As our story opens, a mysterious plague has fallen upon the quiet English village of Meryton-and the dead are returning to life! Feisty heroine Elizabeth Bennet is determined to wipe out the zombie menace, but she's soon distracted by the arrival of the haughty and arrogant Mr. Darcy. What ensues is a delightful comedy of manners with plenty of civilized sparring between the two young lovers-and even more violent sparring on the blood-soaked battlefield as Elizabeth wages war against hordes of flesh-eating undead.
"Come, Darcy," said Mr. Bingley, "I hate to see you standing by yourself in this stupid manner. You had much better dance."
"I certainly shall not. You know how I detest it."
"I would not be as fastidious as you are for a kingdom! I never met with so many pleasant girls in my life as I have this evening; and several of them are uncommonly pretty."
Before Mr. Darcy could respond, a chorus of screams filled the assembly hall, immediately joined by the shattering of window panes. Unmentionables scrambled in, their movements clumsy yet swift; their burial clothing in a range of untidiness.
Guests who had the misfortune of standing near the windows were seized and feasted on at once. Elizabeth watched Mrs. Long struggle to free herself as two female dreadfuls bit into her head, cracking her skull like a walnut, and sending a shower of dark blood spouting as high as the chandeliers.
So what do you think, is it a good idea for classic books like Pride and Prejudice to add a dash of zombies and sex appeal to gather a newer audience?
Why ruin such perfect classics?
Would we prefer The Odyssey and Zombies to the original?
I can't believe that most of you dislike Jane Austen. I'm curious to know why? Is it the Romance part of the books?
1) Zombies improve everything
2)They push "the classics" onto readers that, mostly due to age, just aren't equipped to appreciate them.
3)At least most teen boys are not ready to get emotionally involved with a too wordy romance. Teen boys aren't known for appreciating character studies.
4) Austen, because of cinema and television, has not marketed itself to men and there is automatic bias to reading the books.
5) I agree with TickTock about most classics, wasted words, superfluous description etc...
My definition would be "Several of my evenings were ruined when I was forced to read The Mill on the Floss as a young English Lit. major.
The Classics . . . proudly turning thousands of new readers away from reading for years.
No need of zombies in The Odyssey. There's an awesome cyclops that eats guys.
Take a novel with social relevance and turn it into hack and slash, blood and gore drivel.
a truly great book is more than just fun to read.
If you do not enjoy the classics, English lit might not be a great choice for higher education.
However, classics typically hold up over time for good reason, not by random chance.
If the classics, by and large, turn people away from reading it is probably because the people have suffered under a poor system of education that does not prepare them to read mature material.
A book can be brilliant and enjoyable without extensive violence. Descartes did not need to inject battle scenes in order to make his work laudable, not to mention countless other authors and particular works which neglected gore.
As for teen boys and their inability to appreciate Austen - so what? When has ignorance of the critic ever been a slight against the art? Let those boys read more accessible classics; eventually, they will be able to appreciate Austen as well.
Do you find no social relevance in the works of George Romero?
Yes, this is true. Upon my tombstone I will have engraved the words, "I Wish I'd Spent More Time Doing Things That Aren't Fun."
Nah . . . it was a great choice for me, despite the dusty tomes of classic/great literature I had to wade through. I graduated 22 years ago with this degree (as well as a minor in Anthropology to go with it) and have wondered what the hell I was thinking ever since.
Yes, many of them because they are coddled and puffed to lofty heights by academics with leather patches on the elbows of their cardigans who are constantly telling the rest of us how classic they all are.
True, but the Iliad had some mighty brutal battle scenes.
Exactly my original point. If the Zombie-Enhanced Pride and Prejudice gets someone on the reading track, and can show them the beauty of a well-crafted sentence . . . I say bring on the hack n' slash.
I am not saying that the book is not any good; again, I have not read it. My guess, however, is that the book cannot hold a candle to the original Austen, which is recognized as a masterpiece.
Literature was a good choice despite the great literature?
And I'm sure you are not going to suggest that people who devote their lives to the study and appreciation of the art are somehow in mass confusion as to what constitutes great literature.
it is typically better to read classics than Clive Cussler or some similar nonsense.
I find my time better spent reading material that contributes to civilization.
Personally I don't recognize it as a masterpiece. I recognize that it is considered a masterpiece by many though, in much the same way as some folks consider steak tartare to be a delicacy where I consider it to be a ghastly mess and a waste of perfectly good beef.
Yes. It was an easy degree for me and it allowed me to pursue other interests such as drinking.
Sort of. While confusion is perhaps not the correct word, I do believe there is a certain degree of academic tyranny that comes into play at times.
Better? In whose estimation? And better in what way?
And does this help you to contribute to civilization? And if so, how?
I think there is a distinction worth making: the difference between personal preference and art, and the overall value of the art. It is one thing for a work to not catch one's particular interests (and to be fair, I am not some devoted Austen fan), but it is quite another thing to criticize a piece merely because it is not one's cup of tea (and I'm not saying that's what you are doing).
Out of curiosity, why do you not recognize Pride and Prejudice as a masterpiece? How does that work compare to works you consider to be masterpieces?
I say this as someone who has spent most of my time in college drunk or working toward drunkenness: but isn't that a waste of a higher education? to pursue a study without having any interest or devotion to the study?
Furthermore, if you prefer drinking and have such a disdain for literature, why even bother involving yourself in a discussion about such a worthless art form? Wouldn't you be better off drinking vodka and watching the latest zombie flick?
So, what, professors just love to cause students pain and headache - do they do this out of some sadistic desire, or do you think they might actually have our interests at heart, you know, some wisdom to impart upon students?
Better in any reasonable estimation. I've read Cussler, and there is more wisdom, sophistication and intelligence in the first chapter of The Inferno than in all of that man's popular works combined. Hence, the book is a classic.
That's the idea. Literature, and art in general, is the heart of a civilization. Literature is what unites a group of people with shared stories and themes. This has been the subject of discussion for quite some time: while literacy rates increase, people who are literate in the US read less and less - and so people ponder the threat this poses to our western civilization.