The narrative focuses on a pre-established book club made of up five women and one inscrutable man who meet on a monthly basis to discuss the novels of Jane Austen, one at a time. While deliberating the ins and outs of Austin's characters, they gradually divulge their own private insecurities and Austen-like foibles. There is Jocelyn who has everyone's best interests at heart, along with a strong matchmaking impulse, and an instinct for tidiness. And Prudie, with the years receding behind her like a map "with no landmarks, a handful of air, another of water." There's Silvia who wants to slip off while the author's back is turned "to find love in her own way" showing up in time to deliver the next bit of dialogue with an innocent face. And then there is Allegra, an out lesbian who is a creature of extremes "either stuffed, starving, freezing or boiling, exhausted or electric with energy." She's a liberated woman who sees the world as an obstacle course where you pick your way across it while "the terrain slips about and things fall or explode."

The conversation, like the conversation on Austen is variously shrewd, inconsequential, apparent and amusing, and the drama of each character's lives unfolds at a fast pace. Every month they take a breather from their exhausted lives and sit around talking about their personal daydreams while serving "green salad made with dried cranberries, and candied walnuts, artichoke dips, cheeses, and peppered crackers" (it sounds delicious!). Fowler combines a gentle, uncomplicated way of writing with wonderful powers of description; she sees "the fingernail moon slicing open the clouds, and she describes Allegra's face as "having a silent-screen-star expressiveness and a lunar polish."

Like Austen, Fowler is also exposing and revealing the pursuit of love and saying that virtue, in whatever form, will be recognized, and rewarded. How love will prevail, how life can be a romance, and that happiness in marriage and relationships is mostly a matter of chance, is at the thematic heart of The Jane Austen Book Club. This is a quirky, whimsical and highly original novel and reinforces the notion that relationships and human frailties are not that much different today than they were in Austen's time. Mike Leonard April 04.

Reading Fowler requires some sophistication on the part of her reader to connect the dots in her storyline, which is one reason I liked this book so much. With a careful eye for home furnishings, appetizers, and wine, and through the club's literary discussions, Fowler demonstrates her Austen-like insights into her characters and their ordinary relationships. While a basic familiarity with Austen's novels is not a prerequisite for enjoying this novel, it would definitely lend itself to greater delights in reading Fowler's book. That is, readers (like me) who like Jane Austen will most likely enjoy this book.

G. Merritt

The author makes fun of Jane Austen throughout the book in subtle ways. This is evidenced in one way by a scene in which one of the characters defends the fact that Jane Austen does INDEED HAVE GOOD PLOTS! Of course this author thought she could write a book without a plot--as she "sees Jane Austen doing"--and come out with a best-selling book. I am sad to say that is exactly what has happened, thanks to a "glowing" book review in the New York Times and people loving Jane Austen and being duped. It is not clever or funny or witty in any way. It is slow and plodding and so boring, you wonder why you keep on reading it.

The first few chapters have some promise of linking us to Jane Austen--but that is minimal and then in the following chapters, it peters out to nothing. When I read the author's synopsis of each book discussed by the book club, it was clear to me that the author did not like Jane Austen. "One boring character marries another boring character" is typical of her summaries. This author is duplicitous and would not know good writing if it jumped up and bit her on her butt. Not only does the artistry in her writing suck but her ability to accurately use the English language sucks. She uses the word "effect" when she should have used the word "affect". Minor point--but still--how does someone like this get published and given a good review from the New York Times? AMAZING!!!