World War Z

I attempted to read Monster Island, but found it difficult to read (original website didn't work, but the other site was hard to read for me because of characters appearing wrong and no spacing between paragraphs). So I gave up on that and decided to read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies which I already owned and had not yet read. I liked Pride and Prejudice when I read it in high school, so adding zombies makes one awesome version. Still, though I like the book, it was taking me a while to read. I only got maybe sixty or  seventy pages in.

So then I decided to read James' copy of World War Z by Max Brooks because I thought I could read it faster (which I did; finished the book in two or three days). The book painted a very realistic picture of what would happen to the world if there was an outbreak of zombies. Unlike your typical zombie movie which follows the one or two lone survivors, this book addresses real and practical questions - how would it start? How would governments react? Different cultures? How would people survive? Also unlike movies which usually only start at the beginning of the outbreak and end abruptly, the book follows years and gives a picture of the war's end.

The book is also told in a documentary style, going from person to person for individual interviews and giving a wide spectrum of views into what happened in this "zombie war". I think how Max Brooks did it was the perfect way for his story - it adds to his already realistic image of the story, making it feel more like nonfiction and making it more engaging. By not having all the answers as well, such as what happened to North Korea or how exactly the disease is able to operate, both adds to the realism as well as interest. You only know as much as the people whom the event happened to do. The people are very realistic as well, each have individual experiences and personalities. How they react to events and feel psychologically about them also seems real. There was clearly lots of careful thought put into every detail of the story, from the people to the events, and the event details.

I can't really find any fault to the telling of his tale; it is a perfect, realistic portrayal of what would happen to the world if there truly was a zombie outbreak. I enjoyed reading World War Z and I think I would consider it one of my favorite zombie tales, right next to Zombieland, which was a great and hilarious movie.

Frankenstein

It's quite remarkable how different a tale the book Frankenstein actually is from the story we all know from movies. I knew before that they were not the same, and that Frankenstein was the doctor's name and not the monster's, but to how much else was different was a surprise. They hardly seemed to even be the same story.

I didn't really feel like it was a horror story; to me, it simply wasn't very frightening in the least. I continually kept thinking of Jars of Clay's song "Good Monsters".

Not all monsters are bad, but the ones who are good
Never do what they could, never do what they could
All the good monsters rattle their chains,
And dance around the open flames,
And they make a lot of empty noise.
While all of the bright eyes turn away,
As if there wasn't anything to say,
About the justice and the mystery.
Do you know what you are?

I found myself very sympathetic to the monster and his plight - more so than Frankenstein, although it was clear to understand his position as well and certainly he wasn't acting necessarily unreasonable. It's likely he was acting how most of us would in such a situation.

Still, what a character Frankenstein is! How quickly he abandons his creation and stubbornly believes it to be an abomination. I found it easy to sympathize with the "monster", who only knows love from afar and cannot ever experience it himself. The monster may have ruined Frankenstein's life and killed all who he loved, but it doesn't feel quite unjust - and who has the heavier burden? Frankenstein who wanders with a heavy heart and becomes filled with a maddening desire to destroy the nightmare he made, whose people he loves and who love him are taken away one by one? Who despite his heavy heart and obsession for revenge is always able to be welcomed and sympathized by his fellow human race? Or the monster who wanders alone and unable to be loved despite his longings and good deeds? Whose own master refuses to listen to his please and desires to be good and to be at peace?

I think the monster far out-wins. He does ill deeds to be true, but in his manners it seems he still is and longs to be gentle soul (also supported by his end words). His actions make sense - if he can't get his own creator to love him or make him a companion to love him, is it not better he be constantly pursued by his creator than forever and constantly alone? In a way, to someone of such circumstance, wouldn't it seem better to be hated by one than to have no one any feelings to you at all? To not even know you exist? It reminds me of the cases of delinquent children who act out to get attention because negative attention seems better than none.

I can't help but wonder how things could have different for the so-called "monster". If Frankenstein had stayed longer when it awoke and taken responsibility for what he made, would he have realized then it was good? Could he have taught it to stay good? Could others have learned to love it if it already had Frankenstein's friendship? It's hard to say, especially knowing our ability to stereotype and judge people comes so easily. If Frankenstein had overcome his stubborn and overwrought fears of his imagination and made the companion, could the two have left him be? I do not believe Frankenstein's fears that the second would love violence would have been realized.

The first monster, born of no prejudice and knowing nothing, it makes sense it only longed for good and companionship. The monster never once expressed any joy or happiness with its deeds - what it feels it's had to do. Yet Frankenstein still insists its a horrid and violent creature. Even after hearing his story, Frankenstein still hesitates to sympathize and seems to follow more out of fear for the others he loves than because he truly sympathizes - which is likely why his other fear of a violent creature ultimately wins over his sympathy and prevents him from creating the partner. Frankenstein's fears are mostly unfounded as he believed it evil - a demon, or the devil - long before it killed William. Since it first awoke he feared what his own creation may do.

In a way then, what has happened to Frankenstein and his companions is his own fault. Not, as he believes, because he lets his monster live - but rather because he refuses to see his monster as anything but a monster. Really, all tragedy could have been avoided if he'd dealt with the responsibility of his creation from the beginning, regardless of whether that meant staying with it or killing it immediately, instead of running away. (True the monster could likely easily overpower him, but I think in those early moments when it is confused as to its existence and surroundings, it could probably be brought down somehow.)

Knowing the creature was innately good, one can assume the problem was not that it was created at all, but that Frankenstein ran away from his creation.

Still, Frankenstein is one of us for certain. His fears lead to his hate and he runs away from problems he creates and only when the problem becomes considerably worse is he driven to act - fueled now by further hate and thinking that his side is the only side and the right one. That sounds like how many people behave. Yet we're never the monsters?