Should We Love “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?”
December 14, 2009 | Alicia Ostarello
Good idea, or bad idea?
Being a college student – and an English major at that – I take words and education seriously. But even my possibly stuffed-shirt, kicking-it-old-school, I-hate-Blackboard attitude was taken for a ride when I saw Pride and Prejudice and Zombies for sale at the bookstore a few months ago. Um – wait. Did you just say, and zombies?
Yes, Jane Austen’s classic book, Pride and Prejudice, has been revised with the help of Seth Grahame-Smith, to include a subplot in which the protagonist is not only dealing with love and the prospect of marriage, but with a endless supply of brain-loving zombies.
I’m not going to sit here and wax cheerfully about how entertaining this book (soon to be a movie starring Natalie Portman) is. In fact, I found the whole notion so glorious I was making up songs and singing them to my coworkers recently about the recent addition of zombies to one of the most renowned classic pieces of literature.
Call me an English/education loving dork, but I’m curious about something: is the rewriting of literature to make it more appealing to current population trends an important step for writers and booksellers to remain relevant and profitable, or is it simply making a mockery of literature by implying the original story wasn’t good enough on its own?
One thing I hate about the classics is how irrelevant they have always felt to my young adult life. Forgive me for not understanding The Scarlet Letter at the age of 16, or The Great Gatsby at the age of 14. I did enjoy the words on the page, but in no way, even with some of the best teachers, did these novels come close to speaking to me. Even Pride and Prejudice was a mystery to me when I read it in high school – I failed to find it witty and interesting until my final year of college. At least with this rewritten version, students and the general population alike will be chomping at the bit to read about the latest in a series of zombie-related media.
And that brings me to another point – at least people are still reading. Booksellers and writers can’t deny that the amount of people still purchasing books is down, and I don’t blame the Kindle for this; rather, with time continuing to be of the essence as we streamline our lives to run based on cell phones and computers, who makes time to pick up a novel when they could be playing Guitar Hero, sending an email, or shooting off a text message? So in a way, I’m not opposed to turning literary works into something that will give readers a reason to pick up the book at all.
However, books are in and of themselves works of art. Going in and rewriting (or adding onto) a text might be an interesting exercise in a creative writing class, but taking Austen’s work and writing over it feels akin to adding the Death Star and some glittery intergalactic fighting into the back ground of the Mona Lisa, or painting in the cast of Family Guy to the Last Supper. I doubt anyone would truly find this sort of thing anything more than glorified graffiti were it wildly distributed.
And I guess what finally trips me up about opening my heart to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is that while people may read it, I’m not sure they’ll continue on to read the original book by Austen, and I worry that the essence of her story, her themes, and basically her existence as a celebrated author, will be lost.
Maybe that’s the way it is supposed to be; expecting art of any form to remain timeless is a backwards way of looking at the world. Imagine if the creators of Leave it to Beaver thought they were making timeless television – even they must have known that their show, while important, wasn’t going to be a hit forever. Perhaps it is impossible to create something timeless, and instead of expecting that art in any form will live on, it will all at some point have to be altered to remain in existence.
Love the art reference
.
I just don’t think it’s fair to Jane Austen, or the Bronte sisters, for their works to be manhandled and altered so drastically.
Parents need to tell their kids to get off their computers and game consoles and LEARN. I love to read… so I guess I’m an exception to the majority.
As much as I love reading, and art, I don’t think either is timeless (much as I want them to be, and I think they are). And it occurs to me that we often alter Shakespearean works (10 Things I Hate About You, for example) and I haven’t ever felt disturbed by that. Maybe they are just two separate things. The original and the revised visions.
If I’m upset about Austen or Bronte being manhandled, I’d have to be upset about every other instance when art has been altered. I feel like that’s a huge undertaking, though!!
I agree that more people should read, though. However, I get that it’s just not for some people…I just don’t actually get it.
I’m with you, Alicia. I flipped through the book and just found the whole idea disturbing. There is a broad and thriving zombie fiction genre full of innovative, creative authors who can come up with riveting stories WITHOUT ripping off the classics. If people are interested in zombies, let them read THOSE — leave Pride & Prejudice alone. Believe me, I love my zombie fiction, but I also love Wuthering Heights and A Tale of Two Cities and The Grapes of Wrath — classics are classics because they are beautiful all on their own. They don’t need zombies shambling through the background to be interesting.
Two responses: Firstly, there is a difference between adapting the general plot of a play to modern times as so many have done with Shakespeare. That’s a common practice in plays to be adapted and re-written for modern audiences with the original content and messages still in tact. P&P&Z isn’t an adaptation, it’s basically literary graffiti; a mustache on the face of a Mona Lisa poster. It’s funny for everyone, funnier for those in the know and definitely not a replacement for the original.
Secondly, I have a real problem with the sort of literature students are forced to read in High School anyway. It’s almost always beyond their scope, if only because they lack the context and life experience to truly understand. I know The Great Gatsby was boring in high school and a near-religious experience when I re-read it almost a year ago. But, as always, not everyone is going to get it (one person I know found the ending of Gatsby to be beautiful and uplifting, obviously missing the point entirely).
I think one thing to keep in mind is that the Cannon got that way because the books aren’t necessarily timeless, but so timely as to worth keeping for their technical and historic significance. P&P&Z, like Mr. T and the endless range of internet memes, will fade in time while the likes of the Brontë sisters (though only two of them, really) and Ms. Austen will continue to live as paragons of Victorian Literature.
Hi alicia, really good points made in your piece. I agree with your reference to pieces of artwork- every form of original media is artwork in and of itself. As previously mentioned, adaptations are different in the way that they take a work of art and transform it into something new and different and possibly relevant to todays culture. Films are remade everyday but the originals are not forgotten. However writing directly over something else or simply adding in new text does not constitute adaptation but only acts as a sort of graffiti to the original. Anyhow now I am interested to read this book and see exactly whats been done to austens work!
I keep going back and forth on whether or not to pick up a copy every time I see it in the bookstore. I’m just interested to see what Grahame-Smith was willing to attempt with it! I agree with Collin in that Austen will always be a classic so I’m not worried about her yet…