(I will refer to it as S&S&S for brevity's sake) and picked it up from my library. I had been curious about this book ever since I finished Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. I loved P&P&Z; it was clever, funny, and liked how it incorporated Jane's story in a zombie apocolypse context. I wasn't the only one. The popularity of the book paved the way for books such as S&S&S, and boy did that show when I was reading! When I think of S&S&S, the word, "hasty" comes to mind. This was a product created on the coat-tails of the first Austen/Monster mashup's success and for me, it failed.Firstly, I think P&P&Z's success was that the book was reconfigured in a familiar sci-fi situation; an epidemic which turns people into the walking dead and therefore turns the world, and likewise, society upside down. S&S&S took the same concept but replaced zombies with all sorts of blood-thirsty fish. The Dashwood sisters lived in this environment and therefore are accomplished in the arts of fish-defense, as well as driftwood carving, and sailor songs. I must confess, I was hoping for the Dashwoods to be ignorant of sea monsters until their move to Devonshire which would introduce them to the monster-slaying expert Colonel Brandon. That would have been more creative, and separated the book from P&P&Z more. Brandon may have been skilled in slaying but he also happened to be half sea monster himself, sporting a beard of tentacles from an affliction brought on by a sea witch, which explains Marianne's disinterest in him.
I think what really made Ben H. Winter's mash-up unsuccessful for me was the haste in producing it. The author didn't seem to know Austen (he actually used "indifferent" erroneously, in the modern term, rather than early 19th century meaning) and I caught two typos, which also implied a haste in producing the work. I know many will disagree with me, but I feel Seth Grahame-Smith's heart was in the right place when he made P&P&Z and I can't say I feel the same about S&S&S. My advice is to skip over this mash-up and move try another. When is Persuasion...In Space! supposed to hit shelves?
I have not ventured into this realm of Austen remakes yet, but have heard many approve of P&P&Z. Thanks for this informative review! Is there really going to be Persuasion... In Space?
ReplyDeleteI heard about it a long time ago, and haven't since, which is too bad because I would be interested in getting my hands on it.
ReplyDeleteI admire your intrepid spirit Heather. You finished this fishy tale. I disliked it so I could not get through it let alone write a full review. I think it had great potential, but it was just too far from Austen's concept to work. It was a cartoon parody. I wanted to laugh, but sadly did not.
ReplyDeleteWell said, it had great potential but the author went with a rather un-original direction which made it very disappointing.
ReplyDeleteI have not ventured into these versions, I am tempted to purchase Some of the Bennett siblings stories but not as of yet. If you must have a sequel why not try L. Rice "The Beekeepers Apprentis" Sherlock Holmes world doncha know.
ReplyDeleteR
I can sincerely say that neither P&P&Z or S&S&S have ever held so much as a tease for me. It seems somewhat sacrilegious to me.
ReplyDeleteYeah....i don't think i'll read this. Doesn't sound too attractive lol
ReplyDeleteI agree! I thought P&P&Z was cute and creative in it's "interpretation" of the Jane Austen classic, but S&S&S (as well as the dubious others such as Jane Slayre, Android Karenina, and Queen Victoria: Demon Hunter) all seemed to just be riding on the coat-tails of some sort of science-fiction-literature movement...Though, I am curious to know the 19th century meaning of "indifferent" since I have not been able to find a clear definition other than our modern one.
ReplyDeleteUgh I tried the Demon Hunter book too...same problem! It sounded a lot better in my head. So disappointing.
ReplyDeleteWhenever Austen uses the term indifferent it seems to mean "do not like, yuck" rather than "meh, don't care."
I loved P&P&Z but could not get into S&S&S at all. The proportion of new writer to Austen in the former was 15% to 85% respectively, while in the latter, if memory serves me right, it was more of a 40/60 split. This did not make for a good story. Plus, the presense of zombies in P and P, while fantastic, quietly worked alongside of the original story, even enhancing the humor on occasion. The S and S mash up required me to imagine technological and engineering feats that seemed to stand in the way. It was a real fail to me.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a much better job of summarizing my feelings. Very well said!!
ReplyDelete