REVIEW THE SECOND: Two Shall Become One: Mr. and Mrs. Fitzwilliam Darcy by Sharon Lathan
Review by Allison T.
OK, call me a prude, call me a persnickety pedant, call me a Dried Up Old Prune—but I can give only the weakest of recommendations to Sharon Lathan’s Two Shall Become One—Mr. and Mrs. Fitzwilliam Darcy, published in 2006 through Lulu. It’s not because Lathan doesn’t write well: she actually has a nice flow of words and a good use of color (though she should learn the difference between “lie” and “lay” and why it is that most books have A Plot). But it is a shame that she does not wield her pen for the forces of Good instead of Evil.
What’s so Evil? Well, this ardent Janeite first shuddered when she discovered (in the foreword), that Lathan had never read any JA until she’d seen the 2005 P&P (that’s the Keira one) and walked out of the movie theater transfixed. (This is always A Bad Sign.) Her novel is based on the movie conception of the characters and carries Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy through their first five months of marriage. I gave up around page 160 because all the farther we had progressed was the first month of the honeymoon, described in far too loving detail. We heard Mrs. Bennet’s pre-wedding night advice to her daughters (fake a headache) and Mrs. Gardiner’s (an earthy woman, “forthright and blunt,” she gives all the “clinical” details). (Did you know they had clinics in 1810 or whenever? I didn’t.) Then the big event itself, which goes on for pages. I didn’t keep count, but I believe that the Darcys made love about 10 times in the first 24 hours—surely trying even for the gentleman, who had kept himself a virgin for his future wife. (Huh? Really? Doesn’t seem very Regency-like.)
So, yeah, there’s a lot of sex. Literally every chapter is about where they have sex in different parts of Pemberley. Also different positions. And, while I like a good sex scene as much as any red-blooded American Janeite, I found these scenes oddly un-titillating. (It must be my prunishness.) Other than the lovemaking, NOTHING HAPPENS. Wait, that’s a little unfair—I did skip to the end to discover Darcy duelling a Wicked Marquis who attempted to rape the pregnant Elizabeth, but I don’t believe that weak plotline began until long after I quit reading.
So, what else besides the lack of plot and the excessive bedroom details? Well, there are some anachronisms that really jar (this is part of why authors inspired by movies are suspect). You’ll be happy to know that the inn that Darcy rents to spent the first two nights of his honeymoon contains a…wait for it…GIFT SALON. And he & Lizzie make love (the third time) on a BEARSKIN RUG COVERED WITH PILLOWS in front of the blazing fire. And they eat a late BRUNCH—didn’t think that was invented until the 1930s. And later, when they are canoodling in December out-of-doors at Pemberley, the air is “rich with the fragrance of WINTER BLOOMS.” (Huh?) And Darcy gives Elizabeth a MUSICAL SNUFF BOX as a wedding gift. (Our Lizzie? A secret dipper?) And I just cannot, I simply cannot cope with a novel set ca. 1800 that uses the words “nirvana” and “groins” in close juxtaposition.
Sixteen-year old readers will doubtless find Two Shall Become One—Mr. and Mrs. Fitzwilliam Darcy page-turning reading, in part because they, too, will learn the clinical details. But I hope that Ms. Lathan turns her talents to her own characters (and plots) in the future.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Bearskin rug?! Hahahahahaha!!!
June 20th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I think that musical snuff box is about the most AWESOME THING ever found in a Austen sequel.
June 20th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Yeah, what tune do you imagine it played? And, aksherly, the more I think about it, the more improbable it becomes: to hold the music-making mechanism, the box would have to be about the size of a small jewelry case, wouldn’t it? That’s a lotta snuff!
June 20th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
To answer your question, yes they DID have clinics in the 17th century, although they were not of the type we now think but were where poor folks could obtain medications from Apothecaries for free or cheaply. They also had the ability to be dispassionately rational and critical, which is termed clinical thinking not to be confused with ‘Clinic’ the noun; there were bears I am pretty sure, trappers who killed them for their pelts, and trade with the former Colonial Americas; salons were an 18th century term for a meeting room, parlor, or small business where one could maybe buy something; there are many flowers that bloom in the winter, including hellebore, camellia, and winter jasmine, all of which I have in my yard; and small pocket sized snuff boxes with the tobacco obviously removed (duh!) were first used to create music boxes, the forerunner of the larger variety (look it up!). I guess what I am trying to say is some of your ‘facts’ for blasting Ms. Lathan’s story are questionable. I have been a fan of her story from the beginning and disagree with your OPINION strongly. Maybe not all the words are perfectly early 1800 and she is not an English professor, but I don’t care. The writing is flowing, rich, real, and humorous. The romance is terrific, the relationship between Lizzy and Darcy goes WAY beyond the physical, and the PLOT since you missed it (and gave up on figuring out) is about life and family and two people creating a future. It is about what happens after the trauma and angst they went through. Of course I liked the movie, so I guess that makes me stupid too.
June 20th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Wait a minute! I knew something seemed wrong! a musical box, a normal sized one, was a gift given to Lizzy by her family on the Darcy’s SECOND Christmas together! It was NOT a wedding gift and the snuff sized box was mentioned by Darcy in passing related to the larger one. This means that you have read the following chapters at Sharon’s website and are not being truthful or factual about the review for the book. It may seem like a small point, but based on the other errors noted and the clear dislike you have for the movie, I think it a bit unfair or at least disingenuous to give the above as a ‘review.’ Just my two cents. Of course, I am in the ‘evil’ camp.
June 20th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
*grumbles, wipes defensive hostility off blog*
You kids stay off my clean blog!
June 21st, 2007 at 7:55 am
Well, I’ll take what Antonelle says about the historical facts being correct, and about the writer’s style being a good one. I have never pretended to be a historian myself- I have struggled for decades to understand Jane Austen’s England and long despaired of ever actually writing any fiction that is 100% historically accurate. However, I would really like to know more about those scented flowering plants. Being an Englishwoman, a gardener and an ecologist by training, I would love to know all about scented Hellebores (mine are not scented) and Camellias that would flower in the winter in our northern climate. Especially ones that would grow on the Chatsworth limestone. For we all know that Chatsworth IS Pemberley, right?
Aye me. Joe Wright, what HAVE you unleashed?
June 21st, 2007 at 8:00 am
I appreciate Antonelle’s comments, though they do not convince me nor change my mind. I would add two thoughts for all aspiring sequel writers: the first is that, IMHO, JA’s books are not primarily about love–they are about the gradual acqusition of self-knowledge. Love is then the reward for growing up. (The movies are more about love, and this may be the Great Divide between those who primarily read and appreciate the author and those who primarily like the movies.) The second is that a story that for the first 150 pages is only about two people getting married and having sex does not qualify as “having a plot.” Plots involve conflict and resolution. The introduction of a Wicked Marquis late in the game does not qualify as plot–it’s only a distraction to the sex.
Please note (and then I’ll shut up, Dorothy) that I think (and said twice) that Lathan writes very well. But even good writers need editors (and reviewers) in order to further improve and advance their craft.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Allison, that is a very apt and astute comment about Austen’s books being about the gradual acquisition of self-knowledge, and the movies being more about love. I’ve been trying for some time to put my finger on the reason why it disturbs me so much that many people confuse the movies with the books, as if they are the same thing. I’m no longer talking about Sharon Lathan’s book at all, here, by the way: I mean, to give you an example, on the Victoria listserv, a scholar was asking whether or not Willoughby ever repented. She discussed him in the book for a bit, and then she started talking about his repenting in the movies, drawing her conclusion from that! This kind of thing drives me crazy. The books are not the movies, and vice versa, and your comment illustrates one of the many reasons why you can’t treat them as the same thing.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:53 pm
So, how then should this book be judged? As a a sequel to Jane Austen’s book, or as a sequel to Joe Wright’s fantasy movie? Or as an ordinary, Regency bodice-ripper?
I guess any of the above would be okay, in theory. It sounds like it would stand up as a bodice-ripper, except for the fact that the names have been pinched from Jane Austen. Perhaps it stands up to the vision imparted by Kiera Knightley and Matthew Mc-What’s-’is-name, and we should just accept the fact that a book can be made of a movie as well as vice versa. Does it HAVE to be a failed attempt to reach Jane Austen’s own standard of excellence before it’s any good?
I don’t know- but then I tend not to read this stuff.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Caroline, his name is Matthew Macfadyen and he is a respected actor here in the UK. And you have hit the nail on the head, Sharon’s story is loved by so many people, she doesn’t claim to be Jane Austen, she has just given us a sequel to the Darcy’s story that is absolutely delightful IMHO.
Allison, I am sure Sharon appreciates your comments that she writes very well, and I hope she will concentrate on that, forget the rest, and continue with her writing.
All success to you Sharon.
Thank you to Austen Blog for allowing me to comment,
Sincerely
May Ross
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Can we get a moratorium on authors of JA paraliterature modestly disclaiming that they “aren’t Jane Austen?” That’s assumed. If you’re going to play in Jane’s sandbox, don’t be shy. Just do it. Don’t think that such a disclaimer gets you some kind of pass from criticism. As Jane Austen once wrote (though laughingly), “An artist can do nothing slovenly.”
As for readers, no disclaimers about “I’m not a college professor, blah blah blah.” I would hazard a guess that very, very few people who read this blog ARE college professors. (I know a few do, so I won’t say “none.”) You’re still allowed to have an opinion. Claim that opinion boldly, and don’t apologize for it. I, at least, will have more respect for you AND your opinion. That being said, don’t expect to get a pass from having to defend that opinion.
The cringing servile nature of some of these posts (especially since I’m fairly certain it’s fake) really annoys the snot out of me. Will get off the soap box now.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Yes, thank you, May. I got mixed up with all the “M’Leods, the M’Kenzies, the M’Phersons, the M’Cartneys, the M’donalds, The M’Kinnons, the M’lellans, the M’Kays, the Macbeths and the Macduffs.” that are so important in understanding Jane Austen.
And I spelt Kiera’s name wrong. I guess I was trying to write Keely at first.
And thank you, too, Mags. When I finish my own trilogy- all movie-sequels- I’ll let you know. My heroine is also called Elizabeth. She’s the daughter of a Governor, and a Lady who Must Marry. Volume 1 is to be called, “With Three Men in a Boat (to Say Nothing of The Dog)”. Volume 2 is “Brown-eyed Handsome Men: Foredecks I have known”, and the final one is ” The Lady and the Pirate.” My research is almost finished- I got into a cul-de-sac over Granny Smith apples last week, but I think I’ve got the cannibalism bits down pat. I found an excellent book in my library all about it.
Now, if Allison would help me a little with the plot, and Diana would read over the manuscript and make some suggestions as to publication I shall be well away, won’t I?
Affect’ly Yours,
Caroline
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Dearest Mags
‘” Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonymously. A person may be proud without being vain. Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves, vanity to what we would have others think of us.”
I have pondered for a few days the words and language used by those who are the doyens empowered here. It is with great relief I have to my satisfaction found some resolution in my mind as to the motives which I was at first rather baffled by, the capricious venomous, almost vitriolic rantgings, which were illicited with such passionate ferver. My thoughts found sufficient moorings in the Jane Austen quote above, to suffice to a large degree, the almost cunning belittlement which occurred in the reviews. Its really wasn’t a defense of Jane Austen herself that was at work here but a pre-concluded council with a set outcome in mind. The mere introductory statements here by the critics alone are preamble enough to the true intent of this motivation. It wasn’t to review the book in fairness but to amass all the disdain you have for anyone who continues a story based on Pride and Prejudice and dump it into the review.One of the last critics not even reading the book and concocting absolute falsehoods to malign a very beautiful book indeed.So now I must question your credibility. More than you have ever realized you in your musings and malcontent desire have shown your more connected to Pride and Prejudice than you even realize,and unfortunately I lay this charge at your feet in a negative way. The language used such as smutty and evil in regards to this fine novel are the postings of those that Jane actually disliked ,the haughty and proud. Those who have through self appointment risen above there station to rule and reign as experts and cast down all who write regarding the subject or era. As a critic of my own I would strongly suggest you search your heart to see if not you are straining out the nat and missing the camel. The movie was inspirational and it has inspired Sharons writings.Where the movie left off is where she continued from. Its with this in mind where you seem to have lost sight of what these books are about and why so many are endeared to them. . If you read the posts from Sharons fans they are filled with hope,love and a love for the story.While on the other hand yours are filled with chastisement and an almost bitter resentment. I think a day has come when for whatever reason the movie has endeared people to this true love story and Sharons work is just the next step along the way of filling the story with life. Lastly its the untruths that were brought out that kind of go a step beyond the face of pride and thats one of character, Jane was a lot about character,and I think she would find your blatant untruths a great error in dispalying this regency woman you are striving so hard to represent to us.
Sincerley
Steve
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Dagnabit. Head exploded. Dorothy will scold.
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 am
People can have a negative opinion of a book without being haughty or proud. People’s tastes differ, and they should be able to express their opinions without being subjected to ad hominem attacks.
I’m not really sure what you are so upset about. Unless I missed something, I didn’t see any comments that were “capricious venomous, almost vitriolic rantgings”. (sic) Some people liked it, some people didn’t–not really surprising about any book.
Here’s an Austen quote for you that is more to the point: “One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other.” Let’s leave it at that, shall we?
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Caroline, you should go ahead with your book but please if you are going to use a Scottish name the correct title is Mac or Mc, ie MacPherson, MacLeod, McIntosh. There is no such name as M’pherson etc. I am glad I helped you with Matthew’s name. He is a hard working young actor who deserves a bit of respect, not called Mc-what’shisname just because he was lead in P&P05 and you didn’t like it. If I had posted Jane Aust-thingy there would have been an outcry here.
Steve I apologise unreservedly for recommending that the book should be reviewed here, I honestly thought it would be given a fair review, but the nasty comments are unbelievable. It isn’t wise I would think to get an authoress of the same genre to review a book. Not saying that this is the case with Ms Birchall, but maybe someone may think “S*** this is rather good, maybe better than mine!”. Oh and I would never bother to look her up on the website or anywhere else.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, I am sure Miss Austen would agree if she were alive today.
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I’m sorry to say I have to agree with Steve about the way so called
reviews, which have every right to contain constructive criticism, have
turned into a forum for sarcastic, mean spirited and what I suppose are
considered inside jokes about someone else’s work. If none of you can
see what Steve is upset about then you need to examine the posts and
realize the word evil is certainly used. As far as apologizing for not
being an expert Jane Austenite or apologizing for just being a reader,
I was doing no such thing. I was only pointing out that Sharon’s novel
has brought Pride & Prejudice to people who might not have had an interest before. Dare I remind some of you who are authors
yourselves, it is the non expert, everyday person who buys the books.
Isn’t that the audience you are looking for? Or should Miss Austen’s
work be reserved for only those who are able to know the mind of Miss
Austen. Only the pure shall be entitled to write a sequel, the rest are
not worthy. Unless one of you possesses a time machine and can have
a chat with the woman herself how can you know with so much oonviction
she would NEVER write something like Two Shall Become One. Thank goodness she didn’t face the kind of insensitive review you have given
Sharon. I can assure you there is nothing fake about anything I have
written. I am not a member of Sharon’s family or close friend, however
I am a fan of her most sincere work and have had enjoyed it. I believe
very strongly she has continued the lives of Darcy and Lizzy as the true
love story it is. Each of you here has the right to disagree with my
opinion, but no one has the right to show such outright hostility. I
too will get off my soapbox now and hope the next time an author asks
to have a book reviewed you will be honest but kind.
Sincerely,
Sue
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
May–all snark aside, did you really think that Diana Birchall gave the book a bad review? I chose her to review the book because I knew she is friendly to self-published authors and quite open-minded about collateral Austen stuff. I did the best I could for the book short of rewriting it. Diana was kindness itself towards the book as far as I am concerned. And since Diana’s P&P sequel, which was published by a very small press, shortly will be republished by Sourcebooks, it might behove Sharon to listen to what she has to say and take it to heart. A good review is not necessarily a gushing one.
As to the second review, I received the two within a half-hour of each other, thought they were both fun and funny and in the spirit of AustenBlog, so I posted both, as I could see this book, like Linda Berdoll’s books, being the type of book that is either loved or loathed in the Austen fandom, and that it would be interesting to have contrasting opinions about them presented for our readership.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Oh, and…
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, I am sure Miss Austen would agree if she were alive today.
Um…okay.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:01 pm
I am interested to note that neither Diana nor I, as the original reviewers, have responded to the criticisms of our reviews with corresponding hysterical hyper-criticism back again–the vitriolic comments on these threads have been actually been sustained largely by the supporters of the author. Just a wee thought.
And, two other thoughts. First, many people do not like to read soft-core porn. (I actually like it, but prefer mine with a touch of humor, as in Charlaine Harris’ Sookie Stackhouse mysteries.) It is naive to gush about how the book shows the tender love of the newly-wed Darcys when it is, in fact, not a book that I–and many other mothers, I’m sure–would leave lying around the house for my young teenagers to discover. (I don’t leave Harris’ books around, either, but at least they don’t come in a guise that suggests that they are G-rated.)
Second, Jane Austen herself clearly did NOT choose to show us the Darcys’ wedding night & etc. In fact, there is a letter from her to Cassandra post-P&P publication in which JA playfully describes going to a gallery in London to see a show of paintings & sees one that she imagines is the portrait of Jane Bingley–there is something about the portrait’s colors that confirms, she says, what she’d always thought, which was that Jane’s favorite color was green. She goes on to say that she did not see a portrait of Mrs, Darcy–she assumes that it is because Mr. Darcy had too much delicacy to put her portrait on public display.
Austen ended P&P where she did for a reason: perhaps personal, perhaps cultural, perhaps death cut a sequel short. Or perhaps she felt that the point of the story had been made and that the tale was over. But while sequel writers have a right (since there is no legal copyright issue involved–unless Joe Wright steps in) to imagine what they will, they also must acknowledge the right of readers to either end the story where JA did, or to disagree with the sequel-writers’ interpretation of subsequent events.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Wow. I hardly know where to begin and am not sure I should. I have sat back over these past days with every emotion imaginably racing through my mind and heart. Even now I am not so sure which one reigns. Not a single one, I believe, although the worst of my anger and hurt has been replaced by pity and sorrow with a slice of disillusionment thrown in. Should I respond even now? I am not so sure. Why should I say anything when I know it is pointless? I guess in the end it is quite simply a need to defend myself, my family, and the faithful fans who have spoken up, all who have been treated so poorly. Still, I will do my very best to not address those issues for two very important reasons: One, they have stood up for themselves quite well, and Two, I do not believe it would do a whit of good.
No. Instead I am going to tell you all how I feel and why this ‘review’ hit me so hard. Maybe (she says to herself foolishly) it might give you pause and cause reflection for when the next poor, unsuspecting, naïve and trusting soul comes along. Let me say first that I only blame myself. I AM trusting and a bit naïve. The Blog seemed like a decent place, the recommendation came from a kind person, and I misinterpreted the ‘fair and honest’ phrase on the Book Review page as well as the ‘slings and arrows.’ My mistake was in not researching the ‘spirit’ of the blog. As I said, Naïve. Mags seemed kind when she responded to my request. Even sent a smiley face I think and as I was utterly professional, courteous, and humble in my emails I never expected anything else in return.
Less than five days after sending my pdf my husband discovered the review. I received no notice of it, no note from Mags, nothing. Perhaps that is SOP but I think it a trifle rude to not at least notify me. Be that as it may, first I read Ms. Birchall’s. Not so bad, my initial thought. I was very tired having worked two twelve hour night shifts in a row saving newborn lives, but Hey, my husband was happy at the ‘buy, buy, buy’ line and my fuzzy brain could not quite assimilate it. Overall, as I perused it later in more depth, I will agree that she said many nice things. No offense intended to Ms. Birchall, but I do think she missed the point. Do my Lizzy and Darcy make love? Yes. They are married after all. This is a sequel after all. One could argue until the cows came home as to what Miss Austen would or would not have written, but that is not the issue. Perhaps it is semantics. There is ‘sex’ in the clinical, porno movie definition. Then there is ‘making love’ in the beautiful, romantic, melding of souls, Biblical knowing, faithful and everlasting sort of way. The latter is how I present it and I AM offended that Ms. Birchall presented the tale as nothing but the former. She misquoted the ‘grotto’ comment, turning it into a smutty phrase when the moment was one of Darcy baring his soul to Lizzy. She summed it up as a ‘fantasy of sex and material riches’ and offered only two quotes, one misinterpreted, that are not ‘typical’ of the entire 286 pages! Nor do I think it nice to have ‘fun’ at the expense of another’s hard work, whether you like it or not. However, it is her opinion and I would never argue that she does not have a right to hold it. So I was not pleased with the review, but at least I can say it seemed like she actually read the pages, or skimmed through them anyway, and I did not think it particularly mean. Actually it just made me kind of sad that she apparently did not comprehend the essence of love, companionship, happiness, and so on that I have tried to convey. My misgivings proved true as the immediate responses coined it smutty, soft-core porn, sleazy, and without depth without any first hand knowledge of a single word of my text.
My real issue was with Allison’s horrid rant and I am still shocked that a Blog that touts itself as respectable and upholding the ideals of the Regency Era would post such a thing. Offering a review implies that the reviewer read the book and did not get her insights based on parts not in the book or from prejudices against the source material. Aside from the briefest of compliments on my writing with color and nice flow of words, the rest was the purest form of falsehood imaginable. To call me, my work, or anyone or anything ‘evil’ is just awful! For people who claim to be experts in the use of language (a claim I do not make so my minor errors should be mercifully forgiven), I am stunned that such harsh terms would be thrown about. I will not address each particular point as my daughter did that for me (and was attacked in the process) with Allison making no apology for her lies and lack of historical knowledge. Ironic that she could ignore this when these ‘facts’ were so forcefully presented as a valid reason why my novel is so horrible. She exaggerated outrageously as to the lovemaking, not that I will deny it occurred, and in consequence it has been labeled a bodice-ripper by another who has never opened the pages. As an aside, I am always amazed by the ready acceptance that a gentleman like Mr. Darcy would have vast amounts of pre-marital experience and that the concept of him, or any man, being virtuous upon their marriage is anathema. As for The Plot charge, well I guess she should channel Louisa May Alcott and Laura Ingalls Wilder as she apparently has Jane Austen and tell them that their classic sagas of family relationships over the course of time have no plot. My dictionary defines plot as the storyline, plan, theme, scheme, or main story of a literary work. I clearly state in the introduction that my story is recounting a marriage and the theme of happily ever after. I leave the angst behind and am very upfront about it. Again I would disagree that a plot HAS to involve conflict and resolution. That seems a bit too narrow to me, but we could also argue that point until the cows come home and I frankly do not care to do so. Nevertheless, it is her opinion and of course she has a right to hold it. I just do not comprehend the driving need to wound in the process. I think an opinion, even a negative one, can be offered in a polite, and certainly factual, manner. You are correct, Mags, a good review is not necessarily a gushy one, but conversely a bad review does not necessarily need to be a vicious one.
In the end I am almost glad I submitted my work here. It has opened my eyes in a myriad of ways, some good and some bad. I am not the naïve writer of romance I was less than a week ago. I now am more convinced than ever that readers need my words of hope, true love, graciousness, manners, kindness, joy, and respect in what is increasingly a negative world. So, for that I thank you.
Sincerely, Sharon Lathan
June 24th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Allison, To add to the comment I posted on the other page, all I can say is that, again, your dictionary is glaringly different then mine. And second, if you sweepingly abhor and disdain all sequels to Miss Austen’s work, how in the world can anyone expect you to give an unbiased review? This further proves the point that there is something really wrong about the process here. Or maybe I just have a very different concept of what an honest review is supposed to be.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:05 am
>>Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, I am sure Miss Austen would agree if she were alive today.
WHAT????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
=8O
**stunned and speechless**
June 24th, 2007 at 7:08 am
**speech partially recovered**
Cases such as these do not deserve the compliment of rational opposition
June 24th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Reeba, what a pity your speech has “partially recovered”. I don’t think you gave “rational opposition” in the first place!
I wish Sharon every success, I too believed it would be a risk to submit her book for review but was seduced by the “fair and honest” promise made by this Blog. I realise that it is pointless posting any more though when the only reaction to Steve’s post was “head exploding”. How rude is that? If being a Janeite means I have to be sarcastic and hurt people then I am glad I am in no way a “Janeite”.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Sharon–I know for a fact that Allison does NOT “abhor and disdain all sequels to Miss Austen’s work.” If she did, I would not have published her review.
I apologize for not e-mailing you, but it was very late (early) when I finished posting that night. Last week was very busy for me; I’ve had something to do after work every night that kept me out till 9 or 10, and then I had to come home and take care of the blog, which is why there were no postings a couple of nights. When I was done posting that night (morning), I sought my couch as I could barely keep my eyes open. By the time I was able to deal with blog things the next day, it had become abundantly clear that your family members at least had discovered the postings.
I maintain that both reviews were fair and honest, and that I did the best I could for your book. You didn’t want a review; you wanted glowing praise and nothing less. Disappointment was inevitable.
I will, uncharacteristically, do you a favor and offer a piece of advice: Google “Author’s Big Mistake.”
June 24th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
If the comments here are representative of Ms. Lathan’s melodramatic prose, I’m buying the book. Bronteseque isn’t the word for it.
June 25th, 2007 at 4:36 am
Mags, although it is not generally appropriate for a reviewer to reply to discourteous protests from injured authors and their fans, this is an informal forum, and in vain I have been struggling to find the best way to kindly point out that it is against all professional behavior for an author to reply to reviews except to correct mistakes. The hilarious “Author’s Big Mistake” article explains it very well. I have worked as a professional reviewer for thirty years; my business is to read and select manuscripts for motion picture production. I carefully judge hundreds of professionally published manuscripts year in year out, and did this “freebie” as a favor, because I love Jane Austen and am interested in everything people write about her and what is inspired by her. However, I see that a surprising number of people here do not seem to understand the basic concept that a professional book review is not an appreciation! It is an analysis. A professional reviewer can be wrong, but generally he is a person with good judgement and analytical skills, giving his best opinion in good faith. I paid Sharon the compliment of thinking that her writing was on a level equivalent to books published by legitimate presses, and that she deserved to be judged by professional standards. There are many readers here who do not know the difference, and reacted emotionally, as they are of course entitled to do, especially on an internet blog, where anything goes. However, an author and her family are expected to behave professionally, if they want to have credibility and to make good contacts in the publishing and literary worlds. Sharon has what it takes to publish professionally, so I’m hoping that when she thinks it over, she will take this experience as a salutory lesson. ALL authors feel emotional when they are reviewed; ALL authors take criticism personally! That’s normal and natural. That is why it is the time honored professional practice, and obvious wisdom, not to shoot self-justifying comments back and engage in argument. The line is blurred in internet publishing, but the principle still holds. I’m not denigrating internet fanfic, which can be great fun, nor sexy or romantic novels, which I love. But I applied professional standards, not free-for-all fanfic emotionalism, to Sharon’s writing, thus treating her as fairly as I would expect to be treated. It’s wonderful to love a book with your heart (I love many books with my heart, or I would never gone into a literary trade, or succeeded at it), but a reviewer must think with her head as well. Sharon should feel complimented that her work was given thoughtful consideration, and that the good in it was appreciated. I think she has a successful professional writing career before her, but she needs to learn certain basics of publishing world behavior. One of the most important rules is, NEVER allow yourself to be defended by family members! Believe me, I understand exactly how Steve feels, and admire and like him for caring so much. I tell this to both Steve and Sharon out of pure sympathy and kindness, because when Sharon gets higher up in the professional literary world, she simply cannot have her husband writing emotional letters to professional people. It is just not done and makes exactly the opposite impression of what you hope to create. You make yourself look like an amateur behaving this way, and I know Sharon is far too smart not to pick these points up very quickly. As for Sharon’s readers, a few have behaved with truly shocking rudeness in this discussion, but we have free speech in this country and in the blogosphere. There is no use responding to willful ignorance and personal abuse.
Only one misconception I would like to correct: Jane Austen was in fact an absolute mistress of sarcasm. It was she who wrote that a woman gave birth to a child before its time “probably because she happened to look at her husband unawares.” I could list fifty instances of her sarcasm, and of her tart literary judgments. She was not sweetly saintly (”Pictures of perfection make me sick and wicked,” she wrote) but had the most superb judgment and critical skills of anyone, and an extremely sharp, shrewd, wit. How, in God’s name can anyone have read Jane Austen even once and not be aware of this? But you cannot speak, argue, or reason with people who think Jane Austen is a sweet romantic novelist, and nothing more.
And if you think professional standards of courtesy do not apply on a blog, think again. This is the most prominent public forum in the Austen world, read by hundreds - probably by as many readers as Jane Austen had in her whole lifetime. The divide between print and online journalism is being hotly discussed everywhere right now. But until the matter is settled, wouldn’t it be a good rule to err on the side of politeness?
June 25th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Which is more disturbing: Diana Birchall has to explain to an audience of supposedly literate adult members of society what a book review is or that yet another book about sex stars Mr. and Mrs. Darcy? If you want to write about sacred love, etc., then why not write about Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their honeymoon year? When these stories star Mr. and Mrs. Darcy, then it appears a cold-blooded attempt to cash in on Jane Austen has been made.
Jane Austen not enjoy sarcasm? You clearly have not read enough Jane Austen — or maybe did not understand it.
June 25th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
When you call books smutty and eivl then you beter have the goods well in hand. The nice thing about this site and its credibility issues is that now this is stored in cyber space and Sharons book is there for all to read.If the reviews dont fit you must aquit. All the damage control looks nice but still sometimes its hard to retract what you say when its out there for all to see.
Steve
June 25th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Oh quite.
June 25th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Why would I want to retract anything? I stand by my opinions. I was only wrong in thinking that Steve and Sharon might like to learn a little about the publishing business, as they are embarking on a great adventure in it. But it seems that I was as mistaken in them as Emma was in Harriet Smith. Still, I don’t lose hope. Harriet turned out well in the end (”Much of this, I have no doubt, she may thank you for,” Mr. Knightley told Emma, who sighed), and perhaps these folks, when calmer, will eventually see reason. The issue is not that Sharon’s book speaks for itself, it’s that you don’t spew vitriol and resentment when you don’t like a perfectly fair book review. But like Elizabeth, I will keep my breath to cool my porridge…and to swell my own song.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Ms Birchall, you damned Sharon with faint praise that is what I hated about your review. And I have been ridiculed for posting that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, well it is, isn’t it? The posters who supported have been called “rude” by a man called John, have you read Ellen or Reeba’s posts, not to mention Allison’s review?
June 26th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
What damage control? Can’t seem to find it. Would it be next to those pesky WMDs?
June 26th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I have been ridiculed for posting that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, well it is, isn’t it?
Not according to a 2005 study which appeared in Neuropsychology, vol. 19, issue 3. A summary of the article may be found from several news services, including this one from New Scientist: Understanding sarcasm is a complex business .
The original, complete journal article is also available as a PDF file: The neuroanatomical basis of understanding sarcasm and its relationship to social cognition .
June 26th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Point taken, May. You are completely entitled to your opinion, if you hated my review, and I respect your opinion and your feelings. As for sarcasm, both sarcasm and puns have indeed been called low forms of wit. However, the “social cognition” observation is very true, for Jane Austen used both sarcasm and puns in complex ways. I’m sorry if you felt ridiculed about that, but to say she would never stoop to sarcasm, is simply not true. Never mind, all Jane Austen heroines fall into error from time to time! I know I’ve made some Lulus, myself. (Now do not suspect me of a pun, I entreat!) As for people being rude, I haven’t the heart or stomach to start weighing the comparative rudeness of each individual. I find it surprising that people may be drawn to the civility found in Austen’s novels, and yet will let it rip on internet lists. But then, like Mr. Woodhouse objecting to the window being opened, “I live out of the world, and am often astonished at what I hear.”
June 27th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Part of the problem here is that it’s a transition between two completely different worlds. Many JA fanfic sites have firm rules/customs that criticism, constructive or not, isn’t allowed. The author is writing something in their spare time for your enjoyment, if you don’t like it then you just stop reading. The forums work to maintain a inclusive and nurturing atmosphere for their authors. It works for Austen fanfic (unlike, say, Harry Potter) because most of the authors have a good grasp of writing and narrative.
In publishing the book though, Sharon moved herself into a far less nurturing place. I have no clue if she expected everything to be the same, or just that it would only be people from the fanfic community who would read the book. Either way, the responses here are exactly what not to do when confronted by negative feedback. As well as ‘Author’s big mistake’ look up the jurisimprudence laws for internet debate.
As for the actual book, the story was the first long Austen fanfic I read. It had to switch boards for being too smutty and introduced me to one of my favourite forums. But I quit reading it. I have a personal reading rule (which I call the Laurell K Hamilton theory): when I start skipping the sex scenes praying for something else to happen, it’s time to move on.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
This has got to be the most spitefull, catty, hateful site/forum I’ve even run across. Snarky indeed, much in the manner that Caroline Bingley was to Elizabeth Bennet. These are not all honest, fair opinions (to which some of you go out of your way to announce in defending their remarks). Allison T’s and Carolines’ comments about Sharon’s book and Matthew Macfadyen were seriously out of line. Can’t believe some of you actually consider yourself “Janeites.” I daresay she would be laughing with amusement and pity at some of these entries. Is this all you ladies here have in life? How sad I feel for you. Lighten up ladies and look outside the box for a change. You all take this Jane Austen thing a little too seriously.