REVIEW: Pemberley by the Sea by Abigail Reynolds
Review by MJ Ryan
From the back cover: “Marine biologist Cassie Boulton has no patience for the modern day Mr. Darcy who appears in her lab on Cape Cod. Proud, aloof Calder Westing III is the scion of a famous political family while Cassie’s success is hard-won in spite of a shameful family history.
When their budding romance is brutally thwarted, both by his family and by hers, Calder tries to set things right by rewriting the two of them in the roles of Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet from Pride and Prejudice…but he doesn’t know yet whether Cassie will be willing to supply the happy ending.”
Sometimes, I just need to read a good, mindless romance. Usually, the urge hits me after attempting to read a book that I feel like I should read but that, for whatever reason, my mind just can’t be bothered to comprehend. (Hi, Moby-Dick!) Luckily for me, Abigail Reynolds supplied me, via Mags, the perfect antidote for my overworked brain in the form of Pemberley by the Sea.
It could be argued that all modern love stories are derivative in some way from the brilliant imagination of Jane Austen. Lord knows that Hollywood has made a fortune on the idea that two people who dislike each other on initial acquaintance are destined to fall in love. So entrenched in our romantic psyche is this idea that it is to be expected that any modern telling of Pride and Prejudice will, for the most part, follow the accepted formula. Pemberley by the Sea is no exception but has updated it with modern touches, namely steamy sex early on in the acquaintance. Usually I’m a bit prudish when it comes to reading about Austen’s characters engaging in carnal urges. Since this is a modern version and the main characters aren’t named Elizabeth, Lizzy, Beth, Liz, Eliza, Bethy, Bess, Fitz, William, Will, Billy, Fitzy, etc., nor do they much resemble the original characters in temperament, I was able to read and imagine their hot ocean encounter with no cringing. You see, I prefer to think that Jane Austen’s characters had sex only enough to procreate. Much like my parents.
Reynolds takes the story past Austen’s ending and gives the two lovers more obstacles than a ropes course. Some of the dialogue is clunky and the constant roadblocks become a bit repetitive and wearying. But, I found myself entertained much more than irritated, and Pemberley by the Sea is one Austen-inspired update that I will be likely to read again when I want to read a fluffy romance with just a touch of angst.
Comments are closed.
“You see, I prefer to think that Jane Austen’s characters had sex only enough to procreate. Much like my parents.”
Snort – good analogy!
I concur that P&P plot re-tellings in a modern setting, having modern sex is much more palatable then Lizzy & Darcy doing the wild thing in the shrubberies.
This book is my next read. Thanks for the teaser.
Ditto on the thanks. This book is en route to me courtesy of PaperBackSwap.com (check it out — great way to recycle books and sometimes find more obscure titles).
he doesn’t know yet whether Cassie will be willing to supply the happy ending. I find that flap copy a bit lolarious, what with the final two words having a double meaning and all . . .
I just finished reading this book last weekend – read it in two days. What can I say, I’m a sucker for a good romance novel…throw in Jane Austen and I’m a goner!
“You see, I prefer to think that Jane Austen’s characters had sex only enough to procreate. Much like my parents.”
Why do you assume that pre-Victorians would have sex the same way post-Victorians did? Rather unlikely, isn’t it? Of course it’s just a matter of your preference, and you’re fully entitled to it. But I’m just curious where the supposition comes from.
Sylwia, I think it’s just meant as a joke. (I LOLed.)
Sure, the analogy is very funny! But the assumption that Austen’s characters wouldn’t have a lot of good sex remains, doesn’t it?
I just wonder why. Half of the review is about sex. So either good sex is not given any significance or bad sex is given too much. I’m interested as a fanfic writer. Since Lizzy and Darcy in my stories generally have sex – if it’s offensive I’d like to know why.
Sylwia it was meant as a joke, but since you would like an explanation I’ll try to give you one.
First, I should explain that I’m specifically talking about the characters from the books, not the movies. In my mind’s eye, they are separate characters. I don’t think it’s possible for any actor to completely capture the character(s) that Austen wrote. Some, maybe most, have come close and have done a wonderful job putting their own interpretation on the character. But, when I read the books, I’m not imagining Hattie Morahan, Jennifer Ehle, Gwyneth Paltrow, etc. in my mind’s eye. I have my own interpretation of the character which, I’m sure, is even different from Jane Austen’s.
And, that’s the point here: we all imagine these characters differently. We see all fictional characters through the lens of our own experience.* Some see Darcy as shy; some see him as arrogant. Does that make him two different characters? Or is one person seeing an aspect of Darcy that another doesn’t and both are right, in their own way. You can imagine Darcy and Elizabeth having hot, steamy sex. I can’t, nor do I want to. I’m not offended by the idea that they have sex I just don’t particularly want to read about it. There are plenty of Austen fans that do and more power to them and to the writers that write it.
I’ll just say one more thing, and this is an observation from reading historical novels: I think it’s difficult to not put current sensibilities in a historical novel. I’ve been reading a series, Maisie Dobbs, which is set in the early 1930′s. There are characters in the books that seem very specifically prescient about what will eventually happen in Europe. I wonder how much of that is real – were there people in 1931 that could see the warning signs so clearly about the rise of the Nazi party and the atrocities they would perpetrate, or is the author being influenced by our historical perspective? I don’t know the answer to that, btw, and if anyone else does I’d love the answer. You can understand, then, why I wonder if modern day sexual sensibilities aren’t injected into the sex life of Elizabeth and Darcy in Regency England. I have a hard time believing that most women in that social position, and with their upbringing (in essence, Austen’s upbringing), didn’t merely tolerate sex as a conjugal duty.** That is why it is much easier for me to read about modern day versions of the characters having steamy sex.
* Full Disclosure: I’m not a shriveled up spinster that doesn’t have, or understand, good sex.
** Since I haven’t done research on this particular topic anyone that has may feel free to disabuse me, if necessary.
Hi all,
I guess I’ll jump in here to say that attitudes about sex & morality in general were in a period of transition during the Regency years. While it wasn’t a period of wild abandon like it was in the late 1700s, it was no where near the prudery we see from the Victorians, (even among the ladies) a generation & a half later. One could easily purchase pornographic materials in print shops etc, there was an annual guidebook published that was like of phonebook of all the prostitutes in London with prices, attributes & location of these ladies, high class courtesans would have their own boxes at the opera & theater performances, the newspapers were full of relationships outside of marriage. Sex was not hidden in these people’s lives.
The rise of both the Evangelical movement & the emerging middle classes were the ones who started the insistence on modesty in everything in reaction to the Prince Regent & his Carlton House set but many of the aristocracy & those who mimicked them were still in the old mindset of Prinny’s youth. So you also have to factor in class in this equation as well.
Hope this helped. See the Regency Encyclopedia for more information on this & many other subjects.
Sue
How did we get here? It was just a joke, and a funny one, not a statement about morality. She prefers to not read explicit sex scenes between Jane Austen’s characters, at least in period works. I feel the same way, so I’m sympathetic. But I would not wish to suspend any pleasure of anyone else’s, though it seems to me that most of the explicit sex scenes I have read between Jane Austen’s characters in period-set stories have the characters behaving, well, out of character. Mr. Darcy “christening” every bed in Pemberley, for instance. I think it’s easier for many readers to accept something that might be out of character (for instance, premarital sex) in a modern-set story, and from what seems to be the case in this book (haven’t read it but guessing from the review), with characters who are not absolute Elizabeth and Darcy avatars.
But then, I think it entirely possible and indeed quite probable that Jane Austen intended Mr. Darcy to go to his wedding bed a virgin, no matter how improbable it might seem to the well-read modern Janeite. Mr. Knightley and Colonel Brandon, too. And it’s Jane Austen’s intentions that matter, not history or fangirls going hormonal over a hot actor. But I’m all about the meta.
Excuse me, but your reviewer asked for more information, which is the only thing I responded to: Quoting her – ** Since I haven’t done research on this particular topic anyone that has may feel free to disabuse me, if necessary.
I make no statements of Austen’s intentions, my only aim was to provide a context for the times she lived in.
Sue
You’re right; sorry about that.
That reminds me, Ruth Perry’s plenary talk at the 2000 JASNA AGM was called “Sleeping With Mr. Collins” and she talked about how most of us would be all “ew” at the idea of poor Charlotte Lucas as was having to do so, but that Charlotte, or any woman in her position, probably wouldn’t have had any maidenly drawing-back about it. I can’t remember the details; I would imagine the paper is in Persuasions but I don’t have it to hand.
So there is some evidence for “tolerating sex as a conjugal duty,” I guess.
Well, I’d rather close my eyes and think of England, than think of Mr. Collins…
“I’d rather close my eyes and think of England, than think of Mr. Collins…”
Now THAT’S funny!!!
LOL Maria, I’d rather think of Antartica than think of Mr. Collins! Good rejoinder!!!
No harm, no foul Mags – hugs to you for being so watchful of your site & posters.
Sue
Thanks for providing the info, Sue.
How can one discuss Austen’s intentions without attempting to understand her times? Whatever her views they couldn’t have been independent from her era. Nothing in P&P suggests that Darcy was meant to be a virgin. Indeed, sometimes he’s quite bawdy. And there are enough references to give one a hint that E&D are meant to be a passionate couple.
It was obvious to me that we’re talking about the book, not an adaptation. I don’t know why the assumption that if someone doesn’t subscribe to one’s views one must be “going hormonal over a hot actor”.
I’m sure it’s easy to become influenced by our modern sensibilities, but I think it’s as easy to become influenced by our image of the recent past, while Regency times aren’t that recent. Victorianism was a social revolution, so things changed 180 degrees. The model proposed above, with a husband having pleasure while his wife is only enduring the encounters, was actually thought to be immoral. It would speak ill of Darcy if he treated his wife as an object. Defoe called it “matrimonial whoredom”. It was the reason why romantic love gained such a significance in Austen’s times, and why Lizzy was so horrified at Charlotte’s choice.
At the beginning of the 18th century, when marriages were still arranged, it was supposed that women could satisfy their sexual appetites with any man, just like men could sleep with many women. The idea of romantic love made it proper for a woman to feel sexual desire only towards the one right man. There was no conjugal love without desire in people’s mind, but earlier there used to be desire without love. Ruth Perry argued that Charlotte was one of the old school women who didn’t feel disgust towards sex with any man, not even Collins.
In Austen’s times aristocratic marriages were still arranged (like Darcy and Anne’s), but the middle classes were becoming more and more uneasy about it. And I think that Austen made it clear that Lizzy and Darcy’s marriage is to be nothing like Charlotte and Collins’s. The 18th century writings generally assume that both parties have sexual appetites, and fulfilling them in a union without love was likened to prostitution. Sex wasn’t only for procreation, but also for mutual delight, sharing one’s affections, “to lighten and ease the cares and sadnesses of household affairs, or to endear each other” (quoted from Dr. Taylor). Everything between the married couple was to bring them closer, not to abuse the woman sexually, while excess was discouraged, i.e. artificial stimulation, bad seasons and contraceptives were scorned (not that they weren’t used).
Moreover, back then people thought that female orgasm was necessary for conception. Only later it’d be discovered that it’s not exactly the case, and Victorians would interpret it according to their mores i.e. a woman should not feel it since it’s not needed for procreation.
There aren’t many stats, but I read that 30% of brides must have been pregnant on the day of their wedding, because they gave birth too soon, but many women don’t get pregnant at once, some miscarry, and the poor often didn’t marry at all, so the percent of pre-marital intercourses would be higher. Engagements were short, not longer than 3 months. Collins and Charlotte married after 2 for example, so there wasn’t much harm in not waiting. Women allowed their fiancés for many liberties, while they’d go all the way when on the verge of marriage or on the wedding night. Engaged couples were allowed to spend a lot of time unchaperoned (that of course would change with Victorianism when engagements could last years and chastity before marriage became important, but Mrs. Bennet was the mother who sent her daughter to a single man’s house hoping she’d stay there for night). There needed be a reason for postponing a marriage i.e. mourning, or it’d be suspected that the lady is frigid since the man hesitates. Victorian notions would be exactly the opposite: long chaste engagement spoke well of one’s morals. Were there women who’d think of sex only as an unpleasant necessity? Of course. Mary Bennet is one.
Naturally everyone is free to have their own personal preferences, and one can’t make everyone happy anyway, but to me it’s important to stick with the reality of the era, especially when one uses it to support their arguments. There are few things that bother me more than lack of research in a Regency novel. The more I’m surprised to see it being expected from a writer. And no, I’m not a fan of “Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife” but it’s still closer to reality than the Victorian model.
I can’t say that I’ve ever thought of Darcy as bawdy or have ever viewed his behavior as such. I guess a re-read of P&P is in order.
Thank you very much for the information Sue and Sylwia. I have no doubt that you both know much more about the sexual preferences of the Regency era than I, so I bow to your knowledge. As enlightening as the information is, it does not change the fact that I have no desire to read about the sex lives of any of Austen’s characters.
I am aware of one or two things about the time period.
And I certainly prefer to read historical fiction written by authors who have done good research.
However, history is one thing and the author’s intentions are another. And I say if Jane Austen meant for Darcy to be a virgin, then he was a virgin. She created him and she could make him exactly how she thought he should be. That’s a completely different notion from “was it likely for a young man of Darcy’s position and wealth to be a virgin.” That’s the type of thing that’s up to an individual reader’s (or writer’s) interpretation.
Also my understanding is that social mores for this sort of thing were different between the aristocracy and the gentry and the working classes. So any statistics that lump all groups in together should be used very carefully in reference to Jane Austen’s characters, who are mostly from the gentry, the most conservative morally of those groups. And also keep in mind that Jane Austen created those characters. If you read her letters–heck, if you read her novels–it’s pretty clear what she thought of the sexually incontinent. (Hint: not much.) So to me, portrayals of Darcy with an uncontrolled libido when it comes to Elizabeth are silly. There’s no doubt he finds her attractive–so much so that he asks her to marry him, despite “(h)is sense of her inferiority — of its being a degradation — of the family obstacles which judgment had always opposed to inclination.” I would say that’s the ultimate in sexual control. He wants to do it up right. Your mileage, as the saying goes, may vary.
Darcy is “sometimes quite bawdy”? I just finished rereading P&P for the umpteenth time, and honestly, I missed it completely. I’d be interested in the textual support.
Surprise, surprise, there is sex in Austen. There are “fallen” women (Eliza Sr.), young hussies (I’d put Lydia in there), adulteresses (Maria Bertram), innocents succumbing to predators (Eliza, Jr.), and cads whose sexual appetites lead to disastrous consequences for some of the women around them (Willoughby, anyone?).
Austen knew people had sex, she knew that sex had consequences, and she knew that her readers were grown up enough to know it also. She understood the reality of her times much better than we can but clearly, she also felt no need to spell out her characters’ sexual lives in excruciating detail. And frankly, I feel no need to read any other author doing so. I find that I can happily supply any imaginative speculation in that area all by myself– but that is indeed a matter of personal preference.
And good heavens, leave poor Mary Bennet out of it; we don’t know much about her, there could be a tigress hidden there…
I agree that Austen’s intentions take precedence, but where it’s written that she meant for Darcy to be a virgin? I did read her letters, although, by the way, I don’t think that my own letters for example have ever had any sexual content. Does it mean anything? And, of course, the majority of Austen’s letters were destroyed as unsuitable for the public. Moreover, Austen was a spinster, while her characters are not.
The most conservative group was the trade, not the landed gentry. We can see how Caroline and Louisa react to Lizzy’s manners. They’re shocked with what they see as Lizzy’s sexual aggressiveness.
Darcy has aristocratic upbringing, and that certainly didn’t mean conservative. I think that admitting openly to taking pleasure from ogling women was quite bawdy of him. He wouldn’t say that unprovoked, but no one forced him to say it, and incidentally such a character like Wickham never says anything of the kind. It’s something Henry Crawford might have said. To Bingley Jane is an angel, while Darcy sees Lizzy in a bodily way. He admits to his passion, and Lizzy isn’t the first woman whom he found attractive, although she’s the first whom he found irresistible. If the other women were single or married gentlewomen he certainly didn’t have sex with them, but were they? I don’t think that Darcy would ever seduce a woman, but sex wasn’t difficult to come by, and I don’t think a Regency woman would think much about it. Men were expected to be experienced, and as long as they didn’t ruin anybody no one cared about the details.
Of course Darcy wouldn’t marry for passion alone, and that’s what’s admirable in his character. He has his desire under control. But marrying a woman was a serious step. Going to bed with one was not.
Austen gives many examples of bad sex. It doesn’t mean that other characters didn’t have sex at all, only that they didn’t use it in a harmful way. Bringing such an argument is like saying that sex can be either evil or inexistent. There are shades of grey in the middle. It’s not sex that is wrong, only the people who misuse it.
Why should Mary be left out of it? Austen brought her on purpose, without any hint of a tigress. According to her Mary ended up in the trade class, the most conservative one.
Perhaps it’s not clear, but the attitudes I brought were among the most conservative. Dr. Taylor is a leading Anglican theologian. Defoe criticised a great deal of sexual practices in the marriage bed. Of course if one reads Fanny Hill one will have sexual attitudes from the opposite extreme, but I didn’t bring them here.
For all the accusations of tainting Austen’s books with our own sensibilities I don’t see any textual evidence in this thread to the alleged prudish attitudes of Elizabeth and Darcy in their marriage bed.
There’s a big difference between sexual incontinence (the inability to control one’s sexual urges) and prudishness. Darcy remaining a virgin until marriage would not have been prudish in Jane Austen’s view; it would have been the right way to behave.
where it’s written that she meant for Darcy to be a virgin?
It has to be written down? Besides, I never said he definitely was a virgin; just that I find it not only possible but quite probable that such was Jane Austen’s intention.
And, of course, the majority of Austen’s letters were destroyed as unsuitable for the public.
No, they were destroyed because they were nobody’s business but Jane’s and Cassandra’s, no matter how incendiary or banal the content. The letters (to Cassandra) that were preserved were never meant for public consumption, only for family keepsakes.
Moreover, Austen was a spinster, while her characters are not.
If Jane Austen were married, I suspect her morals would have been no different. Challenge them all you like, it’s fairly obvious from both her fiction and her letters that her personal code of morality in all things, not just sexual matters, was fairly strict, and she wrote the books.
They’re shocked with what they see as Lizzy’s sexual aggressiveness.
I don’t think they’re shocked. I think Caroline is threatened by Darcy’s attraction to Elizabeth, and they pretend to be shocked by her behavior. And I don’t see Elizabeth’s behavior as sexual aggressiveness. If anyone is sexually aggressive, it’s Caroline Bingley–all that “I mend pens very well” stuff, c’mon.
Lizzy is just being Lizzy. Caroline’s behavior is aggressive and false. Darcy responds to Lizzy’s genuineness, and is turned off by Caroline’s naked (if you will) aggression.
But marrying a woman was a serious step. Going to bed with one was not.
Certainly it was, in a time where venereal diseases could not be controlled by a shot or a few pills. And I maintain that Jane Austen would have considered it wrong.
You need to stop thinking about Darcy like he’s a real person. He’s not. He’s a fictional character and the creation of an author, and her intentions are the only ones that matter. We don’t know what they were, but we can certainly make inferences. My inferences might be different from yours, but I find them perfectly defensible. I’m not saying there are not other possibilities, just that it’s not so much written in stone as you seem to think.
P.S. I firmly believe the Rears and Vices bit was meant to be smutty.
No one ever suggested that Darcy and Lizzy were prudes in their marriage bed. What some of us are suggesting, however, is that we don’t know and don’t care, nor do we desire or need to read about their sex lives to make Pride and Prejudice a more enjoyable experience. And there is nothing wrong with that– any more than there is anything wrong with Austen not providing the clinical details of their carnal pleasures.
I don’t find it offensive, I find it banal. (And in the case of Darcy Takes a Wife, very badly written.)
Of course her other characters had sex. Even Mr. Bennet manages to get over his dislike for his wife long enough to beget five daughters! I am sure you can imagine some of her other characters quite happily bonking away. So what?
Darcy’s disdain for, and condemnation of Wickham’s lifestyle and actions, put him in my mind in more of a conservative camp than not. And, sorry, I would hardly put Darcy’s admitting that he admires a woman with fine eyes into the “ogling” category or characterize him as quite bawdy for doing so. That is stretching the imagination to a point not supported by the text. What it does suggest is that Darcy is like most men who enjoy the sight of a pretty girl. If that’s bawdy, well you may as well go ahead and extend that assessment to all mankind.
I would just like to thank all of the above commenters for making my review look much more interesting than it actually was.
Mags, perhaps I’m confused by your arguments because in the same post you say that you’re privy to Austen’s views and that no one knows what her intentions were. I find it mutually exclusive, not to mention that the first is impossible. IMHO her views, morals and intentions would have to be written down for anyone to use them as an argument.
I didn’t say that Austen’s morals would change with marriage, only that her experience would. As for her morals – I don’t believe that anyone can know what they were unless in cases when they can be supported by her writings or referenced by analogies to the writings of her contemporaries. So I’m not challenging them, I’m just not buying arguments such as “Jane Austen would have considered it wrong” without any written evidence. That is only misusing Austen in support of one’s own views.
I think that Caroline found Lizzy’s behaviour shocking because she’d never behave in such a way. Her offer to mend Darcy’s pen isn’t sexual (it was customary for women to mend pens for men, while it was a man’s thing to use the pen to write – if anything it meant female submission to male authority). It’s Darcy’s answer that turns her innocent, if somewhat nosy, offer into a bawdy joke. It’s not even certain whether Caroline understood his meaning, although Lizzy likely did. I agree that Lizzy is Lizzy, I never said that sexuality must be non-genuine, but one can send sexual signals unknowingly, just like children can be aggressive without realising it. Her behaviour and mind are more masculine. Wit was a sign of sexual aggressiveness, so that alone would be enough to make her seem it, even without scampering through the muddy countryside. She’s certainly aware that she’s balancing on a thin line. She just takes care not to slip, but it’s still further than Caroline would ever go.
I’m not interpreting the characters as real people, but Austen wrote the book for real people to read, and they would find there references natural for their culture. Since Austen created Lizzy as a character who breaks sexual restraints put on a Regency woman it means she wanted her to be such a character (unless we assume that she was a bad writer). If she created Darcy as a character responsive to the heroine’s sexuality and demonstrating his own, she must have been aware that her readers would find him as a sexually conscious character.
Austen proved that she was perfectly capable of creating characters different from those. If she meant for E&D to be conservative she’d have no problem with writing them as such. Authors don’t write independently from their culture. If I mentioned Superman I wouldn’t have to describe him in detail for everyone to assume that he wears a red cape. If I wanted people to read something else into it then I’d have to spell it out. So I agree that we don’t know definitely whether Darcy was a virgin or not, because it’s not spelled out, but Austen had to be aware that her readers would read the character in accordance with their prevalent image of people from Darcy’s sphere. As to Lizzy, there were real Regency ladies who found her too coarse, and thought it a pity that Darcy had married her, so Caroline wasn’t singular in her views.
Maria, it was suggested that Darcy and Elizabeth were prudes, and supported by Austen’s alleged intentions. I wouldn’t bother posting here otherwise. I just don’t like misconceptions about the book or era being spread. It doesn’t serve any good purpose IMO.
Mr. Bennet didn’t have to overcome any dislike for his wife in order to beget five daughters, because he married for love. His dislike came later, when love and sex were gone.
Darcy disdained Wickham for being a scoundrel. Do you mean to say that everyone who’s not a scoundrel must be conservative? C’mon! Austen didn’t advocate extremes in P&P, and she distrusted those who did (Hannah More for example).
Darcy drinks alcohol without becoming a drunkard, he plays cards on money without becoming a gambler, so he could have sex without becoming a rake. All three habits were deemed equally immoral by the conservative people of Austen’s times.
No, there’s nothing bawdy in one’s discreet admiration of a woman’s fine eyes, but Darcy doesn’t stop there, does he? When he says:
“…or because you [Lizzy and Caroline] are conscious that your figures appear to the greatest advantage in walking; (…) I can admire you much better as I sit by the fire.”
it has nothing to do with eyes, and it’s not discreet. Doing it openly and telling it to the ladies is bawdy in my opinion. There’s a difference between looking at a woman and staring at her figure.
MJ Ryan, I’m sorry for causing your thread to escalate. It wasn’t my intention. I really just jump to any thread that has inaccurate historical references, no matter the topic.
No, that’s not at all what I said. This is what I said.
We don’t know what they were, but we can certainly make inferences. My inferences might be different from yours, but I find them perfectly defensible.
I never said I was privy to Jane Austen’s mind, just that I could make inferences. You can, too. We might not agree. However, it’s really difficult to have a discussion with someone who insists on misreading what is written quite plainly.
Oh, I didn’t refer to that, only to this:
Darcy remaining a virgin until marriage would not have been prudish in Jane Austen’s view; it would have been the right way to behave.
That sounds as if you had it on a good authority, while it’s only an assumption.
I don’t mind people’s making any inferences they wish, but if they don’t emphasise the difference between them and supported facts it’s all getting very messy, and then people go on repeating things about Austen and those times that have little to do with reality. I’m sure you know how difficult it is to change First Impressions. In effect people don’t understand Austen’s novels because they keep interpreting them through hearsays.
BTW Not long ago Colleen McCullough published a sequel that boasts of being very well researched, which is far from truth for many reasons, but it happens to have Lizzy hating the marriage bed. I’d rather such sequels wouldn’t be advertised as historically accurate, because that gives the message it had to be like that, supported by the author’s authority, even though I’m fairly certain she never read the original. Well, she’d know that 50 miles of good road is but a half day journey if she did.
“…or because you [Lizzy and Caroline] are conscious that your figures appear to the greatest advantage in walking; (…) I can admire you much better as I sit by the fire.”
This is bawdy?!!!! I think you make way too much of way too little. That turn about the room is all a product of Caroline’s “desperation” of feelings to get Darcy to notice that “Her figure was elegant, and she walked well; — but Darcy, at whom it was all aimed, was still inflexibly studious.”
Darcy’s remark is a dig at Caroline primping, not a sign of lewdness. When Bingley proclaims that Jane “… is the most beautiful creature I ever beheld!” is he looking at her or staring? Does this make him bawdy also?
Mr. Bennet didn’t have to overcome any dislike for his wife in order to beget five daughters, because he married for love. His dislike came later, when love and sex were gone.
And you know this– how? I do not believe that Austen specified at what exact point Mr. Bennet ceased to perform his conjugal duties. All we know is that Mrs. Bennet’s “weak understanding and illiberal mind..had very early in their marriage put an end to all real affection for her.” When is very early? Moreover, neither disdain for his wife, nor the lack of any more pregnancies necessary signify that he ceased action of all kinds in the marital bed. I don’t mind people’s making any inferences they wish, but if they don’t emphasise the difference between them and supported facts it’s all getting very messy. Indeed.
Darcy disdained Wickham for being a scoundrel. Do you mean to say that everyone who’s not a scoundrel must be conservative?
Darcy disdained Wickham for the choices he had made and continued to make in his life–squandering money, getting into debt, predatory behavior towards women. Does that make him conservative? Perhaps not in your view, but given Darcy’s own evident conduct, it does in mine–particularly since, as you claim above, “aristocratic upbringing…certainly didn’t mean conservative.” The very aristocratic Darcy never takes a boys-will-be-boys attitude, not even before Wickham makes a move on Georgiana.
The upper classes of the Regency era may very well have been licentious. I do not dispute that. However, I think the point you are missing all along is that a number of us did answer the question you posed originally: Since Lizzy and Darcy in my stories generally have sex – if it’s offensive I’d like to know why.
In a nutshell: because it adds nothing. And endless variations of:
“oooooh Mr. Darcy, you are soooo big!”
and “oooooooh Mrs. Darcy you are sooooo small!”
are trite and ridiculous compared to the wit and wicked eye of the original.
Austen didn’t hit us over the head with it. And I like it that way.
I did say that Darcy’s statement came in an answer to Caroline’s actions, but she didn’t force him to say it, did she? A mature man knows how to avoid letting himself being provoked by others if he wishes. If he didn’t want to say it he wouldn’t. He’d give only one reason for not joining them. It doesn’t matter what Caroline does. He’s a big boy and doesn’t have to do the same.
When a man makes allusions to women’s bodies when he could have bitten his tongue it’s not, in my opinion, innocent. It’s provoking and bawdy. I don’t know many women who’d welcome such remarks towards themselves, but of course you’re free to think it’s the height of gentlemen-like manners.
Bingley gave an opinion about Jane’s beauty, not her figure, and I don’t recall him ever commenting on her figure to herself.
Very early in marriage – since it’s Lizzy’s POV it must have been at a time when she’d notice the difference, say, when she was 10-12. We know that they still tried for a son for many years after Lydia was born, until “this event had at last been despaired of”, so I take it to mean that Austen did spell it out for us. Let’s say it was 5-7 years after Lydia’s birth. We’re also told that it was Mrs. Bennet who kept hoping for a son, so it seems that it was Mr. Bennet who told her it’s the end and decided against visiting her bed. It was still too early for a menopause, and they didn’t have any way of determining whether a couple was fertile or not. I.e. Georgiana was born 12 years after Darcy, so it paid to keep trying. So if they stopped hoping for a son it’s because Mr. Bennet decided to stop visiting his wife, and not because of any medical test. They’re married for over 23 years now, and Mr. Bennet escapes to his library, while taking every opportunity to deride his wife when in her company. It doesn’t seem that he ever forces himself to anything unpleasant to him.
I guess I don’t understand the stream of thought. So everyone who’s not conservative must be in the wrong? Are all liberals predators and all conservatives righteous? Can a conservative do no harm?
Yes, I did ask the reason and I’m happy with the answers about personal preferences I received.
If the sex scenes you read looked like what you wrote here you have my condolences, but then I think all the book must have been unworthy of your time. The vast majority of the sex scenes I read were nothing like that, and significantly added to the story.
Did you ever think that Darcy is also deliberately “provoking” Caroline, in a humorously sarcastic way? You seem to be using a very broad definition of “bawdy”.
I can do the math also. If the Bennets indeed kept at it for 5-7 years after Lydia’s birth as you say, that would mean that they were sharing a bed for at least 10 or 11 years. Moreoever, that timeline would seem to go way past Austen’s observation that affection had disappeared “very early on” in their marriage. So they must have continued their pursuits for quite a while after Mr. B’s disillusion set it–or did it take him 10 years to realize that he couldn’t stand Mrs. Bennet? (By the way I do not read that remark as from Lizzy’s POV, rather the narrator’s.) With your knowledge of sexual mores, you must realize that affection and sex do not have to go hand in hand. I don’t see why Mr. Bennet should be an exception. But that is neither here nor there since the subject of the Bennets’ sex lives is something that Austen did not choose to write about.
I also have no idea where you are getting all these vast generalizations about the meaning of conservative versus liberal in the remarks I made. My point is that compared to Wickham, Darcy is indeed more conservative. And based on the text, it’s a point that is as valid as any argument you make.
You are right, the book involved was completely unworthy of my time–I did not bother to finish it.
I don’t find that fanfic sex scenes add in any way to my enjoyment of Austen. Let’s agree to differ shall we? You see things in Austen that I do not. Let’s leave it at that.
this is spectacular. I love Jane Austen and Pride and Prejudice is my favorite novel of hers. The idea of a man and women having a secret love/hate relationship is found everywhere nowadays. However I found Pride and Prejudice to be more about first impressions and how we as humans are too quick to judge one another. Sure Elizabeth and Darcy’s love is a key element but I found prejudice to be more predominant.
After reading this review of Pemberly by the Sea I think I may just have to read it.