It has been rightly affirmed that the World War Z book and the movie share two things in common, the name, and the fact they were made by carbon-based lifeforms (http://io9.com/heres-everything-the-world-war-z-movie-has-in-common-w-586150729); and that the author didn’t reject the movie
(http://io9.com/against-all-odds-author-max-brooks-didnt-hate-the-wor-848787012/all ) as all writers usually do. (I would however observe he is not that fond either – http://litreactor.com/news/max-brooks-publicly-disses-world-war-z-movie – even if he has not gone to the extent of having his name removed from the closing credits and taken producers to court as Stephen King with
The Lawnmower Man , http://www.underthegunreview.net/2012/08/06/332792) .
Whatever the truth, the success of World War Z in both versions is not matter of contention. Even more impressive, critics and public astonishingly agreed in considering the book a five star (the definitive zombie novel of the last decade, http://www.rantingdragon.com/review-of-world-war-z-an-oral-history-of-the-zombie-war-by-max-brooks/) and his author the artifex of the ongoing zombie renaissance. Dubious about this point? You should not. With Zombie Survival Guide back in 2003, and World War Z out in 2006, Max gets much of the credit, even if he claims, with reasons, this is a sign of the times we live in, as it was in the 70s, the golden age of the genre. (See my other post on this blog for Chomsky’s take on the phenomenon.)
What are the reasons behind all this glory? I would name here two – the format and the original approach to the theme that IMHO is the most relevant contribution of this compelling, almost gripping novel.
At a first glance, the book doesn’t strike you for originality. The sheer content is in line with many other zombies stories and illustrating, through the words and experiences of a plethora of different characters, episodes before, during and after a global war with zombies, rightly termed WWZ. (Note: the title is clearly rhyming with WWIII in the American spelling. In British English this is lost though: we pronounce it Zed – http://www.empireonline.com/interviews/interview.asp?IID=1724).
An innovative format, and herein lies its originality: the entire book is constructed as the report of the survivors’ dramatic experiences, recorded and collected by a United Nation Postwar investigator (the Brad Pitt of the movie, which, differently from the screen, is not described at all in the novel). It has been observed by many that the author has modeled it on Studs Terkel’s The Good War -An Oral History Of World War Two (http://everything2.com/title/%2522The+Good+War%2522) and Brooks has not denied the claim – even including it in its acknowledgments. If is this the case, he has obtained the intended result and this has certainly contributed to the widespread success of his baby. Max Brooks has often defined himself a “history nerd”, and his novel looks like a non-fiction book alright, in a fashion that reminds of Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds (which many people believed actually happening (http://www.transparencynow.com/welles.htm).
The realistic effect (the creepy plausibility, as it has been defined by one reviewer) has been facilitated by the extensive research the author has carried out when writing some sections – and I think here to the tale of the Battle of Yonkers, the zombie version of a military disaster – which could easily pass for an extract of a warfare manual. For the ones familiar with military history and intelligence studies, it is not only credible but accurate, down to tiny details. Impossible not to be impressed. Fiction is not reality, and it has to make sense; all writers are aware of it, but it is desolating to notice how many of them forget or misjudge the BS detector (as Hemingway allegedly called it http://www.thehemingwayproject.com/category/bullshit-detector/ ) of their readers.
Brooks has certainly made sure he doesn’t, and this is even more remarkable in a horror-zombie story, where contradictions are mainstream and consistency invariably falters at some moments. And this leads to the other reason of its merited popularity: the innovation to the genre (another non-contentious point, http://dysfunctionalparrot.com/book-reviews/wwz/) . For the first time, zombies are seen as something as real as any other threat. Forget ghouls, magic potions or supernatural entities: Zacks are infected humans and enemies you can’t possibly negotiate with. The realm for dealing with them is government policies and total war strategies, not voodoo remedies or Potteresque spells. Is the book satirical in its intent (http://wordpress.monmouth.edu/?p=5368), as some reviews have pointed out? I don’t think so, nor I found it particularly humorous either (http://www.examiner.com/article/book-review-of-world-war-z-by-max-brooks) even if the image of underwater zombies clinging to a Chinese submarine made me snicker.
I agree more with others observing how strongly political it is (http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/01/world-war-z/, in a very detailed analysis which I recommend to anybody with a specific interest in this aspect). And, unsurprisingly, the book has found his way not only on the shelves of horror aficionados, but a series of different repositories like the reading list of the U.S. Naval War College (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nGG5E04cog) and a few universities in the States, St. Edward in Austin, Texas, (http://www.npr.org/2012/09/07/160758839/what-college-kids-can-learn-from-the-zombie-war) just to mention one. (And wow, students love it, http://nerdybookclub.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/world-war-z-by-max-brooks-review-by-sarah-giffen/). Brooks wanted the zombies as a tool to investigate and showcast cultural differences and social conflicts (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/jun/19/interview-max-brooks/): he admirably succeeded in his purpose. And yes, there are things like zombies preparedness workshops: as you would expect from the author of the zombie survival guide, Max Brook is lecturing in them (http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/12/4217692/army-recruits-zombie-novelist-max-brooks-troops-disaster-preparation).
This also leads to the main (and honestly the only one I was able to dig out) criticism moved to the book – the flatness, undeniable, of its characters (http://www.sfsite.com/12a/ww237.htm). Not only there is no Brad Pitt, but there are none defined at a level of depth and detail you would expect for protagonists. They are simply too many, and they stay with you only for a few pages, before vanishing back in the apocalyptic gnarling moaning mess. But I would argue here this was intended. As in a real history book, at least in that different, more recent kind closer to the French Annales than to traditional historiography, the characters are used to illustrate real facts and their impact on people’s lives. Max Brooks like Robert Mandrou? Maybe, or maybe not, but I am utterly pleased with the results, in both cases.
I hear a rustling, muffled sound coming from the garden. I stop writing this review and, a tad distressed in spite of myself, I go and look into the relative obscurity of my backyard. Nothing’s out there, but my hairs bristled up like the fur of a scared cat. I can’t deny it, World War Z has put me in a state of nervous alertness to unfamiliar noises. This is because Brooks’ zombies sound so incredibly real – and people deal with them as you deal with terror attacks and nuclear bombs, ie, knowing they exist and trying to make them stay as far away as possible from your normal life. But they remain part of that normal life – and this normality is the most terrifying of the feeling. And a question pops up inevitably at this point: how much does Max Brooks himself believe in zombies? (And I am not the only one wondering: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/max-brooks-is-not-kidding-about-the-zombie-apocalypse.html?_r=0) . Sure enough, when people observe his fixation with them is almost as scary as the zombies themselves (http://www.avclub.com/review/max-brooks-iworld-war-z-an-oral-history-of-the-zom-3738) you can’t but agree. And start musing whether there is anything to be worried about for real.
That animals zombified by virus or parasites do exist is not a novelty – the cases are well-known and documented, with insects on the top of the list (http://www.nationalgeographic.it/natura/animali/2012/09/14/foto/animali_zombie-1253970/1/) . There are valid scientific reasons for which a zombie epidemic could start and spread, from brain viruses, nanobots or stem cell experiments gone awry (http://scimmiaistruita.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/5-ragioni-scientifiche-per-cui-potrebbe-scoppiare-unapocalisse-zombie-2/#more-888). And the CDC (the American Centre for Disease and Prevention) takes the issue so seriously to have actually set up a blog with a series of measure to face prepared an unlikely-but-technically possible Zombie Apocalypse (http://blogs.cdc.gov/publichealthmatters/2011/05/preparedness-101-zombie-apocalypse/).
There is more. A few days ago, an Italian news website reported a rather bizarre story, supposedly happened in Rome (http://247.libero.it/rfocus/20115524/0/roma-si-risveglia-durante-il-suo-funerale-esce-dalla-bara-e-aggredisce-il-prete/). A man, passed away two days before, has reanimated during his own funeral. The oral (unsettling coincidence) report is that the believed-to-be corpse stepped out of its coffin in a delirious, almost raging status and started furiously biting the astonished, officiating priest. Now, its veracity is all but proved: I had no way to double-check this news, and even less to assess the reliability of its sources. But, after Word War Z, who dares to blindly trust official news outlets again, and ignore rumours, when zombies are in the equation? I should relax, anyway. Max declared, in one of the interviews I mentioned before, that the UK would respond “magnificently” (I quote) in the event of a zombie uprising. Our zombies would, maybe, even queue up and “you could just lop their heads off one by one.” I just damn hope he is right.