Part I of this book is retelling of original Pride and Prejudice from perspective of Mary who hardly had any voice in the original story. Even though the POV has changed, I still don’t understand the point of retelling the original story.

Part II starts interesting. Mary who is an avid reader and for whom all characters became the same, now is writing a book herself with unique characters. But as soon as the story moves to Mary’s observations of her sister’s household where she resides at the time, the story becomes vain.

As I lost interest in reading this book, I didn’t even get to Part III.

I could not and did not want to finish this book. I just don't think this book is for me.

2.5 stars
Just about any tragic thing that could happen to the Bennets did happen to them in this book. The plot became ridiculous and the only redeeming feature is that lots of books from the time period were mentioned.

If you go into this expecting it to be like the original book, then you won't like it. Nice twist on a classic by spinning off of it and developing another sister. Go into it with an open mind and you'll enjoy it for what it is.

I was really excited to read a book about an often overlooked character from Pride and Prejudice, Mary Bennet. Unfortunately I did not end up liking the book at all. The author seemed to go out of her way to make every other character in the beloved book become selfish and awful in order to elevate Mary to heroine material. I was very upset with how Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth were betrayed and it made no sense at all. If you are a true Pride and Prejudice fan I would not read this book.

Warning, a semi-spoilers rant ahead.

The latest cash-in on Jane Austen, I think, might have been an okay book if it had been set in Austen's period with original characters, instead of wrenching and distorting the plot, characters, and moral substrate of Pride and Prejudice out of all recognition (amid countless details of the period gotten wrong) in order to turn it into melodrama with a contemporary moral overlay.

Chen's narrative voice attempts a period flavor, without being aware of period turns of phrase. At least she wrote in complete sentences, many of them compound and even complex. And there were enough striking images and bits of insight to make me think that this writer, with a few more novels under her belt (or a much better editor) will be someone to watch.

Alas, those pluses didn't outweigh the many, many minuses. I finally had to stop taking notes of period impossibilities, as no one wants to trudge through a long list. A few of the most egregious examples will suffice, such as how unbelievable I found it that an earl's son would mistake a young lady for a housemaid, even if he were reeling drunk. (Which he seemed to be, totally out of character.) Even if he were blind, the housemaid's language and even accent would set him straight.

There were constant gnat-bites such as young ladies drinking wine at a ball, instead of negus, orgeat, or lemonade, and pinning up their hair as children instead of wearing braids. A housekeeper gulping water meant for her mistress, and so on.

No one's age was right; Mr. Darcy, in Austen's story has good manners, if cold, here addresses girls by their first names when slinking out to whine about how awful he finds balls, and grinds his teeth at matchmaking mamas; Mr. Bennet unaccountably becomes uncle, instead of cousin, to Mr. Collins (with no explanation of how his younger brother would have a different last name). Repeatedly Mary blames her father for the girls' lack of education, when in P&P Lizzie made it clear to Lady Catherine that those of her sisters who wanted masters got them.

All this sort of error should have been caught at the editorial level.

But the total distortion of the characters is on the author. Lizzie Bennet becomes a hypocrite and a whiner (actually, everyone whines), Mary an object of pity as her sisters, harridans and idiots by turn, torment her for her philosophical and poetic interests as well as her terrible looks. (Even the preternaturally bright and observant Mary doesn't seem to be aware that Kitty is just as undistinguished.)

Darcy is a mumbling, awkward dolt, and Lizzie's wit is totally sacrificed in order to award it to Mary, to underscore how their father only values Lizzie for her beauty instead of poor Mary, who loves to read but is homely. Euw, just ew. There is no evidence whatsoever in P&P that Mr. Bennet noticed any of his daughters' looks--his favoritism for Lizzie was in their sharing reading and most of all a sense of humor, not him relishing her beauty.

In P&P, once Lizzie accepts Darcy, it's clear in the conversations in those ending chapters that the two of them will have a terrific marriage because they begin to communicate. These two will always find one another fascinating, and he--burdened with responsibility at far too young an age--learns to laugh. And Mr. Bennet, the text states, delights in coming to visit unexpectedly, which seems to me to indicate they all have a great time together.

But in this story, all three are robbed of their intelligence, wit, and laughter, so that poor, downtrodden Mary can rise above them.

I think there is a story here, in a middle sister overlooked at either end of a large family, blessed with smarts and no looks, making a good life for herself, but mapping it over Pride and Prejudice forces the reader to contrast Austen's wit, sharp observation of real human traits, and their complexities, with the melodramatic turns and the tendency toward put-upon whining in this book. All the humor is stripped away, and everyone's intelligence is stolen in order to award it to Mary, who in P&P was in the plight she was in not because she was homely, but because she was oblivious.

Austen's Mary is probably on the spectrum, as she isn't a close observer of life. She prefers her ponderous tomes because they make sense to her. She plays badly not because she wasn't taught, but because she has no ear.

The Mary we read here is the heroine of fan-fiction, smarter than everyone around her, more observant, more pitiable, but finally rewarded beyond anyone else in the story, in a way that cheapens characters whose moral convictions were so strongly a part of what made them attractive.

I think the reader who will enjoy this story will be the fan of the Keira Knightley P&P film, which was full of errors but made up for it in emotional angst.

I enjoy books that have main characters from classics and builds on their story, as this one did. It was well written and enjoyable.

I would like to thank the netgalley and publisher for providing me with a review copy in exchange for my honest and unbiased opinion of it.

This book surprised me. Throughout the first third, I was convinced it was a 2-star book. I caught a number of anachronisms and the descriptions (a slovenly Longbourne and a diminutive Mr. Collins) made me think more of the Keira Knightly film than the original novel. But something happened once the action moved past the end of Austen’s tale — the last 2/3rds of this thing was GREAT! I read a lot of Austen variations and I appreciate one that goes all in and makes some real changes to the canon. I was on the edge of my seat waiting to see what would happen. The writing was good overall (notwithstanding those unfortunate anachronisms), and I enjoyed the charactarizations, surprising as some of them ended up being. And I really liked the ending. I graded it down a star for that crummy first third, but it ended up being a pretty darned good read.

This review was based on an ARC ebook received in return for an honest and unbiased review.