Scan barcode
A review by jenn_sveda
Most Ardently by Susan Mesler-Evans
3.0
Hmm.
I'm very picky when it comes to P&P retellings - in fact, I think the only modern adaptation I can say I truly enjoyed was the movie Fire Island on Hulu, and that's probably because I wasn't aware it was a P&P retelling when I started it.
Now, I tried to rein in my expectations going in, because the title of this book is a reference to a quote from the 2005 movie (The actual book quote is "You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you," while in the movie Darcy says "I love you. Most ardently."). And don't get me wrong - the 2005 movie is absolutely a work of art. That said, if you're going to adapt a story, you should probably be drawing more from the source material than from a different adaptation.
This book had a disadvantage going in, because my library didn't own a digital or print copy of the book, so I ended up listening to the audiobook. I don't really have a basis of comparison for the skill of the narrator, because I never listen to audiobooks, but I really, really, really did not enjoy her narration. She put almost no inflection at all in her reading, and her voice sounded the same for almost every character, which often made it difficult for me to follow who was talking. I ended up listening to this on 1.75 speed for most of the book, because the narration was too grating for me, but the distortion from speeding up the narrator's voice somehow made it more palatable to me.
The story itself was just so-so. I think Mesler-Evans could have put a little more effort into adapting the narrative to a modern audience. First, the positives: I liked that the Wickham character was truly dangerous. I think that was a nice update, rather than the plot shaming Lydia/Lucia for doing exactly what she'd been taught to do her whole life (i.e. form her sense of self around being appealing to men). Having Pemberley be a museum also worked better in a modern setting than having Elisa spend time touring Darcy's house. Finally, of course, I liked choosing to make the main couple a lesbian couple, and I liked that Julietta and Bobby decided at the end to revisit their relationship, which is a much more realistic ending than Jane and Bingley's.
The parts that did not work so well: I find it hard to believe that someone as rich as Darcy would be taking classes at a community college in Ohio for any reason. Honestly, I find it pretty hard to believe Darcy would know someone who is a community college professor - the rich and prestigious, from what I can understand, typically tend to stick together, so where someone richer than God (like Darcy) met and befriended a community college professor, I have no clue. For the record, I have nothing against community colleges - they're excellent resources for attending college without accruing too much debt - but it's undeniable that they don't carry the same kind of prestige that surrounds the insanely wealthy. I thought Darcy and Elisa's first meeting actually seemed pretty cordial (teaming up against a jerk in their class), so I really didn't understand why Elisa hated Darcy so much, so quickly. Some of the situations simply cannot be realistically adapted into modern times and still make sense - Julietta was so sick she couldn't get home to be with her family for months, but wasn't sick enough to go to the hospital? Mrs. Benitez cares enough about her daughter's education to forbid her from getting a job, yet marriage is still her number one priority for all her children? Pride and Prejudice is, at its core, a social commentary - Austen was satirizing classism and sexism in society by exaggerating common occurrences for humor. I don't think Mesler-Evans really has a point to make here. She certainly exaggerates for humor (I think - Katherine in this adaptation is almost cartoonishly villainish), but I don't think this results in any kind of commentary on society as a whole. I think she bound herself too tightly to the narrative beats of the original story and thus ended up missing all the heart and wit that has made P&P so appealing to audiences for centuries.
A few more random qualms I had with this adaptation:
- Darcy's (and then Elisa's) refusal to speak openly about what Wick had done. I understand not wanting to expose Gianna's trauma, but when there's a pedophile abusing girls on the loose, the time for subtle, "he's not a good guy" hints has come and gone.
- Similarly, Darcy saying that she helped Lucia escape AN ABUSIVE PEDOPHILE because she had a crush on Elisa doesn't really sit well with me. I'm sure she did it for other (obvious) reasons, but the fact that the author had Darcy say that it was all for Elisa is...a little gross.
- Why did Elisa's class spend a whole week at a museum that was 2 hours away? I could understand if they traveled to DC, for example, and spent a week there, but it seems unlikely that a community college class would spend so much time at a local museum. Also, $100 is an absolute steal for a trip like this
- As I mentioned above, Katherine was so over-the-top evil that it made me roll my eyes every time she spoke. Obviously, subtlety was not something Mesler-Evans cared about at all. The original Lady Catherine was a villain, but all her actions were totally "justifiable" for her station (in the sense that it was not outlandish for a wealthy aristocrat to be preserving her family line this way). In this adaptation, her behavior was just bizarre
-Colin was much more likeable and Elisa was much more unlikeable than their original counterparts. Elisa seemed way more aggressively mean than the original Elizabeth Bennet (who was scathing in her wit but still understood social tact). Men that can't take no for an answer don't deserve much sympathy, but we really don't see Colin doing anything too heinous. He gets a little too wrapped up in what he's saying sometimes, but he never seems as rude as Elisa is when she turns him down.
All in all, this wasn't a terrible book. It was a middle of the road romance novel that suffers from association with a much better work (and an awful narrator to boot).
I'm very picky when it comes to P&P retellings - in fact, I think the only modern adaptation I can say I truly enjoyed was the movie Fire Island on Hulu, and that's probably because I wasn't aware it was a P&P retelling when I started it.
Now, I tried to rein in my expectations going in, because the title of this book is a reference to a quote from the 2005 movie (The actual book quote is "You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you," while in the movie Darcy says "I love you. Most ardently."). And don't get me wrong - the 2005 movie is absolutely a work of art. That said, if you're going to adapt a story, you should probably be drawing more from the source material than from a different adaptation.
This book had a disadvantage going in, because my library didn't own a digital or print copy of the book, so I ended up listening to the audiobook. I don't really have a basis of comparison for the skill of the narrator, because I never listen to audiobooks, but I really, really, really did not enjoy her narration. She put almost no inflection at all in her reading, and her voice sounded the same for almost every character, which often made it difficult for me to follow who was talking. I ended up listening to this on 1.75 speed for most of the book, because the narration was too grating for me, but the distortion from speeding up the narrator's voice somehow made it more palatable to me.
The story itself was just so-so. I think Mesler-Evans could have put a little more effort into adapting the narrative to a modern audience. First, the positives: I liked that the Wickham character was truly dangerous. I think that was a nice update, rather than the plot shaming Lydia/Lucia for doing exactly what she'd been taught to do her whole life (i.e. form her sense of self around being appealing to men). Having Pemberley be a museum also worked better in a modern setting than having Elisa spend time touring Darcy's house. Finally, of course, I liked choosing to make the main couple a lesbian couple, and I liked that Julietta and Bobby decided at the end to revisit their relationship, which is a much more realistic ending than Jane and Bingley's.
The parts that did not work so well: I find it hard to believe that someone as rich as Darcy would be taking classes at a community college in Ohio for any reason. Honestly, I find it pretty hard to believe Darcy would know someone who is a community college professor - the rich and prestigious, from what I can understand, typically tend to stick together, so where someone richer than God (like Darcy) met and befriended a community college professor, I have no clue. For the record, I have nothing against community colleges - they're excellent resources for attending college without accruing too much debt - but it's undeniable that they don't carry the same kind of prestige that surrounds the insanely wealthy. I thought Darcy and Elisa's first meeting actually seemed pretty cordial (teaming up against a jerk in their class), so I really didn't understand why Elisa hated Darcy so much, so quickly. Some of the situations simply cannot be realistically adapted into modern times and still make sense - Julietta was so sick she couldn't get home to be with her family for months, but wasn't sick enough to go to the hospital? Mrs. Benitez cares enough about her daughter's education to forbid her from getting a job, yet marriage is still her number one priority for all her children? Pride and Prejudice is, at its core, a social commentary - Austen was satirizing classism and sexism in society by exaggerating common occurrences for humor. I don't think Mesler-Evans really has a point to make here. She certainly exaggerates for humor (I think - Katherine in this adaptation is almost cartoonishly villainish), but I don't think this results in any kind of commentary on society as a whole. I think she bound herself too tightly to the narrative beats of the original story and thus ended up missing all the heart and wit that has made P&P so appealing to audiences for centuries.
A few more random qualms I had with this adaptation:
- Darcy's (and then Elisa's) refusal to speak openly about what Wick had done. I understand not wanting to expose Gianna's trauma, but when there's a pedophile abusing girls on the loose, the time for subtle, "he's not a good guy" hints has come and gone.
- Similarly, Darcy saying that she helped Lucia escape AN ABUSIVE PEDOPHILE because she had a crush on Elisa doesn't really sit well with me. I'm sure she did it for other (obvious) reasons, but the fact that the author had Darcy say that it was all for Elisa is...a little gross.
- Why did Elisa's class spend a whole week at a museum that was 2 hours away? I could understand if they traveled to DC, for example, and spent a week there, but it seems unlikely that a community college class would spend so much time at a local museum. Also, $100 is an absolute steal for a trip like this
- As I mentioned above, Katherine was so over-the-top evil that it made me roll my eyes every time she spoke. Obviously, subtlety was not something Mesler-Evans cared about at all. The original Lady Catherine was a villain, but all her actions were totally "justifiable" for her station (in the sense that it was not outlandish for a wealthy aristocrat to be preserving her family line this way). In this adaptation, her behavior was just bizarre
-Colin was much more likeable and Elisa was much more unlikeable than their original counterparts. Elisa seemed way more aggressively mean than the original Elizabeth Bennet (who was scathing in her wit but still understood social tact). Men that can't take no for an answer don't deserve much sympathy, but we really don't see Colin doing anything too heinous. He gets a little too wrapped up in what he's saying sometimes, but he never seems as rude as Elisa is when she turns him down.
All in all, this wasn't a terrible book. It was a middle of the road romance novel that suffers from association with a much better work (and an awful narrator to boot).