Leave a comment

trinityvixen June 2 2009, 23:43:04 UTC
Not surprisingly, I've read it. (It was a birthday gift, in fact.)

My main objection is this: the wit and vivacity of Jane Austen are most effective when they work within the traditional setting about which she wrote. A book about zombies in the style of Jane Austen that had incorporated the sort of things Austen tended to eviscerate--typically British prejudices against low class people, rigid social structures, and a tendency to ignore problems staring them in the face for the sake of avoiding calling attention to rudeness--would have been amazing. You could use zombies to reinforce class stereotyping about the rich versus poor (the rich would, as they do in the book, have better ability to hire people to fend off zombies if nothing else). It could have been a better metaphoric revision.

As was, it's not a terrible story. I just find that the Bennet family all being ninjas a bit...ridiculous. And not in the good, I-can-go-with-it sort of way. More in the distracting, takes-me-out-of-the-story way. I think my friend said it best when he called the book a victim of "The Onion effect," whereby the best bit about the joke being told is the title.

Reply

umeyard June 2 2009, 23:50:40 UTC
I can see that, but for brain candy, it was not that bad :)

I think the best way i can describe it, was it caused me to have a dream but instead of the Bennett sisters it was the cast from Sex in the City fighting the zombies.

Maybe its just I see "zombie" and think you....

Reply

trinityvixen June 3 2009, 00:24:44 UTC
Well, maybe they're going to make it better for the movie?

And I'm not surprised that you think of me when you hear "zombie." Three different people got me Max Brooks' The Ultimate Zombie Survival Guide one year :)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up