Most Helpful Customer Reviews
37 of 40 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Seriously flawed, but a series with potential, July 21, 2005
This review is from: Pride and Prescience (Or A Truth Universally Acknowledged) (Mr. & Mrs. Darcy Mysteries) (Mass Market Paperback)
I found this book delightful in its portrayal of the newly-married Elizabeth and Fitzwilliam Darcy. The author has done a creditable job of maintaining the wit and lightness of Pride and Prejudice. I am delighted that the newly weds' intimacy is indicated by playful banter, not graphic sex scenes. On the other hand, although I have a great love for folklore and I have read several detective series with supernatural themes, I don't think that it fits in well with Jane Austen. I found the American connection in this story a bit implausible. A plot device has to satisfy both the ongoing narrative and the hidden plot(s) that are revealed as the story goes on, particularly in a mystery. If something seems odd, the characters need to comment upon it. For me, the plot first began to fall apart with the unlikely suggestion that the solution to a case of nervous prostration would be to embark on a several month journey from England to the United States during the War of 1812, delaying any expert treatment until she arrives in New Orleans. The Bingleys and Darcys do object, but Elizabeth Darcy seems to have forgotten that Professor Randolph, who puts forth the scheme, has told her only the week before that the war had more or less stranded him in England. One needs to keep in mind that the US was what we would now call a Third World or Developing Nation. Sending someone with serious nervous and physical problems from England to the United States would be about like having a heart attack in Baltimore and going to Zimbabwe for emergency care. Even if one could get perfectly good care in the latter place, it isn't likely to be better than what one could get locally. Why risk the stress and delay of the trip? After this incident, I began to question the entire likelihood of the American fiance. Would an American, even a wealthy one, be warmly received by the Polite World in England, especially when the two countries are at war? Granted, the Bingleys aren't aristocracy, but there seem to be no prejudices against him from anyone. Why has he come to England, anyway? Such a lengthy trip is quite an undertaking surely requiring some significant motive, even if he arrived before hostilities broke out. Would the Bingleys really be so unconcerned at this whirlwind courtship and marriage (less than one month) especially if he recently broke of his courtship of another woman? If his "crying off" is taken to mean that he broke an engagement, this would be a serious offense for a gentleman at this time. I hope this isn't a spoiler, but since mysteries often involve money, maybe not. Then and now, the inheritance of money within a family is governed by laws that override the effect of wills. If any substantial amount of money was involved at that time, the families of the bride and groom set up settlements, prenuptial agreements, stipulating the financial obligation of both during the marriage and in the event of death. Spouses might not inherit from one another, especially if no children were born, although there was usually some legally required or mutually agreed upon support for a widow during her life. A bride's dowry might return to her family if she died without surviving children, even if her husband had control over it during the marriage. If her family didn't give her the money outright, he might only control the income. This would all have to be taken into consideration by The Villain(ness). Part of the action of that seminal mystery, The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins is determined by the terms of a prospective bride's inheritance: her husband would control only the income, not the principle. Like another reviewer, I was somewhat bothered by some of the language, enough to look up "archeologist" in my Oxford English Dictionary. It is not recorded as being in use until 1824, after the period of this book, although "archeology" had been in use for centuries, so it's not an impossible usage. Would have been a nice touch to spell it "archaeologist", though. This could be a charming series if the author works a bit on period detail and plotting. I will certainly read the next volume.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Northanger Abbey not P&P, September 6, 2005
This review is from: Pride and Prescience (Or A Truth Universally Acknowledged) (Mr. & Mrs. Darcy Mysteries) (Mass Market Paperback)
I have a love-hate relationship with this book and its sequel. On one hand, the author manages to draw quite a charming and convincing portrait of Mr. and Mrs. Darcy. I am happy to meet them again, and they do feel like the beloved characters of P&P. Having read a number of contemporary Jane Austen sequels, I dislike those that try to debuke the original characters and show their miserable futures. This is not one of those books. On the other hand, I hate the woo-woo, supernatural plots. Miss Austen herself told us what she thought of gothic novels (and she read many) in "Northanger Abbey." I just don't think that this is the right approach for Jane-ites. Although the author has started this way, she can evolve her approach. Dorothy L. Sayers changed Lord Peter Whimsey considerably over the years. Agatha Christie changed Miss Marple--compare "Murder in the Vicarage" with "Nemesis." Also as noted by others, the author has a dead ear for the language of the period. Many of her word choices are bizarre. For example, would Mrs. Darcy, would Jane Austen, would anyone in 1813 refer to the United States as "the States"? The solution is simple: use no words not used by Jane Austen or her contemporaries. Finally, I must say that I was really irritated by the continual references to "Darcy." Elizabeth Bennett Darcy would never call her husband "Darcy." No one, except his equal men friends (i.e. Mr. Bingley or Col. Fitzwilliam), would. Elizabeth would call him Fitzwilliam, perhaps Mr. Darcy, perhaps darling, but never "Darcy." Nor would Jane Austen have referred to him in that manner. Why on earth the author didn't simply follow the conventions used by Jane Austen? In "Emma," she made it clear what she thought Mrs. Elton calling her husband "Mr. E" was vulgar. She would have been even more disapproving of "Darcy." (Although I must say that this doesn't fall to the level of a book called "The Countess" set in the same period: "Just call me Andy" said the c 1815 Andrea, Countess of Whatever.) Others have already noted the lack of accurate historical and social context. Since the people most likely to read these books are going to be familar with Jane Austen and her world, I can't understand why the author didn't take more care, didn't research more, and didn't resist the urge to "update" and "improve." These books are on some level good enough that it is really annoying that they are not better.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
8 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
reasonably well executed fanfic, November 7, 2005
This review is from: Pride and Prescience (Or A Truth Universally Acknowledged) (Mr. & Mrs. Darcy Mysteries) (Mass Market Paperback)
Jane Austen (or her family) never published any sequels to her novels. Instead, she rewrote the novels themselves, over and over, honing them into the form in which they were eventually published. This gap leaves a lot of room for "fan fiction." As with any sequel, the challenge is to tell a new story while being true to the original characters and setting. This attempt is fairly successful at the former, and pretty much unsuccessful at the latter. The worst offense of the novel is the introduction of magic and mysticism, which not only goes against the original novel but also cheapens the mystery element as well. Stephanie Barron's mysteries (featuring Jane Austen, rather than her characters) are better-executed mysteries precisely because they avoid adding in anything like this. The other problem is that a big part of the book is set in London, which doesn't seem quite right. P&P was set entirely in the country, and any London action took place "off-stage". Elizabeth's familiarity with London is possible, but seems a little out of character. Her stereotypical "amateur detective" routine seems even more out of character. I can picture the original Elizabeth confering with Darcy and Jane perhaps, trying to figure out a mystery, but not attending police interviews. The author also runs into the typical fanfic problem of not being able to deal fairly with original characters which she disliked. It is true that Miss Bingley and Mr. and Mrs. Hurst were unpleasant, but they were not quite as stupid and as portrayed in this novel, and the fates they suffer in this novel seem significantly worse than what Jane Austen would have dealt out to them. Structurally the novel was plotted well, and the characters were internally consistant and well-drawn. The problems with the book are in how it relates to the original settings and characters, not in how this book itself was executed.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
