Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
29 of 34 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
A wasted opportunity, 14 Jul 2009
There are other Jane Austen parodies around at the moment; this sort of thing can be done well. Here, it isn't.
The idea of taking Miss Austen's quiet, measured, humour and insight out of its context of genteel, suburban convention,and applying to a completely antithetical situation of gross, apocalyptic carnage ought to work. It could even, as a previous reviewer mentions, be used as a means of social satire; one should remember that Jane Austen's brother served in the Navy during the Napoleonic wars - she would have not been unfamiliar with the bloody realities of combat, she just never chose to write about them. So, imagining what it would have been like if she had - it's an idea with definite potential. Taking Elizabeth Bennett, one of her most feisty heroines, and putting her in a situation where she is not socially contrained into a passive role - this should be fun.
The fact that it's not, after a few pages, is not a problem with the concept, but a deficiency in the writing. Mr. Grahame-Smith's humour is clicheed, crude and sexually and scatologically obsessed. This does not mean that he is not, occasionally, mildly funny. However, he has made the mistake of putting his puerile, hackneyed humour up against one of the all-time mistresses of the art of social satire. Appreciating the examples of her understated, incisive, biting wit that remain in this text, one finds oneself longing for more of the latter, and less of the added dross.
I'd say it is a fatal flaw in a parody if one is left simply longing for the original! Miss Austen's distinctive style lends itself to parody, Mr Grahame-Smith is simply not up to the task. For an exemplar, I would recommend Dave Langford's hilarious pastiches written in the styles of a wide variety of authors - both clever AND funny.
|
|
|
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A book with mischievious intent, that doesn't deliver consistently, 25 Aug 2009
If you look at all the reviews, you'll see that this monster mash-up of the beloved novel has totally split opinions of those who have read it. I'll tell you mine after a bit of explanation.
Zombies have been plaguing the English countryside for years. It's no longer safe to venture out alone; you need to be either armed to the teeth, or have safety in numbers. The Bennets are well equipped to deal with the undead, for Mr Bennet and his daughters have been trained in the deadly arts in China and are warriors all with swords and feet alike, having their own dojo at home to keep their skills honed.
The Zombies and martial arts are all shoe-horned into Austen's novel, most of which is left in tact - it's usually pretty obvious which are the additions and adaptations, although not having read the original for many years, I kept it by me so I could compare and contrast if needed. I am also an expert in the BBC's wonderful P&P series from 1995, which enriched this reading immensely - imagining Colin Firth as Darcy swashing and buckling against zombies...
... Sorry, where was I? The novel starts off really well, it had me chortling loud enough to have to read the first few lines out to my other half:-
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. Never was this truth more plain than during the recent attacks at Netherfield Park, in which a household of eighteen was slaughtered and consumed by a horde of the living dead.
"My dear Mr Bennet," said his lady to him one day, "have you heard that Netherfield Park is occupied again?"
Mr Bennet replied that he had not and went about his morning business of dagger sharpening and musket polishing - for attacks bt the unmentionables had grown alarmingly frequent in recent weeks."
Even from just this small quote you can see already that it mixes the new and old and rewrites other sentences to fit. Some of the adaptations are witty, and there is the added frisson of a little double-entendre introduced between Lizzie and Darcy. There's nothing like a little smut to remind you that this mash-up is intended to entertain - some of the other write-ups I've read seem to have expected a more serious shock-horror treatment, but the comedy approach was fine by me.
The only problem is, that with one notably sad exception, the zombies are a mere nuisance, seemingly there to prevent travel and explain the high turnover in servants - there are missed opportunities for more zombie mayhem in more elevated circles. It's mostly a class thing - the rich can afford warrior training and/or servants to do the zombie killing for them, unlike the working class who get devoured with relentless monotony. There is one real highlight though, appended at the end of the novel which, if you decide to read it, you too must save for the end - in which the author's comedic credentials are exploited to the full. A neat finish, but I can't tell you more.
So what did I make of it all? It was a great concept, (with a fantastic cover). It was fun, but not sustained all the way through. Did I enjoy it enough to read the next title from Quirk Books - Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters - well maybe! (6 .5 out of 10)
|
|
|
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
A Disjointed, One Joke Effort, 17 Aug 2009
On paper Pride & Prejudice & Zombies sounds like a great, funny and mildly subversive idea. As executed by Seth Grahame-Smith its a disjointed effort that relies on a single joke that, whilst it might work once, really isn't strong enough to sustain an entire novel.
The idea of editing Jane Austen's original P&P text to add in Zombie and martial arts mayhem is a clever one. Unfortunately Graham-Smith really doesn't have the skill to pull it off. The conceits he comes up with, such as having the Bennett sisters as skilled zombie killers trained in the Far East or Lady Catherine De Bourgh being a hard nosed martial artist with an army of ninjas at he beck and call, sound fine on paper but just sit jarringly with Austen's original text. A subtler approach which relied less on such outlandish ideas would have worked far better. As it is the tone of the book is so inconsistent that you're constantly spotting where Austen ends and Grahame-Smith begins. Rather than feeling like one seemless work, as if Austen had actually written it, its the equivalent of a 'cut-and-shut' automobile where the front of one car wreck has quite patently been badly welded to the back of another and isn't going to fool anyone.
It would have helped if Grahame-Smith had a better ear for Jane Austen's style of writing and dialogue. Had he been a better mimic of the original text it might have softened some of his wilder flights of fancy, but he doesn't come close to successfully recreating Austen's style or demonstrating her sharp wit. As a result his insertions feel leaden by comparison.
All of the above problems would have been forgivable however, had the book actually been funny. Despite the promising premise however, on this critical issue it fails yet again. Yes, the first few chapters raise a wry smile as zombies invade the genteel world of Austen's England, but that one 'joke' is too flimsy to support an entire book and soon becomes stale. Its obvious that Grahame-Smith recognised this problem and that the martial arts action that peppers the book is his attempt to provide another humorous angle to the story but none of it is terribly funny. At least not funny enough to forgive the hamfisted way much of it is integrated into the original text.
P&P&Z is an example of a short joke stretched too far. In the hands of a more skilled writer it might have been more successful as it is this is a case of nice idea, shame about the execution. Avoid.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Ben H. Winters
by Amanda Grange
by John Ajvide Lindqvist
by Seth Grahame-Smith
