I'm no stickler for truth to the source in an adaptation (usually I find the differences an interesting window to the adapter's point of view) but I do appreciate this analysis of what romanticizing P&P takes away from it. Walking out of the theater after this film -- which I enjoyed -- I couldn't resist the impulse to deflate it's closing (so reminiscent of Sixteen Candles'!) by reminding my companion that in the novel Elizabeth's turnaround begins when she first sets eyes on Darcy's house:

Elizabeth's mind was too full for conversation, but she saw and admired every remarkable spot and point of view. . . . the eye was instantly caught by Pemberley House . . . It was a large, handsome, stone building, standing well on rising ground, and backed by a ridge of high woody hills; . . . Elizabeth was delighted. . . . They were all of them warm in their admiration; and at that moment she felt that to be mistress of Pemberley might be something!

Passion may help Elizabeth get over her prejudice, but property has a lot to do with it too.

If you know roughly how many miles they drive the Hummer (and what it's MPG is) you can use one of the numerous carbon footprint calculators on the web to determine what it's putting into the atmosphere and purchase offsets in their behalf. Nonprofits like americanforests.org will translate carbon into trees and let you purchase tree plantings accordingly.

I nearly fell over when I Urge Adoption turned not liking HH's style or disagreeing with her analysis into an attack on working mothers.

Good grief!

What better job for the parent of a young child than one that expects you to spend most of your time AT HOME?!

Yes, there was the disturbingly prescient coincidence of the cover art on Underworld. And a character's recurring nightmare fantasy of planes falling out of the sky in the book itself.

Also, there is the passage in White Noise (published in the mid-1980s) in which folks holed up in a shelter to escape the airborne toxic event read tabloid predictions to each other. One of these is that a group of fanatics will fly a jet plane into a building out of devotion to their charismatic leader.

"No one could have imagined it" indeed. DeLillo did.

That may be one reason he was also the writer the editors of The Atlantic turned to for one of their very first pieces on the attack, as I recall.

after blowing himself to smithereens in a thermonuclear explosion. We know that Claire/Peter can appear to be dead but revive after a "fatal" piece of wood or glass is removed from their brains, but that's a far cry from recomposing oneself after total annihiliation. The show hasn't really told us how far "indestructibility" goes . . . or have I missed something?

I was at the LA version of this event on Tuesday, a Q&A format with Harry Schearer. He asked some tough questions, and Gore answered all but the one about a campaign.

The new Al Gore appears to be thoughtful, as smart as ever and (definitely freed from handlers and focus groups) funny. The event organizer flubbed her intro, speaking of Gore and his accomplishments including An Inconvenient Truth, Schearer and his accomplishments including A Mighty Wind, and then welcomed "Al Schearer and Harry Gore" to the stage. The two of then joked about this a bit as they sat down, concluding with a line from Gore about "An inconvenient mighty wind" that brought down the house. That's not the most sophisticated humor ever, but spontaneous and unscripted, and an excellent foil for the sometimes very sophisticated conversation that followed.

More now than ever, he's got my vote.

I stole this from something I read about Leonard and Virginia Woolf visiting friends and being offered lemonade, but then facing the decision: with or without gin?

This is especially refreshing with carbonated French lemonade and my new favorite summer gin: Aviation (more floral than many, with a hint of lavender along with the juniper berry -- fantastic!).

(Although the clerk will then want to bag them in plastic for you!)

There are researchers who think that we may actually increase our risk of certain cancers by menstruating every month. As the article did mention, what is evolutionarily "natural" was for a woman to have a few periods over the course of her life, but spend many more months either pregnant or breastfeeding. One theory posits that all the cell changes that take place in the process of ovulation create opportunities for cancers to start. This is of course unproven, but the article would have been better balanced had it included at least a paragraph acknowledging that some believe menstrual suppression may have long-term medical benefits unrelated to avoiding monthly symptoms like cramps, heavy bleeding, etc.

Is all the parents wringing their hands over how their children will react to the sullying of their heroine.

Why would they even hear about it? Or are Miley Cyrus' preteen fans watching E-TV and reading Vanity Fair?

are the diamond/jewelry store ads that flood the airwaves every year from December to May (they disappear after Mother's Day). Regardless of the company, almost all of them are driven by two symbiotic messages: 1) men are only lovable when they give women expensive jewelry and 2) women are only interested in men for the things they can buy. Ick, ick, ick! It's demeaning to us all.

The bumbling oaf stereotype has been around--and annoying--for a long time, but it's definitely getting more play rather than less of late. Thanks to previous posters for the context within anti-intellectualism. I experienced plenty of that as a girl/young woman in American schools and I appreciate hearing about how it plays out among boys, if only so that I can empathize better.