Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

I am a big fan of Jane Austen's original version of this book, probably reading it, on average, once a year - just as Meg Ryan's character does in 'You've got Mail' :-). I'd regretfully turned the last page on it just a week ago and watched avidly the BBC's adaptation with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth the following night. So it was providential timing that I heard that Natalie Portman was considering playing the character of Elizabeth Bennet in the zombie version just a day or so later.

Under ordinary circumstances I'd have turned my lip up at this. I'd seen the large numbers of copies of this book in local Chapters stores a few months back, the eaten away face on the picture adorning the cover, on shelves positioned in an eye-catching manner. I am a fairly indifferent fan of Natalie Portman, I don't actively seek out to see her films but have enjoyed them on a number of occasions. Two favourites which come to mind being Mr Magorium's Wonder Emporium and V for Vendetta. At some point I might even watch the movie, if it is in fact coming out. But reading the book ? I hadn't been interested. But hearing this news just as I'd finished the classic telling of the tale piqued my curiosity. Perhaps there was more in it than I had allowed for.

I tried to get a copy from the library, no luck, so invested $17 in Chapters last weekend and just finished reading it today. Even though I'm about to write a review I'm not sure what I'm going to say so let's just see how this goes.

I was expecting Seth Grahame-Smith to loosely follow the original plot so was surprised, after reading the altered first line, - "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains"- to see that he was parroting Austen's work word for word. As I turned each page I kept expecting it to go off at a tangent, a sensation I experienced throughout the book fruitlessly, as it turned out. He does leave out chunks of paragraphs and sentences, changes words around and inserts zombie filled sections but the Zombie version never deviates far from the original writing. Which is both a saving grace and a missed opportunity. This might sound too contradictory but if you ever feel like picking it up you might understand what I mean.

Grahame-Smith boldly does what some of us have wanted to do for some time. He preserves the well-liked characters and ruins the lives of the scoundrels. Good wins. Nice. He subtly changes some of the characters' pasts so that they come into line with the sub-plot of the zombie plague which has been around for the last sixty ( or fifty ?) five years. This has the occasionally unwanted effect of hardening some of the characters personalities so that they leap into homicidal threats when upset or thwarted. Elizabeth is a prime example of this. Now a fully-trained fighting expert, she defends her family and fellow Hertfordshire countryfolk from the "unmentionable hordes". The very second she feels that someone has insulted her she offers to open their throats, not exactly in keeping with the original Victorian attitude of keeping emotions strictly under wraps.

Some lesser characters are swiftly killed off in the beginning chapters. A minor character is infected and another commits suicide. All very dark and depressing but not unexpected given the title. The author does a fairly good job, with his meshed-in additions, of using the colloquial language of the time. They're still easily spotted, whether you're familiar with the original or not, as they're usually concerned with people's intestines being consumed or the Bennet's chasing off ghouls with swords and daggers. You obviously don't need a working knowledge under those conditions. I had expected to find this annoying but didn't. That doesn't mean that they aren't, just that I expected this to happen and wasn't bothered by it.

One thing that was annoying though was the author's decision to slide some innuendoes in. When Darcy refers to public and private balls, when enquiring after Elizabeth's preference, I found myself wincing as she replied "I find that balls are much more enjoyable when they cease to remain private" with a blush at the double meaning. I'm not a prude and find this kind of humour funny in reality but not in the least funny within the context of the story. It happened on a few occasions, impinging on the innocence of the book. Possibly this wouldn't bother some but I sighed each time.

The illustrations dotted about the novel are good, I'm assuming they're by Grahame-Smith as I couldn't find a reference inside to anyone else and spent a few minutes on the internet searching without enlightenment. They're pretty graphic black and white sketches but do add to the book in a way that the writing doesn't always succeed in doing.

This is pure parody, of course, and can't be taken the least seriously. I didn't set out to read it with anything in mind other than the light-hearted approach intended by the author. So I enjoyed reading this in the sense that the insertions were funny at times, especially in Mr Bennet's direct insults ( as opposed to Austen's former veiled ones ) to his wife, and that some characters got their come-uppance. I agree with other reviewers that taking down Wickham was a mistake. Yes, he is a bad boy but it was an integral part of the book that his punishment be solely a disadvantageous marriage rather than Grahame-Seth's version of having him paralysed and reeking of soiled underwear. This was taking a point too far. Wickham needed to suffer a slow downturn over time, not an immediate and constant one, and there's no way that Darcy would have recommended him to a curacy given his past and the additional murderous attempt on his Colonel's life.

Would I recommend this ? I honestly don't know. If you love the original too much then No. If you love it just enough that you can handle a gentle mocking of it, then Possibly Yes. How would I rate it ? 4 out of 10. It brings enough new to the book to make it interesting but a better version would have been to leave the original story behind at some point. Which needed more courage and talent than perhaps Mr Grahame-Seth has. I can only guess.