In order to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and one of literature’s most iconic men, Mr. Darcy, I decided to dedicate by blog post to it. From costume parties, to book clubs, screenplay adaptations, parodies, Oscar nominations and corresponding sequels/prequels Pride and Prejudice has seemed to grow ever more popular over time. Some blame it on the popularized Victorian time period, the simplicity of Bennet and Darcy’s romance, or that Ms. Bennet was one of the first female characters to defy gendered stereotypes about women. No matter the reason, Pride and Prejudice has withstood the test of time and in doing so managed to cross transnational boundaries, generations, and educational discourses.

Despite country’s prominent and glaring differences that lead to scarred trade relations, war and ethnic conflict, how is it that something so simple as a novel can transcend those differences and create a common ground between people? The BBC interviewed women from Britain, America and India this morning about Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice anniversary and all women despite their economic, racial, ethnic and geographic differences reported similar views about the book. It left me wondering if there was more Jane Austen in the world would there be more commonalities in the world? Would we be more willing to look past blaring racial and economic differences and confide in someone due to fictional preferences? Is the simplicity of the Jane Austen era something we should strive for in this day and age? What would politics be like if political leaders were forced to read Jane Austen: Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, and Mansfield Park per se? Maybe all this world needs is a dose of Bennet and Darcy.