i’ve been sitting with this review for a while, because i wanted to be as fair to this book as i could while acknowledging the fact that i walked into it disagreeing with Feder… and did not agree with her after finishing the book. while there are certainly elements of P&P, and Darcy in particular, that rub against our modern sensibilities, i think that describing him as a monster—and a monstrous type which has echoed through the ages—is unfair both to Darcy and go the concept of a monster. Darcy is imperfect, absolutely (and the implications of his actions on Lydia are concerning, though no more, not particularly more, than the entirety of her fate in that historical context), but to call him a monster both vilifies him further than the original text supports and waters down the concept of a monster in general. 

i was able to better appreciate (ie feel less rage) towards this book once i realized that the Darcy argument was really an offshoot of Feder’s real project: to argue that Pride and Prejudice ought to be read as/in the context of the gothic novel. this is, at least, an interesting premise. unfortunately, i don’t think the argument works. while Austen was certainly aware of and in conversation with the gothic (see Northanger Abbey), the gothic elements needed to align Austen’s  other novels with the gothic simply aren’t there—even after Feder watered down the gothic as a genre, too. 

from these points, the rest of the book breaks down. i applaud Feder for her attempted analysis, and can hardly fault her interest in warning off impressionable young people (to whom i presume this book is aimed? given its style… which i can’t say i enjoyed. it was a girliepop millennial approach which i presume was aimed at engaging 14-year-olds), but the actual arguments of the book did not work.