Review: The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead

The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead by Max Brooks
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Zombies aren't real. They aren't even really possible. We all know this. Well, we all SHOULD know this. They're still fun to write and watch but clearly aren't based in reality. But, here's the thing: survival is very real and very important. Our ancestors doing just that is proof enough. And that's where we find this book. On an almost perfect border of pure fantasy and the grimiest of reality. I think it's best to examine this book from both of those angles. As a work of fiction and as advice for the total collapse of civilization.

As a work of fiction, I honestly think it's great. It fully commits to the idea that zombies are not only real but the real of the world as except this fact as well. Even making up scientific, historical, and statistical information to support it. It's creative and well-written. It's a little difficult to finish as it gets repetitive towards the end and starts to be far more fiction as the fake facts dry out. The text is also as dry as a bone, but I find that to be a part of its charm. As zombie fiction I find it to be one of the best. Able to capture the grime nature of zombies without numbing your skull with sensitization flair.

As I said before, the 'facts' about the zombies are mostly fake. That doesn't mean it's completely devoid of false information. Far from it. I found a good bit of good information on weapons and survival tips. But I wouldn't recommend it as the sole resource for post-apocalyptic survival. The book itself often recommends consulting real survival guides on several occasions. Though it doesn't sight any direct sources. If anything, it makes you think about how you can at least start preparing for the end of the world. Unless you're rich. Then you can just jump on a plane and flee to New Zealand, leaving everyone else to die.

One note of disapproval is that the historical accounts at the end are mostly unnecessary. They can be creative and witty, but mostly serve as filler and just feel incompatible with the rest of the book. I'd suggest reading the first few and if they're not doing anything for you, skip them.

Overall I consider this a good book that's worth a read. Even if you're just a mild fan of zombies or surviving past a small emergency. You might learn something. I will say this though. If there's ever a head in fiction that is detached from the body, speaking or making noise, it bothers me. Because I learned through this book that your mouth can't make noise without your lungs and diaphragm. And I can't get that fact out of my head.

View all my reviews

Review: Batman: Three Jokers

Batman: Three Jokers by Geoff Johns
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Warning, your opinion of this book will vary. Mostly on two factors that will certainly intermingle. One, it will depend on your opinion of Alan Moore's classic "The Killing Joke". And two, will be even further influenced by how you feel in regards to a direct sequel to said classic that wasn't written by the original author. Because, while the writing and art are undeniably good, it dives into a piece of comic scripture that some might be unable to detach from.

I'm going to flip the script a little bit and comment briefly on the writing. Normally, when reviewing graphic novels, I'll go on and on about things like plot and dialogue but will only speak briefly on the art unless it stands out profoundly. Here, I'll just say the writing is really good. A true master of the comic book format at the top of his game. There can be plenty said here of the nature of the emulation of other authors, namely Alan Moore, but the final project is a tight unrelentingly story that has a perfectly woven characterization of, not one, but three heroes and their signaler relation to the chaos that is the Joker.

Now, the reason I want to talk about the art so much is because it should be taught in creative classes on how to draw a damn comic book. Not just because the art is glorious, even though it is, but because it communicates an emotional impact unlike ninety percent of the content that currently exists. Simple details like head nods and eye movements display more emotion than the most strongly worded text. The level of mastery on the page is intense and delivers every punch the story wants you to take. I honestly can't get over how good it is.

I would never be one to say that all comic books need to be in a quasi-type of nine-panel format, but it certainly is a superior form for the comic book genre. It allows the reader to carefully follow every tick of emotion of the story, instead of just following the dialog bubbles as the plot unfolds. It more firmly makes the art, and the objects that are being drawn, that much more part of the story. There are too many comics out there where the story is mostly told through the speech bubbles and the art is just used to direct who is speaking and if any display of action accruing. This is not one of those comics. And, hopefully, it will teach others on how it's done.

Also, while we're on the nine-panel subject, I've seen other comic books that have a strict nine-panel per page structure. While this can work if the writing style suits it (looking at you Tom King), making the style more adaptive to the story, I feel, is just the better format. This way, you develop all the strengths of the nine panels but aren't restricted by its limitations.

I think I'm just going to finish up this review by saying this is very much a book for long-time Batman fans made by a long-time Batman fan. It has a deep knowledge and love of the history of Batman and his never-ending fight with the Joker. In a lot of ways, this book looks to define that relationship and pulls from its most famous aspects. I'm not going to debate the fandom politics of it all. One, because it's beneath me. Two, the final product succeeds in so many ways those arguments are mostly baseless. It's not perfect. But, when a cynic like me won't point out its flaws, you know it must be good.


View all my reviews

Review: The Fold

The Fold by Peter Clines
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

I have a habit of labeling stuff. Not just 'bad' or 'good', but I create naming conventions for things I see repeat themselves. Especially in particular art forms like books and movies. For example, if a book has the characters spending the vast majority of their time walking/traveling to their destination, I called it "The Mordor Problem". Because one can not simply walk into Mordor. A similar naming convention came to mind as I read this book, but more on that in a minute.

If you saw the two-star rating first, you can probably tell I didn't care much for this novel. Making the real question not 'did I like it?' but rather 'where do I begin?'. I suppose it makes some sense to begin with the first chapter. I don't normally tear books apart chapter by chapter, but, seriously, the opening paragraphs of this book should be taught in creative writing classes of how not to begin a story. The latter half of the chapter does pull you in with an increasing tense scene, but the events of the first chapter mostly undermine later plot developments and the particulars don't impact the rest of the book. You see this a good deal in bad fiction, in both books and movies, where the opening scene means to draw you in with something shocking but has nothing to do with the actual story. The more I think about it, the more it annoys me.

I'll admit that, once I got past the first chapter, I found the book mostly charming. The flaws that radiate throughout the story were already there, but I hadn't noticed them just yet. It even crossed my mind that I might like this book. Statistically unlikely, but possible. Then it started to slowly grate on me. I started to notice the chapters themselves weren't really chapters, but instead singular scenes. Often divided by clunky bits of dialogue or something marginally climactic. I call this the "Commercial Break Mechanic". Ending chapters, not because the chapter, or even scene, was concluded, but rather because it would be a good place to put a commercial break like a badly written episode of Star Trek. You tend to see this ever so slightly in debut novels, but considering it was used in almost every single chapter and that this is Clines fifth or so book, I guess it's just how he writes.

Side Note: Read "Redshirts" by John Scalzi if you want to see someone make fun of this poor means of writing.

It was about then that I noticed other flaws. Like how the book was pretty much all dialogue. Kind of like how a cheap science fiction show/movie can't afford any special effects, so they spend all their time indoors talking out loud about their feelings or plot. The book has no prose to speak of except for direct action. If something isn't flying across the room or if someone's eyes aren't going wide, then nothing is being written except more dialogue. To the book's credit, it does describe some of Mike's inner photographic memory. But this is used mostly to set up his next action and doesn't do much else.

This leads me to the next thing to rant about. Our main character Mike. First off, I'm not saying you have to be a hyper-intelligent person to write a hyper-intelligent person, but it helps. The eidetic memory component is mostly just used as a plot mechanic and Mike doesn't make many smart decisions. There's even a running joke of people asking him "I thought you were the smart one?" Slightly humorous at first, but then I started to realize Mike isn't smartly written. Hell, the only reason he survives to the end of the book is because of plot armor.

Secondly, and perhaps more discerning, Mike isn't a likable character. Not unlikeable in the sense that he's cruel, capricious, or just an old fashioned asshole. He's unlikeable because he's selfish and weak. The thing is, I don't think the author knows this. Slight spoiler, but there's a scene in the book where Mike talks out his feelings because the book doesn't have any prose. He explains that he has spent his life pretending he isn't super smart because random people in his orbit might not like him. The book intends this to be sentimental or endearing, but it mostly comes off as pathetic. Hence, why he isn't likable.

I can go on. Believe me, I can. But if I tore into this book with every problem it has, we'll be here for years. So I'll reach the bottom of the pot and tell you its biggest problem. It's shallow. It's completely tame and inoffensive (unless you hate the truly unremarkable) and mostly reads like the novelization of a rejected script for SYFY. Also, its tendency to make pop cultural references pretty much guarantees it'll be forgotten in the literature zeitgeist. This book doesn't have anything meaningful to say nor has a story worth telling. Or, at the very least, is told too poorly for me to care.

View all my reviews