Jane Austen discussion

Moderator's Note:
Begin discussion here on this section of Eligible. We will be posting subsequent discussion sections each Tuesday and Friday, so please contain discussions of later parts of the book to those threads when we post them. Attempt to avoid spoilers. Even though we have a schedule, this is very informal -- share your thoughts when your time allows. Welcome everyone!

I am heading toward Chapter 12 at this point. Sittenfeld has initiated us very quickly into her modern versions of the characters. Were you surprised that even a match-up reality show plays a part in the backstory here?

I would have been surprised, except it matches with how she's changed the characters. This is sad, but I really don't like them at all. :/ I was really excited about the book, but I don't think this desperate Jane and Liz dating a married guy are true to the original characters. She's made them too old, maybe. The ages in The Lizzie Bennet Diaries were more appropriate. Also, I'm missing the close relationship between Liz and her father. I'm not very far in, just through the Lucas's picnic, which was well-done except for Liz's jealousy of her younger sisters. Really hoping it will get better for me.

Oddly enough, I believe there is another Pride and Prejudice variation that also has Mr. Bingley starring in a Bachelor-type show! It does seem like an odd choice though, because the characters all feel so doubtful about his opting to do it and/or defensive about his having done it. The “I was looking for someone to love” explanation seems inadequate, or at least makes him seem like kind of a socially lame person—not at all the way Bingley appears in the original. On the other hand, I could see Willie Collins doing it, and the producers jumping at the chance to hire him.

I agree that the modern styles of the characters take adjusting to, though one has to really stretch to find a modern setting that allows one to keep the behavior of the characters essentially the same (perhaps that’s why there are so many Amish retellings; maybe there should be some set in Turkey or Qatar). Liz in particular feels excessively hardbitten to me.

But I do like the pacing and flow of the story, the way Sittenfeld gradually opens up our understanding of the family’s mysteries, and some of the zinger lines and echoes of Austen’s language: “Mrs. Bennet, who herself was not a stranger to rotundity . . .”; “the Bennets’ antipathy for one another was of such an intimate variety it was almost like affection.” Like taking a deep whiff of smelling salts!

We do seem to be given all the ills of the characters placed out on display from the beginning! Yes, it will be interesting to see if we do become attached to or like any of the characters (although not always a factor for me liking the novel itself). When beginning an Austen retelling, we do seem to start out with a framework on looking for some characteristics of the original characters. Other thoughts on this?

I interpret the older ages of the characters as providing one of the definite situations that they are dealing with in this new story. In Austen's era, adults of 30 years of age were fast approaching a time when they would not have been marriageable (women, at least). It is all different now -- and our challenges are things like longer and more complicated love/relationship histories and fertility issues (wanting to start families at a later age or without a mate even). I think Sittenfeld is equating modern situations to their emotional/social equivalents of an earlier time.

I do like the zinger lines within the family conversations too, Abigail. And your word "hardbitten" is a good choice.

I agree about the ages of the characters, Sarah - I thought this was actually pretty clever, because if marriage is supposed to be the end game it makes little sense for the characters to be in their early twenties, since nowadays that's a little early to be thinking of marriage. But if you're nearing forty not only is it about time, but especially if you're a woman it can be a very stressful, urgent sort of thing: I have to meet someone, like him, date him, marry him and then have children with him and each of these take time!

But I was taken aback by Lizzie dating a married man. Elizabeth Bennet wouldn't do that. She'd be the snarky friend of some other woman doing that sort of thing.

The person I think is most like in the original, and who I think has been best translated into the modern retelling so far is Darcy. He has that dry wit going on, and he comes across the same way he does in the original.

The characters seem to be an exaggeration of the original work's. The younger girls' vulgarity, Chip's bowing to his sister's whim to put him on a TV show which shows him falling in and out of love, and Lizzy falling for a guy with not much substance and a glib tongue are the first ones I noticed. I found myself on Chapter 44 before I realized it, and am enjoying the story without enjoying the characters.

I did the same as you, Leslie! (Found myself suddenly in chapter 44.) The book does read very fast, for all its size. I like your description of the characters as an exaggeration of the original work’s.

I'm only on chapter five but already I'm disliking the characters. I can't help feeling that Sittenfeld could have remained truer to the originals personalities in a modern setting but the only one who seems at all likely is Mary.

I think the change in age as you've said, was a good move to put them in the same sort of position on marriage for a modern setting, but I'm finding some of her other reasoning forced, possibly intending to be humorous but falling short, like Jane's gay ex and Mr Bennett's broken arm.

As you said though it is readable and I possibly wouldnt be so critical if it was merely an inspired by instead of a re-telling... but then than confers a sort of responsibility doesnt it?

If you're only 5 chapters in Louise - give it more time! I found myself annoyed at first and disliking everybody, but then found that actually there was a reasoning to things, and there was more to it! I won't say more, as it is still early and I'm on chapter 44, but I hope it will improve for you too :)

I'm just about to start chapter 13. This is also my first reading of an arc, so let me know if my expectations are too high. (on GR, the ISBN seems to belong to the hardback edition.)

For example shouldn't it be The Tudor? Is anyone reading a final copy?

I'm finding the story moves along at a nice pace (in spite of the umpteen chapters) So far Darcy & "Chip" seem true to form. (although modernising Dad & the estate is a nice touch) I'm going to withhold judgement on the daughters being made so much older till I'm further in.

I found the mention of Mervetta jarring.

Also, the NZ edition of The Bachelor just went pear shaped. Even people like myself who didn't watch it now have an opinion!

I'm reading a final copy sometimes on break at work. Is Tudor not capitalized or something in the ARC?

Hannah wrote: "I'm reading a final copy sometimes on break at work. Is Tudor not capitalized or something in the ARC?"

It's called the Tudor rather than The Tudor.

I started this book mid-afternoon today and I'm already on Chapter 29. It reads quickly and smoothly. I have not read any of the other "Austen Project" modern retellings. I find the development of the story and the time line of events believable.

Mrs. Bennet is still vapid and a social climber. Mr. Bennet is disappointed with his lot in life and escapes in his study. They are living off old family money which is much diminished. The "estate" is run down. Mary is still the odd duck, and Kitty and Lydia are still out for a good time. Jane is still shy and introverted and Lizzie wants something more as she appears to be the only one of the Bennets with a "real" job. The age change of the Bennet sisters and the past checkered love lives of Jane and Lizzie takes some getting used to. But I think most of us don't think a 20 year old or a 27 year old of today are over the hill as in the time when Austen wrote her novel. I think Bingley as a reality show contestant guided there by a manipulative Caroline is dead on. Darcy is still superior and judgmental and brusk. Willie Collins as a tech nerd millionaire is perfect - he exhibits the same lack of social skills and detachment as beloved Mr. Collins. I agree (so far) it isn't a "retelling" so much as a "re-imagined" story. But I am enjoying it.

I can see why she would choose to make them so much older so they're rushed to marry. I guess my issue with this is that in the original, the girls didn't feel rushed to marry. They were actively looking but still had plenty of time before they were in danger, including Jane. Mrs. Bennet and Charlotte were the only ones overly concerned. But in this one, Sittenfeld has made Jane and Liz anxious about it as well. I don't really like the competitiveness of the sisters with one another either. Anyway, someone suggested reading it for the storyline rather than the characters, and I've found that to be helping me appreciate the book more. I'm about 25 chapters in. Oh, I like Darcy and Bingley, though! Good interpretations without making them feel forced!

Agreed Hannah!

I'm upto Chapter 60. Lots of whitespace on the pages. Probably really only 300 pages.

I'm enjoying but find Jane colourless. Will wait for next thread before commenting further.

Does anyone else find the interactions between the sisters, especially Liz&Jane vs the rest rather more hostile than in the original?

Also, I wanted to ask any Americans out there: is there any relevance to it being set in Cincinnati? Is there anything specific about that place that made Sittenfeld set her P&P modernisation there?

Emily - I read somewhere (Book Page review I think) that the author grew up in there and a similar childhood (attended the same private school, etc). I think she stated somewhere that she chose that setting because it was her hometown and she knew lots about it.

I found the interactions between the sisters to be overly hostile, as well. It doesn't really fit with the original, where some of the sisters were outright ridiculous and made poor choices (Lydia), but were not mean-spirited. I also found Mrs. Bennet's racism and anti-Semitism to be odd choices for the author. Maybe it will connect with something later in the novel, but right now it makes Mrs. Bennet more despicable, while in the original she just had vulgar manners and was overly obsessed with getting her daughters married.

I think her anti-semitism was supposed to be 'funny' since she had some Jewish heritage herself (I don't remember precisely now, as I'm on ch111 but I think the narration mentions it?) - I think it's supposed to mirror her comically self-contradictory statements in the original novel, but it isn't done very successfully, IMO, since Mrs Bennet's dialogue was hilarious in the original novel and here she just comes off as an annoying bigot.

Megan wrote: "Emily - I read somewhere (Book Page review I think) that the author grew up in there and a similar childhood (attended the same private school, etc). I think she stated somewhere that she chose tha..."

Thank you! I confess, I had hoped there was a deeper meaning behind the choice.

Yes, I understand that Cincinnati is her home city. I also I think it fits the plot -- in that the sisters have returned there from life in New York -- Cincinnati -- a large enough city in which we might find Bingleys and Darcys arriving also - because in the modern U.S. it would be hard to replicate the Netherfield situation.

Do you think bringing in Mrs. B's "Jewish" story serves instead to underline her shallowness? Not so much true biogtry, but rather -- in many things in her life -- that she lives by preconceived notions. For example, a certain group of people should look a certain way, dress a certain way -- because that is what really defines them -- when in reality it does not. It rings of immaturity to me -- which is one way that I would certainly describe the original Mrs. B -- childish, pouty, attention-seeking.

I can see that--the shallowness and immaturity. She kind of approaches everything that way. And I could appreciate the part where Liz feels defensive of her mother when her boyfriend is criticizing. I also agree that the sisters are too hostile, and I'm not sure why Liz keeps making comments about how she's jealous of her younger sisters. That's not in the original, and it's certainly not the experience I've had with my three sisters.

I think Cincinnati was appropriate, as well. The setting needed to be big and varied but not Darcy or Caroline's first choice (or Jane or Liz's, for that matter).

I also like that a common thought here is the general evaluation of an Austen-related modern writing. Throughout the years here, I continue to see that we think about what the writer is intending -- should we term it "a retelling", "a re-imagining", "a story based upon"?

As Louise mentioned above, an Austen-connected novel comes with a sort of responsibility. Great point. Megan, does this topic come up often in your connection with JASNA?

What are other views on this? Because a discussion of a book like Eligible seems incomplete with looking more into this point.

SarahC wrote: "I also like that a common thought here is the general evaluation of an Austen-related modern writing. Throughout the years here, I continue to see that we think about what the writer is intending -..."

Oh yes. I find there are usually three viewpoints on retelling/reimagining of Austen's work.

The first are the purists who do not read anything besides the original work and have not watched any of the movies. People I personally know supplement with Georgette Heyer.

The second are middle of the road folks. They watch the movies and will read Austenesque books but tend to be selective.

The third are fans of anything with an Austen connection or flavor.

I am in the middle of the road category. I love the movies (some more than others - hello Colin Firth) and I do enjoy Austenesque books by Abigail Reynolds, Maria Grace, Pamela Aidan, Carrie Bebris, etc. and the one we're reading here.

I do agree there is a responsibility to respect the original work as it is iconic. Imitation is said to be the highest form of flattery. Austen's characters are so engaging and well developed that we want more. That is why Austen's work still speaks to all of us today. One can refer to someone as a "Wickman" or a "Lady Catherine" or a "Mrs. Bennet" and that provides an instant shorthand for what a person is like. Austen's portrayal of people is fairly timeless and can be applied to stories of this time. I think "reimagining" or "story based on" is more accurate. Retelling implies it will be the same and it's not. Retellings to me are like the fairy tales we were told as children - they can be altered a little but the basic facts and bones of the story are not changed.

Well, I almost was ready to stop reading 10 chapters in. I was hating Liz and really struggling. Glad I was not alone. I took heart from what others shared and plowed ahead. Having finished Chapter 44, I liked it a little better and the plot moved fast enough that I was a little more engaged. Still missing Lizzie. I have never been to Cincinnati and am missing the English countryside, too.

Yes, I agree that this book can be termed a re-imagining of the original--but so far it's been an awkward fit for me. I am going to push on and see if the characters start to seem more sympathetic and the language more compelling.

The friendship between Lizzy and Jane was a crucial part of Pride and Prejudice. So I am missing that. As far as the author's responsibility to the material, I suppose that, while the details can change, it is important that the work be true to the spirit of the original. I think I have to read to the end to know if this one is.

I do like the snappiness of the chapters and the satiric touches. On the whole I may not be the best reader for this book, as I am too much in the purist camp (though I do enjoy an excellent Austen adaptation, such as An Obstinate, Headstrong Girl, which I read last year).

I'm just about to start chapter 28, and I'm still finding it easy to read without liking or being deeply interested in the character's fates.

I wouldn't say I'm a purist -- for one thing I dislike the term -- I do watch the adaptations and read some of the variations, but I admit to be being often disappointed.

It's a debate I've had about fanfiction before, if you change the situation you can have fun with the characters in a different setting, if you change the characters so that they are not recognisable it's hard for people to empathise with them, if you change both... is it even still based on the original?

To take on something like Pride and Prejudice is not an easy thing to do, and I’m still hoping to be drawn in based on your comments, but the introduction of the characters is important and I don’t think this has been done very well.

@28, there seem to be a lot of different camps within the Austenesque genre. Most of the people who read them heavily seem to prefer the “variations,” period stories that change one event and see where the characters go from there—a popular variation is that right after Elizabeth rejects Darcy, she is thrown together with him in some unexpected way. Readers of these books also tend to have expectations formed more by contemporary romance than by actual Jane Austen novels—an intense focus on attraction and the “will-he, won’t-he” vagaries of a romance plot. Some of these remain true to the spirit of the original, but to my taste the majority lose sight of the core of Jane Austen’s fiction, her themes of character and personal responsibility, of how a woman can carve out a place in the world without compromise. And as the plot variations get wilder and wilder, it’s hard not to suspect that some of the authors are using the names of Austen’s characters simply as a hook for sales.

Modern adaptations have a smaller following and seem to be often more controversial. And they pose dilemmas for the authors, such as the one being touched on here recently—in an attempt to modernize the Bennet sisters’ squabbling, has the author gone too far into acrimony and vulgarity? Does that actually change the characters, or is it just who the characters would be if they were in twentieth-century America? (Personally, I feel Sittenfeld has changed Jane and Elizabeth a little too much.) It’s complicated to think about how to take a story that is deeply rooted in one set of cultural assumptions and adapt it to a different culture.

The most popular contemporary Austenesques seem to be those that play off Austen fandom without trying to retell an actual story (like Austenland or The Jane Austen Book Club). The modern retellings that are the least popular seem to be the ones that are more homage than re-visioning (though they are the ones I personally like the best, just as I like works of modern literature that are based on ancient myths). The adaptations that interest me the most are the ones that hew closely to Jane Austen’s thematic preoccupations while reproducing some her witty perspective, and in this regard I feel Sittenfeld succeeds pretty well—certainly better than the other novels in this Austen Project series (though Val McDermid’s Northanger Abbey is not too bad).

@31 [blushes] thanks for the high five, S.K.!

I'm probably in the middle - massive JA & Heyer fan, rarely like Austen reimaginings set in Regency times or Regency works, but I like the best of the Austen reimaginings set in current times - Bridget Jones, etc.

I know I said I wasn't going to comment again but I think so far Mary well done.

Abigail wrote: "@28, there seem to be a lot of different camps within the Austenesque genre. Most of the people who read them heavily seem to prefer the “variations,” period stories that change one event and see w..."

Well said Abigail! I am more of the opinion that so long as the story is true to the characters and the general spirit of the novel, I am ok with it. Unfortunately, so far, Eligible doesn't quite get there. I will wait to give an opinion when I am finished but so far it does lack the wit and sparkle of the original.

I agree with post 35 that it has some of the spirit of and am okay with it. It definitely lacks wit and the depth of characterization. I am also starting to believe it has ripped off The Lizzie Bennett Diaries quite a bit. Not as original as the original to say the least.

I have reached chapter 43 so I'll be careful what I comment now until we get the next thread.

I'm definitely getting into the story but the only character I genuinely like is Chip, which is certainly not true of the original.

Are we getting to the point where we can comment on chapters 43–111? I am not entirely clear on the dates for each section.

Friday was the day for the first 42. Tomorrow is the next set, I believe, then Friday and Tuesday again. Please don't comment on this thread with the next set--I'm not there yet!

I just posted the next thread for discussion. Sorry about not getting that up earlier in the day!

I'm a little behind with my reading due to some unexpected things at work. But I already got to chapter 35 so I hope to catch up with you during the weekend.
So far I'm really enjoying the story. I must admit that it's been years ago since I read P&P so perhaps I'm a little less critical about the way the characters are presented. I can't really say I dislike any of them.
Personally I'm glad the story is only a modern interpretation of P&P and that way I can live with the characters all being different than the original. I think Willie Collins is very well done!
And I also like the age change, creates an interesting perspective to the story.

I understand the emphasis that the younger sisters in the story have a different lifestyle and behavior than Liz and Jane. That is part of the classic story, right? I think there is an over-emphasis of that, though, here. Their language, the rude gestures -- continual crassness. I actually think these are distracting features of the story, rather than descriptions that move the reader along. I think the only passage of this type that really said something to me that made me contemplate was when Liz asked Lydia how did she thank people without the stationary to write her thank you's upon -- Lydia replied "thank them for what."

I feel that one line made me really see something about the character -- the shallowness, egocentrism, etc.

Reading this far into the novel, I am not comfortable with the short chapters really. I understand the benefits of that structuring, but also the downside can be the feeling of starts and stops -- I am starting to feel I am digesting sound bites at the end of many of the short chapters -- maybe that is not completely fair -- but some chapters are like snippets. Within the next section, I may get more in a groove with this format though?

SarahC wrote: "Reading this far into the novel, I am not comfortable with the short chapters really. I understand the benefits of that structuring, but also the downside can be the feeling of starts and stops -- I am starting to feel I am digesting sound bites at the end of many of the short chapters -- maybe that is not completely fair -- but some chapters are like snippets. Within the next section, I may get more in a groove with this format though?

I hate the short chapters. Some are a paragraph. So much wasted paper.

This isn't the only book I've seen it in though.

The short chapters are bizarre, and so is, I find, my reaction to them: sometimes, as I am reading the book, I have a rage reaction when I see that the next chapter is four lines long and I want to shout: "woman, you are not done here! This ain't a chapter, love! It barely qualifies as a paragraph!" But at other times, maybe when I realise that it took me an hour to read forty chapters, it gives me a feeling of achievement even though it probably isn't deserved.

I've seen short chapters in other books where it bothered me, but in this, I think it's well-done. It's just a different way of separating an event or line of thought. It could be done with a paragraph or some other separation, but I think Sittenfeld wants it to have a more obvious break.

I also noticed the short chapters. So far it hasn't bothered me because I have mainly been reading on the train and then I get distracted easily so the short chapters actually help me concentrate. But I can understand what you mean with the feeling of starts and stops.

I think, more to pinpoint my issue, that with so many chapter endings, I experience what seems to be an unnatural elevation at each chapter end. To mark each as a chapter end, an author must make some kind of emotion or narrative change. At the end of so many of the chapters are quips and maybe make the novel feel more episodic than it should. This strays quite far from Jane Austen style certainly.

Yes, Emily, like you said (I see what you mean!), it does feel like we have read a lot of pages, however it makes me feel that I have not read much story.

Yes, Sarah, I see your point and I think you are very right. It sometimes feels like the author is just ticking boxes with each chapter (that moment Lizzy has to tell Jane about hating Darcy? Check. That moment Mrs Bennet has to be stupid and obstructive? Check. That moment Lydia is vapid and silly? Check) rather than actually telling a fleshed out story, with real characters whose motivations are more than just being props to imitate characters in another novel.

Hi everyone, I just got my copy of the book today so I'm not going to read comments until I've at least gotten the first section read. I'm really looking forward to it!

I finally got through this section and I am liking but not loving this one so far. I think in general the efforts made by Sittenfeld to approximate the characters and situations of P & P in a modern setting work more often than not. The family's financial predicament is understandable, for example. I also think we'll all probably like it more as Darcy gets more page time--he's appropriately enigmatic at this point. I also love the Cincinnati setting-- that is the closest big city to where I live so I recognize quite a bit.