Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

[Corvus]

Don't know if this has been raised yet, but I just stumbled across it.

Someone has rewritten Pride and Prejudice - and included zombies. I kid you not.

An article about it can be found here

(I also made a post on my blog - (shameless self-promotion ;)) with a bit more about it.)

[Rutskarn]

Bah--that's not shameless. Let me show you how shameless is done:

I have a gun, right here. I'll shoot myself in the foot for every person reading this message that doesn't read Chocolate Hammer.

Anyway, this supports my hypothesis that any novel written before 1900 would benefit from the inclusion of zombies.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Unlike the original novel, I will actually read this instead of memorizing the Spark Notes for it and acing the test anyway.

[Innis Cabal]

Not even zombies could make that book entertaining in the slightest.

[snoopy13a]

I like Pride and Prejudice. What I don't really understand is the fascination with zombies. I simply don't get that. Oh well...

[LurkerInPlayground]

I like Pride and Prejudice. What I don't really understand is the fascination with zombies. I simply don't get that. Oh well...

It's really quite simple.

If there's a zombie apocalypse, you get to fend off zombies by holing-up in yoru home with a shotgun. Maybe you'll lay into the endless tides with carnal glee and a trusty weapon.

It's a commonly understood nerd-scenario. An excellent opportunity to strut your nerd credibility by talking about how much better you'll be than the next guy in the downfall of civilization.

[Myatar_Panwar]

It's a commonly understood nerd-scenario. An excellent opportunity to strut your nerd credibility by talking about how much better you'll be than the next guy in the downfall of civilization.

Unfortunately many nerds who feel this way may also be pretty out of shape, and would probably fall to zombie hunger just as fast as the next guy. Though he would go down giggling like a school girl holding the hand of the newest popstar.

And Rutskarn, I am not reading Chocolate Hammer. Pics or it didn't happen.

[averagejoe]

Anyway, this supports my hypothesis that any novel written before 1900 would benefit from the inclusion of zombies.

Fixed that for you.

One can't help but notice how fashionable it is to dislike books one was made to read/never read in high school.

[Innis Cabal]

Its more then that. Its all Jane Austin. At least for me.

And Classic=/=good read

[Avilan the Grey]

It's really quite simple.

If there's a zombie apocalypse, you get to fend off zombies by holing-up in yoru home with a shotgun. Maybe you'll lay into the endless tides with carnal glee and a trusty weapon.

It's a commonly understood nerd-scenario. An excellent opportunity to strut your nerd credibility by talking about how much better you'll be than the next guy in the downfall of civilization.

And (maybe because it's nerds involved) the right kind of Zombie movie (like any good horror movie) includes women that just happens to have to fight or flee with very little clothes on.

[averagejoe]

Its more then that. Its all Jane Austin. At least for me.

And Classic=/=good read

No it doesn't. However, if one pops in to say negative things about a book without offering the slightest bit of defense, there are few conclusions one can reasonably draw.

[RabbitHoleLost]

>>
Once again, Rabbit enjoys a novel noone else has any favor for in the slightest.
This time, though, I don't feel ashamed. I enjoyed Pride and Prejudiced thoroughly when I read it in highschool. I just enjoy romance, I suppose.
Plus, as we all know, I have an eternal infatuation for undead, therefore, when I stumbled onto a link about this novel a few months back, I was ecstatic. I cannot wait to get my greedy little hands onto this book, I tell you.

[Innis Cabal]

No one has given support why its good either. And as promised on a previous thread. Just because no defense has been given for it being bad, since there is no defense for it being good, its more or less down to personal taste.

Why do I dislike her books? They are boring. They do not entertain me and thats the point of a story. I tried getting through it, without being required to. And I ended up throwing the book away in disgust. There are few writers that could write so bloody much and not once say a single thing.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Well, Innis, I'll give you the fact that she's boring. I tried to get through Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park, and Emma, and I had much the same reaction as you.
I tossed them out.
However, the social commentary and almost foeyay to Pride and Prejudice caught my attention. I also was somewhat fond of Mr. Bennet as a character, and found his mocking nature alone to be enough to read the novel.
As I've said before, different strokes for different folks.
I like me some romance novels.
::shrugs::

[Innis Cabal]

Don't get me wrong, I won't begrudge anyone who likes it, but as I said, not even a horde of brain devouring undead could put life....into her novels for me.

Frankly, there are so many books out there I won't read all the ones I want before I die. But I will at least cut out the ones I know I wont care for. Romance novels being at the top of that list. And its not like I don't read some boring stuff for fun, I have a degree in history and have read through the Romance of the Three Kingdoms and The Water Margin for my degree and again for the fun of it. Anyone saying those books arn't as dry as dust would be lying to you.

[averagejoe]

Bleh. Much better post lost to the aether. I'll still do what I can, though.

No one has given support why its good either. And as promised on a previous thread. Just because no defense has been given for it being bad, since there is no defense for it being good, its more or less down to personal taste.

But... previous to that no one had given a positive opinion of the books. They had expressed positive opinions of zombies being added to the book, I suppose, but I don't believe you could be around such a community for very long and not understand why that is (even in you disagree with that opinion. )

Why do I dislike her books? They are boring. They do not entertain me and thats the point of a story. I tried getting through it, without being required to. And I ended up throwing the book away in disgust.

Ah, then forgive me, I was obviously mistaken. I reached the conclusion that seemed most likely to me considering that, in my experience, most people who post/talk about a classic they dislike simply dislike it because they were forced to read it, are resentful of this fact, and so offer little opinion about the book itself. (I've speculated on this phenomena. While I have no trouble believing that high schoolers would invite more misery into their lives, this tendency to go out of their way to express that dislike has always puzzled me. I speculate that it's because they are, in some sense, "supposed" to like the book and so, like Twilight or The da Vinci Code, people are more likely to actively dislike them because of their popularity. This is just idle speculation, though, and somewhat off topic.) Your "classic =/= good" statement seemed to support this, since I had expressed no good opinions of any books classic or otherwise, so the only reason I could think for you to bring it up is because you're specifically trying to discredit it because it's a classic. Again, this was clearly wrong, and I apologize.

There are few writers that could write so bloody much and not once say a single thing.

This is fairly unsupportable, however, in that it doesn't fit the facts. She was clearly saying a lot. Whether she said it well, in a pleasing way, or clearly, are all items up for debate, but even the first sentence of the book is pure social commentary.

[Innis Cabal]

I like Pride and Prejudice. What I don't really understand is the fascination with zombies. I simply don't get that. Oh well...

I'd say this is a rather positive opinion of the book, and Rabbit seems to have liked it as well

And people can speak volumes and never say anything. Or they could simply say one word, and convey a message far deeper then any book. Jane Austin, while she attempts to do what you claim, and clearly alot of people agree (There are whole class's dedicated to her, or were at my college). I simply find her point...irrelevent to the current times, and the execution droll.

[averagejoe]

I'd say this is a rather positive opinion of the book, and Rabbit seems to have liked it as well

But... previous to that no one had given a positive opinion of the books.

Emphasis mine. Erm, that is, emphasis added just now.

When you brought up unjustified positive opinions of the book I thought you meant that your unjustified negative opinion was a response to that or some such, instead of the conclusion I reached. I wasn't commenting on people dropping in to give positive opinions of the book, and if I had been I would have drawn different conclusions as to their motives. However, I don't see how unjustified positive opinions of the book could have affected your decision to put up an unjustified negative opinion of it, seeing as none were posted when you did so. I therefore fail to see their relevance.

And people can speak volumes and never say anything. Or they could simply say one word, and convey a message far deeper then any book. Jane Austin, while she attempts to do what you claim, and clearly alot of people agree (There are whole class's dedicated to her, or were at my college). I simply find her point...irrelevent to the current times, and the execution droll.

That's fine; as I said, that sort of thing is debatable. But that's not what you said. A person can say irrelevant things, but that isn't saying nothing.

[Cheesegear]

Does it have a zombie Mr. D'Arcy shirtless in the lake? Played by Colin Firth?

[RabbitHoleLost]

Does it have a zombie Mr. D'Arcy shirtless in the lake? Played by Colin Firth?

I would be a pleased fangirl.

[averagejoe]

Does it have a zombie Mr. D'Arcy shirtless in the lake? Played by Colin Firth?

Heck no. Darcy (not D'Arcy, just f.y.i. Unless they did one of those things where they change things for the American editions or something.) is way too awesome to get turned into a zombie. Unless maybe by heroic sacrifice.

Although any excuse to get Colin Firth shirtless is acceptable, really. And I say this as a male who, while open to the idea of being physically attracted to men, am thusfar entirely heterosexual.

I would like to see the book's handling of the dance scenes where they have conversations.

Eliza: "Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah blah blah. Wouldn't you say?"
Z. Darcy: "Brains."

[Athaniar]

Zombies, huh? Nice touch. I found the original version (have been forced to watch a film version) kind of boring. Now, if they would only include Hitler and Stalin as wizards...

[Cheesegear]

Heck no. Darcy (not D'Arcy, just f.y.i. Unless they did one of those things where they change things for the American editions or something.)

My bad. I haven't read it in a while. And there's a guy in the news recently, called D'arcy. My brain just switched.

Although any excuse to get Colin Firth shirtless is acceptable, really. And I say this as a male who, while open to the idea of being physically attracted to men, am thusfar entirely heterosexual.

I'm also a heterosexual male. But I still stand by what I said.

The 'new'/est movie is all wrong.

• No Lake scene
• Keira Kneightly The worst actress in the world.
• Whoever the clown was who played Darcy had it all wrong
• Whoever the clown was who played Darcy has nothing on Colin Firth
• Keira Kneightly
• No Colin Firth

[The Neoclassic]

They do not entertain me and thats the point of a story.

Not always. Besides, a book can be interesting without being entertaining, per say. I wasn't entertained by The Sparrow, for example, but it was still a very interesting read (and enjoyable, for a lot of it). Reading for fun? Well, yes, most people want something entertaining. Sometimes stories are to bring up a point or illustrate some issue; also, what one person considers "boring" is extremely subjective. Any high-paced book about a guy who drives race cars would put me to sleep, for example, while I could entirely imagine myself thoroughly enjoying a novel about a rather ordinary accountant (though most other people would sooner go swimming with hungry sharks than read such a book). So, it's entirely fine to dislike the book, but just because you found it boring isn't much of a standard to declare it a bad book.

For the record, I don't remember really hating or liking Pride and Prejudice. It wasn't exactly my sort of novel, but I can understand why people would enjoy it. And I'm assuming that there is some reason that English classes teach it (though I admit to not knowing what that reason is, plus tons of English classes teach some pretty crappy modern fiction, in my opinion).

There are few writers that could write so bloody much and not once say a single thing.

In that case I'm going to guess that you haven't read David Copperfield.

[Nerd-o-rama]

In that case I'm going to guess that you haven't read David Copperfield.

Or, let's face it, most Arthur C. Clarke novels. 2001 doesn't count because Kubrick was holding his hand through the whole thing, and his short stories of less than a couple dozen pages are actually quite good.

On topic, I like the themes and message of Pride and Prejudice, but the actual novel is too dry and full of dull descriptive interludes to have held my attention all the way through it. Much of British 19th century literature is the same.

[Innis Cabal]

In that case I'm going to guess that you haven't read David Copperfield.

Great Expectations was more then enough for me to never want to crack open a book of his ever again.

[Ascension]

Well, as long as we're ragging on the classics, let me say that I think most of Mark Twain's work would benefit from zombies. A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court remains to this day the only book I've started but never finished. His short stories are pretty good, but every novel by him I've read has left me unimpressed.

[MeklorIlavator]

Great Expectations was more then enough for me to never want to crack open a book of his ever again.

Same, though I make and exception for The Christmas Carol. It's a pretty good short story.

On the original topic, I actually like P&P, but adding zombies could be...interesting.

[chiasaur11]

In that case I'm going to guess that you haven't read David Copperfield.

That's the one about the body found in the field, right?

I've always meant to read that after hearing Frasier Crane's reading of it. The ninja dinosaurs were excellent characters.

[The Neoclassic]

That's the one about the body found in the field, right?

I've always meant to read that after hearing Frasier Crane's reading of it. The ninja dinosaurs were excellent characters.

Uh... I don't remember that part of the book (though it would probably be far more interesting with ninja dinosaurs). All I remember is some freaking boring guy with an abusive stepfather and who sucks at keeping the love of his life or something like that... For 800+ pages.

Great Expectations was more then enough for me to never want to crack open a book of his ever again.

I never tried that one, thank the gods.

Well, as long as we're ragging on the classics, let me say that I think most of Mark Twain's work would benefit from zombies.

I agree. Tom Sawyer was rather boring to me, and I think if the kids' aunt got eaten by zombies or something I actually would have been entertained by it.