BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


World War Z by Max Brooks, and future histories in general

 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
12:20 / 17.06.08
It's been a while since I started a thread, but I figure if there's one thing with a good chance of bringing out the LitherLurkers, it's a good discussion about post-apocalyptic fiction in general, and ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE in particular.

I've just finished World War Z - An oral history of the Zombie War by Max Brooks (son of Mel Brooks and sometime skit writer for Saturday Night Live, fact fans). It's a follow up to an earlier book The Zombie Survival Guide, and it's a fantastic piece of fictional history. The book is entirely composed of interviews with survivors of a world-wide undead apocalypse, from the doctor in China who found 'Patient Zero' to French 'Cousteaus' who cleared the flooded catacombs of Paris of the grasping 'zacks'. In contrast with the earlier book, it is unrelentingly grim and entirely straight-faced, with psychological horrors aplenty.

I greatly enjoyed it, even if I had a couple of problems with its execution. A number of times, the language of the survivors was simply too florid and descriptive, breaking the illusion of a real oral history. And there were a couple of national stereotypes bordering on the ridiculous (the Brit who explains the resurgent use of castles to protect against the undead is pretty good until his upper lip quivers when he talks about the Queen, for example).

That aside, it was an excellent read, and reminded me strongly of Whitley Streiber's seminal travelogue/oral history Warday, which described a fractured, pre-industrial America ten years after a 'limited' nuclear war with Russia.

World War Z is, by the way, in pre-production for a 2010 release as a film, scripted by that chap that wrote Babylon 5 (I can never spell his name). This tantalising script preview plays it as tonally similar to the film version of Children of Men, but with zombies. Which would be fantastic.

That article also mentions the issue of making an 'oral history' like this more interesting than just lots of talking heads, with the clear hope that the film will show the recollections of each of the survivors.

So, what are your thoughts on 'future histories' like this? Do they gain some of their power from the relative ease with which they can suspend disbelief, due to our familiarity with the documentary format? Is it a refuge for the SF author who can write entire books worth of backstory but can't write a realistic character that can sustain itself for more than a few pages?

Also, I'd love to see anyone else's recommendations for other books and films in this category.
 
 
grant
14:41 / 17.06.08
I know I've written about this elsewhere on here....

Maybe in the movies forum? Quite liked the book.

I think it'd make a better miniseries than movie. Narrated by David Attenborough, or Morgan Freeman.
 
 
Happy Dave Has Left
15:38 / 17.06.08
Aha, like World at War or something? Genius.
 
 
Jack Fear
16:33 / 17.06.08
I know I've written about this elsewhere on here....

Starting here.
 
 
Axolotl
12:41 / 19.06.08
Grant: You're right about the miniseries. That would be aces.

I did enjoy World War Z, far more than the Zombie Survival Handbook. Nicely relentlessly grim, but not too an extreme level (sure zombie apocalypese are terrifying, but able to totally wipe out humanity? I don't think so). The oral history format worked really well, allowing Brooks to tell the entire story without having to contrive a way to place the "big damn hero" in a unrealistic central and ubiquitous position to the conflict.

Not sure I'd include Harry Turtledove et al in the same kind of category. They're often nothing more than a standard multi-volume fantasy/skiffy novel with the main plot notes cribbed directly from history.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
13:15 / 19.06.08
After hearing about it here, I picked up Last and First Men and Starmaker by Olaf Stapledon, which I definitely think counts as future history.

Last and First Men is a bit depressing and seemed to me to have been largely influenced by World War I - basically Stapledon seemed to think it was inevitable that we would keep getting into huge, world-spanning conflicts based solely on huge alliances and small events spiraling out of control. Added to this was the occasional environmental disaster or antimatter accident destroying most of the human race every time it looked like it was going to get anywhere.

Starmaker is a bit more hopeful, with various races from all over the galaxy and eventually the universe uniting in a quest to find God, though it exhibits many of the same events.

For a book that's a 1930s philosopher trying to find meaning in life's struggle, the xenobiology and astrophysics really aren't all that bad. And the scope is definitely ambitious - Starmaker basically becomes the history of the universe from start to finish, and then even a kind of summary of a timeline of every universe God has created in hir quest to make something larger than hirself.

Most of his tragically unavoidable cosmic events seemed a little avoidable to me, though. Stapledon seemed to believe that a race of superhumans with intelligence and science an order or two of magnitude greater than ours couldn't figure out how to build a few spaceships and emigrate to another planet even if they were given hundreds of thousands of years to work on the problem, which didn't quite ring true to me.

Similarly, it seemed a bit unbelievable when the supposedly spiritually unshakable superhumans fell into chaos over what seemed like very silly human problems.

Also, while his quest to find God felt really marvelous and difficult and real, the actual final contact bit fell a bit short for me.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
18:35 / 19.06.08
Not really answering the question, but I fucking loved WWZ.

Especially the part about the dog patrols.
 
 
grant
19:34 / 19.06.08
Is it herolessness + fascinating details (like dog patrols) that = "history"?

One of my filecards: in Spanish, the word for "story" and the word for "history" is the same word, historia. Sometimes I wonder what the difference really is between a decent historical novel and non-fiction. And fiction disguised as non-fiction (from the future!) is just confusing.
 
  
Add Your Reply