REVIEW: Darcy’s Story by Janet Aylmer
Review by Allison T.
There are now–or, perhaps I should say, there are as of this particular nano-second in time–four different published retellings of P&P from Mr. Darcy’s viewpoint: Mary Street’s The Confession of Fitzwilliam Darcy (1988), Amanda Grange’s Darcy’s Diary (2005), Pamela Aidan’s three-volume series with the omnibus title of Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman (2003-2005), and the just-published-in-the-U.S. Darcy’s Story, by Janet Aylmer. The last, a tale that Aylmer initially self-published and that has subsequently been sold in 37 countries, is now being carried by HarperCollins. It is, however, the weakest of the four versions.
It’s not that Darcy’s Story is bad, exactly; how could it be bad when it includes massive chunks of Austen’s own dialogue? Wait, chunks is perhaps an understatement: I really mean page after page of famous scenes, recited verbatim. But it offers little that is new, especially with regard to the curious relationship between Darcy and Bingley, and is perhaps best suited for the most inexperienced of Austen-lovers. Aylmer, the pen-name of an English Jane Austen enthusiast who lives in Bath, was inspired to write Darcy’s Story after watching Colin Firth plunge into that pool at Pemberley over and over and over….and, indeed, Darcy’s Story would appeal to a young viewer of the BBC movie (which tells the story from Elizabeth’s viewpoint) who has not yet read P&P but is wild about Darcy-Firth.
The publicity information tells us that Austen shows Darcy transforming from “an arrogant and aloof fixture”–making him sound like a case of buyer’s remorse after purchasing a living room lamp–to “an ardent and humble man worthy of Elizabeth’s love,” but that Austen doesn’t show how that transformation occurred. One begs to differ–Austen shows that very well indeed: we just don’t hear Mr. Darcy’s thoughts as the process unfolds. Austen shows us that Darcy is a loving brother who lost his parents too young, a good master and landlord, and a caring, if perhaps slightly officious, friend. All four of the Darcy-P&Ps do pick up on these facets of his character. However, Aylmer’s version does not go on much further to flesh out Darcy’s character or his past; gives us few of his thoughts or words that are not verbatim quotes from the original, and even contrives to make the eventual union between the lovers almost bloodless.
In the ever-expanding pantheon of Jane Austen sequels, prequels and retellings, there are a few books that are excellent, many that are entertaining, and a handful that are pretty awful indeed. Aylmer’s Darcy’s Story falls midway in the spectrum: it is not brilliant, but it is not bad; it is just…sort of…tired.
August 24th, 2006 at 8:58 am
Er, I think that title should read Darcy’s Story, not Darcy’s Diary.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Thanks, and you are absolutely correct. I will chalk it up to sleep deprivation.
August 27th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Gentle Editrix, there are actually 5 versions of P&P from Darcy’s point of view. You have forgotten or never knew about (if it is the latter I almost envy you)The Diary of Henry ??!! Fitzwilliam Darcy by Marjorie Fasman. I will tell you all about it, at such length that you may wish to edit the message - feel free to do so.
Darcy’s Story can be said to compare favourably with this book. The author spells Bennet “Bennett” and Lizzy “Lizzie”, and displays a staggering degree of ignorance of English history, and of the manners, customs and grammar and spelling of the time. If you are going to write in the first person about a 19th Century English gentleman, a man whose grammar is unshakeably perfect even under severe emotional trauma, you should take on board the fact that he would not write in modern American. I doubt this author has actually read the book, but she has seen the 1995 adaptation. I know this because the Wet Shirt puts in an appearance. There is also her attempt to reverse engineer Darcy and turn him into Colin Firth by giving him the same birthday and an inappropriate, nay ludicrous, desire to be an actor – had she but read the book she would have known that disguise of every sort is his abhorrence, and what is good acting but disguise? The very word hypocrite derives from the Classical Greek word for actor.
Would that Ms Fasman had had the BBC’s meticulous researchers at her command. This would have saved her from (to pick out only a few of the thousand or more Americanisms, anachronisms and historical howlers – I tried to count them up but gave up half-way through, by which time I had 5 A4 sheets with five-bar gates covering both sides) having Darcy measure things in metres instead of yards, use words like “gotten”, “dove” as the past tense of “to dive” and “pants” instead of breeches or trousers, call the street level floor of a house the first floor which to British people then and now is the storey above the ground floor, and go to France to begin a Grand Tour in 1803. I know Jane Austen doesn’t mention the Napoleonic Wars directly, but they were still there. Darcy’s parents are depicted as cold and remote but it passes belief that they would want their only son to be, at best, interned and at worst put against a wall and shot as a spy. Mind you, the French would have a job catching him. His must be the fastest Grand Tour on record – he gets round France and Italy in about 5 weeks, Fasman failing to record where he got the Learjet. In the real world a Grand Tour, where land travel was at the pace of a team of horses and water at the mercy of the wind, took anything from 6 months to 2 or 3 years.
Unlike Aylmer Fasman carries the story well past the wedding. They have sex a lot, starting from when, in full view of all the household servants, he carries her up the stairs at Pemberley. Over the threshold I could accept, but up the stairs is best left to disreputable gentlemen from the Southern States of the USA. Indeed, the relationship between them is reduced almost entirely to a physical level. All this sex leads to what Kipling described as the Almost Inevitable Consequences. That’s about it.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:13 am
Heh. I actually have that book but have not read it. Perhaps I should lend it to Allison (who wrote this review). Her snark is truly delightful.
August 31st, 2006 at 9:20 am
Allison,
thank you very much for this wonderful review. I had exactly the same feelings about this book, when I bought it some years ago, only that I was so mad at the author, because it was really expensive.
I felt the book as a total waste of money.