…not one single living character utters the word, “zombie”?
I’ve read some zombie novels: all three of David Wellington’s Monster Island, Monster Nation and Monster Planet novels. I am currently reading Day by Day Armageddon, by J.L. Bourne. I have seen 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later.
The characters never refer to the infected as zombies.
**Why is that? In the universes of these novels and movies have they never heard of zombies or the culture that surrounds them?
**
Sure I know there are some exceptions to this, what seems like a genre rule, like Shaun of the Dead, but by far most of the media about zombies, the living within, do not refer to them as “zombies”.
For the same reason that nobody ever says Vampire, either. It’s all about trying to be different and fresh while still reusing something that’s been around in popular mythology for hundreds or thousands of years.
If it makes you feel better, “World War Z” uses the word Zombie all over the place.
I tend to assume that most zombie fiction takes place in a parallel universe where George Romero never made Night of the Living Dead and thus the modern horror concept of a zombie as a reanimated corpse that eats human flesh (as opposed to voodoo slave) never existed. It would explain the almost complete lack of genre savy most characters demonstrate. And some films (like Return of the Living Dead do have genre savy characters only to use different zombie rules (“You mean the movie lied!”).
In defense of 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later they aren’t technically zombies, in that they never died. They are still alive, just infected with the “rage virus.” Granted, the rage virus makes the infected act almost exactly like your typical movie zombie (except that they can be fast…not that all movie zombies are slow, but most are.)
Zombies are creatures of myth. Most people don’t want to appear as some sort of supersticious, unschooled morons, (especially in fiction). It goes to reason, if your enemy isn’t Undead, a bullet to the chest will kill them.
Jacob: Does anybody know what’s going on here?
Seth: I know what’s going on. We got a bunch of fucking vampires out there, trying to get in here and suck our fucking blood. And that’s it. Plain and simple. I don’t want to hear anything about “I don’t believe in vampires,” because I don’t fucking believe in vampires, but I believe in my own two eyes, and what I saw, is fucking vampires. Now, do we all agree that what we are dealing with is vampires?
Kate: Yes.
Seth: Do they look like psychos? Is that what they look like? They were vampires! Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don’t give a fuck how crazy they are!
Damn, beaten to the punch once again.
Totally unrelated movie, but Andy Garcia said in “Things To Do In Denver When You’re Dead”: “Give it a name.”
I came in to mention Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead, the two greatest zombie movies ever made. Shaun of the dead is my favorite zomromcom (zombie romantic comedy, duh.).
The problem is that zombies aren’t creatures of myth and legend. They’re strictly a Hollywood invention, and a relatively recent one. George Romero invented a very specific suite of attributes for his zombies: craves human flesh, bite transforms victim into another zombie, can only be killed by a headshot. If you have a character in a zombie movie who knows about Night of the Living Dead, you have to wonder, “How the fuck did George Romero know this was going to happen?” It’s not like vampires or werewolves, where the creatures could have been living in secret for centuries, assumed by the modern world to be the product of superstition: zombies aren’t just a monster, they’re an apocalypse scenario. They don’t skulk about in the shadows, they drag down civilizations. You’d have a radically different world history if zombies had always existed.
To me, a “zombie” story involves some sort of mass extinction of the human race, or some sort of apocalyptic event e.g. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (which, imho, would be classified today as a “zombie movie”) where people are slowly taken over and replaced or become the enemy.
The confusion is how these things are animated. Some stories have a virus, others have radiation, still others have magic. If they aren’t dead but act like zombies, that’s good enough to be called a “zombie story” (e.g. 28 Days Later.)
So, referring back to the OP, I think a lot of people don’t refer to the creatures within the “zombie genre” as “zombies,” because theoretically they aren’t the re-animated dead.
Well, not to mention generally people who aren’t dead yet in these movies and books didn’t get such a great look at the enemy, since, you know, they aren’t dead yet.
Voodoo zombies are not the same thing - they’re not flesh eating, free roaming, spontaneously animated (or animated by a virus in some variants) monsters.
They are deliberately animated slaves - a proper zombie won’t try to eat you, unless commanded to do so by the bokor who created it.
And that’s why Romero doesn’t like to call his Living Dead zombies, and in a Romero-free universe, why people wouldn’t generally spontaneously start calling Romero/O’Bannon/Fulci type zombies ‘zombies’ - because without Romero’s Living Dead movies to cause the term to shift, it would still refer to a completely different concept.
