Call number
MYST JAM
Collection
Genres
Publication
Knopf (2011), Edition: 1, 304 pages
Description
Fiction. Literature. Mystery. Historical Fiction. HTML:A rare meeting of literary genius: P. D. James, long among the most admired mystery writers of our time, draws the characters of Jane Austen??s beloved novel Pride and Prejudice into a tale of murder and emotional mayhem. It is 1803, six years since Elizabeth and Darcy embarked on their life together at Pemberley, Darcy??s magnificent estate. Their peaceful, orderly world seems almost unassailable. Elizabeth has found her footing as the chatelaine of the great house. They have two fine sons, Fitzwilliam and Charles. Elizabeth??s sister Jane and her husband, Bingley, live nearby; her father visits often; there is optimistic talk about the prospects of marriage for Darcy??s sister Georgiana. And preparations are under way for their much-anticipated annual autumn ball. Then, on the eve of the ball, the patrician idyll is shattered. A coach careens up the drive carrying Lydia, Elizabeth??s disgraced sister, who with her husband, the very dubious Wickham, has been banned from Pemberley. She stumbles out of the carriage, hysterical, shrieking that Wickham has been murdered. With shocking suddenness, Pemberley is plunged into a frightening mystery. Inspired by a lifelong passion for Austen, P. D. James masterfully re-creates the world of Pride and Prejudice, electrifying it with the excitement and suspense of a brilliantly crafted crime story, as only sh… (more)
Media reviews
. . . an excellent period mystery, replete with all manner of mayhem, and a most welcome way to revisit Elizabeth and Darcy. . .
Booklist
Really, gentle reader, there are limits. When mystery grande dame P. D. James felt the mantle of Jane Austen fall on her shoulders, why didn't she simply shrug it off? James places a template of Austen characters and Austen-like language over a traditional mystery plot. The mystery is set in 1803,
Show More
six years after the wedding of Elizabeth and Darcy, with ample space given to catching us up on the recent doings of the Bennet family. On the mystery side, there's plenty of action, from the discovery of Captain Denny's body, through a trial, assorted deceptions and mix-ups, and love affairs. Unfortunately, though, if this is meant as an homage, it's a pretty weak cup of tea. James' many fans will be pleased to see any kind of new book from the 91-year-old author, but discriminating Austen devotees are unlikely to appreciate the move from social comedy to murder. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member katiekrug
This was just terrible. How terrible? Let me count the ways (POTENTIAL SPOILERS):
1. Why write a follow-up to Pride and Prejudice if you seemingly make little effort to capture the essential essence of the primary characters?
2. Why write a follow-up to Pride and Prejudice that turns Elizabeth into a
3. Why write a follow-up to Pride and Prejudice that is a murder mystery and make it SO INCREDIBLY DUMB AND BORING that the reader can barely bring herself to care?
4. Why write a follow-up to Pride and Prejudice that is a murder mystery and include plot holes so big you could drive a chaise-and-four through them? Why didn't anyone bother asking Lydia what Wickham and Denny were arguing about?!?!?!
5. Why write anything if you are basically just going to phone it in and tell your story completely through terribly awkward exposition and long speeches?
6. .... I can't go on. I don't know why I bothered to finish this except that maybe because it was on audio. Had it been a "real" book, I am fairly confident I would have just skipped to the last few pages to see whodunnit. Oh, except that would have told me nothing because we learn whodunnit well before the end of the book, after which time, Ms. James just goes on and on about nothing at all and won't let her crappy story die. I wanted to stab myself in the ears by the end of it.
So, yeah, not recommended.
1. Why write a follow-up to Pride and Prejudice if you seemingly make little effort to capture the essential essence of the primary characters?
2. Why write a follow-up to Pride and Prejudice that turns Elizabeth into a
Show More
simpering, boring, obedient little wifey-poo and Darcy into a complete uptight prig (granted, he always kind of was but he was also charming and there is none of that here)?3. Why write a follow-up to Pride and Prejudice that is a murder mystery and make it SO INCREDIBLY DUMB AND BORING that the reader can barely bring herself to care?
4. Why write a follow-up to Pride and Prejudice that is a murder mystery and include plot holes so big you could drive a chaise-and-four through them? Why didn't anyone bother asking Lydia what Wickham and Denny were arguing about?!?!?!
5. Why write anything if you are basically just going to phone it in and tell your story completely through terribly awkward exposition and long speeches?
6. .... I can't go on. I don't know why I bothered to finish this except that maybe because it was on audio. Had it been a "real" book, I am fairly confident I would have just skipped to the last few pages to see whodunnit. Oh, except that would have told me nothing because we learn whodunnit well before the end of the book, after which time, Ms. James just goes on and on about nothing at all and won't let her crappy story die. I wanted to stab myself in the ears by the end of it.
So, yeah, not recommended.
Show Less
LibraryThing member noveltea
Here's what I liked about the book:
1. The picture of James on the back of the jacket. Man, she looks good for a nonagerian! (So good that I forgot my usual suspicions of a book that can't cover that space with critical acclaim).
2. The very well-written Author's Note, in which James apologizes to
3. Reading most of this book during the dreaded weekend of losing an hour for Daylight Savings has made the weekend seem much longer! Much, much longer.
I've read all of James's mysteries and one book of historical true crime she co-authored, and I just don't understand how this novel manages to be so bad. There are a couple of cute meta references to Austen's novels and a few good (Austenesque) lines (and fewer interesting paragraphs), but the book is slow and dull and unbelievably repetitious and dull and slow and redundant to an unbelievable degree. If we could cut out all the parts--and oh, how I wanted to!--where James repeats either herself or Austen--and oh, how she repeats Austen and repeats herself and repeats herself repeating Austen--we'd be left with a very much shorter novel.
Alas, that novel would still be bad. The pace drags throughout. The mystery is insufficiently mysterious. James has a clunky way with historical fiction that keeps us firmly in the early 21st century rather than immersing us in the early 19th. Her portrayal of the master/servant dynamic struck me as tone-deaf. Most of the dialogue is awkward. Sometimes the syntax leading up to a "He said," is so jumbled it seems to be introducing the wrong speaker. Rather than talk like recognizable human beings (or at least like entertaining characters), people pretty much just state the obvious to each other and make speeches. There are speeches that are completely out of character, and there are episodes of speechlessness even more out of character.
The plot? Oh, yeah. The plot. I didn't find it remotely interesting, but I'm willing to admit that might largely be because the characters are even more uninteresting. You know the characters you know and love (and the characters you love to dislike) from Pride and Prejudice? James doesn't seem to. Oh, she knows their histories all right, backwards and forwards and ad nauseum. But you know that famous pride of Darcy's? Well, James is here to tell us it's really just a lifelong shyness (not to mention a booklong dullness). But it's hardly fair to single him out when everyone here, whether borrowed from Austen or invented by James, is deadly dull. Elizabeth and Darcy are both nonentities and passive observers throughout. At the end James has Elizabeth say: "We are neither of us the people we were then." Oddly enough, James has her say this like it's a good thing.
1. The picture of James on the back of the jacket. Man, she looks good for a nonagerian! (So good that I forgot my usual suspicions of a book that can't cover that space with critical acclaim).
2. The very well-written Author's Note, in which James apologizes to
Show More
Jane Austen (though not to the rest of us) for having written this book.3. Reading most of this book during the dreaded weekend of losing an hour for Daylight Savings has made the weekend seem much longer! Much, much longer.
I've read all of James's mysteries and one book of historical true crime she co-authored, and I just don't understand how this novel manages to be so bad. There are a couple of cute meta references to Austen's novels and a few good (Austenesque) lines (and fewer interesting paragraphs), but the book is slow and dull and unbelievably repetitious and dull and slow and redundant to an unbelievable degree. If we could cut out all the parts--and oh, how I wanted to!--where James repeats either herself or Austen--and oh, how she repeats Austen and repeats herself and repeats herself repeating Austen--we'd be left with a very much shorter novel.
Alas, that novel would still be bad. The pace drags throughout. The mystery is insufficiently mysterious. James has a clunky way with historical fiction that keeps us firmly in the early 21st century rather than immersing us in the early 19th. Her portrayal of the master/servant dynamic struck me as tone-deaf. Most of the dialogue is awkward. Sometimes the syntax leading up to a "He said," is so jumbled it seems to be introducing the wrong speaker. Rather than talk like recognizable human beings (or at least like entertaining characters), people pretty much just state the obvious to each other and make speeches. There are speeches that are completely out of character, and there are episodes of speechlessness even more out of character.
The plot? Oh, yeah. The plot. I didn't find it remotely interesting, but I'm willing to admit that might largely be because the characters are even more uninteresting. You know the characters you know and love (and the characters you love to dislike) from Pride and Prejudice? James doesn't seem to. Oh, she knows their histories all right, backwards and forwards and ad nauseum. But you know that famous pride of Darcy's? Well, James is here to tell us it's really just a lifelong shyness (not to mention a booklong dullness). But it's hardly fair to single him out when everyone here, whether borrowed from Austen or invented by James, is deadly dull. Elizabeth and Darcy are both nonentities and passive observers throughout. At the end James has Elizabeth say: "We are neither of us the people we were then." Oddly enough, James has her say this like it's a good thing.
Show Less
LibraryThing member SusanGrigsby
It amazes me how publishers are willing to print just about anything written by a best selling author. And apparently, in the case of Death Comes to Pemberley, without even bothering to edit it. Although I am not sure that an editor could have saved this silly piece of something, I would have felt
Show More
better if they had tried.The professional critics also amazed me, and made me long to get my hands on a copy of the book they were reading, because I did not recognize this one in the reviews at the New York Times, the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and the LA Times. I found little to praise and much to bemoan. What they may not have noticed is that had an editor been found to cut so much of the repetition and pointless exposition this book could possibly have become a charming novella and homage to Jane Austen. It could not have gotten any worse. As it stands now, it is difficult to read and even more difficult to believe.Starting with Elizabeth Darcy nee Bennet. What happened to the overly confident, intelligent, insightful heroine who found “delight in the absurd”? How did she become the woman who meekly stood by and allowed the housekeeper to order her about in the presence of her guests as if she were Daphne du Maurier’s unnamed narrator in Rebecca?“I will sit with Mrs. Wickham until Dr. McFee arrives, madam. I expect he will give her something to calm her and make her sleep. I suggest that you and Mrs. Bingley go back to the music room to wait; you will be comfortable there and the fire has been made up. Stoughton will stay at the door and keep watch, and he will let you and Mrs. Bingley know as soon as the chaise comes into sight. And if Mr. Wickham and Captain Denny are discovered on the road, there will be room in the chaise for the whole party, although it will not perhaps be the most comfortable of journeys. I expect the gentlemen will need something hot to eat when they do return, but I doubt, madam, whether Mr. Wickham and Captain Denny will wish to stay for refreshments. Once Mr. Wickham knows that his wife is safe, he and his friend will surely want to continue their journey. I think Pratt said that they were on their way to the King’s Arms at Lambton.”This is simply wrong. Jane Austen’s Elizabeth Bennet would have been telling the housekeeper what she wanted done and how she wanted it done. She had been Mrs. Darcy for six years, surely a woman of Elizabeth’s intelligence would have learned how to order a household by now and would not have tolerated being treated like a child. The character created by PD James wonders if the housekeeper “was being deliberately reassuring.” Who is this person with Elizabeth Darcy’s name? She appears as nothing but a foil for the others and is perhaps the most passive character in the novel.On the morning after a dead body is found in the woods of Pemberley, Darcy and Elizabeth both feel the need to address the servants. PD James apparently thinks it is important for us to know this and to remember it as she repeats it four or five times, even including it twice in the same paragraph:...love, I think it is time for us to speak to the staff, both the indoor servants and those who may be working in the house. Mrs. Reynolds and Stoughton will have told them only that there has been an accident and the ball has been cancelled, and there will be considerable alarm and anxiety. I will ring for Mrs. Reynolds now and say that we will come down to speak to them in the servants’ hall …Why not just go down and speak to them? The long heralded "talk" reveals nothing that has not already been discussed and provides no illumination of either the characters or the action. The elevation of mundane information is repeated throughout the novel, seemingly without reason.Like the candles. Yes, candles. The body of Capt. Denny is placed on the table of the gunroom. When the authorities arrive at Pemberley, they are taken to view it. But first we must detour into a discussion of candles. Three pages of talk about how many candles they need, what kind of candles they are, how many are already in the gunroom (fourteen, we are told) and if the use of dining room candles will upset the housekeeper and the butler (?!?). I wondered whether the number and type of candles was a red herring placed in the path of the solution to the mystery or if it was simply James’ way of reminding us ignorant readers of the the 21st century that they had no electricity in 1803. I believe it to be the later. Or perhaps she had a minimum word quota to meet.This repetition continues throughout the novel, as scenes and activities are described by multiple characters with minor differences between the accounts. Testimony given to the magistrate is repeated at the inquest, and then again at the trial. Really, we need to hear three times that the horses did not want to enter the woods?And there is way too much of the amateurish “do remind me” and “do you remember when” manner of adding details from the original Pride & Prejudice to this story. As if anyone other than a die-hard Jane Austen fan would be reading Death Comes to Pemberley. And if someone was unfamiliar with that novel, these trips down memory lane would hardly enlighten them. Either way, it would cause the action to slow, if there was any action to speak of. Which there really isn't.The mystery itself is surprisingly weak, especially coming from PD James. Much as I love mysteries, I don't like being able to figure them out in the first few chapters. There were times, I confess, that I found myself wondering who really wrote this book? Was it a hoax, or was a ghost being overly helpful? And really, what book were those professional critics reviewing?I strongly recommend that those who have not yet spent the money on Death Comes to Pemberley to not spend it. Do not check it out of the library. Do not download the sample to your nook or kindle. If you love Jane Austen's people and their stories, read her books. They are free to download from multiple sources. Show Less
LibraryThing member scvlad
A murder in the family can provide a frisson of excitement at fashionable dinner parties, but little social credit can be expected from the brutal despatch of an undistinguished captain of the infantry, without money or breeding to render him interesting.
Look. It's P.D. James. So you know it will
The real question is, is it Elizabeth and Darcy and the rest of the familiar characters? And does it feel like Jane Austin? Well, yes and no. The characters are there, and they seem mostly to be true to who they where in P&P, but for that reason there's not much character development here. On the other hand James does try to get the "feel" for Jane Austin, and I think she's partly successful. The above quote is a good example. But having said that, I'm not sure the style fits the subject. I mean, how much social humor can there be to a brutal murder?
Look, if you're looking for Jane Austin, go read Jane Austin. If you're looking for a murder mystery, read P.D. James. If you're looking for both, well this is probably as good as you're going to get, but I'm not sure it's going to completely satisfy you.
Look. It's P.D. James. So you know it will
Show More
be a well written and well constructed mystery, and it is. It's not the most complicated and 'mysterious' of mysteries, but a good one none-the-less.The real question is, is it Elizabeth and Darcy and the rest of the familiar characters? And does it feel like Jane Austin? Well, yes and no. The characters are there, and they seem mostly to be true to who they where in P&P, but for that reason there's not much character development here. On the other hand James does try to get the "feel" for Jane Austin, and I think she's partly successful. The above quote is a good example. But having said that, I'm not sure the style fits the subject. I mean, how much social humor can there be to a brutal murder?
Look, if you're looking for Jane Austin, go read Jane Austin. If you're looking for a murder mystery, read P.D. James. If you're looking for both, well this is probably as good as you're going to get, but I'm not sure it's going to completely satisfy you.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Narshkite
If I had one word to describe "Death Comes to Pemberley" it would be "dull." This story is relentlessly boring. There is no suspense. I could not have cared less about the murder's identity. Also the book is written assuming that one has read P&P and knows the characters(which I think is good,
I was thinking 2 and a half stars and planned to round up to a 3 star until the epilogue. The epilogue was so unspeakably terrible that I now consider it a kindness to have granted 2 stars rather than one. There is nothing I hate more than when authors slap 20th/21st century pop psych sensibilities onto historical characters. Darcy never read Leo Buscaglia, and I, for one, liked him the better for it
Show More
since who else would read this) but then quotes over and over and over phrases used in the source book. I physically recoiled at each reference to "polluting the halls of Pemberley." I was thinking 2 and a half stars and planned to round up to a 3 star until the epilogue. The epilogue was so unspeakably terrible that I now consider it a kindness to have granted 2 stars rather than one. There is nothing I hate more than when authors slap 20th/21st century pop psych sensibilities onto historical characters. Darcy never read Leo Buscaglia, and I, for one, liked him the better for it
Show Less
LibraryThing member adpaton
Designed to appeal to both fans of Jane Austen and PD James, Death Comes to Pemberley will disappoint both groups: this ‘sequel’ to Pride and Prejudice is set six years after the wedding when Elizabeth’s ghastly younger sister Lydia Wickham arrives uninvited and late at night, hysterical over
One could forgive the glaring anachronisms – the endless cups of coffee, calling for the police [in 1803 the police did not exist], matches [not yet invented] and banging of the gavel in court [only ever done in America] – but James transforms once witty lively characters into dull cardboard cutouts. As for the twist at the end – well, there is no twist at the end, no real mystery and no detective work. Dull, dull, dull.
Show More
her husband, who has vanished in a haunted wood. One could forgive the glaring anachronisms – the endless cups of coffee, calling for the police [in 1803 the police did not exist], matches [not yet invented] and banging of the gavel in court [only ever done in America] – but James transforms once witty lively characters into dull cardboard cutouts. As for the twist at the end – well, there is no twist at the end, no real mystery and no detective work. Dull, dull, dull.
Show Less
LibraryThing member JaneSteen
Where I got the book: my local library. Unable to finish for the reasons cited below: made it to page 80.
It hurts to write this review. I LOVE PD James. Her subtlety, her edginess, the sheer intelligence of her prose, the nuances of her characters...I could go on. And NONE of this is to be found
So I feel cheated. I feel like the crime that's been committed here is not within the pages, but is against the reader who expected a PD James novel and got--yes, I've got to say it--SOPHOMORIC DRIVEL.
Chunks of turgid prose. Inane dialogue that appears to have come straight from the pages of a 1950s girls' magazine. A cringeworthy prologue that pretty much recounts the plot of P&P in what-I-read-over-the-summer-holidays essay style. Stiff, stilted, wooden characters from a Pride & Prejudice puppet show.
Awful.
Awful.
Awful.
And published by Alfred A. Knopf, a publishing house that's even older than James (OH DAMN I WASN'T GOING TO MENTION HER AGE BUT. 92.) Now owned (Knopf, not James, although that's also debatable) by Random House. Who also recently gave us Fifty Shades of Grey. I have listened to the traditional publishing world SCREAMING that they are the last bastion of quality in publishing and that all the newcomers on the scene don't give a crap about good literature. And then they do this.
I'm not going to start questioning why James is writing fan fiction in the style of a 20-year-old novice. I really don't care. But I care a whole lot that agents, editors, publishing committees and executives were more interested in the fact that 98% of James fans would read this book and that it was bound to sell well than in whether or not IT DESERVED TO SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY.
For shame.
It hurts to write this review. I LOVE PD James. Her subtlety, her edginess, the sheer intelligence of her prose, the nuances of her characters...I could go on. And NONE of this is to be found
Show More
within the pages of Death Comes to Pemberley. I'm sure I wasn't the only fan to get all excited about the idea of PD James doing Pride and Prejudice; what insights, what delicate twists of humor, what light would she shed on Jane Austen's world?So I feel cheated. I feel like the crime that's been committed here is not within the pages, but is against the reader who expected a PD James novel and got--yes, I've got to say it--SOPHOMORIC DRIVEL.
Chunks of turgid prose. Inane dialogue that appears to have come straight from the pages of a 1950s girls' magazine. A cringeworthy prologue that pretty much recounts the plot of P&P in what-I-read-over-the-summer-holidays essay style. Stiff, stilted, wooden characters from a Pride & Prejudice puppet show.
Awful.
Awful.
Awful.
And published by Alfred A. Knopf, a publishing house that's even older than James (OH DAMN I WASN'T GOING TO MENTION HER AGE BUT. 92.) Now owned (Knopf, not James, although that's also debatable) by Random House. Who also recently gave us Fifty Shades of Grey. I have listened to the traditional publishing world SCREAMING that they are the last bastion of quality in publishing and that all the newcomers on the scene don't give a crap about good literature. And then they do this.
I'm not going to start questioning why James is writing fan fiction in the style of a 20-year-old novice. I really don't care. But I care a whole lot that agents, editors, publishing committees and executives were more interested in the fact that 98% of James fans would read this book and that it was bound to sell well than in whether or not IT DESERVED TO SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY.
For shame.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Laura400
Well, for me, P.D. James has earned the right to write whatever book she wants. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, but I'm glad she's still so sharp and lively. The book is meant as a trifle, a lark, and the intentions are good. It's not her metier. The story, dialogue and characterizations don't
And I can now cross "fan fiction" off my bucket list.
Show More
ring true for Austen's beloved characters. But it's nice to spend a few hours in the company of P.D. James and the cast of Pride and Prejudice. There are even walk-ons by other Austen players. If you don't expect too much, it's fun.And I can now cross "fan fiction" off my bucket list.
Show Less
LibraryThing member cathyskye
First Line: It was generally agreed by the female residents of Meryton that Mr. and Mrs. Bennet of Longbourn had been fortunate in the disposal in marriage of four of their five daughters.
In her Author's Note, P.D. James apologizes to the shade of Jane Austen who, in her final chapter of Mansfield
The book begins well with gossip of how everyone has fared since the end of Austen's classic, and James did provide a surprise or two. She also proved that her writing could sound like her predecessor's. However, the gossip went on too long, and I was beginning to wonder if anything was going to happen.
Finally Lydia arrives at Pemberley in a cloud of dust, the coach rocking wildly, the horses foaming at their bits-- and Lydia screaming and babbling. Captain Denny had the coachman stop in the woods! Denny got out of the carriage! Her dearest Wickham followed! There were shots fired! Her most wonderful Wickham is killed!
It is the eve of the ball at Pemberley. Colonel Fitzwilliam and the Bingleys are spending the night. Elizabeth and Jane gather the witless Lydia and take her into the house. Colonel Fitzwilliam gives orders, and he and Darcy have the coachman take them back into the woods. They find Denny dead and a bloodstained Wickham over the body. Wickham mumbles what could be a confession, but since he's three sheets to the wind, Darcy isn't certain. What he is certain of is that Wickham will be going on trial for his life.
I realize now that I really didn't know what I expected from this book. Whatever it was, I didn't get it. Austen's marvelous characters are curiously lifeless in Death Comes to Pemberley. Darcy, who thought nothing of taking charge in the matter of Lydia's elopement with Wickham, is quite content to be quiet and on the sidelines here. And Elizabeth? She of the sparkling wit and pithy comments? She practically blends into the wallpaper and scarcely says a thing.
After finishing the book, I did feel distinctly cheated, and I worked hard to deduce exactly why I did. I went down a list of "I wish___________." I wish Colonel Fitzwilliam hadn't turned into such a snob. I wish Darcy had shown more backbone and taken a more active part in things. I wish Elizabeth and Jane had done more than play nursemaid to Lydia. Why was everyone so blasted passive?
Then it dawned on me. James had to be true not only to the period of time in which the book takes place but to the class of people the Darcys are. A Darcy doesn't turn sleuth and question everybody and look everywhere for clues. That's what those other classes are for. And why-- outside of preserving reputations and social standings-- would they want to help someone like Wickham anyway... a man who'd already tried to bring disgrace to their families?
In the end, I found that James stayed true to the era, but it was like wearing a heavy, tight pair of handcuffs. Only Jane Austen, a woman of those times, could have succeeded in writing the type of book I'd anticipated-- and she was wise enough not even to try. I give credit to James for her attempt. I merely wish it had been more successful.
In her Author's Note, P.D. James apologizes to the shade of Jane Austen who, in her final chapter of Mansfield
Show More
Park stated, "Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery...." Although Austen would have no truck with murder, I had the highest of hopes that this Grandmaster of Mystery would mine one of my all-time favorite books-- Pride and Prejudice-- and strike literary gold.The book begins well with gossip of how everyone has fared since the end of Austen's classic, and James did provide a surprise or two. She also proved that her writing could sound like her predecessor's. However, the gossip went on too long, and I was beginning to wonder if anything was going to happen.
Finally Lydia arrives at Pemberley in a cloud of dust, the coach rocking wildly, the horses foaming at their bits-- and Lydia screaming and babbling. Captain Denny had the coachman stop in the woods! Denny got out of the carriage! Her dearest Wickham followed! There were shots fired! Her most wonderful Wickham is killed!
It is the eve of the ball at Pemberley. Colonel Fitzwilliam and the Bingleys are spending the night. Elizabeth and Jane gather the witless Lydia and take her into the house. Colonel Fitzwilliam gives orders, and he and Darcy have the coachman take them back into the woods. They find Denny dead and a bloodstained Wickham over the body. Wickham mumbles what could be a confession, but since he's three sheets to the wind, Darcy isn't certain. What he is certain of is that Wickham will be going on trial for his life.
I realize now that I really didn't know what I expected from this book. Whatever it was, I didn't get it. Austen's marvelous characters are curiously lifeless in Death Comes to Pemberley. Darcy, who thought nothing of taking charge in the matter of Lydia's elopement with Wickham, is quite content to be quiet and on the sidelines here. And Elizabeth? She of the sparkling wit and pithy comments? She practically blends into the wallpaper and scarcely says a thing.
After finishing the book, I did feel distinctly cheated, and I worked hard to deduce exactly why I did. I went down a list of "I wish___________." I wish Colonel Fitzwilliam hadn't turned into such a snob. I wish Darcy had shown more backbone and taken a more active part in things. I wish Elizabeth and Jane had done more than play nursemaid to Lydia. Why was everyone so blasted passive?
Then it dawned on me. James had to be true not only to the period of time in which the book takes place but to the class of people the Darcys are. A Darcy doesn't turn sleuth and question everybody and look everywhere for clues. That's what those other classes are for. And why-- outside of preserving reputations and social standings-- would they want to help someone like Wickham anyway... a man who'd already tried to bring disgrace to their families?
In the end, I found that James stayed true to the era, but it was like wearing a heavy, tight pair of handcuffs. Only Jane Austen, a woman of those times, could have succeeded in writing the type of book I'd anticipated-- and she was wise enough not even to try. I give credit to James for her attempt. I merely wish it had been more successful.
Show Less
LibraryThing member picardyrose
Is she crazy?
LibraryThing member dajashby
Established authors can get the urge to venture outside their usual genre. Science fiction seems to have a particular attraction, and indeed James has already given it a try, with reasonable success, in The Children of Men.
I have reservations about Death Comes to Pemberley. Some of them could have
These are minor quibbles. The story is well-plotted and entertaining and I enjoyed reading it. I was quite taken with some of her rather cheeky inventions concerning the characters and events of Pride and Prejudice,
However if I hadn't known who had written it I think I could have readily guessed the author and therein, I'm afraid, lies the source of my major reservation. James lacks Patrick O'Brian's perfect sense of period (it has been said that his books are what Jane Austen's brothers would have written had they been of a literary inclination) and her attempt to write in Austen's style just doesn't come off.
I have reservations about Death Comes to Pemberley. Some of them could have
Show More
been forestalled by an alert editor. It is unlikely that anybody would have sent for "the police" in 1803; I checked in the OED. Worse - and I didn't need to check - it is certain that nobody would have used the term "subconscious".These are minor quibbles. The story is well-plotted and entertaining and I enjoyed reading it. I was quite taken with some of her rather cheeky inventions concerning the characters and events of Pride and Prejudice,
However if I hadn't known who had written it I think I could have readily guessed the author and therein, I'm afraid, lies the source of my major reservation. James lacks Patrick O'Brian's perfect sense of period (it has been said that his books are what Jane Austen's brothers would have written had they been of a literary inclination) and her attempt to write in Austen's style just doesn't come off.
Show Less
LibraryThing member antao
For Jane Austen ("Pride and Prejudice") and P .D. James Fans. I'm still waiting for the latest Adam Dalglish installment... This book is not vintage P.D James, but it's still a fine addition to her bibliography. Elizabeth Darcy should have been more full-fleshed that it is in the book. For me it's
Show More
the only caveat of the book. Show Less
LibraryThing member AdonisGuilfoyle
There has been a lot of fuss about this new hybrid Austenuation/murder mystery - which I obviously fell for, hook, line and sinker - because P.D. James has been writing crime novels since Caxton was a lad, but unfortunately, I found Death Comes to Pemberley rather a disappointment. Falling between
The opening chapters are promising - six years on from the double Darcy/Bingley wedding, and Elizabeth is firmly ensconced as mistress of Pemberley, with two young sons, and her sister Jane lives happily nearby with Bingley and their three children. We are told that Darcy and Elizabeth are deeply in love and content with married life, even though Darcy still has doubts about marrying into the Bennet family and acquiring Wickham as a brother-in-law and Elizabeth possibly only married Darcy for his money, but since the Darcys hold but one intimate conversation, and that one a rehash of the plot of P+P in the final chapter, we have to take the author's word for it. Still, Darcy and Elizabeth behave very properly like the master and mistress of Pemberley, remembering the names of servants and visiting the children in the nursery once a day.
All is well, until the dark and stormy night before Lady Anne's ball, a Pemberley tradition. After an evening of stultifying boredom with the Bingleys, their house guest and Georgiana's suitor, Henry Alveston, and Colonel Fitzwilliam (who is now a miserable viscount), Lydia Wickham bowls up to the front door in a carriage, screaming blue murder. Literally. She claims that her husband has been shot, but when Darcy, the colonel and Alveston go into the 'haunted' wood - where Darcy's great grandfather killed his ailing dog and himself in his hermit's cottage - to investigate, they discover that Wickham is not the victim after all, but the suspected killer of his best friend, Captain Denny.
The mystery plods on from there - the 'police' arrive (or rather, two parish constables and a magistrate, but James insists on using the modern term), Wickham is taken away, an inquest follows, and then the trial. In London. Despite the fact that the murder took place in Derbyshire. Only the suspense of what really happened and why was keeping me hanging on - and then James ruins the whole story, with a pathetic 'confession' and pages of tenuous exposition. Without giving the game away for readers who haven't even opened the book, the whole tangled thread made little sense, apart from showing that Wickham is still a very bad boy in one way or another.
And I have other questions - why no children for Lydia and Wickham, who apparently isn't loaded with blanks? How, if the story is set in late 1803/1804 - following on from the contemporary date when Austen finished writing Pride and Prejudice - do the Elliots of Persuasion and the Martins and Knightleys of Emma make cameo appearances in the backstory when both novels were set ten years later?
James captures the narrative style of Austen, and gets the sardonic humour right on occasion, but the mystery falls flat. For a more successful spin on the same premise, read Carrie Bebris' Mr and Mrs Darcy series, which combine the light and loving touch of the Darcys and the Nick and Nora approach to armchair detection, with far more verve and affection than this miserable attempt.
Show More
two stools, James' ode to Austen lacks the right measure of domestic felicity at Pemberley to satisfy the Pride and Prejudice groupies (of which I am not one), and at the same time fails to provide a meaty mystery for readers of her own genre. In fact, the last minute confession is almost insulting - I was hoping for another twist in the tale, but that was that.The opening chapters are promising - six years on from the double Darcy/Bingley wedding, and Elizabeth is firmly ensconced as mistress of Pemberley, with two young sons, and her sister Jane lives happily nearby with Bingley and their three children. We are told that Darcy and Elizabeth are deeply in love and content with married life, even though Darcy still has doubts about marrying into the Bennet family and acquiring Wickham as a brother-in-law and Elizabeth possibly only married Darcy for his money, but since the Darcys hold but one intimate conversation, and that one a rehash of the plot of P+P in the final chapter, we have to take the author's word for it. Still, Darcy and Elizabeth behave very properly like the master and mistress of Pemberley, remembering the names of servants and visiting the children in the nursery once a day.
All is well, until the dark and stormy night before Lady Anne's ball, a Pemberley tradition. After an evening of stultifying boredom with the Bingleys, their house guest and Georgiana's suitor, Henry Alveston, and Colonel Fitzwilliam (who is now a miserable viscount), Lydia Wickham bowls up to the front door in a carriage, screaming blue murder. Literally. She claims that her husband has been shot, but when Darcy, the colonel and Alveston go into the 'haunted' wood - where Darcy's great grandfather killed his ailing dog and himself in his hermit's cottage - to investigate, they discover that Wickham is not the victim after all, but the suspected killer of his best friend, Captain Denny.
The mystery plods on from there - the 'police' arrive (or rather, two parish constables and a magistrate, but James insists on using the modern term), Wickham is taken away, an inquest follows, and then the trial. In London. Despite the fact that the murder took place in Derbyshire. Only the suspense of what really happened and why was keeping me hanging on - and then James ruins the whole story, with a pathetic 'confession' and pages of tenuous exposition. Without giving the game away for readers who haven't even opened the book, the whole tangled thread made little sense, apart from showing that Wickham is still a very bad boy in one way or another.
And I have other questions - why no children for Lydia and Wickham, who apparently isn't loaded with blanks? How, if the story is set in late 1803/1804 - following on from the contemporary date when Austen finished writing Pride and Prejudice - do the Elliots of Persuasion and the Martins and Knightleys of Emma make cameo appearances in the backstory when both novels were set ten years later?
James captures the narrative style of Austen, and gets the sardonic humour right on occasion, but the mystery falls flat. For a more successful spin on the same premise, read Carrie Bebris' Mr and Mrs Darcy series, which combine the light and loving touch of the Darcys and the Nick and Nora approach to armchair detection, with far more verve and affection than this miserable attempt.
Show Less
LibraryThing member cissa
While this was not a bad book, I was disappointed with it.
I have read and enjoyed most of James's novels, and "Pride and Prejudice" is one of my top favorite books. I was very excited to learn about a novel that combined them!
Sadly, this did not live up to my hopes and expectations at all.
Far too
And while the characters in P&P are vivid, here they all fade to gray. "Workmanlike" is the best way I can summarize what James did with Austen's vivid personalities. Even Lady Catherine was toned down!
Also, the murder mystery did not make much sense. I suppose it was a decent excuse to revisit the characters- and redeem some of the awful ones to some degree- but I found the resolution very unsatisfying, and the tying up of loose ends- especially as it pertains to the characters in various other Austen novels- to be a fairly pointless clever trick.
Darcy is not going to turn into a Sensitive New Age Guy. Lizzie is not going to turn into an indulgent helpmeet for him. Wickham is not going to change his spots. Et cetera.
James did do a lot of research into the way "great houses" worked, and the current legal system; I wish she had integrated that better with the vivid characters in the original P&P.
I have read and enjoyed most of James's novels, and "Pride and Prejudice" is one of my top favorite books. I was very excited to learn about a novel that combined them!
Sadly, this did not live up to my hopes and expectations at all.
Far too
Show More
much of the first parts of the novel were devoted to reiterating- many times over- the basic plot of P&P. Since I think it unlikely that anyone who is not a fan of P&P would read this, we really did not need the constant harping on its plot- and even if someone had no familiarity with P&P, repeating its plot at least 3 times does not show respect for the reader.And while the characters in P&P are vivid, here they all fade to gray. "Workmanlike" is the best way I can summarize what James did with Austen's vivid personalities. Even Lady Catherine was toned down!
Also, the murder mystery did not make much sense. I suppose it was a decent excuse to revisit the characters- and redeem some of the awful ones to some degree- but I found the resolution very unsatisfying, and the tying up of loose ends- especially as it pertains to the characters in various other Austen novels- to be a fairly pointless clever trick.
Darcy is not going to turn into a Sensitive New Age Guy. Lizzie is not going to turn into an indulgent helpmeet for him. Wickham is not going to change his spots. Et cetera.
James did do a lot of research into the way "great houses" worked, and the current legal system; I wish she had integrated that better with the vivid characters in the original P&P.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Schatje
Before I read this book, I re-read "Pride and Prejudice" because it seemed a great opportunity to refresh my memory and to enjoy Austen's prose and social satire. Perhaps I should not have done so because my enjoyment of the mystery was greatly lessened; reading the two books together served only
Set in 1803, six years after Elizabeth and Darcy's marriage, the orderly life of Pemberley is disturbed by the unexpected arrival of Lydia Wickham, Elizabeth's drama queen sister, crying that her husband has been murdered. It soon becomes clear, however, that Capt. Denny, her husband's friend, has been killed and the scoundrel Wickham is the suspect. An inquest and trial follow. The ultimate solution is revealed through a clumsy deus ex machina: there are several last-minute revelations, including the cliche of a death-bed confession.
What is least enjoyable about the book is the characters. Elizabeth, the smart, sharp-tongued character of Austen's novel, has become dull and self-effacing. She says little and seems concerned only with propriety and the need to keep up appearances. She is very much a secondary character because the men soon become the focus.
Gone is the self-assured Darcy. After initially taking charge of the situation when Lydia appears, he soon becomes befuddled. Elizabeth and Darcy have become an old, too earnest, too dutiful couple, who seldom interact, much less exchange the witty banter which endeared them to Austen's readers.
In addition, other characters do not remain faithful to their depictions in "Pride and Prejudice." Rev. Collins becomes Mr. Bennet's nephew, instead of his cousin (3)? Colonel Fitzwilliam does not behave as Darcy's friend and has become a snob. James does try to offer an explanation for his change (25, 109), but it's not convincing.
The servants, Mrs. Reynolds in particular, are annoying in their efficiency. Mrs. Reynolds distributes candles in the hall (99), appears with water and towels outside the gunroom (101), provides hot soup in the dining room (105), and ensures there are blankets and pillows in the library (107). She does all this in a short period of time without the help of staff whom she ordered to bed to prevent any untoward inquisitiveness(99). James takes great pains to emphasize that Mrs. Reynolds is invaluable to Elizabeth and believes that "the family were never to be inconvenienced and were entitled to expect immaculate service" (20), but the woman can't be everywhere doing everything.
There are problems with continuity. Darcy somehow manages to do things he has no time to do. Darcy admits that he and his wife "have scarcely seen each other" (76) but she somehow manages to warn him about the conversation Col. Fitzwilliam wants to have about Georgiana (109). Furthermore, Denny and Wickham have a conversation enroute to Pemberley; this conversation leads to Denny vacating the chaise. No reader, once he/she learns the topic of that conversation, will believe that it would be discussed in front of Lydia, the other passenger in the chaise.
Then there are the anachronisms. Darcy looks at his wristwatch - about a hundred years before such timepieces came into popular use. Some of the dialogue uses diction (such as "subconscious") inappropriate even to the loose approximation of nineteenth-century prose that James attempts. The references to characters from other of Austen's novels seem contrived and introduce problems with time elements. James' attempt to appear to be an Austen expert (by alluding to several of Austen's novels) serves only to reveal the opposite.
James may have written the book as an homage to Austen, but it does not succeed. In its dark mood and supernatural elements it is more reminiscent of Wilkie Collins and Charlotte Bronte. In her author's note, James even apologizes to Austen because she strongly suspects Austen would disapprove of her bringing "odious subjects" to Pemberley.
Combining a mystery with a comedy of manners makes an uneasy mix of genres. The mystery is mediocre with too-obvious clues. Missing is the sparkle provided by Austen's clever social commentary; as a result, the book can only be described as lacklustre. Fans of P. D. James may enjoy the book more than fans of Jane Austen.
Show More
to emphasize that P. D. James is not Jane Austen.Set in 1803, six years after Elizabeth and Darcy's marriage, the orderly life of Pemberley is disturbed by the unexpected arrival of Lydia Wickham, Elizabeth's drama queen sister, crying that her husband has been murdered. It soon becomes clear, however, that Capt. Denny, her husband's friend, has been killed and the scoundrel Wickham is the suspect. An inquest and trial follow. The ultimate solution is revealed through a clumsy deus ex machina: there are several last-minute revelations, including the cliche of a death-bed confession.
What is least enjoyable about the book is the characters. Elizabeth, the smart, sharp-tongued character of Austen's novel, has become dull and self-effacing. She says little and seems concerned only with propriety and the need to keep up appearances. She is very much a secondary character because the men soon become the focus.
Gone is the self-assured Darcy. After initially taking charge of the situation when Lydia appears, he soon becomes befuddled. Elizabeth and Darcy have become an old, too earnest, too dutiful couple, who seldom interact, much less exchange the witty banter which endeared them to Austen's readers.
In addition, other characters do not remain faithful to their depictions in "Pride and Prejudice." Rev. Collins becomes Mr. Bennet's nephew, instead of his cousin (3)? Colonel Fitzwilliam does not behave as Darcy's friend and has become a snob. James does try to offer an explanation for his change (25, 109), but it's not convincing.
The servants, Mrs. Reynolds in particular, are annoying in their efficiency. Mrs. Reynolds distributes candles in the hall (99), appears with water and towels outside the gunroom (101), provides hot soup in the dining room (105), and ensures there are blankets and pillows in the library (107). She does all this in a short period of time without the help of staff whom she ordered to bed to prevent any untoward inquisitiveness(99). James takes great pains to emphasize that Mrs. Reynolds is invaluable to Elizabeth and believes that "the family were never to be inconvenienced and were entitled to expect immaculate service" (20), but the woman can't be everywhere doing everything.
There are problems with continuity. Darcy somehow manages to do things he has no time to do. Darcy admits that he and his wife "have scarcely seen each other" (76) but she somehow manages to warn him about the conversation Col. Fitzwilliam wants to have about Georgiana (109). Furthermore, Denny and Wickham have a conversation enroute to Pemberley; this conversation leads to Denny vacating the chaise. No reader, once he/she learns the topic of that conversation, will believe that it would be discussed in front of Lydia, the other passenger in the chaise.
Then there are the anachronisms. Darcy looks at his wristwatch - about a hundred years before such timepieces came into popular use. Some of the dialogue uses diction (such as "subconscious") inappropriate even to the loose approximation of nineteenth-century prose that James attempts. The references to characters from other of Austen's novels seem contrived and introduce problems with time elements. James' attempt to appear to be an Austen expert (by alluding to several of Austen's novels) serves only to reveal the opposite.
James may have written the book as an homage to Austen, but it does not succeed. In its dark mood and supernatural elements it is more reminiscent of Wilkie Collins and Charlotte Bronte. In her author's note, James even apologizes to Austen because she strongly suspects Austen would disapprove of her bringing "odious subjects" to Pemberley.
Combining a mystery with a comedy of manners makes an uneasy mix of genres. The mystery is mediocre with too-obvious clues. Missing is the sparkle provided by Austen's clever social commentary; as a result, the book can only be described as lacklustre. Fans of P. D. James may enjoy the book more than fans of Jane Austen.
Show Less
LibraryThing member kmmt48
Disappointing. Beloved characters from Pride and Prejudice are wooden and lifeless. The story drags on and on and has no life.
LibraryThing member dpappas
Usually I stay away from books that are sequels to Jane Austen's novels or that use her characters. I think that this book reinforced that for me. My interest in this book just kept going downhill as the book progressed. This book was only okay, nothing to write home about.
LibraryThing member kjuliff
Badly Done, Ms James, Badly Done
I was all anticipation when I bought this, assuming incorrectly that it would be at least a decent murder mystery, if not a skilled Pride and Prejudice take-off. Unfortunately it was neither.
The murder mystery part is badly done; Darcy is betrayed as a wimp; the
The dawdling style is more reminiscent of Arthur Conan Doyle - Victorian rather than Empire. Where is the wit, the sharpness, the humor that one has come to expect from Austen take-offs?
If I were smart enough, I'd think of something witty and Austen to say in conclusion. As I am not I will just say, "don't bother".
I was all anticipation when I bought this, assuming incorrectly that it would be at least a decent murder mystery, if not a skilled Pride and Prejudice take-off. Unfortunately it was neither.
The murder mystery part is badly done; Darcy is betrayed as a wimp; the
Show More
writing is drab and un-Austen-like, - and over all it is just plain boring.The dawdling style is more reminiscent of Arthur Conan Doyle - Victorian rather than Empire. Where is the wit, the sharpness, the humor that one has come to expect from Austen take-offs?
If I were smart enough, I'd think of something witty and Austen to say in conclusion. As I am not I will just say, "don't bother".
Show Less
LibraryThing member hairball
Death does not take those whom some of us find so richly deserving of the honor; alas, they live on to in literary perpetuity.
LibraryThing member seasonsoflove
This book is like the ultimate comfort food of the book world. You get the wonderful "cozy" mystery writing of P.D. James, combined with the beloved characters and world of Pride and Prejudice. This is a truly perfect combination.
In the hands of any other writer, this could have all gone terribly
This is the kind of book that makes you feel like you're wrapped in a warm blanket, drinking a warm strong cup of tea, tucked inside safe and cozy on a stormy day.
In the hands of any other writer, this could have all gone terribly
Show More
astray, verging on parody even, but instead, this novel fits right into the world Jane Austen created. The mystery is excellent, tension-filled, with plenty of twists and drama. It is also such a wonderful treat to see what happens to Darcy, Elizabeth, and the other characters after Pride and Prejudice ended.This is the kind of book that makes you feel like you're wrapped in a warm blanket, drinking a warm strong cup of tea, tucked inside safe and cozy on a stormy day.
Show Less
LibraryThing member themulhern
Riddled with malapropisms, full of cliches, and generally pointless. None of the dryness and circumlocution characteristic of Jane Austen. The exposition is lazy and the omniscient author reveals the inner workings of Darcy's mind so that we can learn how uninteresting it is. There is no actual
Show More
mystery; an insufficiency of clues is placed before the reader, and the debriefing after the denouement seems to take half the book. There is some dialogue in which the author makes asides about the future of criminal forensics. These are about as subtle or amusing as the references to the original Terminator movie in its many and inferior sequels. The remarks about "new-fangled" water-closets are just annoying. Show Less
LibraryThing member Goldengrove
Oh dear, I love P D James, and James loves Austen, and so do I: this book doesn't do justice to either author. Unbelievably, I found it dull. Characters not fully fleshed, plot barely there, whole thing rather annoying. Such a shame, I really wanted to like it.
LibraryThing member Nextian
I knew I shouldn't have given in to this one. It reads like bad fanfiction (did James really have to include shoutouts to Emma and Persuasion?). It's certainly not the worst P&P sequel I've read, but that isn't saying much. The mystery is a bit stale too. Better luck next time.
LibraryThing member hobbitprincess
Think of a continuation of Pride and Prejudice with a murder thrown in for good measure. That's what this book is like. It's written in the style of Austen's book and is thoroughly enjoyable.
LibraryThing member Laura.Rodd
This book was sadly disappointing for me, especially since I adore the writings of P.D. James immensely. Her general formula works so very well. The use of a strong male protagonist who is obsessively intent on solving a wonderfully crafted mystery, usually involving a grisly murder complete with
This book faltered on many levels. Although it is well known that James is a devoted fan she has done a great disservice to the wonderfully imagined characters of Jane Austen that have been read and critiqued for over 100 years. What is so attractive about Elizabeth Bennet in "Pride and Prejudice" is her verve and wit in using play-on-words that expose the preposterous behaviors and vanities in her social circle. She is quick to laugh at herself, enjoys her simple rural life and finds beauty in nature.
This novel proposes to follow Fitzwilliam and Elizabeth Darcy years after their socially unequal union of marriage. They now have a male "heir and a spare" to ensure the continuation of the Darcy line governing the Pemberley Estate. Lizzy and Darcy rarely spend quality time in conversation together and romantic moments seem few and far between as this "society couple" take care of the daily management of a giant Victorian mansion and grounds, plan expected balls and dinner menus, silver upkeep, etc. Their children are seen in the morning and the evening briefly by their parents in the nursery, an area of the house isolated from the adults and ruled by a nursemaid nanny and servants. Lizzy has conformed and seemingly cares deeply about fulfilling all the duties that are expected of her regardless of the hypocrisy and stultifying boredom that results. Gone is the laugher and lightness of spirit. Gone are the open frank conversations with the love of her life, Darcy.
Moreover, the" mystery" is little more than a crime where the details are reported in court. Strange revelations are made and this heavily burdened story drags on revealing ugly seductions, misdirected violence and the horrible, grasping traits of Mr. Wickham.
Show More
fascinating suspects. The reader walks with the investigator and is given the case details, thus joining in the mental exercise of reaching a plausible solution to the crime.This book faltered on many levels. Although it is well known that James is a devoted fan she has done a great disservice to the wonderfully imagined characters of Jane Austen that have been read and critiqued for over 100 years. What is so attractive about Elizabeth Bennet in "Pride and Prejudice" is her verve and wit in using play-on-words that expose the preposterous behaviors and vanities in her social circle. She is quick to laugh at herself, enjoys her simple rural life and finds beauty in nature.
This novel proposes to follow Fitzwilliam and Elizabeth Darcy years after their socially unequal union of marriage. They now have a male "heir and a spare" to ensure the continuation of the Darcy line governing the Pemberley Estate. Lizzy and Darcy rarely spend quality time in conversation together and romantic moments seem few and far between as this "society couple" take care of the daily management of a giant Victorian mansion and grounds, plan expected balls and dinner menus, silver upkeep, etc. Their children are seen in the morning and the evening briefly by their parents in the nursery, an area of the house isolated from the adults and ruled by a nursemaid nanny and servants. Lizzy has conformed and seemingly cares deeply about fulfilling all the duties that are expected of her regardless of the hypocrisy and stultifying boredom that results. Gone is the laugher and lightness of spirit. Gone are the open frank conversations with the love of her life, Darcy.
Moreover, the" mystery" is little more than a crime where the details are reported in court. Strange revelations are made and this heavily burdened story drags on revealing ugly seductions, misdirected violence and the horrible, grasping traits of Mr. Wickham.
Show Less
Awards
Dublin Literary Award (Longlist — 2013)
Pages
291
ISBN
0307959856 / 9780307959850