Pride and Prejudice and Zombies -- like a bad cover to a classic

When I first heard of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies I thought it was a joke.
Because I was going on vacation and looking to read something light while sunbathing, I actually bought the book. For a laugh.

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen is one of my favorite books of all times. Yes, I know some consider it the Harlequin romance of the time, but I absolutely love that book. So I was ready for a funny parody of sorts, but boy was I was disappointed.

The book is nearly verbatim the original, plus the occasional paragraph or sentence mentioning the zombies or describing the fights against them. While for a second there I thought it was the unfortunate result of some misguided feminist trying to empower the women in the book, I was soon greatly disappointed as not only were they not empowered, the great powers they actually possessed in the original book were fully lost.

It then took me no time to realize the author is male, which was of course confirmed when I checked the cover. Seth something. He actually had the nerve to write by Jane Austen and Seth something. How can someone be so arrogant as to think he can put his name next to hers? He really think himself her equal? I assure you, he's not.

The addition of the zombies was not funny, the "fights" and martial arts references were quite boring (despite the fact that I am a martial art practitioner and love action in films and books) and the relationships, in fact the whole story was made flat.

I know Pride and Prejudice is public domain, but does it really give anyone the right to bastardize it so? Should we allow such work? And to think this was actually a New York Times bestseller just really irks me. How? How is that guy allowed to make a fortune on the back of a work he didn't write? What's next? Romeo and Juliet and Aliens? War and Peace and Elmos?

[To be clear, I very much enjoyed Bridget Jones (although they have stopped with the first one). Yes, it was a remake, but it wasn't verbatim and it was just fitting.]

Condemned to be free

erix!

OK, so I'm a faithless person. I'm not even sure what that means. I guess I'm an atheist since I don't believe in the existence of (a) god(s). Even writing this makes me embarrassed to the core, like saying I don't believe hobbits exist.

I don't often discuss this though. I respect other people's beliefs to the extent that they believe it. I don't think it's in my place to tell other adults what they should or shouldn't believe in. This is plain rude, and I hope my manners, while I can definitely be direct, are slightly better than that.

Plus, I really have no energy for such a discussion with its inevitable conclusion. I don't feel the need to justify myself, nor persuade anyone.

Some may already feel that saying the above was rude enough, but hopefully most will take it in stride, just like I do when listening to their explanations about their faith, whatever it may be.

I can totally understand therefore much of what Charlotte Allen at the LA Times says when she thinks that "What primarily seems to motivate atheists isn't rationalism but anger." I can relate to her sentiment regarding Dawkins and others. As an -- fine I'll agree to be called by that name for the sake of being clear -- atheist, I don't understand why they have to talk so much about god. Really, many of them talk about god more than religious people.

Still, I also think Allen's position is defensive in a way, and it shouldn't. Granted, most faithless sorts sound condescending, myself included probably. But really, if people have such strong faith, they really shouldn't give people like me a second thought.

But most, I don't even understand why get into such arguments. In a way, I guess treat religious beliefs like I do sex. It's personal and no one's business.

Posting by email test

Just a test

Scribd -- a friendlier self e-book publisher for authors

I seriously don't know much about self publishing. All I know is that it's definitely getting more attention.

Today I read on NYT about Scribd, an Internet start-up that introduced today a way for anyone to upload a document to the Web and charge for it. Already Scribd is the most popular document-sharing site, the Times say, as it takes a YouTube-like approach to text.

But now there's a store too, which allows authors or publishers to set their own price for their work and keep 80% of the revenue, which apparently is a much higher percentage than higher services (I really don't know, does anyone know how much Lulu.com charges for example?)

Other features include security measures, or unprotected PDFs, which gives them the ability to be read on any device (not just the Kindle).

The Times writes:

So far, no major publishing houses have signed on to the store, though the company says it is talking to them. The independent publishers Lonely Planet, O’Reilly Media and Berrett-Koehler will add their entire catalogs.

The Scribd store will also give unpublished authors, or authors who are in a hurry, a well-trafficked Web forum on which to post their books, charge for them and see immediate results.

There have been some success stories of self publishing, although not many. Regardless, I definitely it's exciting there's another service for writers in the Internet age.

Anyone with some self-publishing experience can give a better insight into the new service?

Editors demistified

For those writers out there submitting stories, those interested in submitting and just for general knowledge, I found this: 5 Lies Writers Believe About Editors from Jeremiah Tolbert, an editor at Escape Pod:

LIE #1: Editors give every story fair consideration. OR: Editors reject stories without reading them at all.

LIE #2: Editors never reject a good story.

LIE #3: Editors don’t foster new writers like they did in the old days, and don’t care about new talent.

LIE #4: Editors are people too.

LIE #5: Editors (and critics) are failed writers.

Via Futurismic

Yay, the recession is almost over ... not quite

Yesterday, stock markets hit multi-months highs, erasing this year's losses. Today, Fed chairman Bernanke said he expects growth in 2009.

Ok, so there are definitely signs now, very early ones, that things have bottomed and stabilized, and that at least the rate of economic decline has lessened. Stock markets are forward looking and are reacting to that, but that shouldn't fool people into thinking we're about to find ourselves in a period of booming economic growth.

Stock markets are interested in the corporations, not in the people. Corporations start doing better also because they fire so many people. So, in fact, long after the recession is officially declared over, people will continue to suffer. Unemployment will likely continue to grow and peak a quarter or two after the recession is over.

So I find myself, as someone many would consider as socialist at the least (albeit a realistic one), in a bit of a conundrum here. As a financial writer and stock holder I cheer the market rally, adding to the positive sentiment. But at the same time I know so many who have lost their jobs and can't ignore the reality I live in. I hope that reality will change soon, but I seriously doubt that.

So no, the recession ain't over yet, and worse, the labour situation will get even worse before it starts getting better, and more people and families will continue to lose their homes, and delis will continue to accept food stamps.

But, hey, markets are up ...

Sign of the times: Pulitzer will accept online work

I know, I found it hard to believe too, but the Pulitzer Prizes -- probably the most prestigious awards for American newspaper reporting and commentary -- will begin immediately accepting submissions from online-only publications.

Yup, internet newspapers and news organizations that publish online will be considered for all 14 of the journalism awards. No doubt, some blogs that mainly report on news may be eligible. This is definitely a sign things are changing in our world.

With print newspapers going out of business at a rapid pace -- Tribune just filed for Chapter 11 the other day -- there's not even a question of the increasing importance and influence of online media. Print newspaper may disappear at some point. Gosh, I haven't read a print paper in probably eight years.

For writers, though, this is very meaningful. If anyone still had doubts about the "legitimacy" of internet work and online writing, they're living in the past.

As for fiction and novels, Well, I have way too much to say and it will have to wait for another post.

Categories: writing, pulitzer, blogging, online, internet