I just finished re-reading World War Z. I had seen the movie, and when a friend (sockschan) realized that I hadn't read the book she insisted I should. Said it was right up my alley.
She was right.
See, I'm not actually into zombies. Or horror, for that matter. But I do enjoy some of the movies/books/stories when friends recommend I see them. World War Z is kind of a geopolitical zombie book, so it fit well with my interests.
While reading it again, I realized that the true horror in the story wasn't the zombies. It was the poor decision-making that let the zombie threat practically destroy humanity. The zombies, once they were understood, were something people could fight. And win. But the resistance to acknowledging the threat allowed the 'virus' to spread too far, too fast. Initial attempts to maintain control and fight the zombies conventionally failed. (The book did an excellent job of pointing out why trying to attack zombies with bombs and kill zones of massed fire didn't work, not when you had to take out the brain of every zombie. Not when any casualty could become a zombie, too.)
That is, in a nutshell, why I care about decision making. Good decision making matters. Poor decision making gets people killed. Or, at a minimum, makes life more miserable and difficult than it has to be.
In a way, it also points out how little we trust the Powers That Be. We don't trust them to make the best decisions, or even keep us informed enough that we can tell if they are or aren't making sound decisions.
Which is all well and good, but doesn't say much about how we can make things better. Different.
Does it really require a major disaster to get people to consider alternatives?
How sad is that?
She was right.
See, I'm not actually into zombies. Or horror, for that matter. But I do enjoy some of the movies/books/stories when friends recommend I see them. World War Z is kind of a geopolitical zombie book, so it fit well with my interests.
While reading it again, I realized that the true horror in the story wasn't the zombies. It was the poor decision-making that let the zombie threat practically destroy humanity. The zombies, once they were understood, were something people could fight. And win. But the resistance to acknowledging the threat allowed the 'virus' to spread too far, too fast. Initial attempts to maintain control and fight the zombies conventionally failed. (The book did an excellent job of pointing out why trying to attack zombies with bombs and kill zones of massed fire didn't work, not when you had to take out the brain of every zombie. Not when any casualty could become a zombie, too.)
That is, in a nutshell, why I care about decision making. Good decision making matters. Poor decision making gets people killed. Or, at a minimum, makes life more miserable and difficult than it has to be.
In a way, it also points out how little we trust the Powers That Be. We don't trust them to make the best decisions, or even keep us informed enough that we can tell if they are or aren't making sound decisions.
Which is all well and good, but doesn't say much about how we can make things better. Different.
Does it really require a major disaster to get people to consider alternatives?
How sad is that?
God, World War Z is just such a YOU book. Aside from the zombies, but then, as you said, the book isn't really *about* the zombies. That's also why I liked the Newsflesh Trilogy so much. The zombies are basically just a background threat that the author uses to look at independent media (like bloggers), terror vs. fear, and the manipulation of both (terror & fear) by those in power to stay in power.
ReplyDeleteYay! I have a Socks!
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, you were right to get me to read the book. :) You know, I read the books...and a large part of me hopes that isn't how the real world works. These days, I'm not sure I can believe it. :/