Book Discussion: World War Z ~CAUTION~ Contains Spoilers

See you in a few days!

The main reason I like WWZ as a brilliant piece of zombie fiction is because of its geopolitical ramifications. Different countries' initial reactions to the zombie outbreak seemed totally realistic to their current political ideals. The exception may be Israel, but I'm willing to let that pass. China's cover-up, the US's misinformation and attack strategies, the blame games in South Asia, North Korea's disappearance, even Russia's theocratic turn seemed realistic. The Redecker plans gave me shivers, and then nightmares.

Furthermore, the human reactions were spot on as well. The Great Panic, the internet information scrabbling, the profiteering, the reliance on government, the fleeing - all *very* human. Later on, the resiliance and hard work and sacrifice that went into fighting and recovery and the ingenuity in strategy were equally human.

My view on zombie fiction is that it is at its best reflecting humanity and psychology. Zombies evoke a deep-seated fear in humans - fear of death, fear of putrefaction and decay, and more esoterically the knowledge that underneath, humanity is greedy. The one-minded zombie desire for human flesh is supposed to reflect the mindless greed that humans have. But on the other side, the psychology of the human reactions to the zombie threat, particularly in WWZ is what is most frightening. The sheer panic and the horror of it all is in our complete unpreparedness we have to combat an enemy like zombies who don't sleep or rest. They don't need to eat, they can't be negotiated with or surrendered to. It's that that gives me the screaming heeby-jeebies from zombies.

The scariest parts for me were:
- The Redecker plans, particularly in South Africa. The idea that the best outcome is to sacrifice most of the population, and the audacity you have to have to make a decision like that terrifies me.
- The wild girl who grew up wild and makes the zombie noises. I swear I could hear the rasping cry as I read it. (This isn't in the audiobook version)
- The shortwave information gatherers. I can totally understand why they all went crazy.
- The Russian military decimation.

The bits that made me proud of humanity:
- Buckingham Palace. The Queen, like in WW2, is awesome again.
- The film-maker and his description of the university kids from Northern California.
- The information gatherers mentioned above.

Clever ideas that caught me:
- Transmission by organ transplants
- Being caught in orbit
- The internet kid in Japan - his description of the internet reaction to a zombie outbreak seemed spot on.
- MetsFan. That whole story is eerie.

Things that sat a little odd:
- Blind samurai guy. Cool, but a little unrealistic compared to the realism of the other stories.

I really like WWZ (can you tell?), but I don't read it very often, because it throws me off for days while I'm reading it and afterwards as well. I keep ending up making zombie outbreak plans.

Obvious questions:
Did the interview/documentary layout work for you, or was it irritating?
For me, it worked well. I could understand, though, if others found it irritating.

Which was your favourite story?
I couldn't pick any one. The ones mentioned above, and the one about the family fleeing into Canada are my favourites.

Movie/series adaptation - yay or nay?
I think it would make a great mini-series. But that said, I wouldn't think they'd do it like I envision (duh...). I don't know that I'd like to see it squished into a movie-length format. (There have been plans for a movie adaptation for some years already).

I'd like to know what OldSarge makes of the military aspects of WWZ.

great book -- love the mini-series idea!

The thought of zombies terrifies me on levels you wouldn't believe. I would rather relive things I've gone through barehanded than deal with that.

I've never read the book.

In that case, OldSarge, I'd suggest avoiding it. Like I said, it gives me nightmares, and I suspect you have enough nightmare fuel.

I have played such scenarios in my head, any soldier worth a damn always wargames every possibility no matter how far out.

You never know.

I have read Monster Island and Monster Nation by David Wellington. Depressing and frightening.

That being said, in addition to a boatload of ammo, I'd want things considered "obsolete" now. Flamethrowers, halberds, chainmail, etc.

Well, this being the spoiler thread... There are a couple of stories in there by soldiers. The one at Yonkers was particularly interesting - he talks about the idiocy of the upper-echelon folk in setting the military against a stream of zombies with high-tech weaponry that was totally inappropriate for zombie warfare. Other stories talk about specific strategic plans on small and large scales. Later on there's talk of both tech-laden and low-tech weaponry, including a specifically designed shovel-axe-spike weapon (that wouldn't be out of place in the Buffyverse, I imagine). I suspect Max Brooks did some close research into the weaponry possibilities.

Another section talks about the use of castles as defence platforms against zombies in the European theatre, and the use of old weaponry in the Siege of Buckingham Palace - specifically including halberds. The two Japanese guys fight with katanas.

That's the beauty of polearms and swords. They don't jam, misfire, or run out of ammo.

I thought the story ideas pretty good, and I agree that the reactions of the various countries is very realistic, although perhaps a bit too mild in some instances. I have no difficulty at all seeing the Redecker plan as a solution adopted by most countries. But then I worked in the Pentagon for years and saw a lot of plans there.

I did not like the format. I found it disruptive and irritating and would, I think, have enjoyed the book better with fewer switches between stories.

I also found the constant love-affair with the details of weaponry disruptive to the tales. Too much detail for me, but then I hated Red October too because I thought the author spent way too much time bragging to everyone about how linked in he was to the Pentagon.

Just finished. I liked the interview format. I thought the Cuba story was quite good.

>10 BOSK:
My favorite parts were about the places that are 'forbidden' to USians, like North Korea and Cuba.

I just finished. I really liked the interview format. Especially the way the author gradually revealed details through the speakers. Sometimes you had to read between the lines to get them. I was fascinated by the different aspects which I hadn't (not that I've spent a lot of time considering this scenario) thought about. The fact that fuel wouldn't be available, that all the white collar jobs would be completely useless. Of course those things seem obvious, I simply hadn't thought about them in connection with a Zombie plague.

My favorite story was the female pilot and the ham radio operator. Loved the ending of that, so completely unresolved. Another was the Chinese submarine story. If any of them tugged at my emotions, that one did, even though I saw it coming, that his son was somewhere pitted against him.

The two aspects I was mildly disappointed by were his handling, or the lack thereof of faith and the lack of any mention of medical research, etc. on zombies. Perhaps it was wise of the author to limit himself to the political, military, economical and environmental aspects if he didn't know much about the other two.

Of course, being a Christian, it did not pass my notice that the only two mentions of the Christian faith were mothers killing their children and priests killing their parishioners and being manipulated by the government. As for the lack of medical research, perhaps the author didn't want to delve into areas which would require much expertise to sound even slightly plausible, but I know that humans would be unable to rest until they had discovered where this disease came from, how it worked, what gave life to it and how it could be eliminated once and for all. Curiosity. We have it.

I found it a bit grim going just before the halfway mark, but it picked up for me when the interviews started talking about fighting back. It might have been helpful, or interesting to have a "history" section at the end (I would say at the beginning, but I really liked fitting the pieces together) to fill in some of the blanks. Such as the atomic event, the North Korean mystery, where nations were now at in the war, or in their health and recovery.

Seems to me this would be great discussion fodder for classes on economics, politics and various other aspects of study.

Oh, sad parts for me were the destruction of the vineyards of France and all the whales and such. "Can you make a sardine out of nothing?"

And I just remembered, the most creepy aspect of the whole book were the underwater zombies. I've never been able to enjoy swimming in murky water. Even as a small child, I was afraid of stepping into a dead cow or something (it happened, so I was told), then came Jaws, now zombies. Ugh. Crystal clear chlorinated pools or nothing for me, I'm afraid.

A theme in this and many post apocalyptic works is how our society is like a deck of cards. It only takes a nudge for it to topple. He mentions how many countries contributed to making a simple can of rootbeer.

I'm no a fan of post apocalyptic fiction, and I'm not a fan of this book, but there were things to like. The dog story was my favorite. I have both a dachshund and a cairn terrier which are mentioned with praise also a chihuahua who could probably tear the head of any number of zombies. (all mixes by the way, no purebreds for me). I agree with WillSteed about finding the responses of the various countries interesting. Having been in the catacombs in Paris I could well imagine the horrors of fighting there.

Even though I knew I didn't like stories about either war or zombies I thought I'd give this a try, and did like it for the first little bit. I was pretty much done with it, however, at the first battle of Yonkers, and there's the whole Redecker plan. The idea that you have to give up your humanity in order to save humanity is very wrong, very tyrannical, and, I think, very masculine. The idea that the loving, empathetic parts of us are soft and worthless when there's a difficult situation to face is not only wrong but dangerous, and one of the reasons that society just seems to be spiraling downward. I did get this book from the library for my daughter to read along with me, but aside from one man in my RL book club, don't think I'll be recommending it to anyone else.

I just read this in elleng's review, "Brad Pitt's production company has picked up the rights for this book and the film release is scheduled for 2010." Well, I don't know about 2010, you'd think we'd be hearing some press about it. At any rate, I'm sure it'll be a big hit.

When survival is at stake, sometimes you have to be absolutely brutal. Take it from someone who has witnessed true horror and sacrifice.

"Very masculine"? Hardly. I've seen how ferociously mothers defend the survival of their own.

I'm not saying that defense is masculine, but it seems to me that the idea that one needs to abandon one's humanity in order to defend it is. The old idea that boys don't cry = boys don't feel that seems to me to lead to increased violence and less human safety in the long run.

CJ I'm not sure you realize how you sound. There are times when love and empathy ARE the right approach for a problem, and times when cold, calculating, callousness is the only thing that will get the job done. I suppose that it's a good thing that humanity is capable of both.

on a seperate note, I'm about half-way through The Passage (an ARC) that, at least so far, is a startling combination of WWZ and Stephen King's The Stand.

If you recall, one of the appeals of King's story, was that it required both aspects of humanity, love/empathy along with callousness, to resolve the conflict. I'm not smart enough to delve into and survive any discussion of how and why gender roles and differences have shaped society for the better or worse... all I know is what one of my favorite authors (who was by all accounts quite sexist) said (paraphrased):

To suggest that violence never solved anything is to ignore the fact that violence has often solved many things. Ask the Carthaginians. Robert A. Heinlein

edited to add the actual Heinlein quote

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it
with their lives and freedoms."

I don't know about the gender role of that idea either. When I read it, I immediately thought of Ayn Rand for some reason. Her books always came across as cold and calculating to me. What struck me about that idea, is that Redecker was promoting a zombie mentality. Ridding ourselves of that which makes us human? We might as well be zombies.

I'm a fan of the hail Mary pass. I'd rather die fully human than survive that way.

and I'm a fan of the Star Trek movie (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) in which Spock quotes "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Surprisingly this idea comes from a biblical passage John 11:49-50:

And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not."

Ah, well said MrsLee: "Redecker was promoting a zombie mentality"

I have a hard time understanding why people buy the idea that the way to defeat the enemy is to become him, then, what's the point?

#22 kcs_hiker, I may remember it wrong, but: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". doesn't seem to apply here. Didn't they save a few and leave the many?

I think there's a big difference between calculation and inhumanity. An emphasis on calculation was what was needed. The governments seemed to deny the problem then react too quickly without thought of the consequences. As MrsLee mentioned earlier, the appropriate response, at least at some point of the book, would have been medical research on the cause of the zombie problem, but this idea was completely avoided in order to show more and more battles.

#23 actually Spock used the line as he was sacrificing himself to save the rest of the ship's crew. I took it to mean that some (many) may need to be sacrificed for the greater good... which is the basis of the Redecker plan.

And we need to remember that this IS a work of fiction; however part of the problem is the rapidity with which our societies collapsed (which would lead to the inability to put emphasis on a medical solution) and the covering up by the military/government is all too eerily believable. This of course is why the book is so effective. And if you don't believe that there is some equivalent to the Redecker plan sitting in a vault somewhere...

In the end, it came down to whether we sacrificed all of humanity in the name of not losing our humanity (which is a pointless exercise) or making the tough decisions to attempt to save a part of it. IIRC correctly, didn't Redecker end up killing himself over his guilt?

#24 - Redecker just went a bit gaga, I think. Your examples are not quite on the mark in that, Spock and Jesus (and who would have thought those two would share a sentence ;) ) both voluntarily sacrificed themselves for the many or few or remainders, what have you. Redecker (and I'm sure some of our government vaults) thought he was wise enough to decide these issues for humanity and that others were not. The story of the voluntary teachers/support personnel who parachuted into isolation zones without hope of rescue, and the astronaut show that self sacrifice for the needs of others is a valid plan and you don't need to hide the facts to find heroes.

Of course we know it's a work of fiction, but the examples are great fodder for discussion because they truly are examples of how humans have behaved in the face of extreme need and terror. Some become heroes, dead or alive, some just survive, others become monsters.

I think that society has experience similar, if not such extreme circumstances in history. The plagues of Europe, the invasions after the ruling powers were no longer strong or united enough to withstand them, major natural disasters (though not yet on a global scale), are all examples where each of these behaviors can be seen.

Didn't Heinlein have a great short story about sacrifice of the individual where a girl stows away on a rocket ship carrying the cure for a plague to an isolated planet?

I'm certainly not advocating that Redecker was any kind of hero. His plan WAS monstrous... but it also worked when all others were rapidly failing.

If one were to squint and look a little bit sideways... one could see a case for calling Abraham Lincoln's determination to preserve the Union "monstrous", certainly in view of the number of men who died in battle on both sides, along with the civilian casualties both during and after the war. Yet Lincoln is widely regarded as one of the best Presidents the US has ever had.

Perspective is certainly important.

Speaking of the plague, do you remember the name of the book about the town that voluntarily quarantines itself to avoid spreading disease? I think it was historical fiction based on a real situation.

I think it takes deep and open minded thought to come up with an emergency plan that promotes life. The variants of the Redeckers believed that the only way to defeat the enemy was to rid themselves of respect for humanity. As MrsLee mentions, people have always done this: Nazi collaborators, people who wanted to quarantine AIDS victims "for the sake of all", members of the inquisition, suicide bombers. There's never a lack of intelligent, dedicated men who are bent on destruction as a way of making a better world. Hindsight always proves them wrong, but foresight frequently fails.

28 - I think the town was Dubrovnik (AKA Ragusa), but I don't know a book about it. Edit: Nope, sorry. The town is Eyam, Derbyshire, and the book is Year of Wonders by Geraldine Brooks.

The ethics of the Redecker plan are horrifying to say the least. I think the most horrifying thing is that is was firstly, so effective, and secondly, such a horrible situation that it seemed to be the most ethical plan, even if its originators were sent crazy by it (what price survival? Sanity, apparently).

Thanks WillSteed, that was a great book.

I think horrific, inhumane ideas seem to work in the short run, but there is no long term benefit. In the book didn't they have to ratchet up the fighting because of the reaction to the initial plan?

So, if that plan was horrible, and was not an option, what would be a better one?

I'm for the idea of getting the truth to people as quickly as possible, along with all the information they need to fight effectively. I don't agree with the government's idea that people would panic and react badly. I think that happens because they are not given the full story and so make up their own in fear and misunderstanding.

We're looking at a fictional situation here that as a species we have never faced. The destruction of the human race.

Should such a thing become reality, truly drastic measures might have to be seriously looked at or even committed to.

Consider this scenario. The appearance of aliens who look at us as nothing but food and our planet as a source of raw materials to be strip-mined until exhausted before they move on to the next target.

http://www.librarything.com/work/86825

Until you've been in a situation where you are faced with decisions that you know will result in death for your people, you have no idea what it's like. Not having read WWZ, I can't comment on the details of such. Buch I have looked in the faces of my soldiers and wondered who will die today based on the decisions I make knowing that it might be necessary for us to survive and defeat the enemy.

It's a very lonely place to be.

Sorry to be so grim, but that's the hardcore reality of it.

If the solution is that the majority of the people have to die so that a select few can live, there's no way that can be considered an ethical or even reasonable decision. For one thing, as mentioned, the dead just then become the enemy. How does it make sense to increase the number of your enemy? Using the military to support the people against this slow moving and unthinking but relentless target was not only the humane but the reasonable thing to do.

Yes, giving out correct information then relying on the fact that there are intelligent people outside the echelon of political leadership who can help in creating reasonable and humane battle plans would be the way to go. The book advocates abandoning humanity and abandoning one of humanity's best attributes, intelligence, in order to use brawn to fight an enemy that can't think.

as I recall, there were a number of places that were "abandoned" who did exactly that... used their own intelligence and resources to find a way to survive. The Redecker plan did not specifically call for the "select" few to actively attack the rest of humanity... the plan basically recognized that it would be impossible to save everyone and that it was better that a few survive than for all to perish. Whether or not it was a good plan certainly depends quite a bit on which side of the fence you find yourself on.. abandoned or saved...

Also I seem to remember that some of those enclaves that made it on their own didn't have much willingnees to cooperate when the crisis was waning.. which is understandable

Done. Loved it. I'll be back later to yap a bit more.

wow it's gone eerily silent all of a sudden. I picked up WWZ to reread yesterday... still loving it. The "belief" factor seems to me to be all important to this story. Imagine if you will, watching a news report today (in real life) suggesting that the dead were coming back to life and attacking people.

I would, first of all, check my calendar.. did I forget that today is April 1st? Secondly, like many reactions in the book, I would question the motives of the source... i.e. is it Fox News looking for another way to smear Obama, etc.. Thirdly, I would assume that is merely a prank or hoax, fourthly I would assume that it was some reaction to medication etc... Way down the line would I finally take it for what it really is. And I think Brooks nailed that in the story.

So

suggesting that governments should have told the people what was going on... well that would be waste of time, people wouldn't have believed the government. And anyway, by the time the governments were convinced, it was too late.

Great discussion! I finished listening to the abridged version and truth be told, I did not especially appreciate the book. The concepts are fun to knock about in discussion however and I especially appreciated OldSarge's comments about the reality of hard, hard, and brutal decisions one is forced to make on a real battle field. I think a trap many of us fall into when discussing the virtue or lack thereof in hard decisions is that we paint the people deciding with monochromatic brushes: unethical or ethical; brutal or not; etc. A person who finds they have to make a very difficult decision, and does decide in a way we might not admire, is not automatically for the rest of their lives an evil person. I prefer to think that even if the leaders of the armed forces chose to behave in a zombie like way they are not therefore forever evil leaders.

Reminds me of McNamara who made horrible decisions and assumptions during the Viet Nam war and later wrote a very helpful history of the time.

I am looking forward to more discussion. Thanks folks for reminding me again how fun it is to be a part of Green Dragon. I would never have picked up this book on my own.

I'm sorry I haven't been back here yet. I hope to have a bigger chunk of time to devote to this book over the weekend.

I know for a fact if I had read this in my teens or twenties I would still be having nightmares about it! :oD

#37 - Very good point, maggie, and something we all need to remember.

Hmmm....zombie targets for your day at the range.

http://www.letargets.com/estylez_ps.aspx?searchmode=category&searchcatcontex...

I am figuring that the audio version left out the crucial pieces that would have transformed this implausible tale into a something in which the suspension of disbelief was possible. I liked the actors renditions, and found some of the storylines well done. I was able to get myself to believe in the Cuban Economic Miracle. I liked the focus on the emerging global situation.

However, I had trouble with the lack of even the thinnest veneer of an explanation of the zombies and their physiology. The energy implications seemed to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. These creatures remained viable and active with no energy input? What exactly were they? The war has ended -- more or less -- by the end of the book, and surely even if research were not possible during the crisis, there would be a serious effort to learn everything possible about them as soon as practicable.

Without that, I don't really see this as science fiction, but rather as horror fiction in which we are asked to believe in something ghoulish, even though we know that, like vampires and the Wolfman, This Isn't Real.

But as I said, I'm blaming the abridgment of the audio version, which left all that out.

nah.. the book never really addresses it either.

#41 & #42 - I asked my daughter about the lack of details about the virus and its impact on human physiology and she said it was explained in detail in his first book The Zombie Survival Guide. I've glanced at it, but don't feel compelled to read it right now.

>43 clamairy: Oh good -- maybe someone who has read that could chime in with the details!

#44 - Maybe this bit on the virus (called Solanum in the Survival Guide) from www.urbandictionary.com will help:

Solanum works by traveling through the bloodstream, from the initial point of entry to the brain. Through means not yet fully understood, the virus uses the cells of the frontal lobe for replication, destroying them in the process. During this period, all bodily functions cease. By stopping the heart, the infected subject is rendered "dead." The brain, however, remains alive but dormant, while the virus mutates its cells into a completely new organ. The most critical trait of this new organ is its independence from oxygen. By removing the need for this all-important resource, the undead brain can utilize, but is in no way dependent upon, the complex support mechanism of the human body. Once mutation is complete, this new organ reanimates the body into a form that bears little resemblance (physiologically speaking) to the original corpse. Some bodily functions remain constant, others operate in a modified capacity, and the remainder shut down completely. This new organism is a zombie, a member of the living dead.

Thanks clammy. Need more details. Especially on the energetics, but the whole shebang.

Yeah, I realized there wasn't much info on the first link, and C&P-ed some other info.

The Zombie Survival Guide, ch. 1:

Solanum works by traveling though the bloodstream, from the initial point of entry to the brain. Through means not yet fully understood, the virus uses the cells of the frontal lobe for replication, destroying them in the process. During this period, all bodily functions cease. By stopping the heart, the infected subject is rendered "dead." The brain, however, remains alive but dormant, while the virus mutates its cells into a completely new organ. The most critical trait of this new organ is its independence from oxygen. By removing the need for this all-important resource, the undead brain can utilize, but is in no way dependent upon, the complex support mechanism of the human body. Once mutation is complete, this new organism reanimates the body into a form that bears little resemblance (physiologically speaking) to the original corpse. Some bodily functions remain constant, other operate in a modified capacity, adn the remainder shut down completely.

bah, I typed all that for naught?

LOL, sorry, flee.
Great minds and all that...
I only beat you by a couple of minutes. Does that help?

Defying all laws of science, Solanum has created what could be described as a completely self-sufficient organism. p. 16

There you go - deus ex machina. But, one thing to remember is that a zombie will always chose human flesh over that of any other animal (p. 18). The reasons for this are not yet known.

Because we taste good with or without ketchup...

It is all the fat, sugar, and salt the "Nutritional Industrial Complex" has been feeding us during the last 50 or so years, don't you know?

http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/worldwarz/index2.php - click on the calculate risk tab near the top

>51 DaynaRT: Thanks Fleela and Clam. Agree with deus ex machina comment. Energetics still a complete mystery.

Fun book, even if flawed. Don't mind me; I LOVE books, and find them all failures! :)

#56 - Agreed. I think my daughter thought I was being too picky for wanting a better explanation for how a dead body was still moving years after the blood stopped bringing nutrients to the limbs/cells. What I did get was that the blood turned into that congealed brown goo which seemed to have some properties that still allowed the altered brain to control the limbs. Though it cried out for better explanation in the book I think they could get away with it in a movie version.

Thanks fleela, I'm pretty much zombie fodder. What I don't understand, why do they have such an insatiable appetite if they don't need to digest food.

my risk was 42%... pretty good all things considered I suppose

most entertaining speculative fiction requires a certain amount of suspension of disbelief whether it is a faster-than-light spacedrive or talking dragons or zombies who don't obey the energy laws of physics. The important parts of the stories come AFTER you accept the unbelievable premise.

#59 kcs_hiker, I agree that "The important parts of the stories come AFTER you accept the unbelievable premise." I, however, can not accept the premise of living, dead things that need to keep eating, preferably humans. Maybe it's just a case of the old high school lusting after the popular kids thing. I can suspend disbelief when it comes to sexy, strong, BRILLIANT vampires who struggle to wean themselves from human blood; but there's no appeal in smelly, decaying, THOUGHTLESS, flesh eating animated flesh.

34%

I don't think so.

35%

>59 clif_hiker: All unbelievable premises are not created equal.

How effectively a book allows one to suspend disbelief is crucial to reader satisfaction. If you are distracted by a poor job at promoting disbelief, you can't get fully engaged in the story.

the entire Alien franchise, movies and books, is based off of an alien that has concentrated acid for blood, needs some sort of 'soft-bodied' host to reproduce, and is intelligent enough to somehow entice humans into coming within reach so they can be infected.... pretty crazy huh? It was when I was a teenager going to watch the original movie; and yet now that I've read Parasite Rex I've discovered that this happens all the time in nature (well except for the blood ). There are 100's of species of parasitic wasps that do exactly that.... and worse!

edited to add: not to mention that a speculative fiction author writing a story about something similar to the black plague .. say in the 1300's; would have been met with similar skepticism (did they already have the black plague in the 1300"s? hmmm, well anyway I think my point stands)

36%

:o/

45% - but then, I follow the Zombieland school of preparedness. Rule #1, Cardio. Zombies get the out of shape people first...

I think what struck me most about the book is the amount of world building involved in writing it. Brooks has so many questions to answer in his own mind before he started. And then, once he got going, he was very careful in what he disclosed and what he let us wonder about. Like the stuff about the environmental change - we never know EXACTLY what happened there, and the clues he does give us comes piece by piece, like finding out about the nuclear war, and then later, about the Saudi Arabian oilfields being burned. They talk about the longer winters, but that brings up so many questions that you just have to wonder about.

I liked the soldier's story the best, maybe because he was involved in so much of the action. And I really liked the story about Cuba as well, and the Chinese submarine. That part with the zombies on the ocean floor - so dang creepy!

#65 - I finally got to see Zombieland last night and I really loved it. It's not for the faint of heart, though. LOL

I confess to finding zombies entirely uninteresting, even after having waded through World War Z. I like my bad guys to be smart and cute, not mindless. Oh well.

It's easier to hate/fear them when they are stupid, ugly and want to eat you.
;o)

Was OK at best. The interview format very rapidly became stale and irritating for me. The stereotypes were worse. I was prepared to let the whole 'what makes a zombie carry on moving thing slide'. But a better explanation could have been included. Did animals become infected or not? Seemed both yes and no depending on which tale was told.

Mostly I just disliked the fragmentory nature and lack of any underlying plot. Was mostly well written though.