I'll put this in the popular vernacular: "I know!,right?"

Glad to know I wasn't the only one who started twitching when I read this glib (as usual) Dowd attempt at cool chick intellectualism.

Thanks for validating my Austen ire.

Firstly, what's the point of reading good books if you can't discuss them? (It's not like we're nit-picking some film edit glitch from an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)! Good books, good plays, good art (hell, even good Star Trek) explores the human condition: discussing that is hardly a waste of time.

Secondly, excuse me, but if someone is going to use literature to make a point, they had better well remember the damned book in question! To misread (misremember?) something so well-known, so clearly written, and so easily checkable is both sloppy writing and too much like a Bushism.

Thirdly, do you know which profession averages the most literary references in a typical working day? Sportscasters. How many of them were English Majors?

Malcolm, like Fortinbras and Henry Tudor, is the last man standing (at the top) after the carnage caused by the corrupt rulers (as created by Shakespeare). They may not necessarily be "heroes," but they certainly aren't (yet!) "villains". They represent the new balance established (order restored, but not a retreat to Life With Duncan, etc: it's Something Else) after the carnage of misrule and abuse of power, but they are still unknown quantities. I've seen productions where these men are viewed as "heroes", and others where the future still looks ominous under these kings (in one production, the very last moment froze as Malcolm and his younger brother both grab the crown from Siward: the game is on again, boys!).

Some see Malcolm as "cowardly" for "fleeing" Scotland. Others see him as "canny". Certainly both opinions have been voiced about Obama. (Maureen, you should know better than to call Obama my "hero". I don't worship him, but at the moment I plan to vote for him. Since Kucinich, Edwards, Dodd, Richardson and Clinton are out. And because I - like those at Birnham Wood - much prefer the Unknown Quantity to More of the Same with McCain).

God I HATE Maureed Dowd so much. Thanks for reading her column for me and making fun of her. The NYT is one of my favorite news sites but I always see her columns in the "most emailed" box. Then I have this perverse urge to read the fucking things, but I know that only helps her in the end with her weird little crusade...

I bet you all are female, English majors who never wrote any major book.

Barack Obama's residence is in Hyde Park, the Chicago neighborhood - if Dowd was referring to London, it's clumsy and counterintuitive. I like Hyde Park, but before Dowd snidely tries to imply it as some sort of gated community for South Side aristocracy with some unconsidered aside, I'd like to see how comfortable she'd be walking alone after dark.

Maureen Dowd is not Irish; she's American. Her Irishness is about as authentic as her red hair and you can take that from "someone who knows". Oh, yes, there's also Hillary Clinton's ALLEGED remark. I've been wondering why the cat seems to be laughing so much. She must have been looking at the Net during the night.

This is Dowd describes Wickham, her analogue for McCain.

Wickham is actually an evil man, lying, lazy and willing to betray anything and anyone for his own pleasure. He operates by deception and slander, and cannot be trusted. The Wickham in the novel may be more like McCain than Dowd thinks.

Unless Dowd is far more clever than I give her credit for, her misreading of the novel is symptomatic of her misreading of the world. And to misread Austen so badly suggests that her moral compass could use recalibration.

Actually an American election between a young biracial lawyer and an old conservative white man is probably more Faulknerian than anything else, but that's, as they say, another story.

"She is also an equal opportunity bomb thrower, hammering away at republicans and democrats alike."

No, no, no. That's what Dowd has claimed in almost exactly those words, but anyone who checks her columns on a regular basis (if only out of morbid curiosity) knows that she has bashed Democrats far more consistently this campaign season, and left McCain's erratic comments and behavior basically untouched.

I'm an author, reviewer, and a fan of Austen. I'm not an Austen geek or English lit geek or any kind of geek. But I've read Pride and Prejudice several times and Dowd has completely misread the book if she thinks Darcy and Obama have anything remotely in common. Like so much of the press, she misreads Obama's calm, his comfort in his own skin, his equanimity as arrogance, haughtiness and pride--all of which Darcy exhibits. If she were a student of mine, I'd give her a "C" for false analogies and quoting out of context. What's sad is that her smarmy columns influence so many people who think she's a wonderful writer. She's not. She's superficial, glib, and exhibits strange obsessions like the consistent need to paint Democrats as unmanly.

Let's not forget that the pundits like Dowd who are recycling GOP talking points about Obama are also the same people who for years told us how strong, inspiring, fun, charming, and just plain likable George Bush is. Some last words on Dowd, from the book she claims to comprehend: "She [is] a woman of mean understanding, little information, and uncertain temper."

I can't believe the English literature geeks are so up in arms that a vapid twit like Dowd has butchered an attempt to analogize Obama and Jane Austen characters. Dowd's bar is so low why should anyone be surprised. It's not like she's Katha Pollitt or Ellen Goodman, writers who've set a standard for well-researched coherence.

It reminds me of a time when a group of us at work were looking at the Onion. One young lady took deep umbrage at what she asserted was an inaccuracy in a story about the Mideast conflict. I kept repeating: It's only the Onion. It's only the Onion.

So Broadsheet writers and readers, take a deep breath and remind yourself: It's only Dowd. It's only Dowd.