Mr.
Darcy's Daughters
by Elizabeth Aston
Paperback -368
pages ISBN 0743243978
Written by millicent
(4/26/2003 9:24 p.m.)
O.K. I read the whole thing! I agree
with the notion that Mr. &
Mrs. Darcy would never have left their head-strong daughters with
relatives
in London. I also wonder that the daughters (some, anyway...don't want
to give away too much)would have behaved the way they did having
Elizabeth
and Darcy for parents...???
It can be an enjoyable
read if you miss the Darcys and will accept
any
excuse to re-visit that time and place.
The ending is a happy
one, though rushed and oversimplified. Don't
waste
your time if you are a "purist" Austen fan.
Written by
Nicole
(4/29/2003 6:35 p.m.)
Mr. Darcy's Daughters is
great! I adore this
sequel! I am a huge Pride &
Prejudice fan, and I totally
agree
with the poster who noted that true "purists" might find Astons' take
on
the Darcy daughters a bit light. But I think the book is such a fun
read,
and she does such a nice job with the daughters
and with the plot that it doesn't even matter. Nothing's going to be as
good as the original, but if you always wondered what Elizabeth and
Darcy's
children would be like, this is a great romp of a way to see one
author's
take.
Written
by Anna (4/30/2003 1:36 p.m.)
The style is very good but the idea
of sending Elizabeth and Darcy
to Constantinople spoiled all the fun for me. As a "Daughters of
Somebody"
or even a "Daughters of Anybody" it is a very good (really good)
Georgian
romance but when I'm reading P&P sequel I
want
to read about Lizzy and Darcy (and not in Istanbul or some other exotic
place)!
Review by Linda Waldemar, 1 May 2003
The action takes place 20+ years
after the marriage of Elizabeth Bennet
and Fitzwilliam Darcy. They have been sent to Constantinople on a
diplomatic
mission and leave their 2 young sons at Pemberley. Their 5 nearly grown
daughters are left in the care of their relatives in London.
Letitia, 21, is
beautiful, but a serious, moralising worry wart.
Camilla
is 19, intelligent and witty. Isabella is 17, a dazzling fair beauty
who
is frivilous and fun-loving. Her twin sister, Georgina, has much the
same
personality, but is a dazzling dark beauty. Alethea, 16, is headstrong
and passionate about music. A few of Jane Austen's characters are
present
in name only; their personalities do no resemble the originals.
The girls stay mainly
with Colonel (now an MP and a "Mr")
Fitzwilliam
and his wife, Fanny. They are sometimes with the Gardiners who have
another
daughter, Sophie, who is of their age.
Most of the story is
about the amourous adventures of the Darcy
girls
(except Alethea) and Sophie Gardiner. Alethea is not yet "out", but
still
manages to get into mischief. The twins are much like their Aunt Lydia,
wild, determined flirts and caring only for a good time. Lydia, after
the
death of George Wickham in the war, married Lord Pollexfen. They are
famous
for their routs and often count "Prinny" among their guests.Their
society
is decidedly decadent and not fit for young, innocent ladies.
The Darcy girls are
quite a handful and cause no end of problems for
the Fitwilliams and the Gardiners. Luckily, by the story's end, they
have
managed to be safely extricated, for the most part, from their
dangerous
adventures.
As long as you do not
expect Jane Austen, and as long as you are
willing
to forgive all the anachronistic phrases and situations, this is a
fairly
entertaining tale. Very early on, I figured out who the heroine and
hero
would be. From then on, I was wondering how the author would manage to
get them together. But she did, although it required a few forced
circumstances
that were mildly plausible.
Do I recommend this
book? As I said before, as long as you do not
expect
it to be anything like Jane Austen, you may find it a pleasant read.
Written by
Tarn
(5/3/2003 5:51 p.m.)
I just finished reading 'Mr.Darcy's Daughters' an hour ago.
No doubt, if you don't have much of an expectation it is quite a fun
read.
But I agree that Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth would NEVER raise such flaky
and
flirty daughters as 'Day' and 'Night'. In addition, Letty is such a
bore!
No, In my imagination, Mr. Darcy would only have daughters just like
Jane
and Elizabeth, and Sons like himself. I don't mind reading a sequel
like
that sometime.
Written by
Cathy
(5/6/2003 12:08 a.m.)
Hello, I am new to this site. Mr.
Darcy's daughters is the first
P&P
sequel I have read. I enjoyed it very much. I liked how the author
shuffled
the original characters around among the five daughters. The eldest
daughter
Letty is more like the prissy mary but with the beauty of Jane. The
second,
Camilla, is like the original Lizzie. The third and fourth are twins
who
are more like Lydia and Kitty. The youngest is like Jane and plays a
similar
role to Camilla. This shuffling around was kind of interesting because
of the way it changed the family dynamics around. Letty, who is as
prissy
as Mary is more at a liberty to control her sisters then Mary. My
issues
with the book lie in how the author dealt with
the original characters of the Gardiners, Fitzwilliam, and Miss
Bingley.
I felt these characters lacked the complexity they had in P&P.
Since
these are original characters, it is only natural to expect that they
would
retain their original qualities. It seemed to me that Fitzwilliam who
had
be so pleased and interested in Lizzie was reincarnated into the form
of
Mrs. Bennet, the Gardiners into the Lucases, and Miss Bingley...perhaps
a Catherine de bourgh.
Other characters from
P&P also show up in reincarnated forms
such
as Mr. Collins, Wickham, Darcy, Fitzwilliam.
Well, I really did enjoy
this book. It is an amusing read.
Written by
Michelle
Annette (5/6/2003 7:42 p.m.)
I just finished this one, and have a
lot to say about it, so I hope
you don't regret you asked!
There were several parts
of this novel I thought were out of place.
For instance, there are some pretty direct references to sex. Nothing
too
explicit, but (for example) a lot of the men spent a lot of time gazing
at the girls' chests. I'm sure that back then men did that a lot, with
women in those low-cut ball dresses, but Jane Austen would NEVER have
mentioned
it!
In addition, Camilla is
something of a feminist, and spends a good
deal
of time pondering the restrictions placed upon women in her society.
One
of the female characters (I won't say who) even cross-dresses to escape
the constraints placed upon her. It's true that Regency society
confined
women mainly to the home, but to question that is a modern thing to do.
Austen never really addressed it in her novels, at least not as a
problem.
Maybe it's silly of me
to expect anyone to write like Jane Austen,
but
Elizabeth Aston is specifically imitating Austen's style and even using
the same characters. I wouldn't mind the anachronisms in an ordinary
historical
novel, but an Austen sequel ought to read like Austen... at least more
than this one did. (No one will ever live up to Jane!)
Overall, this one was
not bad, just disappointing. What does
everyone
else think? Maybe I'm just too prissy,and can't appreciate a good
sequel.
Written by
Stephie Lynn (6/16/2003 12:50 a.m.)
Mr. Darcy's Daughters (review or
tirade, you be the judge). I just
finished reading the novel, and I have a few non-spoiler complaints.
Elizabeth and Darcy are
not in the book AT ALL. Even their letters
home
from "a diplomatic mission to Constantinople" aren't printed in full,
merely
paraphrased in the other characters' dialogue. The only character from
P&P given any actual page time is Col. Fitzwilliam who is made out
to be an overbearing, unsympathetic, almost Lady Catherine-like
personality.
If Elizabeth and Darcy
were to leave England, surely it would have
been
better to leave their daughters in the care of their aunt Jane. I also
can't fathom how dear Lizzie and Darcy could raise such children. Only
Camilla (a smart, uniquely attractive, second-born like her mother)
even
remotely resembles her parents' personalities. Wouldn't their
particular
experiences with Lydia prevent them from allowing their daughters too
much
free reign at too young an age?
I didn't find Aston's
style at all Austen-like. I saw the
Fitzwilliams
in bed, heard private converstaions between servants, and learned about
early 19th century sodomy laws. Not what I was expecting.
I'm unfamiliar with the
Emma Tennant novels, as this is my first
expereince
with the Austen sequel genre. Maybe my expectations are too high. I
couldn't
personally recreate anything so lovely as Jane Austen did, how can I
make
such demands of others?
Written by
graceac (6/18/2003 8:52 p.m.)
I just finished Mr. Darcy's Daughters. I was
disappointed
with the characters she included (Lydia would be nowhere near these
girls)
and the way she developed the older characters ( I totally don't
believe
that Colonel Fitzwilliam would act this way). Where were Jane and
Charlotte?
Lots of things were too hard to
believe (could this really be the first trip to the theater and London
for these wealthy privledged girls?). I could go on and on but I won't.
I think if you don't
mind the 'bodice-ripping' type romance, The
Bar Sinister is at least more true to the original characters with
lots of Lizzie and Darcy (agree R rated). It is a much more satisfying
read even with some of the misspellings!
Written by
Shanan (6/26/2003 12:39 a.m.)
I just read this book too and I
agree. I was very very disappointed.
And I could not figure out why the author the Gardiners and the
Fitzwilliams
rich all of a sudden. One of the points in P&P was the difference
that
class and situation make on your choices and she completely erased
that.
And I was so surprised by the sodemy laws thing, too. That was so out
of
left field for me.
I missed JA voice. I did not think
that any of the dialogue was
memorable
where as I can quote many memorable lines from P&P and I did not
think
that any of the characters were as enchanting (even Camilla) as
Elizabeth
and Darcy. Also I really don't think that everyone would be okay with
someone
suddenly marrying their cousin's fiance. I think that would be a real
problem
for somebody, but here it is completely okay.
Written by Liz
M (December
17, 2003 )
Has anyone read this Austen sequel?
I'm about four chapters into it and
I'm about to give up in disgust. So far, it has been all Regency
atmosphere (young ladies writing notes on elegant sheets of hot-pressed
paper, reading La Belle Assemblée, and getting "the headache,"
that kind of thing) and no Austenian wit or incisive observation. The
daughters of the title (all five of them!) are reproductions of the
Bennet sisters in a slightly different order.
The author has also played havoc with the timeline -- this sequel is
set three years after Waterloo, which would be 1818, and it's meant to
be 20 years after the events of P&P, which would then have occurred
in 1798?? I thought it was (for the most part) agreed that P&P
happened in an 1812-1813 time frame.
In other words, my impression is that it's a fair-to-middling Regency
romance in which the characters just happen to have the same names as
the Austen characters.
Unless someone has a better opinion of it that might convince me to
give it a try for a few more chapters, I'll probably put it aside in
favor of rereading PamelaT's book again. ;-)
Written by Inko (December
20, 2003 )
Plowed my way through it. I found it
pretty terrible -- the time line
was completely wrong and the characters weren't anything like JA made
them, especially Col. Fitzwilliam. Where did his sense of humour go???
I found the whole thing pretty annoying and unsatisfying.
Written by Mary
K.
(December 17, 2003 )
You got further than I did! I read
the last couple of chapters
(amusing) and gave up on the middle. I don't have much patience for
that sort of fiction anyway. The book has a nice cover, doesn't it?
Written by Vania (December
18, 2003 )
Nice cover, yes ..but beyond that, I
can't recommend it. My patience
was tested, I finished it, but I wasn't in a very good mood after.
=)lol.
Written by Rebecca
Lynne
(December 17, 2003 )
Bad, bad, bad...so I hear! The
book has a nice cover, doesn't it?
Yes, and that is precisely why I purchased the book for my good friend,
who (though he reminds me far more of Bingley) claims to be a
Darcy-esuqe individual. I have not yet read the book, but the review
from him claims it to be interesting but disappointing, full of very
"modern" approaches to characters and relationships that JA never would
have used.
So there you have my oh-so-reliable second-hand review. I intend to
post one of my own when I finally read it; I just wanted to let you
ladies know that you're not alone in your opinions!
Written by Helena
(8/24/2004 2:38 p.m.)
I've
read Mr. Darcy's Daughters, which I thought ok as its own book but not
as a sequel--it really has so little to do with P&P.
Written by Skylar B
(8/24/2004
3:30 p.m.)
I
thought this one was fairly well written (which is more than I can say
for most sequels), but for some reasons the characters just never
captured my imagination; I never came to care deeply about what might
befall them.
Written
by Melanie Z
(8/25/2004 9:55 a.m.)
I
have to confess I was not disappointed and did like Aston`s writing
style, but wasn`t able to see these girls as descendants from Lizzy and
Darcy. The whole basic position was to unlikely and some of the old
P&P characters were changed in a strange way...
Written by Geri-Lynn (8/29/2004
9:30 a.m.)
I'm finding it difficult to reconcile myself to the Darcy's having five
daughters, but that obstacle aside, I believe that the book is well
written, and somewhat enjoyable.
Written
by Felicity S (1/4/2005 5:24 a.m.)
Possibly
the best sequel to P&P that I have read. If you haven't I urge you
- the main character Camilla is worthy of Austen.
My
only gripe is that Mr
(Colonel) Fitzwilliam is drawn a little badly - too lechy and mean. I'd
love to hear any other views!
Written by Deborah d'Bajor
(1/4/2005 7:34 a.m.)
I quite enjoyed it. I
think it's because it doesn't feature Lizzy and Darcy much Aston can't
do anything to really irritate us! I thought it was enjoyable and liked
Camilla, but thought it's not something Austen would have written. More
Heyer, I think.
Written by Tori
Marie
(1/4/2005 11:09 p.m.)
While
I thought this was a well-written book, I didn't much care for it as a
P&P sequel. The biggest reason is that I didn't at all believe that
Lizzy would leave her daughters with the Fitzwilliams for that long
period of time, particularly for the reason given--that she couldn't
bear to be away from her husband. Maybe I'm just hopeful that she
learned from her parents' mistakes ;-) but I can't imagine her leaving
girls of that age for what is essentially selfish reasons.
There was also a feeling
I
had throughout that the parallel phenomenon--where the sequel's action
mirrors the original--was just too forced. I kept thinking the author
was trying too hard.
In general I enjoy JA sequels, but this is
one of those that I liked least.
Written by Namrata (February 26, 2007 )
It was on clearance for $4 so I picked it up a few weeks ago. Has anyone else read this book and would like to discuss?
The beginning was okay. Not too bad. However, as it progressed I had a lot of trouble with it. The editing was poor.
You'd skip from one point in time to quite another and the issue that was being discussed in the previous chapter is
now completely resolved and done with. Um, how? There were no details at all.
And quite frankly I had a hard time believing some of the sub plots. Alethea (sp?) is the youngest daughter and a
talented musician. She is sneaking out of the house dressed as a boy on a regular basis, to go play in orchestras.
How did no one notice? What was Miss Griffin, the governess, doing?
How did the twins, Belle and Georgina, become so giddy and silly? I can't imagine their parents raising them that way
and not trying to educate them properly. And how come no one is upset at Georgina's marriage. She's 17 - too young.
And she ran away. And everyone is so happy for her that she's married. How is that even possible? And how come Darcy a
nd Elizabeth are not upset? And neither has returned!
I could go on for more, but I won't. I was just wondering if anyone else read this and perhaps saw something more in it
than I was able to.
Written by Deborah Y (February 26, 2007 )
I thought this was an enjoyable light (make that feather-light) read. My advice would be: don't think about it too hard.
Let it wash over you entertainingly. Forget about any alleged Jane Austen connection. It's a melodramatic romance novel
whose characters happen to have the same names as characters in a far better book by a far better writer.
Written by Lele (February 27, 2007 )
Beach read! I first read Mr. Darcy's Daughters a couple of years ago and have read it several times since. When
I first read it I did find it hard to believe that Darcy and Elizabeth could produce such silly and defiant daughters
at Althea and the twins, or even Leticia. Col. Fitzwilliam was also quite a departure from JA's Fitzwilliam, IMHO. However,
I must say that with each new read the book becomes more enjoyable. As Deborah Y said, if you forget about the P&P
connection, it is a fun and entertaining story.
Written by Lele (3/26/2007 5:26 p.m.)
Mr. Darcy's Daughters is also entertaining.
Written by Felicity S (3/26/2007 5:14 p.m.)
I also liked Elizabeth Aston's 'Mr Darcy's Daughters.' Much more like Heyer than Barbara Cartland!
Written by sherri b (4/22/2007 1:13 p.m.)
I finished Mr. Darcy's Daughters and it left me a little numb. For many of the same reasons already
mentioned, particularly Col. (Mr.) Fitzwilliam's narrow-mindedness and the timeline. I don't see
Mr. and Mrs. Darcy so carelessly leaving their daughters alone.
I did like the details such as the crushes at Almacks' and importance of purchasing ribbon but there
was not enough for me.
The ending seemed tacked on, having to marry off Letty and Camilla at the same time. Although Letty was a
prig I don't feel she deserved to be fobbed off as she was. I never felt she really loved her husband but
relented so the book could end with a double wedding. I also have to question the character of Camilla's
husband, for his first engagement, how quickly and easily it was broken and with no consequences.
I'd recommend this book only to someone who likes regency romances but doesn't know or care much for Austen.
Written by Lele (May 30, 2007 )
Mr. Darcy's Daughters was also entertaining but only as a light read. It is not very true to Austen, IMHO
Review by Amanda Lee (6/28/2007 1:40 a.m.)
I would like to begin by saying that I do believe the novel is well written and in historical context.
And quite frankly, an enjoyable read.
The novel is about the Darcy's five daughters. In the story, Elizabeth and Darcy leave their daughters
in the care of the Fitzwilliam's, in Lobdon, while they travel abroad. I, like so many other reviewers,
believe that there is no way the Darcy's would leave their headstrong daughters in the charge of others
for so long a time, especially at the very beginning of the season.
There are a few things about the novel that I did not like, including the fact that very mature subjects
are discussed. Not at all like our dear JA. But the most severe problem is the mischaracterizations of JA's
characters. I do not believe that most of the characters are consistent with the way JA wrote them to be.
The entire novel goes on with story after story about how the girls very nearly disgrace their family name
at every turn. Furthermore, the Fitzwilliams do not control them properly. And, I do belive the frm. Col.
FItzwilliam, presently Mr. Fitzwilliam to be completely out of character. I sincerely do not recognize him
in this novel!
As for the Darcy girls, they all exhibit the "headstrong Darcy spirit", but they all resemble the five
Bennet sisters entirely too much. And sadly, they seem to take no personality traits from their Aunt Georgianna.
I will give credit where credit is due. I believe Elizabeth Aston's portrayal of the fmr. Miss Bingley,
presently Lady Warren, was very much indeed like her portrayal in P&P. And furthermore, I believe that it
portrays her the exact way she would be twenty years later.
Overall, the novel was entertaining. I did after all read it in two days. As long as you do not mind feeling
as though you do not recognize any of our old friends, it is a good enough read. But, as many before me have
said, if you are a JA purist, you may not be able to laugh off it's short comings.
Written by Deborah d'Bajor (6/28/2007 4:25 a.m.)
I enjoyed it for what it was, but I thought Col Fitzwilliam and the Gardiners were off in characterisation.
Some things were perhaps a bit improbable, but then I didn't much regard them, probably as I've read MUCH worse!
Written by Amy 4K (7/2/2007 2:43 p.m.)
I did not like this sequel.