The Annotated Pride and Prejudice
by Jane Austen
|
List Price: Our Price: $10.40 You Save: $6.55 (39%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $3.34 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The Annotated Pride and Prejudice
Book Review: I Read All the Annotations First
Summary: 4 Stars
I have read, watched, or listened to Pride and Prejudice at least a dozen times in the past couple of years. It presents us with a complete world, with its own rules, customs, and shared knowledge; and I find my understanding of it deepens each time I experience it. Much is obscure about upper-class rural England in the early 1800s - what are "shoe roses", for instance? Mr. Shapard tells us (page 165) they are "ornamental ribbons, knotted in the form of a rose that would be attached to the top of a shoe." Ah, just like those on the Jane Austen shoes my wife asked me to give her for Christmas. Well, then, why were they "got by proxy" during the week it rained? Why did not the young ladies make their own? Mr. Shapard is silent. And speaking of "got by proxy" why were they not "gotten by proxy"? Ms. Austen's use of language is not congruent with ours. People "were come" which makes much more sense than our present idea that they possess the state, as they "have come." And of course Ms. Austen's characters are often "at window", "at table" or considering that "in future" they would do something. Mr. Shapard is not much help with understanding these usages where the article is omitted. Sounds Russian, does it not?
But he is quite helpful with a number of other things, and having some 350 pages of annotations is wonderful. The first time I picked up his edition of P&P I read the entire set of annotations before turning to the novel. On the whole I found the annotations interesting, and useful. Good discussions of money, customs, & morality in the time of the novel. But the closer they adhered to the factual, the more I agreed with them. I am interested in Mr. Shapard's analysis of the characters' characters, if you follow that, but I am by no means in complete agreement with him. In a way that makes the book more useful to me, as now I must consider why I disagree with him. Like Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth "we may compare our different opinions." Many people seem to feel Mr. Bennet has a dark side to his wit. Certainly Mr. Shapard does. From the very start, on page 7, note 14, he finds Mr. B "irresponsible as a father." Much later in the novel, the narrator will tell us that Elizabeth Bennet "had never been blind to the impropriety of her father's behavior as a husband" by diverting his talents into wit rather than doing what "might at least have preserved the respectability of his daughters..." (Vol II, Chapter 19, page 436 in this edition) . As for his duties as a father, especially a duty of securing mates for his daughters, it is not clear in Austen's novels that this responsibiity falls on the father. Mr. Shapard does not tell us either way. As for respectability, which is Mr. Bennet's charge, the narrator's insertion is first indication in the novel of any such feeling on Elizabeth's part, and suggests to me that Ms. Austen herself developed a darker view of Mr. Bennet as she worked on the novel, but never went back to the earlier chapters to revise them to give us a hint. By contrast all the way through the novel we see Lydia's attraction to Wickham, even if Elizabeth does not, which strikes me also as a case of revision. But returning to Mr. Shapard's annotations, often, it seems to me, he just doesn't get the jokes in the novel.
So, bottom line. Fascinating and interesting book, I'm glad I have it, I refer to it often, and I recommend it. However, I suggest the reader question Mr. Shapard's analysis of character and motivation, and remember, there are depths unplumbed in this novel, even by 350 pages of annotations.
Book Review: Best of and worst of...
Summary: 4 Stars
I loved and hated the annotated edition and would like to give it both a 1-star and a 5-star rating.
Hated the redundancy and the over explanations. In addition to town=London that is mentioned above - and I had to try to will myself not to look at the footnote every time a number appeared over town. Sadly, I don't think I ever restrained myself. Don't look, don't look, I'd think, it just says London, but I kept glancing over just to make sure there wasn't a really interesting footnote about London's geography or political significance. Heads up for future readers, there never is any other explanation. You can really skip every town footnote. In addition to town, there was want=lack, wait on=call on, colouring=blushing and more definitions that are just too obvious in context and repeated too often. I could deal with the redundancy if it was new or helpful information.
However, I really enjoyed when Shapard discussed the social history, or detailed differences in editions, or clarified the timeline. Austen's book definitely benefits from the information about entailments to landscaping to even, yes, definitions of less obvious word choices. Biggest lightbulb definition for me was candour=tendency to think well of others, because I would have assumed that it meant the now-common definition of candor and in pretty much every situation, it would have completely changed the meaning intended.
I settled on 4 stars because 3 was generally fair to represent my contrary views, but I felt it deserved a star bump for revealing a couple of plot points that I had never known. Loved the realization about Sir Lucas and his fascination with court even though he had only been once and was unlikely to ever to go again. I guess every reference to St. James just went over my head. And it pretty much deserves 4 stars alone for revealing the *spoiler* :) plot point that Charlotte was pregnant. I guess I had always skimmed over the importance of referring to "Charlotte's situation" in the final letter that Mr. Collins sends to Mr. Bennet and I never would have known that "young olive branch" could refer to a child.
Overall, I wish I, or another reader who enjoyed this book but had never studied it, could have gotten to Shapard and told him what was obvious in context to spare the over explanations. I think it would have dropped out at least a quarter of the footnotes, but I would have preferred that. I love reading this book and hated to interrupt the sentence flow for "repulsive=repellent, tending to repulse others". Or course it does. What else would it have meant? But I kept looking because I didn't want to miss a disclosure such that reels were popular, maybe too popular and that people of refined taste might have thought them common, so when Darcy asks Lizzy if she would like to dance a reel, there might be a slight insult there.
Book Review: A True Classic
Summary: 5 Stars
Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's most popular novel and it is remarkable that it has sustained such a high popularity 200 years after it was originally published. The primary plot of the story follows Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy in a highly contentious courtship that begins with mutual contempt but evolves quite unexpectedly for both into very different feelings. Subplots involve her sister Jane and Mr. Bingley in a courtship of their own as well as the romantic entanglements of various other sisters and friends. The story is a bit of a roller coaster ride with soaring hopes and crushing disappointment in store as events unfold. I won't reveal the ending for the handful of people who haven't read it but suffice to say that the novel concludes in a way that leaves the vast majority of readers well satisfied.
Darcy and Elizabeth are complex and multi-layered characters who both grow and change somewhat as the book progresses. They are the heart and soul of the book and about as well fleshed out as any characters you are likely to see. The supporting characters, however, are considerably less deep and are more caricatures than anything else. Some are good and kind like Jane and Mr. Bingley, and others are ridiculous and vain like Mrs. Bennet but none are remotely as substantial as Darcy and Elizabeth. So, does this ruin the book? Hardly. These secondary characters offer a wealth of material for the author as she plays them off of Darcy and Elizabeth.
This novel is almost certainly the one where Austen best displays her sharp-edged wit both through Elizabeth's dialogue and in the narrative voice describing some of these characters and their actions. If some of them were less ridiculous, the potential for the satire would be weakened considerably. And make no mistake, Pride and Prejudice is as much a satire of the time it was written, as it is a romantic drama. Even today, the prose is quite funny and enjoyable.
This edition is annotated with footnotes to help decipher some of the language that has become archaic and unfamiliar to modern readers. Unfortunately, the footnotes themselves aren't always as helpful as they could be. Those looking for this kind of help might find the Pride and Prejudice (Enriched Classics) a stronger choice.
In summary, this is a great novel. Admittedly, there were a few times where I thought a character's behavior was a bit over-the-top but the overall story is so riveting and the book so compelling that I just can't find any serious fault with it. Pride and Prejudice is deserving of its reputation and I highly recommend it to Austen fans and newcomers alike.
Book Review: Mostly great and helpful annotations
Summary: 5 Stars
This review deals only with the annotations. I'm not going to talk about the text of this edition itself, because I assume most readers of an annotated version are familiar with it.
For the most part, I really loved the notes. It turns out that despite having read P&P multiple times, there were things that I had misunderstood, and the background information (which comprises mostly historical context and/or literary influences) added depth. After the annotation, I had a greater appreciation for the incredibly layered, complex, subtle, and amazingly well-thought-out book P&P really is--and I had always assumed that it WAS all of those things.
I also loved how the annotations were presented. The text appears on the left page, and the notes on the right, which is not a layout of annotations I have seen before (seems most are either marginalia, footnotes, or endnotes). At first, I thought this would make for an awkward and unnatural reading, but after a page or two, I got into a nice rhythm. The layout made for very easy simultaneous reading of both--no flipping back and forth, the print was clear, and you could skim the annotations before or after reading the text on that page to get a sense of then, then delve into them at the appropriate part of the text.
The one thing I will fault the annotations for are the word definitions. The vast majority of them are words that anyone who has read P&P more than once or has an above average vocabulary would have figured out from the context; e.g. it's not that difficult to figure out that want=lack in the context of the book. But even more annoying than that is that the same word is defined in the same way over and over and over again; e.g. every time the word "pale" is mentioned (and it's used a surprising number of times), there is an annotation pointing out that it means fencepost or border. Anyone with half a brain, after seeing pale used in that way once, would have been able to figure out the correct usage (fencepost vs. light in color) from the context after that. The editor states that this is done because it's meant to be a reference work and the repeated definitions are included to aid in understanding when only specific parts are consulted. But I still found it distracting and a bit insulting, and I felt disappointed when I stopped my reading of the text to read an annotation that it was yet again only another repeated definition.
Despite my rambling on the definitions, this is still a 5-star annotation. The easy reading and overall helpfulness of the notes make this edition a great way to develop an even greater appreciation for our beloved Pride and Prejudice.
Book Review: It's worth having
Summary: 4 Stars
I reserve 5 stars for items that I consider exceptional. Of course, as a long time P&P fan, I consider the novel exceptional and among my ten favorite books of all time. For those of you who just want to read the book, you can download it for free from the [...].
If you're considering buying this particular edition, you're probably interested in the annotations. The question is how much do they add to the enjoyment of the book? Everyone's opinion will be a bit different -- and, ultimately, you'll only know if you read the book. Here's my take on the annotations:
Shapard right up front tells the reader that many of the word definitions will be repeated throughout the book; this is because he intended it to be used as a reference and make it easier for a user to open to a particular section and benefit from it without having to refer to an earlier definition. OK, that's the annotator's design decision. Personally, I didn't care for it because it made things a bit "noisy". I would rather have seen the definitions of words put into a glossary in the back with a simple annotation after the word in the text letting you know there's a definition should you wish to refer to it. When a word usage is slightly different that what's in the glossary, that can be handled by an annotation.
Other reviews have complained about Shapard explaining simple words that are easy to figure out from context. While I agree with the criticism, I support Shapard's style here because he was probably writing for students, who have a wide range of abilities to infer things. It's not too bothersome to read something you already know as long as the other annotations are providing valuable insights.
The real value of the annotations is the scholarly work Shapard put into them -- the good annotations give you historical and cultural perspectives and educate you about the environment the plot was taking place in. He also contrasts various things in the book with material and characters from other Austen novels.
I would enjoy also having the P&P version annotated by Spacks to be able to contrast the two.
Overall, Shapard's annotations are worth reading and I'd spend 11 bucks again for the book if I needed to.