What do you think?
Rate this book
The Watsons and Emma Watson: Jane Austen's Unfinished Novel Completed by Joan Aiken
Jane Austen wrote the untitled fragment that was later called The Watsons in 1803-5, and it was published posthumously in 1871. Joan Aiken, well known for her Jane Austen sequels and children?s books, finishes the fragment, introducing a new hero and seamlessly continuing where Jane Austen left off to a satisfying ending for all Austen fans.
Emma Watson returns home after 14 years spent with a beloved aunt, whose re-marriage has caused a significant change in Emma?s circumstances. Used to a life of ease, warmth and intelligence, Emma is thrust back into a home where, with one exception, her sisters are petty and jealous, if not vulgar, her father is ill and weak, and her brothers are not men of fine minds. This is a poignant exploration of a young lady?s endurance in the face of reduced circumstances, and in true Jane Austen fashion, there is an admirable hero to make all right in the end.
304 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 1, 1996
50 people are currently reading
1011 people want to read
About the author
Joan Aiken
331 books601 followersJoan Aiken was a much loved English writer who received the MBE for services to Children's Literature. She was known as a writer of wild fantasy, Gothic novels and short stories.
She was born in Rye, East Sussex, into a family of writers, including her father, Conrad Aiken (who won a Pulitzer Prize for his poetry), and her sister, Jane Aiken Hodge. She worked for the United Nations Information Office during the second world war, and then as an editor and freelance on Argosy magazine before she started writing full time, mainly children's books and thrillers. For her books she received the Guardian Award (1969) and the Edgar Allan Poe Award (1972).
Her most popular series, the "Wolves Chronicles" which began with The Wolves of Willoughby Chase, was set in an elaborate alternate period of history in a Britain in which James II was never deposed in the Glorious Revolution,and so supporters of the House of Hanover continually plot to overthrow the Stuart Kings. These books also feature cockney urchin heroine Dido Twite and her adventures and travels all over the world.
Another series of children's books about Arabel and her raven Mortimer are illustrated by Quentin Blake, and have been shown on the BBC as Jackanory and drama series. Others including the much loved Necklace of Raindrops and award winning Kingdom Under the Sea are illustrated by Jan Pieńkowski.
Her many novels for adults include several that continue or complement novels by Jane Austen. These include Mansfield Revisited and Jane Fairfax.
Aiken was a lifelong fan of ghost stories. She set her adult supernatural novel The Haunting of Lamb House at Lamb House in Rye (now a National Trust property). This ghost story recounts in fictional form an alleged haunting experienced by two former residents of the house, Henry James and E. F. Benson, both of whom also wrote ghost stories. Aiken's father, Conrad Aiken, also authored a small number of notable ghost stories.
She was born in Rye, East Sussex, into a family of writers, including her father, Conrad Aiken (who won a Pulitzer Prize for his poetry), and her sister, Jane Aiken Hodge. She worked for the United Nations Information Office during the second world war, and then as an editor and freelance on Argosy magazine before she started writing full time, mainly children's books and thrillers. For her books she received the Guardian Award (1969) and the Edgar Allan Poe Award (1972).
Her most popular series, the "Wolves Chronicles" which began with The Wolves of Willoughby Chase, was set in an elaborate alternate period of history in a Britain in which James II was never deposed in the Glorious Revolution,and so supporters of the House of Hanover continually plot to overthrow the Stuart Kings. These books also feature cockney urchin heroine Dido Twite and her adventures and travels all over the world.
Another series of children's books about Arabel and her raven Mortimer are illustrated by Quentin Blake, and have been shown on the BBC as Jackanory and drama series. Others including the much loved Necklace of Raindrops and award winning Kingdom Under the Sea are illustrated by Jan Pieńkowski.
Her many novels for adults include several that continue or complement novels by Jane Austen. These include Mansfield Revisited and Jane Fairfax.
Aiken was a lifelong fan of ghost stories. She set her adult supernatural novel The Haunting of Lamb House at Lamb House in Rye (now a National Trust property). This ghost story recounts in fictional form an alleged haunting experienced by two former residents of the house, Henry James and E. F. Benson, both of whom also wrote ghost stories. Aiken's father, Conrad Aiken, also authored a small number of notable ghost stories.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 167 reviews
August 7, 2011
Wow... how is it possible to have such good material and screw it up so badly?
This gets two stars purely because I loved Jane Austen's "The Watsons". It was brilliant and entertaining, and I was disappointed when it ended.
But the "Emma Watson" half is just so bad! First, the author feels the need to go over everything that just happened. Then she decides to abandon the wonderful plot that was already intact. Then she goes on about nothing for about a hundred pages, introducing a new character here and there (including the "hero" of the story, who's in only ONE SCENE in the whole book). Then, as if she gets bored, she suddenly amps up the drama, making about nine separate things happen in each of the last 3 or 4 chapters.
Altogether, it was pretty awful, and I find myself thinking I'll write my own conclusion to the story, just to have some satisfaction.
This gets two stars purely because I loved Jane Austen's "The Watsons". It was brilliant and entertaining, and I was disappointed when it ended.
But the "Emma Watson" half is just so bad! First, the author feels the need to go over everything that just happened. Then she decides to abandon the wonderful plot that was already intact. Then she goes on about nothing for about a hundred pages, introducing a new character here and there (including the "hero" of the story, who's in only ONE SCENE in the whole book). Then, as if she gets bored, she suddenly amps up the drama, making about nine separate things happen in each of the last 3 or 4 chapters.
Altogether, it was pretty awful, and I find myself thinking I'll write my own conclusion to the story, just to have some satisfaction.
June 23, 2016
Just to be clear: the one star review is for the completion part of this book, by Joan Aiken-the original Austen fragment gets 5 stars.
Okay, yes, this review has some spoilers, but I'm putting them in here to keep you from reading this book, because it's HORRIBLE. I encourage you to read the spoilers.
So, you know the gist of the story; The Watsons is a fragment of a novel that Jane Austen wrote and never finished before she died. The original fragment is splendid, like any other Austen work; but the completion by Joan Aiken-I cannot express my disappointment and even ANGER. I don't think I will read any other of Mrs. Aiken's books, aside from her "Jane Fairfax" which is actually very good.
So as an Austen purist, I am always a little wary of rewrites and completions and sequels to Austen's works; but as Austen only wrote 6 completed novels, and I can only watch the movies so many times before my family thinks I am insane (what can I say? Colin Firth is, as Joan Aiken's Emma Watson says constantly, "The Thing") well, what's a girl to do to feed her Austen addiction?
That's where these sequels, retellings, rewrites and completions come in. (All those terms are just fancy ways to say Jane Austen Fanfiction-cause Fanfiction sounds kinda weird tied to Austen for some reason.)
So, as an Austen Purist that also has an addiction to feed, I *usually* read reviews scrupulously to make sure the book is nothing too crazy. But, I did buy this book without reading reviews, because I wanted to own all Austen literature anyway, so might as well. Plus, I had read and enjoyed immensely Joan Aiken's Jane Fairfax, so I (mistakenly) thought this book would be great, also.
Boy, was I wrong.
First off, I love, love, LOVED the original fragment by Austen herself. It was lovely as always. Do read the fragment-just not in this book! Buy it seperate.
But then we get into the completion-the "Emma Watson" part.
UGH!
Well, it started out not so bad. I mean, Aiken does NOT write like Austen, her tone is much more modern, but that seemed okay in "Jane Fairfax". But going straight from reading Austen's tone, to being jarred into much more modern tones, was a very yucky experience.
But okay, whatever, I thought; let's just get on with the story. I read on, excited to see what would happen next.
And let me say that Mrs. Aiken, while perhaps not meaning to, completely butchered the lovely story that Austen had begun. If Ms. Austen knew how this author completed her story, she would be rolling in her grave.
First off, Austen clearly sets up who the hero is going to be. After reading her novels so many times, we understand her patterns, and we know when she introduces a male character, wether he is the hero or not. So, Austen did this. It was CLEAR he was the hero. And a very nice, dashing hero he was; we didn't know much about him, but we knew since Austen set him apart, he would be perfect for the heroine.
But then, in Mrs. Aiken's completion, she takes the poor hero and BUTCHERS him (figuratively); he turns into a weak minded, doormat of a guy that let's a 50 something Lady consider him, 30 something, bound to her-in plain terms engaged to her-what?!?! And this same Lady is supposed to look "20 years younger than her age" and "much more beautiful that her teen daughter" ?!?! Just what?!?
And then she BUTCHERS (literally!) 3 CHARACTERS within a couple chapters-characters we have an affection for-two of them for NO REASON AT ALL. None. Their deaths added NOTHING to the story. It was so stupid, especially since death hardly ever plays a part in any Austen novel and just seemed alien and out of place.
But wait, there's more!
She introduces a completely random guy, that during the whole book probably has a paragraph worth of lines; he and Emma meet twice; both times brief; hardly say anything to each other and nothing out of the common way; he leaves, not making any particular impression on our heroine except some gratitude for getting along so well with her invalid father, and isn't mentioned again until many months later, and then-
It's in a letter where he is avowing his love for her! Emma, who he has only seen twice in his life!! He can't live without her.
But it gets worse.
After reading said letter, Emma has a revelation (not a sensible one like Edmund Bertram or Emma Woodhouse) that SHE LOVES HIM- that he was The One!! After being in company with him TWICE!!
I couldn't believe what I was reading. I wanted to laugh out loud; it was THE most ridiculous thing I have EVER READ IN MY LIFE.
It was SO forced. In fact, this whole BOOK was so forced. It's like Mrs Aiken wanted to stray as far away from Austen's original idea for this book.
So many more small things in this book were utterly ridiculous; the ending was horrible, like Aiken herself was sick of the story,the plot made no sense at all many times; too many coincidences, too many supposed-to-be-dramatic reveals, too many subplots going on that were just stupid. Also, Aiken REUSED names from other Austen books! Like Henry Crawford,; I counted about 4 reused names but I can't remember the others; and I don't want to open that nasty book again. There are a billion things wrong with this book besides being extremely poorly written and changing characters personalities and the hero; I would tell you them all, but honestly, I want to move on from this horrible book and if you are really that interested in reading a how else the author ruined Austen's beautiful fragment, well, you will just have to read the book, cause I'm done wasting my breath on this trash.
There are supposed to be a couple other completions of this, Austen's fragment "The Watson's"; so you could check those out if you wanted. Me, I will someday; but I want to get far away from this story for now. It's kind of ruined right now for me. I need some time to get over it.
On a much, MUCH brighter note; a book worth your time: Sandition, Jane Austen's last novel completed by Another Lady is a glowing example of a completion done RIGHT. It's another Fragment of Austen's, but this time completed by an Author who clearly knew what she was doing and wanted to stick to Austen's original plot. Her writing actually SOUNDS like Austen, too! I couldn't hardly tell the difference. And no silliness here; just pure enrapturing Austeness. Please go read it and forget you ever heard of this book.
Badly done, Mrs. Aiken; Badly done.
Okay, yes, this review has some spoilers, but I'm putting them in here to keep you from reading this book, because it's HORRIBLE. I encourage you to read the spoilers.
So, you know the gist of the story; The Watsons is a fragment of a novel that Jane Austen wrote and never finished before she died. The original fragment is splendid, like any other Austen work; but the completion by Joan Aiken-I cannot express my disappointment and even ANGER. I don't think I will read any other of Mrs. Aiken's books, aside from her "Jane Fairfax" which is actually very good.
So as an Austen purist, I am always a little wary of rewrites and completions and sequels to Austen's works; but as Austen only wrote 6 completed novels, and I can only watch the movies so many times before my family thinks I am insane (what can I say? Colin Firth is, as Joan Aiken's Emma Watson says constantly, "The Thing") well, what's a girl to do to feed her Austen addiction?
That's where these sequels, retellings, rewrites and completions come in. (All those terms are just fancy ways to say Jane Austen Fanfiction-cause Fanfiction sounds kinda weird tied to Austen for some reason.)
So, as an Austen Purist that also has an addiction to feed, I *usually* read reviews scrupulously to make sure the book is nothing too crazy. But, I did buy this book without reading reviews, because I wanted to own all Austen literature anyway, so might as well. Plus, I had read and enjoyed immensely Joan Aiken's Jane Fairfax, so I (mistakenly) thought this book would be great, also.
Boy, was I wrong.
First off, I love, love, LOVED the original fragment by Austen herself. It was lovely as always. Do read the fragment-just not in this book! Buy it seperate.
But then we get into the completion-the "Emma Watson" part.
UGH!
Well, it started out not so bad. I mean, Aiken does NOT write like Austen, her tone is much more modern, but that seemed okay in "Jane Fairfax". But going straight from reading Austen's tone, to being jarred into much more modern tones, was a very yucky experience.
But okay, whatever, I thought; let's just get on with the story. I read on, excited to see what would happen next.
And let me say that Mrs. Aiken, while perhaps not meaning to, completely butchered the lovely story that Austen had begun. If Ms. Austen knew how this author completed her story, she would be rolling in her grave.
First off, Austen clearly sets up who the hero is going to be. After reading her novels so many times, we understand her patterns, and we know when she introduces a male character, wether he is the hero or not. So, Austen did this. It was CLEAR he was the hero. And a very nice, dashing hero he was; we didn't know much about him, but we knew since Austen set him apart, he would be perfect for the heroine.
But then, in Mrs. Aiken's completion, she takes the poor hero and BUTCHERS him (figuratively); he turns into a weak minded, doormat of a guy that let's a 50 something Lady consider him, 30 something, bound to her-in plain terms engaged to her-what?!?! And this same Lady is supposed to look "20 years younger than her age" and "much more beautiful that her teen daughter" ?!?! Just what?!?
And then she BUTCHERS (literally!) 3 CHARACTERS within a couple chapters-characters we have an affection for-two of them for NO REASON AT ALL. None. Their deaths added NOTHING to the story. It was so stupid, especially since death hardly ever plays a part in any Austen novel and just seemed alien and out of place.
But wait, there's more!
She introduces a completely random guy, that during the whole book probably has a paragraph worth of lines; he and Emma meet twice; both times brief; hardly say anything to each other and nothing out of the common way; he leaves, not making any particular impression on our heroine except some gratitude for getting along so well with her invalid father, and isn't mentioned again until many months later, and then-
It's in a letter where he is avowing his love for her! Emma, who he has only seen twice in his life!! He can't live without her.
But it gets worse.
After reading said letter, Emma has a revelation (not a sensible one like Edmund Bertram or Emma Woodhouse) that SHE LOVES HIM- that he was The One!! After being in company with him TWICE!!
I couldn't believe what I was reading. I wanted to laugh out loud; it was THE most ridiculous thing I have EVER READ IN MY LIFE.
It was SO forced. In fact, this whole BOOK was so forced. It's like Mrs Aiken wanted to stray as far away from Austen's original idea for this book.
So many more small things in this book were utterly ridiculous; the ending was horrible, like Aiken herself was sick of the story,the plot made no sense at all many times; too many coincidences, too many supposed-to-be-dramatic reveals, too many subplots going on that were just stupid. Also, Aiken REUSED names from other Austen books! Like Henry Crawford,; I counted about 4 reused names but I can't remember the others; and I don't want to open that nasty book again. There are a billion things wrong with this book besides being extremely poorly written and changing characters personalities and the hero; I would tell you them all, but honestly, I want to move on from this horrible book and if you are really that interested in reading a how else the author ruined Austen's beautiful fragment, well, you will just have to read the book, cause I'm done wasting my breath on this trash.
There are supposed to be a couple other completions of this, Austen's fragment "The Watson's"; so you could check those out if you wanted. Me, I will someday; but I want to get far away from this story for now. It's kind of ruined right now for me. I need some time to get over it.
On a much, MUCH brighter note; a book worth your time: Sandition, Jane Austen's last novel completed by Another Lady is a glowing example of a completion done RIGHT. It's another Fragment of Austen's, but this time completed by an Author who clearly knew what she was doing and wanted to stick to Austen's original plot. Her writing actually SOUNDS like Austen, too! I couldn't hardly tell the difference. And no silliness here; just pure enrapturing Austeness. Please go read it and forget you ever heard of this book.
Badly done, Mrs. Aiken; Badly done.
December 22, 2009
I really hate that I cannot do two separate ratings for this book. The first section is the original story by Jane Austen, entitled The Watsons - this part of the book is, of course, being written actually by Austen, completely brilliant. Unfortunately she did not complete very much of the story, it is just long enough to properly introduce all the characters. The second section of this book was written by Joan Aiken and entitled Emma Watson. She attempts to complete Austen's story, but does an incredibly poor job of it, I was very disappointed. I have several objections to her work, one of which is the inconsistencies between her story and the beginning that Austen laid out for her. One small but very irritating discrepancy is that Austen introduces one of the characters, a Mrs. Blake, as a widow with a 10 year old son, Charles, and they live with her brother Mr. Howard. Aiken's Mrs. Blake has four children and a living husband, who is a newly promoted captain in the navy. The first chapter of Emma Watson has Emma and her elder sister Elizabeth doing the washing, with constant interruptions from visitors. While Austen's characters may have had to do their own washing, she never, ever shows them doing such dull domestic chores, so immediately Aiken's book is off to an ill-footed start. Also, Aiken recaps the first part of the story told by Austen. This may be helpful if you were reading Emma Watson on its own, but published in a single volume immediately following The Watsons it felt a litle strange. My other complaints about this book are less specific and more general; the characters don't always act the way I think they would if Austen had written them, and there is way too much drama and scandal for my taste. Austen's novels have drama and scandal, but it is often handled with much more subtlety. For example, the scandal of Mary Edwards parentage was handled a bit too indelicately to feel like it was true to Austen's style. Not to mention the deaths of Mrs. Blake and Charles were a bit sensational.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 4, 2020
Jane Austen never finished The Watsons and like Sanditon, that fact teases the reader with 'what might have been!' The first part of this book (the Jane Austen) easily reaches 5 stars with a most delightful setup.
The majority of the book concluding Austen's story and written by Joan Aiken gets 1 star.
It was like watching a train wreck. I could not tear my eyes away as it rapidly grew worse and worse. I gave up even questioning the historical accuracy and just cringed at everything. The plot blatantly rips off other Jane Austen stories, quickly dismisses the direction Austen's novel was taking, throws in modern philosophy about work and womanhood, and adds a seriously underdeveloped romance from out of nowhere. Characters act atrociously. And perhaps most egregiously when reading the novels side-by-side, Aiken takes some of Austen's wonderful nuance (for example, in the sister Elizabeth) and simply slaps characters as either 'good' or 'bad', thereby losing the absurdities and foibles that make them tolerable.
What a disappointment!
The majority of the book concluding Austen's story and written by Joan Aiken gets 1 star.
It was like watching a train wreck. I could not tear my eyes away as it rapidly grew worse and worse. I gave up even questioning the historical accuracy and just cringed at everything. The plot blatantly rips off other Jane Austen stories, quickly dismisses the direction Austen's novel was taking, throws in modern philosophy about work and womanhood, and adds a seriously underdeveloped romance from out of nowhere. Characters act atrociously. And perhaps most egregiously when reading the novels side-by-side, Aiken takes some of Austen's wonderful nuance (for example, in the sister Elizabeth) and simply slaps characters as either 'good' or 'bad', thereby losing the absurdities and foibles that make them tolerable.
What a disappointment!
February 21, 2015
HAHAHHAHAHA, no.
June 22, 2012
Reading The Watsons and Aiken's completion of it consecutively was an interesting experience. Not Austen's finest work, I don't think - I got to the end and still wasn't sure who was related to whom, and I think I missed a key plot event. I've enjoyed Aiken's other Jane Austen sequels but next to the real deal they look a little contrived. The Aiken stories are, if anything, over-researched. I like some of the details and vocabulary choices, but let's be honest: no real Austen character would explain a 19th-century hair treatment complete with chemical names and application directions!
November 5, 2012
This was a very good continuation of "The Watsons" by Jane Austen. I have read other versions that presented different views.
Aiken is one of the two authors that I will read that continue Austen and Austen themed story telling. The other author being Amanda Grange.
Aiken took the story and gave it a vey good ending. There is a little surprise at the end. Austen fans keep your eyes open for it.
Aiken is one of the two authors that I will read that continue Austen and Austen themed story telling. The other author being Amanda Grange.
Aiken took the story and gave it a vey good ending. There is a little surprise at the end. Austen fans keep your eyes open for it.
October 18, 2021
Jane Austen left behind a tantalizing story fragment that introduced a cast of characters and setting just begging to be picked up by authors who came after. I enjoyed The Watsons fragment and have spent time wondering how it would all turn out so I was particularly interested to read this continuation of Austen's tale.
Joan Aiken begins after the original fragment, but references back to those events so the book takes off with Emma settled back into her elderly, sickly father's parsonage and trying to grow content with her new circumstances though the harping of her brother Robert, sister in law Jane, and older sister Margaret are not an easy pill to swallow. She has come to love and respect her seemingly tireless and giving oldest sister Elizabeth. Meanwhile, Emma's re-entry into local society has brought the Watsons to the attention of the best neighborhood families and receiving calls from gentlemen and gentry alike. This is not seen with approbation by everyone like a few jealous sisters and Lady Osborne. Emma is little impressed with the Osborne set, but does have a partiality for their chaplain Mr. Howard and his sister Mrs. Blake.
Emma is not the only news in the neighborhood. Her audacious sister Penelope has wed Dr. Harding and has big plans for one of the local houses. And, then travesty strikes the family and Emma is once again forced to restart her life. What comes of this is a winding, emotional tale of a family surviving in their various ways and Emma learning what she can endure as well as seek her own happiness.
Emma Watson was an engaging tale for the most part. I was a little surprised by some darker elements that edged it nearer a gothic novel from that time period. A few times I thought the choices with the direction of character or plot was quirky and odd in the case of Lady Osborne's character, but I went with it and was curious to see how it would all play out. my only real niggle was that rushed ending. I don't want to spoiler, but Emma's own part of the story was given short shift and I wanted more than that summation in the epilogue.
All in all, it is an engaging completion variation story that offers an entertaining finish to Jane Austen's fragment.
Joan Aiken begins after the original fragment, but references back to those events so the book takes off with Emma settled back into her elderly, sickly father's parsonage and trying to grow content with her new circumstances though the harping of her brother Robert, sister in law Jane, and older sister Margaret are not an easy pill to swallow. She has come to love and respect her seemingly tireless and giving oldest sister Elizabeth. Meanwhile, Emma's re-entry into local society has brought the Watsons to the attention of the best neighborhood families and receiving calls from gentlemen and gentry alike. This is not seen with approbation by everyone like a few jealous sisters and Lady Osborne. Emma is little impressed with the Osborne set, but does have a partiality for their chaplain Mr. Howard and his sister Mrs. Blake.
Emma is not the only news in the neighborhood. Her audacious sister Penelope has wed Dr. Harding and has big plans for one of the local houses. And, then travesty strikes the family and Emma is once again forced to restart her life. What comes of this is a winding, emotional tale of a family surviving in their various ways and Emma learning what she can endure as well as seek her own happiness.
Emma Watson was an engaging tale for the most part. I was a little surprised by some darker elements that edged it nearer a gothic novel from that time period. A few times I thought the choices with the direction of character or plot was quirky and odd in the case of Lady Osborne's character, but I went with it and was curious to see how it would all play out. my only real niggle was that rushed ending. I don't want to spoiler, but Emma's own part of the story was given short shift and I wanted more than that summation in the epilogue.
All in all, it is an engaging completion variation story that offers an entertaining finish to Jane Austen's fragment.
June 21, 2025
This version of a continuation of The Watsons has at least the merit of being original; as I work my way through all the completions I can, the plot points at times become drearily predictable. Unfortunately, I see few other virtues in this work.
The edition I have provides the text of Jane Austen’s fragment, followed by Aiken’s separate-but-connected story. It picks up where The Watsons leaves off, making various references to what came before and changing a few details. Anyone reading Emma Watson who had not read The Watsons would be pretty lost, because the explanations are sketchy and inadequate and the characters numerous.
Characterization is not Aiken’s strong suit; she does not delve into her characters’ motivations to any great degree, relying on incident to do the heavy lifting. Like at least one other Watsons completer, she does not favor the idea of Mr. Howard as the hero, instead inventing her own. Miss Osborne becomes younger, Lord Osborne becomes dumber, and Lady Osborne becomes Kristi Noem (enough said about that). Scandal is wished upon prim Miss Edwards’s unsuspecting head, though calamity doesn’t follow to the degree one might expect. Calamities do strike other characters, but they don’t have much impact because they are so obviously manufactured to move the story along. So there are plenty of surprises but not a lot to engage me emotionally. What a waste of what promised to be one of Jane Austen’s most emotionally profound works.
Like so many Austen pastiches, this one violates many of the rules of Georgian-era genteel conduct, sending the characters into implausible situations. There is a dreadful flourishing of people addressing others by their first names and even by horrid nicknames (Emmie? Gussie??), unmarried people writing letters to one another, people calling on social superiors and those vastly inferior to themselves without introductions, and many more offenses. And the hero and heroine spend so little time together as to leave me completely indifferent to their fate.
It’s just a bad book, as most of Joan Aiken’s Austenesque novels are.
The edition I have provides the text of Jane Austen’s fragment, followed by Aiken’s separate-but-connected story. It picks up where The Watsons leaves off, making various references to what came before and changing a few details. Anyone reading Emma Watson who had not read The Watsons would be pretty lost, because the explanations are sketchy and inadequate and the characters numerous.
Characterization is not Aiken’s strong suit; she does not delve into her characters’ motivations to any great degree, relying on incident to do the heavy lifting. Like at least one other Watsons completer, she does not favor the idea of Mr. Howard as the hero, instead inventing her own. Miss Osborne becomes younger, Lord Osborne becomes dumber, and Lady Osborne becomes Kristi Noem (enough said about that). Scandal is wished upon prim Miss Edwards’s unsuspecting head, though calamity doesn’t follow to the degree one might expect. Calamities do strike other characters, but they don’t have much impact because they are so obviously manufactured to move the story along. So there are plenty of surprises but not a lot to engage me emotionally. What a waste of what promised to be one of Jane Austen’s most emotionally profound works.
Like so many Austen pastiches, this one violates many of the rules of Georgian-era genteel conduct, sending the characters into implausible situations. There is a dreadful flourishing of people addressing others by their first names and even by horrid nicknames (Emmie? Gussie??), unmarried people writing letters to one another, people calling on social superiors and those vastly inferior to themselves without introductions, and many more offenses. And the hero and heroine spend so little time together as to leave me completely indifferent to their fate.
It’s just a bad book, as most of Joan Aiken’s Austenesque novels are.
January 26, 2022
this was so not what I expected it to be
June 21, 2009
I don't quite know what to say about this book. I enjoyed it, even though it made me slightly uncomfortable. I was afraid to accuse anything in it of being "un-Austen" because I don't know exactly what Jane Austen's contribution was to the book. I don't know if there were passages that Joan Aiken worked into the book, or if the structure/plot had been noted out by Jane Austen and Aiken filled things in, or whether Austen wrote the first three pages or eight chapters or what. So I was afraid to say "That would NEVER happen in a Jane Austen novel!" in case that was a part that Jane actually wrote. That said, it was much more Austeny than most of the Austen-"sequels" I've read.
Overall, I liked the book, and I think I might have liked it more if I weren't constantly hunting for Jane Austen in it.
Overall, I liked the book, and I think I might have liked it more if I weren't constantly hunting for Jane Austen in it.
March 19, 2012
To date, this is my least favorite Austen continuation. There is a clear gap between where Austen's original ended and the continuation began, not just in formatting, but in style. The author did not even attempt to match Austen stylistically, which makes for an incredibly jarring transition. From there, the plot choices made by the contributor made little to no sense. It seemed more of a Bronte continuation than an Austen continuation, if anything. Fans of Jane Austen's style wanting more of her work would do well to steer clear of this continuation.
June 8, 2007
One of Jane Austen's unfinished works, tackled by Joan Aiken. I have to rank this one a "meh"...in and of itself, the novel was okay, but as it was aspiring to be an Austen novel, I held it to higher standards, from which it fell short. I found the characters too obvious, the plot too scandalous, the women too catty. It just wasn't Jane Austen, not at all.
March 9, 2018
Mi piacerebbe dire che ho amato alla follia questo libro, ma non è così.
Il suo maggior difetto è quello di aver voluto concludere un'opera di Jane Austen.
La parte "Emma Watson", presa da sola è molto carina. Un romanzo ben fatto, anche se mi sembra che si siano troppi stravolgimenti dei personaggi, situazioni rocambolesche e finali affrettati, il tutto con una protagonista che mantiene una calma impeccabile.. insomma, molto poco Jane Austen.
Ed è qui che il romanzo perde punti a mio avviso.
Questa parte, in confronto con I watson di Jane Austen, è spiccatamente diversa, non solo per lo stile, fatto piuttosto ovvio, ma anche per il carattere dei personaggi che assumono tendenze differenti rispetto a quanto inizialmente indicato.
La trama inoltre, va contro a quanto Jane Austen pensava per il suo romanzo e se, da un lato, questo ci consente di scoprire pian piano la storia, dall'altro un po' delude le aspettative iniziali.
Non c'è che dire Mr. Howard presenta un carattere molto similare a Edmund di Mansfield Park, pertanto mi è sorto un più che legittimo dubbio: che la scrittrice non nutra particolare simpatia per questo personaggio considerando l'evoluzione della trama così diversa da quanto Jane Austen aveva pensato per i suoi personaggi??
Una lettura che purtroppo non mi ha colpito particolarmente, ma che ha avuto comunque il pregio di avermi saputo trattenere per diverse ore.
Il suo maggior difetto è quello di aver voluto concludere un'opera di Jane Austen.
La parte "Emma Watson", presa da sola è molto carina. Un romanzo ben fatto, anche se mi sembra che si siano troppi stravolgimenti dei personaggi, situazioni rocambolesche e finali affrettati, il tutto con una protagonista che mantiene una calma impeccabile.. insomma, molto poco Jane Austen.
Ed è qui che il romanzo perde punti a mio avviso.
Questa parte, in confronto con I watson di Jane Austen, è spiccatamente diversa, non solo per lo stile, fatto piuttosto ovvio, ma anche per il carattere dei personaggi che assumono tendenze differenti rispetto a quanto inizialmente indicato.
La trama inoltre, va contro a quanto Jane Austen pensava per il suo romanzo e se, da un lato, questo ci consente di scoprire pian piano la storia, dall'altro un po' delude le aspettative iniziali.
Non c'è che dire Mr. Howard presenta un carattere molto similare a Edmund di Mansfield Park, pertanto mi è sorto un più che legittimo dubbio: che la scrittrice non nutra particolare simpatia per questo personaggio considerando l'evoluzione della trama così diversa da quanto Jane Austen aveva pensato per i suoi personaggi??
Una lettura che purtroppo non mi ha colpito particolarmente, ma che ha avuto comunque il pregio di avermi saputo trattenere per diverse ore.
December 14, 2023
This is awful. I kept reading just so no one, ever, in the history of the world, need read it again. I guess fan fiction in 1996 was as bad as fan fiction today. Sorry to all those lovers of Austen fan fiction, I'm not.
My fav awful moment was when one of the evil sisters said
I was noticing how many phrases are direct quotes from Jane Austen's books. While googling fashion items I'd never heard of, I found this on a regency fashion blog:
I guess Aiken read this letter too. No googling in 1996, so she expended effort in research. She might have better spent some of that time improving her writing.
My fav awful moment was when one of the evil sisters said
"I was obliged to keep my gaze on the mat - three petticoats - when nobody now wears more than one - stays, my dear, when every person of fashion has left off even corsets."
I was noticing how many phrases are direct quotes from Jane Austen's books. While googling fashion items I'd never heard of, I found this on a regency fashion blog:
"An Englishwoman visiting Paris in 1802 wrote home about Paris fashions: "THREE petticoats? No one wears more than one! STAYS? Every body has left off even corsets." https://thedreamstress.com/2013/08/te...
I guess Aiken read this letter too. No googling in 1996, so she expended effort in research. She might have better spent some of that time improving her writing.
August 6, 2011
I woke up happy that I had three Joan Aiken novels to read. But with driving from the Hudson River up to Andes then over to West Kortright Center and back, only read one. Emma Watson: Jane Austen's Unfinished Novel Completed. I am trying to restrain myself in this review but such joy bubbles over. There's many an Austen knock-off I've read, hoping for some of the irony, discipline, reason and delight of the originals. Only one, Jane Fairfax by Aiken, actually completely satisfies, although some few of the other 'sequels' were interesting attempts, some even based on authorial respect, and a few written with some skill.
BUT, aha, there were long passages in Emma Watson that did meet all the criteria Jane Austen established. There's the lilting sense of being in on the joke that permeates her classics. The detail of setting which clarifies the story. When I read Austen, I can see the house, the gardens, the pelisses. I think that's one of her many gifts, she knows what the reader needs, and what it is not necessary to detail. Like Nabokov's exam question on the contents of Anna Karenina's purse, she paints the picture, we are there through the character's eyes, not outside observing the story. (And, I think VN was just cranky that day when he delivered that ill-fated diss -- or else wickedly joking as he tended to do so much. Or perhaps, he felt too many silly readers into Austen for silly reasons (gushing) -- sorry for the Defense). She does not mind.
The thing about Joan Aiken writing more Austen is Aiken's respect for the original text, being true to Austen's characters, her poetic and imaginative skills in writing, also playing with Austen's inside jokes. I'll not give those away, it's too delightful finding them. Aiken extends the strong, independent, self-actualizing woman most satisfactorily.
I couldn't stop reading it, always a good sign, even as I had planned to submit my own novel to the e-publishing system today. Always better to be buoyed by Austin and Aiken for the real courage to go ahead and publish.
Did I mention I loved the book and recommend it for those who can read between the lines?
BUT, aha, there were long passages in Emma Watson that did meet all the criteria Jane Austen established. There's the lilting sense of being in on the joke that permeates her classics. The detail of setting which clarifies the story. When I read Austen, I can see the house, the gardens, the pelisses. I think that's one of her many gifts, she knows what the reader needs, and what it is not necessary to detail. Like Nabokov's exam question on the contents of Anna Karenina's purse, she paints the picture, we are there through the character's eyes, not outside observing the story. (And, I think VN was just cranky that day when he delivered that ill-fated diss -- or else wickedly joking as he tended to do so much. Or perhaps, he felt too many silly readers into Austen for silly reasons (gushing) -- sorry for the Defense). She does not mind.
The thing about Joan Aiken writing more Austen is Aiken's respect for the original text, being true to Austen's characters, her poetic and imaginative skills in writing, also playing with Austen's inside jokes. I'll not give those away, it's too delightful finding them. Aiken extends the strong, independent, self-actualizing woman most satisfactorily.
I couldn't stop reading it, always a good sign, even as I had planned to submit my own novel to the e-publishing system today. Always better to be buoyed by Austin and Aiken for the real courage to go ahead and publish.
Did I mention I loved the book and recommend it for those who can read between the lines?
March 21, 2018
Le stelle sono riferite alla seconda parte, quella non scritta da Jane Austen.
La prima parte non ha nulla di negativo, ovviamente non ha la qualità dei libri pubblicati, ma è sempre Jane Austen, nulla da dire.
Ora veniamo alla parte scritta da Joan Aiken... pessima, semplicemente pessima.
Gli spunti lasciati dallo stralcio di racconto erano pochi e lei è riuscita a mancarli tutti. Anche considerando il fatto che la poverina non poteva certo reggere il confronto con Jane Austen, non riesco a salvare il libro sotto nessun aspetto.
Ha completamente stravolto i personaggi, non soltanto la protagonista, ma proprio tutti, e dopo aver dato loro una personalità completamente diversa da quella accennata dall'autrice, non si è fermata!, dopo pochi capitoli la personalità cambia di nuovo! Il povero Lord Osborne è diventato un ritardato! Tom Musgrave un ubriacone, la zia una giocatrice d'azzardo!
Emma ha un animo delicato e raffinato... o almeno così sostiene l'autrice, perché a leggere quello che le fa dire sembra una sciattona pettegola e sempre pronta a lamentarsi, per non parlare del fatto che è straordinariamente incline a credere di essere innamorata di tutti i personaggi di sesso maschile per poi realizzare che non sono degni della sua immensa nobiltà d'animo.
E poi ci sono i... 'dettagli', la povera autrice si è dovuta fare due ricerche, non so se ne era fiera o infastidita, ma è certo che ha deciso che se quelle cose le aveva imparate, allora tanto valeva inserirle nel libro. Che siano dettagli su come lavare la biancheria, curare gli zoccoli dei cavalli o lisciare i capelli, i dettagli che non importano a nessuno abbondano fino a far alzare gli occhi al cielo... e la lezione di storia? La scena in cui conosce Freemantle è assolutamente ridicola, la povera ha cercato di mettere tutto il capitoletto striminzito di storia che si è dovuta leggere, se trovassi la trasposizione di quello che ha scritto su wikipedia non riuscirei a stupirmi minimamente!
E per finire mi tocca pure leggere nel riassuntino del libro che ha saputo imitare lo stile dell'Austen?! Ma vaff...
Consigliato: solo la parte di Jane Austen!
La prima parte non ha nulla di negativo, ovviamente non ha la qualità dei libri pubblicati, ma è sempre Jane Austen, nulla da dire.
Ora veniamo alla parte scritta da Joan Aiken... pessima, semplicemente pessima.
Gli spunti lasciati dallo stralcio di racconto erano pochi e lei è riuscita a mancarli tutti. Anche considerando il fatto che la poverina non poteva certo reggere il confronto con Jane Austen, non riesco a salvare il libro sotto nessun aspetto.
Ha completamente stravolto i personaggi, non soltanto la protagonista, ma proprio tutti, e dopo aver dato loro una personalità completamente diversa da quella accennata dall'autrice, non si è fermata!, dopo pochi capitoli la personalità cambia di nuovo! Il povero Lord Osborne è diventato un ritardato! Tom Musgrave un ubriacone, la zia una giocatrice d'azzardo!
Emma ha un animo delicato e raffinato... o almeno così sostiene l'autrice, perché a leggere quello che le fa dire sembra una sciattona pettegola e sempre pronta a lamentarsi, per non parlare del fatto che è straordinariamente incline a credere di essere innamorata di tutti i personaggi di sesso maschile per poi realizzare che non sono degni della sua immensa nobiltà d'animo.
E poi ci sono i... 'dettagli', la povera autrice si è dovuta fare due ricerche, non so se ne era fiera o infastidita, ma è certo che ha deciso che se quelle cose le aveva imparate, allora tanto valeva inserirle nel libro. Che siano dettagli su come lavare la biancheria, curare gli zoccoli dei cavalli o lisciare i capelli, i dettagli che non importano a nessuno abbondano fino a far alzare gli occhi al cielo... e la lezione di storia? La scena in cui conosce Freemantle è assolutamente ridicola, la povera ha cercato di mettere tutto il capitoletto striminzito di storia che si è dovuta leggere, se trovassi la trasposizione di quello che ha scritto su wikipedia non riuscirei a stupirmi minimamente!
E per finire mi tocca pure leggere nel riassuntino del libro che ha saputo imitare lo stile dell'Austen?! Ma vaff...
Consigliato: solo la parte di Jane Austen!
February 15, 2018
This just wasn't as much fun as some of Joan Aiken's other Austen "sequels". It was full of unpleasant people and . This edition also has the original Jane Austen fragment it's based on, which was interesting. Really wish she'd been able to finish it.
January 21, 2020
First published in 1996. This is a completion of Jane Austen's novel fragment, The Watsons.
I wanted to like this more than I did. There aren't that many completions of this fragment out there, but this one I found slow-moving and just not that Austenesque. I disliked too many of the characters, and the protagonist herself didn't seem to have much spark. The original fragment is very different from Austen's other work, but I've always loved even her most low-key protagonists, including Fanny Price and Anne Elliot. This one not so much, at least not in this completion of her fragment. There was none of Austen's subtle satire, no characters we love to hate. These were just unlikeable and not in any entertaining way.
I wanted to like this more than I did. There aren't that many completions of this fragment out there, but this one I found slow-moving and just not that Austenesque. I disliked too many of the characters, and the protagonist herself didn't seem to have much spark. The original fragment is very different from Austen's other work, but I've always loved even her most low-key protagonists, including Fanny Price and Anne Elliot. This one not so much, at least not in this completion of her fragment. There was none of Austen's subtle satire, no characters we love to hate. These were just unlikeable and not in any entertaining way.
August 27, 2016
I'm not only a serious Jane Austen fan, but have a possibly unhealthy fascination with Austen "fan fiction" of various flavors. So it was a natural reflex to pick up a copy of The Watsons & Emma Watson, an unfinished Austen fragment worked up into a completed story by Joan Aiken, whose forays into this genre I had not previously noted.
I suppose it is every successful novelist's nightmare that, after their death, an industry will spring up to exploit their every sketch and abandoned draft. This, of course, is what fireplaces are for, though later fans are always grateful when they aren't used. It's hard to know what might have come of this fragment if Austen herself had returned to it and redeemed by a happy ending a protagonist whose life perhaps hit a little too close to home. All I know is that, having read past the Austen segment and two chapters into the Aiken work-up, I find myself completely uninterested in proceeding. It isn't that the character couldn't be made interesting -- she has every bit as much potential as other Austen heroines. But Aiken's writing is, to me, hopelessly pedestrian, awkward, and infused with "the researcher's disease". This last was obvious from the first page where the title character and her sister Elizabeth are doing the laundry together and we get an excruciatingly detailed catalog of Regency stain-removal approaches:
* * *
'Indeed yes!' agreed her sister Elizabeth, briskly giving a stir to various tubs of laundry soaking in solutions of household soda and unslaked lime. 'Those cloths you have there, Emma, can go straight into the copper, unless any of them is badly stained.'
'Only this handkerchief of my father's, which has ink on it.'
'Spread it out in a pan of oxalic acid. Or spirits of sorrel. You will find the bottles next door, on the shelf.'
* * *
To be fair, no other passages have been quite so egregious, but it was an inauspicious start. The final judgment came when I was looking for a book to read while waiting for my haircut -- a low bar, since I've been known to read the entertainment magazines in the lobby -- and found myself rejecting The Watsons for that purpose. I concluded that I should acknowledge the failure and move on to a more deserving member of my to-read stack. (Whereupon I finally started Jo Walton's Farthing and immediately became hooked.)
I suppose it is every successful novelist's nightmare that, after their death, an industry will spring up to exploit their every sketch and abandoned draft. This, of course, is what fireplaces are for, though later fans are always grateful when they aren't used. It's hard to know what might have come of this fragment if Austen herself had returned to it and redeemed by a happy ending a protagonist whose life perhaps hit a little too close to home. All I know is that, having read past the Austen segment and two chapters into the Aiken work-up, I find myself completely uninterested in proceeding. It isn't that the character couldn't be made interesting -- she has every bit as much potential as other Austen heroines. But Aiken's writing is, to me, hopelessly pedestrian, awkward, and infused with "the researcher's disease". This last was obvious from the first page where the title character and her sister Elizabeth are doing the laundry together and we get an excruciatingly detailed catalog of Regency stain-removal approaches:
* * *
'Indeed yes!' agreed her sister Elizabeth, briskly giving a stir to various tubs of laundry soaking in solutions of household soda and unslaked lime. 'Those cloths you have there, Emma, can go straight into the copper, unless any of them is badly stained.'
'Only this handkerchief of my father's, which has ink on it.'
'Spread it out in a pan of oxalic acid. Or spirits of sorrel. You will find the bottles next door, on the shelf.'
* * *
To be fair, no other passages have been quite so egregious, but it was an inauspicious start. The final judgment came when I was looking for a book to read while waiting for my haircut -- a low bar, since I've been known to read the entertainment magazines in the lobby -- and found myself rejecting The Watsons for that purpose. I concluded that I should acknowledge the failure and move on to a more deserving member of my to-read stack. (Whereupon I finally started Jo Walton's Farthing and immediately became hooked.)
September 25, 2014
This was very interesting to read. I really enjoyed Joan Aiken's writing, as I always do. She didn't mimic Jane Austen. Presumably on purpose. She made the book her own in all sorts of ways.
One, she didn't follow the plot line that was allegedly given by Jane Austen herself, albeit very sketchily.
Two, she altered the personalities of characters; they emerged differently from the way they appear in Jane Austen's beginning. (Mr Howard, Lord Osborne and Miss Osborne in particular all had fairly drastic character transformations. Admittedly, Mr Howard's personality had not shown much of itself in Jane's beginning, but given that she chose him as the eventual beau for her heroine, she must have had plans for him being a pretty ace bloke! Also, I had possibly erroneously inferred that Mr Watson was intended to be a pettish hypochondriac character. Joan developed him as a very sympathetic and charming character with genuine illness. (I was very conflicted for a while towards the end, given that I had read what Jane Austen supposedly intended, and then absolutely adored the Captain Fremantle character Joan Aiken introduced. What a gorgeous character!)
Three, Joan delighted in going into period details, which had obviously fascinated her during her research phase. The scene where Elizabeth and Emma are washing sheets in the laundry struck me in particular. I may be wrong, but I just couldn't imagine Jane Austen going into details about the laundry process in her work. It was great though.
I completely loved the quirky developments involving Aunt Maria and the horse racing. Surely Jane Austen would never have done such a thing! Hilarious!
So, if you want a true Austen feel, you may be disappointed. But given that I love both J.A. authors with a passion, I couldn't really lose, could I?
One, she didn't follow the plot line that was allegedly given by Jane Austen herself, albeit very sketchily.
Two, she altered the personalities of characters; they emerged differently from the way they appear in Jane Austen's beginning. (Mr Howard, Lord Osborne and Miss Osborne in particular all had fairly drastic character transformations. Admittedly, Mr Howard's personality had not shown much of itself in Jane's beginning, but given that she chose him as the eventual beau for her heroine, she must have had plans for him being a pretty ace bloke! Also, I had possibly erroneously inferred that Mr Watson was intended to be a pettish hypochondriac character. Joan developed him as a very sympathetic and charming character with genuine illness. (I was very conflicted for a while towards the end, given that I had read what Jane Austen supposedly intended, and then absolutely adored the Captain Fremantle character Joan Aiken introduced. What a gorgeous character!)
Three, Joan delighted in going into period details, which had obviously fascinated her during her research phase. The scene where Elizabeth and Emma are washing sheets in the laundry struck me in particular. I may be wrong, but I just couldn't imagine Jane Austen going into details about the laundry process in her work. It was great though.
I completely loved the quirky developments involving Aunt Maria and the horse racing. Surely Jane Austen would never have done such a thing! Hilarious!
So, if you want a true Austen feel, you may be disappointed. But given that I love both J.A. authors with a passion, I couldn't really lose, could I?
May 15, 2015
Alors, j'avais déjà lu les 60 pages écrites par Jane (forcément) et j'étais donc impatience de découvrir la suite proposée par Joan Aiken. A la fin, je suis à la fois séduite et un peu déçue. Séduite parce que je trouve que l'auteure a su reprendre les thèmes chers à Jane : l'argent et le mariage. Sur le premier thème, le frère ainé d'Emma, Robert ressemble très fortement (trop ?) au frère Dashwood de Raison et Sentiments, sa femme Jane est d'ailleurs en tous points la même que Fanny. Idem, beaucoup de choses m'ont semblé empruntées à Mansfield Park et l'histoire d'amour d'Elizabeth a tout de Persuasion... Il y a aussi des événements tragiques qui m'ont gênée... c'est bizarre mais la mort d'une femme et de son enfant ne me paraissent pas "austeniens". Les rebondissements familiaux Osborne/Edward m'ont également parus too much... Pour Pénélope & Margaret, elles sont des copiés collés de Maria et Julia. Enfin, l'héroïne est à mon sens une sorte de mélange de Fanny Price et d'Elizabeth Bennet... j'aurais vraiment apprécié que son histoire d'amour soit un peu plus développée, au final, même si c'est bien écrit, j'ai trouvé que le roman manquait cruellement de développement et de pages... L'histoire est intéressante mais j'aurais aimé que le traitement des personnages (nombreux) soit plus profond
Ce que j'aime : la plume est belle et on est dans le style Austen. Le personnage d'Emma est attachant
Ce que j'aime moins : ça manque un peu de profondeur au niveau des personnages et certains événements m'ont semblés too much. Parfois trop de ressemblances identifiables avec les personnages des autres romans de Jane
En bref : Une suite honorable, bien écrite qui transporte sans problème son lecteur mais souffre d'un manque de développement
Ma note
6,5/10
Ce que j'aime : la plume est belle et on est dans le style Austen. Le personnage d'Emma est attachant
Ce que j'aime moins : ça manque un peu de profondeur au niveau des personnages et certains événements m'ont semblés too much. Parfois trop de ressemblances identifiables avec les personnages des autres romans de Jane
En bref : Une suite honorable, bien écrite qui transporte sans problème son lecteur mais souffre d'un manque de développement
Ma note
6,5/10
November 15, 2013
This novel attempts to complete Jane Austen's unfinished novel The Watsons. Emma Watson was adopted by an aunt after the death of her mother, 14 years earlier. Now the aunt has remarried and Emma has to return home to her ailing father and three older spinster sisters. Her eldest sister is kind and good, caring for their father and trying to ignore her broken heart from a long ago romance. The other two sisters are busy husband-hunting and their eldest brother is married to a greedy, grasping woman who dislikes Emma. At a local assembly, Emma dances with a young boy who introduces Emma to his kind mother and his uncle, the vicar, who also dances with Emma. Jane Austen left off after the assembly and Joan Aiken attempts to pick up the novel and finish where Austen left off. Emma is a saintly heroine, helping her eldest sister care for their father and their home while despising her other sisters and brother. She befriends little Charlie Blake and his family including Mr. Howard, the vicar and attracts the interest of the interest of the rakish Tom Musgrave and the slow-witted Lord Osborne. Emma experiences many tragedies before she can find happiness.
The first half of this novel is well-written and in the vein of Austen but the rest of the story is full of tragedy before it abruptly comes to an end. This isn't the best Austen adaptation. It doesn't seem like something she would write and there isn't really an ending except for an epilogue which tells what happens to the characters. I would recommend this to Aiken fans and Austen fans who are curious about what happens to Emma Watson.
Romance lovers and historians look elsewhere.
March 31, 2011
I was unsure on which shelf to put this book. Based on a two-chapter story fragment written in 1804 by Jane Austen, this book has been finished by a writer named Joan Aiken.
The story seems a combination of almost all of Austen's other novels: the poor cousin raised by wealthy relations, a poor but genteel family with far too many daughters, a choice between a dashing lord and a quiet gentleman ... et cetera. One can see from the authentic Austen pasages where she was going with the plot and why she dropped it; the reader can even guess which parts of this book were taken out and used for other stories. The problem lies, somewhat, with the modern author's writing. And the fact that she made the story a jumble, preposterous mess.
Ms Aiken is fairly good at mimicing the style of the period, sort of, and most of the language is correct, but some of her characterization and word-choice is jarringly modern. It's somewhat distracting. And the imitation of Austen isn't nearly as good as the cover-flap led me to believe. Joan Aiken is a fine writer, but her style, when writing a la 19th century novels, is closer to the less political works of Elizabeth Gaskell than to Jane Austen.
For all in all, not awful, I guess. Not recommended, unless you like this sort of thing and you don't get your hopes up too high.
The story seems a combination of almost all of Austen's other novels: the poor cousin raised by wealthy relations, a poor but genteel family with far too many daughters, a choice between a dashing lord and a quiet gentleman ... et cetera. One can see from the authentic Austen pasages where she was going with the plot and why she dropped it; the reader can even guess which parts of this book were taken out and used for other stories. The problem lies, somewhat, with the modern author's writing. And the fact that she made the story a jumble, preposterous mess.
Ms Aiken is fairly good at mimicing the style of the period, sort of, and most of the language is correct, but some of her characterization and word-choice is jarringly modern. It's somewhat distracting. And the imitation of Austen isn't nearly as good as the cover-flap led me to believe. Joan Aiken is a fine writer, but her style, when writing a la 19th century novels, is closer to the less political works of Elizabeth Gaskell than to Jane Austen.
For all in all, not awful, I guess. Not recommended, unless you like this sort of thing and you don't get your hopes up too high.
July 15, 2012
Joan Aiken takes the un-finished novel, The Watsons by Jane Austen, and creates her own story. I really like how the handling of this un-finished story. The book is presented in two parts--Jane Austen's novel and then, with a distinct separation, Joan Aiken's novel.
I don't know the history of this book beyond the fact that it was begun during Austen's time in Bath, and she gave it up after the death of her father. In the part of the story that she had written, Austen had only begun to introduce the characters. The witty repartee and sage observation characteristic of her writing is not at the same level in this book as it is in her completed works. Obviously this was unfinished both in length and quality of writing. That said, the set-up for the main character and her sister Elizabeth was really interesting and obviously full of possibilities.
Aiken didn't try to mimic Austen's style, rather she takes Austen's set-up and characters and crafts her own story while being true to the time period as far as I can tell. She makes references to Austen's other books in passing comments and observations that the main character makes. Aiken adds some period detail, for example listing the ingredients in a beauty treatment. Towards the end, the story gets further from what Austen might have written, attending a horse race? Still, I think Aiken developed an interesting and mostly plausible story.
This book makes for a fun alternative if you are not quite ready to leave Austen Land.
I don't know the history of this book beyond the fact that it was begun during Austen's time in Bath, and she gave it up after the death of her father. In the part of the story that she had written, Austen had only begun to introduce the characters. The witty repartee and sage observation characteristic of her writing is not at the same level in this book as it is in her completed works. Obviously this was unfinished both in length and quality of writing. That said, the set-up for the main character and her sister Elizabeth was really interesting and obviously full of possibilities.
Aiken didn't try to mimic Austen's style, rather she takes Austen's set-up and characters and crafts her own story while being true to the time period as far as I can tell. She makes references to Austen's other books in passing comments and observations that the main character makes. Aiken adds some period detail, for example listing the ingredients in a beauty treatment. Towards the end, the story gets further from what Austen might have written, attending a horse race? Still, I think Aiken developed an interesting and mostly plausible story.
This book makes for a fun alternative if you are not quite ready to leave Austen Land.
March 30, 2015
I feel like Joan Aiken doesn't use the first pages written by Jane Austen, as much ad she should have.
She takes the characters, but don't follow what I think Jane Austen wanted to do.
Two characters that we meet at the beginning, in Jane's text, seems to be very important for the plot, but almost disappeared in 2/3 of Aiken's book. It is like she did not know what to do with them.
It seems that in the middle, Joan Aiken is getting lost and don't really know where to go with the characters.
There is suddenly a new character that appears very briefly, but which completely gains the heart of the heroine, without understanding why. They met few hours only : How can anyone build something on few hours? Especially with the bad experience of Emma's aunt, How could Emma go for it?
There were I think some pages to write around the accident that happens at a certain point of the story. It is a terrifying episode and there is no character development around it. I don't feel the pain of any character (except one) on it.
I think It was a good idea to have this trauma for the character responsible for the accident to make him grow as a person, however, there is not enough development.
I felt like Aiken wandered not knowing where to go with Jane's character, made some of them disappear for pages, and wrap up fast at the end, by putting couple together.
The story with Mary Edwards was a good plot, and surprised me.
To conclude: the story needed more development, and to stick to Jane Austen's first pages.
She takes the characters, but don't follow what I think Jane Austen wanted to do.
Two characters that we meet at the beginning, in Jane's text, seems to be very important for the plot, but almost disappeared in 2/3 of Aiken's book. It is like she did not know what to do with them.
It seems that in the middle, Joan Aiken is getting lost and don't really know where to go with the characters.
There is suddenly a new character that appears very briefly, but which completely gains the heart of the heroine, without understanding why. They met few hours only : How can anyone build something on few hours? Especially with the bad experience of Emma's aunt, How could Emma go for it?
There were I think some pages to write around the accident that happens at a certain point of the story. It is a terrifying episode and there is no character development around it. I don't feel the pain of any character (except one) on it.
I think It was a good idea to have this trauma for the character responsible for the accident to make him grow as a person, however, there is not enough development.
I felt like Aiken wandered not knowing where to go with Jane's character, made some of them disappear for pages, and wrap up fast at the end, by putting couple together.
The story with Mary Edwards was a good plot, and surprised me.
To conclude: the story needed more development, and to stick to Jane Austen's first pages.
December 24, 2009
The Watsons, a fragment by Jane Austen, is about Emma Watson who returns home after spending 14 years with a dear aunt. Life with her family is drastically different from her old well life: her family is poor, her father ill and weak, and she does not get along very well with her siblings, except for her oldest sister. Emma is introduced to the neighborhood at a ball and, among the guests, meets Mrs. Blake, her son Charles, her brother Mr. Howard, and catches the attention of Lord Osborne and Tom Musgrave. Joan Aiken's Emma Watson completes the story.
As a historical drama it was a pretty good read. As a continuation of Austen’s fragment it was a disappointment.
I was surprised by how Aiken handled (and got rid of!) some of the characters Jane had introduced. Mr. Howard, for example, I was distressed by how willingly he lived under Lady Osbourne’s thumb and seemed concerned about marrying well. (I wanted to smack him upside the head many times.) There was barely any character development, and it was hard for me to really root for Emma. (This felt like a washed-down version of Cinderella.) It was strange introducing…”Aiken’s gentleman” so late in the story, and having him appear and disappear like a genie. I didn’t notice any sort of spark between him and Emma to foreshadow his confession later and her realizing her own feelings in turn. And the ending did nothing for me.
Overall disappointing.
As a historical drama it was a pretty good read. As a continuation of Austen’s fragment it was a disappointment.
I was surprised by how Aiken handled (and got rid of!) some of the characters Jane had introduced. Mr. Howard, for example, I was distressed by how willingly he lived under Lady Osbourne’s thumb and seemed concerned about marrying well. (I wanted to smack him upside the head many times.) There was barely any character development, and it was hard for me to really root for Emma. (This felt like a washed-down version of Cinderella.) It was strange introducing…”Aiken’s gentleman” so late in the story, and having him appear and disappear like a genie. I didn’t notice any sort of spark between him and Emma to foreshadow his confession later and her realizing her own feelings in turn. And the ending did nothing for me.
Overall disappointing.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 8, 2020
I am a huge Austen fan and have also read a few Joan Aiken novels and unlike many readers who have reviewed this,I loved it. It is maybe the fact that Aiken decides to complete this unfinished novel herself that many people dislike it. I have to ask how many of the people who did like this, like the TV and film adaptations because I don't get on with any of those versions. This demonstrates how we all like different aspects of Austen. I really enjoyed this book from start to finish and personally couldn't find any areas to fault. It is also quite up to date at the moment as the Pandemic is still on and there is mention of furlough and also talk about slavery, which is another historical event that has still not gone away. There are lots of events happening in this relatively short book with a few storylines ongoing at the same time. There was, for me, never a dull moment and I found the whole book very entertaining.
December 27, 2016
1.5 stars. It was not Jane Austen-like at all. Jane Austen was a lady and there were some subjects she did not touch. If they had to be broached, it was done delicately. Example: illegitimate or bastard was referred to as 'the natural child of...' Like wise, she did not kill people off abruptly or at random. I did not really care for this 'finishing'. Jane Austen did not finish the story herself because her family did not care for it. It was probably best left that way. If you were not expecting a Jane Austen Masterpiece, then the story was passable.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 167 reviews