I fully admit I adore zombies. As far as monsters go, zombies are capable of terrifying the pants off of an audience (if done right) and provide ample opportunity for social commentary and symbolism. I'm sure it's fairly evident at this point how fond I am of deeper meanings threaded through a story. I'm on the fence with how I felt about Max Brooks' World War Z.
I've heard a ton of great things about this book. Right from the start, I had some high expectations for the novel. Did it meet them? Yes... and no. First, I was blown away by Brooks unique approach and world building. Typical zombie stories follow a small group of survivors in a limited part of the world as they struggle to survive. Brooks went for the full globe, as in a view of the devastation of the undead in numerous countries from multiple perspectives. The world politics play a role in how the war unfolds, especially attempts to control fear and combat the zombies. Brooks makes this global view personal by having the perspectives of individual interviews. These personal takes on the events give the reader the human emotion of the book. The plausibility of the world is solid and well plotted. At no point did I feel Brooks' traumatized world was unbelievable.
Brooks approach to use interviews to construct a global history of the zombie war is genius. After reading books and watching movie after movie following the same band of survivors plot line, this was refreshing. Brooks tried something different, and the resulting world is fascinating. However, this is a double edge sword. Part of the benefit to following a group of survivors is that the audience will become emotionally invested in their survival. Readers care what happens to these people. Since Brooks chose such a global perspective through interviews, it was difficult to feel attachment in the same manner to individual characters. Characters were a vehicle to experience the overall feelings of horror and political/social commentary. The standard expectations for an immersive novel, like story arcs and character development are missing. Instead, we have a series of interviews that feel more like a means for Brooks to comment on the politics of war and American isolationism rather than a true horror story. The truth is, an audience is more emotionally concerned about individual people they connect with, than the general 'us' that is humanity. Yes, we care are about the global population, but we are going to be terrified when the singular character we empathize with is in danger. This book felt more like a tragic news story regarding people from another country; something removed enough that I felt only a basic level of sympathy. It far more upsetting if I personally knew the people involved.
The individual interviews read rather dry to me and it seemed that the characters didn't have unique voices. This took me far longer to read than if I had compelling characters or a conflict fueled plot to keep me turning pages. I tried to switch back and forth from the audio book and the print copy to pull through. The variety in voice actors for the audio version helped somewhat to break up the monotony, but the interview format still grew tired quickly. Especially since there wasn't tension building around the chance of the character dying. They are telling there account of events after the fact - I'm not fearful they won't survive. They obviously did in order to tell their story. However, I've never been a fan of telling a story through interviews, articles, and journal entries. I would rather be experiencing the action with the characters instead of hearing their thoughts on it in retrospect.
Overall, I would say this book isn't bad, just that I'm not the audience for it. For a different perspective, my husband loved it. He is quite the history buff and enjoyed building the story of the war in his head from the interviews. For me, this was a chore to read, even if I did appreciate certain elements of the book. I was starving for a story, and this felt more like a case study. To each his own, I suppose.
Man, I am amazed at the amount of people on the fence or who just straight up don't like this book in our class. I freakin' love this book and I'm a character driven person. I didn't see any lack of voice or character (except in the old white guys, but they all sound alike to me). I use to teach short story writing out of this book because I thought Brooks excellently establishes place, time, and problem with such strong voices. Maybe I should reconsider...
ReplyDeleteI think my issues with this book probably comes from personal style and structure preferences. Much like the first half Cycle of the Werewolf, I'm not a fan of passing off a bunch of separate short stories as a novel. I would rather the author just come out and say it's a collection of short stories. I get that collections don't sell as well as a novel, but I feel like it's a bait and switch. I started reading this as a novel, expecting everything to tie in and characters that carry me through the length of the book.
DeleteI also hate the interview format. Knowing the person survives beforehand doesn't help me bond with the characters. I'm not fearing for that character's life. I know they survive. I would have far preferred this to be a collection of short stories that put me directly into the action, rather than give me interviews that reflected on the past. I didn't feel like I was there, experiencing it with the characters as much. So, I wasn't drawn in enough to keep turning the pages.
Make no mistake, there are a ton of great scenes in here and the global take on a zombie apocalypse was an amazing idea. The way Brook's set it up just didn't appeal to me. I'm glad you enjoyed it though. Just because I'm not the audience for this book, doesn't mean that you should enjoy it less.
Vanessa, you make a point when you mentioned your husband being a history buff and loving it. I think this is a horror novel for history and poli-sci majors. It allows them to indulge in a horror novel and feel a little smarter for doing so. Brooks does a fantastic job in the poli-sci sense, and I could really feel the vitriol he has for our government but respect for our military. It's a rare combination that I really enjoyed.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right about characters. No one cared. I've read several class blogs so far and while some would say "I liked the story about the cyber kid that became a monk..." or "The Chinese submarine story..." not once have I read a person's name. The "old white guys" that L.J. who loved the book mentions don't have names. Know why? the story they told was maybe interesting but we didn't get to know them long enough to care. We don't know any one's names.
ReplyDeleteTo me, that is why this doesn't work. I want a story, make me care. The world building was amazing, the politics believable. I give the guy so many props for all of that, but ultimately, the book is lying on the floor in my bedroom where I threw it (literally) when I finished and that is where it will stay until someone gets tired of kicking it around and puts it on some shelf somewhere. If I want to read something like this, I'd buy (and I never would buy a book like this, I'd watch a documentary) a non-fiction book. If I want to be swept away or terrified, I need to feel some kinship with the characters.