Buy Used
Used - Good See details
Price: £2.81

or
Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.
 
   
Have one to sell? Sell yours here
Sorry, this item is not available in
Image not available for
Colour:
Image not available

 
Tell the Publisher!
I’d like to read this book on Kindle

Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.

Pemberley: Or Pride and Prejudice Continued [Hardcover]

Emma Tennant , Jane Austen
1.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (17 customer reviews)

Available from these sellers.


Amazon.co.uk Trade-In Store
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. Learn more.


Product details

  • Hardcover: 184 pages
  • Publisher: St. Martin's Press (Dec 1993)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0312107935
  • ISBN-13: 978-0312107932
  • Product Dimensions: 19.7 x 13.4 x 1.8 cm
  • Average Customer Review: 1.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (17 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 1,034,854 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, and more.

Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store

If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store. Learn more

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?


Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews
43 of 44 people found the following review helpful
By A Customer
Format:Hardcover
My main reaction on reading this dreadful novel was to question whether Emma Tennant has ever actually read 'Pride and Prejudice'?

She gets almost everything wrong. The chronology is completely haywire - not only does Lydia, still aged 17, and married just over a year, have four children, three of whom are old enough to cheer as they arrive at Pemberley (with their father, whom, according to JE, Darcy would never receive at Pemberley), but even Jane, who has not yet been married a year, has a daughter who is old enough not only to talk, but even to manage a hoop!

ET kills of the delightful Mr Bennet, despite JA's specific statement that he often visited Pemberley and therefore by implication that he did not die just after Jane's and Lizzie's weddings. (ET's Mrs Bennet has been a widow nine months by Christmas so her Mr B must have died in March)

JA's Georgiana is the same age as Lydia, therefore younger than Mary and Kitty, but ET says she is older even than Mary, though when her age is given it is the same (17) as Lydia's.

In 'P&P', Mr Gardiner's letter to Mr Bennet is dated Monday August 2. There was a Monday August 2 in 1813, the year when 'P&P' was published. Lydis stayed two weeks with the Gardiners before her marriage, also on a Monday, so she was married on 16 August, just aged 16. ET has her age as still 17, so this novel must be set at Christmas 1814. Yet Master Roper asks Col Kitchiner of he was wounded at Waterloo - which was fought in June 1815! And Mr Collins plans a park feature commemorating Waterloo!

Master Roper is evidently a relative of darcy through his mother's family. In this case, how can he be Darcy's heir? Pemberley must have come to him from his father's side, not his mother's! And if Roper is the heir, how come Darcy apparently never heard of him before, but Lady C did?

Talking of Roper, he must be psychic, because he predicts the arrival of large numbers of visitors from Manchester and other cities. How can he possibly foresee mass tourism, 11 years before the opening of the very first railway in 1825?

ET states at one point that Georgiana had been brought up exclusively at Pemberley, and at another that she was brought up by Lady C at Rosings. JA says that Georgiana had spent most of her time in London after the death of her father.

JA names the Bennets' housekeeper as Mrs Hill - but ET says that Mrs Moffat was their housekeeper in the time of Mr Bennet.

Just as it is inconceivable that Mrs Bennet would have discussed in mixed company how to ensure a son (and if she knows a sure means, how come she has only 5 girls?) it is even more inconceivable that Lady C would admit to having a difficult birth with Anne, never mind to a male of inferior rank such as Mr Collins.

(Something that has always puzzled me in P&P is how Longbourn could have come to be entailed to someone who, having a different surname, must have been related to Mr Bennet in the female line?)

According to JA, none of the Bennet sisters draws - yet ET's Mrs Bennet tells Mary to pack her paints! Similarly, in 'P&P' Anne de Bourgh's health prevents her learning to play the piano, while Georgiana is an accomplished player. Yet acording to ET, after only a year of study Anne's prowess is such that she can contemplate a comparison with Georgiana!

Et says that Lydia is to come north and take a house at Rowsley. JA says that Lydia went to live in the north, at Newcastle - so she would have to come south to Derbyshire.

ET also says that Lydia would stay with Aunt Gardiner at Rowsley - but JA never mentions Rowsley; Aunt Gardiner lives in London; and the town visited by the Gardiners and Elizabeth is Lambton.

ET also has Elizabeth plan to go to Aunt Phillips in London - but Aunt Phillips lives in Meryton.

At one time ET says Wickham had lured Georgiana to Ramsgate, and at another that he abducted her to Ramsgate. JA's version is that Wickham took advantage of Georgiana being in Ramsgate to try to seduce her.

According to ET, Mr Gardiner was able to pursue his interest in salmon fishing during his Christmas visit - but she also has Miss Bingley point out that winter is not the season for salmon!

According to JA, the sum settled on Mrs Bennet was £5000. ET gives it as £4000.

Mr Collins asserts that there is always a ball at Pemberley at New Year. How does he know? He only met Darcy a couple of years before, and had never heard of him or of Pemberley before that.

He also thinks that Col Kitchiner may have been to Rosings - which, given Lady C's contempt for all Mrs Bennet's connections, is highly implausible.

Mrs Bennet tells Kitty that Darcy had been most generous to Wickham. How did she know? And since when has Mrs B been the voice of sweet reason?

Lady C expresses surprise that anyone who pleases can make a trip to Pemberley. Yet JA has Elizbeth and the Gardiners do precisely that in 'P&P'.

What, by the way happened to the Gardiner children? Would ET not allow them to visit Pemberley at Christmas with their parents?

And what about Colonel Fitzwilliam? Surely he should have been invited?

ET has Lady C say that Darcy detests children, and that for this reason she was not in favourof Anne marrying him, because Anne will have Rosings to pass down. Yet in 'P&P' the marriage of Darcy and Anne is Lady C's main objective! Indeed she regards them as betrothed since birth.

ET's Wickham claims to have led an exemplary life 'for many years now' - yet this is only 17 months after he eloped with Lydia!

ET has little Emily go to Whitby for sea air. In January??

These are just some of the many inconsistencies and silly errors which make this book so detestable. I have given it one star only because there is no option to give it none.

Don't bother reading it - and don't bother with the continuation, which is just as bad.

Comment | 
Was this review helpful to you?
11 of 11 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars A meandering, pointless book 25 Aug 1999
By A Customer
Format:Hardcover
I listened to Pemberley on cassette while sick, which is mostly the reason I had a somewhat favourable opinion of it to begin with. But after some thought - it's horrible! The bad continuity of this book has already been mentioned but I could forgive Emma Tenant if her greatest errors were in the ages of Lydia and Georgiana. The characterization, for lack of a better word, stinks! The plot...what plot? Oh, *that* thing! Completely pointless and at times embarrasing. The fan fiction written by Jane Austen fans is much, much better than this *stuff* I only given it two stars because of my innicial good impression.
Comment | 
Was this review helpful to you?
26 of 27 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars A sad successor to Jane Austen's much-loved novel 16 July 1999
By A Customer
Format:Hardcover
I'm going to be kind and sympathetic and give this book two stars. At least the author made an effort (but unfortunately didn't succeed.) I checked this book out at the library in great anticipation, because I love Pride and Prejudice and I wanted to read more! However, this book was a great disappointment. The style was not anything like Austen's and the characters were greatly changed. Elizabeth was reduced to the state of a jealous fool and Darcy - my dear Darcy! He seemed cold and unloving. The only character I liked at all in this book was Emily - the little daughter of Jane and Charles Bingley. She at least was innocent and unspoiled - the own author's creation. If you want to read a sequal that stays truer to the book, read Desire and Duty. It's not perfect (no sequal written by another author ever is) but I enjoyed it much better and the happenings seemed more likely. Or better yet, (if you, like me, loved the movie Pride and Prejudice) read the "scenes left out from Pride and Prejudice" on a Colin Firth fan page called the "Colin-y". Now those stories are truly delightful!
Comment | 
Was this review helpful to you?
Would you like to see more reviews about this item?
Were these reviews helpful?   Let us know
Most Recent Customer Reviews
1.0 out of 5 stars A stinker!!
Ohmegod!!! Mrs Tennant, please accept a kindly-meant advice - why don't you just go and write soap-opera plots?? Read more
Published on 23 Oct 2007 by Lili_K
2.0 out of 5 stars I would recommend this book if . . .
If you'd like to read a book featuring characters with the same names as the characters from Jane Austen's classic novel, by all means read Pemberley. Read more
Published on 3 Aug 2006 by K. Hurst
2.0 out of 5 stars SO-SO
This book is by no means an Austen Sequel, the characters though original are not at all like Jane wrote them. Read more
Published on 14 Feb 2004 by "nat999_uk"
3.0 out of 5 stars Hmmmmmm!
I read this with great hopes and was rather disappointed. It reads rather like a "mills and boon" and is NOT anything like Jane Austen. Read more
Published on 14 Nov 2002
4.0 out of 5 stars 3-4 stars
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It does not set out to be a literary masterpiece - it certainly doesn't expect to please everyone. Read more
Published on 9 Nov 2002 by "fionafiona"
1.0 out of 5 stars Literary Disaster Area
THough I am only 15, Pride and Prejudice is the best book of all time in my opinion. After reading it dozens of times, I immeadialty wanted a sequel. Read more
Published on 22 Jun 1999
1.0 out of 5 stars Hello is anyone in there??
What is this? How dare the publisher even publish this.This is not a sequel to a beloved novel. The author must not have read the book because she is not true to the style of Jane... Read more
Published on 10 Jun 1999
3.0 out of 5 stars This book was not up to the standards set by Jane Austen.
I have loved "Pride and Prejudice" for years, and was so excited to see that there existed a sequel. I was disappointed, however. Read more
Published on 7 Dec 1998
1.0 out of 5 stars The cover is the best thing about this one!
A beautiful-looking book, this volume will sorely disappoint Austen fans. Not only does the author seem to forget that Mr. Read more
Published on 19 Sep 1998
1.0 out of 5 stars Disappointing
I was truly disappointed in this sequel to Jane Austin's work of art. The book was full of misinformation. Read more
Published on 22 Aug 1998
Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

Customer Discussions

This product's forum
Discussion Replies Latest Post
No discussions yet

Ask questions, Share opinions, Gain insight
Start a new discussion
Topic:
First post:
Prompts for sign-in
 


Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
Search all Amazon discussions
   
Related forums


Listmania!


Look for similar items by category


Feedback