Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

[TheBrew]

miraclefan wrote:

---

Then you'll love Image comics, THE WALKING DEAD. Trust me! it's not only a MASTERFUL zombie comic, it's a MASTERFUL comic PERIOD.

Already ahead of ya boss. Picked up the latest issue yesterday.

[miraclefan]

TheBrew wrote:

---

Already ahead of ya boss. Picked up the latest issue yesterday.

GOOD MAN!/WOMAN! Oh, and this series is not ''technically'' a zombie book, it is insane as HELL! Garth Enniss (of Preacher, The Boys fame) CROSSED. Trust me, unless you want a TOTAL-MIND-FRAG, For the love of GOD!, DON'T READ IT! I'm only at issue #1 (of a 9 issue series) and it IS THAT SICKKK! I shuld also mention that the series is COMPLEATLY SOLD OUT in my area!! and issue 4 is out next month!

[Gaith]

Because its characters are all fictional, I don't feel the same total disgust and loathing towards this book as I do towards Abraham Lincon: Vampire Hunter, but I do view it as being similarly spectacularly juvenile and asinine, and am therefore quite pleased to note that David O. Russell (really, Three Kings director Russell? Really?) and Natalie Portman have left the film project. They apparently cite scheduling conflicts, but these are two people smart enough to know better than to sully their names with this, and maybe they've wised up to that.

[Silvercrest]

I would accuse you of raising a zombie thread, but it was one already.

[Kestrel]

Silvercrest wrote:

---

I would accuse you of raising a zombie thread, but it was one already.

<snicker>

I've been semi-regularly wanting to pick this up and read it, along with Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters and Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.

The films of any/all of these sound fun (Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter sounds like something wonderfully Who-vian, somehow), and I'm perfectly willing to believe the scheduling conflicts.

Juvenile and asinine? Please...

[Gaith]

Kestrel wrote:

---

Juvenile and asinine?

When the author depicts Elizabeth Bennett as willing to kill a man over an overheard slight? Hell yes, it is.

[Shatnertage]

I read Android Karenina, and liked it. I was amazed that the author could maintain the gag for the entire book.

[ladyheather69]

I have read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies plus its prequel Dawn of the Dreadfuls.

I found them both to be refreshing and fun. I could never get through Pride and Prejudice before this version.

I didn't know there was going to be a film adaptation. Interesting is all I can say. Not sure about that...could manage to be difficult--I don't want to see it become a slasher film.

I will keep my eyes and ears posted though for more info.

[Trent Roman]

Gaith wrote:

---

When the author depicts Elizabeth Bennett as willing to kill a man over an overheard slight? Hell yes, it is.

The word of the day is: parody. 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.

ladyheather69 wrote:

---

I could never get through Pride and Prejudice before this version.

I had no choice in the matter, but yes, Pride and Prejudice--and Mz. Austen's work more generally--is the best insomnia cure I've ever encountered. I did like this version of it--in addition to improving Mz. Austen's proto-Harlequin trash by orders of magnitude, I was impressed by the author's mimicry. It's hard to tell where the original text ends and his begins, and vice versa.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

[Gaith]

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.

[Goliath]

Silvercrest wrote:

---

I would accuse you of raising a zombie thread, but it was one already.

It does seem appropriate, in this case.

[TheBrew]

Trent Roman wrote:

---

The word of the day is: parody. 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.

I had no choice in the matter, but yes, Pride and Prejudice--and Mz. Austen's work more generally--is the best insomnia cure I've ever encountered. I did like this version of it--in addition to improving Mz. Austen's proto-Harlequin trash by orders of magnitude, I was impressed by the author's mimicry. It's hard to tell where the original text ends and his begins, and vice versa.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

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!

[Chemahkuu]

Am I the only one that wants to see Jane Slayre made before any of these?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Gaith wrote:

---

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.

So you're saying it'd be less of a travesty if it were taken seriously?

No, thank you.

[Gaith]

Yeah, I know. Don't mind me; I'm just the moron who likes and appreciates the original, classic novel.

@ TheBoo: I hope you're being parodic... if not... all I can say is, I'm so sorry.