Top Ten Tuesday | All the Single Ladies

Top Ten Tuesday is a weekly feature created at The Broke and the Bookish. Each week you compile a list of ten books which coincide with that week's theme. You can find everything you need to know about joining in here!

Happy Valentine's Day! This week's theme is all about romance, and as I talked about my favourite OTPs last year, I figured this year would be a good opportunity to talk about the characters I think should have remained single.

Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games trilogy: Sorry Peeta fans (specifically Shannon @ It Starts at Midnight), but I hate the ending of Mockingjay. My ideal happy ending for Katniss was for her to live somewhere peaceful with Prim and if that couldn't happen then I wanted her to either live alone or die. I know that sounds grim, and I understand the comfort she probably finds in Peeta because he's gone through so much of what she's gone through, but I hate the way people use Peeta against her. I wrote a whole post about it here if you're interested.

Rachel Green from Friends: The more I re-watch Friends, the more I realise Rachel should have stayed on the plane. Ross is a pretty awful person and he consistently makes her choose between him and her career and it pisses me off. When they're first dating he's constantly looking down on her interest in the fashion industry, but if someone says they're not interested in science it's like they just told him Santa isn't real. He's a hypocrite and I don't like him, and to be honest by the tenth season I think Rachel and Joey have way more chemistry.

Juliet Capulet from Romeo and Juliet: SIX PEOPLE DIED. This applies to Romeo too, I guess, but to be honest Romeo's always seemed pretty flaky to me while Juliet has all these amazingly violent monologues throughout the play and has always felt like the more fleshed-out character to me. I understand that she doesn't just want to marry some stranger her father picks out for her, but was there really no other option for her than a whirlwind romance that KILLED SIX PEOPLE? Come on, Juliet, you're better than that.

Jane Eyre from Jane Eyre: I think Jane and Mr. Rochester have amazing chemistry but let's be honest: Rochester is a problematic fave. Let's not forget that he literally locked his wife in the attic and then lied to his second wife about it. What exactly in that scenario suggests great husband material?

Sansa Stark from Game of Thrones: In no way can Sansa's marriage to Ramsay Bolton be described as a relationship because he was abusive and she was in no way able to give any form of consent. Really I'm just angry the writers gave her that storyline at all; she deserved better than to be abused in that way, especially after already spending so long at Joffrey's mercy.

Tauriel from The Hobbit movies: I love the fact that someone thought 'we can't ask little girls to sit through 9 hours of film without a single main female character', but they butchered any progress when they created Tauriel just to act as eye candy. There didn't seem to be any depth to her character, instead she was a watered-down mix of Eowyn and Arwen.

Marianne Dashwood from Sense and Sensibility and Lydia Bennet from Pride and Prejudice: I'm putting these two together because I think they'd be good friends if they met, and I'd love to see the two of them travelling around Europe together, Marianne could play her music and Lydia could act on the stage, because frankly they both deserved better marriages than the ones they end up in. Especially Marianne, because at Lydia can hold her own and still have a bit of fun with Wickham, whereas Marianne gets a General who, while he may be lovely, is far too boring for her.

Desdemona from Othello: Othello's a prick. That is all.

Anna from Frozen: Elsa won't let her marry a guy she's known for a day, but apparently a guy she's known for two days is fine. I don't really like Frozen anyway, I think it's full of plotholes and one day I may write a post about it, and this is one of the reasons why. It tried to be witty with its 'oh isn't it funny how Disney princesses marry men they barely know?' only to repeat the same mistake.

Snow White from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: The Disney one's fine, albeit old-fashioned, but in the original tale the Prince carries Snow White away while he thinks she's dead, only for the apple to dislodge from her throat and wake her up. In other words, the original Snow White marries a necrophile. Poor girl.

What did you talk about this week?

Ye Olde Stories & Songs | #Shakespeare400

This weekend the whole world celebrates 400 years of William Shakespeare, one of the world's greatest storytellers. I thought I'd celebrate the Bard in my own small way with a new instalment of Stories & Songs, pairing songs with some of Shakespeare's most famous couples.

Which songs would you pair with Shakespeare's characters?

Romeo and Juliet

from Romeo and Juliet

"C'est la Mort"

The Civil Wars

Let's walk down the road that has no end;

Steal away where only angels tread.

Heaven or hell or somewhere in between,

Cross your heart to take me when you leave,

Don't go.

Please don't go.

Don't go without me.

Desdemona and Othello

from Othello

"What Kind of Man"

Florence + the Machine

And with one kiss

You inspired a fire of devotion

That lasted for twenty years

What kind of man loves like this?

To let me dangle at a cruel angle

Oh my feet don't touch the floor

Sometimes you're half in and then you're half out

But you never close the door

What kind of man loves like this?

What kind of man?

What kind of man loves like this?

What kind of man?

Beatrice and Benedick

from Much Ado About Nothing

"True Love"

P!nk ft. Lily Allen

At the same time, I wanna hug you

I wanna wrap my hands around your neck

You're an asshole but I love you

And you make me so mad I ask myself

Why I'm still here, or where could I go

You're the only love I've ever known

But I hate you, I really hate you,

So much, I think it must be

True love, true love

It must be true love

Nothing else can break my heart like

True love, true love,

It must be true love

No one else can break my heart like you

Sci-Fi Month | Do the Undead Breathe New Life into our Classics?

Sci-Fi Month is hosted by Rinn @ Rinn Reads, and this year I'm participating!

Retellings aren't new. We've been retelling stories for centuries - every country seems to have a different ending to some of the world's most famous fairy tales, like Little Red Cap - and it's only in recent years that retellings have taken the publishing world by storm, from Fables to The Lunar Chronicles.

Of course, fairy tales aren't the only stories to find themselves being given a fresh lick of paint; our classics keep getting retold, too, and Jane Austen's work is no stranger to these reworkings. Persuasion has been reimagined in outer space in Diana Peterfreund's For Darkness Shows the Stars, and Jo Baker has told Pride and Prejudice from the point of view of the servants in her most recent novel, Longbourn.

In 2009, Seth Grahame-Smith released his own reworking of the story in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and next year it will be hitting the big screen with Lily James of Downton Abbey and Cinderella fame in the starring role.

Grahame-Smith isn't the only author to have added one of our most gory supernatural creatures to a classic. Only a year later, in 2010, Isaac Marion's Warm Bodies was published; a zombie story heavily influenced by William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. This, too, was adapted, in 2013.

Here we have two of the most famous love stories in the history of literature, both with added zombies. But why?

I suppose the first thing we should consider is this: Are these stories actually retellings or not?

Not only does Pride and Prejudice and Zombies still have the original title in the title, but it's even credited as being written by Seth Grahame-Smith and Jane Austen. It's almost as though Grahame-Smith is using Austen's name to imply that she'd totally approve of what he's done with her characters (and hey, she might!), and perhaps that's what's most important here - has Grahame-Smith written a retelling, or has he simply borrowed Austen's characters to write a bizarre piece of fanfiction? Jane Austen Zombie AU.

Usually, retellings add a little something to the original tale. For example, at first glance Marissa Meyer's Cinder might not have anything to do with the original fairy tale, but she's managed to do a lot with her series; she's included so much diversity, from people of colour to amputees, and she's managed to give her Cinderella a little more agency than the original. People are reading fairy tales differently all the time, and I quite like the argument that Cinderella isn't as weak as we might first think because, by going to the ball, she does go after the Prince for herself, but Cinder is so much easier for us to relate to. We can accept how Cinderella might have ended up her stepmother's servant in the original tale, but in a retelling we need a little more proof that a person could ever be treated in such a way, and by making Cinder a cyborg, and therefore a second-class citizen, Meyer does just that.

But what do zombies add to the original Pride and Prejudice tale?

In Longbourn, Jo Baker reminds us that the Bennet family had servants, and those servants had dreams and fears of their own. It's easy to forget that servants are present throughout all six of Austen's novels - Darcy's horse won't saddle itself, and we can be certain Emma never has to worry about her laundry - and by giving them a story Baker reminds us of the historical context of Austen's stories.

Director Gurinder Chadha, most famous for Bend It Like Beckham (starring a young Keira Knightley who, funnily enough, played Elizabeth Bennet in 2005), gave Pride and Prejudice a Bollywood-style makeover in her 2004 film, Bride and Prejudice. Showing the similarities between British high society in Austen's day and Indian culture helps us to fully understand and appreciate just how vital a good marriage is to the Bennet sisters, and also adds some racial diversity to Austen's white, upper class tale.

And zombies... eh?

Similarly, is Warm Bodies really a retelling? At least Pride and Prejudice and Zombies keeps the original characters (to an extent), but the characters in Warm Bodies aren't even called Romeo and Juliet - not that R and Julie are all that far away.

To me, though, Warm Bodies gives a little more life to Romeo by making him a member of the undead. Juliet is a fascinating character. In the original play she has some amazing, violent monologues - in fact Romeo's more of a romantic than she is. Even when she's thinking fondly of Romeo, Juliet thinks of cutting 'him out into little stars and he shall make the face of heaven so fine that all the world will be in love with night and pay no worship to the garish sun.' She's definitely much more interesting than Romeo is.

Julie in Warm Bodies is just as interesting, but R is an equally intriguing character. How often do we get zombie stories from the point of view of the zombies? Throughout the story there are little tributes to the play; there's the famous balcony scene, and Julie's best friend, Nora, wants to be a nurse. Plus the whole idea of Julie literally bringing R back to life is a clever little tip of the hat to Romeo, who is certain he's never going to get over Rosaline until he sets his eyes on Juliet.

With all that in mind, perhaps Warm Bodies is more of a homage to Romeo and Juliet than a retelling of it.

Most importantly of all, does any of this matter? Does it really matter whether or not I think these stories are retellings or not? After all, perhaps by introducing the undead to these narratives they've, ironically, been brought to life for people who might never have gone anywhere near the original stories. Of course, that still doesn't mean they are going to go anywhere near the originals - how many people, upon finishing Warm Bodies, decided to go and read Romeo and Juliet? Probably not that many. How many Austen fans enjoyed Pride and Prejudice and Zombies? Again, I don't think that many Austen lovers did, whereas people who weren't already lovers of Austen's work thought it was clever.

So whose opinion is more valid? Do we rely on the feedback of the book purists, or do we ignore them in favour of this new audience because, let's face it, the new audience is one of the big reasons for retelling such a famous story in the first place?

Personally, I think Warm Bodies is quite a clever reworking of probably the most famous love story of all time. Even people who've never gone anywhere near Shakespeare can quote from Romeo and Juliet, which just goes to show how influential the text is. I've always read Romeo and Juliet as a story about what hate can do rather than a love story; this family's feud, so old they can't even remember how it started, brings about the death of several young people, including their own children.

Adding zombies to such an iconic story might sound ridiculous at first - though I'm sure plenty of people told Baz Luhrmann that setting the story in '90s America would be a mistake at first - but stories continually change depending on their context. At the start of Sci-Fi Month I mentioned how one of the things I love about sci-fi is how we can see how a society's feeling depending on the way it writes its sci-fi; over the past thirty years we've gone from writing about hoverboards to post-apocalyptic wastelands. We currently live in a time where young people are looking at the future and finding it to be bleaker than they'd like, and our sci-fi reflects that. Warm Bodies is Romeo and Juliet for today's audience. It's bleak, and yet it's also so incredibly hopeful. In some ways it does the complete opposite of the original text by starting out hopeless and working its way towards a brighter future.

Pride and Prejudice, on the other hand, doesn't need that reworking. At least not in my opinion. What bothers me about Pride and Prejudice and Zombies - as much as I think it's a fun idea, and, ultimately, I do think it's only meant to be a bit of fun - is that it's trying to give us a 'kick-ass' Elizabeth Bennet. The only problem? Elizabeth Bennet's already kick-ass. I fear that Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is going to fall into the trap of suggesting women can only be brilliant heroines when they're also capable of punching your lights out.

Now for all I know this isn't the case at all. I haven't read the book and the film isn't out yet - and I must admit, I do love that brief scene in the trailer of the Bennet sisters hiding daggers beneath their skirts - but it does feel as though Grahame-Smith has tried to update Pride and Prejudice when it doesn't really need updating. Elizabeth and her sisters - and Charlotte Lucas, too - are still perfectly relatable characters. Do we wish Elizabeth would give George Wickham a huge wedgie? Yes, of course, but just because she doesn't do that doesn't make her a character in need of updating.

Warm Bodies works because Romeo's a bit of a sap, he seems to exist just so Juliet can fall in love with him; Juliet's journey is less about true love and more about escaping from a home she hates, with a mother she's not particularly close to and a father who's willing to marry her off to a man she hasn't chosen herself. Romeo could have been anyone, but if you're going to run away from home and elope so that no man of your father's choosing will ever want you, you might as well make it to a man who thinks the sun shines out of your backside. But we don't need to add zombies to Austen to make her sexual and marital politics interesting, because they already are; by the end of the novel (I'm not going to class this as a spoiler because, well, Pride and Prejudice has been around for, like, 200 years) Elizabeth, Jane, Charlotte and Lydia are all married, and all under completely different circumstances. With each marriage Austen tells us something different, and I'm really struggling to see what zombies can do for it.

I do think Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is fun and I'm looking forward to seeing it - I know I probably come across as such a grumpy old lady in this post - but as an English graduate I just can't help thinking critically about reworkings like these.

What do you think?

Classics & Contemporaries | Romance (Non-Austen Edition)

On Friday I started my new series, "Classics & Contemporaries", with the first Romance installment centered around the works of Jane Austen. You can find that post here! 

Today I'm back with the second installment, which is Austen free, and finishing off the Romance section of this little series.

On Friday we began with one of the most famous love stories in existence and its 21st century retelling, and today we're going to do that again!

I have to admit for a little while I couldn't decide if I wanted to include Romeo and Juliet in this series at all, because I could write an entire post about how it isn't a love story (and perhaps one day I will!), but there's no denying that this play has inspired hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of stories.

In fact I'm so certain of this play's impact on the history of the story that I don't think I really need to tell you what it's about, do I? We all know the story of the two warring families and the star-crossed lovers caught in the middle of them - in fact the names 'Romeo' and 'Juliet' are often names we use to describe people who are in love.

Romeo and Juliet isn't my favourite of Shakespeare's plays - Macbeth has always been my favourite - but it's still worth reading. Sadly though, too many people end up hating Shakespeare because they're introduced to him in the wrong way. Usually in school.

I've always lived in Britain so while I can't speak for people elsewhere in the world, most of us who live in Britain are introduced to Shakespeare in primary school; in fact I first read Macbeth when I was 10 years old! If you have a teacher who can't make Shakespeare fun, however, you're bound to be baffled by him, and so many teachers fail to tell their pupils about all the dick jokes in his plays...

If the thought of reading Shakespeare makes you break out into a nervous sweat, I have just the story for you!

At first sight, you might think a story about flesh-eating zombies would have nothing to do with the most famous love story in the world, but Warm Bodies is nothing if not a retelling.

R (Romeo) falls in love with Julie (Juliet) as soon as he sees her. He murders her boyfriend Perry (Paris), has a best friend called M/Marcus (Mercutio) while Julie's best friend is Nora (the Nurse).

On top of all that, R is a zombie and Julie is not, which is a big problem considering all zombies and the living want to do is kill each other. Then again, all the Montagues and the Capulets want to do is kill each other, so not much has changed in 500 years!

Obviously there's a big difference between the way Warm Bodies is written and the way Romeo and Juliet is written, but at the core they're both the same story - one of them just has zombies! 

If you enjoy Warm Bodies there's no reason why you wouldn't enjoy Romeo and Juliet, but if you still feel a little intimidated by the Old English language why not try watching one of the many adaptations of Romeo and Juliet first? Baz Luhrmann's adaptation, originally released in 1996, is particularly useful, as it's set in the 21st century but still uses the Old English language.

Now we're going to travel forward 300 years, to the Victorian era, where another famous classic awaits us...

Charlotte Brontë's most famous work, Jane Eyre, was first published in 1847 under the pseudonym "Currer Bell". Upon its original release The Quarterly Review claimed it was "an anti-Christian composition", and it is a commonly held belief that Brontë wrote the novel as a protest against the Victorian lifestyle.

Gothic and atmospheric, Jane Eyre tells the story of the titular character who suffers neglect and abuse as a child, is sent away to boarding school and then eventually leaves to pursue a position as a governess at Thornfield Hall. Thornfield belongs to the mysterious Mr Rochester, whose ward, Adèle, is Jane's charge.

Coarse and gruff, Mr Rochester is the typical Byronic hero, but Jane gives as good as she gets and in doing so, enchants him, but Mr Rochester is hiding a dark secret that could ruin everything.

I love Jane Eyre, but I know plenty of people who have never been able to get through it because of the novel's slow pace and the density of the text. The truth is that most Victorian novels are very dense - it's rather unusual to come across a short one - as many novels started out serialised in newspapers (such as Wilkie Collins' The Moonstone and Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist) and in the 19th century there were no televisions or cinemas; entire families would enjoy a large novel together, over the course of a couple of weeks!

So if you have a fondness for dark 19th century tales of love that crosses the boundaries of class, I have a piece of historical fiction you just might love.

Sarah Waters' Fingersmith tells the story of orphan Sue Trinder who, under the care of Mrs Sucksby, is raised as a petty thief. One day Gentleman, a beloved thief and con man, comes to Sue with an enticing proposition. If she can win a position as the maid to Maud Lily, a young and naive gentlewoman, and help Gentleman to seduce her, the two of them can make off with her vast inheritance and condemn Maud to a lunatic asylum.

Sue wishes to pay back the kindness of those who raised her and agrees to the plan, but when she meets Maud she begins to care for her in unexpected ways...

Perhaps one of the biggest differences between Fingersmith and Jane Eyre is that while the latter tells the story of a love between a man and a woman, the romance in Fingersmith is between two women. In fact Waters is well known for writing historical fiction featuring LGBT characters.

Other than that difference - and really is it that much of a difference? Love is love is love - there are quite a few similarities between the two stories. Both take place in the 19th century, both feature an orphaned heroine who rises from obscurity into a position at a wealthy home, both feature romances which cross the boundaries of class and both feature madness and deception in some form or another.

Fingersmith may not be the shortest read, for historical fiction also has the capacity to be dense, but as it was written in the 21st century its language is much easier to read, especially for readers who don't read an awful lot of 19th century literature - Fingersmith is a brilliant stepping stone towards a classic like Jane Eyre.

So that wraps up Romance! I hope this has been useful for anyone intimidated by classics, or that it's at least been an enjoyable read - I'll be back next month with an installment centered around Science Fiction!

J.