For all the apparent simplicity
of her work, Jane Austen makes a very hard act for a writer to follow.
Charlotte Bronte might have labelled Austen’s work as “a carefully fenced,
highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers; but no glance
of bright physiognomy” but, for something apparently so structured, capturing
the essence of Austen’s light and playful writing is an extremely difficult
task. So it was with some trepidation that I decided to read Curtis
Sittenfeld’s ‘Eligible’, her take on arguably Austen’s best known novel ‘Prideand Prejudice’ – a book that happens to be one of my personal favourites. Sittenfeld
is an admirable writer – I enjoyed her novel ‘Prep’ immensely and have heard
only good things about ‘American Wife’ – but I’ve been burned by Austen
rewrites before.
‘Eligible’ is the fourth book in
The Austen Project, a HarperCollins published pairing of six bestselling modern
writers with six of Austen’s classic works. So far, Joanna Trollope has tackled
‘Sense and Sensibility’ to modest reviews, Val McDermid’s ‘Northanger Abbey’
received a somewhat controversial reception and Alexander McCall Smith’s ‘Emma’ was
warmly received but flew a little under the radar. I read Trollope’s ‘Sense and
Sensibility’ and, for what it was worth, enjoyed it in spite of the fact that
it changed very little of the original – which works absolutely fine in
Austen’s nineteenth-century but arguably less so when transposed to the
twenty-first. McDermid’s ‘Northanger Abbey’ was, alas, a DNF as soon as I
realised I was supposed to buy the idea that a modern teenager with a
smartphone would genuinely believe vampires existed. As for McCall Smith’s
‘Emma’? Whilst I like his writing well enough (especially his warm and gently
Mma Ramotswe detective series), there is an element of McCall Smith’s writing
that leaves everything feeling well…. a bit like another Alexander McCall Smith
novel. So I gave his take on Austen a miss.
‘Eligible’ though is the first of
the re-imaginings within the Austen project to break with tradition and ditch
the original title. Which is great. It’s like Sittenfeld said, “Hey, you know
what? This might be Pride and Prejudice but I’m going to do it my way.” Which
is also why you’ll find that Meryton has become Cincinnati (which means that,
yes, all of the characters are supposed to be American - Austen aficionados, if
you need to go away and have a lie down then I’ll still be here when you get
back), everyone has had about twenty years added to their ages (meaning Jane,
Liz, Darcy and Bingley are all approaching forty) and, as with most adult
relationships in the twenty-first century, pre-marital sex is a thing.
And you know what? ‘Eligible’ one
of the most refreshing rewritings of Austen I’ve read and one of the few that
has captured Austen’s wry sense of humour and her acerbic social wit. I’m
keeping this review spoiler-free so I won’t go into particulars with the plot
but Sittenfeld has managed to keep the classic events of the original
(including a very clever take on Lizzy Bennet’s walk through muddy fields) whilst
updating them in a plausible way. Her characters feel very much like
twenty-first century women but, at the same time, they still feel like Austen’s
characters too. And her social satire is laugh out loud funny – from exercise
crazes to the pressure placed on women to have children, via doctor-clichés
(Sittenfeld’s Darcy is a neurosurgeon) and fad diets – ‘Eligible’ is as
observant and biting as Austen’s original.
Of course, there are a few minor
niggles. Whilst it makes for a nice framing device, and a nice opportunity for
satire, I enjoyed the sections relating to the TV show ‘Eligible’ (think ‘The
Batchelor’ but…worse somehow) the least – but that’s probably because I’m
really not a fan of reality TV. I did also find Sittenfeld’s Liz less likeable
than Austen’s Lizzy. Austen somehow manages to keep her Lizzy on the witty side
of bitchy whereas Sittenfeld’s…well, let’s just say she occasionally dips a toe
over the line for a chapter or two! That said though, Sittenfeld’s Liz does
have considerably more to put up with – the Bennet family, for all that they
have been gloriously reimagined, are a nightmarish collection of the vain and
the selfish in ‘Eligible’, with character traits that seemed merely amusing or
embarrassing in Austen’s original now shown as being truly dangerous or
spiteful in the ‘real life’ of Sittenfeld’s twenty-first century Cincinnati.
Again, it’s hard to give examples without spoilers but I’ll just say that never
before had I considered what terrible examples of parents Mr & Mrs Bennet
truly were.
Overall, I enjoyed ‘Eligible’
immensely. It made me laugh, I sped through it and it updated Austen’s work
without insulting the original but also without straining to laboriously
re-create every detail. Like ‘Bridget Jones’ Diary’, ‘Eligible’ has taken the
essence of Austen and worked it in a new way. Now, that might not be for
everyone and I daresay some Austen fans won’t welcome many of Sittenfeld’s
changes to their beloved Elizabeth and Darcy. But, for me, ‘Eligible’ worked in
the same way that P D James’ ‘Death Comes to Pemberley’ or the TV series ‘Lost
in Austen’ worked – it’s not trying to BE Austen, it’s just borrowing from her for a
while and doing its own thing. Plus, it made me want to go back to the original
‘Pride and Prejudice’ and read that for the millionth time. Which can only ever
be a good thing.
My thanks go to HarperCollins UK and to NetGalley for providing an
advanced copy of the book in return for an honest and unbiased review.
‘Eligible’ is published by HarperCollins(The Borough Press) and is available in hardback now from
all good book retailers.
No comments:
Post a Comment