What do you think?
Rate this book
A Independência de uma Mulher
Toda a gente conhece a história de Elizabeth Bennet, que se casou com o senhor Darcy em Orgulho e Preconceito. Mas o que aconteceu a Mary, a sua irmã do meio? Todas as irmãs Bennet conquistaram o seu destino: Jane tem um casamento feliz e uma grande família; Lizzie e o senhor Darcy ganharam uma extraordinária reputação social; Lydia conquistou uma reputação bem diferente; e Kitty é requisitada pelos salões mais luxuosos de Londres.
Mary, por outro lado, é uma mulher transformada, agora independente de obrigações familiares. Inspirada pela prosa inflamada de Argos, do qual ninguém conhece a verdadeira identidade, Mary decide escrever um livro onde põe a nu os males do seu país e o drama dos pobres. Mas as suas viagens de pesquisa irão colocar em risco a sua própria vida - e acabarão por lançá-la nos braços do homem que a inspirou.
Da brilhante escritora Colleen McCullough, autora de Pássaros Feridos, um livro de aventuras e romance, em que uma mulher forte e independente deixa a sua marca no mundo.
Mary, por outro lado, é uma mulher transformada, agora independente de obrigações familiares. Inspirada pela prosa inflamada de Argos, do qual ninguém conhece a verdadeira identidade, Mary decide escrever um livro onde põe a nu os males do seu país e o drama dos pobres. Mas as suas viagens de pesquisa irão colocar em risco a sua própria vida - e acabarão por lançá-la nos braços do homem que a inspirou.
Da brilhante escritora Colleen McCullough, autora de Pássaros Feridos, um livro de aventuras e romance, em que uma mulher forte e independente deixa a sua marca no mundo.
512 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 2008
214 people are currently reading
1691 people want to read
About the author
Colleen McCullough
128 books3,168 followersColleen Margaretta McCullough was an Australian author known for her novels, her most well-known being The Thorn Birds and Tim.
Raised by her mother in Wellington and then Sydney, McCullough began writing stories at age 5. She flourished at Catholic schools and earned a physiology degree from the University of New South Wales in 1963. Planning become a doctor, she found that she had a violent allergy to hospital soap and turned instead to neurophysiology – the study of the nervous system's functions. She found jobs first in London and then at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.
After her beloved younger brother Carl died in 1965 at age 25 while rescuing two drowning women in the waters off Crete, a shattered McCullough quit writing. She finally returned to her craft in 1974 with Tim, a critically acclaimed novel about the romance between a female executive and a younger, mentally disabled gardener. As always, the author proved her toughest critic: "Actually," she said, "it was an icky book, saccharine sweet."
A year later, while on a paltry $10,000 annual salary as a Yale researcher, McCullough – just "Col" to her friends – began work on the sprawling The Thorn Birds, about the lives and loves of three generations of an Australian family. Many of its details were drawn from her mother's family's experience as migrant workers, and one character, Dane, was based on brother Carl.
Though some reviews were scathing, millions of readers worldwide got caught up in her tales of doomed love and other natural calamities. The paperback rights sold for an astonishing $1.9 million.
In all, McCullough wrote 11 novels.
Source: http://www.people.com/article/colleen...
Raised by her mother in Wellington and then Sydney, McCullough began writing stories at age 5. She flourished at Catholic schools and earned a physiology degree from the University of New South Wales in 1963. Planning become a doctor, she found that she had a violent allergy to hospital soap and turned instead to neurophysiology – the study of the nervous system's functions. She found jobs first in London and then at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.
After her beloved younger brother Carl died in 1965 at age 25 while rescuing two drowning women in the waters off Crete, a shattered McCullough quit writing. She finally returned to her craft in 1974 with Tim, a critically acclaimed novel about the romance between a female executive and a younger, mentally disabled gardener. As always, the author proved her toughest critic: "Actually," she said, "it was an icky book, saccharine sweet."
A year later, while on a paltry $10,000 annual salary as a Yale researcher, McCullough – just "Col" to her friends – began work on the sprawling The Thorn Birds, about the lives and loves of three generations of an Australian family. Many of its details were drawn from her mother's family's experience as migrant workers, and one character, Dane, was based on brother Carl.
Though some reviews were scathing, millions of readers worldwide got caught up in her tales of doomed love and other natural calamities. The paperback rights sold for an astonishing $1.9 million.
In all, McCullough wrote 11 novels.
Source: http://www.people.com/article/colleen...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 712 reviews
January 7, 2009
Terrifically disappointing. With few exceptions, I haven't enjoyed many Pride and Prejudice sequels, but this one looked promising. While Colleen McCullough, thankfully, doesn't try to be Jane Austen, I think she seriously misses the boat when it comes to these characters. Anyone who has read Pride and Prejudice has their own ideas as to who Mr. Darcy is and how he acts, just as they have pictures in their minds of Elizabeth and her sisters. Even understanding that, I cannot envision these characters where McCullough has placed them, 20 years after Darcy and Elizabeth's marriage. It just didn't work for me.
The title is a bit misleading, because it's as much about Darcy and Elizabeth as it is about Mary. I found it to be more of an annoying, social commentary on the mistreatment of the poor than I did to be a truly interesting Pride and Prejudice sequel.
Much of it is far-fetched. I find it hard to see Mr. Darcy involved with people who would murder for him, regardless of whether he asked them to or not. I also don't see him separating the Bennet sisters because of their potential threat to his reputation. In Pride and Prejudice, he helps sort out Lydia and Wickham's situation because of his love for Elizabeth, not because of the damage they could do to his reputation.
Mary's "adventure" was also implausible to me. Her thoughts of being an independent, maiden author were promising, but the rest of it was unbelievable and annoying.
I liked Charlie, but the addition of other characters was odd. My only favorite part was when Elizabeth finally insulted Caroline Bingley to her face. Most likely unrealistic for the time, but we all wanted her to do it in the first book too!
While minimal, the book included extremely vulgar profanity, which was a real disappointment.
Overall, this book is not something I can recommend to people who are fans of Pride and Prejudice. Obviously, Ms. McCullough is not and as she has so eloquently stated she wanted to "tweak the noses of the literati". Well, I think most die hard Austen fans would say she accomplished that goal.
The title is a bit misleading, because it's as much about Darcy and Elizabeth as it is about Mary. I found it to be more of an annoying, social commentary on the mistreatment of the poor than I did to be a truly interesting Pride and Prejudice sequel.
Much of it is far-fetched. I find it hard to see Mr. Darcy involved with people who would murder for him, regardless of whether he asked them to or not. I also don't see him separating the Bennet sisters because of their potential threat to his reputation. In Pride and Prejudice, he helps sort out Lydia and Wickham's situation because of his love for Elizabeth, not because of the damage they could do to his reputation.
Mary's "adventure" was also implausible to me. Her thoughts of being an independent, maiden author were promising, but the rest of it was unbelievable and annoying.
I liked Charlie, but the addition of other characters was odd. My only favorite part was when Elizabeth finally insulted Caroline Bingley to her face. Most likely unrealistic for the time, but we all wanted her to do it in the first book too!
While minimal, the book included extremely vulgar profanity, which was a real disappointment.
Overall, this book is not something I can recommend to people who are fans of Pride and Prejudice. Obviously, Ms. McCullough is not and as she has so eloquently stated she wanted to "tweak the noses of the literati". Well, I think most die hard Austen fans would say she accomplished that goal.
July 1, 2018
3,5/Mmmmm.... difícil decir algo, por más que haya sido una lectura positiva y la haya disfrutado. Lo único que esta historia tiene que leerse sin pensar que estamos en el Pemberley de Jane Austen. Y, aun así, después del primer impacto, uno puede imaginarse perfectamente a Elizabeth y a sus hermanas diecisiete años después , así como a nuestro querido Darcy. Pero si tuviera que destacar algo de la obra sería el punto feminista que otorga Colleen al personaje de Mary. (Un punto que aparece en todas sus novelas) Realmente me ha sorprendido la poca puntuación que tiene este obra aquí; aunque se entiende, no se puede decir que sea romántica pura; aunque romance hay.
January 11, 2009
I hated this book so badly, that when I realized how she had butchered Austen's characters, I couldn't even bring myself to read any further.
Anyone who's been married understands there are bad times and bad days, but to tell me that Darcy and Elizabeth have been unhappy since their marriage...and to have Darcy think that it wasn't worth marrying down is ridiculous and not true to the character Austen built. In addition to this, Darcy apparently practically rapes Elizabeth on their wedding night, so that she dreads him coming to her bed and eventually alienates her husband so that he prefers politics to her.
And this is just about these two characters. I won't even bother telling you what she did to the others, since I may have been able to overlook their distortion...but not Lizzie and Fitz's (as she calls Darcy).
Even my husband, who has not read Austen but who saw the movie with me, was outraged at what this author did to this classic story and their main characters and told me to burn the book.
If you love Darcy and Elizabeth and happy endings--don't read this! Even the reconciliation she has at the end of the book (I skimmed ahead) doesn't make up for their supposed 20 years of unhappiness.
Anyone who's been married understands there are bad times and bad days, but to tell me that Darcy and Elizabeth have been unhappy since their marriage...and to have Darcy think that it wasn't worth marrying down is ridiculous and not true to the character Austen built. In addition to this, Darcy apparently practically rapes Elizabeth on their wedding night, so that she dreads him coming to her bed and eventually alienates her husband so that he prefers politics to her.
And this is just about these two characters. I won't even bother telling you what she did to the others, since I may have been able to overlook their distortion...but not Lizzie and Fitz's (as she calls Darcy).
Even my husband, who has not read Austen but who saw the movie with me, was outraged at what this author did to this classic story and their main characters and told me to burn the book.
If you love Darcy and Elizabeth and happy endings--don't read this! Even the reconciliation she has at the end of the book (I skimmed ahead) doesn't make up for their supposed 20 years of unhappiness.
February 15, 2010
Set twenty years after the end of Pride and Prejudice, the chessboard of characters are in some new positions: Mary has spent the last seventeen years caring for Mrs Bennet, who has just died; Kitty married a Lord who kindly left her a young, wealthy widow; Lydia is carousing and drunk, sleeping around while George is on duty in America; Jane has had 12 pregnancies and they're worried about her health; and Lizzie is unhappy in her marriage to Fitz (Mr Darcy), who thinks their first and only son, Charlie, is a weakling and possibly gay (thanks to Caroline Bingley's poisonous remarks), and whose big ambition is to be Prime Minister - Lizzie's family is even more of an embarrassment now than they were twenty years ago.
The sister who has changed the most is Mary: her spots have cleared up, her crooked tooth has been extracted, she's as beautiful as Lizzie if not more so, and she's had seventeen years to read an extensive library that's broadened her mind but not softened her frankness. If anything, life as a dutiful spinster has hardened her. Now that Mrs Bennet is gone, she feels free for the first time and, encouraged by the impassioned writings of "Argus" in the Westminster Chronicle, decides to set out and see the plight of the poor and working classes in Manchester and elsewhere and write a book on them - no matter what Fitz wants.
Declining a female companion is her first act of independence, and moving her money from Fitz's investment into her own bank account the next. She becomes good friends with the publisher of the Chronicle, a Scotsman and friend of the Darcy's, Angus Sinclair, who falls in love with her but wisely doesn't declare it.
With her plans set and in motion, Mary starts off on her travels across England, only to fall prey to the worst sort of man: a highwayman. Left for dead in the forest, she ends up disappearing altogether.
I wasn't all that surprised to read mainly negative readers' reviews of this book, which I think stems mainly from the relationship of Lizzie and Fitz. Fitz doesn't come off well for most of this book, having become even hautier and snobbier than ever, and says some rather mean things to Lizzie, such as regretting having married her. He also has a curious relationship with a man called Ned Skinner, who does Fitz's dirty work for him - often on his own initiative.
People have said that they don't think McCullough stayed true to the characters, or took them in a direction that they agreed with - to the first I would disagree, it's just that we don't like to have the romantic bubble burst; and to the second, well, it's just an opinion. I approached this book knowing that, like all the P&P spin-offs, it wasn't going to please everyone, but I was very curious and excited about what McCullough would do, and open to something new: which I got. I haven't read many spin-offs but they were all dreadful, soap-opera-ish, melodramatic waffle, badly written, straining to be "Austen-like" in prose and style, and skirting around anything remotely interesting.
McCullough's prose, on the other hand, is effortless. Smooth, graceful, flowing, and never dull, I read this book in a day. I couldn't put it down. It was exciting, and because McCullough's a modern writer writing for a modern audience, she could delve into the world better than Austen could, or would want to. It's refreshing, and more honest. People sometimes seem to forget that the "prim and proper" world of Austen etc. wasn't a true reflection of the period or the people - that they swore, drank, etc. with just as much abandon as today, and with just as much observance of social norms as today. We aren't as liberated in this regard as we think we are.
Another thing that I loved was the bringing into the story of the lower echelons: the working poor, the orphans, the destitute, the thieves and prostitutes, the practices of slavery and factory. When you read a book like Pride and Prejudice, one thing that is very noticeable is how far removed the gentry are from the realities of the Industrial Revolution - and P&P is smack-bang in the middle of the Industrial Revolution. It's all gorgeous countryside, polite dinners and pretty frocks. The biggest concern of the Bennet sisters was finding a husband. The biggest concern of most of the population of the time was having anything at all to eat. The Independence of Miss Mary Bennet doesn't go so far as Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South (written around 1850), but it does bring Austenland into Dickensland.
This is the only spin-off that even remotely does justice to Austen's characters while breathing fresh and exciting life into their story. Neither has it destroyed my love for P&P or Mr Darcy (I thought it a nice touch that he's almost always referred to as "Fitz" here, which in a way creates a distinction between the two and allows you to separate the characters in your head, while also allowing for the fact that people do change, and not always in the best direction, but that there's probably a very simple reason for it) - I can still watch P&P without thinking "Oh but their marriage won't be a happy one" or "he'll turn into a right bastard that one" - I can separate these stories without a problem.
Don't be put off by the disappointments and anger between Lizzie and Darcy - all I can say without spoiling it is that it has a very happy ending. It's just so nice to read a historical fiction like this where the dialogue and prose aren't stilted, stuffy, and awkward because the author's trying for "accuracy" and to mimic a style long dead and which they aren't at all comfortable with. McCullough has a firm grasp of the period, the bigger picture, the small details and the social customs, and shows a great depth of love for the characters. Most importantly, she really brings Mary alive - poor Mary, the neglected and despised sister - who loses her narrow-mindedness but not her way with words. She's a joy to read.
The sister who has changed the most is Mary: her spots have cleared up, her crooked tooth has been extracted, she's as beautiful as Lizzie if not more so, and she's had seventeen years to read an extensive library that's broadened her mind but not softened her frankness. If anything, life as a dutiful spinster has hardened her. Now that Mrs Bennet is gone, she feels free for the first time and, encouraged by the impassioned writings of "Argus" in the Westminster Chronicle, decides to set out and see the plight of the poor and working classes in Manchester and elsewhere and write a book on them - no matter what Fitz wants.
Declining a female companion is her first act of independence, and moving her money from Fitz's investment into her own bank account the next. She becomes good friends with the publisher of the Chronicle, a Scotsman and friend of the Darcy's, Angus Sinclair, who falls in love with her but wisely doesn't declare it.
With her plans set and in motion, Mary starts off on her travels across England, only to fall prey to the worst sort of man: a highwayman. Left for dead in the forest, she ends up disappearing altogether.
I wasn't all that surprised to read mainly negative readers' reviews of this book, which I think stems mainly from the relationship of Lizzie and Fitz. Fitz doesn't come off well for most of this book, having become even hautier and snobbier than ever, and says some rather mean things to Lizzie, such as regretting having married her. He also has a curious relationship with a man called Ned Skinner, who does Fitz's dirty work for him - often on his own initiative.
People have said that they don't think McCullough stayed true to the characters, or took them in a direction that they agreed with - to the first I would disagree, it's just that we don't like to have the romantic bubble burst; and to the second, well, it's just an opinion. I approached this book knowing that, like all the P&P spin-offs, it wasn't going to please everyone, but I was very curious and excited about what McCullough would do, and open to something new: which I got. I haven't read many spin-offs but they were all dreadful, soap-opera-ish, melodramatic waffle, badly written, straining to be "Austen-like" in prose and style, and skirting around anything remotely interesting.
McCullough's prose, on the other hand, is effortless. Smooth, graceful, flowing, and never dull, I read this book in a day. I couldn't put it down. It was exciting, and because McCullough's a modern writer writing for a modern audience, she could delve into the world better than Austen could, or would want to. It's refreshing, and more honest. People sometimes seem to forget that the "prim and proper" world of Austen etc. wasn't a true reflection of the period or the people - that they swore, drank, etc. with just as much abandon as today, and with just as much observance of social norms as today. We aren't as liberated in this regard as we think we are.
Another thing that I loved was the bringing into the story of the lower echelons: the working poor, the orphans, the destitute, the thieves and prostitutes, the practices of slavery and factory. When you read a book like Pride and Prejudice, one thing that is very noticeable is how far removed the gentry are from the realities of the Industrial Revolution - and P&P is smack-bang in the middle of the Industrial Revolution. It's all gorgeous countryside, polite dinners and pretty frocks. The biggest concern of the Bennet sisters was finding a husband. The biggest concern of most of the population of the time was having anything at all to eat. The Independence of Miss Mary Bennet doesn't go so far as Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South (written around 1850), but it does bring Austenland into Dickensland.
This is the only spin-off that even remotely does justice to Austen's characters while breathing fresh and exciting life into their story. Neither has it destroyed my love for P&P or Mr Darcy (I thought it a nice touch that he's almost always referred to as "Fitz" here, which in a way creates a distinction between the two and allows you to separate the characters in your head, while also allowing for the fact that people do change, and not always in the best direction, but that there's probably a very simple reason for it) - I can still watch P&P without thinking "Oh but their marriage won't be a happy one" or "he'll turn into a right bastard that one" - I can separate these stories without a problem.
Don't be put off by the disappointments and anger between Lizzie and Darcy - all I can say without spoiling it is that it has a very happy ending. It's just so nice to read a historical fiction like this where the dialogue and prose aren't stilted, stuffy, and awkward because the author's trying for "accuracy" and to mimic a style long dead and which they aren't at all comfortable with. McCullough has a firm grasp of the period, the bigger picture, the small details and the social customs, and shows a great depth of love for the characters. Most importantly, she really brings Mary alive - poor Mary, the neglected and despised sister - who loses her narrow-mindedness but not her way with words. She's a joy to read.
July 7, 2019
A truly bizarre "sequel" to Pride and Prejudice. I'm not sure you could even classify it as a sequel. Ms. McCullough simply took the characters from the beloved novel and incorporated them into a strange and unbelievable story. I was looking forward to reading how poor Mary Bennet overcame her setbacks, but absolutely detested the futures Ms. McCullough gave each of the characters. Also, the violence she wove into the story seemed unfitting and crass for a Jane Austen sequel. She very easily could have told this weird tale using new characters she had created on her own so I'm not sure why she felt this would be a good follow-up to P&P.
Colleen McCullough is one of those authors that writes one incredible book (The Thorn Birds) and then can't ever seem to recapture that magic. Yuck!
Colleen McCullough is one of those authors that writes one incredible book (The Thorn Birds) and then can't ever seem to recapture that magic. Yuck!
July 19, 2009
Okay...you can obviously see from all the other reviews that this is not the most popular of Pride and Prejudice sequels. Darcy and Elizabeth do not spend 99% of their time having sex, and he does not cater to her hand and foot all the days of their lives.
*shrugs* Sorry. Those things don't happen in reality. McCullough had the gumption to write something that could have.
I DO think that Darcy's buttheadedness WAS a little extreme on two points:
1. Caroline Bingley. Obviously she isn't his favorite person, and I think I am correct in saying that he knows she is full of it. But yet he believes the horrible things she says about his son? I don't know about that one. You find out a few things about Darcy's own father towards the end of the story, and I suppose those things could have clouded Darcy's parenting skills. But, I wasn't wholly satisfied on that point.
2. That leads to my second point: the way he treats all his children in general. All but wholly dismissing them from his presence...and not treating them very well at all when they were around. Not cool. One of Darcy's best qualities in P&P was the way he doted on his sister, and I cannot see him being so beastly to his daughters. (and for no real reason!) Speaking of, his sister was only mentioned in this story, I think in reality they would have had much more contact with each other then this book suggests.
My third gripe of the story is with Elizabeth. She has gumption! She loses herself for awhile because she is so devestated by how her relationship has turned out...but she finally grows a backbone again toward the end (gave Miss Caroline Bingley a good tongue lashing!), and I really felt like she was back. I was then VERY disappointed that she accepted Darcy's (albeit heartfelt) apologies without making him WORK for her affections back :P She should have made him earn it.
But, in general, I was very satisfied with the story. It DOES have an extremely happy conclusion, and no one is perfect or has the ultimate ideal life...so come on. If you pass this up because you are scared to read about Darcy being a jerk, you will miss out on one fantasticly written book (and you also apperantly weren't paying attention to the first half of P&P either).
The book is, of course, equally about Mary. But McCullough basically had free reign with her story since she is so little a part of P&P. I think most reviewers' complaints came from the Darcys' story, so that is where I put in my two cents.
*shrugs* Sorry. Those things don't happen in reality. McCullough had the gumption to write something that could have.
I DO think that Darcy's buttheadedness WAS a little extreme on two points:
1. Caroline Bingley. Obviously she isn't his favorite person, and I think I am correct in saying that he knows she is full of it. But yet he believes the horrible things she says about his son? I don't know about that one. You find out a few things about Darcy's own father towards the end of the story, and I suppose those things could have clouded Darcy's parenting skills. But, I wasn't wholly satisfied on that point.
2. That leads to my second point: the way he treats all his children in general. All but wholly dismissing them from his presence...and not treating them very well at all when they were around. Not cool. One of Darcy's best qualities in P&P was the way he doted on his sister, and I cannot see him being so beastly to his daughters. (and for no real reason!) Speaking of, his sister was only mentioned in this story, I think in reality they would have had much more contact with each other then this book suggests.
My third gripe of the story is with Elizabeth. She has gumption! She loses herself for awhile because she is so devestated by how her relationship has turned out...but she finally grows a backbone again toward the end (gave Miss Caroline Bingley a good tongue lashing!), and I really felt like she was back. I was then VERY disappointed that she accepted Darcy's (albeit heartfelt) apologies without making him WORK for her affections back :P She should have made him earn it.
But, in general, I was very satisfied with the story. It DOES have an extremely happy conclusion, and no one is perfect or has the ultimate ideal life...so come on. If you pass this up because you are scared to read about Darcy being a jerk, you will miss out on one fantasticly written book (and you also apperantly weren't paying attention to the first half of P&P either).
The book is, of course, equally about Mary. But McCullough basically had free reign with her story since she is so little a part of P&P. I think most reviewers' complaints came from the Darcys' story, so that is where I put in my two cents.
March 17, 2015
This book was a tedious read. The book focuses on the life of Mary Bennett who has been living and caring for Mrs Bennett (her mother) since the death of her father.
The author completely rewrites the personalities of all the major characters so that they only resemble the original characters of Pride and Prejudice in name alone. The author describes Mary Bennett as having lived years of boredom with her mother, an odd description given Jane Austen described Mary as the type of person who was forever busy (reading, playing music). The author described Jane and Elizabeth as the type of mothers with no interest in the upbringing of their children (For naturally Mrs. Darcy and Mrs. Bingley enjoy only the delights of children, leaving the miseries of parentage to {the horde of nurses, governesses and tutors}), again at odds with the description Jane Austen gave us of them as caring for their younger cousins. Darcy is described as regretting his marriage and being disgusted with his one womanly son.
The author seems to lose direction at times and takes to describing odd elements in the room with no purpose. Such as in the first chapter when she writes"Of course I do, Mama," Mary said perfunctorily, pouring milk into the bottom of her mother's cup, and tilting the fine silver teapot to pour an amber stream on top of the milk. Cook's girl had done well with the sugar, broken it into good lumps; Mary added on of exactly the right size to the tea, and stirred the liquid thoroughly.
She also treated the book as a history lesson, much of her historical dialogue felt like it was only included so that the readers could see how much research she had done.
Having said this the book does became somewhat better toward the end once the author gave up her pretense of this being a Jane Austen sequel. Both Mary and her love interest are engaging characters, again especially toward the end of the book. The last few chapters delivered some fantastic lines. I wish the author would rewrite the book based on her own characters, rather than pretending this is Austen fan-fiction.
The author completely rewrites the personalities of all the major characters so that they only resemble the original characters of Pride and Prejudice in name alone. The author describes Mary Bennett as having lived years of boredom with her mother, an odd description given Jane Austen described Mary as the type of person who was forever busy (reading, playing music). The author described Jane and Elizabeth as the type of mothers with no interest in the upbringing of their children (For naturally Mrs. Darcy and Mrs. Bingley enjoy only the delights of children, leaving the miseries of parentage to {the horde of nurses, governesses and tutors}), again at odds with the description Jane Austen gave us of them as caring for their younger cousins. Darcy is described as regretting his marriage and being disgusted with his one womanly son.
The author seems to lose direction at times and takes to describing odd elements in the room with no purpose. Such as in the first chapter when she writes"Of course I do, Mama," Mary said perfunctorily, pouring milk into the bottom of her mother's cup, and tilting the fine silver teapot to pour an amber stream on top of the milk. Cook's girl had done well with the sugar, broken it into good lumps; Mary added on of exactly the right size to the tea, and stirred the liquid thoroughly.
She also treated the book as a history lesson, much of her historical dialogue felt like it was only included so that the readers could see how much research she had done.
Having said this the book does became somewhat better toward the end once the author gave up her pretense of this being a Jane Austen sequel. Both Mary and her love interest are engaging characters, again especially toward the end of the book. The last few chapters delivered some fantastic lines. I wish the author would rewrite the book based on her own characters, rather than pretending this is Austen fan-fiction.
January 5, 2010
A wild irreverent ride that will more than surprise Austen fans!
Any Janeite who makes it to the third chapter of The Independence of Miss Mary Bennet is in my opinion free to think author Colleen McCullough an impudent rapscallion.
I am confident that she will have no problem agreeing with me since she admitted that her motivation in writing a sequel to Pride and Prejudice was to stick it to the literati. Since it is doubtful that the good men and women of the arts and letters will read this novel, she is actually thumbing her nose at Jane Austen’s fans and having a jolly time of it. If by some slim chance you are reading this Ms. McCullough, you have far exceeded your objective and should be quite pleased with yourself. I am a Jane Austen fan, and I am not amused.
What about Mary?
When the news hit the blogosphere last spring that the best selling author of The Thorn Birds and The Masters of Rome Series Colleen McCullough was writing a sequel to Pride and Prejudice inspired by Mary Bennet, I was both astonished and intrigued. I had secretly adored Mary, the middle Bennet daughter who only had eight passages of dialogue in the original novel, but made a lasting impact with her pious pontifications and deafeningly out of tune song stylings. Her older sisters may have been mortified by her exhibitions, but I just laughed out loud and wished for more. Well Janeites, be very careful what you wish for, cuz it could very well land at your local bookstore.
In which Mary gets a makeover!
You can blame it all of the 1995 Pride and Prejudice miniseries. Many people over the years have credited it for the ignition of Austenmania, fueling many movies and a cottage industry of sequel writers. While most viewers ogle over Colin Firth as the wet shirt Darcy, McCullough was intrigued by the Bennet’s sanctimonious middle daughter Mary and how Austen unsympathetically portrayed her. Inspired to give Mary a new chance, McCullough starts the story seventeen years after the close of Pride and Prejudice with the death of Mrs. Bennet freeing Mary from her role as parental caretaker. Bookish, pious and socially awkward Mary gets a makeover, a social cause, and a romantic adventure.
In which Mary is emancipated, gets ideas, and into trouble!
So, Mary is now thirty eight years old, unmarried, gets a makeover and is quite attractive. Freed from her daughterly duties of caretaker and police woman to Mrs. Bennet, the new and improved Mary Bennet has independent plans for her life that do not meet the approval of her dictorial brother-in-law Fitzwilliam Darcy. Inspired by the writing in the newspaper of a social activist, she is determined to write a book about the plight of the poor and sets off on an adventure of discovery to research the conditions of the working classes in Northern England. Sheltered and naïve, she gets into all sorts of trouble including being manhandled in a coach, robbed and beaten by a Highwayman, and abducted and imprisoned by a religious cult. Yes, a religious cult!
In which we witness the defamation of beloved characters!
Not everything for all four other Bennet daughters has improved as agreeably over the years. Elizabeth’s loveless marriage is a sham, Jane is a baby factory neglected by her absenting husband who is off attending to his slave plantations in Jamaica, and Lydia is a drunken whore whose unfaithful lout of a husband Captain George Wickham is sent to America and dies. Only Kitty unexpectedly hits pay dirt and marries an elderly peer who promptly dies and leaves her a pile of dough and social clout. Since her story is too happy, we do not hear much of her. The real pinnacle of exasperation for me came with McCullough’s handling of Mr. Darcy who immediately regrets marrying Elizabeth, resents being burdened with her ‘below his station’ family, and now acts far snootier and more puffed up than we were subjected to when we first met him at the Meryton Assembly in the original novel. Ambitious, scheming and underhanded, this Darcy has gone Gothic villain on us and it is not pretty. This caustic rendering of Darcy alone will catapult many a book across living rooms and bedrooms across America.
In which dubious, dastardly and devious characters dapple the plot!
In addition to resurrecting Caroline Bingley and Louisa Hurst as the devious duo bent on tormenting the Darcy’s to the end of their days, we are introduced to sympathetic new characters in Charles Darcy the young heir to Pemberley who is an incredible disappointment to his father but the darling of his mother and aunt Mary, and Angus Sinclair the wealthy newspaper owner and editor who is sweet on the violet eyed and ginger haired Mary Bennet because she reminds him of her sister Elizabeth who he has admired for years. They are two positive allies for Mary and her cause of independence and come to her aid more than once. Of course there is an abundance of villains (besides the dastardly Darcy) who dapple the story with challenges for our heroine which border on a Perils of Pauline melodrama; the most imposing of which is Darcy’s hired henchman Ned Skinner whose idolistic attachment to Darcy is rather more like Frankenstein’s assistant Igor than a paid thug. Other daunting characters that make Charles Dickens imaginings look lighthearted are a woman beating cutthroat Highwayman named Captain Thunder and a cave dwelling body snatching religious cultist Father Dominus. Could this cavalcade of characters possibly be any father from the witty, honorable, and propitious populous penned by the gently reproving Jane Austen? No!
In which a wild ride screeches to a hault!
Even though I did not agree with the direction that McCullough chose to take her sequel, her skill at story telling is amazing and a galaxy beyond fan fiction with flair. Her dialogue is crisp and succinct, her historical references well researched, and her descriptions of late Georgian life accurate and realistic. With so much talent and international renown, one wonders out loud whatever was she thinking? If you can get past the first three chapters and totally suspend your disbelief, The Independence of Miss Mary Bennet is a wild ride that screeches to a halt with one repugnant last line which I leave readers to experience for themselves.
Laurel Ann, Austenprose
Any Janeite who makes it to the third chapter of The Independence of Miss Mary Bennet is in my opinion free to think author Colleen McCullough an impudent rapscallion.
I am confident that she will have no problem agreeing with me since she admitted that her motivation in writing a sequel to Pride and Prejudice was to stick it to the literati. Since it is doubtful that the good men and women of the arts and letters will read this novel, she is actually thumbing her nose at Jane Austen’s fans and having a jolly time of it. If by some slim chance you are reading this Ms. McCullough, you have far exceeded your objective and should be quite pleased with yourself. I am a Jane Austen fan, and I am not amused.
What about Mary?
When the news hit the blogosphere last spring that the best selling author of The Thorn Birds and The Masters of Rome Series Colleen McCullough was writing a sequel to Pride and Prejudice inspired by Mary Bennet, I was both astonished and intrigued. I had secretly adored Mary, the middle Bennet daughter who only had eight passages of dialogue in the original novel, but made a lasting impact with her pious pontifications and deafeningly out of tune song stylings. Her older sisters may have been mortified by her exhibitions, but I just laughed out loud and wished for more. Well Janeites, be very careful what you wish for, cuz it could very well land at your local bookstore.
In which Mary gets a makeover!
You can blame it all of the 1995 Pride and Prejudice miniseries. Many people over the years have credited it for the ignition of Austenmania, fueling many movies and a cottage industry of sequel writers. While most viewers ogle over Colin Firth as the wet shirt Darcy, McCullough was intrigued by the Bennet’s sanctimonious middle daughter Mary and how Austen unsympathetically portrayed her. Inspired to give Mary a new chance, McCullough starts the story seventeen years after the close of Pride and Prejudice with the death of Mrs. Bennet freeing Mary from her role as parental caretaker. Bookish, pious and socially awkward Mary gets a makeover, a social cause, and a romantic adventure.
In which Mary is emancipated, gets ideas, and into trouble!
So, Mary is now thirty eight years old, unmarried, gets a makeover and is quite attractive. Freed from her daughterly duties of caretaker and police woman to Mrs. Bennet, the new and improved Mary Bennet has independent plans for her life that do not meet the approval of her dictorial brother-in-law Fitzwilliam Darcy. Inspired by the writing in the newspaper of a social activist, she is determined to write a book about the plight of the poor and sets off on an adventure of discovery to research the conditions of the working classes in Northern England. Sheltered and naïve, she gets into all sorts of trouble including being manhandled in a coach, robbed and beaten by a Highwayman, and abducted and imprisoned by a religious cult. Yes, a religious cult!
In which we witness the defamation of beloved characters!
Not everything for all four other Bennet daughters has improved as agreeably over the years. Elizabeth’s loveless marriage is a sham, Jane is a baby factory neglected by her absenting husband who is off attending to his slave plantations in Jamaica, and Lydia is a drunken whore whose unfaithful lout of a husband Captain George Wickham is sent to America and dies. Only Kitty unexpectedly hits pay dirt and marries an elderly peer who promptly dies and leaves her a pile of dough and social clout. Since her story is too happy, we do not hear much of her. The real pinnacle of exasperation for me came with McCullough’s handling of Mr. Darcy who immediately regrets marrying Elizabeth, resents being burdened with her ‘below his station’ family, and now acts far snootier and more puffed up than we were subjected to when we first met him at the Meryton Assembly in the original novel. Ambitious, scheming and underhanded, this Darcy has gone Gothic villain on us and it is not pretty. This caustic rendering of Darcy alone will catapult many a book across living rooms and bedrooms across America.
In which dubious, dastardly and devious characters dapple the plot!
In addition to resurrecting Caroline Bingley and Louisa Hurst as the devious duo bent on tormenting the Darcy’s to the end of their days, we are introduced to sympathetic new characters in Charles Darcy the young heir to Pemberley who is an incredible disappointment to his father but the darling of his mother and aunt Mary, and Angus Sinclair the wealthy newspaper owner and editor who is sweet on the violet eyed and ginger haired Mary Bennet because she reminds him of her sister Elizabeth who he has admired for years. They are two positive allies for Mary and her cause of independence and come to her aid more than once. Of course there is an abundance of villains (besides the dastardly Darcy) who dapple the story with challenges for our heroine which border on a Perils of Pauline melodrama; the most imposing of which is Darcy’s hired henchman Ned Skinner whose idolistic attachment to Darcy is rather more like Frankenstein’s assistant Igor than a paid thug. Other daunting characters that make Charles Dickens imaginings look lighthearted are a woman beating cutthroat Highwayman named Captain Thunder and a cave dwelling body snatching religious cultist Father Dominus. Could this cavalcade of characters possibly be any father from the witty, honorable, and propitious populous penned by the gently reproving Jane Austen? No!
In which a wild ride screeches to a hault!
Even though I did not agree with the direction that McCullough chose to take her sequel, her skill at story telling is amazing and a galaxy beyond fan fiction with flair. Her dialogue is crisp and succinct, her historical references well researched, and her descriptions of late Georgian life accurate and realistic. With so much talent and international renown, one wonders out loud whatever was she thinking? If you can get past the first three chapters and totally suspend your disbelief, The Independence of Miss Mary Bennet is a wild ride that screeches to a halt with one repugnant last line which I leave readers to experience for themselves.
Laurel Ann, Austenprose
October 18, 2013
It is a truth universally acknowledged that many authors have tried to continue the stories of that great literary maven Jane Austen. Some have succeeded to great acclaim, hell there's some fantastic fan fiction that's never seen a bookstore or library shelf that nails everything from the dialogue to the characters and even manages to spin a new and refreshing story. Would that this were the case with "The Independence of Miss Mary Bennett."
I'm concerned that Colleen McCullough hasn't actually read "Pride and Prejudice" hell I'm wondering whether she's even seen any of the movies. Rarely have a I read a "sequel" to one of these classic romantic literary triumphs that got so much so wrong so quickly!
Without giving this awful book any more attention than I absolutely have to I will say that we begin an undetermined number of years after the original novel with the death of Mrs. Bennett and thus the birth of the independence of Mary Bennett who at 38 is somehow just now a "beauty" and totally ripe for the marriage market and is now free to make her way in the world.
We are reintroduced to the original cast none of whom, NONE, remotely resemble their original incarnations. Elizabeth is a placating, sad little housewife with no backbone and little of the spirit that once set the literary world on fire. Darcy is a maniacal psychopathic politician who dreams of being prime minister and verbally and psychologically abuses everyone around him including his wife, son and heir, and his daughters who he has ignored since their births because he wants nothing to do with the inferior female sex. Jane and Bingley make appearances too, well Jane does, Bingley is busy in the West Indies with his mistress and their children. Yes you read that right.
The story, such as it is, supposedly hinges on Mary but derails quickly and insanely into the strangest subplot on earth.
It involves an underground religious cult and a huge number of feral children.
I wish I was kidding.
Seriously gang the final scene of the book involves the Bennett sisters potty training twenty feral boys and girls en masse who are crapping all over the Pemberly ballroom. I could not make this up if I tried.
I don't know what McCullough was even attempting here. None of Austen's wit, warmth, story telling ability, or style is in evidence. And while its obviously not necessary to re-write P&P when doing a sequel or continuation it would help to at least stick the story in the same world. I don't know if this is meant to be ironic, tongue in cheek or as some sort of attack on Austen all I know is it was absolutely awful and I wish I'd never read it.
I'm concerned that Colleen McCullough hasn't actually read "Pride and Prejudice" hell I'm wondering whether she's even seen any of the movies. Rarely have a I read a "sequel" to one of these classic romantic literary triumphs that got so much so wrong so quickly!
Without giving this awful book any more attention than I absolutely have to I will say that we begin an undetermined number of years after the original novel with the death of Mrs. Bennett and thus the birth of the independence of Mary Bennett who at 38 is somehow just now a "beauty" and totally ripe for the marriage market and is now free to make her way in the world.
We are reintroduced to the original cast none of whom, NONE, remotely resemble their original incarnations. Elizabeth is a placating, sad little housewife with no backbone and little of the spirit that once set the literary world on fire. Darcy is a maniacal psychopathic politician who dreams of being prime minister and verbally and psychologically abuses everyone around him including his wife, son and heir, and his daughters who he has ignored since their births because he wants nothing to do with the inferior female sex. Jane and Bingley make appearances too, well Jane does, Bingley is busy in the West Indies with his mistress and their children. Yes you read that right.
The story, such as it is, supposedly hinges on Mary but derails quickly and insanely into the strangest subplot on earth.
It involves an underground religious cult and a huge number of feral children.
I wish I was kidding.
Seriously gang the final scene of the book involves the Bennett sisters potty training twenty feral boys and girls en masse who are crapping all over the Pemberly ballroom. I could not make this up if I tried.
I don't know what McCullough was even attempting here. None of Austen's wit, warmth, story telling ability, or style is in evidence. And while its obviously not necessary to re-write P&P when doing a sequel or continuation it would help to at least stick the story in the same world. I don't know if this is meant to be ironic, tongue in cheek or as some sort of attack on Austen all I know is it was absolutely awful and I wish I'd never read it.
June 5, 2015
This novels picks up Mary Bennet's story several years after the end of [Pride and Prejudice]. A lot has changed since then, very little for the better. Romantic Kitty is glad her husband is dead and thinks only of her clothes; funny Lizzie has no life and no interests and doesn't understand her young children; Jane constantly weeps; Darcy bribes and outright physically forces the Bennet sisters from seeing their mother until she's dead, hates his children (especially his son who is kind and gentle so Darcy thinks he's gay, and further thinks this is the worst thing ever), and wishes he'd never married Lizzie; Colonel Fitzwilliam murdered Anne de Burgh?!, etc) seemingly so Mary can have a scene with each of them in which they think about how beautiful she's gotten, and she thinks with derision what a fool/asshole/pitiable wretch they are. The only character who seems to have improved over the years is Mary, who has become a purple-eyed beauty with strong feminist, anti-classist, anti-racist opinions. I found these developments to be so improbable that I gave up on the book midway through, which means I missed out on even more fantastic plots such as Darcy revealing himself to have a half-black bastard brother that he uses as his henchman to carry out diabolical schemes, Mary writing a book about the plight of the poor so touching that it changes all of England, and Mary getting kidnapped by cultists.
If this were a regency romance without links to Pride and Prejudice, I might have been able to enjoy it. But as a sequel to Pride and Prejudice it is so mean-spirited, so completely at odds with the original work in both tone and characterization, that it absolutely did not work for me.
If this were a regency romance without links to Pride and Prejudice, I might have been able to enjoy it. But as a sequel to Pride and Prejudice it is so mean-spirited, so completely at odds with the original work in both tone and characterization, that it absolutely did not work for me.
May 6, 2021
I understand why some people didn't like this book and maybe felt strongly enough to be offended by it. McCullough takes beloved characters Austen created and un-romanticizes them. In McCullough's hands, they become more real and believable. She treats the world Austen created a little like Dickens would have, had he written Pride and Prejudice.
I read Austen as a teenager, and her perfect view of English society was exactly what I needed and wanted at the time. As a middle-aged woman, McCullough's version of these characters is exactly what I crave. Yes, she could have written this same story without re-visiting Pride and Prejudice, but I don't feel it makes any difference. An excellent tale is an excellent tale, regardless of who it's about, or who is telling it.
If you've built Fitz Darcy up as the perfect image of man and husband material, you may not want to read this. He is a more realistic man here, but still lovable, and by the end of the book, he had recaptured Elizabeth's and my heart. The tale is as much about Elizabeth and Fitz as Mary, but everything that happens to them is in direct consequence of Mary's actions.
Austen made Mary unloveable, while McCullough shows us everyone is worth something and sometimes just takes a while to come into their own. It just happened to take Mary 18 years. A wait well worth it, in my opinion.
I read Austen as a teenager, and her perfect view of English society was exactly what I needed and wanted at the time. As a middle-aged woman, McCullough's version of these characters is exactly what I crave. Yes, she could have written this same story without re-visiting Pride and Prejudice, but I don't feel it makes any difference. An excellent tale is an excellent tale, regardless of who it's about, or who is telling it.
If you've built Fitz Darcy up as the perfect image of man and husband material, you may not want to read this. He is a more realistic man here, but still lovable, and by the end of the book, he had recaptured Elizabeth's and my heart. The tale is as much about Elizabeth and Fitz as Mary, but everything that happens to them is in direct consequence of Mary's actions.
Austen made Mary unloveable, while McCullough shows us everyone is worth something and sometimes just takes a while to come into their own. It just happened to take Mary 18 years. A wait well worth it, in my opinion.
January 27, 2022
Look, no offense to the one person who apparently liked this book, but mother of all that is good on this planet, how this book disappointed me! Where to begin? That Mary Bennet has become a woman of great sense, and yet thinks it's a good idea to traipse off on her own in England without any help? She's independent, and it's beyond awful that any woman ever needed accompaniment outside of her own door, but for the sake of safety, I think she'd be sensible enough to see the need to have somebody with her. Or should I start off with the barely concealed contempt that Darcy has for Elizabeth? With the fact that he more or less raped her on their wedding night? With the fact that this book talks about excrement? Literally? More than a few times?
Just, come the hell on. You know what's an interesting idea? Mary Bennet gaining some modicum of happiness in her life. You know what's not? Destroying the point of the original book -- Darcy and Elizabeth changed for the better for having known each other. I fail to be convinced by McCullogh's portrait of the two of them. Just, no, no, no.
Just, come the hell on. You know what's an interesting idea? Mary Bennet gaining some modicum of happiness in her life. You know what's not? Destroying the point of the original book -- Darcy and Elizabeth changed for the better for having known each other. I fail to be convinced by McCullogh's portrait of the two of them. Just, no, no, no.
December 14, 2008
This book is fun to read, but it certainly isn't Jane Austen. McCullough is definitely better at writing plot than at creating nuanced characters who grow and develop realistically. I would recommend this book for a day at the beach, or in my case a day off the beach while freezing rain whipped around my house and kept me inside!
January 9, 2016
I just cannot read this book. I am sure it is very good, but I just cannot handle what she has done to Elizabeth and Darcy. The whole point of Pride and Prejudice was that Elizabeth was prejudiced against Darcy and could not see the truly good man he was. Darcy, on the other hand, did not let on his true nature and the truth about Wickham due to his pride. In the Independence of Miss Mary Bennet, the Darcy character is proven to be exactly the person Elizabeth originally thought him to be - cold, proud, unfeeling, ambitious. Not my cup of tea. This Darcy cannot stand his son because he believes him weak and effeminate - he takes no time to appreciate the good man his son is becoming. Give me a break - the Darcy who craved his own father's approval is going to do everything in his power to alienate his own son? I don't think so. And, he ignores his four daughters. Right - after the love and care he gave to Georgiana as her surrogate father, he is then not going to care about his own daughters? No way. And Darcy says in the book that Elizabeth has become as spinsterish as her sister Mary. I just don't buy it. So, I am abandoning this book and seeking something with the characters I can recognize from P&P. This may be a fine book, but it is not a P&P sequel.
January 2, 2019
Não consegui acabar este livro, apesar das minhas insistentes tentativas, noite após noite. Tive a sensação de ler páginas e páginas de uma prosa superficial e desnecessária. Se saltasse várias páginas, continuaria sempre tudo na mesma. Lamento não ter conseguido ir mais além.
March 14, 2010
I have mixed feelings about this book. In fact, I stopped reading it numerous times and then had to will myself to go back to it. I debated on whether to give it 2 or 3 stars, but ended up choosing 3 because there were parts of it that I genuinely enjoyed.
From reading through the other reviews briefly, I gather that many people don't like the direction that McCullough chose for the characters, especially the direction of Lizzie and Darcy's marriage. I myself didn't mind, because basically anything can happen in twenty years--this novel is just one incarnation.
The plot of Mary's quest/abduction was trying for me. It wasn't fleshed out enough for my taste, and there were too many things that just fell into place.
I actually enjoyed the conversations between the characters the most--I particularly liked the relationship between Darcy and Ned. It allowed readers to see an intimate side of Darcy for once.
I have to say McCullough's characterization of Lydia also thoroughly amused me.
To me this book is an elaborate piece of "fanfiction" and if you go into with that mindset, I think you will find some things that will genuinely make you smile, and perhaps even laugh out loud. But, if that's not your style, then it will probably grate your nerves.
From reading through the other reviews briefly, I gather that many people don't like the direction that McCullough chose for the characters, especially the direction of Lizzie and Darcy's marriage. I myself didn't mind, because basically anything can happen in twenty years--this novel is just one incarnation.
The plot of Mary's quest/abduction was trying for me. It wasn't fleshed out enough for my taste, and there were too many things that just fell into place.
I actually enjoyed the conversations between the characters the most--I particularly liked the relationship between Darcy and Ned. It allowed readers to see an intimate side of Darcy for once.
I have to say McCullough's characterization of Lydia also thoroughly amused me.
To me this book is an elaborate piece of "fanfiction" and if you go into with that mindset, I think you will find some things that will genuinely make you smile, and perhaps even laugh out loud. But, if that's not your style, then it will probably grate your nerves.
October 21, 2014
After a rocky start with this book, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I was a bit apprehensive initially when McCullough seemed to totally shatter all my impressions of Austen's most loved characters. I realised though to do this was imperative to the story and that the author had a reason for portraying Mary, Darcy and Elizabeth the way she did. Very clever Ms McCullough!!! Mary Bennet's misadventures had me turning the pages to find out what the outcome would be. I'm glad I persevered as I was rewarded with a very satisfying read. Fans of Austen may balk a bit at first like I did but it is well worth reading on to see how the characters evolve. This had all the drama and romance of an Austen novel with quite a few interesting twists and turns that make it a totally stand alone read. Thanks to my friend Kathryn for bringing this to my attention.
July 3, 2010
This book was stupid in so many ways. Plus it was offensively sexual. Let me list some of the ways it was stupid: the marriage relationships, the parent-child interactions, the author's views on children in general, the "growth" of key characters, the plot. I wish I hadn't read it.
June 23, 2017
Ugh...Just finished chapter 1 and this already feels more like a horrible fanfiction than an actual continuation of the "Pride and Prejudice" story. The author has apparently taken one characteristic of each character and mockingly stretched it until that characteristic is the only thing that character has. The first chapter is spent catching the reader up on the lives of the characters post "Pride and Prejudice".
In this introduction, we learn that Mary wasn't just plain; she was in fact secretly ugly and just as boring as Mr Collins. Granted, her character was vague in the original "Pride and Prejudice", but I'm already getting a sort of Cinderella-ish, rags-to-paradise vibe from this story. As if Miss Mary is going to be lifted on a pedestal far higher than her sisters' simply because she was patient and dull. Because now, twenty years after the conclusion of "Pride and Prejudice", she's suddenly beautiful. Because that's totally what time and years of stressful babysitting for a dying parent does to a person.
And of course, since we have the plethora of characters to play with, well-known names and faces are thrown around, as if the author believes they have the ability to channel George R. R. Martin just because they have more than three characters in their story. Mr Darcy's cold demeanour has been amplified almost comically to the point that he's an asshole, plain and simple. When in the original "Pride and Prejudice" did he make any mention of wanting to participate in the working government of England? If someone can find any quote and cite it for me regarding Mr Darcy's political affiliations, please let me know, because I honestly can't remember it. But it's here, and it's Mr Darcy's primary character arc. So much so that apparently his passionate love for Lizzie (you know, the entire plot of "Pride and Prejudice") has fizzled after one "effiminate" male child and four females. We'll not discuss Mr Darcy's treatment of his scholarly-inclined son. "Lydia, wild and charming as ever," says the blurb. No. She's not charming. She's an alcoholic and a whore. Even Caroline Bingley doesn't escape the character butcher-block as her scheming continues to make everyone around her, including the reader, miserable.
Is it the time period or is the the author? The characters are shallow and self-interested, and I'm having a hard time rooting for or connecting to any of them. Even Mary, who is supposedly the heroine and protagonist of this story, comes off as being selfish and devoid of any trait beyond "maiden aunt".
I'm truly having difficulty justifying to myself why I should continue to read this book.
(at the end of chapter 2) The problem I'm having with this book is that it's a) not a "Pride and Prejudice" book and b) it's not written by an author who can handle perspective. Somewhere in the middle of chapter 2, Miss Mary decides that enough is enough, that her life is no longer for others to dictate! She will write a book! She will be a feminist! She will be the voice of an author who hasn't done her research! This bizarre turn of character has made me realize that in the original manuscript of this book, Mary Bennet was not Mary Bennet, but some forgotten original character in some mutated original fiction. This is not "Pride and Prejudice". The characters may share the same names and similar circumstances to those of the characters of "Pride and Prejudice", but they share nothing else. This book, I believe, was meant to be a work of original fiction that illustrates how authors of Regency-era books (and possibly Victorian era, as this book actually takes place in the Victorian era rather than Regency) romantisize the lives of lords and ladies without going into the gritty detail of daily life or the shadows of the caste system below that of the main characters. Somewhere down the road, though, a conservative agent suggested that the book be about "Pride and Prejudice" to trick more readers into purchasing this book. By slapping familiar names and faces in place of original characters, the book is guaranteed to at least cause readers to spend the money to buy the book. Once they've made their purchase, who cares about the quality of the read?
And the lack of quality certainly shows in the author's technique. As I mentioned before, the author can't handle the perspective of multiple characters. We'll bounce from character to character, from third-person observations to sudden first-person "I"s without warning. I've already mentioned the butchering of Jane Austen's memorable and remarkable characters and story, so I'll not repeat myself here. And for fear of turning this review into an essay, I'll not go into detail where the author's research is faulty regarding the political strides of Mr Darcy and the passions of Miss Mary's supposed book on reform. Instead, I will only say that a single visit to Wikipedia may have changed the entire proceedings of the book.
From what I've read so far, and from what I've read of reviews, I'm not going to like this book. I'm not going to finish it, and I'm not going to enjoy the process of reading it. One star, zero recommendations, and I will most likely not pick up any book with Colleen McCullough smeared across it.
In this introduction, we learn that Mary wasn't just plain; she was in fact secretly ugly and just as boring as Mr Collins. Granted, her character was vague in the original "Pride and Prejudice", but I'm already getting a sort of Cinderella-ish, rags-to-paradise vibe from this story. As if Miss Mary is going to be lifted on a pedestal far higher than her sisters' simply because she was patient and dull. Because now, twenty years after the conclusion of "Pride and Prejudice", she's suddenly beautiful. Because that's totally what time and years of stressful babysitting for a dying parent does to a person.
And of course, since we have the plethora of characters to play with, well-known names and faces are thrown around, as if the author believes they have the ability to channel George R. R. Martin just because they have more than three characters in their story. Mr Darcy's cold demeanour has been amplified almost comically to the point that he's an asshole, plain and simple. When in the original "Pride and Prejudice" did he make any mention of wanting to participate in the working government of England? If someone can find any quote and cite it for me regarding Mr Darcy's political affiliations, please let me know, because I honestly can't remember it. But it's here, and it's Mr Darcy's primary character arc. So much so that apparently his passionate love for Lizzie (you know, the entire plot of "Pride and Prejudice") has fizzled after one "effiminate" male child and four females. We'll not discuss Mr Darcy's treatment of his scholarly-inclined son. "Lydia, wild and charming as ever," says the blurb. No. She's not charming. She's an alcoholic and a whore. Even Caroline Bingley doesn't escape the character butcher-block as her scheming continues to make everyone around her, including the reader, miserable.
Is it the time period or is the the author? The characters are shallow and self-interested, and I'm having a hard time rooting for or connecting to any of them. Even Mary, who is supposedly the heroine and protagonist of this story, comes off as being selfish and devoid of any trait beyond "maiden aunt".
I'm truly having difficulty justifying to myself why I should continue to read this book.
(at the end of chapter 2) The problem I'm having with this book is that it's a) not a "Pride and Prejudice" book and b) it's not written by an author who can handle perspective. Somewhere in the middle of chapter 2, Miss Mary decides that enough is enough, that her life is no longer for others to dictate! She will write a book! She will be a feminist! She will be the voice of an author who hasn't done her research! This bizarre turn of character has made me realize that in the original manuscript of this book, Mary Bennet was not Mary Bennet, but some forgotten original character in some mutated original fiction. This is not "Pride and Prejudice". The characters may share the same names and similar circumstances to those of the characters of "Pride and Prejudice", but they share nothing else. This book, I believe, was meant to be a work of original fiction that illustrates how authors of Regency-era books (and possibly Victorian era, as this book actually takes place in the Victorian era rather than Regency) romantisize the lives of lords and ladies without going into the gritty detail of daily life or the shadows of the caste system below that of the main characters. Somewhere down the road, though, a conservative agent suggested that the book be about "Pride and Prejudice" to trick more readers into purchasing this book. By slapping familiar names and faces in place of original characters, the book is guaranteed to at least cause readers to spend the money to buy the book. Once they've made their purchase, who cares about the quality of the read?
And the lack of quality certainly shows in the author's technique. As I mentioned before, the author can't handle the perspective of multiple characters. We'll bounce from character to character, from third-person observations to sudden first-person "I"s without warning. I've already mentioned the butchering of Jane Austen's memorable and remarkable characters and story, so I'll not repeat myself here. And for fear of turning this review into an essay, I'll not go into detail where the author's research is faulty regarding the political strides of Mr Darcy and the passions of Miss Mary's supposed book on reform. Instead, I will only say that a single visit to Wikipedia may have changed the entire proceedings of the book.
From what I've read so far, and from what I've read of reviews, I'm not going to like this book. I'm not going to finish it, and I'm not going to enjoy the process of reading it. One star, zero recommendations, and I will most likely not pick up any book with Colleen McCullough smeared across it.
February 4, 2009
If you are a Jane Austen fan, you will probably be offended by the liberties that Ms. McCullough has taken on one of my favorite Austen characters.
To refresh some of you, Mary is the middle daughter and next younger sister to Elizabeth Bennet of the famous Pride and Prejudice Bennet family.
She is plain, pedantic, bookish, very religious, plays the piano and cannot sing, but she does anyway. Austen clearly did not care for this character but 20th century readers recognize her as a modern woman trapped in an age of under education of women.
McCullough took this character and literally changed how she looked. Mary, a spinster, has cared for her mother for 20 years and is 38 years old. Somewhere along the way she put sulfur on her skin to clear it up and had a tooth pulled. Also, we now see that her eyes have changed color to violet.
Violet eyes? Where did Miss Austen say that she has violet eyes or anything even remotely considered attractive?
Also, the marriages of the Bennet girls have not gone on well and should you want to read the book, I won't spoil it. It's sad and realistic to a modern audience.
It irked me that Ms. McCullough had to make Mary beautiful. I would have loved to see her stay plain and then see what would happen.
So, for Austen purists, you will be very disappointed.
However, for the all the crazy plots, for all the bad marriages and murder, it was a very enjoyable read.
I tore through the book in 2 days and liked it.
The author did her homework and so much of her writing reflects the dirtiness and weather and customs of another time. You did get a sense of the era and what was happening around them.
So, purists, you'll be very disappointed and will be upset because you wanted so much to love it. For everyone else, you should enjoy it.
Keep in mind, though, that this is not great literature, but a fun read.
To refresh some of you, Mary is the middle daughter and next younger sister to Elizabeth Bennet of the famous Pride and Prejudice Bennet family.
She is plain, pedantic, bookish, very religious, plays the piano and cannot sing, but she does anyway. Austen clearly did not care for this character but 20th century readers recognize her as a modern woman trapped in an age of under education of women.
McCullough took this character and literally changed how she looked. Mary, a spinster, has cared for her mother for 20 years and is 38 years old. Somewhere along the way she put sulfur on her skin to clear it up and had a tooth pulled. Also, we now see that her eyes have changed color to violet.
Violet eyes? Where did Miss Austen say that she has violet eyes or anything even remotely considered attractive?
Also, the marriages of the Bennet girls have not gone on well and should you want to read the book, I won't spoil it. It's sad and realistic to a modern audience.
It irked me that Ms. McCullough had to make Mary beautiful. I would have loved to see her stay plain and then see what would happen.
So, for Austen purists, you will be very disappointed.
However, for the all the crazy plots, for all the bad marriages and murder, it was a very enjoyable read.
I tore through the book in 2 days and liked it.
The author did her homework and so much of her writing reflects the dirtiness and weather and customs of another time. You did get a sense of the era and what was happening around them.
So, purists, you'll be very disappointed and will be upset because you wanted so much to love it. For everyone else, you should enjoy it.
Keep in mind, though, that this is not great literature, but a fun read.
May 26, 2014
I wasn't sure when I first started this book how much I was going to like it. Having first enjoyed Pride and Prejudice many years ago, this book picks up 20 years after where Jane Austen's ends, but without the realisation of the rose-tinted hopes hinted at by Jane Austen. Instead, this book holds nothing about Pride and Prejudice sacred - everything you think you know about the characters is fair game to be turned on its head by Colleen McCullough!
So this irreverence for the original text initially disconcerted me, but I got caught up in the story quite quickly. I thought it was well written - there were several instances where knowledge of some important information was assumed and which I wasn't aware of, but I think that's because I was listening to it and lost concentration, rather than any fault in the story.
I read The Thorn Birds earlier this year and wanted to read more Colleen McCullough. Despite the fact that both of these books are historical fiction, they are poles apart from each other within that genre - both good, but very different.
I'm giving this a solid 4 stars.
So this irreverence for the original text initially disconcerted me, but I got caught up in the story quite quickly. I thought it was well written - there were several instances where knowledge of some important information was assumed and which I wasn't aware of, but I think that's because I was listening to it and lost concentration, rather than any fault in the story.
I read The Thorn Birds earlier this year and wanted to read more Colleen McCullough. Despite the fact that both of these books are historical fiction, they are poles apart from each other within that genre - both good, but very different.
I'm giving this a solid 4 stars.
November 4, 2008
It wasn't poorly written, but I really disagreed with where she felt the characters would be twenty years down the line. That's a major basic point to disagree on and makes the rest of the book hard to enjoy. I felt sad for Lizzy, but I also felt sad for Fitz, and especially for their kids, and for Lydia and Jane and everyone, really. (But never Caroline. Or Ned, and his relationship with Fitz was really weird.) Also, the title is misleading because it's just as much about Lizzy as Mary, possibly more so.
But it is a very pretty cover.
Originally: Not so keen on the review that said they "felt so sad for Lizzy," but it does sound pretty interesting.
But it is a very pretty cover.
Originally: Not so keen on the review that said they "felt so sad for Lizzy," but it does sound pretty interesting.
July 19, 2021
1. Opinión personal
– Esto es lo peor que he leído en mis veinte años de vida.
Comencé a leer este libro con toda la emoción que me causa naturalmente el leer obras pertenecientes a Jane Austen o relacionadas a ella, comencé a leer este libro creyendo que finalmente alguien se había tomado el tiempo necesario para centrar, de una vez por todas, su atención en la hermana Bennet de la que tan poco se sabe y a la que menos importancia se le ha dado, comencé este libro creyendo que iba a sacarme sonrisas, lágrimas e incluso, hasta hacerme feliz, sin saber que el único sentimiento que terminaría efectuando en mí sería el profundo deseo de arrancarme ambos ojos de sus respectivas cuencas oculares para dárselos de comer a los cuervos y, posteriormente comermelos.
La pseudo historia (que es una falta de respeto tanto para cualquier ser vivo como para cualquier ser muerto) comienza con Mary dándose cuenta de que su madre, la emblemática Sra. Bennet, murió mientras esta se encontraba preparándole una tacita de té.
De aquella Mary taciturna, sabía, pasiva, sedienta de conocimiento y dedicada a la constante réflexion, nos queda absolutamente nada, puesto que la autora se encargó de destruir por completo no solo su personaje (al igual que lo hizo con el resto) sino también su tan característica personalidad, esa misma que tanto la diferenciaba de sus hermanas; nos encontramos con una mujer de treinta y ocho años prejuiciosa, enojada con el mundo y con todos aquellos que forman parte de él, resentida con la manera en que eligió vivir y con sus hermanas, cuyas vidas difieren clara y efectivamente de la suya.
Orgullo y Prejuicio fue el libro que me inició en la literatura como tal. No puedo encontrar las palabras necesarias y exactas para explicar lo que significa para mí, ver cómo una autora de procedencia dudosa, con una narrativa y una pluma pobre, tomó la historia que me salvó de maneras en las que desconocía que un libro podía salvar a un lector (también a todos y cada uno de los personajes que amo y que por supuesto contribuyeron enormemente, para que yo sea la persona que soy hoy en día, utilizándolos de manera precaria) para convertirlo en el pedazo más grande e insólito de basura, que he tenido que leer en muchísimo tiempo. Es como si me hubiera arrancado el corazón del pecho, lo hubiera tirado al suelo y no habiéndose encontrado satisfecha con haberle escupido, también se hubiera reido de él. Nunca nada me hizo tanto daño como esto, el como lo que destruyó todo.
Desde el ángulo en que se intente verlo, esto no es nada más que una falta de respeto monumental para Jane, tanto por la increíble carencia de coherencia y cohesión, así como la poca vergüenza que tuvo para convertir personajes que a su (muy particular) manera, hacían que la historia original encajara perfectamente como en un puzzle, como para tener la cara de convertirlos en muñequitos de arcilla, sosos, poco verídicos y muy alejados de quienes realmente eran.
¿Cuál es el principal problema con este libro? Simple, fue escrito.
– Elizabeth: todo aquello que seamos capaces de recordar sobre ella en Orgullo y Prejuicio, en esta línea temporal, en esta obra, en esta historia: nunca existió, no existe y jamás existirá. Se nos presenta a una mujer sumisa, resignada con ser la esposa de un noble importante, una madre plenamente dedicada a la crianza de sus hijos cuyo matrimonio dejó de funcionar hace muchos más años de los que pueden contarse con los dedos de las manos, una mujer que le teme a su marido, que se atiene a la palabra de este y carece tanto de opinión, como accionar y pensamiento propio; en otras palabras, no es mí Elizabeth. Una jóven segura de si misma, con sueños, con ambiciones, con una personalidad taciturna, llameante y al mismo tiempo intrigante, terminó por convertirse en nada más y nada menos que en todo aquello que representaba su madre: su peor enemigo.
"Fitz había cortado todos los lazos que unían a las hermanas, y les había sido imposible verse a menos que él lo aprobara. A Darcy no le había resultado difícil establecer aquella separación; todas ellas dependían de él en uno u otro sentido."
"Elizabeth sabía que aquello había representado para él un gran disgusto. Aquel precioso niño había sido su primogénito, pero tras él no vinieron más que niñas. Fitz lo llamaba «la maldición Bennet». Georgie, Susie, Anne y Cathy habían llegado a intervalos de dos años, y habían sido una fuente de indiferencia para su padre, que jamás las fue a ver ni estuvo nunca interesado en ellas."
"«Seguro que tienes razón», había dicho Fitz, con un tono áspero. «Nuestro hijo es un flojo afeminado, sólo válido para la universidad o para la Iglesia, y preferiría mil veces tener a un catedrático que a un Darcy obispo, así que no quiero saber nada más de este asunto. Mándalo a Oxford, ¡haz lo que te plazca!»."
– Darcy: hablar sobre lo que hicieron con su personaje es una de las cosas que más angustia me genera. Aquel hombre taciturno, intelectual, que amó profundamente desde el primer momento a Lizzie por quién era (divertida, segura, inteligente, mordaz) y no por quién podría llegar a ser en un futuro, se nos presenta ahora como un infeliz padre de familia, dedicado a una carrera política (quién lo viera y quién lo ve, siendo que eso jamás, a alguien con sentido común, se le hubiera ocurrido escribir), enteramente decepcionado por la vida que le ha tocado llevar, por lo que ha resultado ser la mujer que alguna vez deseó y tanto quiso (ya que, si no lo saben aún, en esta línea temporal, Lizzie terminó siendo una gran decepción en todos los aspectos habidos y por haber), decepcionado de tener cuatro hermosas hijas y un único heredero, cuya naturaleza es descrita como débil y ¿"afeminada?", un muchacho que no logró cumplir sus expectativas como hijo primogénito de la familia de un miembro importante del parlamente, como un hombre que hace tiempo no visita el lecho nupcial y tampoco toca a su esposa, que CREE que no valió en lo absoluto todas y cada una de las cosas que sucedieron entre él y Elizabeth para que ambos pudieran estar juntos de una vez por todas. Es decir, en otras palabras, un sano varón que en nada se parece a Fitzwilliam. Y no mencionemos como este le PROHIBIÓ a Elizabeth reunirse con y ver a sus hermanas cada vez que esta lo quisiera, a menos que contara con su consentimiento (cuando uno de los muchos motivos por los cuales se enamoró de ella fue, claramente, su gran independencia) como si Elizabeth, en su sano juicio, permitiese que un hombre le dijera que podía y que no, hacer.
"A Elizabeth se le cayó el alma a los pies cuando vio el rostro de su hermana pequeña, tan arrugado, tan amarillento, tan abotargado. Había engordado hasta perder toda su figura, como un saco de carne encorsetado en una apariencia de feminidad; las arrugas apergaminadas en la parte de arriba de sus pechos revelaban que, cuando se quitara el corsé, se derrumbarían como almohadas medio llenas colgadas en un tendedero."
"¡Oh, Lydia! Aquel que fuera antaño un maravilloso pelo rubio no había visto el agua y el jabón durante meses, y sus rizos aparecían ahora verdosos y grasientos, y aquellos grandes ojos azules, que tanto se parecían a los de su madre, estaban ahora ennegrecidos por alguna sustancia que al parecer tendría que oscurecerle las pestañas."
– Lydia: no es novedad alguna que su personaje no me gusta en lo absoluto y que me daría absolutamente igual tanto que existiera cómo si no fuese así, pero incluso a la persona más tediosa y poco agradable de todas, la convirtieron y peor aún, la radujeron, a una mujer que muy poco se asemeja a la niña de dieciséis años que conocimos en Orgullo y Prejuicio, chispeante, llena de vida y ambiciosa. Ahora Lydia vive una vida sumamente vulgar, encontrándose Wickham en Estados Unidos por obligaciones respecto al regimiento, esta se entrega a los más bajos placeres carnales con amantes menores que ella y bebiendo como quién vive la buena vida, de manera despreocupada, siendo mantenida por su propio cuñado, puesto que su marido continúa siendo un completo e irrevocable inútil y pasando el tiempo. La describen como una mujer venida abajo a pesar de su corta edad, regordeta debido a su afán por la comida y la bebida, descuidada en cuanto a lo que imágen respecta y sin sentido alguno del decoro. En otras palabras, una cualquiera que en nada se parece s ella realmente.
"—¡Mi querida Jane! —Elizabeth fue a abrazarla.
Jane se arrojó a aquellos acogedores brazos, y volvió a llorar. Decía algo ininteligible; Elizabeth sabía que pasarían días antes de que sus tiernos sentimientos se calmaran lo suficiente como para permitirle un discurso lúcido."
– Jane: lo poco que leí sobre ella me hizo saber que, al menos en lo que respecta a su personaje, algo se mantuvo fue y fue el tierno origen y naturalidad de sus sentimientos. Así como Jane permanece siendo Jane, también lo continúa haciendo si estrecha, especial y única relación con Lizzie. Eso es, entre todo esto, mí único alivio.
Lo único que voy a agregar al respecto es que si tiene una estrella es meramente porqué quiero que mí reseña aparezca, pero más allá de eso, no merece puntuación alguna, así como tampoco merecía que le dedicará mi tiempo y mucho menos una reseña. Es una clara y total falta de respeto para la literatura en términos generales.
– Esto es lo peor que he leído en mis veinte años de vida.
Comencé a leer este libro con toda la emoción que me causa naturalmente el leer obras pertenecientes a Jane Austen o relacionadas a ella, comencé a leer este libro creyendo que finalmente alguien se había tomado el tiempo necesario para centrar, de una vez por todas, su atención en la hermana Bennet de la que tan poco se sabe y a la que menos importancia se le ha dado, comencé este libro creyendo que iba a sacarme sonrisas, lágrimas e incluso, hasta hacerme feliz, sin saber que el único sentimiento que terminaría efectuando en mí sería el profundo deseo de arrancarme ambos ojos de sus respectivas cuencas oculares para dárselos de comer a los cuervos y, posteriormente comermelos.
La pseudo historia (que es una falta de respeto tanto para cualquier ser vivo como para cualquier ser muerto) comienza con Mary dándose cuenta de que su madre, la emblemática Sra. Bennet, murió mientras esta se encontraba preparándole una tacita de té.
De aquella Mary taciturna, sabía, pasiva, sedienta de conocimiento y dedicada a la constante réflexion, nos queda absolutamente nada, puesto que la autora se encargó de destruir por completo no solo su personaje (al igual que lo hizo con el resto) sino también su tan característica personalidad, esa misma que tanto la diferenciaba de sus hermanas; nos encontramos con una mujer de treinta y ocho años prejuiciosa, enojada con el mundo y con todos aquellos que forman parte de él, resentida con la manera en que eligió vivir y con sus hermanas, cuyas vidas difieren clara y efectivamente de la suya.
Orgullo y Prejuicio fue el libro que me inició en la literatura como tal. No puedo encontrar las palabras necesarias y exactas para explicar lo que significa para mí, ver cómo una autora de procedencia dudosa, con una narrativa y una pluma pobre, tomó la historia que me salvó de maneras en las que desconocía que un libro podía salvar a un lector (también a todos y cada uno de los personajes que amo y que por supuesto contribuyeron enormemente, para que yo sea la persona que soy hoy en día, utilizándolos de manera precaria) para convertirlo en el pedazo más grande e insólito de basura, que he tenido que leer en muchísimo tiempo. Es como si me hubiera arrancado el corazón del pecho, lo hubiera tirado al suelo y no habiéndose encontrado satisfecha con haberle escupido, también se hubiera reido de él. Nunca nada me hizo tanto daño como esto, el como lo que destruyó todo.
Desde el ángulo en que se intente verlo, esto no es nada más que una falta de respeto monumental para Jane, tanto por la increíble carencia de coherencia y cohesión, así como la poca vergüenza que tuvo para convertir personajes que a su (muy particular) manera, hacían que la historia original encajara perfectamente como en un puzzle, como para tener la cara de convertirlos en muñequitos de arcilla, sosos, poco verídicos y muy alejados de quienes realmente eran.
¿Cuál es el principal problema con este libro? Simple, fue escrito.
– Elizabeth: todo aquello que seamos capaces de recordar sobre ella en Orgullo y Prejuicio, en esta línea temporal, en esta obra, en esta historia: nunca existió, no existe y jamás existirá. Se nos presenta a una mujer sumisa, resignada con ser la esposa de un noble importante, una madre plenamente dedicada a la crianza de sus hijos cuyo matrimonio dejó de funcionar hace muchos más años de los que pueden contarse con los dedos de las manos, una mujer que le teme a su marido, que se atiene a la palabra de este y carece tanto de opinión, como accionar y pensamiento propio; en otras palabras, no es mí Elizabeth. Una jóven segura de si misma, con sueños, con ambiciones, con una personalidad taciturna, llameante y al mismo tiempo intrigante, terminó por convertirse en nada más y nada menos que en todo aquello que representaba su madre: su peor enemigo.
"Fitz había cortado todos los lazos que unían a las hermanas, y les había sido imposible verse a menos que él lo aprobara. A Darcy no le había resultado difícil establecer aquella separación; todas ellas dependían de él en uno u otro sentido."
"Elizabeth sabía que aquello había representado para él un gran disgusto. Aquel precioso niño había sido su primogénito, pero tras él no vinieron más que niñas. Fitz lo llamaba «la maldición Bennet». Georgie, Susie, Anne y Cathy habían llegado a intervalos de dos años, y habían sido una fuente de indiferencia para su padre, que jamás las fue a ver ni estuvo nunca interesado en ellas."
"«Seguro que tienes razón», había dicho Fitz, con un tono áspero. «Nuestro hijo es un flojo afeminado, sólo válido para la universidad o para la Iglesia, y preferiría mil veces tener a un catedrático que a un Darcy obispo, así que no quiero saber nada más de este asunto. Mándalo a Oxford, ¡haz lo que te plazca!»."
– Darcy: hablar sobre lo que hicieron con su personaje es una de las cosas que más angustia me genera. Aquel hombre taciturno, intelectual, que amó profundamente desde el primer momento a Lizzie por quién era (divertida, segura, inteligente, mordaz) y no por quién podría llegar a ser en un futuro, se nos presenta ahora como un infeliz padre de familia, dedicado a una carrera política (quién lo viera y quién lo ve, siendo que eso jamás, a alguien con sentido común, se le hubiera ocurrido escribir), enteramente decepcionado por la vida que le ha tocado llevar, por lo que ha resultado ser la mujer que alguna vez deseó y tanto quiso (ya que, si no lo saben aún, en esta línea temporal, Lizzie terminó siendo una gran decepción en todos los aspectos habidos y por haber), decepcionado de tener cuatro hermosas hijas y un único heredero, cuya naturaleza es descrita como débil y ¿"afeminada?", un muchacho que no logró cumplir sus expectativas como hijo primogénito de la familia de un miembro importante del parlamente, como un hombre que hace tiempo no visita el lecho nupcial y tampoco toca a su esposa, que CREE que no valió en lo absoluto todas y cada una de las cosas que sucedieron entre él y Elizabeth para que ambos pudieran estar juntos de una vez por todas. Es decir, en otras palabras, un sano varón que en nada se parece a Fitzwilliam. Y no mencionemos como este le PROHIBIÓ a Elizabeth reunirse con y ver a sus hermanas cada vez que esta lo quisiera, a menos que contara con su consentimiento (cuando uno de los muchos motivos por los cuales se enamoró de ella fue, claramente, su gran independencia) como si Elizabeth, en su sano juicio, permitiese que un hombre le dijera que podía y que no, hacer.
"A Elizabeth se le cayó el alma a los pies cuando vio el rostro de su hermana pequeña, tan arrugado, tan amarillento, tan abotargado. Había engordado hasta perder toda su figura, como un saco de carne encorsetado en una apariencia de feminidad; las arrugas apergaminadas en la parte de arriba de sus pechos revelaban que, cuando se quitara el corsé, se derrumbarían como almohadas medio llenas colgadas en un tendedero."
"¡Oh, Lydia! Aquel que fuera antaño un maravilloso pelo rubio no había visto el agua y el jabón durante meses, y sus rizos aparecían ahora verdosos y grasientos, y aquellos grandes ojos azules, que tanto se parecían a los de su madre, estaban ahora ennegrecidos por alguna sustancia que al parecer tendría que oscurecerle las pestañas."
– Lydia: no es novedad alguna que su personaje no me gusta en lo absoluto y que me daría absolutamente igual tanto que existiera cómo si no fuese así, pero incluso a la persona más tediosa y poco agradable de todas, la convirtieron y peor aún, la radujeron, a una mujer que muy poco se asemeja a la niña de dieciséis años que conocimos en Orgullo y Prejuicio, chispeante, llena de vida y ambiciosa. Ahora Lydia vive una vida sumamente vulgar, encontrándose Wickham en Estados Unidos por obligaciones respecto al regimiento, esta se entrega a los más bajos placeres carnales con amantes menores que ella y bebiendo como quién vive la buena vida, de manera despreocupada, siendo mantenida por su propio cuñado, puesto que su marido continúa siendo un completo e irrevocable inútil y pasando el tiempo. La describen como una mujer venida abajo a pesar de su corta edad, regordeta debido a su afán por la comida y la bebida, descuidada en cuanto a lo que imágen respecta y sin sentido alguno del decoro. En otras palabras, una cualquiera que en nada se parece s ella realmente.
"—¡Mi querida Jane! —Elizabeth fue a abrazarla.
Jane se arrojó a aquellos acogedores brazos, y volvió a llorar. Decía algo ininteligible; Elizabeth sabía que pasarían días antes de que sus tiernos sentimientos se calmaran lo suficiente como para permitirle un discurso lúcido."
– Jane: lo poco que leí sobre ella me hizo saber que, al menos en lo que respecta a su personaje, algo se mantuvo fue y fue el tierno origen y naturalidad de sus sentimientos. Así como Jane permanece siendo Jane, también lo continúa haciendo si estrecha, especial y única relación con Lizzie. Eso es, entre todo esto, mí único alivio.
Lo único que voy a agregar al respecto es que si tiene una estrella es meramente porqué quiero que mí reseña aparezca, pero más allá de eso, no merece puntuación alguna, así como tampoco merecía que le dedicará mi tiempo y mucho menos una reseña. Es una clara y total falta de respeto para la literatura en términos generales.
January 7, 2026
Przy okazji "Afery z Austen" przypomniało mi się, że parę lat temu czytałam ten absurd. I co się okazało? Że nie da się do końca wyprzeć ze świadomości sceny, w której Mary Bennet zachwala dobrodziejstwa obrzezania.
March 16, 2009
How to rip off Jane Austen and Georgette Heyer at the same time, with a bit of gothic horror and Trollope thrown in! I did always feel sorry for Mary, the foolishly wise sister in Pride and Prejudice. McCullough imagines a transformation of body and soul for her, which is the attractive part of the book, but making Darcy (and his father) into villians, and then transforming Darcy back in an instant, really does not work.
June 8, 2015
How on earth could anyone, thinking "I'll write the story of Mary Bennet after the events of Pride and Prejudice," come up with this?
January 30, 2020
O meu primeiro contacto com esta autora e sem dúvida que me cativou. Simplista mas acertiva nas descrições dos comportamentos da época, principalmente no que diz respeito as mulheres e ao seu estatuto entre os homens e na sociedade. Sem rodeios de vocabulário, nem exagero nos termos que usa para exprimir as mais básicas necessidades. Para além disso, considero que ter pegado no clássico de Jane Austen, Orgulho e Preconceito, e lhe ter dado uma continuação foi excelente para quem gostaria de saber o que veio depois. Um livro excelente em todos os aspetos.
September 8, 2022
È l’incubo di tutti gli estimatori di Jane Austen, il rovescio della medaglia, il tragico risveglio da un fantastico sogno, insomma è tutto ciò che non avremmo mai neanche voluto immaginare, un risposta alla domanda che non ci saremmo mai poste: “e poi?”
Dalle prime pagine di questo romanzo si scopre che il sogno fiabesco è in realtà un incubo di vita quotidiana.
Colleen McCullough… e farti un bel po' di fatti tuoi lasciando in pace "Orgoglio e Pregiudizio"?
Mi dispiace per la povera Mary, sempre destinata a passare in secondo piano, se lo scopo di questo libro era concederle il privilegio di avere l'attenzione del lettore, dopo tutto quello che l'autrice ha scritto sugli altri personaggi, ci si è di nuovo dimenticati di lei.
Dalle prime pagine di questo romanzo si scopre che il sogno fiabesco è in realtà un incubo di vita quotidiana.
Colleen McCullough… e farti un bel po' di fatti tuoi lasciando in pace "Orgoglio e Pregiudizio"?
Mi dispiace per la povera Mary, sempre destinata a passare in secondo piano, se lo scopo di questo libro era concederle il privilegio di avere l'attenzione del lettore, dopo tutto quello che l'autrice ha scritto sugli altri personaggi, ci si è di nuovo dimenticati di lei.
February 26, 2018
I'm shocked that so many people rate this book so poorly. I guess it's because they have certain expectations from the Pride and Prejudice characters. But this is 20 years later and people and relationships can change over that much time! I thought the writing was perfectly in tune with Jane Austen and was very enjoyable to read. Yes, the plot line was a bit shocking at times, but it made the story exciting and something you did not want to put down. In the end it is all beautifully resolved as in an Austen novel. I applaud McCullough's bravery in writing this story. I give it a 5 and highly recommend it!
September 15, 2016
The author seems to have missed the events that occurred in p&p that change Darcys' character so dramatically and describes him as if he still proud and pompous. Lizzy is misjudged and for some reason Darcy finds her teasing unbearable. On the other hand I like that we get to see a different side of Mary.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 712 reviews