One of the reader’s reviews on Amazon complained that volume II was boring: just a record of the life of a Regency gentleman. This, I assume, is about the views we have of him at Pemberley and in London, deciding what to do about Georgiana and the dinner, taking care of Sayers, the builder’s son, deciding the fate of Haydn the footman, etc. The reviewer missed a couple of important points, though, I believe. First, Austen tells us that this is who Darcy is, when Elizabeth thinks: “As a brother, a landlord, a master, she considered how many people’s happiness were in his guardianship!” But from my standpoint, it was more important to show how he could have the gall to mess with Bingley’s life; it wasn’t arrogant meddling, it was who he had to be, as Darcy of Pemberley—just part of his normal, daily life. As I would be hard-pressed to justify doing something like that myself, I had to figure out how Darcy, for all of his intelligence, awareness, and good intentions, could do so without feeling like the worst sort of meddler.

The dinner at Grosvenor Square was about Georgiana’ growth, and his attempts to help her along. Miss Hartsbury’s ball was about how he was dealing with his low spirits, and Bingley’s, and his good-hearted stab at helping out a girl having a bit of guy-trouble. The rest of London was devoted to his interactions with his family, and, of course, Miss Chesterton, all of which help us to understand who Darcy is as a man on the emotional level.

OK, that’s off my chest: I just didn’t like the feeling that the reviewer thought volume II was nothing but filler; and, of course, you can’t start an argument like that directly with someone who is expressing an honest opinion, but I did want to get my two cents in somewhere. Anyone else feel like throwing theirs in? It would be most welcome, I assure you. :-)