What do you think?
Rate this book
Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture #29
The Walking Dead and Philosophy: Zombie Apocalypse Now
Rick, Lori, Shane, Carl, Dale, Andrea, and Michonne--human survivors of a zombie apocalypse--don't know much about philosophy, but philosophical ideas continue to shamble on through their world, and there's no excape from them.
The Walking Dead is both a hugely successful comics series and a popular TV show. This epic story of a zombie apocalypse is unique. It focuses on the long-term individual, social, and moral consequences of survival by small groups of humans in a world overrun by infected zombies.
Guns, chainsaws, and machetes are not enough for survival: humans also need agreement on rules of conduct. Can equality or fairness have any polace in the post-apocalyptic world? Do theft or even assault and murder become okay under desperate circumstances? Who should be recognized as having political authority? What about eating human flesh? Should survivors have children?
As zombies have low IQs, terrible manners, and the overpowering urge to eat people, do they have any rights at all? Am I still me if I become a zombie? Do zombies know anything? are they rational? Would it be ethical to train a zombie and keep it as a pet? What the heck are P-zombies? And why would we all jump at the chance
The Walking Dead is both a hugely successful comics series and a popular TV show. This epic story of a zombie apocalypse is unique. It focuses on the long-term individual, social, and moral consequences of survival by small groups of humans in a world overrun by infected zombies.
Guns, chainsaws, and machetes are not enough for survival: humans also need agreement on rules of conduct. Can equality or fairness have any polace in the post-apocalyptic world? Do theft or even assault and murder become okay under desperate circumstances? Who should be recognized as having political authority? What about eating human flesh? Should survivors have children?
As zombies have low IQs, terrible manners, and the overpowering urge to eat people, do they have any rights at all? Am I still me if I become a zombie? Do zombies know anything? are they rational? Would it be ethical to train a zombie and keep it as a pet? What the heck are P-zombies? And why would we all jump at the chance
262 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2012
15 people are currently reading
408 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
September 2, 2016
I enjoyed this book a lot. I have never studied philosophy, but this takes a fun and interesting approach to it by addressing philosophical concepts in the context of my favorite TV show, "The Walking Dead."
I learned about dualism vs materialism, Lockean vs Hobbesian approaches, and how Sartre's existentialism is the ultimate humanism. (I'm pretty sure that I'm an existentialist.)
It also tackles some moral dilemmas such as whether it is moral or immoral to kill walkers, if cannibalism is ever justified, and the ethics of bringing a child into the zombie apocalypse world--or even into this one.
I see a lot of deeper meaning in this show, something that can teach us about ourselves if we choose to explore it. This book was a fascinating read for me and I feel like I learned quite a bit.
I learned about dualism vs materialism, Lockean vs Hobbesian approaches, and how Sartre's existentialism is the ultimate humanism. (I'm pretty sure that I'm an existentialist.)
It also tackles some moral dilemmas such as whether it is moral or immoral to kill walkers, if cannibalism is ever justified, and the ethics of bringing a child into the zombie apocalypse world--or even into this one.
I see a lot of deeper meaning in this show, something that can teach us about ourselves if we choose to explore it. This book was a fascinating read for me and I feel like I learned quite a bit.
April 17, 2015
A good book. It's a little dense for readers without at least a little training in ethics, morals, and / or philosophy. also, the book treats heavily on events from the comic books, so this might not appeal to the TV series only watching reader. a since this book covers only events in the first 2 seasons, I would really really love to see an updated edition that analyzes the philosophy behind the actions in the most recent tv series ( 3, 4, and 5). P.S the chapter by Brandon Kempner (The Optimisation of The Walking Dead) perfectly explains my theory of the Walking Dead in a much more educated and concise manner.
January 17, 2017
This was my first "....and Philosophy" book, so maybe it's the norm, but I found many references and ideas to be redundant from chapter/author to chapter. Overall, it was enjoyable with ideas brought in from Kant, Utilitarianism, Hobbes, etc. The last few chapters introduced new concepts to the book and was a good way to close.
April 5, 2013
A good intro to basic Philosopy and an opportunity to look at The Walking Dead through a new lens. There were some distracting copy error
October 14, 2014
Accessible in its approach to philosophical method, this book in the long running pop culture-philosophy series gets at the heart of the argument I have made about this television show from the first season: it's not about the zombies.
The Walking Dead charts the character arc of about two dozen regular and recurring players, specifically, how they retain (or lose) their humanity in the face of an inhumane and amoral world. Zombies are merely the catalyst (and the bait to lure a desired demographic to AMC, the cable channel that carries the show) that enables us to observe how a disparate group of people will behave when the world goes to hell and the rule of law evaporates.
It is of particular interest that the characters with the strongest moral compass have been ruthlessly killed off as the show marched on through increasingly spectacular ratings toward a fifth season (AMC has already renewed the program for a sixth). While I am intrigued by the philosophical probing offered in this thin book, mainly how different people will respond to an identical situation in radically differing ways, I am no less interested in the philosophical position of the show's creators and writers. While their job is certainly to entertain -- and they follow through on that commitment week after week with a wild variety of outrageous situations -- it is their conscious decision to kill off the moral anchors of the program that really fascinates.
I suggest that one possible goal behind this strategy is to remove gradually all extreme characters. Evil characters must be defeated or at least beaten back in order to meet the fundamentals of satisfying storytelling. But eliminating the basically decent and moral characters creates another curious problem: When extremes of good and bad are removed, those who are left alive by definition must be sitting on the fence.
And so I argue that one sure way to probe deeply into philosophy and dig into the heart of the human condition is to study people whose minds are not yet made up. Sure, circumstances and situations can determine outcomes, whether a person veers toward the dark side. But so long as there is free will and choice, it is still within the power of all people to choose their own path. When and how they reach that fork in the road is precisely what makes The Walking Dead a compelling and provocative experience.
***
Decide not rashly. The decision made
Can never be recalled. The gods implore not,
Plead not, solicit not; they only offer
Choice and occasion, which once being passed
Return no more. Dost thou accept the gift?
~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.
~ Rush, "Freewill", Permanent Waves (1980)
The Walking Dead charts the character arc of about two dozen regular and recurring players, specifically, how they retain (or lose) their humanity in the face of an inhumane and amoral world. Zombies are merely the catalyst (and the bait to lure a desired demographic to AMC, the cable channel that carries the show) that enables us to observe how a disparate group of people will behave when the world goes to hell and the rule of law evaporates.
It is of particular interest that the characters with the strongest moral compass have been ruthlessly killed off as the show marched on through increasingly spectacular ratings toward a fifth season (AMC has already renewed the program for a sixth). While I am intrigued by the philosophical probing offered in this thin book, mainly how different people will respond to an identical situation in radically differing ways, I am no less interested in the philosophical position of the show's creators and writers. While their job is certainly to entertain -- and they follow through on that commitment week after week with a wild variety of outrageous situations -- it is their conscious decision to kill off the moral anchors of the program that really fascinates.
I suggest that one possible goal behind this strategy is to remove gradually all extreme characters. Evil characters must be defeated or at least beaten back in order to meet the fundamentals of satisfying storytelling. But eliminating the basically decent and moral characters creates another curious problem: When extremes of good and bad are removed, those who are left alive by definition must be sitting on the fence.
And so I argue that one sure way to probe deeply into philosophy and dig into the heart of the human condition is to study people whose minds are not yet made up. Sure, circumstances and situations can determine outcomes, whether a person veers toward the dark side. But so long as there is free will and choice, it is still within the power of all people to choose their own path. When and how they reach that fork in the road is precisely what makes The Walking Dead a compelling and provocative experience.
***
Decide not rashly. The decision made
Can never be recalled. The gods implore not,
Plead not, solicit not; they only offer
Choice and occasion, which once being passed
Return no more. Dost thou accept the gift?
~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.
~ Rush, "Freewill", Permanent Waves (1980)
September 25, 2013
Whether we're waiting on the wrath of God, or a killer virus, there's nothing quite like the threat of a zombie apocalypse to scare you to death (hehe).
This book is another great volume in Open Court Publishing's Pop Culture and Philosophy series, and since I'm a huge fan of The Walking Dead, I had to get behind some of the philosophical implications of the storyline. However, I've only seen the show, and have not read the graphic novels, and this book makes reference to both. I didn't mind the few moments where the content didn't mesh, but if you're someone who's very anti-spoiler (or someone who gets mad when the movie doesn't exactly mirror the book or vice versa), then I'd recommend reading and watching both first.
Two of the essays I found particularly interesting, "Women in a Zombie Apocalypse" and "Dead Man's Party" dealt with the issue of gender within the show, which was something I was curious about as I watched the show. As civilization is destroyed and the myopia of day-to-day survival sets in, we see the women in the show relegated to very traditional gender roles (i.e. laundry, cooking, caring for children). When Andrea wants to contribute in a non-traditional way, that of guard/sharpshooter, she's berated by both the men and women in the group. Would rebuilding society mean starting from scratch in the fight for equality? Three philosophers deal with this topic in the aforementioned essays, and while I didn't agree with every perspective ("Feminism, which argues that gender is a social construction and thus women should be given the same roles and duties as men is not only unrealistic, but also ineffective and inefficient." Seriously, Ashley Barkman?! See: Andrea. See: Michonne. I rest my case.) there were some salient points.
The one (minor) criticism I would make is that the essays tend to be a little bit repetitive. If I had to read another reference to Hannah the bicycle girl, I might have gone slightly insane. But the authors were dealing with a limited number of characters to analyze, and so I forgive them.
All in all, fans of The Walking Dead will love this book!
This book is another great volume in Open Court Publishing's Pop Culture and Philosophy series, and since I'm a huge fan of The Walking Dead, I had to get behind some of the philosophical implications of the storyline. However, I've only seen the show, and have not read the graphic novels, and this book makes reference to both. I didn't mind the few moments where the content didn't mesh, but if you're someone who's very anti-spoiler (or someone who gets mad when the movie doesn't exactly mirror the book or vice versa), then I'd recommend reading and watching both first.
Two of the essays I found particularly interesting, "Women in a Zombie Apocalypse" and "Dead Man's Party" dealt with the issue of gender within the show, which was something I was curious about as I watched the show. As civilization is destroyed and the myopia of day-to-day survival sets in, we see the women in the show relegated to very traditional gender roles (i.e. laundry, cooking, caring for children). When Andrea wants to contribute in a non-traditional way, that of guard/sharpshooter, she's berated by both the men and women in the group. Would rebuilding society mean starting from scratch in the fight for equality? Three philosophers deal with this topic in the aforementioned essays, and while I didn't agree with every perspective ("Feminism, which argues that gender is a social construction and thus women should be given the same roles and duties as men is not only unrealistic, but also ineffective and inefficient." Seriously, Ashley Barkman?! See: Andrea. See: Michonne. I rest my case.) there were some salient points.
The one (minor) criticism I would make is that the essays tend to be a little bit repetitive. If I had to read another reference to Hannah the bicycle girl, I might have gone slightly insane. But the authors were dealing with a limited number of characters to analyze, and so I forgive them.
All in all, fans of The Walking Dead will love this book!
April 25, 2015
Killing walkers can become some kind of existential moral dillema? I am sorry if something is trying to bite my ass it's going down! So this book is a series of dissertations by various eggheads on the various philosophical problems posed to the survivors of Robert Kirkmans award winning Walking Dead graphic novel and AMC television series. There are also discussions on the existence of the walkers themselves and where they fit within the realm of thinking-non thinking beings. This book does contain spoilers for those that may be behind the eight ball on the series so watch for that. And I would say that you do have to be a follower of the series to understand what and who these folks are talking about. There are several scenes that these braniacs just love to fixate and pick over, and over, and over, and over..... This causes some serious repitition problems and caused this reader to struggle at times with this book. I would say to approach with caution unless you have a dying desire to be philosophized to boredom.
September 20, 2017
The Pop Culture and Philosophy series has been quite hit or miss. This is the fifth or sixth book that I’ve read in recent months and the quality is not getting better. There are far too many grammatical errors in these books. On one level, I really should stop reading these, realizing that the quality isn’t there. Yet I find myself still reading because I want to be challenged. I just wonder if this challenge is really well argued by any of the writers. In this volume, the concept of life and death, especially with respect to zombies was a well thought out argument. The challenge came with the fact that the essays were all very much the same or droned on with no new information. I want to recommend this book, this series, but I can do so less and less. If you are a fan of the Walking Dead, you might find a few of these essays of interest, but if you’re looking for a thoughtful book to be challenged by, this will bring more frustration than satisfaction.
June 14, 2015
This is a fine edited collection that works with the truly fabulous television programme, The Walking Dead. The most evocative popular culture can lead theory, rather than theory leading popular culture. This edited collection is quite even in quality - which is rare. There is one shockingly poor chapter, written by Ashley Barkman, on "Women in a Zombie Apocalypse." Avoid reading this chapter, so that you do not throw the entire collection in the bin.
Overall, this is a worthwhile engagement with popular culture. The philosophical engagement could have been deeper - through Baudrillard, Zizek or Virilio in particular - but this is a good first text to explore the philosophy in and of The Walking Dead. But the collection does reveal that Zombie Studies needs some strong feminist theorists to slice the head off patriarchy amongst the undead ...
Overall, this is a worthwhile engagement with popular culture. The philosophical engagement could have been deeper - through Baudrillard, Zizek or Virilio in particular - but this is a good first text to explore the philosophy in and of The Walking Dead. But the collection does reveal that Zombie Studies needs some strong feminist theorists to slice the head off patriarchy amongst the undead ...
October 5, 2013
I was really excited about reading this and I usually love this series but this one was a chore to get through. There were about four good chapters as it related to existentialism but was a pretty big disappointment. I think part of the problem was I had only seen the show and not read the comic series, making a big chunk of this quite foreign. Try again Blackwell, I expect Divergent and Philosophy to be unbelievably good.
August 13, 2015
Good read for those with a base in philosophy or are starting out in philosophy. The book takes aspects from both the comics and AMC series to draw parallels with some of the more recognizable names in philosophy. Even without a background though, would still be a fun read for fans of The Walking Dead and/or zombies in general.
April 27, 2016
Didn't really provide any discussion points or bring up any actual philosophical thoughts about The Walking Dead, just wrote in circles hoping to sound smart. Lots of illusion to other philosophers, I know what Kant wrote about, I am here to read about the philosophical backdrop of this dystopian world. This is not the book if you are looking for what I was.
March 22, 2014
Some really nice essays, but jesus, the typos and structural writing errors were terrible. Franklin Allaire's essay at the end actually has a bastardized interrobang. Some of the author's indulgent humor and side jokes were quite flat. This could have done with some judicious cutting.
April 5, 2013
The editing, argh. ARGH.
September 30, 2013
I edited this book :)
November 9, 2013
3 chapters in, I realized I really wasn't that interested in philosophy OR zombies.
February 5, 2014
Loved it! Brought up a lot of different issues I had never really thought about before in regards to the zombie apocalypse. Really thought provoking.
January 24, 2015
97 - 2015
October 23, 2015
Interesting introduction to different philosophical schools. Funny, but sometimes too slapstick to be of academic value.
June 23, 2019
There were some fascinating ideas and some laugh out loud explanations and definitions of things. For example "Unimaginably preposterous is a rough American translation of 'daft'" and "If I were to show up at a wake with fork, knife and bib in hand, it wouldn't just be unusual or distasteful, but my actions would be upsetting to others in a significant way. This clearly wouldn't be maximising anyone's happiness except maybe my own if I really enjoyed human meat." The latter quote is when discussing "The Hunters".
Unfortunately there are a lot of SPG errors which detract from meaning and distract the reader. Also totally unforgivably on page 18 the author calls Rick Ryan and Carl Cody and only manages to get Lori's name right. There is another point in the book where they get someone else's name wrong too but at least it isn't the main character and his son. Stars had to come off for this. The book does also get a little repetitive using exactly the same scenes from the TV series and Graphic Novels to illustrate all their points. Did they only watch some episodes?
Unfortunately there are a lot of SPG errors which detract from meaning and distract the reader. Also totally unforgivably on page 18 the author calls Rick Ryan and Carl Cody and only manages to get Lori's name right. There is another point in the book where they get someone else's name wrong too but at least it isn't the main character and his son. Stars had to come off for this. The book does also get a little repetitive using exactly the same scenes from the TV series and Graphic Novels to illustrate all their points. Did they only watch some episodes?
October 4, 2020
Would give 5 stars, but it had waaay too many typos, which I personally find annoying 😅 it’s as if there was no editing at all. Great topics though.
August 27, 2014
This is a very interesting book. Very well written. I will use it for class.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews