Book Review: Through Waters Deep

Hey there!  I'm thrilled to participate for the first time in a Revell blog tour!  Here is a review of Sarah Sundin's most recent novel, Through Waters Deep.

First of all, here's the front cover.

My first impression of the cover was that it was a little overly drama-romance-ish.  Also that I really liked the girl's hair. 

Aaand because I'm bad at synopses, here is what the back cover says... 

"It is 1941 and America teeters on the brink of war.  Handsome and outgoing naval officer Ensign Jim Avery escorts British convoys across the North Atlantic in a brand-new destroyer, the USS Atwood.  On shore, Jim encounters Mary Stirling, a childhood friend who is now an astute and beautiful Boston Navy Yard secretary.

When evidence of sabotage on the Atwood is discovered, Jim and Mary must work together to uncover the culprit.  A bewildering maze of suspects emerges, and Mary is dismayed to find that even someone close to her is under suspicion.  With the increasing pressure, Jim and Mary find that many new challenges--and dangers--await them." 

Like many back-cover synopses, I have a few disagreements with that one and how it does or does not represent the book.  But I won't bother critiquing it... I'll just move on. 

Rereading Mansfield Park

I just finished Mansfield Park (for the second time) yesterday, and tomorrow I start Sanditon, so I thought I should write about it now while it is still fresh on my mind. Like I always mean to do, but rarely actually achieve. ;)

Getting into it this time was, I have to confess, a bit difficult for me.  I still like MP, but... well, it's probably on the bottom of my list of JA favorites. Which I almost hate to say, because it has a reputation it doesn't deserve of being not as good, and I still think it deserves more love.  But I was having a hard time getting into it.  One excuse, though, was that there was a lot of Distraction going on in my life at the time. (Ahem. :D)  When I read it the first time, of course, it was New and therefore more interesting (even though I'd already seen the BBC miniseries and knew the basic story--it's still different to actually read the book).

Anyway.  Whenever this does happen with JA, generally when you get further into the story you become more attached to it, and that, as well as actually determining to spend more time reading, moved things along a bit.

So, as I've already done reviews of all 6 of JA's main novels, I like to just talk about my thoughts on rereading the story--what I thought differently this time, what new I noticed, etc.  There wasn't really that much of a difference... although I have to say that this time I was *cough* a tad little bit more sympathetic with the Crawford siblings. *cough, hide*

They're still horrid villains and everything. It's just that I kind understood them a little better, even though I didn't particularly enjoy the feeling. HA.  And of course by the END it's just like... wow, you two are even worse than I thought. (Especially Henry. What a... I can't even... who could seriously think Fanny was wrong to refuse him by the end? Besides Mrs. Norris and Mary Crawford who are jerks and don't count? Goodness, even Sir Thomas admitted she'd been right!)

Okay, so I guess I didn't actually think any better of Henry this time.  It was just that he didn't drive me quite as insane the entire time. I guess it was Mary I liked a little better. She can be rather amusing, and she's not exactly the evil scheming sort.  I wasn't any less annoyed with Edmund for falling for her, though, haha... and still a little annoyed with him at the end, too, how he kept going on about that it was all owing to her upbringing and otherwise she would have been perfect. You know what... whatever. She's just not, okay? She is what she is. And though a lot is often due to upbringing/influence, some people can come through things and still turn out better... especially in stories, although of course he doesn't know he's in a story. (snicker-snort)

Well, anyway. Moving on. So, if you've read the book (and if you haven't you probably shouldn't be reading THIS), you know how towards the end it plunges into the most of the Heavy Stuff. In fact it's probably the Heaviest Stuff of any Jane Austen book ever. Which is why when I turned a page and started in with what ends up being the last chapter and saw--
Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery. I quit such odious subjects as soon as I can, impatient to restore every body, not greatly in fault themselves, to tolerable comfort, and to have done with all the rest.
--this sort of Rush of Happiness went over me and I was like, YAY JANE! This is why I love you so much!!  Haha, obviously she was getting a little tired of it all, too.

Although I do still wish she'd have spent a little longer once everyone was restored to comfort. I should have liked to see exactly how everything happened with Fanny and Edmund, and instead she leaves most of it to supposition. Sigh. Well, she tells us the general end, but as to details, they are left to our own inferior imaginations. :P

However, I could just envision how lovely it could all be in a movie.  Honestly... why hasn't anyone done it?? There is so much New Stuff that can be done with a Mansfield adaptation, a REAL one in which everybody is portrayed like they're SUPPOSED to be... argh. Anyways.  Come oooon, BBC! I confess I was rather hoping the fact that the 200th anniversary being next year would inspire them, but alas, it would seem not...

And I really do think that it is all finished nicely even if I would want it to be longer.  I mean, Mrs. Norris is out of the picture with good riddance and everyone is happy.  Maria is ruined and deserves it. (Although maybe I would have liked to see Henry a with a bit more of a comeuppance.)  Susan Price gets to stay at Mansfield and doesn't have to live with the horrid Prices anymore.  Tom improves.  Sir Thomas is no longer an idiot about certain ideas he had concerning Fanny (namely, that she should have accepted Mr. Crawford, and that she should not marry one of his sons, haha); and it's a bit morbid of me but I found this hilarious: "...Dr. Grant had brought on apoplexy and death, by three great institutionary dinners in one week..." (cough). And of course, Edmund and Fanny live happily ever after.

One thing bugs me though, and that is this--
Could he have been satisfied with the conquest of one amiable woman's affections, could he have found sufficient exultation in overcoming the reluctance, in working himself into the esteem and tenderness of Fanny Price, there would have been every probability of success and felicity for him. His affection had already done something. Her influence over him had already given him some influence over her. Would he have deserved more, there can be no doubt that more would have been obtained, especially when that marriage had taken place, which would have given him the assistance of her conscience in subduing her first inclination, and brought them very often together. Would he have persevered, and uprightly, Fanny must have been his reward, and a reward very voluntarily bestowed, within a reasonable period from Edmund's marrying Mary.

What... no. Jane. Please. DON'T. Don't indicate that Fanny would have married Henry in the end if all that Stuff hadn't happened. How could you do that to your own Fanny??  It's rather like the indication that Marianne wasn't really in love with Col. Brandon at the time of marrying him. (My thoughts here.) I prefer to have my own opinion on these subjects. Heh.

Just the same, I finished the book with the same sentimental feeling I always get when finishing one of Miss Austen's stories... and this little sigh escaped me which then made me giggle because it wasn't at all premeditated. Haha.

Anyway. I'll stop rambling now and close with two random quotes I scribbled down. (I wasn't very good at writing down quotes this time...)

"There is not one in a hundred of either sex, who is not taken in when they marry. Look where I will, I see that it is so; and I feel that it must be so, when I consider that it is, of all transactions, the one in which people expect the most from others, and are least honest themselves."

~Mary Crawford

"I was quiet, but I was not blind."

~Fanny Price

On Rereading Pride and Prejudice

It's quite pathetic, really, that I've been a fan of Jane Austen for pretty much exactly four years now (well, my indoctrination was four years ago, haha), P&P has been my favorite story ever since I saw the 1995 adaptation (which was the second story I was introduced to), and I only just finished reading it all the way through for the second time.

Sometimes I think I am more of a bookworm in theory than in practice....

Anyways. I enjoyed it a great deal, of course; it did take me a while to get "into" it, but I suppose that is because I really am soooo familiar with the story. But there is always something fresh to learn or be reminded of, and that's always fun. Plus I found that when I actually read more at a time I could more easily get involved.

For a long time I've been holding out on deciding between Mr. Darcy and Mr. Knightley--I'd read Emma twice, and P&P only once, I would say; well, I no longer have that excuse. Buuut... I still can't decide. It is true that my respect for Mr. Darcy was refreshed upon rereading P&P, and for the last half or so of the story I could 'feel' it all from his point of view actually better than Elizabeth's. (Well, I guess I might have donei t on purpose. :P) My admiration for Mr. Darcy, though, is just different from that of Mr. Knightley. The love stories are so different, too, and both so compelling in their own ways.

Also, it is hard to take into consideration that what one should be comparing is the heroes from the books, movies completely excluded. Because frankly, I think for a lot of people who adore Mr. Knightley, Jonny Lee Miller's portrayal has something to do with his popularity. Don't get me wrong--I don't think it's just because of the movie that he's such a great hero, because I happen to think the representation was perfect. JLM just got Mr. Knightley to a T.  The adaptation understood him... they took what was in the book and expanded on it without taking away from or adding to it.

And you know what? I can't say that for Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy. At all. (And don't even speak to me about Matthew MacFadyen's. He was a nice guy, and I have to say I kind of liked him... but NOT as Mr. Darcy. He is not Jane Austen's Mr. Darcy, and therefore not mine.) I have a high respect for Colin Firth's portrayal--it has been my old friend these three years and a half at least. (I mean, hello, I'm a co-founder of The P&P95Forever Club!) But I don't think the actor really understood the character; the portrayal only showed some aspects of his character and we can only see half as much as we can in the book (while some things, such as the un-smiling-ness, actually gives us the wrong impression). There is really so much more to Mr. Darcy, peoples. If you've forgotten, go read the book again. Live the story from his point of view. His character is a little hard to decipher, and we don't have exactly an abundance to go on... but that makes it so interesting!

In short, I do hope that someday, somebody like BBC will make another full-fledged adaptation of P&P in which Mr. Darcy's portrayal will do as much for his reputation, as JLM's did for Mr. Knightley's. Also, it would be fun to see actors who are actually the right ages. :D

Anyways. If I can actually make myself do it, I intend to write a post all about The Real Mr. Darcy (which may have a great deal of what-Colin-Firth-did-not-get thrown in). I will talk about such things as how he smiles more than in any of the movies, and that he actually has a sense of humor. How he is gentlemanly and considerate, and how we must remember that since most everything is from Elizabeth's point of view, besides the few hints Jane Austen chooses to give us, the unprejudiced eye might have understood him better and thought well of him towards the beginning, too.

And hey, if you would be interested in reading such a post... do let me know. It might encourage me to put my shoulder to the wheel. :P Also if you express an unfavorable opinion of Mr. Darcy, that might encourage me in a different way. Heh, heh, heh.

Something I noticed this time 'round that I failed to last time, is Jane Austen's amusing way of spelling (and capitalizing) things differently when she feels like it. In some editions you probably won't be able to see this, because they'll be 'correcting' things right and left. But it was Phillips the first couple times, Philips after that, until towards the end where it changed back to Phillips again. Sometimes it said "De Bourgh", other times it said "de Bourgh." At first I thought that it might just be a capital D when it said "Miss De Bourgh", but later on it had it the other way. And there were some other, commonplace words too... I used to think that when it said "choose" it had been corrected/updated, and when it said "chuse" it was Jane Austen's original; but this time I noticed that Jane did it both ways. There were a couple other words, too, that were spelled differently; sometimes even on the same page.

Just another one of Jane Austen's intricacies. ;)

However, I will have you know that Lizzy is always Lizzy, and is never, ever Lizzie. Also Bennet. One T. (Don't look at me like that. If I am a wild Beast who is always reminding people of the correct way to spell Austenian words, I cannot help it. It is not my own fault. :P)

And now, as I have run out of things to say and have rambled on for quite long enough anyways, I shall end with a list of quotes I scribbled down, which I did not scribble down the last time I read it.

~~~
"Mary wished to say something very sensible, but knew not how."

"Mr. Darcy walked off; and Elizabeth remained with no very cordial feelings towards him. She told the story however with great spirit among her friends; for she had a lively, playful disposition, which delighted in any thing ridiculous."

"From all that I can collect by your manner of talking, you must be two of the silliest girls in the country. I have suspected it for some time, but now I am convinced." -Mr. Bennet

"To be fond of dancing was a certain step towards falling in love."

"Mr. Darcy is not to be laughed at! That is an uncommon advantage, and uncommon I hope it will continue, for it would be a great loss to me to have many such acquaintance. I dearly love a laugh." -Elizabeth

"Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies do divert me, I own, and I laugh at them whenever I can." -Elizabeth

"It is a rule with me, that a person who can write a long letter, with ease, cannot write ill." -Miss Bingley

"I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading! How much sooner one tires of any thing than of a book!" -Miss Bingley

"Far be it from me, my dear sister, to depreciate such pleasures. They would doubtless be congenial with the generality of female minds. But I confess they would have no charms for me. I should infinitely prefer a book." -Mary

"A scheme of which every part promises delight, can never be successful; and general disappointment is only warded off by the defence of some little peculiar vexation."  -Elizabeth

Rereading Northanger Abbey

At the end of last month I finished my second reading of Northanger Abbey, with a great deal of delight. There's nothing like reading a book for a first time, but Jane Austen books are wonderful for rereading multiple times... as I am sure we all know. ;-)

If possible I think I was even more pleased with Henry Tilney this time than last...it struck me more than ever that if he were to be transported to modern times, he would probably be just the sort of person I would like; he might tease just a tad too much, but he does know when to be serious, at least. But what I really noticed this time was that his opinions seem to match mine quite well in some areas--or the 19th-century version of them, anyways. And he as such an understanding of muslin! ;) But see, he doesn't mind admitting that he has an understanding of muslin. He's not insecure, haha. And he admits to reading novels. My 21st-century version of that is always that he would read Jane Austen and like it, and admit it. ;-) There was one thing I particularly noticed this time, when Henry said--

I should no more lay it down as a general rule that women write better letters than men, than that they sing better duets, or draw better landscapes. In every power, of which taste is the foundation, excellence is pretty fairly divided between the sexes.

See, it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when men and women are given stereotypes, and it seems like he has the right ideas.

Anyway, enough rambling about Henry Tilney. (Ha, I can just hear some of you saying "No!") I think Isabella Thorpe made me laugh more this time. (You know, if you take some of the things she says seriously, she actually has some pretty good quotes, too. As do Mrs. Elton and Caroline Bingley.) I thought it was hilarious and served her right when Catherine never understood her insinuations.

John Thorpe made me feel madder, if that's possible. He is SO annoying. I have to say, I think he's the most irritating of all Jane Austen's villains. Grrrrrr.

So, I really haven't much to say, but I decided when I reread to S&S to post about my first rereads of Miss Austen's novels.. This is a delightful book, but very different from JA's others and I think one should definitely read at least most of her other books before this one. And preferably have a slight understanding of those old Gothic novels and their tendencies, or you won't understand the satire.

By the bye, the 2007 movie (which, I must disclaim, I do not approve of in its entirety) didn't get that at all right. For instance, in the movie, as soon as Catherine claps eyes on Northanger Abbey, she says "It is exactly as I imagined it would be!" In the book, they arrive during a rainstorm and she never really gets to view the outside of the house until later on, and the inside is much too modern to be like what she imagined. Also there's this one scene where she sees Henry with his sister, but she doesn't know it's his sister and you can tell she's all disappointed (haha), but in the book Jane Austen clearly said that she did not do that (as other heroines would, you see), but that she guessed immediately it was his sister; it looked right, and he'd mentioned having a sister before.

That's just a couple of examples. But it doesn't have much to do with the book so I'll quit ranting talking about it.

Oh, and I have a question for you all. Have any of you read There Must Be Murder, which is a sequel to NA by Margaret C. Sullivan? I really enjoy what I know of her writing in general, but I'd have to buy it so it is nice to have recommendations. I'm a person who likes libraries. Heehee. Unfortunately they don't have it.

I can't think of a good way to tie up this short and ramble-y post besides to put a few quotes from NA. These are ones that I scribbled down during my re-read & didn't do last time.

"...while I have Udolpho to read, I feel as if nobody could make me miserable."
~Catherine Morland

"A woman especially, if she have the misfortune of knowing anything, should conceal it as well as she can."

"...from politics, it was an easy step to silence."

"[T]o marry for money I think the wickedest thing in existence."
~Catherine

Little Women: The Book

I’ve procrastinated. I’ve put it off. I’ve looked at my poor, neglected blog and sighed. And then today, the internet stopped working. Again. (I am getting tired of this.) And this time it’s very inopportune—on a Sunday afternoon, which is a quiet time in my house and I like to waste time on the internet, writing emails, reading blog posts, and whatever else happens to strike my fancy. And I used to write blog posts on Sunday afternoons, back in the days when I had something planned for each week. So I decided to take this as a hint and sit down and finally write this thing that I was supposed to have done over two months ago when I finally finished reading Little Women.

But you see, I do not want to write a review. I do not like writing reviews, and am not good at it. (I’m not actually being serious there—it was just one of those inadvertent Jane Austen paraphrases. Mr. Knightley on Dancing this time. :P) I do not always dislike writing reviews, but I didn’t want to for this one. Besides, Little Women is a book there would be ten thousand reviews of scattered everywhere. It’s not as if you don’t know the story. (And if you don’t and you want to, just go look it up on Wikipedia or something.) So instead, I’m just going to talk about it, even though I don’t really know what to say, as I if I were emailing a friend. Goodness knows THAT’S easy enough. (I seem to remember getting out of writing a review this way before… yes indeed, I am repeating myself. Oh, well. Please do forgive my redundancy.) So this is NOT  review… actually, if you don’t know the story, I wouldn’t recommend you read it because I might give things away.

So. Little Women is one of those classic books I’ve always intended to read, and have always be embarrassed to announce that I hadn’t yet done so when people would inquire. I mean, I heard about LW long before my interest in Jane Austen. Yet still I didn’t read it. I started it a few times. But there was always some reason not to read it… like the copy we have, for starters. A nice, old-fashioned looking, hardbound copy, which I started reading, and then checked the front to make sure it wasn’t abridged or anything… and it was. Bother. “Abridged for modern reading,” said it. (I think some stuff was just cut out, because the wording seemed authentic. And the funny thing is, the other Louisa May Alcott books in the set with it do not say they are abridged… oh well, don’t ask me.) And then I tried to get one from the library, but I did not like the copy. It had hideous illustrations and was large and thick and hard-cover, and I didn’t care for the font. So it went back the library and I continued reading whatever else I was reading at the time.

Along the way somewhere I was finally introduced to the story by watching a film of LW. I liked the story well enough (as I always knew I would), but I didn’t care for the movie itself. It was some 1970s version…one my mom got from the library. The actors were all too old and it was just generally annoying. Then I saw the version with Katharine Hepburn… yick. Finally my sister introduced me to the 1994 version, which is of course the best, but don’t worry, I always knew the book would be better…when is it not? Well, when it’s Mary Poppins. Ahem. Anyways.

I made a list at the beginning of this year, with “Must Reads,” “Should Reads,” and then a longer list of random ideas of things to read, and my goal was 30 books total. (That may sound pathetic, but I am a slow reader.) LW was actually on the “Should Read” list, whereas, say, North and South, which I still haven’t read but intend to later this year, was on the “Must Read.” But then my priorities were set straight by Amy. (Um, Amy Dashwood, not Amy March. Heehee.) I must confess that the amount she reads rather puts me to shame, and it was horrid never to have read LW when she had such a high opinion of it and practically knew it by heart and it was something I SHOULD have read ages ago. So I search Amazon for a copy I would like, looked up the ISBN on my library website, and got it. And started it. And finished it in June.

You may wonder why I am rambling on in this matter, and I shall tell you. It is because I still don’t really know what to write about the actual book itself. Don’t get me wrong, I loved it, and I’ll definitely read it again. It’s quite different from other things in that all this time passes in it and it doesn’t really have a particular plot. (I don’t think this is a bad thing, it just makes it hard to blog about.) And although Jo March is the main main character, all of the March girls have their own chapters in the book and all that, so it’s almost like there are four heroines. I would talk about the March girls, but I’m thinking about doing an entire post about them—or rather, how I connected with each of them in different ways. So I’ll save it.

Okay, I’ll just talk about the guys instead. My favorite was Mr. Bhaer, hands-down. He was wonderful. (He would be more wonderful if he didn’t have a beard, but we’ll skip this small detail.) And the proposal scene was so CUTE. The movie was cute too, but the book was more… more real. It was just so sweet! Awww, etc.  And I love how he called Jo “heart’s dearest.” *sentimental sniff*

Anyways. I liked Laurie some of the time. I liked him more of the time than I did in the movie, that’s for sure. And his, er, romance (second love interest, shall we say?) wasn’t quite as annoying as in the movie either (I can’t help comparing things this way, as I saw the movie first) but it still did annoy me a great deal. The IDEA. *grunts* At least their family knew they were engaged, though, instead of just randomly coming home and saying “Guess what? I just married your little sister! Isn’t that nice?” *shudders*

Speaking of things that irritated me in the movie that didn’t as much in the book, the Amy-burns-Jo’s-book thing was much better. I cannot STAND that part in the movie. So, Amy does this dastardly thing, and instead of dealing with the girl, Mrs. March goes to Jo and starts lecturing her about how she needs to forgive her, let not the sun go down upon thy wrath, blah blah blah. Priorities, lady. Your youngest daughter needs to be punished. The girl hasn’t even apologized! And that little, weak-voiced “Sorry, Jo” as she goes out of the room doesn’t count. So, it was still a little bit annoying in the book, but not nearly as much; it was quite different. It was less rushed, and all made more sense. Amy seemed a lot sorrier in the book too, which was nice. And the ice-skating incident made more sense, too, how Jo would be blaming herself, since she knew Amy hadn’t heard the warning about the ice and didn’t tell her. Also, Meg suggesting that Amy follow them. Yep, yep. It was all much, much better.

Ha, sorry, that section was a pet peeve of mine in the movie. Moving on.

I also liked Amy when she was older much, much better than in the movie. She was actually likable. But then, everything is better in the book. (Except there are some funny quotes in the movie that aren’t in the book. “Are you shocked?” “Very.”)

In general, the book was just a lot of fun. One of those delightful, light-hearted, well-written, interesting, imaginative… no wonder it’s a classic. And yay for it being an American classic! Sadly, there seem to be few American Classics I actually like. But it’s not as if I’ve read that many. Funny… all the likable American Literature I can think of are Children’s Classics.

This spontaneous rambling about a book is actually rather fun. But I very much hope it isn’t annoying anybody.

Now, a while back I had a poll on the sidebar about whether I should have a ‘series’ for Little Women as I did for all the Jane Austen novels and Jane Eyre. At this time I am planning on doing a short series-ish thing… that is, all my next posts will probably be Little Women-themed. I’m not going to be doing one of those overview-of-every-adaptation posts, simply because I don’t want to sit through them all; but I’m planning to review the 1994 version, have a couple other posts that are more Theme-y than this sloppy one, and then maybe a game or two. What do you think?

And now questions for you. Have you read Little Women? How many times have you read it? How old were you the first time? (Don’t worry about mortifying me. You might, but I do want to know.) I hope to read another Louisa May Alcott before too long—would you recommend I start with the sequel, Little Men, or should I pick up An Old-Fashioned Girl, which title has enticed me for years? I’d love to hear your thoughts on everything in a comment. :)

P.S. I sort of forgot to mention John Brooke along with the rest, didn’t I? Heh. Oh well. Sorry, John.

Letters from Pemberley (and sequel) by Jane Dawkins

Some time ago I finished reading Letters from Pemberley and More Letters from Pemberley by Jane Dawkins, and am finally getting around to writing about it. The thought of writing a summary for the book like I usually do sounded tiresome, I must admit, and I don't think this book really requires that anyways--so I've decided I'm just going to act more like I'm telling a friend about what I've been reading. (That's just more fun than trying to be formal. This is blogging, after all, not writing for a magazine.)

Letters from Pemberley is a continuation of Pride and Prejudice written in epistolary form; that is, it's all letters from Elizabeth to Jane. It lasts for the whole of 1813 (assuming Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy's wedding to have been in late 1812). Elizabeth tells about her experiences as the new mistress of Pemberley, recounting nerve-wracking parties where she meets Mr. Darcy's acquaintance, her occasional fear of inadequacy, her relationship with Georgiana... it's sort of less plot-ish and more just day-by-day real life, which I rather liked. It was lighthearted and remained faithful to Jane Austen's characters. Of course, nothing is as good as Pride and Prejudice itself, but let's just say I didn't get mad at this author and throw the book across the room. (I wouldn't have done that, anyways. I am very careful with library books.)

Overall, I found it quite delightful, and I would recommend it to someone who wants to read a P&P sequel. It's also rather short. Which, sad, slow reader than I am, pleases me. I like Mr. Darcy in it, but his portrayal isn't quite the thing--but nobody could write about him like Jane Austen could so wonderfully yet subtly do (quite subtle so that only some people will understand him, haha...) but it's better than, say, Mr. Darcy's Diary. Which didn't particularly impress me.

One of my favorite things about this book was the sort of secret references to other Jane Austen characters. You will find people just like Jane Austen characters (Anne Elliot, Lady Russel and Mrs. Elton are a few examples) but with different names, and it's fun to catch them. My favorites were Emma and Mr. Knightley. One night when I was reading the book, I suddenly figured out the meaning behind the last name, which is Daley. (Get it? Knightley, Daley? Night, day?) Also, the Daleys live at Weldon Abbey, which is Don-well switched around. I will say no more because I do not wish to give away any more secrets. *wink*

Anyways, I liked it so well that I decided to read the sequel, More Letters from Pemberley. This one, in short, I didn't like as well. It was rather darker (which, you must understand, is P&P sacrilege) and just didn't hold my interest as much. While the no-plot thing worked well for the first year, More Letters was from 1814-1819, and I found it a bit tiresome. I did finish it, but... eh. I didn't really dislike it, but I didn't like it, either. I rather expected more from it. However, if you really like Letters from Pemberley, you might like to give it a try.

Charles Dickens Reading Challenge

Abby at Newly Impassioned Soul is presenting us with a...



...and although I was a little skeptical at first - I am a rather slow reader and Dickens has some very long books - I have decided to participate; after all, what is a challenge for, but to challenge a person?

The options are to choose 3, 5, or 10 books to read this year. I have chosen 3. I have a number of classics on my to-read list this year as well.

First of all, I'll be reading A Tale of Two Cities for school starting this month or the next. So the first book on my list is decided for me. I'm also supposed to write a review afterwards, which will probably make its way to this blog.

Next, I think I'd like to read either Oliver Twist or The Pickwick Papers. I haven't seen movies of either so I don't yet know the stories, and I believe they are both shorter than others; at least Oliver Twist is. Can anybody tell me which one is shorter?

At the moment I think I'm more partial to the idea of reading Pickwick (if O.T. isn't significantly shorter, which it very well may be), mainly because I can think of three other pieces of literature that mentions it. Anne of the Island, Little Women, and Cranford.

With Cranford, I'm actually just going by the mini-series. In it, Captain Brown gave his copy of the book to Deborah Jenkyns, who apparently did not approve of Dickens, and said "I defy you not to roar!".

In Anne of the Island (third book in the Anne of Green Gables series by L.M. Montgomery)...

"Anne looked up from Pickwick Papers. Now that spring examinations were over she was treating herself to Dickens." (I always wonder if Anne read Jane Austen...)

A little later in the chapter, Anne's friend Phillipa asks what she's reading, and after Anne answers, says "That's a book that always makes me hungry. There's so much good eating in it. The characters always seem to be reveling on ham and eggs and milk punch. I generally go on a cupboard rummage after reading Pickwick."

That's always made me curious.

Then, in Little Women (the movie, at least, as I haven't read the book...I know, I know; and it's on my book list this year) the newspaper thing they make has something about Pickwick in the title. I'm being terribly unspecific here, sorry.

Thirdly, I'll either read whichever one above that I haven't read, depending on how much time I have/what other books I want to read, or one of the other Christmas novels besides A Christmas Carol (as I've already read that).

But I'm very open to suggestions!

(Book review) Lost in Austen: Create Your Own Jane Austen Adventure

Author: Emma Campbell Webster

(Note: this book has absolutely nothing to do with the movie Lost in Austen.)

“Your name: Elizabeth Bennet. Your mission: to marry both prudently and for love, avoiding family scandal. Equipped with only your sharp wit, natural good sense, and tolerable beauty, you must navigate your way through a variety of decisions that will determine your own romantic (and financial) fate. Ever wonder what would happen if Elizabeth accepted Mr Darcy’s proposal the first time around? Or ran from his arms into those of Persuasion’s Captain Wentworth? Now is your chance to find out.”

-back cover

This is a really fun book. (Don’t let the rather odd front cover mislead you.) I first heard about it from a friend who picked it up at a yard sale. Knowing how much I like Jane Austen, she said she’d let me borrow it, but I found it at the library anyways.

This book almost reminds me of a computer game. You start out in Pride and Prejudice, then depending on what decisions you make, you turn the pages for different results. You can get caught up with characters in other Jane Austen novels, as well as a little bit of the author’s own life. If you continue on (neither failing the mission or marrying), you get back to Pride and Prejudice and can sort of weave in and out. During the whole thing, you keep a list of Accomplishments, Failings, and Connections, as well as keeping a score for Fortune, Intelligence, and Confidence.

I was so excited when I first got this book! It was so much fun living at Longbourn, dancing with Mr. Darcy, taking a trip to Bath with my sister Jane instead of her going to London with Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner; there meeting Henry and Eleanor Tilney, and taking a trip to Northanger Abbey. (A heads-up though – it’s actually not possible to marry Mr. Tilney [I know, I know…] and you just end up deducting a lot of Intelligence and Confidence points. The detour was fun, nonetheless.) I ended up going into Emma, and having been proposed to by Mr. Knightley—well, how could I refuse him?—and I hadn’t seen Pemberley yet, so I wouldn’t have yet been in love with Mr. Darcy, and didn’t know he still card for me… so I married Mr. Knightley. The book didn’t exactly describe the ‘perfectly happy evermore’ that I would have liked, but I can draw my own conclusions.

So, here were my lists and scores at the end of my mission the first time around:

Accomplishments

Love of Walking

Speaks Fluent French

Screen-covering skills

Highly Observant

Reasonable Piano-Playing Skills

Once Spent the Day at Weston-super-Mare

Ability to Feign Interest in the Utterly Boring

Failings

Resentful

Love of Walking

No Style, Taste, or Beauty

Insufficient Knowledge of Dancing

Incredibly Nosy

Blind Partiality

Willful Prejudice

Poorly Timed Liveliness

Ill-timed Sense of Humour

Deplorable Weakness for Gothic Literature

No Governess

All 5 Sisters Out at Once

Breathtakingly Poor Judge of Character

Blind, Partial, and Prejudiced, and Absurd

Lack of Influence

Reprehensively Remiss in Duties to Those Less Fortunate

Jealousy

Shameless Vanity

Connections

Inferior

Mr. Collins

Mother

Mary Bennet

Father

Charlotte Lucas

Mr. Wickham

Superior

Charlotte Lucas

Distant Cousin in Grosvenor Street

Mr. Wickham

Father

The Tilneys

Fortune

Starting: 50

Highest: 200

Lowest: -100 (or 0, depending on how you play)

Ending: 200

Intelligence

Starting: 200

Highest: 210

Lowest: -180 (or 0)

Ending: 0

Confidence

Starting: 200

Highest: 350

Lowest: 0

Ending: 270

And now, some words of wisdom.

It is not usually a good thing, actually, to have a high Intelligence score.

It’s pretty easy to fail your mission, so you may want to write page numbers down so you can go back easily.

If you make any decision significantly unlike what the heroine did in the book, you will end up failing and something extremely unlikely, out of character, or just plain weird will happen. (Like if you marry Mr. Collins, accept Mr. Darcy’s proposal for the first time, decide not to take Mr. Darcy’s letter, or even if you wait for Miss Tilney to inspect Mrs. Tilney’s room – that one is especially strange.)

I’ve noticed that all the stories are included in some form, but I so far I’ve only noticed the following heroes actually available to marry: Mr. Darcy, Mr. Knightley, Capt. Wentworth, and Col. Brandon.

I am currently still in my second time around. My goal this time is to get as many proposals and weave into as many stories as possible (except for Emma since that’s where I ended last time, and I just couldn’t bear to break Mr. Knightley’s heart) but end up marrying Mr. Darcy.

The newer version of this book is called Being Elizabeth Bennet: Create Your Own Jane Austen Adventure (pictured on the left).

I recommend this book to Janeites as a charming diversion. Let me know if you read it, and who you marry!