...
Show More
I could go into a long, drawn-out explanation of the reason I read BRIDGET JONES’S DIARY to begin with, but I recently learned how to include links in my Goodreads reviews, so to save time I’ll simply direct you to my review for the first in the series (<-- this is the link, by the way… please click it for further information, if’n you’re feel’n n’clined). Though I didn’t give it 5 stars, BRIDGET JONES’S DIARY ended up being one of my favorite reads of 2023, so I was already inclined to read the sequel when somehow or other I discovered that the second in the series is a very loose adaptation of Jane Austen’s PERSUASION. I therefore did my due diligence by reading PERSUASION in May of this year and, thus, I am finally here.
Unfortunately, I’d say whatever spark that BRIDGET JONES’S DIARY had isn’t quite maintained here. I’m having difficulty putting into words why that is, exactly. I saw other Goodreads reviewers pointing to some events in the latter half of the book as being too outlandish to be believable (basically a lot of what happens after Bridget’s trip to Thailand); I also saw some suggesting that the emphasis on bizarre plot devices in this portion of the book reduced the sense of a personal connection readers previously felt with the character. I don’t disagree that the plot got out of control by the end, but I don’t know that that alone is what made this entry in the series seem off. Perhaps it’s just a case of diminishing returns: in many ways, the tone and style of the book, as well as the character’s outlook on life, are not far removed from the original and maybe gives it the feeling of being a retread. Incidentally, Bridget spends part of the book worrying about being just that; call me dense, but while I was reading, it didn’t even occur to me that it was a metacommentary on the book as a whole.
Retread or not, this is not to say that the book isn’t funny. There’s still some great comedic moments here. One I saved was when the maintenance man for Bridget’s apartment building (er, I mean… flat building?) shows up to do some repairs, but then smokes at her kitchen table and tells a long story about carp fishing on a reservoir near Hendon until Bridget interrupts asking if she should show him what needs fixed. However, she instantly realizes she has made a “crass, hurtful gaffe suggesting that I was not interested in Gary as person but merely as workman so had to re-enter fish anecdote to make amends”. Ha! Another one, which literally made me laugh out loud, was when a fitness instructor is gauging her health and asks how much alcohol she has weekly. Bridget quickly lies, “Fourteen to twenty-one units.” Haha! The fact that that’s her lie to cover up how much she really drinks is excellent.
But then there’s some stabs at humor that fall flat. For example, there is a running gag of a friend of Bridget’s who, when speaking on the phone, will at random moments begin yelling at her children so that at first it is unclear whether the words are meant for Bridget or her kids. It caught me off-guard the first time, but after 10 times or so it loses its appeal. Another frequent occurrence is this thing where Bridget, in her diary, states that she is not going to worry about something… only to begin freaking out about that thing in the next few minutes. This joke never really hit the mark and yet it appears again and again.
As mentioned, the PERSUASION connection is loose, but it is there if you know to look for it. Essentially, Bridget begins to believe that Mark Darcy is smitten with a former friend of hers (and current work colleague of his) named Rebecca; Rebecca, for her part, is quite openly flirting with Mark D. constantly. Thanks, in large part, to bad advice gleaned from self-help books (as opposed to a patroness, as in Austen’s book), Bridget fails to communicate with Marky D. about her feelings, becoming distant and resentful. Darcy doesn’t understand why Bridget is acting so put-off (although his utter obliviousness about why Rebecca’s behavior around him makes Bridget uncomfortable is deeply frustrating) and comes to believe that Bridget doesn’t want to be in a relationship with him. I saw more than a few Goodreads reviews complaining about the dumb miscommunication between them, but to be fair this is honestly pretty true to Austen’s original. Anyway, as a result, for the majority of the book Jones and Darcy are on the outs. It took me a while to recognize any parallels with PERSUASION – the fact that it was the self-help books that persuaded Bridget to distance herself from Mark D. is something that, again, I didn’t fully comprehend until I was writing this summation. However, there is one scene which is a very clear analogue to Austen’s book. During a party, Mark Darcy hastily scrawls a note and slips it to Bridget on his way out—much as Wentworth does in PERSUASION. Only, unlike in Austen’s book, in Fielding’s whenever Darcy stands up he knocks a glass dolphin figurine off the table and ends up crashing and flailing around in a Mr. Bean-like fashion, then once he hands off his scrawled missive it appears it’s just a copy of a poem her father had earlier read: that is, it appears he's given her the wrong paper. (Incidentally, and spoiler I guess, I’m pretty sure whatever real message he wrote never gets read… or rather, it’s read by the characters but essentially off-screen without we the audience knowing precisely what it said.) Anyway, that whole scene is a pretty humorous upending of the source material.
One thing that really left a bad taste in my mouth, though: during one of the black-tie dinner parties in which Rebecca laughs and touches Mark Darcy’s arm and looks beautiful in a low-cut, form-fitting dress while Bridget feels ugly and fat in a baggy pair of overalls (I’m exaggerating, but that’s essentially how she’s trying to present it), Mark D. makes a comment that he votes Tory. This strikes at Bridget’s heart. She makes a faint attempt to argue why she votes Labour, but can’t articulate it and Mark’s Tory friends all pile on to make her feel a fool. She tells her friend Sharon about the exchange later and Sharon tells her: “Get out. You’ve had the warning sign, he votes Tory. Now get out before you get involved.” I thought that this was the PERSUASION moment that would lead to Bridget and Mark’s break-up and I was very pleased by that, but it turned out to be a red herring because they stay together for some time afterward before they fall apart for other reasons. But the revelation that Mark Darcy votes Tory really sullied him in my eyes. I suppose I don’t know for certain, being the uncultured American swine that I am, but I’ve the sense that the Tories are essentially identical to the immoral, corrupt, repulsive Republican Party we enjoy here Stateside. And if that’s so: WOW, that’s quite a bomb to throw into the mix!
There’s essentially never any follow-up to this. Despite some initial discussion of how despicable it is that Darcy votes Tory, Bridget is quickly back to fawning over him from afar as she believes he doesn’t want anything to do with her and he believes the same about her, and even when they inevitably reconcile at the end (spoiler again?) this divide between them isn’t really addressed. Partly this is because Tony Blair and the Labour party took power, both in the book and in real life, and therefore Mark Darcy’s Tory predilections weren’t as concerning as before. And partly it is addressed in a strange, brief scene where – okay, this truly IS a spoiler, so I guess I’m going to put this review behind a spoiler tag – Bridget flies to Rome to interview Colin Firth (the actor who would later go on to play Mark Darcy in the movie version of BRIDGET JONES’S DIARY), putatively about his new film ‘Fever Pitch’ but which instead devolves into a very silly interaction where Bridget drools over Firth and asks him questions primarily about the BBC version of ‘Pride & Prejudice’ in which he plays Mr. Darcy. During this exchange, Fielding’s version of Firth comments that if Mr. Darcy were real he would likely have rather conservative political views. So Mark Darcy being a Tory is Fielding’s way of putting the pudding in the proof, if you get my meaning. Fielding’s probably right to an extent about Mr. Darcy, but it’s nevertheless bothersome for her to recreate that in her own book. Then again, returning to the it was a different time! claim, maybe in 1999 the political divide wasn’t so stark as it is today and Mark D.’s politics didn’t suggest the start of a horror story the way they do now. Either way, though, once that was revealed it ruined the character for me.
So, all that said—three stars. I still liked it, but I didn’t like it as much. If I may, it’s like Ghostbusters II. It’s not bad, per se—heck, you might even say that it’s good, really. There’s some pretty neat stuff about it. Hey: remember that ghost train? And you’ve got to admit, the whole Statue of Liberty thing is kind of cool. But there’s also stuff… basically all of the Janosz plotline… which is… not great. And there’s the vague feeling that, even though this movie is different, it’s nevertheless kind of… a lesser imitation of the original? So. In summary, BRIDGET JONES’S DIARY: THE EDGE OF REASON is comparable to Ghostbusters II. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Unfortunately, I’d say whatever spark that BRIDGET JONES’S DIARY had isn’t quite maintained here. I’m having difficulty putting into words why that is, exactly. I saw other Goodreads reviewers pointing to some events in the latter half of the book as being too outlandish to be believable (basically a lot of what happens after Bridget’s trip to Thailand); I also saw some suggesting that the emphasis on bizarre plot devices in this portion of the book reduced the sense of a personal connection readers previously felt with the character. I don’t disagree that the plot got out of control by the end, but I don’t know that that alone is what made this entry in the series seem off. Perhaps it’s just a case of diminishing returns: in many ways, the tone and style of the book, as well as the character’s outlook on life, are not far removed from the original and maybe gives it the feeling of being a retread. Incidentally, Bridget spends part of the book worrying about being just that; call me dense, but while I was reading, it didn’t even occur to me that it was a metacommentary on the book as a whole.
Retread or not, this is not to say that the book isn’t funny. There’s still some great comedic moments here. One I saved was when the maintenance man for Bridget’s apartment building (er, I mean… flat building?) shows up to do some repairs, but then smokes at her kitchen table and tells a long story about carp fishing on a reservoir near Hendon until Bridget interrupts asking if she should show him what needs fixed. However, she instantly realizes she has made a “crass, hurtful gaffe suggesting that I was not interested in Gary as person but merely as workman so had to re-enter fish anecdote to make amends”. Ha! Another one, which literally made me laugh out loud, was when a fitness instructor is gauging her health and asks how much alcohol she has weekly. Bridget quickly lies, “Fourteen to twenty-one units.” Haha! The fact that that’s her lie to cover up how much she really drinks is excellent.
But then there’s some stabs at humor that fall flat. For example, there is a running gag of a friend of Bridget’s who, when speaking on the phone, will at random moments begin yelling at her children so that at first it is unclear whether the words are meant for Bridget or her kids. It caught me off-guard the first time, but after 10 times or so it loses its appeal. Another frequent occurrence is this thing where Bridget, in her diary, states that she is not going to worry about something… only to begin freaking out about that thing in the next few minutes. This joke never really hit the mark and yet it appears again and again.
As mentioned, the PERSUASION connection is loose, but it is there if you know to look for it. Essentially, Bridget begins to believe that Mark Darcy is smitten with a former friend of hers (and current work colleague of his) named Rebecca; Rebecca, for her part, is quite openly flirting with Mark D. constantly. Thanks, in large part, to bad advice gleaned from self-help books (as opposed to a patroness, as in Austen’s book), Bridget fails to communicate with Marky D. about her feelings, becoming distant and resentful. Darcy doesn’t understand why Bridget is acting so put-off (although his utter obliviousness about why Rebecca’s behavior around him makes Bridget uncomfortable is deeply frustrating) and comes to believe that Bridget doesn’t want to be in a relationship with him. I saw more than a few Goodreads reviews complaining about the dumb miscommunication between them, but to be fair this is honestly pretty true to Austen’s original. Anyway, as a result, for the majority of the book Jones and Darcy are on the outs. It took me a while to recognize any parallels with PERSUASION – the fact that it was the self-help books that persuaded Bridget to distance herself from Mark D. is something that, again, I didn’t fully comprehend until I was writing this summation. However, there is one scene which is a very clear analogue to Austen’s book. During a party, Mark Darcy hastily scrawls a note and slips it to Bridget on his way out—much as Wentworth does in PERSUASION. Only, unlike in Austen’s book, in Fielding’s whenever Darcy stands up he knocks a glass dolphin figurine off the table and ends up crashing and flailing around in a Mr. Bean-like fashion, then once he hands off his scrawled missive it appears it’s just a copy of a poem her father had earlier read: that is, it appears he's given her the wrong paper. (Incidentally, and spoiler I guess, I’m pretty sure whatever real message he wrote never gets read… or rather, it’s read by the characters but essentially off-screen without we the audience knowing precisely what it said.) Anyway, that whole scene is a pretty humorous upending of the source material.
One thing that really left a bad taste in my mouth, though: during one of the black-tie dinner parties in which Rebecca laughs and touches Mark Darcy’s arm and looks beautiful in a low-cut, form-fitting dress while Bridget feels ugly and fat in a baggy pair of overalls (I’m exaggerating, but that’s essentially how she’s trying to present it), Mark D. makes a comment that he votes Tory. This strikes at Bridget’s heart. She makes a faint attempt to argue why she votes Labour, but can’t articulate it and Mark’s Tory friends all pile on to make her feel a fool. She tells her friend Sharon about the exchange later and Sharon tells her: “Get out. You’ve had the warning sign, he votes Tory. Now get out before you get involved.” I thought that this was the PERSUASION moment that would lead to Bridget and Mark’s break-up and I was very pleased by that, but it turned out to be a red herring because they stay together for some time afterward before they fall apart for other reasons. But the revelation that Mark Darcy votes Tory really sullied him in my eyes. I suppose I don’t know for certain, being the uncultured American swine that I am, but I’ve the sense that the Tories are essentially identical to the immoral, corrupt, repulsive Republican Party we enjoy here Stateside. And if that’s so: WOW, that’s quite a bomb to throw into the mix!
There’s essentially never any follow-up to this. Despite some initial discussion of how despicable it is that Darcy votes Tory, Bridget is quickly back to fawning over him from afar as she believes he doesn’t want anything to do with her and he believes the same about her, and even when they inevitably reconcile at the end (spoiler again?) this divide between them isn’t really addressed. Partly this is because Tony Blair and the Labour party took power, both in the book and in real life, and therefore Mark Darcy’s Tory predilections weren’t as concerning as before. And partly it is addressed in a strange, brief scene where – okay, this truly IS a spoiler, so I guess I’m going to put this review behind a spoiler tag – Bridget flies to Rome to interview Colin Firth (the actor who would later go on to play Mark Darcy in the movie version of BRIDGET JONES’S DIARY), putatively about his new film ‘Fever Pitch’ but which instead devolves into a very silly interaction where Bridget drools over Firth and asks him questions primarily about the BBC version of ‘Pride & Prejudice’ in which he plays Mr. Darcy. During this exchange, Fielding’s version of Firth comments that if Mr. Darcy were real he would likely have rather conservative political views. So Mark Darcy being a Tory is Fielding’s way of putting the pudding in the proof, if you get my meaning. Fielding’s probably right to an extent about Mr. Darcy, but it’s nevertheless bothersome for her to recreate that in her own book. Then again, returning to the it was a different time! claim, maybe in 1999 the political divide wasn’t so stark as it is today and Mark D.’s politics didn’t suggest the start of a horror story the way they do now. Either way, though, once that was revealed it ruined the character for me.
So, all that said—three stars. I still liked it, but I didn’t like it as much. If I may, it’s like Ghostbusters II. It’s not bad, per se—heck, you might even say that it’s good, really. There’s some pretty neat stuff about it. Hey: remember that ghost train? And you’ve got to admit, the whole Statue of Liberty thing is kind of cool. But there’s also stuff… basically all of the Janosz plotline… which is… not great. And there’s the vague feeling that, even though this movie is different, it’s nevertheless kind of… a lesser imitation of the original? So. In summary, BRIDGET JONES’S DIARY: THE EDGE OF REASON is comparable to Ghostbusters II. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
