Monday, August 27, 2012

Go to the cows, Gemma. The cows will help you.

I wasn't the biggest fan of Jane Eyre.
The Flight of Gemma Hardy is a retelling of Jane Eyre.
I would have rather spent the time re-reading Jane Eyre. So, yeah...

So this is just Jane Eyre. Sort of a retelling. Actually, more like someone (in this case Livesey) took a detailed outline of Jane Eyre and then wrote a story based on that. Then nominally set it in the 1960s except not really. I mean the story claims to be from then but the style doesn't fit. The main character is surprised and sort of confused by the telephone. Like as an invention. And I GET IT, she's supposed to be poor and didn't have access to nice things. But she lived with her uncle and aunt who seemed to have enough money to have a phone in the late '50s/early '60s. And she went to a boarding school where maybe SHE wasn't allowed to use the phone, but it was a thing there. Or was Scotland really late to the whole "telephone" thing?

I like re-tellings of stories, even if the original story is something I'm not crazy about. But this isn't really a retelling. There's nothing new brought to the material. It's just Jane Eyre that is sometimes set in the '60s when the author remembers that's when it's supposed to be taking place. Oh and Gemma Hardy/Jane Eyre is originally from Iceland so you can plainly see this is an entirely different book and you should absolutely read this instead of just re-reading Jane Eyre. Grahme-Smith used entire passages from Pride and Prejudice when writing his book but that works as a retelling because he changed the story. By adding zombies. This could have really benefited from something supernatural. Or having Gemma act like a girl from the '60s and put a modern twist on things instead of randomly remembering that record players were a thing then, so we should mention them and OH, it's a whole new book!

To give the book some credit, I am not the intended audience. Maybe if you LOVE Jane Eyre and want moar. Moar. MOAR! this will be the perfect book for you. For me it was very, "Why am I doing this?"
To answer that question: The book was free and I don't like DNF-ing. Besides, finishing this means I can bitch about it here. Besides, it is a quick enough read. And when I bring a book with me on the train I don't have too many options other than "stare out the window" so I figured I may as well read it.

*Spoilers below. But about a really boring part of the book that should have been more interesting and failed. There, now if you don't read the stuff below, you know the gist.*
You know how in Jane Eyre the reason Jane can't/doesn't marry Rochester at first is cos of the whole secret crazy wife in the attic thing? You remember how that was an actual scandal? Livesey missed that part. There is no arsony secret wife. There is no secret wife or previous wife or anything. Which at first, when there was NO mention of fires or whatnot, I thought "It's fine. My problem with Rochester always stemmed with how Bertha was treated. Maybe I'll like this guy better." But we still need a scandal, something to drive Jane/Gemma away from Rochester/Sinclair so she can wander into the most boring part of the novel and find herself. The scandal here: more than 20 years earlier Mr. Sinclair and one of his friends/kids that worked at the family estate changed names for a couple years so Sinclair could join the RAF and convince his father he was brave. The other guy, Seamus, took Sinclair's place as a Bevin Boy working the mines and agreed to the switch because Sinclair offered up his sister Allison. Which at first does seem bad except in this case "offered up" equals "put in a good word for the guy, since Allison already likes Seamus, and also talk to his dad about what an awesome son-in-law Seamus would make". That is the scandal. That's it. Allison ended up dying due to a drug overdoes which would seem scandalous, except that the book says was not-at-all an effect of this arrangement. I'm pretty sure I mumbled "Oh you have got to be fucking kidding me. That is the scandal? That?" Maybe she tried to make Sinclair less of an ass than Rochester but she went so far the other way that I'm wondering why is this even a thing that was hidden. Or mattered at all?
*Seriously, how did she manage to make the most interesting part of Jane Eyre so boring? Anyway, spoilers contained*

Title quote from page 304. I picked it because it's such a ridiculous line and said so earnestly. It's like the voice from Field of Dreams coming to Gemma and telling her to go to the cows. The cows are the path to salvation. I'll stop now.

Livesey, Margot. The Flight of Gemma Hardy. HarperCollins, 2012. I received this in a giveaway

Comments (17)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Oh no! I so wanted to read this too but now I fear that it will ruin Jane Eyre for me and I LIKE Jane Eyre. Oh well. I guess I'll just have to reread Jane Eyre. SIGH.

Oh, and I liked this bit: "so she can wander into the most boring part of the novel and find herself." BECAUSE IT'S TRUE.
1 reply · active 660 weeks ago
You could probably read this without ruining Jane Eyre. I mean I don't really recommend reading this cos it was an exact retelling of Jane Eyre, but I don't think it will hurt your fondness for the original if you do check this out.

SERIOUSLY! The end part was only interesting in that you kept wondering if she would go back to Rochester. In this one because her reason for leaving was so stupid, she comes off as especially obnoxious and self-centered.
I enjoyed Jane Eyre, but remember feeling luke warm about this one. I agree that the most interesting part was left out and that IT WAS AN EXACT RETELLING. Except for the Iceland part and all that traveling which so happened to work out in her favor despite people thinking she was some nasty homeless lady. Anyway. Yeah, if you didn't like Jane Eyre, I could understand you definitely not enjoying this.

In other news, I just finished Pride and Prejudice, which I enjoyed, and am now reading Death Comes to Pemberley, the murder mystery based on P&P. And I can say that I think I may never attempt another novel based on a classic or a retelling of a classic or whatever UNLESS I am absolutely positive it is going to be really good. I just looked at Goodreads and it's getting one stars all over the place. How did I miss that?!? DNF?! Never!
1 reply · active 660 weeks ago
*This comment may contain spoilers, for other people reading this.*
The fact that it was an exact retelling drove me up a wall. I really was like "why am I even doing this? This is a waste of time. There's nothing new here except people's names."
I sorta liked the Iceland part because it was finally something new. Except of course, the whole reason she could go was because she robbed the only people who took her in when she was a nasty homeless lady. So I sorta hated Gemma by the end.

I thought about reading Death Comes to Pemberley cos I liked P&P and P&P&Z (which I recommend. It's fantastic). Now I think i will stay far away.
I did like Jane Eyre a lot but if this one doesn't add anything to the story I'll skip it. Your title quote also makes me skeptical. Too bad this one was a waste of time.
1 reply · active 660 weeks ago
Yeah I wouldn't bother with it. Again if you LOVED Jane Eyre, it's probably interesting. Maybe. But it's really a straight retelling so you may as well just read the original.
I would like to ignore this book and instead discuss Rochester, because HOKAY. Here's the thing right -- Rochester isn't great, but he's still better than a lot of dudes back then. Because he married this woman who was (we assume) crazy, then he finds it out, she gets worse, and instead of sending her to what we can assume would be a TERRIBLE insane asylum, because hello 1840s, he hires someone to watch her in her house.

I mean, yeah, she's kind of treated like an animal. But I'm assuming a whole lot of other awful stuff that could've happened in the asylum didn't happen. Rochester totally made some dick moves, but he's not as bad as he could be.
6 replies · active 660 weeks ago
I GET that he was super nice in not sending Bertha to an asylum. Though he does at one point say something about how he thought about killing her but decided not to and instead kept her locked up. I would look it up except my 2 seconds of Googling didn't bring up an example so I'm done trying to find it. At least while at work.

I did however find this Mr. Rochester is a Creep list thing that made me laugh, whether I agree with a lot of it or not http://www.themillions.com/2010/08/mr-rochester-i...
This. This is wonderful. And "I SHALL SINK INTO ROGUERY" is my favorite line of the day. I wonder if I can work it into normal conversation. Well, I guess if I'm saying that it won't really be a normal conversation.
WHICH COUSIN
IS IT THE SEXY ONE
Please don’t try to talk to me again
IT IS YOUR SEXY COUSIN
DID YOU LEAVE BECAUSE OF MY ATTIC WIFE
IS THAT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT
...
BECAUSE MY HOUSE IN FRANCE DOESN’T EVEN HAVE AN ATTIC
IF THAT’S WHAT YOU WERE WORRIED ABOUT
Haha. OMG. Rochester is totally a creep-o. That list made me laugh out loud in the middle of the office. Monday necessity for sure.
Awwww, too bad. Count me among the people who liked Jane Eyre without really loving it AND among those who enjoyed The Flight of Gemma Hardy. It felt like the bookish equivalent of settling in for a chat with an old friend over a cup of tea.
1 reply · active 660 weeks ago
I feel like most people who read it liked it. And it has a pretty decent rating on Goodreads. Alas, it was not for me.
I love love Jane Eyre, but this sounds sucky. I kind of dislike modern retellings/reimaginings/sequels anyway, (sorry P&P&Z! Which was ok. But got culled in my book cull, so...) so a BAD one of those? *Shudders*

Also, surely Scotland didn't get the telephone late?! Alexander Graham Bell was scottish, ffs!
1 reply · active 660 weeks ago
A little part of me died knowing you got rid of P&P&Z. Well a very small part. But yeah, that book is on my bookshelf in my room, which is reserved for special books. I mean, I wouldn't really put this quite in the same bucket as P&P&Z given that there's nothing supernatural or funny in this one.

That's what I was thinking with the phone! I even looked it up and Wikipedia was all like "nope, phones were a thing". I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt but I kept forgetting the book was supposed to be in the 60s/70s (or 50s/60s). Cos apparently the characters kept forgetting too.

Post a new comment

Comments by