|
| |||||||||||
What are readers saying about Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: The Classic Regency Romance - Now with Ultraviolent Zombie Mayhem!?
| Reviews of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: The Classic Regency Romance - Now with Ultraviolent Zombie Mayhem! - Page 1 of 21 |
|
A Reader posted a review at 2009-07-21 11:43:38.
(Language: English)
   
This is very silly book. For those who take this novel seriously and are offended by its taking liberties with the original version, chill out. The novel does not take itself seriously so therefore you should not. My main complaints is that not enough was made of the zombies. In all main zomby stories i like the way it forces normal people to peform acts of violence they would not normally do, the fear pushing them to the limit while trying to keep thier humanity. Here all the Bennet sisters are trained warriors, so any suspence there may have been in the fight seens are lost because Lizzi and Jane just hack the undead to pieces with little effort. There were a number of strange errors by the author which indicated either he did not spend too much time researching early 19th century England or it was added for comic effect. This included: Skunks in Herfordshire The 2nd Battle of Kent (does he know how big Kent is?) there are others but it would be too bloody anal to go thru them all. There are some pretty funny scenes and the author does a commendable job in updating some of the stiffled emotions of the period. All in its all very silly, something a 18 year high school kid could have a decent stab at. But hey, none have done it, Seth has and probably made a wedge of cash. Fair play to him. 
|
Yes (0) 
No (0) |
|
A Reader posted a review at 2010-04-27 09:23:48.
(Language: English)
This author (Seth Graham Greene, not Austen) is a dreadful writer. He takes an excellent idea and just fails miserably. If my 15 year old nephew had written this for a school project, I would have been thrilled if he had scraped a "C". It's not that the segues from Austen to Greene are badly chosen and looking at a bulleted plot plan, it might be okay though I think what you would see would look like a copy and paste of about 4 action items after each Austen segment. The problem is that it is full of anachronisms and childish dialogue. It's too bad someone with talent didn't think of this instead of this lousy hack. It hasn't stopped him making money unfortunately. Perhaps he can afford to take some writing classes now.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2010-06-07 06:40:31.
(Language: English)
Excellent. Zombie mayhem makes an otherwise soap-opera-boring novel interesting. "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" is a twist on the classic novel by Jane Austen. It's a treatment of the story with one added twist: zombies. What if the quiet English countryside was under siege from a plague of undead? What if Elizabeth Bennet had been a ninja trained in the art of slaying zombies? And how would the distraction of Mr. Darcy affect her abilities to protect her home and her countrymen? At times laugh out loud funny, this dark little twist on classic literature is supremely satisfying. In fact, I'd venture to say it's the only way I would be caught dead reading Austen.
|
|
Amy posted a review at 2010-01-22 08:49:39.
(Language: English)
I usually don't bother with reviews, but I was really disappointed by this book. Fun idea, but sloppy execution. Why do the illustrations have Elizabeth Bennett dressed like Mary Poppins? Why does Mr. Collins kill himself? It doesn't seem in keeping with his character or piousness. And if the author just kills him off because he's annoying and deserves to die, that's fine, but give him a reason or motivation I can get behind. Why isn't lady catherine debourgh's daughter a zombie? She's sickly, and that would have been a good joke. Or alternately a interesting moral struggle that would have made LCD a more complex character than in regular P & P.
|
|
Kew posted a review at 2010-04-23 08:38:19.
(Language: English)
Here are the positive things about this book: - The concept (i.e. zombifying a classic) - The cover art - The Reader's Discussion Guide at the end of the book Everything between the cover art and the Reader's Discussion, which really is just the entire story, is not good. I KNOW the story is not supposed to be taken seriously, that it's written - and should be read - tongue-in-cheek. But even then, I can't say I enjoyed it. The constant insertion of things "Orient" (a "Master Liu" often mentioned by name, dojos, NINJAS(!), katanas, Buddha, strange names of martial arts moves, etc) just clash so jarringly with the setting. And the lead chracters so are violent (Liz strangles a ninja with his bowels, rips the still-beating heart out of another then TAKES A BITE OUT OF IT; Darcy savagely beats Mrs Younge on at least 2 occasions for news of Wickham)! Perhaps I would never have been able to enjoy the story anyway, given that I STUDIED the original in Literature (albeit years ago). I feel that a lot of the significant speeches were cut out and glossed over in simple narration, a lot of things spelt out too clearly (which ruins the irony). I started out whole-heartedly wanting to enjoy the book, but I can't say I did in the end. Really, the only part of the book that got any laughs out of me was the Reader's Discussion Guide. Too little too late.
|
|
John posted a review at 2010-01-18 10:06:33.
(Language: English)
C'mon, you gotta enjoy this book! The only way not to like it is if you are either a Jane Austin purist or a Jane Austin hater. For the 90% of us in the middle of the Jane Austin bell curve, it's just good, fun bloodthirsty entertainment. Aside from the goofy juxtaposition of high art and low black comedy, the book works on an allegorical level. Jane Austin's theme of sympathetic characters overcoming socially threatening situations translates perfectly well into the same characters overcoming the physical threats of hoards of bloodthirsty zombies and rival martial artists. Note to Hollywood: I swear I will not see the movie unless Samuel Jackson says "I'm tired of all this motherf!@#$ pride and all this motherf!@#$ prejudice, and especially of all these motherf!@#$ zombies!"
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2010-01-24 09:13:14.
(Language: English)
I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this book! Having tried to read the original a few years back and not managing to get more than half way because I found it very dull, I was excited to see this rewrite on the shelf of my local Waterstones. I'm not sure that Jane Austen and purists would approve, but I certainly did! The addition of the "Zombie Mayhem" perked up a boring, old-fasioned romance. Although a fan of some classic literature, I was more than willing to give this a go, and cannot wait to sample the other books in the series. The "Zombie Mayhem" is definatly that, often shocking in its descriptions of violence and horror. Perhaps not a book for the weak of stomach. The illustrations are a welcome addition, and I am not surprised to learn that this book is going to be turned into a graphic novel. And as discovered recently, it is also set to be a movie. Now that will be something to see!
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2009-06-02 09:52:12.
(Language: English)
Seth Grahame-Smith takes a beloved classic and wrecks havoc with it! The classic story of love, manners, social class, and other family inconviences, gets a blast of modern day horror. Zombies are rising from their graves and running amok in England - where many of them meet their second demise thanks to the Sisters Bennet. These girls, lead by Jane, have a reputation for their beauty and their skill in the deadly arts. But can love overcome social customs and visits from the undead? Will Mr. Darcy become a "sadly stricken"? Will Mrs. Bennet live to see even one daughter married off like a prize heifer sold at auction? For the answers, pick up 'Pride and Prejudice and Zombies'. You won't be sorry you did.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2010-06-20 09:39:27.
(Language: English)
I was looking forward to this so much. Two of my favorite sources of entertainment: Jane Austen and Zombies, united at last. I wish I could say my disappointment was only from my expectations being too high, but unfortunately this book just sucks. Elizabeth Bennet is transformed from a witty, vivid character into a boring, one-note shell. It's painfully obvious what is surviving Austen and what had been hacked in by Grahame-Smith. Instead of cleverly inserting the zombie plague into the existing story,heh somehow managed to remove almost all of the cute, clever parts, and replace them with crap.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2010-03-01 03:01:01.
(Language: English)
This book was alright. The zombies made the reading a lot faster, however in a childish, corney way. The characters seemed to be deep, but by the end of the book you find that they are as shallow as a tea spoon. Elizabeth is a stupid, weak bitch who doesn't know her ankle from her knee but she can kill zombies like its nobody's business. Darcy is a conceited dumbass who is the same way except he is rich. Also, the author is retarded and I hate the way he tried to write like Jane Austen. Anyone could tell where he tried way to hard to sound 19th Century England. I also hated his long chapters at the end of the book. He started out with short nice chapters to only end with long drawn out horrible chapters of stupid girlish dribble. Over all I would NOT EVER recommend this book unless you are on your death bed and want to die miserable.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2010-08-02 09:44:00.
(Language: English)
My husband is a jokester + a big sci-fi/horror fan. He knows Jane Austen is one of my most revered favorite authors. When he saw this book, he just thought it was a "must read," for ME. I am not especially interested in zombies and I am also not especially amused when people are abusing Jane Austen, so this book has sat around for more than a year collecting dust in the very large pile of books-to-be-read on my side of the bed. I ended up getting VERY sick this past weekend and between sleeping and being sick, was dizzy if I sat up, so reading was the only possible thing to do in the non-sleeping time. I chose to read this book not for any reason other than the print was large enough so I didn't have to put my glasses on, a key point if one is continually sick. I did not LOVE it, but I also didn't hate it. I kept falling asleep and dreaming of zombies, which was a little disconcerting. The original Pride and Prejudice is definitely in my top 10 books and if one does not know the original intimately, this spoof will not make sense. I agree with other reviewers that it is very silly and a lot of the references to Asia are just tossed in without any real cohesion or meaning. I do have to say, Charlotte's original comment on marital happiness not depending so much on knowing your spouse before the marriage took on a new meaning with this book. If you really like the original and can stand a lot of silliness, you might like this book. If you don't like the original or you don't know the original, then there's no point in reading it. I have read the original probably once a year every year for the past 25 years. Sometimes my mom and I go on Jane Austen-binges, reading a lot of JA's books and watching all of those BBC productions for a couple of weeks, and before we know it we are talking like the characters and even quoting them in our daily lives when similar circumstances present themselves. It's a lot of fun and we enjoy doing it. I will probably never reread this altered edition; once was enough. I will probably NOT share it with my mom, she doesn't read as much or as wide of a variety of books as I do and I think this would deeply disturb her.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2010-05-23 11:37:05.
(Language: English)
Let me start off by admitting that I love both Zombies and Regency novels. So, naturally, when I saw a zombified portrait of Jane Austen on the cover of a book, I was intrigued. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is a parody (or as the back cover describes it, “an expanded edition”) of Jane Austin’s classic regency novel Pride and Prejudice. The book itself is set up like the Austen books before it, and the first thing you see is the page with the illustration information, including their captions. If reading those doesn’t make you want to dive into the book, I don’t know what will. Moving through the first few pages, I was reminded of the practice of replacing random words with the word “pants”. References to the “deadly arts” that the Bennett girls are trained in, and the way phrases are replaced with things to do with zombies, stilt the flow of the book. These things seem superfluous, and I began to wonder what the point of anyone changing anything was. However, once I was a few chapters in, I knew what the point was. Suddenly, things that had seemed odd or unreasonable in the original book made sense in the strangest and funniest way. Zombies made finding a husband to protect you a rather reasonable thing. This is shown particularly in the case of Charlotte Lucas, who marries for quite a different reason than was explained in Pride and Prejudice; the newer reason actually makes more sense. Throughout this tongue-in-cheek re-working of the original, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies will make you laugh, cry, and raise your eyebrows in confusion. If you are a die-hard, dyed-in-the-wool Austen purist, this book may not be for you. If you do, however, love satire, zombies, and Pride and Prejudice, you will probably wonder why it took you so long to pick up this book and find out what Mr. Darcy would look like delivering a roundhouse kick to an “unmentionable”.
|
|
Danielle posted a review at 2010-06-04 09:42:17.
(Language: English)
I was really excited to read this book - from the title alone, it sounded like it had a lot of potential. (Which it does.) I have admittedly never read the original "Pride and Prejudice," although I do know the basic story and have seen the movie. Knowing what a classic romance story it is, the inclusion of zombies seemed to be something so random but so hilarious that it just might work. Unfortunately, Smith's execution of this seemingly brilliant idea left much to be desired. I felt this book was, quite literally, "Pride and Prejudice"... and zombies. While entertaining, I felt the "zombie scenes" were sparse, and not very well-integrated at times. It's almost as if the whole zombie thing were an afterthought that was just tacked on at certain parts of the book. I was expecting Smith to take more liberties with Austen's story - take the general framework of "Pride and Prejudice," but create his own, original, humorous story. Instead, it felt kind of like a cut-and-paste job; he merely spliced in original "scenes" which he wrote (or, since I've never read Austen's original novel, I suppose they could be re-imagined scenes from her original text). I think these scenes are really wonderful, and you definitely want to hear more of them, so it's kind of a shame that Smith did it the way he did. One of my favorite moments in the book is when Elizabeth is sparring with Lady Catherine's ninjas, and "[delivers] a vicious blow, penetrating [the ninja's] rib cage, and [withdraws] her hand - with the ninja's still-beating heart in it. ...Elizabeth [takes] a bite, letting the blood run down her chin and onto her sparring gown. 'Curious,' [says] Elizabeth, still chewing, 'I have tasted many a heart, but I dare say, I find the Japanese ones a bit tender'"(132). I thought this to be an incredibly funny (albeit gruesome) scene, and I really wanted to read more of it in the book. Overall, "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" definitely had its moments, I just don't think there were enough of them. However, I think the illustrations are definitely worth a look. (Two and a half stars out of four)
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2009-07-09 04:53:57.
(Language: English)
As a gimmick, this works once. If they tried to do it again, it would not. The basic Austen story and text is still intact, with zombie themes, action and plot added. The effect is fairly well-done -- however, it does slip too much into the absurd. This may seem like a nit-picking complaint when the book is obviously meant to be tongue-in-cheek humor, but muskets cannot fire repeatedly. They are single-shot, barrel-loaded weapons. Hell, they are not even rifled, so the accuracy of the weapon is poor too. The several scenes where the characters fire multiple shots from Brown Besses with great accuracy actually detracted from the overall effect for me. Sorry, but I demand at least lip-service to how things actually work. And since when can you scare off zombies and make them retreat? Those minor points aside, I did enjoy the book, but it was not any great addition to zombie lit.
|
|
Tricia posted a review at 2011-01-17 01:40:06.
(Language: English)
Finally I finished this one but really enjoyed the reading. Seen the movie which I really liked but have not read the original book. From the movie, this graphic novel still had some of the key points the movie showed and from what I hear so does the original book:) I also love that the women get to kill zombies with swords and musket, love to see women who can do what men can do too:) Female warriors!! Cool! Other than a great read it was great to see the artwork and the fighting scenes from the novel. Now got this out of the way, on to finish DC: Trinity!
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2009-07-20 05:18:56.
(Language: English)
I will be the first to admit that I’m a literary snob. Pride and Prejudice is in my top five of favorite books. I was quite leery about purchasing this but with the Barnes and Noble discount.. I couldn’t pass it up. Started reading this in the Starbucks coffee shop inside my local B& N and couldn’t put it down! The author leaves (wondrously) the main storyline intact. (If you don’t know it, then why are you reading this review!). Illustrations abound in this book, in addition to the incredible cover art. This book gives one of my favorite literary characters, Elizabeth Bennett, the voice and spine Jane Austen’s time period could not. Lizzy, the fighting ninja! If you don’t like parodies, don’t bother with this book. There are gory scenes with some Hollywood director’s name written all over this one. Read this with a sense of humor, it’s a brilliant twist on a classic.
|
|
|
Thomas posted a review at 2009-06-20 04:31:20.
(Language: English)
The title really says it all with this book: Jane Austen’s classic mixed with the carnivorous living dead – an incongruously bizarre mixture which results in a world, and characters, which seem in part like distorted reflections of the ones that we all know and love. The plot is too familiar to rehash, following that of the original faithfully, although with the addition of a ‘strange plague’ afflicting Georgian England, which has resulted in the dead rising from their graves and wandering in search of fresh brains. To deal with this trouble, and for self-defence, the well-to-do have turned to the Arts of the Orient, with the richest making the journey to Japan, and the less wealthy to China. Thus, we have Lizzie Bennett and her sisters as Shaolin-trained slayers; Mr Darcy having studied at Kyoto; and Lady Catherine de Bourgh with a guard of ninjas. Blood flows, enemies are decapitated, and Jane and Bingley, and Lizzie and Darcy, follow their not entirely smooth paths to true love and marriage. As a lover of the original, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from this book, but the very ridiculousness of the combination of early nineteenth century manners with violent mayhem is curiously engaging. Seth Grahame Smith has done a good job of blending elements and expressions from Austen’s text with his own - although that's not to say that there are not weaknesses with it, as other reviewers have already identified - but there are a good many humorous passages and twists on the original which will easily raise a smile on the face of any but the most dedicated Austen fan who regards any tampering with the novel as sacrilege. That said, the book is not absolutely unputdownable, and you may find that you can take it in short doses, rather than having to devour it at a single sitting, or may find that after getting the joke in the first few chapters, you have no desire to read the rest. If so, you’ll miss out on a few laughs, but not much more.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2009-07-03 04:30:17.
(Language: English)
I dont really know what possessed me to read this book, but Im glad im over it. The idea of a zombie version of pride and prejudice seemed simply hilarious... but I was disapointed. I have to admit that I have never been "zombie" fan, and always thought they were a tad limited to bring something new... but still. I also have to admit that I actually loved the original Pride and Prejudice. but I thought this one didnt brought that much difference except maybe for the fact that women were evaluated how they and if they had the capability of fighting zombies; and the random few attack of the zombies. other than that, the only time that I actually found it funny was dear charlotte eating dead leaves because she was on her way to becoming zombie herself.so unless you are a die hard fan of zombies dont bother. (and remember that your still reading pride and prejudice... its the same storyline, same characthers and dialogues...only afew changes along the way..)(65)
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2009-07-06 03:38:19.
(Language: English)
I think this would have been better if more than one of the two authors knew how to write. This premise had so much potential! Unfortunately, whatever-his-name-is didn't really have a handle on the characters or manners of the times (why the hell did he have Darcy make balls jokes?) and would sacrifice basic continuity to insert poorly-written zombie fighting scenes. The references to the "strange plague" and the Bennet daughters' training in Asia were ridiculous and tiresome. paragraph I must admit, I was pretty amused for the first twenty pages. Once the novelty wore off, though, I found the writing intolerable. This book would be an absolute disappointment to anyone who loves both Pride and Prejudice and zombies, but if one just loves zombies, it would probably be adequate. A skillful writer with a better understanding of the original novel could have made the rewrite incredible. To put it simply, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies blows.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2009-09-15 12:47:39.
(Language: English)
This is what I am reading right now. Or should I say attempting to read. This book did not live up to my expectations. The basic outline remains the same with all the witty retorts ect, but after starting this book, You have to wonder if the author actually read the original text or if he had indeed even seen any zombie movies. The exchanges between the main characters have been shorn, becoming even more contrived than in the Austin novel. Seth Grahame smith's Zombies seem more of a badly fitted distraction. Not only that, the scenes are glazed over while the zombies are characterless and decidely unscary. And kung fu fighting? Regardless of the total implausibility of training in the oriental arts, the dresses these women were supposed to be wearing throughout this ridiculous story would of made the movements totally impossible.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2009-08-18 04:22:10.
(Language: English)
I heartily recommend this unique look at Jane Austen's classic, with the caveat that it's for true P&P fans only. Maybe two caveats ... true P&P fans who have a sense of humor. And if you like the zombie genre it's even better. Pride & Prejudice snobs will sniff at the author's bastardization of Austen's best-book-evah ... but they're just blowhards who don't get the joke. Then there are the people who've never read any Jane Austen at all and never will (like, my husband)... just didn't understand why I thought zombies roaming the grounds of Pemberley was so damn funny. Anyway, I really enjoyed the book. And it rejuvenated my long dormant fondness for zombie movies ... I'm going to watch "Dawn of the Dead" tonight.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2010-09-30 08:35:29.
(Language: English)
It's hilarious how this book succeeds in inserting as many zombies as possible into EVERY scene of P&P while leaving much of the original prose intact. It's audacious and purists would wanna hang him but hey it is funny. To his credit, Grahame-Smith prudently chooses to reinvent the Bennets instead of Mr Darcy. He knows how much women lurrve Mr D and wouldn't dare to rewrite this literary god. Rewriting the Bennet sisters as kickass chicks who purge England of the undead isn't as sacrilegious as it appears to be - feminists know how to have a good laugh too!
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2009-11-24 11:10:45.
(Language: English)
I have the expanded limited special edition version (now with 30% MORE zombies!). It is surprising how well this works. Have you always wanted to appreciate the classic Jane Austen novels which were so amazing for their time, but found that you just couldn't get into them? This is the way to go . . . I have never been able to finish one of her novels, but now I am easily finishing this one and will buy Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters next. The (co-)author took the original Pride and Prejudice and edited it as if it had all occurred during a zombie uprising and the Bennet sisters were great zombie-fighting warriors. The result is that a good portion of the book is the original Jane Austen manuscript and all of it is written in that style.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2009-08-24 06:29:03.
(Language: English)
I had high hopes of this book successfully combining my love of Austen and my love of B grade horror (and the opening line was so brilliant as to raise those hopes higher- "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains"- priceless) but it was not to be. The addition of zombies could have been achieved much more seemlessly as Grahame-Smith seems to be trying to force them in instead of exploiting the existing gaps in the novel. Nor did I see the need to make everyone trained in various Asian fighting styles... zombies could just as easily been dispatched with a good ol' English woodchopping axe. I found myself longing for the sections of book which contained more of the original Austen. This was still not as satisfying as it should be as Grahame-Smith removes many of the morals and manners that are the source of much of the wit in the original and replaces them with course suggestions which remove much of the humour. Personally I think sex humour is best kept to American teen movies and keep well away from 19th century classics. All that said, it is mildly amusing in parts and it could prove a solid intro to Austen for those not normally so inclined.. as long as they went back and made sure to read the original as well.
|
|
|
A Reader posted a review at 2009-08-03 12:46:41.
(Language: English)
Yes, the classic Jane Austen novel, but with the addition of Zombies. The question is not, is this a good book, but rather, can Grahame-Smith actually sustain the gag for the whole novel? The answer is yes, for the most part. Grahame-Smith is lucky in his choice of text, which as he admits, lends itself to the addition of Zombies quite well - people are constantly travelling in carriages from one place to another, and the militia is stationed in town for no reason whatsoever. While the "unnamed menace" in the original text happens to be the Napoleonic War, since Austen never addresses Napoleon save once (the same number of times she mentions the new sport of Base Ball), all you have to do is insert Zombies, and it works. Reading Pride and Prejudice 200 years after it was written requires a good deal of knowledge on English social classes in the Regency period (the George monarchs), inheritance law, and the limited position of women in both. If you don't want to learn anything about these forces but want to read about Lizzy Bennet, then the Zombies drive the plot, not the threat of destitution upon the death of her father. Why would Charlotte Lucas ever consent to marry Rev. Collins? It's not because she is a 27-year-old spinster who is a financial burden to her family, but because she was bitten and needs someone to behead her when she finally succombs to zombiehood. It's like reading Shakespeare's Histories without learning anything about the Tudor-Stuart Dynasties - you can take the stories out of their context and still enjoy them. The text becomes shallower and loses a lot of its richness (the Prince Regent used Austen's novels to illustrate why property reform was needed - kind of like Harriet Beecher Stowe's works influenced the anti-slavery movement). Yet, I'm not saying this is a waste of time as long as you don't try to delude yourself into thinking that this is "literature". Entertainment, yes - worth litterary note, no. That said, Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters will be published in September.
|
Share your views!
Similar books
