Rating: 
Summary: it was ok
Review: I, like many of the other reviewers, am a great fan of pride and prejudice. I have read the book like 5 times and watched the A&E movie at least 10 times. I adore the characters, plot, the whole novel. I read this book and well the I did noticed inconsistencies and the flaws. I was upset that she killed off Mr. Bennet, from whom it was obvisious where Lizzy got her wit. Yet, I did have a hard time putting it down. It does not do JA's characters justice. However, as a stand alone book it is not "god awful", it has its good points. However, by no means will it ever do pride and prejudice justice as a sequel.
Rating: 
Summary: Definitely read this book...
Review: IF you *hate* Jane Austen. Having read Pemberly, one can only conclude that Ms Tennant may, perhaps, have *heard* of Pride and Prejudice, but she most certainly has not read it.
The sheer number of inconsistancies is amazing. How Jane and Bingley can have a one year old child, and be expecting a second, all within the first year of marriage is perplexing. What, exactly, is Ms Tennant trying to imply about Jane's virtue before marriage? Furthermore, Lydia, married only a few months before her sisters, is already the mother of four! Mrs Bennet prattles on about- oh the horror- douching at a meal with Darcy, as if any woman of the time would do such a thing! The Gardiners stay in an inn at Christmas, when Austen clearly states that they were invited to stay at Pemberly during visits. The list goes on, and on, and on.......The plot is so silly, it seems to have been stolen from a harlequin romance. Or perhaps that is too great an insult to those romances. Brief summary: Elizabeth can't concieve, she thinks Darcy has an illegitimate child(?!), woe! woe! angst! Elizabeth thinks of running away, Jane gets sick, Elizabeth stays. Then, in the last dozen pages: Jane gets better! the child turns out to be Bingley's! Elizabeth, who faints into Darcy's arms, turns out to pregnant! All is well- rejoice! Further, the stilted dialogue and trite prose fail to capture Austen's sparkling style and Tennant's attempt to add authenticity by bastardizing phrases from the original book fail miserably. But this book's worst crime is that the characters, whom we so love, become perfect strangers to us. It is true that a man can not change overnight, even with the love of a good woman. But by the end of P&P at Darcy had at least gained some humility and self-awareness. The Darcy in Pemberly is an unreasonable tyrant and nothing like the rational, honorable gentleman that Elizabeth, and we, fell in love with. Then there is Elizabeth. Here Ms. Tennant provides unintentional commedy, as some of the emotional melodrama brings to mind the scenes in P&P with Mrs Bennet, right after Lydia runs away. Truth be told, it is *not* Elizabeth, not *our* beloved Lizzy, who inhabits Peberley's pages. That snivelling, weak, irrational creature bears no resemblance to our strong, intelligent, capable Elizabeth. Where Lizzy was witty and lively, that caricature is merely silly, where Lizzy was honest, bold and forthright, it is weak, vaccillating and secretive. Surely our Lizzy would have had the courage to just confront her husband with her questions? No, if you love the gem that is Pride and Prejudice, do not waste your money on this work, whose only redeeming quality, is its excellent properties as kindling at a camp fire.
Rating:
Summary: Skip it - an immense disappointment
Review: If you are a Jane Austen fan, you'll find this book disappointing. Behind its pleasant packaging is a 2nd-rate narrative that borrows characters, but doesn't fulfill the reader's expectations. Elizabeth has been transformed into a simple worrywort who can't connect with her husband. Darcy doesn't have much personality at all. Mrs. Bennett is made more likeable, but the humor and wit of the real _Pride and Prejudice_ is lacking. All the characters have developed a smallness of mind that is a reflection of a good story in the hands of an incapable storyteller. The entire narrative is imbued with a negativity that Austen fans will find tiresome and juvenile. Re-read the original and skip this one.
Rating:
Summary: Mediocrity and inconsistancy at it's best
Review: Like many of the others who have reviewed this book, I have extensively read and watched P&P. I'm not going to be redundant by listing all the incongruencies in the book. In the whole scheme of the book's inadequacy they're only a slight annoyance. What really disappointed me was that Tennant was not true to our beloved characters. In particular poor Mr. Bingley, who is far too good and respectable to do the things the author writes about. If you truely love P&P you will will read it...then really wish you hadn't.
Rating:
Summary: Mediocrity and inconsistancy at it's best
Review: Like many of the others who have reviewed this book, I have extensively read and watched P&P. I'm not going to be redundant by listing all the incongruencies in the book. In the whole scheme of the book's inadequacy they're only a slight annoyance. What really disappointed me was that Tennant was not true to our beloved characters. In particular poor Mr. Bingley, who is far too good and respectable to do the things the author writes about. If you truely love P&P you will will read it...then really wish you hadn't.
Rating:
Summary: I wish I could give this no stars at all!
Review: Main characters with the names of Elizabeth and Darcy do not Pride and Prejudice make. Emma Tennant proves this admirably. Though she does have names of the characters correct and where they live, she seems to ignore everything else that is written in Pride and Prejudice. The characterizations are an abomination and the plot is ridiculous, melodramatic, implausible, boring... When writing a sequel to a much-loved, much-studied novel, one should actually read the book on which it is based; if Ms. Tennant knows P&P...I must wonder what caused her to hold such a grudge against Jane Austen. If you like P&P, reading this book will only make you miserable. Don't waste your time or money!
Rating:
Summary: A dreadful book and a complete travesty of 'P&P'
Review: My main reaction on reading this dreadful novel was to question whether Emma Tennant has ever actually read 'Pride and Prejudice'? She gets almost everything wrong. The chronology is completely haywire - not only does Lydia, still aged 17, and married just over a year, have four children, three of whom are old enough to cheer as they arrive at Pemberley (with their father, whom, according to JE, Darcy would never receive at Pemberley), but even Jane, who has not yet been married a year, has a daughter who is old enough not only to talk, but even to manage a hoop! ET kills of the delightful Mr Bennet, despite JA's specific statement that he often visited Pemberley and therefore by implication that he did not die just after Jane's and Lizzie's weddings. (ET's Mrs Bennet has been a widow nine months by Christmas so her Mr B must have died in March) JA's Georgiana is the same age as Lydia, therefore younger than Mary and Kitty, but ET says she is older even than Mary, though when her age is given it is the same (17) as Lydia's. In 'P&P', Mr Gardiner's letter to Mr Bennet is dated Monday August 2. There was a Monday August 2 in 1813, the year when 'P&P' was published. Lydis stayed two weeks with the Gardiners before her marriage, also on a Monday, so she was married on 16 August, just aged 16. ET has her age as still 17, so this novel must be set at Christmas 1814. Yet Master Roper asks Col Kitchiner of he was wounded at Waterloo - which was fought in June 1815! And Mr Collins plans a park feature commemorating Waterloo! Master Roper is evidently a relative of darcy through his mother's family. In this case, how can he be Darcy's heir? Pemberley must have come to him from his father's side, not his mother's! And if Roper is the heir, how come Darcy apparently never heard of him before, but Lady C did? Talking of Roper, he must be psychic, because he predicts the arrival of large numbers of visitors from Manchester and other cities. How can he possibly foresee mass tourism, 11 years before the opening of the very first railway in 1825? ET states at one point that Georgiana had been brought up exclusively at Pemberley, and at another that she was brought up by Lady C at Rosings. JA says that Georgiana had spent most of her time in London after the death of her father. JA names the Bennets' housekeeper as Mrs Hill - but ET says that Mrs Moffat was their housekeeper in the time of Mr Bennet. Just as it is inconceivable that Mrs Bennet would have discussed in mixed company how to ensure a son (and if she knows a sure means, how come she has only 5 girls?) it is even more inconceivable that Lady C would admit to having a difficult birth with Anne, never mind to a male of inferior rank such as Mr Collins. (Something that has always puzzled me in P&P is how Longbourn could have come to be entailed to someone who, having a different surname, must have been related to Mr Bennet in the female line?) According to JA, none of the Bennet sisters draws - yet ET's Mrs Bennet tells Mary to pack her paints! Similarly, in 'P&P' Anne de Bourgh's health prevents her learning to play the piano, while Georgiana is an accomplished player. Yet acording to ET, after only a year of study Anne's prowess is such that she can contemplate a comparison with Georgiana! Et says that Lydia is to come north and take a house at Rowsley. JA says that Lydia went to live in the north, at Newcastle - so she would have to come south to Derbyshire. ET also says that Lydia would stay with Aunt Gardiner at Rowsley - but JA never mentions Rowsley; Aunt Gardiner lives in London; and the town visited by the Gardiners and Elizabeth is Lambton. ET also has Elizabeth plan to go to Aunt Phillips in London - but Aunt Phillips lives in Meryton. At one time ET says Wickham had lured Georgiana to Ramsgate, and at another that he abducted her to Ramsgate. JA's version is that Wickham took advantage of Georgiana being in Ramsgate to try to seduce her. According to ET, Mr Gardiner was able to pursue his interest in salmon fishing during his Christmas visit - but she also has Miss Bingley point out that winter is not the season for salmon! According to JA, the sum settled on Mrs Bennet was £5000. ET gives it as £4000. Mr Collins asserts that there is always a ball at Pemberley at New Year. How does he know? He only met Darcy a couple of years before, and had never heard of him or of Pemberley before that. He also thinks that Col Kitchiner may have been to Rosings - which, given Lady C's contempt for all Mrs Bennet's connections, is highly implausible. Mrs Bennet tells Kitty that Darcy had been most generous to Wickham. How did she know? And since when has Mrs B been the voice of sweet reason? Lady C expresses surprise that anyone who pleases can make a trip to Pemberley. Yet JA has Elizbeth and the Gardiners do precisely that in 'P&P'. What, by the way happened to the Gardiner children? Would ET not allow them to visit Pemberley at Christmas with their parents? And what about Colonel Fitzwilliam? Surely he should have been invited? ET has Lady C say that Darcy detests children, and that for this reason she was not in favourof Anne marrying him, because Anne will have Rosings to pass down. Yet in 'P&P' the marriage of Darcy and Anne is Lady C's main objective! Indeed she regards them as betrothed since birth. ET's Wickham claims to have led an exemplary life 'for many years now' - yet this is only 17 months after he eloped with Lydia! ET has little Emily go to Whitby for sea air. In January?? These are just some of the many inconsistencies and silly errors which make this book so detestable. I have given it one star only because there is no option to give it none. Don't bother reading it - and don't bother with the continuation, which is just as bad.
Rating: 
Summary: Emma Austin?
Review: No certainly not, but it is a good book in itself. You cannot expect a Jane Austin novel from someone who is not Jane Austin so therefore GET OVER IT... In my opinion this is a good book and at least I got to see a view of what the Darcy's life may have been like. Granted there are a few children mistakes etc, but it is just a book and I love to read and if you always focus on every indiscrepency in any book you cannot truly enjoy it. When I read I go into the book, into the story, I become the characters, I feel what they feel, and I live what they live. That is the joy of a good book, and that is just what you will get with this book. So, don't expect Jane Austen. Expect yet one more great book.
Rating:
Summary: Inconsistant and IMPOSSIBLE!
Review: Okay, I LOVE Pride and Prejudice (P&P). Everything about it. When I read this story, I could not believe my eyes. The book clearly stated that Elizabeth and Darcy had been married nearly a year (chapter two (2) first (1) sentence). From the original P&P we can safely assume Jane and Lizzy were married about the same time. This book says Jane has since had one child. And in this story Jane has a second child a Christmas! And her first child is old enough to speak and run! No! The first child would only be about three MONTHS old! No one can have two children in one year unless it's twins! Which isn't the case in this book. And Lydia! She was married a few weeks or a month or so before Lizzy and Jane, and this story says she has four children?! No! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE! It also says Georgiana is older than Mary. Not at all. in P&P when Lydia is fifteen Lizzy hears about Georgiana's past in a letter from Darcy while at Kent. The letter says "a year ago when she was fifteen." Thus in the time this book is set, Georgiana would be about 18 and Lydia would be about 17, granted that a years time passed in P&P and at the end Lydia is 16. Mary would be in her 20's! IT'S INCONSISTANT! The book turns lovable, loud, Lizzy into a fretting housewife worried about if she can produce a child for Darcy, if her husband had a misstress and a child by her before he met Elizabeth, and every time you turn the page you see the same old line of Elizabeth "flying into Darcy's arms" and I do not jest, the author is in great need of a thesaurus and some Austen logic. Elizabeth doesn't fly. ***SPOILER ALERT*** for god's sake man, Lizzy would not fly down the stairs to Darcy and slip on the freaking stairs on her way down. ***END OF SPOILER ALERT*** Jane Austen purists or even just hardcore fans, DO NOT read this book, you'll only make yourself angry.
Rating:
Summary: A Risky Read
Review: Tennant's sequel to Pride and Prejudice does neither the author nor the book justice. It is inaccurate to not only the time, but Austen's style. Tennant ventures into areas of Lizzy and Darcy's lives that Austen would never even dare trespass into. The novel is almost sacreligious. If you're fond of haughty romance novels that have many twists and turns, I would recommend that you read this book. If you are one of those people, like myself, who delights in reading anything Austenesque (I wouldn't bring this into that category), read at your own risk. You may be disappointed.
| 
