Karen Wasylowski

This story starts off with a nice scene between the two cousins, Darcy and Fitzwilliam, and then it goes downhill. The author is unable to give justice to the women in the novel -- they are all weak and subservient to their men, with the exception of Lady Catherine. Too many of the plot lines are just ridiculous, such as when a woman from Darcy's past tricks him into coming to her house and then shows up naked in his bed. At one point, Fitzwilliam tells the woman he loves that he owns her. There is a birth scene that is excruciating to read, and worst of all, sex scenes that simply would not have been in a Jane Austen novel. I barely made it through the book. If you are looking for a better Jane Austen fan fiction featuring Darcy and Fitzwilliam, try reading [An Assembly Such as This] by Pamela Aidan.… (más)

Darcy and Fitzwilliam is a piece of Pride and Prejudice pastiche, starting with a brief prologue set in 1813 when Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy and Colonel Fitzwilliam are packing up from their Easter visit to Lady Catherine De Bourgh where Darcy failed to entice Miss Elizabeth Bennet into marrying him. Chapter One jumps forward to 1815 and Darcy and Elizabeth are happily married. Mostly. Except the author has no idea who Austen's characters are, especially Elizabeth. Gone is the intelligent and witty heroine, who has instead been replaced by "some hysterical banshee" (this author's words). All the characters are unrecognizable, but the greatest insult was paid to our dearest, loveliest Elizabeth. Lady Catherine De Burgh plays a role in this novel too, and although she's actually rather fun, and I'd say vastly improved, she's not the same character. Now she's just a misunderstood doddering old aunt who has everyone's best interests in her mind. Sigh.

The first part of this long novel focused on the Darcys, with cousin Fitzwilliam hanging around. The second part was all about Battle of Waterloo war hero Colonel Fitzwilliam finding his one true love. I have to admit I skimmed this section because I absolutely don't care. He marries some young American widow with a young son. Her name is Amanda and it all felt very 1986 to me. There are complications. Part three was way too much about Elizabeth having a horrible childbirth experience (look, I've had my own awful birthing experiences and I do not need to read more about it -- especially when maternal mortality was so high. Do I want to read about Elizabeth dying? No. No sane author is going to kill off Elizabeth Bennet Darcy, So let's just not go there at all, m'kay?). Then it all comes together for everyone and the epilogue is Fitzwilliam Darcy and Colonel Fitzwilliam as grandfathers, sneaking a drink and a smoke and talking about their vast families and vaster wealth.

A few things that irritated me:
-Every once in a while it was clear that the author is highly influenced by the 2005 film of [Pride and Prejudice], which is not a good thing .

- Elizabeth here is a petite, even "elfin" little wisp of a thing. Excuse me? I can't blame this on following a bad film adaptation because both Jennifer Ehle (1995) and Kiera Knightly (2005) are 5'6'. Certainly Austen never makes Elizabeth sound like that stereotypical irrational tiny girl. References to her small stature were used to diminish the character.

- the tone was off . . . no one can replicate Austen, usually because they can use the words Austen used, but do not know how to construct her sentences, let alone add her wit. Here I often thought "that doesn't sound 1815", but then I'd look it up and the author was not wrong. For example, Darcy uses "zany". Turns out it's a word from the 1600s. But it felt wrong. Colonel calls Darcy a "brat" often. In another conversation, Darcy says "you should be medicated" when calling out silly behavior. Was there medication for mental states in 1815 in a way that someone would make such a casual joking comment? Sounds more 2015 to me. All I can say is the tone was off. Also, several times Darcy says "Cut line" as in "cut line, Lizzy". What does that mean? Maybe I've just missed this common Regency phrase. A few times the P&P timeline was wrong (has the author read the novel more than once?)

Kudos to the author for getting the Regency aristocracy right -- they were a debauched lot, and she named names. Readers who think they were all manners and good behavior are only looking for a fantasy. She brought this in enough to raise the book from a 1 star to a 2 star read for me.

This was pretty bad, but I was happy to hate read it. I've read worse Austen knock offs. Reader reviews are predictable -- some people think this is great fun and others hate it. Anyone who says in their review that "Jane Austen is spinning in her grave" are immediately ignored. I won't comment on the glowing reviews: It's great to find a book that amuses you and no one is holding this up for the next literary prize. In general, many complain about the characters being so very off. And the overall language. Also others have noticed that the author used the 2005 movie as her reference point rather than the novel. Where I am amused is by some of the bad reviews. Here are the common complaints that I'll speak to:

- A lot of this book is Darcy and Colonel kibitzing. Between the two (and only when together), they use a variety of swear words. Yes, this is realistic to how two men in a close relationship would have spoken to each other, even back then. Yes, Mr. Darcy is all politeness in a social setting, but if reading him curse gives you vapors, well, unclutch your pearls, grab some smelling salts and grow the f*ck up (said by someone who was raised to never swear ever ever)

- Darcy having slept with Caroline Bingley before he met Charles Bingley. This seems to twist a lot of readers. There are a lot of things we don't know about the background of [Pride and Prejudice]. I have theories about lots of things. We don't know this to not be true, or not be possible. In my mind, no, this didn't happen. I think it's unlikely. But this author using it in her story is just fine. Any reader who thinks 27 year old Regency aristocrat Mr. Darcy went to his honeymoon a virgin knows absolutely nothing about the era, or about life in general. Again, if this gives you vapors, well, unclutch your pearls, grab some smelling salts and grow the f*ck up. What I DID have a problem with is that the author had Elizabeth not realize that Caroline was hot and heavy after Mr Darcy, just discovers it, and then becomes unhinged. I'll have to watch the 2005 movie again to see if this was clear there, but obviously the author only skimmed the actual book. Further, she used this as a plot driver, which is just weak.

I guess I've prattled on enough. But I do need to write a hate review once or twice a year, so please indulge me.… (más)

In this P&P sequel the prologue quickly jumps from 1813 and Hunsford to Part 1 and 1815 where we have the Darcys married. The story carries on then for a few more years.
What I loved about the book was the character of Colonel Fitzwilliam, and the interactions between the Colonel and Darcy. I actually liked this Darcy even though he is not a patch on the Colonel. I also liked the character of Lady Catherine.
The only thing I didn't like was in the epilogue with the passing reference to Mary Bennet - my favourite Bennet - marrying the widowed Collins -yuck and totally unnecessary.
But overall a very enjoyable story.


… (más)