The aim of this blog is to serve as a meeting point to those who study or have studied English philology and, more broadly, to all those who love literature and language.

19 Jul 2009


It had to happen, sooner or later. The classics revisited by the most disrespectful writers. Are these versions right? Or should literary classics be untouchable? Maybe they should, but then, which classics exactly? How we would tell which one should remain unblemished by these blasphemous versions? This time have been Austen´s Pride and Prejudice (now Pride and Prejudice and Zombies) and Sense and Sensibility (Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters), but what comes next?
Anyway, I dare to predict a wave of weird versions of classics for the next months. Or maybe it´ll be a tsunami.


  1. I had no idea about this way of parody or whatever it is but, after browsing through some reviews by readers, I understand that the genre has a good number of customers and that many of them consider 'Pride and Prejudice and Zombies', for instance, witty and funny. So far, so good.

    Anyway, I don't like the fact that the authors of these adaptations keep the name of the writer who created the original work as 'co-author' of their version. I think they should sign their rewriting by themselves although they use more than eighty percent of the original. The result is new and it has little to do with the first writer's intention despite the large verbatim part they borrow with a different objective in mind.

  2. Yes, I think there is a whole and complex legal world surrounding the parodies, sequels, and versions of famous literary works. About keeping the name of the author of the original work, I´m not sure whether it should be removed or not. Take these cases, for example. On the one hand I´m sure Jane Austen´s intention was far from get Darcy character involved with any zombie at all, when she wrote Pride and Prejudice. But the setting, the characters, and part of the plot has been taken from the Austen´s work. And don´t forget the title. Without the original work of Austen, the novel of Seth Grahame-Smith would be just another cult story for zombie freaks, without any special relevance in itself. We may say that the new version is parasitic of the original and due respect should be given to the author.

  3. That is the question, is it really respectful to mix the name of an author with that of his or her parasite without getting permission? Would Jane Austen like to see her name on the cover of a book that is not precisely hers? I would not.

    This is my suggestion: 'Pride and Prejudice and Zombies' by Seth Grahame-Smith, based on Jane Austen’s well-known work, ‘Pride and Prejudice’.