, if possible, a sturdy hardcover, as I tend to read in public transportation. Aesthetics would be a plus.

Do you have any version to recommend ? Thank you !

(English is not my native langage; I'd be grateful for the opportunity to improve it, so please point out my mistakes !)

[Christopher]

The Oxford Illustrated Jane Austen: 6-Volume Set

[Ian]

The Modern Library has a TV-tie-in separate edition (there is also an omnibus of the early works containing it) which is probably well-bound. Amazon has only one copy in stock at each of the two pages for the book (one at a lower price), so I've put this up immediately.

https://www.amazon.com/Pride-Prejudic...

and

https://www.amazon.com/Pride-Prejudic...

The Look Inside feature doesn't seem to be working, so I can't even guess at the type-size and other features that might be problematic.

[Tamara]

Anne-Hélène wrote: "Hi everyone,

I've just joined Goodreads and your group, so I'm not 100% sure of the rules, but it says resources in the title, so I think (hope) I'm in the right place...

I've been a Jane Austen ..."

I'm glad you found us, Anne-Hélène. We started the discussion of Chapts. 1-12 today. Feel free to jump in any time.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[Ian]

Although the subject of carriages came up, this bibliographic note seems to fit better here, rather than in the main discussion.

For anyone who is *really* interested interested in horse-drawn vehicles in Jane Austen's England, which appear frequently with implications that completely miss the modern reader, the standard reference is the two-volume work by William Felton, "A treatise on carriages : comprehending coaches, chariots, phaetons, curricles, whiskies, &c. : together with their proper harness, in which the fair prices of every article are accurately stated"

Felton describes himself as a "Coachmaker," suggesting that he knew what he was talking about. This seems to be true: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...

Archive.org has copies of the 1796 second edition, but not of the third edition of 1805, which is the one apparently used in serious Austen scholarship.
https://archive.org/details/treatiseo...

https://archive.org/details/treatiseo...

[Lily]

A review of Jane Austen's Persuasion that showed up when I signed unto Goodreads today. Others of you may also find it interesting to relate to our current read of P&P.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Lily]

Ian wrote: "For anyone who is *really* interested interested in horse-drawn vehicles in Jane Austen's England, which appear frequently with implications that completely miss the modern reader, ..."

At least at this point in my (reading) life, I'll undoubtedly bypass William Fenton. But I am using The Annotated Pride and Prejudice for my read of P&P this time. I do enjoy the tidbits and the drawings David Shapard includes, although sometimes I despair and return to the text itself. (As our founder, Eman, so often counseled us to do, expressing his (St. John's College instilled?) faith in readers to find their own "truths" in these read and read again texts.) Fleeting thought: Shapard might well have drawn on Fenton for his work?

PS -- I just had the fun of reading several of the one star reviews that are tagged with this book. As far as I can tell, in usual Goodreads fashion, they apply to P&P itself, rather than this particular edition.

PSS -- decided to contrast one star reviews of P&P with one star reviews of Demons. No conclusions or over arching comments to offer, just an interesting use of about 20-40 minutes of my time, thinking about literature and the responses of (disappointed?) readers.

[Ian]

Lily wrote: "PS -- I just had the fun of reading several of the one star reviews that are tagged with this book. As far as I can tell, in usual Goodreads fashion, they apply to P&P itself, rather than this particular edition...."

Amazon is even more problematic: its software periodically sweeps up reviews of different editions, and lumps them together on one page. And they are actively trying to sell books, using the review system to guide customers!

The reviewers usually don't think to specify the edition. I do, when I, now rarely, review there -- I caught on to the problem a long time ago. Of course some people missed the opening statement, but you can't please everyone.

Way back when Amazon had discussion boards and forums, there was some speculation that a lot of one-star reviews of classics probably represented students protesting required readings.

For one thing, if you looked at the posting dates, they sometimes appeared in clusters.

Probably the same people would go through and give an 'unhelpful' vote to any favorable review, although this was harder to date.

Amazon rules limited the number of votes from any one individual, but weren't set up to deal with classrooms-worth of annoyed kids with computer access.

They finally did away with that "unhelpful" option: and more recently they've dropped all comments on reviews, some of which were interesting, and even valuable, discussions. (And which gave me evidence that some people just weren't taking in my opening paragraphs of basic bibliography.)

[Lily]

Ian wrote: "And which gave me evidence that some people just weren't taking in my opening paragraphs of basic bibliography..."

Ian -- I'm probably just obtuse, but don't understand -- what you are saying about your role? about ....?

[Ian]

What I was saying that my Amazon reviews (and Goodreads, if I did more) often begin with something like:

"In case you find this mixed with reviews of different editions, as frequently on Amazon, I am reviewing the translation of 'Beowulf' by NAME OF TRANSLATOR, published in YEAR by SUCH-AND-SUCH PUBLISHER."

Or "...the Kindle edition of TITLE & AUTHOR released on Amazon by NAME OF PUBLISHER on (date as given by Amazon in summary of book).

I still used to get complaints that I was "reviewing the wrong book," or assertions that "this is a hardcover, not a Kindle book," demonstrating, to my mind, that some people don't take in the first paragraph when they read/skim reviews. Or, to be generous, just forget it after reading several reviews.

My reviews of medieval literature in particular tend to be bibliographically dense, since I like to compare other editions and translations in one place, instead of asking the reader to find my other reviews of them.

One person complained bitterly about all that information, claiming that it would cause people to hate the book. (I don't pretend to understand the logic).

The same review -- or reviews, since I modified them to suit to the other editions and translations -- got thanks from others for providing all the information in one place, so that they could have an informed idea about their buying or reading options. And a nice number of "helpful" votes from those who didn't bother to comment.

[Borum]

Ian wrote: "What I was saying that my Amazon reviews (and Goodreads, if I did more) often begin with something like:

"In case you find this mixed with reviews of different editions, as frequently on Amazon, I..."

Ah! After reading the wrong reviews on different editions and translations and returning those books so many times, I really appreciate those reviews that specify the edition.

[Emil]

Lily wrote: "
Thx, Emil! Delightful! [ And the P&P discussion could benefit from your abilities at comparisons and insights?!? I know any analogy is awkward, but between Demons and P&P, I feel as if there is a span of societal understanding almost as wide as that between Old English (? -- didn't check accuracy of the term I use here) and Heaney/Gordon/Pearson.
"

I took the liberty of moving your comment here, so we won't spam the "Third read" thread with P&P-related discussions.

I was also thinking about the contrast between P&P and Demons. The depicted societies are definitely different, but the gap may be widened by the authors and their character sampling methods. Most P&P characters are likable, almost whitewashed. On the other side, Dostojewski is blackwashing everything and everyone in Demons.
If we compare P&P with Anna Karenina we may find the gap a bit narrower, don't you think?

How about this: One day, Elizabeth from P&P wakes up in Demons as Lizaveta. In the same time, Lizaveta wakes up as Elizabeth in P&P.

[[deleted user]]

Emil wrote: "Lily wrote: "
Thx, Emil! Delightful! [ And the P&P discussion could benefit from your abilities at comparisons and insights?!? I know any analogy is awkward, but between Demons and P&P, I feel as i..."

Hah! I love this thread. I'm rereading Emma right now....a less sympathetic main character than in P & P. But nothing like Demons, which I am close to finishing, finally.

[Lily]

Emil wrote: "If we compare P&P with Anna Karenina we may find the gap a bit narrower, don't you think?..."

Perhaps, but not so much like gaps that seem to threaten to deeply challenge the USA today?

I've been away from posting for a few days, but sort-a pondering comparisons of Austen with Tolstoy versus with Dostoevsky. I don't know if I am comfortable where my meanderings have gone, but somehow, especially in something like War and Peace, Tolstoy gives us a Russia analogous to a history of say the Bush, the Kennedy, the .... families in the U.S. -- a world with the mundane twists and turns of upper middle class families with a dowse of power brokers. Dostoevsky attempts to take us deep inside the psyches of those not satisfied with society as it is and deliberately, or not so deliberately, find themselves playing out the consequences of what I shall label "extreme" views vis a vis the status quo. Austen, like both of them, seems to try to elucidate that those stresses and turns of "big life"/"dramatic life" oft find their origins in the petty prosaic demands of the everyday.

Don't know if I have said much: more ruminating in circles. Yet, I continue to see the divergences and overlaps....