Zombie Invasion

[dang]

Any other zombies out there?

 

[acd]

On the radio today, I was half listening to a program on climate change and how it can feel like as individuals, our actions have no impact because the whole world must collectively change. You can drive a hybrid and recycle and conserve water and go vegan, and etc., but it means shit if you are one of the few on the planet out of billions doing anything. For some reason, I think this ties in with labeling everyone else as zombies. There are so many problems in the world and it can be overwhelming looking at them as an individual. Maybe zombies resonate subconsciously because we are aware of a disconnect within humanity that is killing us. With 7 billion on the planet, it is daunting to consider getting the majority to fall in line and work together to solve problems, especially when it doesn't fall within their most immediate interests to do so.

 

[Matt3737]

Zombies are just one of a very large category of mythological figures typically referred to as undead which can include vampires, ghosts, ghouls, skeletons, mummies, revenants, and draugr.

The undead are beings in mythology, legend, or fiction that are deceased but behave as if alive. A common example of an undead being is a corpse re-animated by supernatural forces, by the application of the deceased's own life force, or that of another being (such as a demon). The undead may be incorporeal like ghosts, or corporeal like vampires and zombies. The undead are featured in the belief systems of most cultures, and appear in many works of fantasy and horror fiction.

Bram Stoker considered using the title The Un-Dead for his novel Dracula (1897), and use of the term in the novel is mostly responsible for the modern sense of the word. The word does appear in English before Stoker but with the more literal sense of "alive" or "not dead", for which citations can be found in the Oxford English Dictionary. In one passage, nosferatu is given as an "Eastern European" synonym for "un-dead". Stoker's use of the term refers only to vampires, and the extension to other types of supernatural beings arose later. Most commonly, it is now taken to refer to supernatural beings which had at one time been alive and continue to display some aspects of life after death, but the usage is highly variable.

Shelley's 1818 novel "Frankenstein" is an early robot text, about the ethics of robotics. In cinema, so far as I have seen (adaptations of this work do not interest me) Frankenstein's creation is portrayed as a slow, lumbering, stupid sort of thing. The cultural representation of the creation arising from this is as a sort of walking corpse stitched together out of body parts. That's not what the novel is about at all and it has nothing remotely to do with that particular ethical dilemma. But unfortunately Frankenstein is just a work of art. It's denigrated by relation to science, dismissed as unworthy of study or even of reading, an object of pure leisure, because it is art. Meanwhile computer science proceeds rapidly. Robots keep on popping out, and whether people want to recognise it or not they're showing characteristics of thought. Science doesn't concern itself with that; just with making better robots.

Taken further, they can also include robots and its historical precedent the golem. These are typically differentiated from the undead by their lack of organic matter, but still fulfill the liminal status of being non-living, yet mobile and possibly even sapient. Frankenstein's monster has more in common with the zombie due to its decayed organic matter, but still shares that broad association. Similarly, it's thought that scientists in science fiction fulfil the archetypal role that the wizard used to in works of fantasy and so we might see robots fulfilling the role of undead threatening the survival of the living.

 

[invisible]

Zombies are just one of a very large category of mythological figures typically referred to as undead which can include vampires, ghosts, ghouls, skeletons, mummies, revenants, and draugr.





Taken further, they can also include robots and its historical precedent the golem. These are typically differentiated from the undead by their lack of organic matter, but still fulfill the liminal status of being non-living, yet mobile and possibly even sapient. Frankenstein's monster has more in common with the zombie due to its decayed organic matter, but still shares that broad association. Similarly, it's thought that scientists in science fiction fulfil the archetypal role that the wizard used to in works of fantasy and so we might see robots fulfilling the role of undead threatening the survival of the living.

That was really really interesting, loved reading it, thank you!!!!

It's been ages since I read Frankenstein actually and time to reread. My impression when I read it was that it wasn't decayed organics exactly, but now that you mention it, maybe more like a golem. I remember trying to figure out from the text exactly what kind of materials were being used to create the new man but not being able to.

In any case, I shouldn't be so rejecting of different turns taken by the retellings... It's all associated as you say.

Loved reading your words about the science fiction wizards... interesting!

 

[dang]

Zombies are just one of a very large category of mythological figures typically referred to as undead which can include vampires, ghosts, ghouls, skeletons, mummies, revenants, and draugr.





Taken further, they can also include robots and its historical precedent the golem. These are typically differentiated from the undead by their lack of organic matter, but still fulfill the liminal status of being non-living, yet mobile and possibly even sapient. Frankenstein's monster has more in common with the zombie due to its decayed organic matter, but still shares that broad association. Similarly, it's thought that scientists in science fiction fulfil the archetypal role that the wizard used to in works of fantasy and so we might see robots fulfilling the role of undead threatening the survival of the living.

Is the Matrix a movie about the undead then, like a futuristic zombie movie with AI?

 

[Matt3737]

Is the Matrix a movie about the undead then, like a futuristic zombie movie with AI?

Broadly speaking, yes. They feed off the life energy of humans like zombies or vampires would, but they may be closer to vampires due to their sapience. Not that zombies haven't been intelligent before (just rarely and usually only moderate intelligence).

[video=youtube;LEDYzJazfw0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEDYzJazfw0[/video]

 

[Wyote]

Is the Matrix a movie about the undead then, like a futuristic zombie movie with AI?

Not exactly, but the twins and the Merovingian and his men are direct nods to the genre.

 

[Matt3737]

Not exactly, but the twins and the Merovingian and his men are direct nods to the genre.

The Merovingian is named after the Merovingian dynasty of Frankish royalty. His wife Persephone is named after Persephone, the Greek goddess of renewal and companion of Hades, Greek god of the Underworld. The Merovingian has the role as the guardian of the virtual afterlife where exiled programs can seek refuge from deletion. He owns a nightclub named Club Hel, as a reference to the Nordic guardian of the afterlife, Hel.

Yeah, he has definite associations with death and the dead.

 

[invisible]

For Frankenstein's creation, the thing that really set him apart from zombies for me was his great intelligence and sensitivity... he was lonely and yearned for love and acceptance... he was more of a man than a zombie

 

[Matt3737]

For Frankenstein's creation, the thing that really set him apart from zombies for me was his great intelligence and sensitivity... he was lonely and yearned for love and acceptance... he was more of a man than a zombie

Yeah, he's incredibly intelligent in the novel. It was only in other portrayals that he was brutish and dumb. It's been a long time since I last read it as well though, so my memory of all the details might escape me.

While foraging for food in the woods around the cottage one night, the monster finds an abandoned leather satchel containing some clothes and books. Eager to learn more about the world than he can discover through the chink in the cottage wall, he brings the books back to his hovel and begins to read. The books include Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s Sorrows of Werter, a volume of Plutarch’s Lives, and John Milton’s Paradise Lost, the last of which has the most profound effect on the monster. Unaware that Paradise Lost is a work of imagination, he reads it as a factual history and finds much similarity between the story and his own situation. Rifling through the pockets of his own clothes, stolen long ago from Victor’s apartment, he finds some papers from Victor’s journal. With his newfound ability to read, he soon understands the horrific manner of his own creation and the disgust with which his creator regarded him.

Dismayed by these discoveries, the monster wishes to reveal himself to the cottagers in the hope that they will see past his hideous exterior and befriend him. He decides to approach the blind De Lacey first, hoping to win him over while Felix, Agatha, and Safie are away. He believes that De Lacey, unprejudiced against his hideous exterior, may be able to convince the others of his gentle nature.

The perfect opportunity soon presents itself, as Felix, Agatha, and Safie depart one day for a long walk. The monster nervously enters the cottage and begins to speak to the old man. Just as he begins to explain his situation, however, the other three return unexpectedly. Felix drives the monster away, horrified by his appearance.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/frankenstein/section8.rhtml

 

[dang]

Yeah, he's incredibly intelligent in the novel. It was only in other portrayals that he was brutish and dumb. It's been a long time since I last read it as well though, so my memory of all the details might escape me.



http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/frankenstein/section8.rhtml

Frankenstein was more of a human misfit or outcast than a zombie. He was not egotistical like a zombie or parasitic like a vampire. He was looking to connect and be generous rather than to overpower, seduce or eat people. You could argue he was in his essence more human than the people were (I read it in high school so I don't remember it clearly) and the opposite of a zombie in terms of personality and behavior. But in terms of his creation you can certainly argue he was a type of zombie just like a robot is.

 

[invisible]

Things in common, but significant differences also, I think different enough not to include them as "varieties" of zombie but as distinct in their own way. I don't think the creation of Frankenstein's monster was zombie-like... he didn't come from death or living things or previously living things, or at least it was never said that he came out of dead things. And the more I think about it the more sure I am that he wasn't made out of dead things, because if he was, he wouldn't have been able to befriend a blind person, because the blind person would have been able to smell the decay. He was more came ex-nihilo, like the way a golem or a robot does. But he wasn't like a golem or robot, because he was made with no means of control or no means of "stopping" him, or "switching him off". He was made as more of an independent being. So you can make comparisons that are meaningful, but you have to be careful to recognise that they are distinct categories that have different things to say, different points to make.

 

[Matt3737]

Frankenstein was more of a human misfit or outcast than a zombie. He was not egotistical like a zombie or parasitic like a vampire. He was looking to connect and be generous rather than to overpower, seduce or eat people. You could argue he was in his essence more human than the people were (I read it in high school so I don't remember it clearly) and the opposite of a zombie in terms of personality and behavior. But in terms of his creation you can certainly argue he was a type of zombie just like a robot is.

True. He's quite unlike most other undead. I merely meant the comparison to a zombie rather than a robot to emphasize that he was more organic than inorganic.

Although the monster would be described in later works as a composite of whole body parts grafted together from cadavers and reanimated by the use of electricity, this description is not entirely consistent with Shelley's work; both the use of electricity and the cobbled-together image of Frankenstein's monster were more the result of James Whale's popular 1931 film adaptation of the story, and other early motion-picture works based upon the creature. In Shelley's original work, Dr. Frankenstein discovers a previously unknown but elemental principle of life, and that insight allows him to develop a method to imbue vitality into inanimate matter, though the exact nature of the process is left largely ambiguous. After a great deal of hesitation in exercising this power, the doctor spends two years painstakingly constructing the creature's body (one anatomical feature at a time, from raw materials supplied by "the dissecting room and the slaughter-house"), which he then brings to life using his unspecified process.

He still has this dualistic nature that, like the undead, makes him repulsive to other humans, dehumanizes him, and leaves him bereft of a name.

Part of Frankenstein's rejection of his creation is the fact that he does not give it a name, which causes a lack of identity. Instead it is referred to by words such as "wretch", "monster", "creature", "demon", "devil", "fiend", and "it". When Frankenstein converses with the creature in Chapter 10, he addresses it as "vile insect", "abhorred monster", "fiend", "wretched devil", and "abhorred devil".

Paradise Lost, here and throughout the novel, provides a touchstone for the monster as he tries to understand his identity. Comparing himself to both Adam and Satan, perceiving himself as both human and demonic, the monster is poised uncomfortably between two realms. “Like Adam,” he says, “I was created apparently united by no link to any other being in existence,” but “many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition; for often, like him, when I viewed the bliss of my protectors, the bitter gall of envy rose within me.” Scolded like Adam and cursed like Satan, the monster is painfully aware of his creator’s utter disdain for him.

The original title also refers to him as the Modern Prometheus who was the mythological Titan who deceived the Olympian deities, stole fire from them, and bestowed it to mankind. He thusly suffered eternal punishment for this act.

Both during and after the Renaissance, Prometheus would again emerge as a major inspiration for his literary and poetic significance as a symbol and archetype to inspire new generations of artists, sculptors, poets, musicians, novelists, playwrights, inventors, technologists, engineers, and film-makers. His literary and mythological personage remains prominently portrayed in contemporary sculpture, art and literary expression including Mary Shelley's portrayal of Frankenstein as The Modern Prometheus. The influence of the myth of Prometheus extends well into the 20th and 21st century as well.

Prometheus isn't the same sort of liminal being as Hercules was as a demigod who was half human and half Olympian, but as a Titan who stole from the Olympians to benefit humans he has a sort of outsider status and trickster role that is often linked with a liminal status or role.

 

[Matt3737]

[MENTION=1814]invisible[/MENTION]

Now that I think about it: The intentional comparison with Adam and Adam's creation in the Bible whereby God creates Adam from clay does really emphasize how moot the distinction is meant to be.

 

[invisible]

@invisible

Now that I think about it: The intentional comparison with Adam and Adam's creation in the Bible whereby God creates Adam from clay does really emphasize how moot the distinction is meant to be.

That's a really interesting point, I hadn't thought about it that way at all.

 

[dang]

Things in common, but significant differences also, I think different enough not to include them as "varieties" of zombie but as distinct in their own way. I don't think the creation of Frankenstein's monster was zombie-like... he didn't come from death or living things or previously living things, or at least it was never said that he came out of dead things. And the more I think about it the more sure I am that he wasn't made out of dead things, because if he was, he wouldn't have been able to befriend a blind person, because the blind person would have been able to smell the decay. He was more came ex-nihilo, like the way a golem or a robot does. But he wasn't like a golem or robot, because he was made with no means of control or no means of "stopping" him, or "switching him off". He was made as more of an independent being. So you can make comparisons that are meaningful, but you have to be careful to recognise that they are distinct categories that have different things to say, different points to make.

So Frankenstein really seems to be a unique case, even liminal himself. Neither human nor zombie, neither monster nor person, neither robot nor organic being. Frankenstein's inability to be classified is probably why he was treated like a freak. Like the elephant man, who was human but treated like a monster. I think this is why many have difficulty with androgynous people, hermaphrodites, transgender people and even bisexuality. Most people are very uncomfortable with individuals that can't be easily placed into a binary system. Homophobic people probably perceive gays as if they are zombies. As if they are afraid of being infected with their gayness (absurd concept of course). But some people in society are treated like zombies or lepers as it is. An intolerant red neck visiting LA would probably be freaked out by every other person he sees. Oh my god, I just spotted a Hasidic Jew, or two guys holding hands, or a girl with pink hair or a guy wearing a dress. It could feel like a zombie invasion. So zombies can represent anyone you are afraid of in life. Trump probably feels like Mexicans and Muslims are like dangerous zombies. So zombies can symbolize so many different things as this thread demonstrates. So zombies are really just shadow projection. If you are greedy, but you are unaware of it, you can project that quality onto homeless people and believe that they are trying to steal your money and are a threat to your welfare. Which is all a distortion of reality. But many people do treat the homeless like zombies. It reminds me of a South Park episode with homeless people who spread all over town like the walking dead. I am not afraid of anyone. But some people do act like zombies. I am not afraid of them. I pity them. I already discussed people staring at their smart phones. They are not threatening, just clueless. But zombies do seem to be spreading in one form or another.

 

[invisible]

So Frankenstein really seems to be a unique case, even liminal himself. Neither human nor zombie, neither monster nor person, neither robot nor organic being. Frankenstein's inability to be classified is probably why he was treated like a freak. Like the elephant man, who was human but treated like a monster. I think this is why many have difficulty with androgynous people, hermaphrodites, transgender people and even bisexuality. Most people are very uncomfortable with individuals that can't be easily placed into a binary system. Homophobic people probably perceive gays as if they are zombies. As if they are afraid of being infected with their gayness (absurd concept of course). But some people in society are treated like zombies or lepers as it is. An intolerant red neck visiting LA would probably be freaked out by every other person he sees. Oh my god, I just spotted a Hasidic Jew, or two guys holding hands, or a girl with pink hair or a guy wearing a dress. It could feel like a zombie invasion. So zombies can represent anyone you are afraid of in life. Trump probably feels like Mexicans and Muslims are like dangerous zombies. So zombies can symbolize so many different things as this thread demonstrates. So zombies are really just shadow projection. If you are greedy, but you are unaware of it, you can project that quality onto homeless people and believe that they are trying to steal your money and are a threat to your welfare. Which is all a distortion of reality. But many people do treat the homeless like zombies. It reminds me of a South Park episode with homeless people who spread all over town like the walking dead. I am not afraid of anyone. But some people do act like zombies. I am not afraid of them. I pity them. I already discussed people staring at their smart phones. They are not threatening, just clueless. But zombies do seem to be spreading in one form or another.

I've always thought of zombies as being a bit like the rap Natalie Portman did with SNL.

"What you want Natalie?"
"To drink and fight!"
"What you need Natalie?"
"To fuck all night!"

Or maybe something similar to that... unthinking... comprehensionless... limited... basic...


But I think your way of seeing it as shadow projection is potentially a much richer and more constructive reading.

 

[dang]

I've always thought of zombies as being a bit like the rap Natalie Portman did with SNL.

"What you want Natalie?"
"To drink and fight!"
"What you need Natalie?"
"To fuck all night!"

Or maybe something similar to that... unthinking... comprehensionless... limited... basic...


But I think your way of seeing it as shadow projection is potentially a much richer and more constructive reading.

A drunk frat boy is like a zombie. But so is a hedge fund manager. Sociopaths remind me of zombies and vampires.

 

[dang]

I feel like a zombie when I don't get enough sleep. Are zombies insomniacs?

 

[just me]

Not Christian. Zombies sell books and targets, Targets sell ammo. Ammo sells guns. People, get ready for war.