Modern renditions of Pride & Prejudice, humor edition

February 27, 2010

Lynne Kiesling

I’ve been reading, thinking about, and watching lots of Jane Austen lately, and I’ve found two funny renditions of my favorite book, Pride and Prejudice: Austenbook, a Facebook-style retelling of the story, and Pride and Prejudice in emoticons. I guffawed out loud in an unseemly manner ill befitting a lady, but I suspect that Ms. Austen would be highly amused if she were a part of our culture.

I haven’t read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies yet, but the KP Spouse has, and he allows that he was excessively diverted by reading its rollicking, light juxtaposition of zombies into the story. He says that the author, Seth Grahame-Smith, does a very good job of using the essence of Austen’s language, and that it’s pretty obvious that Grahame-Smith used the 1995 BBC video version with Colin Firth (yum!) as the skeleton upon which he told the zombie story. I have, though, been enjoying A Truth Universally Acknowledged:
33 Great Writers on Why We Read Jane Austen
, a collection of essays on Austen. All of these are excellent diversions for a winter weekend.


Amazon ebook controvery persists: update

February 4, 2010

Lynne Kiesling

A quick update on the Amazon ebook controversy that continues to roil since my earlier posts on resale price maintenance and on price discrimination. This Technology Review article covers much of the same territory that I did in those posts, with some links to additional author sources, and Simon Owens at Bloggasm has some interviews with Tor Publishing authors on the impact this situation will have on their incomes and their abilities to continue writing. Tor author John Scalzi has an extremely funny satirical screenplay post on the situation (see if you catch the joke in the name of one character!). Kenneth Anderson at Volokh Conspiracy asks several of the same questions I did, and the discussion in the comments is particularly insightful. One of the commenters raised the question of whether Amazon’s market power is sufficient to constitute a monopoly, and that they could therefore be prosecuted under antitrust law for removing Macmillan’s books from their offerings (the consensus seems to be no, correctly). If you are following this story, I encourage you to check them out.

Speaking of Amazon’s market power … from the Technology Review article:

On Sunday, Amazon agreed to accept Macmillan’s new pricing model and said it would once again make the publisher’s titles available through its site.

However, I just checked Amazon’s listing for Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall (which is my test book for this story), and it still only lists availability for third-party sellers; there is still no listing for a direct purchase from Amazon, or for a Kindle ebook version of the book. It seems that John Scalzi is engaging in the same research as I am, finding that his Tor titles are listed similarly to Wolf Hall. He’s also landed in the same place as I have in terms of how I will spend my money from here on out:

Q: Do you hate Amazon?

A: My Amazon Prime account suggests that I really don’t. But, you know, look. What this is about to me, and what it’s always been about for me, is the fact that Amazon is punishing authors — a lot of them — for something that fundamentally doesn’t have anything to do with them, that being top-level trade negotiations between two corporate entities. Amazon can choose to do whatever it likes under the law, but admitting “Amazon has a right to do this” doesn’t mean I can’t say “and it’s being dicks to a lot of innocent writers” as well. Both statements are true. As for me, it’s pretty simple: When Amazon reinstates the “buy” buttons to all the Macmillan titles it’s stripped them from, I’ll consider buying something from it again. Until then, I’m taking my personal business elsewhere. I’m not suggesting others have to follow my example. But this is where I’m at.

Yep, me too. I’ve got hundreds of dollars worth of books and other merchandise in my Amazon wish list and shopping cart, and I plan on shopping for them elsewhere for as long as Amazon refuses to have direct links to the Macmillan books. I have been planning on buying several new hardcover books (such as The Enlightened Economy and The Invention of Enterprise), and now I’m going to do so elsewhere, as you can tell from the links that I’ve chosen. In fact, I also canceled my American Airlines MasterCard last November and got an Amazon Visa card instead, which is also now going to lie fallow in my wallet unless absolutely necessary.

I’ll be shopping for books at the online and “meatspace” locations of Barnes and Noble and Powell’s, and I’ll continue buying books from Abe Books. I’ll also shop elsewhere for housewares and electronics, high-priced products that I used to buy with great alacrity through Amazon.

Oh, and by the way, if you want an ebook version of Wolf Hall, Abe Books has one from Bargain Electronic Books in pdf format for $9.49.


The Amazon-Macmillan ebook kerfuffle: an ode to price discrimination

February 2, 2010

Lynne Kiesling

[I love the word kerfuffle]

Price discrimination is the basic economics question in the current iPad-induced Amazon-Macmillan kerfuffle, even more basic than the DRM/property rights issues and the antitrust/resale price maintenance issues I discussed in my last post on the matter. Lots of people have weighed in on the subject in the past 36 hours, and I recommend some of them to your attention:

To see why this controversy is so important, let’s compare the old “wholesale pass-through” pricing model and the new “agency” model. Martin very helpfully provides that comparison in his post, so I’ll summarize here:

  • Wholesale pass-through pricing: Retailers negotiate a fixed wholesale price per unit with the publisher, and then set the retail price. In this case, Amazon has negotiated a 50% discount from full hardcover retail for their ebooks and charges $9.99 for most of them, so on any book with a hardcover retail price higher than $19.98 Amazon loses money on that sale. The publisher’s revenue on the sale is 50% of full retail.
  • Agency pricing: The publisher pays a percentage-based commission to the retailer, based on a negotiated retail price. Reports indicate that this commission is around 30% (which passes the gross margin smell test for me), so if a $29.95 hardcover sells in ebook version at $15.99, the publisher actually makes less money and the retailer makes more.

Note that under the agency pricing model, Amazon actually makes money on each ebook it sells, which at the moment it does not. The fact that it is fighting so hard to keep low ebook pricing is consistent with the hypothesis that they want to price ebooks below their marginal cost as a “loss leader to sell gadgets”.

But where the economics gets really interesting is considering the book supply portfolio and the demand for specific titles over time. That’s where the dynamic pricing flexibility of the agency model is welfare-creating — it can make Amazon, Macmillan, Macmillan’s authors, and consumers better off relative to the equilibrium with wholesale pass-through pricing, and what’s makes that possible is price discrimination.

Here’s an example: over Christmas I read Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel (which was truly outstanding and I recommend it very highly). It was released in the US in October with a list price of $27.00. Under wholesale pass-through pricing, Macmillan receives $13.50 from Amazon for every ebook version sold at $9.99, leading to a loss per unit to Amazon of $3.51.

Under agency pricing, Macmillan could, say, commit to pricing the ebook version at $17.99 for the first week, $14.99 to the end of December, and $9.99 thereafter. Under that scenario, those Hilary Mantel fans with low price elasticity of demand would buy in the first week, those who are willing to pay $14.99 would wait a few weeks and then buy it, and those who have more price-elastic demand would wait until the price fell to $9.99, which seems to be a trigger price for a lot of current Amazon Kindle customers. This is an application of third-degree price discrimination, and in the simple static model it results in more output sold and higher profit, but generally lower consumer surplus. In a dynamic sense, though, the welfare of all parties can go up, because the price discrimination may induce the publisher to contract with more authors for more works, making all four parties better off.

Virginia Postrel mentions the price discrimination aspect in her post on the subject:

The other side of the equation is consumer response: How many more copies will people buy if the price goes down? Or, in economic lingo, what is the price elasticity of demand? Book publishers talk (and often act) as though book buyers aren’t particularly price sensitive. The Borders and Barnes & Noble coupons in my email suggest otherwise. So does what little academic research exists on the subject. In a paper looking at people buying physical books using a shopbot, economists Erik Brynjolfsson, Astrid Andrea Dick, and Michael D. Smith found very large elasticities: A 1 percent drop in price increased units sold by 7 percent to 10 percent.

Of course, people who use shopbots are likely to be more price sensitive than average. But there’s anecdotal evidence that prices matter a lot for e-books. As The New York Times reported recently, most of the books on the Kindle bestseller list are being given away for free. And comments on various discussion threads among Kindle users suggest that many are bargain hunters looking for a good, cheap read rather than a specific title.

Rather than cut prices for everyone, Macmillan hopes to be able to price discriminate, so that eager readers pay more than casual ones. It’s a reasonable strategy. But the publisher seems to envision a traditional method of dividing the market: charging more for brand-new titles and lowering prices over time. That approach works for paperbacks, which come out roughly a year after hardback editions. But paperbacks are, of course, physically inferior to hardbacks, while e-books are all the same. Discriminating by publication date works only for titles that are fashion items–you want to talk about Game Change this week, not in six months–or blockbusters with impatient fans (the latest Twilight installment). Most books fall into neither category.

That’s an interesting angle on the topic. James McQuivey from Forrester offers some evidence that may point in the same direction:

In fact, the pricing mess is only going to get messier. Our surveys have found that people are willing to pay as much as $17.81 for a new e-book, but only if the hardback costs $25. That’s the rub. People expect to pay less for digital books, compared to the price of the physical book in the market. But books don’t cost that much. Today I can buy a hardback copy of Elizabeth Gilbert’s Committed on Amazon for $12, a discount of $14.95 from the list price. And the book was just published four weeks ago. So spending $14.99 for the digital version is a bit silly.

So what’s the “new equilibrium”? Retailers and publishers will evolve and adapt as technologies and consumers do, but will it involve content as loss leader, authors contracting with Amazon and disintermediating publishers, or something else. One thing we know is that the Internet has created lots of new ways to price discriminate, and ebooks may be susceptible to that pricing model too, to the benefit of all parties.


Pro-liberty reading to take you into 2010

December 31, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

Happy New Year’s Eve! At the turn of the year our thoughts naturally turn simultaneously toward reflection and the future. There are many dimensions of our lives in which the future looks more bleak for individual liberty and autonomy than they did a year ago, which is one reason why the Atlas Foundation’s list of the top ten pro-liberty books of the decade is so timely and will be so useful. These ten books range from economics to philosophy, from applications to theory, and include Bryan Caplan’s Myth of the Rational Voter, Deirdre McCloskey’s Bourgeois Virtues, and Bill Easterly’s The Elusive Quest for Growth. The top pro-liberty book on the list is Hernando de Soto’s The Mystery of Capital:

#1 Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else (2001) by Hernando de Soto

Hernando de Soto’s seminal The Mystery of Capital made him one of the most famous economists in the world.  The book earned him praise from New York Times Magazine, “To the leaders of poor countries, de Soto’s economic gospel is one of the most hopeful things they have heard in years.”  In Mystery, de Soto revolutionized the development debate, and had the rare privilege of testing the application of his ideas.  De Soto offers a more realistic alternative to 20th century redistribution schemes that achieved little more than inflating political power, encouraging corruption, impeding the rule of law, and perpetuating poverty.   Aware that developed countries did not start wealthy, and weren’t assisted by foreign aid, the De Soto coordinated a series of empirical investigations to identify what prevents the Third World from reaching the same level of development as the First.  He discovered that institutional costs imposed by governments all over the world are the main obstacles to reducing poverty.  Real estate is the most emblematic case.  The fact that states do not recognize the property rights of millions of people to the homes they effectively own prevents them from capitalizing on goods that sum billions of dollars.  Free exchange and initiative has made poverty more of an exception than a rule in the developed world, and it is the lack of freedom that imprisons millions of people in a condition of poverty. No book of this decade demonstrates this better than The Mystery of Capital.

If, like me, you are feeling angry and dispirited by the turn toward bureaucracy and government hegemony, these works provide ideas and examples that distill and crystallize why individual liberty is such a crucial value for individual well-being and for healthy civil society.


New book — Electricity Restructuring: The Texas Story

December 14, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

I’m pleased to announce the publication of a book on electricity restructuring in Texas that I co-edited with Andy Kleit. Electricity Restructuring: The Texas Story is unique among applied regulatory analyses in several ways, most notably that half of the authors are not academics, but are instead the actual policymakers who worked directly on the institutional design of what is currently the only deregulated electricity market in the United States. From the press release:

In the early 1990s, the U.S. electricity industry was plagued by cost overruns and stagnant productivity. Many states turned to deregulation to promote innovation and cut costs, a strategy that had worked for the telecommunications, trucking, natural gas, and airline industries. Yet, after the California energy market’s infamous meltdown in 2000-2001 triggered the recall election of Governor Gray Davis, deregulation lost popular and political support. Plans to introduce competition and retail choice in electricity markets were stalled or abandoned nationwide–in every state but Texas.

This volume explores how Texas’s groundbreaking program of electricity restructuring has become a model for truly competitive energy markets in the United States. The authors contend that restructuring in Texas has been successful because the industry is free from federal oversight within the state; because new investments in electricity supply have been encouraged to insure that increased demand for power is met; because restructuring has spurred the growth of more efficient electricity technologies and business models; because the markets integrate wholesale and retail competition; and because the operation of the transmission grid has been changed to maximize its efficiency.

The success of electricity restructuring in Texas proves that deregulation is both feasible and potentially effective. State policymakers’ commitment to competition, decentralized coordination, and ongoing market analysis have made Texas’s electricity industry the most competitive in the country. Electricity Restructuring: The Texas Story offers a unique set of guidelines for deregulation done right.


Hi again; some reading recommendations for the holiday season

November 16, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

Hi! How are you? I’m well, thanks. Long time no chat.

Frankly, I’ve been tired, and have had too many work obligations stretching me in too many disparate directions. This has been bad for my KP writing, because much of what is happening with electricity regulation and policy right now is ripe for economic analysis, but what I want to say is too involved for the mental bandwidth I currently have available. Couple that with the uncivilized and vitriolic turn that online economics discussion has taken in climate, financial markets, etc. (e.g., the links that Jonathan Adler put in his “Climate McCarthyism” post at Volokh; for the record, I agree almost entirely with Jonathan on this subject), and my generalized anger about current government policy and its likely directions, and I haven’t had much that I wanted to contribute here.

Also, much of what has captured my passion and attention (over the past several months, not just the past month since my last post) involves cycling and triathlon training; I could go on and on, but probably in ways that would bore everyone! One thing, though: I have been reading Chi Running to improve my running form and speed, and now I am reading Christopher McDougall’s Born To Run. I have not been bitten by the barefoot running trend, but McDougall’s tale of the running prowess of Mexico’s Tarahumara Indians is a really, really good read. McDougall weaves a great tale, part anthropology, part travel narrative, part adventure story about the personalities who participate in ultramarathon races in the US. Even if you’re not a runner you may enjoy his well-told tale.

Along these lines … as it’s getting toward the end of the year and we are all looking for gifts and for engaging reading for the holidays to divert us from the strains and stresses of too many long days traveling and visiting with family, a few different “best book” lists have caught my eye. The first list is the candidates for the Man Booker Prize, which was given in October to Hilary Mantel for Wolf Hall, her novel about Henry VIII’s right-hand man Thomas Cromwell. I happened to be in London the weekend before the prize was given, and I caught a review show on BBC in which three reviewers gave their recommendations and synopses of each book, and they all sounded well worth reading. Mantel’s writing in particular is right up my alley because I love historical fiction that is both literary (with good character development) and reflects accurate and nuanced historical research; her earlier novel set in the French Revolution, A Place Of Greater Safety, also sounds great. In both books, the reviewers indicate that Mantel couples history research with character development that amounts to hypotheses about the motives and roles of historical characters who are opaque to us now.

Another Man Booker finalist was A.S. Byatt’s The Children’s Book, a historical narrative set in late-19th century England. I have been a Byatt fan for a long, long time; I think of her writing style as chromatic, because much of the time she writes in such lyrical detail that I see colors in my mind (and no, I don’t think I have synaesthesia!). The only exception is her Babel Tower, which didn’t hang together or cohere at all. Other than Babel Tower, Byatt is a master of the complex, interwoven, often time-shifting parallel plot structure.

Byatt’s book (and Wolf Hall) featured on both of the “best of” lists that I saw. First, Amazon’s best 100 books of 2009. This list is pretty fiction-heavy, but also includes some memoirs, some history, some biography, and other nonfiction. Through looking at this list I discovered that Colson Whitehead has a new novel, Sag Harbor, that is set in 1985 and includes a lot of references to music that is near and dear to my heart! Whitehead’s The Intuitionist was a great read, and I have John Henry Days but haven’t read it yet. Another book on the list that stood out to me is Terry Teachout’s Pops: A Life of Louis Armstrong. Terry Teachout is the wonderful reviewer and cultural commentator from the Wall Street Journal, and Louis Armstrong is, well, Louis Armstrong. ’nuff said.

The Amazon list also includes Michael Ruhlman’s Ratio: The Simple Codes Behind The Craft Of Everyday Cooking, which I’ve been meaning to get for some time. If you like to cook but are nervous about straying from pre-determined recipes, Ruhlman’s book can help unleash your culinary creativity. And Born To Run is on there too, at #85. All in all, I was really impressed with the Amazon list; almost all of the books on it that I haven’t read caught my attention.

The other good “best of” list I saw was The Atlantic’s top 25 books of the year, which leaned in a more historical and nonfiction direction. I love reading history. Love, love. Their top recommendation is Burlingame’s Abraham Lincoln: A Life, weighing in at 2,024 pages. Another one that caught my eye was the revised edition of Parker’s The Thirty Years’ War.

I’ve been reading a lot of Adam Smith, David Hume, and analyses of Smith and Hume this fall, and I’m looking for a different direction for the holidays. The KP Spouse has read Pride, Prejudice, and Zombies, which he classifies as an entertaining and diverting read. So my draft reading list for the holidays is Pride, Prejudice, and Zombies; Wolf Hall; The Children’s Book; Sag Harbor, A Place Of Greater Safety; John Henry Days. I’m not sure I’ll be able to finish all of that by January, but I look forward to trying!

What are your (fiction and nonfiction) reading recommendations?


“Where the wild things are”

October 22, 2009

Michael Giberson

Just saw the movie Where the Wild Things Are.

Fantastic. Wonderful. Amazing.

Back when I was king, it was kind of like that.  Only, I had more brothers and sisters when I was king, and they thought they were the king or queen, so it was complicated.

And amazing.

I’m not sure my 13 year-old son was as impressed with the movie, but I think he still thinks that he’s the king.


Is it super freaky?

October 19, 2009

Michael Giberson

The sequel to the surprise-hit Freakonomics — I think the sequel is called Freako II: The Empire Strikes Back or something like that — is causing waves due to commentary on global warming in Chapter 5. I haven’t seen the book or read the leaked chapter 5, which is circulating online. I’m not a climate scientist, nor do I play one on my blog. I haven’t even read too many of the commentaries on Freako II, Ch. 5. Of the ones I have read, I find the energy with which some people have lept into battle against the chapter somewhat surprising. (Stephen Dubner responds to some of the critics at the Freakonomics blog.)

Brad DeLong has been prominent in jumping on the chapter, but he identifies his latest post as the last. In this last post he does the reader the favor of patiently combing through Chapter 5 and explaining fairly precisely what changes he would recommend. Many of his notes seem fairly thoughtful and constructive. Personally, I would have been unwilling to suggest that the U.S. could resort to military force as a way, ultimately, to coerce other nations to implement policies to combat global warming. (See DeLong’s notes for p. 173.) I would guess the hint of military invasion is intended mostly as a signal of how important the issue is to DeLong.

DeLong does follow Leavitt and Dubner into electric power issues somewhat closer to my area of competence. DeLong observes:

p. 187: Claim that “coal is so cheap that trying to generate electricity without it would be economic suicide” needs much, much more backing-up: I can’t see how it could possibly be true.

Well the meaning of “economic suicide” is lacking in sufficient content to be clearly true or false, but if we interpret the Superfreak sentence as claiming “suddenly giving up coal-fueled electric generation would cause a substantial negative shock to the economy sufficient to push the economy deep into a recession which would take several years to recover from,” I’d be inclined to agree. Slowly phasing coal-fueled generation out of the electric power mix here and elsewhere, say over a twenty year period, would not be “economic suicide.” But a ban on coal use, whether immediate or slowly phased in, probably isn’t the right industrial policy for our future. Really, just amongst us economists, can we agree not to demonize particular fuels and technologies and instead direct the force of public policy toward externalities?

While I’m not a climate scientist, I have thought some about the economic incentives facing pundits and reporters. In the meta-discussion surrounding the Freako II controversies, discussion of why pundits might trade-off factual observations for controversy. Mark Thoma’s thoughts, riffing of a post by Mark Liberman on Language Log, were interesting in this regard. Liberman says game theory explains why pundits always take the low road, suggesting a kind of Gresham’s Law theory where bad (but sensationalize) analysis drives out good.

Thoma offers some thoughtful exploration of the issue. He says, “It drives me crazy that, for example, people invited to appear on CNN will say something that is an outright lie, and the person saying it clearly knows it is a lie or misrepresentation, but yet they get invited back anyway due to their entertainment value.” Yeah, me too. Or rather it would drive me crazy if I watched CNN much. Can’t stomach too much cable news watching.


Anderson/Gladwell debate brings out all of the web intelligentsia

July 3, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

Gee, I really feel like the new, new world has truly arrived, when one of the most visible conversations in the places I frequent is about Malcolm Gladwell’s New Yorker review of Chris Anderson’s Free: The Future of a Radical Price. Chris Anderson responds to Gladwell, continuing the conversation.

But you know that it’s game on when you attract the attention of the digerati, including Anil Dash (focused on the methodology of argumentation from anecdotes vs. data) and Seth Godin (focused on the marketing-related implications of using “free” to capture scarce consumer attention). And, of course, our own Tyler Cowen, although he is circumspect and offers only a pointer to the discussion.

I, too, remain circumspect until I have read the book, but I have read some of Anderson’s articles on the topic. I see the core of Gladwell’s criticism as this: how do we know that “free” is the future when it doesn’t generate revenue streams, and is therefore not a sustainable business model? That’s where I think Godin’s comments are useful — free can be a way to get attention in a crowded retail space, although the firm will have to incur costs to keep that attention in the face of relentless innovation and rivalry. But there are also products for which “free” reflects the marginal cost of producing an additional unit of output, and in that case, to be sustainable the business model has to bundle that free good with others for which consumers are still willing to pay. The changing music business model, evolving toward “free” music and higher prices for concerts, t-shirts, etc., is an example of this type of model.

I won’t wade into the thicket of whether Gladwell is sensitive to Anderson’s argument because of the decline of old-school journalism, although that is definitely part of this debate. Follow the above links if you want to participate.

BTW, when I put “free” in quotes it’s not because I’m necessarily skeptical of Anderson’s argument, but because of my economist pedantry — I prefer to think of goods as having price=0 instead of being “free”. But “zero-price” is a less felicitous word than “free”.


Pride and Prejudice and Zombies!

April 3, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

Last week was our spring break, and the KP Spouse and I were in Colorado all week. I spent the entire week off-grid — no computer, no Internet, zip zilch nada, nothing but snow and books and music (and, toward the end of the week, basketball for the KP Spouse and our friend Dean who joined us there). Ironically, I managed to pre-schedule almost daily posts for the week I was on holiday, while this week I haven’t had the time to do any! Oh, the joys of the quarter system … three “first week of class” episodes! But things have calmed down a wee bit, and I am spending the day catching up on writing and correspondence.

Anyway … on our way back to the airport from Breckenridge we spent a few hours burbling around Denver, in two neighborhoods: the Lower Downtown area (LoDo), and South Broadway, where we enjoyed browsing used bookshops. In LoDo we stopped in at the best bookstore I’ve been to in a long time, Tattered Cover. Great old building, lots of seating, wonderful staff recommendations, well-organized and thorough inventory, lots of magazines, café … if I lived in Denver I would spent lots of time and money here!

I didn’t buy any books because my luggage was already bulging, but I was sorely tempted by a few titles, especially Seth Grahame-Smith’s Pride and Prejudice and Zombies! I adore Jane Austen, and like zombies as much as the next person, so the intriguing combination was hard to resist. Then I get home and find that some of my friends who share my tastes have hit on the work at the same time, and then this week at Boing Boing Cory Doctorow wrote about the book:

Never successfully read Pride and Prejudice. Bored to tears by it. I’m not proud of the fact. Plenty of smart people have the utmost respect for the book, and I’m perfectly willing to stipulate that the problem is with me, not with Austen.

But P&P&Z has just too much Austen and not enough zombies. I found myself skimming, skipping larger and larger chunks of text to get to the zombie sequences, desperate to escape the claustrophobic drawing-room chatter of Austen’s characters with a little beheading, disemboweling and derring-do.

I couldn’t finish it. But I expect if you were the kind of person who loves both Austen and zombies, this book would just plain knock your socks off.

[austenevangelist]Oh, honey. Claustrophobic drawing-room chatter? In Austen’s hands drawing-room chatter is metaphorical beheading, disemboweling and derring-do accomplished with subtle irony and gentle wit. That’s precisely the core of the humor of the concept of P&P&Z — on its face the plot and dialogue in Austen is genteel and within strict social guidelines, but the real action is in the tension between the visions, dreams and desires of the protagonists and those constraints. It’s mindful Regency girrrl power, not mindless derring-do.[/austenevangelist]

Now I do regret not buying it and stuffing it into my suitcase!

ETA: This comment on Cory’s post totally wins the thread:

There’s only one literary mashup anyone needs to know, and it’s a single line. “It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold.” — Hunter S. Tolkien, “Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur”