Customer Reviews

The Independence of Miss Mary Bennet

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(12)
1 star:		(40)

 

 

Any Janeite who makes it to the third chapter of The Independence of Miss Mary Bennet is in my opinion free to think author Colleen McCullough an impudent rapscallion.

I am confident that she will have no problem agreeing with me since she admitted that her motivation in writing a sequel to Pride and Prejudice was to stick it to the literati. Since it is doubtful that the good men and women of the arts and letters will read this novel, she is actually thumbing her nose at Jane Austen's fans and having a jolly time of it. If by some slim chance you are reading this Ms. McCullough, you have far exceeded your objective and should be quite pleased with yourself. I am a Jane Austen fan, and I am not amused.

What about Mary?

When the news hit the blogosphere last spring that the best selling author of The Thorn Birds and The Masters of Rome Series Colleen McCullough was writing a sequel to Pride and Prejudice based on Mary Bennet, I was both astonished and intrigued. I had secretly adored Mary, the middle Bennet daughter who only had eight passages of dialogue in the original novel, but made a lasting impact with her pious pontifications and deafeningly out of tune song stylings. Her older sisters may have been mortified by her exhibitions, but I just laughed out loud and wished for more. Well Janeites, be very careful what you wish for, cuz it could very well land at your local bookstore.

In which Mary gets a makeover!

You can blame it all of the 1995 Pride and Prejudice miniseries. Many people over the years have credited it for the ignition of Austenmania, fueling many movies and a cottage industry of sequel writers. While most viewers ogle over Colin Firth as the wet shirt Darcy, McCullough was intrigued by the Bennet's sanctimonious middle daughter Mary and how Austen unsympathetically portrayed her. Inspired to give Mary a new chance, McCullough starts the story twenty years after the close of Pride and Prejudice with the death of Mrs. Bennet freeing Mary from her role as parental caretaker. Bookish, pious and socially awkward Mary gets a makeover, a social cause, and a romantic adventure.

In which Mary is emancipated, gets ideas, and into trouble!

So, Mary is now thirty eight years old, unmarried, gets a makeover and is quite attractive. Freed from her daughterly duties of caretaker and police woman to Mrs. Bennet, the new and improved Mary Bennet has independent plans for her life that do not meet the approval of her dictorial brother-in-law Fitzwilliam Darcy. Inspired by the writing in the newspaper of a social activist, she is determined to write a book about the plight of the poor and sets off on an adventure of discovery to research the conditions of the working classes in Northern England. Sheltered and naïve, she gets into all sorts of trouble including being manhandled in a coach, robbed and beaten by a Highwayman, and abducted and imprisoned by a religious cult. Yes, a religious cult!

In which we witness the defamation of beloved characters!

Not everything for all four other Bennet daughters has improved as agreeably over the years. Elizabeth's loveless marriage is a sham, Jane is a baby factory neglected by her absenting husband who is off attending to his slave plantations in Jamaica, and Lydia is a drunken whore whose unfaithful lout of a husband Captain George Wickham is sent to America and dies. Only Kitty unexpectedly hits pay dirt and marries an elderly peer who promptly dies and leaves her a pile of dough and social clout. Since her story is too happy, we do not hear much of her. The real pinnacle of exasperation for me came with McCullough's handling of Mr. Darcy who immediately regrets marrying Elizabeth, resents being burdened with her `below his station' family, and now acts far snootier and more puffed up than we were subjected to when we first met him at the Meryton Assembly in the original novel. Ambitious, scheming and underhanded, this Darcy has gone Gothic villain on us and it is not pretty. This caustic rendering of Darcy alone will catapult many a book across living rooms and bedrooms across America.

In which dubious, dastardly and devious characters dapple the plot!

In addition to resurrecting Caroline Bingley and Louisa Hurst as the devious duo bent on tormenting the Darcy's to the end of their days, we are introduced to sympathetic new characters in Charles Darcy the young heir to Pemberley who is an incredible disappointment to his father but the darling of his mother and aunt Mary, and Angus Sinclair the wealthy newspaper owner and editor who is sweet on the violet eyed and ginger haired Mary Bennet because she reminds him of her sister Elizabeth who he has admired for years. They are two positive allies for Mary and her cause of independence and come to her aid more than once. Of course there is an abundance of villains (besides the dastardly Darcy) who dapple the story with challenges for our heroine which border on a Perils of Pauline melodrama; the most imposing of which is Darcy's hired henchman Ned Skinner whose idolistic attachment to Darcy is rather more like Frankenstein's assistant Igor than a paid thug. Other daunting characters that make Charles Dickens imaginings look lighthearted are a woman beating cutthroat Highwayman named Captain Thunder and a cave dwelling body snatching religious cultist Father Dominus. Could this cavalcade of characters possibly be any father from the witty, honorable, and propitious populous penned by the gently reproving Jane Austen? No!

In which a wild ride screeches to a hault!

Even though I did not agree with the direction that McCullough chose to take her sequel, her skill at story telling is amazing and a galaxy beyond fan fiction with flair. Her dialogue is crisp and succinct, her historical references well researched, and her descriptions of late Georgian life accurate and realistic. With so much talent and international renown, one wonders out loud whatever was she thinking? If you can get past the first three chapters and totally suspend your disbelief, The Independence of Miss Mary Bennet is a wild ride that screeches to a halt with one last repugnant line which I will leave for readers to experience for themselves

Laurel Ann, Austenprose

This book is so poor that it's spurred me into providing this, my first (and probably last) review ever. By putting this ridiculous sequel into print it is clear that McCullough thinks little of Jane Austen, and not only Jane Austen readers, but also her own. Give us some credit Colleen. An avid reader of both McCullough and Austen in the past I was sorely disappointed. In fact I could hardly believe my eyes as I worked through the book. Given that McCullough is normally very well researched I am sure people like the bizarro characters introduced in this insult of a book really did exist in those times. But honestly, did all that silliness really need to be added to the Bennet-Darcy story? I am sure an original series could have been established to satisfy McCullough's desire to write about 18th-19th century lechers, murderers, highwaymen, drunks, religious sects, caves, decrepit fathers, whores, orphans, and illegitimate West Indian children, thereby leaving the Bennets and Jane Austen out of it. My opinion - McCullough has provided a sequel which is all prejudice and no pride.

This book was not worthy of McCullough (or Austen, for that matter). But since it bears no real resemblance to Austen's book -- after the first couple of chapters any pretence that this is a commentary on that beloved novel is lost -- I think that you do need to almost look at this as a separate entity.

[I understand some of the reviewers here and their attempt to graft the historical and literary commentary about the times and styles, themes etc., onto their review of this novel, but frankly for 99.5 % of the audience (and I include myself in their number, in spite of my degree in History, and Master's degree in Librarianship) this novel will only really be remembered ultimately as a thing completely apart from Austen's masterpiece. These are not the characters of Austen, in dialogue, appearance, behavior, attitude... in short, I have trouble really understanding "Austen-phile's" even being offended at this book, as it has so little relation to Pride and Prejudice that it hangs alone.]

I honestly felt that were it not for McCullough's reputation this novel would never have been published. It should not have been. Choppy, lacking direction, full of frankly bizarre twists and manufactured incidents, it lacks flow, interesting characters or character development. Had it not been for the author's previous works I'd have abandoned it after just a few chapters. At one point the main character is somewhat abandoned by her author, and the sense is that it's not to pursue or develop any other plot line or characters, but simply because the author didn't have anywhere to take her.

I kept hanging on... hoping for some redeeming feature, but in the end there was nothing. I am left feeling sad. I can only hope that the next book by this generally gifted author lives up to her talent.

Truly, truly, give this a miss... it can only take away from the reputation of a great story-teller. Two, in fact.

I now understand that Ms. McCullough wrote this particular book to thumb her nose at the literati. My question is "Why"? And why select Jane Austen's beloved masterpiece, Price and Predjudice, as the vehicle for her vitriol?

This book was a direct insult not only to Austen, but to her legions of readers over the past 150 years. Ms. McCullough was aware that by virtue of her own famous name, and by titling the book "The Independence of Miss Mary Bennet" she was assured of large sales, thus profiting hugely from those readers who perhaps would not normally buy one of her books. Titling a book is easy; publishing and promoting it as a sequel is risky at best. This book was not a sequel. It was a joke -- on us.

Spoilers follow.

We are to allow that a now 50-year-old Darcy detests his only son Charlie because he is supposedly homosexual and a mama's boy (based solely upon the nasty gossip of Caroline Bingley). We are to believe that Darcy also detests his own 4 daughters, completely ignoring them by relegating them, including the two elder daughthers (16 and 17), to the shabby children's wing and schoolroom at Pemberley --- not to be thought of until their society debut at 18, when he can get them married off. How can we possibly accept this when in P&P, Darcy not only stood as a steady friend for years to the somewhat effeminate and naive Bingley, but who also stood as a doting, caring, involved father figure to his own teenaged sister Georgiana? Yet he would treat his OWN teenage daughters as non-entities?

We are told that Darcy's unbridled wedding-night passion resulted in the raping of Elizabeth, and that she has suffered this indignity in silence all these long 20 years. That's not Jane's Lizzie.

The homely Mary, at the age of 38, has shed her ugly duckling persona and is now a swan. And has been abducted by a Lucifer-worshipping cave-dwelling cult. We are told that Jane is nothing more than a brood mare for her absent, entirely unfaithful, Caribbean plantation slave-owning bigamist of a husband, Charles Bingley. We are to believe that Darcy's father, the man responsible for instilling in Darcy his "pride", is the same man who became bored with his priviledged position in his later years, took to whore-mongering, pimping and smuggling, and made a financial killing from it. That he sired a bastard son, a half-black sociopath who Darcy not only accepted privately, but used for his own nefarious purposes, including murder. All of these outlandish scenarios, plus more if you can believe it, gets wrapped up with a tidy bow at the conclusion of the story.

Unbelievable. And unworthy of Ms. McCullough for writing it and Simon & Schuster for publishing it. This was not a "masterful plot" as the publishers touted it. It was a convoluted mess of outrageous thoughts and actions and character assasinations of beloved historical characters. Her motives are suspect - does she feel that she has reached the pinnacle of her career, therefore allowing her the literary license to take a potshot at a classic novel, potentially alienating not only her own fans, but Austen fans? In seeing Ms. McCullough's photo on the book jacket, I'm going to finish this by saying she bears a strong resemblance to Lady Catherine de Bourgh.

Diarrhea, illegitimate children, circumcision, a cave-dwelling half-blind man with 50 slave children who have not bathed once in eleven years, more illegitimate children, "wees and poos", a laboratory in a cave, Jesus as the result of a deal between God and the devil, and children spreading feces on Pemberley's ballroom walls.

Need I say more?

I've read quite a few Austen sequels and many of them aren't very good. When I heard Ms. McCullough was writing one, I was excited because she is a fine writer and I thought she'd do a good job. I was surprised to find I rather hated this book.

I'm sure most Austenites will be aghast that Darcy wishes he never married Lizzie. The happily ever after of P&P is almost always taken as a given. (It's like someone decided to write a sequel to Romeo and Juliet in which they are alive and happy.) After my initial surprise at the twist, I found myself thinking that it'd make a great novel if only there weren't so much other craziness thrown in.

The characters just don't feel like those in Austen. Mary is no longer an ugly, devoutly religious bore. Now she's prettier than Lizzie, witty, and interested in female empowerment rather than religion. This we are just told at the beginning. Darcy is still as proud as ever, and he practically locks his daughters up which seems quite different from how he raised his sister, Georgiana in P&P.

Then we are treated to Mary getting kidnapped by a crazy religious cult, insinuations about Lizzie and Darcy's son's sexuality, and a heretofore unmentioned friend character who is joined at Darcy's hip (and whose paternity is a twist revealed later on). It is all far from the social commentary of Austen.

The only Austen-sequel I found harder to get through than this one was "Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife."

I finished the book last night, read it in one day, so it caught my attention. I am still mulling over what I liked and what I disliked and how to make a short review to summarize my thoughts and feelings about this book.

Pros- I liked the overall theme-- Mary Bennet as a "woman before her time". She does not fit into Regency England, but this book highlights her many admirable qualities that she grows into as she ages. In the original P&P we meet her briefly as an awkward late-adolescent, a middle child, not pretty, and not loved by either of her parents. A story written from her POV in her late 30's is a fresh and fun concept.

Pros: I liked that the story started as Mary-focused. Though this got lost later in the work.

Pros: I liked the plot theme of Elizabeth and Darcy with a sickly boy and 4 girls. I liked the parental tension about their son. I also found realistic and interesting the plot point that Darcy was keeping his 4 girls cloistered so they wouldn't turn into little Lydias.

Pros: Engaging. Wanted to find out what happened next.

Pros: Not just another fan-fiction- enough time elasped (18 years) that the author could create her own characters (based on the P&P characters). People both stay the same and change dramatically over time, I like that we saw both in her characterizations.

Cons: Needed better editing, some of the sentences had poor grammar and were confusing

Cons: Strange and implausible plot-line for parts of the story-- Mary got captured by cave-dwelling religious sect (?!) and was release by a dynamite blast that happened to open her prison door (!?). Weird. This may be where the author was pulling the chains of us fanfiction writers/readers.

Cons: Certain story lines were lacking in dramatic tension. Mary's love interest fell in love too quickly, no tension. Oddly, other story lines ("the Ned mystery") were overly tense/dramatic

Cons: Character development within this story was inconsistent--Darcy was a rather extreme (for P&P) villain at the beginning of the book and then for unclear reasons he changes 20 years of behavior in 1 week. The general idea was good-- a non-ideal marriage with trials and tribulations (not happily-ever-after), but the development/execution of the idea was unrealistic and heavy-handed.

So. overall, I gave it a 4 stars. It engaged me. I spent the morning thinking about how I would like to re-write it, using most of the character premises (18 years later--Mary as a strong woman before her time, an over-bearing Darcy, a "bought" Elizabeth, their sickly older son, their four cloistered teen girls, the drunken sex-addict Lydia, the worn out Jane) and write a completely different plot for them. Anyone wish to attempt this with me??

This book is a bizarre adaptation of the story of the Bennet sisters, if it can even be called an "adaptation" in all fairness. There is very little Austen to be found in this book beyond a familiarity in the names and places depicted in the story. I cannot review this book more thoroughly than is has already been reviewed, by extremely competent minds, in my opinion. I completely agree with all the negative reviews posted thus far. This book is merely a testament to the vanity of the author, who sought to put right Mary Bennet's poor treatment from Austen's pen. In doing so, she creates a fantasy in which the Bennet sisters rub elbows with outlaws, religious heretics, brothel madams and kidnappers. She may have put the Bennet sisters on the moon, for all the sense this story makes in the context of Jane Austen's society.

To be fair, Mary Bennet does become a much more likable character in this book, which seems to be the author's intent. Mary, however, is the only character that receives any charity. The other characters are slandered and distorted to the point of ridicule.

Bottom line: If you like Jane Austen, you will not like this book.

This is my first McCullough book. I read this because I am a long-time reader and fan of Jane Austen's books. I have read many "sequels" to Austen's novels, and have enjoyed almost all of them. I often like Austen-related books and movies that others feel stray too far from her original novels. This book, though, is absurd and ridiculous. I found it unlikeable, and barely managed to force myself to read it through to the end.

SPOILERS CONTAINED BELOW

Like most Austen fans, I was horrified to find a Darcy that is cold, cruel and indifferent to his wife and children. I find it hard to believe that a man who was devoted to his sister in Pride and Prejudice would deem his daughters unworthy of his time and attention--even if twenty years have passed since Darcy and Elizabeth's marriage vows. I'm sure the ending is meant to pacify loyal Darcy fans, but it seems too contrived to be believable.

Most of the novel reads like bad gothic fiction, with some morality tale-elements thrown in. Characters kidnap, rob and pillage, sire [...], murder, flog children into dangerous labor--no evil deed is left undone. Darcy and his good friend Ned have major character flaws and are vile throughout the whole book, but then suddenly see the error of their ways and rapidly repent. It's like a morality tale that's gone awry.

I do not suggest this book for Austen fans, or for people who expect books with reasonable plots.

Ms McCullough has written this like Harold Robbins or Jackie Collins would- a spectacular "trash" novel- in this version of the future, Mr Darcy is cold and cruel, Elizabeth waspish, the gentle Mr Bingley is a slave-owner with a slave mistress, Mr Darcy has a deranged step-brother who murders one of the Bennet sisters, Mr Darcy's father is a heinous criminal and horrible father...it is all AWFUL. Jane Austen is turning in her grave and I wasted hours reading a trash novel that I will have to try to forget when I re-read Pride and Prejudice. Don't read this if you don't want to tarnish your enjoyment of Pride and Prejudice.