Trust And Triumph:
The Sequel To Jane Austen's Pride And Prejudice
Paperback - 184 pages;
Authorhouse; ISBN: 1418426598
have just finished reading the above
sequel and I must say that I am
still confused as to which century it is supposed to be in. Some of the
things it mentions would have happened in the early 1900's the
Edwardian times others would have happened in the regency times.
I cannot see Mr Darcy
allowing his sisters Georgiana and Kitty not to be chaperoned when she
went anywhere. I couldn't see Mr Darcy allowing them to go to a dog
show either. I also couldn't see Georgiana going swimming in a pond
with Kitty only in her undergarments. Another thing I couldn't see
either was Mrs Reynolds telling Georgiana that her brother and his new
wife were in bed trying for a baby all day and would see her at dinner
time if they decide to get up. I could not see Lady Catherine allowing
her daughter Anne to marry the son of a Blacksmith even though he
trained to be an accountant.
She has both Kitty
and Georgiana kidnapped by Gypsies but then returned because Mr Darcy
gets the best detective on the job a Mr Strand who falls in love with
Mrs Reynolds and trys to persuade her to leave the Darcy's and marry
him but she isn't interested in him and diverts his attentions to Tily
one of the maids. The Doctor who Georgiana falls in love with after
being bitten badly at a dog show is very off hand with her and does not
like her cause she is a poor little rich girl but also falls in love
with her sending her flowers which she burns confusing isn't it. Kitty
falls in love with a Prince and eventually marries him.
Towards the end of
the book the go to Savannah to see Mr Darcy's partner over there and
his plantation. While travelling Lizzy finds out she is pregnant and
ends up spending the whole journey in bed again with Darcy of course.
All in all I found it to
crazy mixed up read, which was very confusing in places.
Kathleen Glancy (November 23, 2004 )
For Heaven's sake,
do NOT read a ghastly book called Trust and Triumph by a woman called
Norma Gatje-Smith. Unless of course you are in need of an emetic. This
woman's opus makes Marjorie Fasman, who up till then held the palm for
monumental ignorance in my league table, look really good by comparison
- she has references to the Eiffel Tower (built in 1889) when the
newlywed Darcys and Bingleys go to Paris (WHAT Napoleonic Wars?)and
Sherlock Holmes, who made his first appearance in print in the 1880s
too though his first adventure was said to havbe happened 10 years ago.
As for the depth of characterisiation and fidelity to the book, had she
not put a photograph of herself and spouse on the back cover I would
have assumed the author to be about 12 years old, which would have been
some excuse for her desperately silly story, and probably unable to
read, having dictated her tale to an amanuensis.
LynneRobson (November 24, 2004 )
I couldn't make mind
up if she had set the era of the edwardian times, victorian times or
georgian times it was such a miss matched book and did not make sense.
I couldn't see Darcy allowing his sister to go swimming with Kitty on
their own without a chaperone. Also I couldn't imagine Mrs Reynolds
saying to Miss Georgiana 'Sorry you cannot speak to your brother he and
his wife are busy trying to consieve a baby' IMHO, she had not even
read the original book at all or would have had more idea's about how
Darcy felt about his sister. I could not see him alowing all the pets
she had in her bedroom either. The dog show, this did not start until
the 1890's either and Darcy who adored his sister would not have
allowed her to be left alone with the doctor he would have insisted
that either Kitty or Lizzy stay with her as a chaperone. He would have
also insisted on the dog being distroyed as he was very protective of
her. The book for me had too many inconsistancies and was very hard to
read as it jumped about all over the place.
Linda Waldemar (June 25, 2008)
Bad! Bad! Bad! This book must be self published because no self-respecting publisher
would have its name associated with it. I am not usually so harsh; maybe because
I have not read a sequel in several weeks and have read well-written books in the
meantime. Whatever the reason, I cannot recommend that anyone even spend the time
to read it much less money to buy it. The bio of the author states that she has written
numerous articles for decorating magazines. I suggest that she stick to those and
forget writing fiction. This is not only not a good sequel, it is not a good book.
The copyright disclaimer says, "This book is a work of fiction. ... Any resemblance
to actual persons, living or dead, is coincidental." I would add "or any resemblance
to Jane Austen characters" is purely coincidental. I do not think that the author
has seen an adaptation, much less read Pride and Prejudice. Perhaps someone
gave her a general synopsis of the story. And, she knows nothing about the customs
and traditions of the Regency period.
This book (I cannot call it a novel, or even a story) has no plot. It is a series of
anecdotes most of which are implausible and some are downright ridiculous. An example:
Anne de Bourgh is sent to Pemberley by her mother, Lady de Bourgh, to spy on the newlywed
Darcys. As soon as Anne leaves her mother, she becomes pretty and lively. She goes into
town, flirts with and marries the blacksmith. Her mother accepts this without complaint!
Georgianna (Georgie) and Kitty decide to disrobe to their pantaloons and take a swim
in the pond. They are kidnapped by gypsies. Fitz William Darcy calls in a detective.
The gypsies decide they had better return the girls without the ransom. However, the
detective enjoys the meal that "Mrs. Reynolds" has prepared so much that he stays around
for awhile to enjoy the good food and try to entice Mrs. Reynolds away. Since the "castle"
is overrun with detectives, Georgie and Kitty go to help out in the kitchen; washing and
These are only two of the poorly written incidents that the author tells. She
provides parenthetical explanations of what is going on. An excerpt. Goergianna has been
injured by a mad dog at a dog show. She says the following to the doctor who is treating her.
The sentence is parentheses is the author's comment. The punctuation and spelling errors are
You see, I live with my brother and sister-in-law. It is hard to find them
sometimes, our housekeeper thinks they are often in bed. They want to start a family. I can
hardly wiat for some neices and nephews. There is a pond way in the back of our property and
they go there to swim without their clothes. They do not suspect I know. We can see for
miles from our third floor windows! (Remember, she was high on narcotics.)
You know, this book does not even deserve the amount of effort it has taken to write this
review so I will stop now.