Talk:Pride and Prejudice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pride and Prejudice article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do: Novels WikiProject Announcements and open tasks (watch • edit • discuss) → Please help with tagging articles! This WikiProject now includes "Novels", "Novellas", "Novelettes" and "Short Stories" of narrative form! Critique (Featured Article): None current - "7 achieved / 2 removed" Review: Erast Fandorin Improve: Nineteen Eighty-Five • Vathek • Enderby Outside • The Runes of the Earth • The Giver • Crown of Shadows • More... Create: Black Cocktail • Blackthorn Winter • London, 1850 • The Fatal Eggs • More... Novel without Infobox (auto list): many novel articles do not have an infobox - and need one (auto generated list) - may need expansion of article too A new policy proposal has been started and this is to be seen at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles, please take a look at these and comment. This is a vital subject and all editors should consider the implications. These are NOT active yet, but could have wide reaching consequences. Please contribute your views. Our Collaboration Department is continuing with one more title Waverley (novel) for the current month. Get collaborating on the article and also look at nominating other titles to be considered. Pages that only exist as redirects: Men at Arms changes

Contents 1 General Discussion 2 Plot 3 Characters 4 Themes 5 Reviews 6 Character Relationships Web 7 The Entail 8 Huuh?

[edit] General Discussion

I think you're right that some of this discussion could use some revision. What it's in particular need of is some sourcing--if we can start going to specific critics or groups of critics for some of these claims, I think it'll all come together more logically. Good luck in revision! --Dvyost 12:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

In what sense can pride and prejudice appeal to a contemporary reader so much that she says that everything happens? How else might P&P be interpreted

A novels architecture exerts such a significant influence on a readers interpretation that the reader's gender and cultural identity is irrelevant

One should question the status of pride and prejudice as a classic, its settings are irrelevant, its major characters are superior and it's moral context outdated

Pride and prejudice deals honestly with the fraught nature of relationships and tha hazards of quick and easy assuming judgment.

I'm not sure it's the place of a NPOV encylopedia to address these questions. Majts 10:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I second this opinion. I have rearranged the sections with hope of beginning productive discussion threads that will aid the article. For now, it's still very rough.

You know what? The book cover image does nothing for me, you know. Austen certainly didn't contract with Penguin Classics; there are other editions not by them; and the article is, after all, about Austen's novel and not about Penguin's printing of it. Anyone want to argue that the graphic does in fact enhance the article (other than as eye candy)? eritain 00:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Small historical detail: the previous version of the page mentioned the Napoleonic war. But, if the action of the book takes place in 1796-1797, we are still in the pre-Napoleonic period. Napoleon came to power only during the fall of 1799. At the time, England is fighting revolutionary France which is waging war against most of Europe since 1792.

[edit] Plot

There's no mention of the later reconciliation between Lady Catherine and Mr. and Mrs. Darcy.

[edit] Characters

Mr. Darcy isn't mentioned under the principal characters?

[edit] Themes

Class

I don't mean to be critical, but why on earth are the Bennets described as middle class in this article? They most certainly are not. The middle class, especially in 18th and 19th century England, was constituted by professional and business people and their families. The Philips and Gardiner familiers are middle class, but the Bennets are firmly gentry. Nor are they on the lowest rungs of the gentry. The daughters are "poor" because of the entail on Mr Bennets estate, which is itself of a respectable size. In any case, the whole discussion of class in this article strikes me as immature, and unless there are objections, I propose to undertake its revision as my time permits. 129.67.120.12 11:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Trying to describe the Bennets as "lower class" is absolutely ridiculous--there are no lower class characters of consequence in Pride and Prejudice. Far more interesting (to the modern reader, though I suspect not to Austen's contemporary readers) would, I think, be to point out that the novel deals with the striation within the upper classes. Binabik80 02:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I do believe that Binabik80 may be mistaken. No offence meant here but it never says that the Bennett family is lower class. It says they are of a lower class than Mr. Darcy, and that they are upper-middle or middle class, NOT lower class. Sorry, although I too support the idea of revising the article. Good luck with that.

[edit] Reviews

This section needs major help, as indicated above by others.

[edit] Character Relationships Web

I don't know if this is wanted or necessary, but I created a character web (click on the thumb to view) to illustrate the dynamics existing between all the primary and most of the secondary characters in Pride and Prejudice. I believe that this could be a very useful tool, especially for one who is reading the book and wants to get a better grasp on what is being read. But before I add this to the article, I would appreciate your input:

• First of all, is such a web needed and (most importantly) wanted? If so...
• What improvements would you suggest? Some examples might include-
  • Downsizing file so less screen and/or memory room is taken up
  • Addition of colors to help make diagram more comprehensive
  • Addition of characters (such as Sir William Lucas) or deletion of characters already included
  • Revision, addition, or clarification of relationship descriptions (married to, aunt of)
  • Change in placement of characters in web
• Finally, (and I just realized this now)- is it a Wikipedia no-no to add my name to this image? I did is without realizing (I suppose it was just pride in one's work) but I will be happy to remove it if necessary.

Thanks all! --Canadian Joeldude 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Great character web. I like it.

You inquired about clarification of relationship descriptions. Referring to Anne de Bourgh as "betrothed to" Fitzwilliam Darcy (and vice versa) is problematic, as there was no official engagement between the characters. You might want to reword that description. Perhaps change the line between Anne and Darcy to an arrow originating from Anne and pointing to Darcy, then reword the relationship description to something like "intended for."

What do you think? BellyOption 02:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds good. I suppose that the word "betrothed" implies consent between the parties involved. Anyone else? --Canadian Joeldude 19:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, people. i have made the suggested changes, and am know posting the new web to the article. The new web can be viewed by clicking the thumbnail. Also, suggestions for any more changes are still welcome. --Canadian Joeldude 07:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO, it could be organized a bit differently. I feel that Elizabeth and Darcy should be at the top of the diagram, with the position of the remaining characters determined by their importance (lesser = lower), though I don't know if this is practical. Also, the intermediate circle for the five sisters doesn't really serve a purpose.

Interesting concept though. Now what about War and Peace? Clarityfiend 06:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think putting Elizabeth and Darcy at the top would work, because it would get too cluttered underneath. Also, this shows that the character relationships tend to revolve around these two. I tried to show their importance by bolding the text of those characters. Perhaps I could show more levels of importance by using color or font size. As for the "Bennet sisters" circle, I thought that it eliminated the need to show lines reading "sister of" connecting all the sisters. However, if you have a better idea, perhaps again the use of color, I will take it into consideration. Canadian Joeldude 22:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said in the above section, doesn't it just take your breathe away?

[edit] The Entail

If one of the married daughters has a son, will he inherit the estate from Mr Bennet? Because if not, how does Mr Collins (clearly a female-line descendant if he is named Collins and not Bennet) stand to inherit? If anyone knows, please could they explain: I would be very interested to know the answer. Michaelsanders 23:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope they couldn't. As to Mr. Collins, the supposition is that Mr Collins' line at some point took a name from a benefactor, a la Frank Churchill in Emma who was actually a Weston... Hope that helps. It is definitely only male to male... plange 00:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'd forgotten about Frank Churchill. Thanks! Michaelsanders 00:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huuh?

"Immediately after the opening sentence, which sets forth matchmaking as a postulate of social mathematics..." What in the world does that mean? Clarityfiend 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)