REVIEW THE FIRST: Two Shall Become One: Mr. and Mrs. Fitzwilliam Darcy by Sharon Lathan
Review by Diana Birchall
(We received two reviews for this book on the same day: one reviewer liked it better than the other, and we found both reviews exceedingly entertaining, so we decided to present both.–Ed.)
It was with enormous foreboding that I took up this volume. I am an old-fashioned Austen sequellist from the First Wave of Austen Sequels; style is what I care about; and as more and more sequels have appeared, I’ve been less and less able to read them. Like Jane Austen, who wrote, “I have made up my mind to like no novels really, but Miss Edgeworth’s, E.’s, and my own,” I have arrived at the point where I can really like very few sequels by other people - their visions jar mine, and there are so many! Eventually even the deepest obsessive grows weary. It’s as Queen Victoria, who had eight children and God knows how many grandchildren, said: it goes on like rabbits. And the proliferation of sequels is getting very rabbit-like. Nibble nibble nibble, hop hop hop, Darcy nibbles Elizabeth’s ear and hops on her. Enough!
So here am I, grown grey in the service of Jane Austen, and another (yawn) sequel lands on my desk. It’s called Two Shall Become One: Mr. and Mrs. Fitzwilliam Darcy. Original title, that. Nicely written forward by the Authoress, who forthrightly states that she was only recently introduced to Jane Austen by the puerile Keira Knightley movie. I do not have a good feeling about this. In fact, the feeling is so bad, I almost fling book back at Editrix ungratefully. “You are ungrateful,” says Frank Churchill to Emma. Too right I am. But then, duty being the moving spring and all that, I start to read…
What is it about Darcy and Elizabeth’s wedding night? Why is it a truth so universally acknowledged that it’s all anybody seems to obsess about? Well, it’s the greatest love story in the world, and Jane Austen being Jane Austen, somehow unforgivably omitted to show us the consummation. It waits for a more degenerate, debased age to spotlight the genital groaning. However, there is no use my pretending superiority here. I, too, have thought about Darcy and Elizabeth’s wedding night. Judy O’Grady and the Colonel’s Lady…we’re all alike. And - surprise, Sharon Lathan does not give us the Pornographic Particulars right up front! No, she cunningly understands the sensual use of delaying tactics. No straining appendage until a decorous forty pages in. Have I then been “myself creating what I saw,” as Mr. Knightley said? Could it be possible to read this sequel, written in a lively and energetic style, with an open mind, if not legs?
So I do. And I like it! I like the utterly convincing way Mr. Darcy explains himself as a virgin - who would have believed it possible? My heart goes Thwunk! when he tells Elizabeth, “I have saved myself for you, even before I knew who you were.” Swoon!
Again as Mr. Knightley said (sorry all my quotes are Emma ones: most inappropriate under the circs), “”It will be natural for me to speak my opinion aloud as I read.” Following his example, then:
Ah, here comes a Sex Scene. The Consummation, at last. Very lush and yummy. Mind you, we have long left anything remotely resembling Jane Austen and Pride and Prejudice forever far behind, in the Harlequin Hall, but there’s nothing wrong with that; a girl (or austere middle aged woman) cannot live on prose style alone. These are not Darcy and Elizabeth, but a man with a big house and a big, um; and a woman with perfect skin. Still, so far the only thing I’ve found really annoying has been the names - why is he William, and by no stretch of the imagination ought she to be “Mrs. Elizabeth Darcy” unless divorced. Oh, now look, by God, they’re going to do it again! My smelling salts! “It seemed to continue forever…” Yes, well. They near “the point of bursting…Eventually it was more than they could bear, both taken by acute spasms that shook them head to toe in rapture beyond the words to convey.”
Poor Jane Austen, she only had words, not (as we suppose) orgasms.
Now they’re examining each other’s nipples and scars…now they’re doing it AGAIN…As I said, a writer with Energy. And Again. Lizzy likes it rough, it seems. Oh, very cute, he learned his technique in Pemberley’s excellent library. No wonder he could not comprehend its neglect, ingenious virgin that he is. (Writer does have a sense of humor.) Well, I never thought I’d read a Pride and Prejudice sequel impatiently for the sex scenes, but here they are doing it some more. Now they are at Pemberley - gorgeous descriptions of the place, I must say - time for a little more sex - well, actually, a LOT more sex. Punctuated with lavish, even delicious descriptions of the library, the staff, the gardens, Christmas. It really is something to be Mistress of Pemberley! Quite the fantasy. Lizzy needs some rubies to complement her burgundy gown, but doesn’t own any? “Begging your pardon, Mrs. Darcy, but you do,” says the servant. Ah, and he gives her a Settlement. “What jewels, what pin money you will have!” her mother said presciently, in Another Book. Oh, and she’s getting gowns, too! And all she has to do is sleep with Mr. Darcy! Nice work if you can get it.
The book is not what you might call elegantly written (”Most days they moseyed around Pemberley” - but then the point isn’t the days, is it), but if you cut to the chase and drop expectations to bedroom level, then you will be distinctly pleasured. Typical line: “She wore the sheerest, clingiest, and shortest chemise he had ever beheld, thigh-high silk stockings, and nothing else…” Or, “Show me your grotto, my love…” You get the picture. Yet it wouldn’t be fair to categorize it merely as soft porn or hot romance; there is a rococo purple delectable quality wafting like musk over the nude bodies of the heated Darcy and Elizabeth. It’s like the Staircase Scene in Gone With The Wind going on…and on…and on. And there’s room for that in the world. This is a fantasy of sex and material riches in judiciously equal proportions, and for those that enjoy this (and who but a total Miss Prunes and Prisms would not?), this they will enjoy. And good Lord, it’s only Volume One! More grottoes, more rubies, more lingering focus on Elizabeth’s perfect breasts, more Chatsworth floor plans, and assuredly more progeny to come. Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell money. Why hasn’t a romance publisher picked it up? A little editing (get rid of the moseying, at least), and thousands of sex crazed Janeites - and how could I ever have thought that a contradiction in terms? - will buy, buy, buy.
June 20th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
“and thousands of sex crazed Janeites - and how could I ever have thought that a contradiction in terms? - will buy, buy, buy.”
I think romance publishers would want to change the characters names for a wider market. Those who like P&P 2005 will probably buy and enjoy it. Purists and fans of other P&P adaptations might not buy, unless they are obsessive/compulsive about having a complete collection.
Kudos to Sharon for taking the time to write it all and having the courage to put the story out there.
Rabbit-like, indeed! I’m surprised this Mr & Mrs Darcy only had one baby at the end of their first year!
June 20th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
It’s not like this is the first or only smutty P&P sequel. Interesting that they always seem to be inspired by the movies.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:19 am
Well since Im her husband I have only a few thoughts to convey.First off Diana thanks for the positive comments, you expressed the same feelings that so many have regarding giving the book a fair chance.So many have said once they read it they just cant put it down. Its a heartfelt story and reveals the characters full of feeling. Im not sure to what degree the other critic honestly read the book, possibly entering into the whole thing with a prejudice,even admittedly she seemed to be looking to find fault. My wife undaunted just said “well its to be expected when you expose your work” and is writing even as I type away. The movie showed just how the truest of loves can over come any obstacle,even pride and prejudice. It is with that same passion that my wife is painting a relationship now between Lizzy and William and she has no desire to limit it with the restrictions of the language or social structures of that time, at the price of communicating a loving story. Words such as smutty cant fairly be used to describe such tenderness and care Sharon has endeavored to use in describing the intimacy between Lizzy and William. Its a book thats a sequel to a brilliant film inspired by a even more brilliant story by Jane Austen. I wonder if Jane Austen wouldn’t face the same criticism if she were writing today? I think the beauty of Sharons work is that it takes this timeless work and fills it in with the living breathing passion of our time. Lastly on the comment about changing the names to have a broader appeal to romance readers I can assure you that the moon would be more likely to fall into the sea before that happens. I want to thank you all for reviewing it and so quickly also.
Sincerely
Steve
June 21st, 2007 at 2:17 am
You are certainly Sharon’s Mr. Darcy, Steve (smile). It seems almost de rigeur for authoresses of Pride and Prejudice sequels to dedicate their novels to their own particular Mr. Darcys (I did the exact same thing with my Mrs. Darcy’s Dilemma), but as Jane Austen says, in your case the truth is “less violently outraged than usually happens.”
June 21st, 2007 at 6:04 am
The book sounds like another one I read long ago. This could have been the review of that very book.
and so it *becomes* a book in its own right rather than a sequel.
I think it was called ‘Bar sinister’ or something. Very Fancy name indeed. One is gradually eased into the characters other than their namesakes in *another* book (that was a very good one Diana Birchall
So I won’t be a Janeite who would be buying it
June 21st, 2007 at 6:58 am
Hi Steve,
I am a writer, too, and have been writing since I was ten years old (a long time). I take great delight in language. I fell in love with Shakespeare the first time I read his work, as a freshman in high school reading Romeo and Juliet. Not so much the love story (in fact, now I can’t stand that play and want to put those brats to bed without their supper), but the elegant language and the gorgeous way the words were put together; it’s frightfully geeky of me, but I love iambic pentameter. One of the many reasons I love Jane Austen’s work is the elegance of her language, the way it scans, the way she puts words together. Why am I telling you this? Because I want to let you know that *my* use of the word “smutty” (can’t speak for anyone else) is not meant as a pejorative. It’s one of my favorite words and I use it good-naturedly. I like to play with language. “Smutty” is a much more fun word than “explicit.”
And how interesting, you and “Antonelle” have the same ISP! What a coincidence!
June 21st, 2007 at 7:36 am
Intersting that Steve says:
“So many have said once they read it they just cant put it down.”
I do wonder if such people find their hair standing on end all the time. Tell, me, somebody- is there a black veil in there somewhere?Or the word “sublime”?
Mags, I’m beginning to think that Darcy wedding nights are the twenty-first century’s version of Gothic. Now that Catherine has turned into Buffy, we have to look to Lizzy and her Darcy in order to confront our deepest desires. And no,I’m not being snarky- I’m being serious here.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:56 am
LOL!¨Caroline.
I like this comparison of Darcy and Lizzy wedding nights - after marriage sequels to the gothic versions then.
I wish someone would write a sequel of how Lizzy worked to change Darcy and make him laugh at himself.
There is still a lot of work for Lizzy.
I mean, we only see that Darcy has changed his attitude towards those not owning a Pemberley.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Well so I guess what you trying to say is smutty can mean what you want when you want to…kind of reminds me of fuzzy english.As far as pacbellnet they have millions of customers….but the book can stand on its own…as the sales continue to prove.
Thanks Mag
Steve
June 21st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
No, I’m trying to say don’t take it so personally.
I will add that it is my observation that the most successful purveyors of smut have a sense of humor about it.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:21 pm
I am not a published author nor someone who has a vast knowledge of the
works of Shakespeare or any other great writer. I am your average, ordinary reader who lately has become very entertained by the many sequels to my favorite story Pride and Prejudice. I was introduced to
this wonderful tale by what I suppose most of you would consider an unworthy form, and that is the 2005 movie version. It inspired me to
read the orginal novel by Miss Austen and it has inspired me to read the
wonderful writing of Sharon Lathan. Although Sharon’s novel does include many romantic scenes between Darcy and Lizzy I do not believe that is the point. I certainly enjoyed a peek into the bedroom as the couple showed their love for eachother in the physical and natural way any newlywed couple would. To me the heart of the story is the two people who, after struggling to overcome their fears, misunderstandings and stubborness, love eachother beyond anything else. Sharon has developed the characters and looked into the way they can read eachothers feelings and have such a clear understanding of what true love is. Isn’t that what Jane Austen would have wanted for her beloved characters? Wasn’t that the point of the original novel? If Miss Austen had the experience of being united in such a way with another soul wouldn’t she have written about it and shared it with us? Sharon has continued Miss Austens novel with such detail and research into the era. Whatever happens in the privacy of the Darcy’s bedroom is never displayed in public. They have Regency manners just as they should have. This book is a tresure, a gift for all of us who want to share in the love which began in Pride and Prejudice. Sharon has captured the magic and I look forward to the next volume.
Most Sincerely,
Sue Corley
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:11 am
Sue, I can see that your heartfelt appreciation of Sharon’s novel is very sincere, and that’s wonderful. You state your reasons most persuasively. However, I must differ strongly on two points. One, Sharon, talented though she is, has not “developed” Jane Austen’s characters (and neither have I, or any sequel author). They may have the same names, but there is no way on earth that Jane Austen’s characters would ever have behaved in the way Sharon’s do. She takes her characters in an utterly different direction (delightful though it is) than Jane Austen would conceivably have done. Austen would never in any century have written popular romance (she specifically made fun of such books) or sex scenes. I’m not saying there’s anything remotely wrong with popular romance or sex scenes (I like them too), but Jane Austen did not write them and would have been deeply appalled to have it thought that she did. And to say that if Austen had “had the experience of being united with another soul,” she would have shared it with us, is also very wrong. First, she believed in privacy and reticence, as ladies did then. Secondly, you cannot seriously believe that the only reason Austen didn’t write graphically about true love is because she never experienced it? She said, “Imagination is everything.” That means, first of all, that she wanted us to use our imaginations (as Sharon has!) for ourselves. It also means that it’s naive to think that she could only write about experiences she actually had herself. She wrote imaginative fiction, not personal diaries. If she had been as happily married as Lizzy, I can guarantee to you that she would never have written revelations of her bedroom! That would have been violently against her entire nature, and that of the period in which she lived. I repeat: she was a lady, and a purposeful writer of literature, not the author of Fanny Hill. In fact, had she been married, she might very well never have written at all, because she would have been taken up with incessant childbearing, as her sisters-in-law were. Please understand that I respect your enjoyment of Sharon’s book, and there is nothing wrong with your discovering Austen from the movie - it’s great that you did. Loving a love story is a fabulous thing to do! But Jane Austen did not write romances like Sharon’s, and Sharon does not write literature like Jane Austen. It is inaccurate to confuse the two.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Well done Sharon in getting this lovely sequel to P&P published! I love it and lots of other people do too. I am sorry for the reviews here and the rather harsh comments IMHO. Ms Birchall is an authoress herself and will understand perfectly how hurtful it is when someone doesn’t like your book and almost makes fun of it, especially as it has been lovingly written.
Good luck Sharon,
Sincerely
May Ross
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Hi all,
I love this story and frankly, any persons reaction to any creative work is subjective. You love it, or you hate it, but frankly Sharon’s work is in interesting interpretation of what the Darcy’s life may have been like just following their marraige and beyond. I have read many other published works that were not nearly so well written or creative. In fact most of the sequels I have purchased are as well done. Just my opinion, so Sharon, there will be many others that appreciate your work.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
@May
Do you mean to say one should never criticize an author for the book they have written, because it hurts them???
So all books out there are wonderful???
PS. It *hurts* me very much to see people writing such books.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Thank you, Diana. The thing constitutes a kind of sleazy imbecilicity without any sense of ethical depth, just the opposite of what Austen was.
A Mills and Boon romance with soft-core porn added?
Ellen
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:03 pm
What in the world has Ms. Birchall written? I have never heard of her nor her work. So my question is this: Who is she to pass such harsh judgement on Sharon’s work? Not very classy coming from another so-called authoress who claims to be a “true austenite.” I don’t believe Miss Jane Austen would have gone to this level, even though she did, I believe receive criticism for her work from other authors in her time. However, like Miss Austen, Sharon will rise above all this pettyness and the rest of us devoted fans will continue to buy her sequels to this lovely story. Can Ms. Birchall say the same?
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
People *do* buy *such* books, we know ;-).
But believe me, not because they think it’s a continuation of the story of their dear Lizzy and Mr. Darcy
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Reeba, no I never said one should criticise (Eng sp) an author, I meant that surely when one puts their heart and soul into a book then they deserve a bit of respect. Both reviews started from a derogatory point of view (PP05, oh dear what a puerile movie, you get my drift). Ellen, have you read the book then or just the review? I was horrified at your comment but it is your opinion and presumably you have read Sharon’s story to make such a derogatory remark. I personally would never post something like that, I am pleased to say. And yes, actually I think anyone who can write a book and get it published is wonderful because I couldn’t do it. Could you?
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Oh, good. No more servile handwringing.
P.S. Try clicking on the link of Diana’s name, which is her Web site. Generally a good idea anywhere one goes on the web. Links! It’s how the Intarwebs work!
P.P.S. You think that’s a bad review? Really?
P.P.P.S. People who haven’t published a book are, indeed, allowed to have opinions on them.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:39 pm
>>Both reviews started from a derogatory point of view (PP05, oh dear what a puerile movie, you get my drift).
No! No! That’s not a derogatory point of view.
It’s like commenting on someone going in to do an advance level exam after having studied for the elementary level
And of course I meant ‘criticise’ the book not the author, when I say ‘criticise the author *for the book*. Which I hoped meant the same
Honestly speaking I have no respect for authors who have rely too much on *love* of Darcy for Lizzy and vice versa. LOL!!!
>I think anyone who can write a book and get it published is wonderful because I couldn’t do it.
Well, I think anyone who can write a *good* book and get it published is wonderful because I couldn’t do it.
So I would say tastes differ, and for quite a few of us, this is distasteful. For others maybe not.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Suppose we all have a little gruel?
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:22 am
LOL!! Joan Ellen!!
Well, only if it’s made by Serle, and to my taste
June 24th, 2007 at 6:29 am
Goodness! I have been a long term lurker here. I generally enjoy a little snark here or there, but I do feel in this instance, the snark went overboard and took a turn for downright nasty. Ah, would Miss Austen have approved? I doubt it. But does this matter, in the case of Sharon’s material?
I tend to not read fanfic. I have never had the pleasure of reading any works other than “Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife”, and the “Darcy Saga” site, I accidentally stumbled upon Sharon many moon ago during an image search. Somehow I began reading , and continued on. I suppose I may be one of those “sex crazed Janites”
You know, her work may not be that of what Regency is, who Jane was, or her particular writing style. I have yet to come upon any style like Jane’s and I hope I never do! Sharon’s story to me, has just been a fun ride. Her perspective has been an enjoyable read. Never has she stated that this is a continuation of something Miss Austen would write. She has however, claimed that this was *her* story, the continuation of the story she saw, based on the latest P & P film.
Personally, I have enjoyed reading Sharon, and I have always considered myself very dedicated to all Austen’s works. Including many other literary classics, however, to my mind, there is always room for fun, and other stories and perspectives.
I hope Sharon continues to write and enjoy doing so. I couldn’t take that away from her for nothing, not even my deepest love for Austen can produce one snarky comment.
Lighten up, and we may live longer. Bicker, bicker, bicker, makes a gal age quicker!
June 24th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
The review was hillarious. And Mrs. Birchall, may I say that I very much enjoyed “In Defence of Mrs. Elton”?
There is a surfeit of bad Austen sequels out there, and reading snarky reviews of them is half the fun. If you have the misfortune to be a writer of any type, as I am, then you must put up with people who don’t like your work, even if you think it is genius, and even if they say so in public and nasty terms. I thought this review was very kind. “One half the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other”.
June 25th, 2007 at 4:45 am
Aw, thank you so much, John! I wrote Mrs. Elton for fun, and am still having fun with her. It is getting a bit Grand Guignol around here, isn’t it? Still, one is warned by the Caveat Emptor clearly decorating the door: One lump of snark or two. I can take my lumps!
June 26th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Yes I have published a book, and numerous essays.
I also have a blog where I review Austen films.
Ellen
June 26th, 2007 at 7:34 am
I forgot to give the URL for a sample. Here’s my commentary on the 1995 _P&P_:
http://server4.moody.cx/index.php?id=692
I don’t praise it for Colin Firth’s performance nor as a substitute for Austen’s book. My book is _Trollope on the Net_ now published by Continuum.
Ellen Moody