Jane Austen's Books & Adaptations discussion

April Group Read:

Jane and the Unpleasantness at Scargrave Manor by Stephanie Barron
(Jane Austen Mysteries #1)



"For everyone who loves Jane Austen...a marvelously entertaining new series that turns the incomparable author into an extraordinary sleuth! On a visit to the estate of her friend, the young and beautiful Isobel Payne, Countess of Scargrave, Jane bears witness to a tragedy. Isobel's husband--a gentleman of mature years--is felled by a mysterious and agonizing ailment. The Earl's death seems a cruel blow of fate for the newly married Isobel. Yet the bereaved widow soon finds that it's only the beginning of her misfortune...as she receives a sinister missive accusing her and the Earl's nephew of adultery--and murder. Desperately afraid that the letter will expose her to the worst sort of scandal, Isobel begs Jane for help. And Jane finds herself embroiled in a perilous investigation that will soon have her following a trail of clues that leads all the way to Newgate Prison and the House of Lords--a trail that may well place Jane's own person in the gravest jeopardy."

I'm going to start reading tonight.

I'm three chapters in. So far, it's a standard mystery set up. A young woman marries an older rich guy. Three months after the wedding the guy dies under suspicious circumstances.
JA as one of the characters seems shoehorned into the story. But as I said I've only just started reading. I hope once the plot picks up I'll feel more positive about the book.

I've only just started Chapter 4, despite starting early, so right on track, lol! Hasn't really hooked me yet either, but it's still early.

Just something I noticed:
In this book, the housekeeper's name is Mrs Hodges. I believe it's a nod to Emma - Mrs. Hodges was Mr. Knightly's housekeeper at Donwell Abbey.

Just finished chapter 8.

There is also a reference to Elizabeth refusing Darcy's first marriage proposal. ;) There might have been more before that, but I didn't look for them before.

Anyway, Laurie, where are you at? I want to know just so I don't get too ahead.

I noticed certain word choices and phrases that are in JA's books or very similar...like "he must be in want of a wife," and "we are both of a taciturn, ungenerous nature, and would rather be silent until we may say what is certain to astonish all the world," and the mention of the clergyman cousin reading Fordyce's Sermons, etc.

I did not do much reading this weekend, and I admit this one requires more concentration than I've had. So I'm just starting chapter 6.

I'm wondering at the name choice of Isobel. Isobel and Jane met in Bath. Watering places in JA's novels attract suspicious characters. ;) Their acquaintance only 3 months long makes me question how come they are such intimate friends.
Reminds me a bit of Isabella Thorpe to be honest.

I'm just starting chapter 9. I'll probably read only one chapter today. I have other books that I need to finish before the month is over. So don't rush because of me, Laurie. I'll give you all the time you need to catch up. :)

I finished chapter 10. Plot finally thickens. :D

I finished Chapter 9 last night and thought, "Finally, it's getting interesting." LOL. I'm going to do my best to finish it this weekend at the latest as I'm participating in Tower Teams, and that starts in May. maybe the reading will go more quickly now that things are actually happening.

Yes, another murder will hopefully get the plot to move more quickly.

Just something that gave me pause.
There's a hint that some people (won't spoil which ones) might inherit the late Earl's fortune unless there is "a bastard hidden away."
I was under the impression that under English law illegitimate children didn't inherit (unless mentioned in the will). This discrimination lasted to the late 1960s.

Finished Chapter 13.

Zuzana wrote: "Just something that gave me pause.
There's a hint that some people (won't spoil which ones) might inherit the late Earl's fortune unless there is "a bastard hidden away."
I was under the impressio..."

I think I'm that far now as well, and I had the same thought. Why would an illegitimate child change anything?

I'm home now and just checked - I'm actually starting Chapter 15 now. I should be able to finish by tomorrow. No rush - just didn't want you to slow down because of me.

Ok, I finished it today. Let me know when you're ready to discuss. :)

It took me longer than I planned but I'm done as well.

Overall, I was a bit disappointed.
The set up was too long (and it dragged). To spend half of the book on it was a bit of overkill.
As far as the mystery goes it was a standard fair. Not great but not bad either.
My main complaint is that there was no reason to make Jane Austen the detective. It added nothing to the plot. She was a total gimmick. It could have been any other female sleuth and the book wouldn't have been any worse IMO.

If anything the use of her relatives - her sister-in-law and brothers - in the second half of the book was a bit too convenient.

It's 2.5 stars from me. Not horrible but I hoped for better.

What are your thoughts, Laurie?

I gave it three stars. Overall, I enjoyed it, but I didn't think it was anything out of the common way (lol). I liked it enough that I can see myself picking up the next one eventually, but there's no urgency there.

I totally agree with you about the overly long set-up. Like I said before, I wasn't super interested until the second murder and things finally picked up. I also wasn't crazy about the "foreword," where the author pretended to have discovered more journals and letters by Jane Austen. I really don't think that was necessary and could be confusing to someone who doesn't realize it's fictional. Forewords are usually nonfiction and the only indication that this one isn't is a tiny blurb on the copyright page. I don't know. It just bugged me. And I felt it called into question the legitimacy of all the footnotes. They seemed fairly accurate, but if the foreword is made-up, how's the reader supposed to know if they can trust the footnotes?

I also completely agree with you that the character didn't need to be Jane Austen (which would have eliminated the foreword nonsense). Here's what I said in my review:
"I don't think it did any major disservice to Jane Austen's image, but I didn't necessarily feel like I was reading about Jane Austen either. The protagonist could probably have been any woman of that era and class and the story would have felt the same."

I thought all of the secrets were a bit melodramatic, but it was still a fun enough read. I laughed when Jane said something about the family's tendency to bastardy, or something like that, because I had been thinking the same thing. It was like a soap opera.

Did you guess who the culprit was? I had pretty strong suspicions from the start. I also expected the revelation regarding Rosie Ketch and thought Jane should have been intuitive enough to see that one coming.

The biggest loose thread for me was Trowbridge's actions. Even when everything was explained, it didn't really make sense to me why he was so cruel to Isobel. What was the point of making her think Fitzroy was a womanizer and gambler?

I thought that the foreword was an homage (or just plain imitation) of the typical frame narrative used in the novels of old, e.g. Frankenstein. Let's pretend we found a diary or a letter that tells this interesting story or that we met this person who told us this story or we watch them as they discover the story (e.g. Wuthering High).

I think that this pretense that the story was real was quite popular in Victorian times.

Laurie wrote: ""I don't think it did any major disservice to Jane Austen's image, but I didn't necessarily feel like I was reading about Jane Austen either. The protagonist could probably have been any woman of that era and class and the story would have felt the same.""
THIS! I felt Jane Austen was shoehorned into this story.

I didn't believe in the friendship between Jane and Isobel. They met in Bath and have known each other for 3 month and while Jane proclaims to be Isobel's greatest friend on every other page of the book she knows surprisingly little about her.

Laurie wrote: "I thought all of the secrets were a bit melodramatic, but it was still a fun enough read. I laughed when Jane said something about the family's tendency to bastardy, or something like that, because I had been thinking the same thing. It was like a soap opera."

I agree. But it's not unusual for the genre of regency historical novel (esp. romances).

Is it just me or was the villain reveal a bit too much? Reminded me of melodrama of some Sherlock Holmes' stories. Also, the culprit was just a bit too cartoonish (a monstrous mustache-twirling villain devoid of any human qualities).

Laurie wrote: "Did you guess who the culprit was? I had pretty strong suspicions from the start. I also expected the revelation regarding Rosie Ketch and thought Jane should have been intuitive enough to see that one coming."

I did. But mostly because the other candidates were just too obvious red herrings. The Rosie Ketch bit wasn't much of a mystery. It was obvious from the start. I agree that Jane should have seen it coming. :D

Laurie wrote: "The biggest loose thread for me was Trowbridge's actions. Even when everything was explained, it didn't really make sense to me why he was so cruel to Isobel. What was the point of making her think Fitzroy was a womanizer and gambler?"

I guess it was Trowbridge's idea how to draw out Madame Delahoussay. He acted this cruel so that Madame D really believed that he was Isobel's enemy and she felt safe to reveal herself to Trowbridge. But I agree it didn't make much sense.

Zuzana wrote: "I thought that the foreword was an homage (or just plain imitation) of the typical frame narrative used in the novels of old, e.g. Frankenstein. Let's pretend we found a diary or a letter that tell..."

I guess that makes sense, but maybe it bothered me since the protagonist was a real person.

Zuzana wrote: "Laurie wrote: ""I don't think it did any major disservice to Jane Austen's image, but I didn't necessarily feel like I was reading about Jane Austen either. The protagonist could probably have been..."

Agreed - Jane acted like they had always been the dearest of friends when they'd really just met. I couldn't figure out why she was SO sure of Isobel's and Fitzroy's innocence considering their very short acquaintance.

Zuzana wrote: "Is it just me or was the villain reveal a bit too much? Reminded me of melodrama of some Sherlock Holmes' stories. Also, the culprit was just a bit too cartoonish (a monstrous mustache-twirling villain devoid of any human qualities)."

It's not just you. That whole scene felt like a Scooby-Doo ending, right down to the line, "I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for that meddling lady." Seriously cartoonish.

Laurie wrote: "I guess that makes sense, but maybe it bothered me since the protagonist was a real person."

That's a good point. Didn't thought of that but you're right. It's strange when it's used for real people.

I noticed that there were a few allusions to Sense and Sensibility. The whole conversation between Miss Delahoussay and Jane where she confesses about the intended marriage /when she's in fact telling Jane off/ reminded me of Lucy Steel in S&S.

Also Tom Hearst reminded me a bit of Willoughby (or maybe Wickham?).

Do you plan any JA read in the near future, Laurie? (JA works, re-tellings, continuations or non-fiction)

I am contemplating making one of the public domain JA biographies group read sometimes later this year?

Jane Austen and Her Times, 1775 - 1817 by G.E. Mitton - published 1905
Gutenberg link: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52622

Jane Austen, Her Life and Letters: A Family Record by William Austen-Leigh - published in 1913
Gutenberg link: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22536

A Memoir of Jane Austen by James Edward Austen-Leigh - published 1869
Gutenberg link: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/17797