Scan barcode
A review by romanaromana
World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max Brooks
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
1.5
1.5 stars.
More trigger warnings here: https://www.doesthedogdie.com/media/17494 (nothing in this review except zombies and mentions of violence).
There is a moment in World War Z, towards the end, where one character asks the interviewer 'Do you really care about all this?', to which the interviewer responds 'Yes'. It's fair to see me and the interviewer are in disagreement.
World War Z unfolds the truth of the zombie war from the perspective of those who fought and lived it.
I'll begin with the positives before I release the negative drawl that will undoubtedly dominate this review:
Max Brooks clearly researched a lot for this novel, which is always appreciated. I think he was brave to cover such a breadth of topics and bring politics into his zombie narrative so overtly.
Some of the characters' stories were genuinely engaging and gripping. The issue is that these were too few and far between.
And here comes the drawl...
I had issues with the way Max Brooks utilised his oral storytelling. The idea is great and I think it had the potential to work really well, but I struggled with the sheer number of characters that were interviewed because very few of them appeared more than once. This resulted in a hugely fragmented narrative that had almost no cohesion. It was just a string of anecdotes, with their only connection being the living dead.
The majority of these voices also had a tendency to waffle and overshare. This wasn't a case of fleshing out the story or adding life to their recollections; this was pure pointlessness. I mean, 300 pages in do I really care about the mechanics of a diving suit? Even 50 pages in I wouldn't have cared to be honest, but seriously?
The politics also got a bit much as it ultimately lessened the impact of the zombies themselves, who became almost irrelevant as Brooks made way for his political theories and continental conflict of humans. I understand that this was the story he was choosing to tell, and one which undoubtedly required a lot of thought, but I was bored of it.
I really wanted to like this more because zombies are intriguing and, frankly, the film made this seem like it would be a real thrill. But I've made the executive decision not to associate the two forms because, as Brooks himself admitted, they have nothing in common. And on that note, good riddance to this version.
More trigger warnings here: https://www.doesthedogdie.com/media/17494 (nothing in this review except zombies and mentions of violence).
There is a moment in World War Z, towards the end, where one character asks the interviewer 'Do you really care about all this?', to which the interviewer responds 'Yes'. It's fair to see me and the interviewer are in disagreement.
World War Z unfolds the truth of the zombie war from the perspective of those who fought and lived it.
I'll begin with the positives before I release the negative drawl that will undoubtedly dominate this review:
Max Brooks clearly researched a lot for this novel, which is always appreciated. I think he was brave to cover such a breadth of topics and bring politics into his zombie narrative so overtly.
Some of the characters' stories were genuinely engaging and gripping. The issue is that these were too few and far between.
And here comes the drawl...
I had issues with the way Max Brooks utilised his oral storytelling. The idea is great and I think it had the potential to work really well, but I struggled with the sheer number of characters that were interviewed because very few of them appeared more than once. This resulted in a hugely fragmented narrative that had almost no cohesion. It was just a string of anecdotes, with their only connection being the living dead.
The majority of these voices also had a tendency to waffle and overshare. This wasn't a case of fleshing out the story or adding life to their recollections; this was pure pointlessness. I mean, 300 pages in do I really care about the mechanics of a diving suit? Even 50 pages in I wouldn't have cared to be honest, but seriously?
The politics also got a bit much as it ultimately lessened the impact of the zombies themselves, who became almost irrelevant as Brooks made way for his political theories and continental conflict of humans. I understand that this was the story he was choosing to tell, and one which undoubtedly required a lot of thought, but I was bored of it.
I really wanted to like this more because zombies are intriguing and, frankly, the film made this seem like it would be a real thrill. But I've made the executive decision not to associate the two forms because, as Brooks himself admitted, they have nothing in common. And on that note, good riddance to this version.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Injury/Injury detail, and Murder
Moderate: Animal death, Cannibalism, Suicide, Violence, War, Injury/Injury detail, Gun violence, and Gore