You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
2.96 AVERAGE
2.96 AVERAGE
I've only ever read one book by PD James - it must have been almost two decades ago. I can't remember the title of the book and I can't have found it a great read since I was never tempted to pick up another PD James novel again. Until Death Comes to Pemberley. Because I LOVE Pride and Prejudice and hoped that this book, like the splendid BBC production of the novel, would allow me to extend the romance.
Alas, Death Comes to Pemberley fell short of what were, admittedly, high expectations (I wonder why PD James, who has a well established reputation, decided to do a sequel to this well-loved tale? It's not as if she needs to ride on Austen's popularity to sell books). Yes, the familiar characters - Elizabeth, Darcy, Col Fitzwilliam (now the Viscount Hartlep), Jane, Bingley, the Gardiners and yes...Wickham and Lydia are here. But part of the magic of the original Pride and Prejudice was how Austen recreated Regency era society with all its codes and strictures through the dialogue of the characters. And the dialogue in Death Comes to Pemberley comes across as stilted and wooden by comparison. PD James' Elizabeth lacks the wit and vitality that made the character in Austen's novel. And so much of the dialogue in the first half of Death Comes to Pemberley, in particular, is purely functional - to get those who are not familiar with Pride and Prejudice up to speed with the developments in the original novel - and lacks the vividness and spark of the original.
I might have liked it better had PD James written a straightforward murder mystery set in the Regency period. But whether out of intellectual conceit or other reasons, she has chosen to centre her novel around Austen's most famous couple (and even tries to weave in some characters from Austen's Persuasion, which also upset me inexplicably). I'm admittedly not a neutral reader but I think her gambit failed and it cheapened the novel somewhat. Read only if you're a non Austen fan. You're better off re-watching the BBC production if you want to recapture some of that Pride and Prejudice magic. Or better yet, read Pride and Prejudice again for the nth time.
Alas, Death Comes to Pemberley fell short of what were, admittedly, high expectations (I wonder why PD James, who has a well established reputation, decided to do a sequel to this well-loved tale? It's not as if she needs to ride on Austen's popularity to sell books). Yes, the familiar characters - Elizabeth, Darcy, Col Fitzwilliam (now the Viscount Hartlep), Jane, Bingley, the Gardiners and yes...Wickham and Lydia are here. But part of the magic of the original Pride and Prejudice was how Austen recreated Regency era society with all its codes and strictures through the dialogue of the characters. And the dialogue in Death Comes to Pemberley comes across as stilted and wooden by comparison. PD James' Elizabeth lacks the wit and vitality that made the character in Austen's novel. And so much of the dialogue in the first half of Death Comes to Pemberley, in particular, is purely functional - to get those who are not familiar with Pride and Prejudice up to speed with the developments in the original novel - and lacks the vividness and spark of the original.
I might have liked it better had PD James written a straightforward murder mystery set in the Regency period. But whether out of intellectual conceit or other reasons, she has chosen to centre her novel around Austen's most famous couple (and even tries to weave in some characters from Austen's Persuasion, which also upset me inexplicably). I'm admittedly not a neutral reader but I think her gambit failed and it cheapened the novel somewhat. Read only if you're a non Austen fan. You're better off re-watching the BBC production if you want to recapture some of that Pride and Prejudice magic. Or better yet, read Pride and Prejudice again for the nth time.
I made the mistake of assuming this would be a clever and perhaps humorous crime drama, with P.D. James carrying on the wonderful characterisation of Elizabeth and co...but it is not. None of the characters feel familiar and I ended up not particularly caring as to 'whodunnit'.
Meh. I wasn't very impressed. I'm not surprised. I don't really like mystery novels and I find fan fiction in general disappointing (fan fiction imitating a masterful stylist like Austen is doomed to failure). The characters come off as rather flat and boring. Everything that happened was completely predictable. I kept expecting some sort of twist, but only got repeated explanations of the same events by a number of characters. I had the feeling that I was reading a history lesson, rather than a story set in the past. James does a lot of superfluous and conscious stage-setting (like telling the reader that Darcy did not join Elizabeth in giving out food to the sick because that was women's work) that distracts from the story. Several characters also digress into social and political commentary that would have been unnecessary in conversation with their contemporaries. It made me super-conscious that I was reading a modern taken on Austen, rather than the author herself. And because of the absence of the social commentary that makes Austen so brilliant, the new characters James created felt very different - much more Dickens than Austen.
I think the most problematic aspect of the book, though - what made it ultimately not work for me - was the way it broke down the boundaries of Austen's world by attempting to present the experiences of men and servants as well as women. Most of Austen's servants don't have names, and don't have to. They don't matter in the scope of her stories - but James often finds it necessary to name even minor servants with little role in the story. Likewise, since she was a woman, Austen did not present the opinions of men on business or politics, or even guess at what they did when alone together. James spends far more time presenting the outer world of men and politics. I can't remember a single instance where the private experience of the women is depicted. That made it feel un-Austen-like to me, for the world she depicts is solely that of the gentlewoman. While James borrowed the characters, the setting, and even, quite often, the language (direct Austen quotes are liberally sprinkled about - a bit too liberally, in my opinion) of Austen, the book does not have the same feel.
I think the most problematic aspect of the book, though - what made it ultimately not work for me - was the way it broke down the boundaries of Austen's world by attempting to present the experiences of men and servants as well as women. Most of Austen's servants don't have names, and don't have to. They don't matter in the scope of her stories - but James often finds it necessary to name even minor servants with little role in the story. Likewise, since she was a woman, Austen did not present the opinions of men on business or politics, or even guess at what they did when alone together. James spends far more time presenting the outer world of men and politics. I can't remember a single instance where the private experience of the women is depicted. That made it feel un-Austen-like to me, for the world she depicts is solely that of the gentlewoman. While James borrowed the characters, the setting, and even, quite often, the language (direct Austen quotes are liberally sprinkled about - a bit too liberally, in my opinion) of Austen, the book does not have the same feel.
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This book really wasn’t very good. It was easier to read than the original Pride & Prejudice but not nearly as good. I’m keen to watch the TV version but I won’t be reading this book again any time soon.
I lost interest in this book about half way through. James does an excellent job with the prose and establishing an authentic "Austen" feel right away (I'm no Austen expert but I think it was very accurate compared with the actual novels) but for a murder mystery the plot drags out way too long only to reveal the most anti-climactic ending I've come across in a long time. It took me much longer to finish it than other books in that genre because I simply wasn't motivated enough to read it.
I am not a big Jane Austen fan, but I really enjoyed this book, which picks up on the story in "Pride and Prejudice" and sends the characters into a murder mystery.
IMHO, the author did a creditable job of mimicking Austen's style, complete with a droll sense of the comedic, especially as social commentary. It was a fun read (or in my case, a fun listen.)
A few years ago I read "The Double Bind" by Chris Bohjalian, which weaves characters and elements of "The Great Gatsby" through the story. It inspired me to pull out my 40 year old copy of Fitzgerald's book and reread it. I think "Death Comes to Pemberley" has inspired me to do the same with "Pride and Prejudice." We'll see if I like it better this time.
IMHO, the author did a creditable job of mimicking Austen's style, complete with a droll sense of the comedic, especially as social commentary. It was a fun read (or in my case, a fun listen.)
A few years ago I read "The Double Bind" by Chris Bohjalian, which weaves characters and elements of "The Great Gatsby" through the story. It inspired me to pull out my 40 year old copy of Fitzgerald's book and reread it. I think "Death Comes to Pemberley" has inspired me to do the same with "Pride and Prejudice." We'll see if I like it better this time.
This was great and well written, but of course anything pales in comparison to the true Austenian Darcy and Elizabeth.
adventurous
lighthearted
mysterious
relaxing
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes