Welcome to our board! Log In Create A New Profile
Use mobile view

Advanced

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

April 09, 2012 06:10PM
Well, to be quite frank, I just finished Particular Attachments, and quite liked it. Since I took the liberty of introducing, and subsequently addicting half my youth group (the female half--thus far) to JAFF, I pass along recommendations every once in a while, and this is one I mentioned as a particularly good read. If we are going to use PA as an example for marrying for financial security, let us look at Allison's Mrs. Hurst, and really, Ms. Austen's. She married for security only, and is stuck with a husband no one is capable of loving, or even really liking. In PA, Lizzy may have married for security, but she also married a man that she knew she, and the community would respect. Huge difference between her and Charlotte, or her and Mrs. Hurst.

Now, as far as Mr. Bingley and stupidity go, I am agreeing (again) with Allison.The verdict--not really stupid. I think Bingley's main fault is a slight lack of maturity. If he was more mature, aka, thought about things longer before jumping into them, he would appear much more intelligent. I really think that Darcy's "taking care of" his friend does more harm than good. I think, if he had been given the opportunity, Bingley easily could have proven himself to be just as, or at least close to, intelligent as Darcy, but he had grown used to Darcy doing the majority of the thinking for him, and Darcy's friendship was important enough that he would say nothing. In most of my fan-fic (most of which will probably never be seen by the outside world) Bingley has to majorly grow up, and behave more independently before he acquires a bride and happiness. And, depending on the story, there is occasionally major consequences for his initial immaturity, not limited to his losing Jane. I think the story is Paths of Men, (Not mine) which I really like because it completely and totally portrays the consequences of Bingley's immaturity and dependence on Darcy. In it, his friendship with Darcy is mostly broken, and, released on London without his friend's influence, his immaturity shines through, but in the end, he does grow up, too late, however, as Jane get married to Colonel Fitzwilliam.

One other thing. In the original, Lizzy give Jane permission to like Bingley "for you have like many stupider persons" To me, the degree of stupider (comparative degree, for those who haven't spent weeks stuck in a Grammar book), does imply that, at least in Lizzy's eyes, Bingley is stupid, at least slightly. If she wanted to say that without implying Bingley to be stupid, she could have. Of course, at this point we are discovering that Lizzy's skills in character study on short notice are vastly lacking, so her comment should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt.
SubjectAuthorPosted

to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Suzanne OApril 06, 2012 02:23AM

Simply put, no.

TegApril 06, 2012 01:28PM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

PhiaApril 06, 2012 10:54AM

Meditations on divorce

NerinApril 09, 2012 02:37PM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

mariakApril 06, 2012 08:55AM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Nikki NApril 06, 2012 12:02PM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

marksApril 11, 2012 12:51PM

The problem is ...

mariakApril 11, 2012 11:06PM

Re: The problem is ...

Nikki NApril 12, 2012 01:30AM

Matthew Macfadyen's influence

Margaret FApril 13, 2012 02:20AM

Re: The problem is ...

mariakApril 12, 2012 07:15AM

Amazing Conversation!

stacyApril 12, 2012 04:34AM

Re: Amazing Conversation!

MarksApril 13, 2012 12:09PM

Re: Amazing Conversation!

Suzanne OApril 13, 2012 02:04PM

Re: Amazing Conversation!

Nikki NApril 14, 2012 10:49AM

Re: Amazing Conversation!

MarksApril 15, 2012 11:52AM

Re: Amazing Conversation!

Nikki NApril 15, 2012 12:17PM

Re: Amazing Conversation!

Suzanne OApril 14, 2012 09:47PM

Re: Amazing Conversation!

JanetRApril 15, 2012 04:21AM

Re: Amazing Conversation!

Suzanne OApril 15, 2012 06:26AM

Re: Amazing Conversation!

JanetRApril 15, 2012 07:30AM

Re: Amazing Conversation!

Suzanne OApril 15, 2012 11:52PM

I agree with you

JanetRApril 16, 2012 02:54AM

Re: Amazing Conversation!

mariakApril 15, 2012 08:35AM

Re: Amazing Conversation!

MarksApril 14, 2012 04:21AM

Not really...

mariakApril 14, 2012 09:34AM

Re: Amazing Conversation!

Nikki NApril 14, 2012 02:06AM

And I flip again! Re: Amazing Conversation!

AdelaideApril 13, 2012 03:15PM

Re: And I flip again! Re: Amazing Conversation!

MarksApril 14, 2012 04:36AM

Re: And I flip again! Re: Amazing Conversation!

Nikki NApril 14, 2012 05:42AM

Re: And I flip again! Re: Amazing Conversation!

MarksApril 15, 2012 11:36AM

Re: And I flip again! Re: Amazing Conversation!

Nikki NApril 15, 2012 12:02PM

Re: And I flip again! Re: Amazing Conversation!

MarksApril 15, 2012 12:43PM

Particularly well said, Nikki! Re: Amazing Conversation!

AdelaideApril 14, 2012 10:58PM

Elizabeth's figure

Amy I.April 12, 2012 05:10AM

P&P2

mariakApril 12, 2012 07:18AM

Re: The problem is ...

MarksApril 12, 2012 12:44AM

Re: The problem is ...

mariakApril 12, 2012 07:06AM

Re: The problem is ...

MarksApril 13, 2012 11:50AM

Re: The problem is ...

AdelaideApril 13, 2012 01:56PM

Re: Have truly enjoyed reading this thread

Annette PApril 15, 2012 01:29AM

Darcy and Edward Ferrars

Nikki NApril 15, 2012 02:40AM

Re: Darcy and Edward Ferrars

Suzanne OApril 15, 2012 03:06AM

Maybe Darcy and Edward could be likened to Jane and Elizabeth in P&P

AdelaideApril 15, 2012 03:30PM

In defence of Edward Ferrars

UlrikeApril 15, 2012 05:13PM

Nothing he could do

mariakApril 15, 2012 05:54PM

Re: Nothing he could do

UlrikeApril 15, 2012 06:08PM

Re: Nothing he could do?

Nikki NApril 16, 2012 12:21PM

Really? Re: Nothing he could do

AdelaideApril 15, 2012 06:36PM

Re: Really? Re: Nothing he could do

Nikki NApril 16, 2012 05:07AM

Several points...

mariakApril 15, 2012 10:07PM

Re: Several points...

AdelaideApril 16, 2012 12:11AM

Re: Several points...

mariakApril 16, 2012 07:37AM

This is one of those discussions that could go on and on...

AdelaideApril 16, 2012 03:11PM

Re: This is one of those discussions that could go on and on...

Annette PApril 16, 2012 07:21PM

Re: This is one of those discussions that could go on and on...

Suzanne OApril 16, 2012 03:54PM

Re: This is one of those discussions that could go on and on...

Annette PApril 16, 2012 07:25PM

Re: This is one of those discussions that could go on and on...

UlrikeApril 16, 2012 04:30PM

Edmund, not Edward. You know, MP. (nfm)

Suzanne OApril 16, 2012 04:35PM

She snorts derisively... Re: Edmund, not Edward. You know, MP.

AdelaideApril 16, 2012 05:16PM

Re: She snorts derisively... Re: Edmund, not Edward. You know, MP.

Suzanne OApril 16, 2012 07:31PM

Re: She snorts derisively... Re: Edmund, not Edward. You know, MP.

AdelaideApril 16, 2012 08:50PM

Re: UA

Suzanne OApril 16, 2012 09:13PM

Like others, I love the story. Hooked! Re: UA (nfm)

AdelaideApril 16, 2012 09:17PM

Re: She snorts derisively... Re: Edmund, not Edward. You know, MP.

MK BaxleyApril 16, 2012 06:45PM

Sorry, I cannot share that sentiment, MK B.

AdelaideApril 16, 2012 08:41PM

Re: Sorry, I cannot share that sentiment, MK B.

Nikki NApril 17, 2012 01:01AM

Good points about JA villains

AdelaideApril 17, 2012 02:13AM

Re: Sorry, I cannot share that sentiment, MK B.

MK BaxleyApril 16, 2012 09:41PM

Yes, but...

AdelaideApril 16, 2012 10:40PM

Re: Yes, but...

MK BaxleyApril 17, 2012 12:48AM

JA, Lefroy and her novels

Nikki NApril 17, 2012 11:33AM

Re: JA, Lefroy and her novels

LiseApril 17, 2012 11:39AM

Re: JA, Lefroy and her novels

Suzanne OApril 17, 2012 12:09PM

JA and Lefroy

Nikki NApril 17, 2012 01:08AM

Re: JA and Lefroy

MK BaxleyApril 17, 2012 02:16AM

CA and Fowle

JanetRApril 17, 2012 03:40AM

Re: CA and Fowle

MK BaxleyApril 17, 2012 03:50AM

LOL! My bad, sorry! smiling smiley

UlrikeApril 16, 2012 04:49PM

Re: Several points...

Suzanne OApril 16, 2012 12:33AM

Suzanne, you're right probably that I am thinking like a 21st century woman

AdelaideApril 16, 2012 12:44AM

Re: Several points...

Suzanne OApril 15, 2012 11:48PM

Thank you! Doormat not floor mat. Sometimes English fails me, or I, it. (nfm)

AdelaideApril 15, 2012 05:35PM

Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

Allison OMApril 07, 2012 11:33PM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

Annette PApril 15, 2012 01:36AM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon - period smiling smiley

MarksApril 11, 2012 12:59PM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

LynaeApril 09, 2012 06:10PM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

mariakApril 08, 2012 08:59AM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

Suzanne OApril 08, 2012 02:42PM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

mariakApril 08, 2012 04:00PM

Hey, I liked Particular Attachments

Harvey S.April 08, 2012 06:24AM

Re: Hey, I liked Particular Attachments

Annette PApril 15, 2012 01:38AM

Re: Hey, I liked Particular Attachments

AdelaideApril 10, 2012 12:37AM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

Suzanne OApril 08, 2012 03:19AM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

Nikki NApril 08, 2012 12:36PM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

Suzanne OApril 08, 2012 02:53PM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

Nikki NApril 09, 2012 01:07AM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

Suzanne OApril 09, 2012 02:04AM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

AdelaideApril 09, 2012 03:28PM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

Suzanne OApril 09, 2012 03:53PM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

Margaret FApril 13, 2012 02:50AM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

AdelaideApril 13, 2012 03:08AM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

AdelaideApril 09, 2012 04:32PM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

Nikki NApril 10, 2012 02:12AM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

UlrikeApril 09, 2012 08:33AM

My favourite..

JoyApril 10, 2012 04:45AM

Re: My favourite..

Nikki NApril 11, 2012 12:47AM

Re: My favourite..

JoyApril 11, 2012 07:49AM

Re: My favourite..

Suzanne OApril 11, 2012 03:16AM

Re: My favourite..

JoyApril 11, 2012 07:29AM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

Allison OMApril 07, 2012 11:35PM

My bad--really, no offense intended

MillieApril 08, 2012 12:35AM

Re: Bingley is not stupid in canon (at least not necessarily stupid)

KentApril 08, 2012 12:28AM

Some matches are better than others

MillieApril 06, 2012 10:40PM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

lindablancheApril 06, 2012 07:58PM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Suzanne OApril 06, 2012 10:19PM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Suzanne OApril 06, 2012 01:11PM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Nikki NApril 07, 2012 01:40AM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

AdelaideApril 07, 2012 03:39PM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Suzanne OApril 07, 2012 05:22PM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Suzanne OApril 07, 2012 03:40AM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Nikki NApril 06, 2012 06:20AM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

JessicalApril 07, 2012 05:50AM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Suzanne OApril 07, 2012 02:29PM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Suzanne OApril 06, 2012 11:11AM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Nikki NApril 06, 2012 12:20PM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Suzanne OApril 06, 2012 03:17PM

An engaging discussion... winking smiley

FayApril 06, 2012 05:17AM

Re: An engaging discussion... winking smiley

lindablancheApril 06, 2012 08:01PM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

KentApril 06, 2012 03:40AM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Suzanne OApril 06, 2012 03:45AM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

KentApril 06, 2012 02:04PM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Suzanne OApril 06, 2012 03:17PM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Tessa LApril 06, 2012 05:33PM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

DorisApril 06, 2012 02:30AM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Margaret FApril 06, 2012 03:34AM

Re: to marry or not to marry... the ethics of 19th century marriages

Suzanne OApril 06, 2012 03:39AM

On Arranged Marriages...

stacyApril 06, 2012 04:51AM

Re: On Arranged Marriages...

Suzanne OApril 06, 2012 05:34AM



Author:

Subject:


Spam prevention:
Please, solve the mathematical question and enter the answer in the input field below. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
Question: how much is 25 plus 25?
Message: