I have read my fair share of Jane Austen books, and I will admit that Pride and Prejudice is probably my favorite of the lot. But that said it has been twentish or more years since I read them and society’s views on romance has certainly changed in that time. So while I didn’t agree with every point this author made I could see her side of things on many of them.

I found myself really engaged in this book. The author has a very light and breezy writing style which you don’t often see in nonfiction. She is also very humorous and there were a couple of times that I found myself smiling at her anecdotes or even giggling a little. Her use of contemporary TV shows, songs and books, also made what could have been a very dry dissertation more interesting. There were a few instances when the same theme was repeated several times, which got a bit annoying but otherwise her reasoning was solid.

I don’t think I ever dated a Darcy, but I found the chapter on real people’s experiences with that type of romance interesting. It supported Ms Feder’s thesis that many people subscribe to the Darcy myth, in that if your love interest is standoffish and rude then he must be into you. But not every love interest wants to be saved or changed, so tread carefully.

I think if I had Ms Feder as my English professor I would have enjoyed those classes a lot more. If you have ever read Pride and Prejudice or just about any romance book based on the enemies to lovers trope this is a book that I think you will enjoy.

An English professor, author Rachel Feder loves Pride and Prejudice. Yet she acknowledges, as far as first impressions go, Darcy is a jerk. He considers himself socially superior to the locals—which he is, financially, even though he lacks tact. Within earshot, he disparages Elizabeth Bennett’s appearance and her scarcity of dance partners. And yet Darcy fascinates Lizzy. So, what is it that causes us—the reader—to swoon over Darcy with her?

Feder questions Darcy’s status as a romantic hero and whether Jane Austen (1775-1817) even considered him worthy of love. Throughout The Darcy Myth, she tackles why we become attracted to the Darcy archetype in books, on screen, and in real life. Feder provides helpful sidebars, such as “Meet a Darcy” (name, turn-ons, turn-offs, and highlights), “Signs You Might Be Trying to Reform a Rake,” “Nerd Notes,” and a Darcy vs. Heathcliff smackdown.

With smart humor, Taylor Swift references, and even classified ads advice, Feder explores late 18th-century romance and marriages (and its link to economic security and social standing). From literary novels to Bridgerton, The Bachelor, and other contemporary storylines, she then asks us, do we need to reexamine our romantic heroes? Does true love have to follow the enemies-to-lovers story arc? Do we have the strength to break the power that literary heartthrobs and monsters have over us?

The Darcy Myth is a fascinating read. Now I wish I could sit in on Feder’s classes.

Even if you haven’t read Pride & Prejudice, you know the story of Mr Darcy — of the tall, dark and handsome brooding heroes, the complicated and moody love interest, one of the original incarnations of the enemies-to-lovers story. It’s had a clear and lasting impact on storytelling, culture and media; but The Darcy Myth holds a mirror to the dear Mr Darcy and asks if he really is a hero, or if he’s the monster of the story?

Feder offers a thoughtful and insightful look at the classic character from a different perspective: one of Darcy being a warning to be heeded instead of romanticised as it still is in so many modern stories. We look at the other examples of questionable male love interests throughout literary history and where we can see the influence today.

The writing is very thoughtful and has great analysis but with an easily readable, casual tone along with great sectioning and plenty of references throughout. Although at times it felt a little repetitive, I’d still recommend this to anyone who loves to talk and think about books.

This book explores the idea that Mr. Darcy was maybe not the swoon worthy hero that he seems to modern audiences. I liked the main ideas presented by the author and it gave me a lot to ponder. The book becomes really repetitive, though, and could have been shortened. I received a digital ARC of the book via NetGalley.

This is the antidote to everything society teaches women about romantic relationships. I absolutely devoured this book, it had me laughing out loud, frowning, reading sections out to friends and trying to figure out how to make all the people in my life read it.
The language is very casual (sometimes to an almost cheesy degree) but this also allows the academic critique and exploration to be accessible.
I would highly recommend this book, especially if you're someone who dates men and ESPECIALLY if you find yourself gravitating to the emotionally unavailable bad boys!!

Thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for a free eARC of this book

so the darcy myth huh?
this was a brilliant and interesting study on how women are conditioned and attracted to basically being demolished just to get ourselves a love story, cause apparently mr. darcy from pride and prejudice is presented as the hero while maybe he’s just ken!!
sorry i had to say it (couldnt restrain myself). We’re lured in by their bad boy/villain/tragic background story plot and that’s what the darcy myth is about, at the end of the day, mr darcy is really very arrogant and a jerk, but we kinda love all the excuses we find for his behaviour, and that’s that.

the only thing id criticize is that it can be sometimes repetitive on the matter of whickam/darcy etc, but was really entertaining otherwise, couldn’t stop reading!!

ps. if you happen to like taylor swift, just know she’s widely mentioned <3

Thanks to Netgalley for letting me read this in exchange of my honest opinion.

Rachel Feder feels like the kind of woman with whom I would really enjoy going out for coffee. I have the feeling we would need to order more than one round to get through everything we would have to talk about. In this analysis of the fictional character Fitzwilliam Darcy, literary scholar Feder analyses whether we have had it all wrong all these years and whether all the swoons have been misdirected. Entertaining and insightful, this was a fun takedown of a character who has been allowed to get entirely too big for his britches.

First of all, I have never been a Darcy fan-girl. He's fine for Elizabeth and all but I never really got the hype. He's just that tall proud man who stands about looking awkward. Not much chat. I had a long phase of preferring Captain Wentworth but over time I realised that Henry Tilney is Austen's ultimate romantic hero. Don't marry the guy who is rude about your family and thinks that marrying your teenaged sister to a known sexual predator is the best course of action. Marry the dude where when you've just accused his father of being a Gothic murderer, his response is, 'Yeah well my Dad is kind of intense so I can see how you got there, no worries'. Austen's men have all got nasty habits of ghosting except for my homeboy Tilney.

And this is kind of Feder's point. Why has this man with objectively dreadful communication skills become an object of such fevered romantic desire? He is rude to our heroine, he insults her appearance, he shames her by refusing to dance with her and makes his best efforts to ignore her. And then he has the temerity to act surprised that she does not immediately accept his proposal. I should add here that this is in no way to denigrate Pride and Prejudice which is of course a flawless masterpiece. But it is not a romance. There is a town and country conflict going on as well as some quite important social commentary around class, social status and money. People just get distracted by all the bonnets and think it's a love story.

Feder traces the descent of the Darcy character into other so-called male romantic leads and considers how his character has influenced social attitudes today. There were a fair few here that I was familiar with - Mr Rochester, Christian Grey, Edward Cullen etc but also a few whom I had never considered before such as Chuck Bass and various other rich and unpleasant characters from teen television dramas. I laughed aloud though at Feder's side-swipe at Twilight whereby Edward's POV chapter sees him spying on Bella and seeing her reading Jane Austen. He sees that she is reading Mansfield Park and assumes that she is swooning over the romance. Feder bristles as she points out that Stephenie Meyer has clearly never read the book in question since nobody ever in the history of the world has ever swooned over Edmund Bertram. Not even Fanny Price.

I agreed with Feder's main thesis and admired her passion in how she put it forward. As she explained, her goal in how she educated her daughter on love is that if you find yourself thinking about your relationship and thinking that other people simply don't understand your love then it is not a relationship and you are not in love. These are words which I believe my own grandmother would have heartily seconded.

My only quibble is that much of Feder's arguments had already been put forward in Gabrielle Malcolm's excellent There's Something About Darcy and the latter covered a far greater range of texts. Feder's book felt slightly under-developed in comparison. Still, I very much enjoyed it and I am glad that more literary scholarship is beginning to raise its eyebrows over Darcy arranging Lydia's shotgun wedding rather than using some more creative means to rescue her reputation. Fitzwilliam represents the establishment and the status quo - he does not morph into some cuddly liberal bunny just because he falls in love with Elizabeth. He remains the same guy to the end of the novel.

Ultimately, Mr Darcy is a fictional creation and we are all entitled to think of him any way we choose. As his readers, we are his creators just as much as Jane Austen was. But I agree with Feder that the way that characters such as his are fan-girled over is part of a social trend whereby girls are encouraged to accept a man's difficult behaviour. Anastasia Steele should not have stuck around for Christian Grey's emotional manipulation. Blair Waldorf could have done a lot better than Chuck Bass. Bella should definitely have gone off with the werewolf instead. I remember vaguely hearing Cheryl Tweedy's single 'Fight for this Love' way back when she was married to a footballer who kept sending other women pictures of his privates. You should not have to 'fight for your love'. It should not be a battleground to get your significant other to communicate with you about straightforward emotions. Feder's words for her daughter are ones that have resonated with me and I hope to pass them on to my own children too. If I can bring up a daughter who also appreciates the merits of Henry Tilney, I will know my work is done.

It's a little bit of a social commentary, a little bit of literature examination, a little bit of a self-help book. I think I could have done without the chapter on people's real life experiences and relationships, but I also think that would have made the book too short. Parts were definitely interesting and gave me things to think about, but I don't know that it needs to be an entire book.

The Darcy Myth is a funny and smart call for everyone—but especially straight cis women—to divest from the idea that a taciturn and handsome hunk needs a woman’s gentle touch to become a better person and provide her “happily-ever-after.” Feder unpacks modern romance to show how old its fundamental patterns are, provides a close analysis of Austen’s Pride and Prejudice to suggest that Darcy and Wickham are basically mirrors of each other (one of them gets to be "good" because he has a ton of inherited wealth), tracks The Darcy Myth back to its early eighteenth-century origins, including fairy tales and novels by Wollstonecraft, Haywood, Le Fanu, Richardson, and others, and then applies her findings—the fact that modern heterosexual romance is fundamentally structured as gothic narrative of “saving the beast”—to present-day media, including in ‘90s romantic comedies, The Bachelor, and the vast majority of current Netflix shows. Written in a delightfully irreverent tone, this book is meant for people who love books, especially romance—and those who hate these things but still are interested in how age-old literary tropes shape current behavioral norms.

While there was nothing new to me here, I found the book entertaining and definitely worth my time. Feder cites some well-known literary scholars of British literature and rehearses a well-trodden line of argumentation that arose with Janice Radway, the founder of romance studies, but she doesn't venture into desire and arousal scholarship, and so does not confront the problem that heterosexual women (and lots of straight men and queer people) have no cultural guideposts (apart from maybe Dirty Dancing, sort of) that could teach them how to be attracted to the good-and-safe types. Nor does she explore the fact that young men are often discouraged from being communally oriented and kind. So, while we should absolutely interrogate and abandon The Darcy Myth, we also need new narratives and new ways of defining heterosexual love—and that is a very difficult task, considering that some scholars believe that the convergence of infatuation and intimidation is basic to erotic attraction.

Thanks to NetGalley and Quirk Books for providing me with this ARC of the book for my free, unbiased review.

*1.5 rounded up for Goodreads scoring*
Thank you to NetGalley and Quirk Books for my advanced copy in exchange for my honest opinion.

"The Darcy Myth" by Rachel Feder is an interrogation into the character of Fitzwilliam Darcy and whether or not he (and Austen) are specifically responsible for certain toxic archetypes that women today are so fond of. Personally and academically, I found this to not be really well-thought out. I thought it was an interesting topic because why do we idolize somebody like Darcy but villainize someone else? I felt that although Feder seemed close to doing some real analysis, it would just never quite get there. Altogether, it just didn't feel like Feder had enough to support her main thesis. This definitely did not need to be a book. It was definitely something that I think should have been MUCH shorter and probably submitted to a few journals before a big book publication.

As an Austen academic and someone whose favorite Austen hero is Henry Tilney, I'd recommend this if you're not super familiar with Austen academically. If you love the movies and the tv shows, this would probably be a really interesting read but having read quite a lot of Austen scholarship over the past decade, I found it lacking.

This was an interesting premise but I thought the writer tried too hard to make this topic seem fun and accessible.

As someone who really likes Darcy, this was such a thoughtful interrogation into him and the types of heroes that we find ourselves becoming fond of. I really enjoyed this more than I thought I would!

It is so refreshing to be given a new perspective on the character of Fitzwilliam Darcy. Darcy has been a heartthrob since Pride and Prejudice first was published, but Rachel Feder challenges readers to look into why we so highly esteem this fictional character.

Darcy seems to feed into every common perception of what an ideal man would look like: elusive, has his own sad backstory, emotionally constipated, handsome, and above all, misunderstood. While her interpretations can veer into the slightly extreme (is Darcy a total monster because he funds Wickham and Lydia's marriage? He gave money to a rake and possible rapist so Wickham could marry a 15-year-old girl and maintain a respectable place in society and possibly continue to be a rake) one wonders if it is extreme enough.

We have idolized Darcy to the point that Feder's interpretations feel like sacrilege. Maybe Darcy isn't a monster, but is he only a good guy because he gets what he wants in the end? What makes him different from Henry Crawford from Mansfield Park?

I truly loved this book and the questions it raises. I can't wait to discuss the finer nuances of Darcy with my literary groups.

The Darcy Myth was a thoughtful and entertaining read that considered the darker side behind the brooding hero archetype. I didn't necessarily agree in full with all Feder espoused in the book, but my thoughts did click with hers on some points and it was interesting to read her arguments. Certain parts of the book were more fun for me than others. For instance, I did skim through the section on The Bachelor, because I hate reality TV, so the people she referenced in relation to that show meant nothing to me. But I enjoyed the discussion on Lord Byron and vampires and the look back at the Gothic influences in Austen's works. In general, fans of Jane Austen should find this an interesting read, and I am giving it 4 stars.

This was a super interesting take on Austen and Darcy. I hadn't thought like that. We've always been told "it's romantic", I love that this book made me question that and other books in the similar vein.

I absolutely loved reading this book. I was completely drawn into the topic and could not stop reading it.