What do you think?
Rate this book
Emma and the Vampires
What better place than pale England to hide a secret society of gentlemen vampires?
In this hilarious retelling of Jane Austen's Emma, screenwriter Wayne Josephson casts Mr. Knightley as one of the most handsome and noble of the gentlemen village vampires. Blithely unaware of their presence, Emma, who imagines she has a special gift for matchmaking, attempts to arrange the affairs of her social circle with delightfully disastrous results. But when her dear friend Harriet Smith declares her love for Mr. Knightley, Emma realizes she's the one who wants to stay up all night with him. Fortunately, Mr. Knightley has been hiding a secret deep within his unbeating heart—his (literal) undying love for her… A brilliant mash-up of Jane Austen and the undead.
In this hilarious retelling of Jane Austen's Emma, screenwriter Wayne Josephson casts Mr. Knightley as one of the most handsome and noble of the gentlemen village vampires. Blithely unaware of their presence, Emma, who imagines she has a special gift for matchmaking, attempts to arrange the affairs of her social circle with delightfully disastrous results. But when her dear friend Harriet Smith declares her love for Mr. Knightley, Emma realizes she's the one who wants to stay up all night with him. Fortunately, Mr. Knightley has been hiding a secret deep within his unbeating heart—his (literal) undying love for her… A brilliant mash-up of Jane Austen and the undead.
306 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 9, 2010
28 people are currently reading
2668 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews
September 1, 2010
I have to say that out of all the mashups I've read, this is the only one that has left me wondering why the mashup part was even necessary. Josephson allegedly wrote this at the request of his teenage daughter. It seemed like not much thought was put into what the vampires could do to the story, and the result is a jumbled mess of a watered-down version of Emma with a sporadic sprinkling of vampires.
Basically, the plot hinges on the general idea for most mashups: it's the same as Emma, with vampires thrown in. In Josephson's version, all the gentlemen of Highbury are vampires. Some are vegans, whose eyes are blue; others feast on human blood, which turns their eyes red. Those in need of sustenance are black-eyed. We get hints that Mr. Weston is a vegan, Frank Churchill feasts on humans, and that Mr. Knightley enjoys a tasty aristocrat every once in a while, but explanation of why each vampire chose that particular path would have been much appreciated.
This was my main problem with the work: Josephson did not appear to care enough to establish a mythology. For convenience's sake, every male is the same age they are in the original Emma, and in this world, vampires can bear children, who inherit the gene from their father. This greatly confused me. Some of the many questions that entered my mind:
Did the adult vampires (Mr. Weston, Mr. Knightley, etc.) inherit this gene or were they turned at that particular age? Who would have turned them, since here we are given the impression that vampires turn their brides upon marrying? The only grown hereditary vampire that we see is Frank Churchill, who is described as perpetually twenty-three. I understand that this was in keeping with his age in the original, but it just led to more questions. Do hereditary vampires simply grow up and stop aging at a particular point? Why, then, are some vampires older than others? Why does Mr. George Knightley have the ability to read minds and Mr. John Knightley have the ability to predict the future, whereas Mr. Weston and Frank, for example, are not possessed of any particular abilities? Mrs. Weston and Mrs. Elton are told that their husbands are vampires, but Emma and the rest of the town, while entirely aware of their male neighbors' strange habits, are completely in the dark about this. Is it some ironclad rule that no one except vampire wives can know the "secret"? If it is a rule, then why did it come into existence?
See what I mean? Josephson added the vampires, but he did not offer one iota of mythology behind his take on it, which was extremely irritating. If you're going to add the monsters, you're going to have to give me some kind of explanation about what they can do, how they came to be, and what they can bring to this particular story.
And in this case, the vampires did not bring anything at all. Every time there was a remark about a beating heart, a vampire would silently reflect on his own heart not beating. From my recollection, there were maybe four or five party scenes. Each party scene ended with the participants emerging into the night and--oh, no, a vampire attack! And oh, look, they're attacking Harriet! Keep in mind, this is done at least three times. Why is Harriet so special? The only explanation we are given is that she is "plump." No freesia-scented extra-special-Twilight blood here. The vampires just like Harriet because she's chubby. In fact, there was no vampire threat to any of the other main characters but Harriet, and combined with the easy defeat of the rogue vampires in all the battle scenes, this makes for one boring vampire book.
Josephson felt the need to water down Austen's prose, cutting where he pleased and simplifying the phrases he felt modern young adult readers wouldn't understand (this is very much meant to be a YA novel). I was rather appalled by the inclusion of the phrases "thunderous thighs" and "Mamma's boy". Really? "Thunderous thighs?" In Clueless, maybe, but not in something that purports to be the actual Emma. Some of the abridgments made sense but then would lead to confusion to a reader not familiar with the original--Mrs. Elton's tireless raving about Maple Grove is cut, but she mentions it twice later on, and nothing is done to explain about where that is or what it means to Mrs. Elton. There isn't much of a context that a reader could place it in, either, given that the context was removed and not restored in this abridgement.
The thing was, I never truly felt that the vampires were necessary to the story. Emma itself was so watered down that it started feeling unnecessary towards the end. By the time we got to Box Hill, I was wondering why he'd even bothered putting the vampires in--they don't effect the pivotal events of the story; Josephson only seemed to throw them in after the characters left a party. He was basically just retelling Emma and adding action for no particular reason. I feel the book should have gone one way or the other--either Josephson should have produced an abridged version of Emma, sans vampires, or he should have written his own Regency-era vampire novel, where he would have had plenty of space to expound upon the mythology of his vampires that was not even hinted at here. But of course, that leaves one without the safety net of a built-in network of readers.
Overall, this is one of the more poorly done mashups I've read, and I feel as though Mr. Josephson would have better served Emma by doing a strict abridgment--he managed to keep the spirit of Emma throughout, and if only there hadn't been vampires, it would have been a perfectly serviceable abridgment about on par with the level of cuts you'd see in a typical movie version. From the ending and the cover touting this as a "Jane Austen Undead" novel, I can only assume more in this series are coming down the pike. If someone in your family is into vampire fiction but not Austen and you would like to introduce her to Jane, I would give this one a weak recommendation, with the caveat emptor that if she can understand this version, she might as well give the original Emma a shot.
Basically, the plot hinges on the general idea for most mashups: it's the same as Emma, with vampires thrown in. In Josephson's version, all the gentlemen of Highbury are vampires. Some are vegans, whose eyes are blue; others feast on human blood, which turns their eyes red. Those in need of sustenance are black-eyed. We get hints that Mr. Weston is a vegan, Frank Churchill feasts on humans, and that Mr. Knightley enjoys a tasty aristocrat every once in a while, but explanation of why each vampire chose that particular path would have been much appreciated.
This was my main problem with the work: Josephson did not appear to care enough to establish a mythology. For convenience's sake, every male is the same age they are in the original Emma, and in this world, vampires can bear children, who inherit the gene from their father. This greatly confused me. Some of the many questions that entered my mind:
Did the adult vampires (Mr. Weston, Mr. Knightley, etc.) inherit this gene or were they turned at that particular age? Who would have turned them, since here we are given the impression that vampires turn their brides upon marrying? The only grown hereditary vampire that we see is Frank Churchill, who is described as perpetually twenty-three. I understand that this was in keeping with his age in the original, but it just led to more questions. Do hereditary vampires simply grow up and stop aging at a particular point? Why, then, are some vampires older than others? Why does Mr. George Knightley have the ability to read minds and Mr. John Knightley have the ability to predict the future, whereas Mr. Weston and Frank, for example, are not possessed of any particular abilities? Mrs. Weston and Mrs. Elton are told that their husbands are vampires, but Emma and the rest of the town, while entirely aware of their male neighbors' strange habits, are completely in the dark about this. Is it some ironclad rule that no one except vampire wives can know the "secret"? If it is a rule, then why did it come into existence?
See what I mean? Josephson added the vampires, but he did not offer one iota of mythology behind his take on it, which was extremely irritating. If you're going to add the monsters, you're going to have to give me some kind of explanation about what they can do, how they came to be, and what they can bring to this particular story.
And in this case, the vampires did not bring anything at all. Every time there was a remark about a beating heart, a vampire would silently reflect on his own heart not beating. From my recollection, there were maybe four or five party scenes. Each party scene ended with the participants emerging into the night and--oh, no, a vampire attack! And oh, look, they're attacking Harriet! Keep in mind, this is done at least three times. Why is Harriet so special? The only explanation we are given is that she is "plump." No freesia-scented extra-special-Twilight blood here. The vampires just like Harriet because she's chubby. In fact, there was no vampire threat to any of the other main characters but Harriet, and combined with the easy defeat of the rogue vampires in all the battle scenes, this makes for one boring vampire book.
Josephson felt the need to water down Austen's prose, cutting where he pleased and simplifying the phrases he felt modern young adult readers wouldn't understand (this is very much meant to be a YA novel). I was rather appalled by the inclusion of the phrases "thunderous thighs" and "Mamma's boy". Really? "Thunderous thighs?" In Clueless, maybe, but not in something that purports to be the actual Emma. Some of the abridgments made sense but then would lead to confusion to a reader not familiar with the original--Mrs. Elton's tireless raving about Maple Grove is cut, but she mentions it twice later on, and nothing is done to explain about where that is or what it means to Mrs. Elton. There isn't much of a context that a reader could place it in, either, given that the context was removed and not restored in this abridgement.
The thing was, I never truly felt that the vampires were necessary to the story. Emma itself was so watered down that it started feeling unnecessary towards the end. By the time we got to Box Hill, I was wondering why he'd even bothered putting the vampires in--they don't effect the pivotal events of the story; Josephson only seemed to throw them in after the characters left a party. He was basically just retelling Emma and adding action for no particular reason. I feel the book should have gone one way or the other--either Josephson should have produced an abridged version of Emma, sans vampires, or he should have written his own Regency-era vampire novel, where he would have had plenty of space to expound upon the mythology of his vampires that was not even hinted at here. But of course, that leaves one without the safety net of a built-in network of readers.
Overall, this is one of the more poorly done mashups I've read, and I feel as though Mr. Josephson would have better served Emma by doing a strict abridgment--he managed to keep the spirit of Emma throughout, and if only there hadn't been vampires, it would have been a perfectly serviceable abridgment about on par with the level of cuts you'd see in a typical movie version. From the ending and the cover touting this as a "Jane Austen Undead" novel, I can only assume more in this series are coming down the pike. If someone in your family is into vampire fiction but not Austen and you would like to introduce her to Jane, I would give this one a weak recommendation, with the caveat emptor that if she can understand this version, she might as well give the original Emma a shot.
August 10, 2010
3.5 stars
Take Jane Austen's original novel, "Emma", and make all the leading men vampires while Emma and her female companions must decide which vampires and good and which are worth marrying. Emma and Harriett even get to put a few stakes through some undead hearts!
This was my first mash-up novel, Jane Austen or otherwise. I was a little disappointed in this one just because it wasn't what I was expecting. I didn't feel like enough was changed from the original "Emma". Yes, the men were vampires, but the story followed the exact same plot with all of the exact same scenes, only with a few vampires attacking after dinner parties, etc.
However, I read the author's note at the end of the book, and Josephson said that one of his main motives was to make the original "Emma" more accessible to modern readers, especially teens. I appreciate his intentions, and I can see why he wanted to stay so close to the original. I do think he achieved this goal, because if you had never read Emma before, you really would have a great understanding of the original after reading this book. I personally just wanted to see more of story 'inspired by' the original, instead of a re-write.
Mr. Robert Martin is my favorite character in the original "Emma" and I loved the author made lots of mention of the gentle farmer here. Robert Martin, the vampire, even throws a cow over his fence in his frustration over Harriet's marriage refusal! That alone was worth reading the book, in my opinion!!
Having read the original novel, this book seemed too much of a rehash with not enough new elements. However, since the original is much unchanged here, maybe new readers unwilling to try the Austen classic would get a chance to read the story here.
an ARC was provided for review by Sourcebooks
reviewed for http://inthehammockblog.blogspot.com
Take Jane Austen's original novel, "Emma", and make all the leading men vampires while Emma and her female companions must decide which vampires and good and which are worth marrying. Emma and Harriett even get to put a few stakes through some undead hearts!
This was my first mash-up novel, Jane Austen or otherwise. I was a little disappointed in this one just because it wasn't what I was expecting. I didn't feel like enough was changed from the original "Emma". Yes, the men were vampires, but the story followed the exact same plot with all of the exact same scenes, only with a few vampires attacking after dinner parties, etc.
However, I read the author's note at the end of the book, and Josephson said that one of his main motives was to make the original "Emma" more accessible to modern readers, especially teens. I appreciate his intentions, and I can see why he wanted to stay so close to the original. I do think he achieved this goal, because if you had never read Emma before, you really would have a great understanding of the original after reading this book. I personally just wanted to see more of story 'inspired by' the original, instead of a re-write.
Mr. Robert Martin is my favorite character in the original "Emma" and I loved the author made lots of mention of the gentle farmer here. Robert Martin, the vampire, even throws a cow over his fence in his frustration over Harriet's marriage refusal! That alone was worth reading the book, in my opinion!!
Having read the original novel, this book seemed too much of a rehash with not enough new elements. However, since the original is much unchanged here, maybe new readers unwilling to try the Austen classic would get a chance to read the story here.
an ARC was provided for review by Sourcebooks
reviewed for http://inthehammockblog.blogspot.com
September 7, 2010
Because it was my first Jane Austen mash-up novel, I wanted to love Emma and the Vampires. I really did. But try as I might, Wayne Josephson’s adaptation of Austen’s Emma fell short of expectations. With the emergence of books like Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters and Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, it seemed only natural to take the title heroine from Emma and pair her up with the vampire gentlemen of Highbury.
And here’s the thing—almost every man in Highbury is a vampire, save for Emma Woodhouse’s sweet father, Mr. Woodhouse. I mean, really? And the inclusion of vampires didn’t flow as naturally as I would have liked for a mash-up. For example, a sentence might read, “Mr. Weston’s son, Frank Churchill was coming to town. Naturally, he was a vampire with a pallid complexion and a taste for human blood.” Random lines inserted into the witty matchmaking plot of Emma do not a good vampire mash-up novel make.
Because Emma Woodhouse is such a terrible matchmaker, Emma and the Vampires has such promise for hilarity. Just imagine poor Emma hooking up her unsuspecting female friends with vampires. While the book did garner a chuckle from this reader here and there (I love how she uses a “fashionable” ribbon to tie a stake to her leg), I found myself enjoying the plot of Emma for its original integrity—I just had to put up with silly vampire references here and there. Instead of enhancing the beloved novel, Emma and the Vampires spliced up a great plot to make it just average.
And here’s the thing—almost every man in Highbury is a vampire, save for Emma Woodhouse’s sweet father, Mr. Woodhouse. I mean, really? And the inclusion of vampires didn’t flow as naturally as I would have liked for a mash-up. For example, a sentence might read, “Mr. Weston’s son, Frank Churchill was coming to town. Naturally, he was a vampire with a pallid complexion and a taste for human blood.” Random lines inserted into the witty matchmaking plot of Emma do not a good vampire mash-up novel make.
Because Emma Woodhouse is such a terrible matchmaker, Emma and the Vampires has such promise for hilarity. Just imagine poor Emma hooking up her unsuspecting female friends with vampires. While the book did garner a chuckle from this reader here and there (I love how she uses a “fashionable” ribbon to tie a stake to her leg), I found myself enjoying the plot of Emma for its original integrity—I just had to put up with silly vampire references here and there. Instead of enhancing the beloved novel, Emma and the Vampires spliced up a great plot to make it just average.
September 17, 2010
For anyone who followed my Pride and Prejudice and Zombies review, I said I'd pick this one up in the hopes that it would be less graphic. And it was. No disappointment there. Hilarious? Check. How can it not be when darling Emma Woodhouse and her plump sweet friend Harriet Smith are vampire killers that drive wooden stakes (wrapped around their thighs by silk ribbons) into fanged beasts in between teatime and girlish gossip?
Edward and Jacob- meet your match(es) in Mr. Knightley, Mr. Elton, and Mr. Churchill- very suave, pale, ebony-eyed vampires indeed.
The classism references are not undead in this 2010 version (bad pun, sorry). Because the 'bad vampires' are the 'wild' ones, whereas no one would ever dream of even suspecting that the gentlemen above would like nothing better than to bite into the pale lovely necks of their English lady friends.
So, why the three stars? Because there's no three and a half. I guess it's the ADDd second-grader in me, but if a book loses my interest by a certain point, it loses stars. Emma and the Vampires started off with a bang, but halfway through the book, the prose and dialogue dragged for a good hundred pages before it picked up again.
All in all? A recommend.
Edward and Jacob- meet your match(es) in Mr. Knightley, Mr. Elton, and Mr. Churchill- very suave, pale, ebony-eyed vampires indeed.
The classism references are not undead in this 2010 version (bad pun, sorry). Because the 'bad vampires' are the 'wild' ones, whereas no one would ever dream of even suspecting that the gentlemen above would like nothing better than to bite into the pale lovely necks of their English lady friends.
So, why the three stars? Because there's no three and a half. I guess it's the ADDd second-grader in me, but if a book loses my interest by a certain point, it loses stars. Emma and the Vampires started off with a bang, but halfway through the book, the prose and dialogue dragged for a good hundred pages before it picked up again.
All in all? A recommend.
Read
August 14, 2010Pros: This was my first vamp book (besides Dracula), and I was pleasantly surprised. It had me laughing at a lot of sections where Emma says and does the oddest things. She has this unique ability to stay completely clueless yet manages to get things done.
I got two positive thoughts while reading this book. The first being, that while late to the party, I may want to give vamp books a second look. The second is a need to read the original Emma. I'm not a big fan of reading classics so that's a plus.
Cons: While the clueless-ness of Emma was funny to read, it also bothered me a bit. Along with the rest of the town, it appears people know their friends don't like sunlight or even eat, yet don't even question it. Emma's own father knows there is something odd about his older daughter's husband, but really doesn't see the need to examine it further. He is just happy he doesn't have to worry about people eating his food. Once I finished reading the book I did feel some sense of enjoyment and satisfaction. However I had a bigger pull to read the original book. While this is certainly a great connection, I feel as if this book should be able to stand on its own.
I got two positive thoughts while reading this book. The first being, that while late to the party, I may want to give vamp books a second look. The second is a need to read the original Emma. I'm not a big fan of reading classics so that's a plus.
Cons: While the clueless-ness of Emma was funny to read, it also bothered me a bit. Along with the rest of the town, it appears people know their friends don't like sunlight or even eat, yet don't even question it. Emma's own father knows there is something odd about his older daughter's husband, but really doesn't see the need to examine it further. He is just happy he doesn't have to worry about people eating his food. Once I finished reading the book I did feel some sense of enjoyment and satisfaction. However I had a bigger pull to read the original book. While this is certainly a great connection, I feel as if this book should be able to stand on its own.
October 14, 2011
Poorly done. When I first saw this title, I wondered why it hadn't been published by Quirk Books. After all, wasn't Quirk responsible for the cultural zeitgeist that is Pride and Prejudice and Zombies? As such, wouldn't they be eager to snap up another Austen property ripe for mashing? Upon completing Emma and the Vampires, I applaud Quirk's decision and understand why they didn't publish this particular work. It's ill-conceived, with gaping holes in logic, and amateurish in execution, slapped together merely to jump on the literary mash-up bandwagon.
First off, I had imagined the vampire threat encountered in the book would be along the lines of hoards of wandering vampires rampaging throughout the country and feeding upon the helpless populace, much as it was in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Instead, while Josephson does have the occasional wild vampire threatening local fair maids, he's also made the local gentry vampires as well. Now, how is it possible that these vampires, living in such close quarters, working and socializing with their neighbors--people who, one would think, would notice that these fine ladies and gentlemen A) don't like to stand near blazing fireplaces, else they might burst into flame, B) have ice-blue eyes (if they're vegan and feed on only animal blood) or jet black or blood-colored eyes (when they feed on humans), C) have pale, bloodless, ice-cold skin that electrifies one to touch, especially if the vampire is male and the one he touches is a particularly appealing female, said touch often inducing an overwhelming sense of passion and desire in the lady, D) don't sleep at night and in fact are truly only active at night, avoiding bright sunshine and keeping their thick, dark curtains closed at all times, and E) have fangs, especially noticeable in the gentlemen whenever they get near a particularly plump and appealing female's bosom--go unnoticed as vampires? Especially as concerns Emma, who is supposed to be particularly quick-witted and intelligent? I would think, if she's supposed to be that intelligent, she would be able to put two and two together. At the very least, someone, at some point in time, would've counted up all the behavioral inconsistencies of his neighbors and think, 'Hmm, something doesn't seem right here..." Completely nonsensical!
Secondly, as with traditional vampire lore, they don't age. Then how is it possible for Mr. and Mrs. Knightley, among other vampire couples, to have vampire children, scampering around the woods, catching local wildlife, showing off their little fangs to their aunties and uncles, if vampires never grow old? What, it's okay for them to be young, but then they stop aging at what age? Eighteen? Twenty? Twenty-five? If that's the case, why are some of the men even older than that? Were they turned? If so, by whom? There's not a drop of logic in that scenario and no explanation as to how the whole situation would work.
Thirdly, the author had a compulsion to continually make notice of Harriet's plumpness. Okay, we get it, she's not slender. Do you really need to describe her thighs as "thunderous"? Or, as a snide aside, write out how Emma gave her "plump" friend her own stake and a ribbon--a very long satin ribbon--in order to tie the stake to her massive thighs? Guess what? It was okay once upon a time for women to be plump. It was even desired and certainly not the social stigma it is today. So quite cracking fat jokes at Harriet's expense and move on, you immature git!
The ending was left unfinished. When the other ladies in the novel married their vampire husbands, it was obvious that, once the vows were completed, the new wife was then informed of her husband's undead status and either inducted into the blood-sucking ranks or, if children were desired, saved for later sucking. Either way, they would calmly and happily discuss the rigors of living with the undead with fellow members of the club. However, once Harriet gets married, it's obvious she's immediately converted by her husband. It's equally obvious Emma has no clue about her friend's new condition. Then Emma marries, but we have no idea as to her reaction to the news of her Mr. Knightley's condition. Does she take the news with equanimity? Does she decide to hold off her conversion in order to have cute, pale, fanged babies? Does she immediately whip out her handy stake from underneath her skirts and stake her new husband? Who knows? Then again, by that point, I frankly didn't give a shit.
As a result of all this nonsense, the vampire story line was jarring and stuck out like a sore thumb, with no sense of integration to the original novel, as a good mash-up would attempt to accomplish. I feel bad for Jane Austen that one of her novels was tainted by association with such a poorly thought out and executed idea. Thank god I've read the original Emma; I can certainly say, had I not read the original, most excellent novel, this travesty would be a horrible introduction to Austen's work. It's also a horrible introduction to literary mash-ups, which, if you can unclench a bit from the horror at the idea of tampering with a beloved classic in such a whimsical manner, can actually be fun and entertaining when done well.
First off, I had imagined the vampire threat encountered in the book would be along the lines of hoards of wandering vampires rampaging throughout the country and feeding upon the helpless populace, much as it was in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Instead, while Josephson does have the occasional wild vampire threatening local fair maids, he's also made the local gentry vampires as well. Now, how is it possible that these vampires, living in such close quarters, working and socializing with their neighbors--people who, one would think, would notice that these fine ladies and gentlemen A) don't like to stand near blazing fireplaces, else they might burst into flame, B) have ice-blue eyes (if they're vegan and feed on only animal blood) or jet black or blood-colored eyes (when they feed on humans), C) have pale, bloodless, ice-cold skin that electrifies one to touch, especially if the vampire is male and the one he touches is a particularly appealing female, said touch often inducing an overwhelming sense of passion and desire in the lady, D) don't sleep at night and in fact are truly only active at night, avoiding bright sunshine and keeping their thick, dark curtains closed at all times, and E) have fangs, especially noticeable in the gentlemen whenever they get near a particularly plump and appealing female's bosom--go unnoticed as vampires? Especially as concerns Emma, who is supposed to be particularly quick-witted and intelligent? I would think, if she's supposed to be that intelligent, she would be able to put two and two together. At the very least, someone, at some point in time, would've counted up all the behavioral inconsistencies of his neighbors and think, 'Hmm, something doesn't seem right here..." Completely nonsensical!
Secondly, as with traditional vampire lore, they don't age. Then how is it possible for Mr. and Mrs. Knightley, among other vampire couples, to have vampire children, scampering around the woods, catching local wildlife, showing off their little fangs to their aunties and uncles, if vampires never grow old? What, it's okay for them to be young, but then they stop aging at what age? Eighteen? Twenty? Twenty-five? If that's the case, why are some of the men even older than that? Were they turned? If so, by whom? There's not a drop of logic in that scenario and no explanation as to how the whole situation would work.
Thirdly, the author had a compulsion to continually make notice of Harriet's plumpness. Okay, we get it, she's not slender. Do you really need to describe her thighs as "thunderous"? Or, as a snide aside, write out how Emma gave her "plump" friend her own stake and a ribbon--a very long satin ribbon--in order to tie the stake to her massive thighs? Guess what? It was okay once upon a time for women to be plump. It was even desired and certainly not the social stigma it is today. So quite cracking fat jokes at Harriet's expense and move on, you immature git!
The ending was left unfinished. When the other ladies in the novel married their vampire husbands, it was obvious that, once the vows were completed, the new wife was then informed of her husband's undead status and either inducted into the blood-sucking ranks or, if children were desired, saved for later sucking. Either way, they would calmly and happily discuss the rigors of living with the undead with fellow members of the club. However, once Harriet gets married, it's obvious she's immediately converted by her husband. It's equally obvious Emma has no clue about her friend's new condition. Then Emma marries, but we have no idea as to her reaction to the news of her Mr. Knightley's condition. Does she take the news with equanimity? Does she decide to hold off her conversion in order to have cute, pale, fanged babies? Does she immediately whip out her handy stake from underneath her skirts and stake her new husband? Who knows? Then again, by that point, I frankly didn't give a shit.
As a result of all this nonsense, the vampire story line was jarring and stuck out like a sore thumb, with no sense of integration to the original novel, as a good mash-up would attempt to accomplish. I feel bad for Jane Austen that one of her novels was tainted by association with such a poorly thought out and executed idea. Thank god I've read the original Emma; I can certainly say, had I not read the original, most excellent novel, this travesty would be a horrible introduction to Austen's work. It's also a horrible introduction to literary mash-ups, which, if you can unclench a bit from the horror at the idea of tampering with a beloved classic in such a whimsical manner, can actually be fun and entertaining when done well.
May 22, 2011
I've never read the original 'Emma' but I should hope it's not as weak as this offering. I trudged through this book for almost a month and should have given up on it long before then. Unfortunately, I'm a tad too stubborn and was "rewarded" with nonsensical vegan vampires, with no explanation on how they came to be, and a story with more holes than a donut convention. I didn't like the book cover either. Why the frick does the vampire have a smirk on his face? Having just had his head cut off shouldn't he have had a look of anguish or horror? And as the head is the heaviest part of the body how is Emma holding it when her hand appears to be relaxed and she's barely grabbing the hair?
The synopsis describes 'Emma and the Vampires' as being "hilarious" and yet I never even broke into a smile. At times it read like the plot to a cheesy slasher horror movie, where the college students always end up going out in the dark alone even though they know there's a killer about, as there were many instances where the characters would leave a gathering at night only to be confronted with the evil vampires attacking them. Why did they not just hold their get together during the day and save themselves the trouble? Besides, the evil vampires sucked (yeah, pun intended) anyway and always got their butts kicked so what use is the evil in the book when it never prevails over good in any way? There's no suspense involved when, for the upteenth time, the nocturnal vampires get beaten yet again and so they're more of a hindrance than any real threat in this novel. Heck, they need not have been in this novel at all for all the use they were.
Albeit a tad bit late I should mention that all men are vampires in this novel, good and evil, and Emma is trying to match up her friends with the good ones because that's obviously funny, right? About as funny as being staked in the groin over and over. I'm not wasting anymore words on this drivel and would have entered it into my 'Hall of Shame' except I felt sorry for Austen having her name associated with this heinous book...and I don't even like Austen! Horrible, horrible read.
The synopsis describes 'Emma and the Vampires' as being "hilarious" and yet I never even broke into a smile. At times it read like the plot to a cheesy slasher horror movie, where the college students always end up going out in the dark alone even though they know there's a killer about, as there were many instances where the characters would leave a gathering at night only to be confronted with the evil vampires attacking them. Why did they not just hold their get together during the day and save themselves the trouble? Besides, the evil vampires sucked (yeah, pun intended) anyway and always got their butts kicked so what use is the evil in the book when it never prevails over good in any way? There's no suspense involved when, for the upteenth time, the nocturnal vampires get beaten yet again and so they're more of a hindrance than any real threat in this novel. Heck, they need not have been in this novel at all for all the use they were.
Albeit a tad bit late I should mention that all men are vampires in this novel, good and evil, and Emma is trying to match up her friends with the good ones because that's obviously funny, right? About as funny as being staked in the groin over and over. I'm not wasting anymore words on this drivel and would have entered it into my 'Hall of Shame' except I felt sorry for Austen having her name associated with this heinous book...and I don't even like Austen! Horrible, horrible read.
July 18, 2010
I am a fan of the recent trend of paranormal/classic mash-ups and Emma is my favorite novel by Jane Austen. Being that I've enjoyed every recreation of Emma that I've ever read or seen (including the movie Clueless), I had high hopes for Emma and the Vampires. Unfortunately, this retelling didn't come close to my expectations.
The thing about Emma is she believes herself to be a bit more observant than she actually is. That transfers into this version perfectly. The problem is that while Emma may completely miss obvious things, the other townswomen aren't as blind to the things going on around them. In Emma and the Vampires, almost all of the gentlemen are vampires, yet not one of the women has the slightest inclination. Everyone is aware that vampires are real. They know the tell-tale traits a vampire possess, yet when seeing that the men don't go out in sunlight, don't eat solid food, are pale with either black and can have red eyes, the women don't even wonder about the men who these things describe perfectly. The women even go so far as to mention the gentlemen's fangs and still they haven't a clue. It went well beyond the fun Austen was poking. It seemed as though the point of the story was that all women were stupid, unobservant twits.
Emma and the Vampires had some good points that shouldn't be overlooked. First off, it's Emma, so that automatically brings something good to the table. There is a unofficial brigade of vampire fighters that forms in response to the rogue vampires lurking about which leads to some interesting fight scenes. And of course, by reading this book, people may be more willing to give the original version of Emma a try and and anything that gets readers excited about the classics is definitely worthwhile.
Emma and the Vampires made Jane Austen's Emma different, but not exactly better. A truly great mash-up should enhance the original book, infusing it with an extra angle that might even give the original a deeper meaning or message. Emma and the Vampires isn't anything more than Emma with, well, some vampires.
The thing about Emma is she believes herself to be a bit more observant than she actually is. That transfers into this version perfectly. The problem is that while Emma may completely miss obvious things, the other townswomen aren't as blind to the things going on around them. In Emma and the Vampires, almost all of the gentlemen are vampires, yet not one of the women has the slightest inclination. Everyone is aware that vampires are real. They know the tell-tale traits a vampire possess, yet when seeing that the men don't go out in sunlight, don't eat solid food, are pale with either black and can have red eyes, the women don't even wonder about the men who these things describe perfectly. The women even go so far as to mention the gentlemen's fangs and still they haven't a clue. It went well beyond the fun Austen was poking. It seemed as though the point of the story was that all women were stupid, unobservant twits.
Emma and the Vampires had some good points that shouldn't be overlooked. First off, it's Emma, so that automatically brings something good to the table. There is a unofficial brigade of vampire fighters that forms in response to the rogue vampires lurking about which leads to some interesting fight scenes. And of course, by reading this book, people may be more willing to give the original version of Emma a try and and anything that gets readers excited about the classics is definitely worthwhile.
Emma and the Vampires made Jane Austen's Emma different, but not exactly better. A truly great mash-up should enhance the original book, infusing it with an extra angle that might even give the original a deeper meaning or message. Emma and the Vampires isn't anything more than Emma with, well, some vampires.
August 10, 2010
I know that some do not like these mashups, but I think they are so funny. The things I love the most are the things I like to see changed or made fun of. This totally works for me. And you all know I love things Austen by now.
Most of you surely know Emma, the pretty spoiled lady who suddenly realizes that she is a great matchmaker, and of course she isn't and that leads to a string of fun misunderstandings. And this book follows that plot, it follows Emma as it should, with a few exceptions...
There are vampires around and in Highbury there are a few gentlemen vampires. The rest seems to be blissfully aware even though these men have black eyes, red eyes, never eat or sleeps and are really pale. Mr Knightley is one of these gentlemen, as is Mr Elton and Mr Weston. But there are also wild vampires around, and Emma who carries a stake is not a bad vampire-killer when attacked. Mr Knightley is also very handy with a sabre, cos yes he and the rest chops a few heads when attacked. A real gentlemen does not attack a lady without being asked.
Vampires works so well here because he keeps it witty and a comedy of manners. The book is hilarious and sure Emma may not be the best heroine but she does have a good heart and means well. Harriett is a vampiremagnet with her bosom and neck, Mr Knightley as knightley as ever, Emma's dad just as he always is, and Frank Churchill, a coward, for a vampire.
For readers who wants to read something nice, I would recommend this. For readers who love mash ups, don't forget this one, and for those that haven't try one, just plunge in, and don't be horrified that Austen's works are being turned into something else. I am pretty sure she would have gotten a few laughs from it too.
Final thoughts: The only thing I didn't like was the end, it left me a bit, what, and then?
October 3, 2010
A lot has changed in the almost 200 years since Emma, by Jane Austen, was first published. I don't imagine that she ever considered that vampires would invade her idyllic setting of Hartfield Estate, in Highbury, the home of Emma Woodhouse.
Author Wayne Josephson has transformed that peaceful village to one stalked by terror and blood lust. While staying faithful to the matchmaking efforts of Emma, he has introduced vampires at every level of society, from gentleman, to farmers, to vagrants. When out walking, Emma has taken to carrying weapons to protect herself from vampire attacks.
It's been years since I first read Emma, though recollections of its events came flooding back as I read this 'mash up'. I remember loving the original and I equally loved this version. There were a number of times I roared with laughter at the turn of events. I can just picture this very proper and gentile English woman jamming a sharpened stake into the heart of a decapitated vampire, and then calming reclaiming the stake and tieing back upon her thigh under her voluminous petticoat while maintaining her strict modesty. I would have thought she might have been dismayed by the blood splatter on her gown, but no, she is so calm and cool and collected at all times. Mr. Josephson managed to keep Emma in perfect character no matter the gore and mutilation.
I absolutely loved this book. I can't wait to read more of this genre.
Author Wayne Josephson has transformed that peaceful village to one stalked by terror and blood lust. While staying faithful to the matchmaking efforts of Emma, he has introduced vampires at every level of society, from gentleman, to farmers, to vagrants. When out walking, Emma has taken to carrying weapons to protect herself from vampire attacks.
It's been years since I first read Emma, though recollections of its events came flooding back as I read this 'mash up'. I remember loving the original and I equally loved this version. There were a number of times I roared with laughter at the turn of events. I can just picture this very proper and gentile English woman jamming a sharpened stake into the heart of a decapitated vampire, and then calming reclaiming the stake and tieing back upon her thigh under her voluminous petticoat while maintaining her strict modesty. I would have thought she might have been dismayed by the blood splatter on her gown, but no, she is so calm and cool and collected at all times. Mr. Josephson managed to keep Emma in perfect character no matter the gore and mutilation.
I absolutely loved this book. I can't wait to read more of this genre.
August 12, 2010
Open Jane Austen's book, insert lots of plot holes and major inconsistencies, make all the characters really stupid (as in mentally challenged), add your name to the cover, and make money off of it. I give you, "Emma and the Vampires."
June 3, 2022
I actually used to own a copy of this book, which my mom had picked up for me from a garage sale during the early days of my Austen obsession. I had just read PPZ and SSSM, and when my mom found this, she thought there was a good chance I would enjoy it. After all, it was an Austen story, where lead character Emma Woodhouse would be a sort of vampire slayer, and given that I was a huge BTVS fan, it made sense that I would enjoy this, too. BUT...it's just not well written. I got through about 4 chapters of the book back when I owned it (this is over a decade ago), and I had to set it aside because there wasn't anything new to the story. I loaned the book, along with PPZ and SSSM to one of my best friends, who later lost all of those books when her storage shed caught on fire.
When I saw that the e-library Hoopla offered this book, I decided to finally give it another go as it's one of the few books in my life that I've started and never finished. It didn't take me long to remember why I had given up on it. The only good thing about this book are the large sections that are from Austen's original novel. And while Emma may be my least favorite Austen work, it is still a 5 star read for me, and I will never say no to reading it if I come across it. So, I enjoyed the same parts of this monster version of Emma that I do when I read the standard classic itself. And the reason why is because the vampires add NOTHING to this story. The vampires rarely attack, and when they do, it's always dealt with very easily and with almost no description. We're given no history as to the rise of vampirism in rural England, nor do we ever get a scene of Emma discovering the man she is to marry is planning to bite her on the wedding night. In truth, all of our favorite heroes are already vampires and our much loved heroines are doomed to become vampires, possibly even against their will!
Honestly, this book's premise has some potential. But the fanfic version I was writing in my head as I was reading gave me more entertainment than the official product did. (The writer didn't given me a history of vampirism or a reasoning for half of the goings-on in Highbury, so my brain crafted it for itself.) So, one star for the actual book of Emma and the Vampires and one extra star because I can't help but be drawn to the original source material.
When I saw that the e-library Hoopla offered this book, I decided to finally give it another go as it's one of the few books in my life that I've started and never finished. It didn't take me long to remember why I had given up on it. The only good thing about this book are the large sections that are from Austen's original novel. And while Emma may be my least favorite Austen work, it is still a 5 star read for me, and I will never say no to reading it if I come across it. So, I enjoyed the same parts of this monster version of Emma that I do when I read the standard classic itself. And the reason why is because the vampires add NOTHING to this story. The vampires rarely attack, and when they do, it's always dealt with very easily and with almost no description. We're given no history as to the rise of vampirism in rural England, nor do we ever get a scene of Emma discovering the man she is to marry is planning to bite her on the wedding night. In truth, all of our favorite heroes are already vampires and our much loved heroines are doomed to become vampires, possibly even against their will!
Honestly, this book's premise has some potential. But the fanfic version I was writing in my head as I was reading gave me more entertainment than the official product did. (The writer didn't given me a history of vampirism or a reasoning for half of the goings-on in Highbury, so my brain crafted it for itself.) So, one star for the actual book of Emma and the Vampires and one extra star because I can't help but be drawn to the original source material.
February 6, 2019
I finished this last night but fell asleep before writing a review.
I have read several of the supernatural classic adaptations and this may have been my least favorite so far. I feel as though it was a pretty good retelling of Austen��s Emma, but the vampire thing was just thrown in there with little consequence or attention. The author mentions “wild” vampire attacks very predictably every time there is a gathering of people, and the battles are swift and easy. Then it’s forgotten and life goes on as normal.
Why are some vampires “wild” while others are totally civilized and living amongst society?!?!?!
Some of the main characters are vampires, but it doesn’t give any of the backstory as to how this happened or how it affects them now.
Throughout the entire book, it was also unclear how the mortals could completely ignore the fact that some of their best friends and family were vampires - they don’t eat, they avoid direct sunlight, they’re freezing to the touch, they never sleep and they have red eyes..... nobody notices?!
Some characters seemed to be aware while others were completely ignorant. So bizarre!!
There were just so many pieces of the puzzle missing for me. I gave it 3 stars for being true to the original story of Emma and keeping my attention, even though it frustrated me a great deal at times!!
I have read several of the supernatural classic adaptations and this may have been my least favorite so far. I feel as though it was a pretty good retelling of Austen��s Emma, but the vampire thing was just thrown in there with little consequence or attention. The author mentions “wild” vampire attacks very predictably every time there is a gathering of people, and the battles are swift and easy. Then it’s forgotten and life goes on as normal.
Why are some vampires “wild” while others are totally civilized and living amongst society?!?!?!
Some of the main characters are vampires, but it doesn’t give any of the backstory as to how this happened or how it affects them now.
Throughout the entire book, it was also unclear how the mortals could completely ignore the fact that some of their best friends and family were vampires - they don’t eat, they avoid direct sunlight, they’re freezing to the touch, they never sleep and they have red eyes..... nobody notices?!
Some characters seemed to be aware while others were completely ignorant. So bizarre!!
There were just so many pieces of the puzzle missing for me. I gave it 3 stars for being true to the original story of Emma and keeping my attention, even though it frustrated me a great deal at times!!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 2, 2024
TL;DR:
Read this if you:
- Are trying to recover from a reading slump and want a fun, quirky, and hilarious romantic comedy
- Want to dive into classics but are a bit hesitant
- Are a fan of Emma by Jane Austen
- Are into vampire fiction
- Don't take yourself too seriously
__________________________________________
After months of traveling and then hosting family at home, I was coming out of a long reading slump when I visited the library and discovered this book. Having recently watched and enjoyed the 1996 version of Emma on Netflix, I was curious to read the original novel by Jane Austen. However, there were no copies available on the shelf. Instead, I found this book! And the concept had me laughing (internally, since I was at the library). I started reading out of curiosity and soon couldn’t put it down—it was absolutely hilarious.
Emma is already such a fun story, and adding vampires to the mix made it even more entertaining. The plot is essentially the same as the original novel but with vampires thrown in. And when I say "thrown in," I mean sudden vampire attacks popping up throughout the book. This book is unhinged and is meant to not be taken so seriously.
There are likely two types of readers who would be drawn to this book: fans of Emma and fans of vampire fiction. The former would probably enjoy it more. Fans of Emma who love the original story will appreciate this unique retelling and get to experience the story again with a fresh, funnier and bloody twist.
For vampire enthusiasts, if you're expecting a different take on vampires, you might be disappointed. The vampire lore here isn’t deeply developed or original—expect classic traits like fear of sunlight, aversion to garlic, pale skin, icy cold touch, and eternal youth. There’s actually nothing new in the vampire portrayal. (Keep in mind it's a retelling of Emma and not the other way around.) If you don't mind this at all and just genuinely enjoy reading about vampires, then you're good.
As much as I enjoyed it, though, I don’t think it’s a literary masterpiece deserving more than three stars. It did, however, made me laugh a lot, put me out of my reading slump, and made me want to read the original Emma even more.
Read this if you:
- Are trying to recover from a reading slump and want a fun, quirky, and hilarious romantic comedy
- Want to dive into classics but are a bit hesitant
- Are a fan of Emma by Jane Austen
- Are into vampire fiction
- Don't take yourself too seriously
__________________________________________
After months of traveling and then hosting family at home, I was coming out of a long reading slump when I visited the library and discovered this book. Having recently watched and enjoyed the 1996 version of Emma on Netflix, I was curious to read the original novel by Jane Austen. However, there were no copies available on the shelf. Instead, I found this book! And the concept had me laughing (internally, since I was at the library). I started reading out of curiosity and soon couldn’t put it down—it was absolutely hilarious.
Emma is already such a fun story, and adding vampires to the mix made it even more entertaining. The plot is essentially the same as the original novel but with vampires thrown in. And when I say "thrown in," I mean sudden vampire attacks popping up throughout the book. This book is unhinged and is meant to not be taken so seriously.
There are likely two types of readers who would be drawn to this book: fans of Emma and fans of vampire fiction. The former would probably enjoy it more. Fans of Emma who love the original story will appreciate this unique retelling and get to experience the story again with a fresh, funnier and bloody twist.
For vampire enthusiasts, if you're expecting a different take on vampires, you might be disappointed. The vampire lore here isn’t deeply developed or original—expect classic traits like fear of sunlight, aversion to garlic, pale skin, icy cold touch, and eternal youth. There’s actually nothing new in the vampire portrayal. (Keep in mind it's a retelling of Emma and not the other way around.) If you don't mind this at all and just genuinely enjoy reading about vampires, then you're good.
As much as I enjoyed it, though, I don’t think it’s a literary masterpiece deserving more than three stars. It did, however, made me laugh a lot, put me out of my reading slump, and made me want to read the original Emma even more.
December 31, 2021
Started and couldn’t even get three chapters because there are so many glaring plot holes. They know about vampires and yet are blatantly ignorant of the ones they are acquainted with, even while the humans comment about how strange it is that the men never eat, eyes change color, fangs drip, they have a strange habit of covering all their windows with black fabric and never coming out during the daylight (even if they are farmers), Emma draws portraits for her friends whose faces for “some peculiar reason” don’t appear in a looking glass… honestly I could go on, but I’ll save the effort and just say, this is neither entertaining nor well-written — what a waste of time! Read Jane Slayre instead.
December 5, 2024
Not quite as much fun as Pride, Prejudice, and Zombies, Emma and the Vampires still manages to be a pretty good time. The main thing that distracted me was trying to figure out who knew what. Everyone knows that the wild, enemy vampires are vampires, but not everyone knows that the most eligible gentlemen in Highbury are vampires - but some do, but they're realization of who is or is not a vampire seems to change chapter to chapter.... It was just enough to keep me occupied and almost wish that I'd started taking notes way back in the beginning.
That aside, it is Austen's book. Fewer innuendos than PP&Z, but cheeky in other ways, this is not the worst way to try and get a younger audience involved with an old classic.
That aside, it is Austen's book. Fewer innuendos than PP&Z, but cheeky in other ways, this is not the worst way to try and get a younger audience involved with an old classic.
January 9, 2017
Not much difference having vampires. Very bland, in fact. Most, if not all, of the men were vampires, making vampires of their wives as they married. Lots of black and red eyes, and pale skin. All the wild vampires were very stupid and easy to kill. No real danger from them. As for the vampire men these women kept marrying, who knows?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 29, 2020
It's just Emma with vampires. The world sadly isn't as immersive as it needed to be in order to explain why the vampires exist, the state of them and why some attack when you have ones living in Highbiry living normal lives.
What kept me going was it had parts from Emma like the original novel but this concept does not go towards its full potential.
What kept me going was it had parts from Emma like the original novel but this concept does not go towards its full potential.
March 21, 2019
If I could give this book zero stars I would. I love a good mashup and this one fell flat on its face. Pride and prejudice and zombies was fantastic which made me want to read other versions of Jane Austen works that have been “altered”.
October 11, 2024
This was one of the driest books I have ever read. It was a struggle to get through at times and I was glad when it was over. So much detail but so little story at the same time. I am not a historical fiction fan and this didn't help win any points for the genre.
August 16, 2017
Bit to much like the original Jane Austen novel for my tastes, but not bad. A good read if nothing else.
April 14, 2018
I got so angry at the book that I finished it in one go. It adds nothing to the story. The lore makes no sense and honestly... it’s just bad. A waste of my money and my time. I am very disappointed
July 23, 2018
I thought this book was reasonably clever, and I enjoyed that it was a quick read. I would recommend this for a beach/travel read.
July 12, 2019
Not even adding in vampires could get me to care about Emma in the slightest.
June 6, 2021
Thunder thighs? Seriously? Wth
October 5, 2024
yawn fest
February 20, 2025
Not impressed. This was a very flat read.
May 3, 2025
Boring and un-funny.
June 13, 2025
It was Emma ❤️ mostly it was the same story little additions then and there but I nothing new I did enjoy it
August 22, 2010
Austen and vampires. Two powerhouse pop culture juggernauts. Mash them up and they are irresistible to publishers eager to feed on the ,i>Twilight & Trueblood craze. Here is a new novel that transforms ,i>Emma, Austen’s masterpiece of astute characterization and social reproof into a tale of Undead matchmaking blunders and vampire battles. Will Miss Woodhouse continue to be a nonsensical girl or morph into Buffy the vampire slayer?
Once upon a time, long, long ago in Regency times there was a handsome, clever and rich young lady named Emma Woodhouse who had lived close to twenty-one years of her life with very little to vex her. She lived with her kindly old father in a big castle named Hartfield near the village of Highbury. The Woodhouses’ were the first family of consequence in the surrounding neighborhood filled with gentleman vampires. Their particular friend was Mr. Knightley whose pale skin, black eyes and fear of sunlight were attributed to his lack of sleep and dull appetite.
Miss Woodhouse was clueless that anything was amiss though the telltale signs of the Undead were apparent throughout their social sphere. The other ladies of Highbury were also un-mindful accepting the attentions and marriage proposals of the gentleman vampires without concern. Not even their children’s pallid skin and need to hunt for small animals in the nearby forest alarmed them to any measure. However, in the dark forest also lived wild vampires totally lacking in social graces who feasted upon the young ladies in Mrs. Goddard’s school or anyone else careless enough to walk too close to the shrubberies.
Oblivious to the real evils within Highbury, Emma proceeds to match make her friends to unsuitable vampires with disastrous results. Even though she has never had the discipline to apply herself to reading or drawing, or the desire to marry, she discovers quite suddenly that she is a skilled vampire slayer and proceeds to rid the neighborhood of the fiendish Undead while winning the approval and heart of the one gentleman vampire who she discovers she truly loves. And then, with all the evil vampires vanquished and her desire to be a misapplying match maker renounced, they lived happily ever after.
If this synopsis sounds like a charming fairytale of Emma with vampires added in, that was my intention. It was the novel that I wished I had read, but sadly did not. I am exceedingly puzzled by what was attempted. A retelling of Austen’s Emma for young children, or adults that need a dumbed down version laced with vampires to understand the original story?
There is an inherent challenge in retelling a classic; how much to leave in and what to take away. Wayne Josephson has used Austen’s characters and followed the plot faithfully. However, he completely rewrote 99% of the text in his own words. His choice of language is very simple and modern taking away the flavor of Austen’s beautiful prose. Even her famous quotes were axed, removing any grounding to the original text and absolutely all humor.
The vampires have been added for excitement and there were moments of surprise and occasional smiles. This dumbing down of the language and doping up with vampires could have worked beautifully if he had not taken the middle road and either made the story a fractured fairytale parodying Emma and vampires, or gone all out campy and outrageous presenting Emma a la Buffy the vampire slayer. Even though this novel has been classified as adult fiction, I think that it appeals more to the young reader in middle school who will be glamoured into reading an Austen retelling by the mention of romance and vampires.
Laurel Ann, Austenprose
Once upon a time, long, long ago in Regency times there was a handsome, clever and rich young lady named Emma Woodhouse who had lived close to twenty-one years of her life with very little to vex her. She lived with her kindly old father in a big castle named Hartfield near the village of Highbury. The Woodhouses’ were the first family of consequence in the surrounding neighborhood filled with gentleman vampires. Their particular friend was Mr. Knightley whose pale skin, black eyes and fear of sunlight were attributed to his lack of sleep and dull appetite.
Miss Woodhouse was clueless that anything was amiss though the telltale signs of the Undead were apparent throughout their social sphere. The other ladies of Highbury were also un-mindful accepting the attentions and marriage proposals of the gentleman vampires without concern. Not even their children’s pallid skin and need to hunt for small animals in the nearby forest alarmed them to any measure. However, in the dark forest also lived wild vampires totally lacking in social graces who feasted upon the young ladies in Mrs. Goddard’s school or anyone else careless enough to walk too close to the shrubberies.
Oblivious to the real evils within Highbury, Emma proceeds to match make her friends to unsuitable vampires with disastrous results. Even though she has never had the discipline to apply herself to reading or drawing, or the desire to marry, she discovers quite suddenly that she is a skilled vampire slayer and proceeds to rid the neighborhood of the fiendish Undead while winning the approval and heart of the one gentleman vampire who she discovers she truly loves. And then, with all the evil vampires vanquished and her desire to be a misapplying match maker renounced, they lived happily ever after.
If this synopsis sounds like a charming fairytale of Emma with vampires added in, that was my intention. It was the novel that I wished I had read, but sadly did not. I am exceedingly puzzled by what was attempted. A retelling of Austen’s Emma for young children, or adults that need a dumbed down version laced with vampires to understand the original story?
There is an inherent challenge in retelling a classic; how much to leave in and what to take away. Wayne Josephson has used Austen’s characters and followed the plot faithfully. However, he completely rewrote 99% of the text in his own words. His choice of language is very simple and modern taking away the flavor of Austen’s beautiful prose. Even her famous quotes were axed, removing any grounding to the original text and absolutely all humor.
The vampires have been added for excitement and there were moments of surprise and occasional smiles. This dumbing down of the language and doping up with vampires could have worked beautifully if he had not taken the middle road and either made the story a fractured fairytale parodying Emma and vampires, or gone all out campy and outrageous presenting Emma a la Buffy the vampire slayer. Even though this novel has been classified as adult fiction, I think that it appeals more to the young reader in middle school who will be glamoured into reading an Austen retelling by the mention of romance and vampires.
Laurel Ann, Austenprose
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews