|
|
Post by Jesse on Feb 8, 2015 22:26:16 GMT -5
Wytches #4 was great easily the best issue yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 8, 2015 22:44:13 GMT -5
I'm not a zombie or horror fan myself which is why I passed up on this series for many, many years. But after reading the first omnibus from the library I got hooked. Its less about zombies and more about characterzation . The story really focuses on cast interplay and society-building amidst a devastated environment. Instead of zombies, it could very well be taking place in a nation occupied by an invading army and the story would hardly change. Plus you never feel safe that main characters will survive. Quite a few have come to shocking conclusions. Try it for free from your library if available. Agreed with this. I would also not classify TWD as "horror". It's more appropriately labelled as post-apocalyptic fiction. The way I explained it to my wife (who thinks it's just about battling zombies) is that it's an exploration of human nature in the absence of societal constraints. What do we become when all the structures and rules of civilized society are no more? The zombies are just the window dressing. That's the nature of horror in general though, for all the great monsters out there the stories they are featured in are all about different aspects of the human experience. Dracula? Sure it's a guy with a thirst for blood but the exploration and fears of sexuality and immigration are what really makes it compelling. Frankenstein? Sure, the big green guy is what we all remember but the play of morals concerning God,Man and Creation is the real meat of the story. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Feb 9, 2015 15:54:12 GMT -5
That's the nature of horror in general though, for all the great monsters out there the stories they are featured in are all about different aspects of the human experience. Dracula? Sure it's a guy with a thirst for blood but the exploration and fears of sexuality and immigration are what really makes it compelling. Frankenstein? Sure, the big green guy is what we all remember but the play of morals concerning God,Man and Creation is the real meat of the story. That's definitely true of the horror genre. But I still think there's a distinction in that TWD uses its monsters differently compared to the examples you cite. The primary villain/monster/supernatural entity in those stories is the main vehicle through which those themes are explored -- e.g., Dracula is just a personification of people's fears regarding sexuality and/or immigration. I don't think that's the case with TWD. I'd submit that in TWD, especially in stories around the time of the prison and after, the primarily villain or monster is other people, not the zombies. If you want to be more abstract, the collapse of society that leads to other people becoming threats is the primary "villain". That's what I mean when I say the zombies are window-dressing. Their main purpose is to create an environment of anarchy where humanity's unfettered nature is allowed to run amok. It just as easily could have been some other catastrophe -- nuclear war, global plague, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 16:14:42 GMT -5
That's the nature of horror in general though, for all the great monsters out there the stories they are featured in are all about different aspects of the human experience. Dracula? Sure it's a guy with a thirst for blood but the exploration and fears of sexuality and immigration are what really makes it compelling. Frankenstein? Sure, the big green guy is what we all remember but the play of morals concerning God,Man and Creation is the real meat of the story. That's definitely true of the horror genre. But I still think there's a distinction in that TWD uses its monsters differently compared to the examples you cite. The primary villain/monster/supernatural entity in those stories is the main vehicle through which those themes are explored -- e.g., Dracula is just a personification of people's fears regarding sexuality and/or immigration. I don't think that's the case with TWD. I'd submit that in TWD, especially in stories around the time of the prison and after, the primarily villain or monster is other people, not the zombies. If you want to be more abstract, the collapse of society that leads to other people becoming threats is the primary "villain". That's what I mean when I say the zombies are window-dressing. Their main purpose is to create an environment of anarchy where humanity's unfettered nature is allowed to run amok. It just as easily could have been some other catastrophe -- nuclear war, global plague, etc. Then again, in Lovecraft's oeuvre, the monsters are never the point and only serve to explore the human condition of the people and their reaction to the horror of the cosmic entities. It's not about Cthulhu rampaging or a shoggoth hunting his victims, the monsters are the backdrop not the focus, it's about how humans deal with horror and the unknown and how insignificant they are despite their hubris. It's much like how you describe the role of the zombies in TWD, yet despite how the monsters are used, there is no doubt Lovecraft is horror through and through. -M |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 9, 2015 16:58:10 GMT -5
That's the nature of horror in general though, for all the great monsters out there the stories they are featured in are all about different aspects of the human experience. Dracula? Sure it's a guy with a thirst for blood but the exploration and fears of sexuality and immigration are what really makes it compelling. Frankenstein? Sure, the big green guy is what we all remember but the play of morals concerning God,Man and Creation is the real meat of the story. That's definitely true of the horror genre. But I still think there's a distinction in that TWD uses its monsters differently compared to the examples you cite. The primary villain/monster/supernatural entity in those stories is the main vehicle through which those themes are explored -- e.g., Dracula is just a personification of people's fears regarding sexuality and/or immigration. I don't think that's the case with TWD. I'd submit that in TWD, especially in stories around the time of the prison and after, the primarily villain or monster is other people, not the zombies. If you want to be more abstract, the collapse of society that leads to other people becoming threats is the primary "villain". That's what I mean when I say the zombies are window-dressing. Their main purpose is to create an environment of anarchy where humanity's unfettered nature is allowed to run amok. It just as easily could have been some other catastrophe -- nuclear war, global plague, etc. That's no different than just about any other monster though, they are catalysts for exploration. You could substitute out some other non-horror element and achieve a similar result but the fact that the choice was made for a horror element wasn't an accident as they wanted to make it horror. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 17:14:25 GMT -5
Agreed with this. I would also not classify TWD as "horror". It's more appropriately labelled as post-apocalyptic fiction. The way I explained it to my wife (who thinks it's just about battling zombies) is that it's an exploration of human nature in the absence of societal constraints. What do we become when all the structures and rules of civilized society are no more? The zombies are just the window dressing. That's the nature of horror in general though, for all the great monsters out there the stories they are featured in are all about different aspects of the human experience. Dracula? Sure it's a guy with a thirst for blood but the exploration and fears of sexuality and immigration are what really makes it compelling. Frankenstein? Sure, the big green guy is what we all remember but the play of morals concerning God,Man and Creation is the real meat of the story. But in most horror stories the monster is the focal point of the plot. Walking Dead is like the Friday The 13th series, if in some installments Jason didn't even show up at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 17:18:04 GMT -5
That's the nature of horror in general though, for all the great monsters out there the stories they are featured in are all about different aspects of the human experience. Dracula? Sure it's a guy with a thirst for blood but the exploration and fears of sexuality and immigration are what really makes it compelling. Frankenstein? Sure, the big green guy is what we all remember but the play of morals concerning God,Man and Creation is the real meat of the story. That's definitely true of the horror genre. But I still think there's a distinction in that TWD uses its monsters differently compared to the examples you cite. The primary villain/monster/supernatural entity in those stories is the main vehicle through which those themes are explored -- e.g., Dracula is just a personification of people's fears regarding sexuality and/or immigration. I don't think that's the case with TWD. I'd submit that in TWD, especially in stories around the time of the prison and after, the primarily villain or monster is other people, not the zombies. If you want to be more abstract, the collapse of society that leads to other people becoming threats is the primary "villain". That's what I mean when I say the zombies are window-dressing. Their main purpose is to create an environment of anarchy where humanity's unfettered nature is allowed to run amok. It just as easily could have been some other catastrophe -- nuclear war, global plague, etc. I think in Dracula and Frankenstein comics every issue will pretty much be about Dracula and Frankenstein. And if someone bought an issue and there weren't even any vampires in it they'd feel ripped off. And that is how some people feel when they check out Walking Dead, because you can easily go several issues without seeing a single zombie. I think that is the difference. At this point in the comic the zombies are simply a part of the backdrop. Like buildings and trees. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 17:25:36 GMT -5
That's definitely true of the horror genre. But I still think there's a distinction in that TWD uses its monsters differently compared to the examples you cite. The primary villain/monster/supernatural entity in those stories is the main vehicle through which those themes are explored -- e.g., Dracula is just a personification of people's fears regarding sexuality and/or immigration. I don't think that's the case with TWD. I'd submit that in TWD, especially in stories around the time of the prison and after, the primarily villain or monster is other people, not the zombies. If you want to be more abstract, the collapse of society that leads to other people becoming threats is the primary "villain". That's what I mean when I say the zombies are window-dressing. Their main purpose is to create an environment of anarchy where humanity's unfettered nature is allowed to run amok. It just as easily could have been some other catastrophe -- nuclear war, global plague, etc. I think in Dracula and Frankenstein comics every issue will pretty much be about Dracula and Frankenstein. And if someone bought an issue and there weren't even any vampires in it they'd feel ripped off. And that is how some people feel when they check out Walking Dead, because you can easily go several issues without seeing a single zombie. I think that is the difference. At this point in the comic the zombies are simply a part of the backdrop. Like buildings and trees. Of course you're assuming that the title refers to the zombes when Rick at one point out and out states Kirkman's theme and intent behind the title when he says of the survivors..."we are the walking dead." -M |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 9, 2015 17:33:18 GMT -5
That's the nature of horror in general though, for all the great monsters out there the stories they are featured in are all about different aspects of the human experience. Dracula? Sure it's a guy with a thirst for blood but the exploration and fears of sexuality and immigration are what really makes it compelling. Frankenstein? Sure, the big green guy is what we all remember but the play of morals concerning God,Man and Creation is the real meat of the story. But in most horror stories the monster is the focal point of the plot. Walking Dead is like the Friday The 13th series, if in some installments Jason didn't even show up at all. Friday the 13th is horror though so I'm not sure what distinction you're making. Also, although in the examples I gave the monsters are central there are many where that isn't the case such as the stories of Lovecraft, as MRP pointed out, but the fact remains he same that these stories are about exploring complex human emotions through metaphor and that's what the Walking Dead. It's horror and there's no real reason to try and distance it from the genre. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 3:08:57 GMT -5
But in most horror stories the monster is the focal point of the plot. Walking Dead is like the Friday The 13th series, if in some installments Jason didn't even show up at all. Friday the 13th is horror though so I'm not sure what distinction you're making. That Walking Dead isn't. I consider it a drama. Maybe with a horror backdrop, but like I said, several issues could go by without a single zombie sighting. In fact, I think a year could pass easily without an actual "zombie dilemma" where they actually have to run from zombies, or someone actually gets bit. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 10, 2015 11:19:58 GMT -5
Friday the 13th is horror though so I'm not sure what distinction you're making. That Walking Dead isn't. I consider it a drama. Maybe with a horror backdrop, but like I said, several issues could go by without a single zombie sighting. In fact, I think a year could pass easily without an actual "zombie dilemma" where they actually have to run from zombies, or someone actually gets bit. The fact that the zombies were the catalyst makes it horror though, that they could not appear is completely besides the point. I mean, how many times do the various elder gods and other assorted abominations actually show up in Lovecraft's stories? The answer? Not very often. And yet I don't see anyone trying to distance the stories from the horror genre, the fact that many seem to try to do so with the walking dead speaks not to the fact that it isn't horror but rather to a stigma related to zombie movies, "Oh no, this isn't like those films. This is Drama". In many ways it feels a lot like the reaction to comics that I often saw in the 90's, "Oh no, this isn't a comic book it's a Graphic Novel". The distinction didn't make much sense then and this new one doesn't either. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 15:55:23 GMT -5
I don't see them being horror by default because zombies are sometimes in it. The Munsters wasn't a horror television show. It was a comedy.
I don't have a dislike of horror things at all. I simply don't consider Walking Dead horror. Horror is supposed to be scary. Walking Dead isn't scary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 16:10:35 GMT -5
Just randomly googling a definition of the horror genre I found this:
Not scare per se, but a negative emotional reaction, which is what TWD does, and the primal fear is the helplessness caused by the apocalypse, people are afraid of being helpless more-so than of zombie sor of an apocalypse itself. TWD uses that primal fear to generate the drama, without the primal fear asects of it (making it horror) there is no drama that works in the show. Take out the horror element and the show doesn't work, even if the zombies don't pop up every episode and each episode isn't designed to illicit a fight or flight reflex in the audience. That's one way to do horror, not the only way. Alan Moore's Swamp Thing run is another great example of horror done to generate drama and not just to illicit scares from the audience.
The Munsters used horrific trappings, but was a comedy, in that you're right, because it did not seek to get the negative emotional reaction nor tap into primal fears. TWD does those things.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Feb 10, 2015 16:11:50 GMT -5
I don't see them being horror by default because zombies are sometimes in it. The Munsters wasn't a horror television show. It was a comedy. I don't have a dislike of horror things at all. I simply don't consider Walking Dead horror. Horror is supposed to be scary. Walking Dead isn't scary. While "scary" is subjective -- my wife is scared to death of the zombies in TWD to the point that she refuses to watch the show with me -- I agree that the zombies in TWD are not scary. Whether or not that's by design, I don't know. But at this point in both the show and the comics, they've basically been reduced to a manageable (albeit still somewhat dangerous) nuisance. The survivors know how to deal with them, they have strategies and tactics for coping with hordes of zombies, etc. It's the human villains that are scary. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 10, 2015 17:04:00 GMT -5
I don't see them being horror by default because zombies are sometimes in it. The Munsters wasn't a horror television show. It was a comedy. I don't have a dislike of horror things at all. I simply don't consider Walking Dead horror. Horror is supposed to be scary. Walking Dead isn't scary. It isn't just the zombies that make it horror though but the mood they contribute to, in that respect I think the difference between these two shows is obvious. Also, horror doesn't have to be scary, in fact since childhood there have been a scant few horror movies that actually scared me but that doesn't mean I haven't seen or read any horror stories. |
|
