Reading Pride and Prejudice in the 21st Century

By: Patricia A. Matthew, The Great Courses

Narrated by: Patricia A. Matthew

Length: 1 hr and 43 mins

Publisher's summary

After Romeo and Juliet, Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy might just be the world’s most famous fictional couple.

The story of how they fall in love—Pride and Prejudice—has left an indelible imprint on popular culture. Readers, novelists, playwrights, filmmakers, and even zombies can’t leave Pride and Prejudice alone. Which raises the question: Why has this novel, of all Jane Austen’s works, remained the general favorite?

In Reading Pride and Prejudice in the 21st Century, Professor Patricia A. Matthew, a specialist in British Romanticism and the history of the novel, examines how fans and scholars engage with the novel today—and how contemporary storytellers continually surprise us with new retellings. Through this Audible Original, you’ll explore fresh perspectives on the heroic ideals of Elizabeth Bennet and the values of the women around her, the enduring sex appeal of Mr. Darcy and his various cinematic interpretations, how today’s readers grapple with the novel’s depictions of gender and class in the 1800s, the timeless power of Austen’s satire, and even the promises of a Pride and Prejudice multiverse of parodies, murder mysteries, and more.

©2023 Audible Originals, LLC (P)2023 Audible Originals, LLC

Too woke

There is a difference between modern standards and woke “standards”. The author could consider this.

Great info for thought!

I love all the Jane Austen books and this expert explained why all the reasons Jane wrote her books as she did as well as all the adaptations since. I found it an enjoyable short read!

Short and educational

Short series of lectures about the impact of Pride and Prejudice. Matthew's analysis was enjoyable!

So enjoyable! More please

I really enjoyed Dr.Patricia Mathew’s scholarship. More please! I will look for more courses by her.

Helpful introduction

Whether you’re just getting started with Jane Austen or you’ve read the novel but want some additional background, this is a well-informed and engaging introduction to Jane Austen and her most famous novel.

Omg the narrator

The narrator/author not only speaks in an unnatural, completely scripted cadence, but she repeatedly says, “In this lecture I will tell you…” “In Lecture Four I will tell you.” A college professor should have better writing skills than using the “I will tell you” crutch. Perhaps, “in this lecture we will discuss,” or “this lecture focuses on.”

I was excited to see this title, but the narration is a mess.

Very disappointing subjective course

If someone is seeking out any kind of literary, critical, or modernist take on Pride and Prejudice, you can be pretty confident that they will already be familiar with the plot; therefore, Matthew spends entirely too much time summarizing it and giving her general opinions on it as a 19th century novel with no time spent on how first-time readers today might interpret the original text. When she does finally get to discussing modern adaptations, she spends the most time discussing the most popular movie adaptations and very little on the books adaptations that appear in much higher quantity.

Matthew seems particularly upset by the 2005 movie version, which she deems as horribly inaccurate for various reasons. Dismissing an adaptation for slight inaccuracies is a very tired argument since new writers are obviously going to change certain things for the modern viewers and their own personal preferences; expecting a perfect facsimile of the original novel is unrealistic and quite frankly, boring. About this 2005 version, Matthew says, "I think Keira Knightley is too pretty for the role of Elizabeth, the orchestral music is too intrusive, and the ampersand in the title is grating." First of all, bringing up your annoyance with an ampersand in a title in no way contributes to any meaningful discussion of the story or medium and is therefore completely unnecessary. Also, the orchestral music in no way distracts the viewer from the story, so that is also an incredibly subjective comment. And as for Knightley being too pretty, it is commonly accepted that the heroine of a film is going to be beautiful, so that's entirely to be expected from Hollywood and in no way should reflect poorly on Knightley herself. Matthew also takes umbrage with the proposal scene in this movie because of the shouting and sexual tension. She says that people of this time would never shout at each other; normally I would agree, but I think it can be allowed that people of any century sometimes lose their tempers and a more heated argument is good for the visual medium of film. I also don't find any fault with there being some sexual tension in the scene, as love and hate are both strong feelings that are well-known to bring people together as much as apart, so it's not unreasonable to say that expressing any strong emotion in this scene could result in sexual tension between two grown adults.

Matthew was inconsistent with her critique of tropes in some adaptations but not others; she seems to condemn the wet shirt scene in the 1995 movie and yet lauds a Darcy on horseback in an Atlanta-based adaptation for being hot. Perhaps she thinks sex appeal is only acceptable in contemporary adaptations but not those still set in the Regency? But they're all adaptations at the end of the day, so I think it's hypocritical to allow it for some and not all. And as for contemporary adaptations as a whole, she implied that one should never sacrifice accuracy for diversity and inclusion, which sounds rather close-minded and borderline racist to me. Matthew has a throwaway comment about how the Bennet parents in the book "Pride" love each other much more than in the original, but while that may seem true on the surface, you also have to consider the social conventions of the time period; couples in the Regency were not expected to ever show physical intimacy outside of the marriage bed but cuddles and kisses in front of others are perfectly acceptable today.

In conclusion, this audiobook needed less summary and personal opinion and more objective analysis on what this classic novel means to readers today. Matthew could have used many more examples of adaptations and spent a little more time with each one to really delve into the nuance of various changes. I'm less interested in Matthew's personal preference for accuracy and more interested in how this novel has shaped our society in surprising ways.

Disappointing and Shallow Analysis

The first few chapters were okay, but half of the audiobook were shallow references to modern adaptions most readers likely wouldn’t have encountered before listening. This was less about analyzing the book and more about gushing over fan fiction.