Zone One Post Three

In this section, we meet the character Miriam Cohen Levy, or as we'll come to know her, Mim. Mim is the first person Mark really connects with and becomes close with in his current situation. He opens up to her in the toy store, and they become fast friends. So far this is probably the only section of the book that has caught my interest, as I liked the "get to know you" part about Mim. I find her character interesting as well as being glad that Spitz finally has someone he can truly connect with, as I've been wanting that for him the whole story leading up to this point. I felt bad for Spitz when Mim left to look for pepper, as he has become so accustomed to her and her absence was hard on him.

Zone One, Post Four

Even though I personally was not a fan of this novel, I did appreciate the overall writing style, as it was so different from anything else I have ever read before; this makes me think it was a difficult writing process that required effort on Whitehead's part, rather than a run-of-the-mill novel that he could have written. I also liked how we don't exactly know what happened to Mark Spitz, enabling us to sort of make our own ending of the book, filling in the blanks with what we imagine should happen to him. I can appreciate this writing style, as well as being entertained at certain parts, such as being engrossed in Gary's death and the happenings that took place leading up to and during it. I have always liked and appreciate irony, so the fact that a fortune teller ended up being the end of Gary's life struck me as being a great example of true irony. All this being said, I would definitely not recommend this book to a friend, because I found the process of reading this book to be tedious and required more effort to attempt to understand (and I never fully grasped the concept) than I thought was worth putting into a book written about zombies.

Zone One Post Four

In the last part of Zone One, The base has collapsed and Mark Spitz is making his escape plans. I notices that Mark has changed a bit from his tangents of his pass to where he is now. In the previous part of the book, he used to be kind of derisive of people who held on to the past. Now after Gary’s death we see him stuffing the picture of Corsica in to his back pocket. Maybe as a way to remember him or his time in Zone One? We also see him grabbing an armadillo helmet, which was something he always eschewed in the past. I think he is putting the forbidden thoughts behind him and plans on surviving the fall of the city.

Zone One, Post Four

I actually really liked the end. I liked that the it was kind of open ended because each person can fill in the blanks themselves. Personally, I saw Mark Spitz going into the sea of zombies as suicide.  The ending had me interested and entertained. I wish the first part of the book was that interesting. I started to actually care what the characters were doing. For example, I was really engrossed in the book when Mark Spitz jumped off the truck to check on Gary and Kaitlyn. I wasn't sure if he was going to find Gary eating Kaitlyn, Kaitlyn getting eaten by other zombies or Gary missing. I was also concerned whether or not Mark Spitz was going to be able to get back to the "safe point" when he went to check on them. Another example is that I really like Mark Spitz and Mim's relationship. I'd like to imagine that if somehow they both made it through the apocalypse they would have stayed together. Even though I liked the ending, I probably wouldn't recommend this book to my friends because the rest of the book wasn't as good.

Zone One, Post Three

I like the character Mim. This is the first time in the book that I've found a character that I like a lot. I'm not 100% sure why I like Mim, but her Last Day story really interested me. However, I'd like to know more about it. Was the mother of the party infected and attacked the children? Was one of the children infected? Was it one of Mim's children? Either way, she is on her own. I also liked that she got to have a safe place for a while with Taylor and others. After losing her kids and most likely her husband, it's nice to see that she got some peace during all of this. It's a shame Abel ruined it.

Zone One: Post Three

There were few of scenes, I thought were important in this reading. The first one, where Mark Spitz, Lieutenant and Kaitlyn talked about stragglers followed by Mark Spitz thinking about life as a straggler. I enjoyed, the part where he thinks about like as a straggler. Traveling to the place where the straggler enjoyed the most and, how the Lieutenant mused that they were the ones who had it right. I think, that scene is importing because, it seems that Mark Spitz or Gary was bitten which is a bit disheartening. The second scene, where we learn how Mark Spitz got his name due, to him saying he did not know how to swim. They nicked name him after a famous swimmer. I also think it is interesting that Mark hallucinates the ash in the rain, which to me reinforces the idea that he feels guilty about something. Maybe for killing zombies? I wished, we could have learn more about the other team members of the wrecker crew especially The Quite Storm.  

zone one

Maybe it's because I'm A.D.D., but I seem to find this book easier to read and follow than most other people. The flashbacks and random thoughts make sense to me. I find it fascinating that it's more focused on the thought process of one person and not about violence or playing the hero. I also like that the author creates new slang and eventually explains it, like "pheenie".

I do want to know why he has such disdain for Connecticut, what his real name is, and how the rain became so polluted.

Zone One Reaction Post Two

I'm still really enjoying Zone One, I liked hearing a little bit about Mark's Last Night before the apocalypse, I feel like that was a story we'd been waiting to hear since the beginning and it's nice to finally have it. I'm still wondering what his real name is, and why they call him Mark Spitz. I'm naively hoping that his uncle is still alive and just hasn't found him due to his name change. I go back and forth between thinking that that's why Whitehead has drawn attention to the name change so much, and thinking that it's more an issue of identity, and how much he lost after Last Night. I thought it was really interesting reading his Last Night story, seeing the parallels between zombies and normal people who were just going through the motions. The parts that struck me the most were where he was talking about the slot machines "maintain[ing] their sturdy population of glassy-eyed defectives" (on page 82) and the section where he sees zombies for the first time but doesn't recognize them as such, and instead identifies them as people who have "that deflated curve of the shoulders that marked Sunday night's recurring epidemic: back to work" (on page 84). I'm not sure how much his memory of that night is affected by what came after, and what he realized after, but I found the second image in particular very ironic, and appreciated that parallel. I also really like the parts where he discussed the strategies of the new world, where he talked about rebranding and about creating new slang and using military language to separate their new selves, who're accustomed to the new reality, from their old selves, who weren't. The last thing that I found pretty interesting was how mundane parts of our reality still exist so much in their post-apocalyptic world. It's hard to imagine that fighting over an easy assignment would be something that would be worth it to people who've experienced what they all have, but I think he's right that it would be. When the big battle is as formidable and seemingly unwinnable as that one, the tiny battles seem to matter so much more. I also really hope that the Lieutenant makes a few more appearances. I really liked his character.

Zone One, Post Two

My interest in this books fluctuates and that is mainly because of the writing style. When Mark's mind starts to wonder, so does mine. It takes a little longer to read it because I keep losing interest when Mark goes off on a tangent. However, I do think it is getting a little bit easier than before because I'm getting use to the way the author writes. I think another reason why I'm not always into it is because of the time period it takes place in. It doesn't take place at the very beginning of the apocalypses when everything is crazy or even when the military goes through cities killing the skels and stragglers. It takes place when it is relatively calm and the sweepers are taking care of skels and stragglers that were looked over. The calmness of the story doesn't get my attention as well as it could. There are a few sections and details I like about the book. Early on, I like the detail that Gary uses "we" because he was a triplet. And more recently, I like the explanation of skels verse stragglers. Those details stick out to me even though they aren't extremely important to the plot.

zone one post two

As I get further into the book, I am trying to be more open-minded about it, but I still cannot bring myself to get super into it. It is very hard for me to follow, as well as already being a topic that I am not particularly a fan of. While I can appreciate this style of writing, I myself do not like it. I find it confusing how often Mark jumps in between the present and past, and there does not appear to be defining moments that make it obvious which time he is referring to.

What does the author hope to convey or accomplish by this style of writing?

How is it determined who has what role in their society; how does one become a sweeper, a member of disposal, etc.?

Zone One, Second Post

After reading to page 149 I have grown to like the book a lot, I want to see what is going to happen and what they are going to do next. However, I still don't like how the book is written I have a vary hard time following it at times. The author can be talking about the present time at one point then flash back in time without a good transition leaving me confused on rather or not we are in the present or future.With that I noticed reading more into the book that Mark Spitz in more into talking about the future later in the book then he was in the beginning.  Another thing that has been bothering me while I was reading was that he talks about Last Night a lot, what does he mean by this? Is it a representation of his last night of the world being normal before the sickness broke out? Another thing that came to my attention was that Mark starts to see the zombies as humans, noticing that they call the stragglers male or female but they refer to the skels as its.  What is the difference between he two names and why do they call the stragglers male or female and the skels its?

Zone One Post Two

I am not sure how I feel about Zone One but, this is mostly due to the writing style. Fortunately these tangents are getting easier to deal with and are somewhat interesting. One of the scenes in the book that really stood out to me is when they saw the straggler. I thought it was interesting in how they refer to them as he or she. Also in how Mark was disturbed, in having to kill, so much so that he spent the night in the building. I am willing to bet that the other sweepers are uneasy with killing them too. I notice a few inconsistencies with Mark’s parents the opening of the book Mark’s parents used an old camera but, later on, he describes the high tech living room they had. I am now to page 149 and, I am starting to wonder a few things. Why does the writer and the characters keep referring to Mark by his first and last name? I am also wondering if the ash rain is in his head due to something Gary said. All in all I am looking forward to continue reading this book.

Reaction Post: Zone One Post 2

After reading to page 149 i am finally starting to actually like the book.  I think that it is becoming much more interesting to me and i found myself not wanting to put the book down.  I am still have trouble with keeping up with what Mark is saying.  Sometimes it is hard for me to tell if he is talking about the past or if he is talking about the present.  I feel like he does not transition between the two very nicely so that is why it is hard for me to understand what is going on.  While I was reading i found that Mark has kind of changed, like in the beginning of the book Mark did not want to think about the future or humanity in general, but now Mark views some of the zombies as humans.  On page 102 is where Mark notices that they call stragglers male or female but for the skels they only call them its.
What does Mark mean when he says Last Night? I noticed that he says this a lot but i just don't understand what he means by it.
What is the difference between the skels and the stragglers? Why do the sweepers refer to the skels as its, but the stragglers are called male or female?

Zone One

This authors writing style can be very hard to follow at times.  It seems like he spends a lot of time talking about topics that are irrelevant.  Spitz was in the 18th floor of 135, then the author went on for a few pages really in depth about what was surrounding Spitz on the floor, then suddenly Spitz was talking to the Lieutenant.  Maybe I missed something, but I find this author's writing style interesting.  He can take up pages talking about a memory Spitz has, or a random picture on the wall that Spitz notices.

How have Spitz's dreams evolved after the world changed?

Why does the author spend so much time talking about topics that seem irrelevant?

Does Spitz like being a sweeper, or would he rather be a civilian?

Zone One

I haven't really gotten interested the book, yet. The smallest detail will trigger one of Mark's memories and he will go off on a tangent about that memory. I appreciate that it establishes background information, but I'm not a big fan of that writing style. It has made it slightly difficult to read. I don't like how there hasn't been a big turning point or event in the first 81 pages. Zone One has stayed at constant level excitement, for the most part. When Mark was attacked by the zombies because he wasn't paying attention, I thought it would get interesting. But a detail would trigger several memories and made the overall event less exciting to me. However, I do have hope for the book. I think I'll start liking the book as we go on because there is still a lot of the book to read.

Zone One

I'm really enjoying Zone One so far. Colson Whitehead is clearly a master of descriptive language, and I appreciate a lot of his analogies, especially when he's describing the city. I'm pleasantly surprised that, for a book about the zombie apocalypse, there's been very little "action" so far. I don't really enjoy reading gruesome fight scenes, so I'm glad that the fighting has been minimal. I was also a little surprised by his vocabulary, I found myself reaching for a dictionary a few times, which is really unusual for me. I'm hoping that we'll get more background on Mark, and especially his real name. I'm not sure why not knowing his real name bothers me, but it does. It also makes me wonder how he's listed on the survivor log.

Zone One

So far I am enjoying this book. I loved the Walking Dead so anything that is similar to it is interesting to me. Around page 40 or so though I found myself getting lost. I think they were talking about how all of the characters had got to Zone One, but then they started talking about Buffalo; so I was confused as to the setting in that particular part of the story. I find it interesting how this book is talking about rebuilding a city after an apocalypse happens because I feel like a majority of "end of the world" type books just tell the story on how a disease is spread and someone trying to survive it. I as also a little lost in the beginning when they were talking about New York, but I realized later they were just setting up the story to talk about how they are in Manhattan to try and eradicate all of the zombies.

Zone One

To me reading the first 81 pages was very difficult for me.  I found myself having to go back and reread a few passages just for me to understand what was actually going on.  I have a feeling once i actually get into the book and start to really like it then it will be easier for me to understand it without having to reread a passage over and over again.  I thought it was weird how it started with like a flash back thing where he was talking about his Uncle Lloyd's apartment and then it went straight into him (Mark Spitz) and the rest of his unit being 15 floors above Zone One.  I wonder exactly the time difference between Mark visiting his Uncle's apartment and his now going through business offices.  I have a feeling i will like this book but only time can tell.

Zone One

In the first 81 pages of Zone One I found some things very interesting and  things confusing.  Right now I am finding the book a little hard to understand, I find myself thinking a lot trying to figure out what is going on.  I am confused on weather or not Mark is dead or alive.  He keeps talking about know the zombies or a least seeing people he knows in the faces of them and I am confused by that. Is it possiable that he knows all of the undead that is walking around with him? Therefore, I'm not sure yet on if I like the book I'm looking forward to reading more and see where it takes me.

Zone One

While I was reading the first 81 pages, one of the things that I found particularly interesting was the fact that Mark Spitz would see distinguishable features of people that he knew in the faces and bodies of the undead he would come into contact with. This stood out to me, because there's no way that every single undead could actually be that of someone he knew; so what made him project these thoughts onto the zombies? I also found it kind of confusing how it's not specifically clear whether or not Mark is in fact living or the undead. I found the beginning of this assignment reading to be confusing and hard to follow; so far I am not the biggest fan of the reading, but I am open to the possibility of enjoying it as we get further into the novel itself. I do however like that it is not immediately gory, which is what I was expecting. That's one aspect of zombie works that I am not a fan of and so far I have been able to handle everything I've read without getting grossed out.

Violence articles

Article 1
(Q.Tarantino)
He says that he is not responsible for the actions of people after they watch a violent movie. The only thing that he is responsible for is making a good movie. Tarantino also believes that there is no relation to violence in the media and violence in real life. He doesn't think that they relate at all to each other. He also says that you can enjoy violence in movies but at the same time hate violence in real life. He even states that it doesn't hurt kids to watch violent movies intact it could make them famous filmmakers one day.

Article 2
(Violence in media)
this article was saying video games are the same thing that soliders see when they are getting conditioned for killing,and by adulthood a person would have already witnessed thousands of simulated killings and would have learned to assoate it with pleasure. It also said people argue that movies influence society and that movies are just showing what is actually happening in society. But what is actually happening is that movies and society influence each other in overlaping ways. The last point of the article was that movie critics tend to not write what they really mean because they don't want to seem like they aren't "cool". Instead they have to stop doing and write what they really mean to raise awareness when there is disturbing content.

Article 3
(Manson)
Manson states that the first people ever didn't need movies, games, or music to make them want to be violent. Instead they just reacted on they're natural wants. He also believes that America today just wants to find someone to blame if there isn't a black and white answer for why something happened. Another thing he says is that kids probably end up doing violent things because the media makes the people who are doing the violent things 'famous' by putting them all over the news and on magazine covers. Something else that he brings up is that if television and the news were invented back in the civil war times that they would have been taping it too and showing it to the world.

zombies

I have never been interested in watching the walking dead on tv because I'm not into movies or shows about zombies. However when i read the comic i found that it was a little more interesting then i thought it was going to be. I don't mind graphic or gross things so that didn't bother me and the comic style was something new that I'm not used to reading or seeing so that made it more interesting to me. Reading the comic also made me think about watching the actual show to see what happens next.

When i read the article I wasn't too interested because I'm not really into vampries and Zombies but i did find it a little interesting when the author was talking about how the ideas of vampires and zombies have changed over the years. For example one of the ways that vampires have been changed from Dracula who killed and threatened the values of the time and the society itself, to vampries who respect the humans culture and will drink animal blood instead of killing humans and long for love and a companion and even look for a cure for the way they are. For the zombies however the transformation was the opposite. I think its strange that in the haitian culture zombies didn't eat humans but were used as slaves, but now movies and books have transformed them into decaying, diseased creatures in-between being alive and dead who wreak society, and who's only thought is to eat human flesh. I also like how in the article they talk about how different vampires and zombies and how that makes people have different reactions to them.

Zombies

I enjoyed both of the articles, although I did like have the visuals for the comic book too look at well I was reading it.  I liked how they compared zombies to vampires, I've always been a much bigger fan into the vampire age but it was very interesting to see what they said bringing the two together.  Reading so much about the zombies I think I might have changed my views to say that zombies have a lot more action behind them.  The stories are more about the survival of them.  The zombie came about without any "magic" or supernatural things.  When vampires are brought about by all those things, being able to transform and have unhuman powers. When reading the comic book you could see that the people were trying to survive on their own and live a life with the zombies running around. The writer did a good job of showing that, you could see the drama they have to live through every day now that the world has fallen into a land of zombie infested place.  I live the survival sorry behind the walking dead article, it may have swayed me to be more of a zombie lover then a vampire lover.

Zombies

I enjoyed both the comic book and the paper. I thought it was interesting how the writer compared and contrast zombies and vampires. Although they lost me a bit when they talked about the connection between vampires and capitalists. Most vampires are from the feudal age right? For me, I always thought zombies were a bit more exciting that vampires and I would image this is true for most people. Zombie stories for the most part are stories of survival. There is no magic no real suspension of reality besides the dead coming back to life. Vampires, on the other hand, usually involve several types of supernatural powers like the ability to transform into a bat or inhumane strength. Another main reason I prefer zombies is all the characters in the story are Normal people like Rick, the main character, who are just trying to survive.  As for the comic book, The Walking Dead, I thought the writer achieved his goal of showing how people would act when society falls apart and the drama that surrounds the group of survives. One major change I did notice that was different in the comic from the T.V. show was the character Shane dies a lot earlier in the comic than the show.

Zombie Culture

In the world of today's horror genre the classic villain of old, the vampire, has been laid to rest due to constant portrayal as a troubled creature that has a strong sense of morality and ultimate with the help of a foil, usually and attractive woman, finds a way to become human once again. So often has this happened that vampires no longer inspire fear in the hearts of moviegoers. As Tenga and Zimmerman state in their article, books like the Twilight saga have taken irreversible steps in the direction of transforming vampires from villains to heroes. And into the vacant role of the villain steps the gruesome zombie. The comments on how the revolting depiction of zombies strikes a chord with society because of how caught up we are with making sure that we never age and always look good, and zombies are the cause of so much horror not only because of their lack of sentience but because they represent everything society is striving to put a stop to. Death, decomposition, and destruction.


When I first got netflix one of the first shows I watched was the walking dead, so reading the graphic novel was not new to me as the first couple episodes were the only ones that I really payed any attention to and watched in their entirety. I was never really able to forge a connection with the characters and so after a while, the in my opinion boring and somewhat predictable plot line grew boring. But I think that part of the reason why zombies have gained popularity in today's cinema culture is because of our growing thirst for graphic violence. Zombies provide directors with a medium through which they can be extremely gruesome in a way that vampires never really could. Plus with how zombies represent the end of the world to many people, there is a certain curiosity with them and what life could possibly if unlikely be should such an event come to pass.

Zombie Article

I have never been interested in Vampire movies ever. But I do like how this author compares and contrasts zombies and vampires. I have never really looked at these fictional monsters from this stand point. Like how vampires might not be human anymore but they still obey human laws and still look fairly alive. But with zombies they are a mindless body roaming around trying to feed off of what it once was. They don't obey anything or anyone. I thought that was a pretty interesting point. I haven't ever thought of comparing these two monsters together. Well simply for the fact that I get bored when I watch anything that has to do with vampires and have never cared to even watch a movie or show that involves them. I love how it compared humans to zombies. Zombies feed and feed off of humans but can never have enough. Same with humans. We never are satisfied with what life gives us. We want more and more.

The Walking Dead

To start this off I am a big fan of The Walking Dead show. I have followed it since AMC first started playing the first season. I have never read any of the comics though. It is definitely a lot different watching the show and then reading the comics. Since I already know what is going to happen and the images of every character. I like this series because there's also that side drama going on. Besides the zombies trying to kill every one, they also have conflicts with each other. For instance Shane told Lori Rick was dead and they end up hooking up only to see Rick come back to their camp site. Now Lori has the guilt that she cheated on her husband with his best friend. I love how this comic shows the progression/regression of each character. As Rick shows as a leader, you have Shane who used to be a good leader start to go crazy because he's crazy about Lori. Then you have the drama of the loved ones getting killed. Jim saw his whole family get swept away from him as he escaped. In the comic you can tell how it messsed him up mentaly. When they were at the camp site that Shane said was so safe, they end up getting bombarded by a flock of zombies. Andrea loses her sister that she was extremely close to. But she also saw it happen which comes in to play later in this series. She never gets over losing her sister. I really like Rick as a character. He shows great leadership skills but he's got that bump in the log which is holding him back. That would be Shane. Since they're best friends I think Rick doesn't have the heart to tell him no and just always goes with what Shane agrees on. If they would have moved when Rick said they needed to, Andrea might still have her sister. My favorite character is Glenn. He's always down to go out and get supplies to save his group. He went with Rick to go get guns since they decided to stay at the camp site outside of town. He never turns down a mission.

Zombie Article/Comic

I am not a huge fan of zombie anything. Movies, TV shows, comic strips... I don't care for any of it. I did however not mind the comic strip. It was a little too graphic for me, especially because I read it right before going to sleep. I liked how it wasn't only about zombies attacking and killing people. It had a story behind it which is what kept me interested the whole time. I was always curious what would happen next, so I guess the suspense kept me intrigued too. Before looking at the comic I read the article on vampires and zombies. I honestly was not too interested in reading the comic after reading the article, because I did not feel like it gave me any information that I needed to know before looking at the comic.

The article, I feel like, was a little repetitive. I think it could've been 3 pages shorter and gotten the same point across. The reason it did not interest me is because, like I said, I do not care for zombies. I also do not really care for vampires, and this article was all about both. It was a little interesting how the author talked about vampires and beauty. I was not very intrigued though when the article discussed the differences between vampires and zombies because I feel like that is something that everyone already knows.

zombies

I've never really liked zombie things, its wasn't a problem with gore, I just don't like zombies. The walking dead comic book, however, was interesting because it wasn't a small group of people running around shooting zombies, it was a small group of people sitting around talking and discussing their issues, waiting for the government to save them. It's surprising how willing everyone is to trust the government, but i guess that's their only hope and they don't want to let it go. The saddest character so far is Carl, which I don't like, because he's just a little kid.I'm not sure I want to read anymore after seeing how it left off, and knowing how many characters had already died. It is an interesting story, though, and I think its how survivors really would react in a zombie apocalypse.

A lot of the differences and similarities between zombies and vampires had already seemed fairly obvious to me, but it didn't occur to me that zombies had become a big thing because vampires needed something on the opposite end of the spectrum, though it makes sense. If vampires can't be scary anymore, we need something to replace them with. I wonder what will replace zombies?

Zombie Readings

I've enjoyed the radings of "the Walking Dead" as well as the TV episodes of the show.  I have been watching this show on Netflix since the first season was released, This show immediately striked my interest.  It keeps building suspense in every single episode.  Each episode's content never fails to surprise me.  In regard to the reading, the comic book format really struck my interest; it made my understand the story in a different way that I would never have came to without reading it.  It amazes me how popular zombie TV show have come in the recent past.   When I was in 8th grade, there were very few films with Zombie content.  Then video games and TV shows/movies suddeny started coming out with new information to strike people's onformation.  I remember early 9th grade when the video game "Call of Duty: Zombies" came out; it immediately strike mine and my friends's attention.  We would binge play the game for hours on end.  It seems Zombies continue to strike the atention of a number of audience's attention in our current age.  I wonder if this attention grabber, if ever, will pass? Nothing but the future can tell.

Zombie Readings

After reading part one and part two of The Walking Dead I realized that I actually liked reading it, also I wanted to keep on reading more of it.  I never really jumped on the bandwagon when The Walking Dead came out.  The main reason why I did not want to watch it was because I thought that it would scare me and that I would be grossed out by all the death that was in it.  After reading the comic book version of it I found it very interesting and not as graphic was I thought it would be.  This reading defiantly opened up my eyes to the whole zombie genre and I am looking forward to reading more about this genre.  In the article “Vampire Gentleman and Zombie Beasts”, I agree with what they are saying about how vampires are seen as “good-looking and sophisticated” and how they are seen in movies as immortal wanted love and a family.  Also in this article I think it is kind of weird how vampires and zombies are treated in movies.  In the movie Twilight, the main vampires are treated like normal people and actually save a few humans from other bad vampires.  While zombies in the movies are treated as monsters, unhuman and that they all have diseases.  I am glad that zombies are the theme for our class so I can open my mind to other great things.

Zombie Readings

I'm not a big fan of comics, so I wasn't really sure what to expect from the Walking Dead comic. Without the introduction, I don't know that I would have enjoyed it at all. I've never completely understood the hype about zombies, but I think that Robert Kirkman is correct in that a huge amount of the popularity of zombie stories is that they have the potential to delve deeply into human nature and what people are capable of. I enjoyed the art style of this more than many comics I've come across, and I like that there's no explanation (yet) of what causes their condition.

I honestly didn't enjoy the second article. The topic is an interesting one, but I found the article itself pretty dull. I felt like it was mostly a collection of other people's opinions rather than unique thoughts by the author. That said, there were a couple of things I found interesting. I hadn't really thought about the fact that vampires are no longer portrayed exclusively as monsters, but there's definitely been a major change in how vampires are portrayed lately. I don't know if the change in vampires' portrayal affected the popularity of zombies as much as the author implies, but I think it reflects on the values and desires of society. We've divided the "undead" into vampires; who're now sexy, immortal, and either tortured and attempting to curb their desires, or totally without conscious; and zombies who are hideous, mindless, and terrifying in that they have a huge potential to infect anyone who comes into contact with them. While vampire fiction still contains vampires that we should fear, vampires aren't portrayed as inherently evil. The author of this articles talks about how vampires have become creatures that we dream about, whereas zombies are still the stuff of nightmares. He talks about people capitalizing on vampires, but doesn't mention the beauty industry at all in this, despite the fact that society's obsession with vampires feeds, and is fed by, society's obsession with agelessness. A fact that the beauty industry will never cease to capitalize on. I liked the parallel he drew between zombies and consumerism, how consumerism seems to slowly drown out our individuality and make us behave mindlessly. He mentions at the end of his article stories in which zombies become sympathetic characters, and questions if this is a direction in which the zombie trend will head. While I won't be surprised if more stories are written with sympathetic zombies, I doubt the more standard zombie will ever be eclipsed by its sympathetic counterpart as seems to have happened with vampires.

zombie article responses

In regards to reading "The Walking Dead," I ended up enjoying reading it much more than I was expecting to. Up until this point, I have always been skeptical about the hype surrounding zombies and the undead that seems to have caught on so much in our current day; the concept sort of freaked me out as well as kind of grossed me out as well. I have never really been one to be inclined towards the science fiction types of writings, as I tend to gravitate towards more of a romantic fiction instead. However, during my reading I began to be enthralled by it and when I was done with both documents I wished that there was more to read. Perhaps I partially enjoyed reading it for the comic book format, but the story line itself was also very interesting to me. After reading volume one, I feel as though I am more likely to begin possibly watching "The Walking Dead" on television, and I am also now more open to zombie films, books, etc. When it came to the article comparing vampires and zombies, I thought it was very informative. I have always put zombies and vampires (the undead) into their own subcategory, making them almost synonymous in my head. However, after reading this article I feel much more informed about the similarities, but more importantly, the many differences the two share. They are incredibly different and they also represent different things. I also liked how the article incorporated television shows and movies that I could relate to, to make it better for me to really process what the article was saying and understand the differences on my own generational level. Overall, I really appreciated this assignment as it opened my eyes and expanded my horizons to a genre that I had previously completely closed myself off from ever reading or being interested in. This makes me look forward to our upcoming lessons that involve the same sorts of themes.

Zombie Readings

I think the author of the article has several good points. The author makes the point that zombies have replaced vampires in the horror genre. He goes on to say that vampire characteristics have changed from being scary monsters to heartthrobs. And I agree. The author didn't point the blame at any book or movie, nor did he say it was exactly a bad thing, but he did reference certain vampire books, movies and TV shows. Out of the ones he mentioned, I really only know Twilight because I read the books and watched the movies when they came out. And the vampires in Twilight are the exact opposite of scary. Twilight is not the only reason for this changed, but it did help how we perceive vampires. That being said, I still think vampire horror movies can still be successful. For example, the Underworld series has been successful. I don't watch horror movies, so I wouldn't necessarily call the Underworld series horror, but the vampires aren't cuddly creatures. The author also stated that zombies are the big thing in horror, now. I'm not into horror and I don't watch a lot of zombie related things, so my knowledge is limited on this. However, it does seem zombies have become more popular. And it wouldn't surprise me if zombies started to change the same way vampires have. Throughout the article, I was thinking about the movie Warm Bodies because it is a zombie-human love story and the author brought it up at the end. It is very possible from zombies to become less frightening, like vampires have.
I have never seen The Walking Dead nor I have read the graphic novel until now. I was surprised at how much I got into it because zombies typically aren't my thing. I already started liking characters, like Glenn, and have already started to want to know more. For example, how did the zombies come about? And, will we know what happens to Morgan and his son Duane? I was surprised at how it ended, regarding Shane, Rick and Carl. I was also kind of surprised that Jim didn't want to be killed. I would have thought the he would absolutely hate to become a zombie since they killed his family. I understand that he thinks he could be reunited with his family, but when he turns into a zombie, will he remember anything from when he was alive? Lastly, I was shocked at how much faith people had in the government in this story because people are typically skeptical with the government.

Violence in the Media

Article #1

I believe the author in this is trying to show readers that Tarantino is a hypocrite. The article and video both prove the authors point. There are many examples in the article, such as when Tarantino says he thinks violence is the worst aspect of life, yet he believes violence in movies is cool. Tarantino also stated that he is not responsible for anything that happens in the real world because of his films; he thinks the only thing he is responsible for are the characters in the movies. I think that the authors points in this article are valid, and because after watching the video interview, it made Tarantino, to me, seem dishonest.


Article #2

Lasalle, the author, talks about violence in the media and violence in real life. He basically says that media is the new trend in the society today. He also talks about the violent media and how it is not the reason of tragic events, but the media may inspire someone to do something tragic. Lasalle compares media producers to the Taliban because of who they both target. Lasalle, being a known critic, also mentions how he thinks critics should be more honest in their reviews to movies. They shouldn't sugarcoat their true opinions on the movies just because of how people may react to their review. I also agreed a lot with this article. I don't think it's okay to blame media for someones tragic behaviors, but I do believe the media may persuade someone to do something tragic.

Article #3

Manson, in this article, also talks about media and violence. Before media was something people thrived for, when a murder happened people just blamed the person who committed the crime. Nowadays people always have something or someone else, other than the person who actually committed the crime, to blame for it. Manson doesn't believe this is how it should be. I do agree with most things said in this article, although I do believe there can be other people or things to blame at times.

violence articles

Article 1 (Quentin Tarantino):

In Quentin Tarantino's mind he doesn't want to concern himself with the notion that violence in his films are correlated with violence in society. He views them as two separate entities. In one of the quotes he says that it is disrespectful to accuse him of causing violence in society and blames it on mental health issues and gun control problems. I believe some of Tarantino's arguments are very true. Movies are meant for entertainment purposes. What is the point of an action film without violence? It needs to be realistic for the movie to be more entertaining. For instance, if somebody was shot, you would expect blood, but if there were none the validity of the movie would suffer. I don't agree that movies have no affect on a small portion of the audience because not everyone in the world is rational. Irrational people don't understand the intention of the movies, but that doesn't make it Tarantino's fault.

Article 2 (Violent Media):

Mick LaSalle is arguing that we created the horrors of recent tragedies that have happened in America. He talks about Newtown and how it felt as if America was being attacked from within. He brings up a very good point that although the tragedy stops us in our tracks it did not surprise anyone. He continues to say there is a connection between society and entertainment. Video games are his example of how the youth in America becomes desensitized to violence. By the time they are adults they have already seen thousands of violent acts played out in a virtual world or scene in a movie. I disagree with this point. I am an avid video game enthusiast and I have still never thought it was right to actually go out and commit and acts of violence that have happened in any video game I have played. I think there is a line to draw between different human beings and how their mind works. Anyone who thinks it's okay to go and do the things they see in a video game or movie needs mental help because they can not distinguish a clear difference between right and wrong.

Article 3 (Columbine):

Marilyn Manson makes the best argument out of all 3 articles. He starts off by saying if you believe in Christianity you are already praising someone who is glorified for death-suicide. He then goes on to talk about how we are more televised as a civilization as before and we know more of these things are happening as a result. He explains how horrible it is that we sit back and watch tragedies happen just like it is another TV show. Sure, some may sit in awe or be saddened, but the concept is still no different. Then he talks about how America glorifies the people who commit the heinous acts. We give people who are put down and angry heroes to aspire to be. They see the recognition and publicity they get for such acts. He then blames the law, and how a lack of rules has America's youth more cynical than ever. Finally, he says the only people to blame is each one of us. I think that this is one hundred percent true. The only actions that we can take to stop tragedies like Columbine is to change how society treats one another, and if that changes then maybe these acts can stop too.

Article Reviews

Article 1: Columbine: Whose Fault Is It?

I found this article to be particularly interesting coming from Marilyn Manson’s perspective. Before reading this article, I had a certain stereotype set towards him as a person. However, after reading and reflecting on his insight, I regret jumping to conclusions about him. His article was very insightful. We can’t really put blame for the violence that people act out towards one specific thing. People will find inspiration for violence from anywhere. Some are prone to violence, just like some are prone to drug or alcohol addiction, for example. I agree with his stance that we cannot put blame purely towards music, television, or movies (the entertainment industry). It is not one particular area that contributes towards acts of violence. There is a predisposition, there is a background that also attributes to the violent acts that are happening in our world. 

Article 2: Everything Quinten Tarantino Really Thinks About Violence and the Movies  

While reading this, I have drawn the conclusion that I don’t agree with it being qualified as an “article.” It is but a list of quotes from Tarantino, prefaced by one small paragraph. I think this article could have had much more impact had the quotes been incorporated into an actual article with the author’s thoughts and such put in as well. That being said, I did like that it was so many quotes, as we could see how Tarantino remains steadfast in upholding his opinions on violence and his effect-or rather lack thereof, on the general public. He maintains that one can enjoy watching violent movies without acting enjoying being violent themselves, which I thought was an excellent point. However, this writing is better described as simply, “A List of Tarantino Quotes.”

Article 3: Violent Media Poisoning Nation’s Soul

Out of all the articles, I preferred this one out of the three. I thought it was well-written, and appeared to be semi-objective. It grasped my attention the most, possibly because it was related to the ratings of movies, which I find interesting.  The author goes into how bloggers should not shy away from stating the levels of violence in movies, and that the public should acknowledge that violence in movies sells. While he has admitted to also sugar-coating his thoughts on movies, he believes that this is something that should not be happening. Violence in movies is becoming more acceptable, therefore desensitizing the public, including children, to violence.

Article Review

Reading 1-Everything Quentin Tarantino Really Thinks About Violence and the Movies:

In the video and quotes,Quentin Tarantino states his opinion on violence in films. Which is that movie violence and violence in real life are separate, and someone can enjoy violence in films and abhor real life violence without contradiction. He also states that if someone who has seen his film then commits an act of violence, he is not responsible for it. I think, he is right, a person can enjoy violent films and disdain real life violence. I also believe, by blaming films you are ignoring the primary causes.

Reading 2-Violent Media Poisoning Nation's Soul:

Mike Lesall believes we have a cultural problem, due to events like Newtown massacre not surprising us like it should have. Mike Lesall blames video games and films for desensitize us to acts of violence. He also thinks that movies and society do influence each other. He also calls the film and video game industry a “neural training ground for action.” and even go as far as compare them to the Taliban in targeting young men. His solution to combat violence in society is for any movie with any violence is to receive an R rating, and if the R rating does not work then NC-17. He thinks this will reduce the amount of violence in film will still allowing directors like Tarantino the freedom to still make their movies. While he is right that movies and society do influence each other, I think, he is overestimating how much they do. By changing the rating of films to R might result in desensitize parents to the R rating. If films start receiving the NC-17, you might as well start banning violent films. No theater would show an NC-17 film.  

Reading 3-Columbine: Whose Fault Is It?:

In the article, Marilyn Manson thinks that our country has not become more violent, but we simply are exposed to it more through news media. He also thinks that death and violence and our fascinations with it is rooted in the very core of our country and its history. From the first killing in the Bible with Cain and Abel to the Civil War and beyond in our history. He also points out how we turn killers of the past like Jesse James, and more recent ones such as Harris and Klebold into celebrities of a type by posting their image on every paper in sight. He then states that the news media is quick to blame easy targets such as: movies, video games, people like himself, and anything that sits outside the norm even if there is no connection.

I think, Marilyn Manson is right, we do tend to have a fascination with violence from the news media’s around the clock coverage of the latest act of violence, to turning killers in to infamous celebrities. In the past year Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the Boston Marathon bombers, appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone.

article reviews

Article 1 Everything Quentin Tarantino Really Thinks About Violence and the Movies

This article is mostly quotes about Quentin Tarantino's opinion about the relationship between violence in the media and violence in real life. It starts out with a video of him refusing to answer questions from an interviewer and just generally being rude, stuck up, and kind of pretentious (why even bother showing up to an interview if you're going to refuse to answer the questions?). It then shows a list of quotes from him about the subject he didn't want to talk about. They all boil down to the idea that he doesn't think that violent movies cause violence in real life. I'm inclined to agree with this opinion. Hearing someone say "seeing pretend violence makes normal people violent in real life" sounds just as ridiculous to me as "Seeing gay people makes straight people gay". 

Bonus!!!!!!!! I criticize the lazy writing of this "article"

So, this article began with what starts out looking like an introductory paragraph (turns out, this is the only actual paragraph of the entire "article"), which quickly turns into a description of a YouTube video, then immediately begs you to watch said video. Next in this brilliant feat of masterful "journalism" is the actual video that had just been described right above it. It goes on for quite awhile before you finally reach the parts mentioned in the paragraph describing it (You realize that you can embed YouTube videos at whatever time you need them to be at? That's right, you can start at the relevant parts!). Then the "article" just devolves into a list of eight quotes that all say the same thing. Granted, that's kind of the point, but I got the general idea waaaaay before I reached the last few quotes. There was no closing paragraph.

Article 2 Violent media poisoning nation's soul

This article is about violence and ratings in movies. The author talks about how violent movies can get and suggests changing the criteria for a pg-13 movie. He also mentions how uncomfortable he is, as a movie critic, describing his own discomfort with movies. He suggests that critics stop being afraid of their own morals and opinions and start writing honestly. I think that this would make it much easier to decide whether or not to go to a movie, or who to take with you. Even if professional critics never get around to making these changes, I'm sure there are plenty of bloggers out there who would be glad to give me their honest opinions and reviews.

Article 3 Columbine: Whose Fault is it?

Manson starts his article out by saying that the first murder ever committed didn't need any type of media to influence it, it was just human natural disposition to violence. He goes on to point out that the media seemed to need someone to blame Columbine on. According to Manson, the fault rests with everyone who is fine with children owning guns, and then they sit back and watch TV when it goes wrong. He then mentions that he had no connection to Columbine and that the boys responsible weren't even fans of his. I find it fascinating that people always need a scapegoat, even if that person had nothing to do with anything. It also seems really unfortunate that we need to make the world black and white and divide it up into good and bad, always casting someone as the villain.