Zombies! discussion

So I'm trying to get more input. I'm of the opinion it really doesn't matter, most of the time, for most stories, WHY or HOW the zombies appear.

After all, so far at least, zombies aren't real. Any 'explanation' will be trek-babble, for the most part. Does it honestly matter to a zombie fan the hows and whys of the zombies showing up for dinner?

If it does matter, why? What makes hearing some sort of explanation about where the zombies are coming from good? What about that makes the story better?

If it doesn't, why not? What about skipping anything beyond "okay, zombies are eating people" is good? What about that makes the story better?

Examples of stories that gave an explanation:
-- 28 Days Later. Medical researchers whose test animals, already infected with the virus, get free and the apocalypse starts.

However, and this goes to my personal opinion on the subject; if you slice off the entire first scene (of the animal rights activists entering the lab and setting the Rage monkey free) . . . does that ruin the movie? Does the story work just as well if you pick up with Jim waking up naked in the hospital in the middle of a deserted London?

--Feed/Deadline/Blackout by Mira Grant. The author fills MANY words discussing the backstory of the zombie plague, where it came from, what it does, and so forth. So you can't slice all that material out of the story very easily. But did all that info dumping make the story better? Or was it just filler?

Saying it another way; Grant spent a LOT of time discussing the history of her zombie plague. But was that good for the story, or did it get in the way of more interesting stories she could've spent that time on? Was it better to get the information about the backstory, or would it have been better to see the characters dealing with the world post-zombies?

Examples of a story that didn't give an explanation:
-- Dawn of the Dead (remake). Zombies just appear. No reason, no explanation. Sarah just wakes up to a six-year-old zombie trying to eat her and her fiance. After that, she just goes on with the story, surviving and making her way through the apocalypse.

Would the movie have been bettered by taking ten or twenty minutes to give some sort of reason for how/why the zombies show up?

-- Walking Dead (graphic novels). I hope I'm not making a boo-boo here, because it's been a couple of years since I read them, but I don't remember any explanation being given. The TV show invented one (sort of), but the novels just follow Rick waking up in a hospital, then stumbling around learning about and figuring out the zombie apocalypse.

Is that story bettered by spending time on a reason?

Looking forward to hearing the comments.

It doesn't even matter that the reader know what the reason it, but if the is one it must be believable. I kind of like animation experience with virus as base to care it.

I think the zombie outbreak explanation is a good thing if it plays into the story somehow. I have included explanations in my stories in some instances, where the nature of the outbreak was integral to the story, and I have left out the origin of the outbreak in others, where it made no difference. You also have to factor in who the characters in the story are - if they'd have much chance of knowing the cause and if they didn't, would there be much chance that they would bother trying to find out. If one of the characters is a know-it-all who has to be able to explain everything, it would make sense they would go to great lengths to find out. If on the otherhand your protagonist is street kid who couldn't care less and wouldn't have the resouces to necessarily find out - should there be an explanation available? I may use this as the basis for my blog post tonight.

I have an appointment that I have to head off too soon so I might come back later to add to this thread but shooting from the hip here are the reasons why it matters to me.
while there are times that I enjoy a little craziness and light humor, I do not read Zombie stories for the "campy-ness" of them. I am not after another teenage scare flick (well sometimes I am but most of the time I am not).
I want a more realistic "feel" to the read because I want to get mentally connected to the story and characters.
If its all "oh this happened because of something off the wall reason" then I am not able to connect and that spoils the excitement to the read.
Logic matters in stories, I know that I have to suspend disbelief inside the zombie and other fantasy genre, that that suspension is the backbone of the genres BUT I need it to be rooted in at least some reality or I throw it down out of exasperation.
In a zombie story there are only so many ways to root your story in reality and the "hows" and "whys" are two of those ways.
As odd as it may sound to say this, all stories (or at least all the ones that I think are good) have to have integrity to the plot and characters motivations.
Ok I have to go but I think I was able to add my thoughts to this enough for you to get where I am coming from (I hope)
Special note: Sorry Randy for the typos. ;)

For me, it entirely depends on the story. Sometimes, it's more fun to be unaware, just as the survivors might be. They need to learn about causes and effects, but not necessarily origins.

And this might separate out the "infection" stories from the zombie stories (a lot of fans will claim 28 Days Later... is NOT a zombie movie).

When this question comes up, I always think back to the movie Groundhog Day. I think any explanation of WHY Phil went through what he did would actually lessen the story. It's a better movie just saying, "Here is something that happened...".

I think if it's a scientific explanation, then it does not matter so much. If the apocalypse is truly the apocalypse then the explanation is probably moot because there is no cure. Now, if finding a cure or vaccine is a part of the story, then an explanation is probably good.

As for stories with supernatural reasons for the zombie outbreak (e.g. The Rising) then an explanation is in order.

In most cases for me, it doesn't matter.

Tammy K. wrote: "I have an appointment that I have to head off too soon so I might come back later to add to this thread but shooting from the hip here are the reasons why it matters to me.
while there are times th..."

I had something that I was going to type out but you pretty much said everything that I was going to say. Plus your post is coherent unlike mine.

Technically the dawn of the dead remake did have a bit of back story. I mean when she is doing her shift at the hospital, Cora mentions a patient who was put in the computer wrong who came in with a bite wound. She then goes on to say he crashed and Sara goes "From a bite?" So I mean she knew just didn't put it together yet what exactly it was.

As for my preference I like knowing. I don't need an uber in depth explanation but even just a little morsel will make me happy.

It's not really necessary for me but I think if you're going to get into it then make it interesting. I thought the scenario in 28 Days Later was very cool and different.

OK I am back, a little bit before I race off to another appointment, but I wanted to keep adding to this while these thoughts keep popping in my head.

I have edited this and added info since coming back from my physical therapy session.

I get that some movies/books focus on the survival aspect alone. Some movies/books focus on just the action combat battle scenes. Both of those have their plus factors but they are only part of the equation of (what I feel) makes up a good zombie novel.
For the sake of this discussion, I’ll compare the combat scenes and the survival aspects to the meat and potatoes of a pot roast meal. There needs to be more diversity in the story for it to rock my world.
I want some carrots, celery, onion in my pot roast meal and I want rolls on the side with butter and a large glass of milk (maybe some dessert too who knows).
Now if you are writing a short story there is no time for anything but meat and potatoes. Let's face it, short stories are only a couple of scenes worth of material.
If you are writing a novella then you might be able to add in an onion or carrot.
But if you are writing a serious novel, or a series then you need to make room (and take the time for) more elements to your story. (Just my views on that)
So keep in mind that what I say from this point depends on what you are writing (the length) and your commitment level to a fuller story.
Let's say the history of the virus or zombie causing element is the equivalent to the onions. It will add a flavor to the story, because now we know what needs to change to solve the zombie crisis (cure or kill the zombie making wizard or kill the aliens using the zombies as puppets, so on). In short, it enriches the plot, plot direction, characters motivation, or characters direction.
We (readers) can get settled in the comfortable journey of the characters, and you authors can use that comfort to screw with us by providing conflicts and twists to the main characters fate.
Now for the carrots, I'll call this originality. There are only so many ways a zombie can be made right? Then when it's all been done before the genre becomes a yawn fest. So how can you make your story original? The 'How' the zombie are created and 'how' they can be killed is one method.
Until I had read the book Year 50, I had never seen aliens using humans as hosts (zombies) with some aliens having different degrees of control over their zombie host (fast walkers and intelligent zombies were explained that way).
Which made the story so much more interesting for me, because I did not find myself arguing with the author about how it was possible to have some zombies do one thing and others do another, or why some could reason out how to break into a building while others walked around like ... well, like zombies. ;)
I was able to relax into their various abilities without that nagging part of my brain kicking in looking for flaws.
How many times have you read a book and said, This is so silly, it's not even remotely possible! or Stopped in your reading and said, well on page 56 they could only do this but on page 124 they are all of a sudden doing that? Or put the book down because it was so much like the last one that you have read?
If an author has taken the time to think out how the zombies were created and what he wants them to do, it Shows big time! And if he/she lets the readers know just enough to 'clue them in' then the reading experience is so much richer. Because now I (as the reader) can fight the fight with the characters and live in the moment. I can invest my attention into the 'mission' and not pick out the flaws/inconsistencies while I look for the back-story of the characters/plot.

(More Thoughts not dealing with the hows and whys: I feel that the more elements of 'real life' that are included into a story the more fun it is to read. And with that in mind here are a couple other things that an author can add to get those added plus are by have subplots like relationships, character revelations/growth, losses and growths to the core cast of characters (for emotional zings), and so on.

To wrap up my final thoughts on this, are:

1. Clearly, I have put too much thought into what I want to see in a zombie (or for that matter any other genre/sub-genre) book for it to get 4 or 5 stars from me.
2. Finally, it is (in my often outspoken and certainly not humble enough view) critical for a good (4 star) very good (5 star) book to have the hows or whys of the zombie infestation as it enriches the plot, plot direction, the characters reasoning, and usually ends up adding credibility /believability (if such things can be said about fiction work.)

I prefer not to know.

My favorite type of zombie stories are when the world is so overrun so fast that say 99% of the population is gone very quickly, leaving main characters terrified and without any knowledge other than a bullet to head takes them down. Sometimes I like to hear what the main character thinks on the subject even though they may have no idea.

Well, Here is the issue. I have read both types of books, the ones where it was detailed, and others that didn't even mention how or even where it started..just sort of did.
On the books that had no word about it. I always was bugged that there wasn't even some info on how it came about..my desire to be in the know overrides.
On the other hand, if it is detailed and such, if its too heavy on the science, then I may start to get skeptical (unless its very plausible, and frankly, the only plausible way would be a terrorist attack of some description moreso than some global weirdness).

If its a supernatural cause, then chances are the method will become some keypoint anyhow in the story and so doesn't really fit in consideration either.

Also it depends on the point of the book. if its simply a try to live till tomorrow type book, then it doesn't matter as much as the hunt for the cure type adventure.

Another note. The internet would actually be up for quite awhile (after all, it was invented for the purpose of remaining active in case of a total catastrophic failure of the states in order to keep government and information flowing).

And on the net, surely there would be both informative and not so informative info on the subject of origins...so it may actually be more unrealistic to completely forego the whole use the net aspect.

This is an area where Walking Dead stretches it a bit. Nobody is logging on to see what the latest word is on a satellite laptop...

So, I think it comes down to the character. Are they interested? is there even time to start googling? etc.

If the story is good, if the story has strong enough legs to stand without the reason for the Zombie Apocalypse being given, then I am cool without it.

I have to agree with Tammy K. about reality being intertwined with the story. That mustard seed of truth is what lets a story worm its way into my gray matter and nest.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I do want to know the how's and why's of the Z-Virus in a story. But it isn't mandatory.

Saturnfx, what a good call on internet! Very cool.

I think the scientific element is very important. That's why I made my main character a scientist. I wanted to show just how close we actually are to a zombie apocalypse. Looking at the event through the eyes of someone who's used to using the scientific process is intriguing and adds a factor of believability to the story.

I think there's gotta be a reason, something needs to have happened, changed, spread across the nation/globe, whatever. Now, do you really need to explain it....probably not, but I do think it's important to at least elude to it. And I say it because you may need it later, like if it's because of a virus, does the virus make any healthy human turn zombie, or are all healthy humans actually zombies in wait, but they need to die of something else (besides head trauma) first to then come back as a zombie? If it was maybe a bacteria or parasite passed by large animal (dear, bears, horses, etc) you may need to return to that at some point in the story. I do think your right as to say that it will really be mostly background chatter though. I think a reason or means of the zombie affliction coming to light is important but the actual means of it happening it not so important, you probably won't need to over-explain where this came from, just give something, and know if needed you can return to that cause if the story calls for it. Just my opinion, I'm a seasoned zombie reader, not a literary genius...(yet...)

I'll give one example where the cause was very important, the zombie-apocalypse trilogy The Aftertime Series (one of my favorites) and one where it really wasn't much mentioned The First Days (As the World Dies trilogy) another one of my favorites...So it's really based on what you want to get into, but I really think if you are going to barely mention, or not mention a cause at all, don't over think it, let it be sudden and unknown, if zombies really did show up one day a lot of people would have no freakin idea where they came from. If you do share the cause, make it a believable chain of events...as much as you can I guess. Make it matter if you are going to talk about it.

A zombie thread about zombies!

I'd say that it depends on the story. As a general rule, you don't need to explain the cause of the outbreak if ....

1. it's a supernatural rather than medical thing
2. you are focusing on the point of view of individual survivors rather than governments.
3. the story doesn't end with a cure being found.

On the other hand, it is usually a good idea to explain where the zombiism comes from if ....

1. It's a realistic / scientific story rather than supernatural
2. you focus on the people in power trying to work out how to deal with the epidemic.
3. the story ends with a cure or a better understanding of how to deal the zombies (as in the film of World War Z)

I like to think of zombies as magic. (The only difference being it wouldn't be that cool if zombies actually worked.)

Whether scientific or paranormal, zombies can only exist for the time I am suspending my disbelief in between book covers.

So I would fall back on Brandon Sanderson's rules of magic when it came to explaining the whys and wherefores of zombie-ism. I think it is vital to a story that the author know what caused them and how they work, but that the reader can easily get by with just the how they work part. It is necessary for the reader's suspension of disbelief that the zombies work within a set of rules established by the author and that the author doesn't stray outside of his or her own rules.

An exception to this that comes easily to mind is Robert Kirkman. I have no confidence that he has an underlying theory as to what caused the zombies in his stories. But he doesn't need one. He obviously has a firm grasp of how his zombies work, and like clockwork, they become the backdrop for what his stories are really about.

Doesn't matter, as long as the story is good

There are some books who can come up with a real-world, plausible cause for a zombie outbreak. And then there are authors who can't. Those that can and make it work, those books are usually written better. Those authors who use some kind of cliche, like a returning space probe, aliens, aliens thawed out by some foreign nation after being frozen in ice for 10k years, yeah, that's actually happened, those books are not as well written, usually have a lot of cardboard cut out characters, weak plot devices, and stereotypical dialogue and actions.

Of course, that is a generalization as there are always exceptions.

If the cause for such an outbreak is solid and fairly grounded in real scientific fact, then that matters as its part of the integral plot.

In some books, the cause is not even mentioned and that makes the story more focused on the survivors as they try to find a safe haven and maybe try to find what caused the outbreak.

It all depends if it helps the story. I have read both with and without explanations. They both work. I prefer to know what happened and how it exploded. World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War does the very best job of this and it works so much better with it added. If your focus is on the very small, then it is probably not needed.

I much prefer a good story without too much background. A brief explanation of how it started is fine, but lengthy background stories tend to be technical and boring (like a textbook).

For my books (the ZOMBIE OFF series), I chose not to give an explanation as to how it all started. One of the main reasons is that I didn't want to have to deal with all of the dissection of plausibility. In my books, I don't think it really matters, and in no way affects the story. If you can get away with not giving a detailed explanation, then I'd go with that. Don't give the readers something to complain about if it's not 100% believable.

I went with a man made virus launched by the North Koreans when their Nuclear program got shut down. Virus comes in and kills all the people but keeps the infrastructure and natural resources good. It was interesting thinking through how theyu'd have to basically release the virus near every military base on the globe at pretty much the same time. Then their population would have to hide in underground shelters until risk of infection went away. Basically the standard man made virus approach!

Humans throughout history have always looked to explain things in one way or another. I feel that not giving an explanation on why zombies (or anything in the story for that matter) exists does take away from the story. Even if its a simple side note of voodoo gone wrong will give the readers more to work with. Although, giving the reason for zombies (or anything) doesn't have to be at the beginning. See White Flag of the Dead series by Joseph Talluto. How zombies were created wasn't figured out until the 2nd or 3rd book. I understand the suspense effect of having an unexplained extinction event, but humans need answers, or at least excuses.