Zombies and Prejudice and Pride

So I'm doing a little reading group with a friend of mine, Mar-bar :), and taking a break from another book I'm reading, just finished the newest assignment. It was "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" by Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith. Now I must admit, I had avowed not to read this book. But I suppose my avowals are flighty, at best. My overall review for the book was that it amused me greatly as a parody. That, however, was it's main merit (it being 65% the original novel). However, as for "The Count of Monte Cristo", there is a Readers Discussion Guide at the end of this book that I must needs make fun of (10 questions total).

Enjoy.

1. Many critics have addressed the dual nature of Elizabeth's personality. On one hand, she can be a savage, remorseless killer, as we see in her vanquishing of Lady Catherine's ninjas. On the other hand, she can be tender and merciful, as in her relationships with Jane, Charlotte, and the young bucks that roam her family's estate. In your opinion, which of these "halves" best represents the real Elizabeth at the beginning--and end of the novel?

Firstly I want to apologize for these overly long questions. Just typing them made me want to stop reading my own answers to them. Secondly, I really hope the author didn't come up with these questions. "Why does it seem that there are two sides to Elizabeth's character? It couldn't POSSIBLY be that there are two competing ideas of her stemming from two separate authors in one book!" But seriously, Mr. Smith has no ability to merge the two worlds of Zombie invasion and the Pride and Prejudice era. May I now be added into the class of "Many critics", all of which are ambiguously referred to in the upcoming discussion questions.

2. Is Mr. Collins merely too fat and stupid to notice his wife's gradual transformation into a zombie, or could there be another explanation for his failure to acknowledge the problem? If so, what might that explanation be? how might his occupation (as a pastor) relate to his denial of the obvious...(question excluded to avoid spoiler).

Oh yeah, insulting the characters is a good idea. Let's just allow ample time here in discussion groups across America to bash this ever so obviously useless character. I also thought Mr. Smith's dealings with the Collins' poorly done. He abused them needlessly in the book and I didn't...appreciate his ferver in turning their lives in the way he did.

3.The strange plague has been the scourge of England for "five-and-fifty years." Why do the English stay and fight, rather than retreat to the safety of eastern Europe or Africa?

Because Mr. Smith is a poor story writer and doesn't think things through (and by things, I mean plot lines)? Rationally, in the real world, what would anyone do against zombies? Haven't the British always fought tooth and nail for their home country?

4. Who receives the sorrier fate: Wickam or Lydia (edited to avoid spoilers)?

I think I pity them both equally really.

5. Due to her fierce independence, devotion to exercise, and penchant for boots, some critics have called Elizabeth Bennet "the first literary lesbian." Do you think the authors intended her to be gay? And if so, how would this Sapphic twist serve to explain her relationships with Darcy, Jane, Charlotte, Lady Cathering, and Wickham?

Eh? Where did this come from? Did we read the same book? Oh right. I forgot. ANY woman who participates in any of those activities is obviously lesbian. Silly me. Especially since there isn't a single line in the whole book about her admiring anyones boots. That flaw in this question's logic aside, I'm 99% sure this was put in a readers discussion in order to be provoking and an attempt to make it interesting. Thank you "Some critics" for this ample opportunity for discussion.

6. Some critics have suggested that the zombies represent the authors' views toward marriage-an endless curse that sucks the life out of you and just won't die. Do you agree, or do you have another opinion about the symbolism of the unmentionables?

This. made. me. laugh. Anyone can take anything to be symbolic if they want to. To me, the zombies were simply an intrusion on the original plot line because of the author's inability to merge the two ideas. If the zombies were meant to be symbolic as an anti-marriage sentiment, they showed up in the wrong book seeing as the original story line sees all the main characters happily (if not serendipitously) married in the end. As much as I'd love for this question to have been asked by "Some critics", I'm going to say that this is the view of the person that wrote the question.

7. Does Mrs. Bennet have a single redeeming quality?

Do YOU!? Let's just throw around some more insults! WhoooOOOooO! Hey person coming up these questions, did you notice that half the plot line in the book is determined by Mrs. Bennet? You've OBVIOUSLY studied Pride and Prejudice very well to come up with the conclusion that she has none whatsoever.

8. Vomit plays an important role in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies...Do the authors mean for this regurgitation to symbolize something greater, or is it a cheap device to get laughs?

I'm going with cheap device. But at the same time I thought it an appropriate emphasis of the discomfort of the characters in a way more understandable to people of our day and age. I remember when I read this book in my English class back in high school...The delicacy of feelings in old England are sometimes hard to discern.

9. This is a stupid question and I tire of it. Man...I think I'm being just as biased as the person who wrote these questions. Or should I say...prejudiced?

10. Some scholars believe that the zombies were a last-minute addition to the novel, requested by the publisher in a shameless attempt to boost sales. Others argue that the hordes of living dead are integral to Jane Austen's plot and social commentary. What do you think? Can you imagine what this novel might be like without the violent zombie mayhem?

I think you know what I think considering what I've responded before. But I'm quite certain I can imagine what this novel might be like without the violent zombie mayhem...but I'm glad the writer of these questions recognizes the possibility of this book being a parody of gain and not of literary significance.