Public domain does not give permission to slaugther a classic!

I have voiced my opinion of Seth Grahame-Smith's Pride and Prejudice and Zombies on many occasions. I. Hate. It. I haven't read the book nor do I have plans to read the book because I consider it an abomination against the wonderfulness that is Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice.

Not long after the release of Zombies, the same company released a new version of another Jane Austen work, Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters. Why a company or an author feels it is necessary to pair greatness with something as out-of-left-field as zombies or sea monsters (especially when Sense and Sensibility takes place inland and not near the sea!) is beyond me. It is truly beyond the beyonds.

People tell me that I should give Zombies a shot. That it is actually pretty funny. And some individuals make the argument that books like Zombies are opening up Austen's works to a new generation. But, truthfully, if this is the only way to get newer generations interested in Jane Austen, I'd rather no one else read her.

For an assignment, I had to evaluate selection tools in choosing materials for collection development. I found an intriguing article in Newsweek regarding the apparent disrespect of these new turns on Austen's works: "Not-So-Plain Jane". The following quote by the article's author Sarah Ball nicely sums up my feelings toward these awful mash-ups of literary classics.

"These books are objectionable because they strike out Austen's greatest contributions—seething satire, brilliant language, critique of classism—while helping themselves to the benefits of her name brand."

And don't get me started on the insanity of Abraham Lincoln as a vampire hunter. Like he had time to hunt vampires. His great height would have made him a horrible vampire hunter. Vampires could have leveled him easily. Come on, people!