Foo - World War Z

I just finished reading the book "World War Z" by Max Brooks, you know, author of "The Zombie Survival Guide." Well let me tell ya, read it! it was great! Movie is in the talks. Thats all I'm sayin'. :)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/stumpyspic/wwz.jpg

I'll have to check that out.

good concept. pity that brooks is such a mediocre writer.

good concept. pity that brooks is such a mediocre writer.

maybe, but he's getting a movie deal and more than likely big dollars from his "mediocre writings." :thumb: What have you written lately? :innocent:

maybe, but he's getting a movie deal and more than likely big dollars from his "mediocre writings."

family connections have their benefits.

http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Mel_Brooks_/mel_brooks_image__2_.jpg


:thu mb: What have you written lately? :innoc ent:

more than you, but then again, i'm not an author. :thumb:

family connections have their benefits.

http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Mel_Brooks_/mel_brooks_image__2_.jpg



more than you, but then again, i'm not an author. :thumb:

Jealousy/envy, two of the worst traits a person can have.

The guy is certainly not the best author in the world, but he's entertaining and for a quick, fun read what's wrong with this guy?

His writing must be a matter of taste...I'm not saying it's going on the AP English lists anytime soon, but I think he did a solid job, especially with the characters. It's told as interviews with survivors, and they're very short, but by the end of each story, the "interviewee" had a distinct personality. Some came off better than others, but some were really good.

Of course, I'm easily amused; my gf (rightly) mistrusts my movie reviews, so YMMV.

maybe, but he's getting a movie deal and more than likely big dollars from his "mediocre writings." :thumb: What have you written lately? :innocent:

Mediocrity sells in large numbers because of the large number of mediocre people.

It shows botto is not in the mediocre majority.

Jealousy/envy, two of the worst traits a person can have.

as is projecting.


His writing must be a matter of taste...I'm not saying it's going on the AP English lists anytime soon, but I think he did a solid job, especially with the characters. It's told as interviews with survivors, and they're very short, but by the end of each story, the "interviewee" had a distinct personality. Some came off better than others, but some were really good.

Of course, I'm easily amused; my gf (rightly) mistrusts my movie reviews, so YMMV.

:lol: sure.

Mediocrity sells in large numbers because of the large number of mediocre people.

It shows botto is not in the mediocre majority.

We can, all three of us, go on with mediocrity, projecting, and even Jealousy/envy, doesn't change the fact that Max Brooks has done well with the sale of his books, "The Zombie Survival Guide." and "World War Z" and we three have gotten no where near it, so please, go on with yourselves, I'm done with the game.

For those who are interested. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Z

^ thanks for the heads up. I for one will check it out....good zombie fun :thumb:

It was a fun read, although brief.

We can, all three of us, go on with mediocrity, projecting, and even Jealousy/envy, doesn't change the fact that Max Brooks has done well with the sale of his books, "The Zombie Survival Guide." and "World War Z" and we three have gotten no where near it, so please, go on with yourselves, I'm done with the game.

For those who are interested. ; )

h ttp:/ /en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/World_War_Z

you're the only one here who's waxing moronic about jealousy and envy.

^ thanks for the heads up. I for one will check it out....good zombie fun :thumb:

Your welcome. :)

My lawyers are suing for misappropriation of the word "Z". :mad:

Enjoyed it. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is mildly amusing.

Enjoyed it. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is mildly amusing.

that looked interesting.

unfortunately brooks killed off my jones for zombie fiction.

good concept. pity that brooks is such a mediocre writer.

Based on the the consistent placings of the Harry Potter and Dan Brown books in the sales rankings, it appears writing skill doesn't always keep readers from enjoying the work if it appeals sufficiently to the interests and expectations of the audience.

Z is one that's on my reading list for when I need some fun trash fiction in between the quality stuff. I love classic literature (except Faulkner...my goodness that was painful), but something ridiculous is a nice break here and there.

Based on the the consistent placings of the Harry Potter and Dan Brown books in the sales rankings, it appears writing skill doesn't always keep readers from enjoying the work if it appeals sufficiently to the interests and expectations of the audience.

Z is one that's on my reading list for when I need some fun trash fiction in between the quality stuff. I love classic literature (except Faulkner...my goodness that was painful), but something ridiculous is a nice break here and there.

Now I enjoyed the Harry Potter series. I think your view of writing skills is a bit narrow.

Faulkner could be rather windy, but he was very readable. I found Kafka to be very painful to read. Also, while finding Hemingway immensely talented at conveying a story, I have a great distaste for the stories he chose to tell. What a sick, sick, man.

Now I enjoyed the Harry Potter series. I think your view of writing skills is a bit narrow.

Faulkner could be rather windy, but he was very readable. I found Kafka to be very painful to read. Also, while finding Hemingway immensely talented at conveying a story, I have a great distaste for the stories he chose to tell. What a sick, sick, man.
Which Hemingway novel did you find most distasteful? Was it the story of the man trying to fight Facists in Spain or maybe the one about the old man trying to catch fish? Could it have been the one about the father on an island in the Caribbean? Maybe it was the one set during WWI about love lost?

Now I enjoyed the Harry Potter series. I think your view of writing skills is a bit narrow.

Faulkner could be rather windy, but he was very readable. I found Kafka to be very painful to read. Also, while finding Hemingway immensely talented at conveying a story, I have a great distaste for the stories he chose to tell. What a sick, sick, man.

I didn't say they weren't enjoyable. I haven't read any of them to give my own critique, but the consistent opinion I get from others who have read them and pay attention to writing quality, even from those who enjoyed the books, is that she's not a remarkable writer. She tells the sort of story people like to read (appeals to interests and expectations), and therefore she's successful. In contrast, authors like Dickens or Twain have a unique writing style that helps make their stories charming, while Steinbeck writes in a highly polished, almost lyrical fashion.

In like manner to the Harry Potter books, folks like Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay are crappy film makers in most regards (except raising money to spend on special effects), but most people still seem to enjoy their productions because they appeal to their interests and expectations (in that example: tough heroes, pretty co-stars, big explosions).

The only Faulkner I've read so far was The Sound and the Fury. I understood what he was doing and could follow the storyline, but the progression was rather unmotivating, and his technique was taken to such extreme that it was more frustrating than novel. When I read his addendum, which was intended as plain-text explanatory post-script to the reader, I didn't find it much better. My opinion is in that book's case the acclaim he received was more the critics getting caught up in the fact that it was different than its actual quality.

BTW - If you think Hemingway is bad, what do you think of Edgar Allen Poe? Hemingway has nothing on him in terms of messed up stories, except a lot more verbosity. Steven Crane was never very cheerful either.

I didn't say they weren't enjoyable. I haven't read any of them to give my own critique, but the consistent opinion I get from others who have read them and pay attention to writing quality, even from those who enjoyed the books, is that she's not a remarkable writer. She tells the sort of story people like to read (appeals to interests and expectations), and therefore she's successful. In contrast, authors like Dickens or Twain have a unique writing style that helps make their stories charming, while Steinbeck writes in a highly polished, almost lyrical fashion.

In like manner to the Harry Potter books, folks like Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay are crappy film makers in most regards (except raising money to spend on special effects), but most people still seem to enjoy their productions because they appeal to their interests and expectations (in that example: tough heroes, pretty co-stars, big explosions).

The only Faulkner I've read so far was The Sound and the Fury. I understood what he was doing and could follow the storyline, but the progression was rather unmotivating, and his technique was taken to such extreme that it was more frustrating than novel. When I read his addendum, which was intended as plain-text explanatory post-script to the reader, I didn't find it much better. My opinion is in that book's case the acclaim he received was more the critics getting caught up in the fact that it was different than its actual quality.

BTW - If you think Hemingway is bad, what do you think of Edgar Allen Poe? Hemingway has nothing on him in terms of messed up stories, except a lot more verbosity. Steven Crane was never very cheerful either.

I refuse to read Poe, or Stephen King. I don't identify with psychopathic stories.

Just about the worst published writer I can recall reading is Michael Moorcock. He had the singular ability to take what could have been a riveting description of an extraordinary event and put it to paper as poorly as: "and with tremendous skill and guile he escaped and bravely slew the dragon". (not a direct quote, but seriously, his work is trash - worse writing than Conan the Barbarian even)

Rowling's skill is with weaving a story that remains interesting. Her descriptions are not as vivid as Hemingway's, but they do quite an effective job. I think your friends may have been a little bit jealous. ;)

I refuse to read Poe, or Stephen King. I don't identify with psychopathic stories.

And yet here you are posting in a thread about zombie fiction. :roflmao: :thumb:

I enjoy Poe from time to time because I don't take him seriously; I laugh at his stories. I guess my humor sometimes has a morbid streak.

I've never read any Stephen King. Nothing against him. I've enjoyed some of the movie adaptations, which I'm sure can be pretty loose in their basis on the books, so I'll give him a try eventually, but there's not really any urgency. Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile were both good films, and The Running Man was fun.

I refuse to read Poe, or Stephen King. I don't identify with psychopathic stories.

Just about the worst published writer I can recall reading is Michael Moorcock. He had the singular ability to take what could have been a riveting description of an extraordinary event and put it to paper as poorly as: "and with tremendous skill and guile he escaped and bravely slew the dragon". (not a direct quote, but seriously, his work is trash - worse writing than Conan the Barbarian even)

Rowling's skill is with weaving a story that remains interesting. Her descriptions are not as vivid as Hemingway's, but they do quite an effective job. I think your friends may have been a little bit jealous. ; 0

huh? (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2009/04/27/090427crat_atlarge_lepore)

I likes me some Chas. Dickens

huh? (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2009/04/27/090427crat_atlarge_lepore)

Bad sentence. Two separate things. Poe just creeps me out.

And yet here you are posting in a thread about zombie fiction. :roflmao: :thumb:

I enjoy Poe from time to time because I don't take him seriously; I laugh at his stories. I guess my humor sometimes has a morbid streak.

I've never read any Stephen King. Nothing against him. I've enjoyed some of the movie adaptations, which I'm sure can be pretty loose in their basis on the books, so I'll give him a try eventually, but there's not really any urgency. Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile were both good films, and The Running Man was fun.

I'm only here because they posted my sign, "Z". :D

My lawyers are on the case. :thumb:

I'm only here because they posted my sign, "Z". :D

My lawyers are on the case. :thumb:

Make sure your lawyers are civilians, they are the only ones that love you. ;)

I'm only here because they posted my sign, "Z". :D

My lawyers are on the case. :thumb:

I can only imagine the confusion when you walk into a room full of Zombies and lawyers and try to tell them apart.

I can only imagine the confusion when you walk into a room full of Zombies and lawyers and try to tell them apart.

Duh...the zombies have brains!

Granted, the brains are dripping from their lips, but that only makes the distinction more clear.

:lol:

I'm sure Amazon.com has it, wish I had it, if I did I'd send it your way. :)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/95090-Science-Proves-Frank-Wests-Zombie-Survival-Strategy-Correct

huh? (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2009/04/27/090427crat_atlarge_lepore)

thanks for the link botto. quite an interesting article.