Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 14 2007, 9:33 AM EDT | Blayde | 431 words added |
| Jun 14 2007, 8:44 AM EDT | Blayde |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
Before we begin discussing the scientific origin of the zombie, it's important that we take a bird's eye view of mythology and superstition in general. One need only turn on the television or visit the local library to understand what a key role these ideas play in all cultures. Richard Matheson's I Am Legend has been discussed a few times throughout this page, and I wish to bring it up again. The protagonist, Robert Neville, is attempting to study the vampires that he has to contend with on a nightly basis. Matheson touches on an extremely important point when he discusses how our perceptions of certain things are basically amalgams of all historical accounts. For example, in his studies, he finds that showing a vampire a cross only works in certain situations, ostensibly with those vampires who were once of the Christian faith. When he shows Ben Cortman a cross, there is no response. Upon showing him the Torah, however, Cortman reacts in typical vampire fashion, suggesting that there is no "magical power" associated with the cross specifically; rather, the reaction is a psychological one, and depends on each individual vampire and the faith they once belonged to. Thus, a Buddhist vampire would not have an adverse reaction to a cross, whereas a vampire previously of the Christian faith would have no reaction to, say, a Shinto symbol.
The point of all this is to say that we base our current paradigms on centuries of tradition, mythology and superstition. Some things are 100% accurate; in the case of zombies, head trauma is the most effective (and sometimes only) way to destroy them. Other things, however, are totally baseless. That said, let us examine one popular theory regarding zombification.
It should be noted that "zombie" can be applied to multiple classes of a thing. For example, we have the zombie of Haitian voodoo, which is basically a drugged and unaware human being. Take away the drug, and the human regains control of their ordinary faculties, minus any brain damage from prolonged usage of the chemicals. The term can also be applied, albeit rather loosely, to anyone who goes through the motions of their day (i.e., work, driving, making love, etc.) without any real emotional or mental involvement. However, neither of these "zombies" pose any real threat to us, so our focus must needs be elsewhere. The zombie threat can be narrowed down to those creatures whose bite, and indeed other methods of fluid transfer, can lead to our own death and zombification. That said, our focus will remain there. *more to come*
The point of all this is to say that we base our current paradigms on centuries of tradition, mythology and superstition. Some things are 100% accurate; in the case of zombies, head trauma is the most effective (and sometimes only) way to destroy them. Other things, however, are totally baseless. That said, let us examine one popular theory regarding zombification.
It should be noted that "zombie" can be applied to multiple classes of a thing. For example, we have the zombie of Haitian voodoo, which is basically a drugged and unaware human being. Take away the drug, and the human regains control of their ordinary faculties, minus any brain damage from prolonged usage of the chemicals. The term can also be applied, albeit rather loosely, to anyone who goes through the motions of their day (i.e., work, driving, making love, etc.) without any real emotional or mental involvement. However, neither of these "zombies" pose any real threat to us, so our focus must needs be elsewhere. The zombie threat can be narrowed down to those creatures whose bite, and indeed other methods of fluid transfer, can lead to our own death and zombification. That said, our focus will remain there. *more to come*
