For me the most interesting aspect of apocalyptic horror fiction is the response and recovery...providing the apocalypse is a credible one that allows for the possibility of human survival and eventual recovery (for instance a massive planetoid strike that reduces the whole surface of the planet to molten magma would be right out). That'…
For me the most interesting aspect of apocalyptic horror fiction is the response and recovery...providing the apocalypse is a credible one that allows for the possibility of human survival and eventual recovery (for instance a massive planetoid strike that reduces the whole surface of the planet to molten magma would be right out). That's why - as an example - although "The Road" struck a cord with me emotionally - I could not fully engage with the characters and their situation because I didn't understand what had brought their world low and why - years, apparently, after the triggering event - this situation for survivors was still so primitive and desperate. Same with the generally execrable "Walking Dead" universe of stories where the characters never did seem to learn how to overcome the issues of their new normal and spent a lot of time flailing uselessly about. Did the zombie virus preferentially kill anyone with an IQ over 90?
What makes Brooks' book better than a lot of them is that he charts out a fairly plausible pathway for human response, I think. Basically denial, panic, and, finally, a hard-nosed, careful analysis of the threat(s) and the correct response to them. (He even has a small place — much smaller than real life events have shown, I am afraid — for the idea that some people would get permanently stuck in the "denial" phase.) This is one reason I like teaching with it, because the Brooksian zombie threat is very materialistic and well-defined, and so you can talk with a bunch of engineering students about how, for example, they would zombie-proof our university and create a plan to survive for, say, 5 years, until outside order could be restored. (This was an actual assignment of mine.) As an exercise, it's less about the specifics (though some of those are interesting, like, "how edible are fish caught in the Hudson River?", which is an entirely answerable question once you think to ask it), and more about the problem-solving framework. Which you can then apply to lots of other less fanciful hypotheticals.
I enjoyed the "Walking Dead" graphic novels but avoided the television series, because it looked very silly by comparison. The graphic novels vary in how intelligent the humans are when they confront the scope of the problem, and make the (I think important) point that other people are as big of a problem and cause of problems in such a world as the zombies themselves.
The basic thrust of TWD universe is that humans are the real problem and indeed it would seem (until the writers of the series deemed otherwise) the zeds were part of the background like trees. But the conflicts between human groups seemed forced and artificial given how thin surviving humans were on the ground, how plentiful the resources left behind by a society that collapsed in a matter of weeks, and the fact that there was no competition for resources between people and the walking fertilizer of this world. I think the tendency of people in such circumstances would be not to wander (though some might just to see what became of that place just over that hill in the distance) but to settle in some safe seeming, defensible locale and try to recover some semblance of the lives they once knew. As to the rise of petty tyrants leading to anthill wars between communities - unless the tyrant wanna be has some special knowledge or can act through willing henchman as a gatekeeper to certain resources , I don't see how they obtain and wield power in a mostly empty world where everyone is armed and resources are everywhere for easy picking. True perishables are long gone but there is much still available for recovery and consumption. Indeed, on the scale of potential apocalypses - the zombie apocalypse should be at the easier end of the scale vs nuclear war or an asteroid impact. On the harder end - the impact of the event will wipe out huge volumes of resources as well as people (especially nuclear war in its full counter-force/counter-value form which is aimed at, in part, piles of resources we call "cities") . On the zed end - as depicted in the TWD tv series - society fell quickly - over a period of ~6wks - leading to a world emptied of people but with much of its physical infrastructure intact. So once you've survived the ZA event and gotten over the "ick" factor and have learned the rules of this new world -you should be in good shape. As long as you don't need a tooth extracted or an appendectomy. You'll be doing even better once you've found some people to join up with (preferably not led by a deputy sheriff from GA or a bargain basement Mussolini). People will be the most precious resource in the post ZA world as you try to fill in the gaps in knowledge and skills your community needs to have addressed. The person you turn away from the gate today (cause they look a little sketchy or cuz the script said so)- might be the dentist, doctor, or plumber you need tomorrow.
For me the most interesting aspect of apocalyptic horror fiction is the response and recovery...providing the apocalypse is a credible one that allows for the possibility of human survival and eventual recovery (for instance a massive planetoid strike that reduces the whole surface of the planet to molten magma would be right out). That's why - as an example - although "The Road" struck a cord with me emotionally - I could not fully engage with the characters and their situation because I didn't understand what had brought their world low and why - years, apparently, after the triggering event - this situation for survivors was still so primitive and desperate. Same with the generally execrable "Walking Dead" universe of stories where the characters never did seem to learn how to overcome the issues of their new normal and spent a lot of time flailing uselessly about. Did the zombie virus preferentially kill anyone with an IQ over 90?
What makes Brooks' book better than a lot of them is that he charts out a fairly plausible pathway for human response, I think. Basically denial, panic, and, finally, a hard-nosed, careful analysis of the threat(s) and the correct response to them. (He even has a small place — much smaller than real life events have shown, I am afraid — for the idea that some people would get permanently stuck in the "denial" phase.) This is one reason I like teaching with it, because the Brooksian zombie threat is very materialistic and well-defined, and so you can talk with a bunch of engineering students about how, for example, they would zombie-proof our university and create a plan to survive for, say, 5 years, until outside order could be restored. (This was an actual assignment of mine.) As an exercise, it's less about the specifics (though some of those are interesting, like, "how edible are fish caught in the Hudson River?", which is an entirely answerable question once you think to ask it), and more about the problem-solving framework. Which you can then apply to lots of other less fanciful hypotheticals.
I enjoyed the "Walking Dead" graphic novels but avoided the television series, because it looked very silly by comparison. The graphic novels vary in how intelligent the humans are when they confront the scope of the problem, and make the (I think important) point that other people are as big of a problem and cause of problems in such a world as the zombies themselves.
The basic thrust of TWD universe is that humans are the real problem and indeed it would seem (until the writers of the series deemed otherwise) the zeds were part of the background like trees. But the conflicts between human groups seemed forced and artificial given how thin surviving humans were on the ground, how plentiful the resources left behind by a society that collapsed in a matter of weeks, and the fact that there was no competition for resources between people and the walking fertilizer of this world. I think the tendency of people in such circumstances would be not to wander (though some might just to see what became of that place just over that hill in the distance) but to settle in some safe seeming, defensible locale and try to recover some semblance of the lives they once knew. As to the rise of petty tyrants leading to anthill wars between communities - unless the tyrant wanna be has some special knowledge or can act through willing henchman as a gatekeeper to certain resources , I don't see how they obtain and wield power in a mostly empty world where everyone is armed and resources are everywhere for easy picking. True perishables are long gone but there is much still available for recovery and consumption. Indeed, on the scale of potential apocalypses - the zombie apocalypse should be at the easier end of the scale vs nuclear war or an asteroid impact. On the harder end - the impact of the event will wipe out huge volumes of resources as well as people (especially nuclear war in its full counter-force/counter-value form which is aimed at, in part, piles of resources we call "cities") . On the zed end - as depicted in the TWD tv series - society fell quickly - over a period of ~6wks - leading to a world emptied of people but with much of its physical infrastructure intact. So once you've survived the ZA event and gotten over the "ick" factor and have learned the rules of this new world -you should be in good shape. As long as you don't need a tooth extracted or an appendectomy. You'll be doing even better once you've found some people to join up with (preferably not led by a deputy sheriff from GA or a bargain basement Mussolini). People will be the most precious resource in the post ZA world as you try to fill in the gaps in knowledge and skills your community needs to have addressed. The person you turn away from the gate today (cause they look a little sketchy or cuz the script said so)- might be the dentist, doctor, or plumber you need tomorrow.