Jane Needs Brains

"Perhaps the zombie attack on Austen’s novel is telling us that the novel is neither alive nor dead but undead. We are living in a time when what counts as “life” is in significant scientific dispute, and in the heyday of zombie computers and zombie banks, zombie this and zombie that. Why wouldn’t we also be living in a time of zombie literary forms?"

"But no sooner had she grabbed the handle of her weapon than a chorus of screams filled the assembly hall, immediately joined by the shattering of window panes.  Unmentionables poured in, their movements clumsy yet swift; their burial clothing in a range of untidiness.  Some wore gowns so tattered as to render them scandalous" (PG. 16)

        The critical review, "Zombie Renaissance" gives an interesting view on what the zombies do to the novel "Pride Prejudice and Zombies.  It states that the novel, at some point was dead, and somehow was revived by the action and gore thrown into the ordinary pages of this novel.  I would have to highly agree with this critical review.  I do not want to say Pride and Prejudice is dead, because to me, any novel that has made it this far in time still deserves some recognition, yet the heaviness of the novel along with the run on lines and seemingly unimportant conversations, make this a very tedious book.  Therefore, I believe that for a time, this book was in hibernation, a state where no one really truly enjoys the book (unless they're one of "those" people) or no one decides one day "hey, I should buy Pride and Prejudice to read" even though it is a must read.  When zombies took over the novel, I hesitate to say that the book is "alive" again, only because it is not the true book, word for word.  Therefore the idea that the book is "undead" is brilliant.  

        First off, Seth Grahame-Smith chooses zombies, something that we as a culture can truly relate with, but also something that ironically fits the book and its characters perfectly.  Austen put forth many characters that seemed to drone and move as society wished them too.  Others fed off societal norms such as Lady Catherine, one who continuously tried to throw her rank in others faces.  The fact that this resembles zombies in so many ways does not appear as a coincidence to me.  Others have asked, "why not vampires?  Or werewolves?" and the answer is simple, it wouldn't fit the book.  Werewolves would go amazingly in a book where there are groups of people that stick together, or packs.  Vampires could almost fit, but this book is about the underclass, not the upper.  By putting in Vampires, you overrule the feeling of the underclass that Austen originally intended.  But by putting zombies, mindless creatures that act on the need of one thing, brains, it creates a reflection of the society and its norms and makes us compare the humans and zombies with each other. 

Wait....Did You Say Zombies?

"And when she was nervous-- as she was nearly all the time since the first outbreak of the strange plague in her youth-- she sought solace in the comfort of the traditions which now seemed mere trifles to others.  The business of Mr. Bennet's life was to keep his daughters alive.  The business of Mrs. Bennet's was to get them married" (8)

"She was a woman of mean understanding, little information, and uncertain temper.  When she was discontented she fancied herself nervous.  the business of her life was to get her daughters married; its solace was visiting and news" (45)

How does the author of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies take what Austen created, and turn it into a world full of action while introducing more sarcasm into the novel?

           I would like to first start off by saying I just couldn't resist.  This is suppose to be a literary interpretation, but I find myself vastly in love with Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and went "awwww" when I couldn't click to the next page.  But what made it so very toxic?  Yes, the action and the random encounter of zombies did help, but I also believe that the style of the novel helps by taking a more sarcastic tone.  By doing this, the book actually revealed more to me than the original Pride and Prejudice, which is amazing to me.  For instance, in the quotes above, I stopped and thought to myself, "wait...they're seriously making fun of Mrs. Bennet here, that didn't happen in the other book."  But when I took a look into the passage, I found that they indeed made fun of Mrs. Bennet, but in a more subtle way, something I was never able to catch.  This happened several times just within the few pages given.  The favoritism given by Mr. Bennet is enhanced, the ball is torn apart by zombies, where Darcy first gets a real glimpse into Lizzy, something that only happens in Pride and Prejudice when she first talks to him.  I am truly astounded that the author was able to take this very difficult novel and understand it enough to zoom onto particular events, some of which I was unable to comprehend, or were too drowned out by the long run on lines that seemed to never end.  I am immediately picking up this book and reading it, but funny thing is, not just for the zombies and action, even though that is a very big part of it, but because I actually think this book might help me understand Pride and Prejudice just a little bit more.

Social Standards Set to a Moral Bar

"The quality of humanity is to be judged by moral and humane standards, Austen suggests, not by social status; but like her own temporary snobs, Darcy and Emma, she pays full attention to their social status first" (125)

"'I do, I do like him,' she replied, with tears in her eyes, 'I love him.  Indeed he has no improper pride.  He is perfectly amiable.  You do not know what he really is; then pray do not pain me by speaking of him in such terms'" (375)

In what way does this literary strategy of "Social Status First" affect the overall feel of the novel and its characters till the end where morals become the prime judgement of character?


    Throughout Pride and Prejudice, the struggles between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy are the highlight within the book.  But what effect did having the "Social Status First" on the reader and their opinion of characters such as Mr. Darcy?  At first, as I was reading, I felt the need to hate Mr. Darcy.  His abrupt opinion of Elizabeth quickly made Mr. Darcy an antagonist of many within the book.  But throughout the book, small moral details become known of Mr. Darcy that slowly makes me as the reader fall in love with him as Elizabeth does.  To me, this enhances my love for Mr. Darcy and creates the "love hate" relationship Elizabeth has for him as well.  The connection made between Mr. Darcy, Elizabeth, and the reader then becomes stronger.
    The feel of the book then becomes stronger for the reader, there is more invested in the relationship between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy.  For me, I wanted Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy to work out, but the high standards to which Mr. Darcy raised himself made it appear as if it would not be possible.  But then piece by piece, Mr. Darcy's morals started coming to light.  Mr. Darcy trying to protect Mr. Bingly, helping Lydia by securing her into a more legitimate marriage, helping Mr. Bingly get back to Jane.  All of these add up to make you want to love him more for his sincerity and then his love for Elizabeth. The use of this makes you feel as Mr. and Mrs. Bennet, wondering "wait, you actually love him? But he's awful!"  But when Mr. Bennet understands what Mr. Darcy has done for the family, he then falls in love with him as much as we have.

It's a Woman's World

"What precisely does it mean, for a start, to 'direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex'?  To write another woman a romantic poem?  To fantasize about making love to her?  To share the same bed with her?  To live with her for fifty years?  To bring her to orgasm?" (3)

"'My dear Jane!" exclaimed Elizabeth, 'you are too good.  Your sweetness and disinterestedness are really angelic; I do not know what to say to you.  I feel as if I had never done you justice, or loved you as you deserved.'" (164)

       In the Introduction and Excerpts from the Literature of Lesbianism, the subject of lesbianism within the history of authors, such as Jane Austen, has become uncovered in an attempt to find the history of such a subject.  But the author also brings up the fact that there are still many questions as to what makes a "lesbian" author.  Does Jane Austen, specifically Pride and Prejudice, fit this idea of lesbianism?
        There are many female characters within this novel.  Jane, Elizabeth, four other sisters, and Miss Bennet, and thats only naming within one family.  But there appears to be a lack of male character presence within this book except for Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bingley, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Bennet.  These male characters almost seem to be the backdrop in comparison to the women voices within the novel.  Because of this, I want to say that there is no real lesbianism within Pride and Prejudice.  Now, to play devils advocate with myself, I will say that the relationship between Jane and Elizabeth is the closest one can get to argue for the lesbian point of view.  They are constantly speaking to each other in confidence in bed, Elizabeth is constantly praising Jane, and they always are together, more so than the other sisters.  But to me, theres no fine line between sisterly love and lesbianism, but a big fat one that shows that it shouldn't be even relatable.  If they're sisters, why can't they lay in the same bed and talk about boys all night?
    Also, there is a very strong female voice in this novel, more so then in the actual society.  We get the women's point of views, rather than the mens.  This gives me a feeling that the women have to stick together.  They can't talk in confidence to men about womanly things because, in that society, it was unheard of.  The only way, it appears, that a reason a woman has to talk with a man is because of a social event, or in the act of trying to woo him.  Otherwise, they speak to their women friends.  Does this make it a more of a lesbian novel due to the fact that society puts a line between the men and the women?
   I can see the undertones of lesbianism within Pride and Prejudice, but they are so small that I find it hard to try to argue for the lesbian point of view and focus on the relationships of the women as women who just wants a close friend.

It's A Mans World

"How any one could have the conscience to entail away an estate from one's own daughters I cannot understand; and all for the sake of Mr. Collins too! --Why should he have it more than anybody else?" (Austen, 160)

Desdemona "I do perceive here a divided duty./ To you I am bound for life and education;/ My life and education both do learn me/ How to respect you; you are the lord of duty;/ I am hitheto your daughter. / But here's my husband; /And so much duty as my mother showed/ to you, preferring you before her father,/ So much I challenge that I may profess/ Due to the Moor my lord" (19-20)

In both Othello and Pride and Prejudice, the women are suppressed by duties given by society.  Yet in Othello, Desdemona is more silent then the ever vigorous Elizabeth.  In what ways does this enrich or hinder Pride and Prejudice as well as Othello?



              Of course, there is no complete answer to this question, because it depends on the reader.  But for me, I keep wondering, what if the roles were switched?  Would Desdemona marry Mr. Collins because of her duty to her family, would Elizabeth punch Othello as tried to snuff out her light?  With a women being as headstrong as Elizabeth, it is obvious that her character enriches the story since her being headstrong is what caused her to attract Mr. Darcy's eye.  But could there also be a fault?  I have yet to find one and therefore can not answer.  But, with her being headstrong, there is still the importance of the role she plays in society.  If she does not find a husband, she will have to stay with her family instead of heading out in her own.  As a reader, I constantly found myself thinking "If you don't find a husband, (insert horrible consequence here)", and because of that I myself felt suppressed by the society within the book.  The restrictions given to Elizabeth and the tiring social antics made me feel as if I was Elizabeth herself.  This in fact did not happen for me with Desdemona, instead I felt fear for her life, but not a connection that I could be "like" her.  This, for me, hinders Othello due to the lack of connection to me as a reader, whereas with Pride and Prejudice it was a great enrichment.