We see lots of weird things in fiction. I don’t love it all, but who cares? Authors write what they want, publishers publish what they choose, and readers bloody well read whatever piques their fancy.
So this reader is going to exercise her constitutionally mandated right to express her unhappiness over a certain literary trend. Actually, it’s more than a trend, it’s a flea infestation, pervading all corners of the house once that single step released the pupae from the egg. The pupa was Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (PPaZ), the very deliberate footfall was Quirk Classics, and the spawn is the new paranormal-literary-historical mash-up that, frankly, could not die a moment too soon for me.
Human nature is partly to blame, I suppose. Our consumer society is built around crazes; unknown forces decide, merchandisers provide, and consumers gorge, until the next hot thing comes around six months later. The problem is when there’s a gap between what publishers think we want, and what we actually want; hence many (many many many) complaints about the fact that they just don’t listen.
Normally, I’d say that holds true in this case, that the new (okay, not-so-new anymore) mash-up is just a fad that’s long overdue to retire. But I go to the library, and I’m confronted by Android Karenina. I turn around from romance, and see Jane Slayre. I am so unbelievably sick of seeing these mash-ups everywhere I go, and you know what? The whole phenomenon reeks of nothing so much as exploitation – of literary classics, historical figures, and of course, the wallets of the general reading public.
Look, I’m not a purist. I like paranormals, I like alternate histories, and I don’t mind liberties taken with historical figures or classic stories, as long as they serve a purpose. Rationally, I know these mash-ups are no worse than other trends that have long outstayed their welcome; you might even claim that the mash-up is better. Some are irreverent and funny; they even provide the occasional insight.
I question all those points, especially the latter; I haven’t read a single mash-up that I thought was worth the mutilation. (And let me get this out of the way: I am so over Jane Austen as a vampire.) But okay, let’s say I take these books on their own terms, and chuck my snob side out the window. Well, I still have five problems with the sub-genre:
- Repetition. The jokes get very old, very quick.
- Hybridization as unflattering imitation. What, they couldn’t make up their own plot? Or characters? Or for that matter (and I’m looking at the genius who titles Katie MacAlister’s books), they couldn’t think of a more original title?
- The prose. Sometimes, in the case of a literary mash-up, the difference between the source and the “co-author” is painfully, regrettably obvious. Which, combined with the other two complaints, inevitably leads to…
- Boredom.
- See #1.
And there you go. Five reasons mash-ups don’t work for me.
What’s your take on this sub-genre? Is it seriously annoying, seriously misunderstood, or somewhere in between?
– Jean AAR
Oh and if the authors actually are writing their own work and then continue to churn this stuff out too? This must be making more than their more serious efforts with their own plots – and thus it’s all for the money, to cash in on the fad. Again, nothing horrifying, but it’s not something that’s going to last forever. Or that most of us will do more than eyeroll over.
Oh and if the authors actually are writing their own work and then continue to churn this stuff out too? This must be making more than their more serious efforts with their own plots – and thus it’s all for the money, to cash in on the fad. Again, nothing horrifying, but it’s not something that’s going to last forever. Or that most of us will do more than eyeroll over.
Here’s the thing – once upon a time an author might take the plot/subplot from for instance Shakespeare (who was known to snag plots and rework them himself), then change the location and mix up the story in other ways, flesh out the characters and the “”lessons learned”” endings. But what didn’t happen was the joke title that made this overt. The lit folks that would read would get the Shakespeare spin, and the other folk would just enjoy it for the story – and of course it all hinged on whether the writing was any good. They didn’t need a jokey title to sell it if the writing was any good. That’s what makes this a fad – and if an author just did a couple of these titles it’d perhaps not be such a big deal. But continuing on past one or two and not shaking free to try your hand at books with your own plots? Seems a bit of a crutch. When you have to be overt about your source – a title that says “”LOL look I’m rewriting this with Zombies!”” (insert popular monster of the day instead of zombies) then you’re assuming your readers won’t have read the original and thus won’t get it. I think we’d think a bit more of the authors if they didn’t beat us over the head with the “”joke”” they’re making on the original.
Here’s the thing – once upon a time an author might take the plot/subplot from for instance Shakespeare (who was known to snag plots and rework them himself), then change the location and mix up the story in other ways, flesh out the characters and the “”lessons learned”” endings. But what didn’t happen was the joke title that made this overt. The lit folks that would read would get the Shakespeare spin, and the other folk would just enjoy it for the story – and of course it all hinged on whether the writing was any good. They didn’t need a jokey title to sell it if the writing was any good. That’s what makes this a fad – and if an author just did a couple of these titles it’d perhaps not be such a big deal. But continuing on past one or two and not shaking free to try your hand at books with your own plots? Seems a bit of a crutch. When you have to be overt about your source – a title that says “”LOL look I’m rewriting this with Zombies!”” (insert popular monster of the day instead of zombies) then you’re assuming your readers won’t have read the original and thus won’t get it. I think we’d think a bit more of the authors if they didn’t beat us over the head with the “”joke”” they’re making on the original.
I read PPaZ. It gave me a chuckle or two. Have no interest in reading another of the type – I got the joke. But, if they’re still publishing them… people are still buying them. When people stop buying them… they’ll stop publishing them. Right?
I read PPaZ. It gave me a chuckle or two. Have no interest in reading another of the type – I got the joke. But, if they’re still publishing them… people are still buying them. When people stop buying them… they’ll stop publishing them. Right?
I think that hating it is very mild. It is like seeing mice droppings on your grandmother’s wedding dress.
I think that hating it is very mild. It is like seeing mice droppings on your grandmother’s wedding dress.
I have stayed away from the mash-ups as well. I do not want a farce to interfere with my enjoyment of the original work. I’ll be very happy when this trend peters out.
I go one further and also avoid the slew of Pride and Prejudice sequels and books set with Ms. Austen’s characters, or even Ms. Austen herself.
I love PNR and much prefer my werewolves and vampires to have a universe of their own to play in rather than butt into Pemberley.
I have stayed away from the mash-ups as well. I do not want a farce to interfere with my enjoyment of the original work. I’ll be very happy when this trend peters out.
I go one further and also avoid the slew of Pride and Prejudice sequels and books set with Ms. Austen’s characters, or even Ms. Austen herself.
I love PNR and much prefer my werewolves and vampires to have a universe of their own to play in rather than butt into Pemberley.
@AARPatH – I often wonder about that as well. Granted, these books introduce the classics to a whole audience that may never have touched them before – but will many of them go to the actual classic itself? Or is their sole impression of P&P going to be forever defined by zombies? And if that’s the case, is that better or worse than total ignorance?
@Sherri Browning Erwin – Your point is well taken, and I apologize for slighting you and your fellow writers. As you say, there’s nothing wrong with the speculative “”what if””. We’ve all done it in various contexts – what is life without imitation? – and we all still do it.
However, this is my biggest issue: None of the mash-ups I’ve read brought anything more to the story. They read EXACTLY like someone threw in some zombie jokes or gave Jane Austen some fangs, and called it a day.
I don’t claim to have read every mash-up currently on the market, but I have read enough that I feel I’m not making a snap judgment. I was remarkably uncharmed by the ones I did read, and by the end I was so tired they completely put me off even going near another one. I’ve had moments where I’d go into the library, see four mash-ups staring me in the face, then walk out of the library again.
Whichever way I look at it, it’s not good.
@Corinna – Fan-fiction is certainly one way to put it, although I’m not sure authors of mash-ups would like the comparison – I get the feeling fan-fic has derogatory connotations. As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the current authors are getting paid for their efforts.
@AARPatH – I often wonder about that as well. Granted, these books introduce the classics to a whole audience that may never have touched them before – but will many of them go to the actual classic itself? Or is their sole impression of P&P going to be forever defined by zombies? And if that’s the case, is that better or worse than total ignorance?
@Sherri Browning Erwin – Your point is well taken, and I apologize for slighting you and your fellow writers. As you say, there’s nothing wrong with the speculative “”what if””. We’ve all done it in various contexts – what is life without imitation? – and we all still do it.
However, this is my biggest issue: None of the mash-ups I’ve read brought anything more to the story. They read EXACTLY like someone threw in some zombie jokes or gave Jane Austen some fangs, and called it a day.
I don’t claim to have read every mash-up currently on the market, but I have read enough that I feel I’m not making a snap judgment. I was remarkably uncharmed by the ones I did read, and by the end I was so tired they completely put me off even going near another one. I’ve had moments where I’d go into the library, see four mash-ups staring me in the face, then walk out of the library again.
Whichever way I look at it, it’s not good.
@Corinna – Fan-fiction is certainly one way to put it, although I’m not sure authors of mash-ups would like the comparison – I get the feeling fan-fic has derogatory connotations. As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the current authors are getting paid for their efforts.