Jeff (Jeffool)'s comments (member since Feb 05, 2008)

Jeff (Jeffool)'s comments from the Apocalypse Whenever group.

heh, sorry to have been the bearer of sick taste. I honestly didn't know that definition of the word. Generally when I'm searching for definitions I hit Google and Princeton, and those only returned other definitions that I already knew.

... I guess this says volumes about my social circles, eh?

Fair enough. But don't look through the UrbanDictionary definition, unless you've a reasonably strong stomach, or appreciate absolutely horrible things.

Wade wrote: "do zombies sweat? (or do they just mung?)"
In anything I've ever read, no, zombies don't sweat. And no, zombies don't mung. Though, I suppose one could mung a zombie. (Everyone, if you don't know what that word means, don't look it up.)

For what it's worth, I have to agree with Hrimcealde's point in that the best zombie stories do not focus on the zombies, or even necessarily the combating of them. Like (imo) any good post-apocalyptic stories, it's taking the idea of an ever-present threat looming in the background, and then focusing in on a relatively small group of people to see how they cope. (Usually poorly.)

I think in that vein you can even liken a good zombie story to a film like Lifeboat, or 12 Angry Men. Given the threat (death at sea, weighted conscious/lack of faith in due process,) that's always looming in the background, our cast must fight not only each other, but themselves to do what's best for themselves, and when they're really heroic, everyone. Sometimes it catches the characters, and often it's because they just can't work together. And not because of plot contrivances, but because of their differences in character that just make them natural enemies.

I think that the setting of a zombie apocalypse, as unrealistic as it is, puts a unique spin on things in that by far and large zombies aren't any real threat. They're an unreasonable, unending threat, but unless they come in large numbers, or you're not careful, they're just annoying. It never fails that what brings a group of survivors down is not a plot device, but their own weaknesses.

... I know I've went on and on in this tread, but, what can I say? I need an outlet for my zombie-love. :D

The only 'power' they have is that the bodies are, in fact, dead.

But even that, as Manuel mentions, is treated scientifically. Max Brooks has more or less created a disease that kills its host, and uses the host body much like a parasite. (Think those parasites that make grasshoppers commit suicide, or make snails offer themselves as food to birds. Youtube "zombies snails" or "grasshopper parasite".) I honestly can't recall if I read this is WWZ or his other book "Zombie Survival Guide," but let me explain.

He explains it as a disease that not only takes over its human host's most basic functions (movement, basic senses,) but is also detected and avoided by nearly all other virii, bacteria, and animals. As cuh, almost all would-be aids to decomposition avoid an infected host, so decomposition is slowed drastically, and the corpse takes years for the brain to deteriorate. (It's kept in a solution created by the virus, I forget what he calls it.)

So, yeah, I think his 'science' is mostly in the other book, but I recall him doing a "too detailed" explanation for my tastes (as someone who doesn't have a huge impediment to the concept.)

Well, we also need to accept that it was made in 1968. ;)

And honestly I can't recall their attire, so I can't account for that.

But the one in the house was dead, and while I'm not positive, I 'thought' he was later in the film, but I can't be certain of that either. I do recall that they moved his body outside during the film.

But again, I urge you to wait until the worldwide outbreak hits before deciding if you like it or not. That's when the book is at its best. But, maybe my thinking he built it up too much will be perfect for someone largely uninitiated!

That's true Dan, there are no hard/fast rules that encompass ALL zombie fiction. Like other popular monsters, they're very open to interpretation, and rely on a good author to explain what's needed for you to under stand his story (which I think Max Brooks probably over does a bit in his story, but, I still very much enjoyed the book.)

Actually in Night of the Living Dead there was only one zombie in the graveyard, and yes, he was "fresh," but that makes sense. Only fresh bodies would have a brain intact to infect.

And Night of the Living Dead is actually an insane topic unto itself. In Romero's series ("Night of the Living Dead," "Diary of the Dead," "Dawn of the Dead," "Day of the Dead," and "Land of the Dead,") any person that dies with an intact brain turns into a zombie due to an airborne virus. (Sidenote, in some of Romero's films, they move just fine, they just have a period of 'rigor mortis' that lasts a few days, and then can move quicker again.) Conversely, there is a set of films with the title "Night of the Living Dead," "Return of the Living Dead," "Night... 2," "Night... 3," etc., in which the rules change with every film. Basically, they're the cheapened 'Hollywood' zombies, just like Twilight is cheap Hollywood vampires. Sometimes they even talk, like in the film you saw, (likely Return or Night 2/3.)

Also, in the course of the book WWZ, a scientist or two is interviewed, and a 'vastly slowed decomposition' is talked about. I think it said something about a normal zombie "living" 7 or 8 years? This is pretty common.


/edit:
Manuel wrote: "so does this zombie sickness only affect human bodies? Do animals come alive too?"

That changes from writer to writer, much like the issue of fast/slow movement or auto-infection.

Manuel also wrote: "Does a zombie need his/her entire body? Will a human head not atached to a body become animated too. I suppose human babies would also come to life and crawl their way out of their graves?"

Only a head is needed, so you'll often see just heads trying to nibble on people's ankles, or even in a short story I read, a zombie head used as a boobytrap!

And if the infant was fresh enough to to have an intact brain, yes, it would definitely become a zombie. Though, crawling out of a buried grave is unlikely for ANY zombie, no doubt an infant's body wouldn't have the strength to do so. :D

Oh, and for the appeal of zombies at all (sorry, I didn't see this thread earlier, I'd like to quote Shaun of the Dead writer and star Simon Pegg (writing to criticize a then-recent UK zombie TV show:)

Simon Pegg wrote: "As monsters from the id, zombies win out over vampires and werewolves when it comes to the title of Most Potent Metaphorical Monster. Where their pointy-toothed cousins are all about sex and bestial savagery, the zombie trumps all by personifying our deepest fear: death. Zombies are our destiny writ large. Slow and steady in their approach, weak, clumsy, often absurd, the zombie relentlessly closes in, unstoppable, intractable.

However (and herein lies the sublime artfulness of the slow zombie), their ineptitude actually makes them avoidable, at least for a while. If you're careful, if you keep your wits about you, you can stave them off, even outstrip them - much as we strive to outstrip death. Drink less, cut out red meat, exercise, practice safe sex; these are our shotguns, our cricket bats, our farmhouses, our shopping malls. However, none of these things fully insulates us from the creeping dread that something so witless, so elemental may yet catch us unawares - the drunk driver, the cancer sleeping in the double helix, the legless ghoul dragging itself through the darkness towards our ankles."

Manuel wrote: "Im about to start World War Z, to see what all the fuss is about.

I still dont get the appeal. So if a zombie gets you and eats you, does that mean you yourself become a zombie? Do you need a comp..."

Fair warning: The book starts off 'okay', but by thte time you get to world wide contagion, it's just awesome.

Anyway, as the zombies. There are many approaches to zombies, just as there are to vampires. (In Twilight, for instance, they can go into the sun easily.) In zombies, many people take liberties, but Max Brooks sticks to the 'hardcore' definition of zombies, which is such:

Any introduction of a zombie's remaining bodily fluids to a person will result in the person becoming a zombie as well. This is typically biting.

Zombies don't run, they walk, and usually poorly.

Zombies don't talk, but they can moan, and they can hear. And when one zombie hears another, they take that as a signal for "food!"

Zombies don't have super strength, but... Imagine someone hitting a door with all of their might; the absolute most strength they can put into a punch. Now, imagine them able to do that, 24/7, nonstop. That's the advantage a zombie has.

All this takes into account a functioning body and brain for the zombie. Zombies can function as well as permitted without any given body part, except for the brain. They must have this, and damaging it will kill a zombie immediately.

Examples:

If you have a paraplegic who can't walk, and they become a zombie, then you'll have a zombie who can't walk.

If you have a mute person turned into a zombie, then you'll have a mute zombie.

And if you a person get their lower jaw ripped off during a zombie attack, that person will become a ridiculous looking zombie.


Now, I don't believe WWZ touches this, but in case you're curious: In some 'hardcore' media, people not killed by a zombie will still become a zombie upon death (it's an airborne virus that turns everyone into zombies, the zombie bite just kills people near-instantly.) In other 'hardcore' stories, the bite both kills and turns the bitten into a zombie.

I think the generally accepted definition of 'apocalypse' is "the end of the world." So, 'THE apocalypse' is either 'THE end of the world,' or more aptly, 'the event that will end the world.'

So, I take post-apocalyptic to be placed generally soon after an event that could've, or should've, ended the world (regardless of what the event was, how long it took, etc. only so long as it was largely successful.)

I say 'generally soon after' as it's assumed that, if people survived, and enough time has passed, things will revert to something akin to the pre-cataclysmic event status quo.

I'm a gamer and loved Fallout, and with that in mind, I'd recommend two (in my mind) apocalyptic classics:

First, ask him about zombies and if he liked Dawn of the Dead, and if he's okay with them: World War Z. The book is an amazingly inviting read, so if he can just get through the first chapter or two (where the zombies are slowly introduced,) then the pace picks up and before he knows it, he'll have finished the book!

It's actually supposed to be a collection of interviews with people who survived the 'Zombie War', so it's like a bunch of short stories in that way, but they all take place in the same world with a few overlapping on some notes, and it does an excellent job painting a picture of what the world is like after our current lives have been wrecked by zombies.


The other is a bit more daunting because it's either 800 or 1150 pages (depending on which version you get.) It's a HUGE book: The Stand by Stephen King. But the reason I recommend it is because if you guy can follow Fallout 3, he can definitely follow this book. It very much reminds me of a game because it has a large cast of characters, each doing their own quests (and trying to survive,) that frequently run into each other, and when it all comes together, everyone either comes to the good side or the bad, and then there's 'the confrontation'.

Of course, I'd wait to see what others say as well, but those two jump to my mind as popular examples that I think deserve the attention they get, and are probably accessible to people who haven't picked up a book in a while. (Even if the length is a bit long.) Regardless, good luck finding something!

For almost all of history people have expected the 'end times' to be during their lifetime, so going by record, I'm going to say we'd probably be wrong to guess it this time as well!

I mean, it's easy to imagine, but even if first world countries did have a 'fall from grace', we'd simply revert back to where we were a thousand years ago. Without at least a single factor that changed permanently (say, massive environmental changes, radioactive wastelands, or zombies ;)) I think humanity would slip into a lull like the Dark Ages and then come back just as strong as ever.

It may feel bleak, but when you really think about it, it could get far, far worse.

The condition of the gyre is something horrible, and you can find out a lot more by reading up on your neighborhood friendly wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacif... :D

Definitely a great show. The entire second season is still up for viewing online here if you want. Sadly, the series is officially canceled again... Then again, that happened before...

I just saw "Right at Your Door" which isn't so much post-apocalyptic as it is a 'man on the street' version of a world-altering event (eg September 11th.)

Terrorists detonate multiple dirty bombs in Los Angeles, and this is the story of a couple trying to get through the event.

While no, not apocalyptic, it does the job of focusing on the people while using an epic event as a backdrop.