Question for Austen lovers...

[deborahjross]

I've read scathing comments about Death Comes to Pemberley, so much so that although I have enjoyed other books by P.D. James (albeit not recently), I hesitate to even give this a try. I understand from the reviewers that she gets the period, manners, culture utterly wrong. But if this were a completely alternate universe and these weren't factors, is it otherwise a terrible book?

Comments

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I didn't get far, but from what I could tell it looked like a stiff, leaden mystery. I guess if you love mysteries it might be a good read. But I was surprised at not only the lack of period sense, the lackluster writing, and wondered if this might be a trunk novel.

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

I mostly love all the other things that happen in mysteries, so this sounds like something I want to pass on. Considering that there are so many deliciously wonderful books out there, it hardly seems appealing to waste my time on "lackluster."

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

It's not a trunk novel, sadly. I haven't read it yet, but I did hear an interview with Baroness James about it, and it's a new project.
She has dated badly in her own lifetime -- her more recent Dalgleish novels aren't believable at the dates they're set in -- and I suspect that that essentially 50s mentality may have been at its worst in Death Comes to Pemberley. In particular, she's a snob, and it shows more and more. Jane Austen wasn't.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I didn't read far enough, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that it's a silver fork novel. Which is perfectly fine if one makes up one's own characters, but to do that to Austen?

So few of these Austen pastiche writers seem to have read Austen well enough to discover that there are no noble and good aristocrats in her novels. Darcy is the closest she comes--and he has to be taught a sharp lesson before he's acceptable to "a gentleman's daughter."

Most Americans don't perceive the difference between gentry and aristocrats, and how Austen wasn't gentle with her own class, either, if they were hypocrites and fools . . . but James oughtn't to play the ignorance excuse.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

I think it's highly likely you're right. And my suspicion is that James thinks this is in keeping.

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

"the difference between gentry and aristocrats" -- that's a great point.

And one to keep in mind when writing in other worlds than Regency England. People within cultures make subtle and powerful distinctions that outsiders don't pick up on (unless, of course, they make an effort!)

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

50s mentality is a turn-off for me, no matter where one transports it to!

I knew there was a reason I stopped reading her novels, although I remembered having enjoyed the first bunch. I was much more interested in An Unsuitable Job for a Woman than any of the Dalgliesh-centered ones. But that could be the rosy tint of imperfect memory and the unlearned taste of being that age.

Funny how I get pickier and pickier as I get older.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

With James, my rule is, the longer they are, the less likely I am to like them. She doesn't get edited these days, I suspect. And as a result, the books have more problems.
I liked the Cordelia Gray books, too: until Cordelia fell in love with Dalgleish. Then it was just more author's darling character cliches.