What do you think?
Rate this book
Charles Maddox #1
Murder at Mansfield Park
This is a superb retelling of the Jane Austen novel in which the house at Mansfield Park becomes the scene of one murder after another. Here is a new and surprising Fanny Price: forthright, ambitious, scheming and downright untrustworthy. What could possibly happen to a character like that? And how will the fortunes of the inhabitants of Mansfield Park be changed with the discovery of a dead body early one morning?
336 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2010
72 people are currently reading
3386 people want to read
About the author
Lynn Shepherd
16 books200 followersLynn Shepherd studied English at Oxford in the 1980s, and got a doctorate degree there in 2006. She always wanted to be a writer and in 2000 she went freelance to see if it was possible to make her dream into reality. Ten years later her dream finally comes true. Murder at Mansfield Park was her first novel.
She describes her genre as 'literary mystery', and in 2012 she since published Tom All-Alone's / The Solitary House, which is inspired by Charles Dickens' Bleak House.
Her third book A Treacherous Likeness explores the dark secrets of the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley and his wife Mary, the author of Frankenstein. It will be published in the UK in February 2013, and in the US in August under the title A Fatal Likeness. More details and a video about the book can be found on www.lynn-shepherd.com
She describes her genre as 'literary mystery', and in 2012 she since published Tom All-Alone's / The Solitary House, which is inspired by Charles Dickens' Bleak House.
Her third book A Treacherous Likeness explores the dark secrets of the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley and his wife Mary, the author of Frankenstein. It will be published in the UK in February 2013, and in the US in August under the title A Fatal Likeness. More details and a video about the book can be found on www.lynn-shepherd.com
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 292 reviews
May 23, 2015
The good news is, if you’re one of the people who've made a principled decision never to read a word written by Lynn Shepherd, you’re not missing a thing. Promise. Word of honor.
The reason you might have sworn off all things Shepherd is that she’s the woman who wrote that Huff Post column about how J.K. Rowling should stop writing and give other authors a chance. Her premise is that any book written by Rowling will routinely go bestseller, so readers will flock to her newest offering. If Rowling doesn’t write anything, people will be forced to look at other bookstore shelves for something amusing to read, and they’ll have the chance to see other writers they might otherwise have never heard of.
There’s one thing wrong with this piece of logic. (Other than the jerk-head factor of telling a talented writer to please shut up.) The flaw in Shepherd’s argument is that there are plenty of people who were non-readers who were drawn to books by Rowling. These are people who learned through reading Harry Potter that we book-lovers weren’t being pretentious showoffs when we carried a book with us every minute of every day. These people developed the habit of reading fiction thanks to Rowling. I know this, because I know some of these people.
There are also, sadly, plenty of people who read all the Harry Potter books and aren’t interested in reading anything else. If Rowling goes away, these people aren’t going to restlessly browse for other titles. They’re going to go back to whatever it is they do when they aren’t reading Harry Potter. I know some of these people, too.
This isn’t the part of Shepherd’s article that got people screaming, though. What really burned the collective biscuit of the reading community was Shepherd’s airy admission that she hasn’t actually read the Harry Potter books, but she thinks it’s a shame that so many adults have. They may be good – she wouldn’t know – but surely grownups would be better served with more intellectually stimulating works than (sniff) children’s books.
Shepherd may be laboring under the delusion that it’s true, as they say in Hollywood, that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. And it’s a fact that her deliberately provocative article brought her name to the attention of plenty of people who had never heard of her.
The problem is that their reaction was to solemnly swear that they would never, ever, under any circumstances read her books. If she thinks these people are either kidding or exaggerating, she should check the number of people who put her lone published title on a shelf marked “will never read.” She should also see how many people put her book on their “I’ll really have to check this out some time” list.
So far as I know, I was the only one who responded in that fashion. And even I knew enough to keep it to myself. I figured I’d sneak over to the library (it’s not as if she gets paid extra for the copy they already bought if I check it out), burn through her book in a day or two, and give her what she refused to give Rowling: a fair hearing.
Her book is an Austen sequel. I’m an Austen reader. How hard could it be?
Sorry, what did you just say? I couldn’t hear you over all those FAMOUS LAST WORDS.
It’s not just that this book sucks so hard I sustained permanent mental hickeys. It’s that the premise itself is so inexcusable it crosses the line into offensive.
The book is called Murder at Mansfield Park. Mansfield Park is one of Austen’s least-read, least-loved books.
I used to spend a lot of time on an Austen forum. Periodically, “Fanny wars” would break out, and we’d all be forced to choose sides.
It was brutal. Families were divided. Friendships were destroyed. Lives were ruined.
Okay, that last bit is an exaggeration. But the other ones are really, truly, true.
Fanny wars, to Janeites, are passionate battles over whether Fanny Price (the heroine of Mansfield Park) is sweet and lovable and all things good, or if she should be incarnated in the flesh by some latter-day Dr. Frankenstein so we can all have a good time slapping her.
I can see both sides. The first time I read Mansfield Park, I adored poor Fanny. The second time, I stopped loving freedom long enough to believe we ought to have laws against anyone being that annoying. Eventually, after many more readings, I shifted into a quiet, reasonable admiration for her, seasoned with an occasional sigh and a sometimes audible wish that she would for God’s sake cheer up, already.
Lynn Shepherd is one of the haters. Her book is, according to the back cover copy, “an irreverent new twist” on Mansfield Park.
I guess that’s one name for it.
Imagine overhearing the following conversation:
“Guess what? I’m writing one of those Jane Austen sequels! It’s going to be called Pride and Prejudice and Hotties!”
“That sounds fun. But don’t you think the title’s a little too close to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?”
“What? No! Okay, so here’s what it’s going to be. There are two sisters, Elizabeth and Jane Bennet. Elizabeth’s the oldest. Jane’s the youngest.”
“Um, it’s actually the other way around.”
“In the original, yeah! But this is a rewrite! Obviously I have to make it different, right?”
“Well, sure. But most people do that by taking a new angle on the story. Maybe they write it from the point of view of the maid. Or they tell a story set in Pride and Predjudice’s future – like how the Darcys are getting along after their marriage or something.”
“Well, that’s not what I’m doing. I’m doing a whole new story!”
“But you’re calling it Pride and Prejudice.”
“Exactly! So there are two Bennet sisters, Elizabeth and Jane.”
“Wait. Just two? There are five in the original story.”
“Have you been listening? If I keep it just like in the original story, what’s the point?”
“Uh...”
“So. Elizabeth is the oldest. She’s kind of ugly and boring. Nobody likes her much. They just feel sorry for her. And Jane is this really flighty airhead. She’s not very pretty, either. She’s just boy-crazy.”
“But – how is this Pride and Prejudice?”
“Keep listening. So this hot guy shows up in town.”
“Mr. Wickham?”
“No, no. Mr. Collins.”
“Mr. Collins is HOT???”
“Totally! And both the Bennet sisters totally fall for him, but he gets this mad crush on Charlotte Lucas. ‘Cause she’s hot, too. And worldly and sophisticated. And rich.”
“Okay, HANG on.”
“But the Bennet sisters don’t feel too bad. Their dad has a lot of money, and he tells them if they don’t get married, they can have their dowries in cash instead and open up a business in London. I cut out that boring thing about how the Bennets need to have a son or their estate gets left to somebody else.”
(Sound of head exploding.)
What I just described does less violence to the story of Pride and Prejudice than Shepherd does to Mansfield Park. It would also undoubtedly be less painful to read.
Shepherd changes Fanny Price from the saintly, impoverished eldest sister of a large family to a spoiled-rotten only-child heiress. She makes Fanny’s rival in love, the arch-sophisticate Mary Crawford, into a sweet and impoverished young woman.
Here’s my question.
WHY?
What does it even MEAN to “rewrite” a story so much that the WHOLE ENTIRE POINT is lost?
In the real Mansfield Park, Fanny Price is an adopted child who starts off pitied and pushed about and ends up being the redeemer and moral compass of her little corner of the world. She’s seen as timid to a fault, but triumphs over the corruption around her with a moral strength and fortitude that even her enemies have to admire.
In the real Mansfield Park, Fanny’s mother defiantly runs off with a lowly man and had, like, a million kids with him. In this “telling,” Fanny Price is the child of a reasonably genteel woman and a really really rich man. The only child.
Is there a philosopher in the house? Doesn’t that make her not Fanny Price any more?
When I realized this book was utterly unreadable, I thought I had to bow out of reviewing it. Then I remembered something about the 25 pages I’d managed to get through.
Easily half the prose is lifted directly from Austen herself. It would be as if a P&P “sequel” started off with the famous line about a truth universally acknowledged, and then went on to quote the next line from P&P, and the next, and the next. So really, I've already read at least half of Shepherd's book. Which is more than she did for Rowling.
I promise you: if you see something you like in here, it’s a quote from Austen.
Did Shepherd think nobody would notice she was doing this? Or did she figure no one would care? It’s only Mansfield Park, after all.
I take it back. Not all of the writing in here is stolen from Austen. Some of it is stolen from Elizabeth Inchbald, the author of the play the characters from the real Mansfield Park decide to perform for fun. Shepherd keeps that part of the plot, probably in order to make it even easier for her to finish her self-allotted daily word-count goals while she was working on Murder at Mansfield Park. She could have been aiming for five thousand words a day and still have finished in under an hour.
I really did want to try to finish this, since the back cover mentions something about “a thief-taker from London” who comes to Mansfield Park in order to solve the titular murder. That might have been interesting. I could have learned something.
I tried. I failed. I’ll Google “thief-takers.”
And now I’m going to get a stiff drink and a good book and try to wash away the taste of this irredeemable piece of trash.
The reason you might have sworn off all things Shepherd is that she’s the woman who wrote that Huff Post column about how J.K. Rowling should stop writing and give other authors a chance. Her premise is that any book written by Rowling will routinely go bestseller, so readers will flock to her newest offering. If Rowling doesn’t write anything, people will be forced to look at other bookstore shelves for something amusing to read, and they’ll have the chance to see other writers they might otherwise have never heard of.
There’s one thing wrong with this piece of logic. (Other than the jerk-head factor of telling a talented writer to please shut up.) The flaw in Shepherd’s argument is that there are plenty of people who were non-readers who were drawn to books by Rowling. These are people who learned through reading Harry Potter that we book-lovers weren’t being pretentious showoffs when we carried a book with us every minute of every day. These people developed the habit of reading fiction thanks to Rowling. I know this, because I know some of these people.
There are also, sadly, plenty of people who read all the Harry Potter books and aren’t interested in reading anything else. If Rowling goes away, these people aren’t going to restlessly browse for other titles. They’re going to go back to whatever it is they do when they aren’t reading Harry Potter. I know some of these people, too.
This isn’t the part of Shepherd’s article that got people screaming, though. What really burned the collective biscuit of the reading community was Shepherd’s airy admission that she hasn’t actually read the Harry Potter books, but she thinks it’s a shame that so many adults have. They may be good – she wouldn’t know – but surely grownups would be better served with more intellectually stimulating works than (sniff) children’s books.
Shepherd may be laboring under the delusion that it’s true, as they say in Hollywood, that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. And it’s a fact that her deliberately provocative article brought her name to the attention of plenty of people who had never heard of her.
The problem is that their reaction was to solemnly swear that they would never, ever, under any circumstances read her books. If she thinks these people are either kidding or exaggerating, she should check the number of people who put her lone published title on a shelf marked “will never read.” She should also see how many people put her book on their “I’ll really have to check this out some time” list.
So far as I know, I was the only one who responded in that fashion. And even I knew enough to keep it to myself. I figured I’d sneak over to the library (it’s not as if she gets paid extra for the copy they already bought if I check it out), burn through her book in a day or two, and give her what she refused to give Rowling: a fair hearing.
Her book is an Austen sequel. I’m an Austen reader. How hard could it be?
Sorry, what did you just say? I couldn’t hear you over all those FAMOUS LAST WORDS.
It’s not just that this book sucks so hard I sustained permanent mental hickeys. It’s that the premise itself is so inexcusable it crosses the line into offensive.
The book is called Murder at Mansfield Park. Mansfield Park is one of Austen’s least-read, least-loved books.
I used to spend a lot of time on an Austen forum. Periodically, “Fanny wars” would break out, and we’d all be forced to choose sides.
It was brutal. Families were divided. Friendships were destroyed. Lives were ruined.
Okay, that last bit is an exaggeration. But the other ones are really, truly, true.
Fanny wars, to Janeites, are passionate battles over whether Fanny Price (the heroine of Mansfield Park) is sweet and lovable and all things good, or if she should be incarnated in the flesh by some latter-day Dr. Frankenstein so we can all have a good time slapping her.
I can see both sides. The first time I read Mansfield Park, I adored poor Fanny. The second time, I stopped loving freedom long enough to believe we ought to have laws against anyone being that annoying. Eventually, after many more readings, I shifted into a quiet, reasonable admiration for her, seasoned with an occasional sigh and a sometimes audible wish that she would for God’s sake cheer up, already.
Lynn Shepherd is one of the haters. Her book is, according to the back cover copy, “an irreverent new twist” on Mansfield Park.
I guess that’s one name for it.
Imagine overhearing the following conversation:
“Guess what? I’m writing one of those Jane Austen sequels! It’s going to be called Pride and Prejudice and Hotties!”
“That sounds fun. But don’t you think the title’s a little too close to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?”
“What? No! Okay, so here’s what it’s going to be. There are two sisters, Elizabeth and Jane Bennet. Elizabeth’s the oldest. Jane’s the youngest.”
“Um, it’s actually the other way around.”
“In the original, yeah! But this is a rewrite! Obviously I have to make it different, right?”
“Well, sure. But most people do that by taking a new angle on the story. Maybe they write it from the point of view of the maid. Or they tell a story set in Pride and Predjudice’s future – like how the Darcys are getting along after their marriage or something.”
“Well, that’s not what I’m doing. I’m doing a whole new story!”
“But you’re calling it Pride and Prejudice.”
“Exactly! So there are two Bennet sisters, Elizabeth and Jane.”
“Wait. Just two? There are five in the original story.”
“Have you been listening? If I keep it just like in the original story, what’s the point?”
“Uh...”
“So. Elizabeth is the oldest. She’s kind of ugly and boring. Nobody likes her much. They just feel sorry for her. And Jane is this really flighty airhead. She’s not very pretty, either. She’s just boy-crazy.”
“But – how is this Pride and Prejudice?”
“Keep listening. So this hot guy shows up in town.”
“Mr. Wickham?”
“No, no. Mr. Collins.”
“Mr. Collins is HOT???”
“Totally! And both the Bennet sisters totally fall for him, but he gets this mad crush on Charlotte Lucas. ‘Cause she’s hot, too. And worldly and sophisticated. And rich.”
“Okay, HANG on.”
“But the Bennet sisters don’t feel too bad. Their dad has a lot of money, and he tells them if they don’t get married, they can have their dowries in cash instead and open up a business in London. I cut out that boring thing about how the Bennets need to have a son or their estate gets left to somebody else.”
(Sound of head exploding.)
What I just described does less violence to the story of Pride and Prejudice than Shepherd does to Mansfield Park. It would also undoubtedly be less painful to read.
Shepherd changes Fanny Price from the saintly, impoverished eldest sister of a large family to a spoiled-rotten only-child heiress. She makes Fanny’s rival in love, the arch-sophisticate Mary Crawford, into a sweet and impoverished young woman.
Here’s my question.
WHY?
What does it even MEAN to “rewrite” a story so much that the WHOLE ENTIRE POINT is lost?
In the real Mansfield Park, Fanny Price is an adopted child who starts off pitied and pushed about and ends up being the redeemer and moral compass of her little corner of the world. She’s seen as timid to a fault, but triumphs over the corruption around her with a moral strength and fortitude that even her enemies have to admire.
In the real Mansfield Park, Fanny’s mother defiantly runs off with a lowly man and had, like, a million kids with him. In this “telling,” Fanny Price is the child of a reasonably genteel woman and a really really rich man. The only child.
Is there a philosopher in the house? Doesn’t that make her not Fanny Price any more?
When I realized this book was utterly unreadable, I thought I had to bow out of reviewing it. Then I remembered something about the 25 pages I’d managed to get through.
Easily half the prose is lifted directly from Austen herself. It would be as if a P&P “sequel” started off with the famous line about a truth universally acknowledged, and then went on to quote the next line from P&P, and the next, and the next. So really, I've already read at least half of Shepherd's book. Which is more than she did for Rowling.
I promise you: if you see something you like in here, it’s a quote from Austen.
Did Shepherd think nobody would notice she was doing this? Or did she figure no one would care? It’s only Mansfield Park, after all.
I take it back. Not all of the writing in here is stolen from Austen. Some of it is stolen from Elizabeth Inchbald, the author of the play the characters from the real Mansfield Park decide to perform for fun. Shepherd keeps that part of the plot, probably in order to make it even easier for her to finish her self-allotted daily word-count goals while she was working on Murder at Mansfield Park. She could have been aiming for five thousand words a day and still have finished in under an hour.
I really did want to try to finish this, since the back cover mentions something about “a thief-taker from London” who comes to Mansfield Park in order to solve the titular murder. That might have been interesting. I could have learned something.
I tried. I failed. I’ll Google “thief-takers.”
And now I’m going to get a stiff drink and a good book and try to wash away the taste of this irredeemable piece of trash.
November 10, 2010
having first read the original during my A level studies back in 1981 at that time I thought Fanny and Edmund were great characters then i reread it 15 years later and found them to be insufferable prigs, humourless, judgemental and worthy of smething awful happening to them. Imagine my joy on reading this book. Brilliantly written in the style of Jane Austen, the characterizations are wonderful, storyline is clever and Shepherd has very ingeniously taken the original and shifted it into its own weird universe. Lots of these Austen prequels and sequels never work for me with a few notable exceptions. this one, i thoroughly enjoyed. If like me you have grown to loathe Fanny, give this a read, her character is wondefully appalling. An easy and good fun read
March 26, 2019
Murder at Mansfield Park really breaks into two parts: the first half retells the story of Mansfield Park with Fanny Price as a bratty heiress and Mary Crawford a Mary Sue who lives in genteel poverty. The second half is a murder mystery.
The two really don't mix.
I do not mean that as a slight against the writing. I mean, truly, it feels like two separate stories. By coincidence most of the characters from the first story stick around. But if you replace Fanny with Jane Doe and Mary with Sally Smith, the story works just as well. In fact, main-ish characters from the first half flat-out disappear and it doesn't impact the story at all.
The retelling proved rather mediocre. I did not take umbrage like many readers at the author's personality switches. It was kind of fun watching how she changed their characters. But at the same time, I came for murder and some dude named Charles Maddox and quickly lost patience with how long the retelling dragged on. If you promise me murder you need to give me murder.
The murder mystery itself also fell flat for me. I will say this, it did remind me of classic golden age detective fiction and I think outside of the Austen context would quite easily charm me. But in the Austen context...it was not that hard to figure out who committed the crime.
My biggest complaint with the story, however, is not the retelling or the mystery. It is the fact that the author glides by scenes or announces character traits that left me going...."Huh?"
It was like another story was being told just outside of view.
For example, Charles Maddox resorts to some...unorthodox means to gain information from a servant. This is considered a black mark against him. Yet it gets brought up so unexpectedly I kept flipping back to see if I missed the scene somehow. But while super important in its own way, the event feels like an after-thought every time it got brought up.
Or the love triangle. It comes out of nowhere and we are told the second lead loves Mary's mind and intelligence. But thus far no evidence exists either of her great intelligence or of a restless nature that would attract him. In fact, everything points to the contrary!
While a decent enough story, it left me feeling too puzzled and out of the loop to really hold my interest.
The two really don't mix.
I do not mean that as a slight against the writing. I mean, truly, it feels like two separate stories. By coincidence most of the characters from the first story stick around. But if you replace Fanny with Jane Doe and Mary with Sally Smith, the story works just as well. In fact, main-ish characters from the first half flat-out disappear and it doesn't impact the story at all.
The retelling proved rather mediocre. I did not take umbrage like many readers at the author's personality switches. It was kind of fun watching how she changed their characters. But at the same time, I came for murder and some dude named Charles Maddox and quickly lost patience with how long the retelling dragged on. If you promise me murder you need to give me murder.
The murder mystery itself also fell flat for me. I will say this, it did remind me of classic golden age detective fiction and I think outside of the Austen context would quite easily charm me. But in the Austen context...it was not that hard to figure out who committed the crime.
My biggest complaint with the story, however, is not the retelling or the mystery. It is the fact that the author glides by scenes or announces character traits that left me going...."Huh?"
It was like another story was being told just outside of view.
For example, Charles Maddox resorts to some...unorthodox means to gain information from a servant. This is considered a black mark against him. Yet it gets brought up so unexpectedly I kept flipping back to see if I missed the scene somehow. But while super important in its own way, the event feels like an after-thought every time it got brought up.
Or the love triangle. It comes out of nowhere and we are told the second lead loves Mary's mind and intelligence. But thus far no evidence exists either of her great intelligence or of a restless nature that would attract him. In fact, everything points to the contrary!
While a decent enough story, it left me feeling too puzzled and out of the loop to really hold my interest.
dnf-set-aside-for-later
October 17, 2019DNF p.21
I lay this one aside for now. It was a case of not reading the blurb and going strictly by the title that influenced me to pick this one up. I'm always on the look out for books based on Jane Austen's Mansfield Park because it happens to be my second favorite Austen novel, but not even in the contest for her most popular.
I want to give fair due to this book and say that if I'd been prepared through reading the blurb or some reviews before I started reading that it might not have come as a not-so-good shocker for me. I might have waited until I was in the mood for a MP sequel that turned the story characters on their heads. The writer arranges her writing to match Austen and quotes Austen's original throughout so the writing style was definitely not at issue for me and murder mysteries are my jam.
However, now that I've given this book the benefit of the doubt and take on some of the responsibility for it being a fail with me, I will be honest and say that I went into this expecting a MP variation or sequel and ended up with neither, really. The MP characters and setting names and a few situations familiar scenes from the original like performing the play or Rushworth improving his estate were all I could credit toward a variation.
Some won't mind, will shrug and do great.
On the other hand, I would rather it have just been an all new, unconnected to Austen, Regency or Early Victorian Era Murder Mystery. It was vexing to put it mildly, to see a beloved story stripped apart and used to piece together a different book. I adore Fanny Price and I don't like the idea of her being murdered, but I would have been less upset if the author had left her character intact and killed her off than this. Every single character, save Mrs. Norris, had a lobotomy and became someone else and was given, in several cases, different circumstances.
I skimmed forward and read a few chapters here and there and just could not get past my big issue of fiddling with the characters. Fanny is selfish and mean to the point of cruelty at times, Mary is sweet and put upon by Fanny, Henry is a hardworking estate improver and Edmund is Mrs. Norris step-son? And, the list could go on. For those who wanted to re-write MP because they didn't like the original, here you go. Ha!
Its possibly a decent murder mystery that others can appreciate if they go in looking for a gently-paced historical murder mystery rather than a tribute to Austen's novel, but I'm hung up on the changes so I'll set it aside and hunt up a different Mansfield Park sequel or variation.
I lay this one aside for now. It was a case of not reading the blurb and going strictly by the title that influenced me to pick this one up. I'm always on the look out for books based on Jane Austen's Mansfield Park because it happens to be my second favorite Austen novel, but not even in the contest for her most popular.
I want to give fair due to this book and say that if I'd been prepared through reading the blurb or some reviews before I started reading that it might not have come as a not-so-good shocker for me. I might have waited until I was in the mood for a MP sequel that turned the story characters on their heads. The writer arranges her writing to match Austen and quotes Austen's original throughout so the writing style was definitely not at issue for me and murder mysteries are my jam.
However, now that I've given this book the benefit of the doubt and take on some of the responsibility for it being a fail with me, I will be honest and say that I went into this expecting a MP variation or sequel and ended up with neither, really. The MP characters and setting names and a few situations familiar scenes from the original like performing the play or Rushworth improving his estate were all I could credit toward a variation.
Some won't mind, will shrug and do great.
On the other hand, I would rather it have just been an all new, unconnected to Austen, Regency or Early Victorian Era Murder Mystery. It was vexing to put it mildly, to see a beloved story stripped apart and used to piece together a different book. I adore Fanny Price and I don't like the idea of her being murdered, but I would have been less upset if the author had left her character intact and killed her off than this. Every single character, save Mrs. Norris, had a lobotomy and became someone else and was given, in several cases, different circumstances.
I skimmed forward and read a few chapters here and there and just could not get past my big issue of fiddling with the characters. Fanny is selfish and mean to the point of cruelty at times, Mary is sweet and put upon by Fanny, Henry is a hardworking estate improver and Edmund is Mrs. Norris step-son? And, the list could go on. For those who wanted to re-write MP because they didn't like the original, here you go. Ha!
Its possibly a decent murder mystery that others can appreciate if they go in looking for a gently-paced historical murder mystery rather than a tribute to Austen's novel, but I'm hung up on the changes so I'll set it aside and hunt up a different Mansfield Park sequel or variation.
March 1, 2018
"Murder at Mansfield Park" is the first book in a series involving the investigator Charles Maddox. The characters in the story are from Jane Austen's "Mansfield Park", focusing on Mary Crawford and Fanny Price. The language captures the tone and spirit of Austen's writing.
The crime story has a good plot with lots of twists and turns. There are plenty of "upstairs" and "downstairs" characters to love, hate, or question their motives. There is no need to have read Austen's "Mansfield Park" before enjoying this lively homage to her work.
The crime story has a good plot with lots of twists and turns. There are plenty of "upstairs" and "downstairs" characters to love, hate, or question their motives. There is no need to have read Austen's "Mansfield Park" before enjoying this lively homage to her work.
August 11, 2016
This is an amusing, skillfully executed effort to merge the worlds of Jane Austen and Agatha Christie, something which eluded P.D. James in last year's disastrous Death Comes to Pemberley. For all the Fanny bashers, this is a gift. In this Mansfield Park everything-and everyone-has been turned upside down and inside out, except for Mrs Norris(still evil) and Lady Bertram(still somnolent). The first half is a clever remix of Austen's least popular novel. After Fanny goes missing, it morphs into a who-dun-it in the style of Dame Agatha. It stands on its own, but is more effective if you're well-acquainted with Mansfield Park. Whether you love her or loath her, this Fanny Price is anything but dull!
August 5, 2016
To a true fan of Jane Austen's works, I've found that this sort of "new take" on one of her novels is a hit-or-miss situation. Sometimes, I find them to be enjoyable and creative. Other times, I find them to be such an abomination that I can't abide by them at all. Case-in-point: this dreadful book. Ok, that is a bit harsh. The book itself wasn't so bad. It took some time to get going, but once the mystery got going it was a decent book. I might even have liked it - were it not unnecessarily mired in a parody of Mansfield Park.
I say parody because while changing the story is already quite taxing on a classic novel, changing it's inherent personality is altogether abominable. Ask someone about Mansfield Park, and you're most likely to hear complaints on the servile, insipid Fanny Price. Except that in this book, Fanny has become Mary Crawford and Mary has become Fanny. Mary is now the poor, simple girl while Fanny is the haughty beauty. I couldn't handle this change. Should Shepherd have taken the same characters and changed the story I may have been able to enjoy this book, but to change the characters that define this book so thoroughly felt offensive somehow. Especially because I re-read Mansfield Park before I picked up this book, which is how I noticed that Shepherd kept a good number comments or thoughts almost word-for-word except that they have been shifted to another character.
The back of the copy I read stated both that Fanny and Mary were now switched - and also that this book was supposed to be the same situations with the added twist of the murder. How can it be the same situations if you've changed the main players and the situations both? It seems to me, if you are going to change the story AND change the main characters ... why not just write a new book? Why make it a re-make of Mansfield Park? If you have never read Mansfield Park, never intend to read Mansfield Park, or just generally don't care about Mansfield Park at all, then you may very well enjoy this book. I, however, do not fit into any of those three categories, and therefore could not.
I say parody because while changing the story is already quite taxing on a classic novel, changing it's inherent personality is altogether abominable. Ask someone about Mansfield Park, and you're most likely to hear complaints on the servile, insipid Fanny Price. Except that in this book, Fanny has become Mary Crawford and Mary has become Fanny. Mary is now the poor, simple girl while Fanny is the haughty beauty. I couldn't handle this change. Should Shepherd have taken the same characters and changed the story I may have been able to enjoy this book, but to change the characters that define this book so thoroughly felt offensive somehow. Especially because I re-read Mansfield Park before I picked up this book, which is how I noticed that Shepherd kept a good number comments or thoughts almost word-for-word except that they have been shifted to another character.
The back of the copy I read stated both that Fanny and Mary were now switched - and also that this book was supposed to be the same situations with the added twist of the murder. How can it be the same situations if you've changed the main players and the situations both? It seems to me, if you are going to change the story AND change the main characters ... why not just write a new book? Why make it a re-make of Mansfield Park? If you have never read Mansfield Park, never intend to read Mansfield Park, or just generally don't care about Mansfield Park at all, then you may very well enjoy this book. I, however, do not fit into any of those three categories, and therefore could not.
September 19, 2012
I was confused about this book. I have read and enjoyed other Austen "mash-ups", where the classic novels are revisited with a supernatural twist including "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" and "Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters". Both of these books were true to the Austen character and background, but threw in some occult nasties. Murder changed several main characters financial and family circumstances to aid the new plot where a murder and multiple suspects were added. The story was no longer told from Fanny's point of view.
I did not have a problem with Fanny no longer being the heroine, and was looking forward to revisiting the story form a different point of view. But the characters were so changed, the work was very unlike the original. The murder plot was introduced half way through the book. A Sherlock Holmes like detective (referred to as "thief-taker") solved the case in the nick of time. There was an un-tidy ending and a handful of characters were happily paired off or placed in lavish estates, and many others who were integral to the plot were not mentioned at all.
This was disappointing as a revist to Mansfield Park as most of the characters had changed. The pithy Austen writing style was lacking. It was not a satisfactoy "mash up" as there was no supernatural element, but a homocide that Austen herself could have written. Austen playfully viewed the gothic genre, as observd in "Northanger Abbey". The book read more like a murder set in a grand house that a publisher considered ripe for cashing in on the Austen "mash-up" craze and crudely fitted the plot into the Mansfield Park universe.
I did not have a problem with Fanny no longer being the heroine, and was looking forward to revisiting the story form a different point of view. But the characters were so changed, the work was very unlike the original. The murder plot was introduced half way through the book. A Sherlock Holmes like detective (referred to as "thief-taker") solved the case in the nick of time. There was an un-tidy ending and a handful of characters were happily paired off or placed in lavish estates, and many others who were integral to the plot were not mentioned at all.
This was disappointing as a revist to Mansfield Park as most of the characters had changed. The pithy Austen writing style was lacking. It was not a satisfactoy "mash up" as there was no supernatural element, but a homocide that Austen herself could have written. Austen playfully viewed the gothic genre, as observd in "Northanger Abbey". The book read more like a murder set in a grand house that a publisher considered ripe for cashing in on the Austen "mash-up" craze and crudely fitted the plot into the Mansfield Park universe.
February 23, 2025
Murder at Mansfield Park flips everything on it’s head and makes Fanny the villain and victim (not a spoiler, it’s written in the blurb). Mary Crawford is the kind, smart heroine who helps a London thief taker solve the crime. I enjoyed it and thought it was a good story.
August 1, 2010
Mansfield Park is considered (by some) to be the dark horse of Jane Austen’s oeuvre and her heroine Fanny Price intolerable. Poor Fanny. She really gets the bum’s rush in Austenland. The patron saint of the weak, insipid and downtrodden, she is Jane Austen’s most misunderstood heroine. In fact, many dispute if she is the heroine of Mansfield Park at all, giving that honor to the evil antagonist Mary Crawford.
Much has been debated over why Austen’s dark and moralistic novel has not been embraced as warmly as its sparkling siblings. Personally, I delight in reading Mansfield Park and root for Fanny Price’s principles to prevail. So when I read a book announcement last July that Jane Austen’s classic would be re-imagined as a murder mystery “whereas Fanny is quite a pain in the arse in Austen’s version, Lynn’s [Shepherd:] Fanny is an outrageous gold-digger”, my rankles were ired. First it was zombies in my Austen, then vampires and now my gentle Fanny was under attack. What next?
Reading Murder at Mansfield Park with a chip on my shoulder made for a difficult beginning. I was resistant and confused by all the character changes. Shepherd mixes up Austen’s classic story by switching the protagonist and antagonist, morphing other characters and plot points and spotlighting the murder instead of the moralistic undertones that Austen chose to soft shoe her narrative. This was Austen’s setting but in an alternate universe. Meek, poor and principled Fanny Price was egotistical, rich and underhanded. Selfish, coquettish and manipulative Mary Crawford was generous, demure and obliging. Edmund was no longer a Bertram but the son of Rev & Mrs. Norris, now rich gentry. Henry Crawford was no longer an estate owner but a renovator of estates. There were the familiar private theatricals, the gift necklace and ball, the excursion to view a picturesque estate, and the elopement, but all tweaked and scrambled. There are other changes, but you get my drift. If Mansfield Park nay sayers wanted a complete renovation, this was it. The only constant between both novels was the officious and abrasive Mrs. Norris. Obviously Shepherd knew a good/bad thing when she saw it, and let her be.
I was immediately charmed by Shepherd’s command of Regency-era language. Not since Diana Birchall’s Mrs. Darcy’s Dilemma have we been treated to such effusions of fanciful Austenesque styling. As the prose eloquently rolled through the first few chapters I set aside my resistance to change and began to appreciate the craft behind the concept of turning everything we knew about Austen’s characters and plot completely asunder. This was a pastiche written with great respect for the original by an author who understood the novel as it was evolving during the early nineteenth-century and had a superior command of the language.
When the insulting and underhanded Fanny Price is finally bumped off half way through the book, few will grieve and many will cheer. She had now become Shepherd’s Fanny and not Austen’s, so it is all forgivable. Enter thief-taker Charles Maddox hired by Tom Bertram to sleuth out the criminal and the novel becomes a murder mystery. Since I have a penchant for handsome and clever gumshoes who swoop in and put the world to right, it was an easy step to acquiescence. Shepherd had achieved the impossible by renovating Jane and totally charming me in the process. Her characterization of Henry Crawford proclaimed that it was his “role is to improve upon nature, to supply her deficiencies, and create the prefect prospect that should have been the imperfect one that is.” I will argue that Lynn Shepherd has accomplished just the same.
Laurel Ann, Austenprose
Much has been debated over why Austen’s dark and moralistic novel has not been embraced as warmly as its sparkling siblings. Personally, I delight in reading Mansfield Park and root for Fanny Price’s principles to prevail. So when I read a book announcement last July that Jane Austen’s classic would be re-imagined as a murder mystery “whereas Fanny is quite a pain in the arse in Austen’s version, Lynn’s [Shepherd:] Fanny is an outrageous gold-digger”, my rankles were ired. First it was zombies in my Austen, then vampires and now my gentle Fanny was under attack. What next?
Reading Murder at Mansfield Park with a chip on my shoulder made for a difficult beginning. I was resistant and confused by all the character changes. Shepherd mixes up Austen’s classic story by switching the protagonist and antagonist, morphing other characters and plot points and spotlighting the murder instead of the moralistic undertones that Austen chose to soft shoe her narrative. This was Austen’s setting but in an alternate universe. Meek, poor and principled Fanny Price was egotistical, rich and underhanded. Selfish, coquettish and manipulative Mary Crawford was generous, demure and obliging. Edmund was no longer a Bertram but the son of Rev & Mrs. Norris, now rich gentry. Henry Crawford was no longer an estate owner but a renovator of estates. There were the familiar private theatricals, the gift necklace and ball, the excursion to view a picturesque estate, and the elopement, but all tweaked and scrambled. There are other changes, but you get my drift. If Mansfield Park nay sayers wanted a complete renovation, this was it. The only constant between both novels was the officious and abrasive Mrs. Norris. Obviously Shepherd knew a good/bad thing when she saw it, and let her be.
I was immediately charmed by Shepherd’s command of Regency-era language. Not since Diana Birchall’s Mrs. Darcy’s Dilemma have we been treated to such effusions of fanciful Austenesque styling. As the prose eloquently rolled through the first few chapters I set aside my resistance to change and began to appreciate the craft behind the concept of turning everything we knew about Austen’s characters and plot completely asunder. This was a pastiche written with great respect for the original by an author who understood the novel as it was evolving during the early nineteenth-century and had a superior command of the language.
When the insulting and underhanded Fanny Price is finally bumped off half way through the book, few will grieve and many will cheer. She had now become Shepherd’s Fanny and not Austen’s, so it is all forgivable. Enter thief-taker Charles Maddox hired by Tom Bertram to sleuth out the criminal and the novel becomes a murder mystery. Since I have a penchant for handsome and clever gumshoes who swoop in and put the world to right, it was an easy step to acquiescence. Shepherd had achieved the impossible by renovating Jane and totally charming me in the process. Her characterization of Henry Crawford proclaimed that it was his “role is to improve upon nature, to supply her deficiencies, and create the prefect prospect that should have been the imperfect one that is.” I will argue that Lynn Shepherd has accomplished just the same.
Laurel Ann, Austenprose
Want to read
October 6, 2022Really good twist on Manfield Park, with jealousy, spite, love, murder and, of course, marriage - that staple of all Austen books. Very well done and great fun.
February 5, 2015
Scambio di ruoli
La prima impressione di Murder at Mansfield Park è di stordimento: il lettore, che si attende una semplice variazione della storia di Mansfield Park con delitto, non può non sentirsi spaesato tra personaggi così differenti dai loro originali austeniani da confonderlo.
Spesso mi sono ritrovata a dover fare per l'ennesima volta mente locale tra i dati forniti dalla Shepherd sui personaggi, tanto erano diverse le loro caratteristiche dal romanzo di Jane Austen. Ma l'autrice non si è limitata a prendere solo i loro nomi; la Shepherd ha ricreato situazioni molto simili a quelle di Mansfield Park e caratteri analoghi, solo che li ha poi attribuiti ad altri personaggi.
Cominciamo da Fanny Price: la giovane, lungi dall'essere la modesta e remissiva parente povera è una ricchissima orfana cresciuta da Sir Thomas sino a diventare una fanciulla arrogante e orgogliosa, viziata oltre ogni limite dalla Zia Norris, con lusinghe e privilegi che in Mansfield Park erano riservati a Maria Bertram.
Maria è qui più giovane di Fanny. È anche lei orgogliosa, essendo la figlia di un baronetto, ma accampa meno diritti del personaggio di Jane Austen, essendo fornita di una dote meno cospicua di quella di Fanny.
Nel corso della rappresentazione teatrale (Lovers Vows, anche la commedia resta inalterata), Mr. Rushworth – che è tutt'altro che lo stolto creato da Jane Austen – si diverte a corteggiare entrambe le giovani, creando il triangolo amoroso che in Mansfield Park vedeva ai tre vertici Henry Crawford, Maria e Julia, sostituiti qui da Rushworth, Fanny e Maria (sia ben chiaro che Maria, pur facendo parte del triangolo, qui riveste il ruolo che fu di Julia).
E si potrebbe continuare così, per quello che io considero uno scambio di ruoli anche un po' pirandelliano, volendo: è come se ci trovassimo di fronte a una compagnia teatrale in cui gli attori si siano divertiti a scambiarsi le parti recitando sempre la stessa commedia, interpretando di sera in sera un ruolo diverso e lasciando il pubblico stupito e confuso. Per farvi capire meglio: sarebbe come vedere Orgoglio e pregiudizio 1995 con Colin Firth che interpreta il ruolo di Wickham, Crispin Bonham Carter (Bingley) che fa la parte di Darcy, David Bamber (Mr. Collins) che fa la parte di Bingley e Adrian Lukis (Wickham) che fa la parte di Mr. Collins.
Forse non è un caso che la Shepherd abbia scelto proprio Mansfield Park come romanzo austeniano da rivoluzionare in questo modo, dal momento che è proprio in esso che il teatro ha un ruolo tanto dominante, non soltanto col tentativo di recitare Lovers Vows e l'allestimento di un vero e proprio teatro casalingo – e neanche troppo modesto – ma con i riferimenti a Shakespeare, alla declamazione di versi e alla lettura ad alta voce.
E, finché non ci si abitua – e non è di certo facile –, non si riesce a gustare appieno la storia.
L'unico personaggio che sembra rimanere se stesso è Edmund, solo che qui non ci troviamo davanti a Edmund Bertram, bensì Edmund Norris, figlio di primo letto del ricco Mr. Norris e figliastro di Miss Ward in Norris, uno dei personaggi austeniani più negativi – se non addirittura il più negativo. Per colorire ulteriormente di austenianità questo personaggio, la Shepherd le attribuisce atteggiamenti da Lady Catherine de Bourgh nel ribadire il fidanzamento tra il suo figliastro Edmund e la ricca Fanny.
Ad aggiungere confusione su confusione c'è poi lo stile che cita Jane Austen a ogni piè sospinto, con brani tratti da tutti i suoi scritti, lettere comprese, dando l'impressione di quasi autenticità. In questo la Shepherd si rivela una maestra del collage, più che un'abile imitatrice.
Tuttavia, dalla seconda parte del romanzo, la Shepherd comincia a liberarsi dalle pastoie austeniane per avventurarsi nel romanzo giallo.
La comparsa dell'investigatore Charles Maddox dei Bow Street Runners, sembra far virare il romanzo di rotta. Anche lo stile lascia da parte i collage austeniani per diventare più concreto, ispirandosi ai più illustri investigatori letterari, non ultimo Sherlock Holmes.
Mary Crawford resta sempre protagonista sebbene, anche in questo caso, continui a recitare un ruolo non suo, per quello che è stato definito nel corso del Gruppo di Lettura un vero e proprio Upsidedown.
Il fattore giallo lascia un po' a desiderare, dal momento che la Shepherd consente a troppi personaggi di andar via prima del delitto, tenendo a sua disposizione ben pochi sospetti. Il lettore, inoltre, non viene coinvolto attivamente nelle indagini, ritrovandosi spesso davanti a situazioni già parzialmente, se non totalmente, risolte da Maddox.
In definitiva una lettura scorrevole, che lascia però il lettore perplesso per buona parte del romanzo. A tutt'oggi non riesco a esprimere con decisione un parere: non so se il libro mi sia piaciuto davvero o meno. Le quattro stelle sono infatti un premio per l'originalità nel capovolgere i ruoli e per l'abilità di collagista della Shepherd.
Speriamo che qualche casa editrice italica voglia tradurre questo romanzo, in modo che tutti i Janeites italiani possano valutare di persona questo thriller letterario.
Potete trovare la recensione completa QUI:
http://ildiariodellelizzies.blogspot....
La prima impressione di Murder at Mansfield Park è di stordimento: il lettore, che si attende una semplice variazione della storia di Mansfield Park con delitto, non può non sentirsi spaesato tra personaggi così differenti dai loro originali austeniani da confonderlo.
Spesso mi sono ritrovata a dover fare per l'ennesima volta mente locale tra i dati forniti dalla Shepherd sui personaggi, tanto erano diverse le loro caratteristiche dal romanzo di Jane Austen. Ma l'autrice non si è limitata a prendere solo i loro nomi; la Shepherd ha ricreato situazioni molto simili a quelle di Mansfield Park e caratteri analoghi, solo che li ha poi attribuiti ad altri personaggi.
Cominciamo da Fanny Price: la giovane, lungi dall'essere la modesta e remissiva parente povera è una ricchissima orfana cresciuta da Sir Thomas sino a diventare una fanciulla arrogante e orgogliosa, viziata oltre ogni limite dalla Zia Norris, con lusinghe e privilegi che in Mansfield Park erano riservati a Maria Bertram.
Maria è qui più giovane di Fanny. È anche lei orgogliosa, essendo la figlia di un baronetto, ma accampa meno diritti del personaggio di Jane Austen, essendo fornita di una dote meno cospicua di quella di Fanny.
Nel corso della rappresentazione teatrale (Lovers Vows, anche la commedia resta inalterata), Mr. Rushworth – che è tutt'altro che lo stolto creato da Jane Austen – si diverte a corteggiare entrambe le giovani, creando il triangolo amoroso che in Mansfield Park vedeva ai tre vertici Henry Crawford, Maria e Julia, sostituiti qui da Rushworth, Fanny e Maria (sia ben chiaro che Maria, pur facendo parte del triangolo, qui riveste il ruolo che fu di Julia).
E si potrebbe continuare così, per quello che io considero uno scambio di ruoli anche un po' pirandelliano, volendo: è come se ci trovassimo di fronte a una compagnia teatrale in cui gli attori si siano divertiti a scambiarsi le parti recitando sempre la stessa commedia, interpretando di sera in sera un ruolo diverso e lasciando il pubblico stupito e confuso. Per farvi capire meglio: sarebbe come vedere Orgoglio e pregiudizio 1995 con Colin Firth che interpreta il ruolo di Wickham, Crispin Bonham Carter (Bingley) che fa la parte di Darcy, David Bamber (Mr. Collins) che fa la parte di Bingley e Adrian Lukis (Wickham) che fa la parte di Mr. Collins.
Forse non è un caso che la Shepherd abbia scelto proprio Mansfield Park come romanzo austeniano da rivoluzionare in questo modo, dal momento che è proprio in esso che il teatro ha un ruolo tanto dominante, non soltanto col tentativo di recitare Lovers Vows e l'allestimento di un vero e proprio teatro casalingo – e neanche troppo modesto – ma con i riferimenti a Shakespeare, alla declamazione di versi e alla lettura ad alta voce.
E, finché non ci si abitua – e non è di certo facile –, non si riesce a gustare appieno la storia.
L'unico personaggio che sembra rimanere se stesso è Edmund, solo che qui non ci troviamo davanti a Edmund Bertram, bensì Edmund Norris, figlio di primo letto del ricco Mr. Norris e figliastro di Miss Ward in Norris, uno dei personaggi austeniani più negativi – se non addirittura il più negativo. Per colorire ulteriormente di austenianità questo personaggio, la Shepherd le attribuisce atteggiamenti da Lady Catherine de Bourgh nel ribadire il fidanzamento tra il suo figliastro Edmund e la ricca Fanny.
Ad aggiungere confusione su confusione c'è poi lo stile che cita Jane Austen a ogni piè sospinto, con brani tratti da tutti i suoi scritti, lettere comprese, dando l'impressione di quasi autenticità. In questo la Shepherd si rivela una maestra del collage, più che un'abile imitatrice.
Tuttavia, dalla seconda parte del romanzo, la Shepherd comincia a liberarsi dalle pastoie austeniane per avventurarsi nel romanzo giallo.
La comparsa dell'investigatore Charles Maddox dei Bow Street Runners, sembra far virare il romanzo di rotta. Anche lo stile lascia da parte i collage austeniani per diventare più concreto, ispirandosi ai più illustri investigatori letterari, non ultimo Sherlock Holmes.
Mary Crawford resta sempre protagonista sebbene, anche in questo caso, continui a recitare un ruolo non suo, per quello che è stato definito nel corso del Gruppo di Lettura un vero e proprio Upsidedown.
Il fattore giallo lascia un po' a desiderare, dal momento che la Shepherd consente a troppi personaggi di andar via prima del delitto, tenendo a sua disposizione ben pochi sospetti. Il lettore, inoltre, non viene coinvolto attivamente nelle indagini, ritrovandosi spesso davanti a situazioni già parzialmente, se non totalmente, risolte da Maddox.
In definitiva una lettura scorrevole, che lascia però il lettore perplesso per buona parte del romanzo. A tutt'oggi non riesco a esprimere con decisione un parere: non so se il libro mi sia piaciuto davvero o meno. Le quattro stelle sono infatti un premio per l'originalità nel capovolgere i ruoli e per l'abilità di collagista della Shepherd.
Speriamo che qualche casa editrice italica voglia tradurre questo romanzo, in modo che tutti i Janeites italiani possano valutare di persona questo thriller letterario.
Potete trovare la recensione completa QUI:
http://ildiariodellelizzies.blogspot....
October 12, 2010
Years ago, when, after dragging myself through what I have since come to think of as the literary equivalent to quicksand, I slammed the front and back cover of Jane Austen's Mansfield Park together for the first and last time and in a fit of frustration shoved the offensive thing back into it's place on my bookshelf, I swore to everyone who would hear me that I would never return to that place again. Words cannot express how much I adore the works of Jane Austen: I am a Janeite in the purest sense and will hear not one unpleasant word spoken against her: save for a discussion on Mansfield Park. I could not --- I literally *could not* enjoy the book. It was a physical impossibility. Had someone have offered me a million dollars to say something positive about Mansfield Park, I would have forever gone hungry. Jane Austen once said of Emma Woodhouse that she wrote "a heroine who no-one but myself will much like." Contrarily, I am an ardent admirer of Emma and consider Fanny Price to be the black sheep of Austen heroines. Even Jane Austen's mother could not like Fanny Price, considering her "insipid", which is, in my opinion, the nicest way of describing that self-righteous chit as I have ever heard. I cannot....I literally cannot approve of Mansfield Park.
*A Murder* At Mansfield Park, on the other hand, is the perfect antidote to the lethargic illness which seeps into the bones of whomever is shoved into the way of the insipid Fanny Price. Lynn Shepherd has, in writing such a clever, entertaining, humorous, and enjoyable tale, achieved the impossible Herculean feat of tempting a once-bitten-twice-shy reader such as myself back through the ominous gates of Mansfield Park. She has successfully taken a story which could send even the most faithful Regency readers straight to sleep and turned it into a fast-paced, witty, brilliant tale that all Jane Austen fans will praise as the perfect answer to Jane's Fanny Price.
In Ms. Shepherd's variation, Mary Crawford, the spoiled, vindictive, Caroline-Bingley-esque socialite of the original Mansfield Park, is the sweet, amiable, likeable character that I'm sure Jane had originally intended her Fanny Price to be --- she just fell a bit short off of the mark. Contrarily, in the character of Fanny Price, Lynn Shepherd has given we Fanny-dislikers what we have always wanted: a *reason* to hate to this woman. Jane Austen was excellent at writing villains, men and women alike, and she was always obvious about which was the villain and which was the heroine. In Mansfield Park, however, even though Mary Crawford was clearly intended to be the villain, readers ended up disliking Fanny Price instead --- and we don't know why! The woman is not intended to be a horrible beasty hag who ruins the lives of the people around her; and yet we cannot like her. In fact, I think (and I know as much when speaking for myself) we would like her more if she had been a bit more saucy. In Murder At Mansfield Park, Fanny Price is not merely saucy: she is downright evil. She is as venomous as a cobra, unlikeable in every way, and I can tell you from personal experience, it feels *fantastic* to be able to feel antagonistic toward the girl and not feel guilty because you know that you're not supposed to. Lynn Shepherd created something magical with her PC keyboard: something practically otherwordly in how well the entire structure holds together.
In Murder At Mansfield Park, fans get exactly what they wanted out of the original story and more. We get a good, worthy heroine designed by the infamous schematic of classic Jane Austen heroines. We get a villain who gets her due, even if more violently than Jane Austen ever considered possible. We get a set of strong, believable, entertaining supporting characters who, if nothing else, serve as an excuse to incite us do what Jane always encouraged: delight in the ridiculous. Between the black and white pages of this remarkable work of fiction are the echoes of Jane's world: her ideas, her words, her characters, and, most importantly, her vibrant, witty spirit that defines the attraction toward her works which ensnares all Janeites. Lynn Shepherd was not only loyal to Jane's memory, she was loyal to Jane's soul. Murder At Mansfield Park is an instant classic amongst Austen continuations and sequels, and I am certain that I am not alone in the hope that this novel is not the last word that we hear from the remarkable Lynn Shepherd.
*A Murder* At Mansfield Park, on the other hand, is the perfect antidote to the lethargic illness which seeps into the bones of whomever is shoved into the way of the insipid Fanny Price. Lynn Shepherd has, in writing such a clever, entertaining, humorous, and enjoyable tale, achieved the impossible Herculean feat of tempting a once-bitten-twice-shy reader such as myself back through the ominous gates of Mansfield Park. She has successfully taken a story which could send even the most faithful Regency readers straight to sleep and turned it into a fast-paced, witty, brilliant tale that all Jane Austen fans will praise as the perfect answer to Jane's Fanny Price.
In Ms. Shepherd's variation, Mary Crawford, the spoiled, vindictive, Caroline-Bingley-esque socialite of the original Mansfield Park, is the sweet, amiable, likeable character that I'm sure Jane had originally intended her Fanny Price to be --- she just fell a bit short off of the mark. Contrarily, in the character of Fanny Price, Lynn Shepherd has given we Fanny-dislikers what we have always wanted: a *reason* to hate to this woman. Jane Austen was excellent at writing villains, men and women alike, and she was always obvious about which was the villain and which was the heroine. In Mansfield Park, however, even though Mary Crawford was clearly intended to be the villain, readers ended up disliking Fanny Price instead --- and we don't know why! The woman is not intended to be a horrible beasty hag who ruins the lives of the people around her; and yet we cannot like her. In fact, I think (and I know as much when speaking for myself) we would like her more if she had been a bit more saucy. In Murder At Mansfield Park, Fanny Price is not merely saucy: she is downright evil. She is as venomous as a cobra, unlikeable in every way, and I can tell you from personal experience, it feels *fantastic* to be able to feel antagonistic toward the girl and not feel guilty because you know that you're not supposed to. Lynn Shepherd created something magical with her PC keyboard: something practically otherwordly in how well the entire structure holds together.
In Murder At Mansfield Park, fans get exactly what they wanted out of the original story and more. We get a good, worthy heroine designed by the infamous schematic of classic Jane Austen heroines. We get a villain who gets her due, even if more violently than Jane Austen ever considered possible. We get a set of strong, believable, entertaining supporting characters who, if nothing else, serve as an excuse to incite us do what Jane always encouraged: delight in the ridiculous. Between the black and white pages of this remarkable work of fiction are the echoes of Jane's world: her ideas, her words, her characters, and, most importantly, her vibrant, witty spirit that defines the attraction toward her works which ensnares all Janeites. Lynn Shepherd was not only loyal to Jane's memory, she was loyal to Jane's soul. Murder At Mansfield Park is an instant classic amongst Austen continuations and sequels, and I am certain that I am not alone in the hope that this novel is not the last word that we hear from the remarkable Lynn Shepherd.
January 4, 2011
In Murder at Mansfield Park, Lynn Shepherd has taken Austen's notoriously least popular work and turned it on its head. Rather than take the typical approach and write a spin-off, where the story continues on or follows a minor character, Shepherd presents an alternate telling of the story, one in which downtrodden wet blanket Fanny is a pampered and officious heiress, and Julia Bertram seems to have more in common with the Fanny we know. Mary Crawford (one of my favorite characters in Austen, honestly) seems to share a backbone with Lizzie Bennet; she is a thinking woman, very aware of the follies and inconsistencies of the people around her. She is perhaps a bit more gentle than Lizzie, but she has something of the same spirit, and I think Shepherd succeeds in her goal of convincing the reader to just go with liking Mary and hating Fanny, which is something that creeps up on you when reading Mansfield Park.
But Murder at Mansfield Park isn't just a straight-forward alternate reality retelling of Austen's classic; it's also a full-blown whodunit murder mystery, with the country atmosphere and the self-absorbed people creating a sort of "Clue" atmosphere. I'm not sure that this book will be to the tastes of Jane purists (who would possibly gasp themselves into a swoon at some of the goings-on), but truly, the attention to detail in the language, and the character and world building are quite impressive. When I first sat down to review this, I started to say that this could have been it's own story independent of Jane, because so much is changed and wholly different than Jane's work. But I realized I didn't want to say that; it's not quite what I mean: the story does stand on its own, independent of Jane, however, I feel like having the known-Jane characters adds this fantastic layer that wouldn't be there otherwise. It's very clever and interesting, a neat little blending of Regency romance and murder most foul: as if Jane Austen and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had a warped little lovechild. And if that doesn't have you intrigued, I have not done my job...
But Murder at Mansfield Park isn't just a straight-forward alternate reality retelling of Austen's classic; it's also a full-blown whodunit murder mystery, with the country atmosphere and the self-absorbed people creating a sort of "Clue" atmosphere. I'm not sure that this book will be to the tastes of Jane purists (who would possibly gasp themselves into a swoon at some of the goings-on), but truly, the attention to detail in the language, and the character and world building are quite impressive. When I first sat down to review this, I started to say that this could have been it's own story independent of Jane, because so much is changed and wholly different than Jane's work. But I realized I didn't want to say that; it's not quite what I mean: the story does stand on its own, independent of Jane, however, I feel like having the known-Jane characters adds this fantastic layer that wouldn't be there otherwise. It's very clever and interesting, a neat little blending of Regency romance and murder most foul: as if Jane Austen and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had a warped little lovechild. And if that doesn't have you intrigued, I have not done my job...
January 20, 2011
Like everyone else who has ever read Mansfield Park, I strongly dislike Fanny Price. She was a weak, pathetic main character that you just couldn't want good things for. When I heard about Murder at Mansfield Park, I immediately thought this was exactly what the original needed. When I learned that Fanny was to be the murder victim, I was sold.
Unfortunately, the author decided to not only kill Fanny off, but to change her entire demeanor. While I believe Fanny was strongly in need of a personality adjustment, Shepherd did a complete 180 with the character and made her a strong-willed, mean spirited wench. Once again, you wanted bad things to happen to her. This time they did, but since she was such an awful person, it was hard to care who killed her.
The first half of the book dragged. The writing was vaguely reminiscent of Jane Austen, but it lacked the deep snarky humor Austen weaved into all of her works. Once Fanny is murdered and the professional investigator arrived, the story started moving, but remained dry.
The one major huge thing Murder at Mansfield Park has going for it is its mystery. It was crafted well, with many convincing suspects and motives. Fanny's killer was impossible to figure out because everyone had the means, motive and opportunity.
If read as an original historical mystery, Murder at Mansfield Park is an interesting, if not exactly thrilling experience. Those who've read Mansfield Park will find it near impossible to not compare the two and find that Murder at Mansfield Park while different, lacks Austen's flair.
Unfortunately, the author decided to not only kill Fanny off, but to change her entire demeanor. While I believe Fanny was strongly in need of a personality adjustment, Shepherd did a complete 180 with the character and made her a strong-willed, mean spirited wench. Once again, you wanted bad things to happen to her. This time they did, but since she was such an awful person, it was hard to care who killed her.
The first half of the book dragged. The writing was vaguely reminiscent of Jane Austen, but it lacked the deep snarky humor Austen weaved into all of her works. Once Fanny is murdered and the professional investigator arrived, the story started moving, but remained dry.
The one major huge thing Murder at Mansfield Park has going for it is its mystery. It was crafted well, with many convincing suspects and motives. Fanny's killer was impossible to figure out because everyone had the means, motive and opportunity.
If read as an original historical mystery, Murder at Mansfield Park is an interesting, if not exactly thrilling experience. Those who've read Mansfield Park will find it near impossible to not compare the two and find that Murder at Mansfield Park while different, lacks Austen's flair.
April 17, 2017
At last an Austen re-writing that is not one of the interminable Darcy and Elizabeth spinoffs! Yes, there are other Austen novels and one can use their characters to enable us to visit that time once again.
The only negative I can see here is that Shepherd does not write in Austen/regency prose style. While I do like those authors that can, regency prose style does not suit everyone. Nonetheless Shepherd writes well from the point of view of Mary Crawford, one of the likable characters of MP. Far more likable than the insipid Fanny ("insipid" is Austen's mother's description, and very apt). Now, to enjoy this novel you must allow for Shepherd's changing Mary to the heroine, Fanny to a vain, spoiled, wealthy miss who thinks that therefore she can bully, despise, use and discard anyone she pleases. Edmund is now Mrs. Norris' son (how could he become so nice with her as his mother is the unsolved mystery of this novel). Shepherd uses many of the plot devices of MP: the play, the visit to Sotherton but changes them slightly to develop further her characters.
Unfortunately one of her main characters, the thief-taker turned detective Charles Maddox, appears only in this novel; there are no other adaptations of Austen's books. Instead, Shepherd leaps ahead in time to the Victorian period and another detective of the 1850's, Maddox's grandson, also named Charles. I haven't read any of this Maddox's series of books, not being overly fond of the Victorian period, but I think I will essay one.
Meanwhile, enjoy this volume.
The only negative I can see here is that Shepherd does not write in Austen/regency prose style. While I do like those authors that can, regency prose style does not suit everyone. Nonetheless Shepherd writes well from the point of view of Mary Crawford, one of the likable characters of MP. Far more likable than the insipid Fanny ("insipid" is Austen's mother's description, and very apt). Now, to enjoy this novel you must allow for Shepherd's changing Mary to the heroine, Fanny to a vain, spoiled, wealthy miss who thinks that therefore she can bully, despise, use and discard anyone she pleases. Edmund is now Mrs. Norris' son (how could he become so nice with her as his mother is the unsolved mystery of this novel). Shepherd uses many of the plot devices of MP: the play, the visit to Sotherton but changes them slightly to develop further her characters.
Unfortunately one of her main characters, the thief-taker turned detective Charles Maddox, appears only in this novel; there are no other adaptations of Austen's books. Instead, Shepherd leaps ahead in time to the Victorian period and another detective of the 1850's, Maddox's grandson, also named Charles. I haven't read any of this Maddox's series of books, not being overly fond of the Victorian period, but I think I will essay one.
Meanwhile, enjoy this volume.
April 6, 2010
Things are much changed at Mansfield. Though the names are the same the characters are not and none are more changed than Fanny, for she is no longer the romantic heroine she once was, demure, innocent and poor. Fanny is now a young woman of wealth, or else she is about to be.
Mary Crawford too is altered as she now steps into the role of heroine at Mansfield, no longer the selfish, social climber after a rich husband, but instead the intelligent and kind hearted girl who has unfortunately fallen for a man who may or may not feel the same about her. Will love be found at Mansfield Park, or will murder separate a pair of lovers forever?
Murder at Mansfield Park is a tampering of Austen's classic with a new perspective given through the watchful eyes of Mary Crawford. Fans of Austin will recognise a familiar style, however the plot has moved from romance to murder and no one is above suspicion. Its Sherlock Holmes meets Jane Austen in this Regency period who-dun-it.
Jane Austen's Mansfield Park has been twisted into a story that is a bit of a let down when compared to the original. It may be unfair to make such a comparison, but when you tamper with a classic you have to expect to be compared with the original, and unfortunately in this case it doesn't quite stand up.
Mary Crawford too is altered as she now steps into the role of heroine at Mansfield, no longer the selfish, social climber after a rich husband, but instead the intelligent and kind hearted girl who has unfortunately fallen for a man who may or may not feel the same about her. Will love be found at Mansfield Park, or will murder separate a pair of lovers forever?
Murder at Mansfield Park is a tampering of Austen's classic with a new perspective given through the watchful eyes of Mary Crawford. Fans of Austin will recognise a familiar style, however the plot has moved from romance to murder and no one is above suspicion. Its Sherlock Holmes meets Jane Austen in this Regency period who-dun-it.
Jane Austen's Mansfield Park has been twisted into a story that is a bit of a let down when compared to the original. It may be unfair to make such a comparison, but when you tamper with a classic you have to expect to be compared with the original, and unfortunately in this case it doesn't quite stand up.
February 2, 2012
the murder didn't happen until page 160-ish. Slowwwwww
May 10, 2013
Meh. Found it difficult to get into and couldn't finish it
July 23, 2023
Авторка спробувала написати кримінальну історію так, наче її б писала Джейн Остін. Стилізація вдалася на всі 100% - аж настільки, що про таку аномалію для Остін, як кримінал, вона нагадалася аже на середині книги. Я вже й анотацію подивилася: кого ж тут мали вбити? Спохопившись, авторка надолужила жорстким вбивством з розтрощеним молотком чи киркою обличчям, детективом а ля Пуаро і перетворила головну героїню на Джейн Ейр, одруживши її з відповідним - раптово зубожілим, раптово фізично скаліченим під час трагічної розв'язки сюжету - чоловіком.
Враження, ніби прочитала дві книги: вікторіанський роман і чи-то Конан Дойла, чи Агату Крісті. Незвично і не зовсім зрозуміло, наскільки сподобався такий формат. Цікаво буде почитати, щоб краще розкуштувати, "Дракулу" чи "Франкенштейна" від цієї ж авторки, бо все-таки вабить така гра з відомими сюжетами і авторськими стилями класиків.
Враження, ніби прочитала дві книги: вікторіанський роман і чи-то Конан Дойла, чи Агату Крісті. Незвично і не зовсім зрозуміло, наскільки сподобався такий формат. Цікаво буде почитати, щоб краще розкуштувати, "Дракулу" чи "Франкенштейна" від цієї ж авторки, бо все-таки вабить така гра з відомими сюжетами і авторськими стилями класиків.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 20, 2018
I think the author did a job well done, but I just could not like it.
August 12, 2010
The Austen sequel or entertainment is an not uncommon beast these days, even if Pride & Prejudice is more usually the chosen book. As the title might give you a clue - this one relates more to Mansfield Park.
The major characters from the Austen novel are all there in name, but characters and relationships have been seriously altered. The first third of the book is mainly made up of recycled dialogue and narrative from Mansfield Park, but not necesarily in the same order. Mr Rushworth's character is changed to be more like Henry Crawford (and he is given the 'black and plain' description belonging to him in the novel) crossed with Robert Ferrars, so it seems odd when he is given dialogue beloning to the Mr Rushworth of the original novel, although not perhaps as strange when Mrs Norris is found spouting his lines.....
Fanny Price moves to become a rich heiress and the eldest of the female cousins; her character is more like the Maria of the book crossed with Lucy Steele and Caroline Bingley! Maria becomes more like the Julia of the book and Julia becomes more like the Fanny of the novel crossed with Marianne Dashwood - got that yet?! Henry Crawford here I don't really know - I'm not sure we got a proper description, so he does seem a bit of a cipher.
It's not a bad book, but with the murders I found it all rather unpleasant - I prefer such things to be more about the solving of the mystery than the incident itself, and here we have so few characters who could have committed the crime I didn't feel like I was waiting with baited breath for the conclusion (it's not Pug, in case you were worried.....). some characters were so underdeveloped it was rather obvious that they wouldn't have been involved. I do feel that having made so many changes, Lynn Shepherd would have been better off writing her own, original novel; one can't help but feel she has used Austen just to sell her book whereas her original dialogue does suggest that she could allow her writing to stand on its own merits.
The major characters from the Austen novel are all there in name, but characters and relationships have been seriously altered. The first third of the book is mainly made up of recycled dialogue and narrative from Mansfield Park, but not necesarily in the same order. Mr Rushworth's character is changed to be more like Henry Crawford (and he is given the 'black and plain' description belonging to him in the novel) crossed with Robert Ferrars, so it seems odd when he is given dialogue beloning to the Mr Rushworth of the original novel, although not perhaps as strange when Mrs Norris is found spouting his lines.....
Fanny Price moves to become a rich heiress and the eldest of the female cousins; her character is more like the Maria of the book crossed with Lucy Steele and Caroline Bingley! Maria becomes more like the Julia of the book and Julia becomes more like the Fanny of the novel crossed with Marianne Dashwood - got that yet?! Henry Crawford here I don't really know - I'm not sure we got a proper description, so he does seem a bit of a cipher.
It's not a bad book, but with the murders I found it all rather unpleasant - I prefer such things to be more about the solving of the mystery than the incident itself, and here we have so few characters who could have committed the crime I didn't feel like I was waiting with baited breath for the conclusion (it's not Pug, in case you were worried.....). some characters were so underdeveloped it was rather obvious that they wouldn't have been involved. I do feel that having made so many changes, Lynn Shepherd would have been better off writing her own, original novel; one can't help but feel she has used Austen just to sell her book whereas her original dialogue does suggest that she could allow her writing to stand on its own merits.
November 8, 2021
Well, Janeites, it is with a heavy heart that I report to you: this book is not very good. I had high hopes, since it was a murder mystery, but alas those hopes were dashed upon the rocks of mediocrity. As may be surmised from the title, this is a retelling of Mansfield Park in mystery form. I don’t think it will spoil anything to tell you that Fanny is the victim. It’s on the flap copy. What the flap copy doesn’t tell you is that this plodding narrative, which remakes Fanny into a bratty heiress whom readers will be glad to see bludgeoned on the grounds of Mansfield, is a complete departure from Austen. All the characters are recast, mostly not for the better. Edmund is now Mrs. Norris’s stepson, and not bound for the clergy, Fanny is rich, the Bertrams are middling. The reader gets the story mostly from Mary Cawford’s point of view, and she and Henry are probably the best characters in the novel as well as the most sympathetic.
What doesn’ make sense is why the author chose to use the characters from Mansfield Park, and the setting, and then proceeded to change them all; she may as well have just written her own book with totally new characters, leading this reader to believe that the only reason to use MP as the jumping off point was to lure unsuspecting Janeites who are also mystery lovers into purchasing this twaddle. The best thing about it is the detective, Maddox, and he doesn’t appear until more than halfway through. Speaking of, this purported murder mystery is without a victim for 140 pages. If I hadn’t been committed to reviewing this, I would have cast it aside in frustration after about 25 pages, truth be told, but I took one for the team. Caveat Emptor, you’ve been warned.
What doesn’ make sense is why the author chose to use the characters from Mansfield Park, and the setting, and then proceeded to change them all; she may as well have just written her own book with totally new characters, leading this reader to believe that the only reason to use MP as the jumping off point was to lure unsuspecting Janeites who are also mystery lovers into purchasing this twaddle. The best thing about it is the detective, Maddox, and he doesn’t appear until more than halfway through. Speaking of, this purported murder mystery is without a victim for 140 pages. If I hadn’t been committed to reviewing this, I would have cast it aside in frustration after about 25 pages, truth be told, but I took one for the team. Caveat Emptor, you’ve been warned.
December 31, 2011
Having recently read PD James Death Comes to Pemberley, I decided to read this Austenesque murder mystery to take part in an online competition I saw on twitter.
It did take me a few chapters to get my head around this story. Unlike Death Comes to Pemberley - which takes place after the events chronicled in Pride and Prejudice, this novel is a complete re-working of Mansfield Park - with murder added to the mix. Thus Fanny Price - the eventual victim, is a spoilt nasty heiress - and Mary Crawford (who many prefer to Fanny anyway) the absolute heroine of the book. Once I got my head around this - I thoroughly enjoyed the book. (I am not, I find, very good at letting go of the established stories and characters of a book. I do sort of believe that - like in Jasper Fforde's 'An Eyre Affair' - the characters and events of famous works are continually being played out in some alternative universe).
However I quickly got over that, due in part to the superb writing and fabulous characterisation. Written in a style, totally authentic to the period, clever recreation of characters from the original Mansfield Park with a twist, make for a great read. To be honest Mansfield Park was probably my least favourite Jane Austen novel, and I really enjoyed the ingenious way Lynn Shepherd has played with these characters.
I felt quite clever when I managed to guess - it was pure guess though - "whodunit" - that's twice I've done that recently and usually I'm clueless with whodunits.
Overall a thoroughly enjoyable, well written page turner, that haters of Jane Austen's Fanny Price will love. I will certainly look out for more by this author
It did take me a few chapters to get my head around this story. Unlike Death Comes to Pemberley - which takes place after the events chronicled in Pride and Prejudice, this novel is a complete re-working of Mansfield Park - with murder added to the mix. Thus Fanny Price - the eventual victim, is a spoilt nasty heiress - and Mary Crawford (who many prefer to Fanny anyway) the absolute heroine of the book. Once I got my head around this - I thoroughly enjoyed the book. (I am not, I find, very good at letting go of the established stories and characters of a book. I do sort of believe that - like in Jasper Fforde's 'An Eyre Affair' - the characters and events of famous works are continually being played out in some alternative universe).
However I quickly got over that, due in part to the superb writing and fabulous characterisation. Written in a style, totally authentic to the period, clever recreation of characters from the original Mansfield Park with a twist, make for a great read. To be honest Mansfield Park was probably my least favourite Jane Austen novel, and I really enjoyed the ingenious way Lynn Shepherd has played with these characters.
I felt quite clever when I managed to guess - it was pure guess though - "whodunit" - that's twice I've done that recently and usually I'm clueless with whodunits.
Overall a thoroughly enjoyable, well written page turner, that haters of Jane Austen's Fanny Price will love. I will certainly look out for more by this author
June 16, 2011
Fanny Price? Murdered? Who would do such a thing to poor Fanny? Isn't she just the Bertram's shy conscientious, and dutiful niece? No. Not in this Mansfield Park retelling. The Fanny Price Lynn Shepherd's recreates is so arrogant, scornful, and malicious that she bears little resemblance to the shy and introverted character Jane Austen created. And it isn't that hard to believe that somebody would want to do her in!
In this alternative version on Mansfield Park, readers will find several unique twists and character alterations: Instead of being a poor and friendless relation, Fanny Price is a wealthy and parent-less heiress. Instead of being a proficient in the art of stealing hearts, Henry Crawford is a master in the art of horticulture. Instead of being mercenary and worldly, Mary Crawford is humble and compassionate. And finally, instead of being Mrs. Norris's nephew, poor Edmund is her stepson! Sounds like quite a few personalities and situations have swapped here, doesn't it?
To continue reading, go to: http://janeaustenreviews.blogspot.com...
In this alternative version on Mansfield Park, readers will find several unique twists and character alterations: Instead of being a poor and friendless relation, Fanny Price is a wealthy and parent-less heiress. Instead of being a proficient in the art of stealing hearts, Henry Crawford is a master in the art of horticulture. Instead of being mercenary and worldly, Mary Crawford is humble and compassionate. And finally, instead of being Mrs. Norris's nephew, poor Edmund is her stepson! Sounds like quite a few personalities and situations have swapped here, doesn't it?
To continue reading, go to: http://janeaustenreviews.blogspot.com...
October 21, 2021
"Nobody, I believe, has ever found it possible to like the heroine of Mansfield Park." --Lionel Trilling
Oh, shut up, Lionel, before you leak stupid juice all over the place.
So... Okay. Yeah, I'll just throw it out there, this book really pissed me off.
Of all three "Mary Crawford protagonist" Mansfield Park retellings I've gone over (Mansfield Parsonage, The Crawford Scandal), this actually should have been the least egregious, even if I didn't fall in love with it, but somehow it actually manages to be the biggest disappointment.
While being a Fanny Price fan and someone who hasn't heard the greatest things about Shepard, both as a writer and a (public) person, I did automatically go into this with lowered expectations, I still thought it wouldn't be too bad. I was kind of hoping, with the characters' circumstances shifted around Sheppard might actually have found something new to say about the dynamics of Mansfield Park, mixed with a possible cash in on the (mixed) popularity of Death Comes to Pemberley...?
Alas no.
Shepard begins with an intriguing set up, copying the original opening and language of Mansfield Park, but gasp there's a twist! Mr. Price isn't a poor drunk buffoon but a very rich man, and he and Frances don't have a baseball team of children, only Fanny.
Meanwhile, Fanny's beloved William, is actually one of her cousins (Tom's younger brother) and Edmund is Mr. Norris' son.
Okay, so at this point it's already getting a bit strained for its proposed premise, but I was still interested.
The odd thing is I don't think Shepard even realized what she did here; she literally created an alternate universe in which WILLIAM might have easily ended up Fanny's love interest, if he took over Edmund's role from the original. And whether you find that fascinating or ewwy, you've got to admit it's different!
Look I'm not saying I wanted this to turn into a William/Fanny fanfiction (I'm just making a point here).
And that's we've got a world of potential from one little change in the opening! How does Fanny cope with being constantly put forward by Aunt Norris who dotes on her in this version? How does she slowly become corrupted? Do she and Edmund have at the very least a bond of friendship?
No, because no one in this freaking book does. The characters are creepily disconnected from one another, as if they're being filtered through the storytelling lense of a near sociopath. No one has a shared bond we actually get to see (unless you count the buddy-buddy scenes of Mary and Julia that exist solely to make Mary look more saintly) and it's really disconcerting.
Fanny and Edmund can't stand each other, Julia and Maria aren't close, Tom and Edmund aren't friends as well as cousins, we don't learn what William and Tom think of each other, and while we're told Julia and William are super close, Sheppard forgets this by the end and not one mention is made of William being told his favorite sister died. William isn't mentioned at the end period.
If parts of the book have almost compellingly passable prose because it's a fair mimic of Austen's styles, the plot and characterization are PAINFUL.
Fanny's character does nothing bad at the beginning except sort of be condescending and stand in Mary-sue Crawford's way, and about a quarter of the way in it's like Sheppard remembered she hated the original Fanny and was using this as a sort of tone-deaf commentary on how Fanny is actually only humble in front of her uncle and a witch to everyone else... I guess? So she makes her be a bitch by giving her lines and actions which were Mary's and Maria's in the original...
Also Rushworth is hot now? Like, because all the guys, including Henry, are tall and good looking because everyone knows all regency men were gorgeous except for brooding and scarred detectives?
It just was a freaking mess and shows Sheppard really hadn't thought ANYTHING in her AU world through. Why are the Grants there if Tom isn't in debt? Who indeed WOULD have gotten the living if Mansfield Park, given Edmund was set to inherit Fanny's land and fortune and William was inexplicably still a sailor? Why would Mrs. Norris fawning over Fanny and spoiling her make her act like a weird mix of Maria and Mary, instead of, I don't know, a spoiled version of Fanny who probably would actually have been something like Cathy Earnshaw's daughter in Wuthering Heights or a corrupted Marianne Dashwood from Sense and Sensibility, going by how that personality type actually works? Why did Mr. Norris have land in Antigua and why did he lose so much money there? Why was Julia so sickly? Why did Mrs. Norris pick on Julia given she was still wealthy and not IN the position of the original Fanny Price at all?
So, yeah, nothing in the book makes sense.
It's just the way it is to spotlight Mary-sue Crawford who has none of the original Mary Crawford's flaws but also none of her cleverness or other character traits. She's just poor and hard working and she hates Edmund until suddenly she realizes he's Darcy and she's a bad Lizzy Bennet wannabe and she actually is madly in love with Edmund...
But Fanny gets horribly killed because oh yeah this was supposed to be a murder mystery even though all the characters are too stupid to get away with murder.
And then Henry shows up and it turns out he was married to Fanny and he's all, Hey, Charles Maddox guy who's sort of but not actually the main character, despite not showing up until the halfway point, because reasons, can I see my wife now?
And Mansfield be like:
Only he actually did kill someone only they can't prove it?
Anywho, yada yada, it turns out Mrs. Norris was Fanny's killer the whole time... Because why not?
I'm not going to lie, I was trying so hard not to burst out laughing when she poisoned Edmund and then pulled a knife on Mary Crawford!
That was just crazy.
You know, I once got a rather hilarious review for one of my Mansfield Park fanfictions complaining I made Mrs Norris too evil. Now see, anonymous person? It can always be worse. Even I never had the old bat resort to getting stab happy!
Also, I totally don't get why Edmund confessed to protect the knife wielding loony stepmommy dearest; it made no sense.
Even the happy ending was unearned and stupid. Ironically if this Mary was anything like the original, she and this ruthless take on Charles Maddox would have been a perfect match.
Just no.
This sucked. Bad. Don't recommend.
I think the worst thing about it is how it leaves you with this cold, hollow feeling because you feel like you just read a book where every character expect the leads were dehumanized to an uncomfortable degree.
Oh, shut up, Lionel, before you leak stupid juice all over the place.
So... Okay. Yeah, I'll just throw it out there, this book really pissed me off.
Of all three "Mary Crawford protagonist" Mansfield Park retellings I've gone over (Mansfield Parsonage, The Crawford Scandal), this actually should have been the least egregious, even if I didn't fall in love with it, but somehow it actually manages to be the biggest disappointment.
While being a Fanny Price fan and someone who hasn't heard the greatest things about Shepard, both as a writer and a (public) person, I did automatically go into this with lowered expectations, I still thought it wouldn't be too bad. I was kind of hoping, with the characters' circumstances shifted around Sheppard might actually have found something new to say about the dynamics of Mansfield Park, mixed with a possible cash in on the (mixed) popularity of Death Comes to Pemberley...?
Alas no.
Shepard begins with an intriguing set up, copying the original opening and language of Mansfield Park, but gasp there's a twist! Mr. Price isn't a poor drunk buffoon but a very rich man, and he and Frances don't have a baseball team of children, only Fanny.
Meanwhile, Fanny's beloved William, is actually one of her cousins (Tom's younger brother) and Edmund is Mr. Norris' son.
Okay, so at this point it's already getting a bit strained for its proposed premise, but I was still interested.
The odd thing is I don't think Shepard even realized what she did here; she literally created an alternate universe in which WILLIAM might have easily ended up Fanny's love interest, if he took over Edmund's role from the original. And whether you find that fascinating or ewwy, you've got to admit it's different!
Look I'm not saying I wanted this to turn into a William/Fanny fanfiction (I'm just making a point here).
And that's we've got a world of potential from one little change in the opening! How does Fanny cope with being constantly put forward by Aunt Norris who dotes on her in this version? How does she slowly become corrupted? Do she and Edmund have at the very least a bond of friendship?
No, because no one in this freaking book does. The characters are creepily disconnected from one another, as if they're being filtered through the storytelling lense of a near sociopath. No one has a shared bond we actually get to see (unless you count the buddy-buddy scenes of Mary and Julia that exist solely to make Mary look more saintly) and it's really disconcerting.
Fanny and Edmund can't stand each other, Julia and Maria aren't close, Tom and Edmund aren't friends as well as cousins, we don't learn what William and Tom think of each other, and while we're told Julia and William are super close, Sheppard forgets this by the end and not one mention is made of William being told his favorite sister died. William isn't mentioned at the end period.
If parts of the book have almost compellingly passable prose because it's a fair mimic of Austen's styles, the plot and characterization are PAINFUL.
Fanny's character does nothing bad at the beginning except sort of be condescending and stand in Mary-sue Crawford's way, and about a quarter of the way in it's like Sheppard remembered she hated the original Fanny and was using this as a sort of tone-deaf commentary on how Fanny is actually only humble in front of her uncle and a witch to everyone else... I guess? So she makes her be a bitch by giving her lines and actions which were Mary's and Maria's in the original...
Also Rushworth is hot now? Like, because all the guys, including Henry, are tall and good looking because everyone knows all regency men were gorgeous except for brooding and scarred detectives?
It just was a freaking mess and shows Sheppard really hadn't thought ANYTHING in her AU world through. Why are the Grants there if Tom isn't in debt? Who indeed WOULD have gotten the living if Mansfield Park, given Edmund was set to inherit Fanny's land and fortune and William was inexplicably still a sailor? Why would Mrs. Norris fawning over Fanny and spoiling her make her act like a weird mix of Maria and Mary, instead of, I don't know, a spoiled version of Fanny who probably would actually have been something like Cathy Earnshaw's daughter in Wuthering Heights or a corrupted Marianne Dashwood from Sense and Sensibility, going by how that personality type actually works? Why did Mr. Norris have land in Antigua and why did he lose so much money there? Why was Julia so sickly? Why did Mrs. Norris pick on Julia given she was still wealthy and not IN the position of the original Fanny Price at all?
So, yeah, nothing in the book makes sense.
It's just the way it is to spotlight Mary-sue Crawford who has none of the original Mary Crawford's flaws but also none of her cleverness or other character traits. She's just poor and hard working and she hates Edmund until suddenly she realizes he's Darcy and she's a bad Lizzy Bennet wannabe and she actually is madly in love with Edmund...
But Fanny gets horribly killed because oh yeah this was supposed to be a murder mystery even though all the characters are too stupid to get away with murder.
And then Henry shows up and it turns out he was married to Fanny and he's all, Hey, Charles Maddox guy who's sort of but not actually the main character, despite not showing up until the halfway point, because reasons, can I see my wife now?
And Mansfield be like:
Only he actually did kill someone only they can't prove it?
Anywho, yada yada, it turns out Mrs. Norris was Fanny's killer the whole time... Because why not?
I'm not going to lie, I was trying so hard not to burst out laughing when she poisoned Edmund and then pulled a knife on Mary Crawford!
That was just crazy.
You know, I once got a rather hilarious review for one of my Mansfield Park fanfictions complaining I made Mrs Norris too evil. Now see, anonymous person? It can always be worse. Even I never had the old bat resort to getting stab happy!
Also, I totally don't get why Edmund confessed to protect the knife wielding loony stepmommy dearest; it made no sense.
Even the happy ending was unearned and stupid. Ironically if this Mary was anything like the original, she and this ruthless take on Charles Maddox would have been a perfect match.
Just no.
This sucked. Bad. Don't recommend.
I think the worst thing about it is how it leaves you with this cold, hollow feeling because you feel like you just read a book where every character expect the leads were dehumanized to an uncomfortable degree.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 28, 2020
"In this ingenious new twist on Mansfield Park, the famously meek Fanny Price -- whom Jane Austen's own mother called 'insipid' -- has been transformed into a rich heiress who is spoiled, condescending, and generally hated throughout the county. Mary Crawford, on the other hand, is as good as Fanny is bad, and suffers great indignities at the hands of her vindictive neighbor. It's only after Fanny is brutally killed on the grounds of Mansfield Park that Mary comes into her own, teaming up with a thief-taker from London to solve Fanny's murder.
"Combining genuine Austen elements -- the same characters, and the same episodes, but each with a new twist -- with a murder mystery scenario, and complete with romance, intrigue, and crimes of the heart, Murder at Mansfield Park is an irreverent new twist on an old classic."
~~back cover
It took a long time to get into this book, as the murder wasn't discovered until page 145. Prior to that was a setting of the scene: exactly how nasty & ruthless Fanny Price really was, exactly how nasty & ruthless Mrs. Norris really was, exactly how mannerly & retiring Mary Crawford & Julia Bertram were, how unhappy & conniving Maria Bertram was, and how flamboyant & take-charge Henry Crawford was, how diffident Edmund Norris was. Once the scene was thoroughly set, events began to slowly (excruciatingly?) unfold, with a clue appearing here & there. And of course the several timorous, budding romances woven into the mystery kept the reader's appetite whetted.
By the last pages though, everything came to a head, marriage proposals were made & considered, and the murderer revealed, dangerously, at the very last moment. So over all it was a good read, and perhaps if the reader was more of a Jane Austen fan than I am, they would give the book 4 stars.
"Combining genuine Austen elements -- the same characters, and the same episodes, but each with a new twist -- with a murder mystery scenario, and complete with romance, intrigue, and crimes of the heart, Murder at Mansfield Park is an irreverent new twist on an old classic."
~~back cover
It took a long time to get into this book, as the murder wasn't discovered until page 145. Prior to that was a setting of the scene: exactly how nasty & ruthless Fanny Price really was, exactly how nasty & ruthless Mrs. Norris really was, exactly how mannerly & retiring Mary Crawford & Julia Bertram were, how unhappy & conniving Maria Bertram was, and how flamboyant & take-charge Henry Crawford was, how diffident Edmund Norris was. Once the scene was thoroughly set, events began to slowly (excruciatingly?) unfold, with a clue appearing here & there. And of course the several timorous, budding romances woven into the mystery kept the reader's appetite whetted.
By the last pages though, everything came to a head, marriage proposals were made & considered, and the murderer revealed, dangerously, at the very last moment. So over all it was a good read, and perhaps if the reader was more of a Jane Austen fan than I am, they would give the book 4 stars.
August 6, 2023
DNF at 31%
1.0 ⭐️
This book just didn't give me anything. If you're a huge Jane Austen fan you might find something in here that I couldn't but to sell this as a 'murder mystery' and then present you with a convoluted, unnecessary and frankly, confusing bag of nothing is honestly just a little insulting.
Where is the murder?? I made it to page 100 and still no one had died. This book isn't even 400 pages long, there's absolutely no reason for a setup that takes 1/4 of your book in a genre like that.
I highly doubt that the rest of the book will be able to deliver a satisfying mystery when the detective hasn't even been introduced yet.
And I'm not even going to talk about the writing. Jesus Christ. That was SO not my cup of tea.
1.0 ⭐️
This book just didn't give me anything. If you're a huge Jane Austen fan you might find something in here that I couldn't but to sell this as a 'murder mystery' and then present you with a convoluted, unnecessary and frankly, confusing bag of nothing is honestly just a little insulting.
Where is the murder?? I made it to page 100 and still no one had died. This book isn't even 400 pages long, there's absolutely no reason for a setup that takes 1/4 of your book in a genre like that.
I highly doubt that the rest of the book will be able to deliver a satisfying mystery when the detective hasn't even been introduced yet.
And I'm not even going to talk about the writing. Jesus Christ. That was SO not my cup of tea.
August 27, 2019
The first part of this story is a re-imagining of Austen's Mansfield Park. The usual cast of characters have very different personalities and motivations, so it was a fun twisted version to read.
After a brutal murder among the Mansfield party, a thief-taker is called for and the hijinks kick into high gear. I really enjoyed the last third of this story and solving the mystery of the murder at Mansfield Park.
After a brutal murder among the Mansfield party, a thief-taker is called for and the hijinks kick into high gear. I really enjoyed the last third of this story and solving the mystery of the murder at Mansfield Park.
August 29, 2018
This was an interesting twist on the Mansfield Park story. Fanny Price became an unlikeable, snobbish murder victim while Mary Crawford became the heroine detective. Unusual but I liked it. I felt it stayed true to the Austen tone and Regency era and I would like to read more along this line. I would like to follow Mary Crawford's sleuthing adventures but since this is indicated as Charles Maddox #1, I suppose future stories will follow his pursuits in crime detection.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 292 reviews