AMC's TV series, The Walking Dead is based on Robert Kirkman's graphic novel series of the same name. While the TV series stays more-or-less tied to the events in the long-running book series, there are many changes and differences between the two versions.
If you've watched the show, you owe it to yourself to grab the collected volumes and start reading. They're great. And one of the best things about them is the introduction that Robert Kirkman himself provides for the first volume. I've excerpted parts below for us to talk about in class today (as we watch part of the first episode) and throughout the semester.
Kirkman writes:
To me, the best zombie movies aren't the splatter tests of gore and violence with goofy characters and tongue in cheek antics. Good zombie movies show us how messed up we are, they make us question our station in society ... and our society's station in the world. They show us gore and violence and all that cool stuff too ... but there's always an undercurrent of social commentary and thoughtfulness.
This is, obviously, a huge theme in our course - not just acknowledging the social commentary and criticism in zombie narratives, but trying to figure out what that commentary and criticism is, whether we agree with it, and what we might do about it.
Kirkman:
With THE WALKING DEAD, I want to explore how people deal with extreme situations and how these events CHANGE them. I'm in this for the long haul. You guys are going to get to see Rick change and mature to the point that, when you look back on this book, you won't even recognize him. I hope you guys are looking forward to a sprawling epic, because that's the idea with this one.
Everything in this book is an attempt at showing the natural progression of events that I think would occur in these situations. This is a very character driven endeavor. How these characters get there is much more important than them getting there. I hope to show you reflections of your friends, your neighbors, your families, and yourselves, and what their reactions are to the extreme situations in this book.
There's been a lot of discussion of the way television flattens characters, and the demands of limited time necessitate cutting out things that might not be essential to the plot (things usually like character development, sigh). But keep that question in mind as we move through these stories: which ones focus on characters, and which ones focus on the special effects and/or splatter? Which of these stay with you?
Kirkman:
For me the worst part of every zombie movie is the end. I always want to know what happens next. Even when all the characters die at the end ... I just want it to keep going.
It seems to me that the best stories, the ones with characters we do care about and feel as if we know, do stay with us long after the story ends. And is this perpetual movement, long after the pages or video have rotted away, another metaphor for zombies?