Our friends at the New York Times have shared their estimable opinions on the Zombie Lit trend. And, as frequently happens with folks who try to analyze a trend from the outside (usually from above whilst looking down their noses) I'm inclined to think they got it wrong. In my oh-so-humble opinion. (Don't laugh. I'm a font of humility.)
See, our friends at the New York Times focused on the scary scary monster aspect of the zombie trend, but I think the real appeal of zombie lit - and really any post-apocalyptic literature - is in the survivalist aspect. And I think there's an element of shoot-em-up video game glee involved too.
In the zombie apocalypse, morality is survival and you don't have to feel guilty about taking a shot gun or a machete or a baseball bat to that zombie's head because it's already dead. You aren't just fighting for yourself, but for the survival of all mankind. There's a nobility in your zombie killing spree, heroism in your rampant violence.
Not to mention the fact that the zombie apocalypse is the great equalizer. Shaun of the Dead? Zombieland? Our heroes are the ultimate average Joes. The guys who would never be your standard action heroes, but they are survivors and they get the hot chick and live happily ever after (as much as that is possible in the post-apocalyptic world).
Vampires live forever. Werewolves embrace their animalism. But zombies, those are just for killin', baby. At least that's my theory. Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"heroism in your rampant violence"
I love you so hard right now.
And I totally agree. It's not because it's scary (no more running hot water is scary though), it's all about the completely sanctioned and necessary for survival violence and mayhem. Morals? What?
Dude, no running water. That is terrifying.
Post a Comment