View Single Post
Old October 10 2010, 12:04 AM   #33
Trent Roman
Rear Admiral
Trent Roman's Avatar
Location: The Palace of Pernicious Pleasures
Re: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

Gaith wrote: View Post
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?
Obviously--just like at any of the ___ Movie series. P&P&Z, however, is clever parody that sends up the manifold faults of the original. (I'm not familiar with the other book you cite so can't comment)

Trent Roman wrote: View Post
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.
The mating habits of petty bourgeois, suffocatingly provincial landed gentry is a subject of resounding irrelevance. If you're going to feel sorry for anybody in this scenario, feel sorry for the servants and tenants who had to wait hand and foot on these nattering girl-women and dissolute boy-men, and whose futures rested on the whims on those selfsame idle, infantile, sorry excuses for human beings.

This is just one point where P&P&Z improves on the original: it doesn't shy away from showcasing the callousness of this contemptible cadre towards their servants (treated as disposable zombie-fodder), and the zombies themselves often function as a motif of the repressed underclass (I love that the author has the characters call them 'Unmentionables', hitting both the nigh-invisibility of servants in the original text in additional to the sexual implications therein).

Yeah, willingness to publicly murder guys who they overhear speaking negatively of that is a "totally logical exaggeration" of those sorts of personality games.
Why not? In the original, Darcy is apparently the least assholish of this cast of undesirables because he tolerates and perhaps even admires Elizabeth's supposed willfulness. In this rewriting, fighting abilities are grafted onto willfulness as something proper ladies should lack, even as they are necessary for survival (in a world overrun with zombies); here, Darcy is the least assholish character because he eventually comes to admire Elizabeth's lethality.

TheBoo wrote: View Post
I agree. Frankly, I thought Attack of the Clones had better written and more realistic characters than Ms. Austen's work; and that movie had a jumping frog with a lightsaber!
No kidding. I always do a double-take whenever I hear someone cite Austen for realistic characters. The hero and heroine are the only characters who exhibit any dimensionality (and even then, not much). Most everybody else can be defined by a single term, an adjective attached to a name--'bookish', 'flighty', 'air-headed', 'pedantic'--and who never stray in thought, speech or behaviour from the one feature that, one realizes, defines the totality of their being. Her books are populated not by characters, but caricatures.

Steve Mollmann wrote: View Post
it takes a joke with a life of however long it takes someone to say, "hey did you know there's a book called Pride and Prejudice and ZOMBIES!?" and stretches out to the length of, well, Pride and Prejudice.
I figure that's why it introduces ninjas halfway through.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Obdurants and Amusings - Behind the Shampoo Curtain
Trent Roman is offline   Reply With Quote