There I was, innocently wandering Barnes and Noble in search of Wi-Fi, when I stumbled across Jane Slayre. 

After much coaxing/encouragement/blatant emotional blackmail from my sister reviewers (Amanda:  Think of the orphans!) I read it, and it was…OK.  Parts of the book are great, and parts are a terrible letdown, but the whole thing is divinely suited for reading by the front door while you wait for trick-or-treaters this Halloween.

Jane Slayre comes on the heels of a bunch of classics made monster-iffic.  This trend started with Pride, Prejudice. And Zombies, a book which is AWESOME and you should totally read it.  You should go read it now.  I’ll wait.

Jane Slayre is, of course, a retelling of Jane Eyre.   Here’s the back cover copy, which might as well have had “Carrie Crack” and “Think of the orphans” superimposed over it:

Jane Slayre, our plucky demon-saying heroine, a courageous orphan who spurns the detestable vampyre kin who raised her, sets out on the advice of her ghostly uncle to hone her skills as the fearless slayer she’s meant to be.  When she takes a job as a governess at a country estate, she falls head-over-heels for her new master, Mr. Rochester, only to discover he’s hiding a violent werewolf in the attic-in the form of his first wife.  Can a menagerie of bloodthirsty, flesh-eating, savage creatures-of-the-night keep a swashbuckling nineteenth-century lady from the gentleman she intends to marry?

Pride, Prejudice, and Zombies, which was written by Seth Grahame-Smith, set a high bar for this sort of thing back in 2009.  Of course PP&Z was insane and over-the-top and goofy.  But to everyone’s utter amazement, it was also very good.  The author didn’t just plug zombies in at random.  He wove them into the story in a way that made a kind of deranged sense.  Above all, the characters and themes stayed true to the original novel’s characters and themes.  The presence of zombies highlighted a sense of dread in the original text that is often overlooked.  In the original, the militia is stationed at Brighton because there’s a war.  During that moment in England’s history, everyone knew a young man who had died horribly, and it seemed quite likely that England would be invaded by France.  Meanwhile, Mrs. Bennet is silly, but her fears for her daughters are all too well founded, and Lizzie dreads a marriage that will crush her spirit.  The presence of the zombies in PP&Z brings the shadowy aspect of Pride and Prejudice into the foreground (in a silly, fun way). 

So, how does Jane Slayre measure up?  Unevenly. 

The sections involving Jane’s childhood are great.  These sections hit that perfect mix of campy yet creepy that a good mash-up novel should hit.  In this version, everyone in the Reed family is a vampire. They don’t feed on Jane because, as Mrs. Reed says, “Her common blood will bring on fevers, or apoplexy!  We only eat what we hunt out of doors, or nobility!” 

Jane longs for physical safety and emotional nurturance, and she longs to walk in sunlight.  The oppression of the Reed house, the sense of menace, mystery, and peril, are all brought forth in a way that is both funny and horrifying.  The section in which Jane goes to Lowood is also good, because the use of the supernatural highlights the social injustice portrayed in the original. 

Sadly, once Jane leaves Lowood, the book falters.  By the time Jane leaves Lowood, she’s already confident and powerful.  There’s no room for her character to grow.  On top of that, the original book’s dialogue is truncated down to people stating things that are either obvious or that would be better shown.  And it’s anachronistic – at one point Mr. Rochester says “kid” and he’s not referring to a baby goat.  It was beyond irritating.  It makes perfect sense to have Bertha be a werewolf – but why make her insane AND a werewolf?  She’s not driven mad by lycanthropy; she just happens to be crazy and also be a werewolf. 

What is the deal with Jane being all, “OK, she’s a werewolf, off with her head?”  Why is Jane so incredibly out of character all the time, when it is Jane’s character that makes the original book the gem that it is?  There’s so much lost opportunity here!

The book finds its footing again when Jane meets St. John Rivers.  In this version, there’s a ton of vampires in India and St. John wants to train Jane to go with him to fight them.  For modern audiences, St. John’s whole attitude towards missionary work is bit baffling, but in this context the urgency he feels, and the temptation Jane feels to go with him, make a lot of sense.  It’s another time when the book reinforces themes instead of subverting them, and does it in a fun way.

This book is worth picking up just for the reader’s group guide.  While much of the book is a disappointment, the reader’s group guide is a work of genius.  Here’s favorite question (SPOILER ALERT)

Jane’s charge to kill Vampyres and release their souls is a Godly mission, yet she feels far less angelic than her friend, Helen Burns.  If Helen is such a paragon of goodness and devotion, why doesn’t Jane want to be more like her?  Does Helen inspire or annoy the crap out of you?  Were you surprised that Jane didn’t cut off her head sooner?  What would you have done?

Ultimately, I did not care about the romance and frankly I didn’t like Jane very much either – she was awfully keen to behead sentient creatures who didn’t always seem especially terrifying.  I’m also biased because Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books (fun fact: it was published on this week in 1847) and I get edgy when people mess with it.  It’s telling that the parts I liked the most in this version are the parts I like the least in the original.  It’s not a great book, but it certainly has its moments.

---

This book is available from Goodreads | Amazon | BN | Kobo | All Romance eBooks.