Jane Austen discussion

Please discuss this portion of the novel here.

I don't know if anybody else is ready, but I have some thoughts on this section. In fact, before this section began I was enjoying the book well enough, but I think here the author has lost me.

I can't get behind Lizzy sleeping with Mr Darcy while they are still 'enemies'. If Lizzy dislikes him and thinks he finds her horrible, it makes no sense for her to offer sex to him. Even if she does find him physically attractive. From a plot point of view it also killed all romantic and sexual tension between the MCs and, quite honestly, bummed me out. Pride and Prejudice is so romantic, and this story just isn't.

It also makes Lizzy's outburst at Darcy's confession of being in love with her nonsensical. She can't be surprised/horrified to find that there's feeling between them, surely, if she herself has experienced some warming towards him, and if he continuously agrees to bed her. In the original, the only reason Elizabeth is so furious with Darcy is because moments earlier she has irrefutable proof that Darcy was at fault for her sister's unhappiness, and then she upsets herself almost deliberately by going through Jane's letters. It is at that moment, when she is already in a vulnerable, highly emotional state, that Darcy comes in with his less than gallant offer, and that is why she reacts so violently. Here is makes no sense that she should do so!

Then there's the truth about Jasper. Again, it makes sense in the original for Elizabeth to have been ignorant of Wickham's true character, because she didn't know him very well. It makes no sense that Elizabeth in the 21st century, a journalist for God's sake!, should know a guy for decades without knowing that he is a fundamentally reprehensible character! So either he isn't really reprehensible, and then the story she was told is a meaningless embarrassing episode of youthful stupidity on his part, or it fundamentally defines his character in which case how could Lizzy not know after so many years!?

Finally, and this is a pet peeve of mine present in many Pride and Prejudice adaptations I have seen: I think many people fundamentally misunderstand Elizabeth and Darcy's interactions in the original book. They seem to think that they are constantly quarrelling, whereas in reality in the original Elizabeth merely civilly disagrees with him, sometimes teases him and that's it. She's never outright rude to him, and neither is he (except for the first statement at the Meryton Assembly which I don't think she was meant to hear). Especially in modern adaptations often this gets twisted into outright verbal warfare between the two, and I think that's just ridiculous. In Eligible in particular (and this may be a cultural thing and I might be misunderstanding American standards of communication) Elizabeth comes across as rude and crass to me. Gone is her subtlety, playfulness and wit. :(

I had many of the same thoughts about the inner logic of this story, Emily!

Obviously, standards of decorum are far different today--but for me part of the charm of the original P and P is that we get to enjoy the subtext. The characters' and Austen's careful use of language (and the wit and irony that go along with that) add to the fun. Not to mention that the restraints on behavior imposed by the society of the time generate real conflict.

I'm still enjoying the story without liking any of the main characters. Lizzy seems to disregard the feelings others, especially those of her family. For the author to replace their original witty banter with quips while enjoying 'hate sex' is odd (but I confess that I've never heard that term before. I'd never heard of a reality show called Bachelor, either). Could the anti-semitism and/or racism be a modern equivalent to the disdain that early 19th-century gentry felt for those in trade?
In the original P&P, I never liked Elizabeth Bennet. I found her to be too impressed with her intellect and her superior judgement. She took Wickham at face value because of his pretty manners, and didn't concern herself with discovering anything else about him. In this version, she does the same, but fools herself for many years. In this version, she'd been given no reason to doubt his character until she met Darcy. Given this, perhaps the modern re-imagining of her character is not too far off. That brings me back to the discussion of re-telling vs. re-imagining, I guess. I'll go for re-imagining to describe this story.

Yes - what is 'hate sex'!? Seriously, in the history of the world, who has ever actually spoken those words?

The initial concept of “hate sex” seemed a bit artificial to me, too, but it does provide an occasion for the two to interact, and I like how the author builds their mutual attraction and mutual understanding gradually through this section (even though Liz’s understanding of Darcy is growing without her being aware that it is). The writing of these scenes has a good deal of nuance to it, and invites the reader to know more than the characters know.

As for Liz disregarding the feelings of her family members, it’s tough with a family that communicates so little and so badly. I think she feels a lot of pressure to break through their denial and help them before it’s too late (and also a little pressure to help them and get the hell back to her own life). She’s taking on a lot of burdens that her parents, especially, refuse to shoulder.

Is anyone liking the character of Ham? He seems to have some of his own family difficulties in his background, but instead of becoming dysfunctional, he has become quite successful, both materially and as a person. I want to learn more about him!

Hate sex is a thing. Similar to frenemies, which I also disagree with, but obviously more physical. I've overheard conversations of regrets related to this from people I know. I would be mad about Sittenfeld introducing that to the story, except I don't like Liz's character in this book. I don't think she's anything like the original. Still trying to read the book as though it's not based on Pride & Prejudice, the same as I did watching Bridget Jones's Diary, and I'm enjoying it more that way.

I like Ham as well, although I'm suspicious of him because of his connection to Lydia.

I don't understand the seeming hatred between the sisters and their harshness with each other. And even though I don't like Liz, I understand her predicament trying to take care of her family and help them out of debt while they blame her for not letting it all come crashing down on their heads. Their complete obliviousness boggles me a bit.

It looks like several of us need a chance to catch up to this section. I will wait until Sunday to post the 3rd section thread of the discussion, so please pace yourself to that if possible. Thank you!

Bravo Emily! Agree with your comments. I have a hard time with the "hate sex". Also - Elizabeth is a journalist. She could just google Jasper's name and find out a ton. As we are all aware, the Internet contains a lot of information on everybody. I also find it a stretch that the younger sisters don't do anything. All the people I know under 30 have a very good grasp on the economy and how that has affected every aspect of their lives.

Just finished this section! I liked Darcy's letter. It seemed as close to the original as possible given the modern situation. Well-written, thorough, etc. I don't, however, understand his confession of love. Austen specifically writes that Elizabeth grows in attraction in Darcy's eyes before the first proposal, but this one has him still seeing her as "not beautiful." You also don't get any depth of feeling from his admission, just statement of facts and a desire to be public. I also don't think Liz has as much reason to hate him in this book, since Sittenfeld makes her sister's break-up equally Chip's and Jane's faults and Jasper's judgment of Darcy not as justified even in the half-true version of his story.

I wish we'd hear more about Georgie Darcy! Maybe she'll have a greater presence in the next section.

I agree with your reading Hannah - I wonder why Darcy's viewpoint is missing from this book. In the original there wasn't much, but there was enough for the reader to know where he was standing in his liking of her. Here not so much. For example, why does he agree to have hate sex with her? If he is in love with her, he'd surely find the suggestion offensive or at least odd. Yet, he seems to have no quibbles with it being hate sex. And hate is a strong word. I'd be really upset if someone told me they hated me, especially if it was someone I liked or fancied, like he seems to do. Yet here, he doesn't even seek clarification, like ask her what she means by it. I don't get it.

Maybe Darcy thought she was being facetious? He seems throughout rather bemused about her, unsure of where he stands and of what she thinks. The fencing over when and where each one runs, for example, could have been interpreted by him as her indicating an interest in him. And she did confide in him, which he might well interpret as trust.

As for not agreeing to have sex with her—this is a guy, right? And a guy who’s working so hard that he basically has no time for a social life, especially now that his best friend has left town. I totally see him going along with it, if only to see what develops.

Abigail wrote: "Maybe Darcy thought she was being facetious? He seems throughout rather bemused about her, unsure of where he stands and of what she thinks."

I think that is probably what the author was going for, you are right, but I still think it doesn't make sense. It kind of goes hand in hand with the short chapter issue mentioned in part 1 of this discussion: nothing is properly developed, and this definitely unusual thing that is happening between two main characters is never adequately explored. While the original Pride and Prejudice leaves you with a pretty thorough understanding of the psychology of both Elizabeth and Darcy, here I am totally confused what the motivations are.

Abigail wrote: "As for not agreeing to have sex with her—this is a guy, right?"

Erh... so what? I mean, he's a guy so he doesn't have standards? He's a guy so of course he must sleep with anything that offers? And that's our hero? Seriously? Hmpf.

Abigail wrote: "And a guy who’s working so hard that he basically has no time for a social life, especially now that his best friend has left town. I totally see him going along with it, if only to see what develops. "

Yes, I get that he is busy and so he'd have casual sex with a friendly attractive female, to spare himself trouble. But that's not what's happening here. She isn't friendly. She's being kind of hostile. And then she offers sex. Which she actually calls 'hate' sex. What self-respecting person, man or woman, agrees to something like that? Honestly, I understand your explanation, but in a real world context, it just seems super weird to me, and could have (should have) been handled better by the author.

Do we have any guys in the discussion group? I'd love to hear a male viewpoint on Sittenfeld's Darcy!

Uuugggghhhh. This is tough going for me. I actually appreciated the spoiler from Emily regarding the hate sex between Elizabeth and Darcy. It was the one place in the book that I appreciated some short chapters and lightly skimmed the words. I found this rather painful going and not a consistent or modernized version with some of the wit and subtlety of P&P. I found myself liking Lydia and her choices far more than Liz in these chapters. This is a sign of a huge problem in the narrative in my opinion. I am guessing others felt the same.

I don't dislike Darcy as much as Liz which is also quite inconsistent at this point in the plot. He seems handsome, self-assured, modest and fairly reasonable. Liz seems like an irrational/bitchy/cold woman with whom I cannot relate. Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect any other author to create such a delightful creature in print as Austen's Lizzy, but Sittenfeld's Liz is a tremendous disappointment to me.

Hannah wrote: "Do we have any guys in the discussion group? I'd love to hear a male viewpoint on Sittenfeld's Darcy!"

Yes it would be good to hear an opinion from that point of view. I can only add a survey with the sample size of 1: my husband. He thinks the notion of hate sex preposterous.

Karen wrote: "Uuugggghhhh. This is tough going for me. I actually appreciated the spoiler from Emily regarding the hate sex between Elizabeth and Darcy. It was the one place in the book that I appreciated some s..."

Yes, I feel the same way!! Sorry about the spoiler, though. For me the section felt weird too. Like there is a moment where Lizzy sits on Darcy, and they're naked, and they discuss children. And I'm like: erh, shouldn't this be something you do with your stable partner after at least a couple of months? Not with your, erh, sex opponent as in this case?

And I ask you: where the hell's the romance? You know that feeling you get after reading Pride and Prejudice an umpteenth time and you still feel *all* the emotions when Darcy proposes and when she blows him off and then afterwards in Pemberley and then when they finally get their act together... and then you smile like an idiot as the novel comes to and end? Here I am developing new wrinkles on my forehead trying to figure out what the hell is happening and why!

You pose an interesting challenge, Emily. In modern culture (or modern fiction), how can you have a heroine who is as devoted to irony as Elizabeth Bennet is and still infuse her and her story with romance? You’ve got my creative juices flowing with that one! Am thinking that the core of the solution lies in making a distinction between irony and cynicism. Perhaps Sittenfeld’s Liz is too far out on the cynical end of the spectrum.

Yes, Abigail, I think you are right. She is too cynical. Original Lizzy had her cynical moments ("There are few people whom I really love, and still fewer of whom I think well. The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human characters, and of the little dependence that can be placed on the appearance of merit or sense") but on the whole she's playful and teasing, and has a happy, lively character. Then again, this Lizzy here is much older, so perhaps cynicism is more forgiveable and understandable in this case. Either way, if you make a character too bitter, it just becomes annoying - that's the effect this Lizzy has on me, unfortunately.

I'm really enjoying all the discussions! Excellent observations and comments!

Well, I did the proverbial couldn't put it down and plowed right through to Chapter 111 and beyond. The story is intriguing and I do want to know what is going to happen but again, I have to say, I'd prefer that it was not being sold as a modern Pride and Prejudice. It just doesn't fit that well. And I'd prefer not to compare it. Sometimes I get the sense that the author is too constrained by the outlines of the original and doesn't let loose with her story and characters. I'm with Hannah on trying to read it as if it's not P&P and it's more enjoyable that way.

Emily has succinctly stated much of what I feel about the book in relation to the original including the romance. I don't think it's very romantic especially with the immediate sex. There's no tension and it doesn't present Liz in a sympathetic way and seems to be an odd choice for the character. I don't hate Liz's character but she's definitely not as smart as the original. I will say, in the character's defense that even in this day and age you can be fooled by a man for years and not even think of googling until it's too late. Thus she shows both pride and prejudice.

I love the smart, thoughtful comments here!

The novel is lifting off the ground in this section and I am glad but I am reading more slowly because of it. I am seeing more of the characters. I liked the story of Jane sacrificing going to the fair when they were children. Getting more into the story of the real problems of the family. It seems the author spent a bit of time showing us how the characters were acting, and now there is acutally more to the story.

I have not made it to the end of this section though, so cant yet comment on the hate sex.

But on other points, I now have more admiration where the author more clearly parallels this and the classic story than I did earlier. Some reactions of the characters still hit me as extreme: Mrs. B still convinced that all of her daughters need to be on the marriage track. I know that social goal still exists for people, but Mrs. B sounds like she is talking in 1810, and makes the character lack credibility for 2013.

Also, since the story has so many modern elements -- the sex, language, crude gestures, etc. -- why has Bingley been criticized by the women because he is "sensitive and confused" by finding out that Jane kept from him the fact that she was trying to have a baby? This whole point of the story line seems to not define itself well. Yes, overall, we are not sure of Bingley's life choices, but I am trying to put myself in his shoes. It is not a small matter for a man to find a girl is already pregnant when he is beginning to fall for her. This story seems to be a mixture of attitudes and voices.

I try to read a novel not in a way that I agree or disagree, but when certain plot points dont define themselves clearly. Similar with the Jasper story (the whole thing, from very beginning). That story created, rather than an expected tension, just an unpleasantness from the start.

I have paused before starting chapter 112 so my observations are purely on this section, and I think you've covered most of my views already.

So correct me if I’m wrong but, Liz pines after a man for years who she knows is a womanizer, jumps into bed with him the minute he calls knowing he’s still not just married but living and sharing a bed with his wife… she then finds out he’s cheating on her too but hangs around hoping to have sex anyway that night, then doesn’t answer his calls letting him assume it’s over between them. She then offers herself to a guy she doesn’t like… I can’t say I have much respect for her and I just can’t see Elizabeth Bennett acting that way… Lydia perhaps but not Lizzy.

I have heard the term hate sex before in tv shows, it seems somewhat immature behaviour for a woman of 38 though.

I don’t find it unbelievable that Darcy would take her up on the offer, he’s obviously interested in her even if he’s being critical about her, he doesn’t appear to share her ‘hate’, or her hostility, in fact all that seems to be in Liz’ head. What I do find difficult to understand is his suddenly deciding he’s in love with her, and announcing it when they’ve spent virtually no time together, just quick conversations in which she says worse things about her family than he did and the odd naked 10 minutes… I read modern romances which are far more believable than this.

I’m really not sure what the author is going for.

Based on a couple of comments I’m not sure you’ve drawn the same conclusion as I have about one of the characters, though you might just not be mentioning it, so I’ll put it in a spoiler. (view spoiler)[Surely Ham is the missing half of Jasper Wick? (hide spoiler)]

Yes, Louise, I think she thinks that Jasper is no longer actually with his wife, except on paper. It still makes her a little pathetic, actually, and with no backbone, which is very unlike Lizzy Bennet. And her offering herself up for sex to a guy she doesn't like and, more importantly, who she thinks doesn't like her, seems like the sort of thing a self-hating person would do, which adds a dark layer onto Lizzy's character, which isn't like her at all. Elizabeth Bennet without self-respect?! Nu-uh!

Wow, I'm glad we're having such an interesting discussion! So many thoughts...

I still can't get over the hate-sex between Liz and Darcy. I've been thinking it over and over and I just can't understand why Liz would suggest such a thing to Darcy, a man she doesn't even like and barely knows. Ok, so she had broken up with Jasper and she must have felt disappointed and hurt. So was the hate-sex some kind of revenge on Jasper? Or a rebound-thing? Neither way it seems a sensible thing to me to do. And the one thing I expect to find in Elizabeth Bennet is her wit and good sense.

I was also disappointed in Darcy taking up the invitation. I suppose I always imagine Jane Austen's heroes to be superior to other men so I would have preferred Darcy to have somehow saved liz's from her own folly.

On the other I did like the way Liz organizes and arranges all things for her parents who seem totally uncapable of doing it themselves. In a way she reminds me of Anne Eliot but I also see Elizabeth Bennet taking up this responsibility. At this point she seems to be the only sensible one in her family.

I didn't really like Chip's behaviour in this section but who knows, we might get some more explanation in the next chapter.

And I hadn't even considered what you say about Ham, Louise Sparrow. Seems like an interesting idea. I already found Ham way too good for Lydia.

I'm sorry if I don't always express myself clearly but English is not my native language and although I have no problem reading it, it's always a little more difficult to find the right words to express exactly what I mean. So thank you for understanding.

I'll pay devil's advocate, here. I don't really see the problem with Lizzy and Darcy getting it on. I mean, this is a 21st century retelling, they aren't going to have the same kinds of interaction as they would have had in the 18th century. Ok, calling it hate-sex, eh, kind of strange, but I actually think it makes sense. How else would they have been involved enough for Darcy to say he's in love, yet they still have a sort of dis-like for each other, even while falling in love at the same time. From a very modern, perhaps liberal perspective, I actually think this actually makes a lot of sense. Does anyone have any alternative ideas that could get them to the point of Darcy confessing his love without them having sex?

Also, I think it's interesting that Wickham appears, at least at this point, to have been split into the two characters of Jasper and Ham. I'm curious to see how that will play out.

I’m not so troubled by the hate-sex thing. The way Sittenfeld wrote the scene, there is a building physical tension between Liz and Darcy: “Her limbs burned, her heart pounded; she was exhausted, possibly nauseated, but also giddy. As they faced each other, there was between them such a profusion of vitality that it was hard to know what to do with it; they kept making eye contact, looking away, and making eye contact again.” I think we’re meant to feel that her heart (or at least her body) is at war with the biases infesting her mind, that she is starting to see Darcy in a different way but can’t admit it, and the crazy hate-sex proposition comes out of that moment when her physical exertions have temporarily quieted her brain.

And then once she’s done it, she rationalizes continuing: “It wasn’t that Liz had changed her mind about Darcy’s essentially disagreeable nature; rather, she had concluded that a romp or two in his bed would neither diminish nor exacerbate his disagreeability, especially if she discussed it with no one, even Jane.” This is, of course, completely illogical! How would discussing her behavior change Darcy’s nature? It wouldn’t, it could only change the way (a) Jane perceives Liz or (b) Liz perceives Darcy (since Jane would try to soften her view of him). The ways in which Liz is determinedly kidding herself are starting to distort both her behavior and her reason. The author is inviting us to know more about Liz than she knows about herself, a time-honored technique.

And Nathalie, I think you express yourself very eloquently! I wish I had one-tenth your skill in a second or third language.

I think we were composing our posts simultaneously, Faith, as I didn’t see yours till after I’d posted. I agree with your take. The sex thing is indeed a real challenge for modern adaptors of P&P, and people come up with some ingenious rationales for it (vide K. C. Kahler’s Boots and Backpacks: Pride & Prejudice on the Appalachian Trail, Roughly, for instance). One way to avoid it is to beef up the misunderstanding aspect, keeping the characters apart as long as possible; most books that do this end with Darcy and Elizabeth starting to date, rather than with a marriage proposal. Bridget Jones's Diary does this, among many others.

I don't know, personally I find it really easy not to have sex with someone I don't like. Why should it be difficult for him to fall in love while she does not, or thinks she does not, without them having sex?

I agree in a modern novel it is unrealistic for there to be no sex, and depite cringing over Jane and Chip jumping each other on the first date I had no problem believing that that is where their relationship would go.

I think my main problem with it though was not that it happened but that the way it was introduced didn't make it believable for me.

Yes, that is how I feel too, Louise. It wasn't done in a believable way. But maybe it's because we're too married to the Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy of the original? I have to confess that I just don't like the idea of them doing it before they are on the same page about everything (figuratively speaking). It just feels wrong, and it feels like those people wouldn't do it, they just wouldn't. The Lizzy and Darcy in Eligible are not them, however. I still don't like it, and I don't like how it happened and hate-sex is an awful concept, which I could wish never to have been introduced to, but I suppose if I divorce myself from the original here, it's not implausible. It's just unpleasant.

Yes but thats the problem isnt it, if they arent Lizzy and Darcy then this isnt P&P.

One of things that makes Austen's work so enduring is the fact we can still relate to her characters, they are what can be transported to any era... what we have is a collection of barely recognisable events that as others have said resemble a checkbox exercise.

Abigail, I realize now that you mention it, I was thinking more "marriage proposal" than "dating." It does make more sense in a modern retelling to have them start dating in the end of the book, rather than marriage. Incidentally, Bridget Jones is one of my favorite re-imagined/re-telling's of P&P, though I haven't read very many. I really would find it difficult to believe if the characters got married after short a time in a modern retelling, especially after most of their story-line has been them in a huge misunderstanding! Of course, I don't know at this point whether Eligible is leading them to a marriage proposal or not yet. :)

Thank you Faith and Abigail for your insights. I think you're both right that it was a choice of the author to get to the point where Darcy expresses his love for Liz. I'll probably care less about it while the story continues. Just like Abigail said, it's an interesting take on the story.

And you've also highlighted some interesting parts, Abigail. I can see Liz justifying the contradiction in her behaviour to herself.

All in all I'm still enjoying this book.

I thought I'd share a link to an article in the Atlantic, which claims that Austen's heroines resemble modern reality show contestants, though I warn you that it may get your blood up. Apologies if someone already shared this.

The article discusses Eligible in some detail:

"The primary thread in Pride and Prejudice—Lizzy’s relationship with Mr. Darcy—feels almost like an afterthought in Eligible. In the foreground is Liz’s far more interesting and antagonistic relationships with her mother and her sisters. Compared with the more industrious Liz (a magazine writer), Kitty and Lydia (both CrossFit fanatics) are aimless and spiteful 20-somethings who live primarily for social media and personal grooming..."

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainm...

I have pondered my way through this part now. The story is interesting in so many ways here. And yes, I am really separating myself away from the traditional story and characters. We just have a much more modern story here and told in such a different way. Thanks for the link S.K. I think I may already share some of the same thoughts as are in this article because I am interested in the entire Bennet family dynamic -- that seems to have propelled the story along better than the other plot points for me.

I feel that we are seeing something else disguised as "hate sex" between L & D. They do not hate each other at all, so the term is kind of fake here. It was an interested choice for the author to make, considering the overall scope of telling an Austen story (be it 2016 or any year for that matter). So it seems like we have two pretty mature, successful adults who can't communicate with each other well. So they propose something as abrupt as sex in order to...what? We don't know yet. Immediately following are some intimate topics -- children, for example. Then a letter of total honesty from Darcy. Maybe he decided that word communication is a good path!

Well said Sarah. It's like they are "acquaintances with benefits" as they aren't exactly friends.

Thank you for posting S.K., that is an interesting article. I really did not appreciate the Reality Show aspect of Eligible, especially by the end, it was just ridiculous. The article did make some sense, however, especially about women living in a culture they where they feel there are no other options but to vie for a man's attention/money (of course that's part of what makes Liz such a strong heroine, because she doesn't give into that). However, part of the charm of Jane Austen is that she makes fun of everyday life, and I just don't feel that anything that happens on reality tv is really "everyday" life. Well, I'll wait to say more until the final portion discussion as I've already finished the book.

Having read a little past this section now, I have had time for the story to settle with me and I can understand where all the positives and negatives everyone has mentioned so far come from. I am liking the story more now that Darcy is getting lots more page time, though I agree that Liz doesn't really feel like Elizabeth Bennet. Solving her family's financial problems--that feels like Lizzy. Being led on by a guy for OVER A DECADE--that does not. So this novel is better thought of as "inspired by" rather than a modern version of P & P.

I did not understand Lizzy doing "hate " sex with Darcy. She was never really out and out rude in fact there was an incident she teases Darcy. In fact I really don't understand every element of the modern society that is stuffed into the story maybe it would be better to say based or influencedon Pride and Prejudice. But it does have a good flow and so I am plowing through it and wondering how she is going to pull it all together.