?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
11 June 2010 @ 04:44 pm
presented without comment  
Saw this at the bookstore today: Android Karenina
http://www.quirkclassics.com/index.php?q=AndroidKarenina
 
 
 
Neaneadods on June 12th, 2010 12:36 am (UTC)
Seen Jane Slayr yet?
tempestsarekind: books and flowerstempestsarekind on June 12th, 2010 07:31 pm (UTC)
I've seen it in the bookstore, but I haven't taken a closer look! (Though I find it slightly silly that as far as the cover is concerned, it's actually a book about Charlotte Bronte as a slayer...)

Edited at 2010-06-12 07:32 pm (UTC)
Neaneadods on June 12th, 2010 11:28 pm (UTC)
You don't want to look closer, trust me.

This whole fad reminds me of when "choose your own adventure" books were the rage. Hopefully this one will burn out just as quickly.
tempestsarekind: freema reading is sexytempestsarekind on June 12th, 2010 11:36 pm (UTC)
Heh--I could never get into "choose your own adventure" books, myself. If I wanted to make the story up myself, I would (and did!), but when I wanted to read a book, I wanted to read an actual, proper story with characters and such.
the love song of j. aimee prufrocke: seeker | cara is highly offendedfaeriemaiden on June 12th, 2010 07:00 pm (UTC)
FNARRRRR. Perhaps if they actually wrote these instead of jarringly cut-and-pasting bits in, they might actually be clever and interesting. Instead we get... Photoshop jobs.

I think what irks me the most, perhaps absurdly, is that these people get to take respected classics, insert a bunch of other stuff into the original text, and then get hailed as proper writers without having to have done all that much work. They didn't have to craft a plot or original characters, for heaven's sake. Even in proper fanfiction one has to do one's own writing and succeed or fail on the strength of the portrayal of the characters. :/
tempestsarekind: austen snark is the best snarktempestsarekind on June 12th, 2010 07:41 pm (UTC)
It is deeply irritating, yes! There must be loads of interesting, unique stories to be told about supernatural or steampunk elements in the 19th century, but just shoving some zombies or robots into an existing plot--into an existing text, which is even worse--seems sadly unimaginative.

And I agree completely: I'm not sure one can be considered a writer of a book if much of the actual text was penned by someone else. If the books weren't in the public domain, that would probably be plagiarism, for one thing...

The thing that's really begun to irk me is the repeated assertion that if you don't get the "joke," it is because you're some sort of elitist, humorless, literary purist who doesn't know how to have fun. I shouldn't be surprised, because it's the same line of attack used against criticism of pretty much every Austen film out there, but...gah. I'm rather tired of it.
Neaneadods on June 12th, 2010 11:30 pm (UTC)
I think what irks me the most, perhaps absurdly, is that these people get to take respected classics, insert a bunch of other stuff into the original text, and then get hailed as proper writers without having to have done all that much work.

TBH, I feel much the same about people who reset classic literature in any manner while making few other changes. There's a couple of women out there turning du Maurier and Austen into much thinner, shallower tales of Manhattan high life, and I'm not seeing where they're adding anything or being particularly original. Or that woman who wrote Jane Eyre in Space, whatever the name of the book was.
tempestsarekind: books and flowerstempestsarekind on June 12th, 2010 11:42 pm (UTC)
Though at least if you wrote something like, I don't know, Pride and Prada*, you would at least have to write all the words (barring a few, winking quotes) yourself, rather than just wedging vaguely supernatural bits into a text you downloaded from Project Gutenberg. I say that having read neither group, though. I'm pretty sure that they would all irritate me for the same reason: why do it if it's not an interesting commentary or rereading?


*You know what? I totally made that up, and then decided to Google it just to see, and there is actually a book called Prada and Prejudice. You are making it very hard to exaggerate, world!
Neaneadods on June 13th, 2010 12:53 am (UTC)
At least you know what you're getting into with P&P&Z or Prada & Prej. The ones I'm thinking of completely retitled their stuff - The Right Address was Rebecca, only 1/3 the size and 1/5 the drama - and I feel a bit burned because I bought it assuming it was, y'know, something I hadn't actually read.

And we'll let my many previous nasty comments about Bridget Jones stand on my comment on that.
tempestsarekind: books and flowerstempestsarekind on June 13th, 2010 05:56 pm (UTC)
Ah, I see. That is frustrating!

And yes--I'm really not sure I should be able to predict flaky superficiality with that much accuracy. (I haven't read the book--though The Internet tells me that it has time travel in it--but it certainly presents itself as one of the horde. What is the fascination with expensive shoes in the book jacket copy for these things? Is it because of Sex and the City?)
Neaneadods on June 13th, 2010 09:14 pm (UTC)
Some marketing person came up with the shoes, I'm sure. Marketing is why my car has something like 8 cupholders, which is a bit much for a compact.

Time travel? I don't even want to know.
tempestsarekind: regency house party [s&s]tempestsarekind on June 13th, 2010 09:23 pm (UTC)
Heh. Very possibly.

Apparently there are a couple of books that came out around the same time, in which women get transported into the Regency and mistaken for other people. I think in one of them (Confessions of a Jane Austen Addict, maybe?), she's actually transported into someone else's body, which is creepy. (I had a dream like that, about someone who was friends with Edmund Spenser. It was kind of terrifying.)
Neaneadods on June 13th, 2010 10:53 pm (UTC)
Someone gave me Addict. It was a bit creepy and if you've seen Lost in Austen, also redundant.

I've just picked up Searching for Pemberly. I may regret this.
tempestsarekind: elizabeth bennet is amusedtempestsarekind on June 14th, 2010 07:51 pm (UTC)
Best of luck! :)