I doub't we're really that far apart in our interpretations. I also think Jane's Austen's lack of characters physical description is an invitation to use our own ideas in that area. Darcy isn't Colin Firth or Lizzie Jennifer Ehle, indeed, although they portrayed both excellently, my own ideas on them are not those of the films. (David Rintoul is probably nearer Darcy than anyone chosen just for looks). Because of this , and the fact that there are so many opportunities to fill in in our imaginations, that's what makes it all so intriguing. Mr Collins is miles away from David Bamber, yet who could have done a better character job? Bingley gets little description or even much insight in the book, if we're honest. Not pursuing his suit with Jane becomes the prime focus of a character we don't really know that much about. His re-emergence at the end seems almost a convenience rather than a closer. Shadowy characters are always in evidence without actually intruding much into the story, Kitty and Mary, Maria Lucas etc as examples.
In the end I always return to the book as an anchor to wild imagination ,although the desire to saddle a horse, get in the carriage or write with a quill pen by candle light is ever there. Escapism? Sure it is, but the pleasure remains as fresh as returning to page one again. One of my hobbies is watercolour painting and I've painted almost all the scenes from the story. Amazingly, hardly any of my family( one daughter) have ever even read
Pride and Prejudice. That they can go through life that way is a constant source of amazement to me.
