Since Toni Morrison’s Beloved, I have routinely ignored literary suggestions by Oprah, however, I decided to read this as it was reported to be a historical book.

The raves for this book really astonish me. If I had to take a wild guess I would say that the people claiming it’s “the best book they’ve ever read” are very, very young people who haven’t widely sampled much literature yet in their lives or perhaps those with a morbid fascination with rape.

Follett’s  method for keeping the reader in suspense is to have the good guys winning first, then the bad guys winning, then the good guys winning, then the bad guys winning… like a poorly written episode of “Dukes of Hazzard”.

The characters are one-dimensional. It’s as if the author did a quick outline before starting the book and gave each character a single trait to manifest. William is simply bad. Tom is simple yet hardworking. No one surprises you. The characters start out a certain way and end the same way. No development whatsoever. No depth of character.

It was a complete waste of 12 hours.

Isaacson’s writing style impressed me for a while, but he becomes rather tedious quickly, dwelling on minor points for long periods until you just can’t take any more. Benjamin Franklin was truly a remarkable man, deserving of a better fate than to be remembered as Isaacson would have us.

Unaware of Isaacson’s extreme left-wing political leanings, I began to suspect an ulterior motive for his writing this book somewhere about halfway through it. Once I realized there were certain important details missing about Franklin’s views, I did a bit of research on Isaacson (as well as Franklin to confirm my suspicions) and it all made sense. Isaacson simply joins the ranks of other Left-wing attempts to revise history through tone or omission, though this book does so very subtly.

Overall, it’s an informative biography with some interesting references. I believe it should only be used in conjunction with better biographies on Franklin.

Overall, I enjoyed “Mr. Darcy’s Daughters” when I was able to let go of my emotional attachment to “Pride and Prejudice.” The story was a fun read and entertaining, but there is the understandable frustration of reading a book inspired by a classic novel. Most frustrating was the handling of Colonial Fitzwilliam and the Gardiners whose presence in the book is so prominent, I felt their characters should have more closely resembled Jane Austen’s creation. Instead, in reading, it felt as though they were invented characters since they bore no likeness to the originals. Because of this, I was glad that Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth had no role in the book except for being mentioned now and then.

I appreciate that Elizabeth Aston stayed true to her own style of writing, however, the lack of formalities between the characters in terms of how they addressed one another or referred to other people really irked me and made the story a bit too modern in my opinion.

It seemed highly unlikely that Darcy and Elizabeth would have raised daughters that were silly and frivolous as the twins and santamonious as Letty. The Darcy sisters completely mimicked the Bennett sisters, except there was no Jane and two Lydias. The plot too was strongly parallel to Pride and Prejudice, which some readers might enjoy and some might not. I both enjoyed it and was irked by it at times.

In true Austen-style, Caroline Bingly, now Lady Warren and Lydia make their appearances and remain true to character, refreshing to read after the treatment of Fitzwilliam and the Gardiners.

All in all, of books inspired by great works of literature, this was a pretty enjoyable, fun read. I would recommend it to people who can make allowances and remember that this was not written by Jane Austen but by someone who admired her enough to provide other Austen fans a version as to what happens twenty years later.

 I am a Christian wife and mother. I have enjoyed some of the Pearls’ writings in the past and I was actually perplexed when I read this book. The overall tone of the book is that nearly all the problems in marriage are caused by some fault in the woman, and if she would just get her act together and do x, y, and z then the marriage would be glorious. Wow - unfortunately, there are no cookie cutter marriages whose problems can all be solved by Debi’s book.

Many readers claim this book is great because it is based on the bible, but Mrs. Pearl offers no exegesis on the subject of marriage. For her to claim that her book reveals “God’s plan for a heavenly marriage” (p. 15) is misleading. Just because she sprinkled in multiple bible verses and bible stories does not mean Debi has clearly described God’s plan for wives.

There are times where the author’s biblical illustration completely goes against what the scripture is teaching. One example is in chapter 19 (which deals with the topic of being chaste) where Debi blames Bathsheba for the adulterous affair with David. She claims if Bathsheba had just been more discreet, she could have prevented the calamity that followed. This is not what the bible teaches about that story. Scripture says David was the one who sought her out and initiated the affair. In Second Samuel, God sent the prophet Nathan to rebuke David for his lust and the adultery. It is quite clear in that passage that God put the responsibility on David. I have never heard any pastor implicate Bathsheba when teaching about that story.

This book is supposed to be based in biblical principles but much of the advice comes from Debi’s personal opinion. Here are just a few examples. She writes in chapter 17 that women should not have close friendships with other women and should only share their feelings with their husbands. She goes on to say that the time we spend at church and prayer meeting is all the time we need to spend with other women. Debi then claims that female friendships are in danger of turning into something ‘abnormal’ and ’sick’. I assume she’s talking about lesbianism? That’s taking quite a leap. In Chapter 21 she discourages women from taking their children to the doctor or getting vaccinations. Again, not scriptural and based on her personal beliefs in herbal remedies.

It is also outrageous that in chapter 16 Debi advises women whose husbands have sexually handled their children to take the kids to visit him while he is in prison. She claims the children will heal better to see their dad in prison for the crime. I think many people would question the wisdom behind that advice.

In chapter 7, she tells a story about how she didn’t know how much money Michael made when they got married, she didn’t even know how much they had to spend on the honeymoon and that it wasn’t her place to question him about how money was spent. It wasn’t clear to me whether or not she was trying to say that women should have no part in financial matters - she never comes right out and says that. But, it seems to be implied.

There are a few helpful, practical ideas in this book and a few morsels of truth (the reminder to honor and respect our husbands is good), but there’s not much beyond that. The harsh language the author uses is not encouraging to Christian women. Instead, it will leave many of them with a weight of unwarranted guilt and shame.

There is a reason we are told in the book of Proverbs that those seeking counsel should look to a ‘multitude’ of counselors. If you read this book, do not let it be your sole source for counsel on marriage and being a wife. Also read other reputable Christian authors on the subject. A couple of good books I suggest are, by Gary Chapman:’On the Marriage You Always Wanted.’ And by John Piper: ‘What is the Difference? Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible.’