A highly anticipated book by debut co-authors that, unfortunately, fell flat for me. The book is a modernized version of Austen's Emma, and as far as remakes go, it is too devoted to modernizing nearly all of the plot of the original classic. The main problem I found is that a modern Emma is not terribly relatable, and even the classic 19th century character of Emma is challenging for modern readers. The original Emma Woodhouse is a privileged and entitled young woman, secure in her status living with her wealthy, widowed father, and without much to occupy her life other than meddling in others' lives in an attempt to uphold her class views. Austen was a great defender of a rising, entrepreneurial middle class, which is why members of the aristocracy were mocked and the working classes were pitied.
In Emma of 83rd Street, Nadine (aka, Harriet) is the downtrodden young woman/project Emma takes on, but it's confusing why Emma feels a need to reform Nadine at all. She's from Ohio, and I guess the subtext is that the mid-west is unseemly? Ohio is shorthand for the uncouth farm belt of America? Nadine's engaged to someone she loves, and Emma decides without knowing him or really without any logical cause that he's unsuitable for her new friend. In the original book, Nadine's suitor is a farmer, and Emma wants her friend to aim higher on the marriage market, believing that class is fluid. However, the marriageability issue doesn't really carry over to modernization, and so this new version creates a massive plot that has little logic.
There are lots of references to Emma just being a controlling sort of person. But why? The original Emma is controlling because she represents a worldview that is on the precipice of dominance. This Emma is vapid for no reason, but there seems to be an expectation that readers will find that quality appealing or endearing. So much time is spent describing her fun taste in expensive clothing. Why? Who cares? Lots of fashion name dropping here for no reason feels silly, as if it's an episode of the badly misjudged Sex and the City reboot.
Then there's the romance here. In the original, Knightley represents chivalry and a holdover from a world that is rapidly changing. He benefits to an extent from Emma's exuberance and progressive reform while Emma likewise benefits from his conservatism and temperance, as they come together in an appealing companionate marriage. The Emma & Knightley relationship in this book has no such reason to exist except that they find each other hot, suddenly. They were childhood friends, just as they were in the original, but otherwise, nothing happens to reshape their relationship here except that suddenly they just decide they love each other. I also found Knightley here to be severely underdeveloped as a character - more a series of ticks: He smirks a lot, runs his fingers through his locks in frustration, and sighs deeply. Emma's a lot of work.
Insinuated at the end of the book is that Darcy's story is up next. I'll pass on that unless reviews indicate something more.