Darcy's Story by Janet Aylmer

Copperfield Books   1996   ISBN=0 9528210 2 8




 Response by  Myretta   (mrobens) * Sat, Mar  1, 1997 (00:53) *
 
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by  Ann  (Ann) * Sat, Mar  1, 1997 (11:15) *
 
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by  Kate   (kate) * Sat, Mar  1, 1997 (11:36) *
 
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by  Kate   (kate) * Sat, Mar  1, 1997 (13:21) *
 
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by  kathleen  (elder) * Sat, Mar  1, 1997 (14:51) *
 
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!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by  Inko  (Inko) * Sat, Mar  1, 1997 (18:37) *
 
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by  Kate   (kate) * Sat, Mar  1, 1997 (19:24) *
 
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Response by  Inko  (Inko) * Sat, Mar  1, 1997 (20:17) *
 
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??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by  Kate   (kate) * Sat, Mar  1, 1997 (22:33) *
 
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)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Response by  Myretta   (mrobens) * Sat, Mar  1, 1997 (22:43) *
 
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.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by  Ann  (Ann) * Sun, Mar  2, 1997 (00:22) *
 
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Response by  Inko  (Inko) * Sun, Mar  2, 1997 (15:54) * 3 lines
 
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Response by  Amy Wolf  (amy2) * Sun, Mar  2, 1997 (16:51) *
 
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by  Linda   (Linda409) * Sun, Mar  2, 1997 (20:03) *
 
Also, the following sentence on page 176 is grammatically incorrect. "Their carriage came ahead of the others, so that there could be no reason for he and Bingley to linger."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by  Kate   (kate) * Mon, Mar  3, 1997 (15:57) *
 
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by  Kate   (kate) * Fri, Mar  7, 1997 (01:36) *
 
OK Laura, well I'm not sure if this is an oops or not. On page 87, Col F comments to Darcy that he has rarely seen him as animated as he was tonight. (ie at dinner etc at Rosings.)

Yet, Col Fitzwilliam in P&P seems more surprised about D's lack of animation, Ch 32, towards the end, has Charlotte noting that F laughs at D's stupidity during his vists to the Parsonage which "proved that he was generally different"

Not exactly the same time and place I know, but it seemed a contrary indication of how Col F views Darcy's behaviour.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by  Amy Wolf  (amy2) * Fri, Mar  7, 1997 (10:56) *
 
OK, Laura, back to "oopses." One line in DARCY'S STORY struck me as strange -- that after Rosings, LIZZY had never been so well entertained in that room (at Rosings) than she ever had before. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the original line in P&P refer to DARCY, or the others in the room? Help!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Response by  Linda   (Linda409) * Fri, Mar  7, 1997 (15:25) *
 
Darcy's Story: "...so that Miss Bennet gave Darcy the appearance of having never been half so well entertained in that room before."

P&P
"...that Elizabeth had never been half so well entertained in that room before;..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by  Kate   (kate) * Sun, Mar  9, 1997 (18:20) *
 
I must be the lawyer in this place - the one who finds all the picky little mistakes.

Here's two more.

page 132 Darcy, walking with Mr Gardiner at Pemberley, discussing fishing, gets the gardener to point out where there was the most sport. In P&P Darcy points out where there is the most sport, which is better, because it shows he knows his way around his own estate!

page 134 Darcy and E. are talking, waiting for her aunt and uncle to walk up. In P&P they talk about where she has been till her aunt walks up. In DS they talk about her travel, and then she repeats that she did not expect him to be there, he expresses his pleasure at the opportunity of renewing the acquaintance and meeting her uncle and aunt. This addition seems a little too much at this point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by  Amy Wolf  (amy2) * Sun, Mar  9, 1997 (21:08) *
 
Kate -- I think that Aylmer was trying to imagine WHAT those two would be talking about in the awkward moments before the Gardiners arrived. It's pretty tough, because as JA says in P&P, almost every topic was off limits. I do recall that in P&P, they talked of Matlock & Kent with great intent until the Gardiners finally arrived.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Response by  Lise  (lise) * Wed, Mar 12, 1997 (16:23) *
 
By having the gardener show the best places to fish, it gives the impression that Darcy does not fish himself (which he does as we see a little later when Mr. Gardiner comes) or that it is beneath him to show it himself. He is trying to impress on Elizabeth that he is a changed man so it is much better as Jane Austen wrote it.