A Janeite with a million rereads under her bonnet must be in want of a retelling

We've been hovering around various bicentennial moments to do with Jane Austen for a couple of years now (four of her novels were published between 1811 and 1815; she died in July of 1817; the two others of the six of her major works were published posthumously in 1818), so I thought I'd share some of my favorite Austen-related media. *whispers* It's all going to be Pride and Prejudice related, you guys. P&P is my very particular jam. 

Recommendations

Pride and Prejudice (2005)

I gather this is somewhat of an unpopular opinion, but I like this version of P&P, starring Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen, much more than the 1995 BBC version with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth (wet shirt scene not withstanding). The BBC version is certainly more accurate, in that it includes much more of the original story and its portrayal of the characters is a fairly direct interpretation of the book. But the Knightley/MacFadyen movie, to me, is a much more enjoyable experience. I also like the interpretations of the characters and the situation the movie provides, making everyone (especially the Bennets) just a bit earthier than the earlier version (and the book). I’m also quite fond of the way the 2005 movie depicts Mr. and Mrs. Bennet’s relationship—Mrs. Bennet is still a meddling, irksome, hard-to-live with irritant and Mr. Bennet is still too little interested and invested in the lives and realities of his daughters, but you can see that there is some affection between them. I cannot stand Mrs. Bennet in the BBC mini-series, like to the degree I kind of don’t ever want to watch it again. *shrug* Just me, perhaps, but I recommend the 2005 movie for a lovely couple of P&P hours.  

Lost in Austen

Lost in Austen is a four-part British television show that follows Amanda Price, a twenty-something who adores Pride and Prejudice and especially Mr. Darcy.  She’s in a relationship with a perfectly all right bloke—no Mr. Darcy, mind—and both her mother and the bloke think it’s about time they got married. Then one day she finds a portal in her bathroom into the attic at Longbourn and stumbles into the world of P&P just as the story is getting started. Elizabeth is missing, having gone through to modern-day London, and Amanda takes the place of a visitor among the Bennet family. And then things ensue. Sounds kooky, right? Oh, it is, in the best possible way. Every time I watch it, I think, “This is just silly.” And then I get completely caught up in the re-imagining of the story and Amanda’s commentary on it. For the most part, it’s just light and frothy and wonderful, but watch out for a short scene in the last episode where Darcy slips into the modern world briefly. If you ever needed a visual for “poleaxed,” you’ll get it. The actor playing Darcy (Elliot Cowan) does an amazing job in that moment, conveying approximately eleventy-billion emotions in Darcy all in one small moment. Also, Amanda’s utter desire to leave the modern world and all the advances she enjoys in it as a woman in favor of the early 19^th century is nicely balanced by the way Elizabeth absolutely *thrives* in the modern world. Watch it. I know you’ll love it.

An Assembly Such as This, Duty and Desire, and These Three Remain, Pamela Aiden

This trilogy of novels retells Pride and Prejudice from Mr. Darcy’s point of view. Aiden follows Darcy throughout the entire time covered in P&P, which means she has a good deal of story to invent from whole cloth, as there are great swathes of P&P during which Darcy is not only not on the page, but we don’t really know what he’s up to. Then there are all the delightful bits of the original where we *do* know what he was doing, but we don’t get to see it (his search for Lydia and the subsequent events, for instance). This is the first straight-up retelling of Pride and Prejudice (rather than something modernizing and/or inspired by it, such as Bridget Jones’s Diary) I ever encountered, and it’s still my favorite.

Pride and Prejudice audiobook, read by Rosamund Pike

Rosamund Pike’s performance of the unabridged Pride and Prejudice on audio is stunningly good. (She played Jane in the 2005 movie, too, if you’re trying to place why that name already seems connected to P&P.) She does an excellent job at the narration and breathes particular and exquisite life into each of the characters. I full-heartedly recommend it.

Illustrated Pride and Prejudice, illustrated by Shiei

Published by Seven Seas Entertainment, this edition of Pride and Prejudice contains manga-style black-and-white illustrations throughout (about two per chapter) and features full-color details of some of those illustrations at the front of the book as well as drafts at the back. It’s just delightfully fun and a neat mash-up of two different media styles.

On My Radar

Heartstone, Elle Katharine White

I haven’t gotten to this one yet, but this fantasy novel has been described to me as “Pride and Prejudice with dragons.” And, I mean, sold. From the back cover: “They say a Rider in possession of a good blade must be in want of a monster to slay—and Meybourne Manor has plenty of monsters.” This one is high on my TBR.

Pride and Prejudice graphic novel, illustrated by Robert Deas, text adapted by Ian Edington

I’ve been getting more and more into graphic novels and some comics over the last couple of years, so I’m excited to get to this graphic novel retelling of Pride and Prejudice. The art looks great, and I look forward to sitting down with the book and getting wrapped up in this interpretation of the world of Elizabeth Bennet. 

Not My Jam But Possibly Yours

Well Played, Katrina Ramos Atienza

This short novel is a modern retelling of Pride and Prejudice set at a university in the Phillipines and features a soccer-playing Lizzie-character and a math nerd Darcy- character. While the premise really appeals to me, I couldn’t get into the swing of the story. YMMV.

Before the Fall  (2016)

I watched this movie retelling of Pride and Prejudice literally within a few hours of finding out it existed. In this modern version set in Virginia, the Elizabeth (Ben) and Darcy (Lee) characters are both men. I love, love, love, this kind of swapping around of genders and/or roles and/or sexualities in retellings. Unfortunately, I thought the film was kind of uneven. So much of the touchstones of the story were changed that I found the whole thing very muddled. In addition to the change in setting and time period (givens, of course, in a modern retelling) and genderswap of Elizabeth and having the love story between two men, the particulars of Ben and Lee’s misunderstandings of one another and their situation bring in two thorny issues I don’t think the film adequately accounts for (domestic abuse and alcoholism), and it class-swaps Jane and Bingley (Bingley is poor; Jane is wealthy). It was just too much to be going on with. But. In my opinion, worth watching to see what they’ve done with the story and to support the film. (I’m still waiting for a movie where Elizabeth is a man (or Darcy is a woman) and not. one. other. thing. (except maybe the pronouns—or not) is changed about the story or the language. No explanations. Just genderswapped. Give it to meeee.)

Because it *&%$$ means "tenth"

If I woke up one morning and found myself living in a society where it was necessary to declare one's position on grammatical usage, I'd call myself a descriptivist. As a rule, I'm much more interested in how people use language and how language changes than I am in adhering to rules about how language "should" be deployed. Except in certain specific instances where demonstrating one's ability to follow the rules is either the point or otherwise very important, I think that if you're understood, you're doing it right.

However. How. stinking. ever. There is such a thing as nuance. There is such a thing as precision. We abandon these to our peril.

The imprecise use of language and the ignoring of nuance, I think, we ought to try to avoid whenever possible, for any "wrong" usage in these cases contributes to the wearing away of the precision and nuance we are trying to preserve. We should take the most care in written, reviewed, published use of language, where erring on the side of precision should reign. One of the precise words I most often see used imprecisely is "decimate," which originally meant to kill one in ten of a group, probably as a punishment for the whole. This meaning has almost entirely been replaced by the usage of to destroy a large part of something. This latter (and later) usage is so common (and the need for the former now so relatively unlikely), that I can't get up too much ire at it. But it does serve as an excellent example of the sort of thing I'm getting at. The original definition was very specific; the currently common one is not. The precision of the original is flattened out by the broader sense of its successor. Now, this change is one of the niftiest things about language, how a word can alter and morph from a meaning we don't have much use for into one we will put to work. But imagine how hard it would be to claw back the original meaning if we needed it. Imagine how much insisting we would have to do that we meant "decimate" literally if we were to need to mean it literally. The issue is not, perhaps, that there is actually anything wrong with the "wrong" meaning, but rather that the repeated use of that "wrong" meaning eventually denies us access to the "right" meaning. I don't have any great fears about losing the earlier meaning of "decimate." Let it go, I guess. And may we never need its literal meaning, actually, 'cause yikes. But what of other words whose meanings are flattening out because of our imprecise use of them?

I don't give a rooti-toot about many of the much bally-hooed grammatical errors of grade school and the self-appointed grammar mavens of the internet comments section. Split an infinitive? Sure, do the thing that sounds most agreeable. End a sentence with a preposition? That is something up with which I am willing to put. The most important thing is making yourself understood. Sometimes diction and conforming to a particular kind of discourse are also important, but for most of us, most of the time, meaning is what matters. But that is why I will always stump for maintaining our precision and nuance. Splitting an infinitive (or not) rarely changes the meaning of what one is trying to say. Same with ending a sentence with a preposition. Or starting a sentence with a conjunction. But please don't confuse "their," "they're," and "there" because they don't mean the same thing. Many of us, even if we sometimes use the wrong "there," know that we've made the mistake, or at least know there's a mistake to be made around the use of that word. It probably sticks with us because it looks like a spelling error, the kind of error that is definitive and easy to understand. The kinds of "errors" around meaning that bother me most are the ones that most of us don't realize are occurring, because our language is, as it does, changing. It’s one of my small, nerdy pleasures to watch that happen. Gives me a little tingle just there on the back of my neck. But I have a handful of words I’m fighting a one-woman battle to preserve, because I want to be able to say what they say. Maybe you have your own little list. Maybe we can put our lists together and they’ll call it a movement. Won’t you please join me in championing these lovelies:

Ambivalent. It doesn’t mean you don’t care. It means you can’t decide. “Do you want to go out for dinner or order in?” “Whichever you like.” ß Doesn’t care. “I’m not sure. A nice sit-down dinner would be lovely, but there’s an appeal to not having to put on pants.” ßAmbivalent.

Discomfit. To embarrass. Distinct from “discomfort.” (“Discomfit” is another one of those words that used to have a specific battle-related meaning, by the way.) The conflation of these two words is almost certainly down to language’s tendency to drift toward less complicated pronunciation. “Discomfort” sounds like “discomfit” when said quickly or in certain accents. Nifty! But, Save the Words! (I’m gonna get T-shirts made up.)

Discreet. Judicious. Done with care, especially in regards to privacy.

Discrete. Separate. Distinct. Detached. It looks like a spelling mistake, but it’s really *important scary voice* the Murder of Meaning. *pets words*

Disinterested. Not influenced by the potential outcome; having no personal stake in the result.

Uninterested. Not interested; doesn’t care about the thing. “Disinterested” originally was used to mean “uninterested,” but since we’ve got the distinction now, I think we ought to keep it. (So handy.)

Niggardly. Stingy.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with that other word that starts with “n.” Noooothiiiing. Even their etymologies are completely unrelated. “Niggardly” comes from a Middle English word that meant, well, stingy. And the other word comes from a Latin word for black. The only thing they have in common is an unfortunate similarity in pronunciation. (And a resemblance on the page.) I’m resigned to losing this one, honestly, and I’m okay with it. I’d rather lose a smidgen of nuance by using one of the many close synonyms for “niggardly” than barrel around using a word that can be mistaken for a terrible offense, especially when I know the potential for that offense is there. But I would like us to collectively remember that they aren’t related. Because I like to remember things like that, sure, but also because some people are still using “niggardly,” and if we can keep people from being genuinely hurt by a misunderstanding, I call that good.

Nonplussed. Who the codex even knows what this hecking word means at this point? Honestly. The original definition is: surprised or confused to the point of not knowing what to do. But in the US (and maybe Canada? I dunno, Canadians, have you succumbed to this madness?) it has come to mean pretty much exactly the opposite: unperturbed; like, cool as a cucumber. And all right, sure. Words flip their meanings like that sometimes. (Nifty!) But not all English speakers use this word in the same way. Oh, JimJim is nonplussed. But is JimJim written by a Brit or an US? And not all Americans use the word the same way, because some of us are Save the Words nutjobs (T-shirts at the back) and insist on using the “correct” definition. And the thing is, sometimes it’s hard to tell from the context which meaning the author meant. *holds head* Oh my ears and whiskers. If you gotta use “nonplussed,” I’m honestly for the original definition because it’s such a great word used that way. I mean, characters in a tither, how grand. But mostly when I see this word (especially in a novel), Brain just says, “Dunno. Maybe bears. Wouldn’t risk it.”

There you have it, folks: Laura’s pretty good conglomerate of endangered wordlets. (Aren’t they cute?)

What’s yours?