Lit Reader’s Reviews > The Terms of the Bequest: A Pride and Prejudice Variation > Status Update

There are so many Julie Cooper books that I absolutely love, but when I read the blurb for this one, I had doubts because it sounded so farfetched and contrived. I agree that these authors, despite their talents, are not getting honest feedback at the early stages of their books, relying on friends and family who are cheerleaders. I'm also seeing more 4-star reviews than 5-star reviews for this book, which in this genre, for a well-loved author, is a red flag and signals real problems with a story.

The premise of the bequest here is INSANITY !!!

Lizzy senses something nefarious is happening and helps a young Anne De Bourgh pay for a hackney ride. That’s it. That’s her superhero(ine) moment. And because if this and a misunderstanding with her name/role, Old Mr. Darcy decides to pay this kindness with a bequest of AN ESTATE IN SHEFFIELD to who he thinks Elizabeth is >> a middle-aged, low-class woman from “the rookeries” in the underbelly of London. For a gift of a few coins, a man who is not even blood-related to Anne De Bourgh is willing to deprive his own family from a land estate, but doing it with a crazy caveat requiring this mystery woman to live in said estate 11 months out of the year, for 10 years, in order to retain the property. This lavish land gift is accompanied with £250 per year for “expenses”… again, this for gifting a few coins to Annie De Bourgh in a warehouse alley in London.

Massive eye-roll.

Lit wrote: "The premise of the bequest here is INSANITY !!!

Lizzy senses something nefarious is happening and helps a young Anne De Bourgh pay for a hackney ride. That’s it. That’s her superhero(ine) moment. ..."

Good grief. That makes NO sense. You and I could probably brainstorm four or five ideas of how Elizabeth could have helped Anne in a more meaningful way that could have led to a more significant bequest (but never the gift of an actual estate with the requirement to live there, that's just stupid). And knowing that the mystery person was a female makes it even more nonsensical to bequest an estate since women typically did not own property except through their husband unless widowed. As you said, assets like estates would have been kept in the family. Perhaps given to Col Fitzwilliam to get him out of the army. LOL

The reviews are very lukewarm, and I can see why. This is not something I'd bother reading.

I feel as if I was scammed because the promotional chapter shared by email by the publisher was a sober, gloomy scene with Young Darcy rushing to his father’s bedside — and now I am led to believe that after looking for one mystery Elizabeth Bennet for 5-6 years to fulfill his deathbed promise to his father, he made no connection between THAT and one young Elizabeth Bennet in Hertfordshire, so ALL OF P&P happened exactly as Austen wrote it, until he arrives in Rosings so he can propose to Lizzy calling her family clowns & spongers.

What are these ppl thinking (I blame more ppl than just the author here) ?!???

Wow. He didn't make that connection? It's not like the name was Elizabeth Smith. It reminds me of a recent book (same publisher!) where Mr. Bennet could not remember the name of the man his sister married (via elopement in a big scandal). So, he couldn't remember that Elizabeth had an inheritance or her actual last name. **shaking head in disbelief**

Hahahah, I remember that one, Mr. Bennet casually misplaced documents detailing Elizabeth’s wealth, and an enormously significant family name just escaped him ! Truly beyond belief.

To me (re: here) even more puzzling than Darcy failing to make a connection between a girl he met & the name he has been supposedly searching for 6 years (!!!), is how LAZY of the author to just skip Darcy’s whole visit to Hertfordshire, and push is to “assume” it all went exactly as the original, until he arrived in Rosings to issue his own clownish proposal there [ eye roll ].

The whole point of writing variations in JAFF is to ALTER events of the narrative, to change one situation and see how ripples and consequences affect the development, to see how characters react in different circumstances. That’s the whole point of this genre. It’s a FAIL (in my opinion) for a author to introduce a significant change in the “past”, and skip over any ripples or adjustments to the story, until a random pinpoint moment of their choosing…

Lit wrote: "Hahahah, I remember that one, Mr. Bennet casually misplaced documents detailing Elizabeth’s wealth, and an enormously significant family name just escaped him ! Truly beyond belief.

To me (re: he..."

It's so disappointing. I hate this type of mistake in writing (a character doesn't make the connection of the name, can't remember something that anyone would remember, etc.). It's worse because this author is usually so reliable.

And to skip over huge chunks of the story because she wants us to assume it's the same as original P&P - that's lazy, and I think there should have been changes that grew from the new background.

However, thinking about it, if she had included the time at Netherfield, she could not have avoided Darcy having a flicker of recognition at Elizabeth's name. I think she glossed over/skipped a lot because there was no way to explain that he didn't recognize the name or make any connection to the mysterious missing woman.

Just my guess, having not read the story, and not intending to bother with it. Once again, you've saved me from a frustrating read!

It was very lazy. First the author just skips over and forced us to believe the original played out until Rosings; but then some Damage Control must happen, so she inserts a short paragraph about how he DID notice the name, but quickly dismissed it because he was looking for an older woman, and maybe that was the reason why he noticed Lizzy in the first place ! Not because of her with or her eyes, but because of the matching name, which he dismissed without asking any questions or trying to check if there was a connection…