About book Darcy's Passions Pride And Prejudice Through His Eyes (2000)
There is so much wrong with this book I hardly know where to begin.First, there has never been are greater work of tautology. Darcy's emotional struggles are described on every page, emotions which haven't altered since the previous page, repeated with very little variation in wording. After a third of the book the pattern changes slightly ('he was determined not to love her because of her social status' becomes 'he was determined to marry her despite her social status') but does not fail to repeat itself just as often. Jeffers, unable to create any plausible ideas or scenarios of her own, clings too strongly to "Elizabeth's fine eyes"; a favourite line of the original, which is used seldom but powerfully in it, becomes tiresome at best - frequented enough to lose all its effect, like a word repeated until it has lost its meaning. And prepare to hear about Elizabeth's thick lashes and brown hair whenever Darcy looks at her. You will also love how often you read 'he struggled not to look at her but he found he couldn't help himself.' Add a few other third-rate lines and repeat until you got your word count.As mentioned above, Jeffers is apparently incapable of creating plausible scenes not in the original. Take, for example, her idea of an intimate moment between Darcy and Elizabeth, and keep in mind that the following takes place near the beginning when Elizabeth still thinks Darcy a snobby ass: Darcy brings Elizabeth to a 'secreted' field of wild flowers, a favourite of his mothers, and country girl, who often walks wild paths and across wild fields, has her breathe taken away, throws off all propriety and goes twirling and laughing into the field while Darcy watches with pleasure .... wow. Any attempt of Jeffers at Austen-like dialogue is a complete - laughable! - fail. This is most noticable during the dialogue between Darcy and Wickham after Lydia has run off with the latter, more humourous still for Jeffers is trying to make Darcy appear clever (steady yourself, you will see "have you come slumming" and "if you know what I mean" in this conversation ... although I do enjoy 'Whose Line'). The fresh dialogue (by which is meant that not of Austen's) is passible (a generous word, considering) at the beginning of the novel, although its effect is strained, but it begins to decline into almost vulgar modernity exponentially - clearly Jeffers mental facualties became exhausted. Jeffers has not written about Darcy and Elizabeth, she has written about her own sleazy paperback-romance characters thinly veiled as Austen's beloved ones. The only time the original characters are glimpsed is in the extracts from the original; even then, Jeffers often puts so much intervening trash between these lines that the characters are once again lost. To illustrate the above, when Darcy and Elizabeth finally become betrothed, you will recall Elizabeth explains to Darcy why he was attracted to her - her initial indifference to him. This line doesn't come until long after; Jeffers first wants Elizabeth's "eyes to well up" (a favourite of Jeffers, if her characters are not crying you can be damn sure their "eyes are welling up") and ask how she is so lucky, how could she have deserved or earned such love, and to be comforted in Darcy's arms. Then she has Elizabeth say the lines of the original, now a weak way of trying to put herself together again (a pathetic self-reassurance), instead a show of a strong witty sure character.Loosely following the original cages Jeffers, somewhat, and this is a good thing. For when she is free from what Austen wrote she COMPLETELY tosses out Darcy and Elizabeth and replaces them with a grosteque Picasso rendition of her own making, only lacking any hint of genius. Elizabeth cries and throws herself into Darcy's arms at the slightest pretext - positive or negative. She has been voided of all her strength, her will, her wit! Wit, Jeffers still wants Elizabeth to process; however, being witless herself she is incapable of creating any for Elizabeth and resorts to simply stating that the character has wit or that whatever witless thing Elizabeth just said was, in fact, witty.Darcy is worse. He no longer has any real pride or dignity. Going down on his knees in front of an entire room to reassure Elizabeth how much he loves her - you see, Elizabeth always needs this reassurance as she no longer has a confident character. And he is now a hopeless needy romantic. He, too, needs constant reassurance from Elizabeth.It quickly becomes rainbows and cotton-candy gum drops, so sickly sweet its painful to chew on. Everybody is finding love and confessing love gayly (I am using this word in its pre-modern sense, so don't kill me) in every line. It was bad enough prior to being uncaged - every character caresses every other character's cheek, Georgian is gaggingly refered to as "Dearest One" by Darcy regardless of place or time, etc - but after it holds the place of incomparable trash. Congratulations Jeffers. It is poorly edited. In fact, this is the second worst book for editing I have ever read. Some grammar and such, the usual. However, you cannot be top crap without a little outrageous stupidity - there are so many spaces missing between sentences, and quotation marks and what pre- or proceeds them! And I mean the book is ABOSULETLY RIDDLED with them. You will not fail to find several on a single page. Sometimes even between words. Mistakes a simple spell-check would catch. On that note, Jeffers strains for pictural language (an ability I firmly believe beyond her grasp) so you can look forward to lines like "a sense of satisfaction rested on his face" ... no. A sense of satisfaction can REST your face, but a sense cannot rest ON your face. A LOOK of satisfaction can rest on your face.I can't go on. It's too horrible. Forgive me, I know I have written this review in a haphazard way.Ulysses Press, you need to reconsider your selection of editors.Every line is an insult to Austen and a smearing of "Pride and Prejudice."Jeffers, never write a book again.However, on a more positive note, I have been disillusioned from the myth that "It is hard to get published." I know better now - any idoit can get published. 'Winning' formula: pick popular classic and ... well, whatever, it will sell itself now, just change it enough to avoid copywrite laws. Thanks Jeffers.This is the first time I have ever given way to personally attack an author. However, if you do read - or have read - this novel you may understand. I really liked the idea of this book...Pride and Prejudice from Mr. Darcy's point of view. Mostly it was done pretty well, and I didn't get too annoyed at the liberties taken with such beloved characters. Some points of the original story were explained in ways that I never understood fully before (for example--in the book foreword, we learn exactly how long Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy knew each other...not only the length of time in months, but how much of that time they actually spent near each other).The one major thing that REALLY bothered me was the constant "she taunted," "he smirked," "She tormented" that was so often found, especially towards the end of the book. I really don't think "taunted" and "tormented" and all those other annoying words were the way Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy talked to each other. I imagine their relationship as fun and eventually somewhat teasing, but "taunting" implies mean and rude, almost bullying behavior. I got so tired of it by the end of the book.
Do You like book Darcy's Passions Pride And Prejudice Through His Eyes (2000)?
Pretty good book. It followed Pride and Prejudice and even went beyond. Nice male perspective.
—Megamikitty13
Really interesting to see Darcy's side. Didn't need the passionate sex at the end.
—bec
I loved the way this book was written.
—alsullivan91
