When good writers write bad Austen paraliterature
We have not read or reviewed The Independence of Miss Mary Bennet by Colleen McCullough, and have no plans to, as life is too short to read bad books; and from what our fellow Austen bloggers have to say about the book, it is a very bad book indeed.
From Laurel Ann’s review on Austenprose:
The real pinnacle of exasperation for me came with McCullough’s handling of Mr. Darcy who immediately regrets marrying Elizabeth, resents being burdened with her ‘below his station’ family, and now acts far snootier and more puffed up than we were subjected to when we first met him at the Meryton Assembly in the original novel. Ambitious, scheming and underhanded, this Darcy has gone Gothic villain on us and it is not pretty. This caustic rendering of Darcy alone will catapult many a book across living rooms and bedrooms across America.
From Janeite Kelly’s review on the Jane Austen in Vermont blog:
This hodge-podge might have been remotely palatable if the writing was less sub-par. Repetitive trains of thought emanate from all the characters. When not recounting ideas within their own heads, the characters interact in the dullest of dull discourse. Absurdities like Charles Darcy referring to his father, Fitzwilliam Darcy, as Pater are surely meant to make the novel sound “period”; they do not. And entire conversations around “wees and poohs” and circumcision? Who cares. Nothing really happens; instead people talk about what they think, feel, will do, should do, have done: “When I have assembled all the facts, the notes, the conclusions, I will write my book. Around the beginning of May I will set out on my journey of investigation.” (p. 39)
According to several interviews, Ms. McCullough wrote this book to “tweak the noses of the literati.” At the risk of being accused of being a dried-up tar-hearted spinster &c. &c., we link to these reviews as a public service to our fellow Janeites. In our admittedly quite active imagination, we see a fresh-faced, innocent Janeite in her Cozy Local Book Emporium™, perusing the latest releases, seeing a sequel to her beloved Pride and Prejudice by an author who has produced some pretty good books in the past–yes, the Editrix, like many nice Catholic girls of her generation, was enthralled by Father Ralph de Whatawaste in The Thorn Birds back in the day–and snatching it up with a gleeful cry. “This will be SO much better than Mr Darcy Does His Wife and all the other Austen-related junk we’ve innocently purchased at our Cozy Local Book Emporium™! Colleen McCullough is a PROFESSIONAL author! She won’t do Our Jane wrong!” We simply wish to give that Janeite, who is, though we might not be personally acquainted, our Brother or Sister In Jane, fair warning. We ask, when the inevitable backlash is launched against the Dried-Up Tar-Hearted Spinster &c. &c. Janeites Who Just Don’t Get It, that our Gentle Readers remember that simple fact.
(If you’re still morbidly curious and rationalize it with “Oh, everyone knows the Editrix is a dried-up tar-hearted spinster &c. &c., I’m gonna read it anyway,” why don’t you try the library? You know, the library? Big building with lots of books in it? They actually let you TAKE BOOKS AWAY and READ THEM! FOR FREE! Amazing, ain’t it? Just don’t forget to give them back when you’re finished.)
Comments are closed.





I’m about halfway through this egregious book. I normally don’t waste my time reading books I don’t like, but I started this one, bent on reviewing it, and will finish it and then recycle it. It’s actually turning out to be kind of fun, seeing just how bad this book can get.
Apart from Mccullough beating the P&P characters out of recognition, it’s just a dumb plot. It reads like a bizarro fantasy book–mid-way through, Mary is being held prisoner by a religious fanatic who thinks he’s God in a network of caves in the Peak District–he captures children who work for him (mixing poisons–he’s an apothocary) until they reach puberty and then it’s curtains.
As a genre, I don’t much care for fantasy, which is probably why I love Austen and Victorian novels. But, it’s not even well-written fantasy. It’s clumsy, half-hearted, and filled with those irritating questions that characters ask themselves. I wouldn’t have thought that Simon & Schuster had that kind of money to throw away. Which makes me ask, who were they thinking would be the audience? If it’s Janeites, they must know that we talk, chat, discuss, and otherwise share our opinions and I have yet to find someone who loves P&P who also loves this ridiculous sequel.
BTW, I love libraries, and visit mine so regularly that the librarians know me and get out their Interlibrary Loan forms when they see me coming
I have come to so dislike it when a writer (screenwriter, director, what-have-you) says that they are doing something to “tweak their noses at the literati” as it almost inevitably means that they are using it as an excuse for sloppy writing, bad research, and lazy sets of ideas.
Think I’ll be skipping this one, and joining the ranks of the Dried-Up Tar-Hearted Spinster Janeites. Thanks Mags.
Thanks for the warning to steer clear. Think I’ll save my money for something more important, like a toilet boil plunger. Hah!
Bowl. Geez, my spelling is getting worse by the year. Though there is merit in calling the book a boil.
I just finished reading this book. I was really annoyed with the beginning as well especially with the way Darcy treated Elizabeth. But then as bizarre as the book started becoming, I hate to admit that I couldn’t put it down!! I had to know what Father Dominus was up to! What was the connection between Darcy and this guy Ned?! Did I like the book? Not really but for free(the library)it was something to distract me for a few days…
“Mr. Darcy Does His Wife”? I missed that one, I’m going to have to go to that nice video store off the interstate (the one that’s so customer-friendly it even has customers on Christmas and Mother’s Day and stuff) and rent the movie version. I believe Andrew Davies adapted it.
Sue, Perhaps you know it by its alternate title: Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife, or, Darcy Does Lizzie However, Whenever, Wherever…
I can’t take credit for that title; I heard it from a certain Cub Reporter…
Mary held prisoner in a cave? Say what?
The odd thing about people doing Austen sequels or movies or whatever is how often they use extravagant plots and characters of exactly the sort that everybody knows that Austen absolutely despised. (I haven’t quite forgiven Emma Thompson on that point, though her GG speech ameliorated my ire a bit.)
“Mr. Darcy Does His Wife…I believe Andrew Davies adapted it.” Har! He should never have been allowed to get away with that wet shirt scene. Never! Now he thinks he can do anything. (Though seriously, he wrote the best para-Austen I’ve ever encountered. Very sad that he’s come to think his success came from “putting the sex back in”.)
Oh dear.
I just got my review copy of this book in the mail today, and now I’m scared to read it.
I absolutely loved the Thornbirds, so I was one of the ones who pounced on this novel when I saw it in the library! Think I’ll still give it a go…I confess that I enjoyed Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife! I have a soft spot for tawdry romance sequels, so let’s see if I enjoy this one or not…though the inside flap bit about Mary’s “violet eyes” is making me roll mine.
Jane – your a trooper for your craft!
Marylou – it was the hallucinogenic fairy dust laced in the paper that made you addicted to the book.
Yes Valerie, Mary is abduncted and held prisoner by a relgious cult in a cave. There’s no denying it. It’s there in black and white.
DeeDee – be afraid. Be very afraid!
I laughed when I read a recent discussion online about the novel questioning if it was possibly written as a parody and that the person describing their experience had misunderstood the author’s intensions. This is not a parody folks — at all. There is nothing slighty funny or ironic about it. McCullough is a professional, and knew exactly what she was doing. I wish it had been a parody. It would have been more interesting if she had pushed it in that direction.
This is from the linked interview with the author:
“‘Austen led a sheltered life and that’s reflected in her writing, her characters don’t have particularly rich inner lives,’ McCullough says.”
Explains a lot.
I just read the interview. McCullough believes she knows Darcy, describing him as “imperious” and her book depicts him returning to his true nature. What she doesn’t take into account is that his true nature is very different than the impression given at the beginning of the book. It is not that he was just trying to seem like a nice guy to win over Elizabeth. As described by his housekeeper and sister, he was a wealthy young gentleman who truly was a nice guy.
It is too bad that the book is so badly written, the idea of telling Mary’s story is interesting.
“‘Austen led a sheltered life and that’s reflected in her writing, her characters don’t have particularly rich inner lives,’ McCullough says.”
McCullough only wished her inner life could be as rich as the tip of Jane Austen’s pinky. Jealousy will get you nowhere, my dear. When Jane’s books are still flying off the shelves a century from now, yours will be a dim and distant reminder of 20th century trash novel sensibilities.