Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Longbourn” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Longbourn

Jo Baker (Goodreads Author)

3.64 · Rating details · 50,182 ratings · 7,484 reviews

'If Elizabeth Bennet had the washing of her own petticoats,' Sarah thought, 'she would be more careful not to tramp through muddy fields.'

It is wash-day for the housemaids at Longbourn House, and Sarah's hands are chapped and raw. Domestic life below stairs, ruled with a tender heart and an iron will by Mrs Hill the housekeeper, is about to be disturbed by the arrival of a ...more

Get A Copy

Hardcover, 365 pages

Published August 15th 2013 by Doubleday

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Longbourn, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

The Lost Memoirs of Jane Austen by Syrie James

The Meyersons of Meryton by Mirta Ines Trupp

Favorite Jane Austen themed books

47 books — 23 voters

Young Adult and Middle Grade Books that should be TV Shows

164 books — 180 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 3.64 ·

Rating details

· 50,182 ratings · 7,484 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of Longbourn

Oct 08, 2013 Diane rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: british-charm, jane-austen, love-stories

It's become a cliche to love Jane Austen's books. Her oeuvre is so popular that it has inspired a vast amount of fan fiction, much of it crap. I've been a Janeite for about 15 years and have read all of Miss Austen's works (excepting her Juvenilia, which I'm saving for a rainy day). I've also picked up dozens of the fan novels in an effort to extend the stay in her world. I say "picked up" rather than read, because a great deal of the fanfic is insufferable and must be tossed after the first cha It's become a cliche to love Jane Austen's books. Her oeuvre is so popular that it has inspired a vast amount of fan fiction, much of it crap. I've been a Janeite for about 15 years and have read all of Miss Austen's works (excepting her Juvenilia, which I'm saving for a rainy day). I've also picked up dozens of the fan novels in an effort to extend the stay in her world. I say "picked up" rather than read, because a great deal of the fanfic is insufferable and must be tossed after the first chapter.**

"Longbourn" is one of the exceptions. The simple description is that it is a retelling of "Pride and Prejudice" from the servants' point of view. But it goes deeper than just a retelling -- Longbourn made the Bennet home come alive. For the first time in all of my readings of P&P, I felt as if I lived in the same house as Miss Elizabeth, Jane, Kitty, Lydia, Mary and Mr. and Mrs. Bennet. I know what time the housemaids got up to light the fires and draw the water. I know when the cook began preparing the dinner. I know how the linens got washed, and how muddy it was to walk to Meryton to get supplies. I even know a few secrets about the housekeeper that would have surprised Miss Austen.

And this is where the two novels diverge -- Jo Baker has created full characters out of the servants, who are almost invisible in P&P. The story is mostly told by Sarah, a housemaid who has been working at Longbourn since she was orphaned at age 6. The cook, Mrs. Hill, thinks of Sarah as family, and is worried what will happen to the staff if the estate is entailed away to Mr. Collins. I liked having the servant's perspective on this well-known plot line -- it was a good reminder of how many people were actually affected by Mr. Bennet's lack of a male heir.

The story picks up quickly when a new footman named James Smith is hired. Sarah thinks James has a secret and is determined to find out about his past. Meanwhile, her head is turned by a handsome servant who works for Mr. Bingley. Sarah, who reminded me a bit of the headstrong Jane Eyre, thinks that life should be something more than just emptying chamber pots every day and always washing other people's linens. If only someone would take notice of Sarah...

I should warn diehard P&P fans that if you're hoping to spend more time swooning over Mr. Darcy, you will be disappointed. Aside from Mr. Wickham, who likes to lurk around the servants and tries to seduce a young maid, the men from P&P are only on the periphery of this story. You'll see more of the Bennets as the servants interact with them, but the "downstairs" plot takes its own path.

Baker's prose is lovely, and I was enchanted with almost all of the book. My one criticism was that too much time was spent on James' back story, and I was anxious to return to Longbourn. But that is a mere quibble in an otherwise wonderful novel. Three cheers for Jo Baker for bringing the Bennet home to life!

**In addition to "Longbourn," my recommendations for the best Jane Austen fanfic are Pamela Aidan's "An Assembly Such as This" (part I of a trilogy), "Jane Fairfax" by Joan Aiken, and Amanda Grange's series of gentlemen's diaries, such as "Mr. Darcy's Diary," "Mr. Knightley's Diary," "Colonel Brandon's Diary," etc. I declare them charming and delightful reads. ...more

flag 349 likes · Like · see review

Oct 25, 2013 Deborah Markus rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Recommends it for: people who feel too happy, people who treat servants like ish

Shelves: i-wanted-to-love-this, regency-research

Hoo, boy.

Where do I start?

Actually, that's easy. Any review of Longbourn should feature this warning right at the top: If you are an Austen purist, this book will give you a stroke and a heart attack and possibly cancer.

So there's that.

Oh, also: Any novel written by a non-servant is apparently required by law to feature at least one passage in which a character who is a servant will ponder life as a person of leisure and decide, "Naw. Overrated."

Yeah. THAT happened.

I wanted to adore this book ...more

flag 281 likes · Like · see review

Aug 08, 2013 Emily rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: 2013, review-copy, fiction

Unfortunately I found this to be a stuffy contemporary literary novel in historical clothing, with none of the brio of Austen's own style and little insight to contribute about the characters or story of Pride and Prejudice.

There's not much logic in how the plot of this book fits in with the above-stairs developments of Pride and Prejudice. The action of Longbourn doesn't consist of previously unseen repercussions of those familiar events, nor does it posit any new motives or influences that pro Unfortunately I found this to be a stuffy contemporary literary novel in historical clothing, with none of the brio of Austen's own style and little insight to contribute about the characters or story of Pride and Prejudice.

There's not much logic in how the plot of this book fits in with the above-stairs developments of Pride and Prejudice. The action of Longbourn doesn't consist of previously unseen repercussions of those familiar events, nor does it posit any new motives or influences that provide alternate explanations for them. At times, it feels as though Baker's characters are waiting for something to happen in P&P, which only makes sense if you see the plot of P&P as necessary or guaranteed--which you can't, because the characters in that book are frequently surprised by news, choices, and revelations of the past. Wickham appears here as a scoundrel, which we already knew, and the author seems very pleased with her insight that Mr. Collins and Mary would have made a good match--something that I think every reader of P&P perceives and a luscious bit of permanently unresolved dramatic irony on Austen's part. Baker adds backstory for a few major characters that can't feel consequential because it's entirely unmanifested in P&P. Unlike Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead which you could superficially say interacts with Hamlet the same way this wants to with P&P, this book doesn't provide us with any cleverly interlocking alternate explanations, new plot twists, thematic extension, or characterization.

Baker tries too hard to convince us of her commitment to gritty historical realism; her frequent mentions of chamberpots, menstruation, mud, etc. are cloying and to me seem to lack historical logic. Would someone of that period spend so much time thinking about the dirtier aspects of existence, or would they view them as given, as background? I'd much rather read something that also acknowledges the beauty of historical times, like, for example, the passage in Doomsday Book about the snowy medieval Christmas. Notably, Doomsday Book has plenty of gross scenes--the point is that it has both, whereas this book perhaps unconsciously betrays a modern viewpoint by dealing mostly in grime and unpleasantness. Similarly, there are moments where the protagonist, Sarah, acts in bold or independent ways that seem implausible for a character of her station in that period and unjustified by her personality. They seem like things a modern young woman would do, so they only work if you are putting yourself into the story in her shoes.

I've complained a lot about this novel's relationship to P&P. Can it be considered successful as a freestanding novel? Yes, somewhat, it's just that then it is a novel in a genre that I almost never enjoy. Several reviewers have said that Baker writes like Austen, which I don't think is remotely true. Austen wrote a brisk drama/comedy of manners; this is a ponderous romance. Austen was matter-of-fact and sometimes pert; this is self-serious and tries to assign mystic import to even prosaic life events. Austen requires you to read between the lines of straightforward-seeming dialogue and descriptions to discover a character's motives or mindset. Baker writes paragraph-long descriptions of roadside foliage that are a single sentence. Austen dealt in interpersonal relationships and power imbalances; Baker is keen on totemic objects like James's collection of seashells.

The plot didn't work for me on its own; there were several key moments of this book where something was revealed with great pomp and circumstance that I'd figured out long before, and I honestly couldn't figure out whether Baker meant the scenes as actual plot twists or satisfying resolutions of what the reader had begun to suspect. I found Sarah likable, but there was something so soft-focus and arbitrary about her relationship with James that I didn't care much about them.

Obviously I considered this novel thought-provoking enough to finish, but I didn't find it a success. Read it if you like current woman-oriented literary fiction; skip it if you like Austen's wit.

Review copy received from Edelweiss. ...more

flag 240 likes · Like · see review

Dec 22, 2013 Emma rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: favourites

You'll think that I'm being silly and hyperbolic when I say books like this are the purpose that historical fiction is meant to serve but I mean it very sincerely. Don't pick this book up wanting to swoon over Elizabeth and Darcy, or expecting the narrative focus to be on the story Austen told in P&P. It's not about that. It's about giving voice to the voiceless, fleshing out the ghosts that would otherwise fade and be shred to pieces before the onslaught of time.

Blue coat, black horse: that wa

...more

flag 145 likes · Like · see review

Nov 03, 2013 Margaret Sullivan rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: jaff, this-book-made-me-angry, 2013

(Reposted from my review at AustenBlog)

The publication of Jo Baker’s new novel Longbourn generated the same sort of excitement as the arrival of a single gentleman of good fortune. It has been described as being a cross between Pride and Prejudice and Downton Abbey. When we heard this premise, we were all admiration. What a brilliant idea! Two of the most wildly popular and well-known popular culture properties–now together! It might be the greatest idea since some genius combined chocolate and (Reposted from my review at AustenBlog)

The publication of Jo Baker’s new novel Longbourn generated the same sort of excitement as the arrival of a single gentleman of good fortune. It has been described as being a cross between Pride and Prejudice and Downton Abbey. When we heard this premise, we were all admiration. What a brilliant idea! Two of the most wildly popular and well-known popular culture properties–now together! It might be the greatest idea since some genius combined chocolate and peanut butter. The Commercial Publishing Industrial Complex has predictably lost its mind over it; frankly, we are astonished that its publication did not rip open the fabric of the universe, creating a giant black hole that sucked us all into it.

While this soundbyte selling point makes it simple for publishers and booksellers, we think it has done the authoress a disservice. We think Ms. Baker was shooting for something less mercenary and more ambitious: the Wide Sargasso Sea of the Jane Austen oeuvre; by which we mean a paraliterature title that strives for literary achievement as well as, or perhaps even more than, popularity. We have long wondered why no one has written such a novel. Sadly, Longbourn did not work for us, either as ambitious literary fiction or as a P&P/Downton mashup. There is nothing of the elegance of Downton Abbey, and a Pride and Prejudice that we do not recognize.

The story takes place almost entirely belowstairs at Longbourn, domain of the long-suffering Mrs. Hill; the butler, Mr. Hill; the two maidservants, Sarah and Polly; and the footman, James. The foreground story is their melodramas and heartbreak (and there is a lot of both), while the familiar story of Pride and Prejudice unfolds in the background like a dimly heard radio play. Sarah is pretty much the main character. She is fascinated with one of Bingley’s manservants, a freed slave who impresses her with his sophistication and tells her stories of London. Sarah finds James annoying, and she is convinced he is a Bad Man who will cause trouble and wait a minute, haven’t we read this story before?

The link to Pride and Prejudice seems tenuous to us, other than perhaps the romantic triangle. The Bennets could afford more than two maidservants, and it’s silly to say otherwise. The Bateses in Emma could afford to employ a maidservant; surely the Bennets could employ more than two. If Ms. Baker truly wanted to tell the story of the servants of Pride and Prejudice—and link it to the wildly popular Downton Abbey—it would have been better to give the Bennets a fuller complement of servants. If she wanted to write about overworked servants in Austen’s time, don’t give them to the Bennets. Why not the Lucases, for instance? They are certainly involved in the main story; or perhaps another neighbor. If the idea really was that marketable mashup, it would have equal commercial potential marketed as a servant’s story in Jane Austen’s time, set in the world of her novels.

We are probably not the audience for this, being on record as unappreciative of Gritty Realism™. We acknowledge that it existed in that time, and we acknowledge that it is present in Austen’s novels if one looks for it; but Austen’s pen famously did not dwell on guilt and misery, and the darker aspects of her world are sketched in lightly, shadowing the background upon which her characters are drawn. Ms. Baker seems to be determined to inform the reader that life in that time—at least for the servant class—was dark, dingy, dangerous, unpleasant, painful—and there is nothing wrong with that, but if some information is enlightening, then too much becomes a blunt object concussing the reader. (One is sometimes truly stunned by the imagery: for instance, militia officers converge on the Phillips’ house like “lice on a beggar’s head.”) We struggled through this book, constantly pulled out of it by this determination to dunk Austen’s work in a literary mud puddle. It seems to us a subversion of Pride and Prejudice, not a celebration of it. No doubt that is purposeful, but it does not interest us; and marketing it to Austen fans seems disingenuous. There seems to be a determination to make us think ill of Austen’s characters for committing the sin of making work for the servants. If the somewhat sanitized version of Georgian/Regency England portrayed in many Austen film adaptations is overly romantic, wallowing in filth, poverty, and misery has a romance of its own that is equally dangerous.

We still like the idea of a P&P/Downton mashup, but we would have preferred something different: a properly big cast of servants and a jolly, rollicking tale of belowstairs hijinks. There would be work–hard work, sometimes dirty work, and all the squalid details of bodily fluids could have been worked in if absolutely necessary–but more importantly, it would have been fun, and the companion piece that Austen’s “light, bright, and sparkling” masterpiece deserved. Longbourn is ambitious and beautifully written; we wish we could like it, but we cannot. ...more

flag 98 likes · Like · see review

Aug 16, 2013 Rebecca rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: historical-fiction, updated-classics, anglophiles-delight, read-via-edelweiss, best-of-2013, reviewed-booktrib

Jane Austen meets Downton Abbey is the crude shorthand, but this novel is so much more. I hardly dare say it (Janeites are a fearsome bunch; such talk could get me lynched): Could this be better than the original? Pride and Prejudice, that is. Perhaps better is not the right word, but fuller: Baker’s is a fully convincing and unbiased vision of early nineteenth-century English life, featuring multiple classes and races – and it doesn’t airbrush away unpleasant bodily realities.

Longbourn is (for ...more

flag 92 likes · Like · see review

Jul 09, 2020 Nataliya rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Recommended to Nataliya by: nastyako

Shelves: 2020-reads

When Lizzie Bennet went traipsing through the muddy fields¹ mooning over Mr. Darcy, someone had to do wash those muddy petticoats. When Mrs. Bennet was fainting from the strain of arranging suitable marriages for her countless daughters, someone had to fetch the smelling salts.

¹

While the ladies of the Bennet family spent their time in the leisurely fashion of gentlewomen, in music and sewing and art and dancing and attracting promisingly rich husbands, someone had to run the household, cook e When Lizzie Bennet went traipsing through the muddy fields¹ mooning over Mr. Darcy, someone had to do wash those muddy petticoats. When Mrs. Bennet was fainting from the strain of arranging suitable marriages for her countless daughters, someone had to fetch the smelling salts.

¹

While the ladies of the Bennet family spent their time in the leisurely fashion of gentlewomen, in music and sewing and art and dancing and attracting promisingly rich husbands, someone had to run the household, cook endless dinners, do laundry, empty the chamber pots, shovel the pig shit, clean the outhouse, run errands, scrub floors, travel to the village and surrounding estates through the rain and mud — and do anything and everything to allow the cream and crop of gentle society to enjoy their leisurely lives that made Austen’s novels such great escapist reading.

“If Elizabeth had the washing of her own petticoats, Sarah often thought, she’d most likely be a sight more careful with them.”

This is a story of those “someones“, the characters that were lost in the background of the shiny glossy lives of the rich and mighty in the timelessly alluring Pride and Prejudice. Invisible in the refined society and therefore the original book pages, they are allowed to take center stage here.

“Perhaps that was why they spoke instructions at her from behind an embroidery hoop or over the top of a book: she had scrubbed away their sweat, their stains, their monthly blood; she knew they weren’t as rarefied as angels, and so they just couldn’t look her in the eye.”

Unlike Austen’s novel that inspired the book (and upon the familiarity with which the plot of this one hinges), Longbourn lacks the escapist allure of humor and attractiveness. Instead it is serious and often bleak — which makes sense as it is deliberately focused on the unglamorous aspects of life in Austen’s world. (Unglamorous sufficiently to give me enough details about chamber pots and the outhouse and menstrual blood stains to last me for a very long time, really).

“Would she, at some time, have the chance to care for her own things, her own comforts, her own needs, and not just for other people’s? Could she one day have what she wanted, rather than rely on the glow of other people’s happiness to keep her warm?”

Sarah is a young housemaid, an orphan raised in the Bennett’s’ estate of Longbourne. Despite being the same age as Lizzie Bennet and living in her house, Sarah’s life and Lizzie’s life might as well be in different universes. Overworked and tired (because Bennets’ preferred lifestyle and their modest by the rich landowners’ standards means do not always align), Sarah’s concerns are not the leisurely pursuits of respectably rich matrimony but rather the endless house chores and chilblains and blisters from her work, and the knowledge that very little in her life belongs to her. Her destiny is to grow old caring for the needs and wants of others, and she is encouraged to be grateful for this lot in life, to find satisfaction in her duties, to be content with stability that such sad existence brings. But it’s hard to settle for just that, isn’t it?

“This, she reflected, as she crossed the rainy yard, and strode out to the necessary house, and slopped the pot’s contents down the hole, this was her duty, and she could find no satisfaction in it, and found it strange that anybody might think a person could. She rinsed the pot out at the pump and left it to freshen in the rain. If this was her duty, then she wanted someone else’s.”

Going into this book, I expected more or less a retelling of Pride and Prejudice from the below-the-stairs point of view. And to a point yes, this story depends on you being familiar with Austen’s book, the plot and the characters. But those characters stay mostly behind the scenes, and the events that mattered so much in Austen’s story are barely consequential in this one. All the Bingley and Darcy dramas are not even noticed; Lydia’s elopement is important only because of sheer disturbance it causes in the domestic life. Otherwise the life below stairs is shaped much more by the everyday life occurrences and the storms in the lives of Pride and Prejudice characters barely cause ripples in the lives of Longbourn bunch.

It’s all just a background noise for the servants who are occupied with more pressing issues.

Of course, some characters end up diverging a bit from Austen’s novel — like it or hate it. I’m not an Austen purist or even her particular fan, so to me it was just fine — but it may irk a few of her more devoted fans with the subtle and not so subtle digs at the characters. Mr. Collins, for instance, is not the appallingly dull human being but a rather average man who is nice to servants. Darcy pops in for half a minute if that. The source of Bingley’s family money is shown to be beyond unsavory and repellent. Mrs. Bennet is certainly more sympathetic and less of a buffoon that she comes off in Austen’s book. And Mr Bennet is revealed to have some secrets that certainly do not paint him in the best light.

“It had been a dreadful miscalculation, she saw that now: that all of them should be unhappy, so that he should not be disgraced.”

The language of the book is also not meant to carry on Austen’s wit and humor and sparkle. Just like the choice to show the grittier and dirtier part of life in the Austen world, the language here is meant to be harsher and rougher and more serious. And the sensibilities are certainly betraying the time it was written in, a couple of centuries after the original.

And I liked it a lot. The more “real” everyday issues of the working people were connecting with me much more than the leisurely dramas of Austen’s novels — perhaps because I can’t really relate to the life of wealth and leisure and lazy mornings and boring afternoons. Jane Austen’s book is lovely and beautiful - but I also love this one as its grittier less refined working companion.

4-ish stars and a plan to reread Pride and Prejudice with thoughts of the lives of those invisible in that novel, quietly working in kitchens and stables and carrying out those ever-present chamber pots. ...more

flag 85 likes · Like · see review

Aug 06, 2014 Petra-X Off having adventures rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Recommended to Petra-X Off having adventures by: deborah markus

Shelves: fiction, reviewed, 2014-read, dnf-or-never-read, 2014-reviews

I read five chapters and then I admitted defeat. I threw up my arms through a sea of frothy pink fluff and pushed it aside and emerged, if not a better person, then at least a relieved one with one less cloud in my world.

To be fair, I'm not the audience for any kind of romance except perhaps classics. But I am fascinated with Jane Austen and having recently read A.A. Milne's superlative stage play Miss Elizabeth Bennet, I felt I would like to read more books directly descended from Pride and Pre ...more

flag 77 likes · Like · see review

Nov 13, 2013 Meredith rated it did not like it · review of another edition

The best word to describe this book is unpleasant. It was a very unpleasant reading experience. But I can and will be more specific.

First of all, technically, this is a Pride and Prejudice retelling from the point of view of the Longbourn servants. Good idea, right? I sure thought so. And honestly, there are some very good things in here. I was very interested in hearing what kind of daily tasks made the Bennett lifestyle possible. There's also a few great parts where you really see how much th The best word to describe this book is unpleasant. It was a very unpleasant reading experience. But I can and will be more specific.

First of all, technically, this is a Pride and Prejudice retelling from the point of view of the Longbourn servants. Good idea, right? I sure thought so. And honestly, there are some very good things in here. I was very interested in hearing what kind of daily tasks made the Bennett lifestyle possible. There's also a few great parts where you really see how much the servants care about each other.

But then. First of all, there's a terrible sexual awakening subplot. I'm sorry, if I wanted to read a romance novel, I would read a romance novel. Second, there's a really long flashback sequence about war, which has nothing to do with Pride and Prejudice at all. If you want to write about the horrors of war, that's fine, but don't just say it's a Pride and Prejudice retelling to increase your audience. That's cheap. Third, for someone who says she loves Pride and Prejudice, the author sure spends a lot of time trying to convince readers that all of those beloved characters are d-bags. Seriously, the only one of the Bennett's who comes out looking OK in this book is Mary. Of course, and I'm sure this wasn't intentional, the main character, Sarah, is not a joy to read about either. Stop whining, you whiner! Fourth, the narrative is really all over the place. One paragraph will be from Mrs. Hill's POV, then suddenly we'll switch to Polly, then to James for a second, and back to Mrs. Hill, then maybe one of the Bennet kids will have a say. Get it together, author! Finally, the love triangle is so ridiculous. Tol is clearly more interesting and fun, and the only reason that Sarah prefers James is to make the (really stupid) plot twist towards the end more shocking/meaningful.

There you have it. I did not enjoy this book, even though I fully expected to. I'm not sure why it's gotten such good reviews, but take it from me-if you want a good servant story, stick with Upstairs Downstairs or Downton Abbey. ...more

flag 71 likes · Like · see review

Dec 06, 2013 The Library Lady rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: historical_fiction

Attention anyone who wants to think of Jane Austenland as pretty-pretty with no blood, sweat, sex (in any form at all) and magical elves to do the housework:
AVOID THIS BOOK

Still with me?

This book includes discussions of soiled diapers and menstrual napkins--well,no washing machines, let alone Pampers or Tampax! And there is a mention of underarm hair, something which clearly should shock any modern man or woman of "normal" proclivities.

Speaking of which, there are sexual practices mentioned in Attention anyone who wants to think of Jane Austenland as pretty-pretty with no blood, sweat, sex (in any form at all) and magical elves to do the housework:
AVOID THIS BOOK

Still with me?

This book includes discussions of soiled diapers and menstrual napkins--well,no washing machines, let alone Pampers or Tampax! And there is a mention of underarm hair, something which clearly should shock any modern man or woman of "normal" proclivities.

Speaking of which, there are sexual practices mentioned in this book that include homosexuality (nothing explicit), masturbation (again, no real details) and out of wedlock sex.

This last horror can apparently can produce {gasp!}PREGNANCY! Gee, they never taught me that in Abstinence Education!

Plus a certain character already known to be slimy by anyone who has read Austen attempts to molest a young servant. Shocking! How terribly, terribly unlike what went on in 19th century England!

And there are servants doing hard, sweaty, smelly, unpleasant work behind the scenes,carefully allowing the Bennetts, the Darcys and the Bingleys to live in their pretty-pretty Austen world.

These are the characters this book focuses on. Baker uses the plot and characters of Austen's book as foils for these people. She is clever in leaving Jane, Elizabeth and the other main characters mainly in the shadows. You can see where we are in the plot without seeing most of the Austen plot, and it's fine, because it's Sarah, Polly, the Hills and the other servants who are the full fleshed characters here.

This is NOT an attempt at writing pseudo-Austen---and most of those books are spectacular failures. What it is is modern historical fiction, starting with the characters and plot of the original book, but just using them as a jumping off point. You could read this not knowing a jot about Pride and Prejudice and enjoy it just as much.

I was going to give this book 4 stars and wanted to give it 4 1/2. But because of the stupid nonsense (including some homophobic crap) I have read among other reviewers here, I am giving this 5 stars. ...more

flag 58 likes · Like · see review

Oct 21, 2013 Julie Christine rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: read-2013, british-isles-theme-setting, war-conflict, historical-fiction

Three and a Half Stars.

In the Author’s Note at the end of Longbourn, Jo Baker writes,

One final note: in Pride and Prejudice the footman appears just once in the text, when he delivers a note to Jane (page 31 of Volume One, in my Penguin Classics edition). After that, he is never mentioned again.

Well, that is an undeniable fact. But what are we to glean from this tidbit? That Baker found her inspiration from this one tiny glimmer into the world behind the scenes? That Austen was remiss in show ...more

flag 56 likes · Like · see review

Jan 02, 2014 Erin rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: everything-jane-austen

I have been a huge fan of Jane Austen since the age of 13 and have throughout the years read different authors interesting interpretations on her well beloved stories. Some have been good and more than a few have been outrageously bad. Despite it all, I just cannot stop myself from continuing to try them all out. That is why I can say with great confidence that if I could give this book 10 stars, I would.

Jo Baker provides readers with a fresh take on the well loved story of "Pride and Prejudic ...more

flag 54 likes · Like · see review

Jun 13, 2013 eb rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

I adore Jane Austen, and I was dreading reading this take on Pride & Prejudice from the servants' point of view. I thought it was a crass cash-grab on Baker's part, and that I'd spend the entire novel longing to reread P & P. I couldn't have been more wrong! I got entirely wrapped up in the story of Sarah, a servant at Longbourn, and felt impatient even with brief mentions of favorite characters (Jane, Elizabeth), who seemed selfish, boring, and clueless because of their wealth. Crucially, this ...more

flag 55 likes · Like · see review

Aug 20, 2013 Delee rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: romance, first-reads, arc, reviewed, historical-fiction

"What can a woman do, all on her own, and unsupported?" asks Elizabeth. "Work," the maid answers.

I was worried that I wasn't going to be able to keep up with the characters in LONGBOURN without having a re-read of Pride and Prejudice, but luckily there wasn't a need...

[image error] photo 7a003392-af72-4aaa-8ba6-aafa53be4856_zpsb58bebf0.jpg

photo 7a003392-af72-4aaa-8ba6-aafa53be4856_zpsb58bebf0.jpg

LONGBOURN is a novel based on the servants in the beloved Bennet household- I have to say reading about the Bennet family from the point of view of the people waiting on them hand and foot- made them come off quite sp ...more

flag 39 likes · Like · see review

Jan 02, 2014 Gary the Bookworm rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Dirty linen might seem like a unsavory topic in a novel set in Regency England, but when the linen belongs to the Bennet family from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice it makes for good reading. Jo Baker's Longbourn is told from the perspective of the downstairs staff: two house maids, the housekeeper, her butler husband, and a mysterious, newly-hired footman. By modern standards this might seem like a excessive number of servants, but in Nineteenth Century England, five menstruating daughters, n Dirty linen might seem like a unsavory topic in a novel set in Regency England, but when the linen belongs to the Bennet family from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice it makes for good reading. Jo Baker's Longbourn is told from the perspective of the downstairs staff: two house maids, the housekeeper, her butler husband, and a mysterious, newly-hired footman. By modern standards this might seem like a excessive number of servants, but in Nineteenth Century England, five menstruating daughters, not to mention a gaggle of Gardner cousins foisted on the Bennet's for weeks at a time, produce a mountain of laundry for the two beleaguered maids. One day a week is dedicated to it and even the family pitches in: they eat a cold buffet because the maids aren't available to serve in the dining room. The servants sell their labor for the security of a warm bed - sometimes only a pallet on the floor - and regular meals and they enact their revenge in startling ways. When Mr. Hill, the butler, discovers a bit of food stuck to the tines of a fork, he gives it some spit and a shine on his vest before placing on the table. These servants depend on each other for kindness and understanding - even sex -although that shared comfort doesn't preclude an occasional boink with one of their "betters." The airing of the family's metaphorical dirty laundry is front and center in this alternate reality.

1905 fancy french knickers photo 2542g.jpg

Baker envisions a plausible back story for the Bennet family - a kind of foreshadowing for Lydia's hushed-up fall from grace and a rationale for the troubled Bennet marriage. She basks in the ironic implications of Mr. Bennet's efforts to save his licentious daughter's reputation while remaining indifferent to the needs of his illegitimate offspring. All of Austen's characters look less attractive when they're viewed through the eyes of their servants. To them Lizzy is known more for her soiled petticoats (all those muddy walks!) than her sparkling wit, and Mrs. Bennet isn't just a hysterical blabber mouth, she is also addicted to narcotics for the treatment of her infamous nerves. Two notable exceptions are sycophantic cousin Collins, and Mary, the pedantic middle sister. Here they are portrayed sympathetically which made me reconsider the delight I took in Austen's satirical skewering.

Critics have often chastised Austen for ignoring the turbulence of her times. Baker fills that void by bringing the Napoleonic Wars vividly to life. The flogging of a soldier isn't just a juicy bit of gossip to be chewed on by the gentry. In Baker's hands it becomes a powerful symbol for the hardships and injustices endured by the serving class, whose survival depends on the whim of those they serve. We can thank her for imagining fully realized lives for them, and for sharing her vision without detracting from the magic of Austen's masterpiece. Add a star if you are very familiar with Pride and Prejudice and are not afraid to think outside the box. ...more

flag 37 likes · Like · see review

Jan 12, 2017 Simona B rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: historical, 2000, in-english

2.5

•The premise is interesting. It is. I also enjoyed the first part; but after a while, the story started to drag on and on, and I started to not see the point of it anymore.

•Some of the things that happen are completely -or almost- inconsequential. In addition, the story supposedly focuses on Sarah, one of the two housemaids of the Bennets' household. The thing is, sometimes the focus shifts, at length and in detail, to the Bennets themselves, which, I think, was rather useless if our concern ...more

flag 36 likes · Like · see review

Jul 24, 2018 Katie Lumsden rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: 5-stars

I loved this book - a great retelling, a detailed and atmospheric historical novel, with engaging characters and a brilliant plot. I would highly recommend.

flag 36 likes · Like · see review

Sep 13, 2019 Wee Lassie rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

I loved this book. It's one of the few, if only, retellings of Pride & Prejudice in which you leave liking Mr. Collins far more than Elizabeth Bennet. ...more

flag 36 likes · Like · see review

May 30, 2013 Sian rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Shelves: 2013

I liked P&P but not a huge Jane Austen fan so didn't go into this feeling all precious about its predecessor.
I really wanted to enjoy this book but just couldn't. The swearing is totally out of place, the liberties taken with the characters from P&P are unbelievably awful (sorry) basically feels like Jo Baker is trying desperately to be controversial but it doesn't work. The main character is very likeable and if this had been a stand alone novel about servants at the time (minus the sweating an ...more

flag 33 likes · Like · see review

Sep 26, 2013 Bronwyn Mcloughlin rated it really liked it · review of another edition

This is an historical novel, a well crafted one, that gives Austen's original a context. Pride and prejudice is vaguely set during the era of the Napoleonic wars, in Regency England. Beyond the necessity of the militia as an essential plot device, there is little to establish a time period or political context. This not a failing : the intent in P & P is to examine, play with, lampoon and explore the personalities, social niceties and constrictions of a certain family, a certain class of people This is an historical novel, a well crafted one, that gives Austen's original a context. Pride and prejudice is vaguely set during the era of the Napoleonic wars, in Regency England. Beyond the necessity of the militia as an essential plot device, there is little to establish a time period or political context. This not a failing : the intent in P & P is to examine, play with, lampoon and explore the personalities, social niceties and constrictions of a certain family, a certain class of people in a certain size town. And Austen, indisputably, is a witty and observant master of the art.

What Baker has provided is the bigger picture. This novel grounds the Bennets. It reinforces the characters Austen carefully constructed, through the fleshing out of their interactions with their servants. It gives life and personality to the nameless, silent cast who ensure that the untidy Lydia is presentable at Meryton, who ensure that food is on the table when Bingley comes to visit, who wait in the rain to bring the ladies home after a ball. It adds another dimension to our knowledge about the Bennet household and the wider world in which they live. It is not a romantic world: it is hard and sad and unfair. While the Bennet girls are constrained by the niceties of expectations about what a woman is expected to be, and how her life should unfold, their servants' lives are subject to the vicissitudes of life. Mrs Hill surrenders a child and submits to a life that will maintain appearances, but ultimately prove soulless. Sarah loses her family before she is added to the Longbourn staff, and then finds herself shunted between households as she seeks to fashion her own life. James Smith endures the evils of the Peninsula Campaign only to be cast in the role of deserter by a villainous sergeant and to suffer accordingly. There is no justice, no equality, no remonstrance. Life is rarely lovely and satisfaction comes mostly from a gruelling job well done, a full belly and a warmish bed.

It's a warts and all retelling of the obverse of P & P. The detail is inked in such a way that its inclusion is artless and necessary without appearing to be an obvious history lesson. It is assimilated with the story; it is not heavy handed, and is entirely believable. To ignore the sometimes unpleasant necessities of life is to remain as deluded as Mrs Bennet and her ilk, and while P & P was written for a different intent and an audience who in the initial years of its release, understood the implied realities of country house life, it is an asset for current day audiences to understand what life at Longbourn entailed.

Very enjoyable read. ...more

flag 29 likes · Like · see review

Nov 13, 2013 Tim rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: historical-fiction, popular, literary

There is an ocean of Austen fan fiction out there, and no book is more extended than Pride and Prejudice. We love to read what happens to Elizabeth and Darcy, whether it's her doughty fight against the undead or how they deal with truly-dead bodies at Pemberley.

This book would stand with the best of them. Our hopes are dashed and restored and dashed again. We get love, redemption, missteps, the vile Wickham, and not knowing whether there will be a happy ending until the very end. And the writing There is an ocean of Austen fan fiction out there, and no book is more extended than Pride and Prejudice. We love to read what happens to Elizabeth and Darcy, whether it's her doughty fight against the undead or how they deal with truly-dead bodies at Pemberley.

This book would stand with the best of them. Our hopes are dashed and restored and dashed again. We get love, redemption, missteps, the vile Wickham, and not knowing whether there will be a happy ending until the very end. And the writing! Jo Baker's cold mornings make my hands hurt just to read them.

But this book goes beyond great fan fiction, and here's why:

It takes place mostly during the same time period as P&P, but downstairs: it's about the servants. Jane Austen gave us the restrained, arch, inner life of women of heart, soul, and mind, finding their way in a society that devalues them. Jo Baker gives us the struggle, toil, and worry of people with heart, soul, and mind, in a society where even our beloved Elizabeth finds them almost invisible.

The human stories are the heart of the book. But Jo Baker also answers questions we may never have thought to ask: when Elizabeth arrives, muddy-hemmed at Netherfield, who cleans her clothes? In a world without indoor plumbing, what happens to the shit? And when Mr Bennet escapes to his library, who has to cope with his wife? The book is structured to parallel P&P; as Baker said in an interview, "When a meal is served in Pride and Prejudice, it's prepared downstairs in Longbourn."

For me, she gives just the right amount of detail about housekeeping practices of the early 1800s. I now know that when you slaughter a pig, it's time to make soap. And I've seen it done. But I couldn't possibly do it myself.

Another thing: Books in the "canon" are necessarily contained. But here, the outside world plays a role. Servants, after all, know things, and are affected by events, which young women are protected from ever hearing about. This expands the scope of the novel. In Mansfield Park, for example, Fanny asks about slavery and is met with stony silence. Here, we learn that one of Bingley's footmen, Ptolemy Bingley, was born a slave—and we readers, with our 21st-century perspective, wonder if he's Bingley's half-brother. In P&P, the officers of Wickham's regiment, quartered at Meryton, flirt and attend balls. In this book, there is a war going on, and it affects our characters even as the Bennet girls are insulated from its horrors.

Oh: and we learn seriously juicy backstory about some of our favorite characters.

It's a joy to read, an homage, a tour-de-force. If you're an Austin fan (and you should be) it's a great read. ...more

flag 25 likes · Like · see review

Nov 24, 2013 Meredith (Austenesque Reviews) rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: jane-austen, pride-and-prejudice

TYPE OF AUSTENESQUE NOVEL: Minor Character, Retelling

TIME FRAME: Covers the same timespan as Pride and Prejudice with a couple of months after

MAIN CHARACTERS: Sarah (maid), Polly (younger maid), Mr. and Mrs. Hill (butler and housekeeper), James Smith (new, mysterious footman), Ptolemy Bingley (footman at Netherfield)

WHY I WANTED TO READ THIS NOVEL: This book was described by many as a cross between Pride and Prejudice and Downton Abbey...enough said! ;) In all seriousness, I love seeing our belo ...more

flag 24 likes · Like · see review

Jan 14, 2017 Gumble's Yard rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: 2014

This story tells the story of Pride and Prejudice from the viewpoint of the servant’s in the Bennett’s household; the stories are told in parallel with every overlap between the two worlds exactly based on the book.

A brilliant book – compelling its own right but outstanding due to the alternate side of Pride and Prejudice that it presents, not just the poverty and the war but even in some of the characters (e.g. Mr Collins is a more sympathetic character to the servants, not to blame for his own ...more

flag 24 likes · Like · see review

Aug 19, 2013 Dianna rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: first-reads

The good: I found this to be a beautifully written and well-imagined re-telling of Pride and Prejudice. I enjoyed seeing what a servant's day would be like, and the "behind-the-scenes" look at a rich family's life. I liked Sarah as a character and it was easy to root for her.

The bad: Lots of yucky/evil things were discussed, and although they generally weren't described in gory detail (thank you), it was just too much.

The ugly: I understand that servants and soldiers had to deal with dirty and s ...more

flag 24 likes · Like · see review

Sep 28, 2013 Naoms rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: historical-fiction, arc, review-copy, couldn-t-finish, read-in-2013, dnf, disappointing, historical-romance, netgalley-edelweis

Originally posted on Confessions of an Opinionated Book Geek

I did not finish this book. I couldn’t, because I am too big of a Jane Austen fan and this is a cross between fan fiction and a historical soapbox. Everything that could have happened to a lower class person in Regency England happens in this book. It’s filled with so many events, it’s melodramatic.

This book did not need to be set in the Bennet household. It could have been any household in any historical time where there was a below st

Originally posted on Confessions of an Opinionated Book Geek

I did not finish this book. I couldn’t, because I am too big of a Jane Austen fan and this is a cross between fan fiction and a historical soapbox. Everything that could have happened to a lower class person in Regency England happens in this book. It’s filled with so many events, it’s melodramatic.

This book did not need to be set in the Bennet household. It could have been any household in any historical time where there was a below stairs, above stairs hierarchy. But, Jo Baker wanted to sell books so she decided to drag Jane Austen into it.

PRIDE & PREJUDICE is my all time favorite book and because of that I never should have picked LONGBOURN up, but my curiosity got the best of me. I figured since it wasn’t a sequel or from the eyes of a beloved character, it might be worth reading. It’s not, at least not to me.

There is just something very disrespectful about this book.PRIDE & PREJUDICE is 200 years old. But the tone of LONGBOURN is very belittling. The Bennet family has existed for two centuries and in my opinion Jo Baker does not get them. It’s almost as if the author wanted to bring the Bennet’s low. Is PRIDE & PREJUDICE a 100% view of England 200 years ago? No, absolutely not. But it does point at a society where women were unprotected and life without a good marriage was filled with poverty and emptiness and a reputation was all a girl had to recommend herself. Does that make the lives of the upper & middle classes more important than the lives of the lower class? Absolutely not. Was Elizabeth’s marriage to Mr. Darcy more important than the lives of the men who died on battlefields? Absolutely not. But that doesn’t make the lives of women like Elizabeth Bennet any less important. I felt that Jo Baker’s book was set up to make the problems of the Bennet family seem silly and frivolous.

I am sure that the sometimes silly and inappropriate behaviors of the Bennet family could make them discourteous or even disrespectful to their servants, but Jo Bakers take does not feel like an Austentale.

Almost nothing from the PRIDE & PREJUDICE plot has any real bearings on the tale of LONBOURN which brings me back to my original idea. Servants standing in the rain would have happened when any society family went to a ball during a rainstorm. Not just the Bennet family.

I absolutely believe in putting your own twist on things, but be aware and knowledgeable of the tale you’re telling. I feel like this book was written just to be controversial and discussed. The language does not fit and character representations are not accurate. It’s not a homage to the original work or even for the enjoyment of Austen fans. It’s just a gross manipulation and a marketing plan. ...more

flag 23 likes · Like · see review

Nov 09, 2013 Sherwood Smith added it · review of another edition

Shelves: history-napoleonic, disappointments-or-just-set-aside, fiction

I usually avoid Pride and Prejudice sequels, prequels, mashups, and detective novels, because no one gets Austen's sardonic wit, no one. And that includes Jo Baker.

The most believable bit in the book was touted in the blurb, the bit about Elizabeth's famous petticoat being six inches deep in mud, which made extra work for the maids.

But otherwise the well-known characters are out of focus. I found the most believable moment when Mrs. Hill was anxious to please Mr. Collins, the future landlord. Bu ...more

flag 23 likes · Like · see review

Oct 21, 2013 Kathryn Class rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: audio-book

Have you ever thought an author was a good writer, but you didn't like the story they were telling? That's how I feel about this book. The author is good at writing (except for some places that had lengthy and very detailed descriptions. I'm not too interested in that, unless it's historical fiction. That's when I want all the nitty gritty details - of the actual events.)
I don't like how she made the Bennett family seem shallow and ... I don't know... It just seed like the author wants to knock ...more

flag 22 likes · Like · see review

Sep 29, 2017 Chrissie rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Shelves: great-britain, love, 2017-read, returned, audible-uk, hf, england, disliked

I have been toying with the idea of giving this two stars. Why? Because I very much like Jo Baker's prose. The book does have many gorgeous lines. Poetic lines. Lines of wisdom that sometimes express views I share, but I certainly do not agree with the line: (view spoiler) ...more

flag 21 likes · Like · see review

Dec 13, 2017 Jess rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: 2018, insufferable-main-characters, cover-envy, dishonour-on-your-cow, you-n-me-could-write-a-bad-romance, historical-fiction

Are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted?!!

Pride and Prejudice, meet your new counterpart, Chilblains and Chamberpots!

It’s always risky when an author decides to piggyback on an existing novel. I’m not in any way, shape or form a purist; I didn’t embark on Longbourn feeling particularly protective of its predecessor. But I just can’t abide stale cloying romances masquerading as gritty historical fiction, regardless of whether it has anything to do with Pride and Prejudice or not.

I feel so ...more

flag 20 likes · Like · see review

Aug 14, 2013 Kate Forsyth rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: historical, historical-romance

What a brilliant premise this book has! Did you ever wonder – when reading Pride & Prejudice - about the lives of the servants toiling away quietly downstairs? No, me either. Jo Baker did wonder, however, and from that imagining has spun a beautiful, intense, heart-wrenching tale. Do not expect the wit and charm of Jane Austen; do not expect the well-beloved characters to be lauded. In fact, most of the cast of Pride & Prejudice come off badly – some are selfish and narcissistic, others merely o ...more

flag 21 likes · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
MU101: Spin-offs... Longbourn	1	5	Aug 02, 2019 03:37AM
Play Book Tag: Longbourn- different view of Pride and Prejudice- 5 stars	6	25	Jun 29, 2019 02:46PM
Amor y letras : Libro de julio, Las sombras de Longbourn	7	17	Aug 11, 2018 01:11AM

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Historical > Historical Fiction

2,067 users

Fiction

1,157 users

Historical

495 users

Romance

405 users

Audiobook

153 users

Adult

147 users

European Literature > British Literature

145 users

Adult Fiction

136 users

Retellings

131 users

Historical > Regency

100 users

See top shelves…

About Jo Baker

Jo Baker

702 followers

Jo Baker is the author of six novels, most recently Longbourn and A Country Road, A Tree. She has also written for BBC Radio 4, and her short stories have been included in a number of anthologies. She lives in Lancaster, England, with her husband, the playwright and screenwriter Daragh Carville, and their two children.