Talk:Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

Publication Date

Can anyone pin this down? The book was originally scheduled for a summer 2009 release, but the publisher moved things up at least once. Articles and online sources vary wildly- April 15, April 8, April 4, April 1... and yet the book was available in some stores at least as early as March 25th.Omhseoj (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the official release date is April, even though some stores had it out in March; I'm sure a citation could be found for the official date but there may not be a citation for the fact that some stores put it out early. Propaniac (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Summer Glau to star in a movie?

Can I get a citation for this? 98.113.19.51 (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It should really be removed since it states that it has been rumoured. We should really wait for a reference to say she is in it rather than a rumour. I will remove this. Dark verdant (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on Summer Glau, but Natalie Portman is going to play Elizabeth in the movie, as well as being the producer. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8407986.stm

Redundant part?

Both Daily Beast and Time Magazine discuss the "creation story" behind PP&Z, but from somewhat different angles. Although Grahame-Smith's retelling of the story in Time Magazine is more descriptive, the Daily Beast bit about "popular fanboy topics" gives some insight into the hows and whys of the book's genesis (as well as an indication as to what the intended target audience was). I read it over a few times and it didn't seem redundant, but I can also see how others might view it differently. Anyway, back in for now.--Omhseoj (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two compromise ways to eliminate the redundancy:

1. Keep "popular fanboy topics" but somehow insert the phrase and the cite into the sentence with the author's recollection.
2. Cut Grahame-Smith's quote before "He called me . . ."

I'll take the second route. We do lose the explicit examples of what the public domain titles are, but given we a) have one example already (Pride and Prejudice) and b) we are told that a list of public-domain classic titles was used, any semi-literate reader can come up with additional likely names. YLee (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind; I've figured out a way of integrating the list into the article while still avoiding redundancy. YLee (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Entry as Part of Marketing Scheme?

I'm curious if anyone else believes that this entry, (and potentially others,) is a thinly veiled marketing ploy? Perhaps the product of "fanboy" mentality? I.e., does this book actually merit a Wikipedia entry? It's a parody tapping into the vogue in Zombie nonsense couple with the novelty of the "mashup" concept which people are currently embracing, but beyond that, is insubstantial and of short-term importance. Shouldn't Wikipedia rise above this? HotType918 (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)HotType918

Sir, thankyou, was thinking the same thing. So little substance, so much effort.5.71.149.51 (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted, though, that zombie-related merchandise is a highly profitable market arena in popular culture at present. As such, it is a significant cultural and economic phenomenon and while it may prove to be ephemeral, so were other short-term cultural fads of the past, yet they are listed on Wikipedia and other online encyclopedias. Calibanu (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu

Three things come to mind. One is that both "zombie fiction" and "monsterlit" have been around for some time now. Jane Austen's books have been re-written with zombies, vampires, ghosts, and witches- not to mention the stillborn "Pride and Predator," featuring space aliens. Secondly, I think we're at the point where this is more than just a back-of-the-store novelty book. It landed on the NYT bestseller list, went through multiple printings, and is in the process of being turned into (what appears to be) a mainstream Hollywood movie. And thirdly, if it were a marketing ploy, then I really need to talk to someone about receiving my big paycheck(!) for creating the article in the first place. Omhseoj (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the swift decline in Wikipedia's status as a serious reference work it must now be appreciated principally as a tool for the promotion of popular culture (computer games etc) to school children and young adults. If this article were written entirely for commercial purposes, which in this case seems highly unlikely, that would simply make it mainstream wiki content. 62.232.34.3 (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that this page was written for marketing purposes. Wikipedia is about providing information, which this article does exceedingly. I agree with the IP above, though; Wikipedia is mainly popular-culture, one of the faults for having everyone able to edit everything, but a fault that cannot be avoided with such a system as this, which, in my opinion, is adequate enough as it is. Mevistoveles (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd even consider it a fault. A conventional encyclopedia might well devote an entire page to the Boring War of 1603 but that doesn't mean any of their readers (or writers) have any interest in it. Wikipedia very accurately reflects the interests of it's users, no space is wasted on topics of zero interest because no one would have bothered to write the article in the first place. And on the other side if any user does believe certain topics are under-represented they are completely free to add more information.

Having said that though this is why we have notability rules for articles and content, otherwise Wikipedia would be mainly lists of bands that existed for a day and played 1 show, badly. Danikat (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Terminology Question

Should we consider this a Mash up? If this is borrowed from the musical practice of Mash ups, then I believe the term to be incorrect. As I understand it, mash ups are the melding of two independent works, not one person freestyling over an existing body of work. If we were to consider coining a term for this style of writing, I would suggest Literary Hip Hop, or "LIT HOP"... where independent work is superimposed over existing work, or vice verse. Any Thoughts?.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.240.67 (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

For future reference: Wikipedia does not coin new terms -- Sverdrup (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

              Still this discussion page seems like a good forum to discuss the problem  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.240.67 (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 

The term "mashup" seems to be fairly standard now when referring to this genre, even if it is not particularly correct (I'd agree that a real mashup is more likely to involve two original works). For example, a story in the 4 March 2010 edition of USA Today is titled "No classic title is safe from onslaught of literary mashups." Perhaps a distinction can be made between "musical mashups" and "literary mashups"? Omhseoj (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think literary mashups, including this one, do still count as mashups that meld independent works. This particular work is a combination of Pride and Prejudice and Zombie literature.Minding (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But we don't call hip hop a mashup. It melds an existing piece of work with an original piece of work. Existing + Original = Hip hop, Existing + Existing = Mashup. There is a distinction between original work mirroring a style, and work that is based upon independent authorship. In a mashup the architect is a mixer, in hip hop an it is both the mixer and the rap artist who have control over the process. The term is improper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.240.67 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

References

This "Art of War on Fat" Nonsense

Give it a source or leave it out. I am sick of deleting this non-fact from this article.Omhseoj (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(And no, a link to the website selling the book is not a source) Omhseoj (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Has a bogus plot summary been substituted? Iful (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Appearance in Heroes (TV series)

Just thought it might be interesting, it appeared in the episode "Orientation" (Season 4, Episode 1). From Heroes Wiki: "While waiting for the students to finish their preliminary exam, Professor Fenton reads the book Pride and Prejudice and Zombies to pass time." 178.48.183.58 (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Negative reception?

Current: The New Yorker's Macy Halford, however, called the book's estimated blend of eighty-five percent Austen's words and fifteen percent Grahame-Smith's "one hundred per cent terrible"; possibly a reference to the song "Remember The Name" by Fort Minor? Site that shows lyrics is on a blacklist but this is the chorus from the song:

This is ten percent luck, twenty percent skill

Fifteen percent concentrated power of will

Five percent pleasure, fifty percent pain

And a hundred percent reason to remember the name!

2601:600:8500:B2D9:C494:4F4F:F5AE:7AE4 (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Plot Tone

I noticed that this article needed some editing in the plot section. The content and tone do not seem to match the standard wikipedia article format. In the following list I will mention what I plan to change:

• reword dense sentences
• change some content to be less specific for those who have not read the story yet
• delete any trace of opinion to maintain a neutral POV

Agarcia31 (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)