No matter what new situation they are placed in, they need to still be them.
If there’s one thing a sequel should do, I think, it’s to be true to the characters. But then, as I’ve already said, I’m not a crime reader.īut now, rather than review the book in my usual way, I’m going to talk about it specifically in terms of its “sequelness”. It’s an interesting enough plot, and one whose resolution I didn’t guess. The novel then, as crime novels tend to do, follows the story of a murder through inquest, trial and resolution. Darcy, Colonel Fitzwilliam and a new character and suitor to Georgiana, Alveston, set off into the woods to find out if indeed this has been the case. Elizabeth, Darcy, Colonel Fitzwilliam (now Viscount Hartlep), Georgiana and the Bingleys are all at Pemberley getting ready, when a carriage careens into view carrying, we soon discover, an hysterical Lydia claiming that her husband, Wickham, has been shot. The story proper starts on the night before a big annual ball. It was, however a quick read – and I did find it intriguing to ponder what sequel readers look for.īefore I discuss that, I’d better say something about the plot, though that’s hard without giving too much away. However, I can’t say I really enjoyed it. I’m glad I read it, mainly because I’ve been wanting to try a “sequel” for some time to understand what they are all about – and a sequel by a writer of PD James’ reputation seemed like a good one to try. It was given to me by a friend and my local Jane Austen group decided to discuss it as part of this year’s focus on Pride and prejudice.
So why did I read this book? Two reasons really. This, I’ll admit right now, puts me at a double disadvantage: I don’t read Jane Austen sequels and I don’t read crime novels. I’d describe it as a traditional sequel, with a difference. That is, it picks up the story of Elizabeth and Darcy some six years after their wedding, but it is a crime novel, which adds an extra complication for the reviewer, because not only is there the issue of Jane Austen’s story and characters to consider, but there’s a shift in genre.
I have just read PD James‘ Death comes to Pemberley. I want to read Austen for Austen, and other writers for their style and worldview. I fall into the latter group and this is why I am not drawn to sequels. Those who are mostly interested in the stories and what happens to the characters are likely to have a completely different perspective from those who love Austen’s language and her very particular wry, sly eye on humanity. How do you review or evaluate a Jane Austen “sequel”*? Do we expect, want even, the author to channel Austen? I suspect the answer is as varied as are the readers of sequels, and it probably depends on why we read Austen.
0 kommentar(er)
