You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
kcanzano 's review for:
Death Comes to Pemberley
by P.D. James
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.