The Family Fortune

by Laurie Horowitz

Jane Austen in a modern retelling of  Persuasion in which the sensible daughter of a flighty Brahmin family finds love against all odds Jane Fortune's fortunes have taken a downturn. Thanks to the profligate habits of her father and older sister, the family's money has evaporated and Jane has to move out of the only home she's ever a stately brick town house on Boston's prestigious Beacon Hill. Thirty-eight and terminally single, Jane has never pursued idle pleasures like her sibling and father. Instead, she has devoted her time to running the Fortune Family Foundation, a revered philanthropic institution that has helped spark the careers of many a budding writer, including Max Wellman, Jane's first—and only—love. Now Jane has lost her luster. Max, meanwhile, has become a bestselling novelist and a renowned literary lothario. But change is afoot. And in the process of saving her family and reigniting the flames of true love, Jane might just find herself becoming the woman she was always meant to be.

Genres: Chick Lit, Fiction, Romance, Retellings, Book Club, Contemporary, Adult Fiction

295 pages, Paperback

First published May 2, 2006

Reviews

[Michelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oh Jane Fortune! How do I love thee!!

Just so you know I did go into this retelling of Persuasion , my all time favorite Jane Austen novel, with a hefty does of wariness. I mean, nothing could come close to imitating the original on this one, right?

Truth be told, Laurie Horowitz did a fabulous job of updating my beloved Persuasion for the modern world in The Family Fortune . The Fortunes are decidedly Boston Old Money with connections and oodles of spare time to devote to their favorite pastime: themselves. Of course when financial disaster strikes, the family must retrench* and a whole new world is opened up for Jane. Morphing Anne Elliot into Jane Fortune, an almost-forty year old trustafarian who spends her days editing the Euphemia Review, was pure genius in my book. And once again my heart broke over and over for Jane as I watched the world pass her by. Truly I don't know how such a passive character could ever win me over, but she does. Perhaps it's her eventual determination to take control of her life little by little in order to carve out her own bit of happiness away from her rotten family.

My only complaint with The Family Fortune happens to be a somewhat large sticking point: Max Wellman (the reinvention of Cpt. Wentworth). Throughout most of the book, I ached with Jane as she silently pined for her lost love and then as she was 'reunited' with him only to watch him date other women. To say I was building up their eventual reunion would be a complete understatement -- I was expecting true fireworks people. Sadly, there was no grand moment of love rekindled. Not even an impassioned letter from Max! **cue extreme sobbing** Just simple, no nonsense decisions. Which does go along with Jane's character but I was just hoping for something a teeny bit more swoon-worthy. But honestly? I still love this book for Jane's transformation alone, even if her happily ever after wasn't as blissful as Anne Elliot's. I'm thinking any true lover of Persuasion will think so too.

*I always thought the 'reduced circumstances' bit in Persuasion was hilarious because yes, the Elliots have to retrench, but they still are gentry and have means -- albeit reduced. I mean, they are spending the winter in BATH (a resort town) for goodness sakes! Anyways, Horowitz does a nice job of calling Ms. Austen on this in The Family Fortune. 

"From what I hear, he is really crazy about you, Jane."
"That's ridiculous. Does he know about our 'reduced circumstances'?" I asked.
"Honey, the Fortunes in reduced circumstances live better than ninety-nine percent of the population -- but that's not it. He has money. He's not interested in your money."

HA! My thoughts exactly.

[Steph | bookedinsaigon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Laurie Horowitz’s brilliant debut novel began as an exercise, as Horowitz, a Jane Austen enthusiast, thought she needed more practice writing the dialogue of mean people. The result is a witty social commentary on the old rich, interwoven with a love story that will make readers sigh.

Technically, THE FAMILY FORTUNE is a retelling of Jane Austen’s PERSUASION. However, it’s interesting to see how Horowitz places the story in modern times. Practical Jane Fortune is 38 years old and perpetually single. She lives in the Fortunes’ old family home with her father, Teddy, and older sister Miranda, neither of whom know the meaning of the word “budget.” Jane spends most of her time either reading books or working for her family’s philanthropic organization, which publishes the literary magazine the Euphemia Review and, every year, grants a promising new writer a place to stay to write his or her novel.

When their family is forced to move due to their financial crisis, Jane stays with her sister Winnie’s family for a while. Unfortunately—or luckily, whatever you call it—this means she crosses paths again with Max Wellman, the first recipient of the Fortune Foundation’s literary grant. Max was her first love, but their relationship was stopped by Jane’s disapproving family, who didn’t want her to be with a struggling artiste. Fifteen years later, Max is successful writer with a womanizing reputation, and Jane is still the same as ever. Go figure.

Circumstances seem to make it impossible for Max to fall in love with the still-besotted Jane again. Meanwhile, Jane struggles to make an identity for herself, separate from the one her ridiculous family gives her. Maybe it’s only after she learns to love herself that Jane can be open to making her own decisions about her life, and her love.

THE FAMILY FORTUNE is a wonderfully told story of the absurdities of high society and the growth of a sensible woman. The romance part of the story left me a bit disappointed, but I appreciated this remarkably successful Austenian-type novel.

[Erna · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book extremely satisfying to read. Unlike a lot of reviewers who didn't seem to like it all that much, I found it very interesting and enjoyable. It generally stuck to the "Persuasion" plot (Jane Austen's wonderful "mature" novel, finished late in her life) with some adjustments that I thought were entertaining, such as Guy, the guy who wants something from her like her cousin did in the original book, or Priscilla who was actually a lot more malicious than Lady Russell ever was. The author provided an explanation of some of the nuances she adapted for modern times, which was another bonus to read.

Finally, the setting in Boston with Jane being a graduate of Wellesley College made it even more entertaining for me, since that is my alma mater. What fun! I recommend this book for a fun read if you like Persuasion and modern Jane Austen retellings.

[Megan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A modern day version of Persuasion taking place in Boston and Cape Cod. I can't praise this book enough. I loved the modern adaptation to Austen. A good read!

[Sharon Huether · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jane Fortune is running the family's foundation,after a noticeable turn down in the economy. Jane is a workaholic, and has little time for romance, especially with Guy.
Max an author finally made his intentions known to Jane. Now it's Max and Jane all the way.

[Angie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have never read Jane Austin's persuasion, but I loved this book. I found it witty and humerus and couldn't put it down.

[Della Tingle · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved this book! It’s a modern day Persuasion, set in Boston, and very nicely done!!!!!! The only things that bothered me were 1) Max is a slut! Captain Frederick Wentworth was NOT! Jane was ALWAYS the only one for him! 2) I never felt a loving relationship between Jane Fortune and Priscilla like there is between Anne Elliot and Lady Russell. 😢

However, while there are HUNDREDS of Austen retellings, prequels, and sequels, this is a great Jane Austen spin-off on something other than P&P! 🤪

“It’s pleasant to receive a compliment no matter how lame or ridiculous” (73).

“There is great comfort in being sure of something” (270).

[Holly · Rating 3 out of 5]

You’ll often find Jane Fortune – a member of one of Boston’s most prestigious long-standing moneyed families at home on a Saturday night, curled up with a book. Although her vain father Teddy and pretentious sister Miranda are happiest attending parties and being seen among society’s elite, Jane is perfectly content to stay out of the limelight. She’s of the literary variety and works hard to run the family’s foundation and publish the Euphemia Review, which has launched the career of several authors.

After reading only a few entries of this year’s granting round, Jane’s found “the one”, the winner who seems more promising than most. But writer Jack Reilly is nowhere to be found. While this apparently homeless writer is a surprise, Jane is unsurprised when the family lawyer delivers the news that their fortune is dwindling, forcing the Fortunes to vacate and rent out their historic home. Compounding Jane’s situation further is the news that Max Wellman, the first recipient of the foundation and Jane’s first love is back in Boston. Now a successful bestselling novelist and ladies man, Jane is sure she will wilt in Max’s presence. But perhaps he’s all she needed to see her self-worth as a single, thirty-something woman and regain her luster for life.

Reading this Austen retelling of Persuasion was an experiment for me. I’ve read books inspired by Austen but not anything approaching a sequel, prequel, or retelling. Call me a coward but each of Austen’s novels are on a pedestal of which I thought nothing, continuation or retelling, could measure up. Jane Eyre also belongs on that shelf and my recent read of Jane, April Linder’s brilliant retelling gave me hope that there are some out there which stand up to their origins as both a successful retelling and an entirely new story.

Fortunately (no pun intended) The Family Fortune is successful on some fronts. It is a commentary on manners and there is wit in many of the dialogues. For the most part the secondary characters translate well. Teddy and Miranda are just as superficial and conceited as you could hope for. Jane’s hypochondriac sister Winnie and her husband Charles are spot on. I loved their scenes with Jane which reminded me, just for a moment, of reading Persuasion for the first time. I also liked Jane, the perfect modern interpretation of quiet, helpful, and practical Anne. Her literary bent was fitting and I loved viewing her as both a reader and a promoter of struggling writers. I missed the degree of introspection and description present in Persuasion but still connected with her. Priscilla (Lady Russell) and Guy (Mr. Elliot) were the least generously characterized and are a lot more worldly in the modern sense but I still didn’t mind their very amoral standards.

Unfortunately when it came to Max (Captain Wentworth) I didn’t feel that way. The first half I read with anticipation for his and Jane’s upcoming encounters and the last half with slight let-down when I read the actual exchanges themselves. Maybe Max was underdeveloped but either way I never really understood Jane’s undying love for him. It may have had something to do with his womanizing reputation, but I know it also had something to do with the lack of subtlety in their short, spaced interactions. Instead of having any grand, epic moment of declaration or realization their feelings for one another were expressed little by little – more gradually and earlier than I expected. As a result their romance felt anti-climatic and the book overall felt like it was missing some spark. Perhaps it’s because Persuasion is not only my favorite Austen novel, but if hard-pressed the answer to the all-time favorite book question as well so I’m a hard fan to please. Although there was an urgency to see how it all ended up compared to the original I ultimately wished that I had just read Persuasion instead. The Family Fortune may have not worked for me but I’d still recommend it to fans of Austen retellings and fans of the original as I appear to be one of the few truly disappointed readers out there.

[Chachic · Rating 3 out of 5]

Originally posted here.

I can't remember where I first heard about The Family Fortune by Laurie Horowitz but I do know that I became interested because it's a retelling of Jane Austen's Persuasion. I was glad to find a bargain copy in a Book Sale branch and when I went to the beach for a vacation, I decided to bring this with me because it seemed like the perfect light read. Also, look at that cover, doesn't that make you want to read this book in a beach setting?

The last time I read Persuasion was in college so the details are a bit fuzzy. So because I can't remember much of the original, I'm going to review The Family Fortune on its own and won't be able to compare it to the classic. It was easy to relate to thirty-eight year old Jane Fortune, who is the quiet one in her family. The Fortunes are members of the Boston elite and while her father and sister make the most out of their social circles, Jane is content to curl up at home with a good book. She also manages a literary paper called the Euphemia Review, which is funded by the family's foundation. Here's a nice quote from the book that I'm sure all book lovers will appreciate:

"Usually when I enter a bookstore, I feel immediately calm. Bookstores are, for me, what churches are for other people. My breath gets slower and deeper as I peruse the shelves. I believe that books contain messages I am meant to receive. I'm not normally superstitious, but I've even had books fall from shelves and land at my feet. Books are my missives from the universe."

While I did enjoy reading The Family Fortune, there were several things that kept me from loving it. I liked the flashback scenes where Jane shares how she and Max fell in love with each other years ago but I didn't think there was enough reason for them to break up. Also, I could understand that Jane never really got over Max but it seemed like there wasn't enough of the present Max to fall in love with in the story. Jane and Max didn't have enough scenes together for them to reconnect and realize that there's still something between them. I can't even remember most of their conversations. The other secondary characters, like Jane's colleagues in the Euphemia Review felt more fully fleshed out than Max. The romance wasn't swoon-worthy and that's an important aspect of the novel. I enjoyed the first half of the book more than the second half because it had such a promising start. It's still a good read if you're in the mood for something light or if you're a fan of Austen retellings. Let me know in the comments if there are other Austen retellings that I should check out.

[Lynn Spencer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oh, fun! Not perfect, but very fun.

This retelling of Jane Austen's Persuasion made me smile. As retellings go, I'd say it's a fairly loose one, but we get the general pattern of "heroine influenced by family to walk away from True Love but years later, she gets a second chance." I absolutely love both the romance and the character portraits we get in Austen's original, and I do like what happens here, too.

Set in an old money family in 21st century Boston, The Family Fortune follows Jane Fortune. Years before, she had fallen in love with aspiring author Max Wellman, but let herself be persuaded by her late mother's best friend to end the relationship. Now 38, she has spent her life running the family foundation. While she derives satisfaction from launching the careers of writers through the foundation's Euphemia Review, her personal life has been spent in the stifling bubble of her family circle.

And what a circle it is. Horowitz's descriptions of Jane's self-absorbed father and sisters, the mother's best friend, the clueless family advisor and others made me chuckle because they felt so spot on.

So, what happens in this book? Well, Jane and her family learn that their fortune has become quite diminished and so they must take action to stay afloat. This part of the book doesn't always flow well, but it does set the stage rather nicely for the return of Max Wellman. I would have enjoyed a little more repartee between Jane and Max, but the scenes they have together are nice. Overall, not a perfect book, but it is a fun read.

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am finding it hard to return this book to the library even though it is several days past due! This is the second retelling of Jane Austen's Persuasion that I have read recently, and I thoroughly enjoyed Laurie Horowitz's witty dialogue and precise, beautiful prose. Jane Fortune is a 38-year old woman whose two most appealing qualities are that she is practical and capable. Since I consider myself to be both practical and capable, I can't help but empathize with Jane and her plight. She is taken for granted in her wealthy family, and when they are forced to rent their ancestral home, Jane is forced to find her own way in the world for the first time. When she becomes reacquainted with her first love, Max Wellman, she begins to take stock of her life in the 15 years they have been apart. As she learns to live on her own and to love herself, she opens herself to possibilities she previously thought impossible. I don't want to say too much, but if you love the original Persuasion, you will love this retelling (even if you know what is coming!). What I love most about Persuasion and The Family Fortune is that both versions are a testament to the constancy of true love and to the transformative power of second chances.

[Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a slower read than I usually prefer -- not wanting to think much or have to invest more than surface emotions for the characters -- but what a great find.

It was chosen on a wet, rainy day at the library and is Austen-esque in as inoffensive as I've ever seen.

The character of Jane really grabs you before you can realise it and you are rooting for her and Max to get their act together (sooner rather than later!) and clean up the star-crossed lovers thing from so long ago.

It keeps you engaged right up to the epilogue, which was satisfying and everything that it should have been.

While it took a while to get into, it was definitely worth it. Wouldn't mind reading more by this author.

[Janelle · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not a fan of Jane Austin retellings, I'm just not. The originals are so dear to me and I have yet to come across a modern adaptation that has blown me away, this included.

When you bring a story into a modern day setting, you have to take some liberties. You just have to. Horowitz did not, making it hard to relate to any characters in this story. The thoughts and behaviors of the protagonist didn't mesh with the modern day Boston background, even with mentions of "form fitting jeans and t-shirts".

With that being said, I didn't hate it. Would I recommend it? No. Would I read it again? No. Was it just ok? Yes.

[Ann · Rating 1 out of 5]

It was okay because it's a re-telling of Jane Austen's "Persuasion" (which is one of my favorite books) set in modern Boston (which is one of my favorite places) but the writing is not very good and the characters - even the main ones - are not that likable. I think that some of the minor characters were actually better developed than the two main characters. There was also a jarring description of an "almost" sexual encounter in the second half of the book that just doesn't fit with the rest of the book. I wasn't expecting much from the book and that's exactly what I got.

[Jenny · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked this book up off the shelf at the library, something I don't like to do because most of the time the books have things in them that I don't like. This book was no exception; it had some language (a few F bombs) and a scene that I thought was offensive. I almost took it back to the library without finishing it, but I was sucked into the story - a modern retelling of Jane Austen's Persuasion. I really enjoyed the plot, just wish she could have left out the needless profanity and the sex scene.

[Selah · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars - There are a few wonderful lines, but overall I was very disappointed in this book. Horowitz did her best at putting the plot of Jane Austen's Persuasion in a modern context, but she forgot to keep the characters' charm. Also, there is so much fat shaming in this book! There is an entire chapter dedicated to describing a character who 1) isn't in Persuasion, 2) isn't in the rest of this book (except for a brief telephone conversation), and 3) is fat (I know this because the author said it repeatedly).

[Judy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had read this book ages ago when I was in Austen Adaptation Mode. I remember liking it so much that I wanted to have a copy in my personal library. I'm sure it's because I'm now old and cynical but this isn't as good as I remember. The main character can be catty in certain situations wherein I don't see the original version doing so. I still like the book as it is a palate cleanser but it's not the best book either.

[Jessica Stern · Rating 1 out of 5]

The cover of this book says "Inspired by Jane Austen's Persuasion," so I thought, well, "Clueless" was fun, maybe this will be, too. Not so much. It's a very heavy-handed update of Persuasion - so subtlety, wit, or charm. I cannot motivate myself to finish it - too many good books out there that I'd rather spend the time on. Take a pass on this one.

[Rebecca Irvine · Rating 3 out of 5]

Love the use of Persuasion; the author does a great job adapting the plot to modern-day society. It was believable, yet true to the Austen's original intent.

There is unnecessary usage of swear words in the book (not a ton, but enough to annoy me), as well as a sexually explicit scene I had to skip over. Without these drawbacks this would have been a four-star book.

[Lydia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Witty and humorous retelling with update and relocation to Boston for Jane Austen's Persuasion. I didn't think anyone can top Jane Austen but this one came close. I didn't want to return it to the library, it was that good.

[Maryll · Rating 2 out of 5]

Claims to be "a radiant retelling of Jane Austen's Persuasion" which should make old Jane spin in her grave. But it beats watching Oprah on a rainy afternoon

[Allyn Reid · Rating 2 out of 5]

Cute story but the storyline towards the end of the book wasn't developed very well.

[Lauren · Rating 1 out of 5]

It's not something I'm overly proud of, but it's a fact of life for an Austenite: we buy anything published with the name "Jane Austen" on it, regardless of whether it be good or bad, and especially if it's fanfiction (for that's exactly what it is). Excitement heightens if it's a continuation of one of her existing novels (imaginary glances into a life at Pemberley after the Darcy wedding bells have ceased to clang, for example), a continuation of one of her unfinished fragments, or a modern retelling/inspiration ala the 90s film Clueless, or the more recent Lost in Austen.

Having snagged a cheap copy of one such "published fanfiction" at a used bookstore, I just finished reading the Family Fortune by Laurie Horowitz this very night, a "radiant" (according to the book's cover) modern retelling of Jane Austen's "august masterpiece" (according to me) Persuasion. While I started out with mixed emotions, I was fully inclined to like the book, but by the time I'd gotten to the end, the author had succeeded in fully alienating me and planted the seed of desire for a gleeful and snark-filled review.

Consider yourself warned--herein much snarking ensues.

The basic premise of this retelling is as follows:

Jane Fortune's fortunes have taken a downturn. Thanks to the profligate habits of her father and older sister, the family's money has evaporated and Jane has to move out of the only home she's ever known: a stately brick town house on Boston's prestigious Beacon Hill. Thirty-eight and terminally single, Jane has never pursued idle pleasures like her sibling and father. Instead, she has devoted her time to running the Fortune Family Foundation, a revered philanthropic institution that has helped spark the careers of many a budding writer, including Max Wellman, Jane's first—and only—love.

Now Jane has lost her luster. Max, meanwhile, has become a bestselling novelist and a renowned literary lothario. But change is afoot. And in the process of saving her family and reigniting the flames of true love, Jane might just find herself becoming the woman she was always meant to be.

This is lifted directly from the back of the book, by the way. "Lothario"? Really? I had to look it up, and snickered once I read the description. Not being versed in the arts of using a thesaurus to search for "nouns to describe a romance novel hero", that should've been my first clue.

The book begins well enough; not overly promising, but maybe it's just slow in getting started, so I keep going. We're treated to an inside look at Anne Elliot's Jane Fortune's mildly successful, yet somehow-dull literary life as editor of a renowned literary magazine that she herself created. In the spirit of honesty, I do have to say that I rather enjoyed these bits of the story. I like seeing the art of authorship being depicted in media, and putting a spin on Persuasion to include professional writers was a clever idea. Sadly, any ingenuity on the author's part ends there.

If you're not familiar with Jane Austen's cast in Persuasion, I'll just tell you there is a rich family who's not so rich after spending too much money, so much so that they have to rent out their big house and rent a smaller one. There's an empty-headed, vain father who thinks he's handsome and important (he isn't), and his three motherless daughters. The eldest is a female version of her father; the middle daughter is our heroine (Jane Fortune, in this story), and the youngest a spoilt hypochondriac who's the only married sister of the three.

The thing that annoyed me most? None of the sisters in The Family Fortune refer to their father as such. He's simply "Teddy" and is even introduced in the first chapter as, "my father, Theodore Henry Adams Fortune III, whom everyone simply refers to as 'Teddy'". That's it. No explanation, no we-don't-get-along-so-I-prefer-to-use- his-given-name, no he-thought-endearments-were-uncouth, no nothing. No explanation for something so very out of the ordinary that surely warrants an explanation, something that would make an interesting tidbit of backstory, something that most people just don't do, but when they DO do it, they generally have a pretty darn good reason for it. For the duration of the book, Anne Jane (his daughter and our narrator in the 1st person point of view), as well as both of his other offspring, exclusively refer to him as "Teddy", and it drove me to veritable distraction. Just when you've gotten used to it, Horowitz decides to have the eldest daughter take to calling her father "daddy" during the last fourth of the novel. Why?! "Teddy" becomes "daddy" just as pointlessly as he's denied the endearment for the majority of the book.

Even better than the name Teddy, is a twenty-something fortune hunter (Austen's Mrs. Clay for those of you who've read "Persuasion") named--wait for it--Dolores. That's right, folks, we have a woman of my generation with a name robbed from the Social Security Death Index. I really have to hand it to the author on choosing an entire plethora of ridiculous names for her various cast of characters; "Winnie" is her choice for Austen's Mary Musgrove, and our heroine, Jane, gets away with an old-fashioned name since it also happens to pass of as a tribute to Jane Austen.

Okay, I lied. So there's one other thing that bothers me even more than the hokey names. If there's one thing that drives me positively batty in fiction, it's short, choppy sentences. And these certainly abound. Like rodents. Everywhere. (Oh dear.) I'm seriously not making this up--the author routinely utilizes what can only be an attempt at "modernizing" Austen's generally lengthy sentence structure into something that tries to be witty and instead comes off as more of a short trip into the depths of editorial hell. (Hah.) Honestly, coming from someone who can't help but spot flaws and misspelled words in any form of printed matter (it's a curse, I tell you), I wanted to take a red pen and scribble commas between half of her sentences. Nothing makes your work read like a fourth-grader's book report like splitting up reasonably sized sentences into little pint-sized doses of brevity!

Even better than all of the sentences spat out by a Cuisinart (sprinkled only slightly with profanity) is the way Horowitz sums up the romantic climax, The Big Reveal, the moment when Captain Wentworth "Max Wellman" reveals his undying love for Anne Jane Fortune by writing her a swoon-inducing, passion-infused letter that would make even the hardest-hearted of women melt. No, this little priceless gem is what we are given for our efforts in slogging through page after page of painful prose (and I quote):

And he was kissing me and kissing me again and it was the same kiss when I was twenty-three and the years peeled away and the two of us were on a beach in Hull and we were young and nothing had happened to us yet."

I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP! (But oh, how I wish I was that clever. How I wish I was making it up. I wasted hours on this book.) Seriously! It's Chapter 36, page 269, very bottom of the right-hand page. Go to Barnes & Noble and look for yourself if you don't believe me. The only thing longer than that sentence is the Bath Marathon in ITV's 2007 adaptation of Persuasion starring Sally Hawkins (someone really needs to make a YouTube video of that scene using the theme from Chariots of Fire).

No letter, no breathless moments where you are swept off your feet right along with her as she realizes all is not lost. Just a RUN-ON SENTENCE with no less than seven (seven, count 'em, SEVEN) uses of the word "and". Bonus points for starting the sentence with the word "and". (Wasn't that, like, ohmigosh, a big no-no in English class? But then again, your bag doesn't have to match your shoes any more, and you're free to wear white after Labor Day, so maybe that rule has been cast along the wayside, too.) Not one single comma in a sentence so laughably bad I actually did laugh, put down my book, and snort, rereading the offending passage aloud to my mom so that she could see why I was so loudly slamming my book down.

Excuse me while I go transcribe my elementary school creative writing projects; I think I've got some prose just waiting to rake in all the big literary awards.

Ugh. Just ugh.

/snark

On a more serious (and slightly adult) note, there is a brief but eye-searingly awful sex scene on pages 185-186. Now, I'm sorry, but I don't make a habit of reading about (or watching) naked people about to do things to each other in bed; if I (unfortunately) come across it, I skip over the offending passage and skim along until I find where it's ended, then pick up where I left off. Most of the time authors are courteous (eloquent?) enough to lead gently into "the moment" where their characters actually, well, do it, but Laurie Horowitz subjects her readers to a horrifically unromantic, unflattering, downright distasteful description of a male character's male anatomy in an awkward scene that is entirely without artistic merit even by the very loosest of standards. I did not appreciate the mental picture she provided so bluntly, and without any anything to redeem it. It was neither romanticized, nor clinical; all I can say is that if you are at all inclined to dislike that sort of thing, just skip those two pages (and consider yourself warned).

Another thing I noticed is how Jane Fortune has given up her love and exchanged a life with him, for a life of literature, hewn by her own hands out of nothingness. Is it supposed to be a not-so-subtle reference to Jane Austen's single state and chosen creative outlet? I don't know, and I'm not sure that Laurie Horowitz knows, either, since I rather doubt she put that much subtlety into her novel. After all, she practically brags in her post-novel appendix that she spent only "about a year" working on the majority of the book. Again, if you don't believe me, it's in the very back on page 294.

I was also further irked by Laurie Horowitz making what can only be deemed rather smug remarks about her own writing ability. Considering what I've shown you so far of her "talent", read what she has to say about herself:

"I have almost every book on writing ever written[...] I guess the writing ones helped."

Not relavent to her skills as an author, but further testament to what I'm inclined to categorize as hubris is this tasteless quip on the issue of religion:

"I'd like to find God, but I don't know where to look. I keep thinking I might find God in an expensive designer handbag, but so far, no luck."

Is that supposed to be funny? I think there's something else she's having "no luck" in succeeding at--something that begins with a w-r-i-t and ends with an i-n-g. But hey, maybe that's just me.

In closing, can't believe this thing gets mostly 4-star reviews on Amazon. Then again, Pride & Prejudice & Zombies is rated only a fraction of a star less, so I suppose that's not that far off from where this novel stands in my estimation. It's a pity, too, because I started out enjoying it, and I really was willing (and tried SO hard) to ignore the "Teddy" thing and the grade-schooler sentences. Personally I prefer creative, elegant prose that's not too long, but not too short, that flows naturally and doesn't put one to sleep. But perhaps that's just too much to ask from someone who thought Clueless was "astounding", didn't like Northanger Abbey, and says of Lady Susan "if you've run out of Austen, this will do in a fix". (Page 295. Read it and weep.)

What, pray tell, IS Lady Susan if not Austen? You've run out of Austen, so here, try Austen! Oh gosh, and here all this time, I thought I was reading AUSTEN! You mean to tell me there's MORE Austen where that Austen came from!? Oh HOW can I have been so BLIND? Really, if you're going to try and make money off of Jane Austen's name, do please try and be respectful to her, and those of us who actually value her contribution to literature.

I'm rolling my eyes even as I type this review, and having stayed up past my bedtime to get through a book I kept thinking would get better in "just one more chapter", it's off to update my GoodReads account and finally acknowledge to the world that I've wasted my time on drivel disguised as Jane Austen. Or rather, something lifted from the glaring white pixels of a fanfiction website and printed on hard matter in an effort to wile the unwitting Austen-loving public out of their hard-earned money. Then again, we bring it on ourselves, rushing out to buy/rent/see anything with her name plastered on it, so maybe we deserve lumpy fiction shelved along side our starched, pressed, pristine literary genius of Jane.

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This frothy and utterly fun update on Jane Austen’s Persuasion tells the tale of Jane Fortune (Anne Eliot), 38-year-old daughter of a rich Boston family who runs the Fortune Foundation’s literary magazine, Euphemia Review, and searches for the winner of the magazine’s annual short story contest. Long ago, Jane fell in love with young writer Max Wellman (Capt. Wentworth), but decided not to move across the country with him upon the advice of Pricilla, her deceased mother’s best friend (the Lady Russell stand-in). Most of the other main characters from Persuasion have counterparts, in Jane’s callous and foppish father and socialite elder sister, who care more about their appearances and position than the fact that their money has been mismanaged, causing them to “retrench” and leave Boston for Miami (the stand-in for Bath); Guy (Mr. Eliot), Dolores (Mrs. Clay). There are a few twists/updates to the story (Pricilla, for instance, is much more self-involved and not nearly as gracious as Lady Russell). Kudos to Horowitz for keeping me enthralled even tho I knew where the story was heading.

[Nancy · Rating 4 out of 5]

The genres for this book are listed as Chick Lit and Romance of which I very seldom read as I usually do not enjoy them. This book is an exception. I really really liked this book. It is described as a modern retelling of Jane Austen's Persuasion. I have not read Persuasion so I had no preconceived notion of what the story may be. It tells the story of a family with the last name of Fortune who are forced out of their family home because of a financial crisis. The story is told by Jane Fortune, 38, single, still pining after her first love and how she copes with the family's financial downfall and reconnection with her first love. The writing was very good, the characters were well developed and there was humor as well. I found myself thinking of the characters days after I finished. That is the sign of a good book for me.

[Alethea · Rating 4 out of 5]

This novel is a modern-day rewrite of Austen's PERSUASION. Jane, the main character, is the daughter of Teddy Fortune, the only level-headed member of the Fortune family, who heads up the EUPHEMIA REVIEW, a literary journal established by her family's foundation. She loved and lost Max Wellman, the receipient of the Review's first fellowship. Watching Jane's personal development throughout the novel is a joy. She goes from a shy almost-spinster to a take-charge woman unafraid to pursue Max and the fulfillment of the dreams she denied herself fifteen years earlier, when she was 23. Mayhem ensues. Great read.

[Danielle · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a modern retelling of Persuasion, my favorite Jane Austen. It follows the characters and events closely enough to be charming, but with enough modern elements to be interesting. I thought Jane was a bit of snob and it was hard to root for her - I rolled my eyes more than once. And the fat phobia wasn't pervasive, but evident nonetheless. Everything is tied up nicely in the end, and her modesty and humbleness is rewarded, utterly unlike IRL. That's the fun of it I suppose. Readable but not memorable. Somewhat ironically, I think I would have enjoyed this book more when I was younger...

[Cora · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oh wow, on reading this for the second time, I saw so many problems. Jane is a limp, self-defeating rag with none of the inner strength and kindness of Anne Elliot; Guy is a creepy near-rapist with totally unbelievable motivations; Priscilla persuades out of what's possibly malice; and Max is a morally bankrupt cipher - about as far from Captain Wentworth as you can get and still say you're basing the character on him.

[MA W · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a loose and modern take on a Jane Austen classic Persuasion. The main character, Jane Fortune, likely based on the main character of the Austen novel is very likeable and her personal transformation and realization of her own worth is most interesting. There are too many characters too keep track of and there seems to be less clever banter between characters than one would expect from a Jane Austen novel.

[Christina · Rating 2 out of 5]

Laurie Horowitz's Literary Offenses

I'm sure smarter people than I have established rules for When it is a Good Idea to Retell a Story. This is really just my best way of describing why I really hated this book. Yes, the first really jarring moment was when I realized the author had gotten the location of a Boston landmark, the hanging teakettle sign that emits actual steam, wrong by a wide margin (Kenmore Square and Scollay Square/Government Center are about five subway stops away from each other and, while both are tourist destinations, they are REALLY DIFFERENT).
So here are the rules I think this author has broken:

1) Make the story accessible to people who haven't read the original
In all fairness, this is a problem I'm assuming. I HAVE read the original. And every time a character appeared, I said to myself "oh, that must be this person. Heather and Lindsay instead of Henrietta and Louisa! I TOTALLY GET IT!" But I could never think of them as their own characters. Every name was in quotation marks in my mind. I couldn't think of them as separate people, and I suspect most of the major characters never came into their own as separate people. I got the distinct impression that someone reading this story and completely unfamiliar with the source material would feel like he or she was missing something important, some in-joke. And frankly, I think accessibility is more important than fidelity, especially because you are trying to add something new if you think a book could use a remake. I know plenty of people who love the movie "Clueless" who have no idea it's based on "Emma." Or they didn't, until I told them.
2) If you are changing the temporal location of the story, make sure it has a point.
I would think that the main reason for updating a Jane Austen novel would be to show that manners and mores that seem really silly to us reading the novels now haven't changed as much as we think. Horowitz wrecked this early on with a sentence about how "Miranda" talked like she was from the 19th century, excusing the stilted language she was shoving into her character's mouths. The language itself didn't improve from there, but that line REALLY highlighted the problem.
3) Women. We're, like, liberated now and stuff.
When you bring your female characters into the 20th/21st century, you do have to make some adjustments. We do have more options now. You don't have to give your heroine a PhD in rocket science, but you have to realize that certain advances have been made.
I always felt that Anne Elliott knew she was a worthwhile human being, and the joke around her family was that they were too self-absorbed - in their various ways - to realize it. "Jane," meanwhile, came across as unspeakably pathetic for the majority of the book. I could go back and count the number of times I saw the word "spinster" or she thought about how she behaved as "the single woman," but I have my health to think of. I cringed as she constructed a fantasy around a man she'd never met, I shuddered when she tried to show off ice skating and fell, and almost vomited when she "oh well maybe I'm not sure"d her way into bed in the most repulsively-described almost-sex scene I've ever read that didn't involve rape. Yes, being a single woman at 38 in upper middle class American society comes with its stigmas. "Jane"'s all seemed self-imposed.
4) Men. They haven't actually gotten worse.
"Max" was not very well developed, and "Guy"'s impositions bordered on psychotic. If your 21st-century male is less believable than an Austen hero - and I'd argue for Captain Wentworth as just as dreamy as Mr. Darcy any day - HOLY CANNOLIS do you have a problem. As for "Guy," I just couldn't believe he would fool anyone for a minute considering how over-the-top his attentions were. Besides, it made me really sad to have our updated Captain turned into a womanizer.

Aside from these constantly violated rules (that I just made up), I was disappointed with how crudely done the supporting characters were. The Miss Musgroves may have been silly, shallow girls in the original but they never came across as complete morons; college students - I repeat, COLLEGE STUDENTS - "Heather" and "Lindsay" had apparently never heard the word "anarchy." There was never anything about "Priscilla" that made it credible that "Jane" would ever listen to her in the first place, and her depiction just got more and more cruel. I will say "Teddy" improved and "Dolores" was reasonably well-developed by the standards of this book. There was also something disturbingly snobby about the skiing business. While a skiing accident is a decent substitute for "the steps where Louisa Musgrove fell," "Jane" seemed to feel the problems around the trip were totally the fault of the two girls for not knowing how to ski and that this was yet another reason to look down on those idiots.

However *deep breath* I'm happy to report this made kind of a fun hate read. I've never hate-read anything before. And the good news is that the original is in no way diminished by this travesty; it's kind of like having a toddler draw in crayon all over your copy of the book. The one copy is a mess now, but there are plenty of others out there.
And on that note, OH MY GOD, THE STEAMING TEAKETTLE! IT WAS SUCH A STUPID THING TO GET WRONG!