Husband: Bingley or Darcy?

Yeah right that is such a lie!!!!!!!! Have you seen Darcy's bod. O my God! and he is so nice. Bingley is better for Jane thatt is for sure, but Darcy is like "My dearest Loveliest Elizabeth" And he is totally all over her. They are totally in love. They totally go together because She's impulsive E-mail me with your opinion.

Kim, consider yourself shot! ;) - Kali PS - You don't happen to be Kim Davis from Stockton, do you?

Please pay no attention to my original posting. As Kali has informed me, this was already discussed. Oh well, I must have missed it. I only hope that I didn't miss anything juicy. For Kali: No, I am not from Stockton m Stockto n.

Whilst Darcy has all the charisma, I'm still not sure of the answer to this one; would Darcy smoulder at one over breakfast?? horrible thought!!!

It's okay, Kim...we can do it again...I was just being a samrta**, taking after my dear Auntie Cheryl...;)

Bingley is the quintessential Nice Guy, but I think he would get rather boring. Darcy strikes me as a person of more intelligence who's more perceptive about the world.

To be honest my main concern re Darcy would be can he maintain his new reformed self, or, having won the prize will he lapse back into his previous selfish and arrogant persona. With the best will in the world I don't think it's possbile to change one's basic personality, and even changing behavior patterns is very hard. I think Lizzy has the energy and optimism to cope with the occasional relapse, but I woudln't care to attempt it myself...

Darcy! I like a little smouldering and brooding melancholy sometimes, as I like rainy days in gorgeous landscapes sometimes. Bingley is too nonstop cheery and lilting. Darcy has unexplored depths and passion.

I don't know. But I have to confess I have a fancy for Bingley. Not so compelling, however, anymore, that I am as sure as I was two weeks ago about preferring him to Darcy. You see, in the beginning I had really a crush on Darcy and didn't notice Bingley more than necessary. But then, I don't know why, Bingley caught my attention more and more, until I began watching P&P (almost)just for him. He is so kind! And really cheered me up when I was tired and/or sad. He's so kind! But Darcy is so exciting! I don t know anymore... It's just that I can imagine a family life with Bingley but not with Darcy and passion with Darcy, but not with Bingley...

]It's just that I can imagine a family life with Bingley but not with Darcy and passion with Darcy, but not with Bingley... Isn't that always the way?

What about marrying neither -- nobody. And keep them both as buddies.

Amy...have you lost it? Of course I'd marry Darcy. In a New York minute. In a heartbeat. Immediately. Before the question is even asked. No contest whatsoever. And it's not just beause I'm attracted to his aura...it's because he's the type of person I could appreciate living with day in, day out...He would be an equal, a challenge. I'm afraid someone like me would pulverize poor Bingley. - K

Kali said: "I'm afraid someone like me would pulverize poor Bingley." But I bet he would die with a smile on his face!

Re 83:11 All neat and tidy... Amy, you amaze me! Buddies indeed? How could you manage that? Well Bingley of course, he would be nice for chats and long walks, occasional video evenings and so on. But can you honestly say that your heart would not jump, if you answered the doorbell and Fitz was outside? And go for long walks together without wishing he would bump into you occasionally. And would you not be touched if you caught him ringfiddling? And would you be able to sit in a dark theater next to Darcy, watching a movie or listening to say The Marriage of Figaro with total concentration on the screen or scene?! No no this can not be the absolute truth.

Isn't the trick of passion its evanescence? In September when we viewed P&P2, my teenage daughter thought Darcy "awesome". A couple days ago, the only one she could talk about was Romeo. I asked her what happened to Darcy and she told me that Darcy was so "last month".

I am in favour of the buddy-option. Besides, I am already married. Before I saw P&P 2, of course, but what can one do? It would be fun to share a house with Darcy and Bingley and Jane and Lizzy and dear Georgiana and, though you may think him a little ill-timed, Josh from Clueless (I've a fancy for him too. I'm sorry!).

Kali: I'm with you. I think Darcy would be a more difficult person to live with, but much more challenging. Bingley would start to bore me in about a week.

Kali, I'm confused: do you prefer Mr. Darcy or Mr. Knightley? you can't have them both, you know. you have to leave at least one of them to the rest of us...

Ann2, Friends can make the heart beat faster,and those who raise passion can be friends.

Hilary: What about the WHEN HARRY MET SALLY contention that men & women can never be friends?

contention that men & women can never be friends? Rubbish! (imho)

Adi, I'm having a little trouble making up my mind...I think I'd have to say Darcy at this point...younger, more energetic...but you know, who says that the qualities of each must be mutually exclusive? - K

Actually Bingley is supposed to be (probably) several years younger than Darcy.

contention that men & women can never be friends? they can as long as they are both head-over-heels in love with someone else!

DARCY! Ever since I have seen P&P2 and read the book he has been the ultimate man for me. Bingley is nice but I am like Kali; Men like Bingley would be intimidated by me. Only someone like Darcy would put up with me. We cannot forget Darcy's passion either. Bingley is sweet but I want more. . . Karen

Re19 Hilary(or hat?) Friends can make the heart beat faster, and those who raise passion can be friends But the heartbeat can increase for *different* reasons can it not? I think I know what you mean when you experience that happy feeling of silent and complete understanding with a friend, male or female.But surely you agree that the HAB(heart attaching belly)-aching feeling from physical attraction is something else? And doesn't the passion have to vanish before the "only friends times" can start?

I think that Nora Ephron & Rob Reiner's point in HARRY MET SALLY was that men and women could never truly be _platonic_ friends, because the sexual angle would keep getting in the way. I'm not sure if I agree or not, since most of my male friends are gay!

'contention that men & women can never be friends? Rubbish! (imho)' - Anna' My opinion too. I've not seen 'Harry met Sally'. Ann2 Hilary(or hat?) - yes, the same. But the heartbeat can increase for *different* reasons can it not? - certainly. But surely you agree that the HAB(heart attaching belly)-aching feeling from physical attraction is something else? - yes it is. I think you can experience it with a friend. It makes life complicated, there's no doubt, but it happens. And doesn't the passion have to vanish before the "only friends times" can start? - no.

I guess I saw a different point in Harry & Sally movie -- I thought they did become friends, then the sexual attraction entered in. They remained friends, however, even w/ the romance. I have two close male friends, no romantic/physical entanglements, and neither is gay. I can talk on the phone for 2-3 hours at a time w/ one of these guys -- in fact I've been trying to convince him to read JA's novels since he liked P&P2. Anyway, there are exceptions to all rules in human relationships.

It's a tough call. I think it's pretty hard for men/women to put the sexual angle aside, even in a platonic relationship. Even poor Lizzie found herself unconsciously attracted to Darcy, a man she thought she hated. . .

Here is a great web site for laughing over platonic friendships: Excuses We Make for Ourselves It seems to me that since this is basically a man's world, we women need all the male support we can get, and so we try to turn would-be lovers into friends. Men, on the other hand, do not really need female friendship - at least not to the extent that women need male friendship. I think that most platonic friendships between men and women are based on the man's being at least a little bit in love with the woman, and the woman liking the man (but not as a lover) and needing the friend.

Ann, my response to Adi re: Darcy results from a comparison of Darcy with Knightley, not BIngley...;) Sorry! ;) - K

If we're allowed our pick, how about Wentworth?

Good point, Anna. The more I think of Wentworth, the more I like him

Kendall, you've completely nailed it! I think you need your own call-in radio show!!!

Hell, I think I'll get outta here and go eat woolly worms. I'm obviously out-numbered. Why don't we get down to the basics of genetic biology and say men want quantity and women want quality, because for each, its the best way of passing on their genes? I think this is more true than man/ woman politics.

Good point, Hilary...but I think the really right-thinking people of both sexes are interested in quality mates...what human being in his or her right mind would pass up a remarkable person for a piece of meat? ;) Certainly, people get caught up in situations from time to time, and lose track of reality and the unknown possiblities the future holds, but anyone who's rational would certainly have to prioritize...and at least try to make a logical decision regarding relationships. Does this make sense? ;{

Thanks,Kali! It does. The biologists have answers for that too, of course!

Lovers or friends? Kendall: think that most platonic friendships between men and women are based on the man's being at least a little bit in love with the woman,... This brings up the question �WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED LOVE�! Does anyone have a short answer? Hilary: Why don't we get down to the basics of genetic biology and say men want quantity and women want quality, because for each, its the best way of passing on their genes? I wonder if it is a language matter, Hilary or if we just define friend differently. I don�t know what I call those men that have mental qualifications *and* are dangerously attractive. But they are something different from those friends, you just occasionally experience as beeings of the opposite sex. Kali: .but I think the really right-thinking people of both sexes are interested in quality mates...what human being in his or her right mind would pass up a remarkable person for a piece of meat? ;) But preferring quantity might mean that a man would like both, if he did not have to suffer the consequences?

Don't forget that some women in life actually resemble Miss Piggy's attitude of "so many men, so little time" and operate from that premise, much like those men who also like quantity. Hollywood is riddled with them, male and female.

What?! Is *this* thing called love? What is this thing called, Love? What?! Is this *thing* called love? 'men that have mental qualifications *and* are dangerously attractive.... Ann2, it may be unusual, but I have a friend of many years standing who is like this.

Homo sapiens are not naturally monogamists! IMHO.

Homo sapiens are not naturally monogamists! IMHO.

After what Mr. Darcy went through I think he would be loyal to Lizzie.

I'm only saying that naturally, in the wilds of pre-historic nature, humans are not monogamists. It is society--which is artificially created--which makes them so. Today, and historically, polygamy is and has been widely practiced (even the rare case of polyandry ;-) ).

I have always enjoyed Katherine Hepburn's line from African Queen: "Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are here to rise above!" (ooh, must go add African Queen to my fav movies list!)

contention that men & women can never be friends? I was too busy last week to say why I disagree so strongly with this statement. I know it's true for some people, but it's not a universal truth; it's certainly not true for me. If you believe it it's a self-fulfilling statement, and I find it a depressingly limiting and limited way of looking at the world. Personally I could not accept as a lover anyone who could not be a friend. There are many basic drives that have the potential to prevent or destroy friendship; besides sex I there's the desire for attention, power and competition for certain limited resources. On occaision some of these have been said to prevent friendship between women (in a detective novel written by a woman i the 70's I came across the statement that single women could never be friends brecause they would be in competition for a husband - I disagree with that too). Very young children are totally self-centered and expect their wants to be met before anyone else is considered. Learning to modify some of one's own expectations to fit in with society as a whole and so that others can have some of their needs meet too is essential to adulthood in any functional society. Bonking aside, amongst my aquaintance, some people like both sexes, some are only comfortable with their own. I have seen this with heterosexual men and women and I know some gay men who have woman friends, and others who would be happier if they never had to meet another woman again. I also think that seperating the relationship between lovers from all others is in part an artificial distinction. There are varying degress of affection, sensuality and passion in all human relationships. "Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are here to rise above!" bravo

Anna, you're wonderful! I absolutely agree.

Hil, I thought you would be gone by now. Please have a great trip and think of us? You aren't going anywhere near the Bellinger River are you?

Amy, I think Hilary must have gone by now (Monday morning) do you mean Bellingen River as in Oscar and Lucinda? If so no; it's in North NSW, Hilary is going East from Melbourne to Adelaide

Hilary is going East from Melbourne to Adelaide I should stop posting before coffee; Adelaide is west of Melbourne. (East, West, Port, Starboard; petty details anyway!)

Anna! Very well put! That bit about varying degrees of affection, sensuality and passion...

Christmas Eve! Adelaide, my step-sister's computer. Hi!!! I will try the chat room in a minute, but if I don't catch you there, happy Christmas, I"m thinking of you lots.

Hi, Hil. Sorry I keep missing you.

I realize you will think I've totally lost it - but - I would prefer Col. Fitzwilliam to either Bingley or Darcy. If I had the wealth to attract him I think we could have a real fun time together. He's seems so comfortable and gossipey, has great sense of humor and has been described as a man of the world and that is usually equated with a great lover. My vote goes to him. I do believe Darcy's arrogance would resurface and Bingley would bore me to tears.

Col. Fitz, my dear, happy thoughts indeed. Amazing how little is mentionned in the "Making of" Book, a little picture that's all...

I don't know if I'd go quite that far, Caroline, but Col Fitz is very likeable and sympathetic as a character, and I grew to like him even more in P&P2.

What about the elusive Captain Denny? I think a previous thread discussed his desireability. What's wrong with him for one of the younger girls?

]What about the elusive Captain Denny? I think that in the book Denny was Wickham's closest friend and knew that he was intending to run off with Lydia, but not marry her. Since Denny didn't try to interfere I doubt that he would be good husband material, besides, his income was probably at the Wickham level (militia, not regulars); insufficient to support a family.

Too bad. In P&P2, he was pretty cute!

Was amused by Anna's earlier comment that Darcy would probably smoulder at the breakfast tabel and doubted that she could take that. I was married for many years to a dark smouldering man whose looks would put Darcy in the shade. Anna, you are right. Eventually, you want to yell"Quit going around smouldering. Lighten up!!!"

Scuse typo. Table, that is.

I am totally on Darcy's side here...he is the absolute best. He may not smile alot but when he does you just want to melt. One thing I noticed in the earlier postings is that someone said they didn't know if Darcy would keep his 'new' persona up. The thing is..he doesn't have to. He was always a nice guy to those that were close to him. He was just not too sociable to others. He was raised in high society and found himself thrown for a loop when he fell for Lizzie. I think he would make the best husband because he seems to have a good sense of humor when he chooses and definately passionate!!

I know this is beyond the scope of this topic, but I am of the mind that Mr. Knightley would make a perfect husband...just as good as Mr. Darcy...

I think it would be obvivous that Mr. Darcy at least it is to me that he would want Lizzie to be a free thinker,Kali. To be able to make choices for their benefit if he couldn't. That is why they are better match. Mr. Knightley Mr. Knightley, I am sick of Mr. Knightley, he is a very good dancer

#64 Yes, Kali, you know I agree with you on this one. I could never be sick of Mr. Knightley!

Donna, I'm with you. I'll take Darcy, and the rest of you can have your Mr. Knightly!!

I do get the sense that Darcy & Lizzie are more intellectual equals than Emma and Mr. K. The considerable age difference between the latter couple is such that it might turn Pygmalion/Galeata sort of relationship.

Some people quote the Bible; I find quotes in Shakespeare that can express what I need to say sometimes. Imagine this to be Lizzy (or we Darcy aficionados) explaining why she/we can admire and love this man/character so much. "Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice, And could of men distinguish, her election Hath seal'd thee for herself: for thou hast been As one, in suffering all, that suffers nothing; A man that Fortune's buffets and rewards Hast ta'en with equal thanks: and bless'd are those Whose blood and judgment are so well commingled That they are not a pipe for Fortune's finger To sound what stop she please. Give me that man That is not passion's slave, and I will wear him In my heart's core,ay, in my heart of heart, As I do thee." HAMLET, III, ii The ironic filip to this is the phrase "not passion's slave": Darcy is quite passionate but without losing himself totally in the process. This capability reminds me of the Buddhist idea of being a calmly detached witness of what one's own self is, (and is up to). Darcy is more aware than Bingley could ever be, and that is why I would respect, love, and prefer him as a husband

Darcy's one sexy dude, man! He'd provide all the heat you'd need for years!

That's a great quote, Wendy. I agree with you about Darcy being passionate without losing all sense or reason. He knows which woman in the world is right for him, and he goes after her with a vengeance!

Amy2: I can't say that Lizzy and Darcy are intellectually better-matched. Emma is certainly intelligent, just less mature than Mr. Knightley. She already knows quite a bit of the world, though not everything! (Who could at age 21? I certainly don't!). The difference, Mr. Knightley puts very succinctly, is in "the advantage of sixteen years' experience, and not being a pretty young woman and a spoiled child." He understands her faults, but he appreicates her progress and her potential. And the book proves that they can spar with just as much spirit as Lizzy and Darcy!

I can't say that Lizzy and Darcy are intellectually better-matched. You tell 'em, Kali. Emma and Knightley deserve more respect.

Yay, Susan!

Nobody has mentioned the sisters-in-law! If for nothing else (ha!), Georgiana would be far superior!

Right, poor Jane, with relations such as Caroline & Louisa! Do you think they'd torture her much after her marriage? Or keep a respectful distance?

or perhaps a disrespectful distance

Wendy, I really appreciate the Shakespeare you cited. What a great fit! Thank you.

I think Darcy very sexy, and that's important in a husband, but Bingley seems the more stable of the two. However, I respect Darcy taking responsibility for his actions and being open about them. Bingley just avoided Jane when he thought she was outside his grasp socially. He needed Darcy's approval to persue Jane, what a whimp! I'd take Darcy anyday.

Bingley is a wimp; Darcy is a hero. I respect Darcy's character. Darcy is true to his feelings when he realizes that he fell in love with Lizzy. He is mentally strong and reliable. His financial management skills seem to be excellent. He has integrity. And that constrained PASSION!!! It's probably hard to live with Darcy because he doesn't seem to open up much, but hey, with his good looks and fortune, I will just live in the other wing of Pemberly. :)

That's the nice thing about being of that class and age, Sage. I always thought living in a duplex would be a perfect way to be married or living almost together. These days of constant companionship are for the birds!

I always thought living in a duplex would be a perfect way to be married or living almost together. These days of constant companionship are for the birds! Too right, Amy. I've always contended that I'd like a man in my life, but I don't want one in my house.

And don't some men feel the same way! No wonder the poor guys are always waxing cars or tinkering in the garage/workshop, yard, or basement. My grandfather used to go alone to "Check" the country house on weekends, too.

#79 Tammy Bingley just avoided Jane when he thought she was outside his grasp socially. He needed Darcy's approval to persue Jane I didn't get that impression. I think he was convinced (by Darcy and his sisters) that Jane didn't feel as strongly about him as he did about her, and for whatever reason, he didn't have the stuff to find out for himself. So yes, I guess in that way he's a wimp compared to Darcy, who will have Elizabeth at whatever the cost. #82I've always contend ed that I'd like a man in my life, but I don't want one in my house. You've got it, Myretta! I love my husband, but it's great when he's gone for a few days. Katherine Hepburn once said that men and women are not suited to living together, and should just live next door to each other and visit now and then. She should know -- she and Spencer Tracy never actually lived together.

Besides, Bingley smiled with his mouth open! ewww

Re: Best Husband -- How about this...The wealth and appearance of Mr. Darcy, the willingness to please of Mr. Binley, the awe of affection of Col. Brandon, and the way with words of Capt. Wentworth. Ah, the perfect male! Re: #82I've always contend ed that I'd like a man in my life, but I don't want one in my house. -- Do you guys really feel this way? I am truly astonished. Maybe you are confusing living with a man with living with a man? What I mean is that there is a difference between living under the same roof and thinking that you have to spend every minute together. Everyone needs their space, men and women alike. Most times my husband is doing things and I am doing other things (such as the many hours that I spend with all of you), we are under the same roof together but enjoying things separately. Even though he might not be a part of what I'm doing at the present, I love the fact that he is nearby. Then when we sit down together, we enjoy our time together. I truly don't mean to sound preachy...I really don't...so, please do not take it as such. Sometimes a comment is posted that I suddenly get a passionate need to express my opionion. This is such a time, as I have just arrived home after spending two days at a conference. :-)

Maybe you are confusing living with a man with living with a man? Trust me, Candace, I've been around long enough to understand the difference. I have never desired to spend every minute with any person. You are fortunate in the man you live with. Not all have that same experience.

I do love my husband and enjoy his company, but I also love when he's gone and I have time to myself. There's an episode of "Mad About You" that perfectly expresses my feelings: Jamie has gone to spend a few days with her father and Paul sees her off with all the appropriate "will miss you terribly" language, then he shuts the door behind her, surveys the apartment, and breaks into an impromptu jig, singing gleefully, "I have it all to myself, all to myself, all to myself!" That's what I'm referring to that feeling that I don't have to worry about anybody but me for awhile.

M 87: Not all have that same experience. Like playing russian roulette sometimes, no? What amazes me is to be able to spent time on your own and thus growing apart from your mate, resourcing yourself to new things and then remeeting this other significant one and still finding a deep understanding while still going in the same direction, moving side-by-side on the same road. If this is it, it is very very fortunate. Who knows how long it may last, our wish is usually for ever.

re living with men; I was wondering if living with another adult woman would be any easier? My man and I live together and successfully pursue some shared and some seperate interests, and I too enjoy time to myself when he goes away; being totally selfish and not having to consider anyone else's needs at home for a rew days. Living with someone else necessitates considering their needs as well as one's own; it's not gender dependant so I don't think living with another woman would be any easier than with a man.

Anna, does not being married help with any cultural expectation to be always together?

Your excuse please for breaking the flow.. but I have a decided opinion about a life with Bingley, naively happy (such a word??)and consenting as he is, would be a torment to be married to . Not quite the thing for decision making and almost helpless in his own affairs - says in book he writes letters so badly, cos his thoughts flow so fast, he cannot capture it all. And when he finally purchases an estate, it's closeby to Darcy's - yes, so the dream of the 2 sisters were at last fulfilled - but wouldn t such a man, almost without originality and imagination, be a touch 'weak'?.

] but wouldn t such a man, almost without originality and imagination, be a touch 'weak'?. __ For us, who all identify with Lizzy more or we would not love the story so much. But for Jane... he seems just the thing. (To me anyway.)

re 91; Amy whilst the cultural expectation of being always together may in some cases make it easier for a woman to live with a man, because she has always expected to do so, it may make the less socialised even more claustrophobic as if she feels her choices are limited by other peoples expectations rather than by her own wishes. This less of a factor nowadays than previously as the alternatives increase. I've never tried living with another woman for any length of time so I'm in no position to make a definitive statement, I was just responding to what I understood to be the suggestion that men were harder to live with than women. Cultural expectations and personal space aside I suspect that for most people a lover is easier to live with than anyone else who is not a blood relative (and often easier than many of the them).

You know, despite the trouble and the work and headaches, I find my children the easiest of all to live with. I count my blessings every single day that I am in my own little family now and my own home where everybody loves each other. But I guess what I was driving at, Anna, none too clearly, was this: it seems a little more acceptable to take time off from a live-in than from a spouse.

] it seems a little more acceptable to take time off from a live-in than from a spouse. to most of society I guess it is so; one reason why I'm not married... I'm not surprised you find your kids the easiest to live with; even now I get along better sharing a house with my mother than with any of my girlfriends; afer all, many of my habits I picked up from her ;-)

Put my mother and I in a house together for more than a week and we tear each other's hair out. I've lived in lots of different platonic sharing arrangements, with two other women, one other woman, a man, a woman and a man. etc. I've been really lucky - no major disasters and some of the total strangers I have shared with have become my really good friends. It's important to have strong and clearly understood mutual basic ground rules. The last two houses I shared we each had our own bathroon and this was a major help in the house sharing process. I don't actually know that I would be happy at this stage living completely alone - though it's nice to have the place to yourself occasionally. Having a large and comfortable and private space to retreat to is essential. I think I'd want this even in a marriage. :-)

I think that should be "my mother and me" I never did grammar....

Kate said: Having a large and comfortable and private space to retreat to is essential. I think I'd want this even in a marriage. :-) Actually, this is what I was trying to get at in my post about living together vs. living together. IMHO, I believe that privacy is an essential part of a successful relationship. My husband and I agreed very early on that each partner must respect the fact that the other may need space and it is not a reflection of "I don't love you". This is what I ment about my husband doing the things that he needs to do while I do the things that I need to do, wheather this means...side by side...in differe t rooms...or even elsewhere. I do enjoy the times that I am alone in the house or away with my girlfriends, this only makes the time that my husband and I spend together even more valuable and enjoyable. We are not joined at the hip, but we share a home and our lives.

]it seems a little more acceptable to take time off from a live-in than from a spouse. It depends on the understanding of the two parties concerns and the general cultural basis that prevails. Culture varies tremendously from one place/social milieu/etc. to another... BTW my comment is meant regardless of male/female gender, a personnal belief. And oh I agree with you Amy, our kids are so easy to live with, is this unconditionnal love? and why aren't we allowing it with our supposed equals?

] And oh I agree with you Amy, our kids are so easy to live with, is this unconditionnal love? and why aren't we allowing it with our supposed equals? ____ I don't know, Johanne. Maybe it's this: there is a measure of "I wish you were different" between parent and child, but it's okay. The feeling can exist along with tons of love. When your partner feels this way it hurts more. It's scorn, and takes up the place once occupied by love.

with our parents/kids, we live with what we get - but our "choice" seems to be tied in with the fear of its changing, having been wrong, the chosen one's selecting another,...yeah, the unconditional thing

It struck me how the Collinses' marriage has exactly these features- of a large enough house, couple spending time in different rooms busily and contentedly, etc. We may decry the rationale of their marriage initially, and find at least Mr. Collins to be a bit ludicrous and certainly unromantic, yet they DO seem to be a rather well-adjusted pair and living along some of our own guidelines, no?

] rather well-adjusted pair and living along some of our own guidelines, no? __ Good point, Wendy. But... but. but.....but

] rather well-adjusted pair and living along some of our own guidelines, no? __ [Amy]Good point, Wendy. But... but. but.....but _____ But, I do not think that Jane Austen wanted us to like Mr Collins, or to think that Charlotte made the right decision in marrying him. I suppose we can, however, repect the fact that Charlotte is making the best of her situation. (Still, when I think of them in bed, it does make my skin crawl!)

Exactly so: Miss Austen ironically showed us the Collinses, a probably even then realistic marriage, with a shake of her spinster's head AND then proceeds to shower more favorable descriptions and romance on other couples, without ever showing us how such "better" couples would survive the ordeals of actual daily married life and keep up that idyllic passionate and sentimental fervor... maybe because even she, JA, did not know if/how such was done successfully for long... (I am naturally playing the devil's advocate here, having myself dared all for love and marrying a man against parental wishes, etc.; we are still married today, after several other sibling marriages have foundered on both sides, though it takes great commitment and constantly further maturing to do so. Love is wonderful, and a child can help it bloom even more, but we too find the need for a little time apart in the days' togetherness.)

Was the Collins' marriage so different from the Bennet's (only rather reversed)?

The Collins' didn't have what I suppose there was at first : lust

Mrs Bennet was supposed to have been a beauty.

oh yeah, good point ewww - the thought of anyone lusting after Mr. Collins - ewwww Actually, in P&P2, Mary seems to be obviously enraptured by everything he says, seems to be dashed when he asks Lizzy for the first dances, probably the closest thing to lust any woman would ever feel toward him

Ok! Somebody get the DUCK TAPE!!

I know this has come up on the Board before, but I do wonder how Darcy and Lizzy fare AFTER their marriage. With such diametrically opposed personalities, could they really live Happily Ever After? Or is this where romance fiction leaves off, and reality begins. . .

I know this has come up on the Board before, but I do wonder how Darcy and Lizzy fare AFTER their marriage. With such diametrically opposed personalities, could they really live Happily Ever After? Or is this where romance fiction leaves off, and reality begins. . . __ Oh good, Amy2. Let's do a new topic on this. I am afraid I have an idea or two some will not like.

Mr and Mrs Collins had no real regard for each other, beyond convenience, isn't that the material point?

#113 I know this has come up on the Board before, but I do wonder how Darcy and Lizzy fare AFTER their marriage. With such diametrically opposed personalities, could they really live Happily Ever After? Or is this where romance fiction leaves off, and reality begins. . . My reluctant vote is that reality will set in, with all its attendant problems. This was discussed somewhat in "The Happiest Couple in the Whole Austen Valley" thread in the Austen Archives (actually, maybe it's still active, just not being posted to).

Amy2:I know this has come up on the Board before, but I do wonder how Darcy and Lizzy fare AFTER their marriage. With such diametrically opposed personalities, could they really live Happily Ever After? Or is this where romance fiction leaves off, and reality begins. . . My own feeling is that they fare very well after their marriage. Once their big lesson is learnt (his re: not being so proud, hers so prejudiced) they are open to each other. He learns to share his concerns with Lizzie, while she learns how to fit into his upper-class world from him. I think they really do support, help, and enjoy each other. All the various sequals that have him not telling her his plans rather annoy me--I'm especially thinking of Tennant's Pemberley and the second book. I think he is glad finally to have a confidante and would therefore be unlikely to keep anything from Lizzie. I can even see them happy in old age, sharing their memories together. Maybe I'm a hopeless romantic - but that's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

Brava, Inko! I agree---what makes P&P so perfect is that two strong characters adapt in a manner in which both change for the better, yet neither is humbled. The only way Lizzie and Darcy could have had an unsuccessful marriage is if Lizzie had (for,I suppose, mercenary reasons) accepted Darcy's first proposal. Without the changes both underwent that would have been a doomed marriage! Imagine, she would have not realized his worth and he would have considered his marriage a degradation. Not at all co ducive to connubial happiness!

[ I think he is glad finally to have a confidante and would therefore be unlikely to keep anything from Lizzie.] I am of this view, as well. I really think what he was (maybe even unconsciously) 'looking for' was someone to be intimate with, and she is just such a person. Further, this couple more than many is very likely to deal with 'reality' without a great deal of trouble.

Yes, they dealt pretty successfully with the reality of Lydia's "infamous elopement" and the unpleasant attributes of many of their intimates -- Mrs. Bennet, Sir William Lucas, Mr. Collins, Lady C., etc. But with one partner so naturally high-spirited and prone to satirizing everything, and the other basically "grave & serious", WILL THEY be able to get along on a daily basis? Or will they get on each other's nerves? I do wonder. . .

I don't think Elizabeth will get on Darcy's nerves. He seems to me, in his being so drawn to her for instance, to WISH to be around someone more outgoing and witty. That does not mean that he will ever be that way himself, but some of us do not need or wish to be around someone just like ourselves. I certainly do not think the Elizabeth/Darcy combination is in anyway incompatible. If anyone of the two is likely to get on anyone's nerves, it is more likely that Darcy will get on Elizabeth's. But we know that she is of a disposition to be very accepting of people the way they are overall. I am sure there would have been times when Jane got on her nerves, and certainly her mother and younger sisters did. But this never caused her general discontentment.

I'm thinking of instances were Darcy wishes to be serious, and Lizzie might be making light of a subject he thinks is "inappropriate." Just grasping here. . .

Amy2:I'm thinking of instances were Darcy wishes to be serious, and Lizzie might be making light of a subject he thinks is "inappropriate." Just grasping here. . . Lizzie had a very strong instinct for what is serious and what isn't; she noticed all her family's improprieties when they occurred, though she might not have given them so much weight at Darcy did, since she was used to them. Also, she knew exactly what Lydia's elopement meant for her family. I don't think Darcy would ever have any complaint about her being inappropriately frivolous!

I'm thinking of instances were Darcy wishes to be serious, and Lizzie might be making light of a subject he thinks is "inappropriate." Just grasping here. Well, did she show herself to be annoying in the book - make light of something when another person was in ill humor and in to mood for it? This all goes to judgment and maturity, I think.

In her relationship with Darcy, I think their differing feelings contributed to this. When they talk about the nature of evil at Netherfield, he's quite serious & uncomfortable; she really doesn't care, because "she's never desired his good opinion." Likewise, at Rosings, I think he's seriously trying to determine if "50 miles of good road" is too long a distance to be settled from her family -- he's quite serious & worried about the subject; she couldn't care less, and only applies it to her friend Cha lotte. Not that I fault her for this: it's just that he's coming from the P.O.V. of a man in love; she, of a woman who can't stand him.

Also, Amy, at Rosings Lizzie is thinking of Jane and Bingley (at Netherfield) being too close to Longbourne. She had no idea that Darcy had designs on her; she couldn't stand him and thought he felt the same way about her. At Netherfield, I think she was just trying to prick some holes in his "pride" which everyone had noticed at the first assembly.