Self-sacrificing? Certainly not! The modern twist is in Amanda's stealing Darcy.

Amanda will be portrayed as great, and Lizzy will be downplayed, so that we would buy the story. How is it not insulting the audience?

Apart from that, and the producers' poor knowledge of Austen's original and times, it sucks as a time travel story. One would expect much more creativity with the twist.

Later on, she's just frustrated she can't put things back on track. I don't think that reading Austen will automatically mean you can speak in early 19th century English either. = I think no matter how good you are, as a casual yet dedicated reader, you aren't likely to be able to do much in "Pride and Prejudice" without messing up because you've made an assumption that's no longer valid or you don't actually believe you're inside a word of fiction.

I read Patrick O'Brian books all the time, and there's no way I'd be able to stick to any conventions of the time, speak using the same syntax or diction, or run a Royal Naval ship using that entire series of books as my guide, let alone just one. If Amanda had degrees in history and English literature, though, I'd cut her less slack.

"Self-sacrificing?"
I was talking about Elizabeth (who is the beloved heroine) in the novel, not Amanda. And so far, Amanda's doing her best not to steal Darcy (can she steal the future husband of someone who hasn't even met him yet?)

"Amanda will be portrayed as great, and Lizzy will be downplayed, so that we would buy the story. How is it not insulting the audience?"
That's pre-judging, and I'd rather wait to see if that happens, rather than simply assume that's what the producers will do. Elizabeth isn't coming out of it well so far, but who knows what'll happen in the next three episodes. If that does happen though, I would accept that as a big failing.

So I do take your points, but I think I'm just more willing to give it a bit more room for manoeuvre.

I didn’t expect Amanda would know exactly how to behave or speak, but she should know the basics from the book. One doesn’t address Miss Bingley ‘Caroline’. One doesn’t snog a gentleman during a ball. It’s inconsistent too, because minutes earlier she worried that Bingley wouldn’t end up with Jane. Snogging him is likely the last thing that might help.

I did expect her to make many mistakes, but on a deeper level. So far she behaves like a person who doesn’t know any Regency books at all, while from an Austen lover, who can cite exact lines from the book (and not a person who just read it once), I’d expect some general knowledge about manners, and many mistakes in places where she can least foresee them. That would make it a clever story instead of a silly one.

O’Brian wrote his books over 100 years after the Napoleonic era. It’s a matter of research. Something the ITV producers didn’t do well.

Oh well, I read the synopses, and judging from the first episode they were accurate, so I don’t have much hopes. I wouldn’t expect to see much of Lizzy any soon either.

My greatest quibble with the series is Amanda. I don’t like her. She’s pretty daft and vulgar. Bridget Jones was purposefully silly and we were supposed to laugh with and at her, but she wasn’t one of us. Here the producers want women to identify with Amanda, assuming that she’s what Austen readers are like, and that she’s fulfilling their dream for them. This is quite horrible. Austen created very clever characters. True, one can’t steal a man from a heroine who doesn’t yet know him, but the assumption that the hero (and everyone else) would have to fall for the first not very clever modern girl he meets, even though she lacks Lizzy’s charming manners and lively mind that made him fall for her in the first place, is pretty weak, and dumbs down the novel and its readers. It’s Cinderella, and not Pride and Prejudice.

One could come with a more intelligent and less obvious plot, couldn't one?

She calls Bingley ‘Charles’ too, so it’s not just a revenge. But the thing is that her manners are that of Caroline, rather than Lizzy, who would be able to set down her rival in a much prettier way.

It’s one of the things that makes the story weak. Amanda just says that she doesn’t want to disturb it, while at the same time acts in the opposite way. She says that Jane should be with Bingley, and then snogs her man. She says that she doesn’t want Darcy, and then lies about him, provoking him to dance. She could’ve mentioned Lucas, couldn’t she? She sends Jane to Netherfield, and then follows her, so that she could end up there all in mud like Lizzy. Why? She read the book. She knows Jane will be fine. Surely she can’t expect not to disturb the story while throwing herself at the men all of the time.

I did love their Mrs. Bennet! She’s a bit out of character, but she’s really good and very enjoyable! She has my full sympathy. I think that she should be young, so she’s the first actress that suits me. I’m not very pleased with their Mr. Bennet though. They made him too nice like for the horrible father and cruel husband he’s supposed to be. But then all of the adaptations make him nicer than Austen meant for him to be, so I can’t hold it against them in particular.

(1) It's a virtual remake of Pleasantville, but isn't brave enough (yet) to dig into the themes related to how sex was dealt with in 'simpler' times.

(2) It's desperately trying to follow the Pride & Prejudice story. How much more exciting for everything to fall apart up front and then spend four episodes traversing the world if not the plot.

(3) The more interesting story is Lizzy Bennett in the Naughties, making the most of the free lifestyle, a feminist version of Adam Adamant.

Presumably in the US remake, the modern character will be from Austin, Texas.

2) I'm not sure how appealing that show would be - just take all of P&P's characters then effectively write a new book. No matter how good you are, it's never going to be as good, plus would the audience be there for it?

3) I did read in the publicity blurb (I think - I might have imagined it) that Lizzie's adventures in the present will get covered at some point.

Besides, she's just turned down a marriage proposal from her rubbish boyfriend and might be feeling a bit lost, homesick and depressed, so a cheery snog while a bit tipsy (and I don't know the alcohol content of early 19th century punch. And neither does she, so who knows what degree of placebo effect we're talking about as well) with someone who's probably just a dream, a Temazepam/magic mushroom hallucination or the result of paranoid schizophrenia isn't something to be completely condemned.

Ultimately, Lost in Austen is a bit of chick lit/rom com; it's not Stanislav Lem, it's Mark Twain. It's not supposed to be rigourously analysable.

Seriously, if you suddenly saw Elizabeth Bennet, she told you to go through a door in the wall and you ended up inside a book (or a TV adaptation of a book that's not quite authentic), at what point would you really accept it as reality?

I doubt I ever would. I'd be suspecting, the whole time, that I was just mad, concussed or dead. I doubt that I'd ever take what was happening so seriously that I thought to myself, "Oh my God, I can't do anything at all, because I'll completely mess up the book and when I leave, this work of classic fiction is going to be a pale shadow of its former self and revolve around me instead of the real heroine." That would be a clear sign of madness.

So I do actually think the fact that Amanda's not really trying her hardest not to mess things up, act badly or go in for a bit of wish fulfilment isn't a failing in the writing. It's what you'd probably do if you ended up in her situation - make a brave stab at getting into the spirit of things, but not hide yourself under a rock in case of disaster.

I do hope they make Lizzie's adventures in Hammersmith, because that could be a hoot.

Stu's comment about an American remake caught my eye. Like "Life On Mars", this could be a property that might appeal to producers here in the USA. But I think there'd be a major revision in picking exactly what literary world might be chosen. As popular as the adaptations of Austen may have been here at the movies and on TV, I'm not sure the audience could relate to such an avid reader of her work, or a show set exclusively in that milieu. But I can't think off-hand of any other author that might better fit an American version. (At least, not without changing the gender of the main character.)

Actually, if I was making a show loosely based on this concept, I'd have the main character bouncing from one literary world to another after a few episodes or so. 'Huckleberry Finn' one week, Sherlockiana the next....

Just an idea!

I should have narrowed my question. I do believe it happens to Lydia-like characters very often, just not to Lizzy-like ones that Amanda is supposed to be. If I’m ever in the UK I’ll take your advice. ;-)

“Ultimately, Lost in Austen is a bit of chick lit/rom com; it's not Stanislav Lem, it's Mark Twain. It's not supposed to be rigourously analysable.”

Hmm, that might explain my problem since I have one thing inherently in common with Stanislaw Lem. The series isn’t even loosely analysable though.

“Seriously, if you suddenly saw Elizabeth Bennet, she told you to go through a door in the wall and you ended up inside a book (or a TV adaptation of a book that's not quite authentic), at what point would you really accept it as reality?

I doubt I ever would.”

I had to laugh at that! Sure you wouldn’t, nor would I since, as you noticed, I tend to overanalyse everything, but Amanda is free from any consistent thought, so now you’re applying to her more analysing than she’s capable of.

Jane: “I quite liked the fact that Darcy was a disappointment, both to her and us.”

Darcy wasn’t a disappointment to me. He’s not attractive, but I like the way he behaves so far. I don’t understand what Amanda holds against him though.

“I never thought from the book Mr Bennet was cruel, just rather lazy and not prepared to take control of his family enough. The last version I saw with Michael Gambon in you got a real sense of how he'd let his family down, but he's nowhere near as bad as Emma's incredibly selfish dad and Lizzie obviously loves him.”

If my husband was setting up traps on me so that he could deride me in front of my children I’d think him plain cruel. Lizzy loved all of her family, but she obviously changed her mind about her father after reading Darcy’s letter.

Have you all seen the second episode?

the first episode, although may have had the cinderella expectation everyone may have wanted. it failed to deliver. the shoe didn't fit right.

and as the series went on, it got worse and worse for me. it was too predictable and as someone pointed out, an avid fan knows the ins and outs of austen novels and the context of which they were written in, so they would know if they were ever to be stuck in the book (which happens to be their fave) they would know what to do. replacing the heroine with someone who stumbles around without a clue is insulting to anyone calling themselves a fan and far worst for anyone promoting this as a good series. the plot was weak, and to mix the characters and the tale of a much beloved book with a "reality tv show type" plot is an indication that television no longer airs good shows.

one more thing... people should stop doing adaptions when they know that one has been made that cannot be beat. i still believe that colin firth is the only mr darcy and jennifer ehle is the only actress that has done the character of lizzy with the justice it deserves, not even keira knightly who got an oscar nod for reprising the role...

the twist was forthcoming... and that says alot... there were no surprises.