It is a truth universally acknowledged...

[stubbleupdate]

...that Pride and Prejudice is one of the more adapted, aped and otherwise adopted texts in our great cultural library. I mean, there's Lost in Austen, Bridget Jones' Diary, The BBC Adaptation (bought it in Zavvi's firesale. Might watch it sometime), there's Bride and Prejudice, there's I Love You Because, there's Armstrong and Miller's take on it, etc etc.

Of course, the fact that Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is a novel adaptation with the insertion of a Zombie subplot should be as Bill as the hills, but it was also made into a graphic novel.
These pages are all out of sequence and not connected in any narrative. Just things that I snagged from a USA Today article.





Reading it is... slow progress. But then, I always find that reading Austen is like pushing a really full shopping trolley - it's an almighty push to get started, but once you do build up momentum it's difficult to stop.

Has anybody else picked it up?

Comments

[minervasolo.livejournal.com]

I have to admit, it almost became a wall banger when chipmunks and a raccoon made an appearance. I was already getting annoyed at the jerks in quality between Austen and the zombie author (can't remember the name, can't be arsed to look it up), but errors like that just made the gimmick a little too transparent. There were nice ideas, like Charlotte's slow change, but there was very little continuity or consistency in the added parts, and very few attempts to even vaguely integrate them into the original plot.

(sorry, rant. You have no idea how much those chipmunks pissed me off. Well, you probably do now.)

I haven't read it, but Jane and the Damned by Janet Mullany sounds like the kind of thing you wanted from PaPaZ.

[newnumber6]

I'm guessing it's some sort of "chipmunks and raccoons don't exist in England" issue? Being a North American I never even noticed, just one of those things I don't think about, but I can see how that would rankle once you ARE aware of it.

And Charlotte's change was about the only thing I found interesting about the book.

[icon_uk]

It's the like Disney's Winnie the Pooh, which throws in a beaver, a porcupine, a possum, a gopher and a turtle as natural fauna when Britain doesn't have any of them (Tigger, Kanga and Roo, are at least explained in the books as being outsiders)

[bruinsfan]

I'm willing to cut them a bit of slack, however, given that the animals in question are sentient, able to speak, and wear clothes. Clearly zoological verisimilitude was not high on the list of priorities...

[icon_uk]

True enough, but AA Milne didn't even create them, so why did Disney add the wrong continents animals in?