Rating: 
Summary: Loved it, loved it, loved it!!
Review: I love everything Jane Austen. I've read all of her books and have seen every filmed adaptation. I've also read some god-awful, incredibly boring sequels. This book is just meant to be light and frothy and entertaining and it was! It was such a fun read. It was a delightful updating of the original and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys Austen and also a light, fun read.
Rating: 
Summary: Very Entertaining
Review: When i first started reading this book, i was dissapointed. I knew that it was going to be an adaptation of the book Pride and Prejudice, but i didn't think it was going to be an exact parallel to it. In the beginning i found it very annoying how I already knew who each character in this book was supposed to represent in the original, and how the author then went and made those characters the same people they were representing as their part in the play. I hope that made sense to you. Anyway, once i got past that, i loved this book, and i was genuinly dissapointed when i finished it. Actually i was running late this morning, and forgot the book at home, and i spent the entire day thinking about it, and i picked it up the second i got home. I would recomend anyone who reads this book to read the Original Pride and Prejudice and Bridget Jones's Diary, which is my favortie book of all time. And i would tell you, that if you start reading Bridget and see some words that you recognize from this book such as "f--kwit" and, remember that Bridget said them first. If you are looking for a good, light read, and some easy laughs pick this up.
Rating: 
Summary: Bloody Awful
Review: I love Pride and Prejudice. Bridget Jones, though certainly not on par with P & P was laugh-out-loud funny and entertaining. I suppose I was hoping Melissa Nathan's novel would be in the vein of Helen Fielding. Plus, the idea of a theatrical production of P & P as plot device sounded promising to me. The problem here lies in the execution. As other reviewers have mentioned, the characters are very one-dimensional. Nathan took pains to create parallels between her characters and Austen's but unfortunately, the similarities exist at the surface level only. Jasmine "Jazz" Field is a case in point. Austen developed Elizabeth Bennett's character through skillful use of dialogue and carefully drawn scenes. Lizzy is intelligent, plucky, and quick to laugh at human foibles, her own included. Nathan on the other hand, TELLS us Jazz is all of these things, but her attempts to SHOW us tend to fall flat or backfire. Jazz comes across as rude, petty, and mean-spitited. At the P & P auditions for instance, Jazz encounters a woman she considers unattractive. Witness Nathan's description-- "The woman looked as if she had suddenly woken up one day and thought, How can I make myself as unattractive as possible? and came up with a damn fine answer. " Not only is that sentence teeth-grindingly awkward but it is a perfect example of Jazz's mentality. Can you imagine Lizzy being so uncharitable towards a total stranger? Imagine Pride and Prejudice is a rich creamy cheescake baked by a master chef. By comparison, Bridget Jones' Diary is a lowfat version purchased at the grocery store bakery--it's still tasty but lacks some of the depth of the original. Pride, Prejudice and Jasmine Field rates as a soggy, homeade mess prepared by someone who didn't read the recipe very well.
Rating:
Summary: Bloody Awful
Review: I love Pride and Prejudice. Bridget Jones, though certainly not on par with P & P was laugh-out-loud funny and entertaining. I suppose I was hoping Melissa Nathan's novel would be in the vein of Helen Fielding. Plus, the idea of a theatrical production of P & P as plot device sounded promising to me. The problem here lies in the execution. As other reviewers have mentioned, the characters are very one-dimensional. Nathan took pains to create parallels between her characters and Austen's but unfortunately, the similarities exist at the surface level only. Jasmine "Jazz" Field is a case in point. Austen developed Elizabeth Bennett's character through skillful use of dialogue and carefully drawn scenes. Lizzy is intelligent, plucky, and quick to laugh at human foibles, her own included. Nathan on the other hand, TELLS us Jazz is all of these things, but her attempts to SHOW us tend to fall flat or backfire. Jazz comes across as rude, petty, and mean-spitited. At the P & P auditions for instance, Jazz encounters a woman she considers unattractive. Witness Nathan's description-- "The woman looked as if she had suddenly woken up one day and thought, How can I make myself as unattractive as possible? and came up with a damn fine answer. " Not only is that sentence teeth-grindingly awkward but it is a perfect example of Jazz's mentality. Can you imagine Lizzy being so uncharitable towards a total stranger? Imagine Pride and Prejudice is a rich creamy cheescake baked by a master chef. By comparison, Bridget Jones' Diary is a lowfat version purchased at the grocery store bakery--it's still tasty but lacks some of the depth of the original. Pride, Prejudice and Jasmine Field rates as a soggy, homeade mess prepared by someone who didn't read the recipe very well.
Rating: 
Summary: slow start, but escapist read
Review: Although I enjoyed reading this novel, I think that I've read one too many "P&P" remakes. I knew the plot of the book because I was already such a huge fan of the original and of Bridget Jones. I did like the fact that Jazz wasn't a big pushover, and that she had confidence in herself, her body, and her life. It's nice that the female lead wasn't all weepy about not getting a man for once. All in all, a quick and enjoyable read, although it's a little slow in the beginning and predictable by the end.
Rating:
Summary: A Modern Day Romance
Review: I was initially very sceptical about reading a book based upon an established classic - I tend to avoid any type of re-writes, "based-upons" or sequels written by other than the original authors. However, I was delightfully surprised with "Pride, Prejudice and Jasmin Field". It was a little slow-going at first but I soon began to enjoy the paralleling stories of the real characters vs. the characters they were playing in a stage production of the original Jane Austen classic. Some people may find it somehow intellectually offensive for a writer to use such a format but I honestly found it to be a very entertaining and heart-warming read. The book has even prompted me to re-read the original, it having been close to 30 years since I have done so.
Rating:
Summary: great idea, but is all the foul language necessary?
Review: I saw this book in a catalog and decided to order it. But I have now read about 6 chapters and will not continue. I love the basic idea and concept of this book!! (I really do, and was excited to start reading it.) However....I don't want to sound like a prude, but all the foul language in this book is offensive to me. And not only that, is it really necessary? I am not talking about an occasional damn or hell, but the "f" word, cursing using the name of the Christian deity, and other crude references. Maybe I am just an old fashioned gal - I mostly read classic literature when it comes to fiction. But when I think of jane Austen, even a modernized Jane Austen, I just think she would have a little more class than this. Since I did not and will not finish reading the book, I suppose I can't give it a fair review. But I will atleast give it 3 stars since I like the idea of the book so much.
Rating:
Summary: Simple story
Review: I think some readers expect this book, "Pride, Prejudice and Jasmin Field" to be about THE "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen and find themselves disappointed. This book is about a journalist, Jasmin Field (also known as Jazz) who auditioned for roles in the play, adapted from Jane Austen's book. Here, she met the abominable Harry Noble, dashing Hollywood star whom she absolutely cannot bear. But, of course, at the end they fell in love. Simple. That is the main theme of the book and other characters such as her sisters, Georgia and Josie, and best friend Mo also play center roles in the life of Jasmin Field. The book deals a lot with Jazz's relationships with her sisters and best friend, and how she needs to come to terms with herself that you may not agree with the choices that people make but you at least need to respect that. Her world suddenly "crashes" when she realized that her career and family's reputation were at stake and for the first time, questioned her judgment and beliefs. This book is simple, and easy to read. It is relaxing, funny at times and offer insights into the life of a journalist, who writes with passion and who values her own opinion highly. The author, Melissa Nathan's writing is clear, precise and avoids jargons that might confuse the readers.
Rating:
Summary: Same song, second verse. Can't be better, so it's worse.
Review: When Jazz Field meets the famous movie star Harry Noble, she is less than impressed. Nor is he impressed with her at first glance. But when Jazz -- a journalist -- auditions for the part of Elizabeth Bennett in an upcoming charity production of "Pride and Prejudice," he gives her the part of Elizabeth Bennett and casts the two on the path of this totally predictable tale. The story follows Jane Austen's original plot pretty closely, with comparable characters and subplots only slightly changed from the original. The reader can't help but be distracted by comparing characters to the originals -- Gilbert Valentine, for example, is obviously patterned on Austen's obsequious Mr. Collins and Dame Alexandra Marmaduke is the 21st Century Lady Catherine. The deterioration of manners in the past two hundred years glares blatantly from the modern text. I found the use of curse words inappropriate and far too frequent, for I can't imagine Jane Austen using the 18th Century equivalent to "bugger" and other modern Brit lower-class colloquialisms. The modern edge to the main character (necessary in an age of "in your face" personalities)was extremely irritating since Austen's world of manners and sensitivities is far more appealing. My overall impression of the book is that this was an exercise by someone who didn't have the imagination to dream up characters and plot on her own. I hope other authors -- and publishers -- don't resort to this kind of revisionism. It smacks of Hollywood's constant reprising (to the detriment of the original stories) of old movies. It doesn't work in literature any more than it does in film -- it's an exercise doomed to failure. Authors: If you can't come up with original characters and plots, don't bother. Sunnye Tiedemann
Rating: 
Summary: Pride and Prejudice? How about Boring and Unoriginal?
Review: I am also a huge Jane Austen fan, and have read P&P quite a few times. After reading this re-do, all I can say is why bother? There was not an original move in the book not lifted directly from the original, other than the extraordinary bitchiness of the title character. If I wanted the EXACT same story, with the EXACT same characters and devices, I could have just re-read Pride and Prejudice. I'm all for updates, but mirror images? Don't bother!
|
