From the NYTimes: After Drugs and Dark Times, Helping Others to Stand Back Up, and Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No.
I haven't seen "Homeland" or "Enlightened," but this article makes me curious about both.
Last night, in a bout of insomnia, I finished "Death Comes To Pemberley," and I'm sorry to say that while I love P.D. James and Jane Austen both, this book isn't a complete success. This book feels like what it is - a true Austen lover who has undertaken the fun excercize of imagining what the characters in P&P were really thinking, and envisioning what their future might look like. I totally get why James would want to do this, and why it would be enjoyable, but if you've read P&P you have your own ideas of the characters and it can be jarring to have someone else's foisted upon you. Additionally, the author's hand just feels to heavy. It's like she's playing with dolls, having fun making these characters say what she wants them to say, but it doesn't always feel authentic to the character. This review has come off more damning than I intended - James' is such a talented and charming (and 91 year old!) writer, and I'm sure fully understands the challenges of her task with "Death Comes..." But the book just didn't work for me. There were too many awkward moments of, "This doesn't seem like something Darcy would say, it feels like James' just has this fantasy about him" (who doesn't!), and the mystery was wrapped up in the last 10 minutes with, basically, a speech. Overall, not James' (or the Darcy's) best. (For another, more positive, take, the book is also reviewed in this weeks episode of the always-wonderful NYTimes Book Review podcast.)