Talk:Mr. Darcy

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Novels Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Literature Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

I have removed it, since the body of the article makes it clear he is a fictional character. The stat-box on the right might be confusing, but I think the article is clear enough. 128.97.149.133 20:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article be renamed to Fitzwilliam Darcy? That is the name given in the book. Lady Aleena 21:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it has been over a month with no objections, I am renaming the article to the full name of the character.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 19:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you have a redirect...plange 19:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will be most cautious. :) - LA @ 20:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't NPOV to say "Often the very fact that a man belongs to the upper classes can make him fall short of these moral standards - as is the case for Henry Crawford in Mansfield Park, life in the upper classes tends to corrupt morals and social sensitivity. Mr. Darcy has a strong moral fibre and a natural if occasionally somewhat embarrassed kindness." Someone needs to reverse that. MorwenofLossarnarch 20:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIFY WIKIFY!!!

*Both Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth were, according to Philip Jose Farmer, recipients of the radiation that resulted from the meteorite that struck Wold Newton in Yorkshire in the 1790s. This allowed them to be the ancestors of many more famous literary characters, with genetic links to the likes of Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan.

I thought this was vandalism but then looked into it and found this [1] which describes some of the author's work. However I don't think the text added to the Darcy article explains what this reference is well enough for a reader to understand. MKV 17:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted back to a the page which shows a few actors who have portrayed Darcy as he 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)[reply]

Is this section in the page really encyclopedic? Estimating Mr Darcy's fortune, in the 21st century? I agree it's interesting to read, but with everyone's consent, the article would make more sense without it. 87.112.64.115

Agreed. It's unnecessary and doesn't add anything of any great relevance.--Joseph Q Publique 01:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of interesting, however the term "begs the question" is horridly misused here and makes it annoying to read. 121.45.93.216 12:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It is also very likely that he would have a private jet (or access to one), as the novel suggests neither he nor Bingley used public conveyances."

Such an estimation might not be entirely devoid of interest...perhaps it might help people unfamiliar with the time he would have come from, had he been real, to grasp somewhat of his stated appeal...actually, nah; that amount of dosh meant a heck of a lot more back then than even the inflation-adjusted amount could ever do these days: the world has changed (and for the better, too)...Mr. Darcy, by himself, could maybe have earnt fivepence a day, and that only at harvest time...the background people might need is the fact that the vast majority of the moneyed gentry, knew perfectly well that they could not have raised such sums as they commanded, by any amount of their own efforts, and therefore worshipped Capital with rather a large amount of superstition (and rather a small amount of comprehension of matters Economical)...*that* is the background against which Mr. Darcy found himself positioned....in this day and age, he'd probably sneer at the whole thing, get himself a good education, and go do medical research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.148.102 (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...well, what else would he do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.148.102 (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...? Lol :PRomtobbi 10:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And...since when has an annual income of £850,000.00 been considered upper-middle class. The wiki article on "upper-middle class" shows this comment to be either uninformed, off-hand opinion or internally inconsisent with consesus research. Some of the data is interesting, but I would actually love to see a historical account of what Darcy's "£10,000 a year!" meant. "Translating" his wealth to contemporary contexts will only be speculative, but providing a broader historical account of the impact that figure had in Austen's context would provide a broader meaning to the characters and their motivations. That is, a short historical-critical essay on Darcy's inherited wealth and how/where that would have placed him within Regency landed society would be quite encyclopedic; whereas this current "reference" (especially the flip remark: no public conveyence then ergo private jets now) is drivel. -jk waters

Also, in the first section, it states that Darcy is "considered one of English literature's sexiest male characters." I have two problems with this. Firstly, if someone wished to say this in an encyclopedia article, they should have at least found an expert of some sort who explicitly states it. Secondly, from my own reading, I did not make the same conclusion. I thought him to be an elitist for most of the book rather than a sexist. If it is someone's original work, it has no place in the artice. If anyone has any objections to the removal of this, please state them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.13.169 (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr. Darcy" is the common name, without question. Ichormosquito 04:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mister D'Arcy

This good faith contribution has numerous spelling, syntax, grammar errors; however the critical problems are: 1. The writing is not NPOV. In fact the tone is very personal, as (cont. in "'discussion') of a writer who is enamoured of the person known as Mr. FitzWilliam Darcy.

2. Moreover, the entire piece is essentially redundant of the current revision in place just above it, which takes away from the spirit of trying to achieve 'summary' within the article.

3. Sadly, however, the far more serious errors by this good faith writer is the adapting of Jane Austen's story and words to fit his/her point of view, to wit: JA provides no words in the novel that indicate Darcy to be shy in general society --the word is used only in connection with his second --very careful-- courtship of Elizabeth; at no point in the novel does JA have Mr. Darcy say he is "deeply in love with her" to Elizabeth --as twice said in the editor's piece; Mr. Darcy's famous letter emphatically does not provide Lizzy with " a heartfelt ... explaining (of) his true feelings about her" --indeed, one can easily recall one the most cold and bittersweet of opening lines in the enduring wars between the sexes, "Be not alarmed, Madam, on receiving this letter by the apprehension of its containing any repetion of those sentiments ..." (Chap. 35); contrary to the editor's piece, JA's word do not provide that "(t)he two continue to see each other" --in fact, the opposite is true; finally, at the Meryton assembly dance, JA's words make it clear that Mr. Darcy did indeed keep "to himself" and that he did indeed think of himself as "too good for them" (i.e., the country folk around him), and that he felt himself "to be above his company, and above being pleased.". JA makes its clear that Mr. Darcy's performance was not because he was "just afraid to meet new people".

I am grateful that another person wants to support/participate in Wikipedia. Welcome --more than may appear at the moment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbeans (talk • contribs) 09:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted this change because it greatly complicates the readibility of this already overlong sentence:

(1) The unrevised main clause reads, "However, Darcy --...-- eventually becomes attracted to Elizabeth, ..."

--would be revised to: "However, Darcy --... but eventually becomes attracted to Elizabeth, ...--"

The oppositional conjuction but is redundant to the adverb however, which opens the main clause by implying the oppositional development to come --in the main clause only.

(2) Worse, the conjunction but incorrectly conjoins the main clause to the subordinate clause, which instead should be set off parenthetically for sake of clarity; it does not have an oppositional conjunctive relationship to the main clause.--Jbeans (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I love Colin Firth's portrayal, this section:

"Colin Firth's Mr.Darcy in the BBC adaptation has been called the “definitive” Darcy,[4] and his "pond scene" made it into Channel 4's Top 100 TV Moments.[5] Colin Firth has found it hard to shake off the Darcy image,[6] and he thought that playing Bridget Jones’s Mark Darcy, a character inspired by the other Darcy, would ridicule and liberate himself once and for all from the character.[7] Colin Firth has also played the role of a "Mr Darcy" In the 2007 film St Trinnians."

belongs in the Firth article, not the Darcy article.

Certainly, a discussion of the relative merits of various performances might be relevant, but how the role affected a particular actor would more appropriately stay with the actor's article. Lmonteros (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should avoid putting too much emphasis on any particular actor's portrayal of the character. Austen's Darcy is a standout. So far none of the Hollywood portrayals have depicted him in all his brilliancy as the author painted him. --Ashley Rovira (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much Colin Firth in this Section. This is Fitzwilliam Darcy NOT Colin Firth. Took the liberty of deleting most of the bias found. You want to have your intellectual debate over who is the best Darcy? Go to a message board. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.124.3 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting content just like that is not very constructive. Its not a debate of who's the better Darcy, those are quotes. If you want more opinions on the OTHER Darcy's why don't you look for them and add them? then the article won't be so biased. I would do it but I don't know a thing about the other Pride and Prejudices.--Yamanbaiia^(TALK!) 09:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's not just an issue of neutrality in the "Noted Portrayals of Mr. Darcy" but relevance as well. It should just be a simple list of the actors portraying the fictional character.

The 1995 BBC serial and the 2005 feature film received much critical attention. After the success of the BBC serial, one of the co-producers of the feature film claimed that the casting of Darcy had proven difficult because of the character's iconic status and because "Colin Firth cast a very long shadow".[3] The critical reception of Macfadyen's Darcy in the 2005 film ranged from praise to pleasant surprise and dislike.[4][5] Among the critics who did not observe any significant impact of Macfadyen's Darcy were Chris Hastings of The Daily Telegraph, who claimed in 2005 that "Colin Firth was born to play Mr Darcy";[4] Garth Pearce of The Sunday Times, who noted in 2007 that "Colin Firth will forever be remembered as the perfect Mr Darcy",[6] and Gene Seymour, who stated in a 2008 Newsday article that Firth was "'universally acknowledged' as the definitive Mr Darcy".[7]

I agree such information should be in the individual miniseries/film page or the actors' page but most certainly not in the Darcy page. As interesting as it may be "who played the better Darcy" its as relevant as estimating Darcy's fortune in modern day. I think it's about time we ask anyone considering editing the Fitzwilliam Darcy page to take the time to read Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic and Wikipedia:Edit warring so that we can avoid deleting, reverting, deleting, reverting and all the changes that can damage the integrity and clarity of the article. If no one has any objections on the deletion of the irrelevant and biased paragraph, I already did so. ImperialJaineite (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His mother, accurately noted on the article as Lady Anne Darcy, was born Lady Anne Fitzwilliam, daughter of the Earl Fitzwilliam, and sister of Lady Catherine, who married Sir Louis de Burgh of Rosings. I've always presumed that Sir Louis was a baronet, but Jane Austen never specifies whether or not he was a baronet or just a knight. In any case, another presumption is that Mr Fitzwilliam, Darcy's cousin, is a younger son of their aunt Lady Catherine's brother, the inheritor of the earldom, as Austen only specifies that he was "younger son an earl" or something to that effect. I believe somewhere in the book, the forename of Darcy's father is alluded to, in the part when Elizabeth is observing the portraits in Pemberly, and I am not certain, but think the forename was George, which makes sense, as he named his daughter Georgiana. But again, I am not certain I remember accurately about that. --Ashley Rovira (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existing wording and punctuation convey the flow-of-thoughts 'nicely' —i.e., there are two separate thoughts, with the second following very closely onto the first; hence using the semicolon in lieu of the traditional period. Agglomerating all into one sentence defeats the 'separateness'-with-balance carried by the existing punctuation.--Jbeans (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section should be renamed "Depictions in Film andTelevision." "Noted Portrayals of Mr. Darcy" is ambiguous. 'Portrayals' could also mean theater, radio, etc. The category only has film and television, so it would be more accurate. I also think it would be a good idea to make the section a chart. Something like: Year, Actor, Role, Production, Notes (Notes would be for awards and the like). It would eliminate the redundancy of "(Actor) portrayed Fitzwilliam Darcy in the (Year)(Film/Television)(Production)" and would make the section cleaner and easier to read. Shouldn't Film and Television be separated as well? The articles for living nonfictional people generally have film and television separated. Would it be all right for the Darcy article to have them separate as well (even though he is a fictional character)? The section has been changed into a table format with film and television separated. Some other adaptations were added as well as references in other works. ImperialJaineite (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, Darcy is said to have tempered his pride because "...he reconsiders all; and then commits to go out of his way to demonstrate his respect and devotion for her." I don't believe this to be his motivation at all. I think Austen is quite clear that he tempered his pride and improved his manners simply because he believed that Elizabeth was right about him. He said he "was given good principles, but left to follow them in pride and conceit." He never sought her out after his proposal, nor did he tell Mr. Bingley that he was mistaken about Jane Bennet's feelings and work to effect a reconciliation between that couple, which could certainly have afforded access to Elizabeth. I see no evidence that he ever expected or even wanted to see her again, let alone demonstrate his devotion to her.

It seems like a small issue, but I think it's fundamental to the novel's message. Neither Elizabeth nor Mr. Darcy improved their flawed characters as a means to a happy, romantic ending; they improved their characters because they saw a part of themselves clearly for the first time, and found themselves wanting.ThreeDimen (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains a mix of personal titles with periods, as in “Mr. Darcy”, and without, as in “Mr Darcy”. We should pick one style and use it across all the Pride and Prejudice-related articles. I tend towards using the period, as American English always uses it and British English sometimes does. Thoughts? MacMog (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]