REVIEW: Pemberley Shades by D.A. Bonavia-Hunt
Review by MJ Ryan
Published originally in 1949, Pemberley Shades has the distinction of being the second sequel to a Jane Austen novel. It’s difficult to decide if it is a more impressive to be the second or the fact that there was a gap of 37 years between the two. Considering the stack of Austen-inspired books I have on my desk to review for AustenBlog, I’m leaning toward the latter.
A “lightly gothic” tale, Pemberley Shades isn’t lighthearted enough to lift your spirits or gothic enough to instill terror or conjure up a sense of dread. It appears to be trying more for the latter by including many of the hallmarks of a gothic tale; a double of questionable sanity, a fainting fit, a derelict house and superstitions. But, all of these have logical, rather dull explanations; the double isn’t crazy, he’s artistic; Elizabeth faints due to a benign conversation (but it was in a dusty attic, natch), the house is more dated in décor than derelict. As I write this is occurs to me that the author was trying for the mood Austen set so brilliantly in Northanger Abbey. However, these are the characters from Pride and Prejudice, after all, and flights of gothic fantasy do not come easily to them. Add that to the fact that the comparison is just now coming to me, two weeks after finishing the book, and you get the idea of how far off the mark the author hit.
The book isn’t completely without merit and was, I confess, marginally entertaining. However, the lasting impression I have of the book is one of lost opportunity; the story idea was a good one, but the execution was flat.
Comments are closed.
Oh dear. I love this book. I discovered it almost 30 years ago, in my freshman year of college, and I read it at least once a year during my time in school. I thought the characters were instantly recognizable, unlike what we see in so many sequels where Elizabeth and Darcy barely resemble those in P&P. And I never once thought of Northanger Abbey as I read it. I’d read it again to see if I can understand what you found lacking, but my copy is in storage and is therefore unavailable to me for the foreseeable future.
Chacun à son goût.
Wow! We had the opposite reaction. I liked it and said so in my review. Anyone thinking about writting a sequel should read it, because her language is not mimicky, but respectful of Austen’s style. She is one of the few sequel writers who is funny. Her letter by Mr. Collins to Mr. Darcy was brilliant! I never thought that it was very Gothicy, though, so that might be a current marketing ploy. I hope other readers will give it a chance. It has its wholes, but she has a strong understanding of Austen’s characters and style. I commend her for being one of the first to write a sequel and give her full credit for creativity when she did not have the advantage of hundred’s of other sequels to learn from.
Actually there is clear evidence in the book that Elizabeth’s faint is probably due to a combination of overexertion and early pregnancy. I have always seen it as showing the reactions to the incursion of a somewhat Bronte-esque character into Jane Austen’s world.