A Pig, a Peacock, and Pemberley

I've long been a fan of novellas. They present a challenge to the writer, beautifully captured by Henry James. He writes of the "possible scope" and "possible neatness" of the novella, and explains

[I]t takes its place for me in a series of which the main merit and sign is the effort to do the complicated thing with a strong brevity and lucidity--to arrive, on behalf of the multiplicity, at a certain science of control. Infinitely attractive--thought I risk here again doubtless an effect of reiteration--the question of how to exert this control in accepted conditions and how yet to sacrifice no real value; problems ever dearest to any economical soul desirous to keep renewing, and with a frugal splendour, its idea of economy.

A frugal splendor was my hope with Revaluation. I wanted to write a story that was, in one way, simple, and in another, complicated. A story without unnecessary surface detail but still with a bit of depth. Playful but serious. I'm sure I stumbled in the execution, but I enjoyed witing the book, enjoyed Grumphy, the pig, and Splendor, the peacock. (Splendor's name was chosen independently of James' reflections.) But mostly I enjoyed considering Elizabeth and Darcy from these angles, and in these contexts, ones in which the intelligence and sensibilty of each shines on the other.

I'd be delighed if readers enjoy it!

By the way, since I mentioned Splendor's name, parenthetically, I will mention that Grumphy's name is borrowed from a passage in Ralph Waldo Emerson's Journals. Or so I seem to remember. I need to look that up...