Austen in August Review: Perception, Terri Fleming

I have to applaud Terri Fleming in her choice of title for her spin-off novel – it’s very Austenesque. Picking up on the lives of the two remaining unmarried Bennet sisters, it is another example of the Mary-centric fan fiction which are currently in such vogue. I have only recently become aware of the heaving market of Pride and Prejudice variations and sequels which by far eclipse all other Austen novels in the spin-off market. In this story, Mary and Kitty remain with their parents and then one day some exciting news arrives – the handsome young heir to Cuthbert Park has returned from abroad. Why yes, that’s a single gentleman of fortune and so we all know what it is of which he must surely be in want.

Lucy Briers as Mary - 1995 productionThe premise of the novel is that Mary Bennet has put aside thoughts of wedlock. She hopes only for a roof over her head, a piano to play and some books to read. While Kitty may skip about and come close to getting her head turned by the various local gentlemen, Mary has her eyes set on more serious matters. Her mother naturally has other ideas. Indeed, Fleming has a fair amount of success in conjuring up Mrs Bennet, still clamouring for attention in the household and gamely attempting to corral her daughters into marriage. However, from here I felt that the book rapidly became unstuck.

The main issue with so much of the Mary fan fiction is that the authors are trying desperately to make Mary into a Cinderella and … she just isn’t one. Mary Bennet is the girl who made loud, vapid and insensitive comments throughout Pride and Prejudice. When Elizabeth expressed concern over Jane’s illness and set out to call on her, Mary told her that this was not a good use of reason. She does not care about others. She is not kindly or sweet-natured or any of the other character aspects traditionally associated with Cinderella. Mary is devoid of charisma or independent thought. If she is to play the heroine, certain things have to change. And so, in Perception, a lot of things do.

Tallulah Riley as Mary - 2005. Mary lies seductively in the hay in this image. For some reason.On her father’s recommendation, Mary is asked to catalogue the library at Cuthbert Park. This naturally throws her into the path of the single gentleman of fortune and of course they fall in love. The whole ‘setting aside thoughts of wedlock’ does not last very long. However, the gentleman’s mother has her eyes set on a higher prize and so we have the necessary stumbling block to the couple’s ever-lasting happiness. I have read several pieces of Mary fan-fiction now and they all seem to feature a handsome young man materialising to draw her out of her shell. Following a misunderstanding, Mary flees in emotional anguish to her married sisters in Derbyshire. No Pride and Prejudice sequel is complete without a return visit to the original players. Mary plays with her nieces and nephews and discovers that There Is More To Life Than Books. Her sisters lend her new clothes and give her a makeover. Afterwards Jane announces in delight that is amazing what a a new hairstyle can achieve. And at this point I had to set the book down and breathe since the whole ‘new hairstyle’ cliche is one of my personal pet peeves. The whole thing reminded me very strongly of the Harry Potter fan fiction trend approximately fifteen years ago which had Hermione decide books were well boring, crack out the hair-straighteners and then morph into Avril Lavigne. Mary Bennet suddenly becomes the belle of the ball and all the gentlemen fall at her feet. All because she had a haircut. Sigh.

The reason why I loathe this trope with quite such a passion is because it implies that social awkwardness can be wiped away with an aesthetic change. Something which is routed internally requires more than an external fix. I loved the book series The Princess Diaries. It is a witty and engaging series about an angst-ridden teenaged girl. However, the film was a travesty in how it implied that simply straightening Mia’s hair turned her into a whole new person. Mia’s characterisation remained utterly consistent on the page but on the screen we were unable to ignore that she was actually Anne Hathaway, beautiful and assured. If you are already confident and comfortable in your skin, a good haircut has the power to lift you up and make you walk out the door standing tall. Because of that, it may be hard to imagine what a minefield they are for people who feel less sure of themselves. In Eleanor Oliphant Is Completely Fine, Gail Honeyman plays with the ‘good haircut’ cliche by having it be more about Eleanor reaching out and accepting kindness, therefore making it a moment about an emotional connection. In short, more going on beyond the external. Eleanor’s problems remain and the haircut is just a pit-stop along her journey towards healing. There are no such nuances with Perception.

Of course the other reason why the ‘good haircut’ cliche is out of place is that this is a novel dealing with Austen characters. Austen had absolutely no truck with personal appearances and the only time that hair ever gets mentioned is to imply that the character in question is insufferably vain. The residents of Highbury express disquiet when Frank Churchill goes all the way to London to get his hair cut and although we subsequently find that this was a ruse, it is an early indication of his trivial character. Later he also passes comment on Jane Fairfax’s hair but this is again a deception. In Persuasion, Sir Walter Elliot decides that he would be all right with being seen with Admiral Croft but only provided that the Admiral got his hair fixed properly first. Austen was suspicious of those who spent too much time spent fretting over their hair.

I tried to look at Perception away from its associations with Pride and Prejudice. Other than the voyage to Derbyshire, the plot is a pretty basic Cinderella narrative with Mary in the starring role and Lady Sandalford as fairy godmother. This Mary is meek, eager to please and handy with small children. She blushes to think of her former self. She is so deserving that she is even turned abruptly into an heiress. Other than Mrs Bennet, none of the book’s characters bear much resemblance to their original counterparts. Where Kitty was whiny and insipid, here she is charming and wise. After turning away from the handsome gentleman with the possibly impure intentions, her ultimate marriage outshines even that of Elizabeth. Fleming’s Mr Bennet is warm-hearted and you can practically see the twinkle in his eye. Darcy is dull as ditchwater and informal to boot. Indeed, all of the characters bandy their first names around in a way that made my toes curl. If Austen’s Elizabeth continues to refer to her husband as Mr Darcy, the idea of him casually saying to new acquaintances to call him Darcy or Fitzwilliam is painfully unrealistic.

Mary Boland as Mary - 1940 filmIn its own right, Perception is a run-of-the-mill slightly anaemic Regency romance. Structurally, it sags a bit having to deal with two sisters and I can see why most sequels focus on one. The biggest issue is that the book just cannot live up to its forebear. I could not suspend my disbelief around Fleming’s decision to have Mary and Kitty’s marriages be of such magnificence. This is the whiny Bennet sister and the unpleasant one. Are we really expected to believe that they suddenly became such eligible brides? Austen stated that Kitty married a clergyman and Mary a clerk. Not poverty, not spinsterhood, not a life spent living on the charity of their sisters. They were allowed respectability. They were not expected to gain renown. Austen’s version of their fates remained within the realms of realism for two such forgettable characters. I could not engage with Perception because I could not recognise its principal players as having any resemblance to their ‘true’ counterparts.

However. Having said all of that. I’m having a really rough run of spin-offs lately and I’m starting to think that it’s me rather than them. Other people seem to be able to look past the plot contrivances and the cliches but for me, it grates. Like many Austen fans, I feel passionately that my interpretation of her work is the only correct one. Because I cannot conceive that Austen was ever a writer of romances (and indeed she declared herself that she did not write such things), a book like this, sheared of Austen’s wit and social commentary and relying on the ‘good haircut’ cliche which I despise … Well, Perception was never going to be a book that I could enjoy. This is one occasion where in my capacity as book reviewer I am throwing up my hands. No, I didn’t like it, but if you enjoy romances and you aren’t too bothered about character continuity then by all means, give it a whirl.

one-half-stars
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Pin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone
(Visited 110 times, 1 visits today)
Perception by Terri Fleming
Published by Hachette UK on July 13th 2017
Genres: Fiction, Coming of Age, Romance, Historical, Regency, Women, Literary, General
Pages: 400
Goodreads
ISBN: 9781409170631


This post contains affiliate links which you can use to purchase the book. If you buy the book using that link, I will receive a small commission from the sale.

4 thoughts on “Austen in August Review: Perception, Terri Fleming

  1. This one is not for me I’m afraid, it sounds troublesome in quite a few ways. I couldn’t agree more about the Magical Makeover trope. Apart from being tiresome and unimaginative, it is a real misrepresentation of the genuine struggles faced by people lacking in self-confidence. It also seems to somehow diminish and undermine the drama and trials faced by the fictional character, as they can’t really have been all that bad if they could be so easily fixed.

  2. I am glad that at the end of your review you finally stated that the real problem with the story was it clashes too much with your rigid interpretation of Austen and Austen Canon. Because honestly, what I find most frustrating (and the first thing I’m most in any P&P sequel review) is the insistence that Kitty/Mary married a clergyman/clerk, when the marriages of Mary/Kitty are nowhere mentioned in the P&P book Canon.

    Word of God is not Canon. (Particularly when firstly, the author is quite literally dead and secondly, when it’s supposedly not even her word but only her word filtered through her nephew’s letters — no indication of tone or context.) If it was so important to the narrative or characters, Austen should have included it in the text of P&P canon, and as she did not, Fleming’s interpretation of Mary and Kitty’s fates is as valid as any other, including Austen’s herself. I’m quite impatient with people arbitrarily deciding Austen should be the sole exception to The Author Is Dead literary theory, especially when they’re happy to apply the theory across many other non-Austen canons.

    I haven’t finished Perception myself as of yet, so can’t speak to what degree Fleming DOES flout written P&P Canon — but all that is actually said about her main characters on that score is that Kitty spent a lot of time with Elizabeth and Jane after their marriages, which allowed her to improve; and Mary stayed largely at home where she was no longer mortified by comparisons to her sisters, which helped HER improve. I also don’t consider character development and growing up from the ages of 17-19 the grave affront to Canon characterisation that you seem to, because I honestly don’t expect people to remain fixed as they are at 17-19 for the rest of their lives. But I have not gotten to any point in the story where a Cinderella moment takes place.

    (Though I think it’s a bit disingenuous to claim Austen “distrusts people who spend too much time on their hair”, or does not allow for Cinderella moments amongst her own characters. Even ignoring that P&P is easily her most fairytale-like romance; in every Austen book except Persuasion and NA there is a scene of a protagonist taking extra care to dress attractively for a ball — and Fanny Price’s coming-out ball is quite literally her own version of the moment you describe above for Mary.)

    1. Hi …

      If you enjoyed the book, that’s absolutely fine. I think I kind of realised that Austen sequels that steer too heavily into the romance genre aren’t really my scene. I would respectfully disagree with your first paragraph referring to my ‘rigid interpretation of Austen Canon’. I actually did mostly enjoy the Austen sequel ‘The Forgotten Sister’ which sent Mary off to Australia. I also really enjoyed Jo Baker’s Longbourn. Similarly, I loved Kathleen Flynn’s The Jane Austen Project. But they did have some relation to the original source material. Perception … not so much.

      Back in my teenage years, I occasionally flirted with Harry Potter fan fiction (reading ,not writing). I got to know some of the acronyms around criticism. OOC refers to Out Of Character. An example might be for Hermione to suddenly decide that books were totally boring, put on a band t-shirt and learn to play guitar. This was less a sign of the writers having a flexible attitude towards the Harry Potter canon as it was an indication that it was approximately 2004 and Avril Lavigne had made a big impact in popular culture. Mary’s transformation here is similarly OOC. It doesn’t make sense.

      But also … this is my website that I write for fun and to share my thoughts on books. I never state that my opinion is the only correct one and here I clearly stated in the final sentence that other readers may enjoy this but I didn’t. I think that given that, your comment was unnecessarily confrontational. I hope you have a good week.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.