includes the inference that it represents a temporary, albeit serious, obstacle
to their union. This inference is reinforced by both Darcy’s letter to Eliza-
beth, explaining the behavior that her imperfect knowledge and prejudices
had led her to regard as ethically reprehensible, and Elizabeth’s self-criticism
after reading the letter. In addition, the readerly dynamics of the progression
include the authorial audience’s desire for the union.
Thus, as soon as the Gardiners and Elizabeth get near Pemberley, the
authorial audience both expects and desires that Elizabeth will cross paths
with Darcy. Consequently, Austen can rely on the Meta-Rule of Dominant
Focus to license her skipping the kind of preparation in the textual dynam-
ics for Darcy’s arrival at Pemberley that she goes through for Elizabeth’s stay
at Netherfield. Austen simply has the housekeeper at Pemberley update the
chambermaid’s information with the report that Darcy is expected the next
day with a large party and then, after Darcy shows up, has him explain that
“business with his steward” (256) made him arrive a few hours ahead of the
others. In other words, Austen’s reliance on Chance here is not a problem
because (a) she has scrupulously avoided Chance in establishing the initial
pattern of the progression in the textual dynamics and (b) those dynamics
establish readerly inferences about the genre of fictional comedy of fulfillment,
and those inferences in turn lead the audience to expect the meeting. To put
the point another way, the interaction of the textual and readerly dynamics
in the progression across the beginning and the middle of the novel converts
what looks like Austen’s reliance on Chance into a reliance on probability.
From this perspective, it would be far more improbable for Darcy and Eliza-
beth to miss each other during Elizabeth’s visit to Pemberley.
Now, if this narrative were nonfictional, would Austen’s handling of the
meeting at Pemberley need to be different? Yes, but not because it relies on
the workings of Chance, since Chance often does work in the extratextual
world. Since the default of nonfiction is that the author has freedom to shape
the narrative structure within the constraints of being responsible to the extra-
textual world, the meeting at Pemberley would not be understood as part of
the author’s invention of events. Thus, its justification cannot simply be that
the meeting fits the pattern that the author has been arranging. Instead, it
must both fit that pattern and observe the constraints of being responsible
to the extratextual existence of characters and events. Consequently, if Pride
and Prejudice were nonfiction, the author would need to address the appar-
ent workings of Chance more fully than Austen does in the novel. The author
could choose among various strategies, including calling explicit attention to
the workings of Chance (the functioning of Chance would add to the tel-
lability of the narrative) and showing that what has the surface appearance of
76 • CHAPTER 3