The book follows P&P from Mary’s perspective and then what happens afterwards. When Mary has to leave their family home, as the Collinses take up residence, she feels uncomfortable at her sisters’ homes and her mother is always criticising her. Staying with her aunt in London is a lifeline for Mary, who is appreciated for her intellect and two men are interested in her; the eccentric but polite Tom Hayward, and the impulsive Mr Ryder who is pursued by Caroline Bingley.

Mary’s character development is central to the novel as she learns to stand up to people and know when to trust her emotions over rationality. Through Mr Hayward, she also gains an appreciation for poetry, when she used to prefer reading only facts. I felt as if I was reading an Austen book, as the structure and ideas were inspired by them, but that’s what I liked about it. There were further perspectives on characters such as Mr Collins, Mr Bennet and Mrs Hill, which might even enhance my next reading of P&P.

Published by Macmillan, 2020.

Although I didn’t find that there were laugh-out-loud moments this time, compared to the first book, I enjoyed this novel as it was full of drama and had lots of details about the era. Jane Austen, as always, is busily writing her friends into her books. There was a strong gothic flavour, influenced by Northanger Abbey, and Jane is reading the shocking novel The Monk.

The book ended on a cliffhanger and I look forward to reading the next one!

Independently published, 2024.

The story is narrated by Felicity Blackburn, whose friend Jane Austen is secretly writing a novel inspired by the romantic mishaps going on in Steventon. Felicity is not impressed by the grumpy Mr Fitzroy when they meet at a ball. Meanwhile, her sister Harriet is very taken with Mr Pringle but will he propose to her? Felicity’s awful cousin, Mr Humbleton, turns up with the intention of marrying one of the girls and it seems they will have to accept, to keep the house in the family.

I liked that there was enough of the original story to make this novel feel familiar, with some interesting modern twists. As the spicier and more shocking parts of the story did not get into Jane Austen’s novel, this reflects that we sometimes make the error of thinking that Austen’s books are a true reflection of how things were back then. I’m not saying that the cream sponge incident happened, for example (that was funny!) and some details were not historically accurate, but it did make me wonder what else Jane had to omit from her writing. Perhaps there were indeed some things she would’ve loved to include, but that could not be published.

In summary, this was an amusing read which I enjoyed very much. I look forward to the sequel.

Independently published in 2024.

The novel follows Emma, the girl who has it all – wealth, looks, intelligence, adoring friends and family, no need to marry. She fancies herself a matchmaker but misinterprets others’ behaviour, leading to trouble… but she emerges a stronger character. This could be considered a coming of age novel. Society and class are the main preoccupations, however, with a focus on the inequality of women. Couples are happily matched in the almost-fairytale ending, of course, with the exception of Miss Bates, a middle-aged single lady whose kind personality does not make up for her lack of wealth. There are a number of other memorable characters, such as Emma’s querulous but indulgent father Mr Woodhouse, the gruesomely tasteless Mrs Elton and the talented but secretive Jane Fairfax.

Emma is a witty and sophisticated novel which is a pleasure to read. It was the last Austen book published in her lifetime (1816) and like the others was anonymous. I wonder how astonished she would be to know that her work is widely read, studied and filmed, her name one of the most famous in the canon of English literature.

The edition I read was published by Penguin Classics, 2015, with introduction and notes by Fiona Stafford.

Persuasion is actually my least favourite Austen novel but I’d rather read it a thousand more times than attempt to watch this insincere adaptation again. It compares very unfavourably with Emma (2020), which certainly took some liberties but kept the essence of the novel and, most significantly, didn’t change the character of Emma. If you love Anne Elliot, do not watch this new adaptation of Persuasion, which turns her into a sarcastic, mouthy, unsympathetic character who rolls her eyes at everyone and gets drunk. Stick to the 2007 film or really any other version.

I will conclude this review with the words of critic Deborah Ross in The Spectator: “everyone involved should probably be sent to prison.”

Low-resolution image taken from Wikipedia.

Although some licence is taken with the finer details of the story, there is some original dialogue. The characters are more noticeably passionate, especially the men, who aren’t afraid to show their emotions. Servants are very much in evidence (it’s often noted that they are almost invisible in Austen’s books), practically rolling their eyes and sighing at the ridiculousness of their employers.

This adaptation is literally cheeky! We see a nude Mr Knightley striding about before he dons his starchy clothes, while Emma sneakily lifts her skirt to warm her backside by the fire.

Other things I liked about this film are the music (lots of it – opera, folk songs, instrumental), the cast (including Miranda Hart as Miss Bates!) and that it’s refreshingly free of cultural references shoehorned in to reflect current social or political agendas (one of my pet hates for period dramas in particular).

The only thing I disliked about this film is that Emma has a nosebleed (yes, this is a spoiler but allowable I think). Just randomly happens while she’s talking to Knightley. Maybe it’s intended to be symbolic, but still gross in my opinion.

Interesting fact: two of the minor characters, Mr Martin and Mrs Elton, are played by actors who were both in the cast of Netflix’s Sex Education TV series. A very different kind of show… or is it?!

I probably wouldn’t re-watch, but I enjoyed this recent adaptation and would recommend it.

Low-resolution poster taken from Wikipedia.

If you know the book well, then this film seems to condense the story too much, over-emphasising the repressed romance between Lizzy Bennet and Mr Darcy and getting rid of minor characters such as Mrs Hurst, Denny and Maria Lucas. The settings are altered for many of the scenes. Although some dialogue is taken from the original text, a lot of it is new and too modern for the era represented (late 18th century). A few of the characters are changed too. Lizzy is more giggly, Georgiana Darcy less reserved, Mary Bennet less grim, Mr Collins less obnoxious, Mr Bingley more bumbling, than their book counterparts. I do like the cast – particularly Matthew Mcfadyen, Brenda Blethyn and Claudie Blakley – who seem to very consciously be trying not to emulate their predecessors from the TV series. This results in more understated performances, with the exception of Keira Knightley’s portrayal of Lizzy. I just felt she was a bit over-acted.

Perhaps the film is best enjoyed by those who are not very familiar with Austen’s books and would rather watch adaptations than read the originals. I don’t mean this in a harsh way, but this particular film is Austen-lite, the social commentary stripped out, the romance pumped up. It’s nice to watch, yet doesn’t have much substance. It’s a good enough substitute for the book if you only want the basic story.

Low-resolution image sourced from Wikipedia.

See also my other reviews of Austen adaptations: Emma and Persuasion.

First published in 1813, Pride and Prejudice is one of the most famous novels ever and is the favourite of many readers. It’s a cultural phenomenon. I’m very fond of the 1995 TV adaptation and in my mind I can’t separate it from the book, which I’ve now read three times.

What to say about this book? It’s quite an improvement upon Austen’s previous published novel, Sense and Sensibility. The writing style is more engaging and the beginning takes us straight into the story, rather than describing inheritances, incomes and estates. The word that sprang to mind while reading was ‘sparkling.’ The wit, irony, drama and dialogues are perfectly expressed. Wisdom and humour on every page. The characters are all differentiated and each are, in their own way, lovable. Even the awful ones such as Mr Collins, Mrs Bennet and Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Lizzy Bennet is a character you always root for. She’s lively, intelligent and can be outspoken but always tries to be polite and sensible. She denies her feelings for the seemingly snobbish Mr Darcy. The problems arise from no one speaking plainly to each other about their issues and how they really feel – social etiquette forbids this kind of intimacy.

I think the novel is often considered wonderfully romantic but that’s really the effect of TV period dramas. Courtship was conducted in a rational way and there are certainly no kisses described. Basically, being a single middle class woman was a problem back then. You didn’t usually inherit property. If you wanted to marry for love rather than wealth, you’d risk waiting until you were past your sell-by date. If you were already rich, you’d be courted by men in debt who were marrying you for money. And if you were in love but the man wasn’t suitable, you could run away together but damage your family’s reputation and have no allowance. This is the theme of every Jane Austen book.

I’m not sure if this is my favourite Austen – I need to re-read Emma before I can decide – but it’s a classic which deserves to be read and re-read.

The Oxford World’s Classics edition was published in 2019, edited by James Kinsley with a new introduction and additional notes by Christina Lupton. I discuss the 2005 film adaptation in this post.

The novel follows the complexities of social life focused on Mansfield Park, a manor house in Northamptonshire. Our protagonist is Fanny Price, modest but likeable, who is taken from her relatively poor household in Portsmouth and brought up by her uncle. The first few chapters are not very interesting, as they describe the background to all of this, but once the story properly gets going, it’s engrossing. Fanny is generally ignored by the family, except for her cousin Edmund, who is about to join the clergy. As she grows up, she begins to have romantic feelings for him, but these are never expressed. She has to watch him fall in love with Mary Crawford, a relative of their neighbour, who along with her flirty brother Henry, works her way into the household. There are several twists and turns in the story, one of them very shocking indeed for Austen’s time. I noted that the cast of characters and range of themes are unusually varied for an Austen novel.

I found the last chapter a real anti-climax. Instead of a tense, dialogue-heavy scene in which Edmund proposes, there’s a rather passionless description of how he realises he loves his cousin more than in a brotherly way and that she’s happy about it. It was a missed opportunity. Imagine eating your main course while anticipating a satisfying dessert and then when the dessert arrives, it’s in the form of a pill. You’ve completed the meal but you remain unsatisfied.

I prefer this book to Persuasion but I would rate Sense and Sensibility and Northanger Abbey higher.

First published in 1814. This edition is by Oxford World’s Classics (2008 reissue), edited by James Kinsley, with introduction and notes by Jane Stabler.

There are some excellent aspects to this film. Sally Hawkins is perfect as the reserved but kind-hearted Anne Elliot, oppressed by her family and not likely to marry at her advanced age of 27. The locations are wonderful, being (as far as I can tell) the real places from the book. Costumes and interiors, lovely. Anne’s lack of opportunity to express herself in the book is altered, in the form of a diary and more dialogue with friends.

I’m one of those shallow viewers who expects a broodingly romantic, dark-haired hero when it comes to Austen adaptations. I’ve been spoilt by Colin Firth, Hugh Grant, Matthew Macfadyen and Alan Rickman. I’m afraid that sandy-haired, stony-faced Rupert Penry-Jones doesn’t do it for me. Moreover, I don’t feel that he and Sally Hawkins have much chemistry in this film. And that kiss at the end… just awkward.

The cinematography was a bit odd. It had an unfinished, documentary feel to it, with the camera wobbling, framing some unusual and informal shots. I’m not sure it suited this kind of film.

I’d only recommend this adaptation for fans of the original book. If you don’t like the book much, you probably won’t like the film.