Talk:Elizabeth Bennet

Section taken straight from Sparks Notes?

If you go to the sparks Notes page for the character Elizabeth Bennet found here, you will see that the text beginning "The second daughter in the Bennet family, and the most intelligent and quick-witted... " and ending " ... she realizes the error of her initial prejudice against him." in the article has been taken straight from Sparks Notes without any acknowledgment whatsoever. Surely it is too large a chunk to be used like this. I am tempted to simply remove it, but I would rather it were left to those who know about such things, and I do not know how to flag things for consideration.Kuitan (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This section (added in this edit) certainly appears to be a copyright violation. Removed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Pictures

I would like to add, upon the advice of my wife, that Keira Knightly should not have the marquee image position. Thank you :). MKV 06:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Its actually spelled Keira Knightley, and , don't mean to be rude, but what does your wife know? She's not Jane Austen after all, is she? Also, nobody suggested Keira was there because she was the best. Only because she has been the latest person to portray that LITERARY character. - Jane 5:21, 29 December 2006

Hello Jane, - The real issue is that this is a page dedicated to a literary character not a film character, thus this is a "book" page, not a "film" page (pages in the Wikipedia make this distinction). It is fair to mention films under a separate heading on a book page, but the main information in the infobox is limited to the book. You might want to review these pages Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Five pillars to help with your future edits (in addition - if this were a film character page, and multiple actresses had played the part, it would still be arbitrary to pick an actress because she is the most recent. I could equally argue that Greer Garson should be in the box because she was the first actress to portray Elizabeth in 1940. Since Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a major rule of the Wikipedia, neither argument would win). -Classicfilms 01:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You, I realize that, and that is why I put the pictures in a gallery. - Jane 7:28, 31 December 2006

Yes, I saw the gallery - it looks great! Thanks for setting that up. -Classicfilms 03:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Images

I reverted back to a the page which shows a few actors who have portrayed Elizabeth as she is a literary character first - to preference one image in the infobox would violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -Classicfilms 14:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the pictures should be shown, but of ALL actresses. Give me time, and I'm sure I'll be able to find a shot of them all as Lizzie Bennet, since it would make the section so much more pretty and not violate the neutral point of view. - Jane 13:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

To me, Jennifer Ehle will always be the definitive Elizabeth Bennet, just as Colin Firth will always be Fitzwilliam Darcy!76.105.176.18 (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Noted" and "Additional" lists

I don't know if Elizabeth Garvie should be in the "noted" list. I don't even know why there are two lists. I just removed the "best remake" mention.

I also moved Bride and Prejudice to the "Additional Actresses" list. Definitely not meant to be in the first list.

Gavri 19:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a "Noted Actresses" list and not "Notable performances" as I had thought. I've reverted the page to the version before Elizabeth Garvie was added to the first list. Gavri 07:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't even think there should be two lists, myself; why not just one list called 'Actresses who have portrayed Elizabeth Bennet' or something? It seems a little POV at least to me - personally, I'd call the first woman to portray Elizabeth Bennet on television or in colour 'notable'.--Joseph Q Publique 12:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And even if there is a "notable list", shouldn't it be a "Noted Performances" list instead of a "Noted Actresses" list? Also, I'm not convinced we need two lists, because the lists are so short anyway. Gavri 14:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've merged everything into one list, and have tried to make the entries that were there a little less POV than they seemed before.--Joseph Q Publique 12:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly of the opinion that including the very stupid Bridget Jones in amongst the portrayals is deeply offensive. Elizabeth Bennet is meant to be an intelligent woman, but Bridget Jones is embarrassing. Elizabeth Bennet would never run around half dressed in the snow chasing a man. Clearly Austen intended to demonstrate women can be intelligent but may be prone to faults in reasoning as anyone who cherry picks their information. It is debatable that Bridget Jones has a brain at all. Just because the author has pretensions of writing a modern Eliza Bennet it doesn't mean she was successful nor should she necessarily be included - because otherwise we might as well start including any romantic comedy in the list where the heroine initially dislikes the hero. So how about including 'when harry met sally' or anything else. Or is this beyond the intellect of the 'gentle wiki reader?' Auchick (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth's age

Out of curiosity, when does it state that she is 20? I always had her pegged at either 19 or 20, with no clear verdict on either side, as I thought the only time her age was mentioned was in her line to Lady Catherine saying she wasn't 21. Also, it seems a bit odd to me to state her age as 20, when all of the sisters have the comment 'at the beginning of the novel ...' Loggie (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

when she goes to Kent and stays with Mr and Mrs Collins, Lady de Bough askes Lizzy's age and Lizzy says she is not yet one and twenty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchick (talk • contribs) 07:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Darcy

Shouldn't her "Full Name" now be Elizabeth Darcy? --Codenamecuckoo (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As with real people, the character should be listed under the name it is best known as, in this case Elizabeth Bennet. For example of a real person with an article under a more popular name, see David Tennant (born as David McDonald). - LA @ 00:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. Books or articles about Jane Austen's writings always refer to Elizabeth as Elizabeth Bennet. Stratford490 (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

the miss bennets

Ms Austen collectively refers to the Miss Bennets throughout the book, rather than as merely being the five sisters. If you need citations: see chapter 5, for instance: That the Miss Lucases and the Miss Bennets should meet to talk over a ball was absolutely necessary... again the collective Miss Bennets are referred to in chapters 15, 17, 22, 39, 45, 51 Auchick (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, although I can't see how that shows that an edit calling them the five sisters is inaccurate, needing to be reverted. Stratford490 (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(re Auchick's edit of 15 June 2008). Agreed; what you say is true --about the author's phrasing --in the novel. But, IMO, it is a point not well taken here. The author's phrasing is classicly 'insider information', i.e., well-known, perhaps, to those who have read the novel --once or many times; whereas our gentle wikireader --defined as one who right now is reading an encyclopedia article about a book they haven't read, or read long ago-- is not likely to understand the use of this subtle (arcane?) phrasing in this place. In comparison, almost all readers, especially those coming for their first time to read about this novel, will quickly grasp the universal phrasing, "the five sisters". I humbly request we return to the previous version. --Jbeans (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You think 'the Miss Bennets' is arcane? I think Stratford40's the elder miss Bennet being the only one referred to as miss Bennet is way more arcane. If so I must assume that you think the 'gentle wiki reader' is a euphemism for 'ignorant'. Auchick (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC) wat on holy gods earth is it 2 u? y do u care bout her surname man just chill and relax it is da way that lady wanted lizzys surname 2 be! got a prob wit tht 1st com 2 me!@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.193.214 (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Quotations from the Book

Re: Revert; this quotation describing Elizabeth Bennet can be found at the end of 3rd chapter of the novel.--Jbeans (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the article supposed to be about the original novel or fanfiction?

I really don't understand why under a section called "Character" someone summarized the entire novel. Without any spoiler warning at that.

There appears a number of mistakes. I changed some of them: it's Lizzy, never Lizzie; Colonel Fitzwilliam is called "Richard" only in fanfiction; Fitzwilliam Darcy is an improper way to write about Mr. Darcy - he's not a younger son and his father is dead; Elizabeth and Georgiana didn't become friends during Lizzy's visit to Pemberley. They spent only half an hour together, twice.

Then there are more things that are either arbitrary or incorrect, but I didn't change them, since I think they shouldn't be in this article at all. Elizabeth and Wickham's mutual attraction is not supported by the text where it’s made clear that Lizzy was never in love with him.

This about Jane is definitely not true:

"Jane was persuaded that the cause of this departure was because Bingley's sisters Caroline Bingley and Louisa Hurst thought an attachment between their brother and Jane would not be proper because of the disparity in wealth and social position."

Jane was persuaded that Bingley didn't love her.

This isn’t correct either:

"Later Elizabeth learns from Darcy's cousin Colonel Fitzwilliam that it was Darcy who collaborated with Caroline and Louisa to separate the pair, all which causes her to dislike Mr. Darcy even more."

Elizabeth suspected Darcy's collaboration much earlier. What Fitzwilliam told her was that Darcy was the main person behind the plot.

This gives an incorrect succession of events:

"When Elizabeth's youngest sister, Lydia, elopes with Wickham, Darcy intervenes, and at significant expense, saves Lydia from disgrace.

Elizabeth realizes that her feelings for Darcy have come full circle."

Elizabeth realizes that she loves Darcy before she learns of his help to Lydia.--85.222.86.59 (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to address the concerns above. I've also reformatted the article so that it doesn't look too focused on the novel's plot (which it probably still is, anyway). To answer the section title's question, the article should cover any significant appearance in print, film, television and on stage, but not in mere fanfiction; each of these should receive as much coverage as appropriate (i.e., more focus should be on the original novel). Regarding spoilers, the current consensus on Wikipedia is for stories to be outlined from beginning to end and not contain spoiler alerts. Personally, I'd rather see the spoiler alerts displayed, but good luck trying to make that happen. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Character data chart

The character data chart should provide 'clean' and minimal information to the encyclopedia reader, to introduce and identify the (main) character at the beginning of the author's story. Other data that anticipates the ending of the story, or its plot-points, don't belong here; at best such data (at this point) is superfluous, and complicates a 'clean' (= uncomplicated) introduction of the character to the initiate reader.--Jbeans (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that, thank you! :) ImperialJaineite (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice Template?

I added Template:Pride and Prejudice, but since the Template:Jane Austen is already in place, the section looks too crowded. Should we remove the P&P template, the JA template or keep both? Please discuss.ImperialJaineite (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The two templates look fine together. There are many articles with a lot more navboxes, and so having two navboxes that are autocollapsed by default (okay, they pretty much all are) doesn't really look all that crowded. Nice work. – Liveste (talk • edits) 05:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) I was worrying about that. ImperialJaineite^♥talk♥ 01:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Since there seems to have been some contention on the matter above, I thought I'd mention that I corrected the married names of the sisters in the infobox back to their maiden names. Throughout the entire book they're called "Miss Bennet" or "Miss [N] Bennet". Late in the book we find Lydia calling herself "Mrs Wickham", but none are ever called "Mrs [N] Bennet [MarriedName] at any time. Nor is there any reason to privilege the surnames they have at the end of the book over that they have at the beginning -- which is rather a spoiler in any event.

Lizzie's income was misstated. She has a fortune, not an income, of ₤1,000, available to her on the decease of her mother, or in any event of both parents, but not upon her marriage as would be the case for a dowry. The interest on it amounts to either ₤40 or ₤50 a year depending on whether you believe Mr Collins or Mr Bennet; I have taken Mr Bennet's figure.

Is it really necessary to list "cousins-in-law" or "aunts-in-law"? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. I don't believe I've ever described a relation of mine in such terms. Wouldn't Miss Bingley and the Hursts be relations of a sort too, then? (Edit: Never mind; I see that field doesn't actually exist in the template, so those items aren't displayed anyway.) 192.31.106.34 (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Bridget Jones

Renee Zellweger did not play Elizabeth Bennet in Bridget Jones's Diary - she played Bridget Jones. It's significant that this film transposes many elements of Austen's novel, but Zellweger's performance shouldn't feature on this page under "depictions in film and television".81.153.244.240 (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Catherine Bennet?

I know that Kitty is a nickname for Catherine, but I don't recall any reference in the novel to Kitty as Catherine. Still, it's been a while since I read it. In any case, Kitty is certainly the more popular name, and had I seen it, I would not have paused while reading to rack my brain for who the heck Catherine was. SinclairZX81 (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Obliged to sit down for two dances - near to Darcy

Just wondered if there are any Austin fans of this, one of the greatest novels in the English Language, who know whether any author, such as those quoted, has commented on this critical question:

"Is it really possible that Elizabeth Bennett merely accidentally sat down, alone, within hearing distance of Darcy at the ball that opens Pride and Prejudice?

"That was not by accident. That was by design."

This is the action, right at the start, (on page 12, 1996 Penguin edition, Ch3) of the book, in which almost the entire book pivots.

She is so much insulted, she turns down his offer of marriage, and so forth.

Of course, Austin is mute on the question. But what do we have to answer?

Firstly, that Austin is mute tells us nothing. Austin says a great deal by saying nothing. She developed the famous technique of free indirect narration in which the narrator's vision and judgement is limited to that of the characters (at times) and further, when the character is silent, but acts, one is simply not privileged to know her motivation.

There is a reason given – there were no gentlemen available – but there was, and she was sitting right by him, close enough, not only to overhear his conversation thoroughly, but to catch his eye. There is Jane Austin's superior, superlative, irony in "there were no gentlemen", since there was one and she is sitting right by him. And yes, she meets his eye. And gets thoroughly insulted. She met her match.

Any "knowing" woman reader might find it quite unbelievable that a reasonably attractive, single female would merely accidentally find herself sitting alone so close to Darcy after he had been first found to be extremely handsome, (leave aside, tall, single, monied) and then been dismissed as the proudest, most disagreeable man.

Would not this reversal be quite intriguing for a strong willed, intelligent, and witty young woman. In fact it would. One woman in a crowd, anyone's common experience will tell you, will buck the trend and decide to engage, draw fire and judge the results of such a man. If not more than one.

But do we have any evidence that Lizzy would do this, from the book? Well yes.

The opening lines declare it. Those world famous, deeply ironic lines which insist that Darcy must be looking for a wife, and that “this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.” Well, and of course, fixed in the minds of the daughters themselves.

Is Lizzy immune to this? Above it? Well, maybe not hunting for a husband, but interested enough in society to investigate an intriguing man. And where it might lead is to be discovered.

Lizzy, much later in the book, repeatedly decides to go for a solitary walk, on the same path as that which crossed paths with Darcy, and bumps into him – quite by accident! – a second time. Again, Austin is entirely mute as to why, if she wants to avoid Darcy, she is taking the same path.

In my view, right from the start, from that opening clash, where Darcy says “she will not tempt me” – in other words, suggests that he is of the opinion that Lizzy is sitting by him precisely to tempt him – Elizabeth Bennett has a far more developed interest in Darcy than is directly indicated in the narrative. It is, in my view, merely hinted at.

And from this point of view, the entire book takes on a slightly different meaning. Lizzy’s decisions become more profound, both the rejection and the later acceptance, which was, in fact, inevitable since their eyes first met.

It's enough to think that, that meeting of eyes began the process in Darcy’s mind in which he was indeed tempted and succumbed. She drew his attention. She was bold. She stood out from the crowd. That was her intention, if nothing else. It gave her cause to engage and exchange fire again, but of course, she is no easy catch. And the rest follows.

I'm a little allergic to critics, given my own Eng. Lit (BA Hons 2:1) background, but if there's a good source out there, I'd be interested and might add a word or two to the article

Andysoh (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I omitted to state the obvious -- that Elizabeth could so easily have sat out the two dances sitting or standing by Mrs Bennett, or any of the older mothers and grandmothers, who would not likely be dancing. I wonder if this was not far more apparent to readers of Jane Austin's day, than today, when chaperones are, ummm, rare, in UK society. Andysoh (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)