World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War World War Z discussion


Comments Showing 1-24 of 24 (24 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Meiso (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:26PM) (new)

Meiso Just wondering, should Zombie Survival Guide be read before reading this book, or does it not matter?

message 2: by Melissa (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:30PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Melissa Doesn't matter. This book stands alone, it has very little to do with Z.S.G.

message 3: by Nicholas (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:46PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Nicholas Yes, read ZSG first, as WWZ is slightly (and cleverly) meta-referential.

ZSG's historical accounts also prefaces WWZ's stories.

message 4: by Joe (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:54PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Joe I read them the other way around (World War Z, then Zombie Survival Guide) and enjoyed both.

message 5: by [deleted user] (new)

Should be okay, but I myself read ZSG first, and would not have it any other way. There's more fun reading WWZ with the illusion that it's a continuation of ZSG.

message 6: by U it gfstibg (new)

U it gfstibg I'd been looking forward to it, but ZSG was a disappointment after reading WWZ. I wish I had done the other way around, or had just skipped ZSG altogether. WWZ is plenty good enough to stand on its own.

Rochelle I also read them in this order and was a little bored by the Survival Guide, since it mostly covered material that had been covered in World War Z. If I had it to do again, I would read the Survivial Guide first, but I would also say that you could skip it altogether.

Craig Coleman I read WWZ first and loved it. I didn't really like the zombie guide. I prefer story.

Scot Craig wrote: "I read WWZ first and loved it. I didn't really like the zombie guide. I prefer story."

Agreed. I had heard all this buildup to ZSG and couldn't find it in my bookstore..."settled" for WWZ instead. Turned out to be my favorite zombie novel to date. Finally got a copy of ZSG and although I enjoyed it, I didn't like it nearly as much as WWZ.

message 10: by Bob (new) - rated it 5 stars

Bob I haven't read ZSG, and I didn't feel I'd missed anything.

Megster Did WWZ first. Almost feel like people SHOULD read ZSG first just cause it isn't as good. I was riding a serious high from the first book, and expected a lot more than I got from ZSG.

ZSG lives in the humor section of my bookstore, not the horror section. Also, half of the book is a bore. Zombie physiology section interesting just cause it's laying down Brooks' vision. The actual survival guide portion is slow. I'm always running zombie apocalypse scenarios, I don't need to be told which melee weapon is best, or to destroy the stairs. It's boring to read what you already know.

Only the last half with the recorded attacks are truly worth reading (gotta get the corresponding graphic novel too!) But then, in WWZ no one really mentions any of the incidents from ZSG recorded attacks. So I don't think it's vital to make a point to read ZSG first.

Bottom line from me: WWZ is a requirement for EVERYONE. Zombie fanatos MUST also read ZSG as a requirement, BUT do not have to read it before WWZ.

Kevin Milligan How can a survival guide be boring. The whole book makes you ponder what the movies and novels only touch on. What would I do in a ____ event? The event I happen to dwell on is zombies so it is why ZSG sticks with me. If my neighbors are turning eachother into lunchmeat tomorrow I will be carrying this book to safety.

message 13: by Olga (new) - rated it 5 stars

Olga Kowalska (WielkiBuk) I have read WWZ first and then ZSG and I think that knowing some obvious facts about zombie attacks make the reader understand everything. So ZSG could be read as a good addition to the story itself for someone who is a zombie fan. However it should be read first if it is a first contact with Zombie Culture for the reader or just the beginning of one's zombie journey.

Annemarie Donahue I didn't read survival guide first and just read this. I thought this was one funny, scary, brilliantly written, amazingly witty and starkly poignant books I had read in a long long long time! What Brooks is communicating about our total lack of preparedness for a wide-spread infectious disease and our mercenary mentality of abandoning the sick is horrific. However, even if you don't read it for all that, this is still a brilliant book about our own defects of preparing for disastrous events, whether metrological or human-enacted. And if you don't want to read it for that this is a great book about good old zombies!

Dustin 'Survival Guide' should be read first, just because it covers a few references used in "WWZ'. Nothing important, but I think it's better to do it in that order. Both books are great no matter how you do it.

David I read them ZSG then WWZ, since that was how they were released. There are some details covered in ZSG that are glanced over in WWZ, but WWZ stands on its own. If anything, you can pass in the third book which just takes the "historial" references in ZSG and illustrates them.

message 17: by Mac (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mac Roth I read WWZ, and then read flipped around ZSG. WWZ has more story, while ZSG is, well - a survival guide.

Michael T Zombies are the new vampires

Meilani Michael wrote: "Zombies are the new vampires"

No. Zombies are zombies.

message 20: by Mac (new) - rated it 5 stars

Mac Roth Lani wrote: "Michael wrote: "Zombies are the new vampires"

No. Zombies are zombies."


Holden Attradies I read ZSG first and WWZ later when it came out. I definitely agree with most others here that this is the best order to read them in it.

As for how ZSG directly relates to WWZ I think the first section of it, explaining and really setting up the physical rules/laws of the zombie plague within Brooks universe is what really adds to WWZ. There were times in WWZ were I would have been confused or feel I would have gotten less if I hadn't understood those rules.

As for the "recorded hsitroy of attacks" at the end of ZSG (my favorite part of the book) I never interpreted that as being part of "cannon" of the world in WWZ. I felt WWZ made it pretty clear this was something new that come out of seemingly no where and spread from China. That would definitely contradict what is spelled out in the recorded attacks section.

message 22: by Adria (new) - added it

Adria Michael wrote: "Zombies are the new vampires"

I agree, all of the sudden zombies got really popular. Vampires are still pretty popular too though.

message 23: by [deleted user] (new)

I started the Survival Guide after reading World War Z, and like several other people said, it was sort of anticlimactic; there was good substantial storytelling in World War Z, and the Survival Guide is a very different kind of book.

The sudden increase in zombie popularity is interesting, from a cultural standpoint; it may reflect underlying social concerns about overpopulation, disease (remember the coverage the swine flu scare got?), etc.

It may also just be that zombies are creepy and awesome. Personally, I think zombies have much more potential for horror than vampires, despite vampires technically being the more dangerous item; half the horror of a zombie outbreak is psychological, the innate human aversion to the dead. Vampires are too complex and the being-dead part is too well concealed by their other traits to really play on that particular fear as well.

back to top