Darcy's Story's oopses

I know it's just barely March 1, but let me weigh in here with how very disconcerting I found it to have Hunsford morph into Hunston at odd intervals.

That was very annoying Myretta, I agree. I thought it would only be in one section of the book, like the spell checker went a little mad at that point or something, but when it came back again later in the book, that excuse went out the window.

On p 71 and afterwards she refers to Mr Collins as a "curate". I'm no expert on the Church of England, but I though a curate was kind of a second level clergyman. Mr Collins refers to Lady C having preferred him to the RECTORY of the parish, which would make him a Rector, wouldn't it? "Curate" always seems to imply someone who hasn't got a living of their own. Does any one have any more info on this?

Ok, here's another. On page 139 (Elizabeth and Mrs Gardiner having tea with Georgiana, Miss B and Mrs H, Miss B makes the catty comment abou the ____shire militia's departure being a great loss to the Bennet family. On page 140, Darcy notices that Miss B has failed to notice how "Georgiana had been overcome with confusison at the mention of the name of Wickham" But she hadn't mentioned W's name. In P&P it says that "In Darcy's presence she dared not mention Wickham's name." In P&P2 she does use Wickham's name, presumably to make it perfectly clear to the audience. But in the book, mere mention of his militia unit is enough to make it clear to E, Darcy and Georgiana who she is talking about.

Your point about the rectory is true, I think. In fact a curate is on the lowest rung of the clergy-ladder (a curate is more or less filling in for the person who actually holds the living, but is either retired or has better things to do (what a way to run a church!)), while a rector is near the top of the ladder. This makes it all the more astonishing that the idiot Collins would have such a position.

On p. 138, when Darcy & Georgiana invite "the travellers from Hertfordshire to dine with them at Pemberley the following day." It was, of course, an invitation for the day after the next, and the Gardiners were from London not Hertfordshire. At the beginning of the book, Bingley rides "the mile over to Longbourn," from Netherfield, but Elizabeth walks 3 miles when she goes to visit when Jane is ill. Inconsistency, or perhaps Elizabeth merely takes a longer way!

More, more .. from a lurker awaiting the book's arrival..

First: re the Curate vs. Rector question. I think, since Collins was only ordained a few months before, he was still at the lowest rung of the C.of E. ladder - a rector. However, the terms may have been interchangeable. I know that "priest" would have been wrong--that would denote Catholic vs. Anglican. Now as to oopses: The most offensive one, to me, was the Hunsford, Hunston one -- really annoying. Another one, equally annoying, is on p. 216, last paragraph in a direct quote from P&P: "The fact is, that you were sick of civility, of defence (sic), of officious attention." "Defence" should have been "deference". Picky, I know, but when reading a direct quote from the original, it's difficult to overlook! There were other small problems, but I didn't mark them so will have to find them again! Perhaps, more later.

Here's another. On page 212 it refers ( in those extremely annoying indented italicised paras) to a conversation which Darcy had with Georgiana. In reply to the question whether E is someone D will come to "more than value" (quite a cute phrases I think) he recalls saying that that is already the case,, in truth, but as to E's view he is uncertain,... he does not know. Yet when that actual conversation takes place on p.167, in reply to the question whether E is someone he could more than value he simply replies that he does not know - ie she leaves out two statements which he later recalls having said. I don't think this is just a small error, because it really changes the nature of what he has confided in Georgiana, which is why I noticed it. Did he tell her that he already "more than valued" E, or did he tell her he didnt know?

Kate, I hadn't noticed that oops before. My own feeling is that he recalls on P.212 a combination of what he thought and said -- i.e., he thought to himself that she already is more to him, but didn't say it aloud to Georgiana. Does that make sense??

Yes, but why recall it as conversation? I mean every other time the author uses indents and italics, she's recalling actual conversation. I think she actually had the longer version, and then edited it on p 167 because she thought it was too direct at that point in the story and forgot to edit p 212. If that's the case it's not the only example of sloppy editing in this book. (ie HUNSTON)

My book is out on loan, so I don't have a specific reference, but I do have a very clear recollection of the pronouns "she and I" or maybe it was "her and I" being used as an object. I'm afraid this kind of thing makes me crazy. The editor in me makes it very hard for me to overook these things and enjoy the story. (I have no idea where the editor in me came from, however.)

Someone mentioned earlier that Aylmer was in desperate need of an editor. There are lots of inconsistencies within the book and with P&P as well as grammatical and spelling errors, which a good editor could have prevented.

She definitely needed a good editor. I've found more examples of bad grammar, bad editing, just plain lazy English - it does make me crazy reading it. I feel I should have a blue or red pen in my hand while reading. I wonder whether she was in such a rush to publish (and did she self-publish?) that she didn't take the time to check what she'd written. I'm surprised, though, that both Andrew Davies and the curator of Jane Austen's house liked it and didn't mention these errors? Did they see a manuscript or the finished book when it might have been too late? Just idle thoughts!

It may have been that the compliment from Andrew Davies et al were lifted from a general comment which was more critical?

Kate: I too was stopped cold by the truncated quote you mentioned, to be repeated later at greater length. There are other more annoying errors throughout the book: "maybe" for "may be," etc. I can forgive the "travelers from Hertforshire" because the Gardiners DID stop there enroute to pick up Lizzy. Also, has anyone else had this experience? -- when I was growing up, it was perfectly acceptable to say "Elvis and I"; in fact, it was considered GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT. Then suddenly, the rules changed and it's now "Elvis and me." Was this just a So Cal thing, or did it affect anyone else? I HATE when rules change midstream! (Like Beijing for Peking). OK, end of rant!

Amy2 - I'm horrified. When did "Elvis and I" change to "Elvis and me"? It's just not English. You can't say "Elvis and me went to dinner"? I agree, why can't they leave decent grammar alone - let today's kids learn what we learnt. Sorry, I forgot, they probably don't teach grammar anymore! I can understand changing place names more easily - though no less annoying!

The rules didn't change, it depends upon the context. "Elvis and I went to dinner." But, "Amy2 and Inko went to dinner with Elvis and me." I can't find it right now, but there is a case of incorrect usage; i.e. a grammatical error. I cannot quote the rule, but Myretta describes it in her previous post; subject vs. object. Also, the following sentence on page 176 is grammatically incorrect. "Their carriage came ahead of the othersof the others, so that there could be no reason for he and Bingley to linger."

- when I was growing up, it was perfectly acceptable to say "Elvis and I"; in fact, it was considered GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT. Then suddenly, the rules changed and it's now "Elvis and me." When I was growing up, I was taught that it mattered whether "Elvis and I" was the subject or the object. The rules still hold. You wouldn't say "He gave the book to Elvis and I" just as you wouldn't say "He gave to book to I".

Thanks, Myretta. I was taught this also, just could not remember the correct terminology. Today, either it is no longer being taught this way, or people are just careless. I suspect that it is the latter. But, I do not think that the rules have changed, we just hear the incorrect usage so much that it becomes acceptable to some; they do not even realize that it is wrong.

I think the publishing industry might be to blame in part. Priscilla Presley's book was titled ELVIS AND ME. Now wouldn't you say this is THE SUBJECT? And to my ear, it sounds scurrilous!

I first found this on news casts. They usually have their grammar correct. The first time I heard the anchor say: "Please join Mark and me again at 11:00...." I about died, but it is correct. Where is/was the Darcy discussion? Was it in Pemberly and I missed the whole of it? Nothing to read up on? I had to be out of town and not near my computer all day/

Dina, the Darcy's Story discussion is taking place at the More Darcy's Story Topic...but it seems that the corrections topic is getting more posting traffic! Could it be that we are more emotionally involved in the errors, than in the story itself? Hmmmmmm.......;-)

I am so amused to hear you all being upset on grammatical errors and it is as if I heard a friend of mine and...hrm me. I have always been most attentive to those matters and am trying to reconsider in later years since I have heard the Secretary of the Svenska Akademien (the ones with the Nobel Prize ;-))and the Chairman of the Swedish Language Care Council (my private translation) both trying to explain that the language is never fixed once and for all. It is spoken by people and they influence how it i used. You can not say 'is there such a word as'.... If someone has said it, then it exists. I am having trouble with this myself, but trying not to be Darcyish when I hear something that I consider grammatically ugly....It is not easy.

Ann2 - that seems to be the way here (the States), too, to a certain extent. I taught Freshman Comp at the local university, and we were basically told that it was too late to remedy grammar for most of our students; we should focus on content. After all, our mentors said, English is a constantly evolving language.......the only problem was that some of our students had "evolved" English to such a degree as to be completely unable to communicate with anyone else! ;-)

Which then unfortunately leads into something as ridiculous as teaching "Ebonics."

I'm not so upset about the grammatical mistakes (though I think its a bit stupid to publish a book which is meant to be Austen-ish and not get your grammar vaguely right) as I am upset about the obvious mistakes and inconsistencies with P&P and within Darcy's Story itself. No, upset is not the right word. I don't really care that much! It just seems to me that there are some really obvious mistakes that any half-decent second reader could have picked up and corrected prior to publication, and that a book that one PAYS for (as opposed to the great stories at the Guild) ought to be a bit more careful with these basic things.

Since I have not received my copy yet, I want to thank you for this discussion. After reading your comments about P & P, I noticed so much more the second viewing. It makes both reading and viewing far more interesting.

You have convinced me not to buy the book, ladies.I've got too much more interesting stuff to read, anyway!Thanks for the comments.

Always thought Elvis had a lot to answer for.

to be completely unable to communicate with anyone else! ;-) That certainly is a definite drawback, Tracey ! teaching "Ebonics. What's that Amy2 ? Elvis had a lot to answer for. Do you mean Elvis'just let me be your teddy-bear' ? Hilary. This is hard for me, I want to understand all the fun, especially when it is nice and dry ;-)

Ann, I'm not sure how to explain Ebonics. Basically, it's a sort of slang spoken by disadvantaged African American kids in the ghetto. There was a movement afoot in Oakland, CA to make this part of the school curriculum; i.e., to teach these kids in their "language" of Ebonics. This engendered quite a bit of controversy -- in L.A., there's a strong protest movement against this. And many African Americans of my acquaintance are embarrassed by this and think it's ridiculous.

By the way, it was voted down. Jessie Jackson and I actually agreed on something (for only a week though, when he decided he could see wisdom in this). Ann, the reason the community thought ebonics was a good idea in the first place, is that it would help these kids learn "proper" english easier if they understood "their" language first. The drop out rate alone would prove this theory wrong. I know, I know - I shouldn't go there. It is just too ridiculous.

I suppose it was well meant... As a matter of fact some reasoning along those lines is being done concerning deaf Swedish kids. Earlier they were not alowed to use their own 'Sign Language' (Know what I mean?)Now it is believed essential to have some emotional way into a person before s/he can learn other things. And their school results have improved greatly .And their self esteem. Grown up deaf people can tell of the cruelty of having to actually sit on their hands in school. To prevent them from talkin to other children. Thanks a lot Amy2 and Dina for taking the trouble to enlighten me.