Pride and Prejudice and Zombies by Seth Grahame-Smith

This book is wonderful for:
1) zombie lovers--a lot of nice stomach-turning illustrations are included!
2) a Halloween read, for same reason as #1
3) anyone who was forced to read Jane Austen in a literature class, and contemplated chewing through the hand that held the book than having to read another second of irritatingly, inane, prattling conversation famous in Austen books by characters who think they are more witty and interesting than they are
4) anyone who prays to the Almighty after reading a Jane Austen book, thanking him for bestowing us with the intelligence to invent TV, Internet, and video games...so we are not reduced to relying on our neighbors to entertain us like in Jane Austen's day--when you had to endure conversation with bores and listening to someone's sister try and play the piano or sing.
5) anyone who has read eighteen chapters of a Jane Austen book and said, "What was the point of writing this? Nothing is happening! How can you write eighteen chapters about nothing?"

I read Sense and Sensibility and never finished for three of the above reasons (#3-5). I vowed never to read Jane Austen again, so I don't know how close this book is to the book it is based on. My mother, who has read Pride and Prejudice, though a long time ago, claims it does seem pretty close to the original...except for the zombies, of course.

Elizabeth Bennet and her sisters have been trained to wipe out the zombie menace that has afflicted England. Her father is determined to keep his daughters alive, but their mother is concerned about getting them married. She is extremely happy, therefore, when Mr. Bingley arrives--though everyone is less enchanted with his rude friend Mr. Darcy. One sister falls in love with Bingley, and everything seems to lead to a wedding--until he inexplicably goes out of town and seems to lose interest in her. Elizabeth hates Mr. Darcy, which seems to be mutual, but then he starts to like her, but she still doesn't like him and spurns his marriage proposal, and he becomes more agreeable, and she decides she loves him...but then she is afraid he no longer feels the same, but then she finds out he does. Another silly sister runs off with a man that has no intention of marrying her, causing herself and her family ruin, until Mr. Darcy interferes--and she is married to an invalid for the rest of her days. Mr. Collins marries Elizabeth's best friend, ignorant of her condition. All of the above are the side plots--and when it threatens to get slow...zombies attack and eat some people.

I really enjoyed this book. My mom didn't quite approve because she suspected that the author really hated Jane Austen, thought she was lame, and anybody who thought she was great was an idiot. This may very well be the case, hinted by what is written about the author, "Jane Austen is the author of Sense and Sensibility, Persuasion, and Mansfield Park, and other masterpieces of English literature. Seth Grahame-Smith once took a class in English literature."

And book clubs need not fear...there are points to discuss about the novel. Here are two suggested topics I thought were interesting:
1) Some critics have suggested that the zombies represent the authors' views towards marriage--an endless curse that sucks the life out of you and just won't die. Do you agree?
2) Is Lady Catherine's objection to Elizabeth as a bride for her nephew merely a matter of Elizabeth's inferior wealth and rank? Is she intimidated by Elizabeth's fighting skills? Is she bitter about the shortcomings of her own daughter?

Actually, I am going to read Jane Austen's version because now I am curious about it. I was able to appreciate the book more--the parts that didn't even have zombies--because I'm better at picking up subtleties...which was one of my problems in the past. At the very least, it is a good book for Halloween.

Had a flick through. It's basically just the book with the word 'zombie' in every so often. Quite frankly, I'd rather read the actual novel and not some embittered student's attempt at a parody. Parodies only work if you have a degree of respect for the original- otherwise they just come off as whining.

I'd much rather read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies than the original for all the reasons you've given though I doubt if I will. I disliked Jane Austen's Emma, but we had to study it. I've never read one since, and don't intend to. Through the book I just kept thinking - get over yourself or give him a slap will you.(Though I am usually of a mild mannered demeanor).

It was a funny, well written review. :smile5:

I put the answer that was closest; I read half and I thought the first third of the book was brilliant. At the beginning of the second third, he gets a bit bogged down in the trivialities and begins to miss some of the very subtle prejudices that make up the story.
I don't know, the book may be a good way to catch your children off guard and introduce them to real literature on a Halloween holiday.
I like alot of Jane Austens points, it was merely that sometimes I got lost in the "fluff" like I often did in certain eras of writing. :confused:

What is up with the current resurgence of Jane Austen? It seems every other hack writer out there is doing his/her own revisionist take on Austen. I personally haven't read any of them; I happen to like the originals, but I find this recent trend fascinating.

This reminds me of a low-budget play I saw a few years ago which combined P&P with the supernatural. It was called Pride and Succubus...P&P with vampires! Elizabeth is the vampire hunter of her family (always had a wooden stake in her bosom!) and tried to keep her silly sisters from wandering away with vampirey strangers. Of course, she's put in a dilemma when Darcy and Bingley (the two hottest resident vampires) come to town. :D:D:D Hilarious stuff.

:Yawn: You know, I just wish this book (and its friends, which are numerous and growing) would just go away! They do nothing for me, and I think, moreover, that they are a discredit to the title "Literature." A way to get the kids to read the classics... There HAS to be a better way -- for sanity's sake.

Too late. here are also numerous other titles such as Sense ans Sensibility and Sea Monsters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_a...d_Sea_Monsters

I'm with Sounds - if the kids actually read it - then good. Having suffered Jane Austen in my studies I have every sympathy with kids reading this.

Anyway, it's an interesting deviation on a form. Perhaps it will lead to a new sub genre - or perhaps it already is. It's not as if literature hasn't been reformed in the past ie Romeo andJuliet Shakespeare's adaptation of an older poem.

One of my old tutors read the thing, and summed it up thus:

"If it was published on the internet, it would be classed as really bad, but above all really lazy, fanfiction. It was readable, I guess, but I prefer the original, and I'm no great fan of Austen."

That kind of put me off reading it - the slew of derivative fiction that has followed only makes me less inclined to try.

Is there perhaps something a little disrespectful about it? I mean, given that most people here are either writers or aspiring writers, how would you feel if someone took your work, added in some novelty element, and then sold it on? I think I at least would find it distressing. And how many people will actually go and read the original Austen having come into it from the parody?

Where does it end? Brideshead Revisited by Martians? The Abominable Snowman of Monte Cristo? Paradise Lost with Added Hardcore Action?

I don't really know where I'm going with this; I just know that the concept of it makes me, as an artist, uncomfortable. It's a bit like drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa, if you get my drift.

I don't consider it disrespectful. I have read many classics because I have seen movies that are loosely based on them. And I'm going to read Pride and Prejudice because now this book has made me curious about it, whereas I had formerly sworn never to pick up a Jane Austen book again. If I ever publish, I hope somebody will revision my work. Even if it sucks, even if it is smut, even if it has aliens in it...the fact that it is being remade makes my work survive. Maybe not everybody will read it after seeing a movie loosely based on it, but there are some people that will--and that is the difference between surviving past your era or fading into obscurity.

If I were a gambler, I would wager that appreciation for the classics is harmed more by forcing people to read them in school than redoing them with zombies and aliens. The problem with many of the classics is that they have themes that many of us can't identify with at the age we are usually introduced to them. I had to fall in love before I could appreciate love stories, though frankly I'm not a romantic. But I appreciate them more than I did. Years ago, I thought Titanic got good after it hit the iceberg--and I yawned through most of the first part with Jack and Rose's romance. After falling in love, I can appreciate the first part a little more.

I didn't really have an awareness or appreciation for many of the social issues that are addressed in the classics when I was younger. I am planning on re-reading many of the classics I didn't like now that I'm older, and I can appreciate those points a little more. And I like hearing what other people see, because sometimes a person's own nature interferes with them being able to pick up points other people can see. Of course, we all have our own tastes--and what is one person's great classic is another person's supply of emergency toilet paper.

Why do people whine about being 'forced' to study classics? How many of those people would read a classic novel otherwise?

And if you disagree with the teacher's views, challenge them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

Why do people whine about being 'forced' to study classics? How many of those people would read a classic novel otherwise?

And if you disagree with the teacher's views, challenge them.

---

In my case it was a particular classic - Jane A. I liked others - just not the literature of manners. In fact when we studied Emma we had a brilliant teacher who really made the best of it. Although I enjoyed his teaching of it, I didn't enjoy the book.

I think Silent's comment about putting kids off the classics is valid. Many of them can't see the point - a bit like maths - though there clearly is a point and many skills to be garnered. The more you try to push with teens, the less you'll get I reckon. Relevence is a point after all. I was shocked to find out that quite few of the lads in my O' level class 30 years ago never read books at all, and we were the top group!

Academics no doubt think that teaching classics is important, but who else does? I think you get a better response from those who want to study it -and there are plenty. Others may develop the interest if they are not subjected to it inappropriately.

As an aside GCSE's in the UK are dropping the literature aspect in favour of more practical reading and writing. I think this is important. Get them reading critically and writing well. They can do classic lit if they want then - and with better skills.

Practical reading?

One of my positive literature experiences is when our literature teacher gave us a whole list of classics and told us we could read whatever we wanted. I was so excited! There were more than a hundred books on this list! And there were some that I hadn't even realized were classics. I still have that list, and I've gradually been reading the books off of it. This teacher exposed me to the classics without giving me a bad taste in my mouth for them because he allowed me to choose what I wanted to read according to my interests. Being a pre-teen, I stayed away from some of the "heavy" authors like Rushdie and Tolstoy, but I thoroughly enjoyed the books I chose that term.

Shakespeare wrote countless plays. Why are we always stuck in school reading Romeo and Juliet or [I]Hamelet[I]? Of course, many people consider these to be his best work, but I personally did not agree. When I had the chance to read what I wanted, I read other plays that I liked much better by Shakespeare. I loved Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, and Richard III.

I rather resent being told I'm whining when I object to what I think is a very bad teaching method...and as far as challenging teachers--if you have had luck with that, then you had very understanding teachers. I, for one, did not...particularly in literature. These teachers refused to be flexible about their syllabus. They also tended to be just as immovable on their opinions about the literature they chose. These people made reading classics very miserable! If you didn't pee your pants in delight over Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility, you were branded someone whose tree didn't fork, who probably had never read anything except a TV guide, and probably whose most profound thought was, "If I shove a crayon up my nose, will I tickle my brain?" I think that is why I enjoyed it so much when somebody put zombies in Pride and Prejudice--it was like sticking it to the man! WHAT THE EFF IS IT WITH JANE AUSTEN? :flare: You can hate any other classical author, and nobody is going to bite your head off! Even if you hated Maya Angelou or Alice Walker (although I like both of them personally), which could possibly get you branded as a bigot because of them being black authors--nobody jumps on your case! But you say, "Oh, I don't think Jane Austen is so great"--and people are acting like you said, "Hitler was right!"

NOT EVERYBOY IS GOING TO LIKE JANE AUSTEN! And it doesn't mean we are married to our brother or another member of our immediate family! I do read! I haven't liked all the classics, but I do like some. Is there anybody that has liked all the classics? Jane Austen is a matter of taste, as are most things. I was going to give her a chance after reading this book--because I did enjoy some of the parts (even if they didn't have zombies), but I have to admit after seeing what fanaticism she inspires--I'm starting to hate her all over again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

Practical reading?

---

Reading newspapers, letters, application forms, posters, adverts - in particular job adverts, instructions, safety notices, bank statements, bills, web pages, e-mails, memos etc.

These are the basic end of the educational scale who were still expected to read a Shakespeare play and a pre-19th C novel. I think the stats say a fifth of kids still leave without the basics in the UK.

I think lots of kids struggle with classics though.

I have mixed feelings about Austen. I'm currently reading Mansfield Park, and with this book I will have read all of Austen's work. If anyone asked me what her books were about, I couldn't really tell them. On the one hand, I think Austen is boring, but on the other I think she is a great writer--one of the great English novelists. Even though she bores me I read her because her greatness as a writer outweighs her ability to bore me.