The other night a fellow English major and I began discussing current writing projects, as we are often wont to do. We discovered, much to our surprise, that we had independently began writing works in the genre of "zombie fiction", inspired by our favorite Romero films. Initially, this seems like decidedly low brow work. After all, zombie stories are all about the action, gore, and terror, aren't they? To many they are, but as my friend and I began to discuss the genre, we quickly realized that modern zombie fiction is not really about the zombies - it's about society, humanity, and how we are able to cope as the world crashes down around our ears.

Think back to your favorite zombie movies. Now name one in which the zombies are focused upon as active villains. The fact is that rarely are zombies ever proactive in their roles. They shamble about (or in some films sprint about), merely responding to the world and affecting those they encounter. They are unthinking, uncalculating, and genuinely unintelligent. In effect, zombies serve more as a natural disaster than true monsters or villains. While devastating, they are never consciously stalking their victims. Their malevolence is no greater than that of a tornado, earthquake, or hurricane. They are an event that causes massive destruction in their path, to be sure, but they never do so with a willful intent to harm. The zombies of a film like Night of the Living Dead are no more villainous than the tornado in Twister or the earthquakes in Earthquake.

Like in any good disaster movie, the true focus of good zombie fiction is the people themselves. Most of the stories follow the same formula: a group of different people must band together to survive and hold on to some semblance of civilization. The human characters both spur the action and hinder it, playing antagonists to themselves. Almost every death in a zombie story comes about from some human action, whether from carelessness, unforeseen circumstances, or genuinely evil intent.

For example, consider Night of the Living Dead (SPOILER if you've been living under a rock and never seen the film). Every death can be traced to human actions. Barbara's brother dies from his choice to ignore the gardener. The teenagers die from Tom's carelessness. Harry is shot by Ben. The mother dies by choosing not to kill her daughter's reanimated corpse. Barbara dies from her inability to cope with the situation. Finally, Ben is shot by the posse clearing the fields, possibly with racist intent. In no case do the zombies have any direct role in a character's demise. In fact, the human characters themselves often behave in a far more loathsome manner than the zombies. Even in the realm of videogames, zombies can be traced back to human meddling. Look at Resident Evil and Dead Rising. Both provide human causes for the outbreaks. In a way, zombies are a manifestation of the destructive force of human nature.

Once the initial titillation of the gore and blood die down, a great zombie movie lives or dies on the human factor. How do survivors deal with a world diametric to the one they once knew? In Dawn of the Dead we see humans seeking solace in consumerism. In Shaun of the Dead we find them seeking refuge in familiar places. In 28 Days Later we see the soldiers use military order and brute strength as a means of dealing with, and taking advantage of, the new situation. In the Walking Dead graphic novels, we see countless human interactions influenced by the desperation of a lossing of all that is familiar. It is these moments that ring true to the audience. Zombies are a mindless natural force ushering in apocalypse. Their allure comes more from their external effects on the world than from any discernable trait they posses. The human experience, however, is something tangible, relatable, and infinitely compelling.

Whiles the zombies are what give "zombie fiction" its name, they aren't what give it its magic. "Zombie fiction" draws its power from the living, not the undead. We may initially come for the scares of shambling corpses, but the true fans stay for something far more lasting.

I wrote this for a class at my college, but thought I'd share in hopes that it might spur some good natured debate. It is not game related, however...

In a recent interview, Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson commented on global warming trends found on other planets. "This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non-signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle," Thompson joked. Humor aside, Thompson raises an interesting point. If we are not fully to blame for the undeniable climate change on this planet, are we still obligated to counteract the trend, or are we free to sit idly while nature runs its course?

The real question, however, is whether we can afford to sit idly. What's at stake is not something trivial or irreplaceable. Even if global warming is a natural phenomenon, the results are still the same: cataclysmic changes that could dramatically affect, or even destroy, human life. How can anything be accomplished by idle indifference? If there is something that can be done, are we not obligated to do it, for ourselves and for our children?

Indeed, there are things we can do. "Flex fuels" and "alternative energy", buzzwords thrown around by politicians, are not the only ways to combat climate change. Fred Thompson's idea of the excessive waste of alien races may be far fetched, but the excessiveness of modern earthly society is not. We must pause to ask ourselves: how much of it all do we really need?

Are inefficient sport-utility vehicles and trucks necessary in suburban life, where their size and power are never to be used? Favoring fuel-efficient vehicles can prevent thousands of pounds of carbon from entering the earth's atmosphere.

Do we need to run our air conditioning at 60 degrees and our heating at 80? Changing the thermostat by a few mere degrees can also drastically cut carbon emissions.

Are we really too busy to recycle? Is walking or riding a bike on short trips really so awful? None of these seem quite so bad compared to the fate of a world where carbon emissions go unchecked.

Even if the doubters are right and global warming is a natural, what have we actually lost? Extra legroom can soon be forgotten. The "inconvenience" of recycling disappears once we become accustomed to it. Even walking and riding a bicycle can become enjoyable, even if they seem unbearable now. At best, these changes are momentary annoyances and nothing that will cause lasting harm.

However, if the pundits and scientists are right, our actions can right the imbalances in our own atmosphere, curbing global warming and restoring Earth's natural climate. Our seemingly insignificant action will have preserved our planet for generations to come. Even if we are not the cause of the problem, our actions can begin the solution. If humanity accounts for even half of the carbon emissions, then our actions could reduce the carbon in the atmosphere by 50%, a noticeable impact. Either way, action now can have a dramatic effect in the future.

When our futures hang in the balance, can we truly believe that inaction is a viable action? The costs are low, but the stakes are high. If we do not face the challenge of global warming head on, we simply cast our fates to blind chance. Even the most daring gambler must admit that, given the odds, ignoring the problem is no safe bet.

Pepsi or Coke? It's a simple question that can illicit oddly impassioned responses. On a basic level, they're both a cocktail of sugars, coloring, caffeine, and more chemicals then we'd like to admit. Don't try to argue that point to an avid Coke drinker though. To them, the alternative is something unspeakable. The same goes for those of the "Pepsi Generation". I had a friend who refused to drink any cola but Pepsi, to the point that he would rather go thirsty than drink Coke. He had bought into the Pepsi brand, financially and psychologically. Insane as this may be, the phenomenon is quite common in all aspects of our consumer society and generally not viewed as some sort of affront to human decency.

And yet, in the realm of videogames, speakers of brand loyalty seem to be hunted and purged like dissenters in a fascist dictatorship. Any stated preference towards one system or the other is quickly slapped with the label of "fanboy ranting", regardless of whether it is merely an "I think (your system here) is the best platform out right now" or the all too common "PS3/360/Wii SUXXORS!!! LAWLZ$#". As the "System Wars" rage on, I feel that the fine lines of distinction get blurred into a few vaguely defined camps. As a proud 360 owner myself, I have to ask, what happened to good old-fashioned brand loyalty?

Let's set our time-machines back to the idyllic 1950's, the land of American consumerism at its finest. Everyone, it seemed, had a favorite brand. "My family only drinks Coke." "I only get gas at Exxon." "I only eat Wonder Bread." Granted, the culture of the time led itself to this brand association. We could debate the psychology behind the trend endlessly, but did it cause any lasting harm? Can we trace the societal ails of the 1950's to preferring Tide to Clorox? It was a benign social practice tapping in to our human need for group association.

I liken it to backing a favorite sports team. In the realm of sports, does every "Sox suck!" or "Boo Yankees!" need to be followed by a meticulously worded response telling said fan why they are a fool for engaging in such wanton fandom? Sports themselves are fan mentality to the highest degree! While the merits of such name-calling are dubious, one would be hard-pressed to argue that showing favor towards a certain team cheapens the entire league. The idea of someone belittling a fan's inclinations in favor of benefiting all sports players everywhere is simply ludicrous.

Sports are inherently based on conflict, after all, but can't the same be said about videogames? When was the last time one single console dominated the market? Have the endless Sega vs. Nintendo vs. Sony vs. Microsoft console wars had a decidedly negative outcome on gaming? After playing some of this fall's latest offerings, I place my vote squarely in the "No" box. Without competition, neither side has impetus to offer anything exemplary. It's basic capitalism! Do you really want a single unified system that plays all games? While initially it seems convenient, the economic impact would quickly outweigh the benefits.

At the end of the day, videogame consoles are an investment. Think of money in terms of hours worked. If I paid $500 for my console and games, I effectively have invested tens of hours of my life into that purchase, not to mention the hours spent playing it. Am I not going to be inclined to justify my decision? Can't the same be said for larger purchases like cars or houses? Who wouldn't be a bit peeved if someone insulted his or her home? Who doesn't show some pride in larger purchases? If you frequent this website, chances are you've bought into modern consumerism. Why are we trying so hard to deny the obvious?

This is not to say you link your self-esteem to your console. If this were so, I would've likely ended it all after I backed the Dreamcast over Playstation 2 (don't worry, I got a PS2 later on!). I'm not going to enter periods of clinical depression based on lackluster console sales or press releases. And I'm not advocating belittling other consoles or their owners as a way to inflate your own self-importance. After all, saying "PS3 SUX!!!" proves nothing of the value of a 360 or Wii (besides, it's just plain wrong and ignorant). Extrapolating this to say, "You suck BECAUSE you have a PS3" is taking this even further to the realm of insanity.

But why is it suddenly fine to say, "You suck because you SUPPORT PS3"? Even in the name of being an anti-fanboy, you are being as ignorant as those who chose sides, and perhaps more so in your generalizations and name-calling. I would rather hear someone say they enjoy their PS3 and speak of its merits than belittle the system unnecessarily, even though I don't own one myself (yet). That sort of rhetoric is simply stimulating. I love hearing people offer different cases for different viewpoints, so long as it is well written. What I don't love is seeing anyone destroy another validly defended viewpoint, even if it is worded in the most beautifully crafted English. You can dress up a pig, after all, but it's still a pig.

In the end, there is a difference between the "fan" and the "fanboy". There is nothing wrong with brand loyalty or supporting an investment. There is something wrong with belittling others based on their choices, whether you do so in the name of Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, or "anti-fanboyism". Given the choice, I'd rather read, "This is why I like my console", no matter how poorly written, than, "This is why your viewpoint is wrong" written by Shakespeare himself. Sure, there are better places to spend your energy, but there are also worse ones.