Zombies and Why I Love Them

Anyone who knows me knows it was only a matter of time until I blogged about zombies. 

I am, after all, obsessed with The Walking Dead. Ob. Sessed. 

When I'm bored these days I often end up mentally planning my response to a zombie infestation. I'll be on the train and my mind will start wandering until suddenly I'm locating possible weapons, the most defensible location, an avenue of escape and the best way back to Banjoville so I can save my kid.  When I'm cleaning my house I'm not thinking about what I'm doing.  Pfft. No way.  When I'm at the grocery store, I'm not really reading that food label. Noooohohohoho.  I'm figuring out:

1. how to fortify my house or whether I should relocate after Zombipocalypse;
2. how to keep my fortified sanctuary warm in the winter without ringing the dinner bell for the friendly neighbourhood dead-heads;
3. how much food I would have to stockpile; 
4. who I would save;
5. where to go to get some useful weapons; etc.

I know, I know, that sounds like I'm taking the fast train to crazy town but it fills the time while I commute or drive or, you know...whatever. 

I just realized today that all my zombie-prepping plans are fundamentally flawed - I've only ever accounted for slow zombies. In case you've been living in a pop-culture cave for the last 30 or so years, there are two kinds of zombies: slow ones (a la George Romero's Living Dead movies or the Walking Dead) and fast ones (a la 28 Days Later and 2004's Dawn of the Dead remake). 

Slow zombies are scary because they're tireless - oh and they're dead, they're ugly and they want to eat you for breakfast - but fast ones?  Let's just say I'll take a persistent shambling corpse exhibiting a slow Cerebellar Ataxia Gait over a crazy flesh eating Usain Bolt any day.

                  

I haven't always been interested in zombies but over the years I've become fascinated with them.  I began by wondering whether these are just titillatingly horrifying tales or if there's some social commentary in there somewhere.  Surprisingly enough, there quite often is - a message I mean.  Peter Dendle, an associate professor teaching in the US wrote a book called The Zombie Movie Encyclopedia.  He said,  "Zombie movies tap into our apocalyptic fears and anxieties very effectively.  They de-romanticize the connections between human beings and reduce humanity to its lowest common denominator, focusing on power relations in their most brutal human form. It's 'I will exert my will over you.' It's very Nietzscheian." 

*cough* I'm sorry Peter, but I think half of my readers had an aneurysm when you said the word zombies in the same breath as Nietzsche.

Why do I love zombies and zombie stories? Well, because despite the fact that they are monster tales they tell a very human story every single time.  The Zombipocalypse's backdrop of brother eating brother provides an especially bleak backdrop against which to examine how people live, learn, cope, fight, love, die, and maybe even evolve when everything has gone to hell.  Depending on how the story is told, the audience may end up rooting for humanity's survival or despairing at our failings, sometimes at the top of our lungs.

 

My favourite zombie stories:

 

1. The Walking Dead:  As I said, I love this show but it is not for the faint of heart.  In one recent episode three of the main characters drive by a hiker who then spends the entire episode trying to catch up - coming close but never quite making it.  Later, they drive back to their home base and pass through a pretty gory scene showing the hiker has been attacked by zombies and killed.  They don't even blink!  Instead they stop, back up and casually open the door to pick up his pack just in case he was carrying anything useful before heading home.  Eep!
 

2. Warm Bodies: This book was a great, light read.  I could go on and on but I don't want to spoil it for any of you who haven't read it yet...so go and read it already.
 

3. 28 Days Later: OMGOMGOMG! This was the first "fast zombie" movie I ever saw although I'm not sure the monsters in this movie really qualify as zombies.  28 Days Later was scary as hell. I covered my eyes constantly and I loved every minute of it. Let's just say I took up running soon after watching it.
 

4. Zombieland: This movie was a really funny Zombipocalypse story. I still mourn the demise of the Twinkie, not because I ever liked them but because of the role they played in this story.

5. World War Z: I think I read through this entire book without stopping to sleep.  I liked the format because it is a bit unusual: it's a collection of eye-witness accounts talking about the rise of the zombies and the battles fought by the living to survive and I thought Max Brooks did a good job using different voices in his writing while telling a cohesive story. I am a bit worried about the movie that's coming out later this year but the book is well worth reading.
 

6. Dawn of the Dead (2004):  It was one of the few times in my life I've thought a remake got it right and improved on the original.

Despite my love of zombies, I don't write about them...or at least I haven't yet.  Stay tuned.

New Author Blogs to Challenge the Guardian's Literary Snobbery

There's an article making the rounds online: "Top Novelists Look to E-Books to Challenge the Rules of Fiction," by Vanessa Thorpe, an arts and media correspondent for the UK Guardian.  Ms. Thorpe's article is about author and innovator Iain Pears' development of a new and enhanced eBook format that he expects will take the platform to a whole new level.  She also spoke to authors Blake Morrison and Will Self to get their opinion about its potential to transform the typically staid genre of literary fiction.

On the surface, this article is a pretty bland piece about a group of authors discussing one possible way to capitalize on the rise of the eReader but its subtext is horribly snobbish.  Ms. Thorpe clearly broadcasts that as a genre, fantasy shouldn't be taken seriously and its authors are inferior to those who specialize in other forms of fiction but in such a way that she isn't actually taking ownership of it.

"Online fiction is a remote world, peopled by elves, dragons and whey-faced vampires. At least that is the view shared by millions of devoted readers of the printed novel. But now serious British literary talent is aiming to colonize territory occupied until now by fantasy authors and amateur fan-fiction writers."

Despite her weak attempt to deflect any criticism by attributing this view to "millions of devoted readers of the printed novel," the article's messaging makes it clear that Thorpe shares or wants to appear to share that negative opinion about fantasy.   She characterizes Pears, Morrison and Self as "acclaimed authors" and "serious...literary talents" while dismissing fantasy as a garbage genre analogous to amateur fan fiction or fanfic - a subgenre many see as being populated by poorly written works created by would-be writers incapable of dredging up an original idea.  Let me be clear: I am not one of those people who thinks fanfic is bad.  I think there are any number of fanfic writers out there who are amazingly talented and it's a way for people to work on their craft while paying tribute to authors and characters who have inspired them.  Yes, I get that their work creates copyright concerns but let's just leave that to another blog, shall we?  Of course, on the other side of the coin are the fanfic writers out there who are...hmm how shall I say it...ah yes, they're 50 Shades of Barftastic.  Clearly, I don't want to be compared to them, but the rest of fanficdom? Sure! The more the merrier.

On to my major objection to this article: the reporter's unjustifiably biased messaging against fantasy.  It is perfectly fine for Vanessa Thorpe to prefer or want to appear to prefer other genres but that doesn't justify the snobbishly prejudicial tone of her article's reference to fantasy and fantasy authors.  Whether she knows it or not, fantasy can be just as serious and seriously well-written as books from any other genre, even "serious literary fiction" and I've got the bookcases full of quality work to prove it.  Just off the top of my head, I can list five of my favourite authors' works that fit the bill (in no particular order):

     1.  J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy;

     2.  Michelle West's The Sun Sword series;

     3.  Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn series;

     4.  George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series; and

     5.  Guy Gavriel Kay's The Fionavar Tapestry series.

What's frustrating is that there are too many others I would love to mention but it isn't practical to list them all in one little blog entry.

I know readers won't care if Ms. Thorpe's "serious literary talents" (i.e. not fantasy authors) are online and interactive.  They will choose what to read based on who and what they like and bells and whistles added to an eBook aren't going to change that.  If readers like historic fiction, then Iain Pears may end up on their eReader.  If they like satire, then maybe they'll read Will Self.  And if biographies, thrillers and other fiction are their cup of tea then they might spring for a Blake Morrison offering.  Fine. I have no problem at all with that and I have to admit, these three are pretty impressive so I might give them a whirl too.  However, that doesn't change the fact that if readers enjoy well-written fantasy they aren't going to pick up a Pears, Self, or Morrison; they're going to look to authors like the ones I've listed above or maybe - when I finish my book - to me.  Here's hoping. 

I guess what it all boils down to is that I think Vanessa Thorpe should examine why she feels the way she does about fantasy or why she thinks she should feel that way because it isn't based on an informed and unbiased assessment of the genre's offerings.  She and anyone else who thinks fantasy is garbage should read one (or better yet, all) of the authors I mentioned above before dismissing it because there is plenty of quality fantasy out there, both serious and lighter fare, that is well worth the read.

The Creative Stress - I Mean Process

"There should be a Writer's Pie.  It would consist mostly of red wine and pencil sharpenings, seasoned by tears." - @MaireTRobinson

My friend Janet recently gave an interview where she talked about why she wrote her first book, Cinnamon Toast and the End of the World.  Apparently, her book's two main characters first appeared in a short story she wrote years ago but her brain's casting agent forgot to send them their pink slips and they kept popping up year after year in other projects.  Eventually, she recognized the pattern, bowed to the inevitable and wrote a book just for them.  I like to imagine Janet shoving her very awesome book at Stephen while shouting, "Here, here you go. Now fuck off!"  I know that's not how she feels but it makes me laugh.
 

In the abstract that creative process sounds kind of romantic.  People who've never tried writing a book might think of a writer like Janet as a creative medium - peacefully communing with the spirits of her characters while sitting in front of a computer effortlessly transcribing their stories.  Urg.  I can just imagine Janet's epic spit-take, fueled - no doubt - by a fine Irish beer or Strongbow Cider.  Janet, like every other writer worth their salt, didn't create a book like hers without sweating blood and shedding tears over it.  Yes, Stephen and Mark were strong and persistent characters but it was her talent with words that shaped the lines of their lives, that painted their settings and shaded their personalities. Without her, they would still be literary ghosts so discounting the work Janet put into her creative process by making it sound easy does her, her book and her characters a great disservice. 

That being said, I would still choose her creative process over mine.  In fact, I'd go ever farther and wish my protagonist had (metaphorically, of course) walked up to me on the train one morning, plunked herself down beside me and told me to get off my ass and write her a book already. Oh, if only...

Nope.  My process, at least thus far, is more like F. Scott Fitzgerald's.  To prepare for a story Fitzgerald organized tonnes of notes into categories like “Feelings and emotions,” “Conversations and things overheard” and “Descriptions.”  My phone, my office and my house are all hopelessly littered with random notes, lists and pictures I've taken of and about things and moments that have inspired me: descriptions, feelings, experiences, sights, sounds, smells, and songs.  I can't tell you how many times I've disrupted foot traffic by suddenly stopping to type something into my phone's notepad or to dig in my bag for pen and paper.  Like Fitzgerald, I have to do it in the moment because my words are never quite right when I'm forced to wait to scribble it down.  I know that admitting I stop dead to type into my phone makes it sound like I'm one of those people who can't chew gum and walk at the same time but I learned early the stopping part is necessary or Head will inevitably meet Pole. 

 

Yes, I'm THAT person.

 

My book's character started her life more like a ninja-esque shadow.  I knew something was rattling around in my head but I could only see a hint of it out of the corner of my imagination's eye.  It was only after all those notes, pictures, dreams, people, songs, sounds, and experiences fermented in me for quite a while that I was finally able to see my character and her story.  It was a hard slog but I felt like a million dollars when I was finally ready to start writing. 

Of course, when I finally sat down in front of my computer and stared at the blinking cursor I realized it was time to face the Hemingway challenge: "All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence that you know."

Crap crap crapcrapcraaaaaaaap!