Rating: 
Summary: Interesting
Review: I enjoyed the novel, but was dissapointed in the development and overall presentation of the characters. It seemed impossible to me that Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennent would produce such silly and ridiculous daughters. However, Ms. Aston intelligently interprets the reaction of young girls to society without the bridled ristrictions of their parents. The familiar characters, in particular Colonel Fitzwilliam and Mrs. Gardiner did not reflect the personalities that Austen created. He is stiff, autocratic and unsympathetic, while she is simple, self-centered and lacking in common sense at the point of crucial plot development.
Rating:
Summary: A sequel forcing a statement
Review: As a devoted Austen fan, I thought that, while the book was entertaining, it did not meet the standards one expects from someone presuming to continue the marvelous Pride and Pejudice. I have often wished that I lived in the Regency period after finishing an Austen novel, but rather than glorying in the life and times, the author was intent on forcing the view of "oppressed" women and a despicable society. Elizabeth Bennet was never a helpless victim. She was a woman, but a woman who knew how to work the social "system." Also, I seriously doubt that any child born of Lizzy and Darcy could turn out as the infuriating Letty did. I wanted to scream at her on a regular basis! If the Darcy couple were present in the book, as I believe they should have been, the twins would have been reined in and Letitia told to more or less "chill out!"
Rating: 
Summary: Better than a great many P&P sequels
Review: Having slogged through most of the modern Pride and Prejudice sequels for an academic project, I was pleased to find that Aston's newest contribution to the crowd of such books is a good read with a new take on the familiar story. Strictly speaking, Aston's book isn't exactly a sequel, since its main characters are all original creations, but a few of Austen's characters -- like Lydia Bennet Wickham and Caroline Bingley -- make solid appearances. Aston's prose may not be particularly deep, but her economical approach is better than the grotesque floral excesses of many Austen imitators, and the plot moves along very entertainingly indeed. My biggest quarrel with the novel is Aston's treatment of Colonel Fitzwilliam as the stuffy, repressive patriarch, but somebody had to take the job in order to complicate Aston's romantic plots. None of the sequel writers has come close to Austen for skill and wit, but Aston's book is fun and well-written, and you can certainly read much worse when it comes to Pride and Prejudice sequels. I would definitely recommend it over the Baders' awful novels and Linda Berdoll's ridiculously lewd The Bar Sinister. If you like Austen spin-offs or historical and romantic fiction, then Mr. Darcy's Daughters makes a lovely weekend read or beach book.
Rating: 
Summary: Appalled.
Review: If you're looking for something true to the style of Jane Austen-do a 180 degree turn and never look back! This attempt at a sequel to Pride and Prejudice, as written by Elizabeth Aston, is found greatly wanting. This is no better than your standard paperback Regency Romance. The plot is predictable and in no way original. The pacing was also hard to endure--I felt like I was on a plane that suddenly crashed! The characters are unlikable, and even Camilla Darcy is an unsympathetic character. The "romance" that occurs is both contrived and unbelievable. In addition, the author introduces characters with great potential, but does not use them to her advantage. In particular, George Warren is introduced with the potential for being a major antagonist, but he disappears as quickly as he appears. The author also seems to have misjudged the personalities of Mrs. Gardiner and Mr. Fitzwilliam-both were sympathetic and likable characters in Pride and Prejudice. You will recall that Fitzwilliam, in P & P, seemed to enjoy Elizabeth Darcy's quick wit. Mrs. Gardiner, in P & P, is also presented in a similar manner-tolerant and affectionate. In this novel, Aston presents them as high-minded people who do not appear to regard their relations with any particular, sincere affection. The author had a slew of opportunities to turn this novel around, but she didn't appear to know what she wanted to do with them. Instead, we have a half-baked book here. She had moments of great potential, but ignored them. Stick to Jane Austen.
Rating: 
Summary: In response to Hello, Editor?
Review: To add to the comment from the reviewer whose review is entitled, "Hello, Editor?," I just wanted to note that, while Pride & Prejudice was indeed not published until 1811, it was actually written between October 1796 and August 1797. This means that the 1818 date of Mr. Darcy's Daughters is pretty accurate. Ms. Aston does seem to have done her homework!
Rating:
Summary: Hello, Editor?
Review: This novel was a fun bit of fluff - a beach book for us Austenites. I chose to simply roll my eyes at the blatant plot plagerism going on (I mean, really, how many elopments can one family have - poor Mr Gardiner! And FIVE daughters, all of whom are silly except the heroine - poor Mr Bennet!). Hard to take it too seriously. But one part really bothers me: this story supposedly takes place 20 years after the story in Pride + Prejudice, yet it is the year 1818. P+P was published in 1813!
Rating: 
Summary: Stick with the original
Review: As a big Jane Austen fan, I was thrilled to see this book. However, while the author manages to catch the tone of Austen's style, especially in dialogue, it seems that her goal was to show the seamy side of Regency life. As one of Austen's characters might say, "It don't suit." Austen's genius lies in her subtlety, where she shows that life was not as prim and proper as society would have it without being blatant about it. Aston shows none of Austen's humor. Readers wanting a taste of the forbidden in this period would be better off reading Austen's own "Mansfield Park."
Rating:
Summary: Good and bad
Review: As a huge P&P fan, I really enjoyed this book, but I didn't find Aston entirely true to the characters. I thought the characters she invented were realistic, but she had a hard time maintaining the ones she inherited from Austen. For instance, Aston's portrayals of the Fitzwilliams and the Gardiners didn't seem to quite match the characters in P&P. Also, I was disappointed at the almost total omission of some of the characters - Jane, Kitty, and Mary, as well as Mr. and Mrs. Bennet, Mr. and Mrs. Hurst, and especially Elizabeth and Darcy! I think Jane Austen fans will have fun reading this book, but will be able to pick out some flaws.
Rating:
Summary: Can intelligent people raise stupid daughters?
Review: I suppose Mr. Darcy's Daughters would be fine for people who like the genre, but it assumes two very large stretches of imagination in its premise. Is it likely Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy would raise such silly daughters? And how plausible is it that a man as proud as Mr. Darcy would send his five heiress daughters to London during the season without his own oversight? This was a replay of Pride and Prejudice with the girls' temperatments shuffled, but the story is pretty much the same. Adding more modern touches, Aston also included a gay man and an unmarried Darcy daughter getting pregnant, apparently without anyone noticing. Preposterous. I read the whole thing, but became more and more agitated as the story continued. Ms. Aston has done her historical homework, but her story rings false.
Rating:
Summary: Pride and Peril
Review: Anyone taking upon themselves the task of following up a story as beloved as Austen's Pride and Prejudice has a very tricky balancing act: try to stay close to Austen's original to seem convincingly "sequelish" without being too derivative. Although I found the book a pleasant diversion, it lacked the tongue-in-cheek wit of Austen's original. Additionally, the main characters were a mix and match set of the original Bennett girls, and the inevitable match is too foreseeable because the young man bears far too much resemblance to our beloved Mr. Darcy. The novel certainly could not stand on its own. However, contrary to other reviewers, I found the absence of Elizabeth Bennett and Darcy a clever idea. If the author had chosen to have them play a part, it is almost inconceivable that she could have given them their authentic voices. Instead, their five daughters are onstage at the same age as Miss Elizabeth in the original novel, and they are dealing with many of the same issues of the Bennett sisters in the country but in London during the season. The author has obviously done her research, and does a nice job with the details of post-Napoleanic England and the rising British Empire, probably the most admirable thing about the book. Given the challenge of the task she has taken on, the author does a good job in presenting a novel that you don't want to argue with when the old Austen characters appear (because they are in character) and enough of the right flavor to make it a tasty light snack, if not a meal to rave over.
| 
