Or, Pride and Prejudice Continued
by Emma Tennant

Hardcover - 184 pages (December 1993)
St Martins Pr (Trade); ISBN: 0312107935
Audio Cassette edition (September 1995) 
Chivers Audio Books; ISBN: 0745127290
Paperback ( 6 October, 1994) 
Sceptre; ISBN: 034060963X
Audio Cassette ( 1 September, 1994) 
    Hodder & Stoughton Audio Books; ISBN: 1859980023

        Posted by Carolyn on September 17, 1996 at 15:31:49:
I read Pemberley right after I finished reading P&P for the first time. It was a big disappointment. Her characterizations of Elizabeth and Darcy do not match with Austen's view of them (Elizabeth seems to have no sense of humor!), and she kills off Mr. Bennet, who is one of my favorite characters.
        Posted by Lilian on September 23, 1996 at 21:47:15:
I've read "Pemberley" by Emma Tennant which is good although there were some holes in it. Basically it is up to the individual but personally I think Darcy on page cannot act silly and soppy like Emma Tennant wrote.
        Posted by Annie on October 03, 1996 at 10:07:22:
 I don't know about this sequels business. I read "Pemberley" last year, and it was just dreadful!
        Response by Inko   Jan  2, 1997 (17:25)
 I also have a few sequels: I have Pemberley and An Unequal Marriage by Emma Tennant and they are so bad, IMHO, that I never read the second one.
        Response by Belinda  Jan  9, 1997 (20:43)
 I read Pemberley recently - has anyone else? It was absolutely appalling. Lizzy had turned into a soppy stand-by-your-man type ... the style of the writing was moderately Austenish, without the wit. No plot to speak off.
        Response by Anna  on Mar 10, 1997 (17:18)

] I am trying to read Pemberley now

please, I beg you; Don't do it! it's truly horrible!

        Posted by Kathy S. on June 20, 1997 at 01:53:09:
There is a sequel to "Pride and Prejudice" that i'm enjoying right now called "Pemberley" by Emma Tennant. It goes into the marriage of Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. It's actually pretty good. I can't wait to see how it turns out.  The author it seems has a style all her own and she makes references to the original book. .
        Posted by Barbara on August 17, 1997 at 23:53:14:
I read about half of Pemberley, a sequel to P&P, and gave up in disgust. The style was so unlike Austen and so simplistic, and the main conflict in the book seemed to be that Lizzy wanted to have a child but couldn't.  She went on and on and on about this
        Review by Linda Waldemar, September 18, 1997
 I finally got a chance to read an Emma Tennant sequel. I did not like it (is anyone surprised). The names of most of the characters were the same as those in Pride and Prejudice, but the similarity to those characters ended there.

To tie this book to the original, she sometimes quotes several of Jane Austen's lines but, often, the context is incorrect.  She also gets several facts wrong. For example, Georgiana Darcy is older than Mary Bennett and taller than Lizzy.  Lizzy and Darcy have been married for one year and Jane has a baby that is 1-year old and Lydia and Wickham have 4 children.

The plot resembles a badly written soap opera. Lizzy appears to be barren and thinks that Darcy has an illegitimate child that he is hiding from her.  Pemberley is entailed to the male line. Mrs. Bennet gets a marriage proposal from a very vulgar and unscrupulous man. Georgiana teams with Caroline Bingley to make fun of Lizzy and her family.  At the end, all the intrigues are resolved rather quickly and unbelievably.

In conclusion, I agree with the evaluations of this novel that I have read here previously; it is no good!  Because I feel that each person should form her/his own opinion, I recommend that you read it if you come across it.  I do not, however, recommend that you buy it; I am sure that you would be very, very disappointed if you expected anything remotely resembling Jane Austen's masterpiece.

        Review by Tom, September 20, 1997
I believe any sequel should take the characters, as defined by the original author, through continued interaction and development.  In other words, how they act should be understandable in terms of who they are at the end of the first book.  The people inhabiting "Pemberley" are complete strangers.  For example, can you imagine Georgiana Darcy and Caroline Bingley in league against Elizabeth?
        Review by lucie, September 18, 1997
 It was a jumbled up mess with everyone at Pemberley for Christmas after Lizzie and Darcy's marriage, including the Wickhams which we all know would not be.

Mr Bennet is dead and Mrs Bennet is being courted by a relative but I really don't know if he was a con man or just a jerk.  There is a know-it-all cousin brought by Lady Catherine since she thinks Lizzie is not going to have children for some reason. I guess because after a year she is not with child. The cousin is to inherit Pemberley as Darcy has no children and he winds up married to Mary.

Darcy gets mad at Lizzy and takes off for London without telling her and leaving her with the entire crew but after they all go.  She leaves for Longborne to visit Charlotte and Yuk. She tells Charlotte that she is going to get a job as a governess because she thinks that Darcy has an illegitimate child by a mysterious French woman. While there she finds out that she is pregnant.

Lady Catherine comes to tell her that she must return to Pemberley, that she has no right to leave without informing Darcy, who is still in London with Georgiana and Miss Bingley hitting the Court of Saint James and the opera.  She tells Lady Catherine to get lost and prepares to go to London to go to work when Mary informs her that Jane is very ill, so she rushes to Jane's side only to find that the
French woman was Bingley's mistress and the 6 year old boy is his, and Darcy has been taking care of him for Bingley. She overhears Bingley tell Darcy that Jane has accepted the child in one of her lucid moments but he is afraid that she is not going to live. Lizzy cries that Jane shall not die and falls down the stairs and is out of it for a time only to waken to find Darcy begging her forgiveness and the child she carries is well and they live happily ever after.

        Posted by Marsha on September 24, 1997 at 22:47:53:
Hear, hear! The most horrible sequel in the world, and one of the most horrible books ever. Why do some people persist in writing if they have no talent? Ms Tennant would be better employed doing something nonverbal-like tearing all the copies of her books to shreds.

         Posted by Carrie on September 25, 1997 at 10:30:15:
Were I Ms. Tennant I would certainly not enjoy reading these posts. However, I have to agree with the others. After seeing P&P2 I rushed out to the library and of course all the P&P were out so I tried "Pemberley", and so I was disappointed twice. The ending was awful, with Elizabeth fainting and tripping on the stairs. It was embarrassing to read!

         Posted by Courtney on September 25, 1997 at 18:06:38:
I can't agree more. The Tennant books are absolutely awful; I cannot warn a serious Austen lover enough about avoiding this emetic drivel. The Aiken books have been written with taste and sympathy for the period; they are but pallid reflections of the True Jane, but they are not embarrassing.

       Posted by Maxine on December 03, 1997 at 17:48:07:
Quite by accident while looking in a Half Price Bookstore, I came up the book "An Unique [Unequal] Marriage." In it was mentioned the book "Pemberley." Of course, I had to buy the one I found and quickly went to the library to locate the other. I have had a wonderful time reading these two books. Had no idea they even existed.

        Posted by Becca M. on December 03, 1997 at 23:38:07:
I too recently discovered the sequels to P&P. I have just started reading Pemberley. So far it is OK. Tennant does not have the style of Jane Austen. But it is interesting to explore possible outcomes for these characters.

        Posted by Rachel on December 03, 1997 at 20:53:01:
Did we read the same book?!?!? I read both books, and I ended up screaming and crying. In MHO, Emma Tennant's books were trash, especially An Unequal Marriage. Darcy turning out to be bad?!? And his children's' behavior? To both, the most simple answer: NO WAY ON
EARTH!!! And frankly, if our dear Stud Muffin was to marry, he certainly would not marry such a
snooty woman. Gawdalmighty!!!! Pray, don't mention that odious woman's name!!!

         Comment by Yvette on Wed, 20 May 1998 22:40:43
Pemberley and An Unequal Marriage -Emma Tennant:
Did not really like these at all. I disagreed with Tennant's interpretation of Elizabeth's character (and actually, all the other characters as well). All the familiar characters seemed like strangers. I didn't even bother to finish these books.
        Review by Roger V, 10 June 1998
        Portland, Oregon
 I have also read Pemberley, and found it dreadful.  I agree with what many people have said about the characters not being the same people that they were in Pride & Prejudice.  Also, Ms Tennant apparently should have re-read the conclusion Jane Austen herself wrote at the end of P&P.

To wit:
1)  Austen wrote that Elizabeth's father delighted in visiting Pemberley, " especially when "he was least expected."  Ms Tennant killed him off before he or anyone else in the family could visit Pemberley!

2)  Ms Tennant has Lydia and Wickham at Pemberley for Christmas, and again Austen herself said that SHE was occasionally a visitor there, but that Darcy would never let Wickham into the house.

3)  In Elizabeth's letter to her Aunt Gardiner, she invites her and her Uncle to come stay at Pemberley at Christmas, but Ms Tennant has them there at Christmas, but staying at an Inn!

There were many other problems and conflicts with this book, though others have pointed them out far better than I can!

       Comment by Clare on  Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:37:58 EDT
I have been surfing through this marvelous site for the first time, and I can't tell you how happy and relieved I am to know that I'm not the only person who thought Pemberley was the most dreadful thing I've ever read.  Awful! Poorly written, absolutely unbelievable characterizations, worse plot...At last, I feel like I'm not alone!
        Posted by Jodie Dale on Saturday, November 14, 1998, at 7:28 p.m.
I think it's interesting to see what people make of the story; BUT (and that's a big but)when they actually alter the ending, I get a bit annoyed. Emma Tennant's Pemberley , and An Unequal Marriage I did't really like. But I think that The Third Sister and those other books that are only taking a character that was not so developed is all right, I guess. (I haven't read any sequels actually, besides Emma Tennant's two P&P ones and her S&S one; and Rachael Billington's "Perfect      happiness. I didn't like them much).
       Written by AJLaban (6/6/99 1:51 p.m.)
I've also read Pemberly by Emma Tennant but did not care for it. I think because it is a "stand alone" novel and, of course, it can only suffer by comparison with P&P by JA.
       Written by Carey (6/14/99 12:41 p.m.)
... I'd have to say that so far, my favorite is Pemberley Shades.  I thought the author did a good job of keeping the characters true to P&P (especially Lizzy) unlike Pemberley which is by far the worst sequel I've read yet!
       Written by L. Marie (6/29/99 8:50 p.m.)
I just finished reading Pemberley by Emma Tennant. It  was surprisingly good (I have a hard time reading P&P sequels because I have my own ideas about what happened later on). I liked every part of it, except for the whole Mrs. Bennet and her cousin thing...(if you have read it, you know what I mean).
        Review by Angela, 4 July 1999
Well, I hate the book. I feel that Elizabeth and Darcy, which are under the pen of Tennant, has learned their lessons in Pride and Prejudice; and I think Tennant takes the meaning of "pride" and prejudice" too simple. I don't mind, in general, that my friends have their ideas of Pride and Prejudice's sequel, but Tennant's Darcy and Elizabeth, for me, are too unreal for me.

Let me tell you something about Emma Tennant. For some years she edited the work of a very famous postmodern English author, Angela Carter. Carter loves to rewrite fairly tales; her fairly tales are told with physical side of love, with violence, with horror, but, still, they are told in such way that they will bring out the same lesson as the original fairy tales do. When I real Tennant's sequel, I always wonder if she gets too much influence from Carter.

In Pemberley, I feel that Tennant rewrite the lesson in Pride and Prejudice that we, as the readers, should learn. I feel that the suffer which Elizabeth and Darcy feel in Pride and Prejudice is too great that I have no doubt they should at least learn something! So, in my opinion, trying to rewrite Pride and Prejudice should not and would never work in a sequel of Pride and Prejudice: Elizabeth and Darcy should have a new lesson to learn should there be a sequel of Pride and Prejudice!

I don't like Pemberley; in fact, I hate the book.

      Written by Jen D (7/14/99 6:16 p.m.)
I also read Pemberley by Emma Tennant, and I think it's a shame these books [Pemberley and An Unequal Marriage] are allowed to be considered the least bit related to the real P&P.
       Written by Nancy S (7/16/99 2:18 p.m.)
One word of advice- stay away from Pemberley by Emma Tennant! I read it years ago and was appalled! There's much better writing at the BOI!!
       Written by Bhearni (7/16/99 3:23 p.m.)
I agree re: Pemberley.  Did not capture the mood and essence!
         Review by Ree, July 18, 1999
 **Warning: Spoilers here.
I have to reveal the so-called climax in order to adequately vent my rage. :)**

I am most excessively displeased!

This book is unfaithful to the events of P&P, it does violence to the characters that we all love so much, and it has elements that are ludicrous in the extreme.

Let's just start with Tennant killing off Mr. Bennet at the beginning. That killed off a good portion of my goodwill for the author.  The subplot with Colonel Kitchener is a sad substitute for what it would be like to see Mr. Bennet interact with the likes of Lady Catherine.

What disappointed me most was the incredible, insulting plot turn when Elizabeth runs away to become a governess.  This is not my Elizabeth.  My Elizabeth is strong, funny, loving, and does not fall into despair, even when she makes the greatest mistakes.

What a shoddily executed resolution.  In the last six pages -- Jane is dying! Elizabeth rushes to her!  It's not Darcy's love child, it's Bingley's! E. falls down the stairs--wait--no, she'll recover!  Darcy still loves her!  Jane miraculously recovers!  Yay!  Everybody's having babies!  And they all live happily ever after!

In my opinion, Elizabeth, et al would have lived much more happily ever after if Tennant had left them alone.

Thank goodness for the Bits of Ivory board.

       Written by karen from oz (8/5/99 7:50 a.m.)
Is this the right place to gripe about Emma Tennant ? Isn't she the positively MOST awful sequel writer? I think she must absolutely hate JA - she does such awful things to her characters. And I don't believe she's even read JA - only synopses of the books - she makes such ghastly blunders.

She does the strangest things with time. Somehow Lydia manages to have 4 kids, Jane has 1 + another, and Lizzy has only been married a year ! Excuse my ignorance, but JA's girls don't usually have long engagements, especially where finance is no problem, so why does Lizzy keep Darcy hanging  for several years - as if you would!

The personalities of her characters bear no relationship to the original - except that their previous failings and faults are magnified. JA's characters grow and mature through the novels, Emma Tennant's display a childishness that would make a 14 year old schoolgirl blush. If anyone out there has not read her books, my advice is - don't bother !

        Review by Stacey Fletcher, 17 September 1999
 Pemberley...well, there isn't all that much to say about it.  It didn't draw my attention.  It wasn't uncommonly bad, it just really didn't seem to adhere to the mannerisms of the characters.  This book could have been written using anyone as the focus, and most probably, would fit many other people much better than it fit Jane Austen's creations.  All in all, the fact that the names Elizabeth and Fitzwilliam Darcy were in the book were probably the only thing that kept me flipping pages.
            Written by Fiona Wheeler, Sun, 21 Nov 1999
I had the misfortune to listen to this book on audio cassette.   The actual reading was good.  Alas, the same cannot be said of the content. Seldom have I subjected myself to listening to such rubbish.  It doesn't even merit the time it would take me to write a few words of negative criticism.  Only my concern for the environment prevented me from flinging it out the car window where it would have undoubtedly polluted the hedgerows.
        Review by Claudia Taylor, November 9, 1999
I have been reading your reviews of Emma Tennant's two terrible so called "sequels" to Pride and Prejudice.  How very perceptive your reviewers are. I totally agree with most of them Pemberley and An Unequal Marriage  are so far removed from the originals that they barely qualify as sequels, except that they share the location and the characters bear the same names as Jane Austens.

For the rest, both novels, which appear to have been churned out at speed, seem not to have anything to do with the characters Jane Austen created so lovingly and developed over so many years, Elizabeth and Darcy behave like characters out of Dynasty or Days of our Lives! For goodness sake, Darcy after his total reclamation in Pride and Prejudice,  reverts like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde into a terrible, arrogant cold hearted caricature. As for Lizzie, my favourite woman in all fiction, she has gone completely crazy- allowing herself to be flattered by some nit wit and imagining, like some silly creature in a Mills and Boon novel, that her husband has been unfaithful and even accuses him of producing an illegitimate son!!!

It is difficult to believe that the author has spent even a day studying the characters she so conveniently takes over.

       Written by Mags (12/21/99 2:27 p.m.)
I have no objection to a little bodice ripping in a P&P sequel, because at least that means Darcy and Lizzy are happy in their marriage. That's a sight better than that trash Emma Tennant writes, with Lizzy Bennet, Warrior Princess, the woman who set out to teach Darcy how to be laughed at, creeping around Pemberley terrified of her husband. I don't understand authors who think drama must equal sorrow or unhappiness.
        Review by AllyB, October 24, 1999
 This book, although perhaps the most celebrated of P&P sequels, I found to be an interesting gossip read, although with an unrealistic plot and absolutely none of the master's wit or intelligence.   It was, of course, very coincidental that Mr Bennet should die so soon after his daughter's wedding, but I found the idea that Mr Bingley had a premarital affair preposterous!   Why did Darcy never tell Lizzy of it before?   And just why was Jane so ill at the end?   At times melodramatic and quite complicated (although maybe that was because I was reading it in the middle of my history lesson!) this is not good enough to be associated with the name of Austen.
       Written by Neni (2/12/2000) 10:17 a.m.)
Now, my opinion is that Emma Tennant sadly misinterpreted the charactes in P&P so the sequel she wrote is also incorrect and misleading.
        Review by Anna Rosengren, March 22, 2000

I just read my first Austen sequel (apart from a few pieces of fan fiction on the Internet) and went to your sequel page to see if I was the only one who dislikes Emma Tennant's Pemberley. I am not surprised that I was not!

The book was worse than I expected. To compare it to Mills&Boon is an insult to that publishing company. I have read plenty of Mills & Boon/Harlequin books, and they are cheap trash, but at least they don't pretend to be anything else, and they do not capitalize on the name of a great author. And they are consistent within the frame of the novel, unlike Pemberley. And they have plenty of action and interaction between the heroine and the hero, unlike Pemberley where the author gives Elizabeth this repeated and endless inner monologue instead of talking to Darcy. I can see how the plots depends on not allowing the two to meet and sort things out, but Elizabeth's anxious and repeated "oh no, he doesn't love me and I am not a good wife" is just so boring and un-Lizzy-like! As for Darcy, he is just proud, romantic, misunderstood and absent in another room or another town throughout the story. We never really meet him in this book.

Others have pointed out the many errors, here are just a few that I noticed:
Lady Catherine has always arranged the New Year's ball at Pemberley, yet at the same time she has a tradition of giving a New Year's party at Rosings!
Darcy and Miss Bingley have been seen in the company of an opera singer in London! Would one of the superiour sisters really associate with a women who appears on the stage, even for the sake of being closer to Mr. D?
Lady C writes letters to Mr. D where she says she wish not to interfere. As if she would ever see her valuable advice as the interference and bullying it is.
And why does Lady C not protest when  Mary Bennet marries the tiresome cousin - and why on earth is he called "Master" Whatshisname, as if he was a little boy?

Oh, I feel so much better after ranting! And yes, this is meant for publication on your "comments" page, if you would like it.

        Review by I do not know who, April 2, 2000
I have just read Pemberley, and am utterly appalled. How did this piece of rubbish ever get published?

It read like a gothic romance that Austen so successfully satirized in Northanger Abbey. It reduced Lizzie to an idiot (similar to secretaries in Mills and Boon today) and Darcy to the token male. I kept on expecting references to virile chest hair to pop  up.  The inconsistencies were glaring, the climax obscene. There are sub plots (Mrs Bennet's would be suitor, Roper etc.) to a plot that is weak in the extreme. Lydia appeared to have dropped triplets, Lady Catherine to have forgotten her rigid adherence to social rules (as if she would leave the table before her hostess did) and Caroline  and Mrs. Hurst to have lost their barbed comments to outright insolence.

It all hung on  Elizabeth's premise that she's barren. The Elizabeth that we know would have been too intelligent to worry about the fact that one year of marriage has produced no heir. Elizabeth says that she is too modern for Mr. Darcy, yet here she is succumbing to the fears that were prevalent for the queens of the middle ages. Did the so-called author get her time lines mixed up? She has read P&P, the text is peppered with references, but seems to have missed its essence. And what is unforgivable, it is not an intelligent piece of work. My final word is that Pemberley brings a whole new meaning to the term 'pulp fiction'. Only, not so  good.

NOTE: If you submitted this review, please send me, Linda,  your name so that it can properly be attributed.  Thanks.

        Written by Amber Leah Marie (8/17/2000 12:45 p.m.)
I am reading "The Bar Sinister" by Linda Berdoll right now, but I think that "Pemberley" is my favorite "P&P" sequel. It isn't as racy as "Bar Sinister" (which is good, mind you, but I still think of Darcy & Lizzy as a 19th century kind of couple), but it seems more like how JA would've presented our favorite couple.

Of course, there are the usual woes of Lizzy and Darcy and Jane and Bingley, but it is faithful to them in the best way possible. I think that  you would do yourself a favor by picking this book up. 

        Written by Lizzie (9/16/2000 1:10 p.m.)
Anyone here actually read pemberley?  And if you have isn't it just simply the worst book ever created? I read it a coup[le of weeks ago and this author has completely destroyed Austen's plot and characters - i almost exploded with irritation!
        Written by Elenore (12/1/2000 5:49 p.m.)
Ok, I'm going list the problems I have with this book. I didn't like it, it just spoilt the illusion. No offence to anyone who liked it. It was well written I just didn't like the story.
        Written by Tori Marie (4/22/2001 3:29 a.m.)
Has anyone ever read Pemberley: Or Pride And Prejudice Continued by Emma Tennant? I just finished it and am most seriously displeased!

First of all, it takes so many liberties with the details of the original, highly-acclaimed and very much-loved novel that I often wondered if the author had taken even a cursory look at the Cliff Notes before setting her pen to paper.

The story takes place, for instance, a little less than a year after Elizabeth and Darcy are married. Tennant has Jane already the mother of a one-year-old and closely expecting the arrival of a second child. Simple math tells you that this would be impossible--at least while being faithful to the original novel--since JA had Jane and Elizabeth married from Longbourn church on the same day. The Wickhams have four children--anothermpossibility unless you assume she had quadruplets. Lydia did not marry so long beforeher sisters.

Another glaring error, IMNSHO, is the early "bumping off" of Mr. Bennet. While JA clearly writes that he loved to visit Pemberley often, Tennant has him dying only three months after Lizzy's marraige. She does still have him going there, however, because she says something about his finding the library at Pemberley in a deplorable state of disarray.  (There's another point--if Mr. Darcy couldn't comprehend the neglect of a family library when it came to buying books, would he be able to comprehend the neglect of their care and arrangement?) Since it's unlikely that Mr. Bennet could magically transport himself from  Hertfordshire to Derbyshire and back instantaneously by twitching his nose, this seems pretty impossible too. ;-)

There are many other such errors. One that particularly grated was the repeated reference  to the Netherfield ball as the place where Mr. Darcy snubbed Eliza with the famous, "Not handsome enough to tempt me," remark.

Beyond all this, the sequel plot is so untrue to what I believe is the spirit of the characters that it really rankled. I won't discuss it now. I don't want to do any spoilers. I must say,  however, that it goes against everything that I think JA was trying to convey in her ending. While I realize that this kind of impression is open to many interpretations, I doubt there'd be many people here who would disagree strongly over the ending of P & P.

Has anyone else read this sequel? I'd welcome the chance to discuss it with someone else who's read it. In fact, such discussion is likely to be the only enjoyment I get out of reading the book. ;-)

        Written by Narelle (4/22/2001 11:36 a.m.)
I didn't finish reading it properly, because I was too horrified to continue. It took me ages to shake the awful images she placed in my mind.

I wonder that she wanted to write JA sequels. It appeared to me that she had no respect for JA's characters, or her thoroughly satisfying conclusion to the novel.

        Written by Raye (4/24/2001 6:48 p.m.)
I couldn't agree more, and am very glad to have company in my distaste for this book. For starters, the timing issues that you mention really bothered me all the way through. Emma Tennant either didn't really read P&P, couldn't do basic math, or maybe just thought readers wouldn't notice and/or care that there were such glaring discrepancies.

... the spirit and tone of the book were all wrong; besides that Ms. Tennant doesn't sustain a narrative flow very well, and also doesn't approach capturing JA's style, the worst thing about this book is that it seemed to be reducing the plot and characters to the level of a Harlequin romance novel -- that's what I felt that I was reading. In short, this was not in any way a good book, and I'd be happy to continue to rant about it with anyone else who
 was as appalled as I was.

        Written by Julie W (4/24/2001 9:33 a.m.)
I thought it was just dull- it didn't interest me.Most sequels dont (but I remembr enjoying Pemberley Shades- but then I was very young when I read it).   I just think that sequels, unless written by the original authour , are now not worth wasting time upon. \
        Written by Kristen G.  (9/28/2001 9:49 p.m.)
If this is the one by Emma Tennant, do not read it. I, too, got it from my library, amazed that they finally got with it and got an interesting book (our local library is pretty random and weird in it's book selections). Boy, was I in for a shock! I won't give anything away, but let's just say it was horrid. It has Lizzie wandering about Pemberley scared to do anything, Georgianna and Caroline Bingley making openly rude remarks to her, and Mrs. Bennet telling whole groups of people how to have a male child. YIKES!!!!! I couldn't even finish it: I was so discusted with what she did to one of the characters that I threw the book down (if it hadn't been a library book I would have thrown it away) and plan on never picking it up again. It was rotten.

It's not just that it wasn't like JA. I've read several books that weren't quite there, but they were still cute books. I don't even understand how this one got published.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

         Written by Ree  (9/29/2001 12:20 a.m.)
Pemberley is, IMNSHO, the worst of the worst (i.e., the worst of Emma Tennant's blindingly bad sequels). I wrote a scathing review of it, as did most Pemberleans. My review included the following: I am most excessively displeased! This book is unfaithful to the events of P&P, it does violence to the characters that we all love so much, and it has elements that are ludicrous in the extreme. The really big problem is that JA ended P&P with Elizabeth and Darcy's marriage being a success -- which, apparently, didn't suit Emma Tennant.
        Written by Amy BC  (9/29/2001 4:56 a.m.)
It was so bad that I've had to spend a good deal of time burying it in my memory to forget how hideous it was! It is so unrealistic that you find yourself saying "NO! That's not TRUE!" to it. I think it was so bad that, like Kristen, I didn't finish it, but I honestly can't remember - thank goodness! What I can remeber is bad enough! Do what Ree says - go to the BoI!
        Written by Louise C  (9/29/2001 6:48 a.m.)
I felt like throwing it across the room. It is truly awful. As it was a library book I couldn't damage it but I put a post-it note inside the front cover warning others how bad it was.

She can't even get her facts right, there is no wit, it is coarse, unfunny and totally inconsistent with the characters from P&P.

        Written by Skylar B (11/4/2001 10:06 p.m.)
At first, I thought the author's style for writing somehow rigid, in that I had difficulty reading her words with ease; but in time, I grew used to the writing, and it flowed fairly well. The plotline is interesting enough, but the writing is not particularly gripping, and it lacks any attempt at the satire of the original. Elizabeth is suddenly a figure utterly lacking in self-confidence, an odd change from Austen's portrait. Georgiana is intermittently pleasant and haughty, as though the author was not sure how to draw her. (In the original, I think she was only shy-any indication of her being proud was owing to rumor, not fact.) I also have some technical quibbles with the work.

(1) She has Jane with a one year old child less than a year after the Darcys are married. Now, unless my math is rusty, this would mean she had conceived well before her own marriage, a highly unlikely possibility.

(2) She has the war over at the beginning of the book. One year after the marriage of Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy-according to the most reliable chronologies derived from Pride & Prejudice-- would have been sometime in 1813-well before Waterloo.

(3) She has Lydia with four children "under four"-which, a year after the marriage of Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth, seems a bit much, as she was married only a few months before Elizabeth.

(4) She makes Rowsley (rather than Lambton) the former home of Mrs. Gardiner.

In short, the work could have benefited from some more careful research, and a better writing style.

I'm disappointed, so far, with my readings of a P&P sequel.

        Written by Christiana (1/15/2002 11:07 a.m.)
I've only read one...  That would be "Pemberley" by Emma Tennant, and I most certainly would NOT reccommend it. The time frame is entirely messed up, most of the characters are only recognizable by their names and the entire story line was weak and unengaging. I could go on, but space and time are limited.
        Written by Alex E (1/15/2002 9:02 p.m.)
I read it too and it was horrible. That is NOT Jane Austen or even a pitiable imiation.
        Written by Sheryll (4/8/2003 1:45 p.m.)
Is it just me or is that the worst book ever written? I took it with me on a camping trip, and I never got past the first few chapters. Does it get any better later on? Those characters - the horror! That is NOT Lizzy, not the clever, witty, strong Lizzy I know and admire. And that horrible, stiff man is NOT Mr Darcy, who, though he could sometimes be over proud, was, at least, always a gentleman.
        Written by Lynne Robson (4/13/2003 1:16 p.m.)
I first found this at the library along with the sequel Unequal Marrage and found them to be the biggest piece of drivel I had ever come across.
         Written by Brian C (4/16/2003 1:36 p.m.)
I felt that this book was rubbish but didn't like to say so here in case I'd missed something important. She seemed to go out of her way to bring all the characters together and then do nothing with them. Also what was all that nonsense at the end about Darcy being a spy?
        Written by Amber D. (9/8/2003 4:08 p.m.)
Pemberley, or Absolute Nonsense Continued. Ashamed I am to admit, that despite all the advice given on the Sequels page, in my longing for more of Darcy and Lizzy, I just read Emma Tennant's Pemberley.

Oh, the horror - the heresy! Though a few passages and characters ring true, the rest is pure rubbish. Since when would sweet, shy Georgiana Darcy participate in   the cruel witticisms of Miss Bingley? And who is this woman that Emma Tennant dares to call Lizzy? She should be horsewhipped for what she did to Darcy as well.

Written by Cat W (9/8/2003 7:06 p.m.)
Emma Tennet's Pemberley. Even though i have the book, i couldn't stand the change in Georgiana or the fact that Ms.Tennet has Georgiana older than Mary. Which is not possible. I thought it a disgrace to JA's wonderful Pride and Prejudice.

        Written by Kiersten (2/3/2004 9:37 p.m.)
I have just finished reading Pemberley and am part way through An Unequal Marriage and I have to say they are terrible!! Pemberley transforms Elizabeth into a snivelling, uncertain mess, who holds no trust for Darcy's love in her.

She loses all of her independance, unable to ask questions of Darcy that we know only too well she would not have held back from in P&P!! One of the key qualities Darcy mentions in his professions of love for her in the original!

Not too mention she kills off Mr Bennet, tries to remarry Mrs Bennet to a scum-like creature, and turns Georgiana into a little witch!

How Ms Tennant could have been pleased with her adaptation, that so blatantly destroys the wonderful characters I cannot guess!

        Written by Melanie Z (2/4/2004 5:29 a.m.)
I have read only "Pemberley". I thought that was totally enough!

         Written by Jessica Audrey (2/4/2004 11:36 a.m.)
Not only does she transform Elizabeth into the most fretful creature ever, but she makes Darcy into a monster! Darcy would never cancel her engagement then pick up and leave Pemberley without telling her and yet tell Lady Catherine AND Miss Bingley! I have never in my life wanted to slap someone so much; how could Elizabeth go from being absolutely in love with her husband one minute and the doubt his affection and hate him the next? Of course then Mrs. Bennet is completely overdone; she may be silly, but she would not speak about douches in company, or at all in my opinion! And was it just me, or were all of the woman, with the exception of Elizabeth and Jane (but including Charlotte!!!!), the most catty things in existence? Seemed like every page there was some woman, or even Mr. Collins, trying to find some way to insult his/her friends.

I feel I should go ahead and warn you that An Unequal Marriage is far worse than Pemberley! Just wait for the scene with Lizzy and Darcy when she returns from Col Fitzwilliam and Lady Sophia's home - you'll know it when you come to it. It's the most atrocious thing ever!! I was absolutely appalled.

        Written by Sara (1/17/2004 11:32 a.m.)
I am sorry to beat a dead horse here (I have perused the sequels review page), but I must rid myself of the remorse and disgust I feel for reading it. According to the back book jacket:

The Los Angeles Times said that the "eminetly enjoyable" Pemberley "helps deepen our appreciation of the original novel's aristic achievement."

When I first read this apparent complement, I was puzzled. Honestly I didn't think it was very flattering to the author. I now understand that this was not a complement, but a subtle hint of the horrors contained within the book, a veiled warning to stay away, put the book down, don't buy it, don't read it. Unfortunatly, I did read Pemberley and part of An Unequal Marriage. My appreciation of Austen's artistic achievement is certainly deepened. I agree with whoever said Ms. Tennant's time would be better spent tearing every copy to shreds rather than writing anything ever again.
Thank you for allowing me to vent.

        Written by B. MIchelle (1/17/2004 2:45 p.m.)
I am surprised that you were able to get through all of Pemberley. I could only get through the first thirty pages or so and had had enough. Not ony was She-who-must-not-be-name's style awful and facts about the book completly wrong, but she changed the characters so much that I only reckonized them by their names. Lizzy afraid to asked Jane to visit and moping at the sight of her husband? Georgianna not loving Lizzy as a sister? Darcy being aloof once again? It is not to be borne!
        Review by Crompton, 9/24/04
This book is all wrong. The worst is the way Lizzy has turned from and independent-minded young woman who was perfectly able to mock Darcy, into a clinging little twit who seems petrified of him. And what's with all the 'dark moods' business? He wasn't the type to just get angry for no reason. And Georgiana would never have been influenced like that by Caroline, etc etc etc. It's just all wrong (Ok I said that already but its true!!!!!)

       Written by Marg  (7/3/2005 12:24 p.m.)
Pemberley by Emma Tennant - I need to let off steam

About the best I can say about this drivel is that I borrowed it. No money changed hands.

If you're going to write a sequel, it's reasonable to conclude that the readers will be fans of the original. So it's probably a good idea to get the basic facts right so you don't turn the readers off from page 1.

For example: The Wickhams had four children under four, Jane had a one year old and another on the way, and Elizabeth and Mr Darcy had been married less than a year. So when is this book set?

Mr Bennett visiting Elizabeth when he was least expected as it says in P&P? No - he was killed off soon after the wedding.

The Collinses are expecting their first child. What happened to the "young olive branch" in P&P?

Mr Wickham never visits Pemberley? Except in this book.

Remember the housekeeper at Longbourn called Mrs Moffat? No, neither do I. What happened to Mrs Hill? I can't think of any reason to rename her except sheer laziness.

.... I could go on and on.

No, before I stop, I have to throw in one more. According to THIS book, Mr Darcy tried to stop Mr Bingley from marrying Jane because he thought Mr Bingley had not recovered from his grief at the death of a mysterious and nameless Frenchwoman he had an affair with (an affair which resulted in an equally mysterious and nameless son) and wanted to save Jane from heing unhappy.

It wasn't just that the facts were wrong. The characters were in many cases quite different. Elizabeth reminded me more of the young Mrs De Winter (from Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier) than Miss Elizabeth Bennett of P&P. Who stole her spine, her courage, her brains?

It gets worse. Even if this book had no association with P&P, if the characters were supposed to be new to me, the plot was absolute drivel. Characters get into these strange situations for reasons I couldn't figure out, and then it all sort of dissolves and sorts itself out for equally stupid reasons.

There are so many loose ends - what are the empty deed boxes about? What is going on with Master Roper and how will they get him under control? And Mr Kitchiner - con man or just an opportunist? What is the explanation for Mr Darcy disappearing off to London and not even attempting to contact his wife? Why, if Pemberley is entailed to male heirs, is a De Bourgh relative (ie a relative of Mr Darcy's MOTHER not father) set to inherit Pemberley? - and if there is a logical reason for that, I wonder why this relative and not Col Fitzwilliam's older brother (as a nephew of Lady Anne, as opposed to this "distant cousin")?

It isn't appropriate for the era, either. They are often quite "improper", in a way that goes well beyond character. For example, they are quite out-there about pregnancy. Poor Mrs Bennett, I'm sure she'd never sooner speak of vinegar douches as a way to get a boy (and how did the author manage to miss the point that whatever tricks Mrs B might have tried to get a boy, they didn't work). Or another example, Mrs Hurst making snotty remarks about how high her arches are and trying to convince Elizabeth to show off her feet. Huh?

I could keep going but it's 2am and I need some sleep.

It's badly written rubbish. DO NOT read it. It would be good to shred. The only redeeming bits are the small chunks of text pilfered from the original - and you can go back to the original and read them there instead.

Thank you for letting me vent!

        Review by Toomas (4/20/2007 4:31 a.m.)
The delight of Pride & Prejudice is such that inevitably it has spawned a plethora of sequels; this site lists 68 of them and it is not even an exhaustive list. It is probably a given that a sequel can not possibly satisfy a committed devotee of P & P but a good & thoughtful written one can be entertaining and enjoyable. What I personally ask of a sequel is that it provides a reasonable story line, authentic to the time and most importantly plausible congruity to P & P.

I just finished reading Pemberley audaciously alternatively titled or Pride and Prejudice Continued written by Emma Tennant, which I decree is a total failure given the above noted criteria. Since this author had the temerity to have the alternative title described as P & P continued it would behoove the author to especially avoid discrepancies with JA’s P & P.

Now minor discrepancies can be tolerated. After all for example in Trollope’s six novels of the Palliser series, he has the protagonist having only one daughter in the final novel (The Duke’s Children) whereas in the previous novel (“The Prime Minister”) there are two daughters. Mind you I imagine an embarrassed Trollope could explain away any churlish questions by asserting that he neglected to mention the death of such child as it was not germane to the plots. However the discrepancies between Pemberley and P &P I submit are so startlingly egregious that it makes the book not in the least worthwhile.

The premise of Pemberley is that the Darcy & Elizabeth are celebrating their first Christmas since their marriage of almost one year. Now the time line for P & P is that the novel starts in late September as Bingley takes possession of Netherfield, and essentially ends mid October of the next year with the engagement of Darcy & Elizabeth. Thus for Pemberley to work it would mean Elizabeth and Jane (since P &P intimates they were married on the same day) were to have married in January some three months after Darcy’s second proposal and obviously after the Christmas of the second year of P &P. Although given the way Elizabeth’s letter to her Aunt Gardiner informing the aunt of the engagement is phrased, i.e. “You are all to come to Pemberley at Christmas” might suggest that JA is saying the double marriage occurred before that Christmas. However one can live with the supposed January marriage.

Having thus established such a time line for Pemberley the only thing Tennant gets congruent with P &P is Georgiana’s age. Assuming Georgiana’s birthday to be between January and May then the stated age for her to be 17 in this novel would be correct given that she is 15 at Wickham’s thwarted elopement attempt. But everything else is totally awry. For example Lydia is described as a mother of four (albeit small children). Of course for that to be possible she would have had to have given birth to quadruplets which is not suggested and in any case such quads would be too young to be able to run around on their feet as described in this book.

Jane is described as mother of one year old and is pregnant almost to term for a second child and in fact gives birth during the Christmas in this novel. Mr Bennet is described as having died and Mrs Bennet has been a widow for 9 months. Such premise contradicts JA’s assertions in P & P of suggesting frequent visits by Mr Bennet to Pemberley implying that he survives his daughter’s marriage by a few years at least. The Gardiners are not allowed to Pemberley but are forced to take rented rooms nearby thus rendering Elizabeth’s letter in P & P fraudulent.

The ultimate discrepancy in Pemberley though is the following exchange as Darcy advises Elizabeth that his aunt is coming for Christmas:

“And now I must confess to you,” he said, “for I too have received a letter. Lady Catherine de Bourgh, my aunt, was always accustomed to come to Pemberley for Christmas, with her daughter. You remember Lady Catherine, I have no doubt?’ ‘I do,’ said Elizabeth,…”

To envision such a dialogue to be taken at face value in this sequel demonstrates to me that Ms Tennant must have no clue as to what was the plot of P & P. The novel is simply replete with inconsistencies to P & P and I will not bore you with further examples but suffice it to say as a result I can not recommend it. If prosecution for truth in advertising applied to book titles then Pemberley or Pride and Prejudice Continued would be guilty as sin.