Zombie Essay

For my final essay, I will be writing about the zombie genre. This mainly consists of a comparison between receptions to different portrayals of the creatures. I will attempt to explore whether there is a perfect recipe for a representation of them that maximizes positive feedback. I'm not entirely sure which sources I will be using at this point, but I will certainly be incorporating content from all popular mediums of storytelling.

The Walking Dead Graphic Novel vs. TV Series

This is the first time I've enjoyed one of the graphic novel readings; I guess they're just not my cup of tea in general. I attribute this to the style of development Kirkman uses by which we are able to learn more about the characters progressively. With that being said, I admit that I enjoyed the series much more. I think that the commentary within the novel was far more poignant and effectively delivered, but the series really allowed the disaster to sink in. Whether this is the result of visuals, changed dialogue, or something else, I'm not sure. The message that was most evident to me was the family relationship in the face of this apocalypse: regardless of what was happening, family took first priority, perhaps over the safety of oneself. On page 27, we read that Rick doesn't believe that Morgan's squatting has to be justified because he is simply protecting his son. After Rick is reunited with Lori and Carl, he realizes that he hasn't "had time to be scared." (61) Perhaps a counter-example to this would be Jim's escape from Atlanta which "happened so fast he didn't even realize what was going on" (84). He certainly looked out for himself, but it is unclear whether they were already lost before he could have helped them.

Throughout the rest of the reading, numerous examples of family relationships are present and it is definitely a big theme Kirkman was trying to hit on. In the adaptation for TV, I think that the writers do an excellent job of integrating the Rick's struggle into the story, but it often detracts from his immense desire to be reunited with them, something felt throughout the entire beginning of the novel. I think this is due to the heavier emphasis on Morgan and some other things only briefly present in the novel. Still, I would probably watch more of The Walking Dead than read it.

Flame Alphabet - Selection 2

Perhaps it is better now to liken a father to an animal parent. Certain caretaking is observed, but when the offspring matures, alienation and estrangement set in. Rivalry. The youngster grows preternaturally angry at the father, for some reason angrier at the father than at any other creature and the father opens a small hole in his chest to accommodate this anger which flows in rapidly. An emotional ecology is observed, with the energy composted and renewed in the chest of the man. A deep, circular structure is satisfied with the anger returning to its creator, who is probably not equipped to hold it anymore. He must release it through new activities to the world.

Page 256

I think that this passage is an excellent example of where Ben Marcus practically explicitly states his belief about the nature of gratitude: cutthroat and almost animalistic. The father here gives everything to his child and gets little else than malice in return. This is certainly a bit of an exaggeration in many cases, but in a general context, it is hard to disagree that it is not uncommon for the reciprocation of a favor to be somewhat weaker or nonexistent. I believe that a person loses value in our eyes when we fail to acknowledge the things they do for us; certainly as much is evident in the relationship between Esther and Samuel. Esther (to my memory) doesn't once recognize the many things that he does for her and her animosity towards him grows progressively worse, culminating in what I find to be one of the most hateful departures I could imagine. Perhaps it is simply hardwired in us all to bite the hand that feeds us, but I think that Marcus tries to highlight this point as a small lesson in thankfulness. 

Flame Alphabet

Esther requested that her birthday not serve as an occasion for us to pretend that ewe were closer than we really were, since why should that random date, a date based on the most flawed and sentimental calendar, make us suddenly tell lies about how we really felt?

"Sweetie," I countered.

"See, like that," she said. "There's a lie right there. You think that a generic endearment will somehow show how you feel toward me, talk me out of how I actually feel. One word is going to do that, a word used for pets? How many people use that exact word to hide what they feel? It's like you're throwing up on me, actually. I feel like you just threw up on me." (Chapter 15)

I never ceased to be astonished by the sheer disrespect Esther held towards her parents. I think this passage pretty well sums up Esther's justification for her horrible behavior though: she feels as though her parents have a lack of respect for her; enough that she truly believes Samuel is lying to her by expressing his affection for her. Obviously, her parents love her very dearly. She has brought them inches from death, but they try to remain with her for as long they possibly can, consistently trying to save what shred of love there may be left between them. I think the great oversight on Esther's part here is that it is possible for two certain individuals to love someone so wretched and who tries so desperately to garner a lashing response: those two of course are that child's parents.

 This passage also shows one of the major flaws of Esther in that she merely uses people for their immediate value to her. She is able to disregard her parents because she is confident in the continuation of the services she takes from her parents. Recall that earlier she had no interest in playing with the children at the park; I think that she realized that those kids would provide no benefit to her, unlike the gangs she hangs out with who enable her to feel more powerful. Power is the number one thing I believe Esther is seeking, evident in her words she crafts to which no response can be made and in harming others. Where this desire comes from, I have a few ideas, but I have yet to come up with a definitive answer.

Social Criticisms in Black Hole

*For some reason, blogger won't let me post with the image in here, but it is on page 338 of the pdf.

     I think that this page is one of the best examples of what I found one of Burns' criticisms to be. I see these frames as a commentary on the hatred that many afflicted persons have towards unaffected people. Of course, the afflicted in the case of Black Hole were looked down upon and were the recipients of hatred in the first place, but I believe that there is also a degree of preconception regarding "normal" people held by the "freaks" that magnifies their reactions to people. I can think of many places where such a phenomenon can be seen: racism, poverty, appearance, etc.

     I cannot argue that this was Burns' main point in the comic, but it definitely deserves mention because I think that it lends more to the degradation of society and culture than any other element. Prejudice is a huge factor behind violence, and the continuation of this prejudice leads only to more violence; quite a vicious cycle in my opinion, and one that can only provide destruction, even the fall of nations.

    As a note on the comic as a whole, I found it very unpleasant and disconcerting to read. I literally vomited a small amount in the opening volumes and was the target of many judgmental glances in the library. I suppose that some aspects of it were thought provoking, but even then only to a small degree. Anyway, please don't assign something like this again Ali :). 

Brief Summary of Three Sources

“Hindu-Christian Conflict in India: Globalization, Conversion, and the Coterminal Castes and Tribes” by Chad M. Bauman from The Journal of Asian Studies is an analysis of Hindu-Christian violence (primarily in the last twenty-five years). The main topics of discussion consist of the history of the aforementioned subject, the identification and elucidation of current theories for the rapid growth and intensity of the conflict (along with several rebuttals), and suggestions for action that should be taken to properly identify the current contradictions/limited scope of those theories. The penultimate topic is presented by providing theories encompassing almost every factor of globalization (economics, politics, religion, etc.). The most important assertion (in my opinion) of the paper is that “An emphasis on nodality would mean that one would not attempt to explain interreligious riots as a function of politics, economics, or psychology alone.”, a claim which is greatly expanded in the final section.

“Refiguring Religion”, written by Mark C. Taylor for the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, presents an analysis of how religion/culture is integrated with societal, natural, and technological issues. This analysis leads to the conclusion that religion is a highly sporadic phenomenon which actually appears to be approaching an equilibrium. He further argues that as a result of globalization, projection models are more important than in any other age and that this tendency of religion to change unexpectedly is a limiting factor to accurate models. Another important facet to his argument is that he suggests that by identifying the nodes referenced in the first source (although the papers have no connection) and by using information from the earlier issues, a somewhat accurate function can be developed.

Jack Fischel writes in his article, “Politics Versus Religion”, for Midstream, a Jewish quarterly magazine, an analysis of some of the ideologies of major political/cultural movements of the past 200 years. He pays particular attention to the drawings from religious ideas in controlling the masses. He also explores the response of organized Christianity to many of these regimes and cults. This article is of particular interest because it attempts to show the reasons for both sides’ actions and because it uses examples from all levels of political ideology, from Marxism to Democracy.

The humanization of the gods

     “Hermodur bowed to the queen of Hel, and said that he had come to beg for Baldur’s return to Asgard. Gods and men, an all creatures, were helpless with grief, and needed the young god to bring back their liveliness, their power to hope. Most of all, said Hermodur, the goddess Frigg had asked him to be Hel for Baldur’s return, for she could not live without him. To this, Hel replied that mothers throughout time had learned to live without their sons. Every day young men died and came quietly over her golden bridge. Only in Asgard could they die in battle every day, as a game, and live again to feast in the evening. In the hard world, and in the world of shadows, death was not a game.

     But this death, said Hermodur, had diminished the light of the world.

     So, said Hel. It is diminished, then. (105-106).

     I chose this passage because it exemplifies an important distinction between gods and humans. Just a few pages earlier, we are told that Baldur’s death is worrisome to Odin because “gods don’t fall dead”. I would suggest that the greatest catalysts for Ragnarok are the death of Baldur and the subsequent refusal of Loki to weep (although this probably wasn’t necessary; the original poem states that Hel’s reasoning for offering this compromise was that if someone killed him in the first place, they wouldn’t weep).
     What is most important to draw from this thought is the first major instance of the gods experiencing a tragedy that occurs only for humans: the loss of a friend/relative. Another important aspect to draw from this is the fact that even the most cunning cannot escape the end. Certainly, had Loki known that by killing Baldur he would seal his own fate, he would not have done so.
     I think that the final humanization of the gods is what was missing for the coming of Ragnarok. I assume that this is due to the fact that in stories written by men, there must be some connection to our species.