This news is about a month late, but I’m still excited for it:

The title is self-explanatory. It’s Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, except with added bits where they fight zombies, written by Seth Grahame-Smith (author of How to Survive a Horror Movie).

When I first heard about this at the end of January, I said “Nothing about this can fail.” Now that I’ve had awhile to think about it, however … I’m a little more worried, for the same reasons I don’t like fanfiction: I generally hate it when people muck around with a story I liked, whether adding to it or fleshing out secondary characters or writing alternate endings or drawing in romantic relationships between characters. (I’d make an argument about disliking the Star Wars prequel movies, but that’s too easy.) For this book, I’m concerned that the zombie bits won’t be woven in with the original plot, the cuts will be too sudden and too bizarre, and the whole thing will read more like a clever way to cash in on the trendiness of all things zombie.

Of course, I don’t know much about this book other than the cover image (which ROCKS ZOMG) and the blurb on the publisher’s site. I hope that the transitions will be seamless, the writing superb, and when it’s out we’ll all wonder why Austen didn’t include the zombie parts in the first place. Until then … we wait, in fortified top-floor safe zones with weapons and a full pantry. With scones and tea.

[Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is published by Quirk Books and due out June 1, 2009. Preorder it on Amazon.]

I usually leave work for lunch, but today I found myself in the break room for an hour. I brought a book: Shakespeare’s Tudor history : a study of Henry IV, parts 1 and 2 by Tom McAlindon. As I sat turning the fresh white pages and taking bites of microwave Thai noodles, I almost felt like a student again. (I miss college. College was nice and safe.)

I’ve all but decided to attend graduate school to study Shakespeare. I haven’t submitted any applications yet, but the almost-decision has had some interesting repercussions. This site, for example, is about to get a lot heavier on Bard-related content. Since it’s a bit late to cram in test-taking and statement-writing before the deadlines start whizzing past, I’m going to spend the year between now and the next application season doing some serious work. (Besides, the New York Times said it was okay.) Tonight’s question: Is Shakespeare’s “text” the printed page, or the three-dimensional play as it is acted? Which should critics be interpreting?

On my last trip to the library I picked up some criticism, McAlindon included, and I’ve subscribed to a listserv as a first step in getting professionally involved. In the Shakespeare class I took during my last semester at Ferris, my professor suggested I follow up on a question I had and form that into an article to submit for publication. He suggested Notes and Queries. I checked out the journal and was sure he overestimated my ability, but hadn’t done much work on the article. That’s one of the things I intend to change.

So, when I read McAlindon today, I didn’t only note what he thought of Henry IV. I looked at the way he structured the book, placing a critical history in the first part and several close readings in the second. I wrote down key phrases and — the difference from my undergrad notetaking — who coined them and how they were used. I checked out his theoretical position and noticed how he phrased his disclaimer and how he expected readers to disagree with him, to see what the major issues are in the field and how at least one writer addresses them.

And that was only the preface.

I flatter myself that I’m becoming a clueful individual; by the end of this coming year, I might even be ready for grad school.