Explanation Vs. Non-explanation (spoilers included)

[Mikey]

I just finished reading J.L. Bourne's awesome sequel to Day By Day Armeggedon, and as much as I loved both books, I have to say was I super disappointed in the ending of DBDA part 2.

Spoiler Alert!

And the reason being is at the end of the book, the protagonist discovers that the reason for the undead outbreak is a space virus picked up by an alien being is brought to earth via the crashed ship it is flying.

Which begs the question, I've always liked the idea that Romero never explained the zombie phenomena. He aluded to things (the Venus probe, God...) but never put a finger on it. In my opinion, I've always liked that idea that leaves us wondering why or how did this come about. I know other zombie films, Resident Evil comes to mind, always explains things by using biological agents, or chemical gas. How does everyone else feel about a solid explanation vs. wondering why the pandemic happened???

[soulsyfn]

I personally feel that if they are going to explain why/how it happened that they are better off tell the reader in the first book. It doesnt have to be early on but it does have to happen before a second book. Or else you have this problem... the reader has built in their own scenario to go with the story and the author goes and ruins it. You can easily lose half of your audience that way.

[AcesandEights]

Mikey, I really liked Mr. Bourne's follow up and still need to write a review of the book, but I will say the moment I saw the angle he was going in I knew it was going to be a polarizing issue for people.

Personally, I can deal with it. I would have preferred he went another way, as I felt one or two of the other aspects of his 2nd book departed from the otherwise realistic tenor (relative to the accepted trope of a zombie holocaust) he seemed to have imbued his first book with.

That said, I'm still with him on this journey and really enjoyed most aspects of the second book.

[darth los]

Imo, in the event that this really happens there will be perhaps a handfull of people, if any at all, who will know what happened.

The rest of us unfortunate saps will be lost in the chaos all around us, never knowing why this curse was visited upon us. :dead:

:cool:

[blind2d]

I'm with darth, here.
Also, it's kinda nice to be sure you're going to know or not. Uncertainty makes people uncomfortable. Even if they know they won't know, it's still better than not knowing if they will know or won't know, you know?

[shootemindehead]

Yeh, no explination is usually better in a zed apocalypse. The reason being is because they're usually just stupid.

[dracenstein]

I prefer no explanation for Romero's films.

For any other book/film/series, it depends on that story.

[krakenslayer]

It all depends on the angle the story is taking.

If the purpose of the film is to satirize something or make some statement about human behaviour, then the cause of the outbreak is really irrelevant (as it's not important to the story) and revealing it does nothing but deprive the viewers of an opportunity to use their imagination.

[C5NOTLD]

It's always fun to wonder. I always thought the voodoo mask on the wall in the original was interesting..Maybe someone in the farm house was dabbling in it...:skull:

[Publius]

I like to hear an explanation. It's another thing I can judge the story on. But I prefer no explanation to a bad one. As an example from the HPotD fiction section, Alomal-137 was a heroic attempt at providing a believable explanation.

[Wyldwraith]

Hmm,
Sometimes I like Romero-style ambiguity surrounding the cause of the dead rising, and I DEFINITELY HATE ***STUPID*** definitive causes being given (Ie: Brian Keene's The Rising/City of the Dead and the demons who possess the bodies of the dead and operate them live meat-puppets that function better than when they were alive), but I DO like a solid Origin for the Zombie Apocalypse I can sink my teeth into, such as Resident Evil's T-Virus. (Not so thrilled with how they had it affecting the environment and the CLIMATE of all things in RE: Extinction, but that's a different complaint.)

Basically, if you're going to go with a solid undisputed Origin for your undead outbreak, and that origin/reason is to be widely understood by your protagonists, I expect an Origin of sufficient quality it does not impair my suspension of disbelief. In other words, it can't set off the highest settings of my Complete Bullshit Alarm.

Other than that, I can go either way. However, if you're going to keep the origin of the zombies unknown/ambiguous then don't have the protagonists beat the issue to re-death over and over. Speculation makes perfect sense, but no multiple re-hashing of Origins/Causes already the subject of intensive Exposition.

[AcesandEights]

Hmm,
Sometimes I like Romero-style ambiguity surrounding the cause of the dead rising, and I DEFINITELY HATE ***STUPID*** definitive causes being given (Ie: Brian Keene's The Rising/City of the Dead and the demons who possess the bodies of the dead and operate them live meat-puppets that function better than when they were alive), but I DO like a solid Origin for the Zombie Apocalypse I can sink my teeth into, such as Resident Evil's T-Virus. (Not so thrilled with how they had it affecting the environment and the CLIMATE of all things in RE: Extinction, but that's a different complaint.)

Basically, if you're going to go with a solid undisputed Origin for your undead outbreak, and that origin/reason is to be widely understood by your protagonists, I expect an Origin of sufficient quality it does not impair my suspension of disbelief.

Given that you're watching/reading something about animated corpses of humans shambling about and feasting upon the flesh of the living.

I only really start to have problems when the explanation flies in the face of the previously established realism or rule-set of a setting. I mean, if I'm watching or reading a gritty, down to earth account of human survival in the face of the unlikeliest of events (in this case a zombie apocalypse) that's one thing. All of a sudden throw into that scenario aliens or the rapture as being irrefutably responsible and you're likely to either give me serious pause or just lose me completely.

That said, I do make an effort to stay with authors and given them the benefit of the doubt if I've enjoyed their story up to that point.

[BillyRay]

For me it all depends on the POV of the story.

If it's confused and panicked civilians taking shelter in a farmhouse, or someone waking from a coma to find his world horribly changed - any explanation is unnecessary.

If it's the group of scientists who created a virus run amok, or a clone grown by an amoral corporation to fight said zombie menace - Yeah, I want an explanation.

What backs up the story?

[GhostWolf]

Personally i enjoy a certain level of isolation when dealing with the characters. In an apocalypse such as a zombie outbreak i believe that the characters we are to follow throughout should not receive any information they couldn't gather themselves (with the exception of perhaps a tv or radio broadcast). Omni-present descriptions of why and how such a thing is happening slow the story and ruin a good deal of the effect for me 8 times out of 10. If its done well, and the explanations aren't obtrusive in the narrative then so be it. The end to this book was a slight disappointment however in the author's choice of origin for the outbreak, but i did enjoy both books enough to be somewhat satisfied with the outcome. I'll put it this way, if there was to be a third book and the Alien was to be a part of it in some fashion i would still read the book and be happy for the continuation.

[SRP76]

Definitely no explanations. Like others have said, the characters aren't going to know "oh, a virus was grown in a lab 2,000 miles away". If the characters don't know, we shouldn't know.