Me and Mr. Darcy

Pure chicklit - loved it!

It became predictable in the middle of the book but the ending had a nice twist

a tad farfetched but a nice read none the less- makes you realise mr darcy aint all that

The author is stupid. And her protagonist is as stupid as she is. A protagonist who claims to be an Austen fan and yet cannot, for the very life of herself, see the parallels between her own life and the book. Because she thinks her Mr Darcy (aka Spike) isn't Mr Darcy, when in fact, I knew it from the very beginning. And I didn't have to memorise P and P just to know it either. So what if Mr Darcy's been modernised? Isn't that what everyone is looking for?

Does anyone really want a 19th C Mr Darcy, O no. I doubt I'd appreciate my date calling me "Miss ____" all the time. Darcy has context -- historical solid context -- which is an inevitable consequence of existing! In his case, the context is that he is a character created by Austen, who happened to be writing in the late 18th C and early 19th C. Well, and he's 19th Centuryish.... my my what a surprise! As a reader of Austen, I couldn't figure that out, no sireee. I'd expect Darcy -- if he were real -- to view my 21st C situation with 21st C eyes. And blame him for it if he doesn't. That's just point number 1.

2) Question for Alexandra Potter: is Darcy as patriarchal as he seems? You really can take it as far as you want (sometimes, too far) -- it is dependent on context, you fool. Would Darcy have objected to middle class women working? You think so. Do we know? No. Can we know? Probably not.

3) But if you are writing a fiction, you're allowed some liberties. Now, Darcy is rich. Elizabeth doesn't NEED to work, with ten thousand a year and a fucking huge estate. Elizabeth doesn't seem like she WANTS to work. Darcy didn't go for the airhead, which was rare -- or this was supposed to be the whole romantic hinge. Is he so so super chauvinistic? And here, he was a 19th C man. Consider that.

4) If you want to disabuse readers of the Darcy fantasy, THAT is where the crux lies. For actually, guys don't want girls with no looks, no fortune and a sharp tongue. Well, perhaps, no looks, no fortune, but not a sharp tongue. Well, in general, it pays to be meek, and puppy eyed, and miserably submissive, and god forbid, 'nice' in the loosest sense possible. Did I say 'loose'? There's Miss Bingley.

5) Alexandra says "it's the real man who gets the girl." Which is a joke. Since her Spike is very much Mr. Darcy. A rose by any other name... -- again that never occurred to her.

6) This is a blatant misreading of Austen. It is not a "strong" misreading. It has nothing to say that is original. So, the 19th C wasn't very fair to women in many ways (right this is where I was supposed to 'see the light,' I gathered). I think we know that by now. What's new? It ignores whatever merit that the 19th C has -- its contradictions etc -- only to snottily wipe its nose with a handkerchief and go "ah! I am more enlightened now." It is difficult to escape the sense that things *are* better now. This is more or less inevitable. Let's just take it for granted, then, that the 21st century is better.

7) The 19th C is one thing, Austen is another. Of course, she was influenced by her time. But did she agree with everything that was in there? Did she make her Darcy agree with the unfairness to women? If we assume that much of 19th C ideology was really unfair, and that this was BAD, how far can we argue that Darcy, as a character, supports these unfair views? There are CASES to be made for such things. Arguments -- TEXTUAL EVIDENCE. It's ridiculous if I simply go, well, Pip believed A because it was the trend in 19th C to believe A. Pip isn't a robot. He's a character. The question is whether I can see the text as supporting the claim that Pip had assimilated x or y ideologies of his time. And it sucks. Regardless, if I want to make that claim, I need to argue this convincingly, not write some silly book that ASSUMES it.

7.5) This is not being respectful to Austen at all.

It was a bit silly - but then again very easy reading chicklit.

Fantastic book, great mix of fantasy and reality and a must read for anybody thats seen Lost In Austen on ITV

past and present is well-blended, good read

One notices she's American: Mr. Darcy is not convincing. Still fun to read.

This was brilliant, I got totally lost in it.

quite interesting but a bit slow....