Various random thoughts about ‘Angry at Darcy’:

· The title should have been something like ‘Avoiding Darcy’; I will change it after the story disappears off the first few pages of the readerboard'

· The summary should have been something like: ‘Darcy only changed for Elizabeth; to all others he remained as he was originally: proud, prejudiced and controlling. As a result, most of the people in his family and Elizabeth’s family, wanted nothing to do with him.’

· The next story’s ‘Caveat Lector’, warning of ‘Extreme OOCity’, is going to be in 36 point pitch, bolded and with flashing lights attached, if available; and I would bet that reviewers will still complain about how OOC the story is.

· Speaking of which, does OOC stand for ‘Out of Canon’ or ‘Out of Character’ or both?

· In future stories more might be made of the new supporting characters: Agnes Davidson, John Davidson (perhaps as the Earl of _), Mr. Fogg, Jerimiah Whortles and perhaps Mr. Feague and Lord Wamble.

· The hostile reaction to Mr. Davidson was a surprise – a successful tradesman of the time, raised in Manchester, is going to rough around the ages, brash, confident, tough etc.; he’s not going to be smooth or as well mannered as some drawing room courtier.

· Mr. Bennet is the true villain of this story and of canon – a father who does not take care of his family should be shot, if not roundly chastised.

· Col. Fitzwilliam was not a rapist in the strictly legal sense. But consider the feelings of a demure maiden brought unwillingly to the marital bed.

· Jane is passive-aggressive. She is bitter and angry at Mr. Darcy but she will never confront him, she will cut him instead. She will avoid him when she can.

· As for the other characters, some anger (at Darcy) is justified, sometimes it is not.

· Mrs. Bennet is worthy of sympathy, she’s the only one who cares for all her daughters.

· Mrs. Bennet is afraid of Darcy, that’s why she avoids him. She avoids her daughters for a time because she feels they are in Darcy’s camp. This should have been made clearer.

· Mr. Collins has a back-story worthy of exploration. Poor and from an illiterate father how did he attend university?

· The second most famous opening sentence in literature is ‘Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.’ This is the story of an unhappy family.

· Mr. Fogg did not lie to get Rick back. He bluffed Darcy and Matlocks. There is a difference.

· Lord Matlock is a mean drunk but quite nice when sober. Haven’t we all known people like that? From when she first met Rick Lady Matlock knew for a certainty he was her grandson.

· Apologies are overrated. Most are insincere, equivocal and don’t lead to any improvement in behavior. Sincere, concrete and irreversible atonement is necessary.

· Where has the idea that the Bingleys are bent on getting revenge on Darcy come from? If they are getting revenge it is only in the sense of ‘living well is the best revenge’.

· Twenty five plus chapters in, why are reviewers who say “the ugliest story I’ve ever read”, “this is a crackfic, just with better grammar”, “this absurd story”, “this is the worst P&P story I gave ever read”, “You have written the one story that put me off P&P for years”, etc. still reading it?

· ‘Gedoena’ expresses my feelings about this much better than I can: “People, if you don't like the story, move on. Why do you feel the need to be rude about it? We each decide how much time to invest in reading any of these stories, which are offered to us free of charge. There have been a number I hung on to for a while and then dropped off because I was not sufficiently interested, and others that I kept reading and was glad I did. Either way, my choice, doesn't make a huge difference to my life in the end. But as other authors have remarked on, nasty comments can really impact them and their own self esteem. It can also make them want to leave this site. This should be a supportive community for authors, not a sounding board for disgruntled readers who could just as easily ignore a story. Some authors value constructive criticism to help further develop their writing, but no one wants to be dumped on.”

· Whether or not he pushed Collins, Darcy violated an obligation of hospitality towards a relative by not at least having Collins into his house to dry off.

· Is there an obligation to resolve all conflicts?

· Is it a mandatory trope that Darcy be humiliated à la Hunsford? What other mandatory JAFF tropes are there?

· Re the betting about when Darcy would interfere in the Stone / Mintlaw nuptials, this is something gentlemen would do (google ‘infamous betting books at White's club’); it may have been a stretch to include the ladies in doing it.

· Other than Jane (once) what other characters have expressed hatred of Darcy? Most of them certainly dislike him and want to avoid him. He (for Elizabeth) is the one that wants back in their lives.

· After forty plus chapters all of a sudden reviews are popping up criticizing the writing itself, viz.: “And check your writing. really sloppy. Wrong word usage all over the place. making the pain greater”; and, “A poor vocabulary and sub par grammar skills only add to the pain”. Really? Not having been trained in the literary arts I am always prepared to correct my ways but how about some actual examples of where I went wrong. Bueller?

· And to the reviewer who wrote: ”you MUST learn when to use WHO and WHOM correctly.” It is a lost cause, I write by ear, a tin ear at that.

· This is the best troll review ever: “whenwillthisend chapter 40 . Jun 1 Although I stopped reading this rubbish 20 chapters ago, I have been reading the comments. You have made everyone of Jane Austen's characters absolutely awful...” Emphasis added.

· I thought I had more than one troll, but given the similarity in the wording used, I think I only have one who uses various noms du troll in addition to the ubiquitous ‘Guest’.

· One typo: ‘Purves’ instead of ‘Purvis’ Lodge in almost 100,000 words. Kudos to the editor.

· The original end of the story was Chapter 42.

· A reviewer suggested that the cumulative word count of the collected reviews exceeded that of the story. This looks to be true.

· The reviewers have their own fan: “Lenpen chapter 43 ... I have not read a single word of this story. But the comments have certainly been great entertainment.…”

· Various reviewers speculated as to how the story would end. The prize goes to the ‘Guest” who wrote a bad dream ending à la the ending of the ‘Newhart’ television show.

· Re the objection to the use of the word ‘arse’ – if gentlefolk never used such a word there would be no need for rules against using it; yet there were. Why?

· A reviewer asked what was the point of this story. Does there have to be one? What was the point of the original P & P?

· The story is too long at 100K words; it should have been cut down to about 70K words

· Thanks to those readers who favoured this story, and those reviewers who gave it a favourable review. Your kindness to an old hack is greatly appreciated