Trent Roman wrote:
The word of the day is: parody.
|
Word to the wise: people who cite
New Yorker articles generally know what parodies are. But if, as you imply, parodies and juvenile tripe are mutually exclusive, I suppose
Vampires Suck isn't juvenile tripe because it's a parody?
Trent Roman wrote:
Elizabeth Bennett and indeed many of Mz. Austen's characters have an irritating tendency to get their many layers of undergarments in a bunch over the stupidest, smallest of social faux-pas. This is the logical exagerration of that bathetic, mountains-out-of-molehill attitude.
|
You might be a
tad less snarky if
your entire future hinged on what kind of man you could get to propose to you before the age of twenty-five. Austen's characters are damned realistic in that regard.
Trent Roman wrote:
This is the logical exagerration of that bathetic, mountains-out-of-molehill attitude.
|
Bull. The paradox of Austen heroines' lives is that they had to aggressively compete for potential husbands, but never present themselves as anything but the mildest and most demure of ladies, because that's what the most desirable prospects wanted. The essence of their lives, in short, was subtlety and subterfuge.
Yeah, willingness to publicly murder guys who they overhear speaking negatively of that is a "totally logical exaggeration" of those sorts of personality games.
If you "can't tell where the original text ends and his begins."
For the record, I'd actually be interested in an intelligent version of this story that starts in Austen's world, introduces the zombies, and provides credible, non-anachronistic character reactions to such an event. But that would require a lot more effort, and the results far less appealing to those who can't get through one of the most accessible works of the English literary canon.