A science fiction community and weblog
World War Z
Submitted by Capt. Xerox on March 29, 2007 - 10:44pm.
World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War is a piece of faux reportage about the global war against the zombies. It borrows heavily in style from Stud Terkel's The Good War: An Oral History of World War II and Gen. Sir John Hackett's The Third World War. If it isn't obvious enough, Brooks lists both authors and their books in his acknowledgements.
World War Z is a collection of dozens of recollections of people who survived a plague that spawned a generation of zombies that nearly destroyed mankind. The survivors are from all walks of life and from all parts of the globe, although military types tend to be over-represented in the stories which I suppose is natural given the title of the book and the nature of the story.
While their stories are interesting, what struck me as false about the entire thing was the long-winded recollections that are "recorded" in the book. The interviewer would interject very rarely to ask a question (or usually just to raise an eybrow) and the interviewee would proceed to tell their story in minute detail that would span several pages. It's great for advancing the story, it's just not believable. Anyone who's ever interviewed anyone who isn't used to being asked questions knows they usually require a lot of prompting to get them to regurgitate their story no matter how fascinating it may be.
The other thing I didn't like about the book was that while the characters were supposedly diverse, they very often sounded the same and had similar viewpoints vis-a-vis politics and the use of military force. In fact, the entire book seemed to revel in miltary might and would occasionally rhapsodize about some bit of miltary hardware. Again, that's only natural because it is ultimately a war story, but I thought it was a bit much at times.
Despite these quibbles, I still enjoyed the book, but I'm a sucker for zombies and post-apocalyptic fiction. The book has been optioned for a movie and it seems like it will be a natural. In some ways, I think the story is better suited for the screen than the printed page.
C.X.
»
"the characters were
"the characters were supposedly diverse, they very often sounded the same and had similar viewpoints vis-a-vis politics and the use of military force"
you think
in our world war is a distant thing with only small percentage of the population being affected by war and an even smaller population at the sharp end
in the world of World War Z the war was being fort in the street outside your front door, and it was the same for everyone, the act of smashing you next door neighbours head in with the blunt end of a pool cue is gonna change your mind about the pros and cons of violence ad everyone would have the same shared experience.
The good war
Putting aside the unlikely concept of a war against zombies for a second, I wasn't commenting on the justification of force in time of war, but was instead saying that the various characters in the book all sounded like the same person. I don't think the author did a credible job of making them seem like individuals.
Contrast this book with Terkel's The Good War and you'll see the difference. Of course the people in Terkel's book seemed like individuals because it was a work of non-fiction and he didn't have to make things up.
World War Z is slated to become a movie, but I don't have high hopes, but I'm sure the Resident Evil crowd will lap it up.
C.X.
its being produced by plan B
its being produced by plan B i bet it's gonna do good.
Long winded recollections...
World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War is a piece of faux reportage about the global war against the zombies. It borrows heavily in style from Stud Terkel's The Good War: An Oral History of World War II and Gen. Sir John Hackett's The Third World War. If it isn't obvious enough, Brooks lists both authors and their books in his acknowledgements.
World War Z is a collection of dozens of recollections of people who survived a plague that spawned a generation of zombies that nearly destroyed mankind. The survivors are from all walks of life and from all parts of the globe, although military types tend to be over-represented in the stories which I suppose is natural given the title of the book and the nature of the story.
While their stories are interesting, what struck me as false about the entire thing was the long-winded recollections that are "recorded" in the book. The interviewer would interject very rarely to ask a question (or usually just to raise an eybrow) and the interviewee would proceed to tell their story in minute detail that would span several pages. It's great for advancing the story, it's just not believable. Anyone who's ever interviewed anyone who isn't used to being asked questions knows they usually require a lot of prompting to get them to regurgitate their story no matter how fascinating it may be.
The other thing I didn't like about the book was that while the characters were supposedly diverse, they very often sounded the same and had similar viewpoints vis-a-vis politics and the use of military force. In fact, the entire book seemed to revel in miltary might and would occasionally rhapsodize about some bit of miltary hardware. Again, that's only natural because it is ultimately a war story, but I thought it was a bit much at times.
Despite these quibbles, I still enjoyed the book, but I'm a sucker for zombies and post-apocalyptic fiction. The book has been optioned for a movie and it seems like it will be a natural. In some ways, I think the story is better suited for the screen than the printed page.
C.X.
Well written review C.X.
But I feel compelled to point out that in the opening of the book the narrator makes a point to explain that he has tried to edit out most of his questions and promptings. The only ones he leaves in are ones that he feels are necessary to account for specific questions he feels the reader might have asked themselves, or for literary effect. He tries to make his presence as transparent as possible. This would account for your critique that the persons giving their recollections seem long-winded or especially detailed.
I imagine it to be something like a television interview where they seemingly talk at long length, but there are moments when the frames fade into one another to show where a question or prompt has been edited away.
JP
Post new comment