Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

David Shapard clearly devoted huge amounts of time and energy to this heavily annotated edition, presenting a workmanlike job in defining less familiar terms (as well as some more familiar words) and customs from Austen's day. He also offers "Literary interpretations," most of which he admits are his personal "opinions." Some of them are rudimentary and even gratuitous. For example, his first note to vol. 3, ch. 18, relative to Darcy's telling Elizabeth that he admires her for "the liveliness of [her] mind" states that "Darcy has recognized the basic quality in Elizabeth's mind that is so opposed to his character. . . " (p. 693). Elizabeth makes this point back in 3:8 (p. 564); thus, 3:18 n. 1 is unnecessary, as it repeats what the heroine already said. Shapard might have even cross-referenced this. But my real concern about this edition is the editor's failure to cite sources. This is true of both the Introduction and the notes, themselves. At times, this failure to acknowledge the work of others made me cringe. FYI: I am a tenured Professor of English (PhD in 18th-c. British Lit) and a U of CO President's Teaching Scholar; I do not speak on behalf of this institution in this review. Here's a cringe-worthy example: I am looking at vol. 1, ch. 14, n. 30, referring to Austen's having Mr. Collins select Fordyce's Sermons to read aloud to the Bennet sisters--a reading that Lydia Bennet soon interrupts. Note 30 states that Austen's choice of "Fordyce may . . . be a subtle reference . . . to . . . The Rivals," a play by Sheridan. The editor then explains how Fordyce and Lydia Languish, a character in the play, connect to Austen's scene and the novel's Lydia Bennet. A non-academic reader will be duly impressed with Shapard's broad and deep knowledge of 18th-c. comedy. This note, however, rang a bell for me. Frank W. Bradbrook presented this information in the Oxford World's Classics paperback edition of P&P (1990; many times reprinted and updated), which he co-edited with James Kinsley. Bradbrook cites in his endnotes his earlier commentary on this scene in Oxford University's scholarly journal Notes and Queries, n.s. vol 11, no. 7 (1964) and credits E.E. Phare with pointing out the relationship of "Lydia Languish, Lydia Bennet, and Fordyce's Sermons," in an article of that title published in the same journal in 1964, but in issue #5, pp.182-83. (I have provided here additional bibliographical information regarding issue & year.) Shapard cites none of the earlier scholars' work in his note. Another concern about this edition is that the editor's "opinions" show general unfamiliarity with some of the most important Austen research of the past decade (such as Princeton's Claudia Johnson's, not even cited in the bibliography)--research that shows Austen to be a far more subtle and satirical writer than the gentle writer of benign courtship novels that she was previously (and for a long time) deemed to be. This edition, then, does not present a timely view of Austen: an Austen whose work is much richer than Shapard's notes reveal. I remind students and teachers to be wary of the editor's cavalier practice of citation omission--in some cases, failing to credit hardworking scholars who earlier made original and insightful points about the novel, which Shapard uses. This is a regrettable, but important flaw in The Annotated Pride and Prejudice, particularly as it's advertised as edited by a PhD (History) who has "taught in many colleges," a phrase suggestive of scholarly authority and responsibility. Cambridge University Press's excellent 2006-scholarly edition of Pride and Prejudice, edited by Dr. Pat Rogers, DeBartolo Professor at the Univ of S FL, appropriately cross-references us to Bradbrook's note in the Oxford World's Classics paperback (1991, p. 349, n. to p.60) in the annotation for the scene in question, pp. 485-6. n.8. The Rogers edition is "The" scholarly edition of Pride and Prejudice.