Graham-Smith's Pride and Prejudice and the Zombies: The queering of Jane Austen

[misssylviadrake]

Dear friends and readers,

You may recall that in my blog of May 24th, 3 days ago I told of a DC-JASNA picnic Izzy and I attended and how in the raffle she won Sethe Graham-Smith's Pride and Prejudice and the Zombies.  She wrote about the picnic too (see her blog for May 23rd).  I didn't say she was philosophic about this win as she had said she

Comments

The queering of Jane Austen

[misssylviadrake]

From a friend:

"I'm surprised that you seem surprised by how pernicious that Zombie book is. Many vampire and zombie books have gay themes, that's part of the usual package - but nobody's really had a good hard look at how decadent and destructive it is to treat Jane Austen this way. They think it's just fun. I don't agree."

Well, we had no idea. Izzy told me the details of grotesque sizes, and gags that reminded me of scenes in Angela Carter's Nights at the Circus, some of the lyrics of some of Sondheim's stranger (less popular songs). This morning she tells me that the book suggests Mrs Gardener has a lover, and then what we discover that *Mr* Gardener has a male friend that he is "very close" with. Elizabeth worries lest Mr Darcy get "involved" but he doesn't.

So it's another aspect of the sexing up of Austen.

Ellen

Destructive nature of such Zombie books

[misssylviadrake]

From Diane R:

"I read the Zombies and PP post and have to say, I am repulsed more than ever by the whole idea of the book--not that the gay theme bothers me in the least--but the whole enterprise in general. It's the destructive nature of it that troubles me ... it makes me uneasy about who reads these lists and what could be made of a stray comment. But that's life. One can only be so careful in a public forum. I recognize that people are going to cash in on Austen regardless of what we do or don't say."

Destructive of Austen

[misssylviadrake]

I agree with my two friends that these books are destructive of Austen's texts. I've nothing against homosexual sex (male or female), but know that simplifying Austen's text (which is what abridgements do), interweaving this kind of camp jeering material,
erasing all the woman-centeredness and concerns of the novels is to destroy their very souls.

Enough people want to read these books as ridiculing characters, as slapstick, want to sex up Austen so that books of this sort (and Galperin's and Unbecoming Conjunctions) can be written in the expectation they will sell, make money, further careers. To me it shows just how heartlessness has become an acceptable norm for social life.

Destructive of Austen. Indeed. Much of the commercial modern world is.

E.M.

Vampire and gay subtexts

[misssylviadrake]

"I think it's more the vampire genre that is very commonly taken as a gay metaphor: a secret society of people who engage in deviant and sensual practices considered evil by the normals - I don't have to spell it out. There's endless critical commentary on the vampire genre as gay metaphor. That quality in it wouldn't change when
it's introduced into Austen....

Modern vampires and zombies and 18th century gothics

[misssylviadrake]

Very interesting, Diana, I can only keep saying I was unaware that these zombie and now some vampire stories are used this way. I've taught gothics repeatedly and know there are many which are not. In fact the problem with much of the vampire literature is it's deeply misogynistic, and moves into porn. The source is usually finally Stoker with his group of men driving stakes into the evil woman, Lucy (turned vampire). There are a number of Victorianist essays showing how Stoker's book can be read and used this way. A source of such tales (popular, widely read) is Ryan, Alan, ed. The Penguin Book of Vampire Tales. Penguin, 1987. ISBN 0-14-012445-4