Horror/Classic Lit Mash-Ups Are Driving Me Insane!

[Wesley Thomas]

So, I recently finished Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, from the author that brought us Pride & Prejudice & Zombies. The book was actually quite clever, in my humble opinion. I do own PPZ but have yet to make it through that one. Today, I heard about a prequel coming to that book and decided to surf around for some info. Doing this revealed a terrifying list on Amazon.

http://tinyurl.com/yalutgw

Robin Hood and Friar Tuck: Zombie Killers? Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Zombie Jim? The Undead World of Oz?

Yup, all those are real. It's like the Guild of Authors decided adding zombies to a story instantly makes it readable.

Anyone have any opinions on this? I'm hardly a lit nerd but am getting a bit sickened by zombies.

[elmuerte]

Yup, all those are real. It's like the Guild of Authors decided adding zombies to a story instantly makes it readable.

I wonder where they got that idea

[OssK]

Yup, all those are real. It's like the Guild of Authors decided adding zombies to a story instantly makes it readable sellable.

fixed

[brkl]

Pride & Prejudice & Zombies was a funny idea, but there's no point at all to make more of them.

[SignorSuperdouche]

Pride & Prejudice & Zombies was a funny idea, but there's no point at all to make more of them.

This, pretty much, is my stance. On the other hand if it sparks an interest in classic lit in those who wouldn't otherwise give it a second thought ... well good for them.

Perhaps not the best example, but relatively recently there was a modernised film version of Othello set in an American high school. I watched the DVD with my mate and he loved it. Afterwards I told him it was based on Shakespear and he got into reading the original texts after that (he still refuses to go to the theatre because it's "gay", but whatever).

[Wesley Thomas]

I dropped one mildly disparaging remark in regards to these books in a recent blog post. Apparently the author of Robin Hood & Friar Tuck: Zombie Killers found said post through Google and decided to send me an email defending his book. It was civil, which made me respect him a bit. Some time after that I found another site that slammed his book and he'd commented on the post with almost exactly what he sent to me.

[Lu]

Well, if the defense was good, then that hardly matters, does it? Still nice to see an author going out there and defending his work, even if it's ctrl+c, ctrl+v.

I don't really see what the problem is. What is your problem with them?

[Wesley Thomas]

Well, if the defense was good, then that hardly matters, does it? Still nice to see an author going out there and defending his work, even if it's ctrl+c, ctrl+v.

I don't really see what the problem is. What is your problem with them?

My main problem is that it looks like the majority of those books were written simply by deleting the antagonists of classic lit and replacing them with zombies. If an author actually works said beasts into the story creatively, I can accept it. Zombies are also getting incredibly played out, which doesn't help me look upon the list with kindness.

To the author of Robin Hood & Friar Tuck's credit, he seems to have put a bit of work into his tome.

[Wesley Thomas]

Here is the letter the guy sent to me. He actually encouraged me to share it:

"Dear Wesley Thomas

I'm the author of 'Robin Hood and Friar Tuck: Zombie Killers - A Canterbury Tale by Paul A. Freeman'. I've read your views on PPZ and its spin offs and would like this opportunity, if I may, to put my book into context.

Although my novella includes zombies, it's not actually part of the 'monster mash' movement. The Robin Hood legends we all know and love are actually composed of myth fragments from a number of different sources. Although I allude to one or two of these in my book, my novella is in effect an original tale. In fact, the first half takes place not in Sherwood Forest, but in the Holy Land during the ill-fated First Crusade.

Also, 'Robin Hood and Friar Tuck: Zombie Killers' is alternatively titled 'The Monk's Second Tale', and is the longest of a series of eight 'new' Canterbury Tales that I've so far written.

And before you start berating me for jumping on Chaucer's coat tails, let me explain! 'The Monk's Second Tale' is part of my ambitious 'Canterbury Tales' project, and involves each of Chaucer's pilgrims telling a second story in narrative poetry. They are all original tales, though I've borrowed Chaucer's pilgrims for the short prologues and epilogues to the tales. See:

www.paulfreeman.weebly.com

Chaucer envisaged his pilgrims each telling four stories - two on their outward journey and two on their homeward journey. Unfortunately he died before completing even a quarter of his tales.

The Canterbury Tales I've written so far (which chronicle the pilgrims' homeward journey) are all in different genres, varying from fables to fabliau, and from crime fiction to chick lit. Since Coscom Entertainment offered me a chance at publication, 'The Monk's Second Tale' became my horror Canterbury Tale'.

My Canterbury Tales project is now going quite well. My 'Miller's Second Tale' is being edited for an anthology of neo-medieval literature, and the abridged version of my 'Knight's Second Tale', an Arthurian legend, will appear soon in Every Day Poets' inaugural poetry anthology.

Sorry I've been a bit long-winded, but this project of mine is very close to my heart and is not meant to be exploitative at all.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to me explaining what on the face of things is a sensationally titled, band-wagon book, but which is, in reality, anything but.

If you wish to post this email on the sites you frequent and where you've discussed 'monster mash-ups', feel free.

All the best

Paul A. Freeman"