I'm both ecstatic that this book exists (a SEQUEL TO MASTER OF THE GAME! Dream come true!) and annoyed (who is this Tilly Bagshawe and why is she allowed to write the continuation of a book she didn't author originally?). But I had to read it regardless: curiosity and love for the original meant I needed to know what this pseudo sequel is all about.
But I won't finish Mistress of the Game. I just can't. It's horrible. So poorly written that I flinched involuntarily at some of the dialogue, embarrassed. Such weak new characters that I didn't care what happened to them. I honestly prefer not to know the scenarios the rest of the book has in store for the classic characters because it's just going to irritate me. I can't exactly say this book is disrespectful to Sidney Sheldon, since it's tagged up everywhere with praise for him and his other novels. But it's definitely not doing anything to enhance the Blackwell saga. I may even reread Sheldon's masterpiece (again) just to get the new tangents of this follow-up fiasco out of my head.
First of all, it's insulting to readers who know the original Master of the Game, who I'm assuming are the only ones interested in this book anyway. True, I did see it on a Borders end cap with a sign declaring "MUST READ!" so perhaps there are a few customers out there who inadvertently picked this up as a beach book. But the vast majority must be Sidney Sheldon fans. So the insult comes in the recap of everything that happened in the first book, casually thrown in (usually in parentheses).
Now, I'm sure there was an editor involved who said something like, "will readers be able to remember Jamie McGregor? Why don't you use briefly reintroduce elements of the original book so as not to confuse people." And yeah, I might not to able to recite every dramatic detail off the top of my head. But COME ON - if you don't know why the family business is called Kruger-Brent, why are you reading this book?
But the summarizing wouldn't really bother me in and of itself. It can be tolerable. Who hasn't read a Babysitters Club book and skipped the whole first chapter about bossy Kristy's great idea and Claudia's almond-shaped eyes? What irks me about Mistress of the Game is the way these facts are presented: in rambling asides, like a soap opera. Example:
"Eve thought about all the time and effort she'd put into trying to kill her twin over the years: setting her nightgown alight at their fifth birthday party; arranging riding accidents, sailing accidents and finally the whole complicated murder plot with George Mellis. (Knowing George was both penniless and psychotic, and that his rich-playboy routine was all an act, Eve had encouraged him to woo and marry her sister. The plan was for George to win Alex's trust, persuade her to make a new will that left him everything, including her control state in Kruger-Brent, then get rid of her, splitting the inheritance with Eve.) (p. 28)"
Thanks for trying to keep us up to speed with the complex plot of the original, Bagshawe, but I'd rather be in the dark than deal with your run-on sentences every other paragraph.
I know this is sounding like a rant. Why did I even have high hopes for this book? Why do I care that Bagshawe is a terrible writer? Can't I try to enjoy the Mistress of the Game for the fun easy read it's supposed to be? Can't I just be happy that there is more gossip about the Blackwell family to learn?
I'm sorry, but no.
The reason the original book is so beloved is because it's a guilty pleasure, but a quality one. The characters are sometimes despicable but interesting. The writing isn't always stellar but the plot moves along and there are some ingenious descriptions and twists. It saddens me that the sequel isn't even half as good as Master of the Game.
The final straw was when Bagshawe compared new character Robbie to Hamlet, saying that they both suffered "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." She goes on to explain, "Robert Templeton's fortune was certainly outrageous. Come to think of it, Kruger-Brent's market cap was probably higher than the entire GDP of Denmark (p. 61)."
I'm not going to pretend that I completely understand the meaning of every line crafted by Shakespeare. But I'm pretty sure that in his famous "to be or not to be" soliloquy, Hamlet's not referring to how rich he is.
Reading over.
UPDATE: After much feedback, I gave this book the benefit of the doubt and pushed through to the end.
I stand by my earlier opinion.
In fact, I'm even more annoyed at what transpired further on in the book. Bagshawe basically copied the elements of the original book (bravely unconventional Scottish entrepreneur defies Apartheid conventions and befriends loyal native African, strikes it rich, has his wife and children killed in an uprising, moves to NYC...), then added elements of the ridiculous. COUSINS Max and Lexi begin an affair and constantly have sex, with no hint of remorse or mention of incest. And don't think that the author forgot the family relation: she constantly reminds the reader that they're cousins, specifically that their mothers were identical twins. Um, I think we understand that by page 300.
I could continue the (deserved) harsh criticism, but I won't waste anymore time. Just trust me, a disappointed Sheldon fan, and skip Mistress of the Game.