Ship of Fools: March Book Group-Death Comes to Pemberley.

Thread: March Book Group-Death Comes to Pemberley. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025300

Posted by Tree Bee (# 4033) on :

Well, this month's book is P.D. James 'follow up' to Pride and Prejudice, Death Comes to Pemberley.

If you, like me, are following The Lizzie Bennet Diaries on YouTube, I challenge you to read this without visualising the actors in it.

The discussion will be led by Chelley.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I read this about a year ago and was mildly intrigued though not overly impressed. I might want to skim back through it before the discussion since some of the details are sketchy. When I read it, it had been YEARS since I'd read Pride & Prejudice and I couldn't remember a lot of the original characters and conflicts. Since then, I, like you, have been watching Lizzie Bennet, and I've just reread P&P, so I think it would be interesting to have a fresh look at Death Comes to Pemberley now.

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

Whoever posted about the Lizzie Bennett diaries got me hooked on them too! I'm generally not a fan of sequels that are written by a different writer, but I think my Mum has this book so I'll probably borrow her copy and join in.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

I enjoyed reading it. Though it's gone back to the lender now, I hope I'll be able to remember enough about it to join in.

Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :

I read this a while ago - I'll skim through it again to remind myself of the details before the discussion starts.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I borrowed a copy and started reading this yesterday.

Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :

I read the free sample of the book, and enjoyed it! So, I've downloaded the whole book onto my Nook, and will be joining in.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

I'll ask Z if I can see it on her Nook...

Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :

I have read it, but will need to re-read it. I have it on Kindle. I am a Janite, so have some issues with the whole concept.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I've finished it and am looking forward to discussing it.

Posted by Tree Bee (# 4033) on :

I've finished reading too.

It looks like we may not have a discussion leader this month, so please concoct some questions and points to discuss. Ta.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I don't want to post a question which might be a plot spoiler for those still reading. This is a safe question, though, as it's not material to the plot.

P.D. James drops in a couple of references to characters in other Jane Austen books. For example, the housekeeper at Pemberley has a sister-in-law Mrs Goddard who keeps a school in Highbury.

This felt contrived to me. What does everyone else think?

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I didn't much care for that either as it happens. Austen had plenty of opportunities to locate her characters in the same 'universe' and choose not to do so, so it does seem a little presumptuous for the author of a sequel to do so on her behalf!

What I do like is the way that the characters have developed. How time is shown to have soured relationships between some 'good' characters or to have led to more pleasant sides being revealed for some of the 'bad' ones.

Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :

I was really looking forward to reading this as I love JA's books and am also a great crime fiction fan, but was a bit disappointed. The 'solution' (without giving the game away) felt contrived, and the device of referring to characters from other books was a bit clunking. It also led to a strange chronological error: we are clearly told that this book takes place in 1804 but events from Persuasion are referred to and Persuasion is explicitly set in 1814. It's not like PD James to overlook such a detail.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Persuasion has a chronology too: in fact, it's about it's past as much as its present. Whereabouts are the events referred to in Pemberley ? If they are, for example, Captain Wentworth coming ashore after the Peace of Amiens, that would be OK for 1804.

Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :

On p 196 of the paperback it says that Wickham's 'latest attempt to earn a competence had been with Sir Walter Elliot, a baronet who had been forced by extravagance to rent his house to strangers and had moved to Bath with two of his daughters. The younger, Anne, had since made a prosperous and happy marriage with a naval captain, now a distinguished admiral'. That last sentence seems to imply a date after the events of Persuasion, and even further removed from the 1804 date of Pemberley .

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Definitely wrong then.

Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :

Yes indeed, and, as I said, very strange for PDJ to be so careless!

Posted by Ferijen (# 4719) on :

I'm a fan of JA but not of crime fiction, but enjoyed this in a nice-way-to-pass-the-evening way. I found the references contrived, but then the whole thing is.

A similar question: the language used was deliberately reminiscent of JA, but did you find it as easy (or not) to read as the language in the original books? I felt that while most of the time it was readable, it lacked the gentleness and grace of JA, at times it was too clunky to read easily.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I thought it was a bit clunky. But I think it would be almost impossible to write in a way that flowed seamlessly on from Pride and Prejudice.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Is it available on Kindle or NooK? Might it be available in our local public library? We have a tiny house and are drowning in hardbacks and paperbacks!

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

One thing that niggled at me was that she stated that Charlotte tried to sabotage the Elizabeth/Darcy relationship by deliberately setting Lady Catherine on them. She said that Charlotte harbored resentment against Elizabeth for disapproving of her choice to marry Mr. Collins. Actually, Austen as narrator said that when Lady Catherine learned of Elizabeth and Darcy's engagement and freaked out, Charlotte hustled herself ans her husband back to the Lucases because she didn't want to hear Lady Catherine going off on a relationship Charlotte was happy about.

If Austen hadn't included that, the story of Charlotte's gnawing resentment might be included as valid speculation, but as it is it's ridiculous. Besides, it is much more like the busy-body Mr. Collins to expect his wife to share all the details of her mail and jump on that juicy bit of gossip himself and trot it immediately over to Rosings.

ETA: Yes, Sir Kevin, I read the book on my Kindle.

[ 16. March 2013, 07:36: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Yes, I didn't understand that. Especially as a coolness between Elizabeth and Charlotte added nothing to the plot. Also, if she had wanted to write in an estrangement between Charlotte and Elizabeth, distance and Charlotte being busy with three children and the duties of a clergy wife would have sufficed.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

The biggest thing that felt un-Austen to me was that Elizabeth is effectively a minor character in this book. Added to which, because it is a murder mystery, a lot of it is Darcy talking to other men without any women around - a situation you never find in the canon. So, a brave attempt, but ultimately a failure, IMHO.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Well, I see all the Austen tie-ins as ever-so-slightly tongue-in-cheek, although I accept that PDJ was also expressing genuine (or at least plausible) views about goings-on in the background. I don't think the idea that Charlotte, perhaps at the time, scarcely aware of her own jealousy, accidentally-on-purpose gave away some of Lizzie's secrets, is incompatible with the idea that she couldn't bear listening to Lady C going on and on and on about it. It seems to me entirely plausible that there would be some coolness between Charlotte and Lizzie and, in any case, I guess PDJ wanted Charlotte tucked out of the way. PDJ has a tidy mind - a pre-requisite, I think, for a writer of detective stories, but often not a characteristic of our Greatest Writers.

In a way, the book is a sort of counter-balance to Austen, dealing with the dark under-belly of her world, and I think it was wise to keep Lizzie in the background - a proper acknowledgement that she could not match Austen's brilliance in the creation of that character - and also, possibly, that a more grown-up, settled and contented Lizzie might be less interesting.

I'm not one of those who thinks Persuasion to be Austen's greatest book, but it does show a deepening maturity and a growing readiness to tackle dark themes. I like to think she felt she could afford to do that now that her reputation was established, and perhaps she also felt more confident in her craft (though nothing in P+P, Emma or Persuasion bespeaks any lack of confidence). Who knows what she might have done if she had lived?

Well, perhaps we can discuss the ending of Death Comes to Pemberley in more detail later, but I found the book as a whole delightful and particularly the style which is an elegant tribute to Austen that stops just short of pastiche.

[ 16. March 2013, 11:44: Message edited by: QLib ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I adore Austen and I like PD James. I enjoyed this book, but felt that it was neither Austen at her best, nor PD James at her best.

There were a few characters tucked away - Mr Bennet visits Pemberley, but not Mrs Bennet. We are told where Kitty and Mary are, but they're tucked away, too. Bingley's sisters are mentioned in passing, but are tucked away, too.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I powerfully disliked it, and I am not sure it would have got published were PD James not an established writer. But can't say more without discussing the plot !

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:
I don't think the idea that Charlotte, perhaps at the time, scarcely aware of her own jealousy, accidentally-on-purpose gave away some of Lizzie's secrets, is incompatible with the idea that she couldn't bear listening to Lady C going on and on and on about it. It seems to me entirely plausible that there would be some coolness between Charlotte and Lizzie and, in any case, I guess PDJ wanted Charlotte tucked out of the way.

It's not that I thought it was implausible, I just thought it was unnecessary. It didn't add anything to the plot. Charlotte was already "tucked away" in that she was in Kent, whilst Lizzie was in Pemberley, in Derbyshire. Moreover, if Death in Pemberley was set to co-incide with the Bingley / Darcy 6th wedding anniversaries, then Charlotte must have been married for about seven years, and was expecting her fourth child. No further explanation was needed of her absence from the plot than distance and family commitments.

I agree with Lyda*Rose; it niggled.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
It's not that I thought it was implausible, I just thought it was unnecessary. It didn't add anything to the plot. Charlotte was already "tucked away" in that she was in Kent, whilst Lizzie was in Pemberley, in Derbyshire. Moreover, if Death in Pemberley was set to co-incide with the Bingley / Darcy 6th wedding anniversaries, then Charlotte must have been married for about seven years, and was expecting her fourth child. No further explanation was needed of her absence from the plot than distance and family commitments.

I agree with Lyda*Rose; it niggled.

Yes, it's definitely extraneous to the plot and I can see why it niggled, though I personally see it as rather playful even though I think PDJ genuinely believes a coolness might well have developed between the two (and I also think she may have had a point, though not one I'd be prepared to defend with any degree of firmness.) Maybe the playfulness is just in my imagination - it doesn't sit particularly well with a murder story.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I agree that James is being playful at various points; what do others think of the arch comment regarding the possibility of an appeal (Book Four, Chap1) (p156 in my copy) that allowing an appeal "would be the ultimate idiocy, and if carried on ad infinitum could presumably result in a foreign court trying English cases. And that would be the end of more than our legal system."

Is it a clever aside or did it make you roll your eyes?

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

A combination of a roll of eyes and an outright laugh. Something of a double-edged sword there.

Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :

I read this over a year ago, and was rather disappointed. I've dipped into bits of it to try and remind myself why I thought that over the last few days, and I think it's the style. It seems James is trying to write somewhat like Austen, but hasn't got the lightness of touch to bring it off.
As a detective novel (a genre which I like and which I think James is good at) I thought it started promisingly, but didn't really keep me engaged till the end.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

May I take it that the discussion has started?

1) Why? (Other than P.D.James is ninety years old and can do what she likes.) There are parallels between detective fiction and Austen novels - in the one you've got to work out which of all these men is the one worth marrying and in the other you've got to work out which is the murderer. But James does nothing to exploit those parallels.

2) I don't think James carries off the attempt at Austen's style. It doesn't help that James is a master of the straight infodump. James makes occasional stabs at ironic humour, but not enough. Likewise, she doesn't really carry off either Mr Bennet or Mr Collins.

3) Given that it's set up as a detective novel, was it too much to expect somebody to do some actual detecting?

4) I didn't mind the cameo appearance of the Elliots as such. But there was rather too much information for the cameo. We didn't need to know that the middle daughter has gone to sea, because if we recognise the name we'd know that already. And what is the relevance to Darcy's thoughts about Wickham?

Apart from all that, it was readable.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
One thing that niggled at me was that she stated that Charlotte tried to sabotage the Elizabeth/Darcy relationship by deliberately setting Lady Catherine on them. She said that Charlotte harbored resentment against Elizabeth for disapproving of her choice to marry Mr. Collins.

I first came across the theory in John Sutherland's book of essays on literary puzzles - I think Is Heathcliff a Murderer? So it's not just PD James' private bit of fanon.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gussie:
I read this over a year ago, and was rather disappointed. I've dipped into bits of it to try and remind myself why I thought that over the last few days, and I think it's the style. It seems James is trying to write somewhat like Austen, but hasn't got the lightness of touch to bring it off.
As a detective novel (a genre which I like and which I think James is good at) I thought it started promisingly, but didn't really keep me engaged till the end.

This. I think P.D. James is too different a writer than Austen. It isn't a very happy mix.

But on the other hand, I do like some of the details. I like the glimpse of how Elizabeth steps into the role of mistress of Pemberley, checking in on the tenants, keeping up the valued traditions in the face of a truly changing culture, and accepting that, as Lady Catherine predicted more calamitously, some people would not accept her as worthy of her new station.

Col. Fitzwilliam shows a different side of his own- much more military and macho toward Elizabeth than when he first met her as an interesting, single woman to his interested and single man. It makes sense: he is an officer, and his first instinct might well be to take charge, almost over Darcy and certainly over Elizabeth.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Reading the book now, on NOOK , shall discuss later this month. Plan to read it at work this weekend.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The biggest thing that felt un-Austen to me was that Elizabeth is effectively a minor character in this book. Added to which, because it is a murder mystery, a lot of it is Darcy talking to other men without any women around - a situation you never find in the canon. So, a brave attempt, but ultimately a failure, IMHO.

Of the several characters whom James failed to carry over from P&P, which did everyone miss most?
I missed Mrs Bennet; although she is referred to, she does not accompany her husband to Pemberley. I have an aunt who is Mrs Bennet to a T, and so have a soft spot for the character.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Of the several characters whom James failed to carry over from P&P, which did everyone miss most?

Elizabeth Bennet? (Ducks and runs.)

Posted by Tree Bee (# 4033) on :

Any more for any more?

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I had really hoped I would get a chance to re-read or at least re-skim this in time for discussion, since I thought having in the interim reread P&P I would catch a lot more of the allusions, etc. But I didn't get a chance (probably due to being stuck into the World's Longest and Dullest Book for Lenten reading). My main impression when I first read it was that as mysteries go it was very flimsy; there didn't seem to be much real detecting going on. I hadn't read a PD James before and was disappointed given that she is supposedly such a mistress of the genre.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
there didn't seem to be much real detecting going on. I hadn't read a PD James before and was disappointed given that she is supposedly such a mistress of the genre.

Most of James' stories are proper whodunnits with actual detecting. (The exception is Children of Men, which is a decent sf novel and not a whodunnit at all.) Why she felt she should put a murder into Jane Austen but no detective I don't know.

Posted by Tree Bee (# 4033) on :

I much preferred the Lizzie Bennet diaries but the last video has been posted! [Waterworks]

Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tree Bee:
I much preferred the Lizzie Bennet diaries but the last video has been posted!

Nooo! Already? [Frown]

I've been slogging through Death Comes to Pemberley for several days now. Like Tree Bee, I prefer the Lizzie Bennet Diaries. I don't like how the characters in the book have grown up since P&P. That Lydia could learn a lot from the LBD Lydia. Actually, they all could.

(Waiting to read why what's her face got run over by the carriage.)

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Slowly working through this as I am spending rather a lot of my weekend off work writing my own book...

I am enjoying it on Nook.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

I finally finished it!

Much of the final two or three pages was tripe, though I much enjoyed the thriller. I never guessed the outcome. Onward and upwards - must write 40000 words plus by the end of November!

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ferijen:
I'm a fan of JA but not of crime fiction, but enjoyed this in a nice-way-to-pass-the-evening way. I found the references contrived, but then the whole thing is.

Just the opposite: I do like thrillers and the works of The Dame, but less so JA, though I have read one or two of her books and enjoyed films with my wife based upon some of them.

I do think the author did well with the suspense of giving no idea who the actual killer was until the end. I did find the language throughout very Austenian....

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

A surprisingly unconvincing piece of fan fiction from a writer I normally like. It's almost as bad as watching Disney versions of Winnie the Pooh or Mary Poppins; the subtle, memorable language is simply not there and the characters are only superficially the same people.

On a positive note, it's driven me back to read the original Austens.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

Ah... Good idea!

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
A surprisingly unconvincing piece of fan fiction from a writer I normally like. It's almost as bad as watching Disney versions of Winnie the Pooh or Mary Poppins; the subtle, memorable language is simply not there and the characters are only superficially the same people.

On a positive note, it's driven me back to read the original Austens.

I find the Jill Paton Walsh "sequels" to Dorothy Sayers' Lord Peter Wimsey stories the same way. The characters feel like actors playing the roles of Lord Peter and Harriet, rather than like the people themselves as established in the earlier novels. It's a writer's voice, both in narration and in dialogue, that's so hard for another writer to capture.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0