The Walking Dead, Book 1

[wrighty47]

To be fair on the author he claims to have not read Day of the Triffids nor seen 28 Days Later at the time the book was written. Is he telling the truth? Who knows?!

I think the develpoment will come, but it may take a while. Kirkman's aim is to show "what happened next" in regards to the zombie genre. Whether he succeeds or not, well... we'll just have to wait and see.

Nothing happened? I dunno, I disagree with that. I think a lot happened, the whole thing took place over a few days (apart from the pre-hospital bit) and saw the end of the world as we know it, the lead character finding himself emerged in this new reality, finding his family and facing the consequences of this new frighteneing world. Remember this is essentially just episode one. It's only the "origin" story and there's a long way to go yet!

Same with character development. In just one episode we've seen the character go from being a smalltown cop that's never fired his gun before to a man that's had to change his whole outlook on life. Who's world has been turned upside down, and whose friendships and relationships to his loved ones is put into question, and the way he's had to adapt and learn very quickly to survive this new world. He's come from being a quiet, decent, "backseat" kinda guy and had leadership and responsiblilty he doesn't really want thrust upon him. The guy at the end of the book is a different person to the one who drew his gun on page 1.

As for the "seven year olds making choices to kill real living people " comment. Well he isn't is he? He's making the choice to protect himself from walking dead people that will eat him if they get close enough. This is the (only) social commentary so far, true... that the ideals and morals of our society cannot be maintained in this new world... or can they?

I do think you're seeing something that isn't there regarding giving the child a gun. There is no license to kill. It's pure protection, and agaist people that are already dead, not "real living people"!

Maybe things will end badly, but I do know that if I were in the same situatiion, I would want my loved ones protected. Maybe it will prove to be a wrong move, but I can understand the motives of the character, and it's not like they have just given him a gun and said "point that wherever you like!. They have introduced a training regime into the equation.

Like I said, i've read another half a dozen episodes from here and there is more to come, both regarding the changes in the world but also the changes in the outlook of the characters involved and the hard decisions they have to make in the face of this new, horrific world they've found themselves in.

I'm not saying you should like it Paul, I genuinely mean it when I say each to there own, but I do disagree with some of your reasons for not doing so.

Alan!

[paulvonscott]

I don't think we're going to agree over whether it's morally responsible to train a seven year old to kill.  That is effectively what happened, the kid has killed already, and I don't think he was equipped to make that decision.  I also think it's very unrealistic, but hey, that's a different point.

As for what we saw in the strip, one thing we didn't see was the end of the world as we know it.  We skipped that bit.

As for being a backseat guy, well the first time we meet him, he's just decided to make a break for it to get the drop on a gun man.  he wasn't ordered to do that, he just did it.  He also came right out and criticised the plans his friend had made.  I mean, this guy really does want to be in charge from the start.  We never saw the character he claimed to be, this backseat do as you please guy.  I don't think he is much of a different person at the end.  He's been through some experiences, but he's still the same person.

This is my problem, much of what you say is what the author says in his introduction.  I happen to think that much of that isn't true.  It really isn't what it says on the tin.

I'm willing to believe he's never seen the movies, but think most people have seen some of The Day of the Triffids.  But you don't have to have seen the film to have heard the idea.

I'm enjoying talking about this, more than I enjoyed the book by the way.

[wrighty47]

"This is my problem, much of what you say is what the author says in his introduction. I happen to think that much of that isn't true"

Well I haven't seen that as I bought it in the individual issues and haven't read that introduction. I saw it just from reading the comics so it must be there.

Back to the kid. They aren't training him to kill. They're training him to defend himself against things that are already dead. The fact that he does kill is something the parents never considered (rightly or wrongly) and is something that *must* be addressed sooner or later.

"I'm enjoying talking about this, more than I enjoyed the book by the way."

Good! I'm trying to disagree with (some of) your points in a way that's both interesting and non-abusive. I tend to get carried away at times and usually spend that much time trying not to come over as insulting that I end up doing exactly that.

I too am enjoying the discussion! Differing opinions are what these things are all about and can be real eye openers. I do think that it may be a case of me gladly overlooking the books shortcomings because I enjoy it so much, whereas I think you're focussing on those bad points and ignoring the good because you didn't. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle! :)

Alan!

[paulvonscott]

"I do think that it may be a case of me gladly overlooking the books shortcomings because I enjoy it so much, whereas I think you're focussing on those bad points and ignoring the good because you didn't."

That's always going to be the case, isn't it.  I have said the book wans't bad per se.  Just not very good!

I just thought I'd clarify I was enjoying the argument, rather than it was born of anything else.  I do get accused of having my motives I'm afraid.

As for the kid.  Erm, they are training him to kill.  You may not see the zombies as fully alive, but regardless those same skills he used to kill the zombie, he used to kill a man, a man who we only have the authors simplistic view to say that it couldn't have been resolved some other way apart from murder.  Training a kid to destroy something that was once a human by shooting him in the head, is also training someone to kill.  That kid, with all his seven year old wisdom, decided to kill a man.  I find that as scary as anything else in the book.

[Rob Spalding]

Just to pop back into this

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

The latest issue I just read had the group at a farm, where the locals were rounding up the zombies and holding them in a barn.  Their reasoning?  "How do you know they won't get better?  Why are you killing them?"
Leading into an argument about how to treat the people that have become zombies, not something I've ever seen or read before.  Maybe it's out there and I haven't seen it, but there you go.
And when all hell breaks loose and the barn zombies get free, the issue still isn't fully resolved for the characters.  It's the kind of depth I wasn't expecting at the start of Book 1, but appreciate now.

[paulvonscott]

The loved ones looking after infected/dead relatives has been done before.  But really if you think a bunch of rotting, festering, fly ridden walking corpses are going to get better, then that's a psychiatric condition!

Reminds me, all that stuff about zombies differentiating between the living and dead by smell.  Hmmm...

I think it might work better with adlard's art, it was all a bit catoony before (zombie stuff looked great though).

I dunno, seeing the remake of Dawn of the Dead inspired me to do my own zombie thing, I may have to give it a go at some point.

[wrighty47]

"That kid, with all his seven year old wisdom, decided to kill a man. I find that as scary as anything else in the book."

Yes.. that point is scary as hell, that's the point imo. It's just the motives behind that training I don't agree with you on, not the outcome or questions raised. They are in a completely different world now and have to re-evaluate things like this. Getting these sort of things right is the tricky part. I think that raising these sort of questions are the books strong points.

Alan!

[paulvonscott]

So what is mentioned about it in the following six episodes Alan, much or nothing?

My view is, that a 7 year old with a gun, scared and firing wildly is more dangerous than zombies.

[wrighty47]

It's not touched on in a way that I think will satisfy you Paul, although it sin't completely ignored either. The characters do have other things on their minds tho. ;)

The dangers of taking a 7 year old out into that environment is addressed tho, only this time round....

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E

(you have been warned)

... it's the little kiddie himself that gets shot whilst out hunting with his Dad. This does lead to quite a confrontation regarding the ethics of people just walking round with guns but the matter isn't neccesserily resolved. There is still a long way to go tho!  :)

Alan!