I am going to be straightforward as I can be, I do not like zombies. Never have,
never will. Therefore, I struggled reading "World War Z." I tried to have an open mind, but
the documentary style isn't interesting to me either. I know this is all a matter of taste, and
I am probably in the minority. I've never been one to follow the crowd, so I'm not about
to jump on the zombie bandwagon just because everybody else has. In "World War Z,"
though, the zombies were not the only monsters. Humans do monstrous things as well
Zombies bore me. That is the simplest way to sum up my dislike for them. I like
my monsters to have a bit of intellect. With zombies, you don't get even a flicker. You can't even
say they have pure animal instinct. Animals are more intelligent by leagues! I did not like
Rawhead, but I'd take him over a zombie any day. The slow moving feature and human flesh-
eating penchant does not do it for me, and that's really all any zombie is. In "World War Z," Brooks
made them strong, made it possible for them to walk along the bottom of oceans and
survive, but those additional differences were not enough; they were still the same old
"World War Z" is actually kind of about the human condition, conveyed largely through the
reactions people have to the zombies. The book is a series of interviews from the survivors of the
Zombie War. Although this style did not appeal to me, I did find some of the interviews interesting.
I also noticed that some of the interviewees or the things that happened to them could be
considered monstrous. Breckinridge "Breck" Scott is the first interviewee who had
monster written all over his face. He developed a vaccine for the zombie epidemic. It was
a rabies vaccine, and the zombie disease was labeled African rabies. Of course, he knew
full well this vaccine wouldn't protect against a zombie bite. "All I did was wha
...