Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Mitzi Szereto

GET UPDATES FROM Mitzi Szereto
 

Pride and Prejudice and Pitchforks

Posted: 14/08/11 11:54 BST

The controversy surrounding my new book Pride and Prejudice: Hidden Lusts has come as a bit of a surprise, particularly after the huge success of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Having written my version in the same spirit (minus the zombies), I assumed the reception would be, for the most part, along similar lines. After all, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies ended up on the bestseller list and is being made into a film, so a lot of people obviously enjoyed what was clearly intended to be an outlandish parody of a classic novel.

However, with Pride and Prejudice: Hidden Lusts (which is likewise meant to be a parody, albeit a sexual one), a number of people appear to have misplaced their sense of humor. If they ever had one, that is.

I quickly discovered that some journalists, along with a pitchfork-wielding mob of so-called literary purists and Jane-ites, were vilifying both my book (and me as its author) before it had even come back from the printer. It seems odd that there was all this frothing at the mouth from individuals who hadn't even seen a copy of the book, yet had plenty to say about its contents. You would think I'd penned a how-to guide advocating the cannibalism of young children, judging from the vitriol being spewed in my direction.

There appears to be this presumption by the pitchfork coalition that Jane Austen was some prim and proper spinster who wouldn't have dared to be so impolitic as to address sexual matters in her novels. Therefore who was I, a lowly writer, to tamper with such purity? I wonder if these hecklers from the peanut gallery have even read the original Pride and Prejudice, since it alludes to matters most impolitic, indeed. Considering the time in which Jane Austen wrote and the fact that she was woman writing in what was a man's profession, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there was only so far she could go with her characters. I'm certain if she were alive today, we'd see a very different Pride and Prejudice.

Although Austen's novels dealt for the most part with matters of the heart, she was also a keen satirist and social commenter. Pride and Prejudice was, in many people's opinion, the wittiest and most satirical works of her career. Writers such as myself have simply carried on in the spirit of Jane Austen, albeit taking a few artistic liberties. Indeed, there's a long-standing tradition of authors taking pre-existing works and creating something new from them. We see it all the time. Yet for some reason when this is done with Jane Austen, the practice is suddenly denigrated to the ranks of amateur "fan fiction" or else labeled a "rip-off." Why is that? Why do the re-imaginings of Austen's works push so many buttons with these "literary purists" - especially re-imaginings that don't follow the traditional romance route? And why the vitriol, some of which is not very gentlemanly or ladylike? If it's the sexual content that's getting these naysayers' knickers in a twist, perhaps said naysayers should pay closer attention to the original Pride and Prejudice and ask themselves exactly what a fifteen-year-old girl (Lydia Bennet) was doing with Mr. Wickham (a man in full adulthood) or, for that matter, what he was doing with her predecessor, the very young Georgiana Darcy. I doubt Jane Austen intended for us to believe they occupied themselves in games of whist after running away together, since a popular card game wasn't likely to cause scandal or land disrepute on these young ladies. Whether Austen fleshed out the unsavory details is irrelevant. As stated previously, it was unlikely she would have allowed herself to or, for that matter, been allowed to when the book was written - not unless she was willing to go "underground" with her novel.

Taking pre-existing works and having a bit of fun with them is something many contemporary writers do, just as it was for writers from the past. The fact that some of us have chosen to do so with Pride and Prejudice merely corroborates the longstanding popularity of the novel and the rich fodder it contains. Jane Austen's book is an amusing satire full of characters both romantic and ridiculous. Authors such as myself have been inspired by what Austen gave us and decided to take it in a new direction.

Perhaps the members of the pitchfork brigade need to pull that stick out of their backsides and get a sense of humor. After all, Jane Austen had one!

 
 
 

Follow Mitzi Szereto on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mitziszereto

 
 
  • Comments
  • 39
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Mitzi Szereto
04:16 PM on 10/12/2011
Yes, I know JASNA. In fact, they included PRIDE AND PREJUDICE: HIDDEN LUSTS as a raffle prize at one of their weekend Jane Austen-related conferences! I guess they can be literary purists and still have a sense of humour too!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LibrarianBarb
12:00 PM on 09/11/2011
There is an organization called the Jane Austen Society with a very large wing in North America and chapters all over the US and they can be purists (they did not like the zombies book either). The 'sexing up' of Jane Austen is not new though - the book that launched the sequels craze was something called 'The Bar Sinister' (i think it got a title change when it was republished) and it was a very explicit sequel to P&P. After that a lot of sequels and re-imagined Jane Austen works cropped up and most of them are romance novels with varying degrees of sex.
Jane Austen did not shy away from sexual matters - on the sidelines of her books are issues of premarital sex, seduction, illegitimacy and her letters are often very frank.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AnaM
01:31 AM on 08/23/2011
I find it perplexing that mainstream individuals can accept horror and violence -as implied by the presence of zombies - and reel at the idea of sex.
Personally, for those of us who never found Jane Austen to be the bee's knees (I do believe there are people out there who feel that way), this version of Pride and Prejudice offers a glimpse into an area that was sorely lacking in novels of that era. Pride and Prejudice, in fact anything Austen, was never my bag in my senior high school years. They gave us P & P and after that point, I didn't want to bother with Austen. It was elitist. Far too wordy and, back then, in my sixteen year old mind, way too much hot air over what was essentially a prudish story and during my adolescence, the abstinence movement didn't exist.
Mind you, the book Hidden Lusts is what it is also because of the talent and 'ear' you have as a writer Mitzi. Any other erotica writer (and I do currently read and review many anthologies - of which I think are published for the sake of publication) would have failed and produced a b-grade literary event.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Mitzi Szereto
03:20 PM on 08/24/2011
Thanks for your comments and praise. I appreciate it! And yes, you're absolutely right - as much as Austen is loved and revered, I suspect many people have had a hard time getting through her novel(s). This is likely true of any period novel. Personally I still can't manage Dickens.
04:02 PM on 08/18/2011
Ms. Szereto, I understand why you feel besieged by some of the responses you've received to your fanfic, but I think you respond to your critics with too broad a brush--yes, you are right, a certain amount of hostility to your fanfic is due to prudery, but I am the furthest thing from a prude myself, but I have no particular interest in sexual fanfic spun off from JA's novels---what interests me is to understand and appreciate the veiled sexual content that is already concealed in JA's novels!

Here are two examples:

http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2009/08/rears-and-vices-redux.html

http://sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com/2010/11/jane-austens-great-chasms-and-dirty.html

Cheers,
Arnie Perlstein
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Mitzi Szereto
05:13 PM on 08/18/2011
That's perfectly fine and reasonable! It's a matter of taste, of course, if one chooses to read a book or not to. But the entire point is, the overwhelming majority of these pitchfork wielders haven't read the book. How can someone condemn a book they've not even read? Errr... scratch that. I'm getting a Salman Rushdie vibe here...
09:05 PM on 08/15/2011
Read Austen's minor works and juvenalia - some portions can be rather bawdy. She was no prude or shrinking violet. Perhaps that's why her sister was so careful to burn her letters upon her death.
photo
Esmerelda Foofypants
Corporate feudalism can suck it.
06:11 PM on 08/17/2011
I flipping love her juvenalia! People have no idea how wicked and sharp she could be. I particularly love the story about the woman who allowed her children to starve, only to have them gnaw off her fingers, and also the story about the two girls who travel the country robbing people silly and dramatically fainting left and right.

If you like Austen and you haven't checked out her juvenalia, do yourself a favor and take a gander at it. You'll have tons of laughs.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Angie Tyne 1
I want my disagree button!!
09:00 PM on 08/15/2011
American's as a group are fine with s e x. It's the puritanical vocal minority who can't seem to handle a little heat being applied to an old story.

It says something that you can show all sorts of heinous acts of violence but an exposed breast causes a major meltdown and new laws.

American's need to grow up regarding s e x. :P
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Mitzi Szereto
09:49 PM on 08/15/2011
You make an excellent point. Thanks for your intelligent comment.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Angie Tyne 1
I want my disagree button!!
10:28 PM on 08/15/2011
*blushes* Thanks, fanned back.

Last sentence should have read - American's (who are squeamish) need to grow up...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve Karmazenuk
Author, Freelance Journalist, Curmudgeon
07:33 PM on 08/15/2011
Or, you know, you could write something original...just saying...
07:18 PM on 08/15/2011
It could be your title. When I read it, I was expecting the book to be some treatise of the morals and mores of Jane Austen's time.
photo
Esmerelda Foofypants
Corporate feudalism can suck it.
06:19 PM on 08/15/2011
Maybe people simply feel that you're attempting to ride the recent zombified reworking's coattails to success? Because, to be honest, it kind of sounds like you are.
08:47 PM on 08/15/2011
Agreed. I was more annoyed by the blatant copying of the zombie version's 'twist on Pride and Prejudice' idea than that this book was taking a new look at an old classic. Even the way that the title is formatted is indicative of this!
photo
Esmerelda Foofypants
Corporate feudalism can suck it.
08:58 PM on 08/15/2011
Absolutely! Thanks for pointing out the similarity in the title structures! That's not an accident--and it certainly wasn't a necessity for the author to make that decision. There have been plenty of reworkings of Austen's novels over the years that DON'T have titles that are eerily similar to that of a famous and highly successful retread.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Mitzi Szereto
08:53 AM on 08/16/2011
Are you familiar with Dean Koontz's recent series based on the characters in Frankenstein (the doctor and the monster)? The titles of his books all contain "Frankenstein." If you find fault with the structure of my title, then you'll need to cast a very wide net, because many major bestselling authors (and those more modestly classed) are doing likewise! :-D
photo
BlackJAC
It's better to be a black king than a white knight
03:55 PM on 08/15/2011
PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES and its prequel and sequel were simply flat-out beyond-the-Citgo-sign absurdity, taking a stuck-up prim-and-proper Victorian-era comedy of manners and throwing in a zombie infestation. Yours, on the other hand, sounds more like slash fiction.
12:36 PM on 08/15/2011
There is nothing wrong with re-working of the classics as long as you do it in a good way.

I have added the book to my wish list and can't wait to read it to see what you have done with characters.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Mitzi Szereto
06:12 PM on 08/15/2011
Hope you enjoy, and thanks!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
verbalvoodoo
12:24 PM on 08/15/2011
Was the award winning BBC miniseries Sherlock Holmes (set in contemporary London) a rip off because it was based on a character written 100 years ago? Was the award winning Starz tv series Camelot a rip off? Was the Transformers movie a rip off because it was based on a cartoon.....eh, never mind that last example.
photo
BlackJAC
It's better to be a black king than a white knight
03:56 PM on 08/15/2011
CAMELOT didn't win any awards. In fact, it was canceled.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
verbalvoodoo
12:15 PM on 08/15/2011
It's strange that so many commentors seem to be laboring und the delusion that a re-imaging of a classic novel somehow REPLACES the original -- thus prompting them to scream, "No! Don't burn all the copies of the original!" Dear Commentors, calm down. All the great works of fiction have routinely and repeatedly been reworked and re-imagined: King Arthur, Robin Hood, Dracula, Frankenstein, Sherlock Holmes; even Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a "rip off" of the original movie and a far superior work as a TV series than the original film.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Mitzi Szereto
06:14 PM on 08/15/2011
.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Mitzi Szereto
06:16 PM on 08/15/2011
I think a lot of people need to study some literary history. Then they'll learn just how many writers (including Mr. Shakespeare) have taken existing works or characters and spun them off into new versions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MysAnthrope
Way to the left of the right wing.
09:37 AM on 08/15/2011
I've read the original and the Zombies version. It's absolutely your right to put your own twist on Austen's story. Agree with subject matter or not, I think Jane would be happy to see it published and her work be an inspiration. Those who dont want to read it should not buy it. Personally, as a published author myself, I wish you success.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Mitzi Szereto
10:54 AM on 08/15/2011
Thanks for the kind comments and support! And I agree, I think she'd be thrilled to see how popular she is - even more popular than when she was alive!
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.