164 replies to this topic

[bodhi]

Just read WWZ during a long haul and I must admit I'm impressed. Far better than I thought it would be, considering that Brook's previous "hand"book is more of a spoof than a serious novel. It reminded me of the Stoker's Dracula novel in a way that both are memories plus a good dose of Dawn of the Dead. In WWZ it is the interviews 10-15 years after while Dracula is actually written in form of letters and similar. And I think it is a good comparison because the book is entertaining, a real page turner and surprisingly well researched (I know it is hard to combine research and Zombies in one sentence).

I think the research part is important, action writers tend to under-research their subjects because they believe their readers won't notice anyways. Well, at least for the geographic ares that I know myself (South Africa and Central Europe) he got the names, languages and cultural backgrounds right. He is informed enough about industrial lasers knowing that they require time and that chemical lasers are a huge environmental risks. Good, because it makes me assume that the other parts that I don't know well were equally well researched. For example he knows that the native language in Cape Town is Xhosa (not Zulu), even though the Zulu language family is huge in South Africa.

The Cons:
1. Bit too Americacentric, yeah it is an American novel but it plays in a multitude of locations and about half the interviews are in the US. Considering that the US was overrun and that other countries (Cuba or Israel came out basically untouched one would assume that most survivors lived there).

2. The whole Israel issue did't make any sense, closing the country fine but inviting the Palestinians back streches credibility. No way you are going to invite your enemy back just in case that there might be a problem in the future. Besides most countries would've followed the same quarantine approach once it became known. Also almost no interviews on Israel, how did the strategy work, we don't know.

3. The whole Zombie thing about eating people didn't make sense considering that their organs (except the brain) don't really work. Why do they eat people and how do they make noise if they don't breath. I guess we have to accept it because Zombies that don't bite aren't really scarry.

The Pros:
1. An angry SF novel, about time. Tired of the same old platitudes about robots believing to be humans. No, not in this one, the story is mean and credible. We are our own worst enemies. And it is hard to negotiate with enemies that don't live.

2. Great political tidbits, yes it could happen the way described. Nobody is really guilty but too many people profited (and survived) the war.

3. No real heros or even villains, some do the right thing others make mistakes. Like real live. Also the Zombies are not explained, the survivors still don't know what makes them tick, even years after the war. We know when it started but it is never explained why.

And did I forget to mention it is a page turner. I would give it a 4 out of 5 starts. A must for Zombie fans and people who like good SF.

[Ser Warpechowski]

Yes, its very good and definitaly a page turner. There are a lot of amazing stories inside the whole story and that means there is something for everyone.

Its amazing how the things build up and you start to feel anxiety from the individual reports and realize things are really going to become bad. That story about North Korea gave me the shivers, along with many others.

[Ebenstone]

When I read this, our bed had broken and my wife and I were sleeping on a mattress on the floor, felt like we were in some camp somewhere....I remember saying to her at one point in a hazy, sleep induced mumble, "If you were to get bitten by a zombie, I'd shoot you right between the eyes. I promise."

It's not a wonder she thinks I'm weird.

I think I might use this book in my satire unit later in the year. Plus it's a great way to teach the epistolary novel. (I'm trying my hand at a similar style myself.)

Edited by Ebenstone, 30 August 2008 - 02:56 PM.

[Tormund Midgetsbane]

I loved this book.  A lot.  I thought it was a little weird about Israel and the Palestinians as well, but I thought thq quarantine story worked well.  The only reason they pulled it off is that they did it immediately, and viciously.  By the time any other country would have tried it, it would have been too late.

The North Korea story was terrifying, as was the story of the French soldiers in the catacombs.

I thought the idea of anti-zombie zeppelin patrols was freakin' sweet.

Quote

3. The whole Zombie thing about eating people didn't make sense considering that their organs (except the brain) don't really work. Why do they eat people and how do they make noise if they don't breath. I guess we have to accept it because Zombies that don't bite aren't really scarry.

I don't think it said that zombies actually eat people, they just bite and move on.  I'm not sure that it said they don't breathe either, they just don't have to in order to keep going.

[Lightsnake]

They DO eat people...they don't gain nourishment, the survival guide explains. The zombies just eat because it's a primal instinct and will do so until the meat bursts through their stomach and then just keep eating

[Crazydog7]

I just read this recently too kind of chringed when I heard about the movie though.  They'll probably do some America Uber Alles bullshit and skip the international aspect.  

How about Cuba being the storehouse of victory?  I don't think thats going to make it into the movie.

[bodhi]

Crazydog7, on Aug 30 2008, 19.19, said:

I just read this recently too kind of chringed when I heard about the movie though.  They'll probably do some America Uber Alles bullshit and skip the international aspect.  

How about Cuba being the storehouse of victory?  I don't think thats going to make it into the movie.

Didn't know a movie was coming, doesn't sound too good.

[Burr]

I really liked the desrciption of the burnt out soldier who was so bitter about the way the morons in charge ha dthem defend against zombie hordes.: dig in...on the ground where they can just fall in your hole with you. And this right in front of a great big grocery store with a roof twenty feet in the air where they could have just sat and made headshots all day. You can fire a lot of heads up if you just sitting around dinking them one at a time and they're packed shoulder to shoulder just standing there looking at you. And the whole firing line he stole from the old musket era warfighting: just sweet! Make a pile of them and step back. Make another pile of them and step back :)

Edited by Soloman Grundy, 31 August 2008 - 04:18 PM.

[Fenryng]

I was very surprised, but excited, as several of the tactical/political aspects of this book.  I did not have any expectations with this when I started reading it, and I have not read a book so quickly since Feast came out.

I suspect one of the reasons that I did read it so quickly was the format.  Unlike typical chapters, this had viewpoints, and they could be a page, or twenty.  So if I read a really quick one, I would think to myself, oh, just one more.  Then, when the next one was long, I would think, well, I have to finish this one at least.

It was also detailed in terms of how the epidemic spread, and how different countries reacted.  I think that it is a sign of support for the author that I find myself wishing that he had gone into details on more things, rather than a flaw, because to me, that shows that he managed to get me interested and involved in what was going on.

I had not considered it before, but I can understand and agree how it can be argued that the book seemed to center a little heavily towards America.

Certainly a now-must for any proclaimed zombie enthusiast.

Does anyone happen to know what he is working on next, by any chance?

[Isis]

Fenryng, on Sep 1 2008, 16.56, said:

I had not considered it before, but I can understand and agree how it can be argued that the book seemed to center a little heavily towards America.

I think that there were possibly just two locations in the UK.  Actually, I liked the book so much that I wasn't even so bothered about the Ameri-centric attitude.  And that usually leaps out and beats me with a stick. :)

I like how the different interviewees had very different voices.

[mormont]

Isis, on Sep 2 2008, 13.11, said:

I think that there were possibly just two locations in the UK.  Actually, I liked the book so much that I wasn't even so bothered about the Ameri-centric attitude.  And that usually leaps out and beats me with a stick. :)

I like how the different interviewees had very different voices.

I felt the UK sections were by far the worst - maybe I'm oversensitive, but the fact that the only look we get at the UK was so reliant on cheesy stereotypes (deference to the Queen, blah blah blah) stuck out like a sore thumb.

Otherwise an excellent read, though.

[Isis]

mormont, on Sep 2 2008, 13.27, said:

I felt the UK sections were by far the worst - maybe I'm oversensitive, but the fact that the only look we get at the UK was so reliant on cheesy stereotypes (deference to the Queen, blah blah blah) stuck out like a sore thumb.

Yes, because the Queen is so very relevant to my existence. :rolleyes:

[davos]

When I first picked this title up I did so with rather low expectations.  I loved it the first time through and found it just as enjoyable on a recent reread.  Its shocking how well it works and how real Brooks makes it feel.  Once you buy the initial premise of a virus that kills and then reanimates its victims very little simple feels implausable.  The failure of governments to recognize the threat,  the military failing to recognize that they were fighting a very different war and paying dearly for that, and the general panic and breakdown of society all rang true.  i didn't have that much problem with Isreal being the one nation to have the foresight to take the needed action before they were overwhelmed even if the part about including the palestinians under the protection of the quarantine was the one of the only really questionable bits.  

There are so many good moments.  the north korean bit.  the battle of yonkers.  the international spacestation.  the catacombs below paris.  the dogs used in the war effort.  There were also many bits of true gruesome horror mentioned off the cuff by people for whom horror had become a part of everyday life.  Like the Romero zombie films Brooks uses a yarn about the living dead to hold up a mirror to the real world.

[Ixodes]

I'm with Davos.  The more I think about this book, the better I like it.  One of my all time favorites, actually.

[Slurktan]

mormont, on Sep 2 2008, 08.27, said:

I felt the UK sections were by far the worst - maybe I'm oversensitive, but the fact that the only look we get at the UK was so reliant on cheesy stereotypes (deference to the Queen, blah blah blah) stuck out like a sore thumb.

Otherwise an excellent read, though.

Well to be fair wasn't that deference to the Queen coming from an SAS type who was in the fortress/bunker *with* the Queen?  I could be mixing things up though.  I actually quite liked that section.  Regardless at least you get a portion, I don't seem to remember any Canadian content other than the girl from the States who fled up to Canada with her parents.

[mormont]

Slurktan, on Sep 2 2008, 18.33, said:

Well to be fair wasn't that deference to the Queen coming from an SAS type who was in the fortress/bunker *with* the Queen?  I could be mixing things up though.  I actually quite liked that section.  Regardless at least you get a portion, I don't seem to remember any Canadian content other than the girl from the States who fled up to Canada with her parents.

Well, strictly speaking that section was set in Germany (IIRC) and we don't get any hint of whether the guy is SAS or what - we just get told he was in Windsor with the Queen. And we get this stuff about how selfless and noble her choice to remain at Windsor was, how she was a symbol to the people, etc.

And yes, this is the character's view. But that's what I'm saying. The author needs a reference point, a shorthand for 'Britishness' he can use for a quick and dirty visit to the UK. And what does he choose? Idolising the bloody Queen, complete with notions of noblesse oblige, etc. How original. :rolleyes:

[Tormund Midgetsbane]

Quote

Regardless at least you get a portion, I don't seem to remember any Canadian content other than the girl from the States who fled up to Canada with her parents.

I was pretty sure one of the characters interviewed was a canadian.  I might be wrong.  I'll check wikipedia.

Eta: couldn't find anything.  Time for a re-read....

Edited by Tormund Midgetsbane, 02 September 2008 - 03:16 PM.

[mashiara]

Isis, on Sep 2 2008, 15.11, said:

I think that there were possibly just two locations in the UK.  Actually, I liked the book so much that I wasn't even so bothered about the Ameri-centric attitude.  And that usually leaps out and beats me with a stick. :)

I like how the different interviewees had very different voices.

It's one of the reasons I liked this books so much. Presenting the story through so many different viewpoints was something I hadn't seen before and it made for very interesting reading. I only read this recently and I really enjoyed it a lot. I was afraid it wouldn't be as good as others had made it to be and I was glad my fears weren't justified. Like Davos said there were some brilliant moments in the book. I'm looking forward to rereading it in the future, I know it's going to be a pleasure.


To my British friends, I did think the part about the Queen was so cheesy. :P

Edited by mashiara, 03 September 2008 - 05:35 AM.

[Slurktan]

Just did a re-read.  Liked it just as much this time through.

mormont, on Sep 2 2008, 14.01, said:

Well, strictly speaking that section was set in Germany (IIRC) and we don't get any hint of whether the guy is SAS or what - we just get told he was in Windsor with the Queen. And we get this stuff about how selfless and noble her choice to remain at Windsor was, how she was a symbol to the people, etc.

And yes, this is the character's view. But that's what I'm saying. The author needs a reference point, a shorthand for 'Britishness' he can use for a quick and dirty visit to the UK. And what does he choose? Idolising the bloody Queen, complete with notions of noblesse oblige, etc. How original. :rolleyes:

I still don't get this I suppose.  Yes the author needs a quick stereotype of "britishness" for an American audience,so you have to keep in mind it should be something Americans associate with Britain; would you rather he chose say bad teeth as the focus or Soccer?  And while the noblesse oblige is in there it is directly compared in the text to King George and Queen Elizabeth in WW2.  Was it cheesy and unoriginal then?

However the main thing of why the person idolizes the Queen is that, although it isn't stated implicitly, the Queen died at Castle Windsor during the War.  Going by how the interviewee states near the start that she could have left... well one can see how a hero could be created of them.  Tough luck for Prince Philip though as he gets no mention.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I haven't read the book yet.  I do plan to.  I have a question prompted by the Wiki on this book:

Quote

Combat aircraft and armored vehicles are almost completely abandoned, and the infantry forces are equipped with new rifles that sacrifice rate and ease of fire for reliability and accuracy.

Why would armored vehicles not be useful?  Button up and shoot zombies from inside, then drive out if you run out of Ammo?  Is there something I'm missing here?

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison, 10 September 2008 - 10:45 AM.