We’ll be doing a bit of maintenance on AustenBlog tonight around 11 Eastern time, and the blog will be unavailable. Hopefully it won’t take too long!

ETA: We’ve upgraded to the latest version of WordPress. So far so good. Please let us know in comments to this thread if you experience any problems or weirdness.

(Some VERY interesting things going on under the hood, for those of you who use WordPress for your blogging!)

The Complete Jane Austen begins to wrap up tonight with a two-part presentation of the new-to-us Sense and Sensibility. PBS’ Remotely Connected blog has a review from Laurie Viera Rigler:

Anyway, after I stopped turning cartwheels, a mild feeling of apprehension set in. As an Austen addict whose obsession exceeds even that of the protagonist of my novel, my mind is so full of the text that often I must watch a new film adaptation twice just to see if I like it or not. The first time I watch, my mind is buzzing: Did the screenwriter/director stay true to text? Why did they add this scene or cut that one? Not exactly the uncluttered frame of mind one needs in order to sit back and enjoy the story unfolding on the screen.

But this new Sense and Sensibility? That called for three viewings before I could even see it as a film unto itself. Not only was the novel echoing in my head, but the Oscar-winning Ang Lee/Emma Thompson movie, which is perhaps my favorite of all the Austen-related films, demanded comparisons at every turn.

Nevertheless, I’m happy to report that I find myself in a state of admiration for the new Sense and Sensibility. A review by Amazon UK’s editorial staff addresses the inevitable comparisons to the Ang Lee/Emma Thompson film by suggesting that “it’s perhaps best [to] see them as companion pieces.” I agree. The luxury of this particular film’s nearly three hours of screen time provides more opportunities to stay true to text, which we devotees of text certainly appreciate. However, this film, like most adaptations, includes expanded and even invented scenes, something I have no objection to, as long as they serve the story and character development.

And the Editrix also had her share in the conversation. Well, actually we had some help from perhaps unexpected sources. (If you haven’t seen the new film yet, the review might make much more sense after you do.)

PBS also has a minisite dedicated to the film, including some behind the scenes videos.

There are lots of media reviews as well, which is to be expected. The New York Times review by Ginia Bellafante takes an interesting view of the pasted-on “seduction” scene at the beginning.

The PBS adaptations of Austen’s novels have been infused with a certain eroticism, and it should be said that “Sense and Sensibility” introduces itself with a bedroom scene that seems to exist as an admonition against incautious sex. Flesh is anathema to Austen purists, but the murkily filmed scene (baffling until you figure out who the players are much later) animates what is implied if not stated in Austen: that in mindless passion there is no substance at all.

Has someone told Andrew Davies?

The reviews are overwhelmingly positive: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Los Angeles Times, Cleveland.com, USAToday, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Orlando Sentinel, and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette all have rave reviews. Maureen Ryan at the Chicago Tribune thinks Willoughby is too obviously a cad for belief, the Mercury News thinks it’s a little slow, and the Long Beach Press-Telegram thinks it’s not lively enough for Jane Austen.

What did we think? We thought it quite good, definitely the best of the latest set of adaptations, though not quite as good as the 1995 film, although at times we felt more like we were watching a remake of that film than a new adaptation of the novel. We particularly enjoyed Daisy Haggard’s turn as Miss Steele (quel surprise) and thought Hattie Morahan as Elinor was a real bright spot in the production, very much the emotional center of the film and a very strong performance. We liked Dan Stevens a lot as well, though he reminded us more of Henry Tilney than of Edward Ferrars. We found the story rushed and a trifle sloppy in places–why in the world did Marianne call Fanny Dashwood “Aunt?” And then how does Edward, Fanny’s brother, become Elinor’s cousin? We don’t mean to nitpick, but we find such changes confusing, distracting, and most of all unnecessary. And see if you can spot all the lines stolen from P&P, because Jane knows we can’t have an adaptation that doesn’t reference P&P.

That being said, we think our readers will, for the most part, be very pleased with the new series. Let us know what you think.

Alert Janeite Laurel Ann sent us an amusing post at Blogcritics in which Jane Austen writes to Cassandra about attending a SmashBox Cosmetics show at Fashion Week.

We drove in a black horseless carriage across broad expanses of asphalt. I was surprised to find the I-5 and I-10 freeways have as much appeal as a soggy rutted road in the middle of winter. The journey lasted ninety minutes, during which time Miss Fong and I waited in line behind other carriages as at times we were proceeding at walking pace.

We arrived at a store called Trader Joe’s and, after circling, found a spot in the car park. I begged leave to stop in at the store, (which I found preferable to Tesco). We bought Cadbury and scones as other travelers have said there is little food at the oddly named Smash Box Studios, a duchy owned by the grandsons of cosmetics duke, Max Factor.

Miss Fong and I then caught a public coach over to Smash Box Studios, where there was a long queue. There were many young women in mourning – never have I seen so much black. To my shock, a feather-haired gentleman was engaged in a mild flirtation with one of the widows. It was not until Miss Fong indicated that indeed in Los Angeles, wearing black needn’t mean they’re widows. As such, we spoke to one of the ladies at length. Sadly, I’ve concluded most of the women are spinsters.

Very clever!

Alert Janeite Dana sent us a link to a blog post about Jane Austen the Medievalist, riffing off the New Yorker article we posted about in last week’s Bookblogging.

Alert Janeite Maria L. sent us an article about a book that could have been written by Charlotte Lucas. The premise is that women shouldn’t wait for the perfect man to marry, but grab the first half-decent one that comes along.

She says what makes for a great courtship doesn’t necessarily make for a great marriage. “I think, for a lot of people, if they actually went with (Jane Austen’s) Mr Darcy, they might not be that happy. What is he like dealing with diapers and paying the bills?”

We think Mr. Darcy employs people to do those sort of things for him, actually. And we think the premise of this book is very sad, indeed.

A poll reveals that one in ten British students confess to watching film adaptations rather than reading the books for class assignments. This is news?

A book of short stories written by Dalziel and Pascoe author Reginald Hill includes a sequel to Emma.

And who but a writer of Hill’s calibre would have the brass neck to take on Jane Austen at her own game and write a sequel to Emma, set 20 years after Miss Woodhouse’s marriage to Mr Knightley.

About ten dozen fan fic writers and Emma Tennant?

The couple are childless and still living with Emma’s creaking-gate father, a fact which has probably driven the once-perfect squire into a dissolute life in politics. Back into their lives comes the now-widowed Frank Churchill, who is keen to save Emma from a life of debt.

Miss Austen would, I feel, have been shocked but amused.

And she would have referred the author to her nephew’s Memoir, which included the information that Jane Austen said that Mr. Woodhouse survived Mr. and Mrs. Knightley’s marriage only by two years. But after all, there must be murder, and government cares not how much.

In other paraliterature news, Colonel Brandon’s Diary by Amanda Grange will be out in July 2008! (UK hardback edition–there will be a U.S. paperback edition sometime in 2009.) There’s preordering information at the link.

Some upcoming Jane Austen events, some of them very possibly in your own neighborhood!

The last lecture in Camden County College’s Jane Austen series takes place this Thursday, April 3. Lisa Zeidner, Professor of Creative Writing at Rutgers University, Camden, will speak on “Austen on Page and Screen: Adapting the Novels.” The lecture is at p.m. in Madison 210 on the college’s Blackwood Campus.

Alert Janeite Sharon and Cub Reporter Heather L. let us know that JASNA member and Regency historical romance author Elizabeth Boyle will give a talk on “Jane Austen’s England” at the Bellevue Regional Library in Bellevue, Washington, on April 7 at 7 p.m.

Jane Austen’s great-great-great-great-nephew, Richard Jenkyns, author of A Fine Brush on Ivory, will talk on “Is Jane Austen Modern?” on April 9 at 7:30 p.m. in the Barrick Museum Auditorium at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. Thanks to Baja Janeite for the heads-up.

JASNA’s Greater New York Region is holding a daylong event, “Jane Austen and Byron: Together at Last” (PDF) on Saturday, May 3, 2008 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Speakers include Professor Rachel Brownstein of CUNY Graduate Center and Brooklyn College; Professor Marcia Folsom of Wheelock College, Boston; Professor Peter Graham of Virginia Technical University, and Professor Jonathan Gross of DePaul University, Chicago. More information is available on the JASNA New York website.

Since we received two e-mails from Alert Janeites last week, though this is not a new item, we thought we should repost for the benefit of some of the newer AustenBlog visitors.

Alert Janeites Baja Janeite and Lynne both sent us links to the Jane Austen Little Thinkers doll, to which they both reacted with the general attitude of What the Ferrars? We own this doll (being a huge Jane nerd) and think it’s so ugly it’s cute. She sits on our bed and looks quite pretty there. And if you look at the rest of the Little Thinkers dolls, they look pretty much the same, so it’s not a cut on Jane. (We also have the finger puppet, which we use to terrify our co-workers. JANE SAYS REDRUM!)

Baja Janeite also sent us a link to the lovely paper doll of Jane Austen at Legacy Pride Paper Dolls, which we also own (did we mention we’re a big Jane nerd?) The artist has created paper dolls for all of Jane Austen’s heroes and heroines–do check them out, they are gorgeous.

ETA: And of course we can’t forget the fabulous Jane Austen Action Figure!

Baja Janeite also found an article about a young lady who makes Barbie dolls into characters from literature, including Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy. We think that must be Lizzy right there in the front of the photo in the pretty blue spencer. And wheee, Horatio Hornblower! We see him there with his sword drawn. Her dolls are on display at the Sumner Library in Sumner, Washington, through the end of March.

Alert Janeite Lisa wrote to tell us that Case Western University/Cleveland Play House graduate acting program is currently staging a production of Pride and Prejudice at the Cleveland Play House. Tickets are $32 and $58 and are available online. Cleveland.com has an article about the production and the Cleveland Plain Dealer has a review.

Alert Janeite Jessica let us know that a new adaptation of Pride and Prejudice will be staged by the Citadel Theatre in Edmonton from September 20 to October 12, 2008. From the media release:

This classic tale of love and values unfolds in the class-conscious England of the late eighteenth century. The five Bennet sisters have been raised by their mother to have one purpose in life: finding a husband. When a wealthy bachelor takes up residence in a nearby mansion, the Bennets are abuzz. Among the man’s sophisticated circle of friends, surely there will be no shortage of suitors for the Bennet sisters. But when Elizabeth meets the handsome and - it would seem - snobbish Mr. Darcy, the battle of the sexes is joined.

The SCERA Center in Orem, Utah, is holding auditions for a musical production of Pride and Prejudice to be staged this August. The auditions will be held April 22 and 23 from 7-9 p.m. “All auditioners should prepare to sing 16 measures of a song of their choice. An accompanist or CD player will be provided.”

Thanks to Alert Janeite Lisa for the heads-up!

Alert Janeite Laurie sent along a bit of YouTube silliness…

Not that any of the men HERE would need such a thing.

And have an open thread!

The ever-Alert Baja Janeite sent us a link to purchase Jane Austen-related accoutrements for your dollhouse: a miniature Pride and Prejudice and The Life and Works of Jane Austen (with illustrations!!!). We cannot comprehend the neglect of a family library (even that of a dollhouse family) in such days as these.

(And parenthetically, check out the Bath Circus Dollhouse–wow! Gorgeous, and correspondingly expensive, but again–wow!)

The break is over, and the Complete Jane Austen is back with a broadcast of Emma starring Kate Beckinsale, first broadcast on A&E about ten years ago. How interesting to ponder the later careers of some of the actresses involved: Kate Beckinsale, Samantha Morton, and Olivia Williams. We also get a big kick out of Raymond Coulthard’s take on Frank Churchill in this one (as seen to the left). He’s handsome and charming, just as he ought, and yet you believe he can be feckless. We often think that we would like to combine this version with the Gwyneth Paltrow version to make a very tolerable film version; though don’t make us pick a Miss Bates. We imagine most of our Gentle Readers have seen this one by now, but we’re sure you would like to discuss it anyway.

PBS’ Remotely Connected blog has two reviews of the film: the first is by Jessica Emerson, a/k/a JaneFan of Austen-tatious.

Self-knowledge is highly regarded by Austen, so a character who is ignorant of his or her own faults is clearly in need of correction before he or she can marry a worthy partner. On this path, Emma (Kate Beckinsale) walks a very fine line. If she were fully aware of her faults at the outset of the novel (therefore acting with willful disregard towards others) she would be a horrible person, and a hateful character. It is her naivete, her self-ignorance, her “clueless”-ness, if you will, that saves her from our scorn. We certainly do not admire her, and may even pity her.

Erica S. Perl is not a fan of period films, but was won over.

And then, something happened. I’m not exactly sure when, but my hackles came down. It might have been when the egotistical, self-satisfied Emma and the absurdly-rich-yet-unpretentious Mr. Knightly swapped their first flirty smile, or it could have been when the gullible Harriet Smith (Samantha Morton) appeared like a vision to the trolling-for-a-DIY-project Emma. All of a sudden, the characters seemed complex, edgy and flawed. In a word: modern. Not in their dress, or manner of speech, of course. But their emotional frankness and sly sense of humor took me by surprise. And hooked me.

So, Gentle Readers: how YOU doin’?

Laurie Viera Rigler has resumed her series of blog posts on Jane Austen’s novels with Emma.

These “a-ha” experiences are high on the list of reasons why I love Austen. I have this theory that if you read her works enough times and really contemplate the life lessons therein, you can pretty much give up your psychotherapist. You can even reduce your library of self-help books to Austen’s six novels. They are so much fun to read, so satisfying, so full of dramatic tension and hilarious commentary, that you hardly know you’re getting a life lesson at all. Which is exactly how I like my life lessons delivered.

We agree that much of the genius of Jane Austen (and her continuing popularity) lies in the truth of her novels. John Murray wrote to Walter Scott about Emma, “It wants incident and romance, does it not?” Silly, silly man!

Alert Janeite Sarah sent us a link to a very amusing article in the New Yorker about the recent trend of memoirs that turn out to be mostly invention (and invention is what delights us in novels, after all).

And when history books are wrong they can be miserably, badly, ridiculously wrong, a point that wasn’t lost on Jane Austen, who, in 1791, when she was sixteen, wrote a brilliant parody of Oliver Goldsmith’s four-volume, march-of-the-monarchs “History of England, from the Earliest Times to the Death of George II.” (Goldsmith, the author of the novel “The Vicar of Wakefield,” wrote history to keep out of debtors’ prison.) Austen called her parody “The History of England from the Reign of Henry the 4th to the Death of Charles the 1st, by a Partial, Prejudiced & Ignorant Historian.” It consisted of thirteen perfectly dunderheaded character sketches of crowned heads of England. Of Henry V, she wrote, “During his reign, Lord Cobham was burnt alive, but I forget what for.” Of the Duke of Somerset: “He was beheaded, of which he might with reason have been proud, had he known that such was the death of Mary Queen of Scotland; but as it was impossible that he should be conscious of what had never happened, it does not appear that he felt particularly delighted with the manner of it.” Of the allegation that Lady Jane Grey, Edward VI’s cousin, read Greek: “Whether she really understood that language or whether such a study proceeded only from an excess of vanity for which I believe she was always rather remarkable, is uncertain.” Once in a great while, Austen happened to bump into a fact or two, for which she apologized: “Truth being I think very excusable in an Historian.”

In other book news, Alert Janeites Laurel Ann and Lisa sent us a couple of links to an article about Penguin’s new endeavor with ebooks, which will be “enhanced” with “a filmography, period book reviews, recipes and black-and-white illustrations.” We were concerned about formatting, but the Publishers Weekly article claims the enhanced ebooks will be compatible with all readers. It’s a pretty good idea, as there are so many nicely formatted ebooks of public domain texts available in every format that publishers will have to offer extra content to get readers to pay money for them. Jimmy Guterman of O’Reilly disagrees.

Although ebooks should have extras, those extras should take advantage of the interactive medium, not merely deliver more — and inferior — text.

Inferior? Jane Austen? Harrrumph. Or does he mean etexts are inferior to paper? Trust us, as a dedicated ebook user, once you start reading and get lost in the story, the medium in which the story is delivered becomes completely transparent. And besides, “interactive medium” indicates a connection to the Internet, which all ebook readers (meaning the electronic devices) do NOT have, and which many ebook readers (meaning people reading books) don’t want.

What’s most galling, of course, is that Penguin isn’t attempting to increase interest in ebooks as a medium by making these classics, long past copyright, available in free, un-DRM-encumbered formats. In an old-meets-new mashup, publishers could use free distribution of still-in-demand classics to generate interest in a form, ebooks, that is still only in the earliest days of its potential public acceptance. Wouldn’t you be more likely to try something new if it was free?

As we already pointed out, there are already tons of free ebooks of public domain texts available everywhere in every format. The publishers have to do something different to get people to buy them. We would like to see some scholarly notes and essays along with the more fun stuff, by the bye; there’s plenty of room for all.

In other news, two recent entries in Norm Geras’ Writer’s Choice blog series on Normblog mention Jane Austen. Meg Rosoff discusses the different layers of Pride and Prejudice:

Above and beyond the love story - people who would never consider reading the book have swooned over various film and TV versions - Pride and Prejudice is actually a book about class, about fortunes on the way up and down, inherited wealth versus new wealth, good marriages and bad, gentlemen and bounders, and the emerging English middle class at the end of the 18th century.

…and Olivia Lichtenstein writes about the continuing fascination of filmmakers with Pride and Prejudice:

In the past decade alone, Pride and Prejudice has spawned a BBC costume drama, an Oscar-winning feature film, a Bollywood version (Bride and Prejudice), the books Bridget Jones’s Diary and Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason, its sequel - arguably amongst the biggest of recent publishing sensations - and, of course, by extension, the two feature films they engendered. This year, a spoof Pride and Prejudice is planned, Jane Austen Handheld, a film which is to star Stephen Fry, Russell Brand and Lily Allen. I wonder whether frequent repetition diminishes the value of the original work of art, or at the least, people’s perception of it.

Naaaaaah.

And lastly, Alert Janeite Lisa pointed us to the Blogger News Network, which has a review of Pemberley Remembered, a new P&P sequel; we’ll have a review here at AustenBlog next week.

That’s it for Weekend Bookblogging, Gentle Readers, so until next week, remember: Books Are Nice!

Alert Baja Janeite sent us a link that indicates the 11th Annual Jane Austen Ball will be held on May 31, 2008, at UCLA. The link to the Jane Austen Ball is broken, but try this page, which is no less confusing and offers no more information. It is unclear if this is limited to students. If anyone finds out more, let us know.

Our friends at BrontëBlog found an individual who claims a rather different definition for “Janeite” than that usually heard around these parts.

Laura Joh Rowland’s The Secret Adventures of Charlotte Brontë gets a good review (check ours here) from Entertainment Weekly:

I’m what’s known in literary circles as a ”Jane-ite”— someone who rereads Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre at least once a year — so I was prepared to loathe The Secret Adventures of Charlotte Brontë, which transforms Brontë and her sisters Emily and Anne into 19th-century sleuths investigating the stabbing death of a young governess. But Laura Joh Rowland (Red Chrysanthemum) not only evokes Victorian-era London with a sure hand in this detective novel, she creates a believable Charlotte whose intelligence, stubbornness, and wit recall Jane at every turn. Even more important, the mystery itself is particularly fine.

While we don’t mean to bogart the Jane, has anyone else ever heard that definition?

Thanks to Alert Janeite Amy for the link!

Exhibit A: Sent by Alert Janeite Karen 2L, from the New York Times, March 7, 2008, referring to the author who was outed as having written a Made Up Memoir:

To the Editor:

It’s clear that Margaret Seltzer, author of “Love and Consequences,” is a gifted writer with a soaring imagination. It seems perverse, then, that she chooses to deny her destiny as a novelist.

Ms. Seltzer’s insistence that only nonfiction can “make people understand the conditions that people live in” is way off the mark.

Has she never read Charles Dickens — or even Jane Austen?

Anne Bernays
Cambridge, Mass., March 4, 2008

Exhibit B: Sent by Alert Janeites Laurel Ann and Lisa, an article about, of all things, gravel:

The sound of tires on gravel always brings to mind English manor houses on “Masterpiece Theater.” You expect a Rolls Royce to deliver over-dressed nobility into the hands of waiting domestic staff. And in Jane Austen novels, young ladies in their elaborate Victorian dress stroll along gravel lined flowerbeds.

Exhibit C: It was, perhaps, inevitable that Jane Austen would show up in reference to the hotly contested Democratic primary of the U.S. presidential race; and perhaps even more inevitable that she would show up for just about every camp.

For Barack Obama, in Slate, sent by Alert Janeite Anna:

If we were to contrast Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama we’d have to say that Clinton is one of those forgotten novelists, with an edge of rage warring in her with a penchant for excessive deference to the “divisive” politics of the past, and Obama is Jane Austen, speaking as Woolf said she did, with “freedom and fullness of expression.”

Not for Obama, from FrontPage Magazine, sent by Alert Janeite Lisa:

What in the world would a Jane Austen novel have to do with Barack Obama?

Austen’s last book which she wrote before dying is titled “Persuasion,” and in the introduction to the novel, Gillian Beers, Professor of English at the University of Cambridge, delves into the meaning of “persuasion.” According to the definitions and exploration of the word, one can’t help but think about Barack Obama. Indeed, for Barack Obama is undoubtedly a master of the art of persuasion.

For Hillary Clinton (sort of), in Newsweek, sent by Alert Janeite Deborah:

There may be a million reasons not to vote for Hillary, but the quality of her marriage is not one of them. As Charlotte Lucas says in “Pride and Prejudice,” after she makes a chillingly pragmatic union, “Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance.” She might also have said that one woman’s frog is another one’s prince—or that the glossy illusion of perfection does not insulate any marriage against inevitable struggle. She might have added that the only people who know the truth about a marriage are the two people who are in it—but she didn’t. Hillary said that.

We present the last bit in the interest of our theme of “She’s Everywhere,” and hope that it will not spawn unpleasant debate, though we have no doubt that many of our Gentle Readers hold very strong opinions on the subject.

Alert Janeite Julie T. spotted this intersection in the south side of her hometown of Milwaukee:

We’ve had an insanely busy couple of weeks (so if you e-mailed us and we didn’t respond or post it, we’re not ignoring you, really) but hope to get caught up tonight or over the weekend. In the meantime, have an open thread. What’s new in Janeiteland?

We just noticed that I Love You Because, a modern-set, gender-switched musical retelling of Pride and Prejudice, has quietly opened (in other words, we were not informed) at the American Heartland Theatre in Kansas City, Missouri. The play runs through April 20, 2008. Tickets are $27-33.50 and available at the box office (information at the link above). If you go, send in a report!

Alert Janeites Shannon and Lisa sent us a link to an article in Playbill about the Paul Gordon musical of Emma, which will be staged in the autumn by Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park.

Alert Janeite JennaL sent us a link to a Jane Austen DVD Store at Amazon. Nothing we don’t already know about, but hey, one-stop shopping, right? And as Jenna pointed out, it’s fun to look through.

We also can’t resist taking the opportunity to link to JASNA’s Austen on Film Section, which has a list of just about all the movies available to purchase, and then some.

Alert Janeite and Occasional AustenBlogger Allison T. pointed us to a fascinating post at Susan de Guardiola’s blog, Capering & Kickery: “Real Regency Dancers Don’t Turn Single: Ten Tips for Judging Authenticity.” You think you’ve seen authentic dancing in period films? Most likely not, according to Ms. de Guardiola.

6. Real Regency Dancers Really Reel

Regency-era dancing was not limited to longways country dances. The Scotch Reel was also in the repertoire, though perhaps not always considered perfectly genteel, especially if others in the room were doing country dances. Mr. Darcy was not being complimentary in Pride and Prejudice when he asked

“Do you not feel a great inclination, Miss Bennet, to seize such an opportunity of dancing a reel?”

In its simplest form, the reel consisted of three or four people alternating between the interweaving hey figure and dancing in place, with the men in particular showing off their fancy footwork.

We cannot convey how completely delighted we are with the idea of Cranky McJerkpants doing a Highland fling. Do check out the whole post, it is just loaded with information on period dancing.

Review by Allison T.

Long ago, in the dark ages of 1999, when mastodons and cave men roamed the earth and there were “comparatively” few Jane Austen sequels out there (“comparatively” being a word used cautiously, meaning that there were already a lot of sequels published but certainly fewer than the scores produced annually in recent years), Mary Street’s The Confession of Fitzwilliam Darcy appeared to soothe the breasts of Darcy-fans craving another fix of their favorite hero. They were satisfied and life was good, except that the book was printed in a small run and became very difficult to find.

The Confession of Fitzwilliam Darcy is now being reprinted by Berkley Publishing Group for the delight of a new generation of Darcy-lovers. They will not be disappointed—this is a straight-forward retelling of the story from the gentleman’s viewpoint. “I know not how Miss Elizabeth Bennet contrived to bring herself to my notice throughout the course of that evening,” the Confession begins, and from this promising point plunges directly into an engaging exploration of Darcy’s feelings. (more…)